Freethought & Rationalism Archive

agnawstick · 07-12-2003, 11:22 AM

Well God tells two simpletons, they have to not eat from a tree that will make them knowing or they will die. The snake tells them God is full of crap, they won't die, and they should go for it.

God lied. Who is the villian here. It is kind of like somebody saying you will go blind by masturbating, somebody else tells ya ya won't, you do it, you can still see, the first person says, yeah, I lied but it isn't good to masturbate anyways. Now cut it out!

07-12-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Shadowy Man:

Indeed. The earliest conception of a stn is something you stumble over--an obstacle.

--J.D.

Yes, like "a-dam " in Adam. Just place an obstable in front and you'll get "a thinker" who will soon have "speckled sheep" in abundance.

RED DAVE · 07-12-2003, 06:52 PM

Having had seven years of instruction in Conservative and Reform jewish schools, I can tell you that the snake is never referred to as Satan, any prodigy thereof, etc. It's a snake that talks.

Likewise, in nonesoteric Jewish teachings there in no devil and very little mention of the afterlife.

RED DAVE

B. H. Manners · 07-12-2003, 07:00 PM

I think in Isaiah there is a verse that mentions the righteous relaxing on couches after they die and other verses state that the wicked will be filled with shame after death, but that is all there is in the OT concerning an afterlife.

callmejay · 07-15-2003, 09:29 AM

In an Orthodox Jewish school, I was taught that the snake represented the "Evil Inclination," which is basically the opposite of a conscience. (This is not to say that it isn't supposed to be an actual walking, talking snake, necessarily, but that it also represents the e.i.) Re: Satan, we were taught that Satan was sort of a prosecuting attorney for God; i.e. he works for God, like the Angel of Death. I believe this interpretation is pretty clear in Job, although I don't really remember.

Calzaer · 07-15-2003, 12:37 PM

Umm.. Job is in the OT, and Satan plays a pretty big part there... which confuses me when I see people saying Jews/the OT didn't have much about Satan in it.

Doctor X · 07-15-2003, 03:49 PM

Amos:

Again, I do not follow you.

Calzear:

Yes, indeed, he seems a part of the gathering of gods--he freely comes to visit and YHWH has to ask him where he has been. He is a thing that tests.

--J.D.

Aerik Von · 07-18-2003, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by l-bow
excreationist:

Here's a page you might want to look at:

http://www.beingjewish.com/basics/satan.html

The Rabbi I studied with relayed a similar story.

mfaber · 07-18-2003, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist
This is for Jews and ex-Jews and people who know Jews:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3784.asp
Answers In Genesis and most Christians would believe that Satan was connected with the snake. (some translations use the word "serpent") Most might believe that Satan took the form of a large serpent, others think he was the master of the serpent. The AiG link relies mostly on NT verses to try and justify this.

I was wondering what Jews who don't believe in the NT would think? In the Genesis story, is the snake meant to be an intelligent talking snake that has no connection with Satan? Or is he Satan? Or is Satan the master of the serpent? The supernatural Satan isn't mentioned in the OT much... in Job he didn't seem to be particularly opposed to God... I wonder what the Jewish concept of Satan is...

BTW, Genesis 3:1a says "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made." this implies that the intelligence comes from the serpent (or snake, according to many translations) rather than from an external source like Satan.

Let me add to what the others have said here and recommend a book on the subject. The Christian version of Satan is a complete and total corruption (hence a fabrication) of the Jewish version of Satan? The question here is==> which Satan? Jews have a radically different view of Satan and regard the Christian one as an outlandish corruption (as has been pointed out by the link already supplied). It is interesting to note that the concept of Satan as God's enemy is strictly an invention of Christians

Especially for the purpose OF DEMONIZING the "enemy" (anyone who refuses to blindly and obediently believe). If one's view is opposed simply "poison the well" by claiming that one's opponent is a "dupe/lackey/fellow-traveler of Satan. This attempt to discredit by claiming that the opponent is evil and hoping that no one bothers to point out that there is no evidence that Satan exists. The worst part of this sort of tactic, is that by literally and figuratively "demonizing" an enemy, one also strips away his/her humanity which makes it all to easy to destroy the "enemy" (heretics, witches, non-Christians, gays, abortion providers, etc.)
He's also handy boogie-man for keeping the troops in line and/or hooking new converts in an "appeal to fear"
An easy, no-fuss-no-muss whipping/boy-excuse for the presence of evil (forget that God actually claimed to have created evil in the Bible==>Isaiah 45:7 KJV I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things"

None of these fit the original portrait of Satan. In fact the popular image of Satan (the horns, the tail, the witches) did not become locked into Christianity until the 15th Century!!!. There was tremendous squabbling over the splitting of good and evil into two separate entities. Some of the early Christians regarded this as a form of polytheism and rejected it utterly. A good book that explores this subject and shows how Christianity corrupted the Judaic image of Satan can be found in the book:

The Origin of Satan, by Elaine Pagels

Quote:

In a concise exploration of the paths leading Christians to follow various extremist Jewish movements and late Roman philosophers into a habit of demonizing all who refute majority opinions, Elaine Pagels details the progress of Christianity from insignificance to persecuted minority to an institution bathed in self-importance, but still steeped in the insecurities of its humble beginnings and bloody past. Understanding the defensiveness that underlies the Christian Church's claims to supremacy among all other faiths, for Pagels, is a way to begin understanding who we mean when we name the Archfiend.

In Judaism, Satan was not the evil, fallen angel, plotting the downfall of humanity and presiding over Hell. What Jews believe about Satan:

Quote:

The word satan means challenger. With the leading ha- to make haSatan,it refers to /the/ challenger. This describes Satan as the angel whois the embodiment of man's challenges. Satan works for G-d. His job is to make choosing good over evil enough of a challenge so that it can be a meaningful choice. Contrast this to Christianity, which sees Satan as God's opponent. In Jewish thought, the idea that there exists anything capable of setting itself up as God's opponent would be considered overly polytheistic--you are setting up the devil to be a god or demigod.

The pagan critic Celsus (much hated by Christians who burned his books) frequently ridiculed Christians as hypocrites because he viewed their "deification" of Satan as proof that Christians weren't the monotheists they claimed to be (Satan was just a "lesser" God from the viewpoint of the Jews and Celsus). Of course, Pagels says all this far better than I do and I found her book very interesting as well as a real eye-opener on the subject.

Off topic, but since it's related to the the whole Garden of Eden story...the Jews don't have the same concept of original sin. The Adam/Eve story of Genesis is a part of the Jewish canon, co-opted by Christains when they adoped the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the original Jewish canon as the OT (the LXX was abandoned by the Jews in 100 CE). What is interesing is that the Jews don't have any concept of the "original sin" and regard it as a Christian corruption of the meaning of the text. What the Jews say about the Adam/Eve story......

1. Question: Do Jews believe in the doctrine of original sin?

2. Question: Isn't it true that humans are so innately sinful that they need an outside sinless agent to redeem them from sin?

3. Question: What are the implications of the Christian doctrine of original sin?

The doctrine of the "original sin" did not take "its final form" until the 5th Century CE (centuries of arguing that such a thing existed and if it existed what was the nature and consequences the "original sin")

Quote:

History of the Original Sin
EXCERPT:
We might perhaps be compelled to leave the doctrine of original sin in this indefinite form, if a controversy on these very points had not arisen in the fifth century between Augustine and Pelagius. Pelagius, a British monk, and his pupil, Celestius, denied that we have lost any thing earthly by reason of Adam's sin, or that this sin can be imputed to us, or that an original sin came into existence through Adam. On the contrary they maintained that death is an original and natural arrangement, and not in any sense a punishment of sin; that the divine image has not been lost, but that the race are to this moment born as guiltless and as truly possessed of free will as Adam was by his creation; and that we can call Adam the author of sin in our race only in view of the fact that he sinned first, and also seduced others to sin by his example; for the allurements and the imitation of bad examples are the only fountains of sin[....].

Augustine, bishop of Hippo in Africa, opposed this opinion with the utmost energy, and in opposition to it taught not only that physical death results from Adam's fall, but that the whole race thereby lost utterly both the divine image and free will; and that in their stead there now came into action a decided and resistless propensity to sin which has its seat principally in the soul and is perpetuated by ordinary generation. This original sin which shows itself in vicious desires, or the preponderance of sinful inclinations, brings down eternal damnation upon man although he may have committed no sins, and hence must also involve infants from their very birth. Original sin must thus affect the whole race because it is imputed to all men as a sin, causes them to lose the grace of God, and subjects them to the power of the devil. Hence no unbaptized person can be blessed. Original sin and death may have been imposed upon us by God as a punishment for Adam's sin which is imputed to us. That with these views Augustine must hold that men since the fall are wholly incompetent to any good, have utterly lost free will, and are enlightened and converted only by, an act of Divine grace, was as natural as it was opposed to the common doctrine of the earlier Christian teachers.

The concept of "original sin" is a rather late in the game interpretation of the story of Genesis by Catholic Christians (St. Augustine), as defined here:

The Catholic View

As with a large number of doctrinal points, Christians aren't in agreement on what constitutes "original sin", so there's more than just the Catholic POV:

Are Men Born Sinners?(more than one view here!)

If the Bible is the word of God and the doctrine of orginial sin is so "simple and true", then why don't Jews abide by the same concept and why are there different versions of the "Johnny-come-lately" doctrine in Christianity?

The off-topic stuff presented to show how Christains have again "edited" the stories in the Bible to suit themselves (so much for it being the infallible word of God)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2003, 11:22 AM	#11
agnawstick Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: arcadia California Posts: 65	Well God tells two simpletons, they have to not eat from a tree that will make them knowing or they will die. The snake tells them God is full of crap, they won't die, and they should go for it. God lied. Who is the villian here. It is kind of like somebody saying you will go blind by masturbating, somebody else tells ya ya won't, you do it, you can still see, the first person says, yeah, I lied but it isn't good to masturbate anyways. Now cut it out!

07-12-2003, 06:52 PM	#13
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	Having had seven years of instruction in Conservative and Reform jewish schools, I can tell you that the snake is never referred to as Satan, any prodigy thereof, etc. It's a snake that talks. Likewise, in nonesoteric Jewish teachings there in no devil and very little mention of the afterlife. RED DAVE

07-12-2003, 07:00 PM	#14
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	I think in Isaiah there is a verse that mentions the righteous relaxing on couches after they die and other verses state that the wicked will be filled with shame after death, but that is all there is in the OT concerning an afterlife.

07-15-2003, 09:29 AM	#15
callmejay Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 466	In an Orthodox Jewish school, I was taught that the snake represented the "Evil Inclination," which is basically the opposite of a conscience. (This is not to say that it isn't supposed to be an actual walking, talking snake, necessarily, but that it also represents the e.i.) Re: Satan, we were taught that Satan was sort of a prosecuting attorney for God; i.e. he works for God, like the Angel of Death. I believe this interpretation is pretty clear in Job, although I don't really remember.

07-15-2003, 12:37 PM	#16
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	Umm.. Job is in the OT, and Satan plays a pretty big part there... which confuses me when I see people saying Jews/the OT didn't have much about Satan in it.

07-15-2003, 03:49 PM	#17
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Amos: Again, I do not follow you. Calzear: Yes, indeed, he seems a part of the gathering of gods--he freely comes to visit and YHWH has to ask him where he has been. He is a thing that tests. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.