Since I worship the Goddess I am not too worried about what the Jedu-Christain God thinks of me. I am faithful to that which I do believe.Originally Posted by alexsears
Since I worship the Goddess I am not too worried about what the Jedu-Christain God thinks of me. I am faithful to that which I do believe.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
"the Goddess"? Ok now we can blame everything thats messed up in the world on a WOMAN!!!
Just Kidding! ROTFLMAO
Well Christains already do blame everything on Women.
I am a Polythest with an empahsis on the "Mother Figure" or the Goddess. I see Mother Nature as personified in an acutal deity. Though I also belive in the Sky God, among other dieties.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
Yup, 'freedom fighter' conjures up a picture of a sweaty guy with a gun and an axe to grind--a Satanic image to be sure. Vanquish his enemies so that he stands unchallenged, and you have God.
Sort of a yin/yang thing.
So to a limited extent I agree with you, Satan is a 'freedom fighter.' I also agree that he lurks within all of us.
We like to imagine the joys of a self-governing society, but in our imaginings we fail to include those who think differently from us. Self-government requires involvement, personal investment, and concession. Too often we're like God/Satan, dissatisfied with the state of things, the direction of society, or the pace of change, and feel that we have the answer. We feel that if only we could change the hearts of others things would be better. If we are in a position of power, the God side of the coin, we exercise that. If we're relatively powerless, the Satan side of the coin, we stop shaving, washing, and pick up our gun to fight for 'freedom.'
At bottom, we're grubby little primates, and will remain so until we learn forbearance and tolerance and cooperation, and embrace them as core values.
Last edited by El Viejo; 06-23-2008 at 10:48 AM. Reason: corrected a misspelling
Really? not even a little? Ignorance is bliss you knowespecially if God is there pulling the strings and making sure that its bliss. Thinking about it our world of knowledge and wisdom is full of dark and pain, wouldn't it be better to surrender it all to God for a little bliss
I could sure use some bliss.
Suicide carried off many. Drink and the devil took care of the rest. - R L Stevenson
Currently Reading: Dead Souls - Gogol
Nope, I much rather be an individual with all the bad that comes with it, than to be a slave of any kind.
I rather die upon my feet than live on my knees
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
Well I wasn't being entirely serious
Aren't we all slaves in some sense or another anyway? We don't have the freedom our pride would have us believe.
Last edited by DapperDrake; 07-08-2008 at 07:07 PM.
Suicide carried off many. Drink and the devil took care of the rest. - R L Stevenson
Currently Reading: Dead Souls - Gogol
This post makes the assumption that knowledge in and of itself is a positive thing. That is debatable. Some knowledge is dangerous; we acknowledge such things with children - that there are certain things children should not know - at least until they possess the maturity to "handle" such knowledge. If we follow that logic, and take as a given that God is like an "adult" to our very childish existence (no matter how impressive we think we are, we merely squeak when placed next to the Being who can call the universe into existence with His voice), then it makes sense that some things He chooses to withold from us are far more dangerous than the things we choose to withold from children.
Second, wisdom comes from experience - Satan did not offer that. He offered knowledge that benefitted us in no way whatsoever.
As well, you make spectacular assumptions about the nature of existence without the "fall" perpetrated by Adam and Eve. How can you even begin to assess what such a life would be like? To do so would be to assume that God cannot offer us greater pleasures and excitement than those of the world He created - and I find that hard to believe. As if life requires pain, suffering, hardship and heartache to possess profound meaning...
Subservience to one who is worthy is not slavery - children who obey a strict but loving father are not in "slavery." Do not confuse "subservience" to sinful human beings (capable of cruelty and unfairness) with obedience to the Being who created all - including us.
Adam and Eve knew they had free will because they got told to not do something - the "not" implies a choice.
Living in personal contact with God is not "Utopia" - that is a term we have for human beings trying to create a "perfect world." Our attempts at Utopia fail miserably because we - and the Earth we are using as that Utopia's foundation - are sinful and fallen. With God, things are very different.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Satan can be described as the natural force within all of us to be human, to doubt, to live fullfilling lives, to enjoy ourselves, to LIVE!
Yet Christians are told this is 'temptation'.
so from that angle, you could say Satan is a personified natural, animalistic behavior within us all that is trying to break free of our guilt and dogma brought on us by faith.
Which part of the human desire to rape, kill, steal and destroy would you classify as life affirming and enjoyable?
Satan is not a "temptation" but he is responsible (to an extent) for the experience Christians call "temptation."
Your interpretation of Satan is mind-boggling; if he is the source of "natural" freedom, then what is the source of suffering, mayhem, brutality and cruelty?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
God, perhaps?
By the way, what things do we acknowledge that children "should not know?"
Last edited by Big Al; 07-25-2008 at 07:14 PM.
Hell is other people.
~Jean-Paul Sartre, "No Exit"
In looking at the posts I am struck by what is surely a misperception, and that misperception is about the nature of freedom. It seems as though freedom is being (incorrectly) defined as the act without condemnation or without rules.
A superior definition of freedom is the ability to do one's will. This is not the same thing, as anyone who has attempted to break a bad habit or push oneself beyond one's ability has already discovered.
On reflection, one realizes that a rational creature would will to do that which brings her/him the greatest benefit. Often this greatest benefit is called 'happiness.'
A very old definition of sin (Augustine's) is doing that which leads us from happiness. In his [I]Confessions[I], there is a wonderful passage on how he forged his own chains through being unable to do what he really wanted because he was attracted to things that could not make him happy.
Given this understanding it is impossible to consider a figure such as Satan to be anything other than an enslaver.
aude sapere
You've got to be kidding; Satan the freedom fighter and God the tyrant? What does this complete reversal accomplish besides showing clear hostility towards God?
Most people acknowledge that the innocence of children ought to be protected - that exposing them to certain knowledge is neither helpful nor appropriate. Do I really have to explain that children shouldn't see explicit sexual acts or graphic demonstrations of violence? That telling kids certain things would only harm them emotionally rather than be of any benefit? You have to have those things spelled out?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
And when and how do you suppose children should learn about sexuality? Their reproductive system becomes functional around age 11, and by 13 they will have naturally experienced their first sex-related urges. Not expecting these changes may affect them, and either way they will start seeking information on their own. And I'm only mentioning the imperatives of the child's own sexuality - knowing nothing of the darker aspects of human nature makes a younger child both more vulnerable to lures from sexual predators and more likely to remain scarred by such an encounter.Most people acknowledge that the innocence of children ought to be protected - that exposing them to certain knowledge is neither helpful nor appropriate. Do I really have to explain that children shouldn't see explicit sexual acts or graphic demonstrations of violence? That telling kids certain things would only harm them emotionally rather than be of any benefit? You have to have those things spelled out?
Hiding sensible subjects instead of trying to deal with them in just the right way makes things easier for the teacher, not the pupil, and is awfully irresponsible. I believe failiure to adress sexual education early on is one of the reasons for the lack of comunication between children and their parents at future, more critical ages - the latter having already lost their credibility as valid sources of information - and subsequently the often life-ruining clumbsyness of the former's first steps into sexuality.
I belive there was at least one nation in medieval Indochina who introduced children directly to sexuality in school-like establishments where they were brought at ages we would consider quite green. I am not sure their public preparation for a life of consumate and responsible sensuality can be deemed worse than the pell-mell principles and information offered to children today.
As for the suffering, mayhem and cruelty you mentioned earlier, it's in the nature of existance. For something new to be born, another must die to make way for it. Without the primordial sin, we wouldn't have existed - there would have been only Adam and Eve, for all eternity. If you belive in the Bible, you should honour their supreme sacrifice, and acknowledge Satan's gesture to make this choice possible as a magnanimous one.
From what I've read, God is a tyrant, a proud, wrathful and vicious ruler who looks down on humans and blames them for their flaws despite the fact that he created them so. Satan, on the other hand, rebelled against God's tyranny with full knowledge of the extent of his crimes and the harshness of his punishment -- he is the essence of those who rebel against a powerful and unjust authority, no matter the cost.
How very condescending, but do you remember what you originally wrote? It was something along the lines of "certain information should be withheld from children because they don't have the capacity to understand it." Do I really have to ask what difference it makes for a child to see sexual material or violence if they lack the ability to grasp such concepts? Do I really have to ask what difference it makes for an adult to explain sexual matters to a child when the child's lack of experience and higher brain function will render such explanations moot? Do you really have to have these things spelled out?Most people acknowledge that the innocence of children ought to be protected - that exposing them to certain knowledge is neither helpful nor appropriate. Do I really have to explain that children shouldn't see explicit sexual acts or graphic demonstrations of violence? That telling kids certain things would only harm them emotionally rather than be of any benefit? You have to have those things spelled out?
Hell is other people.
~Jean-Paul Sartre, "No Exit"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks