Questions about Satan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Laurie_Gibson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Laurie:

You write:

“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.”
–That’s not what you said. You said you wouldn’t read what was cited.

“This is too time consuming to me…”
–Do you want an accurate answer, or a dumbed-down version that will fit into 3 sentences? Some things can’t be distilled to 3 sentences. If you really want deep theological truth, don’t be shocked when you’re told, in essence, “go plow through all of Thomas Aquinas – the unabridged dozens of volumes of him – giving due time to study his writings.”

“You are good at saying ‘prove that!’ when you cannot answer my points.”
–No one can answer your points, since we weren’t present and can’t say. For that matter, you yourself have no evidence to back up your points.

“God being perfect, a loving relationship would also be so.”
–Once again – prove it. You assume that a loving relationship must be “perfect.” You can’t even say what “perfect” is, let alone prove that a loving relationship must always be perfect.

“Satan knows that God is all-powerful and all-loving so he would realise that things could not improve.”
–Once again: You have no evidence for what Satan a) knows now; b) knew then; or c) even that his knowledge can be defined or explained by humans or on human terms. You have no evidence that he knew and disregarded the risks…or thought he knew better…or whatever.

“Are you saying that we cannot reason about the situation because ‘we were not there’?.”

–We lack direct knowledge, and evidence, because we were not there. Therefore no one can be precise or anywhere near it. We can make some surmises but cannot be definite.

–We can, however, reason to some extent, based on what evidence we have. What evidence is that? Many sources: a) the Bible, which we believe to be the inspired word of God, even if we don’t need to literally believe every word of it; b) the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, derived directly from Jesus; c) the reasoning of theologians like, for example, Thomas Aquinas, who wrote extensively on the subjects of God; His Nature; angels; their nature; and the like; d) closer to home, the writings of people like Father Gabriele Amorth [Chief Vatican Exorcist for decades] who has written extensively on the subjects of diabolic infestations, demonic possession, etc.; Father Malachi Martin [an instructor at the Vatican’s Pontifical Institute, if I recall correctly], and other authors who have studied these subjects about as closely as they can be studied.

“But Catholics claim that they can say what Satan was about – he was proud and envious they say.”
–Please provide a source for your assertion. The Bible? Must the Bible be 100% literally true? A Pope? A writing of a Pope?

"You do not have to have been there [at the rebellion] 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.

–Once again: You are projecting onto Satan what you would do, or what you think a sane, or rational person, or even a kind person, would do, without any evidence – which cannot exist for us – as to what he was thinking in the dim ages past.

“Your answer to all my points ‘you cannot say that you were not there’ is inadequate.”
–Saying, “you have no evidence” does not make my answers “inadequate,” “silly,” or whatever moniker you choose to give them.

“My view is that the inconsistencies in the story show that it is not true…”

–You did not say there were “inconsistencies,” you said the whole thing was made-up “nonsense,” because you said you subjectively could not understand it…all the while acknowledging that you would not “read up” on authoritative writings. This is no different than saying, “I don’t understand logic class because I won’t read the textbook,” then concluding that logic should be rejected and should be given up as nonsense.
Laurie, what your posts really all boil down to is you saying, “I can’t personally believe Satan did, what he did, or that the fall happened as it did, because it seems so illogical/silly/etc. to me.” If you want to assume you can know Satan’s motivations, which none of us really can, go ahead, we can’t stop you…but to therefore conclude that all reasoning to the contrary is “nonsense” and should be discarded – coming from one who admits she won’t even read up on the subject – seems a tad egotistical to me, anyway.

-VdT
 
Hello again and thanks for your answer.

I have stated my views on ‘going away and reading’ at the invitation of a correspondent so I’ll leave it at that.

As to what you do say.

We lack direct knowledge, and evidence, because we were not there. Therefore no one can be precise or anywhere near it. We can make some surmises but cannot be definite

You are very keen on the point that as we were not there we cannot know what went on. Now if all this amounts to is that we cannot be certain then I have no disagreement because there is very little we can be absolutely sure about. That is why we have to rely on probability.

For example if we heard that X was a keen Catholic it would be reasonable to deduce that they agreed with most of the church’s teachings. Of course it is possible, but not very likely, that they do not. Nevertheless you and I and most people would on the basis of the information given draw the conclusion indicated and would not really be phased by a pedant who asserted [correctly] that it was not 100% certain.

Now here briefly I repeat some of my reasoning.

1] Satan, a being created by God, so necessarily without character flaws, and in a perfectly happy relationship with God, would have the ability to rebel because he had free will, but would have no motive to do so.
2] Even if he had he would know that rebellion against an omnipotent being must fail, hence he would not rebel.

This reasoning is easy, simple and pretty certain! I’ll agree, if it makes you happy, that it is not 100% certain because 99% suits me fine!

You say to me.
You have no evidence for what Satan a) knows now; b) knew then; or c) even that his knowledge can be defined or explained by humans or on human terms. You have no evidence that he knew and disregarded the risks…or thought he knew better…or whatever.

Oh but I have:
Satan was a great angel according to the story and so, as he existed in the presence of God and felt his love, he would know that God was all-loving and all-powerful. Why would he not have this knowledge that you think you have? Are you saying the angels and saved souls in heaven will not know the nature of God when they are in his presence?

Our two positions are very clear really.
**
I have read the story of Satan and his rebellion and wondered if it were true. Thinking about it, there seemed to me to be lots of inconsistencies which suggested it was false. I have asked Christians about these and, so far have not had an answer that seemed reasonable. Hence my provisional conclusion is that the story of Satan is false.**

You, on the other hand, being a Catholic, are sure that the story of Satan is true. Therefore any seeming inconsistencies must have an answer even if you do not know what they are.

All the best

Laurie
 
Laurie_Gibson said:
Now here briefly I repeat some of my reasoning.

1] Satan, a being created by God, so necessarily without character flaws, and in a perfectly happy relationship with God, would have the ability to rebel because he had free will, but would have no motive to do so.
2] Even if he had he would know that rebellion against an omnipotent being must fail, hence he would not rebel.

This reasoning is easy, simple and pretty certain! I’ll agree, if it makes you happy, that it is not 100% certain because 99% suits me fine!
Click to expand...
Your insistence that your reasoning is accurate ( which you have no proof of ) is the problem. If your reasoning is inaccurate, as many here have tried to show, then all of your extrapolations will also be inaccurate.

You can continue to argue as if you are right and we are wrong and get nowhere. Or you can choose the more intellectually honest route and say you have not been convinced, and will agree to disagree, allowing that you could be as wrong as you think we are.
 
Laurie:

Here’s your reasoning:

“1] Satan, a being created by God, so necessarily without character flaws, and in a perfectly happy relationship with God, would have the ability to rebel because he had free will, but would have no motive to do so.
2] Even if he had he would know that rebellion against an omnipotent being must fail, hence he would not rebel.”

Let’s take that apart, piece by piece:

“1] Satan, a being created by God, so necessarily without character flaws…”
-You are assuming that if one is created by God, that creation must by necessity be without character flaws. You have not proven this. You just assume.

“and in a perfectly happy relationship with God,…”
–Once again you assume the relationship is perfectly happy on the part of the created. You have not proven this. You also assume the created cannot or does not choose to be unhappy.

“…would have the ability to rebel because he had free will, but would have no motive to do so.”
–You cannot prove what the motive(s) are. In fact, you cannot prove anything like it, particularly if you grant free will. Free will implies a choice.

“2] Even if he had he would know that rebellion against an omnipotent being must fail, hence he would not rebel.”
–You assume he knew he would fail – without proof. You assume – without proof – that ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ were the only options Satan beleived were open to him (simply thinking 'I want to go somewhere else!" seems a perfectly valid third option). You assume – without proof – that he wasn’t free to simply reject God (as we all are).

So what this all boils down to is what I wrote earlier: You personally cannot conceive of why Satan rebelled, so you conclude he couldn’t have.

You also wrote:

“I have read the story of Satan and his rebellion and wondered if it were true.”
–You’ve not even told us which story you are referring to.

“You, on the other hand, being a Catholic, are sure that the story of Satan is true.”
–Why do you assume what I believe, since you can’t even tell us what story you refer to.

Thomas Aquinas described why Angels fell in the “Summa Theologica.” The Bible teaches that God created the angels, and like all of God’s creations they were “good,” but that did not mean they were incapable of sin. To be incapable of sin, Aquinas wrote, the angels would need to be in a state of bliss that he defined as “seeing the essence of God,” and fall of some angels shows that the angelic nature was not created in that state." His view was that the angels who chose to follow God demonstrated a willingness to receive God’s grace. In Aquinas’s view the angels who sinned exercised their free will.

–VdT
 
Satan’s Motivation.

Before the beginning, there was Something [Spirit] that was “all” in “one”; it was all encompassing, complete, and self-sustaining. It took up all space. It was perfect (in the true sense of the word). Perfect means “has everything”; “all resource” (all “knowledges of good” and “knowledges of evil” therefore it was both…all…everything. It was indeed the source of all good and all evil…“all” in “one”…All-one…al-one…alone.

The problem is, it’s boring being alone. So I will be “All in all”.
STRATEGY - I’ll make others but I need space to do it, right? I mean, if I already take up all space I need to lose some weight…so I make a distinction between what “will be” and what “won’t be”…but in order to do this there needs to be a dividing line (so to say) between what is (will be) and what isn’t (won’t be)…

So I make My Law. The perfect (meaning “complete”) line that defines “everything that is” from “everything that isn’t”, effecively creating a distinction; a void.

“What IS” (spiritual) | “What IS NOT” (nothingness)

Now there’s room to work, but where’s the workspace? In the Void, of course! In the vaccum; in what isn’t!

Naturally, “I AM (always) WHAT (really) IS” so in my presence “what isn’t” (the void) is undone, so I’m bound by my line/Law to keep my true presence away from it, but I just made the “perfect” space to create things that have never been, I just need to add more dimensions to my line (blueprints) so that any stuff in this void can hold itself together.

Now there is what “is not”, whether you call it sin, darkness, space doesn’t matter. It HAD to be in order for there to be room to create. It’s the sandbox; canvas on which to work. I will be invisible (never seen) to ALL my creatures; they’ll only hear my voice (since my true presence is too much for the Void), but this will be enough.
The truth is, “I WILL (always) BE WHAT (really) IS” so in order for things to exist in this void they’ll need a portion of what is; a portion of ME; spirit. I’ll divide, and they’ll multiply.

I’ll create perfect (complete) images of me that can exist in this void…They’ll be extensions of me and will create and fulfill my plan. They will be bright lights in the darkness of the Void. They’ll start the clock on my behalf, and will perform my work…but let me first think about this task to its end before I make my first:

A) For anything to be, it will need a measure of me…
B) Because they won’t really exist on their own (have no life in themselves), they’ll need to maintain the link to me through the Line I created
C) However, what makes me ME is my “choice” TO BE, so as part of me they will also choose…but the only choices are “what really is” (me) and what’s not.
D) So there’s a perfect certainty that some will choose against me simply because they have a choice; motivation: innocent curiousity.

…But unfortunately as soon as they choose, they will cease “to be” because only I AM, and without me, they are not. But they need the choice because they can’t “BE” without “choice”, as I AM with it.

Also, there is a perfect certainty that my “first” will lead this death-choice (sooner or later), simply because he’ll be “the first”. Of course, he will be exactly the same as his brother and sisters, but because he will be “the first” they will look to him as leader; and he will eventually look to himself with authority. Being “first” is the only thing extra he’ll have comparitively, but its everything as I AM first. He will eventually choose against me…and all will follow his lead to oblivion.

Hmm…

Solution: “The first will be last and the last will be first (as law)”. I will give “the last” all authority over everything, even the “first”. The last will choose perfect (“complete”) obedience to me (simply because he will witness the consequences of the “first’s” choices and will always choose wisely…and because he’ll have authority he will not follow the first. He will be the first I call “Son” (because he will choose “what is”).

Of course, this will only cause resentment within the “first” (because all authority is naturally with the first, as I AM first) and will accellerate his eventual choice against me…but not all will follow him in this scenario.

Being the true “first”, his choices will be motivated by “a desire for his authority” as he’ll feel it’s rightfully his to possess.

He and many of his siblings are wise, as they will be around since the beginning of time, but I AM eternal (before time). Their plan will almost be as masterful, but I have already figured out everything they’ll do even before they’re created, and I will use their actions to further my own plan to “save” those who follow the “first”…and in the end, even the “first” will understand that my plan is perfect…but he won’t until then.
I (The Holy Spirit) AM (now) Father (of creatures).

The last of my bright lights will be my (begotten) Son

Given to him is all authority to complete my plan, so in his lead I will create beings in whom I’ll become “all in all”…

But not before the “first” attempts to sit in my seat and take the authority I’ve given to my (begotten) Son, as my Son’s authority IS my authority.

“Let there be light”
All throughout the bible is this one story repeating itself over and over:
  • The firstborn sets the stage for the plan, being the first to choose any path
  • The lastborn (or younger) receives the birthright or authority to complete the plan
  • The firstborn then grows envious of the younger and plots to take the birthright
  • The firstborn then must yield to the younger’s authority
Satan’s motivation: being first.
 
Hello and Goodbye

I feel that, after this post, I have said all that I can on this subject. Also I have various matters which will be calling on my time…so this is likely to be my final post here.

First then, THANKS to all of you who have been kind enough to reply to me so pleasantly.

Second, let me try to respond to your latest posts:

JulieAA

No I do not think Satan exists because I think, for the reasons given here, that the story about him does not make any sense when you think about it.

**Momor **– you say:

Your insistence that your reasoning is accurate ( which you have no proof of ) is the problem.

Well I do not ‘insist’ my reasoning is accurate. Obviously I must think that it is but I put it forward so that people like yourself can point out its flaws. It does seem to me that you have not done so, and other people must now judge if I am correct.

Here is my reasoning again which readers can evaluate:

1] Satan, a being created by God, so necessarily without character flaws, and in a perfectly happy relationship with God, would have the ability to rebel because he had free will, but would have no motive to do so.
2] Even if he had he would know that rebellion against an omnipotent being must fail, hence he would not rebel.

VDT

1] Satan, a being created by God, so necessarily without character flaws…"
-You are assuming that if one is created by God, that creation must by necessity be without character flaws. You have not proven this. You just assume.

Here is the assumption. A good, all-powerful being would not make something with flaws. That would be a bad thing to do and a good being would not do it.

and in a perfectly happy relationship with God,…"–Once again you assume the relationship is perfectly happy on the part of the created. You have not proven this. You also assume the created cannot or does not choose to be unhappy.

God is supposed to be like a father to the people he created. Before the fall then his relationship with Satan must have been perfectly happy. God is perfectly good ergo his relationship with Satan must have been so initially.

Satan would have the ability to rebel because he had free will, but would have no motive to do so."
–You cannot prove what the motive(s) are. In fact, you cannot prove anything like it, particularly if you grant free will. Free will implies a choice.

VDT, I do wish you would read what I write! I have said loads of times that I accept that free will implies choice. It is not in dispute that Satan had the ability to choose evil – what is in question is his motivation. That is what this whole discussion is about. [As for the ‘prove’ bit – please refer to my previous post where I cover that point.

[COLOR=“darkgreen”]2] Even if he had he would know that rebellion against an omnipotent being must fail, hence he would not rebel."
–You assume he knew he would fail – without proof.

Not so I said that Satan would know God’s nature because he was in God’s presence. He would know just as you know that God is all-powerful

You assume – without proof – that ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ were the only options Satan beleived were open to him (simply thinking 'I want to go somewhere else!" seems a perfectly valid third option).
He must have known that there was no way he could successfully defy God –for the reasons just given.

I think that I have said enough here – so thanks very much for your time and effort – I wish you well.

Laurie Gibson
 
No I do not think Satan exists because I think, for the reasons given here, that the story about him does not make any sense when you think about it.

Well, therein, is the problem. You have believed the lie. Satan is the great deceiver, father of all lies and he has blinded you. Believe me when I say this to you with love, and not through self-righteousness on my part! I pray that you will soon seek and find the truth!

I think that I have said enough here – so thanks very much for your time and effort – I wish you well.

Laurie Gibson

I honestly and truthfully hope and pray that you find the truth, Laurie!
 
Joshua27 said:
Satan’s Motivation: Being First.
Click to expand...
Continuing…

Satan’s Rebellion:

Everything that has happened “here” on earth is a reflection of what happens “there”.

Recall that the tabernacle and Israelites temple was said to be a duplication of the real one in “heaven” (the spirit world). Research it’s structure:

There was an outer court…then an inner holy place…and then there was a barrier - a veil - that separated that place from an area called “holy of holies” (where the true presence of God resided); This is the side of “what (really) is”.

So it is written that The Father has always been unseen. If we are to believe this, then No BEING had ever seen him…not one…not even the Elohim.

**The Father’s Authority (as First) was given to his “begotten” Son ** (i.e. “the one who will be perfectly obedient and inline with his law”) because the Son - as “the last” - will witness all choices & consequences of all those who preceed him and choose wisely, thus…

Only the (begotten) Son is inline enough to hear the Father’s voice and feel his presence; so only the Son spoke for the Father. Only the begotten Son is The Word of God.

So did Satan know that his rebellion MUST fail? No…because as far as he knew, he’s rebellion was against his youngest brother who spoke with his [Satan’s] rightful authority; the authority of “the first”, a younger brother who also asserts to speak for the Father even though no one has ever seen the Father or really felt him (other than the Son, as he claims)…a Father who’s true presence was bound to the other side of the veil; the line; the law. “How do we know he even exists?”, I presume was one of Satan’s arguments.

[But because of the Father’s love, he would not present himself to what “is not (really)”, consequently destroying his creatures (those who resided past **the veil in the void; in the outer courts of heaven and lower levels of physical world].

So Satan and his hosts - who were loyal to Satan because they believed the authority of “the first” naturally lies with “the first” - rebelled and arranged a plot to take the authority, which has (so far) spanned 6 days.

Satan said:

"
I will ascend to heaven “what is”];
I will exalt my throne above the stars of Eloah [my siblings];
I will sit upon the mount of assembly [my siblings] in the uttermost north [holy of holies].
I will ascend above the heights [authority] of the clouds (“water in heaven” = life);
I will make myself like the Most High [Truly “The First”].
"

However, as soon as the Son showed complete (perfect) obedience, the veil was ripped in half because the perfect gateway/path of follow to becoming a “begotten” (son or daughter) was confirmed [so that all who “chose” obedience and followed the Son could now hear the Father’s voice and the Father could now truly dwell within them as well].

Unfortunately for Satan, as soon as this happened Satan and his host were banished from even the outer courts of heaven, presumably because the veil that ripped exposed them to the true presence of God and only “what is” can exist in the presence of “what is”. Since Satan and his crew chose “what is not” long before the veil ripped, they could not bare the light lest they be undone.

Now…in the end…Satan understands that the Father exists and that his authority has always resided with the “begotten”. He couldn’t have known this until the veil ripped and exposed the true presence of the Father. So what’s the next move for Satan? The answer is simple…

In a desparate attempt to avoid being “undone”, Satan will keep as many under his false authority, entertained, and blind to the truth - as best as he can - so that they can’t “choose”, because once the truth is known; once the true options are presented, people WILL make their choice since “choice” is in our nature as Beings from the One who chooses TO BE.

what “is” vs. what “isn’t”…darkness vs. light.

Right now we’re under a grace period of “ignorance” (not many know the full truth), but once they do - and people make their choice - there will be nowhere the darkness (what “is not”) or Satan can hide once the light (“what is”) is everywhere.
 
Laurie_Gibson said:
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
Click to expand...
That would go against free will. You can choose to disobey.

His reasons were that he wanted to become like God. A small fissure in the wall was enough for the water to go trough, and for that fissure to eventually become bigger and bigger.

Probably, when He felt envy on God, he could have abandoned his feelings and everything would have been normal. But he left it unsolved and then it became unstoppable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top