Can we agree as a community that these are three distinct names and titles and direct people who use the interchangeably to a common post? I ask because I see this question: "https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/40672/is-satan-the-creator-of-evil" is linked to this question as duplicate "What is the Biblical basis for saying Lucifer is an angel?"

Lucifer (arguably) is a mistranslation in the KJV of the Bible. Confusingly, ancient Luciferianism is the worship of the morning star as the bringer of "light" (literally with the sun and figuratively with knowledge). Modern Luciferianism is deistic Satanism - I believe.

Satan is a title - adversary. Which other entities can be satans. If I were an adversary to the government, I would be a satan for example (not true but you get the point).

Devil is the actual entity which I confused in this answer "How was Lucifer created?"

  • 1
    "Satan" is also used as a name, particuarly in the New Testament. Context matters. – MR. TOODLE-OO'D May 19 '15 at 0:23
  • Names are titles and titles are names. – kutschkem May 23 '15 at 19:02
  • @kutschkem then Christ is then a name, eh? – The Freemason May 25 '15 at 0:54
  • @TheFreemason Actually, my point is more that names are also titles. For example Jesus means something like "Yehova is salvation" - are you telling me that is "just" a name? That is totally also a title, if you ask me. Titles identify functions and properties, names identify persons. "Christ" is a title, for sure. But it is also one of the names by which we identify Jesus, wouldn't you say? "Christ" is way more unambiguous than "Jesus" (and best is of course "Jesus Christ"). Titles also often become part of the name. "Peter" is totally a title, and also a name. – kutschkem May 25 '15 at 19:39

This issue here is that we catalog beliefs, whether they are valid or not. There's plenty of Christians that conflate these names into a single entity because that is what they believe. They believe they are indeed the same thing.

Rather than try to correct this extremely common misconception, it's just easier to infer what they mean, then perhaps address the confusion in a footnote in an answer.

I do not think a meta post is a good alternative. Meta is for site policy, and though arguments for some beliefs are quite weak, they are still legitimately held, so having an official policy that users use names correctly according to some specific belief stands in contrast with the prime directive of this site.

I do think a blog post would be a pretty good idea. The site has a blog, but it's been inactive for a while. If you wanted to layout a page or two on why these names refer to different things that would be pretty cool. Then, if you feel inclined, you can link to the blog post on questions or answers that conflate them.

  • I agree, except that to call it a "misconception" is Truthy itself. – curiousdannii May 19 '15 at 23:41
  • @curiousdannii This answer was given for the freemason's benefit. I think if he wanted to say a thing or two in a footnote it would be fine. – 3961 May 20 '15 at 1:58
  • I still find it odd that so many people can define themselves as Christian but do not really research the religion. If you truly hope that believing in Christianity or not determines your afterlife FOR ETERNITY, I would think that researching every bit of it would be most important. "Quit your job and spend every moment learning" level of importance. At least knowing what it means to be the opposite of Christianity and who the characters are. – The Freemason May 20 '15 at 18:10
  • @TheFreemason The so called "salvation issue" mentality probably has a lot to do with it. – 3961 May 20 '15 at 19:11
  • @TheFreemason The way you are writing here makes it sound like you think there is no other legitimate way of thinking, as if no thinking person could possibility disagree. Well, I'm sure that on this issue like all others, thinking people disagree. – curiousdannii May 21 '15 at 3:53
  • @curiousdannii I would be curious to understand the basis of disagreeing - as long as it had substance. – The Freemason May 22 '15 at 19:03
  • A suggestion that future discussion carry on in this room. @TheFreemason – 3961 May 22 '15 at 20:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .