Why exactly is Satan bad?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No… what I have been arguing is that there is a plumb-line that can only be in and through God.

So you haven't been arguing that God is good?

I think it is the opposite. There is a God standard to when man’s goodness can be measured.

But we aren't talking about measuring "man's" goodness. This thread is about measuring the goodness of God (and Satan).

Is it your position that Satan is evil merely because he chooses different things than God does, or do you think that there's something inherently evil in what he does?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’m not ignoring that. My issue, and it is apparent today, morality flows and ebbs on what is “culturally” correct or, maybe better said, “what they reasoned to be correct”.

I suspect that this is because you see morality as a set of rules.

I think morality is fundamentally about values. How these values get expressed is informed by our knowledge.

As we learn more about the consequences of our actions, we make better decisions, but the underlying values haven't changed.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I’ve read every post in this thread. It’s very interesting. A few questions:

(1) Who here believes God deserves to face retribution and justice for the suffering mentioned in this thread?

(2) Among you who affirm, how many of you believe in God?

(3) Is it possible to seek justice against someone who you don’t believe exists?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I’ve read every post in this thread. It’s very interesting. A few questions:

(1) Who here believes God deserves to face retribution and justice for the suffering mentioned in this thread?

(2) Among you who affirm, how many of you believe in God?

(3) Is it possible to seek justice against someone who you don’t believe exists?

“This is dumb. The idea of gods is obviously made up by humans.”

If God exists, who benefits most from this ^ view? If God exists, you don’t think he can make you believe something without revealing himself?

 

[Shaul]

The best I can do is engage in moral reasoning to the best of my ability.
If that "omnipotent and omniscient" being engages in actions that us reasonable beings with "limited understanding" would be forced to conclude are monstrocities, then that is entirely the fault of that "omnipotent and omniscient" being, as that being would be perfectly capable of giving us the tools required to come to a more informed conclusion, being "omnipotent and omniscient" and all....

That is full of illogic. Relying upon your own moral reasoning isn't the best you can do. The omnipotent and omniscient Being doesn't test you beyond your capabilities.

So if that being doesn't do so and then demands of us to act against our moral judgement to the best of our ability, I would say that that in and of itself would also be a monstrous immoral act.

Your Creator hasn't ever asked you to go against your own moral judgement. Your own best reasoning should work with Him. If it doesn't that isn't a lacking on His part but your own reasoning.

To illustrate:
Suppose I have your loved one attached to an electric chair with cables running to a certain button and set it up so that it completely looks like pressing that button will electrocute your loved one.
Supppose I know that pushing said button will actually save a human from drowning in the next room and I choose not to convey to you that information and thus letting you think that pressing the button will electrocute your loved one.
Then I'ld command you to press the button while telling you pressing the button is the moral thing to do and threaten you with eternal damnation if you disobbey.
You would consider that to be pure emotional abuse and pure torture. You'ld think I was a monster. A sociopath. And you'ld be correct.
I could easily explain to you the reality of the matter, but I simply hoose not to. That would make me an immoral monster.

You are judging yourself there, not Him. YOU and your own faulting reasoning came up with that bizarre scenario. He didn't. Since you think such a scenario would demonstrate monstrosity, and you were the one that came up with it, you are only incriminating yourself.

I'ld demand you to act against your better judgement. The fact that in reality while understanding the full picture it would actually be moral to press said button is completely irrelevant in this situation.


See how that nonsense backfires?

Yes, I see how that backfired against you.

It means that even if you are correct, you are still wrong.........................................

Your putative moral judgement thinks and someone who is correct is still wrong. I think that says what needs to be said.

 

[Shaul]

A limited being cannot label omnipotence because that require knowledge of omnipotence.

That statement has no basis.

There is no justification to the claim that God is Omni anything.

Sure there are.

The Bible gives descriptions of a typical ancient Mediterranean God: limited and petty.

That is your misinformed opinion.

 

[Father Heathen]

Nobody is a one dimensional villain in real life.
But, the Bible isn't about real life is it?

True, but believers think otherwise. I was just trying to make a point that 1.) nobody is the villain in their own story and 2.) history is written by the victors. If the Bible were real life, I would suspect that the Gnostics were onto something with the Demiurge concept.

 

[F1fan]

And yet, through all of this, you haven’t quite explained how reasoning determines morality.

Let me say it this way,

Yesterday’s morality developed by reasoning isn’t today’s morality.

Right. Yesterday's morality developed by reason concluded that since the Bibkle says we can't tolerate witches, we must execute them.

Of curse today's morality understands that witches are not a threat, and that human rights prevail.

Or...

Yesterday's morality devoloped by reason concluded that black people were subhuman and could be enslaved, because the Bible says so.

Until objective reasoning arose in the Enlightenment and argued for human rights for all humans, and today's morlaity defends the rights of all humans.

Or....

Yesterday's morality developed by reason concluded that Jews were a threat to European Christians and could be rounded up and exterminated.

Of course today's morality understands that Jews are human and have rights, even if Christians see them as a threat of some sort.

Today’s morality, more than likely, will not be tomorrow’s morality after discussion and reasoning.

So what is wrong with today's morality, and why do you want a change?

When do we know when we have actually found true morality?

When religious and political dogma is not ruling a person's thinking. Have you noticed that atheists are among the most accepting of any group? Atheists oppose false beliefs, and they don't suggest theists be killed. Atheists ask believers to acknowledge their beliefs are personal and subjective, and have no authority beyond themselves. That's it.

 

[F1fan]

I’ve read every post in this thread. It’s very interesting. A few questions:

(1) Who here believes God deserves to face retribution and justice for the suffering mentioned in this thread?

This is an absurd question since anyone who believes a God exists will assume God has full authority, and anything God says is moral (even if we humans find it immoral, like slavery or exterminating Jews). How is going to hold God accountable? Those who assume he exists?

Of course the "authority" of God only comes from a consensus of believers who have a majority in any given region. We don't observe any actual God coming forth and directing anything, it's only middlemen for God that do the work. Muslims in Oklahoma? Nope, the Christian majority put serious limits on your sharia law in that state. The Crusades live on.

(2) Among you who affirm, how many of you believe in God?

There is no rational basis to believe any God exists.

(3) Is it possible to seek justice against someone who you don’t believe exists?

Not if you are sane. The mentally ill? I see a whole new area of legal representation, if only courts would go aong with the imaginary defendant.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm not sure that LHP philosophy is as antithetical to fascism as you seem to think. Social Darwinism is a common part of the LHP. Yeah, sure, the LHP is individualistic and can at times seem pretty anti-authoritarian, but so did a lot of historical fascist movements during their infancy, even despite their collectivism and nationalism. LaVey and Aquino were both pretty open in their use of Nazi imagery, too, which is in many ways more important to Nazism than the ostensible collectivist nationalism.

(ETA: Not to mention how the LHP is highly influenced by shallow understandings of Nietzsche, which is something it has in common with the Nazis, too)

They're also the primary forerunners of the Left-Hand Path philosophy. And both CoS (LaVey) and Temple of Set (Aquino) had issues with fascist members early on and, honestly, still do.

The LHP runs a long range of ideas, but its core is screwed up beyond repair.

I don't know much about Aquino or The ToS, but enough to not take them seriously, nor the CoS. Anton LaVey was pretentious hypocrite whose work was very derivative, most of his life's story was made up B.S., and if his estranged daughter is to believed, was also an abusive piece of ****. I don't see either of them or their followers as the gatekeepers of the LHP.

All of that aside, I think the TST for the most part is actually wholesome.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When do we know when we have actually found true morality?

IMO, it's foolish to think there's one "true morality."

Morality is like nutrition: there are some basic truths ("eating poison is bad" or "killing newborn babies for fun is immoral"), but there are still many valid ways to approach the issue.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

This is an absurd question since anyone who believes a God exists will assume God has full authority, and anything God says is moral (even if we humans find it immoral, like slavery or exterminating Jews). How is going to hold God accountable? Those who assume he exists?

I believe in God. Yet I condemn God. Your rationality is useless in this domain. It’s corrupted.

 

[F1fan]

I believe in God. Yet I condemn God.

Quite the psychodrama. Atheists are free from this.

Your rationality is useless in this domain. It’s corrupted.

As believed from within the trap you volunteer to stay in. Reason works in reality.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Atheists are free from this.

You’re right. Atheism is a form of mercy.. for those who need it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Satan isn't bad. He freed us from a tyrant who wanted us as pets to stroke his ego.
Satan doesn't have a "righteous man" who offered his daughters up for a gang rape.
The only people Satan killed were killed at Jehovah's urging and permission.
Satan didn't tell a father to murder his child.
Satan didn't sentence his son to death.
Satan doesn't have prophets who prayed for death when some kids called him baldly.
Satan wants us to thrive, flourish and prosper. Jesus just had one lousy weekend. Satan suffers eternally for our sake.

 

[Father Heathen]

I’m not ignoring that. My issue, and it is apparent today, morality flows and ebbs on what is “culturally” correct or, maybe better said, “what they reasoned to be correct”.

Like men declaring they are women and “are accepted” in women’s sports.

Yet the bible sanctioned slavery, selling ones own daughter, and forcing rape victims to marry their assailants. The common defense offered by apologists for why such abhorrent and inhumane injustices are in the bible is because that was "the culture of the time".

 

[Father Heathen]

(1) Who here believes God deserves to face retribution and justice for the suffering mentioned in this thread?

I'm reminded of this scene:

 

[Kenny]

So you haven't been arguing that God is good?

???

But we aren't talking about measuring "man's" goodness. This thread is about measuring the goodness of God (and Satan).

It has been going back and forth. I tried to keep it on subject but not able to keep it there

Is it your position that Satan is evil merely because he chooses different things than God does, or do you think that there's something inherently evil in what he does?

I don’t think it is one or the other...

He chose and chooses to do things differently from God. Unless I misunderstand your meaning (which is possible) what he does, because of who he is, it is inherently evil

 

[Kenny]

Yet the bible sanctioned slavery, selling ones own daughter, and forcing rape victims to marry their assailants. The common defense offered by apologists for why such abhorrent and inhumane injustices are in the bible is because that was "the culture of the time".

I have found that when people come to these conclusions, their positions come from

1. Very superficial or moderate study
2. Any excuse is a good excuse when one doesn’t want to believe
3. They are blinded by the god of this world
4. They aren’t “born-again” so it is natural that they don’t see the truth of what was written.
5. Just hate God

Maybe there is more, but most of these types of answers fall under these categories

 

[Father Heathen]

I have found that when people come to these conclusions, their positions come from

1. Very superficial study
2. Any excuse is a good excuse when one doesn’t want to believe
3. They are blinded by the god of this world
4. They aren’t “born-again” so it is natural that they don’t see the truth of what was written.

The notion that a "righteous" god would condone or even sanctify rape and slavery is a damn good reason to reject the biblical portrayal. If something requires a person to repress both their conscience and critical thinking, then it's trash.

I have no problem with the concept of god. My problem is with the biblical depiction of god because it falls so far beneath my standards in regards to logic and morality.