Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

artisticsolution wrote: God means Satan, etc.

I'm confused.

In ancient Hebrew, the Sa'tan meant 'the self', so when God was talking to Sa'tan, God was talking to himself.

Makes sense. That's what I've always thought, myself. Satan could be considered God's conscience, which he cast out, unable or unwilling to look within at aspects of Himself.

Dalek Prime wrote:

thedoc wrote:

artisticsolution wrote: God means Satan, etc.

I'm confused.

In ancient Hebrew, the Sa'tan meant 'the self', so when God was talking to Sa'tan, God was talking to himself.

Makes sense. That's what I've always thought, myself. Satan could be considered God's conscience, which he cast out, unable or unwilling to look within.

I always questioned the "casting out" bit, and I thought it was more like assigning Satan a task to do. Like Jesus assigned Judas to preform a task.

artisticsolution wrote:If we arbitrarily change the meaning of a word, then we compound the difficulty of communication as now we not only have to convey our ideas but we also have to let people know we are changing to traditional meaning of words.

I've been both peddling and stealing ideas in various forums for many years and in my view this problem has always lain at the heart of most disagreements between people with genuinely good minds and taking positions of genuine good will. It is invariably most obviously evident in any conversations to do with god because the experience of god is the most subjective of subjective experiences imaginable. The concept of god is not one which admits of an objective definition for the simple reason that it's not an objective construct and thus such discussions can generate much heat but precious little light.

One of the central requirements of the philosophical discourse is that the parties engaged in it must first agree on a common definition of terms or otherwise they're speaking to different subjects. For this reason amongst others I've always maintained that the subject of god is not a legitimate subject for philosophical enquiry because such a common definition simply does not and cannot exist.

artisticsolution wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:[quote="Hobbes' ]
But I think most people will agree what things they can describe as black or white.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dre ... henomenon)

Blue and gold is not black and white. This phenomenon is well understood. Change the light and every one agrees.
But such disagreements are well worth remembering when disagreements over things that appear obvious are matter of contention.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

The way I understood this is they showed everyone the exact same picture and half saw black and blue and half saw gold and white. My point is, if we change the meaning of words, just because we can, and call a fictional character, such as God, ' evil' or 'bad' then why even have a word for 'satan'? If the word God means evil, then what is the word we will replace God with? In other words...God and satan will now mean ' evil' ...what word will denote a good entity?

Subjectivity is not negated by standard definitions of words. Subjectivity can exist while maintaining traditional usage of words and their definitions. The trick is using them to correctly and uniquely to design one's own voice.

If we arbitrarily change the meaning of a word, then we compound the difficulty of communication as now we not only have to convey our ideas but we also have to let people know we are changing to traditional meaning of words.

I know this is a difficult idea for some as they are firmly entrenched in aesthetic, and abhor the word 'God' . But then they could replace the words God and satan with whatever you want as a fictional character is a fictional character then.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Nothing I fundamentally disagree with here. Except that it is usually a good idea to figure out which categories of things are more amenable to agreement.
I was surprised that when the 'dress' was shown on the tv. I saw one colour and my partner saw the other. I understand that if you show the dress in daylight people see the same thing not different things.
When it comes to meat, or divine beings, opinion counts. When it is physical objects the subjective differences can be explained with physics, and perceptual psychology.And this is the basis of objectivity: when agreed criteria match the observed criteria. This does not mean more 'true' than subjective perception; just more agreeable.

However, in all cases I can think of, unless you first agree upon standard criteria for what is good and bad; disagreements are irresolvable
When it comes down to concepts as vague and meaningless as 'god' or 'satan' then you might as well forget it.

Even a character as seemingly uncontroversial as Gandalf, we might venture to suggest that some of his actions were less than good. It depends.

I'm a bit surprised that people automatically assume the benificence of God. I remember my first thoughts as a kid on the omnipresence of God, and hating the idea I was being watched all the time from 'above', finding it rather creepy, so I would sit under the study table to read, to gain a bit of privacy and respite.

thedoc wrote:

artisticsolution wrote: God means Satan, etc.

I'm confused.

In ancient Hebrew, the Sa'tan meant 'the self', so when God was talking to Sa'tan, God was talking to himself.

That is not the usual Jewish definition. I also think that Jews used the Ha-Satan spelling.

Do you have a source for your definition?

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

thedoc wrote:
In ancient Hebrew, the Sa'tan meant 'the self', so when God was talking to Sa'tan, God was talking to himself.

Makes sense. That's what I've always thought, myself. Satan could be considered God's conscience, which he cast out, unable or unwilling to look within.

I always questioned the "casting out" bit, and I thought it was more like assigning Satan a task to do. Like Jesus assigned Judas to preform a task.

The bible is very confused on this point, and probably reflects the collection of different traditions.
In Eden there is a 'serpent' which is often confused with the 'devil'.
But the Devil is a fallen angel set at odds with gods purpose.
HOWEVER.
In Job "Satan" is none of these things but is described as God's 'servant', doing his will, so that god and Satan collaborate to destroy Job's life, family and livelihood.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I always questioned the "casting out" bit, and I thought it was more like assigning Satan a task to do. Like Jesus assigned Judas to preform a task.

The bible is very confused on this point, and probably reflects the collection of different traditions.
In Eden there is a 'serpent' which is often confused with the 'devil'.
But the Devil is a fallen angel set at odds with gods purpose.
HOWEVER.
In Job "Satan" is none of these things but is described as God's 'servant', doing his will, so that god and Satan collaborate to destroy Job's life, family and livelihood.[/quote]

Job 2;3 has God complaining that "Satan moved me to destroy without cause".

Sound rather like Satan was in charge. I know that Christians do not read it that way but that is the way it is written.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

thedoc wrote:

artisticsolution wrote: God means Satan, etc.

I'm confused.

In ancient Hebrew, the Sa'tan meant 'the self', so when God was talking to Sa'tan, God was talking to himself.

That is not the usual Jewish definition. I also think that Jews used the Ha-Satan spelling.

Do you have a source for your definition?

Regards
DL

My pastor, and it came out during a discussion of Job. My pastor studied various terms in seminary. You are probably correct on the "Ha-Satan" as one of the variations, but my pastor specifically mentioned "the self" as one meaning of the term.

Dalek Prime wrote:I'm a bit surprised that people automatically assume the benificence of God. I remember my first thoughts as a kid on the omnipresence of God, and hating the idea I was being watched all the time from 'above', finding it rather creepy, so I would sit under the study table to read, to gain a bit of privacy and respite.

Do you think it helped?

And what were your thoughts about Santa Claus knowing everything you did?

Or the Tooth Fairy sneaking into your room at night to take your old teeth, and leave a pittance?

Oh, BTW, please answer the post directed at you in another thread, so that I can throw in my 2 cents.

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I'm a bit surprised that people automatically assume the benificence of God. I remember my first thoughts as a kid on the omnipresence of God, and hating the idea I was being watched all the time from 'above', finding it rather creepy, so I would sit under the study table to read, to gain a bit of privacy and respite.

Do you think it helped?

And what were your thoughts about Santa Claus knowing everything you did?

Or the Tooth Fairy sneaking into your room at night to take your old teeth, and leave a pittance?

Oh, BTW, please answer the post directed at you in another thread, so that I can throw in my 2 cents.

It seemed to at the time. Which thread, doc? I honestly lose track.

Dalek Prime wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I'm a bit surprised that people automatically assume the benificence of God. I remember my first thoughts as a kid on the omnipresence of God, and hating the idea I was being watched all the time from 'above', finding it rather creepy, so I would sit under the study table to read, to gain a bit of privacy and respite.

Do you think it helped?

And what were your thoughts about Santa Claus knowing everything you did?

Or the Tooth Fairy sneaking into your room at night to take your old teeth, and leave a pittance?

Oh, BTW, please answer the post directed at you in another thread, so that I can throw in my 2 cents.

It seemed to at the time. Which thread, doc? I honestly lose track.

In "the Lounge" the thread titled "This is for Dalek".