Edit: grammar

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    0·
    1 year ago

    Don’t bother trying to make any of it make sense. And don’t bother trying to reason with those that believe it. If you’re an actual atheist, just move on with your belief and pay no attention to the beliefs of others. They should be just as irrelevant to you as your belief should be to them.

    Now, if you’re a Reddit atheist, I think you’re supposed to throw a hateful insult-ladened temper tantrum about how Christian are insulting and short fused. At least that’s what it seems anyway.

    If it is neither…. Cool musing!

  • jeffw@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think Satan is supposed to be an “opposite,” he was an angel who just fell or something

    • Masimatutu@lemm.eeOP
      0·
      1 year ago

      Still he is often portrayed as the evil counterpart of God, which is as opposite as you will get

    • TheActualDevil@lemmy.world
      0·
      1 year ago

      “anti” also doesn’t mean opposite, it means against. The roots of the word, tracing back to the Greek, means against. As it does in French and it’s Sanskrit version. All forms of it mean opposed to. This is why language is important and some checks should be there to counter the “language is malleable” argument that people use as an excuse to not learn how to use words correctly. The idea that anti means opposite has been around as long as I can remember, and definitely longer than that, but it drastically changes the meaning of words.

    • Dandroid@dandroid.app
      0·
      1 year ago

      The lore is actually unclear on that. Most seem to agree that Lucifer is a fallen angel, but it’s never so much as suggested in the source material that Satan is Lucifer. Lucifer is actually only mentioned one single time, in an old testament verse. The other dead kings are making fun of the king of Babylon for failing to defeat God and dying himself. As the king of Babylon is dying, the other dead kings say he has “fallen from heaven” and call him Lucifer. It seems implied that Lucifer and/or the king of Babylon are being compared to the sun Venus, the “morning star”, and the second brightest object in the sky behind the moon [added this part in an edit], and I think many have interpreted this as to mean Lucifer was an angel that tried to shine brighter than God and this was cast out of heaven. But it seems like most of the modern depictions of Lucifer have no basis in biblical canon. It’s all people trying to extrapolate from one single time the name Lucifer was mentioned while dead kings make fun of a dying king.

      • tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk
        0·
        1 year ago

        Fiction tends to get more from the apocrypha and similar spurces… things like the rebellion, Lilith etc. More meat on the bones when you want to write an interesting character.

        If you had to base it on a couple of lines in the old testament you’d have very little. Certainly not a netflix series worth 😁

      • Ddhuud@lemmy.world
        0·
        1 year ago

        The “morning star” referred in the bible is not the sun. They had no idea the sun was even a star.

        The firsts mentions of the sun being a star was in 500BC and the Greek that said it was exiled as heretic for even saying something like that. The old testament predates that for millennia.

        The morning star and the evening star, at a different time of the year, are the planet Venus. Which was the brightest “star”.

      • SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world
        0·
        1 year ago

        Lucifer in the Old Testament testament is the king of Babylon I believe in context.

        The symbology of a star falling from heaven fits with allegories of stars as kings/rulers in many places in the Bible.

        As for satan being a fallen angel that’s a little more substantiated

        Luke 10:17-18

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      0·
      1 year ago

      I mean I feel like undoing all creation every time I fall or stub my toe, too. Sure, we all do. But geez, it’s a figure if speech! An in the moment thing!

  • Ekybio@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 year ago

    Me: “Interesting thought.”

    Me after reading the comments: “This shit is more complex then family relationships in Austrian Royalty.”

  • Bizarroland@kbin.social
    0·
    1 year ago

    I think your logic is messed up somewhere.

    Jesus is the Christ, Christ being the word for “the anointed one” or “the chosen one” or “the Messiah”.

    An antichrist would be one that is the opposite of “the Messiah” or “the chosen one” or “the anointed one”, they wouldn’t have to be the complete and total opposite of Jesus to count.

    • Masimatutu@lemm.eeOP
      0·
      1 year ago

      First of all, this is not logic. This is just a dumb thought experiment.

      And secondly, something as complex as a person will never have a true opposite, so you will be looking at the defining feature of that person. In the case of Jesus Christ, a lot of peoply would say that “son of God” is his defining feature.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        0·
        1 year ago

        In the case of Jesus Christ, a lot of peoply would say that “son of God” is his defining feature.

        Pretty sure they’d instead focus on the whole “sacrifice for all of mankind’s sins” thing but maybe we just know different people

    • CrazyEddie041@kbin.social
      0·
      1 year ago

      My favorite (probably inaccurate) point about the name “Jesus Christ”: the name “Christ” means “anointed one”, as you said. People were generally anointed by having oil poured on their head. “Jesus” is just contemporary form of the name “Joshua”. So in another life, “Jesus Christ” could literally be translated as “Oily Josh”.

      • Bizarroland@kbin.social
        0·
        1 year ago

        I feel like if Jesus were alive now the name oily josh would be like that horrible childhood nickname that he hates

  • three@lemm.ee
    0·
    1 year ago

    if someone reads a fairy tale and believes it’s real does that make it real?

  • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    The problem is that God is allegedly light (1 John 1:5).

    Light is its own opposite (a photon’s anti-particle is identical to itself).

    So there cannot be a Satan that’s the opposite of a God of light.

    Also, the addition of Satan as a supernatural adversary in the Abrahamic tradition was probably the result of a later editor needing to change Anat petitioning El to kill the son of the protagonist as adapted from the earlier polytheistic Tale of Aqhat to set up the adapted dialogue of suffering from the Babylonian Theodicy into a monotheistic version and just replaced the goddess’ name with the generic term ‘adversary.’ So there’s the whole later fanfiction as just the result of a lazy editor adapting a polytheistic earlier story to a monotheistic version going against the whole ‘Satan’ thing too.

    • groggy@lemmy.world
      0·
      1 year ago

      What an amazing rabbit hole to go down. Thanks for teaching me something new! Fascinating religion with quite the history.

      • Artemis@lemmy.ml
        0·
        1 year ago

        Fun fact: St. Augustine started out as a Manichaean! Super interesting stuff even from a purely philosophical POV.

  • db2@sopuli.xyz
    0·
    1 year ago

    If you try to make actual sense of these things you’re gonna have a bad time. They’re not made for people capable of thinking.

  • evdo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    And Jesus is an incarnation/aspect of God (at least in the version I’m most familiar with), right? It’s some kinda bizarre circle

  • jay91@lemmy.ml
    0·
    1 year ago

    The question is, why the god would give a freewill to the humans but not the angles? aren’t we all his creation? why god punishes the angels for opposition but still give the humans the best shape who do worst? all these are Myths, there is no such a Satan, the human viciousness is the satan we afraid of. there is nothing eviler than the human rampage causing harm.