Did the Devil want Jesus to live?

[ligertiger]

Sort of off topic here, but I was reading the Wall Street Journal a few days ago. And there was an article that talked about infinities. And it also mentioned that there was infinite good and infinite evil, they're balanced out. So does it really matter to fight any of this at all? We already commit so many sins, and the good should naturally come to fight it. But then the evil will come back and vice versa for eternity. I guess God isn't that powerful in science.

 

[cgannon64]

He tries to pry Job away from God, that's a pretty good standard for evil.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

God is not the perpetrator of every sin. The least you can charge him with is, in a sense, the endorsement of sin.

Oh yes. And people don't kill people, only guns kill people. God creates the sin situation, it's really the same thing as pulling a trigger. Just because intermediaries, tools, creations do the actual sinning you want to excuse God?

then again, when do we have such a clear-cut binary decision where we don't already lean towards one side?

Well since God is clearly the creator of human nature, and technically the creator of the past (or each human's "personal history" to be specific), I think he must assume omniscient responsibility for these factors as well. Remember, to God it's all one thing. He just sees the future action - from his POV the world is deterministic because he can detect even the motions of quantum particles.

 

[Pyrite]

It is? God allowed it. Seems the two were in cahoots there playing around with mortals.

 

[cgannon64]

Sort of off topic here, but I was reading the Wall Street Journal a few days ago. And there was an article that talked about infinities. And it also mentioned that there was infinite good and infinite evil, they're balanced out. So does it really matter to fight any of this at all? We already commit so many sins, and the good should naturally come to fight it. But then the evil will come back and vice versa for eternity. I guess God isn't that powerful in science.

St. Augustine has a nice refutation of an Ultimate Good v. Ultimate Evil scenario.

What would happen if the Good did not fight? Would the Evil be able to destroy the Good? If so, then the Good isn't really the ultimate good. Would the Evil attack the Good and fail? If so, then the Evil isn't equally matched with the Good. Would the Evil not try to attack the Good at all? If so, then the two aren't in conflict.

 

[Pyrite]

This leaves out the possibility that they both fight and neither gains any ground whatsoever.

 

[cgannon64]

Oh yes. And people don't kill people, only guns kill people. God creates the sin situation, it's really the same thing as pulling a trigger. Just because intermediaries, tools, creations do the actual sinning you want to excuse God?

Yes, I do, because God did not do the sinning! God made sin possible, and he knew that sin would occur, but why does this matter? He did not commit the sins!

Is it really a sin to make sin possible? Is a mother guilty of her child's sins? After all, any realistic mother knows her child is going to do something bad somewhere along the line. Would it be better for her not to get pregnant because she is afraid of being, in some vague way, 'guilty' for her child's sin?

Well since God is clearly the creator of human nature, and technically the creator of the past (or each human's "personal history" to be specific), I think he must assume omniscient responsibility for these factors as well. Remember, to God it's all one thing. He just sees the future action - from his POV the world is deterministic because he can detect even the motions of quantum particles.

My rambling about that was ignoring God, really. I was merely trying to point out that we don't have as much free will as we think we have.

 

[cgannon64]

This leaves out the possibility that they both fight and neither gains any ground whatsoever.

Yes, but it still works.

St. Augustine is obviously assuming that, in this scenario, both of them are fighting constantly, throughout all eternity. His refutation imagines that, if Good drops its guard for a second, what would happen? Good couldn't lose - then it wouldn't be good. Evil couldn't attack Good and fail - then they wouldn't be equally matched. And Evil couldn't choose not to attack Good - then they wouldn't be opposed to each other.

Another reason why such a dichotomy isn't attractive is the sheer boredom of it. Why does mankind exist - to choose sides in an unwinnable battle?

 

[Pyrite]

IF both sides are invincible then it would make sense that it would hardly matter if one dropped it's guard. The two infinites cancel each other out and reign in there current spheres and neither gains anything over the other. At least, in that kind of ultimate system. However, they could both be fighting out of sheer hatred for each other. The two do seem to have a bit of hatred for each other, eh?

I don't think it's very scholarly, even for a theist, to denounce a possibility just because it is, "boring."

 

[Gothmog]

Why couldn't good lose in this scenario again? Because then it wouldn't be good? Isn't that just a circular argument?

Another reason why such a dichotomy isn't attractive is the sheer boredom of it. Why does mankind exist - to choose sides in an unwinnable battle?

This is kind of funny, the sheer boredome! Why does mankind exist - to glorify an omnipotent being?

Am I missing something deeper here?

Oh and by the way

Is it really a sin to make sin possible? Is a mother guilty of her child's sins? After all, any realistic mother knows her child is going to do something bad somewhere along the line. Would it be better for her not to get pregnant because she is afraid of being, in some vague way, 'guilty' for her child's sin?

This only works if the mother is omnipotent (i.e. could provide an environment where the child could do nothing bad, or indeed one where bad did not exist).

Or to go further with the Christian mythology, where the mother actively creates an environment where bad will be done after the child spills its first cup of juice in the paradise she originally created.

 

[cgannon64]

Why couldn't good lose in this scenario again? Because then it wouldn't be good? Isn't that just a circular argument?

Good is that which is unchangable, according to St. Augustine.

This is kind of funny, the sheer boredome! Why does mankind exist - to glorify an omnipotent being?

To put it simply, yes. What's wrong with God creating us so that we could be like him, and worship him?

Oh and by the way This only works if the mother is omnipotent (i.e. could provide an environment where the child could do nothing bad, or indeed one where bad did not exist).

If she created an enviroment where the child could not do bad, then she wouldn't be creating a child that is equal to her.

 

[Pyrite]

"Good is that which is unchangable, according to St. Augustine."

By this logic, the Nazi holocaust was "Good" as it is in the past, and therefore unchangeable.

"To put it simply, yes. What's wrong with God creating us so that we could be like him, and worship him?"

To put it simply, it's boring. Which you've stated as a justifiable reason for dismissing something.

"If she created an enviroment where the child could not do bad, then she wouldn't be creating a child that is equal to her."

If you read enough christian mythology, which I'm sure you have, humanity is in no way equal to God. Humanity never was, God actually feared that in the garden when Humanity was about to become "Like us," as God said.
And on the flip side of the coin, if humanity is equal to god, what use have we for god?
We should simply forego religion and worship the human spirit.

 

[Gothmog]

Good is that which is unchangable, according to St. Augustine.

OK, so it is a circular argument. I was just checking.

What's wrong with God creating us so that we could be like him, and worship him?

Nothing, I am not going to attempt to judge God. It can do whatever it wants. I just fail to see how that is any more or less boring than choosing sides in an unwinable battle.

If she created an enviroment where the child could not do bad, then she wouldn't be creating a child that is equal to her.

Are we equal to God then?

 

[cgannon64]

By this logic, the Nazi holocaust was "Good" as it is in the past, and therefore unchangeable.

I hope you realize that is an absurd argument. Anything temporal is changable. The Nazi Holocaust, as you may notice, no longer exists.

To put it simply, it's boring. Which you've stated as a justifiable reason for dismissing something.

I was essentially saying that I do not like a belief system based around a dichotomy. If you wish, I'll try to challenge it, and you can play Devil's advocate (since I doubt you're actually a Manichee).

What would you say are the definitions of Good and Evil in this scenario? You can't use "Good is the unchangable", since this is an eternal fight, and so they are both unchangable. So what is Good and what is Evil?

If you read enough christian mythology, which I'm sure you have, humanity is in no way equal to God.

We are not meant to be equal to God, but we are meant to be "like God" and to "be gods". That is what I meant. If God, with his free will, denied us our free will, then he would be eliminating any similarity between us and him. We would not "be made in God's image".

 

[cgannon64]

OK, so it is a circular argument. I was just checking.

Hm. How is it circular argument? St. Augustine says that Good is something that is unchangable - this is his axiom, really - and if Good was in conflict with anything, it either cannot lose, by definition, or it is not absolute Good.

He's merely pointing out that, by his definitions, Good v. Evil isn't a real conflict.

 

[Pyrite]

"I hope you realize that is an absurd argument. Anything temporal is changable. The Nazi Holocaust, as you may notice, no longer exists"

Can you change the past? No the past is unchangeable. Therefore, it is good, based on St. Augustine's ridiculous assertion.

"What would you say are the definitions of Good and Evil in this scenario? You can't use "Good is the unchangable", since this is an eternal fight, and so they are both unchangable. So what is Good and what is Evil?"

Can you define good and evil? Hardly. Good and evil are subjective terms, and are only objective in a religious context. Therefore we must use your belief system, and not mine to define them. So I suppose evil would be anything that does not submit itself to God. No?

How are we like God? Can we make a universe out of nothing? No. Then the standards do not apply. He may have free will, but he also has the ability to conjure up things from nonexistance. It's easy to be "good" when you can have anything you want. He gave us all the responsibilities of "choice" without any of the saving graces of his omnipotent supernatural powers.

 

[cgannon64]

Can you change the past? No the past is unchangeable. Therefore, it is good, based on St. Augustine's ridiculous assertion.

You cannot change the past because it doesn't exist, not because it is unchangable.

Can you define good and evil? Hardly. Good and evil are subjective terms, and are only objective in a religious context. Therefore we must use your belief system, and not mine to define them. So I suppose evil would be anything that does not submit itself to God. No?

Yes. But I'm asking, in a religious dichotomy with two eternal combatants, what are the definitions of Good and Evil? Good is that which is unchangable, but Evil is unchangable also, right? If Evil wasn't unchangable, then it couldn't be eternally conflicting with Good - at some point it would lose.

How are we like God? Can we make a universe out of nothing? No. Then the standards do not apply. He may have free will, but he also has the ability to conjure up things from nonexistance.

He has free will, and we have free will. Therefore, we are like him in that regard.

He gave us all the responsibilities of "choice" without any of the saving graces of his omnipotent supernatural powers.

Actually, we have his omnitpotent supernatural powers on our side. In fact, they call it "saving grace".

 

[Gothmog]

So what is Good and what is Evil?

That is the deeper and more interesting question, St. Augustine has his opinion but it does make the rest of the scenario a bit pointless IMO. Axiom: good can't lose - scenario: can good lose?

If God, with his free will, denied us our free will, then he would be eliminating any similarity between us and him. We would not "be made in God's image".

Here you are just picking and choosin. As I understand it God cannot sin, but we can, does that then eliminate any similarity in the same way?

Certainly in a world where bad did not exist we could still have free will.

 

[Pyrite]

"You cannot change the past because it doesn't exist, not because it is unchangable."

The past doesn't excist anymore, but when it was the present it certainly excisted, happened, and is now unchangeable, therefore it is good.

"Yes. But I'm asking, in a religious dichotomy with two eternal combatants, what are the definitions of Good and Evil? Good is that which is unchangable, but Evil is unchangable also, right?"

In a religious dichotomy (at least in judeo-christianity) Good and Evil are defined as those with God, or with the devil. In judaism the ban law was considered good, because God ordered it. Whereas, if the devil had an army that enacted such a slaughter, it would be considered evil. It's really just whose side you're on.

"He has free will, and we have free will. Therefore, we are like him in that regard."

So you've said. But we are unlike him in so many other ways. We are not "In his image" as you've said, but, share SOME similarities, that is all.

"Actually, we have his omnitpotent supernatural powers on our side. In fact, they call it "saving grace"."

Excellant. Use your powers to feed the hungry as Jesus did. And, those are HIS powers. Not ours, we do not have omnipotence as he did, even if miracles are possible, they are borrowed magical super abra kadabra power from him.

 

[cgannon64]

That is the deeper and more interesting question, St. Augustine has his opinion but it does make the rest of the scenario a bit pointless IMO. Axiom: good can't lose - scenario: can good lose?

I agree it's a little silly - but the whole point is that, going by his definition, you can't be a Manichee. (He's presuming, of course that you agree with his definition of good. If you don't, well - be a Manichee.)

Here you are just picking and choosin. As I understand it God cannot sin, but we can, does that then eliminate any similarity in the same way?

Not really, because similarity does not mean "the same in all respects", it means "the same in some respects".

Certainly in a world where bad did not exist we could still have free will.

A world with free will cannot exist without bad because, quite simply, to be bad is to reject God. With our free will, we can either accept or reject God - if God ruled out rejection (sin), then we would have no free will.

The past doesn't excist anymore, but when it was the present it certainly excisted, happened, and is now unchangeable, therefore it is good.

For something to be unchangable, it first has to exist. If something existed, and now no longer exists, it changed, and is therefore changable. (This same thing, I think, goes for the human soul. After all, our souls are very changable now, but once in Heaven, they are not, right? But that doesn't mean the human soul is, as a thing, unchangable, since it went through a change.)

In a religious dichotomy (at least in judeo-christianity) Good and Evil are defined as those with God, or with the devil. In judaism the ban law was considered good, because God ordered it. Whereas, if the devil had an army that enacted such a slaughter, it would be considered evil. It's really just whose side you're on.

Christianity is not a religious dichotomy in which both sides are eternally struggling. Evil is bound to lose. In other Good v. Evil dichotomies - the ones I'm arguing against - the struggle is eternal and, I think, nonsensical. (As for your assertion that slaughter is good if God does it - well, that's a whole other challenging question.)

Excellant. Use your powers to feed the hungry as Jesus did. And, those are HIS powers. Not ours, we do not have omnipotence as he did, even if miracles are possible, they are borrowed magical super abra kadabra power from him.

They aren't our powers, but they're on our side. You seemed to be saying that our free will sucks because we aren't omnipotent - that's just silly. I was just trying to point out that, even though we can't act with omnipotence, we can act in accordance with omnipotence, which is the next-best thing.