From The Black World

If God is good, he cannot partake of or directly motivate evil.

If Satan is an independent being, then what is present is actually polytheism. 'God' comes to merely mean 'good,' rather than a deity.

If Satan is not independent, but a part of God, then evil is also a part of God. Hence, God is also an ultimate evil. This applies whenever Satan, or any such creature, is considered the paragon or representative of evil.

If this applies, you generally have not theism proper but pantheism. At the least you have 'deism' - a 'God' who is cut off from the rest of the universe, and merely one being within it. They could be more accurately referred to as an 'alien' or strange being.

Problems similar to this arise due to evil, regardless of whether a paragon is posited.

To refer to an 'alien' being as a 'God' by default is 'superstition.' Or to hypostatise hyperbole upon a given being. This is conventionally done, and generally capitalistic Christianity could not escape this fate. We must 'spread the hyperbole' around, and if hyperbole occurs in capital it must also taint our take on a God who collects it. The Christian God is a suicidal God precisely because it is contradicted by the same hyperbole attributed to it, and a society which is contradictory in itself, and hence it is forced to tear itself apart. As an object of religious devotion, or the 'Christian' God, it undermines itself. This must then only be rubber-stamped.

Evil is necessarily noted if what is good is to be determinate. To do something in a particular way is to likewise avoid other things. Further, if God separates himself away from finitude, and is not wholly accountable for it, then finitude is limitation for God - just as evil wards off a benevolent God. Hence, there is truth in the contention of Gnostics and such that the transition from God to finitude hence implies evil. However, it also implies that this God is a 'demiurge' or posits themselves as a false God, one who is not complete.

In the Trinity, a polytheism enters into an often already polytheistic religion. It hence throws up a multitude of at least four deities, with uncertain relations. Hence, in most cases this religion must remain a venomous blur. In a sense, the truth is this: to separate off God from other things is to turn God into a 'normal' being, or in this case a human. However, they are not then 'God' in this sense. A task of some sort, with a theological basis, is posited but not completed. It must be carried through.

What we are contending here is not reducible merely to a 'problem of evil,' although it does involve this category. In a way, problems of 'pain' or rather non-fulfillment lead to a similar result in this context. They nonetheless set the world in dichotomy. We are dealing with this problem in terms of an old conflict involving the nature of Satanic or evil beings, which was also disputed by the Cathars, as well as the nature of a God postulated as a result. This is more theological in orientation.

In order to arrive at a 'divine' person, we cannot hence start from a pseudo-divine being who faces externally things like evil or the finite. Hence, we cannot start from an abstract being. We must rather start from a being who is so divided, and is set apart. Hence, Cathars were often more religiously demanding, because they engaged with this division or noticed it, and hence could accept the demands that religion made upon them as they were. The tendency towards 'immanent eschatology' is also similar at times. There is always something disconcerting about the mention, in a religion which is in any case just loud noises, that the Cathars like Christ were killed. Further, by those proclaiming that they were heretics. Perhaps it will turn out that 'Christ' is summarised and completed in the Cathars, too Christian to belong in Christianity. After them, we may look further.

In general, then, a Satanic being is a problematic postulate, however it only manifests general flaws with such religions. In this, Satan becomes a serious source of concern about these religions, although these concerns are always there. This much we must credit the devil with.

Addendum:

However, if we are to deal with God as hence rendered a separated being, or a human, we must hence also deal with Satan as a separated being. Formulated in this manner, Satan is figured formally as a tempter who directs people to 'evil' via divine statements. However, in using divine diction, how does Satan twist it? They hence become akin to a filter which states 'divine' things, however is then as a result impelled to go to the opposite extreme. This is how Satan is identified, and often also the biblical 'snake.' They are hence a process of vacillation which is strictly but naturally followed. While this may be located in the inversion of 'faith' and hence in the human heart, it is a process natural to and characteristic of this 'Satan.' As a result, this 'Satan' would be at first a 'Christian,' however this only sets up for vacillations. However, to get away from the divine if mentioning it, the Satanic being would have to seek refuge in any available non-divine areas, including cultural outlets. Hence, spider-like it would spread out. However, eventually it would be forced to 'die,' because a spider must have its feet firmly set or it will tie itself up in knots. The more 'legs' it has, the less freely it can vacillate. One must build a 'church' on firm foundations, or it cannot keep going onwards - if it needs to, yet it cannot, then it will tear itself apart or undermine itself. Especially if, like 'Satan,' it is to be substantive. However, in the process a trail of blurring would be left behind by the vacillations. As this vacillation is essentially a display rather than something substantive, they would be a pop cultural or artistic figure. And, indeed, a 'Christian.' The more common rendering of Satan, as simply an 'evil' being who hates God, and is hence divided off from them, is slightly different. They may be related to the end of the pagan religions, and the ensuing 'massacre' of 'gods.' They face the 'divine' in a human form, and attack it. However, in this the 'divinity' might only be perceived. Hence, they are a murderer of apparent 'gods.' Finally, the portrayal of 'Satan' as Lucifer or a 'light-bringer,' while seemingly related to the first, is different. They set out to channel the forces around them to bring about a certain, religious agenda. In doing this, they channel forces opposed to God in a coherent way, not via vacillation. Hence, these archetypes may be seen as also having a certain meaning even without the form of a deity or orthodox religious figure. Hence, they may reflect certain historical concerns.

These may contrast in some way.

Nonetheless, while Satan is in a sense a 'foreign' element by default, or could directly reflect concrete phenomena, a God need not be treated in the same way. In addition, as Satan is closer to an affinity with this division, unless they are too vacillating, they are in a way closer to realising this as an overall complex.