What's so bad about Satan?

[pjkeeley]

I apologise if this subject has already been addressed elsewhere, but it bugs me. Now I haven't studied the Bible in any detail, so forgive my possible ignorance. However, I can see nothing much wrong with Satan, based on what I know about the guy. What does he go around doing that's so terrible? All he ever seems to do is tempt people. Most of the time this is over petty things like sex. If Satan represents sex or lust then he should be regarded positively, as a fertility symbol. If he stands for greed than surely he should be revered in this capitalist, materialistic culture of ours. Ditto hate, which has been a virtue for centuries, and no less so in our current warlike, nationalist era. I'm being a tad sarcastic here I admit. But even these things seem to be less characteristics of Satan than simply aspects of the temptation that we attribute to him. And tempting people to do something is only a fraction as bad as actually doing that thing. Don't get me wrong, I think that, say, inciting people to violence is a terrible crime. But I think it's reasonable to view the violence itself as the worse crime. Unless you're actively coerced into doing something, you're still responsible for your actions.

Perhaps Satan is perceived to be evil because he's in charge of Hell, which is where bad people suffer. Well, then surely he's a good guy, because he's punishing evil people? Or, if, like me, you tend to view eternal punishment as something that doesn't befit the crimes people committ in their limited life spans, no matter how bad, then logically the person to blame for Hell is God, not Satan. He's the one that sends people there, and he made Satan in the first place. Once again, I think God comes off as a lot worse in the Bible than Satan does when we compare characters. Satan comes off as a mere trickster who delights in causing mischief, whereas God is still the petty, genocidal egomaniac that Dawkins describes.

Now for the conclusion I draw from all this. Personally I think there is room, even as atheists, for regarding both Jesus and Satan as positive literary symbols. Jesus represents those aspects of human nature that we often aspire to; loving our neighbours as ourselves, meekness, forgiveness, helping the poor, and so on. Likewise, Satan represents those perfectly natural traits that so often overcome us, our base instincts which we should neither fear nor abitrarily deny. Where Jesus represents the happiness people find in married love, for example, Satan represents the satisfaction others find in sex for pleasure. Where Jesus represents putting others before ourselves, Satan represents self indulgence and selfishness, which are perfectly normal and without which no ordinary person can live. When it comes down to it, Jesus represents an ideal that none of us can hope to become, but shows that we can improve the world we live in through love and kindness, while Satan represents the natural selfish streak that we necessarily cultivate in order to live worthwhile lives in the first place. I see them working side by side. Neither attributes are 'better' than the others, we need both to live. It is for this reason that I have chosen Satan as my avatar, though I admit it's also make theists rage.

This view of Satan, from what I gather, is what LeVeyan Satanism is all about (the most common form of practiced Satanism, and what is most often referred to when people refer to themselves as 'Satanist'). It is an atheist philosophy that treats Satan as a symbol of earthly values to which one can aspire, and promotes treating one's self as the only god worth worshipping. The other form of Satansim is theistic and is so stupid as to not warrant any attention here (probably what most Christians think of as 'Satanism'). Admittedly I don't know much about LeVeyan Satanism and certainly don't call myself a Satanist, but I do admire aspects of this point of view (not the fashion sense however, nor their admiration for social darwinism).

So, I encourage former theists, current ones, atheists, and any possible Satanists that happen to come across this thread to join the discussion. What's so bad about Satan?

[SteveS]

Interesting read, pjkeeley.  I certainly agree with the idea that both Jesus and Satan have value as literary characters - they make a person think about things, which has to be good.

I'm not much of a Satan expert or bible scholar either --- but doesn't Satan deceive people?  This would be bad - I think outright deception is a form of fraud.  Of course, a lot of Satan's deception is probably attributed to "deceive people into the here and now, away from God".  But if there is no God, then this is not deception, and Satan is merely temptation (as you describe).  I agree with you that temptation is not evil, but acting on it may be (or may not be, depending on the case in question).

In a way, isn't the story of Job a good example of this?  Basically, doesn't Satan "tempt" God into harming Job?  Doesn't God take him up on it, and act on the temptation?  In other words, all the bad things that happen to Job are caused not by Satan, but by God, and caused by God to test a man in the way that Satan tempts him to test a man.  If this is an accurate portrayal of events, then how can God expect people to resist Satan's temptation when even God cannot resist it?

Maybe my interpretation of the Job story is all bollocks, though.  I read it a long time ago, and I did not read it as a believer --- just picked up the book and read it and said to myself, "Damn, that's f***ed up!".

[Will]

Satan is probably an allegory for churches who break off.

[LARA]

I've thought along similar lines myself at times, pjkeeley, as far as the allegory goes. I liked your point about needing both to survive.  This kind of reminds me a litle of the Yin and Yang of Eastern philosophy, where the symbolism isn't divided into a good and evil scenario, but a pairing of the tension of opposites that creates a natural order in Taoism.  The Christian mythology seem so juvenile in comparison.  Every religion seemsto have some form of allegory between the creative and destructive.  Both these things are a necessary part of life; look into biology.  There is catabolism and anabolism, growth and aptosis, population dynamics of prey and predation.  We at some level must sense these things around us and our early language and logic weren't really advanced enough to describe the processes so we made analogies and myths and recorded them to help understand it and hopefully better our lives.  And it's still hanging around.  Now some this stuff is pretty entertaining the first few go rounds, but  some people want to take it literally.  Which well, I'm inclined to believe they are free to do, but the price of freedom is at times insanity, violence, bad taste and other moronic behavior.

[pjkeeley]

This kind of reminds me a litle of the Yin and Yang of Eastern philosophy, where the symbolism isn't divided into a good and evil scenario, but a pairing of the tension of opposites that creates a natural order in Taoism. The Christian mythology seem so juvenile in comparison. Every religion seemsto have some form of allegory between the creative and destructive. Both these things are a necessary part of life; look into biology. There is catabolism and anabolism, growth and aptosis, population dynamics of prey and predation.

Good point, and one which strengthens my belief that Christianity is probably one of the most unhealthy of the major religions. It treats so much of what it means to be alive as being bad and awful and something we should be guilty about or ashamed of. Eastern religion, though its metaphysical claims are equally untrue as any other religions, is healthy in so far as it advances a more all-encompassing and honest perception of the world. The yin and yang is a beautiful example; a balance between the creative and destructive, as you mentioned.

One problem I do have with Eastern religion though is the Buddhist belief that life is full of desires, which are bad, and therefore full of suffering, and that we can only overcome our suffering by overcoming our desires. We are expected to live a life of asceticism and ignore all kinds of happiness but 'spiritual happiness' (I still don't know what this is) and this is supposed to be a good thing, yet no matter how happy Buddhists look with their 'enlightenment', I can't ever help thinking of that as anything but dreary. I think Buddhism is more or less benign as far as religions go and the harm they can do, but I do think that it's life-denying.

[SteveS]

This discussion is reminding me of a book a read in school -- the book was "Damian" by "Hermann Hesse".  Anybody read it?  The theme seems similar.

[jrosebud]

One problem I do have with Eastern religion though is the Buddhist belief that life is full of desires, which are bad, and therefore full of suffering, and that we can only overcome our suffering by overcoming our desires. We are expected to live a life of asceticism and ignore all kinds of happiness but 'spiritual happiness' (I still don't know what this is) and this is supposed to be a good thing, yet no matter how happy Buddhists look with their 'enlightenment', I can't ever help thinking of that as anything but dreary. I think Buddhism is more or less benign as far as religions go and the harm they can do, but I do think that it's life-denying.

This has been my objection as well.  The easiest way to eleminate human suffering: kill off the human race.  (Not that I'm suggesting that.)

My life is enriched by my desires and the quest to fulfill them.

As far as Jesus being the "good" guy, he's the one who introduced the concept of Hell and eternal damnation.  For that, he gets the Most Heartless Bastard Award from me.  Perhaps he's the trickster.  He passed off a message of hate and division as "the greatest love of all;" proclaimed thoughts, crimes and dissension, heresy; demonized the free-thinking Devil; and placed himself above the needs and desires of all of humanity.  I'd say that he's the Baddie and the Devil is the Misunderstood Intellectual.

[susangail]

Wow. I've never even thought of Satan that way. Come to think of it, I've never thought of God that way. Growing up in the church, the word 'satan' also implied the words 'evil', 'hell', 'fire', 'torture', etc.

So you ask what's so bad about Satan? To the church, he is the opposite of God- in the sense that God is good- so he (Satan) is evil. Satan has some pretty bad history with God according to the Bible. He used to be an angel, called Lucifer. Then he tried to be God, to be better than God. So naturally, God got pissed and demoted him. Satan was put in hell because of his 'evil ways' and was given those who didn't believe in God to torture for eternity in his fire pit of hell (that God created because he loves us). God has angels, Satan has demons. I think the Church makes Satan such a horrible character as a scare tactic. Though, most Christians believe Satan is truly evil and fear him greatly.

An interesting book to read that talks about Satan's temptations and what not is The Scewtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. I read it when I was a Christian and I was greatly scared by it. Lewis puts the temptations and deceptions Satan in every aspect of your life (which almost makes me think he's trying to excuse human sins and mistakes by blaming Satan, but of course, the Bible counters that) Now I simply find it hilarious.

Perhaps Satan is perceived to be evil because he's in charge of Hell, which is where bad people suffer. Well, then surely he's a good guy, because he's punishing evil people? Or, if, like me, you tend to view eternal punishment as something that doesn't befit the crimes people committ in their limited life spans, no matter how bad, then logically the person to blame for Hell is God, not Satan. He's the one that sends people there, and he made Satan in the first place. Once again, I think God comes off as a lot worse in the Bible than Satan does when we compare characters. Satan comes off as a mere trickster who delights in causing mischief, whereas God is still the petty, genocidal egomaniac that Dawkins describes.

Good point. God seems to be more of a blame-game player than the "good guy". I picture a kid on a playground doing something obviously bad and when caught says, "I'm God, it wasn't me! It was Satan!" That comparison doesn't quite work but...it's funny.

This view of Satan, from what I gather, is what LeVeyan Satanism is all about (the most common form of practiced Satanism, and what is most often referred to when people refer to themselves as 'Satanist'). It is an atheist philosophy that treats Satan as a symbol of earthly values to which one can aspire, and promotes treating one's self as the only god worth worshipping.

I never knew there was that kind of Satanism. The church makes it seem like every Satanist worships the devil, corrupts the world, and can't wait to go to hell. I never knew about LeVeyan Satanism. It's interesting.

 

As far as Jesus being the "good" guy, he's the one who introduced the concept of Hell and eternal damnation.  For that, he gets the Most Heartless Bastard Award from me.  Perhaps he's the trickster.  He passed off a message of hate and division as "the greatest love of all;" proclaimed thoughts, crimes and dissension, heresy; demonized the free-thinking Devil; and placed himself above the needs and desires of all of humanity.  I'd say that he's the Baddie and the Devil is the Misunderstood Intellectual.

"Most Heartless Bastard Award" I like it. I agree. God, Jesus, whatever you want to say is the platform of religion (at least Christianity and religions like it).  With God/Jesus, you have to give up who you are and conform to what He wants you to be. Satan encourages you to do whatever the hell you want. If you asked me who was 'good' and 'evil', I think I would disagree with religious people.

[myleviathan]

Here's a great link about Satan : http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm

It basically outlines the evolution of the concept of Satan from the Jewish and later the Christian mythologies. The concept of Satan starts as ANY person acting as an accuser or enemy (as in the books of Samuel and Kings), and then morphs to the modern "Passion of the Christ", evil personified sort of Satan.

Here's a quote from the website as to how the concept of the 'devil' rose out of Hebrew text: "The word [Satan] is derived from the original Hebrew verb "satan" which means "to oppose." The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was widely used in the early Christian church. They translated "satan" as "diaboloc" from which we derive our English term "devil" and "diabolic.""

Anyway - check it out. It's really fascinating stuff.

[D_Advocate]

I am not an expert on Satan or the Devil as outlined in the Bible, but as an Ex-Moslem, I am quite familiar with the character as described in the Koran. There, Satan or "Eblees" comes across as a smart being, although this may have not been the intention to present him as such. In the Koran, God creates Adam from clay, taught him some stuff and then gathered all his angles and demanded that they worship him. All the angles complied except Eblees who flatly refused to do so on the ground that Adam is made from a cheap material (clay) as opposed to the quality material angels are made of (fire). So he thought that Adam is sort of inferior. God became very furious with Eblees attitude and Eblees himself promised to screw up Adam and his descendants for all eternity. So Satan is actually an angel with an attitude, my kind of angel. I think he is soooooooooooo cool.

[curiosityandthecat]

Stupid double posting... Mod, delete this pls?

[curiosityandthecat]

David Sedaris already addressed Santa in a far more entertaining manner than I could ever aspire to:

Six to Eight Black Men

by David Sedaris

[spoiler:3u8ch61e]I’ve never been much for guidebooks, so when trying to get my bearings in some strange American city, I normally start by asking the cabdriver or hotel clerk some ridiculous question regarding the latest census figures.  I say “silly” because I don’t really care how many people live in Olympia, Washington, or Columbus, Ohio.  They’re nice enough places, but the numbers mean nothing to me.  My second question might have to do with the average annual rainfall, which, again, doesn’t tell me anything about the people who have chosen to call this place home.

            What really interests me are the local gun laws.  Can I carry a concealed weapon and, if so, under what circumstances?  What’s the waiting period for a tommy gun?  Could I buy a Glock 17 if I were recently divorced or fired from my job?  I’ve learned from experience that it’s best to lead into this subject as delicately as possible, especially if you and the local citizen are alone and enclosed in a relatively small area.  Bide your time, though, and you can walk away with some excellent stories.  I’ve learned, for example, that the blind can legally hunt in both Texas and Michigan.  In Texas they must be accompanied by a sighted companion, but I heard that in Michigan they’re allowed to go it alone, which raises the question:  How do they find whatever it is they just shot?  In addition to that, how do they get it home?  Are the Michigan blind allowed to drive as well?  I ask about guns not because I want one of my own but because the answers vary so widely from state to state.  In a country that’s become increasingly homogenous, I’m reassured by these last charming touches of regionalism.

            Firearms aren’t really an issue in Europe, so when traveling abroad, my first question usually relates to barnyard animals.  â€œWhat do your roosters say?” is a good icebreaker, as every country has its own unique interpretation.  In Germany, where dogs bark “vow vow” and both the frog and the duck say “quack,” the rooster greets the dawn with a hearty “kik-a-riki.”  Greek roosters crow “kiri-a-kee,” and in France they scream “coco-rico,” which sounds like one of those horrible premixed cocktails with a pirate on the label.  When told that an American rooster says “cock-a-doodle-doo,” my hosts look at me with disbelief and pity.

            “When do you open your Christmas presents?”  is another good conversation starter, as I think it explains a lot about national character.  People who traditionally open gifts on Christmas Eve seem a bit more pious and family-oriented than those who wait until Christmas morning.  They go to mass, open presents, eat a late meal, return to church the following morning, and devote the rest of the day to eating another big meal.  Gifts are generally reserved for children, and the parents tend not to go overboard.  It’s nothing I’d want for myself, but I suppose it’s fine for those who prefer food and family to things of real value.

            In France and Germany gifts are exchanged on Christmas Eve, while in the Netherlands the children open their presents on December 5, in celebration of St. Nicholas Day.  It sounded sort of quaint until I spoke to a man named Oscar, who filled me in on a few of the details as we walked from my hotel to the Amsterdam train station.

            Unlike the jolly, obese American Santa, Saint Nicholas is painfully thin and dresses not unlike the pope, topping his robes with a tall hat resembling an embroidered tea cozy.  The outfit, I was told, is a carryover from his former career, when he served as the bishop of Turkey.

            “I’m sorry,” I said, “but could you repeat that?”

            One doesn’t want to be too much of a cultural chauvinist, but this seemed completely wrong to me.  For starters, Santa didn’t used to do anything.  He’s not retired and, more important, he has nothing to do with Turkey.  It’s too dangerous there, and the people wouldn’t appreciate him.  When asked how he got from Turkey to the North Pole, Oscar told me with complete conviction that Saint Nicholas currently resides in Spain, which again is simply not true.  Though he could probably live wherever he wanted, Santa chose the North Pole specifically because it is harsh and isolated.  No one can spy on him, and he doesn’t have to worry about people coming to the door.  Anyone can come to the door in Spain, and in that outfit he’d most certainly be recognized.  On top of that, aside from a few pleasantries, Santa doesn’t speak Spanish.  â€œHello.  How are you?  Can I get you some candy?”  Fine.  He knows enough to get by, but he’s not fluent and he certainly doesn’t eat tapas.

            While our Santa flies in on a sled, the Dutch version arrives by boat and then transfers to a white horse.  The event is televised, and great crowds gather at the waterfront to greet him.  I’m not sure if there’s a set date, but he generally docks in late November and spends a few weeks hanging out and asking people what they want.

            “Is it just him alone?” I asked.  â€œOr does he come with some backup?”

            Oscar’s English was close to perfect, but he seemed thrown by a term normally reserved for police reinforcement.

            “Helpers,” I said.  â€œDoes he have any elves?”

            Maybe I’m overly sensitive, but I couldn’t help but feel personally insulted when Oscar denounced the very idea as grotesque and unrealistic.  â€œElves,” he said.  â€œThey are just so silly.”

            The words silly and unrealistic were redefined when I learned that Saint Nicholas travels with what was consistently described as “six to eight black men.”  I asked several Dutch people to narrow it down, but none of them could give me an exact number.  It was always “six to eight,” which seems strange, seeing as they’ve had hundreds of years to get an accurate head count.

            The six to eight black men were characterized as personal slaves until the mid-1950s, when the political climate changed and it was decided that instead of being slaves they were just good friends.  I think history has proved that something usually comes between slavery and friendship, a period of time marked not by cookies and quiet hours beside the fire but by bloodshed and mutual hostility.  They have such violence in the Netherlands, but rather than duking it out amongst themselves, Santa and his former slaves decided to take it out on the public.  In the early years if a child was naughty, Saint Nicholas and the six to eight black men would beat him with what Oscar described as “the small branch of a tree.”

            “A switch?”

            “Yes,” he said.  â€œThat’s it.  They’d kick him and beat him with a switch.  Then if the youngster was really bad, they’d put him in a sack and take him back to Spain.”

            “Saint Nicholas would kick you?”

            “Well not anymore,” Oscar said.  â€œNow he just pretends to kick you.”

            He considered this to be progressive, but in a way I think it’s almost more perverse than the original punishment.  â€œI’m going to hurt you but not really.”  How many times have we fallen for that line?  The fake slap invariably makes contact, adding the elements of shock and betrayal to what had previously been plain old-fashioned fear.  What kind of a Santa spends his time pretending to kick people before stuffing them into a canvas sack?  Then, of course, you’ve got the six to eight former slaves who could potentially go off at any moment.  This, I think, is the greatest difference between us and the Dutch.  While a certain segment of our population might be perfectly happy with the arrangement, if you told the average white American that six to eight nameless black men would be sneaking into his house in the middle of the night, he would barricade the doors and arm himself with whatever he could get his hands on.

            “Six to eight, did you say?”

            In the years before central heating, Dutch children would leave their shoes by the fireplace, the promise being that unless they planned to beat you, kick you, or stuff you into a sack, Saint Nicholas and the six to eight black men would fill your clogs with presents.  Aside from the threats of violence and kidnapping, it’s not much different than hanging your stockings from the mantel.  Now that so few people actually have a working fireplace, Dutch children are instructed to leave their shoes beside the radiator, furnace, or space heater.  Saint Nicholas and the six to eight black men arrive on horses, which jump from the yard onto the roof.  At this point I guess they either jump back down and use the door or stay put and vaporize through the pipes and electrical cords.  Oscar wasn’t too clear about the particulars, but really, who can blame him?  We have the same problem with our Santa.  He’s supposed to use the chimney, but if you don’t have one, he still manages to get in.  It’s best not to think about it too hard.

            While eight flying reindeer are a hard pill to swallow, our Christmas story remains relatively dull.  Santa lives with his wife in a remote polar village and spends one night a year traveling around the world.  If you’re bad, he leaves you coal.  If you’re good and live in America, he’ll give you just about anything you want.  We tell our children to be good and send them off to bed, where they lie awake, anticipating their great bounty.  A Dutch parent has a decidedly hairier story to relate, telling his children, “Listen, you might want to pack a few of your things together before going to bed.  The former bishop of Turkey will be coming tonight along with six to eight black men.  They might put some candy in your shoes, they might stuff you in a sack and take you to Spain, or they might just pretend to kick you.  We don’t know for sure, but we want you to be prepared.”

            This is the reward for living in the Netherlands.  As a child you get to hear this story, and as an adult you get to turn around and repeat it.  As an added bonus, the government has thrown in legalized drugs and prostitutionâ€"so what’s not to love about being Dutch?

            Oscar finished his story just as we arrived at the station.  He was an amiable guyâ€"very good companyâ€"but when he offered to wait until my train arrived I begged off, claiming I had some calls to make.  Sitting alone in the vast, vibrant terminal, surrounded by thousands of polite, seemingly interesting Dutch people, I couldn’t help but feel second-rate.  Yes, the Netherlands was a small country, but it had six to eight black men and a really good bedtime story.  Being a fairly competitive person, I felt jealous, then bitter.  I was edging toward hostile when I remembered the blind hunter tramping off alone into the Michigan forest.  He may bag a deer, or he may happily shoot a camper in the stomach.  He may find his way back to the car, or he may wander around for a week or two before stumbling through your back door. We don’t know for sure, but in pinning that license to his chest, he inspires the sort of narrative that ultimately makes me proud to be an American.[/spoiler:3u8ch61e]

 

[Tom62]

David Sedaris already addressed Santa in a far more entertaining manner than I could ever aspire to:
 

Saint Nicholas is real, Santa and Satan are not! As a child I was more terrified of Saint Nicolas (Sinterklaas) than of Satan. He had a big book in which all the good and bad deeds of the children were written. That made him just as powerful as God, who also seems know everything about you. If you'd done more bad deeds then good deeds then there was hell to pay. His black companion (zwarte  Piet) would beat you up, put you in a big sack and send you off to Spain. I'd never seen that happen myself, because my brothers and friends were really nice kids .

[curiosityandthecat]

Saint Nicholas is real, Santa and Satan are not! As a child I was more terrified of Saint Nicolas (Sinterklaas) than of Satan. He had a big book in which all the good and bad deeds of the children were written. That made him just as powerful as God, who also seems know everything about you. If you'd done more bad deeds then good deeds then there was hell to pay. His black companion (zwarte  Piet) would beat you up, put you in a big sack and send you off to Spain. I'd never seen that happen myself, because my brothers and friends were really nice kids .

S'why I love David Sedaris' story.

In the early years if a child was naughty, Saint Nicholas and the six to eight black men would beat him with what Oscar described as “the small branch of a tree.”

“A switch?”

“Yes,” he said. “That’s it. They’d kick him and beat him with a switch. Then if the youngster was really bad, they’d put him in a sack and take him back to Spain.”

“Saint Nicholas would kick you?”

“Well not anymore,” Oscar said. “Now he just pretends to kick you.”

[afreethinker30]

Some religions believed that Satan was only cast out of heaven because he loved God to much.And that he refused to bow down to man as the angels were told to.God made man in his image,therefore God told the angels to love and protect man as they did him.And that when Satan was told he to must bow to man,he refused because he could only give all of his love to God.So Satan has to spend forever in a shadow his own personal hell being away from God.So it depends on who you ask why Satan is bad.Just as with some religions Judas was the only person who really understood Jesus,and the only who truly cared for him.