BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Just Bible => Topic started by: ProDeo on April 08, 2024, 02:52:27 PM
-
In Church we were discussing a topic that until now had not much of my attention, it's about the level of influence the devil might have in our daily life.
In 1 Chronicles 21 we read -
1 Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Go, number Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, and bring me a report, that I may know their number.”
....
7 But God was displeased with this thing, and he struck Israel.
So (as the text reads) the devil planted an (at first glance an innocent) thought in the mind of David, displeasing God and with big consequences if you read the whole chapter.
I am pretty sure if David would had known he was seduced by the devil he would rejected the thought.
So the devil himself can put lies even in Christian minds guarded by the Holy Spirit?
And secondly, the devil is a created being, not able to be at multiple places in the same time. Or we must believe there is some basic truth in the Screwtape Letters from CS Lewis billions of Wormwood's are trying to mess with our Christian minds.
-
Lewis is correct on that point
I think Satan and his ilk have milenia to learn how to influence humans
-
In fact, armor is prescribed.
"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Eph 6:10-18
-
So basically my musing in the last paragraph of this post (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=520.msg10920#msg10920) (quoted below) could be true, because after all it was a lie.
One thought crossed my mind I am still not out, can the devil (the liar) break into your mind and put such a horrible thought (lie) into you? I doubt it because as we believe we have the Holy Spirit indwelling. But your mileage may vary.
-
If Satan could lie to Eve, he can lie to anyone.
Satan repeatedly lies to Jesus to tempt Him.
-
So basically my musing in the last paragraph of this post (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=520.msg10920#msg10920) (quoted below) could be true, because after all it was a lie.
One thought crossed my mind I am still not out, can the devil (the liar) break into your mind and put such a horrible thought (lie) into you? I doubt it because as we believe we have the Holy Spirit indwelling. But your mileage may vary.
I would look at this situation as satan putting a thought into Peter's mind and Jesus knew Peter's comment was not his own mind:
Matthew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, [a]“Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (NKJV)
- a) Matthew 16:22 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt+16%3A21-23&version=ESV;NKJV;NLT#en-NKJV-23695) Lit. Merciful to You (May God be merciful)
- b) Matthew 16:23 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt+16%3A21-23&version=ESV;NKJV;NLT#en-NKJV-23696) a stumbling block
-
A popular lie among some of the sillier charismatic groups out there goes along the lines of "we can trust God's power to protect us more than the devil's power to mislead us".
It sounds very promising but things don't work that way. I'm sure there's a good reason Jesus warned us of false christs and false prophets, Paul warned us to test all things, John warned us not to believe every spirit but to test spirits, and so on.
If we choose to ignore scriptural calls to test and simply follow anything and everything assuming God will somehow intervene to protect us from ourselves we're not going to end up anywhere good. It seems like a spiritual version of walking blindly towards a cliff edge assuming God will protect us from the effects of gravity.
Can the devil put thoughts in our minds? Probably. Temptation would seem to be the devil doing exactly that and if the devil was allowed to do that to Jesus there's no reason he won't be allowed to do it to us.
-
Is there a difference between lying to someone and insinuating a thought into someone's mind that isn't their own, but that they are unable to distinguish from their own? Do you mean that Satan can supernaturally place thoughts into a person's mind in a way that is fundamentally different than how a manipulative person might surreptitiously influence someone into coming to a false conclusion? On the one hand, there is a way in which injecting thoughts directly into someone's mind could be indistinguishable from Sci-Fi mind control, on the other hand there is a way in which this is no different than just being a persuasive liar. I really wonder which one you guys mean...or is do you mean something else entirely?
I think what bothers me most about this particular area of Christian worldbuilding is that it seems entirely unnecessary. At least according to some Christians, we are already wicked, fully capable of getting to any imaginable deception, self delusion, or motivated conclusion all on our own. In fact this is our natural bias and we tend toward the primrose path without any of Satan's maniacal inceptions. It is, at least to my mind, pretty strange then that in addition to our natural proclivities that draw us away from the moral ordinance that is inscribed on our deceitful hearts, that there should need to be a devil too to explain...what exactly? Perhaps it explains that feeling of having dark forces aligned against you, when it seems that your deceitful heart cannot explain the crushing notion that principalities are aligned against you. Even this though, doesn't really jibe well with me when deceitful heart in a Christian framework can only be meaningful in contrast to the will of God. Wouldn't then your deceitful heart working in contradiction of the most thoughtful and labyrinthine plan that can exist (God's Plan) give the appearance of concert and grand meditation if it is in every way in a contra point. A negative image contains exactly as much structure and detail as the original. If Satan didn't exist and our hearts were wicked nonetheless, shouldn't I expect that a Satan-like mirage would emerge from this fact alone.
Okay, perhaps I've missed some key factor, I'm an atheist after all. Just because I do not see the necessity of Satan doesn't mean that our nefarious adversary doesn't exist. Still, that isn't my only problem with this proposition. The idea that Satan can implant thoughts into our minds seems at odds with some notions about free will that I've come across in my Christian explorations. There is the idea that God will not engage in certain ways because he abhors the interfering with free will. To my admittedly untrained eye, directly implanting deceptive thoughts into the mind of a human teeters dangerously close to the edge of subverting free will. I suppose that it has been heavily implied that there are defenses against these dark arts, that if wielded correctly are 100% effective. Unfortunately the only human that ever has or ever will master this defense is Jesus who was also God. While technically a person could distinguish any and all thoughts originated from Old Scratch from those of more inert or beneficent sources, no one else ever actually will. Given that we are all susceptible and are incapable of actually using the armor of God perfectly, then how can it not be said that Satan can subvert the free will of people?
-
James tells us clearly that when we sin, it is because we are led astray and driven by our own innate lusts.
Satan is also called the tempter, and the Gospel narratives make is clear that Satan tempted Jesus, personally, when Jesus was in a physically weakened state.
The story of the temptation of Eve in the Garden is clear.
As a counterfactual, we know that "greater is He that is in us that he that is in the world." We know that "putting on the armor of God" is protection against Satan's temptations. We know that we are commanded to "flee youthful lusts."
This goes right to the heart of the "freedom of the will" and its interaction with the "sovereignty of God" question. Too many theologians and Christians over the years have tried to make that question binary, when the reality is that freedom of the will is perfectly compatible with a sovereign God that made us with a free will.
Very often, Christians want to blame Satan or say "the Devil made me do it" when the reality is that our sin is the result of our refusal to daily crucify our desires to the express will of God.
-
So, to be clear are you saying that the devil cannot make you do it? I mean I would tend to agree if external temptation is more or less the devil's only toolset, however when we get into the ideas of the devil implanting thoughts then I think its a tougher sell.
If the devil can inject thoughts into the minds of men, then to me it is at least conceivable that this level of deception can cause a person to act in a way that is contrary to how they would act under normal circumstances. If there is no limit to the amount or frequency of thoughts that he can inject, then what prevents the devil from simply overwhelming a mind? Is there some reason that Satan cannot create a wilderness of mirrors in a person's mind? Is the armor of God something that any man outside of Jesus has ever donned with perfect efficacy? If it is not then there is always a chink in this armor, one that God, Satan and man all know exist by our very nature. If you have donned the armor, do you have to constantly maintain it, or is it a one time deal? All I mean to get at is that the ideas that we're imperfect (even in our use of bound spirit armor) and that the devil can put stuff in your min...it is one thing to assert that there is some safegaurd in place that prevents this confluence of facts from playing out in a way that is perfectly logical and not expressly prohibited by the mechanics of operational facts. Are you just saying that god simply would intervene and not allow it to get to that point?
-
1. I think we are close, and I think you are closer than many Christians. No, Satan cannot MAKE anyone do anything. Believer or non-believer, humans are (in my opinion) endowed by their Creator with free moral agency to make decisions, for good or for ill. No human is a puppet or animatron. If some external power can FORCE a human to do anything, then that is not freedom.
2. As to “implanting” thoughts, then we get into the nebulous world of “what is a thought?” Physiologically, a thought is nothing more than a particular electrical impulse (or set of electrical impulses) that originates in some part of the brain and travels to another portion of the brain, perhaps in myriad combinations, so I’m not aware of any purported power of Satan to manipulate electrons for his benefit. That being said, Satan (and his minions) can and do lie to us. That is clearly taught in Scripture. He can, in some manner, communicate with humans. I’m personally not convinced that such communication is except on rare occasions physical, unless of a particular physical manifestation like the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. The apostles tell us that Satan can come to us as “an angel of light,” in some sort of physical or metaphysical form in which he could speak. I also believe, (and of course, cannot empirically prove), that there is a spiritual aspect of man-- call it metaphysical -- of which we know little but probably experience more than we would like to think or realize. I believe that Satan can and does communicate or attempt to communicate with humans metaphysically, yet even his power there is limited.
I am not certain – and I don’t think Scripture even addresses the issue – of how that metaphysical/physical connection occurs, but I personally am convinced that it is through the conscience of humans that the non-corporeal (metaphysical) and the corporeal (physical) interact. Whether a “thought” originates with Satan in the metaphysical realm or not, at some point, my physical brain is responsible for processing information from whatever source or impetus and to determine what actions to take based on or in opposition to that impulse. For the believer, that response or action is – of course – supposed to be controlled by the Holy Spirit and our submission to Him.
3. The entire point of a free will is the ability to refuse to respond to stimuli, whether that stimuli be cultural, internal, physical, or metaphysical. Otherwise, it isn’t free moral agency if someone else can control it.
4. As to the armor of God, I think that I should have you teach my Sunday School class! You seem to understand the concept more than many that sit in church week after weak (spelling intentional). The great lie related to Christianity is that is a once and done, purely transactional engagement, (trading my sin for Jesus sacrifice, which is a transaction) when the reality is that the transaction of faith and submitting to Jesus at the moment of conversion/new birth/ adoption is an actual transaction but only the first step in a lifelong relationship marked by growth and, in particular, by increase knowledge of and submission to the Holy Spirit. The armor of God is neither a physical nor metaphysical “thing,” but a metaphor or illustration for the various ways in which we must submit to God in every aspect of our life, and to be dependent on the Holy Spirit to survive the destruction that Satan wants for the believer. The picture is one of a soldier daily preparing for war and being ever vigilant against temptation and Satan’s attacks (Remember, when Paul wrote that, he was sitting in a Roman prison surrounded by Roman soldiers, so he had some pretty good source material to use). The armor of God is not a ritual, or a magic formula or a talisman, although sadly many Christians act like it is.
5. God doesn’t stop humans from sinning. But, Scripture does teach that with EVERY temptation God makes sure there is a way of escape. In other words, humans do not HAVE to succumb to temptation, but escape is sometimes difficult, painful, and requires effort. Believers sin, sadly, because just like non-believers, we like the way it makes us feel.
Excellent question.
-
And it's obvious Satan and his cohorts are finely tuned judges of human character, quite able to play on weaknesses. It's probable that David was at least vulnerable in one area and it only took a a sublimal nudge to enhance those thoughts.
Difficult to imagine that dark angels are not quite fluent in the mental suggestion, depending on how far they can influence any individual and I believe they are
constantly at work in the human mind.
-
God doesn’t stop humans from sinning. But, Scripture does teach that with EVERY temptation God makes sure there is a way of escape. In other words, humans do not HAVE to succumb to temptation, but escape is sometimes difficult, painful, and requires effort. Believers sin, sadly, because just like non-believers, we like the way it makes us feel.
Genesis 4:7 "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
-
Agency in response to stimuli is a very concise description of free will, though in my mind it does sort of sidestep the issue of delusions and deceptions. It is one thing to react to an implanted thought like "You can't trust God to help you out of this one because the thing you did is too disgusting for forgiveness" is for me a different proposition than "Your girlfriend has been replaced with a clone that is slowly poisoning you with tiny amounts barium acetate in your orange juice every morning". I'm not saying necessarily that one is easier to deal with than the other; however outside of it being a kind of quintessential arch devil move there is at least biblical precedence for refuting the first one. Getting blasted with permutations of this idea could be deleterious to your faith if you allowed it, but I do see the way out and therefore I can see how one can be held responsible.
On the other hand, undermining your trust in your social support system, intimate relationships, and reality itself seems to me a more difficult thing to defend against, if only because there are so many ways to distort the perception and interpretation of stimuli to the point where it can be argued that it is inappropriate to assert that a person is reacting to the stimuli itself at all. It should not be at all difficult to imagine (or recall) the vertiginous expirience of watching folks expirience the same stimuli and react completely differently because their interpretations of that stimuli are entirely divorced from your own. The way stimuli interact with our thoughts is at least a component of perception, and perception is a main influencer of action. Dissociating a person from reality by influencing or straight out implanting thoughts makes the idea of responsibility and defense a much less cut and dried proposition.
It is reasonable to consider the limits and exact mechanics of the devil's ability to affect perceptions when speculating about the intersection of free will and devilry. That said even if we limited Beezlebub's powers to what a human could do, except that he's invisible and can pass through walls and stuff I would be hard pressed to always hold people responsible for what could essentially be described as a supernatural case of paranoid psychosis. In the same way that I'm hard pressed to hold everyone responsible for actions taken after having been abused and manipulated by regular old humans. Is that free will in any meaningful way? I do not see why there is not the possibility for a person to both be used as a tool for the devil acting in opposition to God's will and be completely free of responsibility for it...that is outside of some assertion that God would not allow such a thing to happen. Is it simply a matter of faith that God will always provide an escape hatch?
Idk, I guess I'm just ultimately unsatisfied with the idea that there is supposed to be a system in place that overlays natural human foibles that provides an additional layer of persecution, but it is limited only by some minimum legibility of the solution...I don't think its obnoxious to ask, like for what though? Or to put it another way, what would be different if there was no Satan?
-
Idk, I guess I'm just ultimately unsatisfied with the idea that there is supposed to be a system in place that overlays natural human foibles that provides an additional layer of persecution, but it is limited only by some minimum legibility of the solution...I don't think its obnoxious to ask, like for what though? Or to put it another way, what would be different if there was no Satan?
An atheist internet friend once said to me, I see not much evidence for God, however I do see plenty of evidence for the devil.
-
The point, I believe, is that although Satan is a horrific tempter, he is not the ultimate cause of evil. That’s where so many in the church get it wrong.
The point is that each of us… we…. I …. The man in the mirror…I the ultimate source of evil by choice, not by nature (at this point in my life I reject the doctrine of original sin, by the way)… I choose to rebel again God and His natural law, much more so against His express word. My free will allows me to claim to be God if I wish. I, Frodo Nine Fingers, am Lord of the Ring, Master of the Nazgûl, its mine, my precious
I don’t need Satan to be wicked or to sin.
If there were no Satan, I would be Satan
If there were no Dark Lord, I would be Frodo the First…
It is only grace, in all the religions of the world, that provides an alternative
…
-
An atheist internet friend once said to me, I see not much evidence for God, however I do see plenty of evidence for the devil.
Sure, I can see why an atheist might say that, heck I'm sure that I've said it myself at some point or another. Even so, right now I'm mulling over a particular set of ideas & relationships about God, Satan and human nature; and within this context I do not find it to be a particularly useful quote. If I asked what the earth might be like if the moon did not exist, it would not be especially relevant to reply with "My Flat earther friend sees no evidence for a globe earth, but he does see plenty of evidence for a globular moon". I am inviting detailed speculation about what the world would look like without the Devil in the hopes of elucidating what you believe the devil brings to the potluck. What are these evidences I wonder, are they the same one's that I've pondered when I've used that quote to make some rhetorical point? I'm not interested at the moment in debating the actual existence of any of these things, I'm more interested in considering the hypothetical within and in contrast to your framework of beliefs about God, the Devil, and human nature. Does that make sense, is that okay, do you want to do that with me?
-
The point, I believe, is that although Satan is a horrific tempter, he is not the ultimate cause of evil. That’s where so many in the church get it wrong.
The point is that each of us… we…. I …. The man in the mirror…I the ultimate source of evil by choice, not by nature (at this point in my life I reject the doctrine of original sin, by the way)… I choose to rebel again God and His natural law, much more so against His express word. My free will allows me to claim to be God if I wish. I, Frodo Nine Fingers, am Lord of the Ring, Master of the Nazgûl, its mine, my precious
I don’t need Satan to be wicked or to sin.
If there were no Satan, I would be Satan
If there were no Dark Lord, I would be Frodo the First…
It is only grace, in all the religions of the world, that provides an alternative
…
Okay, so yeah this makes sense to me. Indeed imo, original sin is not a necessary or particularly useful interpretation of biblical or observed human nature...it does I suppose have some utility as a stepping stone idea to get you to better approximated though arguably equally bleak concepts of human nature. Also agree that so far as I can tell the works of Satan would simply emerge from the laws and conditions whether or not there is some actual Satan entity. Given all of these things we agree on, you can probably see why it bugs me that Satan is asserted at all. I can't for the life of me see why God would need to create much less maintain this weirdo who is entirely superfluous & redundant to the task to which he's set. Worse still there is room to argue that introducing and advertising such an entity and his works muddies the waters, and can divert one from coming to the absolutely crucial realization that as you said "I …. The man in the mirror…I [am] the ultimate source of evil by choice, not by nature". I guess as a red herring the devil is useful, but red herrings are good if you are trying to prevent someone from discovering the truth not if you actually want the maximum amount of people to reach the correct conclusion. So seeing as we agree on so much, I have to wonder, what do you think the devil is for, what value does he add, and what is the ROI for God?
-
Satan: Origins...
Remember, the biblical narrative is that Satan/Lucifer (Satan is more of a title, not a name) was created as the ultimate of angelic creation, and indications or at least inferences are that Satan aka Lucifer was the greatest in praise and glorifying God, until his free will asserted itself and Lucifer decided to grab the crown from God's hand.
So, Lucifer was not created to be evil, but became evil because of his own choices.
Now, I know folks like to argue God as ultimate cause vis a vis creation with a free will, but that's a bit of an old saw.
The insertion of Lucifer/Satan into the biblical narrative is simply historical, and sets up the ultimate good vs. evil showdown, and magnifies the glory of God in His ultimate sacrifice for the sake of His creation.
-
The point, I believe, is that although Satan is a horrific tempter, he is not the ultimate cause of evil. That’s where so many in the church get it wrong.
The point is that each of us… we…. I …. The man in the mirror…I the ultimate source of evil by choice
This is it right here.
Blaming Satan for one's own bad choices is just a cop out. We all own our behavior.
-
Satan: Origins...
Remember, the biblical narrative is that Satan/Lucifer (Satan is more of a title, not a name) was created as the ultimate of angelic creation, and indications or at least inferences are that Satan aka Lucifer was the greatest in praise and glorifying God, until his free will asserted itself and Lucifer decided to grab the crown from God's hand.
So, Lucifer was not created to be evil, but became evil because of his own choices.
Now, I know folks like to argue God as ultimate cause vis a vis creation with a free will, but that's a bit of an old saw.
The insertion of Lucifer/Satan into the biblical narrative is simply historical, and sets up the ultimate good vs. evil showdown, and magnifies the glory of God in His ultimate sacrifice for the sake of His creation.
Forest for the trees, yes, of course you are right, Lucifer does do something unique in the final boss battle. As unsatisfying as that is for me personally it at least provides some rationale for why the devil persists, although not why he isn't exclusively reserved for the boss fight from a logical/utility standpoint though.
It does stand to reason that if he only showed up for the boss fight it would be tougher to build the dramatic tension. It also tracks that because Christianity is very much a religion that is tightly coupled to and transmitted through narratives. Therefore prioritizing narrative makes sense as utility to the narrative is one of the primary metrics. I can capitulate to that however uneasily it sits for me personally as it feels a little meta my tastes.
Anyway, old as the saw may be, isn't God the ultimate cause of everything except himself? The buck has to stop with God at the end of the day. Besides you already argue that Lucifer is both a crucial plot device and the ugly friend that makes God more attractive by contrast, the intentionality & necessity of Lucifer's heel turn seems pretty well baked into the plan. Could it be called improvisation and if so in what way? Are there some further consequences of more directly stating that God did Satan on purpose? That is to say, you are already conceding that evil is a critical component of God's plan, the obliqueness of that concession doesn't change anything so far as I can tell because logically this property commutes.
I guess more importantly, how does this fact feel to you? How did you come to discover and accept that the Satan Character arc is there to make a more engaging story? Are there any other examples from the bible that only make sense to you in the context of improving biblical narrative taking priority over any sort of practical necessity borne from the logic of the laws of the universe?
-
The point, I believe, is that although Satan is a horrific tempter, he is not the ultimate cause of evil. That’s where so many in the church get it wrong.
The point is that each of us… we…. I …. The man in the mirror…I the ultimate source of evil by choice
This is it right here.
Blaming Satan for one's own bad choices is just a cop out. We all own our behavior.
If Satan can put thoughts into your mind, is there no circumstance that you could imagine where he would also be responsible for the actions taken under the influence of those thoughts. Or to put it another way, If I were to subject a person to psychological torment, torture and manipulation in service of having them commit some specific crime or to generally dissociate from reality and go on to commit some crime in this dissociated state, is there no circumstance where they could be absolved of responsibility. Additionally is there no circumstance where I would be liable in any way?
-
If Satan can put thoughts into your mind, is there no circumstance that you could imagine where he would also be responsible for the actions taken under the influence of those thoughts. Or to put it another way, If I were to subject a person to psychological torment, torture and manipulation in service of having them commit some specific crime or to generally dissociate from reality and go on to commit some crime in this dissociated state, is there no circumstance where they could be absolved of responsibility. Additionally is there no circumstance where I would be liable in any way?
Is that what (the) Satan does?
-
Satan: Origins...
Remember, the biblical narrative is that Satan/Lucifer (Satan is more of a title, not a name) was created as the ultimate of angelic creation, and indications or at least inferences are that Satan aka Lucifer was the greatest in praise and glorifying God, until his free will asserted itself and Lucifer decided to grab the crown from God's hand.
So, Lucifer was not created to be evil, but became evil because of his own choices.
Now, I know folks like to argue God as ultimate cause vis a vis creation with a free will, but that's a bit of an old saw.
The insertion of Lucifer/Satan into the biblical narrative is simply historical, and sets up the ultimate good vs. evil showdown, and magnifies the glory of God in His ultimate sacrifice for the sake of His creation.
Forest for the trees, yes, of course you are right, Lucifer does do something unique in the final boss battle. As unsatisfying as that is for me personally it at least provides some rationale for why the devil persists, although not why he isn't exclusively reserved for the boss fight from a logical/utility standpoint though.
It does stand to reason that if he only showed up for the boss fight it would be tougher to build the dramatic tension. It also tracks that because Christianity is very much a religion that is tightly coupled to and transmitted through narratives. Therefore prioritizing narrative makes sense as utility to the narrative is one of the primary metrics. I can capitulate to that however uneasily it sits for me personally as it feels a little meta my tastes.
Anyway, old as the saw may be, isn't God the ultimate cause of everything except himself? The buck has to stop with God at the end of the day. Besides you already argue that Lucifer is both a crucial plot device and the ugly friend that makes God more attractive by contrast, the intentionality & necessity of Lucifer's heel turn seems pretty well baked into the plan. Could it be called improvisation and if so in what way? Are there some further consequences of more directly stating that God did Satan on purpose? That is to say, you are already conceding that evil is a critical component of God's plan, the obliqueness of that concession doesn't change anything so far as I can tell because logically this property commutes.
I guess more importantly, how does this fact feel to you? How did you come to discover and accept that the Satan Character arc is there to make a more engaging story? Are there any other examples from the bible that only make sense to you in the context of improving biblical narrative taking priority over any sort of practical necessity borne from the logic of the laws of the universe?
I don't concede that Satan is in the narrative just to improve or demonstrate our learned ideals of contrast or dramatic tension. Satan is in the narrative because it is historical, mostly. His attributes give context to other actions, including those of humans.
I also don't concede the old saw that "God as first cause is responsible for every cause thereafter." That reeks of moral relativism, to which I do not adhere. It's a false premise as it ultimately attempts to alleviate the second actor of moral culpability. Of course, the issue of evil actual proves the existence of God, as without a perfect, there is no basis on which to argue the existence of the imperfect.
If "the buck has to stop with God" as first cause, then freedom of the will is a fantasy and is meaningless. The buck doesn't stop with God because He is first cause; Every creation that is rational an possessing free will is responsible for his or her actions.
The car dealer is not responsible for the negligent driving of the purchaser as a result of the providing the vehicle in the first instance. We even recognize this fact in common law and in statute with the concept of the "Supervening tortfeasor." Man is the chiefest of supervening tortfeasors.
-
I don't concede that Satan is in the narrative just to improve or demonstrate our learned ideals of contrast or dramatic tension. Satan is in the narrative because it is historical, mostly. His attributes give context to other actions, including those of humans.
I also don't concede the old saw that "God as first cause is responsible for every cause thereafter." That reeks of moral relativism, to which I do not adhere. It's a false premise as it ultimately attempts to alleviate the second actor of moral culpability. Of course, the issue of evil actual proves the existence of God, as without a perfect, there is no basis on which to argue the existence of the imperfect.
If "the buck has to stop with God" as first cause, then freedom of the will is a fantasy and is meaningless. The buck doesn't stop with God because He is first cause; Every creation that is rational an possessing free will is responsible for his or her actions.
The car dealer is not responsible for the negligent driving of the purchaser as a result of the providing the vehicle in the first instance. We even recognize this fact in common law and in statute with the concept of the "Supervening tortfeasor." Man is the chiefest of supervening tortfeasors.
LOOK! I feel like i've been very cordial and I DO NOT appreciate being called a "Supervening tortfeasor"...admittedly I don't know what it means exactly, but it sounds filthy and rude and I demand you take it back if we are to continue this discussion!
Kidding. Okay, my mistake I misinterpreted what you wrote. so maybe some points of clarification are in order. How do Satan's "attributes give context to other actions, including those of humans"? Additionally, I'm not sure how moral what I said relates to moral relativism in your mind, could you explain that to me please? Are Satan, and evil integral to God's plan? Do you think that God had to improvise a new plan or new facets to integrate evil and Satan?
I Don't think that placing some responsibility on God for Satan's existence means that Satan is not also responsible for what he chose to do with his existence. There are some circumstances where a person can be compelled and or manipulated into commiting a criminal act where the person should not be held responsible, but the manipulator should. Conversely there are circumstances where a person can be influenced by another and commit a criminal act but they should be held solely responsible. Likewise there are many circumstances in between. Similarly, There are a wide range of descriptions of the relationship between God, Satan, evil, creation, omniscience and will, and I do not believe that in every formulation that responsibility is mutually exclusive to either God or the devil. I believe that depending on the depiction, God could be responsible , Satan could be responsible or there could be something somewhere on the spectrum of shared responsibility. All that to say that nothing about my assertion necessitated that either actor should be completely responsible to the exclusion of the other. To go with your car analogy, a car manufacturer is responsible for producing a car with a known faulty gas tank lets say. If a driver drunkenly drives one of these faulty cars into a schoolbus he is responsible for the crash, but if the faulty tank explodes in that crash due to the flaw then the company is also responsible for injuries and damage incurred by the explosion. Neither party should get off Scott free because they both made decisions, one by choosing to drive drunk, and the other by choosing to manufacture and sell cars with a design flaw that they knew could catastrophically explode under certain conditions. Of course this does not exactly map onto God (or probably car manufacturing either), Satan and creation for various reasons, but it was meant to illustrate the concept of multiple parties bearing some responsibility for aspects of a single event through choices that they freely made without necessarily curtailing the other's free will. Perhaps your interpretation or understanding of God is iron clad and there is no sense in which God can be thought to bear any responsibility, I don't deny this possibility, but our discussion is at least in some sense about distinguishing your view from others that I am familiar with...fair?
If it helps to think of it this way, my previous post was essentially me wondering aloud if there was anything wrong with the ideas in your post, and I'm not attacking, nor do I really care about whether or not any of this stuff really exists so much as I want to think about these things for a bit and see what shakes out.
-
Satan: Origins...
Remember, the biblical narrative is that Satan/Lucifer (Satan is more of a title, not a name) was created as the ultimate of angelic creation, and indications or at least inferences are that Satan aka Lucifer was the greatest in praise and glorifying God, until his free will asserted itself and Lucifer decided to grab the crown from God's hand.
So, Lucifer was not created to be evil, but became evil because of his own choices.
Now, I know folks like to argue God as ultimate cause vis a vis creation with a free will, but that's a bit of an old saw.
The insertion of Lucifer/Satan into the biblical narrative is simply historical, and sets up the ultimate good vs. evil showdown, and magnifies the glory of God in His ultimate sacrifice for the sake of His creation.
Forest for the trees, yes, of course you are right, Lucifer does do something unique in the final boss battle. As unsatisfying as that is for me personally it at least provides some rationale for why the devil persists, although not why he isn't exclusively reserved for the boss fight from a logical/utility standpoint though.
It does stand to reason that if he only showed up for the boss fight it would be tougher to build the dramatic tension. It also tracks that because Christianity is very much a religion that is tightly coupled to and transmitted through narratives. Therefore prioritizing narrative makes sense as utility to the narrative is one of the primary metrics. I can capitulate to that however uneasily it sits for me personally as it feels a little meta my tastes.
Anyway, old as the saw may be, isn't God the ultimate cause of everything except himself? The buck has to stop with God at the end of the day. Besides you already argue that Lucifer is both a crucial plot device and the ugly friend that makes God more attractive by contrast, the intentionality & necessity of Lucifer's heel turn seems pretty well baked into the plan. Could it be called improvisation and if so in what way? Are there some further consequences of more directly stating that God did Satan on purpose? That is to say, you are already conceding that evil is a critical component of God's plan, the obliqueness of that concession doesn't change anything so far as I can tell because logically this property commutes.
I guess more importantly, how does this fact feel to you? How did you come to discover and accept that the Satan Character arc is there to make a more engaging story? Are there any other examples from the bible that only make sense to you in the context of improving biblical narrative taking priority over any sort of practical necessity borne from the logic of the laws of the universe?
I don't concede that Satan is in the narrative just to improve or demonstrate our learned ideals of contrast or dramatic tension. Satan is in the narrative because it is historical, mostly. His attributes give context to other actions, including those of humans.
I also don't concede the old saw that "God as first cause is responsible for every cause thereafter." That reeks of moral relativism, to which I do not adhere. It's a false premise as it ultimately attempts to alleviate the second actor of moral culpability. Of course, the issue of evil actual proves the existence of God, as without a perfect, there is no basis on which to argue the existence of the imperfect.
If "the buck has to stop with God" as first cause, then freedom of the will is a fantasy and is meaningless. The buck doesn't stop with God because He is first cause; Every creation that is rational an possessing free will is responsible for his or her actions.
The car dealer is not responsible for the negligent driving of the purchaser as a result of the providing the vehicle in the first instance. We even recognize this fact in common law and in statute with the concept of the "Supervening tortfeasor." Man is the chiefest of supervening tortfeasors.
In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.
-
In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.
Okay, could you explain the difference as you see it?
-
In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.
Okay, could you explain the difference as you see it?
The basic premise is that one can be responsible but not blameworthy or blameworthy but not responsible. In keeping with the theme, we could say that God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit of the tree, but Adam and Eve are blameworthy for eating the fruit.
Or, someone might bear no responsibility in the fact that Satan is whispering in their ear, though they'd be responsible for acting.
It's more nuanced than that on examination, but that's the fundamental difference. Not everyone who is blameworthy is also responsible, and not everyone who is responsible is also blameworthy. It's rarely a clean distinction.
-
In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.
Okay, could you explain the difference as you see it?
The basic premise is that one can be responsible but not blameworthy or blameworthy but not responsible. In keeping with the theme, we could say that God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit of the tree, but Adam and Eve are blameworthy for eating the fruit.
Or, someone might bear no responsibility in the fact that Satan is whispering in their ear, though they'd be responsible for acting.
It's more nuanced than that on examination, but that's the fundamental difference. Not everyone who is blameworthy is also responsible, and not everyone who is responsible is also blameworthy. It's rarely a clean distinction.
hmm, I don't have any particular issue with making this distinction if it helps to clarify an argument. However I do not see how this is functionally different than clarifying by specifying the domains of responsibility outside of semantics. I'd say that in your Adam and Eve example God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit, While Adam and eve are responsible for acting within their ability to eat or not eat the fruit. The domains of responsibility are different although they arguably have overlap if you specify a different scope or relationship. I have always maintained that depending on various properties, relationships or composition of the God & universe a person is asserting the domains may be completely divorced from one another or they may intersect in a way that they share some responsibility for the same event in equal or unequal proportion. I been saying that I think the boundaries can go from perfectly sharp to indistinguishable and everything in between all depending, and all while only using responsibility.
While i'm thinking about it, I suppose in another sense responsibility and blame at least in my mind can be differentiated from one another in that responsibility can be thought of as influence over the causal chain that culminated in the event in question, while blame can be thought of as a value judgement that is related more to the intention or agency of the actor and less about the degree of influence the actor had on the causal chain. Still even this I feel is just an abstraction layer that is more useful in rhetoric than
in a framework that better captures some meaningful distinction on a fundamental level; I say this because agency imo is just another way of specifying a scope or domain of influence imo.
What do you think?
-
In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.
Okay, could you explain the difference as you see it?
The basic premise is that one can be responsible but not blameworthy or blameworthy but not responsible. In keeping with the theme, we could say that God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit of the tree, but Adam and Eve are blameworthy for eating the fruit.
Or, someone might bear no responsibility in the fact that Satan is whispering in their ear, though they'd be responsible for acting.
It's more nuanced than that on examination, but that's the fundamental difference. Not everyone who is blameworthy is also responsible, and not everyone who is responsible is also blameworthy. It's rarely a clean distinction.
hmm, I don't have any particular issue with making this distinction if it helps to clarify an argument. However I do not see how this is functionally different than clarifying by specifying the domains of responsibility outside of semantics. I'd say that in your Adam and Eve example God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit, While Adam and eve are responsible for acting within their ability to eat or not eat the fruit. The domains of responsibility are different although they arguably have overlap if you specify a different scope or relationship. I have always maintained that depending on various properties, relationships or composition of the God & universe a person is asserting the domains may be completely divorced from one another or they may intersect in a way that they share some responsibility for the same event in equal or unequal proportion. I been saying that I think the boundaries can go from perfectly sharp to indistinguishable and everything in between all depending, and all while only using responsibility.
While i'm thinking about it, I suppose in another sense responsibility and blame at least in my mind can be differentiated from one another in that responsibility can be thought of as influence over the causal chain that culminated in the event in question, while blame can be thought of as a value judgement that is related more to the intention or agency of the actor and less about the degree of influence the actor had on the causal chain. Still even this I feel is just an abstraction layer that is more useful in rhetoric than
in a framework that better captures some meaningful distinction on a fundamental level; I say this because agency imo is just another way of specifying a scope or domain of influence imo.
What do you think?
Sure. What's important is that there is a difference, so we could assert:
God is responsible for creating the world.
Humankind is blameworthy for the evil it commits.
This can be endlessly broken down into different domains, scopes, etc., but it would come back to that (or not to that, depending on how the argument went).
-
In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.
Okay, could you explain the difference as you see it?
The basic premise is that one can be responsible but not blameworthy or blameworthy but not responsible. In keeping with the theme, we could say that God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit of the tree, but Adam and Eve are blameworthy for eating the fruit.
Or, someone might bear no responsibility in the fact that Satan is whispering in their ear, though they'd be responsible for acting.
It's more nuanced than that on examination, but that's the fundamental difference. Not everyone who is blameworthy is also responsible, and not everyone who is responsible is also blameworthy. It's rarely a clean distinction.
hmm, I don't have any particular issue with making this distinction if it helps to clarify an argument. However I do not see how this is functionally different than clarifying by specifying the domains of responsibility outside of semantics. I'd say that in your Adam and Eve example God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit, While Adam and eve are responsible for acting within their ability to eat or not eat the fruit. The domains of responsibility are different although they arguably have overlap if you specify a different scope or relationship. I have always maintained that depending on various properties, relationships or composition of the God & universe a person is asserting the domains may be completely divorced from one another or they may intersect in a way that they share some responsibility for the same event in equal or unequal proportion. I been saying that I think the boundaries can go from perfectly sharp to indistinguishable and everything in between all depending, and all while only using responsibility.
While i'm thinking about it, I suppose in another sense responsibility and blame at least in my mind can be differentiated from one another in that responsibility can be thought of as influence over the causal chain that culminated in the event in question, while blame can be thought of as a value judgement that is related more to the intention or agency of the actor and less about the degree of influence the actor had on the causal chain. Still even this I feel is just an abstraction layer that is more useful in rhetoric than
in a framework that better captures some meaningful distinction on a fundamental level; I say this because agency imo is just another way of specifying a scope or domain of influence imo.
What do you think?
Sure. What's important is that there is a difference, so we could assert:
God is responsible for creating the world.
Humankind is blameworthy for the evil it commits.
This can be endlessly broken down into different domains, scopes, etc., but it would come back to that (or not to that, depending on how the argument went).
Well. thanks for your input.
-
Merely an aside, but: the attributes of the Creator are revealed consistently as absolute, i.e. eternal.
In light of Genesis, God created man and angels with the full acknowledgment that members of both realms, as free moral agents, would strike out on their own, denying the sovereignty and express will of God. Eternal God is responsible for granting these potential rebels freewill with the full awareness that many would fall and the resultant condemnation would ensue, including eternal punishment.
The alternative, from rational man's perspective, would be creating men and angels without free will, thus, without the potential for sin.
God clearly revealed that He was sorry for having put man on the Earth because man was created as a free moral agent, just as angels were - these choices belong entirely to men and angels.
In light of these revelations, God, in His moral perfection, deemed the creating of free-will persons an
act of eternal perfection notwithstanding the eventuality of sin and rebellion.
He is blameless.
Foreseeing the fall of men and angels, i.e. the seeming phenomenon of evil within the realm of creation, and the eternal consequences of sin, cannot diminish the absolute attributes of God as love and holy.
From His eternal and revealed perspective.
-
Merely an aside, but: the attributes of the Creator are revealed consistently as absolute, i.e. eternal.
In light of Genesis, God created man and angels with the full acknowledgment that members of both realms, as free moral agents, would strike out on their own, denying the sovereignty and express will of God. Eternal God is responsible for granting these potential rebels freewill with the full awareness that many would fall and the resultant condemnation would ensue, including eternal punishment.
The alternative, from rational man's perspective, would be creating men and angels without free will, thus, without the potential for sin.
God clearly revealed that He was sorry for having put man on the Earth because man was created as a free moral agent, just as angels were - these choices belong entirely to men and angels.
In light of these revelations, God, in His moral perfection, deemed the creating of free-will persons an
act of eternal perfection notwithstanding the eventuality of sin and rebellion.
He is blameless.
Foreseeing the fall of men and angels, i.e. the seeming phenomenon of evil within the realm of creation, and the eternal consequences of sin, cannot diminish the absolute attributes of God as love and holy.
From His eternal and revealed perspective.
Well, it is very clear where you stand on blame. What do you think the devil does, or maybe what unique purpose does he fulfil?
-
Well, it is very clear where you stand on blame. What do you think the devil does, or maybe what unique purpose does he fulfil?
The old Sunday School standard is that Adam's day in Eden was a test and Satan served as an agent for that testing, therefore fulfilling an ordained purpose. This I seriously doubt, as Scripture never states such a scenario, and God never tempts any man, even through second agents. Testing, in this regard, is ultimately unnecessary if Adam was not deceived and was yet prepared to disobey the Creator who spoke clearly to Adam before-hand - God supplied the rules to Adam ahead of time.
Contrary to a lot of modern-day conjecture, particularly in churches, there is no grand-purpose for evil or fallen angels. Every suggestion and manifestation of evil is pure tragedy, while the Cross of Christ manifests the goodness and eternal purpose of a loving God. IMO.
.
-
Well, it is very clear where you stand on blame. What do you think the devil does, or maybe what unique purpose does he fulfil?
The old Sunday School standard is that Adam's day in Eden was a test and Satan served as an agent for that testing, therefore fulfilling an ordained purpose. This I seriously doubt, as Scripture never states such a scenario, and God never tempts any man, even through second agents. Testing, in this regard, is ultimately unnecessary if Adam was not deceived and was yet prepared to disobey the Creator who spoke clearly to Adam before-hand - God supplied the rules to Adam ahead of time.
Contrary to a lot of modern-day conjecture, particularly in churches, there is no grand-purpose for evil or fallen angels. Every suggestion and manifestation of evil is pure tragedy, while the Cross of Christ manifests the goodness and eternal purpose of a loving God. IMO.
.
Honestly that makes the most sense to me, this is just the way it all shook out. How does this work with the notion of God's plan? I mean if that is something you subscribe to, but even if you don't, maybe especially if you don't, I'm interested in your thoughts.
-
Well, it is very clear where you stand on blame. What do you think the devil does, or maybe what unique purpose does he fulfil?
The old Sunday School standard is that Adam's day in Eden was a test and Satan served as an agent for that testing, therefore fulfilling an ordained purpose. This I seriously doubt, as Scripture never states such a scenario, and God never tempts any man, even through second agents. Testing, in this regard, is ultimately unnecessary if Adam was not deceived and was yet prepared to disobey the Creator who spoke clearly to Adam before-hand - God supplied the rules to Adam ahead of time.
Contrary to a lot of modern-day conjecture, particularly in churches, there is no grand-purpose for evil or fallen angels. Every suggestion and manifestation of evil is pure tragedy, while the Cross of Christ manifests the goodness and eternal purpose of a loving God. IMO.
.
Honestly that makes the most sense to me, this is just the way it all shook out. How does this work with the notion of God's plan? I mean if that is something you subscribe to, but even if you don't, maybe especially if you don't, I'm interested in your thoughts.
The most profound and most neglected scriptural dissertations, particularly of the NT, base God's current plan on His foresight, sending the Son, who becomes man, to assume the eternal throne as the fulness of God in His human form, having once paid the ultimate price for man's redemption.
While morality is an essential scriptural mandate, lesson and message for man, the overarching topic is the revelation of Christ and His person. Everything else pales in significance, seeing as the Savior is, simply speaking, the manifestation of Holy God - the perfection of God in a human body, resurrected from the grave.
So much is lost when the testimony of the Church is dominated by discussions of (often comparative) morality at the expense of the testimony of God, which is the revelation of the Son and His destiny.
Immorality has little chance against the full revelation of Christ, which is the current and full plan of God.
-
The most profound and most neglected scriptural dissertations, particularly of the NT, base God's current plan on His foresight, sending the Son, who becomes man, to assume the eternal throne as the fulness of God in His human form, having once paid the ultimate price for man's redemption.
While morality is an essential scriptural mandate, lesson and message for man, the overarching topic is the revelation of Christ and His person. Everything else pales in significance, seeing as the Savior is, simply speaking, the manifestation of Holy God - the perfection of God in a human body, resurrected from the grave.
So much is lost when the testimony of the Church is dominated by discussions of (often comparative) morality at the expense of the testimony of God, which is the revelation of the Son and His destiny.
Immorality has little chance against the full revelation of Christ, which is the current and full plan of God.
I read this several times, took a break read it a few more times and I still do not quite get what you are saying. Would you mind terribly restating your points in a different way for me?
-
I think he is pointing out the truth that the Church spends 99% of its time and effort wringing our hands over philosophy and esoteric theological bits and politics and culture instead of focusing on learning from Scripture the glory of the person of Jesus
Knowing Jesus in increasing depth day by day makes all the other stuff seem vacuous and banal
-
I think he is pointing out the truth that the Church spends 99% of its time and effort wringing our hands over philosophy and esoteric theological bits and politics and culture instead of focusing on learning from Scripture the glory of the person of Jesus
Knowing Jesus in increasing depth day by day makes all the other stuff seem vacuous and banal
Well, okay, but like, I engaged with this thread because I was in a hand wringing mood...I kind of just wanted to talk about the things.
Edit: I don't want to leave without saying that personally I find myself unable to get over the vacuous and banal details of the faith. The idea that I might get to know Jesus without Jesus being a thing that is a coherent concept itself all swaddled within a constellation of incoherent concepts is something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Wondering what the heck I'm even supposed to be trying to get to know or form a relationship with or what forming a relationship with this thing even means seems like a requisite step. Its just such a weird move that I see time and time again...perhaps its just me.
-
Respectfully but frankly, your enquiries usually border on the obstruse and you place a challenge on believers to try to address intellectual or even emotional roadblocks you have encountered in understanding the revelation of God. In so doing, you easily set up responders for failure, because the tenets of Scripture are the fully authorized standards of Christian truth, even where difficult to apprehend, and we place complete assurance in them, and are careful to not add to them or inject presumptuous analogies into them.
Having sufficient evidence that Christ rose from the dead after fulfilling many centuries-old prophecies, we believe without necessarily comprehending every aspect of this revealed truth, and to demand full intellectual satisfaction
in order to believe is, according to Scripture, a matter of conscience, already long-settled and awaiting judgment.
It behooves the witnessing believer to point to the evidence and authority of Scripture - it is not incumbent upon the believer to satisfy every doubt nor to prove what is clearly a matter of conscience. Anything less than the contextual revelation is subject to supreme error, though many have proffered their "insights" down through the ages.
The believer can authoritatively and finally state that all things will be brought under the throne of Christ. All other
speculations carry the inevitable risk of one's slip-sliding into eternity without having escaped the darkness which is the common lot for most men and even angels.
Nothing especially unique about unbelief.
-
Respectfully but frankly, your enquiries usually border on the obstruse and you place a challenge on believers to try to address intellectual or even emotional roadblocks you have encountered in understanding the revelation of God. In so doing, you easily set up responders for failure, because the tenets of Scripture are the fully authorized standards of Christian truth, even where difficult to apprehend, and we place complete assurance in them, and are careful to not add to them or inject presumptuous analogies into them.
Having sufficient evidence that Christ rose from the dead after fulfilling many centuries-old prophecies, we believe without necessarily comprehending every aspect of this revealed truth, and to demand full intellectual satisfaction
in order to believe is, according to Scripture, a matter of conscience, already long-settled and awaiting judgment.
It behooves the witnessing believer to point to the evidence and authority of Scripture - it is not incumbent upon the believer to satisfy every doubt nor to prove what is clearly a matter of conscience. Anything less than the contextual revelation is subject to supreme error, though many have proffered their "insights" down through the ages.
The believer can authoritatively and finally state that all things will be brought under the throne of Christ. All other
speculations carry the inevitable risk of one's slip-sliding into eternity without having escaped the darkness which is the common lot for most men and even angels.
Nothing especially unique about unbelief.
That is fine. Perhaps someone else will be interested in explaining their understanding of the purpose of the devil. It has been my expirience that Christians, people, draw their lines all over the page and onto the tabletop and down the leg and across the floor and up the wall and out the window. Nothing especially unique about belief either, we're just people doing people stuff.
-
That is fine. Perhaps someone else will be interested in explaining their understanding of the purpose of the devil. It has been my expirience that Christians, people, draw their lines all over the page and onto the tabletop and down the leg and across the floor and up the wall and out the window. Nothing especially unique about belief either, we're just people doing people stuff.
A bit of Plato
The Cycle of Opposites
The first argument is based on the cyclical interchange by means of which every quality comes into being from its own opposite. Hot comes from cold and cold from hot: that is, hot things are just cold things that have warmed up, and cold things are just hot things that have cooled off. Similarly, people who are awake are just people who were asleep but then woke up, while people who are asleep are just people who were awake but then dozed off.
True for about anything else, about everything has its opposites. Love vs Hate, Justice vs Injustice, etc. etc. And thus also Good vs Evil. Meaning if good exists its opposite evil MUST exist also. Good is simply the absence of Evil and vice versa, the Cycle of Opposites.
In the first 3 chapters of the Bible we read God created a very special place called Eden (Paradise), very special because the natural laws did not apply. There was no death, no illness, people and animals eat fruit and verbs, no flesh. And God called this supernatural place "very good", but notable not "perfect". Just look it up, it's important. He equipped us (like Himself) with a free will and free will includes a risk. Hence "very good" instead of "perfect" because only God is good and perfect.
And God (aware of the existence and opposite of Him (Evil) wanted His creation (us) not to become aware and save us from knowing Evil (and only experience Good) and gave A&E the well known order, don't go there, symbolized by the tree of knowledge of Good & Evil.
Carefully read chapter 3 what happened during the temptation, the outcome, A&E insisted to be like God and KNOW all about Evil. And God gave A&E what they desired, they were removed from Paradise (temporarily away from Him) and they landed on the evolved Earth, a place full of Good and Evil. I guess they cried a million tears.
So now we learn the difference by experience both.
As to your question -- what's the purpose of the devil -- there wasn't any, he fell from grace and with his free will decided to overthrow God, what an idiot, and became the enemy of God.
-
A bit of Plato
The Cycle of Opposites
The first argument is based on the cyclical interchange by means of which every quality comes into being from its own opposite. Hot comes from cold and cold from hot: that is, hot things are just cold things that have warmed up, and cold things are just hot things that have cooled off. Similarly, people who are awake are just people who were asleep but then woke up, while people who are asleep are just people who were awake but then dozed off.
True for about anything else, about everything has its opposites. Love vs Hate, Justice vs Injustice, etc. etc. And thus also Good vs Evil. Meaning if good exists its opposite evil MUST exist also. Good is simply the absence of Evil and vice versa, the Cycle of Opposites.
In the first 3 chapters of the Bible we read God created a very special place called Eden (Paradise), very special because the natural laws did not apply. There was no death, no illness, people and animals eat fruit and verbs, no flesh. And God called this supernatural place "very good", but notable not "perfect". Just look it up, it's important. He equipped us (like Himself) with a free will and free will includes a risk. Hence "very good" instead of "perfect" because only God is good and perfect.
And God (aware of the existence and opposite of Him (Evil) wanted His creation (us) not to become aware and save us from knowing Evil (and only experience Good) and gave A&E the well known order, don't go there, symbolized by the tree of knowledge of Good & Evil.
Carefully read chapter 3 what happened during the temptation, the outcome, A&E insisted to be like God and KNOW all about Evil. And God gave A&E what they desired, they were removed from Paradise (temporarily away from Him) and they landed on the evolved Earth, a place full of Good and Evil. I guess they cried a million tears.
So now we learn the difference by experience both.
As to your question -- what's the purpose of the devil -- there wasn't any, he fell from grace and with his free will decided to overthrow God, what an idiot, and became the enemy of God.
Well okay, I obviously have questions about what you've said here. I wonder about the nature of evil as is described here, with God being the only thing that is good and perfect, and everything needing an opposite, does this mean that evil & imperfection existed for as long as God has? That is, did evil exist prior to God ever actually creating anything? If so, in what way could it be said to have existed? I guess as a bit of an aside, what exactly is it that prevented God from creating humans with a good nature & free will like himself?
-
Well okay, I obviously have questions about what you've said here. I wonder about the nature of evil as is described here, with God being the only thing that is good and perfect, and everything needing an opposite, does this mean that evil & imperfection existed for as long as God has? That is, did evil exist prior to God ever actually creating anything? If so, in what way could it be said to have existed?
I don't know.
I guess as a bit of an aside, what exactly is it that prevented God from creating humans with a good nature & free will like himself?
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. [Genesis 1:31]
A&E were even created very good, but even very good is not perfect.
-
Fair enough on the on the question of the existence of evil prior to any creations. Do you have any thoughts on anything from the bible that may prohibit such a possibility?
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. [Genesis 1:31]
We were even created very good, but even very good is not perfect.
Ha, yes, of course. I think perhaps I didn't word my question very well. My assumption was that you hold to the idea God has free will, could choose evil in principle, however his nature is such that he will not choose evil, though I realize now that you may not. I suppose the question that I should have asked is whether in your understanding of God, his [intrinsic?] goodness and the degrees of freedom he possesses as far as his will [free will?], God has the ability to choose evil, but will not due to some factor? If this is the case do you have any notions on what this factor is? Along that line, what prevents God from creating beings similarly with both free will and this factor that would see them never actually choose it in practice even though they could in principle?
-
Fair enough on the on the question of the existence of evil prior to any creations. Do you have any thoughts on anything from the bible that may prohibit such a possibility?
That would be speculation. I don't like to do that.
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. [Genesis 1:31]
We were even created very good, but even very good is not perfect.
Ha, yes, of course. I think perhaps I didn't word my question very well. My assumption was that you hold to the idea God has free will, could choose evil in principle, however his nature is such that he will not choose evil, though I realize now that you may not. I suppose the question that I should have asked is whether in your understanding of God, his [intrinsic?] goodness and the degrees of freedom he possesses as far as his will [free will?], God has the ability to choose evil, but will not due to some factor? If this is the case do you have any notions on what this factor is? Along that line, what prevents God from creating beings similarly with both free will and this factor that would see them never actually choose it in practice even though they could in principle?
So your actual question is, why did God not create us perfect, like Him ?
-
That would be speculation. I don't like to do that.
Fair enough.
So your actual question is, why did God not create us perfect, like Him ?
If you believe that God's perfection is what is required to have free will and to not choose evil, then yes, I suppose so. It may seem obvious to you that this is the case, but it is not obvious to me. In my mind it is not clear that being able to dance the finest possible jig, bake the maximally delicious apple pie, and sing the sweetest and most soporific lullaby possible are not features of God's perfection, nor is it clear that moral perfection is impossible without every other perfect attribute of God. That is to say I don't know that moral perfection isn't it's own distinct subcategory of perfection that is not contingent on perfection in every other way an entity might be perfect. Along that same vein, I don't even know what all perfection entails in your view, for instance I cannot tell if perfection in your mind is contingent upon all of the "omni" powers of God. It may seem to you that whatever your idea of perfection is and its implications are the default way that a given person will think of it, but I assure you that we are unlikely to be thinking the same way on this; or at least I do not believe that I can distinguish your view from the many others that I've encountered or imagined without more information. So, given that, would you mind elaborating on what you mean?
-
So your actual question is, why did God not create us perfect, like Him ?
If you believe that God's perfection is what is required to have free will and to not choose evil, then yes, I suppose so.
That's a good question then.
It may seem obvious to you that this is the case, but it is not obvious to me.
It's not obvious to me either, never gave it a thought.
In my mind it is not clear that being able to dance the finest possible jig, bake the maximally delicious apple pie, and sing the sweetest and most soporific lullaby possible are not features of God's perfection, nor is it clear that moral perfection is impossible without every other perfect attribute of God. That is to say I don't know that moral perfection isn't it's own distinct subcategory of perfection that is not contingent on perfection in every other way an entity might be perfect. Along that same vein, I don't even know what all perfection entails in your view, for instance I cannot tell if perfection in your mind is contingent upon all of the "omni" powers of God. It may seem to you that whatever your idea of perfection is and its implications are the default way that a given person will think of it, but I assure you that we are unlikely to be thinking the same way on this; or at least I do not believe that I can distinguish your view from the many others that I've encountered or imagined without more information. So, given that, would you mind elaborating on what you mean?
1 Cor chapter 2 comes to mind -
10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Meaning, I can't go there. God is un-created, eternal, always existed. We are just the created, the loved created. So, I can't answer your question.
-
1 Cor chapter 2 comes to mind -
10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Meaning, I can't go there. God is un-created, eternal, always existed. We are just the created, the loved created. So, I can't answer your question.
I do not see how your conclusions follow the verses you posted, but okay, thank you for your time.
-
All speculation and guesswork - information unavailable to mortal man, who will often strive to somehow make the Creator culpable for what free-will creatures did and continue to do.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1Co 2:14
-
All speculation and guesswork - information unavailable to mortal man, who will often strive to somehow make the Creator culpable for what free-will creatures did and continue to do.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1Co 2:14
Have you personally receivethed things of the spirit that actually answered any of the sorts of questions I've asked here? Alternatively have you receivethed things of the spirit that convinced you that you are incapable of understanding the answers to these question? Or have you receivethed things of the spirit that convinced you that asking or attempting to answer these questions are of no value or are even deleterious to you?
Perhaps that series of questions itself are only answerable through some spiritual mechanism that I do not have access to? To your understanding is a Christian to avoid or suppress any wondering or speculation that they might do internally? To your understanding is a Christian to stifle or redirect any wondering or speculation that others might be doing for whatever reason? I guess I wonder what the margins are here, is there any distinction between curiosity and pathology and where is that line? or is it a personal conviction or conscience thing? is there any Christian precedent or tradition of anything of personal or community value coming from this sort of mental exercise?
-
All speculation and guesswork - information unavailable to mortal man, who will often strive to somehow make the Creator culpable for what free-will creatures did and continue to do.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1Co 2:14
Have you personally receivethed things of the spirit that actually answered any of the sorts of questions I've asked here? Alternatively have you receivethed things of the spirit that convinced you that you are incapable of understanding the answers to these question? Or have you receivethed things of the spirit that convinced you that asking or attempting to answer these questions are of no value or are even deleterious to you?
Perhaps that series of questions itself are only answerable through some spiritual mechanism that I do not have access to? To your understanding is a Christian to avoid or suppress any wondering or speculation that they might do internally? To your understanding is a Christian to stifle or redirect any wondering or speculation that others might be doing for whatever reason? I guess I wonder what the margins are here, is there any distinction between curiosity and pathology and where is that line? or is it a personal conviction or conscience thing? is there any Christian precedent or tradition of anything of personal or community value coming from this sort of mental exercise?
As previously stated, the attributes of God i.e. "God is Love," as clearly stated in Scripture are eternal, and through Spiritual conviction the believer accepts them as true and needs no human rationalism to justify what he knows as truth. The Scriture is sufficient and declares God unassailable, blameless and loving
The Gospel is an appeal to the conscience and without the reconciliation of the cross one will never be able to comprehend God.
It's a matter of the heart and intellectual reasoning, outside of revealed truth, will fall short.
-
All speculation and guesswork - information unavailable to mortal man, who will often strive to somehow make the Creator culpable for what free-will creatures did and continue to do.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1Co 2:14
Have you personally receivethed things of the spirit that actually answered any of the sorts of questions I've asked here? Alternatively have you receivethed things of the spirit that convinced you that you are incapable of understanding the answers to these question? Or have you receivethed things of the spirit that convinced you that asking or attempting to answer these questions are of no value or are even deleterious to you?
Perhaps that series of questions itself are only answerable through some spiritual mechanism that I do not have access to? To your understanding is a Christian to avoid or suppress any wondering or speculation that they might do internally? To your understanding is a Christian to stifle or redirect any wondering or speculation that others might be doing for whatever reason? I guess I wonder what the margins are here, is there any distinction between curiosity and pathology and where is that line? or is it a personal conviction or conscience thing? is there any Christian precedent or tradition of anything of personal or community value coming from this sort of mental exercise?
As previously stated, the attributes of God i.e. "God is Love," as clearly stated in Scripture are eternal, and through Spiritual conviction the believer accepts them as true and needs no human rationalism to justify what he knows as truth. The Scriture is sufficient and declares God unassailable, blameless and loving
The Gospel is an appeal to the conscience and without the reconciliation of the cross one will never be able to comprehend God.
It's a matter of the heart and intellectual reasoning, outside of revealed truth, will fall short.
Alright, I get that you believe things like the statement "God is love", and I get that you believe that you have some understanding of what such statements mean, and that this understanding transcends intellect. I get that this may cause you to feel no desire to question whether or not God is love or his existence or any number of things. Does that mean that you don't ever find yourself wondering about how any of it works as opposed to whether it works? Or is all of that covered because you believe , or as you might say that you know that these questions are unanswerable so your mind doesn't even absently muse over such things because your spirit is so affected by this deep understanding faith and knowledge?
-
Oscar, from the moment I believed I have had peace with God and where I might not be able to articulate all the mechanics of His unseen purposes and actions I am incapable of questioning what has been revealed concerning
His afore - mention attributes.
I weigh everything against what He has sufficiently declared, ultimately through the Cross of Christ.
If I remained in my unbelief I would be lost and in darkness now, regardless all the introspection and searching I knew.
-
Oscar, from the moment I believed have had peace with God and where I might not be able to articulate all the mechanics of His unseen purposes and actions I am incapable of questioning what has been revealed concerning
His afore - mention attributes.
I weigh everything against what He has sufficiently declared, ultimately through the Cross of Christ.
If I remained in my unbelief I would be lost and in darkness now, regardless all the introspection and searching I knew.
I can't tell if you think i'm challenging the fidelity or some other aspect of your faith, or if you don't understand what I'm asking you.
Well, I'm not questioning your faith or how it has improved your life, I'm happy to take that for granted for the sake of conversation. I am asking if in the areas where things are not sufficiently declared you ever wonder how things work? While I can see how a question might conflict with your trust in God it is not readily apparent to me that any preponderance in this area is antithetical to your faith. For instance, Is wondering which birds God made first or if he made them all simultaneously inherently problematic? if so why, or is that in itself an unanswerable question? At this point I don't really expect that you will give me a straight answer, but I thought it was worth trying to explain what I'm asking once again. If this seems pointless or not worth your while I understand and have a good evening, I'm honestly getting pretty tired of this grind too.
-
I think there is an ii finite number of questions.
As I get older, and as I have spent vast quantities of time questioning the questions, I find myself inevitable drawn back to the same truth that Solomon reached in the final chapter of Ecclesiastes….
-
Oscar, per your example, I have no idea which birds God created first, and consider it completely irrelevant and not problematic at all, regardless of human speculation.
Okay. See you around.
-
I think there is an ii finite number of questions.
As I get older, and as I have spent vast quantities of time questioning the questions, I find myself inevitable drawn back to the same truth that Solomon reached in the final chapter of Ecclesiastes….
Well, don't just leave me hanging, what did Solomon discover in the final chapter of Ecclesiastes??!?!!? Did he find out that the evil emperor's enforcer was actually his father all along?
don't be mad its just a silly star wars joke.
-
I’m old enough to remember seeing that in the theatres opening weekend!
Read the end of Ecclesiastes. The wisest richest man in history explores every human endeavor in detail and sparing no expense and his conclusion is….
The last chapter of Ecclesiastes. Read it!!! He sure had a handle on aging!
-
Oscar, per your example, I have no idea which birds God created first, and consider it completely irrelevant and not problematic at all, regardless of human speculation.
Okay. See you around.
haha okay, my question was less about the specific example or if you knew the answer to it so much as I was illustrating the sort of trivial thing that you might feel okay admitting to ever wondering about... and it appears you either still don't understand what I was asking, or for whatever reason you just don't want to say. See you around.
-
I’m old enough to remember seeing that in the theatres opening weekend!
Read the end of Ecclesiastes. The wisest richest man in history explores every human endeavor in detail and sparing no expense and his conclusion is….
The last chapter of Ecclesiastes. Read it!!! He sure had a handle on aging!
I'm old enough to remember seeing the super duper updated version from the 90's in theaters and thinking how CG didn't consequentially improve the movie but I was glad that I got to see it with my dad on the big screen with that sound system..I'd put it just below seeing an Sr-71 in real life as far as dad memories go.
I take issue with the idea that Solomon was the wisest or richest man in history, or that he explored every human endeavor, but I'll read it and report back since you won't just give me the cliff notes.
-
Like dad said….
You’ll appreciate it more if you work for it!!!
-
1 Cor chapter 2 comes to mind -
10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Meaning, I can't go there. God is un-created, eternal, always existed. We are just the created, the loved created. So, I can't answer your question.
I do not see how your conclusions follow the verses you posted, but okay, thank you for your time.
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. [Deut 29:29]
Meaning, not everything is revealed.
If you want to know, ask the Lord Himself.
-
Oscar, per your example, I have no idea which birds God created first, and consider it completely irrelevant and not problematic at all, regardless of human speculation.
Okay. See you around.
haha okay, my question was less about the specific example or if you knew the answer to it so much as I was illustrating the sort of trivial thing that you might feel okay admitting to ever wondering about... and it appears you either still don't understand what I was asking, or for whatever reason you just don't want to say. See you around.
Have you ever wondered what is needed to make you a believer?
-
Oscar, per your example, I have no idea which birds God created first, and consider it completely irrelevant and not problematic at all, regardless of human speculation.
Okay. See you around.
haha okay, my question was less about the specific example or if you knew the answer to it so much as I was illustrating the sort of trivial thing that you might feel okay admitting to ever wondering about... and it appears you either still don't understand what I was asking, or for whatever reason you just don't want to say. See you around.
Have you ever wondered what is needed to make you a believer?
Are you asking me if I have considered what could cause me to believe in God? if so, then yes, yes I have.
-
Like dad said….
You’ll appreciate it more if you work for it!!!
Well, Teacher is a real card isn't he? So the gist is:
Everything is pointless and not worth doing or even worth learning about because you can't ever finish learning and learning stuff doesn't do anything and there isn't anything new to learn anyway because nothing ever really changes. Therefore, Fear God and do what he tells you because there will be a pop quiz that counts as 100% of your grade. It makes sense that an ancient person thought like that, but its kind of a bummer that you consistently come to the same conclusion.
-
When scientists do the same experiments over and over and over for millennia and come to the same conclusions we call it fact
Congratulations
You have been coming to the same conclusion as the wisest man that ever lived.
Fear God and relax and don’t sweat the small stuff
-
When scientists do the same experiments over and over and over for millennia and come to the same conclusions we call it fact
Congratulations
You have been coming to the same conclusion as the wisest man that ever lived.
Fear God and relax and don’t sweat the small stuff
Sure, there are some conclusions, or facts that have been maintained since old timey times, but that is entirely different than saying that there has been no accumulation of new knowledge of meaningful influence since Solomon did an exhaustive analysis of all human endeavors or as he might have said... that there is nothing new under the sun.
Like what do you suppose Solomon thought the sun was made of, or how hot it was, or why it was hot, or how big it was, or how far away it was, or why it moves across the sky, or how old it was? These are all very basic questions that any person ever could have asked themselves, but I'm about as certain as I am of anything that he didn't get to the bottom of a single one of them. Knowledge of Heliophysics was pretty flat for most of human history, and then in like the last 2 minutes of the 9th inning there was an explosion. Actually I don't think that is how innings are measured, I do not watch or enjoy baseball, but like you get what i'm trying to say; Most of what we know about the sun is relatively recently acquired.
Ecclesiastes is an ancient text, and it is true that the writer(s) of that text were not likely to see anything new under the sun, nor were many generations that came before or after them. Meaningful improvements to medicine or agriculture or production or cartography or whatever were probably not going to happen, and when it did it would likely be the slow creeping evolution that is as conspicuous as fingernail growth. Life, for very long stretches of human history remained essentially unchanged, you could drop a guy from one point in history into some other point in history for most of history and while the politics, language, borders and art styles may have been different, the basic level of knowledge about the world (and importantly access to it) would be essentially unchanged.
We do, for better or worse live at a point in human history that is exceptional when compared to most of human history. There are new things under the sun everyday, the very idea of inevitable and rapid technological progress is something that we take for granted, but I'm most places for most of human history nobody invented a wheel. The idea that my {hypothetical} grandchildren will likely live in a drastically different world than I do seems obvious to me, but it would have likely been alien to Solomon (at least in the way that I mean it).
All that to say, Solomon can be forgiven for believing that the world is more or less static and that knowing things is a distracting trifle at best and a frustrating quagmire at worst. However we have example after example of the old dictum that knowledge is power. Not only are there new things under the sun, but those new things use knowledge of the sun itself to convert its radiation into electrical current to power all manner of other new things that Solomon couldn't have possibly examined because he preceded even the antecedents of their antecedent's antecedents. Acting as if Solomon's wisdom applies so broadly distorts the little utility of what he did say into something absurd to the point of parody... I have no idea why you insist upon it.
TLDR: I believe you are grossly overstating the applicability of Solomon's thing that he said.
-
This. The difference between factual knowledge and wisdom.
The point Solomon makes is that no matter how much “knowledge” advances, it is all meaningless in the context of the meaning of life , which is to know God
All the rest is trivia
-
Appears easy in this age of tech and knowledge to assume man knows where he came from and where he's going outside of the revelation of the Creator.
He doesn't.
But neither does he have an excuse.
-
Oscar, per your example, I have no idea which birds God created first, and consider it completely irrelevant and not problematic at all, regardless of human speculation.
Okay. See you around.
haha okay, my question was less about the specific example or if you knew the answer to it so much as I was illustrating the sort of trivial thing that you might feel okay admitting to ever wondering about... and it appears you either still don't understand what I was asking, or for whatever reason you just don't want to say. See you around.
Have you ever wondered what is needed to make you a believer?
Are you asking me if I have considered what could cause me to believe in God? if so, then yes, yes I have.
Ah, you make me curious, do tell if you are willing.
-
This. The difference between factual knowledge and wisdom.
The point Solomon makes is that no matter how much “knowledge” advances, it is all meaningless in the context of the meaning of life , which is to know God
All the rest is trivia
I know that this is one of the reasons people consider me a difficult person, but it would gnaw at me to just be like "okay, that checks out" *tips hat, flies away on an umbrella*. so, apologies in advance.
No, this really is not the difference between factual knowledge and wisdom. Boiling down the detailed exploration of every human endeavor to the pursuit of factual knowledge + trivia, and juxtaposing that with God as wisdom + the meaning of life is pretty well stacking the deck. Factual knowledge and wisdom are in an interdependent relationship and the meaning of life, insomuch as "the" even belongs there, is incoherent without at least a dash of both. These are not mutually exclusive or at least mutually inimical as it seems you or Solomon are proposing. Understanding the world factually can inform and enrich your approach to meaningful acts. A doctor may find meaning in prevention and treating people for disease. That same doctor may also find meaning in his relationships with his wife and children. Additionally he might also find meaning in gardening. I'd argue that accumulating relevant factual knowledge could facilitate improvements in every one of those areas if applied appropriately. I think that is what wisdom is.
As I see it, If there is any timeless wisdom to be extracted from all of Solomon's histrionics, it is in the idea that the pursuit of trivia to the exclusion of all else is a trivial pursuit. Even as I recognize that many people find meaning in knowing God and doing God stuff and going to God events and wearing special God coded robes and hats, its not as if I can simply accept the assertion that the meaning of life is knowing God. In my expirience so many of the things that people generally extract meaning from in life is attributed to knowing God, but is demonstrably not exclusive to God people. For instance family, starting them, building them, maintaining them and so on, is frequently cited as being included in the God milieu (at least the GOOD families are). In this way, people draw distinctions between all the pointless things you could do (learning about proteins in some Amazonian beetle shell) versus God stuff that is deep and satisfying (building a strong spousal relationship built on respect, love and mutual values). It grates that these things that belong to any of us, or all of us, get smuggled in as God subscription exclusives. I believe those are the implications of the way you've presented the dichotomy between detailed exploration of every human endeavor and Knowing God; Everything relevant to meaning is by definition exclusive to the God side of the equation.
Obviously you believe that this God exclusivity isn't just a fair assessment, its also the most wise conclusion a person could ever draw. I however do not think the case has been made, worse still the case is unlikely to be made because.... well, I'm sure there is a really good Christian reason that unfortunately appears as foolishness to me right?
-
Appears easy in this age of tech and knowledge to assume man knows where he came from and where he's going outside of the revelation of the Creator.
Does it? I feel like these are legitimately 2 of the deepest and hardest questions out there...
-
Oscar, per your example, I have no idea which birds God created first, and consider it completely irrelevant and not problematic at all, regardless of human speculation.
Okay. See you around.
haha okay, my question was less about the specific example or if you knew the answer to it so much as I was illustrating the sort of trivial thing that you might feel okay admitting to ever wondering about... and it appears you either still don't understand what I was asking, or for whatever reason you just don't want to say. See you around.
Have you ever wondered what is needed to make you a believer?
Are you asking me if I have considered what could cause me to believe in God? if so, then yes, yes I have.
Ah, you make me curious, do tell if you are willing.
1. Well, there is the classic road to Damascus style event. Obviously it would need to be tailored to me as I'm terrified of horses. Anyway there are all these stories where a guy is like:
35 years ago I was drinking drain cleaner in the crawlspace beneath a crack house, and just as I was about to get up to go home to viciously kick my dog, tell wife she's ugly and tell my kids that they will never amount to anything...suddenly I was knocked off of the stack of porno magazines that I was sitting on and the lord said "Hey, don't do that because I love you". I felt the love of the lord, I immediately quit my job at the abortion factory and crawled on my hands and knees to the nearest church.
So yeah, it doesn't have to be that dramatic though, as I haven't had a drop of drain cleaner in years.
2. Perhaps there is some convincing argument that I haven't run across yet, and once I hear it I will become convinced.
3.Perhaps I could die for a few minutes and have a very compelling NDE.
3b. I could just die and meet God for judgement.
3c. I could burn in hell for eternity, pretty compelling evidence.
4. The events of Revelation could occur i.e the seven headed beasts could rise from the sea and earth to do whatever it is they are supposed to do and so on and so forth.
5. An iPad pro could float down to me on a moonbeam, although I put a timetable on that one, I'd pretty much accept that at any point...like even if apple develops moonbeam drones and I win the first iPad pro to be delivered on one of those drones I think I'd be like "okay maybe there is something here".
6. I could just realize its true for no apparent reason (some people have made that claim).
7. I could suffer some sort of brain injury or wasting disease that severely impairs my reasoning and judgement.
7b. I could get Flowers for Algernon'ed and greatly improve my reasoning and judgement.
8. Maybe the 1 million and 1st time I hear the same bible quote it works.
9. God joins Bibleforum as "Oneofus_3" and answers all of my questions without getting irritated with me (only the one true God could do that).
10. I find out that God was inside of me all along.
Edit:
Oh I forgot, time machine! I somehow invent or gain access to a time machine and then I go back and see all of the bible's greatest hits for myself.
-
Maybe you exercise your free will and choose to believe
-
Maybe you exercise your free will and choose to believe
Ugh I already said I could get a traumatic brain injury, I though this implication was clear :D
-
That was all funny Oscar but I am a mean guy and had my next question already in mind regardless of your answer. In the case God would reveal Himself to you in a 100% convincing way, would you serve Him?
I have asked myself this question years before I converted when my Christian upbringing was on a serious slippery slope. And my answer back then was a yes.
-
That was all funny Oscar but I am a mean guy and had my next question already in mind regardless of your answer. In the case God would reveal Himself to you in a 100% convincing way, would you serve Him?
I have asked myself this question years before I converted when my Christian upbringing was on a serious slippery slope. And my answer back then was a yes.
Hah, you gotta wake up earlier than that, I flowcharted this entire conversation before I even made my first post, your question was predicted in output parallelogram #1106 :D
But to your question, I would say not necessarily. Would I know which version of God he is based on this revelation? I've asked myself this question too, and there were points when the answer was yes and others when it was no. I've since become less trusting that my concept of what an extant God would be and what an extant God would actually be are not necessarily the same thing, nor do I have a reliable way to distinguish between them at this time. So, if I was convinced via revelation that some version of God exists, I would then begin taking steps to get to know God, or as you guys might say I'd start to develop a relationship.
-
So, if I was convinced via revelation that some version of God exists, I would then begin taking steps to get to know God, or as you guys might say I'd start to develop a relationship.
Jesus and the scriptures speak fluently of the "new birth" - so essential that one will never see the kingdom of God without it. To be reborn is to be made spiritually alive as God dwells within and that is the relationship He recognizes.
To finally acknowledge (a version) of God's existence, while usually a good thing, is not the basis for eternal life - God reaching out to impart life to you, however, is.
Having once entered into that new life, we grow from there.
All the operation of God, and by faith, at the cross of Christ.
I'm sure you understand that, of course - a matter of conscience.
-
Jesus and the scriptures speak fluently of the "new birth" - so essential that one will never see the kingdom of God without it. To be reborn is to be made spiritually alive as God dwells within and that is the relationship He recognizes.
Yeah, okay so I guess you're not one of those folks that is always gushing about your personal relationship with Jesus?
To finally acknowledge (a version) of God's existence, while usually a good thing, is not the basis for eternal life - God reaching out to impart life to you, however, is. Having once entered into that new life, we grow from there.
Seems to be putting the cart before the horse, I just met the guy for Pete's sake, we'd need to get to know each other a little better before I start letting him impart stuff in me and making eternal life commitments.
All the operation of God, and by faith, at the cross of Christ.
I'm sure you understand that, of course - a matter of conscience.
I actually do not believe that I do understand. Most of what most of you say is fairly opaque to me honestly; Simple yet inscrutable and unwavering in extreme dedication to the certainty of its inimitable gravity and of the futility of further elaboration. I genuinely feel like if God revealed himself to me then I might almost be more excited by the prospect of being able to disregard so much cryptic Christianese about God than I would be by the prospect of being able to directly interact with the creator of the universe...almost.
-
Perhaps you are here to mock us on our Bible forum?
Time consuming agenda
-
Perhaps you are here to mock us on our Bible forum?
Time consuming agenda
Okay IMINXTC, what is it about my post that you feel mocked by?
I'm really curious because based on this it seems that you feel I've grossly overstepped some line and I find my post very lightly irreverent at worst...so what is it that I've said that has ground our conversation to a halt?
-
That was all funny Oscar but I am a mean guy and had my next question already in mind regardless of your answer. In the case God would reveal Himself to you in a 100% convincing way, would you serve Him?
I have asked myself this question years before I converted when my Christian upbringing was on a serious slippery slope. And my answer back then was a yes.
Hah, you gotta wake up earlier than that, I flowcharted this entire conversation before I even made my first post, your question was predicted in output parallelogram #1106 :D
Ah, I forgot your long experience with matters like these, going back to the old forum :)
But to your question, I would say not necessarily. Would I know which version of God he is based on this revelation? I've asked myself this question too, and there were points when the answer was yes and others when it was no. I've since become less trusting that my concept of what an extant God would be and what an extant God would actually be are not necessarily the same thing, nor do I have a reliable way to distinguish between them at this time. So, if I was convinced via revelation that some version of God exists, I would then begin taking steps to get to know God, or as you guys might say I'd start to develop a relationship.
You already mentioned Paul on his way to Damascus in the name of God persecuting Christians. Paul was a hard nut to crack and Jesus hit him hard, leaving him flabbergasted for 3 days in complete darkness to figure out what happened to him. And Paul got it. In 3 days he turned 180 degrees, the sign of a real conversion.
Many of us need a mini Damascus experience before they turn 180 degrees, usually they (like me) have to go to the bottom of the well first before they in their despair even think of God. I have seen the battle of my son in law (an atheist) for 20 years before he came to Christ and turned 180 degrees.
After conversion you speak with respect of God as the giver of (your) life and with great thankfulness for the undeserved grace you received saving you for eternity and from your miserable life.
How deep do you need to sink first, what kind of hard nut to crack are you, too often there is a relationship. Blessed are the ones who don't need to sit at the bottom of the well first and just believe.
-
You already mentioned Paul on his way to Damascus in the name of God persecuting Christians. Paul was a hard nut to crack and Jesus hit him hard, leaving him flabbergasted for 3 days in complete darkness to figure out what happened to him. And Paul got it. In 3 days he turned 180 degrees, the sign of a real conversion.
Many of us need a mini Damascus experience before they turn 180 degrees, usually they (like me) have to go to the bottom of the well first before they in their despair even think of God. I have seen the battle of my son in law (an atheist) for 20 years before he came to Christ and turned 180 degrees.
After conversion you speak with respect of God as the giver of (your) life and with great thankfulness for the undeserved grace you received saving you for eternity and from your miserable life.
How deep do you need to sink first, what kind of hard nut to crack are you, too often there is a relationship. Blessed are the ones who don't need to sit at the bottom of the well first and just believe.
Well, okay. I don't plan on persecuting any Christians like Paul, I mean outside of my little mess-arounds at places like this. So I don't think I'll need to be hit quite that hard. It is often much easier to get people to believe things when they are under severe stress so its not surprising to me that many people convert under those conditions. Anyway please tell me about your micro-Damascus? Were you an atheist?
-
Well, okay. I don't plan on persecuting any Christians like Paul, I mean outside of my little mess-arounds at places like this. So I don't think I'll need to be hit quite that hard. It is often much easier to get people to believe things when they are under severe stress so its not surprising to me that many people convert under those conditions. Anyway please tell me about your micro-Damascus? Were you an atheist?
Matt 7:6
Hah, you gotta wake up earlier than that, I flowcharted this entire conversation before I even made my first post, your question was predicted in output parallelogram #1106 :D
You must have seen this coming.
The end...
-
You must have seen this coming.
The end...
haha, well done. thanks for your time.