Is the god of Christianity really the devil?

1. 80

   Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years ago

   There are a lot of reasons to think that the god of the Jews and the god Christianity and Islam is actually the devil, ruler and creator of the earth.
   
   Jesus tells us this very thing in some Gnostic texts. There may be evidence of it in Babylonian and Sumerian myth.
   
   After all, any god that would create the world where all things must kill other living things just to eat and survive, where disease kills thousands and where suffering is rampant, where natural disasters devastate entire populations, has got to be cruel beyond belief, inept, or unable to create in any other way.
   
   The devil is said to be crafty. He is said to have been given the domain over the earth. Why wouldn't he be a jealous god? A tyrant?
   Threatening everyone with hell who does not obey his whim?
   
   Let it be resolved that the Christian god is really the fallen one who chose a people, the Hebrews, and then blasphemed by claiming he was the only god.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      OMG! Are you really trying to form an argument based on a supposed entity called the devil? Really?!
      No wonder why humanism causes so many wars...
      
      
      James

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         lets see where it goes. lol...

         replyreport
   2. 60

      handyman22posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      To a point I agree with you. I believe the God we have been taught is the God created by the inspirations of men. This is the foundation for all of the wars and corruption we see today. To often when someone writes or speaks an inspiration, it is considered from God. But the reality is the inspiration is from  men claiming to be God's messenger. I have found by focusing only on the words of Jesus the spirit of God is revealed. This God is not a war monger but brings revelation to the true corruption that is happening in this world today, and its source, which is all of us..

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Well you are essentially correct. But then the problem seems to be knowing even what words Jesus might have actually spoken himself

         replyreport
         1. 60

            handyman22posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            There is not a problem when you take time to understand what Jesus actually said. The beauty of His words is they bear a witness to reality that can only be seen through His spirit of truth.
            
            For Example: Throughout the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew and John, our relationship with God is individual. But when you attend a religious organization you must agree with the group making it collective and corporate. This is not an individual relationship.
            
            In the Book of Matthew Chapter 6 verse 1-6. Jesus tells us how to give, which does not include money, also how to pray. He says we are not to pray in the open but to pray privately or in a closet. Our relationship with God is individual since, God knows individually what we have need of. Then Jesus gives words to pray, called the Lords Prayer. By changing the word, Me to Us, the Lords Prayer has been taken out of the closet where Jesus  said to Pray and placed in the public square. No longer agreeing to the prescription Jesus gave us to pray.
            
            We can only know or understand our own circumstances, with life it is impossible to have a solution to our own problems by incorporating the problems of others into our lives.
            
            Incorporations belong with governments and non-spiritual organizations not a relationship with God. This is precisely the reason we have so many different spiritual organizations disagreeing with one another. Relationship with life and/or God is individual not corporate.
            
            Even if we do not believe in God and just individually meditate on our relationship with life, I believe is more helpful than praying for a corporate group agenda.

            replyreport
   3. 63

      PhoenixVposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Why are you blind to the good? All you write here is , disease disaster, things eating each other, everything is cruel everything is inept. If you claim and blame the world is a glass half empty, you can thank God He gave you the opportunity, choice and ability to fill it. If everything was perfect, what exactly would be your purpose? To complain you cant choose between light and dark? Look at love? Its not always cotton candy, yet as a human being, what would life be without it?
      
      If you have children or grandparents or parents you love, you know that love comes with some pain. But you would trade this love for something easier? You know you wouldn't.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         So what would life be without disease and destruction and suffering? A hell of a lot better. I do not buy the idea that you need war to know peace or hate to know love. The two stand on their own and we would be well rid of of the negatives. That's what you work toward, don't you? You don't work toward a balance between good and bad, you work toward the good. Are you afraid that if you got it you would be missing something?
         
         No conscious god can be forgiven for creating the world as it has. Not yours and not anyones. Why? Because of intent. Intent is the moral guide.
         Evil intent is immoral. Good intent is moral. Simple as that. Not complicated at all unless you want me to explain how it ties into survival and evolution etc, which I would gladly do even though you probably think evolution is nonsense.
         
         However, if the universe is due to natural processes, as is indicated by science, then there is no conscious intent and the universe is as it is. I can accept that and work toward improving our lot in it by bettering myself.
         If it is a process it can't be blamed or thanked.
         
         What purpose does a god add to life? If you have no purpose without one your life must be pathetic. I'm not saying you in particular; but in general. We make our own purpose. Purpose is subjective.
         
         The objective purpose of the human is in it's function: To gather, dissect, process, store and pass on information. It is also conflict resolution.
         
         The only purpose a god could give you is his or it's purpose for you. Which is not your purpose at all.

         replyreport
         1. 63

            PhoenixVposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The contradictions are so obvious too me, but I don't have any inclination to explain whats obvious to me. Good luck

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Really? There are no contradictions in what I said.  Sounds more like you have nothing to add.  Good luck to you too.

               replyreport
   4. 67

      olgakhumloposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Jesus said ' I am not come to destroy , but to fulfill'.(Matt 5:17).
      Sin enters, when man makes his selfish choices against God's will , and a continuation of it, has led to the corrupted world .However reconciliation with God through His Son Jesus brings the Peace within our hearts and our fellow-men.

      replyreport
2. 0

   just_curiousposted 13 years ago

   So, what are you saying. Atheists are going to heaven and the religious folk to hell? Wouldn't that be a funny twist.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Well I'm not saying it is reality. I'm saying according to some of the myths it might well be. lol...

      replyreport
      1. 0

         just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         K. you had me worried for a minute there.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
3. 81

   Jewelsposted 13 years ago

   I understand that the ahrimanic influence over Christianity has turned the higher experience of being the Self, and therefore being more in touch with an individual's spiritual essence, into an unachievable goal. 
   
   The reason being that for any religious teaching to influence it's 'believers' to look outside or externally for a union, or reunion with 'God' goes against being spiritual.
   
   The influence of Ahriman is such that the person being influenced has no notion of doing something wrong.  They feel they are in alignment with the truth, or a truth.  The devil is not a dumb ass, the influence is highly intelligent.
   
   The (absolute) essence of that which is called the God of Christianity is not the 'devil.'  The twisted teachings and it's subsequent influence on the masses is seen to be the Ahrimanic influence.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Are you a Zoroastrian? 

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Jewelsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Not Zoroastrian..... I hate labels   But as you have found, the term is derived from that religion.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes. I have looked into Zoroastrianism so was familiar with the term. But I also looked up the term Ahrimanic influence and found some interesting web pages.
            
            As for labels I've long since decided they just encapsulate certain aspects of oneself. Easier than having to explain a lot. I'm a lot of things including a heretic, an atheist, a Pantheist, a physicalist/materialist, a bit of an ignostic as well as bit of a Zen Buddhist, but only on weekends. Just to name a few.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               It is written that God is the auther of all things, Good or evil.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Isaiah 14

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Thanks, but I purposely don't tell them where it is...I want them to mwork for it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Sorry. lol...

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Jewelsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           ......who is them?

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Other than those whom he wants to work for the information, I'm not entirely sure.

                              replyreport
                           2. 61

                              Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              You know who "they" are. "They" are all around you. Heck, you might be one of "Them". Actually, I'm referring to christians and others who think they know what is in the bible. When I quote something from the scriptures I don't supply chapter and verse, because I get visuals of people hurredly scrambling to find where my reference is coming from. Take Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey". I say "And then the astronaut Dave had to disconnect the insane computer..." you ever hear anyone listening say "What chapter, whatverse was that?" Neither have I. Besides, the Hebrew bible isn't broken up into numbered chapters and verses. That was a contrivance of the christians. Their version of an idiot light.

                              replyreport
4. 81

   Jewelsposted 13 years ago

   As for atheists going to heaven and 'believers' going to hell.  It may well come to pass that this is exactly what happens.
   
   A virtuous human being will always win over a supposed lover of God who portrays no sense of virtue but pretends to.
   
   Beliefs mean nothing.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      *Standing Ovation*

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely. Belief is not required.

      replyreport
   3. 81

      earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree Jewels. Love is something done, not something said.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Christians aren't in line where they think they are. Why else would they have been separated from the rest of the herd. I agree that virtue doesn't necessarily require church, but, I would also point out that children need to be taught what is "right" or "wrong". these concepts don't come naturally, and without that teaching, would probably be no better than any other earth bound beast.

      replyreport
5. 81

   Jewelsposted 13 years ago

   A good explanation of Ahriman is found in A Language to Map Consciousness: By Samuel Sagan who has researched back to the Zoroastrian religion.  There is also reference to Ahriman in Neoplatonism.
   
   So as people can OWN the 'unvirtuous within,' the term defines Ahura Mazda, principle of light, and Ahriman, principle of darkness - who fight each other on the stage of the world.
   
   According to Sagan, this dualistic vision (polarity) is said to have been a seminal influence on the Book of Revelation and on Apocalyptic literature in general, with scholars pointing to the Babylonian captivity (Jewish people taken in exile to Babylon, 586-538BC.)
   
   Note that the term is used as a principle and not an arms and legs person.  The original arena for the apocalypse is within - the 'fight' between our own duality - light and dark. 
   
   Again this shows how spiritual teachings did not start with the bible. The bible has been derived from ancient texts.
   
   And also what is disturbing is how people will look outside of themselves and see the Ahrimanic influence as external. (Exactly what the Ahrimanic influence does - it turns you outwards.) Technically it could be argued that this external influence is correct because currently we don't seem to be winning the fight against our collective darkness.  The state of the world is a testament to that, as well as the collective turmoil of the psyche.  Notice how every second person at university is studying psychology!  Bit of mental turmoil going on.
   
   The fight against the influences of darkness (our unvirtuous side) is a personal journey and is only achieved through personal awareness and then change.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think you are correct. But the influence is not so much from Zoroastrianism as it is from the Roman Empire and Sol/Apollo. All solar religions have the duality of light vs dark as a good part of their focus. Jesus probably gets his halo from being mated with Sol. Constantine was a worshiper of Sol and Mithra, as well as a Christian, until he died. He even wore a costume to make himself look like Sol when he dedicated Constantinople.   Even long after he supposedly converted Rome to Christianity his coinage had Sol on the back, not a Christian symbol. He declared Sunday a holiday, not for the Christian Sabbath, but for  the sun's day. He decreed that Christian and pagan alike had to observe the sun's day. The entire idea of a trinity is Roman tradition. Gods were often merged together by twos and threes. Threes more so in Rome and twos in Egypt. Amun-Ra, for example.
      
      So while I have no doubt the Zoroastrians were also an influence, I think the main influence was Rome and, of course,  by extension Greece.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Jewelsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Sol = solstice. 
         
         As I see it the influence was already there, it was given a title. It doesn't really matter who gave the title or what the title is.  Duality in essence is opposite ends of a spectrum - light and dark.  The Roman influence certainly played the dark card.  It worked and still is.  Hard to unravel the influence.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Sol was the unconquered sun.  Rome never died.

            replyreport
         2. 80

            Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Also just another note: I see light and dark or good and evil as harmony and discord. They are a sliding scale rather than polar opposites. But that's the Zen in me.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Jewelsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yep, Yin/Yang, Black/White, Hot/Cold, good/evil, male/female, sunrise/sunset-day/night.  The human journey  of inner alchemy to a reunion with our divine selves is the ability to integrate both polarities  and play on the tightrope, the interface, the central channel and be aware of it.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  so you are an alchemist?

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Jewelsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Technically I guess I am!  I'd never really applied the term to what I am doing but it is what I am doing.  Have to say this solve and resolve path is not easy   I'm heading off tomorrow for another meditation stint.

                     replyreport
6. 81

   earnestshubposted 13 years ago

   Jewels, do you believe that these beliefs are in any way similar to Jung's concepts of the shadow?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Jewelsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes.  In effect we wouldn't have a shadow side if it weren't for the influence of Ahriman/Devil/Satan/Prince of Darkness/The Dark Side/Darth Vadar! 
      
      And the unravelling of our shadow is really a delving into what is and what is not our truth.  We buy into the games and take them on as truths until we become aware that they are not. 
      
      Such a masterful game isn't it!

      replyreport
      1. 81

         earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         It certainly is.
         
         Funny after many years of delving on the inside for more sore bits of the shadow and having spent more than a few years immersed in it, when I see the words Darth Vadar, my mind automatically replaces Darth with Dark... in fact I had to edit this post. Some stuff sticks.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Jewelsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            hahaha, this has to be one of my favourite youtube vids.  It puts a different perspective. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LzE_qEv … /vs/vsMain

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I've been reading about the alchemists, and seems Jung was one.
      The alchemists were into this idea of opposing forces and much of their symbolism was incorporated into religion.  Am looking at writing a hub about it, but have to decide from what angle

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Jewelsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Internal Alchemy, where the real stone is.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            it was going to be one hub, but I'm having to split it into 4 - one about origins/general, & 1 each of others on how they influenced religion, science, medicine

            replyreport
7. 59

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   Joseph Campbell expressed the theory that in the times of popular Zoroastrianism, the west and east split, the east going the way of unitary one consciousness, while the west went the way of duality - good and evil.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      canadawest99posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Arguments about a devil are purely fantastical, but maybe you are in reverse arguing about a place better than this, which is the same as what religion says.   
      
      I admit we live in a pretty brutal place sometimes, killing to survive, greed, corruption and on top of that 99.99999999% of the universe is inhospitable to us and impossible to navigate -  maybe it is a hell.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         More like a prison. You get paroled when you can be trusted to behave yourself.

         replyreport
8. 58

   Tinaldposted 13 years ago

   God is neither good or evil.  He goes behond that.  When we spoke of Jesus we attest that He is good cause being the Word-God who said the law and punishment, He became flesh to take the punishment away to anyone who believe.  The evil one or devil is a mirage to create chaos in this world, but it is up to the believer to understand that once he/she believe in God everything else is relative .  Therefore, since only God has true power, the believer should not stray away from the path that he/she is on.

   replyreport
9. 59

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   "Therefore, since only God has true power"
   Therefore maybe you could define God?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      All that is in one entity.

      replyreport
10. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    "All that is in one entity."
    So is all one?

    replyreport
11. 60

    www.lookseenowposted 13 years ago

    Satan is the god of this world  Paul said so in (2 Corinthians 4:4) where he labeled him the god of this world.  As god he needs a front to hide his machinations so he can blind the minds of unbelievers to his status.  If he were not god, why did Jesus not correct his offer when the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, to show him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.  If he’s god, then it’s his to offer.  How did Jesus react, did he accept Satan’s offer?   
    
         “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.”   Jesus said:
         “Go away, Satan! It is written, ‘It is Jehovah you must worship, and to him alone I Will render sacred service.’” (Matthew 4:8-10)

    replyreport
    1. 80

       Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Well you might say the devil rather than satan. Satan is not a name, it is a title. In a lot of Hebrew writing it mentions the satans or the satan in conjunction with something god wants done. In the Daniel texts where it is said that satan forces him to number the Hebrews, there are other texts that say god demands it.
       
       Satan is a cop. The word means accuser. Nothing more. A satan lays charges just like the police do. Then the judge takes over. But satans often do other things for god like enforce law.
       
       There are some bad accusers that falsely accuse, but god sees through them. The satan in Job was likely an angel or a son of god, but not an evil one. It was the satan's job to test people for god, and in the Jewish tradition they usually wanted the person to pass the test.
       
       But Christianity made Satan into a name. He is a complete Christian fabrication.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          www.lookseenowposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Good thining, Slarty O'Brian, but If Satan is not a name, then why did Jesus address him as such?  For example see:
          
               “Go away, Satan! For it is written, . . . (Matthew 4:10)

          replyreport
          1. 80

             Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Read it as accuser.

             replyreport
12. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    "“All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.”
    So do you choose for the self or for the whole?

    replyreport
13. 62

    thirdmilleniumposted 13 years ago

    If God is Devil, who is devil?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       It's part of the ongoing evolution of the Abrahamic god. First, there was one god, then there was a god and his son, then there was the father, the son and the holy ghost; the trinity.
       
       So, now we have the "Quadrinity" - the father, the son, the holy ghost and the devil.

       replyreport
    2. 80

       Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       God. No difference. But Beelzedad is right. It should be at least a holy foursome. But it could be paired back to one again, remembering that  the god of the Jews was never seen as all good. He created both good and evil. We have to assume that means he created the conditions for them, as they are not things or people but rather: Intent.
       
       Doing intentional harm is evil intent, and there are a lot of places in the bible where god does intentional harm. There are other places he does intentional good. So we could say just from the Jewish perspective alone that he is both good and evil combined as one.

       replyreport
14. 81

    Jewelsposted 13 years ago

    It's not a Who.

    replyreport
15. 59

    Jeramiposted 13 years ago

    Your purpose to life is God ...  by what ever name you   foolishly want to call it.
    
       I think "To thynself be true" says it best  ... Lie to everybody else ;  that hurts a little.
    
      Lie to yourself ...  that hurts totaly !

    replyreport
16. 60

    Jonathan Jancoposted 13 years ago

    There is a rising belief that the physical world at large (I mean the Universe) is actually the fall described in Genesis, and that all living things are simply symbolic of the nature of their own spirit and that when we return to the spirit we are not judged but judge ourselves.

    replyreport