Is the devil supposed to be omnipotent?

super_furry

Just wondering if there's any reference to this in the bible, after something that came up in a 'heated' debate in the pub last night.

Excelsior

No. The devil is a fallen angel. The Bible paints him as a kind of mad terrorist who has hijaacked and is occupying the world. After Easter, his defeat is certain, but terrorists can take a while to mop up, you know?

Sapien

On a not entirely unrelated topic, the current papacy is returning focus to the once-considered archaic and embarrassing issue of demonology.

Last Wednesday, Pope Benedict personally greeted 180 priests who had arrived at the Vatican for a 10 week course in exorcism. This course is intended to teach demonology, the nature, practices and motivations of demons, the rite of exorcism, psychology (so that the priests may discern mere psychological disorders from cases of genuine demonic possession), and the ability to detect satanic messages and influences in popular culture - rock music, video games and, no doubt, Harry Potter books.

As to the original question: the actions of demons are defined as praeternatural - that is to say they are bound by the laws of nature as appointed by God, but they may push them to their limits. In other words they may bring about things which are highly improbable, but always strictly within the realms of possibility. Examples might include playing the violin ridiculously well, killing people in freakishly random accidents, granting vast sums of money out of the blue, and healing the sick.

Angelic and godlike actions, on the other hand, are defined as supernatural, that is "above nature". This means that they have the authority to ignore or override the laws of nature, which is as good a way of defining omnipotence as any.

robindch

> The devil is a fallen angel. The Bible paints him as a kind of mad terrorist

Depends, as is ever the case with christianity, upon which part of the bible you read. In Job, we find that he's a duplicitous tempter of humanity, operating with the full connivance and approval of god. Whereas in other bits of the bible, the temptation of Jesus, for example, he's painted in exactly the opposite way (ie, if we assume that Jesus is god, why is Satan offering him the keys to the kingdoms, something which he should already own?) Elsewhere, Satan's said to be a demonic posessor of Judas, and all 'round hell-raiser and has bit-parts elsewhere in the bible, including a thousand years in the clanger, courtesy of the book of revelation. I'm ignoring here the possibly identity of the serpent from genesis as well as the Lucifer character, as it's something of an unresolved, theological hot-potato.

Actually, all this talk of "Satan" is actually quite interesting, coz while the christian edition of Satan has changed significantly over the years, the Islamic one has remained far more constant, in fact, largely unchanged from his appearance all those years ago in Job. Hence all those blood-curdling cries from our Islamic brethren to the effect that America is 'Great Satan' -- what they're referring to is that the USA is duplicitous and dishonest, and clearly not to be trusted, and not at all the purveyor of demonic posession (though that's possibly arguable in the case of Iraq).

BTW, the good Mr Ratzinger's organization's interest in demonology passed by the Skeptics board briefly back in February (see Evil spirits alive and well in Rome; Soon not to be), when these courses were just propositions. Good to know that the professionals are taking over!

Excelsior

Robin, you mention some of the many situations in which the Bible is discussed but either are unaware of or neglect to mention that there is a coherent theology of Satan, as troubling and controversial an idea it might be.

robindch

> unaware of or neglect to mention that there is
> a coherent theology of Satan, as troubling and
> controversial an idea it might be.

The theologies of Satan, as far as I'm aware of them, are dictacted to a very large extent by the leaders, doctrinal patrons and compositors of the credos of whichever branch of christianty one is member of, and as such, I'm not really interested in them -- frequently they show more of the remnants of long-dead political in-fights within the chuch concerned than any particularly deep, or even interesting, reading of one particular text or another. What I'm doing instead is pointing out that the pictures of Satan (and his possible alter-egos) presented in the bible are inconsistent and, more to the point, interestingly inconsistent in a way which (in this trivial example) casts some small measure of light upon some of the religio-political nonsense in the middle east.

BTW, I can recommend Melvyn Bragg's 'In our Time' upon the topic of the devil which is available as an audio download from the web page at this address. Enjoy!

OfflerCrocGod

robindch wrote:

BTW, I can recommend Melvyn Bragg's 'In our Time' upon the topic of the devil which is available as an audio download from the web page at this address. Enjoy!

I have - very interesting!

Excelsior

Robin, they aren't inconsistent at all. They show a picture of a personality. We could take examples and instances of behaviour from any of us through our whole to produce an equally apparently fragmented portrait.

With my tongue kept nowhere near my cheek, I think you should consider the wisdom of your constant hyper skepticism, particularly in how it relates to the "hierarchy" producing all the documents.

robindch

> they aren't inconsistent at all.

Indeed they are, and for the reasons as stated -- going through them again in more detail:

Job: In the only lengthy biblical text on Satan, we learn that Satan operates with god's full approval (I need hardly add that there's more than a bit of celestial -- er, how should I say? -- "size" comparison going on here; "Satan, gaze upon and be jealous of the strength of belief of my folks!". anyhow...)

Gospels: Satan offers earthly kingdoms to Jesus, apparently unaware that Jesus already 'owns' them (being god). Either Satan is making a dishonest offer (in which case, why bother, as Jesus won't then worship him as Satan wants, as it'll become obvious immediately that Satan can't fulfill, as the kingdoms aren't his to give), or he's making an honest offer (in which case Jesus is not not in control of the kingdoms and therefore not an omnipotent god). In either case, the offer is pointless. Additionally, I can't work out what Satan believes Jesus to be: he can't believe him to be 'god' since he wouldn't then make an offer of what Jesus already controls, and equally he can't believe him to be not-god, since the whole story would be pointless then and not reported in the bible.

Personally, the story seems to me more like something that Jesus might well have cooked up during a light spell of heat-stroke in the desert and reported back to his uncritical mates for filing away in the records.

Wasn't it Feuerbach who said that god didn't create man in god's image, but man created god in man's?

> you should consider the wisdom of your constant hyper skepticism

Can't see why pointing out inconsistencies in some book could be unwise, particularly when many people believe the same book to be the fundamental basis for a universal code of absolutist, inerrant and frequently nasty "ethics", as well as (for example), in the middle east, the basis for a geo-political (un)reality.

In return, I should ask you to consider the wisdom of your hyper-belief

Excelsior

You're constantly making me consider it Robin. That is why I stick around here.

It is true that Satan operates in a time and space controlled by God. Job gives an accurate if metaphorical picture of how Christianity perceives Satan and God. I always cringe after a great natural disaster, say the Stephen's Day tsunami, when well meaning folk say that God wasn't able to stop it.

There is a coherent picture of Satan within Christian theology. The Fall happened and so creation was flawed. In an image I always liked from CS Lewis, Jesus' incarnation was an invasion of occupied territories. Jesus, as fully God and fully man was tempted as any other man is tempted. The greatest of temptation is that to pride fulfilled by power. In a very real sense, Satan did have the run of the world and what he offered Jesus was the opportunity to fall as he fell. If Jesus turned away from God, Satan would get out of the way and let him rule to his own glory. And the fully man part of Jesus must have thought about that offer.

Excelsior

And while many people consider it to be absolutist* and inerrant and many use it as a geopolitical butress, they are using it wrong.

* I am presuming you are referring here to Christians who view the Bible as a kind of moral guidebook.

Gurgle

om·nip·o·tent:
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

n.
One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
Omnipotent God. Used with the.

So, no.
If there was an omnipotent devil, he'd have taken over eons ago.