Actually, there are four beings in the Old Testament, three of which usually get conflated into 'Satan', correctly or incorrectly, and the fourth of which you add to the soup. The first is the serpent. We are only told that the serpent tempted Adam and Eve -- no mention of Satan in the passage, and, AFAIK, no identification of him with Satan in the Old Testament. The second is Satan, whose most prominent appearance is in Job, though he appears in some Psalms and some of the prophets. As you point out, Satan simply means 'adversary', and in fact, in Job we see him playing more the role of a prosecuting attorney or devil's advocate (if you'll pardon the pun) than that of some primordial evil. The third is Lucifer, which, as far as I can tell, only appears in Isaiah. Azazel is the fourth, and is the odd man out. The other three are identified with each other in the NT, but Azazel is not mentioned outside of Leviticus[1].
Menoman's position, if we take scripture to be a guide to who Satan is, doesn't have much to recommend. The NT is pretty clear that he is an enemy of the human race. Even if you look at the OT, he isn't portrayed at all in a positive light. He is a lying spirit and prince of the air, neither of which are exactly recommendations. In fact, his deceitful nature counts against Menoman's Promethean spin. If he was interested in our 'free will and independence', why would he lie to us? Of course, this might all be propaganda put out by the opposing party.
But Menoman also suggests that evil is an equiprimordial force to good, and this is not only religiously, but also philosophically problematic. Evil cannot be ontologically prior to good, since it requires good to exist. Firstly, we need good things in order to do evil actions; power, intelligence, and even existence are all goods when taken in themselves. Secondly, no one ever does evil solely for the sake of doing evil, but for the sake of obtaining some good.
Finally, Menoman writes
Quote:
|
Therefore, total subservience is "Good" whereas anything else is "evil" no matter how beneficial to humans it may be.
|
First of all, this is false. Consider first the story of Jacob. Jacob spent a night wrestling with God; however you understand this passage, it's difficult to read it as total subservience. And yet, for his trouble, God names him Israel and makes him the father of His people. Job questions God after being afflicted by him, and yet God tells his friends "You have not spoken of me rightly, as my servant Job has." Doesn't sound like total subservience to me. Secondly, doesn't it seem proper that, if Christianity is right and we were created by God, that we somehow have an obligation to Him? Think of this in analogy to our parents; just like we have obligations to our parents, we have obligations towards God. Thirdly, total subsevience to God is impossible. I'm not talking about sin. I mean, total subservience implies that in all circumstances God tells us what to do. Yet he doesn't tell us when to get up in the morning or what to have for breakfast. He usually doesn't even tell us where we should live, or what sort of job we should pursue. He actually leaves these decisions up to us! And you say he wants total subservience?
[1]Tthe passage has got to be one of the top ten most mysterious passages in scripture -- the Israelites are told to put aside a goat for 'Azazel'. Whether Azazel is a person or simply the purpose of the goat can only be a matter for idle speculation.