Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Don't twist things around, and you're even getting upvotes for it... and why "again"?
I'm not distorting the text; you're interpreting it in your own way. The psalm clearly states, without any commentary: "The language of the gods is the language of demons" (Old Church Slavonic). And where does it say "money, power, and so on"? Or have we gotten used to reading "between the lines"? In that case, the words are not perceived "between the lines" but literally. If I write your name and the word "idiot" next to it, will you read it "between the lines" or what? It's sophistry, guys... The text is what is written and read regularly in church services! And no one analyzes the meaning of a bunch of psalms based on what someone had in mind. Everything is clear and straightforward. Don't deceive yourselves and look at history; it confirms my words, not yours, if you agree with it, of course.
The Bible is not a fairy tale about a gingerbread man. It's not a book where the word "demon" necessarily refers to a wrinkled, hunched, and repulsive horned satyr. We need to separate symbolism from facts. Christians understand the phrase "gods of the nations" precisely as worldly, imaginary benefits that supposedly make a person happy. Silvanis;81464
And here's what about Satanists!... They believe that Judas did a good thing by betraying Jesus. And that Jesus himself asked to be betrayed. And he (Jesus) was crucified. And in doing so, human sins were redeemed (I don't remember exactly which sin, perhaps the original sin)...
But that's just a side note, since we're talking about the Bible.
And where there is good, and where there is evil - is a complex question, and almost unresolvable (for the general public), because everyone has their own rightness and their own perception of the world (it is still possible to find where good and where evil are for a specific person).
Satanists have a mess in their heads. IMHO
Бог есть любовь
SarumanStatistics
Registered:
Posts:677
Auto-translated
You don't need to be a Satanist to know what they believe, just as you don't need to be a Tolkien enthusiast to read The Lord of the Rings.
And where is Darwin's theory now? Even in school, they say that it is mostly incorrect, and Darwin himself admitted its inconsistency before his death.
Hitler took any more or less convincing and logical arguments from others and incorporated them into his ideology.
Regarding the question of Good and Evil, there is indeed subjectivity. When talking about hunting, it is true that people get Good (food) from hunting, and animals experience Evil (death). Burning progressive scientists during the Inquisition was considered good for most Catholics; they were firmly convinced that they were doing good, but that doesn't mean it was actually good. Each person judges through the prism of their own consciousness, so the good of a Christian and a Muslim is different; they have different consciousnesses.
In war, everyone has their own truth. Wars arise from the thirst for advantages and the desire to protect oneself. In modern consciousness, it is considered impolite even among the inhabitants of one's own country to say: "We are going to war for plunder," so things like preemptive strikes, the division of the world during the Cold War, and pseudo-searches for nuclear weapons appear.
You don't have to be a Satanist to know what they believe, just as you don't have to be a Tolkien fan to read The Lord of the Rings. And where is Darwin's theory now? Even in school, they say that it is mostly wrong, and Darwin himself admitted its inconsistency before his death. Hitler took any more or less convincing and logical arguments from others into his ideology. Regarding the question of Good and Evil, there is indeed subjectivity. When talking about hunting, it is true that people get Good (food) from hunting, and animals get Evil (death). Burning progressive scientists during the Inquisition was good for most Catholics; they were firmly convinced that they were doing good, but that doesn't mean it was actually good. Every person judges through the prism of their own consciousness, so the good of a Christian and a Muslim is different; they have different consciousness.
In war, everyone has their own truth. Wars arise from the desire for advantages and the desire to protect oneself. In modern consciousness, it is not considered beautiful even among the inhabitants of one's own country to say: "We are going to war for loot," so things like preemptive strikes, the division of the world in the Cold War, and pseudo-searches for nuclear weapons appear.
Hunting is not evil if a person hunts for food, not just to say, "Look how cool that deer fell!" Animals also hunt each other because they are hungry. Burning progressive scientists and innocent women and men did not bring any pleasure to Catholics. I have always been amused by the naive idea of Catholic priests in the Middle Ages: "Uuuuh, die, heretic!" - plus all this is said with such a nasty face - :smile24: :smile16: :smile40: The inquisitors perfectly understood that they were committing the sin of murder, but if a person is a "servant of the devil," there is nothing to be done. Moreover, even if they considered their actions to be good, that does not mean that it is good; Berserk has already said this, and I think he said it more than once. War is always evil. Evil is committed by those who attack another territory for whatever reason, because they primarily go to kill people. After all, no one among the people (including the soldiers) wants to fight each other, especially "for loot and territory," so the leaders brainwash them, saying that that country is an Empire of Evil! There are bears running around the Kremlin from the forest and back! They store our reserve oil supplies there, and they are not giving them to us! Aren't they an empire of evil? The people *scratching their heads*: Well, that's true, what the hell? That's how it all begins:)
Бог есть любовь
Воин ВерескаStatistics
Registered:
Posts:23
Auto-translated
In my opinion, there is neither Good nor Evil. Every person carries both within their soul, and each person decides which path to take. And if what they do is evil to others, it is good for them. One simply needs to live not according to what they "want," but according to what they "need," to live according to their heart and not according to their mind or momentary feelings... and a person only becomes a person when they are sad and feel bad. This is not my original thought. But this is just my IMHO; I'm not trying to convert anyone to my "beliefs."
The Bible is not a fairy tale about a gingerbread man. It's not a book where the word "demon" necessarily refers to a shriveled, hunched, and repulsive horned satyr. One must separate symbolism from facts. Christians understand the phrase "the gods of the nations" as earthly, illusory benefits that supposedly make a person happy.
Okay, I'll bring this phrase up again: "The gods of the nations are demons, but the Lord created the heavens." Well, I think now it's definitely "not a fairy tale about a gingerbread man." Because there's context: their gods (whom they worship) are demons, and our God (whom we worship) is the creator of heaven (and everything else, of course). How can one understand from this that it's about some kind of benefits? Everything is clear and distinct. The context is a comparison of worship. Whom do "the nations" worship, and whom do we worship? For pagans, the object of worship is not earthly benefits as such, but gods that personify various aspects of human life, elements, etc., that is, everything that is included in the concept of pagan cult. Yes, there are gods of wealth, power, good, and evil. This is what the psalm has in mind, and not a moral worship of "passions." Don't turn David into a medieval scholastic theologian. And how Christians understand this and other phrases of scripture can be seen from history. I think no comment is needed. In general, the Bible develops two fundamentally opposite qualities in a person: I am a sinner, but I am righteous. The question arises: so, am I a sinner or righteous? If I am a sinner, then stop sinning to be righteous. But no, I can't - original sin prevents me (we are already justifying ourselves), but I believe in the true and righteous God who created heaven and earth, and at the same time showed me that I am a sinner. Well, if I can't help but sin, then at least I will be comforted by the promised reward in heaven and will weepingly repent of all the sins that I will still commit, because I cannot help but sin (original sin does not allow it). But I believe in the true and righteous God who created heaven and earth... and so on in a circle. In essence, it turns out to be a "fairy tale about a gingerbread man."
Настоящие герои - не те, пред кем мы преклоняемся, а те, кого мы оплевываем...[/COLOR] ----------------------------- "So much has gone and little is new"
Okay, I'll rephrase that: "The gods of the people are demons, but the Lord created the heavens." Well, I think now it's definitely "not a tale about the Gingerbread Man." Because there's context: their gods (who they worship) are demons, and our God (who we worship) is the creator of heaven (and everything else, of course). How can you conclude from this that it's about some kind of benefits? Everything is clear and precise. It's about comparing worship. Who do "the people" worship, and who do we worship? For pagans, the object of worship is not earthly benefits as such, but gods that embody various aspects of human life, elements, etc., that is, everything that is included in the concept of pagan cult. Yes, there are gods of wealth, power, good, and evil. This is what the psalm has in mind, and not moral worship of "passions." Don't turn David into a medieval scholastic theologian. And how Christians understand this and other phrases from scripture can be seen from history. I think, no comment is needed. In general, the Bible develops two opposite qualities in a person: I am sinful, but I am righteous. The question arises: so, am I sinful or righteous? If I am sinful, then stop sinning to be righteous. But no, I can't - original sin prevents me (we are already justifying ourselves), but I believe in the true and righteous God who created heaven and earth, and at the same time showed me that I am sinful. Well, if I can't help but sin, then at least I will be comforted by the promised reward in heaven and will weepingly repent of all the sins that I will still commit, because I cannot help but sin (original sin does not allow it). But I believe in the true and righteous God who created heaven and earth... and so on in a circle. In essence, it turns out to be a "tale about the Gingerbread Man."
Everyone understands to the extent of their own corruption. If this is a call for a crusade for you, it's your business. There is no propaganda here. Yes, in Christianity, religions that do not recognize Christ are from the devil, but give me a direct quote that says: "Burn the heretics, destroy the mutants and other evil that does not recognize our faith":)
And original sin does not prevent one from not sinning. Do you think the saints were born sinless? HA! Ha, and one more HA! Nikolai the Miracle-Worker, Seraphim of Sarov, and even the twelve apostles, they all had this original sin - and nothing! Now, they are watching over us from Paradise. And, believe it or not, they pray for us. And repentance is not forgiven if it is not sincere. The trick of "I will repent, and then I will start sinning again, then I will repent again and be clean" does not work here. Yes, there are people (and there are many of them) who still sin, but sin is like a drug: pleasant to the taste and you get incredibly addicted to it very quickly. Everyone, sooner or later, tries it, many struggle with their addiction, some overcome it. The rest, blaming themselves for their weakness of spirit, go to confession again, hoping that this time they will be able to defeat the demon within themselves. And they succeed! But only after many years, in old age, so that later they can be eternally young (or gray-haired again, depending on what a person likes more) and enjoy the blessings of Paradise. There is no tale about the Gingerbread Man here, don't blaspheme (Blasphemy is blasphemy against God).
Бог есть любовь
GanymedStatistics
Registered:
Posts:306
Auto-translated
I say it once more: DO NOT ATTRIBUTE TO GOD THAT WHICH YOU HAVE COME TO BELIEVE YOURSELF. I am not disputing your faith in "saints," "paradise," and all the rest. If you believe in it, that is your business. Only I have a question: have you seen even one saint in your life? Not by appearance, but someone who had it written on them that they were a "saint" and had passed the "fitness test for paradise." I consider the words of the apostle Paul to be correct: "where there is no law, there is no sin." These words have their own context (I do not deny this), but in essence, their meaning is much broader—a sinner is one who considers themselves a sinner, because he who does not consider himself a sinner lives not by biblical law, but by another law. At the same time, he may believe in God and not OFFEND Him in any way. It is simply that you associate God with a biblical character, while others do not. That is all. And as for what happens after death—only God knows. No one else.
Настоящие герои - не те, пред кем мы преклоняемся, а те, кого мы оплевываем...[/COLOR] ----------------------------- "So much has gone and little is new"
David Bowie
БерсеркStatistics
Registered:
Posts:68
Auto-translated
Quote: "You simply need to live not as you "want," but as you "need" to – live according to your heart, not according to your mind or momentary feelings..."
The author contradicts himself... "Need" – you need money. You need power. A strange principle. To live according to your heart (feelings), and not according to your mind (logic, which always prevails) or momentary feelings – it's vague... Without strict guidelines, you're not far from a pit. Regardless of your faith or worldview.
I'm saying it again: DON'T ATTRIBUTE TO GOD WHAT YOU YOURSELF BELIEVE. I'm not disputing your faith in "saints," "paradise," and all that. If you believe in it, that's your business. But I have a question: have you ever actually seen a saint in your life? Not just someone who looks like one, but someone who has a label saying "saint" and has "passed the test for suitability for paradise." I think the words of the Apostle Paul are correct: "where there is no law, there is no transgression." These words have their context (I'm not denying that), but essentially, their meaning is much broader: the one who considers himself a sinner is sinful, because the one who does not consider himself a sinner lives not according to the biblical law, but according to another law. At the same time, he may believe in God and not OFFEND him in any way. You simply associate God with a biblical character, while others do not. That's all. What will happen after death, only God knows. No one else.
Are you referring to Jesus when you say "biblical character"? The son of God and one of his hypostases? God is the Trinity, and Jesus is part of this Trinity. He's not just a biblical "character"; he's a historical figure and the Son of God – how can you not attribute him to God? Just don't impose your own meaning on the Bible if you haven't even studied it properly.
Quote: "You just need to live not as you "want," but as you "need to," live according to your heart, not according to your mind or fleeting feelings..."
The author contradicts himself... "Need" - you need money. You need power. That's a strange principle. To live according to your heart (feelings), and not according to your mind (logic, which always prevails) or fleeting feelings - it's vague... Without strict guidelines, you're not far from the abyss. Regardless of faith or worldview.
I'm not contradicting myself)))"Need" to listen to your heart, that's how it should be said. Have you ever wanted to lie, steal, or kill with your soul, not with your mind? With your soul? I doubt it. Money, power... these are your personal desires - selfishness, I apologize for being so direct. Everyone has them. But would you take power if you knew that for it, half the world's population would die? I wouldn't, and that's what my heart tells me to do. I want something, but I won't take it if it harms someone... Without strict guidelines, you're not far from the abyss... Hmm, I'll say this: give me an example of a strict guideline that you yourself follow.
Nowizard
