No, I don’t know what “happens behind closed doors”, and I would guess that unless you are in attendence, neither do you.Umm…it does make them bad people. Do you know what happens behind closed doors? Are you in denial?
The best you can do is pray for her and show her love and compassion. It’s hard to get through to Satanists because it is enticing to the flesh to practice it. And if they are rebelling against religion/God it becomes tougher.because she feels the need to ‘cleanse’ herself from her religious past. She is a La Veyan Satanist–not the theatrical teenaged gothic Hollywood ****. She went to one Black Mass to experience religious ‘catharsis’ and said that was enough dramatics. She does not do the baphomet/red robe stuff you see on tv. She is more into the psychic manipulation stuff.
she tells me everything, we were like sisters for over 12 years. but now she is so bitter and frustrated with life.
Ah, our resident diabolist. Hello again Imryl. I can feel your presence when you post.Righteousone,
Don’t you have anything nice to say? You’ve said so many erroneous things over so many different threads, it really makes me wonder if you’re just here to make your fellow Catholics look bad.
It really reflects bad on you when someone like myself knows more about your faith then you do… Then, to watch you post on threads for the purpose of being confrontational is just frustrating. You’re ruining what might otherwise be insightful threads.
Be less condescending and more constructive in your posts, it’ll go a long way.
Secular Progressivismis there a religon/spiritualtiy/belief system (besides Satanism) that does NOT start on the premise that we have done something wrong or are somehow defective?
I happen to read CAF semi regularly. I’m just not a big poster… And really, I don’t come to this particular part of the forum very often these days.Ah, our resident diabolist. Hello again Imryl. I can feel your presence when you post.
Peace…
MW
I understand. Not exactly a lot of diabolists posting around here normally either. I go for months sometimes without visiting and then post frequently. Till next time…I happen to read CAF semi regularly. I’m just not a big poster… And really, I don’t come to this particular part of the forum very often these days.
For the exact reason I posted above.
It appears you are making the mistake of presuming that a) this is representative of normative Greek beliefs about how humanity came to be and b) that even if it were so, that it has to line up with what we know in terms of science of the evolution of mankind in order to be “correct”.Greek mythology suggests that humans were possibly paired up together. Man/man, woman/woman/, man/woman… They were formed with their backs together and they traveled the earth by doing cartwheels. The gods started to worry that humans were getting too strong, so they split up the couples. So from that point on everyone was trying to find their better half. They used this to explain homosexuality too…
Of course this example just goes to show you that even though the “religion” begins with humans as good beings, doesn’t mean the “religion” itself is correct. The above example is obviously not…
The question of what the person actually meant by the term “faulty”, however, is indeed a core one. In a society that is inundated with Christianity, it is not uncommon for people to make assumptions that because Christianity believes humans to be faulty in a certain way (or they think it does), all other religions that don’t believe humanity is perfection personified believe that humans are faulty in that same way.I don’t think he mentioned original sin, just “Is there a religion that does not believe humans are faulty?” The only reason religions exist are because they think you are missing something that you will receive by following them.
I answer the way I see things and I do not sugar coat things as well. Some people here need sugar coating and think Christians live the lives as the saints did. I wish I could do the same, but in today’s world, it seems very hard to do.Righteousone,
Don’t you have anything nice to say? You’ve said so many erroneous things over so many different threads, it really makes me wonder if you’re just here to make your fellow Catholics look bad.
It really reflects bad on you when someone like myself knows more about your faith then you do… Then, to watch you post on threads for the purpose of being confrontational is just frustrating. You’re ruining what might otherwise be insightful threads.
Be less condescending and more constructive in your posts, it’ll go a long way.
It was asked if there were any other religions which believe that humanity was origionally not sinful. I just gave an example. If my post implied that I thought this was “normative” than I apologize. I did study Greek mythology quite extensively and am aware that there are plenty of other myths associated with the origin of man. As for comapring it to Genesis, I can see your point. Though I would think that in those days people might take it literally, just as people today take Genesis literally…It appears you are making the mistake of presuming that a) this is representative of normative Greek beliefs about how humanity came to be and b) that even if it were so, that it has to line up with what we know in terms of science of the evolution of mankind in order to be “correct”.
It is no more factually “incorrect” than the Genesis story of Eve being created from the rib of Adam (but, interestingly, can be used to discuss the same core issues—why humans seek love relationships with each other).
Plato has Aristophanes telling this story in his “Symposium” in which a number of men of various sorts are sitting around discussing their theories on the origin of love as a change of pace for their usual drinking party. classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html. (here is an interesting discussion on the “Symposium” itself condor.depaul.edu/~dsimpson/tlove/symposium.html)
It is worth noting that Aristophanes was a writer of comedic plays and a great satirist (puts me a bit in mind of Shaw or Jonathan Swift) and that I doubt Plato chose to use him as a character without reason or to have him be the one to tell this specific story without reason. The intent of this is philosophical, not a recounting of what Greeks believed about the literal way in which humanity came to be.
There are a great many different stories of the origin of man in Greek mythology. encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570116_3/Greek_Mythology.html has a sampling. Bear in mind that there is not and was not an established “orthodox” version of Greek religion, no infallible scripture dictated directly by a deity to exist unchanged throughout time. The stories are rather, as I see it, exactly that…stories, poetry, man’s attempts to describe in the limited human vocabulary their encounters with spiritual reality.
Actually, no, it doesn’t say that “you are better off receiving favors from deities than not”. Go back and read any number of Greek myths—Midas, for instance, or Semele.Your old paganism says you are better off receiving favors from deities than not – and it is there for people who can’t create those favors (like auto repair) themselves. If you could do it all yourself you wouldn’t need their religion.
Some people today do so, and I think we all have a sense of how those who do so are viewed by the majority, even of their co-religionists. The folks who built the Creation Museum, for example, are not, I believe, held up as examples of the average Christian’s belief in whether Genesis means that humans actually kept dinosaurs as pets before the Flood. Ask whether the majority believed Genesis was literal a thousand years ago, however, and there will likely be a different answer.As for comparing it to Genesis, I can see your point. Though I would think that in those days people might take it literally, just as people today take Genesis literally…
I really don’t know why you’re taking this as such a big deal… a question was asked, I answered it. I didn’t really come to these forums to argue. It seems like you’re preparing to debate something with me here and I’m all debated out to be honest.Some people today do so, and I think we all have a sense of how those who do so are viewed by the majority, even of their co-religionists. The folks who built the Creation Museum, for example, are not, I believe, held up as examples of the average Christian’s belief in whether Genesis means that humans actually kept dinosaurs as pets before the Flood. Ask whether the majority believed Genesis was literal a thousand years ago, however, and there will likely be a different answer.
It is important to realize that when talking of pre-Christian religions, one is not talking about something that sprang forth fully formed and remained static from beginning to end, any more than Christianity has (and in many ways much less so). Certainly by the time of Plato there were many examples of philosophers who discussed the myths as something other than literal. Whether this was indicative of the attitude of the “Greek on the street” or not, either then or at other points in the extremely long history of Greek religion, is likely a different question.
Do you know of other sources than “Symposium” for that particular tale, by chance? I would think it more likely that there might be some at that time who would take Homer, for instance, as literal much more readily than they would something originating contemporaneously in a comedic play written by Plato.
Sorry then, that was the only one i could think of off the top of my head.well actually I was thinking more in terms of current modern religions rather than ancient or reconstructionist ones. I know there are many that come under the umbrella of modern paganism that do not believe humans are imperfect/defective/in need of a savior. But I find the ancient ones also fascinating.
Why would you have a pagan deity if it didn’t make you better than you would be if you didn’t have it?Actually, no, it doesn’t say that “you are better off receiving favors from deities than not”. Go back and read any number of Greek myths—Midas, for instance, or Semele.
The Gods are not vending machines, simply waiting for people to walk by who feel like having a cosmic cookie but don’t know how to make one (or are too lazy to do so) themselves. Anyone who would treat their Deities or Deity as such is entering extremely dangerous territory as well as being impious.
Religion is not about someone or something doing for humans what they can’t or don’t want to do for themselves. Religion is about describing our interactions with a spiritual reality that, frankly, is independent of our belief or disbelief and is not guaranteed to be constantly kindly disposed toward humans.
what’s pagan got to do with it really? why have any deity if you are not better with it than without it? (materially OR spiritually?)Why would you have a pagan deity if it didn’t make you better than you would be if you didn’t have it?