The Battle For The Mind

[RabbiKnife]

The point, I believe, is that although Satan is a horrific tempter, he is not the ultimate cause of evil.  That’s where so many in the church get it wrong.

The point is that each of us… we…. I …. The man in the mirror…I  the ultimate source of evil by choice, not by nature (at this point in my life I reject the doctrine of original sin, by the way)… I choose to rebel again God and His natural law, much more so against His express word.  My free will allows me to claim to be God if I wish.  I, Frodo Nine Fingers, am Lord of the Ring, Master of the Nazgûl, its mine, my precious

I don’t need Satan to be wicked or to sin.

If there were no Satan, I would be Satan
If there were no Dark Lord, I would be Frodo the First…

It is only grace, in all the religions of the world, that provides an alternative
…

[Oscar_Kipling]

An atheist internet friend once said to me, I see not much evidence for God, however I do see plenty of evidence for the devil.

Sure, I can see why an atheist might say that, heck I'm sure that I've said it myself at some point or another. Even so, right now I'm mulling over a particular set of ideas & relationships about God, Satan and human nature; and within this context I do not find it to be a particularly useful quote. If I asked what the earth might be like if the moon did not exist, it would not be especially relevant to reply with "My Flat earther friend sees no evidence for a globe earth, but he does see plenty of evidence for a globular moon". I am inviting detailed speculation about what the world would look like without the Devil in the hopes of elucidating what you believe the devil brings to the potluck. What are these evidences I wonder, are they the same one's that I've pondered when I've used that quote to make some rhetorical point? I'm not interested at the moment in debating the actual existence of any of these things, I'm more interested in considering the hypothetical within and in contrast to your framework of beliefs about God, the Devil, and human nature. Does that make sense, is that okay, do you want to do that with me?

[Oscar_Kipling]

The point, I believe, is that although Satan is a horrific tempter, he is not the ultimate cause of evil.  That’s where so many in the church get it wrong.

The point is that each of us… we…. I …. The man in the mirror…I  the ultimate source of evil by choice, not by nature (at this point in my life I reject the doctrine of original sin, by the way)… I choose to rebel again God and His natural law, much more so against His express word.  My free will allows me to claim to be God if I wish.  I, Frodo Nine Fingers, am Lord of the Ring, Master of the Nazgûl, its mine, my precious

I don’t need Satan to be wicked or to sin.

If there were no Satan, I would be Satan
If there were no Dark Lord, I would be Frodo the First…

It is only grace, in all the religions of the world, that provides an alternative
…

Okay, so yeah this makes sense to me. Indeed imo, original sin is not a necessary or particularly useful interpretation of biblical or observed human nature...it does I suppose have some utility as a stepping stone idea to get you to better approximated though arguably equally bleak concepts of human nature. Also agree that so far as I can tell the works of Satan would simply emerge from the laws and conditions whether or not there is some actual Satan entity. Given all of these things we agree on, you can probably see why it bugs me that Satan is asserted at all. I can't for the life of me see why God would need to create much less maintain this weirdo who is entirely superfluous & redundant to the task to which he's set. Worse still there is room to argue that introducing and advertising such an entity and his works muddies the waters, and can divert one from coming to the absolutely crucial realization that as you said "I …. The man in the mirror…I [am] the ultimate source of evil by choice, not by nature". I guess as a red herring the devil is useful, but red herrings are good if you are trying to prevent someone from discovering the truth not if you actually want the maximum amount of people to reach the correct conclusion. So seeing as we agree on so much, I have to wonder, what do you think the devil is for, what value does he add, and what is the ROI for God?

[RabbiKnife]

Satan: Origins...

Remember, the biblical narrative is that Satan/Lucifer  (Satan is more of a title, not a name) was created as the ultimate of angelic creation, and indications or at least inferences are that Satan aka Lucifer was the greatest in praise and glorifying God, until his free will asserted itself and Lucifer decided to grab the crown from God's hand.

So, Lucifer was not created to be evil, but became evil because of his own choices.

Now, I know folks like to argue God as ultimate cause vis a vis creation with a free will, but that's a bit of an old saw.

The insertion of Lucifer/Satan into the biblical narrative is simply historical, and sets up the ultimate good vs. evil showdown, and magnifies the glory of God in His ultimate sacrifice for the sake of His creation.

[Fenris]

The point, I believe, is that although Satan is a horrific tempter, he is not the ultimate cause of evil.  That’s where so many in the church get it wrong.

The point is that each of us… we…. I …. The man in the mirror…I  the ultimate source of evil by choice

This is it right here.

Blaming Satan for one's own bad choices is just a cop out. We all own our behavior.

 

[Oscar_Kipling]

Satan: Origins...

Remember, the biblical narrative is that Satan/Lucifer  (Satan is more of a title, not a name) was created as the ultimate of angelic creation, and indications or at least inferences are that Satan aka Lucifer was the greatest in praise and glorifying God, until his free will asserted itself and Lucifer decided to grab the crown from God's hand.

So, Lucifer was not created to be evil, but became evil because of his own choices.

Now, I know folks like to argue God as ultimate cause vis a vis creation with a free will, but that's a bit of an old saw.

The insertion of Lucifer/Satan into the biblical narrative is simply historical, and sets up the ultimate good vs. evil showdown, and magnifies the glory of God in His ultimate sacrifice for the sake of His creation.

Forest for the trees, yes, of course you are right, Lucifer does do something unique in the final boss battle. As unsatisfying as that is for me personally it at least provides some rationale for why the devil persists, although not why he isn't exclusively reserved for the boss fight from a logical/utility standpoint though.

It does stand to reason that if he only showed up for the boss fight it would be tougher to build the dramatic tension. It also tracks that because Christianity is very much a religion that is tightly coupled to and transmitted through narratives. Therefore prioritizing narrative makes sense as utility to the narrative is one of the primary metrics. I can capitulate to that however uneasily it sits for me personally as it feels a little meta my tastes.

Anyway, old as the saw may be, isn't God the ultimate cause of everything except himself? The buck has to stop with God at the end of the day. Besides you already argue that Lucifer is both a crucial plot device and the ugly friend that makes God more attractive by contrast, the intentionality & necessity of Lucifer's heel turn seems pretty well baked into the plan. Could it be called improvisation and if so in what way? Are there some further consequences of more directly stating that God did Satan on purpose? That is to say, you are already conceding that evil is a critical component of God's plan, the obliqueness of that concession doesn't change anything so far as I can tell because logically this property commutes.
 
I guess more importantly, how does this fact feel to you? How did you come to discover and accept that the Satan Character arc is there to make a more engaging story? Are there any other examples  from the bible that only make sense to you in the context of improving biblical narrative taking priority over any sort of practical necessity borne from the logic of the laws of the universe?

[Oscar_Kipling]

The point, I believe, is that although Satan is a horrific tempter, he is not the ultimate cause of evil.  That’s where so many in the church get it wrong.

The point is that each of us… we…. I …. The man in the mirror…I  the ultimate source of evil by choice

This is it right here.

Blaming Satan for one's own bad choices is just a cop out. We all own our behavior.

If Satan can put thoughts into your mind, is there no circumstance that you could imagine where he would also be responsible for the actions taken under the influence of those thoughts. Or to put it another way, If I were to subject a person to psychological torment, torture and manipulation in service of having them commit some specific crime or to generally dissociate from reality and go on to commit some crime in this dissociated state, is there no circumstance where they could be absolved of responsibility. Additionally is there no circumstance where I would be liable in any way?

[Athanasius]

If Satan can put thoughts into your mind, is there no circumstance that you could imagine where he would also be responsible for the actions taken under the influence of those thoughts. Or to put it another way, If I were to subject a person to psychological torment, torture and manipulation in service of having them commit some specific crime or to generally dissociate from reality and go on to commit some crime in this dissociated state, is there no circumstance where they could be absolved of responsibility. Additionally is there no circumstance where I would be liable in any way?

Is that what (the) Satan does?

[RabbiKnife]

Satan: Origins...

Remember, the biblical narrative is that Satan/Lucifer  (Satan is more of a title, not a name) was created as the ultimate of angelic creation, and indications or at least inferences are that Satan aka Lucifer was the greatest in praise and glorifying God, until his free will asserted itself and Lucifer decided to grab the crown from God's hand.

So, Lucifer was not created to be evil, but became evil because of his own choices.

Now, I know folks like to argue God as ultimate cause vis a vis creation with a free will, but that's a bit of an old saw.

The insertion of Lucifer/Satan into the biblical narrative is simply historical, and sets up the ultimate good vs. evil showdown, and magnifies the glory of God in His ultimate sacrifice for the sake of His creation.

Forest for the trees, yes, of course you are right, Lucifer does do something unique in the final boss battle. As unsatisfying as that is for me personally it at least provides some rationale for why the devil persists, although not why he isn't exclusively reserved for the boss fight from a logical/utility standpoint though.

It does stand to reason that if he only showed up for the boss fight it would be tougher to build the dramatic tension. It also tracks that because Christianity is very much a religion that is tightly coupled to and transmitted through narratives. Therefore prioritizing narrative makes sense as utility to the narrative is one of the primary metrics. I can capitulate to that however uneasily it sits for me personally as it feels a little meta my tastes.

Anyway, old as the saw may be, isn't God the ultimate cause of everything except himself? The buck has to stop with God at the end of the day. Besides you already argue that Lucifer is both a crucial plot device and the ugly friend that makes God more attractive by contrast, the intentionality & necessity of Lucifer's heel turn seems pretty well baked into the plan. Could it be called improvisation and if so in what way? Are there some further consequences of more directly stating that God did Satan on purpose? That is to say, you are already conceding that evil is a critical component of God's plan, the obliqueness of that concession doesn't change anything so far as I can tell because logically this property commutes.
 
I guess more importantly, how does this fact feel to you? How did you come to discover and accept that the Satan Character arc is there to make a more engaging story? Are there any other examples  from the bible that only make sense to you in the context of improving biblical narrative taking priority over any sort of practical necessity borne from the logic of the laws of the universe?

I don't concede that Satan is in the narrative just to improve or demonstrate our learned ideals of contrast or dramatic tension.  Satan is in the narrative because it is historical, mostly.  His attributes give context to other actions, including those of humans.

I also don't concede the old saw that "God as first cause is responsible for every cause thereafter."  That reeks of moral relativism, to which I do not adhere.  It's a false premise as it ultimately attempts to alleviate the second actor of moral culpability.  Of course, the issue of evil actual proves the existence of God, as without a perfect, there is no basis on which to argue the existence of the imperfect.

If "the buck has to stop with God" as first cause, then freedom of the will is a fantasy and is meaningless.  The buck doesn't stop with God because He is first cause; Every creation that is rational an possessing free will is responsible for his or her actions.

The car dealer is not responsible for the negligent driving of the purchaser as a result of the providing the vehicle in the first instance.  We even recognize this fact in common law and in statute with the concept of the "Supervening tortfeasor."  Man is the chiefest of supervening tortfeasors.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I don't concede that Satan is in the narrative just to improve or demonstrate our learned ideals of contrast or dramatic tension.  Satan is in the narrative because it is historical, mostly.  His attributes give context to other actions, including those of humans.

I also don't concede the old saw that "God as first cause is responsible for every cause thereafter."  That reeks of moral relativism, to which I do not adhere.  It's a false premise as it ultimately attempts to alleviate the second actor of moral culpability.  Of course, the issue of evil actual proves the existence of God, as without a perfect, there is no basis on which to argue the existence of the imperfect.

If "the buck has to stop with God" as first cause, then freedom of the will is a fantasy and is meaningless.  The buck doesn't stop with God because He is first cause; Every creation that is rational an possessing free will is responsible for his or her actions.

The car dealer is not responsible for the negligent driving of the purchaser as a result of the providing the vehicle in the first instance.  We even recognize this fact in common law and in statute with the concept of the "Supervening tortfeasor."  Man is the chiefest of supervening tortfeasors.

LOOK! I feel like i've been very cordial and I DO NOT appreciate being called a "Supervening tortfeasor"...admittedly I don't know what it means exactly, but it sounds filthy and rude and I demand you take it back if we are to continue this discussion!

Kidding. Okay, my mistake I misinterpreted what you wrote. so maybe some points of clarification are in order. How do Satan's "attributes give context to other actions, including those of humans"? Additionally, I'm not sure how moral what I said relates to moral relativism in your mind, could you explain that to me please? Are Satan, and evil integral to God's plan? Do you think that God had to improvise a new plan or new facets to integrate evil and Satan?


I Don't think that placing some responsibility on God for Satan's existence means that Satan is not also responsible for what he chose to do with his existence. There are some circumstances where a person can be compelled and or manipulated into commiting a criminal act where the person should not be held responsible, but the manipulator should. Conversely there are circumstances where a person can be influenced by another and commit a criminal act but they should be held solely responsible. Likewise there are many circumstances in between. Similarly, There are a wide range of descriptions of the relationship between God, Satan, evil, creation, omniscience and will, and I do not believe that in every formulation that responsibility is mutually exclusive to either God or the devil. I believe that depending on the depiction, God could be responsible , Satan could be responsible or there could be something somewhere on the spectrum of shared responsibility. All that to say that nothing about my assertion necessitated that either actor should be completely responsible to the exclusion of the other. To go with your car analogy, a car manufacturer is responsible for producing a car with a known faulty gas tank lets say. If a driver drunkenly drives one of these faulty cars into a schoolbus he is responsible for the crash, but if the faulty tank explodes in that crash due to the flaw then the company is also responsible for injuries and damage incurred by the explosion. Neither party should get off Scott free because they both made decisions, one by choosing to drive drunk, and the other by choosing to manufacture and sell cars with a design flaw that they knew could catastrophically explode under certain conditions. Of course this does not exactly map onto God (or probably car manufacturing either), Satan and creation for various reasons, but it was meant to illustrate the concept of multiple parties bearing some responsibility for aspects of a single event through choices that they freely made without necessarily curtailing the other's free will. Perhaps your interpretation or understanding of God is iron clad and there is no sense in which God can be thought to bear any responsibility, I don't deny this possibility, but our discussion is at least in some sense about distinguishing your view from others that I am familiar with...fair?

If it helps to think of it this way, my previous post was essentially me wondering aloud if there was anything wrong with the ideas in your post, and I'm not attacking, nor do I really care about whether or not any of this stuff really exists so much as I want to think about these things for a bit and see what shakes out.

[Athanasius]

Satan: Origins...

Remember, the biblical narrative is that Satan/Lucifer  (Satan is more of a title, not a name) was created as the ultimate of angelic creation, and indications or at least inferences are that Satan aka Lucifer was the greatest in praise and glorifying God, until his free will asserted itself and Lucifer decided to grab the crown from God's hand.

So, Lucifer was not created to be evil, but became evil because of his own choices.

Now, I know folks like to argue God as ultimate cause vis a vis creation with a free will, but that's a bit of an old saw.

The insertion of Lucifer/Satan into the biblical narrative is simply historical, and sets up the ultimate good vs. evil showdown, and magnifies the glory of God in His ultimate sacrifice for the sake of His creation.

Forest for the trees, yes, of course you are right, Lucifer does do something unique in the final boss battle. As unsatisfying as that is for me personally it at least provides some rationale for why the devil persists, although not why he isn't exclusively reserved for the boss fight from a logical/utility standpoint though.

It does stand to reason that if he only showed up for the boss fight it would be tougher to build the dramatic tension. It also tracks that because Christianity is very much a religion that is tightly coupled to and transmitted through narratives. Therefore prioritizing narrative makes sense as utility to the narrative is one of the primary metrics. I can capitulate to that however uneasily it sits for me personally as it feels a little meta my tastes.

Anyway, old as the saw may be, isn't God the ultimate cause of everything except himself? The buck has to stop with God at the end of the day. Besides you already argue that Lucifer is both a crucial plot device and the ugly friend that makes God more attractive by contrast, the intentionality & necessity of Lucifer's heel turn seems pretty well baked into the plan. Could it be called improvisation and if so in what way? Are there some further consequences of more directly stating that God did Satan on purpose? That is to say, you are already conceding that evil is a critical component of God's plan, the obliqueness of that concession doesn't change anything so far as I can tell because logically this property commutes.
 
I guess more importantly, how does this fact feel to you? How did you come to discover and accept that the Satan Character arc is there to make a more engaging story? Are there any other examples  from the bible that only make sense to you in the context of improving biblical narrative taking priority over any sort of practical necessity borne from the logic of the laws of the universe?

I don't concede that Satan is in the narrative just to improve or demonstrate our learned ideals of contrast or dramatic tension.  Satan is in the narrative because it is historical, mostly.  His attributes give context to other actions, including those of humans.

I also don't concede the old saw that "God as first cause is responsible for every cause thereafter."  That reeks of moral relativism, to which I do not adhere.  It's a false premise as it ultimately attempts to alleviate the second actor of moral culpability.  Of course, the issue of evil actual proves the existence of God, as without a perfect, there is no basis on which to argue the existence of the imperfect.

If "the buck has to stop with God" as first cause, then freedom of the will is a fantasy and is meaningless.  The buck doesn't stop with God because He is first cause; Every creation that is rational an possessing free will is responsible for his or her actions.

The car dealer is not responsible for the negligent driving of the purchaser as a result of the providing the vehicle in the first instance.  We even recognize this fact in common law and in statute with the concept of the "Supervening tortfeasor."  Man is the chiefest of supervening tortfeasors.

In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.

[Oscar_Kipling]

In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.

Okay, could you explain the difference as you see it?

[Athanasius]

In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.

Okay, could you explain the difference as you see it?

The basic premise is that one can be responsible but not blameworthy or blameworthy but not responsible. In keeping with the theme, we could say that God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit of the tree, but Adam and Eve are blameworthy for eating the fruit.

Or, someone might bear no responsibility in the fact that Satan is whispering in their ear, though they'd be responsible for acting.

It's more nuanced than that on examination, but that's the fundamental difference. Not everyone who is blameworthy is also responsible, and not everyone who is responsible is also blameworthy. It's rarely a clean distinction.

[Oscar_Kipling]

In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.

Okay, could you explain the difference as you see it?

The basic premise is that one can be responsible but not blameworthy or blameworthy but not responsible. In keeping with the theme, we could say that God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit of the tree, but Adam and Eve are blameworthy for eating the fruit.

Or, someone might bear no responsibility in the fact that Satan is whispering in their ear, though they'd be responsible for acting.

It's more nuanced than that on examination, but that's the fundamental difference. Not everyone who is blameworthy is also responsible, and not everyone who is responsible is also blameworthy. It's rarely a clean distinction.

hmm, I don't have any particular issue with making this distinction if it helps to clarify an argument. However I do not see how this is functionally different than clarifying by specifying the domains of responsibility outside of semantics. I'd say that in your Adam and Eve example God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit, While Adam and eve are responsible for acting within their ability to eat or not eat the fruit. The domains of responsibility are different although they arguably have overlap if you specify a different scope or relationship. I have always maintained that depending on various properties, relationships or composition of the God & universe a person is asserting the domains may be completely divorced from one another or they may intersect in a way that they share some responsibility for the same event in equal or unequal proportion. I been saying that I think the boundaries can go from perfectly sharp to indistinguishable and everything in between all depending, and all while only using responsibility.

While i'm thinking about it, I suppose in another sense responsibility and blame at least in my mind can be differentiated from one another in that responsibility can be thought of as influence over the causal chain that culminated in the event in question, while blame can be thought of as a value judgement that is related more to the intention or agency of the actor and less about the degree of influence the actor had on the causal chain. Still even this I feel is just an abstraction layer that is more useful in rhetoric than
 in a framework that better captures some meaningful distinction on a fundamental level; I say this because agency imo is just another way of specifying a scope or domain of influence imo.

What do you think?

[Athanasius]

In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.

Okay, could you explain the difference as you see it?

The basic premise is that one can be responsible but not blameworthy or blameworthy but not responsible. In keeping with the theme, we could say that God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit of the tree, but Adam and Eve are blameworthy for eating the fruit.

Or, someone might bear no responsibility in the fact that Satan is whispering in their ear, though they'd be responsible for acting.

It's more nuanced than that on examination, but that's the fundamental difference. Not everyone who is blameworthy is also responsible, and not everyone who is responsible is also blameworthy. It's rarely a clean distinction.

hmm, I don't have any particular issue with making this distinction if it helps to clarify an argument. However I do not see how this is functionally different than clarifying by specifying the domains of responsibility outside of semantics. I'd say that in your Adam and Eve example God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit, While Adam and eve are responsible for acting within their ability to eat or not eat the fruit. The domains of responsibility are different although they arguably have overlap if you specify a different scope or relationship. I have always maintained that depending on various properties, relationships or composition of the God & universe a person is asserting the domains may be completely divorced from one another or they may intersect in a way that they share some responsibility for the same event in equal or unequal proportion. I been saying that I think the boundaries can go from perfectly sharp to indistinguishable and everything in between all depending, and all while only using responsibility.

While i'm thinking about it, I suppose in another sense responsibility and blame at least in my mind can be differentiated from one another in that responsibility can be thought of as influence over the causal chain that culminated in the event in question, while blame can be thought of as a value judgement that is related more to the intention or agency of the actor and less about the degree of influence the actor had on the causal chain. Still even this I feel is just an abstraction layer that is more useful in rhetoric than
 in a framework that better captures some meaningful distinction on a fundamental level; I say this because agency imo is just another way of specifying a scope or domain of influence imo.

What do you think?

Sure. What's important is that there is a difference, so we could assert:

God is responsible for creating the world.
Humankind is blameworthy for the evil it commits.

This can be endlessly broken down into different domains, scopes, etc., but it would come back to that (or not to that, depending on how the argument went).