|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:51 am
alrighty! this is a disscussion that i foolishly attempted in the extended discussion and pretty much got shouted at by nit pickers (bar one very nice person).
however, i really kinda liked the topic hence the reason for me putting it to the sane people of this guild. in an attempt to avoid being shouted at again i am gonna say three things:
1) i want to learn from this discussion not show off any knowledge i have whether it be right or not.
2) this discusion is not limited to the Bible and can go into any culture if you so wish to
3) i'm using the name Lucifer to refer to the Devil because it is a name that is used to refer to him, just not prolifericly in the Bible.
*ahem* sorry about that, i've become a little paranoid. carrying on.....
when Lucifer rebeled, why didnt God kill him? surely it would have sorted out a lot of problems.
pondering no.1:
God and Lucifer represent two sides of the same being and provide a balance between good and bad. this may be seen in the Bible because in the OT, God is more along the lines of smite the non believer etc and even goes as far as to promote war. whereas in the NT He is pro peace and agape.
also angels are meant to have the appeareance of humans who are supposedly made in the image of God (and therefore contain Him), so wouldn't it follow that angels are also made in the image of God and contain a bit of Him. so Lucifer and God are the same thing (sort of :-s).
pondering no. 2:
Lucifer and God are actually two different beings but have a contract. this is in the sense that God provides the law and Lucifer provides the punishment for not following the law.
pondering no.3:
Lucifer was not killed to prove an point to the rest of the angels and humans. he also serves a purpose which is to provide a choice for humans, either to obey or disobey God.
pondering no. 4:
God's reasoning is something that nobody can understand and if we tried then our heads would probably explode.
any more ideas!!?? biggrin
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:34 am
Tsuki Yuki Kuki alrighty! this is a disscussion that i foolishly attempted in the extended discussion and pretty much got shouted at by nit pickers (bar one very nice person).
however, i really kinda liked the topic hence the reason for me putting it to the sane people of this guild. in an attempt to avoid being shouted at again i am gonna say three things:
1) i want to learn from this discussion not show off any knowledge i have whether it be right or not.
2) this discusion is not limited to the Bible and can go into any culture if you so wish to
3) i'm using the name Lucifer to refer to the Devil because it is a name that is used to refer to him, just not prolifericly in the Bible.
*ahem* sorry about that, i've become a little paranoid. carrying on.....when Lucifer rebeled, why didnt God kill him? surely it would have sorted out a lot of problems.pondering no.1: God and Lucifer represent two sides of the same being and provide a balance between good and bad. this may be seen in the Bible because in the OT, God is more along the lines of smite the non believer etc and even goes as far as to promote war. whereas in the NT He is pro peace and agape. also angels are meant to have the appeareance of humans who are supposedly made in the image of God (and therefore contain Him), so wouldn't it follow that angels are also made in the image of God and contain a bit of Him. so Lucifer and God are the same thing (sort of :-s). pondering no. 2: Lucifer and God are actually two different beings but have a contract. this is in the sense that God provides the law and Lucifer provides the punishment for not following the law. pondering no.3: Lucifer was not killed to prove an point to the rest of the angels and humans. he also serves a purpose which is to provide a choice for humans, either to obey or disobey God. pondering no. 4: God's reasoning is something that nobody can understand and if we tried then our heads would probably explode. any more ideas!!?? biggrin My answer to this would be "mu" - that is, the question itself is incorrect. I don't think the answer can be found by using the anthropomorphic versions of "god" and "lucifer" that the Bible gives us. It's kind of like how you can say that on your computer, there is a folder called "My Pictures" that has pictures in it, right? Wrong. The "folder" isn't a folder - it's a bunch of electrical signals. The "pictures" aren't pictures - they're arrangements of electrons transmitting charge. The "picture" and the "folder" are subjective, technically "incorrect" abstractions of objective reality - but, even though they are technically incorrect, they are still significantly helpful. So too with God and Lucifer, I think. While it may be helpful to think of Lucifer having had this rebellion and then being cast down by God, it isn't the full story. Just as the folders aren't folders, God isn't God, so it's meaningless to extend the metaphor too far by concieving of God and Lucifer being simply discrete, individual entities. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be totally wrong. =P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:54 pm
Mitsh My answer to this would be "mu" - that is, the question itself is incorrect. I don't think the answer can be found by using the anthropomorphic versions of "god" and "lucifer" that the Bible gives us. It's kind of like how you can say that on your computer, there is a folder called "My Pictures" that has pictures in it, right? Wrong. The "folder" isn't a folder - it's a bunch of electrical signals. The "pictures" aren't pictures - they're arrangements of electrons transmitting charge. The "picture" and the "folder" are subjective, technically "incorrect" abstractions of objective reality - but, even though they are technically incorrect, they are still significantly helpful. So too with God and Lucifer, I think. While it may be helpful to think of Lucifer having had this rebellion and then being cast down by God, it isn't the full story. Just as the folders aren't folders, God isn't God, so it's meaningless to extend the metaphor too far by concieving of God and Lucifer being simply discrete, individual entities. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be totally wrong. =P
................now thats really set me off on one.
now i feel kinda narrow minded in terms of my question, he he.
thanks for the idea Mitsh!! biggrin
p.s. i was talking to some one about it today and they said that they believed that Lucifer and God didn't exist so my question is negated. still its an idea!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:13 pm
My take on it is that Lucifer and God are the same being, just different aspects. One resides in the Paradise, and the other in the Inferno (a god can be in two places simultaneously. Or could split himself).
A good example would be Jyggulag (Daedric prince of Order) and Sheogorath (Daedric prince of Madness) from Oblivion. They are the same guy.
The reason why God did not destroy Lucifer was because in doing so, he would be destroying half of himself.
That's one of my theories, among others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:40 pm
Mitsh My answer to this would be "mu" - that is, the question itself is incorrect. I don't think the answer can be found by using the anthropomorphic versions of "god" and "lucifer" that the Bible gives us. It's kind of like how you can say that on your computer, there is a folder called "My Pictures" that has pictures in it, right? Wrong. The "folder" isn't a folder - it's a bunch of electrical signals. The "pictures" aren't pictures - they're arrangements of electrons transmitting charge. The "picture" and the "folder" are subjective, technically "incorrect" abstractions of objective reality - but, even though they are technically incorrect, they are still significantly helpful. So too with God and Lucifer, I think. While it may be helpful to think of Lucifer having had this rebellion and then being cast down by God, it isn't the full story. Just as the folders aren't folders, God isn't God, so it's meaningless to extend the metaphor too far by concieving of God and Lucifer being simply discrete, individual entities. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be totally wrong. =P so how should the question be asked? for those that do beleive in God and Satan and define their world, ethics and lifestyles based on that beleif, how should they go about thyinking about this question? we have to take that beleif as a premise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:41 pm
You cannot destroy destruction by creating destruction yourself. To allow the embodiment of wrath to live is to leave wrath an option for a human. Having a choice, one is not forced to simply perform the act of compassion, but one has the ability to choose it, to discover it, to create it, and to transcend nature entirely. However, when one does invoke scorn and act upon one with compassion, and the sword passes through the ethereal body without causing injury, then malice is truly defeated. When compassion then gives destruction a gift; independence, free will (as he longed for), and a chance to try again and again, the hand holding the sword will tire, and eventually, the loathing being finds that his sword is born of suffering, and begins to mend his own wound rather than create wounds in others. Symbolically speaking, God does not exactly destroy Lucifer, rather Lucifer will come to embrace compassion for himself followed by compassion for others. Perhaps, still symbolically speaking, that is how God is born.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:15 pm
I always thought Lucipher was Satan's son.((The devil and Satan aren't the same thing. Devil is a tarot card that says something about places of power.Devil and Satan however are considered the same thing due to ignorant Christians))
well anyways to my poiint.
If God had destroyed Satan he would basically be destroying the whole universe. Because Yin can't have Yang. Yang can't live without Yin. It's the whole balnce thing. That's why if Satan would be destroyed so would God would need to be destroyed in order for the world to survive. Evil and Good are the same coin as is order and chaos, justice and crime, so on and so forth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:31 am
Marokia I always thought Lucipher was Satan's son.((The devil and Satan aren't the same thing. Devil is a tarot card that says something about places of power.Devil and Satan however are considered the same thing due to ignorant Christians)) well anyways to my poiint. If God had destroyed Satan he would basically be destroying the whole universe. Because Yin can't have Yang. Yang can't live without Yin. It's the whole balnce thing. That's why if Satan would be destroyed so would God would need to be destroyed in order for the world to survive. Evil and Good are the same coin as is order and chaos, justice and crime, so on and so forth. I think you've thrust a literal interpretation on a metaphysical notion right there. The idea that "good cannot exist without evil" is not a literal law - it doesn't stipulate that if Satan is destroyed, that God will suddenly explode. It's more subtle than that - it encapsulates the idea that if the concept of "evil" did not exist, we wouldn't be able to define "good" (as flawed as that reasoning may be,, it's the sentiment behind the statement). For comparison's sake, try defining the direction "left" without ever mentioning or referring to the direction "right". Also, if you're going to throw out a declaration of Satan and the Devil not being the same thing, by all means back it up with Biblical references. Otherwise, it smarts of teenage anti-Christian sentiment and the pomposity of a mindset that's managed to "prove" a part of an established religion's dogma "wrong".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:35 am
honestly, my own belief on this matter has gone WAY out there, and i am currently still inthe throes of realizing that i have absolutely no comprehension whatsoever of ********, or Satan/Shaytan/Iblis/Azazael/Melek ********. the best i can comprehend them as are forces.
the Creator Being, the omniprescent omniscient progenitor, is a being of Light, that is, the concept of Existance. teh Devil being a proud being created by Him (though i disbelieve in His objective gender-specific identity.) who made a choice that the Creator deemed him unworthy of His paradise for. the thing that makes your question hard for me to answer is that i have come to a theory that there has to be a third being in the picture. one that is equal and opposite to the Creator. a force of Entropy, non-existance, which is itself a paradox (but then again, what is the Creator, the definition of infinite, if not a paradox?).
i pose a question of my own now. if we were to have to say that the concept of non-existance can only exist because of existance, is there realy entropy? it is said that Darkness is merely the absence of Light. that it doesn't exist because it is only the lack of something. but then, if Light isn't EVERYWHERE, wouldn't then Darkness Entropy and non-existance) exist (does that make sense? o.O wink wherever the Light isn't?
the only thing i could come up with in responce to this question i asked myself is the statement "nothing isn't."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:46 am
To address your last paragraph, chief, you're treating "Darkness" as an entity that has physical "existence", which isn't the case. Light "exists", and that is all - "darkness" is just the name given to the places where light doesn't reach, and outside of our terminology, does not exist as a discrete entity. Amusingly, there's no duality whatsoever, contrary to all the various media that use the concept of "Two forces, darkness and light, evil and good". I'm not sure how you've managed to relate that to entropy, though.
Similarly, just because light isn't somewhere does not mean that there is some odd material that is a "lack of existence" there. When you wipe ink off of part of a whiteboard, you don't remove that part of the whiteboard too.
Lastly, Chief, your philosophy seems to be approaching Gnosticism. Take a look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 9:02 am
There's several problems with the God/Lucifer duality.
First, Lucifer is not synonymous with Satan or the Devil, or anything evil. The association comes from a misinterpretation of the Isaiah (I'll have to find the verse), which people read as Lucifer's fall from heaven, when it's really the King of Babylon's fall from God's favor (where God makes it very clear that Nebuchadnezzar is not god-like at all by killing him). Also, "Lucifer" is the Latin name for the morning star, which is a product of the King James translation, because Latin did not exist when that part of the Bible was written.
Secondly, Satan never rebelled against God. Satan is a servant of God. He tempts people, he messes with them, but it's not because he hates God, it's because God told him to. The book of Job describes this, where God and Satan discuss how Satan will destroy everything Job loves in order to test his faith in God. (God liked to bet with people in the Old Testament, even when he already knew the outcome).
Now, if you want to argue that there is a concept of an anti-God, that's fine, but it's not the Biblical account of Satan or Lucifer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
