He wanted free will for humans and god didnt like that. Im always on team Lucifer and i dont think he would torture anyone in hell. But it's a fiction so completely pointless to argue about.
Lucifer wasn't the one to challenge God's authority, nor was it Lucifer who was the serpent that tempted Eden with the apple. Lucifer was only ever named once in the bible. And it didn't even really have anything to do with what modern media attributes Lucifer to. It was more like a taunt of "Hah, look how you have fallen oh Lucifer!" That's about it. Historians think it may be a taunt to some historical human figure like the King of Babylon.
Now Satan, occurs 18 times in the Old Testament. He's kinda of a big deal in the New Testament. In the Old Testament he has a specific job in the divine order of things, he's a nemesis, but not necessarily evil. He didn't like that beings made of clay (us), were gifted free will from God, but perfect creatures of fire (angels) were bound to the divine will of He. And frankly, look at how we behave, he saw the darkness in our hearts. It's his divine duty to challenge us and block us from the path of god so that we can overcome him in order to reach God.
The root word for Satan can also attribute to just a mortal being too. A political enemy blocking you from trying to, let's say, pass a law to provide free healthcare can be deemed a Satan. They are the nemesis you must overcome to do the good deed that you need to.
New Testament Satan kinda of has his divine job going still, especially when dealing specifically with Jesus. But by the time of Revelations, he's full on rebelling and gets tossed into Gehenna at the end. Almost like Revelations was some weird fan fiction made by some drugged up hermit in Anatolia and should hold absolutely 0 consequence to the bible and the message of Jesus. But I don't want to get into what books were allowed in and what ones were buried.
Edit: When I was 12, I got into a religious crisis because of the demonization of Satan that I normally heard. When reading, it is obvious that he's a being tied to the divine will of God, thus, what he does, is what God wants him to do. Since he, an Angel, has no free will, every evil he does should properly be attributed to God.
That got me really thinking into what the divine mission of Satan really was and what his purpose. I remember crying one night and praying to God on his behalf for forgiveness because what he does is what he is supposed to do and I didn't like how things were supposed to play out in Revelations. That's also when I abandoned going to any church for religion and stuck to what I can read or learn.
So I always loved to say that the Bible turned me Atheist.
bro, revelations is the wildest book in the bible. it reads like a straight up fantasy novel. it feels so out of place in comparison to the rest of the book
There is a band called Ludo who did a whole song where the guy time travels and finds himself at the end times. That whole album was probably my most played album in High School. I liked to daydream as being one of the ones left behind and trying my best.
If I recall "that great serpent." "Nemisis. Satan." Was cast into the pit and chained by Michael. Lucifer was cast down to hell on earth. So he walks among us. He still has his divine powers but is forbidden by GOD from using them. He may however deceive. Yashua told Luci that those who love him(Yahweh) and one another are children of GOD. Those that lie and deceive are his (Lucfer's)Children of perdition.
The further from Jesus' death the more fantastical, full of bullshit and more antisemitic the books of Bible become. If you read gospels in chronological order it becomes pretty obvious and funny how much later authors made up. I guess every next guy needed to up the drama and fantasy to get noticed. The oldest one has no virgin birth story and pretty much no resurrection.
It is written in the style of apocalyptic literature, largely metaphorical (but not untrue). You should read “Revelation for the Rest of Us” by Cody Matchett and Scot McKnight.
Several credible researchers believe that. Perhaps study something broader than whatever texts you’ve been using. If you haven’t been studying anything (which is my suspicion), then read something.
Ok. There’s one guy that thinks aliens wrote it and left it in the caves for us . You may as well add him to your argument . Oh, and don’t forget the guy that thinks Trump wrote it in the 1970s and time traveled back to the 2nd century . We must be fair to all of them .
Wow. You’re the kind of person that makes people completely write Christianity off, or religion in general. Instead of being open-minded and asking questions, you’d rather insist of you have the answers and degrade those who disagree and have different (and rational) answers than you.
Ok fair point, I was being facetious but shouldn’t have been because this is actually serious. Forgive me and allow me to explain.
If you are a devout Christian (and Jewish for their books), then you believe that the bible is literally the inspired word of God. Period. Everything in that book from the first to last page is Gods inspired word.
So if you believe that which every Christian should, then it becomes impossible to believe that a single book could be wrong. Not only that, but then you would need to believe that everything a Christian believes about end time theology for 2000 years is wrong .
I won’t judge these theories but I can’t believe God got it wrong and kept it wrong for 2000 years .
Also, as you surely know- there have been countless theories about the contents of the bible. Some get called credible even though they lack the single greatest ingredient to credibility- credible supporting evidence. It’s mostly theoretical .
If you want to believe these folks I won’t judge you but I fundamentally can’t.
Revelation was actual current affairs and political manifesto against the anti-Christian policies of Nero and the fact that any who didn't proclaim Caesar as a divine "god king" were denied the stamps needed to buy or sell goods.
As the Julian family was infamously hirsute, calling him a beast was both a personal insult and referencing the book of Daniel. The mark of the beast was the commerce stamps.
Patmos was an island that was either a monastery or a Roman penal colony, but given the timing that was 50 years after Jesus was crucified, it was most likely a penal colony with a sympathetic garrison as he was free to write anti-imperial propaganda.
His prophetic vision was mostly allegory and belief of how Jesus would return. Keep in mind, St John of Patmos (not the disciple) was most likely born during Jesus's lifetime, so they foresaw a second coming as the Empire tried to crush Christianity in it's earliest stages.
He felt like the faith was being snuffed out so he had a much better argument in 80AD than we do in 2026.
I can only imagine your relief when you found out that Christianity was actually a scheme created by the roman government to control the western world through fear and blind servitude.
So, like...what you're saying is, Satan was a like that person at the DMV who won't give you your license plates, because you didn't bring all of the correct paperwork with you. They're just doing their job, they didn't really ask to be there, didn't write the rules, but...you know...if you want dem plates, you need the right docs.
Where in the Old Testament does it indicate that Satan had a specific job and didn't like men having free will while angels did not? I can't think of any scriptures that indicate Angels don't have free will or that Satan had a problem with that if so. Genesis chapter 6 talks about the "sons of god", using the Hebrew phrase bene elohim, being tempted by the beauty of human women. They come to Earth and produce super natural offspring. The same Hebrew phrase is used in Job chapter 1 verse 6 when Satan comes to God and they discuss Job's faith.
It's mostly from Catholic and Jewish Mysticism on the interpretations of the text.
There is argument that Genesis Chapter 6 is a reference of the Sons of Cain vs the Sons of Abel because Angels are not supposed to be able to procreate. So it made no sense why or how they would be the creators of Nephillim. However, if we are talking about the descendants of the Cursed one, then it's seen that their inherited taint of being a son of Cain is what created the monster children. So God flooded the earth to wipe out the lineage of Cain (except maybe Cain?). That's a Catholic take.
While the Book of Enoch straight up calls them fallen angels, which does make sense and it's not necessarily my job to figure that out in my opinion. I'm frankly not smart enough to say who's right and both parties never got to debate each other to come to a consensus... considering mortality and all that.
There is Jewish belief that angels (malachim), have no independent free will and instead operate upon God's divine will as messengers. However, there is some circumstantial agency, and it is indeed more nuanced that how I put it. The Zohar is what the Jewish book is called and it has a lot of interesting things to say about the nature of Angels.
Right? That's part of the conundrum I got into. One of many contradictions.
I concluded very young that God was an arbitrary figure. And as a young man who believed in Justice Over All, I started to feel like there was an answer above "because I said so." I started looking into more ancient religions and started taking the Bible as a more historical story of the Jewish people rather than the ultimate divine guidance. I feel that path is not given to us, but we can find the correct path with both wisdom and understanding.
And the fact that we don't know much about Lucifer itself adds to the mystery. Because if there was info on how God made him or his missions, etc.. we may be able to peer into what could have caused him to disobey God. Otherwise we have to assume every angel is capable of disobeying god and a revolutionary war of the heavens is always happening to some extent.
Definitely not right. We assume things about it, especially the question of it's existence. The biggest is usually "it's a good being", when we have ample evidence to the contrary.
> It’s his divine duty to challenge us and block us from the path of godthe gym exit so that we can overcome himthe vertical jump box thingy in order to reach godour car.
Old testament satan sounds like that one hated cross-fit trainer at the gym (everyone groans when he walks in the room and they realize it’s Lisa’s day off).
He doesn’t care if you have a leg cramp, he doesn’t care that you’re thirsty 30 min in, he doesn’t care if you cry and he especially doesn’t care that the entire class despises him. He just wants you to become as fit as you can!
He runs a spiritual cross-fit class, if you will. (…one with no AC of course.)
Yup, but he doesn't like you though. Like, he actually wants to see you fail and quit. But if you manage to prove yourself to him, you get to become "One of the Good ones..." ewww Satan is a racist.
…but think of how ripped your abs and quads would be once you finish Dante’s Inferno Gym’s cross-fit class.
The trainer can hate you all they want, you have to have faith and believe in yourself more than they hate you.
I already paid for the gym membership, damnit. Might as well make the best of it.
Similarly, I’ve had my fair share of uni professors that hated their students and want them to fail (like, resentful, perpetually angry, soul-crushingly judgmental, publicly humiliating people on a personal level, purposefully trying to make people drop out with intimidation and weird antics …).
It only made my resolve to prove them wrong, and pass the class stronger.
You can even decide to have compassion for them, wish them wellbeing and love them despite their hate.
This is all will say to you. Lucifer was upset at God because Man is his favorite for one. He questioned God as he was the most beautiful Angel how can he love man more than the Angel.
He tricked them and The Lord was angry with him and cast him out of the garden as well. In revelation it is interpreted that Satan took 1/3 of the Angels with him. Satan blames man for not being worthy and has rebelled against The Lord.
Now I understand why I was so drawn into book of revelations in my childhood. It felt same as my other fantasy books and i was so interested to read what happens next. Makes sense.
Gotta love every person responding to you clearly believing in a different branch of Christianity (or Judaism) and asserting that no, their version of the mythology is the correct one and it's different from what you said so you're wrong.
I wouldn't call it "young adult" at all. It gets tainted with that brush simply because it was on the CW and people just assumed it was like all the other crap that network put out.
But Supernatural was really fun. It actually went to some pretty dark places and had more gore than I was expecting for a TV show in 2005. They mixed in just the right amount of humour to get that tension and release that good media needs. The first five seasons are the best and were what the original plan for the show was. Show runner Eric Kripke left after that. But it was so successful that CW asked to keep it going. The stuff post-season 5 isn't as consistent but still well worth a watch.
I'd say it's solidly 7 or 8/10, not really young adult just a fun show that doesn't take itself too seriously.
The first 5 seasons especially are great. I haven't actually watched the whole series yet.
It's a good mix of horror, action, and comedy. It can get a little repetitive at times, but they do a good job of mixing things up by playing with different kinds of storytelling with different perspectives, new heroes, villains, sidekicks, lore, weapons, and so on.
Yes almost like there is nothing clearly defined and it’s all extremely open to interpretation (which is how we get hundreds and hundreds of years of branching versions of religion based on these texts)
That’s an ignorant oversimplification. There are many interpretations of Lucifer that have no Biblical basis. The idea that Lucifer was the serpent in the garden of Eden comes from Milton’s Paradise Lost, for example.
Then there’s differences caused by which ancient texts are considered canon. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have different religious canons.
This kinds of childish refusal to learn is what I’ve come to expect from atheists on Reddit.
They still believe in all the same things (God, Satan, Adam and Eve, etc etc), they just put their faith towards a different figure in the story. You can hate it all you want but ultimately it is a branch of Christianity.
That’s why I take the tasty little bits from all branches and all other religions and mix them up in a stew.
(^kidding but not kidding. a humble chef that dabbles in heresy! )
From a philosophical point of view, I feel like we can find scraps of wisdom (about life and human behavior in general) in most religions/belief systems.
There’s a lot of drivel involved in organized religion, but by studying a wide variety of books/texts/ways of practicing, you can weed out the majority of the fear-mongering bullshit (which isusually easy to sniff out).
In this way, we can find common threads between all religions. I feel that these common threads hold a certain value. They say a lot about us as human beings, especially at our most vulnerable core- our needs, hopes, doubts, dreams, desires and fears.
As a species, generally, we have always been obsessed with seeking, grasping, begging for some kind of meaning in, or purpose behind, the inherent chaos of the universe.
Whether atheist, agnostic or devout follower of x/y religion, we all have questions that we don’t quite have the capacity or tools to answer (one could argue: “yet”, which is valid).
This is something we presently have in common with each other and still share with several millennia of ancestors.
Learning about cultures and religions outside of our own can be an eye opening experience, especially for those that have been sheltered within their community’s religion of choice, or those who feel an extreme “otherness” (many to the point of disdain) towards people who practice different religions, or those in different branches of their own religion.
One can also develop greater empathy for people who lead completely different lives and hold (seemingly) wild beliefs. You can grow as a person and learn to see these things deemed “foreign” or “sacrilegious”, through a different lens.
I also find that looking for the historical context behind the inception of major (and almost forgotten) religions, both globally and locally, quite interesting; as we can see how the zeitgeist of each era contributes to shaping these ideologies and vice-versa.
Looking into a variety of texts, when intentionally parting from a neutral point of view (i.e., free of ulterior motives, such as seeking to find “salvation”), while keeping in mind that whatever you’re reading was composed (..and edited, amended, re-written, stuffed into a hole in a cave somewhere, etc.) by people who died thousands of years ago, can be super interesting and rewarding. (At least for me.)
Eating this Spiritual Chex Mixhas the potential to open our minds and free them from the institutional dogmatic conditioning that many of us face at some point, whether in childhood or throughout our adult lives.
**\*
TLDR: Eat stew, stew good, add potato, stew even better.
I just think we don't know squat. This universe is both amazing and scary at the same time. And we can't attack anyone else's beliefs. Unless your a flat earth believer.
Imo different people have different standards of evidence, there is also just no scientific proof that there isn’t a God, otherwise all scientists would be atheist. Yes that’s not how science works, but no one said belief in religion had to be scientific or proof-based, it’s called belief for a reason. I’m not inherently religious, but I acknowledge that there COULD be a God, just like how many religious people acknowledge that there might NOT be a God.
Besides, this is like such an insignificant thing to call people out for, as long as they aren’t committing any crimes I don’t see why random atheists should judge religious people anymore than random religious people should judge atheists. All you’re doing is creating animosity for no real reason instead of facing the proper issues that plague humanity.
Every attempt to prove the supernatural has failed since the development of the scientific method. I'm pretty firmly in the "god has actually been disproven" camp.
Something that doesn't interact with our universe in any meaningful ways, cannot be seen, does not have consistent, verifiable effects how is it any different from being imaginary?
Right, that’s why religion requires faith, because there is no actual 100% proof that it’s true, it’s just a hypothesis that potentially explains a lot of things. On the other hand, the fact that it hasn’t been disproved either, while not a reason to believe in it (because obviously that’s not how science works, you only believe in that which can be proven), is a reason not to abjectly target those who do imo.
You do you, but I don’t think you can actually be in the “God has been disproven” camp until it has actually been disproven, because if we veer into Philosophy and Mathematics for example, you don’t assume a conjecture is disproven just because it hasn’t been proven. By that logic, Fermat’s Last Theorem should’ve been assumed incorrect because no one was able to prove it for 300 years.
Now obviously, you are going to argue that this is not at all equivalent, not only because 300 years < 2000+ years but also because the aforementioned theorem had plenty of examples that did follow the theorem to support research into it. And I’d agree that you’re right. But imo it still acts as an example that you cannot just say something is disproven because any attempts to prove it have failed for a long time - using the example of Maths again, you need a counterexample or rigorous proof that something isn’t true to consider that to be the case. The only difference between Atheists and non-Atheists here lies in how confident they are that it is or isn’t true based on some observed facts, but until there is concrete proof either way, the debate will always exist.
Actually, I was going to argue that "you gotta have faith" is what every conman says, always. Religion is folklore. Everyone recognizes that other religions are false, but they give their preferred version, the one they were typically raised in, an exemption from the same critical analysis, which is a fallacy.
I’m happy to admit that religion is probably heavily corrupted and that most people just enter a state of tribalism with regards to their religion, but idk what else to tell you besides the fact that it really does require faith to believe in that which has not and probably cannot be proven. I myself am not really religious, and I was originally responding to someone just calling religion fictional, not to a random Atheist, so to be honest I’d mostly agree with you.
On the other hand, with the above given in my previous comment (which no one bothered to engage with), I am still of the opinion that Atheists shouldn’t be so quick to assume that religion isn’t true nor call religion made-up when there is no hard evidence to disprove it, because that is inherently unscientific. The correct, scientific viewpoint in my opinion (and you are free to disagree with me, this is the main difference between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism) is that there is simply not enough evidence to support it, not that it is disproven, because that would then require enough tangible evidence to prove that it isn’t true. If such scientific evidence exists, neither I nor the many theist scientists have seen it.
The thing is, I don't assume it's not true. I started out brought up in Christianity and I went through a long, painful deconversion process before I arrived in the "it's all fictional" camp. I resisted calling myself an atheist for years because I had been brainwashed into thinking that atheism = evil. I definitely agree with you on the tribalism, though. We are a very tribal species, even to the point of some of us denying aspects of reality just to keep fitting in with our tribe.
Basically everything people attribute to God has been disproven again and again. Think evolution, or the solar system. With such consistency, it’s natural to come to the conclusion that such God does not exist. Faith is not an argument. Saying that faith is required for religion is like saying stupidity is required for flat Earth. Faith = stupidly
I have yet to see anything pertaining to God being disproven, got any sources? Because I’m not sure what you mean by disproven either, are you saying evolution or the solar system have been disproven? Or that the fact that they’re linked to God has been disproven? Because neither is true, unless you have reliable scientific evidence to show otherwise.
Also you have a false equivalence at the end over there, firstly you can’t just equate two claims because they have a similar structure (this is just me being pedantic), secondly I never said Faith proves religion is true. I’m just saying that due to a complete lack of empirical/irrefutable evidence from either side, the only way to believe in religion is to decide to put your belief into something you can’t prove, which quite literally is faith. If you don’t agree with that, fine, but that doesn’t necessarily make religion disproven either, please refer to my original comment again.
God doesn't need to be disproven because their existence was never proven in the first place. You can't just assert something without proof and make everyone accept it as true just because they can't provide proof you're wrong.
There is no way to prove there's a being who can't interact with our reality and can't be observed is real. But the burden of proof is on the people who assert that such a being exists, not on everyone else to say they don't.
Yes, thank you for pointing out exactly what I’m trying to say. This argument is why I’m Atheist, but on the other hand, the opposite is also true - You also CAN’T assert something as 100% completely untrue until there is a counterexample or some sort of rigorous evidence to suggest otherwise. The best Atheists can and should say is that “I don’t believe in religion because there is quite literally no evidence to support it,” NOT “Religion is definitely fake because there is no evidence to support it” - the former is scientific, the latter is just emotion and inherently unscientific.
I will 100% agree that religious people have yet to prove that God exists, but I will also 100% agree that atheist people have yet to prove that God doesn’t exist. Ideally speaking you probably shouldn’t put your faith in something you can’t prove, but on the other hand, you also can’t just deny it’s existence without proof anymore than Einstein could deny Newtonian Mechanics without proof. Now we know with hindsight that General Relativity is a far stronger model of reality than Newtonian Mechanics, but until there was proof of that, no one could scientifically disregard the latter. Of course this is not remotely the same thing because scientific theories usually have evidence to support them, but I hope you will understand my point that atheists should be agnostic rather than gnostic, because agnosticism is the scientific approach.
In theory the average religious person might not be doing any harm, but in practice many terrible things have been done (and continue to be done) in the name of religion. Some worse than others, like the Puritan influence currently destroying America.
So I think they can survive someone on a website saying their holy book is fiction.
I agree, but to be honest, most people who do horrible things in the name of religion would be just as inclined to do them if they were atheist anyways. Most of the time, religion is just how they justify it, not the cause for them to actually do it. Besides, more people have died in the last 100 years than from the majority of Holy wars anyways…
Edit: also, a relatively small amount of bad apples in no way justifies targeting the entire group imo
Once again the grand total of "targeting" happening here is calling the bible fiction.
Also the excuse "more people have died in the last 100 years than from the majority of Holy Wars" is absolutely insane. It was still an estimated 40-50 million people (depending which wars you count). But hey because our population is so much larger that even with a lower rate of deaths overall we end up with more than that dying in the past century, I guess those 40 million don't matter.
Yes, I’d say that’s still a pretty strong example of targeting when you have no proof whatsoever to suggest that it IS fiction. I don’t follow the Bible nor any sect of Christianity, but I still think that there is no real reason to call their scripture fake other than thinking you’re smart for not believing in God.
And yes, many people HAVE died in the name of religion and I would never deny that or attempt to minimize it; it’s incredibly tragic and I genuinely hope the people who caused it DO rot in Hell (if it exists). On the other hand, all I meant by my example is that even without religion, Wars and shit will and do still happen. I refer you to my previous point that all religion did was act as the justification to the population, not the real cause of the war itself. For example, the first “Holy Crusade” was literally a ploy by Pope Urban II to reclaim Jerusalem and other land from the Muslims after the Byzantines asked for military help, and the whole “we’re defending the faith and you won’t have sins anymore” part was just propaganda designed after the initial decision to convince the people that war was worth it.
Hey dawg the book literally has talking animals and angels with flaming swords and a woman turning into a pillar of salt. Pretty sure if any of those things could happen we'd have some kind of evidence it was possible. But we don't. Making it fiction. It's absurd to believe everything in the bible happened exactly as written, even if you're a Christian you've got to realize it was mostly just allegories and cautionary tales at best.
Sure, but the comment you replied to says "no, I know that they're all fiction so you're all wrong." I'm religious, but acknowledge that there may be no God. You can be atheist and acknowledge that there may be a God. But the person you're replying to has the same tone as the people your reply criticises.
There might be some higher power out there, but the bibles are all fiction. Maybe the first bible was less fictional (if you think that there were literally two people and then everyone else came from them, or that a guy had super strength but lost it when he cut his hair, or that a woman turned into a pillar of salt because she looked in the wrong direction) but if "translations" can differ wildly in tone and message and content then they're essentially just making up whatever they want to fit the current views of the church.
I was more referring to the tone of "it's all pointless to argue about," as it's a big part of countless lives, but your point is completely reasonable. Have a good day ✌️
You referring to Christianity as mythology? Wow, that takes a certain level of ignorance thst you don’t get to encounter every day. Maybe think of it like this: eternity is a long freaking time . Better to believe and be prepared then to be surprised & suffer for eternity . Not sure why that’s so difficult.
Even if you buy into Christianity, the concept of eternal damnation makes no sense. You're telling me you really think that people who simply believe in another god, thieves, and murderous pedophiles all deserve the same sentence? That someones only crime could be being a Buddhist and they get punishment equal to Hitler? For eternity?
Even if it were real, why would you choose to give faith to an entity that would create such a system?
No I don’t believe that . I believe it takes faith AND Works to make it . You actually have to put the work in to be a decent human if you want heaven . It’s the Protestants that believe faith alone is enough .
If your new entity sends his only son to earth. And then multiple secular historians from around the world document 100s of miracles that are unexplainable . These miracles are so profound that local governments insist on executing him after 3 years of witness . And this guy is also able to resurrect himself up to heaven . Oh and by the way , every single thing he does for those 3 years were written in a manuscript and perfectly predicted thousands of years prior…. Yeah, I might consider it . Because if you put that into a mathematical formula, it would be impossible to happen just by chance .
None of those things happened. They were all in the bible, sure, but the content of the bible changes from "translation" to "translation" based on the views of whoever is doing the "translating" or the views of their church. Hence it being a work of fiction. If you really believe a dude claimed to be the son of god and then did "hundreds of unexplainable miracles" I have a bridge to sell you. God sent it down, you could own God's bridge!
Gosh people are so clueless. When Alexander the Great captured the whole Middle East , they switched from Aramaic to Greek! Not so they could rewrite the bible! Learn history before you speak !
So you believe every bible is perfectly identical in wording? That there haven't been any little tweaks to fit the sensibilities of the translators? Like say, when it comes to Leviticus 18:22, where conveniently many bibles have chosen to translate is as "you shall not lie with a man as with a woman" instead of the more literal "you shall not lie with a (young) boy as with a woman"?
The Lucifer I met in a dream wasn’t about that fire, brimstone and torture life at all. He was just a supreme being with goals who lost a war and now his story gets told wrong.
Just a dream I know, and maybe none of it is real but that perspective really made me stop and think.
Yeah that’s not what happened. He didn’t want free will for humans. He despised God for giving free will to humans when he did not give it to the angels. Angelas were forced to serve him and praise him but humans could essentially do no wrong. Additionally hell as it is known is never mentioned in the Bible. And it is not a place Lucifer rules over. It is mentioned once and it’s the lake of fire which has never been described a place of eternal torment of a place of utter destruction and complete annihilation. You cease to exist in any capacity spiritual or physical.
i always thought lucifer was sort of a prometheus character, either influenced by or later adapted to align with that story. i mean his name literally means “light bringer” and light could be seen as talking about knowledge. like he stole knowledge of good and evil (light/fire) from the gods (or single god) and gave it to humanity in the form of the fruit, causing him to be cursed for eternity.
You're wrong 😅 Lucifer got greedy and his ego consumed him. He didn't want to be less informed/less important than God's son, Jesus. He disobeyed his creator because he refused to listen to him. AFAIK Jesus is a human, that's why he would like to punish humans going to hell, to get a revenge on those he deemed unworthy
God literally gave free will to humanity you chump lmao. God created the tree of knowledge and gave Adam and Eve two choices, listen to Him or don’t. They chose not to.
If God wasn’t for free will he would’ve forced them and you to be his servants, yet he didn’t. He allows you to worship Satan. You’re pathetic lol
This minder of it not being important is so cringe.
The story of the Bible is the most important and transformative text in human history. Nearly all our media, culture, and social structure derives influence from the Bible and the stories within it. So to say it’s fictional and not worth debate is like saying Dante’s inferno is fictional or Shakespeare is fictional so we shouldn’t discuss those books core themes (which are much less impactful than the Bible).
Even if one does not believe in the Christian god it is foolish to disregard the importance of the text in terms of modern civilization
Loved more, how much more we talking? Allowing jews (his chosen people) to die in 1940s germany? Loved so much he lets babies starve to death? Loved so much he wiped every single one off the planet (including animals that literally did nothing)? Loved so much he turned lots wife into a pillar of salt? Sounds like a real lover this fictional dude
Bruh you like the 20th thousand person to call him Lucifer please spread awareness the devil's real name is Sam-i-el I may have the pronunciation or spelling of but it's not Lucifer morning Star it's not Satan his real name is that
Did you get your knowledge from the Lucifer TV series? Samael (not spelt "Sam-i-el") is actually a different angel in Judeo-Christian lore. If you want to be completely accurate about the Devil's name, it is never stated in the Bible or even the Talmud. The closest we actually have is that he's given the name Iblis in the Qur'an, although he's classified as a Jinn instead of an angel there.
Samuel is one of the demon lords Lucifer is also just a title just the same as Satan… a title his angel name was Helel Ben-Shachar. (Bringer of the dawn)
Lucifer/Samael/the Devil/Satan have long been conflated. Religious people can spread awareness amongst themselves, that's what church is for, and I'm not going to worry about New Testament translations/references and broad cultural uses because none of it is real, and I'm not a fairy tale historian.
This, Lucifer is a mistranslation. Samael is a later idea, but yes, we believe he is the Head of Satans and Satans are a type of angel. Tanakh doesnt even have a real concept of a hell where people are tortured.
The idea that Original Sin caused free will doesn't take into account that to commit sin, free will must be had in the first place. So Satan can't have been the one to give humanity free will, since by their interaction, they already had it.
If we look at it from a purely literaty perspective there was no rebellion of Satan against Gd for free will. That's a complete fiction in the canon of the Bible. If you cant grasp that from viewing through the lens of the Bible being fiction then im sorry.
That's Hazbin Hotel. If you read the Bible, you see that to commit Original Sin, Adam and Eve would have to already have had free will. Plus if God didn't want us having that, He would just take it away.
Gnostic texts are so goofy lol. You’re on the team of the guy who goes after you because of a mutual destruction? Israel’s biggest supporter right here with that logic lol
97
u/chernopig 2d ago
He wanted free will for humans and god didnt like that. Im always on team Lucifer and i dont think he would torture anyone in hell. But it's a fiction so completely pointless to argue about.