Philosophy Now Forum

David Handeye wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:Strange that God could not keep harmony in heaven, even when omnipotent and have the greatest powers of persuasion, that somehow did not work on Satan, yet you would give up all freedom here thinking it would stay harmonious.

Good thinking. Not.

Regards
DL

In the Book of Job, lucifer turns to God to put Job (paradigm of the righteous man) to the test. Lucifer, like all the angels and humans, possesses intelligence and will, therefore, the ability to choose if stating as the end of their actions God (corresponding to God and thus allowing the establishment of a relationship of love) or not. In the case of lucifer that's the last infringement. Holding firmly that man is not able to fall outside his space-time contest, and that the analysis focuses on a time eternally present, (i.e.: the fall of lucifer and the man is not internal to the physical creation, and so a fact; but it is a spiritual state), "before" that lucifer rebelled there wasn't evil.

Greatest I am wrote:You mean God turned to Satan. After all, God called Satan, Satan did not call God.

Greatest I am wrote:Did you note in Job 2;3 that God complains that Satan moved him to destroy without cause.

Greatest I am wrote:That is God sinning and doing evil. Right?

Greatest I am wrote:So just who was in charge that day?

Greatest I am wrote:Looks like Satan, who moved God to sin.

Greatest I am wrote:Regards

Greatest I am wrote:DL

Greatest I am wrote:Thanks for the detailed argument.

Regards
DL

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:Thanks for the detailed argument.

Regards
DL

As my department chair once said, "Sometimes you just have to say "Freud was just wrong.'"

Greatest I am wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:As my department chair once said, "Sometimes you just have to say "Freud was just wrong.'"

Sure, but when one has not read him and says it, then that one sounds stupid.

ReliStuPhD wrote:On an unrelated note, have we lost the ability to delete threads with the new format? Didn't realize I'd double-posted, but now I don't see that I can delete one of them.

Greatest I am wrote:You cannot delete but you can edit and clear all and type in a stand alone ---- Oop.

Greatest I am wrote:

David Handeye wrote: In the Book of Job, lucifer turns to God to put Job (paradigm of the righteous man) to the test. Lucifer, like all the angels and humans, possesses intelligence and will, therefore, the ability to choose if stating as the end of their actions God (corresponding to God and thus allowing the establishment of a relationship of love) or not. In the case of lucifer that's the last infringement. Holding firmly that man is not able to fall outside his space-time contest, and that the analysis focuses on a time eternally present, (i.e.: the fall of lucifer and the man is not internal to the physical creation, and so a fact; but it is a spiritual state), "before" that lucifer rebelled there wasn't evil.

Space time contest.
Try English.
"In the Book of Job, lucifer turns to God to put Job (paradigm of the righteous man) to the test."
You mean God turned to Satan. After all, God called Satan, Satan did not call God.
Did you note in Job 2;3 that God complains that Satan moved him to destroy without cause?
That is God sinning and doing evil. Right?
So just who was in charge that day?
Looks like Satan, who moved God to sin.

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:There is a translation of Satan that means "self" so that in effect God was talking to himself and there was no-one else there. In that interpretation it is God who did everything and then didn't try to justify God's action to Job, just left it that God was superior and could do whatever God wanted.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

thedoc wrote:There is a translation of Satan that means "self" so that in effect God was talking to himself and there was no-one else there. In that interpretation it is God who did everything and then didn't try to justify God's action to Job, just left it that God was superior and could do whatever God wanted.

Could you expound on this translation a bit? I'm willing to bet it's tied to a human context rather than a divine one, but I'd be interested to see it, especially if it's taken to be God arguing with "him"self.