(Untitled)
It seems like a lot of people are talking about the earthquakes and tsunamis that have been occuring lately. While I probably should say some words about it, I honestly I can't think of anything to say that hasn't already been said more that enough times already. I wouldn't mind doing something to assist those that are suffering, but, frankly, I
( Read more... )
I love the history channel, it's the only thing I miss about having cable. I love all the documentaries they do (yes I am that much of a nerd). All I have to say about the apocalypse things is that people just like to know things - especially if it means there's a possibility of impending judgment once your time is finally up. If you know when it's all going down you'll know how to budget your time so you can do crazy shit before you have to get yourself in order. Of course if you do believe in judgment at the end of your life on Earth you should know it doesn't work that way. As for the rapture it wasn't entirely made up. It was based off of a few obscure passages in the book of Revelations that really don't offer much clarity on the subject.
The topic of hell and the depiction of Satan is a favorite of mine. It seems s/he falls into three categories: horrid beast of pure evil, sulking child with a vendetta, or charismatic 'salesmen' who just wants to have some fun before damning your soul. I personally like a bit of the last two - if you read through the bible and follow the theology behind it it gets pretty interesting to see the dynamics of God's relationship with Satan (or Lucifer, if you prefer). I've always had a slight obsession with Satan as a person rather than an entity. He seems so much less intimidating than God: his power is limited, he has feelings that were hurt, and no matter what he does it's all a hopeless battle. He's so human yet he would love nothing more than to see you roast.
I really don't think any Christians would be offended (unless they're Fred Phelps) - they'd just kind of smile at your ignorance on the subject of Christianity(sorry, you seem kind of clueless). Christianity isn't the word of God, that's the bible and it's viewed as more of an interpretation of God's actions and influence. Also, it's not entirely mythology. The bible contains the names of several confirmed historical figures - this includes Jesus, whether or not you believe he was the son of man - and locations whereas Greek and Norse mythology is just that: mythology (though the stories do mention actual locations. I am a bit insulted but only as a historical Greek enthusiast.
KKK members and Nazis are indeed a strange bunch. They take HUGE leaps in logic and will twist just about everything to suit their needs. I think most modern day Nazis fail to realize that unless you are 100% German and devoted to das Deutschland you are scum in the eyes of true Nazis - that is unless Hitler approved of your race and dubbed you an honorary member of the regime (Japan). A note: Hitler didn't hate Catholics. Being the brilliant man that he was he chose to remain completely neutral on the subject of religion unless it suited his need to be pro-religion of just about any kind. Anyway, my only real opinion on the KKK is that they're hate filled, below average intelligence, people who channel they're fear to anything different. It's a base human response: we fear what we don't understand and fear naturally leads to aggression.
Reply
The figure of Lucifer can be more interesting than the figure of God. For instance, Lucifer is capable of making mistakes, despite what powers and knowledge being an angel grant him. I can't help but feel that a being that can do anything, know everything, and is infallible is a little less interesting than a being that is god-like in some ways, but still has human-like flaws. God being absolutely invincible, absolutely powerful, and absolutely infallible...he is devoid of mistake and error. If God can never lose or make a mistake, well, I just think its a little boring to know he'd always beat you in a game of, say, chess, rock-paper-scissors, or heads-or-tails. The idea of God is interesting, but its not qute as interesting as Lucifer.
Personally, I like the idea of a versatile Lucifer; a Lucifer that can change his form at will...he could be depicted as a magnificent angel, a vile demon, a feeble old man, or an innocent child. I think I recall a story about God and Lucifer making a bet to test a man's faith. Lucifer was allowed to do just about anything to a man as long as he didn't kill him. Lucifer took his wealth, his family, his health, and so on. In the end, I think the man retained his faith, but was still quite distraught. What was his name...Isaac? Damnit...I can't quite recall.
But, anyway, I don't know if Lucifer wants to see people "roast" so much as he wants to get back at God. What better way to hurt someone than to break their favorite toy? As for the "roasting"...personally, I don't believe that Hell, if there is such a place, would be the fire and brimstone hell you might hear of so often. Personally, I imagine the punishment would fit the crime. For example, if you lived a pretty decent life, but didn't believe in God, you'd go to a Hell that was dark and depressing because it lacked the love of God, so to speak. If you were, say, a seriel killer, I imagine you'd go to a place where you experience different painful deaths over and over again. Maybe for eternity, maybe until you repent absolutely, maybe until you win the Hell's lottery, etc. Thats just my hypothetical idea though.
While I admit, I'm not particularly well-informed, I wouldn't agree when you say I'm "clueless". Did I say "Christianity" was the word of God? Damn, now that I read over my entry, I did. I was kind of in a hurry when I typed that up...so, I guess I made a few errors. Sorry. As for the Bible...from what I can tell, some Christians consider it the absolute, infallible word of God and some consider it an interpretation of God's will.
I do realize that there is historical accuracy in the Bible. What I mean by "mythology" is stuff like angels, walking on water, reviving the dead, spontaneously turning into salt, etc. However, despite my skeptisism, I do think there is some truth to mythology. As for my own beliefs...I find myself wavering between agnosticism and plain atheism. As odd as it might sound...sometimes I think there probably is a God and sometimes I'm sure there isn't.
I think the Nazis of today justify their Nazi beliefs by calling themselves "Neo-Nazis". Some of the same beliefs as the original Nazi regime, but with a few changes to suit their alternate needs. Basically...as long as its white, its alright. They're more along the lines of White-Surpremacists than actually Nazis. However, there was a Nazi party in the U.S. before, during, and now after WW2. I saw the program about it this afternoon. It told how Hitler supported that organization when he was alive. I'm not sure if the organization was full of 100% Germans or if people that happened to have German blood could join. If nothing else, Hitler wanted an American citizen to become leader of the group, whether that leader was a German who became a naturalized American or was born in America, I don't know.
I'd probably say more, but I've gone on long enough with this reply.
Reply
The Devil/Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub does indeed have the ability to change his form to whatever suits him at the moment which adds an interesting dimension: why strip away his beautiful form if you grant him the power to regain it even if only temporarily? Personally I don't attempt to understand the system between God and Satan, they're beyond my comprehension and even if I did understand it all what would it change? Anyway, according to religious dogma Satan serves some readily apparent purposes: the anti to God, the helper of of evils in the world, and the bad child of God. Whatever God is for he is against, he doesn't commit outright evil but he prompts us to do it for him, and he's attempting to take the position of God like a male child attempts to take control of the household in the stead of his father. Along of all of that it branches into a million different things that I really don't feel like getting into at the moment.
As for the "roasting" bit I don' actually mean fire and spits, just a euphemism to keep the mood light while discussing the lord of darkness. Everyone has their own concept of what hell would be because everyone has a different idea of what's really horrible. For example I would absolutely detest it to be cold and wet all the time, especially if it's windy and gray out but that doesn't mean all of hell will be that way which segues nicely into your other point."Punishment fitting the crime" doesn't apply to religious concept of hell and it never has if you trace your way back through religious teachings. It's an idea dreamed up by Dante and he himself didn't really believe it, it was simply used as a storytelling device in "The Divine Comedy." It's said that in the eyes of God all sin is equal so whether you rob a bank or murder a dog you will be dealt equal punishment. I doubt that it applies to an occasional lie or something petty like keeping a penny instead of turning it in as lost funds.
Maybe clueless isn't the right word to describe your knowledge of Christianity but you do seem to be lacking. Christians who honestly believe the bible is 100% correct are the fundamentalists (who often tie into the KKK) who fail to realize that times change and some laws are no longer applicable nor does God consider them to be. Personally I view it as some really excellent ideas mixed in with well told stories to explain certain aspects of faith. This applies to walking on water, turning in a pillar of salt, water to wine, etc. It probably didn't really happen but the stories give a nice moral. Angels I'm in the air about (no pun).
All I know is that there is something bigger than me. I don't know if it's omnipotent and omnipresent but I do believe it's there and it's learning from us just as we're learning from it. Bah, who knows?
Reply
Did God ever actually strip Satan of his angelic form? Or would Satan take the form of a demon in order to present a sort of mockery against God? What better way is there to insult someone than to corrupt and pervert their beautiful creations? Questions, questions. But, I agree that Satan is basically supposed to be something like God's polar-opposite, whether out of pride, spite, or God's own will.
The idea that Satan can actually hold a wager with God seems to imply to me that Satan probably isn't burning for eternity in some fiery pit of Hell. Didn't Satan basically need to get God's permission to perform the more terrible acts upon Job? Whether its true or not, it just implies to me that Satan hasn't been confined to Hell or some such place against his will. There's a good chance I've misunderstood, but if Lucifer can still hold a conversation like that with God, it makes it seem more like he can come to and go from Heaven at will and only rules over Heaven because he's so spiteful toward God that he can hardly stand being in God's presence for an extended amount of time. You know "Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven." and all that.
I know everyone has a different idea of whats horrible, but you have to admit, being burned alive and tortured for all eternity probably sounds pretty horrible to just about anyone. I realize that all sin is supposedly equal in God's eyes, but isn't it also said that if you honestly repent and accept God and Jesus Christ then you will ascend to Heaven? I think its probably good to have faith and all, but I just find that I can't agree with everything that is said. For example, I can't agree that sex and masturbation are evil and vile acts, whether you're married to the person you have sex with or not, its not something I believe deserves fire and brimstone. That kind of touches on another idea. Different people have different ideas of what is evil and what is alright. While I agree that stealing, murder, and rape are wrong...I disagree that sex, masturbation, homosexuality, and independence are wrong.
Of course, the idea of "punishment to suiting the crime" probably isn't the case, but its just what I imagine a good, fair God would use. However, its just my opinion. I don't presume to actually know the workings of such a being myself. I can only speculate.
I know that the people that consider the Bible to be the absolute, undeniable word of God are the Fundamentalists and, honestly, I find that they can be the most annoying at times. I think there are too many different religions for the Bible to be the only, single truth. I don't necessarily mean to compare, say, Buddhism with Christianity. I mean more along the lines of Jews and Muslims who seem to worship the same God, but don't consider Jesus to be the son of God. Don't the Muslims even consider Jesus to be one of God's prophets? Of course, different religions have different ideas of Heaven. The 72 Virgins, for example. That seems a little low to me; offering pussy in exhange for good behavior.
(Continued)
Reply
There may be a God. There may not be. To put it simply, I don't know. I have my questions and I have my doubts, but it goes against my speculative nature to deny the possiblity that God may exist. Basically, I'm stuck at a "Maybe." While I am almost completely sure that it probably isn't the God so often depicted in the Bible and other such scripture, I still can't deny the possiblity that it may be the God depicted in those scriptures.
One part of me tells me that angels, walking on water, water into wine, etc. are unlikely myths. Thats probably logic. However, another part of me wants to believe angels and the like are real. Thats probably the same part of me that wants to believe in Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, undead vampires, and werewolves. The part that wants to believe there is something more to this existence than this material plane. In the end, I'm still just left with an open skepticism.
Reply
Yes, Satan was stripped of his beauty. He was said to be the most beautiful angel in all of heaven (the name Lucifer means beauty and light) and because of it he became quite vain (another aspect of his corruption). When God threw him out of Heaven he took that beauty away because it was one of the things Lucifer loved most.
Now, responding to the point of Satan not being confined to hell you'll notice I never said he was. It says in the bible Satan's domain is in hell and on Earth however he cannot enter the "gates" of heaven. I'm rather liberal minded when it comes to interpretations of the bible so I believe this means as long as it's not heaven or some facet thereof Satan can go there. It may not seem so horrible to us but imagine being in heaven - this fantastic place of perfection - and knowing God as a friend, brother, and father then being forbidden to ever go there again or be that close to someone you loved with all your heart and who loved you in return. Sounds like hell to me. And you don't have to be in heaven to speak to God.
"I realize that all sin is supposedly equal in God's eyes, but isn't it also said that if you honestly repent and accept God and Jesus Christ then you will ascend to Heaven?"
Yes, I never argued that. I don't find the two contradictory at all - am I missing why you brought it up? Most people don't agree with everything that was said in the bible but that's when Jesus comes in. Basically Jesus made it ok for us to do many things as long as we realized and honored the sacrifice he made.
Masturbation as a sin come from a misinterpreted line in the bible when it was said that it was forbidden for a man to spill his seed on the ground beyond his duty. In the days when the bible was written, if a man's brother was married but died before he could have children it was your duty to impregnate his wife. However the man this particular passage is talking about had sex with his brother's wife but didn't ejaculate into her. Of course some zealot took it overboard and twisted it around to make something natural into something bad. Do you honestly think God cares if you make yourself feel good without hurting anyone including yourself? Of course he doesn't.
Where does it say anywhere in the bible that independence is wrong? Go back through theological texts and you'll find that Christianity is based around the importance of the individual. Just because you have to follow rules (often rules that tie into our judicial system) doesn't mean a loss of independence - it just means you shouldn't act like a dick and get away with it.
Now, sex and homosexuality are heavy topics that I don't usually get into but I'll give as brief an opinion as possible.
When the bible was written there were few contraceptives and those that did exist weren't what I would call fool proof (crocodile dung? ewww). Having rampant sex would have triggered many unwanted births and the lack of condoms would have allowed for epidemics of VD's including aids among heterosexuals and homosexuals. I feel as if the laws God put into place were there to protect us from all that but times have changed and not only are we aware of these disease and how they spread, we have the ability to protect ourselves from them.
To be blunt I have no problem with homosexuality - people will love who they love. Sex before marriage is no big thing but I do think having one night stand with people or sleeping around is morally wrong. I feel as if sex should be reserved for people you feel strongly connected to not anyone who catches your eye.
(continued)
Reply
Reply
As for Satan losing his beauty...if Satan can change form at will, what point is there in taking his original beauty from him. Or is Satan allowed to take any form other than that of his original beauty? I didn't mean to imply that you said Satan was confined to Hell, I was refering to the times I've heard Satan is being tortured in Hell just as any mortal soul would be. I can't recall where I heard it, but I distinctly recall hearing it somewhere. Although, I suppose being kicked out of Heaven is punishment enough.
I recall that story about the man and his brother's wife. I didn't realize that the "masturbation is evil" bit was taken from it though.
I'll address the rest of this response later, I must be going now.
Reply
I can see your point about "God's laws" against sex, however, weren't the life spans and infant survival rates less than impressive during that time? While the word of God could be used for population control, I don't think the sole purpose at the time was to prevent unwanted births. Come to think of it, there are still many unwanted births and sexually transmitted disease all over the world, but thats probably based more on ignorance, lack of access to proper protection, and almost completely refusing to deny sexual urges. While I think trying to kill an urge as natural and powerful as the drive for sex is, overall, probably pointless, completely indulging it with reckless abandon is...less than sensible.
While I don't agree that casual sex is morally wrong, I do agree that it is a show of poor form, however, I don't believe that it should be considered a punishable offense. You(The general you, not the you as in "You Aly.") can make love to your husband, you can fuck your buddy, and you can have sex with a stranger, I don't think anyone else has the right to tell you otherwise. That is unless, of course, you're somehow harming someone in the process, whether its emotionally, physically, or psychologically. Then again, I'm not against the legalization and regulation of prostitution, but thats another matter.
Homosexuality has apparently existed for centuries, it even seems to be present in other species aside from human beings. This is why I do not consider it unnatural. It occurs in nature, does it not? Homosexuals weren't engineered in a laboratory, so, I consider homosexuality to be natural. It may not occur as commonly as heterosexuality and it may not be considered as acceptable by many standards, but I don't consider it any less natural than heterosexuality. So, its probably obvious enough that I have no problem with homosexuals. For all we know, someone could probably consider it a method of natural population control. Homosexuals are less likely to have children of their own, even if they are still fully capable.
I'm glad we atleast seem to agree that the God in the bible in an inaccurate depiction. Its probably better to have faith, rather than to follow any specific religion. The institution of religion is too structuralized and rigid. When a religion is formed into a structure, it seems as though it loses its ability to adapt to the changing times. Morals and traditions of a previous century may not apply to the next. Take the Catholic church for example. While I admit I may not be the most well-informed person, it seems as though it has grown corrupt and stagnant. Earlier I said it was good to have faith, however, I myself am too skeptical to devout myself to a faith that may prove false or misplaced.
(continued...yet again)
Reply
As for my political opinion...I would consider myself more of a "centrist". Sometimes I agree with Liberals, sometimes I agree with Conservatives. For example, I'm prochoice and I support the right for homosexuals to have the right to marry However, I also believe that once the fetus has reached a certain point of developement, abortion should no longer be considered an option, no partial-birth abortions, for example. As for gay marriage, I believe if they seek a religious ceremony for marriage, Christian or otherwise, they should be allowed to have it...under the circumstances that they find a church that will perform the ceremony. Basically, let them get married, but don't force someone to perform the ceremony if they don't want to. I would consider that fair. I suppose I do lean a little toward the Liberal side...
I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights. However, I believe execution is an acceptable form of punishment for harsher crimes, such as rape or murder. Honestly, I would probably support somewhat harsher punishments for lighter offenses, such as theft and arson. I don't support...damnit...what is it called again? I don't believe that a company or organization should have to hire so many people of whatever race, gender, or religion. Well, I'm a little conflicted on that actually. Companies should be allowed to hire whomever they choose, however, I don't believe that they should hire someone less qualified because they're a white, anglo-saxon male. I think companys should have to pay immigrants the same wages as U.S. citizens...because the way I see it is the companies mainly hire immigrants because the immigrants are willing to work harder for less pay than the U.S. citizens are.
I'm afraid I've wandered too far off the main subject by bringing politics into it. I'm tempted to delete most of this post, but I don't want the time I spent typing it to go to waste.
Reply
Leave a comment