4 ms·

> but also for a world of lies and propaganda That part has always bugged me. The Lucifer is always depicted from the Bible's point of view. There are no Gospe

> but also for a world of lies and propaganda That part has always bugged me. The Lucifer is always depicted from the Bible's point of view. There are no Gospels Of Hell that give Satan's viewpoint. And the Bible insists that only its words are true. You must not trust anything else (sorry, too lazy to find the verses right now). For me, this sounds exactly like every propaganda outlet (and I read a lot of "Pravda" for historical research).

Apocryphon 3y ago
There were plenty of Gnostic works during the early church. There were certainly some sub-sect or heresy that gave a positive depiction of the other side.
Terr_ 3y ago
I interpreted Lewis' statement as claiming Milton's Lucifer, within the story exists in a cloud of his own lies and propaganda. (As opposed to labeling Milton's work as lies and propaganda in the real world.) Just for contrast, imagine a Lucifer-character that said: "Yeah, we didn't part on good terms, and I dispute a lot of what's said about me... But I've learned to accept things I can't change and I invite you to watch and judge me by my works."
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  — Do you have a few moments to talk about Count Dracula? — Wait, are you guys ... vampires? — There are many hurtful stereotypes. May we come in?
coldtea 3y ago
>That part has always bugged me. The Lucifer is always depicted from the Bible's point of view. There are no Gospels Of Hell that give Satan's viewpoint. Satan, as a figure was created (and described) by Christians. So it can't be anything but what it says on the tin. It's not a real person whose biography they could have lied about - it's a creation they made of words, and those particular words define him. You could reject their whole teachings and universe, but you can't really say "but what if Satan is actually good?", while accepting he exists. If he was good he just wouldn't be Satan. So it makes as little sense as asking "what if Moby Dick was really a rabbit?" - when Moby Dick only existed as a literary whale Melville conjured. Similarly, as much as Satan is anything, and is useful for anything, it's for embodying the specific character he was described to be with the specific backstory. You could write an alternate Satan (like the gnostic gospels do or Milton does), but that's fan-fiction then. The rabbit version of Moby Dick, not the "true" Moby Dick.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > It's not a real person whose biography they could have lied about - it's a creation they made of words A lot of Christians would object to that quite strenuously, and quite a few Muslims would stone you if you say these words in a wrong country. That's why it's important to highlight the inconsistencies in the very logic of the religion.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >A lot of Christians would object to that quite strenuously Does it matter for what we're discussing?
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    > That's why it's important to highlight the inconsistencies in the very logic of the religion. I strongly disagree. Important towards what end? And if that end is getting people to be less religious, I think this is one of the least effective ways to make that point. Trying to dissuade a religious person in the basis of the logical inconsistencies in their religion is the le atheist approach, and seems to be most compelling to the agnostic and atheist crowds.
- Shorel 3y ago
  > You could write an alternate Satan (like the gnostic gospels do or Milton does), but that's fan-fiction then. Yes, but Christianity is a fan-fiction of the Jewish bible. In the same way, the Quran is a fan-fiction of the former ones. And the Jewish bible is full of fan-fictions of previous stories, like Gilgamesh.
- defrost 3y ago
  Stories of "Satan" predate the Christians .. he sounds a lot like Mastema from the Book of Jubilees which dates back to at least 150 years pre Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jubilees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jubilees Mastema being yet another variation on embodiments of Yetzer hara, cause made real of the inclination of man to do evil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yetzer_hara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yetzer_hara
saghm 3y ago
I had a former coworker (who sometimes is on this site, maybe he'll even see this comment and know I'm talking about him) who argued that Lucifer was essentially the same character as Prometheus in Greek mythology, which gives a bit of an alternative perspective to him. The idea was that both figures brought knowledge to humans against the wishes of the higher power(s) and were punished for it. If you view it through that lens, he's more of a tragic hero for humanity against an authority that presumed to know better than we did, which would explain why the narrative from the other perspective portrays him as reckless and full of hubris. I don't particularly believe that either Satan or Prometheus existed as literal beings at any point, but I do find the idea of their stories being different perspectives of the same tale fascinating.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  compare Snow, Glass, Apples
- MailleQuiMaille 3y ago
  I always thought this. Same for the fall, which was the consuming of the Forbidden Fruit. For some reason, God(s) did not want us thinking that hard. When I see the world, sometimes, I tend to agree…
  - Scarblac 3y ago
    God made us after his own image. So he knew how hard it is to stick to diets. We were set up.
    - 082349872349872 3y ago
      > “The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods Like horses, and cattle like cattle... ―ΞὁΚ
- sickofparadox 3y ago
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> The Lucifer is always depicted from the Bible's point of view. To the best of my limited understanding, very little is said of Satan, at all, in either the OT or the NT. What little is said, doesn't actually plainly state that the Serpent from the Garden of Eden is Satan, or that this is the same entity as Lucifer (or any other angel, fallen or otherwise). Satan, as in the Christian Devil, is very much a thing of the Judeo-Christian mythology, the stuff that didn't make it into any of the books. Not much written down about it (think of what it might mean to be caught with such books?), just stories passed down orally, maybe in whispers. > And the Bible insists that only its words are true. You must not trust anything else I'm an atheist myself, but this seems like a particularly asinine interpretation of anything you might find in the Christian Bible. I think you're all missing a conundrum that has some similarities to those we find in computer science. If you have two or more invisible, incorporeal entities, one or more of which may lie and be the impostor of the other, how can you determine who is who? What if some or all have multiple names? Can you even determine if there are multiple entities, perhaps you are mistaken and there's only one? For instance, when Mormons or Muslims say they worship the same deity as Christians, why should their opinion be taken at face value (regardless of whether you are a believer or atheist)?
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  If you have invisible, incorporeal entity G, and invisible, incorporeal entity H, both of which are infinitely perfect and not inferior in dignity to anything else, then by the rule of indirect equality: x=y ≡ (∀z. z≤x ≡ z≤y) G is H. (or at least isomorphic to H, if one allows one's deities to merely be preordered instead of partially ordered. However, in this setting one would be unable to distinguish even a single religion's deity from Her identical twin Latonya, which probably leads to greater theological problems than it solves...)
  - araes 3y ago
    Per the chain above, if you also exist in some state where you are effectively, permanently downhill in computation, then entities which exist at some state upward are "effectively" indistinguishable, no matter their relative "up". In Greek theology, all "deities" are effectively "up" and normal humans have very little way of telling which entity is "really" in charge. To much information disparity. Zeus, Hera? Hephaestus? Has it already done the entire Titans storyline again with Zeus, and humans don't even know? Below some resolution, the lines on the chip are indistinguishable from a pixel. [1] Most creatures need significant advancement to comprehend anything other than "glowing texture." [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312346271/figure/fig13/AS:668254703976480@1536335745893/Optical-reconstruction-of-the-microprocessor-to-obtain-its-connectome-In-11-the-A.png https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312346271/figure/fi...
RecycledEle 3y ago
ChatGPT will give you the verses you need. ChatGPT is amazingly fluent in the Bible.

Apocryphon 3y ago

There were plenty of Gnostic works during the early church. There were certainly some sub-sect or heresy that gave a positive depiction of the other side.

Terr_ 3y ago

I interpreted Lewis' statement as claiming Milton's Lucifer, within the story exists in a cloud of his own lies and propaganda. (As opposed to labeling Milton's work as lies and propaganda in the real world.) Just for contrast, imagine a Lucifer-character that said: "Yeah, we didn't part on good terms, and I dispute a lot of what's said about me... But I've learned to accept things I can't change and I invite you to watch and judge me by my works."

082349872349872 3y ago
— Do you have a few moments to talk about Count Dracula? — Wait, are you guys ... vampires? — There are many hurtful stereotypes. May we come in?

coldtea 3y ago

>That part has always bugged me. The Lucifer is always depicted from the Bible's point of view. There are no Gospels Of Hell that give Satan's viewpoint. Satan, as a figure was created (and described) by Christians. So it can't be anything but what it says on the tin. It's not a real person whose biography they could have lied about - it's a creation they made of words, and those particular words define him. You could reject their whole teachings and universe, but you can't really say "but what if Satan is actually good?", while accepting he exists. If he was good he just wouldn't be Satan. So it makes as little sense as asking "what if Moby Dick was really a rabbit?" - when Moby Dick only existed as a literary whale Melville conjured. Similarly, as much as Satan is anything, and is useful for anything, it's for embodying the specific character he was described to be with the specific backstory. You could write an alternate Satan (like the gnostic gospels do or Milton does), but that's fan-fiction then. The rabbit version of Moby Dick, not the "true" Moby Dick.

cyberax 3y ago
> It's not a real person whose biography they could have lied about - it's a creation they made of words A lot of Christians would object to that quite strenuously, and quite a few Muslims would stone you if you say these words in a wrong country. That's why it's important to highlight the inconsistencies in the very logic of the religion.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 3y ago
  >A lot of Christians would object to that quite strenuously Does it matter for what we're discussing?
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  > That's why it's important to highlight the inconsistencies in the very logic of the religion. I strongly disagree. Important towards what end? And if that end is getting people to be less religious, I think this is one of the least effective ways to make that point. Trying to dissuade a religious person in the basis of the logical inconsistencies in their religion is the le atheist approach, and seems to be most compelling to the agnostic and atheist crowds.
Shorel 3y ago
> You could write an alternate Satan (like the gnostic gospels do or Milton does), but that's fan-fiction then. Yes, but Christianity is a fan-fiction of the Jewish bible. In the same way, the Quran is a fan-fiction of the former ones. And the Jewish bible is full of fan-fictions of previous stories, like Gilgamesh.
defrost 3y ago
Stories of "Satan" predate the Christians .. he sounds a lot like Mastema from the Book of Jubilees which dates back to at least 150 years pre Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jubilees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jubilees Mastema being yet another variation on embodiments of Yetzer hara, cause made real of the inclination of man to do evil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yetzer_hara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yetzer_hara

saghm 3y ago

I had a former coworker (who sometimes is on this site, maybe he'll even see this comment and know I'm talking about him) who argued that Lucifer was essentially the same character as Prometheus in Greek mythology, which gives a bit of an alternative perspective to him. The idea was that both figures brought knowledge to humans against the wishes of the higher power(s) and were punished for it. If you view it through that lens, he's more of a tragic hero for humanity against an authority that presumed to know better than we did, which would explain why the narrative from the other perspective portrays him as reckless and full of hubris. I don't particularly believe that either Satan or Prometheus existed as literal beings at any point, but I do find the idea of their stories being different perspectives of the same tale fascinating.

082349872349872 3y ago
compare Snow, Glass, Apples
MailleQuiMaille 3y ago
I always thought this. Same for the fall, which was the consuming of the Forbidden Fruit. For some reason, God(s) did not want us thinking that hard. When I see the world, sometimes, I tend to agree…
- Scarblac 3y ago
  God made us after his own image. So he knew how hard it is to stick to diets. We were set up.
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    > “The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods Like horses, and cattle like cattle... ―ΞὁΚ
sickofparadox 3y ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> The Lucifer is always depicted from the Bible's point of view. To the best of my limited understanding, very little is said of Satan, at all, in either the OT or the NT. What little is said, doesn't actually plainly state that the Serpent from the Garden of Eden is Satan, or that this is the same entity as Lucifer (or any other angel, fallen or otherwise). Satan, as in the Christian Devil, is very much a thing of the Judeo-Christian mythology, the stuff that didn't make it into any of the books. Not much written down about it (think of what it might mean to be caught with such books?), just stories passed down orally, maybe in whispers. > And the Bible insists that only its words are true. You must not trust anything else I'm an atheist myself, but this seems like a particularly asinine interpretation of anything you might find in the Christian Bible. I think you're all missing a conundrum that has some similarities to those we find in computer science. If you have two or more invisible, incorporeal entities, one or more of which may lie and be the impostor of the other, how can you determine who is who? What if some or all have multiple names? Can you even determine if there are multiple entities, perhaps you are mistaken and there's only one? For instance, when Mormons or Muslims say they worship the same deity as Christians, why should their opinion be taken at face value (regardless of whether you are a believer or atheist)?

082349872349872 3y ago
If you have invisible, incorporeal entity G, and invisible, incorporeal entity H, both of which are infinitely perfect and not inferior in dignity to anything else, then by the rule of indirect equality: x=y ≡ (∀z. z≤x ≡ z≤y) G is H. (or at least isomorphic to H, if one allows one's deities to merely be preordered instead of partially ordered. However, in this setting one would be unable to distinguish even a single religion's deity from Her identical twin Latonya, which probably leads to greater theological problems than it solves...)
- araes 3y ago
  Per the chain above, if you also exist in some state where you are effectively, permanently downhill in computation, then entities which exist at some state upward are "effectively" indistinguishable, no matter their relative "up". In Greek theology, all "deities" are effectively "up" and normal humans have very little way of telling which entity is "really" in charge. To much information disparity. Zeus, Hera? Hephaestus? Has it already done the entire Titans storyline again with Zeus, and humans don't even know? Below some resolution, the lines on the chip are indistinguishable from a pixel. [1] Most creatures need significant advancement to comprehend anything other than "glowing texture." [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312346271/figure/fig13/AS:668254703976480@1536335745893/Optical-reconstruction-of-the-microprocessor-to-obtain-its-connectome-In-11-the-A.png https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312346271/figure/fi...

RecycledEle 3y ago

ChatGPT will give you the verses you need. ChatGPT is amazingly fluent in the Bible.