Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 68 of 68

Thread: Lucifer

  1. #41
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    24,619
    Mentioned
    592 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I make my comments largely because Maritsa considers herself a professional Socionist. I thus believe it is especially reasonable to voice my concerns about her approach to Socionics. In addition, I believe that Maritsa is liable to cause a great deal of harm by making sweeping generalisations (e.g. considering all ILEs and ESEs evil, and considering all SEEs and SEIs husband-stealers). Telling Maritsa why this is wrong is surely a necessity in order to challenge her inability to say anything nice about whole groups of people who individually, she knows nothing about: my comments aren't about being "mean" to Maritsa (or "mean" to her School of Socionics: I'm not sure if it is possible to be mean to something abstract, but that is another matter). If you are saying that I should instead praise Maritsa for at least saying that all EIIs are Humanists and incapable of evil (as she has frequently done), then I disagree: that is a wholly unacceptable way to live. It is not how your Messiah would have lived. ("If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

    I believe that there will be some individuals, including well-meaning ones, who may truly be puzzled about why Maritsa is considered such a long-term problematic member of the forum. However, you should also recognise that many individuals have felt the need to limit their posting or even abandon the forum altogether because of her antics. It isn't just a matter of her ideology being so corrosive and detrimental, whether to individuals who are "new" to Socionics and are in the early stages of reading up on the theory in order to understand themselves and their relationships with others, but the way that she stifles discussion by her mere presence. Her rudeness towards members of the forum including myself (e.g. repeatedly telling me to "fuck off" recently) is a fairly regular occurrence that typically happens when challenged on her ideology - and often, towards individuals who have shown no rudeness towards her. I have certainly not spoken to her in that manner.

    I hope that you, as a fundamentalist Christian, can appreciate that calling someone "evil" just because they have a certain type (or rather, because Maritsa thinks they are a certain type...or alternatively, thinking they are a certain type, because she thinks they are evil...the distinction is not important, as it is wrong whichever way) is, on paper at least, the worst thing you could say about a person. It is possible that when Maritsa calls all members of a type "evil" or all members of a type "husband-stealers" she speaks without thinking. I find this incredibly hard to believe however, especially considering her prolonged habit of engaging in such behaviour. Such slander is ingrained into her mindset.

    Edit:
    In regards bad fruit: don't forget that Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing any fruit (even though it was out of season!) so that it would never bear fruit ever again. Jesus could have said nothing at all, or he could have said something positive about the fig tree existing in the first place, or...he could have healed the fig tree with his "powers". But no, he damned it.
    Great material for your type as the Critic

    Oh prophet you are so wise as to tell us that we will be killed by god due to a sour apple tell them prophet tell them what will come and what we can expect b
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  2. #42
    Shay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    TIM
    INTx
    Posts
    871
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I fully agree with @Subteigh in all he has written recently

  3. #43
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    I'm trying to give Lucifer one out of 16 types
    was your strategy to identify the most evil type and then assign it to lucifer because lucifer is the "ultimate evil"?

  4. #44
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    24,619
    Mentioned
    592 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    was your strategy to identify the most evil type and then assign it to lucifer because lucifer is the "ultimate evil"?
    I used a process of elimination he can't be a prophet like ILI so that type is out hahah
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  5. #45
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,285
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The enemy of mankind is whatever type I am.

    Praise chaos, death, and destruction to anyone and everyone that lives.

  6. #46
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Great material for your type as the Critic

    Oh prophet you are so wise as to tell us that we will be killed by god due to a sour apple tell them prophet tell them what will come and what we can expect b
    I do not see why I am a critic or a prophet because I pointed out that it is immoral to depict groups of individuals as evil that you know nothing about (other than their types).

    I do not see either why I am a critic or prophet because I made the fairly obvious observation that a person who considers all individuals of a certain type as evil/immoral/husband-stealers (etc.) cannot have anything other than a highly superficial understanding of human behaviour.

    I believe that you depicting whole groups of people as evil/immoral/husband-stealers etc. would make you a more likely candidate to be a critic.

    I personally do not believe in evil, as ideals of "objective good" and "objective bad" cannot exist for subjective individuals such as humans. However, this does not mean that I do not consider certain ideologies as evil: e.g. believing that another subjective being is evil and deserving of eternal torture is clearly an evil ideology because the severity is unquestionably wrong. While I do not believe it possible for such a doctrine to be put into force (because there is no force that can enact it), I nonetheless believe that a great amount of bad has been committed throughout history by individuals believing they have an objective view of "the Truth", and who think that abominable action are permitted if it is for what they see as "the greater good". It has always been my view that if a "great evil" is being committed by such individuals, it is unacceptable to simply just stand by and watch. Hence why I am rather aggrieved by your immoral words.

    I do not believe that a deep thinker or philosopher to think the way I do. I also do not think that thinking in such a way makes an individual a "great Humanist" or lover of humanity. However, I do think that the clear discrepancy between our worldviews makes a mockery of your ludicrous obsession of believing you can sum up individuals with one word (such as "Critic", "Humanist" etc.) as though that is meant to be a persuasive argument. Your attempt at what is essentially battle-typing is also bizarre considering our types were not even relevant to the comments I initially made. You have continuously given the impression that you are putting on a public performance. There was no need to call me "the Critic" in response to my quite reasonable concerns which you have still failed to address satisfactorily. I do not need an apology or an explanation however - it is quite sufficient that you desist from the immoral practice of calling individuals you know nothing about "evil" (etc.).

  7. #47
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Its actually a sign of a psychologically healthier person to use you more than I in sentence structure.
    I'm not sure about that, but Maritsa once (or rather twice) posted two threads two days apart with the titles "VI DISCUSSION FOR RICK DELONG - WE WANT YOUR PICTURES" and "RICK DELONG WE WANT YOUR PICS". People were rather baffled at the time at her use of "We" when she was only referring to herself. Using such language in such a way seems like a form of narcissism or egoism. (The threads were also incidentally a notable example of Maritsa's periodic (and fairly frequent) use of ALL CAPS, although here, she was at least not coupling that with abuse).

  8. #48
    Resonare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    TIM
    ESI-Se 1w9
    Posts
    507
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Aylen, I agree with Ni/Se-valuing Ej type for Lucifer Morningstar (Lucifer) but he seems far too aggressor to be a Beta victim.

  9. #49
    I've been waiting for you Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Behind you
    TIM
    sle sp/sx 845
    Posts
    4,963
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    16 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I'm not sure about that, but Maritsa once (or rather twice) posted two threads two days apart with the titles "VI DISCUSSION FOR RICK DELONG - WE WANT YOUR PICTURES" and "RICK DELONG WE WANT YOUR PICS". People were rather baffled at the time at her use of "We" when she was only referring to herself. Using such language in such a way seems like a form of narcissism or egoism. (The threads were also incidentally a notable example of Maritsa's periodic (and fairly frequent) use of ALL CAPS, although here, she was at least not coupling that with abuse).
    The greater we. I use we, and you, and I. I like the generic you myself.

  10. #50
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,369
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I'm not sure about that, but Maritsa once (or rather twice) posted two threads two days apart with the titles "VI DISCUSSION FOR RICK DELONG - WE WANT YOUR PICTURES" and "RICK DELONG WE WANT YOUR PICS". People were rather baffled at the time at her use of "We" when she was only referring to herself. Using such language in such a way seems like a form of narcissism or egoism. (The threads were also incidentally a notable example of Maritsa's periodic (and fairly frequent) use of ALL CAPS, although here, she was at least not coupling that with abuse).
    Oddly, the you v. I think is an indicator of narcissism as well. Usage of I signifies the desire to inform people about who you are. That desire, is a byproduct of needing outside assurance or acknowledgment of self, aka narcissism.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    230
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Its actually a sign of a psychologically healthier person to use you more than I in sentence structure.
    This statement caught my interest. However, I couldn't find any backing for this statement when I did a google search. Do you have a source for this?

  12. #52
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Maritsa's view of individuals of certain types being evil etc. simply for being that type (or perhaps being a particular type because they are evil), in combination with her self-identification as a Humanist (or rather, THE Humanist, considering the extent to which she confronts and retypes others who type themselves EII, as well as how she describes her identity from EII profiles rather than from her own behaviour (comments where she says that Maritsa is incapable of acting badly because she believes EIIs are incapable of acting badly make this clear) must mean that she considers EIIs, especially herself, the greatest people who have ever lived.

    I think it is exceptionally dehumanising for whole groups of people to be classified as "evil", "good", "impure", (etc.). Even if Maritsa did not resort to the language of demagogues and religious extremists, I believe she must be particularly vain in order to see herself as the embodiment of virtue (as she clearly thinks of the EII archetype, which she seems to think she is the exemplar of), and in strong contrast to types she sees as "evil" etc.

  13. #53
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    In regards the devil: in terms of the Abrahamic religions and popular culture, he is obviously represented as an individual who sees himself as a god (perhaps even trumping God himself), and he offers (or claims to offer) material rewards and knowledge. He is often seen as the Great Deceiver and the Great Destroyer (although it is worth remarking that according to the Abrahamic religions, god is even more skilled at deceit and destruction: perhaps the key significance is that the devil is not a Creator of anything lasting), and perhaps more in popular culture, as an embodiment of narcissism.

    The character is implausible illogical (the same with God himself) in that he knows he will be defeated (you would assume, considering that the faithful believe that god is omnipotent despite never observing god for themselves), but still he rebels. It would probably be ludicrous to attach this to poor . It is probably fair to conclude that he is more interested in having personal freedoms and his own kingdom rather than living a well-paced aesthetic life.

    I probably type the devil as EIE, placing particular weight on his ability to deceive and flatter. I of course think SLEs and other types can do this, and that EIEs of this type feel incapable of taking part in such behaviour. But I think of the most likely candidates for his type based on being the embodiment of certain traits, EIE is the more likely. There is comparatively little description of the devil with SLE-like negative traits. (It might be worth noting that I also type the biblical Jesus as EIE, and would probably type the Old Testament god as LSI).

  14. #54
    Moderator Reficulris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,041
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    like how you just put certain people in a strict socionics system and typed them as evil types: ESE, ILE ?
    ESE IS a popular typing for Maritsa! All the voices in my head are telling me it's true!

  15. #55
    draon9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ile

  16. #56
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    618
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    Possible types for lucifer: ILE, IEI, EIE (the TV show's rendition is EIE but I'm not sure it fits), LIE

  17. #57

  18. #58
    Carolus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    North Carolina
    TIM
    EIE 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    754
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lucifer/Satan as portrayed by Milton is certainly an EIE 4w3 sx. Pride and envy are the Luciferian sins.
    Actual angels and demons don't have personalities, however.

  19. #59
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,562
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Those are like God like figures in the category of edgelords. Place in EIE Hall of Fame is guaranteed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  20. #60
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    7,049
    Mentioned
    346 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    What does this amount to? ...LIE? LIE for the master of lies is amusing.
    Apparently I typed Lucifer as Jesus's dual (under the assumption that socionics can apply to Jesus, which I doubt as mentioned in the earlier post).

    LSE
    1-6-2 so/sx
    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  21. #61
    Impermanence para's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Preemptive cycle
    Posts
    969
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lucifer, Satan, the ''opponent''. Seems to indicate some sort of F-PoLR in the Hebraic understanding of the term...
    When the heavens above did not exist,
    And earth beneath had not come into being —
    There was Apsû, the first in order, their begetter,
    And demiurge Tia-mat, who gave birth to them all;
    They had mingled their waters together
    Before meadow-land had coalesced and reed-bed was to he found —
    When not one of the gods had been formed
    Or had come into being, when no destinies had been decreed,
    The gods were created within them:

  22. #62
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    454
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Does God love lucifer I always wondered that.

    Why does Lucifer mean the Bringer of Light, I always found that curious as well.

    Jealousy and envy are two qualities that separate the self and the non-self, having, have, wanting and not having.

    I'm curious about these things anyway.

    Lucifer is Evil, yet he always gives you a choice, yet will trick you into thinking you have none.

    Eternal Damnation, suffering forever in a place far from God.

    The Greatest Arch angel made into the most feared and despised.

    Fire and brimstone.

    The one who tempted man and succeeded.

    The serpent.

    What is his personality ? Does the bible describe character traits?

  23. #63

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,736
    Mentioned
    965 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finaplex View Post
    Does the bible describe character traits?
    opposing to God and hence to perfectness
    from this may follow to identify Satan as principle of imperfectness
    from Jung's typology point - types are states of imperfectness, inner controversive accentuations of the psyche
    overesteemating the importance of one type traits by the cost of underesteemating of other traits - weak, nonvalued regions - this would be Satan's general character trait - the trait of having Jung's type

    perfect psyche is without Jung type. all types mb said as faces of Satan
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  24. #64
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    454
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    opposing to God and hence to perfectness
    from this may follow to identify Satan as principle of imperfectness
    from Jung's typology point - types are states of imperfectness, inner controversive accentuations of the psyche
    overesteemating the importance of one type traits by the cost of underesteemating of other traits - weak, nonvalued regions - this would be Satan's general character trait - the trait of having Jung's type

    perfect psyche is without Jung type. all types mb said as faces of Satan
    Enneagram is also about separate pieces of the whole. The more esoteric writings supposedly talk about how each ego fixation is a piece of the whole.

    There is always this duality in Christian philosophy.

    Without the Devil how would you even know about God? You can't tell a quality without the lack of that quality. How would you even know what was at stake if not from the Devil?

    Wait wait I get it, that's what the Genesis story is about. Knowledge to know that you are an individual apart from God.

  25. #65

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,741
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Idk, EIE/SLE - even LIE/SEE at times with a twinge of IEI victimyness.

    I think 'The Devil's' entire shtick is basically trying to turn something that is objectively disgusting and clearly 'wrong' -- well he makes it seem very sexy to the person doing it at the time. It's like the ultimate seduction. Where they themselves don't think or even know its wrong anymore, they just think its exciting and fun. It feels so good, it can't be wrong type of thing. That's why I always thought when somebody tries to morally chastise somebody else and go 'C'mon, you know what you're doing is wrong!' its like that's the thing, when somebody has drunk the Satan Kool-Aid they actually really don't.

    So when somebody is about to cut a helpless woman up into little tiny parts and then do a bunch of weird sexual shit to her, instead of 'whoah this is fucked up I shouldn't be doing this' they are just getting off on the thrill of it. The gross/disgusting has become sexy and thus the Devil has won and has entrapped that person. Not only that, he's also entrapped the people who have enabled that person by making excuses for them and also even entrapped the ones that get super angry at the person and can't forgive them, ever. The devil just won everything by the person 'giving in.'

    Eroticism plays with this in small doses.... where its often not as over the top as that example I just provided, its in a small enough dose for people to be 'into' something. ((I always thought true eroticism was really nothing more than Good and Evil learning how to kiss each other for the first time...)) When people are mean or heartless to somebody else, its also a similar concept- just in a much milder dose. But ugh I love being campy so fuck that mild shit.

    But of course we get into a thing where 'what is truly heinous and disgusting' ppl can disagree on or quite naturally there is lots of gray areas but ummm I'm pretty sure that's how he works. And in your normal, god-given state of mind or whatever yes, you would know that eating babies is gross and wrong. But in the lucifer lust mode you're like 'yeah c'mon Chad let's do it together!' And obviously he will corrupt you more slowly over time - in a very subtle and crafty way where you think you are doing a righteous thing but ethically you are really just 'eating a baby.'

    Not that I would ever eat babies with Chad or anything =p, I'm just saying. Isn't that how it works?

  26. #66
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    454
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  27. #67
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    476
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lucifer/Satan/the Devil is ILE, the ultimate troll, trickster, rabble rouser, and incendiary > sows chaos (via intuitively and craftily exploiting logical loop holes) and laughs as he sits back and watches everything "burn" around him.

    Satan's base program is Ne > Se; he's not Ares (SLE), the embodiment of physical aggression necessary to win a war, and does not seek power through concretized, brute, brunt force. Satan avoids outright confrontation with God because role Se can't sustain that indefinitely. Who else but a Ne lead would decide to take the form of a talking serpent? ILEs are attuned to the conceptual expressions of multiple variables present within any environment/context and they know how to speak to/connect to/tap into/link with these variables/potentialities in a way that allows them to challenge and change how others perceive reality.

    Genesis 2: 15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

    ...

    Genesis 3: 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”


    2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”


    4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”


    6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
    Satan knew that Eve would have most likely come across a serpent before (she was there as her man named/cataloged everything), but not one that could talk, which would lend credence to the notion there was possibly some otherworldly knowledge to be gained by eating from the tree. He sowed doubts in Eve’s mind, implying that God was holding back something good from her and needlessly restricting her freedom. The success of Satan’s machination depended on the chance that Eve’s self-interest [I type her ESI fwiw) would outweigh her love for the allegedly omnipotent being who had given her everything she had. Tricky bastard bet correctly. lol What do Satan and the ILE have common? They creatively raise valid questions that no one else has thought of and/or will speak to. They sow doubt while mocking your ass to death, and especially when resisting rules and structures they find to be nonsensical, unreasonable, stifling and limiting to their "freedom."

    Job 1:8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”


    9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
    It's worth mentioning that Satan was calling God out in front of millions of angels, effectively challenging God’s right to rule, even insinuating that God does not deserve to be obeyed because, according to Satan, humans only served God when bribed with blessings--in the case of Job, that God was buying his loyalty. Where's the lie, tho? lol Satan claimed that under personal hardship all people would “curse” their Creator. Satan raised the question of human integrity and asserted that all people would act in their own interest, if left to their own devices/shielded from God's protection and blessings--which, overall, spoke to his skepticism concerning the righteousness and rightfulness of God's sovereignty. Shots fired! lol

    If I had to choose a more likely hidden agenda for Satan, it would be Fe > Se because it seems that Satan probably wants the love and admiration he believes undeservedly goes to God for himself, more so than seeking power and dominance, in and of themselves. Moreover, *LEs, when/if they want to, usually have little problem using Fe to coerce and manipulate to some nefarious self serving end but struggle to create environments where high, positive feelings thrive, abound, and endure for everyone involved...which would be evident when looking at the state of the world (within the theoretical confines of Christianity).

  28. #68
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    522
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know this is referring to the pop culture idea of Satan, but as the term was originally a Jewish concept, I’d like to paint a picture of what “Satan” actually was before Christians misconstrued the notion.

    In the Tanakh, or what Christians call tbe Old Testament, Satan is an angel of God (and properly a job title rather than a name); no such thing as the Devil exists. This remains present-day Jewish belief. All the Tanakh really has to say about bad things happening is

    I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and I create evil [calamities]; I the Lord do all these things.
    The fundamental tenet of Judaism is that God is one — that, truly, nothing exists apart from God. There’s no triune “godhead” as with the Christian trinity, and certainly no power like the Devil that can counteract the will of God. The Jewish god is actually all-powerful, compared with the seemingly restricted Christian and Muslim gods: humans might have limited free will, and, perhaps, one can’t always blame God for intentional murders and genocides, but when someone develops cancer, or is hit by a falling tree branch, or is run over by a train — well, nothing can happen unless God wills it. Nothing. There’s a fundamental difference in how Jews and Christians view God, but also in how they view evil. “Evil” — in the sense of a moral failing — is human failing to master one’s impulses, or animalistic nature. rather than having its origin in some supernatural demonic entity that’s fundamentally corrupted human nature. The Jewish “ Satan” (a title which just means “adversary”) is an angel with no free will; God sends a “Satan” to Balaam to block his path; a “Satan” appears in the story of Job to challenge him; elsewhere he appears as a prosecuting angel of sorts in a heavenly court, condemning the defendant for his sins.
    As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •