In article <1993Apr5.165233.1007@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu       (Stephen McIntyre) writes:  > Of course, Bobby then states that Satan has no free will, that >    he does as God wants him to.  This brings up a host of >    paradoxes:  is God therefore evil; do I have free will >    or is God directing me also; if God is evil, which part >    of his infinite self is good and which is evil; etc.?  > I would like for once a solid answer, not a run-about.  # I hope I gave you a fairly solid answer to this one: I simply don't agree # with the embodied version of a Satan who is a separate creation or a force. # I wrote:  >> The belief to which I ascribe is that evil is not a creation; >> rather, it is "the absence of good."  This fits with all the >> logic about things having dual use: e.g., a knife can be used >> to sculpt and it can be used to kill.  Like entropy, evil is >> seen in this view as neither force nor entity.  Satan is, >> therefore, metaphorical.  In fact, there are several verses >> of the Holy Qur'an which appear to support this view and several >> Traditions as well. > >> For example, there is a Tradition that food should never be left open >> on a shelf or table overnight, lest "Satan" enter it.  It appears >> that this is a reference to as yet undiscovered germs; thus, the >> evil effect of spoiled food is described as "Satan."  >But there are many examples of Satan personified.  Which am I >     to believe?  # And there are quite physical descriptions of Heaven and Hell in the # Holy Qur'an, the Bible, etc.  There have been times in the spiritual # and intellectual evolution of the modern human when these physical # descriptions of Heaven, Hell, and Satan were taken quite literally # and that *worked* for the time.  As I mentioned in the Tradition # cited above, for example, it was sufficient in the absence of a theory # about germs and disease spread by worms to simply describe the "evil" # which was passed to a consumer of spoiled food as "satanic."       Which begs the question: if Satan in this case is      metaphorical, how can you be certain Allah is not      the same way?  # The bottom line here, however, is that describing a spiritual plane # in human language is something like describing "color" to a person # who has been blind from birth.  You may want to read the book # FLATLAND (if you haven't already) or THE DRAGON'S EGG.  The first # is intended as a light hearted description of a mathematical con- # cept...  [some deleted for space saving]  # When language fails because it cannot be used to adequately describe # another dimension which cannot be experienced by the speakers, then # such conventions as metaphor, allegory, and the like come to be # necessary.  The "unseen" is described in terms which have reference` # and meaning for the reader/listener.  But, like all models, a compro- # mise must be made when speaking metaphorically: clarity and directness # of meaning, equivalence of perception, and the like are all # crippled.  But what else can you do?       This is why I asked the above.  How would you then      know God exists as a spirit or being rather than      just being metaphorical?  I mean, it's okay to say      "well, Satan is just metaphorical," but then you      have to justify this belief AND justify that God is      not some metaphor for something else.       I say this because there are many, many instances of      Satan described as a being (such as the tormentor in       the Old Testament book of Job, or the temptor in the      New Testament Gospels).  In the same way, God too is      described as a being (or spirit.)  How am I to know      one is metaphorical and not the other.       Further, belief in God isn't a bar to evil.  Let's      consider the case of Satanists: even if Satan were      metaphorical, the Satanist would have to believe      in God to justify this belief.  Again, we have a       case where someone does believe in God, but by      religious standards, they are "evil."  If Bobby      does see this, let him address this question also.  [deleted some more on "metaphor"]  >> Obviously more philosophizing on this issue is possible, but I'm >> not sure that the readers of this newsgroup would want to delve >> into religious interpretation further.  However, if anyone wishes >> to discuss this, I'm certainly willing (either off line - e-mail - or >> on line - posting).  Stephen      _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist    _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian   _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality        _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility _/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...