Why did God create Lucifer with the pride or whatever it was that made him rebel?

[stevenfrancis]

God made angels, like men, with free will. Lucifer "chose" his lot. This was with full knowledge, mind you, of the outcome. Knowing that there would be man, and that he would be a servant to man, and eventually be judged by men. He would not serve man from pride.

God makes us.....all of us....Angels and man, in His image and likeness. He was not interested in creating automatons. He imbued us all with free will. He loves us all, and wants us to choose Him. To wish to live with Him for eternity, in love. In order for us to choose Him, we must have a choice NOT to choose Him. Otherwise, God may as well of stopped with geese. Or just got a nice set of Legos.

 

[RDKirk]

Actually, scripture denies free will.

It does say that the grace of God gives man the choice of which master he will serve, but scripture is pretty clear, as the old Bob Dylan song goes, "Everybody's gotta serve somebody. It may be the devil, it may be the Lord, but everybody's gotta serve somebody."

The single option of which master you will serve is not "free will."

 

[Gregory Thompson]

if all that exists came from God .. i think a more poignant question is .. why did and does God continue to rebel against himself?

 

[RDKirk]

[FONT=&quot] Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? 1 Corinthians 6

I think God intended all along for us to know good and evil in order to be effective judges for all creation for all eternity. But that would take extreme training, a very tough lesson that would stick with us for all eternity.

[/FONT]Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all.

Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness.

No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it -- Hebrews 12

 

[Messy]

Still, He made it with full knowledge. To say He made it but didn't want it makes Him a victim of His own creation. Which, ironically, ends up being exactly what He intended.

"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends."

I don't believe it was His intention to create an angel who would fall, take 1/3 of the angels with him, caused the preAdamic world to sin, Neanderthals turned into demons, all the animals destroyed, that it was His will that the angels had sex with women and it was His plan that there would come Giants, who would turn into demons and would all in the end spend an eternity in hell and the satan sawing bad seed, so that there could come teares which He could send to hell. And this all should be His plan, so He had a few helpmates to make sure Adam really would love Him out of free will.
Like He set the whole thing up in the garden with the intention that they would sin. That's what some atheists wanted me to believe, I don't buy that. But I understand that they then say such a God cannot exist, since he's bad.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Actually, scripture denies free will.

It does say that the grace of God gives man the choice of which master he will serve, but scripture is pretty clear, as the old Bob Dylan song goes, "Everybody's gotta serve somebody. It may be the devil, it may be the Lord, but everybody's gotta serve somebody."

The single option of which master you will serve is not "free will."

Your post states we have free will (choice) of which master to serve. We have the maximum amount of free will God allows. Typically only when our paths cross with God's plans does our free will diminish. Free will didn't stop many atrocities from happening out there if it were not free will on man's part to do evil then God is to blame for it all because either he gave us no will at all to resist Satan, or he gave us no will to just outright resist sinning at all.

 

[seeingeyes]

I don't believe it was His intention to create an angel who would fall, take 1/3 of the angels with him, caused the preAdamic world to sin, Neanderthals turned into demons, all the animals destroyed, that it was His will that the angels had sex with women and it was His plan that there would come Giants, who would turn into demons and would all in the end spend an eternity in hell and the satan sawing bad seed, so that there could come teares which He could send to hell. And this all should be His plan, so He had a few helpmates to make sure Adam really would love Him out of free will.
Like He set the whole thing up in the garden with the intention that they would sin. That's what some atheists wanted me to believe, I don't buy that. But I understand that they then say such a God cannot exist, since he's bad.

Then there are two options: Either what you just described isn't what happened, or God 'whoops!' created a world He didn't intend to.

 

[RDKirk]

Your post states we have free will (choice) of which master to serve. We have the maximum amount of free will God allows. Typically only when our paths cross with God's plans does our free will diminish. Free will didn't stop many atrocities from happening out there if it were not free will on man's part to do evil then God is to blame for it all because either he gave us no will at all to resist Satan, or he gave us no will to just outright resist sinning at all.

Here is what you have to be careful of:

Being given a single option is not what any secular philosopher calls "free will." If you want to call "single option" the same thing as "free will" which chatting with other Christians who know you're using a peculiar definition, that's okay.

But be aware that if you're talking to a non-Christian, what you're calling "free will" is not what he's calling free will.

According to Romans, the natural man is a slave to his flesh. He has no will to fully resist it, and everything he does is from and for the flesh. If he resist his flesh in one area, he merely succumbs to it in another. His concept of right and wrong is totally within himself "His god is his belly."

The only option is to become a slave to the Lord, and the Lord provides the ability to do this. Everybody is slave, and no slave has "free will" as a philosopher defines it.

 

[RDKirk]

Then there are two options: Either what you just described isn't what happened, or God 'whoops!' created a world He didn't intend to.

Third option: God is smarter than we are and knows that it takes a really tough training program to be the immortal judges He intends us to be.

As they told us in basic training: The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in combat.

People who have been in sports know this, too (and that saying works just as well in sports). The coach who lets you lay around does not like you; the coach who is on your butt ever minute and makes you run laps when you slack is the coach who likes you.

The tougher the discipline, the greater the prize that awaits.

 

[seeingeyes]

Third option: God is smarter than we are and knows that it takes a really tough training program to be the immortal judges He intends us to be.

As they told us in basic training: The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in combat.

People who have been in sports know this, too (and that saying works just as well in sports). The coach who lets you lay around does not like you; the coach who is on your butt ever minute and makes you run laps when you slack is the coach who likes you.

The tougher the discipline, the greater the prize that awaits.

That would mean that this world is working as intended by God.

 

[Philpy1976]

I think God intended all along for us to know good and evil in order to be effective judges for all creation for all eternity. But that would take extreme training, a very tough lesson that would stick with us for all eternity.

So when He said not to eat from that tree, He was using reverse psychology?
This seems to open a whole new can of worms, this would mean that the whole garden of Eden thing was some kind of entrapment and that the serpent was only doing exactly what God wanted anyway.
I have to admit, this whole subject confuses me, I end up going round in circles with it. From the way I have experienced God in my own life, His power and ability to direct situations or create situations is obvious, but the bible itself talks of God being grieved by how the whole of His creation turned out (pre-flood).
How can a situation you were fully in control of and fully directing then grieve you?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Here is what you have to be careful of:

Being given a single option is not what any secular philosopher calls "free will." If you want to call "single option" the same thing as "free will" which chatting with other Christians who know you're using a peculiar definition, that's okay.

But be aware that if you're talking to a non-Christian, what you're calling "free will" is not what he's calling free will.

According to Romans, the natural man is a slave to his flesh. He has no will to fully resist it, and everything he does is from and for the flesh. If he resist his flesh in one area, he merely succumbs to it in another. His concept of right and wrong is totally within himself "His god is his belly."

The only option is to become a slave to the Lord, and the Lord provides the ability to do this. Everybody is slave, and no slave has "free will" as a philosopher defines it.

I do think that that people arguing free will want to claim 100% or nothing at all... and that does go against the Bible. I believe that free will does approach 100% enough that for all purposes we have free will. The fact we can reject God or accept him shows that we do have will otherwise all would accept or all would reject and those rejecting God for years and decades and finally accept him where did their will go? It must have changed. As for Romans the concept of slave to sin doesn't equate will but nature. Even slaves can resist killing their master even if he is evil and they find themselves in a position to be able to do so. Slaves may not have 100% free will but they are able to still make some choices just not all choices are available to them.

 

[RDKirk]

That would mean that this world is working as intended by God.

I think God always intended us to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--knowing good and evil is necessary to be a judge.

But Jesus is the Tree of Life, and we need to "eat" of that tree as well. Jesus was withheld from us until the proper time--as scripture tells us was God's plan before the creation of the world.

As you said, this world is not God's "Plan B."

 

[Sophrosyne]

How can a situation you were fully in control of and fully directing then grieve you?

Knowing the outcome of something ahead of time still doesn't remove oneself from the emotion of it all when it does happen. You can watch a movie where a character dies in it knowing the character will be brought back to life and still cry.

 

[RDKirk]

I do think that that people arguing free will want to claim 100% or nothing at all... and that does go against the Bible. I believe that free will does approach 100% enough that for all purposes we have free will. The fact we can reject God or accept him shows that we do have will otherwise all would accept or all would reject and those rejecting God for years and decades and finally accept him where did their will go? It must have changed. As for Romans the concept of slave to sin doesn't equate will but nature. Even slaves can resist killing their master even if he is evil and they find themselves in a position to be able to do so. Slaves may not have 100% free will but they are able to still make some choices just not all choices are available to them.

Again, you're using a peculiar definition of "free will."

"Free will" in philosophy means 100% free will. Free will is a state in which a moral agent is able to take any action without restraint or consequences from any other moral agent.

I don't have free will if I have to suffer consequences imposed by another moral agent. That's why most philosophers argue that nobody in a society can have free will.

As I said, if you use your definition of free will, just be aware that it's a peculiar definition.

 

[RDKirk]

So when He said not to eat from that tree, He was using reverse psychology?

This seems to open a whole new can of worms, this would mean that the whole garden of Eden thing was some kind of entrapment and that the serpent was only doing exactly what God wanted anyway.

I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. I would not have known what coveting was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting.

Apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. -- Romans 7

Paul is saying one obvious thing here: There is no possibility of sin if there is no commandment. If God had not said, "Do not eat of the tree," it would not have been a sin to eat of the tree. No commandment = no sin.

But Paul goes farther. He says that not only does the existence of the command make sin possible, the existence of the command makes sin inevitable.

God planted the tree and gave the commandment, thus intentionally creating the potential for sin.

But He also created Lucifer--putting the catalyst in place.

"Oy vay!" Exclaimed God, "I didn't see that coming! Satan, I never thought you'd do such a thing!"

I think not.

I have to admit, this whole subject confuses me, I end up going round in circles with it. From the way I have experienced God in my own life, His power and ability to direct situations or create situations is obvious, but the bible itself talks of God being grieved by how the whole of His creation turned out (pre-flood).
How can a situation you were fully in control of and fully directing then grieve you?

You've read the passage about the death of Jesus' acquaintance Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, right? Remember that Jesus was some distance away when He was told that Lazarus was on his death bed.

Yet, Jesus delayed getting there, clearly deliberately waiting until Lazarus died before reaching the scene. Now, we know the story--Jesus brings Lazarus back to life. And we know that Jesus always intended it to happen just that way. He intended to allow Lazarus to die so that He could perform a miracle.

Yet, when told that Lazarus was dead, and seeing the grief of Mary and Martha--even while knowing He would perform a miracle--Jesus wept.

Wait, He was orchestrating the situation! He knew He'd save the day in the final reel! Why did Jesus weep?

Because it still grieved Him that death had to happen to those He loved, even though He knew it had to happen.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Again, you're using a peculiar definition of "free will."

"Free will" in philosophy means 100% free will. Free will is a state in which a moral agent is able to take any action without restraint or consequences from any other moral agent.

I don't have free will if I have to suffer consequences imposed by another moral agent. That's why most philosophers argue that nobody in a society can have free will.

As I said, if you use your definition of free will, just be aware that it's a peculiar definition.

Yes I realize that it isn't a perfect definition that is why I equate it further (put limitations in the definition). For practical purposes it helps to define responsibility unto the one with the overriding will in the situation. If you have not the will in a situation then the responsibility lies in the one that hampered your will.
In this thread the OP is equating that Lucifer had no will to resist sinning and that shifts the blame to his creator. If in this one instance he had free will to chose to sin or not then his sin is his own doing.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Yet, when told that Lazarus was dead, and seeing the grief of Mary and Martha--even while knowing He would perform a miracle--Jesus wept.

Wait, He was orchestrating the situation! He knew He'd save the day in the final reel! Why did Jesus weep?

Because it still grieved Him that death had to happen to those He loved, even though He knew it had to happen.

The word I was trying to recall was EMPATHY. It doesn't matter if you know or not it is being empathetic to the suffering of others. One who is not empathetic is considered heartless on a level.

 

[seeingeyes]

So when He said not to eat from that tree, He was using reverse psychology?
This seems to open a whole new can of worms, this would mean that the whole garden of Eden thing was some kind of entrapment and that the serpent was only doing exactly what God wanted anyway.
I have to admit, this whole subject confuses me, I end up going round in circles with it. From the way I have experienced God in my own life, His power and ability to direct situations or create situations is obvious, but the bible itself talks of God being grieved by how the whole of His creation turned out (pre-flood).
How can a situation you were fully in control of and fully directing then grieve you?

I really believe this depends on your starting presumption. (I say that because my own starting presumption has changed.)

God said: “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Now, there are two possibilities here. One is that God is saying, "I command you not to eat that fruit, and if you do, you will receive the death penalty."

Two is that God is saying, "This tree I made causes death. You'll die if you eat it. Don't eat it."

The first interpretation is that God made a rather arbitrary rule, which Adam broke, and all mankind bears the weight of Adam's rule breaking (either through nature or nurture, depending on your theology).

The second interpretation is that God made a dangerous world, warned Adam against the danger, and Adam ignored the command of God, choosing to trust someone other than his Father, and we all bear the weight of Adam's lack of trust (whether through nature or nurture, depending on your theology).

The differences are subtle, but paradigm changing.

 

[RDKirk]

I really believe this depends on your starting presumption. (I say that because my own starting presumption has changed.)

God said: “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Now, there are two possibilities here. One is that God is saying, "I command you not to eat that fruit, and if you do, you will receive the death penalty."

Two is that God is saying, "This tree I made causes death. You'll die if you eat it. Don't eat it."

The first interpretation is that God made a rather arbitrary rule, which Adam broke, and all mankind bears the weight of Adam's rule breaking (either through nature or nurture, depending on your theology).

The second interpretation is that God made a dangerous world, warned Adam against the danger, and Adam ignored the command of God, choosing to trust someone other than his Father, and we all bear the weight of Adam's lack of trust (whether through nature or nurture, depending on your theology).

The differences are subtle, but paradigm changing.

Well, we know the tree and everything God had made was good. He didn't make anything in the garden that was dangerous in itself, and all the fruit were good for food--scripture tells us that.

So the rule was more or less arbitrary as far as we can tell--God could have said, "Thou shalt not pat your head and rub your stomach at the same time."

Jews have a particular word--Chukim--for the commandments of God that make no seeming sense to a man, such as not wearing blended fabrics and not cutting the corners of their beards. Some appear to have no function except to make Jews look peculiar compared so surrounding peoples, and certainly appear to be arbitrary.

But as a rabbi once told me, "We don't obey God because He makes sense to us; we obey God because he's God."