diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'content/theses/metaphysical/religious')
6 files changed, 121 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/_index.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/_index.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..29b0da1 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/_index.md @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +--- +title: religious +weight: 30 +bookCollapseSection: true +--- diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/demonology.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/demonology.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7ded6cd --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/demonology.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +title: demonology +weight: 150 +--- + +Satan and the rest of the demons are truly the most tragic beings in existence. + +The reason I say this is because they are the most powerful deceivers to ever exist, deceiving themselves and being in an eternal state where, even though they *feel* they made the wrong choice, they are so prideful, so invested in their belief, that to acknowledge the truth is impossible. + +Their choice is that of self-deification. + +To explain that we need to go back. + +In the original Scriptures, Satan appears as one of the Archangels, called Lucifer, the Bringer of Light, the Dawn, until his rebellion against God. + +Most cultures display this act of rebellion as an act of attempted liberation. "God imposes His will on the world, but Lucifer refused to submit. He was therefore cast away by God and punished by Him to eternal damnation." + +The truth however is different; Lucifer, Satan, did not rebel against "God and his order", but rather against his own nature, as a being *created* by God. His rebellion was an attempt to become like God, to become uncreated (*aktistos*), and to be a God himself. + +This is impossible. It is impossible for a created thing (*ktisto*) to become uncreated (*aktisto*). There is no way to trascend the boundary --- something finite cannot become infinite, something caused cannot become the Uncaused Cause, and this ontological limitation is the cause of the eternal damnation. + +For Satan was not "arrested", nor was he "locked away in hell as a prisoner". He is a prisoner of his own self, tormented by his own delusion of grandeur. He refuses to acknowledge the ontological distinction, and is therefore eternally damned by himself. Where God is, he cannot be, because the truth is too much to bear. God is infinite, Satan is finite. + +In this sense it is his ego that holds him a prisoner in his own hell, which is his own head. In truth it is extremely easy to "escape". The only necessity is to acknowledge his own true nature; a being *created* by God. His pride and ego however, ensure that he is always a prisoner. + +In this self-delusion of self-deification, we can see that Satan is not evil in the sense of him wanting to cause damage. He is evil because in his delusion, he is trying to convince other he is right; he believes that through worship and power he might finally achieve self-deification and reach the status of God; in his own head he *might just become uncreated*. + +Hell therefore is not a place, nor a prison where "evil people go", it is a state of the spirit, a lack of connection with the ontological source, which is God. + +This is also why Satan, or any of his followers (ie creatures with their own egos and pride, convinced that they can achieve self-deification), retreat in the light of Truth; it is why when they whisper in your ear intrusive thoughts you can easily get rid of them by laughing at them, or by shooing them away like flies. If you treat them more than what they are, for example as powerful entities, you grant them power and influence over you. + +The other causes of demons running away, prayer and forgiveness, are also in the same vein. Prayer works for the simple fact that you call upon the cause of their self-hatred and self-imposed hell for help. Forgiveness is their worst situation. Their ego and pride would never let them admit to themselves that they are wrong, as if they are wrong they must correct themselves, which is antethical to their entire existence. Forgiveness therefore is poison to them. To show them love and understanding is to drive them away, which is sad, because in true forgiveness they could be saved. + +All they have to do is apologise. + + diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/desirelessness.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/desirelessness.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..381ac08 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/desirelessness.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +--- +title: desirelessness +weight: 200 +draft: true +--- + +There are many religious groups and subgroups[^1] that teach that the ultimate state of existence is desirelessness. They promote the idea that the physical reality is temporary and ephemeral, and further underline the idea of *escape*; that our metaphysical aspects, such as our soul is inherently superior to our "flesh prison" (our body), and that therefore we need to focus our attempts on liberation. + +On this, they attempt to reach a logical conclusion; to have a physical presence means to be a prisoner of physical reality and therefore to suffer. In this view, the end goal of religion is to reach a point of spiritual realisation, such that you *reject* your physical presence; you ascend to a purely spiritual plain of existence. + +This rejection of the physical self materialises as a drive to reject the physical in general. The physical body *desires*, and to act on your desires means to indulge in your physical experience, which reinforces it's existence and validates it. The only way therefore to reject the physical is to abstain from desires and to reach a state of desirelessness. + +On first inspection this appears to makes sense + + + + +[^1]: A religious group is for example Sampradaya; a subgroup is Buddhism, which although is an umbrella term for different sects (Mahayana, Therevada, etc) is traditionally seen to be a subgroup of the Sampradaya group, which also includes Hinduism (Mahabharat), as well as Jain and Sikhism. Another example, in the West, is the subgroup of Catholicism, composed of many different liturgical systems and traditions, being a member of the Christianity group, which also includes Orthodoxy. diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/dualism.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/dualism.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e69de29 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/dualism.md diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/judaism.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/judaism.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..734dcd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/judaism.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +--- +title: judaism +weight: 300 +bookHidden: true +--- + +{{% hint info %}} +This page does not presuppose any assumption about the existance of Christ. +It is not a "Christianized" view on the subject of the Judaic religion, it tries to be academic. +{{% /hint %}} + +The Judaic faith calls upon and rests upon some very specific points in order to claim it's validity. + +1. That Abraham is the patriarch of all of the Jewish people, +2. That God made a covenant with Abraham, promising that his descendants would become a great nation, +3. That though Abraham's son Isaac and his lineage, down to Jacob/Israel, and his twelve sons, the tribes of Israel came into existence, and +4. That the covenant God made with Moses grants the children of Israel claim over the lands that became known as Judea. + +From these, as well as the details of the covenants that God made with His people, the ancient kingdoms of Israel to the north and of Judea to the south were formed. + +In order to go into detail about the history and ontological conclusion of the Judaic faith, we must mention that in most of the covenants, the precondition for the covenant itself was obidience and faith to God and His rules, with each new covenant within the totality of the Old Testament being an update to the previous rules[^1]. +In most cases, when evil befell on the Jews, it was because they diverged from the commandments as a society; they stopped obeying God and the laws He had given them, and so God, seeing as they didn't want to maintain their relationship with Him, withdrew. + +This is what ultimately happened to the Kingdom of Israel, the northern kingdom. The people of the Kingdom of Israel adopted the idols and gods of their neighbours, and in the process ended their covenant with God. They abandoned Him, and so when the Assyrians came He respected their choice and left them alone. As a result the ten tribes that comprised the kingdom of Israel were exiled, spread out, and eventually they stopped existing. As the tribes forgot God, so too did He forget them, and as a result they ceased. + +Let us now look at the destruction of the Second Temple, and the subsequent exile of the Jews across the Roman empire. + +## the ontological end of Judaism +In the covenant between God and Moses, it was dictated that the *only* place of worship, where the Levites (men of the tribe of Levi), who God ordained as priests, could practice their religious tasks, such as the sacrifices, was the Temple. This means that in every sense, be that physical or metaphysical, the Temple *is* the ontological center of the faith. God's very presence on earth, the *Shekinah* dwelt in the Temple, and only in the Temple. + +Without the Temple, there is no Judaism, as there is no possible means with which to fulfil the conditions outlined in Mosaic Law. In an ontological sense, the Judaic faith *needs* the Temple to exist, because the Temple is the *only* place where religious ritual can take place, as ordained by God Himself. The existence of the Temple is a *necessity* for the ontological existance of the Judaic religion, as it was mandated that it would be. + +This means that the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans ended not only the Judaic religion in the physical sense of exiling the Jews across Europe, but it also ended the Judaic religion in a metaphysical and ontological sense. The Temple fell and the Judaic religion with it. There is no more Israel, no more Judea, no more the Judaic religion. + +## religious mandate +After the end of the Judaic faith in a religious sense, Rabbinic Judaism, where the Pharisees and scribes gained religious authority, became the norm. Since the Levites could not fulfil, *in every sense of the word*, their duties, the focus shifted into interpreting the pre-existing law, the Torah, however there lies an issue. + +The Levites were granted their authority by God Himself, on Mount Sinai; they were ordained by Him as His priests. + +The rabbis could not claim any such authority, as they are rabbis purely because of their mastery of the Torah, a learned skill, which means that any person, be they Jew or non-Jew, can claim the same expertise, and can even interpret the Torah more meaningfully or accurately that a rabbi. Since there is no religious authority or divine mandate, it is impossible to categorically decide which interpretation is objectively correct, and so it is impossible for a rabbi to claim any sort of religious importance. Their role is purely academic, and their authority is human. + +## the dissolution of the tribes of Judea +In the Biblical era, and until the destruction of the Second Temple, the Judaic tribes kept track of their members via records in the Temple, with the membership of each tribe passing in a patrilinear fashion. This meant that the sone of a member of the tribe of Benjamin would be of the tribe of Benjamin. + +With the destruction of the Temple, along with its records, it was only though oral tradition that the tribal lineage could be kept track of, as the tribal identity was passed from father to son. + +After the destruction, there was a shift in Judaic practice however, and the Jewish society shifted from a patriliniear to a matrilinear system. This meant that a baby would be of Jewish descent if the mother was Jewish, regardless of the father. This in turn led to the end of the last tribes of Israel since, if membership to a tribe is patrilinear, as was practised under Mosaic Law, the shift to a matrilinear system severed any connection, biological or metaphysical, to the original twelve tribes of Israel. + +All twelve tribes have ontologically ceased to exist, and so there are no more children of Jacob/Israel left, and so there is nobody to claim a continuation to the covenants of old. + +τετέλεσθαι + +[^1]: This does not imply any change in God. As the conditions under which the children of Israel found themselves at changed, so did their needs, both socially, and culturaly. For example the Levitikon talks about the life of the Jews during their exile in the desert; Deuteronomy is more about their settled life in Judea. + + diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/legalism.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/legalism.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c58d605 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/legalism.md @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +--- +title: legalism +weight: 50 +draft: true +--- + +Okay, so this is going to be a discussion in this last introduction. Last whatever. Into how I perceive theological issues. Such as God, the role of God will seem evil and all of those things. It's, you know, surface level, but like people argue about these things this topics all the time. So it's like something that I would like to have an input on. Maybe help clarify some things because I believe that the answers I found these questions are very good. And oh, sorry. And they do answer like for me, they feel the gaps. Because I have had some experience like going through different religions. I try different belief systems, I've written different books, holy books. And yeah.\n\nOkay, so first of all, this is not going to be a discussion about which God is a correct one, or which religion is a correct one. I don't care about these things. I have my answers. I'm not here to tell people, hey, your answers are correct or wrong or whatever. So, obviously, I am biased by being an Orthodox Christian, but it doesn't really matter as much. I will go into, like, hey, this religious group argues this thing to present an opinion, and then I will talk about, like, I will counter the argument. Like, for example, Protestants and Catholics and many Muslims and Jews, and there are big religious groups, many religious groups argue that, like, God is a judge figure, which I want to discuss, so I need to call, I don't want to be, like, a many religious groups who say this or that. I would like to be able to say this group or that group. Well.\n\nOkay, so the first topic I would like to talk about is the division between having three wheel as given by God versus the idea that God is a judge figure that does you all the time and that this cast and that essentially keeps track record of everything you have done and then once you die it gives present to you with what you have done so if this is true which I don't feel like it is, it contradicts the idea of three wheel in a major way because the idea of three wheel is that you can do what you want and you have authority over your life, you are the person that is in charge of your options and your opinions and your choices and having a judge walk over you and tell you, this is a good thing, this is a bad thing, it's really not in line with this idea. Having a judge over see you is more in line with you are inherently evil mode of thinking rather than you have the decision whether you want to do good or to do bad, whatever definition is, which I have given a definition, but you know, so yeah. To make a reference to the Bible, Jesus does say at a moment at a point that he alone has the authority. The Father has passed the authority to the Son to be the soul judge and that he will never use that ability. He has the ability to judge. He can if he wanted, but he does not want to judge because he does not want to enforce his authority. And his belief system is important because doing so would be contradictory to giving us the ability to choose. If he was going to enforce morality and perfection, then he might as well not have given free will in the first place. So it does not make any sense for a judge's deity to imbue creation with free will, the capacity to choose. Why would you choose? Why would you give them the option to choose when you're going to tell them if it's correct or not? Yes. You It would make a lot more sense with this in mind. It would make a lot more sense that the actual judge of the person is the person themselves. People, I notice myself feeling bad when I do something that I feel is not good for me. And there are other times where I strive to make me a decision because I don't know if it's good or not, but when I do make the decision, I feel good. And so there is this idea that when you pass to the next life, you have your judge for your actions, but the judge is yourself. You judge yourself and you nitpick every little thing that you have done throughout your entire life. And therefore, you decide your fate, which is a lot more cohesive with the idea of free will exist in us, the mode of with which humans and everything operates in general. There is an allegory, I don't know if that's an allegory, I'm metaphor, that a friend of mine has presented me with when I was going through a different philosophical aspects and questions of religion in general. He told me that in some of the fathers of the church in Orthodoxy have given examples of what it is like to be in heaven or hell to go to the bad place or the good place, essentially in any religion. And the way that he presented is the one that I'd like the most out of the ones that he has told me about is this idea that when you die, you go into a field, everybody, good or bad, or whatever goes to a field. And in front of you, the son is not the son, but it's the entirety of God, essentially, he's in the full glory of God. And so you come to that when you see that, you obviously you're overwhelmed by sentiment because it's like the, if you, the options are essentially, how do I feel when I see God in front of me? Do I feel the lose? Do I feel malicious? Do I feel hateful? If I have negative perceptions of this thing of the truth with a capital T in front of me, obviously, this, this light, this blinding light is going to burn me and it's going to hurt and it's going to torment my soul forever because I cannot stand to see God, uh, above me in the entire glory of God, essentially, whilst if you, if you accept your position, if you are humble and if you, you know that this is the, the truth essentially, except this as a truth, uh, then you are so happy, you're overwhelmed with happiness and all of the, the good feelings is the, the light is not burning you, but rather it's like, it's a, a warm spring day and you lie in the field and the sun hits you and warms you up and this, the difference between something burning you were something having a warmth that is the difference between having a help in, in, in normal looks. And it also makes sense to a huge extent why and how, like, in Orthodoxy, because in Catholicism you have the Purgatory, essentially, for light scenes, or you have the first circle of hell for people that are known, that were not religious, that didn't know, but it just so good. This implies that everybody, by default, goes to hell and therefore to some extent every human is evil, and also it implies that, like, God is the one deciding, oh, you know, their scenes weren't that bad, so let's keep them in Purgatory to clean up a bit and then they can go on to be in heaven. Which doesn't make sense, and the results are called, I remember, reading, where it was, like, if I don't believe in God, will I go to heaven or hell? Oh, you actually go to heaven because you would not have known that you were being evil, and so the other person responds and why would you tell me that? And because that implies that the knowledge of God forces you to behave in a way, if there is no enforcement of that, in reality, it's all a strict feeling, because whether you believe in God or not, you're always ending up in the same place, and therefore it is up to you to perceive the thing that you're perceiving. It's up to you to choose how you feel and how you handle yourself in front of this thing in front of you. |