Satan

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-12 11:18am

NecronLord wrote:Satan gives knowlege

knowledge is good

Satan, therefore is good.

I can learn about Death by killing someone.

Knowledge is good.

Murder is good.

eh?

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-11-12 11:58am

pecker wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Satan gives knowlege

knowledge is good

Satan, therefore is good.
I can learn about Death by killing someone.

Knowledge is good.

Murder is good.

eh?

not as much as you can lear by suicicide.

more specifically satan gave knowlage of good and evil

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-11-12 12:22pm

Knowledge is not subjectively good/bad, it's what you do with teh knowledge that can be good or bad.

Hence your Knowledge=Good is flawed.
Just like Time=Money is flawed.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-12 12:26pm

pecker wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Satan gives knowlege

knowledge is good

Satan, therefore is good.
I can learn about Death by killing someone.

Knowledge is good.

Murder is good.

eh?

You are quietly exchanging knowledge with action in your attempt to undermine the argument. Dishonest little hatfucker ...

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-12 12:31pm

Darth Wong wrote:
pecker wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Satan gives knowlege

knowledge is good

Satan, therefore is good.
I can learn about Death by killing someone.

Knowledge is good.

Murder is good.

eh?
You are quietly exchanging knowledge with action in your attempt to undermine the argument. Dishonest little hatfucker ...

According to the story, the sin wasn't aquiring the knowledge so much as the action that led to it. The sin was eating the apple that God said not to, not gaining the knowledge held within.

And I wasn't attempting to undermine his argument by stealthily replacing variables. I was just trying to point out that what you do with knowledge, or how you get it, can be a very bad thing.

He said knowledge is good, and Satan gives knowledge, therefore Satan is good. What if Satan said he'd give me knowledge if I killed somebody? That's a hole in his argument that I simply meant to point out.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-11-12 12:32pm

Spoonist wrote:Knowledge is not subjectively good/bad, it's what you do with teh knowledge that can be good or bad.

Hence your Knowledge=Good is flawed.
Just like Time=Money is flawed.

While it would be interesting to shout INFLATION and see what you say. see the clarification. above

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-12 12:34pm

NecronLord wrote:
pecker wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Satan gives knowlege

knowledge is good

Satan, therefore is good.
I can learn about Death by killing someone.

Knowledge is good.

Murder is good.

eh?
Actually, I can't really learn abotu death by suicide cuz I'll be 'Dead' before my cocsiousness can register it.

And the 'Knowledge of Good and Evil' is an iffy definition. The story went through generations of oral tradition before be written, translated, and retranslated. I'd like to look up what the original meaning was.
not as much as you can lear by suicicide.

more specifically satan gave knowlage of good and evil

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-11-12 12:36pm

pecker wrote:
NecronLord wrote:
pecker wrote: I can learn about Death by killing someone.

Knowledge is good.

Murder is good.

eh?
Actually, I can't really learn abotu death by suicide cuz I'll be 'Dead' before my cocsiousness can register it.

And the 'Knowledge of Good and Evil' is an iffy definition. The story went through generations of oral tradition before be written, translated, and retranslated. I'd like to look up what the original meaning was.
not as much as you can lear by suicicide.

more specifically satan gave knowlage of good and evil

We are speaking from the bible is true perspective, in which case you have an immortal soul.

This is also from the bible is absouloutely true perspective.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-11-12 12:38pm

Clarification? Above?
Am I missing something?

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-12 12:38pm

NecronLord wrote:
pecker wrote:
NecronLord wrote: Actually, I can't really learn abotu death by suicide cuz I'll be 'Dead' before my cocsiousness can register it.

And the 'Knowledge of Good and Evil' is an iffy definition. The story went through generations of oral tradition before be written, translated, and retranslated. I'd like to look up what the original meaning was.
not as much as you can lear by suicicide.

more specifically satan gave knowlage of good and evil
We are speaking from the bible is true perspective, in which case you have an immortal soul.

This is also from the bible is absouloutely true perspective.

Ooooh, OK.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-12 12:40pm

pecker wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You are quietly exchanging knowledge with action in your attempt to undermine the argument. Dishonest little hatfucker ...
According to the story, the sin wasn't aquiring the knowledge so much as the action that led to it. The sin was eating the apple that God said not to, not gaining the knowledge held within.

Ah, so you think that eating an apple is intrinsically wrong on its own merits, hence your comparison to murder? You're more fucked-up than I thought.

Antediluvian · Post by **Antediluvian** » 2002-11-12 05:06pm

Yeah, I'm not that bad...

Oops, let the cat out of the bag.

(Flies off before anyone can swat him.)

Antediluvian · Post by **Antediluvian** » 2002-11-12 05:10pm

Seriously, though, I fail to see how Satan can be considered evil when all he did was rebel against a psychopathic tyrant.

He certainly didn't try to commit genocide, kill (or order to be killed) babies and pregnant women, or blast cities just because homosexuals were there, all of which can be laid at Yaweh's feet.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-12 05:18pm

According to the story, the sin wasn't aquiring the knowledge so much as the action that led to it. The sin was eating the apple that God said not to, not gaining the knowledge held within.

So, my original conclusion was correct. God wanted men to mindlessly obey him, rather than develop their own capacity for moral judgment, because if they did, they'd realize that all his hangups on sex and idol worship were complete bullshit.

Adam and Eve had no concept of good and evil prior to eating the apple. They were like children. You don't eternally punish children for disobeying you, nor do you kill them. God has done both.

I'm amazed that so many people blindly follow such a narcisisstic tyrant.

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-12 05:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:
pecker wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You are quietly exchanging knowledge with action in your attempt to undermine the argument. Dishonest little hatfucker ...
According to the story, the sin wasn't aquiring the knowledge so much as the action that led to it. The sin was eating the apple that God said not to, not gaining the knowledge held within.
Ah, so you think that eating an apple is intrinsically wrong on its own merits, hence your comparison to murder? You're more fucked-up than I thought.

Dude, I'm not some fundie moron. I'm not saying I believe any of this. And you are reading WAAAAY too far into my example. And you are twisting my words around. You're makign up issues I never brought up.

It was stated that because knowledge is good, and Satan gives knowledge, then Satan is good. I pointed out a flaw in that analogy. I just chose murder because it's direct. I could have chosen stealing, insulting someone, punching someone in the face, throwing a water balloon.

All I'm saying is the whole Satan/Knowledge/Good example was so messed up that I'd simply point out a flaw.

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-12 05:22pm

Durandal wrote:
According to the story, the sin wasn't aquiring the knowledge so much as the action that led to it. The sin was eating the apple that God said not to, not gaining the knowledge held within.
So, my original conclusion was correct. God wanted men to mindlessly obey him, rather than develop their own capacity for moral judgment, because if they did, they'd realize that all his hangups on sex and idol worship were complete bullshit.

Adam and Eve had no concept of good and evil prior to eating the apple. They were like children. You don't eternally punish children for disobeying you, nor do you kill them. God has done both.

I'm amazed that so many people blindly follow such a narcisisstic tyrant.

BECAUSE THE GARDEN OF EDEN, AND PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE, ARE NOT FACT!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-12 05:57pm

BECAUSE THE GARDEN OF EDEN, AND PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE, ARE NOT FACT!

It doesn't matter if they're fact or fiction. It does not change the implications and lessons of the story. Those implications and lessons are that following a narcisisstic tyrant is good, and that making your own decisions is bad.

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-12 06:03pm

Durandal wrote:
BECAUSE THE GARDEN OF EDEN, AND PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE, ARE NOT FACT!
It doesn't matter if they're fact or fiction. It does not change the implications and lessons of the story. Those implications and lessons are that following a narcisisstic tyrant is good, and that making your own decisions is bad.

I always figured it was more of not giving into the temptation of doing thigns you know are wrong. But hey, that's what interperetation is for

Frank_Scenario · Post by **Frank_Scenario** » 2002-11-13 12:06am

Durandal wrote:
BECAUSE THE GARDEN OF EDEN, AND PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE, ARE NOT FACT!
It doesn't matter if they're fact or fiction. It does not change the implications and lessons of the story. Those implications and lessons are that following a narcisisstic tyrant is good, and that making your own decisions is bad.

Well, I figure I may as well make my debut post here. In the early Chruch (according to Justo Gonzalez' Christian Thought Revisited), there were three major branches of theology; the first two, Type A and Type B, are best represented by Tertullian and Origen, respectively. Type A is notable for its focus on the Bible as a book of law; Type B for its focus on the Bible as a book of revealed knowledge. Type A has had the most influence on mainstream religion through most of history and type B influenced and was influenced by the Gnostics (and a bit of the Russian Orthodox church). Trust me, this has a point. The third type is Type C, which is getting more attention in the present day (by people like John Hick and, IIRC, Dietrich Bonhoeffer) is Type C, represented by Irenaeus. Type C views the Bible and the OT as primarily historical.

In the modern day, it's essentially impossible for anybody who looks at the evidence to think that the OT is, in fact, a literal historical record. It's not supposed to be. It can still be a descriptive account of human (spiritual) development. Irenaeus takes the Garden of Eden story as something that was intended to happen; it's not in any sense a fall from grace. It's a rise from ignorance. It's the necessary first step towards comprehension of morality.

Here's the basic idea. God has a plan. This plan includes the eventual salvation of mankind, bringing them to be with God. To do this, it is necessary that people know good and evil. The story of Adam and Eve is how the early Israelites accounted for this knowledge. It's not supposed to have any historical import, but it can still contain knowledge about God.

The lesson, then, is not that one should follow blindly, but that people screw up, but that a certain amount of that is necessary so that God's ultimate goal, salvation through Christ, can be attained.

I'm tired and I've probably butchered Irenaeus. A better version of this can be found in John Hick's essays on "soul-making," as he calls it. I, unfortunately, don't have my textbooks from my old Philosophy of Religion class handy.

As an aside, Pecker's interpretation also works just fine.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2002-11-13 12:11am

Pecker, how would Adam and Eve have known that eating the fruit was wrong? They couldn't have known it was wrong, they had no higher knowledge. And what is the definition of "wrong" you are using here?

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-13 12:14am

Another n00b.

OKE:

BTW - you fundie or moderate?

Frank_Scenario · Post by **Frank_Scenario** » 2002-11-13 12:23am

I'm neither a fundamentalist nor a moderate-I'm a liberal (theologically). I don't think you'll find many fundamentalists actually reading serious theology/philosophy of religion (though I'm sure there are some), and most moderates I know tend to go for lighter apologetics.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-13 12:27am

Frank_Scenario wrote:I'm neither a fundamentalist nor a moderate-I'm a liberal (theologically). I don't think you'll find many fundamentalists actually reading serious theology/philosophy of religion (though I'm sure there are some), and most moderates I know tend to go for lighter apologetics.

w00t! Welcome to the club of liberal Christian theologians!

Oh, and POKE!

(grumble...piccie don't work)

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-13 12:29am

Frank_Scenario wrote:I'm neither a fundamentalist nor a moderate-I'm a liberal (theologically). I don't think you'll find many fundamentalists actually reading serious theology/philosophy of religion (though I'm sure there are some), and most moderates I know tend to go for lighter apologetics.

No, but there are a lot who claim they've read it. I'm glad you're a liberal - between Jonathan, Creationistalltheway and the CW.org invasion, we've got quite enough fundamentalism to go around for the time being.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-13 12:42am

Jon's not quite a fundamentalist. He's just got severely warped ideas. Fundamentalists don't believe that God loves everyone; he does, apparently, or he's fooled himself into thinking that it's true.