The Devil is God, while Jesus is Lucifer.

Author: RationalMadman ,

Posts

Total: 46
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @EtrnlVw
I am not sorry for telling you the truth.

And I am not interested in spending the last hours of my time here arguing with a spiritual egotist.

You are certainly not an orthodox, that is, a right believing Christian. This is plain to all to see. In fact, you make yourself an enemy of the church. All the more reason not to believe you.

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @EtrnlVw
I think I might have won the bet

If you are a Christian why does your profile list your religion as "other"?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
How much do you know about the core differences between Michael, Lucifer and Gabriel?

Michael opposes Satan/God because he believes too strongly in Mercy to justify God's wrath.

Lucifer/Samael opposes Satan/God because he believes too strongly in Truth to justify God's requirement of faith before evidence in his creations and how he judges their choices.

Gabriel opposes Satan/God because he believes too strongly in Hope and Positivity to justify Hell and all that it stands for.

Of these three, Jesus is closest (nearly identical) to Lucifer in standing and how he opposes the OT teachings.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @RationalMadman
I follow you so far. What is the reasoning for your belief that Lucifer is a name which is intended to refer to Samael?
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
If you are a Christian why does your profile list your religion as "other"?

Mainly because people might be confused as to why I incorporate teachings that extend beyond just the Bible. The Gospels were the first source I connected with as a young kid, it's what I have been applying all my life, Jesus was my childhood hero lol. Having said that I'm an Omnist towards spirituality recognizing that the Bible is only one source of many that contains valid information and knowledge that is both useful and important.
So while the Bible is well apart of my life and application my beliefs are not limited to that one source. That doesn't mean that it's not what I am, it just means I study spirituality as a whole.
God is much bigger than any single religious source or spiritual texts. In my personal decision I am open to all of God and in that I'm not afraid to allow the fullness of who God is into my data base of knowledge. I actually don't mind having Christianity as my profile pick, it's more an issue with particular religious denominations and dogma that I find disturbing, then always having to rectify their mistakes in debates. So I choose to have a fresh slate and not be bogged down with the baggage of useless and inaccurate religious jargon, but on the same note I have no issue with the teachings of Jesus and actually I'm quite in love with them.
I've been reading the Bible so long it's apart of who I am period, I've been applying the Gospels probably longer than most people have been a Christian. So it's kind of like studying a myriad of different sources of knowledge, I could call myself Christian per say but it would be limiting to the full scope of what I know and have observed. 

EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @Mopac
I am not sorry for telling you the truth.

Me neither, that is what I will always do. I'm not limited by your religious cult. 

And I am not interested in spending the last hours of my time here arguing with a spiritual egotist.

Bye bye, Mr. Spiritual Egotist. But your personal messages you sent me and your insults/condemnation betray your own statement. 

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
All archangels except Lucifer have/had names that fundamentally run 'iel', 'uel' or 'ael' at the end. The reason that Lucifer is the exception is also, in my opinion, to do with him having many personalities throughout the texts. He is the mythological entity Samael, which is confused for being Satan/Devil but actually it is Lucifer.

Samael, similar to Lucifer, believes strongly in punishing wrongdoers but only when they have the whole truth beforehand. The Devil/Satan frequently over-tempts you into things you wouldn't otherwise even go for and capitalises on your lack of information on the afterlife to make you 'selfishly' hurt yourself in the afterlife in exchange for immediate reward. In fact, the way that Satan tests you is so utterly idiotic that I understand Lucifer's rage at it. God of the OT/Satan will literally punish you because he successfully tricked you yet he doesn't realise that the most prominent reason to be good if you believe in heaven and hell is an entirely selfish one!

Lucifer, on the other hand, believed strongly in the idea that people should be made to 'know' God and that if they are to be judged so brutally, it should be their entirely informed decisions on which the judgement is placed, not their delusions of no afterlife or vagueness in the matter of morality itself. Jesus strongly resembles Lucifer both in the suave, charming way he carried himself amongst his followers as well as the peculiar duality of being both suave/charismatic and yet being raw and rebellious to those who asked him to conform to them at all, if he happened to not agree with what they stand for.
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,119
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
They are all Great characters hey?
Nice. 


Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @RationalMadman
What texts specifically make you think Lucifer is the name of an archangel?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
He is fallen. So you are asking me to prove the blatant fact that he was one of the three OG archangels (Michael, Lucifer and Gabriel in that age order apparently) that later changed into 7 archangels that exclude him from their title?

I can provide it, if you concede that you are the one who is lacking information here and not me. Don't call my bluff too readily though, I will floor you with my superiority.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @RationalMadman
So you are asking me to prove the blatant fact that he was one of the three OG archangels (Michael, Lucifer and Gabriel in that age order apparently) that later changed in 7 archangels that exclude him from their title?

I'm asking for nothing more or less than what I said before:

What texts specifically make you think Lucifer is the name of an archangel?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
You are talking about 'what text does this' then if I display in depth knowledge, you go 'teehee but what text says this?'.

Boring, lame.

I am going to ignore your nonsense requests since if you actually follow the coherent storyline, Michael and Gabriel were both only called archangels as they were children of God specifically in a batch for that role. Lucifer was named as their direct bloodline brother and is described as being only younger/inferior to Michael, whereas Gabriel is portrayed to actually respect Lucifer in ways. It is possible that this was why Gabriel was the one to tell Mary she was having Jesus, since Michael had too much beef with Lucifer and even with God himself and the way he went about punishing Lucifer, to be willing to deliver that message.

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

There is absolutely no way that this is referring to Lucifer. Lucifer's penultimate rebellion (one before the last 'I will rise above you' moment) was when God slaughtered a man's family, took his home and whatever else happened, plagued the man with disease and still was ready to punish the man for in any way losing faith in God. Lucifer wagered (and almost encouraged the outcome) that the man would lose faith and love for God the moment God revealed just how powerful he was and how much of a toy the man was to him. Lucifer strongly believed that people only 'worshipped God' as a hero of any kind because God hadn't revealed what an all-powerful villain he was. God proved him wrong as the man still had firm faith. This was the ultimate moment when it became clear to him that unlike the other archangels (his brother and the 5 yet to come), as well as other entities in general, God had made a design-quick in Lucifer's psyche that made him disobey God if it got in the way of what he saw as truth. The other angels altered their truths to fit God, in general, though Uriel was known to speak up to God if God did strange or rash things, as well as if the other archangels did anything like that. Uriel actually had very little contempt for Lucifer himself, since Uriel stood for seeing reality for what it is at any cost, while Lucifer stood for delivering that true reality to others.

You don't know this because you refuse to read between the lines and garner anything from it.

The entire New Testament portrays Satan as being Lucifer in hints because it is being told by Lucifer at a time when he is weak and desperate to get his wings and immortality back, God has him gun-to-head.

If you don't understand that, you are reading it wrong, it is implied at many times that Satan has Jesus at his mercy, not the other way around or that Satan is in any way unequal to God in true formidability and age.

The key thing to understand is that Lucifer rebelled against God by implying he was going to aspire to be above God or at least equal to him prior to be struck down. Once you fully understand that, and that Judas betrayed Jesus for no realistic selfish reason at all other than that Satan had commanded him to do so on his behalf and that the tribe of Judah are known to be the closest humans to God in terms of aligned goals and true loyalty, you will understand the symbolism of Judas being the one to betray Jesus and why Jesus forgave him and was okay with it. He knew how merciless God could be and how hard it was to not do the bidding you were bribed and blackmailed to do with eternal reward vs consequence, respectively.

We also need to ask what kind of delusional 'messenger of god' has verses like this:

The Way, the Truth, and the Life
14 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many [a]mansions; if it were not so, [b]I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
The Father Revealed
7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
This is textbook Lucifer's personality showing through even though he was trying to accept the punishment, go along with God and 'spread the version of events that God wanted' in order to get in God's good graces again. This level of delusion and essentially equating himself to God and seeing himself as the 'truth' that even God has to 'work around' is textbook Lucifer, it's just so quintessentially him that there is literally no character other than him who does this in the entire Bibles, not even a single Jinn in the Qur'an does this (and that follows the storyline, you see I believe that the holy ghost proceeded to influence the Prophet Muhammad PBUH to think God was contacting him when really it was just a jaded fallen angel, and yes he also is referenced in Islamic terms as Samael, because that's his 'enforcer' persona whereas he prefers to think of himself as the godfather than the enforcer in terms of Mafia ranks).

It is not ridiculous to think this is true, it even explains why the omnipotent and omniscient God of OT would ever possibly 'need' or 'want' two new religions (Christianity and Islam) to 'correct the teachings' that the omnipotent and omniscient being somehow had errors in delivering the message of in the first place. That was sarcasm that I just wrote, clearly the latter 2 can't possibly be correcting or teaching the same God, it would never have needed correction or perfecting later if it was the work of the omniscient and omnipotent God of OT. Instead, what happened was that God of OT underestimated his angels, which have freer will than the rest of us as God likes to randomise their will more, and that is the key to understanding how and why Jesus was so capable that he literally founded a new religion all on his own, despite meaning to refer to the same God as in the OT when he said both 'God' and 'Satan/Devil'.

I can assure you, I know the storyline of the Bible, but no I don't have ready-to-whip-out scripture for each and every 'what text makes you think that'. It's all of it together in a coherent storyline.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @RationalMadman
You are talking about 'what text does this' then if I display in depth knowledge, you go 'teehee but what text says this?'.

Boring, lame.

That's the same question. You're mad at me for not moving the goalpost? That doesn't sound right.

If your reason for saying Lucifer is an alternate name for some other character is something other than "cuz pop culture" or "cuz PIDOOMA" then it should not be hard to point out what that reason is.

For example your quote:

There is absolutely no way that this is referring to Lucifer. Lucifer's penultimate rebellion (one before the last 'I will rise above you' moment) was when God slaughtered a man's family, took his home and whatever else happened, plagued the man with disease and still was ready to punish the man for in any way losing faith in God.

Seems to be a reference to the story of Job. I could ask "where does the name Lucifer appear in that story?" but I have read the bible enough times to know that it doesn't, which is fine since obviously it is pretty common for these characters to each have multiple names associated with them but I would still need to know what it is that caused you to associate the being in that story with the name Lucifer.

Pretty simple concept.
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
The Devil is God, while Jesus is Lucifer.
Now there is some more weird shit.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Seth
Most great things are weird, it's just that so are most terrible things.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Do you know who God was trying to prove that humans would serve him loyally even if he was evil to them?

It was Lucifer, they just don't explicitly state it, follow the story.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
design-quirk* not design-quick 

this was a typo by me.
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
--> @RationalMadman
No they aren't, your claim is false.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Seth
Most great things are weird, it's just that so are most terrible things.

No they aren't, your claim is false.

Go ahead and list me things, people or ideas that you consider great.

Now do the same for terrible.

Notice that they are weird?
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Do you know who God was trying to prove that humans would serve him loyally even if he was evil to them?

Again assuming you are referring to the book of Job here (I can't think of any other story this description would apply to).

With that assumption in mind the answer to your question is 'The Adversary', which I am pretty sure was an angel in the religion of the writers of the book of Job. The name is given as 'Satan' in the more popular English versions of the bible though like I said mythological characters often have multiple equally valid names and you could apply the name Lucifer to this one, you would have to justify that in some way though.

This is the part where you either provide aforementioned justification or you continue to boldly assert your claim as fact without any justification, whereupon I abruptly stop responding to your posts thus ending this conversation.



RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Lucifer was the adversary. The Snake was not Lucifer, just to be clear. In fact this is an OT cs OT contradiction in itself. In OT there isn't even a devil, the snake was wprking on behalf of God, like a puppet or friend. The snake wasn't Lucifer.

Similarly, Eve aside, the person challenging God wasn't the snake person, it was Lucifer. If you follow the atorylinez you will never deny it.