The Abrahamic Prometheus

I don't see any connection between Shaytan and Prometheus.

Both figures empowered humanity by giving us the tools to survive worldly perils, one by letting us have fire and the other by coaxing us into eating from the tree of knowledge.

I don't think thats accurate for the Shaytan. I don't see how being coaxed towards evil is a tool we need to survive worldly perils, in fact it is the exact opposite.

The actions of both figures represent a crucial break with the will of the Deity, seeking to make humanity more than the simple creation of the Deity and instead allowing humanity to forge its own future and direct its own will upon the environment in which humanity finds itself.

I don't think you can give them Devil that one either. Again this is something completely contradictory to the character of the Shaytan.

Ah but we are only told what Satan did was evil. And this is simply because God says so. It's like Prometheus giving humanity fire, something the Olympian Gods also considered impious as it was against their will. We need more of a reason than "God says so" to think something evil.

I don't think there is a reason other than "God says so" as to what is evil and what is not in this context. "Evil" is a definition based on either culture or religion, not something that is entirely possible to pin down in different cultures and religions that are contempory let alone in different eras.

I would say, and I am not sure if this holds in all christian contexts or not, that it is God that both provides (and refuses to provide) what we need to survive, not the Shaytan. The Shaytan coaxes us to do what God tells us not to do, but in the matter of a provider is neutral.
I suppose stealing fire is something that Prometheus was told not to do, however when you put it into a polytheistic enviroment I get completely confused as to which character is which. The Prometheus is too much of an anthropomorphic character to be related to the Shaytan.

So if the strict good vs evil paradigm does not apply, is it not possible that the similarity between Prometheus' actions and those of Satan have some uncanny similarities?

Ignoring good and evil issues, I think prometheus bears more resemblance to a human that has fallen to temptation from the Shaytan, than to the Shaytan itself.

P.S. I find the mention of the Islamic variant of Christian figure names really interesting - e.g. comparing Satan to Shaytan.

Yeah so do I actually. Words that similar are probably connected. I suspect that "Satan" may be a bastardisation of a Hebrew word taken from the bible, and "Shaytan" is the same semetic word evolved down the arabic line. Arabic and Hebrew are quite similar in a number of aspects, and christians have always taken words from the bible and changed them for their own use. Like the name "Benjamin" - which was once "bin Yamin" (son of Yamin) or "Bethany" derivied from the Hebrew/Aramaic meaning "House of Figs" (like Bethlehem). Modern Arabic has changed "Beth" to "Bayt". It just goes to show that people have borrowed words without knowing what they mean (but that happens really often. Did you ever have mufti days in Primary school?)

Personally for some reason I've always felt more comfortable saying the Shaytan. Iblis is another name for Satan.

Or that in the Christian religion giving man knowledge is considered as abusing him and in the Greek religion giving man knowledge is considered aiding him.

Or that in the Christian religion giving man knowledge is considered as abusing him and in the Greek religion giving man knowledge is considered aiding him.

Actually to be more specific, the Serpent tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. What this meant was before they ate of the tree they didn't have the ability to commit evil acts because they were innocent, like children. After they ate they had the ability to determine whether an action was right or wrong. They were banished so that they could no longer eat from the Tree of Life, which would have made them eternally guilty by disobeying God.

Also, Prometheus gave men the knowledge of how to create fire. And that's it. He didn't teach them how to do anything else, so it's not really bringing knowledge to humanity.

In fact the more you look at it, neither scenario really has anything to do with learned experiences or the accumulation of multiple pieces of knowledge.

Who says children are unable to commit evil acts?

Children are in a state of innocence until they reach the age of reason, which is usually around seven or eight years old. Before that time they don't fully understand the effects of their actions and thus cannot be held responsible for their morality or lack thereof.

And God never said eating from the tree was an evil act. He just told them not to do it. It's like a parent telling his five year old not to take cookies from the cookie jar. Would taking the cookies be an evil act? No, but it would be a wrong act because they wouldn't respect the wishes of their father and appropriate punishment should be enacted for disobeying him.

And technically one could argue that it wasn't eating of the tree that got them banished but the actions they performed afterwards, such as hiding from God when he called them. He could have told them not to eat from the tree, because they would then be led to disobeying him, which is evil.

Originally posted by Sparten Prometheus helped humanity, while Satan led man astray. A crucial difference. Keeping religious beliefs aside for a minute, you can argue that the Olympians did have their own version (s) of satan in that they led men astray, almost all the gods did that at one point or the other, though I can't at the moment remember anyone who led men astray exclusivly, unless its Aphrodite.

Prometheus got eaten up by birds. satan is very much around. And the point is that the Olympians beleived that Prometheus did mankind a favour, while in the Abrahamic religions (except Islam to a lesser extent) Satan's advice had a disasterous result. I don't belive the splendid isolation theory of 19th century Hellenists. But I don't think we should see connections which are only peripheral, espcially when you have connections which which are very tangible.

I don't understand why a god would even put a temptation infront of people and tell them not to touch it, it's like telling a kid not to play with fire and leaving matches in his reach. Not a very good idea, and pretty childish on the supieor beings part if you ask me.

There was no temptation until the serpent suggested it, it would be like leaving matches in front of a kid and telling them not to play with fire, except they don't know what matches are for. Then an older kid tells them what the matches do and they are tempted.

But if he's the almighty, he would know that there is a risk of doing it, and thus going back to my example. He created the rules and everything in it right? Then he should understand that his creation that took the form of a serpant could and probably would instill temtation into his other creations.

Edited by SearchAndDestroy - 22-Jun-2007 at 08:05

But when the bible makes some sort o mistake, I always hear the arguement that it was "Written by men who interpretted God's words", always. And then when they need it to prove a point, it's their god's word thats in this book.

Those people are hypocrites then, the Bible doesn't make mistakes, and by that I don't mean it doesn't have contradictions and stories that don't synch up. The Bible is the revealed word of God in written form, everything in it is all God wants to be in it, could he be using it as a test or something to root out the truth behind the words, it's possible, but I don't know.

So he knew it was going to happen and instead of being a loving parent, he punishes them for something he set in place? Why did he even bother, he could have just gave them this knowledge from the get go. Or maybe, the writers of the bible just wanted to create a interesting story?

Firstly, all the stories in genesis before Abraham are lessons in morality. No actual human beings were harmed in the actual story. That being said, yes God did punish Adam and Eve for something he set into play. Most people would call that entrapment, but God's actions weren't really a "punishment". All that happened was they were banished from the garden and told they would die. What this means is that now they had the ability to work on their own, without having to rely on God to provide everything, and no longer being innocent they would now be able to have children, which I think is the main reason for banning from the garden since the garden contained the tree of life, and Billions of immortal people in the world does not sound like a good idea.

Also, God from the moment of creation knew that their disobedience would finally be paid for by himself, by Jesus dying on the cross, so it's a no harm no foul situation.