why would anyone choose to worship satan as a religion ?

[The_Evelyonian]

my question was were does it say God approved of it - David had many faults so do we all

1 Samuel 18

14. And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the LORD was with him.

...

25. And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

26. And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son in law: and the days were not expired.

27. Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

28. And Saul saw and knew that the LORD was with David, and that Michal Saul's daughter loved him.

"The LORD was with David" is as close as you're going to get. You'll also notice that David is never condemned for this act by god or anyone else. The book sees fit to mention the condemnation of Onan and the condemnation of a man for gathering sticks on the sabbath. But David kills and mutilates 200 men and no one bats an eye. Why is that?

 

[obi one]

just a thought

The devil, is satan, and the dragon. (Rev 20:2) He is the entity which deceives the nations. (Rev 20:3) He deceives them by means of the beast, who satan gave his authority and power. (Rev 13:2) And the beast with two horns like a lamb was to deceive "those who dwell on the earth". (Rev 13:14) And that beast was Constantine the Great King of Rome, who established the Roman "Christian" Church, and the two horns like a lamb are Peter and Paul, the pillars of that Church. The mark of the beast, was the keeping of the Day of the Sun, which Constantine put into law in the year 321 A.D. whereas no one could buy or sell property unless they kept that law. (Dt 6:8)

It isthe "Christians", who follow the beast by adhering to the Roman churches dogmas and doctrines, which is built on the power and authority of Satan. (Rev 13:2)
They call Yeshua, "Jesus", which is a 16th century name, which can be construed as meaning "pig god". The English version of the name would be Joshua. They hold on to the testimony of the self professed apostle Paul, who was responsible for the death of many of Yeshua's followers. They are deceived, but yet Yeshua calls for "my people", to "come out of her", her being the harlot daughter. (Rev 18:4) The rest are to "still do wrong". (Rev 22:11) The Protestants hold to the same dogmas, canon, and doctrines, and are daughters of the harlot.

 

[markymark]

I guess I have to be specific: your Lucifer doesn't originate in the Bible. Lucifer is not the devil, nor is he any sort of supernatural entity. To say the terrible error of not translating Lucifer is proof of your devil is like saying God has an apple in His eye.

but he does if not tell me were he orginates from

 

[markymark]

"The LORD was with David" is as close as you're going to get. You'll also notice that David is never condemned for this act by god or anyone else. The book sees fit to mention the condemnation of Onan and the condemnation of a man for gathering sticks on the sabbath. But David kills and mutilates 200 men and no one bats an eye. Why is that?

you dont know that just becasue it not mentioned he was not condemmed does not mean God did no approve .....i think you making up stuff now a bit to be honest...you assume to much

 

[Gjallarhorn]

but he does if not tell me were he orginates from

Good question. Who was responsible for the first misinterpretation of Lucifer as anything but the king of Babylon? Certainly it occurred during the Early Christian Church, seeking to justify Jesus's belief that Satan was a fallen angel, despite the lack of evidence for it in the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

i think you making up stuff now a bit to be honest

Where did I make up anything? Show me where I made something up.

 

[markymark]

Where did I make up anything? Show me where I made something up.

You'll also notice that David is never condemned for this act by god or anyone else.

you assumed that - just becasue it was not recorded does not mean he was not condemned

 

[Iti oj]

You'll also notice that David is never condemned for this act by god or anyone else.

you assumed that - just becasue it was not recorded does not mean he was not condemned

thats the point he did not get condemned that's horrible. what a horrible act to be considered acceptable. oh reread that second part.... so the bible is not an accurate source for history?

 

[Orias]

just a thought

Well the answer depends on what you assume Satanism is.

Since you ask the question, I assume you think its either treacherous, evil, harmful or flat out not your style.

Regardless, if you keep your mind open you may find out why but if you close it well then thats just a shame

 

[markymark]

Good question. Who was responsible for the first misinterpretation of Lucifer as anything but the king of Babylon? Certainly it occurred during the Early Christian Church, seeking to justify Jesus's belief that Satan was a fallen angel, despite the lack of evidence for it in the Hebrew scriptures.

friend the very first mention of lucifer is in the bible - thats a fact , the bible says that was the name of he fallen angel ...what lack of evidence ...its very clear were lucifer came from

 

[markymark]

thats the point he did not get condemned that's horrible. what a horrible act to be considered acceptable. oh reread that second part.... so the bible is not an accurate source for history?

no the bible is - bit there were many things that were not recorded in it ...we should not asssume things we dont know

 

[markymark]

Well the answer depends on what you assume Satanism is.

Since you ask the question, I assume you think its either treacherous, evil, harmful or flat out not your style.

Regardless, if you keep your mind open you may find out why but if you close it well then thats just a shame

do you agree the orgions of lucifer are from the bible ?

 

[Iti oj]

no the bible is - bit there were many things that were not recorded in it ...we should not asssume things we dont know

that's silly,why assume something so large was left out? what was the point of this verse then? again why wouldn't the bible be clear?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

You'll also notice that David is never condemned for this act by god or anyone else.

you assumed that

No, I didn't. I was referring to what your holy book says about the issue. Is David condemned for that act in your book?

just becasue it was not recorded does not mean he was not condemned

You can make up anything you like with that reasoning.

"Just because the Bible doesn't record that Jesus was a Velociraptor doesn't mean that he wasn't."

On top of that, as I've already pointed out, the Bible saw fit to recount the condemnation of Onan, who did nothing more than "spill his seed upon the ground". It also took the time to recount the condemnation of a man who was just gathering sticks on the wrong day of the week. Yet, you're going with "he could have been condemned and the bible just didn't mention it." Really? That kinda makes it worse.
The death-sentences are minor offenders are important enough to make it into the book, but the possible punishment of a mass murderer apparently doesn't warrant a mention.

O....k :sarcastic

 

[Gjallarhorn]

friend the very first mention of lucifer is in the bible - thats a fact , the bible says that was the name of he fallen angel ...what lack of evidence ...its very clear were lucifer came from

Where does it say he is a fallen angel? Isaiah 14? Read the first verses:

On the day the LORD gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end!
How his fury has ended!
5 The LORD has broken the rod of the wicked,
the scepter of the rulers,
6 which in anger struck down peoples
with unceasing blows,
and in fury subdued nations
with relentless aggression.
7 All the lands are at rest and at peace;
they break into singing.
8 Even the junipers and the cedars of Lebanon
gloat over you and say,
“Now that you have been laid low,
no one comes to cut us down.”
9 The realm of the dead below is all astir
to meet you at your coming;
it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you—
all those who were leaders in the world;
it makes them rise from their thrones—
all those who were kings over the nations.
10 They will all respond,
they will say to you,
“You also have become weak, as we are;
you have become like us.”
11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.
12 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!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.

King of Babylon. No devil aside from misinterpretation. Why would Lucifer need to "ascend to the heavens" if he was already there? How could he roam and tempt as in Job if he is in the realm of the dead and the depths of the pit?

 

[Orias]

do you agree the orgions of lucifer are from the bible ?

No.

Lucifer originated from the Roman God of Light.

Literally, even so there have been plenty of variations of "Lucifer" among the religions of the world.

 

[markymark]

No.

Lucifer originated from the Roman God of Light.

Literally, even so there have been plenty of variations of "Lucifer" among the religions of the world.

really do you actually have a source for that ?

since i have provided a source that says otherwise

 

[Gjallarhorn]

really do you actually have a source for that ?

since i have provided a source that says otherwise

In Classical Latin, Lucifer was used as a translation of Greek Phosphoros (lit. "light-bearer"), a term for the morning star. It is first found in Varro and Cicero.

 

[markymark]

In Classical Latin, Lucifer was used as a translation of Greek Phosphoros (lit. "light-bearer"), a term for the morning star. It is first found in Varro and Cicero.

again can you provide a source for that

 

[Gjallarhorn]

again can you provide a source for that

stella Veneris, quae Φωσφόρος Graece Lucifer Latine dicitur cum antegreditur solem, cum subsequitur autem Ἕσπερος (De Natura Deorum, 2.53)

"The star of Venus, called in Greek Phosphoros (the light-bringer) and in Latin Lucifer when it precedes the sun, but when it follows it Hesperos."

Ovid wrote:
… vigil nitido patefecit ab ortu
purpureas Aurora fores et plena rosarum
atria: diffugiunt stellae, quarum agmina cogit
Lucifer et caeli statione novissimus exit
(Aurora, awake in the glowing east, opens wide her bright doors, and her rose-filled courts. The stars, whose ranks are shepherded by Lucifer the morning star, vanish, and he, last of all, leaves his station in the sky – Metamorphoses 2.114–115; A. S. Kline's Version

And Statius:
Et iam Mygdoniis elata cubilibus alto
impulerat caelo gelidas Aurora tenebras,
rorantes excussa comas multumque sequenti
sole rubens; illi roseus per nubila seras
aduertit flammas alienumque aethera tardo
Lucifer exit equo, donec pater igneus orbem
impleat atque ipsi radios uetet esse sorori
(And now Aurora rising from her Mygdonian couch had driven the cold darkness on from high in the heavens, shaking out her dewy hair, her face blushing red at the pursuing sun – from him roseate Lucifer averts his fires lingering in the clouds and with reluctant horse leaves the heavens no longer his, until the blazing father make full his orb and forbid even his sister her beams) Statius, Thebaid 2, 134–150; Translated by A. L. Ritchie and J. B. Hall in collaboration with M. J. Edwards

Wikipedia is your friend.