Why can't god control satan ?

[guy]

Well ?

As an Atheist, I just don't get it.

[lostnotforgotten]

1. Because The Christian God And Christian Satan Don't Really Exist

eom

[DonCoquixote]

The best explanation I heard for it

Is that without evil, we would not be able to choose Good, and that the choice is being between a perfect automaton that does what it is supposed to, but has no life, OR, being flawed, but being able to choose. I still find that a bit thin, as I think that God could have made a better way to bring about free will than give us a choice between perfect bliss no one is worthy of, or eternal pain no one deserves.

[and-justice-for-all]

41. ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!!! nt

[Dennis Donovan]

2. Because Satan has a bigger gun...

Whoops. wrong forum...:D

[Muttocracy]

3. When angry fora collide... nt

[Muttocracy]

4. was Lucifer one of his sons? Maybe like most parents he can't totally control his kids?

:shrug:

(I don't get it either)

[Ian David]

5. Because then all those religious-themed movies would boring...

... and "Mr. T." wouldn't find work anymore.

[givemebackmycountry]

6. Because Satan won two elections...

And everyone knows that.

[tbyg52]

17. Bingo.

[MissDeeds]

22. Ding ding ding!

We have our winner! Good one.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. depends which religion you are talking about?

do they have Satan in Hindism?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. That's the paradox, isn't it?

If God were really omnipotent he would be able to control Satan. Since he's not controlling Satan, either he's not omnipotent, or he chooses not to control Satan -- in which case he's an asshole. If God were bot omnipotent and good, which traditional Christian theology claims to be the case, he'd kick Satan's ass. But he either can't or won't kick Satan's ass; therefore he's not all that.

[Starry Messenger]

9. Because you should never bring a lightning bolt to a pitchfork fight.

[MineralMan]

10. Oh, he could, but what would the heavenly hosts

talk about over their martinis? That'd be one boring cocktail party.

[denem]

11. Conventional Theology would say God can do anything

but chooses not to, including destroying Satan ... if there is such a thing.

Two things I get from the New Testament on the broader question:

1. We are given the challenge of being humane and loving thy neighbor (including enemies) against the heritage of a carnivorous world where the lion does not lie down with the lamb.

2. Things are not as they seem. The meek to not inherit the world, but in the 'kingdom of heaven" which is 'all around us', they do.

[NOW tense]

12. These are not my beliefs.

If God created everything then he also created Satan. If God is love then God loves Satan. Satan is all part of the grand scheme of things.

again not my beliefs

[davidwparker]

13. He can. The story isn't over yet.

7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

[guy]

15. Thats the worst thing you could have posted.

god can control satan and evil...but chooses not to.

And why would god release satan from prison ?

[tbyg52]

21. Hi, guy!

Welcome to DU!

[davidwparker]

26. I was emphasizing God has the ultimate control of Satan when he banishes

Satan to Hell for eternity -- along with the other fallen angels and those who do not accept Yeshua's atonement for their sins.

God certainly does control Satan. Read about the limitations that God put on what Satan could do to Job. Or another instance from Revelation, describing the tribulation:

Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

The part in bold is another limitation that God puts on Satan during the tribulation.

The bit that I posted tells you the reason why satan is released. Re-read it: "Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle."

This is Satan's final challenge of God's authority. It fails, just as Satan's first attempt to challenge God's authority failed in eternity past. And, once again, God shows the ultimate control of Satan by placing him in Hell forever -- along with all the ones that Satan has deceived.

[Hugabear]

34. Sounds like a very badly written science fiction movie

Sure, God could control Satan, but he just doesn't want to yet. He'd rather let Satan run loose for millions of years, causing untold death & suffering among God's creation - and then wait until some future mythical battle to "bottle" up Satan in some mystical Lake of Fire.

Um, sure. When you look at it like that, it sounds just as bat-shit crazy as Scientology and their Xenu alien beliefs.

[davidwparker]

35. Then, of course, going with your comments, you are putting yourself above

God saying what God aught to do according to your infinitesimally small understanding of creation with its ongoing battle of good and evil.

God sees and is in control of the big picture, from everlasting to everlasting.

[Hugabear]

37. There you go again - "ongoing battle of good and evil"

That's just it. If God exists, and if he is so powerful, if he is all-knowing, if he's the one who created Satan in the first place, then why does there even have to be a battle? I'm well versed in the Bible, I grew up in a fundamentalist church and had it drilled into me for years. I know all about Lucifer's rebellion, and how he and 1/3 of all the angels were kicked out of heaven.

The problem is that once you start applying logic and reason to ancient biblical mythology, it falls apart rather quickly. Of course you can rationalize anything with the good old caveat "he works in mysterious ways".

[davidwparker]

39. There didn't have to be a battle. Lucifer could have been content with his

station among creation as a mighty cherub. God lamented Lucifer's decision and his fate in Ezekiel 28:16-17:

By the abundance of your traffic they filled the midst of you with violence, and you have sinned: therefore have I cast you as profane out of the mountain of God; and I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you have corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness: I have cast you to the ground; I have laid you before kings, that they may behold you.

His downfall being his pride (Isaiah 14:12_14):

How are you fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the morning! how are you cut down to the ground, that did lay low the nations! And you said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.

So, Huga, God is all about giving good things abundantly without any of the consequences that sin has brought into the world. Creation just makes some really bad decisions with its gift of freewill. The OP was about God's control of Satan. God has no problem doing that. What you see going on today is as a result of Lucifer's fall and then the fall of man. Things like greed and lusts of all kind is what keeps people down, not God. But, God made posible THE WAY back to Himself and then in the future back to the paradise of Eden according to His timetable, not yours.

Using phrases such as "ancient biblical mythology" and "it drilled into me for years", I can see that your religious experience was not positive, and for that, I'm sorry. Perhaps you should not go to a fundamentalist church. I would not want to see your pride send you to a place that you do not want to go. Since you do have some familiarity with Scripture, you know that pride goes before the fall (Proverbs 16:18).

And, God does work in mysterious ways. No apologies there.

[Hugabear]

45. So if I refuse to believe in ancient mythology, then I'm doomed to hell?

And how do you know that YOUR belief system is the right one?

What if the Muslims have it correct? What if it's the Hindus who are on the right track? Or how do you know that some other ancient religion, now defunct, wasn't the right one and that we're all doomed?

[Sandrine for you]

58. Because God is like a nazi doctor in a concentration camp.

It's a plot of God against human. He can control Satan,but he prefer to let Satan take some human to hell.

That's tell a lot about the ''love'' of God. In fact,he is a sadistic child who like to put fire to his live toys. Just to how it will react.

[tbyg52]

19. Please read Heinlien's _Job_ nt

[davidwparker]

27. Is this what you are referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job,_A_Comedy_of_Justice

If so, I'll stick to the account of Job in the TNK.

[tbyg52]

32. Sure is. But *I* have no idea what TNK is. nt

[davidwparker]

36. TNK is the Hebrew Bible (torah, prophets, and the writings).

[tbyg52]

40. What does "TNK" stand for?

I've got "Torah," I guess, but what's the "NK" and where's the other "T" for Talmud?

[Meshuga]

55. He means Tanakh

Which is a hebrew abbreviation to the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). It stands for Torah, Neviim, and Ketuvim (Torah, Prophets, and Writings).

I don't think the author of Job meant to create of a Satan/Lucifer character that is known is Christianity. The story of Job predates Christianity and all the Lucifer/Satan connections made to create the character in the Christian story did not exist. The connections are made later with the emergence of Christianity.

[rrneck]

14. Because we can't control ourselves. nt

[tbyg52]

16. My personal theory is contained in Heinlein's _Job_... ;->

Good read, in any case.

Edited to properly italicize the title.

[msongs]

18. too many people make too much $$ with all that stuff - follow the $$ trail nt

[saltpoint]

20. There's always too many Jacks and Rogers and not enough Simons and Piggys.

[soothsayer]

23. Because creation is still in progress. It's not finished yet, it's playing out.

[safeinOhio]

24. Questions that can only be answered

with guesses are shitty questions.

[Occam Bandage]

25. As an atheist, why do you care?

[spin]

28. The development of the Christian religion is fasinating...

and Satan is a very interesting but changing character.

I wonder how many believers realize that the concept of Satan as we know it is a late development in the Old Testament. Prior to the period of Persian domination over Israel in the post-Exilic period (following 538 BCE), this evil entity does not seem to have existed in the Jewish mind and is not to be found in the biblical writings. It was under the influence of the Persians, with their Zoroastrian concept of a conflict between the spirit of light and good (represented by the god Ahura-Mazda) and the spirit of darkness and evil (represented by the god Ahriman) that Jewish thinkers transformed one of heaven's angels into an opponent of God and the source of evil. Let me quote from the Harper's Bible Dictionary:

"(In Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3:1-2) Satan is depicted as a member of God's court whose basic duty it was to 'accuse' human beings before God. He is clearly not at this point an enemy of God and the leader of the demonic forces of evil, as he becomes later.... It should be noted that 'the serpent' of Genesis 3 is never in the O T identified as Satan.

"It is during the late postexilic period (after ca. 200 B.C.) and in the intertestamental literature that one first finds the development of the idea of Satan that is assumed in the N T writings. Probably under the influence of Persian ideology, there developed in Hebrew thought the idea of a dualism rampant in the created order—a dualism of good versus evil. There existed already the idea that God had a heavenly host, a group of messengers to carry out his work and orders. The Persians also believed in a ruler over the powers of evil, who had many servants in this realm known as demons. The Hebrews could easily understand and assimilate such thinking into their already existing ideas, but they had not yet developed any idea of a major being as a leader of the forces of evil....

"Satan and his cohorts then came to represent the powers of evil in the universe and were even known in Jesus' time as the Kingdom of Satan, against which Jesus had come to fight and to establish the Kingdom of God...." <"Satan", p.908-9>

If Satan truly exists, it is strange that centuries of revelation to the Jews through their prophets and sacred writings, so much of which were concerned with human behavior and its correction, should have failed to include this figure and his role, and stranger still that the idea has so clear a connection with Persian cosmology. Of course, ignorance of history, and the suppression of the spirit of investigation which might lead to such insights, helps keep alive an idea which in any other area would be dismissed as primitive and embarrassing.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm

[ironbark]

44. Your post underlines the organic nature of religion

and refreshingly deepens the discussion.
(What has transpired so far reminds me of the endless schoolyard debates - “Could Incredible Hulk beat Superman”? ;-)

As your post points out, conceptions evolve and grow within religions, religions themselves reach maturity and go through various cycles. Subsequent generations are often left with concept that have mutated or devolved from prior understandings.
Sin for example- “in the biblical Hebrew, the generic word for sin is het. It means to err, to miss the mark. It does not mean to do evil”.

From conversations with a number of Muslims I am advised that they are perplexed by the Christian depiction of Satan- A powerful external being capable of warring with God, an almost equal but bad God.
Iblis (Satan) is viewed as that weak and whining voice within humans that moans “I can’t do it, I’m not capable”. Iblis is said to enjoy melancholy music….perhaps qualifying as the fist appreciator of Emo ;-)

Thanks for your post, thoroughly enjoyed it.

[moose65]

67. This sealed it for me

The whole story of Satan was one of the final nails in the coffin of my beliefs. If you really look at it, it's absurd: if Satan is really God's sworn enemy, then he would have constantly been nagging the Hebrews throughout their time in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet he never shows up. Satan is basically an afterthought in the Old Testament. The Satan of Job is not really the same Satan that appears in the New Testament; in fact, in Job the word Satan is not a proper noun - it always has the word "the" in front of it, since "the satan" means "the accuser." Satan was like a bailiff in court! LOL.

The word Lucifer appears only once in the Bible, and is never associated with Satan. There is no story in the Bible that tells of Satan's fall from heaven at the beginning of time. A lot of people are surprised when they learn that the story isn't there. Even my lifelong church-attending mother asked me once if I knew where it was in the Bible, and she was surprised when I told her "It's not there." There are only a few vague references in apocalyptic books of the Bible. One would think that if this story was important it would have been spelled out a little better in the Bible!

We get most of our ideas about Satan from non-biblical sources. Jewish mythology and tradition, and "Paradise Lost" and "Dante's Inferno." In fact, I'd say that most ideas and images of Satan come from "Paradise Lost," which is a work of FICTION, for crying out loud!

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. There are a number of doctrinal explanations

The orthodox teaching, held by most denominations and traditions, is that Satan's greatest sin was to claim free will, a gift that God gave humans but not angels. As long as free will exists, Satan will have the power he claimed for himself, the same power to comit evil that humans have. At the end of time, God will remove free will and Satan will be treated like all other unrepentant sinners.

Other traditions hold that Satan does not have an independent existence; he is, rather, a manifestation of our capacity for sin.

Still other traditions hold that Satan is a folk hero, a rebel against an authoritarian, fascist regime. What the Christian God and his minions call evil is nothing more than freedom.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with those who say neither God nor Satan exist.

[moggie]

30. How can you CLAIM free will?

If you don't already have it, surely the only way you can get it is if your puppet-master makes you do so.

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. It is nonsensical, but then again, it is religion

Logic and rational arguments have never played prominently in theology. When you posit the existence of God and Satan, the only other possible explanation is that God created Satan specifically so that there would be evil, and that opens a whole other can of worms.

[demwing]

31. As a non-Christian, the Satan issue always tickled me

If Jehovah is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God that the Christians claim, he should have no difficulty wishing Satan out into a cornfield for all eternity. Paradox resolved!

Therefore, in keeping with the Christian philosophy, Satan must be serving some purpose of Jehovah's plan. That, in turn, indicates that Jehovah is one hell, er... one heck of a chess player, and He knows that:

A. Satan is evil, but his presence through the ages will ultimately help bring more souls to Heaven. Therefore, Satan is temporarily tolerated as a managed evil.
B. Satan exists, but our understanding of him is clouded. Satan is Jehovah's servant, is not evil, and IS under His control. We just don't see the big picture, and are not capable of understanding how the puzzle pieces fit together.

Of course, there are many other possibilities, existing outside of Christian orthodoxy. For instance:

C. Our understanding of Jehovah is clouded. Jehovah is neither omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent. He does not control Satan because He cannot control Satan.
D. Our understanding of Jehovah is clouded. Jehovah is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and evil. Satan serves Jehovah, and the whole game is designed to offer you two false choices, either of which will fuck you up for all eternity.
E. Satan does not actually exist, but it is convenient for Jehovah to allow us to believe he does.
F. Jehovah does not exists, and is is convenient for Satan to allow us to believe that he does.
G. Neither Jehovah nor Satan exist, and it is convenient for the Christian church to encourage us to believe that both entities are real.
H. Neither Jehovah nor Satan exist, and the Christian church has not yet figured this out.

Anyone else have any adds?

[ZombieHorde]

38. "Anyone else have any adds?"

I. Jehovah is a procrastinator, but don't worry, he'll get around to the Satan situation.
J. They are the same creature.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sal316]

43. Here's my take.

Let's take the premise that God is love perfected and start from there.

Oftentimes we, as humans, look at when bad things happen and wonder where God is in all of it and why didn't he stop it.

Velveteen Ocelot said:

If God were really omnipotent he would be able to control Satan. Since he's not controlling Satan, either he's not omnipotent, or he chooses not to control Satan -- in which case he's an asshole. If God were bot omnipotent and good, which traditional Christian theology claims to be the case, he'd kick Satan's ass. But he either can't or won't kick Satan's ass; therefore he's not all that.

Now this is a rather simplistic view of things that's in line with philosophers like John Stuart Mill. Simplistic because it assumes the idea of a finite, or limited God. This theory is rejected outright.

Now, if we look more closely, we see that typically people define individual events/people as "evil" or "bad" based on their own limited understanding. We also think that the world would be so much better if those things didn't happen.

Well, not being omniscient, one can't truly say that. Who is to say that by taking one event out of history, a "worse" one wouldn't have taken its place?

Gottfried Leibniz postulated that that we judge what is good and evil using our human standards, which God does not use. He believed it was bold of man to say the world would be good if each event was taken in isolation or if it was judged by human happiness.

Taking these two parts into consideration, then evil is consistent with the existence of God. Since God is omnipotent, he sometimes allows evil, not to be malevolent, but for two reasons. 1) To minimize human suffering and; 2) To bring about good on a much larger scale.

Look at what happens after natural disasters or senseless tragedies. Typically we see the BEST in humanity come out in response. Sure, there are exceptions, but in general for every bad thing that has happened, a good that is exponentially greater has come out of it.

Leibniz also rejected the idea of a world without evil as pure fantasy. He stated that God created a real, not imaginary, world and that a world without evil would put human happiness above God’s plan. We look at evil with a very limited viewpoint and often do not see the greater good that it brings about.

Greg Boyd’s Letters from a Skeptic is a dialog between him and his father, the skeptic. In one exchange, his Dad asks where is God when bad things happen. Boyd responds that God “granting us free will includes the possibility of us misusing that freewill. To be truly free means to be morally responsible, and to be morally responsible is to be responsible for one another. The alternative is a race of robots who cannot truly love.”

Erwin McManus in Soul Cravings explains it this way. Humans like for God to change every bad thing in our lives without changing our ability to make those bad decisions. In other words, we like to think of God as coming in behind us and cleaning up our messes.

So, you see, "controlling Satan" really isn't in line with either free will NOR perfect love. God loves us all enough to let us make stupid decisions, but still works it towards his purpose.

[Silent3]

46. Just another unfalsifiable construct

Assume that everything God does is loving.

Everything that doesn't appear to be loving to us foolish mortals is just due to our "limited understanding" of God's Plan for us, where everything will magically work out to produce a loving end result, even if we can't figure it out.

Two simple steps, and now you've got your typical bullet-proof, self-contained mystical construct, immune to all evidence, because no matter what happens it can be interpreted as in line with this construct.

Ta da!

PS: This post is also part of God's Plan for you, and a sign of His Love.

[Sal316]

48. That's the answer one would expect from a self professed skeptic.

Rejecting anything that isn't backed up by 100% undeniable, incontrovertible proof and doesn't agree with your worldview.

Fact is, everything that God does is out of love for his people. Using the argument that it doesn't "appear" to be loving so it couldn't possibly be loving is, quite honestly, crap. It's the skeptic's easy way out.

In a typical parent-child relationship, the kids don't understand when their parents discipline them, or deny them things, that it is done out of love, does that mean it's not? Of course not.

But that's the point of view that you're taking, the one of the child. It's a very limited viewpoint, one that is centered on self without consideration of anything outside the self. Essentially what your argument is, and it's an old one at that, is that YOU know better than God.

If you read scripture, there's plenty of times where God has warned his people that the things they want will do them more harm then good, and the people ignored his warning, so he basically said "Here you go. Don't say I didn't warn you." 1 Samuel 8, where Israel demands a king is a prime example of that.

But I digress, as one who obviously doesn't believe in God one wonders why you'd even get involved in this conversation. If you don't believe in God, then for you the question is meaningless.

[rrneck]

49. The idea of God as love

sounds pretty good. But what if someone decides God wants them to be rich and powerful? And he gets a bunch of people to agree with him? It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye - for an eye.

Unquestioned religious faith provides a wonderful hiding place for thieves, charlatans, crooks, and liars of the worst sort. Our beliefs must be measured against our experiences, and assuming the invisible hand of some deity as a member of a herd just gets in the way of that process.

There should be exactly as many religions as there are people.

[Sal316]

50. Some more insight...

But what if someone decides God wants them to be rich and powerful?

Then they have it wrong. God wants to bless his people, but that doesn't necessarily mean with material things.

1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil."

Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

Here are some more scriptures dealing with money. The "prosperity gospel" preachers really upset me.

Unquestioned religious faith provides a wonderful hiding place for thieves, charlatans, crooks, and liars of the worst sort.

Unquestioned faith is an immature faith. For one to grow in faith, one must seek God, and that means asking the tough questions. The prophet Habbakuk does that in a big way in his book. In fact, Habbakuk is Hebrew for "embrace" or more accurately "wrestle".

Our beliefs must be measured against our experiences, and assuming the invisible hand of some deity as a member of a herd just gets in the way of that process.

I agree with the first part, but not the second. The "invisible hand" is not a member of a herd, but instead is the shepherd guiding the herd.

But I'm just a theologian, so what do I know. ha!

[Silent3]

53. Pointing out the explicitly constructed unfalsifiability of your argument...

...is the same thing as "Rejecting anything that isn't backed up by 100% undeniable, incontrovertible proof and doesn't agree with your worldview"? Riiiight. Fondness for false dichotomies much?

Fact is, everything that God does is out of love for his people.

"Fact is", huh? You declare it, therefore it must be true, I guess.

Using the argument that it doesn't "appear" to be loving so it couldn't possibly be loving is, quite honestly, crap. It's the skeptic's easy way out.

It's not my "way out", the converse is your lock in. I can accept the possibility that a loving deity doing things that might not seem loving, but your contention is that everything God does and allows absolutely must be considered loving, thus you completely define away any other possible analysis.

[Sal316]

62. What "seems" and what is aren't always the same.

I can accept the possibility that a loving deity doing things that might not seem loving, but your contention is that everything God does and allows absolutely must be considered loving, thus you completely define away any other possible analysis.

You "seem" to be coming across as a pompous ass, but I'm willing to bet that you're not.

"Seem" comes from measuring things up against our internal standards without regard to how they truly may be. Again, it's an ego-centric, self-centered viewpoint that doesn't accept the possibility that what you think may not be the truth at all.

"Fact is", huh? You declare it, therefore it must be true, I guess.

No, it's true because it is. Whether I "declare" it or not doesn't change truth.

Nice try with that weak-ass argument, tho.

Let me ask you this.....do you believe there's anything such as absolute/universal truth?

[Silent3]

63. Of course what seems and what is aren't always the same

An example in your favor is a small child going to a doctor, who doesn't like the doctor and thinks he's a bad man because the needles the doctor uses or other medical procedures hurt. The child can't understand that the doctor means well and is helping the child get better. Your God is supposedly like the doctor, and we're the children. I get it.

The doctor could be, however, indifferent to the child's pain. The doctor could be performing unnecessary procedures just for the money. The doctor could even be sadistic. The fact that the child is incapable of distinguishing among these circumstances doesn't mean that a benevolent doctor is the only possible doctor.

This analogy only holds so far, however, because I don't see any reason to believe the "doctor" even exists. I see no explanatory value in adding a supernatural actor behind the scenes to explain the good and ill fortunes of humankind.

You not only assert the existence of a deity, however, you assign it the attribute "loving", and expect people to accept that no matter what they think of the vagaries of life and the terrible things that happen in the world, that they must always consider themselves like the child in the hands of a benevolent doctor. If the terms of this "loving" are always beyond our understanding, however, that makes the description pretty meaningless unless you claim to see things from outside of the limited perspective of us mere mortals.

Do you? Revealed truth that I'm supposed to believe without evidence, and accept as my failing for not seeing myself, rather than viewing it as an extraordinary and unproven claim?

No, it's true because it is. Whether I "declare" it or not doesn't change truth.

Nice try with that weak-ass argument, tho.

Let me ask you this.....do you believe there's anything such as absolute/universal truth?

Soooooo.... you're saying something is simply true because it is true, and I'm the one with a "weak-ass argument"? That's rich. Do I remember correctly that in some other thread you claimed to be a theologian? If so, you should be able to do way better than that.

Do I believe there's anything such as absolute/universal truth? I wouldn't say I "believe" that there is, but I do accept that concept as a useful construct to escape solipsism (I can't disprove the solipsistic perspective, but it's pretty much a philosophical dead) and a necessary assumption of communication -- if we can't assume we're talking about the same underlying reality, then communication is a futile gesture.

There's a big difference between accepting the idea of absolute universal truth, however, and knowing for sure whether you or anyone else is in possession of a piece of it. That's why I talk about what you "declare". Why should my acceptance of the concept of universal truth lead to acceptance, with no demands for evidence or reason, of the particular details you claim about that truth?

[ZombieHorde]

52. What is "love perfected"? (Other than God of course.)

[Sal316]

57. Love perfected is....

...giving your life for your worst enemies.

...suffering the slings and arrows of those that oppose, and even persecute, you with grace.

In other words (Romans 12:9-21:

"Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil.

Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord.

On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

[ZombieHorde]

59. "God's wrath" What is the wrath of love perfected?

This seems to be a contradiction in your post. What am I missing?

[Sal316]

61. What Paul is talking about..

..is that we're not to concern ourselves with dispensing vengeance for the wrongs we feel have been done to us. The only one that is truly just and truly righteous is God.

Some people have difficulty reconciling God's wrath with love, so let me put it this way.

How loving would God be if he allowed those who take advantage of the weak, the poor, the helpless to escape being punished? Now this gets into the whole concept of hell, etc., and that's a topic for another time.

According to scripture he "makes his sun rise on people whether they are good or evil. He lets rain fall on them whether they are just or unjust" (Matt 5:45) and he does not "show favoritism" (Acts 10).

Righteousness and justice aren't easy topics to cover because most of the time we equate them with being "fair". "Fair" has nothing to do with it, really.

[struggle4progress]

47. Why do people spend their time asking meaningless questions?

[ZombieHorde]

51. Probably for the same reason you did. nt

[struggle4progress]

54. The usefulness of a question is determined by what one could actually do with an answer to it.

If there is no use, to which the answer to a question could be put, the question has no significance. Questions that are not serious or meaningful but are typically asked for purely rhetorical reasons -- in other words, to set up silly verbal games -- frequently appear in this forum. I do not know why people ask such questions

[Meshuga]

56. The question might be meaningless to you and to me

But it seems to be a meaningful question to a few people who responded.

[struggle4progress]

60. The OP believes the question is meaningless, since the OP believes the terms don't refer to anything

So the OP is asking a question, that the OP does not think can produce an answer useful for any purpose

[Deep13]

64. God's either a wimp or a collaberator.

It simply is not logical for an all-powerful, all-knowing and loving god to tolerate active subversion of his rule.

[struggle4progress]

66. Logic is merely a useful tool for organizing our discourse. It is useful, in part, because

the conventional meaning of logical connectives -- such as AND, OR, NOT -- mimics the behavior of concrete finite sets of material objects. For this reason, careful reasoning based on accurate linguistic descriptions about the world often leads to realistic conclusions

But logic itself is merely a linguistic tactic. From a material point of view, a logical contradiction merely reveals a problem with our discourse: it can help us to organize our conversation, but it cannot tell us what really is or is not. When you find you cannot discourse logically about something, it may simply mean that your own notions are confused

[Nihil]

65. He's lost the remote again ...

(Bet it's down the back of the settee again ... I told Him but does He listen?)