Why has the devil rebelled against God?

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

In the Beatific Vision, God reveals Himself directly to us.
It is through the complete, total giving of ourselves to Him, in loving Him completely, that we are united with Love Itself.

Satan chose otherwise and fell like lightning from heaven.
Pride is said to be the cause.

Believing that the beatific vision is all about the self, pride, he seems to be attempting to create his own version, desiring the greatness that belongs to God.
He doesn’t know love, so he imagines vain-glory is what it is all about.
Maybe he has tricked us into thinking the same; maybe we actually think the same.
At any rate this is his world: one of shared lies, illusory treasures that moths and rust destroy, and thieves can steal, the power of puppets, where all is ultimately dust, and clinging to this dust, we fall to perdition.

 

[Nelka]

I mean, the devil knew/know God is almighty, but he is still against him. Why did he rebell against God in the first place? Doesn’t he know he can’t win?

Pride.

 

[mikekle]

Think about this…IF Satan had NOT fallen and continued on as his role as most powerful angel, how would this have effected mans free will?

Sure, we would all still have free will, BUT there would be NO demonic influence, NO Satan actively trying to deceive the world, what would this world have looked like? Would Adam and Eve have even dupped into eating the apple, had Satan not been there to trick them?

I think Satan was specifically created for this role, God knew before he created Satan and the other 1/3 of the angels what was to become of them, yet he went on to create them, and makes the comment that EVERYTHING is good.

I feel this way because I have a hard time accepting the most powerful of any angel created would be so foolish to think he himself could stand a chance against God…Satan was not like us in being foolish and making mistakes, he was MUCH more intelligent than any human and did not need faith as we do…He KNEW for a fact what God was capable of.

This would akin to an housefly having the ability to overpower an elephant…IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE, the act of overpowering it OR even thinking it could, this goes for Satan as well, there is just no way he could have thought he stood any chance against God.

Many say Satans pride was the cause, this would be an excuse for a human, but we have to keep in mind, Satan was VERY intelligent(more than we can even understand), pride would not have been enough to make him literally believe he stood a chance

The ONLY explanation for this would be IF Gods all powerful nature was exaggerated to mankind, and satan knew the actual truth about God and his power. Plus, its not just Satan that thought this way, 1/3 of the angels also bought into this, while they are not as powerful or intelligent as satan, they are all FAR more intelligent than ANY human, so this speaks volumes as well.

 

[Aloysium]

. . .The ONLY explanation for this would be IF Gods all powerful nature was exaggerated to mankind, and satan knew the actual truth about God and his power. Plus, its not just Satan that thought this way, 1/3 of the angels also bought into this, while they are not as powerful or intelligent as satan, they are all FAR more intelligent than ANY human, so this speaks volumes as well.

I’m not sure what you are talking about.
God is Love.
Have you given yourself, completely, totally to Him?
This is what love is about. Love is giving, surrendering oneself.
C.S. Lewis said something like, you never quite have anything until you give it away.
But this is hard to do, and Satan had far more to give away than you or I, as you note discussing his power and intelligence.
People anguish about masturbation. It seems reasonable that it would be far more difficult for him, to give up on having billions of minions following him, even if it is on the road to hell.
People sell their souls here for so much less.

 

[Timothysis]

When was she canonized?

I am aware that she was *beatified *in 2004, but am unaware that she was canonized. Given the controversy that attended her beatification, I would expect that any canonization would be well-covered by the Catholic and secular press.

Pardon me; I misspoke. But my point is still as valid.

 

[Timothysis]

I agree that private revelations shouldn’t be presented as fact. But the ones that are permitted by the Church for private reading are permitted because the Church found that they don’t contradict what we know from public revelation. And sometimes, as with Ven. Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, it not only doesn’t contradict but seems to make sense by combining what we know with reason. In this case, when the theology can be deduced, I don’t think it’s a fair to go to the other extreme by totally writing it off as “folklore and wild imagination.” Even though the Church says that it’s not on the same level as public revelation, by permitting it to be read by the faithful, She acknowledges that it is useful on some level for private reading if one chooses to believe it with a pious human faith.

And again I say that speculation shouldn’t be presented as fact.

 

[Robertanthony]

And again I say that speculation shouldn’t be presented as fact.

I find it ironic that you seem to demand facts, saying how this or that are mere speculations, when religion, God and everything revolving around it are not based on rock solid evidence. One single event, which had cataclysmic consequences, happened ages ago, can you tell me where or when it happened, or can you give me a rough time frame of when Adam sinned? Why did Jesus have to die, how does the brutal murder of one’s son help reconciliation with people who have grievously offended you? Did Job really exist? Who recorded the conversation that Satan and God had concerning Job? Did the flood happen, was it worldwide or not, can I trace my dog’s family tree back to one of the dogs that was in the Ark? Did Simon Stock receive a scapular straight from Mary’s hands? What year was Jesus born, what year did he die? Most of what we have is speculation.

 

[Timothysis]

I find it ironic that you seem to demand facts, saying how this or that are mere speculations, when religion, God and everything revolving around it are not based on rock solid evidence. One single event, which had cataclysmic consequences, happened ages ago, can you tell me where or when it happened, or can you give me a rough time frame of when Adam sinned? Why did Jesus have to die, how does the brutal murder of one’s son help reconciliation with people who have grievously offended you? Did Job really exist? Who recorded the conversation that Satan and God had concerning Job? Did the flood happen, was it worldwide or not, can I trace my dog’s family tree back to one of the dogs that was in the Ark? Did Simon Stock receive a scapular straight from Mary’s hands? What year was Jesus born, what year did he die? Most of what we have is speculation.

The answers to these questions are not simply speculation; there is a branch of philosophy called “theology” that deals with them. Philosophy is based on logic and reason. Thomas Aquainis’ “speculation” of Satan’s refusal to serve is simply based on the concept of not being united with God in all things, for what else could separate one from the Almighty? Many of the responses given here, refusing to acknowledge God in the Incarnation, or his anger over the veneration of Mary are nothing but guesses and good ideas.

Furthermore, there is a difference between accepting things on blind speculation and a pious faith. Faith is believing things that we know to be true while not being able to “prove” it. Many of your questions are simply nonsensical (“Who recorded the conversation that Satan and God had concerning Job”). The Church doesn’t ask such questions and she also does not speculate on them, either.

 

[Robertanthony]

The answers to these questions are not simply speculation; there is a branch of philosophy called “theology” that deals with them. Philosophy is based on logic and reason. Thomas Aquainis’ “speculation” of Satan’s refusal to serve is simply based on the concept of not being united with God in all things, for what else could separate one from the Almighty? Many of the responses given here, refusing to acknowledge God in the Incarnation, or his anger over the veneration of Mary are nothing but guesses and good ideas.

Furthermore, there is a difference between accepting things on blind speculation and a pious faith. Faith is believing things that we know to be true while not being able to “prove” it. Many of your questions are simply nonsensical (“Who recorded the conversation that Satan and God had concerning Job”). The Church doesn’t ask such questions and she also does not speculate on them, either.

Job 1: 7-12. Asking who was privy to that conversation is nonsensical only if it did not happen, if it did happen, I think it’s a legitimate question. Or perhaps a word of warning in the preface of the OT: mostly fiction, sprinkled with a few real-life events, whose occurrence can not be backed up in any way, shape or form.
Nobody can agree on just what Christ meant when he said to “turn the other cheek”, so speculation is pretty much all we have to work with. Christ, who we are to imitate, to model, opposed no resistance when he was arrested or put to death, the concept of killing in self-defense does not derive naturally from Christ’s reaction to threat and harm, I bet a great deal of speculation happened to come up with something as antithetical to Christ’s whole being as killing someone who threatens your physical integrity or life. If you like to speculate, religion is for you. Given that, don’t call out someone saying they’re merely speculating when speculation is pretty much all we have. Matthew 5:40 is plain as daylight, yet can you just imagine the amount of speculation people have engaged in to not do what it very plainly tells us to do when somebody steals something from us. “Matthew 5:40 is essentially saying that it’s lawful to defend against someone who intends to steal something from you, even if it means taking the offender’s own life”. Massive speculation. Very little facts or certainty. So speculation is so pervasive that mentioning that an idea is speculation is irrelevant. From an outsider’s point of view, the billions of years, as it were, spent by God refining the creation of soul-infused man project, to arrive at a situation where Adam and Eve probably remained in God’s frienship for 6 months, a year, two years maybe, Original Sin looks like an accident waiting to happen, or an accident willed to happen. I mean people have set places on fire to be later heralded as these heroic, selfless champions because they “saved” lives. But, again, that is mere speculation on my part.

 

[Timothysis]

If you like to speculate, religion is for you.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t contain speculation, it contains those religious truths that form the dogmas of the Church. While certain events may be open to varying degrees of speculation, the Church leaves those windows open and does not speak authoritatively one way or another so, in that sense, I suppose we do speculate. I still maintain, however, that speculation should not be presented as fact. Your varying questions seem to reveal more of a lack of knowledge on the subject than an honest attempt to understand it.

 

[Michael_Conard]

As an answer to the original question of why Satan would rebel against God, here is a thought.

What if at some point Satan thought that God was not all-powerful, and deceived himself into thinking that he could possibly “defeat” God? As a small piece of evidence for this idea, I’ll quote from the book of 1 Kings, chapter 22, when the prophet Micaiah was speaking to the King of Israel at the time:

“And Micaiah said, ‘Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the Lord said, “Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, “I will entice him.” And the Lord said to him, “By what means?” And he said, “I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” And he said, “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.”’” (1 Kings 22:19-22 ESV).

What if Satan saw these audiences of God and his angels as God showing a sign of weakness that He would need to obtain advice from angels?

Just a thought.

 

[Robertanthony]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t contain speculation, it contains those religious truths that form the dogmas of the Church. While certain events may be open to varying degrees of speculation, the Church leaves those windows open and does not speak authoritatively one way or another so, in that sense, I suppose we do speculate. I still maintain, however, that speculation should not be presented as fact. Your varying questions seem to reveal more of a lack of knowledge on the subject than an honest attempt to understand it.

Dogmas=facts, much of what hasn’t been defined as dogma=not facts, therefore open to speculation? The Catechism is vital to one’s faith and salvation, the Bible could be done without? I understand we’re free to believe in private revelations approved by the Church (Akita, Fatima, La Salette etc.), am I free to think that not only, say Fatima is a fraud, but that the crowd who witnessed the sun move (or “dance”) were deluded, gullible fools?

 

[PJM]

=Timi Celcer;11783790]I mean, the devil knew/know God is almighty, but he is still against him. Why did he rebell against God in the first place? Doesn’t he know he can’t win?

Ego + Pride is the devils primary tool, even today.

Ego + Pride caused satan to desire to BE GOD! That was his goal and motive.

 

[Timothysis]

Dogmas=facts, much of what hasn’t been defined as dogma=not facts, therefore open to speculation?

Dogma is something that is declared through the authority of Christ’s Church to be true and factual pertaining to the plan of salvation. Something that doesn’t rise to the level of dogma does not equal “not facts” (whatever that means); it simply means that it hasn’t risen to the level that dogma reaches.

Catechism is vital to one’s faith and salvation, the Bible could be done without?

The catechism contains the teachings and faith of the Church. Some of it is doctrine, some of it is not. No one said the “Bible could be done without.” The Bible, though, is not a collection of the faith, teachings and dogmas of the Church. Apples and oranges.

I understand we’re free to believe in private revelations approved by the Church (Akita, Fatima, La Salette etc.), am I free to think that not only, say Fatima is a fraud, but that the crowd who witnessed the sun move (or “dance”) were deluded, gullible fools?

You are certainly free to think whatever you wish. It hardly seems charitable to consider the people present at Fatima to be “deluded, gullible fools,” especially since you weren’t there to verify it one way or the other.