The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

You are correct, we cant fathom the Father at all!!! I've read works from people (Catholic mystics) that had encounters with the Father, and he is just SO far beyond human understanding. 

Did you know that certain chemicals will induce "spiritual experiences" and that other will suppress them? This has led some psychiatrists to consider spiritual experiences, including the belief that one communicates with god, as "benign forms of psychoses".

[Iron MikeyJ]

25 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Exactly! God doesn't see Satan's work as "evil". "Good" and "evil" are human concepts. God transcends human morals. To God, Jesus and Satan have complementary but equally important roles in helping humans do the right thing, which is to please God by following his commands. Naturally, God knew Satan would take up the role he did, when he created him, indeed God created him for that very purpose, because otherwise God's abilities wouldn't be infinite. Otherwise God wouldn't be perfect. Otherwise Satan would be acting outside of God's plan. Basically outdoing God. So it was all part of God's plan all along. Jesus is no more "good" than Satan, nor is Satan more "evil" than Jesus. They are just aspects of God's personality, personifications of God. They just play their choreographed parts. Without Satan, Jesus would fail at guiding humans; and without Jesus, Satan would dominate. Without them both, humans could live without bothering with God, the link would be broken. And without God we'd be free. 

I cant agree with this. God was going to send Jesus to humanity with or without Lucifer or Adam and Eves fall from Grace. 

As stated in the creed, Jesus was born of the father BEFORE all ages. God from God, light from light, true God from true God. Begotten NOT made. Consubstatial with the Father, through HIM all things were made.

So basically what I'm saying is that Jesus came WAY before Lucifer even did. Humanity's true purpose is to love and serve Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior. We were created for him. It didnt matter what anyone (Lucifer, etc) did or didnt do, Jesus would STILL have come to this world through Mary. THAT was the divine plan. Lucifer's fall was of his own doing, which in turn caused the fall of humanity. 

Had that never happened, Jesus would still have come, but he wouldn't be known as the "redeemer." He would have just been known as God/Son/Christ/etc. Humanity wouldn't of needed a redeemer, we would of been in perfect harmony with God in the Garden of Eden. He wouldn't of needed to die on the cross, etc. Nor would his "Godhood" been disputed, it would have been a given. 

So I cant agree that Lucifers or mans fall was part of Gods plan. Did he know it would happen? Yes. But I would say there have probably been Outcome A, Outcome B, Outcome C for humanity. The only thing that is the same in those outcomes is the beginning and end. The middle is what's different. 

Edited November 14, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I cant agree with this. God was going to send Jesus to humanity with or without Lucifer or Adam and Eves fall from Grace. 

As stated in the creed, Jesus was born of the father BEFORE all ages. God from God, light from light, true God from true God. 

So basically what I'm saying is that Jesus came WAY before Lucifer even did. Humanity's true purpose is to love and serve Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior. We were created for him. It didnt matter what anyone (Lucifer, etc) did or didnt do, Jesus would STILL have come to this world through Mary. THAT was the divine plan. Lucifer's fall was of his own doing, which in turn caused the fall of humanity. 

Had that never happened, Jesus would still have come, but he wouldn't be known as the "redeemer." He would have just been known as God/Son/Christ/etc. Humanity wouldn't of needed a redeemer, we would of been in perfect harmony with God in the Garden of Eden. He wouldn't of needed to die on the cross, etc. Nor would his "Godhood" been disputed, it would have been a given. 

So I cant agree that Lucifers or mans fall was part of Gods plan. Did he know it would happen? Yes. But I would say there have probably been Outcome A, Outcome B, Outcome C for humanity. The only thing that is the same in those outcomes is the beginning and end. The middle is what's different. 

No, God only rocketed Jesus to Earth to balance out the effect of Satan. It is quite possible that Jesus came to be before Satan, the chronology doesn't really matter since it was all part of God's plan anyway.

And no, of course Satan's fall was part of God's plan. Otherwise you are implying that someone can act outside of God's plan, and that is of course blasphemous. God knew exactly what would happen, because he's that awesome. Still, God wanted to motivate humans, and to do that he introduced the duality of Jesus and Satan, so that each in their own way would induce us to love and serve God.

Don't you see? 

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

No, God only rocketed Jesus to Earth to balance out the effect of Satan. It is quite possible that Jesus came to be before Satan, the chronology doesn't really matter since it was all part of God's plan anyway.

And no, of course Satan's fall was part of God's plan. Otherwise you are implying that someone can act outside of God's plan, and that is of course blasphemous. God knew exactly what would happen, because he's that awesome. Still, God wanted to motivate humans, and to do that he introduced the duality of Jesus and Satan, so that each in their own way would induce us to love and serve God.

Don't you see? 

I suppose if you want to view it that way. I cant agree with that though. It lessens the role of Christ. It also lessens the NEGATIVE impact the role Satan plays in our lives. 

Having said that, "EVERYTHING happens for a reason." So maybe it IS the way? It's just so beyond us to fathom the mysteries of the Father. 

[Len Cnut]

33 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

You are correct, we cant fathom the Father at all!!! I've read works from people (Catholic mystics) that had encounters with the Father, and he is just SO far beyond human understanding. 

One description that comes to mind is as follows; the way we recieve and give information is very linear, one thought followed by another thought, followed by another, etc. The Father on the other hand gives information in an "all at once" type of dynamic. It's just so far beyond the way humans perceive. Same goes for Angels like I said before, they are superior beings. As such they are smarter, wiser, and have a much higher field of perception. But even them FAIL in comparision to the Father. 

On a side note, as far as "outside of time goes." One of the reasons why we Catholics have cruicfixs as opposed to just crosses (there are other reasons, but this is one of them), is because Jesus can see us from the cross at this moment. It helps us meditate and put our thoughts on the actual cruifiction. Does Jesus NEED us from the cross? No. But he can see us being faithful to him 2,000 years later. So when we pray in front of a cruicfixs or meditate upon that image, in a small, miniscule way, we are LITERALLY showing him comfort on the cross RIGHT NOW. Again, he doesn't "need" it no. But it's a way to honor him and show appreciation to him, while he was on the cross. Because not only could he see the state of humanity at the time of the cruifiction, but he could also see everyone one of us from that point forward until the end of time. 

As far as seeing goes, pondering the mystery and power of the Father is just so incocievable. So I cant really answer your questions. The most powerful descriptions on the Father I have ever heard came from the mystic Nun that wrote the book "Mystical City of God." Which I HIGHLY recommend that book to EVERYONE. It's not more important than the bible by any stretch, no. But she gave such vivid descriptions, and had amazing insight. The ways she described the Father made the hair on my arms stand up. Enoch in the Book of Enoch also has quite a good description of what it's like to be in the presence of the Father. 

Which on a side note, Revalations, Enoch, and Mystical City of God all describe (in unison I may add), the City of God in all of its glory. 

This is why Hindus believe he took all these different forms, because to be beheld by humans he has to manifest himself in something we can get our nuts around.  Which I guess works in the context of him coming to earth in Jesus form to save all us scurvy motherfuckers.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I suppose if you want to view it that way. I cant agree with that though. It lessens the role of Christ. It also lessens the NEGATIVE impact the role Satan plays in our lives. 

Having said that, "EVERYTHING happens for a reason." So maybe it IS the way? It's just so beyond us to fathom the mysteries of the Father. 

I don't know about that. Is there a greater role than to help humans love God? And again, Jesus is just an aspect of God, one of his acts, if you will. So you can't really lessen it, you have to see it as a whole. It's like diminishing the role of an arm, and then you understand it is part of a whole body.

Whatever negative effect Satan has on us is surely dwarfed by his role in leading us towards God. Surely nothing is more important than that? And this way, the "evil" of Satan not only makes sense, it also is part of God's plan which ultimately leads to the union between us and Him. Again, human "morals" doesn't really work on God. Don't you agree? 

Edited November 14, 2018 by SoulMonster

[Iron MikeyJ]

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know about that. Is there a greater role than to help humans love God? And again, Jesus is just an aspect of God, one of his acts, if you will. So you can't really lessen it, you have to see it as a whole. Whatever negative effect Satan has on us is surely dwarfed by his role in leading us towards God. Surely nothing is more important than that? And this way, the "evil" of Satan not only makes sense, it also is part of God's plan which ultimately leads to the union between us and Him. Again, human "morals" doesn't really work on God. Don't you agree? 

It depends on what you call "morals." I would argue that mankind has VERY much been trying to redefine morals the last century or so. Which it's really gotten out of hand the last 20 years or so. 

It begs the question whether morals are a human invention or a divine revelation? The earliest form of "morals" that I'm aware of is Hamarabis code "eye for an eye, etc." But how moral is that code really? So if someone kills your wife, you can kill theirs? That sounds more like revenge than morality to me. 

So I would argue that morality was ACTUALLY a divine revalation. Which the OT and NT are some of the oldest (and most trustworthy) form of moral laws. So that kinda lends creedence to divine revalation imo. Plus it's not like people still practice "eye for an eye" or any other early forms of morality that someone could point out (I'm sure DD could provide some). Or if they do practice "eye for an eye" human laws will punish them, so those morals were deemed unacceptable. Yet the bible is STILL being quoted for its moral compass. 

So to answer your question, I would say morals are from God to humanity. So acting outside of those morals will only lead to Lucifer. Does God "need" those morals? No. He doesnt need anything from humanity. He loves us, so he gives us this opportunity to obey. He also respects our decision to not. 

Edited November 14, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Iron MikeyJ]

43 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Did you know that certain chemicals will induce "spiritual experiences" and that other will suppress them? This has led some psychiatrists to consider spiritual experiences, including the belief that one communicates with god, as "benign forms of psychoses".

Well I do know that when we are deep in prayer or meditation our brain chemicals DO indeed change. I dont like them being labeled "psychoses" that puts a negative spin on it. 

I can attest to the power of prayer and meditation when praying and meditating on the "mysteries." I find peace, calm, and clarity when I'm done. I don't think I would label those feelings a "psychoses." But I guess labels dont really matter to me anyways.

[SoulMonster]

18 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Well I do know that when we are deep in prayer or meditation our brain chemicals DO indeed change. I dont like them being labeled "psychoses" that puts a negative spin on it. 

I can attest to the power of prayer and meditation when praying and meditating on the "mysteries." I find peace, calm, and clarity when I'm done. I don't think I would label those feelings a "psychoses." But I guess labels dont really matter to me anyways.

I think we should see through the negative connotations and instead focus on the implication that such experiences don't necessarily need to have a supernatural agent. It can be just biochemicals gone awry.

[SoulMonster]

31 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

It depends on what you call "morals." I would argue that mankind has VERY much been trying to redefine morals the last century or so. 

Then whatever we call "good" or "evil" today can be manmade concept; and regardless, it all stems from God in the end and is thus okay. Which leads us back to our finding that Jesus aren't more "good" than Satan nor is Satan more "evil" than Jesus, like yin and yang them complement each other, they are intrinsically bound, to lead humans to God. You cannot possible say that Satan is a problem if he helps humans find God? That would be blasphemous. 

[OmarBradley]

6 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I cant agree with this. God was going to send Jesus to humanity with or without Lucifer or Adam and Eves fall from Grace. 

As stated in the creed, Jesus was born of the father BEFORE all ages. God from God, light from light, true God from true God. 

So basically what I'm saying is that Jesus came WAY before Lucifer even did. Humanity's true purpose is to love and serve Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior. We were created for him. It didnt matter what anyone (Lucifer, etc) did or didnt do, Jesus would STILL have come to this world through Mary. THAT was the divine plan. Lucifer's fall was of his own doing, which in turn caused the fall of humanity. 

Had that never happened, Jesus would still have come, but he wouldn't be known as the "redeemer." He would have just been known as God/Son/Christ/etc. Humanity wouldn't of needed a redeemer, we would of been in perfect harmony with God in the Garden of Eden. He wouldn't of needed to die on the cross, etc. Nor would his "Godhood" been disputed, it would have been a given. 

So I cant agree that Lucifers or mans fall was part of Gods plan. Did he know it would happen? Yes. But I would say there have probably been Outcome A, Outcome B, Outcome C for humanity. The only thing that is the same in those outcomes is the beginning and end. The middle is what's different. 

Either this deity is all knowing, or they aren't. It can't be both. When reading your long post, I had the exact same thought as SM. 

God is all knowing you say. He knows Outcomes A, B, and C are possible, but he doesn't know which will occur? That means he's not all knowing. 

Another question, why is a being that "exists outside of time" gendered? God is a "he." Does he have a penis? I did some quick Googling and found this:

Quote

In Exodus 33:20 God says, "You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." 

Alright, so we at least know god has a face. And that he's a total badass who kills anyone who sees it. 

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Did you know that certain chemicals will induce "spiritual experiences" and that other will suppress them? This has led some psychiatrists to consider spiritual experiences, including the belief that one communicates with god, as "benign forms of psychoses".

I have heard this as well. The "god voice" people hear is demonstrably biochemically induced.

43 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

It depends on what you call "morals." I would argue that mankind has VERY much been trying to redefine morals the last century or so. Which it's really gotten out of hand the last 20 years or so. 

It begs the question whether morals are a human invention or a divine revelation? The earliest form of "morals" that I'm aware of is Hamarabis code "eye for an eye, etc." But how moral is that code really? So if someone kills your wife, you can kill theirs? That sounds more like revenge than morality to me. 

So I would argue that morality was ACTUALLY a divine revalation. Which the OT and NT are some of the oldest (and most trustworthy) form of moral laws. So that kinda lends creedence to divine revalation imo. Plus it's not like people still practice "eye for an eye" or any other early forms of morality that someone could point out (I'm sure DD could provide some). Or if they do practice "eye for an eye" human laws will punish them, so those morals were deemed unacceptable. Yet the bible is STILL being quoted for its moral compass. 

So to answer your question, I would say morals are from God to humanity. So acting outside of those morals will only lead to Lucifer. Does God "need" those morals? No. He doesnt need anything from humanity. He loves us, so he gives us this opportunity to obey. He also respects our decision to not. 

Can you expand on the bold text? Piqued my curiosity.

Societal structure gives humanity morality. I'd like to believe there is a tiny bit of innate morality too, but that's difficult to prove. But the bible is just part of said structure. If your only and/or chief source of morality is the Bible, that is incredibly problematic. Moral and immoral shouldn't need religious support in their definitions.

I am a nonbeliever. I've never read the Bible in full and I've never learned the deep mechanics of any religion. Where is my sense of morality coming from?

And aren't there bible passages that condone slavery and stoning people? How can the text be trusted as an definitive source of morality?

Also as an aside: although I probably sound confrontational, I am greatly enjoying this and reading your responses @Iron MikeyJ. Would be nice for you to have a buddy helping you fend off the constant attacks , but @soon doesn't seem to want to participate in a meaningful way. 

[soon]

"Satan" is presented as Empire from his first mention to his last. "Lucifer," in the most up to date translations appears 0 times. The word is more fully translated to "Day Star" "Son of Dawn" and "Morning Star." Oh, and check this out: Jesus is also referred to as Morning Star on three occasions! 2 Peter 1:19 Revelation 2:28 Revelation 22:16

The origin of Lucifer and Satan are one story - the briefest possible stories - which makes things far trickier then seemingly any position wants to view him as. In Christian texts we see authors use the word "Devil." It is the Devil who tempts Christ during the 40 days in the wilderness. One temptation is to offer Jesus Rulership of the Kingdoms - and at this point Jesus uses the word "Satan" (Empire).

The Israelites knew they would sleep in death until the Messiah would raise them back to life. The "purpose" of Satan wasn't to punish in after life, it was the spiritual aspect attributed to Empire in their lifetimes. Requiring a Spiritual-Political-Military Messiah to combat, again in their lives right here on planet Earth.

Here, in the first mention of "Lucifer" we can see that the Prophet Isaiah is in fact calling The King Of Babylon "Lucifer/Morning Star" 

Isaiah 14, NRSV:

Downfall of the King of Babylon

³ When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, ⁴ you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

How the oppressor has ceased!
    How his insolence^[b] has ceased!
⁵ The Lord has broken the staff of the wicked,
    the scepter of rulers,
⁶ that struck down the peoples in wrath
    with unceasing blows,
that ruled the nations in anger
    with unrelenting persecution.
⁷ The whole earth is at rest and quiet;
    they break forth into singing.
⁸ The cypresses exult over you,
    the cedars of Lebanon, saying,
“Since you were laid low,
    no one comes to cut us down.”
⁹ Sheol beneath is stirred up
    to meet you when you come;
it rouses the shades to greet you,
    all who were leaders of the earth;
it raises from their thrones
    all who were kings of the nations.
¹⁰ All of them will speak
    and say to you:
“You too have become as weak as we!
    You have become like us!”
¹¹ Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,
    and the sound of your harps;
maggots are the bed beneath you,
    and worms are your covering.

¹² How you are fallen from heaven,
    O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
    you who laid the nations low!
¹³ You said in your heart,
    “I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
    above the stars of God;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
    on the heights of Zaphon;^[c]
14 I will ascend to the tops of the clouds,
    I will make myself like the Most High.”
¹⁵ But you are brought down to Sheol,
    to the depths of the Pit.
¹⁶ Those who see you will stare at you,
    and ponder over you:
“Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
    who shook kingdoms,
¹⁷ who made the world like a desert
    and overthrew its cities,
    who would not let his prisoners go home?”
¹⁸ All the kings of the nations lie in glory,
    each in his own tomb;
¹⁹ but you are cast out, away from your grave,
    like loathsome carrion,^[d]
clothed with the dead, those pierced by the sword,
    who go down to the stones of the Pit,
    like a corpse trampled underfoot.
²⁰ You will not be joined with them in burial,
    because you have destroyed your land,
    you have killed your people.

May the descendants of evildoers
    nevermore be named!
²¹ Prepare slaughter for his sons
    because of the guilt of their father.^[e]
Let them never rise to possess the earth
    or cover the face of the world with cities.

²² I will rise up against them, says the Lord of hosts, and will cut off from Babylon name and remnant, offspring and posterity, says the Lord. ²³ And I will make it a possession of the hedgehog, and pools of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, says the Lord of hosts.

 

And the same in the second scripture often said to speak to Lucifer (because of reference to beauty along side reference to the Garden), Lucifer here is clearly presented as The King Of Tyre. Ezekiel 28:12-19, NRSV

This is a great, simple study aid for this subject in Isaiah https://brianzahnd.com/2012/01/satan-and-empire/

 

We know very little about the Devil. But we do know that Satan is Empire and Lucifer is used to mock to rulers of Empires for their ambitions to be like God. The Hebrew concept of the Liviathan (a sea monster representing an unknown but observed opposition to God) is probably a better tool in Hebrew Scripture to understand the Devil, rather then the concept of Satan or the subversive use of Morning Star.

 

 

 

[soon]

12 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

Either this deity is all knowing, or they aren't. It can't be both. When reading your long post, I had the exact same thought as SM. 

God is all knowing you say. He knows Outcomes A, B, and C are possible, but he doesn't know which will occur? That means he's not all knowing. 

Another question, why is a being that "exists outside of time" gendered? God is a "he." Does he have a penis? I did some quick Googling and found this:

Alright, so we at least know god has a face. And that he's a total badass who kills anyone who sees it. 

I have heard this as well. The "god voice" people hear is demonstrably biochemically induced.

Can you expand on the bold text? Piqued my curiosity.

Societal structure gives humanity morality. I'd like to believe there is a tiny bit of innate morality too, but that's difficult to prove. But the bible is just part of said structure. If your only and/or chief source of morality is the Bible, that is incredibly problematic. Moral and immoral shouldn't need religious support in their definitions.

I am a nonbeliever. I've never read the Bible in full and I've never learned the deep mechanics of any religion. Where is my sense of morality coming from?

And aren't there bible passages that condone slavery and stoning people? How can the text be trusted as an definitive source of morality?

Also as an aside: although I probably sound confrontational, I am greatly enjoying this and reading your responses @Iron MikeyJ. Would be nice for you to have a buddy helping you fend off the constant attacks , but @soon doesn't seem to want to participate in a meaningful way. 

Realy made an ass of your self there: suggesting erroneously a second time I wasn't participated a minute before I post at length about the topics being discussed!

I guess a meaningful participation is lost on you.

Edited November 14, 2018 by soon

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, soon said:

"Satan" is presented as Empire from his first mention to his last. "Lucifer," in the most up to date translations appears 0 times. The word is more fully translated to "Day Star" "Son of Dawn" and "Morning Star." Oh, and check this out: Jesus is also referred to as Morning Star on three occasions! 2 Peter 1:19 Revelation 2:28 Revelation 22:16

The origin of Lucifer and Satan are one story - the briefest possible stories - which makes things far trickier then seemingly any position wants to view him as. In Christian texts we see authors use the word "Devil." It is the Devil who tempts Christ during the 40 days in the wilderness. One temptation is to offer Jesus Rulership of the Kingdoms - and at this point Jesus uses the word "Satan" (Empire).

I didn't get this. Does "Satan" translate to "empire"? And/or does "Empire" have a particular meaning to you that is lost on me?

[soon]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I didn't get this. Does "Satan" translate to "empire"? And/or does "Empire" have a particular meaning to you that is lost on me?

read the study aid. then read the two texts. then read the study aid again. Its all carefully laid out nicely for your easy consumption.

[OmarBradley]

10 minutes ago, soon said:

Realy made an ass of your self there: suggesting erroneously a second time I wasn't participated a minute before I post at length about the topics being discussed!

I guess a meaningful participation is lost on you.

Unfortunately, god didn't bestow upon me the ability of premonition. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

read the study aid. then read the two texts. then read the study aid again. Its all carefully laid out nicely for your easy consumption.

Ah, I always wondered about your absurd animosity towards "the State". I suppose you believe it is a satanic construction 

[soon]

1 minute ago, OmarBradley said:

Unfortunately, god didn't bestow upon me the ability of premonition. 

Things that have already taken place - like my ongoing honest engagement obviously doesnt require that.

[soon]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Ah, I always wondered about your absurd animosity towards "the State". I suppose you believe it is a satanic construction 

You're being evasive

[Iron MikeyJ]

@soon,

yes you are correct the word "Lucifer" does indeed mourning star, day star, etc. Why that term has become associated with "him" is because, as I said earlier, he was the "greatest" of the Angels. So by definition he would have been the "brightest" and illuminated the most, so the term does fit. 

Now is it HIS actual name? That's a genuinely good question. I have a theory (and it's just my personal theory here) and I would say no we do not. 

The book of Enoch calls all the fallen angels by name, and Lucifer ISNT one of those names. But the book of Enoch also doesnt touch on the garden of Eden either, it's more concerning the time preceeding the flood. So my point is, "Lucifer" had already fallen long before the flood, long before the garden of Eden, etc. My theory (and others I've read also) say it's in Genesis though, when God split the day from the night. Which there is a lot MORE going on there in that 7 days story than we realize imo, but that's a different topic. 

Back to "Lucifer" "Satan" or whatever you want to call him, my theory is we dont actually know his TRUE name. Why? During the right of exorcism, getting the demon to reveal its name is one of the important aspects to drive it out. The priest has power of the demon when it gets it to reveal its name. So would the Prince of darkness want the world to know his name, if that's a way to have power over him? No I think not. 

But that's just my personal theory, it could very well be Lucifer for all we know. It could also be Satan. The name matters not, it's the being that we should worry about.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, soon said:

You're being evasive

Huh? Was there a question I didn't answer? 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@soon,

yes you are correct the word "Lucifer" does indeed mourning star, day star, etc. Why that term has become associated with "him" is because, as I said earlier, he was the "greatest" of the Angels. So by definition he would have been the "brightest" and illuminated the most, so the term does fit. 

Now is it HIS actual name? That's a genuinely good question. I have a theory (and it's just my personal theory here) and I would say no we do not. 

The book of Enoch calls all the fallen angels by name, and Lucifer ISNT one of those names. But the book of Enoch also doesnt touch on the garden of Eden either, it's more concerning the time preceeding the flood. So my point is, "Lucifer" had already fallen long before the flood, long before the garden of Eden, etc. My theory (and others I've read also) say it's in Genesis though, when God split the day from the night. Which there is a lot MORE going on there in that 7 days story than we realize imo, but that's a different topic. 

Back to "Lucifer" "Satan" or whatever you want to call him, my theory is we dont actually know his TRUE name. Why? During the right of exorcism, getting the demon to reveal its name is one of the important aspects to drive it out. The priest has power of the demon when it gets it to reveal its name. So would the Prince of darkness want the world to know his name, if that's a way to have power over him? No I think not. 

But that's just my personal theory, it could very well be Lucifer for all we know. It could also be Satan. The name matters not, it's the being that we should worry about.

Do you catholics also consider empires to be satanic? Or is that just a thing with soon's version of christianity?

I suppose not, the catholic church is almost an empire onto itself. Maybe that is why soon despises you so much?

[Iron MikeyJ]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

@Iron MikeyJ this is why we can still be friends despite our different views. You are at least upfront with your beliefs and come across as genuine. Rather than being petty, underhanded, smug, bitchy, disingenuous etc etc. 

 

I love you too!!!

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Do you catholics also consider empires to be satanic? Or is that just a thing with soon's version of christianity?

I suppose not, the catholic church is almost an empire onto itself. Maybe that is why soon despises you so much?

Catholics (at least good ones) shouldn't be overly worried about the world of men. Empires come and go, etc. Having said that, empires CAN be inherently good or evil (Nazis for example were clearly NOT good). But I would say you would be hard pressed to find a "good" empire. Just a bunch of Grey ones imo. 

As for the Vatican or the Pope, I've spoken about that in an earlier post. The Catholic Chirch IS not the Vatican, it is NOT the Pope, it is NOT the bishops, it is NOT your local priest. The Catholic Church is layiety, and sometimes we have to defend the church from some of those I just mentioned, unfortunately.

[SoulMonster]

Exactly:

Catholic Church Releases New Molestation-Proof Altar Boy Uniform

 

VATICAN CITY—Claiming the vestments represent a vital step in ameliorating the church’s centuries-long history of addressing sexual abuse with subsequent cover-ups, the Catholic Church introduced a line of wrought iron molestation-proof altar boy uniforms Monday. “With these new impenetrable steel robes, Catholic altar boys can now serve the Lord and assist with Mass without the shame or fear of tempting otherwise pious clergymen,” a joint statement by senior Vatican officials read in part, explaining that the full-coverage metal loin-girdings are available to fit all sizes and ranges of youth’s suppleness and are guaranteed to spurn the fingers of any priest who attempts to violate its boundaries. “The ceremonial six-inch-thick wrought iron vestments also boast a built-in alarm system; if the wearer is touched anywhere below the navel, a loud recording warns the offender to stay back in both the local dialect and High Latin. It is greatly hoped that with the implementation of these suits, we can finally spread the word of God in peace without the constant inconvenience and expense of shuffling priests from parish to parish after they’ve succumbed to the not-inconsiderable temptations of the younger members of our church.” Vatican officials clarified that neither they nor the manufacturer were responsible for any priests who somehow figure out a way to get inside the suit with an altar boy.