There are various ways of getting out of it. The only way that I think is even remotely decent is the idea that, as God is omniscient (all knowing), he knows all the choices people will make before they make them, and therefore can construct a plan that both allows people to make all their choices, yet still results in the ending he desires.

/me shrugs.

 

Ginny Is The Devil!!! Smite Her With The Lightbearing Torch Of Fanfiction!!!

 

Can't we just ignore her, for the sake of this thread?

 

Have you played TESlV: Oblivion: Shivering Isles? Pretty decent story for an expansion. They used this idea and it worked pretty well.

It's a little cliche though. Better off keeping both sides as separate entities, or at least, keep the godplay to a minimum.

 

Wow, I missed that episode... where can I find it?

 

Umm, it's the one where Homer trades his soul for a doughnut, you'll have to look it up cause I can't remember which one it was. Might have been a Treehouse of Horror one.

Aekiel

 

Yeah, the bible give a whole list of Angels who fell from Heaven, and for the record Belial and Anzael, and Leviathen out rank Beelzebub, for like Lucifer they Seraphrim.
On the subject of Lucifer, in Islam Lucifer was kicked by Michael for not bowing to humanity, as god commanded him not to bow before any one but God himself.

 

Incorrect. This is from the Book of Enoch, which is not accepted as canon.

 

Oh, I didn't know that was as such, thank you.

 

Or that people don't have libertarian free will. Shocking idea.

Correct, but Lucifer isn't a demon or anything, so "he"'s hardly going to be pissed off. Lucifer simply means morning star. The word only appears once in the Bible, in Isaiah 14:12-22. I'll quote it for the benefit of the discussion

From the start, a telling sign against an identification with Satan is that the equation here was made in the 3rd and 4th century AD, bu church writers -- not by Jews of the OT or NT era. This does not mean it is wrong, but it does place a greater burden of proof on claimants. However, the context provides no such thing and, on the contrary, argues strongly against it. This oracle appears in a prophetic series regarding Babylon, going from 13:1 to 14:27. The section quoted is mostly a ridiculing song, call it the Song of the Fallen King. The mention of the morning star is a reference to a Canaanite mythology. Motyer writes (The Prophecy of Isaiah, An Introduction and Commentary, InterVarsity Press, 1993):

The whole passage clearly uses typical prophetic language to describe the downfall of Babylon, and does not have anything to do with Satan.

 

This, however, is incompatible with Christian theology.

 

It's not compatible with Arminian/Pelagian Christian theology. It's perfectly compatible with Calvinism.

 

One rather small denomination among a majority who believe that libertarian free will is necessary for salvation.

 

Calvinism isn't really a denomination, it's a cross-denominational theology. While certain denominations have become associated with it, due to it being the rule in them, ie Reformed and Presbyterian churches, there are a great number of Reformed Baptists, Anglicans and what not. Many in the conservative Anglican movement subscribe to Calvinism, especially in Africa, and in the Southern Baptist Convention is is experiencing a great growth, with people like Al Mohler leading the 'awakening' so to speak; there are also quite a few non-denominationals, like John MacArthur. It is also the one I happen to hold to, which explains my reaction. Also, I wouldn't say Arminians believe libertarian free will is necessary for salvation, it's probably more correct to say they hold people have it, whether saved or unsaved.

 

Salvation requires a free choice to accept Jesus as your personal saviour, according to traditional Christian thought at least. So libertarian free will is required for salvation in that way. Similarly, libertarian free will was necessary for the Fall to take place in the first place and make salvation necessary.

 

If you mean it in that way, then yes, you could say according to Arminian theology is is necessary, but it would also be necessary for damnation, no?

Anyway, we Calvinists have our own perspectives on those issues, but it's probably OT to get into that (well, even more OT than we already are), so I'll leave it be.

 

Oh boy, right, as I recall from my Theology class Calvinism didn't last long, albeit, I mean true Calvinism, not the denominations which were spawned from its ideas. So Mordac you're a modern day Calvinist, interesting.
But Free Will is an important part of life, even if it does allow atheists to dispute the existence of a higher power.
As for Salvation Jew and Muslims, among others, will dispute Salvation coming from belief in christ, and obviously atheists will.
The Old Testament is a pretty heady book, certainly an easier read than New Testament, I'd rather like it when god kicks ass.

 

But Calvinism isn't a theology, it's not a denomination. Even in the 1600s, there was the Presbyterian tradition and the Continental Reformed one. So, in the 'Puritan' form, or in the form practiced at Geneva, yes it didn't last long, but as a theology, the five points and the whole shebang, while it oscillated in popularity, it never went away, and it's certainly undergoing a resurgence right now.

 

Come tell my ass of a Theology prof that, nah ass hole would probably still think he was right.
I like listening to your opinions on this subject.