The Philosophy Now Forum

WAR IN HEAVEN
The Plan, the Battle, and the Choice Between Fear and Love

There is a question about prayer that has interested me for some time. If God exists outside the restraints of time, as I believe, then how does our prayer reach Him? And what does it mean to ask God for something to be changed when He already knows the end from the beginning?

To understand this, we must first consider the difference between God's perspective and our own. We live within time, experiencing one moment after another. We are always one moment behind the manifestations of life as they unfold before us. God, however, is not subject to that limitation. If He exists outside time, then the beginning and the end of His plan are already known to Him.

This places us in a unique position when we pray. Our prayers come from a blind spot in time. We cannot see what the coming moments will bring, and we plead for an outcome different from the one we fear. It is as though we are leaning over God's shoulder, asking Him to influence a plan whose future is already known to Him. We hope for a change because we cannot see what He sees.

If the plan was established in its entirety from the beginning, then our prayers may not change it at all. The prayer itself may already have its place within the plan. What we experience as a plea for a different outcome may be part of the very course of events God already knows. We ask because we do not know. God knows because He is not limited to our experience of time.

But this raises another question. If the plan is already established, why does it include the existence of evil? Why would a benevolent God permit the suffering of mankind?
I believe the answer may lie in a contest that extends beyond humanity, one in which Satan was given the freedom to challenge God's authority. I see this as a battle whose purpose is not to establish whether God possesses the greater power. A created being cannot be equal to its Creator. Rather, the contest provides an opportunity for that difference to become evident without God having to impose the outcome through the direct use of His superior power.
THE NECESSITY OF A FREE HAND
I believe Satan's freedom to act is essential to the plan. Without that freedom, the witnesses to the contest could cry foul. Those who sided with Satan could argue that God had never given him a fair opportunity to prove his claim. They could say that God had used His superior power against a created being who could never hope to match it. The victory would then be open to the accusation that it had been imposed rather than demonstrated.

By allowing Satan a free hand, God removes that argument. Satan is permitted to exercise his abilities without God's direct interference deciding the contest for him. The plan is allowed to unfold, and the outcome demonstrates the limits of what a created being can accomplish against the purpose of its Creator.

I also believe that the battle must be understood in the context of the witnesses themselves. There are those who choose to side with Satan, hoping that he will succeed, and those who wait for God's victory. One group hopes, while the other waits. The distinction is important. Those who wait already understand that they are not equal to their Creator. They have no need to prove God's superiority over a created being. They trust the outcome.

Those who side with Satan may see the matter differently. They may believe that a created being can challenge its Creator on equal terms. Their hope depends upon that possibility. If God were to prevent Satan from acting through an overwhelming display of power, they could claim that the contest had never been fair. The freedom of battle allows their own choices, and the choices of those who wait, to become evident.

THE CHOICE BEFORE THE WITNESSES
What stands before the witnesses is a choice. Both sides must ultimately exist under God's power, but there is a difference between submission through fear and submission through Love. The freedom of this battle determines which of these becomes the basis of their relationship with their Creator.

Without the freedom to challenge God, submission might mean little more than accepting the authority of a power that cannot be resisted. But when created beings are permitted to make their own choices, their conduct reveals something more. Do they seek to oppose their Creator, or do they accept Him through Love?

The contest is therefore about more than power. God's victory establishes the limits of what Satan can accomplish, but the choices made during the contest reveal the allegiance of those who witness it. God does not need to discover the outcome. He already knows it. The witnesses are the ones who must see the plan unfold.
There is, however, one provision in God's plan that Satan cannot defeat. I see the sacrifice of God's Son, Jesus, as a remotely planned and programmed provision, established from the beginning and designed to remain beyond Satan's ability to overcome. Satan may exercise his freedom, influence mankind, and attempt to frustrate God's purpose, but he cannot negate God's offering of salvation.

This is not simply another element in the contest. It is the provision that ensures Satan's efforts cannot defeat God's ultimate purpose. Satan is free to make his challenge, but he cannot remove the means by which mankind may choose salvation. The offer remains, and each person must decide what to do with it.

THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL
If it were not for this battle, what other explanation could there be for the existence of evil? Our big question has always been, why would a benevolent God allow suffering?
I believe we must begin by recognizing the kind of world in which we live. We exist in a world of matter, where the movements and interactions of everything are governed by natural laws. These laws do not make exceptions for the suffering of mankind. Life brings adversity, and we must find our way through it.

But adversity alone does not determine how we respond. One person may choose to live through hardship in faith, maintaining Love for God and fellow man. Another, faced with the same hardship, may respond by turning against others. The circumstances may be similar, but the choices can be very different.

Who commits evil acts against those who are already suffering the same hardships that life brings to us all? Evil doers. Their actions add to the suffering that already exists. The natural conditions of life may explain why adversity is unavoidable, but they do not excuse the choices we make when confronted by it.
Not all suffering comes from the same source. Some arises from the natural conditions of our existence. Some is inflicted by the actions of other human beings. We may not be able to prevent every illness, disaster, or loss, but we remain responsible for what we choose to do to one another.

If the battle between God and Satan is a contest that allows created beings to demonstrate their allegiance, then human conduct becomes part of that demonstration. When we encounter adversity, do we respond with faith, compassion, and Love, or do we add to the suffering of others through our own actions?
Perhaps this is part of what the battle reveals. The question is not simply whether suffering exists, but what we choose to become in a world where suffering exists. The laws governing matter establish the conditions in which we live, but they do not relieve us of responsibility for our choices within those conditions.

THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTEST
I see the plan as a demonstration of God's ability to accomplish His purpose without having to defeat every challenge through the direct exercise of His superior power. Satan is given his freedom, the witnesses are permitted to observe the outcome, and the choices made by created beings become evident as the plan unfolds.

From this perspective, the existence of evil and the suffering of mankind are part of a larger question concerning the freedom of God's creation. The natural world provides the conditions of life, while the choices of those who inhabit it reveal their response to those conditions. Some choose to inflict suffering. Others choose to relieve it. Some place their hope in opposition to God, while others wait in faith for His victory.
God already knows the end from the beginning. We do not. We live within the unfolding moments, asking for help, pleading for different outcomes, and making choices without knowing what the future will bring. That is the position from which we pray, and it is the position from which we live.

Perhaps the final question is not whether God possesses the power to command obedience. It is whether His created beings will choose to accept Him through fear of that power or through Love for their Creator.
The contest establishes power, but the choices reveal Love.

These are always fun because they allow you to see how creative a person can be when they're trying to make something work that's riddled with contradictions, paradoxes, inconceivablities, and logical fallacies. It could only end up looking like the plan for a fantasy novel series.

Each step in the story gets even more bizarre than the last... and this is because it is constantly trying to get away from its own inexplicability.

I don't mean your particular rendition, bro... i mean the christian storyline itself. You're just having a go at it.

Mortalsfool wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2026 7:01 am WAR IN HEAVEN
The Plan, the Battle, and the Choice Between Fear and Love



But this raises another question. If the plan is already established, why does it include the existence of evil? Why would a benevolent God permit the suffering of mankind?
I believe the answer may lie in a contest that extends beyond humanity, one in which Satan was given the freedom to challenge God's authority.fair opportunity to prove his claim. They could say that God had used His superior power against a created being who could never hope to match it. The victory would then be open to the accusation that it had been imposed rather than demonstrated.

Wow. So many wonderful questions.

You referred to Satan as a he.

If you can agree with Michelangelo and I in his Expulsion painting, that Satan is depicted as a female, we might be able to talk.

I cannot get either believers or non-believers answering on this question.

It must some kind of subliminal blip that prevents their eyes from proper function.

Do we fear the truth so much, or are we just naturally knowing this truth and afraid of insulting women?

I do not insult women by saying they are the root of all evil.

I praise then for having a slow to poke Adam to get to work.

Without sin, God and natures plans go to hell.

Men not competing for women and creating that evil would drive us to extinction.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2026 10:32 am These are always fun because they allow you to see how creative a person can be when they're trying to make something work that's riddled with contradictions, paradoxes, inconceivablities, and logical fallacies. It could only end up looking like the plan for a fantasy novel series.

Each step in the story gets even more bizarre than the last... and this is because it is constantly trying to get away from its own inexplicability.

I don't mean your particular rendition, bro... i mean the christian storyline itself. You're just having a go at it.

What you describe as negatives are positives to a thinking mind that has discarded supernatural thinking.

That is why the Bible is such a great Holy book.

As Gnostic Christians quote alibiing Blake on our Bible reading as compared to the Christians.

We read the Bible day and night, you read white, I read black.

This allows Gnostics to follow Moses and curse the genocidal Yahweh/Trinity.

We like the Jesus that he comes to cure, not kill.

You?

Mortalsfool wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2026 7:01 am WAR IN HEAVEN
The Plan, the Battle, and the Choice Between Fear and Love

Those terms are not analogous. Did you mean them to be so?

Fear, one can do alone. Love takes two or it is more like stalking.

This condition condition for true love is also how a realist knows that there is no supernatural God who loves us.

Loving your neighbor is loving God.

"You?"

I, personally, am good with not following folks that lived thousands of years ago (if they aren't fictitious characters). As for cursing gods, i don't curse them so much as i find them a very bothersome impediment to good health and sound mind. A bit too conspiratorial for my tastes and with a complete lack of transparency. These are not beings that i do business with, and if i recognize them at all, it's usually because they're in my way.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2026 8:07 pm "You?"

I, personally, am good with not following folks that lived thousands of years ago (if they aren't fictitious characters). As for cursing gods, i don't curse them so much as i find them a very bothersome impediment to good health and sound mind. A bit too conspiratorial for my tastes and with a complete lack of transparency. These are not beings that i do business with, and if i recognize them at all, it's usually because they're in my way.

Time maters not given that DNA will conform to whatever ecosystem it is born into or die.

I see it as natural that the ideal for a lion is a lion.
The ideal rat is a rat.
The ideal man will be a man.

Lesser, supernatural believing humans will give up their inheritance.

A shame that they have already shown their inferior thinking, and still do not get it.

"I do not insult women by saying they are the root of all evil"

Yeah, 'evil' is too harsh a word. However, the female homo sexy sapiens, through no fault of her own, is the driving force behind most if not all the violence in the world. This is just a consequence of an intelligent hypergamous species and not something to get mad at your boo about. Unfortunately, the only way to solve the problem would be to abolish capitalism/consumerism or relatively enslave women like the camel jockeys do.

Imagine being a post-gen-z kid with a hot mother whose pants are so tight you can see her camel toes from fifty yards away. You're flipping through the family picture album at a party. "Yup, there's mom." Now get this; the sexual deviance permitted to women by modern liberal societies has allowed them to become so perverted and sexualized that mom's camel toes don't even raise an eyebrow of the kid's friends looking through the album.

Now imagine being a 1920s woman and seeing Megan Fox in that ro sparks commercial. You'd shriek in horror or vomit. That's the product of capitalism/consumerism, an engine fueled by the hypersexuality of the female and the surrogate consumer activity of males with frustrated libidos. Can't get laid? Go buy something.

When I use the terms ‘man’, ‘mankind’, or ‘he’, they are generally meant to be applied equally to the female gender as part of mankind! If these terms are seen otherwise as exclusive or offensive to the female, my apology must exist; that as a male, I feel neither qualified, nor inclined, to express my views as a male, while trying to rectify a feminine point of view. This writing is in the form of a dialog between two men and as such is directed towards another male solely by poetic incidence. I will leave it to the reader to determine if the words are applicable to your gender, peers, group, or belief system. I personally, have no intention of excluding any person from their own free interpretation of what I call ‘God’ as it relates to myself.

Mortalsfool wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2026 1:32 am When I use the terms ‘man’, ‘mankind’, or ‘he’, they are generally meant to be applied equally to the female gender as part of mankind! If these terms are seen otherwise as exclusive or offensive to the female, my apology must exist; that as a male, I feel neither qualified, nor inclined, to express my views as a male, while trying to rectify a feminine point of view. This writing is in the form of a dialog between two men and as such is directed towards another male solely by poetic incidence. I will leave it to the reader to determine if the words are applicable to your gender, peers, group, or belief system. I personally, have no intention of excluding any person from their own free interpretation of what I call ‘God’ as it relates to myself.

I see it helpful to keep a gender separation.

If you, as a male, do not put women and children above you, your not much of a man.

Women and children first, or welcome to the Captain Coward Club.

Wow! I am amazed at how pussified some of you human trolls can act. You are so insecure in your skin that when you open an article to read, you don’t really do it to assimilate its content. Your attention is attracted to, and distracted, by a pronoun that is not one you would have liked to see. Don’t you realize that that pronoun, or in fact any pronoun used, has nothing to do with the point of the article. You are too busy maintaining your reputation as a troll, that you can’t even see by your own posts, that you trying to wear a philosopher’s mantle in a self-delusional farce. Philosophic discourse is more than inane observations commenting on someone's grammar or pronouns. Oh, the pity! How such little things like ink can tweak your poor sensitivity. I have to ask, ‘when was the last thing you actually learned, or taught, or shared, that had to do with some shadow of real philosophic inquiry?'

You’re confronting a man who is well aware of the difference between an oversensitive response to an article, and a lifeboat.

"Don’t you realize that that pronoun, or in fact any pronoun used, has nothing to do with the point of the article."

What you might be looking for is the phrase 'strawmanning', which is an informal fallacy, the use of which involves attending to a minor irrelevant part of an argument rather than the main premises or points.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 12:40 am "Don’t you realize that that pronoun, or in fact any pronoun used, has nothing to do with the point of the article."

What you might be looking for is the phrase 'strawmanning', which is an informal fallacy, the use of which involves attending to a minor irrelevant part of an argument rather than the main premises or points.

A strawman is more generally misrepresenting your opponent's argument usually as being more superficial than it is.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 3:43 pm by Mortalsfool
A strawman is more generally misrepresenting your opponent's argument usually as being more superficial than it is.

I think that some of these posts come from people who are incapable of commenting on the points made in an article. Seeing that true philosophy requires thinking more seriously than they are able, leaves them without words. Motivated by their need to say something to gain attention on a site for Philosophy, finds them commenting from a position of ignorance. So, they post comments in the only way they think makes them appear intelligent enough to have understood the premise in the first place. They have found, instead of learning something they hadn't thought of before, they can satisfy the crying of their Egos with the use of inane comments about punctuation or grammar, and lacking that, they try to attack some perceived fault in the author. I'm not sure where they were taught to respond to articles and concepts they don't understand like children.