Why do you leap to that conclusion when God gave His creatures free will? That includes angels.. Surely, it is ridiculous for a created being to think they could ultimately challenge Gods authority, but the sin of pride has a way of clouding someones judgement.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Damn, this is a lot more boring than I expected. There's nothing here about how a created entity can even think about challenging an omnipotent, omniscient being. Spending any more than two seconds to think about the concept of Lucifer's defiance would lead to the conclusion that God is neither. That is, if you believe that Satan exists.

Damn, this is a lot more boring than I expected. There's nothing here about how a created entity can even think about challenging an omnipotent, omniscient being. Spending any more than two seconds to think about the concept of Lucifer's defiance would lead to the conclusion that God is neither. That is, if you believe that Satan exists.

and according to your myth, who created evil and lucifer?

[redacted]

@Mcboinkens:

There is a very important fact underlying this entire argument about Venus that you seem to be missing. Mentioning a bright point of light in a Bible verse is not the same thing as mentioning a planet in a Bible verse.

I acknowledged that I misunderstood your original point here and here so I don't know why you are restating it as if it's something new. I made a mistake; let's move on.

The Peter verse is not mentioning anything other than a bright source rising in your heart. Not at all a reference to even anything astronomical, so that's not worth mentioning anymore. The Isaiah passage could be referring to anything in the sky, or even anything at all quite frankly. It could be talking about the moon, or the sun, or any other star, or planet they thought was a star.

Why would they say "lucifer" then? It sounds like you think it was a generic term for any bright object and I have not seen evidence supporting that. If there is some, show me.

Furthermore, that metaphor is complete trash, because if it was referring to Venus, it would be completely wrong, as Venus travels across the entire sky, just like any other planet. There are nights where Venus is very high into the sky, so I don't even know what you are talking about.

Generally Venus is only visible near the horizon as it gets washed out by the sun. The allegory of the King is that he tried to position himself above God and failed. During Venus's Morning Star phase, it rises ahead of the sun only to vanish in the daylight. It could also be that, as an inferior planet, Venus appears to get ahead of and then fall behind the other stars. Neither is a bad metaphor for what happened to the King, though I like the former explanation better than the latter.

There is no use arguing about it though, the Bible is written and won't change.

Of course it will. It has changed dozens of times. With each new edition it is "translated" to more closely represent the story the translators wish it was. That's how "Lucifer" became an alias for Satan in the first place. Will it ever tell us things we don't already know? Of course not.

For whatever it's worth, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing.

[redacted]

@RadHazG: First, pointing out that they called the planet a "star" does not change the fact that the dot of light in the sky was Venus. Second, your argument is addressing a point which I already admitted was a misunderstanding of Mcboinkens's original comment. Third, lucifer means "light-bearer", not "morning star", so your argument would fall apart even if it were relevant. "Morning Star" is an English creation.

@Mcboinkens: "It doesn't mention the planet Lucifer in the Bible, only the fallen angel." ... "Right, neither time does it refer to Satan."

2 Peter 1:19 sounds to me like they are, at the very least, using the planet's name metaphorically. Even if I'm wrong about that, it's clearly not a reference to Satan like you originally claimed.

In Isaiah it's clearly metaphorical as the King sought to rise higher than God only to fail and fall, the same way Venus rises low in the sky in the morning but then sets without ever climbing very high.

[redacted]

Nothing about that says planet. It simply states with analogies that prophecy is a guiding light in the darkness. Nothing here about how Lucifer (or morning *STAR*) is a planet. Back then it was just another bright spot in the sky, and thus *tada*! a star.

2 Peter 1:19-21

New International Version (NIV)

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^Mcboinkens:
Not one mention of anything outside of the sun and the moon. No planets, galaxies, nebula. Then again, they didn't have words for those objects back then and it would have been a little difficult to explain something they didn't know existed, but still.
I don't disagree with your general point but I thought I'd mention that Lucifer is the Latin name for the planet Venus.

I don't see how that is relevant. Lucifer is latin(lucem ferre) for light-bearer. Obviously there would be overlap for the 3rd brightest object in the sky and an angel(turned evil) named that. It doesn't mention the planet Lucifer in the Bible, only the fallen angel.


From your response to shimfish I see that what you were looking for was new knowledge; that wasn't clear to me in your original post.

But know that, in the Vulgate, the word lucifer appears only twice and neither time does it refer to Satan. In 2 Peter 1:19 it refers specifically to the planet. In Isaiah 14:12 it's used metaphorically for the king of Babylon. Not until the King James translation, I believe, was "Lucifer" used as a name for Satan.

http://www.cresourcei.org/lucifer.html

[redacted]

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Mcboinkens:
Not one mention of anything outside of the sun and the moon. No planets, galaxies, nebula. Then again, they didn't have words for those objects back then and it would have been a little difficult to explain something they didn't know existed, but still.
I don't disagree with your general point but I thought I'd mention that Lucifer is the Latin name for the planet Venus.


Remarkably well named too. 92atm and over 700°K on the surface? sounds like hell to me

>> ^Mcboinkens:
Not one mention of anything outside of the sun and the moon. No planets, galaxies, nebula. Then again, they didn't have words for those objects back then and it would have been a little difficult to explain something they didn't know existed, but still.

I don't disagree with your general point but I thought I'd mention that Lucifer is the Latin name for the planet Venus.

You should pick up some of the later stuff. Some of those graphic novels are awesome. I like "the gift", "all his engines", "pandemonium", and "hard time".

>> ^ponceleon:
Actually, I disagree with Budzos... I enjoyed the movie a lot more than the comic. I found the comics very hokey and disjointed in comparison, whereas the movie really encapsulated what I would LOVE religion to be. To me Catholicism is empty just because it has claims to relics, spells, and traditions which are ineffective in our world but pretend to be powerful in the way they are presented in this movie.
Religion would kick ass if it was based on a reality like this... I'm not sure how else to say it, but religion (and Catholicism specifically) is like people playing a childish game in which they are trying to imagine a world like this movie portrays.
To get more specific, I liked the explanations and backgrounds of the characters much better in the movie than in the comics. The comic has John Constantine being an ex glam-rocker who is slightly psychic/mystic and who's "damnation" doesn't come from an attempted suicide as in the movie, but rather a botched exorcism which is just kinda stupid. The whole suicide thing is really well done in the reimagining in the movie and makes a lot more sense.
Papa midnight is another character which is vastly improved in the movie. In the book, he seems more like a reject from Live and Let Die, a blaxploitation stereotype, whereas in the movie they really brought home the idea of someone that lives between two allegiances.
As for the use of "guns" and other 007ny stuff, I really thought it worked a lot better than the way they present him in the books. Frankly I'd rather have Constantine wielding a holy shotgun with blessed bullets than looking for a tape of his music video in his trashy apartment.
I'll admit that I only got through three of the graphic novels before I stopped, but I just feel that the changes made to Constantine's development improve vastly over what I saw in the books. As for making him American, I hate Keanu in most of his performances and I thought he really brought it for this one. I was pleasantly surprised and this movie remains one of my all-time favs.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.


If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..
In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.
Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.
Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.
Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.
Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.
That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.


Indeed, that does just about sum it up.

Kceaton doesn't need to try to negate your Christian god's omniscience (assuming the proposition that he exists in the first place is true, which you haven't even attempted to demonstrate). You did that just swimmingly all on your own, assuming again, that you're not a liar or playing Devil's Advocate and earnestly believe what you just typed.

Thanks for saving anyone with any inclination to refute your imaginary friend a whole lot of time by doing it for us. Also, cognitive dissonance doesn't mean what you think it means. I would say that you were a fantastic example of it in action but that means you would need to actually recognize (in some form) the incongruity of your own silly, self-contradictory beliefs and/or be bothered by it.