When reading a religious book (Bible, Torah or Qur'an, others I haven't read) I couldn't help but notice the immoral nature of many texts. So I have the theory, that these books are written by the devil in order to deceive the weak minded into committing atrocities against each other. But we all are born with "God given" basic morals that tell you to not hurt or kill others. God doesn't give a shit if you work on Sundays or wear mixed fibers as long as you keep using your "God given" morals.
Next time you read one of these books, question yourself: Could this be written by an evil entity to deceive us into becoming evil?
>>17451602
That's quite illogical. But then again we are talking about religion.
>Did the bible write these holy texts
If he wrote the bible and other religious texts he could have just told everyone to do bad stuff and kill eachother eventually, commit all the sins, but nah he decided not to do that. There would have been a lot of easy ways to completely destroy society but that didn't happen so he probably didn't write them.
>inb4 his plan
Nah, if he had some plan there would probably be anarchy for the rest of eternity.
That is if the devil is wholly evil which I highly doubt as he was gods biggest fan.
>>17451602
You basically just described Gnosticism. You're welcome.
>>17451621
this.
You're FAR from the first to have this epiphany. Read some stuff on gnosticism, you're in for a wild ride.
>>17451616
your so fuckin retarded, satan is cunning by nature.
>>17451616
>>17451640
gnosticism: the comic
>>17451670
There is literally nothing even remotely Gnostic about that comic.
>>17451680
>neoplatonic gnosticism
you are aware that there are other opinions, right?
>>17451688
Exactly which "Gnostism" are you referring to? Don't just shitpost; clarify your meaning.
>>17451693
Gnosticism, even.
>>17451693
>>17451696
uhh many of the systems see the demiurge as a malevolent entity. Neoplatonism sees the demiurge as the architect, but not the "Form of the Good". However the neoplatonic viewpoint is not the only viewpoint you know... nag hamadi, the lion faced serpent, either ignorant/mad or antagonistic towards "the One"?
>>17451616
>u should kill your neighbor
>no satan thats bad
>curses, foiled again!
or
>your neighbor is working on the sabbath
>holy shit we need to stone him to death!
>keep up the good work guys
>thanks god!
daily reminder that abrahamic religions are a continuation of sumerian death cults, especially Islam.
>>17451708
In that case the demiurge doesn't deal with the afterlife, so the comic takes place outside of that framework. The material world is separate from the afterlife in Gnostic mysticism.
>>17451719
ok, fair play, Ill give you that one. In that sense you are correct.
>>17451724
Our knowledge is not submitted for your approval.
>>17451759
if you are arguing with me, you clearly seem to be seeking validation of some sort, otherwise why waste your time arguing it with me?
It was a friendly acknowledgement that you were in the right, not an attempt to demean or diminish you.
I hope this meets with your approval.
>>17451602
more like edited and censored by him...
Iblis (Satan) really would want to burn all the religious books that exist...
Fahrenheit 911 pretty much a metaphor to how they burn the Qur'an these days
>>17451777
Wasn't an argument. You said something wrong, I felt like pointing out how Gnosticism actually works. It's not a big deal. I call it discussion.
>>17451630
Oh noes but I wanted to be a special flower
>>17451855
Sorry, only snowflakes have the power of unique.
>>17451602
The books were authored by the authorities. We're not born with God given basic morals. We're taught that. What we're born with is the instinct to survive. Survival isn't good or evil. Like the basic morals, we're also taught to enjoy the less social aspects of the survival instinct. The immoral nature of the texts isn't immoral. It's just nature. Ask yourself "who wrote nature?"
>>17451602
Well, Semites are the closest thing to the devil in this our material world, so yes, in a way the Bible, Torah or Qur'an have been written by the devil.
>>17451621
>>17451630
>>17451670
>>17451680
>>17451688
>>17451693
>>17451696
>>17451719
>>17451850
My basic criticism of Gnosticism is this. Gnosticism says that the creator of the material world is evil, this world is imperfect and only humans have the potential to be good.
But my experience is the contrary of this. I find that nature, animals, etc., are beautiful and good, implying their creator is also good, and that humans are the ones who are evil. So it seems that Gnosticism got it all wrong.
>>17453132
I would agree. If you're going from a biblical point of view, then Satan is the one who corrupted humanity in the first place. Thus, although all imperfections in the world come from humanity, we have Satan to thank for that.
Humanity was originally perfect, just as you could consider nature to be now, as we were designed from the image of God by God himself. But, if we commit imperfect actions, why would that be caused by our creator? It would be caused by something else, for example Satan.
>>17453132
Personally, I think nature is the most wonderful thing in existence. I don't much care for artifice at this point. To join any mortal religion would be an affront to the beauty of the natural world.
>>17451850
so why are you still telling me about it? It certainly seems like you're seeking some kind of response. How am I to interpret that?
You said something wrong, I felt like pointing out how Gnosticism actually works (in opinions differing from yours). Its not a big deal. Everyone calls it discussion.
And again, I hope this is fulfilling for you, or meets with your approval.
>>17453132
>Gnosticism says that the creator of the material world is evil...
If you'd read the posts you quoted, you'd realize that this is not a universal perception.
> find that nature, animals, etc., are beautiful and good, implying their creator is also good, and that humans are the ones who are evil. So it seems that Gnosticism got it all wrong.
This is both a false dichotomy, and also, highly subjective. A good man can make an evil thing, an evil man is capable of making a good thing. There is no reason to presume that because nature and animals are "beautiful and good" that their creator also is. You feel subjectively that this is the truth, but your subjective viewpoint does not mean that gnosticism or any other belief is objectively right or wrong, simply that you do not agree with it.
>>17453711
>If you're going from a biblical point of view
A very large assumption to be making.
>all imperfections in the world come from humanity, we have Satan to thank for that.
No we have humans to thank for that, even if satan were to blame, satan was still created by god, ultimately, the blame should fall back to the person responsible for literally everything everywhere forever, eternally. You know... "from a biblical perspective".
>Humanity was originally perfect
Yeah shame about god deciding to screw us on that.
>if we commit imperfect actions, why would that be caused by our creator?
Because he's supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and in control of literally all things... right?
>It would be caused by something else, for example Satan.
Interesting, so you're implying that satan is powerful enough to counter the will of an omnipotent being? That seems contradictory.
EIther "god" is not omnipotent and cant stop satan. Or he is omnipotent and has permitted satans actions.
Of course there's the other possibility... "god" is not in fact good, we have been tricked into thinking that "god" is good, but is in fact at best, indifferent, and more likely malevolent, and we have been tricked into thinking he's benevolent.
>>17451602
The Bible/Torah is. The Qu'ran is/was directly inspired. There is no G-d but Allah and the Prophet Muhammad is his Prophet. The truth is in there. Get a copy study it.
>>17453993
^ cant speak for the bibles or torahs or qumrags but this post is the devils work that iam sure
>>17453993
The Koran/Bible is. The Torah is/was directly inspired. There is no G-d but Adonai and the truth is in there. Get a copy study it.
>>17454044
>>17453993
The Koran/Torah is. The Bible is/was directly inspired. There is no God but THE LORD and the Resurrected Jesus Christ is his Prophet. The truth is in there. Get a copy study it.
>>17451602
Funny you say that, I thought of that theory one day at church when I young. I remember asking my mother about this theory and she was horrified by tt.
>>17453132
>>17453711
Nature is beautiful right? I understand that for one living in temperate climate, with a tamer nature and mostly furry animals, it's easier to forget this, but for one living in a tropical climate (Southern Brazil) like myself, nature's darker side becomes more apparent.
If I turn my fan off I can hear just outside my room a continuous, ceaseless choir of all kinds of creatures. If you go out there in nature without protection, all kinds of living beings will swarm on you, trying to find every opening and piece of skin they can to either suck your blood, lay their eggs inside you or innoculate diseases. And keep in mind that the bugs and other macroscopic creatures are mere vehicles for microscopic viruses and parasites. Scientists believe that even our own mitochondria were once bacteria that attached themselves to our cells.
Nature, seen through this lens, is like Schopenhauer said: life feeding on life. Every living being is trying to raise its head above the water at the expense of other living beings. And this even among humans. The entire history of the human race is the history of the struggle for life and scarce resources. Don't think for a second that your best friend wouldn't cuck you if it meant passing his genes forward and not yours, or leave you to starve if you were in a survival situation in which there was not enough food for the two.
This is nature. We think we have overcome nature because we became self-aware and sentimental, but deep down we haven't. We are just one moment in this continuum of aggressive, expansive tumorous growth called life. And life can only feed on itself.
This is the world of the Demiurge.
>>17454170
Well of course plants and some types of algae can synthesize their own food. But then we eat them, and it become true once again that
Life feeds of life.
>>17451602
Are you testing me, Satan?
I've thought about it before and I think that some religious books are diabolically influenced like the koran for example as attested in the accounts of the Satanic verses.
But I doubt that the New Testament or the Torah is written or in anyway diabolically influenced. Since the devil can only do what God lets him do, I doubt he'd let him directly author any religious text.
>>17451634
Satan is surprisingly limited due to his angelic nature, the guy can't really come up with anything new, and he can only do anything God lets him do.
>>17451634
>>17451602
You morons know that blaspheming the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin, right?
The Bible was written by God, can't even count how many times I have posted it on here now. http://holytext.org/proof-god-inspired-the-bible
>>17454720
Yahweh ackbar! Behead those who insult the holy spirit!
>>17451602
you're not quite there.
morality itself is a fucking scam. Think about this: you feel 'morally offended' at the idea of murder, mostly as a projection: fuck murderers! You think, you feel self righteous and superior to those filthy animals who murder in cold blood. This isn't nuanced or even a legally enforceable "feeling", worse: because you 'hate' murder you never do A SINGLE THING to prevent yourself from killing someone, you are utterly blind to the temptation to murder until it's too late, and you are 'forced' or commit a 'crime of passion'.
You were moral, but you did SHIT to avoid the thing that you found so offensive yourself.
Now, what about someone who takes no moral offense to murder. Humans have been doing since forever, it's not morally right or wrong, it simply is. It's terribly impractical and stupid, and causes cycles of retaliation, so it's smart not to kill someone. If it's smart to not murder, it's even smarter to be aware of all the temptations to murder and how to avoid them. Jealous lover? Don't get involved in the first place or at least have a non-murderous plan to do something other than killing your lover when you catch them cheating. That's ETHICS.
Ethics requires study, thinking, and reason. Morality is applied hypocricy, it's not gluing the world together, it actually tears it appart. Everyone says to themselves and others I WOULD NEVER, as a matter of selfish pride, but they never lift a finger to avoid the temptation or even think about it as they slip deeper into the inevitable. Then, when it happens, they merely beg for forgiveness, I'm not THAT person, don't punish me for what I did, I'm so sorry!
Bullshit. Morality is the cause of all human suffering, it's a bad fucking joke. If you really care, don't be content feeling morally superior - avoid that horribly hypocritical joy - instead, be an ethical human being. That takes work, not mere lip service to "I would never", which is what god basically is.
Reminder that the Abrahamic God and Satan are playing good cop/bad cop, and your soul goes to the same place regardless.
>human: oh noes, Satan is haunting and tempting me, save me God!
>God: Got another one, Good work, Satan, go on to the next one.
>Satan: K, boss
>Human: Thanks God!
>God: lol sure, buddy
>Human: Oh noes, bad shit keeps happening. Make a deal with me so things get better Satan?
>Satan: Boss, we got another one.
>God: Good job Satan, move on to the next one.
>Human: Thanks, Satan!
>Satan: lol sure, buddy.
Christian here. I don't really know what to say about God. I find it very unnerving that some say you can only get to heaven by being chosen and others that you must literally build your way up there on a mountain of self righteousness. In terms of Choice its a mystery. Why would God create a world he knew would become corrupted. Why would he have people saved only to have them question him like a giant long game of peek a boo. As I understand it all of this is for the Glory to God and God did everything for his own Glorious purpose. But in essence is he not the only thing that is in that regard? How could mere humans or angels add any increment to his Glory?
>>17454799
Yes, I'm sure killing innocent children for something they had not part of (10th plague of Egypt) is for a glorious purpose. And that sure was righteous of him to let Job be mercilessly tortured with almost every imaginable bad thing over a bet with the devil (a bet he supposedly knew the outcome of before hand, letting Job suffer for literally NO good reason at all). It's was so noble and loving of him to lay out the rules and details concerning who you can and can't enlsave, how badly you are allowed to beat them, and giving the OK to sell your own daughters. It was such an example of honest story telling, blatantly plagiarizing the flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh. So loving to demand animal and human sacrifice.
>inb4 hurr durr ur nut aloud to qestion GOD, how dar u!!!
I'm going to question any one and any thing that commits or condone obviously evil acts and tries to pass them off as "good" and "righteous".
>>17454720
Nigga r u retarded??? "The bible was written by God." No the fuck it wasn't you god damned spastic, and all of the rewritten altered/opinionated versions are not the same "God Book" you would have even if he did... You realize how much hate is in that book? If that was written by God it wouldn't teach half the fucking shit it spews from its pages it would teach acceptance, tolerance, and things of that nature..
>>17453873
>How am I to interpret that?
That post has literally nothing to do with Gnostic knowledge. Anon was just explaining that there are forms of interaction that lack confrontation.
>>17453873
>opinions
>universal perception
You really need to go back to reading comprehension 101 and learn what "religion" means. Nobody but you thinks of religion as an "opinion."
>>17454170
>Nature is beautiful
>mitochondria were once bacteria
>like Schopenhauer
Fuck man, get a life that doesn't include stalking.
ppl get it too far... we are just complex and fragile products of billion years of selection of prosper and abundant "random little things" being more in harmony with the "forces of nature" and environment.
>>17453132
I see chaos as basic and unrefined things... cosmos as harmonized things... nature is beautiful because your brain, genetics, epigenetics and shit are sooo much used to it... you see.. imo this picture
>>17451640
sees GOd as the creator of chaos and omnipotent and omnicient (because he gets as far as the reality)... considering it, you only have ONE choice(no choice), the reality that is happening now...
I can't understand what means calling humans evil, as they are just a result of those fragile interactions experiencing a disturbing environment. Humans were not designed to live far from trees and etc...
also, our species is social... each individual has the "instructions" to garantee the survival of the entire species, cuz the individuals and groups that did not had it, are not here to speak shit on the internets
sorry for my english and messy, hope you understand
>>17455126
Your post has literally nothing to do with our conversation. I was pointing out that by continuing to discuss it, he was looking for some kind of validation, otherwise why bother speaking about it?
>>17455134
First of all reading comprehension isn't a class. You might know this if you had ever paid attention in school. Secondly, you need to read a fucking dictionary. All religion is subjective and 100% opinion by definition. Unless you can verify without a doubt the ontological questions of the universe or guarantee the existence of, or the exact specifics of an afterlife as objective fact, it is subjective opinion.
Just because you feel that it is not an opinion, does not make that true. I have religion, I recognize that it is opinion because I do not have all the answers. I'd advocate you read a comparative religion book, but at this point I think a few pages of a dictionary would be more your speed.
>>17455276
>religion is subjective
That which can be written, is not subjective.
>>17455331
>That which can be written, is not subjective.
Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word subjective?
The fact that the words are written is not subjective, they're visible they can be read sure. The veracity of their claims however(in the case of religion) is undoubtedly subjective. The very fact that there even are multiple religions and not one religion that literally everyone agrees with proves this.
>>17454720
>the bible was written by god
>source: the bible
Fuck you and your holy spirit, retard
>>17455349
People are not "the veracity of their claims."
>>17455375
I never even implied that, please re-read the post. I was saying that the veracity of the claims of religion are subjective. I am not doubting that someone individually believes that the subjective positions of their religion are true, but that does not change the fact that they are in fact, subjective.
They can disagree all they like, but the simple fact that multiple religions even exist is absolute proof that it is an opinion and not a fact.
Before we go any further, you do understand the definitions of: opinion, fact, subjective and objective right? Id like to make sure you understand the words we are using here because Im not sure that you do.
>>17455381
>it is an opinion
What is? Some abstract thing you didn't mention clearly or religion? Because your post didn't argue anything about the nature of any religion.
>>17455404
>what is?
Whether or not any given religion is true or false...
ok let me try and slow this down for you so you can understand it.
Objective: factual, capable of being demonstrably proven and cited.
Subjective: based in opinion, not objectively observable or demonstrable.
The fact that religious beliefs are written down, is objective. You can prove the writings exist.
The fact that people believe in them, is objective. There are many people who claim religious affiliation, this is a fact.
The fact that people may feel that their religion is fact, is also objective. These same people will loudly declare that they believe their religion is factual.
Whether or not any given religious belief is fact or not, is subjective, regardless of the beliefs of its adherents and detractors.
The truth of religion itself is highly subjective simply because there are many different religions to believe in which contradict one another. They cannot all be correct, and none of them can be demonstrably proven to be correct in any objective way therefore they are subjective.
Is this clear enough for you?
The devil doesn't exist, however, people with ill will do.. And the abrahamic books were written by such people so they may decieve you into believing such tales.. Fear is an effective tool.
>>17455415
>religion is true or false
Stopped reading there. Ideas aren't true of false. Claims are true or false. Bodies of claims, which you probably didn't even formulate in your reply are incapable of being true or false. Only singular little claims can be true or false. Bodies of text cannot be true or false. Their interpretation can be highly subjective, but unless you're going to argue that words themselves have no objective meaning, the religion itself, the text, regardless of its interpretation, is immune to your notion of truth.
>>17455419
"yeah guys the devil doesn't exist, and he isn't a 6,000 year old virgin who trolls and shills on 4chan" - Iblis (Satan)
>>17455458
Daily reminder that putting fake signatures on things is a tactic used by the shithead responsible for converging Islam.
>>17455458
Yes, you must exist to shitpost /x/ with threads like 'how do sell soul to satan?'
>>17451602
The devil ain't real man.
>>17453132
There was a beautiful thread about humans years ago here in /x/ when it wasn't a role playing fuckfest. But basically humans are the most horrifying creatures in existence. If there are intelligent life forms that know of us, they make scary movies about humans. We are what go bump in the night.
>>17455433
read.
the.
post.
I did not say that religions themselves are true or false, I said that the opinion on whether they are true or false is subjective.
>the religion itself, the text, regardless of its interpretation, is immune to your notion of truth.
READ.
THE.
POST.
I did not say that the religions themselves, or their texts are subjective. Those are objective truths. My "notion" of truth is entirely irrelevant because it is also subjective.
Seriously are you not even reading what I am saying?
>>17455557
I understood you anon, you aren't going totally to waste here. But I typically only goto /k/.
>>17455433
False. Quit being a butthurt Christfag. Belief systems (or "bodies of claims"), can be false.
Example: Flat Earth Theory. Its adherents are delusional and profoundly, religiously devoted. No amount of evidence will sway them from their dogma, despite the fact that they are objectively wrong. This is a false belief system. A false "body of claims" springing from one major, erroneous claim.
Similarly, the Abrahamic religions rely on certain essential claims and then expand from there. The authority of these religions is dependent on the veracity of these claims. If one of these founding claims were proven false, the religion itself would be false as a result. If the existence or divinity of Christ were somehow established or debunked, that would conclusively prove the truth of the Christian religion one way or another. It has nothing to do with "bodies of claims" or "bodies of text" being somehow impervious to judgements of veracity. These things are not free from being "true" or "false". Only someone who makes erroneous, delusional claims for a living (i.e. a believer) would suggest such a baseless and self-serving thing.
