I believe in forces and entities beyond our realm of perception or comprehension. Some good, some malevolent and evil. Call them God, Satan, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna, Kali, Gaia, whatever you want but I do not buy into any one religious doctrine as being the "right" one.
At one time people believed in the Greek Gods as much as Christians believe in God or Satan, yet today we call them "myths." We just happen to be in an age where the Abrahamic religions are the dominant ones on the planet.
Many have spoken of the "Macrobes" that Sir John Dee communed with that demand blood sacrifice. Such an entity could easily co-opt "Satan", it doesn't necessarily mean it is the Satan of the bible or a literal fallen angel.
Applying logic to metaphysics makes absolutely no sense. They are two competing philosophies that don't mix together well at all, and attempts to make them mesh are pretty much always doomed to fail. There's a reason why we say someone with a religious belief has "faith", as opposed to them having "drawn conclusions based on tangible and/or logical proofs."
You are appealing to logic to even say that it ‘doesn’t make sense’. If we cannot agree that X == Y we won’t be able to get very far.
Also biblical faith is not ‘believing without evidence’, the word is more akin to ‘trust’, in the same way one trusts a parachute to keep them from hitting the ground at 120mph.
Hard to convey tone here but I wrote this in love and remembering my seeking and journey through atheism, New Age and beyond.
I posit that many religions may have interpreted similar entities in different ways. So in that sense they can all be incorrect and correct simultaneously in a way.
Downvoted, not sure why. I'm not expressing agreement or disagreement with you, but it's a fair stance to take that a literal entity of Satan does not exist, and that, instead, "Satan" is a figurative representation of the absence of God.
Given that goodness is defined by God, evil is inherently the absence of God. Satan need not be an entity, and hell need not be literally a universe/plane/"place" of fire and torture; if total separation from God is 100% "evil" (because total separation from God means total separation from goodness) then hell could literally be the state of the soul that has pushed away God, and then died, severing all ties to God. As God grants us free will, such separation should be possible; making hell literally a uniquely and individually self-imposed state of absolute and maximal suffering.
This has evidence in the real world, as well. Those who chose evil and sin typically are the most miserable people on this planet. They create their own personal hells; their conscience tortures them; in response, they push God and their own humanity as far away as possible.
Does this mean an entity of "satan" cannot exist, or that hell in the more traditional sense cannot? I don't believe so. I simply think we don't know enough; distinction, also, seems unnecessary; either way, God is good, and hell is to be avoided at all costs; something that can be done by turning to God.
You might want to learn a little more about the occult and their customs. They literally rent out Catholic Churches for black mass weddings where Satan appears in human form to “marry” one of his “brides”. Seven brides exist worldwide at any given time. I have read books of Christians who have escaped from this dark world of Satanism.
Satan’s biggest accomplishment is fooling those who don’t believe in his existence.
I have been in tune with the paranormal my whole life and I can tell you for a fact that real demons exist and they fear the name of Jesus.
For one, I don't dispute that there are those that practice occult "customs"; just because they practice it, doesn't mean it's legitimate or real.
As far as you're personal experiences; I'm not going to tell you what you did or did not experience.
That said, I'm sure you can understand that, as someone who has not had experiences of that nature, nor seen any evidence other than testimony, I take a stance of skepticism. Is it all possible? Sure. I'm open-minded enough to understand that, and, if presented with overwhelming argument or evidence, I may change my stance. In other words, I'm reserving judgement.
Many people have claimed many things. User testimony is valuable, but, depending on the circumstances, can only go so far, especially when there are potential alternative explanations.
As I said before; I am not sure it entirely matters. God's power dwarfs that of Satan; we are to reject sin; regardless of where it comes from.
Thanks for the information! Discussion of such important topics is always valuable!
I'm not going to say much, I believe you've provided a great reply.
As I've gotten older and read more philosophy, I've sort of thought about the idea of hell from a few different view points.
I've noticed that when some, but not all, people talk about a satan/devil like being they put him on the opposite end of God, some being who is a rival to the Supreme, but God hasn't destroyed this evil being because 'reasons'.
But when I think about it, such a figure is more like an administrative position, dealing out punishments for sins as prescribed by God, I mean why else would Satan punish sinners if he was against God?
And when talking about God and his mercy and love why do we limit it?
Suffering in hell for all eternity?
Where is God's love and mercy there?
Does God only provide one life to people to get it right?
I know the Bible doesn't talk much about it, but a system of karma and reincarnation sounds merciful compared to hell for eternity.
As you probably can tell I'm not well versed in the Bible, but I believe Jesus is real and I believe he is the son of God.
Just seemed odd that people talk about God's great mercy and love, but they don't extend it to all living entities or even all humans for that matter.
I agree with most of what you said. That's one of the reason I'm skeptical of the existence of such a "satan" entity entirely; God's mercy is so great, and free will so important, that I am inclined to believe that hell HAS to be a choice, less than some kind of "punishment" dished out by God.
I think the idea of hell is attractive to a lot of people because it fits with a lot of the ideas of justice; that said, I tend to take a lot more of a philisophical and metaphysical approach to it all; being Catholic I was raised on the principles of "religion of the word, not the book"; non Catholics often don't understand what that means and misinterpret; basically, it's saying that Biblical literalism is a dead-end because the Bible is one of many sources of truth. It is a very valuable source, literalism is illogical and ignores the true depth of the messages of the Bible.
I think one of the harder things for people to wrap their mind around is just the magnitude of God's creation, and God's relation with His creation. I don't pretend to comprehend it, but I think I understand some parts. Perhaps most importantly, God defines everything. God is omnipotent; not subject to our descriptions. God is not good, good is that which is of God (God is good, I say it in this way to emphasize the dichotomy). God did not create evil because evil is defined as that which in opposition to God.
We are created in God's image; to be good. By doing that which is not good, we are rejecting God; running from Him. As happiness comes from goodness, those that chose evil cannot be happy. The farther they turn from God, the more they suffer. God gives them every chance to return and be completely forgiven; if they do not accept it, God lets them go. Being immortal in soul, they waste away in Godlessness and pure suffering. They are literally reaping what they sew; no punishment from God or torture from "satan" necessary.
That said, Satan or Hell in the traditional sense could exist; this does not preclude that, it just explains the nature of such things further, should they exist; and it provides an alternative explanation if they don't.
As far as other living entities; the explanation I usually hear and take myself is that they don't have a [unique] soul. They don't have free will, they are simply biological computers with inputs and outputs. That said, the apparent love which they are capable of expressing seems so much more. I think it's possible that, in a weird way, animals are almost reincarnations. Maybe God controls them and uses them as a conduit to express love to us directly; or to change things in the world that need changing (saving children from burning buildings, as one example). Maybe the souls of those that came before us can "inhabit" them in a similar manner.
I think these verses are relevant to all of these topics, and, indeed, our times in general:
"Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has the authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very heirs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid, you are worth more than many sparrows."
I remember when the Q line was created in 1991, when the arpanet become the internet, this was right after the fall of the soviet union and the globalists started taking over the networks:
https://www.erisnet.org/erisnet_pressrelease.pdf
Now that huge amounts of sumerian cuneiform (who gave the alphabet to most of the middle east) have been translated, it appears Genesis, in any canon other than the Latin Vulgate, was wrong with Ninurta/Nimrod:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninurta
We know during the dark ages, there was many correctors of the canon, but they made a lot of mistakes. Was it Jerome? St Augustine, who wrote City of God, always criticized him for using so many Hebrew texts when he rewrote the canon (the vulgate was closer to what the zoroastrian texts but the romans and sasanid empire were basically in a 400 year war). The dead dead scrolls revealed a lot of truths.
Keep in mind that a LOT of text was recovered from that era, and even before that era, it wasn't until computers could do rosetta stone-like translation that a lot of the more ancient papyrus could be extracted. A lot of it is partially congruent with either the Talmud or the Old Testament (who knows what the explanation is but there were probably many sects who each passed on different cannons). Also, the Vatican has a lot of text digitized now (they hoarded it forever) that isn't in line with the Council of Trent's canon.
If you don’t believe in God or Satan by now, you still have some serious redpilling to do.
I believe in forces and entities beyond our realm of perception or comprehension. Some good, some malevolent and evil. Call them God, Satan, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna, Kali, Gaia, whatever you want but I do not buy into any one religious doctrine as being the "right" one.
At one time people believed in the Greek Gods as much as Christians believe in God or Satan, yet today we call them "myths." We just happen to be in an age where the Abrahamic religions are the dominant ones on the planet.
Many have spoken of the "Macrobes" that Sir John Dee communed with that demand blood sacrifice. Such an entity could easily co-opt "Satan", it doesn't necessarily mean it is the Satan of the bible or a literal fallen angel.
Logically (since they have conflicting metaphysical assertions), either they are all incorrect, or one is correct.
https://youtu.be/RRyq6RwzlEM
This is what I've always said
Religion is man’s attempt to reach God. Jesus is God’s attempt to reach man.
Applying logic to metaphysics makes absolutely no sense. They are two competing philosophies that don't mix together well at all, and attempts to make them mesh are pretty much always doomed to fail. There's a reason why we say someone with a religious belief has "faith", as opposed to them having "drawn conclusions based on tangible and/or logical proofs."
You are appealing to logic to even say that it ‘doesn’t make sense’. If we cannot agree that X == Y we won’t be able to get very far.
Also biblical faith is not ‘believing without evidence’, the word is more akin to ‘trust’, in the same way one trusts a parachute to keep them from hitting the ground at 120mph.
Hard to convey tone here but I wrote this in love and remembering my seeking and journey through atheism, New Age and beyond.
I posit that many religions may have interpreted similar entities in different ways. So in that sense they can all be incorrect and correct simultaneously in a way.
Not if they make contradictory claims. The central one being: is Jesus Christ the only way of salvation?
I'm not who your talking to but I believe in God, I don't believe in some Satan dude being the root of evil.
Downvoted, not sure why. I'm not expressing agreement or disagreement with you, but it's a fair stance to take that a literal entity of Satan does not exist, and that, instead, "Satan" is a figurative representation of the absence of God.
Given that goodness is defined by God, evil is inherently the absence of God. Satan need not be an entity, and hell need not be literally a universe/plane/"place" of fire and torture; if total separation from God is 100% "evil" (because total separation from God means total separation from goodness) then hell could literally be the state of the soul that has pushed away God, and then died, severing all ties to God. As God grants us free will, such separation should be possible; making hell literally a uniquely and individually self-imposed state of absolute and maximal suffering.
This has evidence in the real world, as well. Those who chose evil and sin typically are the most miserable people on this planet. They create their own personal hells; their conscience tortures them; in response, they push God and their own humanity as far away as possible.
Does this mean an entity of "satan" cannot exist, or that hell in the more traditional sense cannot? I don't believe so. I simply think we don't know enough; distinction, also, seems unnecessary; either way, God is good, and hell is to be avoided at all costs; something that can be done by turning to God.
You might want to learn a little more about the occult and their customs. They literally rent out Catholic Churches for black mass weddings where Satan appears in human form to “marry” one of his “brides”. Seven brides exist worldwide at any given time. I have read books of Christians who have escaped from this dark world of Satanism. Satan’s biggest accomplishment is fooling those who don’t believe in his existence. I have been in tune with the paranormal my whole life and I can tell you for a fact that real demons exist and they fear the name of Jesus.
For one, I don't dispute that there are those that practice occult "customs"; just because they practice it, doesn't mean it's legitimate or real.
As far as you're personal experiences; I'm not going to tell you what you did or did not experience.
That said, I'm sure you can understand that, as someone who has not had experiences of that nature, nor seen any evidence other than testimony, I take a stance of skepticism. Is it all possible? Sure. I'm open-minded enough to understand that, and, if presented with overwhelming argument or evidence, I may change my stance. In other words, I'm reserving judgement.
Many people have claimed many things. User testimony is valuable, but, depending on the circumstances, can only go so far, especially when there are potential alternative explanations.
As I said before; I am not sure it entirely matters. God's power dwarfs that of Satan; we are to reject sin; regardless of where it comes from.
Thanks for the information! Discussion of such important topics is always valuable!
God bless you!
I'm not going to say much, I believe you've provided a great reply.
As I've gotten older and read more philosophy, I've sort of thought about the idea of hell from a few different view points.
I've noticed that when some, but not all, people talk about a satan/devil like being they put him on the opposite end of God, some being who is a rival to the Supreme, but God hasn't destroyed this evil being because 'reasons'.
But when I think about it, such a figure is more like an administrative position, dealing out punishments for sins as prescribed by God, I mean why else would Satan punish sinners if he was against God?
And when talking about God and his mercy and love why do we limit it? Suffering in hell for all eternity? Where is God's love and mercy there? Does God only provide one life to people to get it right?
I know the Bible doesn't talk much about it, but a system of karma and reincarnation sounds merciful compared to hell for eternity.
As you probably can tell I'm not well versed in the Bible, but I believe Jesus is real and I believe he is the son of God.
Just seemed odd that people talk about God's great mercy and love, but they don't extend it to all living entities or even all humans for that matter.
I agree with most of what you said. That's one of the reason I'm skeptical of the existence of such a "satan" entity entirely; God's mercy is so great, and free will so important, that I am inclined to believe that hell HAS to be a choice, less than some kind of "punishment" dished out by God.
I think the idea of hell is attractive to a lot of people because it fits with a lot of the ideas of justice; that said, I tend to take a lot more of a philisophical and metaphysical approach to it all; being Catholic I was raised on the principles of "religion of the word, not the book"; non Catholics often don't understand what that means and misinterpret; basically, it's saying that Biblical literalism is a dead-end because the Bible is one of many sources of truth. It is a very valuable source, literalism is illogical and ignores the true depth of the messages of the Bible.
I think one of the harder things for people to wrap their mind around is just the magnitude of God's creation, and God's relation with His creation. I don't pretend to comprehend it, but I think I understand some parts. Perhaps most importantly, God defines everything. God is omnipotent; not subject to our descriptions. God is not good, good is that which is of God (God is good, I say it in this way to emphasize the dichotomy). God did not create evil because evil is defined as that which in opposition to God.
We are created in God's image; to be good. By doing that which is not good, we are rejecting God; running from Him. As happiness comes from goodness, those that chose evil cannot be happy. The farther they turn from God, the more they suffer. God gives them every chance to return and be completely forgiven; if they do not accept it, God lets them go. Being immortal in soul, they waste away in Godlessness and pure suffering. They are literally reaping what they sew; no punishment from God or torture from "satan" necessary.
That said, Satan or Hell in the traditional sense could exist; this does not preclude that, it just explains the nature of such things further, should they exist; and it provides an alternative explanation if they don't.
As far as other living entities; the explanation I usually hear and take myself is that they don't have a [unique] soul. They don't have free will, they are simply biological computers with inputs and outputs. That said, the apparent love which they are capable of expressing seems so much more. I think it's possible that, in a weird way, animals are almost reincarnations. Maybe God controls them and uses them as a conduit to express love to us directly; or to change things in the world that need changing (saving children from burning buildings, as one example). Maybe the souls of those that came before us can "inhabit" them in a similar manner.
I think these verses are relevant to all of these topics, and, indeed, our times in general: "Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has the authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very heirs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid, you are worth more than many sparrows."
Which of the red pills?
I remember when the Q line was created in 1991, when the arpanet become the internet, this was right after the fall of the soviet union and the globalists started taking over the networks: https://www.erisnet.org/erisnet_pressrelease.pdf
Then the world's information banks started exponential growth due to infinite digitization: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Hilbert_InfoGrowth.png
Now that huge amounts of sumerian cuneiform (who gave the alphabet to most of the middle east) have been translated, it appears Genesis, in any canon other than the Latin Vulgate, was wrong with Ninurta/Nimrod: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninurta
We know during the dark ages, there was many correctors of the canon, but they made a lot of mistakes. Was it Jerome? St Augustine, who wrote City of God, always criticized him for using so many Hebrew texts when he rewrote the canon (the vulgate was closer to what the zoroastrian texts but the romans and sasanid empire were basically in a 400 year war). The dead dead scrolls revealed a lot of truths.
The Dead Sea Scrolls proved the Old Testament was preserved intact since before the birth of Christ.
Keep in mind that a LOT of text was recovered from that era, and even before that era, it wasn't until computers could do rosetta stone-like translation that a lot of the more ancient papyrus could be extracted. A lot of it is partially congruent with either the Talmud or the Old Testament (who knows what the explanation is but there were probably many sects who each passed on different cannons). Also, the Vatican has a lot of text digitized now (they hoarded it forever) that isn't in line with the Council of Trent's canon.
See the advanced books here: http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_bookstore.htm
I think a lot of Hebrew and Zoroastrian (the pre-Islamic religion of mesopotamia and persia) cannon mixed especially near Cestiphon because of the Romans, Sassans and Greek influences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Eschate
In modern times (the last 20 years), a lot more text has been recovered from places far flung like Ethiopia, India, and even China.