• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Sunday 10th November 2024.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Fall Of Lucifer

In for a penny ...

In Hebrew ha-satan ("the satan"), is used as the title of a character that attempts to provoke punishable sedition where he finds none, thus acting as an adversary of human beings, bent on separating them from G-d. By circa X-mas day (whenever that was) 4 B.C. or thereabouts the title had become understood as the proper name of a BEING. Satan is seen as an adversary not only of human beings but also primarily of G-d.

It is important to understand that when Jesus, Paul, Qumran et al. refer to the “devil”, or to “satan” the way they understand the cat they are referring to, they would recognize as the scary bastard who stars in the Exorcist 1970 some odd years later. Obviously some of our religious ritualization & things would be lost on them, but they would have understood perfectly the CONCEPT of who it was spitting up pea soup & cussin’ up a storm.

As to “devils” helping G-d in the “old testament” this probably is a confusion of the role of Malech Hamoves, or the Angel of Death as you know him in Exodus.
No “devil” by definition is G-d’s helper, its just a misinterpretation (usually by our para-pals) of the true role of those two beings I just listed.

Ultimately all this talk about Satan and his nature goes to the heart of how to account for and understand evil in our world. That is always an important question and we should be proud of ourselves for entertaining it.
 
God Fearing?

jimmmy said:
Satan is seen as an adversary not only of human beings but also primarily of G-d....

As to “devils” helping G-d in the “old testament” this probably is a confusion of the role of Malech Hamoves, or the Angel of Death as you know him in Exodus....

No “devil” by definition is G-d’s helper, its just a misinterpretation (usually by our para-pals) of the true role of those two beings I just listed.
Click to expand...
Excuse me for asking, but why do you avoid writing the word God out in full? Is it forbidden or is there some other reason?

I only ask because in the Bible, where it is used, God is always printed in full. Even the local church down my road has a sign outside saying "God welcomes everyone" - or is the local reverend in danger of being stoned by an angry mob (a la 'Monty Python' in a scene from Life of Brian "Ooh! he said Jehovah!!" ):confused:

The Boggart
 
Rolling eyes "Soooo nice of you to ask"

Jews do not casually write any name of G-d. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word you often see translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of G-d per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of G-d. However, observant Jews (which I am not) avoid writing any Name of G-d casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better. I don’t do it because its just bad juju -- seriously why would I want to offend – you knew what I was writing, right? So no big deal to do a small thing.

The commandment not to erase or deface the name comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, they are commanded not to do the same to the true G-d. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of G-d.
It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type G-d's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with G-d's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of G-d on web sites like this one or in newsgroup messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.

Normally, they avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God."

BTW the “name” in the Bible down the road comes from Hebrew letters Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. In other words (ironically to this discussion) it’s literally Hebrew for “G-d”. That’s how you get can Yahweh and Jehovah as names in Christian lit. (They are literally filling in the blanks). Another “name” often translated as G-d is “Elohim” which basically means Lord and had the same kind of everyday use as the word Lord does for us

Does everyone see that He’s oppressing me? ... Oh what a give away.
I love them too and know they would only shake their heads and roll their eyes at me on this. It was a legit Q and I know it seems/looks silly to you --- but then, I’m a bit silly.

I cribbed alot of this from Jewish FAQ
 
Jimmmy

Thanks for taking the time to fill in a few gaps in my ignorance. I appreciate the way you treated my question. I assure you that although it might appear to have been a silly question, it was asked in order to gain an intelligent answer ... which indeed I received.

I've seen other people miss out letters, but never dared to ask them ... but the under the anonymity of this forum I thought it worth the risk.

Regards

An enlightened Boggart!:)
 
Sign & Signified

Interesting comments of the name of God...especially to anyone who's studied a lot of literary theory.

The argument runs like this: the word "God" (or "banana", or "pizza") is not the actual thing itself. It is merely a symbol, understood by multiple parties, which is understood to stand for the same thing. For example, when I say "banana", you do not think of shoals of swimming things, but rather imagine a type of bent yellow fruit.

Therefore, ANY symbol which is understood by many people to be the same thing is equally valid as the name of the thing. The word for "god" in latin is "deus", yet they are both understood to be referring to the same thing.

Therefore, if you repeatedly use the symbol "G-d", and other understand what you mean by that symbol, as clearly happened here, it can be argued that "G-d" is a valid name God.

And therefore, you may as well have just have written God in the first place.

The only way to be safe is to refer to him/her/it/they in such a way as to be completely incomprehensible to everybody, including yourself. Which would just be silly.

I think I just sprained my brain.:confused:
 
Well, there is a difference between god and God. The second refers in the western world to Jahwe. Which is his name, and so you cannot simply call it something else and make it a valid name. Or you´ll probably be struck by lightning.
 
"Well, there is a difference between god and God. The second refers in the western world to Jahwe. Which is his name, and so you cannot simply call it something else and make it a valid name."

But surely we've already done that in the western world by calling him God. If his "true name" is Jahwe, then "God" is not his true name, unless you accept the argument that any label by which he is commonly recognised and identified becomes his true name.

What's in a name, anyway. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, or so I hear.

The idea of "true names" exists only in a magical context, not a scientific one (where names are temporary labels for ease of identification), a literary one or a social one.

Example: My name on my birth certificate is Jonathan. Many people call me "Jon". Here, I am "Jonny B". My parents refer to me as "Son", my sister as "bruv". Co-workers refer to me as "Jon", "Ducky", or, occasionally, "Sweetie". I answer to all of these, apart form "Jonathan" which nobody ever uses. Yet "Jonathan" is legally my name.

So which of these is my "true" name? And what would be G-d's true name, bearing in mind that I seriously doubt that s/he has a birth certificate stashed away somewhere.


:confused:
 
I don't know but I've never yet summoned up the courage
to address him-her as Sweetie, even when I run into him-her around
the office.

You'll gather we're not that close. :p
 
I once called the Bishop of Lichfield 'Dearie'. Does that count?

8¬)
 
I'll take 7 on that then, since it was at a Priesting at the Cathedral


8¬)
 
Re: Sign & Signified

Jonny B said:
Interesting comments of the name of God...especially to anyone who's studied a lot of literary theory.

The argument runs like this: the word "God" (or "banana", or "pizza") is not the actual thing itself. It is merely a symbol, understood by multiple parties, which is understood to stand for the same thing. For example, when I say "banana", you do not think of shoals of swimming things, but rather imagine a type of bent yellow fruit.

Therefore, ANY symbol which is understood by many people to be the same thing is equally valid as the name of the thing. The word for "god" in latin is "deus", yet they are both understood to be referring to the same thing.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you didn't finish the argument.

It takes us to a far more unpleasant place!

Because each word is, in fact, only definable in terms of other words (i.e. its meaning can only be agreed and expressed through language), such nouns do not act as signs (which bear an almost primordial connection with the world) but as signifiers which refer only to one other ad infinitum. Hence, in attempting to make any assertion in language we are trapped within a web of inter-referential signifiers never, in fact, reaching the supposedly signified world of objects.

Hence, all this talk of 'magic words' 'true names' and 'the language of angels' is beyond us since we refer solely to our own language and the thoughts we have that are limited by it.

Flies and bottles...
 
I am never called by my true name either, its not mine, its my mothers.

Back to Milton (a fave author of mine) I have a big victorian ed illustrated by Dore. the pics are very famous

got it for £6 in a shop, I have no doubt that such a nice edition is worth more.
 
Being a fan of Saussure and Derrida,
I have to say I both agree and disagree with Jonny B on the ideqa of true names.

While there is no intrinsic relation between the signifier and the signified, there does exist in the langue the provision for the kind of naming decribed here with god and God.

For example, a vacuum cleaner is simply that. However a Hoover originally meant a paricular brand or even type of vacuum cleaner but now, it is accepted as a generic term for a vacuum cleaner.

In the same sense, god has been accepted in Western culture, I must point out, to refer to the god of Abraham as referred to be the people of the book.

LD
 
Re: Re: Satan

dead flag said:
The Devil's Advocate is the chap who has the job of putting the case opposing a proposed canonization in a supposed trial situation, though I'd love to know how many cases get this far and are declined. Also, the title of the position does seem to prejudge the case; and then, is it fair to try a chap in absentia? i guess if the proposed saint put in an appearance that would make things far more clear cut.
Click to expand...

I know I'm going back many posts, but I happen to be reading a book about this atm and couldn't resist :blush:

The Devil's Advocate isn't the official name of the guy in question, he's called something like the 'Representative of the Faith' (don't have the book to hand so can't put in the exact term).

He also doesn't exist anymore, at least not in his advocate role. Potential canonisations are now investigated through the production of a detailed biography of the nominated saint rather than through a legal process with prosecution and defense. The office of Devil's Advocate (under its official title) still exists, but I forget what the guy does now. Its a pretty recent development, it happened in the early 80s I think.

You have to be dead to be canonised - posthumous miracles are taken as more-or-less conclusive evidence that you're with God, rather than that other guy...

(edited for spellings)
 
Ah, but you didn't finish the argument. It takes us to a far more unpleasant place! Because each word is, in fact, only defineable in terms of other words (i.e. it's meaning can only be agreed and expressed through language) such nouns do not act as signs (which bear an almost primordial connection with the world) but as signifiers which refer only to each other ad infinitum. Hence, in attempting to make any assertion in language we are trapped within a web of inter-referential signifiers never, in fact, reaching the supposedly signified world of objects. Hence, all this 'magic words' 'true name' 'language of angels' business is beyond us as we refer solely to our language and our thoughts that are defined by it. ...or so they claim... Flies and bottles...
Click to expand...

This is interesting, but does not seem to take into account the fact that language is continually evolving. This is why the names of things change. An 'original' name of something would not necessarily be understood if used today. If anything it is a less 'true' name, because its out of date.


As an aside does anyone know what the Koran got to say on the subject of the evil one?
 
Really interesting stuff here.
As far as the role of "Lucifer" my Highschool religeon teacher (who has studies theology for a bit and was a certified minister-not sure what denomination however) said that Lucifer was "at the right hand of God" as was stated earlier, and fell because of his hubris in thinking he was equal to or above God. Not sure of it's basis, I'll have to look a bit more into it.

However the intersting thing is in Revelation 22:16 Jesus refers to himself as the morning star also.

(here's the quote from Sacred-Texts.com)
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Click to expand...

Now, this might beara bit on the heretical side, but seeing as Jesus ascendent is also supposed to sit at the right hand of the father, what if Jesus was supposed to be Lucifer's replacement?

:eek!!!!:
 
I read somewhere that the Catholic tradition is that Lucifer merely refused to serve. He refused to subjugate himself. The inference weas that Lucifer felt he was equal to god.

It is encapsulated in the attributed quotation, "Non Serviam", I will not serve.

Will try to look it up.

LD
 
No idea.

But I have just read some entries in the Catholic Encyclopaedia about the angels and the fall and to be honest I am none the wiser.

L:D
 
"Non Serviam"
Click to expand...

Yeah. My original question was 'where in the bible is this story, or if not in the bible then where' because it's one of those things we all 'know' but don't necessarily know the source of.

I think the best answers we got were Milton, the apocryphal books of Enoch and Batholemew and or an unspecified bunch of christian writings ....... and have I followed this up by reading the books of Enoch and Bartholemew?

Nah :(
 
Since the whole 'Lucifer' as a rebellious fallen angel myth, seems to have been devised as a clumsy means to explain the existence of 'evil' when God can only be infinitely good, then don't be surprised when the whole mythos turns into contradictory spaghetti on closer examination.

;)
 
So is Lucifer/the Devil a largely Christian concept then? To what extent is the idea of a single prinicple of evil present in Jewish belief?
 
Hardly at all, aFAIK.

TheJudaic concept of "satan" literally means adversary, it is not associated usually with a carnate entity. However, there is an agnel that god uses when he needs bad stuff done, death, blight, torment etc, for example in the Hewbrew version of the story of Job. It is thought that perhaps later misinterpretation combined the two into a single entity.

LD
 
Cor. I always assumed the Devil was an existing Jewish concept rather than something created by Christians. Interesting that Christianity felt that it needed such a figure.

So what about Islam, as the other religion of the book and a slightly younger one than Christianity? Does it have a Devil?

And what about other world religions? I'm intrigued now - to what extent is Satan a uniquely Christian concept?
 
From http://www.understanding-islam.org...



According to the Qur'an (the basic source of Islamic belief), when God created Adam (pbuh) and directed the assembly of angels to prostrate before Adam (pbuh), Iblis - a Jinn - was also present in the court. All the angels obediently prostrated before Adam (pbuh). However, Iblis - the Jinn - arrogantly refused to do so. This, obviously, was a transgression on the part of Iblis. It was this transgression of Iblis that made him deserving of the name 'Al-Shaitaan'[1] (the Satan). As a result of this transgression, God turned Iblis out of His court and sentenced him to punishment. However, Iblis asked God for respite till the Day of Judgment and declared that because God had turned him out of his court and had sentenced him to punishment because of man, he would therefore always be an enemy to man. He, and those who become his agents, would do all that they can to turn man away from the path of God and as a consequence, suffer the everlasting punishment of hellfire..

Thus, according to the Islamic belief, Iblis - the Satan - is neither a fallen angel, as the Christians believe, nor an agent of God. Islam introduces Iblis as a Jinn, who by his freewill opted to disobey God and transgress. God allowed Satan respite from punishment till an appointed time and gave him the authority only to the extent of suggesting evil to man. Iblis and his agents[2] - from among jinn as well as men - cannot force man into evil. They, however, can incite man to do what is against God's commandments and thereby lose the path of eternal success.

It should be kept in mind that the basic scheme of things in giving man life, according to the Qur'an, was to test him by giving him authority to choose between 'good' and 'evil'. It is, in fact, the incorrect use of this authority, which results in evil. It seems that the Jinn are also given the same authority. Iblis became 'the Satan' for no other reason except for using this freedom of choice for the wrong end.

4th March 2000


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The Arabic word 'Al-Shaitaan' means 'the transgressor'.

[2] Those who, by their freewill, have opted to live a life of evil and transgression.



This sounds legit, but I only got it from approximately eight seconds' searching on google, so I can't be sure.

A Jinn, eh? In other words just a random spirit, I guess...
 
I read an account quite recently (perhaps even here) that suggested that the islamic Satan is a trickster/deceiver type of a thing, as mentioned above, rather than an embodiment of evil. Consequently Saddam using the term "The Great Satan" to describe Bush (? I think it was Bush, but I don't recall exactly) l meant the great liar, rather than the embodiment of all evil as it was understood in western countries with a Christian heritage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top