Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 03-03-2013, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

4. And this oracles and writers of distinction have shown;
among the latter is also the comic poet Menander,
in whom we read these two searii:

"A daemon is assigned to every man
At birth, to be the leader of his life".

This daemon is Adam in us who is ran by the woman in us via Eve, and I showed that chain of command from Gen 3:15 before. . . . where the woman strikes at the head of Eve who in her turn stikes at the heel of the human who will boast about his achievements and insist that he has a free will.

Chili · 03-04-2013, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

My wild guess is that the Holy Ghost/Spirit is supposed
to be the only thing you submit to so to have a daimon
that is a Guarding Spirit is something that comes in
between you and God so they had to talk bad about all
the other daimons except the loyal Angels that do God's work.

I think that I tend to agree with wordy's wild guess.

In other words the original Greek concept of the term "daimon" was first subverted to "demon" and then replaced with the Christian concept of the "holy ghost". There are a significant number of similarities between the two concepts to discuss.

There may also be a significant number of differences, so perhaps the similarities and differences should be compared between the original Greek concept of "Daimon" and the standard issue replacement "The Holy Ghost".

Except that it contradicts free will, wherein the Holy Ghost is always second to Lucifer who provides over the light of common day.

For the holy Ghost to be holy he must illuminate the other side of the sun that was prior to the light of common day. And by other side of the sun I mean the truth that will stand even in the dark where it knows no opposite in pleasure and pain that ony comes about by way of [short sighted] Lucifer.

stephan huller · 03-05-2013, 12:16 AM

I don't understand why has to keep crawling up out of the sewers with these stupid threads all the time.

Chili · 03-05-2013, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What a fucking silly idea. A "subversion" of δαίμων. Words get used in all sorts of ways that aren't they way they started out.

It appears that Christian editors of the earliest Greek texts used the word δαίμων in a very specific way which was not the way the rest of the non Christian Greek editors used the word.

You can assert whatever nonsense your heart desires, but you know in the end you are just bullshitting.

From WIKI on "demon".

Quote:

The Ancient Greek word δαίμων daimōn denotes a spirit or divine power, much like the Latin genius or numen. Daimōn most likely came from the Greek verb daiesthai (to divide, distribute).[3] The Greek conception of a daimōns notably appears in the works of Plato, where it describes the divine inspiration of Socrates.

To distinguish the classical Greek concept from its later Christian interpretation,
the former is anglicized as either daemon or daimon rather than demon.

The Greek term does not have any connotations of evil or malevolence. In fact, εὐδαιμονία eudaimonia, (lit. good-spiritedness) means happiness.

The term first acquired its negative connotations
in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible,
which drew on the mythology of ancient Semitic religions.
This was then inherited by the Koine text of the New Testament..

The Western medieval and neo-medieval conception of a demon (see the Medieval grimoire called the Ars Goetia) derives seamlessly from the ambient popular culture of Late (Roman) Antiquity. The Hellenistic "daemon" eventually came to include many Semitic and Near Eastern gods as evaluated by Christianity.

Is this all bullshit?

All bullshit because the concept evil is only added to convict humans of sin inside the religion itself, that so converts evil into good as a function inside the mind of the believer only. I.e "we have our own law and by that law he must die" and the 'he' here was the Jew in him that Pilate could not see as not a Jew himself and therefore was looking at the man.

So now sin is good that in its turn converts the confessionals into tall-tale-telling events so that sin may abound also in there.

Did you know that all is created in sin? to address the 2 stands of the rout wherein the essence of existence is created prior to it being formed? Just science in motion.

A good example here is learning wherein the two stands are a positive speaker and a receptive listener that now also is called sin . . . because it illuminates the TOK that itself is the enemy to overcome and therefore is the sin-nature itself. So sin is good, which does not exactly include murder if that is against civil law, and so to Caesar pay his due's.

It is just BS written from a Christian perspective, where the spirit of divine power is the angel of light that we call lucifer, who is intermitted only and hence is called lucifer . . . and is only identified to make the fullness of light known as its counter part also in the mind of man to which he is outsider in the TOK (left brain).

So then why even think that the left brain is evil? while yet it is the enemy to overcome in Gospel terms.

Chili · 03-05-2013, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...... but the Christian origins are Judaic, not Greek.

According to the "official story" the Early Christians got their inspiration from and specifically preserved the Greek LXX and not the Hebrew manuscripts.

This fact does cast some doubts over the claim that the Christian origins are necessarily Judaic, because the source manuscripts are found only to be in Greek.

Thanks Iskander.

But inspirations do not come from a book that is second hand to them, and so the early Christians really were mentally handicapped to look for inspirations in a book.

Chili · 03-05-2013, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The OP is about how the Greeks originally used the term, and how the early Christian authors, translators and editors,
who exclusively wrote in the Greek language, essentially subverted / rebelled against demonized the original meaning of the Greek term. Try again.

And the reason for that is because they were in the redemption business and then faith itself becomes the enemy and righeousness like filthy rags. Ask Peter, knows and can can see them coming from a mile away.

Chili · 03-17-2013, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Websites that talk about "Spiritual Warfare" are tipping you off that they are run by an offbeat branch of Christianity and are not interested in modern secular views of the bible.

From http://www.biblestudying.net/beliefs.html

Quote:

Don't you hate it when you surf the web looking for Bible reference material or possibly a much needed Biblical, historical, or cultural commentary only to find after spending half an hour on a website, that the author subscribes to some sort of unorthodox Christian perspective?

:rolling:

Quote:

10. We believe in the resurrection of unbelievers after the Millennium, the last judgment, and eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire for the unsaved (Rev. 14:11, Rev. 20:11-15).

i.e., BURN IN HELL YOU HERETIC

OH? I always thought that heretics want to die to get to heaven and there await the second death to be a victory for them, which could be a 1000 years because once you are dead a day is like a 1000 years in the sight of the God they worship.

Iskander · 03-17-2013, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Websites that talk about "Spiritual Warfare" are tipping you off that they are run by an offbeat branch of Christianity and are not interested in modern secular views of the bible.

From http://www.biblestudying.net/beliefs.html

:rolling:

i.e., BURN IN HELL YOU HERETIC

OH? I always thought that heretics want to die to get to heaven and there await the second death to be a victory for them, which could be a 1000 years because once you are dead a day is like a 1000 years in the sight of the God they worship.

LOL.In a catholic forum information must come from Catholics, in a Jewish one from Jews, in a Muslin one from muslins, in a Buddhist one from shangans , in a privately owned forum from share holders ... or else one becomes the victim of the clone

Chili · 03-19-2013, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Hi mountainman
Widening the search
The following extract from Stanford reads as Christian; one god that is remote , good and immaterial and another one bad . Matter is the original sin, lol!
The perfect god needs a lesser immaterial entity to communicate with matter, Matter is by its nature impure and unacceptable to the immaterial god. Filtering the Jewish legend through the ‘Plutarchian’ modifier would produce Christianity, a man-god of some sort and the toleration of matter by the perfect god as well as the devil .

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plutarch/

4.1 First Principles

Quote:

The cosmos is an ordered entity that has come into existence at a certain point (when time did not exist; Plat. Quest. 1007C), as a result of the contact between god and pre-existing, disorderly matter. God puts this matter in order .This means that god cannot be the only cosmic principle, otherwise disorderly matter would be left unaccounted for. Plutarch postulates two antithetic and antagonistic cosmic principles: the one is God (the Monad or the One, the unitary eternal substance from which everything devolves; see below sect. 4.3), and the other is the Indefinite Dyad, both being eternal and uncreated (De def. or. 428E-F). God is the real being, unchangeable, simple (De E 392E-393B), and good (De def. or. 423D)—the cause of order, intelligibility, stability, and identity. This is why he is the object of striving for all nature (De facie 944E). The Indefinite Dyad, on the other hand, is the principle of non-being, multiplicity, disorder, chaos, irrationality, and badness (De def. or. 428F)
4.3 Theology
Apart from the world soul, the creator God also needs some further mediation with the sensible world, if his transcendence is to be maintained... Plutarch acknowledges the existence of divine entities which are inferior to the first God or the One, the“daimones.” They are said to be “by nature on the boundary between gods and humans” (De def. or. 416C). Placed in the moon, these lesser gods mediate between the first God and human beings, thus extending God's providence to them (Dillon 1977, 216–8). Their mediation consists, for instance, in communicating God's will to humans, bestowing them with prophetic powers and inspiration (Amatorius 758E, De genio Socratis 580C, De facie 944C-D), in taking care of humans when they are needy (Amatorius 758A-B) but also in punishing humans (De def. or. 417A-B)

I do not see matter as Original Sin for all is good and created by God with an essense for it to 'be', or it would remain a 'phantasm' instead. I.e. energia is ousia in making presence known as being in function called syn-ousia, with the only difference that fantasy can only be conceived in the human mind wherein we are outsider to the self . . . from which follows that indeed the bread and wine is flesh and blood, but only a seer is needed to agree, while Catholics say Amen to this while under a qualififying state of Grace to make them worthy to receive accordingly.

The upshot of this is that they understand or the preamble: "I am not worthy to receive" by the faithful must be said, and then they are made worthy to receive in a sanctifying state of grace (is it?) for which then their Baptism is required first. No hokus pokus but just philoosphy.

So what else does Standford know? except think that their human mind is pure?

And I would also object to the word 'perfect God' because your so called imperfect God/god is an illusion seen by human minds, from where they render their theologies that are and will always remain fantasy, and fantastic even, that nevertheless are based on only tidbits of truth they run away with in their claim to fame.

Material is good and is always good of which only our perception can be distorted and therein lies our fantasy.

Original sin is the faculty of reason itself and all its creation are the world in which we live, and that is also good and is good for us, with the only wrong is that we live as outsider to our self and so now the TOK is not evil but our occupation in it as outsider to the TOL is wrong and is wrong only for as long as we are there as occupant as seen by ourself as human down below, and only then it becomes the enemy to overcome.

To note here is that cold is good, that so means the TOK is good and is good for us.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-19-2013, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Hi mountainman
Widening the search
The following extract from Stanford reads as Christian; one god that is remote , good and immaterial and another one bad . Matter is the original sin, lol!
The perfect god needs a lesser immaterial entity to communicate with matter, Matter is by its nature impure and unacceptable to the immaterial god. Filtering the Jewish legend through the ‘Plutarchian’ modifier would produce Christianity, a man-god of some sort and the toleration of matter by the perfect god as well as the devil .

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plutarch/

4.1 First Principles

I do not see matter as Original Sin for all is good and created by God with an essense for it to 'be', or it would remain a 'phantasm' instead. I.e. energia is ousia in making presence known as being in function called syn-ousia, with the only difference that fantasy can only be conceived in the human mind wherein we are outsider to the self . . . from which follows that indeed the bread and wine is flesh and blood, but only a seer is needed to agree, while Catholics say Amen to this while under a qualififying state of Grace to make them worthy to receive accordingly.

The upshot of this is that they understand or the preamble: "I am not worthy to receive" by the faithful must be said, and then they are made worthy to receive in a sanctifying state of grace (is it?) for which then their Baptism is required first. No hokus pokus but just philoosphy.

So what else does Standford know? except think that their human mind is pure?

And I would also object to the word 'perfect God' because your so called imperfect God/god is an illusion seen by human minds, from where they render their theologies that are and will always remain fantasy, and fantastic even, that nevertheless are based on only tidbits of truth they run away with in their claim to fame.

Material is good and is always good of which only our perception can be distorted and therein lies our fantasy.

Original sin is the faculty of reason itself and all its creation are the world in which we live, and that is also good and is good for us, with the only wrong is that we live as outsider to our self and so now the TOK is not evil but our occupation in it as outsider to the TOL is wrong and is wrong only for as long as we are there as occupant as seen by ourself as human down below, and only then it becomes the enemy to overcome.

To note here is that cold is good, that so means the TOK is good and is good for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2013, 12:16 AM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't understand why has to keep crawling up out of the sewers with these stupid threads all the time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.