Why isn't Satan admired more?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So basically naturalism, except you worship the universe.

Yes but there are many consequences to that, it's not that easy. Also I don't really "worship" it. Let's say "celebrate"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Actually I already dispelled this assumption when I talked about Buddhism earlier in the thread and said it was the most logical answer to the current human religions. The god in Buddhism is closer to a place (like what you believe) rather than a physical entity.

There is no god in Buddhism. Buddhism is actually more of a nihilistic philosophy. Buddhists try to get free of the burden of existence. That's quite an important difference as it will influence your outlook on life.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I won't like it? I'm agnostic. I allow for all beliefs and ideas. I just want the evidence of existence first.

I believe the universe is god. The universe is real. Sorry I can't give you more proofs than that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
They are just as valid as worshiping the Dark Tower series of books.

Yes, each spiritual path is a personal choice and meaningful for the one taking it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
No, I'm pretty clear about hating religion. Religion is an institution created by man. Faith or spirituality isn't the same as religion.

Faith and spirituality are also human creations. Sorry but you are mixing things a bit.

I agree religions are less pure than spirituality. Personally I'm not religious.

Religions are social expressions of a personal spirituality. They aren't necessary, but so isn't society. Social constructs aren't necessary but they are there because they can be useful despite their flaws. Such are religions. Grosser than spirituality, and yet filling a need that isn't answered by philosophy alone.

I'm not promoting them, I understand the reason for their existence and I can acknowledge the good (and bad) they bring to people.

It's a fine line...when you create an adversary, to justify an MO to dodge responsibility for your own actions - you have to make the adversary obnoxious enough to validate the original position.

This is a psychological ploy folk play with themselves as justification for belief, false or otherwise.

Truth be told, in as far as the major religions are concerned, an Almighty God cannot have adversaries of any kind, sort or flavour that could realistically challenge it. Claiming adversaries is an inconvenient admission that you do not believe Almightiness, which then requires excuses as to why this could be so...all the while missing the grander picture of all the biggest questions.

Remove the adversary and a completely different scenario presents itself.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the mechanics of the free will mandate make it that everything is allowable...even the ability to create an adversary in corners of reality that can be visited (I went to hell and saw satan) only confirming in a roundabout way the notion that Almighty might be a moniker that needs defending from illusory enemies...closed loop...

Å99

a reply to: TzarChasm

Or:
Satan is what you are, and God is what you want to become

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: TzarChasm

Or:
Satan is what you are, and God is what you want to become

I like that definition too.

originally posted by: akushla99
Remove the adversary and a completely different scenario presents itself.

Dualism VS monism.

Dualism is what we naturally believe in as we see ourselves a individual separated from this world. Monism is less natural to us and requires a mental effort to be accepted (and yet all science and philosophies usually point toward the illusion of duality).


That struggle between dualism and monism is reflected in our interpretations of religions.

In dualism its god VS satan; light VS dark; up VS down, etc.
In monism, its both side of a single coin.

It's harder to accept, but closer to the ultimate reality as seen from outside our limited perspective.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

a reply to: zazzafrazz
And the signposts in religion are pretty poorly written and self-serving.

You might be too generous

I feel like they have changed the signposts altogether!

The end result is that both religious culture and religious counter-culture actively discourage independent thought and exploration and actively encourage dogma, zealotry, and feelings of superiority.

Rather clever, even if I see it as a "cosmic crime" of sorts.

Whats more terrific, and terrifying then God...

Nothing.

a reply to: silo13

Your veracity and vision stands vivified vanguarding vice
and verman.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

To conclude this interesting exchange with you I will say this:

What we choose to believe is always subjective and limited by our perceptions and personal history.

You say religions are wrong and bad. I say religions can be subjectively right and good (and for others, wrong and bad). No one has the ultimate truth, each truth is but a part of a bigger puzzle.

I personally believe there is nothing supernatural about god. We are a subset of the universe, we are alive and self-conscious. Thus at least a part of the universe is alive and self-conscious. Whether it's an aberration from the evolution, or a finality of the universe, I don't know. I choose to believe it's a finality of the universe, and I call that universe as a whole "god".

Like the cells that compose our bodies don't know they are a part of a bigger organism, I believe we also are, and can't really sense it unless during personal experiences that some people call "mystical" or "religious", or what philosophies and spiritualities call "awakening".

These experiences shift our perspective from a limited, personal point of view, to an infinite, universal one. That transformation is the objective of all spiritualities and mystical paths. The religions are mere social expressions of such paths, the result of societies trying to share and codify the spiritual teachings inside a specific culture. When these religions are aimed at control, they become perverted, when they remain true to their objectives of personal transformation, they remain more pure.

Such a transformation is beneficial for the individual, it helps him understand his place in the grand scheme of things, and how nothing in this universe is truly separated as everything is finely woven in a web of causes and effects. It gives him insight about the laws of nature, about how societies work, and even how his own body and mind works.

Sciences are doing the same thing, but from a specific perspective. What sciences try to explain by particular laws, spiritualities, philosophies and religions try to explain with global and universal laws. They are not competing with each other, they approach the same subject from different sides.


I do not claim that superstitions are good. I do not claim you are wrong as an atheist or agnostic. I simply try to give you my take on the subject in the hope that maybe, one day, you will not make simple generalizations anymore like "religions are bad and wrong" and "only what is provable by science is true".


Thanks for sharing your views with me.

a reply to: JUhrman

These experiences shift our perspective from a limited, personal point of view, to an infinite, universal one. That transformation is the objective of all spiritualities and mystical paths.

it sounds to me like you are saying the point of existing, for those people, is to not exist. because once your consciousness becomes synonymous with existence, you are no longer you. you are so many things that you can't be any one thing. you are everything and therefore nothing. because there is no you...only the universe and all of existence. existential quandary.

that's what I got.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
it sounds to me like you are saying the point of existing, for those people, is to not exist. because once your consciousness becomes synonymous with existence, you are no longer you. you are so many things that you can't be any one thing. you are everything and therefore nothing. because there is no you...only the universe and all of existence. existential quandary.

that's what I got.

To claim that I am the whole of existence would be quite presemptuous of me

I exist as an individual, with my own desires, my own choices and my own story. That I am able to see myself as a constitutive element of something bigger doesn't deny my individuality, nor does it mean I pretend to know the purpose of all this.

All this shift in perspective means, is that each time I feel like "I" know something, like "I" want something, like "I" disagree with someone, like "I" dislike something, there is a part of me that remembers that it's only my personal and limited experience, and that asks "do you really?". It doesn't make me better or wiser. It just helps me going through this life with more peace of mind, more joy, more fun and more meaningful relationships with this world and it's fine with me. Am I deluding myself? I could be. But again, it's only my subjective experience and the one I have chosen for me.

Do I need religions for this? No, I'm not even religious, but I have met people who did reach the same conclusions as me through religions, philosophies and science, so I know they are all valid paths depending on personal sensibilities.

Do I need to call this ultimate reality and experience "god"? No, but it's a term often used in the mystical, spiritual, religious and philosophical literature so I use it when it's the subject. If I'm talking to an atheist I will then say "the whole universe and our connection to it".

The Hermetic Teachings are to the effect that THE ALL is Imminent in ("remaining within; inherent; abiding within") its Universe, and in every part, particle, unit, or combination, within the Universe. This statement is usually illustrated by the Teachers by a reference to the Principle of Correspondence. The Teacher instructs the student to form a Mental Image of something, a person, an idea, something having a mental form, the favorite example being that of the author or dramatist forming an idea of his characters; or a painter or sculptor forming an image of an ideal that be wishes to express by his art. In each case, the student will find that while the image has its existence, and being, solely within his own mind, yet he, the student, author, dramatist, painter, or sculptor, is, in a sense, immanent in; remaining within; or abiding within, the mental image also. In other words, the entire virtue, life, spirit, of reality in the mental image is derived from the "immanent mind" of the thinker. Consider this for a moment, until the idea is grasped.

To take a modern example, let us say that Othello, Iago, Hamlet, Lear, Richard III, existed merely in the mind of Shakespeare, at the time of their conception or creation. And yet, Shakespeare also existed within each of these characters, giving them their vitality, spirit, and action. Whose is the "spirit" of the characters that we know as Micawber, Oliver Twist, Uriah Heep — is it Dickens, or have each of these characters a personal spirit, independent of their creator? Have the Venus of Medici, the Sistine Madonna, the Appollo Belvidere, spirits and reality of their own, or do they represent the spiritual and mental power of their creators? The Law of Paradox explains that both propositions are true, viewed from the proper viewpoints. Micawber is both Micawber, and yet Dickens. And, again, while Micawber may be said to be Dickens, yet Dickens is not identical with Micawber. Man, like Micawber, may exclaim: "The Spirit of my Creator is inherent within me — and yet I am not HE!" How different this from the shocking half-truth so vociferously announced by certain of the half-wise, who fill the air with their raucous cries of: "I Am God!" Imagine poor Micawber, or the sneaky Uriah Heep, crying: "I Am Dickens"; or some of the lowly clods in one of Shakespeare's plays, grandiloquently announcing that: "I Am Shakespeare!" THE ALL is in the earth-worm, and yet the earth-worm is far from being THE ALL And still the wonder remains, that though the earth-worm exists merely as a lowly thing, created and having its being solely within the Mind of THE ALL — yet THE ALL is immanent in the earth-worm, and in the particles that go to make up the earth-worm. Can there be any greater mystery than this of "All in THE ALL; and THE ALL in All?"

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: TzarChasm

Or:
Satan is what you are, and God is what you want to become

I like that definition too.

originally posted by: akushla99
Remove the adversary and a completely different scenario presents itself.

Dualism VS monism.

Dualism is what we naturally believe in as we see ourselves a individual separated from this world. Monism is less natural to us and requires a mental effort to be accepted (and yet all science and philosophies usually point toward the illusion of duality).


That struggle between dualism and monism is reflected in our interpretations of religions.

In dualism its god VS satan; light VS dark; up VS down, etc.
In monism, its both side of a single coin.

It's harder to accept, but closer to the ultimate reality as seen from outside our limited perspective.

Generally agree.

There is a component of individual psych that naturally attempts to remove us from our own horror movie scenarios (having unified the dynamics of established interpretation that seems to make sense)...this can be seen in other syndromes where, even entire memories are masked, forgotten or intentionally hidden - to avoid facing what is being/has been experienced - the MO is exactly the same, and the results are presented in exactly the same way.

Duality (as you say) is a way of making sense of very simple concepts that are wont to be complicated by the diversionary psyche. We all do it...recognising its grasp is liberating, not always readily complete and satisfying, as we operate in synergies with other psyches who create the circumstances for thier own justifications...

Å99

a reply to: JUhrman

THE ALL. such a romantic notion. for lack of better descriptors we exalt this one word and apply it to a concept that we ourselves have concocted and superimposed over the cosmos. for what purpose? i dont trust human nature enough to just assume that we believe because it is so. zeus is fake, odin is fake, osiris is fake, quetlcoatl is fake, vishnu is fake, but somehow yahuwah is not. even though he quacks like zeus and waddles like osiris, he is not a fictional figure. huh. and this ALL thing feels like a somewhat weaker attempt at personifying existence without technically giving it a personality. everything is part of one vast organism and our purpose is to bury our heads as far up its rectum as we can manage before dying.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777


Would the world be a better place without religion, history says no.

Really?

Religion is the single biggest cause of cultural divisiveness and scientific setbacks in human history.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
zeus is fake, odin is fake, osiris is fake, quetlcoatl is fake, vishnu is fake, but somehow yahuwah is not. even though he quacks like zeus and waddles like osiris, he is not a fictional figure. huh. and this ALL thing feels like a somewhat weaker attempt at personifying existence without technically giving it a personality. everything is part of one vast organism and our purpose is to bury our heads as far up its rectum as we can manage before dying.

If you read the full text where that quote is extracted from, you would see they say the same. Personal deities are illusions, projections from our mind. As such they still deliver interesting teachings regarding how our psyche works.

But if there is one thing where your interpretation of this text is incorrect, it's that this "all" (I agree it's such a romantic vision) is personified. If anything, by not giving it a name, it's trying to avoid that pitfall.

Like I said, do I know if such a vast organism as a purpose or a will? Nope. All I know is we do have a will and we are a part of it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You really have a funny bone!

"the all" is just a better way to describe the unknown, than "God" is, because that word is somewhat tainted. Still humans feel the need to describe "it"

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: muse7

I honestly don't think many people know what to make of him. If he's an Angel, then he has no intentionality, at least not like we have, which means that his rebellion was planned and thus anything he does is not admirable for who he is, but for who designed him.

If he is an extradimensional being then he is merely squabbling for power against a competitor, and while it is nice that he appears to be assisting us in many ways, there really isn't anything overly admirable about competing for power and losing.

If he is an internal aspect of our own consciousness, then there's nothing admirable because we are all weakened creatures, while his presence might be useful for our spiritual growth, it is a smallness which is honestly beneath us.

I think the only people who worship Satan are either looking for shock value or are extraordinarily conceited, thinking they have stumbled upon some great mystery.

It isn't all that mysterious to me. In reality 99.99% of people are Satanic Idol worshipers, bowing down before his reflection within their own selves, so why wander the wide path which leads to destruction? Just look around you. Do you really think the masses are heading anywhere desirable?

They are conceited because they think they have some rare understanding.

You think you are in the top .01% of people who follow the true god..

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Stormdancer777


Would the world be a better place without religion, history says no.

Really?

Religion is the single biggest cause of cultural divisiveness and scientific setbacks in human history.

Actually religions often bridged gaps among different cultures, and a huge number of scientific scholars were not hindered by their religious beliefs (genetics? gravitation? the big bang hypothesis?) and in some case it even helped science, especially during antiquity.

The story of religions cannot be reduced to the dark ages.

I think the single biggest cause of cultural divisiveness is not religions but nations. Just my opinion

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: TzarChasm

You really have a funny bone!

"the all" is just a better way to describe the unknown, than "God" is, because that word is somewhat tainted. Still humans feel the need to describe "it"

as long as they are being honest about WHY they are doing it...

we are tape worms and god only tolerates us so repent and he wont use the pills.

What I find interesting is how the OP only has two posts in the whole thread, when he has many people on here trying to actually discuss his question with him............

Are we to take you seriously that your inquiry is one of information and not one of provocation when you refuse to engage?

Or is this just a Drive By instigation?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

sometimes people like to post a thread and then let it sit for a few hours before coming back. like letting the bath run for a bit before you get in.