The Devil's Trick?

[POI]

1. If the Devil's objective is to deceive/coerce/trick/persuade humans away from God, and furthermore, has above human abilities; HOW do we know Jesus was not actually Satan in disguise?.?.?.?

2. Does God somewhat remove his freewill, so he cannot ultimately deceive millions into worshiping a false god? (i.e.) What we know as Christianity today.

3. If God does restrict what the devil can do, then why still allow what the devil can do to humans?

Maybe professed Christians have a one way ticket to hell, which makes the devil's job easier. 2/5's of the world's population worship a false god, which breaks the first commandment. The devil's work is already done for him. And almost another 2/6's are also done, in the way of believing in Muhammad. And so on....

[Purple Knight]

Why would I mirror them off of " the sentient beings we know, which are us"? What is the rational behind doing so?

Because it's the only evidence we have. Even if it is very little, it's what we've got. But this isn't essential to my point. My point is about what we can conclude if God is fair, and the reason I assume God is fair is that there's no discussion if he isn't fair; he's just going to do what he wants to us and we can't affect it.

IF we're being lied to, when there may be no such malevolent motivation behind the deception?

This is where I said that if we're being deceived and it's for our own good, because then we would not want to get out of the deception, this is a subset of the scenario where we're just powerless. We can only address the scenario where we're not powerless. We can only talk about what we should do, if there is a right thing to do.

Thus, part of the process of deactivating said trap is to develop methods in which to know the difference. Obviously The Fair Creator premise is permitting the individual to determine what is and is not admirable, and such may well be achievable without the G&E Filter.

Call it a good and evil filter if you want, but you're using the same schema of right actions and wrong ones as I am. I know you think the afterlife is about working through your own baggage, but then doing that successfully just becomes the right thing to do.

Are we to determine that the teachings of Jesus were not admirable, IF they were delivered through deception? If not, then could that be 'the way out'?

To reject them if they're not admirable, and accept them if they are admirable, regardless of who gave them or whether it was a deception.

You have yet to think on the idea re dropping the G&E Filters, so it is possible that ones "assessing acts" will not be based in whether said acts are consigned to those positions anyway.
One example already given is consigning possible deception [re thread topic] to be either 'good' or 'evil'. It may well be neither, and therefore should not be consigned as either 'good' or 'evil' to begin with.

I just demonstrated how your pattern of thought still uses those same filters. In your thinking, as I have highlighted, assigning labels is wrong, in other words, evil. Evil just means, the thing that is wrong, the things you shouldn't do. That's basic to discussions of right and wrong.

You are still using that filter when you say that the right way to sort acts is to include a grey category. The wrong way to sort acts is black and white.

You're essentially sticking up for nonjudgmentalism which is the easiest thing to refute out of all theological dictates, because you must judge whether an act is judgmental to figure out whether it is an evil act or not; to figure out whether this is an act you should not do.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #52]

You have yet to think on the idea re dropping the G&E Filters, so it is possible that ones "assessing acts" will not be based in whether said acts are consigned to those positions anyway.
One example already given is consigning possible deception [re thread topic] to be either 'good' or 'evil'. It may well be neither, and therefore should not be consigned as either 'good' or 'evil' to begin with.

I just demonstrated how your pattern of thought still uses those same filters. In your thinking, as I have highlighted, assigning labels is wrong, in other words, evil. Evil just means, the thing that is wrong, the things you shouldn't do. That's basic to discussions of right and wrong.

One would expect someone who thinks in terms of black and white, not to acknowledge the grey. The argument is based on the premise If The Creator was fair. Do you think it fair to consign any choice to being either/or G&E?

You are still using that filter when you say that the right way to sort acts is to include a grey category. The wrong way to sort acts is black and white.

Not particularly. If that were true, you would have to claim that there is no grey area to be enabled to chose.

You're essentially sticking up for nonjudgmentalism which is the easiest thing to refute out of all theological dictates, because you must judge whether an act is judgmental to figure out whether it is an evil act or not; to figure out whether this is an act you should not do.

My argument is more along the lines of seeing if there is a an alternative position to using G&E filters. Consider that if one is only brought up with those filters, one would need to make the one final judgment in order to move away from using the G&E filter as if that were the only option one had.

It is not about placing the idea of the G&E Filter into a category of 'good' or 'evil' but rather, in the recognition that another option is available.

So "no foul" as you appear to want to argue that it is.

[tokutter]

1. If the Devil's objective is to deceive/coerce/trick/persuade humans away from God, and furthermore, has above human abilities; HOW do we know Jesus was not actually Satan in disguise?.?.?.?

By that the definition of Satan does not fit to him. Unless of course you define the words in your own way, not as said in the Bible.

In the described scenario, wouldn't the Bible be the word of Satan masquerading as the word of God?

I don’t think so, because the message in the Bible is good and truthful.

Have you ever noticed this god/devil construct (all powerful/all encompassing/limited to nothing) does indeed have it's limitations and there usually specific to the particular christian doling them out. Are you saying that there is no way for the god you worship to be "playing you", jerking your chain and laughing his tail off all day long. Are you saying when you get to the pearly gates **there is nooooooo way he's going to pull the rug out from under you. How can you possibly say that. Don't forget this god can do anything he wants with his creation (or so I've been told/read ad nausea from christians). But he can't do that say's 1213 because why??

[2ndpillar2]

1. If the Devil's objective is to deceive/coerce/trick/persuade humans away from God, and furthermore, has above human abilities; HOW do we know Jesus was not actually Satan in disguise?.?.?.?

2. Does God somewhat remove his freewill, so he cannot ultimately deceive millions into worshiping a false god? (i.e.) What we know as Christianity today.

3. If God does restrict what the devil can do, then why still allow what the devil can do to humans?

Maybe professed Christians have a one way ticket to hell, which makes the devil's job easier. 2/5's of the world's population worship a false god, which breaks the first commandment. The devil's work is already done for him. And almost another 2/6's are also done, in the way of believing in Muhammad. And so on....

The devil/serpent's message was that you "surely shall not die" (Genesis 3:4). That is the same message given by the false prophets Paul and Mohammad if you keep their "new" rules. Although in the case of Mohammad, kill some idolater or apostate, and maybe you can also be rewarded with 72 virgins/dates or raisons in paradise. While the beast and the false prophet (Revelation 16) has deceived the "many" (Matthew 7:13-23), according to Yeshua, there will be others, the "few", who will enter into life, by keeping the commandments (Mt 19:17). God tells you what is the right way, but you are given the free will to choose the path to destruction.

[JoeyKnothead]

Have you ever noticed this god/devil construct (all powerful/all encompassing/limited to nothing) does indeed have it's limitations and there usually specific to the particular christian doling them out. Are you saying that there is no way for the god you worship to be "playing you", jerking your chain and laughing his tail off all day long. Are you saying when you get to the pearly gates **there is nooooooo way he's going to pull the rug out from under you. How can you possibly say that. Don't forget this god can do anything he wants with his creation (or so I've been told/read ad nausea from christians). But he can't do that say's 1213 because why??

Excellent point.

With an omnicient, omnipotent god, how can we know he ain't the god of all pranksters?

Considering the omni claims, surely humans can't possibly know all a god's thoughts, or motives, that we could just dismiss the idea God's just him a cutup.

[Goat]

Have you ever noticed this god/devil construct (all powerful/all encompassing/limited to nothing) does indeed have it's limitations and there usually specific to the particular christian doling them out. Are you saying that there is no way for the god you worship to be "playing you", jerking your chain and laughing his tail off all day long. Are you saying when you get to the pearly gates **there is nooooooo way he's going to pull the rug out from under you. How can you possibly say that. Don't forget this god can do anything he wants with his creation (or so I've been told/read ad nausea from christians). But he can't do that say's 1213 because why??

Excellent point.

With an omnicient, omnipotent god, how can we know he ain't the god of all pranksters?

Considering the omni claims, surely humans can't possibly know all a god's thoughts, or motives, that we could just dismiss the idea God's just him a cutup.

Well, from the description of Satan, he's nothing more than an adult that is living in his father's basement.

[Purple Knight]

One would expect someone who thinks in terms of black and white, not to acknowledge the grey. The argument is based on the premise If The Creator was fair. Do you think it fair to consign any choice to being either/or G&E?

Again, your question, and the answer I'm supposed to give, reveals that you think in the same way I'm thinking in. Unfair. Black. Fair. White. Yes. No. Either 1 + 1 equals 2 or it doesn't. Grey is white. If it's not impermissible, if it's not wrong, then it's permissible, then it's right.

The idea of grey was invented to judge some that do a particular action as wrong while judging some as right. The judgment never stays grey.

There's no such thing as grey. There's definitely an I-don't-know, does X justify Y? I don't know. But ultimately it's either justified or it's not. An action is either morally wrong or it isn't.

What people usually mean by grey, is actions that may or may not be morally wrong in specific contexts. And why they usually shrink from laying out the specific situations is that they want a world where they can look at the person and not the action. Grey doesn't stay grey by the time someone actually does it; at that point people will make a judgment. The point of grey is to hold off making the judgment until then.

If your third alternative is to say that we shouldn't judge any action as good or evil, you are saying that judging evil is evil; it's something we shouldn't do. And there you've used the exact. same. filter. system. Because you also have a concept of the things one should not do, and then everything else, which is permissible to do.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #58]

The premise you used was that The Creator was fair.

If you or the OP is arguing that there are only two choices, [GorE] then nothing I argue to the contrary can count as useful argument. I have no horse in that race.

[Purple Knight]

If you or the OP is arguing that there are only two choices, [GorE]

So how does your third choice work, if it's not in the admittedly cynical (and probably rude, I admit) way I proposed?

My framework is simply that an action is either morally wrong or it isn't. I can't see how that could be anything other than simply, logically true. If you're arguing that nothing is morally wrong, there's still nothing wrong with that framework; the answer to "Is it morally wrong?" is just no for every possible action.

[1213]

...Are you saying that there is no way for the god you worship to be "playing you", jerking your chain and laughing his tail off all day long. Are you saying when you get to the pearly gates **there is nooooooo way he's going to pull the rug out from under you. ...

I have understood the message in the Bible is basically that people should be righteous and love others as themselves. If in the end God would say, “no, that was just joking, you would not need to be that”, I would still think it would be good to be righteous and love others. I don’t want to be righteous and love for to get some reward in the end, I want to do it because I think it is good. Also, Bible doesn’t promise eternal life as a reward. Bible tells eternal life is a gift for righteous. I don’t claim I am righteous, but it is no problem for me, if God doesn’t want to give me that gift.