Wasn’t really trying to create a consistent theology when I wrote that, but that Satan as a trickster and tempter that led a third of the angels after they fell was as close metaphor as I felt a fifteen minute story really needed.
I’ll do more research for the novel. 
You make God sound selfish, if can can do all things why does he have to be served? I would not beat my chil,d or kill some of his/her offsprings so they could have joy after they are dead. If I can prevent my child from suffering I do what I can to prevent it, I had my children so I could give them love and comfort. I would thinkk that God is better than me!
Can you provide a Biblical cite for any of these claims?
Do you have any children? If so, is it your desire that they dedicate their lives to serving you?
The problem with this sort of question is that there’s a lot of variables involved when discussing the concept of satan. There’s the version of satan we see in popular culture, but I don’t know if I’ve ever met anyone that actually believes in that version, so asking someone to explain contradictions in that version is not only going to be tricky, but demonstrating contradiction in that single permutation among countless others is an exercise in futility.
To that end, I can’t explain the apparent contradiction in that version of satan because, though I am Christian, my view of satan is considerably different. I view satan as more of an anthropomorphization of sin and temptation. It is difficult for man, especially when we were much younger as a species and had less understanding of our place in the universe, to understand why evil exists and why people my choose to do it without some force acting in that way. So to ask me why God created satan is sort of like asking why cold exists when, when really cold is just an absence of heat, as such, evil and sin exist as a consequence of will and choice.
To me if God created Satan then it would mean he wants evil to exist,and if so then why would he punish humans for doing evil and let satan win a person’s soul? It says to me that either Satan doesn’t exist, and it is just another writing, teaching or belief of another human!
So much for God being honest with his creation and setting a good example from the outset. He gives Adam and Eve a Garden Of Eden that he tells them is all theirs, except for one particular tree, and then forgets to add he’s threw that Shaitan character into the mix.
The Trickster was playing head games with them from the outset, knowing they were as green as freshly mown grass. Talk about giving Himself a challenge.
God: “Bwahahahahahaaaaa… let’s see how these rubes handle my new creation, Lucifer Morningstar.”
That’s what I was going to ask also. The name “Lucifer” appears only once in the Bible, and refers to a king of Babylon (possibly Nebuchadnezzar II), not to Satan.
The character “Lucifer Morningstar” is from DC Comics.
Those silly twenty-first century people. Most of them weren’t yet even operating thetans, can you imagine? Thank Ron that such suppressive persons were finally cleared away a few thousand years ago.
Well, there you go then - God created Lucifer Morningstar because he fancied trying his hand at the comics medium. He simply chose to act through Neil Gaiman and Mike Carey so as not to set the religious into a froth and atheists all a twitter.
And the serpent in the Garden of Eden is not explicitly identified as Satan or as anything/anyone other than a serpent.
What’s the word “either” doing in there?
I guarantee the majority of people that are religious believe in pop-culture Satan.
You’re assuming MOST religious people are well educated. Some certainly are. Maybe as many as 49%. (Doubt it.) But MOST? Nope.
I’m sorry, you’re right. I did some more research.
Satan is never directly, in the bible, identified as Lucifer Morningstar.
The DC comics thing?
Wrong, well, sort of. He might be a comic character, but he also is…
“Lucifer Morningstar was the name of God’s first General according to Canaanite “Myth” (Religion).”
Which is where I got my story from. Sorry. I mixed up my knowledge from reading the Bible with historical mythology research. So I guess this whole post would be pointless, if not for the fact that Canaanite “myth” is so hugely related to Christianity that it isn’t even funny.
I want everybody to realize I know that Christianity is crap. Just a question addressing part of my proof.
Do you have a cite for “Lucifer Morningstar was the name of God’s first General according to Canaanite “Myth” (Religion).”?
There’s that for a link to Satan/Morningstar.
I’ll get back on the Canaanite thing in about an hour.
hkepotat, please consider putting blank lines between your paragraphs. Some of us are middle-aged.
Even in that link there is no Lucifer Morningstar-it is either “Liucifer” or “Morningstar”, and it is more linked to a king of the Old Testament than to Satan, as a thorough read of your link shows.
“Lucifer Morningstar” is still just a DC Comics character.
Meh…we deal with fictional characters and the logical ramifications of their supposed character/story all the time on the SDMB–IIRC there was once a lengthy thread on this board trying to decide whether or not Superman could tear his own head off. If we can make coherent arguments about that, we can deal with this rather basic concept of Christian mythology.
This is certainly the starting point for Satan, but the concept is developed in a way that it’s possible to define a somewhat different “Christian Satan” distinct from the OT version.
This is correct; Christians identify Satan with Lucifer because of Isaiah 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!”. “Lucifer” in Latin means “light bearer”, and was the common appelation for the morning star (Venus), which rises just ahead of the sun. As CurtC correctly notes, this identification is wrong; it requires the verse to be read out of context. If the entire chapter is read, it’s clear Isaiah is referring to a historical ruler who was dead by the time of the prophet. Christians also allegorize the writings of another prophet to explain Satan, Ezekiel 28:12-15:
Again, the surrounding text makes it clear Ezekiel is referring to a historical ruler, the king of the city of Tyre. Nevertheless, many Christian thinkers have used these texts to outline the origins of their particular Satan: He was once the chief of God’s angels (“seal of perfection…anointed as a guardian cherub”), then made the choice to rebel against God (this is the theological definition of “sin”), and was driven “in disgrace from the mount of God”.
The Fourth Lateran Council (1213-5) confirmed the above beliefs about the existence of the devil with the additional caveat that he and his angel-henchmen were made evil per se (“by themselves”, i.e. without God making them evil). This was quite a problem for medieval theologians, who in the main considered “sin” a result of ignorance about the true wonder and majesty of God–if you just knew how great he was you’d never sin again! But the angels seemed to have a much better knowledge of God, so how could ignorance be the cause of their sin? None of them had a really good answer–and the Catholic Church at least has no accepted doctrine on what exactly happened–but the consensus is that Satan’s sin was one of pride most probably caused by knowledge that God himself (in the form of Christ) would essentially elevate the lesser species of man to a status higher than the angels. Knowledge of this event was so extraordinary (there really is no earthly equivalent to this change in the divine hierarchy) that it could even tempt the angels to rebel.