| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 401.1 | | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Mon Feb 03 1992 20:04 | 21 |
| RE: Basenote
> Note, I am *not* asking if Salvation is available to Lucifer since I
> presume, by definition, it is not.
I've grappled with this before. And I must disagree. Salvation is
"available" to Lucifer, I'm sure Ezekiel 33 includes Satan/Lucifer as
well. But the question is "WILL Satan change his ways and repent?" Or
even we can ask the question "CAN he change his ways and repent?". IF
he does, though, he will be forgiven and receive Salvation.
He was born a liar, and the ruler of darkness. Can he ever conceive
Truth and Light? Satan, secondly, will be enjoying Hell, it's his
habitat, wherever he goes, it's HELL...so I don't think he'll be
changing, and we'll always have Heaven. But the fact is, IF Satan
would repent he would be saved...
That's how I see it...the eternal interplay of opposite creating life.
Playtoe
|
| 401.2 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Peace: the Final Frontier | Mon Feb 03 1992 20:10 | 7 |
| Funny. A book title came to mind when reading .0. I've yet to
read the book with this intriguing title:
"Judas, Come Home -- All Is Forgiven"
Peace,
Richard
|
| 401.3 | RE: .1 - What do you mean by Salvation, etc.? | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Wed Feb 05 1992 13:49 | 106 |
| Thanx, Playtoe, for your reply.
RE: .1
> > Note, I am *not* asking if Salvation is available to Lucifer since I
> > presume, by definition, it is not.
>
> I've grappled with this before. And I must disagree. Salvation is
> "available" to Lucifer, I'm sure Ezekiel 33 includes Satan/Lucifer as
> well. ................................................................
Please elaborate on the definition of Salvation you're using.
The one I'm using goes something like, "Salvation, *n*, the means God
offers humankind to override the effects of Original Sin." And,
"Original Sin, *n*, humankind's deliberate disobedience of the
injunction *not* to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and
Evil." Granted, these are not "official" definitions, but rather my
understanding of the terms as it seems to me they are used.
By this definition Lucifer is excluded from Salvation because Lucifer
is an angel (not human) and Lucifer did not commit the Original Sin
since the injunction applied to humans. I'm presuming the "snake" was
Lucifer in disguise and, as far as I know, there was no injunction on
Lucifer *not* to tempt people. And, even if there was, it is not our
concern anyway since one of the lessons of the Original Sin story is
that people must needs to take responsibility for their actions and
the "I did it because so-and-so said it was okay to" defense does not
override this responsibility.
Thanx for the reference to Ezekiel. I'll have to read it before I
comment.
> ..... But the question is "WILL Satan change his ways and repent?" Or
> even we can ask the question "CAN he change his ways and repent?". ..
You offer two questions I respectfully choose to ignore for the
purposes of this discussion. "Will Lucifer change?" and, "can Lucifer
change?" belong to the discussion of, "who *is* this Lucifer person
anyway?" :^D
For purposes of this discussion I mean to imply, "if it was possible
for Lucifer to change..." A related question might be, "is free-will
removed from one who rejects God?" In fact, this could be the heart
of the matter.
> .................................................................. IF
> he does, though, he will be forgiven and receive Salvation.
I presume you site Ezekiel to back this up. I'll get back to you when
I've read the passage.
> He was born a liar, and the ruler of darkness. Can he ever conceive
> Truth and Light? Satan, secondly, will be enjoying Hell, it's his
> habitat, wherever he goes, it's HELL...so I don't think he'll be
> changing, and we'll always have Heaven. But the fact is, IF Satan
> would repent he would be saved...
>
> That's how I see it...the eternal interplay of opposite creating life.
Very interesting, Playtoe. Three items:
1. As I understand it, Lucifer was created an angel (in fact, an
archangel), and so wasn't born a liar. Becoming the ruler of
darkness, I believe, falls under the question, "how was Lucifer
punished?"
2. Yes, wherever Lucifer goes, there is Hell, especially if we agree
that, "Hell, *n*, the result of being granted the Beatific Vision
and then being denied it." is an acceptable definition. If you
disagree, please, let's not go off on that tangent. Let's just
agree that whatever the nature of Hell is, it's horrible. And so,
by definition, a horrible place cannot be enjoyable. If it was
enjoyable, what kind of punishment is it?
(This reminds me, by the way, of one of the most beautiful things
I've ever read. At the end of _The Diary of Adam_, Mark Twain
says that the epithet Adam wrote on Eve's grave was, "Wherever she
was, there was Eden". Gives me a twinge just writing this for you
now.)
3. You present an untenable position concerning the nature of God's
creations when you suggest that existence of God (all goodness)
presumes the existence of Another (all evil). According to the
Judeo-Christion tradition:
a) *Nothing* existed before God created it.
b) *Everything* that God created was good.
c) Angels and humans were created with free-will.
d) Free-will is meaningless if there is *no* possibility of
rejecting God.
To suggest that Lucifer exists because there *has* to be a God
Opposite implies that:
a) Lucifer *always* existed because God always existed.
b) Or, not everything God created was good because Lucifer was
not good.
c) Or, Lucifer was not created with free-will because Lucifer's
nature is to be bad.
d) Or, free-will in Lucifer's case is meaningless because Lucifer
never had the possibility of *accepting* God.
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 401.4 | | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Thu Feb 06 1992 15:57 | 91 |
| Re: 3
Salvation to me means, in it's basest conception, "saved from death and
eternal damnation"...and anything or any man or any angel which can be
condemned to death and/or eternal damnation by disobedience, has
available to them, by the tender mercy of our common Father in heaven,
the option to repent and be "SAVED" from death and eternal damnation.
So you consider only man can gain "Salvation", but I believe the
scriptures clearly point out that the Angels which were disobedient
(followers of Satan) are preached to. Also that God has allowed Satan
time to see for himself that he cannot achieve what he has in mind to
do, which is to exalt his throne above God's. Jesus said, "only those
who came down from heaven can ascend up to heaven", and SURELY Satan
was once in heaven...and if we don't believe MAN comes down into flesh
from heaven, then it would seem that only Satan and Jesus and the
fallen angels are the only ones who'll ever go back to heaven.
I think you err when you say "Lucifer/Satan did not commit the Original
Sin". I think he was the ORIGINAL Original Sinner, and thus beguiled
Eve to do the same....at least this is what the bible teaches. Truly
there was no injunction on Satan not to tempt people...in fact that was
his mission, as God wants him to deceive all those he can.
> for Lucifer to change..." A related question might be, "is free-will
> removed from one who rejects God?" In fact, this could be the heart
> of the matter.
Is free-will removed from one who rejects God? It sounds as if you are
asking does God "take away" our free will...if so, I think not. When
we submit to serve SIN, or even serve GOD/Righteousness, we surrender
our "free will" on our own. We can always, and at any time change our
minds. Free will is as natural to us as life itself...there are no
robots or android beings created by God, which serve another being hand
and foot, whose wish is there command, even animals get tired of
mistreatment.
> 1. As I understand it, Lucifer was created an angel (in fact, an
> archangel), and so wasn't born a liar. Becoming the ruler of
> darkness, I believe, falls under the question, "how was Lucifer
> punished?"
To say that Satan BECAME the rule of darkness, seems to imply he was
something else prior to this assignment. You say it falls under the
question of "how was Lucifer punished?"...I say it falls under the
question of when and why Lucifer was created.
People seem to forget that "In the beginning...DARKNESS covered the
face of the deep", and then "God said let there be light". During the
period of time prior to the creation of light, THEN was Satan the most
perfect angel, and the ruler of darkness. But when LIGHT was created,
and the children of light, through Christ, the Word of God, Satan
position as the most perfect angel was ended. You see the battles
between Satan and Gabriel and Michael...it's pretty heavy, are you with
me so far?
Satan never had a "Beatific Vision".
> 3. You present an untenable position concerning the nature of God's
> creations when you suggest that existence of God (all goodness)
> presumes the existence of Another (all evil). According to the
> Judeo-Christion tradition:
> a) *Nothing* existed before God created it.
> b) *Everything* that God created was good.
> c) Angels and humans were created with free-will.
> d) Free-will is meaningless if there is *no* possibility of
> rejecting God.
When "darkness covered the face of the deep" the creation of Satan was
good. But when light came on the scene, and the children of light,
Satan became an evil opposite of that new development.
It's like the Garden of Eden. The Garden was a "PERFECT" garden, as
gardens go. But when Man was introduced into the Garden, though the
Garden was perfect, everything in the Garden wasn't perfect and good
from Man...Man was perfect, the Garden was perfect, but Man in the
Garden is not a perfect combination. We learn from this the idea that
we must learn who to relate to things external and diverse from self.
Alvin, you make several presumptions about my line of thought, but I
don't think you've heard of what I'm saying. Everything God created is
Good, in and of itself self, but not necessarily in combination with
one another. The various combinations of separate things produces the
multitude of diverse creations and essences in the universe, all are
good, but some are bad for other things...for instance water will put
out a fire...is the water a bad thing because it extinguishes the fire,
what if you needed the fire you were camping and the rain put out the
fire you were going to cook over? It depends on the situation.
Playtoe
|
| 401.5 | RE: .4 - observations and confusions | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Fri Feb 07 1992 17:16 | 153 |
| Thank you again, Playtoe, for your thoughtful and considered REPLY.
> Salvation to me means, in it's basest conception, "saved from death and
> eternal damnation"...and anything or any man or any angel which can be
> condemned to death and/or eternal damnation by disobedience, has
> available to them, by the tender mercy of our common Father in heaven,
> the option to repent and be "SAVED" from death and eternal damnation.
>
> So you consider only man can gain "Salvation", but I believe the
> scriptures clearly point out that the Angels which were disobedient
> (followers of Satan) are preached to. ...............................
Yes, your definition of Salvation is certainly consistent with your
belief. I started reading Ezekiel 33, but I didn't have time to
finish it yet. Which verse/verses were you thinking of specifically?
> ..................................... Also that God has allowed Satan
> time to see for himself that he cannot achieve what he has in mind to
> do, which is to exalt his throne above God's. Jesus said, "only those
> who came down from heaven can ascend up to heaven", and SURELY Satan
> was once in heaven...and if we don't believe MAN comes down into flesh
> from heaven, then it would seem that only Satan and Jesus and the
> fallen angels are the only ones who'll ever go back to heaven.
I like the aphorism about ascending to heaven, but, sorry, I'm not
sure I understand what you were trying to say here. Would you mind
rephrasing it?
> I think you err when you say "Lucifer/Satan did not commit the Original
> Sin". I think he was the ORIGINAL Original Sinner, and thus beguiled
> Eve to do the same....at least this is what the bible teaches. .....
We have a clear difference of opinion here. Lucifer certainly
committed some kind of sin that resulted in being expelled from
heaven, but that sin was not the Original Sin that Christians base
their theology on. I don't think I'm in error here, but I'm willing
to admit I'm wrong if you/someone wants to try and explain it to me in
other words.
> .............................................................. Truly
> there was no injunction on Satan not to tempt people...in fact that was
> his mission, as God wants him to deceive all those he can.
Well, I'm not sure God "wants" any entity to be a deceiver. God may
allow it, but, as I understand Judeo-Christian teaching, the will of
God seems to be that all things work together for good. And as it
relates to my initial question, it would seem to me that those that do
the mission that God has set out for them are doing good, therefore
Lucifer is doing good by tempting people. But I'm sure that's not
what you meant. Please elaborate.
> Is free-will removed from one who rejects God? It sounds as if you are
> asking does God "take away" our free will...if so, I think not. When
> we submit to serve SIN, or even serve GOD/Righteousness, we surrender
> our "free will" on our own. We can always, and at any time change our
> minds. Free will is as natural to us as life itself...there are no
> robots or android beings created by God, which serve another being hand
> and foot, whose wish is there command, even animals get tired of
> mistreatment.
Yes, I agree with this, at least in theory. But do Christians believe
"we can always, and at any time change our minds"? Or, to put it
another way, does "any time" include after we die? As I understand
it, Christians believe that once you've finished your time on earth,
all bets are off. You either make it to heaven :^D, or... :^(
> To say that Satan BECAME the rule of darkness, seems to imply he was
> something else prior to this assignment. You say it falls under the
> question of "how was Lucifer punished?"...I say it falls under the
> question of when and why Lucifer was created.
According to Judeo-Christian tradition, Lucifer was created an
archangel. Now, to tell you the truth, I don't know where one finds
this story. We should probably get a pointer to the source before we
continue. But, if my understanding is correct, then Lucifer was
created for the same reason any other angel was created.
> People seem to forget that "In the beginning...DARKNESS covered the
> face of the deep", and then "God said let there be light". During the
> period of time prior to the creation of light, THEN was Satan the most
> perfect angel, and the ruler of darkness. But when LIGHT was created,
> and the children of light, through Christ, the Word of God, Satan
> position as the most perfect angel was ended. You see the battles
> between Satan and Gabriel and Michael...it's pretty heavy, are you with
> me so far?
.
.
.
> When "darkness covered the face of the deep" the creation of Satan was
> good. But when light came on the scene, and the children of light,
> Satan became an evil opposite of that new development.
I don't think people forget "darkness covered the face of the deep",
and I also don't think most people interpret it this way. Correct me
if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying, "by virtue of the fact
that there was darkness, then there must have been Satan." This would
mean that Satan always existed, which certainly runs counter to
Judeo-Christian teaching which says that God, the I Am Who Am, always
existed and was the creator of everything else that exists.
"Darkness", as I understand it in this verse, simply means there was
nothing.
And, yes, you're right about the war between Gabriel, Michael, and
Lucifer being heavy.
> Satan never had a "Beatific Vision".
Maybe, maybe not. We'd have to find out whether or not the Lucifer
story takes place in heaven. If it did, then Lucifer had the Beatific
Vision. If it didn't, then you may be correct *if* your definition of
hell is not, "the state of having seen the Beatific Vision and then
losing it".
> It's like the Garden of Eden. The Garden was a "PERFECT" garden, as
> gardens go. But when Man was introduced into the Garden, though the
> Garden was perfect, everything in the Garden wasn't perfect and good
> from Man...Man was perfect, the Garden was perfect, but Man in the
> Garden is not a perfect combination. We learn from this the idea that
> we must learn who to relate to things external and diverse from self.
>
> Alvin, you make several presumptions about my line of thought, but I
> don't think you've heard of what I'm saying. Everything God created is
> Good, in and of itself self, but not necessarily in combination with
> one another. The various combinations of separate things produces the
> multitude of diverse creations and essences in the universe, all are
> good, but some are bad for other things...for instance water will put
> out a fire...is the water a bad thing because it extinguishes the fire,
> what if you needed the fire you were camping and the rain put out the
> fire you were going to cook over? It depends on the situation.
Actually, I'm not "presuming" anything about your line of thought.
I'm only trying to tell you how I interpret what you say, which is not
the same thing at all. The only thing I presume is that you're
sincere.
And I think I understand most of what you said, although the above two
paragraphs do not make sense to me at all. I summarize them to mean,
"everything is good as long as it stands alone, but put the wrong two
things together and you've got bad". So? What does that have to do
with Lucifer?
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 401.6 | Garden of Eden | AKOCOA::FLANAGAN | waiting for the snow | Mon Feb 10 1992 12:49 | 27 |
| Of course this discussion takes on a whole new twist with a feminist
version of the Garden of EDen. This is a version from Riane Eisler's
book The Chalice and the Blade. It makes a lot of sense to me.
In prehistoric Neolithic time the Great Mother Goddess was worshipped
everywhere. Excavations from all over the world are now showing
evidence of this universal Goddess with many names. The snake or
serpent is a common symbol of the goddess. The bull, or horned animal
is later translated to "satan". The bull represents the male consort
to the Great Mother Goddess.
When "God was a women", society was agrarian, egalitarian, and
peaceful. Violent, Hierarchally organized, Violent Tribes ultimately
wiped out these Agrarian Tribes. These Tribes proclaimed that their
God sanctioned and ordered violence and anihilation against these
tribes. The Israelites and the Cananittes are but one example.
The Garden of EDEN represent those peaceful Agrarian times. Eve's sin
is to continue to Worship the Great Goddess symbolized by the snake.
The Tree of Knowledge and The Tree of Life are common natural
objectives found throughout the Goddess Religions. Being thrown out of
the Garden of Eden is the conquering of the Peaceful Agrarian Societies
by the Violent Nomadic Warrior Tribes. In order to overthrow the
Goddess religion these tribes also needed to practice the brutality
against women as is rationalized in the book of Genesis.
I reject the myth of the Garden of Eden.
|
| 401.7 | An observation and a question | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Tue Feb 11 1992 10:17 | 35 |
| > <<< Note 401.6 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "waiting for the snow" >>>
> -< Garden of Eden >-
> Of course this discussion takes on a whole new twist with a feminist
> version of the Garden of EDen. This is a version from Riane Eisler's
> book The Chalice and the Blade. It makes a lot of sense to me.
.
.
.
> I reject the myth of the Garden of Eden.
Thanx for that little aside.
I, of course, wasn't questioning the myth of the Garden of Eden. In
fact, I accept that at the core of Christianity is the belief that the
human condition is the result of some kind Original Sin and that the
story of the Garden of Eden, even if it isn't literally true, is a
parable used to explain this doctrine. Personally, I, too, have
questions concerning this concept, but, with all due respect, that
wasn't the subject of this topic. I was more interested in reading
the thoughts of those that actually accept this doctrine in that it
has some connection with the Lucifer story/myth, since belief in
{Lucifer,Satan,the Devil} is also an essential Christian belief. But
thanx again.
By the way, I've finally gotten around to reading Ezekiel 33. It
seems to say that if one has sinned but follows that sin with right
actions, then the sin is forgotten. That's just my first impression
after one reading. True, it doesn't say it only applies to humans,
but, since it's certainly addressed to humans, why do you think it
would apply to Lucifer as well?
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 401.8 | | AKOCOA::FLANAGAN | waiting for the snow | Tue Feb 11 1992 14:19 | 7 |
| Sorry about that little aside.
But, is a belief in Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, an essential Christian
belief? Real or figurative?
Pat
|
| 401.9 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Peace: the Final Frontier | Tue Feb 11 1992 19:00 | 15 |
| Note 401.8
> But, is a belief in Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, an essential Christian
> belief? Real or figurative?
Pat,
Some Christians might emphatically say that Satan is a real entity;
as real as you and me. Personally, I do not. I do believe that evil exists,
however.
You might want to check out topics 56 and 304.
Peace,
Richard
|
| 401.10 | RE: .8 - sorry. I didn't mean to sound critical. | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Wed Feb 12 1992 11:37 | 22 |
| > <<< Note 401.8 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "waiting for the snow" >>>
>
> Sorry about that little aside.
No need to apologize, Pat. I thought it was interesting. I just
meant to point out that it didn't directly address the question. If
they don't lead to rat-holes, I think asides add color to a discussion
and I, for one, don't mind.
> But, is a belief in Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, an essential Christian
> belief? Real or figurative?
Real or figurative, I would say, "yes". The Garden of Eden story/myth
introduces the concept of Another Being. Jesus spoke to Another Being
directly before beginning his life's work. Guess a Christian might
say, "If Jesus believed it, I should too!" That's a pretty good test,
I think, of an essential Christian belief.
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 401.11 | | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Wed Feb 12 1992 19:31 | 125 |
| RE 5
Peace, Alvin:
Thank you for your carefully worded reply:
> belief. I started reading Ezekiel 33, but I didn't have time to
> finish it yet. Which verse/verses were you thinking of specifically?
The verses which say "If I say to the wicked he shall surely die, and
he repent of his ways, then he shall live. If I say to the righteous
he shall live, and he commit iniquity, then he shall die...you say MY
ways are unequal, but it is YOUR ways that are unequal"...for God does
not change, but is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
> I like the aphorism about ascending to heaven, but, sorry, I'm not
> sure I understand what you were trying to say here. Would you mind
> rephrasing it?
In other words, I believe in the eternal/immortal spirit of God in Man,
that nothing lives that does not have God in them...God creates no
life form in which he does not put his "spirit of life" in. So Man
comes from God and thus from above, or heaven. Satan fell from heaven.
Jesus came from heaven to save all those that fell from the heavenly
places...and this earth is also heaven, as it is written in Genesis 1:9
"and he called the firmament HEAVEN". The "FALL" of Man and of Satan
was of NATURE, Satan was changed/fell from a Bright Spirit to a Dark
Spirit, same with Man...in other words, from obedience to disobedience.
> We have a clear difference of opinion here. Lucifer certainly
> committed some kind of sin that resulted in being expelled from
> heaven, but that sin was not the Original Sin that Christians base
> their theology on. I don't think I'm in error here, but I'm willing
> to admit I'm wrong if you/someone wants to try and explain it to me in
> other words.
Satan desired exalt his throne above God's, in that desire he commited
the Original Sin, which "disobedience" to the Will of God. Man, the
same thing...as it is written in Thessalonians, "Until that man of sin
be revealed the son of perdition, who exalteth himself above all that
is called God". This is intrinsic to the "Knowledge of Good and Evil",
I believe you need to explain for me your conception of the "Original
Sin"...that is not a bible concept, but a man's concept...what is this
"Original Sin" thing? You present it rather "finitely" or objectively
as if it's some concrete idea, single thing...what?
> Well, I'm not sure God "wants" any entity to be a deceiver. God may
> allow it, but, as I understand Judeo-Christian teaching, the will of
> God seems to be that all things work together for good. And as it
> relates to my initial question, it would seem to me that those that do
> the mission that God has set out for them are doing good, therefore
> Lucifer is doing good by tempting people. But I'm sure that's not
> what you meant. Please elaborate.
"Wanting", and "allowing to exist for a time, til the fullness, or
completion of sin/act of disobedience is accomplished" is two different
things. Surely God does "want" deceivers in the world, and surely the
wicked are constantly being destroyed. But the fact is God allows them
to exist for a time, often to serve as an example, also to test or try
the faith of the righteous (as in the case of Job)...surely if there
were no deceivers in the world no one could be used to challenge the
faith of the righteous...as it is written, "I create good and evil...",
"I made the wicked for the wicked day".
It is not to say that the wicked are doing good in their wickedness,
that Satan is doing good in tempting, because if that were so they'd go
to heaven for their acts...but they won't see heaven acting that way.
On the other hand, those who overcome them will see heaven...and the
following you have misquoted:
> God seems to be that all things work together for good. And as it
The scriptures say, "All things work together for good TO THOSE WHO
LOVE THE LORD".
> Yes, I agree with this, at least in theory. But do Christians believe
> "we can always, and at any time change our minds"? Or, to put it
> another way, does "any time" include after we die? As I understand
> it, Christians believe that once you've finished your time on earth,
> all bets are off. You either make it to heaven :^D, or... :^(
And Christians are right...after death in this life is the Judgement.
So you either get together now, in THIS life or not. Surely after you
die you have essentially moved out of TIME as we know it...as time is a
human convention..."A day to man is as a 1000 years to the Lord," so
you see a different concept of time is in effect once you leave this
plane of existence.
> According to Judeo-Christian tradition, Lucifer was created an
> archangel. Now, to tell you the truth, I don't know where one finds
Ok, true, Satan is an ARCHANGEL. But what was his commission. Every
created angel (Arch or whatever) has a "mission" or a purpose, right?
What was Satan created for? Or what was Satan created to "Keep the way
of"? If you can't find the story, I'll offer this...he was created
the Ruler of Darkness. His Brightest of Spirit, however, was dim
compared to the Children of Light's Bright Spirit. That's possible the
reason God ordered all the Angels in Satan's charge to submit to Adam,
because Adam was worthy of that due to the nature of his Bright Spirit.
But those Angels, and Satan, who refused to submit, to Adam, rebelled
and were "disobedient"...and due their disobedience lost their
"Original State", perhaps that has to do with why it's called the
Original Sin? Because on the same token Adamic Man disobeyed God,
regardless of how that occurred, and as a result fell from his Original
State...and so on, for all those who are disobedient, they are
constantly loosing their Original States...
> if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying, "by virtue of the fact
> that there was darkness, then there must have been Satan." This would
Hummmm...I think I sense somewhat a degree of unbelief in the existence
of Satan...but nevertheless. Why do you say "must have been"?
Anyway? Satan RULES or PRESIDES over things in the DARKNESS, by virtue
of his commission by God. Satan represents CHAOS, and CONFUSION and
FORMLESSLY and the VOID. If you find yourself in any of these four
conditions, KNOW that Satan/Lucifer has you in his power, and you can
easily be deceived, or held in bondage...I'm talking allegorically, as
I've always said the Bible is written in this form...I'm speaking of
principles and forces and operations and order of process, cause and
effect, law of opposition, trinity, The Laws of the Transformations.
Don't take this Satan/Lucifer thing so literally, even as I ask not to
take ADAM and EVE so literally as represent one man and one woman.
Playtoe
|
| 401.12 | | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Wed Feb 12 1992 19:41 | 20 |
| re: 6
That "Great Mother Goddess" was none other than ISIS, and she was twin
and husband to Osiris, both a manifestation of the God PTAH...according
to the Memphite Theology of ancient Egypt. The Great Mother Goddess,
also represents "Mother Earth" or the Flesh.
Also, so you reject the Garden of Eden for this Great Mother Goddess
conception...would you also care to return to the times of FLESH and
LUST and the primal urges of humankind?
You must understand that the FLESH is codifically considered FEMININE
and the inner self or the SPIRIT/MIND is considered the MALE aspect of
being. God is called in the Masculine not because he is strictly a
male, because God is androgynous, both male and female, but God is
referred to as a MALE because God is a SPIRIT. If you viewed it this
way this would also elliminate your feministically oriented offensive
posturing regarding the Word of God.
Playtoe
|
| 401.13 | | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Wed Feb 12 1992 19:54 | 16 |
| Re: Alvin
I see you've read Ezekiel 33 and ask how do we extend it to Satan, yet
you also seem to question the existence of Satan...I say this however,
IF Satan exists (and as I conceive of the reality of that which we call
Satan, he/she/it exists) and was created by God, if Satan can be
disobedient, then surely Satan can become repentant, or change ways
back to obedience...and subsequently be saved from being tossed into
the LAKE OF FIRE...surely if SATAN changed God wouldn't be so
unmerciful and unforgiving as to still throw him into the FIRE. That's
simply impossible for God to do, for it is impossible for God to lie.
And if Ezekiel 33 doesn't apply to Satan as will, then God changed on
Satan's behalf and for Satan Ezekiel 33 is lie...I doubt if God would
allow Satan to get one up on him!
Playtoe
|
| 401.14 | RE: .13 - I understand. Does anybody second? | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Thu Feb 13 1992 10:53 | 43 |
| Sorry, Playtoe, but I only have time to respond to the shorter REPLY
now. I'll get back to you on the other ASAP. And, thanx, again.
<<< Note 401.13 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST "PLAYTOE" >>>
> I see you've read Ezekiel 33 and ask how do we extend it to Satan, yet
> you also seem to question the existence of Satan......................
Well, actually my purpose wasn't to question the existence or
non-existence of anything. I'm an agnostic and a skeptic, but I'm
taking the position here of one who is trying to understand - not
challenge. In fact, my hope is that if others find that this
discussion helps them have an even better understanding of their
faith, great! In light of this I hope you can see how your "yet"
doesn't have anything to do with my question(s). Pretend, if it will
help, that I'm a neophyte Christian.
> ...................................................I say this however,
> IF Satan exists (and as I conceive of the reality of that which we call
> Satan, he/she/it exists) and was created by God, if Satan can be
> disobedient, then surely Satan can become repentant, or change ways
> back to obedience...and subsequently be saved from being tossed into
> the LAKE OF FIRE...surely if SATAN changed God wouldn't be so
> unmerciful and unforgiving as to still throw him into the FIRE. That's
> simply impossible for God to do, for it is impossible for God to lie.
> And if Ezekiel 33 doesn't apply to Satan as will, then God changed on
> Satan's behalf and for Satan Ezekiel 33 is lie...I doubt if God would
> allow Satan to get one up on him!
Yes, yes, yes! Finally! This answers my original question! What too
you so long? Thanx.
Okay, so now I have one Christian's perspective. Is Playtoe the only
Christian in the CHRISTIAN_PERSPECTIVE conference? Is his the
"definitive" answer? Do some denominations think otherwise? Or could
it be I have a stupid question?
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 401.15 | If he would he could. | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Thu Feb 13 1992 16:47 | 10 |
| Re: 14
I, last evening, raised the question to a Catholic Bishop I met
recently, and he supported my idea...he said "God is not so unmerciful,
salvation is open to all (universal, world without end). The question
is WILL Satan repent. Some people are just born to be wicked." And
after he said that I said, "Yes, God said, "I made the wicked for the
wicked day", and he said "Yes, that's what he said"...so.
Playtoe
|
| 401.16 | RE: .12 - come again? | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Fri Feb 14 1992 11:33 | 41 |
| Sorry, Playtoe, I had a hard time replying to this. And I hope you
won't take offense cause this just might be the result of a hard week.
<<< Note 401.12 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST "PLAYTOE" >>>
> That "Great Mother Goddess" was none other than ISIS, and she was twin
> and husband to Osiris, both a manifestation of the God PTAH...according
> to the Memphite Theology of ancient Egypt. The Great Mother Goddess,
> also represents "Mother Earth" or the Flesh.
What this has to do with my question is beyond me.
> Also, so you reject the Garden of Eden for this Great Mother Goddess
> conception...would you also care to return to the times of FLESH and
> LUST and the primal urges of humankind?
As I've noted elsewhere, my beliefs have nothing to do with my
intention in asking the question. And, again, what does this have to
do with my question?
> You must understand that the FLESH is codifically considered FEMININE
> and the inner self or the SPIRIT/MIND is considered the MALE aspect of
> being. God is called in the Masculine not because he is strictly a
> male, because God is androgynous, both male and female, but God is
> referred to as a MALE because God is a SPIRIT. If you viewed it this
> way this would also elliminate your feministically oriented offensive
> posturing regarding the Word of God.
Could it be that you meant this REPLY for another topic? Not only
does this *not* address the original question, but it states
philosophical meanderings as if they were fact, and it draws a
conclusion about my views that, IMHO, is unwarranted. If this whole
thing wasn't entered here by mistake then I find it disappointing
because it doesn't show you at your best. :^(
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 401.17 | | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Fri Feb 14 1992 18:15 | 6 |
| RE 16
(SMILE) No offense taken. The note you've responded to (.12) was
addressed to reply (.6) by Flanagan...
Playtoe
|
| 401.18 | RE: .16 - oops! | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Fri Feb 14 1992 19:17 | 10 |
| <<< Note 401.17 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST "PLAYTOE" >>>
> .......................... The note you've responded to (.12) was
> addressed to reply (.6) by Flanagan...
Oh, yes! Now it makes sense. Double apologies from me. :^(
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 401.19 | anti dualism | AKOCOA::FLANAGAN | waiting for the snow | Mon Feb 17 1992 10:19 | 6 |
| RE: .12
I do reject the dualism between God/Goddess Spirit/Body Male/Female
Good/Evil Heaven/Earth.
Oat
|
| 401.20 | | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Mon Feb 17 1992 13:22 | 16 |
| Re: 19
Why do you reject dualism? I have OVERCOME dualism....but to reject it
puts one in a VERY precarious light, very precarious. I mean men and
women, male and female, is the only reality, what else is there?
I understand why some others reject Dualism, because it is the
knowledge of "oppositions/opposing forces", and who wants to "study
war". However, the Laws of Oppositions is a fundamental principle of
life. The Trinity springs from Dualism...from the Father and Mother
comes the Son/Daughter. Did you know that in the early beginnings of
mankind, it was normal to have a male and female set of twins? "Male
and female created he them." could refer to androgeny or to twins.
Playtoe
|
| 401.21 | here and now | AKOCOA::FLANAGAN | waiting for the snow | Mon Feb 17 1992 14:00 | 10 |
| I reject dualism because the here and the now is what is important.
Christian dualism suggests that the male, the herafter, the spirit is
all that matters. Mother Earth, the body, sex, the female are also
important. How we live our lives right now is what truly counts. Even
Paul(in spite of his chauvinism) picked the best choice out of the faith,
hope, and love triad. Let the Reign of the Divine begin right here,
right now. Let's not wait until some mythical time at the end of
history.
Pat
|
| 401.22 | Now is the only time there is | ATSE::FLAHERTY | That's enough for me... | Mon Feb 17 1992 14:18 | 6 |
| Hi Pat,
Enjoying your inputs...good stuff.
Ro
|
| 401.23 | Hummmm.... | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Mon Feb 17 1992 15:39 | 16 |
| Re: 21
I can relate to what you are saying, how you reject it based upon how
the misguided have misrepresented it in the past. But in the "here and
now", do you reject the idea of existant dualism in the universe? I
reject "Dualism" in the way you do as well, when I come to think about
it! But I understand that that version of the meaning and reality of
Dualism is not the full story and reality of it in the universe.
So, I'm wondering...if you believe as you do, how do you feel about
what we are talking about regarding Judas, certain Gnostic's belief in
Utility of Evil, and the necessity of evil....since Mother Earth, the
Body, sex, the female are also important, is EVIL as well important to
life?
Playtoe
|
| 401.24 | bum wrap | AKOCOA::FLANAGAN | waiting for the snow | Mon Feb 17 1992 15:50 | 21 |
| I think Judas got a bum wrap.
Its the same problem as the hardening of the heart of the Egyptians.
If Judas was predestined to betray Jesus, then he had no free will then
he should not be judged guilty. I believe in an all loving merciful
Divinity. Not one that sets someone up and then punishes them.
|
| 401.25 | Wow, this it wonderful! | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Mon Feb 17 1992 18:46 | 24 |
| Re: 24
I too must give some consideration to this Gnostic idea. If Jesus
"chose" Judas afterwards he was locked in to fulfill that which he was
called to do...and what did Judas do afterwards, didn't he commit
suicide or something? I mean GOSH, it's not like Judas actually
crucified the MAN, he merely pointed him out! Is that enough to send
this disciple to hell....Did Judas actually SIN? What was Judas' sin?
Name the Commandment he broke?
Yes, I think Judas should get a "retrial"...isn't this exciting? Why
don't we hold a trial right here? Elect a jury, get some defense
attorney's and some prosecutor's from those who believe he's guilty of
SIN...I don't know but I think I could win a case and get Judas off
light!
Man, this is really inspiring...here I was trying to make good of this
socalled evil thing, only to find out it was ME all along imposing the
evil on this good thing...Like Peter on socalled "unclean" meats!
I felt a cloud/mist remove from the left side of my brain! I'm
serious!
Playtoe
|
| 401.26 | A Pointer | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Tue Feb 18 1992 09:45 | 17 |
| Well, I was speaking to a friend a mine who said I could find the
story/myth of Lucifer in Revelations. He mumbled something about how
some think dualism isn't really part of Judeo thinking/teaching so
this was "supplied" as an "answer" to those that thought dualism
should have a place in Christian thinking/teaching. So, interestingly
enough, Playtoe, et al., may still be addressing my original question
even though they seem to be exploring a fur-lined rat-hole.
By the way, I haven't gotten around to locating the chapter and verse.
If anyone cares to supply them before I get back here, please feel
free.
Happy noting.
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|