Christians - Why Did God Create Satan?

[TheStig]

the argument everyone thought was so great -- that not creating Satan would have violated his free will; therefore, God had to create him -- isn't a rational argument that stands up to logic.

Maybe I'm missing something but I have not seen anyone say this on this thread except you. Quote the post where you saw this argument used.

 

[DoubleBarrel]

Danger, I didn't see your response before I posted above.

If you are a parent, and your child wants candy for breakfast. Do you give it to them? Or do you make them unhappy? Is your love only proven by giving them candy and making them happy? Or does the Parent have another goal in mind? Perhaps a healthy child with good eating habits?

You're right. A loving parent wants what's in the child's best interest, even if the child protests. After all, isn't that the basis of love? But giving candy to a child for breakfast is not in its best interest, whereas God ensuring humanity remained free from sin would have been.

How is allowing men to kill each other and die from terrible illnesses in humanity's best interest? Yet that's the result that happened only because of original sin, caused by Satan.

I stand by my assertion: It would have been in humanity's best interest if Satan was not created. So why did God create him?

See the problem with your argument is the gross assumption that God's primary purpose for creating Man was to keep them completely happy. How do you know that is God's only goal?

OK. What is God's primary goal? Or what do you think it is? And does it contradict his desire to keep Man happy? Because if there is no contradiction, it is irrelevant to this discussion.


TheStig, here it is (the explanation everyone thought was so great):

Angels have free will just like human beings.

Even if God knew man would choose to sin, just as angels chose to sin, He had to let them do it because free will is so important- forced love is no love at all.

 

[TheStig]

TheStig, here it is (the explanation everyone thought was so great)

What? You can't possibly be serious.

It escapes me as to how you say this:

God chose not to create vampires. According to Darth's argument, God has taken away these vampires free will -- which he claims is so important.

Since God violated vampires' free will by not creating them, it implies he could have just as easily violated Satan's free will by not creating him either.

is saying the same thing as this:

Angels have free will just like human beings.

Even if God knew man would choose to sin, just as angels chose to sin, He had to let them do it because free will is so important- forced love is no love at all.

God created angels. He did not create vampires.

Since he created angels, he gave them free will to do whatever they choose.

Since he did not create vampires, he can not give them free will to do whatever they choose, because they can't do anything, because they do not exist. Vampires are a man made fantasy.

Again, you are thinking about it in a way that would never have occurred to me, because it just doesn't make any sort of sense at all. You think that Darth is saying that God had to create Satan, so that Satan's free will would not be violated. Darth is saying, that God gives all beings the power of free will, to do as they please.

Well guess what...Satan came to be because of his own free will to make his own poor decision. Again...Satan was not always Satan. He was an angel. Since God created angels, he gave them free will, just the same as any other being he creates. Lucifer used that free will to make an evil choice, for which he was punished, by God, by being cast into hell (a place that was made for Lucifer to spend eternity as his newfound self, Satan).

Actually, the title you chose for this thread is misleading and shows that all you are looking for is an endless argument. A troll basically. I've spelled out the answer for you, but it seems you are unable or unwilling to comprehend it, and do not see it as a valid answer. Well you see, asking why God created Satan is not a valid question. He did not create Satan in his current form. Satan is in his current evil form because of a choice he made, not because God wanted to create an evil being.


Whether or not you believe in Christianity... even if you treat it as some fictional story, the logic used by DoubleBarrel is drastically wrong and full of holes.

That's all the more I'll say on this.

 

[DoubleBarrel]

You can call me a troll if it makes you feel better about not being able to come up with a rational answer to the question. But it's not my intention to provoke emotional responses; I honestly would like someone to give me a sound answer, because I can't really think of one.

However, that said, if I'm given a response that evades answering the question, I'll call it out. If I'm given an answer that has holes all over it, I'll it out too. And if I'm given an answer that makes rational sense, I'll say, "OK. That's a plausible, sound answer!"

By the way, I addressed the "God didn't create Satan, he created Lucifer, and therefore the question is invalid" cope-out excuse earlier. Maybe you missed it here.

But, put another way:

If my name is John Smith and I am an upstanding, honest citizen, then one day I murder someone by ramming a tire iron through their chest and the media labels me the Tire Iron Killer, who am I?

Am I John Smith or the Tire Iron Killer? Certainly both names refer to the same person. It's the same with Lucifer/Satan; I'm referring to the same being by using either name.

Now, I hear what you're saying, and I understand exactly what you mean by it:

You're saying God gives every being free will to do as they choose. Lucifer chose to use it for evil. I get that.

And I'm saying I understand that argument, and that it does not make logical sense in relation to the question of why God created Lucifier/Satan, knowing the guy would ruin everything.

How do I make this any clearer, in a way you'll understand?

How about this...

Let's pretend to go back in time before God created anything.

Imagine God "sitting" there, all alone in nowhere land. The angels, the world and humanity haven't been created yet.

In that moment, does Lucifer have free will?

Since we've already established that if someone doesn't exist yet, they don't have free will, the answer is, "No, Lucifer does not have free will yet."

Now God, using his omniscience (his all knowingness) glances into the future before he creates anything. What does he see? He sees that he created an angel named Lucifer who rebelled against him, then his name was changed to Satan, and he conspired and instigated the original sin, throwing Humanity into suffering from then on.

Remember, nothing has been created yet. Lucifer doesn't have free will. God is just looking into the future at this point.

God should be thinking, "Uh oh! If I create Lucifer, it will eventually ruin the rest of my perfect creation. Therefore, I'm NOT going to create him!"

Now, God can choose not to create Lucifer without violating his free will because he knows the results of such a course of action, thus short-circuiting the original sin and human suffering. But he does it anyway.

The fact that God could have refused to create Lucifer without interfering with Satan's free will in any way but didn't, makes this free will argument everyone seems to be so fond of invalid.

Do you understand me this time?

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

But it's not my intention to provoke emotional responses; I honestly would like someone to give me a sound answer, because I can't really think of one.

You're running circles around yourself.

First, you say this:

My opinion was stated in the original post; simply: There is no valid answer to this question. In other words, there is no sound, rational reason for why God created Satan.

Then you say this:

Actually, I have thought of one. It's not brilliant, and it's a bit of a cope-out. But it does more or less hold up logically

But you neglected to share your "logical" answer.

But I'm going to take your previous statement, specifically,

There is no valid answer to this question. In other words, there is no sound, rational reason for why God created Satan.

If you've already decided there is NO answer, why ask the question?

Are you trying to save your faith on a seduction message board?

Or are you trying to create a feeling of "superiority" by asking questions you've STATED have no logical answer?

Or are you genuinely curious?

Since you've already claimed that there is NO logical answer, then it must ONLY be taken on faith.

Which means EVERY answer is going to be LOGICALLY full of holes, that you can easily point out.

Unless you think you can LOGICALLY defend ideas of faith with arguments.

In which case, faith is not required, since whatever "truths" you posit can be logically defended.

If you NEED to defend your religious faith with air tight logical arguments, what good is FAITH?

So, what is it?

Are you looking for airtight LOGICAL defenses of FAITH?

What, by the way, is your solution? (not the "there is no solution" solution, but the "cop out, but logical" solution)

Or, perhaps you are covertly trying to DISPROVE Christianity by getting Christians to trip over their arguments?

Here's another answer for you:

Question: Why did God Create Satan?

Answer: Because that's what the writers of the story decided would happen.

See, if you assume that it's LITERALLY TRUE, that you have beings outside the realm of human understanding, you'll NEVER be able to use HUMAN LOGIC to describe their actions and motivations.

However, on the other hand, if you assume that GOD, SATAN and all those other nutters up in heaven are only METAPHORS that humans have come up with over the years to try and describe the indescribable (human suffering, unfairness, death, natural disasters, etc) then it's game on.

Any explanation is as good as the next, since it must be taken ON FAITH, and CANNOT be proven or disproven with LOGIC.

However, getting back to your original question, which according to you was unanswered,

namely:

But doesn't that imply he's not all-loving then? And selfish too? If his primary goal is to simply win a popularity contest instead of doing what's necessary to save all of humanity.

Which was in response to my answer that God created Satan so people could CHOOSE God instead of being automatically drawn to him like water to the sea.

I'll take your arguments one by one.

Not All Loving

Love means allowing somebody to have free will and make their own choices. Creating an automatic robot is more selfish than creating people will free will and choice. In fact, one may say that is the HEIGHT of love to create humans that will choose Satan over God.

His Goal Is Winning A Popularity Contest

Even if only one person out of a ten trillion chooses HIM over Satan, he is satisfied. He has somebody in Heaven who has chosen Good instead of Evil. He'd rather be with people that chose him, than people that have no choice. Your label of this as a "popularity contest" is disingenuous.

Save All of Humanity

Nowhere is God's stated goal to "save all of humanity." His Goal is to "save" whoever wants to be saved, and nobody else.

Now, I know in some "sects" within Christianity, it's there "moral duty" to "save" as many people in the world as possible.

I would suggest that a better model may be simply to "present the opportunity" to as many people as possible.

If you happen to belong to a group that "believes" saving everybody is a duty, and as even possible, I can see where you'd have trouble with these arguments.

But I stand by my original answer.

Free will is NOTHING if it doesn't include the freedom, AND LIKELIHOOD to choose evil.

 

[DoubleBarrel]

You're running circles around yourself.

Hahahaha. I was actually wondering if anyone would pick up on that.

But you neglected to share your "logical" answer.

You'll notice the second time I said that I haven't "really" come with an answer. The reason for that is the plausible answer I did come up with calls for a lot of speculation and opens up an entirely new discussion filled with more questions like the original.

And the reason I neglected to share my logical answer is because then this discussion is presumably over. "Yeah, what he said. That's the answer!"

And then what can I say? I've already agreed that it's logical.

But since I've likely outworn my welcome already, I'll give it to you:

Adam and Eve or their offspring would have eventually eaten from the Tree of Knowledge without Satan's temptation, so it doesn't matter that God created him. It makes no difference on the result.

It's rational and plausible, as far as I've determined. But there's no way to prove or disprove it without the facts, so the conversation ends. Game over.

And like I said, it is a bit of a cop-out.

If you've already decided there is NO answer, why ask the question?

Just because I think there is no rational answer doesn't mean there isn't one. I was curious if there's anyone who has rationalized it and come up with a sound answer. Some here may disagree, but I'll listen to reason.

That, and I enjoy debating a point of view.

Here's another answer for you:

Question: Why did God Create Satan?

Answer: Because that's what the writers of the story decided would happen.

Are you a Christian? Because, as an agnostic, that's my real answer too. I've been addressing the question from a traditional Christian perspective here for discussion; however, I think that men simply made most of the Bible up.

See, if you assume that it's LITERALLY TRUE, that you have beings outside the realm of human understanding, you'll NEVER be able to use HUMAN LOGIC to describe their actions and motivations.

I disagree. But I'm not sure we want to go down that road.

However, on the other hand, if you assume that GOD, SATAN and all those other nutters up in heaven are only METAPHORS that humans have come up with over the years to try and describe the indescribable (human suffering, unfairness, death, natural disasters, etc) then it's game on.

So do you assume the Bible is fiction?

It may not come across, but I actually love the Bible as a book. It's got great stories, characters, and lessons that can be learned from them. But at the end of the day, it's just that. Fiction.

Finally, I'm very tempted to address your responses. However, I think I've already made myself unpopular enough as it is, and perhaps I should just give it a rest. (But let me know if you'd actually like to hear my response.)

But one thing I will ask is this:

Will God completely eliminate evil after the End Times or in heaven, assuming you believe in that stuff? Because if he does, how do your responses hold up then? Then we're right back to people not having free will and therefore not being able to choose God.

As you said, "Free will is NOTHING if it doesn't include the freedom, AND LIKELIHOOD to choose evil."

EDIT: Fixed SPaG (spelling and grammar)

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

But one thing I will ask is this:

Will God completely eliminate evil after the End Times or in heaven, assuming you believe in that stuff? Because if he does, how do your responses hold up then? Then we're right back to people not having free will and therefore not being able to choose God.

As you said, "Free will is NOTHING if it doesn't include the freedom, AND LIKELIHOOD to choose evil."

That there is the whole selling point. Once the choice has been made, it's been made. In the "end times," all those who have chosen God will be with God.

And all those who have chosen Satan will be with him.

FOREVER.

It's like God conjures up all these poor human souls out of nothingness, gives them free will, and let's them choose, Him or Satan, and then that's that.

And due to Satan's example, once we're in heaven, we are free to cast ourselves out.

No violation of free will required. Of course, if you end up in Hell, and want to change your mind, then that definitely sucks.

But any kind of "end times" scenario doesn't negate any of my points. Getting to heaven still requires the existence of free will, and choice.

 

[jafyk]

Ah, ok based on this last post above mine. I would like to say if you believe the bible to be fiction then what was the point of this this thread?
I say this because as a Christian most of our understanding about God and human history is based on the bible(Fiction according to you).

I really like Taiyuu Otoko's response above yours Double Barrel. In addressing something he mentioned. Christianity is based on faith. My understanding of faith is accepting an idea(s) as being real without proof. Is this the right understanding? (I really wanna know)...because if it is, then the reason we have all these countless arguments on Christianity is because the bible is supposed to be taken as a book with logical proof of our faith; based on things that are supposed to have actually happened (non-fiction). So, then an atheist comes along and says X, Y, Z aren't logical therefore the bible can't be true. If the bible isn't true then its characters especially God can't be real (especially the Christian God).

However, for me it will always come down to this...there has to be a creator (God is what he is mostly known as) because despite the chaos on earth, there is also an order starting from the smallest micro-organism and it couldn't have just happened. Maybe religion is man's way of explaining this unknown. My faith in recent times has come under scrutiny and the arguments the atheists are raising makes sense to my logical mind. I have had the chance of seeing these youtube video series dark matter and I think Christians should watch them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_a6RjR_AHY&list=RD02ODetOE6cbbc

Back to the original post if I had a response it would be this.
God wanted to create angels (including Lucifer/Satan) and he knew that he would rebel against him and created him anyway. If he chose not to create him to avoid the existence of evil. Well, it would be like me choosing to stay home because I could be involved in a fatal accident on my way to going to do something I enjoy. So, maybe me going anyway (the process) would be worth it even if it would cost me my life. Maybe this is how God felt about creation.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Back to the original post if I had a response it would be this.
God wanted to create angels (including Lucifer/Satan) and he knew that he would rebel against him and created him anyway. If he chose not to create him to avoid the existence of evil. Well, it would be like me choosing to stay home because I could be involved in a fatal accident on my way to going to do something I enjoy. So, maybe me going anyway (the process) would be worth it even if it would cost me my life. Maybe this is how God felt about creation.

I believe this to be true. It could be that the phenomenon of free will intrinsically carries with it the potential for evil, and that potential could even be entirely unavoidable for created beings (100% chance of disobeying God).

Man's primary sin is that he considers himself to be God, meaning he desires to decide what is right and wrong according to his own selfish desires, and selfish desires is what Satan appealed to in the garden, just as he does today.

There exists an entire branch of Christianity, called the Reformists or "Calvinists", who think that God provides "irresistible grace" to certain chosen ones, which implies the complete absence of free will. There are many scriptures that can support this belief when taken at face value, but there are also many scriptures that refute it. The Calvinists tend to cherry-pick that which supports what they want to believe, as to the Arminians, who believe that grace is resistible and that one can lose his salvation by falling from God's grace (through deciding to live a lifestyle of sin).

It is clear from the bible that God must initiate one's salvation, that He must accomplish something in a man's spirit in order to bring that man into a contrite state before God. However, that man may turn his back on God and walk away. The Calvinists will say that he never was really saved in the first place. Jesus' parable of the sower and the seed demonstrates otherwise. When the sower sowed seed on thorny ground, the plants did in fact spring up (there was true life) but the cares and worries of the world choked that life out. Similarly, we have the Prodigal Son, who walked away from his father to live a debased life. Upon his returned, the father exclaimed "This, my son, was dead, and is alive again". The son had walked away to live a sinful life, and was considered dead by his father. But when the son came back with a contrite heart and an admission of his offenses against his father, the father declared him alive again. This son was alive once, walked away and was truly (spiritually) dead, and became alive again.

We know that God has priorities that completely transcend our ability to comprehend.

"My ways are higher than your ways. My thoughts are higher than your thoughts". In other words, "don't try to figure Me out... You can't".

"Trust in the Lord your God with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding".

God has always required faith in relating to Him, and He always will. "Without faith it is impossible to please God". Hebrews 11:6

Clearly God has declined to give us information enough to understand exactly how and why He does things. The age-old question of Satan and suffering will only be answered for us in the next life. My thought is that evil is intrinsically "built into" free will, as it is the polar opposite. All forces, paradigms and systems must have a polar opposite in order to be in existence. Perhaps He created Lucifer and cast him to the earth in order to accelerate the inevitable. By accelerating the inevitable evil, He would be showing mercy without compromising free will.

Perhaps the existence of temporary evil is "worth it" in view of the coming eternity of the absence of sin and suffering. Again, in this life we cannot know for sure.

So what makes a man able to believe and trust in God (through Christ)? Every Christian is fully aware of the problem of evil, and the lack of concrete answers. Most Christians today used to be scoffers and even atheists in the past. I myself used to criticize and mock Christians, and now I am one. Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, went around killing Christians. What changed him to the point of giving his life for his beliefs? What caused the martyrs, who were thrown into the lions' dens to be torn apart, to refuse to recant their faith in order to save themselves from the horror about to befall them? What sustains the modern-day Christian in the face of the questions we are discussing here?

It is the supernatural gifting of God in response to a man's repentance. It makes sense that the One true God would create only one true way to approach Him and be right with Him. The idea of every man finding God in his own way is part of the absurdity of the imagination of man being corrupted, and upon his insistence that he himself is "god" (in other words, that man himself declares that which is right and wrong, thereby showing God the hand). Read the account of Cain and Abel to see this in action. God required a sacrifice of an innocent lamb (a foreshadowing of Christ's living a perfect, innocent life as ransom for those who would trust in Him). Abel, the shepherd, complied with God's command (it was not a suggestion, but a command), and God was pleased. Cain was a farmer, and he thought he would do one better. Why give God a lamb, when I can gather up my very best crops and give them to Him? God was offended by this, because God had told them how to approach Him, and Cain decided that he had a better idea.

God has not told us why He allows evil, why He created Lucifer who because Satan (translated: the accuser"), but my theory that He did it in order to accelerate and quickly dispense with the inevitability of evil is at least plausible.

 

[Atom Smasher]

A word about this thread:

We mods are watching this thread carefully. Most of you know that technically, threads about religion are not allowed, however we have observed that for the most part you guys are discussing this loaded topic with maturity and mutual respect, again, for the most part.

I'd like to see how far it can go before shutting it down, because we are demonstrating here that men with different beliefs can discuss emotional topics in a civil, adult way. It's pretty remarkable that this thread has gone on for three pages without blowing up.

Don't be "The Guy" to shut this thing down.

My hope is that we can keep it going for a while longer, but I will shut it down in the blink of an eye once it starts lighting up. Keep up the good work, guys. There is some stimulating discussion going on here and I actually think this is a good exercise for us to see if we can rise up to a new level and keep a respectful conversation going in the face of a wide disparity of beliefs.

We now return you to your regular programming....

 

[Bible_Belt]

If there were no such thing as d!ckhead moderators in the Internet world, we could not appreciate the good ones.

Much of our understanding of the world is defined by what it is not. Without another concept, the first one can't exist. And not all of them are simple opposites. For example, until you have such a thing as a wall, it is impossible to have such a thing as a window.

Without evil, there cannot be good. Without pain, there cannot be happiness. If the mortal world was perfect, then the concept of heaven could not exist.

 

[DoubleBarrel]

taiyuu_otoko

I'm going to back up and address some of your arguments from an earlier post, as it seems this thread isn't done just yet.

I asked if you believed God was all-loving, because if he's not the original question can be answered quite easily. Though a definite 'yes' or 'no' wasn't given, from your arguments, it sounded like your answer was 'yes'. So I'm going to go with that.

Now, in order to move forward, I think a more concrete definition of love is needed. You made the statement that love is giving someone the ability to make their own decisions. And while agree that's part of it, isn't there more to it?

Isn't love more about the willingness to place another's best interest above one's own? And if this is the case, doesn't that mean that a loving person will use their wisdom and power to influence their loved one to do what's in that person's best interest, especially when the person is choosing contrary to their own best interest?

Certainly King Solomon (often hailed as the wisest man in the Bible) advocated counsel and advice, otherwise the Book of Proverbs wouldn't have been written.

That said, how is it all-loving of God to not do everything within his power to ensure his existence is known to Humanity? After all, isn't the reason most non-believers don't choose him because of doubt due to lack of evidence?

A person can claim it would violate Humanity's free will if God would appear in a cloud or something, for all the world to see, but I don't buy that. Certainly, he revealed himself in ancient times. What's so different about now?

On the other hand, a person can say it's a matter of faith. But is it really faith to believe solely based on an old, incredulous book littered with inconsistencies and contradictions? Isn't that asking too much? Isn't it asking a person to be gullible?

If God was all-loving, why doesn't he make himself known, leaving no room for doubt and no possible argument for the sceptics? When the consequence of a person not believing is eternal torture, certainly it would be a VERY loving think to do.

And that's another thing...

How can -- or why would an all-loving God send people he loves to Hell to be tormented forever. Sure, there's something to be said for discipline, as King Solomon stressed over and over again. But isn't the reason for discipline to teach a child to behave in a way that's to it's own benefit in the future. Yet what can a person possibly learn from a punishment that never ends? There can be no lesson in it, only guilt and regret. And what loving parent wants their kids to feel that, unless they're selfish and manipulative?

And how can God be satisfied, being all-loving, if one person in ten trillion ends up in heaven, WHILE nine trillion and ... etc. end up in Hell in their place?

Based on these two arguments, please tell how God can be all-loving?

jafyk

You asked me what the point of this thread is if I believe the Bible is a collection of fictional stories. I answered that earlier. I enjoy a good, rational debate... and I'm curious what people believe and why they believe it.

Moving on...

I have a problem with faith, where there is no relevant evidence to support it.

If I told you that if you bought a magic sandwich I made for the price of your entire bank account and ate it, it would make women impulsively run over to your house, pull of their clothes and jump on you automatically, without you doing anything (other than eating the sandwich), would you believe me? More importantly, would you buy my "magic" sandwich?

Doesn't faith that's acted on require some sort of valid evidence? In this case, maybe a track record that can be proved?

What good is blind faith? And more importantly, what good is faith based on supposed evidence filled with logical impossibilities?

If he chose not to create him to avoid the existence of evil. Well, it would be like me choosing to stay home because I could be involved in a fatal accident on my way to going to do something I enjoy.

But the difference is that you don't know if you will get into an accident or not. With God, he knows for certain what the results of decisions will be absolutely, assuming we can agree that he's all-knowing.

Therefore, he knew Satan would rebel and cause Man to "fall". It couldn't have been an accident.

Danger

I've been accused of assuming God's primary purpose is to make Humanity happy, to which I responded: OK. Then what is God's primary purpose? Or if you don't know, what do you THINK it is?

I received no answer.

And without an answer to this question, the discussion is sabotaged. There's nowhere for it to go. It's over.

Introducing the unknown and using it as evidence to refute an argument is like me pulling the legs off a table so that the surface is forced to lay flat on the floor, then me questioning you about why you're not pulling up a chair. It's a bit of a cop-out.

If you want to continue the discussion, give me your opinion.

If not doing what's best for humanity, what then is God's primary purpose?

Atom Smasher

You made the argument that God created Satan in order to accelerate and dispense of evil, if I understood you correctly.

And if I did, doesn't it imply evil will be eliminated in the future?

So if God will put an end to evil eventually, what is the point of allowing it in the first place when only bad can come of it while it exists?

Aside from the pain and suffering it started, it's existence lays the foundation for people to go to Hell.

Sure, a person can say evil allows God to know that people have sincerely chosen him. But at what cost? Two in every three people going to Hell (and that's being modest)? If he's all-powerful, surely he can come up with a better barometer without such sacrifice.

Of course, this takes us back to the question of: Is God all-loving? And if he is, why would he send the majority of people to Hell?

But then many respond, "God doesn't send people to Hell. They condemn themselves to it."

But who created this system, where if a person rejects God they are damned to Hell? Was it not God himself? If he was all-loving, why not make a place of neutrality for those who don't accept him? Wouldn't that be more loving? The people who love him get to spend eternity with him, while those who rejected him simply go on existing without having to live through the most terrible experience ever conceived (Hell), just not within his presence.

I find it difficult to reconcile a God who can be all-loving yet allow evil, then create a system where the majority of his creation -- whom he claims to love -- can be sent to be tormented forever and ever. I can't help but conclude how sinister that is.

Any explanations?

By the way, I think the reason this thread hasn't turned into an emotional, flaming war is because, for whatever reason, it's attracted people who exercise self-control, don't take arguments personally, get emotionally involved, and then attack posters rather than addressing the content of their posts.

I, too, wonder how long it will remain civil.

Bible_Belt

When you say we can't define one extreme without the other, aren't we forgetting the point of neutrality?

Certainly, can't there be a choice to do good or not? And by not doing good, there is no evil done?

If I choose to go and mow an elderly woman's lawn, we can conclude that it is a good thing, right? But if I choose not to take the initiative and mow her lawn, am I doing a bad thing?

Isn't it neutral? Choosing not to is neither good nor bad.

It's the same with creation vs. evolution. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't the world and humanity just have always existed? Because we only know birth and death in our own experience, we have to assume everything has a beginning and an end?

I don't think it's necessary to have evil to know good. However, having evil certainly makes good look a lot better than without it.

EDIT: SPaG

 

[juliedhulem]

I think no one will be able to give you satisfactory answer to your question other than GOD Himself. As like everyone has already stated that Humans and Angels have their own free will and GOD does not want force love. So He rather let us choose if we want to follow him to eternity in Heaven or in hell with satan. Though its a valid point now that i think about it, but still i can't give you satisfactory answer.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Answers in-line:

Atom Smasher

You made the argument that God created Satan in order to accelerate and dispense of evil, if I understood you correctly.

Almost. I'm speculating that perhaps this is behind is reasoning. I have no scripture to support it.


And if I did, doesn't it imply evil will be eliminated in the future? So if God will put an end to evil eventually, what is the point of allowing it in the first place when only bad can come of it while it exists?

Yes, it implies that evil will be eliminated. We cannot possibly understand fully as He did not reveal His reasoning in the bible (anything else is speculation), but it could be that the existence of evil is absolutely unavoidable with the creation of free-will agents, and He, in His infinite wisdom, understood that He must allow evil to play out and He must dispense with it from within the confines of human existence.

Apparently God, in His perfect vision, does not see that "only bad can come of it while it exists". Again, He says to us that His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts, which means it is utterly impossible for us to figure Him out apart from that which He has revealed about Himself. There must be factors at work that we are completely unaware of, and for whatever reason He cannot at this time make us aware of them.

He will never remove the necessity for faith in dealing with Him, but that faith is grounded in that which He has demonstrated to us: That we are utterly helpless to deal with our own sinful nature, and we must rely upon Him (not upon our own efforts) for salvation. He has made the ultimate sacrifice so that any who accepts this gift can be made right with Him in His eyes. "Greater love has no man that he lay his life down for his friends". Evil is apparently so "necessary" or perhaps "unavoidable" that He used that very evil to pave the way for the potential salvation of anyone who chooses to submit themselves to Him.


Aside from the pain and suffering it started, it's existence lays the foundation for people to go to Hell.

Sure, a person can say evil allows God to know that people have sincerely chosen him. But at what cost? Two in every three people going to Hell (and that's being modest)? If he's all-powerful, surely he can come up with a better barometer without such sacrifice.

Your reasoning is understood and quite reasonable, but it could be that there in fact might exist no alternative to the ultimate dispensing of evil except for that which we see unfolding today.

One might ask themselves this: Why would parents bring a baby into the world when they know the child is going to experience all sorts of horrible suffering? There is an overriding "something" that makes them decide that bringing a child into a sinful, fallen and evil world is worth it.

Of course, this takes us back to the question of: Is God all-loving? And if he is, why would he send the majority of people to Hell?

God does not describe Himself as "all loving". He describes Himself as jealous (against idols), wrathful (about evil), sovereign, merciful, loving, and many other things. It is a common mistake for people to say that He is "all loving" or "all merciful". He is not made only of those components.


But then many respond, "God doesn't send people to Hell. They condemn themselves to it."

But who created this system, where if a person rejects God, they are damned to Hell? Was it not God himself?

Yes, it was.


If he was all-loving,

As mentioned above, He most definitely is not "all-loving". "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Gen 36


why not make a place of neutrality for those who don't accept him? Wouldn't that be more loving? The people who love him get to spend eternity with him, while those who rejected him simply go on existing without having to live through the most terrible experience ever conceived (Hell), just not within his presence.

People who reject Him are not as neutral as you might think. God describes them as haters and idolaters. To reject God is to become one's own god, for he who rejects God declares for himself that which is right and wrong. This would be unspeakable evil in A perfect God's sight. God is the only moral agent, and He has told us repeatedly that the purpose of the law was to be our tutor to show us how morally bankrupt we are. God further states that His law does not save, but only condemns.

I perceive from scripture that the removal of His influence from the earth (in other words, making it a place of neutrality) will cause a violent implosion as mankind no longer experiences the withholding power of God's Spirit here. Mankind, who already gravitates toward baseness, will go all the way and degenerate into a planet of madmen. Such would be the natural state of a place of "neutrality, for man himself can never be neutral.


I find it difficult to reconcile a God who can be all-loving yet allow evil, then create a system where the majority of his creation -- whom he claims to love -- can be sent to be tormented forever and ever. I can't help but conclude how sinister that is.

Any explanations?

I've already established that He is not all-loving. What about an earthly judge? He might be the most loving man to his family and friends, yet still in order to be just and righteous, he is compelled by law to punish those who break the law. For that man to let wrong-doers off the hook, he would be considered by all to be an evil man.

I think that God is in a position where He must deal with sin (including allowing evil to exist and play out), a position where He literally has no choice. There must be an ultimate good that comes out of allowing the evil temporarily.

Don't get me wrong, I sometimes ask God how can He allow such and such evil to occur? But ultimately I know He has His reasons that I cannot possibly comprehend. I do know that He has demonstrated the ultimate love (through the ultimate sacrifice) so that I could spend eternity with Him, and I rest on that because again, He demonstrated it.

Because of this, I am no longer the old, selfish Atom Smasher from years ago. Aside from my tongue-in-cheek "know-it-all" persona on this forum, He has made me a humble man, eager to sacrifice for the betterment of others. This is not the normal "me". The normal me is self-absorbed, looking to beat the system, willing to justify stealing, a liar, a cheater, and the list goes on. Now if I revert to any of that it becomes unbearable to my conscience. In other words, He has effected a complete change from within. Do I still falter? Yes, indeed I do. But the difference is that I insult and offend my Creator when I do so, whereas before there wasn't even a dent in my conscience.

Could it be that God has the same reasoning that parents have when they bring a child into the world, knowing that the child will definitely experience incredible suffering? They know that the child may well turn completely against them, and yet still they bring it into the world. Can that concept be extrapolated out to God and His creation? It's interesting to think about.


By the way, I think the reason this thread hasn't turned into an emotional, flaming war is because, for whatever reason, it's attracted people who exercise self-control, don't take arguments personally, get emotionally involved, and then attack posters rather than addressing the content of their posts.

I, too, wonder how long it will remain civil.

I agree with you completely. It's been great to see the self-control that I've seen here in this thread. Inevitably it will go down like the Hindenburg, but while it runs it's a testament to the men here who have been holding it together with intelligent discourse and self-control. I think this is the higher form of being a man. We can disagree while still showing respect.

 

[Darth]

Keep in mind throughout this discussion that God is not only outside of time, but outside of space, making it difficult to comprehend His deeper motives for Creation.

It's like an abacus trying to run Windows OS.

Here is the Catholic doctrine for why God created man, which is as previously stated, difficult to comprehend as to the why behind the why:



1. What is the plan of God for man?
1-25
God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. In the fullness of time, God the Father sent his Son as the Redeemer and Savior of mankind, fallen into sin, thus calling all into his Church and, through the work of the Holy Spirit, making them adopted children and heirs of his eternal happiness.


25. How does man respond to God who reveals himself?
142-143
Sustained by divine grace, we respond to God with the obedience of faith, which means the full surrender of ourselves to God and the acceptance of his truth insofar as it is guaranteed by the One who is Truth itself.

63. What is the place of the human person in creation?
343-344
353
The human person is the summit of visible creation in as much as he or she is created in the image and likeness of God.



67. For what purpose did God create man and woman?
358-359
380-381
God has created everything for them; but he has created them to know, serve and love God, to offer all of creation in this world in thanksgiving back to him and to be raised up to life with him in heaven. Only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of the human person come into true light. Man and woman are predestined to reproduce the image of the Son of God made Man, who is the perfect “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15).

 

[Warrior74]

It's all myth bro. You cannot tell a story without a proper protagonist. Otherwise god just seems like an azzhole making arbitrary rules and laws. You know like a kid playing with his toys. Here's the deal. If there is a satan and god is who he says he is, then he is responsible himself for all the evil in the world and that makes him evil. Fortunately god isn't real so stop tourturing yourself trying to figure out stories written by desert nomads centuries ago. Imagine how crazy they looked to their friends. You know, the way we look at Scientology as crazy now. But if you give it 3000 years, you'll see people on SS asking, why did Xenu let the Thetans invade our bodies?

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

taiyuu_otoko


Now, in order to move forward, I think a more concrete definition of love is needed.

----

Based on these two arguments, please tell how God can be all-loving?

I disagree that a concrete definition of love even exists. Love is subjective. Based on your own subjective definition of love, you can prove or disprove anything you like, in order to win any argument you like.

(Even the Devil can use scripture for his own use)

I won't bite.

One might say that the statement, "God is All Loving" is a presupposition, rather than a derived conclusion.

Take it or leave it. On Faith.

This kind of makes these arguments pretty pointless.

You can go round and round for days, thinking you've "won" because the other side hasn't "proven" their point.

Faith, Love, Hope are intangible, subjective ideas you'll never get agreement on.

Let alone use any kind of definitions of such to prove or disprove anything.

I suspect your whole argument is to "prove" that Christians can't "prove" certain religious truths.

No kidding.

That's why it's called "Faith."

There is no spoon.

 

[Fatal Jay]

To answer this in simple terms.

God gave angels and man free will, to give your creations free will is the greatest love of yall. So when he judges you, you won't have the excuse of saying you couldn't follow him because he forced you too.

Forcing someone to do something is not love.

 

[Eph]

taiyuu_otoko

But doesn't that imply he's not all-loving then? And selfish too? If his primary goal is to simply win a popularity contest instead of doing what's necessary to save all of humanity.

Darth

So you're saying it doesn't take evil to reject God?

God is not perfect. He himself (assuming we can believe the Bible) has stated, "I am a jealous God".

 

[Atom Smasher]

God is not perfect. He himself (assuming we can believe the Bible) has stated, "I am a jealous God".

He doesn't have the same petty, self-serving jealousy that we humans display. He states He is a jealous God within the context of not accepting idolatry (his creatures making up their own, imaginary god).

Mankind naturally dislikes answering to a higher moral authority and therefore, in order to assuage their guilt, they make up imaginary gods that make them feel good. "gods" carved out of wood are just as insulting to God as "gods" carved out of men's imaginations.

Therefore He declares that He is a jealous God, not putting up with idolatry.