Jump to content

Clerical magic?


tkdguy

Recommended Posts

Guest bblackmoor

Re: Clerical magic?

 

Judaism indeed has Lucifier (Satan)

 

The "Lucifer" referred to in Isaiah is the King of Babylon. (Read the passage in context: it's pretty obvious.)

 

Judaism does not have a "Devil" or capital-S "Satan" who acts in opposition to Jehovah: it does have angels who perform the task of "adversary" (which is what the Hebrew word "satan" means), challenging or testing mortals at the behest of Jehovah, such as in Job. All angels in Judaism are obedient servants of Jehovah. These are also mortal adversaries who are referred to as "satan", such as in Zechariah.

 

That all being said, while I am comfortable discussing real world mythology, not everyone is capable (or willing) to do so with respect (q.v., the reference to "SAN rolls"). If we can't discuss people's beliefs respectfully, perhaps we should not discuss them at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Clerical magic?

 

Eh.. Not speaking for any other Christian groups but us Lutherans sees the devil as the rebellious angel who for his arrogance and treason got stuck with the crappiest job in the universe. He has no power beyond what God gives him.

I think most Christian religions have sort of the same belief that Judaism when it comes to old hoof-foot. Off course I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Clerical magic?

 

There are two schools of thought on political correctness-

1) You either believe that others should be forced to be politically correct, thus condemning individuality and reducing creativity to the lowest common denominators.

2) You take on board the fact the people have different personalities, and you modify your own political correctness to the level of tolerance. Ergo - you respect others beliefs that they can be disrepectful as part of their personality, and will expect them to behave that way, and tolerate it.

Plus, I'm Aussie - and we're famous for making fun of everything.

 

That being said - I do actually prefer Judaism over Christianity because it has less logical plot holes concerning an omnipotent diety. Speaking as an athiest, of course (which I hope you respect, but understand if you mock). The idea that an ultimate diety both causes good and evil makes more sense to me, than an ultimate diety that is opposed by a lesser being, which they appear to be unwilling or unable to stop or mitigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Clerical magic?

 

There are two schools of thought on political correctness-

1) You either believe that others should be forced to be politically correct, thus condemning individuality and reducing creativity to the lowest common denominators.

2) You take on board the fact the people have different personalities, and you modify your own political correctness to the level of tolerance. Ergo - you respect others beliefs that they can be disrepectful as part of their personality, and will expect them to behave that way, and tolerate it.

Plus, I'm Aussie - and we're famous for making fun of everything.

 

That being said - I do actually prefer Judaism over Christianity because it has less logical plot holes concerning an omnipotent diety. Speaking as an athiest, of course (which I hope you respect, but understand if you mock). The idea that an ultimate diety both causes good and evil makes more sense to me, than an ultimate diety that is opposed by a lesser being, which they appear to be unwilling or unable to stop or mitigate.

 

The ultimate deity does not cause evil, man or spirits do (i.e. devils). God allows evil, he doesn't cause it. If you read the position statement about Judaism above, you will see that Jews teach God causes evil through his angels. The actual position you are against is the Jewish position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Clerical magic?

 

Ah! I stand corrected. That's what happens if you learn about a religion by just talking to a random member of it' date=' who may or may not have all the data about it.[/quote']

But that is the same thing I said. And how does those three paragraphs about ethics have anything with the reply I gave you?

I really don't understand please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...