Skip to main content

How dependent is the Bible's story on the presence of Satan?

When it comes to religion, I don't pretend to have all the answers. However, regardless if the answers are impossible to fully deduce while alive on this earth, I find it fascinating to ponder about such matters, because I'm a creative nerd whose mind likes to constantly be in overdrive. I grew up in a Christian household, have studied multiple religions throughout my life out of pure curiosity, and would today label myself as a humanist and/or an agnostic. While I believe many of these sacred texts provide interesting story material, which can help teach us many of life's important lessons, I'm hard-pressed to take them all literally, and have reached a point where I feel that, while I can't fully disprove the presence of a higher power, I can't fully prove it either. Due to this, I simply try to stand by the Golden Rule, acknowledge my mistakes and flaws, and continually try to improve upon them to better myself as a person, regardless of the potential reward or punishment in an unknown afterlife. I don't judge people whom are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or worship a pet squirrel by the name of chipmunk; I just simply haven't found a religion that's right for me yet.

Given all of that, though, as I was brought up in a Christian environment, it's the religion I've been most exposed to through my years and perhaps due to that, the one I contemplate about more than any other. Just this morning, a thought occurred to me. In an odd way, doesn't it seem like the Bible mentions two gods: God and Satan? Granted, in the story, God is the creator, the one who created Satan. However, Satan is also said to be the originator of sin, was kicked out of heaven for his wicked ways (Lucifer at the time), and helped create the black-and-white/good-and-evil system the story requires to produce a savior (Jesus) and a reward-and-punishment system in the afterlife (heaven and hell). If Satan didn't sin, wasn't kicked out of heaven, and didn't constantly tempt man to stray away from the good (Godly) path, with the threat of eternal punishment for doing so, what need would there have been for Jesus to die for our sins and for people to worship Jesus to free themselves of sin and be rewarded in the afterlife? To me, the story seems incomplete and to lose its power without the presence of Satan. What would the story of Batman have been without the Joker? Of Superman without Lex Luthor? Of He-Man without Skeletor? In almost all such stories, there's a good presence and an evil one. This is exactly the case in the Bible, which doesn't shy away from being obvious about it, with the good presence being referred to as God (one more "o" and we have "good") and the evil one being referred to as the devil (yes, the word "evil" resides in "devil"). So the question is, how dependent is the Bible's story on the presence of Satan? Due to this level of dependency, does this then suggest that Satan, along with God, is a god himself? Also, does it potentially negate the essence of the story, for without the presence and sin of Satan, what use would there have been for Jesus to have sacrificed himself on the cross to eradicate sin? Does it also showcase that God is not omnipotent, as his ultimate luring tool to the masses of potential followers is dependent on another's deeds? No, I don't have the answers to any of those questions, but I find them to be fascinating nonetheless. Well, I best be off to allow my wacky mind to wander yet again. Yes, this may be why I drink on the weekends...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"