juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 72
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
It says that your religion is not a complete one. Major problems exist in your religion.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I replied in post #2 that my religion does not have an adversarial figure.
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.
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.
I used to wear a tee shirt that said:My religion does not have adversarial figures such as a Satan-analogue.
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.
Some religions deal with having God as a reality. Period! No bad guy needed for that.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.
Not when seen through the lens of non-duality.Panentheism put adversarial figure in each god. A god has two sides, good and bad.
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.
Then why do you call it a religion?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?
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)
Marcion didn't know the book of Revelation, did he?From Wikipedia:
Yes, that would be how I understand it as well.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?
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.
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.
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.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.
That's a very interesting way at looking about it.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?