Is Satan evil?

[Question Mark]

Point is I'm laughing at your lack of a good Greek dictionary. What does "undefined end" mean? You do know that eternal has no end, right?
Let me guess, an example used was "eternal hellfire", huh? lol
.

If you're just going to be a condescending ass, I'm not going to bother with you.

[thesummerqueen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8

[CapnAwesome]

Then there's probably better places for you to hang out.

I can't tell when you are being ironic or not. I'm guessing neither can you.

[thesummerqueen]

As long as we are on the topic, is Sauron really evil? I mean he is just doing the exact same thing as Frodo and his gang, trying to have his worldview promoted throughout middle earth. The other characters in that made up story have similar means. I think debating the morality of mythical characters gives too much credence to them in the first place.

While you're half right (it is mental masturbation), a small bone of contention there, handsome. Fantasy and sci-fi (really, all fiction) is where we work out our ideas about morality along the road to a hero's journey or a coming of age story or whatever way you frame it. We put ideas into environments that hopefully foster better understanding that's applicable to the real world.

Unfortunately, when people take them too seriously, we have...religion.

And whatever you call those tards who follow Atlas Shrugged.

[Ryantology]

As long as we are on the topic, is Sauron really evil? I mean he is just doing the exact same thing as Frodo and his gang, trying to have his worldview promoted throughout middle earth. The other characters in that made up story have similar means. I think debating the morality of mythical characters gives too much credence to them in the first place.

Unfortunately, Satan is one of those characters that a lot of people think isn't mythological. There are millions who blame everything bad in the real world on this guy. It'd be worth investigating Sauron's character if his character was considered real by so many people that it had serious life-and-death consequences for people.

[CapnAwesome]

Unfortunately, Satan is one of those characters that a lot of people think isn't mythological. There are millions who blame everything bad in the real world on this guy. It'd be worth investigating Sauron's character if his character was considered real by so many people that it had serious life-and-death consequences for people.

That millions of people accept Satan is real is a good reason to argue that he isn't real, not a good reason to argue he isn't evil.

I understand that it is interesting from a mythological stand point, the same way as anaylizing the Illiad or something but what can be the point in convincing believers that Satan wasn't that bad of a guy? To turn Christians into Satanists?

It also does Atheists no favors as Christians already somehow associate us with Satanism. It's also fairly silly biblically. Satan tortures Lot (with Gods permission) in the old testament and kills his relatives. In the new Testament Satan tries to prevent the salvation of mankind. If you accept a biblical worldview Satan is obviously the bad guy. What should be said is that the biblical worldview is totally against modern morality.

[Confused Ape]

[ Satan tortures Lot (with Gods permission) in the old testament and kills his relatives. In the new Testament Satan tries to prevent the salvation of mankind.

God giving Satan permission to do these things shows that God's just as much of a bad guy.

[Ryantology]

That millions of people accept Satan is real is a good reason to argue that he isn't real, not a good reason to argue he isn't evil.

I understand that it is interesting from a mythological stand point, the same way as anaylizing the Illiad or something but what can be the point in convincing believers that Satan wasn't that bad of a guy? To turn Christians into Satanists?

If you are shown that your good guy is, in all ways, much worse than your bad guy, why would you want to follow the good guy?

There's no reason to follow Satan, as Satan is never shown looking for followers (though, of course, some of them would anyway) and, as you pointed out, Satan's still not a good guy in any case. The best thing to do would be to walk away from the whole thing.

[genkaus]

While you're half right (it is mental masturbation), a small bone of contention there, handsome. Fantasy and sci-fi (really, all fiction) is where we work out our ideas about morality along the road to a hero's journey or a coming of age story or whatever way you frame it. We put ideas into environments that hopefully foster better understanding that's applicable to the real world.

Unfortunately, when people take them too seriously, we have...religion.

And whatever you call those tards who follow Atlas Shrugged.

Not exactly true. It was written less as a means to work out ideas about morality and more as a mouthpiece of the author's existing moral code. The main purpose of the book was to showboat her philosophy and Rand didn't even try to disguise the fact.

---

As long as we are on the topic, is Sauron really evil? I mean he is just doing the exact same thing as Frodo and his gang, trying to have his worldview promoted throughout middle earth. The other characters in that made up story have similar means. I think debating the morality of mythical characters gives too much credence to them in the first place.

Ofcourse Sauron is evil. That's because what he wants to do with his one ring is to impose his will upon others.

My point is, I don't see any problem in discussing morality of mythical creatures all day, as long as we remember they are mythical.

[Angrboda]

While you're half right (it is mental masturbation), a small bone of contention there, handsome. Fantasy and sci-fi (really, all fiction) is where we work out our ideas about morality along the road to a hero's journey or a coming of age story or whatever way you frame it. We put ideas into environments that hopefully foster better understanding that's applicable to the real world.

Unfortunately, when people take them too seriously, we have...religion.

And whatever you call those tards who follow Atlas Shrugged.

Not exactly true. It was written less as a means to work out ideas about morality and more as a mouthpiece of the author's existing moral code. The main purpose of the book was to showboat her philosophy and Rand didn't even try to disguise the fact.

She never said otherwise. Randian Objectivism has become a religion just as she said. Nathaniel Branden, Rand's heir apparent, listed the following as central tenets of Objectivism to which followers were to adhere(*):

1) Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived.
2) Atlas Shrugged is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world.
3) Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man's life on earth.
4) No one can be a good Objectivist who does not admire what Ayn Rand admires and condemn what Ayn Rand condemns.
5) No one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees with Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue.

Now, I don't know what standard you use to determine if something is or is not a religion is, but that appears to fit the bill of the summerqueen's contention that the followers of Ayn Rand have taken her and her novel too seriously and made of it a secular religion, so to speak.


(*) (From Judgement Day: My Years With Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Brandon, quoted in The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer. Numbering added for clarity.)