Advertisement
If GOD made Lucifer perfect, how can it possibly be that "perfection" is not inclusive of a perfect will and perfect judgement? And if GOD is "ALL KNOWING", he would have KNOWN Lucifer was going to try to take over. Therefore GOD KNOWINGLY created evil. If mankind is smart enough to figure out that evil erupts from free will, then GOD would surely know that and have a way to circumvent it.
You ever wonder just what it was about what GOD was doing that Lucifer didnt like and thought he could do better? After seeing all of the bullshit GOD commands in the ancient book of hearsay, just disagreeing with ONE of his commands makes you evil. So just HOW EVIL was this angel that was made perfect? As I remember things, challanging authority is not a bad thing. Just because some fucker creates you doesnt make you his slave! We create children, but we dont turn around and insist that they worship us or we will torture them for eternity. Who is to say that GOD isnt the evil one needing to be cast out? GOD has free will and we have seen the wicked shit he has done and caused. And all we know is what the zealots blame on Lucifer as evil. GOD is in control, so it allows evil to perpetuate. Maybe the real evil one has managed to give the real good one some bad press and has managed to scam everyone? Would a truely GOOD and RIGHTEOUS GOD really torture those it claims to love? Could true GOOD ever expect people to believe eternal torture is okay?
In this little story there's not much EVIL mentioned besides challanging GODS authority. So evidently Lucifer in his perfect state saw SOMETHING wrong with GODS command. See being made perfect doesnt allow for greed and selfishness. Free will is only the freedom to choose. If one is made "perfect", there's no emotional baggage and things from the past that makes someone want more or what someone else has.
SATAN'S DESCRIPTION AND DEEDS
WHO IS SATAN?
II Corinthians 2:11 says "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices."
Before we discuss some of the devices of Satan, we first need to know who he is. The name "Satan" comes from a Hebrew word signifying an adversary, an enemy, and an accuser. In God's Word, we discover that Satan is God's enemy and is against all for which God stands. He is the archenemy of good.
Surprising as it may seem to some, Satan was not always evil. In the beginning, he was an angel created in perfection and beauty. Angels were given a will with a free moral choice, and "Lucifer" (Satan's name before he was cast out of heaven) chose to do evil and rebelled against God. He was cast out of heaven to the earth because of his sin. His present domain is limited to the earth and hell.
Isaiah 14:12-15, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."
Satan's sins were pride and covetousness. He desired God's throne and set his will against God's will. Five times he said, "I will" in this portion of Scripture.
This is still man's sin today: the refusal to do God's will, with the same attitude of "I will." Satan chose to rebel and it brought him down to hell. Men are making the same choice today and those who rebel will ultimately go down to the pit (hell) with the devil.
Lucifer had been gifted with beauty and had walked upon the holy mountain of God. But even with all this, he was not content with his position and by trying to usurp God's authority, sin entered into him when he attempted to overthrow God's kingdom.
Ezekiel 28:12-19, "...Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more."
From these verses, we see that God did not create Lucifer evil, but made him perfect. By Satan's own choice, he became evil and was cast out of heaven.
SATAN CAST OUT OF HEAVEN
The Lord never meant for evil to exist. It was simply the opposite of good, and since it takes a free will for evil to come into existence, Lucifer was the first created being to exercise his will against God. Since that time, others have followed. Satan caused a third of heaven to fall with him by influencing other angelic beings to make war against God (Revelation 12:4a). They too were cast out of heaven. They have since become evil spirits due to their choice. They now roam the earth, with Satan as their leader and master. These invisible supernatural beings still have power, but it is directed toward evil works of darkness. Satan is still ruling in the earth today, not only over the evil spirits, but also over evil men who choose the same path of rebellion against God. He is the dark prince of this world. We can see a glimpse of his evil wisdom, strength, glitter, and his inevitable end by reading the previous passages. We must remember that he has only limited power, but nevertheless he does have power, and those who do not know him and his devices inevitably become his victims.
JESUS DEFEATS SATAN
Those who are "born again" and filled with the Spirit of God have no need to fear this evil foe as he has been defeated by our God. Jesus defeated him and stripped him of his power two thousand years ago. Jesus paid the price of our sins on the cross and then rose from the dead bringing life to all who would follow Him. Satan's authority has been taken away from him. We now have authority over him through Jesus Christ. "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death" (Revelation 1:18).
Revelation 12 records the account of Satan's overthrow by Christ. We are first given a vision of what takes place in heaven, then the Bible reveals the earthly scene:
Revelation 12:7-12, "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."
You ever wonder just what it was about what GOD was doing that Lucifer didnt like and thought he could do better? After seeing all of the bullshit GOD commands in the ancient book of hearsay, just disagreeing with ONE of his commands makes you evil. So just HOW EVIL was this angel that was made perfect? As I remember things, challanging authority is not a bad thing. Just because some fucker creates you doesnt make you his slave! We create children, but we dont turn around and insist that they worship us or we will torture them for eternity. Who is to say that GOD isnt the evil one needing to be cast out? GOD has free will and we have seen the wicked shit he has done and caused. And all we know is what the zealots blame on Lucifer as evil. GOD is in control, so it allows evil to perpetuate. Maybe the real evil one has managed to give the real good one some bad press and has managed to scam everyone? Would a truely GOOD and RIGHTEOUS GOD really torture those it claims to love? Could true GOOD ever expect people to believe eternal torture is okay?
In this little story there's not much EVIL mentioned besides challanging GODS authority. So evidently Lucifer in his perfect state saw SOMETHING wrong with GODS command. See being made perfect doesnt allow for greed and selfishness. Free will is only the freedom to choose. If one is made "perfect", there's no emotional baggage and things from the past that makes someone want more or what someone else has.
SATAN'S DESCRIPTION AND DEEDS
WHO IS SATAN?
II Corinthians 2:11 says "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices."
Before we discuss some of the devices of Satan, we first need to know who he is. The name "Satan" comes from a Hebrew word signifying an adversary, an enemy, and an accuser. In God's Word, we discover that Satan is God's enemy and is against all for which God stands. He is the archenemy of good.
Surprising as it may seem to some, Satan was not always evil. In the beginning, he was an angel created in perfection and beauty. Angels were given a will with a free moral choice, and "Lucifer" (Satan's name before he was cast out of heaven) chose to do evil and rebelled against God. He was cast out of heaven to the earth because of his sin. His present domain is limited to the earth and hell.
Isaiah 14:12-15, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."
Satan's sins were pride and covetousness. He desired God's throne and set his will against God's will. Five times he said, "I will" in this portion of Scripture.
This is still man's sin today: the refusal to do God's will, with the same attitude of "I will." Satan chose to rebel and it brought him down to hell. Men are making the same choice today and those who rebel will ultimately go down to the pit (hell) with the devil.
Lucifer had been gifted with beauty and had walked upon the holy mountain of God. But even with all this, he was not content with his position and by trying to usurp God's authority, sin entered into him when he attempted to overthrow God's kingdom.
Ezekiel 28:12-19, "...Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more."
From these verses, we see that God did not create Lucifer evil, but made him perfect. By Satan's own choice, he became evil and was cast out of heaven.
SATAN CAST OUT OF HEAVEN
The Lord never meant for evil to exist. It was simply the opposite of good, and since it takes a free will for evil to come into existence, Lucifer was the first created being to exercise his will against God. Since that time, others have followed. Satan caused a third of heaven to fall with him by influencing other angelic beings to make war against God (Revelation 12:4a). They too were cast out of heaven. They have since become evil spirits due to their choice. They now roam the earth, with Satan as their leader and master. These invisible supernatural beings still have power, but it is directed toward evil works of darkness. Satan is still ruling in the earth today, not only over the evil spirits, but also over evil men who choose the same path of rebellion against God. He is the dark prince of this world. We can see a glimpse of his evil wisdom, strength, glitter, and his inevitable end by reading the previous passages. We must remember that he has only limited power, but nevertheless he does have power, and those who do not know him and his devices inevitably become his victims.
JESUS DEFEATS SATAN
Those who are "born again" and filled with the Spirit of God have no need to fear this evil foe as he has been defeated by our God. Jesus defeated him and stripped him of his power two thousand years ago. Jesus paid the price of our sins on the cross and then rose from the dead bringing life to all who would follow Him. Satan's authority has been taken away from him. We now have authority over him through Jesus Christ. "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death" (Revelation 1:18).
Revelation 12 records the account of Satan's overthrow by Christ. We are first given a vision of what takes place in heaven, then the Bible reveals the earthly scene:
Revelation 12:7-12, "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Fri, June 12, 2009 - 4:27 PMwho said god made satan perfect? -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Fri, June 12, 2009 - 7:01 PM<<<who said god made satan perfect?>>>
Well of course the writers of scripture eluded to it, but the real question is who was there to document all of this?
Besides, GOD wouldnt have purposefully made him flawed as that would be an admission to creating evil. So I'd like to continue to get to the bottom of all of this.
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Fri, June 12, 2009 - 11:35 PMpa: who said god made satan perfect?
did god goof?
was satan able to ignore god's will?
is god a shoddy craftsman?
What is going on here?! -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Sat, June 13, 2009 - 3:28 AMbut wait a second, there's nothing to suggest that Satan or any of the other angels were perfect. Only God himself is perfect presumably, to create something else that is perfect is to create something that would challenge God's perfection itself. It stands to reason, that when viewed from God's perspective, all of his creations are less perfect than he is. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Sat, June 13, 2009 - 5:52 AMpa: Only God himself is perfect presumably
How can imperfection be created by that which is perfect?
pa: It stands to reason, that when viewed from God's perspective, all of his creations are less perfect than he is.
It stands to reason that god would make creation better than him. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Sun, June 14, 2009 - 10:00 AM<pa: Only God himself is perfect presumably
How can imperfection be created by that which is perfect?>
What's more boring than 'Little Miss Perfect'. Bleeech.
But God Herself is also all knowing ... and easily bored ... and there's nothing like a 'bad' boy when a gal is bored. Am I right, girls?
So She created 'imperfection' and let it become 'bad' so She didn't go out of her ever lovin Cosmic Mind.
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Sun, June 14, 2009 - 11:19 AM"How can imperfection be created by that which is perfect? "
By not revealing all of the perfection to the creation. By withholding.
"It stands to reason that god would make creation better than him."
That's an interesting and even refreshing viewpoint to take. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Tue, June 16, 2009 - 7:55 AMpa: By not revealing all of the perfection to the creation. By withholding.
You realize that makes no sense?
Disception is not usually counted as a perfection.
You are also implying that reality is as perfect as god, we just don't know about it because god is jacking us around. THat doesn't seem to be what was originally put forth as god is perfect and reality isn't because god wasn't up to makeing a perfect universe.
If it is perfect we have the problem of evil again.
pa: That's an interesting and even refreshing viewpoint to take.
Seems the only reasonable one. God would naturally seek to surpass herself in her children. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Tue, June 16, 2009 - 8:05 AM"You realize that makes no sense? "
It does make sense. It is perfectly plausible for me to create something, but the thing I create is not necessarily equal to me, the creator. It is perfectly plausible to suggest that God created something, but chose not to reveal all of its perfection to that creation.
In fact, to suggest that God HAS to make something perfect is what doesn't make sense. It is not disception, it simply withholding.
"You are also implying that reality is as perfect as god, we just don't know about it because god is jacking us around."
I don't recall having said that.
"Seems the only reasonable one. God would naturally seek to surpass herself in her children. "
I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that it is the only reasonable one, it is however an interesting one.
-
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Tue, June 16, 2009 - 9:19 AMpa: It is perfectly plausible for me to create something
You aren't god.
pa: I don't recall having said...
"By not revealing all of the perfection to the creation. By withholding." -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, June 17, 2009 - 12:42 AM"pa: I don't recall having said...
"By not revealing all of the perfection to the creation. By withholding." "
yes but where have I said that realityis as perfect as god. This quote doesn't say that. I didn't say that, I didn' t mean that and I didn't allude to that because I don't believe that.
"It is perfectly plausible for me to create something
You aren't god. "
The point stands. I was just making it simpler for you. Any creation is not necessarily equal to the creator. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, June 17, 2009 - 1:21 AMPa: Any creation is not necessarily equal to the creator.
Only if the creater is impotent, ignorant or purposefully flawing the work, i.e. imperfect.
A perfect creator who is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent cannot create or allow imperfections in its creation.
The imperfections of your work are because you are limited in your ablilities.
-
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, June 17, 2009 - 1:32 AM"Only if the creater is impotent, ignorant or purposefully flawing the work, i.e. imperfect.
A perfect creator who is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent cannot create or allow imperfections in its creation.
The imperfections of your work are because you are limited in your ablilities. "
The creation HAS to be imperfect in relation to the creator, otherwise the creator has created an equal to itself. Perhaps that is true, in which case reality is perfect. I don't believe that view. Reality is as perfect as reality can be, but it is not 'ultimately' perfect.
"perfect creator who is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent cannot create or allow imperfections in its creation. "
In which case you are perfect, I am perfect etc etc as we are all creations of God.
There is a theory of course that God did not create the material universe but another did which might solve this philosophical consideration. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, June 17, 2009 - 1:39 AMpa: The creation HAS to be imperfect in relation to the creator,
No it doesn't.
pa: otherwise the creator has created an equal to itself.
So? Are you saying god cannot create god? Hos tragically imperfect and sad. Was god condemned to hell where it can never have a peer and only use its power to create misery?
pa: In which case you are perfect, I am perfect etc etc as we are all creations of God.
Or there isn't any god, or your assumptions are flawed, but yes - if god is what you claim then everything is perfect.
pa: but another did
only if you are a polytheist. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, June 17, 2009 - 1:44 AM"only if you are a polytheist. "
Well not necessarily. If you imagine that only a 'god' can create something then yes. But if you imagine that the angels could create something then no.
The Gnostics attribute the creation of the world to a 'satan' figure called Yldabaoth who is NOT God, but instead and rather ironically, the aspect of God called Sophia/Wisdom did some rather foolish things which lead to Yldabaoth's creation who in turn created the world.
I understand your point regarding God not being able to create God, but I see God as being an ultimate, you can create more than infinity. There are aspects of God in all things, but they are 'sullied' by the creation. This might be heretical to some, but is my personal notion. God is more a 'force' than a personification. To me that 'force' is a love-wisdom force, however I am aware of a concept in Esoteric Astrology regarding seven rays of 'god' of which Love-Wisdom is actually one, and is indeed the one that represents my time of birth, so it is valid under this system to imagine that 'my' God is a 'love-wisdom' God but that God is actually more than this. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, June 17, 2009 - 7:16 AMpa: But if you imagine that the angels could create something then no.
God still ends up a dick by not fixing it and letting every one suffer because of it. Also it makes it pretty moot trying to distinguish god from angel.
pa: Yldabaoth who is NOT God, but instead and rather ironically, the aspect of God called Sophia/Wisdom did some rather foolish things which lead to Yldabaoth's creation who in turn created the world.
Not monotheism and not perfect...
pa: God as being an ultimate
But ultimate what? Perfect what?
pa: There are aspects of God in all things, but they are 'sullied' by the creation.
Then not perfect.
pa: God is actually more than this
More than what? What is the more?
The problem with this sort of thing is it is empty speculation. You just change god at a whim, add or subject definitions, and never land on anything actual. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, June 17, 2009 - 7:50 AM"Not monotheism and not perfect... "
The Gnostics were indeed monotheists. Yldabaoth was not 'God' but proclaimed to be, in reality he was what we might consider an 'angel' character. Yldabaoth was not perfect.
If we accept that God has given all his sentient creations free will, he would have to 'break' that to 'fix' everything. I'm of the opinion that we have a part to play in creation still. Creation is not 'finished'.
"The problem with this sort of thing is it is empty speculation. You just change god at a whim, add or subject definitions, and never land on anything actual."
But that's what theological discussion does. If you're hopeing to have a theological discussion whilst presenting facts about God then we're wasting our time and you're in the wrong tribe. The whole idea is always going to be speculation until such time that definitive proof is found for God. Until then all we have is speculation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Tue, July 7, 2009 - 3:39 PMPaul
<<<It does make sense. It is perfectly plausible for me to create something, but the thing I create is not necessarily equal to me, the creator. It is perfectly plausible to suggest that God created something, but chose not to reveal all of its perfection to that creation.
In fact, to suggest that God HAS to make something perfect is what doesn't make sense. It is not disception, it simply withholding.>>>
There is a fatal flaw in your reasoning. That which is perfect can not possibly contain subversive motive for said withholding. To imply that GOD created something to be less than perfect like itself evidences a high degree of narcissism. Narcissism is a very human personality trait that shows a small part of our imperfection. If GOD experienced a need or desire to create that which he was guaranteed to be absolutely superior to, then he could not possibly be perfect because to be self aggrandizing in that manner is a personality FLAW.
Main Entry: 1per·fect
Pronunciation: \ˈpər-fikt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English parfit, from Anglo-French, from Latin perfectus, from past participle of perficere to carry out, perfect, from per- thoroughly + facere to make, do — more at do
Date: 14th century
1 a: being entirely without fault or defect : flawless -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, July 8, 2009 - 12:38 AM"To imply that GOD created something to be less than perfect like itself evidences a high degree of narcissism."
Why? -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Tue, August 11, 2009 - 5:43 PMPaul
<<<"To imply that GOD created something to be less than perfect like itself evidences a high degree of narcissism."
Why?>>>
It places self over everything else.....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Sat, June 13, 2009 - 3:31 AMSwarm
"did god goof?"
Presumably not.
"was satan able to ignore god's will?"
Yes, as we all are.
"is god a shoddy craftsman?"
A good question. Can't answer it.
"What is going on here?! "
Free will.
-
-
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Sat, June 13, 2009 - 9:07 AMYou raise good questions .
Perhaps there are degrees of perfection . It may seem counterintuiteive for some people to think that perfection admits of degrees . Some people might be inclined to think perfection is a zero sum affair.
But consider that there may be degrees of perfection and that being named Satan was given a perfection within a limited context---not *as perfect* as God . Perhaps he was perfect at the onset insamuch as he at first had no bad motives ---perfect for that span of time when he was a cherubim --previous to the time when he began to choose the motive of having lust for the power that he desired for conquest of creation /grered ...as well as narcissism .
One comes back to the fascinating field of questions . If God originally had the desire for Satan to serve a good purpose , NOT the evil purpose of tempting people and other angels as Satan later came to have as a goal, then wouldn't God keep oin trying to get Satan to return to the good purpose for which he designed the being that he called Satan to serve in the beginning , hence, never give up until Satan repented or was somehow remediated OR instead does God give up on the good purpose that God originally wanted Satan to serve by allowing Satan to go on the evil path Satan chose ?
The notion of a Creator who gives up on the orginal purpose He has for the being he created is rather disparaging of God perhaps downright insulting to Hiim . After all , God *never intended* for Satan to ever do anything evil .
The usual fundamentalist answer is something like the following ,"Well the Bible tells us in the book of Revelation that Satan will be cast into the lake of fire . He's not going to repent ...There's no plan of salvation for Satan " ect ect
But consider several possibilities .
(1) Perhaps the lake of fire that the author or authors of Revelation envisioned is an asperct of God himself .After all , one ancient writer likened God himself to a consuming fire ---in Deutronomy. Perhaps the imagery of fire refers toa process by which whatever substances Satan is composed of will be dissolved in the fire and trhe being who was Satan will be somehow rebuilt from that fire a being that could then once purified by whatever is represented by that image of fire could again have a new start at serving the purpose for which God had designed him for originally .
Of course many fundamentalists may likely protest and say something like , "But the book of Revelation says he will be in the lake of fire forever and ever " . Consider, however, that terms that are rendered by the word 'forever' in our English Bibles , often in the orignal languages that the bible was written in (e.g. Hebrew and New Testament Greek) are often terms that either refer to a long , but not necessarily endless age as the Greek words aionoian or aion --which is often rendered by the word 'forever' in Greek or in the case of the Hebrew word 'olam' often translated as forever in English versions of the Old Testament can be a kind of figurative exaggeration that does not always involve some even going on for an endless period . For example, in the book of Jonah chapter 2, Jonah describes being in the whale as lasting forever ,
' I went down to the bottom of the mountain/ the earth with her bars was about me forever' . (King James Version)
Yet we read elewhere in the book of Jonah, that the whale or fish delivered up Jonah on dry land --so according to the text Jonah was NOT actually in the belly of the whale forever ---the earth with her bars was not actually about him for an endless time . Hence, terms in the bible rendered by means of the English word 'forever' do not necessarilyt always signify a endless , neveending event .
(2) The prospect of Satan remaining on the course of evil and doing the evil deeds that the book of Revelation (and for now let us postpone the line of interpretation that the bad events predicted in Revelation may have happened in the past --that is topic for another essay ) ----might be a sort of worse case scenario . Perhaps ---and I'm not affirming that such is necessarily the case , but maybe the prophecy in Revelation was given to discourage Satan from taking the path that leads to such turmoil for him . After all there are many possible futures not one future .
Furthermore, according to St.Paul in Ist Corinthians even prophecy sometimes fails . Charity never fails , ' --but if there are prophecies they shall fail if there are tounges they shall cease / for we know in part and prophecy in part.'
If Satan still has free will it is certainly at least a possibility that he could repent or at least call it quits and go into some sort of cosmic, early retirement refraining from his long time career as a villan . (It is most plausible to interpret the whole Job affair in the book of Job was God trying to get Satan to repent by seeing that his efforts to get Job to become disloyal to God would be thwarted by Job demonstrating continuing loyalty to God ) .
Some may protest and cite the verse in Revelation 1 that speaks of the 'things that must soon come to past' , as if there could be no other outcome than the one in which Satan does the evil deeds that Revelation predicts he will do '.
Yet does the word 'must' in Revelation 1 signify that which is somehow predestined to happen / some sort of hard determinism OR instead is the word 'must' in that verse meant in *only a situational sense* as merely affirming that it must happen IF Satan and the people influenced by him stay on the bad course ?
If Satan and the other beings that are his allies have free will then they don't have to stay on the bad course predicted in the book of Revelation , they have the capacity to choose not fulfill the bad scenario mentioned in the book of Revelation .
Yet it is likely that many fundamentalists may obtusely gloss over such prospects and just going on restating something like , "well we know from the bible that Satan is not going to repent or quit doing bad . The bible tells us what he's going to do"... and thus gloss over the ramifications of free will as it relates to possible futures ---not one future , but futures plural .
But does the 'it must be that offences cometh ', an adage found in the gospel of Matthew , mean that is somehow destined that bad deeds have to happen, OR instead, does it mean that IF people choose to keep on doing bad THEN offences must come ????
Some may wont to claim that Satan may not have free will any longer . But if so, who or what is compelling Satan?
One friend of mine once postulated that Satan does not experience time AS IF that somehow resolved the problems posed by the predictions concerning Satan . But that proposal makes no sense . After all ,if Satan experiences any 'before' and 'after' then he experiences time. If Satan knows what it means to postpone ---to do one act now and another act later then he certainly experiences time !
Some might be wont to say something like ,"Satan knows he's doomed and he just wants to see how many people he can take with him "---however, that does NOT explain away the prospect that if he has free will he could repent . Nor does it explain away the problem that is posed by the consideration that God being infinitely good and wanting all of His creations to return to the good purpose by which they were originally designed by God, would then have the Goal for which He had originally designed Satan for compromised, IF Satan didn't repent and somehow either return to the purpose for which He had designed Satan to serve--or at least , stop opposing that purpose .
Some might claim that Satan has seared his own conscience ---yet if Satan has the abilitry to choose he could still choose to UNsear his conscience ---and God could very well persuade him to do so .
Everyone should pray for the *repentence* of the being called Satan (if Satan is a being --and that's a whole other topic) . Pray to God that Satan will stop doing bad and *never* do any bad deeds --*never* sponsor any beast or tribulation ...pray to God that Satan will *never* sponsor any armageddon ! -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Sat, June 13, 2009 - 7:15 PMLike god, I think perfection is just a concept with no apperant extention in reality. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Sun, June 14, 2009 - 3:02 AMSwarm Posted :Like god, I think perfection is just a concept with no apperant extention in reality.
Response : By the word 'reality' do you mean
(a) ontological reality
OR instead
(b) merely situational reality ? -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Sun, June 14, 2009 - 11:33 AM"By the word 'reality' do you mean
(a) ontological reality
OR instead
(b) merely situational reality ? "
Well now isn't that a good point.
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Tue, June 16, 2009 - 7:56 AMNeither. I means the actual reality which those concepts are attempting to reference.
-
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Sun, June 14, 2009 - 11:24 AM"Like god, I think perfection is just a concept with no apperant extention in reality. "
Well perfection is a particularly subjective notion. We're using it here somewhat loosely. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Sun, June 14, 2009 - 6:13 PMLike god, I think perfection is just a concept with no apperant extention in reality. "
Paul Posted :Well perfection is a particularly subjective notion.
Response : oh, no mot again ---not another person who thinks perfection is a subjective notion !!!
Paul Post :We're using it here somewhat loosely.
Response: And there's the rub . That is the no no . We must seek precision in regard to ther term . -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Mon, June 15, 2009 - 2:06 AM"oh, no mot again ---not another person who thinks perfection is a subjective notion "
Well is this not true? In order to fully understand perfection, one must be perfect themselves. Human, being not perfect, will not be able to understand 'true' perfection, therefore their 'version' of perfect is and must be subjective. Objective understandings of perfection, are only possible by beings which are themselves intrinsically objective. Human beings are subjective creatures and therefore their understandings of anything must be equally limited by this subjectivity. If you understand things differently, please explain, as to my mind I cannot see this any other way.
"And there's the rub . That is the no no . We must seek precision in regard to ther term . "
I hope that explain it better, or offer more precision. We cannot know perfection as things which seem imperfect to us, may indeed be perfect, but we lack the perfect understanding or knowledge to realise it. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Mon, June 15, 2009 - 3:05 PMThe reality is that none of this bullshit ever took place. How in the coon dog fuck can the person writing this POSSIBLY know? It is MADE UP!!!! Fantasy!!! And what proves it is the contradiction in terms like perfection. Perfection was utilized in the descriptuions of everything GOD supposedly did in order that his omnipotent perfection be known. When you are selling a product, you do not embellish on its flaws...
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Tue, June 16, 2009 - 10:50 AM"oh, no mot again ---not another person who thinks perfection is a subjective notion "
Paul Posted :Well is this not true? In order to fully understand perfection, one must be perfect themselves. Human, being not perfect, will not be able to understand 'true' perfection, therefore their 'version' of perfect is and must be subjective. Objective understandings of perfection, are only possible by beings which are themselves intrinsically objective. Human beings are subjective creatures and therefore their understandings of anything must be equally limited by this subjectivity.
Response:
(1) . On what grounds do you claim that a being must itself be perfect in order to conceptually reflect --by means of thought representation (or to put it in less fancy terms --*understand*) perfection ????
(2) It is possible for a person who naturally has a disposition towards subjectivity in thought to *overcome* that disposition and , thus , by means of the right deductive and epistemological methods of inquiry and thought, then maintain objectivity of thought for a long period of time .[ Long enough to objectively study and unpack the characteristics of perfection and their conceptual relations ! ] -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, June 17, 2009 - 12:47 AM"On what grounds do you claim that a being must itself be perfect in order to conceptually reflect --by means of thought representation (or to put it in less fancy terms --*understand*) perfection ????"
on the grounds that being imperfect yourself, it is possible that something you view as being a negative is in fact a subtle positive in a much grander scheme of things that you, not being privvy to that, would not be aware of.
"It is possible for a person who naturally has a disposition towards subjectivity in thought to *overcome* that disposition and , thus , by means of the right deductive and epistemological methods of inquiry and thought, then maintain objectivity of thought for a long period of time .[ Long enough to objectively study and unpack the characteristics of perfection and their conceptual relations ! ]"
I agree that it is possible for someone to remain somewhat objective, however nobody is ENTIRELY objective. We are all viewing life through our own lens, by deducing anything whatsoever we are being somewhat subjective to a greater or lesser degree than someone else. For example two people may 'objectively' view the same act but deduce a different conclusion based on that.
This should be very simple. I don't see how this can be argued, it is simple common sense. Mankind is not perfect and therefore is ill-equipped to understand or recognise perfection. Mankind is a subjective creature with egos and regardless of how objective and clinical they may be they will never be 100% objective. They may less subjective than others which we refer to as being objective, but they are not ENTIRELY objective. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, June 17, 2009 - 10:49 AMfancy terms --*understand*) perfection ????"
Paul Posted :on the grounds that being imperfect yourself, it is possible that something you view as being a negative is in fact a subtle positive in a much grander scheme of things that you, not being privvy to that, would not be aware of.
Response : The anaytical/logical faculty in man can be perfectly applied , even if the other faculties of man such as emotions appetite dispositions and so on are imperfect. Reporterdly Thomas Aquinas wrote that the fall of man did not effect the intellectual / logical faculty that is operant in a person's mind ---that the fall of man only tainted the emotions , appetiters, and the like . Thus you are presupposing that the imperfection of man in imperfect beings is one big ball of wax ---when the anaylical /logical faculty in man when properly applied according to sound methods of inquiry could be perfect even if the other faculties aren't .
"It is possible for a person who naturally has a disposition towards subjectivity in thought to *overcome* that disposition and , thus , by means of the right deductive and epistemological methods of inquiry and thought, then maintain objectivity of thought for a long period of time .[ Long enough to objectively study and unpack the characteristics of perfection and their conceptual relations ! ]"
Paul Posted : I agree that it is possible for someone to remain somewhat objective, however nobody is ENTIRELY objective. We are all viewing life through our own lens,
Response : Consider that a trans-preferential method of inquiry (one that transcends emotive and visceral preferences) could scrutinize emotion and/or visceral based presuppositions in a person which uses the method ---and , thus, weed them out ----if one yields to that trans-preferential method of inquiry one could use a kind of Cartesian doubt as a kind of epistemic acid bath where beliefs are put in the crucible of thought experiments and dialectic and only the beliefs that are firm and unshakeable would pass the test and, therefore, come out as objective .
Thus, the methodology [ if a person abides by it] could keep someone to continue being objective in thinking for it would purge away subjective assessments at each step of thought !
Paul Posted :by deducing anything whatsoever we are being somewhat subjective to a greater or lesser degree than someone else. For example two people may 'objectively' view the same act but deduce a different conclusion based on that.
Response : No , they would not IF they are examining the *same aspects* of the same act --and if they hads all the requisite information that is salient about it-- then they would both come to the same conclusion . In cases wheree enough of the salient requisite information was not at the time available--then they would both suspend judgement until the salient information was made forthcoming .
Now, if they were both examining *different aspects* of the same act, then they could be objective and come to different conclusions about ---but if they were both examinng the *same aspects* of the same act then they would come to the same conclusion if they had all the salient information .
Paul Posted :This should be very simple. I don't see how this can be argued, it is simple common sense. Mankind is not perfect and therefore is ill-equipped to understand or recognise perfection. Mankind is a subjective creature with egos and regardless of how objective and clinical they may be they will never be 100% objective. They may less subjective than others which we refer to as being objective, but they are not ENTIRELY objective .
Response: It is unsound to apply mere common sense to abstract topics such as the one at hand . Common sense has it place ---in financial and practical affairs and the like , but to apply mere common sense to abstract affairs such as the topic of perfection and epistemological issues such as : the dichotomy of objectivity as opposed to subjectivity .
As for ego --it is volitionally possible for a person to have purged themselves of ego . (Of course there are likely to be people who never had any self-pride /ego to begin with also ) . -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Made Perfect?
Thu, June 18, 2009 - 1:30 AMJason,
"The anaytical/logical faculty in man can be perfectly applied "
Well I guess that's where the disagreement is. Because I do not believe that mankind's analytical capabilities and faculties, even when perfected to the best of mankind's ability, will be enough to comprehend or understand perfection itself. The logical faculties of man are only as perfect as man is, and man is not perfect.
"No , they would not IF they are examining the *same aspects* of the same act --and if they hads all the requisite information that is salient about it-- then they would both come to the same conclusion"
In which case there is no real life example of this. We do not know everything about the universe and until we do we do no thave the 'salient' information to ensure that we all agree upon the same thing. The reality remains that people disagree about the exact same things that they witness and study. They may agree on many of the things but disagree in their conclusions.
"Thus, the methodology [ if a person abides by it] could keep someone to continue being objective in thinking for it would purge away subjective assessments at each step of thought ! "
Until the person in question is entirely un-subjective this is impossible. Merely having a sense of self is a subjective thing, one would need to be entirely ego-less and entirely objective for this to work and nobody is like this.
"As for ego --it is volitionally possible for a person to have purged themselves of ego "
And remain sane or credible? I do not think so.
We may have to agree to disagree on these things. -
-
Preliminary remarks
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 7:31 PMThus, the methodology [ if a person abides by it] could keep someone to continue being objective in thinking for it would purge away subjective assessments at each step of thought ! "
Paul Posted : Until the person in question is entirely un-subjective this is impossible. Merely having a sense of self is a subjective thing, one would need to be entirely ego-less and entirely objective for this to work and nobody is like this.
Response: How do you know that nobody is like that ? Aren't you sneaking the conclusion back into being one of the premises that you start with ?
"As for ego --it is volitionally possible for a person to have purged themselves of ego "
Paul Posted :And remain sane or credible? I do not think so.
Response: On what grounds do you claim that an absence of ego in a person would somehow deprive them of sanity ? -
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Sat, June 20, 2009 - 12:49 AMJason
"Response: How do you know that nobody is like that ? Aren't you sneaking the conclusion back into being one of the premises that you start with ? "
Because all people have an ego.
"Response: How do you know that nobody is like that ? Aren't you sneaking the conclusion back into being one of the premises that you start with ? "
According to psychology an ego is a useful and protective 'boundary' for the mind. Many psychoses and neuroses develop because of a lack of ego. HOwever it should probably be pointed out that when I use the word ego here I am referring to the psychological concept of ego as being one of the three psychic apparatus of the mind as opposed an inflated sense of self. -
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Sat, June 20, 2009 - 8:06 AMResponse: How do you know that nobody is like that ? Aren't you sneaking the conclusion back into being one of the premises that you start with ? "
Paul Posted :Because all people have an ego.
Response: How do you know ? Can you read the internal dialogue which goes on in the minds of every person on the planet ? And when you make the statement , "Because all people have an ego" ---do you mean (a) that all people have an inflated sense of self (i.e. self-pride) OR (b) that all people have that other different faculty that you describe in the text excerpt below ?
"Response: How do you know that nobody is like that ? Aren't you sneaking the conclusion back into being one of the premises that you start with ? "
Paul Posted : According to psychology an ego is a useful and protective 'boundary' for the mind. Many psychoses and neuroses develop because of a lack of ego. HOwever it should probably be pointed out that when I use the word ego here I am referring to the psychological concept of ego as being one of the three psychic apparatus of the mind as opposed an inflated sense of self.
Response : I see. Well it is important that we allow ourselves NO equivocation/flexibilty between the two separate uses of that word .
But do you maintain that it is cognitively or affectively impossible for a person to be without ego in sense (a) of the word :having an inflated sense of self and yet still also at the same time NOT develop what you call psychoses and neuroses ???? -
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Sat, June 20, 2009 - 9:14 AM"Can you read the internal dialogue which goes on in the minds of every person on the planet ? And when you make the statement , "Because all people have an ego" ---do you mean (a) that all people have an inflated sense of self (i.e. self-pride) OR (b) that all people have that other different faculty that you describe in the text excerpt below ?"
Ok let me rephrase. Everybody who is considered sane has an ego. An ego being what I described as opposed to pride.
"But do you maintain that it is cognitively or affectively impossible for a person to be without ego in sense (a) of the word :having an inflated sense of self and yet still also at the same time NOT develop what you call psychoses and neuroses ????"
I maintain that it is impossible for person to be considered sane without an ego. By Ego I mean a psychological faculty NOT a sense of pride etc. -
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Fri, July 3, 2009 - 7:31 PM"No , they would not IF they are examining the *same aspects* of the same act --and if they hads all the requisite information that is salient about it-- then they would both come to the same conclusion"
Paul Posted : In which case there is no real life example of this.
Response: On the contrary , apparently Leibniz and Isaac Newton independently discovered and express the same precepts and schema of Calculus ---even though there was NO apparent correspondence between them .
Paul Posted :We do not know everything about the universe and until we do we do no thave the 'salient' information to ensure that we all agree upon the same thing.
Response: A wholesale holitstic approach is unnecessary and misleading . Specific elements of existence have their respective specific contexts that can be understood througfh analysis of the proximate features even if one does not know everything about every other item in existence .
Paul Posted :The reality remains that people disagree about the exact same things that they witness and study. They may agree on many of the things but disagree in their conclusions.
Response: Just because people disagree when they witness the same items does NOT mean that each party has sound grounds for the disagreement . If two or more people are witnessing the same phenomenon or studying the the same topic of study ---then if they do not come to the same conclusions then the persons are either concentrating on some different aspects of the phenomenon or the topic of study , and/or one or some of them are using the wrong methodology and that accounts for the divergence of beliefs, or all of them are, or some elements of proximate information about that phenomenon or topic of study has not yet been discovered .
If , in contrast, they are concentrating on the *same aspects* of the same phenomenon or topic of study, and they are all suing the same accurate and careful (linear) methodology of thinking about it and researching it, and if none of the proximate (NOT approximate, but proximate) information is available , and they are intellectually honest enough to report what the right methodology reveals to them mentally then they would all report the SAME conclusions . -
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Sun, July 5, 2009 - 9:24 AMResponse: On the contrary , apparently Leibniz and Isaac Newton independently discovered and express the same precepts and schema of Calculus ---even though there was NO apparent correspondence between them .
How is this relevant? Who has said otherwise? -
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Mon, July 6, 2009 - 8:02 AMIt is relevant insamuch as it shows that when people use the right methodologies and concentrate on the same aspects of the subject metter and have acesss to all the requisite data and are honest about what they find they come up with the same conclusions . -
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Mon, July 6, 2009 - 8:29 AMJason
Calculus is an 'invented' theory which is useful in mathematics and physics etc etc. but it is a tool it is not 'real' or definable in any material sense.
Anyway, I was actually confusing the points made in this thread with those made in another if I'm honest!!!
Some clarity then:
I think that people can come to the same conclusions based on what they see, however what I am saying is that not EVERYBODY will come to the EXACT SAME conclusions all the time. I mean this in terms of observation of events or phenomena and not in terms of theoretical tools, whilst not being any less for being 'unreal' are not what I had in mind. Calculus is enormously useful, however it is a mathematical principle, I was really saying these things in relation to things like conciousness, the universe etc etc wherein we simply do not have all the right information. We may observe that the earth revolves around the sun and sugges that the earth is no longer the centre of the universe (which is VERY likely true) however in REALITY we cannot know for definite that this is true until we know what IS at the centre of the universe. It is possible (albeit highly unlikely) that the universe or some consituent of the universe counter rotates so that although the apparant motion is that the earth revolves aroudn the sun, other aspects are counter revolving around this so that the earth remains in the centre. I don't for even the smallest of moments think that this is true or likely, I am merely using it to highlight my point. That until we DO know everything about the universe, then there could be other laws underlying what we already know which, if we knew them, would distort or change our conculsions based on those observations.
Going back to my example, we can all agree based on observation that the earth revolves aroudn the sun, what we cannot conclude DEFINITELY based on this alone is that the earth is not the centre of the universe as we don't have sufficient information about it.
All scientists were in agreement (pretty much) that an atom was the smallest component of matter. Right up until we discovered that the atom is NOT the smallest component of matter, there are in fact subatomic particles. It is easy to understand why. They didn't have ALL the information necessary. We still don't today.
Scientists observed that light behaved like a wave. They concluded that light travels in waves. We know today that they also travel in photons. Electrons have also been seen to now have wave like properties whereas they were previously concluded upon by scientists that they did not.
The problem with science is that it only (and only can) base it's foundation upon what it knows as being all that is known and therefore all that is real. Until science discovers something, it assumes that there is nothing to discover. This works well most of the time, however it does not mean that just because the tiny china teacup has not been discovered floating around mars that this tiny teacup does not exist. It might be unlikely but that does not make it untrue.
I woudl rather not get into the nitty gritty details to the point of excessive tedium, I am attempting to highlight a point. We don't know everything, and until we do there could well be many other things that apparantly contradict what we currently understand of the universe and its properties. I am not suggesting we believe in everything until it has been proven untrue, I am just suggesting we not disbelieve something simply because we have not proven it true. -
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Mon, July 6, 2009 - 9:10 PMPaul Posted :Jason
Calculus is an 'invented' theory which is useful in mathematics and physics etc etc. but it is a tool it is not 'real' or definable in any material sense.
Response: Mathematical precepts that are demonstable through deductive proofs are NOT invented by man . They are merely discovered ---NOT invented nor constructed. They pre-exist . -
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Tue, July 7, 2009 - 11:01 AMja: Mathematical precepts that are demonstable through deductive proofs are NOT invented by man . They are merely discovered ---NOT invented nor constructed. They pre-exist .
It think you are misusing the term "exist" here. The types of motion which necessitated calculus to explane them pre-existed calculus. Our means of describing that motion however, like all language, was invented.
Or if you like you could maybe argue the basis of mathamatics, in as much as it is based on the natural world, pre-exists the invention of the means to calculate that basis.
-
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Tue, July 7, 2009 - 10:52 AMpa: Until science discovers something, it assumes that there is nothing to discover.
Which would be why scientists never do research.
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Tue, July 7, 2009 - 10:55 AMpa: I am not suggesting we believe in everything until it has been proven untrue, I am just suggesting we not disbelieve something simply because we have not proven it true.
The key here lies in "something."
You are presuming that we can assume "god" is a something and we just don't know the specifics yet. We can't. Despite millenia of search and multiple religions and multiple civilizations, no one has yet proven god is a something and that is a problem.
-
Re: Preliminary remarks
Tue, July 7, 2009 - 2:41 PMPaul
<<< I am not suggesting we believe in everything until it has been proven untrue, I am just suggesting we not disbelieve something simply because we have not proven it true.>>>
So you figure there is some credence to scientology?Ha!Ha! There are some things that man says that is so highly unlikely and unbelievable that it is easy to see it isnt true. Given the mentality of those writing scripture it is easy to see that they are trying to accomplish something. That something was strength in numbers and power through wealth. Therefore they needed to glorify and embellish to make their story desirable in order to gain more followers which translated into more tithing, more WEALTH for the church. This is illustrated in the totally fabricated accounts of Jesus' resurrection.
Do you believe that there is really a flying spaghetti monster? It has been mentioned by many people. Do we wait for someone to prove it doesnt exist before we draw the rational conclusion that it was fabricated? It seems to me that after all these thousands of years there would be some evidence of something as grandiose as GOD that is conclusive. Since there is not, it really seems likely that man wrote all of that stuff in the Bible for the purposes I described. If someone tells me that aliens are controlling my thoughts, I am not going to just believe it until someone proves it isnt true. Given the evidence I see, I have concluded the notion of GOD and Lucifer and all of that supersticious mess that goes with it all is pure unadulterated bullshit fabricated by mans imagination.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Mon, June 15, 2009 - 7:14 PMPerhaps the Islamic story of Satan, known as "Iblis" will add some contrast.
I paraphrase, but according to them, the angels were made from whirlwinds of fire and air before man
Then God made Adam, from the mud, his own spit, and his breath of life within.
He then commanded all of the angels to bow before Adam
all did but Lucifer, who the Sufi say was right not to do so for one bows to no-one but God, that he was caught in a catch 22 of defiance from God if he didn't bow as commanded but that he would have been less than wise to bow to anyone short of God. The mainstream Moslems focused merely on his disobedience.
In any case, he saw nothing in a creature made of gross materials, flesh that he was lower than, being made of fire, air.... will and spirit. He was sent away but had a mission to prove to God why man was not worthy to kneel before, and endeavored to become the accuser and adversary of man to expose before God the weakness and corruptibility of each man... and of flesh in general.
In some sense one could argue that humans who reject their own flesh, and focus only on the spirit, condemning other men for not doing so, are following the agenda of Iblis. The story may infer a complete reversal of the christian concept of Satan being the champion of the flesh, that God champions the flesh and what spirit resides within it in synergy with it as superior to pure spirit and will.
The bible itself says that man was made just a little lower than Elohim, which some translators uncomfortably made into "the angels" but actually Elohim is a name for God... or at least one of his aspects, which might place man above the angels even though our "dominion" may only be of this earth and the animals which reside here (according to the myth)
Keep in mind, this is just fun, to me it is just mythology and only reflects psychological reality in humans, rather than any absolute reality. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Tue, June 16, 2009 - 8:27 AMBruecke
Where do the Djinn fit into that? Weren't they also made out of fire? -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, June 17, 2009 - 3:15 PMI do not know, I do know that they was definately a distinction between angels and Djinn, but what that distinction actually is i cannot say.
I do know however that fire was the holy symbol of the religion of Zoroastrianism, which was predominant at the time of Mohammed, to have Djinn and Angels made of whirlwinds of fire and air may have given a nod to the religion around him as to the spiritual nature of flame, but yet somehow show that fire may be evil as well. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Thu, June 18, 2009 - 1:31 AM"I do know however that fire was the holy symbol of the religion of Zoroastrianism, which was predominant at the time of Mohammed, to have Djinn and Angels made of whirlwinds of fire and air may have given a nod to the religion around him as to the spiritual nature of flame, but yet somehow show that fire may be evil as well."
Maybe, but water was also a sacred symbol of hte divine in Zoroastrianism. -
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 11:47 AMSo G-d created Satan as a perfect being, so what was before satan, G-d. Now if G-d created Satan then G-d was creating a diety that was opposite of G-d in perfection as a being or entity. So what was before this entity...G-d.
If its hard to understand by way of bibical reading in a language that was mytholic and a limited amount of terms and words, then the allegory is that G-d created a reality inwhich both the negative and positive dwell, this gives way for free will and the deciding factor that lies within us all to understand what love and unconditional love is. If Satan represents the limits of evil then G-d is the unlimited of Good or Righteousness...Everything else just falls in the middle as what we are living proof of. There is another way of looking at this and its that thru unrighteous doings you eventually will see that in time and incarnations that the path of unrighteousness is a disconnection isolation not only from G-d but from others...so what is righteousness, right thinking, right actions and so on. Do unto others.
Not hard to understand as long as you don't use religon as the basis of the arguement.
-
-
-
-
-
-
This post was deleted by Changeling
-
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Mon, July 6, 2009 - 3:38 AM<<<"The reality is that none of this bullshit ever took place."
How do you know this? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that his is a belief of yours?
"How in the coon dog fuck can the person writing this POSSIBLY know? It is MADE UP!!!! Fantasy!!!"
again, how do you know? >>>
Ha!Ha! It's called inductive logic. Also, in this book of lies and hearsay which one of these stories are true?
Matthew 28 (KJV)
1In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
3His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
5And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
10Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
Mark 16 (KJV)
1And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
3And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
4And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
Luke 24 (KJV)
1Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
2And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
3And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
5And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
7Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
8And they remembered his words,
9And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
John 20 (KJV)
1The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
3Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
4So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
5And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
6Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
8Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
9For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
10Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
11But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
12And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my LORD, and I know not where they have laid him.
14And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
16Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
18Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
It is painfully obvious that SOMEONE is full of shit. Was it just Mary M. or both Mary's? Was the rock moved already or was there an earthquake? Did Jesus say "Dont touch me" or did they touch his feet? Did simon Peter and the unnamed guy run a foot race, or was that a lie and the other versions truth? Either way only ONE of these stories can be truth. (Or they are all lies) This means that out of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, at least three of them are liars. It also shows us that those three liars are obviously NOT writing the "inspired" word of GOD and it is highly likely that other things they wrote about were not true either. Are you going to tell me that you know exactly which version is truth? And since at least three people writing in this book are obviously liars, can you say with absolute certainty that the one writing Genesis was truthful? And since that writer didnt list his references, what other proof do you have besides the ancient book of lies and hearsay to show me these events actually took place? It is prudent to conclude that when GOD created Lucifer that there wasnt a reporter standing there jotting down notes. So how did this information surface? Oh that's right, the "inspired' word of GOD. But I just showed you that what you have held as the "inspired" word of GOD for most of your life is written by three liars. So your Bible is no longer a credible source.
BTW what good is free will when everything is already planned out by the big invisible entity?Ha!Ha! It is a crock written by LIARS that's why.
-
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Wed, July 22, 2009 - 5:42 AMI wish I had more time to read word for word all these...
In archery whats a perfect shot?
Would not a father, master archer, aspire for a child to learn how to hit the bulls-eye? No greater than the bulls-eye.
An ignorant and proud child would blame his error on the bow or the arrow...the wind.
The bow is like the mind. In it's flexibility. The string is like the heart...connected to the mind at both sides but the center is where you get your accuracy. The arrow is your life your spirit...if its backwards it doesn't work. The soul being the body... and the wind being the spirit...there is one spirit...one wind one life...you yourself can create spirit...clean or unclean...and it can affect those around you.
There are only two laws...
The first...Love god with your whole heart whole mind and whole soul, god being Love, the deepest cleanest selfless Love.
love love...
The Second like the first...love those around you as you would yourself...
the question? If you love god with your whole heart mind and soul...whats left to love your neighbor?
the answer... Loving those around you is loving god.
even your enemy...
A truly loving father would discipline a child with strength and swiftness...'The next time you swim too far from shore, I will wring your neck'.
A father that doesn't care loses children to tide, undertow, and sharks...
Follow those two laws and you are perfect like your father who is perfect...
-
-
Re: Made Perfect?
Tue, August 11, 2009 - 5:56 PMJerome
<<<There are only two laws...
The first...Love god with your whole heart whole mind and whole soul, god being Love, the deepest cleanest selfless Love.
love love...
The Second like the first...love those around you as you would yourself...
the question? If you love god with your whole heart mind and soul...whats left to love your neighbor?
the answer... Loving those around you is loving god.
even your enemy...
A truly loving father would discipline a child with strength and swiftness...'The next time you swim too far from shore, I will wring your neck'.
A father that doesn't care loses children to tide, undertow, and sharks...
Follow those two laws and you are perfect like your father who is perfect... >>>
I recognize only one law where spirituality is concerned. I call it reality. That is where nothing is perfect and invisible fathers do not exist.
-