If the devil wrote his moral code in our hearts would we think it was good?

[quatona]

He who is ultimate truth can not refer to some higher truth, because, for one, there is no higher truth, and if there was, He would not be the ultimate truth. Same goes for His righteousness. Since He is the highest righteousness, there is none to compare to, or He would not be the highest righteousness.

You are making the OP´s point better than he did.

Sure it does, you simply suppress the truth of it. And you cannot define righteousness apart from God.

Unfortunately though, you aren´t defining anything - and, according to your own rule, you wouldn´t even have the right to do it.

Again, God is not in the witness stand defending Himself.

Indeed - poor theology is.

 

[Par5]

That never made any sense to me at all.

Given that this devil is supposed to be enlightened and intelligent being... If he actually knows god personally, who is supposed to be omnipotent, then surely this devil would understand better then anyone, that rebelion would be futile. That it would be impossible to defeat god.

Yet, he seems to believe otherwise.
It's akin to me believing that I can destroy a mountain just by looking at it. It doesn't add up.

Makes no sense to me either. The bible story of the trials of Job is another story concerning Lucifer that makes no sense. Why would satan believe that when a being he knew to be omniscient told him that Job would not turn against god no matter what was done to him that he, Lucifer, could still win the wager if he visited enough harm on Job.
Betting against someone who you realize already knows the outcome is not too bright. Lucifer is obviously not as bright as we are led to believe. The story also says a lot about the biblical god who permitted such terrible things to happen to Job just to prove a point. Some might call that vanity!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If the devil ruled the conscience, it would be subjectively good, but objectively bad.

 

[Holoman]

That never made any sense to me at all.

Given that this devil is supposed to be enlightened and intelligent being... If he actually knows god personally, who is supposed to be omnipotent, then surely this devil would understand better then anyone, that rebelion would be futile. That it would be impossible to defeat god.

Yet, he seems to believe otherwise.
It's akin to me believing that I can destroy a mountain just by looking at it. It doesn't add up.

My understanding (though I haven't researched all the biblical material on Satan) is that Satan simply doesn't want to follow God's way, and so rebelled. He wanted to be god of himself, and he pretty much is because he is allowed to continue to exist. He doesn't want to overthrow God, but wants to cause as much pain and misery as he can because that is what evil is at base level, suffering without purpose.

 

[Holoman]

Makes no sense to me either. The bible story of the trials of Job is another story concerning Lucifer that makes no sense. Why would satan believe that when a being he knew to be omniscient told him that Job would not turn against god no matter what was done to him that he, Lucifer, could still win the wager if he visited enough harm on Job.
Betting against someone who you realize already knows the outcome is not too bright. Lucifer is obviously not as bright as we are led to believe. The story also says a lot about the biblical god who permitted such terrible things to happen to Job just to prove a point. Some might call that vanity!

I think Job is widely regarded as probably a fictional story exploring the problem of pain and suffering. The conversation is an anthropopathism and not really to be taken as something that could have actually happened between God and Satan. It's a similar thing that can be seen in the Old Testament with many anthropopathisms of God. He is quite often described as being in discussion with humans who change His mind when he intends to do something. It's not saying God actually changed His mind, because an omniscient, timeless being already knows what to do, and what He will do, but it's a way of describing the narrative of the stories and how the humans perceived it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My understanding (though I haven't researched all the biblical material on Satan) is that Satan simply doesn't want to follow God's way, and so rebelled. He wanted to be god of himself, and he pretty much is because he is allowed to continue to exist. He doesn't want to overthrow God, but wants to cause as much pain and misery as he can because that is what evil is at base level, suffering without purpose.

That doesn't seem to address my concern.
My point was that this devil, more then anyone else, would comprehend how futile rebellion would be. And indeed, he is "allowed to continue". That's another aspect that doesn't make any sense. An all powerfull omnibenevolent being who has the power to exterminate the very embodiment of evil, would do so.

So either this god isn't all powerfull or he isn't omnibenevolent.
The more one digs into the story, the more bizar and nonsensical it becomes.

 

[Holoman]

That doesn't seem to address my concern.
My point was that this devil, more then anyone else, would comprehend how futile rebellion would be.

That's assuming he wants to achieve something by rebelling. Maybe he just wants to rebel.

And indeed, he is "allowed to continue". That's another aspect that doesn't make any sense. An all powerfull omnibenevolent being who has the power to exterminate the very embodiment of evil, would do so.

So either this god isn't all powerfull or he isn't omnibenevolent.
The more one digs into the story, the more bizar and nonsensical it becomes.

He isn't some sort of source of evil, that once destroyed will remove evil from the world.

You'll have to spell out why an omnibenevolent being would exterminate evil instead of allowing it for a period of time, because you can make the existence of both God and evil logically compatible by adding God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's assuming he wants to achieve something by rebelling. Maybe he just wants to rebel.



He isn't some sort of source of evil, that once destroyed will remove evil from the world.

You'll have to spell out why an omnibenevolent being would exterminate evil instead of allowing it for a period of time, because you can make the existence of both God and evil logically compatible by adding God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing it.

If I am all powerfull and would allow, say, Adolf Hitler to continue living and exterminating jews, I'ld rightfully be called a monster and the very opposite of omni benevolent.

 

[Colter]

Lucifer became an Atheist of sort, his legacy is the confusion and rebellion that is still being mitigated.

 

[Holoman]

If I am all powerfull and would allow, say, Adolf Hitler to continue living and exterminating jews, I'ld rightfully be called a monster and the very opposite of omni benevolent.

What you're called is irrelevant. There's no logical contradiction between being omnibenevolent and allowing suffering.

 

[Colter]

If I am all powerfull and would allow, say, Adolf Hitler to continue living and exterminating jews, I'ld rightfully be called a monster and the very opposite of omni benevolent.

We wouldn’t be free will children of God if he constantly intervened. It’s actually your own concept of God that you are stumbling over.

 

[quatona]

Lucifer became an Atheist of sort,

He didn´t believe that God existed?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What you're called is irrelevant.

Disagree.

There's no logical contradiction between being omnibenevolent and allowing suffering.

Errr, yes there is.
An omnibenevolent being that has the means to end evil, would do so.

An entity that has the power to stop evil from occuring, yet does not thing, is not an entity that is benevolent. At best, it is an entity that doesn't care.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We wouldn’t be free will children of God if he constantly intervened.

That's simply false.
Wheter he intervenes or not, changes nothing about a person's free choice to do X or Y.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

An omnibenevolent being that has the means to end evil, would do so.

At what cost though? Theres plenty of times where you have to make a decision that may allow evil to a small subset of people that benefits the whole greater than if you stopped evil from happening to that small group of people. Theres no reason to believe you can't be all knowing, all powerful,omnibenevolent and allow evil to exist.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

If you want to know why allow evil to exists you have to ask yourself why allow free will with real consequences? It's not free will if we are free to do whatever we want and God removes negative consequences. The only way there can be free will and no evil if free agents choose not to do evil.

 

[Colter]

That's simply false.
Wheter he intervenes or not, changes nothing about a person's free choice to do X or Y.

If God we’re to have stoped the rise of Hitler then that would be interference . Perhaps man was supposed to and eventually did stop him.

 

[Holoman]

Disagree.



Errr, yes there is.
An omnibenevolent being that has the means to end evil, would do so.

An entity that has the power to stop evil from occuring, yet does not thing, is not an entity that is benevolent. At best, it is an entity that doesn't care.

Sorry but no, there is no logical contradiction there, so you are making some hidden steps between God is omnibenevolent and God allows evil.

It is in fact trivial to show there is no logical contradiction by simply adding God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and then you have a logically coherent set of statements.

 

[Colter]

He didn´t believe that God existed?

I know he’s atheist but his argument is contrasting his concept that God should run things a certain way with the events of our world. Atheist use this argument often.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interesting question. With Lucifer it was more a battle of truth verses error, an ideological struggle. Remember, lucifer had been a brilliant, loyal celestial being before rebelling against the rule of God. 'There came to be no truth in him". True and false liberty. Lucifer introduced the meme of rebellion but we cant call that morality, it was his ideology. Lucifer's delusion was that the theory or idea that he could ever be God of this world, that he could ever win his battle.


His followers bought into his doctrines of doubt.

Which is an odd story, right? I mean, according to the story....at one point the only entities were god and Lucifer, right?

Also, they knew each other didn't they? It's not as if they were separated from each other....they knew each other well, yes?