The devil can do it too?

[ttribe]

So...still seek the Spirit...but look to Him, not to the feelings He provides.

Three questions here since this flies in the face of established LDS doctrine:

1 - How does the Holy Ghost communicate, then, if not by the feelings outlined in Galatians?

2 - What is the purpose of the Holy Ghost if not to assist in the revelation of truth and guidance?

3 - Why can we not rely on God to provide us answers to direct prayers for the revelation of truth?

[prisonchaplain]

According to Evangelical belief, Christians didn't exist yet and neither did the church.

Revenge for what?

Vindicated for what?

Who did he lie to in heaven?

I suppose the word and concept had not developed yet for church, and yet, in a sense it was there. If CHURCH means "called out ones," then the disciples, and those who followed certainly were.

The revenge was against God for putting him out of heaven and defeating his attempt at self-exaltation. The clearest example of Satan's lie would likely be his deception in the Garden of Eden.

[prisonchaplain]

Three questions here since this flies in the face of established LDS doctrine:

If my statement to seek the Spirit, rather than merely the feelings God provides (those feelings will come, but it's the tail following the dog, rather than the dog chasing the tail kinda thing), answer me this: If what I said flew in the face of LDS doctrine, why did several find it an agreeable statement? I did not oppose seeking God's will (confirmation, testimony, assurance). Rather, I suggested that by seeking God's will, He will naturally supply the appropriate feelings.

1 - How does the Holy Ghost communicate, then, if not by the feelings outlined in Galatians?

2 - What is the purpose of the Holy Ghost if not to assist in the revelation of truth and guidance?

3 - Why can we not rely on God to provide us answers to direct prayers for the revelation of truth?

This all sounds good to me. Not sure where you're disagreeing with me? Sounds like we're on the same page.

[ttribe]

If my statement to seek the Spirit, rather than merely the feelings God provides (those feelings will come, but it's the tail following the dog, rather than the dog chasing the tail kinda thing), answer me this: If what I said flew in the face of LDS doctrine, why did several find it an agreeable statement?

Probably because they, and I, read different things into your statement...and they probably know you better than I do.

I did not oppose seeking God's will (confirmation, testimony, assurance). Rather, I suggested that by seeking God's will, He will naturally supply the appropriate feelings.

This all sounds good to me. Not sure where you're disagreeing with me? Sounds like we're on the same page.

My apologies...too many arguments with other evangelicals under my belt...I was anticipating the line your statement might go down.

[Maxel]

prisonchaplain is one of the 'good guy' evangelicals (not here to bash Mormons). So is Dr T if you see him around, and some other evangelicals that frequent this site. Most people who come here to bash or find fault with LDS doctrine don't last long.

[ttribe]

prisonchaplain is one of the 'good guy' evangelicals (not here to bash Mormons). So is Dr T if you see him around, and some other evangelicals that frequent this site. Most people who come here to bash or find fault with LDS doctrine don't last long.

Thanks for the heads-up...here's an example of of what I was talking about (I was much more hands-off in this thread I am linking than in times past): MADB Link

Edited August 20, 2009 by ttribe

[Hemidakota]

Hey. I had a friend in the church mention to me once that satan can make you feel the same feeling God can. The same Holy Spirit feeling. Is that true? Has anyone ever heard this before?

Nice but no....ask your friend if standing in Lucifer presence will give you the same feeling as standing in Christ presence?

[Hemidakota]

He wanted revenge, vindication, victory, and yes power. He wanted to be God. Since he failed, he wanted to destroy God's people.

What he wanted was GOD honor...why was honor so important?

[Islander]

Hey. I had a friend in the church mention to me once that satan can make you feel the same feeling God can. The same Holy Spirit feeling. Is that true? Has anyone ever heard this before?

Well, I am not sure what you mean by "feel" since we can "feel" many things and at the time they may appear good but they are not. One of the most powerful weapons of the devil is counterfeiting. He offers you something that "seems" good and could even make you "feel good" but at the end will be poison and the means of your destruction; physical and spiritual

[Justice]

I suppose the word and concept had not developed yet for church, and yet, in a sense it was there. If CHURCH means "called out ones," then the disciples, and those who followed certainly were.

The revenge was against God for putting him out of heaven and defeating his attempt at self-exaltation. The clearest example of Satan's lie would likely be his deception in the Garden of Eden.

PC, did the "called out ones" come to dwell on earth? I don't get who the church was made up of before the earth was created (in your view).

Satan wanted God's power long before God put him out of heaven. Indeed, that is why God put him out of heaven. What exactly was it he wanted? It wasn't revenge for being put out of heaven because that hadn't happened yet.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, did the "called out ones" come to dwell on earth? I don't get who the church was made up of before the earth was created (in your view).

The called out ones were not before the earth was created. Jesus spoke to Peter, so they would have been his disciples whom Satan wanted to kill, steal from, and destroy.

Satan wanted God's power long before God put him out of heaven. Indeed, that is why God put him out of heaven. What exactly was it he wanted? It wasn't revenge for being put out of heaven because that hadn't happened yet.

By the time Jesus spoke to Peter, Satan had indeed been cast out of heaven.

[Justice]

I feel you're avoiding my questions.

Satan was cast out of heaven before man was put on this earth, right?

According to evangelicals man did not exist prior to being put on this earth, right?

So, who was it Satan was trying to gain power over in heaven?

And, since Satan was kicked out of heaven, according to you, because of his vengeful heart, what did he seek vengance for? It seems if he was vengeful for being kicked out of heaven he would have had to be kicked out first.

[desirexnoel]

I feel you're avoiding my questions.

He was answering them O.o

[Justice]

Well, then perhaps you can answer my questions using his words and show me what I missed.

PC understands far more than he's expressing in his answers. Either he's in a hurry, avoiding getting too detailed, or is choosing not to answer clearly for some reason.

He knows why I'm asking, and why I'm teasing him about not answering.

[desirexnoel]

Originally Posted by Justice

PC, did the "called out ones" come to dwell on earth? I don't get who the church was made up of before the earth was created (in your view).

Originally Posted by PC

The called out ones were not before the earth was created. Jesus spoke to Peter, so they would have been his disciples whom Satan wanted to kill, steal from, and destroy.

Originally Posted by Justice Satan wanted God's power long before God put him out of heaven. Indeed, that is why God put him out of heaven. What exactly was it he wanted? It wasn't revenge for being put out of heaven because that hadn't happened yet.

Originally Posted by PC

By the time Jesus spoke to Peter, Satan had indeed been cast out of heaven.

I don't know why you would want it in his words if you didn't understand him the first time. O.o

You could scroll up for his words... but I decided that there may be a reason why you aren't...

[prisonchaplain]

I feel you're avoiding my questions.

Satan was cast out of heaven before man was put on this earth, right?

According to evangelicals man did not exist prior to being put on this earth, right?

So, who was it Satan was trying to gain power over in heaven?

My apologies, then. I was having a hard time figuring out what you were asking me, since the context of the discourse between Jesus and Peter was the time of the disciples, not pre-creation. So, my answers were directly related to the conversation...I guess I misunderstood you.

Satan was trying to conquer God, and recruit the angels to follow him. Church tradition tells us a third of the angels followed him.

And, since Satan was kicked out of heaven, according to you, because of his vengeful heart, what did he seek vengance for? It seems if he was vengeful for being kicked out of heaven he would have had to be kicked out first.

Again, we may be miscommunicating/understanding. My suggestion was that Satan sought revenge against God by harassing the disciples. His vengence was likely tied to his having been kicked out of heaven. I never meant to imply that his initial rebellion was rooted in vengence. It was a power grab.

Really, my sense is that you've misunderstood me because I was focused on the conversation with Peter and Jesus, and you on the battle in heaven between Satan and God.

[prisonchaplain]

PC understands far more than he's expressing in his answers. Either he's in a hurry, avoiding getting too detailed, or is choosing not to answer clearly for some reason.

He knows why I'm asking, and why I'm teasing him about not answering.

I'm not entirely clear on where you're headed...well not even close. The past few exchanges, I have felt that you were looking at a picture, and I at a puzzle with many many missing pieces. You'll have to place a few of them, so we can get to the destination you have in mind.

[Justice]

desire, this is the quote that started it all (I really don't know why I'm explaining this to you).

That could be a deep complicated question. We evangelicals see Satan as a renegade angel, who tried to overthrow God. His mission is the steal, kill and destroy. Jesus warned Peter that Satan wanted to sift Peter like wheat. He's also the acuser of the bretheren. No, we don't believe he is our brother. Angels and humans are not kin--other than that we are fellow servants of the Most High.

He said Satan is a renegade angel and his mission is to steal, kill and destroy.

I want to know who or what he was going to steal, kill and destroy before this earth was created. We, according to him, did not exist yet. Or, did he not desire to steal, kill and destroy until after this earth was created? If so, why was he kicked out of heaven before we existed?

If you continue the conversation in it's entirety from this point, you will see he has not answered why Satan was kicked out of heaven for revenge of being kicked out of heaven. He wouldn't be vengeful of that until after it happened.

His replies have beat all around the bush but have not addressed my 2 main questions.

[Justice]

Really, my sense is that you've misunderstood me because I was focused on the conversation with Peter and Jesus, and you on the battle in heaven between Satan and God.

So, it was a power grab over what? The angels?

God kicked Satan out of heaven for trying to take His power over the angels, then God made man, so Satan is trying to destroy man now?

The Fall of Adam was not part of God's plan?

[prisonchaplain]

So, it was a power grab over what? The angels?

Yes. Satan did seduce a third of the angels. And, it appears he thought he could take over the Kingdom of Heaven.

God kicked Satan out of heaven for trying to take His power over the angels, then God made man, so Satan is trying to destroy man now?

Yes. He begins with the temptation in the Garden, continues with the temptation of God's people throughout history.

The Fall of Adam was not part of God's plan?

It was not God's perfect will, no. God's will is that we worship and obey him. There's no hidden agenda with God. Will He work around our failures? Yes. Will He use them, and ultimately bring glory to Himself? Absolutely. But, is it his will that we sin??? NO!

This is a huge area of disagreement between LDS and the rest of Christianity. We Catholic/Protestant/Evangelicals, etc. all believe that Adam and Eve really did sin. There was no nobility in their choice, and their sin was not commited in innocence or ignorance. They rebelled. Satan said that if they eat the fruit they'll be like God (i.e., they won't need God anymore). Satan essentially recreates his own rebellion amongst God's highest creation, humanity. And, our parents, Adam & Eve give in to the temptation.

God did make a way of reconciliation, through Christ (Gen. 3:15). And, yes, He knew Adam and Eve would fall. But no, this was not God's best plan for us. It is always better to obey God.

[Justice]

I believe there is evidence that Adam and Eve couldn't have children until after they fell.

After they ate the fruit they realized they were naked and hid from God. That is evidence they realized gender, meaning they were innocent before, like little kids, and did not recognize it.

How could God's plan have succeeded if Adam and Eve did not know how to have children?

[prisonchaplain]

Justice, your speculation is just that. It's grounded in a belief that Adam and Eve were supposed to eat the fruit to unleash God's plan. If the rest of the Christian world is right--if the Fall really was a sinful fall--then I would suggest the more common explanation--in a sinful world, the body becomes shameful. Lust, menstrual cycles, "he wants to she doesn't"--and vice versa, etc. etc.

Bottom line: It's a huge jumping to conclusions to suggest that Adam & Eve discovering that they should cover their nakedness meant they did not know how to procreate. But, even if you're right, don't you think God could show them? Also, if you're right, do you not imply that sex itself is shameful?

[Justice]

Justice, your speculation is just that. It's grounded in a belief that Adam and Eve were supposed to eat the fruit to unleash God's plan.

Not sure if you worded it that way to make it sound more deplorable, if it was just the wording that came to your mind. But, I do not believe they unleashed God's plan by eating the fruit. Partaking of the fruit was part of the plan that had already unfolded quite far. This earth was created and it provided the means and conditions for the fall.

The fact that Christ was chosen to redeem mankind even before the earth was created tells us logically that this earth was created for them to fall. It was not a contingent plan if they fell, but it was God's ordained plan. God is infinite and omniscient. He only had 1 plan because He knew what would happen. Besides His knowledge of we would do is the fact that there was only one plan from the start that could work.

The flaw in thinking Adam and Eve sinned is it supposes God did not know what they were going to do and make His one plan accordingly, but had to have a contingency plan in case they didn't do what He thought they were going to do. He did know, and His one plan allowed for it.

Evidence, also, is that Adam and Eve did not have children while in the Garden of Eden. We don't know how long they were there. But, beyond assuming they were only there a short time, there is only one plausable answer as to why they didn't..and that's because they didn't know how.

Another argument is that they could not physically have children. There are 2 pieces of evidence/logic that leads me away from this. First, God created them perfect as male and female. To me, this means they were capable of having children. Second, they did not realize they were naked until after they partook of the fruit. Then they were kicked out of the Garden, and then they had children. Sometimes what actually happens gives us clues.

If the rest of the Christian world is right--if the Fall really was a sinful fall--then I would suggest the more common explanation--in a sinful world, the body becomes shameful. Lust, menstrual cycles, "he wants to she doesn't"--and vice versa, etc. etc.

This happens in both scenarios. So, I don't see the logic of how it can support one over the other.

Bottom line: It's a huge jumping to conclusions to suggest that Adam & Eve discovering that they should cover their nakedness meant they did not know how to procreate. But, even if you're right, don't you think God could show them? Also, if you're right, do you not imply that sex itself is shameful?

It is a huge jump using just the Bible, yes. I'll do you one better, it may even be impossible to arrive at my conclusion using just the Bible. Fortunately, I do not.

God did show them how to procreate by using the very symbols He placed in the Garden for them... fruit and seeds. I could explain, but probably wouldn't mean very much here.

They didn't hide from God because they were having sex, so I don't think, nor do I think I implied, sex is shameful. They recognized their gender and privates, and they knew they were naked so they hid from God so He wouldn't see them naked. Interesting, isn't it? For however long they were in the Garden they were not ashamed of being naked until after they ate the fruit. Doesn't that logically tell us something about what they may have gained by eating the fruit?

Sometimes you don't have to see it written in black and white. Sometimes it's what they do or how they act. People say, well it's not written and not black and white so I don't believe it. Well, to me, it may as well be black and white because what they do is just as important as what they say or write.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Justice

[prisonchaplain]

Not sure if you worded it that way to make it sound more deplorable, if it was just the wording that came to your mind. But, I do not believe they unleashed God's plan by eating the fruit. Partaking of the fruit was part of the plan that had already unfolded quite far. This earth was created and it provided the means and conditions for the fall.

The fact that Christ was chosen to redeem mankind even before the earth was created tells us logically that this earth was created for them to fall. It was not a contingent plan if they fell, but it was God's ordained plan. God is infinite and omniscient. He only had 1 plan because He knew what would happen. Besides His knowledge of we would do is the fact that there was only one plan from the start that could work.

The flaw in thinking Adam and Eve sinned is it supposes God did not know what they were going to do and make His one plan accordingly, but had to have a contingency plan in case they didn't do what He thought they were going to do. He did know, and His one plan allowed for it.

What you are suggesting is that God set them up to sin. He told them not to eat the fruit--commanded them not to. But, he rigged the universe so that they would eventually have to do so. Isn't that Calvin's irresistable grace in reverse? Does that not contradict free agency?

Evidence, also, is that Adam and Eve did not have children while in the Garden of Eden. We don't know how long they were there. But, beyond assuming they were only there a short time, there is only one plausable answer as to why they didn't..and that's because they didn't know how.

Well...we're not told they didn't have children, first of all. But none are mentioned. And, who knows how long they were in the Garden. Could have been a day or a millenium. BTW, even if it was a couple of years, many couples have to try for quite a long time before they conceive...so, again, there's nothing much here to do but speculate.

This happens in both scenarios. So, I don't see the logic of how it can support one over the other.

My only point is that they were ashamed because they were naked, and with the introduction of the sin nature, that became shameful. There's nothing here to make me conclude that they were ashamed because they suddenly developed sex urges. THAT would imply that sex is shameful.

They didn't hide from God because they were having sex, so I don't think, nor do I think I implied, sex is shameful. They recognized their gender and privates, and they knew they were naked so they hid from God so He wouldn't see them naked. Interesting, isn't it? For however long they were in the Garden they were not ashamed of being naked until after they ate the fruit. Doesn't that logically tell us something about what they may have gained by eating the fruit?

Sometimes you don't have to see it written in black and white. Sometimes it's what they do or how they act. People say, well it's not written and not black and white so I don't believe it. Well, to me, it may as well be black and white because what they do is just as important as what they say or write.

I'm more inclined to believe that the sin-nature they gained made the human body shameful and prone to sin. Modesty became necessary. I just find it an incredible leep to jump to the conclusion that only with the advent of sin did Adam and Eve discover their sex drive.

[Kawazu]

Random thought about the nakedness/ashamed thing--

How does God feel about nudist camps?