Is satan good and god evil?

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 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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Ok, convince me?

Rational argument for the existence of god please.

Empirical argument for the existence of god please.

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

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

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?