What if Lucifer is the good guy and God is the bad one?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

That doesn't matter at all, because foreknowledge does not impede the free will from freely choosing what has been foreknown. It is simply a case where you mistake the fact that you will not do otherwise, from the inability to do otherwise. I look in the past and see that I will choose to buy a red dress instead of a blue one, at that time I still have a choice in choosing between a red and blue dress. Fatalism is not antithetical to Free Will. You say that God foresaw me doing something locks it into place, I say, rather, that my doing something causes God to foresee me do that thing, my free choice sets it into stone.

Are you going to argue god is a time traveler?

If I know red your favorite color, I can suppose you will buy a red dress tomorrow. I can even make an educated guess on the subject. I can be downright certain in fact, but you could still prove me wrong and buy the blue.

Now, if I am a being that cannot, by force of the universe, be wrong, how can you be said to have a choice tomorrow?

Which is irrelevent, because God's knowing does not cause me to choose a red dress any more than it impedes me from choosing a blue dress, his knowledge does not make me unable to do otherwise, it simply means that I won't do otherwise. Now, suppose you are omniscient, and know everything, you are not forcing me to do anything, you are not impeding my ability to do anything, and it is my free choice which causes you to foreknow what I will choose. It is not that hard of a concept to grasp, and one that many people refuse to grasp, despite the fact that they cannot provide an argument against it.

[Menassa]

Luke 10:18 also might help.

1Peter 5:8–9
Ezekiel 28:17
Ezekiel 28:16–17- Speaks of Satan having a choice

Ezekiel 28 isn't really talking about Satan, just like Isaiah 14 it's discussing a haughty king.

The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

HaSatan is a general term for Adversary, the devil did not insult God to his face in Job, he merely questioned Job's piety, they seemed to be on friendly terms throughout Job.

Then clearly you need to read it again.

Reb Menessa seems to agree with this interpretation wholeheartedly, and, being able to read it in the original, I say that he has the advantage over the two of us.

[Galloism]

By insulting his employer and accusing him of not playing fair?

He's directly discussing Job's faith in God, in order for Job's faith to grow he must be tested, Satan claims.

And when God allows it, Satan follows God's orders directly and does not go more... surely God's 'enemy' wouldn't follow his orders.

He accuses god himself of cheating, putting up a hedge of protection, and that without that hedge, Job would curse god and die. That's not an attempt to build faith. He attempted - flat out fucking admitted - that his goal was to make Job curse God.

How you read all that into there, I have no idea.


Regarding the latter, God does have certain powers of protection. Satan in fact made that one of his accusations: that god put up a hedge of protection around job so Satan couldn't touch him. Is it so hard to believe God could tighten his ring of protection from around all his land to his body, and then only to his life?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

1Peter 5:8–9
Ezekiel 28:17
Ezekiel 28:16–17- Speaks of Satan having a choice

Ezekiel 28 isn't really talking about Satan, just like Isaiah 14 it's discussing a haughty king.

The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

I'm very certain Ezekiel 28 is referring to Satan as Satan is the one who influences humans into wrong-doing.

[Menassa]

He's directly discussing Job's faith in God, in order for Job's faith to grow he must be tested, Satan claims.

And when God allows it, Satan follows God's orders directly and does not go more... surely God's 'enemy' wouldn't follow his orders.

He accuses god himself of cheating, putting up a hedge of protection, and that without that hedge, Job would curse god and die. That's not an attempt to build faith. He attempted - flat out fucking admitted - that his goal was to make Job curse God.

How you read all that into there, I have no idea.

Well, objectively looking at the text it would appear that Satan wonders if Job would still worship God if he didn't have a cushy life.
That doesn't denote an anathema toward God himself now does it?

Regarding the latter, God does have certain powers of protection. Satan in fact made that one of his accusations: that god put up a hedge of protection around job so Satan couldn't touch him. Is it so hard to believe God could tighten his ring of protection from around all his land to his body, and then only to his life?

So Satan can not pierce God's special protection on his own? Then is he not as powerful as God?

[Menassa]

Ezekiel 28 isn't really talking about Satan, just like Isaiah 14 it's discussing a haughty king.

The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

I'm very certain Ezekiel 28 is referring to Satan as Satan is the one who influences humans into wrong-doing.

By that logic, any passage referring to humans doing wrong is discussing Satan.

Ezekiel himself says who he's talking about in the first verse, had he said Satan it would be Satan.

[Galloism]

Are you going to argue god is a time traveler?

If I know red your favorite color, I can suppose you will buy a red dress tomorrow. I can even make an educated guess on the subject. I can be downright certain in fact, but you could still prove me wrong and buy the blue.

Now, if I am a being that cannot, by force of the universe, be wrong, how can you be said to have a choice tomorrow?

Which is irrelevent, because God's knowing does not cause me to choose a red dress any more than it impedes me from choosing a blue dress, his knowledge does not make me unable to do otherwise, it simply means that I won't do otherwise. Now, suppose you are omniscient, and know everything, you are not forcing me to do anything, you are not impeding my ability to do anything, and it is my free choice which causes you to foreknow what I will choose. It is not that hard of a concept to grasp, and one that many people refuse to grasp, despite the fact that they cannot provide an argument against it.

You don't see how total exercised omniscience and free will are incompatible?

Free will requires that we have the ability to choose Target or Wal-Mart as we drive up between them. If an omniscient being already knows our choices before we make them, and by force of the universe he cannot be wrong, we cannot make a last minute choice to go to Target, unless he already knew we would change our mind.

In effect, its like watching a movie you've already seen. All choices have been made, and we have no ability to choose different, even if we wanted to.

You were predestined to make that argument thousands of years ago before you were born. I was predestined to roll my eyes.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm very certain Ezekiel 28 is referring to Satan as Satan is the one who influences humans into wrong-doing.

By that logic, any passage referring to humans doing wrong is discussing Satan.

Ezekiel himself says who he's talking about in the first verse, had he said Satan it would be Satan.

Ezekiel 28: 16-17 isn't about Satan? Are you sure?

16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;

[Galloism]

He accuses god himself of cheating, putting up a hedge of protection, and that without that hedge, Job would curse god and die. That's not an attempt to build faith. He attempted - flat out fucking admitted - that his goal was to make Job curse God.

How you read all that into there, I have no idea.

Well, objectively looking at the text it would appear that Satan wonders if Job would still worship God if he didn't have a cushy life.
That doesn't denote an anathema toward God himself now does it?

"Skin in behalf of skin, and everything a man will give in exchange for his soul. "

All he left out was "you fucker".

Regarding the latter, God does have certain powers of protection. Satan in fact made that one of his accusations: that god put up a hedge of protection around job so Satan couldn't touch him. Is it so hard to believe God could tighten his ring of protection from around all his land to his body, and then only to his life?

So Satan can not pierce God's special protection on his own? Then is he not as powerful as God?

Is any being as powerful as God?

[Menassa]

By that logic, any passage referring to humans doing wrong is discussing Satan.

Ezekiel himself says who he's talking about in the first verse, had he said Satan it would be Satan.

Ezekiel 28: 16-17 isn't about Satan? Are you sure?

16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;

No, again the first verse states it's talking about the King of Tyre.

God humbled the haughty king.

[Sun Wukong]

Is any being as powerful as God?

Ahem.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

By that logic, any passage referring to humans doing wrong is discussing Satan.

Ezekiel himself says who he's talking about in the first verse, had he said Satan it would be Satan.

Ezekiel 28: 16-17 isn't about Satan? Are you sure?

16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;

It sounds like a typical malediction against a human antagonist, after all, Nebuchadnezzar was describe as a "morning star", whose glory was temporal before God's everlasting glory.

[Menassa]

Well, objectively looking at the text it would appear that Satan wonders if Job would still worship God if he didn't have a cushy life.
That doesn't denote an anathema toward God himself now does it?

"Skin in behalf of skin, and everything a man will give in exchange for his soul. "

All he left out was "you fucker".

Your addition doesn't really seem appropriate.

So Satan can not pierce God's special protection on his own? Then is he not as powerful as God?

Is any being as powerful as God?

If that is a way of saying 'no' then you are saying God 'let' Satan rebel?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ezekiel 28: 16-17 isn't about Satan? Are you sure?

No, again the first verse states it's talking about the King of Tyre.

God humbled the haughty king.

''I expelled you, guardian cherub...''
"So I threw you to the earth...''

That's not referring to Satan?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Is any being as powerful as God?

Ahem.

And, yet, not as powerful as the Lord Buddha.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ezekiel 28: 16-17 isn't about Satan? Are you sure?

It sounds like a typical malediction against a human antagonist, after all, Nebuchadnezzar was describe as a "morning star", whose glory was temporal before God's everlasting glory.

You do know that ''Morning Star'' is one of the title Satan had/has, right?

[Galloism]

"Skin in behalf of skin, and everything a man will give in exchange for his soul. "

All he left out was "you fucker".

Your addition doesn't really seem appropriate.

Is any being as powerful as God?

If that is a way of saying 'no' then you are saying God 'let' Satan rebel?

If by 'let' you mean 'allowed', sure, that would be fine.

[Sun Wukong]

Ahem.

And, yet, not as powerful as the Lord Buddha.

Buddhist metaphors are my kryptonite.

[Menassa]

It sounds like a typical malediction against a human antagonist, after all, Nebuchadnezzar was describe as a "morning star", whose glory was temporal before God's everlasting glory.

You do know that ''Morning Star'' is one of the title Satan had/has, right?

Only based upon that verse out of context.
As well isn't Jesus described as the morning star?

No, again the first verse states it's talking about the King of Tyre.

God humbled the haughty king.

''I expelled you, guardian cherub...''
"So I threw you to the earth...''

That's not referring to Satan?

I find it hard to believe that with no mention Ezekiel switches from talking about the King of Tyre to talking about Satan.

As well if you believe nothing about Satan those verses don't lend to a discussion of him, if you believe Satan is a fallen angel however, they do.

[Menassa]

Your addition doesn't really seem appropriate.


If that is a way of saying 'no' then you are saying God 'let' Satan rebel?

If by 'let' you mean 'allowed', sure, that would be fine.

So God, willingly allows Satan to roam around and do Evil?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Which is irrelevent, because God's knowing does not cause me to choose a red dress any more than it impedes me from choosing a blue dress, his knowledge does not make me unable to do otherwise, it simply means that I won't do otherwise. Now, suppose you are omniscient, and know everything, you are not forcing me to do anything, you are not impeding my ability to do anything, and it is my free choice which causes you to foreknow what I will choose. It is not that hard of a concept to grasp, and one that many people refuse to grasp, despite the fact that they cannot provide an argument against it.

You don't see how total exercised omniscience and free will are incompatible?

Free will requires that we have the ability to choose Target or Wal-Mart as we drive up between them. If an omniscient being already knows our choices before we make them, and by force of the universe he cannot be wrong, we cannot make a last minute choice to go to Target, unless he already knew we would change our mind.

In effect, its like watching a movie you've already seen. All choices have been made, and we have no ability to choose different, even if we wanted to.

You were predestined to make that argument thousands of years ago before you were born. I was predestined to roll my eyes.

Free will requires teh ability to choose between Target or Walmart, if an omniscient being knows which choice we will make, he does not cause us to make that choice, and his knowledge is created by us choosing that choice. We have complete control and agency over that choice. We can go to Target at anytime because there is no barrier blocking us from doing so, but we will go to Walmart.

In effect, watching a film you have already seen, you know the choices each character will make, but they are still free to make it, they simply won't deviate from what you know they will make. There is nothing impeding them from doing otherwise, your knowledge has no effect on their choice.

In short, there is no argument here.

[Galloism]

If by 'let' you mean 'allowed', sure, that would be fine.

So God, willingly allows Satan to roam around and do Evil?

God would have allow, or permit, it to occur, yes.

You don't get to be omnipowerful and then say something is outside your power.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

You do know that ''Morning Star'' is one of the title Satan had/has, right?

Only based upon that verse out of context.
As well isn't Jesus described as the morning star?

''I expelled you, guardian cherub...''
"So I threw you to the earth...''

That's not referring to Satan?

I find it hard to believe that with no mention Ezekiel switches from talking about the King of Tyre to talking about Satan.

As well if you believe nothing about Satan those verses don't lend to a discussion of him, if you believe Satan is a fallen angel however, they do.

Therein lies the problem. We come from different traditions, and although Satan is seen as an adversary under God's control in Judaism, he is not seen as such in the Christian tradition.

As for Jesus being the Morning Star, I have never heard him being referred to as such, but I can't say for certain if it's true or not.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

It sounds like a typical malediction against a human antagonist, after all, Nebuchadnezzar was describe as a "morning star", whose glory was temporal before God's everlasting glory.

You do know that ''Morning Star'' is one of the title Satan had/has, right?

Morning Star/Lucifer is only mentioned once, and is clearly referring to Nebuchadnezzar, and, in the context it makes sense, because as a Morning Star, or Venus, he shines shortly before being drowned in the greater glory of the Sun (God).