It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Satan vs Lucifer

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
you all make good points




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by themako

you all make good points


Thank you mako, you make a good point too: That we can all differ in our ideas and understandings, but still come to a reasonable level of debate on a subject.
Maybe in this "Nutting it out" we can uncover more truths.

Cheers.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by starwarp2000

Originally posted by themako

you all make good points


Thank you mako, you make a good point too: That we can all differ in our ideas and understandings, but still come to a reasonable level of debate on a subject.
Maybe in this "Nutting it out" we can uncover more truths.

Cheers.

Well, i have come to the conclusion that the passage that actually mentions "lucifer" refers to a babylonian king. however the passages from Ezekiel you showed me refer to the fall of Satan, so in my view there is evidence for the fall of Satan, who would later be called Lucifer by most people who believe in the bible.
you and i might disagree with this point, but I am fairly convinced that the fall of Satan was covered in Ezekiel.
more threads need to be threated like this in my opinion, threads in which atheists (like me) and christians/bible followers don't end in the usual flame wars instead of trying to cooperate to see if they can learn something from the other party.
thanks OP for this thread, I might not believe in the stories of the bible but i did gain some knowledge on the character of Satan and that the evidence for his fall is in fact mentioned in the bible.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by starwarp2000

Originally posted by newworld
reply to post by gwynnhwyfar
 


that's the EXACT source i posted in the beginning of the thread. People either don't read it or simply dismiss the information. I thought the issue of the difference between Satan and Lucifer was already clarified in this thread? did i miss something???

(thanks for posting it here though, it will help those who decide to read from the last pages. and sorry if the tone of my post seems to be anger, it's actually neutral
)


Yes you did miss something!
The issue hasn't been clarified.

That article was written by a Theosophist which has nothing to do with the Christian religion.
For a Theosophist to comment on religious matters, would be like next time you want your car fixed you take it to a bicycle mechanic. You may get your car fixed but it wont be as good as a real mechanic and it will probably break down sooner than later.
LOL Like this argument


The Theosophist you would like to dismiss quoted references to specific historical texts. Christian or non-Christian, one can't easily deny the existence of a textual reference. Have you more qualified reference(s) that you could refer us to, in order to clarify the issue?

[edit on 1-0820098-0909 by gwynnhwyfar]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
deleted post because it was just way to out there and I didn't want to get utterly ridiculed.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by nunya13]


Don't think like that nunya.
Your opinion and ideas on the subject are just as valuable and cherished as anyone else's.
Please post away.
I for one will never 'ridicule' you.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Heres something I found on Lucifer its a bit of a long read if you have the time, dated back in the 1800's.
Enjoy.
books.google.com...=onepage&q=&f=false



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by helen670
reply to post by anonamousantichrist
 


Hi anon/

Please do go on,give us your idea of Lucifer?
You wont get flamed by me



Crossing paths again!

ICXC NIKA
helen


hi helen! i hope your doing well and will talk a little about my worldview at your request.

this might or might not be my actual belief along with the path that might have led me there. however, it may also be a tale and nothing more.

IMHO the hierarchy that govern the angelic (both sides) beings is often swept aside or completely ignored for some reason. if one were to study this hierarchy and follow from bottom to top choir, you'll end up at the creator.
at this point a very important verse (romans 14:1) “There is no power but of God" will have a much bigger impact to the overall idea of christianity.
this is due to the fact that the other side also follows a hierarchy structure and if it's followed from bottom to top (according to some) you end up at satan (or equivalent deity).

i consider the point that the creators energy is given a name/meaning (usually dictated by ego i might add) by the creators followers to be very important. this is where the proverbial line is drawn between "good" (represented by metatron) and "evil" (represented by lucifer).

lucifer is the point where the creators will starts to become destructive and might first take on the projected idea of being "dark" by those (well, i'll leave that for another thread as my intent is not to belittle, or otherwise offend anyone) who call the shots. as you take the next step down, you are greeted by the force called satan and in this newly adapted form, the creators will seems to disappear completely and all that is left is pure "evil."

i'll stop there since going any further will be outside the scope of this thread.

so all that boils down to this (in my world view)......
it's easier for man to greet the idea of a evil prince filled with pure hatred who can directly influence man and his lofty goals. should he fail, the reason is already known.... damn that satan!

that said, remember the "important verse" i mentioned earlier? if that is to be taken as truth then it becomes apparent that good/evil are in reality nothing more than the destructive/creative forces (or will) of the creator. if this truth is realized, the names given by man and the ideas they impose cease to exist.

cheers,
AA



i tend to ramble when it gets late so please excuse me if i seem somewhat wordy.



[edit on 1-8-2009 by anonamousantichrist]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
the theory has it it that it is logically impossible for God to be both all-powerful/omnicient and all-good at the same time if evil can be said to exist. If God is all-knowing and thus aware of the evil, and has the power to stop it but doesn't, that implies a supreme being who is either evil himself or at the vary least unecessarily allows this to go on.

A popular (and to me) attractive solution is that posed by St. Augustine: Evil is simply defined as distance from God. God "made us in his likeness" and thus gave us FREE WILL which was his most precious gift. We have abused that gift by going AWAY from God of OUR OWN FREE WILL, first through The Fall and more generally from the sins we commit in life.

I came to understand this question of why God allows evil things to happen as negative philosophy. I like the way you explain evil as a matter of distance from God or the absence of God. This fits quite well with the idea that darkness is the absence of light and so on with cold, negative charge and death. These are all concepts created from human imagination to help explain that which does not exist, or rather the absence from that which does exist.

I disagree with the idea that we abused the gift of free will from God, this would imply that there is a right and wrong way which contradicts the former idea. In my opinion the precious gift 'free will' effectively creates Love. How could Love be true without the ability to chose it of one's own free will. The awful side effect is that terrible things happen but I don't think anyone would ever give up Love to end suffering.


reply to post by inregardstoo
 

Sirius and Venus.
Off the top of my head I remember parts of Hopi myth that talk of the blue star Sirius that reveals its true self by removing its mask, the blue star was also said to be white or pale thus later becoming Venus. I don't know much about Hopi myths because a lot of it has been translated into apocalyptic prophecy which I disagree with.


Originally posted by starwarp2000

Originally posted by dzonatas

There is another Satan, and maybe this is where some confusion comes from. Think of yourself in a mirror. When you read the bible and read about Satan, then consider any personal judgment you make about that Satan in the bible is actually a mirror of you. In effect, you judge yourself. Now you got to live with such judgment until you can overcome it.


What a load of hogwash!!!

You judge yourself???????

Why do we need God then ?????


Does this mean you believe the purpose of God is to judge us?

"Judge not lest ye be judged."
I understand this as through the act of judging other people we are actually judging our self. We can only know that which we have experienced and we are the sum of our experiences.
What we interpret as other people's actions is perceptual information we recognized by comparing it with our own experiences. In short by judging other people we are actually judging our own experiences and thus our self which gives God time to do other stuff.


Originally posted by starwarp2000
Why do people immediately assume that the "Bright Morning Star" in the Bible references Venus?

The idea is not to get stuck on points but to learn from the overall spirit of the teachings.

This has to do with the cultural references and myths from numerous ancient civilizations around the world originating from a time before any of the biblical testaments were written.

I don't understand that last comment, does that mean replace a literal understanding of words with imagination?


Originally posted by undo
reply to post by newworld
 

it's both literal, symbolic/metaphorical and poetic. that's the crux of the problem. some are picking up on one aspect and ignoring the others. for example, the idea that it's purely a story about the movement of planets. if so, why are there literal beings coming down to the earth from the literal planets and literally effecting the lives of the people on the planet, talking to them, interacting with them, and so on? there's the big picture and then the layers of the picture. don't get hung up on just one. they are all relevant.


Thank you, this is a good point and a question I have thought about myself. I have always been more interested in science (astronomy) than religion or reading biblical testaments until I began to learn about ancient astrology and mythology. It would be an understatement to say there are a lot of obvious connections between the three in a literal manner but if these stories were about astronomy what of the cognitive encounters. Like the ten commandments, confusion of languages, the true name of God and knowledge of the written word. However, I have found that this approach bears a new light on the phrase 'taking the bible literally'.

I would like to add that I am honestly interested in the discussion here and I don't mean to disrespect anyone through my comments nor do I wish to persuade anyone's religious belief. These are just words and words are practically worthless.
The more that I learn about astronomy, astrology, religion and myth the stronger my own personal faith has become. I have put most of this faith in Jesus and his teachings and save little for the worlds religious leaders.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


it's like nimrod. the guy is all over the ancient texts. we've been lead to believe, by modern historians, that the guy was a biblical fiction. if so, then he was also an akkadian fiction, babylonian fiction and egyptian fiction. that's some hefty lying by a whole lot of people. his name actually means "rebel"..it's a descriptive title, not his real name.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by newworld
reply to post by gwynnhwyfar
 


that's the EXACT source i posted in the beginning of the thread. People either don't read it or simply dismiss the information. I thought the issue of the difference between Satan and Lucifer was already clarified in this thread? did i miss something???

(thanks for posting it here though, it will help those who decide to read from the last pages. and sorry if the tone of my post seems to be anger, it's actually neutral
)



The fact that Lucifer and Christ are both referred to as "The Morning Star" in the Bible is one of the biggest and most confusing discrepancies found in the Bible. We need to take a second look at the doctrine and dogma that's been handed down to us by the Church. Thanks to both of you for posting this snippet of Theosophy.

I think the key to understanding this apparent contradiction lay in the understanding that our life on Earth is part of a continuing cyclic interplay of forces. Depending on if one looks at the involutionary or downward flow of energy "into" matter, or the evolutionary or upward flow of energy "out of" matter, will determine which side of the coin one is viewing.




[edit on 1-8-2009 by Neo__]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Question for OP: since you chose to include a disclaimer.....just wondering....We are to research all sources that contain info on Stan and Lucious then report our findings? Kinda boring, aint it? It doesnt leave any room for the discussion concerning good and evil, sorry but boooring. So its a doctrine study? Is this your question?

ACCODING TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, whats the difference between Satan and Lucifer?

Does my research have to use biblical sources only? Commentary on the bible?,

Its a cool question, an opinion question since there are so many possibilities.

Satn and Lhifer could be simply words that have evolved over many years and have come to represent evil, and mans study of evil actually created characters of reference..Since it seems that the point of the bible is that everything is open for intgerperetation...Stn and lcfro may have actually been physical being..s..created from the vapor of a dying consience...spitting in the dust so to speak



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyred
reply to post by Apache-Yaqui
 


Seems very similar to Baptists. My daughter wanted to be baptized, because my wife and I saw nothing in this ritual and did not insist upon it. So we went to her baptism. There was a big tank of water behind the stage and she was dunked in the joy of Jesus. Yee Haw! She said it was a wonderful experience. Yet, there were younger people who were scared and forced to be dunked. Oh, yeah, the devil or Satan or Lucifer was in them and so that is why they were afraid and fought against it. lol. My daughter, the baptized Christian, washed in the blood of the lamb. Yikes. She's the worst of my three.



But like God, I love her. Unlike God, I won't forsake her for not believing in me and send her to an eternity of hell and damnation.



see what i mean. this punk is actually tryin' to say it was the devil that wanted me not to get baptize

noo it was my free will, pendejo



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

I have a difficult time with how ancient astrology and myths are considered by science today. They are said to be fictional stories that are metaphorical in meaning and thus contain no scientific value. If we consider how some ancient writing used a rhetorical form of expression to help capture the drama of events then they are said to be fictional stories based on a literal interpretation.

It doesn't take long searching on the web to find several examples of the cycling of knowledge throughout time. It is quite possible that the civilizations from the time these ancient myths and testaments originated possessed far more knowledge than when the bible was put together and translated.

It's very obvious that much time and care was put into translating the testaments but what about the decisions made on what stories go in the bible and what stories do not. Which ones are pseudo-science or meaningless superstitions and which ones are accounts of observed historical events?

Many of these decisions were made a long time ago and since then we have learned much. Earth is not the center of the Universe, rocks do fall from the sky, comets are asteroids with tails that ignite near the Sun, some planets have cometary tails and these tails are partly made up of plasma that have dramatic effects in magnetic fields. Plasma tails are different colors and change shapes with an animated appearance and the likeness of living creatures. I believe all of these examples have been described in numerous ancient myths from civilizations around the world yet these are fairly new discoveries for us today.

[edit on 8/2/2009 by Devino]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Hi all

I wont go as far to say Lucifer is ‘one’ being, it makes more sense to me that Luciferian worship be more of a way/belief system as opposed to a single being/entity, whether it be a dark emperor whose power/control structure depends on the perpetuation of said energy in their minions ala starwars’ darkside, or perhaps a planet/dimension, species included, whose survival depends on the energy collected, like the monsters inc world with the screams/fear of the children that was vital to their worlds survival.. Just as the Sun, or its energy rather, is key to our planet and all beings here’s survival.

I cant tie Lucifer and the god/satan concept together. Luciferianism appears to be a serious secretive business. It appears those that know the actual dynamics or fundamentals keep it hidden or perhaps they just aren’t in my neighbourhood and that why I cant find worshippers to spill their beans!

I have been pondering whether we all inadvertently contribute energy towards Luciferian worship everyday since I saw the Alpha Romeo logo of the lizard eating a person and the templars cross. Is this symbol a sign of a ritually bound brand? If so does the bound brand transform your innocent intentions and love for your vehicle into something else to feed its source? Its likely this may be the smallest cult in the world but the most prevalent in our everyday life.

When you consider it’s said that the NWO elites (the badies) allegedly worship a luciferian belief/way and their use of symbols, Key to this Luciferian worship appears to be about harvesting energy from this world or at least the human visible spectrum and directing it somewhere for a purpose we know not.

Could buying an alpha romeo or music by an artist who is signed to an badie owned music label or fast food from one of their chains be an indirect way to ‘harvest’ said energy?.

Its my view that Satan is something a guilty catholic or christian made up. I stated this in an earlier post here. The concept is just too perfect to be a plain statement that he’s a real ‘he’, Its the ideal ‘justification’ for the wrong doings of church goers but even more-so the perfect concept to induce submission and control through the fear of believers, church goers and all Christians that they COULD be led astray/sin by satan or by whatever they consider the work of satan.

He goes hand in hand in the bible with that old chestnut ‘temptation. Now with the ‘temptation is bad’ concept and the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ passage in the bible, well could it be said the ‘temptation and wolf’ are infact these everyday things we consume.

As to whether Lucifer and satan are one in the same or not, regardless of what we all think or believe this concept exists as a belief system and hence something is benefiting from the worship. If this is happening through a passive means such as buying an alpha because you like them then that sucks


Cheers everyone
Have the best day
themuse




[edit on 2/8/2009 by themuse]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


i read a very interesting book a few years ago, describing things like the crossing of the red sea, as a ufo incident. he explained that the text reveals as much by its description of a pillar of fire by night, a pillar of cloud by day, and the warm "north wind" blowing steadily during the course of the evening before the parting of the red sea, which he says was a stream of air forced downward on the sea floor, parting the water and drying out the sea bed . it was absolutely fascinating. but he didn't stop there. he covered every example, both old and new testament, of similar events

now i'm not saying that the choice of texts is either inerrant or incorrect. but i will say that reading the available texts, either biblical or extra-biblical, in their original languages (strong's concordance helps with this greatly), is a real eye-opener.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by undo]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Satan. A Hebrew Word Meaning "Accuser".

"In the Bible

Where Satan does appear in the Bible, he plays the role of the Accuser.

According to the article on 'Satan' in the Jewish Encyclopedia, Satan's role as the accuser is found:

in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: 'From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.' (Job 1:7) Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as having the evil purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering. (ib. ii. 3-5.)

Yet it is also evident from the prologue that Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress. He cannot be regarded, therefore, as an opponent of the Deity; and the doctrine of monotheism is disturbed by his existence no more than by the presence of other beings before the face of God. This view is also retained in Zech. 3:1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the 'angel of the Lord' who bids him be silent in the name of God.

In both of these passages Satan acts only under permission; but in I Chron. 21:1 he appears as one who is able to provoke David to destroy Israel. The Chronicler (third century B.C.)

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Manjushri Bodhisattva]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Manjushri Bodhisattva
 


Lucifer. The Bright Morning Star. (This is not a Reference to Venus, But Rather Tiamat, Before it was Destroyed)

"In Latin, the word "Lucifer", meaning "Light-Bringer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), is a name used for the Morning Star (the planet Venus in its dawn appearances).[25] The word is used in its astronomical sense both in prose[26] and poetry,[27] but most poets personify the star in a mythological context.[28]"

"The Lucifer story
Lucifer, another of Gustave Doré's illustrations for Paradise Lost by John Milton.

A pagan myth of the fall of angels, associated with the morning star, was transferred to Satan already in the pre-Christian century, as seen in the Life of Adam and Eve and the Second Book of Enoch[3], where Satan-Sataniel (sometimes identified with Samael) is described as having been one of the archangels. Because he contrived "to make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth and resemble 'My power' on high", Satan-Sataniel was hurled down, with his hosts of angels, and since then he has been flying in the air continually above the abyss.[4]

Early Christian writers continued this identification of "Lucifer" with Satan. Tertullian ("Contra Marrionem," v. 11, 17), Origen ("Ezekiel Opera," iii. 356), and others, identify Lucifer with Satan, who also is represented as being "cast down from heaven" (Revelation 12:7-10; cf. Luke 10:18).[4]

However, some contemporary exorcists and theologians such as Father Jose Antonio Fortea and Father Amorth in their experience and based on Bible interpretations have reasons to believe that Satan and Lucifer are different beings.[5]"



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Manjushri Bodhisattva
 


i've pondered this entire interaction, between God and Satan, as similar in effect to a super computer and its anti-virus software. God being the super computer, was protected by (the covering cherubim) the safeguard, such as an anti-virus program, who's job it is to deny access to any program trying to access the super computer, if the program does not have the correct codes to do so. the anti-virus program has amended its own software so that the codes to access the super computer are so incredibly difficult to ascertain that literally no new programs are accepted. the super computer , aware of this malfunction, bypasses the faulty anti-viral program by creating his own program, that is a random number generator bridge, like a hack program, similar to Neo in the Matrix, which is represented by Jesus.


p.s. i'm not saying God is a super computer. it's an analogy, like a parable.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by undo]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Manjushri Bodhisattva
 


tiamat was NOT a planet. that's sitchin's theory based on his own translations of the enuma elish. but if you read the enuma elish for yourself, you will see tiamat is not a planet.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

I have read several different ideas about these ancient stories and I also find them fascinating. It wasn't until recently that I realized how I memorize all of this. The ideas that I have neither accepted nor dismissed, like biblical and mythical stories, I put on a back shelf in my mind.

When I began to see connections with myth, religion and science everything started popping up. Some of it I learned in school over 30 years ago. I didn't understand this stuff believing, as I was told, that I wasn't paying attention. Then I realized that it was because it didn't make sense and we were going through the material too slow. The difference is between the rote teaching of knowledge and understanding where knowledge can be forgotten or even false but understanding is always true and never forgotten.

I don't believe that these stories are about UFO's and alien cridders any more than supernatural entities popping in and out doing magic tricks. I do believe that most of them are accounts of events that were either witnessed or somehow understood and recorded in a way that can correctly be deciphered with the right translations. The one thing that they all have in common is how astronomical events effect humanity and how we all are linked to the Universe or the heavens.

This is a connection of the different stories I have read in the past, btw I view this with skepticism and even though I see some truth in it I consider it fiction.
Lucifer was the planet Venus that was once sitting at the throne of God, orbiting Jupiter, and tried to overthrow God by succeeding his throne, orbiting between Jupiter and Earth thus becoming a planet or a god. I am not suggesting that Jupiter is God but it has been referred to as the king of the gods by many cultures.
This caused great turmoil in the heavens and on Earth that was seen as an evil attempt to destroy humanity. Lucifer was then cast down from heaven becoming the morning star which is an inferior planet to all the others, except Mercury-the messenger of the gods. The story continues to describe the disruption of some planets our Moon and numerous smaller bodies in a heavenly battle that shakes the Earth causing several global catastrophes ending the civilizations of the world.
This suggests that Venus was seen as a deceiver of man, once thought to bring knowledge and life but ended up nearly destroying humanity.

I find all of this very interesting and valuable if for no other reason than creating a desire within me to learn about science, religion and past cultural beliefs.


Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Manjushri Bodhisattva
 


tiamat was NOT a planet. that's sitchin's theory based on his own translations of the enuma elish. but if you read the enuma elish for yourself, you will see tiamat is not a planet.


I thought Tiamat had a place in ancient myth connecting it to Gaia and Earth. This gets really deep in Greek mythology as the original god was Neptune and Gaia being the mother of most of the planets and many moons later becoming Earth. Sitchin may have got the translation incorrect but I haven't read anything connecting Venus to Tiamat otherwise.



[edit on 8/2/2009 by Devino]




top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join