blame god.

[tomasortega]

i would like to focus on one specific passage. maybe you can help me out.

this is only for those who believe that this passage also addresses the fall of lucifer as well as the king of tyre. for those who believe that sin/evil exists, and for those who believe that satan was lucifer. if you dont believe these things, then no need to respond.

ezekiel 28: 14You were anointed as a guardian cherub. 15 You were blameless in all you did from the day you were created until the day evil was found in you.17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth



god is to blame, because he created lucifer bent towards evil. lucifer felt pride on behalf of his beauty and felt greed and dissatisfied with his position in heaven, wanting more. wanting to be like god, or even greater than god, so he rebelled against god.

if god created lucifer good as the bible would have us believe, then lucifer would have felt satisfied with his position in heaven and felt humble on behalf of his beauty.

if god created lucifer neutral, lucifer would have felt neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied, neither humble nor proud on behalf of his beauty.

if god created lucifer bad, lucifer would have felt dissatisfied and proud on behalf of his beauty....


the bible clearly tells us that lucifer felt pride on behalf of his beauty, and dissatisfied and greedy. wanting more, wanting to be like god.


therefore our logical conclusion is that god created lucifer BAD. with a tendency for evil......so god is to blame, not lucifer.

 

[fallingblood]

That isn't a logical conclusion though. Basically what we have here is:
A=God created Lucifer
B=Lucifer (the Christian idea of Satan) became evil.
C= God created evil.

The logic there doesn't quite work. Just because Lucifer became evil doesn't mean that God created evil, or was even to blame. Here you have to add another factor, such as God being all knowing. You would have to show that God in fact knowingly created Lucifer to become evil.

There are factors that can cause beings to become evil even if they are created good. Things in which are created good can eventually be tainted by various factors.

 

[Koldo]

You skipped your interpretations over the most interesting part :"So I threw you to the earth"

Way to solve a problem, right?!

 

[doppelganger]

Variations on a theme . . .

"You were a repeat sex offender, so I locked you in a room with my children."

"You were a raging alcoholic, so I gave you a case of Jack Daniels and the keys to my GTO."

"You were a mobster, rum-runner and inside-trading thief, so I put in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission . . . " no . . . wait . . . that was Joe Kennedy, not Satan.

 

[tomasortega]

That isn't a logical conclusion though. Basically what we have here is:
A=God created Lucifer
B=Lucifer (the Christian idea of Satan) became evil.
C= God created evil.

The logic there doesn't quite work. Just because Lucifer became evil doesn't mean that God created evil, or was even to blame. Here you have to add another factor, such as God being all knowing. You would have to show that God in fact knowingly created Lucifer to become evil.

There are factors that can cause beings to become evil even if they are created good. Things in which are created good can eventually be tainted by various factors.

the argument is that god created lucifer with a bad wicked nature from the get go. and that the bible authors are trying to pull a fast one claiming that god created lucifer good, yet he randomly had wicked desires and feelings one day... you cant have it both ways. a good natured being does not have wicked desires, a good natured being does not feel pride, but humility. this is the disconnect im pointing out.

 

[fallingblood]

the argument is that god created lucifer with a bad wicked nature from the get go. and that the bible authors are trying to pull a fast one claiming that god created lucifer good, yet he randomly had wicked desires and feelings one day... you cant have it both ways. a good natured being does not have wicked desires, a good natured being does not feel pride, but humility. this is the disconnect im pointing out.

Can you show that God created Lucifer with a bad wicked nature?

And who says a good natured person doesn't feel pride or have wicked desires? You are talking about an extreme that simply does not exist. I see myself as a good natured person. Yet I do feel pride from time to time. I do have wicked thoughts from time to time. That doesn't make me wicked.

Your argument fails as you can't show that God created Lucifer with a bad wicked nature. You can only show (and really, the OT does not even talk about Satan in the first place) that at some point, Lucifer becomes evil. You can't show a cause for this.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

God is also all knowing thus he would know that Lucifer would tempt Eve which would tempt Adam

 

[Copernicus]

Can you show that God created Lucifer with a bad wicked nature?

That's easy. The standard view of God is that his omniscience grants him knowledge of all future outcomes. In creating Lucifer, he therefore had to know that Lucifer would develop a wicked nature when he created him, even if the wickedness was not manifest in the very beginning. As an omniscient being, God would not be surprised by this development. On the contrary, he would expect it.

And who says a good natured person doesn't feel pride or have wicked desires? You are talking about an extreme that simply does not exist. I see myself as a good natured person. Yet I do feel pride from time to time. I do have wicked thoughts from time to time. That doesn't make me wicked.

The Bible suggests that Lucifer developed a wicked nature. Tomas was overstating the case when he implied that Lucifer was wicked from the beginning. However, if there was any flaw in Lucifer's nature, God would have known about it. As an omnipotent being, God could have corrected the flaw or simply blocked Lucifer from fulfilling his wicked desires.

Your argument fails as you can't show that God created Lucifer with a bad wicked nature. You can only show (and really, the OT does not even talk about Satan in the first place) that at some point, Lucifer becomes evil. You can't show a cause for this.

God is the First Cause and knowledgeable of all outcomes. Therefore, he was in the chain of responsibility for all that happened in his creation. You cannot escape that logic unless you think that God was ignorant of how Lucifer would turn out. It is just a technicality that Lucifer wasn't wicked at the point of creation.

 

[tomasortega]

Can you show that God created Lucifer with a bad wicked nature?

And who says a good natured person doesn't feel pride or have wicked desires? You are talking about an extreme that simply does not exist. I see myself as a good natured person. Yet I do feel pride from time to time. I do have wicked thoughts from time to time. That doesn't make me wicked.

Your argument fails as you can't show that God created Lucifer with a bad wicked nature. You can only show (and really, the OT does not even talk about Satan in the first place) that at some point, Lucifer becomes evil. You can't show a cause for this.

if you are a christian, you believe that pride, jealousy, greed, dissatisfaction etc. are all bad wicked things.

the bible clearly tells us that lucifer felt pride observing his beauty, and that lucifer wanted to be like god, or even greater, implying bad wicked, selfish desires, greed and dissatisfaction, possibly even jealsouy.....all of which ammounts to a bad nature, not a good natured being.. so if you are not a christian then there is no sense in arguing as this argument is not intended for you.

by the way, going by the description you gave of yourself, the vast majority, if not all christians define you as a bad wicked being, as they define themselves. they believe we are born in sin, into a fallen world, and that we are automatically wicked, thus needing jesus to save us............

now, stop wasting both our time as you are clearly not a christian.

 

[tomasortega]

That's easy. The standard view of God is that his omniscience grants him knowledge of all future outcomes. In creating Lucifer, he therefore had to know that Lucifer would develop a wicked nature when he created him, even if the wickedness was not manifest in the very beginning. As an omniscient being, God would not be surprised by this development. On the contrary, he would expect it.


The Bible suggests that Lucifer developed a wicked nature. Tomas was overstating the case when he implied that Lucifer was wicked from the beginning. However, if there was any flaw in Lucifer's nature, God would have known about it. As an omnipotent being, God could have corrected the flaw or simply blocked Lucifer from fulfilling his wicked desires.


God is the First Cause and knowledgeable of all outcomes. Therefore, he was in the chain of responsibility for all that happened in his creation. You cannot escape that logic unless you think that God was ignorant of how Lucifer would turn out. It is just a technicality that Lucifer wasn't wicked at the point of creation.

but this is a weak argument my atheist friend, as christians can always jump on the free will bandwagon and say that god did not block lucifer from developing wicked feelings/desires and acting on those desires, so as to allow for free will, and not create robots.........

this is why i jump at the root of the problem without dicking around with assumptions and semantics. i go straight for lucifer's nature, i even grant christians that lucifer used free will and freely chose to act upon his wicked feelings/emotions/desires, because as far as im concerned it is automatically overruled by the fact that god planted those wicked desires inside lucifer from the beginning. therefore god is responsible..

the bible doesnt say that lucifer felt humility and satisfaction, it tells us that lucifer FELT pride and greed. these feelings tell the story of lucifer's nature/character/identity. its what he was from the beginning, what god created him to be. if god created him with a good nature as the bible would have us believe, then lucifer would have felt humble on behalf of his beauty no?

 

[fallingblood]

That's easy. The standard view of God is that his omniscience grants him knowledge of all future outcomes. In creating Lucifer, he therefore had to know that Lucifer would develop a wicked nature when he created him, even if the wickedness was not manifest in the very beginning. As an omniscient being, God would not be surprised by this development. On the contrary, he would expect it.

That depends on one's definition of omniscience. There is the possibility that if God really is omniscient, it could be that he knows all of the possible future outcomes, yet he does not exactly know what one will do, thus free will.

We also have to consider that the standard view of God is also outside the realm of human understanding.

Also, we have the matter of free will, so it would be logical for God to have created a being that would help in facilitating that idea. Satan would have been quite a good choice.

Then one also has to consider if Satan really is that evil. In the OT it is not portrayed in that manner.

The Bible suggests that Lucifer developed a wicked nature. Tomas was overstating the case when he implied that Lucifer was wicked from the beginning. However, if there was any flaw in Lucifer's nature, God would have known about it. As an omnipotent being, God could have corrected the flaw or simply blocked Lucifer from fulfilling his wicked desires.

It may also be that Lucifer's desires are not actually wicked at all. Instead, its desires are simply misunderstood by humans. We see evil when really, it is just a way in which God to make sure that we have free will. That, or just a being to rule over the Earth.

If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, and that idea is supported by the Bible; then we must also consider the other attributions that are given to God. Such as all loving and all good. Taken all of these together, one would have to assume that God has some loving and good intentions with the matter of Lucifer. All of those ideas are part of the standard view of God.

God is the First Cause and knowledgeable of all outcomes. Therefore, he was in the chain of responsibility for all that happened in his creation. You cannot escape that logic unless you think that God was ignorant of how Lucifer would turn out. It is just a technicality that Lucifer wasn't wicked at the point of creation.

God could have been ignorant of how Lucifer would turn out. That, or it could be one of the options I provided above.

 

[fallingblood]

God is also all knowing thus he would know that Lucifer would tempt Eve which would tempt Adam

God is also all loving, and all good, thus whatever he did was essentially good and loving in nature. At least if we start to believe everything in the Bible.

 

[fallingblood]

if you are a christian, you believe that pride, jealousy, greed, dissatisfaction etc. are all bad wicked things.

True, however none of those make a person into a bad wicked being. I can be a good person and still have bad thoughts.

the bible clearly tells us that lucifer felt pride observing his beauty, and that lucifer wanted to be like god, or even greater, implying bad wicked, selfish desires, greed and dissatisfaction, possibly even jealsouy.....all of which ammounts to a bad nature, not a good natured being.. so if you are not a christian then there is no sense in arguing as this argument is not intended for you.

Not really clearly. One has to first assume the OT actually speaks of Lucifer, Satan. There is a very strong argument that Satan does not figure into the OT at all, or at most, only begins to develop at a minimal level.

Also, just because a being sin, or has bad wicked desires, does not make that person so. I have felt pride. I have felt selfish. I have felt greed, and jealousy. That does not make me a wicked person. And it does not amount to a bad nature. The two do not equal each other.

by the way, going by the description you gave of yourself, the vast majority, if not all christians define you as a bad wicked being, as they define themselves. they believe we are born in sin, into a fallen world, and that we are automatically wicked, thus needing jesus to save us............

now, stop wasting both our time as you are clearly not a christian.

Yes, I'm not a Christian, but I don't see why this is a waste of either of our time. You made an argument that I find flaw. I'm staying within the parameters of your argument, and explaining why I believe it is flawed. I'm taking a Christian perspective on the issue, even though it may not be my own. So there really should be no wasting of time.

More so, being sinful does not equal wicked. It means being sinful. There is a huge difference. And really, most Christians wouldn't find me wicked. They would find me sinful. Again, a huge difference.

 

[tomasortega]

we are wasting our time because YOU ARE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR. i already know all your arguments and agree with most of your arguments.this is why i stated in the OP:

this is only for those who believe that this passage also addresses the fall of lucifer as well as the king of tyre. for those who believe that sin/evil exists, and for those who believe that satan was lucifer. if you dont believe these things, then no need to respond.

AND YES, the vast majority of christians believe that we are all wicked born into a fallen world, and while we can be compassionate and loving at times, we still feel pride, jealousy, hate, greed etc. BECAUSE WE ARE WICKED. thats why this argument is addressed to those christians. you know, them righteous evangelical types especially who believe this.

this is my final response to you btw. i dont want to clutter this thread any further

 

[Copernicus]

but this is a weak argument my atheist friend, as christians can always jump on the free will bandwagon and say that god did not block lucifer from developing wicked feelings/desires and acting on those desires, so as to allow for free will, and not create robots.........

I don't know why you consider the FWD an effective argument. It is extremely weak. But no matter. That isn't the issue you posed here. I think that you may be stereotyping Christians a little too much if you think that they are all going to converge on a single interpretation of Biblical language.

this is why i jump at the root of the problem without dicking around with assumptions and semantics. i go straight for lucifer's nature, i even grant christians that lucifer used free will and freely chose to act upon his wicked feelings/emotions/desires, because as far as im concerned it is automatically overruled by the fact that god planted those wicked desires inside lucifer from the beginning. therefore god is responsible..

I'm mostly on your side here. I think you should go further and grant that Lucifer had no wicked desires in him at all from the beginning. The passage you quoted did not say that. The point is made if you concede that Lucifer developed the wicked demeanor later on. God would still be aware of that future development when he created Lucifer, free will or no free will. (Why even bother to bring up free will?)

the bible doesnt say that lucifer felt humility and satisfaction, it tells us that lucifer FELT pride and greed. these feelings tell the story of lucifer's nature/character/identity. its what he was from the beginning, what god created him to be. if god created him with a good nature as the bible would have us believe, then lucifer would have felt humble on behalf of his beauty no?

Not necessarily. Perhaps Lucifer had a bad childhood or sustained a brain injury later on.

That depends on one's definition of omniscience. There is the possibility that if God really is omniscient, it could be that he knows all of the possible future outcomes, yet he does not exactly know what one will do, thus free will.

If he knew all future outcomes, then there is no possible way that he would "not exactly know what one will do." From God's perspective, his creations cannot have free will, which only makes sense from a perspective of ignorance of the future. His creations would perceive their own behavior as free will because they could only make guesses about the future.

We also have to consider that the standard view of God is also outside the realm of human understanding.

Right. That's a possibility, but it is a real can of worms. If you want to explain anything about God, the ineffability defense is an obvious case of special pleading.

If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, and that idea is supported by the Bible; then we must also consider the other attributions that are given to God. Such as all loving and all good. Taken all of these together, one would have to assume that God has some loving and good intentions with the matter of Lucifer. All of those ideas are part of the standard view of God.

I agree that they are all fairly standard views, but they become contradictions when examined too closely. This is why many philosophers have declared God an impossible being (see The Impossibility of God).

 

[MSI64]

So God created Lucifer who was bent towards Evil, which God also created? But God gives everyone free will?
So why Punish Lucifer for his free will??
In Fact why create Evil at all??
Or did God create Vanity and Beauty and then just tell us they were Evil?

Confusing really for an Omnipresent all seeing all knowing Diety?

 

[buddhadev]

:yes:[SIZE=-1]In our thinking...we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to high degree independent of the sense impression which originally gives rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object "a real existence." ...By means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations...appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]-Einstein[/SIZE]​

 

[fallingblood]

we are wasting our time because YOU ARE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR. i already know all your arguments and agree with most of your arguments.this is why i stated in the OP:

this is only for those who believe that this passage also addresses the fall of lucifer as well as the king of tyre. for those who believe that sin/evil exists, and for those who believe that satan was lucifer. if you dont believe these things, then no need to respond.

AND YES, the vast majority of christians believe that we are all wicked born into a fallen world, and while we can be compassionate and loving at times, we still feel pride, jealousy, hate, greed etc. BECAUSE WE ARE WICKED. thats why this argument is addressed to those christians. you know, them righteous evangelical types especially who believe this.

this is my final response to you btw. i dont want to clutter this thread any further

I don't see why you are avoiding my arguments. I'm using a Christian perspective here. I'm assuming that Satan exists and is mentioned in the OT, as well as the passage that you described mentions him. And then I'm explaining why your idea to just blame God doesn't work.

So basically then, you don't want a logical argument. You are looking for a very specific group of Christians, that hardly makes up even a strong minority, to do what? I've explained why your OP is flawed, using the parameters that you set down. I did not step out of those parameters. I simply showed why your argument fails.

 

[Ninez]

therefore our logical conclusion is that god created lucifer BAD. with a tendency for evil......so god is to blame, not lucifer.

Wrong. He out of his own intuition chose to be bad. He was no different from the other angels created just like he was who CHOSE to remain loyal. It was because of his OWN selfish motives that he rebelled.

 

[fallingblood]

I agree that they are all fairly standard views, but they become contradictions when examined too closely. This is why many philosophers have declared God an impossible being (see The Impossibility of God).

I think that sums up the problem.

The OP took a few standard views and used them to make his argument. I can then take other standard views, and show why the argument is not very steady. But as you pointed out, we come to various contradictions.

That is probably the number one reason that I find a statement such as the OP used to be basically pointless. It assumes that if a god exists, we can know its characteristics.