I had a sort of spiritual experience today about this question, which I had never thought to ask before. I'm curious what people here think about it. Does God love Satan or not?
If you're not religious, or if your religion doesn't fit this question then answer the Lord of the Rings question "Does Eru Illuvatar love Morgoth?" which I think is equivalent. Maybe not, though. What do you think?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I asked our pastor this when I was maybe 8 or 9. His response: "Of course. God loves everyone."
He didn't elaborate, but that was satisfying enough for me at the time.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
God loves all His children. No matter what.
I don't stop loving a member of my family if they do something I don't like.
Though I've noticed some people equate "love" with unconditional approval of any and all actions one might do. Their mileage may vary.
(For the curious: In LDS theology God is considered the literal Father of our spirits.)
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
If Satan wasn't exactly how God wanted him to be, then God could just change him. Perhaps not in Mormonism, but in most flavors of Christianity.
quote:If you're not religious, or if your religion doesn't fit this question then answer the Lord of the Rings question "Does Eru Illuvatar love Morgoth?" which I think is equivalent
I don't know the LOTR lore that well. Was Morgoth created by Eru Illuvatar? Can Eru make Morgoth not exist with a thought (or change his nature)?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
God loves Satan, but does not love his actions. (That's what my mom used to tell us when we misbehaved and then, when punished, complained that she "didn't love us." "I love you, but I do not love your actions or the way you are behaving right now.")
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: If Satan wasn't exactly how God wanted him to be, then God could just change him. Perhaps not in Mormonism, but in most flavors of Christianity.
quote:If you're not religious, or if your religion doesn't fit this question then answer the Lord of the Rings question "Does Eru Illuvatar love Morgoth?" which I think is equivalent
I don't know the LOTR lore that well. Was Morgoth created by Eru Illuvatar? Can Eru make Morgoth not exist with a thought (or change his nature)?
Yeah, Xav, I was thinking that way, wondering if God not only loves Satan but somehow approves of his being the way he is, because he allows it, if nothing else. And wondering if there has to be evil and stuff. Is heaven a contradiction because it has good without the existence of evil?
As for the Tolkien question, I'm not sure if Eru created the Ainur or not. I don't think we're told that for sure, are we? But Morgoth was one of them, the ones who helped Eru sing the material universe (Arda) into existence. He sang some of the discordant parts that built pain and chaos into the very fabric of existence. Then he took a body inside Arda and continued his tricks there.
So the two questions may not be equivalent. It's not really emphasized that Eru loves his children a whole lot, though it's implied.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I guess it's an easy question in LDS religion? Yes God loves Satan and no he doesn't want him to be the way he is but he grants him his agency the same as he does to us. Satan doesn't have a body in LDS thought, right? But does he in other Christian religions?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Is heaven a contradiction because it has good without the existence of evil?
I see heaven as part of the created universe, same as wherever you believe Satan dwells (hell, outer darkness, whatever.) They are just on the extreme ends of goodness and evil. Then there's where we live, which is pretty much right in the middle, right on the edge with a constant struggle. If we could pull back, we could see the whole spectrum. But we only know where we are right now, so we view everything through the microcosm of what we know.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Satan seems bleh of a name, does he not possess some name that we can call him that he had beforehand?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
You mean like Lucifer?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
much cooler name. But still too much bleh. I want something more along the lines of Voldemorts Tom Riddle of Morgoths Melkor.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I guess it's an easy question in LDS religion? Yes God loves Satan and no he doesn't want him to be the way he is but he grants him his agency the same as he does to us.
That's not so cut-and-dried either. As 2 Nephi says, there must be an opposition in all things.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Blayne, give him one. If it's catchy other people will start using it too. For a long time after I became religious, I didn't believe in Satan as a real being, I thought of him as a personification of impersonal forces or tendencies. It's true that he would certainly want us to think that, however. He would want us to believe he didn't truly exist. And now I'm not at all sure. But I'm comfortable discussing him regardless. Still I agree that his name sucks. If you come up with a better one I'll use it. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: [QUOTE] As 2 Nephi says, there must be an opposition in all things.
Yeah. Lehi says the universe itself could not exist if there was such a thing if coins that had only one side.
(Obviously, I'm paraphrasing)
Still, nothing was predestined. While we're told some people were foreordained to do certain things (the Saviour being the most obvious example) their agency was and is present at all stages of existence.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm also thinking of the Master and Margarita, that novel by Bulgakov. I'm thinking of what Satan was like, not so much malevolent as just enjoying exposing all our follies and hypocrisies. I'm thinking of Satan's role as a cynical teller of unpleasant or uncomfortable truths that we would just as soon forget.
Then I thought about how Sauron subverted Denethor's will not by showing him untrue things in the palantir but by giving him the wrong impression of what he saw, by encouraging him to misinterpret true things. Sauron made it seem to Denethor that there was no alternative to despair, and Satan works in that way too, by telling the truth, but in such a way that it destroys people's spirits instead of strengthening them. He is, in that sense, a bringer of light (or truth).
But, really, those ugly truths do exist, and it's part of our agency that we're free to interpret them differently than God does.
This all came to me in the context of listening to the song "The Noose" by A Perfect Circle over and over again while I was driving back from Georgia today. The song is about someone who reforms, is reborn, and repudiates former ill-deeds. The context of the whole cd suggests that this person may have been a former addict who did some pretty horrific stuff. So that had me thinking about the nature of the atonement and the conflicting demands for justice and mercy. Oh, and I just read an Elie Wiesel speech as well which talked about human indifference to the suffering of people in the world, how easily we turn our heads and think of something else, and how we do ourselves a real injustice by doing that, not to speak of the ones we fail to help.
Maynard seems to speak in the song (which is an amazing excellent work of music, btw) that it's not as easy as that (repentance and atonement). He does it in a somewhat cynical way. ( Here's a live version from Youtube.)
"Now you stand reborn before us all So glad to see you well. And not to pull your halo down Around your neck and tug you off your cloud, But I'm more than just a little curious How you're planning to go about making your Amends To the dead." ( Complete lyrics.)
A reminder that even repentance and the atonement can't wash away the consequences of sin, or make it as though it never happened. And even our best efforts to make amends can't bring someone back from the dead. All that is quite true.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I dont think he exists really as I'm agnostic with maybe the occasional theistic tendency, but if the Christians are right then I am undoubtably going to burn in hell, so....
When I wake up in hell after I die and Lucifer comes up to me gloating I can calmely and with utter most confidence say. "So. We meet again Lucas, this shall be our final battle." Resulting in us having a titanic battle for supremacy lasting for centuries in a ultimate showdown, the battle rages on day after day, century after century and just when he gains the upper hand and my defeat seems certain then Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"'s Black Knight and Benito Mussolini and The Blue Meanie and Cowboy Curtis and Jambi the Genie Robocop, the Terminator, Captain Kirk, and Darth Vader Lo Pan, Superman, every single Power Ranger Bill S. Preston and Theodore Logan, Spock, The Rock, Doc Ock, and Hulk Hogan all came out of no where lightning fast and they kicked Lucifer and his donkey redundant ass.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Puffy Treat, yeah that is sort of what I was thinking. The problem of evil, of pain, or whatever, that there must needs be an opposition in all things.
I think Heavenly Father, in LDS theology, gets off the hook by not being omnipotent. But there's still a feeling or a sense that he approves somehow, that pain and evil are somehow necessary.
The feeling I got today was that God does love Satan, because he sees that so much of what he says is true, and he even loves him specially, his cynicism and truth-telling, the light-bringing which has no sympathy for the sinner, because it's necessary for justice that we not forget the ones sinned against, the innocent dead ones whom we actively harmed or at the very least did not help.
But nevertheless, the atonement is sufficient, even so. All the sorrow will turn to joy. All losses will be restored and all lacks made up and then some, to overflowing. That's the part Maynard doesn't inkle yet, maybe.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
I thought this post was tittled "does god love Stalin"?
Which reminds me of a great joke at work, whenever someone was being lazy or trying to get out of work our boss would say "alright Joseph "stallin'" WA HAHAHAHA
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
This is actually kind of my thesis.
I'm tracing the history and evolution of Satan ending with the question of whether or not he is saved from eternal damnation.
The simplest answer is that if God has endless love, then not even Satan will not suffer forever and will eventually rejoin the kingdom like all of creation. My brain is skipping on the name of the theologian (Origen, maybe?) but it followed his theory that there was no hell, only purgatory, or a place where our souls would be cleansed by the fire in accordance with the amount of sin on them.
Of course, going further back, you have to ask whether Satan's actions are just part of his design? I'm focusing on Hebrew and Apocrypha works right now but the general idea is that Satan (or "the satans" as it is more often a common noun rather than a name) had a set of duties which included the observation and testing of man, though he is occasionally rebuked by God for being overzealous.
I don't theological problems with Satan being a functionary under God, because Christian dualism gives Satan way too much power. The problem of evil seems to be most easily solved the concept of a God who created all things; the light and the darkness, the peace and the war. So who is Satan to wield trial and temptation independently of God. To me, he just seems like one of the angels who got assigned a really bad job (like the IRS or lawyers) and mankind is unable to see the good and so just whines about him alot. But really, what is faith without trial?? Satan's job is perhaps the most important.
The Sufi Muslims actually believe that Satan is the most devout follower because when asked to bow before Adam, he refused and said he would bow only to God. God exiled him, so maybe the best question is not: Does God love Satan? But how could God NOT love Satan?
As for Satan's other names, the list of ridiculous if you choose to view "Satan" as all dark and/or evil spirits in biblical texts. I, personally, loathe the name "Lucifer" and am quite fond of "Belial" or "the Angel of Perversity."
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Satan seems bleh of a name, does he not possess some name that we can call him that he had beforehand?
I've heard/read of him referred to as "Lucifer Morningstar". A tad redundant, if you ask me, but still very impressive-sounding.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The feeling I got today was that God does love Satan, because he sees that so much of what he says is true, and he even loves him specially, his cynicism and truth-telling, the light-bringing which has no sympathy for the sinner, because it's necessary for justice that we not forget the ones sinned against, the innocent dead ones whom we actively harmed or at the very least did not help.
Within the context of Mormonism, there's no real room for imagining a sympathetic Satan. Satan isn't just a trickster; he's not Counsel for the Opposition. He's not a jester. The Book of Mormon is very clear about this-- Satan wants people to be miserable:
quote: 2 Nephi 2:18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote: 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the dnations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14)
Yes, I think that God loves Satan. However, he is not redeemable.
quote: Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! (Luke 17:1)
Acknowledgment of the need for opposition and granting of agency does not imply any approval of sin, as I read it.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Scott, yeah, Maynard didn't ask his question in the song because he wanted the reborn repentant sinner to be happy. He wants to drag her down by her newfound halo and choke her with it.
I see what you mean about Satan in LDS thought being totally unsympathetic. Part of my confusion here is the blending in of more sympathetic views from other systems of thought. He wants us to be miserable, but many times doesn't he try to accomplish our misery by reminding us of inconvenient or unhappy truths that we'd just as soon forget?
I'm just wondering if a lot of what Satan says isn't true, anyway, and if God doesn't in some sense approve of that truth-telling. Like, Satan puts the wrong spin on it, he's trying to make us despair, but he's still reminding people of the consequences of their own actions or indifference? In a way, doesn't that serve Justice?
When Roosevelt turned back that ship full of Jews to Germany, when we turn a blind eye to the suffering of the helpless anywhere in the world, doesn't Satan or someone need to remind us of all the children who die in pograms and so on? Or, to modernize it, when we buy cheap Barbies that some young child in China worked as a wage slave to produce, aren't we complicit in her suffering? And doesn't Satan act to not let us forget our guilt, and to remind us that there's no way we can undo things that are already done, there's no way we can make amends to the dead?
I had this strange impression yesterday that God loves Satan very much, and that he approves of him in some way, too. Like he profoundly respects his point of view, and his right not to be saved by Christ's atonement, his right not to participate in the exaltation, his right to object to it on moral grounds, to remember the horrors and to refuse to forgive.
It ties in, too, with what Vanya Karamazov felt about God and Satan. Vanya kept these clippings of the worst conceivable horrors that happened among humans, like newspaper stories about young children tortured and killed, and so on. He vowed that God didn't exist because there can be no grand plan that's worth horrors like that, or that could make them okay. (Just as, in the end of "The Insulted and the Humilated", little Nellie refused to forgive before she died.) But Vanya really did believe in God, he was just very angry at him for letting things like that happen. And then when he got brain fever he talked to Satan for a long time. I should go back and reread that part, the section about Vanya talking to Satan, and see what he said.
There's a Jorge Luis Borges story in which the true Christ is Judas, not Jesus, because he's the one who puts himself the lowest of anyone. He's the one who's reviled and spit upon the most, and who dies a lonely suicide, with no mourners. I want to reread that story, too. That school of thought existed as a heresy in the middle ages some time, I think. It seems like someone was burned for teaching that.
So I'm still left with questions. Does God love Satan? (I think the answer is yes.) Should we love him too? (I think the answer here is yes, too, but that we shouldn't listen to his message of despair.) Should we hear the cries of the oppressed and the suffering and act to alleviate their suffering or, if we can't fix it, should we at least mourn with them, tear our hair, and loudly decry their suffering, as Elie Wiesel says? (I think the answer to that is probably yes, as well.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, I think sometimes people get "necessary" mixed up with "appreciated", whether it be Joseph's brothers selling him into Egypt, Judas betraying Christ, and the devil rebelling.
Something to take into consideration is that in religions which don't consider angels to be the spirits of men, the devil is an angel, a being that man is "a little lower than." They are creations of God, that "neither give or are given" in marriage, except for when they (Angels who followed the devil) fathered the Nefalim.
As Mike Huckabee pointed out, Mormons are a bit weird in saying Jesus and the devil are brothers, leaving off that they are siblings right along with all the rest of us.
I don't buy the respect part, any more than I would respect someone for committing suicide. That, in the end, is what the devil did and lead a third part of God's children to do the same.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for the Tolkien question, I'm not sure if Eru created the Ainur or not. I don't think we're told that for sure, are we?
First sentence of the Simarillion: "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Illuvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought."
Tolkien's creation story is strongly Catholic in principle and includes the concept of creation ex nihilo at its core.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Darn it Dag! I read all the way to the end of the thread thinking no one had yet pointed this out and I was going to get to show off my Tolkien geekhood to the max by quoting the first line of the Silmarillion and there you go, ruining my moment of glory.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And doesn't Satan act to not let us forget our guilt, and to remind us that there's no way we can undo things that are already done, there's no way we can make amends to the dead?
I had this strange impression yesterday that God loves Satan very much, and that he approves of him in some way, too. Like he profoundly respects his point of view, and his right not to be saved by Christ's atonement, his right not to participate in the exaltation, his right to object to it on moral grounds, to remember the horrors and to refuse to forgive.
Like pooka, I think 'respect' is the wrong word.
I'm not sure how God would approve of someone who goes around purposefully making people miserable. (That's the opposite of the refiner's fire, by the way.) I guess that's where I get hung up on your point of view-- approving of Satan means approving his actions. I don't think that Mormon theology allows for that philosophy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It's a very interesting question Tatiana.
Perhaps respect is the wrong word, but maybe it isn't.
God certainly created Satan and as His creation He loves him. I am certain God knew what role Satan ultimately would play concerning His children and clearly there is room in God's plan for such a role, otherwise God would not have created Satan.
It seems that Satan does play a role that in some way is necessary for God's plan to be accomplished, but not in the sense that there must be a spirit willing to give up salvation in order to tempt the others.
In the sense that Satan is intentionally being utilized by God I think we can say God acknowledges both the positive and negative results of Satan's mission to destroy those he can destroy.
Quick question Tatiana, have you been through the temple yet?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: If Satan wasn't exactly how God wanted him to be, then God could just change him. Perhaps not in Mormonism, but in most flavors of Christianity.
No, only in Calvinism, I'd say. and it's the main reason I could never be a Calvinist.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm not at all sure I understand Calvinism, but isn't it more like, the devil is exactly how God determined he must be?
I know a Calvinist. He makes it sound very sensible sometimes.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Does God choose to love everyone (thus leaving open the possibility or potential of him hating someone), or is God incapable of not loving someone? Would it be wrong for God to hate someone?
Is there a point at which God shouldn't love someone? If Satan is hell bent on making everyone suffer and has made it his personal agenda to destroy all that is good and righteous in the universe, if his entire self and identity is consumed with more than just misguided ambition, but the desire to cause eternal misery and pain, what is left to love?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I think God deeply respects the principle of agency, and everyone's right to exercise it. I don't think that translates into respecting Satan's use of it, or Hitler's, or others ad nauseum.
My personal belief is that God loves Satan while deploring everything that he's chosen and become. How can God respect someone who has chosen as his mission to, as Scott put it, make all God's other children as miserable as he is? To destroy rather than create?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Calvinism is extremely logical. I'm with Chesterton, Lewis, Austen, Pratchett, and Dr. McCoy (edit: and Rivka)-- it is irrational, as a human, to always be rational.
But my point is really best illustrated by the statement I responded to: "If Satan wasn't exactly how God wanted him to be, God could just change him."
To me, the difference is in the active versus passive status. The one position is that Evil exists in the world because God put it there (and continues to cultivate it-- otherwise He could just change it, right?), the other because God allowed his creatures the dignity of causality and it's all downhill from there, but for what God (in presumably infinite wisdom) saw as the greater good of freewill.
Lewis's analogy was a child's messy room. The parent says "I'm not cleaning up after you anymore," and the room is a mess. Is it in accord with the parent's wishes? Well, in a sense, yes, but only because the parent has chosen *not* to clean it up so that the child will learn about actions and consequences... that is to say, about freedom.
Camus, your first question is especially interesting in light of the Christian axiom that God is Love.
But for your second, no, there isn't. Loving someone means wanting what is best for them, not necessarily admiring them. Also your last question is perhaps a sufficient answer-- you stop loving someone when there is no *person* left to love: when their entire self and identity is consumed. I am very influenced by Lewis's The Great Divorce as well as my own experience in therapy.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
For me, a more interesting question is can the devil repent and be saved?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I dont think he exists really as I'm agnostic with maybe the occasional theistic tendency, but if the Christians are right then I am undoubtably going to burn in hell, so....
Not if the Mormons are right... Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
This question reminds me of a quote from Shakespeare’s Othello, spoken by Othello, right before he kills his wife. “This sorrow’s heavenly/ it strikes where it doth love.”
That line got me thinking a lot. I think God loves Satan, and I think it brings Him sorrow to have to strike Satan down.
This line of thought leads me against justice in general. As Othello demonstrates, a sense of justice, a desire to make people pay for their crimes, can lead you to make horrible decisions. I can feel how justice can be used to restore a sense of balance, but I’m not sure this is ever the correct thing to do. Too often, in America at least, the punishment does not fit the crime. Too often there is intense focus on making criminals pay a debt to society when the focus should be on rehabilitation. I’m not even convinced it’s possible for someone to “pay” for their crimes.
I see a similar problem in Christian thought in general, especially concerning Hell. Even if we rule out the possibility of someone innocent being punished, I don’t see how the punishment fits the crime, and I certainly don’t see a focus on rehabilitation. I would not follow a God that blindly applied justice without allowing sinners a chance at redemption. Even in this cosmic sense, where sinners go to Hell, I’m not convinced they can ever “pay" for their sins simply through pain and suffering. It seems an inefficient and incomplete method of retribution.
As far as the name is concerned, I prefer to think of Satan as the Morningstar. I recall the story of an Aztec God, also known as the Morningstar. He was a God of peace. When the Aztec people chose to worship the God of War instead, the Morningstar was filled with sorrow. He went to his temple and burned himself on his alter. After death, his heart rose into the sky and became the planet Venus. It amuses me that Venus should be called the Morningstar by two completely different societies, and it amuses me that in one, the Morningstar is evil, but in the other it is the heart of a God of peace. That strange duality across human culture makes me think that Morningstar is the closest thing we have to Satan’s true name.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:I dont think he exists really as I'm agnostic with maybe the occasional theistic tendency, but if the Christians are right then I am undoubtably going to burn in hell, so....
Not if the Mormons are right...
Or, you know, a lot of the other Christians.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: For me, a more interesting question is can the devil repent and be saved?
You probably already know my take on this. Satan cannot be saved in that God, the very embodiment of all that is good cannot persuade Lucifer to repent and come back.
Since there is nobody more powerful and good then God, Satan will continue to be evil no matter what anybody does to him.
Therefore to use Biblical phrasology, "Satan would that he be saved not, there is no redemption in him."
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
In my scenario, I skip how the devil is persuaded to stop being evil and just assume he decided to repent. I would like to think that if he truly asked for forgiveness and repented, then God would forgive even him. But I wonder if there are some decisions that you can't take back.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I had a sort of spiritual experience today about this question, which I had never thought to ask before. I'm curious what people here think about it. Does God love Satan or not?
I'm totally serious with this question:
What difference does it make whether or not god loves satan? Does it change your opinion of god, or shed light into some now-dark corner of your particular -ology?
Or is it mainly academic, like 'Could Superman impregnate a human female?'
I apologize if my question is offensive -- I'm honestly curious.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:For me, a more interesting question is can the devil repent and be saved?
Well, if you presuppose that angels have free will and the fall was an act of such will, when he has the necessary ability to repent. (Which is out of line with some theology, including Aquinas, which said that free-will was a gift to man only and that angels were purely intellectual beings. But if angels didn't have free will, how did they fall in the first place?)
Or is your question, >would< he repent?
On a side, I read this interesting theory that said that Satan and the other fallen angels cannot be saved because Christ came to bring salvation to Man. It would take a similar sacrifice of a being from the angelic ring of creation to redeem Satan and the other fallen angels.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Or is it mainly academic, like 'Could Superman impregnate a human female?'
Only once he figures out his cycle... [/FOLC geekiness] Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:I think Heavenly Father, in LDS theology, gets off the hook by not being omnipotent.
It is short, but given the author, jam-packed. Very deep stuff, but also very crucial, and elegantly articulated. Maxwell just seems like your kind of apostle. I would send you my copy, but one of my roommates is borrowing it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I believe the definition of omnipotent for LDS theology is somewhat different than that used by others.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: Does God love Satan?
There are so many answers:
1) Flippant: Yes, but its a tough love, hence Hell and all that stuff.
2) Silly: He must for I've been spammed the porn web-site, "Dietysex.com"
3) Religious: God is all loving, so yes god loves Satan.
4) Serious: We can never truly know how much pain another person is in, how much joy they feel, how deeply they love, or how much fear they endure. How can I know, mere mortal me, how much love God feels for anyone, yet alone one who would undo all his creation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He IS omnipotent in LDS theology.
That's not my understanding. From what I've been told, LDS believe that He's as omnipotent as they think it makes sense for something to be omnipotent, but He's definitely not omnipotent in, say, the Catholic meaning of the word.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Depends whether "omnipotent" means "can do anything" or "has absolute ability to control."
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Actually, God did love Satan for a very long time, but then more recently bible sales have been down and so God's relationship with Satan was retconned away in an overly complex bargain with Spiderman.
--Enigmatic
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
An oversimplified dichotomy on Mormonism, God and omnipotence:
God is not omnipotent. Or omniscent. He, for one thing, has a body, which limits his power to, say, be in two places at once. Having a body also means that God is in the flow of time. Furthermore, Joseph Smith clearly taught that human beings are not created by God, but rather are co-eternal with him. Therefore, our free will comes from the same place as God's free will, which means that he cannot infringe upon it and furthermore does not know the future, because the future is contingent upon our actions, which are entirely up to us. Emphasizes human potential and likeness to God.
Emphasizes the Doctrine and Covenants and Joseph Smith.
2)Neo-orthodox Mormonism. Emerges from the camp of Joseph Fielding Smith, who drew his religious thought not from nineteenth century Mormonism, but from correspondence with and wide reading among Protestant fundamentalists (see Ronald Numbers's _The Creationists_ here). Also his son in law Bruce R. McConkie; spreads mostly through McConkie and Smith's voluminous writings in the 1950s through 1970s; thus influential among those Mormons who grew up in that period.
God is in fact omnipotent, and omniscient. He knows the future. We are created by God - we are his children, and not co-eternal with him - thus he has a plan for our lives and our happiness depends upon us determining and following that plan. Downplays the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Emphasizes the sinful nature of humanity, stressing our moral obligations as a way to please God.
Emphasizes the Book of Mormon and Bruce R. McConkie.
More recent advocates: Boyd K. Packer, Maxwell, and Dieter Uchdorf.
Prefers the term 'moral agency.'
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Making this relevant to the discussion:
Classical Mormonism: Satan has his free agency; he does what he will. Thus, he is not a necessary portion of the plan of salvation.
Neo-Orthodox Mormonism: Satan, following an interpretation of 2 Nephi 2, is necessary, and his rebellion 'had to happen.'
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Tatiana: Also read D&C section 93. For me, it clarifies and expounds on the nature of the Savior, God, and His children. It also touches on the points of omnipotence-- and that he is bound in some ways, but not in ways that I really translate as to not being omnipotent. When your very composition is Truth and Light, you obey Truth. But doesn't that make you omnipotent? Anyway, that is just one of my favorite chapters of scriptures period, it blows my mind and I have a seriously nirvanic experience every time I read it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: If Satan wasn't exactly how God wanted him to be, then God could just change him. Perhaps not in Mormonism, but in most flavors of Christianity.
quote:If you're not religious, or if your religion doesn't fit this question then answer the Lord of the Rings question "Does Eru Illuvatar love Morgoth?" which I think is equivalent
I don't know the LOTR lore that well. Was Morgoth created by Eru Illuvatar? Can Eru make Morgoth not exist with a thought (or change his nature)?
Yes, he was. Everything was created by his song, particularly the Ainur, and their additions to his theme helped create the rest of it all.
IMO, yes, God loves the Devil, but he doesn't require his behavior. He allows free will, and choice is necessary for free will. Without options there is no choice, and no free will.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I am not convinced the world would be a perfect and wonderful place if the devil were gone. Satan chose to rebel without anone tempting him, so why wouldn't each of us still be capable of making that choice without someone tempting us?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
BlackBlade, I haven't been through the temple yet. I'm going to wait and go when I get married, I think. Does the temple elucidate these questions?
All of the ideas posted are really interesting to me. DevilDreamt, I think there does have to be some sort of justice for anything to be made right. I agree that our flawed versions of justice we carry out here on earth don't usually accomplish much. It's interesting that the Morningstar is associated in different cultures with similar ideas.
Venus is the morning star, of course, because it's always near the sun (since we're outside its orbit) and it's very bright, so it dominates the sky either before dawn or after sunset, and so it's called, respectively, the morning star or the evening star in those two manifestations. Venus is the brightest thing in the sky besides the sun and the moon, so it's no wonder that it makes a big impression on people.
I do think there has to be a possibility of Satan's seeing the light and coming over to the side of good. In that case, some lesser evil being would probably take his place. I wonder how would the world change, if that happened? Would we feel a great burden lifted from our spirits, and have fewer temptations? And what could possibly convert Satan? It's interesting to speculate. Maybe we should all pray for Satan's conversion, that his soul should find joy and peace, and the world be less troubled.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:BlackBlade, I haven't been through the temple yet. I'm going to wait and go when I get married, I think. Does the temple elucidate these questions?
I can understand the appeal, but I'd encourage you to think about going - not necessarily for informational purposes, but to embrace your importance as an individual in the Kingdom.
I haven't ever really thought the temple expands on what is known of the devil over what is in the scriptures, particularly the Pearl of Great Price. The scriptures don't encompass everything in the temple, but the temple doesn't dwell overly much on the devil in my opinion. I mean, I thought I was going to learn certain things in the temple that didn't wind up being part of it. So when I get a chance I like to warn people to not get too focused on any one expectation.
To me, that medallion in the book of Abraham is all about the Temple, but my husband doesn't see it. The temple is a fairly subjective experience. [edit] All in all, I'd say it doesn't provide final answers so much as it is a tool for searching for answers.[/edit]
P.S. I guess we're supposed to pray for our enemies, so I guess that's okay. I feel less comfortable with praying for a specific result.
[ January 09, 2008, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Or is it mainly academic, like 'Could Superman impregnate a human female?'
Only once he figures out his cycle... [/FOLC geekiness]
*snicker-snort*
And that's FoLC, silly. Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Fall of Linus Chesterton?
Future of Lime Cola?
Fishermen of Louisiana Cove?
Fat of Lamb Chops?
WHAT IS IT!? :::rends clothing:::
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sorry, slip of the mind while distracted by childrens. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Understandable. Just don't let it happen again.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*salutes*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I had a sort of spiritual experience today about this question, which I had never thought to ask before. I'm curious what people here think about it. Does God love Satan or not?
I'm totally serious with this question:
What difference does it make whether or not god loves satan? Does it change your opinion of god, or shed light into some now-dark corner of your particular -ology?
Or is it mainly academic, like 'Could Superman impregnate a human female?'
I apologize if my question is offensive -- I'm honestly curious.
Honestly curious questions are never offensive to me, I guess. The reason why it matters to me is for my own personal moral searching and questioning. Elie Wiesel's talk made me see how very guilty I am, at least of sins of omission, vis a vis the suffering oppressed masses in the world, the impoverished, the hungry, those in desperate need. I am, though not rich by U.S. standards at all, at least relatively well off. I'm in no danger of going hungry. I have a roof over my head, and decent medical care, indoor plumbing, etc. Compared to how most of humanity lives, it's sheer decadence, you know? I should do more. We're taught that large differences of wealth between the saints is bad. If we're not one we're not his. There are so many suffering children whom I could help who I don't help. I need to fix that.
I also have things I should have done in the past that I didn't do, or things I did wrongly. Most notably, my friend committed suicide when I was a teenager, and I could have reached out to him before he died, and been a better friend to him. Who knows, I might even have helped him find a way to stay alive. But I was self-centered then, and oblivious. I like to think now that I would notice and take action if something like that happened again. But still I can't go back and undo what was done. That I can never do.
In my current state of blessed community with God, I often forget these sorts of things. I think perhaps I need to be reminded of them, even if it comes from someone not at all benevolent, like Maynard or Satan.
That's why it matters to me, and why I'm thinking of all this and wondering what other people think about it. I'm just puzzling out how this all works, and how I should live my life. I'm thinking about the atonement and how it has brought me to life. And also remembering the dead and hoping they will forgive me, wondering how I can ever make amends.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You personally cannot make amends, but you can make amends with God, and he will make you part of his amends.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:BlackBlade, I haven't been through the temple yet. I'm going to wait and go when I get married, I think. Does the temple elucidate these questions?
I should think so, though Pooka is right in that alot of it is found in the Pearl of Great Price, and elsewhere in the scriptures. I think the temple clearly shows how Satan in large part felt justified in how he entreated Eve to partake of the fruit. It is probably best that you wait until you get married, but I would suggest that if you get close to say 30 or even the high 20s in age that you go ahead and go to the temple. But remember that's between you and your bishop to discuss. The temple ceremony is also good for helping put a hand on how Satan and God interact when they speak to each other.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:. I think the temple clearly shows how Satan in large part felt justified in how he entreated Eve to partake of the fruit.
. I don't really get that. You never know what part of what he's saying is a lie or not.
I used to talk this point with the Jehovah's Witnesses a lot. They argued that everything Satan said was a lie, until I pointed out that he said their eyes were opened, and then the narrator of Genesis [Moses] affirms that their eyes were opened. Though one thing we agreed on was that satan means "accuser" and what the devil does is accuse God of being unjust, unkind, unloving, imperfect etc. He also accuses us of our own sins.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Though one thing we agreed on was that satan means "accuser" and what the devil does is accuse God of being unjust, unkind, unloving, imperfect etc. He also accuses us of our own sins.
Is that characteristic exclusive to the devil as you see it?
A.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:. I think the temple clearly shows how Satan in large part felt justified in how he entreated Eve to partake of the fruit.
. I don't really get that. You never know what part of what he's saying is a lie or not.
I used to talk this point with the Jehovah's Witnesses a lot. They argued that everything Satan said was a lie, until I pointed out that he said their eyes were opened, and then the narrator of Genesis [Moses] affirms that their eyes were opened. Though one thing we agreed on was that satan means "accuser" and what the devil does is accuse God of being unjust, unkind, unloving, imperfect etc. He also accuses us of our own sins.
Oh, Satan can tell the truth, and WILL if it suits his purpose. His purpose is to tempt and drag those who did not deny God's plan, and that received a body, into his own miserable conditions. I do not believe that Satan and his followers like not having a body, nor that their plan was not chosen. It was a war in heaven, not a lousy Connect-Four match.
Satan's purpose is to put a stop to the work of God, ie: bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. It is easier to deceive and elegantly draw souls away when your deception resembles or twists the fruit (Edit: I meant "twists the truth," but I kinda like twists the fruit. Heh). Part of what the serpent said to Eve was true, but not fully. Satan is not privy to God's thoughts. God knows Satan. Satan thought he was putting a stop to God's plan by getting Adam and Eve to transgress, but he was actually pushing God's work forth - as is outlined in 2nd Nephi and the Pearl of Great Price, etc.
Satan will tell you the truth, just not the whole truth. His ways mimic God's ways, and make shadowplays and mockeries of true covenants and ordinances. This of course means that, in the end, they are lies. But each lie may be composed of a little truth, to serve the lie, and destroy the truth.
[ January 10, 2008, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
"Half a truth is a whole lie." - Anonymous
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, since Satan is the Father of Lies, I think it's kind of like Puck in Magic Street-- he may be telling the truth, but even if he is you can never believe him... He only tells the truth when it suits his lying.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Satan's purpose is to put a stop to the work of God
Can Satan read the bible? Because, let me tell you, he's doing a really stupid job of it.
If I were Satan (and not saying I'm not ) I would do two things that would completely mess up God's plan.
1. Make Hell into a much nicer place than Heaven.
2. Sit on my hands and not bring about the apocalypse.
No apocalypse means no rapture and no tribulation and no second coming. Thus, Satan wins by default.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
From the Christian standpoint, you would have thought he'd been able to do something about Jesus. Well, I guess he sort of did, in the end.
Satan is as able to make Hell a nicer place than Heavean as Stalin was able to make Russia a nicer place than America -- only moreso. His idea of "nice" is not what anyone else likes.
So, yeah, I think the apolcalypse probably will not look exactly like everyone is expecting it to.
P.S. How important is the second coming? I thought Jesus already won through the advent, atonement and crucifixion. I mean, it's a pretty big prophecy, but is it necessary to what Mormons call the plan of salvation? P.P.S. Mormons don't believe in the same type of Rapture as Huckabee, I think.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, he did tempt Jesus in the desert for 40 days. He tried.
The second coming is necessary because the Milennium is when the work will be completed in perfect form. At least, that's what I understand.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: P.S. How important is the second coming? I thought Jesus already won through the advent, atonement and crucifixion. I mean, it's a pretty big prophecy, but is it necessary to what Mormons call the plan of salvation? P.P.S. Mormons don't believe in the same type of Rapture as Huckabee, I think.
If you're asking me, not important at all.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
If God loves Satan, and we are created in God's image, are obligated to try to love Satan as well if we are to be followers of Christ?
Cuz I would totally wear a shirt saying "True Christians love Satan."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: If God loves Satan, and we are created in God's image, are obligated to try to love Satan as well if we are to be followers of Christ?
Cuz I would totally wear a shirt saying "True Christians love Satan."
It would go well with my "Atheists for Jesus" t-shirt.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I love hatrack! Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Satan as the accuser is exactly the sense that I got in my vision/experience I had the other day. And where does the remorse come from that fuels our repentance if not from an accuser who can make us truly understand the extent of the damage we've done? If ... was it Alma the younger?... forgive my sketchy scriptural knowledge .... if he had not been harrowed up for days experiencing all the suffering he had caused firsthand ...
Uncle Orson wrote about this too in the Earthborn books. You guys know the story.
If he had not spent days in shame and horror at what he had done, could he possibly ever have felt the joy he did when all that was overcome? Could he really have changed?
And does God have the right to forgive, when it comes down to it, someone like Hitler unless and until the boy Elie Wiesel (who actually was in the camps) has? Christ said that about it being better for a person to have a millstone tied to their necks and be drowned in the sea than to cause harm to those little ones. There's no sense that those who torture the innocent are to be let off lightly.
Thinking about all this, I see the office of accuser as being a necessary and important one. I agree, though, that Satan (and Maynard, too, in his song) uses accusation as a way to drag people down instead of a tool for their exaltation. That's where I can't really reconcile it all.
I guess it all falls back into the central paradox that suffering and pain and evil are somehow necessary for good to exist. It seems so wrong, and yet I can't figure out a way around it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Satan's purpose is to put a stop to the work of God
Can Satan read the bible? Because, let me tell you, he's doing a really stupid job of it.
If I were Satan (and not saying I'm not ) I would do two things that would completely mess up God's plan.
1. Make Hell into a much nicer place than Heaven.
2. Sit on my hands and not bring about the apocalypse.
No apocalypse means no rapture and no tribulation and no second coming. Thus, Satan wins by default.
Yes he can read the bible, or at least has heard it talked about as he quoted it to Jesus during the 40 days of temptation. But neither of your plans are practical.
1: You assume Satan has more power then God if he can make hell a better place then heaven.
2: People can still sin or make mistakes without Satan's help, evil exists outside of Satan. Not to mention I think Satan is not alone in his efforts to tempt others, Mormons believe that the angels who rebelled with Satan assist him in his work. So if you sit on your hands all you do is make the number of people who live in misery with you forever and ever fewer, and that would make you feel even worse.
[ January 11, 2008, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I think God loves Satan because he's one sexy Devil.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I think God and Satan will eventually shake hands and call it a draw.
If Santa and the Easter Bunny existed, would they be friends?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I love hatrack!
(because throughout this thread it seems you're arguing you should love Satan, and so being told you love us all in this context is amusing to me.)
I read this really weird book over the holidays. It had a recommendation from Marianne "A course in Miracles" Williamson, who is all about Love and says there is no devil.
What went on in the story depended a lot on whether it was a story about me and someone who offends me in this life or if it was about Jesus and Satan. I'll see if I can sum it up quickly.
There's a little soul in the burning, brilliant presence of God who wants to learn about forgiveness. Now first God says "everything is perfect, what is there to forgive?" But the soul still wants to know so God allows another soul to become darkness so the soul who asked the first impertinent question can go find out what it means to be a light by being surrounded in dark.
Well, if there is no such thing as a need to forgive, the whole story doesn't make any sense. It also makes the soul who agrees to be evil seem rather heroic.
Also, the jacket (and not the book itself) said the book teaches that there's no such thing as absolute right and wrong.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
lol, I meant I love the banter. There was totally no double meaning put into that.
But yeah, I guess you should take that for what it's worth, from someone who thinks Satan is probably really just being honest most of the time, and is a cynical and sad person, and just isn't able to maintain a positive outlook on things. I tend to love the kids who misbehave the most too, of all the kids in any given group.
I definitely do believe there's such thing as absolute right and wrong, though. And I do believe in the devil, or at least one or more beings who are willing to try to live up to the legend. I remember those ringwraiths I met that time. Brrrrrr, please don't ask me to try to love them. They froze my blood. Maybe God loves them too but that's way beyond my level.
Posted by Geekazoid99 (Member # 8254) on :
In personal belief, God must love Satan if he is one of his creations. Yet I still think there is a bigger question that can come to mind.
As a Jew, I believe in the idea that God knows everything that is going to happen in the world throughout time. Also we're supposed to believe that God has given us free will and we have the choice to do good or bad.
Yet, at the same time we're supposed to believe that God is all powerful within our world and can control everything. If that is so then why doesn't God destroy evil from the world as a whole? If the fact with evil is that God can't get rid of it from the world than he can't be all powerful. If He has the ability to rid the world of evil but doesn't do so, then isn't God actually evil?
I know most people will disagree with me on the last sentence but hear me out. If lets say a teacher gives out a test on something you haven't learned yet and she knew you would fail. Not only that she is going to count the test in full on your report card, wouldn't you call that teacher evil? So if in fact God does know the future and gives you free will and he gives you a test of some sort to test whether or not you will sin, he must know whether or not you will fail. Then, if you do fail God technically will hold you to be punished for the sin that you did even though he knew you would fail. So if you think of it that way shouldn't God be evil?
I hope people don't take this the wrong way as this is a question that has been bugging me for a while and I wanted to see what people have to say about it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Knowing that you will fail is not the same thing as knowing that you must fail. IMO, the latter would be evil; the former is not -- it's necessary for free will to exist.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I tend to love the kids who misbehave the most too, of all the kids in any given group.
...wanna borrow a three-year-old and a one-and-a-half-year-old for a couple of years? Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: If He has the ability to rid the world of evil but doesn't do so, then isn't God actually evil?
If you had the choice, as an individual, would you like it to live in a Universe where there was no “evil impersonated” (such as Satan) who must be fought also outside Human level, and where “evil” was as a subjective label as “beautiful” was?
A.
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
Rivka is correct, as often is the case.
Geekazoid, here's how my personal theology works(currently). Perhaps you may see something useful in it for yourself.
God has a single will and is a single being. When God decided to create the universe, his will dictated everything that happened, and everything happened in harmony. This natural order(his will) is what we perceive as "good", and rightly so, as it unites us with God, from whom we were derived. Since the pre-fall creation was just a material expression of his consciousness(he imagines it and it is so), this may be what prompted God to want to interact with and love this universe he created, rather than have it run exactly as he willed.
So, he somehow creates a "rift" in his consciousness(becomes separate, or maybe unconscious of certain unspecified things), in order to have some things happen that were not in accordance with his will.
This caused Morningstar to rebel, and precipitously caused the fall of man and chaos in the universe. Now, God could interact with humans who follow their own free will, loving them and teaching them, as he wished to be the case. The downside is that the whole universe to some extent acts outside of God's will(this would be what we call "evil"), and we must be able to act against his will to have "free will".
So you see, "evil" is simply acting apart from God's will. "Good" is simply God's will. This is the absolute objective definition of good and evil. Good and evil do not exist except with relation to God, and everything in the universe is in relation to God. As creations of God we naturally want everything to be synched with God's will, so we desire "goodness" in everything.
God is not evil to let evil exist, because God can only act under his own will by definition, which is the definition of good. You can think of the whole salvation bit as our attempt to resync ourselves with God's will, and be more or less permanently synched up after we die. Hell is what happens when someone fails to resync with God's will after they die. After you die you are no longer tied to a physical body, which kept you partially in God's will despite yourself. So as disembodied soul you must either become synched with God's will or desynched. By your free will you must sync up to some extent, as it seems to me that if God brought a completely desynched soul into harmony with him, he would unify all of creation again, thus ending free will.
How to become resynched, or saved? Well, that's a rather contentious topic :-P
Does God love Satan? Yes, but disprefers his actions. (to be on topic)
Posted by naledge (Member # 392) on :
So, Temposs, are you saying God is now trying to get back to square one? A state of non-interaction with the universe, but only this time in the end he will have more souls with no free will to decide whether to worship him or not?
I don't pretend to fathom God's thinking, but that seems like an awful lot of work and heartache just to have more living entities that in the end will just do what you want anyway. If I was an omnipotent, all knowing God, I probably would of ran a simulation of a freewill universe, read the results and thought, "Eh, I'll go with some bi-pedal automatons in different shapes and colors!"
Of course I'm a graduate of the school of The Path of Least Resistance.
*shrugs shoulders*
back to lurking. Grammar nazis, forgive me.
-nal
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Proverbs 6:19 says that God hates "he that soweth discord among brethren."
It doesn't say that he hates the action, but the person.
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
naledge, you have the abstract notion of my model correct, though not the reasoning and end. Yes, he wants all his creation to come back to him, but the key is that he wants everyone to come back of their own free will. It centers around God wanting to have a relationship with his people.
I never said that people after they die become automotons. Since the person to some extent chooses by free will to be united with God, to freely love God, the knowledge of having made choices to love God would make them different than just automotons. It might be that it would make them in genuine/sincere communion with God. I can't really postulate beyond this.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
For a long time after I became religious, I didn't believe in Satan as a real being, I thought of him as a personification of impersonal forces or tendencies. It's true that he would certainly want us to think that, however. He would want us to believe he didn't truly exist. And now I'm not at all sure. But I'm comfortable discussing him regardless. Still I agree that his name sucks. If you come up with a better one I'll use it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)