Anger of Angels

[Psion]

News flash - the evil angels haven't destroyed Saddam yet, but I hear they're trying. Sodom, on the other hand, got nailed along with Gomorrah

After a long day of pillaging and looting, there's no city like Gomorrah... except maybe Sodom.

[/random quote]

 

[Hardhead]

News flash - the evil angels haven't destroyed Saddam yet, but I hear they're trying. Sodom, on the other hand, got nailed along with Gomorrah

Heh. Whoops. I Googled for the correct spelling, and wasn't paying attention to what I got back. In my defense, though, Saddam had Weapons of Mass Devotion, and had to be stopped by the Flame Strikes.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

Its great you guys love the book. I was one of the two playtesters. I cant wait for the print version, my eyes almost bulged out reading the original text only version, the pdf is just........woah.......

I need the book! ;-d

 

[sacremon]

Sure, I just meant on the good-evil axis. Thus OTG has good & evil servants (if the OT Satan is considered evil, say)

The OT has no mention of Satan, or Hell for that matter.

 

[busker]

The OT has no mention of Satan, or Hell for that matter.

You might want to re-read the Book of Job. Satan's name appears many times.

 

[Nifft]

You might want to re-read the Book of Job. Satan's name appears many times.

Analysis reveals that those were added by a later author, who took the original story (god causes Job to suffer, to teach him wisdom) and added an "enclosing" story (god takes the devil's bet).

The difference between the prose (prologue + epilogue) and poetic (all the rest) parts of Job are more than style and carbon-dating, though: the original story is mysterious (in the best sense of the word), while the enclosing revisions offer all the theological depth of a "just-so" story.

-- N, proving that the devil CAN quote scripture

 

[S'mon]

Analysis reveals that those were added by a later author, who took the original story (god causes Job to suffer, to teach him wisdom) and added an "enclosing" story (god takes the devil's bet).

The difference between the prose (prologue + epilogue) and poetic (all the rest) parts of Job are more than style and carbon-dating, though: the original story is mysterious (in the best sense of the word), while the enclosing revisions offer all the theological depth of a "just-so" story.

-- N, proving that the devil CAN quote scripture

Still, thanks to the Book of Job, Satan is definitely an Old Testament figure.

As I understand it, in Jewish mythology Satan was the prosecutor (hence, 'Oponent') of human souls in the afterlife, who would bring out their sins, why they shouldn't get into heaven, before the judgement court. This doesn't necessarily make him evil (at least, no more than the Angel of Death and other godly servants), but the Babylonian captivity put a patina of Zoroastrian dualism onto the monotheist mythology, so Satan evolved into the Ahriman figure to JhVh's Ahura-Mazda.

 

[Nifft]

Still, thanks to the Book of Job, Satan is definitely an Old Testament figure.

Sure, if by "old testament" you mean "anything an editor thought to stick in later". Satan was not a part of the religion until long after that book was both written and accepted into the scripture.

How we can think about the texts changes when we know what revisions were made in various historical periods. For example, knowing that the original author did NOT intend god's actions to have been initiated by a bet, and knowing that god did NOT restore Job's stuff at the end of the story, what new lesson can we learn? Perhaps that wisdom is more important than worldly goods?

Job, as originally written, is a shift in theological paradigm from "god gives us nice stuff if we behave" to "god is mysterious and uplifting".

-- N (well, wisdom's not more important than a Cloak of Resistance)

 

[LRathbun]

Thus OTG has good & evil servants (if the OT Satan is considered evil, say).

I hope this comes across right and doesn't break the no religion rule. If it does I will gladly remove the following.

I just want to clarify something. The Bible does not say that Satan is a sevant of God. He was good and a servant of God, but then he became evil and fell. So the above quote would not be true according to the Old Testament.

To reiterate, I am just trying to state what Christians believe, not call you an idiot if you don't agree.

 

[S'mon]

Sure, if by "old testament" you mean "anything an editor thought to stick in later".

Uh, yeah, bibliographic analysis was not my point. I was just giving an example of a Neutral deity with both Good & Evil servants. The Old Testament God as He appears in the modern Christian Bible appears to fit that, in D&D terms.