You seem to have written a grammatically correct and sensible sentence, but I get the strange impression that you're hinting at some further depth of meaning that I can't fathom.
Alternate edit: I'm not talking about Lucifer appearing as a tragic hero in other literary works besides the Bible, I'm talking about him, in his role in the Bible, potentially fitting the bill for the literary definition of "tragic hero."
Which is fine, except that to do that you have to ignore EVERYTHING ELSE in the Bible. Lucifer is by definition not a tragic hero. He is a villian. Because he's EVIL BY DEFINITION.
Bah... God's an asshole then because he set the dude up for the Fall in the first place.
Which is a fine view to take, except that God is by definition not an asshole given the Biblical context.
If you want to ignore the Bible then you can say that God is an asshole...but if you're ignoring the Bible...of what God do you speak?
Have you even taken a casual glance at the Old Testament?
Rough translation of the book of Job:
I can kick your ass, it doesn't matter that I broke a promise. Fuck you, I want you to COWER BEFORE ME, even if I have to torture and permanently (No heaven in OT times) kill your loved ones.
Ah, good, you're shitting your pants. Here, have some bliss again.
You are forgetting an important part:
Do you know what it is like to be me. Well, fuck you. Now start sacrificing animals and praying for forgiveness for even thinking about why the hell I shat all over you.
Later: Here, you get some extra children. I'm sure that makes up for killing your family and watching you suffer.
You seem to have written a grammatically correct and sensible sentence, but I get the strange impression that you're hinting at some further depth of meaning that I can't fathom.
Alternate edit: I'm not talking about Lucifer appearing as a tragic hero in other literary works besides the Bible, I'm talking about him, in his role in the Bible, potentially fitting the bill for the literary definition of "tragic hero."
Which is fine, except that to do that you have to ignore EVERYTHING ELSE in the Bible. Lucifer is by definition not a tragic hero. He is a villian. Because he's EVIL BY DEFINITION.
Bah... God's an asshole then because he set the dude up for the Fall in the first place.
Which is a fine view to take, except that God is by definition not an asshole given the Biblical context.
If you want to ignore the Bible then you can say that God is an asshole...but if you're ignoring the Bible...of what God do you speak?
Have you even taken a casual glance at the Old Testament?
Rough translation of the book of Job:
I can kick your ass, it doesn't matter that I broke a promise. Fuck you, I want you to COWER BEFORE ME, even if I have to torture and permanently (No heaven in OT times) kill your loved ones.
Ah, good, you're shitting your pants. Here, have some bliss again.
You are forgetting an important part:
Do you know what it is like to be me. Well, fuck you. Now start sacrificing animals and praying for forgiveness for even thinking about why the hell I shat all over you.
Later: Here, you get some extra children. I'm sure that makes up for killing your family and watching you suffer.
Basically, God taught Superman all he knew about being a Dick.
You seem to have written a grammatically correct and sensible sentence, but I get the strange impression that you're hinting at some further depth of meaning that I can't fathom.
Alternate edit: I'm not talking about Lucifer appearing as a tragic hero in other literary works besides the Bible, I'm talking about him, in his role in the Bible, potentially fitting the bill for the literary definition of "tragic hero."
Which is fine, except that to do that you have to ignore EVERYTHING ELSE in the Bible. Lucifer is by definition not a tragic hero. He is a villian. Because he's EVIL BY DEFINITION.
Bah... God's an asshole then because he set the dude up for the Fall in the first place.
Which is a fine view to take, except that God is by definition not an asshole given the Biblical context.
If you want to ignore the Bible then you can say that God is an asshole...but if you're ignoring the Bible...of what God do you speak?
Have you even taken a casual glance at the Old Testament?
Rough translation of the book of Job:
I can kick your ass, it doesn't matter that I broke a promise. Fuck you, I want you to COWER BEFORE ME, even if I have to torture and permanently (No heaven in OT times) kill your loved ones.
Ah, good, you're shitting your pants. Here, have some bliss again.
One of the things this thread is missing is the acknowledgement of the internal judgement of God within the text. We're looking at what God does in various situations and judging those actions by our own interpretations.
God did certain things to Job. We look at those things and say, "God was being a dick."
But within the context of the Bible God is not being a dick. Or, if we want to say that within the context God WAS being a dick, it is not the case that it was wrong for God to be a dick. Or, rather, being a dick was not a bad thing in that situation.
Within the text we cannot say that God is a "bad guy" or Lucifer is a "tragic hero" because within the text these characters are defined to not be those things. It's like if we were to read Harry Potter and then argue, "You know...Harry really isn't a 'wizard'." Because within the context of the book he is a wizard. It doesn't matter what you think a wizard is because he's defined to be a wizard in the text.
It's the same thing with views of God or Lucifer only it is slightly hightened due to the fact that these characters only exist within the contexts of these books. If you talk about the biblical Satan outside of the Biblical context you are no longer talking about the biblical Satan. You are talking about some other character, satan, loosely based upon the biblical satan.
The same with God. God is not an asshole or, "bad guy" in the Biblical texts by definition. To take the character out of the texts and say, "God is a bad guy" is not to talk about God as God is in the biblical text, but rather is to create a new fictional character loosely based upon God as God appears in the Biblical texts.
So, to answer the question in the OP, Lucifer is by definition a "bad guy" so Lucifer cannot be anything but a "bad guy" and any views of Lucifer which would present Lucifer as anything but a "bad guy" are views based not upon the Biblical account but rather some other fabricated view of a character loosely based upon the Biblical character.
You seem to have written a grammatically correct and sensible sentence, but I get the strange impression that you're hinting at some further depth of meaning that I can't fathom.
Alternate edit: I'm not talking about Lucifer appearing as a tragic hero in other literary works besides the Bible, I'm talking about him, in his role in the Bible, potentially fitting the bill for the literary definition of "tragic hero."
Which is fine, except that to do that you have to ignore EVERYTHING ELSE in the Bible. Lucifer is by definition not a tragic hero. He is a villian. Because he's EVIL BY DEFINITION.
Bah... God's an asshole then because he set the dude up for the Fall in the first place.
Which is a fine view to take, except that God is by definition not an asshole given the Biblical context.
If you want to ignore the Bible then you can say that God is an asshole...but if you're ignoring the Bible...of what God do you speak?
Have you even taken a casual glance at the Old Testament?
Rough translation of the book of Job:
I can kick your ass, it doesn't matter that I broke a promise. Fuck you, I want you to COWER BEFORE ME, even if I have to torture and permanently (No heaven in OT times) kill your loved ones.
Ah, good, you're shitting your pants. Here, have some bliss again.
One of the things this thread is missing is the acknowledgement of the internal judgement of God within the text. We're looking at what God does in various situations and judging those actions by our own interpretations.
God did certain things to Job. We look at those things and say, "God was being a dick."
But within the context of the Bible God is not being a dick. Or, if we want to say that within the context God WAS being a dick, it is not the case that it was wrong for God to be a dick. Or, rather, being a dick was not a bad thing in that situation.
Within the text we cannot say that God is a "bad guy" or Lucifer is a "tragic hero" because within the text these characters are defined to not be those things. It's like if we were to read Harry Potter and then argue, "You know...Harry really isn't a 'wizard'." Because within the context of the book he is a wizard. It doesn't matter what you think a wizard is because he's defined to be a wizard in the text.
It's the same thing with views of God or Lucifer only it is slightly hightened due to the fact that these characters only exist within the contexts of these books. If you talk about the biblical Satan outside of the Biblical context you are no longer talking about the biblical Satan. You are talking about some other character, satan, loosely based upon the biblical satan.
The same with God. God is not an asshole or, "bad guy" in the Biblical texts by definition. To take the character out of the texts and say, "God is a bad guy" is not to talk about God as God is in the biblical text, but rather is to create a new fictional character loosely based upon God as God appears in the Biblical texts.
So, to answer the question in the OP, Lucifer is by definition a "bad guy" so Lucifer cannot be anything but a "bad guy" and any views of Lucifer which would present Lucifer as anything but a "bad guy" are views based not upon the Biblical account but rather some other fabricated view of a character loosely based upon the Biblical character.
I'm going to go ahead and say that's a load of bullshit.
There is such a thing as objectivity. Objectively, God is largely a dickhead in the Old Testament. Whether or not he says he is or not is irrelevant. Jack the Ripper can claim he's not a murderer in his memoirs, but that doesn't make it true even if it's the only book he's written.
J, the viewpoint of a written work, even a fictional one, about itself and its characters, is not necessarily the only one. It is perfectly possible to read a novel where the main character is supposed to be wonderful and great, but instead find him shallow or arrogant or self-righteous.
Even if the Bible is the only place where information about God can be gathered, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily correct, neither on the facts nor on the interpretation of those facts, fictional or otherwise.
Would you go into a thread about, say, Shelley's Frankenstein, and say that people who think Victor is a whiny bitch are simply wrong? No, because they are interpreting his character for themselves, even though there seems to be no implication of that view existing in the author's mind.
"See what happens when you make me mad? Don't fuck with me motherfuckers."
So when New Testament Hippy God comes along and preaches peace and love for God, but still lets people kill each other it's kind of a lesser of two evils approach.
Like maybe God is a schizoid?
Can God say "The Devil made me do it? Or is that just assumed to be off limits as an excuse?"
You seem to have written a grammatically correct and sensible sentence, but I get the strange impression that you're hinting at some further depth of meaning that I can't fathom.
Alternate edit: I'm not talking about Lucifer appearing as a tragic hero in other literary works besides the Bible, I'm talking about him, in his role in the Bible, potentially fitting the bill for the literary definition of "tragic hero."
Which is fine, except that to do that you have to ignore EVERYTHING ELSE in the Bible. Lucifer is by definition not a tragic hero. He is a villian. Because he's EVIL BY DEFINITION.
Bah... God's an asshole then because he set the dude up for the Fall in the first place.
Which is a fine view to take, except that God is by definition not an asshole given the Biblical context.
If you want to ignore the Bible then you can say that God is an asshole...but if you're ignoring the Bible...of what God do you speak?
Have you even taken a casual glance at the Old Testament?
Rough translation of the book of Job:
I can kick your ass, it doesn't matter that I broke a promise. Fuck you, I want you to COWER BEFORE ME, even if I have to torture and permanently (No heaven in OT times) kill your loved ones.
Ah, good, you're shitting your pants. Here, have some bliss again.
I think that God is an asshole if you think in strictly human terms. I often wonder how insignificant our possessions, health, family, and suffering must seem to a super-deity that theoretically knows the fate of the supposedly "undying" part of our spirit. I guess my point is that what happens on earth, if it is merely a stepping stone to something else, is probably not that important.
If it isn't important then why are we here? I suppose to exercise free will and make the right choices for some reason. (or you know, it is all false and we are here for no particular reason) But I am rambling and probably incoherent. I think I had a point in there somewhere.
You seem to have written a grammatically correct and sensible sentence, but I get the strange impression that you're hinting at some further depth of meaning that I can't fathom.
Alternate edit: I'm not talking about Lucifer appearing as a tragic hero in other literary works besides the Bible, I'm talking about him, in his role in the Bible, potentially fitting the bill for the literary definition of "tragic hero."
Which is fine, except that to do that you have to ignore EVERYTHING ELSE in the Bible. Lucifer is by definition not a tragic hero. He is a villian. Because he's EVIL BY DEFINITION.
Bah... God's an asshole then because he set the dude up for the Fall in the first place.
Which is a fine view to take, except that God is by definition not an asshole given the Biblical context.
If you want to ignore the Bible then you can say that God is an asshole...but if you're ignoring the Bible...of what God do you speak?
Have you even taken a casual glance at the Old Testament?
Rough translation of the book of Job:
I can kick your ass, it doesn't matter that I broke a promise. Fuck you, I want you to COWER BEFORE ME, even if I have to torture and permanently (No heaven in OT times) kill your loved ones.
Ah, good, you're shitting your pants. Here, have some bliss again.
I think that God is an asshole if you think in strictly human terms. I often wonder how insignificant our possessions, health, family, and suffering must seem to a super-deity that theoretically knows the fate of the supposedly "undying" part of our spirit. I guess my point is that what happens on earth, if it is merely a stepping stone to something else, is probably not that important.
If it isn't important then why are we here? I suppose to exercise free will and make the right choices for some reason. (or you know, it is all false and we are here for no particular reason) But I am rambling and probably incoherent. I think I had a point in there somewhere.
You were rationalizing.
It still meant a helluva lot to Job.
Example: Baby eating a sucker. Random guy comes along and takes sucker, enjoying the flavor of refined sugar and refined infant suffering.
Baby cries.
Now, on the large scale of the person who happens to be a baby at this point, it's probably not a big deal in the large scale of an entire life.
But the guy is still a dick for stealing the candy.
Posts
Do you know what it is like to be me. Well, fuck you. Now start sacrificing animals and praying for forgiveness for even thinking about why the hell I shat all over you.
Later: Here, you get some extra children. I'm sure that makes up for killing your family and watching you suffer.
Basically, God taught Superman all he knew about being a Dick.
Viewpoint narrator, if nothing else.
The thing about "God is Good" is that is the deity's OPINION, and the flawlessness of that opinion may well be an OPINION in and of itself.
One of the things this thread is missing is the acknowledgement of the internal judgement of God within the text. We're looking at what God does in various situations and judging those actions by our own interpretations.
God did certain things to Job. We look at those things and say, "God was being a dick."
But within the context of the Bible God is not being a dick. Or, if we want to say that within the context God WAS being a dick, it is not the case that it was wrong for God to be a dick. Or, rather, being a dick was not a bad thing in that situation.
Within the text we cannot say that God is a "bad guy" or Lucifer is a "tragic hero" because within the text these characters are defined to not be those things. It's like if we were to read Harry Potter and then argue, "You know...Harry really isn't a 'wizard'." Because within the context of the book he is a wizard. It doesn't matter what you think a wizard is because he's defined to be a wizard in the text.
It's the same thing with views of God or Lucifer only it is slightly hightened due to the fact that these characters only exist within the contexts of these books. If you talk about the biblical Satan outside of the Biblical context you are no longer talking about the biblical Satan. You are talking about some other character, satan, loosely based upon the biblical satan.
The same with God. God is not an asshole or, "bad guy" in the Biblical texts by definition. To take the character out of the texts and say, "God is a bad guy" is not to talk about God as God is in the biblical text, but rather is to create a new fictional character loosely based upon God as God appears in the Biblical texts.
So, to answer the question in the OP, Lucifer is by definition a "bad guy" so Lucifer cannot be anything but a "bad guy" and any views of Lucifer which would present Lucifer as anything but a "bad guy" are views based not upon the Biblical account but rather some other fabricated view of a character loosely based upon the Biblical character.
I'm going to go ahead and say that's a load of bullshit.
There is such a thing as objectivity. Objectively, God is largely a dickhead in the Old Testament. Whether or not he says he is or not is irrelevant. Jack the Ripper can claim he's not a murderer in his memoirs, but that doesn't make it true even if it's the only book he's written.
Even if the Bible is the only place where information about God can be gathered, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily correct, neither on the facts nor on the interpretation of those facts, fictional or otherwise.
Would you go into a thread about, say, Shelley's Frankenstein, and say that people who think Victor is a whiny bitch are simply wrong? No, because they are interpreting his character for themselves, even though there seems to be no implication of that view existing in the author's mind.
"See what happens when you make me mad? Don't fuck with me motherfuckers."
So when New Testament Hippy God comes along and preaches peace and love for God, but still lets people kill each other it's kind of a lesser of two evils approach.
Like maybe God is a schizoid?
Can God say "The Devil made me do it? Or is that just assumed to be off limits as an excuse?"
I think that God is an asshole if you think in strictly human terms. I often wonder how insignificant our possessions, health, family, and suffering must seem to a super-deity that theoretically knows the fate of the supposedly "undying" part of our spirit. I guess my point is that what happens on earth, if it is merely a stepping stone to something else, is probably not that important.
If it isn't important then why are we here? I suppose to exercise free will and make the right choices for some reason. (or you know, it is all false and we are here for no particular reason) But I am rambling and probably incoherent. I think I had a point in there somewhere.
You were rationalizing.
It still meant a helluva lot to Job.
Example: Baby eating a sucker. Random guy comes along and takes sucker, enjoying the flavor of refined sugar and refined infant suffering.
Baby cries.
Now, on the large scale of the person who happens to be a baby at this point, it's probably not a big deal in the large scale of an entire life.
But the guy is still a dick for stealing the candy.