Satan's rhetoric - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

auswegian · 07-28-2003, 02:34 AM

I read somewhere that a third of the angels joined Satan in his revolt. Now this gave me pause. On one side there is God, the Almighty, omnipotent, omniscient and all that. Completely, utterly inassailable, to revolt would be an insanity, surely. And yet this upstart angel manages to convince one out of every three angels, whose sole purpose is the sing the praises of God and is therefore surely hard-wired for the position, to revolt and turn away. He had to have one hell of a good argument to back him up.

Now, its before the fall. The angels are milling about, singing and praying. Satan suddenly stops singing, and begins to speak. He speaks fluently and passionately, and soon heads are nodding. God reacts violently, and soon a war is on with the inevitable defeat of Satan, which he and all his comrades surely knew was the most likely outcome.

Now, any ideas about what the heck he could possibly have said? It must have been the most effective speech in history. What sort of arguments could he have possibly used?

Macheath · 07-28-2003, 05:43 AM

I think the first step is to think of Satan as a consumate politician in the Congress of heaven. I hunted a little bit and pulled an essay that I thought was most relevant to this question. It's a little long and dry but it shows how any talented politican would be able to create some strong rhetoric with certain arguments at their disposal. Here's an extract.

From http://www.brysons.net/miltonweb/milton04.html

Quote:

Satan's Protestantism in Paradise Lost

Satan mixes elements of each of these theories of the relation of subject to ruler into his rhetoric. In justifying his, and his faction's, rebellion against heaven's king, Satan portrays himself as a prince entitled and even required to resist an unjust monarch who is grasping for absolute power and thereby attempting to usurp that portion of the "higher power" or "governing authority" that belongs to the lower magistrates: "A third part of the Gods [again, read "Gods" as elohim in Calvin's sense of gods, magistrates, or judges], in Synod met / Thir Deities to assert, who while they feel / Vigor Divine within them, can allow / Omnipotence to none" (VI. 156-159).

The picture of heaven's king as a grasper, a usurper of powers not rightfully his own, is common to those who follow Satan's lead. Nisroch, "of Principalities the prime," addresses Satan as "Deliverer from new Lords, leader to free / Enjoyment of our right as Gods" (VI. 451, 452). Satan himself characterizes the pronouncement of the Son as the great Vice-gerent as a usurpation of power rightfully belonging to others: "Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues, Powers, / If these magnific Titles yet remain / Not merely titular, since by Decree / Another now hath to himself ingross't / All Power, and us eclipst under the name / Of King annointed . . . "(P.L. V. 772-777). Satan goes on to characterize this shift in heavenly politics as a demand for "Knee-tribute yet unpaid, prostration vile, / too much to one, but double how endur'd, / To one and to his image now proclaim'd?" (V. 782-784).

The political balance of Stephen Marshall's "Letter" is at work here in two ways: Satan is characterizing the heavenly system as having been one in which (until the usurpation) the threefold power of enacting laws, making wars, and judging "causes and crimes" had been shared by the king and parliament, the heavenly king and his heavenly princes and magistrates; the "Father infinite" of V. 596 is characterizing the heavenly system as one in which the threefold power is contained in one ruler, the heavenly king. By claiming to defend their right to rule, to defend "those Imperial Titles which assert / Our being ordain'd to govern, not to serve" (V. 801, 802), Satan and his followers are claiming their rights under a system of government which holds that it is the duty of lesser magistrates to hold the king in check. This fits quite nicely with Calvin's insistence that the only lawful political resistance to a tyrannous king could come from lower magistrates acting in concert with one another. It is, in fact, the sacred duty of such magistrates to resist tyranny, as is spelled out quite clearly in the following passage:

I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God's ordinance. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV. xx. 31, p. 1519)

That Satan claims to be fighting against tyranny is made clear by his numerous references to the Father as a tyrant: Hell is the "Prison of his Tyranny who Reigns / By our delay"; the Father is "our grand Foe, / Who now triumphs, and in th' excess of joy / Sole reigning holds the Tyranny of Heav'n" (I. 122-124). The key here is the phrase "Sole reigning." In a system in which lesser magistrates or princes had real power, the monarch would not be in a position of exclusive and absolute reign. This makes sense of Satan's famous "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n" in a way that does not require that Satan be pictured as being himself an absolute ruler, a tyrant who rails against tyranny. Despite the "Oriental" descriptions of Satan given by the narrator at the beginning of book II, the "Throne of Royal State," the "Barbaric Pearl and Gold" that the "gorgeous East with richest hand / Show'rs on her Kings," Satan justifies, and maintains, his power by appeal to what he and his followers represent as the king-in-parliament model of heavenly government: the system of "Orders and Degrees" that "Jar not with liberty" (V. 792, 793) to which Satan refers when he tells his fellow fallen angels that the "just right and the fixt Laws of Heav'n / Did first create your Leader" (II. 18, 19). As we will see later, however, Satan appeals to this system precisely in order that he may establish a tyrannical rule over his fallen compatriots, imposing a top-down system in Hell after having explicitly rejected and rebelled against such a system in Heaven.

What is distinctly missing from Satan's political rhetoric is any mention of those who are ruled. Over whom, after all, do all of these "Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues, [and] Powers" reign? If "those Imperial Titles" indicate that the angels were "ordain'd to govern, not to serve" (V. 801, 802), whom are the angels governing? Each other? William Empson somewhat whimsically suggests a solution to this problem by postulating the existence of what he calls "the vast dim class of proletarian angels who are needed so that angels with titles may issue orders" (Milton's God 60). Before the creation of Adam and Eve on a new-made Earth, one might ask the same question about the reign of the Father. Over whom, besides these "Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues, [and] Powers" does the Father reign? Does the Father reign if there are no subjects but angelic princes and magistrates?

Protestant political theory, at least as it appears in Calvin, Luther, Mh ntzer, and Marshall, assumes as a given that magistracy and the power thereof is designed for the good of those who are ruled, basing this claim on Romans 13:4, where the magistrate is described as "the minister of God to thee for good." Marshall describes a proper Magistracy as one set up "with a sufficiencie of power and authority to rule for the publicke good" (3). However, in Paradise Lost, there appears to be no public, much less a public good, until the rebellion by Satan, and the subsequent creation of Adam and Eve on Earth. Until this radical break, heaven appears to have been little more than a gigantic May Day parade with only Party members in attendance. There is only dictatorship, no proletariat in Milton's prelapsarian heaven.

Whew. I had a look at the war's aftermath in <a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/pl/book_1/index.shtml">book one of Paradise Lost</a> and the fallen Angels are really trying to spin it as a close fight, really feeling a lot of stubborn resentment towards God and kind of rallying each other to regroup with all these great speeches. It all comes down to Satan's pride and his great line that it's better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

Pellaz · 07-28-2003, 06:38 AM

One of my favorites. I like versions where Lucifer isn't evil, per se, just see's things from a different light. God is first among equals, and an argument errupts. Bim Bam Boom, fireworks everywhere, and the rest is history.

From a religious view, the matter would be moot, I think. If you believe in an all powerful god, then the revolt was part of his devine plan, yada yada yada.

I think it's also regarded that the angels who came down and bedded humans also went with lucifer.

ellipsys · 07-28-2003, 07:02 AM

Lucifer was given the title "Son of the Morning," no? We can safely assume that he was, if not quite powerful, a very influential being in the pre-existance. Only 2 people who spoke up when God asked for 'helpers' and one of them was God's "only begotten son." Easy to see that if Lucifer was confident enough to go against daddy's boy, he had to have had a good amount of support.

Lucifer's plan, which contradicted Jehovah's almost to a T, was along the lines of "Everyone will be forced to do good, and then all of God's children will automatically be exalted. Oh, by the way, I expect mondo credit and glory when this is all over." This plan could have been so appealing to all of the beings (angels) who would be effected by it, that his plan gained the support of 1/3 of the hosts of heaven - i mean, it sounds pretty rad to be *assured* exaltation, rather than have to make choices and learn from your mistakes on your own. Regardless of his charm, wit, influence, or magnetism - Lucifer's plan was just plain simple and convenient.

Also, I see "the war in heaven" as more of a political stand-off between an unyeilding Lucifer and an understanding God/Jesus who issued an ultimatum that Lucifer found unnacceptable. No violence, no action, just a stubborn angel who stormed off with his posse and swore revenge - a revenge that he is constantly working at and steadily making progress.

hobo · 07-29-2003, 10:14 PM

So God made angels to worship him, but some of them stopped that? That means God didn't create them properly because they stopped performing their designated tasks. That alone proves that he is not perfect, as the perfect would not make mistakes.

Bromius · 07-30-2003, 09:30 AM

As much as we could understand the mental processes of the non-human, I look first to literature. Consider what Milton has Satan say to the angels:

...Hail horrours, hail
Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings
A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time.
The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less then hee
Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n.
But wherefore let we then our faithful friends,
Th' associates and copartners of our loss
Lye thus astonisht on th' oblivious Pool,
And call them not to share with us their part
In this unhappy Mansion, or once more
With rallied Arms to try what may be yet
Regaind in Heav'n, or what more lost in Hell?
(I, 250-70)

Moonduck · 07-30-2003, 01:58 PM

The rote reply to the "God is not perfect as he created flawed beings" argument is as simple as it is unprovable. They are working as intended. What you term flaws, God calls "features".

Why do I feel like I'm working a CS Board for a software company...

CAN_skate · 08-02-2003, 04:20 PM

Thanks for all the "features" god!

Anyone who would make a world like this full of suffering and boy bands is kind of weird, but sometimes I think maybe we are contestants in a big game show, kinda like Candid Camera. You don't know your in it. Or that one where you have to go shopping real quick.
What I'm trying to say here is go for the meat, it's worth more in the end.

MuadDib · 08-03-2003, 12:55 AM

The most convincing argument I could imagine would be a right of authority argument. Coming from a free and priviledged democracy can you imagine a life of nothing but adoring/praising the high authority? I would imagine it similar to the enlightenment era dictators who ran simply awesome societies. People were still unhappy because they had no say in there lives.

I always imagined Satan saying something along the lines of "What gives him the right to tell us what to do?" and "Sure, God is the greatest being possible, but that doesn't make all of us not good." Look to modern cultural relativity arguments about how there is no evil or wrong societies, just different ones. Look to the human love for freedom and self authority. I don't think it would be hard to get 1/3 of people who are otherwise happy to rise up and oppose the source of their happiness to gain the ability to be in control of their own destinies. Kinda like the movie Vanilla Sky or the book 1984. All you have to do to be happy is just accept the way things are and never question and do what you are told. Ultimately, the protaginsts for better or worse choose to take control over there own lives. Honestly, is it more real/satisfying to have life/success handed to you on a silver platter from day one or to truly earn your reward?

maxero · 08-03-2003, 01:40 AM

maybe when we die we'll find out satan is like the fonz

redravin40 · 08-03-2003, 12:05 PM

In 'Bedazzled' (the Dudley Moore and Peter Cook version) when Dudley Moore asks Peter Cooks Satan why he left, the answer is clear.
He sit on top of a dustbin and tells Moore to dance around and tell him how wonderful he is.
When Moore is tired and wants to stop Satan makes him continue.
Finally he looks down and says, "Now imagine doing that for eternity."

Loki · 08-03-2003, 09:36 PM

i remember reading somewhere that the reason why the angels split was regarding the acceptance of mankind. lucifer and his lot didnt particularly want to, and god and his lot did.

ill do some more research and get back to you all though.

rogue49 · 08-03-2003, 09:48 PM

If you want a different perspective on the "mixup"

Read "To Reign in Hell" by Steven Brust

Why everything happened as it did in fictional terms.
Good read.

It was all a big bruhaha about nothing, a misunderstanding
political posturing.

Damn, I'm going to hell.

Johnny Rotten · 08-04-2003, 12:15 AM

As I understand it, angels are free to worship or not worship, unlike humans. It'll get you kicked out of the pearly gates, but God won't punish you other than that.

MuadDib · 08-04-2003, 04:27 AM

Except for that being cast down to hell like Satan thing

Brdd99boy · 08-04-2003, 06:09 AM

The word (name) Lucifer appears only once in the Bible and it was used to refer to the King of Babalon. John Milton used the name Lucifer for the satan character in his book and it then became a popular name for satan

Maveric · 08-04-2003, 10:38 PM

reminds me of an old southern baptist phrase - ...and the devil, said unto God, "It's better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven!"

Pellaz · 08-05-2003, 07:12 AM

Rouge: To Reign in Hell is indeed a lot of fun.

Brdd99boy:Sorry mate, but Milton did not popularise the use of Lucifer as a name for the first of the fallen. A monikor was indeed mistranslated as the proper name Lucifer, and it was most likely a Babylonian king, but the name was intergrated into the angel mythos by the church well before Milton.

sportsrule101 · 08-05-2003, 08:50 AM

I believe that angles have a free will, so they can disobey/revolt against God. The uprising of satan came before the creation of man, and was because he wanted to be as powerful as the triune God. He failed and was kicked out, and is waiting for his fate of the lake of fire.

Varese · 08-05-2003, 04:26 PM

if god is omnipotent, why doesnt he control satans thoughts and make him good again? If you say he can't, then he's not omnipotent.

If you say he doesn't want to, then it's because he doesn't care. Benevolent God my ASS.

Varese · 08-05-2003, 04:28 PM

my point, satan doesnt exist. his character was just created because people want a manifestation to blame things on, in this case its their fear, hate, and sexual tension. and then there's osama bin laden...

MuadDib · 08-06-2003, 09:06 AM

There is always the possibility that his existence promotes a greater good or service an important function. Therefore it would not contradict God's benevolence to for him to exist. In fact, another possibility is that it affirms his benevolence by proving that God does simply destroy those who are against him, but give them time to reject there ways.

Menoman · 08-07-2003, 06:47 AM

"if god is omnipotent, why doesnt he control satans thoughts and make him good again? If you say he can't, then he's not omnipotent.

If you say he doesn't want to, then it's because he doesn't care. Benevolent God my ASS."

I'm a athiest, and even to me thats a ignorant thing to say :\

gloob · 08-07-2003, 04:57 PM

I've always found Lucifer to be an interesting character, regardless of wether he is real or not. He is supposed to be an infinitely evil figure, but you almost can't help feeling sorry for him.
If you look at his fall from a sympathetic point of view it's easier to relate to him than any other heavenly presence.
First of all he was not omnipotent but flawed, like us. Secondly, the only choice he was ever given was to serve or be cast through chaos into a fiery abyss. Granted he went schizo after he fell, but why did he even have to fall? Everyone has their breaking point, couldn't god have offered an alternative to damnation to placate him a little?
Lord only knows I'm not the sharpest crayon in the box, so I can imagine what it would be like to have to live in the shadow of a less imperfect being than myself. But to have to kowtow to the almighty for eternity would not be pleasant. Hell, this whole can of worms could have been avoided if the omnipresent G could have devoted a little more of that divine intellect and attention of his to his own creations.
It seems like what it really boils down to is the fact that God doesn't want to be held accountable for his failure to be a good parent.

oops, that was a little long.

Maveric · 08-10-2003, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gloob

It seems like what it really boils down to is the fact that God doesn't want to be held accountable for his failure to be a good parent.

oops, that was a little long.

you should read the comic book PREACHER by Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon.

mjollnir · 08-15-2003, 06:19 AM

I am an Anthropologist and an Archaeologist and have become Agnostic due to my studies, I lean to believing in a supreme being, but i dont know. But just to mess with peoples heads, i like to tell them...
What makes you so sure God will be victorious in the Apocalypse anyway?
Look at the world around you. Sometimes you may get angry at those who you most love, but how often do find yourself loving those who you consider your enimies? hate is so much stronger and easier than love.
Darkness is so much stronger than light. Think of our enormous beautiful bright sun... Even it will die and be swallowed by darkness. All light will eventually die. Darkness is all that is eternal.

07-28-2003, 02:34 AM	#1 (permalink)
auswegian Crazy Location: Perth, Australia	Satan's rhetoric I read somewhere that a third of the angels joined Satan in his revolt. Now this gave me pause. On one side there is God, the Almighty, omnipotent, omniscient and all that. Completely, utterly inassailable, to revolt would be an insanity, surely. And yet this upstart angel manages to convince one out of every three angels, whose sole purpose is the sing the praises of God and is therefore surely hard-wired for the position, to revolt and turn away. He had to have one hell of a good argument to back him up. Now, its before the fall. The angels are milling about, singing and praying. Satan suddenly stops singing, and begins to speak. He speaks fluently and passionately, and soon heads are nodding. God reacts violently, and soon a war is on with the inevitable defeat of Satan, which he and all his comrades surely knew was the most likely outcome. Now, any ideas about what the heck he could possibly have said? It must have been the most effective speech in history. What sort of arguments could he have possibly used?

07-28-2003, 06:38 AM	#3 (permalink)
Pellaz Addict Location: Texas	Re: Satan's rhetoric One of my favorites. I like versions where Lucifer isn't evil, per se, just see's things from a different light. God is first among equals, and an argument errupts. Bim Bam Boom, fireworks everywhere, and the rest is history. From a religious view, the matter would be moot, I think. If you believe in an all powerful god, then the revolt was part of his devine plan, yada yada yada. I think it's also regarded that the angels who came down and bedded humans also went with lucifer. __________________ " ' Big Mouth. Remember it took three of you to kill me. A god, a boy, and, last and least, a hero.' "

07-30-2003, 09:30 AM	#6 (permalink)
Bromius Upright Location: New York City	As much as we could understand the mental processes of the non-human, I look first to literature. Consider what Milton has Satan say to the angels: ...Hail horrours, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time. The mind is its own place, and in it self Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less then hee Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n. But wherefore let we then our faithful friends, Th' associates and copartners of our loss Lye thus astonisht on th' oblivious Pool, And call them not to share with us their part In this unhappy Mansion, or once more With rallied Arms to try what may be yet Regaind in Heav'n, or what more lost in Hell? (I, 250-70) __________________ "And the Devil did grin For his darling sin Is the pride that apes humility." - S.T. Coleridge Last edited by Bromius; 07-30-2003 at 09:36 AM..

08-03-2003, 01:40 AM	#10 (permalink)
maxero Crazy	maybe when we die we'll find out satan is like the fonz __________________ cough

08-03-2003, 12:05 PM	#11 (permalink)
redravin40 Loser Location: With Jadzia	In 'Bedazzled' (the Dudley Moore and Peter Cook version) when Dudley Moore asks Peter Cooks Satan why he left, the answer is clear. He sit on top of a dustbin and tells Moore to dance around and tell him how wonderful he is. When Moore is tired and wants to stop Satan makes him continue. Finally he looks down and says, "Now imagine doing that for eternity." Last edited by redravin40; 08-04-2003 at 07:15 AM..

07-28-2003, 07:02 AM	#4 (permalink)
ellipsys Upright	Lucifer was given the title "Son of the Morning," no? We can safely assume that he was, if not quite powerful, a very influential being in the pre-existance. Only 2 people who spoke up when God asked for 'helpers' and one of them was God's "only begotten son." Easy to see that if Lucifer was confident enough to go against daddy's boy, he had to have had a good amount of support. Lucifer's plan, which contradicted Jehovah's almost to a T, was along the lines of "Everyone will be forced to do good, and then all of God's children will automatically be exalted. Oh, by the way, I expect mondo credit and glory when this is all over." This plan could have been so appealing to all of the beings (angels) who would be effected by it, that his plan gained the support of 1/3 of the hosts of heaven - i mean, it sounds pretty rad to be assured exaltation, rather than have to make choices and learn from your mistakes on your own. Regardless of his charm, wit, influence, or magnetism - Lucifer's plan was just plain simple and convenient. Also, I see "the war in heaven" as more of a political stand-off between an unyeilding Lucifer and an understanding God/Jesus who issued an ultimatum that Lucifer found unnacceptable. No violence, no action, just a stubborn angel who stormed off with his posse and swore revenge - a revenge that he is constantly working at and steadily making progress.

07-29-2003, 10:14 PM	#5 (permalink)
hobo Archangel of Change	So God made angels to worship him, but some of them stopped that? That means God didn't create them properly because they stopped performing their designated tasks. That alone proves that he is not perfect, as the perfect would not make mistakes.

07-30-2003, 01:58 PM	#7 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	The rote reply to the "God is not perfect as he created flawed beings" argument is as simple as it is unprovable. They are working as intended. What you term flaws, God calls "features". Why do I feel like I'm working a CS Board for a software company...

08-02-2003, 04:20 PM	#8 (permalink)
CAN_skate Banned Location: Totally out there.	Thanks for all the "features" god! Anyone who would make a world like this full of suffering and boy bands is kind of weird, but sometimes I think maybe we are contestants in a big game show, kinda like Candid Camera. You don't know your in it. Or that one where you have to go shopping real quick. What I'm trying to say here is go for the meat, it's worth more in the end.

08-03-2003, 12:55 AM	#9 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	The most convincing argument I could imagine would be a right of authority argument. Coming from a free and priviledged democracy can you imagine a life of nothing but adoring/praising the high authority? I would imagine it similar to the enlightenment era dictators who ran simply awesome societies. People were still unhappy because they had no say in there lives. I always imagined Satan saying something along the lines of "What gives him the right to tell us what to do?" and "Sure, God is the greatest being possible, but that doesn't make all of us not good." Look to modern cultural relativity arguments about how there is no evil or wrong societies, just different ones. Look to the human love for freedom and self authority. I don't think it would be hard to get 1/3 of people who are otherwise happy to rise up and oppose the source of their happiness to gain the ability to be in control of their own destinies. Kinda like the movie Vanilla Sky or the book 1984. All you have to do to be happy is just accept the way things are and never question and do what you are told. Ultimately, the protaginsts for better or worse choose to take control over there own lives. Honestly, is it more real/satisfying to have life/success handed to you on a silver platter from day one or to truly earn your reward?

08-03-2003, 09:36 PM	#12 (permalink)
Loki Psycho Location: Drifting.	i remember reading somewhere that the reason why the angels split was regarding the acceptance of mankind. lucifer and his lot didnt particularly want to, and god and his lot did. ill do some more research and get back to you all though.

08-03-2003, 09:48 PM	#13 (permalink)
rogue49 Loser	If you want a different perspective on the "mixup" Read "To Reign in Hell" by Steven Brust Why everything happened as it did in fictional terms. Good read. It was all a big bruhaha about nothing, a misunderstanding political posturing. Damn, I'm going to hell.

08-04-2003, 12:15 AM	#14 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	As I understand it, angels are free to worship or not worship, unlike humans. It'll get you kicked out of the pearly gates, but God won't punish you other than that. __________________ "The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

08-04-2003, 04:27 AM	#15 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Except for that being cast down to hell like Satan thing

08-04-2003, 06:09 AM	#16 (permalink)
Brdd99boy Banned Location: kyle	The word (name) Lucifer appears only once in the Bible and it was used to refer to the King of Babalon. John Milton used the name Lucifer for the satan character in his book and it then became a popular name for satan

08-04-2003, 10:38 PM	#17 (permalink)
Maveric Insane Location: Houston, Texas	reminds me of an old southern baptist phrase - ...and the devil, said unto God, "It's better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven!"

08-05-2003, 07:12 AM	#18 (permalink)
Pellaz Addict Location: Texas	Rouge: To Reign in Hell is indeed a lot of fun. Brdd99boy:Sorry mate, but Milton did not popularise the use of Lucifer as a name for the first of the fallen. A monikor was indeed mistranslated as the proper name Lucifer, and it was most likely a Babylonian king, but the name was intergrated into the angel mythos by the church well before Milton. __________________ " ' Big Mouth. Remember it took three of you to kill me. A god, a boy, and, last and least, a hero.' "

08-05-2003, 08:50 AM	#19 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	I believe that angles have a free will, so they can disobey/revolt against God. The uprising of satan came before the creation of man, and was because he wanted to be as powerful as the triune God. He failed and was kicked out, and is waiting for his fate of the lake of fire. __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

08-05-2003, 04:26 PM	#20 (permalink)
Varese Upright	if god is omnipotent, why doesnt he control satans thoughts and make him good again? If you say he can't, then he's not omnipotent. If you say he doesn't want to, then it's because he doesn't care. Benevolent God my ASS.

08-05-2003, 04:28 PM	#21 (permalink)
Varese Upright	my point, satan doesnt exist. his character was just created because people want a manifestation to blame things on, in this case its their fear, hate, and sexual tension. and then there's osama bin laden...

08-06-2003, 09:06 AM	#22 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	There is always the possibility that his existence promotes a greater good or service an important function. Therefore it would not contradict God's benevolence to for him to exist. In fact, another possibility is that it affirms his benevolence by proving that God does simply destroy those who are against him, but give them time to reject there ways.

08-07-2003, 04:57 PM	#24 (permalink)
gloob Upright	I've always found Lucifer to be an interesting character, regardless of wether he is real or not. He is supposed to be an infinitely evil figure, but you almost can't help feeling sorry for him. If you look at his fall from a sympathetic point of view it's easier to relate to him than any other heavenly presence. First of all he was not omnipotent but flawed, like us. Secondly, the only choice he was ever given was to serve or be cast through chaos into a fiery abyss. Granted he went schizo after he fell, but why did he even have to fall? Everyone has their breaking point, couldn't god have offered an alternative to damnation to placate him a little? Lord only knows I'm not the sharpest crayon in the box, so I can imagine what it would be like to have to live in the shadow of a less imperfect being than myself. But to have to kowtow to the almighty for eternity would not be pleasant. Hell, this whole can of worms could have been avoided if the omnipresent G could have devoted a little more of that divine intellect and attention of his to his own creations. It seems like what it really boils down to is the fact that God doesn't want to be held accountable for his failure to be a good parent. oops, that was a little long.

08-15-2003, 06:19 AM	#26 (permalink)
mjollnir Tilted Location: Near Gainesville, FL	I am an Anthropologist and an Archaeologist and have become Agnostic due to my studies, I lean to believing in a supreme being, but i dont know. But just to mess with peoples heads, i like to tell them... What makes you so sure God will be victorious in the Apocalypse anyway? Look at the world around you. Sometimes you may get angry at those who you most love, but how often do find yourself loving those who you consider your enimies? hate is so much stronger and easier than love. Darkness is so much stronger than light. Think of our enormous beautiful bright sun... Even it will die and be swallowed by darkness. All light will eventually die. Darkness is all that is eternal. __________________ Yes I am a Pirate 200 years too late, Cannons don't thunder theres nuthin to plunder I'm an over 30 victim of fate...