Satan and his fallen angels

[Gatekeeper]

So .... I've been thinking again! This time about my position on what makes one an adversary to God. What I once thought to be imperfections, has now turned into something much more sinister.

Scripture tells us Satan and his fallen angels were cast to the earth -- Does this suggest that Satan roams the earth as an individual and that his minions walk among mankind?

What if ... scripture suggests something completely different? Scripture tells us that we are but dust and ashes. We were created from the dust of the ground according to scripture. The serpent (Who represents Satan) was cursed to consume the dust of the ground for the rest of his days, so could it be that Satan (Our carnal desires?) was cursed to consume mankind who were made from the dust of the ground?

I think "Satan" is a metaphor for that part of man that in opposition to both us and God, the part of man that wishes to rule and control. We (Mankind) are the fallen ones, cast out of heaven (Eden/paradise) because we submitted to Satan (The adversary) In us.

Humans by and large are consumed by selfish ambition, which leads many to attempt to control others and the world we live in by force. Could Satan then simply be the part of mankind's nature that is disobedient to Gods will, that part of us that is in opposition to us, God, and Gods love?

Many have certainly become the servants of their carnal desires, where they attempt to rule over others and the world we live in. If Satan is in fact our carnal desires, this would in effect make carnal man servants of Satan, to whom many have pledged their allegiance, defying God and living in opposition to His love and will for us.

We are called gods "elohiym" (Or angels) in scripture for a reason, I believe this is so we might realize "who" we are, and what we need to do to make things right. Mankind is on the fast track to destruction unless we surrender ourselves to God and His love, forsaking that part in us that is in opposition to God (Our carnal nature) which I believe to be Satan (The adversary).


GK

 

[Saltmeister]

Scripture tells us Satan and his fallen angels were cast to the earth -- Does this suggest that Satan roams the earth as an individual and that his minions walk among mankind?

Revelation/Apocalyse says that it is "the dragon" that was cast down to earth. It's metaphorical and we assume it is Satan. Mainstream Christian theology interprets a lot of Old Testament prophecies to refer to this "dragon" personality.

I think "Satan" is a metaphor for that part of man that in opposition to both us and God, the part of man that wishes to rule and control. We (Mankind) are the fallen ones, cast out of heaven (Eden/paradise) because we submitted to Satan (The adversary) In us.

Humans by and large are consumed by selfish ambition, which leads many to attempt to control others and the world we live in by force. Could Satan then simply be the part of mankind's nature that is disobedient to Gods will, that part of us that is in opposition to us, God, and Gods love?

I think there is too much emphasis in a lot of churches on demonology. I don't consider it healthy to always blame demons for things that go wrong in this world. I don't deny their existence or their activity. But the secular world does not think in terms of demons. The secular world thinks in terms of values, rules, laws, principles, obligations, economics and politics. The mainstream concept of reality does not revolve around demonology. I think people should first seek to reconcile their perceptions to secular reality first before proposing that some inhuman agent is responsible.

Even if there is some inhuman agent behind the scenes, as humans we are still the "masters of the earthly realm" (so to speak). In Psalms 82:6 it says, "You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High." We have more power over the earthly realm than most supernatural agents, which means that we should take responsibility for our own actions if we are to blame. If someone else is to blame, that person is another human being. Supernatural agents may whisper in our hearts and minds and tell us what to do, but we can choose to disobey. As masters of the earthly realm, we must make the right choice.

We could justify our choice in terms of values, rules, laws, principles, obligations, economics and politics. Demonology should be a last resort.

If we are sons of the Most High, and God should not be tempted, then nor should we.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Revelation/Apocalyse says that it is "the dragon" that was cast down to earth. It's metaphorical and we assume it is Satan. Mainstream Christian theology interprets a lot of Old Testament prophecies to refer to this "dragon" personality.



I think there is too much emphasis in a lot of churches on demonology. I don't consider it healthy to always blame demons for things that go wrong in this world. I don't deny their existence or their activity. But the secular world does not think in terms of demons. The secular world thinks in terms of values, rules, laws, principles, obligations, economics and politics. The mainstream concept of reality does not revolve around demonology. I think people should first seek to reconcile their perceptions to secular reality first before proposing that some inhuman agent is responsible.

Even if there is some inhuman agent behind the scenes, as humans we are still the "masters of the earthly realm" (so to speak). In Psalms 82:6 it says, "You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High." We have more power over the earthly realm than most supernatural agents, which means that we should take responsibility for our own actions if we are to blame. If someone else is to blame, that person is another human being. Supernatural agents may whisper in our hearts and minds and tell us what to do, but we can choose to disobey. As masters of the earthly realm, we must make the right choice.

We could justify our choice in terms of values, rules, laws, principles, obligations, economics and politics. Demonology should be a last resort.

If we are sons of the Most High, and God should not be tempted, then nor should we.

-- I agree

I hope you are not thinking that I'm speaking of demonology, Saltmeister. I don't believe in a literal Satan, but rather the carnal part of man that wants control. I think that it is perhaps "who" we are -- the fallen elohiym "gods" (Angels?) from heaven. In other words, the carnal part of man represents Satan and the fallen angels represent "us".

Just some thoughts,


GK

 

[Saltmeister]

I hope you are not thinking that I'm speaking of demonology, Saltmeister. I don't believe in a literal Satan, but rather the carnal part of man that wants control. I think that it is perhaps "who" we are -- the fallen elohiym "gods" (Angels?) from heaven. In other words, the carnal part of man represents Satan and the fallen angels represent "us".

Not at all. Actually the kind of idea you are proposing is one I am more in favour of, although I still don't deny their existence or activity. I just don't like the common attitude that everything "bad," destructive or disruptive should be explained in terms of demons. Very often I think it should be explained in terms of politics!!!!

An example is where a Christian is trying to convert someone. The target doesn't respond favourably to the message, so the default response of the Christian is to say that the target is being influenced by the devil. Another example is when you eat too much or spend too much. You say the devil made you do it, that the devil is tempting you and you were too weak.

In that case you should seek counselling or reconsider your lifestyle choices!!! Your behaviour may have a physiological explanation!!! Maybe you're suffering from depression or anxiety. Maybe your compulsive shopping habits are a form of retail therapy. To attribute someone's behaviour to demonic influence is to downplay human intuition and intelligence. It assumes a human doesn't make a choice based on rationality. In the case of failing to convert someone, maybe your argument just wasn't compelling enough. In the case of compulsive behaviours, maybe there's a neuro-physiological explanation. Maybe you're suffering from depression and need counselling.

Having said that, I prefer your concept of "demons" being internal to recklessly labelling events unfavourable to a particular Christian cause as the result of "higher powers."

We are masters of the earthly realm (sons of the Most High God) and are divine, so it doesn't matter if our demons are external or internal. We have to deal with them nonetheless.

 

[taijasi]

Why do we have to deal with our demon? Why don't we just ignore it?

Because if our demon is really a part of ourself, it will attempt to grow stronger even as our Virtue does. Inasmuch as we are learning to focus on and develop Virtue, this is a type of turning away ... from temptation(s).

Something tells me that even demons don't appreciate being starved, however.

We can attempt to ignore various parts of ourselves, and some can do this quite skillfully. But I believe that eventually we must turn and face the music. Sooner or later, we've got to `name the dragon,' as a priest once put it to me. "To name the dragon, is to slay the dragon," is how he said it. Sounds kind of Harry Potter-ish. Or Arthurian, perhaps?

What's all this, St. George and the dragon bit, anyway?

 

[Ahanu]

We (Mankind) are the fallen ones, cast out of heaven (Eden/paradise) because we submitted to Satan (The adversary) In us.

Humanity, the fallen ones?

Humanity, the risen ones?

I prefer the latter over the former.

Would Satan have fell from heaven if humanity would of never risen?

When I say risen, I mean a rise of awareness, consciousness, reflection, and so on.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Humanity, the fallen ones?

Humanity, the risen ones?

I prefer the latter over the former.

Would Satan have fell from heaven if humanity would of never risen?

When I say risen, I mean a rise of awareness, consciousness, reflection, and so on.

I prefer that humanity rise again, as it seems quite obvious that we have fallen from and were drove out of our original home (paradise). To me Satan is not an entity, but rather a part of who we are --- Satan is the part in us that opposes God and His love.

So ... To answer your question: Much of the human race has submitted to their carnal self (Satan), thus Satan (Carnal man) has become the god of this world, but will one day be destroyed. Perhaps when mankind realizes we were not meant to rule but to rather serve things will change?

Then again, to forsake Satan is to forsake self, as Satan is the part in us that opposes God, "For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?"

If I may borrow Andrews quote, "To name the dragon, is to slay the dragon," which makes a great deal of sense to me. If we cannot identify the dragon, then how could we ever expect to slay the dragon? In other words, "Know thy self"!


GK

 

[Thomas]

Scripture tells us Satan and his fallen angels were cast to the earth --

Actually, I don't think it does ... I think Catholic Tradition tells you that

The Jews, for example, would refute the whole idea.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

Actually, I don't think it does ... I think Catholic Tradition tells you that

The Jews, for example, would refute the whole idea.

God bless,

Thomas

Unless you are suggesting that the Catholic tradition wrote The Revelation of John, then you are mistaken --

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Actually, I don't think it does ... I think Catholic Tradition tells you that

The Jews, for example, would refute the whole idea.

God bless,

Thomas

Btw, Thomas -- I have no animosity towards Catholics, but I do question the RCC's authority concerning God. You act as if the RCC has some kind of monopoly on our Creator and truth. Anyone who disagrees with RCC dogma is immediately labeled a heretic.

 

[Thomas]

Btw, Thomas -- I have no animosity towards Catholics, but I do question the RCC's authority concerning God.

OK. But in that case don't try and express your beliefs in terms of Christianity, because we (by which I mean the RCC and the wider communion of the faithful) do have authority regarding that matter. What authority, besides your own opinion, have you to say that the message we brought to you is wrong, and that it should be as you want it to be?

You act as if the RCC has some kind of monopoly on our Creator and truth.

No, I'm saying that the Christian Communion has been given the Word of Christ, and it was given to us to do with as we will. That is stated in Scripture. The fact that we decided to make it public was our choice, and it was not always so, for centuries the Christian was bound by the disciplina arcani, for centuries the Mass was celebrated behind locked doors, and even the catechumen were sent out before the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The assumption that because one can read one can understand Scripture is easily shown to be false, by the very fact that so many differing, conflicting and contradictory interpretations exist.

And again, Scripture itself makes it plain that it will not be understood unless explained.

Anyone who disagrees with RCC dogma is immediately labeled a heretic.

I wish you would read my posts, instead of constantly repeating your same old polemical errors.

Not anyone. Buddhists aren't heretics. Only those who claim to be Christian, but hold erroneous views, are heretics.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Unless you are suggesting that the Catholic tradition wrote The Revelation of John, then you are mistaken --

Well of course it did! The Tradition wrote the New Testament. Who d'you think wrote it?

The Jews would argue the whole satan/fallen angels thing is a Hellenic analogical gloss on Scripture, born out of the fact that the Fathers did not know that the text in question refers to the King of Babylon.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

OK. But in that case don't try and express your beliefs in terms of Christianity, because we (by which I mean the RCC and the wider communion of the faithful) do have authority regarding that matter. What authority, besides your own opinion, have you to say that the message we brought to you is wrong, and that it should be as you want it to be?

But my beliefs are Christian beliefs -- They are simply not shared by your tradition. I'd say you have less authority than you would like to believe. We all have our opinions, even your traditions views are opinion. The message of love is not wrong -- Props on getting that much right!

No, I'm saying that the Christian Communion has been given the Word of Christ, and it was given to us to do with as we will. That is stated in Scripture. The fact that we decided to make it public was our choice, and it was not always so, for centuries the Christian was bound by the disciplina arcani, for centuries the Mass was celebrated behind locked doors, and even the catechumen were sent out before the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely -- Just that fact that your tradition hid the holy writings from the public 'should' tell you something of their motives. Why on earth would you keep the holy writ from the pu8blic, the lost, the sick? You guys were like the rich man with beggars at their doors, begging for crumbs off the table.

The assumption that because one can read one can understand Scripture is easily shown to be false, by the very fact that so many differing, conflicting and contradictory interpretations exist.

Of course your tradition has a monopoly on the appropriate way to interpret scripture, right? Come let us tell how to think and what to believe!! Geesh!

And again, Scripture itself makes it plain that it will not be understood unless explained.

Really? I'm not sure this is the case, Thomas --

I wish you would read my posts, instead of constantly repeating your same old polemical errors.

Well, I claim to be a Christian, so ...

Not anyone. Buddhists aren't heretics. Only those who claim to be Christian, but hold erroneous views, are heretics.

Erroneous views according to your tradition! And you act as if I'm the one on a power trip.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Well of course it did! The Tradition wrote the New Testament. Who d'you think wrote it?

The Jews would argue the whole satan/fallen angels thing is a Hellenic analogical gloss on Scripture, born out of the fact that the Fathers did not know that the text in question refers to the King of Babylon.

God bless,

Thomas

Isa 14:12 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!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast 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:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.


Yes, the Jews would be correct concerning this text -- Btw, your tradition did NOT write the NT -- You guys simply compiled the writings together to form a book revealing our savior, which you hid from the public.

You gots lots of splaining to do Lucy!

 

[Thomas]

Yes, the Jews would be correct concerning this text -- Btw, your tradition did NOT write the NT -- You guys simply compiled the writings together to form a book revealing our savior, which you hid from the public.

The guys who wrote and compiled the texts are the fathers of the Tradition, silly! Who d'you think wrote it? Any why aren't the letters of Clement of Rome in the Canon? or the Didache? Or The Song of the Pearl? or The Shepherd of Hermas?

Then again, why is the Apocalypse of John in the Canon, a lot of people thought it shouldn't be there?

Of course we hid stuff, Jesus tells us to:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
neither cast ye your pearls before swine"
Matthew 7:6.

He preached in Parables, remember, but He explained the meaning only to the Disciples.

You gots lots of splaining to do Lucy!

Well, the Hebrew is heylel, a noun meaning 'day star', and refers to the King of Babylon, who set himself up on as a god, much like yourself

But 'Lucifer' is from the Latin, and didn't make an appearance until the 4th century, and is attributed to Jerome.

The term 'day star' is used three times in the New Testament, using different terms in each case, and two of which relate directly to Jesus:
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts" 2 Peter 1:19

"I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star" Revelations 22:16.

The story of Lucifer, and of fallen angels, is not Scriptural, but grew up in the Catholic Tradition ... so if you want to understand the story, I'd suggest go to the source.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Of course we hid stuff, Jesus tells us to:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
neither cast ye your pearls before swine"
Matthew 7:6.

2 funny...

the masses aren't ready for the truth....they are unable to decipher it...

Gad I love it!

 

[Thomas]

2 funny...
the masses aren't ready for the truth....they are unable to decipher it...
Gad I love it!

So you think Jesus is a joke, now?

 

[wil]

So you think Jesus is a joke, now?

No, but I think that using an interpretation of that scripture to indicate that you should hide information from the public and store it in your basement is a joke.

I think Jesus is saying not to waste wisdom on those who aren't ready to receive it, not to keep that which doesn't fit your paradigm under wraps.

Of course I could be wrong.

 

[Thomas]

No, but I think that using an interpretation of that scripture to indicate that you should hide information from the public and store it in your basement is a joke.

You're letting your imagination run away with you, old friend.

Remember there was no RCC for centuries, and that most of the theologians were Easterners, with the exception of a very few – Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Tertullian — and that although there were schisms, there certainly was no secret stash of documents anywhere.

Bear in mind also that the Orthodox denominations follow that rule more strictly than the Latin West, so that rather makes a nonsense of your point.

Jesus taught His disciples, and entrusted them with the mission to ensure the correct transmission of his teaching to the world.

The passed the teaching on to their successors — it's called Apostolic Succession, a lineage that can be traced through most of the Christian denominations, certainly the major traditional lines.

I think Jesus is saying not to waste wisdom on those who aren't ready to receive it, not to keep that which doesn't fit your paradigm under wraps.

That's rich, coming from someone who's re-written the paradigm to suit himself.

But you do agree that one is right to keep the inner meaning of the Mysteries from those who do not understand, or who would demean it. Why then do you mock?

Jesus was saying not to waste wisdom on those who are not ready, or are not willing, to receive it.

But the point remains — Jesus passed the secrets of the kingdom to His chosen followers, and they to their successors.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Courage]

The Bible gives good guidelines in this case.

Jude 1:9
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”


So Satan is a figure, a person.