Satanism

[Ronagon]

Was Satan really the bad guy in the Bible?

Isn't badness defined by who gets off, on intentional cruelty?

It looks to me like God was the one who got off much more on being cruel than Satan did.

It seems to me like the Serpent was the one who wanted Adam and Eve to have knowledge and be able to do something with their lives, and God just wanted to play games with them and keep them as pets.

Has anyone else noticed this?

[scameter]

umm. isn't this topic already in philosophy, for i have replied to it?

[Ronagon]

Yes, I first posted it in philosophy, because I was delirious from a high fever. But this is where it really belongs, so now it's here.

[scameter]

lol oh, ok. :)

[WilliamMckeehan]

i dont know anything about religions or anything but i now a few people that use to try and be a satanist ... to me its a joke :D :lol: i dont believe in any religion at the moment but if i had to say any religion i respect the most i would say any religion were the believers follow threw there religion and deticate it to them thats who must be respected specialy in this modern time were some religions are very hard to follow


i got off topic i am sorry :(

[scameter]

lol and use language and sentence structure in a rather meanderous way lol. but, i do agree, i think that essentially satanism is only someone's attempt to be different, to be an outcast, usually to gain attention, and as a religion it is essentially only another branch of Christianity, because one cannot believe in satan without believing in God or Christ. but, the religion, or rather philosophical spiritualty, that i find to be the most accurate and practical is Taoism most definitely. to me, most other religions are like insurance, they tell you that if you follow it and give money to the greedy preachers that rule it you'll go to Heaven after you die, so inother words it's insurance for the person that fears death that there's something beautiful and peacful after death, not something to fear, whereas Taoism says that there is most definitely something after death, because death is illogical, and nature is not illogical or wasteful, so there must be something after death, but what is is not certain. but, whatever is after death, it should be accepted that we will inevitably die, and we should not fear or regret it. only accept it, as with everything else.

[Ronagon]

I would say that Satanism is a valid contribution to any religion, when it constitutes a legitimate set of oppositions to what are seen to be the corrupt philosophies of that religion.

[scameter]

true, but i do not think that that division of that certain religion should be seen as a seperate religion but rather just what it is, a division. like, satanism shouldn't be seen as a seperate religion, but rather a division of Christianity for which it is dependant anyways.

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by Ronagon Aug 5 2005@ 12:01 PM

Was Satan really the bad guy in the Bible?

Isn't badness defined by who gets off, on intentional cruelty?

It looks to me like God was the one who got off much more on being cruel than Satan did.

It seems to me like the Serpent was the one who wanted Adam and Eve to have knowledge and be able to do something with their lives, and God just wanted to play games with them and keep them as pets.

Has anyone else noticed this?


hey Ron! your post reminds me of a Harlan Ellison book I read back in high school. It's The Deathbird & in it Dira, the Snake, tries to help Adam & Eve escape the Garden of Eden becuz God is a flippin loon who plays games with Adam & Eve & keeps them as pets.

Since reading that book I have wondered from time to time if the god people pray to is really good. Look at all the evil things people have done in God's name thruout history, look at the evil things people still do today in God's name....

Seems to me that God, if s/he were really good, would get pissed at these people & smite them. I know that's what I would do if I were God. Just becuz we think God is good doesn't make it so.

OTOH, if there really is a Supreme Being, a god, who created this universe, s/he may have far more important stuff to worry about than the goings on on this little ball of dust....

[thirst4sun]

Has anyone else noticed this?

Yes! God does seem to enjoy playing games. All the temptations in life are considered evil. So do we force ourselves not to enjoy the temptations in life? I say NO! Live life to the fullest and have fun!

[bito]

Ronagon

Have you read Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles? In the chronicle entitled Memnoch (the Devil), Memnoch takes the vampire Lestat on a journey to heaven and hell, allowing Lestat to discover for himself that God cares little for the plight of humanity, and it is he, Memnoch who cares about human suffering and it is his greatest desire to end this suffering by bringing knowledge of heaven to earth.

The whole concept of an omni-anything God is repugnant, for truly, if this being did exist, he would be the bastard to end all bastards. To have the power to bring love to all hearts and not use this power?

Time to bury this mythical God monster forever ...

[Blackcrow]

I believe that in essence, we all use religion as a vice.
Humans seem to be incapable of assuming responsibility - in doing so, we attribute all 'good things' - be they moral or otherwise - that we do to a 'ying/god/christ' and on the flip side, all the 'bad things' to a 'yang/satin etc.
It is far easier to pass the buck rather than to acknowledge that we are fully responsible for our actions, even if they are of the purest of intentions (though, we rarely grant these to a god - our good deeds are ours and ours alone! The 'evil ones', however, god forbid that we were responsible for those...excuse the pun.)

[Sentrossi]

BlackCrow is right. religion is an excuse, a copout if you will. this applies to all orgainised religions, including Satanism. I do agree with Ron in that satanism is a legitimate oppostion to christianity, its the balance, which is needed in all things. But any set religion is in itself bad, as it gives people an excuse to do things and then say, oh well, god told me to. like the crusades.

[venom mama]

the goddamn devil




good or bad?


whose to say. as for people who worship the devil, well, to each their own.

maybe god has a split personality.

god/devil

[MidnightSun]

"god/devil"

Isint that yin&yang?

Where must be good and bad things to make balance between everything and so we gotta find harmony somewhere between. Also i dont believe everything that is in bible. It wasnt wrote by god itself/himself/herself and it was translated a lot of times so not all the information is right..so be sharp-eyed on it.

[MidnightSun]

"Also i dont think that everythin in bible is true"

Corrected past sentence ;)

[scameter]

:P

[MidnightSun]

and what do u ( without :P ) think about the bible?

[scameter]

:lol: i think that it is a set of stories, metaphorical entirely, but with meanings and lessons, some of it maybe even possible to exist, like God. but, humans can never know their creator, as no ceation can in a likewise circumstance, and humanity even trying to is futile. i think we should just believe, take in the lessons of the New Testament, and live life to the fullest; love each other, nature, ourselves, absolutely. just to live, to me, is to be connected with God, for why else would we live here than to live here?

[MidnightSun]

amen to that!!!

[scameter]

:D

[Trevor]

Was Satan really the bad guy in the Bible?

Isn't badness defined by who gets off, on intentional cruelty?

It looks to me like God was the one who got off much more on being cruel than Satan did.

It seems to me like the Serpent was the one who wanted Adam and Eve to have knowledge and be able to do something with their lives, and God just wanted to play games with them and keep them as pets.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Well, if God created everything according to the Bible, then the saying
"It's all good." means exactly that.
Maybe Satan has been fitted to mean what the scholars see as "evil" to have power over people.
Or if you take it figuratively, maybe Satan is like Shiva. More like a catalyst for change.

[brother alan]

Was Satan really the bad guy in the Bible?

Isn't badness defined by who gets off, on intentional cruelty?

It looks to me like God was the one who got off much more on being cruel than Satan did.

It seems to me like the Serpent was the one who wanted Adam and Eve to have knowledge and be able to do something with their lives, and God just wanted to play games with them and keep them as pets.

Has anyone else noticed this?

In the Genesis story, the serpent does not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge, he wants to see them poisoned by the knowledge of good and evil. We still taste that fruit with every breath, and it is the deepest curse of humanity.
Every religion, every war, every murder, every lie has its origin in our tragic loss of an innocence truer and more powerful than any wisdom.
sadly,
your brother

[francis]

In the Genesis story, the serpent does not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge, he wants to see them poisoned by the knowledge of good and evil. We still taste that fruit with every breath, and it is the deepest curse of humanity.
Every religion, every war, every murder, every lie has its origin in our tragic loss of an innocence truer and more powerful than any wisdom.
sadly,
your brother

Arr, the original sin of thinking. If we want to break from conditioned existence, then we have to go back to our original mind state before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The only philosophy, that I know of, that give us an understanding of this state before the original sin of thinking, or how to get there comes from meditation and Buddhism.

:holy:

[Trevor]

In the Genesis story, the serpent does not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge, he wants to see them poisoned by the knowledge of good and evil. We still taste that fruit with every breath, and it is the deepest curse of humanity.
Every religion, every war, every murder, every lie has its origin in our tragic loss of an innocence truer and more powerful than any wisdom.
sadly,
your brother

I think that the worst sin is keeping score.

[kris]

In the Genesis story, the serpent does not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge, he wants to see them poisoned by the knowledge of good and evil.
How can knowledge of good and evil poison us? Sorry, I don't get the point of this statement.

We still taste that fruit with every breath, and it is the deepest curse of humanity.Are you saying that breathing is the original sin? :goodlaugh:

[Gelatinous Pope]

I thought the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey was a good description of corporate america. Very much personal gain at the expense of others.

[brother alan]

How can knowledge of good and evil poison us? Sorry, I don't get the point of this statement.

Hey, kris. Trevor nailed it with his observation about keeping score. We weigh everything and everyone we meet in our scales of good and bad, instead of encountering life cleanly and taking reality for itself without judgement. The awareness of good and evil sets up a tension in us that twists our mentality and makes us see the world in dualistic terms. It is this relentless force of judgement and division that keeps us chasing after the "good" experiences and running from the "bad" ones. Candy is sweet and pain hurts, but if we were innocent of good and evil, we could just meet them as they come, without trying to pile up one and avoid the other.
Now I am not declaring this as unalterable wisdom or anything like it, this is just how I understand "the knowledge of good and evil" at this point in my walk. I will be happy to trade my old understanding for a new one when it comes along.

Are you saying that breathing is the original sin? :goodlaugh:

No, sin has never been original; even Adam and Eve got the idea from someone else! :D
(My understanding, as a follower of Jesus, is that everyone is equally redeemed by God's grace, so sin doesn't have any power over us. "It is for freedom we have been set free," as brother Paul says.)

[Flux]

Two short points.

1. Although it's "common knowledge" among Christians, where in the book of Genesis does it actually say that the serpent is Satan? Think for a moment. Can you find any verse at all that actually says "Satan" in the book of Genisis? To my knowledge, the serpent is only ever refered to as a serpent, and it is only later in the Bible that a metaphorical connection between serpents and Satan are even made. Serpents are alternately used as symbols for good and evil throughout the old testement.

In fact, I ran a word search for "Satan" using biblegateway.com, and found no use of the word in the Bible prior to the Book of Chronicles Chapter 21 vs. 1 This again suggests that it may only have been later than Satan was even identified with the serpent.

2. But that's all of the mark of the original question. Here lies the key absurdity of the myth. It was, presumably, only after they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that they had said knowledge of good and evil. This would suggest that before eating, they did not have such knowledge. But if they didn't yet have knowledge of Good and Evil before eating the fruit, how in the world would they have known that eating from the tree was an evil thing to do? Sure God commanded them not to, but without the knowledge, how could they know that following God's commands is good wheras dissobedience was evil? It's like sending someone a preasent with a note inside that says "DO NOT OPEN PRESENT" and then punishing them when they do.

I also find puting a tree of knowledge in a garden and then telling no one to eat it to be a rather daft thing to do in the first place. Unless such placement was a test and was put there to tempt...them...But that would make God a tempter, wouldn't it?

[francis]

In the Genesis story, the serpent does not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge, he wants to see them poisoned by the knowledge of good and evil. We still taste that fruit with every breath, and it is the deepest curse of humanity. Every religion, every war, every murder, every lie has its origin in our tragic loss of an innocence truer and more powerful than any wisdom. sadly,
your brother

borther alan, I think you are right about original sin being the cause of every murder, and all the wars etc. But, I think you miss the whole point of the story when you suggest that faith in supreme father figures will save us all.

Faith hasn’t stopped war in the past, and is unlikely to in the future. No, the message is clear. The temptation to eat the fruit of good and evil is temptation to the sin of dualistic thinking. Only by avoiding the temptation of dualistic thinking can we save ourselves. Though perhaps this is not such a "good" interpretation, if you are in the business of redemption, I'm afraid ;) Cheers

[Flux]

Francis--you're in contradiction by calling dualistic thinking a sin. For to say that something is a sin is to suggest that some things are sins and some arn't, and hence some things are good and some bad. Thus, you're eating from the same tree you condemn, so to speak.

Personally, I think (last two words have the potential for irony, I know) that thinking is no sin at all. It's just not the be all end all of existance, has its limits, and is harmful in excess, as are many other wonderful facets of the human existance. To condemn thinking as dualistic, an impediment to enlightenment, and hence bad is quite dualistic in itself.

[kris]

2. But that's all of the mark of the original question. Here lies the key absurdity of the myth. It was, presumably, only after they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that they had said knowledge of good and evil. This would suggest that before eating, they did not have such knowledge. But if they didn't yet have knowledge of Good and Evil before eating the fruit, how in the world would they have known that eating from the tree was an evil thing to do? Sure God commanded them not to, but without the knowledge, how could they know that following God's commands is good wheras dissobedience was evil? It's like sending someone a preasent with a note inside that says "DO NOT OPEN PRESENT" and then punishing them when they do.

I also find puting a tree of knowledge in a garden and then telling no one to eat it to be a rather daft thing to do in the first place. Unless such placement was a test and was put there to tempt...them...But that would make God a tempter, wouldn't it?

Excellent points!

[Michael]

I´m sure its been said here before, but to ´sin´ simply means to miss the point. We have turned that meaning into a something it was never meant to be and which misapprehension causes us to miss the point by a larger and larger margin. The good news is that the resultant pain we cause ourselves can enable some to wake up to the reality. There is no Devil, simply energies which are in the wrong place or used inappropriately.

The idea of the Devil, with Hell, eternal punishment, the indelible marks of ´sin´cause us to believe that we are unloved and unlovable. The reality is that we are loved, no matter what we do. We live in the constant light of love and we cannot see it because we cannot accept it, cannot believe that we are worthy of it and it is that belief which stops us recieving it.

It really is very nice when you stop hitting your head against the wall.

[francis]

Francis--you're in contradiction by calling dualistic thinking a sin. For to say that something is a sin is to suggest that some things are sins and some arn't, and hence some things are good and some bad. Thus, you're eating from the same tree you condemn, so to speak.

I have edited my previous comment because it was inappropriate.

Flux, I did think about the contradiction when writing my response. I decided it would that it would be difficult not to talk about original sin and not be dualistic. Though, I'll stick to my point that the original message in the parable was not to indulge in dualistic thinking like good and evil.

[kris]

We weigh everything and everyone we meet in our scales of good and bad, instead of encountering life cleanly and taking reality for itself without judgement. The awareness of good and evil sets up a tension in us that twists our mentality and makes us see the world in dualistic terms.
I have to disagree here. Awareness of good and evil is what makes us human. Saying that this awareness causes us to judge everyone is like saying that mere existence of guns causes us to go on shooting everyone we see. To judge or not to judge others is a choice we make.

It is this relentless force of judgement and division that keeps us chasing after the "good" experiences and running from the "bad" ones. Candy is sweet and pain hurts, but if we were innocent of good and evil, we could just meet them as they come, without trying to pile up one and avoid the other. And what fun would that be? It seems to me that you don't approve of the world as it exists.


No, sin has never been original; even Adam and Eve got the idea from someone else! :D..... and who is that someone? :rolleyes:

[brother alan]

borther alan, I think you are right about original sin being the cause of every murder, and all the wars etc. But, I think you miss the whole point of the story when you suggest that faith in supreme father figures will save us all.
I don't suggest that. You're right; that would blind us again to the whole meaning of the story.

Faith hasn’t stopped war in the past, and is unlikely to in the future. No, the message is clear. The temptation to eat the fruit of good and evil is temptation to the sin of dualistic thinking. Only by avoiding the temptation of dualistic thinking can we save ourselves.
If faith means we have to grit our teeth and make believe in something we have not experienced for ourselves, well. That kind of faith would serve a true God far less than disbelief... and no way it's going to stop war, right again.
flux makes an excellent point in his follow-on to your comment about the "sin" of dualistic thinking, :lol:, but semantics aside, I concur with your premise that dividing the world into right and wrong, good and bad, evil and sacred is fundamentally inaccurate. If it is life we wish to experience, then we must stop eating the same old fruit, set our easy labels aside as the self-deceptions they are, and begin learning to experience life simply for itself, as it comes.
Though perhaps this is not such a "good" interpretation, if you are in the business of redemption, I'm afraid ;) Cheers
I do not divide my brothers into redeemed and condemned. You are all the Sons of God to me.
your brother alan

[brother alan]

Two short points.
1. Although it's "common knowledge" among Christians, where in the book of Genesis does it actually say that the serpent is Satan? Nowhere.

Think for a moment. Can you find any verse at all that actually says "Satan" in the book of Genisis?
Nope.

To my knowledge, the serpent is only ever refered to as a serpent, and it is only later in the Bible that a metaphorical connection between serpents and Satan are even made. Serpents are alternately used as symbols for good and evil throughout the old testement.
right. congrats.

2. But that's all of the mark of the original question. Here lies the key absurdity of the myth. It was, presumably, only after they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that they had said knowledge of good and evil. This would suggest that before eating, they did not have such knowledge. But if they didn't yet have knowledge of Good and Evil before eating the fruit, how in the world would they have known that eating from the tree was an evil thing to do? Sure God commanded them not to, but without the knowledge, how could they know that following God's commands is good wheras dissobedience was evil?
Christianity has revered this story for 2000 years without reading it as well as this. congrats again.

It's like sending someone a preasent with a note inside that says "DO NOT OPEN PRESENT" and then punishing them when they do.
Perfect metaphor. :thumbsup: May I use it elsewhere?

I also find puting a tree of knowledge in a garden and then telling no one to eat it to be a rather daft thing to do in the first place. Unless such placement was a test and was put there to tempt...them...But that would make God a tempter, wouldn't it?
oh, yes. very much a tempter. The Tempter, you might say.
Suppose for a minute you were God, and could create all things by speaking them, as in,"Let there be light." If you were also all-knowing, would you not tire of this before you began? I think you might.
As the non-seconds of no-time tick/no-tick away/always, you rack your holy awareness for something you cannot simply speak into being; something capable of being more than what you call it.

Are we there yet?
your brother alan

[brother alan]

I have to disagree here. Awareness of good and evil is what makes us human. Saying that this awareness causes us to judge everyone is like saying that mere existence of guns causes us to go on shooting everyone we see. To judge or not to judge others is a choice we make.
Although I cannot agree with your assertion about what makes us human, you certainly have a point. Being aware of good and evil is not the same thing as using our awareness to judge and condemn. The Genesis story does not does not address this distinction; it effectively implies that the awareness and the judgement are the same thing. In doing so, it seems to me that Genesis over-simplifies this aspect of the human condition.
Ah, well. If I were looking for pat answers, I would read Dr. Phil. :)

And what fun would that be? It seems to me that you don't approve of the world as it exists.
My tendency to perceive the world in dualistic terms (i.e. approval & disapproval) prevents me from seeing the world as it exists.

..... and who is that someone? :rolleyes:
in the Genesis story, the "someone" who suggested disobedience to Adam and Eve was called "the serpent". To me "the serpent" image is a glaringly obvious metaphor for self-awareness, so i was being ironic (okay, silly) in my earlier post.
best regards to you and yours, kris.
brother alan

[abaris]

brother alan:

The Genesis story does not does not address this distinction; it effectively implies that the awareness and the judgement are the same thing. In doing so, it seems to me that Genesis over-simplifies this aspect of the human condition.


That's not exactly right. What the Genesis story does, is to establish God's monopoly on judgment. In essence, it says: You don't know what's good or evil and shouldn't even dare have an opinion on such matters. Good is whatever God says it is.

And that sets the stage for the interpretation of the rest of the Old testament. The slaughhter of the Medianites was Good because God ordered it, the slaughter of the first borne of Egypt was Good because God ordered it. Now if you dare contemplate why the sons of Mediam or Egypt had to die for the alleged crimes of their fathers, then you seek "Knowledge of Good and Evil" and are thus a sinner by biblical standards.

Genesis doesn't say "don't be Judgmental" it says accept and execute Gods Judgment without double guessing it. Kill whomever your God designates as evil without doubt without pity and without restrain.

[kris]

in the Genesis story, the "someone" who suggested disobedience to Adam and Eve was called "the serpent". To me "the serpent" image is a glaringly obvious metaphor for self-awareness, so i was being ironic (okay, silly) in my earlier post.

The story of Adam and Eve in the Bible is, I think, as old as anything else in the Bible. That puts its age at roughly 4000 years. Majority of Christians by far have interpreted the serpent as Satan for the last 2000 years. (I don't know how Jews interprete the serpent.) It seems to me that serpent as self-awareness has not been glaringly obvious to most readers of the Bible for the last 2000 years. Should we attach any value to a book that, as you imply, has been misinterpreted by most (nearly all) readers for all the time it has been around?

If the serpent is in deed self-awareness, who is responsible for self-awareness? Clearly, God places all the blame on Eve. Does that make any sense?

Tyrants in all lands and at all times have demanded unquestioning obedience from their subjects and whomever they had power over. I suppose they are merely following the poor example set by God Himself. How is God any different from these tyrants? Are the tyrants in human form any more contemptible than God?

[brother alan]

That's not exactly right. What the Genesis story does, is to establish God's monopoly on judgment. In essence, it says: You don't know what's good or evil and shouldn't even dare have an opinion on such matters. Good is whatever God says it is.

And that sets the stage for the interpretation of the rest of the Old testament. The slaughhter of the Medianites was Good because God ordered it, the slaughter of the first borne of Egypt was Good because God ordered it. Now if you dare contemplate why the sons of Mediam or Egypt had to die for the alleged crimes of their fathers, then you seek "Knowledge of Good and Evil" and are thus a sinner by biblical standards.

Genesis doesn't say "don't be Judgmental" it says accept and execute Gods Judgment without double guessing it. Kill whomever your God designates as evil without doubt without pity and without restrain.

There are plenty of fine true things to be learned from the Bible, but God inspires men and women, not paper and ink. I believe the Bible when it tells me the Word of God is a person, not a book.
It's like this: Suppose you come running in waving a letter from my father that tells all about how he's going to kill the red-haired people with a hatchet. Okay, so I look the letter over, and well, some of it kind of sounds like Dad, but an awful lot of it is just crap. Here's the thing: I know my Dad. I may not be known for brilliance, and I don't pretend to understand everything Dad's ever done, but I know my old man. There is no murder in him.
Christians are fond of telling me that I must validate my experience of God by whether or not it lines up with the Bible, or rather, whether or not it lines up with what they say about the Bible. Eh, no thanks. Regretfully, I am no longer surprised when I get the same vehement nonsense from their identical twins, the anti-Christians.
your brother,
alan

[abaris]

brother alan

It's like this: Suppose you come running in waving a letter from my father that tells all about how he's going to kill the red-haired people with a hatchet. Okay, so I look the letter over, and well, some of it kind of sounds like Dad, but an awful lot of it is just crap. Here's the thing: I know my Dad. I may not be known for brilliance, and I don't pretend to understand everything Dad's ever done, but I know my old man. There is no murder in him.


In other words: You Know in Your Heart that the God of the Bible, your Father, is Good. Does it mean that you consider "His letter" a forgery? I don't disagree with your assertion that much of the Bible is "Crap", as you say,
but then, you also say that:


Brother Alan

There are plenty of fine true things to be learned from the Bible


How can that be? Who's to say what part of the book is "Crap" and what is not? Is it not rather so that you pick and choose and Interpret passages from an inconsistent and even self contradictory ancient text until it matches your own notion of "Goodness"?

And by the way I'm quite certain that you've never read a single line of the Old or new Testament. Unless you are fluent in Old Hebrew or the Koine of course.

[brother alan]

In other words: You Know in Your Heart that the God of the Bible, your Father, is Good.
"You Know in Your Heart" :
Yes, brother, my experience of God is internal.
"Either God is capable of making himself real to me in a way that I can understand, or he's not much of a god."
That was my favorite assertion during the many years I spent as an atheist. It is still just as accurate. I would further assert that no true thing, not one, is accessible to us until we hush long enough to hear it.
"the God of the Bible" :
The Bible doesn't call him that. Neither do I. Excuse me, but I believe you may be posting to someone who is not in this conversation. "The name that can be named is not the eternal name," Master Lao
"your Father" :
Sometimes "Father" works as an approximation of my relationship with God, sometimes I feel its inadequacy very keenly. May I ask why you seem to be using it in a pejorative sense?
"is Good" :
I'm hardly in a position to judge God. Calling anyone "Good" means slapping a label on them instead of taking them for themselves. I "know" God the way a two-year-old "knows" her grandfather. In his presence I experience gentleness, kindness, and love without requirement or reservation. When contradictory attributes are ascribed to God, I'm sceptical. That's all.

Does it mean that you consider "His letter" a forgery?The Bible was written by men and women no different from you and me. It was compiled over a period of at least 1500 years, some say more like 2500. A small minority of the writers in it claim to have received the words they wrote directly from God. Some of what they wrote rings true, and an awful lot of it sounds exactly like I do when I get on a rant.
At one point in the so-called New Testament (it never calls itself that), one of the writers makes the hideous mistake of telling his fresh converts that "all scripture is useful for instruction". Using this and other isolated phrases as an excuse, Christianity has chosen to reject the reality of God and worship the texts in his place. The texts are indeed useful for instruction, but they are no substitute for God.

I don't disagree with your assertion that much of the Bible is "Crap", as you say,
but then, you also say that: "There are many fine true things to be learned from the Bible..."How can that be?
You and the Christians insist that the Bible is one big homogenous glob that must be swallowed whole or rejected. That's silly. Looking back over a lifetime of my own writing, I see mostly crap, and here and there some words to keep. Why should it be any different for the dozens of writers represented in the Bible? I am in awe of the Tao Te Ching: Master Lao blows me away on almost every page. Almost. Some of his stuff doesn't come across at all. Could be my shortcoming; probably is. But he was a human being like me, so maybe he just wrote some garbage in with the beautiful insights. In any case, hard-nosed rigidity and rigorous all-or-nothing evaluations are not useful when seeking fine true things to learn.

Who's to say what part of the book is "Crap" and what is not? Is it not rather so that you pick and choose and Interpret passages from an inconsistent and even self contradictory ancient text until it matches your own notion of "Goodness"?Whenever you're ready, I will be delighted to resume the discussion on the "knowledge of good and evil", brother. Wait. You are being ironic, right?

And by the way I'm quite certain that you've never read a single line of the Old or new Testament. Unless you are fluent in Old Hebrew or the Koine of course.First you rub my nose in the texts, insisting there's nowhere else I can go to learn about God. Now you tell me I can't possibly understand the texts for myself. Have you considered a career in the Church?
your brother,
alan

[brother alan]

The story of Adam and Eve in the Bible is, I think, as old as anything else in the Bible. That puts its age at roughly 4000 years. Majority of Christians by far have interpreted the serpent as Satan for the last 2000 years. (I don't know how Jews interprete the serpent.) It seems to me that serpent as self-awareness has not been glaringly obvious to most readers of the Bible for the last 2000 years. Should we attach any value to a book that, as you imply, has been misinterpreted by most (nearly all) readers for all the time it has been around?
I'm having trouble following you. Most people think the serpent is the devil. I think it's an obvious metaphor for self-awareness (coiling on itself, head regarding the tail, like that). So we should disregard the story... because different people think different things... about it? :uhoh: Sorry. Still don't get it.

If the serpent is in deed self-awareness, who is responsible for self-awareness? Clearly, God places all the blame on Eve. Does that make any sense?
Nope. Even just reading it as a story, the first three chapters of Genesis make no sense to me: no timeline, no internal cohesion. Very odd. I have friends who swear they believe it literally, but they don't. They can't. They are always dragging in some external reference or borrowing from another myth to fill in the blanks or paper over the bizarrities. Like the sun being created on the fourth "day". :rolleyes: If this were not a family buddhist site, I'd have to pop a wtf on that one.
Still, I think we need to bring a little humility and moral uncertainty of our own to something as ancient and manifestly strange as this story, kris. If we lived in that world, we might see things differently.

Tyrants in all lands and at all times have demanded unquestioning obedience from their subjects and whomever they had power over. I suppose they are merely following the poor example set by God Himself. How is God any different from these tyrants? Are the tyrants in human form any more contemptible than God?
Don't believe everything you hear. If some goober posted a bunch of horrible accusations about you on this site, like saying you were a, a lawyer, or, or maybe even a politician, or some other mean thing like that-- do you think I'd just take it at face value without asking you about it? No way!
If God is real, then he is surely able to make himself plain to you in a way that you can understand. Why not take your questions up with him, instead of staying all wound up about what some Aramean sheepherder wrote 4000 years ago?
If God is not real, relax. Enjoy a long, healthy, prosperous, and god-free life. I sure don't see anything wrong with that, and I don't believe God does either. I think he is better served by, and must often be more proud of, his atheist children than his religious ones.
After all, if he really wanted to play tyrant, he could just peel the sky back and shout at us every so often, right? If he was God? Sure he could. So if he is real, he is trying to stay out of the way and let us live freely on our own. Why the endless vehement vendetta?
your puzzled brother,
alan

[kris]

Still, I think we need to bring a little humility and moral uncertainty of our own to something as ancient and manifestly strange as this story, kris. If we lived in that world, we might see things differently. I doubt it, brother alan. I come from a very different cultural background and I cannot imagine this sort of account getting any currency at least in some other cultural milieu. Sorry, the story of Adam and Eve seems just too silly to me.

Don't believe everything you hear.This is how I treat the story of Adam and Eve, and most of the Bible for that matter.

If God is real, then he is surely able to make himself plain to you in a way that you can understand. Why not take your questions up with him, instead of staying all wound up about what some Aramean sheepherder wrote 4000 years ago?I guess you don't see the contradiction in your suggestion. We can only take up questions with someone who is real and present. I am afraid God does not meet these requirements.

Why the endless vehement vendetta?
Some of us care about the world we live in and like to see good things happen here. Unfortunately, far too many people get caught up in some silly writings by ignorant men of old and engage in behavior that makes life miserable for many. Bible is a perfect example of such silly writing that has miguided billions of people for nearly 400o years and has resulted in people behaving wickedly towards other people.

[brother alan]

Thank you for your careful, measured words. It is very important to me to be allowed to discuss these matters freely. Although I am confident that my internal experience of God is more valid than my "external" (ha ha) "perception" (ha ha), I do not insist that he is real. But if he is, it is plain that he has set us free to live without him or to seek him, exactly as we choose.

I doubt it, brother alan. I come from a very different cultural background and I cannot imagine this sort of account getting any currency at least in some other cultural milieu. Sorry, the story of Adam and Eve seems just too silly to me.
Some of us care about the world we live in and like to see good things happen here. Unfortunately, far too many people get caught up in some silly writings by ignorant men of old and engage in behavior that makes life miserable for many. Bible is a perfect example of such silly writing that has miguided billions of people for nearly 400o years and has resulted in people behaving wickedly towards other people.
I'm not sure you are quite finished thinking this through, kris.
Around their fire pits in the great dark, our ancestors told themselves stories that bound their clans together. As cities grew, and clans formed tribes, and tribes formed nations, their shared stories clashed. Our top bullies, excuse me, "Great Leaders", have often used the contradictions between our cultural stories to incite bloodshed between us.
In my humble but firmly held opinion:
- If we care about our world and want to see good things happen, we must begin by owning and promoting brotherhood. No dialog that begins with reflexive vituperation, derision, name-calling, and accusations of wickedness is going to end in building understanding and community.
- If I have to buy your story to be your "brother", then brotherhood is not what you are offering to me. So you're a fan of Team X: okay. Or maybe you're one of those fans who is all about despising the Other Team. Sorry to hear it. But I don't really care about the color of your jersey; I am here to make human contact with you, the person behind the eyeballs, or to turn away disappointed. Again.
- Our big blue planet, with all its teeming billions, is just another tiny fire pit in a great and ancient dark. We need a story we can share, and we damn well need it quick. Here is my entry.
Always and forever your brother,
alan

[kris]

Although I am confident that my internal experience of God is more valid than my "external" (ha ha) "perception" (ha ha), I do not insist that he is real.On the other hand, I hold that all my experiences - internal and external - are real. What else do I have to go by?
I'm not sure you are quite finished thinking this through, kris.
You did not agree with me earlier when I said that knowledge of good and evil is what makes us human. Now here is another human trait - we humans never tire of thinking. But there are far more interesting and important things to ponder than the God introduced to us by the Bible.
Around their fire pits in the great dark, our ancestors told themselves stories that bound their clans together. As cities grew, and clans formed tribes, and tribes formed nations, their shared stories clashed. Our top bullies, excuse me, "Great Leaders", have often used the contradictions between our cultural stories to incite bloodshed between us. I am glad to see you recognize this. But if you take a good look at history, you will find that, barring an occasional exception, most of the clashes were incited by the "Great Leaders" of certain stripes. You will find examples of this behavior by "Great Leaders" in Bible itself and they have cited God and his commands to validate their behavior.
- If we care about our world and want to see good things happen, we must begin by owning and promoting brotherhood. No dialog that begins with reflexive vituperation, derision, name-calling, and accusations of wickedness is going to end in building understanding and community.There is something to be said about truth. We cannot simply whitewash historical facts and pretend that some cultural stories, yes, I am thinking of those in the Bible, have not hurt the cause of promoting brotherhood. I care about truth. We should feel free to tell the truth to our brothers. Nothing is worth more than truth.
- If I have to buy your story to be your "brother", then brotherhood is not what you are offering to me. So you're a fan of Team X: okay. Or maybe you're one of those fans who is all about despising the Other Team. Sorry to hear it. But I don't really care about the color of your jersey; I am here to make human contact with you, the person behind the eyeballs, or to turn away disappointed. Again.My story is not important. Christians went all over the world, destroying other peoples cultural heritage, their cultural stories only to ram their book, which I think is a third rate work, down everybody elses' throats. It makes me wonder if there is something innately evil about a work that inspires such behavior. I think that something just may be that this work shows no regard for truth whatsoever.
- Our big blue planet, with all its teeming billions, is just another tiny fire pit in a great and ancient dark. We need a story we can share, and we damn well need it quick. No, we don't need a story to share. The only thing that is worth sharing is truth.

[Michael]

No, we don't need a story to share. The only thing that is worth sharing is truth.

How about love, bread, laughter, healing, vision?

[kris]

How about love, bread, laughter, healing, vision?

I am not asking anyone to stop sharing love, bread, laughter, healing or vision. Those who share these things do so quietly.

In the context of the discussion here, I like to stress the need to share truth rather than some silly stories told by ignorant men of old. There was a talk of "buying" stories here. Those who have felt a need that their stories be bought by others, have sold them for bread, in stead of sharing bread.

[peterh]

dear dear are there really still devil worshippers in this day and age you know i dont worship satan above god but i do recognize that he is none the less an angel and you know what i love the little devil you know why because its true you will be punished for your contempt toward god in this day and the after life it is certain and satan is the one sent to do it.

Seriously it has been in my experience that satan does truely exist and when we are ready to face the test of faith and worship satan will come upon you fear not love will save you even satan is powerless against the love for and of god. I believe atheists are left out or tested in other ways. If satan exists then by default god does my battle with my personal belief that astranged me from love led me into conflict with the devil whilst not worshipping but holding through error of thought perhaps teaching also stan as more prevalent in my mind than god. I thought more about him. Not now.

logic suggests that if satan places god above all and his rebllion is against god and to protect humans if you dont love god above all look out you seek the wrath of satan.

first you will hear a chime dreams and nightmares will follow one or several of the dreams will be a dream with in a dream that you awaken from in the dream before you awake and then you realize gee i really do like loving god and you become whole. And if starange eary things happen during this time dont be suprised.