God Allowing Satan to Tempt: An Act of Mercy

[Snow]

Hey Snow! :)

Well, Gamma radiation seems as good as any other option because I have no idea how the actual process works. It seems in the garden Satan pretty much just used auditory language to persuade Adam and Eve. Outside of the garden, well, if I were to speculate, maybe God has allowed devils be able to influence our hearts in a limited capacity perhaps using the same mechanism the Holy Spirit does to influence us, albeit the Spirit has no limitations. In fact, I don't even know what the actual mechanism is that the Holy Spirit uses to communicate to us and influence us. So, I guess my answer is pretty much worthless. Sorry, I think my first answer was better...

Gamma radiation.

Regards,

Finrock

Think about it. Auditory language is a function of air from the lungs being passed over the vocal cords to produce sound shaped by the tongue mouth and lips. Satan got no lungs, got no vocal cords, got tongue, mouth or lips.

If Satan is using magical (supernatural powers) to influence us, where did he get it? If it came from God then God is responsible for evil.

[Finrock]

Think about it. Auditory language is a function of air from the lungs being passed over the vocal cords to produce sound shaped by the tongue mouth and lips. Satan got no lungs, got no vocal cords, got tongue, mouth or lips.

Not the Satan I know. The Satan I know has a spirit body fashioned in the likeness of our fleshy bodies (Ether 3:16). Plus, spirit matter isn't immaterial (D&C 131:7). But, I'm OK with you believing what you want to believe about Satan.

If Satan is using magical (supernatural powers) to influence us, where did he get it? If it came from God then God is responsible for evil.

That's an interesting hypothesis. Personally, I don't believe in magical or supernatural powers. But, whatever means Satan is using to influence us is whatever means God allows Satan to use (D&C 29:39; D&C 121:4). And, no, it doesn't logically follow that God is therefore responsible for evil.

But, in the end, I still don't know the answer to your original question. So, gamma rays is still a good answer...actually, on second thought, maybe I'll change my answer to...gravity. Gravity would be a more interesting mechanism in tempting us than gamma rays anyways, and gamma rays can be deadly. Then again, isn't that what happens to us when we sin, spiritual death (gamma = death, sin = death)? Seems logical to me.

How about you, do you have any thoughts through what mechanism Satan tempts us? :)

Regards,

Finrock

[Snow]

Not the Satan I know. The Satan I know has a spirit body fashioned in the likeness of our fleshy bodies (Ether 3:16). Plus, spirit matter isn't immaterial (D&C 131:7). But, I'm OK with you believing what you want to believe about Satan.

I guess you are just in a joking mood. You would have us believe that spirit lungs can move real air past spirit vocal cords and spirit lips to produce real live voices. It would be funnier if it had a semblance of reality instead of complete fantasy.

That's an interesting hypothesis. Personally, I don't believe in magical or supernatural powers. But, whatever means Satan is using to influence us is whatever means God allows Satan to use (D&C 29:39; D&C 121:4). And, no, it doesn't logically follow that God is therefore responsible for evil.

Are you being deliberately deceptive or do you just not know what you believe in?

supernatural:

: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

magic:

Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural:

God's power is, by definition, both supernatural and magical.

But, in the end, I still don't know the answer to your original question. So, gamma rays is still a good answer...actually, on second thought, maybe I'll change my answer to...gravity. Gravity would be a more interesting mechanism in tempting us than gamma rays anyways, and gamma rays can be deadly. Then again, isn't that what happens to us when we sin, spiritual death (gamma = death, sin = death)? Seems logical to me.

What's the point of believing it if it's nothing more than a big ole mystery.

How about you, do you have any thoughts through what mechanism Satan tempts us? :)

Take, say, temptations of the flesh.

I'm tempted because of smoking hot girls and my biochemistry,

You're tempted because of an invisible magical creature who casts mysterious magic you don't understand.

Can you believe we are already in the 21st century - that's CE, not BCE.

[Justice]

In none of these cases did the Devil have ANYTHING to do with you sinning.

He would love you to believe that.

However, if you re-think your position I believe you will have to agree that when Satan tempted Eve, and Adam and Eve acquired the knowledge of good and evil, Satan was responsible for bringing those things into the world.

They can be overcome. Ask Enoch... or Jesus Christ. :)

When we dwell on those things, even for a moment, as you suggest, we need to use those "opportunities" to push them farther and farther away from us. In the world we live in today it's very near impossible, with all the speed temptations are thrown at us from every different angle.

It can be done though.

I think there is symbolism in the story of Job that extends to all of us.

I agree with Finrock's basic theory.

However, I believe temptations are of a physical nature. The story of Job shows that, as does the story of Satan tempting Eve to partake of something physical. We are here to overcome the natural man, or the physical world.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Justice

[Justice]

Think about it. Auditory language is a function of air from the lungs being passed over the vocal cords to produce sound shaped by the tongue mouth and lips. Satan got no lungs, got no vocal cords, got tongue, mouth or lips.

The pre-mortal Jesus Christ stood face to face with many people and "spoke" to them as one man speaks to another.

I don't know how it's done... I just know it was done.

[Snow]

The pre-mortal Jesus Christ stood face to face with many people and "spoke" to them as one man speaks to another.

I don't know how it's done... I just know it was done.

Correction:

You have faith that it was done. You don't "know" it. Someone told you that you were supposed to believe it and you believe it.

However, it's not really the same thing. Christ is God. I am not arguing that God does not possess the power to manipulate the the physical world.

[Justice]

Yeah, it could make for a long discussion.

I don't know all things... but I do know God lives. I also know He speaks to man... sometimes face to face. I know it as much as I know I'm sitting here typing to you on my computer.

[Finrock]

Good morning Snow! I hope you've enjoyed your Sunday. :)

I guess you are just in a joking mood. You would have us believe that spirit lungs can move real air past spirit vocal cords and spirit lips to produce real live voices. It would be funnier if it had a semblance of reality instead of complete fantasy.

I wouldn't have you or anyone believe in anything. But, yeah, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Like I said, I'm comfortable with you believing what you want to believe in.

Are you being deliberately deceptive or do you just not know what you believe in?

Of course I'm not being deceptive and I do know exactly what I believe. Thank you for asking though instead of assuming. But the, shall I say, false dichotomy, presented doesn't provide all the available options.

supernatural:

: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

magic:

Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural:

Those are both great definitions. I already knew them, but thank you for sharing them with me. They might be useful for others who post.

God's power is, by definition, both supernatural and magical.

In reality, of course, God's power is neither, but when you rely on definitions produced in ignorance you don't get definitions that reflect reality. So, I don't accept that definition as it applies to God. To me, it's meaningless. Literally.

What's the point of believing it if it's nothing more than a big ole mystery.

Well, this could be answered several ways. First, the mechanism is irrelevant to the existence of the "phenomenon." I've experienced the actuality of temptation, which is sufficient for belief. But, most importantly, God has told me that Satan is real and that he tempts us to do wickedly. I know this without equivocation. So, technically there is no point in me believing in something that I know. That means your question isn't applicable to my state of affairs. And no correction is needed.

Take, say, temptations of the flesh.

I'm tempted because of smoking hot girls and my biochemistry,

Yeah, me too.

You're tempted because of an invisible magical creature who casts mysterious magic you don't understand.

No, our desires are influenced by the same non-magical, who doesn't cast magic of any sort (neither the mysterious sort or the obvious sort), and most of the time invisible creature, called Satan.

Can you believe we are already in the 21st century - that's CE, not BCE.

I almost can't. I mean, we were suppose to have flying cars by now. Not to mention delicious foods made from saw dust.

All this and still no closer to answering your question. You didn't like gamma rays, which I can understand. You didn't like gravity, even though the possibilities would have been humorous to explore. What was the last option on your list? Ah, yes, microwaves. I suppose we wouldn't need to buy those little boxes that produce microwaves if Satan did use microwaves to tempt us. That would be useful; Just think of bad thoughts whenever you need to reheat last night's leftovers. So, now what? Any other candidates in mind? I'm fresh out of speculation...

Regards,

Finrock

[Moksha]

Snow, I am curious about what the mechanism you have in mind might be. Do you think that the bad deeds of Man are misattributed to either God or Satan and are a failure to own up to Man's deeds and that instead we choose to assign them to a supernatural origin?

[mark08]

I'm sure many worlds were created and inhabited with God's children before Lucifer became satan. Yet they still had to have the opportunity to exercise free agency.

[marts1]

Correction:

You have faith that it was done. You don't "know" it. Someone told you that you were supposed to believe it and you believe it.

However, it's not really the same thing. Christ is God. I am not arguing that God does not possess the power to manipulate the the physical world.

If you experience the Holy Ghost witnessing to you the truth of a certain thing, this can be described as knowledge in its purest form.

[marts1]

I'm sure many worlds were created and inhabited with God's children before Lucifer became satan. Yet they still had to have the opportunity to exercise free agency.

I was sure it is writtin somewhere about worlds without evil spirits but I couldn't find it.

[mark08]

I don't know of any scriptureal references to this, other than the temple. Satan was ticked that he was dealt with so harshly by God when he "did that which had been done on other worlds" i.e. gave the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. It certainly wasn't some other satan he saw do this before.

[Finrock]

Good evening Moksha! How are you? Well, I hope. :)

Do you think that the bad deeds of Man are misattributed to either God or Satan and are a failure to own up to Man's deeds and that instead we choose to assign them to a supernatural origin?

I believe many people do this, and I think it is a mistake. I think many people assume that were it not for the devil, their desires would be pure. My OP stands on the notion that our evil desires are our own, although Satan will "aid and abet" in us succumbing to our evil desires. "When Satan tempts a person to do evil, there are limits to what Satan can accomplish. He can put before a person any kind of evil opportunity, but that evil is enticing only if the person tempted already desires that thing. When people are tempted, it is actually by their own lusts" (Devils, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Emphasis added; See also James 1:12-15).

Regards,

Finrock

[Snow]

In reality, of course, God's power is neither, but when you rely on definitions produced in ignorance you don't get definitions that reflect reality. So, I don't accept that definition as it applies to God. To me, it's meaningless. Literally.

You claim that it is ignorant to think that God's relates to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God.

Now I'm almost positive you don't know what you believe but go ahead and explain - how is it that God's power is neither related to God nor beyond the visible universe.

Well, this could be answered several ways. First, the mechanism is irrelevant to the existence of the "phenomenon." I've experienced the actuality of temptation, which is sufficient for belief. But, most importantly, God has told me that Satan is real and that he tempts us to do wickedly. I know this without equivocation. So, technically there is no point in me believing in something that I know. That means your question isn't applicable to my state of affairs. And no correction is needed.

Some people don't understand the difference between knowledge and being convinced of something.

[Snow]

If you experience the Holy Ghost witnessing to you the truth of a certain thing, this can be described as knowledge in its purest form.

So Catholics who claim knowledge via the Holy Spirit re the veracity of the Catholic faith (or Evangelicals and the Evangelical faith) are in possession of knowledge in it's purest form?

[Snow]

Snow, I am curious about what the mechanism you have in mind might be. Do you think that the bad deeds of Man are misattributed to either God or Satan and are a failure to own up to Man's deeds and that instead we choose to assign them to a supernatural origin?

Sure - maybe magic exists but it is completely un-useful to attribute natural things, like urges and desires, to an invisible supernatural demi-god. You aren't made better off by believing it so you might as well believe in something useful. There isn't even a quantifiable religious value to believing it.

[GADBabaganoosh]

The Holy Ghost is a spirit, and can thereby influence us (remember we choose whether or not to heed that influence.) So, Satan is also a spirit and can do the same (and he has a few freinds to help him as well.) The actual means of it? I don't know. Everyone knows and feels certain temptations. I think it might be as simple as suggestions or deception. Whisper into our ears, or the devil on the shoulder analogy.

The spirits are wandering this earth, we just can't see them. So reason would suggest that their spirit can talk to us. It's not audible, its a spirit voice (not the same spirit voice people use in testimony meeting.) My theory is, (emphasis on theory) the spirit we have now that is housed inside a body can hear those whispers.

[marts1]

Another way of putting it is that he can place idea's into your mind that lure you to do wrong.

[Intrigued]

Another way of putting it is that he can place idea's into your mind that lure you to do wrong.

Or a simpler solution is that we as human beings need only opportunity to sin.. that's just my take though. I can't say I've ever felt like I should attribute an emotion or a desire.. good or bad to supernatural forces. Sin is a byproduct of our curious nature IMO.

[marts1]

Thats true not many recieve such a thing, but those that do inspire others down the same road. There are one or two examples of that in the BoM. It is more then likely the way most evil orgs start such as the mofia for ex.

[Finrock]

Good evening Snow! I've had a good day. I hope you have too and that you are happy. :)

You claim that it is ignorant to think that God's relates to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God.

Now I'm almost positive you don't know what you believe but go ahead and explain - how is it that God's power is neither related to God nor beyond the visible universe.

Oh, come now!

"eyond the visible observable universe..." is just another way of saying that it is outside of nature. "[O]f or relating to God" in that definition assumes that God's power is supernatural, which is precisely what I'm rejecting as reality. So, your question posed to me is, in context, nonsense, because it is equivocating.

God's power is priesthood. "Priesthood embraces all forms of God's power. It is the power by which the cosmos was ordered, universes and worlds were organized, and the elements in all their varied structures and relationships were put into place. Through the priesthood, God governs all things" (Priesthood, Encyclopedia of Mormonism). Further, the priesthood is "an everlasting principle, [which has] existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years,…holding the keys of power and blessings" (Joseph Smith).

So, God's power, or priesthood, is as natural to the Universe as the eternal elements are (D&C 93:33). It is as much a part of the natural Universe as you or I. There is nothing supernatural about God's power. It is an eternal nature of reality. In fact, one might even make an argument that what we experience in mortality is "supernatural", or outside of nature, as it is only a shadow of that sphere of existence of true nature and true reality in which God resides.

Some people don't understand the difference between knowledge and being convinced of something.

Some people do. Then again, some people don't understand the difference between elvish language and elfish language. Some people don't understand the difference between wants and needs. Or, some people don't understand the difference between eggs and an omelet.

That was fun. But, let's not get distracted from the conversation. :)

Regards,

Finrock

[Snow]

Good evening Snow! I've had a good day. I hope you have too and that you are happy. :)

Oh, come now!

"eyond the visible observable universe..." is just another way of saying that it is outside of nature. "[O]f or relating to God" in that definition assumes that God's power is supernatural, which is precisely what I'm rejecting as reality. So, your question posed to me is, in context, nonsense, because it is equivocating.

Here's the problem with your claim. Words actually have meaning. When someone like you claims that "visible" means something other than visible or that "relating to God" means something other than "relating to God," they just don't make any sense.

[JudoMinja]

Here's the problem with your claim. Words actually have meaning. When someone like you claims that "visible" means something other than visible or that "relating to God" means something other than "relating to God," they just don't make any sense.

Yes, words have meaning. But that meaning is clouded by everyone's individual understanding and perception of that meaning. That is what makes communicating with others so difficult and confusing. Even when you look up the exact definition of a word in a dictionary, you will find inconsistencies.

As long as people are using a word in as proper a sense as they know how, who's to say they do not know what it means? Context often changes the meaning of a word, and all words carry a base or superficial meaning to them as well as a deeper meaning. They can relate to things tangible and intangible.

My understanding of the word beautiful will be different than your understanding of the word beautiful. And, using that word in different contexts will change its meaning. If I were to call a baby beautiful, it would be taken in a different sense than if I were to call a song beautiful, or an old married couple beautiful, or a flower beautiful. In all these cases, the word means basically the same thing, but the understanding of it and the implications behind it change.

So knowledge can pertain to information gathered through the senses, through personal hands-on experience, through reading books, AND through the confirmation of the Holy Ghost. All these things are knowledge, even though they are gained in different ways.

When someone says they "know" something, you must take into consideration the context in which the claim is made, and how firm their conviction in that knowledge is. I can "know" the gospel is true without having a direct witness from God, but if I were to receive a direct witness from God that knowledge would take on a different form and have much more strength and validity.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Snow! How are you? :)

Here's the problem with your claim. Words actually have meaning. When someone like you claims that "visible" means something other than visible or that "relating to God" means something other than "relating to God," they just don't make any sense.

I'm not going to dwell on this too much more because going in to this much further means focusing on something in exclusion of the point of this thread.

1. When speaking about the observable visible universe we are not excluding things that science cannot currently observe. It includes anything, whether science can currently observe it or not, that is possible in principle to be observed (Source).

When speaking of things that are supernatural you are not speaking about things that science cannot currently observe, but you are speaking of things that cannot be observed, not even in principle. You are speaking of things that are "...above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena (Source).

You are equivocating on what "visible" means as it relates to your supplied definition of "supernatural".

2. The definition you supplied assumes things relating to God are supernatural. Of course if that is true, then supernatural things are things that relate to God. But, if God's power isn't supernatural then you cannot relate supernatural powers as things that relate to God. Your responses on this point are both equivocating on what is meant in context of the definition and they are circular.

When I speak of God's power, I am speaking about the observable visible universe. I am speaking of something that is not "above and beyond what is natural." This means that given we had more intelligence we would see that it is just a part of the natural universe. Supernatural explicitly speaks to things that are not possible to observe, not even in principle. They are outside of the scope of nature.

But here is the bottom line and the answer to your question as to how I explain God's power (having weeded out the incoherent parts of your question):

I believe that as it relates to things of God the, "...'supernatural' is just a term for parts of nature that modern science and philosophy do not yet properly understand, similar to how sound and lightning used to be mysterious forces to science." I also believe, "...that the 'supernatural' consists of things in the physical universe not yet understood by modern science..." (Source). This is not what your supplied definition of "supernatural" means.

So, God's power is priesthood. It may be "that modern science and philosophy do not yet properly understand" God's power, but it is still very much a part of the natural, physical universe.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited April 13, 2010 by Finrock
Grammar. Fixed wording to correctly reflect intended meaning.