Lucifer, the Arch Angel was created GOOD? (paradise, Isaiah, myth)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course there can be good without its opposite. An extreme opposite is not required. A thing is good in the relative sense of "better than some other alternative". I would imagine that most people would classify for example having their proposal of marriage accepted with enthusiasm to be better than sitting quietly reading a nice book without fear for one's safety or well-being. One does not have to have experienced, say, a root canal without anesthesia to TRULY appreciate your beloved saying, "Of course I'll marry you! How about yesterday!" That event can be appreciated on its own merits and can be ranked in contrast to any number of other events, NONE of which HAVE to be negative.
As I have before, I offer this:
Total suckage <== Neither here nor there ===> Utter bliss
You can simply truncate it like so, and still perfectly well tell the difference between the two remaining options.
Neither here nor there <===> Utter bliss
So to answer the REAL question here: no, human suffering is not required in any way to give meaning to positive outcomes. All that is needed is a palette of positive outcomes and some reasonable degree of freedom to choose and goal-seek amongst them.
Not an extreme, but an OPPOSITE is required. How else are we to know what something is if there is not a comparable?
Not an extreme, but an OPPOSITE is required. How else are we to know what something is if there is not a comparable?
Do you mean if a child were hugged every day and never spent a day without any hugs at all, she'd never experience hugs as "good"? She'd be neutral on them and not care for them either way, and could take or leave them?
You'd need to sprinkle in slamming her hand in the car door or screaming at her every once in a while so she could interpret the opposite - a caring rather than hurting gesture - as good?
How about if you ONLY slammed a child's hand in a car door daily, and NEVER hugged her? Would she then not realize that a hand slammed in a car door was negative, because she had no opposite positive (caring v. hurting) to compare it to?
We inherently know what's helping and what's hurting us and others, something that Christianity, which relies on us not having what is called in our language "morals" or a "sense of right and wrong" in order to be believable, hinges on.
Which is why, frankly, it's not. Believable, I mean. Or one of the reasons, anyway.
I'm sorry. It's built into our biology in concert with our specific evolution (as a social species) what feels, given context, positive/helpful v. what feels, given context, negative/unhelpful.
Do you mean if a child were hugged every day and never spent a day without any hugs at all, she'd never experience hugs as "good"? She'd be neutral on them and not care for them either way, and could take or leave them?
You'd need to sprinkle in slamming her hand in the car door or screaming at her every once in a while so she could interpret the opposite - a caring rather than hurting gesture - as good?
How about if you ONLY slammed a child's hand in a car door daily, and NEVER hugged her? Would she then not realize that a hand slammed in a car door was negative, because she had no opposite positive (caring v. hurting) to compare it to?
We inherently know what's helping and what's hurting us and others, something that Christianity, which relies on us not having what is called in our language "morals" or a "sense of right and wrong" in order to be believable, hinges on.
Which is why, frankly, it's not. Believable, I mean. Or one of the reasons, anyway.
I'm sorry. It's built into our biology in concert with our specific evolution (as a social species) what feels, given context, positive/helpful v. what feels, given context, negative/unhelpful.
But humans do learn by contrast. That is why God planted the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Both are contrastive. Or maybe, just maybe, according to Transponder, the single-celled amoeba planted that tree?
But humans do learn by contrast. That is why God planted the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Both are contrastive. Or maybe, just maybe, according to Transponder, the single-celled amoeba planted that tree?
Hmmm!
How about "contrast" that isn't outright cruel?
He's God, I'll bet He could have accomplished that. Human teachers manage it.
Don't know what the amoeba has to do with this conversation, though.
As far as I can make out, Lucifer did not create evil, nor did he commit any evil. He allegedly tempted Jesus in the desert to feed himself and relieve his hunger and thirst and he persuaded Eve to stop being so silly and gain some knowledge but who was it that threw Adam and Eve out the Garden of Eden? Not Lucifer. Who murdered all the Egyptian first born's? Not Lucifer. This Lucifer dude seems like quite a nice guy compared to some others.
I've always thought the same thing. Lucifer was just trying to survive and fighting for what he believed in. The way you worded it he was just trying to help Jesus. If he were real I think I would get along well with him. The TV show portrayed how I had already envisioned him to be a long time ago (though I did not envision him being British..certainly the character of him) I mean yeah he was mischievous..he wasn't perfect but did he ever claim to be? This God is just a self centered jerk.
Lucifer did not create the world...he is just living in it. God on the other hand did knowing that they would "disobey" him and then threw them out for doing what they were destined to do. God is said to have never fought for the good guys and has them co-exist with the bad. According to the religion, we are supposed to accept people doing dastardly things because it is part of free will. Now when they pass on, they are said to go to hell but then people who are not necessarily bad and are just breaking a harmless rule get to suffer with them. Yet considering this he has the audacity to let himself be named the Heavenly Father.
If Lucifer was apparently so bad though, that still doesn't put God in a good light. God still created him. Whether he was good to begin with doesn't matter when he becomes evil and he was supposed to know that happened too. Perhaps he didn't know though..perhaps angels are exempt to be foreseen but that just means God is not really a god and doesn't deserve to be worshiped. The religion is still hypocritical because then he would not be all knowing and he would again be imperfect. In this case not necessarily a bad guy but still not someone you should put all your trust in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Of course there can be good without its opposite. An extreme opposite is not required. A thing is good in the relative sense of "better than some other alternative". I would imagine that most people would classify for example having their proposal of marriage accepted with enthusiasm to be better than sitting quietly reading a nice book without fear for one's safety or well-being. One does not have to have experienced, say, a root canal without anesthesia to TRULY appreciate your beloved saying, "Of course I'll marry you! How about yesterday!" That event can be appreciated on its own merits and can be ranked in contrast to any number of other events, NONE of which HAVE to be negative.
As I have before, I offer this:
Total suckage <== Neither here nor there ===> Utter bliss
You can simply truncate it like so, and still perfectly well tell the difference between the two remaining options.
Neither here nor there <===> Utter bliss
So to answer the REAL question here: no, human suffering is not required in any way to give meaning to positive outcomes. All that is needed is a palette of positive outcomes and some reasonable degree of freedom to choose and goal-seek amongst them.
I agree with you. In some cases I guess it can make you more appreciative if you suffer but you don't have to suffer to an extreme degree certainly and too much suffering can even make the positive outcomes mean nothing just as easily as no suffering.
I think about my love of music. Many songs I love but when I find that one that I can really connect to I can still appreciate it and feel the meaning. I don't have to hate a lot for that song to mean a lot to me.
Not an extreme, but an OPPOSITE is required. How else are we to know what something is if there is not a comparable?
It seems almost like you didn't read my whole post. Opposites by definition are extremes. What is needed is contrast, and there's plenty of contrast between good, better and best, without adding, bad, worse and worst.
Of course in the Real World, bad things DO happen; it's just that we need something to aim at and work for, which is the reduction and even elimination of human suffering. Human suffering must never be elevated to where it is acceptable or a necessity in any way, shape or form. That tends to kill off empathy and compassion, and engender complacency toward suffering.
Back in the period when the first crude anesthesia was invented, there were people who objected to its introduction because they perceived virtue in the kind of suffering where you bite a rag to stifle your screams while the surgeon does his thing. They saw interfering in the "natural order" of pain as "playing god" and circumventing his judgments. I am glad that those idiots did not prevail in the face of the compelling benefits and harm reductions of anesthesia techniques.
The angels that did fall and the demons who hate God and his creation did fall because of selfish reasons , as one reason was God chose man to be His family , which rejected the fallen angels authority and existence .......... demons hate God because they believe that God does not care , where as today God has no mercy for the demons and fallen angels ......... Still God has a multitude of Holy Angels and people of Christ who has the spirit to love God
But being omniscient, God knew where Lucifer was going? So basically, knowing a created being was going to become evil, is God not responsible?
God created all of us. I believe He gave each of us the right to choose for ourselves. Having the ability to choose evil does not make us evil. The choice is ours and so is the blame, in my opinion. If God had created everyone (including Lucifer) without the capacity to do anything but good, what would that really even mean? Without an alternative, you can't really "choose" at all. What is "good" anyway, without an opposite?
1. Please, refer to the book of Genesis.
First, God created men and women, many, in their (Gods) image. Please, note that many men and women were created, with what can be interpreted as godlike features. Those were the so called First.
Next, Lord God (not the original God) formed a man from "the dust of earth", or something very low quality, inferior. Then, a female was cloned from Adam.
2. Hence here we have two different Godheads - God the creator and Lord God the former. With "creation" clearly being superior to "forming out of dust".
3. Hence we have two different types of entities - god like First and low level Second.
4. That is your Lucifer, or the Falling Star, right there - amongst the First.
5. Was it good or bad? I'll quote Goethe. In Faust, Mephistopheles, aka The Devil, says - We are the force that done so much good, whislt blamed of so much evil.
1. Please, refer to the book of Genesis.
First, God created men and women, many, in their (Gods) image. Please, note that many men and women were created, with what can be interpreted as godlike features. Those were the so called First.
Next, Lord God (not the original God) formed a man from "the dust of earth", or something very low quality, inferior. Then, a female was cloned from Adam.
2. Hence here we have two different Godheads - God the creator and Lord God the former. With "creation" clearly being superior to "forming out of dust".
3. Hence we have two different types of entities - god like First and low level Second.
4. That is your Lucifer, or the Falling Star, right there - amongst the First.
5. Was it good or bad? I'll quote Goethe. In Faust, Mephistopheles, aka The Devil, says - We are the force that done so much good, whislt blamed of so much evil.
Just went polygamous did we not? There is ONE god, ONE creator. Or are you suggesting that god is schizophrenic?
My bible says ONLY ADAM & STEVE were created...actually ONLY ADAM, who did not have a suitable helper, aka servant. I do not read MANY PEOPLE were created??
As a teacher I see the effects drugs have on a large scale in our communities...JUST SAY NO!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
