[Strife]

i like that saying

[Ryobi]

I've had a bit of time to think about this one and although I do still agree with my first theory on what the Devil represents I'd also like to add something else.

'The Devil/Lucifer/Satan' is a creation of organised religion, this may mean the being exists, it may not but that's beside the point. The question is whether he is evil or not and according to the creators of 'The Devil' he is the embodiment of evil.

First off I would like to address your web sites.  Both are well written, both are collaborated by learned MEN, how ever there is a problem with the things these MEN have written.  These MEN are biased in their research.  Yes Jordyn they are biased.  Oh they write it is from an educated stand point but please.  Any religious man or woman worth their salt is not just libal to bend the truth, they are certain to do it.  The history of Christianity is full of adaptations to make happen what they want, you want proof?  OK, here is just one example.

Meurte what you have written is by a learned man but you are BIASED. Yes Meurte BIASED! Therefore anything you say should be taken with a grain of salt, nay MANY grains of salt, in fact you're proof is BIASED as well, why should I take any of it into account at all, seeing as it is biased, my goodness!

Everyone is biased in some way Meurte, please don't state the obvious. Instead, tell us why they are biased, is it because they are christian? If it is so, then we shall take into account that they have studied religious sources from a pro-christian perspective in the past. This makes nothing they say or any references they have used obsolete.

The reason christianity picked the 25th of December as the birth of christ is because the scholars of the time were mostly astrologers and magi (babylon was the knowledge centre at the time), in which case many of their 'premonitions' would have come from studying the patterns of celestial bodies in the sky. The star in the east is Sirius, coincidentally brightest star in the night sky (as venus is not actually a star). Which, on December 24th, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt (the 3 Kings). These 4 stars point like an arrow to the sunrise on 25th of December. In other words, Three Kings followed the Star of the East to the birth of the sun.

The virgin mary is most likely the constellation of Virgo the ancient glyph for Virgo is an "m". This would explain why Mary along with other virgin mothers, such as Adonis's mother Myrrha, or Buddha's mother Maya begin with an M. Strangely enough Virgo is also referred to much more traditionally as the 'House of Bread'. Bethlehem translates literally to 'house of bread', this means the place is meant in reference to somewhere in the sky, not here.

The bible I agree is not an accurate depiction of real life events on earth however they do correlate quite accurately with certain celestial events at the time and I do believe that this personification of celestial bodies is carried throughout the bible along with many references to the practice of Astrology.

Let see, there are Catholics, Baptist, Presbyterian, Jehovah Witness, Church of Christ, ect....  So tell me, which one is right, or are they all right.  Correct me if I am wrong but each one says all others are not following the teachings of Christ correctly.  Especially Catholics and Baptist, go ahead stick two representatives from each into a room to argue theology and see where that goes.

Well, you see although organised religion is very BIASED towards their own personal beliefs. Due to a certain thing called faith which makes them very pro-whatever group they support and at times quite against other belief systems. The underlying story and religious figures have enough linking similarities that maybe the phrase 'every lie starts with a grain of truth' should be noted as support for this 'story':

Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected. Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected. Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the "King of Kings," "God's Only Begotten Son," "The Alpha and Omega," and many others, and upon his death, he was resurrected. Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as "The Truth," "The Light," and many others. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday.

Horus was born on December 25th, his mother was Isis- Meri who was a virgin. According to myth when he was born a star in the East was present and 3 kings followed this star in order to locate Horus. He was a teacher of the people at a young age and at 30 he was baptized by Anup and went into the ministry. He had 12 disciples, and was known publicly by many names such as; The Truth, The Light, God's Annointed Son, The Good Shepherd and The Lamb of God. After being betrayed by a guy called Typhon, he was crucified, buried for 3 days and then came back to life.

Due to so many intertwined references to the same dates and astronomical events, linking with the polytheistic mindset of the time, leads one to believe that this really may have happened, in at least one context.

Personally, I am of the belief that as something is above, it is below and that the signs in the sky at the time depicted real events happening on earth at the time or events that would arise (AKA transits). Now Meurte, I would like admit that this is how I roll and therefore it is a personal belief system, I was raised Mormon, I still am quite religious and pro-christianity and this is how I am... how do you put it? BIASED.

(sorry pet peeve of mine)

[Angelus]

I've had a bit of time to think about this one and although I do still agree with my first theory on what the Devil represents I'd also like to add something else.

'The Devil/Lucifer/Satan' is a creation of organised religion, this may mean the being exists, it may not but that's beside the point. The question is whether he is evil or not and according to the creators of 'The Devil' he is the embodiment of evil.

First off I would like to address your web sites.  Both are well written, both are collaborated by learned MEN, how ever there is a problem with the things these MEN have written.  These MEN are biased in their research.  Yes Jordyn they are biased.  Oh they write it is from an educated stand point but please.  Any religious man or woman worth their salt is not just libal to bend the truth, they are certain to do it.  The history of Christianity is full of adaptations to make happen what they want, you want proof?  OK, here is just one example.

Meurte what you have written is by a learned man but you are BIASED. Yes Meurte BIASED! Therefore anything you say should be taken with a grain of salt, nay MANY grains of salt, in fact you're proof is BIASED as well, why should I take any of it into account at all, seeing as it is biased, my goodness!

Everyone is biased in some way Meurte, please don't state the obvious. Instead, tell us why they are biased, is it because they are christian? If it is so, then we shall take into account that they have studied religious sources from a pro-christian perspective in the past. This makes nothing they say or any references they have used obsolete.

The reason christianity picked the 25th of December as the birth of christ is because the scholars of the time were mostly astrologers and magi (babylon was the knowledge centre at the time), in which case many of their 'premonitions' would have come from studying the patterns of celestial bodies in the sky. The star in the east is Sirius, coincidentally brightest star in the night sky (as venus is not actually a star). Which, on December 24th, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt (the 3 Kings). These 4 stars point like an arrow to the sunrise on 25th of December. In other words, Three Kings followed the Star of the East to the birth of the sun.

The virgin mary is most likely the constellation of Virgo the ancient glyph for Virgo is an "m". This would explain why Mary along with other virgin mothers, such as Adonis's mother Myrrha, or Buddha's mother Maya begin with an M. Strangely enough Virgo is also referred to much more traditionally as the 'House of Bread'. Bethlehem translates literally to 'house of bread', this means the place is meant in reference to somewhere in the sky, not here.

The bible I agree is not an accurate depiction of real life events on earth however they do correlate quite accurately with certain celestial events at the time and I do believe that this personification of celestial bodies is carried throughout the bible along with many references to the practice of Astrology.

Let see, there are Catholics, Baptist, Presbyterian, Jehovah Witness, Church of Christ, ect....  So tell me, which one is right, or are they all right.  Correct me if I am wrong but each one says all others are not following the teachings of Christ correctly.  Especially Catholics and Baptist, go ahead stick two representatives from each into a room to argue theology and see where that goes.

Well, you see although organised religion is very BIASED towards their own personal beliefs. Due to a certain thing called faith which makes them very pro-whatever group they support and at times quite against other belief systems. The underlying story and religious figures have enough linking similarities that maybe the phrase 'every lie starts with a grain of truth' should be noted as support for this 'story':

Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected. Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected. Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the "King of Kings," "God's Only Begotten Son," "The Alpha and Omega," and many others, and upon his death, he was resurrected. Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as "The Truth," "The Light," and many others. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday.

Horus was born on December 25th, his mother was Isis- Meri who was a virgin. According to myth when he was born a star in the East was present and 3 kings followed this star in order to locate Horus. He was a teacher of the people at a young age and at 30 he was baptized by Anup and went into the ministry. He had 12 disciples, and was known publicly by many names such as; The Truth, The Light, God's Annointed Son, The Good Shepherd and The Lamb of God. After being betrayed by a guy called Typhon, he was crucified, buried for 3 days and then came back to life.

Due to so many intertwined references to the same dates and astronomical events, linking with the polytheistic mindset of the time, leads one to believe that this really may have happened, in at least one context.

Personally, I am of the belief that as something is above, it is below and that the signs in the sky at the time depicted real events happening on earth at the time or events that would arise (AKA transits). Now Meurte, I would like admit that this is how I roll and therefore it is a personal belief system, I was raised Mormon, I still am quite religious and pro-christianity and this is how I am... how do you put it? BIASED.

(sorry pet peeve of mine)

Most religions have the same or similar stories which all probably originate from the one source. Thats well documented and accepted within the historical community. The christian holidays were all placed over similar festivals from other religions to make it easier to integrate other people into christianity. i.e "Oh, your religion is correct..... almost. Heres how it really happened.....". That is also well documented and accepted within historical communities. If you want to get technical Jesus' birthday would have been around spring/summer according to astronomers. I am a Catholic and do not want to step on your beliefs as mine are as strong as yours and I do believe in Jesus Christ and God but Im afraid thats scientifically accepted and most probably true.

As has been said many times before in this conversation, any religions depiction of the antichrist is evil because that particular religion depicts what its outlines for good and evil are.

[Muerte]

  Yes dear yours along with mine is BIASED.  Never said that my opinion was not.  as a matter of fact what I believe about religion would probably really make you go off, which is why I still hold that opinion close to my chest.  I never said you should follow my ideas, I leave such arrogance to the church.  By all means take what I have to say with a grain of salt, hell, suck down a whole mine of it if that is a persons desire, but take it into account.  The point I am trying to make is this.

  When Jesus spoke, he did not do it from a temple?  No his temple was the world, he did not ask for money, he asked that you help others, he did not condem a person for not agreeing with him, instead he loved that person with his whole being, in other words, he was exactly the opposite of how our Christians today act, Hell, He condemned some of the churches/temples he came across (early religion abusing power?).  I will refer you to Ghandi's statement (I'll not retype it as it has been so many times before as I am sure you already know which one I refer to).

  Why are religions biased?  I think that in itself would be obvious.  When one grows up being taught and believing wholeheartedly in a certain idea, they DO NOT want to see that idea challenged much less disproved (no I am not out to disprove religion, only to question its inconsistencies‘).  Going further, ALOT of religious men and women develop a fervor about their ideas, and see it as their divine duty to push it onto their fellow man ( I am not including you dear, but it does happen, and frequently, go to an airport, see how many tracts you collect).  Now, go to a church, pick any church, make a few friends, get to know them, and see if they practice what they preach (to include the reverend, pastor, father, ect..)  You'll be surprised at just how many hypocrites there are to attend Gods house.  I have done this many times over the years (yes it does take a month or so, but that is the way with research)  You know how many true Christians I have found in the past 17 years?  3  only 3, and they I respect greatly, for they truly do practice what they preach.  As for the rest..... well, judgment comes for all.  At least I know I'll deserve what ever I receive, for I have never made pretence about what or who I am.

  The reason for Dec. 25 being chosen (can not stress the word chosen enough) while interesting is really besides the point, I added the Santa reason just as a barb.  The point I am trying to make is that it is a lie, a lie endorsed by the church.  The day a person is born is the day he/she is born, there is no getting around that point.  The reasoning behind why it was changed is moot, don't we after all raise our children not to lie, because it is wrong and God does not abide a liar? ( here I refer you to something God did write, the 9th commandment, broken down it means DO NOT LIE)  If we hold children to such a stricture, should we not also do so for the church, the guiding light for our salvation?  Or do we follow its example and simple change things to better suit our needs?  Do we avoid the truth because it does not fit our needs?

  The last part, about how the bible was organized using astrology is an intriguing one.  Does this mean the bible had to reach outside the divine in order to make sense of something they didn't understand?  And every lie does start with a grain of truth.  The letter/notes from the apostles which were chosen (there is that word again, funny isn't it?) while at the time were accurate, are by no means what we have today.  I look at it as akin to the whisper game.  You whisper something in your neighbors ear, let it go around the room, and see what you end up with.  It is never the same message.  So the many bibles we have to date, well I can take none of them seriously, sorry, just can not do it.

  I only accept what is irrefutable proven as true, nothing less will suffice.

[Ryobi]

Thankyou Angelus for your support, however I was talking about a group of stars not the planets modern astronomers think the bible refers to. They believe that the Star the wise men followed was caused by a conjunction of Venus and Jupiter crossing into Leo? No?

I say that the Christmas story wasn't told about a baby being born but about Sirius meeting the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt, in a pattern that points towards the sun on what we now call Christmas.

Two quite different theories and both are supported by historical text to an extent.

And Meurte, I do agree with you, the majority of organised religion was built on warped foundations (to put it metaphorically) however I don't believe that the original bible was a lie (as I've said) but simply misinterpreted, like many if not all religious text.

I don't refer to organised religion as the base of religion either but simply a place to start in blind faith because we can't travel back in time, you can point out inconsistency after inconsistency Meurte, I can theorise about why such things as the bible were written, neither of us get closer to the answer and it makes neither of us right. The underlying story may still be truth though, in fact I agree with you when you say, it is. We simply lack the sources at present to find the answer.

Ironically science will probably be the thing that proves religion in the end.

[Muerte]

Ironically science will probably be the thing that proves religion in the end.

  True, after all both science and religion want the answer to the same thing. 

  And just so everyone else knows, I will say it here and now, I can hear your thoughts floating around in the aether.  Neither Ryobi nor I won or lost in our previous discussion.  It was never about winning or loosing to me, but about the debate.  I did enjoy it Ryobi, and perhaps in the future we may once again take opposing stances, too long has it been since I have found a worthy debater.  Moonbaby was such a one but alas....  Now I await once of the infrequent visits from Jordyn, I do so enjoy my conversations with her, though I have heard she has toned down from her earlier years here on Monstrous, what a shame.

[onishadowolf]

I got to say it, the Devil is the alter ego of God. God has a spilt personality. Look at the story of Job. The Devil showed god powers and when they talked to each other it seemed like a mental debate. So if the Devil is God and God is the Devil, than the Devil is not evil. Just throwing that out there.

[Muerte]

I got to say it, the Devil is the alter ego of God. God has a spilt personality. Look at the story of Job. The Devil showed god powers and when they talked to each other it seemed like a mental debate. So if the Devil is God and God is the Devil, than the Devil is not evil. Just throwing that out there.

  Great, so god is a loose cannon gone bipolar, no wonder we are all gonna die in 2012.

[onishadowolf]

Maybe. Or just lonely.

[Muerte]

  So he got lonely and created an imaginary friend that's going to kill us all?  Jeez, thanks God, appreciate that.

[onishadowolf]

Yep, you got it.

[Kadesh]

 At least my imaginary friend wants to be friends with people. It's me that wants to kill everyone... 

We are all imaginary friends in the eyes of the lord......... some how i like that better than the original version.

To answer the question: DEVIL

[KubeSix]

To answer the question: DEVIL

You're right, the word devil signifies an evil spirit, but he was called that precisely by those who think he's evil. We're debating whether or not he should be called that.

But DEVIL isn't much of an explanation, proof or justification. I could use GOD = DOG as a counter-argument.