Who is Lucifer? Who is the Devil? Who is Satan?

[Southtown]

First question, I would say yes, by definition.

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/condemnation

 

Condemnation and punishment are two different things. Biblical condemnation is synonymous with regret and guilt as I interpret scripture. This logically leads one to your next question, of course.

 

Second question, I honestly don't know. There's the normal Christian mantra 'believe and thou wilt be saved', which is not entirely unscriptural. But I consider it a little ambiguous. Try reading Ezekiel 33:12 sometime. 'Salvation by faith alone' also conflicts with comments by both the Messiah and a disciple or two. (Matthew 7:21; 1 John 2:17; James 2:24) I outline my theology in some detail in another forum.

 

http://homeofmercy.com/gracediscussion/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=552&st=20#entry4386

 

I will say here, though, that I don't believe in heaven, hell, or life after death. I believe in the resurrections of everyone on earth. The first being the "righteous", the second being the "wicked", and both being seperated by a thousand years. (Revelation 20) Exactly what takes place from the first resurrection on, I am not so sure.

 

I won't really argue the factuality of any of this, but I will attempt to argue the internal consistencies of both scripture and my view of it.

[Ananke]

Interesting. I have always been of the opinion, that if God is indeed just, then there can be no eternal punishment. Since no mortal sin is infinite, it would be comically disproprtionate to punish it infinitely.

 

Do you also beleive that the Devil will be forgiven in time?

[Michaelangelica]

I thought Christians interpreted the Old testament in the light of the teachings of Jesus? Which helps tone down its judgemental-ness?

 

Buddhists believe there is good in everybody. So the devil has to be good, especially as he was created by God. God in his omnipotence knew what would happen with his creation.

[Ananke]

Buddists dont believe in a devil, so on what basis would they claim it is good?

[Michaelangelica]

Buddists dont believe in a devil, so on what basis would they claim it is good?

There is good in everbody. Even Chinese Communists so why not lucifer?

[HydrogenBond]

Lucifer is both good and evil. Lucifer was the ego-centric departure from nature that had both progressive and regressive consequences. Law attempted to compile a greatest hits album of progressive and separate out the regressive. But knowledge of law of good and evil still requires programming the brain with the regressive side of the law. This sets two subroutines in the brain, at an unconscious level, that is the light and darksides of human nature.

 

If one looks at neurosis, often a singular event can have perpetual consequences for some people. A good example is battle fatigue. Many years of programming the darkside of law, combined with the fire and brimstone associated with its violation, create a collective neurosis called the darkside of human nature. Because it is collective it is called normal. But in reality it is an unnatural state of mind like a neurosis.

 

The symbol Satan allows for a balance between good and the collecitve unconscious compulsion stemming from the dark subroutine. Culture is not perfect but liveable and slowly progressive. The Devil is when the dark subroutine becomes dominant with more control over the ego than the good side of the law.

 

Christ did away with law by summarizing it as love your neighbor. What this was suppose to do was remove the darkside of law so the subroutine loses its memory grid and become weaker. This would have worked on children not yet programmed. It also worked for a small group of the earliest Christians, but these were sacrificed by the Devil aspect of the subroutine, i.e, evil compulsions, that were already programmed in the adults. The result was a need to return to law and Satan to take away power from the Devil aspect of the subroutine.

[Southtown]

Interesting. I have always been of the opinion, that if God is indeed just, then there can be no eternal punishment. Since no mortal sin is infinite, it would be comically disproprtionate to punish it infinitely.

 

Do you also beleive that the Devil will be forgiven in time?

Though, I did believe it at first, the concept of eternal hell doesn't seem to agree with scripture. (Isaiah 5:24; Obadiah 1:17-18; Malachi 4:1-3; Matthew 10:28; 2 Peter 2:12) Neither is the immortal soul or ghostly afterlife supported. (Romans 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:53-54; 1 Timothy 6:13-16; 2 Timothy 1:10) One would wonder how such ideas came to permeate the Roman Catholic Church (or Universal Greek Indoctrination in english.)

 

And forgiving the Devil is probably possible since God is characterized as being all good. But, I look at forgiveness kinda like a beach towel. Yeah, anyone can use it, and it will get the job done, assuming they actually get out of the water first.

 

I thought Christians interpreted the Old testament in the light of the teachings of Jesus? Which helps tone down its judgemental-ness?

The NT did reveal a lot about the OT. For example, in the OT God promises really good things to those who keep his commandments, and really bad things to those who break them. Well, typical dispensational Christianity believes that pre-Messianic Israel was 'saved/condemned' by the law of Moses because Jesus (or Yahushua in hebrew) wasn't around for them to 'believe in'.

 

But reality tends to be a rather stubborn negotiator. The glaring fact remains; nobody's perfect. If ancient Israel was condemned for breaking the law, then nobody from Israel will receive everlasting life. Scripture even says that "all have fallen short of the glory of God" and "there are none who seek good, they have all turned away".

 

Without getting into too much detail, Jesus finally comes along and keeps the commandments, and thus inherits the promises. While salvation may seem like a pretty exclusive club at this moment, what is of note is that God's statements in the OT to bless the commandment keeper were not completely worthless. Neither was the law of Moses void of purpose as it represented the nature of Jesus.

 

The commandments served as a 'fingerprint ID' since nobody else managed to keep them perfectly. Look at the law of Moses as a mix of moral instruction, prophecy, and Messianic validation, to prove his divine nature and set him apart from the rest of the world. But it is by no means meant to judge people by their ability to jump through hoops. (1 Samuel 16:7)

 

Ok, so Jesus was a spotless sacrifice for the remission of sins, occurring on or around the Passover (a ritual which just so happens to clearly depict the crucifixion.) Now everyone can 'believe in Jesus' and be saved. Cool. But, what about ancient Israel? They did all the work of re-enacting the symbolic rituals that foretold the crucifixion among other things, they shouldn't be dissed like that.

 

Well, they did exhibit faith in God's promise by at least attempting to keep the commandments and of course by performing the rituals which would later serve as prophecy to the entire world. But, Israel was not considered 'worthy of eternal life' because they killed sheep. Their salvation would depend on God's omniscient view of their inward commitment (faith) not their outward accomplishments (law). "It's the thought that counts" and what-not. Extrapolate that definition of faith to the well-intentioned followers of other religions... Crazy? (Romans 2:14-15)

 

The sacrifices and rituals simply told the story. The tribe of Levi were priests that did the sacrificing and took care of the temple so that Israel could be saved. This picture agrees with that of Israel performing the real sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. Of course nobody knew this before the fact, because if they had known the plan, they wouldn't have sacrificed Jesus.

 

Further reading: Matthew 3:7-12; Luke 18:9-14; Hebrews 7

 

Buddhists believe there is good in everybody. So the devil has to be good, especially as he was created by God. God in his omnipotence knew what would happen with his creation.

I tend to agree with Buddhist philosophy so far as it pertains to morality. It seems complimentary to my beliefs. All life is precious, no condemnation is good, forgiveness for all is preferable.

 

But, consider a great mass of people with free will. (Where there is no free will, condemnation does not apply, nor reward.) Probability states that some will choose this way and some will choose that way. So you may propose that the mass be smaller to only include those who choose a certain way. Ok, but even in a smaller group probability still says that some will choose this way and others will choose that way. The predicament you find yourself in is, do we eliminate the whole mass in order to prevent the 'bad' half? (Matthew 13:24-30)

 

Also, consider that the mandate you give that mass of people is a rule that will benefit them, i.e. you tell them how to reach their potential. Those that do it reach their potential, while who disobey reach their demise. Condemnation in that case would be considered passive and fitting, not active or disproportionate.

[Ananke]

And forgiving the Devil is probably possible since God is characterized as being all good. But, I look at forgiveness kinda like a beach towel. Yeah, anyone can use it, and it will get the job done, assuming they actually get out of the water first.

 

But not all of gods creation has the capacity to 'get out of the water'. There exist persons and beings who, while they would accept that by any decent standard they have done evil, nonetheless see nothing wrong with it, and feel neither remorse nor guilt. How would such a being be saved? Would god forgive them, since they lack the capacity sincerely repent?

[IDMclean]

Humans are mendable creatures, patterns which are not whole can be made so. In the case of the human factor, the path to salvation is understanding of the will of god.

 

A question one might ask themselves is, Am I good, or am I evil? Your answer to this question tells one fathoms about themselves, if they but only look deep into the identity of their self.

 

Interesting note: Adam and Eve were sociopaths before they partook of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

[Freddy]

Lucifer is both good and evil. Lucifer was the ego-centric departure from nature that had both progressive and regressive consequences. Law attempted to compile a greatest hits album of progressive and separate out the regressive. But knowledge of law of good and evil still requires programming the brain with the regressive side of the law. This sets two subroutines in the brain, at an unconscious level, that is the light and darksides of human nature.

 

If one looks at neurosis, often a singular event can have perpetual consequences for some people. A good example is battle fatigue. Many years of programming the darkside of law, combined with the fire and brimstone associated with its violation, create a collective neurosis called the darkside of human nature. Because it is collective it is called normal. But in reality it is an unnatural state of mind like a neurosis.

 

The symbol Satan allows for a balance between good and the collecitve unconscious compulsion stemming from the dark subroutine. Culture is not perfect but liveable and slowly progressive. The Devil is when the dark subroutine becomes dominant with more control over the ego than the good side of the law.

 

Christ did away with law by summarizing it as love your neighbor. What this was suppose to do was remove the darkside of law so the subroutine loses its memory grid and become weaker. This would have worked on children not yet programmed. It also worked for a small group of the earliest Christians, but these were sacrificed by the Devil aspect of the subroutine, i.e, evil compulsions, that were already programmed in the adults. The result was a need to return to law and Satan to take away power from the Devil aspect of the subroutine.

 

Again, Lucifer is a Latin Roman word and the language was not even spoken when the Hebrew text for Isiah 14:12 , the only place the Bible in English names Lucifer, was written. Hebrew scholars maintain that chapter was not even about a "fallen angel", but about a fallen human king. Lucifer is nonsense!

[Ananke]

Humans are mendable creatures, patterns which are not whole can be made so. In the case of the human factor, the path to salvation is understanding of the will of god.

 

A question one might ask themselves is, Am I good, or am I evil? Your answer to this question tells one fathoms about themselves, if they but only look deep into the identity of their self.

 

I am neither. There is no such thing as good or evil. There are merely actions which benefit others, actions which benefit the self, and actions which benefit neither.

[Garry Denke]

Yea. It is done.

[Turtle]

Yea. It is done.

I've been worried about you Gary! I know you travel a lot, but when all I found of you was cryptic messages I feared you had been captured. You're a regular Indiana Jones you are. Thanks for allieving my worries mate!:sad: May the Schwartz guide & protect you. :bwa:

[Southtown]

But not all of gods creation has the capacity to 'get out of the water'. There exist persons and beings who, while they would accept that by any decent standard they have done evil, nonetheless see nothing wrong with it, and feel neither remorse nor guilt. How would such a being be saved? Would god forgive them, since they lack the capacity sincerely repent?

I would suggetst that 'accepting that they have done evil' means precisely that they 'see something wrong with it'. Either they agree with the moral standard in question or they do not. Just knowing someone else disapproves doesn't necessarily bring shame.

[Ananke]

I meant more, they might understand moral systems in terms of knowing what is considered to be good and what is considered to be bad, but not see any logical or rational basis for the distinction. They may see such as purely arbitrary. Thus, while they are capable of 'acting morally', to them it meely a matter of following purely arbitrary rules, there is no 'commitment' to moral behavior. In your biew, is such a person damned or not? And if damned, on what basis?

[Spiked Blood]

I've been worried about you Gary! I know you travel a lot, but when all I found of you was cryptic messages I feared you had been captured. You're a regular Indiana Jones you are. Thanks for allieving my worries mate!:) May the Schwartz guide & protect you. :)

 

You spelled his name wrong, which leads me to believe that your distress is disingenuous.

 

Now you will see that evil will always triumph... Because good... is dumb!

 

Yea. It is done.

 

Did you stick a fork in it?:)

[Southtown]

I meant more, they might understand moral systems in terms of knowing what is considered to be good and what is considered to be bad, but not see any logical or rational basis for the distinction. They may see such as purely arbitrary. Thus, while they are capable of 'acting morally', to them it meely a matter of following purely arbitrary rules, there is no 'commitment' to moral behavior. In your biew, is such a person damned or not? And if damned, on what basis?

Short answer, not that I can tell. Long answer, it depends on their concept of right and wrong. I think condemnation is guilt or shame. That doesn't come because someone else disagrees with your morality. When the Lord says he will bring condemnation on the wicked, I think he will bring them to understand their wrong, not just burn them forever.

 

Psalm 132:13-18; Hebrews 9:6-15; 1 Peter 3:18-22

 

Moreover, in the judgement that follows the resurrections, this will all culminate and it will be shame that drives them to hate the holy ones and attack the New Jerusalem. Then God will permenantly destroy them with fire, not permanently torture them with it (or so I'm currently led to believe.)

 

Revelation 20:7-10

 

P.S. So this leaves no room for the opinions of the 'congregation'.