I have come up with an idea that is beyond brilliant, and I like to call it "Magical Science Religion" So, the idea behind my novel is that Lucifer and Jeff, or whatever his name was, fell from "heaven" i.e. got cast out of another planet, to "hell", which is yet another planet that they got sent to, as a result of a failed coup. Please read on, because no one has ever come up with this before, but some of the Lucifer and Jeff people planted themselves on Earth. Oooh, so does that mean that we are we evil incarnate? Is there original sin? No, because they were just on the losing side of the battle! Deep huh, bet you never thought the bible could be that profound. Now we find ourselves siding with Lucifer, yes that's right, the devil himself- who is not evil, but the victim of propaganda- against the heavenly forces of dictatorship. Yes! That is my plot. Boom! Original!
Could be an interesting story. Reminded me of the story of Xenu: a galactic dictator who sent everyone he didn't like to Earth and dumped them into a volcano. The souled of those damned clung to humans and caused the negative aspects of our species. This story literally became a religion.
I'm not sure what this is doing in the research forum but it sounds good to me. Although it might be helpful to know a bit about historical Christian thought before writing; this is a good reference.
But even more helpful to learn from someone who studies Christianity for a living and whose religious beliefs aren't violated by the story.
I haven't found anything so accessible as my resource, though. Do Christians believe that God is an alien despot and that Lucifer isn't as bad as the Bible makes him out to be?
You'll recall that I was talking about historical Christian thought, which apologetics do not focus on. For comparison, look at how our sources treat the subject of the Trinity:
The basic premise of the religious sect who view Lucifer as good and Christianity as evil. It is basically a reversal of roles in which the Church is the evil work of man and the truth is that the one cast out of heaven was more of an escaping prisoner. The Satanic Bible is actually a very reasonable text btw. No human sacrifice (unlike the Old Testament), and a general philosophy revolving around looking after yourself and protecting yourself, as well as understanding yourself as powerful. I cannot confess that I've read either text from start to finish though! haha! I am curious ... why was Pinky banned?
Pretty sure magical science religion is the religion most people ascribe to in the real world right now. Can I suggest reading Paradise Lost if you haven't?
So you're talking about Church History. There are plenty of resources on church history all over the place.
Y'all realize that Pinky, the OP, just posts random shit while he's drunk in the hopes that somebody will take it seriously and start an argument, right?
I think he worked on a slightly different level of irony that to do it merely for kicks. It is funny/interesting to see how seriously people take him. In the poetry threads he reveals something very interesting about our inclination to find meaning where there is none. He can write well enough to be taken seriously by me and had good humour too. Sadly someone banned him for something? I am guessing he said something a little too sarcastic to somone? Friedrich - God asked his follower to kill his own son and he would've. Mouthwash - No human sacrifice. That sounds like a good "opinion"? Understanding your own limits and power, also sounds like a worthy cause? Just because the title "Satan" conjures up certain ideas doesn't mean its all unreasonable evil nonsense. note: I am not religious. I just find it an interesting subject.
<--- a weak line of reasoning to support the actual act of "human sacrifice". Surely you see that there is a clear distinction between someone "willing to act" and someone "actually acting"? If so, why lump them together in that snippet as if they are equal or interchangeable? Here's a snippet from the Old Testament to ponder (1 Kings chapter 3). King Solomon was a guy born in the 10th century and died 922BC. One of the stories he is famous for was the one where the two mothers brought a baby before him each claiming it was their own and he ordered it to be cut in half in front of them. Was he a child murdered? He judged their reactions to determine the rightful mother without actually killing the baby. When Abraham is told to kill Isaac could you not consider that something grander was being observed? I would have been more impressed if you brought up the infamous Jephthah story where he made a stupid vow and ended up killing his daughter (recorded in the book of Judges) than the whole Abram and Isaac reference. Now there is an Old Testament human sacrifice story worthy of investigation. <--- There are plenty of human sacrifices in the Old Testament so you must mean it was not prescribed, expected, or tolerated by followers of the God of Israel. Deuteronomy mentions pagans burning their babies as sacrifices to their gods for example and that it was detestable to God. There are interesting discussions to be had about the human sacrifice of Jesus and the phrase "living sacrifice" in the book of Romans but that's a New Testament topic I suppose.
I have wondered what happened to him as well. Technically some of the things he has written could be considered to violate the first rule of the forum: All posts must be free of illegal or distasteful content, which includes pornography and nudity, hate speech, posting of copyrighted material, spamming the forum, bumping threads, or flaming/trolling. It depends on how you define distasteful, hate speech, and trolling I suppose. I could also see how, in some cases, someone referring to sex acts and sexual reproductive organs could be pornographic. Not in all cases of course and not necessarily in this thread. I think it's safe to say that some things are not beneficial to the mission and environment of the forum and should probably be met with scrutiny and/or disciplinary action. I am curious though. I wonder why he is no longer with us...
I don't think it is weak. Asking a man to kill his own son through blind faith is hardly a case for non-human sacrifice. The story of the baby being cut in two is simply a clever story. The moral of Abraham was Obey without question even if the order is human sacrifice. If it was me I would have told the God to go fuck itself. That to me would've been the kind of worthy reply I would expect a God would've expected. He had his own son on an alter ready to slit his throat. That to me is a case of human sacrifice being carried out at the request of a God, whether or not it is stopped is besides the point to me because I don't believe it is morally correct to carried such an action Of course I understand the metaphor of sacrifice. The proportion it was taken to though was morally corrupt. No doubt the instance, if true to the life of this mythical figure, was part of some psychotic break in which the person under some deep psychotic journey found a way out of the maze of the human mind before committing fully to the act. Something within him roused him from committing the murderous act. No matter how you paint the picture it is an irrational and flawed morality. The Christian explanation for this command by God is plain silly (irrational.) I think the true use of these stories is to view them as absolute hypotheticals for us to explore. There they have use. For example would you sacrifice your loved ones lives for those of many other strangers? If not how would you justify this? Can we measure one life against another? etc ... The Bible is full of these interesting questions and the idea of "God" simply helps the reader, if they look deeply enough, to try and see the personal problem of dealing with difficult questions and taking responsibility rather than banking on some omnipotent premise. This premise only serves use to force an "as if" perfect answer to strive for. This is the rational form of "faith", it is not to blindly follow, but to understand the path ahead is obscured and that we must be willing to commit to believe in something and to think about what we are willing, or not willing, to do. Anyway, I am off ... forget this isn't a forum for debate in this sense! haha!
Whether or not the OP was serious when he wrote his original question, there are lots of stories which take religious myths and run with them without getting religious about it. Take Mark Twain's stories . He was an atheist, but had lots of fun playing with the bases of many of the Bible stories.