Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[SkepticThinker]

henry Dunant first began what became the red cross. He was raised a Christian and even served in the YMCA. he formed it during the Napoleonic wars, it officially became the Red Cross during the civil war when Clara Barton formed the US division. She was a Christian.
Before her father died, Clara Barton was able to talk to him about the war effort. Her father convinced her that it was her duty as a Christian to help the soldiers. In the April following his death, Barton returned to Washington to gather medical supplies. Ladies' Aid societies helped in sending bandages, food, and clothing that would later be distributed during the Civil War.
Clara Barton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Later on they found the Christian label prevented them from helping because of political reasons and prejudice so they officially took on a non-religious label to gain access.

They currently describe themselves as an humanitarian organization. There is no mention of Christianity anywhere on their website that I can see.

Just because someone whose father was a universalist, founded an organization, doesn’t make that organization Christian. Especially if they don’t consider themselves one now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fine since Christian have built some of the greatest public school systems in history. Look at Charlemagne or the US.

Or northern Canada:

One hundred and thirty-two federally-supported schools were located in every province and territory, except Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Most schools were operated as "joint ventures" with Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian or United Churches. The Government of Canada built an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes, often taken far from their communities. Many were inadequately fed, clothed and housed. All were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities. First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools. Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools and others never returned home.

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100015644/1100100015649

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF SEVEN

Regarding AlphaAlex15s’ point regarding the early Jewish and Christian belief in the fall of Satan/Lucifer from heaven) and CG Didymus reference in # 3954 about the fall of Lucifer.

I believe that the Athiest and agnostics often make perfectly logical and legitimate requests for basic information which, often modern Christianity no longer is able to answer in the same way that early Judeo-Christians were able to answer them.

As a historian, the contexts of these debates look differently than it might to many theists. For example, when agnostics ask about the origin of evil or how an archangel became Gods’ enemy, I do NOT think this is a silly question but it is a very, very good question that all should ask.

Even the prophets have asked this same question as the early textual traditions describe. Regarding Satan, the prophet Abraham asks God : “Eternal, Mighty One, why then did you adjudge him such dominion that through his works he could ruin humankind on earth? “The Apocalypse of Abraham 23: 5-12. (This reminds me of CG Didymus insightful point in his post #3954)

The prophet Sedrach complains to God about the devil and asks God why he did not simply destroy Satan altogether : “Sedrach said to him [God]. “It was by your will that Adam was deceived, my master. You commanded your angels to worship Adam, but he who was first among the angels disobeyed your order and did not worship him: and so you banished him because he transgressed your commandment and did not come forth (to worship) the creation of your hands. If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? Who can fight against an invisible spirit? He enters the hearts of men like a smoke and teaches them all kinds of sin. He even fights against you, the immortal God, and so what can pitiful man do against him....”. The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7;

Instead of becoming frustrated at agnostics and atheist who are asking perfectly legitimate questions, the concept of returning to early Judeo-christian doctrines can inform and solve many of these debates much more clearly than modern Christian theories. Abraham and Sedrach (and other prophets in the past) asked these same basic questions the agnostics are asking. Importantly, the answers God gives them help explain and inform these issues.

Early Jewish, Christian and Islamic textual witness describe their early traditions surrounding the fall of Lucifer/Satan/Devil from heaven AND this single historical story IS one of the few great intersecting point of specific agreement between early Christians, early Jews and early Muslim traditions.

I saw a recent comment from a Christian who was explaining to an investigator of Christianity, the origin of Satan as a source of evil in God’s creation. The christian commented : “...there's nothing, scripturally speaking, that addresses the question of the origin of evil (or Satan, if you prefer). The only hint is in Genesis 3 where the serpent (in later tradition -- again without scriptural support -- identified as the devil) appears quite suddenly as part of an apparently very good creation. Nary a word of comment on the origins of this creature.... “ That’s it, in toto.

Such statements reveal a lack of a framework for understanding the basic issues surrounding what is going on with all of this “good” and “evil” that none of us avoid inside of creation; and demonstrate the value of turning to the earliest Christian teachings and their writings on such issues (in the period before many of the important doctrines were lost or changed). I do not believe that modern christian theory is as coherent; nor as understandable as the early Judao-Christian doctrines regarding Lucifers origins and motives for his fall from heaven.


THE FALL OF LUCIFER IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TEXTUAL TRADITION

I think the early christian teachings from early texts regarding the fall of Lucifer are important as such issues apply to Satan and to the principle of evil itself. I felt that a discussion of early Jewish, Christian and Islamic texts would demonstrate that the early Judeo-Christians has much greater detail and depth in their traditions and worldviews as compared to most modern Christian interpretations.

Though there are a few theories regarding how Lucifer, an archangel with some authority became Satan, an enemy to all righteousness, there is a great deal of early literature regarding what the early christians themselves believed regarding the Origin and motives of Lucifer.

I think it is an important historical context to keep in mind that Lucifer’s “fall” did not happen suddenly nor in a contextual vacuum. That is, the “good” Archangel Lucifer did didn't simply wake up in a bad mood and decide to be “evil” one morning. But instead, the early text tell us that Lucifers fall was more logical and it occurred in the context of several frustrating controversies, (some more important than others). The most famous controversy in the ancient texts occurred during the honoring of Adam which itself takes place in the greater context of God the Fathers Plan. To best understand this cascade of events, I think one should start with God’s original plan and consider events from there forward.

It is contextually important to understand that, to this ancient christian theology :

1) The spirits of angels, men and God existed prior to mortality

2) God the Father’s plan entailed moral advancement of the spirits of men

3) The Honoring of Adam was logical in view of his role in God’s plan for mankind

4) Lucifer’s “rebellion” was more than a refusal to “honor Adam”.

5) Lucifer’s “punishment” relates to his rebellion against the plan AND God himself

6) Lucifer’s current “dominion” plays a “role” in God’s ultimate plan


Without considering conditions PRIOR to Lucifer’s rebellion, then the rebellion cannot be understood as the ancient Judeo-Christians (who wrote these textual description) understood it. Without considering the nature of the rebellion, then Lucifer’s punishment and his current dominion cannot be understood as the ancient Christians understood and taught such doctrines.




POST TWO OF SEVEN FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF SEVEN

A) GOD THE FATHER’S PLAN FOR MAN, (WHICH LUCIFER ULTIMATELY REBELS AGAINST)

Long before the creation of this world, God was in the midst of spirits. Early textual testimonies describe innumerable spirits existing in “heaven” before creation and, they describe what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits.

Regarding his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him [God the Father] from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". (1 En 14:23).

Enoch continues : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits". (1 Enoch 40:1-2)"

“At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, .... Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. Each one in it’s due time the Holy One, be blessed, bade come to him, and then said: “Go now, descend into this that this place, into this and this body.” (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)
God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth according to such early texts.



B) BECAUSE GOD WAS INTELLIGENT AND POSSESSED POWER AND CHARITY, HE DEVISED A PLAN SO AS TO ALLOW OTHER SPIRITS TO ADVANCE

The ancient Jewish doctrine that God had instituted a divine plan is interwoven into multiple texts : "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264)

“....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4)

The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement of the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).

Though these texts tell us that all the spirits of men existed before the creation of the earth, the spirits were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; i.e. those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In addition to Lucifer, God the Father and Adam, all other key players are all present in this pre-creation heavenly realm.

In Enoch’s vision, he also sees the pre-mortal Jesus with the Father. Upon seeing the two together, Enoch asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan : "At that place, I saw the Beginning of days [i.e. the Father] And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4)

It is in this context that the Apostolic Father Ignatius taught that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father..” (Ignatius :6:1). The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, possessed a great similarity and unity. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations, just as “the word” is another common appellation). Diogenes relates this ancient doctrine :

"And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of [us] ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child... (Diog 301:8-11)



C) DESPITE CONCERNS, THE PLAN WAS GENERALLY, RECEIVED JOYOUSLY

Ancient pre-creation histories describe that the Father’s plan, revealed to these spirits before the foundations of the earth were laid was generally joyously received. God’s question to Job was not merely rhetorical, but was a contextual reminder to Job of an actual occurrence.

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)

The advancement entailed by God's plan was something the spirits wanted : Enoch says that he saw : "...the fountain of righteousness,...surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom. (Then) their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones.‘

This prospect of gaining that same wisdom and taking their place with others who were holy, righteous and elect was appealing to many of these pre-creation spirits.

The Zohar relates mortality to a moral education received by coming to mortality :
“...why do they [the spirits of mankind] descend to this world only to be taken thence [back to heaven] at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day..... “ (The zohar - A seal upon your heart)
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]POST THREE OF SEVEN FOLLOWS
[/FONT]

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF SEVEN

D) GOD’S PLAN CONTINUED TO PROGRESS

God’s plan moved forward and preparations were made over a great deal of time including a physical creation in preparation for mortality.

Though multiple creation accounts exist, the earlier Christian accounts make it clear both that God created the Planets and Stars (often translated “orbs” or “circles”) out of “lessor”, or more chaotic material, and, importantly, he commissioned the Pre-creation Jesus (Often called “the word” or his “right hand”) to administrate over this material creation of an earth which will then be populated with embodied spirits for their education and testing.

Thus the early Synagogal prayer reflects this doctrine : “We give thanks to you, O God and Father of Jesus our Savior...O Master Almighty, the God of the universe, you created the world and what is in it through him,... (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers -aposCon 7.26. 1-3)

Or prayer #3 “ Blessed are you, O Lord, King of the ages, who through Christ made everything, and through him in the beginning ordered that which was unprepared” (i.e. chaotic matter) (#3 prayer - aposCon 7.34.1-8)

Or prayer #4 that addresses God the Father : “For you are the Father of wisdom, the Creator, as cause, of the creative workmanship through a Mediator....” #4 (aposCon 7.35.1-10);

The Jewish Geninza 4Q texts are clear that, despite delegation of important roles, the plan IS the Father’s plan and that he “determined all your works before you created them, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of your holy ones… - all your designs for the end of time..”

God counsels with those whose involvement he wants, but it remains God the Father's plan : “Moreover the Holy One, blessed be he, does nothing in his world without first taking counsel with them; then he acts, as it is written” (3Enoch :4 283). This early Jewish teaching that the physical creation was accomplished for the purpose of advancing mankind is the same tradition as the early Christians held.

New Testament Hermas taught : "...don’t you understand how great and mighty and marvelous God’s glory is, because he created the world for the sake of man, and subjected all his creation to man..” (Her 47:2-4).

As I pointed out to the Christian, Robin1, the physical creation of the earliest ancient accounts was not a magical “creation out of nothing”, but instead, creation was accomplished by taking “lessor” or more chaotic matter, and organizing it into a “higher” or more organized and purposeful form such as the organized earth had. Old Testament Enoch describes this process: “And I called out a second time into the very lowest things, and I said, ‘Let one of the (in)visible things come out visibly, solid.’..” (2nd Enoch 26:1).

From this lesser organized, chaotic debris, the earth and other planets were formed :
“And thus I made solid the heavenly circles (orbs). ...And from the rocks I assembled the dry land; and I called the dry land Earth. “ (2nd Enoch 28:1-2).

And thus, in company with the Pre-Mortal spirit of Jesus (called "the word” or “the right hand” in some accounts), the Father accomplished creation.

“I said, “O Lord, you spoke at the beginning of creation, and said on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made, ‘ and your word accomplished the work...Again, on the second day, you created the spirit of the firmament and commanded him to divide and separate the waters...On the third day you commanded the waters to be gather together...For your word went forth, and at once the work was done. “ (4th Enoch 3:38-42).



E)SPIRITS ABILITY TO CHOOSE AND TO PROGRESS

It is Baruch that reminds us of the innate ability of the spirit of men to advance in knowledge consistent with God’s plan. He says : “For the nature of men is always changeable. For as we were once, we are no longer, and as we are now, we shall not remain in the future. For if an end of all things had not been prepared, their beginning would have been senseless”. (2 Baruch 21:16-17)

Even at this early, less sophisticated stage of existence, spirits were able to exercise their agency. Thus the spirits of men were able to exercise choice to take part in this plan despite difficulties they will experience in mortality (as Job was reminded), just as they are allowed moral choice in this life.

Given the grandeur and the pure intent and profound implications of God’s plan for mankind, it may start to make some sense of what it meant for Lucifer, not only to refuse to take part in the plan, but to openly rebel against the plan, and ultimately rebel against God the Father himself.




F) THE HONORING OF ADAM FOR HIS ROLE IN GOD THE FATHER'S PLAN

It ought to be perfectly clear that as milestones were reached in the moving forward of God’s Great and Eternal Plan for the spirits of mankind, the inauguration of mortality was an incredibly important phase that all spirits had long been anticipating. At the creation of Adam, the Lord God commanded all the inhabitants of heaven to honor Adam for what he was about to do.

This “honoring of Adam” was not simply an arbitrary and spontaneous “office party” thrown at a whim, but it was a recognition of the culmination of organization and creation over a great deal of time and the inauguration of the opening phase of mortality of all mankind. This is the context within which Lucifer’s refusal took place.

POST FOUR OF SEVEN FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST FOUR OF SEVEN


G) LUCIFER’S REFUSAL TO HONOR ADAM WAS AN ORTHODOX TEACHING IN EARLY ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS

Regarding my reference to Lucifer’s refusal to honor Adam. It was important to me that readers understand that I did not simply pick out a single “obscure” reference describing this story. Rather, this early doctrine was taught is described in many texts over a great deal of time and space.

For examples: Christian Sedrach relates : “You commanded your angels to worship [honor] Adam, but he who was first among the angels disobeyed your order and did not honor him: and so you banished him because he transgressed your commandment and did not come forth (to honor) the creation of your hands." (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7)

The Christian text “Life of Adam and Eve” relates the same incident : Speaking to Adam, the Devil said : “ ...because of you I am expelled and deprived of my glory which I had in the heavens in the midst of angels, and because of you I was cast out onto the earth.” 2 Adam answered, “What have I done to you, and what is my blame with you? Ch 13 “The devil replied,...It is because of you that I have been thrown out of there. 2 When .......Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ Ch 14 3 And I answered, ‘I do not honor Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not honor one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to honor me.’ 15 1 When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to honor him. (Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 12: 1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3)

The early Christian Text “Cave of Treasures” relates : “And when the prince of the lower order of angels saw what great majesty had been given unto Adam, he was jealous of him from that day, and he did not wish to honor him. And he said unto his hosts, "Ye shall not honor him, and ye shall not praise him with the angels. It is meet that ye should honor me, because I am fire and spirit; and not that I should honor a thing of dust, which hath been fashioned of fine dust."

Jewish Enoch relates, in the context of this Lucifer’s rebellion : “ the devil understood how I wished to create another world, so that everything could be subjected to Adam on the earth, to rule and reign over it. ....And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. 6 And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam. (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1)

Jewish Haggadah (having Talmudic origins) also relates : “The extraordinary qualities with which Adam was blessed, physical and spiritual as well, aroused the envy of the angels...After Adam had been endowed with a soul, God invited all the angels to come and pay him reverence and homage. Satan, the greatest of the angels in heaven,....refused to pay heed to the behest of God, saying, “You created us angels from the splendor of the Shekinah, and now you command us to cast ourselves down before the creature which you fashioned out of the dust of the ground!” God answered, “Yet this dust of the ground has more wisdom and understanding than you.”... (The Haggadah -The Fall of Satan)

The text then relates the "battle of wits" between Lucifers spirit and Adam's spirit where Lucifer is bested and loses "face".

Christian Bartholomew also confirms the story as Lucifer says : “And when I came from the ends of the world, Michael said to me: ‘Honor the image of God which he has made in his own likeness.’ But I said: ‘I am fire of fire. I was the first angel to be formed, and shall I honor clay and matter?” And Michael said to me: ‘Honor, lest god be angry with you.’ I answered: ‘God will not be angry with me, but I will set up my throne over against his throne, and shall be as he is [Isa. 14:14f]. ‘ then god was angry with me and cast me down,...” (The Gospel of Bartholomew Ch IV)


This specific textual-historical doctrine controversy is not simply Jewish and Christian in it’s nature, but it’s shared by the Sixth Century Islamic text, the Holy Quran :

"..And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "I am going to create a man (Adam) from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud. So, when I have fashioned him completely and breathed into him (Adam) the soul which I created for him, then fall (you) down prostrating yourselves unto him." So, the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together. Except Iblis (Satan), - he refused to be among the prostrators. (Sura 15:28-31)

In Sura 20 : “ And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves to Adam." They prostrated (all) except Iblis (Satan), who refused. (Sura 20:116)

In Sura 38 : “ (Remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Truly, I am going to create man from clay". So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him." So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them: Except Iblis (Satan) he was proud and was one of the disbelievers. (Sura 38:71-74)

In Sura 7 : “And surely, We created you (your father Adam) and then gave you shape (the noble shape of a human being), then We told the angels, "Prostrate to Adam", and they prostrated, except Iblis (Satan), he refused to be of those who prostrate. (Allah) said: "What prevented you (O Iblis) that you did not prostrate, when I commanded you?" Iblis said: "I am better than him (Adam), You created me from fire, and him You created from clay." (Sura 7:11-12)

In Sura 18 : “And (remember) when We said to the angels; "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis (Satan). He was one of the jinns; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord.... (Sura 18:50)

The point in repeating this doctrine from so many different ancient sources and versions is to show that this specific controversy and it’s relation to the doctrine of the “Origin” of Satan, is VERY ancient, the doctrine is VERY widespread among a large group of ancient literature, and the doctrine is VERY “orthodox” to the ancient Christians and other religious groups as well.

[FONT=&quot]POST FIVE OF SEVEN FOLLOWS
[/FONT]

 

[Clear]

POST FIVE OF SEVEN

G) THE NATURE OF LUCIFER’S REBELLION IN THE CONTEXT OF GOD THE FATHER’S PLAN.

The nature of Lucifer’s punishment indicates the seriousness of what he did : When Enoch tells the fallen angel Azaz’el that “There will not be peace unto you; a grave judgment has come upon you. They will put you in bonds because you have taught injustice (1st Enoch 13:1-3), Enoch is not speaking of mere “naughtiness” or mere “disagreement” with God’s plan. Such fallen angels were told “judgment is passed upon you. 5 From now on you will not be able to ascend into heaven unto all eternity, (1st Enoch 14:3-5) because their rebellion had much greater ramifications than simple disagreement with God.

The jewish Haggadah describes the “wary reluctance” some souls experienced to leave a pre-mortal “heaven” to be born into mortality. Speaking this sort of “reluctance” the Zohar describes how God, tells a spirit to “Go now, descend into this and that place, into this and this body.” Yet often enough the soul would reply: “Lord of the world, I am content to remain in this realm, , and have no wish to depart to some other, where I shall be in thralldom, and become stained.” Whereupon the Holy One, be blessed, would reply: “Your destiny is, and has been from the day of thy forming, to go into that world.” (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)

Such “unconfidence” is not “rebellion” and such souls are given encouragement and still sent into mortality through birth according to God’s plan. However, just as “reluctance” is not “rebellion”, Lucifer’s “rebellion” was not merely “reluctance”. Lucifer’s rebellion was described as a willful and confident full fledged disagreement which evolved into a plan for an asaultive counter “coup” having a DIFFERENT administration under a DIFFERENT King and DIFFERENT goals to the ultimate effect of nullifying God’s initial plan.

In the context of controversies such as Lucifer’s “last straw” over Adam, one can better understand the sparks that made up the fires of the Rebellion or “war in heaven” itself.

In reference to a different, earlier controversy regarding the knowledge, that IF man, having free will, was sent to earth, then mankind would certainly commit moral atrocities, it was not only known that the creation of man would be associated with suffering, but that was one of the great controversies associated with placing mankind upon the earth (an omniscient God knew beforehand that many temporary sins and atrocities would result from the carrying out of his plan).

Thus, early Christian abbaton text describes God’s reluctance approach to placing mankind upon the earth. Christ described his father at the creation of Adam when considering the moral atrocities and viscosities of mortality thusly : “And he [the Father] heaved sighs over him daily, saying, “If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.” Abbaton

This controversy regarding the knowledge that man would commit terrible sins once the plan was inaugurated describes the earth itself, recognizing the immoral actions of mankind, if God’s plan was to be put into place. As the angel is to Gather dirt for God to make Adam’s body with, the earth says : “I swear unto thee by Him Who sent thee to Me, that if thou takest me to Him, He will mold me into a form, and I shall become a man, and a living soul. And very many sins shall come forth from my heart (or, body), and many fornications, and slanderous abuse, and jealousy, and hatred and contention shall come forth from his hand, and many murders and sheddings of blood shall come froth from his hand. And they shall cast me out to the dogs, and to the cats, and into pits and holes in the ground, and into streams of water before my time, and after all these things they will finally cast me into punishment, and they will punish me by day and by night. Let me stay here, and go back to the ground and be quiet.” (abbaton)

Thus, the moral difficulties of God’s plan was known long before the fall of Adam, and in fact, long before Adam’s spirit was placed into his body. 3rd Enoch relates one of the fallen angels complaints against God the Father and his plan :

"Then three of the ministering angels, Uzzah, Azzah, and Aza’el, came and laid charges against me in the heavenly height. They said before the Holy One, blessed be he, ‘Lord of the Universe, did not the primeval ones give you good advice when they said, Do not create man!’ The Holy One, blessed be he, replied, ‘I have made and will sustain him; I will carry and deliver him.’ (3rd Enoch 4:6)

[FONT=&quot]Such references hint of the other controversies and together, they offer a coherent history regarding such related controversies and their relationship to Lucifers Fall. Other than the knowledge that God did NOT relish the moral difficulties of his plan; but that it, instead, caused him regret, this point is a different consideration than the fall of Lucifer. (The reason to mention it is both to place God into a context of having regret for moral problems rather than a God who enjoys it, and secondly, to show that there were multiple considerations and controversies going on prior to Creation in these early Judeo-Christian worldviews)

POST SIX OF SEVEN FOLLOWS
[/FONT]

 

[Clear]

POST SIX OF SEVEN

Regarding the current Controversy with Adam :

Jewish Haggadah relates that “The extraordinary qualities with which Adam was blessed, physical and spiritual as well, aroused the envy of the angels......You created us angels from the splendor of the Shekinah, and now you command us to cast ourselves down before the creature which you fashioned out of the dust of the ground!” God answered, “Yet this dust of the ground has more wisdom and understanding than you.”... (The Haggadah -The Fall of Satan)

This Haggadic summary illuminates the growing anger in an envious Lucifer. This haggadic text goes on to relate a subsequent battle of wits between the spirits of Lucifer and Adam which leaves Lucifer publicly upstaged and discontented and frustrated. Much like the one-sided debates we sometimes see on this public forum when a poster loses face.

How would an envious, upstaged and angry Lucifer be expected to react? Especially given that “the devil understood how I wished to create another world, so that everything could be subjected to Adam on the earth, to rule and reign over it.” 2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1;

As the earth was created and it’s preparations finished and the time arrived for God’s plan to be inaugurated, the mood among the hosts of heaven becomes one of anticipation and excitement. It is under these circumstance that the body for Adam is created and joined to his spirit and God commanded that Adam was to be honored for his role in inaugurating God’s plan upon the earth. Michael calls all the angels to honor Adam for what he is about to do. A seemingly “fed up” Lucifer arrives to the occasion with a bad attitude.

It is in such a context that later, the fallen Lucifer later explained to the fallen Adam :
..Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ And I answered, ‘I do not honor Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not honor one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to honor me.’ .... When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to honor him. And Michael asserted, ‘Honor the image of God. But if now you will not honor, the Lord God will be wrathful with you.’ And I said, ‘If he be wrathful with me, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven and will be like the Most High.” (Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 12: 1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3)

As I’ve pointed out, there are many confirming versions of this same story. In these early christian texts, the anger and frustration of Lucifer does not remain a private gripe, but becomes an open rebellion.

”... one from the order of the archangels deviated, together with the division that was under his authority. He thought up the impossible idea, that he might place his throne higher than the clouds which are above the earth, and that he might become equal to my power. 5 And I hurled him out from the height, together with his angels.” (2nd Enoch 29:3-5)

POST SEVEN OF SEVEN FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

[FONT=&quot]POST SEVEN OF SEVEN

The Book of John the evangelist confirms Satan’s presumption in similar language “He set his seat above the clouds of heaven”. Bartholemew records this occurrence in almost the same words as the other versions : “I will set my throne over against his throne” (bar 4:55) ;

It is for carrying out the actual plan and organized attempt to “set up [his] throne above the stars of heaven and ..be like the Most High” that Lucifer was punished. (“Stars” was a euphamism for the greatest angels).

Speaking of Lucifer and the angels who allied with him the ancient psalm read : [/FONT]“Now as they were warring with each other, they made bold to attack the land of Light, considering themselves capable of conquering it. Yet they know not that what they thought will recoil upon their own heads. But there was a host of angels in the Land of Light which possessed the power to issue forth and overcome the enemy of the Father, whom it pleased that through the Word that he would send, he should subdue the rebels who desired to raise themselves above what was more exalted than they.... (The Coptic Psalm-book Psalm 223 (allberry 9-11) p 328; )

This attempted “coup” would have divided heaven and created a rival Kingship over a rival group in heaven. It was an attempt to set up a rival administration with it’s own rival plan for man. This was no mere show of minor “disloyalty”. Also, one should note the doctrine that the father delegated the successful battle which overcame Lucifer “through the Word” (who was his son).

The earthly Devil had undergone multiple prior perceived offenses as the pre-mortal Lucifer. AND, his memories of pre-mortal happenings were not “veiled” from him, as Adams were. Certain battle lines were drawn long, long ago.
It is in this larger set of contexts that it was said : And the Rebel meditating these things Fol. 5b, col. 2 would not render obedience to God, and of his own free will he asserted his independence and separated himself from God. But he was - swept away out of heaven and fell, and the fall of himself and of all his company from heaven took place ...because he turned aside from the right way, ... he lost the apparel of his glory. And behold, from that time until the present day, he and all his hosts have been stripped of their apparel, (Cave of Treasures, chapt on “The Revolt of Satan&#8221

It’s unnecessary to the purpose of this exposition to discussed the symbolism of Lucifer’s apparel, his armor, and the “names” which were written in his hand (as the christian Abbaton also describes in greater detail), but it’s apparent that Lucifer unwillingly undergoes a ritual removal of his powers and authorities and authority for leadership and, with those angels who took part in his planned rebellion, he is cast down into the earth.

However, such histories lend sense and context and confirmation to other histories such as Apocalypse of abraham when Azaz’el is told regarding Abraham “...shame on you Azazel! For Abraham’s portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth, for you have selected here, (and) become enamored of the dwelling place of your blemish. .... For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him, and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you.” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 13: 4,5,7-14)

Once Lucifer finds himself and his fallen angels on the earth, his own recognition and understanding and sense of what he had done increased, but this recognition was not associated with remorse nor repentance, but rather with an obstinate resolve and desire and plan for revenge (and other motives) and for continuing his rebellion.
“..he fled from heaven; Sotona, because his name was satanail. 5 In this way he became different from the angels. His nature did not change, (but) his thought did, since his consciousness of righteous and sinful things changed. And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. 6 And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam." (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1)

I hope that it is clear that the early Christian doctrines and texts DID have a sensible concept of the origin of the Devil and for some of the underlying motives as to why Lucifer battles against God and God's plan for the moral education of those among mankind who are willing and wanting to live by the moral laws which will ultimately allow them to live in happiness and harmony.

AphaAlex15 : I hope you understand that I think the non-theists and agnostics are perfectly correct in asking the important questions regarding evil; it's origin and and reason for it's temporary existence. However, Compared to modern theories (or lack of theories), the ancient Christian doctrines were, I think, more coherent and more logical and represented a detailed and a more accurate tradition of the Devils origin. Though early traditions cannot tell us what the ultimate truth is, I believe that the earlier Judeo-Christian Worldviews are more able to answer the legitimate questions that agnostics, athiests and theist themselves ask, as opposed to the more modern Jewish and Christian movements' theologies.


In any case, good luck in your journey in this life.

Clear
σεειφυσισεω

 

[1robin]

If "to live" means something different to God and to us, then at least one of us is working from the wrong definition. Who's wrong - us or God?

Neither but if one was wrong it would be us since God is the ultimate arbiter of everything. The bible defines the bible. Hebrew defines Hebrew. Theological terms mean theological things. When the bible says death it can mean one of two things. It can mean physical death, or it can mean the infinitely worse second death which is complete separation from God for eternity. Context usually makes it perfectly clear which one is meant. It is common to all languages that the same term have multiple meanings why do you balk at it here.

More than what? Not more than he could have saved. If God had chosen to just convince the Canaanites to be good, then nobody would have had to die at all.

And the Canaanites would not have had freewill. I have said this so many times I am starting to think your bias blanks it out of your memory or something. Nothing can get any clearer. To get love you must have freewill, to get freewill you must potentially allow wrong choices, to allow wrong choices you must allow consequence to indicate the nature of the wrong choice. This is kindergarten stuff here. On top of that God is not merely a God of forgiveness but a God of justice. That society was way past the point of deserving judgment and God is capable of sorting the innocent from the rest. With God everyone receives eternal justice, without no one does.

And, apparently, that foundation is based on the idea that human beings have no innate worth at all. Some foundation.

What the heck are you talking about. I emphatically stated that only with God do humans have worth. You sound like the black knight "but your arm's off", "no it isn't".

Of course, I'm operating from the assumption that this God has established that it's wrong to let children die. Do you agree that God has established this?

He has established that for us because we do not have the ability to place them in heaven, the ability to see their future (I guess in your omniscience you would have left them to become as corrupt as their parents and wind up in Hell, or have turned them into automations), we cannot accurately judge groups and do not have the responsibility of God's purposes to maintain in a corporate level. The principles are the same but God has additional means and methods because he has far greater capacity. The same way a child spanking its sibling is generally considered wrong but the parent doing so is ok because the parent has additional capacities the child does not.

With God, you mean. Remember what you just said?

I do not get the caveat here.

According to the worldview you're selling, there is no goodness except what God deigns to bestow.

First if I am selling something you must surely be able to quote the price I asked for it. Second of course God is the ultimate root of value for everything. It would not have even existed without him.

I'm not sure which wins out: the bigotry of this statement,

This is pathetic. Exactly which group do these people belong to that I am bigoted against?

its ignorance of history,

These are well acknowledged facts of history. Not in a single debate have a single one of them ever been challenged by either side. They are simply universal truths. Which is why you do not bother to show them wrong but instead only proclaimed them to be in your omniscience.

or its ignorance of evolution.

It was not my justification it was theirs. You can read Hitler's diaries, Stalin's documents, etc.... They used social Darwinism as the foundation for their actions not me.

In any case, history has no shortage of genocidal maniacs and despots who were devout believers in God. Thinking that one is doing "God's work" often lets people ignore normal morality.

No doubt but let's place them in context. The one most often cited is the Spanish inquisition. I will add all the inquisitions to it just to make it easy. Over the entire 400 years they were carried out less than 5000 people died. Stalin averaged more than that per day. How about Cortez? He killed less than 20,000 (the Mexicans that hated the Aztecs were the ones that killed 90% of them). Hitler killed 300 times that amount just in Jews alone. What else you got, maybe the crusades? All of them combined killed vastly less people over hundreds of years than even a minor leager like Pol Pot did in a decade. Add in that every act the Christians did defied the bible so it's on their head not God's. Even God himself killed less people in 5000 years than Stalin did in a single year.

... which does speak to something interesting: it's strange how the suppose source of objective morality does such a poor job of letting people know what's moral and what's not.

How on earth is giving every single non-psychopathic human who ever lived a perfect moral conscience a poor job. Your world view can't produce a single moral fact of any kind. God's commandments alone are the most famous by far list of moral demands ever made and have been in the worlds most widely read book by far for thousands of years.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

I don't see the point of your question.

The point was you would have no defense because by his absolute standards you, I, and the rest of us are guilty and you denied his pardon.

Baloney. There's no reasonable definition of "free will" that would make this statement true.

That is not what every philosopher who I have ever heard regardless of which side they are debating has said. If you grant freewill then that person must be allowed to act wrongly and it is the nature of ungodly actions that they produce suffering. If they did not who would believe they were wrong. In fact parents add suffering intentionally to instruct. It is child abuse not to discipline a child.

They're logical contradictions. Regret is incompatible with a perfect God.

That is complete crap. I have heard scholar after scholar perfectly reconcile them with ease. In the same we allow children freedom knowing they will fail and we still regret their failures.

There's no logical impossibility in reducing the amount of suffering in the world. People do it all the time. Why can't God?

Because that would require an abridgement of freewill and not provide the evidence of an actions wrongness. If you want to screw up a child then all you have to do is rescue them from all their mistakes. Now let me add something here. Freewill is not absolute. It is the primary principle but on very rare occasions it is circumvented. As in Pharos case, and God also influences events in ways that reduce suffering but in general he allows us to reap what we sow.

It's relevant if you want to have a discussion with me.

I have no idea what that means.

You're proposing that morality is a system of moral judgments that's just true according to God's subjective opinion. By the definition that you just gave, such a system would not be objective morality.

No, I am proposing morality is a collection of moral facts that reflect God's nature. He did not chose them, he is them. God did not produce morality he is morality. Officially he is the moral locus of all moral truth. There is no external standard and he did not make something write by declaration. Something is right if it is consistent with his nature. He declared what was right he did not make it right by declaration.

I've said it before: if God exists, he's just one more player in the game. Maybe a more powerful or wiser player than most, but still no more able to be the source of morality than a human king.

Unequivocally and absolutely wrong. Matter is morally neutral. It does not contain moral properties and does not stand in causal moral relationship to anything. If you disagree then which molecule is the moral one? Oxygen, Benzene, Carbon? If I construct a biological system with molecules which not a single one has a moral property then the whole lack sit as well. However if they had moral properties they acquired them from another source and could not create them anyway. No human being who ever lived created a single moral fact nor ever will. We can perceive them but never create them. God can and does and is the only possible source. Humans can produce ethics but ethics are not facts they are opinions.

So then the source of morality is not God; the source of morality is whatever caused God's nature.

Nothing caused God's nature. Asking anything about God's creator has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. It is the result of either abject ignorance or pure desperation. God had no creator. Sunday school kids know this.

I think you're still missing my point. If a doctor removed a person's heart unnecessarily, he would be even more liable: he would be guilty of murder just as if you did it, but the fact that he was a doctor acting in his capacity as a doctor would make him guilty of malpractice as well.

No, you missed my point. Analogies only apply where used. Analogies are not equalities and are only useful when limited. You cannot take an analogy the is useful in one context and rip it out and put it in another that was not intended and yell foul. If God acts who is going to judge him, who would have more certain knowledge of whether he was justified than him, you going to sue him? God dictates what is justifiable not you and not the doctor in my analogy so you used it improperly.

Free will is nothing more than the ability to act on our desires; free will doesn't include the ability to create our desires. If the only desires that ever occur to us are good, then our actions will be good without ever violating free will.

Nope, if all I can chose is X then I am not free. I must be able to chose X and not X if I am to be free. Would you want a robot spouse which could only love you? Then marry an I-pad. A kiss given without choice when a button is pressed ceases to hold any meaning whatever. Only when they can refuse is agreement valuable.

Also, it's not as if we're free to actually carry out our desires as it is. God has apparently seen fit to limit our "free will" by denying us the ability to levitate or to make people we don't like spontaneously combust from the power of our thoughts; how would it violate free will by, say, making our skin tough enough to resist a knife? Where's the logical impossibility in making us stab-proof?

Freewill has nothing to do with capacity to actualize it. It only means I can chose that which I desire and in the case of God's purpose that requires the ability to chose him or rebel against him and all that entails. I am free if I can chose to murder everyone on earth even if I cannot accomplish it.

And you ignore the fact that a huge amount of suffering has nothing to do with free will at all. Take choking: a significant amount of suffering and death that people experience can be traced back to the fact that we use the same tube to eat as to breathe. Why does this have to be the way it is? And don't say "free will".

I never said all evil or suffering is directly caused by an individuals freewill. Much of it comes from a corporate judgment against a rebellious creation. God does not send tornados to punish in general but he doe snot stop them in general either. We told God to get lost that we had this. That is exactly what he did. In the end you get exactly what you chose. You want him you get him, you don't and you get exactly that and everything that goes with it. How just can you get?

Our imperfection: the fact that our abilities are limited excuses the fact that our well-intentioned actions have negative side effects. Only an imperfect being can cause harm while still acting morally.

Find me a single scholarly proof of that last line in any subject ever studied.

If you don't have one, you can't say that God is perfect. Do you?

Since God is the highest possible judge and his decision transcends every other decision and authority that will ever exist I do not need one. I do not need to compare God to an external standard because he transcends it and would have created it anyway. Do you know anything about divine command theory?

 

[1robin]

They currently describe themselves as an humanitarian organization. There is no mention of Christianity anywhere on their website that I can see.

Just because someone whose father was a universalist, founded an organization, doesn’t make that organization Christian. Especially if they don’t consider themselves one now.

I think I explained exactly why that is. They found themselves not able to operate freely in various cultural situations with a Christian label and they thought it might prevent volunteers from joining or others from seeking aid. So opposite from what you hinted at they valued the aid over the label and dropped it and have assumed a neutral label instead. My brother in law is a Red cross district manager. I can give you their full Christian foundation history if you want.

 

[1robin]

Or northern Canada:


https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100015644/1100100015649

I made no claim that Christian history is perfect, ever. It has it's black spots but even it's mistakes many times had great motivations. In what way was this example a counter to my two (of many)? How many hundreds of hospitals have we built, how many soup Kitchens do we operate, how many rehabilitation programs are we responsible for, how many thousands of tons of food have we delivered, etc..... ad infinitum. Yeah we got to stop those guys.

 

[1robin]

POST ONE OF SEVEN

Regarding AlphaAlex15s’ point regarding the early Jewish and Christian belief in the fall of Satan/Lucifer from heaven) and CG Didymus reference in # 3954 about the fall of Lucifer.

I believe that the Athiest and agnostics often make perfectly logical and legitimate requests for basic information which, often modern Christianity no longer is able to answer in the same way that early Judeo-Christians were able to answer them.

As a historian, the contexts of these debates look differently than it might to many theists. For example, when agnostics ask about the origin of evil or how an archangel became Gods’ enemy, I do NOT think this is a silly question but it is a very, very good question that all should ask.

Even the prophets have asked this same question as the early textual traditions describe. Regarding Satan, the prophet Abraham asks God : “Eternal, Mighty One, why then did you adjudge him such dominion that through his works he could ruin humankind on earth? “The Apocalypse of Abraham 23: 5-12. (This reminds me of CG Didymus insightful point in his post #3954)

The prophet Sedrach complains to God about the devil and asks God why he did not simply destroy Satan altogether : “Sedrach said to him [God]. “It was by your will that Adam was deceived, my master. You commanded your angels to worship Adam, but he who was first among the angels disobeyed your order and did not worship him: and so you banished him because he transgressed your commandment and did not come forth (to worship) the creation of your hands. If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? Who can fight against an invisible spirit? He enters the hearts of men like a smoke and teaches them all kinds of sin. He even fights against you, the immortal God, and so what can pitiful man do against him....”. The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7;

Instead of becoming frustrated at agnostics and atheist who are asking perfectly legitimate questions, the concept of returning to early Judeo-christian doctrines can inform and solve many of these debates much more clearly than modern Christian theories. Abraham and Sedrach (and other prophets in the past) asked these same basic questions the agnostics are asking. Importantly, the answers God gives them help explain and inform these issues.

Early Jewish, Christian and Islamic textual witness describe their early traditions surrounding the fall of Lucifer/Satan/Devil from heaven AND this single historical story IS one of the few great intersecting point of specific agreement between early Christians, early Jews and early Muslim traditions.

I saw a recent comment from a Christian who was explaining to an investigator of Christianity, the origin of Satan as a source of evil in God’s creation. The christian commented : “...there's nothing, scripturally speaking, that addresses the question of the origin of evil (or Satan, if you prefer). The only hint is in Genesis 3 where the serpent (in later tradition -- again without scriptural support -- identified as the devil) appears quite suddenly as part of an apparently very good creation. Nary a word of comment on the origins of this creature.... “ That’s it, in toto.

Such statements reveal a lack of a framework for understanding the basic issues surrounding what is going on with all of this “good” and “evil” that none of us avoid inside of creation; and demonstrate the value of turning to the earliest Christian teachings and their writings on such issues (in the period before many of the important doctrines were lost or changed). I do not believe that modern christian theory is as coherent; nor as understandable as the early Judao-Christian doctrines regarding Lucifers origins and motives for his fall from heaven.


THE FALL OF LUCIFER IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TEXTUAL TRADITION

I think the early christian teachings from early texts regarding the fall of Lucifer are important as such issues apply to Satan and to the principle of evil itself. I felt that a discussion of early Jewish, Christian and Islamic texts would demonstrate that the early Judeo-Christians has much greater detail and depth in their traditions and worldviews as compared to most modern Christian interpretations.

Though there are a few theories regarding how Lucifer, an archangel with some authority became Satan, an enemy to all righteousness, there is a great deal of early literature regarding what the early christians themselves believed regarding the Origin and motives of Lucifer.

I think it is an important historical context to keep in mind that Lucifer’s “fall” did not happen suddenly nor in a contextual vacuum. That is, the “good” Archangel Lucifer did didn't simply wake up in a bad mood and decide to be “evil” one morning. But instead, the early text tell us that Lucifers fall was more logical and it occurred in the context of several frustrating controversies, (some more important than others). The most famous controversy in the ancient texts occurred during the honoring of Adam which itself takes place in the greater context of God the Fathers Plan. To best understand this cascade of events, I think one should start with God’s original plan and consider events from there forward.

It is contextually important to understand that, to this ancient christian theology :

1) The spirits of angels, men and God existed prior to mortality

2) God the Father’s plan entailed moral advancement of the spirits of men

3) The Honoring of Adam was logical in view of his role in God’s plan for mankind

4) Lucifer’s “rebellion” was more than a refusal to “honor Adam”.

5) Lucifer’s “punishment” relates to his rebellion against the plan AND God himself

6) Lucifer’s current “dominion” plays a “role” in God’s ultimate plan


Without considering conditions PRIOR to Lucifer’s rebellion, then the rebellion cannot be understood as the ancient Judeo-Christians (who wrote these textual description) understood it. Without considering the nature of the rebellion, then Lucifer’s punishment and his current dominion cannot be understood as the ancient Christians understood and taught such doctrines.




POST TWO OF SEVEN FOLLOWS

Clear your posts are impractical. They are good but they are not directed at anyone specifically and they are so long and drawn out that few would have the time or inclination to tackle then all. They also appear to be copy and pasted which makes me doubt the sincerity behind them. You deserve to be debated but you make it very hard with these avalanches of information. I just can't justify that much time on one person. Can you boil them down and wait for a rely to respond back. I asking only on my behalf others may not feel the same way.

 

[johnhanks]

No doubt but let's place them in context. The one most often cited is the Spanish inquisition. I will add all the inquisitions to it just to make it easy. Over the entire 400 years they were carried out less than 5000 people died. Stalin averaged more than that per day. How about Cortez? He killed less than 20,000 (the Mexicans that hated the Aztecs were the ones that killed 90% of them). Hitler killed 300 times that amount just in Jews alone. What else you got, maybe the crusades? All of them combined killed vastly less people over hundreds of years than even a minor leager like Pol Pot did in a decade. Add in that every act the Christians did defied the bible so it's on their head not God's.

Not for the first time I find your attempt at absolution-by-numbers worrying. If Alice murders five children and Bob murders ten, is Alice really only half as evil as Bob? Suppose each murdered as many as circumstances allowed - do the numbers still determine their relative guilt?

Even God himself killed less people in 5000 years than Stalin did in a single year.

Official: God less evil than Stalin.

 

[1robin]

Not for the first time I find your attempt at absolution-by-numbers worrying. If Alice murders five children and Bob murders ten, is Alice really only half as evil as Bob? Suppose each murdered as many as circumstances allowed - do the numbers still determine their relative guilt?

Quote a single statement I made in any of my almost 10,000 posts where I even hinted that less killing absolves the killers. You invented that out of thin air, apparently to have anything to reply with because you certainly did not respond to my claims at all. Every human on earth separates evils by degree. Christianity certainly has evil in it's past that is completely inconsistent with the faith but Atheism's (with the common inclusion of social Darwinism and secular philosophy) completely eclipses the Christian death toll. I did not say that excused Christians (though it does not indict God or the bible in anyway), I merely wanted it viewed in it's actual context.

Official: God less evil than Stalin.

We were not discussing God where I mentioned the crusades, inquisitions, or atheist utopias, we were discussing what men do and the motivations by which they do them, or claim to anyway. Please leave my statements as stated and stop paraphrasing from them things they never even hinted at.


Even if we were discussing who God had killed you are still light years away from showing he murdered them or that he did was evil. I do not even know how you would go about that incredibly arrogant attempt.

 

[Clear]

1) Robin1 : "Clear your posts are impractical. They are good but they are not directed at anyone specifically and they are so long and drawn out that few would have the time or inclination to tackle then all. "

Hi Robin1, If you read my last post regarding the fall of Lucifer in context, you will see that AlphaAlex115 asked me to describe the early Judeo-Christian traditions concerning the Fall of Lucifer/creation of the Devil.

In a prior post I asked him "Do you want me to describe the fall of Lucifer from Heaven from Jewish/Christian and Islamic texts? "
AlphaAlex115 replied “ Yes please.” in 3922

The posts describing the Fall of Lucifer from heaven were not meant for individuals who have no interest in historical data, but rather for the few that DO have inclination to understand these doctrinal points of early Christianity.



2) Robin1 "They also appear to be copy and pasted which makes me doubt the sincerity behind them."

Simply describing historical data "makes" you "doubt sincerity?" Ironically, this, itself sounds insincere, but instead it sounds like a simple barb.

The historical data I posted on Lucifer is actually my own writing, though I have written most of it before, and thus cut and paste from my own writing rather than re-typing everything I have typed before. While my writings are detailed and provide more depth to a specific subject than have provided or are able to provide the agnostic and non-theists you are arguing with, this difference reflects our different purposes.

Your posts typically trade barbs and quips and use philosophical arguments with very little hard data to support your opinions. I come from the historians world that is very keen to have any argument supported by data. Your arguments cannot survive in a historians world, as I've shown, while I have no particular interest in entering your world of philosophical arguments that might be based on inaccurate premises (such as your claim that all things are created from "nothing")

You seem to want to use your quips and barbs to unbalance your debate opponent while I want to use and re-use my data to help others discover underlying principles for them to make their own decisions as to what they will believe (though I use such data to outline lectures and to produce texts). This is partly why my writing looks like it came from a text (because it might need to go INTO a text at some point).

If historical posts with it's accompanying data are too long for you to read, just skip them.



3) Robin1 said : "You deserve to be debated but you make it very hard with these avalanches of information. I just can't justify that much time on one person. "

My premise is that the early Judeo-Christians describe certain historical themes in their early text. You can't rebuff this historical fact head on. If you want to be argumentative at all, it will have to be on some other almost related theme. You could theorize that all early writings that disagree with your interpretation are heretical or simply incorrect. But this means you would have to explain why only heretics were the predominant writers of this time period. You could argue that I made up these quotes from early Judeo-Christian texts (or from the Quran) , but then forum members can look up these quotes to see that they are factual. It is VERY difficult to debate data itself.



4) Robin1 asked : Can you boil them down and wait for a rely to respond back. I asking only on my behalf others may not feel the same way.

Yes, you ARE asking for something that YOU want (that others forum members may not want at all). You are not overly burdened with information and so you may not know that I AM boiling vast amounts of data into a smaller summary. I've just boiled down the creation of Lucifer and shown how this historical tradition was agreed upon by Christians, jews, and Muslims all into just seven posts.

I truly and honestly do not care if you respond to my posts at all. You've spend how many posts arguing about bits and pieces and, given the many, many, many posts. How much REAL understanding about the historical origin of Lucifer or the historical context of evil in Authentic and Historical Judeo-Christian worldview have you provided? (as opposed to your own opinion?) ARE THERE ANY POSTERS THAT SEE WHAT I HAVE MISSED IN THIS REGARDS?

Robin1, Why don't you simply skip my posts. They are not written for people like you anyway. They are written for individuals who think there is something about early authentic Christian theology they don't know and want to learn about that and discuss it amicably. If you have a different personal theory regarding the fall of Lucifer and have more and better data than early Christians, Jews, and Muslims who agreed on the reason for the Fall of Lucifer, feel free to offer it to the forum members.


Clear
σεσεσισεσεσι

 

[1robin]

Hi Robin1, If you read my last post regarding the fall of Lucifer in context, you will see that AlphaAlex115 asked me to describe the early Judeo-Christian traditions concerning the Fall of Lucifer/creation of the Devil. The post was not meant for individuals who have no interest in historical data, but rather for the few that DO have inclination to understand these doctrinal points of early Christianity.

Hello Clear. I only used that post to respond in general. I was not commenting on any one in particular. I was mainly going by the original posts that I responded to. You make good points and they deserve discussion but at least in my case they come in torrents and appear to be simply copied from sites. It is hard for me to engage in something that large. I like in depth posts but ones that proceed step by step. I shy away from walls of information. Now that is just me, I am not speaking for anyone else.

Simply describing historical data "makes" you "doubt sincerity?" Ironically, this, itself sounds insincere, but instead it sounds like a simple barb.

It is something I consider a deficiency but not an insult. I look for sincerity in posting. I equate personal responses or personal commentaries on information with sincerity. I equate merely robotically posting data without personal commentary insincere. I may be wrong, that is just the impression I get. Debates are supposed to be personal not robotic data factories.

The historical data I posted on Lucifer is actually my own writing, though I have written most of it before, and thus cut and paste from my own writing rather than re-typing everything I have typed before. While my writings are detailed and provide more depth to a specific subject than have provided or are able to provide the agnostic and non-theists you are arguing with, this difference reflects our different purposes.

If so then I withdraw my statement about copying and pasting.

Your posts typically trade barbs and quips and use philosophical arguments with very little hard data to support your opinions. I come from the historians world that is very keen to have any argument supported by data. Your arguments cannot survive in a historians world, as I've shown, while I have no particular interest in entering your world of philosophical arguments that might be based on inaccurate premises (such as your claim that all things are created from "nothing")

Actually I would rather stick with facts if given in the context of a personal claim and not personal commentary. However I am only human and at times I detect a bias so clear that it is frustrating. It would be hard to tell given a casual reading but if you read my past posts you would see I almost never engage in any personal comments first. You would find I constantly back out of those discussions and discourage them despite finding myself in then from time to time. Maybe if my posts were more like yours and your more like mine we would have a proper position. I have a degree in math and have read quite extensively in theology but my whole life has been spent studying history (mainly military history), and the last half of it almost obsessed with theological and philosophical debate. I don't think you will find you have a historical advantage on me if we debated it.

You seem to want to use your quips and barbs to unbalance your debate opponent while I want to use and re-use my data to help others discover underlying principles for them to make their own decisions as to what they will believe (though I use such data to outline lectures and to produce texts). This is partly why my writing looks like it came from a text (because it might need to go INTO a text at some point).

I don't think you have been here long enough to establish any generalities about me yet. I make no complaint about the information you use. As I said I find it very appropriate, but for me it comes in mountainous waves. I seem to attract the most long winded posters and have limited time. So as much as I wanted to engage you, the time it would take prevented me from doing so to any meaningful extant. I remind you I am only talking about me not others. In my case your information is perfect if it was given in smaller and more precise ways. I like to develop an investigation step by step. That is how subjects are taught and debates occur. No one sits in class for 72 hours while the teacher reads the entire text book to them. Professional debates are segmented and written debates require even more segmentation.

If historical posts with it's accompanying data are too long for you to read, just skip them.

I have read many and skipped the rest. I thought your recent posts were a continuation of your initial posts to me. My response was to inform you of their impracticality in my case. If you are not interested in debating me specifically then you can ignore my response.

My premise is that the early Judeo-Christians describe certain historical themes in their early text. You can't rebuff this historical fact head on. If you want to be argumentative at all, it will have to be on some other almost related theme. You could theorize that all early writings that disagree with your interpretation are heretical or simply incorrect. But this means you would have to explain why only heretics were the predominant writers of this time period. You could argue that I made up these quotes from early Judeo-Christian texts (or from the Quran) , but then forum members can look up these quotes to see that they are factual. It is VERY difficult to debate data itself.

Now if your post or your claim were simply this or even 3 times as much I could justify engaging with them. You could then bring in your facts as the debate warranted. This would be a good premise to begin with despite IMO it being flawed, it is however practical in my case. I won't engage with this premise until you decide if you want a specific debate with me. If you do we can use this as your opening statement and go from there.

Yes, you ARE asking for something that YOU want that others may not want at all. You are not overly burdened with information and so you may not know that I AM boiling vast amounts of data into a smaller summary. I've just boiled down the creation of Lucifer and shown how this historical tradition was agreed upon by Christians, jews, and Muslims all into just seven posts.

I believe that is exactly what I said. I am one of the major contenders for the orthodox Christian side in these threads, right or wrong. So when I see posts from the opposite side I either engage or see if they wish engagement. That is what I was doing here. I am speaking for me only. If you wish to debate me I need you to break these up a little. I will think nothing negative towards you if you do not. I just can't participate regularly with you in that case. No harm no foul.

You've spend how many posts arguing about bits and pieces and, given the many, many, many posts, how much understanding about the historical origin of Lucifer have you provided? ARE THERE ANY POSTERS THAT SEE WHAT I HAVE MISSED IN THIS REGARDS?

I do not understand this. I have not engaged in a Lucifer debate in over a year.

Robin1, Why don't you simply skip my posts. They are not written for people like you anyway. They are written for individuals who think there is something about early authentic Christian theology they don't know and want to learn about that.


Clear
σεσεσισεσεσι

I am fine with that. I just wanted to give you a chance to adapt your posts a bit if you wished a debate. I got the impression from your original post that was your intention. Maybe I am mistaken. Either way carry on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think I explained exactly why that is. They found themselves not able to operate freely in various cultural situations with a Christian label and they thought it might prevent volunteers from joining or others from seeking aid. So opposite from what you hinted at they valued the aid over the label and dropped it and have assumed a neutral label instead. My brother in law is a Red cross district manager. I can give you their full Christian foundation history if you want.

Whether what you say is true or not, they're still not a Christian organization.

There's absolutely nothing at all on their website that I can see that indicates they are a Christian organization. Your brother-in-law may call himself a Christian, but that's not the same thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Quote a single statement I made in any of my almost 10,000 posts where I even hinted that less killing absolves the killers. You invented that out of thin air, apparently to have anything to reply with because you certainly did not respond to my claims at all. Every human on earth separates evils by degree. Christianity certainly has evil in it's past that is completely inconsistent with the faith but Atheism's (with the common inclusion of social Darwinism and secular philosophy) completely eclipses the Christian death toll. I did not say that excused Christians (though it does not indict God or the bible in anyway), I merely wanted it viewed in it's actual context.

What about the times when they used the words of the Bible to justify their actions?

Exodus 22:18

"Do not allow a sorceress to live."

Leviticus 20:27

"Men and women among you who act as mediums or who consult the spirits of the dead must be put to death by stoning. They are guilty of a capital offense."