Why doesnt god kill Satan?

[James Humphreys]

God created Lucifer as an eternal spiritual being whom he loved. Although Lucifer fell and became Satan, God still remembers and loves the good being that Lucifer was. He cannot violate his own love by destroying Satan. If he were to destroy Lucifer:1) he would be violating his own principle by which he created him to be an eternal being of goodness, 2)he would in a sense become a God of failure, who could not fulfill his original purpose of creating, 3)he would be violating his own love. That's why God feels compelled to restore Lucifer back to his original position of goodness, no matter how long it takes. The same reasons apply to as why God will not give up on humans.

If I am repeating what others have said previously, I apologize.

 

[Beaudreaux]

God created Lucifer as an eternal spiritual being whom he loved. Although Lucifer fell and became Satan, God still remembers and loves the good being that Lucifer was. He cannot violate his own love by destroying Satan. If he were to destroy Lucifer:1) he would be violating his own principle by which he created him to be an eternal being of goodness, 2)he would in a sense become a God of failure, who could not fulfill his original purpose of creating, 3)he would be violating his own love. That's why God feels compelled to restore Lucifer back to his original position of goodness, no matter how long it takes. The same reasons apply to as why God will not give up on humans.

If I am repeating what others have said previously, I apologize.

James,

Do you believe that some people will go to he'll after they die?

 

[Autodidact]

God created Lucifer as an eternal spiritual being whom he loved. Although Lucifer fell and became Satan, God still remembers and loves the good being that Lucifer was. He cannot violate his own love by destroying Satan. If he were to destroy Lucifer:1) he would be violating his own principle by which he created him to be an eternal being of goodness, 2)he would in a sense become a God of failure, who could not fulfill his original purpose of creating, 3)he would be violating his own love. That's why God feels compelled to restore Lucifer back to his original position of goodness, no matter how long it takes. The same reasons apply to as why God will not give up on humans.

If I am repeating what others have said previously, I apologize.

O.K. So it doesn't matter how much misery he causes in the meantime?

Also, God is just a really poor manufacturer?
btw, how come God hesitates to kill Lucifer, but had no problem destroying all of humanity?

 

[James Humphreys]

James,

Do you believe that some people will go to he'll after they die?

Yes, but I think that hell is not eternal.

 

[James Humphreys]

O.K. So it doesn't matter how much misery he causes in the meantime?

Also, God is just a really poor manufacturer?
btw, how come God hesitates to kill Lucifer, but had no problem destroying all of humanity?

The misery does matter. I think the most simple answer is that if Satan were destroyed the misery and other consequences would somehow be worse, although that may be difficult to conceive.

People who died at the time of the flood or apparently at God's hand according to the Bible, IMO are still alive spiritually. Their spiritual selves are just as indestructible as is Lucifer's and other angels. And no matter how miserable their spiritual situations were or still are, the way will open up for all of them to receive God's love fully and come to a situation of no regrets and fulfillment as individuals.

Is God a poor manufacturer? I guess you're saying, why did God create beings with the susceptibility to sin, and not automatically perfect. First, I don't think that sin and suffering were inevitable, somehow pre-programmed by God. But the answer has to lie somewhere in the realm of creating beings with freedom, and the responsibility to take part in their own self-creation and perfection. It probably sounds cliche-like, but God wanted children and not robots.

BTW, congrats on your very talented daughter!

 

[asad_asrar]

GOD is has the knowledge of whole mankind who is believer who is not....the purpose of testing mankind is that there is no fun in enjoying the fruit unless and until its is not awarded. If there were no tests for mankind then they would not be familiar with struggling for GOOD.

 

[Orias]

I was not aware that you were a relativist, Orias. So you do not believe in objective truths. To you, if a person thought that Charles Manson was a bastion of morality, you would not say that such a person was "wrong" because their opinion is just as valid as yours, correct?

Excuse my absence. I was away for a while.

I believe in no truths, as all things are willingly permitted. Only when one's will interferes with another's is when the act is not willingly permitted.

Life itself gives way to subjectivity, as all we know is life and nothing beyond our simple perceptions, as that is what we do, perceive. And in many different ways if I might add.

You said opinion, but what makes a truth? As there only was one Charles Manson, and you could not possibly see through his eyes, and hear through his ears. So what makes an opinion correct?

Relevance...it is but a simple reference to life, as that is what we are.

 

[Orias]

God created Lucifer as an eternal spiritual being whom he loved. Although Lucifer fell and became Satan, God still remembers and loves the good being that Lucifer was. He cannot violate his own love by destroying Satan. If he were to destroy Lucifer:1) he would be violating his own principle by which he created him to be an eternal being of goodness, 2)he would in a sense become a God of failure, who could not fulfill his original purpose of creating, 3)he would be violating his own love. That's why God feels compelled to restore Lucifer back to his original position of goodness, no matter how long it takes. The same reasons apply to as why God will not give up on humans.

If I am repeating what others have said previously, I apologize.

Ahem...let me clear something up.

Lucifer is Lucifer, that is why he is labeled Lucifer. Satan is Satan, that is why he is labeled Satan. They are properly labeled so because of their differences.

Lucifer was actually the Roman God of Light, until he was mocked and desecrated by the Christians.

Lucifer is one of the four Princes of Hell, consisting of Satan, Belial, Leviathan, and Lucifer.

And you speak of God's love as if he is not wrathful.

One who only loves is only known as a lover, but one who both loves and hates is known as a hater.

If God wants to find good within Satan, perhaps he should look within himself, and find as to why his very essence is of man kind's making.

The simple act of judging and forcing perceptions is but a taint of our own malignance. But that is because that is how humans are. No matter the circumstance, no matter the opinion or perception, or how much man chooses to deny his nature, it is his nature to do so. As instinct has brought us here.

 

[Autodidact]

The misery does matter. I think the most simple answer is that if Satan were destroyed the misery and other consequences would somehow be worse, although that may be difficult to conceive.

So basically the problem is that your God is impotent?

People who died at the time of the flood or apparently at God's hand according to the Bible, IMO are still alive spiritually. Their spiritual selves are just as indestructible as is Lucifer's and other angels. And no matter how miserable their spiritual situations were or still are, the way will open up for all of them to receive God's love fully and come to a situation of no regrets and fulfillment as individuals.

O.K. Alright with you if I kill you then?

Is God a poor manufacturer? I guess you're saying, why did God create beings with the susceptibility to sin, and not automatically perfect. First, I don't think that sin and suffering were inevitable, somehow pre-programmed by God. But the answer has to lie somewhere in the realm of creating beings with freedom, and the responsibility to take part in their own self-creation and perfection. It probably sounds cliche-like, but God wanted children and not robots.

So that would be a yes?

[qutoe]BTW, congrats on your very talented daughter![/quote] Thank you!

 

[Beaudreaux]

I believe in no truths...

Does that include your post that I'm quoting from?

 

[Quiddity]

By St. Paul, "where sin abounded, grace did more abound" (Rom 5:20).

Some things can only come about when faced with hardship.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Some things can only come about when faced with hardship.

That certainly seems to be the way God has set it up, yes. Of course, being omnipotent, he could have left out the hardship part and still provided those things. What does that tell us about him?

 

[Quiddity]

That certainly seems to be the way God has set it up, yes. Of course, being omnipotent, he could have left out the hardship part and still provided those things. What does that tell us about him?

Omnipotence solves everything right? I mean, it's not really omnipotence if there is something He can't do?

Obviously, there is chosen limitations when it comes to dealing with us. He can't force us to love Him....etc.

So where does that leave omnipotence?

 

[Autodidact]

By St. Paul, "where sin abounded, grace did more abound" (Rom 5:20).

Some things can only come about when faced with hardship.

So your God wants us to suffer? He's actively malevolent?

 

[Autodidact]

Omnipotence solves everything right? I mean, it's not really omnipotence if there is something He can't do?

Uh, yeah, that's kind of the definition of omnipotence.

Obviously, there is chosen limitations when it comes to dealing with us. He can't force us to love Him....etc.

So where does that leave omnipotence?

As not being an attribute of your God, apparently.

 

[Quiddity]

So your God wants us to suffer? He's actively malevolent?

Wants......no. Allows, most certainly.

 

[Autodidact]

Wants......no. Allows, most certainly.

I see. So basically your God is neither omnipotent nor all-loving?

 

[Quiddity]

Uh, yeah, that's kind of the definition of omnipotence.

As not being an attribute of your God, apparently.

You're just touting. Try to see past the usual rhetoric and attempt to see value in what someone is trying to say.

 

[Quiddity]

I see. So basically your God is neither omnipotent nor all-loving?

......

I should have known better.

 

[Autodidact]

You're just touting. Try to see past the usual rhetoric and attempt to see value in what someone is trying to say.

I did that. The value I got is that your God is not omnipotent, correct? Because He can't give us grace without hardship, apparently, according to you, right?

Further, your God could prevent us from suffering, but allows us to nonetheless, presumable so that He can give us that grace.

Is that all correct?