It seems to me that Lucifer in the christian mythology is 100% about freedom and knowledge. Whereas god wanted to keep humanity ignorant slaves, Lucifer chose to give us free will and reason. Lucifer may indeed be the enemy of an evil dictator, but hardly the enemy of mankind. Any thoughts on this?
Lucifer
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
Ever seen the Devil's Advocate? THere's an interesting scene in which Satin is talking about how he nutured everyone of man's desires, while God is a hypocrite and a Sadist. Yeah I figure you're right, this whole idea is one of the main principles of Satanism. Plus Lucifer was created by the church in my opinion to stop people from trying things, going with their natural inclinations and finding out what worked for them, to blindly follow the church instead.
Oh, incidently this is one of the main reasons I find the comic book/story Spawn to be so interesting. Instead of Satin just punishing those souls sent to hell he offers them a chance to fight in his army. Seriously, if Satin believes in the values that he practices why would he torture people that follow him in the after-life? Its simply a scare tactic from the church.
Oh, incidently this is one of the main reasons I find the comic book/story Spawn to be so interesting. Instead of Satin just punishing those souls sent to hell he offers them a chance to fight in his army. Seriously, if Satin believes in the values that he practices why would he torture people that follow him in the after-life? Its simply a scare tactic from the church.
Noooot exactly. The serpent in Genesis may or may not be Lucifer.
Reading the passage from Genesis:
I'll agree with you on the "knowledge and freedom" bit. However, the snake was not necessarily Lucifer. This seems to be a later interpretation of the myth.
Note that the snake is referred to as a "beast of the feild" by comparison.
It is only in later Christian artwork that the snake gains its human face, and becomes more like Lucifer or the Devil.
There is actually no reference to Lucifer as a rebellious angel in the OT that I know of. This seems to be a later Christian myth.
The Jews believed in demons, but they did not have "fallen angels" to my knowledge.
Nor is the Jewish devil the king of hell, or "prince of the powers of the air", as the Christians later put it. Jewish mythology borrows its concept of the afterlife from the Babylonian - there is no heaven or hell - there is simply a place where the dead reside.
See above. There's no evidence either in the Bible or Talmud that Lucifer was the serpent.
The serpent is later cursed by God. Adam is punished by having to earn food by the sweat of his brow, Eve is punished by being forced to be subservient to Adam and endure the pain of childbirth (itself a consequence of higher intelligence - childbirth would be relatively painless were it not for the large brain that human babies posess).
The serpent is punished by being forced to slither and by being persecuted by humans from then on. This suggests to me that the snake is not the Devil.
I suspect that the snake is a personification of intelligence. You know what a cadacus is?
The intertwined snakes symbolize wisdom, fertility and healing. The symbol goes back to - you guessed it - Babylonian mythology.
Note that fertility and wisdom are rather integrel parts of the myth of the Fall, eh?
Not exactly. Satan or Lucifer (they are identified as the same "being") torments Job on a bet with God.
Satan is the enemy of God and of that which is considered good. In fact, "Devil" has been translated as "opposer", and the Muslims regard the Devil (Iblis) as one who tempts mankind to sin. (Iblis did literally fall from heaven, this seems to be an example of the Muslims borrowing from Christian mythos)
Of course, neither the Xtian devil or the Muslim devil can force complience. While both mythologies believe in "possession" by demons, Satan and Iblis are still subservient to God.
Iblis is unable to force the complience of true believers, and Satan must ask God's permission in order to torment Job.
Suffice to say that Satan is subservient to God, and is indeed the enemy of mankind.
Edit to add:
This is a site with an interesting interpretation of the myth. I don't agree with them completely, and they are rather biased towards Wicca/Satanism (Tiassa, note that I am in no way saying that the two religions are the same):
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~robwir/devbio.html
(Thanx Avatar, who I think recommended this at first)
Demons from A to Z, which rather confirms my interpretation, I think:
http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/mythology/demon_list.asp
*Originally posted by Xev
I'll agree with you on the "knowledge and freedom" bit.*
Actually, the devil was lying when he was talking.
The knowledge that Adam and Eve gained consisted of two things...
1. that they were naked...
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;...
(Genesis 3:7, KJV)
2. That they got to know evil by experiencing it...
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
(Genesis 3:17,18, KJV).
Bummer.
*There is actually no reference to Lucifer as a rebellious angel in the OT that I know of. This seems to be a later Christian myth.*
It isn't myth; here's the quote...
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(Isaiah 14:12, KJV).
*The Jews believed in demons, but they did not have "fallen angels" to my knowledge.*
Sure they did.
See the book of Enoch.
*Nor is the Jewish devil the king of hell, or "prince of the powers of the air", as the Christians later put it. Jewish mythology borrows its concept of the afterlife from the Babylonian - there is no heaven or hell - there is simply a place where the dead reside.*
The idea isn't borrowed from the Babylonians.
Anyone can stand in a cemetery and see the results of death.
The devil isn't the "king" of hell, either.
He is merely the adversary.
*The serpent is punished by being forced to slither and by being persecuted by humans from then on. This suggests to me that the snake is not the Devil.*
It may suggest that, but that isn't so.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(Revelation 12:9, KJV).
The serpent and the devil are one and the same.
*I suspect that the snake is a personification of intelligence. You know what a cadacus is?*
The snake is probably more like the personification of sophistication, i.e. the semblance of having wisdom.
Do you mean "caduceus," perhaps?
*The intertwined snakes symbolize wisdom, fertility and healing. The symbol goes back to - you guessed it - Babylonian mythology.*
Nope.
It goes back to...
And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
(Numbers 21:9, KJV).
*Note that fertility and wisdom are rather integrel parts of the myth of the Fall, eh?*
It's not a myth.
*Satan or Lucifer (they are identified as the same "being")*
Not the same being.
Satan was a liar and murderer from the beginning...
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
(John 8:44, KJV).
Lucifer, as can be seen from Isaiah 14, started out as one thing and changed.
*torments Job on a bet with God.*
It's no bet.
Satan was attempting to provoke God to torment Job, which he wouldn't do and simply stated that Job was in his power.
And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
(Job 2:6, KJV).
But why was Job in satan's power?
For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.
(Job 3:25, KJV).
Fear was the reason.
He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him.
(Ecclesiastes 10:8, KJV).
Notice the reference to the hedge that satan was complaining about?
Well, fear was the break in the hedge, and God simply pointed that out to satan.
*Iblis is unable to force the complience of true believers, and Satan must ask God's permission in order to torment Job.*
Actually, he doesn't have to ask.
He is the devourer, and his job is to devour.
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
(1 Peter 5:8, KJV).
His food is dust.
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
(Genesis 3:14, KJV).
Coincidentally, you are dust, therefore you are satan's food.
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
(Genesis 3:19, KJV).
*Suffice to say that Satan is subservient to God, and is indeed the enemy of mankind.*
Since you know this, what is your plan to avoid being devoured?
*...Wicca/Satanism (Tiassa, note that I am in no way saying that the two religions are the same):*
Oh, they're the same.
They are both worship of satan, with a little twist from satan to induce the devotees to think they are different.
I'll agree with you on the "knowledge and freedom" bit.*
Actually, the devil was lying when he was talking.
The knowledge that Adam and Eve gained consisted of two things...
1. that they were naked...
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;...
(Genesis 3:7, KJV)
2. That they got to know evil by experiencing it...
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
(Genesis 3:17,18, KJV).
Bummer.
*There is actually no reference to Lucifer as a rebellious angel in the OT that I know of. This seems to be a later Christian myth.*
It isn't myth; here's the quote...
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(Isaiah 14:12, KJV).
*The Jews believed in demons, but they did not have "fallen angels" to my knowledge.*
Sure they did.
See the book of Enoch.
*Nor is the Jewish devil the king of hell, or "prince of the powers of the air", as the Christians later put it. Jewish mythology borrows its concept of the afterlife from the Babylonian - there is no heaven or hell - there is simply a place where the dead reside.*
The idea isn't borrowed from the Babylonians.
Anyone can stand in a cemetery and see the results of death.
The devil isn't the "king" of hell, either.
He is merely the adversary.
*The serpent is punished by being forced to slither and by being persecuted by humans from then on. This suggests to me that the snake is not the Devil.*
It may suggest that, but that isn't so.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(Revelation 12:9, KJV).
The serpent and the devil are one and the same.
*I suspect that the snake is a personification of intelligence. You know what a cadacus is?*
The snake is probably more like the personification of sophistication, i.e. the semblance of having wisdom.
Do you mean "caduceus," perhaps?
*The intertwined snakes symbolize wisdom, fertility and healing. The symbol goes back to - you guessed it - Babylonian mythology.*
Nope.
It goes back to...
And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
(Numbers 21:9, KJV).
*Note that fertility and wisdom are rather integrel parts of the myth of the Fall, eh?*
It's not a myth.
*Satan or Lucifer (they are identified as the same "being")*
Not the same being.
Satan was a liar and murderer from the beginning...
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
(John 8:44, KJV).
Lucifer, as can be seen from Isaiah 14, started out as one thing and changed.
*torments Job on a bet with God.*
It's no bet.
Satan was attempting to provoke God to torment Job, which he wouldn't do and simply stated that Job was in his power.
And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
(Job 2:6, KJV).
But why was Job in satan's power?
For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.
(Job 3:25, KJV).
Fear was the reason.
He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him.
(Ecclesiastes 10:8, KJV).
Notice the reference to the hedge that satan was complaining about?
Well, fear was the break in the hedge, and God simply pointed that out to satan.
*Iblis is unable to force the complience of true believers, and Satan must ask God's permission in order to torment Job.*
Actually, he doesn't have to ask.
He is the devourer, and his job is to devour.
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
(1 Peter 5:8, KJV).
His food is dust.
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
(Genesis 3:14, KJV).
Coincidentally, you are dust, therefore you are satan's food.
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
(Genesis 3:19, KJV).
*Suffice to say that Satan is subservient to God, and is indeed the enemy of mankind.*
Since you know this, what is your plan to avoid being devoured?
*...Wicca/Satanism (Tiassa, note that I am in no way saying that the two religions are the same):*
Oh, they're the same.
They are both worship of satan, with a little twist from satan to induce the devotees to think they are different.
Tony:
Ah, I must disagree on a few things.
The snake.
And I refer to Genesis 3:22 to support my interpretation that the snake, er, "offered" Eve knowledge.
Look at Isaiah 14:1-4:
Not talking about Lucifer, but about an earthly king.
Actually, it seems to have been.
According to the early Christians, yes. But the Catholics made the devil into the king of hell. I refer you to the last chapter of the Inferno, and to Lucifer's speech in Paradise Lost:
Of course, the Catholics also regarded the devil as a "tempter". Scripturally, he is only an adversary - First Peter, 5:8
But of course wisdom and intelligence are two different things.
Yes I did, spelling error.
Sorry, I don't find Rev 12:9 to support your interpretation exactly. Dragons and snakes are often referred to as one and the same, and the dragon is of course a personification of the Devil.
You're right, I was wrong.
So the Scriptures refer to two different beings? Interesting.
Correctimundo.
Luke 10:
Actually, I find this passage interesting in several senses. I could ignore the equation of Satan and Lucifer as a translator's error, however I find the KJV to be a quite decent translation.
Beyond that, we see that serpents and scorpions are associated with Satan. Could this be a resolution to the question of exactly what the snake of Genesis was?
Devil's food cake?
Actually, I think I am amino acids and protiens more than dust.
You forget that I am an athiest, and at any rate a skeptic. I do not believe in devils.
Well, it will be nice to have Tiassa pissed at you rather than at me.
Seriously, I haven't read much about Wicca, and LeVay sounds like Hironymous Bosch after a wild night with the wrong sort of mushrooms. Not worth the trouble, and frankly antithetical to my nature.
But Wicca seems to be some sort of New-Agey Gaia-istic nature worship, while Satanism is basically a glorification of extreme egotism.
Edit to add:
Oh yeah, give me a day or two on this, looks like I'll have to re-read the NT.
Ah, I must disagree on a few things.
The snake.
And I refer to Genesis 3:22 to support my interpretation that the snake, er, "offered" Eve knowledge.
Look at Isaiah 14:1-4:
Not talking about Lucifer, but about an earthly king.
Actually, it seems to have been.
According to the early Christians, yes. But the Catholics made the devil into the king of hell. I refer you to the last chapter of the Inferno, and to Lucifer's speech in Paradise Lost:
Of course, the Catholics also regarded the devil as a "tempter". Scripturally, he is only an adversary - First Peter, 5:8
But of course wisdom and intelligence are two different things.
Yes I did, spelling error.
Sorry, I don't find Rev 12:9 to support your interpretation exactly. Dragons and snakes are often referred to as one and the same, and the dragon is of course a personification of the Devil.
You're right, I was wrong.
So the Scriptures refer to two different beings? Interesting.
Correctimundo.
Luke 10:
Actually, I find this passage interesting in several senses. I could ignore the equation of Satan and Lucifer as a translator's error, however I find the KJV to be a quite decent translation.
Beyond that, we see that serpents and scorpions are associated with Satan. Could this be a resolution to the question of exactly what the snake of Genesis was?
Devil's food cake?
Actually, I think I am amino acids and protiens more than dust.
You forget that I am an athiest, and at any rate a skeptic. I do not believe in devils.
Well, it will be nice to have Tiassa pissed at you rather than at me.
Seriously, I haven't read much about Wicca, and LeVay sounds like Hironymous Bosch after a wild night with the wrong sort of mushrooms. Not worth the trouble, and frankly antithetical to my nature.
But Wicca seems to be some sort of New-Agey Gaia-istic nature worship, while Satanism is basically a glorification of extreme egotism.
Edit to add:
Oh yeah, give me a day or two on this, looks like I'll have to re-read the NT.
Oh yeah, just a note about my reply. As Xev has put it above, we really have many misconceptions on the idea of Satin/Lucifer/The Devil bibilicaly and from other references. I was just going upon th concept of Satin and some of the ideas presented in Adam's original post.
Actually ubermich, I plan to spend saturday evening re-reading the New Testament.
(Early morning is another story)
Baptists? Nah, I'm an athiest, Tony seems to be a Protestant of some sort or another - perhaps aligned with the Born Again Charismatics, but I dunno.
Cactus Jack:
Stick around please, I'd like to hear your imput. Right now I'm trying to figure out the whole Lucifer/Satan thing.
(Early morning is another story)
Baptists? Nah, I'm an athiest, Tony seems to be a Protestant of some sort or another - perhaps aligned with the Born Again Charismatics, but I dunno.
Cactus Jack:
Stick around please, I'd like to hear your imput. Right now I'm trying to figure out the whole Lucifer/Satan thing.
For an atheist Xev, you seem a bit overly concerned with what they bible contains, obsessed almost....
Why do you bother to study it so carefully if you don't believe in it anyway? Is it a great book? I can think of several others to read if amusement is the purpose, but then, maybe I'm just picky.
Why do you bother to study it so carefully if you don't believe in it anyway? Is it a great book? I can think of several others to read if amusement is the purpose, but then, maybe I'm just picky.
Avatar,
Great article. A good read.
It is really a wonderful portrayal of the idiotic ideas of not just the concept of a devil but of the whole of Christianity. A ludicrous concoction of propaganda, ignorance, superstition, and just outright myth making.
Thanks for posting.
Cris
Great article. A good read.
It is really a wonderful portrayal of the idiotic ideas of not just the concept of a devil but of the whole of Christianity. A ludicrous concoction of propaganda, ignorance, superstition, and just outright myth making.
Thanks for posting.
Cris
*Originally posted by Xev
Tony:
Ah, I must disagree on a few things.*
I'd expect no less.
*The snake.*
The devil.
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
(Revelation 20:2, KJV).
*And I refer to Genesis 3:22 to support my interpretation that the snake, er, "offered" Eve knowledge.*
The knowledge was inherent in the tree.
The devil couldn't offer it, since he didn't have it.
*Look at Isaiah 14:1-4:
Not talking about Lucifer, but about an earthly king.*
Great point about verses 1 to 4.
However, for verse 12 to be discussing an earthly king, that king would have to have the morning for a father.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(Isaiah 14:12, KJV).
*Actually, it seems to have been.*
Appearances can be deceiving.
*According to the early Christians, yes. But the Catholics made the devil into the king of hell. I refer you to the last chapter of the Inferno, and to Lucifer's speech in Paradise Lost:*
Since the Catholics aren't Christians, I'm at a loss as to how to integrate that into a discussion about satan who is real.
The Catholics have a veritable comic book of ideas concerning satan, hell, etc. that we really wouldn't have the time to discuss, since it took them 1600 years to develop it.
*Of course, the Catholics also regarded the devil as a "tempter". Scripturally, he is only an adversary - First Peter, 5:8*
The Catholics sometimes get things partially correct.
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
(Matthew 4:1, KJV).
*But of course wisdom and intelligence are two different things.*
As are intelligence and cleverness.
With the semblance of wisdom, it is easy to fool some people that one also has the semblance of intelligence.
*Yes I did, spelling error.*
No biggie, but what was the point you were going to make?
*Sorry, I don't find Rev 12:9 to support your interpretation exactly. Dragons and snakes are often referred to as one and the same, and the dragon is of course a personification of the Devil.*
How about...?
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
(Revelation 20:2, KJV).
*You're right, I was wrong. *
There you go again.
It almost seems disarming when you do that.
*So the Scriptures refer to two different beings? Interesting.*
Not necessarily, but they seem to.
*Correctimundo.*
You seem quite certain.
Which spirit are you channeling?
*Actually, I find this passage interesting in several senses. I could ignore the equation of Satan and Lucifer as a translator's error, however I find the KJV to be a quite decent translation.*
How exactly do you "find" that?
After all, you say you "could" ignore it, however, it appears that you will not.
*Beyond that, we see that serpents and scorpions are associated with Satan. Could this be a resolution to the question of exactly what the snake of Genesis was?*
It would appear to be so.
*Devil's food cake?*
Ahh, the old sense of humor.
Yes.
*Actually, I think I am amino acids and protiens more than dust.*
However, whether you believe in evolution or creation, those amino acids and proteins came from the dust and will return to it when you die, just as described in the Bible.
*You forget that I am an athiest, and at any rate a skeptic. I do not believe in devils.*
How quaint!
I can only assume that you somehow believe that the creatures you claim not to believe in, have somehow quit believing in you.
They haven't and they have two jobs to do.
1. Deceive you
2. Destroy you
So far, they've been successful with Job #1.
*Well, it will be nice to have Tiassa pissed at you rather than at me.*
He's pissed at everything.
*Not worth the trouble, and frankly antithetical to my nature.*
Whose nature?
I have to ask, since I've noticed that non-Christian posters have a bad habit of mixing their own statements with channeled statements.
I hope you'll excuse my curiosity, since the personal statements are so often very similar to the channeled statements.
*But Wicca seems to be some sort of New-Agey Gaia-istic nature worship, while Satanism is basically a glorification of extreme egotism.*
Ultimately, both are designed to destroy you.
*Baptists? Nah, I'm an athiest, Tony seems to be a Protestant of some sort or another - perhaps aligned with the Born Again Charismatics, but I dunno.*
Not protesting against anything except evil.
Tony:
Ah, I must disagree on a few things.*
I'd expect no less.
*The snake.*
The devil.
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
(Revelation 20:2, KJV).
*And I refer to Genesis 3:22 to support my interpretation that the snake, er, "offered" Eve knowledge.*
The knowledge was inherent in the tree.
The devil couldn't offer it, since he didn't have it.
*Look at Isaiah 14:1-4:
Not talking about Lucifer, but about an earthly king.*
Great point about verses 1 to 4.
However, for verse 12 to be discussing an earthly king, that king would have to have the morning for a father.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(Isaiah 14:12, KJV).
*Actually, it seems to have been.*
Appearances can be deceiving.
*According to the early Christians, yes. But the Catholics made the devil into the king of hell. I refer you to the last chapter of the Inferno, and to Lucifer's speech in Paradise Lost:*
Since the Catholics aren't Christians, I'm at a loss as to how to integrate that into a discussion about satan who is real.
The Catholics have a veritable comic book of ideas concerning satan, hell, etc. that we really wouldn't have the time to discuss, since it took them 1600 years to develop it.
*Of course, the Catholics also regarded the devil as a "tempter". Scripturally, he is only an adversary - First Peter, 5:8*
The Catholics sometimes get things partially correct.
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
(Matthew 4:1, KJV).
*But of course wisdom and intelligence are two different things.*
As are intelligence and cleverness.
With the semblance of wisdom, it is easy to fool some people that one also has the semblance of intelligence.
*Yes I did, spelling error.*
No biggie, but what was the point you were going to make?
*Sorry, I don't find Rev 12:9 to support your interpretation exactly. Dragons and snakes are often referred to as one and the same, and the dragon is of course a personification of the Devil.*
How about...?
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
(Revelation 20:2, KJV).
*You're right, I was wrong. *
There you go again.
It almost seems disarming when you do that.
*So the Scriptures refer to two different beings? Interesting.*
Not necessarily, but they seem to.
*Correctimundo.*
You seem quite certain.
Which spirit are you channeling?
*Actually, I find this passage interesting in several senses. I could ignore the equation of Satan and Lucifer as a translator's error, however I find the KJV to be a quite decent translation.*
How exactly do you "find" that?
After all, you say you "could" ignore it, however, it appears that you will not.
*Beyond that, we see that serpents and scorpions are associated with Satan. Could this be a resolution to the question of exactly what the snake of Genesis was?*
It would appear to be so.
*Devil's food cake?*
Ahh, the old sense of humor.
Yes.
*Actually, I think I am amino acids and protiens more than dust.*
However, whether you believe in evolution or creation, those amino acids and proteins came from the dust and will return to it when you die, just as described in the Bible.
*You forget that I am an athiest, and at any rate a skeptic. I do not believe in devils.*
How quaint!
I can only assume that you somehow believe that the creatures you claim not to believe in, have somehow quit believing in you.
They haven't and they have two jobs to do.
1. Deceive you
2. Destroy you
So far, they've been successful with Job #1.
*Well, it will be nice to have Tiassa pissed at you rather than at me.*
He's pissed at everything.
*Not worth the trouble, and frankly antithetical to my nature.*
Whose nature?
I have to ask, since I've noticed that non-Christian posters have a bad habit of mixing their own statements with channeled statements.
I hope you'll excuse my curiosity, since the personal statements are so often very similar to the channeled statements.
*But Wicca seems to be some sort of New-Agey Gaia-istic nature worship, while Satanism is basically a glorification of extreme egotism.*
Ultimately, both are designed to destroy you.
*Baptists? Nah, I'm an athiest, Tony seems to be a Protestant of some sort or another - perhaps aligned with the Born Again Charismatics, but I dunno.*
Not protesting against anything except evil.
Tony:
The snake.
Hence the quotation marks. Basically, the snake (who I am beginning to think ought to be regarded as a personification or servent of the Devil) told Eve how to "open her eyes".
Hmm, tempting again. An attribute of the Devil, as we've already seen, no?
And in light of 1 John 3:8
"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."
This is the doctrine of Origional Sin, no?
So we have something associated with the Devil offering (tempting) man - er - Eve I suppose, the knowledge of good and evil.
Yeah, I suppose I was being overly semantic. Your interpretation makes more sense than mine.
Very true. Consider the various inspirational New-Agey sayings.
Just a bit of background on what I regard as a myth and you regard as fact.
AH! They are the same entity! The same entity as Beezelbub:
"Matthew 12:24
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
12:25
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
12:26
And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?"
Beezelbub is Satan is Lucifer? Do you think that this intepretation makes sense?
Would you rather
"I am always right, you stupid, irrational fish-person! Haha, you are wasting your life believing in theistic gibberish and, you know, stuff"
Not my style.
I try to be quite clear about when I am wrong. I'd rather not waste time defending an undefendable hypothesis just because I can't stand being wrong.
Intellectual honesty and all that.
I might start doing it just to bug you, though.
You are either confusing Bebelina and I, or FoxMulder has been talking to you about demons and bondage, or demon pizza, or whatever.
A servent of the Devil?
Or the devil in snake form?
Well it's always nice to have an evil force to believe in you.
I think that would make a nice "Hallmark" card.
Seriously, is there any evidence that these things exist?
Musing aloud. The whole pretence of Satanism seems rather silly, and I've never been one who appreciated "arcane mysteries of the cosmos" - outside of the fiction of H.P Lovecraft.
With all due respect, Satanists strike me more as "Christians being bad" than sincere believers.
It's just as irrational to believe in Satan as it is to believe in God.
And frankly, a doctrine based on institutionalized selfishness? *Yawn*
Ummm, what exactly do you mean by "channeled statements"? Do you refer to this bit of New Age gibberish?
Come on Tony, you are too intelligent for that.
Bah! Ultimatly, both are irrational.
Bebelina:
For several reasons, not the least of which being the rampant sex and violence.
It is a great book, although not in the sense that "1984" is a great book. It is not only history, it shapes history. It is not only a religious document, it shapes other religious documents.
And, I like to learn things.
FoxyM:
So now Adam is stuck in demonic bondage, too?
Dude, you do need to stop watching cheap "leather and lace" movies on the Spice Channel while reading your Bible.
Yeah, we know, demon pizza and demonic ex-girlfriends.
The snake.
Hence the quotation marks. Basically, the snake (who I am beginning to think ought to be regarded as a personification or servent of the Devil) told Eve how to "open her eyes".
Hmm, tempting again. An attribute of the Devil, as we've already seen, no?
And in light of 1 John 3:8
"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."
This is the doctrine of Origional Sin, no?
So we have something associated with the Devil offering (tempting) man - er - Eve I suppose, the knowledge of good and evil.
Yeah, I suppose I was being overly semantic. Your interpretation makes more sense than mine.
Very true. Consider the various inspirational New-Agey sayings.
Just a bit of background on what I regard as a myth and you regard as fact.
AH! They are the same entity! The same entity as Beezelbub:
"Matthew 12:24
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
12:25
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
12:26
And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?"
Beezelbub is Satan is Lucifer? Do you think that this intepretation makes sense?
Would you rather
"I am always right, you stupid, irrational fish-person! Haha, you are wasting your life believing in theistic gibberish and, you know, stuff"
Not my style.
I try to be quite clear about when I am wrong. I'd rather not waste time defending an undefendable hypothesis just because I can't stand being wrong.
Intellectual honesty and all that.
I might start doing it just to bug you, though.
You are either confusing Bebelina and I, or FoxMulder has been talking to you about demons and bondage, or demon pizza, or whatever.
A servent of the Devil?
Or the devil in snake form?
Well it's always nice to have an evil force to believe in you.
I think that would make a nice "Hallmark" card.
Seriously, is there any evidence that these things exist?
Musing aloud. The whole pretence of Satanism seems rather silly, and I've never been one who appreciated "arcane mysteries of the cosmos" - outside of the fiction of H.P Lovecraft.
With all due respect, Satanists strike me more as "Christians being bad" than sincere believers.
It's just as irrational to believe in Satan as it is to believe in God.
And frankly, a doctrine based on institutionalized selfishness? *Yawn*
Ummm, what exactly do you mean by "channeled statements"? Do you refer to this bit of New Age gibberish?
Come on Tony, you are too intelligent for that.
Bah! Ultimatly, both are irrational.
Bebelina:
For several reasons, not the least of which being the rampant sex and violence.
It is a great book, although not in the sense that "1984" is a great book. It is not only history, it shapes history. It is not only a religious document, it shapes other religious documents.
And, I like to learn things.
FoxyM:
So now Adam is stuck in demonic bondage, too?
Dude, you do need to stop watching cheap "leather and lace" movies on the Spice Channel while reading your Bible.
Yeah, we know, demon pizza and demonic ex-girlfriends.
*Originally posted by Avatar
"MYTHS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH OLD TESTAMENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE DEVIL, SATAN & LUCIFER. "*
Luckily that disclaimer was included to describe the crock that followed.
*Originally posted by Cris
It is really a wonderful portrayal of the idiotic ideas of not just the concept of a devil but of the whole of Christianity. A ludicrous concoction of propaganda, ignorance, superstition, and just outright myth making. *
Nothing to do with Christianity, but why not throw that in there just in case you could suck someone in, huh, Cris?
In case you missed it, the disclaimer STATED that all that followed were myths, misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
*Originally posted by Xev
The snake.*
This could go on for a while.
The devil IS the snake.
*Hence the quotation marks.*
Nice touch.
*Basically, the snake (who I am beginning to think ought to be regarded as a personification or servent of the Devil)*
Let's go with personification.
That way, when you consider that the snake was made into the person (what "personify" means) of the devil, you may see what is going on, unless of course, you already know.
*told Eve how to "open her eyes".*
This isn't exactly what he said either.
He said her eyes "would be" opened.
IOW, satan actually promised NOTHING AT ALL, yet people point to the great things that satan supposedly promised in the Garden, whether metaphorically or actually.
Note the cleverness of the deception.
No promise at all, yet for some reason a promise is seen by many.
Why?
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
(2 Corinthians 4:4, KJV).
*Hmm, tempting again. An attribute of the Devil, as we've already seen, no?*
Yes, but I'm not arguing against that.
*This is the doctrine of Origional Sin, no?*
I see that the words "Original" and "beginning" are somewhat related, but I'm pretty sure that the Catholics didn't have that in mind while they were developing their doctrine of Original Sin.
*So we have something associated with the Devil offering (tempting) man - er - Eve I suppose, the knowledge of good and evil.*
Sure.
The tempting, otherwise known as a test, was to see whether man - er - Eve, would obey God.
I think the result was an "F."
*Yeah, I suppose I was being overly semantic.*
You have a point to make.
However, consider the price if you win the debate.
*Consider the various inspirational New-Agey sayings.*
LOL
Of course, I'd consider them "expirational" sayings.
You'll die if you believe them.
*Just a bit of background on what I regard as a myth and you regard as fact.*
A part of a bigger plot, so to speak.
A picture of a spider nonchalantly weaving her web as the fly ponders the meaning of a strand strung from one leaf to another for no apparent reason, comes to mind.
*AH! They are the same entity! The same entity as Beezelbub:*
Of course.
I would have stated that much sooner had I realized it was an issue.
*Beezelbub is Satan is Lucifer? Do you think that this intepretation makes sense?*
Not at this point.
So far it sounds a lot like "Beezelbub is Satan is canned ham."
I get the first equation, but it may take a bit to demonstrate the second.
*Would you rather
"I am always right, you stupid, irrational fish-person! Haha, you are wasting your life believing in theistic gibberish and, you know, stuff" *
I assumed that was your stance anyway.
However, I admit that it sounds so honest when you admit your error.
Mind you, I do suspect that you do not have a lot of ownership in the issues that you admit that easily.
*I might start doing it just to bug you, though.*
It doesn't bug.
It would be interesting to see if you would admit error in areas that you base your entire life on, whether wittingly or unwittingly.
*You are either confusing Bebelina and I, or FoxMulder has been talking to you about demons and bondage, or demon pizza, or whatever.*
I cast out demons, and occasionally they make statements like that in an effort to maintain their ownership of a person.
A certain appearance of certainty is an essential part of some forms of deception, so when I see an expression of certainty in an area where such certainty is untenable, then I get curious.
*A servent of the Devil?
Or the devil in snake form?*
Devil in snake form.
After all, the devil is a spirit, and as such is not visible to ordinary vision.
*Well it's always nice to have an evil force to believe in you*
You seem unaware of the difference in meaning between "nice" and "evil."
*Seriously, is there any evidence that these things exist?*
Of course.
They explain what they're about when one asks.
*The whole pretence of Satanism seems rather silly, and I've never been one who appreciated "arcane mysteries of the cosmos" - outside of the fiction of H.P Lovecraft.*
How do you know where the fiction ends and reality begins?
Your assumption has always been that HPL was a fiction writer therefore what he wrote was fiction.
But what if he was instead only a stenographer taking dictation?
*With all due respect, Satanists strike me more as "Christians being bad" than sincere believers.*
You're probably correct to a certain extent.
After all, the Catholic paraphernalia and ritual would only appeal to Catholics who are familiar with them.
*It's just as irrational to believe in Satan as it is to believe in God.*
Only where rationality is limited to the five senses.
*And frankly, a doctrine based on institutionalized selfishness? *Yawn**
Maybe so, but wouldn't it appeal to selfish people?
*Ummm, what exactly do you mean by "channeled statements"? Do you refer to this bit of New Age gibberish?*
Interesting link, but no.
I use the term "channeling" simply because a fair number of people are familiar with the term.
I use it to refer specifically to demons speaking while using a person's vocal cords.
While a demon might be considered a "spirit entity," that term has too many non-evil connotations to be valid for what is really going on.
*Come on Tony, you are too intelligent for that.*
Ah, Xev, you are too intelligent to take such a pooh-pooh attitude for something so common.
Of course, a person would have to have some idea of what their agenda is, to actually notice them carrying it out.
*Bah! Ultimatly, both are irrational.*
Only if "irrational" means contrary to reason.
Of course, you should realize that it is contrary to reason, for life to result in death.
"MYTHS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH OLD TESTAMENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE DEVIL, SATAN & LUCIFER. "*
Luckily that disclaimer was included to describe the crock that followed.
*Originally posted by Cris
It is really a wonderful portrayal of the idiotic ideas of not just the concept of a devil but of the whole of Christianity. A ludicrous concoction of propaganda, ignorance, superstition, and just outright myth making. *
Nothing to do with Christianity, but why not throw that in there just in case you could suck someone in, huh, Cris?
In case you missed it, the disclaimer STATED that all that followed were myths, misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
*Originally posted by Xev
The snake.*
This could go on for a while.
The devil IS the snake.
*Hence the quotation marks.*
Nice touch.
*Basically, the snake (who I am beginning to think ought to be regarded as a personification or servent of the Devil)*
Let's go with personification.
That way, when you consider that the snake was made into the person (what "personify" means) of the devil, you may see what is going on, unless of course, you already know.
*told Eve how to "open her eyes".*
This isn't exactly what he said either.
He said her eyes "would be" opened.
IOW, satan actually promised NOTHING AT ALL, yet people point to the great things that satan supposedly promised in the Garden, whether metaphorically or actually.
Note the cleverness of the deception.
No promise at all, yet for some reason a promise is seen by many.
Why?
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
(2 Corinthians 4:4, KJV).
*Hmm, tempting again. An attribute of the Devil, as we've already seen, no?*
Yes, but I'm not arguing against that.
*This is the doctrine of Origional Sin, no?*
I see that the words "Original" and "beginning" are somewhat related, but I'm pretty sure that the Catholics didn't have that in mind while they were developing their doctrine of Original Sin.
*So we have something associated with the Devil offering (tempting) man - er - Eve I suppose, the knowledge of good and evil.*
Sure.
The tempting, otherwise known as a test, was to see whether man - er - Eve, would obey God.
I think the result was an "F."
*Yeah, I suppose I was being overly semantic.*
You have a point to make.
However, consider the price if you win the debate.
*Consider the various inspirational New-Agey sayings.*
LOL
Of course, I'd consider them "expirational" sayings.
You'll die if you believe them.
*Just a bit of background on what I regard as a myth and you regard as fact.*
A part of a bigger plot, so to speak.
A picture of a spider nonchalantly weaving her web as the fly ponders the meaning of a strand strung from one leaf to another for no apparent reason, comes to mind.
*AH! They are the same entity! The same entity as Beezelbub:*
Of course.
I would have stated that much sooner had I realized it was an issue.
*Beezelbub is Satan is Lucifer? Do you think that this intepretation makes sense?*
Not at this point.
So far it sounds a lot like "Beezelbub is Satan is canned ham."
I get the first equation, but it may take a bit to demonstrate the second.
*Would you rather
"I am always right, you stupid, irrational fish-person! Haha, you are wasting your life believing in theistic gibberish and, you know, stuff" *
I assumed that was your stance anyway.
However, I admit that it sounds so honest when you admit your error.
Mind you, I do suspect that you do not have a lot of ownership in the issues that you admit that easily.
*I might start doing it just to bug you, though.*
It doesn't bug.
It would be interesting to see if you would admit error in areas that you base your entire life on, whether wittingly or unwittingly.
*You are either confusing Bebelina and I, or FoxMulder has been talking to you about demons and bondage, or demon pizza, or whatever.*
I cast out demons, and occasionally they make statements like that in an effort to maintain their ownership of a person.
A certain appearance of certainty is an essential part of some forms of deception, so when I see an expression of certainty in an area where such certainty is untenable, then I get curious.
*A servent of the Devil?
Or the devil in snake form?*
Devil in snake form.
After all, the devil is a spirit, and as such is not visible to ordinary vision.
*Well it's always nice to have an evil force to believe in you*
You seem unaware of the difference in meaning between "nice" and "evil."
*Seriously, is there any evidence that these things exist?*
Of course.
They explain what they're about when one asks.
*The whole pretence of Satanism seems rather silly, and I've never been one who appreciated "arcane mysteries of the cosmos" - outside of the fiction of H.P Lovecraft.*
How do you know where the fiction ends and reality begins?
Your assumption has always been that HPL was a fiction writer therefore what he wrote was fiction.
But what if he was instead only a stenographer taking dictation?
*With all due respect, Satanists strike me more as "Christians being bad" than sincere believers.*
You're probably correct to a certain extent.
After all, the Catholic paraphernalia and ritual would only appeal to Catholics who are familiar with them.
*It's just as irrational to believe in Satan as it is to believe in God.*
Only where rationality is limited to the five senses.
*And frankly, a doctrine based on institutionalized selfishness? *Yawn**
Maybe so, but wouldn't it appeal to selfish people?
*Ummm, what exactly do you mean by "channeled statements"? Do you refer to this bit of New Age gibberish?*
Interesting link, but no.
I use the term "channeling" simply because a fair number of people are familiar with the term.
I use it to refer specifically to demons speaking while using a person's vocal cords.
While a demon might be considered a "spirit entity," that term has too many non-evil connotations to be valid for what is really going on.
*Come on Tony, you are too intelligent for that.*
Ah, Xev, you are too intelligent to take such a pooh-pooh attitude for something so common.
Of course, a person would have to have some idea of what their agenda is, to actually notice them carrying it out.
*Bah! Ultimatly, both are irrational.*
Only if "irrational" means contrary to reason.
Of course, you should realize that it is contrary to reason, for life to result in death.
Tony:
Snakes are associated with the devil, and seem to be his "servents", but I don't think it's been shown yet that the devil is the snake.
Damn.....that's slick.
I think so.
Although it's worth mentioning that the serpent is the one who told the truth - neither Adam or Eve died.
Unless you claim that since "the wages of sin are death"....
Hmm, you know, this is all beginning to make sense.
Ummm, I wasn't aware that there was a debate.
I mean, the snake is the devil, the snake isn't the devil, Leda was a redhead, Leda was blonde, who cares?
Or walk around smelling of patchuli (pakuli? patchkuli?) oil and talking about the Mother Goddess.
I think death would be preferable.
So, we're trying to decide whether Lucifer and Satan are the same being?
Okay, we have Lucifer, cast out of heaven for his rebellion against God.
Satan, the destroyer and opposer, the "adversary" who walks about "seeking to devour".
The Muslims say that these two are one and the same.
But what do the Christians say?
We have an origen for Lucifer, but not for Satan -all we know is that he "sinneth from the beginning" (1 John 3:8).
Could Lucifer's rebellion be this "sin"?
I'm tending to think that Lucifer and Satan are either the same being, or are the results of different - er, what I would call "myths".
Grrrr! No! I don't assume that all theists are morons.
If I did assume that about you, I would not really have bothered. I would start blathering about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Great Cthulhu and posting in the standard BIG BLUE LETTERS.
I think you're rather intelligent. I'm just, at a loss. Believing in God is one thing, but, demons? Demonic possession?
Why do you believe such things? And are you just pulling some wierd "net prank" pretending to believe in them?
True enough. This is more a subject that I seek to learn about and clarify, rather than to really debate.
Logic, reason, skepticism and my own personal existentialism? Yeah, I'd probably be quite a bit more defensive.
Umm, okay. I am using Windoze 98, that could be the problem.
Certainty? I think I agree with Socrates, who was only certain of one thing:
That he could not be certain of anything.
I think that's a good resolution.
I've never seen a demon. I've never seen any pictures of demons. I've never seen any physical evidence that demons exist.
So I'm rather skeptical of the claim that they explain anything.
Generally when things start to involve interstellar squid-dragon monsters being worshipped by nonexistant cults, I suspect "fiction".
You are serious?
Why? What makes you believe in somthing so....unusual?
What agenda? Demons? You're actually suggesting that they exist? And that they have an agenda? And that I am somehow involved?
Dude, if I'd seen a demon or whatnot, I wouldn't be an athiest.
Well, does not all life end in death?
Snakes are associated with the devil, and seem to be his "servents", but I don't think it's been shown yet that the devil is the snake.
Damn.....that's slick.
I think so.
Although it's worth mentioning that the serpent is the one who told the truth - neither Adam or Eve died.
Unless you claim that since "the wages of sin are death"....
Hmm, you know, this is all beginning to make sense.
Ummm, I wasn't aware that there was a debate.
I mean, the snake is the devil, the snake isn't the devil, Leda was a redhead, Leda was blonde, who cares?
Or walk around smelling of patchuli (pakuli? patchkuli?) oil and talking about the Mother Goddess.
I think death would be preferable.
So, we're trying to decide whether Lucifer and Satan are the same being?
Okay, we have Lucifer, cast out of heaven for his rebellion against God.
Satan, the destroyer and opposer, the "adversary" who walks about "seeking to devour".
The Muslims say that these two are one and the same.
But what do the Christians say?
We have an origen for Lucifer, but not for Satan -all we know is that he "sinneth from the beginning" (1 John 3:8).
Could Lucifer's rebellion be this "sin"?
I'm tending to think that Lucifer and Satan are either the same being, or are the results of different - er, what I would call "myths".
Grrrr! No! I don't assume that all theists are morons.
If I did assume that about you, I would not really have bothered. I would start blathering about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Great Cthulhu and posting in the standard BIG BLUE LETTERS.
I think you're rather intelligent. I'm just, at a loss. Believing in God is one thing, but, demons? Demonic possession?
Why do you believe such things? And are you just pulling some wierd "net prank" pretending to believe in them?
True enough. This is more a subject that I seek to learn about and clarify, rather than to really debate.
Logic, reason, skepticism and my own personal existentialism? Yeah, I'd probably be quite a bit more defensive.
Umm, okay. I am using Windoze 98, that could be the problem.
Certainty? I think I agree with Socrates, who was only certain of one thing:
That he could not be certain of anything.
I think that's a good resolution.
I've never seen a demon. I've never seen any pictures of demons. I've never seen any physical evidence that demons exist.
So I'm rather skeptical of the claim that they explain anything.
Generally when things start to involve interstellar squid-dragon monsters being worshipped by nonexistant cults, I suspect "fiction".
You are serious?
Why? What makes you believe in somthing so....unusual?
What agenda? Demons? You're actually suggesting that they exist? And that they have an agenda? And that I am somehow involved?
Dude, if I'd seen a demon or whatnot, I wouldn't be an athiest.
Well, does not all life end in death?
*Originally posted by Xev
I don't think it's been shown yet that the devil is the snake.*
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
(Revelation 20:2, KJV).
*Damn.....that's slick.*
That's deception.
Nothing to it.
*Although it's worth mentioning that the serpent is the one who told the truth - neither Adam or Eve died.*
Not so fast.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(2 Peter 3:8, KJV).
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
(Genesis 5:5, KJV).
930 is less than 1000.
*Ummm, I wasn't aware that there was a debate.*
There is, but you may not be aware of it.
*Or walk around smelling of patchuli (pakuli? patchkuli?) oil and talking about the Mother Goddess.*
You've met tiassa?
*I think death would be preferable.*
Me? I think life would be preferable.
Does anybody call that New Age stuff life?
*So, we're trying to decide whether Lucifer and Satan are the same being?*
I wasn't, but it seems as tho you are.
*Okay, we have Lucifer, cast out of heaven for his rebellion against God.
Satan, the destroyer and opposer, the "adversary" who walks about "seeking to devour".*
Yes.
Let's look at that in more detail.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(Isaiah 14:12, KJV).
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
(Revelation 12:10, KJV).
There appears to be some difference how they came down.
*The Muslims say that these two are one and the same.*
The Muslims also say...
---But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.---
(Sura 9, KORAN).
Note the underlined words, which go a long way in explaining 9/11.
*We have an origen for Lucifer, but not for Satan -all we know is that he "sinneth from the beginning" (1 John 3:8).
Could Lucifer's rebellion be this "sin"?*
Well, isn't "the beginning" an origin?
Lucifer is described as a son of the morning.
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
(Job 1:6, KJV).
Rather than describing satan as a son of God, he is described as coming among them.
*I'm tending to think that Lucifer and Satan are either the same being, or are the results of different - er, what I would call "myths".*
You're in a bit of a pickle.
"Being" implies existence.
If you call the two "beings," you are saying they exist.
If they are myth, then they aren't beings.
*Grrrr! No! I don't assume that all theists are morons.*
Oops, I didn't see the "moron" thing.
But reading between the lines, you believe all the other stuff?
*If I did assume that about you, I would not really have bothered.*
Thanks?
*I would start blathering about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Great Cthulhu and posting in the standard BIG BLUE LETTERS.*
As I recall, I made your acquaintance discussing cthulhu in great detail.
*I think you're rather intelligent. I'm just, at a loss. Believing in God is one thing, but, demons? Demonic possession?
Why do you believe such things? And are you just pulling some wierd "net prank" pretending to believe in them?*
No prank.
Since I cast them out, I run into demons on a regular basis.
Since they take take exception to being cast out of people, they claim legal right to possession on various bases, including nothing at all, i.e they lie.
*True enough. This is more a subject that I seek to learn about and clarify, rather than to really debate.*
OK.
That stands to reason, since the stakes are life and death.
Some have made their choice death, hence the tendency to battle.
*Logic, reason, skepticism and my own personal existentialism? Yeah, I'd probably be quite a bit more defensive.*
No doubt, but those are the things you should really be questioning since they consist of a lot of assumptions.
Your expressed statements don't consist of assumptions as much since they are based on reason as applied to your premises.
However, since you use reason to arrive at conclusions, shouldn't you make sure that what you call reason is in fact reason?
*Umm, okay. I am using Windoze 98, that could be the problem.*
It's bad, but I don't think it's that bad.
*Certainty? I think I agree with Socrates, who was only certain of one thing:
That he could not be certain of anything.*
That's what happens when you think like the following...
---He was beginning to grow cold about the groin, when he uncovered his face, for he had covered himself up, and said--they were his last words--he said: "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; (1) will you remember to pay the debt?---
-- Phaedo (Jowett)
*I've never seen a demon. I've never seen any pictures of demons. I've never seen any physical evidence that demons exist.*
They're spirits, so physical evidence is limited.
Until someone invents a camera that works spiritually, there won't be many pictures of demons around.
The only evidence that most people are likely to have of demons is the statements they make using their possessions' mouths.
*So I'm rather skeptical of the claim that they explain anything.*
Understandably.
However, they respond when asked with authority.
Since you're not Christian, you are subject to them so they aren't likely to do anything you ask at all.
*Generally when things start to involve interstellar squid-dragon monsters being worshipped by nonexistant cults, I suspect "fiction".*
So funny!!
LOL!!
You think "fiction" because you don't even suspect "dictation."
Dictation doesn't have to be true, you know.
*You are serious?
Why? What makes you believe in somthing so....unusual?*
It isn't unusual in the least.
There are few things more common.
*What agenda? Demons? You're actually suggesting that they exist? And that they have an agenda? And that I am somehow involved?*
Your destruction.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Oh yes, you are the one they are trying to destroy.
Among others, mind you.
*Dude, if I'd seen a demon or whatnot, I wouldn't be an athiest.*
You are definitely correct on that account.
They know that, too.
*Well, does not all life end in death? *
Mine won't.
I don't think it's been shown yet that the devil is the snake.*
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
(Revelation 20:2, KJV).
*Damn.....that's slick.*
That's deception.
Nothing to it.
*Although it's worth mentioning that the serpent is the one who told the truth - neither Adam or Eve died.*
Not so fast.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(2 Peter 3:8, KJV).
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
(Genesis 5:5, KJV).
930 is less than 1000.
*Ummm, I wasn't aware that there was a debate.*
There is, but you may not be aware of it.
*Or walk around smelling of patchuli (pakuli? patchkuli?) oil and talking about the Mother Goddess.*
You've met tiassa?
*I think death would be preferable.*
Me? I think life would be preferable.
Does anybody call that New Age stuff life?
*So, we're trying to decide whether Lucifer and Satan are the same being?*
I wasn't, but it seems as tho you are.
*Okay, we have Lucifer, cast out of heaven for his rebellion against God.
Satan, the destroyer and opposer, the "adversary" who walks about "seeking to devour".*
Yes.
Let's look at that in more detail.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(Isaiah 14:12, KJV).
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
(Revelation 12:10, KJV).
There appears to be some difference how they came down.
*The Muslims say that these two are one and the same.*
The Muslims also say...
---But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.---
(Sura 9, KORAN).
Note the underlined words, which go a long way in explaining 9/11.
*We have an origen for Lucifer, but not for Satan -all we know is that he "sinneth from the beginning" (1 John 3:8).
Could Lucifer's rebellion be this "sin"?*
Well, isn't "the beginning" an origin?
Lucifer is described as a son of the morning.
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
(Job 1:6, KJV).
Rather than describing satan as a son of God, he is described as coming among them.
*I'm tending to think that Lucifer and Satan are either the same being, or are the results of different - er, what I would call "myths".*
You're in a bit of a pickle.
"Being" implies existence.
If you call the two "beings," you are saying they exist.
If they are myth, then they aren't beings.
*Grrrr! No! I don't assume that all theists are morons.*
Oops, I didn't see the "moron" thing.
But reading between the lines, you believe all the other stuff?
*If I did assume that about you, I would not really have bothered.*
Thanks?
*I would start blathering about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Great Cthulhu and posting in the standard BIG BLUE LETTERS.*
As I recall, I made your acquaintance discussing cthulhu in great detail.
*I think you're rather intelligent. I'm just, at a loss. Believing in God is one thing, but, demons? Demonic possession?
Why do you believe such things? And are you just pulling some wierd "net prank" pretending to believe in them?*
No prank.
Since I cast them out, I run into demons on a regular basis.
Since they take take exception to being cast out of people, they claim legal right to possession on various bases, including nothing at all, i.e they lie.
*True enough. This is more a subject that I seek to learn about and clarify, rather than to really debate.*
OK.
That stands to reason, since the stakes are life and death.
Some have made their choice death, hence the tendency to battle.
*Logic, reason, skepticism and my own personal existentialism? Yeah, I'd probably be quite a bit more defensive.*
No doubt, but those are the things you should really be questioning since they consist of a lot of assumptions.
Your expressed statements don't consist of assumptions as much since they are based on reason as applied to your premises.
However, since you use reason to arrive at conclusions, shouldn't you make sure that what you call reason is in fact reason?
*Umm, okay. I am using Windoze 98, that could be the problem.*
It's bad, but I don't think it's that bad.
*Certainty? I think I agree with Socrates, who was only certain of one thing:
That he could not be certain of anything.*
That's what happens when you think like the following...
---He was beginning to grow cold about the groin, when he uncovered his face, for he had covered himself up, and said--they were his last words--he said: "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; (1) will you remember to pay the debt?---
-- Phaedo (Jowett)
*I've never seen a demon. I've never seen any pictures of demons. I've never seen any physical evidence that demons exist.*
They're spirits, so physical evidence is limited.
Until someone invents a camera that works spiritually, there won't be many pictures of demons around.
The only evidence that most people are likely to have of demons is the statements they make using their possessions' mouths.
*So I'm rather skeptical of the claim that they explain anything.*
Understandably.
However, they respond when asked with authority.
Since you're not Christian, you are subject to them so they aren't likely to do anything you ask at all.
*Generally when things start to involve interstellar squid-dragon monsters being worshipped by nonexistant cults, I suspect "fiction".*
So funny!!
LOL!!
You think "fiction" because you don't even suspect "dictation."
Dictation doesn't have to be true, you know.
*You are serious?
Why? What makes you believe in somthing so....unusual?*
It isn't unusual in the least.
There are few things more common.
*What agenda? Demons? You're actually suggesting that they exist? And that they have an agenda? And that I am somehow involved?*
Your destruction.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Oh yes, you are the one they are trying to destroy.
Among others, mind you.
*Dude, if I'd seen a demon or whatnot, I wouldn't be an athiest.*
You are definitely correct on that account.
They know that, too.
*Well, does not all life end in death? *
Mine won't.
Tony:
Okay okay. I still don't see why the "old serpent" has to be the same serpent that tempted Eve.
I'm sorry, could you clarify?
I'm not aware of it.
I ain't going there.
But my town is a hotbed of New-Agey type people. Drives me insane.
Have you any idea how difficult it is to get a steak? Or to have to stand the stench of cheap incense? Or....right, no ranting.
Life is almost always preferable to death.
Some make it the basis of theirs.
You think there is a real difference between "fallen" and "cast down" ?
True, true, but where does that leave us?
Alleged beings, then. I do not believe in their existance. But I might refer to Isis or Osiris as a being, for the sake of discussing Egyptian mythology.
I don't belive in Isis or Osiris either.
No. I don't believe in Cthulhu or the invisible pink unicorn. I do think that you are a rather intelligent man, and I enjoy our debates.
Ha ha! Yes! I believe you called the Great Old One a demon, and made reference to squishing him.
They what?
I don't follow - battle for death? Why would one battle in order to die?
Outside of the philosophy of Bushido or Fredrich Nietzshe, that is.
Very true. I base my reliance on logic on circular reasoning - logic is good because it is logical. Also because I've seen more people err from illogical thinking than to err from logical thinking. Skepticism because it helps me get rid of a lot of error. Believing the first thing that you are told without proof will not help one live a good life, or to discover anything true.
Existentialism is more of a label that describes my approach to life, specifically Camus' concept of the Absurd. This stems from my athiesm and disbelief in an afterlife, which stems from skepticism and logic.
Yes, this about describes Socrates' approach to life. Asclepius was the Greek god of health.
He is basically saying that his life has been one long illness, and that he owes the doctor for keeping him alive for so long.
At least, that is Nietzshe's interpretation, which I agree with.
Could this not be the result of mental illness on the "possession's" part?
I am subject to no-one but the laws of the United States of America and the demands of morality.
Why? Okay, stipulating the existance of demons and whatnot, why bother with me? I'm an athiest. I'm damned already.
Then they would be hiding from me?
Good for you.
Edit to clarify life as almost always preferable to death.
Okay okay. I still don't see why the "old serpent" has to be the same serpent that tempted Eve.
I'm sorry, could you clarify?
I'm not aware of it.
I ain't going there.
But my town is a hotbed of New-Agey type people. Drives me insane.
Have you any idea how difficult it is to get a steak? Or to have to stand the stench of cheap incense? Or....right, no ranting.
Life is almost always preferable to death.
Some make it the basis of theirs.
You think there is a real difference between "fallen" and "cast down" ?
True, true, but where does that leave us?
Alleged beings, then. I do not believe in their existance. But I might refer to Isis or Osiris as a being, for the sake of discussing Egyptian mythology.
I don't belive in Isis or Osiris either.
No. I don't believe in Cthulhu or the invisible pink unicorn. I do think that you are a rather intelligent man, and I enjoy our debates.
Ha ha! Yes! I believe you called the Great Old One a demon, and made reference to squishing him.
They what?
I don't follow - battle for death? Why would one battle in order to die?
Outside of the philosophy of Bushido or Fredrich Nietzshe, that is.
Very true. I base my reliance on logic on circular reasoning - logic is good because it is logical. Also because I've seen more people err from illogical thinking than to err from logical thinking. Skepticism because it helps me get rid of a lot of error. Believing the first thing that you are told without proof will not help one live a good life, or to discover anything true.
Existentialism is more of a label that describes my approach to life, specifically Camus' concept of the Absurd. This stems from my athiesm and disbelief in an afterlife, which stems from skepticism and logic.
Yes, this about describes Socrates' approach to life. Asclepius was the Greek god of health.
He is basically saying that his life has been one long illness, and that he owes the doctor for keeping him alive for so long.
At least, that is Nietzshe's interpretation, which I agree with.
Could this not be the result of mental illness on the "possession's" part?
I am subject to no-one but the laws of the United States of America and the demands of morality.
Why? Okay, stipulating the existance of demons and whatnot, why bother with me? I'm an athiest. I'm damned already.
Then they would be hiding from me?
Good for you.
Edit to clarify life as almost always preferable to death.