Father Inire theory cont.

António Pedro Marques · 11 Dec 2010, 00:37 · from 2010-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 00:37:36 +0000
Subject: (urth) Father Inire theory cont.
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik_3-k_HYkbavz5Viwp8JafUqPp1HLs8-Ctz-Gg at mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik_3-k_HYkbavz5Viwp8JafUqPp1HLs8-Ctz-Gg at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D02C7D0.5070204 at gmail.com>

Andrew Mason wrote (10-12-2010 21:23):
> David Stockhoff wrote:
>
>> Lee, I'm not trying to be unfair. The Devil runs a very different kind
>> of game than does Lucifer. They are not the same. If you say Devil, I
>> read Devil. If you say Lucifer, I read Lucifer. It helps to say what you
>> mean as much as you can---it would save us all a lot of words. :)
>
> It's fairly standard in Christian tradition to see 'Lucifer' and
> 'Devil/Satan' as different names for the same figure. I'd agree that
> in origin they are different (and other diabolic titles, like
> 'Beelzebub', are different in origin again) but I don't think Lee is
> being unreasonable in running them together here.

The problem, as I see it, is that Lee is on to philosophical concepts, and 
within philosophy those two are not the same.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net