Nipate
Forum => Controversial => Topic started by: veritas on September 25, 2014, 05:35:01 PM
-
http://creation.com/who-was-the-serpent
The name Satan means ‘adversary’ or ‘enemy’. It is inappropriate to suggest that God created Satan in a state of enmity against Himself, as God could then be considered as the author of evil. For this reason some theologians say that Satan’s name originally was Lucifer (meaning ‘light-bearer’) and that after he was created he rebelled and dragged a portion of the angels with him into apostasy. The word ‘Lucifer’ occurs only once in Scripture, in Isaiah 14:12. See further discussion under footnote 5. Return to text.
-
Thanks Veritas. The devil, Satan, the serpent, the adversary are all words the Bible uses for the same person. The bible also talks about the beast (agent of the serpent).
-
NS, cheers. Yes the beast is something I think about. It needs to be a creature part of creation but I can't seem to wrap my head around their history. Were they ancient entities before angels? I blogged about this 4 years ago..
Copyright veritas
The Egyptians worshipped cats, Hindus cows or was it elephants, throughout history animals for consumption or worship influenced civilisation. Why did the LORD create animals? If we refer to the biblical text there are two prominent incidences concerning animals and many more partaking in ritual ceremonies. First of which occured in the Garden of Eden, man was granted by Yaweh to categorically reign over the animal kingdom; then there was Noah’s Ark, the preservation of species.
You had the sacrificial ram, heifer, lamb, dove and probably any living creature amiably wondering in the nomadic ancients poor thing. Skip past everything to today, you have Lassie and more Lassie. Yes you have livestock, Greenpeace f*ing whales, exotic fish collections but these are marginal thoughts in comparison to my pooch, budgie or pussy living in my domicile. I’ll come back to this.
I think Darwin’s evolution is interesting in the sense there could be biological similarities linking us to animals but it doesn’t explain why or how. Just because a triangle has less sides to a pentagon doesn’t mean the pentagon evolved from the triangle. We live on the same planet, use the same chemical make up like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc. so the overlap in biological diversity is unsurprising, the chimp looks more like us than fish so duh their DNA must be closer to ours.
To me it’s just a given to believe the LORD created every species with or without the aide of evolution but I think what’s interesting is the demand for sacrifice and where that has evolved to today. Most if not all religions use to sacrifice human beings in most instances to seek favour from the divine. Islam still does it. What is it about blood that suddenly flipped the switch from the innocent heifer to a hideous beast in the Book of Revelations.
The beast is considered by definition an animal. How do we define a beast? A figment of imagination, a metaphor for all things ugly, a hybrid species representative of the damned, acceptable in comic books, Hollywood, just something to be chastised by the pure? I think the troubling question is, was the beast created from creation? And if so did the LORD’s definition of animal extend to our command over beasts?
Beasts throughout history project characteristics feared by man or ally with man to overthrow other beasts. In the Hebrew bible, the book of prophets in the Old Testament depicts beasts to be interpreted allegorically within dream sequences. Typically a prophet observes mythical creatures, a hybrid of animals with multiple wings, eyes or feet, similar to pagan deities in the Egyptian or Greek civilizations.
The reaction to the beast is perhaps the most interesting part, these encounters are recorded or orally passed down generation to generation and they may become legends, myths or folk stories evolving over time. They serve to warn or punish communities but the most crucial functioning is that they embed themselves in people’s psyches; keeping communities coherent and the status quo untouchable.
Some may say today we recognise the design and engineer of beasts to have an aesthetic value: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, vampires, werewolves, aliens projected onto the big screen, programmed in our minds to be feared, revered or pitied. Although debatable, we know that these projections are not true, but where these discrepancies are not so certain still remain in the enclaves of religion.
The Hebrew tradition of demons and beasts pertaining to damnation can still be heard reverberating the walls of Synagogues or Churches today. Islam, Confucianism and Hinduism are much kinder to their beasts, but the Hebrew culture distinguishes angelic beings from their counterpart beasts; the former reflecting the physique of man and the latter alternating between a voice and a colorful consortment of animalistic hybrids.
Where beasts play a feared yet holy role in the Hebrew context are in the dream sequences witnessing the throne above. Cherubs and gods with lion heads, eagle heads, multiple wings and eyes, the anatomically cherry bits, much like the symbols adorning national emblems and secret societies today.
Although an actual beast has not been publicly documented to have plummeted down to Earth, awoken from the depths of hell, the same way Godzilla did not roam Japan or Count Dracula spotted in Transylvania; every culture still retains their identified beast. The beast contributes to the uniqueness of a culture. I would go insofar as to say it serves as a psychological defense mechanism to geopolitical stability.
You know I’d make a great scripture teacher.. children, satan serves as a psychological defense mechanism to geopolitical stability.
For example, the Vatican identifies the mother of all beasts to be the impending anti-christ; branding final civilization with a marking, deceiving the masses into zombie like characteristics, all-in-all to worship the evil one. I keep that tucked in my mind along with the monster under my bed, the boogieman in my wardrobe, that paralyzing incubus demon, Oompa Loompa and the likes.
A couple weeks ago, a talk proposed pro-social behaviour as building blocks to morality. According to the wisdom of evolution, co-operation and synchrony in primate behaviour were observable moral traits. This assertion is obviously problematic on many levels. Take for example when primates engage in sexual lewdness. By ethical standards this is immoral, yet empathy or acts of love in virtue of pro-social behaviour is apparently a moral trait.
To think certain behaviours elicit opposing phenomena is puzzling. How can morality and immorality share the same DNA? Is ethics a mere arbiter for artificial discourse, and morality a product of evolution? In other words, what comes naturally is the DNA of morality, but ethical consensus, religious commandments or politico mechanisms are external, imposed and not natural.
History passed down orally, recorded in scrolls is not a reflection of the human condition, but a projection of ideals, of hopes that can only be exercised under the façade of society. But like the parrot forced to say ‘hello’ it isn’t our natural squawk. What exactly is our natural squawk? Comparative behavioural traits which happen to coincide with other species?
How can empathy and pro-social behaviour constitute morality when morality can not be empirically induced? Fear and aggression could enforce cooperation or chaos. Schools of fish may move in synchrony to ward off prey, birds flying in formation to reduce contrarian wind, to armies mobilising for battle. These appear to be survival mechanisms for the carnal. So it seems odd to isolate certain behaviours and deem it a moral trait.
If a monkey was hanging off a cliff about to slip, and you place a bowl of fruit a couple meters away, I’d be surprised if the other monkey chooses to save the monkey. If someone was hanging off a cliff next to a bowl of fruit, the other person would probably save the person unless you’re Kenyan you’d figure out a way to finish the fruit while saving the person.
Why would a human being save another human being in a situation like this? Say they were two alpha males in love with the same lady. To save one another would go against natural instinct. Let’s put it this way, if they were on a remote island devoid of human contact he probably will let him slip. If they were brought up with religion ‘thou shall not kill’ his conscience would probably take precedence over natural desire. So was it ethics or morality?
Unless of course the individual was ‘evil’. He was aware of religion yet he still let him slip. This brings me back to where I finished my last post.
The beast.
The beast is not an animal. When human beings purposefully commit atrocities they are not animals, they are beasts. Saints remain human before they die, but beasts roam the Earth unleashing destruction until of course a hero comes along to destroy it. That’s what we hope. To induce bestial traits in animals and humans don’t look to be difficult. Torture, beatings, sensory/sleep depravation, and possibly the next chain to evolution, the beast.
Even beasts have a master. For that evil dog to optimize destruction, it has a master. The difference between the master craftsman and the free master, is the former demands the mission, whereas the latter leaves it to choice. The hero is allowed to discover the route to save the world, but the beast must drink blood (I’ll explain why later.. spiritual monopoly). In order to drink blood, they have to spill it, but not just any way.
The hero’s natural instinct is to do something about the beast.
And if we take the wisdom of evolution, then choice could be a conceivable genetic manifestation. So how many generations of vampires does it take, to have an effect on evolution? Is there a natural instinct to morality?
29 December 2010