Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Wasn't Satan created in Paradise Lost? I have a whole article on how the devil has been changed and manipulated throughout the years, but I can't find it. I'll try and look for it later. "Lucifer" means the morning star, does it not?
Guest IDrinkRatsMilk Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 I seem to remember Lucifer meaning "shining one", but I may be wrong. The connotation is the same as morning star, anyway.
Guest SP-1 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Yes. Correct. Lucifer's name meant "morningstar" or something very similar. Satan isn't his name though he is often referred to as "Satan" or "The Satan" because he's the greatest enemy to mankind. He has many agents under his employ, however.
Guest Big Poppa Popick Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 in the question of good and evil, ive heard it phrased in this logic 1) God is perfectly Good. Notice the capitalization. There is no definition of Good, being the supreme and perfect Good. 2) What God created was good, but not wholly Good, because it was not God 3) The absence of Good, being what the difference between good and Good, is evil 4) God's permitting of evil is one fact of his Goodness, something we as good cannot understand I wish Ive kept better track of this thread, but thats the logical track of err...Augustine, I think, that explains why evil exists. Take it for what it is Id also like to say that I think SP has done a very good job, albeit sometimes flawed (*both SP and I i believe are fairly devout christians, but we each have differing views on what it means to be christian*) But seriously, alot of the questions have been asked out of spite, it seems. He's trying to genuinely answer questions. Mayhap it would be nice to at least acknowledge that with some, i dont know, sincerity?
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 SP is trying to have it both ways. God helps man through his missionaries but God is not involved in anything bad that is done in his name.
Guest IDrinkRatsMilk Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 I looked it up. Lucifer literally means "light bringer" or "day star", it's a Latin translation of the Hebrew word heylel, which is only used once in the Old Testament, in Isaiah. It's a derivitive of halal, which can mean praise, glory, celebration, and shining, or, conversely, rage, pride and foolishness. Since the word was only used once, it's unclear whether heylel was used in Isaiah with the positive or negative connotation. The Vulgate translated it using the positive connotation, as Lucifer, light bringer, or day star. Interestingly enough, in 2 Peter (1:19), Christ is called the greek word phosphoros, which also literally means light bringer. So the correct Latin translation there should have been Lucifer. Seems to me what they should have done, is translate heylel in Isaiah using the negative connotation (I don't know what that would be in Latin), and allow phosporos to be correctly translated as Lucifer. So, really, Christ is Lucifer, and the devil isn't. Weird.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 (edited) Some Light on Lucifer By Ina Belderis [unless otherwise indicated, all Bible quotes are from the New Oxford Annotated Bible (New Revised Standard Version).] Is there any difference between Lucifer and Satan? Westerners generally would say they are one and the same. Especially those in fundamentalist Christian circles consider Lucifer an archangel who fell from grace and was thrown out of heaven because of "sinful pride." His "sin" was thinking he was equal to God and rebelling against Him. This rebellious angel is known as Satan, Lucifer, or the Devil, who tempts us to do evil. Supposedly, one of the most evil things Lucifer tempts us to do is to think that we are God. So those who believe in the essential divinity of all life are often accused of committing Satan's sin, and of being under the influence of Lucifer. Where do these ideas about Satan and Lucifer come from? Is there a biblical basis for them? Lucifer means lightbringer, from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring." The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Bible -- Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . ." The New Revised Standard Version translates the same passage as "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, Son of Dawn!" In other translations we find: "O shining star of the dawn!" (Moffatt) or "O morning-star, son of the dawn!" (Hebrew Bible). The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. And yet it is this lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness. In Isaiah 14 the prophet is taunting the king of Babylon: "In the figurative language of the Hebrews, . . . a star, signifies an illustrious king or prince . . . The monarch here referred to, having surpassed all other kings in royal splendour, is compared to the harbinger of day, whose brilliancy surpasses that of the surrounding stars" (A Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, John Kitto ed., 3rd ed., J. B. Lippincott and Co, Philadelphia, 1866, 2:857-8). There are those who claim that the real entity addressed in this passage is Satan, but there is no evidence for this. On the contrary, Isaiah (14:16) says: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble, . . . ?" and (14:18) "All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb; but you are cast out . . ." These seem clear references to a man, the king of a nation, not an archangel. There is yet another reason why it makes no sense to read the Devil into Isaiah 14: the traditional role of Satan in the Old Testament. Satan comes from the Hebrew satan, which means "opponent" or "adversary." According to Strong's Concordance, this word appears in 1 Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and in Zechariah. In Psalms "satan" is used both in the plural (accusers) and in the indefinite sense (an accuser). In Chronicles and Zechariah its usage is ambiguous, while in Job "satan" as The Accuser appears only in the first two of its 42 chapters. It is important, however, to keep in mind that the texts of the Old Testament did not reach their "final" version until after the Babylonian exile. Before this exile there is no evidence in Hebrew scriptures of an Accuser as a force that opposes God, and even after the exile it is still doubtful. Though the story of Job is very old, its final version is dated after the exile, after the Hebrews came into contact with the dualist Zoroastrian religion with its god of good and its god of evil. There is even division among Old Testament scholars as to whether evil should be associated with Satan at all. Some say that Satan was originally not considered evil but gradually became identified with his unpleasant functions. According to this approach, Satan is still God's servant. There is much in the Book of Job that tends to support this view. Satan appears only in the first two chapters and then disappears. Some believe the first two chapters were added much later, for in the last chapter we read: ". . . they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him" (42:11). It appears that the Hebrews did not have a devil-like power opposed to God. Satan, or the Satan as he is often called, is an angel in the court of God with the function of an accuser (see Job 1:6). There are also indications that along with all that is "good," all that is "evil" comes from God, not Satan. In Isaiah 45:7 God says: "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things." Valentine's Jewish Encyclopedia confirms the idea that there is a radical difference between how Satan is conceived in the Old Testament and how he is conceived in the New Testament, and that his new role did not develop from his original role: there are no references "to rebellious angels in any pre-Christian book. . . . The figure of Satan in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament respectively emphasizes the difference in conception. There is no development, but basic difference. . . . It is only in Christian literature that the Persian idea of two opposing empires, with Satan as God's enemy, has persisted" (Valentine's Jewish Encyclopedia, A. M. Hyamson & A. M. Silberman eds., Shapiro, Valentine & Co, London, 1938, p. 36). There is actually very little in the Old Testament to support the idea of Satan as a rebellious angel and the power opposing God. He is generally depicted as a heavenly attorney general (accuser) functioning under God, and this only strengthens the argument for not reading Satan into the passage about Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. Isaiah is one of the older books in the Bible and is definitely pre-exile. If there is no sound biblical basis for associating Lucifer with Satan, where then does the story come from that he is a rebellious angel and fell because of pride? The Christian Church made the interpretation that Isaiah 14:12 is connected with Luke 10:18: "He said to them, I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning." This unfounded, non-biblical connection of Lucifer with Satan has led to the popular misunderstanding that Lucifer is another name for the Devil (cf. "Lucifer," Harper's Bible Dictionary, Paul Achtemeier, gen. ed., Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1985). As Lucifer is the morning star, daystar, or Venus, the absurdity of connecting him with the Devil is revealed in the three New Testament passages where morning star or daystar is mentioned: So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. -- 2 Peter 1:19 . . . from my Father. To the one who conquers I will also give the morning star. -- Revelation 2:28 It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. -- Revelation 2 2:16 All three references to the morning star point to Jesus or things Jesus says or gives. In the Vulgate the word "morning star" in 2 Peter is even translated as lucifer. In the other two references it is stella matutina. It is puzzling that "lightning" should be used in relation to Satan in Luke 10:18, especially when one considers two other references to lightning in the New Testament: Matthew 24:27 and Luke 17:24. These two references connect lightning with the Son of Man or Jesus and his second coming, which is understandable when one studies ancient religious symbolism: "In Judeo-Christian thought lightning is a symbol of God's immediate presence . . . or of the last Judgment" ("Lightning," Dictionary of Symbolism, Hans Biedermann, Penguin Books, New York, 1992). Even when we put aside the question of what God's "opponent" should be called, the fact remains that the story of a rebellious angel who fell because of pride is not in the Bible at all. Some claim that the fallen Satan is present from the very beginning, even though his name does not appear in Genesis. Paul suggested that the serpent was Satan, the implication being that Satan tempted Adam. Yet most of the early Church Fathers believed that Satan fell after Adam. It took the Church over 200 years to establish that Satan's sin was pride, that he fell before the creation of man, and that he was the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve. To find the story of the fall of Satan, we must go to sources other than the Bible. There was a great deal of literature produced roughly between 200 BC and 150 AD, including the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. Some of these are apocalyptic -- they prophesy cataclysmic events and the end of the world. In this literature one can see the development of the idea of an evil spirit, but even in the apocalyptic literature the Devil does not become entirely evil in his origin and essence. Many of the books from this period reflect the misery of the Jewish people under the oppression of Syria and Rome. Their writings deal with visions of the end of the world, the world being in the power of the Devil, and the Messiah conquering the Devil and bringing a new era of justice. The Book of Enoch is seen by many as one of the earliest and most important accounts of the mishaps of the Heavenly Court (of angels). It also describes the rebellion of the angel Satanail, and his being hurled from heaven (2 Enoch, ch. 29, long MSS only). Some scholars take this to mean that the amalgamation of Satan and Lucifer goes back to the first century. A redating of 2 Enoch, however, puts it later than the third century, perhaps even in the seventh. For this reason others suggest that Origen (Exhort. 18) was probably the inventor of the identification of Lucifer with Satan (Satan: The Early Christian Tradition, Jeffrey Burton Russell, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1991, p. 130 & fn). The Life of Adam and Eve (Vita), a Jewish scripture that scholars date between 200 BC and 200 AD, relates that Satan tells Adam and Eve that his fall from heaven is the result of his refusal to worship Adam, the image of God. A similar account is also found in the Koran (S 2:34). These legends reflect a theme close to the primordial "pride" that led to the so-called fall of Satan. Since the Old Testament does not connect pride or the Fall with Satan, the Devil, or the Adversary, the only scriptural "support" for this notion is the misinterpretation of the fall of Lucifer (the king of Babylon), and certain passages in the New Testament. But the New Testament does not give any clear information on the fall of Satan through pride either. One place where Lucifer is connected with pride is in Milton's Paradise Lost. He "applied the name to the demon of sinful pride" ("Lucifer," A Dictionary of Angels, Gustav Davidson, The Free Press, New York, 1967). It appears that the whole story of Lucifer as Satan, the fallen rebellious angel, is based entirely on non-canonical sources: the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. There are also many pre-Christian myths and allegories that include stories about Lucifer, which is the Latin name for the Greek Eosphoros. In his Theogony Hesiod speaks of two divine beings, the brothers Eosphoros (the morning star) and Hesperos (the evening star). They are the children of Astraios (the starry heaven) and Eos (the dawn). The morning star, like the Virgin of the Sea, is one of the titles given to Divine Mother goddesses such as the Roman Venus, the Phoenician Astarte, the Jewish Ashtoreth, and the later Christian Holy Virgin. In the oldest Zoroastrian allegories, Mithra is supposed to have conquered the planet Venus. In the Christian tradition, Michael defeats Lucifer. The planet Venus is the lightbringer, the first radiant beam that does away with the darkness of night. It is a symbol of the development of the divine light in man, for the first awakening of self-consciousness, for independent thinking and the real application of free will. It means the bringing of the light of compassionate understanding to the human mind. In this broader view the connection of the morning star with Jesus makes good sense, because compassion is the essence of Jesus' teaching. This teaching shows the greatest consensus throughout the New Testament: it is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 John, James, and 1 Peter. The best known reference is in Matthew (22:37-40): "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (From Sunrise magazine, October/November 1996. Copyright © 1996 by Theosophical University Press.) Edited June 25, 2003 by RavishingRickRudo
Guest SP-1 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 I like how that completely overlooks the blatant story of a rebellious force in heaven that makes war and is kicked out, taking a third of the angels with him, as described in the Revelation of John. 1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. 7And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Yes. Satan's war and ejection from heaven IS in the Bible. He is called both devil and Satan by John. As for the "morningstar" connection to Jesus, the core meaning as "light bringer", etc. is a description of Him, one of many. it doesn't make a translation right or wrong, it merely is what it is, and the base truth is the same. The passage in Revelation makes a clear distinction between the evil figure ejected from Heaven and the King (Christ) born into the world to save it. As I'm not a Pastor, or a full on scholar of scripture, I do not know how to go back completely and explain it all. However, I may know where to look to find out about the passage in Isaiah. I'll get back to you on that when I have the time. Mind, I'm not saying that something is wrong or that Jesus is Lucifer. There are traditions throughout the Bible that get complex but still have correct biblical explanations. The account of the war is there, however, and the Satan is clearly named as the figurehead and the enemy of Christianity.
Guest SP-1 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Also, to continue that passage in Revelations, this satan is named as the accuser of man. 10Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. 11They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death. 12Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short."
Guest Cancer Marney Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Amusingly enough, the Lucifer myth is a whole lot more appealling than the God myth. The whole Jesus thing smacks of really twisted sadomasochism pure and simple. God wants to forgive people, he forgives people. He doesn't need to get himself crucified to do it. He doesn't need to run Judas in circles to get him to betray Jesus. What a bunch of roundabout self-indulgent garbage. On the other hand, Lucifer supposedly saw himself as God's equal, demanded recognition and power, but was cast down after he lost a celestial war. After the fall, he looked up and said: "What though the field be lost? All is not lost; th' unconquerable will, And study of revenge, immortal hate And courage never to submit or yield, And what is else not to be overcome; That glory never shall his wrath or might Extort from me: to bow and sue for grace With suppliant knee, and deify his power. Who, from the terror of this arm, so late Doubted his empire, that were low indeed..." So basically he's saying that even though he's been defeated, his convictions remain the same. It doesn't matter that he's been beaten; he's not going to be a lickspittle just because God can bench press a few more pounds. Sounds admirable and courageous to me. A short while later, looking around Hell, Satan continues: "...here at least We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: Here we may reign secure, and in my choice To reign is worth ambition, though in hell: Better to reign in hell, than serve in heav'n." Again, the will to self-determination, the rejection of tyranny in favour of freedom no matter what the cost, the knowledge of one's own worth, self-respect, and confidence. Sounds to me like the principles America was founded on. Milton really screwed up if he was trying to make God look like the good guy; Satan stole the show with ridiculous ease. But maybe that's just the truth seeping through the propaganda.
Guest Dangerous A Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 This thread SO needs Sola Gratia! (snickers)
Guest SP-1 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Where did that come from, Marney? It's a twisted view of Lucifer. Very. And I completely disagree with your view on it due to my own relationship with God and knowing Him. But that's an interesting piece of writing. And DA . . . no. No, no, no. Not Sola.
Guest Dangerous A Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 He can't come back, SP. For one, he knew that if he came back he'd get me, NoCalMike, and Ced Ordonez banned by DrTom because we are all on the same network with the same IP. Second, he can't come back because he quit the job we work at about a month ago. He could try to log in under a different name from his home, but he said he tired of this board. He now posts at Christianity.com on their message board where he actually gets under fellow christians skin as badly as he did here.
Guest SP-1 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Hm. You know, if he would have tried a little to actually talk instead of just throw out scripture, it mightn't have been all that bad. Oh well.
Guest Dangerous A Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Yeah, but in the end he didn't want to talk with anyone and wanted to preach instead. Even then, if he would've used the scripture properly as opposed to just throwing it out there for people to just digest with no translation or relation to topic, he could've survived. Problem was he loves conflict, doesn't back down a lick, and is hard headed and ran into the hardest head in Current Events, DrTom. I do think he would've shined in this thread, but eventually his hard headedness would've gotten him banned, again.
Guest IDrinkRatsMilk Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 As for the "morningstar" connection to Jesus, the core meaning as "light bringer", etc. is a description of Him, one of many. it doesn't make a translation right or wrong, it merely is what it is, and the base truth is the same. The passage in Revelation makes a clear distinction between the evil figure ejected from Heaven and the King (Christ) born into the world to save it. As I'm not a Pastor, or a full on scholar of scripture, I do not know how to go back completely and explain it all. However, I may know where to look to find out about the passage in Isaiah. I'll get back to you on that when I have the time. Mind, I'm not saying that something is wrong or that Jesus is Lucifer. There are traditions throughout the Bible that get complex but still have correct biblical explanations. I'm late in the game on this response, but let me clarify what I said earlier... From what I've seen, and I've been looking through it tonight cause of this thread, Lucifer is not actully the devil's name, it first appeared in the Latin Vulgate. The verse in 2 Peter calls Christ "day star" but the Greek word should be translated into Latin as Lucifer. Not wanting to call Jesus and the devil by the same name, they borrowed day star from Revelation. I wasn't implying that the persons of Jesus and Lucifer were the same, just that the names were mismatched because of the improper usage of helel in Isaiah. The devil is thought of as Lucifer today because of the Vulgate, whereas if they had translated it correctly, we would think of Lucifer as Jesus. Just a curiosity, doesn't change the meaning or anything.
Guest Cancer Marney Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Where did that come from, Marney? It's a twisted view of Lucifer. Very. And I completely disagree with your view on it due to my own relationship with God and knowing Him. But that's an interesting piece of writing. Gracious, you're ignorant.
Guest Triple-H-is-our-Lord Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 The Greatest religion is the one tHHHat I follow. All sHHHould bow down and worsHHHip our Great and Powerful Lord AlmigHHHty, Triple H!
Guest WukenBloodstar Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 The Greatest religion is the one tHHHat I follow. All sHHHould bow down and worsHHHip our Great and Powerful Lord AlmigHHHty, Triple H! I smell a moron.
Guest Triple-H-is-our-Lord Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 WHHHat's wrong? Can't HHHandle the trutHHH? Religions of all types and sizes are legitimate, and sHHHould be respected equally! I cannot HHHelp it if you HHHaven't been made aware tHHHat tHHHe true Saviour of the HHHuman Race is tHHHe One wHHHo died for our sins, and wHHHo watches over us.
Guest Dr. Timothy Jamison Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 How about Scientology? Does that count? I mean, it's the religion of the STARS.
Guest IDrinkRatsMilk Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 WHHHat's wrong? Can't HHHandle the trutHHH? Religions of all types and sizes are legitimate, and sHHHould be respected equally! I cannot HHHelp it if you HHHaven't been made aware tHHHat tHHHe true Saviour of the HHHuman Race is tHHHe One wHHHo died for our sins, and wHHHo watches over us. You missed an H... watches.
Guest Triple-H-is-our-Lord Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 THHHat word was not wortHHHy of HHHis Praise.
Guest JMA Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 I believe The Devil's real name is Samael. Anyways, I'm also one of the few who view Samael in a heroic fashion. YHWH seems too fascist to me.
Guest Kamui Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 I'm not reading through 14 pages, so I'll just jump in with my own views here: I was raised by a family of Catholic fundementalists. Hellfire and brimstone, do right or you're going to burn in Hell, everyone who's not a Christian gets a big firey pit for eternity, etc. Around age 14 I started doubting the religion and then while in Catholic high school I met my future fiance, who was also doubting the beliefs (and come from a similar background as I). Eventually we both rejected Christianity (although went in different directions- I consider myself an "agnostic Atheist", while she's a Neo-Pagan). Basically, my views are pretty simple- I don't believe in any of the dieties that are in modern theism. When you actually sit down and READ the Bible (especially the OT, but the NT too), it comes off as one big social order handguide (the simple fact that the core belief is all Christians go to Heaven, all non-Christians go to Hell supports this theory). I believe that while it's certainly possiable that a diety (dieties? race of dieties?) exists and there's no proof yet that one doesn't, I'm more inclined to believe that all of this is random. Either way, I look at theism as mankind's way of seperating itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. -Duo
Guest Big Poppa Popick Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 gimmick posters sucks BAN PLZ~
Guest Triple-H-is-our-Lord Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 gimmick posters sucks BAN PLZ~ People wHHHo are intolerant of the religious beliefs of otHHHers suck. I am not a gimmick poster, I simply love Triple H and wisHHH to respect him in tHHHe only manner I deem wortHHHy of HHHim--- witHHH my complete and unquestioning devotion and praise. Please stop your religious intolerence, and allow me to worsHHHip HHHim as I see fit. I was also the HHHead Priest and Founder of Yetimania a few years ago, would you HHHave tHHHen accused me of being a gimmick poster wHHHen I ran tHHHe Yetimania Online site? My conversion from Yetimania to HHHism, or HHHow it came about is no one's concern but my own. And tHHHe fact remains tHHHat it is my Triple H-given rigHHHts---- nay, my DUTY as an American--- to figHHHt for my religious freedom, no matter HHHow unpopular my beliefs may be. If people call for my ban, wHHHat's to stop censorsHHHip of praise of otHHHer religions? WHHHo's next on your list-of-people-to-HHHate? Muslims? CHHHristians? Just leave me be!
Guest WukenBloodstar Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Gimmick posters do suck, but you..you're a moron.
Guest godthedog Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 gimmick posters sucks BAN PLZ~ People wHHHo are intolerant of the religious beliefs of otHHHers suck. I am not a gimmick poster, I simply love Triple H and wisHHH to respect him in tHHHe only manner I deem wortHHHy of HHHim--- witHHH my complete and unquestioning devotion and praise. Please stop your religious intolerence, and allow me to worsHHHip HHHim as I see fit. I was also the HHHead Priest and Founder of Yetimania a few years ago, would you HHHave tHHHen accused me of being a gimmick poster wHHHen I ran tHHHe Yetimania Online site? My conversion from Yetimania to HHHism, or HHHow it came about is no one's concern but my own. And tHHHe fact remains tHHHat it is my Triple H-given rigHHHts---- nay, my DUTY as an American--- to figHHHt for my religious freedom, no matter HHHow unpopular my beliefs may be. If people call for my ban, wHHHat's to stop censorsHHHip of praise of otHHHer religions? WHHHo's next on your list-of-people-to-HHHate? Muslims? CHHHristians? Just leave me be! you're not insightful, you're not interesting, and above all YOU ARE NOT FUNNY. SHUT THE FUCK UP. people are having a reasonable discussion (one of the better ones in the last few months), and you're trying to ruin it with this irritating gimmick shit that insults our intelligence. this is not the place for it. fuck off.
Guest DrTom Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 You may now continue with this thread, already in progress. (People, when an OBVIOUS troll and gimmick poster like that infringes on what's been a good discussion thread... FUCKING IGNORE THEM.)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now