God is all-inclusive, which includes Satan.

[XIII-Legion]

1. God is the all-inclusive, absolute reality.

2. Therefore, conventional theology is wrong to assume that God and Satan are distinct and separate.

3. Rather than distinct and separate, Satan is part of God which is all-inclusive, absolute reality.

4. Therefore, the reality of God is all-inclusive; which includes good and evil, light and dark, masculine and feminine, hot and cold, hard and soft etc.

5. Therefore, God's purpose is both good and evil; and never completely good, since Satan is part of the all-inclusive, absolute reality of God.

6. The Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world; which means God had foreknowledge that He would send His Son Jesus to be crucified.

7. Therefore, God had foreknowledge that sin would enter the world through disobedience of the first human ancestors, Adam and Eve.

8. That is, the Fall of Man is preordained, and part of God's blueprint before He created the universe.

9. Although the Fall is contrary to God's will, it is still preordained to happen due to the agency of free will.

10. Also, the rebellion of Satan and his angels is preordained from the foundation of the world.

11. Therefore, the historical drama of good v. evil is preordained from the foundation of the world.

12. However, the historical drama and narrative has a purpose, which is to glorify the Creator.

So do you agree with the above argument?

 

[neologist]

No
You forgot free will

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So do you agree with the above argument?

NO. God is not like the Hindu Brahman. He is a separate and distinct personal Being, not some vague "ultimate, absolute reality". Also, having the ability to know that something is going to happen is not the same as preordaining it to happen.

 

[fallingblood]

I disagree with the argument. I think it starts on a false premise, or a couple. The first being, who says G-d is all inclusive?

I would go further and say that much of the conventional theology rejects that there is a Satan.

Going one step further, the view of G-d that you are implying is one that is active in this world. If G-d is not active, then the argument falls.

I think if one begins with the same premise as you do, then the argument holds. But as soon as one of those premises are rejected, and I think they can be, then the argument topples.

 

[Pegg]

1. God is the all-inclusive, absolute reality.

2. Therefore, conventional theology is wrong to assume that God and Satan are distinct and separate.

3. Rather than distinct and separate, Satan is part of God which is all-inclusive, absolute reality.

4. Therefore, the reality of God is all-inclusive; which includes good and evil, light and dark, masculine and feminine, hot and cold, hard and soft etc.

5. Therefore, God's purpose is both good and evil; and never completely good, since Satan is part of the all-inclusive, absolute reality of God.

6. The Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world; which means God had foreknowledge that He would send His Son Jesus to be crucified.

7. Therefore, God had foreknowledge that sin would enter the world through disobedience of the first human ancestors, Adam and Eve.

8. That is, the Fall of Man is preordained, and part of God's blueprint before He created the universe.

9. Although the Fall is contrary to God's will, it is still preordained to happen due to the agency of free will.

10. Also, the rebellion of Satan and his angels is preordained from the foundation of the world.

11. Therefore, the historical drama of good v. evil is preordained from the foundation of the world.

12. However, the historical drama and narrative has a purpose, which is to glorify the Creator.

So do you agree with the above argument?

no.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since you are talking about Satan, a Bible personality, it would help if you have verses demonstrating this all-inclusive nature of God. There are verses I can think of like those for Christians to avoid prostitution as that would bring God together with Satan, which go contrary to your first point.

 

[nazz]

So do you agree with the above argument?

No

Not in total but parts of it

 

[Norrin-6-]

There are too many non-sequiturs involved. Also, the premise: says who?

I'm not going to pick apart the whole argument piece by piece. You're free to have your own theological views, and since I don't have a strong opinion on theology there's no vested interest in having you flesh out your argument for me.

 

[Blackmarch]

1. God is the all-inclusive, absolute reality.

2. Therefore, conventional theology is wrong to assume that God and Satan are distinct and separate.

3. Rather than distinct and separate, Satan is part of God which is all-inclusive, absolute reality.

4. Therefore, the reality of God is all-inclusive; which includes good and evil, light and dark, masculine and feminine, hot and cold, hard and soft etc.

5. Therefore, God's purpose is both good and evil; and never completely good, since Satan is part of the all-inclusive, absolute reality of God.

6. The Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world; which means God had foreknowledge that He would send His Son Jesus to be crucified.

7. Therefore, God had foreknowledge that sin would enter the world through disobedience of the first human ancestors, Adam and Eve.

8. That is, the Fall of Man is preordained, and part of God's blueprint before He created the universe.

9. Although the Fall is contrary to God's will, it is still preordained to happen due to the agency of free will.

10. Also, the rebellion of Satan and his angels is preordained from the foundation of the world.

11. Therefore, the historical drama of good v. evil is preordained from the foundation of the world.

12. However, the historical drama and narrative has a purpose, which is to glorify the Creator.

So do you agree with the above argument?

how is all inclusive defined?

 

[XIII-Legion]

how is all inclusive defined?

In this context, "all-inclusive" means everything; both good and evil, light and darkness, masculine and feminine, hot and cold etc. will co-exist together; and so, the universal dichotomy is all-inclusive.

 

[Blackmarch]

Thank you.

hmmm this one is going to be difficult. I don't think i'll be able to add much input to this logic series.

For instance it (the all-inclusive) could be taken as his personal being in which I would have a hard time supporting it biblically, or making sense of.

or it (the all-inclusive) could be taken as the manifestation of his power and glory, which would make a little more sense to me

 

[Glaurung]

The Christian conception of God posits God as ontologically distinct from creation. He is not a part of creation and creation is not a part of him, yet all created things are dependant on God for their existence. Your augment is just one giant non-sequitur that doesn't even address anything resembling classical theism.