Satan

[pecker]

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?

Well, we're going by the assumption to Bible is 100% real fact (which I don't believe). Anyway, that means that right and wrong is determined by God, like it or not. It also means that disobeying God is a sin. So if God says not to eat the apple, you do not eat the apple. If you do, you're sinning. The simple fact that God said 'No', within the context of this deabte, is reason enough to know it was wrong.

Within the context of the debate, that's basically it. However, determining whether God is right nor not is another debate for a different time.

[Darth Wong]

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.

I don't particularly care whether you claim to be a fundie or not; your argument is totally illogical.

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.

If you object to the extreme nature of your own analogy being thrown back at you, then you shouldn't have used it. As for your argument, I have already explained that it was broken, and you ignored that point. The original idea was:

1) Knowledge is good
2) Satan granted knowledge by getting Eve to eat the apple, so this was a good thing, not a "sin" as all the idiot fundies keep calling it.

Your rebuttal was:

1) Murder is bad
2) Murder can potentially result in knowledge
3) Therefore, knowledge is not necessarily good
4) Therefore, eating the apple was indeed a sin

This rebuttal was blindingly stupid. Murder is bad, but knowledge is still good. The fact that murder can result in knowledge does not change that fact. The fact that A can cause B does not mean that every attribute of A also applies to B. Did you even try to think this idiocy through?

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

Too bad you fucked up and made yourself look ridiculous in the process.

[NecronLord]

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?

Well, we're going by the assumption to Bible is 100% real fact (which I don't believe). Anyway, that means that right and wrong is determined by God, like it or not. It also means that disobeying God is a sin. So if God says not to eat the apple, you do not eat the apple. If you do, you're sinning. The simple fact that God said 'No', within the context of this deabte, is reason enough to know it was wrong.

Within the context of the debate, that's basically it. However, determining whether God is right nor not is another debate for a different time.

biblical events, not biblical morality. the events in the bible are taken as read, not the "morality" of that book.

[Darth Wong]

Well, we're going by the assumption to Bible is 100% real fact (which I don't believe). Anyway, that means that right and wrong is determined by God, like it or not.

No it doesn't. That's a pathetic leap in logic.

[pecker]

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.

I don't particularly care whether you claim to be a fundie or not; your argument is totally illogical.

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.

If you object to the extreme nature of your own analogy being thrown back at you, then you shouldn't have used it. As for your argument, I have already explained that it was broken, and you ignored that point. The original idea was:

1) Knowledge is good
2) Satan granted knowledge by getting Eve to eat the apple, so this was a good thing, not a "sin" as all the idiot fundies keep calling it.

Your rebuttal was:

1) Murder is bad
2) Murder can potentially result in knowledge
3) Therefore, knowledge is not necessarily good
4) Therefore, eating the apple was indeed a sin

This rebuttal was blindingly stupid. Murder is bad, but knowledge is still good. The fact that murder can result in knowledge does not change that fact. The fact that A can cause B does not mean that every attribute of A also applies to B. Did you even try to think this idiocy through?

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

Too bad you fucked up and made yourself look ridiculous in the process.

How did you get that?

I never said knowleedge was bad. I said the path that gets you knowledge may be a bad one. Within the context of the Biblical story, eating the apple was bad. Althoguh the knowledge gained may have been good, the action was bad.

Now, it doesn't matter whether we think eating the apple was bad or not. According to the story, it was bad. That's the entire POINT of the story. Unless you're willing to simply take that as granted when discussing the story, you shouldn't use it as an example. If you don't want to use that as a guideline, then pick a different story.

This is the premise of the story. It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with it or not.
a) God is good, therefore that which God states is Good.
b) Going against what God asks us to do is Sin.
As far as the story goes, these are fact. Now, you might not agree with it. But these was the author's intentions.

Now, we come into the story with the idea that Knowledge is good. Let's say that is true.

The original argument is this
1) Knowledge is Good
2) Satan gives Knowledge.
3) Therefore, Satan is Good.

However, the fault in this logic is that the action that Satan asked Eve to perform was a sin, within the context of the story. Whether we consider it a sin or not is irrelevent. For all those involved in the story, it is.

So now, Eating apple = Bad. Satan = The guy who says to eat the apple. And the reason that Satan asked Eve to eat the apple was so that she would sin. Satan knew as well that eating the apple was a sin. I'd hardly consider asking/tricking someone into sinning something a Good person would do.

The reason I used the example of murder is that it's something we can all agree on is wrong. In the story, eating the apple was something all involved could agree on was wrong. So while the actual Knowledge gained may be good, the path taken to get it is wrong. And the person who 'hires' you to do it bears some of the blame for the sin involved.

Now, you and I don't think that eating the apple was a sin. That's all fine and dandy in the real world. But if you're going to use a biblical story, you canot deny a 'fact' used in the story. You can disagree with it, but jsut becasue you disagree doesn't make it not true within the context of the story.

[Darth Wong]

I never said knowleedge was bad. I said the path that gets you knowledge may be a bad one. Within the context of the Biblical story, eating the apple was bad. Althoguh the knowledge gained may have been good, the action was bad.

The objective of gaining knowledge is good. This is indisputable. I will agree that the path may be bad. However, that is irrelevant to this case, since the act of eating an apple is not intrinsically bad.

Your example (that you can gain knowledge through murder, which somehow invalidates the original point) is a hopelessly false analogy: the act of murder is intrinsically bad; the act of eating an apple is not. That is why I ridiculed your comparison of murder to eating an apple, whereupon you tried to claim that wasn't your point at all. And now, it is your point again; make up your mind!

Now, you and I don't think that eating the apple was a sin. That's all fine and dandy in the real world. But if you're going to use a biblical story, you canot deny a 'fact' used in the story. You can disagree with it, but jsut becasue you disagree doesn't make it not true within the context of the story.

Wrong. The story describes facts. One of them is that God says it's a sin. However, since we the observer still have our own sense of morality, we are still free to decide whether God is being an asshole.

"Suspension of disbelief" does not mean "Suspension of thought".

[Master of Ossus]

So, if the biblical god does do a lot more evil acts then Satan, why is Satan considered so bad? Just what evil acts does he committ or people he tempts to sin? All I know is what he does to Job. When I took a year of Catheicism years ago(sp?) My priest told me that Satan and the fallen angels were thrown out of heaven because they revolted, and the reason they revolted is because they wanted to be like god- have his power, who's to say Satan wanted to to rule and be a mass-murderer like god? And by the way, why does the bible start with Genesis and the creation of the Earth rather than the creation of heaven the angels and the revolt of angels, which supposedly happened before that since the serpent in the garden of Eden was regarded to be the devil? Where is the revolt of angels mentioned in the bible?

This is actually an interesting topic, explored in great depth by the TRULY excellent book, Lord of the Flies, by William Golding. It deals with this in considerable depth and detail, and is considered by many (including me) to be the greatest book ever written in English.

[pecker]

I never said knowleedge was bad. I said the path that gets you knowledge may be a bad one. Within the context of the Biblical story, eating the apple was bad. Althoguh the knowledge gained may have been good, the action was bad.

The objective of gaining knowledge is good. This is indisputable. I will agree that the path may be bad. However, that is irrelevant to this case, since the act of eating an apple is not intrinsically bad.

Your example (that you can gain knowledge through murder, which somehow invalidates the original point) is a hopelessly false analogy: the act of murder is intrinsically bad; the act of eating an apple is not. That is why I ridiculed your comparison of murder to eating an apple, whereupon you tried to claim that wasn't your point at all. And now, it is your point again; make up your mind!

Now, you and I don't think that eating the apple was a sin. That's all fine and dandy in the real world. But if you're going to use a biblical story, you canot deny a 'fact' used in the story. You can disagree with it, but jsut becasue you disagree doesn't make it not true within the context of the story.

Wrong. The story describes facts. One of them is that God says it's a sin. However, since we the observer still have our own sense of morality, we are still free to decide whether God is being an asshole.

"Suspension of disbelief" does not mean "Suspension of thought".

That, I guess, is where our lines of thought differ. While I don't believe that the act of eating the apple was wrong, the story thinks it does. I don't think I should apply my own sense of morality when trying to explain someone else's actions (that is, their reasoning for doing not, not to justify ther actual action or not). For example, if a culture does not see stealing as wrong, should I consider everyone within that culture that steals immoral? Or more specifically, would those people be bad because of it? Some would say yes, some would say no. I don't know what I'd say.

But I should apply my sense or morality when it comes to their actions that come to me. I don't care whether they see it as wrong or right, they're not gonna get away with stealing my TV. However, when I, or someone of differing morality, are not involved, I think a more objective viewpoint should be taken. I was saying that, within the story, Satan was evil. And since, as far as we're concerned, he only exists in the story, we can't really apply the outside world to it. Now, if we were to assume Satan is a real entitiy, then we'd have to go by more than a story. We'd have to find some 'real world' example to use. But to take solely the events within a story with a pre-ordained set of 'facts', and try to set them in the real world, is definitely goign to result in some skewed results. Of course eating an apple in the real world is not a sin. But just because it's not a sin here does not mean it's not a sin everywhere, in a manner of speaking. We may consider it reprehensible that some cultures eat dogs. Now,a re they immoral, or sinning, for eating a dog? Not really, until they try to eat the dog of someone who disagrees.

I don't know if that really has anything to do with the topic, but it's late and I'm pretty sure I'm ju st babbling about now. Take what you will.

[hvb]

The question of the goodness or evilness of Lucifer in this example should be decided on basis of his intentions: did he want Eve to sin or to gain knowledge/sentience, one is underhanded baiting of a minor, the other a laudable goal.

Wong: Murder may be defined as intrinsically evil in your culture (and mine), but that is a cultural distinction, and legal interdictions are still accepted. In the southern US they apparently elect senators on their willingness to take the lives of criminals, along with the percentage of innocents that fall by the wayside with them, so it is not intrinsically evil to the southern US culture.

Murder = Evil is not a universal, intrinsical, truth. If someone had murdered bin Ladin & his planning group a few years ago, would that have been an evil act? Think up your own (better) examples.

Now to my read Lucifer has eather an Anarchist or Aberrant alignment, while God appears to be of Miscreant alignment, but makes his own laws. (just to rass the D&D jargon with some Palladium ditto)

Of course being an Orthodox Atheist their exact alignments are not too important to me.