A simple question for Christians

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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 !!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

oke:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

ouch

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i think John Lennon said best

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"let it be"

 

oops, sorry paul mc was responsible for that 1

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

either way

 

they're both great anyway

 

*************
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."