The Fall of Satan, Adam, and Eve, and the Fallen Angels

[Clete]

I still disagree

I still disagree. You're the only person I know of who hold your position.

You disagree, ostensibly based on a passage of scripture that JR just artfully removed from your use to support any such disagreement and yet you persist with your disagreement based on an appeal to popularity, which tells all of us who know how to think clearly, that your disagreement never had anything to do with any passage of scripture at all. You just don't like the teaching and so reject it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I still disagree

I still disagree.

No one cares. Make an argument for your position.

You're the only person I know of who hold your position.

So what? What does that have to do with whether I'm correct or not?

 

[JudgeRightly]

It probably took him about a week to pull it off.

Probably helped that most if not all of the ones that He caused to fall were under his authority to begin with... Assuming archangels have authority over other angels, of course.

 

[Right Divider]

I still disagree

I still disagree. You're the only person I know of who hold your position.

The standard for truth is not what you think that you know about someone else's position.

 

[Gary K]

The standard for truth is not what you think that you know about someone else's position.

Neither is yours.

 

[Right Divider]

Neither is yours.

Show where I claimed such a thing. Poser.

 

[Idolater]

There were no demons whispering to Eve.



I place the blame on the fact that somehow, she came to believe that if she even touched the tree or its fruit, that she would die, which isn't what God said at all.

1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

I place the blame on her being subjected to that nonsense. He was flat lying and enticing her and tempting her and trying to persuade her through deceit. He was a flat liar.

And God permitted it to happen. This has implications for theodicy, which was my whole point of this part of the discussion in that thread.

 

[Clete]

1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

I place the blame on her being subjected to that nonsense. He was flat lying and enticing her and tempting her and trying to persuade her through deceit. He was a flat liar.

And God permitted it to happen. This has implications for theodicy, which was my whole point of this part of the discussion in that thread.

God did not "permit it to happen"! On the contrary, He explicitly forbade it and punished everyone involved!

Do any of you people ever stop and actually think about what your doctrine says about God or do you just give the issue lip service?

GOD IS JUST!!!!

That belief has consequences! If you believe it then you don't get to believe just whatever haphazard doctrine that comes down the pike! If you discover a doctrine that implies God is unjust, you have a choice to make. Will you believe the doctrine at the expense of God's justice or will you maintain mere lip service to God's justice and believe the doctrine, no matter what? The choice people make is almost always the later. In fact, I have never encountered neither Catholic nor Calvinist who didn't choose the later. Indeed, many Christians of all stripes, don't even acknowledge that there is a choice to make! It seems that nearly no one, especially around here, even allows the issue to penetrate into their mind long enough to think about it for longer than it takes to write a single sentence where the issue is even brought up and when they do think about it, it's pretty much always the issue of justice that takes a back seat to the Aristotle's theology proper.

For those of you who have never thought it through....

In short, if all you do is drop Aristotle's theology proper, the issue of theodicy goes away completely!

Now that's one excellent cost to benefit ratio!

 

[Idolater]

God did not "permit it to happen"! On the contrary, He explicitly forbade it and punished everyone involved!

He permitted it to happen because He is capable of stopping something like for example the Holocaust from happening, but He didn't.

The answer to the problem of evil rn is easier answered than in the Garden, I'm not sure rn what the solution is to the problem of evil in the Garden, that's why I'm even engaging the content. I'm exploring.

Incidentally the reason why rn it's easier to answer the problem of evil is because in the New Testament Peter tells the whole Church that the only thing holding back God's mighty hand is His own mercy, and desire that all men are saved from His (just) wrath.

Do any of you people ever stop and actually think about what your doctrine says about God or do you just give the issue lip service?

GOD IS JUST!!!!

Of course. From the Latin "JUS." It means law, and right. Everything in its right place. That's part of why I'm exploring the question, because I already know God always has everything in its right place, even with His mercy, no matter what I think. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and you're only going backward if you forget to fear the Lord. This is just faith seeking understanding.

That belief has consequences! If you believe it then you don't get to believe just whatever haphazard doctrine that comes down the pike!

I don't. I believe Catholicism. It's all in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If you discover a doctrine that implies God is unjust

I don't; I didn't; I'm exploring.

, you have a choice to make. Will you believe the doctrine at the expense of God's justice or will you maintain mere lip service to God's justice and believe the doctrine, no matter what? The choice people make is almost always the later.

Not me. I pursue the truth no matter where it lies.

In fact, I have never encountered neither Catholic nor Calvinist who didn't choose the later.

Well ... I'm both. In every sense, in which being a Calvinist doesn't conflict with Catholicism (which is almost entirely about the bishops and about almost nothing else).

Indeed, many Christians of all stripes, don't even acknowledge that there is a choice to make! It seems that nearly no one, especially around here, even allows the issue to penetrate into their mind long enough to think about it for longer than it takes to write a single sentence where the issue is even brought up and when they do think about it, it's pretty much always the issue of justice that takes a back seat to the Aristotle's theology proper.

I don't know about Aristotle's theology proper, but as far as people being wont to put on blinders or get tunnel vision or be mesmerized by a paradigm, that's absolutely happening all the time with people; I agree. It happens in theology, philosophy, politics, climate change, the list goes on. You get a big picture, broad stroke idea in your mind, and you start to see the World through exclusively that one lens, and if the lens is defective, you don't have any way to test it, so it's basically just a blind spot. And it is basically permanent, frequently. People don't change, in a sense. In other senses they do, but in this sense it's way more likely they won't.

For those of you who have never thought it through....

In short, if all you do is drop Aristotle's theology proper, the issue of theodicy goes away completely!

Now that's one excellent cost to benefit ratio!

So would you agree with me, that basically because God hasn't burned up the old Earth yet, that this is the answer to the problem of evil, if people ask? Why He permits evil now, is because He wants to save as many men as possible, and if He destroys this old Earth, then there are men who aren't even born yet who will not exist, and so they will not be saved, and God wants all men to be saved whether they are alive yet or not.

 

[Gary K]

He permitted it to happen because He is capable of stopping something like for example the Holocaust from happening, but He didn't.

The answer to the problem of evil rn is easier answered than in the Garden, I'm not sure rn what the solution is to the problem of evil in the Garden, that's why I'm even engaging the content. I'm exploring.

Incidentally the reason why rn it's easier to answer the problem of evil is because in the New Testament Peter tells the whole Church that the only thing holding back God's mighty hand is His own mercy, and desire that all men are saved from His (just) wrath.


Of course. From the Latin "JUS." It means law, and right. Everything in its right place. That's part of why I'm exploring the question, because I already know God always has everything in its right place, even with His mercy, no matter what I think. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and you're only going backward if you forget to fear the Lord. This is just faith seeking understanding.


I don't. I believe Catholicism. It's all in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


I don't; I didn't; I'm exploring.


Not me. I pursue the truth no matter where it lies.


Well ... I'm both. In every sense, in which being a Calvinist doesn't conflict with Catholicism (which is almost entirely about the bishops and about almost nothing else).


I don't know about Aristotle's theology proper, but as far as people being wont to put on blinders or get tunnel vision or be mesmerized by a paradigm, that's absolutely happening all the time with people; I agree. It happens in theology, philosophy, politics, climate change, the list goes on. You get a big picture, broad stroke idea in your mind, and you start to see the World through exclusively that one lens, and if the lens is defective, you don't have any way to test it, so it's basically just a blind spot. And it is basically permanent, frequently. People don't change, in a sense. In other senses they do, but in this sense it's way more likely they won't.


So would you agree with me, that basically because God hasn't burned up the old Earth yet, that this is the answer to the problem of evil, if people ask? Why He permits evil now, is because He wants to save as many men as possible, and if He destroys this old Earth, then there are men who aren't even born yet who will not exist, and so they will not be saved, and God wants all men to be saved whether they are alive yet or not.

Basically you're holding to a Calvinistic belief that God is responsible for sin.

God gave us all the power of choice whether we would choose to trust Him or not. Adam was told that he could eat of every tree in the garden except it. Why? Because God wants to have real relationships with His created beings and without the power of choice no genuine relationship is possible. We would all be automatons without it.

 

[Idolater]

Basically you're holding to a Calvinistic belief that God is responsible for sin.

God gave us all the power of choice whether we would choose to trust Him or not. Adam was told that he could eat of every tree in the garden except it. Why? Because God wants to have real relationships with His created beings and without the power of choice no genuine relationship is possible. We would all be automatons without it.

That has nothing to do with why Satan was permitted to lie to Eve. Or are you suggesting Eve would have eaten of the tree even if Satan hadn't lied to her?

 

[JudgeRightly]

1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Why did you skip verses 2 and 3?

Special pleading will not help your position.

I place the blame on her being subjected to that nonsense. He was flat lying and enticing her and tempting her and trying to persuade her through deceit. He was a flat liar.

The deceit was telling her that she wouldn't die while leaving out the clarification "if you touch it." Something which would have been true, since God never said "you shall not touch it," ONLY "you shall not eat of it."

And God permitted it to happen. This has implications for theodicy, which was my whole point of this part of the discussion in that thread.

As Clete said, He didn't permit it to happen, no more than He permits rapists to rape.

It's not something He wants to happen, but He's not going to prevent people from suffering the consequences of their actions. That would be harmful, and not loving at all, which goes against His very character.

But actively permitting it? No, He doesn't do so.

Satan, and Eve, and Adam, are/were free moral agents, capable of making decisions on their own, either in line with or against God's commands.

 

[Idolater]

Why did you skip verses 2 and 3?

Because you said, "There were no demons whispering to Eve," and whether or not Eve was whispering back to any demons was not in dispute, and that's all that was happening in verses two and three, so I skipped them because they were irrelevant to the point.

The deceit was telling her that she wouldn't die while leaving out the clarification "if you touch it." Something which would have been true, since God never said "you shall not touch it," ONLY "you shall not eat of it."

So we're in agreement then that she was lied to by a demon? Keep in mind this response was to my, "He was flat lying and enticing her and tempting her and trying to persuade her through deceit. He was a flat liar." So when you begin here, "The deceit was ... " you're acknowledging and agreeing with me that there was deceit, coming from the demon, right?

As Clete said, He didn't permit it to happen, no more than He permits rapists to rape.

Does He have the ability or power or authority to physically intervene and stop a rape in process, JR? I say Yes.

It's not something He wants to happen, but He's not going to prevent people from suffering the consequences of their actions. That would be harmful, and not loving at all, which goes against His very character.

What about the people being raped? They're suffering from the consequences of somebody else's action.

All I'm saying and all I've been saying, is that this is significant to theodicy and the problem of evil, nothing more.

But actively permitting it? No, He doesn't do so.

Supra.

Satan, and Eve, and Adam, are/were free moral agents, capable of making decisions on their own, either in line with or against God's commands.

OK. But isn't there a difference, in some way, between someone who freely decides to disobey God with full knowledge and completely freely, and someone who was cajoled or pressured or tricked into doing so?

 

[Clete]

He permitted it to happen because He is capable of stopping something like for example the Holocaust from happening, but He didn't.

The answer to the problem of evil rn is easier answered than in the Garden, I'm not sure rn what the solution is to the problem of evil in the Garden, that's why I'm even engaging the content. I'm exploring.

Incidentally the reason why rn it's easier to answer the problem of evil is because in the New Testament Peter tells the whole Church that the only thing holding back God's mighty hand is His own mercy, and desire that all men are saved from His (just) wrath.


Of course. From the Latin "JUS." It means law, and right. Everything in its right place. That's part of why I'm exploring the question, because I already know God always has everything in its right place, even with His mercy, no matter what I think. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and you're only going backward if you forget to fear the Lord. This is just faith seeking understanding.


I don't. I believe Catholicism. It's all in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


I don't; I didn't; I'm exploring.


Not me. I pursue the truth no matter where it lies.


Well ... I'm both. In every sense, in which being a Calvinist doesn't conflict with Catholicism (which is almost entirely about the bishops and about almost nothing else).


I don't know about Aristotle's theology proper, but as far as people being wont to put on blinders or get tunnel vision or be mesmerized by a paradigm, that's absolutely happening all the time with people; I agree. It happens in theology, philosophy, politics, climate change, the list goes on. You get a big picture, broad stroke idea in your mind, and you start to see the World through exclusively that one lens, and if the lens is defective, you don't have any way to test it, so it's basically just a blind spot. And it is basically permanent, frequently. People don't change, in a sense. In other senses they do, but in this sense it's way more likely they won't.


So would you agree with me, that basically because God hasn't burned up the old Earth yet, that this is the answer to the problem of evil, if people ask? Why He permits evil now, is because He wants to save as many men as possible, and if He destroys this old Earth, then there are men who aren't even born yet who will not exist, and so they will not be saved, and God wants all men to be saved whether they are alive yet or not.

No, I wouldn't agree with that at all. There is no need to answer theodicy (the problem of evil) because there is no problem of evil as I explained in the previous post. Theodicy is a problem that resides completely and only within the world of those who think God controls every event that happens and that He "allows" evil. This idea is blasphemy because it directly implies, whether you want to admit it or not, that God is unjust.

And Justice DOES NOT mean "everything in its place" as if God was some sort of neat freak or something. Justice is simply a form of righteousness. It is righteously appropriate action in response to what a person has done (in thought, word or deed). If a person has done good then a punishment would be unjust. Likewise, if a person has done evil, a reward would be unjust. But in all cases, justice is in reaction to another's moral actions and if an action is moral it must, by necessity, be volitional, meaning that it must be chosen and, if it was chosen, then there was an alternative that could have been chosen instead but wasn't. Thus, evil is NOT God's responsibility but that of the evil doer and God could NOT have prevented the sin in Eden without rendering Adam and Eve and Lucifer non-volitional and therefore amoral beings and thus ending the whole purpose of the human race and removing all meaning from the word "justice"!

That's just a tiny and very informal example of the sort of thing that "thinking" is all about and which almost no one seems to know how to do!

 

[Idolater]

No, I wouldn't agree with that at all. There is no need to answer theodicy (the problem of evil) because there is no problem of evil as I explained in the previous post. Theodicy is a problem that resides completely and only within the world of those who think God controls every event that happens and that He "allows" evil. This idea is blasphemy because it directly implies, whether you want to admit it or not, that God is unjust.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And Justice DOES NOT mean "everything in its place" as if God was some sort of neat freak or something.

Why would I mean it that way?

Justice is simply a form of righteousness. It is righteously appropriate action in response to what a person has done (in thought, word or deed). If a person has done good then a punishment would be unjust. Likewise, if a person has done evil, a reward would be unjust. But in all cases, justice is in reaction to another's moral actions and if an action is moral it must, by necessity, be volitional, meaning that it must be chosen and, if it was chosen, then there was an alternative that could have been chosen instead but wasn't. Thus, evil is NOT God's responsibility but that of the evil doer and God could NOT have prevented the sin in Eden without rendering Adam and Eve and Lucifer non-volitional and therefore amoral beings and thus ending the whole purpose of the human race and removing all meaning from the word "justice"!

I'm going to ask you what I asked JR above:

Isn't there a difference, in some way, between someone who freely decides to disobey God with full knowledge and completely freely, and someone who was cajoled or pressured or tricked into doing so?

That's just a tiny and very informal example of the sort of thing that "thinking" is all about and which almost no one seems to know how to do!

Philosophy has been arguing about the problem of evil, justice, God, morality and free will for ages.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because you said, "There were no demons whispering to Eve," and whether or not Eve was whispering back to any demons was not in dispute, and that's all that was happening in verses two and three, so I skipped them because they were irrelevant to the point.

They are ENTIRELY RELEVANT to the point!

You are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

It's where you deliberately ignore aspects that are unfavorable to your point of view.

Verses 2-3 destroy your overall position.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic won't prevent it from sinking.

YOU SAID:

Seems to me that without demons "whispering" to Eve, that she could have obeyed God and avoided that tree.

1) there were no demons

Lucifer was not a demon, at least, not at that point he wasn't.

2) avoiding the tree was never wrong to begin with, and thus not necessary.

You've confused what Eve said to Lucifer in verses 2-3 with what God ACTUALLY prohibited, which was ONLY eating it. Thus, by IGNORING those two verses, you try to skirt around the issue, and in doing so have come to believe something that is not true.

Genesis 3:2-3:
2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”

EVE WAS INCORRECT IN SAYING "NOR SHALL YOU TOUCH IT."

And BECAUSE of this error, Satan was able to decieve her.

So we're in agreement then that she was lied to by a demon?

No.

She was deceived by Lucifer, an ANGEL, and an archangel at that.

The moment he caused Eve to sin, he fell.

Keep in mind this response was to my, "He was flat lying and enticing her and tempting her and trying to persuade her through deceit. He was a flat liar." So when you begin here, "The deceit was ... " you're acknowledging and agreeing with me that there was deceit,

Lucifer's lie was a lie of omission. His deceit was leaving out the "if you touch it" when he told Eve that she wouldn't die.

Get it right.

coming from the demon, right?

False. Supra.

Does He have the ability or power or authority to physically intervene and stop a rape in process, JR? I say Yes.

Yes God could grab a rapist and pull him away from a woman he's about to rape and prevent him from raping her. But then He wouldn't be loving or just.

Again, love is the commitment to the good of someone.

Love must be freely given. If a person does not have the ability to hate (eg, if God prevents them from hating Him), then they do not have the ability to love.

What about the people being raped?

What about them?

They're suffering from the consequences of somebody else's action.

We live in a fallen world, Idolater. God isn't going to step in to protect people from the consequences of sin, because it would teach them that they can sin and not have to suffer the consequences.

The law is for the unrighteous.

What justice, what being made whole, looks like for the woman who is raped, is the execution of the rapist.

If that is not carried out, then righteousness is not being enforced, and yes, the woman will suffer, and every other woman as well, because then they will start to fear that they too will be raped, and they will expect that they will not be made whole.

The consequences of the rapists actions are, in a just society, that he be put to death.

In an unjust society, rapists receive in themselves the penalty of their error which is due (Romans 1). Sin has consequences, even physical ones.

All I'm saying and all I've been saying, is that this is significant to theodicy and the problem of evil, nothing more.

Evil exists because men choose to rebel against God.

God is not the author of sin.

OK. But isn't there a difference, in some way, between someone who freely decides to disobey God with full knowledge and completely freely, and someone who was cajoled or pressured or tricked into doing so?

Yes.

 

[Clete]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Which is why I made an argument.

Ignoring an argument doesn't count as a refutation.

Why would I mean it that way?

I don't care how you meant it.

I'm going to ask you what I asked JR above:

Isn't there a difference, in some way, between someone who freely decides to disobey God with full knowledge and completely freely, and someone who was cajoled or pressured or tricked into doing so?

Of course! How would that be relevant?

Philosophy has been arguing about the problem of evil, justice, God, morality and free will for ages.

Ever since Socrates introduced the world to an immutable God who controls everything that happens.

If God isn't the God of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, there is no problem of evil. Or you could say, depending on how you're using the the term, that dropping Augustinian theology proper is a theodicy.

Theodicy: In the philosophy of religion, a theodicy is an argument that attempts to resolve the problem of evil that arises when omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience are all simultaneously ascribed to God.

So just drop the omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience et. al. (i.e. Augustinian theology proper) and there's suddenly no need to formulate a theodicy. The problem of evil resides solely with those who believe in the god of Socrates.

 

[Gary K]

That has nothing to do with why Satan was permitted to lie to Eve. Or are you suggesting Eve would have eaten of the tree even if Satan hadn't lied to her?

God has created us as free moral agents meaning we all have the opportunity to choose to do good or evil. Adam and Eve were the first man and wife. He wasn't deceived. He chose to join Eve in her sin.

Genesis 3: 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.*n2
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.*n3
8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.*n4
9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

How much do you think Adam loved Eve? He wasn't deceived he voluntarily chose to join her in her sin. God had told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2: 15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.*n6
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:*n7
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.*n8

So do you think Adam warned Eve? We have scriptural evidence how much he loved her. In my eyes you're making a big time accusation against God's justice.

 

[ttruscott]

He wasn't deceived. He chose to join Eve in her sin, knowing YHWH's warnings of the consequences.

I agree. But he did fail to keep his faith in YHWH after he saw that his loved one had given into (partly) the enemy's theological understanding of reality, over YHWH's definitions.

Can we not say that Adam and Eve had a very different relationship with YHWH than the serpent had?

The serpent was cursed in himself and in his life but Adam and Eve were blessed with the coats of skins after the shedding of blood and the curse was only upon their lives, not themselves, as echoed in John 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. Berean Standard Bible

Wherein does this difference lie; from where does it arise? We know that those not condemned for their sins are elect before the foundation of the world and Adam and Eve certainly seem to be treated as elect, not reprobate. And for those of us who cannot accept that the GOD who is love arbitrarily condemns some people to hell as reprobate for no reason which compels the belief in election by merit and reprobation by dis-merit, we can certainly see aspects of the pre-garden election of Adam and Eve and the pre-garden reprobation of the serpent in the garden story. We can also see hints that they each knew of their respective status in GOD's eyes...