332 replies to this topic

[Etu Malku]

ViperWolf, on 11 October 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

LOL!  You people that ridicule those that believe in a higher power = God ask for proof? but where is your proof?  Science?  gimmie a break!  yrs ago science told you the world was flat!  that we were thecenter of the universe etc... Science is an ever evolving and constantly changing thing!   Prove to me there is not a God? or prove to me there is no demons?  You can't !  I can't prove there is - its called faith, you either have it or you don't!  If you don't and want to rely on science - fine, but stop asking for proof with everyone who is asking  what is to them serious questions and may be very real to them!  Just because you haven't experienced it is no reason to mock them!  What about all the extinct animals that "Science" claimed were no more - only to find out they are in existance after all?  Science is a belief system based on many flawed concepts and we discover this as time goes on!

"Faith is believing in that which I know ain't so." - Mark Twain
"Faith: not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Philosophy combined with rationality makes for a good argument against there being any such thing as a non-corporeal entity known as God. Jungian psychology showed us that all of these gods, devils, angels, and demons were simply archetypal images embedded deep within our unconsciousness and can be brought to the conscious surface by way of Symbology.

Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" remains one of the finest and rational deconstruction of the God myth.

Dr. Michael Aquino of the Temple of Set puts forth the concept (and I agree) that this idea of a God is man's way of trying to explain what is called the Objective Universe (everything known which abides by the Laws of physics), what could be construed as Natural.

Early religions such as Egyptian, Sumerian, Indus Valley (Hindu), saw a gaggle of gods and goddesses as aspects/manifestations of our Self, personifications of our Inner Being, not one omniscient/omnipotent overseer of Man. This even seems more rational and fits better with philosophical, psychological understandings of what a God might be.

No one can prove one way or the other the existence of a God, seems as if God itself cannot even prove its own existence (pretty lame for an omniscient/omnipotent being), but rationale and chances are, there is no such thing as believed to be this Abrahamic god.

[Imaginarynumber1]

ViperWolf, on 11 October 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

LOL!  You people that ridicule those that believe in a higher power = God ask for proof? but where is your proof?  Science?  gimmie a break!  yrs ago science told you the world was flat!  that we were thecenter of the universe etc... Science is an ever evolving and constantly changing thing!   Prove to me there is not a God? or prove to me there is no demons?  You can't !  I can't prove there is - its called faith, you either have it or you don't!  If you don't and want to rely on science - fine, but stop asking for proof with everyone who is asking  what is to them serious questions and may be very real to them!  Just because you haven't experienced it is no reason to mock them!  What about all the extinct animals that "Science" claimed were no more - only to find out they are in existance after all?  Science is a belief system based on many flawed concepts and we discover this as time goes on!

Science is a body of knowledge and a methodology. Nothing more.
You say I don't have faith. You're right. I don't. I don't need it for anything. I have facts and evidence.

[Arbitran]

ViperWolf, on 11 October 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

LOL!  You people that ridicule those that believe in a higher power = God ask for proof? but where is your proof?  Science?  gimmie a break!  yrs ago science told you the world was flat!

Science did not yet exist when the Earth was said to be flat. It was the religious boys that said the Earth was flat. The philosophers, inventors, scholars, and experimenters never believed such a thing in the first place.

And incidentally, science doesn't claim to have proof against the existence of a god. That isn't how science works. It simply cannot accept the proposal of the existence of a god without evidence for a god. In logic however (a subset and predecessor to the scientific method), one could find proofs against the descriptions of gods given by proponents (i.e., omniscience and omnipotence are intrinsically, logically impossible).

ViperWolf, on 11 October 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

that we were thecenter of the universe etc... Science is an ever evolving and constantly changing thing!  

Granted, yes, early science claimed that we were the center of the universe. This was founded on philosophical and religious assumptions, not on scientific discovery; ergo, it was the baseline which science was later able to improve upon. It wasn't science that initially claimed we were the center of the universe; but it was science that disproved it.

ViperWolf, on 11 October 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

Prove to me there is not a God? or prove to me there is no demons?  You can't !

Of course not, that's absurd. Evidence does not come in a negative form in the scientific method. But the inability to disprove the existence of gods, or demons, or leprechauns, or fairies, or magical catfishes is not a viable reason for believing in such things. What one needs to believe in something is evidence for, not evidence against.

ViperWolf, on 11 October 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

I can't prove there is - its called faith, you either have it or you don't!  If you don't and want to rely on science - fine, but stop asking for proof with everyone who is asking  what is to them serious questions and may be very real to them!

Sure, there's faith. It's useless. It hasn't done a single good thing for the human race (at least in the sense you're talking about; e.g., believing in things without any reason at all). Yes, I'd vouch for science, given it's the sole reason we are able to communicate right now (faith certainly didn't invent the Internet); it happens to actually work. It actually achieves something. Faith doesn't. It's just that simple.

ViperWolf, on 11 October 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

Just because you haven't experienced it is no reason to mock them!

No, it isn't. We haven't. I suggest you learn to distinguish disagreement and challenging of claims from mockery and contempt.

ViperWolf, on 11 October 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

  What about all the extinct animals that "Science" claimed were no more - only to find out they are in existance after all?  Science is a belief system based on many flawed concepts and we discover this as time goes on!

Science claimed those species were extinct because there were no living examples of them known. Then we found living specimens; ergo, they were found not to be extinct. Science changes its story based on observation and discovery; what it claims is only altered with the advent of new information, or with a more effective explanation for observed phenomena. You act as if science goes along saying something, and then one day just changes it all completely; this virtually never happens. Science becomes more and more precise at time goes on, and new information is found. This is its strength. Faith and religion have a nasty habit of sticking to their claims, even when they are categorically disproved (e.g., someone could claim I were in Antarctica right now, but if the eyewitness accounts of my family and friends, documentation of my presence, etc., demonstrate that I'm not in Antarctica... then that claim is discredited/disproved). Science's strength is in its adaptability, and its contingence on reality; faith and religion needn't correspond to reality (and very rarely do), and tend not to adapt to new information, even if that means putting itself at odds with verified fact.

[Lesionia]

Isnt science a religion in itself? I mean doesn't it try to explain simple questions like why are we here? Why is the sky blue? ect.?
So people who believe in science has faith. And if someone doesnt belive in spirits, demons, or gods- well I dont blame them. The reason why is you have to see it, feel it, hear it to believe it. How does one describe the paranormal or unexplained? Can you?

[SpiritWriter]

Etu Malku, on 11 October 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

Philosophy combined with rationality makes for a good argument against there being any such thing as a non-corporeal entity known as God. Jungian psychology showed us that all of these gods, devils, angels, and demons were simply archetypal images embedded deep within our unconsciousness and can be brought to the conscious surface by way of Symbology.


No one can prove one way or the other the existence of a God, seems as if God itself cannot even prove its own existence (pretty lame for an omniscient/omnipotent being), but rationale and chances are, there is no such thing as believed to be this Abrahamic god.

Carl Jung did believe in God, I don't know if your post is trying to show that he didn't, but if so, that is not true. He did believe in God and embraced spirituality. He thought that by not addressing this a person could go crazy...

God himself DOES prove himself individually to people who have received this 'truth'. What you understand to be 'true', does not apply to everyone in the world - and it certainly did not apply for Carl Jung. God for him was proven enough that he was convinced of his existence.

Edited by SpiritWriter, 15 October 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[Etu Malku]

SpiritWriter, on 15 October 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

Carl Jung did believe in God, I don't know if your post is trying to show that he didn't, but if so, that is not true. He did believe in God and embraced spirituality. He thought that by not addressing this a person could go crazy...

God himself DOES prove himself individually to people who have received this 'truth'. What you understand to be 'true', does not apply to everyone in the world - and it certainly did not apply for Carl Jung. God for him was proven enough that he was convinced of his existence.

Jung did not believe in a god as you think, he truly understood it as do we LHP'ers . . . if anything Jung was a closet Luciferian!

[SpiritWriter]

Etu Malku, on 16 October 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Jung did not believe in a god as you think, he truly understood it as do we LHP'ers . . . if anything Jung was a closet Luciferian!

You don't know how I think... It appeared you were saying that he didn't believe in God and that would be false.

[Etu Malku]

SpiritWriter, on 16 October 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

You don't know how I think... It appeared you were saying that he didn't believe in God and that would be false.

Silly me . . . then why didn't you explain yourself clearly?

Jung clearly states (this is accepted by the majority of theoretical psychologists, today's philosophers, and our modern LHP religions) that gods, devils, angels, demons, etc., are all archetypal images deeply embedded within Man's unconsciousness, they are brought to the surface consciousness through Symbology.

Edited by Etu Malku, 16 October 2012 - 03:52 AM.

[Seeker79]

Etu Malku, on 16 October 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Silly me . . . then why didn't you explain yourself clearly?

Jung clearly states (this is accepted by the majority of theoretical psychologists, today's philosophers, and our modern LHP religions) that gods, devils, angels, demons, etc., are all archetypal images deeply embedded within Man's unconsciousness, they are brought to the surface consciousness through Symbology.

[SpiritWriter]

Etu Malku, on 16 October 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Silly me . . . then why didn't you explain yourself clearly?

I don't get this question, but thats ok. Scroll up, I didn't say anything I didn't mean to say or leave anything out of my point. Thank you for your replies..

[SpiritWriter]

snip - transferred entire post to below. I added to my first entry and since I took too long to write it, it separated it out.

Edited by SpiritWriter, 16 October 2012 - 10:54 PM.

[SpiritWriter]

Etu Malku, on 16 October 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Jung did not believe in a god as you think, he truly understood it as do we LHP'ers . . . if anything Jung was a closet Luciferian!

I just read the LHP homepage (or one of them) and see why you say this.

Still don't agree that God and Satan don't prove themselves from time to time -

and in more ways than 'subliminal thoughts' and etc..... not that this is NOT the most primary way, I do agree with you there. But a little bit of outward, unexplainable action gets thrown in the mix from time to time to PROVE for an individual the existence. My stance, since you care so much is that we should not indulge in evil, not an evil that is described by an outside source, but an internal one. I'm glad that you have your own mind, like Jung did and embrace your own religion to make sense of things. I have seen some, with this LHP mindset, use this 'dark side of god, its ok to accept satan' as an excuse not to address things in their lives that hurt others... I know that you are making a stance against religion, and I think that is good for what that is.

I agree with the finding your own religion mindset, I do this myself... that is what I appreciate about Jung.
For me (a part of) religion is taking back what the devil stole from me, rejecting his trickery, telling him to kiss my ass...
If any part of religion - or - the practices therein should be considered evil, as they stand alone - then those are the things that should be rejected. Any evil, is the work of the Enemy, the so called devil...

The devil is a liar, a destroyer, a cheat and a thief and a sad little lonely (enter your favorite badword here) that wants to get his way, by stifling your growth and the growth of those in your vicinity by getting you to act like him (be it symbolic - be it demons possessing you - be it the influence of your surroundings that a person would refuse to let go / not taking the time to identify / the immature stance of not stepping up to a higher responsibility / I am speaking in terms of committing or refusing to stand against evil (that which is unjust/wrong/oppressive/hurtful/abusive/demeaning etc) and nothing more than this with these examples)...

Sin can be defined by the church - if you look into most description what would be considered sins you can see the 'symbology' in this as well and see why these things are considered as such OR you can define sins for yourself, because - like duh - we all know right from wrong.... (you can even abstain from calling it 'sin' as to avoid the 'religious' context, but acts that HURT are still there AND should be recognized and addressed, this promotes healing for yourself and many parties...)

Many people feel its ok to hurt others for selfish gain etc..(or do not consider at all their actions against others enough to address the damage they cause) and do not care to make any adjustments to this - I can see how the Church of Lucifer would make them feel good about such things. They get to continue working for the Devil while developing their spiritual side! Hey, after all, it's just human nature! (Sarcasm - see Christians get to have fun too!)

I also understand the 'guilt' factor attributed to by THE CHURCH - this should also be rejected. I rejected GUILT as apart of my religion, and it felt great! Small amounts should be assessed. Apologies are sometimes necessary. Large amounts are the work of the Devil, trying to separate you from the GOODNESS of God.

I'm sure you heard it before, but this is your chance to hear it again...
Yes there is light and darkness. My belief is that we should go toward the light...

Edited by SpiritWriter, 16 October 2012 - 11:24 PM.

[Cybele]

Etu Malku, on 16 October 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Jung did not believe in a god as you think, he truly understood it as do we LHP'ers . . . if anything Jung was a closet Luciferian!

I think Jung was influenced heavily by Gnosticism. You can see the gnostic influence in the use of Basilides of Alexandria and terms such as "pleroma" in Septem Sermones ad Mortuos. Early Christianity and Greek mythology influences are seen in the figure of Philemon.

I think it's always best to consider a historical figure in light of philosophies that predated them, rather than ones which arose after their death.

Edited by Cybele, 17 October 2012 - 02:30 AM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Lesionia, on 15 October 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

Isnt science a religion in itself?

No. Science is a method and a body of knowledge. That's it.

[OrdinaryClay]

Etu Malku, on 16 October 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Jung clearly states (this is accepted by the majority of theoretical psychologists, today's philosophers, and our modern LHP religions) that gods, devils, angels, demons, etc., are all archetypal images deeply embedded within Man's unconsciousness, they are brought to the surface consciousness through Symbology.

This is psychobabble non-sense. Psychology's only claim to science is through statistical methods, which demonstrate nothing of the sort. Jung was an occultist with secular trappings.