Why isn't Satan admired more?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Logarock

Name one, in greek myth, or ancient nordic, that is pure evil?

I couldn't think of any. Pan is not a bad guy, he is whine and party, but also was the god of arts. Theaters and stuff where mostly dedicated to him. The seperated evil is pure Christian and Islamic.

Actually it's Zoroastrianism. Christianity and later Islam stol...erm... borrowed those ideas from that religion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Rex282

If you say so, until either can be shown to exist, they are both figments of humanity's imagination. But in any case, you are one of the few I've met who doesn't use soul and spirit interchangeably. I'm sure I can dredge up someone on these very forums who believes in both but disagrees with you.

It is very easy to not use them interchangeably they are two different words in two different context. A soul is a a"being" that is alive with "life" I don't know how that is something that can't be believed.My point is soul and spirit aren't "entities" themselves it is descriptive of a being(soul) in a state) alive...religion has twisted that very common and simple concept into mysticism.

a reply to: Logarock

Or people dared to use the propaganda A-bomb and spoke in the name of god, while they're really just pushing their own agenda...

The real question in this thread may be, are we willing to accept there could be more ways to interpret the religious evolution than holding on to a good/evil view, that's just not applyable to reality? Because reality has more to offer than just right and wrong... There is a whole life between being born(1) and dead(0)

a reply to: Rex282

Spirit

The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus "breath") has many differing meanings and connotations, most of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body. The word spirit is often used metaphysically to refer to the consciousness or personality. The notions of a person's spirit and soul often also overlap, as both contrast with body and both are understood as surviving the bodily death in religion and occultism,[1] and "spirit" can also have the sense of "ghost", i.e. a manifestation of the spirit of a deceased person.

The term may also refer to any incorporeal or immaterial being, such as demons or deities. In the Bible "the Spirit" (with a capital "S") specifically denotes the Holy Spirit.

Like I said, without any evidence to show what exactly a spirit is or what exactly a soul is, you can call them whatever you want. To me, they look like the same thing.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Logarock

Or people dared to use the propaganda A-bomb and spoke in the name of god, while they're really just pushing their own agenda...

The real question in this thread may be, are we willing to accept there could be more ways to interpret the religious evolution than holding on to a good/evil view, that's just not applyable to reality? Because reality has more to offer than just right and wrong... There is a whole life between being born(1) and dead(0)

I agree with this. Dualistic world views (like good vs evil) are too simple to describe the workings of the universe. Most things work on a sliding scale with MANY different descriptions of what they can be. Rarely does the universe offer only two possible answers to a question.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Urm, are you asking me? (looks over her shoulder)

Sorry it's the Roman in me, I often find meself dividing and conquering discussions when I'm bored. But to answer your question, yes, in part. My reply was to the quoted text, as in "speaking of the Devil..." (pun intended). Side-line comment sort of.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

exactly. concretely defining the term spirit usually involves a varying number of presuppositions depending on context. so whats the context here? that will help us isolate the relevant presuppositions. assuming of course that anyone is interested...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

thanks. Just learned why I hate Zarathustra so much...
Arrgh Nietzsche!!!

As a science-oriented guy who once held beliefs not entirely dissimilar from yours, OP, I feel uniquely qualified to make a critical observation.

There's a simple concept atheists can never seem to get their heads around: not all negative experiences result in a net negative. Meaning bad things can happen to people and leave them better off in the long-run.

In your opinion, does a good parent shield their child from every possible source of mental and physical harm? Should a parent ever allow a child to make his/her own mistakes? Can mistakes lead to increased awareness and a better understanding of the world around us?

Answer these questions, and you might be surprised by what you believe. Perhaps you also won't be as prone to making ill-conceived, churlish posts.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Logarock

Or people dared to use the propaganda A-bomb and spoke in the name of god, while they're really just pushing their own agenda...

The real question in this thread may be, are we willing to accept there could be more ways to interpret the religious evolution than holding on to a good/evil view, that's just not applyable to reality? Because reality has more to offer than just right and wrong... There is a whole life between being born(1) and dead(0)

Just for the sake of this argument that would be fine. We still have however the my god is more powerful than your god push. Or our philosophy, our ideology ect....which indeed may or may not be true.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Logarock

Name one, in greek myth, or ancient nordic, that is pure evil?

I couldn't think of any. Pan is not a bad guy, he is whine and party, but also was the god of arts. Theaters and stuff where mostly dedicated to him. The seperated evil is pure Christian and Islamic.

Actually it's Zoroastrianism. Christianity and later Islam stol...erm... borrowed those ideas from that religion.

guess what else was stol - erm, borrowed from early spirituality?

The Abzu (Cuneiform: 𒍪 𒀊, ZU.AB; Sumerian: abzu; Akkadian: apsû) also called engur, (Cuneiform:𒇉, LAGAB×HAL; Sumerian: engur; Akkadian: engurru) literally, ab='water' (or 'semen') zu='to know' or 'deep' was the name for fresh water from underground aquifers that was given a religious fertilizing quality in Sumerian and Akkadian mythology. Lakes, springs, rivers, wells, and other sources of fresh water were thought to draw their water from the abzu.

for those unfamiliar, apsu and tamiut were among the first (or perhaps the very first) concepts of "greater being" recorded by the human species. and apparently it started with water. which explains why baptism features so prominently in modern spirituality. abzu has only been acknowledged as a person in one writing where tamiut features as his mate. all other writings describe abzu as a realm from which enki arose. panbabylonism reconciles this tale in its entirety with the genesis account. how, i dont know. a thread for another day perhaps.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Rex282

Spirit

The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus "breath") has many differing meanings and connotations, most of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body. The word spirit is often used metaphysically to refer to the consciousness or personality. The notions of a person's spirit and soul often also overlap, as both contrast with body and both are understood as surviving the bodily death in religion and occultism,[1] and "spirit" can also have the sense of "ghost", i.e. a manifestation of the spirit of a deceased person.

The term may also refer to any incorporeal or immaterial being, such as demons or deities. In the Bible "the Spirit" (with a capital "S") specifically denotes the Holy Spirit.

Like I said, without any evidence to show what exactly a spirit is or what exactly a soul is, you can call them whatever you want. To me, they look like the same thing.

Most "western" definitions of spirit and soul are from the bible and interpreted by the religious however they are two different words.

spirit
Hebrew =ruwach
Greek=pnuema

soul
Hebrew=nephesh
Greek=pysche

Religion has redefined many words to mean whatever they want to fit their doctrines like the word eternity is the Greek aion(aeon) meaning an age not an infinity of time or hell is the Greek Hades which is the grave the realm of death and imperception and apocalypse in Greek means unveiled not a cataclysm.

I makes no sense to deny ignorance if you support that ignorance (incorrect definitions of words).

a reply to: Rex282

Well I won't think that either exists without any corroborating evidence, so it's a moot point for me. They are both vague ideas to describe something that may or may not exist, and those ideas change with the times. How do we know that the Greeks were correct with what a soul or spirit are? They didn't even get the elements correct.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Logarock

Name one, in greek myth, or ancient nordic, that is pure evil?

I couldn't think of any. Pan is not a bad guy, he is whine and party, but also was the god of arts. Theaters and stuff where mostly dedicated to him. The seperated evil is pure Christian and Islamic.

Actually it's Zoroastrianism. Christianity and later Islam stol...erm... borrowed those ideas from that religion.

If they borrowed anything it was from Hebrew history.....the same place Zoroastrians borrowed largely from. The only folks who would listen to this idea that christianity borrowed from Zoro are folks that don't know any better.

The whole Hebrew thing was their God vs the numerous gods of the surrounding nations. That is when the gods of the surrounding nations were not fighting each other.

a reply to: Rex282

which would be fine and good if the word spirit had begun its journey in the west. oh wait, it did not. any concept of spirit in the west (read: America) would belong to the native americans. and they worship nature.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Rex282

Well I won't think that either exists without any corroborating evidence, so it's a moot point for me. They are both vague ideas to describe something that may or may not exist, and those ideas change with the times. How do we know that the Greeks were correct with what a soul or spirit are? They didn't even get the elements correct.

What's there to believe.

are you a person?..then you are a soul
are you alive?..then you have spirit

that's it ...nothing more nothing less.....no belief... only knowing.

a reply to: Logarock

Yea, you didn't read that wikipedia page did you?

Zoroastrianism arose in the eastern region of the ancient Persian Empire, when the religious philosopher Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[3] into two opposing forces: Spenta Mainyu (Progressive mentality) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Mentality) under the one God, Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom).[4][5]

Zoroaster's ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam.[6]

You got it backwards. The Hebrews borrowed for Zoroaster.

Origins

According to Richard Foltz the roots of Zoroastrianism emerged from a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE.[24] In Zoroastrian tradition, Zoroaster was a reformer who exalted the deity of Wisdom, Ahura Mazda, to the status of Supreme Being and Creator, while demoting various other deities and rejecting certain rituals.

The idea of one true god, the dualistic idea of good vs evil, and many other concepts ALL originated from Zoroastrianism.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Rex282

which would be fine and good if the word spirit had begun its journey in the west. oh wait, it did not. any concept of spirit in the west (read: America) would belong to the native americans. and they worship nature.

This is not mysticism it is common reason.To make it anymore than that is self imposed insanity and ignorance.

originally posted by: Rex282

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Rex282

which would be fine and good if the word spirit had begun its journey in the west. oh wait, it did not. any concept of spirit in the west (read: America) would belong to the native americans. and they worship nature.

This is not mysticism it is common reason.To make it anymore than that is self imposed insanity and ignorance.

spirit and common sense. is that like love and logic? because shakespeare told me those two dont get along very well.