de-conversion

56 Comments Add your own

• 1. Tommykey  |  April 3, 2008 at 11:22 pm

  When I first read Job, it seemed almost as if God and Satan were, if not buddies, were at least on cordial terms. I got the impression that Satan was like God’s court jester.

• 2. roopster  |  April 3, 2008 at 11:29 pm

  LOL… the pingbacks showed up in my email from “Satan.” Maybe I was wrong

• 3. Quester  |  April 3, 2008 at 11:33 pm

  I often found my curiosity sparked by discussions about Satan and Lucifer: were they the same entity and if not how did they differ and how did they relate. It was never something that concerned me as more than an intellectual exercise, though. God trumped Satan, so I didn’t worry about him.

• 4. roopster  |  April 3, 2008 at 11:36 pm

  Quester,

  I always viewed Lucifer, Satan, the devil, etc. as one and the same being. Also, we had the belief that satan was the “god of this world” therefore God trumping him wasn’t so much of a reality but a constant battle. It was a little fuzzy as to who was behind natural disasters, etc.

  Paul

• 5. Quester  |  April 3, 2008 at 11:57 pm

  Paul,

  Somehow, I’d never really heard the “god of this world” argument until just last year. What I’d been taught instead was that Satan only had as much power as you’d allow him, and if you kept yourself focused on God, Satan would have no power over you at all.

  When I was in seminary, I preached a sermon on Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness, where he was tempted by Satan. I had two students and a professor come and talk to me later (separately, not all three at once), troubled by my speaking of Satan as if he really existed. I couldn’t understand how they could think Satan didn’t exist, but Jesus did, while the information about both came from the same text. In their turn, they couldn’t understand how I couldn’t understand it. It was obvious to them that Jesus was real and Satan an anthropomorphic figure of myth. I didn’t argue with them, but gave this a fair amount of thought.

• 6. Cthulhu  |  April 4, 2008 at 12:53 am

  roopster,

  Excellent post - I was astonished that god would make a wager with lucifer…a mere fallen angel and use his creation’s soul as the bet!!! Sheesh…the weak junk I used to believe.

  Brad

• 7. Gary  |  April 4, 2008 at 1:10 am

  LOL, I was actually considering posting it here, but wondered whether it might be a little out of place! The reason I didn’t include Job is because I have read that satan, which is Hebrew for the accuser, is not the same character as the later-developed Satan of the New Testament. It would be appropriate for inclusion, given that most Christians do see them as one and the same, but it just didn’t fit the narrative well.

  The importance of producing The Grand Myth of Lucifer for me was to demonstrate it as a metanarrative of Christian theology, which is usually left unsaid and unexamined. If you take the devil out of Christianity, you end up with huge gaps.

• 8. Ed Darrell  |  April 4, 2008 at 4:47 am

  One may want to note that “Lucifer” in the Bible doesn’t refer to the Tempter, or a fallen angel, but instead to a king of Babylon, who was known as the “son of the morning star” as a deific. Who first associated the alias of the king with the devil? Why does it continue today?

• 9. Oubaas  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:30 am

  Lucifer seems to be the main character in this theology. Without him, Jesus would not have been necessary. But without (pre) Jesus, Lucifer was necessary to keep everyone in their proper place. Which confirms the suspicion of Stendhal that “all religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.”

• 10. roopster  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:40 am

  One may want to note that “Lucifer” in the Bible doesn’t refer to the Tempter, or a fallen angel, but instead to a king of Babylon, who was known as the “son of the morning star” as a deific. Who first associated the alias of the king with the devil? Why does it continue today?

  Like everything else in the Bible, it’s all about interpretation. This, of course, was put together based on Jesus statement on seeing Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

  Paul

• 11. abutua  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:45 am

  I’m not a Christian, but I would agree that Satan is a mythical creature in the Christian tradition. From a conversation with a conservative friend, I realized that what controls one’s action to do evil is not Satan or the devil, but the original sin. However, I disagree with the idea of original sin. Everyone is born innocent. God is just, and why would He inflict our ancestors’ sins upon us? That doesn’t sound like justice to me.

• 12. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 7:22 am

  A few thoughts:

  I still occassionally listen to Raul Rees adn Hank Hanagraaf during my commute to work. I try to take them seriously, but whenever they bring up The Devil or Satan… I gotta tell you… it just sounds incredibly silly and juvenile. As mythology, it made sense to the ancient world, but I don’t see what place it has in the 21st century. As a De-Convert, I now know why people found Flip WIlson’s old line ‘The Devile made me do it’ so funny - people marvel that Christians *really* believe in the existance of this being. Of course, Christians would have us think that by laughing at the existance of the Devil, we are doing exactly as he wishes. Satan would like nothing more than to laugh at his existance, right? *sigh*

  I was reading Levitucus the other night, and found a forgotten name of the Devil to place along side our Favorites like Lucifer and Satan. Check out Levitcus 16 for the scapegoat ceremony involving the evil spirit ‘Azazel’. Really interesting stuff!

  Does anybody *still* believe that Lucifer from Isaiah 14:12 is another name of the Devil? Does any Christian ask what a Latin name is doing in a Hebrew Bible? Isn’t Light Bearer or Day Star now used in all Bible translations except King James which keeps ‘Lucifer’? I think so, but it is apparantly such a hard myth to let go of. Sheesh, even the NIV has ‘morning star’ instead of Lucifer.

  I now point to Venus, and rightly call it Lucifer - just like the ancients did.

  Isn’t Jesus called Lucifer in Revelation when he is described as the ‘Light Bearer’? I think so. Does anybody have a Latin Bible to check this?

  Satan, the greatest myth in the Bible? Nah. That prize belongs to the afterlife, particularly Hell.

• 13. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 7:26 am

  Retraction:
  I just checked Rev 22:16

  NIV:
  “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

  Latin Vulgate:
  ego Iesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego sum radix et genus David stella splendida et matutina

  Lucifer fit there in Isaiah but not Revelation.

• 14. Jonathan Blake  |  April 4, 2008 at 8:06 am

  ReligiousTolerance.org has a good article on the development of the Satan myth which has a long history.

• 15. Jonathan Blake  |  April 4, 2008 at 8:09 am

  Oh, and don’t miss the second half of the article (the first part doesn’t have a link to the second).

• 16. TheNorEaster  |  April 4, 2008 at 8:50 am

  Might have been a better post if you had thorougly researched “demonic possession” in the past century or so. I’d certainly like to see an explanation for that.

• 17. Will Entrekin  |  April 4, 2008 at 9:05 am

  I’m surprised no one’s yet mentioned the true origin of the Biblical Lucifer myth. Whichever book it is that first mentions him (besides Genesis), it’s actually a translation of the Ishtar myth (i.e., Venus). Hence: the morning star. During certain months, Venus (the morning star) appears to rise and then “to fall from the heavens.”

  I wish I had the cite, but I’m open in, like, 9 tabs. Google fu should be pretty quick.

• 18. Gary  |  April 4, 2008 at 9:45 am

  The devil code is far easier to crack than The Da Vinci Code, IMO
  Thanks for the links Jonathan, it’s fascinating to see how the history differs from the interpretation.

• 19. Richard  |  April 4, 2008 at 10:58 am

  Many Chrisitans also never notice that there is no identification in the text itself between the serpent in the Garden of Eden and the Devil. It just says “serpent.” This came to my attention when studying Judaism, where it has never been part of the tradiditon that the snake was Satan.

• 20. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 11:33 am

  It was some months after my decision to de-convert that I happened to hear my wife reading Roman mythology to the kids. I can’t quote exactly, but what I heard was roughly this, “Then Lucifer, the Bright and Morning Star, did arise, and lead his host, the stars of heaven.” (Note, I’m going from memory and probably conjoined some passages that were further apart in the actual text.)

  Until that moment I never knew that Lucifer was a minor deity in the Roman/Greek pantheons. So I went a looked it up. This is what I found out.

  LUCIFER in Roman mythology is called the “Son of the Dawn” and the “Bright Morning Star”. He is the ‘Bearer of Light’ and God of the Evening Star and Morning Star. In the Greek pantheon he is know as the gleaming God PHOSPHEROS.

  There are also references in older mythologies. Notably in the East.

  So one more nail in the coffin for my former beliefs.

• 21. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 11:34 am

  NorEaster:

  Might have been a better post if you had thorougly researched “demonic possession” in the past century or so. I’d certainly like to see an explanation for that.

  Study psychology.

• 22. Mike  |  April 4, 2008 at 12:47 pm

  Roopster,

  As always, a good article that raises some relevant questions. There are a number of ancient near east myths that are mirrored in the Old Testament account of events. But I have to ask, why does that necessarily invalidate the account? Let me offer an analogy:

  I go hiking in the mountains up in Canada, and while on a trail, through a clearing of trees I can see a bear laying out in the sun on a rock ledge. When describing this image to you, I say that the bear was in his “thinking spot.”

  Now the language I use in desribing the event is chosen by me to evoke in your mind a connection to Winnie the Pooh, clearly a fictional character. But the fact that my language mirrors a fictional account doesnt mean that I didnt see the bear resting on the ledge. So why is it that when we approach the biblical account and we see names of ancient Gods used to describe Satan, we then think Satan was a concept stolen from those other ancient cultures, and therefore ultimately a false aspect of Christianity? Are there no other explanations for what could have happened?

• 23. mewho  |  April 4, 2008 at 1:23 pm

  Mike,

  Why would the Bible’s revelation be special, if, indeed, there are suggestions that Satan is not an original, “God-breathed” concept delivered to us through God’s inspired Word? If earlier texts reveal a concept that later Bible writers adopted, how is it that the Bible could have only been inspired by God? It doesn’t seem to be that profound of a Book if it borrowed from the cultures around it what those cultures had invented earlier.

  Portions of the Bible appear inspired, but not by God. If the Satan character evolves as one progresses through Scripture, and if this Character is pre-dated by other “Satan-like” models, than Satan’s existence is not revealed to humanity through the Bible, but rather through other works of Ancient literature. Bible writers incorporating the idea of Satan into their writings looks more like plaguerism and less like divine revelation.

  I’m always intrigued by how people have to defend the Divine origins of the Bible. If it is TRULY Divine, it should need no defense. A book authored by the Creator of the Universe would be so profound as to utterly astonish us with breathtaking clarity and revelation. View pictures from the Hubble telescope and then compare them with the Bible and I bet you will be utterly unimpressed that the same God could have created BOTH. To find Biblical stories and concepts in earlier, pre-bible literature is strange, and should give pause to every believer of it’s Divine origins.

• 24. Cthulhu  |  April 4, 2008 at 1:40 pm

  mewho,

  View pictures from the Hubble telescope and then compare them with the Bible and I bet you will be utterly unimpressed that the same God could have created BOTH.

  Well said…

• 25. Mike  |  April 4, 2008 at 1:43 pm

  Mewho,

  “To find Biblical stories and concepts in earlier, pre-bible literature is strange, and should give pause to every believer of it’s Divine origins”

  This is a great point and any believer in Christianity needs to take this to heart. It is strange to see this happen, but as I described there can be other reasons for mirroring the language than pure “plaguerism.” However, it would be equally silly to assume that there is a cookie-cutter reason for each example of a mirrored mythology. Sometimes it is a polemic against a particular mythology, sometimes it is merely setting the record straight, other times it is indicating that the person being described is greater than the earlier, similar telling elsewhere.

  “I’m always intrigued by how people have to defend the Divine origins of the Bible. If it is TRULY Divine, it should need no defense. ”

  This is an interesting statement, and I think it stems from the over-privelege with which you assess your own place in the story. In a court of law, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and a witness’s testimony is assumed true unless it can be contradicted. The Bible provides a witness that we must begin by assuming it is true. It is completely fair to cross-examine it and see if there are any holes in the story (one of the reasons I really appreciate this blog). But it is unfair to think that in that process there wouldnt be people willing to advocate for the story. Their presence in the process doesnt invalidate the story at all, it merely shows that while there are good questions that people should be asking about the text (like the one you posed above), they dont invalidate the testimony. Because you come in at the place of cross-examination, that doesnt mean that critical doubt is the initial view to have regarding the Biblical account, it is the second step in the process.

  I guess in a related vein, what way do you believe Divine revelation should be free from defense?

• 26. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 2:10 pm

  pure “plaguerism.”

  Had to point out one of the funnier ’spellos’ I’ve seen lately.

• 27. Shannon LEwis  |  April 4, 2008 at 2:20 pm

  You actually think that the ‘devil’ appears to be on equal terms with God in the book of Job? Wow - that sure is an interesting reading of those passages. Seems to me that if the Devil needs permission from God to do ANYTHING, and God draws the lines on how far He can go, he’s not much more than a pet. A battle in Heaven? Not a very intense one - a sleeper, to be sure.

• 28. TheNorEaster  |  April 4, 2008 at 2:45 pm

  On Leo #21:

  I knew you were going to say that.

  Nothing ever changes here.

• 29. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 3:08 pm

  NorEaster:

  The point is that 100s of years ago, people would have seen someone in a psychotic rage, or having an epileptic fit and would have had no idea what was going on. Even today we are often unable to pinpoint reasons for brain disorders (is it biochemical, structural, post-trauma, organic???), So who can blame people with little to no knowledge of chemistry or anatomy for proposing spiritual forces to explain such things? Especially if they lived in a superstitious society.

• 30. Stephen P  |  April 4, 2008 at 3:28 pm

  The Bible provides a witness that we must begin by assuming it is true.

  No, we are under no obligation to assume any such thing. A far more reasonable starting point is that we do not know which parts are true and which are myth / propaganda / wishful thinking / misunderstanding, and so we do not make assumptions.

• 31. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm

  The Bible provides a witness that we must begin by assuming it is true.

  I noted this too. Why would anyone adopt such a presupposition???

• 32. tonalddrump  |  April 4, 2008 at 4:03 pm

  Satan is real. He is alive inside you!

  God loves it when we Fuck each other.He gets to watch.

  http://tonalddrump.wordpress.com/

  BTW Christians are very sexually repressed.

  BTW Do what you are told and never question.

• 33. mewho  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:34 pm

  Leo,

  I’m annoyed with myself because I can never remember how plagiarism is spelled. It looked right to me.

  Mike,

  I guess in a related vein, what way do you believe Divine revelation should be free from defense?

  Divine revelation should be unambiguous, so extraordinary and wonderful that it could be nothing else. I’ll use the illustration of the “weeping” statues of the Virgin Mary. Do you believe this is God communicating with us? People who defend that view are in an odd position because any miracle so vague is not that impressive. I think the very fact that believers have to defend it as a true miracle negates it as one. It isn’t impressive. It’s uninspiring as the work of an All-Powerful Creator. The very fact that it’s so unclear as to need human defenders makes it less likely to me that it’s from any god. Any true miracle wouldn’t need people to explain it, defend it, talk it up, or interpret it. There should be no debate. I dare say there should be no doubters.

  But these statues can be humanly manipulated. A statue can be made in order to produce the phenomenon described. And beyond that, how are we to interpret the bleeding statue? That God loves us?

  Imagine for a moment that the Earth is suddenly surrounded by a vast army of alien spacecraft. They are visible, massive and they fill the sky above our planet. Would some people need to convince others (who were simultaneously witnessing the same event) that it was actually happening, or would it be self-evident? Would this event need defenders? The unfolding of these events would be extremely verifiable. I could stand next to another witness, looking up into this colossal alien presence and we wouldn’t dispute that it was happening. Most can imagine this because we’ve watched enough movies, and it would be a startling observation of a very real presence beyond our world. We might debate why they were here, or where they came from, but no one would have to go around telling other people that there were thousands of alien spacecraft hovering above our planet. We wouldn’t need anyone because we would all be undeniably confronted with the same reality. In fact, we’d probably all reply “duh”.

  The reading of Scriptures and the “miracles” on display today lack any such profound force. They all lack the brunt impact that an All-Powerful God should have. A Divine existence should not even be open for skeptical debate. It should be that evident.

• 34. OneSmallStep  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:46 pm

  The Bible provides a witness that we must begin by assuming it is true.

  Isn’t this a weak standard, though? I have an evangelical friend who has a book called “How to read the Bible.” One of the sections essentially says that the Bible cannot contradict itself, so if you don’t understand a section, you still know it’s true. But that’s almost self-defeating.

  If you can’t understand a contradiction, and the contradiction is never resolved, then how do you go about proving the truth of something, or the inerrency?

  Mike,

  So why is it that when we approach the biblical account and we see names of ancient Gods used to describe Satan,

  But if you *only* had the Tanakh to go on, would you ever reach the conclusion that the Satan listed in the Tanakh is the same as how Christianity describes it?

• 35. karen  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:47 pm

  I still occassionally listen to Raul Rees adn Hank Hanagraaf during my commute to work.

  Oh my goodness - you must be a glutton for punishment.

  I try to take them seriously, but whenever they bring up The Devil or Satan… I gotta tell you… it just sounds incredibly silly and juvenile. As mythology, it made sense to the ancient world, but I don’t see what place it has in the 21st century. As a De-Convert, I now know why people found Flip WIlson’s old line ‘The Devile made me do it’ so funny - people marvel that Christians *really* believe in the existance of this being.

  Yeah, it really does reek of silly nonsense. It took a very long time for me to let go of the idea that there HAD to be a god, but a very short time to reject the idea of a devil.

  As soon as you seriously question it with an open mind, it becomes obvious that it’s a made-up story that’s very effective for keeping people in their proper “place.”

  Of course, Christians would have us think that by laughing at the existance of the Devil, we are doing exactly as he wishes. Satan would like nothing more than to laugh at his existance, right? *sigh*

  Right - all part of the indoctrination and conditioning again. Was it Larry Norman or Keith Green who had a song where the devil laughed smugly: “No One Believes In Me Anymore”?

• 36. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  It was Keith Green. I can hear the song now.

• 37. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 6:20 pm

  Mike:
  “There are a number of ancient near east myths that are mirrored in the Old Testament account of events. But I have to ask, why does that necessarily invalidate the account?”

  Mike, I don’t think that it necessarily invalidates any Biblical account. For instance, nobody denies that religious ideas were shared and swapped back and forth all over the ancient Mediterannean and Near-Orient. Our very word ‘God’, for instance, is of Germanic origin, but in romance languages is just derivative of the Greek god Zeus (ie Zeus, Dios, Deus, Theos), and in the NT was often rendered as Adonai (after the god Adonis).

  No, that does not invalidate the Christian idea of God, or more specifically to this article, Titans do not invalidate the existance of Satan. But I have read several books now on mythologies of the near-east, and I have to tell you, I can think of nothing in Christianity, or the Bible for that matter, that is unique to that religion. It seems that everything, and I mean everything, was shared.

  No, that does not invalidate anything necessarily, but Christians have to concede that ideas like The Devil and Satan are hardly unique to their religion.

• 38. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 6:26 pm

  Mike:
  “So why is it that when we approach the biblical account and we see names of ancient Gods used to describe Satan…”

  Ancient gods? I can’t think of what you are referring to here - can you be more specific?

  Are you referencing the Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12? If you are, I would like to challenge you with the question I asked in an earlier comment: What is a Latin name doing in Hebrew Scripture? Why not use the Hebrew like everything else in the OT? What is Latin doing there? Leviticus referes to an evil spirit named Azazel - at least that is Hebrew. Why is there no other reference to Lucifer in the entire Bible? How can you say Lucifer = The Devil when there is no other reference to The Devil, to Satan or to any other Evil Spirit in Isaiah 14?

  The Fall of Lucifer is a very powerful myth, but it just is not Biblical that I can tell - it is church tradition read into scripture, nothing more. Isaiah 14 is addressed to the King of Babylon, and makes perfect sense if read in that manner. And it is not even heretical or anti-Christian!

  Here is how I interpret the prophecy of Isaiah 14 - The King of Babylon ruled the world, and swore he was more powerful than even the God of Israel, but just as the light of dawn or rising sun overcomes the bright morning star (Venus), so shall the power of God overcome the King of Babylon.

  That’s it. Very simple explanation. No need for Devils or Demons. Nothing heretical or invalidating Christianity. No fall of Lucifer that needs to be read into the text - there is just no need for that. Isaiah never mentions it, why insert it in there?

• 39. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  Karen:
  ‘Was it Larry Norman or Keith Green who had a song where the devil laughed smugly: “No One Believes In Me Anymore”?’

  Keith Green? Wow, there is a blast from the past. Kerry Livgren also had a song very similar to this one. I am sure there are others.

• 40. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  Mike:
  I want to beat this dead horse a little more, just because I have a long weekend away from the computer planned, so this will be my last response. Promise.

  I looked up Isaiah 14:12 in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary volume 5. This commentary has an ecumenical approach, while not Evangelical it is hardly liberal. You may even find it in your school library. For some background into the mythology of this passage, you may find what they have to say pretty interesting:

  “Isaiah 14:12-15
  The use in these verses of material derived from Canaanite myths is unmistakable, and the point is made that the meaning of what the tyrant has done is set forth in the myth of Helal, the Day Star or “Lightgiver” (cf. Vulgate “Lucifer”), son of Shahar, Dawn. It is a manifestation on earth of the ultimate conflict set forth in the myth in timeless terms. We know that here was a god Shahar in Canaanite (Ugaritic) mythology, the god of dawn or of the morning star and ‘Helal, son of Shahar’ is mentioned apparently in one of the texts from Ugarit. Another clearly mythological element is the mount of assembly (of the gods) in the far north, the point around which the constellations turned, where was located the summit of the heavenly mountain and the throne of the Most High (cf. Ezek 28:14). The pasage before us perserves the Canaanite form of a nature myth, telling of the attempt of the morning star to scale the heights of heaven, surpassing all other stars only to be cast down to earth by the victorious sun. This became in turn the story of the aspiring of a minor deity to reach the highest heaven where the supreme god dwelt in remote and lonely splendor, and finally the symbol of the ambition and ddownfall of an earthly monarch. He who has climbed so high will be cast down to the depths, better, ‘the uttermost depths’ of the Pit of Sheol.”

  Just some background into the mythology of this passage. As you can tell by now, I really dig this as mythology - but I gotta tell you - the Devil and Satan are just nowhere to be found….

• 41. Andrei  |  April 4, 2008 at 7:20 pm

  Why is it that God allows his archenemy to be his jailer of sorts?

  Think about it… God puts Satan in charge of Hell, and puts him in charge of torturing the Damned. Would you trust your archenemy to do your work for you?

• 42. Gary  |  April 4, 2008 at 8:11 pm

  Mike, I take it then you don’t stand with Brian McLaren on his views illustrated in The Last Word and the Word After That? He was the first to suggest to me the possibility of hell and the devil as mythology, and still while holding a high view of the Bible.

• 43. Gary  |  April 4, 2008 at 8:15 pm

  mewho said, The reading of Scriptures and the “miracles” on display today lack any such profound force. They all lack the brunt impact that an All-Powerful God should have. A Divine existence should not even be open for skeptical debate. It should be that evident.

  On my blog I pondered a similar theme in relation to Romans 1:18-32. Paul suggests here that man has no excuse for disobedience as God is self-evident in nature, yet I ask the question, just how is this so? How do you clearly ’see’ God in the things he has made?

• 44. mewho  |  April 4, 2008 at 10:34 pm

  When I first read “The Da Vinci Code” I thought that Dan Brown had created the whole Da Vinci conspiracy theory himself. I soon learned, however, that the idea had actually come from previous works (Brown was even sued by some authors for plagiarism) and my high opinion of him fell somewhat. His story was riveting and he had taken the whole idea to new heights, but he had “stood on the shoulders” of many others and simply polished the idea. Brilliant and fascinating, yes, but he was hardly the genius I had at first thought him to be.

  I think the comparison between the Bible and “The Da Vinci Code” encapsulates my take on both great works. They are amazing literary works that benefited by earlier works of ancient writers. Since their concept is not original, however, I deny the credit that I might first attribute their authors.

• 45. Reynvaan  |  April 5, 2008 at 6:31 am

  Andrei: “Why is it that God allows his archenemy to be his jailer of sorts?

  Think about it… God puts Satan in charge of Hell, and puts him in charge of torturing the Damned. Would you trust your archenemy to do your work for you?”

  As far as I know, this idea is totally non-Biblical; I can’t think of any verses that support it at all.
  Actually, I remember Revelation saying that hell was originally created to punish “the Devil and his angels.” I suppose humans now get to go there too, thanks to Adam and Eve. To be punished out of love, of course.

• 46. The Apostate  |  April 5, 2008 at 11:10 am

  In a court of law, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and a witness’s testimony is assumed true unless it can be contradicted. The Bible provides a witness that we must begin by assuming it is true.

  Mike, the law does this not for reasons of truth, but because the adage of liberty, a western concept, is that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent imprisoned. This is why our law has so many loopholes. This is why we presume innocence.

  P.S. Thank you for your run down of Reform eschatology, I haven’t responded due to lack of time, but perhaps it could be the subject of a later post.

• 47. Mike  |  April 5, 2008 at 11:59 am

  Wow. I am away from my computer for a day and look what happens!

  (#30) Stephen P,

  “A far more reasonable starting point is that we do not know which parts are true and which are myth / propaganda / wishful thinking / misunderstanding, and so we do not make assumptions.”

  If this is honestly your approach to communication, i wonder how difficult it must be to have a conversation with your spouse/significant other. And before you argue that point, yes the written word is a form of communication.

  (#3 HIS,

  “What is a Latin name doing in Hebrew Scripture?”

  I dont know. I am looking at the Hebrew (MT) and the Greek (LXX) right now and there isnt a single Latin name or word to be found.

  (#40) HIS,

  Your entire line of thought here fits nicely in with my whole point in #25. The prophet sees a spirit that is so evil in the King that he names it as the spirit of a pagan God. Because the actions and thoughts of the King mirror that of the story the names are taken from, it is an appropriate analogy used by the prophet. Ezekiel does this in chapter 28. He attributes actions and events to the prince of Tyre that the prince himself could never have done. Again, this is the prophet identifying an evil spirit at work behind the prince who “was in Eden.” The prophets choice of words are not accidental. They are intended to show that YHWH is greater than any other pretender to the throne, and it only makes sense that they would call these pretenders out by name: Belal, Azazel, Beelzebul, Baal, etc.

  (#42) Gary,

  No, I dont agree with Brian McClaren on much.

• 48. GoDamn  |  April 5, 2008 at 2:46 pm

  Andrei makes a good point. Knowing Satan and his determination to oppose god, it was a pretty stupid choice to put him in charge of Hell Inc. Infact, I’m starting to think that Satan wouldsn’t torture those souls that have stuck up for him and followed his ways. And since god wants satan to do that, thats another reason satan wont do it. Sticking it to god and stuff like that. Ill bet that hell has air conditioning, everyone party’s all day and night with booze flowing freely, playboy bunnies for every man, a Porsche 911 (my lust and envy - damn it), a mansion and basically living it up in style. That would really piss god off. And all those poor good souls in heaven would probably have to spend eternity singing andand praising gods glory while simultaneously working (idle mind is the devils workshop and thats not allowed) like mindless robots. Heaven and hell have changed places. And we evil de-cons will have the last laugh when we drive by the goodie 2 shoes souls in our 911’s as they sing themselves hoarse. Heh Heh Heh. De-cons rock!!!

• 49. George  |  April 7, 2008 at 6:37 am

  Peter Gilmore must be having a field day with this post (actually the entire website).

• 50. Garg the Unzola  |  April 7, 2008 at 8:28 am

  Greetings. Interesting post. The myth of Lucifer being the adversary of God, being cast down from heaven for his pride is not actually in the Bible. It is in the Apocrypha, which is not accepted by Protestantism as true biblical books. Ironically, Protestant preachers still fill the gaps left by inadequate explanations of the origins of mankind’s greatest enemy with Apocryphal works.

  Satan in the Bible is an agent of God, used to tempt our faith. He is not out to destroy us, but he fulfils an important function of weeding out the weak believers from the worthy believers.

  I like your noble quest for the truth and the fact that you don’t let indoctrination muddle your mind. Lucifer linguistically is the light bringer. This in itself is not a bad thing. May Prometheus visit the gifts of the gods upon you. Sorry, that’s as kind as I can get as an atheist.

• 51. Luke  |  April 15, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  in the jewish tradition ha-Satan is simply hebrew for “the accuser” and is part of the divine court. there is no biblical evidence for the fall of satan. he is the light bringer and sits at the right hand of God… wait a second… right hand of God? that’s where Jesus sits! we can’t have Satan there! best to get rid of him!

  i don’t buy into that doctrine. (which is why i’m a heretic). so i don’t think Satan needs forgiving as he’s still an angel of the Lord. HOWEVER… to get to the issue behind satan.

  is there evil in the world? you bet! is there a cosmic war going on between good and evil? no. it is my belief that only on this plain of existence do we deal with evil. so what does that mean for hitler and the afterlife? i don’t know. can’t say. there is a case for a universalist stance (theology that the writers for “What Dreams May Come” based the story on) and also one for a heaven and hell scenario (only without satan as the head ruler).

  why would the church want to remove satan then? satan who is the morning star, bringer of light, and sits at the right hand of God? i dunno…. guess they needed to make room for someone else.

  what do you think? how do you see this issue of Satan and do you think God would forgive?

• 52. Adrian  |  April 15, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  To HelsSailing #37

  You incorrectly translate ‘Adonai’ as a translation of ‘Adonis’~ from Greek to Hebrew?~ when the real Hebrew root for Adonai is ‘adon=lord’. Christians call their god ‘Lord’. Remember, the translation of the biblical texts went from Aramaic/Hebrew to Greek, not vice-versa.

  And #45, Reynvaan, God did not appoint Satan as his jailer, he banished him to hell with the rest of his followers. Look at it this way, even if you’re the biggest, toughest, most ruthless criminal in jail, and all the other criminals follow what you tell them, you’re still in jail with them!

  As an agnostic, (yes, I know what a dirty word that is in this forum,) I enjoy picking out the threads of the myths that form the cloth of the Bible, the Torah, the Qu’uran and their associated texts, unravelling the sordid mess of contradictory stories and logic twisting parables. But there may be a deeper question here: are humans hard-wired for religion? I propose that our biological imperative to catalogue and categorize everything we experience into some form of qualifiable logic UNTIL we have the leisure time to reassess and calmly de-mystify what we are experiencing has made us prone to religions, as a species. It has only been in the last few centuries that our development of the scientific process has allowed us to observe or deduce things like the mechanisms of gravity, light, atomic and sub-atomic particles, DNA and electricity. Through learning, the veil is lifted, and the need for the comfort of religions is left by the wayside, just as a child forgets his wagon when he grows up and learns to drive a car.
  I said I was agnostic, another good greek word that may make my point; it is ‘a=without + k(g)nossos=knowledge’. I am without personal knowledge of God, but I would like to think there might be one! That’s the leftovers of my primitive brain speaking, and there you have it. I’m still struggling with my spirituality.

• 53. karen  |  April 15, 2008 at 5:08 pm

  Adrian:

  As an agnostic, (yes, I know what a dirty word that is in this forum,

  Really - why do you say that? I don’t recall anyone ever being chastised here for calling themselves an agnostic - or an atheist or a Christian or Muslim or anything else, for that matter. I know several of our members identify as agnostics, in fact. Am I forgetting something guys, or are we less tolerant than I think?

  I said I was agnostic, another good greek word that may make my point; it is ‘a=without + k(g)nossos=knowledge’. I am without personal knowledge of God, but I would like to think there might be one! That’s the leftovers of my primitive brain speaking, and there you have it. I’m still struggling with my spirituality.

  Well, welcome. I think you’ll find all of us in somewhat the same boat. Some of us have moved past the struggling, for the most part, but others are in the thick of it. I hope you’ll stick around and that we can be helpful to you!

• 54. Max  |  April 22, 2008 at 10:27 pm

  At this point neither Christian nor Jew believe that the Lucifer of Isaiah refers to satan. There is dispute on exactly who it was, but it has been interpreted by everything that I have read on the subject as a Babylonian king. If you have this discussion, you need to know the distinction.

• 55. Jonathan Blake  |  April 23, 2008 at 9:34 am

  I know quite a few Christians who do believe that Lucifer = Satan. And even if they realize that on the surface Isaiah is talking about a Babylonian king, the king can always be interpreted as a symbol of Satan.

• 56. Anonymous  |  April 24, 2008 at 1:29 pm

  The thing about Satan is that he was created from the human mind. He is an imaginary being. Christians don’t now that Jesus defeated this “enemy” because he knew that this enemy wasn’t real. Christians say that the greatest enemy is the devil. True, it’s just that the real ‘adversary’ is the human mind. People have always said that the greatest enemy is oneself, or the human mind. We couldn’t be further from the truth.

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed