Understanding adversarial religious figures

[juvenissun]

I replied in post #2 that my religion does not have an adversarial figure.

It says that your religion is not a complete one. Major problems exist in your religion.

 

[juvenissun]

As I was meditating it came to me that generally those spiritual traditions that are panentheistic tend not to have adversarial figures. From my understanding it's because there's not much room in Panentheism for duality.

Panentheism put adversarial figure in each god. A god has two sides, good and bad.

 

[juvenissun]

My religion does not have adversarial figures such as a Satan-analogue. Many pagan religions do not have such figures. I believe Philosophical Taoism and Zen Buddhism also lack such figures. There might be some such figures in Shintoism (at least I know of some specific evil spirits) but like Hinduism, some people are selective of the spirits they believe in or don't believe that spirits influence the physical world.

A religion MUST HAVE some form of adversarial figure. The essence of a religion is to deal with good and bad. It is impossible for a religion which has 100% good and 0 bad.

It is the same in human. There is no 100% good man or 100% bad man. But every person has some good and some bad. The bad part is where the adversarial figure is. The Christian God is 100% good. So there HAS TO BE somewhere, someone, the bad (adversary) resides.

 

[AV1611VET]

My religion does not have adversarial figures such as a Satan-analogue.

I used to wear a tee shirt that said:

I'M THE CHRISTIAN THE DEVIL WARNED YOU ABOUT

 

[awitch]

A religion MUST HAVE some form of adversarial figure. The essence of a religion is to deal with good and bad. It is impossible for a religion which has 100% good and 0 bad.

It is the same in human. There is no 100% good man or 100% bad man. But every person has some good and some bad. The bad part is where the adversarial figure is. The Christian God is 100% good. So there HAS TO BE somewhere, someone, the bad (adversary) resides.

Everyone has the potential for good and bad. Each individual person holds the responsibility for which path they take, not the monsters you think are hiding under your bed.

 

[dlamberth]

A religion MUST HAVE some form of adversarial figure. The essence of a religion is to deal with good and bad. It is impossible for a religion which has 100% good and 0 bad.

Some religions deal with having God as a reality. Period! No bad guy needed for that.

 

[dlamberth]

Panentheism put adversarial figure in each god. A god has two sides, good and bad.

Not when seen through the lens of non-duality.

 

[Zoness]

A religion MUST HAVE some form of adversarial figure. The essence of a religion is to deal with good and bad. It is impossible for a religion which has 100% good and 0 bad.

It is the same in human. There is no 100% good man or 100% bad man. But every person has some good and some bad. The bad part is where the adversarial figure is. The Christian God is 100% good. So there HAS TO BE somewhere, someone, the bad (adversary) resides.

My religion is a bit more hands off and there's an expectation that humans build ethical solutions and solve their own problems without gods needing to intervene. Sure the adversary could be other humans, but that speaks more to the behavior of humanity rather than some cosmological curse or intervening spirits.

Of course I want individuals and society to both be better but I think we will have to get there collectively. The universe isn't providing a specific set of rules so we must build on our collected experiences and agreements to come to a workable solution. My ethics are essentially secular humanist.

 

[AV1611VET]

My religion is a bit more hands off and there's an expectation that humans build ethical solutions and solve their own problems without gods needing to intervene.

Then why do you call it a religion?

 

[Zoness]

Then why do you call it a religion?

Great question. I still think that's the most appropriate word to describe it, since it does involve spiritual aspects. It might be unusual to derive my ethics from a source different than religion but as paganism an umbrella rather than a specific religion, there is tremendous leeway given in this space. Even for reconstructionists, there is quite a lot of inference and filling in the gaps to be done. Some belief systems, like Wicca (which I adhered to for a time) do propose an ethical system, and I somewhat align with it, but I decided to go my own way on exploring ethics.

It seems like an exceedingly boring subject but its interesting to explore why I believe what I do, it has been a continual challenge to myself.

 

[Zoness]

Is anyone here familiar with Marcion of Sinope?

From Wikipedia:

Marcion believed Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

Marcionism, similar to Gnosticism, depicted the God of the Old Testament as a tyrant or demiurge (see also God as the Devil)

 

[AV1611VET]

From Wikipedia:

Marcion didn't know the book of Revelation, did he?

For those who think God in the OT acts any differently than He does in the NT, I subit he doesn't realize that in the OT, we see God operating for 4000 years; handling all different kinds of circumstances.

We see Him in war, in peace, handling specific rebellion, handling mass rebellion, chastising, pleading, fighting, blessing, cursing, sending rain, sending drought, and on and on and on.

By comparison, we see God in the NT for only 100 years.

The difference is only a matter of degree.

 

[ananda]

Thanks for sharing, ananda. My knowledge in Buddhism is unfortunately quite lacking! I think I see what you mean by literal and allegorical. For example, a paranoid schizophrenic may be deluded by images that torture them, but this is a disease with physical explanation. However to the patient, the images are all too real in their experience. Even if they are not literally real, as in objectively measurable, they are real to that individual. Am I on the mark?

Yes, that would be how I understand it as well.

 

[juvenissun]

Everyone has the potential for good and bad. Each individual person holds the responsibility for which path they take, not the monsters you think are hiding under your bed.

So, an adversarial figure MUST exist.

 

[juvenissun]

My religion is a bit more hands off and there's an expectation that humans build ethical solutions and solve their own problems without gods needing to intervene. Sure the adversary could be other humans, but that speaks more to the behavior of humanity rather than some cosmological curse or intervening spirits.

Of course I want individuals and society to both be better but I think we will have to get there collectively. The universe isn't providing a specific set of rules so we must build on our collected experiences and agreements to come to a workable solution. My ethics are essentially secular humanist.

With or without God, "bad" exists. Either focused on one or few adversaries, or is permeated through all individuals. It is an undeniable fact.

You should ask, WHY must it exist, instead of deny its existence.

Systematic religions do not deny that, but try to deal with it.

 

[Zoness]

Why are goats seen as Satanic?

I think its because their nature is contrary to sheep, sheep can be easily herded by shepherds and are drawn as symbolic for Christians in the Bible whereas goats go their own way. Often you hear of a pastor tending is flock, since the word pastor literally means shepherd. Goats are usually depicted as creatures with Satanic attributes since there are a handful of pagan gods who have goat-like features and the popularization of images such as Baphomet draw more parallels between Christianity's greatest adversary and goats.

Something I find interesting is that being referred to as "sheeple" is a pejorative term meaning that people are too dumb to think for themselves and just go with the flow. I do agree that thinking for one's self is important, maybe I am more aligned to the goat here? Is thinking for one's self considered an evil or Satanic trait?

I need to do analysis of other religions to see their conclusions. I imagine they're greatly impacted by their geography, since goats were a feature of the Mediterranean region and not as prevalent in other places.

 

[dlamberth]

With or without God, "bad" exists. Either focused on one or few adversaries, or is permeated through all individuals. It is an undeniable fact.

You should ask, WHY must it exist, instead of deny its existence.

Systematic religions do not deny that, but try to deal with it.

I think ideas of bad existing is a different trajectory than are adversarial figures. For instance the image of ones ego causing bad things to happen does not make the ego an adversary.

 

[juvenissun]

I think ideas of bad existing is a different trajectory than are adversarial figures. For instance the image of ones ego causing bad things to happen does not make the ego an adversary.

It is the same thing.
For example, what would satan do to an innocent person? How would that person change?

 

[MehGuy]

Why are goats seen as Satanic?

I think its because their nature is contrary to sheep, sheep can be easily herded by shepherds and are drawn as symbolic for Christians in the Bible whereas goats go their own way. Often you hear of a pastor tending is flock, since the word pastor literally means shepherd. Goats are usually depicted as creatures with Satanic attributes since there are a handful of pagan gods who have goat-like features and the popularization of images such as Baphomet draw more parallels between Christianity's greatest adversary and goats.

Something I find interesting is that being referred to as "sheeple" is a pejorative term meaning that people are too dumb to think for themselves and just go with the flow. I do agree that thinking for one's self is important, maybe I am more aligned to the goat here? Is thinking for one's self considered an evil or Satanic trait?

I need to do analysis of other religions to see their conclusions. I imagine they're greatly impacted by their geography, since goats were a feature of the Mediterranean region and not as prevalent in other places.

That's a very interesting way at looking about it.

 

[MehGuy]

As for me, I never really saw the need for a Satan. He's just a little pawn God uses for some reason. In fact during my last few years as a Christian I wanted to get rid of him altogether from my faith.

I don't even like to use Satan for any symbolism. I'd never want to be a atheistic Satanist or anything. As far as figures representing ultimate freedom and rebellion I have human examples that I'd rather invoke in art and whatnot.