((If the confusion was in it not being spell correctly I fixed it, if not then I would direct you in the general location of Ezeikiel chapter 28. It also explains a few other things about the devil))
E: found the right chapter
That is, of course, assuming the king of tyre is satan (as well that, if it is, that what's described there is what is described elsewhere). Which seems to be a common assumption, but... it
is an assumption, and there's some weird stuff going on there anyway.
I'm going to do a bit of research into the possibly wrong information I have on satan/devil.
Tell me if I'm missing something that I have said on the matter without proper biblical backing.
Satan and lucifer are the same
Satan and other angels fell from heaven
Satan is one of god's most beautiful creations
Satan hates man
Satan is a generaly evil entity
E: autocorrect is dumb
[1]Yeah, that's significantly arguable, and as mentioned earlier (check what
chaoticag mentioned) there's decent grounds to say the morning star (
halel, which as noted is what eventually got corrupted into Lucifer) was referring to something different than satan.
From what I recall, there's at
least three or four
different things that may be the entity known as the adversary (at least one of which is a straight up, non-fallen, angel [that which is termed outside of the main texts as Samael, the wrath of god]), assuming that it's an entity at all (and as others have noted in the thread, there's grounds to assume otherwise, instead being a state of mind).
And it's again worth noting for redundancy that Lucifer isn't actually a name at all -- it's a corruption of the latin translation of
halel, which just means morning star (i.e. the planet Venus). Nor is Satan, which is just the anglicization of a hebrew word meaning adversary (or a corruption of shaitan, depending on how you look at it). Neither of them are actually names, heh.
[2]Somewhat questionable, yes, and the general narrative surrounding that is
highly influenced by extra-biblical texts, so it's definitely something to be careful about if you're trying to stick to the bible itself. Iirc, there's something like literally one line in the bible that can even be construed as such. Maybe two.
[3]See the bit at the start of this post. And also [1], here, because there's no guarantee that everything that gets called satan nowadays is actually the same critter.
[4]There's not really any grounds for that at all, that I can recall. The Adversary is definitely depicted as acting against mankind fairly often, but YWHW being YWHW it's very much hard to say whether that's because of hate or something else, like being ordered to.
[5]Satan is a servant of god, and is of god, as are all things. It's certainly questionable whether all the biblical depictions could be called evil. Antagonistic, almost certainly, but that is one thing and evil is quite the other.
===
As for the buddhist text things,
sure there are... sorta'. There's a fair amount of variation between sects, and no central holy text. But there's plenty written, and plenty worth reading even if you have no intention of converting or whathaveyou. There's nice stuff in those writings.
