Do we really have to say “Within the context of the story” over and over again to avoid posts like this?
SInce the bible is made up of multiple stories by a multitude of authors - and there is no explicit scripture/verse, etc that states “and on the 8th day, God got bored and created satan so that he had somthing to test his newfound humans with” - we have to accept that the author’s of the stories themselves did the creation, and the reasoning behind it. Further, since no author points back and says “this is the satan of abraham, begat by the serpent of Eve” - we can’t guess as to the lineage either.
Now, if you can cite chapter/verse that says why “God” did it - then we can get back to the “story” - but as it stands - in all of the stories, the antagonist (whatever name/form he/she takes at the time) just “is”.
The short answer is that God did not create a spirit of evil; rather, he created an angel who then chose to sin by rebelling against God. This of course ignores the bigger “problem of evil”–a problem which applies not only to Satan’s choice but to human ones as well–but as for what happened with Satan, this is the answer offered by Christian theology.
Christian theologians would also quibble with assigning much responsibility for man’s fall to Satan. While doctrines on original sin vary between denominations, nearly all agree that serpent Satan only provided temptation–he never commands Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, but instead says they will become “like God, knowing good and evil” if they do. And Satan isn’t completely deceptive; they do learn the difference between good and evil, and they don’t die in the way they thought God meant by the phrase “you shall surely die” (this is patched by theologians to mean a “spiritual death” in order to keep God from looking like an outright liar).
And that’s how the myth of the Christian devil is understood today: He isn’t an unopposable malevolent force, he’s someone who gets you to do his dirty work for him. The legend of Faust and the countless stories of a “deal with the devil” all hinge on the idea that it’s the temptee him/herself who causes evil regardless of their supposedly good intentions; the devil is little more than a means to that end.
Sure. But that just brings up the question of why God not realize that Lucifer would rebel and become Satan, or create him with such a nature that, like Mike, Gabe, Uri, and the rest, he would not rebel.
Fair point. Again, medieval theologians had to incorrectly interpret Isaiah and Ezekiel as referring to Satan for this to work, but their answer was that Lucifer was the greatest of the angels before he fell (medieval theology spun a panoply of angelic “levels” from a few scant words of scripture and patristic writing; I frankly would have trouble even explaining it). So he was in a unique position to lead the rebellion; we just don’t know enough about Mike, Gabe, Raffy, and the rest to know why they didn’t give in to his temptation.
As for whether or not God knew Lucifer and the other angels would rebel, the standard line is that of course he knew, but that Lucifer’s fall and the subsequent actions of Satan serve his grand purpose, i.e. it wasn’t an unfortunate consequence, but all part of the plan. In this interpretation Lucifer actually likes being Satan; this is why Milton has him say it is “better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven”.
I’d still like to hear your reply to my query: you said there’s a super simple question that various and sundry folks have been unable to answer, and you wrote in giant lettering that ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE God knows everything, and I asked for a cite.
what i don’t get is the fact this indicates “evil” intrinsically existed prior to the original sin.
1 John 3:19-20
By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.
just for the record. i’m pretty sure your stance is the bible is bunk, so i do not see the necessity of nitpicking cites within it. but since you asked, there you go. there’s tons more alluding to similar attributes, but that’s pretty unambiguous.
Your statements in the OP would still be wrong. There’s nothing in the scriptures saying that Satan rebelled because he was jealous of man, for instance. There’s almost nothing said about Satan, in fact, especially if your remove the Christian tradition of identifyng him with the snake and with Lucifer.
Unrelated, you said that God knows the past and present. But in the Genesis for instance, he only understands that Adam and Ev ate the fruit because they were ashamed of being naked. So, he wasn’t aware of this recent past event.
You must distinguish between what is written in the bible and the Christian tradition, otherwise it’s impossible to answer any question.
As mentioned upthread, I happen to be Jewish – so I suppose my stance is that the New Testament is bunk. (Which brings me to a possible answer for the OP, if he sees an unanswerable contradiction in the New Testament but doesn’t see one in the Old Testament – provided the cites can be nitpicked that way.)
Thanks for the correction. I learned something from you!
I don’t have internet at home, so I didn’t see any of this until now. Thanks for clearing that up for me, buddy.
He’s right, you’re an idiot. Because the bible is most certainly “bunk”.
It NEVER says that! It says only that they defied him.
Don’t insult other posters in this forum.
Sorry, I’d gladly edit it if I could.
who’s right? who’s an idiot?
…who believes the bible?
i know you’re young and all but try to be more mindful (and/or) clear of what are saying.
i simply posted a cite to back up your first post. there’s a way to point out cites while not taking a stance (i wasn’t taking a stance).
meanwhile, if you think the bible is bunk, why would you ask for answers on why god created the devil? if you think it’s bunk, there’s your answer: because it’s bunk.
bible spider searching online brings up a lot of less than direct scriptures for both new and old testament attesting to God’s knowledge.
without digging out my concordances or commentary bibles to sleuth out the hebrew and nailing down these interpretations (i don’t *entirely *want to dive into bible study, here), i will instead just ask you:
do you not believe G-d is all-knowing?
i am still learning the intricacies of Judaism (hey, i made my first Sukkah this past sukkot*), so i don’t know about the interpretation of G-d knowing all things. He is considered the Almighty, tho–so i would think that would imply omnipotence.
(i am not jewish or…well. i’m not anything but a backslider. but i did paint a cool glory-of-the-clouds sukkah).
There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday which argues that the folks who wrote the OT didn’t believe God was all-knowing or omnipotent. Rather, these attributes derive from attempts to graft Platonic philosophy onto the concept of the Hebrew God. Certainly this was a process that started with the Septuagint right on thru to the NT (Paul was a Hellenist thru and thru), but early Christian theologians–heavily influenced by neo-Platonism in the 3rd and 4th centuries–accelerated it substantially.
I think his point is fairly obvious if you read the OT seriously. God as a character is one who often changes his mind, seems surprised by the actions of other characters in the stories, and is unable to control his chosen people to any serious degree.
that…
is extremely interesting.
it changes the complexion of Abrahamic religions, too.
i’m a deist so i kind of have an arbitrary view on this stuff, but i am pretty well versed in Christianity (father was a preacher and i used to be in the ministry) and part of my contention w all that was the perfection/conflict.
i’m curious what other jews think about this idea of a totally imperfect God. i can’t want to ask my jewish friends…
thanks for the link.
When you do ask your Jewish friends, be sure to ask them for their definition of “perfect”.