Liliana suffers from a lack of cohesion of character, although this is true for any of the Planeswalkers currently available.
To say that she's conflicted is simply not acceptable - it weakens her character overall by making it excusable that she doesn't know what she wants, when it is OBVIOUS what she wants, and it is furthermore OBVIOUS what she will do to get it. She's a Necromancer and mistress of Black magic - what she wants, she takes, and it doesn't matter what has to die or return at her beck and call for her to get it. If you stand in her way, she will kill you without a second thought, and just to keep her hand in will make your corpse do juggling tricks with other people's heads for her amusement.
She is a very ruthless person, and because she's fortunate enough to be a woman others seem to gloss over this ruthlessness because of this. If anything, her 'conflicted'-ness is an act, meant to confuse, distract, and even gain her sympathy that she can use to further her own ambitions. The thing people forget about Black is that it is one of the most direct colors in Magic. Black has no illusions about anything - it sees reality as it really is, rather than how it could be, such as the case is with Green, White, and Blue. It's because of this clarity of thought that Black is able to manipulate others into doing what it wants.
Oh yes, because internal thoughts about her insecurity are an "act". Geez, I guess I'm deluding myself by thinking about my insecurities and faults.
I wouldn't say Black is the "most direct". All colours are very direct in judgement. Have you pissed off Red? Get pulverised. Have you pissed off Green? Get pulverised. Have you pissed off Blue? Get pulverised. Have you pissed off White? Get pulverised, or suffer in agony for all eternity.
Sure, Black has no regard for what is morally apropriate, but Black people are still people. Even demons have insecurities; even from a non-emotional outpoint, Black examines the situation, doesn't jump into it like Red. As shown again and again in Magic's history, Black characters can still love and feel some degree of empathy, even if it's clear who is number 1 in their lives. Under that logic, why aren't all White character mindless robots of justice? Why aren't all Red characters fiery hellions who kill everything? Why aren't all Blue characters nerds?
Not to mention that your take on Liliana's character is once again only after the Veil was acquired. Which means that it isn't natural to her personality.
Okay. I'm an atheist. I have no problem saying that none are "valid".
Are you fine with that, or do you want to argue that neopaganism does have some "validity", regardless of whatever's going on with Christianity? Why should I take neopaganism seriously?
Not "seriously" in your case as "as serious as other religions". All are illogic to you, so it's a matter of personal integrity.
And that's if we assume I'm wrong, something that you have done nothing to demonstrate.
And once again your response is ignoring arguments already posited. My, isn't cherry picking what you want to hear a wonderful aproach to enlightment?
No, the main argument is not simply that paganism is treated differently, but that paganism is also PLAUSIBLE.
And so I echo the exact same question I made on post #3: why should we take Neopaganism seriously? Why is this "discrimination" instead of an accurate assessment of Neopaganism? Why do you act as though this is unjust instead of a logical response? If you genuinely believe in Neopaganism, what basis should we acknowledge its credibility?
In fact, why not keep a running tally of your continual refusal to address this issue? I'll be generous and start from this post. You're currently at 5 posts. This is, for those keeping score, a third of the posts you've made on this thread, and you didn't bother to address the question on the other 2/3s either
1- You quoted my post - which is about quality in treatment, not about "proof" - and deliberately misinterpreted it for your own disharmonic intent. That's not a positive sign for your, suffice to say.
2- Lets see:
- "Why should we take Neopaganism seriously?" Already explained: both for integrity reasons and fair assessment, and because it is as justifiable as other religions, your flip-flopping hypocritical analysis of divinity nonwitshstanding
- "Why is it discrimination instead of a logical assessment?" Already explained: other religions with equal lack of logic are treated seriously.
- "What basis should we acknowledge it's credibility?" Same as in other religions: ontological argumentation for divinity, et cetera.
I've just given up on you even bothering to post any semblance of an argument in favor of paganism because I don't actually think you have one, and are instead on this thread to hear yourself talk and to be an... what was your phrasing?
Pity I've already stated countless times why it stands on the same ground as other religions, and therefore any argumentation for them also applies to neopaganism.
Of course, you could actually bother to address the question that's been repeated. You could actually bother to address the very issue you created an entire thread to lend credibility to.
My dear, the issue that started this thread is quite frankly a matter of integrity and ethics. If you don't want to be an hypocrite, than don't play favourites randomly. Is that a concept that hard to get for a pseudo-intellectual?
Or can you? I don't think you can.
This actually made me chuckle. Not the actual content, just the tone.
Depends on the context, but in this case, yes, it does.
Assume the claims "Neopaganism is not credible" and "Christianity is credible" are in contradiction. To resolve the contradiction, one of the claims must be false, but it can be either claim. Therefore, pointing out the contradiction does not refute the claim you want to refute. It could with perfect consistency be the case that neopaganism is not credible, and neither is Christianity. This might make Highroller sad, but it would not help your position in this thread in the slightest.
It's a potential fallacy, yes, but it's intrinsic to the argumentation put forth. The main argument here is whereas pagan gods are less plausible than Yahweh, a premise that renders either all valid or none valid, as both rely on the same principle and, as previously seen, this differentiation results in hypocritical statements.
Also, neither Neoplatonism and Manicheanism have anything to do with the Norse religion. All three are quite from classical Greek religion. The latter was composed of numerous different cults that different from one another in practices. And, most importantly, all of these are profoundly different from Neopaganism, which even you have agreed can claim no actual root to the religions of antiquity. It seems in your zeal to shift the subject from your own inability to defend your position, you've forgotten what your position even was, or which religion you were actually talking about in the first place.
Or was this deliberate? Are you constantly shifting what religion you speak of in each post in your attempt to obfuscate the fact that you've gone two more posts without making any attempt to grant one iota of credibility to Neopaganism? You've fooled no one. You will have to find more intricate deceptions.
Once again, you have claimed that Neopaganism has credibility. You even went so far to make a thread to try to demonstrate it. Yet you have made no attempts to demonstrate this. Demonstrate this credibility that Neopaganism has.
1- Only now does it occur to you to not lump paganism into a single religion, after many pages of using "all pagan religions are focused exclusively on nature spirits"?
2- So accuse me of shifting goal posts... while shifting goal posts? Also, thank you for using the accusation of "deception". Really stereotypical there.
3- Neopaganism, as you yourself implied, is not an unified religion. Some traditions can claim actual roots in ancient religions (greek reconstructionism, por exemplo), while others do their own thing. This is not new: even abrahamic traditions have retconning sects.
4- Thank you, once again, for repeating the fallacy you've committed previously.
Yes, threatening to murder defenseless people to get what you want is *such* a good trait. /sarcasm
And burning people alive, killing people in mindless rage, and getting millions of people killed just because you wet your pants is "good"? All these women have remourse over those things, yet somehow only one is "evil", ironically the one who got the least amount of people killed.
Your whole premise runs on highly hypocritical double standards, considering that Liliana's truly heinou" deeds both post-date the finding of the Veil and the so called "good planeswalkers" actions were not driven by acts of desesperation.
No my fault you ignore the ethical relevance, already posited several pages ago, and the fact that your argument relies on physical spirituality, which you've been very hypocritical about.
Hypocrisy does not refute an argument. Highroller could be completely right about paganism and completely wrong about Christianity - the relevant part is that he'd be completely right about paganism.
Depends on the context, but in this case, yes, it does. He/it argues that physical things aren't sapient... whilst still arguing in favour of a being that is either a manifestation of the universe, sapience related to an abstract concept, or outright just a glorified imaginary friend.
Whilst still ignoring that both other deities are also under the same umbrella. On other words, not only a highly hypocritical stance, but fundamentally self destructive credibility wise; it's like me arguing for t. rex scales based on the lack of evidence for feathers while still supporting fur in giant bears in spite of a lack of evidence for fur.
You made a post specifically with the intent to establish neo-paganism as credible. Demonstrate this.
Again, if you're going to take religions are credible, take all. Paganism stands on the same level as Christianity, as you unwittingly demonstrated. And, more importantly, there's the still ethical relevance mentioned previously. Something that appearently still eludes you, in spite of the fact that it has been repeated constantly, with your own argumentation so far being ignoring and asking the exact same questions.
I know you're only here to hear yourself talk. I know you have nothing of substance. I know you're just here to get the last word in. Well, I'm going to take that away from you. I will continue to ask you to justify the statement you made in the first post until you actually do.
Says the person who deliberately spent this entire thread ignoring evidence posited and repeating the exact same questions after they've been answered, just like a cornered creationist.
Hypocrisy and evasion seem to be your fetishes, isn't it?
Which, surprise surprise, over seventy posts later you have yet to even address, with the exception of an empty statement about how if trees aren't sentient then human beings cannot be argued to be which does not follow. So while you're at it, demonstrate a rock's sentience.
And, once again, you keep spouting the exact same statements without seing both your utter hypocrisy in thinking in imaginary sentient beings whilst ignoring others - at least trees exist -, ignoring that not all pagan gods are nature spirits, dismissing these adressals of your hypocrisy as "not relevant", and committing barely disguised argumentum ad nauseams.
Which followed The One.
Helding it as nonsentient while actually worshipping classical gods. Really, it's bad enough you don't even know about your own theology.
Which was monotheistic and worshiped God.
Except that it also worshipped a variety of intermediate deities.
I'm just going to wait for you to actually bother posting anything that would actually establish paganism's credibility, something I've asked you to do since post #3. But you and I both know you aren't going to post anything more substantial than "no u" posts. You've basically admitted that you don't even believe in this stuff anyway. You have nothing to offer here.
No my fault you ignore the ethical relevance, already posited several pages ago, and the fact that your argument relies on physical spirituality, which you've been very hypocritical about.
Pray tell how you manage to be a functional member of society, which such a tendency to demonstrate blatant denial and hypocrisy.
Since she became a planeswalker, she could spend all her time in the lap of luxury if she so wished (and considering how she dresses expensively, she likely does).
Yes, Lili is motivated by survival, but if she was anything other than evil she'd at least try not to let innocents get hurt in the crossfire of her goals. But the thing is She Just Don't Care.
She may not have been evil when she ascended, but she *is* evil *now*. And she was evil before she got the veil.
Guess Elspeth and Chandra are evil too, as both of them didn't care about several situations that got many people killed, and the latter has a higher body count than Liliana.
Also, note that previously to acquiring the Veil, Liliana did care. And even when she rampaged through Innistrad, there is the implication that she was largely aside from society's way at large.
And yet, we continue the same ridiculous dance we have since the first page.
The fact of the matter is you have nothing to defend paganism, nothing to discount every other voice on this thread agreeing it is a ridiculous religion. Your petulant attempts at schoolyard insults, your attacking my position instead of producing any adequate defense of your own are all just attempts to deflect attention from yourself and the fact that you have absolutely nothing to justify the claim that your religion has credibility.
So what is the point of you being here, other than to hear yourself? Or was that the end goal?
You will, of course, attempt to dodge the question by saying, "Well I don't believe your faith has justification, so NO U." However, the factual basis of my belief in God is ultimately besides the point, because either it has factual basis or it doesn't, and either way your position is discredited. Assuming my belief in God has factual basis, your religion is discredited. Assuming my belief in God doesn't, you are guilty of a tu quoque fallacy and your religion is discredited.
You have nothing.
TL:DR version: "I'm describing myself".
Seriously:
1- You're continuously denying arguments against your train of thought, rather desesperately I might add.
2- You're been ignoring the valid statements.
3- You've been using the exact fallacy you're accusing me off, the only difference being that you try to shrug it off.
4- You, too, have no evidence for your god.
I rest my case, hypocrite.
I might also add you're hilariously overemotional over this. Despair, much?
Actually, it means exactly that. They worshiped all gods. They had no reason not to. They even went so far as to petition the gods of any city they were going to invade to relinquish their protection over the city, on the assurance that prayers and sacrifices would continue to be made to them.
Said petitions were mostly just a quick sign of respect than sincere devotional worship. A roman was expected to held in higher regard the Empire's gods; doesn't mean one couldn't privately worship Horus, but public worship was reserved for established gods.
Uh, no, because we have sapient beings. You're one. I'm one. Sun isn't. Moon isn't. That tree over there isn't.
And again, neither is love, neither is the universe.
It's not intellectual dishonesty. It's science. Basic fact: science deals with claims that can be falsified.
You cannot disprove God. It's one of the reasons science and God don't mix. You can't do lab tests on an intangible, omnipresent entity. The claim of an all-powerful, omnipresent God isn't falsifiable.
However, to claim that tree over there is a god is entirely falsifiable. That tree over there is tangible, is clearly-defined, is quite easy to observe and study, and is quite easy to test for sentience. This is not only within the field of science, it's what science is great at. Turns out, trees aren't sentient. Neither is the moon. Neither is the sun.
1- Same would go for other deities, then, especially ones not related to natural concepts, such as Odin. Oh, and again, you're still using the same logical fallacy: "I can't prove, thus you must disprove". Guess the smurfs must be real too.
2- For someone attempting to justify Yahweh, you sure have a very physical way of looking at spirituality. Souls and such are none-existent, according to your rhetoric.
No, because saying the sun is a god, the moon is a god, that tree is a god does not work when it is clearly demonstrated that they contain neither sentience, life, nor divinity.
We might as well extend it into humanity. After all, free will has been argued to not exist, sapience itself has been argued to not exist.
Why is Hestia worthy of worship?
Not only you have evaded my questions, you still continue with this without offering your input.
Not only are you an utter hypocrite, but also in denial. How charming.
Your lack of education on polytheism, let alone Christianity, leaves me incredulous as to your position to lecture.
Oh, so now we're using exclusively ad hominems, instead of logical argumentation?
BTW, someone who even had to be informed on how Yahweh is described in the OT shouldn't be one to accuse others of lack of research.
It's pretty clear at this point that you have no idea what religion you're even arguing about.
The Bible seems to be the clear answer to this question.
From a purely literary analysis, it's inconsistent and not very well structured. It isn't bad - hell, some passages have quite amusing visual metaphors and descriptions - but it isn't particularly good either.
We're all working through faith, hope, trust, and confidence.
Which are four different things, and different people place different values on each. Compare the following sentences:
"I have faith the Packers will go undefeated next year."
"I hope the Packers will go undefeated next year."
"I trust the Packers to go undefeated next year."
"I am confident the Packers will go undefeated next year."
They have different meanings, don't they? Faith is belief in the absence of justification. Hope is desire without necessarily any belief. Trust is an expectation about a person's behavior. And confidence is belief with (supposed) justification.
Yes, but the point is that these things work without evidence or proof. Indeed, lack of the latter is entirely the point.
So the claim that one does not operate without evidence or proof is an erroneous statement. No human being operates that way.
... Except for the part where Herakles doesn't exist without Zeus' wanton debauchery.
And once again, you ignore that said sources also ignore Herackles birth in favour of his actual function.
Old Testament God is also defined as all benevolent. Are you getting the sense yet that just because the Greeks claimed their gods were all benevolent, this doesn't exactly mean they were?
Yahweh is not defined as omnibenevolent, he is defined as "creator of light and darkness", of benevolence and catastrophe. He admits cretaing evil as well as good.
Why?
You can't fathom the divine without ladders. I recommend the Chaldean Oracles.
Didn't I just get through saying I place no stock in iconography?
We all place values in symbols. A cross is still an eikon, a vesica piscis is still an eikon.
So in other words, doesn't that mean you must therefore believe in and worship the God of Israel in order to not contradict your beliefs?
Romans also acknowledged the existence of Horus. Doesn't mean they worshipped him.
You have no ability to disprove the existence of God.
Ah, the "I can't prove, whence you must disprove" logical fallacy. Love this exercise of intellectual dishonesty.
We have ABUNDANT data disproving that the sun, the moon, the stars, and the trees are intelligent lifeforms that can be appeased by the sacrifices of grain, livestock, and human beings.
Same with the universe. If the Sun is not a sapient being in a spiritual level, neither is anything else, and thus Yahweh cannot exist, especially as The Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, the pagan polytheistic beliefs that you're describing accepted the existence of God. Therefore any attacks against the credibility of my belief in God undermine the credibility of your religion. Note that the reverse does not apply.
Except that the basic arguments for Yahweh also apply to all other gods, like it or not. Thus, the reverse does apply.
And finally, even if you somehow proved these pagan gods did exist, why would anyone ever worship them?
Why do you worship god, then? If it is ethical apreciation, why not Guan Yin? Why not Hestia?
If it is fear, why not anything else?
If it is duty, same?
If it is feelings you cannot describe, same?
And then there's the Gospel of John.
Wonderfully mistranslated, if you bothered to learn greek.
Once again, justify that your religion has any credibility. And don't say, "Well, Christianity also believes some outlandish things" like somehow deflecting the burden of proof onto another topic is going to help you. Demonstrate your religion has any basis at all.
And you have any justification for Christianity? If you don't, then the same applies: you think you're so high and mighty to attack other religions, I feel the same.
Because it seems like all you seek to do is alienate everyone on this thread with your arrogant attitude and empty posts. Which leads me again to ask: exactly what did you seek to accomplish by this thread again?
Oh, so I am the arrogant one now? Funny, I'd think people calling equally valid religious beliefs out of highly stereotypical prejudices would fit the general label for "arrogant", but again, these forums seem to operate on highly hypocritical, alien mentality.
Prove that Christ didn't rise from the dead.
How about the fact that the reccords are wildly inconsistent, and that theurgists were also described as rising from the grave?
You also speak of it as if it was proven fact. Might I ask you then why it isn't an accepted scientific theorem, then?
Little customs remain, also in christian tradition and local folklore. But the pope did a really good job of christinising the continent.
But someone who really worships to wodan is a nut. We dont have written sources from those times so pagan practisisers are really just acting doing what they think pagans once did. How can you not make fun of that?
If by "little customs" you mean "a large influence on localised Christianity", indeed.
Spirituality is stunted by dogma anyways.
That last part was the big part of religion in antiquity. The sacrificing and redistribution of meat was central. That's one of the biggest reasons why the Jews were seen as so odd, and why the Christ movement was so persecuted: because they refused to participate in the sacrifices to the gods of other peoples, or in the case of the Christ movement amongst the Gentiles, the gods of their ancestors. Meat sacrificing was a big deal.
To mainstream roman religion, yes. To several traditions on Europe and Africa? No, down to a rejection of physical sacrifices.
Invalid. You can scientifically disprove that the sun, the moon, the stars, trees, rivers, and rocks are sentient. You cannot, however, disprove that Jesus rose from the dead.
For starters, if he did rise from the grave, we would have less inconsistent reccords, evidence of tons of corpses being removed from the graves, as he walked accompanied, more widespread witnesses aside from just the christian sympathisers, et cetera.
I think it depends on the guild, but suffice to say I don't think you can leave the Orzhov, for example.
At any rate, no, it does not justify opressing and exploiting other sapient beings. Unless you're an utter sociopath like many higher ups in most guilds, but I'm used to that by now.
Oh yes, because internal thoughts about her insecurity are an "act". Geez, I guess I'm deluding myself by thinking about my insecurities and faults.
I wouldn't say Black is the "most direct". All colours are very direct in judgement. Have you pissed off Red? Get pulverised. Have you pissed off Green? Get pulverised. Have you pissed off Blue? Get pulverised. Have you pissed off White? Get pulverised, or suffer in agony for all eternity.
Sure, Black has no regard for what is morally apropriate, but Black people are still people. Even demons have insecurities; even from a non-emotional outpoint, Black examines the situation, doesn't jump into it like Red. As shown again and again in Magic's history, Black characters can still love and feel some degree of empathy, even if it's clear who is number 1 in their lives. Under that logic, why aren't all White character mindless robots of justice? Why aren't all Red characters fiery hellions who kill everything? Why aren't all Blue characters nerds?
Not to mention that your take on Liliana's character is once again only after the Veil was acquired. Which means that it isn't natural to her personality.
Pretty much, but it seems a concept hard to digest to people here.
Not "seriously" in your case as "as serious as other religions". All are illogic to you, so it's a matter of personal integrity.
And once again your response is ignoring arguments already posited. My, isn't cherry picking what you want to hear a wonderful aproach to enlightment?
1- You quoted my post - which is about quality in treatment, not about "proof" - and deliberately misinterpreted it for your own disharmonic intent. That's not a positive sign for your, suffice to say.
2- Lets see:
- "Why should we take Neopaganism seriously?" Already explained: both for integrity reasons and fair assessment, and because it is as justifiable as other religions, your flip-flopping hypocritical analysis of divinity nonwitshstanding
- "Why is it discrimination instead of a logical assessment?" Already explained: other religions with equal lack of logic are treated seriously.
- "What basis should we acknowledge it's credibility?" Same as in other religions: ontological argumentation for divinity, et cetera.
Pity I've already stated countless times why it stands on the same ground as other religions, and therefore any argumentation for them also applies to neopaganism.
My dear, the issue that started this thread is quite frankly a matter of integrity and ethics. If you don't want to be an hypocrite, than don't play favourites randomly. Is that a concept that hard to get for a pseudo-intellectual?
This actually made me chuckle. Not the actual content, just the tone.
It's a potential fallacy, yes, but it's intrinsic to the argumentation put forth. The main argument here is whereas pagan gods are less plausible than Yahweh, a premise that renders either all valid or none valid, as both rely on the same principle and, as previously seen, this differentiation results in hypocritical statements.
1- Only now does it occur to you to not lump paganism into a single religion, after many pages of using "all pagan religions are focused exclusively on nature spirits"?
2- So accuse me of shifting goal posts... while shifting goal posts? Also, thank you for using the accusation of "deception". Really stereotypical there.
3- Neopaganism, as you yourself implied, is not an unified religion. Some traditions can claim actual roots in ancient religions (greek reconstructionism, por exemplo), while others do their own thing. This is not new: even abrahamic traditions have retconning sects.
4- Thank you, once again, for repeating the fallacy you've committed previously.
And burning people alive, killing people in mindless rage, and getting millions of people killed just because you wet your pants is "good"? All these women have remourse over those things, yet somehow only one is "evil", ironically the one who got the least amount of people killed.
Your whole premise runs on highly hypocritical double standards, considering that Liliana's truly heinou" deeds both post-date the finding of the Veil and the so called "good planeswalkers" actions were not driven by acts of desesperation.
Depends on the context, but in this case, yes, it does. He/it argues that physical things aren't sapient... whilst still arguing in favour of a being that is either a manifestation of the universe, sapience related to an abstract concept, or outright just a glorified imaginary friend.
Whilst still ignoring that both other deities are also under the same umbrella. On other words, not only a highly hypocritical stance, but fundamentally self destructive credibility wise; it's like me arguing for t. rex scales based on the lack of evidence for feathers while still supporting fur in giant bears in spite of a lack of evidence for fur.
Again, if you're going to take religions are credible, take all. Paganism stands on the same level as Christianity, as you unwittingly demonstrated. And, more importantly, there's the still ethical relevance mentioned previously. Something that appearently still eludes you, in spite of the fact that it has been repeated constantly, with your own argumentation so far being ignoring and asking the exact same questions.
Says the person who deliberately spent this entire thread ignoring evidence posited and repeating the exact same questions after they've been answered, just like a cornered creationist.
Hypocrisy and evasion seem to be your fetishes, isn't it?
And, once again, you keep spouting the exact same statements without seing both your utter hypocrisy in thinking in imaginary sentient beings whilst ignoring others - at least trees exist -, ignoring that not all pagan gods are nature spirits, dismissing these adressals of your hypocrisy as "not relevant", and committing barely disguised argumentum ad nauseams.
Helding it as nonsentient while actually worshipping classical gods. Really, it's bad enough you don't even know about your own theology.
Except that it also worshipped a variety of intermediate deities.
No my fault you ignore the ethical relevance, already posited several pages ago, and the fact that your argument relies on physical spirituality, which you've been very hypocritical about.
Pray tell how you manage to be a functional member of society, which such a tendency to demonstrate blatant denial and hypocrisy.
Guess Elspeth and Chandra are evil too, as both of them didn't care about several situations that got many people killed, and the latter has a higher body count than Liliana.
Also, note that previously to acquiring the Veil, Liliana did care. And even when she rampaged through Innistrad, there is the implication that she was largely aside from society's way at large.
TL:DR version: "I'm describing myself".
Seriously:
1- You're continuously denying arguments against your train of thought, rather desesperately I might add.
2- You're been ignoring the valid statements.
3- You've been using the exact fallacy you're accusing me off, the only difference being that you try to shrug it off.
4- You, too, have no evidence for your god.
I rest my case, hypocrite.
I might also add you're hilariously overemotional over this. Despair, much?
Said petitions were mostly just a quick sign of respect than sincere devotional worship. A roman was expected to held in higher regard the Empire's gods; doesn't mean one couldn't privately worship Horus, but public worship was reserved for established gods.
And again, neither is love, neither is the universe.
1- Same would go for other deities, then, especially ones not related to natural concepts, such as Odin. Oh, and again, you're still using the same logical fallacy: "I can't prove, thus you must disprove". Guess the smurfs must be real too.
2- For someone attempting to justify Yahweh, you sure have a very physical way of looking at spirituality. Souls and such are none-existent, according to your rhetoric.
We might as well extend it into humanity. After all, free will has been argued to not exist, sapience itself has been argued to not exist.
Not only you have evaded my questions, you still continue with this without offering your input.
Not only are you an utter hypocrite, but also in denial. How charming.
Oh, so now we're using exclusively ad hominems, instead of logical argumentation?
BTW, someone who even had to be informed on how Yahweh is described in the OT shouldn't be one to accuse others of lack of research.
Neoplatonism, Manichaeism, Eleusian Mysteries, late-egyptian mainstream religion.
From a purely literary analysis, it's inconsistent and not very well structured. It isn't bad - hell, some passages have quite amusing visual metaphors and descriptions - but it isn't particularly good either.
Hypocrisy, much?
And once again, you ignore that said sources also ignore Herackles birth in favour of his actual function.
Yahweh is not defined as omnibenevolent, he is defined as "creator of light and darkness", of benevolence and catastrophe. He admits cretaing evil as well as good.
You can't fathom the divine without ladders. I recommend the Chaldean Oracles.
We all place values in symbols. A cross is still an eikon, a vesica piscis is still an eikon.
Romans also acknowledged the existence of Horus. Doesn't mean they worshipped him.
Ah, the "I can't prove, whence you must disprove" logical fallacy. Love this exercise of intellectual dishonesty.
Same with the universe. If the Sun is not a sapient being in a spiritual level, neither is anything else, and thus Yahweh cannot exist, especially as The Holy Spirit.
Except that the basic arguments for Yahweh also apply to all other gods, like it or not. Thus, the reverse does apply.
Why do you worship god, then? If it is ethical apreciation, why not Guan Yin? Why not Hestia?
If it is fear, why not anything else?
If it is duty, same?
If it is feelings you cannot describe, same?
Wonderfully mistranslated, if you bothered to learn greek.
And you have any justification for Christianity? If you don't, then the same applies: you think you're so high and mighty to attack other religions, I feel the same.
Oh, so I am the arrogant one now? Funny, I'd think people calling equally valid religious beliefs out of highly stereotypical prejudices would fit the general label for "arrogant", but again, these forums seem to operate on highly hypocritical, alien mentality.
How about the fact that the reccords are wildly inconsistent, and that theurgists were also described as rising from the grave?
You also speak of it as if it was proven fact. Might I ask you then why it isn't an accepted scientific theorem, then?
If by "little customs" you mean "a large influence on localised Christianity", indeed.
Spirituality is stunted by dogma anyways.
To mainstream roman religion, yes. To several traditions on Europe and Africa? No, down to a rejection of physical sacrifices.
For starters, if he did rise from the grave, we would have less inconsistent reccords, evidence of tons of corpses being removed from the graves, as he walked accompanied, more widespread witnesses aside from just the christian sympathisers, et cetera.
You mean the block where she saved everyone's asses by forcing Thalia to choose the Helvault to be destroyed?
At any rate, no, it does not justify opressing and exploiting other sapient beings. Unless you're an utter sociopath like many higher ups in most guilds, but I'm used to that by now.