As an Ashmadaiian who studied with Onslaughtians and teaches Luciferians, I feel the need to be informative on how many of us view the subject of atheists. In DAAG, the Demonic Alliance Against God, we use knowledge as the tool against the divine. We do believe in the existence of divinity, just not their power and certainly not their right to subjugation. Knowing their own texts allows the discovery of examples given by them to contradict the power god has. Our hope is to disolve the strangle-hold god has on people so demons may then recede back into the shadows and leave a world of Atheists living life for this world as they should. Atheists also help to reveal the information about what is purely wrong with these dogmas, which allows us to have hope that humans are not doomed to forever be in the shadow of a powerless phantom. We, as a collection of demonic factions, bow in respect to atheists and organizations such as this. Keep living your lives in freedom.
As I understand your message, and please correct me if I misspeak; 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' This is not necessarily the case. While the beauty of Atheism is that it does not require dogmatic worldviews, I'd have to say that I find your propositions as ludicrous, unintelligent, and unfounded as those of any Faith-Head. You have absolutely no justification for your mythology of ethereal conflict.
I would go so far as to say; it is the mission of united Atheists to distance ourselves from those that purposefully take on an antagonistic position (such as yourself), as the current Atheist movement is to uphold and protect this secular nation by protecting it from unjustified manipulation.
Atheists don't hate Christians/Muslims/etcetera; we hate their attempts to muck and degenerate humanity with their aspirations to establish theocracies.
If you are serious about this, then why aren't you out there infiltrating the missionaries that send people into areas where it's illegal to convert others into cults? How about you show evidence for this battle that you're in? What are you doing to destroy Christianity? And, is it just the Christians that you war against, or is it Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus as well?
I'm going to make an unjustified proposition; you're really a Christian Faith-Head that would like to validate the delusion that the Anti-Christians and the Atheists are rowing the same boat.
Most of the ACTUAL worshipers of the traditional 'bad-guys' of religions are teenagers experiencing rebellious stages of development; in which railing against status quos of urbanite environments and parental power structures is common. So, I must ask; Are you a teenager that has decided to 'shock' your guardians/community with these outlandish beliefs?
It is not a case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Atheists are not what I see as enemies of god, but people who have detached themselves from religion and live independently and is what we hope people to eventually all be like. It is not their fight to make the world atheist. And no, I'm not a teenager. My Ashmadaiism started when I was 10, and now I'm 22 with my parents and siblings not only knowing my faith early on, but accepting me for what I am without any "shock". I was not a rebel and my family is far too loving to make when want to rebel. And I wasn't even brought up in a Christian household, I came up in a Jewish one. Your attempt at a vicious profiling is very much flawed.
And it is not just Christians we want to change, it is all. The "etcetera" as you put it. I know they're not hated, and we don't hate the individuals, we hate the deities. Just because we don't like the sheperd doesn't mean we don't like the lambs.
I am saying we respect the Atheist view and wish there were more like you. Just a harmless statement.
Is Ashmadaiian the same as - ASHMADAI - refers to powerful demons bound by two Archangels during Biblical times. A Novel by Brad Staggs and Nicki Fellenzer (Ashmadai) The return of a powerful demon into the modern world of Indiana, USA, after being bound by two Archangels during Biblical times.
I don't see how atheists can help or support this since we do not believe in anything supernatural or Biblical Mythos. The only way atheist could help any of these kinds of fools is to say sober up and face the facts: (there is no God, no afterlife, no angels, or demons and no devil) so deal with it.
Or is it along the same thinking as the Joseph Campbell's (Soup of religion)except with a devil diety not gods. I believe if there were no supernatural beliefs we would have to face reality and work on our problems through people with integrity instead of people who embrace superstitious B.S. That doesn't get us anywhere.
As for the demons and devil - in the Hebrew Bible - The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "Lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. That's how Lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, came to be understood as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness. However I read that it really refers to a King that was dethroned, or cast down. The word demon is not found in the Bible. The common assumption is that a demon is a fallen angel. It's not. This word is derived from the French (Norman) language. It most likely means demond which means of the earth or earthly. What this means is these fallen angels, that have mated with human women, have produced half-breed offspring that are half human and half angel. The result of this is that the spirit of such a being is not quite human and not quite angel. When such a being dies, the spirit of this being does not rest as human spirits do. That is the explanation of ghosts and apparitions. Of coarse God has to destroy them. However, I think that people could get rid of them by just facing reality. There are no ghosts.
What should have been taken as a harmless compliment has been met with ignorance and needless hostility. I'm not asking for help or support, nor am I debating you. If I was, I would have asked for help, or at least set up that we don't follow the lies and propaganda of the bible, nor do we care about ficticious novels. We also do not believe in that creationist crap or that anything is all powerful. And in original, unaltered books, the forbidden books edited out of the torah do explain the creatures now known as demons, which is where the name of Satan came from, being hebrew for adversary. They were not the incarnates of evil, despite what later writers of those ridiculous books decided.
Back to the point, my compliment was spat upon showing a continuous bias against my kind. We aren't hurting anyone. If I was looking to have a meaningless arguement then I'd go talk to another of those mormons. Clearly the people here are no more open minded than those they wish to disprove. To all of you I say good day and this conversation is over.
The Ugaritic alphabet is among the oldest that has been discovered; the transliteration (the practice of transcribing a word or text) has proven that the culture and religion of Israel in its earliest period come from Ugarit. Texts, which were discovered at Ugarit, were written in one of four languages: Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurritic and Ugaritic. The tablets were found in the royal palace, the house of the High Priest, and some private houses of evidently leading citizens.
Atheists are not involved in a conflict about interpretations of religion, because through investigation scholars have the facts. We do not have a mission to save anyone from their own ignorance. Scholars (because of) archeological finds, ancient languages, and science have found out what the facts are, and we know where all the myths came from (Ugarit.) That is where you will find all of the missing pieces. Atheists and scholars do not argue over subjugation by deities. We do not believe in deities. My comment about support was not an indication that I thought you asked for any; I was pointing out the differences in the little path you are on (to rid the earth of ignorance with ignorance) and Atheists. Your desire to make statements and then say you don't wish to debate them is no different from any right wing fundamentalist Christian. You don't want your beliefs challenged any more than they do.
QUOTE - "And in original, unaltered books, the forbidden books edited out of the torah do explain the creatures now known as demons, which is where the name of Satan came from, being hebrew for adversary. They were not the incarnates of evil, despite what later writers of those ridiculous books decided."
The Sumero-Akkadian story of the creation of the World found its way to Palestine long before the Israelites' advent there, and learned them from the Canaanites. The style of writing discovered at Ugarit is known as alphabetic cuneiform. This is a unique blending of an alphabetic script and cuneiform (a unique blending of two styles of writing.) Cuneiform was passing from the scene and alphabetic scripts were coming in. Ugaritic is a bridge from one to the other.
DEMONS AND SATAN: Besides single words being illuminated by the Ugaritic texts, entire ideas or complexes of ideas have parallels in the literature. Deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El (the chief god) Elyon, and El Berith. The Hebrew writers apply all of these names to Yahweh. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Phoenician gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Phoenician gods to exist. This process is known as assimilation. Besides the chief god at Ugarit there were also lesser gods, demons, and goddesses. The most important of these lesser gods were Baal, Asherah, Yam and Mot. In Hebrew Asherah is called the wife of Baal; but she is also known as the consort of Yahweh! Baal (a lesser deity) is described as the "rider on the clouds" interestingly enough, this description is also used of Yahweh in Psalm 68:5. One Ugaritic text testifies that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El ( sm . bny . yw . ilt ) "The name of the son of god, Yahweh." This text showing that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.
Among the other gods worshipped at Ugarit there are Dagon, Tirosch, Horon, Nahar, Resheph, Kotar Hosis, Shachar (who is the equivalent of Satan), and Shalem. One of the most famous of the lesser deities at Ugarit was Dan'il. There is little doubt that this figure corresponds to the Biblical Daniel (while predating him by several centuries.) Most scholars agree that the Canonical prophet was the Ugarit Dan'il. Another creature is Leviathan. Hebrew text Isaiah 27:1 and Ugarit texts describe this beast. In Ugarit, as in Israel, the cult played a central role in the lives of the people. Ugaritic myths - story of Baal's enthronement as king. Baal is killed by Mot (in the Fall of the year) and he remains dead until the Spring of the year. His victory over death was celebrated as his enthronement over the other gods. (Sound familiar?) The Hebrew text also celebrates the enthronement of Yahweh. As in the Ugaritic myth, the purpose of Yahweh's enthronement is to re-enact creation. Another interesting parallel between Israel and Ugarit is the yearly ritual known as the sending out of the "scapegoats" one for god and one for a demon.
The Prophet Joseph Smith (Mormon) began a revision of the Old Testament in June 1830 to restore and clarify vital points of history and doctrine missing from the Bible. Unfortunately he did not have the text from Ugarit since they were not found until about 1923 and were interpreted later on by a man who was an expert in ancient languages and decoding. We understand the literature itself much better now, and we are now able to clarify difficult words due to their Ugaritic homogeneity. What all of this means is that it all comes out of ancient myths/superstitions!
pathetic humans. they sicken me. you try to compliment the best of them and they argue and accuse you of trying to make of them something they are not. pathetic humans...... one day, when i lead my revolution, i will let you have control and judgement on these ones. be as mirciless as you wish. i expect only that they get what they deserve. pathetic, no good, worthless humans. destroying this beautiful world, treating each other not as equals but with cruelty and hatered. they dont deserve this life.one day i will let them know that...... *sweet smile* when the world is mine :D
I wonder what triggered this rant? Was it the fact that atheists won't be pigeonholed into the god or devil camp? Xians like to think that they have convinced everyone that they have no other choices.... Both are nothing more than passive-aggressive jerk-offs playing the same game.
Any nincompoop who believes in invisible places and deities beyond the realm of human perception are not being helped by atheists. Actually I think it is the xians who are helping spread these fantastically ignorant delusions.
It's pretty lame!
I love women. I'm starting a campaign to convince men that they should become women. After all, women keep houses so much cleaner. If there was nothing but women on the Earth, think of how clean the place would be. And everyone would be lesbians, which is HOT! And since God made women more docile & simple-minded, there'd be no more conflict...since they only fight over men.
Come on, I'm paying you a complement. I'm saying that I think all men should be women. And I'm a man, so it should be double complementary. Aren't you grateful that there are men that think like me?
If you don't thank me, then when I convince all the men to become women, I'll make sure you don't get any hot lesbian action.
Dylan > You sound like a psycho bitch to me right now! It's mostly fundies who do the woman hating and accusing anyone who doesn't love Jesus of being queer number.
Oh! I loved that one Dylan. Were you referring to the "real men love Jesus" crap? Magi claims he is a 'closet atheist' that tells people that he is a Christian if asked. His posts often have these kinds of attitudes that mostly the lower class and right wing fundies express.
Magi >And since God made women more docile & simple-minded, there'd be no more conflict...since they only fight over men.
I'm sure the women you have had experience with are simple-minded- but I bet they're not all that clean.
Magi >Come on, I'm paying you a complement.
Compliment (appreciation) Complement (supplement) Sorry Magi Guy but you got the wrong word.
Where did you learn to spell from one of those simple-minded women you associate with?
Magi >And I'm a man, so it should be double complementary.
And I'm a man, so it should be doubly (double) is incorrect grammar. Complimentary (flattering) Complementary (analogous).
Green Magi, I know Linda, she is a friend of mine, and Magi guy you are no Linda.
Green Magi said, "Time Out. Does everyone realize that I'm doing a parody of the original Topic-Creator, but using a different subject. (THIS SENTENCE NEEDS A QUESTION MARK.) Seriously."
What you wrote was insulting to women and gays not the person who wrote the original topic. A parody is a writing in which the language or sentiment of an author is mimicked. To only use one word "compliment" but never ever broach his theme is not a parody of his topic. A parody is a comic imitation of a piece of writing. None of his posts - mentions any opinions about women - chauvinism - homosexuality. Therefore, it's just not a parody of his writing. Parody and satire can be offensive to the subject of the parody, but not everyone but the writer or his subject.
Parodies imitate their subject otherwise it makes no sense. His subject was how atheists help get God out of society, and that helps them to replace God with Lucifer. I said "atheist do not believe in the supernatural", and "it sounds like your fighting ignorance with ignorance". He was offended because I didn't agree that atheists help, or that it would be better. I'm sure he thought atheists would say, "What a relief, I can't wait until we get a new deity to worship?"
A parody is a writing in which the language or sentiment of an author is mimicked; an important part of writing parodies is staying on the subject. A parody is a humorous use of an existing writing. It does have to vaguely resemble the subject of the original writing. Since the topic didn't fit his writings and the only connection is one word "compliment" it is no wonder that nobody got the connection.
It didn't need a question mark, because it was more like a redundant statement and far less like a question.
And it was a comedic parody of the original writing. And it was funny.
Oh well, I guess you'd need a pair of balls to get it.
Green Magi said, "It didn't need a question mark, because it was more like a redundant statement and far less like a question."
Answer: This is the sentence in question. Green Magi said, "Does everyone realize that I'm doing a parody of the original Topic-Creator, but using a different subject." Even the rhetorical question needs a question mark, even you don't expect it to be answered. No matter how much you argued that your sentence does not need a question mark - your sentence is not correct without a question mark.
Green Magi said, "And it was a comedic parody of the original writing. And it was funny. Oh well, I guess you'd need a pair of balls to get it.
Answer: It was a slur against women and guys not the original writing or writer. It must have been one of those Rush Limbaugh (like) parodies full of hurtful comments and ignorant humor that actually helps the opponent. It clearly was not a parody of the original writing about Ashmadaiian or Luciferians, and how the atheists are helping with their endeavors. You didn't mimic or insult the original writing or his subject. What you wrote degraded a minority community as well as anyone with half a brain.
Your parody was about as funny as vulgar ethnic slurs and rape jokes, and the fact that you don't see what is wrong demonstrates that you never have had any really deep thoughts. And I'm sure you don't mind me telling you that your parody was shallow and not a very funny. I think that you missed the mark.
I read the comments you made. I think the person you made them to had the right to respond that they don't share your attitudes, but others were far more insulting toward you, and you didn't notice? It is not all right to use what some people consider an abusive attitude toward gays or women, even if it was done in humor. The other examples of the wrong way to express something with humor were fine. In regards to someone who needs to get off their soapbox, I've seen your ramblings that go on for pages and are meaningless. Maybe you should consider who is usually in favor of those kinds of remarks, instead of insulting people who are not. It's rednecks and fundies. Other people have objected to some of your remarks, and not just on this thread.
Linda, Ugarit must be a very important archeological find. Too bad the information was wasted on this. Oh well, I read it.
It's as plain as the nose on your face what they are indignant about. Never try to raise the awareness level of ignorant people they resent it.