Allright Christians, a question for you: I know Satan is a fallen angel, but he seems to be more powerful then angels. Where did he get these powers?

The Home Shopping Network!

"And now, for only 39.95 plus Shipping, you can defy the Allmighty God! Order now, and we will send you this canvas tote bag, free of charge!"

Sorry.

I reckon he made a pact with the devil.

Haha, good one Xev.

Actually, in truth there's a good story behind this. See, when Satan was banished to Hell he looked around and said 'How can I run a kingdom without any power?' Now, Satan always surrounded himself with 3 fallen angels. So, needing advise he looked to the first and said; 'How can I get more powerful?' The first angel says; 'Well master, why not ask God for more powers?' Satan was disgusted in this answer and rejected the fallen angel, stating; 'God is my enemy, why would he give me powers?' So he turns to the second angel and says; 'How can I get more powerful?' The second angel ponders and says; 'Master, why not ask all the fallen angels to give you their powers?' Satan thinks over this and replies; 'Useless! Then I will be king over a group of powerless beings!' Then Satan looks to the third angel and says; 'Have you any ideas?' The third angel ponders and ponders and finally says; 'Why not ask Tyler to donate some of his powers?' Satan cheers a cheery smile and says; 'What a BRILLIANT idea!!!'

Long story short, I felt kind of bad for the guy and figured life would be more interesting, so I donated some powers.

Originally posted by Cactus Jack
Allright Christians, a question for you: I know Satan is a fallen angel, but he seems to be more powerful then angels. Where did he get these powers?

Probably worshiped Lord Shiva or goddess Kali and then obtained a boon.

Exactly what do you mean he seems to be more powerful than angels??

Love

Jan Ardena.

Leave it to Jan to refer to a Christian concept with Hindu dogma :rolleyes:

Forget it I guess.

I must insist here that the Christian devil, Satan, Lucifer, ad nauseam, is a ridiculous figment who gets the entirety of his power from the people who believe in him.

From the idea of "a satan" in the Old Testament to the institution of Satan attacked by Christ, Satan is merely a figment without philosophical justification within the Christian scheme. Especially under the old Catholic hegemony, the Devil seems a propaganda tool. Nobody could quite figure out how Satan fit into the plan.

The best recommendations I can offer:

•*Russell, Jeffrey Burton. Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages.
• Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan.
• Armstrong, Karen. History of God.
•*Davidson, Gustav. A Dictionary of Angels.
• Brust, Steven. To Reign in Hell.
• Barker, Clive. History of the Devil: Scenes From a Pretended Life.
• The Trial of Anne Hutchinson.

The reading and viewing list gets huge, including Ray Bradbury, the films Rapture and Legend, Nathaniel Hawthorne, HP Lovecraft, Jack Cady ... notions of the devil are so myriad and so affecting that they form a fairly large portion of Western philosophy.

Russell actually wrote several books on the nature of the Devil, and has, apparently, come to regret the notoriety he has gained as a result. It is my impression that he dislikes fame for books which hamper faithful acceptance of Christianity, but they really are that good of surveys of subjects. Pagels' book is a powerful examination of the politics surrounding the development of the canonical gospels. It's a ten-year influence on me, as I read one of the chapters as an article in some periodical while at University, before the book was finished. But it's absolutely brilliant, and will be held close in coming years as a primer by which religious scholars will finally be able to leave the Christian superstition of the devil behind. Armstrong's "God" books are excellent overviews of the larger relationships of the Abramic religions. Between those three volumes it is fair to say that nobody with a perspective that regards the Devil at all will look at the subject the same way again. The consumer-level academic punches are serious, serious blows these days. The Russell book might be lesser known than the Armstrong book, but nobody I know looks at Christian superstition the same way again.

Of the fiction, well ... Brust's book basically covers the fall of the Devil in mildly comedic fiction. In the end, it's all a misunderstanding exacerbated by the silly principle of God not being wrong, Satan is expelled after doing everything in his power to be on God's side, and Mephistopheles (who, by some literature is allowed into the heavenly court, cf. Goethe's Faust) ends up consciously choosing sides and leaping from the edge of Heaven to stand with the honest ones. Absolutely great reflection on the state of what the modern myth of the Satan/Devil brings. Barker's Scenes is just hilarious, and insightful. I think it should be read by everyone purely for the sense of commentary that comes with it.

The Trial of Anne Hutchinson (http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/hutchinson.html)? I find myself recommending it a lot lately because it truly sums up something absurd about the American experience, which forms the bulk of my own experience. It demonstrates something about the Puritan standard and presumption of nature. As late as the 1980s, for instance: Why does it matter if a rock album has to do with sex or the devil? Something, perhaps, about the presumption of the Christian experience in matters of morals and law?

Watch how much devil-fighting goes on in the United States. It's ... educational. Or something.

Here is also a point where I'll stand proudly behind artistic expression. From art, whether Michelangelo, Joyce, Huxley, even Stephen King or Joan Collins, Wagner or Dore or you-name-it, the symbols employed reflect some sum of the greater human experience. Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter is a classic not only for its narrative voice and forward symbolism, but also because it helped change perspectives toward what really was a common way of behaving. I've been listening a lot to the Temple of the Dog album lately, this time for Layne. But even these intensely personal songs rely on the sum of right and wrong, good and bad ... the point is that within the broad spectrum of Western artistic expression is all that people attribute to everything, and one need only look carefully. Bradbury contains much insight into the nature of people and their devils. It depends on how broadly one is willing to consider the work in front of them.

And from all of that we can pull a good number of threads that hold together the patchwork theology of the Devil in the Christian and post-Christian experience.

And that, I submit, is why the Devil seems so powerful. The theology of the Devil is intensely powerful and affecting, but also ad hoc and ill-considered. Insofar as I can tell from academic considerations on the subject, the Devil has no real purpose in the Universe, and bears only what power we, as human beings, lend it.

I find it interesting that the most profound failure to reconcile the Devil to theology comes within the Catholic philosophy, but this is a result of perfect knowledge and immutable will. The Protestant experience, however, hasn't helped much. It seems what Protestantism accomplished was a slicing away of the Bible, of ritual, and of demonstrative faith and just went on with life. Questions of the Devil don't seem to strike within the Protestant experience, and unlike the hard-wrought Catholic effort, when questions of the Devil are put to the Protestant experience, it doesn't really try that hard. It's observably part of what makes people accuse Protestantism of being polytheistic. The Devil is believed in on faith, or else discounted in a broader salvation scheme. In fact, statistics show (http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=66&Reference=B) that a majority of American Christians disbelieve a living, actual being of the Devil. An interesting commentary on another survey bears the original headline, Poll Shows Protestant Collapse (http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html). (I think it's another survey by the same group; some of the numbers are the same, but the sample size is different.)

Nonetheless, we see that matters of the Devil are left largely to the barbaric televangelist and stump crowds, though I doubt they form the whole 42% of of those who believe in the Devil. And it seems that from the more reactive elements of Christianity we find the Devil is apparently everywhere; books, interracial marriages, punk rock, Catholicism (per SDA literature), Bill Clinton (as I recall once seeing a picket-sign reading; ever see those guys at the baseball game?) .... Wild superstition and an absence of any ... um ... daresay rational consideration of the Devil only contribute to its power.

The necessity of the Devil is simply explained: The Devil arises as a result of an earlier philosophical conundrum. God, who had perfect knowledge and immutable will, was also Goodness. How does one account for the appearance of evil in the world? The Devil and such superstitions are only iconographic representations of the human refusal to admit that good and evil transcend our ability to comprehend. To endure the conundrum, one must first resign themselves to the faith that they understand God's plan well enough to have insight into His considerations of Good and Evil. So a tree falls in the forest. Or a comet hits your kitty. What, in terms of the whole of the Universe, does it matter? Who, aside from you and the cat, really gives a damn? Humans are irrational and selfish. In terms of whether it is good or evil that a little girl is taken from her family and killed by the neighbor, what does it matter in the scheme of the Universe? It matters to us, for reasons we have chosen to make important. But trying to reconcile the idea of God's goodness and mercy against evil in the world (for nothing happens without the will of God), people apparently figured out that scapegoat theory worked better than admitting humans aren't as bright as we would like to be.

The Devil is an excuse, at best. On the other hand, it seems that the Devil is the true redeemer, suffering daily for a sadistic justice so that Christians might have something better to hope for. What a waste.

But by and large, the power of the Devil is only the power that people give him. And if my suspicion that people create gods is correct, then the polytheistic Christian savages will have nobody to blame but themselves. It is perhaps to the benefit of mankind that American Christians seem to be putting their Devil to death. And the Devil will thank them to do so, for then he can get some effing rest!

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa is there a book you haven't read?

I'm guessing no.:D Good points, too.

tiassa,

• Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan.

Just thought I'd comment on this while I'm on my break,

I've read this book. Have it on my shelf right now. VERY good book, does a wonderful job of explaining how Satan was used by the early Christians ( and some would argue the modern ones too ) to dehumanize other people ( mainly those who didn't believe as they did )

I'd highly recommend it to any nontheist interested. :)

Muchos Gracias, tiassa.

That is a lot of help, essentialy what I was looking for.

However, I don't think that the devil is just the answer for the evil in the world once theists believed in God as being absolute good. Everything like good needs a contrast. Without evil there is no good, without cold there is no hot. You need a comparison or the words are meaningless.

"How can you understand God if you can't believe in his supreme adversary?" - Misquoted End of Days

P.S. I have read Faust, very good play.

Everything like good needs a contrast. Without evil there is no good, without cold there is no hot.Observably, this is correct. But why must it be that way?

Goodness can be if it is the only thing in the Universe; the dualism of Good/Evil is not necessary. Especially when we look in terms of the religious. That evil is necessary only serves toward defining the good and, necessarily, reserving it to those boundaries. Within the Judeo-Christian framework, if God is timeless as per alpha/omega, and also sundry trivial theology, how could God have not intended things to go as badly as they did at Eden? The presence of evil helps us none toward the end of living well, but rather serves to make us appreciate goodness in comparison to its lack. I think the icy comets would still orbit fiery stars with or without the human moral structure. Is evil truly a natural condition in the Universe, or does its presence depend on one's ability to distinguish good from evil?

Is this really the only way that God could do it? Why? What principle restricts God's possibility? We can safely conclude that the applied theology is one chosen by God, that the cosmology is a matter of God's will. Thus, in the Christian scheme, It is by God's will that humankind should have fallen and God's will that a Redeemer is necessary. It seems that the presence of good and evil only serve to encourage alignment with God, a praising of His name, and an appreciation of His mercy.

The Devil is a scapegoat for an unnecessary condition. Or so says me ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Good thoughts on the subject.

God and Satan are like yin and yang, metaphores for the bipolar energies that make up this physical reality. The creative and the destructive. Light and darkness. Love and fear. :)
Then sometimes , like now, one of the energies has gained in on the other, an imbalance has occured, which will result in a chaotic period of time until there´s balance again and then it will probably shift over to the other side for a while. Like a rocking chair, you must tip it back and forth, to make it rock, which is its purpose, to give us a pleasant ride. :)

Are you then saying that God and the devil both have small bits of each other in them? Like the Yin Yang. That would dissolve their "absolute" good or evil ideas.

They are the same, but different.

hang on,

The bible syas that god is more powerful than satan if they are yin and yang they should be equal right?

I had no idea you were a Bible believer Neutrino...:eek:
Yes, they are equal.

Im not i just find it a good sourse of anti-religion evidence ;)

I believe the forces they represent are equal. Besides I suppose Satan could get more followers while God could get a smller amount of better people. Is it really quality or quantity?

Oh well.

Satan's passe, Yahweh's a barbaric murderer, but Cthulhu loves you. In his house at R'yleh dead Cthulhu lies dreaming, but he shall wake again and his kingdom will cover the earth. And you can become part of this kingdom! Get right with Cthulhu today!

Cthulhu fhtagn!

A combination of Lovecraft and Jack Chick's Bible tracts makes Xev an odd girl.

Cactus: Goethe's Faust? Excellent.

Now, according to the Bible, and the story of Job, God allows Satan to roam - presumably to test believers*. In other verses, the Devil is described as an adversary, who walks about seeking to devour the faithfull, who must resist him and remain faithfull. However, the fallen angels are also described as being 'tied up'** in Hell. Eventually, in Revalations, the Devil is defeated and cast into a bottomless pit.

So it seems reasonable to assume that a Christian would solve this problem by saying that:

"God allows the Devil to roam, but is stronger than the Devil. The Devil is not stronger than an Angel, for, after all, Micheal and the other angels defeat the Dragon in Revalations. If the Devil seems stronger than an angel, that is because people have free will and choose to follow the Devil."

Any good? I don't believe any of this, of course.

*Yeah yeah, why would an omnipotent God need to 'test' anything? It's the Bible! What'choo expecting it to make sense for!

**Hmmm, hm hm hm.

Originally posted by Xev
"God allows the Devil to roam, but is stronger than the Devil. The Devil is not stronger than an Angel, for, after all, Micheal and the other angels defeat the Dragon in Revalations. If the Devil seems stronger than an angel, that is because people have free will and choose to follow the Devil."

Thanx Xev, Exactly what I wanted answered.

P.S. Have you read the Inferno by Dante? And Incredible book no matter what religion you are.

Does it make sense, Cactus?

Yeah, I've read the Inferno. Creepy, good book. Have you read Paradise Lost?

Yeah makes perfect sense.

No, I haven't read Paradise Lost, really want to. Is it as good as the Inferno?

Cactus: In my opinion, even better. Especially Milton's devil:

He with his thunder; and till then who knew
The force of those dire arms? Yet not for those,
Nor what the potent Victor in his rage
Can else inflict, do I repent, or change,
Though changed in outward lustre, that fixed mind,
And high disdain from sense of injured merit,
That with the Mightiest raised me to contend,
And to the fierce contentions brought along
Innumerable force of Spirits armed,
That durst dislike his reign, and, me preferring,
His utmost power with adverse power opposed
In dubious battle on the plains of Heaven,
And shook his throne. What though the field be lost?
All is not lost--the unconquerable will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield:
And what is else not to be overcome?
That glory never shall his wrath or might
Extort from me. To bow and sue for grace
With suppliant knee, and deify his power
Who, from the terror of this arm, so late
Doubted his empire--that were low indeed;
That were an ignominy and shame beneath
This downfall; since, by fate, the strength of Gods,
And this empyreal sybstance, cannot fail;
Since, through experience of this great event,
In arms not worse, in foresight much advanced,
We may with more successful hope resolve
To wage by force or guile eternal war,
Irreconcilable to our grand Foe,
Who now triumphs, and in th' excess of joy
Sole reigning holds the tyranny of Heaven."
So spake th' apostate Angel, though in pain,

Satan, defeated yet unrepentant. I like.

Here, there's an online text here:

http://www.everypoet.com/archive/poetry/John_Milton/milton_contents.htm

Cool, Thanx Xev.

No prob.

Ever notice that the Devil is a more appealing mythical figure than God? I mean, we have 'Sympathy for the Devil', devil costumes, Milton's devil is oh-so-sympathetic -

What is it? Is it just a sense of 'badness'? Or does Lucifer, defient and unrepentant, strike a chord for some reason?

P.S: I am listening to 'Sympathy' as I type this.

I think there is not only something rebelious about him, but something inherently sexual (Think Vampires). Also he is a more tangible, coherent (maybe not best word) being. Because hes a fallen angel who in stories takes on the appearence of a man he is more real. There are Satan costumes because truely you can't have God costumes.

P.S. Ever heard the Jane's Addiction cover of Sympathy? Awesome. I've seen them live.

There are angel costumes - but hardly as popular as devil costumes. And an angel is just as tangible as the devil - a fallen angel, after all.

Yeah, I guess there is somthing sexual about demons and devils and vampires - I wonder why? Is it the feeling of menace? Is there somthing sexually stimulating in being scared?

I think there must be.

P.S: Never heard that cover. I'll try to find it.

sadomasochism

Fear and pain* oedipus. Thanks, another instance.

I'm also thinking of the 'tall dark stranger' prominent in romance novels. So, my next question is:

Are men also aroused by fear?

*Nominal, or so saith my psych text. HEY! Don't look at me like that! :D

fear is the scariest thing as a child growing up.
more frightening than what you are "afraid" of
we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
culturally we are told that fear is for weaklings
so when we are actually afraid we try not to talk about it,
and that seems to make it much worse.

Originally posted by Xev
Ever notice that the Devil is a more appealing mythical figure than God?
What is it? Is it just a sense of 'badness'? Or does Lucifer, defient and unrepentant, strike a chord for some reason?
If Lucifer did exist I'd probably thank him when I met him in Hell. Personally, I'd rather be able to think and "sin" than be stupid and "good". Or to quote Dark Helmet "Evil shall always triumph because good is dumb." I always found it it rather odd that Lucifer is reviled while Prometheus was regarded a hero. Thier stories are almost identical. It seems to me that Christians would prefer being one of Huxley's Epsilons to being Alphas.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Xev
Are men also aroused by fear?

Say BOO! and I'll tell you :D

Originally posted by Xev
Are men also aroused by fear?

Not just fear. Anything.

Not just fear. Anything

Or nothing:D :D

One could say that good and peace could not be established without an idea of evil or a want to have piece, which would only come from conflict. So one cannot exist truthfully without the other, sorta. You have to have evil to have good and good to have evil, a backdrop to compare your lifestyle or whatever against.

You guys need something to be arroused?

I just need to be awake.

Oh wait.......
no I don't.

Satan is just one of Gods handymen. The story of Job shows that Satan cant do anything unless God authorises it first. God authorises Satan to go out and kill Jobs friends and family and destroy his home to allow him to test Jobs faith. I dont see how Christians can blame evil things on Satan when the book of Job shows that God has to give the green light before Satan can go roaming about preying on other people. Satan is like a pet dog. Christians always say "Well Jesus believed in the devil, he encountered Satan in the desert". Yes because Satan was despatched there by God to test Jesus' will. Well thats my two cents

THE DEVIL'S BIOGRAPHY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MYTHS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH OLD TESTAMENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE DEVIL, SATAN & LUCIFER.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christianity presents the Devil, aka Satan or Lucifer, as a fallen angel, the Prince of Light, who was cast out of Heaven following an attempt to overthrow God. Most evangelicals and many other Christian conservatives describe the Devil as an actual entity who is able to tempt mankind to sin, possess the minds and bodies of humans, and inflict physical and mental sickness. He rules over Hell and has legions of other demonic fallen angels to serve him in his works on Earth and the eternal torment of sinners who have been condemned to Hell. This entire concept is purely and exclusively New Testament (NT) and has no factual basis in any of the Old Testament (OT) scriptures. There are mentions of demonic angels in latter Hebrew Kaballa, but there is no mention of such in any of the OT. Christians constructed the Devil from myths which the Jews themselves had borrowed from the Babylonians, Philistines and Canaanites, adding a few vague references in the OT to assign names and add substance to their creation. Just a few of the many demonic figures which were combined to create Christian Devil:
1) Beelzebub, (Baal-zebub, Lord of the Flies, derived from the Hebrew 'Baal-Zevuv' in the given text) actually was one of the many Baals (Lords or Masters) worshipped by the Philistines and Canaanites. Beelzebub is a corruption of the name Baal-Zebul, which translates 'Prince Baal.' He was the god of the Philistine city Ekron, and is mentioned in the OT at 2 Kings 1:2-16, where God condemns Ahaziah for consulting with the god of the Philistines rather than with himself, God of the Jews. The OT makes no mention of anything demonic about Baal-Zebub, just Ahaziah's sin of consulting with a Philistine god rather than with his own Jewish god.

2) Asmodeus, who was considered as the prince of revengeful demons. Hebrew myth identifies him as the eldest son of the mother of all demons, Lilith (more on her later).

3) Abaddon, aka Apollyon the Destroyer, who ruled in Sheol or the Pit, which was merely a residing place for all the dead and involved neither punishment nor reward for conduct while alive.

4) Satan and Lucifer, references to both of whom are combined to create one Devil with two names. These are completely covered further down in this site.

Not a single one of the OT demons ruled over Hell as it is described by Christians or had any power to punish people after death. They could inhabit the bodies of people and do them physical harm or even cause their bodies to act sinfully during the course of the possession, but they had no power to tempt or seduce humans to sin resulting in their eternal damnation. They were merely demonic entities most of whom descended from Adam's first wife Lilith as described in ancient Hebrew tradition and/or were borrowed from other popular religions of that time.

According to ancient Hebrew legend, when Adam attempted to force Lilith to assume the passive position in sex, she refused and Adam forced her to depart. She went with Sama'el, king of all demons, and they gave birth to Asmodeus as well as a horde of other imps. She is also considered the mother of the succubus, a female demon who came to men in their sleep for sex (thus explaining nocturnal emissions), and the incubus, who came to women in their sleep for sex (thus explaining 'embarrassing' pregnancies). It was believed by Jews, even up until recent times, that Lilith killed newborn babies, and a special amulet bearing the names of the three protective angels was placed on the crib as protection from her. There are many sites on most of the search engines on the net related to Lilith. Most of the writing on Lilith is from latter Hebrew writings, mainly in the Kaballa.

The NT claims that God is the source of all that is good, and Heaven the reward for following his laws. But that was not enough to bring people into the churches and keep them coming back. The early Christians wanted an opposing force, a demon who would be the source of sin the commission of which would result in condemnation to eternity in the torments of Hell and from whom only they could save us. The problem was, none existed for which they could claim biblical authority. If they wanted a bona fide, real, righteously powerful, frightening demon who would rule over Hell eternally punishing those who defied God or disobeyed his priests, they would have to create it and do so in a way that it would at least appear to have some kind of biblical validation. And it was a problem, because OT Jews did not believe in eternal reward or punishment after death. They believed the dead resided in The Pit, The Underworld, Sheol, which was not a place of punishment or reward as described by Christians, but was instead only a place of residence for the dead as described in the Hebrew religion and in Greco-Roman mythology. The OT Jews believed one obeyed God out of love, not out of hope for reward or fear of punishment, and it records only a few specific cases in which someone was taken physically to Heaven by God. About 200 BCE the Pharisees (the Hebrew sect of which St. Paul was a member) developed and presented the dogma concerning the concept of Heaven and Hell, but this was not accepted by most of the other Jewish sects. Even to this day many Jews do not subscribe to that belief.

The Christians began with the myth in the third chapter of Genesis of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. The very plain language in the given text is that the serpent was "...the most subtle of the beasts of the field," with no mention of it being any kind of demon. The serpent's punishment for its part in the apple caper was that it forever crawl on its belly and eat dust, and there would be enmity between it and women. That's all. Nothing about being cast into a flaming pit, nothing about any other punishment except eating dust, crawling on its belly, and frightening women. (There was also no mention as to what language Eve and the serpent spoke, how it moved about before being cursed to crawl on its belly, or what it ate before being restricted to eating dust.) Hardly fitting punishment for a demon that had just destroyed God's plan for humanity. By constant repetition of the myth that the serpent in Eden was in fact the Devil, it has gained currency among all Christians and is now blindly accepted as fact. Actually it was just one of the two talking animals in the OT, Balaam's ass being the other (Numbers 22:21-35).

Building on their misrepresentation of the serpent in God's Garden, they reinterpreted the few vague references to Satan and Lucifer in the OT and combined them with very old myths of the Hebrews, Philistines and other religions and created a super demon they called the Devil. They built on several vague references in the OT to "The Serpent" and claimed these references were actually to the serpent in God's Garden. The word "serpent" is used only thirty times in the OT. Most of those cannot possibly refer to a demon. Those that could have such a reference all issued from the ancient Babylonian myth which reported the god Ba'al Marduk as having slain a great serpent or dragon named Tiamat whose body he used to form the earth. This legend would have been known both to the early Hebrews who immigrated to Canaan from Mesopotamia and to the later authors of Genesis during their captivity in Babylon. As time passed, the Christians made the Devil more and more awesome, giving him the power to tempt people to sin, giving him kingship of Hell with legions of demons to do his bidding, adding more and more substance to his existence and greater powers to use against mankind.

There are two references to Satan and in only one single verse is the name "Lucifer" mentioned in the OT, none of which identify either of them either of them as fallen angels or demons or kings of Hell, and none of which seems to give either of them any kind of direct power over humans. We will examine every one of these references and you yourselves can determine their meaning and relevance. You may check my biblical references at The Bible Browser

Neither the OT King James Version (KJV) nor the Revised Standard Version (RSV) mention the word "devil" in any chapter or verse. The word "devil" (actually "Diablos") is the word for Adversary in Greek, the language of the New Testament; the name "Satan" is the word for Adversary in the Aramaic/Hebrew language of the Old Testament; both words mean the exact same thing in two different languages.

The KJV of the OT does not mention the word "demon." The RSV does mention "demon" at Deut. 32:17: "They sacrificed to demons which were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come in of late, whom your fathers had never dreaded." Also the RSV in Psalm 106:37: "They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood." In both cases, the references in the RSV seem to be to unnamed false or unknown gods rather than demonic entities of some sort.

Satan is the principal figure in both the KJV and RSV translations of the OT Book of Job, which we will examine below. The only other mention of that name is in the RSV at Zech. 3:1: "Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, 'The LORD rebuke you! is not this a brand plucked from the fire?" This clearly places Satan in Heaven at the right hand of God, apparently being criticized by God concerning an accusation he (Satan) had brought against a high priest named Joshua. It does not in any way indicate that Satan was a demon or a fallen angel or the king of Hell. Instead, it pretty much establishes the fact that Satan was actually a member of the Heavenly Court in direct service to God, acting as a spy and prosecutor of humans: The Adversary against man, not against God.

In the Book of Job, one of the finest works of ancient literature extant, God and Satan are engaged in an obviously amiable dialog about the nature of man. Satan is claiming that if enough calamity befell a believer, he would lose his faith in God. God believes the opposite. To settle the dispute, they arbitrarily select Job, a good and honest man who loves God. With God's specific permission, Satan sets about destroying Job. The important factor here is that Satan had to have God's specific permission each separate time before the numerous temptings and tormentings of Job, and again, that Satan was indeed a respected and welcome member of the Heavenly Court serving God as prosecutor or adversary against man. The story does go on to relate that all was eventually made right with Job, the innocent victim of this divine debate, but even so it does not speak very well of God to have allowed a good and faithful servant to have been subjected to such horrible torment for so many years simply to resolve a philosophical debate between him and his agent Satan. In any case, a reasonable person reading this story would have to conclude that Satan cannot tempt or otherwise do harm to humans without God's specific permission in each individual case. And please note, if Satan was in Heaven serving God during the lifetime of Job, he could not have been the serpent in the Garden of Eden during the lifetime of Adam and Eve.

The KJV was largely based on the work of St. Jerome, aka Eusebius Hieronymous, who translated the Bible into Latin in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Jerome made the determination that Lucifer was a fallen angel and that Satan and Lucifer are indeed the same individual. He then arbitrarily combined them into the Christian Devil which was eventually adopted as dogma throughout the early Church. Lucifer is not mentioned by that name anyplace in either the OT or NT of the RSV, which identifies him only as "Day Star, Son of Dawn." Jerome's opinion relied on a single passage in the KJV at Isaiah 14:4-22, but anyone adventurous enough to read that section in its entirety for themselves would find that Lucifer (the RSV's "Day Star, Son of Dawn") was an evil human king who was cast into the already existing Hell. In order that it be fairly presented, this entire biblical section is reported below rather than the truncated version taken from the second section which is used by preachers because it can be twisted to support their personal, individual version of how things should be rather than how they actually are. This citation is presented in its entirety with no omissions or editing save a few emphatic indicators. Check it for yourselves at the Bible Browser

Isaiah 14:4-22: "That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the scepter of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou are laid down, no feller (sic) is come up against us. Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou has said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth tremble, that did shake kingdoms; that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

"All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase (sic) trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD."

The name Lucifer, italicized and underlined above, is the only place in the entire Bible where that name appears, but it has through the centuries become the basis for the Christian Devil even though it clearly refers to a human king of Babylon who had been evil and goes on to describe how he will be viewed by the inhabitants of the Underworld when he arrives there. He is not presented here as the king of Hell or even as a demon of any kind, but instead is presented as a human king who believes himself to be superior to God and wishes to ascend to Heaven from Earth where he clearly abides. According to most legitimate scholars, "Lucifer" refers to the Babylonian King Helel (Hebrew: "Heyleyl"), which translates "Morning Star, son of Dawn" as related in the RSV version of the above KJV account. Some other scholars believe it refers to the despised King Nebuchadnezzar, others as an evil king named Tiglath-pileser, and others as a king of Tyre.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly and unambiguously states that Lucifer is not the name of the Devil. Throughout recorded history, Lucifer was the common name for the morning star, Venus the name for the same heavenly body at night. Venus the Evening Star, Lucifer the Day Star, bringer of light. As further evidence that Lucifer was not considered as a demonic figure until the time of St. Jerome, there was a Christian bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia named Lucifer in the 4th or 5th century, slightly before the emergence of St. Jerome as a theologian. No Christian prelate would have taken the name "Lucifer" if it had demonic connotations.

And finally, "Lucifer" is a Latin word appearing in a book of the Bible written in Hebrew/Aramaic by people who did not speak Latin and could not have done so because it did not then exist as a language. The bottom line: Lucifer was a human king of Babylon in both the KJV and RSV Bible versions, which means that he, like Satan, could not have been the serpent in Eden.

An excellent site with a complete explanation of the source of the demonic concept and the confusing etymology of the names of these two individuals can be examined at Lucifer and Satan. See also the definition in Encarta of Lucifer.

If the Christians are correct in their belief that Lucifer was cast out of Heaven and into Hell for attempting to rebel against God, one must ask why God would then allow him to leave Hell and come to Earth and bring misfortune upon mankind. If we are creatures with free will to sin or behave, then sending a powerful demonic force to tempt us unfairly interferes with the free will he gave us. Why, if he loves us, would he subject us to continuous demonic temptation to commit sin? Wouldn't God want us to succeed? Isn't life already an ongoing exercise in temptation? Is it fair to add to this a demon who will by some kind of insidious manipulation cause us to give in to sin? Why would God allow us to be the direct recipients of the punishment of the Devil's crime while rewarding the Devil himself with extensive powers to bring about that punishment? Why would God expect his believers to be able to withstand temptation when his own representatives here on Earth, such as Swaggert and Jim and Tammy Faye and Robert Tilton and Peter Popoff and the myriad of other fallen preachers, could themselves not fight off the temptation to steal and lie and commit adultery?

If any angel had offended God, God could have destroyed him as he did so many humans who offended him throughout the OT. If God could create the entire universe in six days, he could surely uncreate one unruly angel in a split second and not even need to rest after doing it. And one must also ask, if Lucifer was thrown out of Heaven for attempted revolution, why was he then renamed Satan and made welcome at the throne of God and allowed to advise God about anything or anybody? Why would God engage this evil rebel in what was obviously amiable discourse?

Even if these ridiculous interpretations were true, what would be in it for the Devil by any name to tempt people into sin resulting in their sentence to an eternity of pain and suffering in Hell? What does the Devil get out of it? How can this improve his own situation? When he does that, isn't he putting himself in the position of taking orders from his sworn enemy, God? If the Devil is indeed the Prince of Light with extraordinary intelligence, surely he has read John's Revelation and knows that he is doomed to lose his second war with God just as he lost the first one.

The Devil's punishment for losing the first war with God according to the Christian tradition (not according to the Bible): he was given the ability to assume any shape or form, the power to possess the body and mind of humans, the power to cause sickness, the power to tempt humans to sin so he can ultimately claim their souls. He rules over Hell with legions of demons to serve him, and can torture sinners throughout all eternity. The only thing that will change after John's Revelation comes to pass will be that he will no longer have to tempt people to sin because he will already have all the sinners in Hell with him. So losing the second war with God will actually reduce his work load. Not really all that bad a gig, considering it was punishment for twice trying to take over heaven.

The Christians have even gone so far as to invent a physical description of the Devil: half man, half goat, with horns, cloven hooves and a tail. This is of course found nowhere in the Bible; it is purely a Christian invention based on the physical description of the Roman pastoral god Pan, who was very popular with the rural Europeans at the time the early Christians were trying to gain a foothold in that area. To draw people away from Pan and his pagan followers, the Christians demonized him by giving their newly invented Devil his physical description.

An interesting aside: The only demons who were believed able to 'possess' humans were spirits with no physical form. When the producers of the movie "The Exorcist" needed a demonic figure for dramatic effect, they chose the Mesopotamian god Pazuzu, a winged demon with a deformed head, the wings of an eagle, the sharp claws of a lion on its hands and feet, and the tail of a scorpion. This demon was actually only the personification of the south-east storm wind which was believed to bring diseases. He lived in the desert and was not reported to ever have had any direct contact with humans. He got cast for the part in the movie only because of his frightening appearance. Another reputation ruined for the sake of entertainment.

The demonizing of other people's gods and religions continues even today, the pagan Wiccans for just one example, who are identified by ill-informed Christians as being demon worshippers in league with the Devil. Recently Pat Robertson during one of his frequent diatribes on his 700 Club television show said that Buddhists and Shintos and Hindus are "demon driven" and the entire evangelical movement makes the same claim about the Mormons, whose religion they refer to as a cult. Many evangelicals claim that the Pope and Mother Teressa are bound for Hell because they have not accepted Jesus as their personal savior by being 'born again,' and during the early days of our nation Catholicism was considered by many Protestants as a cult. On the other hand, Pope John Paul II recently declared that Catholicism was the only way to heaven. Go figure!

Consider: There are numerous specific writings and God knows how many lurid sermons that describe what awaits sinners in Hell: eternal fire and endless torture, physical punishment by pitchfork wielding demons, unbearable pain and suffering lasting for all eternity. Compare these with the descriptions of Heaven. About the best I could find has Heaven's inhabitants with wings wearing white robes walking on golden streets or sitting around on clouds playing harps and singing God's praises. There will be no sex in heaven according to most evangelical preachers, nothing to do but just hang out, watching Falwell and Robertson trying to kiss up to Jesus. It is obvious that the punishments awaiting sinners in Hell are of much more interest to the many Christians than the rewards awaiting the faithful in Heaven. One might go so far to to opine that seeing the sinners get their punishment is of much greater importance to them than seeing the righteous get their rewards.

Evil lies within us. We have the free will to succumb to it or to reject it, and we alone bear the responsibility for our decision. The Christian concept of forgiveness on request, like a drive-thru fast food stand, makes it too easy to sin without fear of divine retribution. Commit adultery or theft or practice deceit all week long and go to church on Sunday, be forgiven and ready and able to start clean the next day.

The renowned satirist, author and critic of organized religion, Mark Twain, wrote an excellent short story entitled "The Mysterious Stranger." In this satire Satan, named after his uncle, the biblical Satan, is himself an angel in good standing with the Heavenly Court acting as God's representative and/or agent on Earth as described in the biblical references, having apparently inherited the job after his Uncle Satan was tossed out. Satan, of course, is used in this story as a metaphor for God himself. The story is wickedly sarcastic and cynical regarding the human race, and is considered by many as one of the best satires ever written. Finally, please consider the difference between Satanists and devil worshippers. The Satanists are a pagan religion with established dogma, are not anti Christian, and do no harm. The devil worshippers are for the most part semi-literate sociopaths who believe they can gain some kind of fearful aura by identifying themselves as cohorts of the devil. They use this pseudo religion to sell pornography, to give expression to their innate hatefulness, and to attempt to acquire some kind of significant identity which would otherwise be unavailable to them. Some are so incredibly ignorant that they have actually written me congratulating me for my excellent article, having been unable to comprehend that it actually argues that the devil as an entity does not exist at all.

Revised 06-15-01

all © to http://www.home.earthlink.net/~robwir

Hey, I found that site too a while back. I'm glad someone here has taken notice of it. There is a site written by a Jewish person that explains their views on Satan too. (i.e. an agent of God despatched out to test his followers). It uses a good comparison with Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory

http://www.beingjewish.com/basics/satan.html

What I don't understand is there's Revelation, we have to wait. If Satan is the supreme evil why doesn't God destroy him now? Maybe he provides a key function to help select who is allowed into God's kingdom.

please read the article I posted. It's worth it:)

I did, very interesting...Must have missed that part will look over again.

the idea is tht satan is not an supreme-evil. read it again.

Cactus: Revalations is soley a Christian book, not Jewish.

Basically, yeah, God (in Christianity) allows Satan to 'test' the faithfull.

Ah....... Muchos Gracias Xev.

Well now that we've all proved that the devil is a myth, whats next? Anything else in Christianity that needs exposing? :cool:

Why didn't Jesus become a Traveling Magician?

well he did his opening act in rome...

.....Before the Romans and the Pharacies, but alas it did not please them in their hearts. They absolutley crucified him.

We bad, super bad :cool:

Note: The last two posts by Oedipus and myself are quoting Rowan Atkinson stand up.

He said unto the lord,
"Do you do Children's parties?"

(its and inquired of him, but anyway)

"And the Lord said, no."

(back at you) "and took he forth a saw......"