Isn't Lucifer the Good Guy?

[Jumi]

This is why ''prove it'', in many if not most cases is not really an argument.

You are wrong that we know it to be inspired by God, unless you by "we" mean a group of people who believe it to be so. For my part, I don't know such a thing, quite the opposite so there is no problematics here.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are wrong that we know it to be inspired by God, unless you by "we" mean a group of people who believe it to be so. For my part, I don't know such a thing, quite the opposite so there is no problematics here.

Yes, we, as in the people who know and believe this. ''Believe'' as a word in the religious context is broader than how it is sometimes used; ie, in the religious context, ''belief'', is not an antithesis to knowledge. It can mean both know and or not know, without distinct specification. 'We'' wasn't including everyone .
/just the believers/

 

[Jumi]

I would say that this activity is very similar to describing the confirmation of the love and knowledge of God by the Holy Spirit which is "inspiration" when reading the scriptures. One "knows" the confirmation of the Holy Ghost is there... unless you are passed feeling (as many are).

It's your right to believe this, reading the Bible made me feel quite different to the confirmation you speak of.

 

[ether-ore]

It's your right to believe this, reading the Bible made me feel quite different to the confirmation you speak of.

Yes, I know.

 

[JoStories]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you are talking about the Abrahamic G-d, He is generally believed to be hidden or ''invisible''; hence one might have evidence from other things that He exists. If one is referring to the Xian theistic stance, G-d infers 'Jesus', as well, so evidence of Jesus==evidence for G-d. Now, I'm syncretic, so I include other things besides the Abrahamic texts, etc., in my proposition. Your position of belief in G-d not being quantifiable is just incorrect. It's your personal perspective, hence not really my problem as to evidence or presenting a logical basis for my position. You are essentially presenting an argument from ignorance. or an argument from /0/, which is not actually an argument; /0/ is a position of not knowing, or contextually, not even having a position. A position from your perspective is therefore ''I think this is the case'', and nothing more. Asking me to prove something to you is not logical, as you have not proven your position, or rather have not proven the logic of your position.

Ok. What scientific measures are you using to quantify the existence of God that would be acceptable to unbiased and credible scientists? When you make a statement such as this, it says to me you can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that God truly exists. If such were the case, every person on earth would believe in God. Since we know that is not true, how will you prove your assertion here? The emotional state of love can be measured through endorphins. Serotonin and other neurotransmitters are and can be measured objectively. Can you say the same for the existence of God?

 

[Desert Snake]

Ok. What scientific measures are you using to quantify the existence of God that would be acceptable to unbiased and credible scientists? When you make a statement such as this, it says to me you can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that God truly exists. If such were the case, every person on earth would believe in God. Since we know that is not true, how will you prove your assertion here? The emotional state of love can be measured through endorphins. Serotonin and other neurotransmitters are and can be measured objectively. Can you say the same for the existence of God?

lol you can't measure love. that's ridiculous. unbiased and credible scientists is also subjective and contextual. You are also comparing apples and oranges. a physical chemical reaction, to a Deity. It's nonsense.

 

[JoStories]

lol you can't measure love. that's ridiculous. unbiased and credible scientists is also subjective and contextual. You are also comparing apples and oranges. a physical chemical reaction, to a Deity. It's nonsense.

Measurement of many emotions is not only possible, its a reality. We can measure fear, anger, and so on through a number of means. Pet scans can show areas of the brain that are innervated to show fear, bigotry and so on. Here are two articles, one on fear and the other on love.
Garfinkel, S. N., & Critchley, H. D. (2014). Neural correlates of fear: insights from neuroimaging. Neuroscience & Neuroeconomicss, 3.
Cacioppo, S., Bianchi-Demicheli, F., Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2012). Social neuroscience of love. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9(1), 3-13.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's also off topic. You are now creating your own parameters by which to judge any argument presented, and therefore pre-disposing the logical outcome.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Measurement of many emotions is not only possible, its a reality. We can measure fear, anger, and so on through a number of means. Pet scans can show areas of the brain that are innervated to show fear, bigotry and so on. Here are two articles, one on fear and the other on love.
Garfinkel, S. N., & Critchley, H. D. (2014). Neural correlates of fear: insights from neuroimaging. Neuroscience & Neuroeconomicss, 3.
Cacioppo, S., Bianchi-Demicheli, F., Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2012). Social neuroscience of love. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9(1), 3-13.

It isn't necessarily a reality, it's mostly bad scientific practices:

Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(1), 27.
Boag, S. (2011). Explanation in personality psychology:“Verbal magic” and the five-factor model. Philosophical psychology, 24(2), 223-243.
Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept (Ideas in Context Vol. 53). Cambridge University Press.
Michell, J. (2008). Is psychometrics pathological science?. Measurement, 6(1-2), 7-24.
Toomela, A. (2010). Quantitative methods in psychology: inevitable and useless. Frontiers in psychology, 1, 29.
Trendler, G. (2009). Measurement theory, psychology and the revolution that cannot happen. Theory & Psychology, 19(5), 579-599.
etc.

For substance over citations, I've written some (simplistic) accounts of the research and issues linked to below:
Is there a good reason to suspect problems in all research in hundreds of scientific fields? Part I
Preview of Part II on a general critique of social and (some) other sciences
Part II: When your basic research design is flawed, use inferior statistical analyses to make things worse

 

[JoStories]

It isn't necessarily a reality, it's mostly bad scientific practices:

Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(1), 27.
Boag, S. (2011). Explanation in personality psychology:“Verbal magic” and the five-factor model. Philosophical psychology, 24(2), 223-243.
Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept (Ideas in Context Vol. 53). Cambridge University Press.
Michell, J. (2008). Is psychometrics pathological science?. Measurement, 6(1-2), 7-24.
Toomela, A. (2010). Quantitative methods in psychology: inevitable and useless. Frontiers in psychology, 1, 29.
Trendler, G. (2009). Measurement theory, psychology and the revolution that cannot happen. Theory & Psychology, 19(5), 579-599.
etc.

For substance over citations, I've written some (simplistic) accounts of the research and issues linked to below:
Is there a good reason to suspect problems in all research in hundreds of scientific fields? Part I
Preview of Part II on a general critique of social and (some) other sciences
Part II: When your basic research design is flawed, use inferior statistical analyses to make things worse

Legion, I could post just as many contrary articles and please keep in mind, I studied for my masters in psych with a neuropsychologist. So we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, I could post just as many contrary articles and please keep in mind

Actually, you couldn't. This was recognized as a serious problem in the 30s, and for several years an annual conference consisting of noteworthy psychologists, physicists, and other scientists met to try to resolve whether measurements in psychology were possible. Although no specific position was reached, the general consensus was "no". The problem is that psychologists didn't have anything to replace measurement theory with (as they applied it), so they just continued to use it. Defenses of measurements in psychology, from Lord and Novick's incredibly influential work to the foundational methods for experimental designs (not only in psychology but sociology, medicine, economics, etc.) founded by Fisher and Neyman-Pearson (which is interesting, as they fundamentally disagreed, yet somehow current NHST is a welding of these contradicting approaches) have either made excuses or otherwise not addressed the criticisms. Thorndike's model was replaced by the largely atheoretical model of Likert mostly for expediency, and any theoretical justification has long since been absent. Item response theory is generally applied the way that statistical methods are, rather than as an empirically, scientifically justified model of measurement (and it failed to actually address criticisms of attitude/personality/etc. measurements in the literature too, as it assumed them). Latent variable theory is worse still, as it is almost entirely approached in terms of the statistical models used to "uncover" latent variables (SEM, path analysis, etc.). For the most part, as with criticisms of NHST, the continued claim that measure of personality, attitudes, etc., in psychology, cognitive neuroscience, social neuroscience, social psychology, etc., are actually measuring anything in any meaningful way persists not due to responses of criticism or even in spite of them, but by ignorance of them.

I studied for my masters in psych with a neuropsychologist.

Fantastic. My field is neuroscience. Most my graduate research was in cognitive neuroscience, and the reason I switched more and more to complex systems, computational neuroscience, neuronal dynamics, physics, nonlinear dynamics, systems sciences, etc., was because of the rampant misuse of scales, statistics, and research designs as well as the unjustified assumptions that most researchers were and are ignorant of because such problems were largely swept under the rug in the earlier half of the 20th century.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

The word 'Lucifer' means the shining one or the light bringer. And this title is, as funny as it might be, actually given to Jesus Christ in the book of Revelation. So according to Christianity Jesus is Lucifer himself and all of those paintings of a devil with horns and tails could therefore be made of Jesus just as well, since hes Lucifer and Lucifer is ugly.

 

[ether-ore]

The word 'Lucifer' means the shining one or the light bringer. And this title is, as funny as it might be, actually given to Jesus Christ in the book of Revelation. So according to Christianity Jesus is Lucifer himself and all of those paintings of a devil with horns and tails could therefore be made of Jesus just as well, since hes Lucifer and Lucifer is ugly.

You cited Revelations. Chapter & verse?

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

You cited Revelations. Chapter & verse?

"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" - Isaiah 14:12 (talking about Lucifer because some translations have 'Lucifer instead of 'morning star' see King James Version)

""I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."" - Revelation 22:16 Jesus says hes Lucifer ie. the shining morning star.


You will receive Lucifer in your heart if youre a Christian.

"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." - 2 Peter 1:19

 

[ether-ore]

"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" - Isaiah 14:12 (talking about Lucifer because some translations have 'Lucifer instead of 'morning star' see King James Version)

""I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."" - Revelation 22:16 Jesus says hes Lucifer ie. the shining morning star.


You will receive Lucifer in your heart if youre a Christian.

"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." - 2 Peter 1:19

Your deliberate misrepresentation is egregious.
Isaiah 14:12: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
Revelations 22:19: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2 Peter 1:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

You are placing your interpretation on these verses for the express purpose of misrepresenting what they say. There is no direct correlation between Lucifer being "a" son of the morning and Christ being "the" morning star. When Lucifer was born as a spirit child of our Heavenly Father, he was "a" son of the morning. But when he rebelled against God he became Satan and no longer a son. Other passages which you have deliberately chosen to ignore are those passages of scripture which refer to Jesus Christ as the "light of the world" which does have a direct correlation to Christ being the bright and morning star... or God the Father's firstborn in the spirit; ordained to be our savior.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Your deliberate misrepresentation is egregious.
Isaiah 14:12: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
Revelations 22:19: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2 Peter 1:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

You are placing your interpretation on these verses for the express purpose of misrepresenting what they say. There is no direct correlation between Lucifer being "a" son of the morning and Christ being "the" morning star. When Lucifer was born as a spirit child of our Heavenly Father, he was "a" son of the morning. But when he rebelled against God he became Satan and no longer a son. Other passages which you have deliberately chosen to ignore are those passages of scripture which refer to Jesus Christ as the "light of the world" which does have a direct correlation to Christ being the bright and morning star... or God the Father's firstborn in the spirit; ordained to be our savior.

What translations are you using? I used NIV for all of my quotations. You seem to be using different translations to suit your worldview the most. Who here is misrepresenting the passages?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

What translations are you using? I used NIV for all of my quotations. You seem to be using different translations to suit your worldview the most. Who here is misrepresenting the passages?

The LDS Church endorses the KJV. Although they've made slight alterations to it which are listed in a separate collection of writings.

 

[ether-ore]

What translations are you using? I used NIV for all of my quotations. You seem to be using different translations to suit your worldview the most. Who here is misrepresenting the passages?

KJV... and the translation doesn't matter. The correlation you are wanting to establish does not exist. You are deliberately telling a lie in equating Lucifer to Christ. But, you can take it up with Christ when you see Him.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

KJV... and the translation doesn't matter. The correlation you are wanting to establish does not exist. You are deliberately telling a lie in equating Lucifer to Christ. But, you can take it up with Christ when you see Him.

The translation does matter, because new ones tend to forego giving the name 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12. instead they give the name 'morning star'. And this 'morning star' is not just a fallen being.... Jesus calls himself the 'morning star' and the author of 2 Peter also wants you to accept the 'morning star' into your heart and it is a good thing. So you need to accept that Jesus is the morning star and therefore a fallen being who wants you to accept him in your heart. How can this make any sense otherwise? Are you going to tell me there are two 'morning stars'? since when are there 2 planet venus's in the sky, which the morning star is supposed to be?

 

[Desert Snake]

I wonder if the Isaaih translation is incorrect, or general.