Posted on 10/22/2002 5:11:40 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood
It never ceases to amaze me that most Christians would criticize me for being an atheist, yet they will "celebrate" a macabre pagan holiday. They inculcate their children into the practice of it and feed them the most unhealthful things you could give a child to eat.
Likewise, many atheists criticize me for being a "right-winger." Most atheists are so caught up in their polemics, they have become nothing more than anti-Christians - or what I call the Religious Left (a collaboration of the Marxist religion, neo-pagan animal/tree/earth worshipper eco-fascists and general technophobes).
Why do you "celebrate" on certain "holidays," what are you celebrating, do you really know? Or have you been so lost in the conformity of it all to really take a look at what you partake in?
As you ponder this, two noted Christian philosophers support my secular argument...
Søren Kierkegaard from The Sickness Unto Death:
The fantastic is, of course, most closely related to the imagination [Phantasien], but the imagination is related in it’s turn to feeling, understanding, and will, so that a person’s feelings, understanding and will may be fantastic. Fantasy is, in general the medium of infinitization… (emphasis mine)
The fantastic is generally speaking what carries a person into the infinite in such a way that it only leads him away from himself and thus prevents him from coming back to himself.
Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan:
Part IV. Of the Kingdom of DarknessChap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.
[14] An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible: in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight, are only images; such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or refraction; or of the sun or stars by direct vision in the air; which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable, by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our imagination, and in our dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible.
[15] It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite: for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of spirits; but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.
[16] And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature.
As you think further, exactly what is Halloween?
Originally, All Hallows' Eve was one of the great fire festivals of Britain at the time of the Druids. In Scotland it was associated with the time when the spirits of the dead, the demons, witches, and sorcerers were usually active and propitious.
Paradoxically, All Hallows' Eve was also a night when young people performed magical rituals to determine their future marriage partners. The youth of the villages carried on with much merry-making and sensual revelry, but the older people took great care to safeguard their homes from the evil spirits, witches, and demons who had exceptional power that night...
Can you guess my source here???
[16] And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature.
The term resemblance as found in original post concerning idolatry...
<> Sir F's assertion remains unproven. The description relates to the pride of the K.O.T. not the "beauty" of Lucifer.
Now, it may be the case that you and the atheist think Lucifer is the most beautiful of God's creation. I don't. But it is the case that it has yet to be sourced in the Bible. <>
The Greeks called Set "Typhon," who was the war god assigned to Upper Egypt. This also represents another contravention to the "accepted" etymologies of words like "typhoon" in English, which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.
The Egyptian priest Manetho associated the Jews with the Hyksos and Moses with the Egyptian priest Osarsiph. It was at this time that the belief the Jews worshipped an ass – an animal holy to the Egyptian god Set was established. Both the Jews and the pagan Egyptians used the labels (i.e., Satan, Set, Seth, or "Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) to defame each other. How fitting that amidst this epic struggle and bloody conflict, the entity known as Satan was born into the World. Such conflict continued through the Maccabean period (with Antiochus Epiphanes), and continues into modern times on several fronts.
There is a recurring theme that alludes to the hostility between the pagan Egyptians and the Judaic. Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? The Jewish synod of rabbinical authority will deny that Satan even exists. This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word...
Thomas Hobbes, having been fluent in both Greek and Latin by age 9, has this to support my assertions in Leviathan:
Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.
[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy...
-
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia says:
"Satan [Heb., = adversary], in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,...
Paganism
Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism.
Compare these two examples you give and you get: Paganism = Satanism
Satan is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology.
I provided a reference. I mentioned there are varying views. I never indicated my own view. I think the point of whether Lucifer was the most beautiful creation is of little importace.
<> But you thought it important enough to provide an atheist with what you imagined was scripture that supported his assertion.<>
I was providing a reference for someone I do not know and in a discussion I was not following closely. He thanked me for the reference.
<>I suggest you go back and read your #167 post. It is ineluctable you were supporting the assertion of an atheist and it is also ineluctable you selected that scripture to prove his assertion.
<>Instead of incorrectly judging my post as a return to a path I forsook, you might think about thanking me for, correctly, characterising the attempted support you extended so that you can now back away from it.<>
Now, as a part of the new CG, let go of it with me.
<> You insert yourself into the action between me and an atheist I was challenging and you insert yourself on behalf of an atheist and you tell me to "let go of it?"<>
Your comment "you and the atheist" is a step back on the old path that you forsook.
<> My post about this subject had to do with the comments made by an atheist. You saw fit to jump into the conversation on his behalf. Your post was not applicable - it referenced the K.O.T. and had to do with his pride - the sin of Lucifer.
I stand by my post. It is factual and it was drafted and posted with dispassion. The fact remains you did see fit to assist an atheist in sourcing from the Bible. I am happy that both of you have failed to source from the Bible anything authoritative that supports the atheist's assertion.
I see you are trying to back away from that support. Good. But, you can't slough-off your assisting an atheist onto a false characterising of my actions. You have to account for your own actions. I am not gulty of anything regarding this matter<>
<> You let this compliment by the atheist stand. He knew you intended to support his assertion with this scripture and so it is reasonable to assume you agreed with the atheist.
Take responsibiliity for your own actions<>
<> I am unable to agree to a pact with one who says all our acts are kotex. On another thread you agreed with Mom's interpretation of Isaias 64:6 that all our acts are bloody rags; "Kotex" as mom defined it. That goes even for those of us Baptised and who are now incorportaed into the Family of God as adopted sons and daughters.
To my way of thinking, that renders your particpation in any pact nugatory<>
<> I am against Captial punishment - most times; however, in thi sinstance:)
You were asked to perform a dificult thank. Thank you. I generally agree with you and I won't press the point that post #167 does indeed support the atheist's contention that Lucifer is the mnost beautiful of God's creation. I can't think of any other reasn it would have been posted. Some guy sayd that Lucifer was the most beautiful...I say provbe it...steve thinks he does prove it with the post...
Other than that disagreement, I thank you for the effort...
Steve, I apologise for making negative inferences about your intent.<>
<> I am against Captial punishment - most times; however, in thi sinstance:)
You were asked to perform a dificult thank. Thank you. I generally agree with you and I won't press the point that post #167 does indeed support the atheist's contention that Lucifer is the mnost beautiful of God's creation. I can't think of any other reason it would have been posted. Some guy says that Lucifer was the most beautiful...I say prove it...steve thinks he does prove it with the post...
Other than that disagreement, I thank you for the effort...
Steve, I apologise for making negative inferences about your intent.<>
Didn't do your penance huh? :>)) You do not,like what GOD said not me. I, like all men ,thought at one time I could make myself righteous..I quoted to you the word of God ,you join most of the world in hating Gods words..no surprised
Was Paul Baptized when He wrote
Rom 3:10 according as it hath been written -- `There is none righteous, not even one;
Rom 3:11 There is none who is understanding, there is none who is seeking after God.
Rom 3:12 All did go out of the way, together they became unprofitable, there is none doing good, there is not even one.
Rom 3:13 A sepulchre opened [is] their throat; with their tongues they used deceit; poison of asps [is] under their lips.
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
Rom 3:15 Swift [are] their feet to shed blood.
Rom 3:16 Ruin and misery [are] in their ways.
Rom 3:17 And a way of peace they did not know.
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.'
Rom 3:19 And we have known that as many things as the law saith, to those in the law it doth speak, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may come under judgment to God;
Rom 3:20 wherefore by works of law shall no flesh be declared righteous before Him, for through law is a knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets,
Rom 3:22 and the righteousness of God [is] through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, -- for there is no difference,
Rom 3:23 for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God --
Rom 3:24 being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that [is] in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God --
Rom 3:26 for the shewing forth of His righteousness in the present time, for His being righteous, and declaring him righteous who [is] of the faith of Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where then [is] the boasting? it was excluded; by what law? of works? no, but by a law of faith:
Rom 3:28 therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law.
<P.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.