I hate making threads for I feel they are rather useless questions and wasting time, so sorry if I'm wasting your time...

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving... and considering He created everything:

1) Doesn't that mean he also created sin?

If so, doesn't that make him not all-loving. If not, proceed to question 2:

2) Didn't God create humans knowing they would create suffering, so isn't he knowingly creating people who will, in the future, be mass murderers, etc? If so, doesn't that make him Evil? If not, then he isn't all-knowing.

If it does not make him Evil, proceed to question 3:

3) God created Satan. There's no debating that really, God created everything, including the Angels. Satan is a fallen angel. So God created Satan knowing he would later betray him and then later on tempt humans thus creating sin and all the bad stuff today. How is that not God's fault, since he could have prevented ALL of that?

4) Why can't God make only people that he knows will make good decisions and not the evil people? Doesn't he have the power and responsibility to do so?

Saying the Devil is to blame is useless, because God created Satan knowing fully wel what Satan would do in the future, and God has the power (remember, all-powerful) to get rid of Satan right now. So why doesn't he? And why did he need to die on the cross to defeat Satan? Why couldn't he have just *poof* defeated him? And Technically, he didn't defeat him... for he is still here. Or there. Or whatever.

You may not want to go there LOL
Oh well... too late :p

God is like a mean kid, burning ants with a magnifying glass.
Or (and this makes much more sense),
God doesnt exist.

Word of advice: Brace yourself... ;)

When my children were born, I was god to them. Everything they were and had was because of me. I took care of them and loved them. They needed me, wanted me, loved me.

And then that whole free will thing kicked in. I didn't make them disobedient. I didn't make them mean.


Anyways, perfect people are boring. How much fun would we be for god if we were Stepford humans.

When my children were born, I was god to them. Everything they were and had was because of me. I took care of them and loved them. They needed me, wanted me, loved me.

And then that whole free will thing kicked in. I didn't make them disobedient. I didn't make them mean.

Anyways, perfect people are boring. How much fun would we be for god if we were Stepford humans.
*************
M*W: Been there, done that, but for some unknown reason, we all lived through it.

Anyways, perfect people are boring. How much fun would we be for god if we were Stepford humans.

Ah, we exist merely for gods personal entertainment? Can't he just create himself a playstation 3?

God is just bored.

At first I thought I had a pretty good rebuttal for all your questions, but as I typed them, I kept getting caught up in further moral problems. For every excuse another problem arises from it. I really couldn't give a good answer without being hypocritical.

Let's say you believe in God, yet you find moral technicalites with him. Does that mean you have to not believe in God anymore, simply because your finite human mind can't comprehend something that large?

Or should God's actions be 100% understandable and accessable to us as humans?

1) Doesn't that mean he also created sin?

this answer should give you some new questions to ponder..

God is not the author of sin.. neither is "the devil".. sin is merely a shadow passing before the light of the unlimited..

1) Doesn't that mean he also created sin?

this answer should give you some new questions to ponder..

God is not the author of sin.. neither is "the devil".. sin is merely a shadow passing before the light of the unlimited..

I disagree. Everything in our Universe had to've been created, all things known and unknown. If there were an aspect of our Universe that did not need to be created, sin, in your example, that means that it would be above the realm of God and therefore more powerful than God, which simply can't be.

I disagree. Everything in our Universe had to've been created, all things known and unknown. If there were an aspect of our Universe that did not need to be created, sin, in your example, that means that it would be above the realm of God and therefore more powerful than God, which simply can't be.

if you assume that the creation is perfect then my assertion holds.

if you assume that the creation is perfect then my assertion holds.

But creation isn't perfect. If by a perfect creation you mean no sin, no wars, no death.

Regardless, the idea of sin, the word, the action, our human understanding of doing "wrong", had to've been created.

pain is nescessary even in a perfect creation. without it there is no pleasure.
no sin = no virtue, no bad = no good..

if you assume that the creation is perfect

Creation would not be 'percect' only because an apparently 'perfect' god decided it would be so. There simply is nobody and nothing else to blame for the state of the world.

LOL.. not us thats for certain !!! how absurd... who else could be blamed for the current state of the world ?? CERTAINLY NOT ITS INHABITANTS ??? LMAO, LETS BLAME GOD..

there is no right or wrong in God.. its only in us.. in our perception of reality.. in reality both sides are necessary for forward motion..

LOL.. not us thats for certain !!! how absurd... who else could be blamed for the current state of the world ?? CERTAINLY NOT ITS INHABITANTS ??? LMAO, LETS BLAME GOD..

I made this bunch of robots, I programmed them in a specific way and wait.. eventually they took over and destroyed London - (it's recently been in the news). The robots are to blame.. right, not me who made them and programmed them?

You'll find when someone makes a product and that product is faulty, the blame lies with the manufacturer - but not to those that have shares in the company. They try and blame everyone else. This is no different.

When my children were born, I was god to them. Everything they were and had was because of me. I took care of them and loved them. They needed me, wanted me, loved me.

And then that whole free will thing kicked in. I didn't make them disobedient. I didn't make them mean.

The difference, of course, is that you didn't really create your children - you just provided the raw materials, and they were created by processes that you had absolutely no control over. If you had total control over reality and chose to make yourself kids that you knew with certainty would end up being disobedient and mean, then yeah, it would be your fault that they were disobedient and mean.

pain is nescessary even in a perfect creation. without it there is no pleasure.
no sin = no virtue, no bad = no good..
That’s ridiculous. Perhaps it’s necessary for pain or sin to exist as abstract philosophical/theoretical concepts in order for pleasure and goodness to exist, but that doesn’t mean that the world would actually have to be full of them. Using your reasoning, it’s necessary for dark to exist in order for light to exist. But I can turn on all the lamps in my house and illuminate everything brightly so that no darkness exists in my house. Of course the concept of darkness will exist, but that doesn’t mean that I have to keep all the lights in half of my house turned off in order for them to be turned on in the other half.

That’s ridiculous. Perhaps it’s necessary for pain or sin to exist as abstract philosophical/theoretical concepts in order for pleasure and goodness to exist, but that doesn’t mean that the world would actually have to be full of them. Using your reasoning, it’s necessary for dark to exist in order for light to exist. But I can turn on all the lamps in my house and illuminate everything brightly so that no darkness exists in my house. Of course the concept of darkness will exist, but that doesn’t mean that I have to keep all the lights in half of my house turned off in order for them to be turned on in the other half.

He is right you know. If you turn all the lights in your house in order to eliminate darkness, but your shadow will prove you wrong.

Lao Tzu had the logic covered:

If everybody in the world knows about the beautiful in its effect as beauty, then everybody knows about the ugly as well; if everybody knows about the good in its effect as goodness, then everybody knows about the evil as well.

Therefore: being and nothingness generate each other, heaviness and lightness complete each other. Length and shortness mould each other, height and depth lean towards each other. Sound and voice harmonize each other, before and after follow each other!

I hate making threads for I feel they are rather useless questions and wasting time, so sorry if I'm wasting your time...

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving... and considering He created everything:

1) Doesn't that mean he also created sin?

If so, doesn't that make him not all-loving. If not, proceed to question 2:

2) Didn't God create humans knowing they would create suffering, so isn't he knowingly creating people who will, in the future, be mass murderers, etc? If so, doesn't that make him Evil? If not, then he isn't all-knowing.

If it does not make him Evil, proceed to question 3:

3) God created Satan. There's no debating that really, God created everything, including the Angels. Satan is a fallen angel. So God created Satan knowing he would later betray him and then later on tempt humans thus creating sin and all the bad stuff today. How is that not God's fault, since he could have prevented ALL of that?

4) Why can't God make only people that he knows will make good decisions and not the evil people? Doesn't he have the power and responsibility to do so?

Saying the Devil is to blame is useless, because God created Satan knowing fully wel what Satan would do in the future, and God has the power (remember, all-powerful) to get rid of Satan right now. So why doesn't he? And why did he need to die on the cross to defeat Satan? Why couldn't he have just *poof* defeated him? And Technically, he didn't defeat him... for he is still here. Or there. Or whatever.

Ah a nice chance for me to flex my theist muscle. One must retain a good understanding of the opposing side, no? So here are some imaginary answers by a thoughtful theist:

1) Yes, God would have created sin but this does not mean that he is automatically non-loving. Love must have an antithesis in order to mean anything (much like light requires dark or faith requires doubt), so while the introduction of it into "his" world may be ground for raising some questions concerning his benevolence, it is not enough to completely strip "him" of it, as the ultimate reasons for it are obviously beyond human sight.

2) Yes, he would have to have known these things. But this makes the assumption that God allows no free will, which is in itself a tricky subject. God does not and cannot work in this way, his will is not always realized by his creation--like in the case of a mass murderer--but that does not mean he is still not in control. It'd be much like a referee in a game; the players are given a context to work in but the ref ultimately still has a full grasp on the situation. This assumption also discounts the possibility of hindsight in our worthy Creator; it is a fact that requires no explanation that seemingly bad events can be crafted into something that is far greater in culmination, given time.

3) Once again, it is God's fault. Satan is widely misunderstood mostly by those who claim to be warring against him; the name Lucifer for instance was never intended to describe Satan's "fall from heaven", which is never mentioned obviously in the Bible, but instead in subsequent man-made addendums (Paradise Lost if I remember correctly). This is a passage stolen from an easily accessed website from Google-ing Lucifer:

"In the Hebrew, the name Lucifer is translated from the Hebrew word "helel," which means brightness. This designation, referring to Lucifer, is the rendering of the "morning star" or "star of the morning" or "bright star" which is presented in Isaiah. "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High’" (Isaiah 14:12-14, NIV)."

This description of Lucifer hardly seems to insinuate an evil incarnate devil. Many theologians are quick to interpret this as a referral to the Devil (which they do only based on playing theological connect-the-dots in attempt to explain who this passage is being addressed to). In actual scriptural context, this admonishment is directed not at the Devil, who would need no admonishment for he is unable to repent or be blamed for the way he has been made, but to Adam; the son of the dawn of Creation. This is merely a recitation of his eating of the forbidden tree, and it makes much more sense in this light. For a more exhausting dissertation, visit here: http://www.crivoice.org/lucifer.html

So in essence, the devil is God's mad dog on a leash who cannot do but that which his master commands (read the opening chapters of Job carefully).

4) If he didn't do so, how would you be able to tell who the good ones are? And there is something to be said for the experience of good vs. evil. I'd liken it to a video game; what if the programmers decided for you just to win as soon as you turned it on. Would you want a game like that?

;)

::Phew:: Twas fun.

He is right you know. If you turn all the lights in your house in order to eliminate darkness, but your shadow will prove you wrong.
Not if I have lights on all sides of me :rolleyes:

Like I said, it's fine to say that it's necessary for sin/pain/whatever to exist as abstact concepts in order for good/pleasure/whatever to exist. If you can imagine a state (like being good, or feeling pleasure) then you can imagine the opposite of that state (sin, feeling pain). But that doesn't mean that you have to actually experience it, or that it ever has to actually be manifest in the real world.

I'm going to have to agree with Nasor with this one. Even if God created those things Celpha Fiael, that doesn't mean there has to be so much sin in the world. I cannot see how God could be good in allowing the creation of a mass-murderer. Essentially you are saying, God is good because he creates bad, because if he didnt create bad, how would we know he was good? That makes no sense.

Not if I have lights on all sides of me :rolleyes:

Like I said, it's fine to say that it's necessary for sin/pain/whatever to exist as abstact concepts in order for good/pleasure/whatever to exist. If you can imagine a state (like being good, or feeling pleasure) then you can imagine the opposite of that state (sin, feeling pain). But that doesn't mean that you have to actually experience it, or that it ever has to actually be manifest in the real world.

but what if the polar opposites good-evil we all perceive are just that ? perception, a conception of mans own mind.. what if in reality.. ahem.. its ALL good ?

i love it when you guys get fired up ! this place is awesome !! :D

but what if the polar opposites good-evil we all perceive are just that ? perception, a conception of mans own mind.. what if in reality.. ahem.. its ALL good ?

i love it when you guys get fired up ! this place is awesome !! :D

Why does that makes sense !? :bugeye:
What if its just your perception that God exists, what if in reality.. ahem.. God doesnt exist.
;)

I'm going to have to agree with Nasor with this one. Even if God created those things Celpha Fiael, that doesn't mean there has to be so much sin in the world. I cannot see how God could be good in allowing the creation of a mass-murderer. Essentially you are saying, God is good because he creates bad, because if he didnt create bad, how would we know he was good? That makes no sense.

Yes you are right on. All those arguments are deeply rooted in pure bullocks but are at the same time the most well-thought out ones I've heard from Christian apologetics. :shrug:

But just to play devil's advocate--if you'll pardon the phrase--a bit more (who knows, maybe an unspoken theist is cheering these arguments on!):

Nasor makes an excellent point, one that rather enjoyably quiets Wisdom Seeker's refutation completely. But he's also explained my way into it as well; darkness is required for light, if just conceptually. This dependence may not be necessarily so in practice. This practice (lights being on all sides) is what God wishes for his Creation, and so had to set up the conceptual prerequisites of good and evil. He did so with the bible and satan and all that good jazz, and allowed man itself to sniff out the cheese at the end of the maze (with a little push of divine intervention here and there).

Also, I wouldn't be saying "God is good because he creates bad...", I'd be saying "God is good, and could only show us that by introducing to us the concept of his antithesis; evil." Why do you think God instilled such an unsatisfiable curiosity in dear old proverbial Adam to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, eh?

:rolleyes:

Also, I wouldn't be saying "God is good because he creates bad...", I'd be saying "God is good, and could only show us that by introducing to us the concept of his antithesis; evil." Why do you think God instilled such an unsatisfiable curiosity in dear old proverbial Adam to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, eh?

:rolleyes:

right on.. heres another good one to go with the apple thing :)

Ecc 1:18 For in much wisdom [is] much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

right on.. heres another good one to go with the apple thing :)

Ecc 1:18 For in much wisdom [is] much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

:poke:

:D

ouch :)

i think John Lennon said best :D "let it be"

oops, sorry paul mc was responsible for that 1 :) either way

they're both great anyway

Ah a nice chance for me to flex my theist muscle.


"...the name Lucifer... was never intended to describe Satan's "fall from heaven", which is never mentioned obviously in the Bible, but instead in subsequent man-made addendums (Paradise Lost if I remember correctly). This is a passage stolen from an easily accessed website from Google-ing Lucifer:

"In the Hebrew, the name Lucifer is translated from the Hebrew word "helel," which means brightness.
*************
M*W: Interesting. "Helios" is the Greek word for the sun which, of course, provides brightness, creation, and all that is good. Darkness, of course, means death, sin, and all that is evil. So this can be understood to be the difference between night and day.
This designation, referring to Lucifer, is the rendering of the "morning star" or "star of the morning" or "bright star" which is presented in Isaiah. "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
*************
M*W: "Lucifer" is the "light bearer" and "light bringer" or as quoted, the "son of Dawn!" This is referring to the planet Venus which rises or is visible after the sun comes up at dawn. Lucifer and/or Venus is seen as a competitive force against the sun who was considered to be the god of humanity. This mythic competition is viewed as Lucifer rebelling against god, or the light of Venus is competing with the brightness of the sun. These are the myths and metaphors of astro-theology.
"How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
*************
M*W: This refers to Venus/Lucifer in admonishment for Lucifer's rebellion by "falling" toward the ground (or by the Earth's natural orbital rotation Venus appears to "fall." The ancients may have seen this as a curse or something evil. The "nations," of course, probably means the ancients who watched the skies. (I'm beginning to wonder if the metaphoric title "The Watchers" may refer to those ancients who observed the heavens FROM the Earth rather than observed the Earth FROM the heavens above). I shall research this for my own curiousity.
You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High’" (Isaiah 14:12-14, NIV).
*************
M*W: A very interesting quote! This dialog appears to be Lucifer or Venus speaking in the Isaiah quote. Astro-theologically, the interpretation as I understand it, Lucifer is telling God, or Venus is telling the Sun, that he will raise-up his "throne" (station/position/location) higher than that of God or the Sun. Lucifer speaks with a rebellious tone to God as if it were a threat. The "stars of God" metaphorically mean "angels." "Stars" are "Angels." "Angels" are "Stars." "Lucifer" was an "Angel." "Lucifer" was the "Morning Star."

Astro-theologically speaking, the quote "I will sit on the "mount of assembly" on the heights of "Zaphon...;" could mean that the rebellious Lucifer/Venus proclaims he will "sit on the mount of assembly..." which I interpret that metaphorically to mean Lucifer/Venus threatens to "sit" or "take permanently higher residence" above that of the Sun or God. I think "Zaphron" in this interpretation refers to the Zodiac, and the "mount of assembly" refers to the 12 constellations. Same thing, metaphorically. Right now, I don't know the words origins that could be related to "Zaphron," but it seems to me to be a great place on most high. And "assembly" means a gathering as of the astrological signs or the Zodiac.
I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High’"
*************
M*W: Lucifer's dialog continues by saying he will "ascend to the tops of the clouds...", well that, of course, means the "heavens." Lucifer threatens to go beyond the tops of the clouds to make himself higher than God. Lucifer continues his rant by saying,
"'I will make myself like the Most High’."
*************
M*W: Lucifer/Venus threatens to become higher than God.
This description of Lucifer hardly seems to insinuate an evil incarnate devil.
*************
M*W: I agree. It is entirely metaphorical.
Many theologians are quick to interpret this as a referral to the Devil (which they do only based on playing theological connect-the-dots in attempt to explain who this passage is being addressed to).
*************
M*W: I interpret it as if Lucifer was speaking. Do we need to differentiate between Lucifer, Satan and the Devil? Remember when Jesus told Peter to "Get thee behind me, Satan."? This "Satan" Jesus/God/Sun was referring to could possibly be interpreted metaphorically to be the planet Ju-piter which may have come into alignment with the Sun (the metaphorical God), therefore, blocking the ancients' view of their god. The story might have been created that the planet Jupiter was eclipsing the sun, ergo, Jesus says "get thee behind me, Satan (Jupiter)." Thinking on this a little further. Any planet, star or other heavenly body that may have blocked the ancient's view of their god was probably called a "Satan," "Lucifer" or "Devil."
In actual scriptural context, this admonishment is directed not at the Devil, who would need no admonishment for he is unable to repent or be blamed for the way he has been made, but to Adam; the son of the dawn of Creation.
*************
M*W: I agree with your former statement. This "admonishment" is not directed AT the Devil. I believe it is a threat made BY the Devil himself to God. (Metaphorically, of course.) Your latter statement about Adam being the "son of the dawn of creation," I'm not quite so sure this is metaphorically sound. I don't believe Adam existed as a human being at all. The name/title "Adam" means literally "red earthling" as in "made out of the red Earth." And somewhere in the OT, there is a reference to Adam being created somewhere in the "heavens" and placed on Earth. Again, I think that is a reference to one of the constellations. Since "Adam" was the first human on Earth, he could have also been the first creation in heaven (i.e. the Alpha AND the Omega--the constellations circling the Earth), or the Sun who created Adam out of the Earth. I think Adam represents the Earth itself and Eve represents all life on Earth. But, I am willing to agree with your interpretation that Adam was metaphorically a "son of the dawn of creation." Still, my interpretation seems logical that Adam was the created Earth itself.
This is merely a recitation of his eating of the forbidden tree, and it makes much more sense in this light.
*************
M*W: I never did understand the biblical (or christian) interpretation of the eating of the forbidden fruit. I am one who loves a good metaphor, but somehow all the analogies surrounding eating the fruit of this particular tree don't make much sense to me. So that I can try to understand it, I'll stick to my own interpretation that, if Adam was the Earth and everything on an in it, how could he consume something of a tree which would be consuming something of himself? Unless, that could mean Adam the Earth ate of a fruit that was NOT supposed to be replanted back into the Earth??? Or environmentally speaking, the Earth wasn't supposed to consume itself (which it is doing now) with, of course, the help of its creator the Sun. Another way of saying this is that we are all Earth's creation, and we shouldn't be using up all our natural resources. I like that analogy better. Now it makes sense to me. That which we use up will eventually cause us to be obliterated from the planet. I can see no "original sin" in this concept. We're all Earthlings, so maybe our metaphorical "original sin" was that the Earth is not the Sun and the Earth is lesser than God. Astro-theologically speaking, this is my interpretation.
So in essence, the devil is God's mad dog on a leash who cannot do but that which his master commands (read the opening chapters of Job carefully).
*************
M*W: No devil, no mad dog, no god. The Book of Job was probably the most anciently written text of the OT. Although it wasn't exactly inspired by god, it was written by some ancient Shakespearean-type artiste as a tragedy play for entertainment purposes only. How it got included in the OT is anybody's guess (and certainly not in correct chronological order) which confirms my own belief that the OT and NT were written... children, can we all say together now... for entertainment purposes only!

*************
M*W: Interesting. "Helios" is the Greek word for the sun which, of course, provides brightness, creation, and all that is good. Darkness, of course, means death, sin, and all that is evil. So this can be understood to be the difference between night and day.

*************
M*W: "Lucifer" is the "light bearer" and "light bringer" or as quoted, the "son of Dawn!" This is referring to the planet Venus which rises or is visible after the sun comes up at dawn. Lucifer and/or Venus is seen as a competitive force against the sun who was considered to be the god of humanity. This mythic competition is viewed as Lucifer rebelling against god, or the light of Venus is competing with the brightness of the sun. These are the myths and metaphors of astro-theology.

*************
M*W: This refers to Venus/Lucifer in admonishment for Lucifer's rebellion by "falling" toward the ground (or by the Earth's natural orbital rotation Venus appears to "fall." The ancients may have seen this as a curse or something evil. The "nations," of course, probably means the ancients who watched the skies. (I'm beginning to wonder if the metaphoric title "The Watchers" may refer to those ancients who observed the heavens FROM the Earth rather than observed the Earth FROM the heavens above). I shall research this for my own curiousity.

*************
M*W: A very interesting quote! This dialog appears to be Lucifer or Venus speaking in the Isaiah quote. Astro-theologically, the interpretation as I understand it, Lucifer is telling God, or Venus is telling the Sun, that he will raise-up his "throne" (station/position/location) higher than that of God or the Sun. Lucifer speaks with a rebellious tone to God as if it were a threat. The "stars of God" metaphorically mean "angels." "Stars" are "Angels." "Angels" are "Stars." "Lucifer" was an "Angel." "Lucifer" was the "Morning Star."

Astro-theologically speaking, the quote "I will sit on the "mount of assembly" on the heights of "Zaphon...;" could mean that the rebellious Lucifer/Venus proclaims he will "sit on the mount of assembly..." which I interpret that metaphorically to mean Lucifer/Venus threatens to "sit" or "take permanently higher residence" above that of the Sun or God. I think "Zaphron" in this interpretation refers to the Zodiac, and the "mount of assembly" refers to the 12 constellations. Same thing, metaphorically. Right now, I don't know the words origins that could be related to "Zaphron," but it seems to me to be a great place on most high. And "assembly" means a gathering as of the astrological signs or the Zodiac.

*************
M*W: Lucifer's dialog continues by saying he will "ascend to the tops of the clouds...", well that, of course, means the "heavens." Lucifer threatens to go beyond the tops of the clouds to make himself higher than God. Lucifer continues his rant by saying,

*************
M*W: Lucifer/Venus threatens to become higher than God.

*************
M*W: I agree. It is entirely metaphorical.

*************
M*W: I interpret it as if Lucifer was speaking. Do we need to differentiate between Lucifer, Satan and the Devil? Remember when Jesus told Peter to "Get thee behind me, Satan."? This "Satan" Jesus/God/Sun was referring to could possibly be interpreted metaphorically to be the planet Ju-piter which may have come into alignment with the Sun (the metaphorical God), therefore, blocking the ancients' view of their god. The story might have been created that the planet Jupiter was eclipsing the sun, ergo, Jesus says "get thee behind me, Satan (Jupiter)." Thinking on this a little further. Any planet, star or other heavenly body that may have blocked the ancient's view of their god was probably called a "Satan," "Lucifer" or "Devil."

*************
M*W: I agree with your former statement. This "admonishment" is not directed AT the Devil. I believe it is a threat made BY the Devil himself to God. (Metaphorically, of course.) Your latter statement about Adam being the "son of the dawn of creation," I'm not quite so sure this is metaphorically sound. I don't believe Adam existed as a human being at all. The name/title "Adam" means literally "red earthling" as in "made out of the red Earth." And somewhere in the OT, there is a reference to Adam being created somewhere in the "heavens" and placed on Earth. Again, I think that is a reference to one of the constellations. Since "Adam" was the first human on Earth, he could have also been the first creation in heaven (i.e. the Alpha AND the Omega--the constellations circling the Earth), or the Sun who created Adam out of the Earth. I think Adam represents the Earth itself and Eve represents all life on Earth. But, I am willing to agree with your interpretation that Adam was metaphorically a "son of the dawn of creation." Still, my interpretation seems logical that Adam was the created Earth itself.

*************
M*W: I never did understand the biblical (or christian) interpretation of the eating of the forbidden fruit. I am one who loves a good metaphor, but somehow all the analogies surrounding eating the fruit of this particular tree don't make much sense to me. So that I can try to understand it, I'll stick to my own interpretation that, if Adam was the Earth and everything on an in it, how could he consume something of a tree which would be consuming something of himself? Unless, that could mean Adam the Earth ate of a fruit that was NOT supposed to be replanted back into the Earth??? Or environmentally speaking, the Earth wasn't supposed to consume itself (which it is doing now) with, of course, the help of its creator the Sun. Another way of saying this is that we are all Earth's creation, and we shouldn't be using up all our natural resources. I like that analogy better. Now it makes sense to me. That which we use up will eventually cause us to be obliterated from the planet. I can see no "original sin" in this concept. We're all Earthlings, so maybe our metaphorical "original sin" was that the Earth is not the Sun and the Earth is lesser than God. Astro-theologically speaking, this is my interpretation.

*************
M*W: No devil, no mad dog, no god. The Book of Job was probably the most anciently written text of the OT. Although it wasn't exactly inspired by god, it was written by some ancient Shakespearean-type artiste as a tragedy play for entertainment purposes only. How it got included in the OT is anybody's guess (and certainly not in correct chronological order) which confirms my own belief that the OT and NT were written... children, can we all say together now... for entertainment purposes only!

Interesting contribution, I don't doubt that a lot of the Judeo-Christian mythology draws heavily from--and indeed find its origins in--astrology, as do most mythologies. The problem that I see is when theologians look retrospectively ex post facto and attempt to construct in reverse applications to the developed canonical account, they do so in a stretched imagination, almost like a game of scrabble. It's like trying to make sense of a different language by looking for similarities in one's own. In short, your theory is just as valid as mine or anyone's, but making the Devil out to what Christianity has is contradictory by their own terms (i.e. to the very idea of an omnipotent and omniscient God).

As for your inability to interpret the creation metaphor in a seamless manner, I wouldn't hold you or anyone accountable for that; it is probably due to the inconsistencies inevitably stemming from multiple writers that muddy up the claims of one another. And I'm not sure if we can grant the authors of the biblical books the intent of pure entertainment; these were (inculpable) uneducated thinkers trying to make sense of the world without the benefits of science or technology that we have today. Satisfactory explanations in that day, yes, but blindingly not so for today. Unfortunately, it was elevated to grotesque heights of claimed yet unjustifiable divinity through the ages to the point now where people take it very seriously, to the point of literal infallibility. It is as somebody who escapes my memory and my search engine said, "The ancient man's literature is the later man's religion." Or something along those lines, you get the gist.

And yes, from what I can surmise from studies and common sense, the book of Job was intended to be taken as a fictional story (a proverbial metaphor in the most generous sense). The opening lines are reminiscent of a Disney tale, "In the land of Uz, there lived a man named Job."