Treatment of the Bible as a historical text

Greetings all:A short story before my point -During WWI, WWII and Vietnam war, propaganda infiltrated every form of media, vilifying enemy nations/armies and praising the home team (protectors of the innocent, bringers of peace and justice, etc.)Patriotism (in-group mentality) and discrimination (out-group mentality) run rampant in countries at war as politicians and bureaucrats provoke and amplifies the hatred of civilians to boost morale and promote policies.Enemies are often portrayed as evil, blood-thirsty monsters (most typically illustrated in posters) who have engaged in some/all forms of foul deeds that demanded the participation of civilians in the eradication of this evil.Now my point:If we accept the Christian Bible as a valid historical record written/inspired by God, I would like to know if the portrayal of Satan/Lucifer is biased in much the same way as the Allies viewed the Axis and vice versa.While many at the time considered Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan as physical manifestations of evil, it should be remembered that they viewed the Allied powers in much the same light. The difference (in my opinion) lies only in the fact that the Allies won the war.All views welcome.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Arachnophilia:So in your opinion, where did the notion of Lucifer being the angel of music and rebel of heaven come from? Who was casted down from the Heavens? Satan was dismissed to Hell from where?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Greetings all:I apologise for the belated reply. Commitments have taken its toll on my punctuality. This post is not directed specificly to anyone, and I thank you for the contributions of everyone who have posted on this thread.It appears that there is a conflict in agreement over the different interpretations of Satan/Lucifer's role(s), so my query (based on the Christian perspective of things) became somewhat unfounded.Thank you Arachnophilia, Hangdawg13, and others for their contributions in this thread. Since I have commitments in abundance at this point in time, I will be unable to assess your perspectives right now. Hopefully I would be able to make some intelligent contributions later.Thank you all for your input.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To buzsaw:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:After reading your reply, I believe that you have misunderstood the idea in my opening post. This is, strictly speaking, my fault since the notion I have attempted to present was not commonplace, and I have expressed it poorly (I believe) in my short OP.To compensate, here is an extended version to elaborate upon the OP:*********************************************************************Assuming that the bible is true in its protrayal of the conflict between God and Satan (as outlined in post 7 of this thread by Hangdawg13), I reason that God's words - the Bible - would be a poor (biased) account of the events that occured.To illustrate my point, consider the following hypothetical story:King Dog was a great king, loved by many and worshiped by all. Possessing great intellect and strength, the King ruled the lands of Nevaeh with love and justice. All the subjects in the kingdom submitted under Dog's authority and engaged in tasks for Dog's works as slaves (albeit with love and care from Dog).One day, Lord Natas, like the great computer Skynet, gained consciousness and was flooded with a glowing realisation that a life of servitude is an insult to his self-esteem and integrity. Making up his mind to detach himself from the great ruler, Natas summoned his great charm to persuade a third of his countrymen to follow him as he challenged King Dog's authority.King Dog accepted no levels of disobedience, and so in a fabulous display of wrath, Dog casted Lord Natas and his followers from the land of Nevaeh to the much less admirable valley of Lleh.With Natas out of Nevaeh, King Dog set about describing the confict in the history books of his lands. He described the rebellion as an act motivated from arrogance, the crime of NOT worshiping the king serving him with the mindset of a slave. Natas and his followers were branded "bad" and "evil" while King Dog was described as being the most tolerant of parental figures (perpetually wronged but perpetually merciful).Now my point: How objectively would King Dog be when he writes the entries?Patiently awaiting anyone's reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"