An article "The church is killing its gay kids"

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Putting the demon of hate in God's way ... is that flirting with turning passions into hatred ... the mortal way of stoic belief so people can't learn?
 
I read once that "Lucifer" was the occult name of Humanity.

(Airclean, you should lookup the original meaning of the word "occult" before you make judgment on that statement)
 
BetteTheRed said:
It doesn't, actually, AC33. I can find you plenty of orthodox commentary that indicates that there is no shift between the real King, the King of Babylon, being referenced in 14:4 and this imaginary figure that you figure exists a few short and related verses later. Context.
Click to expand...
-This may be true . You do not see it , for I believe Isaiah put this in by GODS Holy Spirit. Unless you believe Isaiah is also come from Heaven.
 
Neo said:
I read once that "Lucifer" was the occult name of Humanity.

(Airclean, you should lookup the original meaning of the word "occult" before you make judgment on that statement)
Click to expand...
--Thank you Neo . But I believe in GODS Word and His Holy Spirit.
 
airclean33 said:
--Thank you Neo . But I believe in GODS Word and His Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
This concept would, however, explain the relationship between the mythical stories of the fall of Lucifer and the fall of Man. Lucifer was the "bright and shining one" and Christ was known as the "light of the world". Both were known as the "morning star". It is an interesting concept. Especially if one looks at Life in both a downward (falling) arc and an upward (ascending) arc of the same circle.
 
Neo said:
This concept would, however, explain the relationship between the mythical stories of the fall of Lucifer and the fall of Man. Lucifer was the "bright and shining one" and Christ was known as the "light of the world". Both were known as the "morning star". It is an interesting concept. Especially if one looks at Life in both a downward (falling) arc and an upward (ascending) arc of the same circle.
Click to expand...
--I believe you wrong here. Lucifer was known as the morning light. He was a very beautiful angel you know, satan can and will still show up that way.
 
AC33, you are possibly exactly why some Christians are, by their denominations, NOT encouraged to read the bible, particularly in isolation.

Most of what you THINK you know about Satan comes from Milton's Paradise Lost.
 
BetteTheRed said:
AC33, you are possibly exactly why some Christians are, by their denominations, NOT encouraged to read the bible, particularly in isolation.

Most of what you THINK you know about Satan comes from Milton's Paradise Lost.
Click to expand...
Bette, what denominations do you know that encourage their members not to read in isolation? I'm just finishing a paper on the Jehovah's Witnesses, and there can be real potential dangers involved in _not_ reading in isolation as well.
 
BetteTheRed said:
AC33, you are possibly exactly why some Christians are, by their denominations, NOT encouraged to read the bible, particularly in isolation.

Most of what you THINK you know about Satan comes from Milton's Paradise Lost.
Click to expand...
You are wrong once more Bette. My Teacher is The Comforter . You may know Him by the name Holy Spirit. I know the evil one by at least 40 different names. Of which I will not show or say all to you here. If you wish to know them look them up.
 
airclean33 said:
You are wrong once more Bette. My Teacher is The Comforter . You may know Him by the name Holy Spirit. I know the evil one by at least 40 different names. Of which I will not show or say all to you here. If you wish to know them look them up.
Click to expand...
Voldemort?
 
I'd give a point to airclean on this one. The Hebrew word is "hel-el." It's in Isaiah 14:12. It means bright one or morning star. The Vulgate translated "hel-el" as "lucifer" which means morning light or bringer of light. The King James Bible adopted "lucifer" as the translation. Satan (a Hebrew word meaning "adversary" or "tempted") is also described in the Bible as an angel of light who can receive even the elect if that were possible.

Having said that, Milton probably has influenced the popular perception of Satan more than the Bible has.
 
Last edited:
revsdd said:
I'd give a point to airclean on this one. The Hebrew word is "hel-el." It's in Isaiah 14:12. It means bright one or morning star. The Vulgate translated "hel-el" as "lucifer" which means morning light or bringer of light. The King James Bible adopted "lucifer" as the translation. Satan (a Hebrew word meaning "adversary" or "tempted") is also described in the Bible as an angel of light who can receive even the elect if that were possible.
Click to expand...

An argument against: https://pastordougroman.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/do-isaiah-14-and-ezekiel-28-refer-to-satan/

I'd personally be careful looking for any other Satan in Judaism other than the clearly identified Adversary of Job.

As soon as you read Paradise Lost you KNOW where most of our Satan/Fallen Angel character comes from. One almost has sympathy for him, he is such a majestic figure.
 
revsdd said:
I'd give a point to airclean on this one. The Hebrew word is "hel-el." It's in Isaiah 14:12. It means bright one or morning star. The Vulgate translated "hel-el" as "lucifer" which means morning light or bringer of light. The King James Bible adopted "lucifer" as the translation. Satan (a Hebrew word meaning "adversary" or "tempted") is also described in the Bible as an angel of light who can receive even the elect if that were possible.
Click to expand...
They have a saying in the east that "even an Arhat can fall", where an Arhat is an advanced and relatively "perfected person". An Arhat is one who has "advanced along the path of Enlightenment, but who may not have reached full Buddhahood".
 
Last edited:
BetteTheRed said:
An argument against: https://pastordougroman.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/do-isaiah-14-and-ezekiel-28-refer-to-satan/

I'd personally be careful looking for any other Satan in Judaism other than the clearly identified Adversary of Job.

As soon as you read Paradise Lost you KNOW where most of our Satan/Fallen Angel character comes from. One almost has sympathy for him, he is such a majestic figure.
Click to expand...

We should always be cautious when interpreting Scripture. But, really, Roman doesn't present an especially convincing argument. To boil it down: some think the references are to Satan, some think the references are to earthly kings, some think the references are to both. Roman confesses to not having extensive resources to consult, then says he takes the second position. OK. I've heard more convincing arguments.

You're right, though, about Milton.

I should add that I'm unconvinced that the references are to Satan. Specific references to Satan in the Old Testament are restricted to Job and a brief reference in Zechariah. So basically I agree with Roman. I just think he presented a weak argument.
 
Last edited:
BetteTheRed said:
An argument against: https://pastordougroman.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/do-isaiah-14-and-ezekiel-28-refer-to-satan/

I'd personally be careful looking for any other Satan in Judaism other than the clearly identified Adversary of Job.

As soon as you read Paradise Lost you KNOW where most of our Satan/Fallen Angel character comes from. One almost has sympathy for him, he is such a majestic figure.
Click to expand...
Great link Bette, there's a lot there...

Personally, I believe much of the confusion with this subject comes from not understanding the separation or the differences between Lucifer, Satan, and the devil, or even that there is a difference.

Lucifer is a great Solar Angel whereas Satan represents the material forces and consequently the fires of this world, a world that Lucifer is currently transiting. The devil is simply the personification of d-evil, that selfishness that leads to the material-only aspect of our being.
 
revsdd said:
We should always be cautious when interpreting Scripture. But, really, Roman doesn't present an especially convincing argument. To boil it down: some think the references are to Satan, some think the references are to earthly kings, some think the references are to both. Roman confesses to not having extensive resources to consult, then says he takes the second position. OK. I've heard more convincing arguments.

You're right, though, about Milton.

I should add that I'm unconvinced that the references are to Satan. Specific references to Satan in the Old Testament are restricted to Job and a brief reference in Zechariah. So basically I agree with Roman. I just think he presented a weak argument.
Click to expand...

The core of the argument, though, is one of my favourites. KISS. If the prophet is talking about the King of Babylon in verse 4 and they're still talking about a noble figure in verse 12, KISS would suggest that they were one and the same.
 
BetteTheRed said:
The core of the argument, though, is one of my favourites. KISS. If the prophet is talking about the King of Babylon in verse 4 and they're still talking about a noble figure in verse 12, KISS would suggest that they were one and the same.
Click to expand...
I would say the two quotes in Doug Roman's doctrinal statement (Isa 14 and Ezek 28) refer to both the earthly kings and to the greater earthly king, Satan. The earthly kings represent the opulence of our material life, Satan represent the forces of materialism in this world. They are the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top