Satan can't be all that bad! - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

asaris · 10-12-2004, 11:45 AM

Duns Scotus actually gives a pretty good answer to the question of Satan's free will; once I'm home, I'll look it up and post it.

And I still haven't seen any reason to think that Azazel is the same person as Satan/Lucifer.

kd4 · 10-12-2004, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aRs3N1c42

If we define sin as opposition to the will of God, then it would follow that in order for Satan/Lucifer/Azezel to sin, he must have a will with which to oppose God's will. What then is keeping two thirds of heaven from also following Satan/Lucifer/Azezel in his sin? If the human condition of sinfulness started when Adam and Eve chose to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, could angels perhaps not have knowledge of good and evil? Is it possible to oppose the will of God without this knowledge? Is it possible to be held accountable for sin without this knowledge?

well I think that basically the other angels don't commit the sin of pride because Satan was the "highest" angel in heaven, and most powerful, now if he was cast down, I dont' think anybody would think they were better than God. I don't know if this was said somewhere else in this thread but even Michael the archangel did not try and handle Satan, but said something along the lines of, "May God rebuke you." Might not be Michael maybe Gabriel, but I don't have the verse on hand.

asaris · 10-13-2004, 12:50 PM

Okay, sorry if this is long and/or boring.

Scotus's theory of the will suggests that the will has two 'affections', the affection for justice and the affection for advantage, and it is the interplay between these two inclinations that allow a will to be free. The affection for justice is the inclination for the good in itself and the affection for advantage is the inclination for what is good for a given entity. So this is what he writes regarding the fall of the devil:

Quote:

the first inordinate act can never be one of dislike, since it is only in virtue of something liked or loved that an act of dislike is possible. And if the love is orderly as to its object and all the circustances, then the dislike that is a consequence of such a love would also be in order. For if that for shich I desire some good is loved ordinately, then the will whereby I desire something for the one I wish well will also be in order.

It follows, then, that [Lucifer's] very first inordinate act of will was the first benevolent love he had towards one to whom he wished well. But this object was not God, for God could not have been loved inordinately. [...] God is so lovable solely by reason of the object he is, that he renders the most intensive act of love completely good. Neither is it likely that something other than oneself could have been loved too much by an act of friendship-love, first because a natural inclination tends more towards self than towards any other creature [...].

The first source from which the city of the devil stems, then, i sinordinate friendship-love, which root germinates until it yields contempt of God, in which malice reaches its peak. It is clear, then, that the initial disoder in an unqualified sense consists in that inordinate love that was simply first. What remains to be seen is what the initial disorder was in regard to the love called desire. And here it seems we have to say that [Lucifer] first coveted happiness immoderately. The proofs are these:

First, the initial inordinate desire did not proceed from an affection for justice, as no sin proceeds from such. Hence, it must have come from an affection for the advantageous, because every act elicited by te will stems from an affection either for justice or for the advantageous, according to Anselm. And a will that fails to follow the rule of justice will seek most of all what is most advantagoues, and thus it will seek such first. [...]

Probably in one of these ways, then, the will of the angel went to excess: Either by wanting happiness as a good for him rather than loving it as a good in itself -- that is, wanting a good, like the beatific object, to belong exclusively to himself, rather than to be in another, such as in his God. [...] Or the angel could have failed in the second way, wanting at once what God wished him to have after a period of probation. Or it might have been in the third way, by wanting to possess happiness by natural means, rather than by earning it by grace, since God wished him to merit it.

His free will, then, should have moderated his desire in such ways as right reason had revealed to him. For happiness should have been wanted less for his sake than for the sake of God [etc.] [...]

As for the claim that it is impossible not to will the beneficial, I reply: The good neither were able, nor wished, to dislike having happiness, or to have no desire for it. But they did not want it more than they wanted God to have everything good; rather they wished for happiness less than they wished God well, for they could moderate this desire through their liberty. [...]

From Allan B. Wolter, Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality, 295-302.

adfaffasfd · 10-13-2004, 06:12 PM

I think that you'll better be able to make that call- the call that satan "cant be all that bad", when you're burning in hell and he's stripping your flesh from your bones will you roast over a thousand degree fire... But that's just me.

xepherys · 10-13-2004, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adfaffasfd

I think that you'll better be able to make that call- the call that satan "cant be all that bad", when you're burning in hell and he's stripping your flesh from your bones will you roast over a thousand degree fire... But that's just me.

Somehow the Dante's Inferno vision of Hell seems to have become the modern common Christian hell and I find that odd. First of all, you'll have no flesh to strip as your physical body is left firmly in this world. Therefore you'll also not feel the "thousand degree fire". From true scripture, hell is simply the absence of God. Christians seems to like to relate that to a cold, cloudy, thankless day, but frankly it's more like everyday earth for a good portion of the currently happy human population. *shrug*

Menoman · 10-14-2004, 12:24 PM

I don't think i could have said it better than Xepherys. Some people argue about things ignorantly.

kd4 · 10-14-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

From true scripture, hell is simply the absence of God. Christians seems to like to relate that to a cold, cloudy, thankless day, but frankly it's more like everyday earth for a good portion of the currently happy human population. *shrug*

I don't think it will be like everyday earth. The idea of the absence of God, I think, means that Satan and his fellows can harm mankind. ie, the mark of the beast. It says that anyone who has that mark upon him will be punished. It also says that they will be burned in sulfur, but I think that's only a reference to gehenna, where they burned refuse.

xepherys · 10-14-2004, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kd4

I don't think it will be like everyday earth. The idea of the absence of God, I think, means that Satan and his fellows can harm mankind. ie, the mark of the beast. It says that anyone who has that mark upon him will be punished. It also says that they will be burned in sulfur, but I think that's only a reference to gehenna, where they burned refuse.

As per Menoman's comment... this isn't exactly what I was talking about. In hell, there is no man, only spirits. The mark of The Beast comes during the apocolypse and has nothing to do with hell, on Earth or otherwise. The comments are inherently not intertwined.

asaris · 10-15-2004, 08:55 AM

I don't think anyone really knows anything about what hell will be like, other than that it's unpleasant.

aRs3N1c42 · 10-15-2004, 10:19 AM

When Jesus spoke of Judgement Day (parable of the sheep and goats), those who good (sheep) were welcomed into paradise ("Well done, good and faithful servant") those who failed to do good were "cast into outer darkness where there is weaping and gnashing of teeth". Jesus didn't mention anything about fire and brimstone or eternal fire. I think that realizing what you could have had (eternal paradise in the presence of God) how you missed it (failed to recognize the need for God's grace and His plan for salvation) and how easy it could have been (accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and submit your will to His), that thought alone for all eternity would be pretty torturous, don't you think?

martinguerre · 10-15-2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aRs3N1c42

When Jesus spoke of Judgement Day (parable of the sheep and goats), those who good (sheep) were welcomed into paradise ("Well done, good and faithful servant") those who failed to do good were "cast into outer darkness where there is weaping and gnashing of teeth". Jesus didn't mention anything about fire and brimstone or eternal fire. I think that realizing what you could have had (eternal paradise in the presence of God) how you missed it (failed to recognize the need for God's grace and His plan for salvation) and how easy it could have been (accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and submit your will to His), that thought alone for all eternity would be pretty torturous, don't you think?

Then he will say to those at his left hand, You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25

that's from the close of the sheep and goat passage you're referencing. i don't take it literally...i think Jesus is speaking metaphorically...but he does say fire.

ravenradiodj · 10-20-2004, 01:03 PM

Considering the question of God's justness....there is, to my way of thinking, no amount of good or evil one human being could do in one lifetime to deserve either heaven or hell....not Hitler, not Stalin, not Gandhi, not Mother Theresa, noone. 100 or fewer years of goodness or evilness or indifference, struggling with mortal human flaws, doesn't merit you either ETERNAL reward or punishment. If that is the action of a just God, I want no part of that God. My personal belief system tells me that I will have to answer for all of my actions, good, bad or indifferent, and face the consequences of them. Noone is going to save me, or condemn me, I and I alone have to work through my karma, in this world or the next.

10-12-2004, 11:45 AM	#41 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Duns Scotus actually gives a pretty good answer to the question of Satan's free will; once I'm home, I'll look it up and post it. And I still haven't seen any reason to think that Azazel is the same person as Satan/Lucifer. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

10-15-2004, 08:55 AM	#49 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	I don't think anyone really knows anything about what hell will be like, other than that it's unpleasant. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

10-13-2004, 06:12 PM	#44 (permalink)
adfaffasfd Upright	I think that you'll better be able to make that call- the call that satan "cant be all that bad", when you're burning in hell and he's stripping your flesh from your bones will you roast over a thousand degree fire... But that's just me.

10-15-2004, 10:19 AM	#50 (permalink)
aRs3N1c42 Upright Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	When Jesus spoke of Judgement Day (parable of the sheep and goats), those who good (sheep) were welcomed into paradise ("Well done, good and faithful servant") those who failed to do good were "cast into outer darkness where there is weaping and gnashing of teeth". Jesus didn't mention anything about fire and brimstone or eternal fire. I think that realizing what you could have had (eternal paradise in the presence of God) how you missed it (failed to recognize the need for God's grace and His plan for salvation) and how easy it could have been (accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and submit your will to His), that thought alone for all eternity would be pretty torturous, don't you think?

10-20-2004, 01:03 PM	#52 (permalink)
ravenradiodj Crazy	Considering the question of God's justness....there is, to my way of thinking, no amount of good or evil one human being could do in one lifetime to deserve either heaven or hell....not Hitler, not Stalin, not Gandhi, not Mother Theresa, noone. 100 or fewer years of goodness or evilness or indifference, struggling with mortal human flaws, doesn't merit you either ETERNAL reward or punishment. If that is the action of a just God, I want no part of that God. My personal belief system tells me that I will have to answer for all of my actions, good, bad or indifferent, and face the consequences of them. Noone is going to save me, or condemn me, I and I alone have to work through my karma, in this world or the next.