Also, wasn't it Jesus who said we are to be perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect and that he and the Father are one? I'm waiting for someone to point out the irony of us arguing the orthodox roles of the Trinity on a post which denies the existence of a literal Satan! :)

The flow of our conversation about hierarchy within the Trinity here seems to imply a certain subordinationism which was condemned in the 4th century (Arius) and is a primary reason the Nicene Creed was formed. Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans do not subscribe to a subordinated view of the Holy Spirit and Son. Now, if you want to say their are different functions, then sure. But when we pair the Holy Spirit as a counterbalance to Satan we are speaking of the Holy Spirit as "God from God, in essence a direct rival being to God. Of course now we're back to the filioque controversy I suppose.

I know this is going to be an ironic statement, but the hierarchal view of the Trinity has been rejected by Christianity since Augustine, I believe. Not to say you couldn't support it from the Scriptures, which you probably could. Just not from the historic tradition. The question of "which God" in reference to the Trinity is equally confounding to claims to monotheism because it essentially makes the Trinity into three gods. When I say to be more like God, I am referring to God, which Christianity believes is Trinity. Maybe I've misunderstood you here. The Trinity is a profound metaphor for understanding God, not necessarily a literal reality (IMO). But more on that in a different post!

That is certainly an interesting thought.

I don't think this is an issue only for the U.S., particularly as the majority of Christians are no longer Americans or even Anglos. And Pentecostalism is the fastest-growing segment of Christianity worldwide and this belief in a dualistic Satan is quite popular. Further, I would say that *any* Christian would not admit they believe in two deities. What I am arguing is that Christianity, based on how it has theologically created the figure of Satan, implicitly does. Christianity does express Satan as a fallen angel, based on one enigmatic, if not problematic text, if I'm not mistaken. What I am saying that Christian belief in a literal Satan functions and imbues Satan with qualities that in any objective observer would say resembles a god and would argue against Christian claims to monotheism. Any Christian belief in a literal Satan in which Satan is an eternal, supernatural being who tries to woo humanity to its side, just as God does, is fundamentally at odds with claims to monotheism. Because a supernatural, eternal being seem to be qualities one would reserve for a god, particularly one that is evil and at odds with the good God. Further, the popularity and historic use of Satan reveals there is more to this figure than meets the eye. Elaine Pagels' book Origins of Satan is particularly engaging on this subject. Now we can use Lucifer and the tale of Satan falling from heaven as a metaphorical myth for human hubris. I'm fine with that. The problem is when we transpose the meaning of that tale for a literal reality.