[Discussion] Could God ever forgive Satan?

[kimb]

How and why? How can you even gauge a concept that is infinity unto itself? How can you impose a finite existence and emotions and silly behaviour over a phenomenon that is infinite, limitless and free of limitations? You are joking, right?

Doesn't matter. It's discussion for the sake of discussion. I couldn't care less whether God exists or not. But, within the discussion, you have to play by the parameters presented in the text.

You're arguing from a point of ignorance which makes this nothing but conjecture. How can you call human emotion and behavior silly when it is the most superior expression of emotion and behavior demonstrated both in the holy texts and in reality? You're asserting that an omnipotent being must be beyond "silly" emotion and beyond behaviors because you couldn't imagine it being any other way. You're arguing the anger, love, hate, shame, jealously, and happiness God displays in the Bible, and Torah is nothing like human anger, love, hate, shame, jealously, and happiness without being able to present any evidence, only a barrage of questions asking "do you really think that? wow!". Yes, I really think that God emotions and behaviors are "human" because I have reason and evidence to think that, and no this is not a discussion for the sake of discussion. I want to come to a conclusion to this discussion that has some basis in reality (being the text), not a never ending back in forth of hypotheticals and oneup-its.

Im speaking from the perspective of an agnostic athiest when I say I don't believe there is a God. If this were a discussion about a hypothetical God that had no relation to the God in the Torah, Bible, or Quran than you would have a reason to take your stance, but if we're basing our discussion around the God in the context of the mythos in these three books, we're bound to using the book as a source material. And based on that source material God is an omnipotent being that modeled humanity in likeness and image, meaning what we call a "human" display of emotions and behaviors are directly modeled and sourced directly from in the most basic sense.

Why is it possible for you to have a discussion based on a fictitious premise (being the text), but find it beyond possibility that one God out of thousands of other mythical God's exists beyond the realm of human emotions and behavior? Unless you're arguing from a theistic viewpoint and actually hold some value in this crackpot , there's no reason to.

Lucifer was perfect in the sense that he had not failed/sinned.

He was not perfect in the sense that he was infallible. That attribute belongs to God alone.

Sometimes the Bible uses the word perfect to describe obedience.

God told Abraham, 'Walk before me and be perfect'. It was a call to godliness not godhood.

Lucifer was once perfect in obedience, but became imperfect by disobedience.

God did know that man would fall and yet man chose it. He foreordained to allow it happen, just like He foreordained everything that happens and will happen, for His own good and righteous purposes. And yet He is not culpable in man's sin since it was entirely man's choice. Man chose to disobey the only simple command God gave him, thinking God was a liar and that he(man) deserved to be God. That was man's choice and act with accompanying consequences. Man is properly the author of that evil though God allowed it for good purposes. God allowed the fallen serpent to enter Eden knowing that he will tempt the man and the man will fall but tempting the man was Satan's choice and sin and man giving in and disobeying God was man's choice and sin. Is God evil in allowing it? No, because He allowed it for good purposes.

Emotions are not sinful in themselves depending on the object of the emotion. Anger is righteous if indignation is directed at what is wrong and sinful. If I were angry at the killings of the Holocaust, I have committed no sin. Love itself can be sinful if directed at the wrong things. Like the crazy serial killer who loves to kill others. God's anger and jealousy is righteous because it is directed at wrong.

God is jealous because He is the only Being that is deserving of man's worship. In fact, sin is one time defined as man falling short of the glory of God. That is, failing to give glory to God. All sins are a manifestation of this. The eating of the fruit, Satan's rebellion, murder, rape. The greatest evil in any sin is the insult to God inherent in it. Sin gives glory to something or someone else. Murder gives man instead of God the right or authority over human life. Rape exalts the pleasure of *** over the commands of God and so lust is the god of the rapist. All things were made by God FOR God. Everything exists to serve Him and anything short of that is sin.

But you might protest that this is very self centered of God. It isn't because God has so designed man that man's highest joy and fulfillment is in God. Man is like a lock which only God can fit into. Nothing else will fully satisfy man. Man's highest joy comes from his worshiping and enjoying God. The more he does it the happier he is.

God not only deserves this worship because He is all powerful but because He is actually worthy of it. Man exalts learning and wisdom over God and puts science on top of Him but if we could see God we would know that He is the highest Wisdom and he has perfect knowledge. Man exalts pleasure over God but God is the highest pleasure. Man exalts riches over God but He is more valuable than anything and everything. He is the very perfection of beauty and anything worthy of admiration. He will give you more peace, more joy than anything else. If man sees God, he cannot but marvel at Him.

Lucifer cannot offer man this. Worshiping Lucifer and doing his will does not bring the highest satisfaction to man. That is why his desire to be worshipped is wrong. It is completely selfish and it neglects the well being of all the creatures he demands it from. Conversely, since the worship of anything aside God is sin it invites God's wrath. It is disobedience and ingratitude to the God of all creation and so it is deserving of punishment. So Satan's desire for worship is so far from fulfilling that it actually incurs severe penalties to those who comply with him. So it is properly evil.

I can agree with that in the context you place it in, but it's all a matter of interpretation. The Bible and Torah lack definition and clarification in the context and meaning behind its books. That's why you can have over 1,000 of different denominations of Christianity and still have them all believing in the same God for the most part.

When the Bible describes Lucifer to be "perfect", I interpreted the word perfect in the most literal and basic definition of perfect as we define it, meaning without flaw. Now I believe that if the Abrahamic God is an omnipotent God and created a perfect being it should not become imperfect of its own violition, but within the interpretation of being perfect meaning "without sin", everything you said makes absolute sense.

 

[shelke]

You're arguing from a point of ignorance which makes this nothing but conjecture. How can you call human emotion and behavior silly when it is the most superior expression of emotion and behavior demonstrated both in the holy texts and in reality? You're asserting that an omnipotent being must be beyond "silly" emotion and beyond behaviors because you couldn't imagine it being any other way. You're arguing the anger, love, hate, shame, jealously, and happiness God displays in the Bible, and Torah is nothing like human anger, love, hate, shame, jealously, and happiness without being able to present any evidence, only a barrage of questions asking "do you really think that? wow!". Yes, I really think that God emotions and behaviors are "human" because I have reason and evidence to think that, and no this is not a discussion for the sake of discussion. I want to come to a conclusion to this discussion that has some basis in reality (being the text), not a never ending back in forth of hypotheticals and oneup-its.

Im speaking from the perspective of an agnostic athiest when I say I don't believe there is a God. If this were a discussion about a hypothetical God that had no relation to the God in the Torah, Bible, or Quran than you would have a reason to take your stance, but if we're basing our discussion around the God in the context of the mythos in these three books, we're bound to using the book as a source material. And based on that source material God is an omnipotent being that modeled humanity in likeness and image, meaning what we call a "human" display of emotions and behaviors are directly modeled and sourced directly from in the most basic sense.

Why is it possible for you to have a discussion based on a fictitious premise (being the text), but find it beyond possibility that one God out of thousands of other mythical God's exists beyond the realm of human emotions and behavior? Unless you're arguing from a theistic viewpoint and actually hold some value in this crackpot , there's no reason to.

What is this; a bleeding show of human exceptionalism? Either, the concept of "infinity" is beyond your grasp or you adore to skim over logic and play your own horn simply to self-entice in needless jibber-jabber. I asked you to explain to me how you believe an "infinite" phenomenon to be comparable to a finite and pointless existence. And here we are ... with no answers from you. What evidence do I need to present? Is common sense an elusive occurrence? You are taking everything in a decidedly literal sense, when it cannot be taken in such a manner.

Emotions have gradations. A child feeling anger isn't the same as a man who has been wrongfully accused of murder and sentenced to death. At the core of it, both are angry. But, are you going to tell me that their anger is the same? No, it is not. So, explain it to me how an "omniscient" entity, who was always "present," would evolve in any manner to exhibit some kind of "behaviour." Behaviour and traits are developed over "time" with a sense of past and present as a contextual backdrop with prospects for the future. What kind of backdrop would a God have to develop anything of the sort?

What makes you believe I am not talking of things within the context? Between you and me, I am the one who is. Likeness and image texts are, for one, extremely metaphorical. If you believe God looks like some sort of Man with genitals and decidedly human physical traits, then this discussion is wholly pointless. Your view on the Bible and Quran are completely incorrect, when the former has clearcut metaphors layered into the texts and the latter has a strict division between types of texts and the "image" one falls into the category of "mutashabihat," which literally translate into "to be doubtful."

Whether it's a "fictional" premise or not is past the point, but playing by the rules of the book itself is important for the discussion. If you want to toss all of that away, then what is even the point of this discussion? God isn't real and neither is Satan. So, why are we having this discussion? To see a "what if" happening, where if Satan existed, could it have been possible for God to absolve him of his sins? Simply don't rip off material from google dot com. These texts are extended allegorical and metaphorical materials. The chances of that "image" excerpt being literal are zero.

 

[Nobel]

What is this; a bleeding show of human exceptionalism? Either, the concept of "infinity" is beyond your grasp or you adore to skim over logic and play your own horn simply to self-entice in needless jibber-jabber. I asked you to explain to me how you believe an "infinite" phenomenon to be comparable to a finite and pointless existence. And here we are ... with no answers from you. What evidence do I need to present? Is common sense an elusive occurrence? You are taking everything in a decidedly literal sense, when it cannot be taken in such a manner.

Emotions have gradations. A child feeling anger isn't the same as a man who has been wrongfully accused of murder and sentenced to death. At the core of it, both are angry. But, are you going to tell me that their anger is the same? No, it is not. So, explain it to me how an "omniscient" entity, who was always "present," would evolve in any manner to exhibit some kind of "behaviour." Behaviour and traits are developed over "time" with a sense of past and present as a contextual backdrop with prospects for the future. What kind of backdrop would a God have to develop anything of the sort?

What makes you believe I am not talking of things within the context? Between you and me, I am the one who is. Likeness and image texts are, for one, extremely metaphorical. If you believe God looks like some sort of Man with genitals and decidedly human physical traits, then this discussion is wholly pointless. Your view on the Bible and Quran are completely incorrect, when the former has clearcut metaphors layered into the texts and the latter has a strict division between types of texts and the "image" one falls into the category of "mutashabihat," which literally translate into "to be doubtful."

Whether it's a "fictional" premise or not is past the point, but playing by the rules of the book itself is important for the discussion. If you want to toss all of that away, then what is even the point of this discussion? God isn't real and neither is Satan. So, why are we having this discussion? To see a "what if" happening, where if Satan existed, could it have been possible for God to absolve him of his sins? Simply don't rip off material from google dot com. These texts are extended allegorical and metaphorical materials. The chances of that "image" excerpt being literal are zero.

"God is not real"...he exists outside space-time so the discussion is pointless only from your perspective.

 

[shelke]

"God is not real"...he exists outside space-time so the discussion is pointless only from your perspective.

Reality and real are two different things.

 

[Nobel]

Reality and real are two different things.

You must be registered for see images

 

[shelke]

You must be registered for see images

That showed me.

 

[kimb]

What is this; a bleeding show of human exceptionalism? Either, the concept of "infinity" is beyond your grasp or you adore to skim over logic and play your own horn simply to self-entice in needless jibber-jabber. I asked you to explain to me how you believe an "infinite" phenomenon to be comparable to a finite and pointless existence. And here we are ... with no answers from you. What evidence do I need to present? Is common sense an elusive occurrence? You are taking everything in a decidedly literal sense, when it cannot be taken in such a manner.

I cannot argue that an infinite being is comparable to a finite being as you cannot argue that a finite being is not comparable to a infinite being. Arguing either point would be conjecture.

Emotions have gradations. A child feeling anger isn't the same as a man who has been wrongfully accused of murder and sentenced to death. At the core of it, both are angry. But, are you going to tell me that their anger is the same? No, it is not. So, explain it to me how an "omniscient" entity, who was always "present," would evolve in any manner to exhibit some kind of "behaviour." Behaviour and traits are developed over "time" with a sense of past and present as a contextual backdrop with prospects for the future. What kind of backdrop would a God have to develop anything of the sort?

Why would an infinite being need to "develop" behaviors and traits? Why would a God need a backdrop?

What makes you believe I am not talking of things within the context? Between you and me, I am the one who is. Likeness and image texts are, for one, extremely metaphorical. If you believe God looks like some sort of Man with genitals and decidedly human physical traits, then this discussion is wholly pointless. Your view on the Bible and Quran are completely incorrect, when the former has clearcut metaphors layered into the texts and the latter has a strict division between types of texts and the "image" one falls into the category of "mutashabihat," which literally translate into "to be doubtful."

Whether it's a "fictional" premise or not is past the point, but playing by the rules of the book itself is important for the discussion. If you want to toss all of that away, then what is even the point of this discussion? God isn't real and neither is Satan. So, why are we having this discussion? To see a "what if" happening, where if Satan existed, could it have been possible for God to absolve him of his sins? Simply don't rip off material from google dot com. These texts are extended allegorical and metaphorical materials. The chances of that "image" excerpt being literal are zero.

How did you come to the conclusion that the usage "likeness and image" are metaphorical? And I won't accept "You took it literally? wow!" as a response. How you have the gull to tell anyone their interpretation of the Bible is incorrect is hilarious. Where religious scholars of the same degree debate over the interpretation of scripture, and the historical validity of it's claims, you're one of the few arbiters of religious truth. I'm also going to need a breakdown of that "literally zero" figure. I working with limited resources, being a TI-84 calculator and google chrome, so in your explanation of how the chances of the term "image" being literally zero, bare with me. I already know you feel about google dot com, so forgive me in advance.

 

[Pewp]

But............ who made god?????????? Or how did he come to be? Is there other god-like creatures on the same plane as him/it? If he was made by coincidence of materials forming together, then is there others? If he was made by the material in his plane then how can he manipulate and create it? Or control another plane if he is constricted to that plane? For a god to exist, it would have to be made of something so that it is capable of making decisions based off of the things/feelings around it. And if it is then it is on some sort of plane of existence. But how does one made from something in one plane of existence manipulate another if the beings in each plane seem to be constricted by the physical existence of themselves? If god is some crazy unimaginable being on another plane, he or his word would never transfer to ours. At least not properly.

 

[Nobel]

That showed me.

That mindset of SB is highly questionable.

 

[shelke]

I cannot argue that an infinite being is comparable to a finite being as you cannot argue that a finite being is not comparable to a infinite being. Arguing either point would be conjecture.

Why would an infinite being need to "develop" behaviors and traits? Why would a God need a backdrop?

How did you come to the conclusion that the usage "likeness and image" are metaphorical? And I won't accept "You took it literally? wow!" as a response. How you have the gull to tell anyone their interpretation of the Bible is incorrect is hilarious. Where religious scholars of the same degree debate over the interpretation of scripture, and the historical validity of it's claims, you're one of the few arbiters of religious truth. I'm also going to need a breakdown of that "literally zero" figure. I working with limited resources, being a TI-84 calculator and google chrome, so in your explanation of how the chances of the term "image" being literally zero, bare with me. I already know you feel about google dot com, so forgive me in advance.

Because God is cosmic in nature. Man is not. His emotions are cosmic. Man's are not. It's a simple matter, really. Rather elementary, in fact. Just because you want to forcefully assume that there is a connection on grounds of comically watered down mortal Gods that we are, doesn't make it true, man.

It is. And it's "gall" not gull. All the verses in Quran and Bible of such nature are "extended metaphors." Perhaps, you should read up on metaphors, the verses I talked of and not from wikipedia this time. It's a very complex "figure of speech." The most complex in literature.

Funny, because most scholars are of the view that they are non-literal in nature. But, you know better, I suppose. I am also aware that it's the "lit" thing to over-assume and over-debate on things. Your propensity for it is quite over-arching.

That mindset of SB is highly questionable.

You did yourself little favours there. Should I scream irony? I don't think I need to.

 

[Pewp]

Dis thread doe

Got me through my shift working a shitvs pharmacy

 

[HENI]

This is all true, but you missed my main point.

Lucifer was an angel of God. He was in heaven with God. He knew what God hated. (Sin)

Yet, he still chose to rebel against God. He started sin on the planet by tempting Adam & Eve.

He literally blasphemes God. Blasphemy is unforgivable.

If God is real it would not hate sin.

 

[~Uzumaki~]

You're arguing from a point of ignorance which makes this nothing but conjecture. How can you call human emotion and behavior silly when it is the most superior expression of emotion and behavior demonstrated both in the holy texts and in reality? You're asserting that an omnipotent being must be beyond "silly" emotion and beyond behaviors because you couldn't imagine it being any other way. You're arguing the anger, love, hate, shame, jealously, and happiness God displays in the Bible, and Torah is nothing like human anger, love, hate, shame, jealously, and happiness without being able to present any evidence, only a barrage of questions asking "do you really think that? wow!". Yes, I really think that God emotions and behaviors are "human" because I have reason and evidence to think that, and no this is not a discussion for the sake of discussion. I want to come to a conclusion to this discussion that has some basis in reality (being the text), not a never ending back in forth of hypotheticals and oneup-its.

Im speaking from the perspective of an agnostic athiest when I say I don't believe there is a God. If this were a discussion about a hypothetical God that had no relation to the God in the Torah, Bible, or Quran than you would have a reason to take your stance, but if we're basing our discussion around the God in the context of the mythos in these three books, we're bound to using the book as a source material. And based on that source material God is an omnipotent being that modeled humanity in likeness and image, meaning what we call a "human" display of emotions and behaviors are directly modeled and sourced directly from in the most basic sense.

Why is it possible for you to have a discussion based on a fictitious premise (being the text), but find it beyond possibility that one God out of thousands of other mythical God's exists beyond the realm of human emotions and behavior? Unless you're arguing from a theistic viewpoint and actually hold some value in this crackpot , there's no reason to.




I can agree with that in the context you place it in, but it's all a matter of interpretation. The Bible and Torah lack definition and clarification in the context and meaning behind its books. That's why you can have over 1,000 of different denominations of Christianity and still have them all believing in the same God for the most part.

When the Bible describes Lucifer to be "perfect", I interpreted the word perfect in the most literal and basic definition of perfect as we define it, meaning without flaw. Now I believe that if the Abrahamic God is an omnipotent God and created a perfect being it should not become imperfect of its own violition, but within the interpretation of being perfect meaning "without sin", everything you said makes absolute sense.

A lot of confusion has entered the subject of Christianity. But the most logical interpretation that will agree with the context of that particular scripture, all the other ideas in Biblical text and other uses of the word 'perfect' to describe other beings apart from God, is as a description of character in line with God's will.

I agree with you that God has emotions. He has described Himself as such many times. I believe emotions as well as intelligence are two very important ways in which man is in the image of God. No other creatures on earth possess these.

However, like I mentioned before, what separates God from man is that His emotions spring up from a foundation of complete knowledge, perfect wisdom and spotless righteousness so His emotions, unlike ours, cannot be directed at what is wrong. Man has been so twisted by sin that he feels affection for many wrong things and disdain for many right things.

 

[Funky Tiger]

zlatan will.

 

[Strata Uchiha]

The Bible implies. No; it says, as long as you come as His child and with a heart that longs to repent, your sins will be forgiven, regardless of the evils you have committed in this world.

Satan is, by far, the most evil of all according to what the Bible says. With evil being his very soul.

Supposing he was capable of change and, somehow he came to a realization of his wrongdoings and beseeched his forgiveness:

> Would God, who speaks of love and passion and mercifulness, put aside his being responsible for each and every evil that has ever clouded the world and so openly accept him into His kingdom with a heart of forgiveness; endlessly sticking by his words;

> Or would He, in the confliction of the encounter of the change, decide no, his sins can never be accounted for and only he can never be forgiven?

What, personally, do you suppose God's reaction would be like in that eerie instance?

Satan used to be an angel in heaven called Lucifer....that is until he rebelled against God. As a result, one can conclude that God has given the species of angels the free will to serve him just like he gave humans free will as well.

So other words, Satan choses to be evil. I am sure God forgave him, but still wants him to burn in Hell. It is in the bible....if God does not forgive a person then He is sinning. God doesn't sin apparently.

 

[Eleven13]

The Bible implies. No; it says, as long as you come as His child and with a heart that longs to repent, your sins will be forgiven, regardless of the evils you have committed in this world.

Satan is, by far, the most evil of all according to what the Bible says. With evil being his very soul.

Supposing he was capable of change and, somehow he came to a realization of his wrongdoings and beseeched his forgiveness:

> Would God, who speaks of love and passion and mercifulness, put aside his being responsible for each and every evil that has ever clouded the world and so openly accept him into His kingdom with a heart of forgiveness; endlessly sticking by his words;

> Or would He, in the confliction of the encounter of the change, decide no, his sins can never be accounted for and only he can never be forgiven?

What, personally, do you suppose God's reaction would be like in that eerie instance?

The only reason mankind sins are forgiven according to the bible is that Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice. According to the bible the wages of sin is death. The world was flooded in the old testament because their sin was too grave. It is like God created this world based on laws and a specific order to be impartial, that is the trade off to free will. According to the new testament Jesus became the scape goat to give beings a chance to escape the payment, or wages for sin. The tradeoff being that People would have to declare Jesus as their lord and savior by recognizing Jesus as the Son of God. In order for Satan to be forgiven he would have to declare Jesus as his lord and savior. Would Satan do that? No, because according to the bible the course is already written.

 

[Eleven13]

[h=1]“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”[/h]
Plus if he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent he knew that adam & eve would steal the apple off the tree and plus adam and eve didnt have a moral compass to base whether their decision was a test or not

Lets say the God of the bible created free will. Well how is free will defined? the bible defines free will as the choice to obey his commands or not. Adam was in right standing with God according to the bible and when he chose to eat the apple he fell into Sin. But God had a plan for Adams choice. His plan according to the Bible was sending Jesus to bring mankind back in right standing with God if they so choose. In essence, he created a new extension to free will. First it was just obey the Law or die from ones sins. Now its accept Jesus's sacrifice or choose to live according to the law. Now this world is a combination of beings choosing between those two choices. However according to the bible, there will come a day when all choices made are final and the righteous and unrightous shall be separated.

 

[Eleven13]

watch this

Spoiler

[video]https://www.youtube.com/embed/VMZ5L5037ac[/video]

This video makes a point that no one can prove or disprove God. Believers in God and Atheist will never be able to prove or disprove to one another the existence or lack of existence of God. First group believe in what they cannot see. The second group only believe what they see. The bible was written on the concept of Faith believing what you cannot see. It's as if the bible is saying yes the world was created by "God." But it was created by something you cannot see. Usually scientist can only prove what is seen or evidenced. The bible on another example speaks of death as it is only the beginning (heaven or hell or whatever that means in God's definition). As humans we define death as a scientific term, no longer existing, consciousness gone, goner. But no one knows what actually happens after our definition of death. Bible speaks of a new heaven and a new earth after this one is destroyed. Science speaks of infinite space and Universes. where do they meet? Or do they ever meet? Who knows? Only someone or thing that has actually experienced it in some way or another would know.

 

[Kami Tenchi]

Does the supreme being need to forgive? I think the daddy figure is out of settlement when we relate those two.

 

[Widow Maker]

its been a while since i visited rejects-base, i see my last comment hurt your delicate miserable feelings, so let me kindly repeat. The more i read Ladybyakugans posts the more I am impressed by hes/her ideals and wisdom.

Im not suprised tho why she is hated by most of the base. Why would a bunch of retarded Mole Rats, Like a nice and wise person? oh right, narutobase deals in bringing down such people, doesnt it?. Snuff out any light thats dumb enough to stick around.

Why you ask? because its filled with psychopaths like riker, religious nutjobs like kushina89, or smug teenage-rejects like deadlift who all have tried to commit suicide at one point or another. And now instead of trying to do better in life they just inflict misery on others.

You might be terrible humanbeings, but youre still people so im gonna say it once more, especially riker. Fix ur life, as long as ure alive, you owe it to yourselves to fight for a better future instead of inflicting your misery on others.

Dont bother replying, im here once a few months.