Theory on the origin of evil

[Tone]

"fantasy (n.)


early 14c., "illusory appearance," from Old French fantaisie, phantasie "vision, imagination" (14c.), from Latin phantasia, from Greek phantasia "power of imagination; appearance, image, perception," from phantazesthai "picture to oneself," from phantos "visible," from phainesthai "appear," in late Greek "to imagine, have visions," related to phaos, phos "light," phainein "to show, to bring to light" (from PIE root *bha- (1) "to shine").



Sense of "whimsical notion, illusion" is pre-1400, followed by that of "fantastic imagination," which is first attested 1530s. Sense of "day-dream based on desires" is from 1926. In early use in English also fantasie, phantasy, etc. As the name of a fiction genre, from 1949."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"realm (n.)
late 13c., "kingdom," from Old French reaume, probably from roiaume "kingdom," altered (by influence of Latin regalis "regal") from Gallo-Roman *regiminem, accusative form of Latin regimen"system of government, rule," from regere "to rule, to direct, keep straight, guide" (from PIE root *reg- "move in a straight line," with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line," thus "to lead, rule"). Transferred sense "sphere of activity" is from late 14c."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"imagination (n.)
"faculty of the mind which forms and manipulates images," mid-14c., ymaginacion, from Old French imaginacion "concept, mental picture; hallucination," from Latin imaginationem (nominative imaginatio) "imagination, a fancy," noun of action from past participle stem of imaginari "to form an image of, represent"), from imago "an image, a likeness," from stem of imitari "to copy, imitate" (from PIE root *aim- "to copy""

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Online Etymology Dictionary | Origin, history and meaning of English words


Could the whole war be about imagination vs. reason?

"In his essay, ‘A Defence of Poetry’, Shelley distinguishes reason from imagination in the following way: “Reason respects the differences, and imagination the similitudes of things."
http://flaneur.me.uk/08/a-defence-of-philosophy-reason-and-imagination/


"What makes you desire one thing over another? The answer is your imagination. Your imagination is the ability to picture a world that doesn't yet exist but could."
Imagination VS Reason

Could the once empty canvass rage against the current masterpiece; decrying, "Why must we stop here, when there are so many more limitless possibilities!"?

 

[com7fy8]

I'm not sure what you mean?

I mean I do not think evil is only an opposite reaction to whatever God is doing. But there is the spirit of evil (Ephesians 2:2), which is by nature opposite to how God is. Also, this spirit is not only about acting against God, but it is seeking what it wants, which I understand is pleasure to try to make itself feel other than its own nasty horrible condition of its nature. And it gets involved with God's good creation, in order to try to feel something nice of God's creation. And Satan and his people therefore are like this. So, I think there is more to this than evil being simply some sort of ongoing opposite reaction. There are personal beings involved, but in love-dead stuff in their activities.

In case my answers do not directly deal with your post, it can be because I also am sharing simply reflections I have about the subject and not only about exact details of what you have offered. I hope this is ok with you

 

[com7fy8]

Yet if mere knowledge were not the problem for the creation, eating the fruit of the tree would not have had the impact it did.

The main problem was not the knowledge of good and evil, but the disobedient spirit which had them eat of that fruit. The evil spirit messed up how they were able to handle the knowledge. God knows things, but He can handle it well, because He is God. The knowledge does not hurt Him. So, their problem was how they had become in order to be able to disobey God.

Of course, Paul says, "Knowledge puffs up," in 1 Corinthians 8:1. But I understand he could mean knowledge without how love has us seeing things which we know > because also Paul has prayed >

"And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9)

So, among other possibilities, it can be good to have knowledge, but we need the discernment for what to do about it. In our Creator's love, we can do things creatively, about what we know. But in Adam and Eve's disobedient spirit . . . we see how they took what they knew the wrong way. Plus, I would say . . . starting with what they did know, they then could imagine things which were not true, including how they supposed they could hide from the LORD and needed to.

 

[com7fy8]

I said I consider it possible that the spirit of evil (Ephesians 2:2) has always existed.

Why do you think this is possible?

Because I do not believe God who is all good could have brought the spirit of evil into existence. And I understand that His "very good" creation couldn't. I don't think what is truly good is capable of even, on its own, thinking of the possibility of evil. So, if there had ever been when God existed all by Himself, He could not have even thought of the possibility of there being evil. Love would have been all there is in existence. And if there is nothing but love, how can there be or become anything else . . . I would say?

But I don't think the Bible gets into this. God knows evil is a reality. Explaining about it might not do anything. He knows He needs to do something about it, and He does.

 

[The Righterzpen]

OK, but the problem with Hebrew is that the oldest Hebrew masoretic text is from 900 AD, its in no way close to the original text... Septuagint is much older.

The Septuagint was in the process of being completed in the days of Jesus. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament as well as a Greek transition of books of Hebrew lore that came out of the Babylonian captivity called the Apocrypha.

The Majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew. They date from between 150 BC to 70 AD.

And so no, the oldest Hebrew Masoretic text is not from 900 AD.

 

[The Righterzpen]

a primordial fantasy realm versus a newly established cycle of life?

Interesting question!

Can you explain what you mean by "fantasy realm"? Do you mean "fantasy" as "contains no truth" so thus is a "fantasy of chaos" type idea?

 

[The Righterzpen]

I said I consider it possible that the spirit of evil (Ephesians 2:2) has always existed.Because I do not believe God who is all good could have brought the spirit of evil into existence. And I understand that His "very good" creation couldn't. I don't think what is truly good is capable of even, on its own, thinking of the possibility of evil. So, if there had ever been when God existed all by Himself, He could not have even thought of the possibility of there being evil. Love would have been all there is in existence. And if there is nothing but love, how can there be or become anything else . . . I would say?

But I don't think the Bible gets into this. God knows evil is a reality. Explaining about it might not do anything. He knows He needs to do something about it, and He does.

I'm sure you agree that God being omniscient would certainly know about evil. (If God could not even think on the possibility of evil, He would not be omniscient.) I'm also sure that God knew what the nature of evil would come to pass as, before He created anything.

God also being omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and immortal is not an entity that can be corrupted by evil. This is how He can know about it and it not corrupt Him.

As per Ephesians 2:2 "prince of the power of the air" is a reference to Satan. He is the "prince of this world" John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11. And obviously we know Satan is a created entity and did not exist before creation commenced.

Also we know from the structure of the language in Genesis that "darkness" did not predate the creation either.

I agree with you that God did not create evil. He did not "bring into existence" a "spirit of evil". I agree with you that this would be contrary to God's nature.

So thus the theory: Evil's presence is a reaction to something God did. God knew this would happen (because He's omniscient) so He came up with a plan to ultimately conquer this consequence of creating (i.e. the presence of evil becoming a reality).

Could God have created a universe where this did not happen? I suppose theoretically that would be possible because God is omnipotent. Why He chose to execute the plan as is; was because this would come to be the greatest display of both His love and power.

 

[trophy33]

The Septuagint was in the process of being completed in the days of Jesus. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament as well as a Greek transition of books of Hebrew lore that came out of the Babylonian captivity called the Apocrypha.

The Majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew. They date from between 150 BC to 70 AD.

And so no, the oldest Hebrew Masoretic text is not from 900 AD.

Dead Sea Scrolls are not masoretic text, however. They differ on many places. The oldest masoretic text is really from the 9th century AD.

 

[trophy33]

Could God have created a universe where this did not happen? I suppose theoretically that would be possible because God is omnipotent. Why He chose to execute the plan as is; was because this would come to be the greatest display of both His love and power.

Yeah, the best possible world theory. We do not accept a multiverse, then. At least in the meaning that all possibilities are happening somewhere else.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The main problem was not the knowledge of good and evil, but the disobedient spirit which had them eat of that fruit. The evil spirit messed up how they were able to handle the knowledge. God knows things, but He can handle it well, because He is God. The knowledge does not hurt Him. So, their problem was how they had become in order to be able to disobey God.

Of course, Paul says, "Knowledge puffs up," in 1 Corinthians 8:1. But I understand he could mean knowledge without how love has us seeing things which we know > because also Paul has prayed >

"And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9)

So, among other possibilities, it can be good to have knowledge, but we need the discernment for what to do about it. In our Creator's love, we can do things creatively, about what we know. But in Adam and Eve's disobedient spirit . . . we see how they took what they knew the wrong way. Plus, I would say . . . starting with what they did know, they then could imagine things which were not true, including how they supposed they could hide from the LORD and needed to.

Totally with you on the "Paul thing"! LOL

We need wisdom and we need discernment.

And maybe there is a point here that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a concept set upon a different paradigm than simply knowing something intellectually? Good question; Now I want to look up the Hebrew word.

It's obvious though that the knowledge they obtained from the tree corrupted them.

Hebrew word for "knowledge" there is a derivative of the Hebrew word - to simply know something. It entails a complete knowledge; which obviously in their case encompassed experience.

Interestingly they consumed something in an attempt to get that knowledge. Which in and of itself "eating something" is an experience. The Scripture says Eve wanted to be wise like God. (Ya only get wisdom from asking God for it!)

So, good point on the "knowledge" observation!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Dead Sea Scrolls are not masoretic text, however. They differ on many places. The oldest masoretic text is really from the 9th century AD.

There are Masoretic texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls and they are remarkably similar to the current Masoretic text.

(There are other texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls also - but that community did have the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text was the standard text of 1st century Judaism. That would have been the text Jesus would have had.)

"Dead Sea Scrolls" yield "major" questions in Old Testament understanding | News | Notre Dame News | University of Notre Dame

 

[The Righterzpen]

I mean I do not think evil is only an opposite reaction to whatever God is doing. But there is the spirit of evil (Ephesians 2:2), which is by nature opposite to how God is. Also, this spirit is not only about acting against God, but it is seeking what it wants, which I understand is pleasure to try to make itself feel other than its own nasty horrible condition of its nature. And it gets involved with God's good creation, in order to try to feel something nice of God's creation. And Satan and his people therefore are like this. So, I think there is more to this than evil being simply some sort of ongoing opposite reaction. There are personal beings involved, but in love-dead stuff in their activities.

In case my answers do not directly deal with your post, it can be because I also am sharing simply reflections I have about the subject and not only about exact details of what you have offered. I hope this is ok with you

I agree with you that evil as it manifests itself in the world comes from entities that have conscious thought. The theory though is dealing with evil being an "anti God" chaos that existed as a reaction to God's orderliness in creating. This is called "darkness" in Genesis and this darkness was influential upon the will of creatures who transgressed. It's like "step one" before transgression makes it's conscious choice in the life of creatures.

Can we technically call this "evil" because philosophically we really can't? It's a matter of semantics. Can something without conscious thought be morally anti-God such as we have "anti-matter" in the universe? That possibility (or probability if we are looking at evidenced based outcomes) seems to be a logical conclusion to me.

You follow me on this one?

 

[com7fy8]

You follow me on this one?

Maybe I'll try >

evil as it manifests itself in the world comes from entities that have conscious thought.

Ok. This is clear, and I do understand that Satan is an evil entity who is conscious. So, are selfish people. Plus, we children of God can at times consciously do what is wrong, especially including being unforgiving and acting on this, I will mention.

Now, of course, there is the issue of if we know it is wrong. We can be conscious but not knowing. The spirit of evil can have us darkened so we do not realize how our selfish things have us missing out on how we could be sharing with God and tenderly sharing as family in His love.

Arguing and complaining can be very conscious > Philippians 2:13-16 < but so love-dead, for one example.

The theory though is dealing with evil being an "anti God" chaos that existed as a reaction to God's orderliness in creating. This is called "darkness" in Genesis and this darkness was influential upon the will of creatures who transgressed. It's like "step one" before transgression makes it's conscious choice in the life of creatures.

Well, before the creation, I would say yes there was the spirit of evil. And it was not cooperating with God, even if it was not actively trying to work against Him. So, its existence was, I would say, somehow in the way of His creation; but it would not be fast enough or clever enough to be a challenge for God; so how could it, really, react against Him . . . before He was creating?

Even so, I now consider > well, if God had the spirit of evil to deal with, but then in spite of it He made what was "very good" > He might have been pleased at how He could make very good things, in spite of the presence of the spirit of evil.

But . . . that spirit of evil was not a reaction, it was an actual spiritual being, maybe getting in the way, but not enough to stop or even hinder God who is almighty. Now I consider the possibility, though, that since that evil spirit was existing and present, possibly God first organized it into vessels of dishonor, in the forms of Satan and his angels, so that spirit would not be mixed all through whatever God was making . . . so it could be "very good".

But then, the evil entities could come along to test and try to use God's creation. Then would be when there could be evil which involved conscious choosing, not only being resistant by nature.

Can we technically call this "evil" because philosophically we really can't? It's a matter of semantics. Can something without conscious thought be morally anti-God such as we have "anti-matter" in the universe? That possibility (or probability if we are looking at evidenced based outcomes) seems to be a logical conclusion to me.

Well, it was evil, since it was not good like God, plus it was not going to help, but be in the way of His doing good. So, He might have organized it, so He could manage it to be out of His way of His creating.

But those forms could become conscious, once they were being exposed to God's light. Light can effect things to wake them up in consciousness. So, in their conscious state, with selfish seeking of creature pleasures, destroying them in the process, they were more evil, not only in potential > maybe we could say they became morally evil, but were by nature evil, before that, because of their potential.

This is a big matter, by the way > about if we are by nature capable of doing evil, even if we don't. We need how God is alone able to change us to be like Jesus and how He is incapable of evil, plus He is so loving and pleasing to our Father. Jesus in us can share this with us, more and more. So, Jesus was always meant to be the first in all which is right, in the middle of all this

 

[Tone]

Interesting question!

Can you explain what you mean by "fantasy realm"? Do you mean "fantasy" as "contains no truth" so thus is a "fantasy of chaos" type idea?

Theory on the origin of evil

 

[childeye 2]

double post

 

[The Righterzpen]

Ok. This is clear, and I do understand that Satan is an evil entity who is conscious. So, are selfish people. Plus, we children of God can at times consciously do what is wrong, especially including being unforgiving and acting on this, I will mention.

Now, of course, there is the issue of if we know it is wrong. We can be conscious but not knowing. The spirit of evil can have us darkened so we do not realize how our selfish things have us missing out on how we could be sharing with God and tenderly sharing as family in His love.

Arguing and complaining can be very conscious > Philippians 2:13-16 < but so love-dead, for one example.

Keep in mind though, that if someone is truly redeemed; they have been translated out of the kingdom of Satan into the Kingdom of God and God obviously takes precedence over Satan; (on account of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, eternally existent and immortal).

Sin that a believer continues to commit is because we are still the seed of Adam. We still have a fallen nature. That aspect of our persons has not been renewed yet. Now the difference between a believer and an unbeliever is the believer gets victory over their sin because the Holy Ghost can't deny God Himself. God can not dwell in a "temple" that's full of filth, so thus the necessity for the continuous process of sanctification. Where God comes to live; He cleans the house!

Well, before the creation, I would say yes there was the spirit of evil. And it was not cooperating with God, even if it was not actively trying to work against Him. So, its existence was, I would say, somehow in the way of His creation; but it would not be fast enough or clever enough to be a challenge for God; so how could it, really, react against Him . . . before He was creating?

This may sound kind of weird, but God's process of creating began before He actually created anything material. He set up a "format" so to speak, of what would be where in the universe. This is the "in the beginning God created the heavens and earth. The earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This is speaking of a time before there were any conscious entities in the created world (angels) and before the material universe (atoms that make up molecules that make up organic elements like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc, that make up portions that make up cells organelles that make up cells that make up organs and ultimately organisms); came into existence.

The "darkness" predated the "spirit of evil".

Even so, I now consider > well, if God had the spirit of evil to deal with, but then in spite of it He made what was "very good" > He might have been pleased at how He could make very good things, in spite of the presence of the spirit of evil.

I think this is true, fundamentally speaking; although God declaring what He'd created as "very good" spoke more to His moral intention and the fact that He was pleased with what He did. And this I think incorporated not only what was created from a design standpoint, but also the whole redemption plan.

But . . . that spirit of evil was not a reaction, it was an actual spiritual being, maybe getting in the way, but not enough to stop or even hinder God who is almighty. Now I consider the possibility, though, that since that evil spirit was existing and present, possibly God first organized it into vessels of dishonor, in the forms of Satan and his angels, so that spirit would not be mixed all through whatever God was making . . . so it could be "very good".

No, the "spirit of evil" was not the reaction. The "anti-God chaos" called "darkness" preexisted the "spirit" that would become the "spirit of evil" (satan). The "anti-God chaos" was the reaction to what God did.

The preponderance of evidence we see in the universe now, give us reason to conclude, that just as there is an "antimatter counter reaction" to the material world; there is also a "anti-moral antithesis to God counter reaction". God calls that "darkness" in Genesis.

But then, the evil entities could come along to test and try to use God's creation. Then would be when there could be evil which involved conscious choosing, not only being resistant by nature.

Yes, the conscious choices of Satan, obviously impacted the conscious choices of Adam and Eve. In turn, their conscious choices affected the rest of the universe. (I.E. subjected it to death.)

Well, it was evil, since it was not good like God, plus it was not going to help, but be in the way of His doing good.

Yes, the darkness is "evil" by definition of it being not good like God, plus being anti-God's actions. This was true even though the philosophical definition of evil as it applies to us, requires the manifestation of an action in real time, made by the choice of a conscious entity.

But those forms could become conscious, once they were being exposed to God's light. Light can effect things to wake them up in consciousness. So, in their conscious state, with selfish seeking of creature pleasures, destroying them in the process, they were more evil, not only in potential > maybe we could say they became morally evil, but were by nature evil, before that, because of their potential.

Consciousness as a result of exposure to God's light? That's a good question.

We make an assumption that angels were formed differently than man; i.e. having a "formed body" before becoming a living soul. Assuming that the breath of life not only makes one "a living soul" it produces consciousness.

Angels are fundamentally different in essence than carbon based life though. We know this because they don't reproduce, they don't "die", their "life span" is the length of all time. They do have intelligence though and they are cognizant entities. Scripture never states they have "the breath of life" though (which all carbon based life does). So yes it would be a fair question to ask if angels are actually considered "alive"; or at least "alive" in the same sense we are? One would assume they possess some definition of "life" because God is a living entity and seeing how He created them, they must be "alive" in some way shape or form. Kind of like, I believe animals and plants (as containing the breath of life) have "souls" they just don't have the same kind of soul humans have.

So the calling out of the light from the darkness, does that have some connection to angels becoming conscious beings? The language in Genesis does not seem to be speaking of that particular question; but I don't know. I'd have to research that.

This is a big matter, by the way > about if we are by nature capable of doing evil, even if we don't. We need how God is alone able to change us to be like Jesus and how He is incapable of evil, plus He is so loving and pleasing to our Father. Jesus in us can share this with us, more and more. So, Jesus was always meant to be the first in all which is right, in the middle of all this

Totally agreed - without God's intervention - we're screwed!

Capability to do evil, even if choosing not to; is an interesting conceptualization as it applies to carbon based life. When humans fell, they still retained the ability to make moral choices. We even see this in other mammals. My dog can chose to obey or not obey; even with his limited capacity to employ communication. My cat on the other hand - lol - she certainly displays more of a different quality of stubbornness.

Satan and demons though; when they fell, their ability to make right moral decisions completely disappeared. Thus the difference between "total depravity" and "depraved totally"!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Theory on the origin of evil

Still not sure how these definitions apply to "anti-God chaos" theory?

 

[Tone]

Still not sure how these definitions apply to "anti-God chaos" theory?

Me either, but does "chaos" have to do with potentialities?

 

[childeye 2]

Based on these following statements; it's clear that you do not understand the atonement!

The "battle" to redeem sinners had nothing to do with Satan. He was "collateral damage". The horror for Jesus was to be severed from the only fellowship He'd ever known and then to have His own Divinity rent from his existence. This is what actually killed him. Imagine having your fellowship with God torn from you and than your own existence ripped apart to atone for people who if left to their own devices wouldn't even care?

Respectfully I don't think we see atonement the same. Do you believe that feeling guilty for Christ's horrific death is what stops people from sinning?

I'm not going to pretend to know the suffering that Jesus experienced. But what I see on the cross is the Divine Love being tested beyond the limits of human comprehension without any compromise of integrity. I do not picture God beating and mocking Jesus with wicked scornfulness and then crucifying His son as a means to placate His wrath.

When you say that Satan was collateral damage in the battle to redeem sinners, I must wonder whether you realize that scripture specifically states that Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, the father of sin, so as to deliver us from the bondage of death.

1 John 3:8 “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Hebrews 2:14 , “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;” 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Satan did not crucify Christ. The atonement had to do with God Himself.

But God desired mercy and not sacrifice. The atonement is a requirement of the law under the Old Testament. If Satan did not crucify the Christ, then why is Satan entering into Judas who then turns Jesus over to the High counsel who were plotting to kill him?
Colossians 2:
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Jesus was proclaimed guilty in the eyes of the Father according to the law. He was able to secure payment for sin because He did not sin himself.

What was Jesus guilty of according to the law?

If you believe Satan wrote the Old Testament, you have some serious issues with your understanding of Biblical canon! Wow - just wow!

No I don't believe that Satan wrote the Old Testament. I believe that he was administering the Old Testament. See the story of the vineyard and how there were wicked servants in authority there, who killed the prophets and the son.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Respectfully I don't think we see atonement the same. Do you believe that feeling guilty for Christ's horrific death is what stops people from sinning?

I'm not going to pretend to know the suffering that Jesus experienced. But what I see on the cross is the Divine Love being tested beyond the limits of human comprehension without any compromise of integrity. I do not picture God beating and mocking Jesus with wicked scornfulness and then crucifying His son as a means to placate His wrath.

When you say that Satan was collateral damage in the battle to redeem sinners, I must wonder whether you realize that scripture specifically states that Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, the father of sin, so as to deliver us from the bondage of death.

1 John 3:8 “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Hebrews 2:14 , “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;” 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.


But God desired mercy and not sacrifice. The atonement is a requirement of the law under the Old Testament. If Satan did not crucify the Christ, then why is Satan entering into Judas who then turns Jesus over to the High counsel who were plotting to kill him?
Colossians 2:
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

What was Jesus guilty of according to the law?
No I don't believe that Satan wrote the Old Testament. I believe that he was administering the Old Testament. See the story of the vineyard and how there were wicked servants in authority there, who killed the prophets and the son.

What sends people first to hell and ultimately to the lake of fire? And who's (WHO) the one who (ONE WHO) condemns them?

At the great white throne judgement - WHO'S the ONE sitting on the throne?

What does "payment for sin" mean? Is Jesus paying Satan? For what?

If payment for sin has nothing to do with addressing the fact that sin offends God; than why go to the cross. Why die?

Yeah, the atonement frees sinners from the domain of Satan; but Satan is not your primary enemy on account of your sin. God is!

Satan is a tool used to ultimately accomplish God's ends.

Now why is "Divine love being tested beyond the limits of human comprehension". If atoning for sin has nothing to do with the Father; why'd the Father forsake Him?

Does feeling sorry for Jesus make you stop sinning; because of all the "mean things Satan did to him"?

When I think about Jesus taking on punishment for sin for a bunch of people (me included) who would not even think they need atoning for in the first place - I stand with Job. "I place my hand over my mouth" and shut up because I don't have anything to say.

Now here's the million dollar question for you. Do you deserve God's wrath? If you say "no" to that question; you (at the very least) don't understand the atonement!