Hacker News Reader

Comment by taneq | Hacker News Reader

I'm not super familiar with Christian canon but what specific evil did Satan commit? (Both in Paradise Lost and in the original source material, I mean.) I remember reading a bunch stuff where he's called bad things (deceiver, defiler, whatever) but I'd be curious to know what he actually did that was bad (aside from the initial "refusing to bow to God" incident.)

View on HN

> I'm not super familiar with Christian canon but what specific evil did Satan commit?

In the canon and even much conventional theology, it's not clear, and not even clear that Satan is a moral agent capable of doing good or evil. Plus, he doesn't show up much in the canon; there's the bet with God over Job, the test/temptation of Christ, some stuff in Revelation, and the fact that the snake in the Garden of Eden is popularly (though not canonically) identified with Satan.

Milton's work is an artistic take on a popular old non-canonical story that both is influential on shaping images of Satan in Christianity and hard to reconcile some mainstream theology (Christian theology and Christian popular mythology often have a problematic relationship.)

Thanks for this.

> not even clear that Satan is a moral agent capable of doing good or evil

This was what got me - as I understand it, the special thing about humans was free will, which kind of emancipates any of the Heavenly Host from wrongdoing (at least in the sense of personal moral responsibility).

In the Tanakh, Satan is "The Adversary". And to me, it always seems that he almost necessarily existed by gods will and permission in order to provide god with an agent. The Adversary almost seemed a force of nature, not moral, but bound to provide humanity with something to choose instead of god.

If on a spectrum of God <--> !God, humans were supposed to turn their interest toward god. But, rather than having God and Void apposed, there is a personified force there that is "the adversary".

I recall reading somewhere that the old testament "Adversary" view could be interpreted as Satan being less of an antagonist who is directly opposed to God, and more of a celestial prosecutor, whose role is to ensure that those who are deemed faithful (by God) truly are. Prosecutors aren't evil people who are opposed to the Judge, but rather are important instruments in ensuring, perhaps imperfectly, that justice is applied.

Almost like a divine unit testing framework: if there are critical weaknesses, please help me uncover them ASAP. Hence God's willingness to let Satan make Job's life miserable.

> Almost like a divine unit testing framework

Acceptance testing, surely.

Mostly. Satan comes via the Hebrew ‘Shaitan’ meaning as you say “Adversary,” but also “Accuser” as well. In the Torah, that word is used to describe human enemies, and IIRC it doesn’t exist as a supernatural force. If you think about it, the notion of any sort of counterpart to God is too close to polytheism for Judaism.

"Pride, and worse ambition."

Essentially, his hubris in seeking to overcome the nature of things. While Satan's sin, in the personified tale of the story, boils down to not doing what god says, "going against the will of god" essentially means being foolish enough to think you can live out of harmony with the natural order of the universe just because you're intelligent and have the desire.

The entire god/adam/eve/satan/christ narrative is essentially a parable to illustrate how the wise, to live calm, harmonious, fulfilling lives, live acording to the Dao, as some in the East would say.

"to overcome the nature of things" Is that... is that not what we do? What sets humans apart from everything else, other than that we recreate the world around us to change the (to us, awful) natural order of things? Living within the "natural order of the universe" usually means dying young, in terrible pain, from things that are relatively easily prevented.

Actively manipulating the environment to our benefit isn't necessarily going against the natural order of things.

Killing a buffalo to feed and clothe yourself isn't evil, but slaughtering an entire herd to sell the horn powder to Eastern mystics might be. And you'll be punished by suddenly having no buffalo to eat.

Not the greatest example though. :P

One interesting perspective:

"Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;" (Moses 4:3) [emphasis mine]

"And thus he goeth up and down, to and fro in the earth, seeking to destroy the souls of men." (D&C 10:27)

Lucifer means "light bringer". Prometheus-like he conveyed forbidden knowledge to humanity, seeking to aggrandize himself. He's an alternate power base whose key feature is defiance of God.

At least, that's one take.

If I recall he waged war against God with part of the hosts of heaven? Who were then corrupted and cast down to Hell with Satan.

It’s been a couple months since I read Paradise Lost though.

But so what? Where is the evil?

I believe in this context, "evil" means "against God" or "not according to God's will" (though how that's possible when God is defined as omnipotent, I don't understand) and so doesn't align with our own usual moral compass which defines evil as some variant of "hurting people".

The war against God is not the primary source of his 'Evil'. His choice to get revenge on God by corrupting man and getting man cast out of paradise is probably his canonical 'evil' act.

As pointed out above, the serpent isn't necessarily named "Satan". However, it isn't really objective to call the act you describe, "evil". It might have been harmful to humanity to have been kicked out of the garden. (Although, if that hadn't happened, would we have iPhones now? One can see both sides of this question!) The fact we are sinful enough to disobey instructions about eating fruit is more about who we are than about anything the serpent did. If a child destroys a poorly-built house by kicking it, do we blame the child? Why would God want such fragile creatures in his garden in the first place?

As pointed out above, the serpent isn't necessarily named "Satan"

Are we talking about the bible or Milton? I agree it's not clear in the bible, but feel Milton makes it quite clear.

It might have been harmful to humanity to have been kicked out of the garden

I'm not even really sure that's the point. 'Humanity' is a third party in that fight. God had built this new, fragile creature, the 'best' thing he'd ever made. He realized they where fragile and put them in the garden to protect them. Satan is pissed off at God for casting him out and decided to fuck with God by breaking his new toy that he knows God is very proud of. None of them seem to care too much about the long term fate of humanity.

If a child destroys a poorly-built house by kicking it, do we blame the child?

If a child destroys an extremely fragile work of art, do we blame the artist for not making his art more robust.

You (and Milton, perhaps?) are assuming more about God and God's motivations than is present in the source material. We're told that He "loves" us, but that didn't prevent the many other episodes described in Scripture in which we have sinned and been punished for it. Original Sin isn't somehow different from all those we've committed since. The artist who places her fragile art in the same room with a destructive child, even if she isn't omniscient, probably knows what's coming next. She probably considers the child's actions to be art, as well.

The sin of pride. In catholic theology, Satan is a fallen angel who fancies himself a god-like creature, without acknowledging, knowing or loving god.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com