Why Did God Make The Devil?

[Commoner]

Why did God make the Devil?

Somebody had to play the good cop, might as well be the Devil.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

We know from modern revelation that the KJV is the most correct of any bible translations. That is why we use that version for teaching purposes. People are free to read whatever version they want, even the lolcat bible.

You care to support that claim? KJV is not without its own issues.

For example, when we go back to the original text....in Hebrew...there is no mention of Lucifer. In fact when we go into Greek there is no mention of Satan or Lucifer. It's not until the 4th century that we finally get Lucifer and it's from a translation made in Latin.

"quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes."


KJV Screws u a lot of ideas. An example would be taking the word Gehenna and turning it into Hell. These are two very different places and Hell is a construct of Christianity not of the original Jewish tradition which certainly does not have the same notion of hell.

 

[averageJOE]

God did not create "Satan"...Lucifer created himself when he rebelled against God. please see Idea's post above

The thing is is that Satan and Lucifer are not the same.

 

[madhatter85]

You care to support that claim? KJV is not without its own issues.

Never said it was infallible, i said it was the most correct of any other translation. i know it has it's flaws, this is the exact issue the early LDS members had with using the King James Version, which is why Joseph Smith set about translating the Bible himself. However, after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith Brigham Young Stated that teaching from the King James Version would suit the Lord's purpose.

We have known since the restoration that the KJV has flaws.

 

[madhatter85]

The thing is is that Satan and Lucifer are not the same.

If you say so, I believe they are one in the same.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Never said it was infallible, i said it was the most correct of any other translation. i know it has it's flaws, this is the exact issue the early LDS members had with using the King James Version, which is why Joseph Smith set about translating the Bible himself. However, after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith Brigham Young Stated that teaching from the King James Version would suit the Lord's purpose.

We have known since the restoration that the KJV has flaws.

Joseph Smith being a martyr is certainly debateable. Hard to give your life willingly when you are in a gun battle.

Brigham Young was also into polygamy.....which we know is wrong. So as a character witness he doesn't do very well.

 

[averageJOE]

If you say so, I believe they are one in the same.

Here is a quote from EtuMalku. I think he explains it the best:

"The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Bible -- Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . ."

The New Revised Standard Version translates the same passage as "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, Son of Dawn!"

In other translations we find: "O shining star of the dawn!" (Moffatt) or "O morning-star, son of the dawn!" (Hebrew Bible).

The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. And yet it is this lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness.

Lucifer is not an Adversary as the word Satan (Shaiten) describes
Lucifer is the 'Bringer of Light' in other words Lux Lucis (Lucifer) is gnosis, truth and Divine knowledge.

Lucifer makes His debut in the Testaments as the Serpent in the Garden of Eden pointing out to Eve that God is a liar and you will not die if you eat of the fruit of knowledge, which she did and did not die.

The term Lucifer in fourth century Latin was a name for Venus, especially as the morning star. The Latin word Lucifer is composed of two words: lux, or in the genitive form used lucis, (meaning "light") and ferre, which means "to bear" or "to bring." So, the word Lucifer means bearer of light or light bringer. The same word is used in other places in the Latin Vulgate to translate Hebrew terms that mean "bright," especially associated with the sky:

Babylonian religion was an astral religion, closely related to Canaanite practices, although more focused on the sun, moon, and stars and their motion than on the immediate cycles of nature as it was in Canaan. The Babylonians worshiped as gods the manifestations of celestial bodies. It is from Babylon that we get the signs of the Zodiac representing the constellations. We now know that the two terms used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, were Babylonian astral deities (which is reflected in most modern translations).


Satan is a personification of the Judaic word al-satan or ha-satan (who borrowed it from the Persians' Shaiten) meaning adversary. The word is used more as a descriptive noun or pronoun. A fallen tree preventing a husband from getting to his injured wife would be considered a tree of shaiten, more or less.

Shaiten did not become Satan until much later where Jewish sects / tribes particularly the Essenes who began referring to anyone not an Essene as the Shaiten. Still further on the Roman Christian church decided it was time to personify Shaiten into Satan and have Him become the scapegoat for all evil in the Christian world.

All in all both Lucifer & Satan are metaphors that became archetypes and eventually personified, there are no Lucifer or Satan beings."

I'd like to illustrate a few points on what I believe Satan is:

When someone punches you in the face and you instictivly punch them back.
When two people (including husband/wife and boyfriend/girlfriend) lust over one another and act on that lust.
When a person believes that they need to love, respect, and understand themselves first before anyone else can.
When a person believes that this life is the most imoprtant thing and should be ultimatly cherished.
When someone believes that they should be the best person they can be without limitations so long as they do not hurt or interfer with others.
When somone believes that they take control of their own lives and not leave it into the "hands" of a supernatural.
When someone believes that love is the most powerful and intense emotions and should strongly direct it towards those who deserve it, and not wasted on your enemies.

 

[madhatter85]

Joseph Smith being a martyr is certainly debateable. Hard to give your life willingly when you are in a gun battle.

Martyrdom has nothing to do with that. Joseph Smith knew he was going to die when he stated “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter.” while on his way to Cathage Jail on false accusations.

Brigham Young was also into polygamy.....which we know is wrong. So as a character witness he doesn't do very well.

Actually, Practicing polygamy was not a mistake. The lord permitted it for a season just like in biblical times. Then it was taken away after the Lord purposes were fulfilled. There are grounds for the practice outlined in the Bible, and when the revelation was given to stop practicing polygamy, they stopped.

If you want to try and invalidate a person's character, many early presidents of the unites States owned slaves. do you feel that all of their work or character is then invalidated because of a practice that was accepted by society at the time?

 

[te_lanus]

"The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Bible -- Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . ."

See my post above, as this verse doesn't deal with Lucifer

In other translations we find: "O shining star of the dawn!" (Moffatt) or "O morning-star, son of the dawn!" (Hebrew Bible).

God is in Psalms praised as the morning-star. That begs the question how can Lucifer be the morning-star, as it is oneof God's Names.

The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. And yet it is this lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness.

Only after the Vulgate is Lucifer inferred into the verse quoted. Also the Vulgate at its origin was heavely criticized by St. Augustine as it took on meanings that was never part of the bible.

Lucifer makes His debut in the Testaments as the Serpent in the Garden of Eden pointing out to Eve that God is a liar and you will not die if you eat of the fruit of knowledge, which she did and did not die.

The serpent in the garden is not satan. As The Bible states:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. (Gen 3:1 KJV)

Nowhere does it state that it was Lucifer in the verse. It only states that it is the serpent who led Eve into sin

Lucifer:

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Martyrdom has nothing to do with that. Joseph Smith knew he was going to die when he stated “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter.” while on his way to Cathage Jail on false accusations.

That's not really prophetic. IF you have angered people with your beliefs and they are upset enough....it easy to assume life will be lost.

At any rate....Joseph Smith is easy to dismiss as a charlatan at best. Got Golden Plates anyone? Anyone?

Actually, Practicing polygamy was not a mistake. The lord permitted it for a season just like in biblical times. Then it was taken away after the Lord purposes were fulfilled. There are grounds for the practice outlined in the Bible, and when the revelation was given to stop practicing polygamy, they stopped.

Actually it was a mistake. For the NT shows that it is better to have one man and one woman.....and that was written WAY before Joseph Smith had thoughts about writing his own version that served his own personal needs.

If you want to try and invalidate a person's character, many early presidents of the unites States owned slaves. do you feel that all of their work or character is then invalidated because of a practice that was accepted by society at the time?

Because a society accepted a particular practice at a time does that mean that it was RIGHT because it was acceptable at the time? I do not believe so.

But the fact of the matter is the Bible condones slavery and as such dates itself as something that is not very good at foresight. Slavery is morally and ethically wrong. An omnipotent god would have known better than to ever allow such a terrible thing.

 

[arimoff]

If satan is not found in the original Hebrew bible, or early Christian texts how can a Christian even argue about it? everything else after that should be not kosher since its not part of your believes.

 

[Humanistheart]

If you say so, I believe they are one in the same.

And some believe the earth is flat. Where's the proof?

 

[Humanistheart]

That's not really prophetic. IF you have angered people with your beliefs and they are upset enough....it easy to assume life will be lost.

At any rate....Joseph Smith is easy to dismiss as a charlatan at best. Got Golden Plates anyone? Anyone?

Indeed, there's a thread on here that deals specifically with this. Perhaps you'd like to come take a look at the outragous claims one of it's posters makes, claiming that smith is 100% accurate in his writings. This poster could use a nice reality check so futher support that smith was a con-artists would be apreciated, and not disrupt this threads main theame of the devil.

 

[te_lanus]

We now know that the two terms used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, were Babylonian astral deities (which is reflected in most modern translations).

I'm curious Where did you find that. as I don't find Helel and Shahar's names mentioned anywhere on any Babylonian God list. see The Assyro-Babylonian Mythology FAQ for all known gods

 

[madhatter85]

That's not really prophetic. IF you have angered people with your beliefs and they are upset enough....it easy to assume life will be lost.

At any rate....Joseph Smith is easy to dismiss as a charlatan at best. Got Golden Plates anyone? Anyone?

It wouldn't matter if you had the plates in your hands, were able to flip through the pages, you would still deny it because you don't like what it has to say, that we are to discipline ourselves and overcome adversity through faith. you think it "unfashionable" to believe in god, well sir, you are entitled to your opinions. I feel my belief in God has made me a much better person that i would otherwise be.

Actually it was a mistake. For the NT shows that it is better to have one man and one woman.....and that was written WAY before Joseph Smith had thoughts about writing his own version that served his own personal needs.

Do you forget the wives and concubines of Abraham and King David? clearly the Lord saw fit to have provisions made for plural marriages. No sir, it was not a "mistake."

Because a society accepted a particular practice at a time does that mean that it was RIGHT because it was acceptable at the time? I do not believe so.

But the fact of the matter is the Bible condones slavery and as such dates itself as something that is not very good at foresight. Slavery is morally and ethically wrong. An omnipotent god would have known better than to ever allow such a terrible thing.

Thank you for the red herring. This is a non-answer to my question. and a quite lengthy one. I shall rephrase.

Are you going to condemn a man and invalidate all of his work and character for a practice that was deemed acceptable at the time?

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

It wouldn't matter if you had the plates in your hands, were able to flip through the pages, you would still deny it because you don't like what it has to say, that we are to discipline ourselves and overcome adversity through faith. you think it "unfashionable" to believe in god, well sir, you are entitled to your opinions. I feel my belief in God has made me a much better person that i would otherwise be.

How wrong you are. It would give your religion a great deal of meat. But because there is no archeological proof and anything claimed in the book of Mormon there is no reason to believe it. Evidence changes everything.

I can discipline myself to overcome adversity. I don't need faith to get me through it. It is of being man enough to face things head on and not pawning it off for a random outcome of God's will.

You have just reduced your religion to a crutch that makes you a better person and you are basically saying you'd be of depraved mind and action if you didn't have it. I on the other hand don't have religion and suffer none of the maladies that you fear you will suffer without religion.

Do you forget the wives and concubines of Abraham and King David? clearly the Lord saw fit to have provisions made for plural marriages. No sir, it was not a "mistake."

Do you forget Genesis 2:24? "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his WIFE (note the singular form) and they will become ONE flesh."

Men are creatures of the flesh. God does not condone polygamy.....he is silent. So we cannot say that is for it or against. Just because man did it doesn't mean God allowed it. Let us not forget that since God says in genesis that man and woman should be of one flesh and it is a singular union then we can assume that anything beyond that would be problematic. And we indeed find that it was problematic for those that practiced polygamy.

Let us look at your boy Solomon whom you are proud to lift up as a polygamist.....Look at I King 11:3-4
"He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, (this is the part where Mormons stop reading but if you finish the sentence it says) and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other Gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God,.."

So accurately I have predicted a problem with polygamy and accurately through the bible I have proven it to be a bad practice.

I would also ask you to refrain from holding up David as this great guy. After all he was a murderer and an adulterer. Hardly the stuff of which high moral fiber is made of.

Thank you for the red herring. This is a non-answer to my question. and a quite lengthy one. I shall rephrase.

Are you going to condemn a man and invalidate all of his work and character for a practice that was deemed acceptable at the time?

IT is easily done in the case of people like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith whom twisted the words of the BIble and rewrote it to serve their own selfish needs.

Again I say....because something is acceptable to MAN does that make it right say in the eyes of God?

At any rate you are offering up the Red herring....you are comparing people of considerably moral moral fiber that owned slaves as result of believing in a bible that condoned slavery to a group of men that REWROTE the bible so that they could partake in many women....even though the people of the day KNEW such a thing was wrong.

 

[madhatter85]

How wrong you are. It would give your religion a great deal of meat. But because there is no archeological proof and anything claimed in the book of Mormon there is no reason to believe it. Evidence changes everything.

There is more than enough evidence to go around, the witnesses of those before us who died never wavering in what they knew to be true. there are plenty of geographical evidences to support the Book of Mormon.
Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

I can discipline myself to overcome adversity. I don't need faith to get me through it. It is of being man enough to face things head on and not pawning it off for a random outcome of God's will.

God's will is not random, matter-in-fact it is very specific to each of us.

You have just reduced your religion to a crutch that makes you a better person and you are basically saying you'd be of depraved mind and action if you didn't have it. I on the other hand don't have religion and suffer none of the maladies that you fear you will suffer without religion.

On the Contrary, I don't have anything to fear. Us LDS do not live in fear unlike other religious denominations. we rejoice at the Love God has shown all mankind and honor him by raising a righteous posterity

Do you forget Genesis 2:24? "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his WIFE (note the singular form) and they will become ONE flesh."

Men are creatures of the flesh. God does not condone polygamy.....he is silent. So we cannot say that is for it or against. Just because man did it doesn't mean God allowed it. Let us not forget that since God says in genesis that man and woman should be of one flesh and it is a singular union then we can assume that anything beyond that would be problematic. And we indeed find that it was problematic for those that practiced polygamy.

Yes, in the end it will only be one man and one woman together throughout the eternities. Polygamy's purpose was to raise up righteous seed unto the Lord. has nothing to do with carnal desires. nor will it extend into the eternities.

Let us look at your boy Solomon whom you are proud to lift up as a polygamist.....Look at I King 11:3-4
"He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, (this is the part where Mormons stop reading but if you finish the sentence it says) and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other Gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God,.."

So accurately I have predicted a problem with polygamy and accurately through the bible I have proven it to be a bad practice.

How do you explain Abraham having Ishmael? no sir, you have not proven polygamy a bad practice. You have merely misconstrued one passage of scripture.

I would also ask you to refrain from holding up David as this great guy. After all he was a murderer and an adulterer. Hardly the stuff of which high moral fiber is made of.

The point of his story is that he had it all until he screwed up. he was very blessed of the Lord untill he made an extremely unwise choice.

IT is easily done in the case of people like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith whom twisted the words of the BIble and rewrote it to serve their own selfish needs.

You are mistaken sir, they did not "rewrite" the bible. Nowhere did they ever claim to rewrite the bible. You have a gross misunderstanding of scripture and LDS History.

Again I say....because something is acceptable to MAN does that make it right say in the eyes of God?

At any rate you are offering up the Red herring....you are comparing people of considerably moral moral fiber that owned slaves as result of believing in a bible that condoned slavery to a group of men that REWROTE the bible so that they could partake in many women....even though the people of the day KNEW such a thing was wrong.

So you assert that even though Presidents in history owned slaves, they are of exceptional moral fiber. And that their works and character still stand in spite of a horrible crime against humanity.

Polygamy hardly compares as a crime against humanity the way slavery does. yet you dismiss someone's character because they had multiple wives.

It is interesting how you categorize Polygamy as worse than slavery. Especially considering polygamy was consensual between all parties involved. Slavery was defininitely NOT consensual.

 

[Morse]

This is of course, assuming that "satan" is not just a term applied to describe the nature of human "immorality" as prescribed by Abrahamic Religions.

And "god" is not just a term applied to describe the nature of human "morality" as prescribed by Abrahamic Religions.

Attributing right and wrong to infinite (Or very powerful) agencies and claiming to be the conduit between the common citizen and said agencies is a very effective means to gain control.

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

There is more than enough evidence to go around, the witnesses of those before us who died never wavering in what they knew to be true. there are plenty of geographical evidences to support the Book of Mormon.
Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

It takes great intellectual dishonest with ones self not to see the apparent problems in your "Indications of PLausibility" The funny thing is that even your link says it's NOT proof and you say it's plenty enough evidence. Odd no?

For example....don't you find it interesting that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from the 1611 KJV Bible. In the ORIGINAL book of Mormon there is even I Corinthians 13 and Isaiah 53 are quoted in full....even the italics words which are ADDED by translators.

The fact remains that not one shred of archeological evidence supports any claim the Book of Mormon makes about the particular people mentioned in it.

The fact that there have been over 4,000 CHANGES made to the book of Mormon is an embarrassment sense according to John Smith and his "witnesses" God said it was 100% accurate and correct. Yet they have had to change contradictions and names over time.

The Book of Mormon dates Christianity to a time BEFORE Christ even existed and says the term Christian was used BEFORE Christ existed....over 100 years before Christ. How can there be Christains when there was no Christ? The term Christian isn't coined till well after the death of JEsus. There weren't "Christians" when JEsus walked the planet.

God's will is not random, matter-in-fact it is very specific to each of us.

I didn't say GOd's will was random....I said the outcomes that you believe to be GOd's will are random. I'm not sayign that it comes from god but that it comes from you. You believe as you wish to believe. That's fine. BUt it's intellectually bankrupt. I could make a milk jug as powerful as GOd when it comes to prayer. It's a matter of fatih and statistics at that point. The milk jug is as powerful as God.

On the Contrary, I don't have anything to fear. Us LDS do not live in fear unlike other religious denominations. we rejoice at the Love God has shown all mankind and honor him by raising a righteous posterity

I was once a Methodist......I didn't live in fear of my immortal soul. I lived in fear for YOUR immortal soul.

But it is you that reduced it down to the idea that were it not for religion you wouldn't be the good guy you are.

Yes, in the end it will only be one man and one woman together throughout the eternities. Polygamy's purpose was to raise up righteous seed unto the Lord. has nothing to do with carnal desires. nor will it extend into the eternities.

Please support

How do you explain Abraham having Ishmael? no sir, you have not proven polygamy a bad practice. You have merely misconstrued one passage of scripture.

Well again I'm going to have to use your own religoin to trump you.

1. The arrangement between Sarai, Hagar, and Abram is HARDLY polygamy. Hagar was a surrogate mother at best. What was the reason this arrangment was needed? Apparently God didn't see fit to make Sarai fertile....so a common practice was to have a maid servant stand in. But that didn't make Hagar Abraham's wife. She was just a chick that Abraham boned so that he could have a son.

But alas.....what was the outcome of that arrangment? What happened to poor Ishmael? The Good Book tells us:

Genesis 16:11-12
"The Angel of the Lord also said to her: You are now with child adn you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

Now I don't know about you but that doesn't sound a bit good. And it isn't. IShmael was thrown out of Abrahams family for mocking the TRUE son of the TRUE wife Isaac. Ishmael goes on to father a great nation that is very hostile toward the nation of Israel. One of Ishmael's daughters marries Esau....and you know....God hated Esau.

So yeah...once again....anything outside of the ORIGINAL marraige leads to nothing but BAD stuff. Says so in the BIble.

You might as well concede this point.

The point of his story is that he had it all until he screwed up. he was very blessed of the Lord untill he made an extremely unwise choice.

So it's OK for God to hold one or two stupid mistakes against you, but when others do it....it's illogical? David was very blessed....but he disobeyed God time after time.

You are mistaken sir, they did not "rewrite" the bible. Nowhere did they ever claim to rewrite the bible. You have a gross misunderstanding of scripture and LDS History.

They don't have to claim to rewrite the bible. It's an historical fact. They copied the 1611 KJV. 1/18th of the KJV to be exact is word for word. This stuff was supposed to have happened over 100 years before Christ and yet we have parts that are EXACT copies of the 1611 KJV. Even the parts the translators added in italics that were not part of the original Hebrew text. It's called plaigerism and though he didn't copy ALL of it...he certainly copied a big chunk of it.

Tell yourself what you must.....but the truth fo the matter just sings of foul play.

So you assert that even though Presidents in history owned slaves, they are of exceptional moral fiber. And that their works and character still stand in spite of a horrible crime against humanity.

Polygamy hardly compares as a crime against humanity the way slavery does. yet you dismiss someone's character because they had multiple wives.

It is interesting how you categorize Polygamy as worse than slavery. Especially considering polygamy was consensual between all parties involved. Slavery was defininitely NOT consensual.

Polygamy is not always consensual....evidence of this is the fact that the people rebeled against Joseph Smith....so much so that it led to them killing him at the harm he had caused families.

Again....you are being dodgy. There is a HUGE difference between owning slaves an act supported by the bible as an accepteable practice.....and rewriting/creating religion to advocate polygamy in a time when it was completely unacceptable and biblically speaking had been revealed to be wrong.

The presidents were wrong to own slaves no doubt. But from a religious stand point the BIble us FINE wtih slavery. The Bible, as I have repeatedly proven using the bible is not so big on polygamy. So again it shows the great lengths of dishonesty that Joseph Smith would go through to get what HE....a mere man....wanted. Which is understandable through a Christian lens....because he is a sinner and couldn't help it perhaps.

 

[Magic Man]

God did not create "Satan"...Lucifer created himself when he rebelled against God. please see Idea's post above

So, did God not know that Lucifer would rebel against him?