Praying for Satan

Originally posted by shavixmir
Surely all Christians should pray for old Lucifer...
I mean, if anyone's soul needs savin'....it's his...

I'll remember to bring that up at my next Bible meeting🙂

Originally posted by receda
...Thirdly, religion is fiction. Great story but never to be believed. Tolkien wrote better.

my vote for u !

Originally posted by Churlant
I have not truly suffered. I somehow doubt you have either. The final point of these posts is purely theoretical on my part, as I don't believe in Satan at all - however you obviously do, and my curiosity stems from your willingness (and those who believe as you do) to let others suffer, both past present and future. Evidently allowing Satan to run around, ...[text shortened]... ildren - or allows them to be beaten - while claiming it's for their own good.

-JC

I have not truly suffered. I somehow doubt you have either.
In the scheme of things, I do not consider the infirmities, the loss of health, the death of loved ones, the sudden demise of friends, the attacks on my finances, the loss of freedoms, and etc., worthy of compare with the riches gained in Christ.

your willingness (and those who believe as you do) to let others suffer, both past present and future.
"Let?" How do I "let" others suffer, exactly? If you mean that my choice would have been the same as Adam's choice, then we are in agreement.

Evidently allowing Satan to run around, causing pain and destruction for a few thousand years, is a small price to pay for bringing more of God's Children to His Eternal Glory.
Your false premise has led to a false conclusion. Satan is not running around causing pain and suffering. He is, however, doing everything He can to make His case that we don't need God to be good. He is just as embarrassed at the 'hiccups' of man's sin nature as man. But his reaction to the same is always violence. Our current state of affairs is due to our forebearer, Adam, choosing the woman outside of the Garden over God within the Garden.

In my opinion, which I would never pretend is humble, this type of exchange would be a faith-breaker. I cannot abide by any parent who beats their children - or allows them to be beaten - while claiming it's for their own good.
Well, my opinion and yours are certainly on different wavelengths. I consider my opinion humble because it is subjected to truth, not because it is inferior to others. Weight-wise, my opinion is superior to any opinion not subjected to truth. Not surprisingly, the point was lost on your arrogance.

Your definition of "beat" needs some cleaning up. The point behind certain disciplines a parent doles out to their children is to get their attention. I discipline my children, each according to their needs, not my anger. If you are insinuating that my discipline of my children is somehow tantamount to child abuse, than your idiocy deserves no further response, nor will it receive the same from me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

Your definition of "beat" needs some cleaning up. The point behind certain disciplines a parent doles out to their children is to get their attention. I discipline my children, each according to their needs, not my anger. If you are insinuating that my discipline of my children is somehow tantamount to child abuse, than your idiocy deserves no further response, nor will it receive the same from me.

My insinuation is that God's "discipline" of His Children, as described by scripture and discussions such as this one, is tantamount to child abuse.

I do not know you (or even that you have children to begin with) and I did not intend to imply you personally abuse anyone.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
My insinuation is that God's "discipline" of His Children, as described by scripture and discussions such as this one, is tantamount to child abuse.

I do not know you (or even that you have children to begin with) and I did not intend to imply you personally abuse anyone.

-JC

Then your definition of who His children are may be at odds with who He says His children are. Not every human being is necessarily a child of God. Contrary to popular songs and some opinion, only those called by His name are His children.

For them, His discipline is exactly what according to needs.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Only if you have perfect foreknowledge that they will sin, and it cannot be prevented any other way (if god knows something will happen, then by definition it must). Oh, and an important bit is, I suppose, is the punishment for the crime the commit must be worse than being lobotomised. I mean, god sends you to hell forever - pretty mean stuff for having a fantasy about your neighbours wife. No half measures for this deity....

Formost, my apologies for the length of time to respond. As usual, I am a rather busy person. 🙂 Anyway........

Ah, my friend you illustrate my point here though.

"is the punishment for the crime the commit must be worse than being lobotomised."

This is, indeed, the magic question isn't it? What is righteous and good? To adamently control the creation so that it can not do things outside of your will (IE sin, suffering, evil), or permit it to choose its own course and hence permit recourse.

I understand the assertion here. God permist unnecessary suffering, and hence is not moral. I understand that. I would suggest that because God is moral, he permits suffering. That such suffering is necessary. Not because God choose it, but because we chose it, and for God to be moral he must permit us to choose.

Originally posted by Omnislash
Formost, my apologies for the length of time to respond. As usual, I am a rather busy person. 🙂 Anyway........

Ah, my friend you illustrate my point here though.

"is the punishment for the crime the commit must be worse than being lobotomised."

This is, indeed, the magic question isn't it? What is righteous and good? To adamently control ...[text shortened]... God choose it, but because we chose it, and for God to be moral he must permit us to choose.

I would suggest that because God is moral, he permits suffering. That such suffering is necessary. Not because God choose it, but because we chose it, and for God to be moral he must permit us to choose.
You'll be barking up the wrong tree with that one, unfortunately. Folks in these parts feel that only God should be held to any standards, that despite all our insane acts of rebellion, it is His responsibility to make sure none end in -gasp!- human pain or suffering.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
... that despite all our insane acts of rebellion.....

How can one rebel against God? He's omniscient, right? He created you, knowing ahead of time that you'd sin. He's omnipotent right? He could have created you so you wouldn't sin. He therefore, must have created you specifically to sin.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
How can one rebel against God? He's omniscient, right? He created you, knowing ahead of time that you'd sin. He's omnipotent right? He could have created you so you wouldn't sin. He therefore, must have created you specifically to sin.

Hmmmm......just a thought I'd like to toss out here concerning the omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence of God.

Omnipotence. The basic summary as I like to think of it. To be omnipotent requires omniscience, no? I think it logical. Now, for one to be omnipotent, truly and definitively omnipotent in the purest sense of the term, one would have to be capable of things which are paradoxal to omnipotence. IE the ol' "Could God make a rock so big that he couldn't lift it?" kind of thing.

Omnipotence not only permits, but perhaps demands, the existence of things which are paradoxal to the concept as fathomed by the human mind. Just my rambling thought. 🙂

Originally posted by Omnislash
Hmmmm......just a thought I'd like to toss out here concerning the omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence of God.

Omnipotence. The basic summary as I like to think of it. To be omnipotent requires omniscience, no? I think it logical. Now, for one to be omnipotent, truly and definitively omnipotent in the purest sense of the term, one would have ...[text shortened]... ch are paradoxal to the concept as fathomed by the human mind. Just my rambling thought. 🙂

I have often heard omnipotence defined as "being able to do anything capable of being done." So even an omnipotent being couldn't make a square circle.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
How can one rebel against God? He's omniscient, right? He created you, knowing ahead of time that you'd sin. He's omnipotent right? He could have created you so you wouldn't sin. He therefore, must have created you specifically to sin.

How can one rebel against God?
By not agreeing with Him.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]How can one rebel against God?
By not agreeing with Him.[/b]

But he created me knowing that I won't agree with him. He was quite, well, agreeable about creating me to not agree. In which case, I am agreeing with him. To go against my beliefs and agree with him would mean I'm not following my own beliefs and am not doing what he created me to do.

[edit; following that through, it means that by believing in god, i'd be having to go against my own beliefs, which, as we;ve already established, is what god created me with. Therefore, by believing in god i'd be rebelling against him.]

Originally posted by rwingett
I have often heard omnipotence defined as "being able to do anything capable of being done." So even an omnipotent being couldn't make a square circle.

A square circle is doesn't exist....therefore, there is no such thing...so, you heard wrong...sorry