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

[Spiked Blood]

lets rethink this issue, and see if we cannot find another definition for evil shall we?

 

"Evil is knowing better, but willingly doing worse"

 

- Philip Zimbardo

[learnin to learn]

"Evil is knowing better, but willingly doing worse"

 

- Philip Zimbardo

 

Fantastic spike blood! According to that definition evil is a choice, a choice that we are all able to make. not just people of religion, but all of us. unfortunately Mr. Zimbardo was not specific in his definition which leaves it open to interpretation.

[CraigD]

"Evil is knowing better, but willingly doing worse"

 

- Philip Zimbardo

… unfortunately Mr. Zimbardo was not specific in his definition which leaves it open to interpretation.

It’s a purely subjective definition, so I believe it’s impossible to put it in objective, specific terms.

 

A consequence of accepting this definition of evil – possibly the best I’ve ever heard – is that good and evil can only be known by the individual about his or her own intentions and actions. No moral authority – barring one who can experience another’s thoughts with the same fidelity as that individual, an ability that evidently and scientifically does not exist – can judge the good and evil of another.

[Michaelangelica]

My friend, then what would the scientist who built the bombs be? satan?

Bombs were invented before Science, and who drops them?

Christians on Muslims, Jews on Christians, Muslims on everybody else. Yet they all pretend that their tradition and "Good Book" tells them the opposite.

Lots of bullshit while they perpetuate war and death. Evil incarnate.

 

Even worse is a lot of celibate old men sitting around in Rome deciding the sinfulness of wearing a condom if the husband has HIV/AIDs and the wife does not. I think they are still talking about it. Satan's Little Helpers

[learnin to learn]

If you are talking about the Vatican, as far as I know thy have never dropped bombs on people. I am almost certain that the Vatican does not own any type of bombs. They have burned people at the stake, but please read my previous post about conflict and beliefs. Individual nations are the ones who drop the bombs.

You might consider doing some research on the relation between bombs and scientists. i thought this was a topic on the nowadays definition of evil, and if that is so scientists are the creators of these weapons of mass destruction.

[InfiniteNow]

You might consider doing some research on the relation between bombs and scientists.

L2L,

 

Perhaps you could point the reader in the general direction of which research you have in mind? The work of scientists is often used for destructive purposes ("I am become death."), very often purposes other than those intended by the scientist, and I would like to better understand your ideas on the topic.

 

 

Cheers. :hyper:

[learnin to learn]

I believe that evil can only be defined by the individual. what I think is evil can be totally different from what someone else believes. Like the definition that CraigD gave, evil can only be defined by the individual, not by the moral community. The point that I was trying to get across with Michaelangelica is that it is as illogical to say that any given religion is evil, just as it is illogical to say that scientists are satan for helping to progress the creation of these weapons of mass destruction.

while the creation of the atom bomb was devastating look at the good that has come from it! We have found a new source of energy, which if controlled correctly can fuel the planet.

what we have not come to discuss is the thread, is the close relation between good and evil. Look at Christianity, for example. Lucifer was the name of gods most precious angel. After Lucifer was cast out of heaven he became known as the devil or satan, who is supposedly the route of all evil. But in revelations it tells us that satan's son (the Antichrist) brings a war upon the world, but those true believers of god will return to heaven. In other words through evil something good will happens.

much like the world as we know it, good and evil are intertwined. especially in the world of science.

I am attaching a few links that talk about the atom bomb and also the uses of nuclear fission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa050300a.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeAdvancedNuclearFissionTechnology

 

here are some links of the smart bombs of today.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4049

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_bomb

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/smart.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_tv_bombs.html

[Southtown]

Bombs were invented before Science, and who drops them?

Christians on Muslims, Jews on Christians, Muslims on everybody else. Yet they all pretend that their tradition and "Good Book" tells them the opposite.

Lots of bullshit while they perpetuate war and death. Evil incarnate.

 

Even worse is a lot of celibate old men sitting around in Rome deciding the sinfulness of wearing a condom if the husband has HIV/AIDs and the wife does not. I think they are still talking about it. Satan's Little Helpers

Aren't you being judgmental? The people in power have used both science and religion to wage wars for more power. What do the blue collar, non-power-hungry, believers in miscellaneous ideas have to do with anything?

[Michaelangelica]

I believe that evil can only be defined by the individual. what I think is evil can be totally different from what someone else believes. Like the definition that CraigD gave, evil can only be defined by the individual, not by the moral community.

I believe almost the exact opposite.

 

Groups of whatever kind religious, political, have a 'shared' (to greater or lesser degree) idea or concept of of evil. This concept is socially agreed upon and people who depart from the norm are punished.

 

That is why the work of Zimbardo-who you quote- is so interesting.

He demonstrated that you could take middle class, bourgeois college students and in a few days turn them into violet animals or cowering victims.

Even the visitors to his experiment, parents; the priest; reacted in ways thought socially acceptable.

Acceptable for the artificial jail situation Zimbardo set up (The priest was especially amazing).

So the very social structure and environment can define behaviour for a group.

Behaviour that we find looking down upon it, as researchers or on-lookers, morally repugnant if not evil.

Prisoner of war jails in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay have shown that the social process Zimbardo talked about are alive and well today some 30 years after his prison experiment. No-one has learnt anything

(If you have not seen the Full "Stanford Prison Experiment" by Zimbardo I recommend it to you. I believe it is available on the web)

 

I was not suggesting that the Vatican has bombs. What I was suggesting is that there attitude to condoms, even when one married partner has aids, was just as good if not the same as dropping bombs. That ruling will still kill people. Religions profess to value human life-some religious-individuals do, but the institutions don't. When I see a joint Jewish/Christian/Islamic protest against any evil I will revise my opinion. They are the three most intolerant religions in the word.

Yes I regard intollerance as evil too. Perhaps the greatest evil of all. Intollerance of nationalism,race, sexuality and sex, creed or religion.

We are so very far from the ideal of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. The antithesis of evil.

 

 

Personally believe a lot of things are evil:- corporate and government dehumanisation, poverty, disregard for due process of law and Human Rights (eg Guantanamo Bay),the death penalty, violence,war,religious intolerance, fundamentalist religions and ignorance, murderers, and most especially plastic plants and people-who-walk-backwards-in-supermarkets.

 

PS

(Does't Lucifer mean the "light-bringer"?)

[learnin to learn]

(Does't Lucifer mean the "light-bringer"?)

 

yes it does, I will post more when I get back from school.:)

[clapstyx]

Who is to say conclusively on this one.

 

So far as I am personally concerned the concept of satan as the embodiment of the concept of the ultimate negative was create as a juxtaposition for the ultimate positive force...the finest degree of love as opposed to the finest and most complete level of hate...so that for those who couldnt judge the difference between whether they pursued a positive or negative life experience could tell the difference at least through the extremes. From this one could theoretically choose to do things that compunded the chances of one or the other. Essentially its a clue in method because ulyimately each person has to make a realisation on that level for themselves. If you just tell them then they have to find a new way to make the realisation in a way thats true for them..then they experience what becomes a series of realisations which of course then becomes the path to realisation that is perhaps best referred to as "enlightenment" as to the true nature of their own soul. That is to say in the end a mature soul either pursues absolute ultimates which are either of a positive or negative nature and then you have the battle for good and evil which then is the day of judgement to see which way the species of man is most oriented to in terms of his existence tendencies and which is ultimately the greater force. At the divine level of consciousness its basically not half as serious as you might think because its really a question of which of the two extremes represents the greater degree of harmony..life working in harmony..or complete silence in the death of the ecosystem that is the embodiment of all life in the universe. Some people conceptualise heaven as the ultimate in positive existence..the most harmonious place you can imagine and wish to be and that concept was created to clue people into this as an ultimate if they ever wished to pursue and create that in their own life time..any life time. Of course traditional theology has been somewhat distorted over the centuries for various reasons and primarily (in regards to heaven) the flaw is that you will not exist in heaven unless you can prove that you can be a harmonic part of its nature. Heaven would be detroyed if souls were allowed into it who were negative to the concept of perfect harmony and who did not pursue this in a positive way and prove that they could create it at will..so that they could then be the defenders against invaders that might erroneously seek of act in a planned way to reduce the degree of harmony. If souls did enter and begin to systematically destroy the level of harmony then the concept would be lost and we would lose touch with its creation. Or something like that..maybe..who knows.

[IDMclean]

I like to think of god as a medaphor for the truth and lucifer as a medaphor for falsehood. When one realizes what is false they are capable of realizing what is true. Hence Lightbringer. Those who are "damned" are those who reject what they know to be the truth. Those who choose to exist in a state of falsehood, rather than accept the truth and live with it.

 

Note: Clapstyx, try breaking up your blocks of text, it's hard to read without clear delimination of ideas and paragraphs.

[Michaelangelica]

I like to think of god as a medaphor for the truth and lucifer as a medaphor for falsehood. When one realizes what is false they are capable of realizing what is true. Hence Lightbringer. Those who are "damned" are those who reject what they know to be the truth. Those who choose to exist in a state of falsehood, rather than accept the truth and live with it.

My God, if she exists, would have perfect knowledge and compassion and would not 'Dam' anyone.

Truth and falsehood are such relative, human terms; not becoming of a god

[IDMclean]

Well of course the truth can not damn a person. That is not possible, the truth by the afforementioned definition is what sets one free from damnation. It is self judgement, it is the descission of the individual to suffer, to know the truth and still turn from it, reject it and refuse it that is damnation.

 

Damnation is therefore a choice of each individual. Hell can be defined only relative to the individual and therefore by the individual's own perceptions and expectations of such a place.

 

My god is what my god is, neither male nor female. Like I said my god is the truth. not as in a truth or my truth but the truth. Not to be confused with a declaration that my god is the truth and yours is not, but merely that if your god is true then your god is my god also.

 

Hope that clears things up a bit.

[Michaelangelica]

That is not possible, the truth by the afforementioned definition is what sets one free from damnation.

Damnation is therefore a choice of each individual. Hell can be defined only relative to the individual and therefore by the individual's own perceptions and expectations of such a place.

 

My god is what my god is, neither male nor female. Like I said my god is the truth. not as in a truth or my truth but the truth. Not to be confused with a declaration that my god is the truth and yours is not, but merely that if your god is true then your god is my god also.

QUOTE]

Yes, sex is irrelevant; except with those who want to exclude female priests.

 

There is no damnation

with a god who is all knowing and all compassionate

[Southtown]

Yes, sex is irrelevant; except with those who want to exclude female priests.

 

There re is no damnation

with a god who is all knowing and all compassionate

What about justice? You think it would be good to reward evil?

[HydrogenBond]

Lucifer was the left hand man of God in the old testament. In the bible, Lucifer, as Satan, is thrown from Heaven only in the new Testament. In the olden days, he was accepted by God as a heavenly force, that was helping the progression of humans. That is why Lucifer means the light bringer. That can be understood as human wisdom and understanding, which falls short of eternal truth, but is good enough for practical temporal purposes.

 

For example, in Genesis, the heaven and earth were created in six days. Modern scientists know this is hard to swallow, but in its day, this helped the human mind. It was best available technology in its time, via Lucifer, but being less than the whole truth was subject to revision. Even what we know today in science is not the final truth, so it too is from Lucifer. If it was the final truth, science would stop and retire. It doesn't because science still rightfully believes that more needs to be learned before that happens. We are still getting close to steady state.

 

If one wants a direct example of the influence of Lucifer on God, read the book of Job in the bible. Lucifer puts God to the challenge and God bends over backwards to do what he says. God falls for the con but in the end learns from his mistake. All God had to do was use his ominscience, but falls for the temporal judgement. This begins a change in God.