Is the Devil a God?

[Stravo]

So you know the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub, etc. He's supposed to be in charge of evil, promoting it, tempting man, fucking with us in so many ways. Yet Christians are quick to point out he's not a god. You know because that would fuck with the whole monotheistic foundations of JudaeoChristian faith.

But why isn't he a god? He's got all the earmarks - powerful beyond our understanding, he has a portfolio in terms of "God of Evil", he has worshippers, he has an angelic host (alright some poeple would call it demonic) he is just like God in every way - hell he even gets to send his only son to Earth to fuck with us during Revelations. So. Why isn't he a god?

You can claim he's a fallen angel. OK. WHy aren't angels gods. Once again supernaturally powerful, in charge of certain things, etc. Is this just semantic bullshit from a religious perspective that can't deal with more than one god? The Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Celts, etc would have been quite comfortable calling Satan a god. What gives with us?

[GuppyShark]

"Us?"

I'm far from an expert in Christian mythology, but he's not a god because he can't hold a candle to YHWH. Monotheistic gods set a higher bar that Lucifer doesn't reach.

[Stravo]

"Us?"

I'm far from an expert in Christian mythology, but he's not a god because he can't hold a candle to YHWH. Monotheistic gods set a higher bar that Lucifer doesn't reach.

Us in the sense that even people who aren't believers tend to not view Satan as a god either.

Relative power levels don't really come into play with gods. Look at Greek mythology, some gods were nothing compared to Zeus but they were gods nonetheless.

[Flagg]

It's interesting, because if the Christian mythology is to be believed, then Satan, Hell, and everything evil exists at Gods pleasure. At any time, God could obliterate all evil, yet for some reason chooses not to, making God evil.
The only other explanation would be that God is not, in fact, "all knowing, and all powerful", and therefore cannot destroy Satan, Hell, etcetera. In which case Satan can concievably be considered a diety, even if not as powerful as God is supposed to be. So either way the Christians are pretty much painted into a corner. Either God is evil, or God is not all powerful.

[Lagmonster]

I would suggest it's a faith-based definition rather than a practical definition. For all practical purposes, Satan would be a god. So would a lot of beings in mythology. But for all faith-based purposes, Christians are told to acknowledge no god except theirs (which leads to confusing parts of the Bible where they specifically mention other gods as though they exist). So even if Satan is a god for all intents and purposes, Christians can't define him as such by divine edict, or risk YHWH going Moses on their asses.

[Rye]

He's not a god because within the abrahamic religions there are stages of divinity; the one true God at the top and lesser divinities beneath that are slaves to His will, or not, but aren't godlike, just are more powerful than humans.

In that mythology, that's just how it's defined, it's equivocating to go to a different mythology with different traditions as a counterexample because obviously, the same definitions are not in place.

It's just a matter of accuracy, really. Satan isn't a god like genies in Aladdin aren't gods. The mythology they're in decides they're a different type of divinity.

[Stravo]

He's not a god because within the abrahamic religions there are stages of divinity; the one true God at the top and lesser divinities beneath that are slaves to His will, or not, but aren't godlike, just are more powerful than humans.

But even the Abrahamic religions acknowledged that there were other gods out there. Its in the Ten COmmandments for one: "Thou shalt honor no other gods before me." meaning that God comes first before any other gods. NOT "There are no other Gods but me." which the Muslims have defined better in terms of not even acknowledging other gods.

Also Jewish tradition had other gods as well up until the Babylonian exile. Yawweh originally had a wife goddess who was the more popular of the two until the returning Jews imposed a monotheistic patriarchal system in order to help unify the divided Jewish communities.

The idea of monotheism to the exclusion of other gods is relatively new even among Jews.

Good point on the differing mythologies and definitions concept. I simply offer this in opposition. All other religious systems were interactive - Greeks could adopt other gods, Egyptians, babylonians, Celts, Romans - they simply gave them a different name but were all recognized as the same god that's why Alexander being recognized as ZeusAmon in Egypt worked because his God was recognized in Egypt as well as Greece and Persia due to the interchangabiolity of Gods.

A fact that the Catholic church was able to exploit by coopting local deities as saints and their holidays as Chrisitian ones. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the Church can say the Winter Solstice is now Jesus' Birthday and St. Andrew takes on the aspects of a local god then why can't one look at other religions - that until recently have all been intertwined and interactive - and use that as a plank in an argument that a fallen angel in charge of evil is indeed a god?

[Darth Wong]

Stravo, why are you searching for logic in Christianity? You might as well search for honesty in politics, or scruples in Haliburton.

[Steven Snyder]

Satan tempts Adam and Eve right under "The Christian God's" nose in Genesis. Apparently the big guy didn't forsee this turn of events, thus being outwitted by Satan. Note that in Genesis, TCG never mentions the creation of Satan...

Later on Satan turns enough of the known world against him to cause him to wipe out all living things except for Noah and his brood. Again this demonstrates that the devil has enough power to rival TCG.

The book of Jobe represents in instance where TCG considers Satan enough of a peer to place a wager with concerning the hapless mortal.

From all of this it appears that TCG and the Devil are not omniscent or omnipotent (one would have destroyed the other), but are on the same playing field.

[Stravo]

Stravo, why are you searching for logic in Christianity? You might as well search for honesty in politics, or scruples in Haliburton.

Its a game the Jesuits played very well in the opposite direction - logically defending Christian faith and dogma from criticism. Their methods usually either produced absolute Darkstar like Christians or athiests.

Besides I like to see people think outside the box. Christians accept certain precepts without thinking about it. Jesus was the son of God, There is only one god, God is good, God is perfect, the Devil is evil, etc. Sometimes people really stop and think when confronted with a question like "Why is God good? What the hell is the Trinity and why isn't that three gods?" Granted many people do not and slip into robot mode "My faith says so."

[Elheru Aran]

I believe in Lucifer, Satan becomes a God eventually, capable of creating. He isn't equal to *the* God Yahweh, who created all, but he is capable of sub-creating, so to speak (he created his own world) and bestowing godhood upon people.

[GuppyShark]

He's not a god because within the abrahamic religions there are stages of divinity; the one true God at the top and lesser divinities beneath that are slaves to His will, or not, but aren't godlike, just are more powerful than humans.

But even the Abrahamic religions acknowledged that there were other gods out there. Its in the Ten COmmandments for one: "Thou shalt honor no other gods before me." meaning that God comes first before any other gods. NOT "There are no other Gods but me." which the Muslims have defined better in terms of not even acknowledging other gods.

As people are quite capable of following false gods, the validity of the god is not relevant to the Commandment. "Tho shalt honor no other gods before me." does not imply that other gods truly exist, only that people shouldn't honor any other gods.

Stravo, why are you searching for logic in Christianity?

Maybe because it's in the forum name. SoD etc etc etc. I wonder how much energy it would take to part the Red Sea.

[Stravo]

He's not a god because within the abrahamic religions there are stages of divinity; the one true God at the top and lesser divinities beneath that are slaves to His will, or not, but aren't godlike, just are more powerful than humans.

But even the Abrahamic religions acknowledged that there were other gods out there. Its in the Ten COmmandments for one: "Thou shalt honor no other gods before me." meaning that God comes first before any other gods. NOT "There are no other Gods but me." which the Muslims have defined better in terms of not even acknowledging other gods.

As people are quite capable of following false gods, the validity of the god is not relevant to the Commandment. "Tho shalt honor no other gods before me." does not imply that other gods truly exist, only that people shouldn't honor any other gods.

You're assuming that the other gods are false. The language of the commandment implies otherwise. "No Other Gods before Me" as opposed to the muslim "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." are we saying then that the muslims are simply better writers than the Jews?

When one considers that Jews were polytheisitic up until relatively recently (Post Babylonian Exile) the language of the commandment makes absolute sense. By reading into it a presumption of false gods you are adding terms that are not in the language and also implying poor draftsmenship on the part of god for not making it as clear as Allah does for his followers.

[SirNitram]

Why not just read Exodus? God specifically refers to starving the Eygptian Gods, and the priests of these Gods are able to match Moses feat for feat.

So you can play semantics with 'Take no other gods before me', but if you apply SoD, God's just the God of the Jews. The Eygptian ones are His equal. (And The Word/The Power is above all of them, but we're getting into the precision of the translation now.)

[Rye]

But even the Abrahamic religions acknowledged that there were other gods out there. Its in the Ten COmmandments for one: "Thou shalt honor no other gods before me." meaning that God comes first before any other gods. NOT "There are no other Gods but me." which the Muslims have defined better in terms of not even acknowledging other gods.

This actually wasn't a static concept within the religions. Psalms 82 has God actually talking to the other gods, but they're still considered lesser divinities and submit to God, whereas the angels sent to Lot in Sodom were never considered gods, so even there there's evidence for differing levels of divinity, as far as I know.

And yeah, Exodus (12) has God saying he'll judge the other gods and numbers (33) confirms it.

The trouble is, there isn't even a coherent concept of what makes a god a god, there's just working definitions (like, I use "magical invisible men") and there's mythology-specific titles, more or less.

Also Jewish tradition had other gods as well up until the Babylonian exile. Yawweh originally had a wife goddess who was the more popular of the two until the returning Jews imposed a monotheistic patriarchal system in order to help unify the divided Jewish communities.

Yeah, Asherah's consort was worshipped alongside him till about 4th Cent BC, I think.

Good point on the differing mythologies and definitions concept. I simply offer this in opposition. All other religious systems were interactive - Greeks could adopt other gods, Egyptians, babylonians, Celts, Romans - they simply gave them a different name but were all recognized as the same god that's why Alexander being recognized as ZeusAmon in Egypt worked because his God was recognized in Egypt as well as Greece and Persia due to the interchangabiolity of Gods.

A fact that the Catholic church was able to exploit by coopting local deities as saints and their holidays as Chrisitian ones. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the Church can say the Winter Solstice is now Jesus' Birthday and St. Andrew takes on the aspects of a local god then why can't one look at other religions - that until recently have all been intertwined and interactive - and use that as a plank in an argument that a fallen angel in charge of evil is indeed a god?

Not in popular modern tradition, he's godlike if you want to ignore the idiosyncracies of the mythology, sure, but I don't find that to be the most productive/accurate way to go about it.

[EmperorSolo51]

But even the Abrahamic religions acknowledged that there were other gods out there. Its in the Ten COmmandments for one: "Thou shalt honor no other gods before me." meaning that God comes first before any other gods. NOT "There are no other Gods but me." which the Muslims have defined better in terms of not even acknowledging other gods.

This actually wasn't a static concept within the religions. Psalms 82 has God actually talking to the other gods, but they're still considered lesser divinities and submit to God, whereas the angels sent to Lot in Sodom were never considered gods, so even there there's evidence for differing levels of divinity, as far as I know.

The Problem with a Literal interpretation of Psalm 82 is that it leaves no room for the interpretation that God is referencing to the Judges and other unjust people who hand out godly judgement. Indeed Christ interprets this Psalm and applies it to the Pharisees.

And yeah, Exodus (12) has God saying he'll judge the other gods and numbers (33) confirms it.

Judging as in telling the People Of Israel the are indeed false because they did not stop God from executing the plagues on Egypt. Once again a literal interpretation does not work here as it comes into conflict with God saying he is the only God.

[SirNitram]

Judging as in telling the People Of Israel the are indeed false because they did not stop God from executing the plagues on Egypt. Once again a literal interpretation does not work here as it comes into conflict with God saying he is the only God.

God saying he is the only God is ridiculous when he specifically mentions starving the other gods. Not proving them little more than dust, not revealing their weakness, just starving them.

[EmperorSolo51]

God saying he is the only God is ridiculous when he specifically mentions starving the other gods. Not proving them little more than dust, not revealing their weakness, just starving them.

But look at the full context, don't just take one verse and apply it literally. This is the same crap that gets fundies in trouble. What God is speaking here is that through his power and might he will show that the other gods are really false and that these gods will be "starved" as man will no longer worship before these idols proving them to be nothing more thn wood and stone.

[SirNitram]

God saying he is the only God is ridiculous when he specifically mentions starving the other gods. Not proving them little more than dust, not revealing their weakness, just starving them.

But look at the full context, don't just take one verse and apply it literally. This is the same crap that gets fundies in trouble. What God is speaking here is that through his power and might he will show that the other gods are really false and that these gods will be "starved" as man will no longer worship before these idols proving them to be nothing more thn wood and stone.

Only works if we apply the fantasy/RPG convention of God's feeding off belief.

I'm looking at the full context. I'm applying the Commandments, the passages in Exodus, the Magicians and their feats, the word for the creator of the Cosmos being different from the guy who bugged Moses, the entire bloody thing.

You, on the other hand, are fixating on the 'There is no other God', taking it literally, and ignoring everything that contradicts.

In other words, your last post is the exact definition of projection.

[EmperorSolo51]

Only works if we apply the fantasy/RPG convention of God's feeding off belief.

No, it works in the sense that God is bringing Man out of the darkness of believing in the false Gods of the Egyptians.

I'm looking at the full context. I'm applying the Commandments, the passages in Exodus, the Magicians and their feats, the word for the creator of the Cosmos being different from the guy who bugged Moses, the entire bloody thing.

You are just babbling on here incoherently. You are trying to fix a Literal interpretation of numbers and exodus without looking at the propper context as I have showed you. You don't like my interpretation becuase it does not fit your pre-concieved Eisegisis. Sorry.

You, on the other hand, are fixating on the 'There is no other God', taking it literally, and ignoring everything that contradicts.

How So? If God says repeatedly that there is no other Gods and that he is the only True God, then we have to go back and take a look at those other passages. This is what's called Exegesis and Harmuenetics.

In other words, your last post is the exact definition of projection.

Both Judaism and Christianity are Montheistic by deffinition. We believe in one God to the exclusion of all others. We would not be monotheistic if we beliueved in multiple lesser deities. This is calld Henotheism.

[Rye]

The Problem with a Literal interpretation of Psalm 82 is that it leaves no room for the interpretation that God is referencing to the Judges and other unjust people who hand out godly judgement. Indeed Christ interprets this Psalm and applies it to the Pharisees.

So? He was a first century jew, of course he's going to view it like that. Even Asherah worship has gone out of style centuries before he was even born; he will reflect the judaism of the time, not the past. He's not an automatic authority on scripture just because you think he's God, to anyone else, he's a first century jew, nothing more.

Since the heavenly assembly existed as depicted to the source mythology of the jews, that is, the mythology of the canaanites, as an olympus-style congregation of gods atop a mountain, I see no reason to read into it the meaning you give it; it seems to be a textbook case of reading an agenda backwards through time rather than looknig at the text contextually.

Indeed, check the commentaries on psalms 82 here:

1 [Psalm 82] As in Psalm 58, the pagan gods are seen as subordinate divine beings to whom Israel's God had delegated oversight of the foreign countries in the beginning (Deut 32:8-9). Now God arises in the heavenly assembly (Psalm 82:1) to rebuke the unjust "gods" (Psalm 82:2-4), who are stripped of divine status and reduced in rank to mortals (Psalm 82:5-7). They are accused of misruling the earth by not upholding the poor. A short prayer for universal justice concludes the psalm (Psalm 82:8).

2 [5] The gods are blind and unable to declare what is right. Their misrule shakes earth's foundations (cf Psalm 11:3; 75:4), which God made firm in creation (Psalm 96:10).

3 [6] I declare: "Gods though you be": in John 10:34 Jesus uses the verse to prove that those to whom the word of God is addressed can fittingly be called "gods."

4 [8] Judge the earth: according to Deut 32:8-9, Israel's God had originally assigned jurisdiction over the foreign nations to the subordinate deities, keeping Israel as a personal possession. Now God will directly take over the rulership of the whole world.

And yeah, Exodus (12) has God saying he'll judge the other gods and numbers (33) confirms it.

Judging as in telling the People Of Israel the are indeed false because they did not stop God from executing the plagues on Egypt. Once again a literal interpretation does not work here as it comes into conflict with God saying he is the only God.

Uhhh, do you have evidence for this, at all beyond backward reading? The reading of Exodus 12:12 "I will pass through the land of Egypt in the same night, and I will kill all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both of humans and of animals, and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. I am the Lord." seems to imply they're as real as animals or humans.

And like I said, Numbers Numbers 33:4 confirms it: "Now the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, which Yahweh had killed among them; Yahweh also executed judgments on their gods."

If you want to claim the authors of those segments didn't consider other gods real, please present the evidence for it, rather than dishonestly attempting to take the entire bible as one text with one author, rationalising contradictions by means of more recent theology, rather than historical context.

[Crown]

You know Stravo, if you push the Church (Catholic or Orthodox) hard enough the answer you get is 'God works in mysterious ways', in which they basically say there really isn't a Satan, or if there is he is allowed to do what he does so that we can have a chance to prove ourselves to God.

Because the other alternative being (as you pointed out) that Satan is also a God, is just something the Church will not (and indeed cannot) ever condone.

[SirNitram]

Only works if we apply the fantasy/RPG convention of God's feeding off belief.

No, it works in the sense that God is bringing Man out of the darkness of believing in the false Gods of the Egyptians.

Except that's not backed up in the slightest by the text, only by your dogma.

I'm looking at the full context. I'm applying the Commandments, the passages in Exodus, the Magicians and their feats, the word for the creator of the Cosmos being different from the guy who bugged Moses, the entire bloody thing.

You are just babbling on here incoherently. You are trying to fix a Literal interpretation of numbers and exodus without looking at the propper context as I have showed you. You don't like my interpretation becuase it does not fit your pre-concieved Eisegisis. Sorry.

Excuse me? I present no less than four seperate instances which show there are definately other Gods, and you claim I'm 'babbling incoherently'? How? Where? Show me, fucktard.

Again, this is the very definition of projection. My 'pre-conceived' view came after I read the thing in depth. You, on the other hand, remain fixated on your dogma, and scream 'You're being incoherent!' when it's challenged.

You, on the other hand, are fixating on the 'There is no other God', taking it literally, and ignoring everything that contradicts.

How So? If God says repeatedly that there is no other Gods and that he is the only True God, then we have to go back and take a look at those other passages. This is what's called Exegesis and Harmuenetics.

The fact he's a liar is a good start to throw out his claim to being the One True, after we look at the above. I really could care less about the words given to these views; reading the book without dogma telling us he must be the one true shows us a very different story.

In other words, your last post is the exact definition of projection.

Both Judaism and Christianity are Montheistic by deffinition. We believe in one God to the exclusion of all others. We would not be monotheistic if we beliueved in multiple lesser deities. This is calld Henotheism.

Current dogma is monotheistic. This does not make the Bible or the Torah monotheistic, just the politics of the current readings monotheistic. As you demonstrate so well, this dogma reaches the point where those taught it just shut their mind and screech 'You're babbling incoherently!' to a concise, clear listing of instances where your dogma is contradicted.

In short: Fuck you, come back when your dogma is less ironclad.

[Stravo]

You know Stravo, if you push the Church (Catholic or Orthodox) hard enough the answer you get is 'God works in mysterious ways', in which they basically say there really isn't a Satan, or if there is he is allowed to do what he does so that we can have a chance to prove ourselves to God.

Because the other alternative being (as you pointed out) that Satan is also a God, is just something the Church will not (and indeed cannot) ever condone.

Priests I was taught by (Jesuits) were divided on the issue of Satan. Some believed he did exist and was The Enemy (dun dun dun) and some were scientists and believed that there was only God and the evil in the world HAD to serve a purpose but was not Satan's doing.

Now if you follow through either one you have a rock and a hard place for a Christian and also BTW exposes one of the fundamental weaknesses of monotheism.

IF there is a Satan than by all definitions commonly accepted by previous religions and by his very powers granted unto him (In fact isn't it part of early church doctrine and heresies that the Devil owns the world) he is a God or at the very least a demi god and certainly then places this "One and only God" doctrines to bed as false or in dispute.

IF there is no Satan then God is the source of all evil and by definition cannot be perfectly good or love us as the church asserts because evil and good are diametrically opposed.

Monotheism robs a pantheon or religion of being able to point to an enemy and say all evil comes from him. Monotheists must accept that evil also originates from the same one true god.

You cannot say Satan is the source of evil and at the same time rob him of divinity because then he is merely an instrument of god and we come right back to God being the source of all evil.

[SirNitram]

You know what's hilarious? This modern age of being able to text-search the Bible.

'One True God' never appears. Not once.

'True God' appears thrice. Once referring to the definate false god the golden calf, and returning to the worship of Jehovah. Once with one of the Apostles referring to Jesus. And once referring to Israel having not had a priest of Jehovah in a long damn time.

None of these back up the idea there is but one God. Too bad, so sad, EmperorSolo.