Is Satan capable of good?

[dybmh]

Straw man. It's the enmity that is associated with war that is equivalent with the title of Satan.

That's not what is written. ( it's not a strawman either. )

But you said:

They're different words. Similar, but not the same. אף vs. אנף. And this ignores that the word for 'wrath' is not even in the verses you quoted. אף is in Isaiah 42, but, it's not exactly the same. Maybe-maybe there's a discussion to be had about a manifestation of anger, and if it results in being tested. I don't know. I think it's important to rule out some of these other claims first.

And that's why I said "if there is a comparison to be made." Meaning, at that point we can discuss it. Otherwise words are being changed. Letters are being dropped. I'm not OK with that. That causes problems ( Isaiah 5:20 ).

Maybe consider it in english. If someone is angry, they might accuse them, test them, etc. If wrath is invoked, there is no accuser... that's the nuclear-option ( figuratively ).

Re prejudice:

If it was strictly from the text then you should have a reason for going with a minority interpretation.

Umm. Interpretation is NOT going strictly by the text. Strictly by the text prohibits interpretation. And that's why it's ideal common ground. Once we agree on the words on the page, THEN I think it makes sense to interpret NOT before. If an interpretation matches the words on the page, I cannot deny it. If an interpretation conflicts with the words on the page it is automatically rejected. Agreed?

This should be simple. Harry Potter is not Volemort. Luke Skywalker is not Darth Vader. Barbie is not Ken. Right?

All of the translations I've seen that relate to David numbering Israel do not personify the wrath of YHWH as your argument does.

I didn't make that argument. Please don't rush ahead.

Also, attributing the adversarial nature to the set-apart spirit isn't consistent with war being associated with YHWH himself, not his spirit.

It depends on what is written. God can act through an angel, or can do it solo. God gets to choose, not you or me.

The point is that having enmity is consistent with being and adversary, so the title of haSatan is applicable in some contexts.

I have no problem with using the word "some". I recall your posts made universal unqualified statements like YHVH is satan. The creator is satan.

No, the lion is the symbol which connects the adversarial nature of YHWH to specific contexts. In Christianity it is also associated with the revelation of hidden knowledge.

It depends on what is written. If the text says satan, then you have a point. If you are inserting the word satan, it's an automatic fail.

No, YHWH is the adversary only for specific contexts. What I'm doing is showing what those contexts are, ie David numbering Israel and Hosea 5.

As previously shown, at best, the text says that is the Anger-Of-YHVH.

Anger-of-YHVH is NOT YHVH.
Steering-Wheel is NOT a CAR.

Hosea doesn't have anything in the text to support what you're saying. If you have to insert the word satan, it's a fail. Can you imagine what I can do to the NT if I start adding words and changing things?

For example: what's going on with Jesus and the money changers? Seems like he is an adversary and opposed to that. See what I mean?

That's the same fallacy that Paul uses in his argument for original sin. Sin does not necessarily imply dishonesty.

Not necessarily. But still cannot be trusted. And even if we don't agree on this, there is no other relevance to bringing the NT quote from Matthew.

Like I said off the bat, Satan is a title, not a proper name. In that context the identity of the adversary is unknown.

Like I said, Job 1.

A separate example relates to Balaam and the angel, where the angel had the role of satan.

Except the text doesn't say that.

 

[1213]

... there is no freedom without the bad. Just because God Created "the bad" ...

I don't have any reason to think God created anything bad. Everything was good when God created it. But, because it was good that people have freedom, it was possible to reject good. And when good is rejected, bad remains. Bad is like emptiness, lack of good.

 

[Sargonski]

I don't have any reason to think God created anything bad. Everything was good when God created it. But, because it was good that people have freedom, it was possible to reject good. And when good is rejected, bad remains. Bad is like emptiness, lack of good.

OMW this is thoughtless twaddle. If God Created the lightningbolt .. and that lightningbolt burns down your house with your family inside .. that is something bad done by something God created. The lightningbolt is also good .. for a number of reasons.

You have every reason to think God created many things Bad .. just look around you ? You were created in such a way that you need to kill life in order to live. Your a bad creation mate and in fact is this not what God himself tells you in the Holy Bible ... in the first few pages of Genesis !? 6th page to be exact .. Welcome to the cosmic duality ..

 

[TLK Valentine]

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 )?

An interesting hypothetical, but ultimately an irrelevant one, as most people are aware than an event can have multiple causes.
The immediate cause, of course, being the most recent event (the mouse stepping on the trap), vs. the primary cause, the one most responsible of the outcome (the individual setting the trap).

Fortunately, there's no need for us to go down this rabbit hole, because we're dealing with effects, not causes.

The mousetrap has no will or agency of its own, but it would take some desperate equivocation to argue that its mechanical action didn't kill the mouse.

Similarly, Satan may or may not have agency, but its action (even a purely mechanical one - figuratively speaking, as in "lacking will or agency") will have effects, which can be good or bad.

 

[Ebionite]

That's not what is written.

The core argument isn't about what is written, it's about the interpretation of what is written. Fundamentally, your argument is a equivocation fallacy because of your assumption that the Satan of Job is the same as any other Satan.

Your response to my repeated point that Satan is a title, not a proper name, which was "Like I said, Job 1" only serves to highlight the fact that you have no solution for this argument.

Here is the original proof text again:

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
1 Chronicles 21:1

And again the anger of YHWH [אף יהוה] was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2 Samuel 24:1

The difference between אף and אנף does not change the fact that you said that "... Satan (the accuser) is a manifestation of YHVH's anger", when the majority interpretation of 2 Samuel 24:1 is that 'he' is YHWH himself, not any manifestation or personification of his anger.

Again, the relevance of Hosea 5 is from the lion, which is associated with an adversarial nature. In the case of Ezekiel, the adversarial nature is expressed as the lion devouring men:

Moreover take thou up a lamentation for the princes of Israel,
And say, What [is] thy mother? A lioness: she lay down among lions, she nourished her whelps among young lions.
And she brought up one of her whelps: it became a young lion, and it learned to catch the prey; it devoured men.
Ezekiel 19:1-3

For Hosea, it is the lion tearing Ephraim and Judah:

For I [will be] unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: I, [even] I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and none shall rescue [him].
Hosea 5:14

The lion of YHWH associates with war:

YHWH shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.
Isaiah 42:13

War of course involves an adversary, and satan means adversary.

The second proof text is from Isaiah 63, where YHWH becomes the enemy of the house of Israel. The text also relates to the set-apart spirit, and you previously associated the enemy with the "holy Spirit" of Isaiah 63:10.

For he said, Surely they [are] my people, children [that] will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, [and] he fought against them.
Isaiah 63:8-10

There are multiple lines of argument that lead to the conclusion that the set-apart spirit of YHWH is the spirit of truth. The first is the issue of the honesty of the house of Israel from Isaiah 63:8-10.

The second is that David's role as a witness is consistent with the spirit of truth being the same as the set apart spirit of YHWH.

Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, [even] the sure mercies of David.
Behold, I have given him [for] a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
Isaiah 55:3-4S

Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Psalms 51:11


The third is the association between the spirit of truth in the gospel of John with the prophetic Psalms:

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:25-26

The argument of unreliability doesn't hold for John's first-hand accounts of the words of the Messiah because the gospel of John does not draw from the same sources as the synoptic gospels.


The fourth is from the Damascus Document of the community at Qumran, which associates the "Holy Spirit" with the spirit of truth.


Referring again to your "That's not what is written.", I said "A separate example relates to Balaam and the angel, where the angel had the role of satan", here is the Hebrew and the King James Version of the text:

ויחר אף אלהים כי הולך הוא ויתיצב מלאך יהוה בדרך לשטן לו והוא רכב על אתנו ושני נעריו עמו

And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary [שטן] against him. Now he was riding upon his ***, and his two servants [were] with him.
Numbers 22:22, KJV

שטן of course translates as "satan".

 

[Ebionite]

Satan may or may not have agency, but its action (even a purely mechanical one - figuratively speaking, as in "lacking will or agency") will have effects, which can be good or bad.

Whether or not those effects are good or bad depends on the context. For those suffering from the effects, they are typically perceived as bad, but in the context of long-term outcomes they may be beneficial, for example as the early acknowledgement of the offence:

Hos 5:14 - For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and none shall rescue him.
Tools

Hos 5:15 - I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.

 

[Viker]

I have not seen any rape and torture happening so that God does nothing. How many times you have been watching such things thinking why God is not doing anything?

On the other hand, people wanted to know evil. That is why people were expelled to this "Matrix" where many evil things are possible. Should God not have given this lesson to us, should He not allow us to know what evil is?

By not preventing the torture and rape of a child, God, allegedly being able to, has done nothing just or meaningful.

Absolutely no one ever born asked for the worst humankind can offer. No one ever wanted to know these evils people do. I sure never wanted to experience and know that kind of perverse evil.

A rape victim did not ask for it. A God did not intervene to stop it either. The line of reasoning you provide only serves a God obviously unaffected by the human condition. God only cares about God. Do as he says, not as he does.

With this knowledge I neither fear, hate, love or accept that particular God (at one point I feared then briefly hated).

It knows me not. It's never shown concern. Me being reciprocal I reciprocate.

 

[dybmh]

@TLK Valentine ,

Thank you for getting back to me!

Fortunately, there's no need for us to go down this rabbit hole, because we're dealing with effects, not causes

I was responding to your post which seems to be talking about causes.

The mousetrap has no will or agency of its own, but it would take some desperate equivocation to argue that its mechanical action didn't kill the mouse.

I addressed this in the post you replied to. Sadly, it seems like we're back to the point where you're not responding to what I'm writing. It's disappointing because, these are great topics; we could have a lot of fun discussing them. God, Satan, good, evil, cause, effect, agency... what's more fun than this stuff? But if you're not going to read what I write, then... again, you're talking to yourself. Or some imaginary debate partner.

 

[dybmh]

The core argument isn't about what is written, it's about the interpretation of what is written.

If we cannot agree to conform to what is written, then we are never going to agree on an interpretation. Any interpretation. Especially one which desires to equate YHVH with satan.

Like I said, using this very low standard for truth, I can easily twist Jesus into satan as well. By your own standards, and by your own arguments, if the metric is oppostion and being an adversary, then Harry Potter is Voldemort, and Luke Skywalker is Darth Vader.

I'm simply not interested in discussing what appears to be a reimagined spin-off of the Hebrew bible.

 

[1213]

A rape victim did not ask for it. A God did not intervene to stop it either. The line of reasoning you provide only serves a God obviously unaffected by the human condition. God only cares about God. Do as he says, not as he does.

Stop or prevent? I think rape stops always. I don't think God is unaffected. But, He has allowed people to be free, which means bad things can happen. I think Job is a good example of this. And I think his example also shows God compensates bad things for those who are righteous.

 

[1213]

Your a bad creation mate

I am born, not created.

 

[TLK Valentine]

@TLK Valentine ,

Thank you for getting back to me!



I was responding to your post which seems to be talking about causes.

View attachment 82075


I addressed this in the post you replied to. Sadly, it seems like we're back to the point where you're not responding to what I'm writing. It's disappointing because, these are great topics; we could have a lot of fun discussing them. God, Satan, good, evil, cause, effect, agency... what's more fun than this stuff? But if you're not going to read what I write, then... again, you're talking to yourself. Or some imaginary debate partner.

I'm sure it appears as such due to an apparent confusion regarding the word "cause."

It's important difference here between "cause"as a verb (as I used it) and "cause" as a noun (as you seem to have read it).

The thunderstorm, despite its lack of agency, can have effects, both good and bad, just as Satan can.
Does that clear things up?

 

[dybmh]

I'm sure it appears as such due to an apparent confusion regarding the word "cause."

View attachment 82099
It's important difference here between "cause"as a verb (as I used it) and "cause" as a noun (as you seem to have read it).

The thunderstorm, despite its lack of agency, can have effects, both good and bad, just as Satan can.
Does that clear things up?

It does and it doesn't. The problem of the thunderstorm is, imo, it's too complex. too many bits and pieces to analyze. that's why I like the mousetrap. it's simple. There's the trap, the one who set it, and the mouse. That's it. Nice and clean.

What I said in the previous post, which is still not being mentioned is, if the mouse never takes the bait, then the one who sets the trap has done no harm, and the trap itself has done no harm. This strongly suggests the mouse did it to themself.

The other part which I typed in the previous post which, for some reason, is being skipped is:

If the mouse takes the bait, it makes much more sense to look at the one who set the trap as the cause. Noun or verb? Doesn't matter. Maybe look at it this way? Instead of a physical trap, the one who set it could hold their hand in the air, place a piece of bait underneath it, and when the mouse scurries under, they could smash it.

What's the difference? The hand is smashing it, which is connected to the one who sets the trap. OR. The hand actuates the spring loaded bar on the trap? Who cares? The trap is irrelevant. It's mindless, has no will, and is nothing but a proxy. It can be excluded as the cause ( noun ).

If we start going down this road of assigning the spring loaded trap as the cause ( noun ), then it's not the trap. It's the bar. But! it's not the bar, it's the metal. OH! not the metal, it's the atoms! But wait, wait.... it's the internal vanderwaal forces inside the metal inside the bar. But NO! it's not those forces. Those forces have to interact with the inter-atomic forces of the mouse's body too! It's both! The metal bar slamming on the mouse's body is the cause ( noun ). Right?

It's a partnership. Without the mouse, the bar does nothing. No matter how it is considered, the trap is not the cause ( noun ). If it is modeled that way, the mouse must be included.

Claiming the trap is the cause ( noun ) is at best incomplete. I think it's best to exclude it. It has no agency. There's another example I could bring. But I've typed a lot and I'm concerned this won't actually be read as is.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It does and it doesn't. The problem of the thunderstorm is, imo, it's too complex. too many bits and pieces to analyze. that's why I like the mousetrap. it's simple. There's the trap, the one who set it, and the mouse. That's it. Nice and clean.

What I said in the previous post, which is still not being mentioned is, if the mouse never takes the bait, then the one who sets the trap has done no harm, and the trap itself has done no harm. This strongly suggests the mouse did it to themself.

Why break down the thunderstorm into components and not the mousetrap?

The other part which I typed in the previous post which, for some reason, is being skipped is:

If the mouse takes the bait, it makes much more sense to look at the one who set the trap as the cause. Noun or verb? Doesn't matter. Maybe look at it this way? Instead of a physical trap, the one who set it could hold their hand in the air, place a piece of bait underneath it, and when the mouse scurries under, they could smash it.

You're also conflating "cause and effect" with responsibility.

The man, the trap, and the mouse all contributed to the final effect - a dead mouse. You're arguing over moral responsibility, not cause.

But one requires agency to have responsibility, so while the trap itself is a cause to the final effect, it certainly bears no responsibility.

I touched on this before - the first time you got lost and mistakenly assumed I was talking to someone else.

What's the difference? The hand is smashing it, which is connected to the one who sets the trap. OR. The hand actuates the spring loaded bar on the trap? Who cares? The trap is irrelevant. It's mindless, has no will, and is nothing but a proxy. It can be excluded as the cause ( noun ).

If we start going down this road of assigning the spring loaded trap as the cause ( noun ), then it's not the trap. It's the bar. But! it's not the bar, it's the metal. OH! not the metal, it's the atoms! But wait, wait.... it's the internal vanderwaal forces inside the metal inside the bar. But NO! it's not those forces. Those forces have to interact with the inter-atomic forces of the mouse's body too! It's both! The metal bar slamming on the mouse's body is the cause ( noun ). Right?

It's a partnership. Without the mouse, the bar does nothing. No matter how it is considered, the trap is not the cause ( noun ). If it is modeled that way, the mouse must be included.

Claiming the trap is the cause ( noun ) is at best incomplete. I think it's best to exclude it. It has no agency. There's another example I could bring. But I've typed a lot and I'm concerned this won't actually be read as is.

The problem is that you're not only oversimplifying cause and effect -- you're incorrectly assuming that an effect can only have one cause, and that a cause can only have one effect -- but seemingly using it interchangeably with morality. Perhaps it would be best to pick one?

Multiple causes leading to multiple effects - not a partnership; a chain. Man sets trap, man baits trap, mouse gets hungry, mouse smells cheese, mouse steps on trap, trap is sprung, mouse breaks neck.

Each action is simultaneously a cause and an effect - but until you stop conflating this with responsibility, you'll never understand how an item without agency (the thunderstorm, the mousetrap, and according to you, Satan), can cause an effect to happen, but be morally blameless.

 

[Ebionite]

If we cannot agree to conform to what is written, then we are never going to agree on an interpretation.

Not sure what you mean by "conform". I've posted my proof texts from translations of the Tanak, starting with two accounts of David numbering Israel. You offered an alternative interpretation, but we seem to agree that the texts themselves are relevant.

Like I said, using this very low standard for truth, I can easily twist Jesus into satan as well. By your own standards, and by your own arguments, if the metric is oppostion and being an adversary, then Harry Potter is Voldemort, and Luke Skywalker is Darth Vader.

The fact that two people have an adversarial relationship doesn't make them the same people. Your argument derives from the fallacy of equivocation - the application of the fallacy results in no distinction being made between different things which have a common description.

Jesus as Satan is applicable to the context of the cleansing of the temple. In a general context it doesn't work, though. The contexts in which YHWH is the adversary, or Satan, are worth examining to find what the cause of the adverserial response was. Ezekiel 19 is useful for this because of the connection between the lion and Daniel's beasts of Daniel 7:2-6, since some of Daniel's imagery relates to the time of the end.

 

[Ebionite]

He has allowed people to be free, which means bad things can happen. I think Job is a good example of this.

Job is a story about figurative children. Satan enters the narrative amongst the children of Elohim, and the event which arguably caused this was Job making burned offerings. The Torah of burned offerings was for the children of Israel, which contrasts with the ten commandments being for the people of Israel. There's a parallel between Job's misfortune and Abraham's horror in Genesis 15.

 

[1213]

Job is a story about figurative children....

Why do you think so?

 

[dybmh]

Why break down the thunderstorm into components and not the mousetrap?

I did. That was later in the post.

You're also conflating "cause and effect" with responsibility.

The man, the trap, and the mouse all contributed to the final effect - a dead mouse. You're arguing over moral responsibility, not cause.

But one requires agency to have responsibility, so while the trap itself is a cause to the final effect, it certainly bears no responsibility.

If "The man, the trap, and the mouse all contributed to the final effect" then "contribution to the final effect" is irrelevant. There's needed another metric.

I touched on this before - the first time you got lost and mistakenly assumed I was talking to someone else.

I said, "you seem to be talking to someone else." And I clarified this the first time I mentioned it, and in the most recent reply. It means, you're talking to yourself. You seem to want to write freelance on this topic. Not discuss it. You don't need to quote me for that.

The problem is that you're not only oversimplifying cause and effect -- you're incorrectly assuming that an effect can only have one cause, and that a cause can only have one effect -- but seemingly using it interchangeably with morality. Perhaps it would be best to pick one?

The question in the OP, I think, is clear. You seem to be deviating from it. Please read the OP, and interpret it for yourself. Then read my reply. If you are interpretting it differently, then, perhaps that is what we should be discussing first.

Multiple causes leading to multiple effects - not a partnership; a chain. Man sets trap, man baits trap, mouse gets hungry, mouse smells cheese, mouse steps on trap, trap is sprung, mouse breaks neck.

I didn't say it was a chain. However, I will note, above, maybe it as a typo, ultimately you typed: "mouse breaks neck". I agree. Like I said. The mouse does it to themself.

Calling it a "partnership" is a simple ( well, maybe not so simple ) scienctific fact. The inter-atomic forces in the metal bar can do no harm solo. when the harm is done, the forces interact simultanesously, not in a chain. The cause ( noun ) of the harm is literally the interaction of 2 sets of forces. Simultaneously. Remove the mouse, no harm done. So, I've brought 2 strong reasons which suggest the mouse is the cause ( noun ) much-much more than the trap.

"Much-much more" is important. Yes, like you said there are multiple factors contributing. But if one of those factors is much-much less involved in the harm done, then, I think it should be excluded. If it has no will, no agency AND it cannot do any harm unless another agent acts on it, ( in this case 2 agents acting on it ) THEN this automonous inanimate object is not the cause ( noun ).

Does it contribute? yes. Does it matter? no.

Each action is simultaneously a cause and an effect - but until you stop conflating this with responsibility, you'll never understand how an item without agency (the thunderstorm, the mousetrap, and according to you, Satan), can cause an effect to happen, but be morally blameless.

I understand it just fine. Here's another example.

Suppose a person is browsing the internet. And an advertisement pops up for an "adult" website. The person taps-or-clicks on the adverstisment, and starts consuming the content. Their significant other sees them consuming the content and becomes angry. what is the cause of the conflict? The internet device or the tap-or-click?

It should be easy to see it's NOT the internet device.

Suppose a person is browsing the internet. And an advertisement pops up for an "adult" website. The person DOES NOT tap-or-click on the adverstisment, and DOES NOT consume the content. Their signficant other comes over and sees the advertisement. Do they get angry? Is there a conflict?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If "The man, the trap, and the mouse all contributed to the final effect" then "contribution to the final effect" is irrelevant. There's needed another metric.

Not at all - each event was necessary to lead to the final effect.

I didn't say it was a chain.

I didn't say you did - I'm saying you should have.

However, I will note, above, maybe it as a typo, ultimately you typed: "mouse breaks neck". I agree. Like I said. The mouse does it to themself.

Indeed - But let's not ignore all the other events that led to that final effect.

Suppose a person is browsing the internet. And an advertisement pops up for an "adult" website. The person taps-or-clicks on the adverstisment, and starts consuming the content. Their significant other sees them consuming the content and becomes angry. what is the cause of the conflict? The internet device or the tap-or-click?

It should be easy to see it's NOT the internet device.

Of course not. Everything led to the conflict. Every event is a part of the causal chain which led to the conflict.

It seems, however, like you're looking to assign blame - and here's where your analogy falls down.
The mouse has no idea it's going to get its neck broken if it tries to eat the cheese in the trap, whereas the person clicking the advertisement knows full well what they're about to be browsing.

To improve your analogy, let's say instead that the pop-up advertisement is disguised as something innocuous - say, a link to an auto parts website. The person clicks on the ad hoping to find a new carburetor for a 1987 Honda Civic, and instead is inundated with hardcore porn.
The significant other sees this before the person has a chance to close the window.

Suppose a person is browsing the internet. And an advertisement pops up for an "adult" website. The person DOES NOT tap-or-click on the adverstisment, and DOES NOT consume the content. Their signficant other comes over and sees the advertisement. Do they get angry? Is there a conflict?

Of course not - Because the causal chain we saw in the previous example has been broken.
Just as it would have been broken if the person had not decided to browse the internet that day, if the advertisement had never been there in the first place, or if the adult website had never existed.

Don't confuse "cause" with "blame."

 

[setarcos]

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

Certainly good means. The Christian conception of Satan as I understand it renders Satan incapable of good intentions for the end results.
In other words Satan is capable of using perceived good actions in order to ultimately achieve evil results.
Christianity deems God incapable of achieving bad/evil results. Humans excel at immediate judgement of an action as bad/good wile at the same time being poor at identifying the possible expediency of that same action to best suit a desired result.