Questions about Satan

[Tantum_ergo]

Laurie:

I think that this may help.

Good and evil are not two opposing forces.

Good is a force, it is a reality, it exists.

But evil is none of those.

Evil is the ‘absence’ of good.

Now you speak of things like pride as though they exist independently and in opposition to humility. . .but in reality, the only ‘truth’ is the existence of humility, and an ‘absence’ of humility, depending on the degree, will culminate in pride. (A lesser absence would be something like vanity).

So God created all things good. . .but. . .He also created free will. If free will is truly free, then even if there is a good’, that will must have the capacity to turn toward the good OR away from the good.

That is what Satan did. He turned from the good, and in doing so, he finally drew away so far that there was a complete absence of good in him. . .

He isn’t a big ol’ powerful ‘counterforce’ to God and he didn’t create ANYTHING. All the ‘bad/evil’ things in the world are not ‘things’ at all but a withdrawal from good.

So there is no ‘fault’ to lay at God’s feet. God created good beings. The beings could choose to embrace and to magnify that good. . .or to withdraw a little, or a lot, from the good. As they withdraw, the absence of the good makes itself manifest.

Instead of being full of good like love, the absence of love shows itself as spite, as envy, and finally as hatred, being as far from love as it can be. . .but still not being an equal or a ‘created’ force, but merely the fullest absence from the real creation, which is only love.

 

[Jonny87]

I look at it like crime in our world. Criminals are not born criminals murderers do not murder when they are children instead they develop the urge to do so. Good men may become corrupt. Maybe satan through his free will began to question his loyalty to God and through this his pride was born. We all wonder why we obey God i’m sure at some time. Some of us are more curious than others about life without Him.

 

[Jonny87]

Laurie:

I think that this may help.

Good and evil are not two opposing forces.

Good is a force, it is a reality, it exists.

But evil is none of those.

Evil is the ‘absence’ of good.

I definitely agree with you. Some further evidence: Many satanist cults do not condone “evil” actions i.e. human sacrifice, pentagrams, demonic rituals. They believe in an absence of virtue; indulgence over self control, lust over abstinence, they follow the same rebellious path as satan. Like a child told to clean his room but he answers “Why should I” and doesn’t do it not knowing that his room would be a much better place to live in if it were clean.

 

[presidentjlh]

Basically what I’ve gathered about Satan is this:

God gave him basically everything anyone could ever want: a home in Paradise with the Father, and that wasn’t enough for Satan.

In short: Satan is a complete moron and a real piece of…work.

He is the greatest failure of them all. While I do hold some sympathy for souls in Hell, I hold no sympathy towards him or the other fallen angels. Not only are they in Hell, but they want everyone else to be there with them.

Everytime someone does good, it hurts Satan, and that’s a joy to me, because he deserves pain. He wants to bring down the entire human race to eternal suffering. He deserves no reprieve, no mercy, as he shows no reprieve, no mercy. He never loves, therefore, he is never to be loved.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Karg Ar

Let me try and explain my question again because you are not understanding it. I will take it a step at a time.

1] You and I agree that Satan had free will.

2] You and I also agree that this means he has the ability to choose evil.

3] OK, so now I come to my question, ‘Why did he use his free will to choose evil?

Let me explain with an illustration. I have free will and so I could choose to rob an old lady. But, if I did so it would be a fair question to ask why I did it. The reply’ because he had free will’ does not explain WHY I did it, it only explains that I had the capability to do it.

4]** Now this question is particularly hard because he was a great angel created by God and so would have realised that his true happiness lay in continued communion with God and, as a three year old child would know, a rebellion against an omnipotent God MUST fail.**

5] The usual answer to the first point is that Satan was proud but a good God would not have created a being with this evil character flaw. Nor would God have created a great angel so stupid as not to realise the points made in 4] above.

6] Now you can just reply that this story your church accepts PERIOD, so there must be some explanation OR

7] You could conclude that the story does not hang together and is therefore false.
**
Mormor**

You do not answer my questions but simply claim the story of Satan is true.

Tantum

Your point about evil not being anything does not deal with my questions. Could I ask that you read my reply to Karg and answer that? Thanks.

Jonny 87
Ordinary human beings are imperfect and have character flaws. Also they live in societies that are less than perfect. It is therefore often possible to explain an evil choice made by a person. But Satan was made by a good God so would not have had any character flaws and there was no sin in Heaven before his alleged rebellion.

President

Satan could not have been made ***‘a complete moron and piece of work’ ***by an all-powerful and perfectly good God.

 

[Cristian_B]

When we are talking about a mind I mean one that has no defect of character and has all the good qualities pertaining to its nature.

At the creation God made everything perfect of its type because he is 100 % good

Neither did Adam or Eve have any flaws.

But good things can turn into bad things.

They were too curious. Curiosity is good but not in very high quantities.

If one does not have any defects … does that mean he cannot make one mistake?

If it is not likely that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

 

[Cristian_B]

God did not create Satan with pride and envy but those originated later when He coveted God’s throne.

Adam and Eve were perfect, but with free will you can choose not to be perfect.

If He would have created them always wanting to be perfect … then it wouldn’t have been free will since they couldn’t ‘want’ otherwise.

You are missing what free will is.

 

[kage_ar]

Still comes back to the same thing.

Adam and Eve were not perfect. Only God is perfect.

Lucifer/Satan and the angels are not perfect, only God is perfect.

Imperfect beings with free will can become full of pride and choose evil.

Our OP is hanging onto the idea that created beings are perfect.

 

[momor]

[Mormor

You do not answer my questions but simply claim the story of Satan is true.

No, you have completely ignored what I wrote in post #17. I’ll post it again for you.

---

*Well, it’s not my answer. It comes from the Blessed Mother. I’ll give you the gist of the revelation but you should really read the chapter yourself. It’s short.

God revealed His plan to the angels that He would create humans and He would incarnate the Son of God as a human. He told the angels that they would have to worship the God/man. Not only would the God/man be above the angels but so would His fully human mother. Lucifer wanted to be the Christ and his pride and envy prevented him from submitting to God’s will for the whole of creation. He could not accept being subject to humanity. Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels rebelled, they fought a war with Michael and the good angels. They lost and were banished to hell. *

---

If you really want an explanation of why satan rebelled then read the account of the revelation by the Blessed Virgin and I’ll discuss with you.

sacredheart.com/The_Mystical_City_of_God_Book_01_Chapter_03.htm

If you don’t want to read it that’s fine, but don’t pretend that I am not offering you an answer to your questions.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Laurie,
You’re central question is why would a flawless reasonable creature choose to oppose an omnipotent God. Might I suggest that the answer lies in reconsidering what an angel actually is. One might suppose that an angel is sort of like a Terminator. It gets programming and info, and then all of its actions follow the programming invariably. This model is just too simple to describe a living creature like an angel. Why would they not have emotions, temptations, even passions? These are not flaws in themselves; certainly a human without them would be considered odd, if not pathological. I suspect angels are far more complex than our models, and you have to consider more than logic in pondering why one might sin. For example, did Satan really know the consequences of his actions? Angels are finite and therefore not omniscient. Presumably Satan was the first to disobey, so there would be no prior example to refer to. Most sin involves choosing what we think is good over what is actually good. Is it not possible that Satan, a complex limited creature, thought that disobediance was better than obediance for it might increase his glory? Pride is a flaw, but its possibility is a direct result of that which makes us sentient beings in the first place. There is no contradiction in asserting that God made good beings with the potential to err.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thanks to all for replies. Here are my answers

MOONTOWN PERSON
You say:

Most sin involves choosing what we think is good over what is actually good. Is it not possible that Satan, a complex limited creature, thought that disobedience was better than obedience for it might increase his glory?

The answer to your question has to be ‘no’. Remember he lives in prefect happiness in a perfect heaven containing no evil. He would know that there was no way things could be improved. Also he must know that a rebellion against God must fail – God is omnipotent!

In any case, he would soon have discovered that disobedience did not increase his glory and would have repented AND God would have forgiven him.

The whole story, take literally, makes no sense!

MOMOR

I am sorry but I only am willing to read what you say, otherwise I find I am swapping references. As to what you do say, you refer to Satan’s pride and envy. Please explain why a being created by a good God living in complete happiness in Heaven would have these character flaws. And please do not say it was because Satan had free will – that explains why he had the capability to rebel NOT why he did.

KARGY

You say;
Still comes back to the same thing.

Adam and Eve were not perfect. Only God is perfect.

Lucifer/Satan and the angels are not perfect, only God is perfect.

Imperfect beings with free will can become full of pride and choose evil.

A perfectly good God would create perfect human beings and perfect angels otherwise God would not be 100% good! Please answer this point.

CHRISTIAN B

What you miss is that a free choice is not a choice without a reason. When a person chooses freely they have a reason that they could give for the option they choose. And you cannot explain what reason Satan had. Refer please to my answers above where I explain in more detail.

You also say:

If one does not have any defects … does that mean he cannot make one mistake?

If it is not likely that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

A mistake is not the same as a sin. It is fair enough for Adam to wonder why he should not eat the apple but he would also know that he ought not to disobey God and being made by that perfectly good God would have no desire to disobey.
That is why the story introduces Satan. But this just defers the problem from Adam to Satan.

Cheers

Laurie

 

[momor]

Thanks to all for replies. Here are my answers

MOMOR

I am sorry but I only am willing to read what you say, otherwise I find I am swapping references. As to what you do say, you refer to Satan’s pride and envy. Please explain why a being created by a good God living in complete happiness in Heaven would have these character flaws. And please do not say it was because Satan had free will – that explains why he had the capability to rebel NOT why he did.

Cheers

Laurie

Sorry Laurie, it would be a waste of my time to regurgitate what you can read for yourself. I think if you are truly interested in the answer rather than the debate you would take the time and trouble to read it. I’m happy to discuss it with you after you read it.

 

[kage_ar]

We are going round and round and round and round.

Only God is perfect.

Unless you can produce official teaching of the Church that says otherwise, that is truth and we must accept it.

 

[FCEGM]

4]** Now this question is particularly hard because he was a great angel created by God and so would have realised that his true happiness lay in continued communion with God and, as a three year old child would know, a rebellion against an omnipotent God MUST fail.**

5] The usual answer to the first point is that Satan was proud but a good God would not have created a being with this evil character flaw. Nor would God have created a great angel so stupid as not to realise the points made in 4] above.

St,. Thomas Aquinas explains (in the De Malo, I believe) that the cause of evil can in no way be an evil act, or there would be a circular argument. The cause of evil must therefore be a permissible act, i.e., not a sin. That act would be not to think of God but of something else (what could be called a side-step). A second free act following on the first permissible act would be the cause of evil and the first sin ever and the origin of evil. That second free act was to make a decision without reference to God; that is impermissible and the sin.

But first, what was that first, permissible side-step? It was the act of thinking of himself.
Why would he do that? - Because God tested him by commanding him to serve lower creatures (us) whom He had not yet made. That was the test of his free will, namely, to trust in the goodness of God and therefore in all His commands.

But in freely looking at himself in reference to us future human beings, he saw the comparison of human beings who are part material in contrast to his own superior excellence not only as a purely spiritual being of enormous radiance of intellect and thus beauty and power, but also of rank above myriads of other angels – so his status and dignity regarding nature was huge compared to us future humans.

From that perspective of contrasting our lowliness with his excellence, he would have seen only the impropriety of the lower creature being placed higher in honor than the higher being (himself) if he chose to serve us. This is the perspective of mind alone.

He could have freely returned to thinking of God, which would have given him the proper perspective of God being all Good so as to trust Him that His request must be good and, thus, even though not being able to see how it was good freely to obey Him. IOW, he needed to believe and trust God, Who is all good and perfectly Innocent. But, he chose to remain looking as his own excellence in reference to lower creatures and not to look at his own lowliness before God.

In doing that, he exaggerated his own importance and desired his own excellence excessively, i.e., as higher than it actually was before God. That mean that he hated God’s plan for himself, wanting instead his own plan for himself, which was to stay just as he was while refusing God’s will for Him, and that meant hating God for requiring him to serve us future lowly creatures. And so he desired to take God’s place in his own life, which meant desire to kill God. That is impossible in itself but is possible to do in his own will, i.e., to kill God in himself by killing all love for God in himself. He could do that by extreme self-love which eliminates all love of the Other (God), and that is pure Malice for God. For angels, it is an all or nothing choice: to accept or reject God’s will and therefore God.

So Lucifer’s free (and mysterious) choice was not to revert his attention back to God but to remain looking at himself and then to act in this state of leaving God out of the picture in refusing to follow God’s will. He also refused to leave his place among the angels (he wanted it both ways). He is then no longer Lucifer, the bearer of light, but makes himself Satan, the opposer or adversary.

God is obliged to banish from the heaven of the angels. God does this by choosing a lesser angel compared to Lucifer, i.e., Michael, the archangel, with the task of driving him out of the company of the good angels. God gives Michael and those good angels assisting him the grace to do this, casting Lucifer out.

He descends to the atmosphere of our planet along with those angels that chose to go along with him (they probably see that this planet is where we are going to be created - the physical universe had already been created, though we humans had not yet been created).

In willing that the Angels serve the future humans, God was asking them to do something He was quite willing to do Himself (viz. he Second Person in God becoming a man to serve us and not be served!), that’s because GOD IS Love, and that love toward creatures is Mercy.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

It is very likely that God told the angels in the test that one of the humans (the future Virgin Mary) would be raised higher than all the angels, and that made Lucifer, looking at himself, hatefully jealous and envious of this free gift of God to the human race in Mary – that would make him no longer the most glorious creature, something he grasped onto, unlike the Son of God.

We can surmise this because of the punishment God allotted to the Serpent after the Original sin was that God put enmity between him and the Woman. That may also have been one of the reasons that Satan tempted Eve first.

Thus God created Lucifer and those who followed him good, gave them a free choice to love Him by asking them to go along with His mysterious command to serve lower creatures (human beings) who were yet to be created. And that one of them, a woman, would be higher in dignity according to the order of merciful grace than the angels were to us in the order of nature.

Lucifer freely chose to look at himself in reference to this will of God - a permissible thing to do, if one only did that (a side-step) and then looked back to do. But Lucifer chose freely not to look back to God but instead to act while looking at himself regarding this command. This second act is the sin of love of self over love of God. Thus the once Lucifer, now Satan, a shining darkness, is the origin of evil by his own free choice.

 

[momor]

It is very likely that God told the angels in the test that one of the humans (the future Virgin Mary) would be raised higher than all the angels, and that made Lucifer, looking at himself, hatefully jealous and envious of this free gift of God to the human race in Mary – that would make him no longer the most glorious creature, something he grasped onto, unlike the Son of God.

We can surmise this because of the punishment God allotted to the Serpent after the Original sin was that God put enmity between him and the Woman. That may also have been one of the reasons that Satan tempted Eve first.

Thus God created Lucifer and those who followed him good, gave them a free choice to love Him by asking them to go along with His mysterious command to serve lower creatures (human beings) who were yet to be created. And that one of them, a woman, would be higher in dignity according to the order of merciful grace than the angels were to us in the order of nature.

Lucifer freely chose to look at himself in reference to this will of God - a permissible thing to do, if one only did that (a side-step) and then looked back to do. But Lucifer chose freely not to look back to God but instead to act while looking at himself regarding this command. This second act is the sin of love of self over love of God. Thus the once Lucifer, now Satan, a shining darkness, is the origin of evil by his own free choice.

This is the best explanation I’ve seen.
All of us can relate to acting against our own welfare and common sense due to our pride.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Momor Post 32.

Fine – thanks for your time

Kargy Post 33

We are only going ‘round and round’ because you have not realised that a perfect God would make in heaven beings who were prefect OF THEIR TYPE.

FCEGM Post 34/35

These are some posts! Thanks.

Satan is asked to serve humans who are lesser than him, this makes him hateful and jealous etc.

But I remain unconvinced despite your [And St Thomas’s!] eloquence.

You see if Satan lives in the presence of God who is all love in a perfect Heaven, he would know that things could not get better. If you disagree then you are underestimating God’s love and the wonderful relationship he must have with his non-sinful creation. So Satan could never have contemplated rebellion or felt hate or jealousy – such emotions would be quite unreasonable and obviously going to lead to disaster. Why would he choose, for example, ‘not to look back on God’ when he knows that God is the source of all goodness and happiness.

You also do not explain how Satan could have decided on a rebellion against an omnipotent God – failure inevitable.

Or why, now he realises the dreadful consequences of his revolt, Satan has not repented and God forgiven him.

Sorry but I still claim that this story is a piece of medieval nonsense – best given up by a modern church.

Regards

Laurie

 

[VonDerTann]

Laurie:

On the outside, looking in from afar…

1. I cannot help but comment on your position that you won’t read references cited, and only want to debate. That is, with due respect, pretty unpersuasive reasoning. Let me explain.

Do you really think the questions you are asking have never, ever been asked before? And never, ever been answered? Although I think you have been given some good answers, the fact remains that the Catholic Church has produced most likely the greatest assortment of theologians the world has ever seen, bar none. Thomas Aquinas…Augustine…St. Albert the Great, etc. come to mind. We’re not them. Saying, as you essentially have, “I won’t read them, I only want to talk to you!” is akin to saying, “I won’t debate the professor, only the students!” then claim victory when the students give you what you (subjectively) deem to be unsatisfactory answers. That is not “debating,” it is simply making yourself feel good, only by refusing to consider the real authorities on the subject.

1. You say, “if Satan lives in the presence of God who is all love in a perfect Heaven, he would know that things could not get better.”
   –Prove it. The fact is you don’t know what he knows.
2. “Why would he choose, for example, ‘not to look back on God’ when he knows that God is the source of all goodness and happiness.”
   –Since we weren’t there, we can’t say. Neither can you.
3. “You also do not explain how Satan could have decided on a rebellion against an omnipotent God – failure inevitable.”
   –See answer to number 3.
4. “Or why, now he realises the dreadful consequences of his revolt, Satan has not repented and God forgiven him.”
   –See answer to number 3.
5. “Sorry but I still claim that this story is a piece of medieval nonsense – best given up by a modern church.”
   –Saying something is nonsense doesn’t make it so.

-VdT

 

[momor]

Laurie:

On the outside, looking in from afar…

1. I cannot help but comment on your position that you won’t read references cited, and only want to debate. That is, with due respect, pretty unpersuasive reasoning. Let me explain.

Do you really think the questions you are asking have never, ever been asked before? And never, ever been answered? Although I think you have been given some good answers, the fact remains that the Catholic Church has produced most likely the greatest assortment of theologians the world has ever seen, bar none. Thomas Aquinas…Augustine…St. Albert the Great, etc. come to mind. We’re not them. Saying, as you essentially have, “I won’t read them, I only want to talk to you!” is akin to saying, “I won’t debate the professor, only the students!” then claim victory when the students give you what you (subjectively) deem to be unsatisfactory answers. That is not “debating,” it is simply making yourself feel good, only by refusing to consider the real authorities on the subject.

1. You say, “if Satan lives in the presence of God who is all love in a perfect Heaven, he would know that things could not get better.”
   –Prove it. The fact is you don’t know what he knows.
2. “Why would he choose, for example, ‘not to look back on God’ when he knows that God is the source of all goodness and happiness.”
   –Since we weren’t there, we can’t say. Neither can you.
3. “You also do not explain how Satan could have decided on a rebellion against an omnipotent God – failure inevitable.”
   –See answer to number 3.
4. “Or why, now he realises the dreadful consequences of his revolt, Satan has not repented and God forgiven him.”
   –See answer to number 3.
5. “Sorry but I still claim that this story is a piece of medieval nonsense – best given up by a modern church.”
   –Saying something is nonsense doesn’t make it so.

-VdT

So true. I think Laurie had his mind made up before he asked the questions. Disingenuous I believe. But it was a good discussion anyway and someone more open-minded no doubt benefited.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello VANTHINGY,

Thanks for your comments. Try not to be too personal! Of course I have read books etc and will continue to do so. However on a forum like this I find that people sometimes send me away to read long books or articles as a substitute for dealing with my arguments. This is too time consuming to me PLUS if I read the article and then reply to some part of it, I often find my correspondent has not read it in detail themselves and so cannot reply sensibly. Finally if I reply with a book of my own I find that we then just swap books rather than discuss. For all these reasons I do not therefore Find this very productive. Of course if people do not want to converse because of this – that’s fine!

On to your other comments. You are good at saying ‘prove that!’ when you cannot answer my points. Nevertheless I will try.

“if Satan lives in the presence of God who is all love in a perfect Heaven, he would know that things could not get better.”
–Prove it.

God being perfect, a loving relationship would also be so. Satan knows that God is all-powerful and all-loving so he would realise that things could not improve.

Why would he choose, for example, ‘not to look back on God’ when he knows that God is the source of all goodness and happiness."
–Since we weren’t there, we can’t say. Neither can you.

This is a silly point. Are you saying that we cannot reason about the situation because ‘we were not there’?. But Catholics claim that they can say what Satan was about – he was proud and envious they say.

“You also do not explain how Satan could have decided on a rebellion against an omnipotent God – failure inevitable.”
–See answer to number 3.

You do not have to have been there to realise that Satan [and any 3 year old child that was about] would have reasoned – An omnipotent being cannot be beaten in a contest, I am about to challenge this being, so I will lose. AND of course he would therefore have refrained.

–Saying something is nonsense doesn’t make it so.

Absolutely right – could not agree more. That is why I said it after a lot of reasoning. Your answer to all my points ‘you cannot say that you were not there’ is inadequate.

I think you are assuming that the story is true and saying that you cannot answer my points but nevertheless there are answers and you think clever people in your church have found them. That is fair enough.

My view is that the inconsistencies in the story show that it is not true and should be given up as nonsense.

Best wishes

Laurie