Can Satan choose to be good ?

. . . because who do you think the devil is?

;-D

Why wouldn't Satan's papa forgive him? What's Satan done that his papa hasn't?

Considering that it took over a century for God to straighten out the whole curse of Cain thing, and there was that Noah debacle drowning all the kids, I think the competence and righteousness of the entire crew is open to question

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Considering that it took over a century for God to
> straighten out the whole curse of Cain thing...


I didn't get the memo, please enlighten me!


TBMs: It might have been 'wrong' by today's standards/philosophy, but Gawd's Wisdom in these things & others if Far Superior (tm) to ours.

Gawd raised up Joe, Brigham, and down to Rusty for specific purposes, some obvious, others not, Amen! Pass the Sacrament!!

'Free Will Offerings' are indeed optional with believers, including Mormons; no coercion, no intimidation....

/sarcasm

The thread that "believers" won't touch with a ten foot pole. Why? Because either answer (yes or no) demonstrates the absurdity of Abrahamic religious claims.


HH =)

If you read a bit more than Facebook memes then you'd know this issue has been discussed in a number of places. Universalists believe everyone will be redeemed, which would include Satan.

The question was not whether the imaginary "satan" will be redeemed; but, if the imaginary "satan" has the free will to choose to be good. Memes are not the problem. Reading comprehension is a problem however(just not for me).?


HH =)

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can Satan choose to be good ?

Yes, theoretically, but why would he? His weakness was to do with power and pride, so acknowledging the power of another on the other side of a conflict would not be in character.

No. What would be the point of being Satan? Plus, have you seen the chicks that guy gets?

Can you clarify the question?

Not in mormondoom. They love that guy. He is very useful for scaring everyone into submission every time they start thinking for themselves. They also believe in literal outer darkness; or at least LDS inc. used to. I seem to remember us apostates who deny the Holy Ghost will be sent into outer darkness with the devil. Who knows what they have changed or will change to adjust their level of (perceived) craziness.

From what I can tell Christianity is just so varied on its views depending on which denomination you are. So there wont be a definitive answer there either.

But back to the spirit of the post. If he turns good, then why was he ever so bad? If he eventually repents, then it stands to reason that we can all do whatever the hell we want and be forgiven later on /in the next life.
If he can’t turn good (and be forgiven) then how is Christ’s sacrifice and redemption universal? - And if that is indeed fair, then the explanation is that he had a choice in being evil.
But if he had a choice previously, then why can’t he now, or later, have a choice? - The only explanation for that can be: evil is inevitable and the devil is needed for whatever god’s plan is, so there’s no later option for a change of heart; no redemption, no change...Christ’s redemption doesn’t and can’t apply.
Okay. But then who is the real sacrificial lamb?

Indeed. Who really is the Sacrificial Lamb? Love that point.

Origen, an Early Church Father, taught that Satan and his angels will eventually be redeemed. The Catholic Church never accepted this teaching.

I know how it works. The father is always right, and any disagreement is evil. Son disagrees and is sent to torment. A boys ranch, foster care, Hell, it's all the same.

If Satan chose to be good, there would no longer be “opposition in all things” and god’s plan of salvation would fail.

Yes, god needs Satan. I suspect that at the end of the world, god’s going to give Satan a big, fat bonus check for a job well done.

I've always wondered at how ready people are to accept that "opposition in all things" proposition. People take it seriously because it is in the BoM (and perhaps represents a subconscious human impulse as attested by Manichaenism and some other ancient religions), but does it logically stand on its own?

WHY must there be "opposition in all things?" WHY must Isaac be sacrificed? WHY must Jesus die for our sins? WHY must God be such an asshole?

WHY?

Those are some of the questions that led me away from religion.

I've always wondered at how ready people are to accept that "opposition in all things" proposition. People take it seriously because it is in the BoM (and perhaps represents a subconscious human impulse as attested by Manichaenism and some other ancient religions), but does it logically stand on its own?

COMMENT: From a logical point of view one should be weary of any universal quantifiers; i.e. propositions that are supposed to apply universally in some sense. (as signaled by the word "all") Outside of apparent tautologies, e.g. "All bachelors are unmarried," most such statements are presumably rhetorical, or expressed as an ideal, as for example, "All men are created equal."

If we are inclined to be charitable to our Mormon friends, we might read "There must needs be opposition in all things" as just a couplet implying that within the human psyche doing what is "right," or perhaps more broadly "of moral value," is difficult because it often involves acting outside of one's own perceived interest. On such a view, "Satan" might be viewed as a metaphor for acting immorally, or perhaps as the human instinct, or inner voice, that directs such behavior. After all, don't we have to admit that when deliberating over a moral dilemma there often seems to be conflicting "voices" that seem to be advocating for one action or another?
____________________________________

WHY must there be "opposition in all things?" WHY must Isaac be sacrificed? WHY must Jesus die for our sins? WHY must God be such an asshole?

COMMENT: It doesn't help to over-simplify moral dilemmas or contexts; even though religion seems to encourage just that. I suppose there might be some imaginable context where killing Isaac or not was indeed a genuine moral dilemma--however hopefully not simply out of the claim that some obscure God or inner voice demanded it. And I suppose one could argue on religious grounds that Jesus' death involved some real existential value to mankind, however difficult to understand and however empty this myth is presented.

Three points.

First, yes, absolute statements like "always" and "all" are difficult to sustain logically if taken literally. As you know, I usually try to avoid those. In this instance, however, I allowed myself a little rhetorical liberty as indicated by the capitals.

Second, yes, if we were being generous to our Mormon friends we could say that Satan is metaphorical. The problem with that is that the church and "almost all" TBMs view Satan not as metaphor but as fact, so treating him as metaphor is not only generous but erroneous.

Third, in some religious sense Jesus's death and the Abraham's sacrifice may indeed have some "existential value." My observation is more basic: do those stories have any moral value independent of religion? My opinion is that stripped of traditional reverence, the tales have negative moral value. They are not good object lessons and they elevate suffering and death to the level of sacrament, which is a life-denying rather than life-affirming cosmology.

Some of the earliest and most fundamental questions about God that a child feels are things like "if God is loving and omnipotent," why does he allow suffering? Much of religion is an attempt by adults condescendingly and laughingly to explain that paradox to the child so that he can go on to belief. The problem is that once that child matures and reconsiders the religion she has meanwhile adopted, it becomes clear that the "adult" never really answered the questions.

The child was right.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is that once
> that child matures and reconsiders the religion
> she has meanwhile adopted, it becomes clear that
> the "adult" never really answered the questions.
>
>
> The child was right.

And never requires God to do what is right.

It’s good to be God. Choosing the right is optional. Maybe Joseph was onto something.

In my neck of the Mormon woods Satan was most definitely NOT a metaphor. We were taught in church and priesthood that the devil could attack us and that if that were to happen, that we should raise our right arm to the square and command him to go away in the name of Jesus Christ.

This is when my horrific devil nightmares started. Satan attacks and of course the dream is so real but my arm feels like it weighs a thousand pounds and my mouth will not work as my tongue weighs the same as is what happens in sleep paralysis. These continued up until a few years ago. Generally my other half hits me to wake me up as I am making some very loud and strange sounds. Been quite a few years now. They stopped about the same time RFM helped my unpack.

As a priest, our teacher was studying to be an institute teacher and they were apparently addressing in his classes things most Mormons would never know about the early history until these recent years when the cats clawed their way out of their bags. He related several stories of the early apostles being locked in rooms and attacked by the adversary. I bought it hook, line, and sinker. I would stay awake as long as possible at night.

You can't fool the older generations. We know what was taught.
You relate that stuff to the younger ones now they just think you are some crazy old coot.

Don't want to nuthin' bout no metaphor, Willis.

When I was an investigator and a new mormon member, I suffered these nightmares where it seemed some kind of demon was in the room, and I couldn’t move. I was told my missionaries and other mormons that this was one of satan’s minions attempting to oppose my baptism and preparation for the ‘holy’ temple, and they also implied these were more like visions than dreams. These were supported by various things from church history we were learning about in Sunday school, where early leaders had experienced the ‘same’ thing. And like you, I bought it hook, line and sinker.

Well, guess what. Last year I experienced the same thing, as I have on a few other random occasions. It turns out this awful experience actually has a name: Sleep paralysis. And of course it isn’t unique to mormons. It’s a nightmare with paralysis that occurs in the state between sleeping and waking, thereby giving it a very real feeling. It is a horrible thing to experience.
And: each time it has occurred when I’ve been going through something that deep down was traumatising me OR that didn’t feel quite right. Last year it was because I had a boyfriend who I felt was keeping secrets from me; all seemed perfect with him on the surface and he was hinting he wanted us to move in together...instead he dumped me and broke my heart. Turned out he really did have a tonne of issues I didn’t know about. Except my subconscious DID know it.
Interesting then, that this originally happened when I was investigating the mormon church.
Nothing to do with ‘satan’. Who is not real. But if in mormondoom, or indeed, christianity, satan is able to be redeemed after (supposedly) inflicting all this fear and pain, then - I submit - I can also do whatever the hell I want and get redeemed later too. If he has no choice in remaining evil, then, yes he has been sacrificed by ‘god’. Nothing in religion makes sense when you examine it.

“WHY must God be such an asshole?”

So WE can be assholes.

Mormon God has no free will. He's got to do it according to plan or he'll be stripped of his godhood.

The question is what is good? How are we defining good? What satan did was become rebellious to a higher order god. But looking back in time it wasn't always believed that god was good. The greeks believed in lots of gods and they had lots of human problems. Theologians believe that certain versus in the book of Job indicate that god was powerful but not necessarily good.

Over the millennia the text is believed to have been watered down from what was there originally, now it's more suitable for a Christian/Jewish audience.

So maybe a clearer question is "Can satan choose to be obedient?"

A fascinating read: "I, Lucifer" by Glen Duncan.

Lucifer gets a second chance. Gets a body. Comes to earth. And is eternally in love with Eve. The novel is an unusual slant as a rumination on the whole thing.

Even better for me, The Real Tuesday Weld used the book as inspiration for his CD titled, "I Lucifer." I have listened to it a thousand times. Like my other favorite CD "Rome," it does not fit neatly into any musical category.

Interesting to me how some can believe in "free" will and yet not believe in The Universe coming from "nothing."

Either way they are both impossible to prove or disprove.

We are willful creatures. Whether this mean we have complete control over our "selves" is debatable. I would side with our missing homunculi.

Judaism's angelology is different from Christianity's. I'm not a deep expert on this stuff, but here are some observations I have (to which an expert might find counter-examples).

In Judaism, angels don't have free-will; they are simply God's executive assistants with specific functions. Consequently, "the Satan" is not a rebel cast out of heaven, but a valid member of the celestial court, even if its/his function is about as popular as "the Destroyer," aka the Angel of Death.

and missed all the exits and the only way back is a toll road and the toll can only be paid using Jesus coins, which he would have to borrow from Jesus.

Bottom line: Satan can choose to humble himself before Jesus. But he's gone so far down his path that turning around now would also be hell for him. He could have chosen to do good. But he didn't. The consequences are playing out now on a scale that makes a million years seem like a drop in the bucket.

A ship captain can choose to change course. But once the iceberg has been hit, the choice to avoid hitting the iceberg is no longer an option.

How am I doing? Are these good enough for me to get a part-time job writing for the Church News or the Ensign?

This actually makes sense. Best explanation I’ve heard - you could get that job!
Of course I want to refute this, can anyone help me out?
Free will therefore cant apply to satan. It means it possibly can’t apply to people who have done too many bad things. I’ve seen people like this. They seem unable to change because it would mean facing up to what they’ve done, and doing so would tear them apart. Hmm.
Except, in mormondoom satan was part of the plan. god knew lucifer would choose evil. If god knows in advance, then is it still ‘free’ will?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can Satan choose to be good ?

Choices? Hmmm...
XXX free-agency

What good is it?
It is all good.