Why Does God Suffer Satan?

[RedEye]

Many Christians will say that Satan is actively messing in the affairs of humankind, leading people away from the path of righteousness and seducing them into sin and immoral behaviour.

I have often wondered why God allows this. Some say that it is all part of God's plan and that there will be a final reckoning sometime in the future where Satan is defeated. The problem is that an omnipotent God does not need tactics or a battle plan. Plans are only required if you have a difficult opponent who you cannot overpower easily. God does not have that issue. He has the ultimate superpower. He can just will Satan out of existence. No devious scheme is required when you are omnipotent.

So the questions are these. Why doesn't God just get it over and done with and zap Satan into oblivion? Does God have a purpose in having Satan around to seduce God's children into wickedness? What could that purpose be? (No "God works in mysterious ways" responses please).

[Danmark]

Then what is the point, from a believer's perspective, of the existence of a Satan?

If evil is simply man's exercise of free will in ways God does not approve, then there is no need for the invention of 'Satan.'
'Satan' was invented to try and solve the conundrum of the existence of evil in light of an all powerful 'god.' In other words the fantasy of a 'Satan' was an invention made necessary by the invention of the fantasy of a perfect all powerful God.

I believe that the point of any being's existence is to bring glory to God and to freely join in on the community of love with God and others. That is the point of Satan's existence. Satan did not live up to that purpose. I think we see that in Ezekiel 28.

So no being [except your God] has any point or purpose but "to bring glory to God?"
In other words, 'there is no purpose except to glorify God.' So God himself has no purpose? And we have no purpose either, except in respect to a god who has no purpose?

It looks like you overlooked the bold part. Also, remember that I gave this response in the context of what the purpose of Satan being created was. Satan is a created being with free will. Since I would answer the same for all created free will beings, I answered your question in a general way. As God was not created, this question would not apply to Him. You could still ask God's purpose, but it would have to be 'purpose' in a different sense. What do you mean, then, when you ask what I think God's purpose is?

Adding "to freely join in on the community of love with God and others" does not change anything. It simply adds an arbitrary value assessment. One could apply the 'community of love' label to anything: 'What is the purpose of a garden slug? Its purpose is to to freely join in on the community of love with the slug and others.'

IOW, yours is a declaration of faith that this particular 'god' or object or being is somehow special. The rationalist is not impressed. He recognizes that the anthropology of religion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion , provides a logical description and explanation for the emergence of religion in ALL human cultures.
In what may be the single greatest example of human credulity, the religionist says, "How incredibly fortunate I was to be born into the one religion in 100,000 that actually has a REAL God backing up its belief system."

[The Tanager]

That is a post hoc rationalisation. What was God's purpose in creating humans in the first place?

I still have the same answer. God created humans to have the possibility of joining in on God's love. This means joining God in wanting others to join in this community. That comes through them realizing what God can bring to their life, which our glorifying of God helps to provide.

A caring and loving parent does whatever they can to alleviate pain, sorrow and suffering. The sort of suffering that humans have to endure goes well beyond any alleged lessons to be learnt. God is guilty of negligence and indifference and does not warrant any glorification.

Some pains, sorrows, and sufferings my kids will experience will come as a result of my kids' choices in life. I would have to negate their free wills to protect them from them all. I do not want robotic kids. Some pains, sorrows, and sufferings my kids will experience will come as a result of other people's kids' choices. To keep those from happening I would have to negate their free wills. That means negating anyone's free will that results in a bad thing. That is getting rid of everyone's freedom. I do not think a loving being, in this case God, should want robotic kids. There is a better option.

[The Tanager]

Adding "to freely join in on the community of love with God and others" does not change anything. It simply adds an arbitrary value assessment. One could apply the 'community of love' label to anything: 'What is the purpose of a garden slug? Its purpose is to to freely join in on the community of love with the slug and others.'

I was asked what I thought God's purpose was in creating humans, not garden slugs. This part of my answer is the central part of my answer, not something just added onto something else. God could have had a different reason and, if He had, reality would look differently. I'm not really sure what the problem is you are raising here.

IOW, yours is a declaration of faith that this particular 'god' or object or being is somehow special. The rationalist is not impressed. He recognizes that the anthropology of religion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion , provides a logical description and explanation for the emergence of religion in ALL human cultures.
In what may be the single greatest example of human credulity, the religionist says, "How incredibly fortunate I was to be born into the one religion in 100,000 that actually has a REAL God backing up its belief system."

Anthropology provides evidence to apply philosophical thinking towards just like theology does. To take either blindly is a mistake. We must take into account all the various theories and evidences. Also, it is demonstrably false that all "religionists" are born into their belief system.

[Danmark]

Anthropology provides evidence to apply philosophical thinking towards just like theology does. To take either blindly is a mistake. We must take into account all the various theories and evidences. Also, it is demonstrably false that all "religionists" are born into their belief system.

"Blindly?" What is 'blind' about simply using evidence of man's existence and his thousands of inventions of various gods? That is simply acceptance of history, of facts.
NOW, to take one of these imagined superheroes as an actual being just because one of the 100,000 traditions says 'it is so,' THAT is blindness.

You are comparing theology, the study of imagined gods, with actual history/anthropology; fields that can be studied objectively not the guesses about what people have imagined.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 92 by The Tanager]

Some pains, sorrows, and sufferings my kids will experience will come as a result of my kids' choices in life. I would have to negate their free wills to protect them from them all. I do not want robotic kids. Some pains, sorrows, and sufferings my kids will experience will come as a result of other people's kids' choices.

Most pain and suffering is not a consequence of choices made by the people involved. You provide food, water, shelter and other basic needs to the best of your ability. It's not through choice that people don't have the necessities of life. The God you glorify essentially made humans and then abandoned them. He has all the attributes of an uncaring parent who is unwilling to accept responsibility for the children he produced.

[The Tanager]

"Blindly?" What is 'blind' about simply using evidence of man's existence and his thousands of inventions of various gods? That is simply acceptance of history, of facts.

My point (and I wasn't trying to imply you would disagree, although you might) was that anthropology alone gets us nowhere. All evidence must be interpreted. Anthropologists (like any scientist) very often make philosophical claims based off the evidence that may or may not be sound.

NOW, to take one of these imagined superheroes as an actual being just because one of the 100,000 traditions says 'it is so,' THAT is blindness.

That is blindness. I, and many other Christians, do not do this.

You are comparing theology, the study of imagined gods, with actual history/anthropology; fields that can be studied objectively not the guesses about what people have imagined.

I'm not saying theology is a science. I'm saying everything gets interpreted philosophically.

[The Tanager]

Most pain and suffering is not a consequence of choices made by the people involved. You provide food, water, shelter and other basic needs to the best of your ability. It's not through choice that people don't have the necessities of life. The God you glorify essentially made humans and then abandoned them. He has all the attributes of an uncaring parent who is unwilling to accept responsibility for the children he produced.

That not everyone in this world has enough food, water, shelter and other basic needs of life is because of the free will actions of humans. We horde things and exploit and extort people for our benefit. We buy a bigger TV because that one from 2 years ago just isn't good enough. We spend more on Christmas (to honor Jesus?) then it would take to provide clean drinking water for everyone in the world.

To keep all of this from happening requires God to negate free will. You aren't saying anything about that point. Do you think free will is not a good? Do you think a robotic life is better? Do you think free will would not have to be negated? That's the point you should be addressing your challenge at.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 97 by The Tanager]

Of course, the typical excuse. Everything bad is the fault of humans. Not everyone does nothing. Only your God does NOTHING.

[Danmark]

"Blindly?" What is 'blind' about simply using evidence of man's existence and his thousands of inventions of various gods? That is simply acceptance of history, of facts.

My point (and I wasn't trying to imply you would disagree, although you might) was that anthropology alone gets us nowhere. All evidence must be interpreted. Anthropologists (like any scientist) very often make philosophical claims based off the evidence that may or may not be sound.

Can you give an example of a leading anthropologist who who makes an "unsound philosophical claim" based on actual evidence? In general scientists, including social scientists, simply observe. They don't make 'philosophical' claims at all (within their field). They, assuming they have sufficient data, may make generalizations about that data that have widespread applications in the field.

Taking the anthropology of religion as an example, the anthropologist merely makes general descriptive claims about observations of man's religious beliefs and systems, trying to find general claims that may fit many or all religions.

For example mile Durkheim considered religion "a projection of the social values of society," "a means of making symbolic statements about society," "a symbolic language that makes statements about the social order"; in short, "religion is society worshiping itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

Clifford Geertz wrote that religion is
(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
ibid
Both of these generalizations are reasonable observations based on objective data. What the 'true believer' does is very different; he and she actually make claims that go beyond what can be observed as they make specific claims about the symbols actually representing reality. Thus the anthropologist merely observes and generalizes while the religionist speculates that his or her favorite symbol actually represents unverifiable reality.

[Danmark]

[duplicate removed]