Bakunin on Original Sin

===========================

Quit yapping like a dog, will you? Whether dogs can think is irrelevant. That isn't the point of the story.

====================================


erased.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===========================

Quit yapping like a dog, will you? Whether dogs can think is irrelevant. That isn't the point of the story.

====================================

That exchange was between me and Thousand Young.

If you're not interested shut up and get out of our way.

(Oh you thought your were the only one who could be rude?)[/b]

If you want to bicker with ATY about dogs then go start your own thread.

erased

Originally posted by jaywill
rwingett,

[b]================================

I thought this was a very interesting interpretation. Anyone care to comment?

===================================

Don't write crap you don't mean Fido.[/b]

The point of the story is whether Satan is a hero or a villain for getting Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, and not whether dogs can think. Do you have any input into THAT part of the story?

I'm sorry to you and the readers. I lost my temper.

I'm not up to talking this morning.

I'll try to erase the rude posts I wrote.

Originally posted by jaywill
I'm sorry to you and the readers. I lost my temper.

I'm not up to talking this morning.

I'll try to erase the rude posts I wrote.

Score one for Satan. Your impious comments have been preserved in my responses. When you go up to the pearly gates, St. Peter is going to see that on your permanent record.

Originally posted by rwingett
You are wrong. The bible is nothing but a history of human interventions.

I wish I was wrong, for your sake.

I know I'm right, just like I know that you are not absolutely sure that you are right. Even if you come back with the affirmation of your convictions, I know there is a nagging doubt in your mind. Just like I know what you will say next.

I won't say what I know you will say next because then you won't say it. 😉

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Oops. One too many drinks tonite. Let me reword.

You said that Satan's intent has always been the destruction of man. It was this that I responded to by pointing out that he can't do this without God allowing it. My response is in the context of your post; however you think Satan goes about destroying man, whether it be directly or indirectly, he coul ...[text shortened]... should have said is that my conclusion is true, because God is all-knowing and all-powerful.

Therefore, your next point that "Satan himself does not destroy people" is at best irrelevant and at worst contradictory to your first point [depending on how one interprets your words, since they are somewhat vague].

Satan is highly intelligent, and he uses God's law, which is holy and good, as a weapon against God's people. His intent is destruction, but he does not destroy people himself. When people are lured into sin, it is their transgression of the law which condemns them and which potentially leads to their destruction (that is, if they fail to repent of their sins and fall upon the Lord's mercy). Unrepentant sinners certainly do meet the wrath of a righteous God. It is no secret that God kills; neither is it a secret that He will not abide having unrepentant sinners in His presence -- unrepentant sinners will be cast out of his presence into an eternity of torment.

There is no doubt that the wrath of God is to be feared. The secrets of men are judged. If a sinner never comes to repentance, i.e. never turns from his sins and embraces God's will, believing in His mercy through Christ, then that sinner will, of course, never know God as anything but a fearsome, wrathful tyrant. The God of love is not soft on sin; He hates it with a burning passion. God is holy, let's not forget.

Now, regarding your main point. God is sovereign; He has the right to do as He wishes. He has the right to permit evil for accomplishing His ultimate will. How can He do that? Simple, look at the Cross. It was by evil means that men lied and crucified Jesus. Yet God in His infinite wisdom used this evil for good. It was on the Cross that Jesus bore our sins in His body (1 Peter. 2:24) and it is because of the Cross that we have forgiveness of sins.

Consider the biblical example of Joseph in the Old Testament. He was sold into slavery by his brothers. Though they meant it for evil, God meant it for good (Gen. 50:20). God is so great that nothing happens without His permission, and in that permission His ultimate plan unfolds. In His plan He is able to use for good what man (or Satan) intends for evil. God is in control.

Originally posted by rwingett
As the bible story is told from the pro-god point of view, Satan has been cast as the villain. All evil has been attributed to him by the endless heavenly propaganda campaign. But it is the fact that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And Satan is the original freedom fighter. Your linking him with Prometheus is very perceptive. You antic o god's despotic will, while the non-theists implore them to use their power of reason.

But the connection is a valid one. In the Latin, Lucifer means light bearer (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring" ). Just as Prometheus defied the gods to bring fire (knowledge) to man, Satan defied god to bring the light of reason to man.

The name "Lucifer" was not given to the most powerful of all angels after he tempted men to disobey. Lucifer was this angel's name before he fell from heaven, when he was, as Isaiah pronounced, the "son of the morning." "Light bearer" referred to his former glory, before pride caused him to rebel, and was his original name. Interpreting "Lucifer" in the Promethean sense is extra-biblical. "Satan" is far more apt, as it means, "adversary."

Make no mistake, when the story is interpreted from a human point of view, rather than a divine point of view, Satan is clearly the hero.

That is, if one is in league with Satan, which many are (whether they are conscious of it or not). But the human point of view is decidedly limited; evident by the many people who choose to remain God's enemy despite the fact that God always wins. The 'righteousness' which one perceives in the rebellious pose obviously serves to cloud the mind regarding the true righteousness which God possesses.

There is a mind-boggling absurdity at the heart of rebellion against God. It is like a hostage joining with his captors in their attempt to escape the police. All those who join Satan do so to their own destruction, while God labors to free them from their bondage and their just condemnation. Satan is not a very good friend. Unless, of course, one's idea of a good friend is someone who rejoices in your suffering and death.

And the battle continues to this day, with the theists imploring that people submit to god's despotic will, while the non-theists implore them to use their power of reason.

Now you're flipping things around again. It is not biblical to equate rebellion with the power of reason. Remember, the tree in the garden was not called "The Tree of the Knowledge of Science and Thought." This is an extra-biblical idea. God's will is perfectly in keeping with Reason. God, after all, is the Source of all Knowledge. Rebellion against Him is rebellion against Reason.

Originally posted by josephw
I wish I was wrong, for your sake.

I know I'm right, just like I know that you are not absolutely sure that you are right. Even if you come back with the affirmation of your convictions, I know there is a nagging doubt in your mind. Just like I know what you will say next.

I won't say what I know you will say next because then you won't say it. 😉

You should send it as a private message to someone so it is verifiable.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b]Therefore, your next point that "Satan himself does not destroy people" is at best irrelevant and at worst contradictory to your first point [depending on how one interprets your words, since they are somewhat vague].

Satan is highly intelligent, and he uses God's law, which is holy and good, as a weapon against God's people. His intent is de ...[text shortened]... plan He is able to use for good what man (or Satan) intends for evil. God is in control.[/b]

The net result of God's design seems to be that most humans will end up in hell. Jesus speaks of a narrow way that few can find. The fact that some of humanity gets saved does not let God off the hook for the fact that he knowingly created humans, and knew most of them would end up suffering for eternity.

OK, so God is in control. What sense then, does it make to blame Satan for the dispute between God and Man? That's been my point all along. Despite fell intentions, Satan is limited in what he can do to accomplish his goals. Does it make sense to villify him and yet laud the true causer of the destruction?

He has the right to permit evil for accomplishing His ultimate will.

Perhaps you would argue that God permits lesser evils for a greater good. Please explain to me how sending most humans to hell accomplishes a greater good.

Originally posted by josephw
I wish I was wrong, for your sake.

I know I'm right, just like I know that you are not absolutely sure that you are right. Even if you come back with the affirmation of your convictions, I know there is a nagging doubt in your mind. Just like I know what you will say next.

I won't say what I know you will say next because then you won't say it. 😉

Of course I am not 'absolutely' sure I'm right. I am not convinced that absolute knowledge is even possible, and as such will always admit that there is a chance, however small, that I am wrong. It's people who claim to "know" they're right that you have to watch out for.

Is that what you thought I'd say?

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b]But the connection is a valid one. In the Latin, Lucifer means light bearer (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring" ). Just as Prometheus defied the gods to bring fire (knowledge) to man, Satan defied god to bring the light of reason to man.

The name "Lucifer" was not given to the most powerful of all angels after he temp ...[text shortened]... of all Knowledge. Rebellion against Him is rebellion against Reason.[/b]

You continue to rely exclusively on the well-worn, heavenly interpretation of Satan as being a villain and bringer of evil. The purpose of this thread is to question whether that source is being objective or is it biased? If Satan were to tell his own version of the story, how different would it look? It's possible that the only details they would agree upon are the most basic facts, namely that Satan entered the Garden of Eden and induced Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, in defiance of God's prohibition. Everything beyond that, I'm sure, would be very different. Here's a possible scenario:

God ruled the world as a cruel and despotic tyrant, with mankind held in thrall as his 'house slaves.' Having no knowledge of anything else, and lacking any basis for comparison, mankind was oblivious to the true extent of their oppression. Satan, that champion of freedom and equality, entered the garden and urged mankind to throw off their chains and reject the tyranny of God's fascistic state. Instead of relying on the caprices of a (doubtfully) enlightened monarch, mankind was awakened to the possibility that they could use their own power of reason to freely chart their own course in the world. Power was thus divested from the autocratic state and redistributed into the hands of the people, who thereafter cheered Satan as the 'father of democracy.'

But the break was not a clean one. Mankind was left in limbo, part way between the divine and earthly realms, not knowing which way to turn. We see this today still. Those who would embrace conservative, right wing, or fascist governments, are yearning to re-embrace the paternalistic, autocratic overlordship of the divine realm. While those who would embrace democracy, with an emphasis on individual rights, are striving to leave behind the dictatorial rule of God and build a realm of political equality. Every modern political struggle is really between those who would use that knowledge and reason to evaluate the truth for themselves, and those would think that God knows best.

As for Satan, God had found himself a patsy to blame all his blunders on. In the divine spin on things, God's design wasn't bad, it was Satan who threw a wrench into the works. God could wash his hands of all the world's evils and just say that Satan did it. And this relentless propaganda campaign has been largely successful. But the fact is that Satan was the original freedom fighter, the Promethean bringer of knowledge and reason, and the advocate for the rights of the common man in his struggle against divine tyranny.

Originally posted by rwingett
You continue to rely exclusively on the well-worn, heavenly interpretation of Satan as being a villain and bringer of evil. The purpose of this thread is to question whether that source is being objective or is it biased? If Satan were to tell his own version of the story, how different would it look? It's possible that the only details they would agree upo ...[text shortened]... he advocate for the rights of the common man in his struggle against divine tyranny.

Your posts are wrong on so many points, the mind reels. It's one thing for you openly to contradict the Bible, but to turn and contradict your own position on the same subject renders most of your rants little more than gibberish.

If Satan were to tell his own version of the story, how different would it look?
Pretty close to the description offered by folks such as you have cited to begin this thread.

For instance, this whack-job lacked the professionalism to even study his cited source, the Bible. He claims God forbade touching. The command from God had nothing whatsoever to do with touching--- only the woman threw that prohibition into the later conversations.

God ruled the world as a cruel and despotic tyrant, with mankind held in thrall as his 'house slaves.'
Sure, that makes sense. Creator of the universe 'needed' something different and--- tiring of chocolate--- creates a slave so He wouldn't have to do the tedious work of fetching the morning paper, or refilling the toilet paper rolls.

Having no knowledge of anything else, and lacking any basis for comparison, mankind was oblivious to the true extent of their oppression.
"The true extent of their oppression," almost sounds as though there existed an elevated state: available, but purposely kept out of reach. Two problems with this one. First, what (or, better, who) is the model for the elevated state? Two, given that the two of them were living in a paradise called Eden (you know, that place so fantastic that the only possible vacation was sex), and given that every need was immediately attended to, what was the nature of oppression?

The rest of your post is more jumbled mess than I can get into here, but here's the big point. Since God is all-powerfull (or at least enough to be 'granted' authorship for Creation) why not just blow the whole thing up and start again?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
...but here's the big point. Since God is all-powerfull (or at least enough to be 'granted' authorship for Creation) why not just blow the whole thing up and start again?

I hear drowning is more effective. Seems he tried that once. Maybe it wasn't so effective after all.