What are the limits of Satan's power?

[olddocbenway]

I was wondering what people think are the limits of Satan's power: what can he do, what can't he do? And what this is based on.

There's not much on Satan in the bible, which seems at odds with the whole, 'know thine enemy' ethos.

[dan p]

That's a big study: evil archertypes a a trope in comparative religion and myth. And I'd wager it's a worthwhile study too.

Start at tvtropes.org. I'm sure you'll find plenty of worthwhile articles.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... lityTropes

Hi , and I believe that Job 1:6-7 , helps explain some of satans boundries , to and fro , for starters .

??
is there a point you're adding to this debate?

I'm not certain, but I think he was making a joke.

This was no joke , for in Job 1:7 , it reads , The Lord asks Satan , whence comest thou ? Satan answerede , from going TO and FRO in the earth and from WALKING Up and Down in it , and to me the joke is , Satan has boundries .

Thanks for clarifyng.
So now you might use debating skills to convince us to take one word of that literally. So far you've 1. quoted a verse, 2. offered an opinion, and 3. disparaged the opinions (or rational arguments) of others as a joke.
Can you do better?
Which parts do you take literally vs. metaphorically?
Is Satan a personal being, not a metaphor?
He walks and talks?
He's omnipresent? Omnipotent? If he has no boundaries, as you claim is the only non-comical interpretation, he'd have to be one or the other or both. This then implies that he is co-powerful with God? That's not Christian.
He's a "he"? Red penis and all?

Metaphorically, I agree: the possibility that fear, ego, and willful acts of "evil" or experiences of inscrutable meaninglessness are indeed everywhere. To and fro and up and down, yes. Is that how you take its meaning?
Or are you preaching literalism? I don't think we do that here.

BTW, can you tell me what translation you quoted? is that the original spelling (or typos)?

IMO Satan is an archetypal projection, a metaphor for all that is not "God" that has a lot to teach us about us.

I take it all mostly literal and since , if you don't there can not be anything to discuss .

[Slopeshoulder]

That's a big study: evil archertypes a a trope in comparative religion and myth. And I'd wager it's a worthwhile study too.

Start at tvtropes.org. I'm sure you'll find plenty of worthwhile articles.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... lityTropes

Hi , and I believe that Job 1:6-7 , helps explain some of satans boundries , to and fro , for starters .

??
is there a point you're adding to this debate?

I'm not certain, but I think he was making a joke.

This was no joke , for in Job 1:7 , it reads , The Lord asks Satan , whence comest thou ? Satan answerede , from going TO and FRO in the earth and from WALKING Up and Down in it , and to me the joke is , Satan has boundries .

Thanks for clarifyng.
So now you might use debating skills to convince us to take one word of that literally. So far you've 1. quoted a verse, 2. offered an opinion, and 3. disparaged the opinions (or rational arguments) of others as a joke.
Can you do better?
Which parts do you take literally vs. metaphorically?
Is Satan a personal being, not a metaphor?
He walks and talks?
He's omnipresent? Omnipotent? If he has no boundaries, as you claim is the only non-comical interpretation, he'd have to be one or the other or both. This then implies that he is co-powerful with God? That's not Christian.
He's a "he"? Red penis and all?

Metaphorically, I agree: the possibility that fear, ego, and willful acts of "evil" or experiences of inscrutable meaninglessness are indeed everywhere. To and fro and up and down, yes. Is that how you take its meaning?
Or are you preaching literalism? I don't think we do that here.

BTW, can you tell me what translation you quoted? is that the original spelling (or typos)?

IMO Satan is an archetypal projection, a metaphor for all that is not "God" that has a lot to teach us about us.

I take it all mostly literal and since , if you don't there can not be anything to discuss .

This is a debate forum.
So you have a chance prove it's literal truth, or to make at least a reasonable assertion based upon extra-biblical sources (theology, anthrologlogy, archeology, the laws of science and physics, philosophy, comparative mythology, the straight face test, the history of magical creatures, etc).

YOU decide if there's something to discuss or not.

We're ready to hear from you. But yes, most preaching literalists do leave. Are you different? We're waiting. 4 unto thou ist gibbon a chanz.

BTW, I took Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub/Devil literally until I was about 10, a few years after letting Santa go, then I sort of ignored the question, then I went to seminary and decided for sure it was metaphorical, but thought that was a good thing. IMO Satan is a great article of faith or aspect of tradition, a valuable archtype, but I think it's a silly thing to believe is literal. I base this on years of discussion.
What do you base your belief upon?

[Daniel G]

Your proposal of Satan as not a personal being but a metaphor for all that is “not ‘God’� is an interesting one. And I’d have to agree with you that the prior post should give more evidence in supporting his claim, namely that Satan is a personal being.

But I’m curious, what evidence (biblical or otherwise) do you have for Satan being an archetypal projection? You’ve mentioned a few vices such as self-worship, greed, lust, etc., and while these arguably have caused much of the evil that we see in the universe, this does not at all exclude the possibility that an actual agent is also a cause, or perhaps the cause of the various vices themselves. You’ve mentioned your conclusion being based on “years of discussion� and I’d be interested in hearing more.

Also, I think in your efforts to understand dan p’s argument (that were not so charitable at times) you’ve mischaracterized it. Your first question is a great one: “Which parts do you take literally vs. metaphorically?� with the second being an implication of the first. However, I don’t think he meant the claim “Satan has boundaries� as a comical interpretation (i.e. false) as your next few questions seem to imply, especially if you take into consideration that his first post was to use a verse to explain that Satan indeed has boundaries. I might be beating a dead horse, but point is that we need to take more time in understanding each other’s arguments before we critique them.

Furthermore, does the mere fact of understanding Satan as a personal being make one a literalist? The inerrancy view is not the same as the literalist view, but still might (and probably would) take Satan to be a personal being. Even many with the infallibility view would still take this interpretation. Again, it seems that you’ve mischaracterized his view.

But do post some of your reasons for your taking Satan as an archetypal projection. I’d be interested in hearing more.

[Slopeshoulder]

Your proposal of Satan as not a personal being but a metaphor for all that is “not ‘God’� is an interesting one. And I’d have to agree with you that the prior post should give more evidence in supporting his claim, namely that Satan is a personal being.

But I’m curious, what evidence (biblical or otherwise) do you have for Satan being an archetypal projection? You’ve mentioned a few vices such as self-worship, greed, lust, etc., and while these arguably have caused much of the evil that we see in the universe, this does not at all exclude the possibility that an actual agent is also a cause, or perhaps the cause of the various vices themselves. You’ve mentioned your conclusion being based on “years of discussion� and I’d be interested in hearing more.

...

Furthermore, does the mere fact of understanding Satan as a personal being make one a literalist? The inerrancy view is not the same as the literalist view, but still might (and probably would) take Satan to be a personal being. Even many with the infallibility view would still take this interpretation. Again, it seems that you’ve mischaracterized his view.

But do post some of your reasons for your taking Satan as an archetypal projection. I’d be interested in hearing more.

Thanks for asking. While I know that there are shades of difference on the right between innerency, literalism, hsitorical reliability etc, I was unaware, or had forgotten, that literal belief in satan as a personal being was a possibility outside fundamentalism. Of course, the average mainstream believer is well aware of the concept, and uses the language occasionally, but none that I met have affirmed satan literally once they thought about it or finished freshman year. But perhaps I did paint with too broad a brush. I do associate it with fundamantalism, and therefore get a little less charitable, but I may be ill informed.

My proposal that satan is a metaphor is just an inheritance of my own spritual and intellectual mileau. i have no scriptural evidence ( i don't look to scripture for evidence), and I suppose I take the modern rationalist perspective that if it it quacks like a mythical creature, it is. I will say that this is, as far as I recall, pretty much how it was served up at the eight christian universities and seminaries I and my wife attended en route to earning five degrees in religion. Although to be fair, I'm sure some among us must have thought of satan as a literal being, or a name for some sort of malign force or agent.

I do know that personified evil (scheming and otherwise) is an archetype in many mythical systems (please don't press me for details; I recommend Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, and Mircea Eliade as good places to start on this), but what I find very interesting about what has come down in judeo-christian tradition is that 1. satan's primordial sin was, like Adam, idoloatry, the thought that the self is paramount, as a conscious choice, and 2. that this being was created by God and subordinate to God, while a formidable foe, not a co-equal force. If memory serves these were innovations or at least strong takes on the topic. I, and those I've read and studied with, take these as metaphors for what happens in the human heart and mind. They are powerful, if premodern, myths and archetypal projection for what we now understand from other sources, but no less powerful for it. As to agency, humanity provides all the agency I need. As to an answer for the tragedies of nature, I find satan to fit a theodicy that relies upon what I and much modern religious scholarship believe to be magical thinking.