What religion/faith are you?
- Thread starter PhaserLightShow
- Start date
That would make for a fun movie scene.
„Now where is my starship?!“
Those are all books of the Bible. https://www.biblestudytools.com/books-of-the-bible/
More details can be found here for those interested. See especially the sections Hebrew Bible and Judaism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan
Me too. I've found valuable spiritual insights in works by Sci-Fi writers (haven't read many mathematicians
).
I know. "Samael" is not from the Bible. I was agreeing about Job, while mentioning a couple other Biblical sources.Those are all books of the Bible. https://www.biblestudytools.com/books-of-the-bible/
More details can be found here for those interested. See especially the sections Hebrew Bible and Judaism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan
Me too. I've found valuable spiritual insights in works by Sci-Fi writers (haven't read many mathematicians
I believe that would fully happen.
Ah! Sorry, I misunderstood you!
It's easy to get confused on this, as some Talmudic scholars have considered Samael and Ha-Satan to be the same entity. Also, there are translations, changes over time, and plain old differing opinions.
Samael (Hebrew: 'Venom of God, Poison of God' or 'Blindness of God, Left Hand of God') is an archangel in Talmudic and post-Talmudic lore; a figure who is the accuser (Ha-Satan), seducer, and destroyer (Mashhit).
He is considered in Talmudic texts to be a member of the heavenly host with often grim and destructive duties. One of Samael's greatest roles in Jewish lore is that of the main angel of death and the head of satans. Although he condones the sins of man, he remains one of God's servants. He appears frequently in the story of Garden of Eden and engineered the fall of Adam and Eve with a snake in writings during the Second Temple period.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael
The original Hebrew term śāṭān is a generic noun meaning "accuser" or "adversary", which is used throughout the Hebrew Bible to refer to ordinary human adversaries, as well as a specific supernatural entity. The word is derived from a verb meaning primarily "to obstruct, oppose". When it is used without the definite article (simply satan), the word can refer to any accuser, but when it is used with the definite article (ha-satan), it usually refers specifically to the heavenly accuser: the satan.
The word with the definite article Ha-Satan occurs 17 times in the Masoretic Text, in two books of the Hebrew Bible: Job ch. 1–2 (14×) and Zechariah 3:1–2 (3×). It is translated in English bibles mostly as 'Satan' (18x in Book of Job, I Books of Chronicles and Book of Zechariah).
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Hebrew_Bible
For even *more* confusion: https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13219-satan
Nice write up. I love Hebrew so much. Job is probably one of the most interesting of the Writings books.
Yes and no. Like most of this stuff, it's more complicated than that. With translations, changes over time, and the influences of other cultures, there aren't many straightforward answers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell
Right now, I wish my 2 Religious Studies majors were on this board.
No need to apologize. Thank you for adding insights from a variety of angles.
Yes and no. Like most of this stuff, it's more complicated than that. With translations, changes over time, and the influences of other cultures, there aren't many straightforward answers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell
Right now, I wish my 2 Religious Studies majors were on this board.
To add to the complexity not every book written was put into the bible..... Some books were left out so why'd they do that?
A book about God doesn't get put into the Bible just because of the topic. Modern books about Jesus don't have any more authority than random books about Jesus in ancient times. The books that were included were by those who heard Him, who were given authority by Christ. It's still possible to read plenty of the random ones, if you'd like, but having read many of them myself, I believe they can't compete with the authentic Word.
The short answer is... probably lots of different reasons as the Council hashed it out back in 300-something. The longer answer requires looking up the Council of Nicea (who did the initial choosing for the Church back when there was just one) and looking up who choose the books used in Judaism (coz I have no idea). But I don't have time right now.
no way
an atheist as every theist claims to have an answer to a question we can't really comprehend:
is there a god?
theist: yes, mine
atheist: nope
the only reasonable answer is
how the hell would i know
the idea that agnostics are atheists who just lack the guts to confess it is utter nonsense
that's why i call each and every religion on sale a fraud but i still don't know whether there's a god - i think rather not, but i don't know that for sure.
count me as an agnostic
Not so. That's a fairly common misunderstanding.
If you ask me "do you believe in the tooth fairy?" and I say that I don't, no one is going to assume that I "claim to have an answer to a question we can't comprehend."
In fact, I'm simply saying that I don't believe in a thing for which there's no evidence and no reason to believe.
I'm not a fan of strident atheism; I find proselytizers for the notion that "a world without belief in gods would be better" almost as dreary as I find any other evangelists.
But as far as I'm concerned, belief in God falls into the category of Extraordinary Claims That Require Extraordinary Evidence. I don't have to be confident that I understand the cosmos on some fundamental level in order to reasonably decline to accept the claims of religion.
If you need to sort people into boxes, this puts me in the box marked "atheist."
an atheist can't proove his 'knowledge' no more that any 'theist', so that means extraordinary evidence for both of them
No it doesn't. That's absurd.
The burden of proof is on the person making a claim.
Atheism does not require making a claim without evidence. It's simply declining to accept an extraordinary claim.
I can see that you're probably not going to get the difference, simple as it is, because you're disinclined to understand it. You've chosen your hill. You're comfortable there.
So I'll move on, now.
This is why there's a distinction between positive and negative atheism.
I'm an atheist. My only knowledge pertaining to this is that I lack a belief in "God". Why would I need extraordinary evidence to show that?
Similar threads
