So....

[Hitchkok]

I normally NEVER get into religious talks, but that point makes me want to

Lucifer is inherently good and chooses to not follow the rules of god.

And how did you reach that conclusion?

Did God not create the heaven, the earth, and all the Angels? Was Lucifer not an angel? Did God not create Lucifer? So did God create an inherently wicked being? or did Lucifer change and become wicked after his creation?

If Lucifer was not inherently good the God purposefully created evil and let it loose on the world, meaning Eve was not to blame, nor was man as a whole.


***This is just a thought process brought on by the remark made, nothing more***

Ty Lore. Tho i wanted that from Byrnes...

than answer me this:
given that the original sin was eating the fruit of "the tree of knowledge good and evil", is knolwedge of good and evil required to be righteous?
and if it is not, does the fact that lucifer preached evil takes away from adam and eve's responsibility?

[Juliette]

Lucifer only preached evil after being kicked from Heaven by the Omnipotent.
The Archangel became the Archfiend through dissociation with the Sovereign of Heaven.

Up until the very moment of Creation, (which is well 'after' Satan and his Angels being cast out of Heaven onto that oblivious Lake of Fire) there was not the intention to mess with God, but a debate on whether open war, or silent repentance and acceptance of fate would be the next course of action for the -then- Princes of Hell. The arguments for open war were put forth, that to anger the King of all Heaven to the extent that he would obliterate the rebellious angels might be a good way to end their existence. It was argued that to do so would be futile, as the Divine knew their being cast from Heaven was greater punishment for the rebels. The 'silent repentance' was rejected because of latent anger, and the third option, seeking out and corrupting Creation was chosen to be the preferred course of action.



Or so Milton says. It's not like he had more or less information as we have anyway. He did have a lot more skill at putting his thoughts to paper.

[Hitchkok]

Lucifer only preached evil after being kicked from Heaven by the Omnipotent.
The Archangel became the Archfiend through dissociation with the Sovereign of Heaven.

Up until the very moment of Creation, (which is well 'after' Satan and his Angels being cast out of Heaven onto that oblivious Lake of Fire) there was not the intention to mess with God, but a debate on whether open war, or silent repentance and acceptance of fate would be the next course of action for the -then- Princes of Hell. The arguments for open war were put forth, that to anger the King of all Heaven to the extent that he would obliterate the rebellious angels might be a good way to end their existence. It was argued that to do so would be futile, as the Divine knew their being cast from Heaven was greater punishment for the rebels. The 'silent repentance' was rejected because of latent anger, and the third option, seeking out and corrupting Creation was chosen to be the preferred course of action.



Or so Milton says. It's not like he had more or less information as we have anyway. He did have a lot more skill at putting his thoughts to paper.

i fail to see what import does that have on the "blame" question.

[Byrnes]

Lucifer is inherently good and chooses to not follow the rules of god.

that's just pure nonsense on so many levels.
a) allowing for the religious point of view, following the rules of god IS being good. it is not a prerequisite for being good, it is not an effect of being good, it is one and the same.
b) if something is "inherently" good, it doesn't "choose" to follow a moral code. it just does. "where the atoned walk, angels fear to tread". sounds familiar? because a person who atoned is not "inherently" good, yet he chose to be. and that means so much more (again, allowing for the religious point of view).

I dont see how an angel can be born evil is see in every post you act like you know every thing.

[Hitchkok]

Lucifer is inherently good and chooses to not follow the rules of god.

that's just pure nonsense on so many levels.
a) allowing for the religious point of view, following the rules of god IS being good. it is not a prerequisite for being good, it is not an effect of being good, it is one and the same.
b) if something is "inherently" good, it doesn't "choose" to follow a moral code. it just does. "where the atoned walk, angels fear to tread". sounds familiar? because a person who atoned is not "inherently" good, yet he chose to be. and that means so much more (again, allowing for the religious point of view).

I dont see how an angel can be born evil

i've actually expleined it, if you'd care to read

[Jack]

The fact that others chose to follow him would seem to suggest that they did indeed have free will.

is that a fact?
or an assumption you make?
my explanation still seems more reasonable to me.
but hey, don't let my flawless logic get in the way of your guiltless hedonisem.

It's no more an assumption than your own that angels do not have free will. It also requires less jumps.

God created angels -> angels have free will -> angels chose to rebel -> they were punished accordingly

God created angels -> angels have no free will -> God suffers Dissociative Identity Disorder(multiple personalities) -> angels are a result of God's DID -> God is or was both good and evil -> God is/was bipolar -> God is/was schizophrenic -> the bipolar schizophrenia combination caused a relatively small group of God's alter egos(Satan and friends) to rise up and try to take over -> God kicked ass and then banished Satan and friends to a dark and scary corner of God's mind -> God knew this would happen -> God wanted this to happen because he's that **Filtered** insane

[Hitchkok]

The fact that others chose to follow him would seem to suggest that they did indeed have free will.

is that a fact?
or an assumption you make?
my explanation still seems more reasonable to me.
but hey, don't let my flawless logic get in the way of your guiltless hedonisem.

It's no more an assumption than your own that angels do not have free will(true up to here (except that, my assumption is based on the work of most theologians). It also requires less jumps.untrue

God created angels -> angels have free will -> angels chose to rebel -> they were punished accordingly

God created angels -> angels have no free will -> God suffers Dissociative Identity Disorder(multiple personalities) -> angels are a result of God's DID -> God is or was both good and evil -> God is/was bipolar -> God is/was schizophrenic -> the bipolar schizophrenia combination caused a relatively small group of God's alter egos(Satan and friends) to rise up and try to take over -> God kicked ass and then banished Satan and friends to a dark and scary corner of God's mind -> God knew this would happen -> God wanted this to happen because he's that **Filtered** insane this is what we like to call a "strawman", which is to say, a weakend form of the other party's argument. but you already knew that, didn't you?

here's my real argument.
God created angels -> angels have no free will ->God knew angels would rebel and start preaching evil -> God wanted this to happen because he wants people to choose to be pious.
but, hey, don't trust me.
ask your local reverend.

[Thriller]

here's my real argument.
God created angels -> angels have no free will ->God knew angels would rebel and start preaching evil -> God wanted this to happen because he wants people to choose to be pious.
but, hey, don't trust me.
ask your local reverend.

Yup that's the Vatican interpretation if you believe any of this nonsense

[Juliette]

Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.

[Thriller]

Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.

Why?

[Ashu]

Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hitchkok]

Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.

you've gotta be kidding.

[Thriller]

Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.

you've gotta be kidding.

This may be example of the dutch giving into the demands of the religiously warped.

A well established precedent.

[Hitchkok]

Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.

you've gotta be kidding.

This may be example of the dutch giving into the demands of the religiously warped.

A well established precedent.

as long as it's not in the rules, i'm practicing civil disobediance.

[Psyko]

Witchcraft is praying to something else than God to fulfill your needs, desires and so on, further more using pagan ritual condoned by both Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The bad influence of HP, in my mind is because it produces another world full of witchcraft to which kids and some adults are more accustomed too even more than the 10 Commandments. Something that drives you farther from God is to me, a horrible thing. And from this lets move on to the next point. My saying that has probably sealed my being extremist and a zealot in some people's eyes. That is not the fact, and here i explain.

I have never and will NEVER point the finger at someone's religion of faith, whatever it is. Having freedom isn't the same as people thing, being able to mock and ridicule someone else's beliefs or faith. Its not even in the same ballpark. By situation its like making fun of someone having red hair or being good at math rather than sports, its ridiculous. Having the RESPECT and CONSIDERATION towards another man is tolerance and understanding. Freedom was conceived on the idea that man would be respectful and considerate towards fellow man. As for myself, i am fervent in my own beliefs and one core belief that all true Christians adhere to is kindness and tolerance.

Witchcraft =/= prayer.

Since you brought up Harry Potter again...
They don't pray in Harry Potter to anything or anyone. Therefore, they break the first commandment of God. And therefore are NOT sinners in conjunction with that commandment. However, like all people, characters or real life, they can sin.

I really do wish that all Christians did adhere to kindness and tolerance. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case.