Did God Create Satan

I just read a quite lengthy blog by a Christian discussing this question. In the end, the writer could not decide if God created Satan and, if he did, why.

It is refreshing to find people in the faith admit the faith is a confusing and lacks much semblance of logic. The idea that God, who is supposed to represent all that is good, would also represent all that is bad, is confusing.

The question of why God would create a evil Satan is mute if one accepts that the god is created in the human mind. This points to Satan as well as created in the mind. One of the most famous believer in a literal Satan is none other than Pope Francis.

So, if Satan is a creation of the mind, why do minds so enthusiastically talk of a Satan. There must be some need in humans to do this.

Nearly all stories written for either the purpose of entertaining or informing have a similar pattern. Good is confronted by evil. There is a struggle. Good eventually triumphs over evil. This pattern is also how the Bible itself plays out.

It seems, then, the human mind creates a Satan because the mind needs someone or something to defeat. If the mind has created a hero there needs to be someone for the hero to defeat. A Satan fits the bill.

We need a demon to defeat. It cannot be too big or too small.

Satan, we’re glad you showed up.

[A blog discussing Satan is linked in Comments.]

34 Responses

  1. entech

    God did not create satin, it was Satan that created satin so that Eve would be more seductive in smooth silky satin, Eve as representing the entirety of woman as temptress. This is a given if you are a true believer.
    🙂 🙁 😳

    1. Paul 8:04 Good one … Satan, satin!

      I don’t know why this always happens when I’m not checking in and the mistakes sit there for all to see. I blame my mistakes on Satan, or maybe a Sultan.

  2. Adam Heckathorn

    What I was taught and I’ll admit I tried not to think about it too much is that God through Jesus created satan perfect and chose not to use His powers of foreseeing to see that satan would eventually go bad through sinful pride. Since then satan has brought up the issue of universal sovereignty, whether Gods ruling over mankind is the best or if perhaps some better way could be found. This is why God does not fix things now He’s allowing satan’s challenge to be clearly shown to be wrong headed. Oh, and for those who don’t believe this you’re doomed. 🙂

  3. Jinx

    Satan, satin, sateen, seersucker and succotash all have two things in common, they all start with S and they are all man made. Occam’s Razor says that is all they are : )

  4. Cevon Anderson

    In Greek thought as well as Gnostic Christian and some other religions, the higher God is pure intellect. God wants a material world, so creates a lesser god to be the creator, the Demiurge. Some Gnostics thought that the Demiurge created paradise, but became enraged when a beam of light was cast down to the first humans giving them souls. The Demiurge had a fit of jealousy and forbid the humans from eating from the Tree of Knowledge. The light of the souls will eventually reunite with the higher God, while the Demiurge will be cast down into the underworld.

    1. Cevon 3:54 In Greek thought as well as Gnostic Christian and some other religions, the higher God is pure intellect

      Good post. There are scholars who have parsed Paul’s writing in the Bible and concluded that Paul, a Greek, actually thought of both God and Jesus in as intellectual sky goods and that he had no interest in the human god.

      1. nemo80

        Paul was a Hellenized Jewish intellectual. There were quite a few such around these days. As to Satan, the orthodox Christian view is that he was, of course, created by God and his pride led into rebellion. He is also called Lucifer, the light bearer, one of the greatest among the angels. Maybe there is something to be said here for the benefit of those human illuminati who think that they have the universe all figured out.

          1. entech

            I have Greek friends and I have Jewish friends. I don’t know any Greekified Jews.

            One of the great stories pointing to the anthropocentric Bible. Lucifer the top dog among the angels then God makes humans and tries to place them above the angels. Satan and a few others refuse to pay obeisance to the new kid in the block.
            Tell this is not from a human point of view !!!

        1. Cevon Anderson

          Illuminati, hmm? You don’t define what you are referring to. Is it the so-called academic illuminati? People who don’t like others who know more than they do use that term.

          The original name refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, a German Enlightenment-era group founded in 1776 with the goals to oppose superstition, abuses of state power, and religious influence over public life. They wanted to put an end to the dirty work of the agents of injustice. The group was vilified by conservative and religious critics who tried to malign and vilify the group.

          To this day the word is used in various nutty conspiracy theories to signify a secret world domination group planting agents in governments and corporations, lurking in the shadows, pulling the strings of power, and being the “mastermind” of events. It’s total rubbish.

          1. nemo80

            “total rubbish,” eh? Ever heard of cultural elites, those academics, public intellectuals, bureaucrats, politicos, ad others who shape, or attempt to shape, a nation’s cultural and political outlook/world view. And there is no great conspiracy involved. The cognoscente as they are sometimes called are usually quite open with regards to their philosophy, their agendas, their goals. As to vilification, I think that today’s progressives are quite talented when it comes to maligning their opponents. Kettle and pot, eh. As in extreme right wingers. As I said before, knock it off and desist from name calling.

  5. nemo80

    sorry entech. As far as I know, modern Jews still like Philo, a Hellenistic Jew if there ever was one. I think, also, that they still study Plato, Aristotle and a lot of other Greek thinkers. In fact, in contemporary western culture it is difficult to avoid the Hellenistic influences that have shaped Western civilization.. That said, I suppose that there are some, ala Nietzsche who didn’t much like certain aspects of Greek thought. I fear that there are quite a few Christians who don’t like the Greeks much either.

    1. Cevon Anderson

      Christians don’t like the Greeks because they don’t like ancient Greek philosophy? Is that a Christian value?

      1. nemo80.

        what! who said anything about not liking Greeks (presumably a reference to Greeks in general). The reference was a clear reference to ancient Greek thinkers. For example, are you not aware of Luther’s intense dislike of Aristotle? I could go on, but right now time does not permit.

        1. entech

          I fear that there are quite a few Christians who don’t like the Greeks much either. All through you have been specific about specifying “Greek thought” or similar, consistency would have avoided the confusion between what you said and what you meant.

          I can understand Luther’s dislike of Aristotle, who could respect a man whose theory of gravity said that something like a stone always moved to its natural place, its natural place being at the centre of things, the earth being the centre of the universe then all bodies tend to move towards the centre of the earth.

          1. nemo80

            will try again. Entech stated that Luther objected to Aristotle because he didn’t like A’s geocentric cosmology. That simply is not the case. The Aristotelian- Ptolemaic understanding of the universe was still the ruling paradigm in Luther’s day. And Luther — if he thought about the matter at all — probably accepted it. What Luther objected to was a Aristotelian-Scholastic emphasis on free will (remember Luther’s Bondage of the Will) and its implicit (explicit?) notion of salvation. Luther it seems rejected the view that man had anything to offer in the drama of redemption. Salvation was a gift of God alone. Aristotle’s view, accordingly was frowned on, seen as a sort of do-it-yourself project. In a sense, it was a kind of re-run of the old Pelagian -Augustinian of the fourth century. In fine, I would add that I have oversimplified the matter: the thought of a great but revolutionary thinker is complex, hard to summarize. Nevertheless my point stands.

          2. entech

            I did not suggest that Luther disliked Aristotle because of his cosmology, as you say Aristotle and Ptolemy held sway at the time. I said how could anyone respect a man whose science had a theory of geometry that said rocks fell to the ground because they wanted to be at the centre of things and that the earth was the centre of everything.
            Luther dismissed Copernicus on biblical grounds, although being more free to interpret the Bible Luther and protestants in general came to accept the idea that the earth revolved around the sun.

  6. nmo80

    entech: a few comments for your consideration. As far as I know, Aristotle’s cosmology had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Luther’s dislike of Greek thinkers, A in particular. Luther, rather, disliked medieval scholasticism (which as we know, owed a great deal to Aristotle’s thought. A’s cosmology, in fact, was very much in vogue at the time: it is likely that Luther accepted it or some other version of the geocentric theory. That said, Luther’s quarrel w with the notion that Aristotle et al placed to much emphasis on the role of human choice/human works in the drama of salvation. In other words, too much emphasis on what people do and not enough emphasis on what God does. In a way it was the old Pelagian thing all over again. Moreover, if I am not mistaken, Luther was quite a literalist when in came to Scripture. And for him Scripture was authoritative, not to be tarnished by the thought of some old Greek thinker.

    1. entech

      nemo 9:12 am
      For example, are you not aware of Luther’s intense dislike of Aristotle?

      me 5:57 pm
      I can understand Luther’s dislike of Aristotle, who could respect a man whose theory of gravity said that something …

      I was just pointing out that Aristotle’s science was so very wrong,thank you for all the information on Luther’s thoughts. Totally irrelevant but if it makes you feel good, please carry on.

  7. nemo80

    entech. I am having trouble posting tonite. I wrote a rather lengthy reply to your latest comment but am not sure that it went thru. In any case, I am not inclined to re-post. So just leave it at this: you are very wrong in your view of Luther’s dislike of Aristotle and the Greeks. Also, a quick comment: a philosophy prof of mine once remarked that the physics of a dropped object (acceleration, etc.) would be exactly the se under Aristotle’s view ad Newton’s view of the matter (Of course, old A thought that a ten pound ball would drop at a rate ten times faster than a one pound ball.) But leave that aside and try dropping an object, keeping in mind the two conflicting views. Either way the math is the same.

      1. nemo80

        I was having problems with internet explorer la night. o I assumed that that was the cause of the disappearing posts.

        1. nemo80 12:41 am curious Jon. Some of my posts appear to have been deleted. WHY?

          I’m the site administrator and I have not deleted any of your posts. That is, unless you posted a duplicate–can’t remember any of those. However, for some reason a few of yours showed up needing my approval. Once it was because you had put “nemo80” in caps. The other times everything looked fine and the post did not go up automatically. This does occasionally happen to other people posts, but yours happens more often–don’t know why.

          I want to assure you I really like having you on this board and will do whatever I can to make sure your posts go up without delay.

          1. nemo80

            I don’t know either. Except maybe because I mostly use internet explorer and that has been giving me trouble lately. Maybe I should rely more on Google Chrome.

  8. nemo80

    left out a word or two in my last post. should have said Pelagian -Augustinian controversy of the fourth-fifth centuries.

  9. Phillip B. Faulkner

    When I think about it, space should be nothing. Nothing is nothingness that goes out in all directions, totally cold, and totally dark, that would be space. But it is apparently not the case. There was something there in this so-called empty space, and that something built the universe. And that something, as I believe, also was God. I see nothing wrong with this concept, that intelligence and power could emerge form the “ether”. I find that atheist are quite restricted in their thinking, that an all powerful God could not emerge from the great “soup” of the universe.

    The question arises quite often as to who created God, well no body created God. One could say the same thing about the Universe, who created the Universe? Well as the atheist might say: nothing created the Universe, it just happened. Well God just happened!

    You see, I believe God evolved, we are talking evolution here. Yes I know, religious people are not suppose to believe in evolution, right? Wrong! The Bible supports evolution. OK you want some proof, well here it is : God said to Noah after the flood : ” multiply and replenish the earth”. Why did God use the word “replenish”, because everybody else had died in the flood. But God said exactly the same words to Adam and Eve: “multiply and replenish the earth”.
    Why did God use the word “replenish”, who was Adam and Eve replacing? The answer is the ape men, and perhaps the cave men. God”s kind of evolution is not the same as an atheist kind of evolution, in God’s kind of evolution it is God who is controlling it.

    But in the evolution of God himself, one reaches a point where good and evil must be determined: what is good, what is evil. Good preserves, evil destroys. But how do you prove what good is and what evil is? What was done is that God creates a beautiful world, beautiful plants, beautiful animals, and beautiful people, then he cast Satan down on that world, and Satan proceeds to prove that he is evil, and his ways are evil, and his ways destroy. Every civilization on this planet has been destroyed, or is in the throws of destruction. Now the angels that are with God can now see the truth.

    1. enetch

      Interesting post. As unlikely and as possible as most.

      One quick question:
      you deride the question who created God and I agree it is a childlike and simplistic question in many instances – the exception being the apologists who start their argument everything has a beginning, nothing comes from nothing etc.
      Given your evolutionary theme why would your God suddenly become devolutionary and introduce Satan to the world.

    2. Cevon Anderson

      Well, a god could not arise from the universe, because if a god had, what would have created the universe? God is said to be the creator. God would have to be apart from space-time. The notion that God must have created the universe, because something cannot come from nothing, only pushes the same question back a step. How could God , being something, have come from nothing? If a god or God is eternal, why would we not be able to accept that the universe is eternal?

      God is omniscient and omnipotent but you claim God evolved? Is God still evolving? How could God get better than omniscient and omnipotent?

Comments are closed.