Satan's origin

[Godmachine]

The story of how Lucifer rebelled against God and became Satan is a very interesting part of Christian mythology. It goes something like this:

Of all the angels in Heaven, Lucifer was the most perfect, the most beautiful, God's favorite, the "anointed cherub". God created Lucifer for a very special purpose. What that purpose was is unclear. Some say it was to proclaim and protect God's glory. Whatever his job was, it was a very important position in the heavenly hierarchy. God created the angels with intelligence and freewill as he did with mankind, and Lucifer, being second only to God Himself was full of pride and began to get the idea that he deserved more, that he should be worshiped like God. Pride became jealousy and eventually Lucifer sought to usurp God's divine authority. This was where "evil" was born. Lucifer plotted and schemed and led a rebellion along with one third of the angels in Heaven against God. There was a war in Heaven and Lucifer and his minions were cast out. Today they reside in a realm we call "Hell" and the universe in which we live exists somewhere between Heaven and Hell.

There are different variations of the story but this seems to be the basic gist of it. There is some disagreement over when these events took place. Some believe it was long before the creation of the universe. Others believe these events coincide with the fall of man. Either way the story does not mesh well with the notion of an all-seeing, all-knowing God who should have known before he created Lucifer, what would happen if he did. So I made up my own version of the story in which there is no rebellion and Lucifer's transformation into Satan becomes part of God's plan.....

The Creator was putting the finishing touches on his finest creation when it occurred to him that some element was missing. But he just couldn't quite put his finger on what it was. So he called a meeting of the heavenly hosts to hear their ideas and opinions. Perhaps one of them could discern the missing element. When the Creator unveiled his new project, the heavenly hosts all marveled and proclaimed its perfect beauty. "What is it for?" they asked. And the Creator answered, "Here I shall bring about countless life forms and they shall all be happy and witness the beauty of my creation." The heavenly hosts all agreed that it was perfect. Finally a voice spoke up, the voice of Lucifer: "It's too perfect," he said. The heavenly hosts all gasped at such blasphemy. How could perfection be a flaw? "All I see is beauty," said Lucifer. "Beauty here, beauty there, beauty everywhere. How will those who live there recognize this beauty if it is all they see? How will they know it is beautiful if there is nothing ugly to compare it to?" At this the heavenly hosts began nodding their heavenly heads in agreement. Yes, Lucifer was right. The Creator smiled down at Lucifer, his most cherished angel and said, "I have a very special task for you......"

 

[wil]

How about Man, when creating a G!d in his image, added a devil to blame for all his misfortunes and mistakes?

Could it be that simple?

 

[radarmark]

wil, if you carefully read the enochian-marcion-gnostic-manichean-cathar texts, oddly enough most of the kind of speculation we commonly hear from the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition about the Adversary were (JMHO) cooked up by dualists.

The simple solution you advocate (creating a tempter or something besides g!d to blame) makes much more sense. Usually, the more formal and complex a myth, the more likely it is to miss the mark.

 

[wil]

Blame...it started in the garden...not with eating the apple....but the blame....

She told me to eat it...

that woman YOU gave me...

That snake made me....

Geraldine Wilson, gf of Killer, "The devil made me do it"

It is pretty bad when you gotta make up some horny red critter for your spilt milk.

 

[Paladin]

wil, if you carefully read the enochian-marcion-gnostic-manichean-cathar texts, oddly enough most of the kind of speculation we commonly hear from the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition about the Adversary were (JMHO) cooked up by dualists.

The simple solution you advocate (creating a tempter or something besides g!d to blame) makes much more sense. Usually, the more formal and complex a myth, the more likely it is to miss the mark.

Hi Radar,

Are you familiar with bicameralism? I think its perspective sheds an interesting light into how early religious thought might have been formed. Of course I don't think this is the only influence, but it is a compelling line of inquiry.

 

[Victor]

Hi all you Saints; It's been awhile but after 11 months of work my 4th thesis is finished; 188 pages. Now to get it published... and this thread just fit right in, so if I may? Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, Iblis, the serpent, what a portfolio this divine figure has. And where did he get it?

“Thus says the Lord G-D: You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of G-d; every precious stone was your covering,carnelian, chrysolite, and moonstone, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; and worked in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you…”
(Ezek. 28:11b-16)

In the Garden he was the serpent whose sin was the first and because of his jealousy, the Garden had to be abandoned. G-d's plan for man was ruined because Lucifer was not going to let some man become like G-d, that was his design, to be like G-d Himself. And who did he snare as his victim? The woman, not created out of the dust like the man, but out of the rib of a living being. And when G-d fasioned her, what did she know? NOTHING! The woman was just born, without sin, no mother, no father, no knowledge of evil, deciet or lies. Against her perfect innocense stood the all powerful being of G-d's creation. When Lucifer asked her what G-d had told her, she should have said, "Hey, G-d didn't tell me anything. You need to talk to my husband." Unfortunately, she didn't even know that much and she was deluded by a perfect illusion created by G-d's own creation.

Oh, and if you need to know, read Chapter One of Genesis. G-d created a whole society of men and women before He created Eden. (See Chapter Four, the Land of Nod.) From that earthly society He took A man and placed him in the Garden. When G-d gave the man ('adam) his law, woman had not been created yet. So when G-d told the man he would die if he ate the fruit it simply meant that he would be placed back into the society from which he had been taken and the normal course of life would end in death. On earth, man was never created immortal. Eden was a place without death and without time.... see the Tree of Life!

And my friend, Lucifer does not inhabit Hell, he is right here ln the earth and in the best of health. He is, after all, immortal. G-d, I love this stuff!
Victor G

 

[1980]

I always thought Satan was created as a way to keep people in line and controlled.
What better way to keep people under your power than threaten them with eternity in Hell with Satan himself?

 

[Dream]

Of all the angels in Heaven, Lucifer was the most perfect, the most beautiful, God's favorite, the "anointed cherub". God created Lucifer for a very special purpose.

It will help to look at why the king of Babylon could be seen in this way. Here he is, an amazing king the most amazing ever, and he is good economically for the various countries (after conquering them). He provides a time of peace. The countries are the various stones mentioned in the allegory, so basically it is the wealth of the nations adorning him. He was above all others, and nobody could oppose his judgments. The prophet however said he would fall, and the reason was that he became arrogant. From this and other stories we get "Pride comes before a fall."

 

[1980]

Yes that is true, I have most of them.
He does need to branch out though, maybe some Hip Hop or Electronica would be good, he risks becoming stale and out of date otherwise!

 

[Dream]

Sorry, I edited out the bit about backmasking while you were posting.

 

[1980]

Oh great now I'm posting stuff that only means anything to me!

Let me guess Satan made you edit that post

 

[Thomas]

I wonder how many people ague that the Buddha got the Four Noble Truths wrong?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I lukewarm to Buddha on this, though I go with the Eight-fold Noble Path. That is 'dharma', our duty.

As for the OP, we have Gods and Demons (the larger than life, Daityas). But they are step-brothers. The Adityas (Mitra, Varuna, Indra, Vishnu, etc., their number and names vary over the ages) were sons of God mother Aditi fathered by the hindu Adam of that age, Sage Kashyapa.

The Daityas, are sons of Diti, who was Aditi's sister and daughter of Daksha, the king of humans. Why Diti begetted Daityas is because she insisted on sex at a time when Kashyapa was engaged in meditation and disturbed it. Another sister, Danu, was the mother of Danavas, those who imprisoned the sun every winter in the Aryan homeland till he was released by Indra after the defeat of Danavas.

As for Asuras, that sometimes denotes demons and sometimes the Gods. Rakshasas (like Ravana) are humans, but with evil deeds. The other semi-divine species are Gandharvas, Kinnaras, and Vidyadharas. They are adepts in arts and know magic. Gandharva women, Apsaras dance in the court of Indra. They are the progeny of yet another Daksha daughter and wife of Sage Kashyapa, Muni.

 

[radarmark]

First of all "bicameralism" works, in a psychological sense. I am afraid that philosophically, it could be valid, but probably is not. Why? Because most of us (or philosophers, who may be psychotic to begin with) never experience it. It may be a possibility (in ancient times).

I personally have never experienced this (and I am an addict, an alcoholic, and a psychotic... or nearly so due to PTSD). It may be true but has nothing to do with today!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I always thought Satan was created as a way to keep people in line and controlled.

It is a shallow, adolescent theory.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Which is probably why it is so generally accepted and believed. Keep it simple, stupid is always a good way to go when one wants to get the most bang for the buck amongst the general population.

 

[Thomas]

I have edited my comment for fear of upsetting some delicate souls.

 

[Victor]

I would like to add a note here, something to think about. 'adam, mankind, was created in Chapter one of Genesis as an entire society on the earth. He was not created immortal. Adam, a man, was taken out of that society and placed in Eden, (Chapter Two)a perfect, timeless garden. Eden was not his natural environment and he had to learn, so G-d 'programmed' him for his task. One law was also part of his 'programming', that being a strict rule not to eat of a certain fruit, or else. The basic premise is that it would make him like G-d, a desire that was already visible in the creature "snake"; serpent, Lucifer, Evil i.e., the devil.

Woman, Ishshah, was created in the Garden, it was her natural environment, but consider this. She is newly born, an infant in a woman's body. She knows nothing of society, evil, sin, corruption, and she had not been 'born' when Adam was given his task. She knows nothing of the forbidden fruit. She was, for all intents and purposes, a blank. Who does Satan choose for his victim, the absolute, perfect innocence of Eve. And this perfect soul of innocence, this sinless bing is faced with the wisest, most beautiful, most powerful of all G-d's creations. Is woman guilty of some ageless sin? Genesis tells us that she saw the fruit of the tree as something to be desired, treasured, a fantasy Evil created in her mind.

The only sin here is Satan's, and it has a purpose. Lucifer desires the throne of G-d, he wishes to be like G-d, to take His position, and he is not going to allow a man to beat him to his goal. If Adam eats the fruit he will be like G-d knowing 'good and evil' and he will be first to have the mind of God and Satan is not going to let that happen. By causing the two to be thrown out of Eden before man can accomplish the deed he will be victorious in his desire. But what is it that the fruit actually gives man? He already knows the difference between right and wrong. What he will learn is WHY things are right or wrong, good or evil. Why is it wrong to go naked? NO, don't give me society's reason, give me God's reason. Why is it wrong to go naked on a hot summer day, or is it actually wrong at all? And after you consider Eve's actual mental and intellectual level you must ask yourself, "Is G-d stupid?"

Surely He knew the serpent was evil when He created that one. Did he put Lucifer in the garden with 'adam to make sure the man never reached the pinnical of success that G-d had originally planned for him? You see, the allegory is not as simple as we would have it, as the Church would have it. And the fruit did cause Adam to know death, because once returned to his natural environment, the society already created on the earth, he would no longer be immortal and death would come as part of his natural estate.

 

[radarmark]

First,you are assuming "a man" (adam) was the first man, created by g!d. A lot of the world does not accept this. Nor do they accept this definition of concepts of "death" and "mortality" and "woman" implicit in your post.

 

[Thomas]

I would like to add a note here, something to think about. 'adam, mankind, was created in Chapter one of Genesis as an entire society on the earth.

Well, that's a rather imaginative notion, isn't it? I mean, that's not what Scripture says at all, so one could say you're just making this up?

He was not created immortal. Adam, a man, was taken out of that society and placed in Eden, (Chapter Two) a perfect, timeless garden.

No, the text rather seems to imply he was created in the Garden (cf Gen 2:7-8).

I think you miss the symbol of the Garden.
The Garden Paradise is the same as the notion of the Greek Golden Age, or the Hindu Yuga. The first and primordial age is one of peace, harmony, and so on, and then each successive age devolves downward, until the cycle begins again.

So I would say the idea of man taken out of a society and placed in the garden is erroneous, as you're now positing a time before time, and then it goes on, but what came before that, but what came before that, ad infinitum.

One law was also part of his 'programming', that being a strict rule not to eat of a certain fruit, or else. The basic premise is that it would make him like G-d...

No, the basic premise was he would die ... 'the knowledge of good and evil' infers duality, and as 'evil' in this instance is 'other than God wills', then basically it's saying 'if you go against the will of God / Nature / Heaven / Truth / Reality / Tao / (insert your own absolute measure) / then you will lose, because you have cut yourself off from the source.

Making man like God was the serpent's lie.

a desire that was already visible in the creature "snake"; serpent, Lucifer, Evil i.e., the devil.

Well again, it's hard to read if you don't read symbol.

The tree in the midst of paradise is the vertical axis, it's the world tree, it's the totem ... its branches matches its roots, so it's a symbol of 'as above, so below' (the four rivers radiating from the base of the tree is the wheel and horizontal axis).

Man is not at the top of the tree, even prelapsarian Adam is not as perfect as God. So there is contingency in man, and the serpent, which comes out of the ground (up from below) is something like a 'law of entropy' — if there can be movement up, there can be movement down.

... but consider this. She is newly born, an infant in a woman's body.

Ooh, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with where this is heading...

She knows nothing of the forbidden fruit. She was, for all intents and purposes, a blank.

Is this mysogyny? Man is man, knowledgeable, adult ... woman is a child, blank ...?

Either way, you're wrong:
"And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die." (3:2-3)
She knew as much as Adam knew.

Who does Satan choose for his victim, the absolute, perfect innocence of Eve.

You mean because she's a woman, and can't help herself? You think innocence is without strength or 'backbone'?

And this perfect soul of innocence, this sinless bing is faced with the wisest, most beautiful, most powerful of all G-d's creations.

Or are you saying that women can't help themselves when confronted by the 'smooth-talking bad guy'

Is woman guilty of some ageless sin?

Man and woman both. They both ate the fruit as one. The effect is realised simultaneously.

Genesis tells us that she saw the fruit of the tree as something to be desired, treasured, a fantasy Evil created in her mind.

Yes. Symbolism again.
The woman symbolises the inward and interior, the man the outward and exterior. The woman symbolises the spirit, the man the body. The woman symbolises the essence of things, the man the substance.

Man — the body — sees the substantial surface of the fruit. Woman — the soul — sees the essential nature of the fruit as well as its glamour, its attraction.

The only sin here is Satan's,

No. That's simply saying "I know I did wrong, but it's not my fault. He made me do it." It's a lie. It is my fault. The serpent wasn't holding a gun to Eve's head.

If Adam eats the fruit he will be like G-d knowing 'good and evil' and he will be first to have the mind of God ...

But that's not true, is it? That is a lie.

... and Satan is not going to let that happen.

But Satan knows it's not true.

Satan is jealous of man because while all creation is 'good' (as God said to Himself every day after His labours) only man is 'very good' ... and Satan knws that man is destined for the closest union with God possible, and is jealous, and seeks to engineer man's downfall ...

But what is it that the fruit actually gives man? He already knows the difference between right and wrong.

In principle, yes, but he hasn't actualised it.

The primordial couple can see the tree, see the fruit. If we pursue this, why put the feckin tree slap bang in the middle of the garden? Why make its fruit seem 'good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold' when it's poison?

Why did the scribe write it thus? What was he trying to warn against. Is this not the first example of 'appearances can be deceptive (even in Paradise)'? Or 'all that glitters is not gold'.

I was watching TV last night. A man faces the rest of his life locked in a box, so he reaches for a syringe of heroin that the 'bad guy' (this is a US programme, so he's black and he's gay, ) tells him is his 'escape'.

Ask yourself, is it? Is it REALLY?

This is what the story is all about. The right road is the hard one, if it was easy, we'd all be in Paradise, but it's because we're addicted to the fruit, the quick fix, it requires no effort and tastes nice, but is killing us ... I know it's killing me, but right now I'm getting my rocks off, so what the bleep ...

What he will learn is WHY things are right or wrong, good or evil.

WRONG. He KNOWS that already.

He only knows one bad thing. The fundamental point: That he is free to turn away from God / The Real / The True / The Beautiful / The Source of All That Is, and attach himself to its antithesis, which is his extinction – Death.

He knows this, he was told this, for his own protection.

Why is it wrong to go naked?

Victor, you're inverting the whole thing!

According to Scripture, it isn't, is it, because the primordial couple were naked in Paradise and never batted an eye: "And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed" (2:25)?

But AFTER they ate the fruit:
"And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons" THEN they saw their nakedness, and THEN they were ashamed.

In fact God was seriously annoyed at the idea. The very first thing He says, the very first thing: "And who hath told thee that thou wast naked?" (3:11). He hadn't.

So the serpent did. The serpent knew that when they ate the fruit, they'd see their nakedness, and feel shame. Nakedness and shame are all part of the serpent's lie.

Naked was for Adam and Eve, like the knowledge of good and evil, something they knew but did not know substantially. A concept unrealised. A possibility (indeed a potentiality) but not an actuality.

Then they ate the fruit, and the genie was out of the bottle, and they couldn't put it back.

NO, don't give me society's reason, give me God's reason.

Because realising one's nakedness is realising separation. When "the eyes of both of them were opened" (3:7) what eyes is the scribe talking about? They were patently not blind before then. It's the 'inner eye' that closed, that's the point. All they saw was difference, they saw the same world, but now they were no longer in it; where there had been one-ness, unity, harmony, there was now two-ness, separation, discord, nakedness, shame.

And after you consider Eve's actual mental and intellectual level ...

C'mon? Now Eve's a moron?

you must ask yourself, "Is G-d stupid?"

Or ... "am I?"

Surely He knew the serpent was evil when He created that one.

Surely he knows you and I and all of us are capable of the most despicable acts ... but are we obliged to perform them?

Did he put Lucifer in the garden with 'adam to make sure the man never reached the pinnical of success that G-d had originally planned for him?

What logic supposes God works against Himself to undermine His own will?

You see, the allegory is not as simple as we would have it, as the Church would have it.

I think the allegory is very simple: We constantly look to something or someone else to blame for our own actions. They both ate the fruit, but Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent ... We want freedom without responsibility.

Notice: Neither Adam nor Eve ever said 'sorry', not to God, not to each other.

Here's another story:
God made the world, and all the animals in it, and put them in a Park, and said, "you, Mr Lion & Mrs Lion, are top kiddies. You get to sleep near Me, with the lambs, the weakest and meekest of my creation. Look after them." And the lion lay down with the lamb.
"And whatever you do," God said, walking away, "don't eat the lamb. You're allergic, it'll make you really sick."
And then the serpent said to Mrs Lion, "Lamb tastes good. Lamb tastes like life!"
Mrs Lion said, "God said not to eat the lamb."
The serpent sniggered. "You silly thing. Only cos He wants it for Himself. Look at it."
And Mrs Lion looked at the lamb, and saw that the lamb "was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the lamb thereof, and did eat, and gave to Mr Lion who did eat" (v3:6 paraphrased).
Later that day, the serpent found Mr and Mrs Lion going through terrible bout of the squits. And the serpent said, "Oh dear, you're in deep doo-doo now!"
"That lamb is horrible!" wailed Mr Lion. "She said you told her it would taste fantastic!"
"Yes," said the serpent. "Still, never mind. In for a penny, that's what I say. Tell me, have you tried the pig?"
And Death and Fear and Terror came to Paradise.