Talk:Satan/archive 1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived January 2010 --Ed Poor Talk 10:43, 13 January 2010 (EST)

An unsigned contrib

Just to be clear, in the Jewish tradition, Satan is an angel who serves as the adversary of Man. He never rebelled and he still serves God, acting as a sort of "prosecutor" while God sits as judge. The page should probably be altered to reflect the split. I have no idea how Islam views the Devil, though I think they call him "Iblis." I have edited the article to present this alternate view, for fairness.

If I recall correctly, Iblis was either an angel or a Djinn who was thrown out of Heaven for refusing to bow before Adam. (Some mystics have sympathy for him, on the grounds that it's wrong for an angel to bow before anyone but God, even if God orders them to.) Supposedly, he'll eventually repent and be allowed back into Heaven.

Satanists don't actually worship Satan. where as Satan, as refered to in the article, is a physical being and/or person, Satanists instead believe in a archetype of their beliefs, which they call satan. thus when satanists refer to satan, they are actually talking about themselves/others and the manifestation of their ideologies within, as opposed to the devil.


This article was just editted to "remove the athiest bias". Take a look at the changes.

"In the Christian tradition, he rebelled against God and was cast from Heaven to reign over Hell"

was changed to

He rebelled against God and was cast from Heaven to reign over Hell

This basically states that Christians are correct, and that it is not only in their tradition, but is fact. Fix this please.

"In the Jewish tradition, Satan faithfully serves God as a tester of the piety of men."

was changed to

"Jews believe that Satan faithfully serves God as a tester of the piety of men."

This means the same thing, but seems to have been changed to make it seem like the latest change was not to make Christians look 100% correct by adding consistency. Change the wording back or leave it, doesn't matter.

"Christian Views"

was changed to

"History and Goals"

This, once again, assumes that Christians are 100% correct. There are other views of Satan, not just the Christian view, so this should be changed back to stay accurate and unbiased.

"In Christianity, Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God"

was changed to

"Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God"

Once again, trying to show that the Christian view is the only view. Personally, that is not my view, and is therefore inaccurate to say it is the hisory and goals. Change it back to being a Christian idea.

"Some believe that Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth"

was changed to

"Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth"

Again, only some people believe that, I personally do not, change it back to keep unbiased.

"The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions."

was changed to

"The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions, which offers compelling evidence of his existence."

Yet again, trying to prove Satan's absolute existance, despite not everyone thinking so. This is a Christian view, and all these sections should be changed back to the unbiased state that they were in. It was not "athiest biased", it was simply showing the possibility of other views. Thank you. --ALFa 01:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind, it had already been changed it back by the time I typed all this. Thanks. --ALFa 01:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Satan reigning in Hell?

I realize this is a concept from Milton, but does anyone know if this is Biblical? The lake of fire was created for satan and his angels for his eternal punishment at the end of days. In Revelation he is thrown down from heaven and he is described as "the prince of this world" in the New Testament, but where does it state he reigns in hell?

Also, where is there a "divine council" of the angels where satan is present in the New Testament? If this is the case, then we should cite the place.

Thanks Learn together 23:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the Bible implies that Satan is a prisoner in Hell along with the rest of the damned. DanH 23:41, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

I thought that the New Testament statement that was removed implied that he was referenced in the NT, not this divine council. But I didn't really read it so I may be wrong.Богдан Talk 00:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
I will correct accordingly, to make this more clear. Thanks Learn together 01:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Who tempted Jesus in the desert...? If Satan was indeed IMPRISONED in Hell, how did he tempt Jesus? "Get thee behind me!" Ring a bell? If you believe these things... Jros83 02:09, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

That doesn't mean he reigns in hell, only that he still has freedom (although it may be limited). Learn together 02:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Enough freedom to render the the concept of imprisonment to be null and void. If he can come into our world and tempt The Christ, well, reallly, how does that fit imprisonment? Unless you wish to argue that it was in God's plan, but then, of course, you'd have to show me where that is written (I refer you to the Old Testament book of Job where The Lord makes plain that ot was His choice to let Satan test Job, so that I may set precedent). The point I was making is, Satan niether reigns over what we call "Hell" nor is he imprisoned in it. I could go furtherbut I'd be making this a philosophical and theological debate; one I would be severly chastised over at that...Jros83 04:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm afraid you may be confusing this issue. All we were discussing was whether or not he reigns in hell, not whether or not he is imprisoned. As the article had previously stated he reigned in hell, it was important to quickly discuss before removing. Learn together 11:01, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

As we all know, there are differing views of the book of Revelation, but most agree that Satan is finally put in hell forever. The idea of Satan ruling hell right now works if you're the cartoonist for the Far Side, but it's not really the biblical view. DanH 04:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

(edit conflict) There are different interpretations depending upon which branch of hermeneutics and exegesis you support; the article appears to be in keeping with what might loosely be termed the majority opinion. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Shoot, I think on this I'll go with Dante. At least his rendition is a little interesting. Lake of Ice > Lake of Fire.--Elamdri 05:27, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Yeah I'd have to agree with you there. Ice cold fits more with the absence of God's love than flame does. In my opinion. Jros83 02:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Plus it is scarier if you think about it. Frozen in Lake of ice > Burning in lake of Fire. With Fire, there is just the pain, Ice has a whole psychological aspect heaped on top.--Elamdri 03:29, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Defense against Satan

I tried to change the section on defense against Satan, but then discovered that the page was locked. The part doesn't cite sources, because I believe that when describing defending against Satan, we should not proscribe anything that is not clearly outlined in the Bible. I'm not saying that the current things are not in the Bible, and if someone would like to look them up and cite references to them that would be fine. I tried to replace it with:

A Christian defense against Satan is the Armor of God[1].

The part that caught my eye wasn't the lack of reference though, it was "...the Holy Spirit, meaning "The Advocate" (i.e., defense lawyer)." Which makes no sense whatsoever, "Holy Spirit means the Holy Spirit, who is a spirit and is holy, there is nothing to the name that could translate into 'advocate' because it is English to begin with!
  1. Ephesians 6:1-17