Lucifer/Satan is...bad?

Dear all:I have attended several churches in the past, and during my stay, I have asked many questions pertaining to God, as well as Satan. I would like to ask several questions in reagrds to some of the things I've heard, and I would very much appreciate it if anyone can provide answers to them:********************************************************************Question 1: In Christianty, is there any difference between "moral" and "good"?Question 2: Is good/moral defined by christianity as following God's rules only, or is there any deeper meanings?Question 3: Is there any difference between bad, immoral, and sin?Question 4: Is bad/immoral/sin defined solely as concepts or behaviour that is against God or God's rules?*******************************************************************Any productive posts are much appreciated.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

In orthodox Christian doctrine, yes as far as I know. While that may sound bad because of the terrible things the church has done to 'punish the sinners' etc., consider that with the Bible obviously errant and the church just as fallible, who's to say that God's will doesn't transcend all that nonsense and see what's truly right and wrong in any instance?

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

I have been taught it this way:There are three categories of Truth as found in the Bible: Laws of Divine Establishment, Gospel, and Spiritual truth.Laws of Divine Establishment are for the benefit of all humanity. By wisely following these laws (good work ethic, golden rule, no sexual immorality, marriage between one man and one woman, no murder, no stealing, humility, etc.) anyone can achieve a degree of happiness and do "human good". This is what I define as morality.The Gospel truth is that all our human good works, all of our morality, is not enough to make up for our sins. "Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags in His sight" It is only by believing in Christ that sins are wiped away and we recieve the filling of the Holy spirit who can teach us spiritual truth and empower us to do truly good works.True "good works" or the "fruit of the Spirit" come from the believer who is empowered by the Holy Spirit, motivated by spiritual truth, humility, love for God, and virtue love for fellow man and who follows God's moral laws.
True good that will stand the test of the refining fire on judgement day must be done in humility in the power of the Spirit with proper motivation.
All other good done in the power of the flesh is burned as wood, hay and stuble.Summing up:
Human good is works done in the flesh according to God's moral laws of divine establishment. Fruit of the spirit is any good moral or spiritual deed done in fellowship with God the Holy spirit.Sin is any thought, word, act that is contrary to God's moral or spiritual law. It can be motivated by our physical bodies, our arrogance, or (on rare occasion) demon influence.Evil is any thought pattern, rhetoric, or action related to arrogance. Arrogance is the rejection of God and truth in exchange for lies and the idea that the self is most important.Hope that makes some sense.

To Born2Preach:Thanks for your reply.Do you agree that Good and Bad is defined by the standards of God:Good = moral = with God
Bad = Immoral = Sin (against God).Does the reverse hold?That is:
1) All good things are moral and Godly, all moral things are good and Godly, God is the standard of what is good and the concept of morality.2) All sins are bad and immoral, all things bad are immoral and sinful, all things immoral are sinful and bad.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Moral acts would be good. But there can also be amoral acts that are also good. For some of us things are reduced to two basic rules, one of which is a two part rule. Love God, and love others as you love yourself. The second rule is the two part one, saying love others, but also that you must love yourself. Certainly. There can be things that are bad, yet not immoral or a sin. Again, I can only speak of personal beliefs, but I would say those things that go against the two rules mentioned above would fall into the area of sin/immoral. There can also be many other bad things that would not be considered a sin or immoral, just as there are good things that are unrelated to morality.The problem arises when we need to make decisions when it seems all options are bad, immoral or a sin. Then, all we can do is try to make the best choice based on the best knowledge we have.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Several questions: Q1: So you're defining morality as following the Laws of Divine Establishment (LDE). I have never heard that term before. Can you provide a list of LDE, its sources, and criteria required to be considered a part of LDE? I am particular interested as to which part of the bible (OT vs. NT) you got each of them from.It would also help if you can explain who makes the decision on which law is included in the LDE and which is excluded.Q2: Can you explain the concept of "golden rule"?Q3: What is classed under "sexual immorality"? If you use the term "immorality" to define immorality, isn't that circular? What defines "sexual immorality", and why is it a good standard for LDE?I can see a big problem with "marriage between one man and one woman", but I will leave it for the time being because we will go off-topic if we discuss divorce and homosexuality.Q4: Humility is surely more of a spiritual law than a moral one? Q5: So evil and sin are not synonymous? Evil is arrogance, and arrogance is the rejection of God, but evil is not necessarily immoral by society's standards?Q6: How would you define "bad" in the bible? Is there such a concept? Is "bad" equivalent to "sin", "evil", "immoral" or some combinations of the above? Why?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To jar:A very well balanced answer. I appreciate it, thank you. Should we define "good"? We all know what moral means (in a social context anyway), but good is vague. Or should I do away with the concept completely? Is "good" ever mentioned/defined in the bible? This I like. I agree that this perspective from the NT is so much more applicable to personal lifestyle, personal growth, and the society as a whole than OT laws. However, I would like to ask if the two laws (Love God, Love others as you love yourself) are exempt from contradictions. Is obediance a part of love? Can you see what I am getting at? Hmmm...perhaps we should define "bad". What about the relationship between sin and morality? (See post by Hangdawg13) Problem is, some would rather be immoral than sinful.
Consider case of Abraham vs. Issac.
Consider case of 9/11.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

where it will be impossible to get firm definitions. Good and bad are very subjective concepts and so you will be unlikely to get much agreement. Sorry, but they are, by definition, subjective.That's fine until the acts impose on others. What may be good; for example, attaining wealth, power or prestige is good unless it is by taking the same from others. As to good and the Bible, why it is a major theme of many of the psalms, particularly the more lascivious of them are all about good. Some about very good. I'm not sure what you're asking there but I'll give it a try.They are hierarchical. Love GOD is formost, then the two part, Love others and yourself. I'm not sure how obediance actually enters the concept. As I said, bad is very subjective. And many people will disagree with my beliefs. I don't see what that has to do with the subject at all. Sorry. Just don't understand.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The term "Laws of Divine Establishment" is a term I borrowed from my pastor R.B. Thieme Jr.LDE were set in place by God to provide and protect good environment on earth. I think a complete list would be too long to post. Some of the ten commandments and other laws would be a good place to start. Many proverbs also contain LDE. The new testament expounds on some of the LDE. Your own conscience is also a good guide (but can be weakened or destroyed by arrogance).LDE include several institutions: personal volition, marriage, family, community, nation. In every institution there is authority, which the humble moral individual accepts and encourages to a degree: self-discipline, Husband, parents; teachers, police; national government, military etc.If you are wondering about Old Testament cultural laws... Many of the OT laws were to set in place to set God's people apart culturaly, teach them principles about God, and/or for other natural benefits. The NT makes it clear that the cultural laws are out as gentiles are now God's people and anyone who believes is a descendant of Abraham (no more circumcision, special foods, etc). LDE are around from the beginning to the end of human history.Humility is always an important moral as it provides objectivity and unselfishness. Ultimate humility of course is related to God and Christ's humility and is out of reach of unbelievers (many believers as well). Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Yeah... this is circular reasoning... sorry. Sex is for marriage between one man and one woman for the rest of their lives. Anything else falls hopelessly short of providing the intended environment of happiness and stability. (PLEASE lets not make this a debate about homosexuality...) "'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Christ quotes this in Matt. 19:5 God also said because Eve was deceived that she would have pain in childbirth and her desire would be for her husband and her husband would rule over her (I am not advocating tyranny in marriage, only authority). This marriage is also a picture of Christ's relationship to the church, but thats another story. The ultimate humility was shown by Christ when he, being infinitely great God, took on the form of his creation, endured their rejection, endured immense physical suffering, and endured physical and spiritual death and the infinite shame from the imputation and judgement of sin (which could not keep its hold on him because he was innocent) and not once had a selfish or arrogant thought (He did not consider equality something to be gained). He did it all according to the Father's will and with you and me and everyone else in mind.I think there is a wide spectrum with Christ's humility at one end and Satan's arrogance at the other. I suppose the unbeliever can only achieve a sort of neutral humility since by definition the unbeliever has rejected God even though he may accept most of God's LDE.LDE leading to morality are a very important part of the Christian's life, but there is so much more. I have separated them because sin sort of just pops out and may be several isolated incidents, whereas arrogance is the continual thought patterns that lead to evil. Sin is eliminated and fellowship with the H.S. restored by confessing it to God. Arrogance is only eliminated by confession of it plus the learing of Bible doctrine and/or many humbling life experiences.Again, arrogance is rejection of truth and the thought patters where the self is most important.Arrogance has many manifestations. Some people tend to selfishly lust for things while others tend to self-righteously condemn those who do. Some people reject God altogether while others spend their whole lives trying to earn brownie points with him (doing "human good" which is "bad"). Some people want one race or religion to rule the world while others think violence in defence of freedom is unjustifiable. Some people always compete and have inordinate ambition and try to attain power or wealth while others shy completely away from reality becoming neurotic and invent a fantasy world where they are glorified. MANY people are hypersensitive because they are always thinking about themselves. Really arrogant people rarely realize their arrogance because the TRUTH is they are arrogant and arrogant people reject TRUTH. Christ who is God did none of these things (He even washed his disciples feet!) While satan and those who are blinded by arrogance do many or all of them. This is what I mean by arrogance is the source of all evil. Bad is a broad word. I suppose bad is anything contrary to truth. It is equivalent to "sin", "evil", rejection of LDE. BUT it is also human good. I said that the fruit of the spirit is the only true good anyone can produce because the spirit of God produces it through us (only credit to us goes to our act of volition in humility; the rest goes to God). Human good is man doing things in his own power for whatever reason. This is one reason why I separate Christianity from all other religions. Many religions (dare I include catholicism) include a system of good works by which God's approval is attained. This is BAD. This is why religion is the devil's ace trump. Religion sometimes puts people to work for the greater good giving them the hope that their good works will earn salvation or nirvana or whatever. The point is God's approval can only be attained by grace not by any of our effort. Only works done in the power of the spirit in humility are truly "good".Also, "Bad" things in the guise of "good" things would be the notion that by laying down all arms, reducing our power in the world, and talking things over with our enemies that they will become our friends and world peace will ensue. Many such liberal ideas seem "good", but are not realistic (divorced from the truth by arrogance) and eventually lead to much "bad". Until Christ's millineal kingdom comes, the LDE of the nation, its government, and freedom through military victory are still very much relevant. Rejecting these principles is the arrogant rejection of moral LDE truth, therefore evil.Whew... I'll shutup now.

To jar: I very much agree. I was referring to situations where families break up due to differences in religious beliefs. In cases where love for God cannot coexist peacefully with love for parents, for example. Some would include "obedience towards parents" under filial love, hence my point about obedience. Sorry, you haven't addressed the above question. Well, the terrorists believed that they were acting on behalf of God. So their actions, from their perspective, is morally and/or spiritually justified, even though it (mass murder) is abhorred in all societies. I bring this up as an example where religious morality (what is "right" by a religion) and social morality (what is "right" by society) conflicts.Same deal with Abraham, but you seem to have overlooked it.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thank you very much for your detailed reply:To Q1: So...is LDE something invented by R.B. Thieme Jr., or something universally recognised, or what? Who/what compiled the LDE? Putting the cultural ones aside, which laws from OT should be accepted? Why include the Ten Commandments? Which proverb from the NT? Most importantly: why these and not others? Isn't conscience subjective?********************************************************************To Q2: Thanks! How cute! ^_^********************************************************************To Q3: Ok. Let's put this aside. Although you still haven't explained why it is a part of LDE. (I.e. why is it one of the "institution"?)********************************************************************To Q4: If we consider humility as the opposite of arrogance, then I agree that Jesus is very much "moral" in the spiritual sense (as in, he is moral by God's standards). However, I would argue that humility is irrelevant to morality by society's standards (obeying laws in society).********************************************************************To Q5: All this is nice and interesting, but it doesn't answer my question: Note the word "society". Social morality is defined by laws.********************************************************************To Q6: The vagueness of the terms "good" and "bad" has been pointed out by jar, so I think it would be best if we can restrict our discussion to morality and sin. Since you have equated "sin" with Christian immorality, what relationship do you believe would hold between Christian morality (LDE) and social morality (laws).Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

If Polygamy was forbidden by a "Law of Divine Establishment", that applied since the beginning then why was polygamy apparently acceptable for much of the OT period ?Abraham was a polygamist, and he wasn't told to stick to just one wife.The Mosaic law doesn't forbid polygamy.So it certainly doesn't seem to have applied until quite late in the OT period.

Just because God didn't make a new law to redefine marriage, doesn't mean the old one didn't apply. Perhaps the misuse of marriage was what prompted Moses to write the statement "For this reason a man will..."I believe there are some proverbs about the unhappiness many wives brings.Look at David's life. He took many wives and had MANY family problems. His first good son was Solomon whom he had after he wised up and settled down a little.Abraham wasn't perfect. Back then, many wives was the thing to do. Just because it was accepted culturally at the time didn't make it right.Notice Job and Noah apparently had one wife. There were probably others too.Marriage did gain new importance in the new testament.

I'm willing to give it another go. I skipped this because I couldn't see where obedience applied to the topic. I figured you had something in mind but it wasn't clear. Now that you've expanded it, I still feel it is unrelated, and I'll try to show you why.There are always struggles in families, in particular there comes a moment of rebellion where parents and children certainly don't agree over religion (as well as friends, dress, drugs and most every other imaginable cause). Often that does lead to situations where peaceful coexistence becomes difficult or impossible.That happens. I know it happened in my family. But I also know (looking from perhaps a different perspective than some younger than myself) that in time, I came to an understanding (and my family as well) where those difference seemed minor, more something where we both laughed at how silly we had been than a major split.It's part of growing up. And far bigger at the time than when looking back on it thirty or forty years later.You also say I did not address the relationship between sin and morality.Again, if so, it is simply because I don't quite understand what you are asking? Help me there and I'll give it a try.As to 9-11. I disagree completely with what you have said. You say... First, IMHO, terrorism has little to do with religion. As so often happened in the past, religion can be misused, made into a tool to get gullible people to do horrific things. But it is not religion but the misuse of religion that is involved.It is no different though than what Hitler did as a Christian, what the US did to the Native Americans, from the concept of Manafest Destiny, from what happened in Ireland or the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel. It is no different than when Czar Alexander II was assasinated or Lincoln assasinated and religion was not a part in either of the last two.The story of Abraham and Isaac is one of the old testing stories. Frankly, it can only be understood within the context of early Bronze age (when it was most likely committed to writing) society. In that context it is actually a major departure from the norm.Consider the Iliad. There is a similar story their where in order to assure fair winds for the voyage, the King sacrifices his daughter. Slits her lilly white throat. And actually gets her to come along by promising her that it will be her wedding day.Yuk!Human sacrifice was not unknown. It was not at all unusual for a GOD to expect a major sacrifice. It runs counter to our views today, but at the time, the story would have been reasonable.The big difference between the story of Abraham is the ending. In this version, God says, hold on. You don't have to do it. The willingness is all I wanted to see, don't do the act.And that is a profound change given the period. Do not make the mistake of underestimating just how profound a change that really was.If you have read some of my posts, you will have found that I do not view the Bible as a historical text. This passage is one that I am pretty sure should be listed as parable. In it, there is a tale with a specific point.It say two things.First, you must so love GOD that you are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice.Second, if you do love GOD that much he will not let you make that sacrifice.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hey Jar,
I enjoy alot of what you write, due to work I never have much time to engage in this forum on a regular basis. However, I would like to take the liberty of thinking I know what Sleeping Dragon is trying to point out.1) 9-11 or any other act similiar is seen differently from the perspective of others. i.e the pawns in the "terrorist group", if you will, are doing this for a religious basis (hence their God, their religion, and their morality). Therefore, in this context 9-11 terrorism has a whole lot to do with religion...not ours, but...which morality, which God, according to whom, etc can very well depend on who you ask...so the crazy irony is 'If the terrorists that took the lives of Americans thought they were doing what was morally right according to their God, were they in fact being immoral?'Warning a digression is about to follow: Having said that I don't agree with either the Christian or Muslim side. I disagree with the extremes that caused the deaths of those people during and after 9-11 AND I disagree the lengths and lies we have taken to ensure the U.S. (and others) are in control of the oil.