Is Lucifer really evil? Or just a scapegoat

XVII

The analogy swap didn't work for me. Are you saying Snowden is evil and the American Government/NSA is a scapegoat or that the US GOV/NSA is evil and Snowden is the scapegoat ?

I have an opinion on that but I fear exploring it here may derail the discussion.

Lucifer = Snowden, American Government/NSA = God, "evil" = surveillance programs.
But you don't need to know these analogies to answer my questions.

Oh, and, I think you are wrong on the morality thing. It could well be a function of evolutionary biology. or our conscience. or both. and it's innate.

That's ok. It's not the point of discussion here.
As I mentioned, I don't see point of morality being discussed here at all. But if there is such a need for arguments, we need to find a common "evil" first.

Festus

XVII wrote: »

Lucifer = Snowden, American Government/NSA = God, "evil" = surveillance programs.
But you don't need to know these analogies to answer my questions.

It helps, some, but not much. I cannot see how you get from Lucifer to God in one equation. Am I supposed to do something with the comma?

For me the current US Administration is not godlike. If anything it is the opposite. Drone strikes killing innocent civilians and US civilians (guilty or not) is pure evil. Just one example - there are plenty more.

Snowden - juries out.

Surveillance programs. Well they're just tools and not intrinsically evil. Unless you believe AI can be evil in and of itself and for that it would need to be sentient. I don't think we are there yet. The evil resides with those who wield the tools and that would be, surprise, surprise, the US Gov.

XVII wrote: »

That's ok. It's not the point of discussion here.
As I mentioned, I don't see point of morality being discussed here at all. But if there is such a need for arguments, we need to find a common "evil" first.

Difficult to have a discussion on evil in a Christian forum without it.

HaroldK

XVII wrote: »

Now, it's my turn to ask you questions:
- do you really think that someone who told us about surveillance programs should go to jail? Why?
- would you prefer not to know about surveillance programs?
- how would you feel if your government is hiding something from you?
- how would you feel if your government proclaims someone as "evil", who has told you about programs, which spy on you?

Not sure why this is about Snowden? And you may want to research what a limited hangout operation is but all that is for another thread.

This is about Satan trying to change the law of God.

Genesis 3:1-4

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.

Which was a lie because she is dead.

So ... if someone told your son that if he put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger, it would not kill him and your son did so ... would you be cool with that?

XVII

It helps, some, but not much. I cannot see how you get from Lucifer to God in one equation. Am I supposed to do something with the comma?

For me the current US Administration is not godlike. If anything it is the opposite. Drone strikes killing innocent civilians and US civilians (guilty or not) is pure evil. Just one example - there are plenty more.

Snowden - juries out.

Surveillance programs. Well they're just tools and not intrinsically evil. Unless you believe AI can be evil in and of itself and for that it would need to be sentient. I don't think we are there yet. The evil resides with those who wield the tools and that would be, surprise, surprise, the US Gov.

You are equating things to your standards, again. While I was just providing analogies, since you have introduced morality in this discussion.
My posts are not about Snowden. They are about similarities in both cases.
But ironically, everything you said in that post, could be applied to the story of Lucifer, who knows?

Difficult to have a discussion on evil in a Christian forum without it.

I haven't started this discussion. It's not necessary at all.

HaroldK

AngryHippie wrote: »

Music corrupts us ?

Of course it does. Music can give you a desire for a beer, sex, partying or even murder.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Sexy little cartoon girls ?

Yes, look at all the porn that is created from those sexy little cartoon girls. Things happen to us on a subconscious level.

AngryHippie wrote: »

This is a very disturbing insight into the arts that you have.

I think art can be created without the sex. As a matter of fact a real artist should be able to get my attention without using half naked girls.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I agree on age based censorship of film and music, as art imitating life will have both the dark and light end of the spectrum, but the alternative is brainwashingly bland drivel without artistic merit or true creative thought, just recreation of the positive, and that imo leads to a lack of understanding of the darkness that lie within all people, should it be unleashed.

It's like saying the zoo isn't rather boring if we don't let the tigers out.

XVII

HaroldK wrote: »

Not sure why this is about Snowden? And you may want to research what a limited hangout operation is but all that is for another thread.

This is about Satan trying to change the law of God.

Genesis 3:1-4

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.

Which was a lie because she is dead.

So ... if someone told your son that if he put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger, it would not kill him and your son did so ... would you be cool with that?

Would you go to read about Snowden to NSA's website, or wikipedia.org, for instance? Or perhaps, somewhere else?

Squeedily Spooch

HaroldK wrote: »

Not sure why this is about Snowden? And you may want to research what a limited hangout operation is but all that is for another thread.

This is about Satan trying to change the law of God.

Genesis 3:1-4

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.

Which was a lie because she is dead.

So ... if someone told your son that if he put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger, it would not kill him and your son did so ... would you be cool with that?

I'd have another kid, then demand love without question while filling their life with passive agressive tests and judgment, because of what the previous one did.
Which is Christianity in a nutshell.

Festus

XVII wrote: »

You are equating things to your standards, again. While I was just providing analogies, since you have introduced morality in this discussion.
My posts are not about Snowden. They are about similarities in both cases.
But ironically, everything you said in that post, could be applied to the story of Lucifer, who knows?

Not getting it. Satan corrupts souls. I cannot see that Snowden has corrupted anyone. So no similarity, at least not from your analogy.

That said, if our standards are that different to those in the US given our shared history, and you actually believe the current US administration is good it would explain a lot. Loyalty can be misplaced. I'd hazard a guess that Satan has many loyal minions that hate him as much as they hate God and us.

XVII

Not getting it. Satan corrupts souls. I cannot see that Snowden has corrupted anyone.

I'm glad that you agree with me on that.
But would American parents, who are loyal to the government, agree with us? For them, Snowden is a traitor, so I don't think so.
For them, he has corrupted souls by revealing NSA's secrets to the public. He's evil, and should go to the jail.

That said, if our standards are different to those in the US and you actually believe the current US administration is good it would explain a lot. Loyalty can be misplaced. I'd hazard a guess that Satan has many loyal minions that hate him as much as they hate God and us.

Ah no, our standards are the same. You even agreed that the whole story of Lucifer is just a Bible side of it.
At the moment, you just aren't following your own assumptions, that's all.

Festus

XVII wrote: »

I'm glad that you agree with me on that.
But would American parents, who are loyal to the government, agree with us? For them, Snowden is a traitor, so I don't think so.
For them, he has corrupted souls by revealing NSA's secrets to the public. He's evil, and should go to the jail.

If you are talking American parents living in American then I don't know. The current administration is suffering a backlash and more Americans are beginning to see the administration for what it is. In time I believe more Americans will come to believe that it was the NSA and the power given to it by the administration that was corrupt. As I said before - juries out.

XVII wrote: »

Ah no, our standards are the same. You even agreed that the whole story of Lucifer is just a Bible side of it.
At the moment, you just aren't following your own assumptions, that's all.

Not just. For Christians scriptural record is effectively history and part of Christian history is the origin and nature of Satan. Please explain which assumptions I am not following.

Peregrinus

I think the reason the Snowden analogy breaks down is because the US government/NSA is neither God, nor meaningfully analaogous to God.

Satan/Lucifer's offence, in the Christian view, was to refuse to serve God, despite the fact that (a) God is intrinsically deserving of service, and (b) Satan/Lucifer's reason for existing was to serve him. We cannot say - not even the US government says - that the US Government/NSA is intrinsically deserving of service, or that Edward Snowden's reason for existing is to serve the US Government.

The mistake here is to think that God is something like a government, except bigger, more just, wiser, etc. That is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of God, in the Christian view. God is not a government.

Satan's refusal to serve God is not analogous to refusing to obey a law that says state employees must keep state secrets confidential. Satan's refusal to serve God is analagous to refusing to obey the law of gravity; it's a denial of fundamental reality.

Obviously, non-Christians don't share this understanding of God or of reality. But if you're critiquing the Christian view of Satan, then you have to critique the Christian view for what it actually is, even if you don't share it yourself. Restating it in other terms and then critiquing it may be easier, but it's also pretty pointless.

Peregrinus

Festus wrote: »

Not just. For Christians scriptural record is effectively history and part of Christian history is the origin and nature of Satan. Please explain which assumptions I am not following.

(Actually, if we're honest the scriptural record is silent on the origin of Satan and distinctly mixed on the subject of his nature. Most of our conceptions of about Satan are extra-scriptural.)

Festus

Peregrinus wrote: »

(Actually, if we're honest the scriptural record is silent on the origin of Satan and distinctly mixed on the subject of his nature. Most of our conceptions of about Satan are extra-scriptural.)

In the strictest sense yes but the Bible does contain clues. If this was a detective operation they would be called clues or recorded evidence.

What we know from the Bible is that he was an angel hence created by God and Pride caused his fall. Some of his actions are described in the Bible and these give more clues to his nature.

the only extra-scriptural evidence we can rely on are those of ordained priests who perform exorcisms.

Peregrinus

Festus wrote: »

In the strictest sense yes but the Bible does contain clues. If this was a detective operation they would be called clues or recorded evidence.

What we know from the Bible is that he was an angel hence created by God and Pride caused his fall. Some of his actions are described in the Bible and these give more clues to his nature.

the only extra-scriptural evidence we can rely on are those of ordained priests who perform exorcisms.

Actually, very few of his actions are described in the Bible, except in the Book of Job which is generally taken to be a parable. And even the book of Job is ambiguous about whether he is an angel, and does not accuse him of pride.

A good deal of traditional Christian views of Satan are predicated on the assumption that the serpent in the Garden of Eden is Satan, but scripture never claims this, and in fact the rabbinical Jewish tradition is that the serpent is just a serpent.

A good deal is also inherited from extra-scriptural Jewish tradition. For example, scripture never claims that Satan brought evil into the world, but the Christian tradition asserts that he did, and this is almost certainly an inheritance from first-century Judaism, where this belief was widely held. Similarly we get the notion of Satan as a "fallen angel", and the leader of a host of similar fallen angels, from this source. The closest the New Testament comes to saying that Satan is an angel is to say (in 2 Cor 11:14) that he masquerades as one.

Festus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, very few of his actions are described in the Bible, except in the Book of Job which is generally taken to be a parable. And even the book of Job is ambiguous about whether he is an angel, and does not accuse him of pride.

Who tempted Jesus in the desert?

Festus

Is there any merit to having an existence of Satan thread?

This thread is referencing Lucifer and I guess there may be a few dogs who are really not happy about that, and it questions his evil nature.

There are many Christians who don't believe in the Devil, or Hell, and that is a major victory for him and so needs to be addressed.

Peregrinus

Festus wrote: »

Who tempted Jesus in the desert?

"The devil", according to Matthew and Luke. "Satan" according to Mark. John does not mention the episode.

I'm not saying that the Bible doesn't ascribe any actions to Satan; just that it doesn't ascribe very many actions to him. More to the point, this passage doesn't identify Satan as an angel, or as a fallen angel, and doesn't say that his sin was pride, which are all things which you say we know "from the Bible". Actually, I'm not sure that we do know these all things from the Bible. I think a lot of them are part of our broader inheritance from Judaism.

Festus

Peregrinus wrote: »

"The devil", according to Matthew and Luke. "Satan" according to Mark. John does not mention the episode.

I'm not saying that the Bible doesn't ascribe any actions to Satan; just that it doesn't ascribe very many actions to him. More to the point, this passage doesn't identify Satan as an angel, or as a fallen angel, and doesn't say that his sin was pride, which are all things which you say we know "from the Bible". Actually, I'm not sure that we do know these all things from the Bible. I think a lot of them are part of our broader inheritance from Judaism.

The Devil knows who Jesus is. Is it not pride that led him to think that he could tempt God?

Peregrinus

Scripture doesn't say that "the Devil knows who Jesus is"; in particular it nowhere says that the Devil knew him to be the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. Nor does it say that he thought he could tempt God. If anything, surely the Devil would know that he couldn't successfully tempt God? So, if he did recognise Jesus for who he was, then whatever led him to offer temptations, it wasn't the proud assumption that he could tempt God.

Besides, even if we accept that this passage does show the Devil to be proud, that still wouldn't mean that pride was the sin which occasioned his fall from Heaven. Surely the Devil can manifest more than one form of sin?

The plaint truth is that the Devil is a minor and somewhat ambiguous and incompletely-drawn character in scripture. It's not even clear from scripture that "Satan", "Lucifer" and the various rerences to "devil" are references to the same entity.

AngryHippie

HaroldK wrote: »

Of course it does. Music can give you a desire for a beer, sex, partying or even murder.

All music ?
I have to say that is the greatest load of speculative horsesh1te I have ever heard. Sure music can even give you an awkward erection, but is that because of the evil of music ? or the animal instinct within each and every one of us on a base level where rythm and vibration are processed ?
Music can give you a desire for murder? I suppose your going to quote us some Charles Manson to support that one ?

HaroldK wrote: »

Yes, look at all the porn that is created from those sexy little cartoon girls. Things happen to us on a subconscious level.

wtf are you even talking about ? hentai ? some strange Japanese porn? what has this done to you on a subconscious level because that has you so worked up ? It sure as hell hasn't changed my subconscious.

HaroldK wrote: »

I think art can be created without the sex. As a matter of fact a real artist should be able to get my attention without using half naked girls.

Art imitates life. Without sex, there is no life ergo, art without sex on some level will be lifeless, or censored (Which is probably worse)

HaroldK wrote: »

It's like saying the zoo isn't rather boring if we don't let the tigers out.

No, its like saying that just have baaaw cute cuddly animals would be boring, and they would, zoos need the contrast, the komodo dragons, the snakes as well as the koalas, baby lambs and doves.

I have a funny feeling we are coming at this from very different viewpoints.

Enjoy the magnolia world in which you live, and good day.

EoghanIRL

"The devil " is nothing more than a method of scaring Catholics into going to mass .

A lot of aspects of the devil were made up by man to degrade paganism and belief in other gods . Like his pitch fork was taken from neptunes etc.
This is a common technique employed by cults when indoctrinating people into their cult .
You must degrade prominent figures in other belief systems to scare people into joining your cult and to assure them that their beliefs were wrong and yours right .

Peregrinus

EoghanIRL wrote: »

"The devil " is nothing more than a method of scaring Catholics into going to mass .

A lot of aspects of the devil were made up by man to degrade paganism and belief in other gods . Like his pitch fork was taken from neptunes etc.
This is a common technique employed by cults when indoctrinating people into their cult .
You must degrade prominent figures in other belief systems to scare people into joining your cult and to assure them that their beliefs were wrong and yours right .

Indeed. Presumably the derision of Christian figures and concepts that goes on over on A&A serves a similar function.

Festus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Scripture doesn't say that "the Devil knows who Jesus is"; in particular it nowhere says that the Devil knew him to be the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. Nor does it say that he thought he could tempt God. If anything, surely the Devil would know that he couldn't successfully tempt God? So, if he did recognise Jesus for who he was, then whatever led him to offer temptations, it wasn't the proud assumption that he could tempt God.

have you read Luke 4? The Devil comes across very much like an atheist seeking proof of Gods existence.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Besides, even if we accept that this passage does show the Devil to be proud, that still wouldn't mean that pride was the sin which occasioned his fall from Heaven. Surely the Devil can manifest more than one form of sin?

What kind of sins are angelic beings capable of?
Is there a sin higher than pride?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The plaint truth is that the Devil is a minor and somewhat ambiguous and incompletely-drawn character in scripture. It's not even clear from scripture that "Satan", "Lucifer" and the various rerences to "devil" are references to the same entity.

No offense but to me that is a poor reading of scripture and is suggestive that you don't believe Satan exists or you think Revelation is wrong in its prophesy of the end of the world. Revelation makes it pretty clear that Satan is a major player.

XVII

Peregrinus wrote: »

Satan's refusal to serve God is not analogous to refusing to obey a law that says state employees must keep state secrets confidential. Satan's refusal to serve God is analagous to refusing to obey the law of gravity; it's a denial of fundamental reality.

Interesting, thanks.

J C

EoghanIRL wrote: »

"The devil " is nothing more than a method of scaring Catholics into going to mass .

A lot of aspects of the devil were made up by man to degrade paganism and belief in other gods . Like his pitch fork was taken from neptunes etc.
This is a common technique employed by cults when indoctrinating people into their cult .
You must degrade prominent figures in other belief systems to scare people into joining your cult and to assure them that their beliefs were wrong and yours right .

I'm sure that all Satanists and assorted occultists will disagree with you - as well as all orthodox Christians.
... and it's not very often that all of these people agree on anything.

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

Indeed. Presumably the derision of Christian figures and concepts that goes on over on A&A serves a similar function.

Deriding the beliefs of any person is not a good way to make friends and influence them.
We can civilly disagree about our various beliefs and remain friends ... and learn many things that each of us didn't know, in the process.:)