Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[penguinofhonor]

Interestingly, NIV does not use Lucifer's name in that passage or mention Lucifer anywhere else in its text.

All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
    along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
    and worms cover you.
How you have fallen from heaven,
    morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
    you who once laid low the nations!

[Frumple]

Lucifer's just a translation corruption of morning star (which is in that passage). That's literally all the word was, until it got shanghai'd into the Adversarial katamari ball. It was never really a name proper. People just started capitalizing it for... I'unno, it's a sexy word I guess. Good enough reason, I suppose...

Just like Satan isn't actually a name that's in the original translation. It's all adversary and opposer and whatnot. Non-human bad guys aren't actually named very often in the canon texts, so far as I can recall.

[TempAcc]

Yep, both names have been used erroneously for ages due to the King James bible and translations that derived from it. That doesnt exactly mean there isn't a rather defined, named figure of an adversary in christianity/judaism, altough those definitions often come from apocryphal texts, like the book of enoch that mentions the grigori/watchers IE Azazel, the leader of the watchers who betrayed God and ended up creating the nephilim.

[Orange Wizard]

KJV sounds the coolest, though. That means it must be the best.

[TD1]

I'm currently writing an essay on life after death, and this occurred to me:

There is a field, blooming in places, mediocre in some, and yet more parts barren. There is a river, and a mist conceals the other side. There is one bridge, and it is tall and dark, with brooding turrets and rough stonework. The river below hurls itself against its supports before it seeths on past.

Some people claim that on the other side of the unappealing bridge, there is a field wherein the grass is always green and blooming, and all the folk are friendly and good. Birds sing, flowers grow, and all the days are sunny. Those who live in the most barren parts of the field seem to be the ones who hold this belief most closely, and have are eager to cross the foreboding bridge across which noone had ever returned.

Why would anyone continue in such a belief? (Not condescension, genuinely bemused.)

[Frumple]

*shrugs* Can't be worse than what's on this side, eh wot.

I mean, it can, but it feels better to think otherwise. Add on a component where you (think you) actually have a means of influencing that and you can get a nice bit of fervor going. Especially after the sunk cost fallacy gets rolling.

[andrea]

also, it is important to add to your bridge analogy the fact that everyone gets eventually pushed through the bridge anyway.
If you have to cross it, might as well hope for something good on the other side.

[Rolan7]

Why would anyone continue in such a belief? (Not condescension, genuinely bemused.)

I don't think this is what you meant, but...  It almost sounds like you're asking why someone wouldn't cross the bridge as soon as possible, if they believed.
Of course, Christianity (and probably most other religions?) expressly forbid that.  It feels like one of the more artificial laws, but I have an uncommon opinion on suicide.  Thanks to all the religions which made it taboo, so their adherents wouldn't off themselves (except for the cause).

[TD1]

Poor wording, sorry.

What I meant was, why would they believe in a grass is greener approach when absolutely every thing suggests otherwise.

[Frumple]

... nothing suggests anything. There's mist. There's a bridge. No visibility on the other side. Might not even be an other side. After the mist could be a sheer drop into oblivion. No way of telling.

Beyond that, why not? If you have no way of confirming, and it in no way has demonstrable effect on you on this side of the river, why not believe the other side is booze rainbows and unicorn orgies? It makes for a happier bridgebed, probably. Measure of comfort for the unpassed, too. Uncle's with uncomfortable equine frolicking now, and too drunk to care.

[TempAcc]

Why would anyone continue in such a belief? (Not condescension, genuinely bemused.)

I don't think this is what you meant, but...  It almost sounds like you're asking why someone wouldn't cross the bridge as soon as possible, if they believed.
Of course, Christianity (and probably most other religions?) expressly forbid that.  It feels like one of the more artificial laws, but I have an uncommon opinion on suicide.  Thanks to all the religions which made it taboo, so their adherents wouldn't off themselves (except for the cause).

There's an actual reason for it tho. When adam and eve ate of the tree of knowledge, God condemned them to suffer the pains of mortal life and to suffer from diseases and grow old and die and etc. But even though they became mortal through their own actions, their life was still given by God, so its unlawful that they would willingly deprive themselves of it.

Other religions have better reasons for it, but thats what the abrahamic religions use.

And on topic: just as Frumple said, nothing in that depiction actualy suggests anything special in regards to what may be on the other side of the bridge, other then no one has ever returned. This might be because there's manbearpigs on the other side, or because theres heaven on the other side. Nothing specifically sugests a necessarily negative outcome for crossing it.

[Helgoland]

Yeah, as far as the Church is concerned, suicide is just a particular form of murder, which is explicitly forbidden.

[Rolan7]

Hm, thanks for the explanation.  I didn't know.

[Helgoland]

Hey, it's also an Obvious Rule Fix - it's just that they've found a fairly good justification

Consider this: Killing babies before they have a chance to sin is the ultimate good deed, since you accept eternal torment to allow them to go to heaven...
E: And now I've been reminded of these things...

[Orange Wizard]

Consider this: Killing babies before they have a chance to sin is the ultimate good deed, since you accept eternal torment to allow them to go to heaven...
E: And now I've been reminded of these things...

That's horrifying.

The trees are pretty bad, too.