Jump to content

Are we living in God’s kingdom, or Satan‘s?


Greatest I am

Recommended Posts

Are we living in God’s kingdom, or Satan‘s?

 

What did Jesus mean when He said “The Kingdom of God is at hand?

 

Mat 4;17

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

 

 

Jesus seems to be saying that God’s kingdom was right there at that point in time and that would also mean that it is still here and now.

 

If God began by being master and owner of all that is, and he spans or owns the whole of creation, and scripture is right that says he does not change, then logic says that we are now in is God’s kingdom and we never left it.

 

Ps 139 8

 

If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

 

Romans 12:21

 

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

 

These also seem to confirm that God is everywhere, even in hell, where he is working at saving lost souls and that would make the following quote also true.

 

2 Peter 3;9

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

Obviously, nothing and no one can thwart God’s will. He always gets what he wills even if at times we cannot understand how he does it. All souls are therefore saved and none perish.

 

Now I know some will say that there cannot be anything evil in God’s kingdom. Consider that Satan was in heaven before God made him the prince of this world. Therefore, there can definitely be evil in God’s kingdom. In fact, the myths of Eden and Job both show God consorting with Satan. In Eden, he allows Satan access to A & E and in Job, to Job.

 

If hell and earth are no longer in God’s kingdom, then that would mean that God lost some of his original holdings/kingdom, and I cannot see any good reason for him to change from full ownership of what was, to partial ownership of what is.

 

Are we living in God’s kingdom, or Satan‘s?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If God began by being master and owner of all that is, and he spans or owns the whole of creation, and scripture is right that says he does not change, then logic says that we are now in is God's kingdom and we never left it.

I think this is a strawman of what 'God' is supposed to be according to Moses. A creator is not the same as a master/owner. Part of the mythologized acts of creation was to create beings "in the image" of the creator with free will and providence in the creation. In fact, the only part of the creation God seems to have taken into possession was the garden of Eden, in order to partition it away from humans. God is never described as some kind of puppeteer controlling "all that is." He interacts and causes certain natural events to occur, but he never limits anyone's freedom to choose or act as far as I know. Satan doesn't either, but he seems to be interested in tricking people into believe they are controlled or that they can control others - logically so considering that freedom of choice and action is God's will and the idea of control overriding or eliminating freedom is in opposition to that (Satan supposedly means "opposer").

 

Obviously, nothing and no one can thwart God's will. He always gets what he wills even if at times we cannot understand how he does it. All souls are therefore saved and none perish.

Isn't it more like God teaches the road to salvation through repentance and redemption and people have the choice to use their free will to accept that path to salvation or reject it? Don't they have to do it themselves? When is God ever described as saving people without their initiative and effort?

 

Are we living in God's kingdom, or Satan's?

When Jesus talks about the only kingdom being the kingdom of heaven, I think what this means is that regardless of how much power, wealth, pleasure, etc. someone offers you, none of it would ever be worth giving up the rewards of heaven that would ultimately be lost by elevating some other authority higher than the will of God (however you interpret that). So people can choose to submit to Satan or any worldly authority generally, but if by doing so they renounce the ultimate authority of divine truth, you could say they are a subject of Satan's regime. What's more, I think that because all humans are sinners insofar as they are flesh and blood and therefore imperfect and subject to all the wordly attachments and seductions that come with that, they are all governed by the will to sin in various ways, so in this sense you could say that humans are all subjects in the kingdom of Satan and some/many are seeking salvation from being enslaved to their will to sin. That's why the Lord's prayer says "lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil." because they're trying to redeem themselves and no longer be subjects of Satan - although many people would freak out if they heard it described like that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a strawman of what 'God' is supposed to be according to Moses. A creator is not the same as a master/owner. Part of the mythologized acts of creation was to create beings "in the image" of the creator with free will and providence in the creation.

 

Yet the dogma says that the moment A & E showed they were autonomous with the exercise of that free will, God jumped all over them and caused the fall of man. Hardly free will that.

 

In fact, the only part of the creation God seems to have taken into possession was the garden of Eden, in order to partition it away from humans.

 

I see him as also owning the earth because he cursed it. One cannot curse what one doees not own.

 

God is never described as some kind of puppeteer controlling "all that is."

 

That belies his --do it my way or burn forever--free will joke.

 

He interacts and causes certain natural events to occur, but he never limits anyone's freedom to choose or act as far as I know.

 

Did he not do so at Sodom or in the genocidal flood of Noah's day?

If those are not limits to our actions then you would have to tell me what they were.

Satan doesn't either, but he seems to be interested in tricking people into believe they are controlled or that they can control others - logically so considering that freedom of choice and action is God's will and the idea of control overriding or eliminating freedom is in opposition to that (Satan supposedly means "opposer").

 

Dogma says that God gave Satan the power, and scripture says he will, deceive the whole world. That is messing with our free will.

 

Isn't it more like God teaches the road to salvation through repentance and redemption and people have the choice to use their free will to accept that path to salvation or reject it? Don't they have to do it themselves?

 

Yes we do. Bur is it truly a free will when the only other choice is to burn forever? Not to me.

 

When is God ever described as saving people without their initiative and effort?

 

 

If 2 Pete 3;9 is true, his will will somehow overrides ours. That or his will is thwarted and I cannot see a miracle worker ever allowing his will to be thwarted.

 

When Jesus talks about the only kingdom being the kingdom of heaven, I think what this means is that regardless of how much power, wealth, pleasure, etc. someone offers you, none of it would ever be worth giving up the rewards of heaven that would ultimately be lost by elevating some other authority higher than the will of God (however you interpret that).

 

If one truly believes in an eternity in heaven waiting for us, then obviously one would be a fool to indulge in anything for .0000000000000000000000001 of their life in exchange for the lose of heaven.

 

So people can choose to submit to Satan or any worldly authority generally, but if by doing so they renounce the ultimate authority of divine truth, you could say they are a subject of Satan's regime. What's more, I think that because all humans are sinners insofar as they are flesh and blood and therefore imperfect and subject to all the wordly attachments and seductions that come with that, they are all governed by the will to sin in various ways, so in this sense you could say that humans are all subjects in the kingdom of Satan and some/many are seeking salvation from being enslaved to their will to sin. That's why the Lord's prayer says "lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil." because they're trying to redeem themselves and no longer be subjects of Satan - although many people would freak out if they heard it described like that.

 

 

 

Yes. Especially when the prayer indicates that it is God who might lead them to temptation. I have to wonder what the writer was thinking.

 

Regards

DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet the dogma says that the moment A & E showed they were autonomous with the exercise of that free will, God jumped all over them and caused the fall of man. Hardly free will that.
If they hadn't had free will to choose, God wouldn't have had to warn them about the tree. God didn't cause them to fall. He jumped all over them because they chose to be ashamed of their bodies and choose death over life. Their curses were natural consequences of the sin of confusing good and evil. Farming and childbirth (their curses) are not torture. They are the means to be fruitful and multiply. The curse was that they would hate these activities because they no longer saw them as gifts but as curses - i.e. because the tree of knowledge allowed them to twist and manipulate the ideas of good and evil, truth and lies. This is why the serpent confuses Eve by telling her the opposite of God's warning, that she would surely die if she took the fruit.

I see him as also owning the earth because he cursed it. One cannot curse what one doees not own.

Why can't anyone curse anyone else they want? Isn't anyone free to do this, regardless of relationship, ownership or otherwise?

 

That belies his --do it my way or burn forever--free will joke.

So you think that it was/is possible to create a creation (society) in which people can kill or steal without causing suffering? What goes around comes around. If you could kill someone without consequences, then someone else could kill you without consequences - but then how would there be no consequences for killing, since it would mean that everyone would have to live in fear of killing. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - when people don't do this, it makes life hell for others and themselves too.

Did he not do so at Sodom or in the genocidal flood of Noah's day?

If those are not limits to our actions then you would have to tell me what they were.

Killing as a response to the belief that people were beyond redemption.
Dogma says that God gave Satan the power, and scripture says he will, deceive the whole world. That is messing with our free will.
"Messing with" is a good description. I usually call it "manipulation." But people control their own actions, so it would be wrong to say that satan or anyone else ultimately controls people beyond their own power to resist. It can be very difficult to resist temptation or manipulation, but it is not impossible.

Yes we do. Bur is it truly a free will when the only other choice is to burn forever? Not to me.

This took me a while to understand too. People are free to do thinks regardless of the consequences. Jumping off a cliff will probably kill you, but you have the freedom to do it. Not having free will would mean that if you tried to jump off a cliff, you couldn't do it because you would faint before you jumped or something non-voluntary like that.

 

If 2 Pete 3;9 is true, his will will somehow overrides ours. That or his will is thwarted and I cannot see a miracle worker ever allowing his will to be thwarted.

I wish you would have pasted that so I didn't have to google it - or at least that the citation would appear as a link. No matter, I don't understand what it has to do with what you say about it.

 

Yes. Especially when the prayer indicates that it is God who might lead them to temptation. I have to wonder what the writer was thinking.

For some reason, I've been getting into discussions lately about whether satan and evil are part of God's creation and therefore servants of God still, albeit ones who abuse their free will by using it to oppose God, pervert creation/goodness, corrupt power, etc. etc. I agree though, that it would make a little more sense if the prayer said something like, "empower us to see and resist temptation." "Lead us not," however sort of makes reference to what satan/evil would do, however, in that it can't control people so instead the technique to manipulate them is to lead them into temptation to make bad choices. The prayer is saying, "please do all you can to spare us from temptation because resisting it is hard and often painful."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they hadn't had free will to choose, God wouldn't have had to warn them about the tree. God didn't cause them to fall. He jumped all over them because they chose to be ashamed of their bodies and choose death over life. Their curses were natural consequences of the sin of confusing good and evil. Farming and childbirth (their curses) are not torture. They are the means to be fruitful and multiply. The curse was that they would hate these activities because they no longer saw them as gifts but as curses - i.e. because the tree of knowledge allowed them to twist and manipulate the ideas of good and evil, truth and lies. This is why the serpent confuses Eve by telling her the opposite of God's warning, that she would surely die if she took the fruit.

 

 

First of all, I see God as playing with language.

 

He said, you will surely die.

 

He did not tell the truth which was closer to,---if you eat of it, I will kill you by preventing you from eating of the tree of life.

 

So the snake, in a sense, was more truthful than God.

 

As to God’s warning, he is guilty of omission here. He did not tell them of the other negative consequences nor did he tell them of the benefits of knowing good and evil. Becoming as Gods with the moral sense that comes with that knowledge.

 

Man is a better man with a moral sense than without it so Eve did the right thing. She was first to elevate man‘s nature.

 

As to work itself. That is not a curse at all. We all get a great satisfaction from work. Work is a blessing. We all like to feel we are contributing to society.

 

Why can't anyone curse anyone else they want? Isn't anyone free to do this, regardless of relationship, ownership or otherwise?

 

We can all curse the earth but have no power to enforce it. Scripture says God does. A huge difference.

 

 

So you think that it was/is possible to create a creation (society) in which people can kill or steal without causing suffering?

 

Not at all.

 

What goes around comes around. If you could kill someone without consequences, then someone else could kill you without consequences - but then how would there be no consequences for killing, since it would mean that everyone would have to live in fear of killing. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - when people don't do this, it makes life hell for others and themselves too.

 

No argument and I have no clue as to what I said to send you on that tangent.

 

Killing as a response to the belief that people were beyond redemption."Messing with" is a good description. I usually call it "manipulation." But people control their own actions, so it would be wrong to say that satan or anyone else ultimately controls people beyond their own power to resist. It can be very difficult to resist temptation or manipulation, but it is not impossible.

 

 

This assumes that God’s miracle are limited.

 

Impossible.

 

 

This took me a while to understand too. People are free to do thinks regardless of the consequences. Jumping off a cliff will probably kill you, but you have the freedom to do it. Not having free will would mean that if you tried to jump off a cliff, you couldn't do it because you would faint before you jumped or something non-voluntary like that.

 

I have no problem with natural consequences to natural acts. That has little to do with God offering infinite purposeless torture for a finite sin.

That is quite immoral.

 

 

I wish you would have pasted that so I didn't have to google it - or at least that the citation would appear as a link. No matter, I don't understand what it has to do with what you say about it.

 

It was in the O P. It has to do with the notion that if God is omnipotent then he has infinite powers of persuasion and in that sense will override with persuasion, our will.

 

Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

 

For some reason, I've been getting into discussions lately about whether satan and evil are part of God's creation and therefore servants of God still, albeit ones who abuse their free will by using it to oppose God, pervert creation/goodness, corrupt power, etc. etc. I agree though, that it would make a little more sense if the prayer said something like, "empower us to see and resist temptation." "Lead us not," however sort of makes reference to what satan/evil would do, however, in that it can't control people so instead the technique to manipulate them is to lead them into temptation to make bad choices. The prayer is saying, "please do all you can to spare us from temptation because resisting it is hard and often painful."

 

Satan aside, moral evils, as far as a law maker is concerned, is definitely something that he will create is it not.

Is the law maker not the one who decides, thus creating in a sense, what is evil?

I say yes.

 

Regards

DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, you really should learn to use the quote-reply correctly so that it's easier to respond to your posts.

First of all, I see God as playing with language.

 

He said, you will surely die.

 

He did not tell the truth which was closer to,---if you eat of it, I will kill you by preventing you from eating of the tree of life.

 

So the snake, in a sense, was more truthful than God.

Where is it written that God would kill them as punishment for taking the fruit? I thought he was just warning them about what would happen if they ate that fruit.
As to God’s warning, he is guilty of omission here. He did not tell them of the other negative consequences nor did he tell them of the benefits of knowing good and evil. Becoming as Gods with the moral sense that comes with that knowledge.
Maybe, but could they understand anything that complex before eating the fruit? Maybe all they could understand at that point was "to die or not to die."
Man is a better man with a moral sense than without it so Eve did the right thing. She was first to elevate man‘s nature.
Maybe so, but what's the point of making the story into a competition for gender-supremacy and inferiority? Isn't the moral that deception leads to mistakes, which lead to better knowledge despite terrible consequences?
As to work itself. That is not a curse at all. We all get a great satisfaction from work. Work is a blessing. We all like to feel we are contributing to society.
Some people feel opposed to work (and childbirth) because they view it as painful. It all really depends on whether you are your own master or simply working because someone else says so, I think.
We can all curse the earth but have no power to enforce it. Scripture says God does. A huge difference.
I think God's curse was just him informing them of the consequences of their actions. I.e. once they'd learned to twist good and bad (i.e. lie), God knew that they would lie about work and childbirth being joyful.

 

I have no problem with natural consequences to natural acts. That has little to do with God offering infinite purposeless torture for a finite sin.

That is quite immoral.

You're changing the subject. You were claiming that free will wasn't free if there are consequences for choices. I gave an example of what it would mean to lack free will to make bad choices completely.

 

It was in the O P. It has to do with the notion that if God is omnipotent then he has infinite powers of persuasion and in that sense will override with persuasion, our will.

I don't think God's will is to persuade people against their own better judgment. It's more like he's trying to show people things that informs their judgment, i.e. truth. Persuasion was what the serpent was doing trying to convince Eve to take the apple. If the serpent had been telling the truth that they wouldn't die, then God would have indeed been the one persuading them to avoid the tree with lies.
Satan aside, moral evils, as far as a law maker is concerned, is definitely something that he will create is it not.

Is the law maker not the one who decides, thus creating in a sense, what is evil?

I say yes.

No, that assumes cultural relativism and arbitrary-ness. I think what the bible is trying to do is describe metaphysics and morality in terms of natural laws. So I think goodness is associated with creation and evil with destruction. There are lots of examples where there are overlaps and contradictions and those are what make the stories interesting, I think. However, I think the point is that the writers were trying to resolve issues of good and evil in terms of creation and destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, you really should learn to use the quote-reply correctly so that it's easier to respond to your posts.Where is it written that God would kill them as punishment for taking the fruit?

He did not say he would kill them. I wrote, “was closer to,---if you eat of it, I will kill you”.

 

Scripture shows God preventing them from eating of the tree of life. That is definitely killing them.

 

I thought he was just warning them about what would happen if they ate that fruit.

 

He warned them but it was him decision to let it happen. That is murder. He denied them access to life.

 

Maybe, but could they understand anything that complex before eating the fruit?

 

If they could not, then they could not be held responsible.

 

It would be like you telling your six week old baby not to crawl in a huge hole in your back yard and then leaving it there unattended and letting him fall in. That would be your fault. Not your child.

 

Dogma says that death had yet to be born on earth so they could not have known what it meant.

 

Maybe all they could understand at that point was "to die or not to die."Maybe so, but what's the point of making the story into a competition for gender-supremacy and inferiority?

 

In that day, might made right.

 

Isn't the moral that deception leads to mistakes, which lead to better knowledge despite terrible consequences?

 

Who was deceived. They did die.

 

Better knowledge?

If I discover a new bit of knowledge, it is no better or worse for being deceived. The resulting bit of knowledge is the same.

 

Some people feel opposed to work (and childbirth) because they view it as painful. It all really depends on whether you are your own master or simply working because someone else says so, I think.

 

We are all slaves to something. Some to their fears and some to their demographic position.

 

I think God's curse was just him informing them of the consequences of their actions.

 

After the fac is hardly beneficial.

 

I.e. once they'd learned to twist good and bad (i.e. lie), God knew that they would lie about work and childbirth being joyful.

 

Scripture does not show them twisting anything or indicating they would turn into liars.

 

You're changing the subject. You were claiming that free will wasn't free if there are consequences for choices. I gave an example of what it would mean to lack free will to make bad choices completely.

 

I don't think God's will is to persuade people against their own better judgment. It's more like he's trying to show people things that informs their judgment, i.e. truth. Persuasion was what the serpent was doing trying to convince Eve to take the apple. If the serpent had been telling the truth that they wouldn't die, then God would have indeed been the one persuading them to avoid the tree with lies.

 

Perhaps the serpent did not think God evil enough to kill his new proto humans.

 

As to eating of the tree of knowledge, it was vital information to becoming both truly human and God like.. No parent in their right mind would deny their children vital information. The judgments you speak of cannot be made without it.

 

No, that assumes cultural relativism and arbitrary-ness. I think what the bible is trying to do is describe metaphysics and morality in terms of natural laws. So I think goodness is associated with creation and evil with destruction. There are lots of examples where there are overlaps and contradictions and those are what make the stories interesting, I think. However, I think the point is that the writers were trying to resolve issues of good and evil in terms of creation and destruction.

 

Perhaps but that does not take away the fact that God would decide what was evil and writing the information, so to speak, on the tree of knowledge. He would still be creating evil by naming them so.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

I tried a new quote method and it still came out the sam.

 

I will try something else next time.

 

Regads

 

DL

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He warned them but it was him decision to let it happen. That is murder. He denied them access to life.

They had freedom and responsibility for their own lives. If someone uses their freedom to take poison, it it your fault for not preventing them? You can warn them about it, which God did, but it's their responsibility. Besides, the point is that they got tricked by confusion, probably because they didn't have knowledge of good and evil to help them know that the serpent was tricking them.

 

If they could not, then they could not be held responsible.

I get so tired of people talking about responsibility and consequences in terms of social sanctions. "Responsible" means that you are the cause of something. That's different than "accountable," which means you may be held to account for your actions. Consequences are results directly caused by actions, e.g. the consequence of heating water to 100C is that it boils. Sanctions are when someone else responds to your actions, e.g. the chef saw the cook boiling water and fired him. Getting fired isn't a consequences for boiling water, it's a sanction. Water boiling from heating it is a consequence.

 

It would be like you telling your six week old baby not to crawl in a huge hole in your back yard and then leaving it there unattended and letting him fall in. That would be your fault. Not your child.

Regardless of whose fault it was, the consequences would be the same.

 

 

Dogma says that death had yet to be born on earth so they could not have known what it meant.

And yet it was a consequence of eating the fruit, which God had explicitly told/warned them about.

 

 

Better knowledge?

If I discover a new bit of knowledge, it is no better or worse for being deceived. The resulting bit of knowledge is the same.

Deception involves false knowledge. The result of deception is different than true knowledge.

 

We are all slaves to something. Some to their fears and some to their demographic position.

That's a slave mentality.

 

 

Scripture does not show them twisting anything or indicating they would turn into liars.

First, God told them they could go forth and multiply and it was good. Then, he told them that now that they had knowledge of good and evil, work and childbirth would be painful. Obviously something got twisted and deceptive.

 

Perhaps the serpent did not think God evil enough to kill his new proto humans.

If the creation was/is a realm of total possibilities, death was as much a natural part of it as evil. That's why I don't think it would make sense for God to eliminate death and evil - but if he doesn't eliminate them, what can he do about them? The answer is to shed light, i.e. help people see their way to making choices that pursue good and avoid evil.

 

As to eating of the tree of knowledge, it was vital information to becoming both truly human and God like.. No parent in their right mind would deny their children vital information. The judgments you speak of cannot be made without it.

Some parents try to hide things from their children instead of explaining the consequences to them.

 

 

Perhaps but that does not take away the fact that God would decide what was evil and writing the information, so to speak, on the tree of knowledge. He would still be creating evil by naming them so.

Like I said, I don't think it was arbitrary. I think God simply knew the consequences of different actions and warned them.

 

Here's the quote from genesis:

Genesis 2:16-17 (New International Version, ©2011)

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.