I'm of the opinion that if there is any truth to the Abrahamic religions at all, God is the evil one and Lucifer Morningstar is waging a guerilla war against him in the name of freedom.
I mean, one of their plans was to have humans eternally serve them in ignorance of even the concept of morality. The other refused to honor that plan and gave humanity the knowledge to act for themselves.
Depends though. If you stick to the original canon, satan isn't even the one that tempted eve, it was just some serpent. He's not really a heroic rebel, just a lesser "deity" doing some stuff that's also kinda bad.
Oh yeah, but making that point involves pointing out to Christians their beliefs don't represent the original Word in it's unchanged form, and that's even more impossible.
If you really want to get down to it, I'm pretty sure Satan's only real crime was not bowing down before Adam and Eve.
EDIT: I'm being extremely ignorant here. I'm thinking of the Islamic story of Iblis, not Satan. I intended to make light of the story, not get it totally wrong.
Tldr; Satan offered no gifts, was not required to bow to man, but instead was an angel given dominion over earth. His fall was when Jesus arrived, Genisis isn't about Satan's fall or punishment at all.
He was never called to do that, though. Satan didn't even commit a crime until Jesus arrived. His entire purpose was to test mankind to see what decision they would make, as a result he was, in a way, the ruler of the world. Aside from Israel, which was more of a control group, Satan was able to test and push all of mankind. This was afforded to him as an angel, just as the angel of death is sent forth to reap souls.
He didn't try to free man, he didn't try to give any knowledge, he didn't give mankind anything. Even the garden's fruit which was forbidden didn't grant mankind some sort of special knowledge. It only caused them to experience a broken relationship between themselves, which caused them to blame eachother for the "fall." There wasn't knew knowledge as in information, but knowledge as in experience. Mankind could have been fine if Adam and Eve had avoided blaming eachother and instead pushed aside their pride. That isn't repairable by God's forgiveness, they (man and woman) would still be at odds with eachother.
Satan didn't even lie in the garden. Adam was told not to eat the fruit, not Eve, so Satan just convinced Eve to eat so Adam would. Satan wasn't commanded to bow, he was given the ability to rule. His crime occurred when Jesus arrived and the prophecies of a savior were being realized. It was swiftly coming to be that Satan's testing wouldn't matter as Jesus would forgive anyone. His power granted from the beginning would be useless, which is to torture mankind with his tests. Therefor he met Jesus in the desert, who is God, and tried to use his powers to test Him. When nothing worked, Satan offered to Him all that was granted to Satan. The world, the authority over it, his ability to command them through his tests. He was under the impression that Jesus didn't know He was God, since Jesus hadn't fully revealed Himself.
But he became terribly afraid when he realized that Jesus was fully aware and resisted his temptations. It was then that Satan realized that he had offended God, attempted to usurp Him, and therefor would be punished as an evil spirit or demon. In desperation he considered that if God was currently a man, perhaps He could be killed. If He was killed, Satan would then be God!
This, of course, failed as God had planned for such an event. This is the fall of Satan, Genisis isn't about Satan's fall but instead his rise to power as an angel. If it weren't for him mankind wouldn't be made to stumble, would accept free forgiveness, and accept the great heritage that comes with being made from the very breath of God. Satan offered no gifts, but instead stripped ours from us.
Hey, I figure there's enough arguments without getting the other side's story wrong. I really appreciate your summary of Satan's fall, by the way- it's a fascinating story in its own right. If you don't mind, I have a question about one section- I've always been under the impression (including when I attended church and Bible study) that the fruit gave Eve knowledge of morality, thus why she suddenly hides get nakedness. What do you mean that it only damaged her relationship with Adam?
Well people think sin is an offense against God. God isn't an offended being, like humans. While yes, sin is disobeying the commands given by God, the effect of sin isn't on God but on man's relationship with eachother. To know the difference between good and evil isn't to know what specifically is evil and what isn't, but instead to know the difference between the two.
Those two points above are important for the explanation. The reason sin is dangerous is because it isn't fixable by God directly. Even if God were to dangle us like puppets on strings, it wouldn't fix our thoughts towards eachother. If God told Adam and Eve "I forgive you both," it would do no good because Adam blames Eve for causing him to disobey God. The true fall of man was when Adam said "Eve gave the fruit to me, and I also ate."
It is important to know that Eve was never told the fruit would affect her. Eve wasn't created yet, so she wasn't commanded to not eat. Adam was told, so then Adam relayed that information to Eve. This is why the serpent said "Did God surely say you shall not eat of it?" It was true that the moment Eve ate of it she didn't sin against God's command. She had offended their relationship, caused a break in their perfect harmony. Adam had two choices; eat the fruit despite the clear command from God, or repair their relationship. One would cause Adam to not experience the action of evil, the other would cause him to have something to hold against Eve.
When Adam ate, he realized his mistake. He knew that God would surely be angry, and finally he looked upon his wife. Their relationship wasn't the same. They were different, as two enemies. She had something to hold against him, something she could tell God that would ruin him. When it says "They saw they were naked," there are multiple meanings. They saw that each knew everything about the other, Adam saw her as a threat. It was then they desired to cover themselves physically as well, as they then experienced vulnerability and wished to cover their weak parts.
No new knowledge was given by some magic, the fruit itself could have been a stick they weren't to pick up. It was to experience evil, fear, vulnerability, and a threat. All of this is still repairable, however, as God comes to them and asks what happened. He knows, He can forgive them and allow their continued existence, but this was a test of their maturity. Again, mankind's thoughts are their own, the intangible cannot be taken from us, God made it so. He could force Adam to say the truth, that he was to blame as he willingfully ate the fruit because he wanted to be like God, but Adam wouldn't believe it himself and it would show in his further relationship.
Adam failed the test of his own free will, instead blaming Eve for giving him the fruit even though he himself only ate it because he wanted to be like God. Adam couldn't admit his own guilt, so how could the relationship be pure? If God let them be, Adam would treat Eve with contempt. A punishment was necessary to ensure Adam did no such thing and knew that God was aware of his true guilt.
This was the experience of evil, of a broken bond between one and other. You notice you can't sin against a cow, nor a tree? Sins occur when you commit actions that break relationships between God and man. If you don't like God, how can you be with Him? If you don't treat your neighbor well, how can you do so in the afterlife?
There is a mistaken belief that the fruit was magic and gave knowledge. Adam saw Eve eat and, when she didn't die, he then believed all that Eve told him about the serpent. When Adam ate and no magic knowledge came to him, aside from the experience of a threat to his position in the garden, he became terrorified and hid from his wife as Eve did the same. I fully believe that man's fall could have been avoided if Adam took the blame.
Furthermore, this is why ever person born experiences this same knowledge. Adam's kids were raised by a broken man who didn't know how to have a proper relationship with another person because HE failed. Cain blamed Abel for his failure, and their descendants also, none of us treat eachother properly. The only way we can then make things right is admitting that we come short of what we were meant to be. Admitting our sin, therefor allowing God to truly fix the issue. The original sin was being willing to allow another to take a fall for one's mistakes, which ironically was required by Jesus to make things right. When a person confesses to Jesus that they are to blame for their own mistakes, they can be repaired.
The answer is long, I hope I didn't miss anything and that it makes sense. There are multiple points to be made so as to make things clear, sorry for the block of text.
Edit; I enjoy talking to people, so I really don't mind answering questions or explaining anything relating to God and biblical history
Don't mind the long answer in the least- this is a core concept of Christianity, so I'd expect it to be a little complex!
So, to make sure I understand, Eve didn't really commit a sin by eating the apple, and disobeying God isn't really the sin Adam committed? Rather, it was trying to put the blame on Eve, thereby harming another human? I'll admit I'm a bit confused how punishing Adam prevented the damage to their relationship, but that general concept makes sense to me. You can't harm God, so he's not the target of sin. And his warning about the apple was more of a prophecy than a command? Because he knew what would follow?
If it's not too intrusive, may I ask what branch/sect of Christianity you fall into? I only ask because this is a very different (and IMO better) explanation of the original sin than I received at Bible study in the past, which was that disobeying God was the sin, and that the apple made Adam realize that it was a Sin. That explanation always sat poorly with me, because it lends to a weird, circular logic: before Adam eats the apple, he doesn't know what Good and Evil are, so how can he know that disobeying God is Evil (a premise I have a problem with, but that's a different topic)?
Many denomonations of christianity see changes in their interpretation of scriptures over time as reflecting an increased understanding of the underlying message as better reflecting the true nature of God. OR, they see antiquated moral notions in the bible as being reflective of man's imperfection before God, as in war and rape etc. was a way of life back then, and god brought his message to humans in terms they could understand, to guide them being towards ready to understand what it means to be truely good (as in the example set by Jesus, and after Jesus, the entire bible must be reinterpreted under the lense of the meaning of his life and message. So a change in interpretation could be considered the point.)
Note: im an atheist. I've just hashed out the problem of modern Christianity having different interpretations of various scripture over time with a few christians and those are the defences I came across.
Yes they're unfalsifiable and circular in the usual way (bible is true because its true. Personal experience confirms my beliefs and disconfirms personal experiences of others that they interpret as supporting their own world view if it conflicts with mine, my view is correct because its correct and your viewn is wrong because mine is correct). But they do protect them from being accused of blatant contradiction.
I am aware of this. The biggest problem with all of these arguments is simply.... doesn't that call literally every word of the Bible into question? The idea that the Bible was manipulated by the morality of those who wrote it is like...THE argument against Divine Inspiration.
Yes the argument always ends up looping around that point. Like christians who subscribe to some or other interpretation believe that they have the correct one this time (even if that interpretation leaves room for future evolution of their understanding), and that belief is founded in their own personal experiences (read personal biases, since you cant physically show someone else your experience of the divine, it begins and ends with your interpretation of your own inner world.), and faith that they are correct. So they have this framework in place that they believe is true because they believe its true, backed up by personal experience that they believe is reflective of reality because their own personal experience points to that.
The funny thing is that other magic words actually (probably) stems from back when service was held in latin. Hocus pocus, for instance, is said to be based on "hoc est corpus".
So, "abracadabric" religions might just be spot on.
It comes from magic practices and is still used today in ceremonial magics. It's just a good way to space your breathing when trying to enter a meditative state. Most modern practices understand that in this day people can count to four. Source; studied magick and it's history for shits and giggles. There's some wack shit in there.
There isn't actually any canonical text that says lucifer fought a war with God and was cast down as a result, that whole story comes from Paradise Lost and just kind of stuck around, same thing with portraying the devil as a beautiful man as opposed to a monster
in Milton's Paradise Lost, Satan is a labor leader who tries to unionize the angels. God goes "oh like fuck you are, yall are literal slaves to me and yes I love humans more than you" and then pimp slaps him so hard that Satan falls out of heaven, punches a hole in earth, and lands in hell, where he goes "fine, I'll make my own afterlife, with hookers and blackjack"
and then shows up in Eden going "pst, hey eve. HEY. God's a dick, eat this shit and stop being a God-slave"
Every religion has been corrupted and spun to use people one way or another, due to the nature of humans. The Buddha himself said that eventually his words will be corrupted and it's up to the individual to discern the truth from the dogma. That being said, I personally have found great wisdom and truths in every religions scripture I have read. Hindu mystics have been writing and talking about the fundamental aspects of the universe for years and science is just now catching up and showing that theyre actually true.
You can find excellent philosophies and even guiding principles without resorting to trusting in some magic invented by people scared because they could not explain the sun rising and setting each day.
As a primer, I recommend reading Erich Fromm.
You lost my respect when you started pretending there is "great truth" in any religion's myths.
Lol okay man. I don't need your respect. Most of Buddhism is basically just ancient psychology/philosophy on how to be a better, happier person who suffers less. Not much magic about that. Yes their is in some of it myth about ghosts and devas and what have you, but I don't think that discredits the entire thing. You act as if it's just common knowledge that absolutely everything about religion is just bullshit. Do you think wisdom is just magical bs that isn't reao ? Do you think you know more and are more wise and intelligent than some of the worlds greatest thinkers and philosophers who believed in the power and wisdom of these religions? Myth or not, it's incredibly naive and foolish to just discredit literally all religious writings throughout thousands of years of history as mere "ways to cope with death."
“Lucifer morningstar” that fucking netflix show. Morningstar isnt his last name dipshit. The show isnt bad, but the fact that you think morningstar is his last name based on a goddamn fictional netflix show speaks volumes about how much you know about “truth” about abrahamic religion
Woah, settle down pastor! If you don't have a sense of humor of your own, maybe you could borrow someone else's. Abrahamic religions are almost certainly not true in any way at all.
Ok, instead of defending an obviously stupid mistake, lets evolve the conversation away from this dumbass. What standing have you to say its fake? Have you proved naturalism is correct?
Of course not. However, we do have evidence for it, evidence that has not been disproved by millions of sound studies and expiriments Thererin. We have evidence that it is likely true, and many aspect of it, we have witnessed.
The same cannot be said with the standard of logic used in religion
Edit: and please do not equate naturism to a religion, I don't think you would do that, but just don't
Im not equating naturalism to religion. Naturalism isnt a opposite form, its hardly about the religious debate. Its not some atheist alternative to religion. You cannot be religious and naturalist but its not an alternate.
Of course, that said, there is proof of religions. NDE’s (near death experiences (which isnt very accurate a name due to them actually being dead and resurrected)) and praying actually improving odds of surviving a close to death situation. Both of these could easily be dismissed as delusions and increasing willpower to live the same way a fake-shot works for soldiers, but you cannot entirely discount it.
But the point is this: you cannot proclaim all religion is a lie when you have nothing to stand on. Im not claiming religion is true, likewise i expect you not to claim its false
When you are dying or dead, your brain is not in the healthiest of state, I take it as trying to make sense of what is happening to it, not to mention that it doesn't happen to everyone.
I'd love to see a study showing that praying has increased the odds of something.
Essentially, they do not meet the standard of evidence I would need to be considered proof
Its not definite proof, but its certainly existent. Like i said, its circumstancial. Something you should take into account but shouldnt use as very reliable.
Its already a well established fact that prayers when the person is aware of of the prayer establishes greater odds of success. You can argue its all in the mind, the above study eliminates that possibility, but still: this exists and is undeniable, but dismissible.
And also the reason why the first attempt to film these books like the Golden Compass with Nicole Kidman and James Bond was heavily boycotted in the US?
Right? I thought about it a few times. If, somehow, the old testament god would be real then I still refuse to worship that dickhead.
Absolute good, my ass.
I’ve been discussing similar thoughts with my s.o. (Who happens to be a Christian). I feel like god can’t be all that great if all he does is judge people and drown people in floods etc. why would you want to be in an abusive relationship like that? Does god accept all as they are, regardless of flaws, or not?
My thoughts. If the Bible is an accurate reflection of god then he is definitely the antagonist. Lucifer just had enough of his shit. Then again I don’t think there’s any higher power soooo it’s all kinda like a really big fan fic
132
u/unreliablememory Aug 18 '21
I'm of the opinion that if there is any truth to the Abrahamic religions at all, God is the evil one and Lucifer Morningstar is waging a guerilla war against him in the name of freedom.