Now, I am NOT a biblical scholar, and my point of view is decidedly skewed towards Protestantism. There are also others that may have made these observations before, though I’m hoping that perhaps I can maybe just put a slightly different view on some of this. I’m really not trying to “witness” to anyone…this is really just a discussion, and I’m not really sure I want to “debate” anything since I don’t consider myself intellectual enough to be an effective Christian apologist. I have to also state that I don’t pretend to even comprehend the depths of God…but for what it’s worth, I thought I would more fully expand on a thought I started in a reply here which has already generated a couple of questions.
I stated:
This was followed by replies which stated:
and:
First, God created man to be a COMPANION. He already had a whole host of created beings to do his bidding…man was created to be a different sort of creature. Unfortunately, there was a catch. You see, man was still a created being and therefore could not commune with God, and certainly could not be an inheritor in God’s kingdom. So, there is the dilemma…how to make man something higher than a created being, and a part of God’s “family” in the kingdom. The solution: “adopt” man. Make him an adoptive son. But how to go about that?
First step, create an archangel that would lead a rebellion against God. (Note that this angel, and apparently all angels, have free will, otherwise they couldn’t rebel. The other 2/3 of angels that didn’t rebel simply didn’t because God is God.) This is a necessary key to having man become an adopted son. [Adoption is an important thing to understand here. Man, as a created creature, could not be a part of God’s family any more than a pot you create could be a part of yours. It was necessary to make man “adoptable.”]
Second step, create man(kind), knowing that this rebellious archangel would step in, and corrupt God’s ultimate creation. The archangel (Lucifer, Satan, etc…) knew that if he could cause man to sin (disobey God), that man’s inherint communion with God as a created being would be cut off, and man would be eternally separated from God. This would cause man to be more susceptible to Lucifer’s designs, and would also condemn man to a mortal existence, with suffering, pain, and death.
Third step, manipulate events so that God himself could come to earth in human form. This form, as we understand it, was Jesus, the Son of God, who also called himself the Son of Man. Jesus was not only the Son of God, he WAS God, as well. This is a mystery (the Apostle Paul called it such), and moreso for those of us in a Western culture. In the Eastern cultures of the time, it was understood that the firstborn son had ALL of the authority, power, etc. of the father…something we don’t fully equate in Western society. Also, the Son was NOT a created being. He was with God at the beginning, as was the Holy Spirit (the “triune being” and thus, Paul’s “mystery.”)
Fourth step, have this Son become a mediator and a replacement for corrupted man. Since sin was inherited from the first man’s (Adam) actions (this was so because Adam was a created, eternal being…had he been mortal at the time it would not be so), and passed on to all mankind, it was necessary to make a way for that sin to be removed, and thus communion re-established with God. Christ, by acting as a “supreme sacrifice,” created a bridge from man to God.
Fifth step, have Christ descend to Sheol (or Hades, Hell, etc.) and take control of death, hell, and the grave (eternal life) from Lucifer, thus establishing himself as the authority in those realms, as well as the earth.
Sixth step, have Christ return as a resurrected being, PROVING his authority over death. Without a resurrection there is no salvation.
Seventh step, when a person accepts that Christ was the sacrifice to replace him, then that person is reconciled to God and can then have a footing in the kingdom as an “adopted” child. Rejection of Christ works as a “sifting” mechanism, if you will…why would God want anyone to be an adopted son that couldn’t accept Christ and the plan as he laid it out?
(It is necessary to understand that, the final recourse of sin - even original sin brought by Adam - can only be death of both the physical and spiritual body; but since the spiritual body cannot die, it is condemned to a “symbolic” death of eternal damnation. It should also be understood that, before Christ, a way was made for individuals to keep themselves clean before God with sacrifices, obedience to particular laws, etc.)
This has been an INTENSE oversimplification…and there is a lot more to be said about grace, mercy, and God’s omnipotence/omniscience, but that will either come up later in this discussion, or be part of another discussion entirely.
You’ll get your explanation when there is a complete understanding of the working of the human brain, especially its tendency towards superstition and willingness to follow charlatans.
And to the OP, I ask this in full earnest, but why can’t an omnipotent god get rid of “satan” ? Do there exist any entities not created/controlled by god ?
Gyan9,
The answer is that Satan is a tool of God, to bring about his purpose, which was to create a companionship with man. Man, being a created being, could not have true companionship with God, however, so we are back to what God could do to make man a companion and “adopted” son. When the purpose is finally accomplished, Satan will be cast into the lake of fire, along with all of his minions…(the lake of fire is actually separate from “hell” but that is another discussion, too).
The archangel (Lucifer, Satan, etc…) knew that if he could cause man to sin (disobey God), that man’s inherint communion with God as a created being would be cut off, and man would be eternally separated from God.
…and…
Seventh step, when a person accepts that Christ was the sacrifice to replace him, then that person is reconciled to God and can then have a footing in the kingdom as an “adopted” child.
Doesn’t man then just revert to his initial status ? How does it make him “adoptable” ?
So the invisible magician in the sky can only create defective beings? If man is to be a companion, why set it up so that most get eternal agony? It looks as if Satan(?) gets a lot of companionship out of the deal. BTW, wasn’t Satan in God’s presence, yet he turned away. Must not be that good a deal.
It gets very complicated after this point, and you really have to start digging into scripture, but it boils down to the idea that Christ bought and paid for us with his death…since we “belong” to him, we then able to be presented by him to God. Of course, this is a poor analogy, because we aren’t “slaves”…but the idea of redemption comes from this analogy. Because Christ redeemed us, we are now on an equal footing with Christ the Son (but NOT Christ the God-head…there is a difference). Since we are now on an equal footing with Christ the Son, we are joint heirs with him in the kingdom. It actually elevates us above our previous status as merely a created creature.
Dragline,
I’m certainly not trying to be controversial or adversarial in my posts…a condescending tone is unneccessary. That said,
Satan was indeed with God, but decided that he would “be like the Most High.” In other words, he wanted control of heaven, hell, earth, etc…and to kick God out.
Man was NOT in imperfect being at creation…but he was still a CREATED being and could never be a companion. As long as man was maintained in a created status, he could never fulfill his ultimate purpose, which was as a companion to God.
As far as Satan getting the “short end of the stick,” it seems apparent that Satan was not privy to God’s ultimate design. What has to be completely frustrating to Satan is understanding the design NOW and knowing his ultimate end. This would be a prime motivator for Satan to attempt to deceive as many of mankind as possible, since mankind, once understanding his true purpose, would want to be with God, and thus also elevating himself above Satan’s own (original) position! (Satan could never properly be a companion to God, because Satan was a created being with no chance at redemption or “adoption.”)
I should probably clarify that I’m not doing this to convince or persuade anyone of the “rightness” or “wrongness” of anything I’m saying. I’m merely relaying the concepts.
Sorry about the condecension, I usually can discuss these things for hours with out resorting to that. (My wife hates it when I debate door-to-door evangelists on the front porch).
It just seems so strange that you can say with so much certainty that “God wants this” or “God did things this way” just because you think so, or that it is written in a book that you say is divinely inspired, but there is no more proof than for any other religion’s dogma. But when you get to a solid logical inconsistency, like the three in one concept, you come out with “Well, that’s just a mystery, that we cannot grasp.”
If you are so sure of some of the answers, why not all of them?
And you are seriously proposing that Satan, having seen God in all his omnipotent and eternal majesty, was going to eject God from heaven? Where would he, er He, go?
If there is a god they why would he want people to embrace the ignorance inherent in the bible?? The bible says the world was created in 6 days and that Adam and Eve were some of gods first creations. I call bullshit, and point out that there are cromagnon and neanderthal man and that there are dinosars. All of which are far older than the biblical time frame. How can god make the wrld when there are things that are older than god? Then we come to Noah and the Flood, still no dinosaurs so I guess he didnt get 2 of everything. At any rate , just 2 of anything is not enough to support the needed biodiversety to prevent deformitys caused by inbreeding. Then we get to the part where Noah and his family recreate humanity useing stones thrown over their shoulders towards diffrent sides of the mountain. Explain to me how people hatch from rocks? Please dont give me the “God can do anything” shtick. If god can realy do anything then he doesnt need a bunch of zookeepers tossing rocks around to repopulate the earth. Then we have other cultures, like the Chineese and the Aztecs who were going strong at the time of the flood. I guess god didnt mean them in his “flood the whole world” speech.Then there is Jonah and the “big fish”. Since we all know that a whales throat is too small to fit a human and his row boat down it. Guess what, there arent any fish with throats that large either. Well none that would just swallow him whole without a little chewing first. The list of things just goes on and on. Why , if god is so smart , does he encourage blind and mindless faith?? Embraceing ignorance is not a quality I would want my god to have. I would expect a little more tolerance for outside ideas from someone who claims to be omnipotent.
I think you’re mixing up the Bible’s account of the Flood with the account in Greek myth. In Greek myth, Deukalion recreated the human race by throwing rocks. In the Bible, Noah and his family did it the old fashioned way.
Where’s the steps where the marble rolls down the spiral slide and drops down on one end of the teeter-totter which launches the little plastic diver figure into the pool which causes the vibrations that causes the cage to fall on top of the mouse?
Well, many of us don’t read found our faith in God on literal acceptance of Bible stories, but on our knowledge of His reality. “Faith” doesn’t have different meanings, exactly – if I have faith in, say, Triskadecamus or Libertarian as men whom I know to be my friends and men of good will, then that’s my act of will to trust them as people whom I know and know I can trust. My faith in God is much the same thing – He’s a Person (actually three Persons) whom I know and know I can trust.
I distinguish my understanding of who He is from the conceptualizations of other people, including those who wrote the Biblical accounts, and who were more than willing to indulge in representations of Him by story. Hey, even knowing that the cherry tree story is totally made up by a early-1800s preacher intent on teaching children “moral stories,” doesn’t it say something to you about the reputation for moral probity, integrity, and honesty that George Washington had? I tend to read the Bible stories in much the same way – not necessarily the literal truth (and in many cases obviously not) but as stories with a point, that tell me something about who God is and what human beings are like, and how He interacts with them – not necessarily that Noah’s in his workshop going “voobah, voobah” but that God works through and in natural disasters and has those He loves “within His providential Hand.”
But it’s not my intent to compel you to believe any particular thing about Him, except by living openly and honestly the sort of life I believe Him to want me to live, by treating you with respect as a person of dignity with a mind equal to mine, and in so doing to hope to convince you that there’s something to my beliefs worth looking into. I absolutely desest the mistaken concept of some believers that people ought to be forced to accept verbatim Bible stories as literal accounts, simply because they do.
You’re welcome to reject my opinions on all this, of course – what I do expect is that you will be willing to listen to my reasoned explanations of what I believe and why I believe it, not automatically assume that I subscribe blindly to superstitious beliefs through inability to think for myself. I think that’s a fair request to make.
DOH!! Thank you Zev for pointing out my mistake. I will retract that part , since I am wrong about it.
for polycarp, I wasnt targeting you in particular. All I hear about is how the leaders of the christian faith, like the pope, Pat Robetson and Jery Falwell, claim that things like contraception and evolution are evil. They blame things like AIDS,divorce,and the WTC and the pentagon disasters on godlessness. It sounds like they are a pack or brain dead idiots every time they open their mouth. Most followers of anything follow a leader they believe in. I may have used an overly broad brush, but I dont think that it was totaly inacurate.
for polycarp again:
Yes , I do realize that you are able to think for yourself and do not blindly follow what you are told. Now if we could just get every one else to think like that.
I must say you sound quite a lot like my Christian-mystic friend - ultimately, his faith was based on feeling the presence of Christ in his life, not on Biblical stories.
He is fond of relating an anecdote (which applies to him as well): before he felt the presence of Christ, he read the Bible and did not find god anywhere in it; after he felt the presence of Christ, he went back to re-read the Bible - and god was there on every page, dispite its absurdities, anacronisms and contradictions.
The whole thing reminds me of my favorite quote from televangelist Jimmy Swaggart: “If there is anything that can stop our Christian movement, it’s higher education.”
Science, man, science. Yes, the truth **will** set you free.
