So, recently I've been starting to read the Bible (kind of surprising that this is the first time, considering I went to a Catholic school) and I was wondering why Satan is even viewed as a bad person. Granted, I'm not very far into the book, but even in Genesis, God lies to Adam and Eve telling them that the fruit from the tree of knowledge will kill them. The serpent comes up and tells them that the fruit will make them know the difference between good and evil and be as gods. God pretty much confirms this when he kicks Adam and Eve out of the garden.
So, why exactly is Satan viewed as evil? What has he done, specifically? I mean, no matter what, he can't come anywhere close to God's kill count. Between the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Job's family and I'm sure tons that I can't think of, God's kill count way up there.
It seems like the main thing Satan does is serve as an enthusiastic prison warden, which is fairly noble.
I'm using the King James Version, by the way. Definitely open to recommendations, I'd like a version that's more difficult to criticize.
>>1320822
Because of the conflation most Christians use to attribute "qualities" to Satan. It's a convoluted mess, what they've made Satan to be, and it wraps into a nice little package which was never the intent.
I've seen the death argued from two perpective, one that they've experinced rpiritual death of being separated from god, which is what the original sin is and the only redemption is through faith in Jesus Christ, which repairs this connection with god and makes you enter the kingdom of heaven, if you don't put your faith into Jesus in this life, then it's too late for you and you will be seperated with god forever, thus hell.
The other kind of reasoning I've heard is that eating the apple introduced death into the world, so while they didn't die instantenously, their lives eventually ended as a result of eating the apple, if they abstained from doign so they would've lived forever, thus god didn't lie at all.
Also, don't forget that old testament didn't refer to the snake as the Satan, the snake was recasted as Satan in the new testament, which obviously came quite later.
If you count the actual offenses Satan has made, it is fairly low. Christians fix this by saying that the Fall is Satan's fault, while also placing the real blame amongst all humans.
>>1320848
Thanks a lot for pointing out the the snake wasn't referred to as Satan. It's hard to shake out some of the connotations and just take the literature at face value sometimes.
I did think that would be one way for God to not have been lying, but I guess it would just mean that God and the Snake were telling different sides of the same truth.
How about the mark of Cain? He was cursed so that anyone who saw him would kill him, but the next several verses were him knocking up his wife and gaining a rather large family.
>>1320822
Satan is a figurative way of explaining hedonistic desires.
>>1320865
>snake wasn't referred to as Satan.
In Revelation, Satan is referred to as the Ancient Serpent.
>>1320875
Guess I'll have to look into this a bit more. I mean, technically there is a bit of wiggle room with Ancient Serpent, but it would be a pretty strong indicator.
>>1320869
but we have hedonistic desires from original sin. We don't need a bogeyman to represent that which is within ourselves.
>>1320865
As far as I know the mark was actually so no one can kill Cain as the traditional custom for killing someone is to repay with the same deed, but god acted as the mediator to stop that from happening.
The fun part is that at the time of garden, the snake did actually have legs, but god punished him for making A&E eat the apple, so he has to crawl on the ground and eat dust for all eternity.
Also, I've heard opinions that the origin story wasn't meant to be literally literal as in the books are obviously two accounts of origin compiled into one, there's written that god created man and woman, but only after that Adam is created, which would make chronoligally no sense and anyone writing that would've known that, so it's most likely left there on purpose.
Also, apparently, genesis is one of the newer books of the Old Testament and its message wasn't that important at the time, what was the most important were the rules and the origin of the jewish people, the genesis self was created more as an aftermath influenced by being in contact with other religions/cultures over time.
>>1320898
Did Satan not cause original sin?
In the Hebrew, Cain was banished from "kol erets", and that same term is used to describe the deluge, "kol erets", which people consider, apparently the "whole earth". Therefore, if you believe the flood was "whole earth", then Cain was banished from the "whole earth", so he was banished to outer space.
>>1320919
No, Eve's decision, and Adam's following, invoked God's wrath.
>>1320822
The serpent is Sophia, she was trying to help Adam and Eve get out of the materialistic 'paradise' that the demiruge ('God') had created.
>>1320926
Yet Satan tempted them both.
>>1320946
So what? It was still their decision to make.
>>1320946
>Give people free will
>They use that free will to listen to a snake
>it's the snakes fault!
Were Adam and Eve the original dindu's?
>>1320946
con't from >>1320954 in afterthought
We're working from the understanding Satan is actually in the form of a snake, which Satan doesn't do throughout the rest of the Bible, except one reference "that ancient serpent", which might not be literal, but symbolic, in Revelation. The snake could very well have been a snake, and then you say, "but snakes don't talk". Well, neither do bushes, neither do donkeys, neither do books. The Bible speaks to me, doesn't it speak to you?
This whole literal thing, I just don't run with it. I believe the Bible is God's truth, but truth can be very true without needing to be literally true in all parts. The symbolism is what is important, the fact Adam and Eve, who were supposedly perfect, were indeed pliable, the fact there was a decision to be made, they made it, and we all live with it. There are greater, more important issues to be divined and limiting it to a literal dumb fucking snake actually makes me a little upset.
>>1320978
I can see where you're coming from, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with trying to discuss this stories from a literal standpoint. I think it goes without saying, for anyone worth a damn in this discussion, that not everything is meant to be taken literally. I just think it's fun to do so, sometimes. It can also help lead to a better understanding of the more important themes in the literature.
>God pretty much confirms this when he kicks Adam and Eve out of the garden.
No he confirms it when he straight up says "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."
Did the serpent actually lie?
>>1320822
>God lies to Adam and Eve telling them that the fruit from the tree of knowledge will kill them
No he doesn't, it does kill them.
>>1321029
It's the very definition of a slippery slope. It closes doors without opening windows. It places limitations on God's message, in that God can somehow only deliver meaning we can understand in the instant, instead of what I believe is the true intent, wisdom which pervades throughout, not only history, not only future, but every last thing we do in any given second.
There are many "times" and many "ends", so many ends to many times. Our beginning, at any instant, is one of many beginnings. Every end is some new beginning, every beginning is some end. The nature of the work, in its essence, is cyclical, from the very first words to the last.
>>1320822
There are three kinds of sin: Lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and pride of life.
Satan, the highest angel God made, grew prideful and started giving himself credit for what God had done for him. He became discontent about his #1 angel status and wanted to put his throne above God's, and be worshiped as God.
His coup failed the instant the sin crossed his heart, and he fell from grace dragging 1/3 of the heavenly host under his authority with him.
He now prowls the earth seeking to kill and destroy everything he can, while he can.
He is a liar, and the inventor of lies, a thief, and a murderer, and has been since the beginning of the creation of the earth.
Satan lied to Adam and Eve when he said they would not die if they ate the fruit; they died that day, and then physically died later (having been created immortal).
Everything satan says is a lie.
>>1320960
Er, yeah, it's a little worse than that.
God said what happened; Adam blamed God for giving him Eve, and Eve blamed the devil.
>>1321037
Yes. They died the instant they disobeyed God, disbelieved God, and believed and obeyed the devil.
They sinned, and the Holy Spirit fled from within them.
He who has the Spirit has life; he who has not the Spirit has not life.
Death is not the cessation of life, but the separation from God, Who is Life.
Right now you are dead, but confused as you are physically alive. The idea that you are spiritually dead has likely never occurred to you. You may even think you're a spiritual person, but if the Holy Spirit is not living in you, you're dead.
And the dead suffer the second death, which is getting tossed into the lake of fire.
>>1321070
Aside from "snake equals Satan equals devil" (which is the most understandable mis-conjecture), I can go with most of what your understanding is, until the last line. "Lake of fire" or Gehenna, is the worst thing that could happen to anyone, because the body is then obliterated, and cannot rise with the saints at Jesus' next coming.
The fruit kills Adam and Eve, they die of old age, which would not happen if they didn't eat it.
"Knowledge" here is in a Hebrew sense. For instance, to "know" a woman means to have had sexual relations with her. To "know" good and evil here, means to have relations with evil as well as just good, to have intercourse with it.
Satan serves a purpose as a tempter (same as "tester"), but he is also malicious and takes relish in making people fail.
>>1321070
>reading late, developed Christian theology back into ancient Hebraic creation stories
>>1320875
Revelations isn't and never has been canonical.
>>1321095
It's not a misconjecture at all.
Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Nobody goes to Gehenna until after the Antichrist and False Prophet are cast in. Then there's the sheep and goat judgment, where all of the goats are cast in. Then there's the final judgment, where everyone in Hades is cast in.
Most people get cast into the lake of fire.
Few find the narrow path that is Christ Jesus.
Your new resurrected body will not be annihilated in Gehenna; it was made to endure hellfire forever and ever.
>>1321185
You need to learn what the gospel is.
I suggest you look up Aaron Budjen and listen to his archived radio programs on the gospel.
God told Adam and Eve that the very day they ate the fruit, that day, that yom, they would die.
And you're calling God a liar.
You're seriously lost.
Friendly reminder that the word "Satan" is mentioned not once throughout the entire Old Testament. It's only during New Testament fanfiction that this kind of theology develops. In the Old Testament (which is the One True Word of YHWH, by the way) the only appearance of a Satan-like character is by "the adversary" in the Book of Job.
The more you know!
>>1321205
It's all right there.
Genesis 2:7Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
7 And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.
>>1321233
True, but the Revelation is, always has been, and contains curses for anyone who attempts to cut out even one word of it.
>>1320822
If you view Satan as a literal being, then he is considered evil by Christians because he acts directly against the will of God, and that's all he does
If you don't view Satan as a literal being, Christians consider him evil because he represents evil desires.
I'm not sure if I'm still a Christian, but if I am, I don't really know if I believe that Satan is a real person anymore. Maybe he's just a representation of evil. I was raised around many people who believed (and still do believe) that everything in the Bible is 100% literal, so it's hard for me to try to believe that things in the Bible might be metaphors. I don't know why it's hard especially when I hardly believe in it anymore, but I guess it was just hammered into my head constantly from birth.
>>1321266
It's not my fault rabbinical Judaism has a much more thoughtful approach to the issue of evil in the world. This degenerated into "muh forked tail, muh red skin" through Christianity.
>The original Hebrew term satan is a noun from a verb meaning primarily "to obstruct, oppose", as it is found in Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 29:4, Psalms 109:6.[6] Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as "the accuser" or "the adversary". The definite article ha- (English: "the") is used to show that this is a title bestowed on a being, versus the name of a being. Thus, this being would be referred to as "the satan".[7]
>In Judaism, Satan is a term used since its earliest biblical contexts to refer to a human opponent.[26] Occasionally, the term has been used to suggest evil influence opposing human beings, as in the Jewish exegesis of the Yetzer hara ("evil inclination" Genesis 6:5). Micaiah's "lying spirit" in 1 Kings 22:22 is sometimes related. Thus, Satan is personified as a character in three different places of the Tenakh, serving as an accuser (Zechariah 3:1–2), a seducer (1 Chronicles 21:1), or as a heavenly persecutor who is "among the sons of God" (Job 2:1). In any case, Satan is always subordinate to the power of God, having a role in the divine plan. Satan is rarely mentioned in Tannaitic literature, but is found in Babylonian aggadah.[20]
>In medieval Judaism, the Rabbis rejected these Enochic literary works into the Biblical canon, making every attempt to root them out.[19] Traditionalists and philosophers in medieval Judaism adhered to rational theology, rejecting any belief in rebel or fallen angels, and viewing evil as abstract.[27] The Yetzer hara ("evil inclination" Genesis 6:5) is a more common motif for evil in rabbinical texts. Rabbinical scholarship on the Book of Job generally follows the Talmud and Maimonides as identifying the "Adversary" in the prologue of Job as a metaphor.[28]
The whole Adam and Eve myth is meant to tell people to lay low and worship their superiors.
>live in a state of innocence, like an animal
>god will take care of you
>oh so now you want to know about good and evil
>I'm afraid I can't let you do that because of reasons
>>1321233
So then it should be considered not a legitimate part of the scripture?
>>1321384
Determinations of what is scripture and what is apocrypha are determinations of men. Men are flawed. You see where I'm going with this?
>>1321392
So then fuck everything we'll never know what God actually said and what are the nonsensical rantings of some 2nd century heretic?
>>1321401
Welcome to "faith"!
>>1320822
Satan isn't evil. His intentions are evil.
>>1321233
Except in Orthodoxy and Catholicism and every single Protestant denomination.
Though this has nothing to do with the bible one interpretation of Satan I've heard is it is an alien entity with not necessarily a physical form that is trapped on earth by our atmosphere and feeds off our negative emotions.
>>1321434
>He trusts corrupt old men from 1700 years ago to tell him what to believe
That's a one-way ticket to eternal damnation, my friend. Straight up Athanasian heterodoxy. Enjoy hellfire.
