See the Britannica article I linked to above. It covers the evolution of the concept.
If we’re talking Biblical caanon, can you give Biblical cites?
I can’t think of Biblical support for the idea that Satan punishes bad people. Tests people, yes; tempts people, yes; but in charge of punishing people? Maybe there’s something I’m not remembering; or maybe that’s one of those ideas that comes to us from somewhere other than the Bible.
But I think I can come up with Biblical support (as well as support from the world we live in) that just because some person’s actions have a good result or ultimately serve the purposes of God, that does not mean that the actions themselves are good, nor the person doing them.
My old roomie was a Congregationalist/Universalist, and believed that, at the end, Satan will repent and be welcomed by a perfect and loving God back into the family of heaven. And so will all of us, Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot and the guy who stole my parking spot.
No, really, it’s OK. She’ll just sit there by the phone. Alone. In the dark.
“Pssst…you don’t need to call her right now. Wait until tomorrow; what’s one more day?”
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
You asked me for my sources, which i gave you. I didn’t comment on any partiality of them, as the sources I used is well known enough for the reader to determine the partiality of them on their own. I also mentioned that my audience for the research are believers, so there are some accepted premises that non-belivers may not share.
But to answer this part about conflicting roles of Satan, it is my belief that the scriptures were meant to be understood in conjunction of the Holy Spirit, who reveals mysteries. It was made this way by design as it was not suppose to be something someone can do on their own (sans-God). In this case, I read the Bible, Satan’s role is being revealed over time, so it’s not a contradiction but just learning as we go on. But in my view of universal reconciliation and God binding Satan to his sin, it seems to rectify any difference between the OT and NT Satan and how God is using Satan for a better good then Satan is bad.
Yes I agree that is something that I had trouble with, however if Job was ‘sinless’ then that would break scriptures as all have fallen short - so there was something. We also know from scriptures that a ‘curse without cause can not alight’, so Satan’s attacks would not work if there was nothing that Job did wrong. What I believe God was talking about is Job was a man who sought God, who Love God, followed God’s commands, but it doesn’t mean Job was perfect. Job was given a hedge of protection, his flock, which he made sacrifices which also satisfied the law, thus blameless and upright. Also note that Satan, when given the chance quickly removed Job’s hedge of protection by getting rid of Job’s flock. Making Job sinless does not fit scriptures, nor the need for Job to despise himself and repent ‘in dust and ashes’ at the end.
You are correct about Elihu, which was the only man not required to repent by God, the common take (and my take on this) is Elihu was proven correct by God (as the other 3 were made to repent by God).
This contradicts what Elihu said in Job, which it appears that God agrees with (as he was not meant to repent, as the others did). Elihu correctly speculated what God is doing.
So you’re making the exact same argument as Job’s three friends! :smack:
Better go sacrifice some bulls and rams!
God doesn’t say that Elihu is wrong, but he doesn’t say that he is right either. On the contrary, he states clearly that it is Job who is right. To conflate Elihu’s views with those of God is nonsense. It’s Job’s views and nobody else’s that are stated to be correct.
The whole point of the book is that Job is right. And we know from the prologue that he was sinless, and that God was only testing him.
Twisting the story any other way is a sophism.
Also, according to the wiki:
If what Job secretly repents after having “seen [God] with his own eye” is all along having been a faithful worshiper and servant of Jehovah, saying it directly to God’s face, that took serious balls 
Another one of my posts that vanished.
Not necessarily. Satan could be genuinely evil and God could have incorporated that into his overall plan. If Satan hadn’t rebelled, God would have just changed some of the details in his plan to reflect this different set of circumstances.
Humans and angels have free will and can make decisions that God either approves or disapproves of. But either way God, as an omnipotent and omniscient being, encompasses the consequences of these decisions into his plan.
So - - forty-two?
I believe the key difference in consequences between fallen angels and fallen man was their level of understanding.
It helps to know the entirety of the story:
Before the fruit incident Adam and Eve were free to commit murder, adultery, bestiality, torture, rape or thousands of other evil acts and it would not be considered a sin. It was not considered sin because they had no knowledge of what was right or wrong (God only judges people based on what they know). Adam & Eve had only one rule: don’t eat the fruit giving knowledge of right & wrong without God’s permission. Everything else was A-okay. Then, Eve was tricked by Satan into breaking the rule and Adam loved Eve so much he chose to join her rather than live without her.
God is responsible for delivering justice and so He must punish evil. After Adam & Eve knew right from wrong they were held accountable for all of their future evil actions. But, because they were tricked God put into place a plan to transfer their punishment to someone else. The ultimate culmination of this plan is God transferring the punishment Adam & Eve & all humans deserve to Himself. This creates a double-jeopardy scenario for mankind: the punishment has already been given. It would be wrong to punish twice for the same sin so mankind is off the hook and is considered sinless.
After all this God leaves a final choice in place; those who want to acknowledge Him as Ruler of the Universe and live with Him are free to do so. This is the repentance referred to in Christianity. Those who do not want this are placed in an area in which God does not maintain or intervene and so are effectively outside of God’s rule.
Satan never lacked the knowledge of good & evil. He completely understood what he was doing when he tried to make himself like God (the first evil act deserving punishment). Okay, that’s the story.
But what if Satan asked for God to forgive him? It seems God COULD do the same thing for fallen angels as he did for fallen mankind: punish the evil after transferring the sin to Himself. Would He? I think maybe He would.
That’s the thing I’ve never comprehended about Christianity. Why “transfer the punishment?” Why not just issue a pardon. “Someone must be punished.” Why? “God took the punishment upon himself.” Why? He’s all-powerful, isn’t he? So just issue a decree.
This whole “sacrifice myself to myself” stuff is unnecessary.
But, that said, at least my old roomie believed that, yes, Satan will ask forgiveness, and, yes, God will grant it. Love a story with a happy ending!
Do you know how this sounds to anyone not already indoctrinated into this belief system?
So he shouldnt post it because you wont understand it? :rolleyes:
No-I posted exactly what I meant to say. He can post anything about religion he wants to post as far as I am concerned…just as I am free to call it nonsense if I see it as such.
Post 1, IMO, can apply to many things including politics, philosophy and religion. It sounds like a way to dismiss his beliefs without trying to explain why. Post 2 is clearer. At least we know what YOU think of the post.
It’s even stranger than that. You have to remember that according to Christian dogma, God is omniscient and exists outside of time. So he knows everything and always has known everything.
This means that before he had created the Tree of Knowledge, he knew that Adam and Eve would eat from it. He knew that he would punish them. And he knew that a few thousand years later, he would declare that the punishment was too severe and he would offer a pardon.
So why didn’t God just not create the Tree? He could have saved himself a crucifixion.