Is satan good and god evil?

Slattery86

I'd wish for all to have an open mind on this question, and to put aside christian imagery of satan for a minute and ask ourselves this question, is satan good and god evil?

Now i'm aware of the images which come to people’s minds when they think about these two individuals, or consider their answer to the question i've just posed- but this is not how I want it this debate to go. I'd just like to ask you to think for a minute about the state of the world, and many of the problems it has, and yet the majority of people worship the christian god, whereas only a few worship satan.

Now here’s what i've been thinking, could the world hypothetically be in the state it's in because of the fact that most people worship the wrong god, or that satan is punishing us, or deserting us for not acknowledging him as the true god?

Think about it and keep an open mind. After all looking at the behaviour of the church throughout its history, and with the bible replete with tales of famine/ torture/ murder/ punishment/ war/ plague etc etc, it may not be far off the point. And what would the evil one do to try and turn most people away from the concept of acknowledging the true god- well that’s simple, they'd demonise him, and portray him as an evil, deviant entity. Yet what if its not the case, and we've had it wrong for so long, thus explaining the state of the world.

extrinzic

"Don't you know there aint no devil, there's just God when he's drunk."

Joe1919

I wont give you a religious reason but I have come across some writers who have defended the necessity of 'evil' and suffering.

There are those that argue that evil is a very necessary part of the world.

Mandeville wrote that "private vices were public benefits" and that pride and vanity were necessary for industry.

"The Root of evil, Avarice,
That damn'd ill-natur'd baneful Vice,
Was Slave to Prodigality,
That Noble Sin; whilst Luxury
Employ'd a Million of the Poor,
And odious Pride a Million more."
Envy it self, and Vanity
Were Ministers of Industry"

Nietzsche praised the God Dionysus, the god of intoxication, decay, and dismemberment in 'Beyond Good and Evil.

Schopenhauer though that pain and suffering were very necessary for man.
'But misfortune has its uses; for, as our bodily frame would burst asunder if the pressure of the atmosphere was removed, so, if the lives of men were relieved of all need, hardship and adversity; if everything they took in hand were successful, they would be so swollen with arrogance that, though they might not burst, they would present the spectacle of unbridled folly - nay, they would go mad. And I may say, further, that a certain amount of care or pain or trouble is necessary for every man at all times. A ship without ballast is unstable and will not go straight.'

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/mandev.htm
http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/Humanities/Beckman/Nietzsche/Beyond.htm
http://www.enotalone.com/article/16468.html

fintonie

That is like asking is Homer Simpson good and Ned Flanders evil.

we would be answering a question based on imagination,

I would go as far as to say most people would be able to maker a clearer and a more realistic judgment on my above scenario

fintonie

Joe1919 wrote: »

I wont give you a religious reason but I have come across some writers who have defended the necessity of 'evil' and suffering.

There are those that argue that evil is a very necessary part of the world.

Mandeville wrote that "private vices were public benefits" and that pride and vanity were necessary for industry.

"The Root of evil, Avarice,
That damn'd ill-natur'd baneful Vice,
Was Slave to Prodigality,
That Noble Sin; whilst Luxury
Employ'd a Million of the Poor,
And odious Pride a Million more."
Envy it self, and Vanity
Were Ministers of Industry"

Nietzsche praised the God Dionysus, the god of intoxication, decay, and dismemberment in 'Beyond Good and Evil.

Schopenhauer though that pain and suffering were very necessary for man.
'But misfortune has its uses; for, as our bodily frame would burst asunder if the pressure of the atmosphere was removed, so, if the lives of men were relieved of all need, hardship and adversity; if everything they took in hand were successful, they would be so swollen with arrogance that, though they might not burst, they would present the spectacle of unbridled folly - nay, they would go mad. And I may say, further, that a certain amount of care or pain or trouble is necessary for every man at all times. A ship without ballast is unstable and will not go straight.'

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/mandev.htm
http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/Humanities/Beckman/Nietzsche/Beyond.htm
http://www.enotalone.com/article/16468.html

I don't think the devil and god come into your scenarios, its more based on pain and unhappiness so we can appreciate the better times.

but I am sure you will put me right on this one.

Joe1919

fintonie wrote: »

I don't think the devil and god come into your scenarios, its more based on pain and unhappiness so we can appreciate the better times.
but I am sure you will put me right on this one.

I'm inclined to take the words 'God' and 'Devil' as metaphors for 'good' and 'evil' and in that way religious questions can become intelligible and have parallels to philosophical questions.

Slattery86

fintonie wrote: »

That is like asking is Homer Simpson good and Ned Flanders evil.

we would be answering a question based on imagination,

I would go as far as to say most people would be able to maker a clearer and a more realistic judgment on my above scenario

Well I am basing this argument from having looked at the bible. I' m not even saying satan is the true god, just that he could be for all we know. I'm as much an agnostic as anything else. It's just that I find it interesting pointing out much of the hypocracy within christian doctrine in many areas, and in particular those relating to god and satan. I mean the bible, from what I remember tells of satan (i) rebelling against god in heaven, and odd deeds throughout the bible such as tempting Eve to eat the apple in the garden of eden, or tempting jesus in the desert etc. Yet when you look at god (aka the good guy according to christian theology) using the perspective of the bible, you read of an individual who

(i) Deliberately shunned one of the two brothers and his offering of gifts, knowing that this would result in murder.

(ii) Caused a major flood, which resulted in the genocide of humanity bar the apparent inhabitants of Noah's ark.

(iii) The death of the first borns, or to put it correctly- innocent children as opposed to Pharaoh.

(iv) Allowing his supposed son to be tortured and brutalised without any intervention whatsoever.

The whole bible is replete with these kinds of messages such as a god who seeks to punish humanity through war, famine, plague, conquest, natural disasters, torture and yet this is supposedly the good one, and satan the bad one even though his main fault was attempting to overthrow god.

I don't go by all of this biblical story telling as such, but rather like showing some of the hypocracies inherant in christianity. And there are many of them.

fintonie

Slattery86 wrote: »

Well I am basing this argument from having looked at the bible. I' m not even saying satan is the true god, just that he could be for all we know. I'm as much an agnostic as anything else. It's just that I find it interesting pointing out much of the hypocracy within christian doctrine in many areas, and in particular those relating to god and satan. I mean the bible, from what I remember tells of satan (i) rebelling against god in heaven, and odd deeds throughout the bible such as tempting Eve to eat the apple in the garden of eden, or tempting jesus in the desert etc. Yet when you look at god (aka the good guy according to christian theology) using the perspective of the bible, you read of an individual who

(i) Deliberately shunned one of the two brothers and his offering of gifts, knowing that this would result in murder.

(ii) Caused a major flood, which resulted in the genocide of humanity bar the apparent inhabitants of Noah's ark.

(iii) The death of the first borns, or to put it correctly- innocent children as opposed to Pharaoh.

(iv) Allowing his supposed son to be tortured and brutalised without any intervention whatsoever.

The whole bible is replete with these kinds of messages such as a god who seeks to punish humanity through war, famine, plague, conquest, natural disasters, torture and yet this is supposedly the good one, and satan the bad one even though his main fault was attempting to overthrow god.

I don't go by all of this biblical story telling as such, but rather like showing some of the hypocracies inherant in christianity. And there are many of them.

well my take on it would be that satan is responsible for the bad stuff the wars ,famine and such as you have mentioned above,

some would say how can there be a god if he is letting all this bad stuff happen, my take is, he would be saying well I did not start it,

handing the blame back to satan, I wonder how much input Satan had in putting the bible together, after all it has been rewritten many times

philologos

Joe1919 wrote: »

I'm inclined to take the words 'God' and 'Devil' as metaphors for 'good' and 'evil' and in that way religious questions can become intelligible and have parallels to philosophical questions.

Why aren't they intelligible in their own terms?

Is it really that absurd to think that there might actually be a God, and there might actually be a devil?

philologos

Slattery86 wrote: »

Think about it and keep an open mind. After all looking at the behaviour of the church throughout its history, and with the bible replete with tales of famine/ torture/ murder/ punishment/ war/ plague etc etc, it may not be far off the point. And what would the evil one do to try and turn most people away from the concept of acknowledging the true god- well that’s simple, they'd demonise him, and portray him as an evil, deviant entity. Yet what if its not the case, and we've had it wrong for so long, thus explaining the state of the world.

Think of the context when these punishments occurred. I mean, punishment only occurs when people are straying away from God's commandments in the Jewish Scriptures.

God told the Jewish people that if they held to his statutes they would fare well in the land of Israel, and if they did not they would be ousted. (Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26). God and Israel had a covenant, or an agreement. So that if Israel held by what was right, God would bless them in return. If Israel did what was wrong, God would punish them in return.

This is righteous judgement. I.E Israel deserved it if they were going to be under God's law. One cannot really call the judge evil, if the judge is using a righteous standard. If you're in court, you call call the judge as evil as you want, but you'll still be going to jail.

Joycey

Joe1919 wrote: »

I wont give you a religious reason but I have come across some writers who have defended the necessity of 'evil' and suffering.

There are those that argue that evil is a very necessary part of the world.

Mandeville wrote that "private vices were public benefits" and that pride and vanity were necessary for industry.

"The Root of evil, Avarice,
That damn'd ill-natur'd baneful Vice,
Was Slave to Prodigality,
That Noble Sin; whilst Luxury
Employ'd a Million of the Poor,
And odious Pride a Million more."
Envy it self, and Vanity
Were Ministers of Industry"

Nietzsche praised the God Dionysus, the god of intoxication, decay, and dismemberment in 'Beyond Good and Evil.

Schopenhauer though that pain and suffering were very necessary for man.
'But misfortune has its uses; for, as our bodily frame would burst asunder if the pressure of the atmosphere was removed, so, if the lives of men were relieved of all need, hardship and adversity; if everything they took in hand were successful, they would be so swollen with arrogance that, though they might not burst, they would present the spectacle of unbridled folly - nay, they would go mad. And I may say, further, that a certain amount of care or pain or trouble is necessary for every man at all times. A ship without ballast is unstable and will not go straight.'

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/mandev.htm
http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/Humanities/Beckman/Nietzsche/Beyond.htm
http://www.enotalone.com/article/16468.html

Id have to add William Blake to your list. One of the most amazing poets ive come across.
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/blake_ma.html
Thats the marriage of heaven and hell, the poem I liked best by him.

He casts himself as the devil and very powerfully rails against everything to do with traditional christian morality and institutions, reversing most of the traditional dichotomies like good-evil, body-soul, god-satan, angel-devil and so on. Well worth reading him and about him.

Edit: posting it here prompted me to go and read it again.
Heres one of my favourite bits

The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could percieve.
And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity;
Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of & enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began Priesthood;
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
And at length they pronounc'd that the Gods had order'd such things.
Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast.

When I first came across it it made so much sense to me. The first time id ever heard a kind of genealogy (is that the right word?) of religion before.

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

Why aren't they intelligible in their own terms?
Is it really that absurd to think that there might actually be a God, and there might actually be a devil?

Because this is a 'philosophy' forum rather than a 'theology' or 'christianity' forum, we can not presume that everyone agrees that 'God' or for that matter 'anything' is intelligible as such.
So all I was trying to do is make the original posters question more philosophical by widening the question of God/Devil to good/evil. (not everyone agrees that good/evil is intelligible either.)

Anyhow,(imo) perhaps the original poster would have been better to have posted his question in the Christianity forum if he wants his question answered in a Christian context, as he seems to be looking for someone like youself (who has more knowledge of bible etc.) to answer.

Joe1919

Joycey wrote: »

Id have to add William Blake to your list. One of the most amazing poets ive come across.
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/blake_ma.html

......Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast..........

Great stuff. I will print out his verse. I actually love reading about myths and religion . I'm probably a bit of a romantic polytheist.

I do not despise you priests, all time, the world over,
My faith is the greatest of faiths and the least of faiths,
Enclosing worship ancient and modern and all between ancient and modern,
Believing I shall come again upon the earth after five thousand years,
Waiting responses from oracles, honoring the gods, saluting the sun,
Making a fetich of the first rock or stump, powowing with sticks in
the circle of obis,
Helping the llama or brahmin as he trims the lamps of the idols,
Dancing yet through the streets in a phallic procession, rapt and
austere in the woods a gymnosophist,
Drinking mead from the skull-cap, to Shastas and Vedas admirant,
minding the Koran,
Walking the teokallis, spotted with gore from the stone and knife,
beating the serpent-skin drum,
Accepting the Gospels, accepting him that was crucified, knowing
assuredly that he is divine,
To the mass kneeling or the puritan's prayer rising, or sitting
patiently in a pew,
Ranting and frothing in my insane crisis, or waiting dead-like till
my spirit arouses me,
Looking forth on pavement and land, or outside of pavement and land,
Belonging to the winders of the circuit of circuits.

Song of Myself (43) Walt Whitman 1819-1892

philologos

Joe1919 wrote: »

Because this is a 'philosophy' forum rather than a 'theology' or 'christianity' forum, we can not presume that everyone agrees that 'God' or for that matter 'anything' is intelligible as such.
So all I was trying to do is make the original posters question more philosophical by widening the question of God/Devil to good/evil. (not everyone agrees that good/evil is intelligible either.)

I don't think in philosophy there is an assumption that religious questions are unintelligible. As someone who would have a deep interest in philosophy, I've found that this isn't really the case.

fintonie wrote: »

handing the blame back to satan, I wonder how much input Satan had in putting the bible together, after all it has been rewritten many times

This is incorrect.

According to the Biblical scholar Bruce Metzger, the New Testament is at worst 99.6% authentic. We know based on how these texts were used in history that these haven't been altered at least in any considerable way.

The Old Testament canon can also be assessed because of the amount of copies that have been made by rabbis in synagogues, and in other Jewish religious communities.

The fact is that the Biblical text hasn't been changed in any major way. Only 0.4% in the worst case scenario of these passages are considered doubtful.

fintonie

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think in philosophy there is an assumption that religious questions are unintelligible. As someone who would have a deep interest in philosophy, I've found that this isn't really the case.



This is incorrect.

According to the Biblical scholar Bruce Metzger, the New Testament is at worst 99.6% authentic. We know based on how these texts were used in history that these haven't been altered at least in any considerable way.

The Old Testament canon can also be assessed because of the amount of copies that have been made by rabbis in synagogues, and in other Jewish religious communities.

The fact is that the Biblical text hasn't been changed in any major way. Only 0.4% in the worst case scenario of these passages are considered doubtful.

I am not doubting your information,

just from a logic stance, the Chinese whisper comes to mind, I think it would be a great feat to keep something as old as the bible so pure,

considering the size of the bible to what extent would .04% be,

is it one line, one paragraph, one page. How much change is required in one spot to effect your perception of what may be true.

philologos

fintonie wrote: »

just from a logic stance, the Chinese whisper comes to mind, I think it would be a great feat to keep something as old as the bible so pure,

It's not to do with logic, it's to do with facts. There are over 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in the world. This is more than any ancient text. This also means that comparisons can be made to see which parts are the same in all manuscripts, and which parts differ.

fintonie wrote: »

considering the size of the bible to what extent would .04% be,

They've suggested 40 verses of the New Testament are doubtful at the very worst.

fintonie wrote: »

is it one line, one paragraph, one page. How much change is required in one spot to effect your perception of what may be true.

I should have made this more clear, but verses is what is being discussed. Due to it's nature it is impossible to get away without getting caught red handed though in terms of the Biblical text, because there are so many manuscripts of it. If one were to make a change one would be found out.

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think in philosophy there is an assumption that religious questions are unintelligible. As someone who would have a deep interest in philosophy, I've found that this isn't really the case.

What I'm am trying to say is that 'philosophy' and 'theology' would try to answer questions about 'God' and the 'Devil' differently.

The theologian probably accepts revelation and the bible and it may be intelligible for him to give an answer by quoting the bible etc.

On the other hand, for the philosopher, the bible is just an anchient text, like any other text, written by the human hand. The philosopher cant really base his argument on the sacredness of any text but must use reason. No text is sacred.(as such within this discipline).

philologos

Of course Joe1919, but the philosopher doesn't discredit such ideas as not being intelligible either. All these things are worthy of philosophical thought.

Although you argue "for the philosopher, the bible is just an ancient text". This isn't entirely honest. Many philosophers did hold it in high regard, and others dismissed it, and others pursued other views of God. This doesn't mean that for all philosophers it is merely an ancient text.

Perhaps if the only philosophy we read is philosophy written by non-believers one might come to this conclusion, but it is not necessarily so.

Joycey

Although you argue "for the philosopher, the bible is just an ancient text". This isn't entirely honest. Many philosophers did hold it in high regard, and others dismissed it, and others pursued other views of God. This doesn't mean that for all philosophers it is merely an ancient text.

But for someone who doesnt begin with an assumption that it is actually a result of revelation or whatever as opposed to an attempt made at comprehending the world 2000 years ago, then it is simply an ancient text, and as such falls into the same category as all(?) pre-Kantian Western philosophical/theological texts as attempts to explain the world by means of supernatural phenomena.

For philosophy study of the bible should have as much weight attached to it as does any other religious account of things. The bible is also worthy of study as a historical and a sociological phenomenon, obviously, and the genealogical study which I quoted above by Blake is another facet of its interest which is not reliant on a belief in its factual accuracy or metaphysical explanations.

Perhaps if the only philosophy we read is philosophy written by non-believers one might come to this conclusion, but it is not necessarily so.

Im taking a break from reading Heidegger as I write this, he was a Christian of sorts AFAIK. You might appreciate Phillip K Dick's theological views as expounded in Valis I know I did

philologos

It depends on the type of philosophy. I don't think that anyone who has seriously investigated makes it as an assumption, but rather holds such views about their faith because they find it reasonable.

extrinzic

Anybody who takes the post enlightenment seriously, that is, the philosophy of science, language etc, will have an impossible task in philosophically arguing for the existence of god. If you are going to attempt to appease rationality, a metaphysical position of any sort is extremely precarious. To talk about god “objectively” leads one to refer to history, or individual experience. History is problematic for philosophy, and in itself a form of iconography which the bible rejects. Worshiping the idol of the text, without worshiping the relationship with the deity, always opens up the possibility of refutation at some point in history, and places monetary values on particular versions of the text. The subjective relationship with god is also problematic for philosophy, as by definition, it is extremely difficult to justify in any kind of objective sense. Indeed, some would argue that it is impossible to rationally accept god, and indeed our faith is precisely because we believe regardless of of our rational reasons not to. Kierkegaard would be one such figure, and sees the bible as a work which poses challenges to us. These challenges to our being open a personal relationship with god that will remain a challenge for the rest of our lives. He detested people who referred to themselves as Christians just because they were baptised, and went to church. Most of these people, in Kierkegaard’s opinion, were not Christians, but lived empty social experiences devoid of personal belief, and personal relations with god. Such people were quick to “prove” gods existence, completely missing the point that it was not the proof that converted the true Christian, but faith. Faith that is uneasy, that challenges us to believe and live as a Christian every minute of every day.

philologos

The way that people are discussing in this forum, it seems as if philosophy is an atheists playground.

Many people, can and do argue for God's existence in light of modernity and numerous other considerations. The claim that people who believe in God are irrational is highly questionable at best.

One only has to look to the Philosophy of Religion to see how many people have placed rational arguments in favour of their faith, and that they continue to do so.

extrinzic

I didn't say that people who believe in god are irrational, but faith acknowledges a conviction that human logic is fallible, and personal experience requires of some people a relationship with a deity.

philologos

extrinzic wrote: »

I didn't say that people who believe in god are irrational, but faith acknowledges a conviction that human logic is fallible, and personal experience requires of some people a relationship with a deity.

How does it? Rather it suggests that there are numerous considerations involved. There is a rational basis, and an empirical basis. Indeed, I would put forward both the views that my belief both makes sense (rationally), but also constitutes an empirical relationship with God. Indeed, many Christian philosophers would have held a similar position.

Belief in God doesn't mean leaving your brain at the door.

extrinzic

Ok, convince me?

Rational argument for the existence of god please.

Empirical argument for the existence of god please.

philologos

Read a good philosophy of religion text. I'd recommend Brian Davies - The Philosophy of Religion an Anthology. There's also a good book just published which is an edited edition of the discourse between theists and atheists, which provides a more modern view of the situation we are in and the arguments made. (Arguing About Religion - Kevin Timpe).

Then there's the whole field of Christian apologetics, which includes many Christian philosophers.

Bringing up the philosophy of science as if it refutes Christianity is just absurd in my view considering that many Christians are also involved in science.

There's absolutely zero point in rehashing other peoples arguments if one can merely read them for themselves.

extrinzic

Well, maybe I'll get around to reading that stuff, but not any time soon. I am aware of the existence of Christian philosophers, not to mention Buddhists, etc.

The philosophy of science is relevant, as it explains phenomena without recourse to the conscious intervention of a deity. Indeed, science suggest that things are so interrelated, miracles in the traditional sense, are extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, science does not directly refute the existence of god, as science only deals with what can be demonstrated empiricly. There is no science in the bible however, and the bible should not be understood as a scientific explanation. This man would agree. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReV0nCuObcs&feature=player_embedded

philologos

The philosophy of science is highly irrelevant as it doesn't even deal with the concept of God.

This is the reason why one can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, Sikh and still be involved in science.

One can very easily study science and consider that they are surveying the works of their God. Indeed, atheist turned Christian scientist Francis Collins has written a considerable amount about how he relates his work in the Human Genome Project with his Christian faith.

Pulling the science argument doesn't really work.

As for miracles being unlikely, that's simply based on what assumptions people bring in with them.

If I assume that there is no God, no objective meaning to life, and that everything is material, of course I will say miracles are unlikely. If I do not hold these assumptions however, miracles are still very much open. Besides miracles by their nature are unlikely or else they wouldn't be referred to as miracles.

extrinzic

I'm not arguing that science refutes god, but it does seem to undermine people who take the bible literally.

philologos

Nobody takes the Bible literally. It's impossible to do this and to read it properly. For example if Jesus' parables were to be taken literally one would think that he was a nutter talking about crops. What's the value in them? That there is an underlying message and relevance to the time and the people he is speaking to.

extrinzic

So if god can be rationally proved, and empiricly proved, why do we have a metaphorical basis for believing in him. Rather, why do you insist that we can rationally believe on the basis of empirical evidence the logical conclusions of a metaphorical text?