Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ok, so Satan is generally referred to as "The Prince Of Darkness".
Does this mean that he is secondary to the "King of Darkness"?
Would this refer to God Himself, or was there a devil who sired Satan?

Im just curious.

Originally posted by TheMercurial
Ok, so Satan is generally referred to as "The Prince Of Darkness".
Does this mean that he is secondary to the "King of Darkness"?
Would this refer to God Himself, or was there a devil who sired Satan?

Im just curious.

I think he was a prince because god was the king. He is known as the prince of darkness because he was cast of from heaven. There is no King of Darkness as far as I can tell. However Christian and Egyptian mythology are so confusing.

Does it matter?

It's akin to arguing how many wings fairies have, or how long the horn is on a Unicorn, or do mermaids actually have legs... etc.

Satans supposed to just be an Angel who loved god more than all the others but when God told the Angels to kneel to mankind in love, Satan did not and thought himself higher and so God caste him out, thats how i heard the story goes

Originally posted by Burning thought
Satans supposed to just be an Angel who loved god more than all the others but when God told the Angels to kneel to mankind in love, Satan did not and thought himself higher and so God caste him out, thats how i heard the story goes

But I thought it happened before man was created, but Christian and Egyptian mythology are so confusing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think he was a prince because god was the king. He is known as the prince of darkness because he was cast of from heaven. There is no King of Darkness as far as I can tell. However Christian and Egyptian mythology are so confusing.

Actually I never thought of that like that! It sort of makes sense.

I believe there are some teachings that state that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

Hell is a Principality.

I liked the way that Milton told it, in Paradise Lost. That Satan was fighting for diplomacy in heaven. The fact that he is named the prince of darkness, and not the king is another example of hierarchy exhibited in organized religion.

Hell is the state of mind. Some people are in that state of mind, and they unleash it on the people around them whenever they get the chance.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Hell is the state of mind. Some people are in that state of mind, and they unleash it on the people around them whenever they get the chance. Law of Attraction

Originally posted by TheMercurial
Ok, so Satan is generally referred to as "The Prince Of Darkness".
Does this mean that he is secondary to the "King of Darkness"?
Would this refer to God Himself, or was there a devil who sired Satan?

Im just curious.

Its just a catchy nickname.

Originally posted by TheMercurial
Ok, so Satan is generally referred to as "The Prince Of Darkness".
Does this mean that he is secondary to the "King of Darkness"?
Would this refer to God Himself, or was there a devil who sired Satan?

"King of Darkness" is implied as God Himself. This is an acknowledgment of the mystical aspect of God: That which can not be understood. "Darkness" is metaphor for the mysterium tremendum.

Another question is if God is omnipotent, he'd of surely known of Satan's betrayal before it happened (?) It then stands to reason that had he known, Satan would have not have been given the power to do so.

Far as I know, God is all powerful but not all knowing. The all knowing is a teaching from the Church ("God knows what you will do before you do it" - that sort of mess), not what is in the Bible.

By all knowing you mean omniscience and what that means is the attribute of knowing all that can possibly be known, and to me that doesn't include the future or minds. Also God is omnipotent but chose to give us free will. That's just what I believe. Also the Bible and other Religions in fact all contradict eachother and themselves but I believe that to be the effect of one cause, they were all written by man.

Originally posted by chithappens
The all knowing is a teaching from the Church ("God knows what you will do before you do it" - that sort of mess), not what is in the Bible.

Some shit is just made up and contradicts the religion itself anyway. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity have only a few variants actually.

Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

That would suggest omnipotence.
Also, this would suggest benevolence - Psalm 145:9 "The Lord is good to all."

With god all things are possible would also mean that compassion would rule over hell and all there would have learned their lesson and end up in heaven.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Nah..its says what exactly correct. WITH god...not god by himself...all things are possible. Gods need men to survive.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Its just a catchy nickname. For the win.

Originally posted by Alliance
Nah..its says what exactly correct. WITH god...not god by himself...all things are possible. Gods need men to survive. Or he needs people to do things for or he has nothing to do that we would be able to see and write about.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

That would suggest omnipotence.
Also, this would suggest benevolence - Psalm 145:9 "The Lord is good to all."

1) I don't any pay attention to stuff in the New Testament. Bunch of crap. "Turn the other cheek" there but in the Old Testament it says "eye for an eye." Stuff like that is dumb and it happens a bunch in contradicting the Old Testament.

2) Put Psalm 145:9 into correct context. God has sent plagues, destroyed plains of flowers with his breath and so on. It is good to a human simply because they are his followers. God never says "I am good to all," in the Bible. If you could correct me that would be intresting though and I'd like to know what translation that was.

3) Matthew 19:26 still just means to me that God is all-powerful. All knowing suggests knowing the future and all actions before they happen which would seem to insult a lot of how people die and so on. Wonder how Christians could accurately depict that one.

he obviously doesnt know the future otherwise he wouldnt of created man on earth, and i doubt hes all powerful

This has always been one of my major problems with the idea of God is if he is all powerful, all knowing and all seeing then he would already know everything that is, was and will be. If he is not then why worship him?

Originally posted by chithappens
1) I don't any pay attention to stuff in the New Testament. Bunch of crap. "Turn the other cheek" there but in the Old Testament it says "eye for an eye." Stuff like that is dumb and it happens a bunch in contradicting the Old Testament.

2) Put Psalm 145:9 into correct context. God has sent plagues, destroyed plains of flowers with his breath and so on. It is good to a human simply because they are his followers. God never says "I am good to all," in the Bible. If you could correct me that would be intresting though and I'd like to know what translation that was.

3) Matthew 19:26 still just means to me that God is all-powerful. All knowing suggests knowing the future and all actions before they happen which would seem to insult a lot of how people die and so on. Wonder how Christians could accurately depict that one. You do realize that Jesus talks about eye for an eye right before talking about turning the other cheek? In the same sermon Jesus talks about fulfilling the law. He is merely showing a better way to live, not overriding the law, or anything like that. That is not a contradiction at all.

Originally posted by Burning thought
he obviously doesnt know the future otherwise he wouldnt of created man on earth
What does knowing the future have to do with creation of man?

Originally posted by Burning thought
and i doubt hes all powerful
The concept of God is that he is capable of creating and controlling everything and he cannot be challenged and he never falls.

Man cannot demonstrate such kind of powers, so God is logically far more powerful and is considered to be fully immortal.

And yet you are leaving out the fact that "eye for an eye" was supposed to be part of God's law. Sort of like the iron law in the mafia.

Turn the other cheek is like "do not do what is unnecessary" but certainly if someone takes your eye all that shit goes out the window.

(the Christian) God is a god of war and does not tolerate disobedience. There is no getting around that.

Not a god of war, but God that has lead in war. There is a huge difference. And yes, disobedience is a problem with God. I'm not going to try to go around that. But really, in cases of the Law, you are given a choice: a) the Law b) turn the other cheek. Your choice, Jesus recommends b, but the Law was there for those that lack the forgiveness, self-control, etc. because God is all for justice.

I won't argue against those points but what do you mean by a God that has lead in war?

Originally posted by TheMercurial
Ok, so Satan is generally referred to as "The Prince Of Darkness".
Does this mean that he is secondary to the "King of Darkness"?
Would this refer to God Himself, or was there a devil who sired Satan?

Im just curious. I'll explain the LDS (Mormon) perspective on the question. I will explain it more broadly than the initiating post to address some of the other comments in this thread.

The LDS, in keeping with early Christian beliefs, believe in preexistence. This means that everything existed prior to the physical creation, and that the spirits of men existed prior to the creation.

The LDS believe that the "Angels" are merely men, in spirit or physical form, that serve God, and act with the power of God through authority given them by God.

Satan, was a spirit child of God, just as all men are. Christ was also a spirit child of God. Christ being the greatest of all God's offspring, Satan second to Christ.

In the preexistence, God presented the method of creation and existence as we know it. Satan presented another plan where the agency of man would be removed so that "sin" would not be present. This conflicted with God's plan and thus was rejected. Satan, upset, rebelled against God, and one-third the hosts of heaven followed him, these were cast out.

Now, the LDS also believe in "opposition in all things". This implies that there is an opposite to Satan, which is Christ. It may also imply that there is an opposite to God the Father. It could be possible that there is another above Satan, according to Lds perspective, but it would only be speculation.

It is also probable, and more likely from LDS perspective, that the title is a hold over from Satan's position prior to his rebellion, and not indicative of anything else.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
What does knowing the future have to do with creation of man?


The concept of God is that he is capable of creating and controlling everything and he cannot be challenged and he never falls.

Man cannot demonstrate such kind of powers, so God is logically far more powerful and is considered to be fully immortal.

he would not of created man if he knew that we would defy him, misuse our freewill and the rest of it all, not on earth otherwise it would all be pointless because he would already know what would happen, he may as well simply create people and put them in heaven and hell imediatley without creation.

God being all powerful is simply impossible, if he was all powerful why would he care about worship or have humans, he wouldnt need them.

Originally posted by Burning thought

God being all powerful is simply impossible, if he was all powerful why would he care about worship or have humans, he wouldnt need them.

That does not make it impossible. Just mean he's insecure

Originally posted by chithappens
That does not make it impossible. Just mean he's insecure

heh God sucks, an all powerful being yet he decides to make a little race of beings who he cant even keep proper control over

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Its just a catchy nickname.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Hell is a Principality. Like Wales. hmm

Originally posted by Regret
I'll explain the LDS (Mormon) perspective on the question. I will explain it more broadly than the initiating post to address some of the other comments in this thread.

The LDS, in keeping with early Christian beliefs, believe in preexistence. This means that everything existed prior to the physical creation, and that the spirits of men existed prior to the creation.

The LDS believe that the "Angels" are merely men, in spirit or physical form, that serve God, and act with the power of God through authority given them by God.

Satan, was a spirit child of God, just as all men are. Christ was also a spirit child of God. Christ being the greatest of all God's offspring, Satan second to Christ.

In the preexistence, God presented the method of creation and existence as we know it. Satan presented another plan where the agency of man would be removed so that "sin" would not be present. This conflicted with God's plan and thus was rejected. Satan, upset, rebelled against God, and one-third the hosts of heaven followed him, these were cast out.

Now, the LDS also believe in "opposition in all things". This implies that there is an opposite to Satan, which is Christ. It may also imply that there is an opposite to God the Father. It could be possible that there is another above Satan, according to Lds perspective, but it would only be speculation.

It is also probable, and more likely from LDS perspective, that the title is a hold over from Satan's position prior to his rebellion, and not indicative of anything else.

Interesting. The idea of an entity that mirrors God in the same way that Satan mirros Christ isn't something I'd considered. So it's possible that Satan was actually tempted away from God by some other being?