Why did Jehovah create Satan?

[Jarhyn]

Essentially, these distinct domains indicate that God isn't bound by ethics because the reasons we have for ethics simply don't have meaning in that domain. So the only multiverse wherein god could be "good" is one in which, while they are perhaps not constrained by mortality within the context of the universe they are still mortal, in some capacity, in their own personal context.

I will stipulate that a non-human may not obey human ethics.
But why eould a human then approve of such an alien being?
Why do believers insist they get their morals from a being that exhibits such bad ethics when measured by human standards?

Because "human" ethics aren't actually "human" any more than human game theory is human, or human math, or human calculus.

The strategy to win "chess" is the same anywhere the rules are implemented.

It isn't about human "standards" so much as human capabilities.

Death, learning, communication, external storage of information, being born ignorant. These are not unique to humans and are the fundamental basis for a system of strategic benefit to the collective, regardless of whether the members are strictly human.

I am not talking about "human" ethics, I'm talking about "ethics" independent of the specific actor.

Ethics are bounded by systemic and structural domains linked to the survival strategies. For aliens to have different ethics, they would necessarily have different survival concerns (such as being incapable of personal learning, or members of a post-death "society").

They may not even be ethical. They may be monsters! But that goes more to morality than ethics in this discussion.

 

[Rhea]

Yeah, but, honestly, WHY, though?

Why what?

Um, the very next senence I explain the “why” that I’m asking. Did you just reflexively reply before you even read anything?

Why does the bully say, “I won’t take your lunch money if you tell me I’m great”? Why does the bully say, “yoou have to respect me or I will beat the shit out of you”? Or even, “Tell me how much you love me, or you can’t get in to school.”


Why is it that you think an all-powerful god would even think that way?

It just makes no fucking sense.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Essentially, these distinct domains indicate that God isn't bound by ethics because the reasons we have for ethics simply don't have meaning in that domain. So the only multiverse wherein god could be "good" is one in which, while they are perhaps not constrained by mortality within the context of the universe they are still mortal, in some capacity, in their own personal context.

I will stipulate that a non-human may not obey human ethics.
But why eould a human then approve of such an alien being?
Why do believers insist they get their morals from a being that exhibits such bad ethics when measured by human standards?

I have been trying to get theists to discuss morals for years now.

It is near impossible as they mostly just run away after seeing any kind or argument or opinion that they cannot refute.

I think the problem is that people get polarized in both religion and politics and that negates any effective dialog to actual change minds or positions.

It is like when the Reps publicly held their noses and voted for Trump.

How can one get a Christian out of his nose holding position to a more moral one. They do not want to acknowledge that their morals are actually better than the genocidal prick they say they adore.

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

I thought Satan as a angel was god's right hand man, who rebelled and was cast out.

In religion it is like pro faux wrestling. Good vs bad guy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How can one get a Christian out of his nose holding position to a more moral one. They do not want to acknowledge that their morals are actually better than the genocidal prick they say they adore.

They would have to identify, then acknowledge, the actual source of their morals. They could not stand that idea. Despite the biblegod morals they reject, they overlap on a couple critical (or at least loudly approved) ones, and like to pretend biblegod is their sourcebook.

It's simple, it's blackNwhite, it's easy.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Why what?

Think about it for a moment. For believers ... If it is the way it is... then that's how it is - By God's command as we read it, even if we ourselves as theists don't understand everything - you're either with God or you ain't.. it's that simple!

But that's a cop-out, Learner. How do you know it is what it it? Why do you acceot it?

In learning chemistry, someone describes what will happen and demonstrates it, so we know what it is. Everyone who performs the experiment agrees what it is.

In sharing an observation, a joke, or an anecdote, they make it make sense, so we can understand it. We cannot accept it as correct if it makes no sense.

Your god is described as exhibiting behaviors that, in a human, would be alarming at the least. You cannot explain how this extortionate approach dovetails with words like justice or loving. You just shrug it off as something someone, somewhere, might explain some day., a problem only for non-believers.
But if Giuliani was defending a child-trafficking pirate that way, insisting "but he just IS a great humanitarian" you would not give him the benefit of the doubt.

So, why accept that this just IS? Why admit to other grownups that you accept SUCH a poor excuse for a defense?

Fundamental to this discussion is that ethics happens, much like math, in distinct domains.

There is ethics in the Darwinistic domain, there is ethics in the neo-lamarckian domain, and ethics in the "immortal" domain.

The correct thing in a pure Darwinistic model is "make as many copies as possible, defeating non-copies. Do anything that works to accomplish these things as there is only the end of copy-dominance!"

The correct thing in a neo-lamarckian model is what I would call "social ethics".

The correct thing to do as an immortal? Well, I suppose you could reference my last post in Dr Z's lovecraft thread in the existence of god forum? I don't want to rehash that.

Essentially, these distinct domains indicate that God isn't bound by ethics because the reasons we have for ethics simply don't have meaning in that domain. So the only multiverse wherein god could be "good" is one in which, while they are perhaps not constrained by mortality within the context of the universe they are still mortal, in some capacity, in their own personal context.

The Bible claims explicitly that God is fair, just, merciful and compassionate. God is righteous and God loves us. And God commands we be the same. And gives numerous examples of just what is meant by these things. You know, that context thing. And of course, the Bible is a revelation to us from God.

The various dodging and twisting to excuse God for not being fair, just, compassionate, merciful, and loving is nonsense if one is speaking about the Christian god of the Bible.

There is an old claim God owes us no moral obligations and is not a moral agent. And idea that goes back to Duns Scotus and Aquinas, especially Aquinas. But if God, who is omnipotent, does not act when he could act to eliminate moral evil, that is the act of moral agency, to not act. Just not good moral agency. And to be just, merciful and compassionate, to be righteous is to accept moral obligations. to God's creations.

 

[steve_bank]

The Bible claims explicitly that God is fair, just, merciful and compassionate. God is righteous and God loves us.

The Abrahamic god makes sense when you look at god as a reflection and creation of man, not the other way around. As with Greek gods who represent aspects of human behavior.I think god staeted out more as a cultural talking point for communications, a metaphor.

In my generation it would be said someone tried to John Wayne a situation. Later it became 'to Rambo' something.

God as metaphor makes perfect sense.

God vs Satan as metaphor for human spiritual conflict reflective of human civilization makes sense. Pre modern psychology and biology it provided a context for discussion and developing norms.

 

[Stephen T-B]

Every super being needs a super-being adversary, something the creators and writers of all the super-hero stories know.

God needs Satan, just as Superman needs Lex Luther, et al.

 

[Politesse]

There were many long, lonely centuries in which the Abrahamic God did not, in fact, have a principal adversary in the mythos. Does he really need one, or do we just look for one as denizens in an internally adversarial age?

 

[DBT]

I think that Satan's image had a makeover during the second temple period, shifting from an angel of God, obedient to God but playing an adversarial role, to that of the Devil fighting against God.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This question has always seemed like a massive plot-hole to me. I find it interesting to discuss because it is such a massive plot-hole.

Did Jehovah not know what was in the heart of this creature? Does the story support that gap? Does god need this plot device so he adds it but refuses to take responsibility? Is Satan actually an equal god, but the book downplays his origin because that scares the shit out of them?

What’s the deal? Who created Satan, Why, and what did they know and when did they know it?

I thought the idea was that not only do humans have free will, but also the angels. And Lucifer went rouge. God is omnipotent. Satan is just more powerful than humans. He's not all powerful by any means. If God intervened then there's no way for Satan to repent and come back to the fold.

I think that's the basic narrative structure.

But it's a religious story so it has to work on several levels (it's both a metaphor for bigger things, as well as just a good story etc) and it also must be somewhat mysterious = it should only be somewhat logical. There has to be glaring holes in the story. That seems to be important for religious myths.

 

[steve_bank]

Cats mist definitely have a will of their own.

 

[Rhea]

If God intervened then there's no way for Satan to repent and come back to the fold.

“No way”? Who made that rule?
Is that like, we can’t ever stop a bully from bulying because that would prevent them from every realizing they are a bully and repent?


That is obviously, repeatedly, not true.

I think that's the basic narrative structure.

So that might be their narrative structure, but it makes no sense.. It doesn’t match reality and what we see around us. It uses a made-up rule with a plot hole in order to plug a plot hole.

But it's a religious story so it has to work on several levels (it's both a metaphor for bigger things, as well as just a good story etc) and it also must be somewhat mysterious = it should only be somewhat logical. There has to be glaring holes in the story. That seems to be important for religious myths.

Indeed it does seem important, because they don’t seem to care about how these glaring holes undermine their story. And they all have them.

 

[steve_bank]

Why does Sherlock Homes have Dr Moriarityty?
Why does Superman have Lex Luthor?

Christian/Jewish scripture is a tangle of fictional myths and oral traditions sprinkled with real historical events, especially the gospels.

Like all dictators and autocrats god has a figure to scare people. And like all dictators and autocrats presents himself as the protector.

Trump vs immigrants.
Hitler vs Jews.

You can here extreme fear mongering from radio and TV evangelists. Of course the preacher will lead you to safety from evil Statn, just kick in a contribution.

 

[DBT]

Intervention is a way of showing someone the error of their ways.

If Heaven is supposed to be absolutely perfect, this state of perfection should not have dissent or rebellion.

Dissent and rebellion being signs of an imperfect world.

Of course, some try to invoke 'free will' as the driver of rebellion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

“No way”? Who made that rule?
Is that like, we can’t ever stop a bully from bulying because that would prevent them from every realizing they are a bully and repent?

Please, don't examine this too closely. It doesn't have the tightest logic.

So that might be their narrative structure, but it makes no sense.. It doesn’t match reality and what we see around us. It uses a made-up rule with a plot hole in order to plug a plot hole.

The Force in Star Wars doesn't make any sense either. But that doesn't prevent us from enjoying the movies, and to be swept away by the story. Religion is an emotional activity, rather than cerebral activity.

But it's a religious story so it has to work on several levels (it's both a metaphor for bigger things, as well as just a good story etc) and it also must be somewhat mysterious = it should only be somewhat logical. There has to be glaring holes in the story. That seems to be important for religious myths.

Indeed it does seem important, because they don’t seem to care about how these glaring holes undermine their story. And they all have them.

But that is interesting. It's not like we can't create logically consistent stories. But for whatever reason religious myths systematically select stories that don't make sense.

Joseph Cambell's theory is that gods are about our relationship with the unknown. Which is inherently mysterious and we must not be able to define it fully or pin it down. The lack of logic of the stories are intended to emphasize the inherent mystery of life. It's a theory. I'm not sure I buy it fully. But it's a good explanation at least.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

He wanted to win a bet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why what?

Think about it for a moment. For believers ... If it is the way it is... then that's how it is - By God's command as we read it, even if we ourselves as theists don't understand everything - you're either with God or you ain't.. it's that simple!

1) The English language consists of words.
2) Some words includes exists and God.
3) The rules of the English language allow me to place the words "God Exists" to form a sentence.
4) Because the sentence can exist, what the sentence says also has equal validity and God exists.

It's that simple!

 

[Learner]

Acknowledged Mr. Higgins.

 

[Learner]

Why does Sherlock Homes have Dr Moriarityty?
Why does Superman have Lex Luthor?

Christian/Jewish scripture is a tangle of fictional myths and oral traditions sprinkled with real historical events, especially the gospels.

Like all dictators and autocrats god has a figure to scare people. And like all dictators and autocrats presents himself as the protector.

Trump vs immigrants.
Hitler vs Jews.

You can here extreme fear mongering from radio and TV evangelists. Of course the preacher will lead you to safety from evil Statn, just kick in a contribution.

Why does steve_bank have Learner (and other forum theists)?