The Idea of Religion

[Metamorph]

People talk like religion is just choosing whatever you want, but that's such a postmodern relativist view. We can't have many gods any more, so we try to have many Gods. And if anything that's even more laughable.

And if there is a such thing as truth, which there is, there must be evidence for it.

Person: I wonder what color the sky is? Maybe this is just the bong I'm smoking, but I can't tell, man.
Me: The sky by all appearances seems to be blue.
Person: That's just like, your opinion, man. Anyways, you just really like the color blue. I think the sky is red with green polka dots. I mean, there are lots of skies that are all sorts of colors, and maybe the sky isn't always up, maybe it's down, or sideways! But my sky is red with green polka dots and made of speckled plastic. You're just a blue supremacist who likes blue too much.
Me: No, I'm just answering your question that the sky appears to be blue. You're the one who asked. I'm not even trying to make you think the sky is blue, I just said it appears to be blue to me.
Person: Stop trying to convert me to blue-sky-ism you blue-sky-ist! I don't want your proselytizing!

Discussions of religion always seem to be framed completely wrong. People want to make God become The Idea of God, but before that, The Idea of God was the Devil anyways. Bleh.

[RaptorWesNet]

Ya I mean, the layers to unmask and decode in the reality to imagination labyrinth goes on a long chain of logical paradoxes and unknown factors Bunny jumping from points to axioms.

But I do believe in a higher purpose, a higher destiny, in a higher meaning, and if we keep our eyes and hearts open, we inevitably piece together the clues and puzzle boxes to arrive at solutions that show the true power of magic and astonishment.

So being loving, hearing our songs of delight, and banishing the ghost of determinism to evade reality and flow out into the Tao can be revolutionary and heroic.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I find religious people don't have a coherent complete description of "God", other than being for example a creator and/or paternal figure. The Christians if they depict their God basically draw theirs like the Romans drew Jupiter/Zeus (or Jesus after Mercury/Apollo or Cesare Borgia), or they don't draw it at all due to iconoclasm and/or not having any idea about what "God" is.

Sometimes I feel bad for asking questions to religious people, even if they should be straightforward to answer. As Jon Stewart said: “Religion - It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.”

[Metamorph]

I find religious people don't have a coherent complete description of "God", other than being for example a creator and/or paternal figure. The Christians if they depict their God basically draw theirs like the Romans drew Jupiter/Zeus (or Jesus after Mercury/Apollo or Cesare Borgia), or they don't draw it at all due to iconoclasm and/or not having any idea about what "God" is.

Sometimes I feel bad for asking questions to religious people, even if they should be straightforward to answer. As Jon Stewart said: “Religion - It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.”

That all seems true, but it also all seems like evidence of Sturgeon's Law in action rather than evidence against God and every kind of religious belief system in existence. After all, they can't all be true when they contradict each other, and if most people are bad that will also be reflected in most religions said people follow.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

That all seems true, but it also all seems like evidence of Sturgeon's Law in action rather than evidence against God and every kind of religious belief system in existence. After all, they can't all be true when they contradict each other, and if most people are bad that will also be reflected in most religions said people follow.

When a religious person says you are doing something contrary to their religion, all you have to say is "You don't know "God"."

[End]

I find religious people don't have a coherent complete description of "God", other than being for example a creator and/or paternal figure. The Christians if they depict their God basically draw theirs like the Romans drew Jupiter/Zeus (or Jesus after Mercury/Apollo or Cesare Borgia), or they don't draw it at all due to iconoclasm and/or not having any idea about what "God" is.

Sometimes I feel bad for asking questions to religious people, even if they should be straightforward to answer. As Jon Stewart said: “Religion - It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.”

Errr, I actually do. Also, it's no mistake that the pagans were on the "right track" as it were. The like of Socrates and Aristotle deduced that "Monotheism" was the truth. Pagan men living in pagan societies and yet without any exposure to Jews far as I can recall they came about that conclusion independently.

I'd also challenge Mr. Stewart to seriously ask himself if Governments did more damage than religion did. Democide is a thing and, much like the sexual abuse done to students both male and female within the public school system, is a consideration conveniently overlooked by the obvious suspects. If you thought the Catholic Chruch was bad boy oh boy let me point you in the direction of the secular priesthood. Makes my side of things look downright saintly (pardon the pun).

People don't want to have their own personal narratives challenged. I do, but that's only because I'm so absolutely certain I'm right I have the gall, the absolute gall, to let my most ardent of enemies continue to spew forth their blasphemies and slanders. Let them. I'll let you. I, unlike so many others who claim to believe as I do, have the full faith of my convictions...

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Errr, I actually do. Also, it's no mistake that the pagans were on the "right track" as it were. The like of Socrates and Aristotle deduced that "Monotheism" was the truth. Pagan men living in pagan societies and yet without any exposure to Jews far as I can recall they came about that conclusion independently.

I'd also challenge Mr. Stewart to seriously ask himself if Governments did more damage than religion did. Democide is a thing and, much like the sexual abuse done to students both male and female within the public school system, is a consideration conveniently overlooked by the obvious suspects. If you thought the Catholic Chruch was bad boy oh boy let me point you in the direction of the secular priesthood. Makes my side of things look downright saintly (pardon the pun).

People don't want to have their own personal narratives challenged. I do, but that's only because I'm so absolutely certain I'm right I have the gall, the absolute gall, to let my most ardent of enemies continue to spew forth their blasphemies and slanders. Let them. I'll let you. I, unlike so many others who claim to believe as I do, have the full faith of my convictions...

Can you give a list of properties unique to "God" that are observable?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Errr, I actually do. Also, it's no mistake that the pagans were on the "right track" as it were. The like of Socrates and Aristotle deduced that "Monotheism" was the truth. Pagan men living in pagan societies and yet without any exposure to Jews far as I can recall they came about that conclusion independently.

I'd also challenge Mr. Stewart to seriously ask himself if Governments did more damage than religion did. Democide is a thing and, much like the sexual abuse done to students both male and female within the public school system, is a consideration conveniently overlooked by the obvious suspects. If you thought the Catholic Chruch was bad boy oh boy let me point you in the direction of the secular priesthood. Makes my side of things look downright saintly (pardon the pun).

People don't want to have their own personal narratives challenged. I do, but that's only because I'm so absolutely certain I'm right I have the gall, the absolute gall, to let my most ardent of enemies continue to spew forth their blasphemies and slanders. Let them. I'll let you. I, unlike so many others who claim to believe as I do, have the full faith of my convictions...

Can you give a list of properties unique to "God" that are observable?

ONE property, then?

[Metamorph]

Errr, I actually do. Also, it's no mistake that the pagans were on the "right track" as it were. The like of Socrates and Aristotle deduced that "Monotheism" was the truth. Pagan men living in pagan societies and yet without any exposure to Jews far as I can recall they came about that conclusion independently.

Subteigh himself has brought that up before. I have also brought that up in a different context which was ignored.

I'd also challenge Mr. Stewart to seriously ask himself if Governments did more damage than religion did. Democide is a thing and, much like the sexual abuse done to students both male and female within the public school system, is a consideration conveniently overlooked by the obvious suspects. If you thought the Catholic Chruch was bad boy oh boy let me point you in the direction of the secular priesthood. Makes my side of things look downright saintly (pardon the pun).

Or maybe, having a job position where men are not allowed to marry, shut in closed spaces with each other for long periods of time, and have unlimited access to altar boys attracts men who sexually desire that kind of atmosphere because they have no interest in women? Granted, that itself is not proof God could not have wanted to establish something like that. Sometimes things just have inevitable consequences. However, I think that's a counterargument against it, because the Eastern Orthodox Church's priests seem to be doing fine, and I have no idea why God would say "No marriage, now here's a bunch of men and prepubescent boys but they're not your replacement for marriage either." It seems like a political decision made to try to keep money within the Roman Catholic Church by trying to deny heirs to priests, and as we all know, the love of money is the root of all evil.

People don't want to have their own personal narratives challenged. I do, but that's only because I'm so absolutely certain I'm right I have the gall, the absolute gall, to let my most ardent of enemies continue to spew forth their blasphemies and slanders. Let them. I'll let you. I, unlike so many others who claim to believe as I do, have the full faith of my convictions...

You only want to have your personal narratives challenged by people like Subteigh who you're confident won't do anything to change them. You ignore people like me who actually challenge them. And I'm not even looking to change your mind. I'm not looking to change my mind. I am not looking for any particular outcome as long as the outcome is the Truth. Any preconceptions I have are an obstacle I avoid. I am not here for identity politics, because it is best not to think of yourself at all.

[End]

Or maybe, having a job position where men are not allowed to marry, shut in closed spaces with each other for long periods of time, and have unlimited access to altar boys attracts men who sexually desire that kind of atmosphere because they have no interest in women? Granted, that itself is not proof God could not have wanted to establish something like that. Sometimes things just have inevitable consequences. However, I think that's a counterargument against it, because the Eastern Orthodox Church's priests seem to be doing fine, and I have no idea why God would say "No marriage, now here's a bunch of men and prepubescent boys but they're not your replacement for marriage either." It seems like a political decision made to try to keep money within the Roman Catholic Church by trying to deny heirs to priests, and as we all know, the love of money is the root of all evil.

Oh my, seems I've struck a major nerve. I'll lay this one out for you in terms you can probably understand. See, the thing that you value more than your freedom is the tool that will be used to enslave you by the Great Enemy.

This is sadly a thing that the PTB/Totalitarian Assholes have figured out. Turns out people are more than willing to die for a given cause themselves, but they ain't so keen on sacrificing their entire extended/blood-related family whilst they live on to see the success of their ventures if ya catch my meaning. I mean hell this shit is even dealt with by Kirkegaard. Abraham's "Leap of Faith" involved sacrificing his only son that he ought not to have been given by the standards of his time in the first place. Plus, well, human sacrifice was just a thing you did in those times. Baal wasn't quite satisfied by a mere young and likely tasty if you grilled it right goat.

To bring this home. How could/would the devil wish to introduce error and heresy into the flock of the faithful? Why, by their collectively trusted and beloved "priest" of course. How could the great enemy best get him/her to tell them all a suite of lies and errors? If he has, say, a wife and family and he gets a memo that says hey, that's and wonderfully happy family ya got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it. Right? Well, something will happen to it if you don't, let's start light, phrase your next homily to subtly suggest that Arius might have had a point. Surely, there's a bit of wiggle room in regards to the full Divinity and Humanity of Christ eh?

Not sure if you understand how Catholic Churches work but when we collectively call the priest "father" we're rather earnest and serious about assigning him that title. To scale it up to its maximum the "pope" is literally the father of billions despite the fact he hasn't spawned a single baby if we assume he's stuck to his vows of chastity from the moment he received his Holy Orders.

Not to say that popes haven't been monumentally fucked up nor that a pope can compel the faithful to error. This is where the "trad" Catholics fuck up bigtime. Not even Francis has violated the institution by actually invoking infallibility in regards to an error. Did he fuck up? Yeah he did. Did he actually, in point of fact, compel the faithful to embrace sin/error? No. (fun case: how he handled the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade. Pure Catholic if nothing else).

Also I'd challenge you to look up what Altar Boys/Girls are and how they function. They ain't exactly on the priest's "beck and call" as it were...

[Metamorph]

Oh my, seems I've struck a major nerve. I'll lay this one out for you in terms you can probably understand. See, the thing that you value more than your freedom is the tool that will be used to enslave you by the Great Enemy.

This is sadly a thing that the PTB/Totalitarian Assholes have figured out. Turns out people are more than willing to die for a given cause themselves, but they ain't so keen on sacrificing their entire extended/blood-related family whilst they live on to see the success of their ventures if ya catch my meaning. I mean hell this shit is even dealt with by Kirkegaard. Abraham's "Leap of Faith" involved sacrificing his only son that he ought not to have been given by the standards of his time in the first place. Plus, well, human sacrifice was just a thing you did in those times. Baal wasn't quite satisfied by a mere young and likely tasty if you grilled it right goat.

To bring this home. How could/would the devil wish to introduce error and heresy into the flock of the faithful? Why, by their collectively trusted and beloved "priest" of course. How could the great enemy best get him/her to tell them all a suite of lies and errors? If he has, say, a wife and family and he gets a memo that says hey, that's and wonderfully happy family ya got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it. Right? Well, something will happen to it if you don't, let's start light, phrase your next homily to subtly suggest that Arius might have had a point. Surely, there's a bit of wiggle room in regards to the full Divinity and Humanity of Christ eh?

Not sure if you understand how Catholic Churches work but when we collectively call the priest "father" we're rather earnest and serious about assigning him that title. To scale it up to its maximum the "pope" is literally the father of billions despite the fact he hasn't spawned a single baby if we assume he's stuck to his vows of chastity from the moment he received his Holy Orders.

Not to say that popes haven't been monumentally fucked up nor that a pope can compel the faithful to error. This is where the "trad" Catholics fuck up bigtime. Not even Francis has violated the institution by actually invoking infallibility in regards to an error. Did he fuck up? Yeah he did. Did he actually, in point of fact, compel the faithful to embrace sin/error? No. (fun case: how he handled the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade. Pure Catholic if nothing else).

Also I'd challenge you to look up what Altar Boys/Girls are and how they function. They ain't exactly on the priest's "beck and call" as it were...

The only freedom you have is the freedom God gives you. If you are free to follow God you are not free to sin and vice versa, and nothing can be other than as God wills it. So your first point sounds completely rhetorical and almost sophistic to me.

Now, please explain how the results of this would be any different than if Catholic priests were just not allowed to marry in order to keep money in the Roman Catholic Church. If something cannot be understood, to me, it might as well be a deception. So I will not believe anything that cannot be explained to me. If you could explain things like the trinity and running around with incense and self-flagellating monks as somehow being logically necessary, that would be enough for me to accept them even if part of the practice cannot be understood, because after all, people's understanding is at least limited by the amount of time and effort they can put into things. But as of now you have not explained Catholicism as anything other than Western tradition. I've heard "anime Catholicism" is a thing, do you just like the depiction of Catholicism in media like anime? Of course that wouldn't make it wrong, but it doesn't make it right, either.

I just see no good arguments at all for Catholicism and you still have not made any other than "Western civilization" which I think is really a counterargument, since Western civilization in the heights of Catholicism seems like the most backwards, pagan, superstitious people in the world to me, the people who were locking up Copernicus and Galileo and promoting all sorts of sins like gambling, drunken revelries, and prostitution in the name of "the lesser evil." I don't see it as Catholicism vs. popular culture such as Oprah and TikTok, I still see them as essentially being on the same side. I have no intent or desire whatsoever for the evil one, he is my enemy, so if you have any information that Catholicism is definitely true and not just something you like the aesthetics of I would like to have it. (I don't even like the aesthetics of Catholicism, it also just looks pagan to me, but that might be an incorrect predisposition I have.)

[Renna]

It's a proof that ancient people enjoy fantasy too

[DogOfDanger]

And if there is a such thing as truth, which there is, there must be evidence for it..

No... you can obviously lack evidence of something that actually occurred or is true, there is not always evidence available.

We can't have many gods any more, so we try to have many Gods.

No... Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe in the same Abrahamic God, the conversation in the chat box has nothing to do with many-gods. What the religions disagree on is the essential nature of God. They also disagree on which traditions to follow..
Your many-gods argument should really be a many-traditions argument.
Traditions are not all inspired the same, some traditions are derived from beliefs about God, some of them are social, some are practical, alot of them are just inherited by one culture from another... it's pretty common that traditions even are misinterpreted or confusingly mixed with other traditions, when their original meaning or purpose is long forgotten...
For example.... many Catholic traditions are actually taken from Paganism, but many are also taken from the apostle Paul.
And the reality is that the Bible was translated across 6 different languages and the text changed radically throughout. It's also 60 some odd different books from different authors, not even all originally written in the same language.
So this requires more thought than you've given it, but yes, there are traditions that are arbitrary and can be ignored.

[Metamorph]

When a religious person says you are doing something contrary to their religion, all you have to say is "You don't know "God"."

They would probably also disagree with me in many cases, but at least that would be entertaining. And honestly, it probably is true that it's contrary to their religion. Lots of things can be contrary to lots of different religions. Unless what they believe is what I believe too (I doubt it) I don't have to care. I probably don't have to care about their subjective beliefs as subjective, either, because they are probably terrible people, however, it's still good to try not to be too petty even if like many people here and like me, you feel maybe sort of traumatized by certain religious beliefs.

No... you can obviously lack evidence of something that actually occurred or is true, there is not always evidence available.

It's possible to lack it, but it still exists, which is why, when talking about the Infinite, you go and look. The stakes are infinite, like Pascal's Wager but without the heresy (heresy = to choose, as if you can just choose what you believe because you feel like it. Now you know the origin of the word heresy if you didn't! Heresy is literally anathema to the idea there is a such thing as truth, that's why it's a big deal.)

No... Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe in the same Abrahamic God, the conversation in the chat box has nothing to do with many-gods. What the religions disagree on is the essential nature of God. They also disagree on which traditions to follow..
Your many-gods argument should really be a many-traditions argument.
Traditions are not all inspired the same, some traditions are derived from beliefs about God, some of them are social, some are practical, alot of them are just inherited by one culture from another... it's pretty common that traditions even are misinterpreted or confusingly mixed with other traditions, when their original meaning or purpose is long forgotten...
For example.... many Catholic traditions are actually taken from Paganism, but many are also taken from the apostle Paul.
And the reality is that the Bible was translated across 6 different languages and the text changed radically throughout. It's also 60 some odd different books from different authors, not even all originally written in the same language.
So this requires more thought than you've given it, but yes, there are traditions that are arbitrary and can be ignored.

Well, if I describe a blue bird and you describe a red dog we are clearly not describing the same thing. Hence, many-Gods seems like a good description of postmodern religion to me. Most people can't believe in blatant polytheism any more, so they believe in many-truths rather than many-gods. As if Truth weren't just a synonym for God and many-truths for many-gods.

[DogOfDanger]

It's possible to lack it, but it still exists, which is why, when talking about the Infinite, you go and look. The stakes are infinite, like Pascal's Wager but without the heresy (heresy = to choose, as if you can just choose what you believe because you feel like it. Now you know the origin of the word heresy if you didn't! Heresy is literally anathema to the idea there is a such thing as truth, that's why it's a big deal.)

And I'm not looking...? You haven't even begun to demonstrate that.
Besides, this is technically wrong, if by evidence you mean something empirical... For example, how could you ever find empirical evidence for something that transcends the universe? It's technically impossible.
And how can you find empirical evidence of what someone is thinking?
But my arguments are based in evidence, the history of many of these traditions is, in certain places, very well documented.
And if by evidence you mean "reason"... I've given all sorts of reasons.

Well, if I describe a blue bird and you describe a red dog we are clearly not describing the same thing. Hence, many-Gods seems like a good description of postmodern religion to me. Most people can't believe in blatant polytheism any more, so they believe in many-truths rather than many-gods. As if Truth weren't just a synonym for God and many-truths for many-gods.

I don't see how any of this applies to our conversation, it is just totally disconnected from anything I've said or what we discussed in the chat.
Except for the last part... we're not discussing many-truths, we're discussing the many things that are true. But what you're doing is reducing the conversation to something extremely simple where you don't have to deal with any of the detail of information, you can just say... "the red dog and the blue bird say so" and be done with it.
So ironically.... you are avoiding this search for truth you keep going on about.

[Metamorph]

And I'm not looking...? You haven't even begun to demonstrate that.
Besides, this is technically wrong, if by evidence you mean something empirical... For example, how could you ever find empirical evidence for something that transcends the universe? It's technically impossible.
And how can you find empirical evidence of what someone is thinking?
But my arguments are based in evidence, the history of many of these traditions is, in certain places, very well documented.
And if by evidence you mean "reason"... I've given all sorts of reasons.



I don't see how any of this applies to our conversation, it is just totally disconnected from anything I've said or what we discussed in the chat.
Except for the last part... we're not discussing many-truths, we're discussing the many things that are true. But what you're doing is reducing the conversation to something extremely simple where you don't have to deal with any of the detail of information, you can just say... "the red dog and the blue bird say so" and be done with it.
So ironically.... you are avoiding this search for truth you keep going on about.

The evidence that's normally given for religions is all the miracles as well as the historical (including natural-historical) record. So there is evidence. Whether you think that evidence is good enough is a different issue.

Also, do you really think that all the major religions worship the same God? Not even every Protestant denomination worships the same God as each other.

[DogOfDanger]

The evidence that's normally given for religions is all the miracles as well as the historical (including natural-historical) record. So there is evidence. Whether you think that evidence is good enough is a different issue.

I don't know why you're mentioning this. I've claimed that many religious traditions are cultural inheritances, rooted in confusion, and can be ignored. I haven't said anything about Gods existence or the lack thereof. Though I will say... every religious book has its miracles, so miracles can't possibly be the reason for believing in a religion. Infact you really have to convince yourself that the miracles did infact occur in most cases.

Also, do you really think that all the major religions worship the same God? Not even every Protestant denomination worships the same God as each other.

They've identified God and his essential nature differently, but they all agree on the metaphysics of it - that there is one and no other before him, that he accounts for the events documented in the old testament, and so on. So yes I'd say they worship the same God but have a different idea of the nature of God.

[AWellArmedCat]

I'm philosophically an agnostic, but I practice polytheism. I think if a god exists it's more likely that there are multiple. I also think that capital "G" God makes more sense as an archetype than as an actual entity. Also to anyone who is interested in polytheism, I recommend the YouTuber, Ocean Keltoi

[godslave]

I'm philosophically an agnostic, but I practice polytheism. I think if a god exists it's more likely that there are multiple. I also think that capital "G" God makes more sense as an archetype than as an actual entity. Also to anyone who is interested in polytheism, I recommend the YouTuber, Ocean Keltoi

Your choice of words is very interesting ! I like that formula ! Religion is indeed for the most part closer to a philosophy of life than an absolute truth. I think that the more religious people tend to adhere to that point of view the more tolerant they are in regards to other beliefs or philosophies of life.
Unfortunately, It is my understanding that religious people who take everything literally without any "lateral thinking" or openness to metaphorical interpretations are those who are the most at risk to fall into fanaticism and intolerance.

[DogOfDanger]

If God does not literally exist then the whole thing is just a charade and a complete waste of time. You may as well dress up as the Easter bunny and call yourself the Easter bunny at that point.

[Adam Strange]

If God does not literally exist then the whole thing is just a charade and a complete waste of time. You may as well dress up as the Easter bunny and call yourself the Easter bunny at that point.

Dressing up as the Easter Bunny might not have universal appeal.

It would probably be more useful to find some other reason to justify our existence.

[DogOfDanger]

It would probably be more useful to find some other reason to justify our existence.

Well you can try by starting with our physical existence, but I don't think you're gona make alot of progress here. You'll probably just run into the infinite first cause problem and... at some point give up trying to explain it.

[Metamorph]

Dressing up as the Easter Bunny might not have universal appeal.

It would probably be more useful to find some other reason to justify our existence.

God would have universal appeal, however, it would be much worse for someone to dress up as God.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

If God does not literally exist then the whole thing is just a charade and a complete waste of time. You may as well dress up as the Easter bunny and call yourself the Easter bunny at that point.

The same is true if "God" has no measurable effect on the universe.

[godslave]

We all live in the Matrix. This is not a reason to ignore that only a handful of people can handle the truth of its existence.

•  

  

[DogOfDanger]

No man, you live in a TV... life is a giant TV. It's a video game where we are being controlled by ourselves in it. I am an RPG character named Cloud in reality. You want to ignore the truth about it fine, most are too weak to handle the red pill anyway.

[DogOfDanger]

Personally, I've settled on "making kids" as my purpose in life, which seems slightly better to me than "pass the butter."

TBH the human race is so detached from nature, and society is so maladaptive, that humanity is probably devolving.

[DogOfDanger]

I don't entirely agree but you get a thumbs up for being amusing..

[adage]

The idea behind all religions is supposed to be love, it's the idea people have of love and how to reach it that differ.

[Metamorph]

My opinion on this is that there are several perspectives that you can choose in life. One perspective is to see that there is God, but you can also opt not to do that. Though there are always consequences so it's wise to choose based on your priorities. For me, I just jump from one perspective to another because life ends up getting boring if there are no romantic elements to it and I would surely believe in miracles if that means it will save my ass from unhappiness. The perspective that there is God, that there is light and that I can also reflect god's grace and be a magician is very romantic and it makes me get inspired to do boring things atm. So why not get into that zone. Why would I see things bleakly if I can always imagine things. I mean being naturally myself I can juggle lots and lots of perspectives anyway. It's like there is God today but I can see there is no God too at the same time. Sometimes I think I have servitors. The problem would only show up when I start to be a crusader and force a view to anybody who is not prepared to join the path with me and see the things the way I see them. But I'm too detached for that. They should come up with their own view of life. No spoon-feeding, also I don't want responsibilities in general. Plus my potential followers might get annoyed at me because my views change multiple times in a day.

Religion and spirituality is kinda annoying to argue about in general because it's not like other things where you can get to the logic or provide proof. If it's the latter then we can talk properly. This is just in a different realm completely and it's mostly personal so why would I even care about how you see God or not. The thing is we only attach label to things to explain what we experience then we just kinda roll with it. It's kinda comical to fight about something when you know that you and the other person are not even on the same bubble/context.

If only you knew how pitiful your magic, your illusions, were compared to Truth and how much that "different realm completely" was what mattered.

[Metamorph]

I get my light right from the source

You know Lucifer isn't really an angel, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be said, "Satan appears as an angel of light," it would be said "Satan is an angel of light but he's bad."

[Socionics Is A Cult]

You know Lucifer isn't really an angel, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be said, "Satan appears as an angel of light," it would be said "Satan is an angel of light but he's bad."

Angels weren't really developed as a coherent and fleshed out concept in Judaism, and passages change in meaning over time. Lucifer probably wasn't even been regarded as Satan when "he" was first mentioned: it was a label attached to a/the king of the Babylonians, the enemies of the Jews at the time (at least in popular memory). No metaphorical Babylon either.

Many modern Christians like to say that Lucifer is the morning star, and that Jesus is the evening star (even though the morning and evening stars are the same object - Venus) - and that of course Jesus is the correct one.

In Jewish tradition, Satan was actually the loyal servant of God who played the devil's advocate (which has a somewhat different meaning in popular culture now of course - tending to mean a defence of the devil, rather than scrutinising God): who made sure God was fair and faithful to its people.

[Metamorph]

In Jewish tradition, Satan was actually the loyal servant of God who played the devil's advocate (which has a somewhat different meaning in popular culture now of course - tending to mean a defence of the devil, rather than scrutinising God): who made sure God was fair and faithful to its people.

This is a wrong definition of devil's advocate. The devil's advocate comes from the process of canonization of saints, where one person would advocate they were a saint and went to Heaven and the other would advocate they weren't and went to Hell (the devil's advocate.)

[Socionics Is A Cult]

This is a wrong definition of devil's advocate. The devil's advocate comes from the process of canonization of saints, where one person would advocate they were a saint and went to Heaven and the other would advocate they weren't and went to Hell (the devil's advocate.)

Maybe that's true of "devil's advocate", but Jewish texts often regarded Satan as an agent of God.

The Book of Job is essentially the central and primary text regarding Satan, and it's where God asks Satan about his opinion on Job's piety, then gives Satan permission to torment Job! (eventually killing all of Job's family - the "only" people Satan kills in the whole Bible, and with God's permission!).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_o..._and_in_Heaven

[Eliza Thomason]

This is a wrong definition of devil's advocate. The devil's advocate comes from the process of canonization of saints, where one person would advocate they were a saint and went to Heaven and the other would advocate they weren't and went to Hell (the devil's advocate.)

*Constructive*

[My response button still isn't working after all this time]

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I believe it's impossible for the concept of God to be real in the way it is presented in present day Christianity. This is why: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

It pretty much points out a contradiction that cannot be rectified. I think Satan is just a scapegoat.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

The Gospels have Jesus being out in the wilderness for forty days with just himself and Satan, and yet the Gospels are supposed to be eyewitness accounts!

In truth, the 40 was allegorically significant because the Exodus was said to be 40 years, and the "Satan" figure was used intended to show that Jesus was worthy or perhaps more than human.

[Metamorph]

The Gospels have Jesus being out in the wilderness for forty days with just himself and Satan, and yet the Gospels are supposed to be eyewitness accounts!

In truth, the 40 was allegorically significant because the Exodus was said to be 40 years, and the "Satan" figure was used intended to show that Jesus was worthy or perhaps more than human.

Weren't the disciples of Jesus supposed to have miraculous powers? That might include clairvoyance since Jesus himself purportedly was explicitly telepathic, or that might fall under the banner of prophecy even though I think prophecy is supposed to be more truths about God than just things like knowing something that happened somewhere, tongues is also considered separate.

There just might not be anything that can be said that can make religious texts seem completely incoherent.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Weren't the disciples of Jesus supposed to have miraculous powers? That might include clairvoyance since Jesus himself purportedly was explicitly telepathic, or that might fall under the banner of prophecy even though I think prophecy is supposed to be more truths about God than just things like knowing something that happened somewhere, tongues is also considered separate.

There just might not be anything that can be said that can make religious texts seem completely incoherent.

Stuff like being able to handle poisonous snakes without risk and that sort of thing, according to the Gospels.

[Metamorph]

Stuff like being able to handle poisonous snakes without risk and that sort of thing, according to the Gospels.

A lot more than that. 1 Corinthians 13.