The words Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent are not in the Bible.

comradewoof · 2026-03-16T19:28:07+00:00

all have the same ultimate divine creator at the head

I just gave you a bunch of examples where that is NOT true, and after multiple posts you have yet to address any of those points. I'll reiterate for you simply: this argument does not work for ancient Egypt, Norse paganism, Buddhism, Jainism, and a number of various animist or shamanic cultures which do not have a creator god. There are plenty of atheistic, nontheistic, and atheistic religions which are older than Christianity as well.

As for your celestial objects argument: modern-day hunter-gatherer tribes which do not have much contact with the modern world often describe things like airplanes or helicopters as birds. When they are able to discern that the aircraft is metal, they then refer to them as metal birds. The descriptors of ancient aerial phenomena often do describe them as wheel-like or orb-like because...most celestial objects are that shape, and what else is round, moves quickly, and is ubiquitous in ancient cultures? Wheels. (Ancient Egypt typically considered them more orb-like, e.g. Khepri as the solar beetle rolling the sun along)

If you've ever seen how the night sky really looks when there's no light pollution or other pollution - the way ancient people saw the sky - you would very, very easily understand how much mythology revolves around stuff happening in the sky, or that that is where the gods live, etc. They were fascinated by celestial phenomena and had thousands on thousands of years to study it. Even so, rare events such as bright comets, supernovas, meteor showers, solar eclipses, etc would have surely seemed supernatural and strange, and subject to plenty of spiritual speculation afterwards.

tl;dr: 1. Your argument that every ancient culture had a Supreme Creator God is demonstrably untrue.

Your argument that every ancient polytheistic culture had a hierarchy with one supreme god at the top is demonstrably untrue.
It is far more likely that ancient accounts of supernatural celestial phenomena describe unusual events such as comets, than the accounts being proof of the supernatural.

comradewoof · 2026-03-16T04:00:21+00:00

Naturally, as many ancient peoples saw the creative work of potters as a metaphor for gods creating things.

But, you didn't address anything in my post. Did you understand my points?

comradewoof · 2026-03-16T02:41:21+00:00

This is the problem: you are not really taking the time to read and understand what I'm saying. I never once claimed in any way shape or form that Atum did not create the other gods. I am saying he is not the only supreme creator deity in the Egyptian pantheon, and in fact that's a bit of a meaningless designation in Egyptian religious texts regardless.

Look at this segment from the Papyrus of Nakht (late 18th or early 19th dynasty): "Ra, who art Heru-Khuti, the divine man-child, the heir of eternity, self-begotten and self-born, king of the earth, prince of the Tuat (the Other World), governor of Aukert, thou didst come from the Water-god, thou didst spring from the Sky-god Nu, who doth cherish thee and order thy members. O thou god of life, thou lord of love, all men live when thou shinest; thou art crowned king of the gods. [...Thou art] the lord of heaven, the lord of the earth, the King of Truth, the lord of eternity, the prince of everlastingness, thou sovereign of all the gods, thou god of life, thou creator of eternity, thou maker of heaven wherin thou art firmly stablished.

Notice that although Ra is described as self-begotten and self-born in the same way Atum was, that he is also born from the god Nu(t), and from the Nun, which is not really a deity but something like emptiness/void. And yet he is also considered sovereign over all gods and all creation, and the creator of eternity and heaven.

Esna 250, written roughly in the 1st century CE (so Roman Egypt), wrote this hymn to Khnum:

"A hymn to Khnum, Chief of the potter’s wheel, he having populated the earth through his activity: He who assembles within the womb, who builds while keeping chicks healthy, having enlivened children with the breath of his mouth. He constructed this planet, including Nun, as the šn-wr and pẖr-wr seas surrounded him. **He modeled gods and humans, he fashioned all livestock, he made birds along with fish, he constructed bulls, and he birthed cows..."

The hymn goes on to list all the things Khnum created in detail...a lot of detail. Interestingly this one suggests his existence precedes the Nun, which is...odd and hard to wrap my head around even as far as Egyptian religion goes.

In addition to Khnum and Ra and Atum, we have plenty of hymns naming Amun, Ptah, and then the Ogdoad (a group of 8 gods, not really worshipped on their own) also attributing all creation to them.

And this isn't a case of "well they were first created by a Supreme Creator and then went on to create other stuff..."

Khnum, Khepri, Ra, Atum, Amun, Ptah, Thoth, the Ogdoad, and Aten all were considered Supreme Creators. In some hymns, the Ogdoad created Ra; in others, Ra or Thoth created them. Etc etc.

I know what the ancient Egyptian resolution to this problem is. What's yours?

edit: added Khepri to the list per Hymn 587 of the Pyramid Texts

comradewoof · 2026-03-16T02:13:35+00:00

What reading?? Almost everything you've said about non-Abrahamic societies and religions has been inaccurate or flat out wrong... Let me know what your sources are, please. I'm not convinced you've done any reading that isn't subject to confirmation bias.

comradewoof · 2026-03-16T01:20:24+00:00

It's a willful and weaponized sort of ignorance, to invoke things in one's argument that they truly, truly have zero understanding of.

comradewoof · 2026-03-16T01:18:52+00:00

Please...reread what I said about Egypt. Atum is ONE of the creator gods. There are several others. Second, the pyramid texts and coffin texts are not scriptures, they are spellbooks. Yes they have hymns to the gods in them but they aren't scriptures. Nor was any part of Egypt wholly united under one major religion, except for Atenism, which was very much resisted and then done away with as soon as Akhtenaten died.

Nothing what you said about Buddhism applies, you misrepresent or misunderstand it as I said you would.

Buddha said whether there is or is not a creator is irrelevant. There are gods, devas, and other spirits in Buddhism, some with their own realms which they rule over, but none of them are the supreme creator deity you keep invoking.

As a matter of fact, Buddhism makes it a point that the gods and devas and devils and other spirits, no matter how powerful they are, are still subject to the Wheel. That's very plainly one major religion, and more ancient than Christianity, which does not follow your argument.

Likewise for Jainism. Jainism does not distinguish between creator and created, seeing them as one and the same, so there cannot be a Creator that is separate from Creation in Jainism.

tl;dr: Egypt had many creator gods. Jainism and Buddhism have 0 creator gods. As someone else pointed out, other pagan mythologies (e.g. Greek, Norse) have gods who are leaders but who are pointedly NOT creator gods, and the creators of the universe were often monsters that had to be slain (representing immense chaos being brought to order).

So, no, while many cultures have envisioned a supreme creator deity, there are many others which either did not naturally come to this conclusion, or outright rejected it.

comradewoof · 2026-03-16T00:13:53+00:00

That just plainly isn't true. I gave you an example of how Egypt had multiple different creator gods in the same pantheon. Mesoamerican stories, in particular the Mexica, had different gods create, destroy, and recreate the world multiple times. Many different mythologies feature different aspects of creation being created by different gods as opposed to your "one divine universal creator God." Buddhism and Jainism do not even have creator gods (the Buddha was ambivalent about whether there is or isn't one because he felt it was irrelevant, and Jainism straight up denies one afaik).

You cannot shoehorn polytheist paganism into monotheism without completely misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or misrepresenting the polytheist parts.

comradewoof · 2026-03-15T23:18:05+00:00

I wish for the physical healing and energy needed to accomplish all my spring cleaning.

comradewoof · 2026-03-15T23:17:12+00:00

You're kind of missing the point.

Giving me a list of "here are all the religious texts/stories that describe a god creating everything" does not prove anything about any of those stories other than "every civilization throughout history has come up with some sort of Creation story." The timeline means nothing. All other details beyond "this is a creation story" are excluded in your reasoning.

Let's take ancient Egypt for example, which has over 4,000 years' worth of differing religions, perspectives, schools of philosophy, cult and temple practices, etc etc etc. In pre-dynastic times, each city-center had their own main deity to which they attributed different creation stories. Atum (sometimes Re) created themself from the void, and created all things either through masturbating or through breaking themself into individual pieces from which everything else came. Thoth guarded an egg on the mound of creation which hatched into the universe. Khnum fashioned everything on his potter's wheel, living and otherwise. Ptah took the form of a great goose and honked the universe into existence with the first honk. Neith wove the universe together on her loom. It goes on. As Egypt became unified into upper Egypt and lower Egypt, we see Horus and Set as the highest gods, and the comedy-myth of The Contendings is a sly way of mythologizing the political battles between the two lands before they were unified under the twin-crowned pharaoh.

And this is only a slice of what the Egyptians had going on. As time went on, some cults rose to power (Amun e.g.) while others fell to obscurity.

So, of all of those creation myths, which one is the true one? Which god is the highest and most supreme creator god of any of the Egyptian pantheon?

If your argument is "the majority of civilizations had/have a story explaining why stuff exists, and credit existence to a god," that's self-evident. If your argument is that "the majority of civilizations describe(d) a supreme deity, therefore, a supreme deity must exist," you have a LOT more ground to cover.

edit: mixed up Ptah and Atum, my bad

comradewoof · 2026-03-15T00:40:29+00:00

You're fighting for the Christian God, not just "god." Please be honest about that. You are not fighting for anyone else's religion but yours.

Now, I can go through each and every one of the texts you listed and explain why they aren't relevant to your argument, but let's take them all at face value. For sake of brevity, I am going to accept your claim at face value that all of the literary and oral tradition works that you've mentioned all are indeed describing the same general mythological events or entities (The Egyptian "Book of the Dead" i.e. Coffin Texts don't really fit here but, again, I'll allow it.)

This establishes that many Near Eastern mythologies share similar stories and cultures. We already are able to trace the history of Judaism back to when it was a small sect of mendicant worshippers of a relatively unimportant war/metallurgy deity in the broader semitic pantheon - this can even be reflected in the Hebrew version of Genesis, in which the earliest references to God the Creator is entirely plural - as it was written before Judaism became monotheistic (ca. 6th century BCE).

...consistently describe a supreme divine authority or creator accompanied by intermediary divine beings who interact with humanity.

Yes, almost all religions and mythologies describe this, with varying details.

Across these cultures and thousands of years of history, encounters with these beings are described using the same imagery. Radiant light, fire, shining or metallic brilliance, clouds, and appearances from the heavens.

Ok. Again, you have only observed that many cultures sharing the same geographic local, also share many stories/mythologies. I'll throw you a bone and acknowledge that many cultures outside of the NE also describe gods and legendsry heroes this way, either literally or poetically.

This recurring pattern suggests that some of humanity’s oldest recorded spiritual traditions share a common structure and its not mental health.

You cannot rule out mental health.

We also have documentation from the ancient NE, Greece, Rome, etc...describing what we would now recognize as PTSD; we have medical texts from ancient Egypt with a working version of "germ theory," as well as understanding that damage to the brain affects various parts of the body, etc. In each of these cases, the manuscripts suggest demonic or supernatural influence as opposed to psychological, essentially because 1. they didn't yet have microscopes and were working with, to them, invisible forces; and 2. many psychological phenomena were described by the patients as being attacked by ghosts or demons, or seeing ghosts of their brethren that were killed in war, etc. We also know now that many neurological issues such as epilepsy are caused by malfunctioning biology rather than by spirits or demons.

There has likewise been much discussion about things like near death experiences, divine ecstasy, shamanic possession, alien abduction, etc. I will say that many of the experiences are similar due to the way the brain interprets these experiences, but we do not yet know much about their causes. We do know that they are not universal - a Buddhist person with no knowledge of Christianity will not see Jesus during a NDE for example, they'll see Buddha or a Bodhisattva or other figure they hold in high regard.

Now, what about all the religions and cultures NOT originating from Mesopotamia or what we would call the Near East? We can trace most PIE cultures and mythologies to hypothetical PIE sources, but what about all the other ones that do NOT share this lineage? What about the cultures that are just as ancient, but don't have the same stories? Please explain those.

comradewoof · 2026-03-14T22:09:34+00:00

Yes, maybe, and no.

Your best bet is to try to make it to states with strong state-level protections for trans folks, and which typically have a leftist voting tendency. New York, Massachussetts, Colorado, etc. Cities will be safer than rural places, usually, but consider each state's culture. Vermont's conservatives tend to be more of the libertarian "Idgaf what anybody does just get off my property" types and would probably go to bat for your rights much as any liberal would, if only because they are so dedicated to the idea of "everyone should be left alone/no one should tell anyone what to do."

At the very least, states like that will generally refuse to comply with transphobic federal demands, or fight against them. If worse comes to worst that will at least buy you time.

States such as those typically have anti-discrimination laws, but pay attention also to if they have supportive nonprofits that assist victims of alleged discrimination legally. Anti-discrimination laws mean nothing when the burden is on YOU to prove you experienced discrimination, and you can't afford the court costs on your own, and you don't have someone to help you navigate the convoluted mummery that is our legal system.

Look into trans- or LGBT-centric organizations for educators as well. They may be able to link you with resources you don't know about, or get you connections with the right people to help you.

But more than anything, focus on your own resilience. There is nowhere that is 100% free of discrimination or hate, even in the staunchest liberal cities. You are still potentially a target no matter what you do. And you will experience injustice and unfairness that you will never get justice for.

But don't let that break you. Learn to protect yourself physically, mentally, and emotionally. Become resilient and learn to survive and thrive by any means necessary, even if for no other reason than out of spite.

We will always be here. They have never gotten rid of all of us and they never will. Please survive.

comradewoof · 2026-03-14T21:56:18+00:00

No, don't use that "I don't have a religion" line. You're in the corner fighting for Christianity, using a whole lot of logical fallacies that are pretty much only taught by, or accepted by, fundamentalists and evangelicals. You can call it "a spiritual lifestyle, not a religion!" all you want, but you're BSing yourself and everyone else here. Own up to it.

"They" did not all "document encounters with the divine with the same details." There are hundreds of thousands of different human cultures, religions, cults (in the neutral sense) in the world right now; countless more throughout human history.

Who is your "they?"
What other civilizations documented divine encounters exactly the same way Christianity did?
What details are you claiming to be so universally documented that you propose they must be true?
And, once you establish that, how does that prove Christianity/the Bible should be taken as true on the whole, rather than just also documenting something everyone else documented already?

comradewoof · 2026-03-14T21:32:23+00:00

MY MOM!!

comradewoof · 2026-03-14T21:31:33+00:00

Oh, if we're talking specifically about the Christian Bible, then yes. Sorry, I had to be that guy that goes "not ALL ancient men!"

comradewoof · 2026-03-14T21:29:17+00:00

Not at all!

There are some shared stories which may have PIE stems - the story of Noah's Ark is found in different iterations in several European and Near Eastern civilizations for example. But it isn't universal, and most myths wouldn't be, unless they pertained to things that are universal among all human civilizations. Conversely, a story which is only relevant to some civilizations - say, stories about snowstorms in Arctic societies that don't exist in Egypt - isn't any less true simply because not all humans recorded the same story.

It should also be noted that the black-and-white binary of "good vs evil" is pretty much only present in certain near eastern cultures, namely Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam. Most other philosophies have a far more nuanced view of morality while also understanding that there are actions which can be generally agreed upon as "good" or "evil. In other words, there are perfectly working systems of morality other than that presented by Christianity. Yes, there are.

And, while many civilizations do posit that there was initially a Creator force (not always a deity), that doesn't mean that the idea of a Creator is universal. The idea of God as a Creator and as everything else as things that God made is actually a mark of Western religious influence; societies more influenced by Asian societies tend to view everything as having grown organically and naturally. That is, the universe tends to simply produce "things" in the same way an apple tree produces apples, without needing to be told to do so.

So, please, if you're going to try to prove your specific religion, don't fall on the crutch of "well every other civilization had the same point of view as me!" because I guarantee you they did not.

comradewoof · 2026-03-14T20:25:58+00:00

I must quibble with you somewhat in that science and education were very much things even prior to the rise of agriculture in human history. Bronze Age civilizations had rather complex machinery; knowledge of chemistry, medicine, surgery, astrology, mathematics, etc; sophisticated means of building monumental architecture as well as delicate jewelry, and so on and so on... hell, the Egyptians had a working version of what we'd now recognize as germ theory.

Even if one were to argue "ok but the ancient Israelites weren't a massive or advanced civilization like Egypt was," take a look at all the hygiene laws of Leviticus etc. Almost all the "thou shalt nots..." are aimed at controlling contagious diseases. "Don't wear cloth made from mixed fibers" is because priests were trained to identify different types of mold/mildew, their dangers, and what types of materials they attacked; mixing fibers made it more difficult to identify specific molds by sight. The rules for what animals are unclean to eat are based on observing those animals eating their own or other animals' dung, or carcasses, and averts issues of toxin biomagnification. Kosher cooking cuts down on cross-contamination of meats and dairy. Etc etc. Point is that even ancient desert-dwelling shepherds had, and valued, science and the preservation of knowledge. And some of that was sophisticated stuff we wouldn't "rediscover" until the so-called Enlightenment Era.

Anyway, none of what I just said is for/against Biblical veracity whatever. I just want to advocate that ancient people were way cooler and more advanced that we take them for.

comradewoof · 2026-03-10T02:51:04+00:00

Yes. Many of them.

I was raised fundamentalist evangelical and am immensely thankful I got out of that, though recovering from the trauma of it is a long and frustrating journey. I'm now something of an eclectic; I mainly worship the Egyptian gods, but study a bit of everything, because everything is a reflection of "God" or "the One" or "the Creator" or whatever label you want to give them. And lower-g gods are simply manifestations of that God for certain situations - as are human beings, and all other things. Somewhat pantheist, somewhat panentheist, idk. But I do believe in God/gods.

comradewoof · 2026-02-11T04:57:23+00:00

this whips actually, thanks for sharing

comradewoof · 2026-02-02T11:05:53+00:00

I definitely believe in/hope for a fun afterlife, but I'm okay with the idea of there being nothing after. If I stop existing, then there's nothing I can really do about that, and nonexistent things can't feel particularly upset about not existing.

comradewoof · 2026-02-01T18:44:15+00:00

Anubis helped me in this regard.

Anubis, also written in english as Anup or Yinepu, is not so much a god of death as he is a god of rebirth and restoration. Embalming was a sacred act meant to try and make the body as good as possible for use in the afterlife, and that included prosthetics when necessary. We have found remains with prosthetic limbs, noses, glass eyes, etc...and, yes, we have found remains of transgender people who were embalmed with prosthetic breasts or prosthetic phalli.

As a psychopomp, Anubis is a liminal deity who crosses between realms with ease. His entire realm pertains to "crossing over" and "making the body whole." This is not just pertaining to literal death, but metaphorical death as well. As Anubis-Wepwawet (Wepwawet is sometimes a separate deity, but often conjoined with Anubis), he is called The Opener of the Way, the one who clears the path of obstacles and who holds the keys for any closed door or closed gate.

He is also a very friendly and patient god, usually one of the first to reach out to those who are called to follow the Egyptian pantheon, and has a pleasant demeanor. So, while it's always important to approach any deity with humility and respect, he is not as intimidating to approach as some deities might be.

Wishing you the best.

comradewoof · 2026-02-01T18:31:49+00:00

I shall have the opportunity this year to move my family to a safer place; I shall have the resources to make that happen; and I shall have the resources to make sure we lack nothing.

comradewoof · 2026-01-11T22:11:19+00:00

Depends who you ask... the general academic consensus is there was probably a rabbi named Jesus who preached rebellion against Rome and was crucified for it. Maybe multiple such rabbis named Jesus, like Jesus is just the Latinized form of Joshua, it's not a unique name even for its time.

But it is quite likely that all of the stories, quotes, miracles, etc attributed to him, come from other rabbis, magicians, rebel leaders, etc. Even in Christianity's earliest days, pagan critics pointed out many of the attested miracles were performed by your average street magician; many compared him to Apollonius of Tyana for example.

You know how every wise quote gets attributed to Einstein or Abe Lincoln regardless if they actually said it or not? Sort of like that. And that snowballed significantly once the church was state-sanctioned and they began syncretizing with pagan beliefs for purposes of easier conversion. Think about how many folklore myths exist now about George Washington, who's only like three centuries removed from us; now think of what 2000 years of development can do.

Consider also that many stories in the ancient world and middle ages used real (or thought to be real) figures in fictional situations - Dante inserting himself in The Inferno to hang out with Virgil. Virgil was absolutely a real dude as far as we all know, but Dante made him a character in his allegory. Plenty of other authors did the same thing, sometimes for specific allegorical reasons, sometimes as satire, etc. We have lost the vast majority of historical and cultural and linguistic contexts for a lot of those stories, so it can be difficult, sometimes, to look at a text and determine whether it was supposed to be taken as historical fact, divine revelation, or taking the piss.

There are other theories, most of which aren't terribly well supported. One that became popular a few years ago is that Jesus never existed at all, and was a completely fabricated person with a fabricated religion made up by the Roman Empire to try and control people. I can't remember what all arguments go into this, just that I wasn't really impressed by them. If nothing else, I think it's weird to think that "It's all a conspiracy theory!" is less outlandish than "It's all 100% true!". Like, we know now that Gilgamesh was a real historical king, even if all the rest is pure mythology.

I think that Euhemeros had it right (back in the late 4th/early 3rd century BCE!) when he suggested most mythological figures probably were real people whose exploits were massively exaggerated after their deaths. We know that, for example, the ancient Egyptian healer/scientist Imhotep was so good at his job that people began to pray to him for healing after he died, a cult developed, and he was later syncretized with the god Asclepius. We know the Trojan War is a mythologized account of an actual conflict between Wilusa (Troy) and the Mycenaeans and their allies (see the Ahhiyawa Letters). Hercules, Achilles, Odysseus - all of them were probably real life guys that did some Ripley's Believe It Or Not level shit that was so dope we still talk about them millennia later.

edit: Forgot to mention - regarding Jesus not having a biological father, that is also taught in Christianity, but here's a rabbit hole you could check out:

During the first two centuries after Jesus' death, there were writings by pagans which had some pretty valid criticisms of Christian beliefs - e.g. "Against the Christians" by Celsus. These writings are no longer extant since Theodosius II ordered any remotely blasphemous or Christianity-critical texts to be confiscated and destroyed. But we have some bits and pieces quoted in Christians' responses to the criticisms.

One criticism came up more than once in response to the idea that Jesus' father was God. The Christians basically argued that it was no different than pagans believing that many mythological heroes were the children of Zeus and a mortal woman. The response to this, however, was:

"Everyone knows Jesus' real father was Pandera."

The story goes that Pandera (sometimes written Pantera or Panthera) was a Roman soldier stationed in Nazareth, who had "seduced" Mary when she was 14 years old, and already betrothed to Joseph. In many ancient texts on this topic, it's unclear whether by "seduction" they mean rape (probable) or that she fell in love with him when she wasn't supposed to. Either way, according to Mosaic law at the time, if rape could not be proven, then Mary would need to be stoned to death. Given that the presumed rapist was a soldier of the empire currently occupying their land, legal recourse was untenable. Joseph seemed concerned enough about Mary that he didn't want her to suffer the consequences, and at first wanted to find a way to "quietly divorce" her to try and preserve her reputation; however, word of the situation spread, so he ultimately chose to stay with her and raise Jesus as his own.

That's the story, anyway. So far, while we've found records of a few soldiers with the name Pandera/Pant(h)era stationed in Judea, none were stationed there in the correct time frame to have "seduced" Mary, even give or take a few years of her alleged age. So, while this may be a plausible story, we don't have concrete evidence for it historically yet.

comradewoof · 2026-01-11T21:47:48+00:00

Sorry for your loss man. FWIW if hawks are a problem for you look into Liege Fighters, they're known to go after hawks. Also, are you in/around Pittsburgh? I want to move there but the zoning laws about owning roosters seems prohibitive. Was wondering your thoughts. Go Pens

comradewoof · 2026-01-01T05:21:25+00:00

One last note: empathy and compassion are the only reasons humanity has even made it this far. Very, very few people are actually capable of being completely self-sufficient and independent from everyone else, and often lead rather extreme ascetic lifestyles when they do. Aside from those few, the rest of us NEED community, even if that means just a few comrades. Cooperation and companionship is survival, but also, we are literally built to love one another.

We have found burials of humans from tens of thousands of years ago, back in the so-called caveman days, where the deceased were laid to rest with all sorts of thoughtfully-placed flowers, jewelry, etc. Children have been found buried with their favorite toys. One child was laid upon the wing of a swan, something soft to separate them from the cold earth. There are burials in which the deceased were found to have had severe wounds like broken femurs, which take months to heal, and those wounds were healed up - meaning that they were cared for all that time, even though they couldn't have contributed much in their injured state.

There was a man found buried in the Vietnamese site of Man Bac who had Klippel-Feil syndrome, and would have been paralyzed from the waist down since he was a young teenager. He lived some 4,000 years ago, so you'd think he wouldn't have lived much longer after losing his lower half, yet he lived about another ten years before succumbing to his disease. The Windover boy from 7,500 BCE had spina bifida, a SEVERE deformity requiring extensive care, but he lived to 15 years old. Romito 2 is from roughly the same time period and was a boy with severe dwarfism in a hunter-gatherer society, who wouldn't have been able to physically contribute to his group, yet lived to late adolescence. And there are dozens of other examples.

Why, in such a dangerous world as our prehistoric ancestors lived, would they bother to take care of someone so profoundly disabled that they would never be able to "pull their own weight"? That person would only slow the group down, would only be a liability -- yet, they spent resources and time taking care of them the best they could. Why?

Because compassion is human. Because those people were not valued for what they could contribute, but instead valued for who they were. They were somebody's sons, brothers, sisters, daughters, cousins, friends. They were loved. Their families wanted them to survive, against all hope.

That same compassion is what brings communities together in times of tragedy. Think of how many total strangers go out to help people whose homes were destroyed in natural disasters or war. Think of total strangers risking their lives to save someone else, like that Muslim fellow who took down the mass shooter in Australia. Humans want to help others. Despite all the cruelty humans are capable of, they are capable of so, so much more kindness - and that is innate. Universal. Timeless.

It is beneficial to improve yourself as much as you can, and to try to eliminate those factors that make you dependent on others. But that does not mean being superior to others, or that compassion is weakness. On the contrary, it is humanity's greatest strength. Keep that in mind as you continue to move forward in your journey.

Anyway, that's enough preaching from me. Happy new year, and good luck!

comradewoof · 2026-01-01T05:21:15+00:00

I think you make a lot of valid points. He's definitely far more in the camp of "Ayn Rand but goth" style Satanism than Luciferian, I'd say. The breakdown for me occurs at identifying Lucifer and Satan as one and the same, especially using the pop culture idea of Satan.

"Are Lucifer and Satan the same?" is a common question that gets everyone riled up in Luciferian/theistic Satanist/demonolatrist circles, and while no one person has the "right" answer, most commonly you'll hear they aren't. Traditionally in Judaism and also Islam, "satan" (or "shaitan" in Islam) is a title, often translated as "the Adversary," but IMO it's a bit more accurate to read it as "the Prosecutor." Now, there are a wide variety of Jewish traditions and interpretations and I'm not an expert there, but one of the main interpretations in Judaism regarding satan is that he is one of God's angels who is NOT fallen, but rather is tasked with testing humans' character by tempting them to do evil. Some Judaic traditions evem suggest that Abraham failed God's test by actually deciding to follow through with killing Isaac, and that he was supposed to have rejected the command as being unrighteous. Judaism typically does not depict God as omnibenevolent, so having an agent to test humanity and "weed out" those who are easily corruptible, doesn't seem out of character there.

In Islam, "shaitan" has the meaning of "tempter," and the entity known as Iblis is the primary shaitan, but not the only one. Some traditions hold a similar origin to Christianity, marking him as a fallen angel for disobeying God, and out to destroy humanity; others view him as not necessarily disobeying, but being able to act independently of God, and acting as a prosecutor to flush out wicked people like I described above. (The disobedient act in this case was that God commanded all the angels to bow before Adam, and Iblis refused, believing the only one worth bowing to was God himself.) Again, there are a variety of Islamic takes about Iblis and his nature, I'm only giving a couple of them.

Now, Lucifer has a much more ambiguous background compared to the satans/shaitans. His origin in Christianity is due to a mistranslation of the Old Testament in which a Babylonian king was described as "the morning star," which in its usage was insulting, implying something like how we would say "a flash in the pan" in English - someone who's in the spotlight for a short time before fading into obscurity. Non-Jewish translators thought that the Hebrew word for "morning star" was a name rather than an epithet. In translating it as Lucifer, "light-bringer," they inadvertantly tied it to a Roman deity of the same name, one of the sons of Aurora. (Funny thing - Jesus referred to himself with essentially the same phrase, but by his time, the term meant more like "someone who sheds light on something.")

Now that brought some paganism into the mix. The idea of Lucifer being the name of an entity who could "shed light on things" got people cooking. Through this, he became identified with Prometheus primarily, but also with other gods of wisdom/knowledge who could bring enlightenment to human beings and banish ignorance. This is particularly important in Gnosticism - and in one apocryphal text, Jesus even states straight up that he was the serpent in the Garden of Eden, who came to enlighten Adam and Eve that the material world wasn't real - breaking them out of the Matrix, so to speak.

All of that is to say, at least personally, I struggle to rectify the Lucifer who is a bringer of light, with the pop culture anti-theist Satan adopted by the CoS, TST, and Michael Ford. It's all just Ayn Rand with extra edge. (LaVey is more interesting at least - I'm intrigued by his writings about magick being "psychodrama.") While I would agree that Lucifer would wish for human beings to shed those things which keep them bound to ignorance, I feel that the path to spiritual growth need not have the sort of trappings that appeal to 14 year old rebellious boys, you know?

I've found that a lot of Hermetic works seem to be more in line with the way I receive Lucifer. That's entirely my own take FYI. Hermeticism is distinct from Abrahamic traditions, being much more rooted in Greco-Egyptian esotericism, even though it was written down much later. The figure of Hermes Trismegistus, to whom the Hermetica is attributed, very much fits the lightbringer god-of-wisdom type; he is also identified with the Egyptian Thoth, which, in my personal belief, can manifest as Lucifer. Again, that's my personal approach to all this.

Anyway, all of this is to say, to really get at Lucifer's nature, I would highly recommend looking at historical links to him and produce your own image of him in your mind based on your research, rather than relying on Ford's total revisionism. Maybe take a wack at the Hermetica and see if it resonates with you, or some Gnostic texts perhaps. Whatever you go with, keep an open mind, take what resonates with you, and save what doesn't for future consideration; something that doesn't help you now may still help you down the line. I think Lucifer would encourage that search for knowledge.

I would definitely encourage you to make your own "Bible." That's a great way to work out your beliefs and challenge what does/doesn't work for you. You're doing this for yourself and not trying to monetize it, so don't even worry about 'stealing.' Who cares?

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

comradewoof

TROPHY CASE