Is Satan capable of good?

[wellwisher]

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

Satan is the head of the social construct of good and evil, allowing Satan to be both good and evil. This is why he is shown sitting in the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God is morally neutral like nature and instinct. God never wanted humans to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil since that would polarize their consciousness in an unnatural way. God is more connected to the tree of life.

The analogy I like to use for the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the magnet, which has a north and south pole. All magnets exist in polar pairs of north and south with neither pole, north or south, existing in isolation. There is no such thing as a magnetic monopole, or just north or just south poles in physics. They are two peas in a pod.

There is no good without a reflected concept of evil; love and hate, and there is no evil without a reflected good; stealing and sharing. This neural magnet of polar opposites, orientates human consciousness to think in terms of binary reflections and not as natural things, which are neutral. It appears to be connected to a neural subroutine that has been socially conditioned, anew, since the start of civilization; satan subroutine and original sin.

The concepts of heaven and hell, attempt to lump and polarize behavior into two symbols, which are opposites, so the image of monopoles can be satisfied within either heaven or hell, while also being true to the human propensity to polarize. It is one step short of natural neutrality.

The original advantage of knowledge of good and evil is since these are polar opposites, and one implies the other as a refection, good can appear from evil, like a light appearing in the darkness; Holy Night. But as the light grows bright, so the darkness grows darker, to allow subtle light to appear conscious. The contrast creates evolving awareness, but it can only evolve so far, until it becomes confused and relative. Now shoplifters think that is good and crooks use the law to escape justice and punish political enemies. The Satan subroutine also make relative illusions possible.

 

[Kfox]

In my belief Satan was afforded every opportunity to repent, accept fogginess and rehabilitate. He fully embraced iniquity and will be judged if he hasn't already been exnihilated.

That's not what I asked. Perhaps a little clarification; IMO most actions result in a percentage of good and bad. The Holocaust for example was an atrocity, yet it lead to the State of Israel which might be considered good. Slavery in the USA was bad but it resulted in the descendants of slaves living in the USA which is good. I'm not saying the good justifies the bad, or even a larger percentage of the act resulted in good, only that a percentage of the act resulted in good. The same can be said for good also having a bad component.
So again; do you think any acts of Satan; though bad, might have a percentage (even a tiny percentage) of good resulting? (and visa-versa for God)

 

[Kfox]

Satan is the head of the social construct of good and evil, allowing Satan to be both good and evil. This is why he is shown sitting in the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God is morally neutral like nature and instinct. God never wanted humans to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil since that would polarize their consciousness in an unnatural way. God is more connected to the tree of life.

The analogy I like to use for the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the magnet, which has a north and south pole. All magnets exist in polar pairs of north and south with neither pole, north or south, existing in isolation. There is no such thing as a magnetic monopole, or just north or just south poles in physics. They are two peas in a pod.

There is no good without a reflected concept of evil; love and hate, and there is no evil without a reflected good; stealing and sharing. This neural magnet of polar opposites, orientates human consciousness to think in terms of binary reflections and not as natural things, which are neutral. It appears to be connected to a neural subroutine that has been socially conditioned, anew, since the start of civilization; satan subroutine and original sin.

The concepts of heaven and hell, attempt to lump and polarize behavior into two symbols, which are opposites, so the image of monopoles can be satisfied within either heaven or hell, while also being true to the human propensity to polarize. It is one step short of natural neutrality.

The original advantage of knowledge of good and evil is since these are polar opposites, and one implies the other as a refection, good can appear from evil, like a light appearing in the darkness; Holy Night. But as the light grows bright, so the darkness grows darker, to allow subtle light to appear conscious. The contrast creates evolving awareness, but it can only evolve so far, until it becomes confused and relative. Now shoplifters think that is good and crooks use the law to escape justice and punish political enemies. The Satan subroutine also make relative illusions possible.

So your view is that all good comes from Satan as well?

 

[ChristineM]

Freudian slip?

No

 

[Colt]

That's not what I asked. Perhaps a little clarification; IMO most actions result in a percentage of good and bad. The Holocaust for example was an atrocity, yet it lead to the State of Israel which might be considered good. Slavery in the USA was bad but it resulted in the descendants of slaves living in the USA which is good. I'm not saying the good justifies the bad, or even a larger percentage of the act resulted in good, only that a percentage of the act resulted in good. The same can be said for good.
So again; do you think any acts of Satan; though bad, might have a percentage (even a tiny percentage) of good resulting? (and visa-versa for God)

I see, yes, ultimately more good resulted from Satan's sin in the sense that others have had a deeper test of faith and service to others affected than had there been no sin, no confusion at all. BUT, that doesn't credit Satan with doing good in sinning. Evil is a byproduct, a consequence of Gods plan for creation. It was inevitable, BUT that doesn't mean that God gets credited for doing something bad.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Great questions!

I don't apply will to Satan. It has no will of its own, so, it doesn't actually do anything.

No will means no responsibility. Without will or responsibility, Satan cannot be "evil."

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.

We can only judge good or bad from our own limited perspective, but if Satan has no will, then ultimately, the evil and badness of this world falls on God's shoulders.

Consequently, Satan serves no purpose except as a scapegoat... and in our limited perceptions of good or bad,I don't see under what circumstances the creation of a scapegoat can be considered "good."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is Satan capable of doing something that ends up good,

It would certainly be the ultimate act of rebellion, would it not?

I've said before that if Satan's goal is to destroy and sabotage God's plan for His creation, he could do it at any time with two simple words:

"I quit."

 

[dybmh]

It's the fact god could have done a great many things to avert the bloodshed and chosen instead to punish only those who did break the peace. But instead the nightmares and horrors of war is what he went with.

Maybe it would be good for both of us to review 2 Chron 14 and then return to the this specific topic. I do not think we're talking about the same story.

More real than a global flood or a river turning to blood. And it makes for a better story that teaches better values and conflict resolution that creates and builds rather than destroy.

There is no conflict resolution in the story you described where God magically poofs the aggressors to the opposite side of the world.

Its the same god going by the book.
Could you reference this translation error?

One of them is Exodus, the daughter who becomes a maid-servant. People think the daughter is sold to be a sex-slave, but she is actually being 'transferred' not 'sold'. It's a change of custody, not a sale, and the daugter has consented.

Another one is in Deuteronomy. People think that a woman ( girl ) is raped and then the rapist pays the father for her. But, when it is translated properly, the woman ( girl ) propositioned the man, so its not a rape, and she is not being sold into sex slavery. The translation issue there is the word for 'he answered her', which indicates she propositioned him.

Another one is, I think, in Numbers. The women in a battle are taken, but not as slaves. People assume they are sex-slaves because they are listed in the same verse as 'treasure'. But people either interpret it wrong, or translate it wrong as if the women are property, the spoils of war.

It's s still on topic.

It's a different question. If God is not doing the killing just allowing it, that is much less extreme and much more complicated.

And we have those motives as to why all that happened.

It's not "blood-thirst". Unless you can convince me otherwise of course. I will accept scripture if we can agree on the translation.

The bigger question is why has god not realized his solution hasn't ever worked. Like the flood. His goal of wiping out wickedness failed, and all those people died for naught.

I disagree. We would need to review the story of the flood and compare that story to the world as it is now.

Not to the point it leaves the world hungry, blind and worth a pile of dead kids.

We were supposed to be talking about the death of the first born egyptians on one night compared to the death of every jewish male for many many years.

Is that what you're referring to? A pile of dead kids? Are you envisioning "the first born" as babies?

I said it's like that, because it was still widespread, indiscriminate killing of those who are innocent.

It's not written that they were innocent. That is assumed.

That's a lot of probablies when we both know how the story goes.

I would appreciate a straight answer. Is it known how many of the egyptian first born were guilty or complicit in the murder of jewish male babies?

 

[dybmh]

No will means no responsibility. Without will or responsibility, Satan cannot be "evil."

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.

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.

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."

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.

We can only judge good or bad from our own limited perspective, but if Satan has no will, then ultimately, the evil and badness of this world falls on God's shoulders.

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.

Consequently, Satan serves no purpose except as a scapegoat... and in our limited perceptions of good or bad,I don't see under what circumstances the creation of a scapegoat can be considered "good."

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.

Satan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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.

 

[Sargonski]

Satan promotes Atheism which is eternal death.

Where did you get that silly idea from .. Satan is here to help you .. not harm you .. as to find your way to eternal life you will have to correct your errors .. and that is Satan's job .. sent by God to test you .. to help you correct your errors .. such as the one you are making right now ... blaspheming a Son of God .. with some hefty divine powers --who he uses quite regularly on "worthless earthlings" .. "Gods words" not mine.

 

[Firenze]

View attachment 81791

Thanx for recognizing that atheists aren’t selling anything.

 

[Firenze]

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.

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.

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."

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.



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.



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.

Satan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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 the choice is between a god so incompetent and self-hating that he had to drown his creation like kittens in a toilet - or a angel that stood up to it, I’m pretty sure where I’d land.

 

[shunyadragon]

So everyone should live forever? And the worst of the worst criminals shouldn't lose their lives?

We've talked about this before, and each time you've ignored scripture, ignored the story, in favor of this posting the shallow picture. Bascially, in the past, you've shown you really don't care about the details, just flinging poo from a cage.

Not an adequate response, but fundamentally Genesis and by the way the Pentateuch represents ancient tribal narratives set vaguely in ancient history, and dominated by mythology of an anthropomorphic God.

If God exists this like all ancient tribal views would not remotely represent a Universal Omnipotent All-Powerful Source of some of all God(s). It would represent an ancient limited fallible human view of God, or as referenced in the Torah Gods.

 

[Firenze]

I didn't interpret, I quoted the verses in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles which indicate those deaths were a result of being attacked and defending themself. In 1 Kings 20, the wives and children were threatened. That's not interpretation, that's a direct quote.

20:1​

And Ben-Hadad the king of Aram gathered all his army together; and there were thirty two kings with him, and horses, and chariots; and he went up and besieged Samaria, and fought against it.​

​

20:2​

And he sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel to the city, and said to him, Thus said Ben-Hadad,​

​

20:3​

Your silver and your gold is mine; your wives also and your children, even the best, are mine.​

​

Here's 2 Chron 14. Approx 600,000 soldiers were being attacked by 1,000,000 soldiers. God assisted the the 600,000 because they were being attacked. But you are ignoring that and claiming God killed these soldiers unjustly because it is blood thirsty. It's just plain nonsense.

​

14:7​

And Asa had an army of men who carried targets and spears, three hundred thousand men from Judah; and two hundred and eighty thousand men from Benjamin, who carried shields and drew bows. All these were mighty men of valor.​

​

14:8​

And there came against them Zerah the Ku****e with an army of a million men, and three hundred chariots; and came to Mareshah.​

So, why are you ignoring the story. Not an interpretation. The actual words of the story? You claim you knew this stuff right? So, what's the reason for ignoring the fact that a smaller army was attacked?

I think the nonsense is that an all powerful and loving god - “for whom not a sparrow could fall without his anxious concern” - would not simply stop all carnage. But then, I recall that it was not competent enough to defeat those ****** iron chariots….

 

[Firenze]

I disagree, neutral atheists don’t join religious forums to promote Atheism and mock theists as they do here. Your adjective rationalization doesn’t hold water for the simple reason that atheist don’t see this place as a public park when they join, they see it as a religious park where they can antagonize theistic people.

 

[dybmh]

I think the nonsense is that an all powerful and loving god - “for whom not a sparrow could fall without his anxious concern”

That's from the christian bible? Yes, there's some problems there if it is read literally.

- would not simply stop all carnage. But then, I recall that it was not competent enough to defeat those ****** iron chariots….

The questions are:

Did God kill all those people in the graphic posted?
Were those deaths justified?
Were the killers positive or negative role-models?
Is God in the bible accurately described as blood-thirsty?

Competence is a different question.

 

[Raju3v]

It's not that satan is capable of good but it's that he does not choose to be good is the real problem

 

[1213]

Of course God wants to do bad things.. This follows logically from the fact that there are bad things. If God did not want bad things .. there would not be any bad things.

God allowing people to be bad is not the same as God wanting to do bad things. I don't think God can be blamed for the things people do.

 

[Firenze]

God allowing people to be bad is not the same as God wanting to do bad things. I don't think God can be blamed for the things people do.

But it can certainly be blamed for sitting by during every rape and torture of a child, right? I mean, most people would seek to stop this horror. But apparently our morality is superior to this god.

 

[Brian2]

But it can certainly be blamed for sitting by during every rape and torture of a child, right? I mean, most people would seek to stop this horror. But apparently our morality is superior to this god.

God can't do anything right it seems.
When God judges evil people by killing them that makes God evil.
When God does not judge evil people and give them what they deserve, that makes God evil.
Let's face it, many believe that God is evil because there is evil in the world.
I trust that God is good and is bringing history to an end when all will be revealed and all will be judged fairly and all the evil in this world will be no more except in an ever diminishing memory of the past.
We will learn then just how evil we humans are and that it is just God's grace and mercy that have allowed us to live on and even called us back to Him.
And when I say that humans are evil I mean that even the best of us have things in us that are the same as the things in a child rapist and murderer.