jiml@cavell.UUCP (Jim Laycock) (09/04/86)
<**It was a one-eyed one-horned flying purple line eater**>
What follows is a reconstruction of a discussion I was involved in
recently. I do not consider myself a biblical scholar, nor is my
interest in this matter any more than academic (ie. I'm an atheist),
but I was curious as to what sort of response the following claim
would evoke:
Claim:
Lucifer is (or should be) the patron saint of science and technology
Argument:
Lucifer is credited in the Bible for the following 3 acts:
1. Rebelling against God and being cast into Hell.
2. Tempting Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit (knowledge).
3. Confronting Christ on the issue of faith vs. uncertainty.
In [1], Lucifer can be said to have rebelled against the dictatorship of
God. His act of dissention was motivated by interests/opinions which
conflicted with those of God. Historically, this is the stuff of which
great men are made (American founding fathers, Lenin,...). The list is
huge.
[2] Lucifer can be superficially compared to the titan Prometheus for his
act of giving knowledge (fire) to mankind. Satan's gift was much more
potent, however, for it included free will (the capacity to recognize
and choose to perform both Evil and Good acts) and rational thought.
[3] His third act is of questionable import. Personally, I acknowledge
that no knowledge is certain and I look disparagingly upon those who
place a greater value in 'faith' than in rational thought. I'm afraid
I'd side with Lucifer on this debate as well.
So if these are Lucifer's three major acts in the Bible, why is it that
he's received so much bad press? Scientists and philosophers should
praise him (were they to believe in him) for the tremendous gifts
he has provided us. Look well around you, for you work in a temple
erected for the pursuit of knowledge and the employment of scientific
inquiry--Satan's most wonderful gifts to mankind.
--
These opinions are true /\____/\ __
regardless of what anyone | ____ \___/ \
else might think. \_/ \__ /
\___/
Jim Laycock
decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!alberta!cavell!jiml
OR
alberta!Jim_Laycock@UQV-MTS
Philosophy major, University of Alberta (last year (I hope!))dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/06/86)
On a hunch, I checked a Latin dictionary and found: The word "lucifer", as an adjective means light-bearing, or light-bringing. As a noun, "Lucifer" was the name of the morning star, and a couple other less important things. This squares with what I was told in grade school about the name "Lucifer" meaning light-bringer. It's a suitable name for one who brings knowledge. The parallels between Lucifer and Prometheus may be less superficial than you think. The Encyclopedia Britannica reports that, according to Aeschylus, Prometheus not only brought fire and civilization to mankind, but also brought the *arts* and *sciences*, ie. knowledge. Prometheus is also described as a supreme trickster. Sound like somebody else we know? The major difference is that Prometheus is depicted as a benefactor of man while Lucifer is depicted as evil. If Zeus got to write the holy books, Prometheus would have ended up being described as evil, no doubt. -- David Canzi "The best things in life are disgusting."
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (09/07/86)
The parallels between Lucifer and Prometheus are even greater. Both are
gods of an earlier people who were parodied and denigrated by a later
religion. In the Greek case, the older mythology is that of the Titans,
who were parodied as rude and unkempt by the later Greeks. In the case of
Satan, the god was Pan, an extremely ancient shamanistic deity, put down by
the usurping Christians.
For references, see Joseph Campbell's "Masks of God".
--
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot and Certified Catholic Theologian
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
I keep calling spirits from the vasty deep, but all I get are their
answering machines.jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jolly C. Pancakes) (09/08/86)
In article <2521@watdcsu.UUCP>, dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: > The major difference is that Prometheus is depicted as a benefactor of > man while Lucifer is depicted as evil. If Zeus got to write the holy > books, Prometheus would have ended up being described as evil, no > doubt. > -- > David Canzi "The best things in life are disgusting." Remember that Prometheus was horribly punished by the gods for his transgression in bringing fire (knowledge) to man. He was staked out on a rock and a vulture pecked out his liver every day (it regenerated). Sometime, if you are looking for poetry of immense beauty, read Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound", about his release from torture. -- jcpatilla ..{seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!jcp Don't marry for money - you can borrow cheaper.
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) (09/08/86)
In article <2521@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: > >The parallels between Lucifer and Prometheus may be less superficial >than you think. The Encyclopedia Britannica reports that, according to >Aeschylus, Prometheus not only brought fire and civilization to >mankind, but also brought the *arts* and *sciences*, ie. knowledge. >Prometheus is also described as a supreme trickster. Sound like >somebody else we know? > >The major difference is that Prometheus is depicted as a benefactor of >man while Lucifer is depicted as evil. If Zeus got to write the holy >books, Prometheus would have ended up being described as evil, no >doubt. >-- Why stop there with the analogy? Consider Prometheus' fate. Eternal torture! Sound familiar? Sure it does. It sounds not dissimillar to the fate of Lucifer. Zeus had Prometheus (which, by the way, translates as "foresight") tied to a mountain and allowed him to be tortured (supposedly forever) by having a large bird (i forget the actual variety) pick at his liver. Lucifer, under the hammer of the Christian deity, was cast down into eternal damnation (ie. Hell) - supposedly for eternal torture as well. In Prometheus' case, he was lucky that a mortal hero by the name of Heracles happened by and managed to set the Titan free. Perhaps, someday, Lucifer will be as lucky. -- Joel Rives USENET: gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr BITNET: gatech!gitvm1!cc100jr "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!" << Buckaroo Banzai >>
mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) (09/08/86)
I am well aware of the fact that what I am about to do is rise to the bait. Oh, well, we all have weak days... > What follows is a reconstruction of a discussion I was involved in > recently. I do not consider myself a biblical scholar, nor is my > interest in this matter any more than academic (ie. I'm an atheist), I wonder if it is necessary to point out your admission of ignorance regarding biblical issues? Given the cool reception recently given to non-scientists writing on scientific issues (in "its the matter of the matter that's the matter" for example), it would not seem out of place to dismiss your arguments immediately. Nevertheless... > but I was curious as to what sort of response the following claim > would evoke: > > Claim: > Lucifer is (or should be) the patron saint of science and technology > > Argument: > Lucifer is credited in the Bible for the following 3 acts: > > 1. Rebelling against God and being cast into Hell. > 2. Tempting Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit (knowledge). > 3. Confronting Christ on the issue of faith vs. uncertainty. > > In [1], Lucifer can be said to have rebelled against the dictatorship of > God. His act of dissention was motivated by interests/opinions which > conflicted with those of God. Historically, this is the stuff of which > great men are made (American founding fathers, Lenin,...). The list is > huge. Actually, this is a pretty poor comparision. According to my sect's theology, Lucifier rebelled because things weren't going to be done "his way" and that upset him. Given a person who is in full communication with God, I don't know how much can be said about the wisdom or greatness of his dissention (Paul Z.'s arguments aside). Dissention alone does not mean it came about because of a dictatorship (e.g., the American Nazi's, KKK, and other dissenting yet still bigoted groups). True, there are great people on the list of all those who have dissented against something, but there are a lot of slime, too. > [2] Lucifer can be superficially compared to the titan Prometheus for his > act of giving knowledge (fire) to mankind. Satan's gift was much more > potent, however, for it included free will (the capacity to recognize > and choose to perform both Evil and Good acts) and rational thought. The comparison between Satan and Prometheus is interesting, if only from a sociological point of view -- plumbing the origins of both figures in myth would be interesting. Satan, however, did *not* give Adam and Eve the gift of free will or of knowledge; he merely led them to exercise that which they already had (they both ate of their free will that God had already given them), and this act 'opened their eyes.' Thus Satan's part was merely of a catalyst, not a gift-bearer. Given that Adam and Eve knew about the tree, and that they were not supposed to eat its fruit, I would say Lucifer would better be a patron saint of school-yard drug pushers than of scientists. > [3] His third act is of questionable import. Personally, I acknowledge > that no knowledge is certain and I look disparagingly upon those who > place a greater value in 'faith' than in rational thought. I'm afraid > I'd side with Lucifer on this debate as well. An interesting point of view. You "acknowledge that no knowledge is certain" (meaning, I presume, that one can never really know what of a set of things is true or real), and yet view faith disparagingly. If you cannot know any- thing for certain and do not feel it valid to accept some things on faith, you must spend a lot of time in the throes of extreme uncertainty. Now, I will admit that I too wish people would use their God-given minds more often instead of merely accepting what is fed to them, but I also feel that some people should realize that rational thought has its uses and its bounds. There are some things I (or anyone else) cannot reason out, and it is at this point that I either leave the question unanswered or look at the possibility of another method of answering the question (i.e. non-rational "faith" oriented methods). As a side point, Satan didn't confront Jesus with anything like what you say. If Jesus was who he said he was, then the question of faith vs. rational knowledge goes away, since he had to have known his own abilities. Satan was merely tempting him to use them in a way different from what God wanted (Satan seems to do a lot of that). If Jesus was not who he said he was, then the whole thing is a fairy tale, and not very relevant anyway. > So if these are Lucifer's three major acts in the Bible, why is it that > he's received so much bad press? Scientists and philosophers should > praise him (were they to believe in him) for the tremendous gifts > he has provided us. Look well around you, for you work in a temple > erected for the pursuit of knowledge and the employment of scientific > inquiry--Satan's most wonderful gifts to mankind. Jim, your beginning statement is abundantly clear. Don't let anyone ever talk you into calling yourself a bible scholar. Your view of the bible and its theology is *maybe* as clear and well-informed as a Fundamentalist Baptist minister's 10-year-old son's knowledge of carbon-14 dating. > Jim Laycock > Philosophy major, University of Alberta (last year (I hope!)) Gosh, I wouldn't have ever guessed! Why is it that more philosophy majors think that they have Solved It All where over 3000 years of philosophers before them have failed, and yet denigrate others with no formal philosophy training who quietly accept those things that they can and cannot understand? -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0