Is Satan the Christian God of Knowledge?

[Learner]

God is a character in a work of fiction. But there's enough material in the work to define his character as monstrous, even before consulting the fan-fic.

Darth Vader is also monstrous. He committed genocide at Alderaan, just as 'God' did on Earth.

Neither the question of what pets Vader had, nor whether Adam and Eve killed animals to make clothes, are addressed in the source work; So speculation on those questions is futile.

I agree with you on the speculation bit with not enough detail in the text i.e. Adam and Eve having clothes made of skin and thats all.

So considering God is monstrous (in regards to your portrayed character ) we (plural) know monstrous and monstrocity and by detesting such monstrocities, we know we are very un-like the character(s) portrayed, God therefore punishes for no reason (hypothetically since you're not a believer).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Another suggestion: Adam and Eve commited sins and God gave the first sacrifice of animals for their sins and used the skins of the sacrificed animals

Don't most sacrifices in the OT get burned, though? For the smoke that pleased the Lord?

I mean, big picture, it's not much of a 'sacrifice' to God if the human gets something out of it. Then it's not a sacrifice, it's more of a dedication. "Hey, I'm roasting this pig, God, and we're going to eat it, but golly, we have you in mind, right?"

It's part of why Jesus' 'sacrifice' wasn't that impressive. Jesus was still there at the end. He lost a weekend, but this line that says 'God gave up his own son' is a lie. He still had his son when the dust settled.

So this apology only works if you ignore the meaning of sacrifice, the examples of sacrifices, and just try to approach a problem by stovepiping the details.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Another suggestion: Adam and Eve commited sins and God gave the first sacrifice of animals for their sins and used the skins of the sacrificed animals

Don't most sacrifices in the OT get burned, though? For the smoke that pleased the Lord?

I mean, big picture, it's not much of a 'sacrifice' to God if the human gets something out of it. Then it's not a sacrifice, it's more of a dedication. "Hey, I'm roasting this pig, God, and we're going to eat it, but golly, we have you in mind, right?"

It's part of why Jesus' 'sacrifice' wasn't that impressive. Jesus was still there at the end. He lost a weekend, but this line that says 'God gave up his own son' is a lie. He still had his son when the dust settled.

So this apology only works if you ignore the meaning of sacrifice, the examples of sacrifices, and just try to approach a problem by stovepiping the details.

I sacrificed $6.42 to get two Whoppers at Burger King eight days ago.

This is how sacrifice for a heavenly reward works, it's really just a deal. Now if one removes the heavenly reward from the equation then actual sacrifice becomes a possibility. Sacrificing animals to win a god's favor isn't sacrificing anything.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Another suggestion: Adam and Eve commited sins and God gave the first sacrifice of animals for their sins and used the skins of the sacrificed animals

Don't most sacrifices in the OT get burned, though? For the smoke that pleased the Lord?

I mean, big picture, it's not much of a 'sacrifice' to God if the human gets something out of it. Then it's not a sacrifice, it's more of a dedication. "Hey, I'm roasting this pig, God, and we're going to eat it, but golly, we have you in mind, right?"

It's part of why Jesus' 'sacrifice' wasn't that impressive. Jesus was still there at the end. He lost a weekend, but this line that says 'God gave up his own son' is a lie. He still had his son when the dust settled.

So this apology only works if you ignore the meaning of sacrifice, the examples of sacrifices, and just try to approach a problem by stovepiping the details.

I sacrificed $6.42 to get two Whoppers at Burger King eight days ago.

This is how sacrifice for a heavenly reward works, it's really just a deal.

Sure. I give you a goat, you keep lightning from toasting my camel.
But you have to GIVE UP something for the deal to be completed. You can't go into BIK and show them $6.42, and then put it back in your pocket, and expect a couple of Whoppers.

Sacrificing animals to win a god's favor isn't sacrificing anything.

Burning an animal so that you don't have a chance to use the skin, meat, bones, blood, labor, etc. is definitely a sacrifice. You have given all that up.

Whether or not God's favor is worth anything is a different issue.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Burning an animal so that you don't have a chance to use the skin, meat, bones, blood, labor, etc. is definitely a sacrifice. You have given all that up.

Whether or not God's favor is worth anything is a different issue.

That only makes religious sense because the sacrifices are all rewarded by the gods. No religious person would ever sacrifice anything if they were not going to be religiously rewarded.

Religious sacrifice is just an exchange, a barter.

 

[Politesse]

God doesn't actually need the food. The meat of the sacrificed animals went to the community, rather than staying on the private tables of the wealthy, or on the hoof of enormous earth-destroying herds belonging to them.

Yes, there is exchange involved. Trade, as you say. Personally, I find this more virtuous than a system that pointlessly destroys or hoards hings.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

God doesn't actually need the food. The meat of the sacrificed animals went to the community, rather than staying on the private tables of the wealthy, or on the hoof of enormous earth-destroying herds belonging to them.

Yes, there is exchange involved. Trade, as you say. Personally, I find this more virtuous than a system that pointlessly destroys things.

Well then, why not just ... give the meat of the animals to the community? What's with the weirdo dog-and-pony show of pretending to give it to some god?

 

[Keith&Co.]

God doesn't actually need the food. The meat of the sacrificed animals went to the community, rather than staying on the private tables of the wealthy, or on the hoof of enormous earth-destroying herds belonging to them.

Yes, there is exchange involved. Trade, as you say. Personally, I find this more virtuous than a system that pointlessly destroys things.

Well then, why not just ... give the meat of the animals to the community? What's with the weirdo dog-and-pony show of pretending to give it to some god?

Because then the rest of the community has to thank God for the meat. They can't just say, "Hey, people can be generous and moral without a divine lawgiver." Then later apologists can insist that we NEED a divine example in order to have hospitals and charities...

- - - Updated - - -

God doesn't actually need the food. The meat of the sacrificed animals went to the community, rather than staying on the private tables of the wealthy, or on the hoof of enormous earth-destroying herds belonging to them.

Maybe among pagan congregations. IIRC, the Old Testament specifically forbids eating flesh that's been consecrated to a deity.
That's why they burned their offerings.

 

[skepticalbip]

Burning an animal so that you don't have a chance to use the skin, meat, bones, blood, labor, etc. is definitely a sacrifice. You have given all that up.

Whether or not God's favor is worth anything is a different issue.

That only makes religious sense because the sacrifices are all rewarded by the gods. No religious person would ever sacrifice anything if they were not going to be religiously rewarded.

Religious sacrifice is just an exchange, a barter.

The sacrifice is a hope for an exchange. It is the hope that there will be a big return for the burnt lamb. Maybe the whole transaction, including the more recent form of tithing, was the origin of the Nigerian Prince scam - "gimme something valuable and I promise that you will receive a great reward later."

 

[Politesse]

Because then the rest of the community has to thank God for the meat. They can't just say, "Hey, people can be generous and moral without a divine lawgiver." Then later apologists can insist that we NEED a divine example in order to have hospitals and charities...

- - - Updated - - -

God doesn't actually need the food. The meat of the sacrificed animals went to the community, rather than staying on the private tables of the wealthy, or on the hoof of enormous earth-destroying herds belonging to them.

Maybe among pagan congregations. IIRC, the Old Testament specifically forbids eating flesh that's been consecrated to a deity.
That's why they burned their offerings.

Errr...

They forbid eating meat offered to other deities.

The temple meats were supposed to be either burned wholly (a "burnt offering" which only occurred in certain circumstances) or eaten/distributed by the priesthood. You can read about the various kinds of offerings in the first seven chapters of Leviticus in the Hebrew Scriptures.

- - - Updated - - -

God doesn't actually need the food. The meat of the sacrificed animals went to the community, rather than staying on the private tables of the wealthy, or on the hoof of enormous earth-destroying herds belonging to them.

Yes, there is exchange involved. Trade, as you say. Personally, I find this more virtuous than a system that pointlessly destroys things.

Well then, why not just ... give the meat of the animals to the community? What's with the weirdo dog-and-pony show of pretending to give it to some god?

Religion is a good motivator. Especially if you are the scion of an extremely powerful theocratic priesthood, and you're hoping to get a cut of the sacrifice for yourself and your kin.

I note that the same books which command the system of sacrifices also command more direct forms of charity and mercy.

 

[bilby]

The temple meats were supposed to be either burned wholly (a "burnt offering" which only occurred in certain circumstances) or eaten/distributed by the priesthood. ....

I am prepared to bet that the ratio of eaten:distributed was quite high.

One consistent characteristic of priests of all religions throughout history has been their willingness to take from the rich, and pay lip-service to giving to the poor.

 

[Politesse]

The temple meats were supposed to be either burned wholly (a "burnt offering" which only occurred in certain circumstances) or eaten/distributed by the priesthood. ....

I am prepared to bet that the ratio of eaten:distributed was quite high.

One consistent characteristic of priests of all religions throughout history has been their willingness to take from the rich, and pay lip-service to giving to the poor.

Yup. There's a consistent peril of any system of predictably accumulated wealth; it attracts all the wrong sorts in addition to whomever it was originally meant to help.

Interestingly, the Hebrew Scriptures both institute this system (in the Pentateuch) and rail against it (in several of the books of the Prophets). To say nothing of Jesus' discourse on the matter in the Christian testament.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yup. There's a consistent peril of any system of predictably accumulated wealth; it attracts all the wrong sorts in addition to whomever it was originally meant to help.

Interestingly, the Hebrew Scriptures both institute this system (in the Pentateuch) and rail against it (in several of the books of the Prophets). To say nothing of Jesus' discourse on the matter in the Christian testament.

Well, fuck. It's too bad there's not somebody who was an omnipotent god that could see the future and had specifically designed the human race in a certain way. If we had one of those, this problem could have been solved before it ever came up.

 

[Politesse]

Yup. There's a consistent peril of any system of predictably accumulated wealth; it attracts all the wrong sorts in addition to whomever it was originally meant to help.

Interestingly, the Hebrew Scriptures both institute this system (in the Pentateuch) and rail against it (in several of the books of the Prophets). To say nothing of Jesus' discourse on the matter in the Christian testament.

Well, fuck. It's too bad there's not somebody who was an omnipotent god that could see the future and had specifically designed the human race in a certain way. If we had one of those, this problem could have been solved before it ever came up.

Assuming it desired to do so.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if Jesus is God and Jesus was bitching about it, one can assume God has the desire to do so.

 

[steve_bank]

Adam and Eve became self aware, covering up with fig leaves. No self awareness and there can be no sin.

 

[Politesse]

Well, if Jesus is God and Jesus was bitching about it, one can assume God has the desire to do so.

That's a lot of assumptions!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if Jesus is God and Jesus was bitching about it, one can assume God has the desire to do so.

That's a lot of assumptions!

Only in the same way that it’s a lot of assumptions to assume that Bruce Wayne has a problem with the Joker just because Batman keeps fighting him.

 

[steve_bank]

Well, if Jesus is God and Jesus was bitching about it, one can assume God has the desire to do so.

That's a lot of assumptions!

Indeed a lot of assumptions, and that is the point we skeptics make about deriving morality and meaning and god's will from the bible.