Was God creating Satan a good idea?

Originally posted by Digi
Well first, ensure*. But it really depends on your take on morality and free will. I'm not talking about the "is this real or not?" question. But I'm guessing that most Christian interpretations have God as all-knowing, so He would have known that Satan would rebel. So it's a valid question at that point. Then the next logical step is to dive into the concept of free will. Ignoring again for a second that I think Christian free will is logically impossible, the thinking goes that we need to be able to choose good, and therefore, yes, need to have "not good" as an option.

And since there will be people who DO fail, and are presumably condemned to Hell, and just as presumably, God knew they'd fail and spend eternity in Hell, it raises some rather hairy moral quandaries. One could argue that you can't have true goodness without choosing it, but you'd also have to reconcile that with knowing at an all-knowing (all-loving??) God set up a system knowing he was sending some to eternal punishment.

There are additional nuances, but that's the gist of it as I see it. There isn't a right answer, because this is the sort of question theologians and laypeople have been struggling with literally for millennia. Either it's a perfect God who created an imperfect system, an imperfect God who created an imperfect system, or maybe the system is perfect but beyond our ability to fully grasp. The last is a convenient out for theists who like to invoke mystery to dispel cognitive dissonance, but does nothing to justify any of it.

Well put.

Here is a bit that I give to theists on free will.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

As an aside.
Christians do not seem to care much about morality. They follow a genocidal son murderer and only have eyes for the prise of heaven and will follow such a vile satanic demiurge.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Peace Keeper
No, proclaiming an unprovable theory as absolute fact is the height of a logical fallacy.
It's not only illogical, it's a fallacy that comes directly from the source of all fallacies: hubris.

Its One of many logical fallacies atheists and theists share. The ONLY truly logical position is agnosticism with a slight lean towards creationism.

You mean a slight lean to fantasy and the supernatural.

Right?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Technically, God didn't create Satan. He created Lucifer and was given free will just as Adam and Eve. Lucifer sinned and became known as Satan. God knew these things would happen, but He didn't want robots serving Him. God wants His crearion to choose to obey Him. However, God already had a fix to the problem before sin entered the universe. He chose to robe himself in flesh and die as a man on the Cross to redeem His creation. The point is that God used the introduction of sin to the universe as a means to eventually redeem it through the Blood of Christ.

I know most of you will not accept this explanation, but it answered in the Bible.

You do not seem to recognize how immoral your view of Jesus is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

"God knew these things would happen, but He didn't want robots serving Him."

What does an all powerful God need with servants?

Where I come from and in my family, the strong work to sustain the weak. The strong do not have the weak serve them.

What is it like in your family and community?

Did your parents, the strong, make you the weak, work to sustain them?

Who has the best policy? Your parents or God?

Regards
DL

Well, Lucifer just wanted to be his own person, and God was pissed about that, so he banished him.

After being left in his own torment, I guess he just kinda became an *******?

Because I don't originally recall him being a stone cold *******.

God is just a dick though, all the time, wipes out cities, condones rape, and murder, and slavery.

He's an all-around misogynist, as well as a homophobe, and even a racist.

But it also says to throw away the old laws and testament a few times.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Technically, God didn't create Satan. He created Lucifer and was given free will just as Adam and Eve. Lucifer sinned and became known as Satan. God knew these things would happen, but He didn't want robots serving Him. God wants His crearion to choose to obey Him. However, God already had a fix to the problem before sin entered the universe. He chose to robe himself in flesh and die as a man on the Cross to redeem His creation. The point is that God used the introduction of sin to the universe as a means to eventually redeem it through the Blood of Christ.

I know most of you will not accept this explanation, but it answered in the Bible.

Omniscient beings don't have the capacity to make bad decisions. Whatever God got was precisely what he wanted. Theoretically, of course.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
God knew these things would happen, but He didn't want robots serving Him.

-Demands you worship him
-Demands you never worship anything else
-Demands you can never say his name in vain like he's Lord frickin Voldemort

Does this sound like someone who wants people with 100% free will serving him?

Originally posted by Surtur
-Demands you worship him
-Demands you never worship anything else
-Demands you can never say his name in vain like he's Lord frickin Voldemort

Does this sound like someone who wants people with 100% free will serving him?

3. Jesus > Voldemort

Free will means you can freely choose not to do that. Which is rather obvious when looking at the number of people who don't.

Look at what happened to Job, that isn't perfect love.

There is also a difference between being worthy of worship and demanding it. A true just and loving God would of said "feel free to believe in whatever you want, these things are not wrong".

Also it is free will but it isn't. We are not forced into worship. However it is demanded and we are told breaking the commandments is a sin.

True no strings attached free will..God wouldn't of ever told us who to worship or not worship. It would of never been mentioned at all.

Originally posted by Surtur
Look at what happened to Job, that isn't perfect love.

There is also a difference between being worthy of worship and demanding it. A true just and loving God would of said "feel free to believe in whatever you want, these things are not wrong".

Also it is free will but it isn't. We are not forced into worship. However it is demanded and we are told breaking the commandments is a sin.

True no strings attached free will..God wouldn't of ever told us who to worship or not worship. It would of never been mentioned at all.

Not really, even in the very real day-to-day life, it is clear there is no freedom without responsibility. Yep, freedom entails responsibility. 👆 *

You are free to put your hand into the fire metaphorically speaking (say break some commandments) but will it be a good thing? Sin is the degradation of good in a human being. You are free to pursue it but in the long run it will degrade you. You are also free to follow God.

Also, I'm sorry but this is what philosophy/theology/logic says. The most perfect being is the one worthy of worship, therefore Him saying "worship me" is perfectly fine and logical.

To make this reply shorter, in a nutshell, God's justice is perfect even though it does not always appear to us so. Given that God is magnitudes greater than any human intellect this is quite logical.

EDIT: * I know you agree on that, a least in principle, given that some groups like 3rd Wave Feminists or BLM have a twisted view of freedom without real responsibility for their actions.

Freedom entails responsibility, but only to an extent. I technically have the freedom to murder someone, but it doesn't mean I'd be free of consequences.

However we aren't talking about an act like murder or theft or anything like that, but a belief. We should be free to believe whatever we want and on top of that we should be free to believe whatever we want without being told "worship whoever you want, but btw the only right person to worship is me". IMO a truly perfect being would be so utterly perfect they recognize this and thus refrain from doing it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Freedom entails responsibility, but only to an extent. I technically have the freedom to murder someone, but it doesn't mean I'd be free of consequences.

Originally posted by Surtur
However we aren't talking about an act like murder or theft or anything like that, but a belief. We should be free to believe whatever we want and on top of that we should be free to believe whatever we want without being told "worship whoever you want, but btw the only right person to worship is me".

If the premise thta God exists is true than indeed worshipping whatever ypu want or believing whatever you want is the expresion of freedom without responsibility e.g. moral relativism.

Taking it to the extreme: believing suicide bombings are ok is just a matter of belief. Still, it is evil.

By constrast, believing "love your enemies" is also a matter of belief, but good.

Morover, beliefs always influece actions to a degree.

Originally posted by Surtur

IMO a truly perfect being would be so utterly perfect they recognize this and thus refrain from doing it.

Being perfect does not equal saying "do whatever you want" as some of the choices will be bad/evil/stupid etc., as per definition.

I never said they could be told they could do whatever they wanted. Rather that they were free to worship whoever they wanted.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Well, Lucifer just wanted to be his own person, and God was pissed about that, so he banished him.

After being left in his own torment, I guess he just kinda became an *******?

Because I don't originally recall him being a stone cold *******.

God is just a dick though, all the time, wipes out cities, condones rape, and murder, and slavery.

He's an all-around misogynist, as well as a homophobe, and even a racist.

But it also says to throw away the old laws and testament a few times.

While at the same time saying that once God says something, he never retracts it.

Typical biblical contradictions.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Omniscient beings don't have the capacity to make bad decisions. Whatever God got was precisely what he wanted. Theoretically, of course.

Indeed.

And if he did not want us to sin, then he would not have given Satan the power to deceive the whole earth.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Stigma
1 and 2. Going by the theological 101 the most perfect being is indeed worthy of worship, per definition. No other being is worthy, but the perfect being is. Be mindful that being perfect being includes perfect love, perfect justice etc.

God's first ruling as judge was to ask for a bribe or sacrifice to change his usual justice, which was like man's, as above so below, of punishing the guilty and not the innocent, to punishing an innocent Jesus instead of the guilty.

How in hell is that perfect justice?

Is punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perfect justice to you.

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

Regards
DL