The identity of Lucifer

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by steve7150 » Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:31 am

I could go on and on, but this should suffice to say the least. Lastly, you've asked the WHY question concerning God's motives in all this suffering. Well He gave Paul the answer and therefore it should be our answer-- "my power is made perfect in weakness."










Good answer but from mans perspective , "Then the Lord God said "Behold the man has become like one of us , to know good and evil." Gen 3.22

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by steve » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:59 pm

Paidion wrote:
However, I do think it would be helpful to us all, if you would explain your view (or at least offer some hints) that God allows Satan's continuing attacks, and man's hurtful acts, such as the torture and murder of many people, in order to fulfill a deeper purpose. Please tell us what these deeper purposes might be, and why the omnipotent God is unable to bring about these deeper purposes without causing all of this suffering. Is there any Biblical passage—any part at all, that supports this view?
If you are curious about the benefits God intends to come out of suffering, and the scriptures that identify them, my lectures on "Making Sense Out of Suffering" have been posted for many years. You can find them here: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/topical_le ... fSuffering

There is only one verse that I have ever heard used to support the view that God causes or at least allows evil in order to fulfill a deeper purpose...
The biggest problem I see in your view is that you cannot see that God would have a good purpose in permitting suffering—yet, you, along with all theists, must admit what we all can observe—namely, that God does not prevent (and thus permits) a great deal of suffering that He could have prevented. So we either have to say that God permits such suffering for a good reason, or else for no reason at all. The former view is consistent with the goodness of God. The latter renders Him either powerless or purposeless, or both—makes Him not as good and loving as He could be.

You have spent many keystrokes, in the past, affirming the second view—though you have, on occasion, contradicted your own position by stating that God allows suffering in order to allow human free will to be unrestrained. In other words, God sees the leaving of human free will unrestrained to be a good purposea higher purpose, in fact, than the option of His intervening to prevent suffering. You have not ever enunciated a principle upon which God decides when He will, in fact, intervene supernaturally to prevent suffering (as in delivering Daniel in the lion's den, or the three Hebrews in the furnace), even when His doing so violates His "higher purpose" of leaving the human free will (of their persecutors) unrestrained.

Thus, we both agree that God allows suffering for a higher purpose. This is a good step—and not an insignificant one—toward our coming to agreement. While you are willing only to recognize one possible higher purpose for suffering, those who submit to scriptural authority can see a great deal more than one. To you, the only higher purpose for God's allowing suffering is that of maximizing freedom of choice—an object that cannot be said to be an unmixed benefit to either man or God—raising questions as to what makes it so highly prized as to counterbalance God's permitting all the horrible sufferings that you decry.

When we seek answers from scripture, rather than coming to scripture with our own self-imposed restrictions as to what it may be permitted to teach us, we find multiple "higher purposes" which must be added to the list, including (but not restricted to): saving Joseph's family and the Egyptians from famine, the humbling of sinful pride, the turning of stubborn rebels to God, the demonstrating of God's power to heal and deliver, the building of perseverance and spiritual "muscle," the allowing of the Messiah to acquire human salvation, the increasing of prayerfulness and trust in God in believers, the testing of the loyalty of a candidate for divine promotion, the teaching of lessons of obedience, the creating of empathy, the producing of "the peaceable fruit of righteousness," etc.

The highest purpose in human suffering (consistent with the purpose for the existence of all things) is that God will be glorified. Therefore, Lazarus had to be sick and die "for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it" (John 11:4). A man had to be born blind, and remain blind unto middle age "that the works of God may be displayed in him" (John 9:3). Peter had to be crucified upside down so that by that death "he was to glorify God" (John 21:19). We suffer diverse trials that they "may be found to result in praise and glory and honor..." (1 Pet.1:7). Peter says that we suffer so that we may rejoice "when the glory of God is revealed" (4:13), and so that "the glory of God" rests upon us (v.14).

I am surprised that you have had such difficulty finding scriptures identifying "a higher purpose" in God's allowing suffering. Such scriptures are in the Bible as thick as dandelions in a meadow. The only one of the "higher purposes" discussed here, which is never identified as such in scripture, is the one that you named.

As for doing "evil that good may come" (Romans 3:8), this is irrelevant, since the biblical doctrine I am espousing does not involve God in doing any evil at all. That which is painful to me is not the same thing as that which is morally evil. Paul is rebuking those who say that we should sin so that grace may shine the brighter. God never sins, even when He allows or inflicts suffering. For a father to train and discipline a child is not a sin. For a king to restore order to his domain by punishing criminals is no sin. For a surgeon painfully to saw off a leg infected with gangrene is no sin. There are many circumstances in which the infliction (or merely the allowing) of pain involves no sin whatsoever. Therefore, the statement you cited from Romans is unrelated to this discussion.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by Paidion » Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:59 pm

Hi Steve, you wrote:The biggest problem I see in your view is that you cannot see that God would have a good purpose in permitting suffering—yet, you, along with all theists, must admit what we all can observe—namely, that God does not prevent (and thus permits) a great deal of suffering that He could have prevented. So we either have to say that God permits such suffering for a good reason, or else for no reason at all. The former view is consistent with the goodness of God. The latter renders Him either powerless or purposeless, or both—makes Him not as good and loving as He could be.

You have spent many keystrokes, in the past, affirming the second view—though you have, on occasion, contradicted your own position by stating that God allows suffering in order to allow human free will to be unrestrained. In other words, God sees the leaving of human free will unrestrained to be a good purpose—a higher purpose, in fact, than the option of His intervening to prevent suffering. You have not ever enunciated a principle upon which God decides when He will, in fact, intervene supernaturally to prevent suffering (as in delivering Daniel in the lion's den, or the three Hebrews in the furnace), even when His doing so violates His "higher purpose" of leaving the human free will (of their persecutors) unrestrained.
It appears that I have not made my views sufficiently clear in the past.
First, I do not (and did not in the past) see the permission of free will to be the ONLY purpose for God causing and/or allowing suffering. As long as I remember I have stood by the reality expressed by the writer of Hebrews who wrote:

And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives." If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Heb 12:5-11 NKJV)

But surely you see a difference between a good father correcting his children and a father who beats his kids to a pulp or kills them or willingly allows others to torture them or kill them. In our world, for centuries, there have been tortures and rapes, not only of women, but little girls and boys. And God did nothing to prevent them. And yes, I do not say that God did nothing to prevent them for no reason. But rather the reason is that He does not override free will, for He created man in his image, probably the main feature of that image was that of the ability to choose freely. If God should override free will to prevent all atrocities, then His purpose of having people choose to submit to Him freely, as Lord of their lives would not exist. However, it seems that occasionally He does prevent such atrocities from occurring.

Even in cases of human suffering, such as suffering from cancer, there are cases in which there has been prayer for the sufferer, and then the cancer has disappeared. I know a few of such cases. But it is rare. I, myself, once had a severe back condition. I went to a doctor and he said it was serious (I forget what the condition was). But my church prayed for me, and when I went back to the doctor for a follow-up appointment, he said he must have made a mistake in his diagnosis, for nothing indicated that such a condition existed. So it seems that God sometimes heals—but rarely. God does what He wants. We cannot predict what He will do, except that He will do no evil. So we can trust that all that He does in his affairs with mankind will be for their benefit. That is why I cannot ascribe his "allowing" atrocities to be for some higher purpose (other than non-intervention with the free will of man). I place "allow" in quotation marks because He does not allow these atrocities in the sense of giving his permission, but in the sense of doing nothing to prevent them.

So in summing up:

1. I believe that God treats his children as a good earthly father treats his. He may chastise them or give them discomfort, but only to correct them. And even then, He will do only what is absolutely necessary. He won't kill them or cause them to get cancer, or be eaten up by tigers or suffer from parasites that will eventually kill them. God is not interested in administering useless penalties (You did X; therefore you must receive Y). He is interested in bringing people to repentance, and freely giving them the enabling grace to live righteously.

2. The atrocities committed in this life are of a different order than the administration of discipline. They serve only to harm and to kill. God has nothing to do with them. Their origin is in evil fallen man, and God is not the author of evil. God usually does nothing to prevent them because He wants to permit mankind in general, to exercise free will.

I know this isn't a full explanation. For who can know the mind of God or fully understand his ways? I do not understand why He interferes with the commission of atrocities in some cases, but not most. All I can do is to trust Him, thank Him for the healings He brings about, and for the disasters that He prevents. But I must also accept the painful conditions and death in the vast majority of cases in which He does nothing about them.

I have bared my heart before you and the members of this forum. I have no wish to argue about these matters. Yes, you and others may differ in your understanding. We all need to see these matters in the way that makes the most sense to us. Our heart's desire is to glorify God in all things (not necessarily FOR all things).
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by steve7150 » Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:03 pm

[color=#BF0000]That is why I cannot ascribe his "allowing" atrocities to be for some higher purpose (other than non-intervention with the free will of man). I place "allow" in quotation marks because He does not allow these atrocities in the sense of giving his permission, but in the sense of doing nothing to prevent them.









There also is the possibility that we do underestimate the power and impact of Satan. The NT writers warned us about him despite the fact that God can step in and stop him. So perhaps a lot of evil is Satan/demon related and yet despite the NT warnings about this we rarely attribute anything to this factor. Maybe because Adam followed Satan instead of God, maybe this gives Satan some kind of authority to do what he does.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by steve » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:07 pm

Hi Paidion,

Thank you for trying to clarify your position. It seems that, to a certain extent, you are more in agreement with me than you were in some earlier discussions.

I also don't wish to be argumentative, but I would like to point out something that I think you regularly miss in these discussions.

You accept that there may be parental discipline, but you draw the line at very painful or traumatic suffering, or at death. However, when the author of Hebrews encouraged his Christian readers to endure the chastening of the Lord, he described that chastening as "grievous" at present (Heb.12:11). I think it clear that the suffering he is referring to is the persecution, and the prospect of martyrdom, which his readers were facing ("You have not resisted to bloodshed..." v.4). It was not in generic, merely annoying griefs, that Peter "would glorify God," but in his death (John 21:19).

Human fathers discipline their children, deliberately, in ways that are supposed to be painful. It is the pain that produces the gain. "Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep your word...It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn your statutes...I know, O Lord, that your judgments are right, and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me" (Psalm 119:67, 71, 75). Small children are often terrified of their parents' discipline, even when such discipline is not excessive. If there is no pain in discipline, and fear of it, there is no use for it.

The difference between what you would acknowledge as "legitimate" discipline from God, on the one hand, and the "atrocities" that you would exclude, is only one of degree. In principle, you seem to allow a degree of discomfort or grief in legitimate discipline, but not beyond a certain degree. What I think you miss is that divine discipline in this life a) is finite and temporal, even when resulting in physical death, and b) has much higher stakes than does human parental discipline. The stakes, we might say, are eternal, or infinite. Yet the discipline, however painful of frightening, is finite. In allowing the legitimacy of small pains as discipline, but rejecting what you regard as "atrocious" pains as such, you are comparing temporal things with temporal, rather than contrasting temporal things with eternal things. One hundred years of severe pain in this life might be "unworthy to be compared" with the glory that God intends to result (Rom.8:18; cf., 2 Cor.4:17-18).

The persecution of His children, which God allows may include all of the atrocities which you exclude from the legitimate discipline categories: e.g., being tortured, dismembered, raped, burned at the stake, eaten by wild beasts, etc. In describing one brief season of persecution that Paul endured in Asia Minor, he described his ordeal as being "beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life" (2 Cor.1:8). However, Paul saw the hand and purpose of God even in this. He said its purpose (which can only mean God's purpose) in his suffering was "so that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God" (v.9).

The fact that God delivered Daniel, Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego from painful deaths proves only that God is capable, whenever He chooses, to deliver anyone from such things. He has no shortage of angels to "encamp around those who fear Him, and deliver them" (Psalm 34:8). In many cases, however, He withholds such deliverance, and simply encourages His children to be faithful in such things unto death, so that they may receive the crown of life (Rev.2:10). If the many Christians who, while suffering for their faith endure imprisonment, torture, sexual abuse, excruciating deaths, etc., were to hear us comfortable westerners express the conviction that "God would never allow people to be raped, abused, die painfully, etc." they must shake their heads in disbelief of our naivete.

If God allows these things to happen even to His own children, why would we think it below His dignity to deal with His enemies similarly? You yourself believe that even those who die as unbelievers are God's future children, and you believe they may suffer horribly in hell before they are brought to repentance. How can such a belief be consistent with the claim that God would not be willing for people to suffer in this life, in hopes of turning them away from the flames of hell? How is the character of God changed toward people post mortem?

I would refer interested readers to my earlier post, if they have forgotten what the Bible says about such things.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by Paidion » Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:03 pm

Hi Steve. I can't make sense of your position.
You wrote: You accept that there may be parental discipline, but you draw the line at very painful or traumatic suffering, or at death.
Well of course, I do. Don't you? If a child doesn't learn from reasoning with him, you might send him to his room for a while or deny him privileges. If he is a young child, you might slap him or even spank him (within reason). But if you beat him with a horse whip or cause him trauma by excessive physical and/or mental means, you will probably be charged (and deservedly so) with child abuse.
However, when the author of Hebrews encouraged his Christian readers to endure the chastening of the Lord, he described that chastening as "grievous" at present (Heb.12:11). I think it clear that the suffering he is referring to is the persecution, and the prospect of martyrdom, which his readers were facing ("You have not resisted to bloodshed..." v.4). It was not in generic, merely annoying griefs, that Peter "would glorify God," but in his death (John 21:19).
Try reading another translation:
All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. (NASB)

I read the rest of the chapter, and see nothing there to indicate that the reference is to persecution or the prospect of martyrdom. It's true that his readers were facing these things, but there's no indication whatever that God was the cause of them. The cause is hateful, evil people.
Human fathers discipline their children, deliberately, in ways that are supposed to be painful. It is the pain that produces the gain. "Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep your word...It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn your statutes...I know, O Lord, that your judgments are right, and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me" (Psalm 119:67, 71, 75). Small children are often terrified of their parents' discipline, even when such discipline is not excessive. If there is no pain in discipline, and fear of it, there is no use for it.
That used to be my view. I even carried it out as a teacher. When I was a pupil, my teachers used hard-handed methods, and so I thought these were necessary in order to maintain control. But how wrong I was! In the beginning of my teaching career, I gave misbehaving pupils strappings and all it did was generate hatred and disrespect. In my first assignment in a one-room school, at the end of November, after I took a boy to the cloakroom and spanked him, all the pupils except those in grades 1 and 2 walked out of the building and went home. Soon most of the parents from the small village converged upon the school, asking me why the children came home. I explained and they supported me and told the children to go to their seats and behave. But I had had enough. I stayed in the classroom with the pupils until the end of the day, but then made arrangements to leave the area, and go back to the city of Winnipeg. There I began work as a physical labourer. However, I made arrangements to teach again in the September following. I changed my approach dramatically. I didn't spank them or cause any fear. But I loved them and respected them. They also loved me and were very well behaved. After that I taught successfully for 30 years.
The difference between what you would acknowledge as "legitimate" discipline from God, on the one hand, and the "atrocities" that you would exclude, is only one of degree.
Not true. There is a difference in kind. Surely you see a difference in kind between the actions of a human father disciplining his son by withholding privileges, and one who punches his son in the face, knocks his teeth out, or beats him black and blue all over his body! Similarly there is a great difference between God withholding some pleasure for his children, and his causing cancer to form in them or subjecting them to persecution, torture, and death. Again I say the second is not God's discipline. It is the cruelty of evil men (Not the cancer, of course. It is had a "natural" cause, or more accurately the cause was the fall of creation.)
In principle, you seem to allow a degree of discomfort or grief in legitimate discipline, but not beyond a certain degree.

Nope. Nothing here about "a certain degree." It's discomfort of a different kind or order. It's true that I do not recognize as legitimate discipline that which is of a different kind, the kind that harms rather than corrects.
What I think you miss is that divine discipline in this life a) is finite and temporal, even when resulting in physical death, and b) has much higher stakes than does human parental discipline. The stakes, we might say, are eternal, or infinite. Yet the discipline, however painful of frightening, is finite. In allowing the legitimacy of small pains as discipline, but rejecting what you regard as "atrocious" pains as such, you are comparing temporal things with temporal, rather than contrasting temporal things with eternal things. One hundred years of severe pain in this life might be "unworthy to be compared" with the glory that God intends to result (Rom.8:18; cf., 2 Cor.4:17-18).
You seem to be saying, if effect, that life is cheap, and that only our eternal status is truly essential, and that God's subjecting people to the tortures and death of evil people is the best thing He can do for them, for it puts them in the position in which they will be able to enjoy an eternal weight of glory. But then why do only SOME people need this discipline? Are they a lot more wicked that the rest of us who have never had to endure persecution and torture from evil men? How do we qualify for a glorious eternity without it?

If the fact of a glorious eternity is all that is at stake here, then it would be fine for me to allow another man to rape and torture my young daughter to death since she will be raised to life again and live forever in joy. But if I, in fact, did that when I could have prevented it, I would be prosecuted for negligence, and possibly receive a life sentence.
The persecution of His children, which God allows may include all of the atrocities which you exclude from the legitimate discipline categories: e.g., being tortured, dismembered, raped, burned at the stake, eaten by wild beasts, etc.

Yes, God "allows" these atrocites in the sense of doing nothing to prevent them, although He has the power to prevent them. But that doesn't imply that He subjects his people to them in order to discipline them. Again, God's decision not to interfere with man's choices (usually) seems to me the explanation.
In describing one brief season of persecution that Paul endured in Asia Minor, he described his ordeal as being "beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life" (2 Cor.1:8). However, Paul saw the hand and purpose of God even in this. He said its purpose (which can only mean God's purpose) in his suffering was "so that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God" (v.9).
For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia: that we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life. Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver us; in whom we trust that He will still deliver us. (2 Cor 1:8-10)

In this passage, Paul clearly indicates that God delivered them from death and will continue to deliver them. He doesn't say that God killed them, nor that He brought about their trouble and burden. The words "that we should not trust in ourselves but in God" do not mean that God brought their trouble and burden upon them for this reason, but that God brought out this trust in Himself, THROUGH the trouble and burden.

If God allows these things to happen even to His own children, why would we think it below His dignity to deal with His enemies similarly? You yourself believe that even those who die as unbelievers are God's future children, and you believe they may suffer horribly in hell before they are brought to repentance. How can such a belief be consistent with the claim that God would not be willing for people to suffer in this life, in hopes of turning them away from the flames of hell? How is the character of God changed toward people post mortem?
No, I don't believe people will "suffer horribly" in hell. Yes, I believe that "fire" purifies and the word is used to symbolize God's purification of his enemies after they are raised from the dead. He will give them no more discomfort that is absolutely necessary, and that will be combined with His personal Word to them, and possible with the ministry of the perfected sons of God whom he will send to them after the resurrection (I believe no one has gone to, or will go to, heaven or hell until after the resurrection).
The fact that God delivered Daniel, Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego from painful deaths proves only that God is capable, whenever He chooses, to deliver anyone from such things. He has no shortage of angels to "encamp around those who fear Him, and deliver them" (Psalm 34:8). In many cases, however, He withholds such deliverance, and simply encourages His children to be faithful in such things unto death, so that they may receive the crown of life (Rev.2:10).
So why does He withhold deliverance in the "many cases"? Are those from whom he withhold deliverance worse sinners that the others? Or do they simply need a much more severe form of discipline to correct them? I think God has nothing to do with persecution, rape, torture, death, or any of the other atrocities that evil persons inflict upon others.
If the many Christians who, while suffering for their faith endure imprisonment, torture, sexual abuse, excruciating deaths, etc., were to hear us comfortable westerners express the conviction that "God would never allow people to be raped, abused, die painfully, etc." they must shake their heads in disbelief of our naivete.
I don't think anyone "expresses the conviction that 'God would never allow people to be raped, abused, die painfully, etc.' " while using the sense of "allows" as "does nothing to prevent". In that sense God "allows" these atrocities to occur many times daily. But in the sense of "gives his permission or assent", many of us do make that claim. God never assents to evil; He opposes it. God does not plan these atrocities. He hates them. God is not the author of evil. Rather He is the very essence of LOVE! (1 John 4:8,16)

God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)

If God were such as you indicate, there would be plenty of darkness in Him.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by Singalphile » Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:37 pm

It is interesting that the Book of Mormon, which is claimed to have been translated from ancient writings, contains the word "Lucifer", and other LDS scripture (D&C) equates Satan with Lucifer.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

dizerner

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by dizerner » Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:07 am

He will give them no more discomfort than is absolutely necessary
So how much discomfort is necessary to "purify" someone that participated in the Nanking Massacre. [Please particularly read the section entitled "rape" if you want to be aware of the depth of evils humanity is capable of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre ] A few educational videos? A good stern talking to? A couple slaps on the wrist? You really think that makes it all better, and the horrors are all better now, all undone? The emotions those victims experienced, the tears of seeing those they loved most so violently harmed? I don't mean to be offensive I'm genuinely curious how you feel about that. To me, there are some actions that nothing can ever somehow "take away" and "make it all better."

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by steve » Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:15 am

Singalphile wrtote:
It is interesting that the Book of Mormon, which is claimed to have been translated from ancient writings, contains the word "Lucifer", and other LDS scripture (D&C) equates Satan with Lucifer.
This is true. Even more interestingly, the Satanists also think of Satan as Lucifer. The Mormons and the Satanists (as well as most Christians) have been influenced by the KJV translation, combined with the ages-long assumption that Lucifer is a name for Satan. You will also find this identification (though without influence from the KJV) in the ancient Christian writings. This makes the witnesses almost unanimous!

I say "almost" unanimous, because there is one witness that does not ever make this identification, and that is the Bible.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by Paidion » Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:46 pm

Hi Dizerner, you wrote:So how much discomfort is necessary to "purify" someone that participated in the Nanking Massacre. [Please particularly read the section entitled "rape" if you want to be aware of the depth of evils humanity is capable of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre ] A few educational videos? A good stern talking to? A couple slaps on the wrist? You really think that makes it all better, and the horrors are all better now, all undone? The emotions those victims experienced, the tears of seeing those they loved most so violently harmed? I don't mean to be offensive I'm genuinely curious how you feel about that. To me, there are some actions that nothing can ever somehow "take away" and "make it all better."
So you think that there are certain depths of human evil or kinds of human evil whereby those carry out the evil can never be reformed.
Even minor wrongdoing is not necessarily overcome by causing pain alone to the wrongdoer. First he has to associate the pain with the wrongdoing. And even if he does, this may result only in resentment rather than reformation. Somehow expressions of love and genuine concern for the wrongdoer are effective in bringing about his repentance. There is more to hell than pain and discomfort. God never gives up on anyone. Paul professed to be the CHIEF of sinners because prior to his conversion, he had put many Christians to death. Yet God did not give up on him. Jesus appeared to him and gave him specific instructions. He wasn't converted through pain and discomfort, although he was struck with blindness for a time. But Jesus loved him and had special plans for him, which he carried out. He made a complete about face. So if the chief of sinners could be reached, then surely those sinners of which you speak can be reached also. In saying this, I am in no way minimizing the evil of those involved the Nanking Massacre. Rather I am exalting the magnificent power of God to overcome evil and regenerate its perpetrators.
Last edited by Paidion on Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”