»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Hasatan
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Hasatan |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I heard about this book today, that is written by an author here in Saskatchewan: www.scog.ca I thought it may fit well beside the "higher powers" question. How legitimate is "Satan"? If he is a true being, is he also a "higher power"? |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Satan, a fallen angel traditionally identified as Lucifer. Though angels are created beings like ourselves, they are "higher" in many other respects. Corruption does not necessarily take the natural giftings of a human being away (ie men can be evil and still possess genius). And likewise corruption does not necessarily (yet) erase Satan's exalted characteristics. In addition to his creaturely status, his fall from grace should rule out the propriety of worshipping him as a "higher power". If you mean by "legitimate" to ask whether or not Satan is merely an artful myth, as opposed to ontologically real and conscious individual at work in the world, I'll have to say no. Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hmm. When I first read this, I thought "higher" was a matter of personal perspective. I grew up with the notion that the rebellion of Lucifer was regarding the station of angelic servitude to man? Wouldn't that give "Satan" and all minions, lesser seniority than man? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen, Yes, but man too has fallen. Therefore the state-of-affairs you describe has not yet been realized fully except through Christ. Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well, I was about to pop back in, and add, then you have the concept of spiritual evolution/evelation (is that the same?) through service... interesting topic AGAIN.  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Sorry, but I didn't understand the actual meaning of the answer you gave in #1 above. I wasn't sure exactly what prompted your, "No," being unable to untangle what came before. I'm certain it must have been clear to other folks, and simply slipped by me, but I'd appreciate if you could unpack what you meant a bit further. I believe the Torah and the early books of the bible in general are nervous about angels in general. The modern sentimentality wasn't, I believe, shared back then when, if I remember correctly, angels were considered creatures of unpredictable appetites and prone to lusts and rages. Some of the rules of hospitality, I'm told, came into being because strangers may in fact be angels of the Lord. This was also part of the reasoning for covering the hair of women, lest it provoke the Lusts of Angels. And I think we all know how difficult that can be. I can't help but think that the beginning of the Elegy (whose number escapes me right now) by Rilke may well have had roots in this body of material. "Every Angel is terrible," he said, though ours is an age which has found it convenient to forget that particular terror. And Stephanos, thank you for the exchanges over the past few days. I don't need to agree with you to see that you bear good witness. Sincerely, BobK. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Stephanos is good people. No doubt in my mind on that, Bob K. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: I was actually answering my own question which was a rephrasing Essorant's question "How Legitimate is Satan?". My question was "Is Satan merely an artful myth, as opposed to an ontologically real and conscious individual at work in the world, or not?" (The opposite of my answer seems to be the assertion of the author of the book Essorant provided a link for). Perhaps a grammatically awkward sentence. Sorry. quote: I would say that most of the really strange stuff associated with beliefs about angels comes from Rabbinic traditions and writings outside of the Old Testament. The reference to "Sons of God" seeking "Daughters of Men" in the book of Job is ambiguous and not likely to refer to angelic beings, but to earthy dignitaries. (I know there are different views on this) And the New Testament reference about angels and head coverings is even more ambiguous, and explanations equally speculative. I think most scholars have agreed that there are no extraneous texts that would even begin to shed light on what Paul meant here. (Much is clear in scripture, but the two examples you mentioned are very opaque) I personally think the thrust of the passage has to do with issues surrounding submission and authority, which would be of great interest to angelic beings whose primary occupation seems to be somewhat akin to military service and servanthood. And there is that story about the great rebellion ... Karen, You are very kind. And Bob, The feeling is very much mutual. Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
