Luciferianism, Satanism and Demonolatry

lol

edit: ( Luke 4: vs 5 to vs 8 )

How can one be taken seriously when the source material you use is a book which half is written as mis-directional material and at the same time trying to represent yourself as the occult opposite answer?
If you try to use the bible as reference, then you must be in agreement with it. And if you find it is not true but only use a part of it to suit your purposes, how can you expect us to accept anything you say as worthwhile?

Maxx wrote:How can one be taken seriously when the source material you use is a book which half is written as mis-directional material and at the same time trying to represent yourself as the occult opposite answer?

Easilly, this statement however, is stupid. I hope you're trolling. Or that you aren't so stupid to see the obvious point I was making while using it

Maxx wrote:If you try to use the bible as reference, then you must be in agreement with it. And if you find it is not true but only use a part of it to suit your purposes, how can you expect us to accept anything you say as worthwhile?

Seriously??? Of fucking course I agree with it. Not spiritually as you ( quite ignorantly and stupidly implied) I agree that it is correct in one area: the mythology it illustrates. Kinda obvious that the bible is correct on biblical and abrahamic mythology ( not history, or religion. MYTHOLOGY) ANd obvious too that this is how I was using it.

Satan is a hebrew term. A term used to illustrate a diabolical concept in the hebrew mythology. People weren't getting the mythology right. So where would you go to find the correct information on it? the source...

Serious people go to the source. Read my post again and try to not look like an idiot next time.

sikvdili: You have to understand something important here. First of all, there is a difference between Ignorance, fundamentalism and education. With education you can turn yourself into an Intelligent person and move on in evolution.. With fundamentalism you turn yourself in an ignorant person. In my view, you are a fundamentalist person. Obviously this thing is not good in yourself, because you can't see doors in front of you, instead that, you only worry about what you read and if is the right source or not. in my country, someone that call "idiot" to someone, is more idiot. Next time, don't be an idiot and please Respect people. You're not better than anyone nor your knowledge is better...

sikvdili : First of all, that you even consider the New testament as a reliable source for anything.. is really  beyond me   ....  

Constantine created a panel of scholars/ priests (The First Council of Nicaea )  to sit down and agree upon witch texts that was Suitable for the roman empire to use in the bible.
To simply  recreate the religion  of Christianity to suite the  Roman empire,  this was  in 325 Anno Domini (meaning, after Christ )....  About 307 years before the Quran.    
You can read about every counsil including that one, here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon

These should be the first councils of the Roman Catholic Christian Church,
and since then there are numerous other versions of the bible and various versions, depending on witch branch of Christianity you follow.

However when it comes to the first testament or hebrew bible the  Tanakh it were gathered  by the "Men of the Great Assembly" and then finished by the year  450 BC, and have since then remained unchanged.

More about that can be read here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh#Torah

That is 775 years before Constantine's  first assembly.

My point being that all these text was taken from something, and put in to something else, the further back you get in religious and mythologic text the more symbolism and occult knowledge you will find, the bible does also use the ways of symbolism... but how reliable do you really think that it is ?  

Second : I support good behavior...  and a good debate should be preformed in a mature way.

1. I am already well versed in the councils of nicea

2. they were not the councils of the roman catholic church. They were catholic, yes. But rome was only one of the five holy sees.

3. Constantine didn't hold the councils, it was actually somebody further down the line.

4. Can everybody open their eyes? Look at the information I presented. I provided one example using something well versed in the use of the Hebrew language ( NOT FACTUAL) only used in that sense. And anything I retained from that source, I corroberated with another source. Which went right over everybody's head.

I used a well known source to show the roots of a semantical argument, then I showed an academic source in another part of my post. To corroborate it.

Kalb wrote:sikvdili: You have to understand something important here. First of all, there is a difference between Ignorance, fundamentalism and education. With education you can turn yourself into an Intelligent person and move on in evolution.. With fundamentalism you turn yourself in an ignorant person. In my view, you are a fundamentalist person. Obviously this thing is not good in yourself, because you can't see doors in front of you, instead that, you only worry about what you read and if is the right source or not.  in my country, someone that call "idiot" to someone, is more idiot. Next time, don't be an idiot and please Respect people. You're not better than anyone nor your knowledge is better...

Yet I grasp context, I rebuttal and challenge with sources and original argumentation.

The problem isn't my immaturity lol.

Because it's SO mature to be hung up on the MINOR SOURCE of my argument and then dismiss what I said. Even though the rebuttals provided were less than correct and didn't directly address the point I made.

[quote="Divine 277"]sikvdili : First of all, that you even consider the New testament as a reliable source for anything.. is really  beyond me   ....  [quote]

lol, but using wikipedia and relying on John Dee is a sign of a true academic mind... 

I could have used other sources dear sir, for instance the encyclopedia Britannica, or secret text archive or any other cross related text... Even national Geographic, history channel... or what ever, really ... but to be frank, Wikipedia is the easy choice when it comes to something this fundamental and easy knowledge to obtain.

Im not really going to go in on this discussion with you .. since you clearly did not in anyway relate or even begin to comply or else understand the meaning behind what I wrote ...

Further more I think you really are just here to feed ... and Im not going to further give you that satisfaction....

Good day sir and happy hunting

dili....you will not ever be taken seriously here whether you are correct or incorrect with your attitude.  We do not play with the gamers in the fashion you spend your time involved with.  This forum is not based on your Star Trek Sith community and it is a certain waste of time playing your little games here.  You have engaged everyone here in your "adversarial" attitude constantly and if you continue you are certain to be banned and kicked out of here.  Is that what you after?.....Is that the manner of adversary you want to play.  As I said earlier, either grow up and take your sith crap out of here or wise up and try to see why you are the only one here that thinks you are wonder boy.....

sikdvili: with all respect, you used the source to attempt to disprove the fact that Lucifer is a figure in Abrahamic mythology and this snowballed out of control.

Stapleraindrop wrote:sikdvili: with all respect, you used the source to attempt to disprove the fact that Lucifer is a figure in Abrahamic mythology and this snowballed out of control.

Close. I was using Oxford to disprove it and show that he was a figure of translation by the Roman scholar, Jerome. I used the bible as an example of how the Koine Greek/ Aramaic practically applied this.

Divine 277 wrote:I could have used other sources dear sir, for instance the encyclopedia Britannica, or secret text archive or any other cross related text...   Even national Geographic, history channel... or what ever, really ...  but to be frank, Wikipedia is the easy choice when it comes to something this fundamental and easy knowledge to obtain.

Im not really going to go in on this discussion with you .. since you clearly did not in anyway relate or even begin to comply or else understand the meaning behind what I wrote ...

Further more I think you really are just here to feed  ... and Im not going to further give you that satisfaction....

Good day sir and happy hunting

Brittianica.. please use that next time

History channel? Are you serious? They claimed that Christmas was about how Jesus was the son, therefore the literal sun. And that Christmas was in recognition of that... no I did not make that up.

And comply? that basically means obey... I have to obey what you say as command? That isn't debate.


I was just showing you the fallacy of your information of using the ecumenical councils ( in which ONLY ONE covered the bible) as biblical distortion. Even though christian texts around the time and still to this very day, not only say that the bible isn't holy authority. Both Ancient and modern writings.

You were the one who missed the context. You didn't even directly respond to the point I raised in response to your argument.

Maxx wrote:dili....you will not ever be taken seriously here whether you are correct or incorrect with your attitude.  We do not play with the gamers in the fashion you spend your time involved with.  This forum is not based on your Star Trek Sith community and it is a certain waste of time playing your little games here.  You have engaged everyone here in your "adversarial" attitude constantly and if you continue you are certain to be banned and kicked out of here.  Is that what you after?.....Is that the manner of adversary you want to play.  As I said earlier, either grow up and take your sith crap out of here or wise up and try to see why you are the only one here that thinks you are wonder boy.....

Again. I came here with no insult to the community ( which I really could) yet you insult the path I follow when I challenge and and call me immature?

And I haven't engaged everybody I have responded to here in an adversarial tone. That is a misrepresentation. And quite frankly, a lie.

Stapleraindrop wrote:sikdvili: with all respect, you used the source to attempt to disprove the fact that Lucifer is a figure in Abrahamic mythology and this snowballed out of control.

Considering your response. Thank you. You are somebody who's willing to question and directly respond my argument without petty or pathetic personal insults and did not take me out of context or fail to truly grasp it.

I thank you for your exchange.

sikvdili wrote:
3. Constantine didn't hold the councils, it was actually somebody further down the line.

EDIT: it was Theodosius who led the final shift of the italicisation of Christianity.

Man you are a special kind of sh** disturber

Stapleraindrop wrote:Man you are a special kind of sh** disturber

trolls usually don't have a clue what they're talking about and just insult you in the most juvenile way possible lol.

I'll take the compliment that may or may not be there

comply: abide by, observe, obey, adhere to, conform to, hew to, follow, respect; agree to, assent to, go along with, yield to, submit to, defer to; satisfy, fulfill.

There was a reason I choose that word ...  and  If you truly where here to discuss and not cause trouble, you would have notes the contradictions in my writings, and what lies beneath... Its not often I think that someone should be banned from here, from trolling and asking questions ... but to me it seems your intensions are clear....  ( this is my personal thoughts... )

Divine 277 wrote:comply: abide by, observe, obey, adhere to, conform to, hew to, follow, respect; agree to, assent to, go along with, yield to, submit to, defer to; satisfy, fulfill.

There was a reason I choose that word ...  and  If you truly where here to discuss and not cause trouble, you would have notes the contradictions in my writings, and what lies beneath... Its not often I think that someone should be banned from here, from trolling and asking questions ... but to me it seems your intensions are clear....  ( this is my personal thoughts... )

Just because I prove everybody I deal with, wrong and can provide argument and rebuttal doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Also the word you used shows exactly what I argued, the fact you acknowledged this, proves my point in the previous post.

And somebody should be banned for asking questions? Well that's on you

Just because I prove everybody I deal with, wrong and can provide argument and rebuttal doesn't mean I'm wrong.

hold up here....I totally disagree with this statement.  In my view you have not proven anything other than you want to be an "in your face" confrontational person here.  

We welcome any side of an issue, but not to the point where the conversation is nothing but a bare knuckles slugfest.  That is what you appear to instigate every time you tune into this forum...  

We do not expect everyone to agree with sugar and spice.....but damn if we will allow this to rag on and on with attitude the main agenda.  If you cannot seem to make an intelligent decision to join us in conversation in a way that will not inflame everyone....then I will join in the motion to have you dismissed out of here in a hurry......and there seems to be a growing number behind the scenes that have not even joined into the conversation and just watched your actions that are joining for you to be expelled out of here.  In your eyes you seem to be right 100percent of the time.....but others seem to see you as a rather angry person bent on just stirring up things purposefully.

One could possible be correct 70 percent of the time but inflame 99 percent of those around you and that would make your presence here entirely wrong...... 100 percent.  It is very obvious to everyone but yourself that this is taking place.  

So what I am saying is that it is up to you if you stay here or not....it all depends on your attitude here.  You certainly do not have to agree with anyone...but it is how that is presented is going to get you in much hot water in your future dealing with people all around you.  My advice is....learn how to disagree.....while not being disagreeable in doing it.   You certainly have not done that yet in your life.

Sorry I misphrased

I meant just because I challenge or question, doesn't make me a troll.

I was tired when I phrased it, came out wrong.

Maxx wrote:
hold up here....I totally disagree with this statement.  In my view you have not proven anything other than you want to be an "in your face" confrontational person here.  

Also, I have proven myself right several times in this forum. It's even happened in this very topic more than once.

It in not about what you post; it is how you post it.