The Antichristian Phenomenon

Of all the Christian Myths, that of Satan, also mistakenly known as Lucifer, and the origin of “Evil” seems to be the most misunderstood. One would expect such a common story to be at least somewhat understood by the people who propagate it, yet this is not the case. I am creating this article to fuse together old posts and pieces of debate for a reliable reference. In the future, I (and others) can just link this article or quote parts of it when the topic arises. I think I have gotten into this debate no less than twenty times with different people over the past few months, and the subject is getting old.

Enjoy this, and feel free to use it for reference. –Anath

Who is Satan, really? I propose that he is not who the Christians believe him to be, in fact, I propose that “he” is not even a “he” at all.

Who do Christians believe Satan is? I was in a debate about such things with a young girl, lets call her Christina, who had been raised Christian, and was somewhat fanatic about her faith. We had a slight misunderstanding, and I asked her to clarify what she believed she knew about “Satan” (Post edited only for spelling mistakes, and to make more comprehensible).

I believe that Satan was Lucifer when he got kicked out of Heaven. He is very intelligent, in fact he knows exactly how to make someone believe a lie. he is very deceitful. I’ve seen this in my life before. In fact that whole “i am saved, I’m not sure, I’m not saved” thing was Satan’s doing. He wants nothing but the destruction of every soul, especially in this generation. Just look at all the teen pregnancies, suicides, anorexia, bulimia, depression, hopelessness, etc. He is nothing good. In fact, Jesus called him the father of all lies, and yes, I believe he wants to see people in hell, just because he is. “Misery loves company”.

These beliefs, while perhaps a bit generalized, are not uncommon. Some Christians believe more, some less, but this is a good example of the core lies propagated around this myth. Following is a series of responses to this quote, where I paraphrase the quote and disprove or redefine that specific section. Ready? Here we go:

1. Satan was Lucifer

Why it is wrong:

This is probably one of the biggest myths about the alleged being “Satan”.
“Lucifer” is a fictional character popularized by English poet John Milton for an epic poem entitled Paradise Lost, in which he describes the fall of man and the fall of rebel angels. Lucifer is a Latin word, with the approximate translation “Light-Bringer”. If one believes there really is an Archangel named “Lucifer”, one is horribly wrong for this fact alone. Should a real “Lucifer” have any name, it would be Hebrew, not Latin. We will examine the potential origins of this name later.

Most Satanists use Milton’s Lucifer as a role model, not as a deity, though “Devil Worship” is not unheard of. However, this is not true Satanism, and few true Satanists regard it as anything more than a misguided version of Christianity.

In addition, the whole “cast from heaven” concept and Lucifer tempting man stems from this poem. In genesis, Adam and Eve are tempted by a SNAKE, and while some say that this was Satan in the form of an animal, the syntax of the text might prove otherwise. Keep in mind, there are a variety of interpretations for this story of Genesis. I present only one. I may cover more of them (such as the Seraph and the Nephilim myth, dragons, dinosaurs, and all in between) in a later article. We shall see.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” Genesis 3:1

If the “Serpent” was really “Satan”, it would not say that the creature was “more crafty than any of the wild animals“, because it would not BE a “wild animal”, it would be “Satan”, and though it would not say “Satan”, it would likely imply that the serpent talking to Eve was not actually an animal. Now there is also debate that the “serpent” could refer to a Seraphim though with that particular usage, it seems more that they are actually talking about an animal than any sort of divine being. There is no further evidence in the text to indicate that the serpent is anything BUT a normal snake, aside from the fact it talks, but who’s to say talking animals weren’t common in “Eden”, or wait… maybe the entire story is symbolic and not actually literal events.

To go beyond this, some believe that there is evidence in the bible to support the details of Milton’s poem. (Please click on these and read, links open in new window)

1. Ezekiel 28:13-19
2.  Isaiah 14:12

These excerpts are used out of context. Read the entire section (Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14) and you will learn that in fact the text has NOTHING to do with “Satan”, but instead are prophecies against the King of Tyre (Ez 28) and the King of Babylon (Is 14).

Now notice that in a King James Isaiah 14:12, the name of Lucifer is listed. This is only true in KJV. ONLY KJV. This is a strange coincidence, and it was not there initially, COULD not be there initially, or KJV would not be the only edition containing the “error”. “Lucifer” would be listed in ALL Christian bibles, as well as the Jewish Tanakh; the book the Christians call the Old Testament. Upon further examination, a little light is shed on this mistranslation.

In the Tanakh–the Jewish translation direct from Hebrew–, Isaiah 14:12 reads:
“… O Shining One, son of Dawn!…”
In the New International Version, it reads:
“… O morning star, Son of Dawn!…”
and in the King James, it reads:
“… O Lucifer, son of the morning!…”

We can deduce that Lucifer translated as another name for the “morning star” or “light bringer (in regards to a STAR bringing the first light of morning)”; and with a little astronomy, one would know the “morning star” to be none other than the planet Venus! In some cultures, it was thought to be two separate bodies, since it appears as the first star of the morning and the first star of the evening. And so “Lucifer” WAS the morning star — Venus! This literal, astrological definition may have been the original connotation of the “name”.

How did a synonym for the morning star, Venus, become an archangel? This is where the history becomes hazy, and I have more research to do. What I have thus far is that the original King James was published with the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha–a series of books that are not ‘scripture’, but more like folk stories, but I have yet to read either of these books. I intend on at least skimming them soon, and will continue to update with my findings. If anyone has any light to shed on this topic, please email me (Anath[at]antichristian-phenomenon.com).

From what I have gathered thus far, by Milton’s time, the personification of Lucifer was at least partially complete, and he merely penned, exaggerated, and popularized the legend; using stories from the Apocrypha as his base!

2. Wants to see people in Hell because he is.

This is a little out of order, but flows with my past point.

Why it is wrong:

“Lucifer/Satan” was only placed in “hell” because of literature. Both Dante and Milton placed him in Hell, and for some reason, people took the words of these two poets as another Gospel. Now a common view of hell is a Dantean 9-layered pit, full of Demons and Tortures for sinners, depending on their sin of choice. Unfortunately for those believers, this was created as a work of fiction — political satire, entertainment, and so on. It was never meant as Gospel, nor was Milton’s poem, yet people use these works of LITERATURE and folk tales as truth. It’d be like me using A Tale of Two Cities as a factual source on a scholarly paper about the French Revolution. But people do it, frequently.

3. He is very intelligent…decietful

Why it is wrong:

In order to understand how this could be wrong, one must first re-examine the first point. If “Satan” isn’t “Lucifer”, who/what is he?

The Christian interpretation is that “He” is a being of some form, thereby intelligent; the source of all deceit and lies; the source of evil, etc. I’ll further disprove this in my next point, but point #3 is simply questioning the sentient nature of “satan”.

The Hebrew definition of “satan” is “Adversary”. “Satan” is not a name, or a tangible being, but merely a term for the opponent, usually in the court of law. This kind of gives the term “Devil’s Advocate” a new light, since to play “Devil’s Advocate”, one does in fact take on the title of “Satan”.
So in this debate, Christine is my “satan”, and I am her “satan”. Does that make one of us “evil”? No. It just means we’re “opponents” or “adversaries”. “God” is the “Devil”‘s “Satan”, and “the Devil” is “God”‘s “Satan”. You see, if I side with “the Devil”, God is now Satan, by technicality of language. Thereby, “Satan” is not a single sentient being, but everyone and no one. Don’t believe me? Check a Hebrew Glossary. Many Hebrew glossaries I’ve found online don’t even list the term.

4. I’ve seen this in my life… this was not God’s doing… (satan) is nothing good

Why it is wrong:

To determine the falsity of this statement, one must answer these two Questions from a Christian standpoint.

1. Is God Omnipotent?
2. Is God Omnipresent?

If you answered Yes to either of these questions, you will readily agree with the following statement:

“All things originate in God.”

If you do not believe this statement, you do not believe fully in Christianity, for this is one of the cornerstones of the Faith.

However, think of this. If God is Omnipresent, he is everywhere, in everything. If God is Omnipotent he is all powerful (implying that he is the creator God and has control over his creation). If God is both in everything and all-powerful, what is he not in?

Nothing.

If there is something He is NOT present in, then He is NOT omnipresent or omnipotent. One can not choose what he is in and is not in; he is to be EVERYWHERE in EVERYTHING. “Good” and “Evil”, “Right” and “Wrong”, “Black” and “White”, “Water” and “Earth”.

When this topic comes to mind, so does this quote:

God is nothing if He is not, in every sense, the surpassing God;
In the sense of common everyday being, in the sense of dread,
Horror and impurity, and, finally, in the sense of nothing…

(666 grim points to anyone who can name the source of the quote without using a search engine)

One can not glorify one aspect of an omnipotent, omnipresent deity and ignore another. “God” and “Satan”; two sides of the same coin. There is no light without darkness to show what is light. There is no true joy without suffering to make the happy times seem truly happy. If one can not accept all facets, one can not really accept anything.

At this point, take a step back from your narrow view of “good” and “evil” and think for a while.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 1st, 2007 at 6:25 pm and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.