Is Satan capable of good?

[dybmh]

Conquest is not self defense.

I suggest you read the story we are talking about. This is pretty common in our conversations. You pick out a sentence, make a general statement, but don't seem to be connected to what was actually being discussed.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Regarding morality, the point is: no one is above the law. That's the message.

God is often viewed as being above the law.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So, the bible is claiming to be coming from God

No, the dialogue is supposed to come from God. The dialogue that includes God. All the other stuff is irrelevant.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God could have, but that's a different story, with a different lesson. None the less, the claim is that these deaths describe a blood thirsty god. When in fact, it describes a god who will help the Jewish nation if they are outnumbered and attacked. Basically.

How did they often end up in slavery?

 

[dybmh]

God is often viewed as being above the law.

In context, I was talking about human behavior. Wouldn't the world be a better place if each and every person accepted and beleived that the harm they cause would revisit itself in the form of punishment?

 

[dybmh]

No, the dialogue is supposed to come from God. The dialogue that includes God. All the other stuff is irrelevant.

No. You are taking my quotes out of context. Like I said this is typical.

 

[dybmh]

How did they often end up in slavery?

Wrong story. They weren't in slavery at that time.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure it can, if it was created to be evil, then, it's evil. And the question in the OP which I was answering was about actions.

If it was created to be evil, then its Creator bears responsibility.

And who is Satan's creator, again?

Question: "Is Satan capable of doing something that ends up good, and is God capable of doing something that results in bad?"

The question is about actions.

But of course they both are -- just as they are both capable of actions which are simultaneously good and evil.

Obvious, really.

My answer: "I don't apply will to Satan. It has no will of its own, so, it doesn't actually do anything. God, in theory, can do whatever it wants, and I am unable to judge accurately if it is good or bad. I can only appreciate it or understand it from a finite perspective"

You said: Satan cannot be "evil."

Which I stand by - a thing, incapable of independent action, cannot be "evil," because evil is a moral choice, and one must have agency to make moral choices.

Satan's fundemental qualities, what Satan "is", is a different question with a different answer. Lacking 'will' is one fundemental quality, but, it's more than that.

But lacking will means lacking agency. And without agency, there is no evil.

Agreed. And also for all the good. And for the potential to flip evil and badness into good. All of that, as you said, fall's on God's "shoulders". Shoulders is in quotes because God doesn't have literal shoulders.

But God deserves no credit for the good he "flips" out of the evil HE caused in the first place.

Oh? No purpose except as a scape goat? Maybe this will help? Satan is the accuser. Not a scapegoat. The scapegoat is literally an escaped goat who was sent into the wilderness once each year.

So who gives a fig about "literally"?

And, again, I think you have missed the point of the question. We can discuss how Satan's actions (ultimately God's plan for Satan) might be considered good, if we can agree to these other points.

If Satan is ultimately good, so be it.

 

[dybmh]

If it was created to be evil, then its Creator bears responsibility.

And who is Satan's creator, again?





But of course they both are -- just as they are both capable of actions which are simultaneously good and evil.

Obvious, really.



Which I stand by - a thing, incapable of independent action, cannot be "evil," because evil is a moral choice, and one must have agency to make moral choices.




But lacking will means lacking agency. And without agency, there is no evil.




But God deserves no credit for the good he "flips" out of the evil HE caused in the first place.



So who gives a fig about "literally"?



If Satan is ultimately good, so be it.

View attachment 81928

You seem to be conversing with someone other than me. I'm not sure why or how you are misunderstanding what I've written. Maybe you're just looking for an opportunity to write freelance and share your thoughts? You don't need to quote me for that.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Slavery in the USA was bad but it resulted in the descendants of slaves living in the USA which is good.

Do you live in Florida?

 

[Ebionite]

And who is Satan's creator, again?

Satan is a title, not a proper name. In the case of David numbering Israel, the Creator and Satan were the same being. In one account from the Tanak YHWH provokes David, but in another, Satan does.

 

[dybmh]

Satan is a title, not a proper name. In the case of David numbering Israel, the Creator and Satan were the same being. In one account from the Tanak YHWH provokes David, but in another, Satan does.

Let's look.

2 Sam 24:1

ויסף אף־יהוה לחרות בישראל ויסת את־דוד בהם לאמר לך מנה את־ישראל ואת־יהודה׃

ויסף - and in addition
אף־יהוה - YHVH's-anger
לחרות - was kindled
בישראל - in israel
ויסת - and it incited
את־דוד - David's entire essence/being/existence
בהם לאמר לך מנה - towards them to say "Go count..."

1 Chron 21:1

ויעמד שטן על־ישראל ויסת את־דויד למנות את־ישראל׃

ויעמד - and it stood up
שטן - the accuser ( satan )
על־ישראל - towards israel
ויסת - and it kindled
את־דויד - David's entire essence/being/existence
למנות - to count

In one account from the Tanak YHWH provokes David, but in another, Satan does.

If there is any sort of comparisson to be made it's אף־יהוה and שטן. That would mean Satan ( the accuser ) is a manifestation of YHVH's anger. That makes sense, doesn't it? That's a big difference compared to what you said: "The creator and satan were the same being."

 

[TLK Valentine]

You seem to be conversing with someone other than me. I'm not sure why or how you are misunderstanding what I've written. Maybe you're just looking for an opportunity to write freelance and share your thoughts? You don't need to quote me for that.

Then let's take it from the top and clear up your confusion.

Is Satan capable of good? Certainly.
But if Satan has no will (and thus no agency), then it cannot not form the intent to do good - or to do bad, for that matter.
Consequently, any good or bad it does cause is purely incidental.

So far so good?

 

[dybmh]

Then let's take it from the top and clear up your confusion.

Is Satan capable of good? Certainly.
But if Satan has no will (and thus no agency), then it cannot not form the intent to do good - or to do bad, for that matter.
Consequently, any good or bad it does cause is purely incidental.

So far so good?

"Consequently, any good or bad it does cause is purely incidental."

If it has no will, it's not doing anything. That's what I said at the beginning. It doesn't cause anything.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"Consequently, any good or bad it does cause is purely incidental."

If it has no will, it's not doing anything. That's what I said at the beginning. It doesn't cause anything.

But one does not need will to cause something. Cause and effect occur regardless of agency.

A thunderstorm, for example, is a natural phenomenon which has no will of its own - But its presence can certainly cause other events to happen - both good and bad.

 

[dybmh]

But one does not need will to cause something. Cause and effect occur regardless of agency.

A thunderstorm, for example, is a natural phenomenon which has no will of its own - But its presence can certainly cause other events to happen - both good and bad.

Not the best analogy, imo. Maybe it works, maybe not. How about this? A mouse trap. When the trap is sprung, what is the cause, the mouse, the trap, or the indivdual who set the trap ( actuated the spring-loaded bar and placed the bait )?

I would argue that the mouse caused it, because, the trap sits and never snaps until the mouse takes the bait. Maybe we can argue about whether the mouse or the individual who set the trap ( in this context God ) is the cause. But the trap ( in this context Satan ) is nothing but an automated response. Like a computer program. Hence the term 'daemon' in computer science.

 

[dybmh]

@TLK Valentine , FYI, it's friday afternoon where I am. We'll need to pick this up on late Satruday night PST-america, or Sunday.

 

[Ebionite]

If there is any sort of comparisson to be made it's אף־יהוה and שטן. That would mean Satan ( the accuser ) is a manifestation of YHVH's anger. That makes sense, doesn't it? That's a big difference compared to what you said: "The creator and satan were the same being."

The comparison can still be made between YHWH and Satan because it isn't an isolated case and there's no meaningful difference between enemy and adversary.

Isa 63:10 - But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

 

[dybmh]

The comparison can still be made between YHWH and Satan because it isn't an isolated case and there's no meaningful difference between enemy and adversary.

Isa 63:10 - But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

Nope. Look at the verse you quoted.

​

But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.​

The holy spirit turned and became an enemy. What else do you have? I still have maybe a little bit of time before sundown.

 

[Brian2]

But your god hasn't done squat about 'evil people' in some 3000 years. Is it on vacation? It didn't even save its own chosen people from genocide. What use is a god that only 'appears' to 5000 year old barbarians and then is completely absent from then on?

God is not absent in the eyes of those with faith.