Does God sustain, support, and nourish satan?

[OtherCheek]

Does God sustain, support, and nourish satan?

And if so, would satan vanish into nothingness or completely die and be gone, if God withdrew his support?

[RBerman]

Does God sustain, support, and nourish satan?

And if so, would satan vanish into nothingness or completely die and be gone, if God withdrew his support?

That is correct. In him, all things consist.

[Manwë Súlimo]

If something could exist apart from God, then that would mean something is outside God's sovereignty. The Devil is God's Devil.

[Hamster]

Does God sustain, support, and nourish satan?

And if so, would satan vanish into nothingness or completely die and be gone, if God withdrew his support?

God can provide people with basic needs without 'supporting' what they do. When someone like Stalin or Mussolini pops up they can still breathe air and be warmed by sunlight. Satan is a being that is evil, he is not a representation or personification of "evil"

thought of something just now: In Mormonism, in every universe created by a different god, is there always a "devil" that arises in them? And do they always fall from grace?

[OtherCheek]

God can provide people with basic needs without 'supporting' what they do. When someone like Stalin or Mussolini pops up they can still breathe air and be warmed by sunlight. Satan is a being that is evil, he is not a representation or personification of "evil"

We agree that satan is an actual being. I also understand "not a representation of evil." But explain "not a personification of evil". Are you saying that evil has always been, and that satan is not the originator of the concept of evil? (I would agree with that btw)

Also, Jesus said in John 15:1-6:

Scripture Verse:

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Could you explain your understanding of what these verses mean? And could someone like Stalin or Mussolini ever be cut off from the true vine? And if so, how do they still receive sustenance, support, and nourishment from God?

thought of something just now: In Mormonism, in every universe created by a different god,

I don't even know what this supposition means.

is there always a "devil" that arises in them? And do they always fall from grace?

I don't know the answer to your question as there are so many presumptions that are not clear, except to say that evil was not a concept that originated with satan--in other words: That being we call satan is a being that is evil, but he is not the originator of the concept of evil. Evil existed independent of satan's choosing.

[RBerman]

We agree that satan is an actual being. I also understand "not a representation of evil." But explain "not a personification of evil". Are you saying that evil has always been, and that satan is not the originator of the concept of evil? (I would agree with that btw)

Some people believe that Satan is not a true person, but an anthropomorphic way of talking about the existence of evil. But Satan is an actual historic figure.

Also, Jesus said

John 15:1-6

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Could you explain your understanding of what these verses mean? And could someone like Stalin or Mussolini ever be cut off from the true vine? And if so, how do they still receive sustenance, support, and nourishment from God?

John 15 is not about whether people cease to exist. It's about (in part) whether they experience eternal punishment. If Stalin or Mussolini never professed Christian faith in the first place, then they were never "on the vine" in the first place. If they did profess such faith, they did not abide in the vine, as evidenced by their failure to follow Christ's commands, and they were cut off and have been thrown in the fire and burned. That doesn't mean they cease to exist. It means they are now experiencing God's judgment in Hell.

[Hamster]

We agree that satan is an actual being. I also understand "not a representation of evil." But explain "not a personification of evil". Are you saying that evil has always been, and that satan is not the originator of the concept of evil? (I would agree with that btw)

What RBerman said. Also that Satan isn't a polar "opposite" of God, with God being "good" and Satan being "evil"

Rberman answered the vine quote

I don't even know what this supposition means.

My understanding was that Mormons believed in a multiverse, every time someone ascends to godhood they create their own universe... is this incorrect?

I don't know the answer to your question as there are so many presumptions that are not clear, except to say that evil was not a concept that originated with satan--in other words: That being we call satan is a being that is evil, but he is not the originator of the concept of evil. Evil existed independent of satan's choosing.

I agree that evil is independent of Satan. It just means anything that opposes the will of God. So "evil" began to exist with the first sin, whatever that was. But I don't agree that 'evil has always existed' or that it will always exist. If Evil is as much a natural part of the universe as goodness (or holiness) then hating evil would only be a matter of preference.. like hating hydrogen or boron. Evil would have just as much "right" to exist as good

[OtherCheek]

Some people believe that Satan is not a true person, but an anthropomorphic way of talking about the existence of evil. But Satan is an actual historic figure.

Thanks. I just want to understand how you and other would answer some hard questions when put to you.

Explain "historic figure". Is satan an actual being that exists in our day, or only in the past?

John 15 is not about whether people cease to exist.

I don't think there is ever any case where a person, or a spirit, or an angel, or a fallen angel like the devil "ceases" or "will cease" to exist. Can you think of one?

It's about (in part) whether they experience eternal punishment.

Isn't it also about there being life only through Christ? When a branch is cut off from the vine, what happens to it? Doesn't it wither and die? What do you think it means to "die" in this manner? And in this sense of the word "death" would you say that satan is dead or alive right now?

If Stalin or Mussolini never professed Christian faith in the first place, then they were never "on the vine" in the first place. If they did profess such faith, they did not abide in the vine, as evidenced by their failure to follow Christ's commands, and they were cut off and have been thrown in the fire and burned. That doesn't mean they cease to exist. It means they are now experiencing God's judgment in Hell.

Do you think it is only God's good will and pleasure that keeps the occupants of hell eternally suffering in torment with no hope of deliverance or relief? Otherwise, what would be the ultimate greatest purpose of hell-if not for God's good will and pleasure?

Or do you rather think God derives no pleasure from what happens in hell? And if this is true, why doesn't God just annihilate hell in the end -- (assuming that can even be done?)

[Sparko]

Does God sustain, support, and nourish satan?

And if so, would satan vanish into nothingness or completely die and be gone, if God withdrew his support?

nice twist on my words, OC.

I said God sustains Satan, and I gave you the definition of "maintains existence" but rather than use that definition, you choose to use a different definition that means "nourish and support"

Very dishonest of you. Words have multiple meanings. For example, when I call you a jackass, the word "jackass" has multiple meanings.

1. A male ass or donkey.
2. A foolish or stupid person; a blockhead

So I am not calling you a male donkey. I am calling you a foolish stupid blockhead, you jackass.



When I said God sustains Satan, I meant he maintains Satan existence, allowing him to live and to still have free will. That doesn't mean that God is "nourishing" him, nor "supporting" what Satan does.

Without God sustaining everyone and everything, there would be nothing in existence but God. That doesn't make God responsible for the free will actions of his creatures.

[OtherCheek]

nice twist on my words, OC.

I said God sustains Satan, and I gave you the definition of "maintains existence" but rather than use that definition, you choose to use a different definition that means "nourish and support"

Very dishonest of you. Words have multiple meanings. For example, when I call you a jackass, the word "jackass" has multiple meanings.

1. A male ass or donkey.
2. A foolish or stupid person; a blockhead

So I am not calling you a male donkey. I am calling you a foolish stupid blockhead, you jackass.



When I said God sustains Satan, I meant he maintains Satan existence, allowing him to live and to still have free will. That doesn't mean that God is "nourishing" him, nor "supporting" what Satan does.

Without God sustaining everyone and everything, there would be nothing in existence but God. That doesn't make God responsible for the free will actions of his creatures.

Thanks, sparko, for your fine, thoughtful contributions to this thread.

I'm glad you made the distinction, then.

So, this "jackass" would next like to ask you if you think it is for God's good pleasure or for our good pleasure that people are put in hell to suffer eternally in torment, with no hope or option of release or relief or even eventual annihilation?

Or do you rather think that God derives no "good will and pleasure" over this thing called hell?

[Sparko]

Thanks, sparko, for your fine, thoughtful contributions to this thread.

I'm glad you made the distinction, then.

as I did in the original thread several times, OC.

So, this "jackass" would next like to ask you if you think it is for God's good pleasure or for our good pleasure that people are put in hell to suffer eternally in torment, with no hope or option of release or relief or even eventual annihilation?

Or do you rather think that God derives no "good will and pleasure" over this thing called hell?

Hell is for punishment and to keep those in there from those who are not. I don't think God gets pleasure from having to put anyone there. It is something necessary. And as far as the torment goes, I think it is the torment of being separated from God for eternity and having to live with their shame, not devils sticking them with hot pokers. I also think that because of their shame at rejecting God, they would be more miserable if they were in heaven having to face their shame in front of God's throne for eternity. So in the end, God gives them what they want. separation from him. a place to "hide"

as CS Lewis said:
"I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside."

[RBerman]

Thanks. I just want to understand how you and other would answer some hard questions when put to you. Explain "historic figure". Is satan an actual being that exists in our day, or only in the past?

Satan also exists in our day as well. I was using "historic figure" as opposed to "imaginary figure" like Puff the Magic Dragon, or a "mythologic figure" like King Arthur, who is based on a real man, but almost all the details we "know" about him are fictional.

I don't think there is ever any case where a person, or a spirit, or an angel, or a fallen angel like the devil "ceases" or "will cease" to exist. Can you think of one?

Nope.

Isn't it also about there being life only through Christ? When a branch is cut off from the vine, what happens to it? Doesn't it wither and die? What do you think it means to "die" in this manner? And in this sense of the word "death" would you say that satan is dead or alive right now?

John 15 is talking about professing believers who show themselves to be reprobate. They suffer the wrath of God eternally. John 15 doesn't use the word "die" for that state, though. I've never heard the term "spiritually dead" applied to Satan, but I suppose it fits OK.

Do you think it is only God's good will and pleasure that keeps the occupants of hell eternally suffering in torment with no hope of deliverance or relief? Otherwise, what would be the ultimate greatest purpose of hell-if not for God's good will and pleasure?

God does all things according to his "good pleasure," which means that he does what he wants to do. He has ordained it that once you're in Hell, the opportunity for deliverance or relief has passed.

[OtherCheek]

What RBerman said. Also that Satan isn't a polar "opposite" of God, with God being "good" and Satan being "evil"

Rberman answered the vine quote



My understanding was that Mormons believed in a multiverse, every time someone ascends to godhood they create their own universe... is this incorrect?

It's never been outlined. And so people speculate and offer their thoughts, but there is no doctrinal statement about that.

I agree that evil is independent of Satan. It just means anything that opposes the will of God. So "evil" began to exist with the first sin, whatever that was. But I don't agree that 'evil has always existed' or that it will always exist. If Evil is as much a natural part of the universe as goodness (or holiness) then hating evil would only be a matter of preference.. like hating hydrogen or boron. Evil would have just as much "right" to exist as good

Is hating 'good' a matter of preference... like hating hydrogen or boron?

Good and Evil are in moral opposition. Their existence as moral opposites necessitates choice for beings who have the power to choose---an choose they must.

There is nothing I know of in moral opposition to boron or hydrogen.

Either evil has an origin, or it doesn't. If it has an origin, then I guess that origin needs to be accounted for. Don't you think that God at least conceived of the possibility of evil and sin before the first sin ever took place?

[Hamster]

It's never been outlined. And so people speculate and offer their thoughts, but there is no doctrinal statement about that.

Okay, but it seems impossible for there to be infinite gods in finite space, especially if they all have bodies

Is hating 'good' a matter of preference... like hating hydrogen or boron?

Good and Evil are in moral opposition. Their existence as moral opposites necessitates choice for beings who have the power to choose---an choose they must.
[/quote]

What makes evil bad and what makes good, good? If they just exist independent of anyone's judgment? If 'Evil' is just as old and just as natural as 'good,' why do I have a right to oppress evil? 'Evil' is older than the heavenly father himself.

Either evil has an origin, or it doesn't. If it has an origin, then I guess that origin needs to be accounted for. Don't you think that God at least conceived of the possibility of evil and sin before the first sin ever took place?

Sure. When he creates free creatures with the ability to disobey him, they can perform "evil".. which is disobeying God

[OtherCheek]

Satan also exists in our day as well. I was using "historic figure" as opposed to "imaginary figure" like Puff the Magic Dragon, or a "mythologic figure" like King Arthur, who is based on a real man, but almost all the details we "know" about him are fictional.


Nope.

Thanks.

John 15 is talking about professing believers who show themselves to be reprobate. They suffer the wrath of God eternally. John 15 doesn't use the word "die" for that state, though. I've never heard the term "spiritually dead" applied to Satan, but I suppose it fits OK.

OK.

But, isn't Jesus also the true vine for every person born to the earth--whether he is a professing believer or not at a given moment? Doesn't everyone who wants to be saved, eventually need to be 'grafted in' to the true vine in order to have eternal life? I know the Bible doesn't use the term "grafted" in connection with the vine, but it does with reference to an olive tree. (see Romans 11:16-26). And it fits with the true vine imagery as well the olive tree. How else can a person who is not a believer become a believer and be saved unless he is metaphorically "grafted in" to the true vine, like the believing Gentiles are?

God does all things according to his "good pleasure," which means that he does what he wants to do. He has ordained it that once you're in Hell, the opportunity for deliverance or relief has passed.

Common sense indicates that suffering often leads to repentance. I submit that there is no good will or pleasure in endless suffering for those who have had enough suffering and who plead for mercy. And who would submit to conditions for deliverance from that suffering.