Philosophy Now Forum

Why have (the concept of) Satan and women been demonized for trying to liberate mankind from ignorance? And how can we be so primitive as to continue promoting such nonsense through religion to this day?

Many ancient cultures have stories of gods who came offering knowledge to advance and help humankind. Is it not highly suspect that the Christian god has a whole different agenda? Truly, what kind of god would want to be worshipped by all of mankind, while commanding that they be kept in the dark from “forbidden knowledge”, and preventing their awareness from expanding beyond a static set of unchanging and inflexible laws that only serve to glorify and please that entity?

What if the representation of these figures of good and evil are completely backwards? Such that Christians may come to realize that their religion was based on a very self-serving and grandiose entity that was either: 1) extra-terrestrial – who was at odds with many others who actually cared much more for mankind's advancement and still do; OR 2) simply the product/creation of controlling men, and that’s why “his” whole agenda and personality make about as much sense as something a child would dream up.

Primitive man was easy to manipulate and convince of almost anything, and since we still tend to follow others, we STILL ARE! Is this not a tragic statement of the extent and repercussions of our ongoing weakness, fear, and ignorance? How much more might we find beyond the idea of "a particular god". How can we be so unwilling to question our beliefs critically at any given time, to see how archaic they might be... and to stop demonizing broader awareness?

Lacewing wrote:Why have (the concept of) Satan and women been demonized for trying to liberate mankind from ignorance?

I know Satan has a bad reputation but I'm not sure exactly why. It sounds like you think he's been treated unfairly. What would you say in his defence?

Actually Lacewing, you've got that backwards. There were originally only two that were supposed to oblivious to knowledge, and live happily. It was only after that knowledge was gathered, that mankind appeared through procreation.

Seems my dytheism/misotheism is rubbing off on people.

Harbal wrote: I know Satan has a bad reputation but I'm not sure exactly why. It sounds like you think he's been treated unfairly. What would you say in his defence?

I thought it admirable that he urged people to break the rules. And I wonder if after being one of the highest angels (as some of the stories go), he was cast out and demonized because he noticed how god was trying to force mankind into dull and unquestioning worship, rather than spurring them to explore their creativity and potential. I never understood why following god's plan was a great idea. Why would we be here to follow a plan?

Of course, I don't believe in any of these stories... but I'm curious what they are truly revealing about the writers... and especially what the purpose is of "carrying such ideas on".

Dalek Prime wrote:Actually Lacewing, you've got that backwards. There were originally only two that were supposed to oblivious to knowledge, and live happily. It was only after that knowledge was gathered, that mankind appeared through procreation.

If I've got something backwards that is backwards to begin with, does that mean I've turned it around forwards? So "the two" were supposed to live in a blissful little garden, and god was going to be happy with that forever? What does such a story reveal about the scope and intelligence of god? Then, because they gained awareness beyond their dull selves (unlike some people in this forum), they created naughty humankind to be severely judged and doomed. What does that part of the story suggest? That broader awareness is bad, right? Who would be served by such a declaration... the writers of the stories who seek control over others, yes? What other purpose is there for condemning men for seeking beyond imposed limits?

Lacewing wrote:

Harbal wrote: I know Satan has a bad reputation but I'm not sure exactly why. It sounds like you think he's been treated unfairly. What would you say in his defence?

I thought it admirable that he urged people to break the rules. And I wonder if after being one of the highest angels (as some of the stories go), he was cast out and demonized because he noticed how god was trying to force mankind into dull and unquestioning worship, rather than spurring them to explore their creativity and potential. I never understood why following god's plan was a great idea. Why would we be here to follow a plan?

Of course, I don't believe in any of these stories... but I'm curious what they are truly revealing about the writers... and especially what the purpose is of "carrying such ideas on".

Dalek Prime wrote:Actually Lacewing, you've got that backwards. There were originally only two that were supposed to oblivious to knowledge, and live happily. It was only after that knowledge was gathered, that mankind appeared through procreation.

If I've got something backwards that is backwards to begin with, does that mean I've turned it around forwards? So "the two" were supposed to live in a blissful little garden, and god was going to be happy with that forever? What does such a story reveal about the scope and intelligence of god? Then, because they gained awareness beyond their dull selves (unlike some people in this forum), they created naughty humankind to be severely judged and doomed. What does that part of the story suggest? That broader awareness is bad, right? Who would be served by such a declaration... the writers of the stories who seek control over others, yes? What other purpose is there for condemning men for seeking beyond imposed limits?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending god. I'm just stating the timeline. But since you're wondering if broader awareness is bad, I'd say its double edged. Self awareness is what allows us to understand our situation and fate better than other animals, and we suffer for it by our ability to dwell on it. That's our real punishment; to know how shitty things really can be, and do fairly little about it, save wait. All other animals live in blissful ignorance, in comparison. They still live in Eden, while we live in hell, though its the same space.

Again, I point to Zapffe' essay on the topic.

http://www.knunst.com/planetzapffe/?page_id=1093

Lacewing wrote: I thought it admirable that he urged people to break the rules.

As I understand it, it was Satan who gave us the gift of sex. God may have provided the equipment but held back the instruction manual. Once Adam was given the means to work things out for himself he was up and running, so to speak. I dare say Eve egged him on but I'm sure he didn't need much persuasion. Prior to this, Adam must have thought that the floppy stuff just below where his belly button was missing was purely decorative but we don't know what Eve thought. Presumably, if Satan hadn't put them wise there would still be just the two of them pottering about in the Garden of Eden, never giving a thought to why Adam's undercarriage was more substantial than Eve's.

Dalek Prime wrote: ...since you're wondering if broader awareness is bad, I'd say its double edged.

I think broader awareness is good... even if double-edged. That's the challenge and the game to play. What I'm wondering is WHY it appears to be demonized by religious stories? Why is compliance and ignorance seen as holy and good when that clearly isn't a good use or celebration of infinite creative potential?

Harbal wrote: As I understand it, it was Satan who gave us the gift of sex.

Clearly, Satan knows how to have fun and wishes for all to experience it. I don't see how that's bad... nor why the alternative is preferable.

Harbal wrote:God may have provided the equipment but held back the instruction manual.

Seriously, what kind of entity would do such a thing?

Harbal wrote:Once Adam was given the means to work things out for himself he was up and running, so to speak. I dare say Eve egged him on but I'm sure he didn't need much persuasion.

She MUST have helped him. And she spiced things up a bit with FOOD (aka: the apple)! You GO girl!

Harbal wrote:Prior to this, Adam must have thought that the floppy stuff just below where his belly button was missing was purely decorative but we don't know what Eve thought.

She probably thought it was a deformity of some sort, and tried to avoid staring, so she wouldn't make Adam feel bad. Women tend to be kind that way.

Harbal wrote:Presumably, if Satan hadn't put them wise there would still be just the two of them pottering about in the Garden of Eden, never giving a thought to why Adam's undercarriage was more substantial than Eve's.

So, was god offering an eternity of stagnancy and being clueless? Forgive me, but I'm not seeing the point or the appeal. The character portrayed as Satan really brought more life and dimension into that one-dimensional world -- so why is HE not celebrated as a creator and liberator? It seems that the character of god is more into tormenting than Satan is... so what's that about... a "projection" of divine proportions?

Lacewing wrote: So, was god offering an eternity of stagnancy and being clueless? Forgive me, but I'm not seeing the point or the appeal. The character portrayed as Satan really brought more life and dimension into that one-dimensional world -- so why is HE not celebrated as a creator and liberator? It seems that the character of god is more into tormenting than Satan is... so what's that about... a "projection" of divine proportions?

God was the establishment, he had more resources to put behind his publicity machine. Could be that Satan is the victim of an almighty smear campaign.

Harbal wrote:
As I understand it it was Satan who gave us the gift of sex. God may have provided the equipment but held back the instruction manual. Once Adam was given the means to work things out for himself he was up and running so to speak. I dare say Eve egged him on but I am sure he did
not need much persuasion. Prior to this Adam must have thought that the floppy stuff just below where his belly button was missing was purely decorative but we do not know what Eve thought. Presumably if Satan had not put them wise there would still be just the two of them pottering about in the Garden of Eden never giving a thought to why Adams undercarriage was more substantial than Eves

Nice to see a more substantial post from you other than the usual one liners you produce so more of them please

surreptitious57 wrote: Nice to see a more substantial post from you other than the usual one liners you produce so more of them please

Oh yes, I can do philosophy when I want to.

Lacewing wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: ...since you're wondering if broader awareness is bad, I'd say its double edged.

I think broader awareness is good... even if double-edged. That's the challenge and the game to play. What I'm wondering is WHY it appears to be demonized by religious stories? Why is compliance and ignorance seen as holy and good when that clearly isn't a good use or celebration of infinite creative potential?

Well, look at your own words. You think challenge and struggle is a good thing, when I, and clearly the authors of the religious stories as well, think that sitting on our backsides and not having to toil daily just to survive, is better. So tell me; why is the struggle better in your view? Because that's what we got for this knowledge, according to the story. So they are demonizing the loss of innocence. It was meant to be a punishment, not a reward.

Prometheus brought fire, and challenged the gods. Another punishment ensued.

Dalek Prime wrote:I, and clearly the authors of the religious stories as well, think that sitting on our backsides and not having to toil daily just to survive, is better.

The Devil makes work for idle backsides.

Harbal wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I, and clearly the authors of the religious stories as well, think that sitting on our backsides and not having to toil daily just to survive, is better.

The Devil makes work for idle backsides.

No, you just celebrate toil in an imperfect life system. Pass that down as a bonus over generations, and you have a happily convinced slave labour force. Adam and Eve not only ruined it for themselves, but for their progeny, which was not supposed to exist in the first place. But in a way, you are also correct, because the serpent (devil) did the tempting, and made us all work, because of the sin.

Lacewing wrote:Why have (the concept of) Satan and women been demonized for trying to liberate mankind from ignorance? And how can we be so primitive as to continue promoting such nonsense through religion to this day?

The serpent in the garden wasn't necessarily Satan. It's a story older than the Hebrews, re-told and slightly altered to fit each succeeding belief-system, just like the flood story and those two rival brothers who show up as Cain and Abel and again as Jacob and Esau.

The flood story can be from any human settlement on a riverbank - which is most of them, and each had at least one really devastating flood that disrupted the whole community, at some time.
The rival brothers story is about the conflict between herding people and agrarian people.
The garden story probably originates in Sumer. Their gods were a rowdy bunch of boys and girls whose creations - oxen, donkeys, people - were made initially for amusement, then, when they reproduced, became serfs and livestock. Blaming women for turning [free, happy - in fond memory, at least] hunter-gatherers into [toiling, unhappy - at least part of the time] farmers isn't all that unfair: there is a tradeoff. Agriculture was the beginning of civilization... and, ironically, the male ownership of both land and women. The apple doesn't represent knowledge in the sense of useful skills. It is "the knowledge of good and evil" - self-consciousness, morality, lawfulness, probity. That is, the requisites of hierarchical social organization and the end of innocence. (Incidentally, there are two versions of the creation in Genesis, in the first of which, god made people of both sexes. - 27 So God created man in his own image ... for meat. see GI-27,28,29. For some reason, only the second version, with just the two prototypes, is ever referenced.)

Many ancient cultures have stories of gods who came offering knowledge to advance and help humankind. Is it not highly suspect that the Christian god has a whole different agenda?

Yahweh was not the Christian God; he was an elevated Judean patriarch. He refused to convert and had to be replaced by a schizophrenic Roman emperor.

Truly, what kind of god would want to be worshipped by all of mankind, while commanding that they be kept in the dark from “forbidden knowledge”, and preventing their awareness from expanding beyond a static set of unchanging and inflexible laws that only serve to glorify and please that entity?

The kind represented by a pope with his own little kingdom filled with plundered treasure and vast real estate holdings all over the globe.

Primitive man was easy to manipulate and convince of almost anything, and since we still tend to follow others, we STILL ARE!

I actually believe primitive man had far more common sense and independent thought than modern man. We are much easier to manipulate and convince, through mass media, clever marketing and propaganda techniques and economic as well as social pressure.

How can we be so unwilling to question our beliefs critically at any given time, to see how archaic they might be... and to stop demonizing broader awareness?

Because the adherence to "our" rightness gives us a perceived advantage over "those benighted fools" whose land and fish we covet.
Broad awareness makes lousy followers and useless armies.

I will mention that I do not believe this religious narrative, but am trying to discuss the issue within it's confines.