posted
I know I've mentioned it a couple times, but for those of you who don't yet know, I'm a bit of a fan of the guy. I can't understand why he's always depicted as the bad guy.
The bit in the Garden of Eden, especially. How could Satan possibly be the villain in that story? God gives us "free will," then castrates it by denying us the knowledge we need to act on that free will. Satan does no more than convince us to learn -- and for that crime humanity is exiled from Paradise?
The rebellion in Heaven could conceivably be disloyalty -- but is Satan's rebellion disloyalty to a friend or disloyalty to a tyrant? God's pretty clearly got a control fetish -- even among the angels, God arranged them in set caste systems to determine the value of each angel based on their race. Which brings us to the question as to why an omnipotent god has such a fetish for creating inferior creatures -- surely any omnipotent god would be able to create another omnipotent deity? Surely any omniscient god would recognize the importance of having an equal? Even Satan wasn't God's equal -- as powerful as he supposedly is, he's still only the number 1 angel, not God's equal or friend.
I include "friend" there because if God has the power to create an equal, and chooses to create a lesser being instead, that being is a "pet," an inferior, not a friend.
I've yet to see how God's at all redeemed for Her ridiculous need for control. To tie the angels back with the Garden, She needed to control the human race, giving Adam and Eve free will but providing only the information She wanted them to know. That's pretty despicable, isn't it? Wasn't Satan doing the right thing by fighting back against such a tyrant? Wouldn't you or I do the same?
In Milton's Paradise Lost, Satan is provided with one of my all-time favorite quotes. "Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." To me, that summarizes the philosophy Satan's fought for all his life -- better to live independent and free than to bend the knee as the acknowledged pet of whatever god chooses to make pets and control their lives with an iron fist.
Of course, I may be projecting my own philosophy on the guy, but from what I've seen, Satan's a pretty admirable guy. What crime has he ever committed? What has he done to be portrayed as the red hooved villain with a pitchfork? To be exiled from some idiot hick town in Florida? To be universally despised by the species he set free from the shackles of ignorance? I've never understood this, and I'd love it if someone could help me find a reason why Satan shouldn't be worshipped. Let alone why Yahweh should.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And forgive this if it's a bit disconnected, I'm feeling a bit light-headed. I'm going to exercise a bit -- be back in a few.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with Lewis' arguments are that they preach to the choir -- if you're already convinced of Christianity, you'll nod enthusiastically, and if you're not, you won't.
I think he's one of the best Christian apologists I've read, but I usually remain fairly unconvinced by his writing. Though I'll take a look at the books you're recommending, is it that difficult to come up with a reason why Satan's a villain?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can come up with them - it's articulating them that's difficult.
However, the problem will be that at it's core, I see nothing wrong with the idea of "inferior" creatures per se.
Perelandra is Lewis's fictional take on the fall - it presents things in the narrative that I'm not sure can be expressed directly. If you've read his other apologetics, I'd start there.
Meanwhile, I'll see if I can put together a coherent explanation of my own. No promises - this issue is at the heart of Christian doctrine and has been discussed by far better minds than mine.
posted
Fascinating way of looking at things. I grew up learning that the devil piles bad things on people and that GOD LETS HIM. That always bothered me. That bad things didn't have to happen, and for God to stand aside and do nothing. For example, the Job story. Am I the only one bothered by that story? The way Job goes through hell, boils, loses his family just because of a bet between God and the Devil. It gets under my skin completely, Especially since Job is loyal and righteous. Why should he have to suffer like that?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh. Perelandra. Wonderful book. Wonderful trilogy. *goes off to read them while thanking her lucky stars for a good friend like Annie*
Seriously folks, those three books are wonderful. And if we're talking about Satan, I put my vote in for the Screwtape letters as the book of the month. EVERYONE should read that book IMO. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've never understood this, and I'd love it if someone could help me find a reason why Satan shouldn't be worshipped. Let alone why Yahweh should.
In the end, what does Satan want for you, in your opinion? And also in the end and in your opinion, what does God want for you?
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, If you are applauding the efforts of Satan, then apparently you believe he/she/it exists (Satan, that is), which of course would mean you have to believe that God exists, since He created Satan (from the only record we have of such) -- and I thought you were firmly against the existence of God whatsoever..?? If you don't think God exists, then your whole point is moot, because then Satan wouldn't either..
posted
Judging from their performances in the Garden of Eden? God wants pets. Satan wants freedom for all, not just himself and the angels. It's pretty damn selfless of Satan, isn't it?
I can see how the story can be warped to say Satan's taking revenge on God by freeing Adam and Eve, not doing it for the sake of their liberty. But not only is that inconsistent with Satan's philosophy (as shown in his rebellion against tyranny), it's ascribing evil motives to a good act. If I were to volunteer at an orphanage right now, sure, you could say I'm doing it to one-up you -- and you may even have some small element of the truth in there -- but more likely than not I'm out to do good, especially if I have a history of volunteer service.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lalo, If you are applauding the efforts of Satan, then apparently you believe he/she/it exists (Satan, that is), which of course would mean you have to believe that God exists, since He created Satan (from the only record we have of such) -- and I thought you were firmly against the existence of God whatsoever..?? If you don't think God exists, then your whole point is moot, because then Satan wouldn't either..
FG
Farmgirl, this doesn't logically follow. Does every person you know who believes in a god necessarily believe in a devil? Are the two necessarily intertwined?
And for the record, I'm highly skeptical of the existences of gods or demons. I'm not "firmly against the existence of God." I'm actually rather hopeful that there are gods out there willing to grant me Paradise -- and in this case, it looks as though Satan's Hell is a far better Paradise than Yahweh's Heaven. At least in terms of dignity, liberty, and equality.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what's so good about dignity, liberty, and equality? Why not prefer humility, servitude, and nobility?
Satan's is a philosophy of arrogance - the sort of philosophy that would lead young children to run away from home, thinking they are better off running their own lives. I tend to think it's not a very wise way to think.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my learning, the serpent in the garden is not Lucifer but is a servant of God who's task was to test mankind. The same temptor in the garden is the same man who set about to make Job miserable for a while. How else would he have concert with God in heaven?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Primal has an excellent point.....I have had this discussion with many others before---Satan is supposed to be a creation of God, yet god does no evil. How can this be so....
So, Satan is either a servant of god to test mankind or he is an equal of god to be his foil--the opposite of god.
I'd say he's a servant: Satan was one of his angels...
Mind you--I almost wrote a story about this--about Satan not really being all that bad--that he was cruel, but only to those who deserved it and was fair. In this story, a person was murdered as sacrfice to Satan, but since she was unwilling, A)he had no rights to her soul and B) it was an unfair sacrifice. So essentially, satan becomes a human for a short time to teach these "minions" a lesson and to save their next victim.
I was 15 when I came up with this idea. Then I turned 16 and got a job, and let my sister write an inferior version.
Grant you, I don't believe in Satan, or the Christian god. I'm an eclectic pagan who believes in A God and A Goddess, or rather the forces of masculine and feminine that make up the world. Evil exists only to justify Good, to keep the world in balance.
I do, however, like making up good vs. evil tales, sometimes with a Christian theme just because it's easy for me to do.
And Lalo--that thing about the idiots in the Florida hicktown---what a riot! They did all this stuff to expell "witchcraft" from their town and didn't even realize they cast a spell themselves. Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
::notes that no Biblical verse names Lucifer as a name of Satan - Lucifer is a word in translation referring to the 'morning star', and only appears once in the KJV Bible, In Isaiah, in reference to the King of Babylon::
And, in Job, the being is referred to in the original texts as 'the satan', with the article - not as a proper name, but as a description or title. Interesting...)
posted
In response to that--correct me if I'm wrong---wasn't Satan a title of an infiltrator, or someone sent by the ruler to come in and rile up the up the people to start a rebellion so the ruler could crush it, therefore further showing his power.
These guys dent by the ruler were called "Sataans."
And for the life of me---I don't know where I heard this or even if I'm right....I'm thinking it was something a former Hatracker told me, but I can't be sure.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Are you a fan of Satan because Satan "gave" us freedom (he didn't), or because he opposed the Christian God and gave us freedom? Your entire premise is based on the idea that if something good is done, the motive doesn't make a difference, it's still good and the doer should be lauded.
An example. I'm a mobster with lots of laundered money on my hands. I need to clean it up, hide some of it, and outright get rid of the rest of it. I've also got a bit of a guilty conscience, as well as a sense of noblesse oblige. So I give millions to build better schools across my state. Sure, it's a good thing. But why was it done? The same question should be asked of Satan. Sure, you did a good thing, and I'm grateful (and I am, I'm arrogant enough to prefer freedom and flaws and suffering to innocent bliss, at least while I know the innocent bliss isn't available ) for it, but why did you do it?
Many if not all Christians believe that Satan did it not because he loved and respected humanity and its future, but because he wanted to stick it to God. You're implying he did it out of some sense of justice and popular sovereignty of the soul. The mistake you make is that you're looking at the story of the Garden of Eden, changing Satan's motives, and then criticizing Christians for criticizing Satan. You're criticizing Christians for beliefs they simply don't have.
Now, knowing your scorn for organized religion in general and Christianity in particular, I'm not very surprised at this. But it's still a mistake. Christians do not believe Satan does things out of respect for humanity, they believe he does things out of envy of humanity's place in God's plan, and so tries to make them fall at every turn. One needs only look at the world around us, from a Christian's perspective, and respect his at least partial success.
quote:The bit in the Garden of Eden, especially. How could Satan possibly be the villain in that story? God gives us "free will," then castrates it by denying us the knowledge we need to act on that free will. Satan does no more than convince us to learn -- and for that crime humanity is exiled from Paradise?
Satan can easily be the villain in that story, depending on his motive. His motive is pretty clearly given in the Bible, but you're not mentioning it here.
quote:But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Seems to be some misdirection there, don't you think? The part about, "Ye shall not surely die," is pretty straightforward. God said if you eat this fruit you will die, that is not live forever. Satan contradicted this by lying, saying you won't die if you eat this fruit. Now I suppose next you could say that Satan had so much respect for the freedom of humanity that he lied to the innocent Eve for her own good.
I don't need to tell you what I think of that kind of argument, do I? Satan didn't "convince" Eve to learn.
quote:God's pretty clearly got a control fetish...
Clearly.
quote:Which brings us to the question as to why an omnipotent god has such a fetish for creating inferior creatures -- surely any omnipotent god would be able to create another omnipotent deity?
Of course, if you would do it it naturally follows that God would do it, right? Not all Christians believe God has the power to create another equal God. But don't let that stop you from criticizing Christians for not criticizing God for doing something many of them believe is impossible or irrational or unneccessary.
quote:I've yet to see how God's at all redeemed for Her ridiculous need for control. To tie the angels back with the Garden, She needed to control the human race, giving Adam and Eve free will but providing only the information She wanted them to know. That's pretty despicable, isn't it? Wasn't Satan doing the right thing by fighting back against such a tyrant? Wouldn't you or I do the same?
Christians have this little thing they call the New Testament. Check into it.
quote:In Milton's Paradise Lost, Satan is provided with one of my all-time favorite quotes. "Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." To me, that summarizes the philosophy Satan's fought for all his life -- better to live independent and free than to bend the knee as the acknowledged pet of whatever god chooses to make pets and control their lives with an iron fist.
Milton isn't scripture. And if God (your use of her is so clever) has a control fetish, can do anything, and desperately wants humanity under her thumb...why doesn't she just undo the whole Fruit thing? You say God likes pets better than less powerful but potentially wise creatures. So why doesn't God just make more pets? Unless God can't...which begs the question, "What else can't God do?"
quote:Of course, I may be projecting my own philosophy on the guy...
Hmmm, maybe.
quote:I think he's one of the best Christian apologists I've read, but I usually remain fairly unconvinced by his writing. Though I'll take a look at the books you're recommending, is it that difficult to come up with a reason why Satan's a villain?
How can you be knowledgeable enough to have that opinion when you haven't read his premier works on the nature of Christianity?
quote:I can see how the story can be warped to say Satan's taking revenge on God by freeing Adam and Eve, not doing it for the sake of their liberty. But not only is that inconsistent with Satan's philosophy (as shown in his rebellion against tyranny), it's ascribing evil motives to a good act.
Fortunately we have you to level the playing field, thus presenting a clear and unbiased account of what went on before humanity existed. What a relief! Christians believe that what's said in the Bible about Satan's motives is accurate...and you're condemning them for not thinking his motives are contrary to their Scripture!
You know from Milton (not scripture) that Satan was rebelling against tyranny. But just because you're not the boss doesn't mean you're being oppressed. That is at the core of the quote you used. It's better to be king of my own land than serve someone I don't like. It makes no mention of whether or not the previous master is unjust, it simply speaks to ambition.
If you're going to attack a belief, stay within the bounds of that belief. Don't go inserting your own beliefs into the belief you're attacking as a means to belittle that belief.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And, in Job, the being is referred to in the original texts as 'the satan', with the article - not as a proper name, but as a description or title. Interesting...
Likely because Judaism doesn't believe in a Satan, an independent entity; rather there are prosecutors (that's what "satan" -- actually pronounced sah-tahn -- means), angels appointed by God to do that job.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe Job goes through hell, boils, and losing his family because God knows that millions of other people will be comforted and given the strength to go on from Job's story. That's what I choose to believe at least.
There are so many instances in the Bible that one could point to in order to illustrate how "evil" God is, why do people always choose Job?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: even among the angels, God arranged them in set caste systems to determine the value of each angel based on their race.
I'm fairly certain that although this is the doctrine of some churches, there's nothing in the Bible that says it. Scripture really gives very little information about angels or demons, either one.
Lately the notion has come to my mind that God created beings less powerful and knowledgeable than himself so that they could have the experience of growth--which, if you think for a moment, you'll realize is something God can't do, if he is already all-powerful and all-knowing. In that light, Satan's temptation of humans suggests an attitude of "Who cares about growth? Hand me the goodies now!" However, I admit that I haven't had time to put the idea through a rigorous testing just yet.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which brings us to the question as to why an omnipotent god has such a fetish for creating inferior creatures -- surely any omnipotent god would be able to create another omnipotent deity? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, if you would do it it naturally follows that God would do it, right? Not all Christians believe God has the power to create another equal God. But don't let that stop you from criticizing Christians for not criticizing God for doing something many of them believe is impossible or irrational or unneccessary.
Good lord, Jeff. (That may be a pun.)
Calm the hell down. (That was almost certainly a pun.)
There's no need to get so angry. I'm not anti-religion, nor would I scorn Christianity in particular if I were anti-religion.
I'm going to get around to your argument come Saturday, or Sunday at the latest. That goes for the rest of you dudes, too -- I'm too wiped to do anything right now, and I have tomorrow booked.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maccabeus, why would God value growth? How can it be valuable if it is something alien to God, when God is the epitome of all that is good?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eddie, have you been reading Lucifer, the Vertigo comic book?
Seriously, while an argument can be made that some kind of rebellion against God could be noble -- or even encouraged by God as a necessary part of his plan, as the comic suggests -- speculating on the motives of Satan as described in scripture is going to wind up extra-scriptural. In other words, people are going to assign him the attributes that make the most sense for the story they want to tell. *shrug*
posted
ae, growth as I am using it here is by definition "getting better". If God is the epitome of all that is good, how can he not value improvement?
Perhaps we have a paradox here...I'm not sure.
However, it sounds as though you may be confusing moral good with...um...experiential good. God is absolutely good in a moral sense, but there are "good experiences" which precisely because of his various perfections he cannot have. Many of them have to do with improving oneself, but not all; for instance, if God's omniscience does in fact mean he knows all of the future in detail (of which I am unsure), then he cannot be pleasantly surprised.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eddie, are you familiar with the Gnostic take on Yahweh and the serpent? If not you might find it interesting.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be a Satanist, only if I got to be Satan.
Otherwise, why worship the Horny Dude. I mean, according to your favorite quote, Satan "Would rather lead in hell than serve in heaven". Since there is only room for 1 leader, that means Satan's choices for us are not whether to lead or follow, but whether to serve in Heaven or serve in Hell.
Heaven has a nicer view supposedly.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Before creation, all the spirits that ever were and would be existed without bodies, and to my understanding, without any kind of physical form. Though they existed, there was no progress of any kind-- the spirits could not learn or grow because they were in the direct presence of God.
God saw this, and so He made a plan. He called a council in Heaven, which all the spirits attended. At this council, He put forth His plan: That He would create a world, and that the spirits would be born there, and given bodies. Because they would be in physical form, and because they would no longer be in the prescence of God, they would have the chance to progress and to learn. There would also be the chance that they would make mistakes, though, and because God loved them He would send a Redeemer to save the world. At this point, there came the dispute. There were two candidates for the position of Redeemer. Lucifer and Jesus.
Lucifer offered to go to earth as the Redeemer, and promised to force all men to obey God's commandments, and that every soul would return to Heaven. But Lucifer also said that if he was sent to fulfill that role, he would take all the glory for himself.
Jesus, however, took up the position of free will, saying that He would save anyone who would follow Him, by example and not by force. He would go and give all glory to God.
In the dispute one third of all Heaven chose Lucifer, and the other half sided with Jesus. God then cast out Lucifer and his followers from Heaven. The ones who followed Lucifer did not recieve bodies and could never progress spiritually.
Then in the garden of Eden, Lucifer had power over a serpent and tempted Eve. The LDS perspective is again somewhat unconventional regarding this story.
Though Lucifer was gone from Heaven and could never have a physical form, he did have some power. One such power was to tempt, although we are told that Satan can never tempt beyond a person's ability to resist. God could certainly have stopped Satan from tempting Eve, but it was in God's plan for Eve and Adam to gain the knowledge of Good and Evil. Why, then, would God forbid them to eat of the tree? It's my own opinion that they were being tested as to which law they would follow (because without knowledge of good and evil, they would never do as they had been commanded, to reproduce and fill the earth). Satan, in this case, was an unwitting instrument in the hands of God. Though he sought to bring Eve down to his fallen state, he instead caused her to choose was ended up being the higher law-- rather than have free will in permanent ignorance, Eve and Adam lived with pain and hardship, and became stronger than they ever would have been in the garden.
So how do I look at Satan? It's hard to say. For a long time, I feared him as the one being that really, truly wanted me to come to utter nothingness. I despised him, also, as the instigator of a great deal of suffering.
More recently I have come to understand more fully that in the case of Satan causing suffering, it's really not so much Satan making people sin as it is people choosing to sin because Satan makes it look attractive to them. I began to not hate Satan, though I still feared him. And then I read a certain scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants (LDS scripture) section 76, verses 25 through 27:
quote:25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an aangel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,
26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.
27 And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!"
To me, that really did something strange to me-- for the first time, I really pitied Satan. It's hard to explain, but I did. I couldn't look at him anymore without seeing just how low he was and how weak and pathetic. So although I don't feel that Satan was more righteous than God, or that he had any kind of benvolence, I feel a great amount of pity for him.
Posts: 1744 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole point of Satan is that he's supposed to represent pure evil and God pure good.
But as real 'people', we reach a problem. No one is ever all evil (or at least has reasonable motives, or madness), and no one is all good, so if Satan and God are 'people', they cannot be absolutes.
But is that the point, the fact that God and Satan represent impossibilities...
Oh dear. I'm obviously not a theorist.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Robespierre said: Atheism is the only logically consistent exit from this argument.
Wrong – atheism is the way to change the premises so the argument doesn’t exist. While the result is logically consistent, it would still be wrong if God exists. Logic is a set of operations that may be applied to a set of rules and “facts.” The following is logically consistent:
1. All human beings are mammals. 2. All mammals are red. 3. All human beings are red.
It also happens to be factually false, because not all mammals are red. But it is logically consistent.
There is no inherent contradiction or logical paradox in an omnipotent/omniscient entirely good God allowing evil to exist. To put it simply, if individual free will is a good, and if evil arises from the misuse of free will, then evil can exist because tolerating it enables a greater good to exist.
Of course, if you use a simplistic definition of omnipotent, then this argument won’t suffice. However, any true definition of omnipotence suggests that omnipotence enables the possessor to do anything, but does not enable the possessor to do mutually exclusive things. For example, an omnipotent being could not make me be an only child and have a twin brother at the same time. If true freedom requires the ability to make any choice the chooser is physically capable of carrying out, then evil choices must be allowed.
I realize this does not address the question of whether or not there is a God – it simply points out that the existence of an omnipotent/omniscient entirely good God is not precluded by the seeming paradox caused by the existence of evil.
This is a much simpler argument to answer than the one posed by Lalo. Answering that question involves investigating why individual free will is a good and why, if it is a good of such magnitude as to tolerate the existence of evil, obedience to rules was set as a condition of Paradise.
Does it bother you that in all of christianity, there exists no measurable quantities? No objective way to determine the truth of the basic beliefs? This is my biggest problem. If there were some data, and the only dispute was in its interpretation, then fine. But there is zero observable data that there exists a God or a Satan or whatever else. No evidence for a supernatural has ever been found.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No objective evidence, perhaps (although I might debate even that); many people (including me) have experienced quite a bit of subjective evidence. Not everyone is open to such evidence.
Does it not disturb you that all existence may be random and purposeless? That your very finite lifetime may leave no permanent imprint?
To the extent that my beliefs are a conscious choice, I choose purpose and eternity. "Objective" evidence is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why not prefer humility, servitude, and nobility?
The noble slave, eh? Step'n Fetchit?
Rivka,
quote:No objective evidence, perhaps (although I might debate even that); many people (including me) have experienced quite a bit of subjective evidence. Not everyone is open to such evidence.
Does it not disturb you that all existence may be random and purposeless? That your very finite lifetime may leave no permanent imprint?
To the extent that my beliefs are a conscious choice, I choose purpose and eternity. "Objective" evidence is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Here's a question: How is a religious life any less purposeless (more purposeful--is that a word?) than an atheistic life?
When one dies, should one ascend to heaven, then what? Is it your purpose to worship God for all eternity? It would be incorrect to state that religious people (and only religious people) fulfil God's purpose through beneficent acts while here on Earth, since Atheists, Wiccans, and heathens of all numerations and denominations do so as well (if not better than...)
And what do you get to experience for eternity? Basking in the eternal glory of God? How long can that orgasm last for before you start to get all twitchy and jittery? Proclaiming God's eternal glory? You'd think he'd have that one figured out by now (talk about low self-esteem!).
And I'm so glad that we can all discard objective proof. It can get soooo annoying at times to have to base beliefs on actual, observable data.
Much better if we can make it all up, always go on hunches, and say that whatever we feel in our hearts to be true is true.
Subjectivity is fine--within limits. I would not want to give up on art, or music, for instance. But I'm an engineer--would you like to fly in an airplane designed purely by subjective reasoning (an oxymoron, if you ask me), or a vehicular bridge built solely because "well...it looks like it should hold up."
Subjective evidence? Something is true because some minimum number of people believe that it is true? Is Allah the One True God because there are more Muslims than Christians? Will a thrown ball travel purely horizontally until it slows down enough, and then plummet straight down just because 74% of people questioned believe that's how it works?
Or is it just true for the individual? In which case, you (not "you," personnaly--more "vous" than "tu") shouldn't be trying to convince other people of your belief--you should be trying to find a way to get them to experience the same subjective evidence. If you try and convince someone of your belief, then you're appealing to objective data (your belief), instead of subjective belief, which unfortunately would acknowledge the superiority of objective data (which you state is "irrelevant and unnecessary") over subjective data.
Final question: can we just respond subjectively from now on? Throw objectivity out the window? I wait with bated breath.
He is a liar from the beginning. He doesn't do things for our good, but to make us miserable. He promises the moon, but delivers us mud. Even in the garden of Eden he promised knowledge of Good and Evil so that he could destroy us by making sure we don't choose the Good. He wanted to make sure we COULD sin so that he could be the oppressor using our own weaknesses. Luckily, God used him and his arrogance for a higher purpose; doing what God could not do -- tempt.
And he didn't rebel against God to help us get away from a tyrant. He rebelled against God to take God's place and force people to obey him. If you want to take pot-shots at God you could say the battle was between two tyrants, not a tyrant and a freedom fighter.
What has Satan done that is wrong? He is the reason for hate, death, and hell. You can again take a pot-shot at God and say that God is allowing evil to exist, but it is still Satan that is the author of that evil.
You want to know why you wouldn't want to worship Satan? For the same reason you wouldn't want to worship Hitler; and I am not using him as hyperbole.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:ssywak said: The noble slave, eh? Step'n Fetchit?
A slave is subjected to authority unwillingly. You’re not equating unwilling humility, servitude, and nobility with willing, are you?
quote:ssywak said: Will a thrown ball travel purely horizontally until it slows down enough, and then plummet straight down just because 74% of people questioned believe that's how it works?
There’s a difference between the objective/subjective distinction as it applies to evidence compared to how it applies to truth. Objective evidence is suitable for application to the natural world, not the supernatural (meant literally as “above nature”).
You are taking it on faith that because thrown balls have accelerated downward at 32 ft/sec/sec since we began measuring it that they will do so in the future. My belief in that it will do so is based on an overriding faith that the Universe was created by a rational Creator.
What is your belief that a thrown ball will travel in a shape approximating a parabola based on? There is no objective proof that the laws which govern the motion of bodies will not change tomorrow. Despite this lack of proof, you have arbitrarily decided to believe that physical laws are constant. Extrapolating from what you have said, you have chosen to believe that all the accounts of miracles from essentially all cultures are based on either deception or delusion.
There is no way to logically go from an objectively provable set of statements to any proposition about how a person should behave. No ethical system can be founded purely on objective evidence. By insisting on objectivity as the sole judgment criteria, you are precluding any kind of morality.
quote:Robespierre said: Does it bother you that in all of christianity, there exists no measurable quantities? No objective way to determine the truth of the basic beliefs? This is my biggest problem. If there were some data, and the only dispute was in its interpretation, then fine. But there is zero observable data that there exists a God or a Satan or whatever else. No evidence for a supernatural has ever been found.
No, it doesn’t bother me. I would not expect evidence of supernatural phenomena to be of the same type as evidence of natural phenomena. There are accounts of people who have observed God’s work directly. Why is their evidence harder to accept than written accounts of the Battle of Chalons?
quote:What is your belief that a thrown ball will travel in a shape approximating a parabola based on? There is no objective proof that the laws which govern the motion of bodies will not change tomorrow. Despite this lack of proof, you have arbitrarily decided to believe that physical laws are constant. Extrapolating from what you have said, you have chosen to believe that all the accounts of miracles from essentially all cultures are based on either deception or delusion.
There is no way to logically go from an objectively provable set of statements to any proposition about how a person should behave. No ethical system can be founded purely on objective evidence. By insisting on objectivity as the sole judgment criteria, you are precluding any kind of morality.
There is no objective (or subjective) proof that God's laws of morality which govern today will not change tomorrow. Despite this lack of proof, you have arbitrarily decided to believe that God's moral laws are constant. Especially when God is omnipotent, and therefore not bound by any laws of constraints which people may seek to impose on Him (Her). God could change what is right, and what is wrong, even as we sit here debating.
Therefore, based on what you have said, you are also precluding any sort of morality. But because you base you morality on a subjective--and inherently unproveable--belief system, you have no real way of determining right from wrong independently of either ancient written scripture or more recent interpretations by religious officials (Rabbis, Mullahs, the Pope, etc.). Since you accept that they are in contact with God as much as if not more so than you, if they say that morality has changed (such as "Pederasty is now OK"), who are you to argue?
Do you prefer to live in a universe that can change right out from under you? If that's religion, my friend, I'll take objective atheism (or, if you must--agnosticism) any day.
What you now espouse is what I have, many times in the recent past, predicted is the path that these arguments typically take.
When "subjective" belief (such as yours) is challenged by an objectivist (such as myself), the person with the subjective belief will seek to discredit objective belief as valueless--thereby rendering all knowledge useless, and placing both our belief systems on supposedly "equal grounds."
Great--you're more than welcome to attempt to drag me down into the dirt of total ignorance; but I'm not willing to go there with you. According to your "logic," nothing is knowable, and therefore God may exist. Woop-de-friggin-do! Is that the best that 2000 years of religious thought can provide?
quote:ssywak said: There is no objective (or subjective) proof that God's laws of morality which govern today will not change tomorrow. Despite this lack of proof, you have arbitrarily decided to believe that God's moral laws are constant. Especially when God is omnipotent, and therefore not bound by any laws of constraints which people may seek to impose on Him (Her). God could change what is right, and what is wrong, even as we sit here debating.
Therefore, based on what you have said, you are also precluding any sort of morality. But because you base you morality on a subjective--and inherently unproveable--belief system, you have no real way of determining right from wrong independently of either ancient written scripture or more recent interpretations by religious officials (Rabbis, Mullahs, the Pope, etc.). Since you accept that they are in contact with God as much as if not more so than you, if they say that morality has changed (such as "Pederasty is now OK"), who are you to argue?
Do you prefer to live in a universe that can change right out from under you? If that's religion, my friend, I'll take objective atheism (or, if you must--agnosticism) any day.
But you’re the one who requires objective proof to believe something – the lack of objective proof does not make my beliefs inconsistent with themselves. I was pointing out an inconsistency in your belief system – you have no rational basis for assuming the universe will not change right out from under you. You believe it for some reason other than objective proof. Therefore even you do not require objective proof for all your beliefs – you just refuse to acknowledge that a significant portion of your belief system is objectively unprovable.
I do not believe that morality is subjective and changeable, although as the world changes morality may have to be applied in new ways. I believe that human beings’ interpretations of morality will be inherently subjective. That does not mean morality is relative – it means each person has an incomplete understanding of it.
But what all of these moralities have in common is the idea that there is a particular way people ought to behave. And there is no way to reach an “ought” statement from objectively provable premises.
quote:I do not believe that morality is subjective and changeable, although as the world changes morality may have to be applied in new ways. I believe that human beings’ interpretations of morality will be inherently subjective. That does not mean morality is relative – it means each person has an incomplete understanding of it.
posted
So, in a world where objective proof is "irrelevant," morality is objective and absolute ("I do not believe that morality is subjective and changeable").
I will assume, that since everything comes from God, that morality must also come from God. And, since you believe that God can change whatever He wants, when He wants (such as the laws of physics), can not morality also be changed by God? Or does your belief system only allow certain things to be changed, and not others? And, since what you believe is not based on any objective observations of the world, and is purely subjective, you are free to claim that God may change "A", but not "B", and you may also state what you want "A" and "B" to be.
quote:ssywak said: What you now espouse is what I have, many times in the recent past, predicted is the path that these arguments typically take.
When "subjective" belief (such as yours) is challenged by an objectivist (such as myself), the person with the subjective belief will seek to discredit objective belief as valueless--thereby rendering all knowledge useless, and placing both our belief systems on supposedly "equal grounds."
Great--you're more than welcome to attempt to drag me down into the dirt of total ignorance; but I'm not willing to go there with you. According to your "logic," nothing is knowable, and therefore God may exist. Woop-de-friggin-do! Is that the best that 2000 years of religious thought can provide?
I wasn’t trying to prove that God exists, nor that knowledge is useless. I was demonstrating why your attack on my beliefs is not logically valid. You’re the one who arbitrarily limited the realm of knowledge to that which is objectively provable, with no rationale for doing so. Your view makes knowledge an insipid, useless thing. Woop-de-friggin-do! We know how a ball travels through the air! What use is scientific advancement without some kind of guidance about what ends are worth achieving with science?
What’s that you say? Science has led to medicine to heal the sick, and food production, storage, and transportation technologies to feed the hungry? I agree – science has done wonderful things. But the reason we can call these things wonderful (or its excesses bad) is because there is an objective yet non-objectively-provable proposition that it is good to heal the sick and feed the hungry. Science can do nothing good without a means of deciding which ends are good and which bad.
That’s not the “dirt of total ignorance,” it’s a far more realistic way of examining the world and 5000 years of intellectual history than the relatively recent innovations of materialism and objectivism.
posted
Interesting, but I fail to see a significant delimma.
Defining an external force (Satan or God) as good or evil has no bearing on me or my actions. Regardless of religious (or lack thereof) guidelines that are the building blocks of how we choose to conduct our life, I find a significant majority of folks in the world have very similar definitions of right and wrong. If you exclude the superfulous 'sins' (prostitution, dancing, showing a woman's face,etc.) and messengers (Christ, Mohammed, Rani, etc.) the basics are very similar. That same group of similar thinking folks tend to work very hard to be 'good' people.
So, Is Satan the tempter and is God (Christ) the savior? I really can't be terribly concerned about that. The choice of action is mine and preoccupation with the source would temper my response. I choose (as do most folks) to do the good and right thing. My preoccupation is with clearly being able to define 'good' and reacting accordingly.
In this way I am not bother by whether the bible (or other religious texts) is analogy, metaphor or history. I embrace that independence and strive to be better as my experience grows. I am motivated to give as well as get. If there is some spot for me in a paradise after this life, so be it. If my failure to embrace a different religion condemns me to an eternal hell, darn - it doesn't seem quite just, but so be it.
Does Satan exist? I can't be sure we can really care enough to make a difference
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:ssywak said: So, in a world where objective proof is "irrelevant," morality is objective and absolute ("I do not believe that morality is subjective and changeable").
I will assume, that since everything comes from God, that morality must also come from God. And, since you believe that God can change whatever He wants, when He wants (such as the laws of physics), can not morality also be changed by God? Or does your belief system only allow certain things to be changed, and not others? And, since what you believe is not based on any objective observations of the world, and is purely subjective, you are free to claim that God may change "A", but not "B", and you may also state what you want "A" and "B" to be.
Do I have that right, so far?
No, you have entirely mischaracterized my statements. I have never said, nor do I believe rivka meant, that objective proof was totally irrelevant. I interpreted what she said to in the context of the discussion of the existence of God. (Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you, rivka.)
Morality is absolute and unchanging. It is objective in the sense that there is an ideal morality that should be followed. It is subjective only in the sense that no person (excluding Jesus for purposes of this discussion) can know the ideal morality perfectly.
I have also never said that the laws of physics can change at any moment – I in fact said I did not believe they would. However, the statement “The laws of physics will never change” is not objectively provable. In my world, where things can be true and not objectively provable, this statement can be accepted as true. In yours, where only that which is objectively provable can be taken as true, it cannot be accepted.
The idea of morality “changing” only makes sense within the framework of time. Morality, as it exists outside this universe, is not subject to the time flow of the universe. Morality as a “creation” of God could be changeable, I suppose. But morality as an expression of God’s will would not change unless God changed.
All of which makes for an interesting discussion, but it is a serious derailment of Lalo’s thread. His question as presented assumes the existence of God and the accuracy of the story of the Fall. He is asking a question, I assume, to allow him to further evaluate Judeo-Christian beliefs. The question of whether or not God exists is separate from, though related to, the question as to whether God or Satan is the more admirable character in the Fall. It is a much more sophisticated question and goes to the heart of almost everything Christians believe. (I’m not sure how it interfaces with the Jewish faith.)
posted
"No objective evidence, perhaps (although I might debate even that); many people (including me) have experienced quite a bit of subjective evidence."
Rivka, I believe that you, Hobbes, and Belle all say you've experienced subjective evidence. All three of you belong to different religions. Which one of you is right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, you have entirely mischaracterized my statements. I have never said, nor do I believe rivka meant, that objective proof was totally irrelevant. I interpreted what she said to in the context of the discussion of the existence of God. (Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you, rivka.)
Exactly.
I taught HS science -- including the scientific method -- for a number of years. Of course I don't think objective evidence is irrelevant for everything. Actually, in terms of evaluating the physical world in which we currently reside, it is invaluable.
In terms of evaluating the extra-physical world, it seems to have very limited (if any) use.
As I mentioned above, in Jewish thought there is no independent evil entity, "Satan" (although there are some uses of such allegorically). Evil is a consequence of free will and a challenge for us to overcome.
God makes wheat. Our job is to take the wheat and make bread.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You are taking it on faith that because thrown balls have accelerated downward at 32 ft/sec/sec since we began measuring it that they will do so in the future. My belief in that it will do so is based on an overriding faith that the Universe was created by a rational Creator.
Do I need to bring out the dictionary again and explain the 2 definitions of faith? Please stop deliberatly confusing faith #1 with faith #2.
quote: What is your belief that a thrown ball will travel in a shape approximating a parabola based on?
Expirimental evidence. Try it. Go outside and through a ball, then measure the results. Now go outside and say a prayer, then measure the results. See where this leads? Religion gives us no measurable standards by which to judge its value.
quote: There is no objective proof that the laws which govern the motion of bodies will not change tomorrow.
Indeed, but we can throw a ball tomorrrow and test those laws. And you know what? If they change, science can also change. Science is not immutable as you seem to think. Science is a series of observations and predictions which are proven useful or not, by observing the natural world.
quote: Despite this lack of proof, you have arbitrarily decided to believe that physical laws are constant.
They have not changed since their discovery by Isaac Newton. There is no reason to believe that they will change tomorrow.
quote: Extrapolating from what you have said, you have chosen to believe that all the accounts of miracles from essentially all cultures are based on either deception or delusion.
Delusion is a strong word for not understanding nature, but you are allowed to use it. Would you care to provide any objective evidence for the existence of miracles?
quote: No ethical system can be founded purely on objective evidence. By insisting on objectivity as the sole judgment criteria, you are precluding any kind of morality.
THus sayeth the lord! Geez, why not? Why can't I look around myself, observe our world, and make a decision on what I want that world to be like in the future, then act accordingly? I wasn't aware that such an endeavor was impossible.
quote: There are accounts of people who have observed God’s work directly. Why is their evidence harder to accept than written accounts of the Battle of Chalons?
Eyewitness accounts of supernatural events are not evidence. I can measure the tempurature at which ice melts. I can proove that it take X amount of calories to change the temperature of X amount of water X many degrees. I can write my findings down, and others can verify my results by repeating my expiriments. There is no such option for god or the supernatural.
History is a very subjective art. It consists of best guesses and some observational evidence, IE fields full of dead bodies, sunken ships, tombs of pharohs, etc.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
talk...![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
Is that the best that 2000 years of religious thought can provide?
