Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Where did Satan come from?
I figured you were
referencing the Latin Vulgate. It's just not a Hebrew text is all. Ya know, it's Latin.
Hope you had a fun weekend. Back to work for me.
posted by
Kripayne
on March 12, 2007 at 12:15 PM
| link to this | reply
good information
but they won't accept your information -- you know it. I have made mention of this verse and they invariably insist that it is talking about a fallen angel. but you have provided information that I didn't bother to research.
I think anyone who researches the subject of heaven and hell and god and satan knows that these are constructs derived from Greek and other mythologies preceding Christianity.
problem with those who see the reality of Satan, this spawns a whole slough (slew?) of Satan-worshippers, who believe they are worshipping a real evil being and await this evil being's influence in their lives.
it is all so sad. totally because Satan is a total myth.
two instances (Job and Jesus' Temptation in the Desert) show Satan as not being an enemy of god -- rather acting as (pardon the pun) a "devil's advocate" to question the theretofore accepted, to provide a "springboard" for further action, etc., thus not an enemy, but an ally providing a possible alternative and a second look at matters.
posted by
Xeno-x
on March 12, 2007 at 9:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Kripayne - I am referring to the Latin Vulgate, completed in 405CE
The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated as: "shining one, son of dawn" and is thought to refer to the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. "Lucifer" is not a major mistranslation as it is the Latin equivalent, the misinterpretation came in subsequent translations. Somewhere along the line after this point in time, someone decided that this story was about a fallen angel and interjected a meaning to it that did not originally exist.
posted by
gomedome
on March 12, 2007 at 6:23 AM
| link to this | reply
I was surprised
to see you write that a Latin word appears in Hebrew text. Which particular Hebrew text are you referring to? The word in Hebrew is "heylel" which is "morning star" which derives from the Hebrew word "halal." It is believed to refer to the planet Venus, and yes that particular passage in Isaiah is also in reference to the fall of Babylon. Even biblical scholars will agree on these points. The book recommended by Ciel is an excellent read. I would agree that Satan is a construct.
Yea! I'm a furry blogger floating to heaven. 
Salvation is assured.
posted by
Kripayne
on March 11, 2007 at 10:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Troosha -that ultimately is the most unhealthy part of the concept of Satan
The deflection of personal responsibility to an invisible being does nothing to address the constants of human nature. We are all subject to temptations, it is not some pointy eared little red guy that makes us weak but instead our own shortcomings.
posted by
gomedome
on March 11, 2007 at 10:43 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
Maybe some cling to the notion of "Satan" when they cannot accept accountability for any adverse Universal responses that may occur in their life. They chose not to acknowledge that they are the Captain of their ship and just as they can infuse life and love into the world, they can be equally responsible of the negativity they may face. Easier to blame a mystical force or figure than changing course, raise another sail, or re-tap the compass.
posted by
Troosha
on March 11, 2007 at 5:09 PM
| link to this | reply
SuccessWarrior - expansion and diversification are necessary elements to
develop in a fast paced changing environment.
posted by
gomedome
on March 11, 2007 at 3:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Tonyzonit - I've run into the L.Ray Smith website in the past
HERE
I agree that his interpretations are unorthodox, they seem to straddle conventional religious thinking and common sense at the same time (very tough to do) but as all believers do, he ignores any other possibilities than ascribing all things created to God. I can only follow this form of logic for so long, I give the man credit for at least coming to the conclusions that much of what the believing world adheres to is manufactured, erroneous or possibly based on misconception but all of his efforts are constricted by an underlying bias that his conclusions must support the existence of God.
posted by
gomedome
on March 11, 2007 at 3:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Ciel - when it is broken down at a conceptual level it is all quite
understandable.
Rewarding good and punishing bad actions will always remain the fundamental basis of teaching and understanding right and wrong. It is but a microstep from this premise to manufacturing personifications of these concepts. The part that has always astounded me however is how some people will insist that these concepts are real living breathing corporeal beings. Taking it even a step further to provide some flimsy anecdotal evidence to back their insistence that the devil is very real.
posted by
gomedome
on March 11, 2007 at 3:09 PM
| link to this | reply
proc - I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make but there is no
disputing that there are some things that we will never prove scientifically etc. etc.
The human emotions you attempt to use as an analogy don't quite work however when compared to the construction and proliferation of the existence of a mythical being. There are also some "things" that we will believe to be true against all reason.
posted by
gomedome
on March 11, 2007 at 2:57 PM
| link to this | reply
So you've grown tired of picking on Christians and now . . .
you're trying to destroy cults that hold Satan in the highest esteem. Will you never be happy? =)
posted by
SuccessWarrior
on March 11, 2007 at 1:43 PM
| link to this | reply
I read a book called 'The Formation of Hell' by Alan Bernstein.
This is recommended reading, as is L. Ray Smith's website, which, although Christian, is not orthodox and points out many of the delusions and inventions of the modern Christian church.
posted by
Antonionioni
on March 11, 2007 at 1:17 PM
| link to this | reply
The religion scholar, Elaine Pagels has written a book on this topic:
The Origin of Satan. I recommend it to anyone seriously interested in putting Satan in perspective.
As for giving credit, responsibility and/or blame for the concept of and Evil Counterpart to God, I glare at the Folks who followed Mithra, who really gave a push to the notion of divine duality, which has permeated much of religion since long before the sprouting of the Judeo-Christian belief-tree. Not that older religions didn't feature adversarial relationships (between Osiris and Set, among the Egyptian pantheon, for instance). But the Mithraists recognized a single God, as the source of all that is Good, and therefore postulated another lesser sort of diety as the source of all Evil.
It all comes of Man trying to understand why bad, unfair things happen to good people. (Of course, if something terrible and tragic happens to an enemy, it becomes the evidence of God's Righteous Wrath, and therefore, Good.)
posted by
Ciel
on March 11, 2007 at 12:14 PM
| link to this | reply
There are many things we cant prove
scientifically,intellectually or factually but they do exist.I cant prove my parents loved me,nor can I prove that some people make my skin crawl.But these things exist.
posted by
proc
on March 11, 2007 at 11:22 AM
| link to this | reply