If God is all-powerful, why doesn't he kill Satan?

[Abramelin]

Solve for X.

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Abramelin

[Guyver]

23 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I see your point. God killed people. Assuming God is real, that's a fact. 

What I said was mainly to be construed with our current culture, not the culture of those ancient stories. As in "Why doesn't God kill Satan... NOW?". The "now" is very important. 

Regardless the question of Free Will has been discussed for millennia, and I don't anyone's ever written a proof that was totally convincing to everyone.

I don’t see how this logic plays out DC.  The Bible says God killed people.  Did he?  How would anyone know?  It’s possible that God exists but didn’t kill anyone the way the Bible describes.  Yet, on a macro scale, if there is a God who made the universe and all the life on this planet, then it had killing things in mind as part of the plan because everything dies.  So, we were designed to die, that’s apparent.  But, the type of killing of people the way the Bible describes?  I think that is very debatable.  

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, 029b10 said:

Thomas Paine seemed to believe there was, with his teaching on the two types of thought. And like you said you free to to believe that there is no such thing a divine revelation but then again believing doesn't equate to knowing.  And will I stick with what I know and have seen,

Apparently, this, then must be where you and Thomas Paine part company, albeit myself aligned with him thoroughly.

Belief in Self

Though Paine was a self-proclaimed monotheist (believing in one God), he disdained virtually all organized religion, proclaiming that his only church was his own mind.

 

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. [ The Age of Reason]

 

It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. [The Age of Reason]

 

Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

Edited March 18, 2023 by Hammerclaw

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

I don’t see how this logic plays out DC.  The Bible says God killed people.  Did he?  How would anyone know?  It’s possible that God exists but didn’t kill anyone the way the Bible describes.  Yet, on a macro scale, if there is a God who made the universe and all the life on this planet, then it had killing things in mind as part of the plan because everything dies.  So, we were designed to die, that’s apparent.  But, the type of killing of people the way the Bible describes?  I think that is very debatable.  

So it depends on how each person views the Bible. Some say it is the infallible Word of God. And go to great lengths of mental gymnastics to defend it as such. Some say it is myth and legend written by humans. Some say it is a mix of some being myth, and some being history, and eyewitness testimony.

So whether God directly smote someone, as you said, is debatable. But, if we accept the Bible as being as close to true as possible. Again debatable. But if we do, then God clearly smote people directly, not by using the hands of other humans. Depends on how much of the Bible one wants to accept as True.

Id tend to agree that people, and animals, are designed to die. We are not designed to live forever in bodies such as we have. 

[Sojo]

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

The Bible says God killed people.

Or, "The Bible says the God of the Old Testament killed people" could be another rendering and perspective.

Regards,

Sojo

[jmccr8]

36 minutes ago, Sojo said:

Or, "The Bible says the God of the Old Testament killed people" could be another rendering and perspective.

Regards,

Sojo

Hi Sojo

I can’t say there is no god but can say I doubt the god of the bible exists. There was a lot of mystical beliefs in the times before the bible and after, magic, turning staffs into serpents, parting water, walking on water, feeding thousands with a few fish and a couple of loaves of bread. Other cultures had oracles and their share of magical thinking so it was likely quite simple to pretend that one was gifted by and speaking with a god or gods.

Men killed men in god’s name under the direction of what some man said god told them. I have talked to myself all through my life and such reflections have given me many insights and not once have I ever told myself or others that god revealed anything to me. The world is and always has had it’s share of Marks and always will.

[Guyver]

20 hours ago, Sojo said:

Or, "The Bible says the God of the Old Testament killed people" could be another rendering and perspective.

Regards,

Sojo

The God of the New Testament kills people too.  Ananias and Saphira?  

[029b10]

22 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Apparently, this, then must be where you and Thomas Paine part company, albeit myself aligned with him thoroughly.

If you are so perfectly aligned with the teachings of Thomas Paine then why didn't you quote what he taught on the two types of thought?

After all you are the one who stated that there is no such thing as divine revelation.  But don't confuse recognizing the two types of thought with the thought of the double minded.  Actually Thomas Paine believed all things but had faith in key thing, but wisdom without understanding one can't get it. 

Maybe you can google it.  

22 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Though Paine was a self-proclaimed monotheist (believing in one God), he disdained virtually all organized religion, proclaiming that his only church was his own mind.

Christians, Muslims and Jews are monotheist too, so what is your point?   

On 3/18/2023 at 9:26 AM, 029b10 said:

Thomas Paine seemed to believe there was, with his teaching on the two types of thought.

 

"But though, speaking for myself, I thus admit the possibility of revelation, I totally disbelieve that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by any mode of speech, in any language, or by any kind of vision, or appearance, or by any means which our senses are capable of receiving,"

 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, 029b10 said:

If you are so perfectly aligned with the teachings of Thomas Paine then why didn't you quote what he taught on the two types of thought?

After all you are the one who stated that there is no such thing as divine revelation.  But don't confuse recognizing the two types of thought with the thought of the double minded.  Actually Thomas Paine believed all things but had faith in key thing, but wisdom without understanding one can't get it. 

Maybe you can google it.  

Christians, Muslims and Jews are monotheist too, so what is your point?   

 

"But though, speaking for myself, I thus admit the possibility of revelation, I totally disbelieve that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by any mode of speech, in any language, or by any kind of vision, or appearance, or by any means which our senses are capable of receiving,"

 

 

You can believe in the tooth fairy, for all I care, pal. Maybe if you can't quote the person you're talking about, to verify what you're saying about him, you ought to do some more research or just shut up.

[Sojo]

5 hours ago, Guyver said:

The God of the New Testament kills people too.  Ananias and Saphira?

But is that what it really says? You're sure you've made absolutely no assumptions on how or why they died?

Personally, I'm not sure I could make such a definitive statement on it (even though I do understand why you might presume it).

[029b10]

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

You can believe in the tooth fairy, for all I care, pal.

Is that the one which is the genetic link between man and the monkey he is purported to have evolved from?

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Maybe if you can't quote the person you're talking about, to verify what you're saying about him, you ought to do some more research or just shut up.

So you didn't even know that you didn't know that Thomas Paine taught that there were two types of thoughts which is evident by the fact you didn't even recognize that I quoted hime when I said that he said there were two types of thoughts.  Well at least now you know that you don't know about the two types of thoughts that Thomas Paine taught about, but now that you know you don't know you can start to obtain knowledge about the subject matter.  

But it does illustrate the point that those who summarily dismiss something as being true then by default  that mind set will allow them to summarily accept something which is false as being true,  which in either case is a corrupt thought process.  If not mistaken that corrupt thought process results their being ever learning yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.  

Edited March 20, 2023 by 029b10

[cormac mac airt]

48 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

Is that the one which is the genetic link between man and the monkey he is purported to have evolved from?

A straw man argument as evolution DOES NOT make that claim. 
 

cormac

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, Sojo said:

But is that what it really says? You're sure you've made absolutely no assumptions on how or why they died?

Personally, I'm not sure I could make such a definitive statement on it (even though I do understand why you might presume it).

Have you read it?  God killed them for lying to the Holy Spirit.

[Guyver]

Just like in the Old Testament where God killed the guy for touching the Ark when the oxen stumbled, and he thought it would fall to the ground.  It’s the same God both Testaments.  It’s the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph.

[Guyver]

Technically, that would be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not Joseph.  Although Joseph was quite a hero as well.  Anyway, it’s Jesus Dad.  So ,yeah….same God both Testaments.  Christians need to own that.

[eight bits]

15 hours ago, 029b10 said:

"But though, speaking for myself, I thus admit the possibility of revelation, I totally disbelieve that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by any mode of speech, in any language, or by any kind of vision, or appearance, or by any means which our senses are capable of receiving,

In what way does the bolded portion depict Paine in agreement with you rather than with the other poster? The quote comes from Paine's Age of Reason section II.20. As you say, we can google it, and find the quoted matter in context:

https://www.ushistory.org/Paine/reason/reason36.htm

The "thus" in "I thus admit" is Paine's profession of Deism: believing as he does in a unique creator god, Paine believes that that god can do whatever he pleases. "Thus," Paine cannot exclude his god pleasing someday to reveal himself to somebody. Paine goes on to consider the epistemological difficulties should that ever happen.

I cannot exclude that Elon Musk has sent me a check for a billion dollars. I thus admit the possibility that I am filthy rich, but I totally disbelieve that I am.

Maybe tomorrow? Who knows what it may please Elon Musk to do in the future?

Edited March 20, 2023 by eight bits
link didn't link

[Sojo]

8 hours ago, Guyver said:

Have you read it?  God killed them for lying to the Holy Spirit.

My main point is that New Testament writers may themselves consider the Old Testament God as the object and source of their concept of "God".  Just because they may not make a distinction between the Old Testament God and the New Testament Father, I get the feeling that Christ himself made no direct correlation, and he always new of whom he spoke when he used the word "Father".  And it is my personal belief that Christ was not referring to the Old Testament God when he said "Father". Others are free to continue seeing the two as one and the same, but I do not. (So this addresses your subsequent posts on the matter as well.) I think that even Paul the apostle couldn't bring himself to completely discard the Old Testament concept of god and continued to see them as the same. (Not to say there couldn't have been Old Testament prophetic mentions of Christ.)

To address your question above, I read that they were accused of lying to the Holy Spirit. I don't actually know what happened internally with them when they were each confronted with the accusation and found out that they were lying to everyone including trying to lie to God.

Maybe there actually was some kind of Karmic retribution waiting for them. How, or exactly what was involved in their dying, I don't know.

Heck, I'll admit, I don't even know for sure if it actually happened, and isn't just some metaphor story someone decided to include to make some point of their own.

When I read "scriptures", I do so with full faith that the Holy Spirit will lead and guide me as I read to help me glean  what I need from them, and can get some internal sense of what rings true with respect to my own spiritual progression.

I understand your position, it just doesn't happen to be the same as mine. We will both continue our journeys trying to make sense of things. and choosing what to incorporate into our own personalities or not.

So I guess we just can agree to disagree.

Nothing personal mind you,

Sojo

[+Hammerclaw]

10 hours ago, 029b10 said:

Is that the one which is the genetic link between man and the monkey he is purported to have evolved from?

So you didn't even know that you didn't know that Thomas Paine taught that there were two types of thoughts which is evident by the fact you didn't even recognize that I quoted hime when I said that he said there were two types of thoughts.  Well at least now you know that you don't know about the two types of thoughts that Thomas Paine taught about, but now that you know you don't know you can start to obtain knowledge about the subject matter.  

But it does illustrate the point that those who summarily dismiss something as being true then by default  that mind set will allow them to summarily accept something which is false as being true,  which in either case is a corrupt thought process.  If not mistaken that corrupt thought process results their being ever learning yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.  

What I'm aware of is that this conversation serves no useful purpose, as neither of us is capable of changing the other's mind. While acknowledging rational and irrational thought, Paine dismisses the latter in favor of the former and while acknowledging "revelation" does occur, does not accept nor believes in divine revelation or any claims thereof. Ironic, that you should choose a source to back up your claims that actually and quite literally refutes them.

[jmccr8]

5 hours ago, Sojo said:

My main point is that New Testament writers may themselves consider the Old Testament God as the object and source of their concept of "God".  Just because they may not make a distinction between the Old Testament God and the New Testament Father, I get the feeling that Christ himself made no direct correlation, and he always new of whom he spoke when he used the word "Father".  And it is my personal belief that Christ was not referring to the Old Testament God when he said "Father". Others are free to continue seeing the two as one and the same, but I do not. (So this addresses your subsequent posts on the matter as well.) I think that even Paul the apostle couldn't bring himself to completely discard the Old Testament concept of god and continued to see them as the same. (Not to say there couldn't have been Old Testament prophetic mentions of Christ.)

Hi Sojo

What you are proposing is that there are 2 gods then which creates a bit of a dilemma as the god of Moses would not be the god of Jesus and it was the god of Moses that gave the 10 commandments. The first commandment is thou shall have no other gods before me which would put Jesus and all of his followers in hell because the first commandment is the only sin that god cannot forgive.

[+Hammerclaw]

37 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Sojo

What you are proposing is that there are 2 gods then which creates a bit of a dilemma as the god of Moses would not be the god of Jesus and it was the god of Moses that gave the 10 commandments. The first commandment is thou shall have no other gods before me which would put Jesus and all of his followers in hell because the first commandment is the only sin that god cannot forgive.

He's reinventing the wheel. The two god concept is central to many of the beliefs of "gnostic" sects. 

[Sojo]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

What you are proposing is that there are 2 gods

 

55 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

He's reinventing the wheel. The two god concept is central to many of the beliefs of "gnostic" sects

I'm not sure where or when I expressed a belief in "two gods".  I thought I had always made it clear that I believe there is only one God, original spiritual source, Father, or whatever term one desires to use.

However I do believe there are many that are called gods.

(I kinda feel like y'all just like yanking my chain and trying to tell me what I believe. )

I know it sounds gnostic, but I think it's a little different. I do think spiritual beings can progress and develop, but I still see them as having free will. Sometimes, I think free will allows for  mistakes to be made, but there is always opportunity (and some means of conveying a better understanding) for  things to be remedied or healed when spiritual beings make mistakes due to wrong or selfish thinking.

I find comfort in the fact that a means of having faith in the possibility of forgiveness for past mistakes has been provided for us. For without the possibility of being able to have faith that forgiveness is possible, there could be no force of faith enough to effect the needed change in the individual.

Anyway, the possibility of lying, deception, manipulation, guile, or any other means of false strategy is always available for beings to use if they were so inclined.

I just think the overall plan for universal progression of spiritual beings is comprehensive enough to handle the mis-steps of those beings who are learning about what does and does not work; and what does or does not grant them continued progression toward even greater vistas.

(Corny enough for you?)

Sojo

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Sojo said:

 

I'm not sure where or when I expressed a belief in "two gods".  I thought I had always made it clear that I believe there is only one God, original spiritual source, Father, or whatever term one desires to use.

However I do believe there are many that are called gods.

(I kinda feel like y'all just like yanking my chain and trying to tell me what I believe. )

I know it sounds gnostic, but I think it's a little different. I do think spiritual beings can progress and develop, but I still see them as having free will. Sometimes, I think free will allows for  mistakes to be made, but there is always opportunity (and some means of conveying a better understanding) for  things to be remedied or healed when spiritual beings make mistakes due to wrong or selfish thinking.

I find comfort in the fact that a means of having faith in the possibility of forgiveness for past mistakes has been provided for us. For without the possibility of being able to have faith that forgiveness is possible, there could be no force of faith enough to effect the needed change in the individual.

Anyway, the possibility of lying, deception, manipulation, guile, or any other means of false strategy is always available for beings to use if they were so inclined.

I just think the overall plan for universal progression of spiritual beings is comprehensive enough to handle the mis-steps of those beings who are learning about what does and does not work; and what does or does not grant them continued progression toward even greater vistas.

(Corny enough for you?)

Sojo

Hi Sojo

No I am not trying to make you do, reveal, admit anything it is just that in the part I quoted from your post it seemed as though the god of Jesus was somehow not the god of the Old Testament and that is all I was responding to. I have no problem with you believing in a god as most of the world does even though they may seem to conflict with each other’s personal beliefs in what god is or what god does or wants.

My personal belief is that the word god describes our intelligence and ability to use it to create, modify or influence ourselves and our environment.

We do get people that join discussions that argue that the god of the OT is not the god of the NT so I generally ask for clarification of some sort.

[cormac mac airt]

10 hours ago, Sojo said:

My main point is that New Testament writers may themselves consider the Old Testament God as the object and source of their concept of "God".  Just because they may not make a distinction between the Old Testament God and the New Testament Father, I get the feeling that Christ himself made no direct correlation, and he always new of whom he spoke when he used the word "Father".  And it is my personal belief that Christ was not referring to the Old Testament God when he said "Father". Others are free to continue seeing the two as one and the same, but I do not. (So this addresses your subsequent posts on the matter as well.) I think that even Paul the apostle couldn't bring himself to completely discard the Old Testament concept of god and continued to see them as the same. (Not to say there couldn't have been Old Testament prophetic mentions of Christ.)

Then your belief is in error, firstly because Jesus was a Jew and 1st century Jews STILL worshipped the OT God and secondly because of Matthew 5:17-18 which claims Jesus said.: 

 

Quote

17  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18  For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Belief in the Law or the Prophets originates from belief in the OT God. There’s no getting around it. 
 

cormac

[Sojo]

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

My personal belief is that the word god describes our intelligence and ability to use it to create, modify or influence ourselves and our environment.

And I feel this is congruent with a process wherein beings can become so refined, and their personalities so attuned with spirit as to facilitate a "oneness" among spiritual beings that can provide worlds that are available to all those in "The Kingdon of Heaven".

I think those not yet in "The Kingdom of Heaven" are in development and growth stages, and are restricted from being able to take their not yet matured personalities into places that could in turn create dissonance.

Sojo

[Sojo]

19 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Belief in the Law or the Prophets originates from belief in the OT God. There’s no getting around it. 

 

20 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Then your belief is in error,

I understand that you think the God of the Old Testament is the same that is meant by others and Christ when speaking of God. But I think this is the very conundrum Christ had to deal with while on his mission.

The God of the Old Testament didn't seem to have a problem with bringing fire down from heaven on those considered as non-believing enemies. But when a couple of Christ's disciples recommended the same action he had a different view:

⁵³ And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

⁵⁴ And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

⁵⁵ But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

⁵⁶ For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.

(Luke 9:53-56)

Old Testament God just doesn't seem the same as the New Testament Father Christ spoke of (at least to me).

Just because I don't believe the Old Testament God was Christ's Father, it doesn't mean I think the Old Testament God didn't provide instructions and guidance to the Jewish people on how he wanted them to live and worship him.

I just think Christ had to come and provide a means of getting things repaired and give a way of redemption and renewal for Earth's inhabitants.

Sojo