I don't mind the sun sometimes...

fyrtenheimer · Post by **fyrtenheimer** » Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:57 pm

RadicalEd0 wrote:hmm... nvm I guess the name isnt symbolic after all and just latin

damn latin

historical note* lux, the morning star, was the angel who became lucifer or satan in later hebrew/christian dogmas.

u have that wrong-o

CaTaClYsM · Post by **CaTaClYsM** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:00 am

you better listen! she'll cut you! >:O

RadicalEd0 · Post by **RadicalEd0** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:01 am

u have that wrong-o

Blavatsky wrote:Even in the mind-baffling and science-harassing Genesis, light is created out of darkness "and darkness was upon the face of the deep" (ch. i. v. 2.) -- and not vice versa. "In him (in darkness) was life; and the life was the light of men" (John i. 4). A day may come when the eyes of men will be opened; and then they may comprehend better than they do now, that verse in the Gospel of John that says "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehendeth it not." They will see then that the word "darkness" does not apply to man's spiritual eyesight, but indeed to "Darkness," the absolute, that comprehendeth not (cannot cognize) transient light, however transcendent to human eyes. Demon est Deus inversus. The devil is now called Darkness by the Church, whereas, in the Bible he is called the "Son of God" (see Job), the bright star of the early morning, Lucifer (see Isaiah). There is a whole philosophy of dogmatic craft in the reason why the first Archangel, who sprang from the depths of Chaos, was called Lux (Lucifer), the "Luminous Son of the Morning," or manvantaric Dawn. He was transformed by the Church into Lucifer or Satan, because he is higher and older than Jehovah, and had to be sacrificed to the new dogma.

no I dont

fyrtenheimer · Post by **fyrtenheimer** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:01 am

CaTaClYsM wrote:you better listen! she'll cut you! >:O

yes, i swearz

CaTaClYsM · Post by **CaTaClYsM** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:13 am

*sigh*

Isaiah 14:15 refers to lucifer as a man, clearly disproving the 'devil' theory.

Flint the Dwarf · Post by **Flint the Dwarf** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:24 am

Right... and Lucifer was an angel. So he's a man, an angel, and a snake. Who says he can't be the devil? The Bible says many things, but that doesn't mean that it is the only truth in it.

CaTaClYsM · Post by **CaTaClYsM** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:35 am

How many times was the word lucifer said in the bible?

CaTaClYsM · Post by **CaTaClYsM** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:01 am

little clue, you can count the number of times on ONE FINGER. and that would be in the book of Isaiah, where a few VERSES later they refer to lucifer as a man. So I don't see where they can go on talking about lucifer being an angel when 'lucifer' was only said once in the bible, and was clearly said to be a man.

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:24 am

Not another bible rant!
*groan*

fyrtenheimer · Post by **fyrtenheimer** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 7:47 am

CaTaClYsM wrote:little clue, you can count the number of times on ONE FINGER. and that would be in the book of Isaiah, where a few VERSES later they refer to lucifer as a man. So I don't see where they can go on talking about lucifer being an angel when 'lucifer' was only said once in the bible, and was clearly said to be a man.

yes

:O and look, in tab's quote

He was transformed by the Church into the Lucifer or Satan,

tab= wrong-o

ok END, let's talk about jewelry

oh i love jewelry, oh yes i do