Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

More Thoughts on Satan's Rebellion


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,359 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 16 September 2013 - 06:09 AM

Well, it's safe to say the whole rebellion and fall of Satan is basically a product of some real reverse fluke: bad translations and such.

But you know, sometimes really improbable coincidences do happen. Sometimes I wonder if the rebellion narrative has some fragments of what really happened. But to me, the problem is that similar kind of myths don't really exist in many parts of the world. It's not quite an universal theme. Even worse, the whole rebellion and fall of Satan story has plot holes that makes it look like a lump of cheese.

To explain the motive of Satan's rebellion, theologians practically made him a bad tempered simpleton with possibly no intelligence. But wasn't he the angel standing next to that SOB originally? Satan was supposed to be the highest ranking angel and he is completely blinded by pride and greed? Since he is an angel, shouldn't he know better?

But let's pretend that the whole rebellion ACTUALLY happened. But to explain the motivation rationally, we have to face some really serious problems. All the descriptions of Satan simply don't add up. They are very inconsistent. Even worse, much of the description of Satan's personality are pretty much from extra-Biblical sources.

Some people asserted that angels have no free will. But the problem is that Jewish apocrypha depicts angels with their own will and intentions. And I simply can't imagine God's servants having no will of their own. What are they, automatons? The Book of Tobit depicts an angel with a pretty benign personality and intentions.

To make a long story short, I pretty much independently thought on the possibility that the Christian depiction of Satan sounds like one-sided propaganda. And seems like I am not the only one. Although rare, there are people who recognize this massive plot hole.

And I thought of this: What if Satan rebelled because he really had a very justifiable reason? And why wouldn't he be just surrender? Being blinded by hubris isn't much of a good explanation. He must have a very good reason why he won't stop waging the war against God. But I won't go to the conclusion that Satan has a chance of defeating God.

And it's said that 1/3 of angels joined the rebellion, which is a very unfortunate by-product of Book of Revelation. But let's pretend it really happened. 1/3 of the entire angels joined the rebellion knowing that they will be defeated? What are they, some bunch of special cases? Another plot hole!

The biggest problem with the rebellion narrative is that a relatively rational approach on the explanation of Satan's motivation can challenge existing Christian belief on God's nature.

One explanation is that Satan rebelled and won't stop the fight because he believes that...his action is morally justifiable. And maybe that's why Satan won't back down even though he clearly knows that he will be defeated. Satan is not making some nasty death rattle. He is making a statement.

Maybe Satan rebelled because he had a conviction that God's actions were morally wrong. Or even...evil.

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#2    krypter3

krypter3

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 420 posts
  • Joined:10 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • “My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places.” A.A Milne

Posted 16 September 2013 - 06:17 AM

Before falling Satan was Lucifer, the morning star, bringer of dawn.  Doesn't sound so evil to me.  

Plus apples taste amazing.  So who can blame him for wanting to spread the word of apples.


#3    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,359 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 16 September 2013 - 06:29 AM

Maybe this was the real story: God created man for pure entertainment, which can be often very sadistic. Satan finally had it with God's evil behaviors and stood up against him, although he knows that he himself will be surely defeated.

Edited by ambelamba, 16 September 2013 - 06:29 AM.

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#4    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,195 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 16 September 2013 - 07:53 AM

View Postkrypter3, on 16 September 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

Before falling Satan was Lucifer, the morning star, bringer of dawn.  Doesn't sound so evil to me.
Where does the Bible call Satan Lucifer?


#5    Kaa-Tzik

Kaa-Tzik

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2013 - 10:55 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 16 September 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Where does the Bible call Satan Lucifer?
Here in the first section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

As a general point. Yes, this is an Anglophone forum, but the KJV is not the only version of the bible.
This extract from the Vulgate, Isaiah 14:12

Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris  corruisti in terram, qui vulnerabas gentes

How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn. How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low


#6    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,195 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 16 September 2013 - 11:27 AM

View PostKaa-Tzik, on 16 September 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

Here in the first section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

As a general point. Yes, this is an Anglophone forum, but the KJV is not the only version of the bible.
This extract from the Vulgate, Isaiah 14:12

Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris  corruisti in terram, qui vulnerabas gentes

How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn. How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low
Isaiah 14:4 addresses it to a Babylonian king, Isaiah 14:16 calls Lucifer a man. Where is Satan called Lucifer?

From your link "In this passage Isaiah applies to a king of Babylon the image of the morning star fallen from the sky, an image he is generally believed to have borrowed from a legend in Canaanite mythology."


#7    dlonewolf85

dlonewolf85

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 243 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Male

  • I'm not a bad boy,

    But just misunderstood!!

Posted 16 September 2013 - 11:44 AM

View Postambelamba, on 16 September 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Maybe this was the real story: God created man for pure entertainment, which can be often very sadistic. Satan finally had it with God's evil behaviors and stood up against him, although he knows that he himself will be surely defeated.

The way I see it, both god and the devil (if they really do exist for y'all), sounds like bureaucrats (each having his own agenda) and who love pulling strings and making others do their work. Maybe someone should just knee both of them in their midsection and tell 'em to back off. But that could only be possible if they weren't imaginary, so why bother? lol.

∂ Ѡοɭ ʄ85

#8    Kaa-Tzik

Kaa-Tzik

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2013 - 01:08 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 16 September 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

Isaiah 14:4 addresses it to a Babylonian king, Isaiah 14:16 calls Lucifer a man. Where is Satan called Lucifer?

From your link "In this passage Isaiah applies to a king of Babylon the image of the morning star fallen from the sky, an image he is generally believed to have borrowed from a legend in Canaanite mythology."
Because it's all junk, a fantasy. There is no "Satan", it is a composite of all manner of stuff, therefore there is no single "Lucifer" or anything else anybody wants to call the Devil. It's semantics about nonsense.


#9    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,195 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 16 September 2013 - 03:43 PM

View PostKaa-Tzik, on 16 September 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

Because it's all junk, a fantasy. There is no "Satan", it is a composite of all manner of stuff, therefore there is no single "Lucifer" or anything else anybody wants to call the Devil. It's semantics about nonsense.
I agree but I guess my point is that the Bible never once called Satan, Lucifer.


#10    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,359 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 16 September 2013 - 04:37 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 16 September 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

I agree but I guess my point is that the Bible never once called Satan, Lucifer.

Blame it on St. Jerome. He intentionally mistranslated it to humiliate a rival bishop named...Lucifer.

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#11    Kaa-Tzik

Kaa-Tzik

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2013 - 08:05 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 16 September 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

I agree but I guess my point is that the Bible never once called Satan, Lucifer.
This will Teach me to not just glance at posts sometimes. I read your post as where is Lucifer in the bible :blush:


#12    Heru

Heru

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 828 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2005

Posted 16 September 2013 - 09:02 PM

Like someone pointed out Lucifer is a bad translation that was actually used a few times but didnt refer to a person, except in isaiah. And it was referring to a King. Why you might ask why, well because sometimes in the morning you can see a bright little spec in the sky, this is venus. Impressive isnt it but how impressive is it when the sun comes out... where did venus go?
The king acted like he was a god but if he is a god he is venus and the god of israel is the sun.....its an insult.

Now Satan means adversary in hebrew other than revelations(which was written by a man exiled to a island and driven mad) it was used a couple of times, both times he acted as a servant of gods and an adversary to humans. IE hes gods personal bully that he sends to F with us.

Now where did all the fall and evil nemisis of god and where did that guy who wrote revelations get all these ideas.... Persia.


#13    Resh

Resh

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 156 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:I dont even know anymore

Posted 21 September 2013 - 03:47 AM

There is also the paradox that this character was a complete 100% irrational being.

.                                                                   Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users