Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 19 2010 at 01:59

This is what Ezekiel 28:15 actually says:

"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

It doesn't talk about Lucifer, it talks about the Son of Man.

EDIT: I see ... apparently the Prince of Tyrus is Satan, and the line is part of a lamentation of the Son of Man addressing Satan. But still, I could interpret this as Satan having been created perfect (including free will) and then choosing unrighteousness (iniquity).

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 19 2010 at 02:17

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 19 2010 at 02:04

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

To start, this collection of threads began painting Christians as fanatic creationists enemies of evolution, it took a long time to prove that most of us don't agree with this, and even when we proved that we accept evolution we were called hypocrites.(Not by you)

Iván

You don't accept the theory of evolution by natural selection - only a few pages earlier you were talking about a literal first couple of humans whom we all descend from and into whom God injected souls. You may profess to accept Evolution because you think you do or because your church told you so, but you really don't.

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420

Posted: September 19 2010 at 03:43

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

ExittheLemming wrote:

I agree with you here wholeheartedly but my question wasn't 'why did God give mortal men freewill?'
My question was why would an entity created 'perfect and without sin' (Satan/Lucifer) need freewill?

Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it.
Ezekiel 28:15 )

Like human soul, Lucifer was created perfect, but corrruption reached him, because every creation of God needs free will in orderto choose between right or wrong.

Iván

Ok that's a bit clearer so what you're saying (I think) is that both angels and mortals were created 'perfect without sin' with the latter having uncorrupted souls until the fall of man via original sin.
That being the case, the source of 'original sin' was the corrupted/fallen angel Lucifer who rebelled against God by choosing the sin of pride. Now everything is 'tickety boo' up to this point BUT:

If God did not create evil but gave all his angels the choice to create it or reject it, ain't this like an ostrich floating weightlessly in space denouncing the Wright Brothers for defying gravity?

So where does the evil come from? Some theology would suggest it cannot be purely 'man made' as that would discount the existence of any demonic supernatural critters (and original sin) plus we can't just blame everything on the devil. (Although I may try this if ever I end up on death row, it seems to work quite well)

In short, I still can't get my head around the idea that the inventor of the only paint in the cosmos blames the graffiti on those using a different brand. Confused

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 19 2010 at 06:04

^ This is the christian view of Lucifer, the islamic view (based upon the same OT back-story) is that Lucifer's pride did not exalt himself above or equal to god, but above man and that he refused the command that all angels bow down before Adam. This was because god had previously ordered the angels to bow to no being but himself and that it was Lucifer's love of god that prevented him from bowing before Adam, unfortunately in stating his case he committed the sin of hubris - "I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay." ~ Qur'an 7:11–12

The christian view is a simplification of the original jewish view and much of the Lucifer back-story was excluded from the OT (as the apocrypha and the pseudepigrapha) and many scholars separate the various names of Satan from being the same person (as Lucifer) and that it wasn't just Lucifer who fell, but many other angels, and their offspring from illicit unions with "the daughters of man".

Of course none of this is "history" - it cannot be taken as a factual account of anything and can only be regarded as a mythological account or an allegorical explanation of why mankind can be wicked and evil - attributing it to some external "tempter" as a way of diverting blame.

What?

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 19 2010 at 10:11

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

This is what Ezekiel 28:15 actually says:

"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

It doesn't talk about Lucifer, it talks about the Son of Man.

EDIT: I see ... apparently the Prince of Tyrus is Satan, and the line is part of a lamentation of the Son of Man addressing Satan. But still, I could interpret this as Satan having been created perfect (including free will) and then choosing unrighteousness (iniquity).

Not exact Mike, the Bible doesn't say the King of Tyre but the ruler of Tyre, being that the power behuind Tyre was Lucifer

but the Biblical quote explains itself:

¹³ You were in Eden,
       the garden of God;
       every precious stone adorned you:
       ruby, topaz and emerald,
       chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
       sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
       Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
       on the day you were created they were prepared.

¹⁴ You were anointed as a guardian cherub,

       for so I ordained you.
       You were on the holy mount of God;
       you walked among the fiery stones.

¹⁵ You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

Also remember that the Old Testament is mostly allegorical.

ExittheLemming wrote:

Not angels and mortals, angels and inmortal human soul.
God didn't created evil, God creation hasn't reached perfection (If that would had happened we've all be Gods) and in an imperfect creation evil appeasrs, neither humans or angels create evil, much less God.

If you end in death row, it's because you took a voluntary decision to choose evil.

Iván

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 19 2010 at 10:29

^ Isn't this contradicting the verse from the book of John you quoted on the previous page?

"You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created"

vs.

"He (Satan) was a murderer from the beginning"

Ermm

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 19 2010 at 10:37

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ Isn't this contradicting the verse from the book of John you quoted on the previous page?

"You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created"

vs.

"He (Satan) was a murderer from the beginning"

Ermm

Unless I'm with Alzheimer, I don't remember having quoted anything about being a murdered.

It may be in the Bible, but my knowledge of the Bible is not so deep.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 19 2010 at 10:42

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 19 2010 at 10:42

^ You're right, it was ExitTheLemming who posted the verse. But still, it is a contradiction.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 19 2010 at 10:49

Not a contadiction at all, reading part of the quote may seem like that, but read it complete:

Jesus said:

John 8:44: He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth,

Not holding to the truth is self explaining, he was created in the truth but didn't hold to it, in the beginning is a clear reference to the early days, not to the moment of it's creation.

Iván

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420

Posted: September 19 2010 at 10:53

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Not exact Mike, the Bible doesn't say the King of Tyre but the ruler of Tyre, being that the power behuind Tyre was Lucifer

but the Biblical quote explains itself:

¹⁴ You were anointed as a guardian cherub,

       for so I ordained you.
       You were on the holy mount of God;
       you walked among the fiery stones.

¹⁵ You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

Also remember that the Old Testament is mostly allegorical.

ExittheLemming wrote:

Not angels and mortals, angels and inmortal human soul.
God didn't created evil, God creation hasn't reached perfection (If that would had happened we've all be Gods) and in an imperfect creation evil appeasrs, neither humans or angels create evil, much less God.

If you end in death row, it's because you took a voluntary decision to choose evil.

Iván

I'm not trying to be difficult here Ivan, but we seem to agree that God created Satan 'perfect without sin and freewill' (the last part I missed) yet you go on to say that God's creations haven't reached perfection.
I don't understand this, how can evil 'appear' in a perfect creation if the creation has to be 'imperfect' for the evil to appear?
Is it the creation's freewill to choose that offers the evil a window of opportunity to appear and make the perfect creation thus imperfect?
If God, angels (fallen or otherwise) nor humans create evil then who does?(Which was my original question several posts ago) Confused

BTW My 'death row' remark was tongue in cheek, being Scottish is not as yet a capital crime Wink

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 19 2010 at 11:01

ExittheLemming wrote:

I'm not trying to be difficult here Ivan, but we seem to agree that God created Satan 'perfect without sin and freewill' (the last part I missed) yet you go on to say that God's creations haven't reached perfection.
I don't understand this, how can evil 'appear' in a perfect creation if the creation has to be 'imperfect' for the evil to appear?
Is it the creation's freewill to choose that offers the evil a window of opportunity to appear and make the perfect creation thus imperfect?
If God, angels (fallen or otherwise) nor humans create evil then who does?(Which was my original question several posts ago) Confused

BTW My 'death row' remark was tongue in cheek, being Scottish is not as yet a capital crime Wink

In the moment of it's creation, the soul was pure and perfect, but it got corrupted. The quote Mike gave me explains it better:

He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth

Simple for me, he was created in the truth and perfection, but didn't hold to it.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 19 2010 at 11:02

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420

Posted: September 19 2010 at 11:30

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

BTW My 'death row' remark was tongue in cheek, being Scottish is not as yet a capital crime Wink

In the moment of it's creation, the soul was pure and perfect, but it got corrupted. The quote Mike gave me explains it better:

He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth

Simple for me, he was created in the truth and perfection, but didn't hold to it.

Iván

Simple for you maybe but to quote Machiavelli 'Where the willingness is great, the difficulties cannot be great' Wink

I think my problem here is with the use of 'the beginning' from the biblical quotation. I can buy the idea of Satan being conceived pure and his volition allowing him to choose evil over good. However what I can't accept is that the 6 day creation had a 'prequel' (a back dated prefaced beginning so to speak) thus conveniently preventing Satan from being conceived impure and thus making his creator culpable as the author of iniquity.
Please be aware that I do respect the theist position but do not share it. (but have enjoyed these exchanges Smile

)

thellama73 View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368

Posted: September 19 2010 at 12:45

What I want to know is why God created mosquitos. Surely we could have gotten along alright without them.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 19 2010 at 13:29

^ so we can clone dinosaurs

What?

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 19 2010 at 14:27

ExittheLemming wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

BTW My 'death row' remark was tongue in cheek, being Scottish is not as yet a capital crime Wink

In the moment of it's creation, the soul was pure and perfect, but it got corrupted. The quote Mike gave me explains it better:

He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth

Simple for me, he was created in the truth and perfection, but didn't hold to it.

Iván

Simple for you maybe but to quote Machiavelli 'Where the willingness is great, the difficulties cannot be great' Wink

)

Genesis doesn't recount the creation of the population of heaven, but deals with populating the Earth. The story simply says "in the beginning god created the heaven and the Earth" and then goes on to detail the six day formation of land, sea and sky and all the flora and fauna that inhabit Earth but doesn't detail anything of what he did in heaven at that time. It could also be argued that the creation week didn't start until god said "Let there be light" so all the heavenly host could have been created after the creation of heaven but before the seperation of light from darkness.

In Job 38 god asks Job where he was when god was laying out the foundations of Earth "while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" implying that the angels were created before the Earth, and possibly even before heaven since they are creatures of fire (plasma) or of light (EM radiation) they do not need a physical domain to inhabit and could have been created before time even.

What?

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 21 2010 at 11:21

Originally posted by Any Colour You Like

Any Colour You Like wrote:

Well, that contradicts things I have read before, including extracts from Mein Kampf. Anyway, I still don't think this is a valid point of distinction. Hitler's religious contempt was mostly irrelevant beyond the fact that he actively persecuted only one group - the Jews. He may have claimed some aspects of Christianity were "bland", but he definitely engaged in an active political mutation of religion, nationalism and culture. Such fusion was neccessary to gain and hold support for the Nazi Party as they progressed towards the state which eventually waged a campaign of war and destruction.

I guess, what I'm trying to say was that basically Hitler needed religion to justify much of his rhetoric.

The focus only on jews persecution to know Hitler is quite biased.......Hitler was a monster of the Real politik movement (Carl Schmith, etc) he knew from magistral classes of Maquiavelo

that the first thing to do to settle a party with options to reach power is create the enemy figure, wich jews matched perfectly because of the caracter of unnation people, also because they used an horrible document that even the Ochrana rejected that basically linked comunism with a plot made by international

judaism. Also because he could exploit all the hatred asociated with the jews in cristianity. Also because they settled the back stabbing theory

But that is only one trick he did......Hes strong apreciation of Muslim world is because it was a warriors religions au cointraire than cristianity, thats why he wanted Martel to fail....it would be very easy for him to erradicate this molest values as compasion....all this subtleness about the earthly power of cristianity.

He yell when wagner make its beloved arian knights with the blood of Cristh

said again the old motto "Durch mittleid Wissen"

In those ages the question of atheism was evrywere in German culture, Hitler doubted that should be cristianism in Germany, he was a paganist.....not even, he was satanist: "you know let the weak die, is our duty to kill him"...

An this kind of values that explain much more what happened in Germany, than paganism , or a antiilustrated reaction in the cristian world...this were things Hitler used but not his main stand.

Chesterton was also a reactionary catholic.........but you can find some nexus between mister Jumping Jack Flash and the good ole boy Chesterton was? Nope....Like night and day...,especially read ( wich is so funny) the defense Chesterton made of womans...this antiviril motive wold make hitler vomit, Let him vomit he deserves it (Hitler a viril man? ja jaja....maybe thats way he have all this idealizations of virilness). Chesterton could be an old chap but is sincere, to the point it makes you cry.

In relation with Darwinism i dont want to be misundertood:

First not evolutionary trend in science is darwinist...maybe few but thats not very important in a historical consideration.

Second is obvious that darwinism was used all around the occidental countries to settle some very nassty values on ( my opinion, poor) scientific grounds

You just have to read Malthus from wich this theologian (who was NEVER a scientist) named Charles took his revelation ( of course in tune with calvinist view of the god chooseness of the richest...and literally putting the bible upside down)......i mean if your stomach is able to digest such a thing.

Social darwinism was not called like that by a funny accident, i tell you again the Darwin family was involved in the eugenic movement........and eugenics were finally used in the concentrations camps.

By the way....is not curious the incredible support Hitler had surged between the occidental world....a lot of them saw him as a social darwinist with guts....( i know that the comunist fear was the main reason....but again it was something easy linked with social darwinism....¿We are gonna let the weaks, the dumbs, the poor, overturn society......no we need a strong man to instill fear in those poor, weaks, uncultured hearts so they may return to labour without questioning......and, here is the main point, return nature process of selection to the correct track.

Also is evident that the survival of the fittest is a truism, a circular thinking of the worst kind:

Who is the fittest? The one who survives. Who is the one who survives? The fittest....ad nauseam.....theres no other way to descrive the fittest or the one who survives in darwinism....is something similiar to San Anselmo ontologic argument on the existence of God

A=A

Hes argument on natural selection were based on artificial selection by breeders in farms!!!!!

The way they choose the ones with special characteristics for creating types...is firstly theleological, a porpuse is seecked

...and then is not the way nature works...Why? Because in nature the unselected survive also!!!!

As long as i see not a single taxon has been spunned out nor by natural selection, nor by experiments in the labs, could be for the long time needed for such processes to arise?...yes it could......It could be areasonable doubt to mantain that its not enough to mantain such unverificable Hypothesis...as a Dogma....heres were we notice the church of atheism clearly...they are substaining an unverificable hipothesys as a Dogma ( no problem with me with an hipothesis as such)...like creationism....the solution is to learn both? No Yeep

, how about a comparatory history of evolution as idea in relation with biology? How about studing some of the denosted Lammarck...i dont know just humble suggestions

About this specific attempt of Hitler into ( in a way disstorted, but not so disstorted- one semipositive thing we could say about Darwin is that he was not suporting endogamy au contraire but somether staments seems to contradict this basic view) darwinism, just see proyect lebensbraum in youtube ( i dont know if i spell it correctly)...and by the way see ifs not the opossite of familiar cristian education.

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 21 2010 at 11:37

"En dicha carta, fechada el 26 de Julio de 1872 en Beckenham, Kent, Darwin comenta lo interesante que le había parecido el ensayo elaborado por el citado jurista, en el que sugería que el gobierno debería imponer restricciones al matrimonio de los individuos "no aptos" para el servicio militar"

Sandin,2000.

I will resume Darwin is interested in an essay by a jurist in wich it was said that there must be restricctions to the weddings between person that been declared unadapted in military service.

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 21 2010 at 11:45

For the spanish speakers:

http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/msandin/darwinismo_social.html

What do you think on these Ivan. Il be glad to hear what you have to say

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 21 2010 at 12:34

Social Darwinism ... what a can of worms. If you want to know who was an inspiration for Hitler:

Martin Luther

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 21 2010 at 12:52

Smearing Darwin with Social Darwinism, eugenics and ethnic cleansing doesn't affect the Theory of Evolution one iota, so I really cannot be motivated to comment further - it's a completely non-argument.

What?