Satan the Hero

Printable View

02-28-2003, 02:00 AM
Pabs

Satanic Literary Incarnations

I found your comment interesting. Throughout the literary age there have been distinctions drawn between the two opposing parrallels , good and evil. The side of good is traditionaly assumed to be God, whilst the side of evil is his arch-oppositum, Satan. In many great works the author has endevoured to express this one certainty through black and white distinction. However, the author often lends a pity to the character of satan, often exploiting a weakness or an overlooked compassion. The authors of such works have been God fearing men, and have strived to incarnate their ideals in solid line characterisations. C S Lewis took this to an extreme in the Lion Witch & Wardrobe saga, a series which in my opinion forms a modern translation to the base teaching of christianity, the bible. But are they dissolusioned with perfect dimensia? Do they need a 'sting in the tail' - a hero, depicted thus in a less then perfect sight? The fault with perfection is the lack of enthusiasm that one has over any possible improvement, as none can be made! However, you will find that not only god fearing men express themselves on paper with parrallels of dominian talk. Therefore, it is prudent to assume that the debasist assumption of man is to explore what lies beyond the physical, be it Good or Evil. So, is the satan-carnation merely a projection of an enthused mind? I personally cannot believe that Satan can have any other mask thatn pure deciet and evil. Forget pity or exhonourating the damned, Satan is Satan! I would be interested in hearing your comments Paul.
05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
Unregistered

Satan the Hero

If anyone has any helpful comments with reference to Paradise Lost and any other literary works about the position and depiction of Satanic Figures (The Monster in Frankenstein, Count Dracula in Dracula, Satan in Paradise Lost etc) as heroes or more popular figures than the supposed "goodies" they would be much appreciated please email
10-01-2007, 09:43 PM
Starving Buddha

Letters from the Earth by Mark Twain. Mephistopholes in Goethe's Faust. I think that what should be considered is what the "Satanic" element represents- Rebellion/Revolution. Life itself is a rebellion against entropy. Evolution is a record of numerous little genetic revolutions that have taken place. We would not be here discussing Satan, where it not for the satanic element. The older belief systems viewed the serpent not as evil, but as the deliverer of knowledge.
04-06-2008, 12:21 AM
switters

i think you're view of deceit and evil is too concrete. both can be used for good, both can be good, good can be bad. satan took what was considered good, but he saw bad in it.
had jesus really earned the throne of heaven? i would argue that he hadn't, because he did not exist yet. when satan heard that none of his deeds were to be rewarded, well he saw that as a bad thing, can he be blamed for telling others what he saw? and if so then is he also to blame for their belief in what he said?
what he saw in heaven was servitude, everyone served in heaven, there was no free-will, and no logical reason for the lack of it. i don't think that it was satan's greed that drove him to revolt, i think it was his sense of right and wrong, which may have differed from god's, neither are more right than the other.
05-01-2008, 01:21 AM
Kent Edwins

Quote:

Therefore, it is prudent to assume that the debasist assumption of man is to explore what lies beyond the physical, be it Good or Evil. So, is the satan-carnation merely a projection of an enthused mind?

I doubt it. Considering, according to Milton, Adam and Eve both had potential to learn, explore, and eventually become angels. Adam spends almost 2 books or more in a highly academic discussion with Raphael.

Quote:

there was no free-will, and no logical reason for the lack of it.

There was free-will in heaven- God gave the Angels freedom to fall. The text is full of quotations that support this.

Quote:

hen satan heard that none of his deeds were to be rewarded, well he saw that as a bad thing, can he be blamed for telling others what he saw? and if so then is he also to blame for their belief in what he said?

Satan did not fall because he thought God was wrong. Even after he has fallen, Satan describes God's ways as just, but can not understand why all God's good does ill in him. Satan fell because he was second best, and thought he might be able to overthrow God. Upon realizing this, Satan gives birth Sin from his mind. He then rapes Sin and Death is born.

Quote:

had jesus really earned the throne of heaven? i would argue that he hadn't, because he did not exist yet.

Since Jesus and God are both the same, they both always existed. To say otherwise would be a heresy that Milton's particular brand of Christianity would have objected to.
05-01-2008, 04:26 AM
aeroport

long post - sorry!

To begin, there isn't really such a thing as Jesus in Paradise Lost; there is an allusion to 'one greater man' in the future redeeming Adam's sin and so on, but in PL the character who will eventually be Jesus is simply the Son. A fussy distinction, but one that should be made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent Edwins

Satan did not fall because he thought God was wrong. Even after he has fallen, Satan describes God's ways as just, but can not understand why all God's good does ill in him. Satan fell because he was second best, and thought he might be able to overthrow God.

At the moment I am inclined to agree with the recent argument that Satan is reacting to the Father's arbitrary breaking of the natural order. Satan (really Lucifer in this case) and the other angels have been serving the whims of the Father, with all his odd gimmicky requirements of obedience, for some time now. Then, out of nowhere:

Quote:

"'Hear, all ye Angels, Progeny of Light,
Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues, Powers,
Hear my decree, which unrevoked shall stand!
This day I have begot whom I declare
My only Son, and on this holy hill
Him have anointed, whom ye now behold
At my right hand. Your head I him appoint,
And by myself have sworn to him shall bow
All knees in Heaven, and shall confess him Lord.
Under his great viceregent reign abide,
United as one individual soul,
For ever happy. Him who disobeys
Me disobeys, breaks union, and, that day,
Cast out from God and blessed vision, falls
Into utter darkness, deep engulfed, his place
Ordained without redemption, without end.'

He seems practically to expect a rebellion. What's interesting here, of course, is the word 'redemption', considering that redemption doesn't really exist prior to the Son. There is also, I think, something to the idea that it isn't until the introduction of the Son that Satan arrives on the scene. They suddenly are set on a course in which they must become opposing influences over mankind (which we already know because the chronology is mixed up, and these things have already been discussed in books 2-4). My reading at the moment basically involves the Father doing this intentionally in order to set up a means whereby man's faith can be tested, but which keeps them from going to hell when he fails. So 'mercy first and last will brightest shine' or something like that.

Satan (Lucifer) was always 'second best' : his argument for the rebellion is thus:

Quote:

New laws though see'st imposed; / New laws from him who reigns, new minds, may raise / In us who serve, new counsels to debate / What doubtful may ensue.

and he dispassionately alludes to

Quote:

The great Messiah, and his new commands, / Who speedily through all the hierarchies / Intends to pass triumphant and give laws.

There is, I think, a sense in which the Father's injunction is basically arbitrary - or is at least designed to appear so (i.e. to inspire envy for the Son).

Quote:

Since Jesus and God are both the same, they both always existed. To say otherwise would be a heresy that Milton's particular brand of Christianity would have objected to.

All too true (except, again, the Son). The Father asserts in his speech, 'This day I have begot whom I declare / My only Son' - but it's fairly clear that 'to beget' means 'to exalt' or 'to make a king'.

EDIT:
For interesting arguments on this subject, see Neil Forsyth's The Satanic Epic and Michael Bryson's The Tyranny of Heaven.