Satan... biblical hero?

Seriously dude, I love you

I've become more and more interested lately in the whole 'fallen angel' stuff.. and it is sooooo fascinating.. Ofcourse in the Bible they are the scum of the world.. but hey, the Bible is just God's propaganda

I don't really believe in jaweh/god/allah.. but still.. it IS interesting

 

SO MANY TRYING TO LEGITIMISE THEIR BELIEFS
By imposing them on

AGNOSTICS

Agnostics believe there may be a god.
But NOT THE BANAL IDIOTIC FICTION
That religion proposes as a description.
Agnostics 'understand' through reason.
That human beings create the gods they wish.
To explain the massive complexity and apparent meaning of reality.

Which of you will deny reason.?
You cannot deny it with words,,,,
or ideas

just ego


Hell..?
Heaven?
Sin?
Redemption?


Ho Ho.. what a load of ..................

Occam

 

Personally, I have zero interest in trying to impose my beliefs on anyone.

 

Do you find other peoples beliefs so entertaining that you would allow them to keep their false beliefs?

 

One arguement against this idea is that the knowledge Adam and Eve gained in the garden was false: Good/evil, life/death, dualism in general. most oriental philosophies/religions will tell you this is an illusion, a lie.
Jesus himself refered to Satan as "the father of lies".
If you look at it this way then all the serpent turned them on to was a cage for their perception.
It brought judgement into the world in the sense that now man had a scale to measure everything on.
Now, instead of just experienceing everthing, he had to figure out what catagory to put it in first.

 

What I'd like is for people to open up to a certain experience - I have my ideas about it, and they serve me ok. But I don't think that it would necessarily help others to think as I do, because their nature might be quite different than my own, and my own ideas etc are all based on my own life experience.

I can't say what is a false belief with absolute assurance in many cases. Take Buddhism - on one hand, I don't particularly like to view the universe in Buddhist terms. It has never had much appeal to me, although I have read a certain amount about it. But I can't just take the attitude that Buddhists are all wrong in every respect!

I am not saying I wouldn't try to persuade someone of a particualar belief if I thought it was appropriate, but only in a very extreme case would I seek to force my belief on someone.

 

BlackBillyBlake

And many religions...interpret 'very extreme case' as anyone who does not believe them.

Thus they deny the inherent right they hold as truth..that they believe the truth, to any who do not hold their truth as truth.

Occam

 

Very True. But that's not my attitude.

 

The horned figure of Satan came from Pan - the pagan deity/god thing.....(im not totally sure of his role but its all life and stuff, goatman nice guy - im not pagan this is my friends explanation) As christians wanted to get rid of paganism, Satan became based on pan, so any christians seeing pagans worshipping him, could feel that attacking them was ok.....this is why pagans are know as devil worshippers. The simple reason of Christianity after being persecuted by the romans, finally got a foothold and then decided to return the favour to the pagans. Nice huh? Well its all history, but i find it interesting. This like how Xmas is the same day as the pagan festival. Even though jesus was born around april time. Again a clever way to oust paganism. So there you have it on why satan looks all horny and goat like. not sure of the whole biblical hero thing, but without him christians wouldn't have been able to persecute pagans....so they really need to thank him

 

Kharakov, I've read a lot of posts from you with interest, but this statement has to be the most intolerant one I've seen ...

Who is to determine whose beliefs are false? Certainly not you!

To those whom you say have false beliefs, your beliefs may be false to them. When you go trying to change their beliefs, and they go trying to change your beliefs, what ensues is violence, hatred and killing ...

Seems that this really points to the violence, hatred and killing as the true and actual belief.

No one's beliefs are false until the individual holding those beliefs decides their own beliefs are false ... sort of like me when I determined that my belief in a God was false for me.

Darrell

 

BlackBill

Cool..In fact occam can imagineer many examples of a valid reason to impose ones beliefs on others...

If occam encountered a person who wished to kill him, and tries to do so.
[an extreme case]
Then occam thinks he is well within his inherent rights to impose his beliefs on that attacker.
That belief would be to remove the threat by whatever means required.

However,,Occam can imagineer NO examples to justify the imposing of religious beliefs.
And occam opinions...nor would jesus...

Occam

 

Occam:

I must disagree with you a little bit here ...
I don't believe that it is right to impose any will upon an assailant,
Just because he is an assailant.
While I do find that IF it becomes necessary
To choose between two lives,
A choice must be made,
If the attacker is not threatening a life,
One only has the right to self-defense,
And self-defense is not imposing your will upon the attacker,
It is merely denying the attacker's will upon you (and others).

Hikaru

 

The example you give of someone threatening to kill you, or similar situations is exactly what I had in mind when I refered to 'extreme cases' in my earlier post.

As for religious beliefs once again I agree. It can never be justified to impose any set of such beliefs on others through force, coercion or what ever other means.

On the other hand, if one has a particular belief or set of beliefs and someone else in interested to hear, that is another thing.

 

Wellmet Hikaru

In the situation posited..It clearly states that an attacker wishes to
kill, and tries to do so..
In such an extreme case..The attacker is violating the inherent right to
life of the attacked.

1*
In so doing. In a fair and equitable ballance. The attacker abandons his own inherent rights to the attacked.

Occam did not say it was a choice between two lives...But a choice of protecting ones own life.
It is quite possible to stop an attack without killing...But it does require
physical damage to the attacker...[A 'taking away' of the attackers abillity to impose his beliefs on you,].

But that is covered by 1*

Occam

 

Quite.

Perhaps it is just to remove the assailant's ability to cause harm once he has misused his existance ... but, is that the RIGHT thing to do?

Lately I have questioned the rightness of justice. I used to combat phrases like "two wrongs don't make it right" with phrases like "a single wrong will ensure that it is never right, and two wrongs will make it fair, which is as close to right as the result shall ever be."

However, lately I have seen the wisdom that Ghandi spoke of; hating the sin and not the sinner, and loving in spite of failure and imperfection.

Is it right to seek justice and, say, break the bones of a murderer to prevent him from attacking again? Is that the humane thing to do?

I was raised under a conservative mindset, so concepts like fairness and justice have always held a certain pedestal within me. But in seeing the things wrong with conservativism and some of my old ways, it makes me wonder if even this pedestal ought to be toppled over ...

 

Hikaru

You tell occam.

One path results in your death And a satisfied killer
who has taken a life for gratuitous personal reasons

The other path leaves both alive.
But with physical damage to one who does not respect anothers
right to existance.
A case of the 'lesser of two evils'
[is right] ?

If you simply let youself passively be killed....
then that is your personal choice.
Occam believes...
"All evil needs to flourish is for good people to do nothing"

Occam

 

People determine whether their own beliefs are true or false. I, and my statements, are just part of the evidence for or against their beliefs.

belief: 3. conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

(m-w.com)

times up for me...

 

The evidence.....okay, I am here, you are there. You have no clue what I have lived through, seen, done, learned, and vice versa. Therefore, if you and I had the exact same beliefs, I would be shocked. How could we? I say, we can all differ, and all be right. Like Darrell said, telling others they are wrong leads to misery. And it is totally ludicrous. We all are alone in our realities. Even two brothers, there perspective will never be identical, cuz they cannot ever be in the same space and time.
I examine the evidence, and my conclusion is that you are on the right path, and I am, and campbell 34 is, and 10cent arcade, and novarys, and soullesschaos, missfontella, peacefuljeffery, jd4u, we are all just as right as anyone.
I can only say for myself, though, I cannot say that others are right or wrong for sure, I just assume they are right, innocent till proven guilty.

 

BGXIII

Occam assumes they are 'indeterminate' untill verified or contradicted.

Occam

 

I have a clue about what you have been through, after all, we both are humans (I think?), we both speak the same language, we both eat food, we both (hopefully) have been hungover and laughed about it later. The most important thing here is the statement "we both speak the same language". If there were no common basis of experience between us, we would not be able to communicate in any way. Therefore, I think we both have some clue as to what the other has been through- although I do not know your specific experiences, I do and have experienced many similar things.

I would say after a sufficiently large amount of time and similar experiences, we are bound to come to the same conclusions about life, the universe, and everything. Even if we do have to meet at the restaurant at the end of the universe to talk about it.

I disagree completely. If your experience to this date leads you to believe in a fat man in a red cape who comes down your chimney on December 25th, I would say that we believe differently, and you are incorrect (unless, of course, in your particular case a fat man in a little coat did come down your chimney).

Nobody likes being wrong, and the good news is they don't have to be, they just have to except that their beliefs are not true unless they pass the test of time and experience. People do not still believe that the world is a flat sheet that you can fall off. This is what I call a false belief- a belief that is defeated by time and experience. Was it good for people to challenge the belief that the world is flat, or was it good for them to except it? I think the challengers of this false belief have won the battle, and that it was good for them to challenge this false belief.

My original comment was not intolerant as Darrell said, it was simply the question "Do you find other peoples beliefs so entertaining that you would allow them to keep their false beliefs?". Which was aimed at parents enjoying their child's belief in Santa Claus or God causing people to believe in the devil, zeus, creation myths, etc.

We all share the same reality, of which each of our perceptions is a vital part. We might have our own ideas about the reality, but reality exists independantly of our perception of it (unless you take the position of solipsism).

I take the position that everyone is on the right path, but some are walking forwards and some are walking back to help those who have fallen along the way.

Innocent until proven guilty by the ideas that come forth from them. If and when someone "repents" of their false beliefs, they can then pass on their experience of the truth to others. I think some buddhist did this, christ tried to pass it on, and moses did too.

Another blast against anyone who sits back and accepts everyones beliefs to be equally valid instead of helping them find the truth:
Is it good for someone to believe (a lie) that by giving me a million dollars they will gain full ownership of a bridge in Brooklyn, or is it good for someone to believe (the truth) that I am trying to take their money without giving them anything in return?

You will do what you will, but I think it is better for you to tell someone that the TV preacher who asks for their money is a shyster instead of allowing false beliefs to be used against those who have them.

There is a quote that goes something like this "It is as evil for a Good man to take no action against evil as it is for an evil man to perpetuate evil."

My position is this: It is wrong for those who know that a belief is false to allow it to be perpetuated at the cost of everyone who is influenced by the false belief (unless it benefits me). Your belief that "All beliefs are equally valid" and Darrell's belief that "Who is to determine whose beliefs are false? Certainly not you! .... No one's beliefs are false until the individual holding those beliefs decides their own beliefs are false" are both false beliefs that must be shown to be wrong for the betterment of everyone. Do you remember any of the false beliefs that you have grown out of due to experiences and people who have taught you otherwise?

Do you prefer peace to arguing against beliefs that you know to be false? Is it better for you to sit back and accept the false beliefs of those around you or is it better for you to influence them in whatever way you can to make them realize the falsity of their beliefs?
There is a time to challenge someone's beliefs and there is a time to except someone's beliefs.

42