Religious question

azezil · 07-12-2002 6:44pm #1

probably not the best place to ask it but anyway!!

Jesus - light of the world
Lucifer - light bringer, so i'm guessing brought light into the world thus Jesus = Lucifer?

Nevyn · 09-12-2002 12:29am

Well both Jesus annd Lucifer are part of
the christian Dogma and do not part a part in my belifes.

I do think that the essense of the message Jesus wanted to spread is wonderfull and that poeple are still
tryin to pass that on 2000 yrs later is some testement to it.

Unfortunly it seems a lot of christains
have lost that message.

I dont chirstian bash or church bash I just realised that it was not for me and left them to it

Rev Hellfire · 10-12-2002 9:35am

Actually Lucifer is morning star which is also better know as Venus, so therefore Lucifer = Venus.

Talliesin · 10-12-2002 1:07pm

Yes, it's been suggested that the sexual ambiguity of the Roman Lucifer (in being male as the morningstar but femal as the evening star) is the reason that the name was chosen as the name of Satan before the Fall.

There is very little in the way of real connections between the two however.

Various ways of arriving at azezil's conclusion that Lucifer == Christ (or Messiah == Beast, Satan == St. Michael, <insert bad-guy here> == <insert good-guy here>) have arisen from time to time. However to do so on the basis of Lucifer as "Light Bringer" falls down as that was meant to be his role before the Fall only.

(This is completely off-topic but it has no where else to go on boards and it's interesting, so I'll leave it).

stormkeeper · 10-12-2002 8:46pm

Would that mean that there is no such thing as 'Good and Evil' in religious terms, and that religion simply is?

Saruman · 13-12-2002 6:17pm

This thread could be at home in Conspiracy Theories in the After hours forum i reckon. Is it all a big scam? Is the catholic church the culprit of the biggest April fools joke in the history of the planet? Not to mention the most profitable!!

lordsippa · 13-12-2002 7:17pm

Firstly, basing your entire assumption upon language is silly. Secondly, after Lucifers fall his name was stricken from Heaven and he became Satan.

Also, and let me make this VERY clear, all of this mythology was written by humans. Many of which were "divinely inspired" (read "drugs").

On a completely unrelated note, Yuroba MAKES SENSE! Erm... investigate if you have an interest in theology.

monument · 16-12-2002 8:14pm

I think the bible was taken two literally, (well that’s what they said in South Park anyhow).

My (crackpot) theory is that the reason us humans created any kind of god was because of the fear of death or maybe the fear of living?

Panda · 20-12-2002 1:36am

tbh, ive never heard "Lucifer" being referred as "the light bringer" more as the bringer of darkness.

other than that i agree with monument.

A wise man once said
"Religion is the opiate of the masses"
and imo a truer quote could never have been said.
It gives people a sense of security(a false one imo) and keeps the millions happy and content.
it gives them rules to live by, no harm there really.
but there are a lot of bad things about religion, too numerous to list really.

what was my point?

nevermind.......

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 20-12-2002 2:01am

lucifer was a roman god or something wasn't he?

he was born of a virgin, and clutching a burning sword..

afaik the xians demonised him to convert the locals

Talliesin · 20-12-2002 1:16pm

You are correct Mordeth.
Of course just how valid it is to compare the figure of Lucifer the Morningstar god of Roman mythology with Lucifer the name of Satan before the fall is the question.

po0k · 02-01-2003 8:04am

I agree with what lordsippa opened with there.
To base one's spiritual belief's on what has been translated and re-interpreted (and down-right edited to suit their own preferences - see english monarchs, and not Just henry Head Hopper either) is plainly ludicrous - see Islamic Fundamentalism, Mater Dei etc.
I think that Roman Catholicism lost the plot years ago, and while the reformations tried to improve it, there's still remains a stigma on them. Look at the rash of visions and holy relics, sightings, 12packs of Lidle half-quilted bog-roll that have appeared in the last 150 years. It really is one grand masterplan of an advertising campaign

I abhore the idea of "missions" in the earlier context ie: teach savages the word of god, "making" them "civilised".
Bullshít.

EndRant();

shep the malevolent pixie · 02-01-2003 11:55pm

isn't the the whole point of belief hope? people believe in whatever they believe in to give themselves some sort of meaning or answers therefore you can't really say what's right or wrong, surely it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves?
having said that, organised religion contradicts that completely. but they probably had/have good intentions...

i've completely lost track of what i was talking about, there should have been a point in there somewhere...

sorry.
sHep :cool:

lordsippa · 05-01-2003 4:23pm

Yeah... I dunno about organised religion. Fact of the matter is that it works for quite a lot of people, and despite the scandals, the majority of the people actively involved in organised religions generally have quite good intentions.

But personally, it doesn't work. I think that the Bible is a good moral guide, but it's not the one i go by. I am a VERY spiritual person, but somehow I just can't except the Bible for what it is. And on that note there are two ways to accept it:
stories with morals, or fact.

Sorry, just felt i had to defend organised religion for once, seeing as it has shaped my morals to a large degree.

Nevyn · 05-01-2003 4:46pm

Originally posted by lordsippa

Sorry, just felt i had to defend organised religion for once, seeing as it has shaped my morals to a large degree.

Please sont feel you have to say sorry

there is a lot of good that has been done and is still done by organised religions.

A lot of my family is still very involved in thier local church.
I respect thier believes and i am greatul for the good things i got from it when i was growing up but it just wasnt really for me.

The Corinthian · 07-01-2003 3:43pm

Originally posted by Kennett
Would that mean that there is no such thing as 'Good and Evil' in religious terms, and that religion simply is?

Good versus Evil as a religious motif is almost entirely Christian/Islamic. Judaism does not have it, and neither do most polytheistic religions, with the notable exception of Zoroastrism that invented it and from which Christianity probably adopted it.

Historically Satan was probably derived from the Egyptian god Set, who (as god of foreigners) would have been adopted by the Jews during their time in Egypt. A combination of the Persian invasion of Egypt (and hence foreigners not being looked upon too kindly) and the Jewish move to monotheism probably demonized him.

As an aside, the name Mammon is derived from the Babylonian noun for money and was later perverted into a false god or daemon.

As for the fall from heaven story, that’s present in numerous cultures; just replace angels/demons with aesar/giants, gods/titans, etc. The origins of the tale are probably Aryan.

Talliesin · 07-01-2003 3:51pm

Historically Satan was probably derived from the Egyptian god Set

True. However there are no doubt more sources than that. It's worth noting in particular that the Satan in the Book of Job is very different (especially in motivation) to the Satan of Medieval and later Christianity.

Religious question

Comments