Fall of Lucifer?

[Bezant]

a quote from C.S. Lewis’s book The Case for Christianity

“God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can’t. If a thing is free to be good it’s also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible.

Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating.

The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they’ve got to be free. Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. (…)

If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it (that) it is worth paying.”

I understand why God would love us enough to give us the gift of free will, even with the potential consequences – we are, after all, made in his image and we inherited many of his gifts.

But why would God to love the angels as much as he would love me, that he would give them free will out of love too? Why would he love an angel more than he would love a dolphin or a sheep or my stroppy cat, all of which are part of his Creation, but none of whom were made in his image?

 

[Bezant]

Judaism does not believe the angels have free will; they are programmed to serve G-d in specific ways. In this sense, Man is superior to even the holiest of angels since he has been given free will and can serve G-d in a multitude of ways.

How does Judaism interpret the story about the nephillim?

 

[theblindlead]

I understand why God would love us enough to give us the gift of free will, even with the potential consequences – we are, after all, made in his image and we inherited many of his gifts.

But why would God to love the angels as much as he would love me, that he would give them free will out of love too? Why would he love an angel more than he would love a dolphin or a sheep or my stroppy cat, all of which are part of his Creation, but none of whom were made in his image?

your assuming that angels are creatures like dolphins they aren’t they are purely spiritual beings that have perfect intellects. here’s a passage from the Aquinas summa:

First, we may consider in it that in which the image chiefly consists, that is, the intellectual nature. Thus the image of God is more perfect in the angels than in man, because their intellectual nature is more perfect, as is clear from what has been said (58, 3; 79, 8).

Secondly, we may consider the image of God in man as regards its accidental qualities, so far as to observe in man a certain imitation of God, consisting in the fact that man proceeds from man, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, and again, in every part, as God is in regard to the whole world. In these and the like things the image of God is more perfect in man than it is in the angels. But these do not of themselves belong to the nature of the Divine image in man, unless we presuppose the first likeness, which is in the intellectual nature; otherwise even brute animals would be to God’s image. Therefore, as in their intellectual nature, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, we must grant that, absolutely speaking, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, but that in some respects man is more like to God.

as you can see theologians and philosophers usually have a general consensus that angles are made in the image and likeness of God. Augustine would be an example of a theologian that would disagree but most do not find Augustine’s reasons convincing and they side with people like Aquinas Occam and Scotus

 

[Bezant]

your assuming that angels are creatures like dolphins they aren’t they are purely spiritual beings that have perfect intellects. here’s a passage from the Aquinas summa:

First, we may consider in it that in which the image chiefly consists, that is, the intellectual nature. Thus the image of God is more perfect in the angels than in man, because their intellectual nature is more perfect, as is clear from what has been said (58, 3; 79, 8).

Secondly, we may consider the image of God in man as regards its accidental qualities, so far as to observe in man a certain imitation of God, consisting in the fact that man proceeds from man, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, and again, in every part, as God is in regard to the whole world. In these and the like things the image of God is more perfect in man than it is in the angels. But these do not of themselves belong to the nature of the Divine image in man, unless we presuppose the first likeness, which is in the intellectual nature; otherwise even brute animals would be to God’s image. Therefore, as in their intellectual nature, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, we must grant that, absolutely speaking, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, but that in some respects man is more like to God.

as you can see theologians and philosophers usually have a general consensus that angles are made in the image and likeness of God. Augustine would be an example of a theologian that would disagree but most do not find Augustine’s reasons convincing and they side with people like Aquinas Occam and Scotus

But there doesn’t appear to be much, if any, scriptural basis for angels being made in God’s image. Maybe I haven’t searched thoroughly enough, but is it Church teaching that angels were too created in the image of God?

 

[meltzerboy]

How does Judaism interpret the story about the nephillim?

Judaism does not generally believe that Genesis refers to angels who are fallen and intermarried with humans. Rather, the use of the word “nephilim” is thought to be figurative in the sense of rulers or nobles, referring perhaps to sons of Seth. However, there is much dispute about this in both Judaism and Christianity.

 

[Evan]

i guess i was predicating that statement upon Satan being an infinitely evil being. I don’t know what the Jewish faith teaches about Lucifer being evil, but in Catholicism Lucifer is evil. therefore we could say that God controls what the daemons do and since the daemons only do bad things God (by extension) bring about evil. which is inconsistent with the nature of God. which is what i was trying to get at, God cannot bring about evil and be omnibenelovent at the same time

Catholicism teaches that all things are good (including Lucifer) and loved by God. Lucifer has chosen to do evil. That does not make him evil, it makes him a being who does evil. Evil is a lack, a lack of Good.

God does not control what demons do. God gave them free will and if they choose to do evil, He lets them. God will not remove the gift of free will He gave them any more than He will remove our free will.

 

[theblindlead]

Catholicism teaches that all things are good (including Lucifer) and loved by God. Lucifer has chosen to do evil. That does not make him evil, it makes him a being who does evil. Evil is a lack, a lack of Good.

God does not control what demons do. God gave them free will and if they choose to do evil, He lets them. God will not remove the gift of free will He gave them any more than He will remove our free will.

this is taken from new advent article on the devil

"The authoritative teaching of the Church on this topic is set forth in the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council (cap. i, “Firmiter credimus”), wherein, after saying that God in the beginning had created together two creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is to say the angelic and the earthly, and lastly man, who was made of both spirit and body, the council continues:

"Diabolus enim et alii dæmones a Deo quidem naturâ creati sunt boni, sed ipsi per se facti sunt mali." ("the Devil and the other demons were created by God good in their nature but they by themselves have made themselves evil.")"

you might also want to read up on Scotus’ 2 inclinations of the will which was revolutionary in the field of philosophy. it took us from Thomistic and Aristotelian eudaimonism to more so what most people practice today. it also helps explain how the angles could have fallen because most say that if the angels used only happiness as their bases for moral actions then it would have been impossible for them to fall. make it more likely that they had the 2 “inclinations of the will”

i’m taking this from the Sanford encyclopedia of philosophy

This is where Scotus brings in his well-known doctrine of the two affections of the will (see especially Ordinatio 2, d. 6, q. 2; 2, d. 39, q. 2; 3, d. 17, q. un.; and 3, d. 26, q. un.). The two affections are fundamental inclinations in the will: the affectio commodi, or affection for the advantageous, and the affectio iustitiae, or affection for justice. Scotus identifies the affectio commodi with intellectual appetite. Notice how important that is. For Aquinas intellectual appetite is the same thing as will, whereas for Scotus intellectual appetite is only part of what the will is. Intellectual appetite is just one of the two fundamental inclinations in the will. Why does Scotus make this crucial change? For the reason we’ve already discussed. He doesn’t see how intellectual appetite could be genuinely free. Now he can’t deny that the will involves intellectual appetite. Intellectual appetite is aimed at happiness, and surely happiness does have some role to play in our moral psychology. But the will has to include something more than intellectual appetite if it’s going to be free. That something more is the affectio iustitiae. But one can’t fully understand what the affectio iustitiae is until Aquinas and Scotus are compared on a further point.

For Aquinas the norms of morality are defined in terms of their relationship to human happiness. We have a natural inclination toward our good, which is happiness, and it is that good that determines the content of morality. So like Aristotle, Aquinas holds a eudaimonistic theory of ethics: the point of the moral life is happiness. That’s why Aquinas can understand the will as an intellectual appetite for happiness. All of our choosing is aimed at the human good (or at least, it’s aimed at the human good as we conceive it). And choices are good — and, indeed, fully intelligible — only when they are aimed at the ultimate end, which is happiness. So Aquinas just defines the will as the capacity to choose in accordance with a conception of the human good — in other words, as intellectual appetite.

When Scotus rejects the idea that will is merely intellectual appetite, he is saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with eudaimonistic ethics. Morality is not tied to human flourishing at all. For it is Scotus’s fundamental conviction that morality is impossible without libertarian freedom, and since he sees no way for there to be libertarian freedom on Aquinas’s eudaimonistic understanding of ethics, Aquinas’s understanding must be rejected. And just as Aquinas’s conception of the will was tailor-made to suit his eudaimonistic conception of morality, Scotus’s conception of the will is tailor-made to suit his anti-eudaimonistic conception of morality. It’s not merely that he thinks there can be no genuine freedom in mere intellectual appetite. It’s also that he rejects the idea that moral norms are intimately bound up with human nature and human happiness. The fact that God creates human beings with a certain kind of nature does not require God to command or forbid the actions that he in fact commanded or forbade. The actions he commands are not necessary for our happiness, and the actions he forbids are not incompatible with our happiness. Now if the will were merely intellectual appetite — that is, if it were aimed solely at happiness — we would not be able to choose in accordance with the moral law, since the moral law itself is not determined by any considerations about human happiness. So Scotus relegates concerns about happiness to the affectio commodi and assigns whatever is properly moral to the other affection, the affectio iustitiae.

just some food for thought

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

First post on Catholic Answers, so be patient please . Reading up on the fall of Lucifer (the story of redemption is the source of most of my information), i cannot understand why an angel as intelligent as Lucifer would ever rebel against god. If Lucifer believes in god and god is all knowing and all powerful, Lucifer would have known that there is NO chance of success by challenging him, but for some reason he still did… Can someone explain this to me?

Lucifer’s problem is a lack of charity not a lack of understanding. His selfishness corrupted his will and when the will becomes corrupted it can render the intellect useless. I like to look at addiction as a perfect example of a corrupted will since addicts can know their behavior is bad for them but will still do it anyway. The selfish, misplaced and inordinate love these people had towards drugs, sex, food, and even other people ends up affecting their entire self both body and soul. Now have the same thing happen with an angel, given their incredible intellect, I’m not surprised their sin corrupted their entire nature making them completely incompatible with true love who is none other than God Himself.

 

[fhansen]

First post on Catholic Answers, so be patient please . Reading up on the fall of Lucifer (the story of redemption is the source of most of my information), i cannot understand why an angel as intelligent as Lucifer would ever rebel against god. If Lucifer believes in god and god is all knowing and all powerful, Lucifer would have known that there is NO chance of success by challenging him, but for some reason he still did… Can someone explain this to me?

Only God has perfect, infinite wisdom. All creation is inferior to Him in that way, among other ways, of course. That inherent, unavoidably inferior wisdom has the potential to manifest itself, if a high enough degree of freedom to determine ones’ own course of action is desired for, and so given to, creation by God-which it was. Such a being can create their own morality, based on their own preferences. And if that being foolishly doesn’t recognize the superiority of God-perhaps because they foolishly prefer to be God-or hasn’t yet recognized that superiority in the case of us humans who’re given the chance here on earth to do that very thing, then they may remain in their foolish state. Created beings can be very obstinate in the pursuit of unfulfillable desires, if you haven’t yet noticed; reality is necessarily allowed to have much of a say.

Mans’ (and even the devils’) wisdom is foolishness to God, to paraphrase 1 Cor 1:25. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom while failure to recognize God’s glory and wisdom is foolishness and this foolishness is also the essence of pride.

 

[fred_conty]

Why does anyone sin when they know their conscience(God) is telling them otherwise?
Because they want to.

Why bankrobbers? They want to. They don’t care.
Why drugs? They want to. They don’t care.
Why anything? they want to. They don’t care.

Why don’t they care? Because they think they are the exception. It will be ok.

Why did Adam eat the apple? He wanted to. He didn’t care. It will be ok.

Why all of this not caring? Because they know more than anyone, even God, what is best.

Stealing a pencil. I want it. I don’t care. I know what is best. It will be ok.

Then we find out differently. Too late.

Lucifer was no different.

A sin is easy, but always looks and smells the same no matter who commits it.

Just a thought from “street” theology.