Is There an "Ultimate Evil" in Christianity?

Satan wouldn't be the adversary of God, but rather the Adversary of Man. The Divine Prosecutor. He beguiles and tempts not out of evil or malice, but because that's his job. He tries to make you fail in order to prove that you are worthy.

In the court-room of your life, God is the judge and Satan is the prosecuting attorney.

This is the characterization used in Job's tale. It wouldn't make sense for the embodiment of evil to be talking to God, but for an angel meant to rake people over coals? Of course.

Um, no. The argument you are trying to make makes no sense. Satan was definitely being evil in the Book of Job.

Satan may not be an "embodiment" of evil, but he is the chief evil being. Why does it not make sense for an evil being to be talking to God? What really does not make sense is for God to purposely make an adversary of man. If God made an adversary of man, then God himself would also be an adversary of man for making such a being. Rather, Satan made himself the enemy of both God and man, while God makes himself an ally to all those who seek an alliance with him. It is humans who choose whether to make God an ally or enemy, and those who make him an enemy have no ally at all.

edited 1st May '16 6:20:44 PM by shiro_okami

????

I apologize that my attempt at clarification offended you. However, saying that it doesn't make sense is weird, as the viewpoint I put forward is in line with Judaism's beliefs of Satan. You can of course argue that it doesn't make sense, but that's not my beliefs so it seems kind of pointless.

I mean, the idea that having Satan as a deliberately antagonistic force by design doesn't seem that odd to me. You, however, seem to feel differently- that having Satan be a jerk on purpose implicates God as being antagonistic. I mean, there are parts of the bible where God advocates that you kill an entire people down to the last infant, so having him make Jerk-Satan on purpose seems fairly low on the totem pole of things to implicate him as a jerk.

Maybe it's a cultural thing? I'm from the south and used to people talking about God "Testing" them or their faith, is that not a thing elsewhere? So the idea of an angel who's job is to test the faith of humanity seems fairly intuitive for me.

Also seems weird that you can make God your enemy. Humorous, like saying that my mortal foe is a galactic arm or something, or declaring war on the pacific ocean.

But are those the same beliefs that held by the Jews at the time The Bible was written? Jesus and the Gospel writers clearly identify Satan as an evil enemy, not as an angel doing his job, and there is no indication that Jesus was introducing a new belief to Judaism.

It depends on what you mean by "test". God may allow certain circumstances as a test of integrity and endurance, but the one who causes those circumstances is Satan the Devil and his rebellion against God. This is exactly what happened with Job. If Satan did not exist, there would be no tests because there would be nobody to question integrity and no suffering to endure.

You appear to be viewing God as a force of nature rather than a person. God is a person, that is why it is possible to make him your friend or enemy.

BTW, have you actually read The Bible? I find it odd that someone who has actually read it would make such an incredibly weird statement.

edited 1st May '16 10:28:57 PM by shiro_okami

He is right, in judaism he was the adversary, more like lawer that anything else, is with cristianism that he become the enemy and with protestantism that it become the anti-god people make him to be

At the time the bible was written? That's more of a span of time, really, than a single one; yes. The Torah is very clear about the Satan as not being any sort of rebel. The idea of an opponent to G-D seems really foreign to the whole belief system.

So Jesus didn't really add anything, some people after just decided it was a good idea or mistranslated something or just kept putting bits that didn't make it into the bible into the surrounding dogma.

Do you believe in Biblical inerrancy? If so this is going to be a difficult conversation.

I see no difference. God is still the one implicitly responsible. But that's not a very productive discussion to continue.

You don't want me to evaluate God as a person. It will seem inflammatory and unpleasant.

And yes, I've read the bible. I used to be a fundamentalist Pentecostal. My experience is intimate and incredibly unpleasant.

Apparently, it was a thing for things in to test people by hiring prostitutes to seduce those they would appoint and or their sons who would inherit their positions, to test if they would be worthy by rejecting seduction. The king would want his subject/son to pass, but the prostitute would be expected to try her best to ensure he really was worthy.

That's the analogy I've been given with Satan. God wants the tested to pass. Now whether or not the adversary shares that sentiment or not is another question entirely. My interpretation of Tanak, and to a lesser extent, New Testament Satan, is that of a Knight Templar, constantly scouring the world for the unworthy and perfectly willing to use entrapment to prove guilt.

However, there is a scene in the old Testament where God has promised some foreign King victory over Israel or Judah but the King of whichever, maybe Saul, maybe Ahab, in a rare instance of intelligence, decides he's not going to march out to meet the enemy. God asks a bunch of spirits if any of them are up to the task of making the king march out to his doom and one has an idea. God also sends a spirit to torment Saul which David must keep at bay with music.

As said, if you read between the lines in the Bible, you'll see there are lots of nasty things acting independently of Satan.

After two millenia of mistranslations, reinterpretations and retcons, I'm kind of wondering whether it even makes sense to ask this question in the first place. Surely the answer would depend entirely on which version of Christianity we're talking about, right?

Compare it with "Does Batman kill people?"

Christianity is a prophetic faith, so the most valid interpretation would be based on the oldest text available, at least until a new prophet can produce sufficient enough miracles to convince people the old texts are wrong(or a warlord can intimidate and kill enough dissenters, whichever comes first)

So, I guess that would be the Aramaic found on the floor tiles as the highest Christian "canon", then what's left of the Greek manuscripts, then the Latin and so on.

That's the problem when religion takes up canon, dogmas and or prophets; practitioners don't get do apply their own logic and rationale if it contradicts the edicts of someone who very may well have not had the knowledge back then they have later, and one doesn't even know how much that message has really degraded or not since you get to the point you weren't there when it was first given. The faithful must have faith that the people before were faithful to the people before them. Yet for some reasons these tend to be the most popular and militant religious groups.

To answer the original question, yes. Yes there is.

Should it matter to anyone but God? Yes and no. Yes, because you need to put on the Armor of God and study the Bible to defend yourself from the trials that will come your way. No, because it is not our job to fight the Evil One himself, but to spread the Gospel of Jesus.

Make no mistake, being a true Christian is NOT easy. You will face persecution, even death. But everything in this world passes away. "I am not come to bring peace to the earth: Not peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34. Others may disagree, free will, after all, but in my view this sword that He mentions is the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.

The way I see the divine conflict is as follows: Just as there are the Three Who Are One, there are also Three That Act As One. The first is God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The other are somewhat more difficult to break down, because they all compliment each other.

The first is The Devil(s)/The Fallen Angels/The Demons. They are the ones that tempt us into evil by saying it is good. The next is the World, which is, in essence, our culture, the internet, the way the groups in power or popularity impress their views upon us (for example, modelling agencies and the female body). And the third is The Traitor Within/our very bodies, which is that part of us that agrees with the devil and the world, that part of us that acts in fear and desire of our own pleasure.

We are all caught in the middle, and because the TTAAO conceal themselves and concentrate on our downfall, we don't even know we're in a warzone, or we don't know to acknowledge there is even a war.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Carry on.

I dont think evangelism was the intended outcome of this thread and if it is, should it even be in writerz block? I thawt we were discussing the question for the sake of fiction.

It really should be in the relevant OTC thread. The thread is used to these types of discussions and arguments.

In regards to writing, it would be interesting to see "satan" as a label for several different entities who accuse or challenge humans (pretty sure several angels were described as such, but I might be confusing this with deuterocanonical books and Talmudic texts). For whatever purpose they may have.

edited 20th Jul '16 2:30:01 AM by TerminusEst

i think that could be a very interesting take on it; kind of like how in Little Nicky Lucifer WAS the devil but now his son Satan is the devil

edited 20th Jul '16 1:06:54 PM by nekomoon14