God and the Devil

Gisteron wrote: Without trying to defend western faiths, it is still hard to argue that Buddhism is in many ways superior. It of course, like any other, makes grand assertions about the nature of things without any shred of evidence, so it is by no means better at that, yet it is also little more sophisticated in its morality and in my opinion indeed less moral overall, incredible though that may sound... I could explain why, but that would get us even more off-topic, so I shan't until prompted.

You might be surprised how much influence buddhism has had on the jedi code... You might want to research the Eight Fold Path and the Four Noble Truths , if you haven't already.

Oh, I'm well aware of that, Whyte Horse. To read and write about it was part of the IP back when I did it. Now were these influences the creators of the Jedi Code used? I don't know, maybe. Doesn't much seem like it, but then I guess one can twist it anyhow to fit. At the end of the day, association doesn't matter, in my opinion; it doesn't make anything either bad or beneficial by itself. I have no commitment to any label that would be strong enough for me to suspend my moral senses or any kind of thinking for it.
In other words: Let's say Jediism has a significant portion of its roots in Buddhism. Now what?

We are the "spirit" brothers and sisters

PERIOD!

I like this.

Edan wrote:

Rickie wrote: God and the Devil are a magnet. United as one, polar opposites, attract diffferently and one would not exist without the other.

God did exist without the devil originally... the creation of the devil was due to an oversight by God.. (if we're talking Christian myth here). (From my viewing of it.)

Isaiah 45:7King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

This bible verse goes well with the Taoist belief of "there is nothing but the Tao (The Force/God/The Source) which is formless & nameless--all forms of polarization (such as light and dark, good and evil etc) are but parts of the one Source (Force/Tao/God).

As someone who prefers non-theistic Satanism over any brand of christianity, all I can say is that it seems more likely that Jehova/Yahweh and Lucifer were alien overlords than the idea that the biblical god is a representation of what is Good.

The only character I do love in the Bible is Jesus. But to truly follow Jesus you would have to dismiss the temper-tantrum persona of God in the Old Testament.

Manu wrote: As someone who prefers non-theistic Satanism over any brand of christianity, all I can say is that it seems more likely that Jehova/Yahweh and Lucifer were alien overlords than the idea that the biblical god is a representation of what is Good.

I find it a bit strange that this is what you think is more likely (and me as a non-theistic satanist too).

People can make representations of what they like... and for some God is 'Good'.

Mostly I think as I've always done, that the bible is a set of (sometimes questionable) parables... and the story of Lucifer's downfall is probably a representation of a historical event/set of events from one person's perspective.

Edan wrote:

Manu wrote: As someone who prefers non-theistic Satanism over any brand of christianity, all I can say is that it seems more likely that Jehova/Yahweh and Lucifer were alien overlords than the idea that the biblical god is a representation of what is Good.

I find it a bit strange that this is what you think is more likely (and me as a non-theistic satanist too).

People can make representations of what they like... and for some God is 'Good'.

Mostly I think as I've always done, that the bible is a set of (sometimes questionable) parables... and the story of Lucifer's downfall is probably a representation of a historical event/set of events from one person's perspective.

Maybe I should have said "just as likely". With absolutely no evidence for God being good (or the ruler of the world, or existing for that matter), it would be equally accurate to state that we were created by an alien race, whom we worshipped as gods.

The problem with making the Old Testament god "good" is that a wide range of atrocities are legitimized, and, if not for the fact that most of the western world does not take the Bible seriously, we would breed our own brand of religious extremists.

But that is way off-topic, I think.

Manu wrote: The problem with making the Old Testament god "good" is that a wide range of atrocities are legitimized, ..

and the problem with THIS position is that you have to disregard about two thirds of the bible to believe it

but youd have to actually read, with a desire to find the value, those two thirds to know that

so people make this assertion as if leviticus is the only book in the OT

very few Christians or Jews use Leviticus (and the "atrocities" you mention) as the standard for how we should run our societies today

yea some do exist and yes they are obnoxious, but they are in the great minority

rational people understand that culture has grown since then, and very few want to go back

i do agree that "rational" seems difficult enough to find in the world today, but that is true among the "non religious" as well (not that i believe anyone older than 12 or so can even be "non religious" but thats another topic)

im not going to get drawn into an argument, im only going to say that if someone isnt willing to read the bible themself, with a genuine willingness to find the positive AS WELL AS the negative, then they dont really know what theyre talking about when they critique

people who legitimately study the bible find a lot of positive in it - always have and always will, because its there

and people who just want to point their fingers and look down their noses will always find a way to do that, whatever side of the bible they are on

the desire to feel superior and be hostile towards other people, to feel that others are beneath us, is not a condition of religiosity - it is a condition of the human "ego" to which we are all susceptible, "religious" or not

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Manu wrote: The problem with making the Old Testament god "good" is that a wide range of atrocities are legitimized, ..

im not going to get drawn into an argument, im only going to say that if someone isnt willing to read the bible themself, with a genuine willingness to find the positive AS WELL AS the negative, then they dont really know what theyre talking about when they critique

people who legitimately study the bible find a lot of positive in it - always have and always will, because its there

I say this as someone who has read the bible over and over (and over) with the intent of becoming a christian minister in the past: the character called "god" has commanded nearly as much evil as good. There are good parts to the bible, true. But it is not all good, not if you're being honest with yourself and what you're reading.

You know you really love a thing when you decide to let yourself really see it the way it is.

OB1Shinobi wrote: im not going to get drawn into an argument, im only going to say that if someone isnt willing to read the bible themself, with a genuine willingness to find the positive AS WELL AS the negative, then they dont really know what theyre talking about when they critique

I completely agree with your point.

I'm glad that reason governs most people around the world, and that the literal interpretation of the Bible is no longer a rule. If you were to take the Bible literally, then I would agree with Snowy that you find more bad than good (though of course that is highly subjective). If you don't take the Bible literally, but as many Christian theologists state, learn to take certain parts as metaphor and fabble (e.g. Genesis), and others as the result of their context in geography and time, then of course there are quite a few gems in there.

However there are people who do not take the whole Bible literally, but when it suits them they play on literal interpretations of specific issues (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-slavery, etc.) to suit their own points of view. This is of course a human fault, and not the responsibility of the religion itself. (Which matches your assessment of the human condition in your last sentence).

The current problem with Islamic Terrorism is exactly the same, people that want power, revenge, etc. prey and play on the literal texts they can to promote their own agendas. This is in no way a reflection of most followers of Islam, but the fact that the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity belong to a different time (if taken literally) makes it easier to manipulate them for nefarious means.

In no way this should dismiss the jewels and beauty of the Qur'an or the Bible, but as Snowy says, we need to see things as they are and not as we want them to be.