Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
Lilith is one of the jinn and demons of the jinn realm, and she is known by various names across different cultures. If you’ve noticed this, you can trace her through a simple thread—her legend. You’ll find that her stories are similar and intertwined, featuring the same planetary symbols and planetary incense. You’ll find that she is the same entity, though her forms vary depending solely on the types of plants and animals available in each region. However, you’ll find her to be the same. to her transcendent planet, Venus. Knowledge is a mosaic scattered throughout all books; gather them meticulously, and I have saved you half the journey.
your correct as far as her legends go. however I think she is more than what most consider like I said I see her as a goddess.and most likely she predates most of the currently recorded history. many of her legends even attested to such.
I do not believe for a moment that there are gods; the word “god” is a single term applied exclusively to the Creator. As for what has been mentioned regarding the myths of idols and entities, they all belong to a category called “taghut,” and the word “taghut” means “the arrogant one” or “the depraved one”—that is, one who has strayed from the right path and transgressed his limits. The important thing is that these entities exist and have an influence; they are all from the jinn, but they belong to the most powerful and widely followed sect. That is why they sought sovereignty and demanded worship—they are among the demons of sorcery—and, of course, they are ruled by the angels. This is what I know.
I do not believe for a moment that there are gods; the word “god” is a single term applied exclusively to the Creator. As for what has been mentioned regarding the myths of idols and entities, they all belong to a category called “taghut,” and the word “taghut” means “the arrogant one” or “the depraved one”—that is, one who has strayed from the right path and transgressed his limits. The important thing is that these entities exist and have an influence; they are all from the jinn, but they belong to the most powerful and widely followed sect. That is why they sought sovereignty and demanded worship—they are among the demons of sorcery—and, of course, they are ruled by the angels. This is what I know.
your model seems rather a blunt implement of understanding. There are components to the entities that could be called "gods", not all of them inherently demonic (or jinn, if that's your prefered nomenclature). Since all the names, faces and domains of all the gods belong to their creator and only his design can they ultimately serve, what even remains?
I do not believe for a moment that there are gods; the word “god” is a single term applied exclusively to the Creator. As for what has been mentioned regarding the myths of idols and entities, they all belong to a category called “taghut,” and the word “taghut” means “the arrogant one” or “the depraved one”—that is, one who has strayed from the right path and transgressed his limits. The important thing is that these entities exist and have an influence; they are all from the jinn, but they belong to the most powerful and widely followed sect. That is why they sought sovereignty and demanded worship—they are among the demons of sorcery—and, of course, they are ruled by the angels. This is what I know.
oh ok. I understand where your coming from however we have a fundamental difference in the way we see existence. i dont belive there is a overall creator is anything im a polytheist. as for the Abrahamic god I believe that it is the pretender the malignant force.
I appreciate you sharing all this with me it is very interesting.
oh ok. I understand where your coming from however we have a fundamental difference in the way we see existence. i dont belive there is a overall creator is anything im a polytheist. as for the Abrahamic god I believe that it is the pretender the malignant force.
I appreciate you sharing all this with me it is very interesting.
If you would excuse me interjecting, I'm always curious about the mechanics of those satanist-adjacent worldviews, if you don't mind me calling it that. What exactly is malice to you? What does make you find the abrahamic God malicious, exactly?
If you would excuse me interjecting, I'm always curious about the mechanics of those satanist-adjacent worldviews, if you don't mind me calling it that. What exactly is malice to you? What does make you find the abrahamic God malicious, exactly?
oh of course feel free np.
I dont exactly see myself that way but I understand how someone would think im Satanist-adjacent. I dont take any offense to it tho.
malice is the willful inflection of pain in all its form, distress.
their are a ton of specific reasons but to simplify things some ill give some a few examples.
we are all aware of what abusive or toxic traits are in relationships be it friends or lovers. well the Abrahamic god exemplifies all of that, not just one or two things but seriously most. it doesn't make sense to me to just excuse horrible hurtful behavior in any kind of relationship at all.
Then there was all the atrocities he himself caused.
He constantly throughout the works about him treats all his creations like play things, with no regards to how that being may feel. He calls that love?
Also if he omnipotent then he knowingly set into motion both falls of the angels, the ejection of Adam and Eve from the garden, the rise and fall of lucifer. he knew that they wpukd happe he set it all in motion the gaslighted all of them respectively.
the gender inequality really bothers me allot as well. women are treated horribly in all the holy books attributed to gods grace or however you want to say it.
to.me yaweh is a pretender, a parasite. an accidental creation that in its incomplete state consumes others so that it can feel whole. his first target being Baal.
despite how incredibly factually inaccurate the Bible is (I cannot speak for the Quran because I have yet to put in the work studying it to feel confident enough, however I can guess that it will be the same as ita brothers) its been taken so fucking literally. you can say that is the fault of its followers but where did they get that from? the entirety of the church untill very recently.
I hope that helps. if you have any specific questions im more than happy to discuss them.
oh of course feel free np.
I dont exactly see myself that way but I understand how someone would think im Satanist-adjacent. I dont take any offense to it tho.
malice is the willful inflection of pain in all its form, distress.
their are a ton of specific reasons but to simplify things some ill give some a few examples.
we are all aware of what abusive or toxic traits are in relationships be it friends or lovers. well the Abrahamic god exemplifies all of that, not just one or two things but seriously most. it doesn't make sense to me to just excuse horrible hurtful behavior in any kind of relationship at all.
Then there was all the atrocities he himself caused.
He constantly throughout the works about him treats all his creations like play things, with no regards to how that being may feel. He calls that love?
Also if he omnipotent then he knowingly set into motion both falls of the angels, the ejection of Adam and Eve from the garden, the rise and fall of lucifer. he knew that they wpukd happe he set it all in motion the gaslighted all of them respectively.
the gender inequality really bothers me allot as well. women are treated horribly in all the holy books attributed to gods grace or however you want to say it.
to.me yaweh is a pretender, a parasite. an accidental creation that in its incomplete state consumes others so that it can feel whole. his first target being Baal.
despite how incredibly factually inaccurate the Bible is (I cannot speak for the Quran because I have yet to put in the work studying it to feel confident enough, however I can guess that it will be the same as ita brothers) its been taken so fucking literally. you can say that is the fault of its followers but where did they get that from? the entirety of the church untill very recently.
I hope that helps. if you have any specific questions im more than happy to discuss them.
The tension between symbols, interpretations and meanings, names and characters is certainly interesting. I will resist the rather uncourteous urge to go sentence by sentence, I don't think I'd learn much this way. Apologies if this comes off as preachy, to reach across the spectrum of belief with accuracy is surprisingly difficult.
I empathise fully with your distaste at the entity you see Yahveh as - for what it's worth I agree that it's a pretender and parasite. I do also sympathise with the way you constructed this image, it's certainly consistent. It is, however, based on a reading of the Bible, and it's an abject failure of certain churches (US is global peak of lunacy when it comes to spiritual insight among Christians) to find themselves preaching what is in many way consistent with that reading.
Across the possible readings there exists, however, at least one that is, I believe, fully true without much semantic strain on the text that paints a Yahveh who is exactly what he claims to be.
What I wanted to say interests me here is that your moral objections against what you read as Yahveh are completely consistent with the moral character of the Yahveh as I read him.
The tension between symbols, interpretations and meanings, names and characters is certainly interesting. I will resist the rather uncourteous urge to go sentence by sentence, I don't think I'd learn much this way. Apologies if this comes off as preachy, to reach across the spectrum of belief with accuracy is surprisingly difficult.
I empathise fully with your distaste at the entity you see Yahveh as - for what it's worth I agree that it's a pretender and parasite. I do also sympathise with the way you constructed this image, it's certainly consistent. It is, however, based on a reading of the Bible, and it's an abject failure of certain churches (US is global peak of lunacy when it comes to spiritual insight among Christians) to find themselves preaching what is in many way consistent with that reading.
Across the possible readings there exists, however, at least one that is, I believe, fully true without much semantic strain on the text that paints a Yahveh who is exactly what he claims to be.
What I wanted to say interests me here is that your moral objections against what you read as Yahveh are completely consistent with the moral character of the Yahveh as I read him.
we can go line for line if you want really. I can pull references and give citations if you woukd like. I was just breaking down the ideas so it wasn't a ridiculously long post.
the only parts of Christianity I agree with at all are some of the gnostic ones. they themselves thing of yahweh as a parasite accidentally made by Sophia.
im sure there is a group that has distilled down "God" into only the best parts but that seems way to much like a battered spouse saying "you dont know them like I do! they arnt a bad person! if only you could see us when its just us."
im not saying that you are that way just that the denomination comes across that way.
also forgive all the Grammer and spelling errors im tired lol
I grew up in a non denominational christ church that was probably close to what you mentioned however it was always gross to me.
being in places or around stuff like that gives me a very sick feeling in my stomach.
we can go line for line if you want really. I can pull references and give citations if you woukd like. I was just breaking down the ideas so it wasn't a ridiculously long post.
the only parts of Christianity I agree with at all are some of the gnostic ones. they themselves thing of yahweh as a parasite accidentally made by Sophia.
im sure there is a group that has distilled down "God" into only the best parts but that seems way to much like a battered spouse saying "you dont know them like I do! they arnt a bad person! if only you could see us when its just us."
im not saying that you are that way just that the denomination comes across that way.
also forgive all the Grammer and spelling errors im tired lol
I grew up in a non denominational christ church that was probably close to what you mentioned however it was always gross to me.
being in places or around stuff like that gives me a very sick feeling in my stomach.
so what are your views?
Post automatically merged:
sorry I just saw this. I have no memory of what I gave it. I wish I did though.
Yeah, well, mainline Catholicism does a pretty good job with that, though it accidentally hides the good parts behind truly atrocious linguistic maneuvers because most priests have negligible understanding and the whole thing floats on what's likely the most virulent memetic architecture in the history of human thought, but that's I feel a tangent. I don't think I'm battered but thanks for the concern I guess.
As I'm typing this I realise the scale of this topic is kind of overwhelming so it just ended up a desperate attempt to weave some modicum of context. That's what happens when you try to spell out even relatively shallow arcana.
In this section I will use declarative language for my beliefs, for brevity.
Firstly we have to choose by what moral standard we want to judge God's actions. Your standard seems either emotive or hedonistic, so either what feels "bad" or "gross" is evil or causing suffering is evil. I especially reject the latter stance - suffering is just a neutral thing that exists, causing it can be (and in fact most often is) evil, but I don't accept it as a fundamental moral principle. There are worse things than pain, of any kind. I propose a following standard: the goal of God is providing the freedom to choose happiness to all the humans, and by that principle alone his actions should be judged.
Another thing is omnipotence and all that stuff. He experiences all the time simultaneously. He literally made it, the whole circle or whatever shape it is, not just the beginning. The thing with humans about "being made in his image" means that free choice, though experienced through the lens of particular moments in time, is really a part of this timeless creation of the universe. He haven't "knew" about it because there is no past for this foreknowledge to be in.
The stories with Lucifer, the apple incident, the tower of Babel and several others are Myths in the truest sense, they are abstracted, archetypal ways human actions play out across history. Interestingly most of them find inverted realisations in gospels.
Back to morality, nobody is consistently happy because everyone does things that harm themselves aka sin. For humans the only moral standard is to be truly happy. The problem is that humans have no idea what gives them happiness and once they get to know (Sermon on the Mountain) it turns out completely unattainable, hence (complicatedly) the Cross incident, and also the fact that God seems to tolerate the atrocious things his People do and even go along to a degree - from his (again, the Sermon) perspective your moral standards for judging ancient Israelites are only negligibly more civilised than the actions you (rightly) judge as disgusting.
This rather ugly loredump is, unfortunately, by no means exhaustive.
"Literally" is a stupid word, meaning is always symbol plus interpretation. "Naively" I like to call what majority of US protestants do.
And, if advice is not out of place, I think you'd find great value in trying to find out what the creature has taken.
