To believe in god is to believe in satan, if he is such an evil being, then what is it worth to believe in a religion where there is both good and evil in itself?

I do not think that is right, putting the title like that. It almost sounds like a putdown. And yes, there is the ying and the yang, and the peanut and the Jelly, but they don't believe in evil like the want it. People with peanut allergies can let peanut butter exist, right?

I'm confused again.

So I have come to understand it that God created angels, specifically for the sole reason that they worship Him and do as He commands. ...However, one of these angels rebelled against God, and so God casted him from the Heavens. ...And I've come to believe this creature to be Satan. ...So... did God predict or know that this was going to happen as well? :\ Since He is all-knowing? ...And was this a flaw that God did not intend to make, or did He intentionally (knowing that one of His own angels would rebel against Him) create an evil creature, to perhaps test the choice of mankind, for which he presumably will already know anyway? :\

See how confused this makes me? ;P So much confuzzlement. ;P

Biblical Christianity does not believe in dualism.

they have no control over that, they can teach themselves not to believe but may pay dearly after an allergic reaction


good point there

Us and the angels have free will but not at the same level. If you were married to someone would you want a robot? Someone who had no choice to love you? Someone who is just there but not because they had free will or the choice to choose you or not?

Well in the biblical belief God wants us to be His bride. So He gave us free will. We can choose Him or not. Some will say free will does not exists and just predetermination. I believe free will and destiny coexist since the scriptures plainly show the possibility of both. Some will say the Bible is foolish but no one has to believe it some of us choose to.

Because it recognises the complex nature of man and existence. If a religion didn't even acknowledge this in some capacity it wouldn't show much depth of understanding of being human IMO. 'What is it worth' well I don't think they really are just totally picking something that sounds good, more they just believe it because it is their reality, if you know what I mean.

Seeker... nice wording... as you raised this topic i beleive atleast you follow what you said... but make you understand i just put the same meaning in other words

To believe in happiness is to believe in sadness, if we are such a sadist being, then what is it worth to believe in our life where there is both happy and distress in itself?

To believe in good is to believe in bad, if we are such a bad being, then what is it worth to believe in ourself where there is both good and bad in ourself?

To believe in our ability is to believe in our disablity, if we are such a unfit being, then what is it worth to believe in anything in our life time where there is both ability and disablity in ourself?

If we stop believing any of the above... then orch i like to have one more apple..

i dont agree that if you beleive in god you beleive in satan. i beleive in god and i beleive man has an ego which is his negative side. the side of him that wants his life to be his own and seperate from everyone else. when his true purpose is to unify himself with everything and everyone, to go back to god. religion is not needed to beleive in god.

but to believe in god is to believe in cristianity, satan is a product of the religion.

what you say is true, however, I wonder how you could possibly be living in heaven without a sad thought as many "burn" in hell.

sorry to say but thats nowhere near true. belief in a higher power doesnt require any religion. there is no requirments or rules to anything spiritual. quote 'to beleive in god is to beleive in satan. to beleive in god is to beleive in christianity.' these are very presumptious statements.

To believe in God is to believe in God....muslims and jews believe in the same guy after all and they are obviously not believers in christianity. Satan is the bad guy in the story, Satan is against christianity. So to believe in Christianity is to be against Satan...and by extension evil also.

good/bad , right/wrong.... just a way of describing life and all serve a purpose that God set forth. God does state , according to the bible , that God created it all good and bad to serve Gods purpose. So 'evil' 'satan' is actually doing Gods work.

I myself feel is just life. Once over all there are no repercussions , penalties , ect ....... just what we were here for . the experience. good , bad or indifferent. Wouldn't be much of an experience if all was just one thing would it ? It would be like eating chicken every day 3 times a day. boiled only. pretty boring life. And we tend to learn quicker via when things are tough. Some have it easier than others . Everyones experience is different.

Just life on life's terms.

by Orcseeker:

Granted, you and I might think that, and think it's not the same thing to believing in Good and Evil in a belief, but I think one must be aware, that the point of view and how they view it is different. I think one must be aware, what you said about not believing in one's allergy, could be viewed in the same light as they view evil. I think, it's not right to assume that they can easily be alright to not believe in evil. No one should put down other's beliefs.

I believe in God but NOT satan

And I believe it all started with the Greeks

So are you saying the one and only faith is a christian faith?? the world is full of believers and not ALL are christian that believe in a satan

<---living proof

It states clearly in the bible that god created everything including evil. I don't believe in the bible myself but it clearly states it...

I believe your confusion stems from your perspective of Satan and Evil.
Evil exists, Satan is a delusion set into motion by the Essenes and further used to their advantage by the Christians and especially the Roman Church.

Just to clarify: 'Satan' first appears in the OT and is, in my opinion, fully examined in Job. Thus, 'Satan' was 'created' by Jewish authors and is part and parcel of Judaism.

More clarification: Identity is solely based upon The Other, meaning that we identify ourselves and our 'things' by what we/they are not, through opposition and difference.

From what I understand the Biblical God is also supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. But he created evil. Doesn't that sound somewhat... illogical?
Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being tolerate evil?

An omnipotent God has the power to remove evil
An omniscient God knows where evil is
A morally perfect God would be motivated to remove evil
Yet evil persists.

What does this tell us about the biblical God?
And if God is all three of these things, then why does evil persist?

it tells me your a fool.

tell me how can one be morally perfect without some form of contrast.

You ever get the feeling in Job that God and Satan have tea together. [ill paraphrase from memory]

G: so where have you been now
S: here there and everywhere in between

G: ah so what did you see

S: a world of rotten foolish men

G: then you mustnt have met Job hes perfect.

S: no hes not. take all he has and he shall spit in your face.

G: we shall see.

cant you picture them having tea together like freinds.

Thanks for that little bit.


A valid point. Personally I don't think that the problem of evil shows that God does not exist, but rather that the God we think exists is probably a lot different than the one people commonly believe in. However, I'm going a long the lines of evil happening, but God taking care of it, not evil being wiped from existence. I think thats what the problem of evil strives for too. You cannot be good without something to compare yourself to, i.e. an evil. However, if God were truly morally perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient, then why does he not do away with evil? Why is evil persistent in the world?

I would like to point out the evidential problem of evil, as formulated by Paul Draper:
1. Gratuitous evils exist.
2. The hypothesis of indifference (HI), i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
3. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.
A better explanation for theism is that the God we think exists isn't exactly what we think it is.

I was thinking more a long the lines of Christianity than Judaism. Christianity distorted the God-Satan relationship, where, from what I understand, the Jews views 'Satan' as more of an adversary than as the direct opposite of God. Satan is just doing his job, hes not some evil God/man hating fallen angel.

I agree with these sentiments exactly. ;P

I honestly do not know why any of us are here. Or what the meaning of life is, or anything like that. The more I think of it, the more I think it's just a big game to God. ...No offense to God or any believers or anything. It's just sort of the impression that I get. God has the power to do anything in His will; He created us, He can destroy us, He can send whom He wants to hell, etc., and also He knows everything already. So by creating us, and giving us free will, he knew that he was creating evil along with it. ...Well, we could also say that when He created the angels, since apparently not all of them are as loyal to Him as one would have thought. And apparently, like I said in another post, God knew that when he created the angels, one would rebel against Him, and be a sinner and tempt mankind. ...And God willingly goes through with it, because, perhaps, it is a test to mankind. He wants to test us, and to see which side we'll eventually fall on. Which, doesn't really make sense to me since God knows the outcome already . But perhaps Satan doesn't know this, and it's more of a game that God is playing with Satan. Kind of like a card game where God is holding five aces (), and the devil is left with a 3 of clubs, five of spades, 10 of hearts, and a pair of kings. It's an impossible win for the devil, and God knows this, but lets the game play on anyway in order to show him that the ultimate fate of mankind is to be with God.

...And to be honest, if God is all perfect to begin with, why would one of His own angels rebel against Him in the first place? ;P It's kind of different for us, since we have never really been in direct contact with God, but the angels have dwelled in Heaven with Him, and knows for a fact that He exists. It just seems like a contradiction that a perfect being would have someone who knows of Him and has dwelled with Him, but rejects Him anyway.

You children have little concept of perfect
if you were god what would you do with his power?

and after that once you get bored what then

Why would a perfect being be bored?

It's a misconception that Christians see Satan as "the direct opposite" of God. Christians also believe that God is in control of Satan. It's not like Satan and God are two opposing and equal forces vying for supremacy. God created Satan, and it was for the purpose of accusing humanity. That is as the Jews believe. Gideon Mage once told a Jewish parable about a wise king who decided that his heir would inheret his kingdom only if he remained celibate to marriage. His son/heir agreed to this. The King then paid a beautiful woman to try and seduce his son, to see if he would truly hold up his end of the agreement. The woman was distressed and did not want to do it, but ultimately agreed to the King's wishes.

I never did find out how that parable ended, but it is identified that the King is God, the son is us (humans) and the beautiful seductress is Satan (the accuser). That makes sense to me, and fits in with what I know about God and Satan. If there can be said to be a difference, it is in the exact nature of this seductress. I believe that Satan enjoys "living in rebellion" (tempting others) and would do so even if it were not in God's designs for him to do so (hence the God-hating, man-hating imagery) - and this is carried out in the view of Satan's rebellion against God. In contrast, the parable seems to imply that the Jews see their Satan as a "reluctant" accuser - not really wanting to, but dutifully obeying God nonetheless.

The difference is in the motives then, but both agree that it is done by God's design, with God being supreme, controlling Satan in both situations. At least, that is how I and most of the Chrsitians I have met view this.

Just a few thoughts to consider,

Bin awhile since I read the Bible(I went to the book store intending to get a couple of them but forgot why I was there and bought some comic books instead :/) so im not exactly sure how the real 'Satan rebellion' story goes because I watch alot of TV, movies, and comic books that kind of take that story and change it around. Is Satan given the job of the accuser before or after his rebellion?

Does a rebellion imply that angels have free will?

If I believe in christianity I believe in what you just said but I think Satan would have always wanted the job because he doesn't like us. But if he did like us then why rebel? Didn't he rebel because God favored us more then the angels?



Is being bored a sign of imperfection?

^The biblical evidence of a "rebellion" as such is quite minimal. There are only three passages throughout the whole of the Bible, two in the Old Testament, one in the New Testament (and the NT one was referencing the OT ones). In both Old Testament cases, the passage is a prophecy against different Kings. The kings think themselves wise but the Bible claims they are really fools. And in the middle of this prophecy against them, the author references Lucifer, who once felt himself favoured by God but in his pride felt himself better than God and rebelled against him, taking some angels with him, being cast out of heaven. These passages contrast that event with the current king and his soon-to-be-downfall.

As such, some claim this reference to a rebellion in heaven is entirely allegorical, intended to simply show these kings the folly of their actions in disobeying God. After reading the two OT passages, I think one of them could be allegorical, the other one, I do not think likely. As a general rule, I like to have my beliefs corroborated by other parts of the Bible, but with the rebellion, there just aren't enough passages to get a clear-cut picture. My semi-amateurish conclusion is, then, that it could be either, or perhaps neither. We think of "rebellion" in such physical terms but must remember that we are not speaking of physical beings - how does "rebellion" work in this situation?

What is clear though, is that Satan is given the role of accusing angel (prosecuting attorney, in modern terms) and cannot act without the express permission of God. I like the Jewish parable I mentioned earlier, I think it explains the roles adequately. And as I said, probably the biggest difference between mine and the Jewish belief is regarding whether Satan "enjoys" his role as accuser (and of course, I could be wrong, but judging by the parable told to me, the Jews seem to see him as a reluctant accuser - if any Jew would like to confirm or correct that assumption, feel free to post now).

All the best, Cadet

Given that God would be all powerful and all knowing and Satan is a creation of God then surely Satan is a tool of God. How that works is kind of confusing. Does Satan know he is doing Gods work or does he think he think he is going against God by tempting us? Does Satan like us but tempt us anyways because he is obeying God's will or does he tempt us because he hates us? If a rebellion occurred then I would think that means angels have free will. The Bible doesn't seem to go into any detail about this and I guess thats because its not really important to know why it is but just that it is. Of course the bible isn't really a book of explanations or history but meant to be more of a book that teaches faith...we can always hope for a director's cut of the bible I guess

Paranoid Android mentioned a parable before.

i do not agree with your analysis of the parable.

yes the king is god
and yes humanity like his son
but the seductress is just satan's tool.
Satan is the part of the king that chooses to test his son. or should i say the logical reasoning "i have promised my kingdom to someone i gave free-will. i should ensure he chooses to remain true to his word"

weak men flee from temptation or give in to it.
strong men simply ignore it

On this part at least, I would totally agree. Satan is most definitely being used by God to accomplish his purpose/s (according to the Bible, at least). I don't think that Satan was a "fly in the ointment" that God did not expect. Satan was a part of God's plan. Whether this plan involved Satan "rebelling" or not, I do not think really matters - the effect is much the same, either way.

The rest is speculation, and yes, to an extent you are correct that the Bible doesn't see this as important and so does not go into a great deal of information. As touched on briefly in my previous post, I don't like basing entire doctrines on such a small amount of textual information, so I'm open to all posibilities in this regard, and (on account of the meaning being the same regardless of interpretation) I don't think it really matters too much.

Just a few thoughts to consider,

Good pull, P.A., remembering Gideon's parable.

For the Jewish faith, Satan's purpose in seducing man away from [G-d] poses no problem because Satan is only an agent of [G-d]. As a servant of the Almighty, Satan faithfully carries out the divine will of his Creator as he does in all his tasks.

Satan is one of the many angels mentioned in the Bible. It is worth noting that the Hebrew word for angel is malach, meaning "messenger." The same is true for the English word angel, derived from the Greek word angelos, which also means "messenger." Throughout the Bible, an angel is a messenger of [G-d] who carries out the divine will of the Almighty. There is not one example in the Jewish scriptures where any angel, Satan included, opposes [G-d]'s will.

In no part of the Bible is this more evident than in the Book of Job. In the first chapter of Job, Satan appears with other angels before [G-d] and suggests that Job's steadfast faithfulness would not withstand personal pain and utter destitution. Satan then requests from [G-d] the chance to test Job's virtue. The Almighty grants this request, but He meticulously outlines for Satan what he may and may not do when putting Job to the test. Satan obediently follows his Creator's instructions. Job is immediately put to the test and, by the third chapter, begins to struggle. He questions his Maker as to why he was created and, in a moment of despair, wishes aloud that he had perished in his mother's womb. Still, by the end of this unparalleled biblical narrative, Job's virtue prevails over Satan's unyielding torment.

While in Christian terms Job's personal spiritual triumph is a theological impossibility, in Jewish terms it stands out as the embodiment of [G-d]'s salvation program for mankind. In Deuteronomy 30:15, the Torah attests to this principle and in Isaiah 45:7, the prophet echoes this message when he declares that the Almighty Himself creates evil.

Since when? I know next to no Christians that believe Satan is an actual entity. Very few believe in satan actually.

I don't belive in Satan, I'm a christian, I don't even necessarily believe in evil people either. Evil deeds, yes.... just turn on the nightly news to see that...

I don't know where you got the idea that to believe in God you have to believe in Satan. I know VERY few that do.

All the christians i know believe in satan...

I find your interpretation very interesting Michael and bear with me as I know you teach about this in your rhetoric class , but for me it is not spelled out so clearly, such a harmonization may offer some consolation to suffering but it seems that the message is 'not to question god' least of all condemn...for one doesn't know the purpose of the grand scheme of things( keeping in mind I may have the christian mindset in this case ) ... for me this has lead to a wealth of atrocitys that have not served humanity...IMO...


To the OP...I have heard many, many christains remark to others that you have to beleive in satan to beleive in god...I found it so illogical i never probed further.......

Thanks mklsgl I agree with you on the large part. If you could though, would you mind expanding on your last paragraph? What do you mean by Job's spiritual triuph being a "theological impossibility" in Christian terms? I don't think it's impossible. It's a story of a man of great Faith who despite having everything taken away still trusted in God - I don't see any impossibility about it. It is that Faith which saves us Christians just as it was with Job..... at least, that's how I see it.

And I still do tend to take the view that Satan "enjoys" his role as accuser, even if he is doing it by God's order. Suffice it to say, nothing that Satan does can be done without first receiving authorisation from God....... biblically speaking, that is

All the best, Mkl

But Job does question God. He questions his situation, he questions his surroundings, he questions his "friends", he qustions God. At one time he cries out against God. But ultimately, he Trusts God, and that is the powerful message Job brings - Trust in God, even through hardships. I do not see that as the same as "do not question God".

Just a thought,

Robbie, the point of the story i was addressing.was Me's post "More clarification: Identity is solely based upon The Other, meaning that we identify ourselves and our 'things' by what we/they are not, through opposition and difference."...

I concur Job is very integral to the path of the faithful, do not question, except on faith in essence that is what faith is..as this story illustrates this beautifully i must say ...yet that is a very shallow peer into this story, I am interested in the golden yummies Michael will contribute...


Dr.Michael S. is teaching a Rhetroic Class at university over the summer and one of the stories he covers is Job.and perhaps he would share with us.....(puppy dog eyes me ...)

That is correct..satan was created by those that 1st begun to write the bible..for thats when people 1st heard of this character!!!

P.A.: Isaiah 45:7 and Deuteronomy 30:15, however, pose a serious theological problem for Christians who maintain that [G-d] did not create Satan, the angel of evil. According to Christian doctrine, Satan was the highest-ranking angel who, through his own act of spiritual defiance and outright disobedience, became the chief adversary and slanderer of [G-d] and the embodiment of evil in this world. In Christian theology [G-d] never created evil; He is only the author of righteousness and perfection, as you maintained in your question. Therefore, [G-d] could never create something as sinister as the devil himself. Rather, Satan's unyielding wickedness is the result of his own spiritual rebellion.

Although this well-known Christian doctrine has much in common with the pagan Zoroastrian Persian dualism out of which it was born, it is completely alien to the teachings of the Jewish faith and the words of the Jewish scriptures. In fact, the Christian teaching that Satan was originally intended by [G-d] to be a good angel but, in an act of outright defiance, ceased to function as [G-d] had intended him to, suggests that [G-d] created something imperfect or defective.

This biblical principle, however, was apparently too problematic for the Christian translators of the NIV Bible (New International Version). They clearly recognized that a Bible which asserts that [G-d] creates evil calls into question one of Christendom's most cherished teachings on salvation. How can the church insist that man is totally depraved when his [G-d] placed him in a world where he is free to choose good over evil? How can the church hold to a doctrine of election or predestination when free will is man's to express? How can Christians maintain that [G-d] did not create evil when the Jewish scriptures clearly state otherwise?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supra: Keep in mind that during era, the bible authors' audience would find it extremely problematic (to put it lightly!) to have an heroic character who questions [G-d]'s authority ultimately triumph. Job is a tragic figure who only reclaims that "harmony" (which he completely lost) after reifying his Faith.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No we do not. A search within the Hebrew reconciles the misleading English translation and the use of the word evil as it appears in both Isaiah 45:7 and Deuteronomy 30:15. Evil in that case means calamity and is the Hebrew word ra'. This is not the same as ra'a' as used in the following scriptures which is wickedness. Naturally your view will most likely ignore the difference between ra' and ra'a' because it is something your view cannot reconcile or explain what the difference is between these two similar words in the original tongue.

Evil as used in Leviticus 5:4 and and Proverbs 24:8 is ra'a' and means wickedness. This is not what God has which your view attempts to claim he does just by going by the English translation.








According to Christian New Testament scripture you mean.





There are parallels also in the Old Testament. In Ezekiel 28 the words are said to be given to the King of Tyre but the clues in bold below are speaking about the dragon of Revelation and the serpent of Genesis. It is the power behind the kingdoms of earth (Matthew 4:8-9, John 12:31, 2 Cor. 4:4.)



Isaiah 14 makes a similar statement concerning the King of Babylon but speaks to the darkness behind him.




It is not Dualism. The angels who fell had free will and chose to rebel against God. We also have free will and can choose as far as the biblical view is concerned.



Oh noes not the NIV is evil again!

Free will and destiny coexist. God has no evil in Him. These two points are easily illustrated using scripture.

From a more secular view this is also not true for Persian dualism had no effect on Christianity or the greater Hellenistic or Roman worlds. Christianity is mainly derived from Jewish thought and while the Gnostics who came later subscribed to Dualism they do not define what is written within the Bible but had their own extrabiblical beliefs known as the Gnostic texts which demonstrate a remarkable contrast to the earlier canonical texts of Christianity.

Also Persian belief had little affect in what became Judaea. Under Persian rule the Israelites were allowed to rebuild their Temple in Jerusalem and from that time were known as very zealous in their belief of a monotheistic deity known as the God of the Israelites and the Judeo-Christian God. Perian Dualism then never transfered over into the Christian thought stream or the Greek or Roman spheres.



Ferguson, Everett. "Backgrounds of Early Christianity" Wm. B. Eerdmans. 2003 p 287-289

Source



Wacher, John. "The Roman Empire" Barnes & Nobles Book. 1997 p 190

O.o? What kind of Christians do you talk to? Every christian I know believes in Satan...(except you of course).

yet using scripture God created evil. as any artist knows we put ourselves into what we create.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6)

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

You glossed over this Ripley:

ra` "evil, bad" - like tob which means "good" ra` has a wide and non-specific range of meaning. Unlike tob, of which Amos makes average use, ra` is more frequent in this book. It partners tob at 5:14-15 and 9:4; in 3:6 it refers to the "evil" or "disaster" which God will bring as punishment (as it does at 9:4 and by implication at least 9:10); 5:13 and 6:3 in differing words refer to an "evil time" or "evil day".

yet in strongs Hebrew dictionary and Heartlight search no word ra' is found.

The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Search Results: Ra`
No entries found matching 'Ra`'

but -

Ra`a` raw-ah'
Parts of Speech TWOT
Verb 2191,2192
Definition


1. to be bad, be evil

7451. ra' (rah)

7452


From ra'a'; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral)


adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. Feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).


see HEBREW ra'a'

anyway you look at it -

God created evil.

Well my copy of Strong's has the definition of both but perhaps your source does not. Either way here are actual links for those wanting to know the difference.

Lexicon Results for ra` (Strong's H7451)

Lexicon Results for ra`a` (Strong's H7489)

I would encourage anyone who wants to know the difference to also compare the word in how it is used in other scriptures and also how they are used in the full context of the chapter they are placed in. Reading the chapters before and after will also provide an even greater context of the themes they are placed in.

Of course one view is that having the Spirit also helps in understanding the Word since after all it is a guide to attaining it with alongside prayer. This view is of course one given by the Word itself. Naturally those claiming God is wicked are usually the same ones who do not believe in all the Word.

anyway you try to cut it = God created evil. Creates evil.

First, I do agree with the general sentiment that God created evil - but this is on the basis of who God is. God created a set of laws for us to follow. To follow these laws is to "do good". To not follow them is to "do evil". In this sense, God creates evil simply on the basis of who he is (ie, everythign that is not what God has stated to be Right). If no evil existed then all there would be was unwavering obedience to God. However, Isaiah 45:7 is not one of those passages that support this. Clovis has made a good commentary on it already, but just to add, I'd like to point out the wording of that passage. Isaiah 45:7, states that God creates both light and dark and then makes peace and...... *and what*? Some have translated it as "evil", but in light of the imagery being used, particularly the opposites, it does not make sense. The word translated as "evil" has overtones of "calamity" or "distress" (or in a modern sense, we could say "disorder"). So Isaiah 45 states taht God creates both light and dark (opposites), and makes peace and creates evil (not opposites, barely even related)..... or makes peace and creates disorder (also opposites).

Which would you think more appropriate?