Michael Fisher said...
DV, answer me this, if you would:Given that Satan is God's creation and given that God knows all including how people will "choose" between God and Satan, and thus already determined (before they were even born) that those people who choose Satan will indeed choose Satan...
Given all that, what's the actual difference between God and Satan?
Difference between God and Satan? Fair question Mike.
To worship God is to follow a healthy spiritual and moral design.
To worship Satan, is to "Do what thou wilt", which is the belief that man can usurp God and redefine reality. To worship Satan is an attempt to become God.
Which is what I've been trying to tell you is behind the NWO's push of Gay Marriage, as an example. It's not about marriage or sex at all. It's about redefining reality. When you participate in the absurdity of calling male sexual perverts ... "parents" - you are participating in a manufactured reality. You are granting the authors of that absurdity - God status, by believing in the illusion.
Luciferianism suits elitists because it denies the existence of a natural design and absolute standards of justice, truth and morality. Instead it preaches atheism and decadence under the disguise of personal freedom.
18 comments:
Nah... God and Satan are not the same (being).
If God knows what we'll choose but let's us do it anyway - It's just to prove to us the reason for our eternal state of being.
If we we're just to be punished for eternity, we'd ask "Why".
Since we're given this life - when we're done we understand the "Why".
"Given that Satan is God's creation...what's the actual difference between God and Satan?"
What's the difference between a Rolex watch and the watchmaker who designed and created it? What's the difference between your computer and those who built it?
DV...
"To worship God is to follow a healthy spiritual and moral design.
Well, aside from the question of what is exactly is the meaning of "spiritual", "moral", and "healthy" and whose definition therefore should be applied and why, there is a more basic question.
Can God be spiritually and morally healthy when God created Satan and the principles that Satan stands for AND God created every individual human being knowing exactly at all times that that particular individual human being will choose Satan over God?
Or would you actually argue God did NOT KNOW that that particular individual human being that God created would choose Satan over God?
ugly black john...
"If God knows what we'll choose but let's us do it anyway"
If God knows what we'll choose before we choose as you say here, how is that indicative of our freedom to choose? Isn't that, in fact, indicative of our not having a choice whatsoever?
Look at it this way. If God knows how you will choose X on day Z, but then you actually choose Y, that would mean that God did not know what choice you would make. Therefore you can say that you actually made a choice. But then you'd have to acknowledge that God is NOT omniscient. That God made a mistake. Which would wreck havoc with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God.
However, if God is omniscient, that is, always right, then you can not possibly make a choice other than that which God knows ahead of time that you will make. Therefore you have no choice BUT to make that particular choice X on day Z. Which is not choice and thus no free will at all.
"Can God be spiritually and morally healthy when God created Satan..." MF
Can Michael Fisher be spiritually and morally healthy if his daughter becomes immoral and unhealthy?
Of course he can.
God's human creations are like his children. He gives them Free Will. That's what makes human beings unique.
Mike, your X,Y, & Z calculus regarding God strikes me as an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.
I don't think God gets down like that.
I suspect his process transcends the linear restraints of your quid pro quo logic exercise.
The conceptions of God and Satan are useful tools to help man appreciate the cosmic polemic tug-of-war for man's soul.
Collectively mankind is in a process of transformation, of becoming more God-like or "Real."
By loving God and obeying our "higher" self, we outgrow our baser instincts.
"Be ye therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect," Jesus said. (Mathew 5:48)
DV...
"Can Michael Fisher be spiritually and morally healthy if his daughter becomes immoral and unhealthy?
Of course he can."
Yeah, but I ain't God, nor am I omnipotent, omniscient, and all-present.
DV...
"
God's human creations are like his children. He gives them Free Will.
Well, if he gave them Fee Will,, then he can not possibly know what their choice will be. Else no free will.
The existence of free will as you postulate it means that God ain't omniscient, and that in turn means that God ain't God as YOU (being a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) define God.
"Mike, your X,Y, & Z calculus regarding God strikes me as an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.
I don't think God gets down like that."
What, God doesn't use logic?
The whole universe is created based on logic - cause and effect - but God doesn't make use of logic?
And who would you know that DV? God told you?
That's HOW would you know that, DV?
@ Fish - Hmmm. we already made the choices - we're just here to prove it.
uglyblackjohn...
"Hmmm. we already made the choices - we're just here to prove it."
I don't follow. If you could clarify, please. When exactly did we already make the choices?
>>>
Well, if he gave them Fee Will,, then he can not possibly know what their choice will be. Else no free will.<<
If I may, not necessarily Mike. Just because he knows what choice we're going to make doesn't mean we didn't always have the option there of choosing the other thing. Like say if you had a son, and you know he loves chocolate and hates peppermint, and you offer him both. Just because you knew he'd pick the chocolate doesn't mean he wasn't free to pick the mint, right? Or, more etherially, let's say you were psychic and absolutely KNEW he'd pick the chocolate. Again, does that remove his ability to choose the mint if he so desired?
As an aside, you guys are going to love the Watchmen movie, when you see Alan Moore-- speaking through the nigh-omnipotent Dr. Manhattan-- making the same sort of moral quandaries about the nature of 'god'ness and humanity. I'd recommend reading the graphic novel first, though, it's genius.
/turns off comic book geek side again.
Back to our regularly scheduled debate, already in progress...
The Doc...
"Like say if you had a son, and you know he loves chocolate and hates peppermint, and you offer him both..."
You are mixing up probability and certainty. While I KNOW the child loves chocolate, I DON't KNOW that the child will choose chocolate. I only can INFER from the child's love of chocolate that it is a high probability that the child will choose chocolate. That's a far cry from KNOWING.
"Or, more etherially, let's say you were psychic and absolutely KNEW he'd pick the chocolate. Again, does that remove his ability to choose the mint if he so desired?"
Absolutely, yes.
Because if he did NOT choose the chocolate. having previously predicted that he would indeed choose chocolate, then I would not be psychic. However, if I indeed am psychic then my previous prediction is based on my knowledge of an event that, as far as my sensory faculties are concerned, has already occurred in a very real sense. Since it has already has occurred, any possibility of choice is moot.
@ Fish - Believe me... I have no idea.
I'm still trying to figure out how (or if) science and religion are the same thing but from a different perspective.
DV, don't you ever get tired of repeatedly instigating this same unproductive tail chase?
To read what passes for arguments from all parties, one would HAVE TO conclude that none of these big-headed nukkaz ever read or even heard of Flatland.
Indispensable for installing a properly informed sense of perspective and scale in the mind of most reasonably well-educated 8th grade boys. Once installed, enabling the young reader/thinker to thereafter shun infinitely futile looping exercises and arguments in elementary scholastic deductivism.
Now that's really weird because I just found and started reading Flatland yesterday. Now I have to start over to try to find all that meaning Cnu just implied was in there.
Does this question fit into the discussion? For those who believe in the concept of God creating man in his own image, something has always puzzled me. How can the image of perfection be anything less than perfection? Perhaps, an as yet unrealized perfection, but perfection nonetheless. Further, if I am created in God's image, why is it wrong for me to seek to become the perfect presence that created me? Isn't every little piece of God perfect?
Perhaps it doesn't quite fit the discussion after all. Hmmmmm...
Good kwestins Dwight,
The required human effort toward perfection, alchemical is required in order to tackle and overcome the seeming paradoxes in which the bredren quickly got themselves embroiled.
Poor flatlanders do not engage in any such alchemical struggles and their corresponding inability to "see" what's always right there in reality (nature) ((supernature)) makes them unable to grasp anything rising up off the plane of their flat conscious existence.
Once elevated off the plane to "see" things as they always and everywhere are - but from a different dimensional perspective or scale - the scholastic arguments all fall by the wayside as ridiculous artifacts of planar constraints.
From that point forward, all that remains is the alchemical struggle toward permanent elevation of consciousness off of that plane, i.e., and continuing (note I did not say permanent) residence in that higher dimensional sphere.
Such as we are in the ordinary waking state, constrained like the flatlanders, it's completely useless to talk about Capital G "God".
For all any of you can know, your creator being could be a 5th dimensional bacterium. Once a person realizes how primitive, nascent, and constrained the ordinary waking view of reality (nature) ((supernature)) afforded him without serious and protracted struggle and work on himself, all that remains that is of any consequence IS the alchemical work on self - to at least "see" things more objectively and clearly.
Using logic, that is , mathematices, Flatlanders are able to "see" further spacial dimensions quite clearly.
In exactly the same quite limited and puzzling way in which you're able to "see" 4 dimensions. There IS in fact limited perception of that first higher dimension, or at least a flawed projection off the retinal plane simulating some aspects of that next higher dimension.
If it's your contention that that higher dimensional qualia is related to a perception of understanding of God, by all means, let's hear how it resolves the otherwise scholastic and insolvable paradoxes in question?
Post a Comment