Why did God create Satan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sean.McKenzie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The idea that it is impossible for creation to contain free will and not contain sin seems a strange one – after all, does not Christian faith include that very concept as one of its core tenets, in the form of Heaven?

As I understand the concept of Heaven, sin is impossible there. Does this mean that people who go to Heaven have been stripped of their free will?

Or is sin possible in Heaven?

Actually, upon reflection, Satan would have probably been in Heaven when he rebelled, so maybe sin is possible in Heaven after all. Hm.
 
Gilbert Keith:
Mordocai

“if Satan went before the throne and begged forgiveness, could he be redeemed?”

Great question! Why did God offer a second chance to Man but not to the Devil?
Click to expand...
Frank Sheed’s “Thelogy for Beginners” does a good job of helping explain this.

If my memory serves correctly, it has everything to do with us being “in time” and angels being outside of it. In order for a human being to fully possess him/herself, a lifetime must be lived out. Since angels are living outside of time, they “possess” their full self from the moment of existence. Thus, when an angel says “no” to God, it is with full consent of their full self. When man does so, we still have time to correct our mistake before reaching the end our life (at which time we will possess ourselves fully, and thus be judged).

As a side note, I think this theory plays well in refuting “once saved, always saved.” The fundamentalist says “I gave my life to God once, and now it’s a done deal.” The Catholic says, “I said yes to God w/everything I have so far, but it is not yet my whole self. Now I will say yes to God for the rest of my days, so that when I am fully myself, I can be judged w/fairness and mercy.”

Dianne

(Did I steer too far off track? lol)
 
40.png
ChiroCatholic:
In order for a human being to fully possess him/herself, a lifetime must be lived out.
Click to expand...
This seems like a nice theory until you consider infant death. Do babies fully possess themselves?
 
40.png
Stevereeno:
This seems like a nice theory until you consider infant death. Do babies fully possess themselves?
Click to expand...
Can a baby say “no” to God?

maybe it’s that we possess ourselves to the fullest extent that we are able–and only we and God know to what extent we are able–actually, God knows it better than we do…
 
40.png
st_felicity:
Can a baby say “no” to God?
Click to expand...
Huh? I would guess if it could say “yes” to God, then it could also say “no” to God.
 
40.png
Stevereeno:
Huh? I would guess if it could say “yes” to God, then it could also say “no” to God.
Click to expand...
Ooops–I was editing while you were stating that–I think we’re on the same page…
 
You have free will; you can do whatever you want but if you choose the wrong way it leads to death. Is that really free, or is that quite a bit of coercion? How can we freely follow God’s command to love Him with all our heart when we are painfully aware that if we don’t love Him we will experience eternal suffering?
Click to expand...
Not that I necessarily agree with this, but I have been unable to refute the point that we are supposedly required and commanded (under threat of eternal punishment and/or banishment) to do things that only have value if they are done freely. Yet this seems to be the way we present God’s calling to children.
Click to expand...
I still find it a little uneasy when we say in the act of contrition “I regret all my sins because of Your just punishment, but most of all because they offend Thee…” In words, this says most of all because they offend Thee, but notice the punishment is mentioned first. I have no doubt this prayer reinforces the idea that the real reason we are sorry for our sins because we know God will spank us but good.
Click to expand...
Alan
Click to expand...
I don’t know if my answer will be much help, but here’s how I look at it: our will is not free unless our choices have consequences. To use an incredibly simplified example, suppose I am in a room with two buttons. I have to press one button. If both buttons do the same thing, my choosing one or the other is meaningless.

A better answer probably would be to use an analogy. Let’s say a mom leaves her child in a room with a plate of cookies. She tells him not to eat the cookies. He chooses to do so anyway. As a result, he gets a stomach ache. His mother decides not to punish him because “he’s been punished enough already”. I kind of see the eternal suffering Hell is as the natural result of choosing against God rather than as an arbitrary punishment God imposes on us.
 
40.png
Stevereeno:
This seems like a nice theory until you consider infant death. Do babies fully possess themselves?
Click to expand...
No matter when we die, we are still creatures in time. As such, our life from conception to death makes us fully who we are. That’s the same whether we die in the womb or whether we live to be a hundred.
 
40.png
ChiroCatholic:
No matter when we die, we are still creatures in time. As such, our life from conception to death makes us fully who we are. That’s the same whether we die in the womb or whether we live to be a hundred.
Click to expand...
Maybe I don’t fully undestand what is meant by “possessing” oneself. Certainly, we would agree that a baby is void of knowledge. Therefore, a baby is also without any form of conscience. So too, without a conscience a baby cannot sin. Thus, a baby is incapable of saying “no” to God. However, if a baby is incapable of saying “no” to God, how is it able to say “yes” to God? :hmmm:

Maybe that is where water baptism comes into play. The parents are, in effect, saying “yes” to God for the baby. If so, the baby does not possess itself, the parents do.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with Satan.
 
40.png
romano:
Good question. Without free will we would just be robots. This would not be the best for Satan or anyone else. Having been given free will by God we can choose to be either good angels (or saints) or devils. Satan chose the latter, though I don’t know when. Perhaps he enjoyed angelic existence a long time before finally turning bad.
Click to expand...
I would think that the devil would disagree. Doesn’t he think of himself as God? Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven, and all that?
 
40.png
st_felicity:
… :hmmm: ummmmmm:D How’s this for a rigid interpretation? If God is timeless–how could he have done ANYTHING “before”? That implies time…:whistle: Darn it–it’s another one of the wonderful “Mysteries…”!
Click to expand...
God’s essence is existence and He is eternal - I agree. This does not mean that God can not operate within time. For example, in Genesis God “saw” that man needed a helpmate and then created one. Is this not a manisfestation of God operating within time despite being eternal?
It’s a mystery, you are right. He is eternally at work yet eternally at rest. We will never understand until we see Him “face to face”.

Phil
 
M.I. Knight:
I think the answer is that God loved Satan so much that he created him knowing fully well that he would burn in hell. I find it difficult to explain how this is love. Although I believe this is still love!
Click to expand...
I think this is an excellant question, and so far nobody has challenged or even attempted to answer this one
 
I wanna hear more thoughts on this question. Is it better to exist eternally suffering in hell, or to ot exist at all…Think of the question very hard, then answer, so far i have only seen one i think who has given an answer.
 
40.png
Sean.McKenzie:
I wanna hear more thoughts on this question. Is it better to exist eternally suffering in hell, or to ot exist at all…Think of the question very hard, then answer, so far i have only seen one i think who has given an answer.
Click to expand...
40.png
Felicity:
I’ve thought about it and I figure it is better because creation is an act of love–it is a gift–and either we can cherish that gift, or we can destroy it. But ultimately, it is a gift and there are no “strings” attached. God loves all His creations, and if He decided not to create us based on the choice we would make–it would not truly be a gift. When you give something away–you give up the control of that thing. God gave us the gift of existence and that in itself is good and an act of love–therefore better than no gift at all–regardless of what WE choose to do with it.
Click to expand...
I think it is an act of pure love and existence is “good” because all God’s creation is good simply due to the fact that it is of God. Non-existence is irrelevant. Existance means you are blessed. Therefore–existence–even in eternal torment–is a blessing and able to be borne by the grace of God’s gift of creation.
 
40.png
st_felicity:
This IS the crux of the question. I heard Fr. Trigilio on Web of Faith (I think) address this question once. I believe his answer was along the lines that it is better to have been created that to have never existed.

I’ve thought about it and I figure it is better because creation is an act of love–it is a gift–and either we can cherish that gift, or we can destroy it. But ultimately, it is a gift and there are no “strings” attached. God loves all His creations, and if He decided not to create us based on the choice we would make–it would not truly be a gift. When you give something away–you give up the control of that thing. God gave us the gift of existence and that in itself is good and an act of love–therefore better than no gift at all–regardless of what WE choose to do with it.
Click to expand...
I do not think that Fr. Trigilo is correct.
The Gospel according to Saint Matthew(RSV-CE):
The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."
Click to expand...
 
M.I. Knight:
I do not think that Fr. Trigilo is correct.
Click to expand...
I am very stuck on this issue, i agree with everything youi have said M.i. Knight
 
Can we in fact go to heaven if God knows we will go to hell. Can we change this outcome?
 
Would be willing to explain in more depth, the answer you gave. Explain the yes, and explain the no. Will either one of these produce a problem?
M.I. Knight:
Yes and no!
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Sean.McKenzie:
Would be willing to explain in more depth, the answer you gave. Explain the yes, and explain the no. Will either one of these produce a problem?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I read your words incorrectly. The yes and no was refering to God not humans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top