Did Lucifer (or Satan) rule over mankind, in the flesh, from the ancient city of Sippara?

Sippar of the Sun-god.

Berossus of ancient Babylon records that the Chaldaean Noah buried the records of the antediluvian world in Sippara. This record documents that Lucifer, Zamiel, Hesperus, Asmodeus, Sanyanza, Obora and many others ruled over the human race and married human women, any that they desired. It was also stated there that these fallen angels tried to stop the destruction of the Wan Planet, which resided between the Red World and the Green. A war broke out between the angelic hosts and if it was not for the "Shadow of a Hand", these fallen angels would be ruling the earth today. The Great Sphere exploded in millions of pieces and eventually one approached the earth many days later. The rock crashed into the Great Sea producing giant walls of earth and water, destroying all life in its path. The only ones who survived were the ones in the Tebah.

You're missing the point. Manking IS Satan, as depicted in the bible. We ARE lucifer.

Originally posted by lilblam
You're missing the point. Manking IS Satan, as depicted in the bible. We ARE lucifer.

how exactly are we lucifer?

In the past these beings decided to leave their original stations, in the stars, and take physical form and rule over mankind. The state of the world got so bad, from their influence and their giant sons', that they were evicted by the Nameless One. Many allowances that were once common to these angels in times past were removed after the Earth changed atmoshperically.

Now in the future, of our time, the angels were evicted at some point, from the stars, and are now forced to co-exist with the human race, but now they have no power to materialize. They however, can influence those who open themselves up to them. They are frantic to make chaos before their time is up, before the Nameless One acts once again.

Originally posted by lilblam
You're missing the point. Manking IS Satan, as depicted in the bible. We ARE lucifer.

Ok this is the second time you've said this. Are you being sarcastic, or are you just a little confused?

Neither sarcastic nor confused. Time will tell

Cassiopaeans say:

A: In union with the One. Have you heard the Super ancient legend of Lucifer, the Fallen Angel?
Q: (L) Who is Lucifer?
A: You. The human race.

------------------------------

And if you understood what I know, you'd understand also. Knowledge is all you need

We ARE teh fallen angels. We have fallen from higher density existance and being one with all, to a limited perception and into ignorance and control. Humanity has much to learn.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by lilblam]

Mankind is evil...we are the devil. Hell is here on earth, we all go to heaven when we pass. There is no limbo.


*this is Jeff's opinion. do not take seriously*

Originally posted by TekNo88

Originally posted by lilblam
You're missing the point. Manking IS Satan, as depicted in the bible. We ARE lucifer.

how exactly are we lucifer?

If you use your mind a bit, you'll figure it out. Who is lucifer? What do you know about him? Then think about humanity...

The humans and the angels make their own evil by acting on their own free-will, in opposition to the Nameless One.

Originally posted by lostinspace
The humans and the angels make their own evil by acting on their own free-will, in opposition to the Nameless One.

Evil is relative. If acting on your free will upsets some Nameless One, then that control-hungry oppressor can just piss and moan about it and maybe one day get over it..

I'm so tired of relativism being applied to what is good and evil, morals, and right and wrong, as if it were some excuse for what we do as humans. Evil is not relative. How can you not notice that? Moral and cultural relativism is used to explain away evil things so people don't have to feel guilty about them, or so that others don't seem like"mean people" when they would otherwise point out something wrong in a certain culture. As hard as it may be to believe, there is a such thing as truth. There is good and evil. NO RELATIVISM!

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
I'm so tired of relativism being applied to what is good and evil, morals, and right and wrong, as if it were some excuse for what we do as humans. Evil is not relative. How can you not notice that? Moral and cultural relativism is used to explain away evil things so people don't have to feel guilty about them, or so that others don't seem like"mean people" when they would otherwise point out something wrong in a certain culture. As hard as it may be to believe, there is a such thing as truth. There is good and evil. NO RELATIVISM!

The truth is there is relativism, killing the lion might save another animal from being eaten. The animal would definitely see it as a good thing.

You would like to compare animals to humans? You're confusing relativity in terms of what is good for one side, can be bad for another side, with relativity in terms of what IS wrong or right. Of course during the holocaust, the extermination of Jews was bad for the Jews, but good for Hitler, because his goals were being accomplished. In that way an event such as the holocaust is relative to how different parties see it or gain or lose from it. BUT that has nothing to do with whether or not the actual slaughtering was right or wrong. There is no question, unless one is severely demented, that Hitler's actions were evil. Wrong. Bad. In this way, relativism should not be factored in or used to explain it. It does NOT apply. When it comes to good and evil, it is a constant! Not a flexible set of views that depend on the situation.

I think you get into situational ethics rather than relevitanism. Ex:

If someone is brought up in a jungle tribe knowing that to kill members of other tribes is good, that is situational ethics; absolute truth would dictate that killing is wrong because life was destroyed.

Relevitanism would state that if another life was saved because that life was destroyed, then it was justified.

Cassiopaeans say:

A: In union with the One. Have you heard the Super ancient legend of Lucifer, the Fallen Angel?
Q: (L) Who is Lucifer?
A: You. The human race.


You are very influenced by these " Casspiopaeans ".

Was Lucifer not to rule over this physical realm we call earth?

Deep

Originally posted by lostinspace
Did Lucifer (or Satan) rule over mankind, in the flesh, from the ancient city of Sippara?

Sippar of the Sun-god.

Berossus of ancient Babylon records that the Chaldaean Noah buried the records of the antediluvian world in Sippara. This record documents that Lucifer, Zamiel, Hesperus, Asmodeus, Sanyanza, Obora and many others ruled over the human race and married human women, any that they desired. It was also stated there that these fallen angels tried to stop the destruction of the Wan Planet, which resided between the Red World and the Green. A war broke out between the angelic hosts and if it was not for the "Shadow of a Hand", these fallen angels would be ruling the earth today. The Great Sphere exploded in millions of pieces and eventually one approached the earth many days later. The rock crashed into the Great Sea producing giant walls of earth and water, destroying all life in its path. The only ones who survived were the ones in the Tebah.

~v~......you might want to Google up:

The Exploding Planet Hypothesis

i vaguely remember this must have happened 2-4MYA
(million years ago) about homo erectus time, and time enough for certain types of meteors to have cleared away within the jupiter-sun region...one esoteric section deals with the myth your speaking of--> but w-a-y- before babylonian age

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
You would like to compare animals to humans? You're confusing relativity in terms of what is good for one side, can be bad for another side, with relativity in terms of what IS wrong or right. Of course during the holocaust, the extermination of Jews was bad for the Jews, but good for Hitler, because his goals were being accomplished. In that way an event such as the holocaust is relative to how different parties see it or gain or lose from it. BUT that has nothing to do with whether or not the actual slaughtering was right or wrong. There is no question, unless one is severely demented, that Hitler's actions were evil. Wrong. Bad. In this way, relativism should not be factored in or used to explain it. It does NOT apply. When it comes to good and evil, it is a constant! Not a flexible set of views that depend on the situation.

So was the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki evil?

What about the assault on and killing of British soldiers to gain American independence?

What about the execution of convicted criminals?

What about killing the person with a gun pointed at your daughter's head?

Is any taking of a human life by human hands evil, or is it sometimes morally justified?

And who justifies it?
God?
Didn't he say something like "Thou shalt not kill."

Or was that just a command and not a moral stance?

Originally posted by lilblam
You're missing the point. Manking IS Satan, as depicted in the bible. We ARE lucifer.

No, Mankind is lucifer. Satan is the god of the physical, the peon to those that serve self, lord of the underword and prince of all darkness. In the beginning there was darkness... dark matter that became animate.

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
I'm so tired of relativism being applied to what is good and evil, morals, and right and wrong, as if it were some excuse for what we do as humans. Evil is not relative. How can you not notice that? Moral and cultural relativism is used to explain away evil things so people don't have to feel guilty about them, or so that others don't seem like"mean people" when they would otherwise point out something wrong in a certain culture. As hard as it may be to believe, there is a such thing as truth. There is good and evil. NO RELATIVISM!

Good and evil are reflections of service to others and service to self taken to extremes with the resulting consequences.

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
You would like to compare animals to humans? You're confusing relativity in terms of what is good for one side, can be bad for another side, with relativity in terms of what IS wrong or right. Of course during the holocaust, the extermination of Jews was bad for the Jews, but good for Hitler, because his goals were being accomplished. In that way an event such as the holocaust is relative to how different parties see it or gain or lose from it. BUT that has nothing to do with whether or not the actual slaughtering was right or wrong. There is no question, unless one is severely demented, that Hitler's actions were evil. Wrong. Bad. In this way, relativism should not be factored in or used to explain it. It does NOT apply. When it comes to good and evil, it is a constant! Not a flexible set of views that depend on the situation.

You would be shocked if I told you that the cassiopaeans were told that the Jews brought the holocaust upon themselves, example of bad karma being repaid.