LeaT's Comments

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Ashamed Christians

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:39:53 +0000

One can argue that Catholicism is polytheistic.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Debunking Christianity 2.5 - The Ignorance of Evil

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:10:10 +0000

I think you are mixing things up. It's a common misconception that all these things would refer to the same character, but that's not necessarily true. Satan means adversary in Hebrew, but there's nothing that connects Satan to for example be the same character known as Lucifer, and Lucifer might in fact even be a horrible misstranslation. In Christianity, terms that are synonymous with "Satan" include: The most common English synonym for "Satan" is "Devil", which descends from Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, that in turn represents an early Germanic borrowing of Latin diabolus (also the source of "diabolical"). This in turn was borrowed from Greek diabolos "slanderer", from diaballein "to slander": dia- "across, through" ballein "to hurl".[10] In the New Testament, "Satan" occurs more than thirty times in passages alongside Diabolos (Greek for "the devil"), referring to the same person or thing as Satan.[11] * Lucifer is sometimes used in Christian theology to refer to Satan, as a result of identifying the fallen "son of the dawn" of Isaiah 14:12 with the "accuser" of other passages in the Old Testament. * Beelzebub is originally the name of a Philistine god (more specifically a certain type of Baal, from Ba‘al Zebûb, lit. "Lord of Flies") but is also used in the New Testament as a synonym for Satan. A corrupted version, "Belzeboub", appears in The Divine Comedy. * Satan is identified as the serpent who convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit; thus, Satan has often been depicted as a serpent. This interpretation goes back at least as far as the time of the writing of the book of Revelation, which specifically identifies Satan as being the serpent (Rev. 20:2). * "The dragon" and "the old serpent" in the Book of Revelation 12:9, 20:2 have been identified with Satan. The Book of Revelation also refers to "the deceiver," from which is derived the common epithet "the great deceiver."[12] Other terms identified with Satan include "the prince of this world" in the Book of John 12:31, 14:30; "the prince of the power of the air" also called Meririm, and "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" in the Book of Ephesians 2:2; and "the god of this world" in 2 Corinthians 4:4.[13] * Leviathan is described as "that crooked serpent", which is also used to describe Satan in Revelation 12:9. 'Sar ha Olam,' a possible name for Metatron, is described as Satan by Michael, Jehoel and St. Paul. This is taken off the English Wikipedia from the article named Satan. As you can see, many of the names have very little to do with what people today consider to be the devil. Lucifer means bringer of light, and it is now considered that it might be a reference to morning star, and there's nothing that necessarily connects the serpent in Eden to be Satan. Same goes for the dragon. If anything, I would ascribe the serpent a sexual symbolic value, maybe even as a phallic symbol. I have no doubt in my mind why it was Eve (a woman) that was seduced by sexuality, and that it was because she was a woman that the original sin occured. It all seems to boil down much to such things as menstruation and blackmailing older pagan religions that hailed female fertility, since it was a symbol for the earth. This is why you will find many female fertility goddesses but very few male ones. So what I am trying to say is that Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer among others have nothing to do with each other, as once you start looking into their origins they seem to be completely unrelated. EDIT Bla bla, I just read Anath's article again, why am I rehashing everything? Regardless, if you read what I've said or what Anath's said (and we are independent sources, do not view us as in we share those ideas just because we hang out on the same internet site), you will understand that much that you believe has to do with Satan has nothing to do with Satan because the correlation is simply not there. Anath has laid it out very well in her article. It has nothing to do with evil, just very bad spreading of misinformation over time that has taken root in popular culture to the point where you wonder why they are still permeating since they are so right-out wrong on all levels.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Debunking Christianity 2.5 - The Ignorance of Evil

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:54:09 +0000

Anath is correct in her assertion that the English word "hell" comes from the Norse word "hel". In Norse mythology, Hel was the place of the underworld where the souls of the dead departed. It was a cold and desolate place, quite different to the Christian idea of "hell". Hel was located underneath the world tree Yggdrassil. People who died old and sick were usually transported to Hel, whereas if you died in battle, a valkyrie would carry you to Odin's halls in Valhalla. Since Hel wasn't a very nice place to be in, men rather preferred to die in battle than old and sick in their bed. Wikipedia has actually some neat information about the Greek word for the underworld: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades And it is more likely that Sheol in that case would've been translated into Greek since Sheol refers to something completely different than Hades, although most underworlds in pagan mythologies bear many similarities. So even if Sheol would've been translated into Greek and then into English, it seems very unlikely the Greek translation would sound anything similar to "hel" or "hell".

The Antichristian Phenomenon : The relationship between science and religion: Turfs of Aristotelian causality

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:33:07 +0000

I don't buy your argument. Why? Because a cause does not necessarily lead to a designer. You are setting up a false dichonomy. There are many different opinions about what happened before big bang, such as the big bounce or the big crunch. I personally follow the big bounce theory. To say that there must be a designer because there must be a cause is illogical and unreasonable because you rule out all other just as optional alternatives. None of those options are more right or wrong than the others. One could just as easily say that you are so blinded by your faith that you look for easy answers in a designer, instead of facing the face value that the chances of a designer existing are very slim at best, and is contrary to all evidence we have so far discovered about the universe. This just further shows the desperate cries for help from christians and other believers alike, because they are unable to face their own logical fallacies. Do you see where I am heading?

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Reasonable Christians (I know you're out there) vs. the Unreasonable

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:28:27 +0000

I think there very well are too many similarities between many deities from that time to shrug them off. I think many of those ideas may have crystallized themselves into Jesus, and I don't really see anything wrong with that belief or make you necessarily follow the ideas presented in Zeitgeist. The point with Zeitgeist was to do one thing: make you start asking questions, which it very well managed to do.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : The True Nature of Religion: The Search for Self-Empowerment

Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:22:49 +0000

Well, I think you contradicted my own conclusion pretty much, but I am not going to go into that now, only the part about dogs. Dogs don't starve naturally, in fact, any dog owner will know that dogs will tend to eat basically anything which can be considered edible and then some. If the food is tasty enough, they will eat until they throw up, then eat some more and their puke, and if they cannot absolutely manage to eat more, they will try to hide it somewhere by digging it into the ground to save it when they become hungry again. The only reason why a dog may refuse to eat is because the food isn't tasty enough, which is the case with humans too. But they will eat, just like we will, once they become hungry enough. I think your reasoning around dogs is contradictional to what we know about dogs and evolution in general. Before dogs became domestic animals, it was natural to starve because food wasn't as abundant before. But this didn't mean that starvation as a behavior got carried over once they became tame, in fact, it's quite the opposite. It's the idea to eat as much as possible because you don't know when you might starve again that was, and this is true for humans too, and this is the reason why we see a wave of obesity spreading in the Western world.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Christmas without Christ - Why?

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:38:20 +0000

Just start referring to them as christians in lower case and it will be all fine and dandy! In fact, in Sweden we don't capitalize any religious nouns, it's all lower case, so kristen (Christian), kristendomen (Christianity), islam (Islam), muslim (Muslim) and hedning (Pagan). I don't refer to god in upper case either, and there are people who actually are put off by this it seems. I do find it silly that in Sweden we refer the Christian god with a capital G, but the other gods not. I think the context very well states which gods we are referring to either way, and lower and upper case letters don't exist in verbal language.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Where did Jesus send Hitler and Gandhi after they died?

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:01:58 +0000

I honestly think you misunderstood what I said. It hasn't to do so much with the church but with personal beliefs. If I read the newspaper about 9/11 and then go read the Bible and finds something which MIGHT seem like the two are connected, then I will make that assumption even though there was no connection at all, hence, seeing things which aren't there. Also, the Catholic Church didn't just stand by the side and watch during World War II, they actually supported Hitler.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Where did Jesus send Hitler and Gandhi after they died?

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:37:33 +0000

Oh yes, total confusion!

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Where did Jesus send Hitler and Gandhi after they died?

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:36:12 +0000

People can see anything they want to see, if they want it just strong enough. Can suggest you to watch The Number 16 with Jim Carrey to show you what I mean; he basically ends up seeing the number everywhere and get paranoid because he cannot understand its supposedly hidden meaning where there really is none. So the true fault is the human psyche if anything, and our will to see things which just aren't there.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Where did Jesus send Hitler and Gandhi after they died?

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:12:01 +0000

So do I, but I try to organize my thoughts before I put them down.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Ashamed Christians

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:47:53 +0000

As a non-American I do find the Constitution a big failure, so you didn't really counter anything with that argument. Also, it's LeaT, no h, or even better, just stick with Lea like everyone else is doing. Also, the part about political documents is to word them as clearly as possible so NO ONE can interpret them differently. This is not the sake with a religious document. If people disagree over a political document and its meanings, it should and must be rewritten so the meaning will become more clear. Well, I sorely disagree over your choice of learning your son to pray, because I believe that your son should have his own right to decide whether he wants to believe in god or not and whether he believes in praying or not, which you didn't give him. Also, my point wasn't at all to point out that raising a child according to religious doctirne is immoral, I will disagree with it, but I said that you can very well do so without instilling beliefs that are outright hurtful to society. I also disagree with your part about that any parent can raise their child how they want. We talk about human beings with lives here, do you want to be responsible for your son to become a criminal because of you being a bad parent? I think it's one of those things which is easy to say when you're not the one with a bad childhood.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Ashamed Christians

Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:47:38 +0000

What if I consider it right to hate homosexuals or black people? What if I consider it wrong for these people to exist, and that their existence morally depraves society? Do I sitll have the right to instill these values into my children? What if I forced my children to watch a local mob torturting a black man to death (happened during the KKK era), and then later profess of how proud I am over them when they do not turn away? What if I refuse to teach that there are other religions with other values and ideas other than those found in the Bible? What if I cherrypick parts of the Bible that fit into my worldview, such as women should not speak in church? A child is very easy to impress and a child will and copy the parents' behavior, and might continue displaying such behavior even after the parents' death. I have no issues teaching a child about religion, but it should be done openly and it should not deny other forms of doctrines or any other kind of interpretations than those that you yourself ascribe to. If the words of the Bible were so clear-cut, how come Christians still today from various denominations disagree over its meanings...?

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Ashamed Christians

Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:40:35 +0000

It's like saying that people who call themselves Hare Krishna are not Hindus. Point is that they still follow a major part of the Christian doctrine, they do not for example worship Mohammed or Allah. There are plenty of Christian groups who by your definition are not considered Chirstian; I disagree, there is a difference talking about Christianity the religion (as in being a follower of Christ) and religions who are considered part of the subgroup Chrisitanity (which is much more forgiving when it comes to definitions). Jehovah's Witnesses never claimed to be Christian, they follow Jehovah. They do however belong to Christianity as a subbranch, because their religion emerged from Christianity, not for example Islam.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Mr. Deity and the Woman: HUH?

Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:28:49 +0000

But one can also blame the materialist culture we live in; you know, women show off too, potlash. Check it up. We all do it. Some women have tea drinking wars, ie they try to show off who can make the best cake at tea groups, or who has the most flashy house in the case of them inviting each other over. Marcel Mauss wrote a very good book about it.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Mr. Deity and the Woman: HUH?

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:14:02 +0000

http://www.lolcats.com/images/u/07/36/lolcatsdotc... Or wait, this one is even better! Maybe I should post that everytime I argue with a stubborn Christian! http://www.innocentenglish.com/cute-pictures/wp/w...

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Mr. Deity and the Woman: HUH?

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:56:20 +0000

Ah, you mostly meant PMS, then I am with you. Yes, I agree, there have been silly moments of rage in the past, and equally silly moments of emo. I am not suffering that badly from PMS though, but I also take pills which effects my hormonal level so it's kind of hard to compare. Pills are for my period pains mostly, but of course they effect other things too, I am not going to deny that. Before I changed type, the pills I took made me very easily depressed for example, but then again, is it the hormonal deficiency that caused it, or the event itself? Maybe you should try out Cleric to see if he uses the "cute"-voice :P Knowing that it's something he would at least try to consciously avoid using. Let's hope he doesn't read this so my project is ruined :)

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Mr. Deity and the Woman: HUH?

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:32:11 +0000

I had to check out the sketch to see what was going on, but I found it funny. Why do some people always take stuff like this so seriously? Of course I agree with you for most of the part. I will just write a bit about the "cutie"-voice that you brought up, it's most likely genetic. But it's not only women who do it. Men do too, it's originally adapted for talking with children, but since then it has basically been applied to any small thing we consider close to us, as a cat. It's also interesting to note that the study that my teachers mentioned when I studied Linguistics, with regards to the "cutie"-voice, was it was tried and tested on different dog types. It turned out that few would use the voice when talking to a bulldog or a generally large dog, but the smaller the dog and the "cuter" the race, the more likely people would use it. So I wouldn't say that it's a genetic thing for women, if I remember correctly, both women and men were are suspectible using it to small dogs and as less to large. It may be that it's more strongly associated with women, maybe because in the past women have been those who took care of the children at least in our culture, and to an extent, still do (still mostly women working at kindergartens, kind of sad), but from personal experience too I know that men use it, and they might use it just as much as women. As for differences between men and women, I'll just leave it at the point where I disagree with you that it might be hormonal only. Maybe the irrational reaction itself was triggered by hormones, but the actual act I find it hard to tell whether it is truly hormonal or whether it is cultural in terms of cause. And I think the reason why it might be a touchy subject is also that we might want to perceive ourselves as more free (from culture or hormones) than we might actually be. I know that both influence me, but it is impossible for me, as a subject, to realize to what objective extent. As kind of slightly bi-gendered, I've always thought that I am a bit in the middle-ground, although I am aware that I might be leaning more towards behaving like a general woman than a man, but then again, I don't behave the same way with others as I do with those I feel truly close to. In that regard I feel slightly schizofrenic as I don't feel I can fully live out who I feel like I am in most social situations, one could thus say there are many Is. I feel that that might maybe be a bit beyond the scope of this article though :P And honestly, we still know very little about the subject, and I don't dare saying much either. Even as a person majoring in social science, I actually still feel pretty clueless when it comes to such things as identity-forming, and it's certainly a topic I wish to explore in many ways once I have gotten my doctorate degree :)

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Another Lesson in Advertising, and Missing the Point

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:30:55 +0000

Haha, no one noticed that I wrote the same thing :P I meant above and below obviously, but I think you got that. Yeah, makes more sense now. Wikipedia said it was above only and I didn't understand how that would've caused the crow's feet.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Another Lesson in Advertising, and Missing the Point

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:32:02 +0000

Ah, it's a bit clearer now. I also did some additional reading, is the muscle located below or underneath the eyes? And now the link should work: http://www.firstscience.com/home/perspectives/edi...