ask@cbrma.UUCP (A.S.Kamlet) (09/11/86)
In article <873@cavell.UUCP> jiml@cavell.UUCP (Jim Laycock) writes: : : >Lucifer is credited in the Bible for the following 3 acts: > : > 2. Tempting Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit (knowledge). Could you please send me the biblical reference, please. Thank you. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {cbosgd | ihnp4}!cbrma!ask
pez@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Paul Zimmerman) (10/13/86)
In article <7618@tekecs.UUCP>, mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) writes: > 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. Well, Mike, that would certainly be a reasonable position for someone of your beliefs to take. After all, you see rebellion against God as an ``evil'' thing, and inciting someone to disobey God as analogous to pushing drugs onto small children. Personally, I think it's more analogous to someone encouraging such a child to be questioning of existing values and ideas that are offered through assertion for rote memorization, instead of being offered through reasoning for the purpose of understanding. The Bible is notorious for such assertions and demands from God. Given your inability to prove solidly the assumption you insist upon making that God is good, I would certainly opt for the latter situation, in which the ``authority'' (God) is questioned rigorously, and I welcome the introduction of those who would help in ``catalyzing'' such a situation in people. Frankly, as I have said time and again, I don't consider the manifestation of ``Lucifer'' to be anything but a pseudonym for God in instigating evil. God seems to have constructed our situation so that He watch bemusedly at our frustrations at being rational minds in animal bodies, and so that He can punish us for doing the ``awful'' things we then do, instilling guilt within ourselves for a condition that He created. Acting as ``catalyst'' (and then blaming the people so catalyzed) seems to be a favorite game of God's. I think those who describe a ``role reversal'' (God is evil, but Satan exists as a separate though maligned force of good) are deluding themselves: they are falling for the line that there MUST be something ultimately good ``out there.'' In doing so, they are playing into the hands of the malicious Damager God, by helping Him to breed divisiveness amongst people based on religious belief. It seems that one way God has managed to lure otherwise rational people into His fold (or at least into one of the folds) is to formulate a set of religious beliefs that is appealing to the skeptical mind in that they run contrary to the mainstream religions that these people have been rightfully disillusioned from (often for the wrong reasons). Yet the foundation of the beliefs (even though it may tout ecumenical relativism of a kind) is the same erroneous belief in a benevolent God (or a set of them). > 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. I am often curious as to what such people see as the ``bounds'' of rational thought. If rational thought, simply put, means ``use the best and most rigorous methods at your disposal to determine the truth,'' are they thus saying that there are times when it is NOT worthwhile to be rigorous, to use less than the best methods of analysis? What ARE these times, and what methods do you propose to replace rational thought with in these instances? And how reliable are these 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. It is sort of nice to see a Christian at last acknowledging the possibility that God's lines might all be a fairy tale. I must ask a question or two at this point, though. Who says that ``what God wanted,'' the way God supposedly intended for the powers to be used, is necessarily the most benevolent way? Who is to say that God didn't create the Jesus story solely to further deceive more and more people into whorshiping Him? Satan, throughout the Bible, sounds a lot to me like ``Immanuel Goldstein,'' the mythical leader of the underground movement in the book ``1984.'' The Party creates this myth about a horrible enemy that must be destroyed, an enemy who is to blame for all their problems, an enemy who engages in deceitful temptation to desecrate the beautiful glory of the Party and state. (Ironically, Orwell chose a Jewish name for this figure, since the equation of ``Jew == enemy'' has been widespread for centuries and led to an agent of God being able to rouse a whole population to genocide through its usage.) It turns out that Goldstein and his underground wind up being agents of the Party, entrapping good people so that they may be further brainwashed to be better citizens. This is how religion tries to deal with ``sinners,'' those who stray from ``God's way.'' > > 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? I would remind you that many people see religion as just a specialized type or branch of philosophy, and the statements you make here would go double for religion. Those who hold the notion of the ``benevolent God'' patch up the holes in the ``problem of evil'' much like construction workers repair potholes on a highway, through the use of poor rationalizations based on assuming their conclusion that God must be good. Yet they denigrate those who question the basis for their claims. --- Be well, Paul Zimmerman (pez@mit-eddie.UUCP, pez@unirot.UUCP)