Re: Abraham and Isaac

[AlphaBravo]

Unbridgeable distinction? I merely pointed out that God's omni attributes would be evident to Satan and not lost on him.

The teleological argument says divine qualities are manifest in what is created. How much more so are they evident in God's very presence?

Perhaps you meant to use a different word than 'ineffable'. If God were ineffable then I wouldn't expect his attributes to be evident to Satan or to ourselves, either through his direct presence or through the created universe.

[whag]

Perhaps you meant to use a different word than 'ineffable'. If God were ineffable then I wouldn't expect his attributes to be evident to Satan or to ourselves, either through his direct presence or through the created universe.

Forget ineffable, then. If the created universe expresses his attributes, according to Paul, how is it that his actual presence doesn't express the same attributes even moreso? Did Satan know God's omni attributes or not?

[AlphaBravo]

I agree that that is the question and I must say that I believe Satan rebelled with as full a knowledge of God's power as any created being has ever had. Due to our incomplete knowledge of Satan's motives and knowledge I don't think it is proper to just assume insanity/stupidity.

[whag]

I agree that that is the question and I must say that I believe Satan rebelled with as full a knowledge of God's power as any created being has ever had. Due to our incomplete knowledge of Satan's motives and knowledge I don't think it is proper to just assume insanity/stupidity.

His motive was to usurp power that he was fully aware he couldn't usurp. Moreover, the Job story has Satan still in the employ of God after that attempt to usurp his power. That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Based on that, it's reasonable to conclude the stories written about Satan are human generated, just like any other mythology. Skepticism of these stories as being real is therefore justified, just like skepticism of the activities of the Greek pantheon is justified.

[AlphaBravo]

His motive was to usurp power that he was fully aware he couldn't usurp. Moreover, the Job story has Satan still in the employ of God after that attempt to usurp his power. That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Based on that, it's reasonable to conclude the stories written about Satan are human generated, just like any other mythology. Skepticism of these stories as being real is therefore justified, just like skepticism of the activities of the Greek pantheon is justified.

The open revolt of Satan and his ejection from God's presence does not occur until later, but I suppose that is a topic for another thread.

It seems to me that you are selectively imposing motives, capabilities, and values on Satan. You allow that Satan may be logical, insane, stupid, or suicidal in order to reach your desired conclusion but you do not allow that he could be ignorant, proud, jealous, narcissistic, and ambitious. All of these last qualities are adequate to explain his rebellion and to provide an alternate 'reasonable' conclusion.

Peace.

[whag]

The open revolt of Satan and his ejection from God's presence does not occur until later, but I suppose that is a topic for another thread.

It seems to me that you are selectively imposing motives, capabilities, and values on Satan. You allow that Satan may be logical, insane, stupid, or suicidal in order to reach your desired conclusion but you do not allow that he could be ignorant, proud, jealous, narcissistic, and ambitious. All of these last qualities are adequate to explain his rebellion and to provide an alternate 'reasonable' conclusion.

Peace.

Stupidity and insanity aren't mutually exclusive from the latter adjectives. Satan would necessarily have to start with the base knowledge of God's attributes, which he would know are infinitely more than his. If I had ambition to usurp a king knowing the enormous (but still finite) obstacles I'd need to overcome, I'd be deemed insane or stupid for attempting such a coup. In Satan's case, the obstacle is infinite and he knows it. No matter the level of pride and jealousy, if it overrides that base knowledge of his opponent, that's tantamount to insanity and/or gargantuan stupidity.

What you describe actually makes the story more problematic. What was going on in heaven that provoked such such feelings as pride, ambition, jealousy, and narcissism? The story is saturated with anthropomorphism.

[AlphaBravo]

Stupidity and insanity aren't mutually exclusive from the latter adjectives.

Thats true, my mistake. But then you are only allowing Satan the traits of being logical and of holding self preservation above all else, which is still self serving to your conclusion.

What you describe actually makes the story more problematic. What was going on in heaven that provoked such such feelings as pride, ambition, jealousy, and narcissism?

Again you seem to only entertain a single scenario which suits your purpose, which is that these feelings must be provoked and can only originate if God has been unjust.

The story is saturated with anthropomorphism.

What you call anthropomorphisms in the accounts can equally be said to be evidence that we were made to be similar beings as God and Satan and can therefore relate with the recorded accounts of them which was my original premise.

[jordanriver]

What you describe actually makes the story more problematic. What was going on in heaven that provoked such such feelings as pride, ambition, jealousy, and narcissism? The story is saturated with anthropomorphism.

that would make an interesting 'in house' (between Bible believing Christians, ....or also between neutral comparative religion scholars) discussion.
...that is, were the other Archangels like Michael and Gabriel created without free will, or are they acting of their own volition in their complete devotion to the will of God

[whag]

that would make an interesting 'in house' (between Bible believing Christians, ....or also between neutral comparative religion scholars) discussion.
...that is, were the other Archangels like Michael and Gabriel created without free will, or are they acting of their own volition in their complete devotion to the will of God

Or do they have free will but their devotion is motivated by fear of punishment rather than genuine love? As long as we're surveying the options, that's as plausible as any.

[whag]

Thats true, my mistake. But then you are only allowing Satan the traits of being logical and of holding self preservation above all else, which is still self serving to your conclusion.

I'm holding him to being both logical and selfish, which serves your conclusion as well as mine.

Again you seem to only entertain a single scenario which suits your purpose, which is that these feelings must be provoked and can only originate if God has been unjust.

No, rather I'm suggesting that those feelings are primitive and can be traced to human beings. Though some myths describe divine characters as experiencing these feelings, they are obviously projections.

Presumably, the same potential for jealousy and ambition would always exist, even in heaven. If not, we must question why the original environment had that potential and why the future one won't have that potential.

What you call anthropomorphisms in the accounts can equally be said to be evidence that we were made to be similar beings as God and Satan and can therefore relate with the recorded accounts of them which was my original premise.

But some can't relate to it for the reasons I expressed. It seems more geared to those with a predisposition to easy belief, not those who see the totality and commonality of myth and logical problems of taking them literally.

[AlphaBravo]

No, rather I'm suggesting that those feelings are primitive and can be traced to human beings. Though some myths describe divine characters as experiencing these feelings, they are obviously projections.

But some can't relate to it for the reasons I expressed. It seems more geared to those with a predisposition to easy belief, not those who see the totality and commonality of myth and logical problems of taking them literally.

Agnostics and atheists take too much for granted. That bare matter and energy should acquire "primitive" traits like fear/love/pain/hope/self preservation/a sense of fairness, a desire to explore, to say nothing of the full complexity of life is entirely a scientific tautology.

Furthermore to assign a naturalistic explanation to these traits begs the question as to whether these things have any value at all. If you can have an arbitrary value system than why do you care that Christians and theist have an arbitrary value system that differs somehow from your own. I don't really understand how you escape the nihilism. Probably a topic for another thread I know.

[whag]

Agnostics and atheists take too much for granted. That bare matter and energy should acquire "primitive" traits like fear/love/pain/hope/self preservation/a sense of fairness, a desire to explore, to say nothing of the full complexity of life is entirely a scientific tautology.

How is that a scientific tautology? Just because some atheists and agnostics honestly can't accept on faith that human beings acquired emotions like fear and hope by way of divine download doesn't make it a redundancy. At worst, the picture of life (Christian teleology) is meant to remain an ambiguous mystery and not meant to be taken literally or perceived dogmatically, as evangelicalism has been wont to do.

We see all those things you listed--even a semblance of love--in chimps and dogs, so it doesn't mystify us as much as theists. Neither does it make it any less meaningful to us than it does to theists.

Furthermore to assign a naturalistic explanation to these traits begs the question as to whether these things have any value at all. If you can have an arbitrary value system than why do you care that Christians and theist have an arbitrary value system that differs somehow from your own. I don't really understand how you escape the nihilism. Probably a topic for another thread I know.

As we can see from evolution being demonstrated as true (the general, progressive revelation), life is more ambiguous than theists initially imagined, and that's had the effect of--for lack of a better phrase--freaking some the heck out. I thing what's happened is that some theists put all their cards in a kind of false hope--like Genesis and Job being literal--and, as the result of those stories being exposed as untrue, try to numb the hurt by calling skepticism "inadvertent nihilism." Better to just accept that the Bible's more sloppily stitched together and messier than you imagined.

Peter Enns arrived at that point long ago, and I think it's the most admirable approach.