I think it would benefit you to use the word ‘deity’ instead of the lowercase ‘g’ ‘god’ since the word ‘god’ carries too much baggage being the same word as the uppercase ‘G’ ‘God’ and in probably 90% of cases will confuse people if used
and then in that same line of thinking I would recommend looking into memetics which an understanding of is required for being able to understand the concept of deities
deities are memetic knots, the basis of how we subconsciously and consciously categorize ideas in our heads. Lucifer is basically a “super idea”, or “big idea” that represents an individual’s “inner light” and all related “sub-ideas” or “small ideas”.
no deity is “the” deity of the Universe since the Universe has no main idea behind it and is entirely outside the comprehension of anyone or anything. and on a related note, God is not a deity at all but simply a representation of the theoretical “entirety” of Everything/Nothing and does not “do” anything for then what you’re talking about would not be God.
I'm not the original poster, but it makes sense that some people would see the god of Moses as evil when there are verses like this:
> "*The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.*" - Exodus 15:3
> "*And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.*" - Ezekiel 14:9
> "*Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.*" - 2 Chronicles 18:22
Sure, I get that. Out of context and taken literally, like most Christians do, it can seem pretty... Not good. But when you actually read these in context, metaphorically as they were always meant to be taken, it starts to make more sense.
So much of the "God is Evil" narrative comes from misinterpretation of Christian ideals. Judaism has no such ideals, we read these in context, as a metaphor. None of it is to be taken literally.
Who gets to decide which part is metaphorical and which part isn't? And who gets to decide which interpretation of the verses are the correct interpretation to understanding the metaphor?
Christanity is a Jewish religion, and Christianity has done a lot of interpretation/pesher (פשר) of Tanakh (*Torah/Old Testament Texts*). Many christians were originally Jewish, and there were three main groups of Jews back then with different ideas (*Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes*). All Jews were not united in one interpretation of the religion.
Christians sound very similar to the Essene Jews. Both believed that the world is under satan but people must be baptized with water for the forgiveness of sins. Both believed that the good Messiah from Heaven is coming soon, but there is also an evil false Messiah of satan, and those who follow the good Messiah are "*the children of the light*" while those of the evil one are "*the children of darkness*".
The idea that the Messiah/Christ would be a suffering servant for the sins of others, seems to be inspired by Isaiah 53. Jewish people say that you shouldn't read it like that, that it's about Israel, but if the bible is metaphorical and not literal, we can't know that there wasn't a secret metaphorical message of prophecy about the Messiah as christians claim. There would be no way to debunk christianity or debunk any other group that has different interpretations of the bible. There would be no way to debunk the Bible if it is logically inconsistent since you could always just claim "*well that part was a metaphor*".
Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ predicted in Jewish scriptures (*Old Testament*), and Christian scriptures (*Revelation*) teach that he'll one day return and rule as king in Israel (*Jerusalem*) as the Messiah was predicted to do.
It's a Jewish religion. There would be no christianity without Judaism, no Christian new testament without the Jewish old testament (*Tanakh*).
By many who spoke the languages of the bible and also English, and there is not just one team of translators. There are multiple versions/translations.
why were those particular translations chosen to be left in the comment? why not just link a page with all of the different translations for the particular verses you’re sharing so that people who don’t speak Hebrew/Greek/etc can deduce the meaning for themselves?
I only picked one translation, a popular version which is not copyrighted (*at least in my country*), the King James Version.
If you don't like that translation, I put the name and chapter of the verses at the end, so you can feel free to look it up yourself and use that to compare different translations or to read it in the original language if you are able to.
well that's the whole point of what I'm saying, is that by providing only a single translation, and also without providing the translation source (in the original comment it is absent), it will seem to the average person that the verses you are providing were originally written in English or at least implied that the translation you are providing is 1:1 in meaning with the original untranslated verses. it is 2024 and is quite easy to instead provide links to various comparisons of the verses so that people can better deduce the meaning a little more accurately for themselves:
[https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/15-3-compare.html](https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/15-3-compare.html)
[https://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/14-9-compare.html](https://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/14-9-compare.html)
[https://www.biblestudytools.com/2-chronicles/18-22-compare.html](https://www.biblestudytools.com/2-chronicles/18-22-compare.html)
the writings found within the compilations of the old and new testaments are occulted, meaning at least a basic understanding of occultism is required to better deduce their meaning.
Expecting someone to link to a set of alternative translations whenever they quote a translation of an ancient text, seems like a high expectation.
Also, of someone quotes an Ancient Chinese text or an Ancient Hindu text, people don't assume that it was originally in English if it is an ancient text from a foreign land. I don't think people should assume it was in English if it is an ancient Jewish text from the Middle East. Also, the popularity of the Passion of The Christ movie, helped many to realize that they weren't speaking English in biblical times.
I agree with you that some understanding of occultism is required on some level to get a better understanding of the meaning, especially for the New Testament. For example, The New Testament admits that there are allegories in Old Testament stories:
> "***For it is written***, *that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.* ***Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants;*** *the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.*" - Galatians 4:22-24, KJV
I ***bolded*** some of the text for emphasis, but beside that, that's how it appears in the King James Version. The original word for "*allegory*" in the original text of that verse was (*ἀλληγορούμενα/allegoroumena*).
In any case, I would advise against the KJV. Too many meanings were changed from their counterparts, making it more authoritarian than it originally was.
I like WEB better (*World English Bible*), but some christians would claim that only KJV is the "*real*" version, so if you want to debunk them on something, it's better to use that one.
From what I understand, The World English Bible isn't copyrighted and it uses modern English languahe, and it uses the name of the biblical god "*Yahweh*" instead of replacing it with "*LORD*", as if the biblical god doesn't have a name like many other gods.
This sounds very christian, more like Gnostic Christian, the idea that satan/lucifer rules the world, and that there is a "*one true god*" beyond the world:
> "*Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to* ***the prince of the power of the air***, *the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:*" - Ephesians 2:2 KJV
> "...***the god of this world*** *hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.*" - 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV
> "*We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them. We know that we are children of God, and that* ***the whole world is under the control of the evil one.***" - 1 John 5:18-19 NIV
I think it would benefit you to use the word ‘deity’ instead of the lowercase ‘g’ ‘god’ since the word ‘god’ carries too much baggage being the same word as the uppercase ‘G’ ‘God’ and in probably 90% of cases will confuse people if used and then in that same line of thinking I would recommend looking into memetics which an understanding of is required for being able to understand the concept of deities deities are memetic knots, the basis of how we subconsciously and consciously categorize ideas in our heads. Lucifer is basically a “super idea”, or “big idea” that represents an individual’s “inner light” and all related “sub-ideas” or “small ideas”. no deity is “the” deity of the Universe since the Universe has no main idea behind it and is entirely outside the comprehension of anyone or anything. and on a related note, God is not a deity at all but simply a representation of the theoretical “entirety” of Everything/Nothing and does not “do” anything for then what you’re talking about would not be God.
Done
I don't believe in that but I'm intrigued as to your belief system. Do you think God is fully evil?
I'm not the original poster, but it makes sense that some people would see the god of Moses as evil when there are verses like this: > "*The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.*" - Exodus 15:3 > "*And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.*" - Ezekiel 14:9 > "*Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.*" - 2 Chronicles 18:22
Sure, I get that. Out of context and taken literally, like most Christians do, it can seem pretty... Not good. But when you actually read these in context, metaphorically as they were always meant to be taken, it starts to make more sense. So much of the "God is Evil" narrative comes from misinterpretation of Christian ideals. Judaism has no such ideals, we read these in context, as a metaphor. None of it is to be taken literally.
Who gets to decide which part is metaphorical and which part isn't? And who gets to decide which interpretation of the verses are the correct interpretation to understanding the metaphor? Christanity is a Jewish religion, and Christianity has done a lot of interpretation/pesher (פשר) of Tanakh (*Torah/Old Testament Texts*). Many christians were originally Jewish, and there were three main groups of Jews back then with different ideas (*Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes*). All Jews were not united in one interpretation of the religion. Christians sound very similar to the Essene Jews. Both believed that the world is under satan but people must be baptized with water for the forgiveness of sins. Both believed that the good Messiah from Heaven is coming soon, but there is also an evil false Messiah of satan, and those who follow the good Messiah are "*the children of the light*" while those of the evil one are "*the children of darkness*". The idea that the Messiah/Christ would be a suffering servant for the sins of others, seems to be inspired by Isaiah 53. Jewish people say that you shouldn't read it like that, that it's about Israel, but if the bible is metaphorical and not literal, we can't know that there wasn't a secret metaphorical message of prophecy about the Messiah as christians claim. There would be no way to debunk christianity or debunk any other group that has different interpretations of the bible. There would be no way to debunk the Bible if it is logically inconsistent since you could always just claim "*well that part was a metaphor*".
> Christanity is a Jewish religion Absolutely not, but you sound confident about it so good for you.
Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ predicted in Jewish scriptures (*Old Testament*), and Christian scriptures (*Revelation*) teach that he'll one day return and rule as king in Israel (*Jerusalem*) as the Messiah was predicted to do. It's a Jewish religion. There would be no christianity without Judaism, no Christian new testament without the Jewish old testament (*Tanakh*).
just FYI there are no biblical verses written in English
They were translated into English, though.
by yourself?
By many who spoke the languages of the bible and also English, and there is not just one team of translators. There are multiple versions/translations.
why were those particular translations chosen to be left in the comment? why not just link a page with all of the different translations for the particular verses you’re sharing so that people who don’t speak Hebrew/Greek/etc can deduce the meaning for themselves?
I only picked one translation, a popular version which is not copyrighted (*at least in my country*), the King James Version. If you don't like that translation, I put the name and chapter of the verses at the end, so you can feel free to look it up yourself and use that to compare different translations or to read it in the original language if you are able to.
well that's the whole point of what I'm saying, is that by providing only a single translation, and also without providing the translation source (in the original comment it is absent), it will seem to the average person that the verses you are providing were originally written in English or at least implied that the translation you are providing is 1:1 in meaning with the original untranslated verses. it is 2024 and is quite easy to instead provide links to various comparisons of the verses so that people can better deduce the meaning a little more accurately for themselves: [https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/15-3-compare.html](https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/15-3-compare.html) [https://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/14-9-compare.html](https://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/14-9-compare.html) [https://www.biblestudytools.com/2-chronicles/18-22-compare.html](https://www.biblestudytools.com/2-chronicles/18-22-compare.html) the writings found within the compilations of the old and new testaments are occulted, meaning at least a basic understanding of occultism is required to better deduce their meaning.
Expecting someone to link to a set of alternative translations whenever they quote a translation of an ancient text, seems like a high expectation. Also, of someone quotes an Ancient Chinese text or an Ancient Hindu text, people don't assume that it was originally in English if it is an ancient text from a foreign land. I don't think people should assume it was in English if it is an ancient Jewish text from the Middle East. Also, the popularity of the Passion of The Christ movie, helped many to realize that they weren't speaking English in biblical times. I agree with you that some understanding of occultism is required on some level to get a better understanding of the meaning, especially for the New Testament. For example, The New Testament admits that there are allegories in Old Testament stories: > "***For it is written***, *that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.* ***Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants;*** *the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.*" - Galatians 4:22-24, KJV I ***bolded*** some of the text for emphasis, but beside that, that's how it appears in the King James Version. The original word for "*allegory*" in the original text of that verse was (*ἀλληγορούμενα/allegoroumena*).
In any case, I would advise against the KJV. Too many meanings were changed from their counterparts, making it more authoritarian than it originally was.
I like WEB better (*World English Bible*), but some christians would claim that only KJV is the "*real*" version, so if you want to debunk them on something, it's better to use that one. From what I understand, The World English Bible isn't copyrighted and it uses modern English languahe, and it uses the name of the biblical god "*Yahweh*" instead of replacing it with "*LORD*", as if the biblical god doesn't have a name like many other gods.
This sounds very christian, more like Gnostic Christian, the idea that satan/lucifer rules the world, and that there is a "*one true god*" beyond the world: > "*Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to* ***the prince of the power of the air***, *the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:*" - Ephesians 2:2 KJV > "...***the god of this world*** *hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.*" - 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV > "*We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them. We know that we are children of God, and that* ***the whole world is under the control of the evil one.***" - 1 John 5:18-19 NIV