Albert reads Michael's 'Devil' column that he responded to Zjabs with. Repost from 2008
by Albert 1

9196562
# 1. 10/27/08 10:18 AM by Michael - Las Vegas
Technically speaking this column was not supposed to air. It's a post-dated piece that slipped through when I wasn't paying attention.

Editor's Note: The same thing happened to MK last week. Nevertheless the topic was still one of interest and worthy of some input from any thinkers that may be left around here.



42663533
# 2. 10/27/08 2:17 PM by Jonathan
I think you misunderstand. Yes the God made the Devil, but the Devil made himself evil.

God made Satan in the same sense that a parent makes a child. God is the spirit father of numberless courses of spirits including Christ, you, and me. Satan is one of God's spirit children. So God made Satan in that sense.

But Satan decided that he had a better plan than Christ's; he would save mankind from their sins by removing their freedom to choose, and so all would return to God. Attractive offer with a lot of catches. As the spirits wouldn't choose they wouldn't grow and so the time of trials and testing would do nothing more than provide a body. And Satan wanted all the credit and glory, he wanted God's position.

God didn't want this. He put it to a vote.

Christ's plan was presented. We would all be born, live and die as a result of our choices and those of others. We would be responsible for our own fates. Christ would come, suffer, bleed, and die to show us the way back, pay for our sins, and bring home all those who so choose to follow. And all the glory and honor would be God's.

Everyone voted. Debates rocked the heavens, and finally it was settled. Christ's plan won. But Satan wasn't happy and wouldn't follow. He still coveted God's position. His followers rejected the new plan. So they were cast out to become the Devil and his angels. And to this day they seek to lead God's children away to share in their misery, and bring God's plans to naught.

(God is wiser, than they are cunning.)

The Devil made himself into the epitome of evil, by seeking to usurp God's throne. So there is a strong and important distinction between God making Satan, and Satan making himself the Devil.

Thank you.

Editor's Note: According to how I have the story God knows all that that will happen, so he knew by creating Satan that innocents would suffer.

He still did it.

Of course in my spiritual paradigm things are very different than what you illustrated.

My God is not a man-like being with emotions and such and man is not made "in the image of God"

My God is for the most part unknowable and especially indescribable with words.

I do thank you for the response.



42663533
# 3. 10/27/08 3:30 PM by Jonathan
But that's adding another criteria. So if we do, let's add more.

God knows us all, because he was an observant parent. He learned our personalities, likes, dislikes, and interests better than any human parent could. From his knowledge he knows what choices we most likely would make in any given situation.

God also gave us lessons to teach us to choose right from wrong. But ultimately the decision is always ours.

Did God know that one of his children would betray him premortally and become the Devil? I can't rightfully say as to my knowledge it has not been revealed. But I believe it possible yes.

Does this mean that God knowing that Satan would likely become the Devil, should have not created him? I am a man and should not dwell on such things. But to me it is like arguing, "If you knew your child would grow up to be Hitler (Bin laden, Hussein, Castro, Gangeis Kahn,...) would you abort?"

I know that in the premortal life Satan's path was no more set in stone than ours is here. He could have turned aside at any point. He was doubtless given chance upon chance to return to the fold before it was too late. Until Satan made his choice, it wasn't final.

Once the choice was made, God could no longer redeem him. And so God performed the only mercy left to him and cast Satan and his followers out. And yes it was mercy. To dwell with a perfect being when you are imperfect is torment.

Satan made himself. The same way you made yourself who you are. God can receive no blame for Satan's acts and choices, no more than you can honestly receive you the acts and choices of your children.

Thanks.

Editor's Note: When you tell me what "God can not do" you are shifting the concept to one of a limited sbility. Finite vs infinite.

I prefer the infinite variety.



42663533
# 4. 10/27/08 4:20 PM by Jonathan
I just realized that this is probably more in line with what you're looking for than my previous responses. If God is all-knowing, then God must be infallible. Therefore, He could make no mistakes.

God only speaks the truth. God is incapable of evil. God "made" Satan. Therefore Satan was not a mistake nor evil when created, or else God is a liar.

Satan was not evil when created. Satan is now evil. Therefor Satan became evil.

God refuses to remove free choice from his children. Everyone is responsible for their own acts and choices. Satan rebelled and became evil. Therefore Satan is evil as a result of his own actions, is responsible for those actions.

God is in fallible, makes no mistakes, is truth, and good. The Devil exists and is evil. Therefore the Devil's existence is not a mistake of God.

I think that's more in line with what you were looking for.

Editor's Note: I can agree with about 99% of the statements you made here.

What I see as God is more of an intelligent force with a positive bias.

Change is accomplished by not controlling everything including free will.

It is from the small percentage of un planned or randomness that true change emerges from.

The result of change that is not consistent with the main design ultimately fails, the other grows

I see evil as the inconsistent aspect. The triumph of evil would be the end of reality. True good eventually triumphs but not on our timetable.

I see life as a unified principle which includes all animal and vegetable.

I do not see man as a seperately created race but rather an advanced consciousness instilled in a race that probably killed off the missing links which lead back to the ape-monkey line.

I still see much relating to the judgement of good and evil as relative to culture and era.

Very little remains consistant throughout recorded and spoken history.

Relativism is counterproductive to the control by authority.

Is there no doubt then that authorities prefer to claim agency and therefore have dominion over others with their interpretation of Absolute Truth.

I'm not denying the possibility of such a truth but I'm more than skeptical of anyone or group claiming the ability to correctly interpret it.

BTW the Roman Catholic Church agrees with this version of human evolution.

Thanks for your comment and I'm looking forward to more.

You are welcome to check out my early writing here.

My take on Genesis might be a good target for you.



39733743
# 5. 10/27/08 10:03 PM by Jonathan
No, telling what "God could not" do did not move to a 'limited sbility' (sic). God himself set the laws of redemption and all other laws. He knows them in full. He can not go against those laws and yet expect us to obey them, that is hypocrisy, a form of lying. And God is truth incarnate, so he cannot be a hypocrite. Again by His own rules. His limitations are the ones He sets. He gave us free choice, and mandated that it not be removed. So not even he will remove it. Since he will not violate any of his rules, he cannot redeem those who do not follow them.

The problem is, you have asked a Complex Question (Meaning a question that cannot be answered in a small paragraph or even volumes because of all the necessary minutia that must also be discussed.), and so there is a 'flaw' in every possible answer.

So the simplest answer is this. The Devil and his evil is not a flaw that can be blamed on God.

Thanks. (Now to read the response to the other comment.)

Editor's Note: I'll respond to both in the adjacent posting



39733743
# 6. 10/27/08 10:26 PM by Jonathan
When there is not 'controls' on things, the result is not termed 'change' but goes by the name of chaos. There are Laws established in the fabric of the universe. These Laws set everything in motion, and affect everything from the physical to the spiritual. Gravity holds us to the Earth because of one of these controls. A kite flies because of the string that holds it in place (cut the string the kite will begin to tumble from the air.) Many people look at "control" and "law" as a barrier to freedom, and not guides and aids to growth. A cow in a pasture is free to eat, move and sleep where and as it chooses. Within that pasture it is safe and protected. Sometimes the cow violates the fence - the law/control/restriction - and seeks the gardens outside. Then there is danger. The cow could be stuck in mud (We once had to get one out of a mud hole, took hours.), step in a hole, wander onto a busy road, or otherwise come to a bad end.

The same is true about clothing dress codes at work. Some offices dictate that you must wear a professional appearance of dress shirt and tie. Yet the color, fabric, and cut of the shirt are all yours to make.

We've been conditioned to think that rules are bad. That "laws were made to be broken". But they exist for a reason.

To give another example. Cells are controlled by DNA sequences. Once in a while a change occurs and the cell divides creating a new cell identical to the first. But once in a while the cell violates the law of the DNA and goes haywire. It replicates and replicates. It then violates in mass other laws of the DNA that govern the organism, breaking down the system, causing problems. It is a cancer.

So change occurs within controls, and that is good change. It is the change without control that is wrong.

Evil is just as consistent as good. Why? because by definition evil is the opposite of good, or rather Good brings things into alignment with the will of God (It edifies.), and evil is the opposition to the will of God.

The judgment of good vs evil may vary on the grand details, but the roots are always the same.

Relativism is no more counter to the authority of government than a heaven full of stars are contrary to the light of the moon. Each has their glory and sparkle. And each glorifies the whole. My own views make me, me. And that is beautiful. And the closer two people come to Deity the closer in line they come to each other, but they will always be themselves. Submission to a Greater Will does not obliterate individuality.

I agree that God is an intelligent force with a positive bias. Further I believe that God is clothed in flesh, and seeks to edify his children to a grand status.

---- Okay, I need to go now. Sigh. So little time.

Editor's Note: To that and to much of what you (and Michael) wrote I continue to question the motivations and agendas of your sources.

I will cover the answer to both comments here and may seem to ramble a bit but if anyone on this forum can follow what I write it'll be you so here goes for what it's worth. BTW Peter has called me a blasphemer for some of my past writings in this area, a label I freely admit to after looking up the word in my dictionary.

I see something which you probably call "natural law". It is how things work in the physical time-space dimension.

What you state as chaos I see as a type of order I can't get my head around as chaos would be impossible as contrary to natural law which always identifies a prior cause for any effect.

I see a harmony in the all of existance based upon this natural law.

What is seen again as contrary to it, dampens and dissipates due to a lack of sustinance.

The concept of time is only a relative one, having no relavance in the spiritual dimension.p I know exists.

I think that the lesson of Genesis was that of the dawning of human consciousness, not that disobedience to God is a big no-no.

The disobedience angle in my opinion, is an attempt by authorities in charge of printing Bibles at the times to maintain control of their subjects. All to do with Ceaser and nothing with Christ.

I see Christ's principles as a good way for humans to socially interact on a mundane level as the involved psychological principles he presented are in concert with natural (God's) laws.

I see most of man's pronuncements on spirituality as error prone.

They would be expected to be as the interpreters were not gods but men, regardless of how "divinely inspired " they may claim to be.

I also subscribe the a conceot of "Cosmic Consciousness", where some prophets have been able to tune into a higher form of consciousness. What can result from such is on a quantum order or level of individual human thought but by no means perfect and definitely impossible to bring down to a normal human level of comprehension.

That's about it for now, thanks for contributing your perspective.



5908371
# 7. 2/11/13 5:33 AM by little john - Mount Morris, NY
thumbsup.gif I enjoyed this repost...

It made me think of how the Father of a house in turmoil is the lord of the house and the recalcitrant son is the little devil that the lord still loves...

Maybe that is why there is the parable of the prodigal son.

In my earthly "real" case the court threw me out and put the recalcitrant son in my home...

I still love my son and I believe he has come through maturity to understand his Father better, but the pharisees of family court of mammon will still exact their pound of flesh from my heart no matter what...

But wait? There is a silver lining here. If I just be patient, do no harm, be kind, and pay it forward, fate will heal the wounds of a long time...Maybe; just maybe... I just have to have love, faith, hope, and charity...TBC

Editor's Note: John, You paid it forward a long time ago. Think of the candy jar with the small neck. As long as what you hold in your hand stays there that hand will never reach the candy. Let go of that resentment, and memories of a real but now distant past and the candy is yours.

I'm new at this parable thing so maybe I'lll have better words to say what needed to be said some day but these will have to do for now.



7884619
# 8. 2/11/13 7:57 PM by Jay - OR
Albert, I very much approve of your recent notes to John. He is much too fine, valuable, insightful, gifted, and overall intelligent, to continue indefinitely allowing his past to dictate his experience of the present.

As to the existence of a Devil (or "head devil," as C.S. Lewis has answered), I can't help but see evidences of his machinations. Whether there is enough evidence to support a conclusion becomes a matter of choice--and faith. I tend toward a spiritual conviction that he is very real in our unseen world, and very adept at concealing himself from us, that being his first chore.

Editor's Note: Personally, I think we have as a culture created Satan as a concept to better understand the half of a spiritual duality.that in truth is only separate in our collective awareness. In truth, I feel there is no bright line separating the two forces we call good and evil or positive and negative. We use this same type process to analyze other dynamic situations in real time. I have been able to observe this from a perspective displaced from body and ego. My experience is not that unique although my ability to do it can't be turned on and off at will yet. Thanks for the commentary.



7884619
# 9. 2/11/13 7:59 PM by Jay - OR
Albert, I very much approve of your recent notes to John. He is much too fine, valuable, insightful, gifted, and overall intelligent, to continue indefinitely allowing his past to dictate his experience of the present.

As to the existence of a Devil (or "head devil," as C.S. Lewis has answered), I can't help but see evidences of his machinations. Whether there is enough evidence to support a conclusion becomes a matter of choice--and faith. I tend toward a spiritual conviction that he is very real in our unseen world, and very adept at concealing himself from us, that being his first chore.

Editor's Note: This appears to be a dual post.



7884619
# 10. 2/12/13 12:40 PM by Jay - OR
Sorry about that. The ADD of advancing years, I guess.

As to the Devil. I found it interesting that a recent survey indicated our society as a whole (percentage-wise) is abandoning a belief in a deistic God at about the same rate as they are choosing not to believe in a devil.

There is a certain obvious logic in that, but I'd like to suggest that there are more than the one way to interpret and explain that movement.

Editor's Note: As long as we humans exist there will always be multiple ways to state a perspective on the reality we experience. The way we do socially is what I term the "commonly perceived" one that most of us can agree upon for functional purposes. Beyond that there are realities we coalesce around and share in groups and the truly individual ones.

I can only surmise that what you are suggesting may be shared by a large segment of Western Society and possibly be formally incorporated into a religious movement. I suspect my own view on the same subject may fit quite well into one myself even though it may not be one widely held in the West.




include comments