The devil gets blamed for everything bad. But GOD was the one who MADE the devil

[RaptorJesus]

good work, answering more questions with more questions

[velkyn]

In short, we need the magic decoder ring.

Only if you have Aspergers and thus are incapable of understanding simple rhetorical devices that we all encounter every day.  So, do you have Aspergers, or are you just being deliberately obtuse to make a dishonest point?

And, more the point, which "magic decoder ring" do I use to determine which version of string-theory to subscribe to?  Because clearly someone has to have a magic decoder ring if they are choosing how many dimensions they think there are...   That's sarcasm, btw, in case you have Aspergers, I am not stating that the number of dimensions one considers there to be is actually arbitrary.

Do you consider the story of Jesus to be metaphor as well?

I certainly don't consider it to be literally true that zombie-saints rose from the grave.

But do you think that Jesus is a literal person who died to save everyone from their "sins"?  I find that God could be just as much metaphor as Satan and the same for Jesus.  The whole story is a myth, just like ones about Athena, Queztalcoatl, Ameratsu, etc.  It's all metaphor by humans trying to understand their world. 

[Ace42]

good work, answering more questions with more questions

*Rhetorical* questions.  If you are having trouble with such elementary devices used within the context of this thread, I can see why you'd need "a magic decoder ring" regarding the bible.  Also, "good work, ignoring the content of my post in favour of trying to score cheap points."

But do you think that Jesus is a literal person who died to save everyone from their "sins"?

Stupid question.  If I killed myself today out of a misguided belief that it would save everyone from their sins, that would be literally true, wouldn't it?  Any metaphorical (or rather, allegorical, in this case) implications of this wouldn't necessarily have any direct bearing on it.

I believe 100% that in the last two millennia there's going to have been at least one (if not a ton) of guys called "Jesus" who would've died with the intention of saving everyone from their sins.  What bearing does the literal truth of some guy in Spain, Portugal, Latin America, wherever killing himself with a specific avowed intention have on the significance of the theology that follows?

Do I think that everything stated about Jesus is 100% literally true in the bible?  Certainly not, the mere act of translation and transliteration will cause distortions and discrepancies.  Do I believe there was a guy called Jesus walking around Judea 2,000 years ago, possibly with a small group of followers?  I think it's quite plausible.

I find that God could be just as much metaphor as Satan and the same for Jesus.

So do a lot of Christians.

The whole story is a myth, just like ones about Athena, Queztalcoatl, Ameratsu, etc.

And here's the problem - there is a difference between narrative and message.  Clearly, the story has mythological aspects, and clearly the story is merely a narrative.  Just like you could say that Waiting for Godot is "just a play about two guys waiting for someone that never turns up; that Midnight's Children is "Just a story about an Indian guy with a big nose"; that Lord of the Flies is just a story about some kids stuck on an island.

To conclude from the fact that it is presented as a narrative that it is 'just' "metaphor by humans trying to understand their world" is a massive leap in logic.

There's a lot more to any text than "just" the narrative, just as there's much more to the bible than "just" a creation myth trying to explain how we got here.

[Aaron123]

Ace, I want one thing clairfied.  Do you consider the bible to be nothing more than a collection of fanciful fictional stories?

If not, then how are we meant to tell if something is literaly true or metaphorical?

[Ace42]

If not, then how are we meant to tell if something is literaly true or metaphorical?

They same way you tell if anything else is literally true or metaphorical, obviously.  As I do not know what criteria you personally use for establishing that, I can't regurgitate that list back to you here, can I?

Do you consider the bible to be nothing more than a collection of fanciful fictional stories?

No, for starters there's some fanciful songs in there too.  And some letters.

[Aaron123]

No, for starters there's some fanciful songs in there too.  And some letters.

You didn't give a clear answer.  I'll restate:  Do you consider the bible to be nothing more than a collection of fanciful fictional stories, with a few songs and letters thrown into the mix?

They same way you tell if anything else is literally true or metaphorical, obviously.  As I do not know what criteria you personally use for establishing that, I can't regurgitate that list back to you here, can I?

And once again, you dodge the question.  At least try to explain the criteria used.

[velkyn]

But do you think that Jesus is a literal person who died to save everyone from their "sins"?

Stupid question.  If I killed myself today out of a misguided belief that it would save everyone from their sins, that would be literally true, wouldn't it?  Any metaphorical (or rather, allegorical, in this case) implications of this wouldn't necessarily have any direct bearing on it.
I believe 100% that in the last two millennia there's going to have been at least one (if not a ton) of guys called "Jesus" who would've died with the intention of saving everyone from their sins.  What bearing does the literal truth of some guy in Spain, Portugal, Latin America, wherever killing himself with a specific avowed intention have on the significance of the theology that follows?
Do I think that everything stated about Jesus is 100% literally true in the bible?  Certainly not, the mere act of translation and transliteration will cause distortions and discrepancies.  Do I believe there was a guy called Jesus walking around Judea 2,000 years ago, possibly with a small group of followers?  I think it's quite plausible.

Again you avoid the question. Why?  Do you believe that there was a Jesus son of God?  There is no evidence for its plausibility at all.  The reality of someone being ignorant enough to kill themselves over a mistaken belief has nothing to do with the reality of that belief. You seem to want to claim that at least "some" of the magical nonsense in the bible is real but you want to pick and choose from it with the usual magic decoder ring.  Again, what you refuse to answer is telling.  You appear to have no better reason to think what you prefer is real than any theist would of any stripe. 

I find that God could be just as much metaphor as Satan and the same for Jesus.

So do a lot of Christians.

Really?  Can you show me some that do not believing that they must literally take Jesus as their savior and believe in his father God, ones that don't believe in John 3?  I know that there are some Christians who don't think God and Jesus are the same being but any that totally think that God and Jesus are just metaphor?  Now, if you are taking anyone who agrees with the basic "golden rule" that Jesus supposedly advocated as "Christians" you are bastardizing the word to fit your claims.  I could be a Christian under those qualifications. The whole mythos of Jesus the Christ seems predicated on the belief of his divinity/supernaturalness. 

The whole story is a myth, just like ones about Athena, Queztalcoatl, Ameratsu, etc.

And here's the problem - there is a difference between narrative and message.  Clearly, the story has mythological aspects, and clearly the story is merely a narrative.  Just like you could say that Waiting for Godot is "just a play about two guys waiting for someone that never turns up; that Midnight's Children is "Just a story about an Indian guy with a big nose"; that Lord of the Flies is just a story about some kids stuck on an island.

The problem is that all thesits disagree on the "message".  If the narritive has nothing to do with what the theist claims as what he "knows God really meant", why bother?  It seems that theists must claim that the narrative is different from the "message" because they don't like what the narrative says.  They must conjure a new "message" to agree with what they want.

To conclude from the fact that it is presented as a narrative that it is 'just' "metaphor by humans trying to understand their world" is a massive leap in logic.

Indeed?  Please show me how it is a "massive leap of logic" rather than just claiming it is.  I don't find it to be that at all.  It is a story with no evidence that it was ever true same as other myths.  All religions make the claim that their deity was the one and only that did the common mythological acts, creation, punishment, contests with other entities, etc. The one common thread is that all of these myths are created by humans e.g. no deity-writ stories emblazoned on the sides of mountains, and all attempt to describe very real things. 

There's a lot more to any text than "just" the narrative, just as there's much more to the bible than "just" a creation myth trying to explain how we got here.

  So what is that "much more" that you claim is in the Bible? The bible works as any other mythos.  There is nothing special about it. 

[Ace42]

You didn't give a clear answer.

How more clear than "no" and an explanation be?

I'll restate:

Try rephrasing in a less pejorative and more precise manner, and you may get an answer more to your liking.

Do you consider the bible to be nothing more than a collection of fanciful fictional stories, with a few songs and letters thrown into the mix?

There's fanciful genealogies in there too.  And some aphorisms.
And there's some stories in there which aren't that fanciful.  The story of the prodigal son isn't particularly "fanciful", even if it is clearly contrived, so *I* will restate:  No, I do not consider the bible is "nothing more than..."

And once again, you dodge the question.  At least try to explain the criteria used.

It gets tiring how many people accuse me of "dodging" stupid questions.  Seriously, what are you expecting me to say?

"Well, the method I use for determining if ANYONE is not being literally is to stick my finger in my arse and see which way the smell wafts" ?
"I go on a forum on the Internet and ask other people to tell me how to think!"

The methodology I use for determining if someone is employing metaphor is to analyse the context of the statement in question; to establish a motive for the orator; run a brief mental checklist of rhetorical techniques commonly employed in oration (especially in other works of oration used by the individual(s) in question); to analyse the structure and the phrasing of the statement.

Having done all this, I gauge my external knowledge of the subject at hand and then use that as a yardstick to estimate the plausibility of the proposition that the statement is a metaphor.

One example can be found in the third paragraph of my post on the "A very good question" thread:

* Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]

Clearly a metaphor:  “Ask  and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door  will be opened for you" - Jesus blatantly isn't telling people that merely knocking on doors automatically overrides people's willpower and obliges them to open them.  If that were the case, clearly bank-jobs would be pretty easy.  Even if you assume Jesus was just a regular Joe talking shit, you have to at least give him (or whatever author you think made him up) the credit to know that people don't always open doors just because people knock on them.  Likewise I don't read it as a promise that you'll always find your car-keys if you perform a cursory search.

There you can clearly see that you do not need a magic decoder ring to choose between:
A.  All Christians living in a fairy-tale world where nothing gets misplaced and doors can't be locked
B.  It's a freaking metaphor.

It's childish obfuscation to insist otherwise.

[Ace42]

Again you avoid the question. Why?

Because you are naively trying to trap me into saying something ridiculous so you can throw up your hands and go "oh, look at that superstition!  HAHAH GOT YOU!" and as such you are phrasing your questions in incredibly contrived and idiotic ways which mean any direct answer I give will be misrepresent my beliefs.

Do you believe that there was a Jesus son of God?

In fact, I know a fellow called "God Thompson" and he named his son Jesus...
But no, I do not believe God was Jesus's father in any literal (genetic) sense.  The idea that God has "genes" which can be passed on to a "son" strikes me as ludicrous.  So, now you know my opinion on that; so what?  Are you going to use that information to flirt with me?  Does it have any bearing on anything I've said?  No.

There is no evidence for its plausibility at all.

Whether you find something plausible or not is a matter of personal opinion; evidence doesn't come into it.  However, unless you are arguing that Judea was a deserted wasteland through which no groups of Jews travelled; or else that the name Jesus is so impossible to pronounce that there couldn't possibly be anyone of that name walking through ancient Judea; then you'll have to come to the conclusion that it is possible.

I don't think there is anything special about the name Jesus that would make it implausible there would be Jews called that in ancient Judea, nor that a man with that name might walk around to various cities and end up being crucified at the province's capital.

The reality of someone being ignorant enough to kill themselves over a mistaken belief has nothing to do with the reality of that belief.

No fucking shit, Sherlock.  Now I wonder what my point was... Oh yes, exactly that very thing right there.  That arguing about the literalism of events "has nothing to do with the [theology] related", as you point out; and as such is a totally pointless exercise that can only be relevant to fundamentalists and atheists who want to limit themselves to arguing with other simple-minded fools.

You seem to want to claim that at least "some" of the magical nonsense in the bible is real but you want to pick and choose from it with the usual magic decoder ring.

Answered time and again.  The decoder ring argument only works if you've got Aspergers and renounce scientific doubt.  Put that shit away, it's as tired as I am of rebutting it.

Again, what you refuse to answer is telling.

I did answer, you just didn't get it.

You appear to have no better reason to think what you prefer is real than any theist would of any stripe.

Of course I don't, just like you don't have any "better" reason.  Cogito Ergo Sum, everything else is PREFERENCE, dumbass - that includes and scientific theories / hypotheses you choose to put your faith in.

Really?  Can you show me some that do not believing that they must literally take Jesus as their savior and believe in his father God, ones that don't believe in John 3?

Ok, me.  Here we go, I now not believe that.  Proved you wrong?  Good.  Now I believe it again.  Wait, are you looking this way again?  Stopped believing it.

But seriously:
Barack Obama do you?  He claims he doesn't believe people have to take Jesus as their saviour and believe in his father God.

I know that there are some Christians who don't think God and Jesus are the same being but any that totally think that God and Jesus are just metaphor?

Do you know any that literally think Jesus is a sheep?  But seriously, now it comes down to semantics.  Is a Christian who doesn't believe in the literal existence of any God or Jesus beyond metaphor (a very different proposition from stating that God / Jesus *as portrayed in the bible* are metaphors - the point I was making, apparently we were at odds) still a Christian?  Who has the authority to say?

Now, if you are taking anyone who agrees with the basic "golden rule" that Jesus supposedly advocated as "Christians" you are bastardizing the word to fit your claims.  I could be a Christian under those qualifications.

What would your definition of Christian be?  If you are going to limit it to the evangelist's preference for some passages of Paul's, then we are going to disagree and then we can both throw around accusations of bastardisation and co-opting the term for our own agendas.

I was merely stating that I know some individuals who identify themselves as Christians, attend Christian functions (and go to church regularly), and consider the bible to be a manual as to how to lead their lives, do not believe that the "historical" accounts of Jesus in the gospels are true, merely metaphors, and that God, as a monotheistic creator-entity, is a nonsense because thinking of something like God as being like "a really awesome super-dad" is stupid; and that I do not believe for a second that I coincidentally happen to live on the fringes of a reactionary group of radical Christians who are limited to my personal sphere of acquaintance.

You want names and addresses?  Bill, Bob, Frank, and Martha, that do you?  What about my Canadian girlfriend?  Jeez, this is like freaking playschool.

The whole mythos of Jesus the Christ seems predicated on the belief of his divinity/supernaturalness.

Well yeah, of course it is.  So naturally if you buy into the mythological aspects of it, of course you're going to buy into that too.  So?
 

The problem is that all thesits disagree on the "message".

Not *all* theists.  Of course there are individual interpretations of the import of schools / bodies of thought; but that's exactly the same as in the secular world.  No scientist can have exactly the same view of any theory as another one; everyone's understanding is naturally going to be nuanced due to processing by their own individual mind, even if they are broadly in agreement to the main principles at work and how they influence the world.  And of course there are schisms of thought on all manner of scientific topics.

Also, what exactly is this "problem"?  Is the problem merely that your mind has trouble coping with the idea that a God giving his message to creation wouldn't do it in off-the-peg fortune-cookie-sized soundbites?

If the narritive has nothing to do with what the theist claims as what he "knows God really meant", why bother?  It seems that theists must claim that the narrative is different from the "message" because they don't like what the narrative says.

Yah, and people watching Waiting for Godot read more into it than the physical events because they find two guys standing around talking for two acts to be boring; I'm such a bone-head, why didn't I just write that on my A-level coursework?

They must conjure a new "message" to agree with what they want.

Indeed, and that is very credible given that you've simply stated it as fact within the context of an Internet forum without any evidence to back up that claim.  Thank god we have a qualified professor of psychology, conducting polygraph tests on every single theist on the planet, to prove that to us.

Indeed?  Please show me how it is a "massive leap of logic" rather than just claiming it is.

Harry Potter is a narrative
Harry Potter is not "metaphor by humans trying to understand their world"
Some narratives are not attempts to understand our place in the world.

As I pointed out, the assertion was irrational, and it didn't require me to construct a syllogism to point it out, did it?

It is a story with no evidence that it was ever true same as other myths.

You forgot the word "literally" in there; and there is some historical evidence of key figures such as Saul of Tarsus, etc being present at that time.  Is that proof?  No, but it isn't the same as there being "no" evidence.

All religions make the claim that their deity was the one and only that did the common mythological acts, creation, punishment, contests with other entities, etc.

What about pantheistic religions?  What about sikhism which specifically states there are multiple paths to God?  What about Buddhism which eschews creator gods?  What about all the exceptions to your ignorant generalisations?

The one common thread is that all of these myths are created by humans

So you were there when Genesis was being penned to see precisely who provided the creative elements?  No?  Then restrict your assertions to probabilistic statements and statements of opinion.  And, to the point in hand, so what?  Who did you expect to write it down?  Dolphins?

no deity-writ stories emblazoned on the sides of mountains,

Why would God do that?  To conform to your expectations?  I'm sure that was any nominal God's prime concern, your personal preferences.

There's a lot more to any text than "just" the narrative, just as there's much more to the bible than "just" a creation myth trying to explain how we got here.

  So what is that "much more" that you claim is in the Bible? The bible works as any other mythos.  There is nothing special about it. 
[/quote]

What's more to the bible than creation myth?  Have you read it?  There's a whole lot of social instructions and laws in there for starters.  And "special" is subjective and thus meaningless in this context; are you trying to convey that there is nothing 'unique' about the bible / Christianity?  I am sure there are plenty of theologians who would be keen to point out the nuances.

[Aaron123]

There's fanciful genealogies in there too.  And some aphorisms.
And there's some stories in there which aren't that fanciful.  The story of the prodigal son isn't particularly "fanciful", even if it is clearly contrived, so *I* will restate:  No, I do not consider the bible is "nothing more than..."

Ok, now we know you consider at least some of the events in the bible to be true(after you do some word dancing).  Now I'm sure what your position is.

It gets tiring how many people accuse me of "dodging" stupid questions.  Seriously, what are you expecting me to say?

Mainly because you seem to want to play word games and avoid giving a direct answer to a question(like before, you give several snarky remark before giving a clear answer to my question, even though I was just asking to understand what your position was).

*[Matthew 7:7]*
There you can clearly see that you do not need a magic decoder ring to choose between:
A.  All Christians living in a fairy-tale world where nothing gets misplaced and doors can't be locked
B.  It's a freaking metaphor.

That's an example of someone speaking metaphoricy.  That doesn't tell me how the devil, who appears to be a character that walks and talks, is "just a metaphor".  How am I suppose to get that the author intended the character to be a metaphor for something else(as opposed to telling us about Jesus' arc-rival)  If you consider the story of Jesus to be true, then what are we to make of the part where he talks with the devil in the desert? (you didn't state which parts of the bible you consider to be literally true, but I'm guessing the life and times of Jesus is one of them)

[Ace42]

Ok, now we know you consider at least some of the events in the bible to be true(after you do some word dancing).  Now I'm sure what your position is.

Pontius Pilate (...)was the Prefect (governor) of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36
- some parts of it are pretty inscrutably true, there are corroborating Roman records.  Whether or not he "tried Jesus" or washed his hands of the matter, who knows?

But "word dancing" aside; yes, now you know I consider some of its contents to be true, the above being an example of one of those truths.  What does that tell you?  That I believe the authors of the new testament were at least casually acquainted with the geo-politics of the Roman empire a generation or so previous?

Mainly because you seem to want to play word games and avoid giving a direct answer to a question(like before, you give several snarky remark before giving a clear answer to my question, even though I was just asking to understand what your position was).

My position is precisely what I argue.  Asking irrelevant questions about my religious persuasion only merits snarky remarks.  If my "dancing" bothers you, perhaps you should stop aiming your attacks at my body and aim for my arguments instead.

That's an example of someone speaking metaphoricy.

What setting on your magic decoder ring told you that, and why doesn't it work when you apply it to the narrator's dialogue rather than a character's?  And, now you concur with that, perhaps  you can tell the atheists on the forum that it's an example of someone speaking metaphorically, as they trumpet it as a very literal example of why this forum's name (and its parent site's) is so relevant.

That doesn't tell me how the devil, who appears to be a character that walks and talks, is "just a metaphor".  How am I suppose to get that the author intended the character to be a metaphor for something else

How are you supposed to get that the author (Jesus in the passage I cited) intended HIS speech to be a metaphor?  Use the same criteria.  Or, if you are unable or unwilling to extend the same standards to the rest of the bible as you are to passages I've had to rub in people's faces; why not use the methodologies I described in my previous post?

you didn't state which parts of the bible you consider to be literally true,

Have you seen how big it is?  A line-by-line interpretation according to Ace42 would be painful for me, boring for you, and pretty much meaningless for everyone else.

but I'm guessing the life and times of Jesus is one of them)

Guess again.  I don't think the gospels are literally true in their entirety.

[Aaron123]

Pontius Pilate (...)was the Prefect (governor) of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36
- some parts of it are pretty inscrutably true, there are corroborating Roman records.  Whether or not he "tried Jesus" or washed his hands of the matter, who knows?

Using a historical person does not make a story true.

My position is precisely what I argue.  Asking irrelevant questions about my religious persuasion only merits snarky remarks.

I ask because I got confused what your position was, and wanted a little clarification(which you took a while just to give a simple straight answer).

How are you supposed to get that the author (Jesus in the passage I cited) intended HIS speech to be a metaphor?  Use the same criteria.  Or, if you are unable or unwilling to extend the same standards to the rest of the bible as you are to passages I've had to rub in people's faces; why not use the methodologies I described in my previous post?

We know when Jesus speaks metaphorically, because he usually makes it clear he's about to use a metaphor(I.E. :"The kingdom of heaven is like...").  You have yet to explain how the authors of the books intended the devil as a "metaphor", rather than a real person that interacted with Jesus(and you have yet to say which parts of the gospels are literal and which are metaphors).

If you consider the bible to be a work of fiction, then I don't really care what you consider metaphors, but you stated that parts of it are real.  You've yet to explain which parts of it are real, and how we're meant to know.  So far, all you've offered is the usage of Pontius Pilate, but that doesn't tell me parts of the bible is real.  It just tells me they used a historical person for that portion of the story.

[Ace42]

Using a historical person does not make a story true.

I never said it did.  I merely said I think some parts of the bible are true; that Pilate was governor of Judea at that time is, as far as I know, pretty accurate.  By "parts" I didn't mean "books", or even "passages".  And I didn't want to broaden it to "some things about the bible" because that is too nebulous and not very helpful either.

We know when Jesus speaks metaphorically, because he usually makes it clear he's about to use a metaphor(I.E. :"The kingdom of heaven is like...").

That's a simile.

You have yet to explain how the authors of the books intended the devil as a "metaphor", rather than a real person that interacted with Jesus (and you have yet to say which parts of the gospels are literal and which are metaphors).

"How they intended the devil as a metaphor?"  What are you asking?  How they meant him to appear cosmetically as a metaphor?  Or in terms of personality?

Surely you are aware of the cliché of someone's conscience being portrayed as a devil on one shoulder, and an angel on the other?  What's that?  It's a visual metaphor.  Is it announced as a metaphor?   Does someone go "hey little metaphorical devil, you're like my conscience?"  No.  If you see someone interacting with the devil in that context, you take it as shorthand for them undergoing an internal dialogue.  The devil often (although not exclusively) seems to operate in this respect; it could be argued that this is why the devil only appears to Jesus when the J man is on his own contemplating.

And no, I'm not going to go through a word-by-word breakdown of the gospels according to Ace42, it's an incredibly deep theological subject with many different nuances and readings, and it is pointless to put such a herculean task before me when we both know that I'd get burned out within a chapter or two, let alone four gospels.

I gave you an extract of one section I consider to be metaphorical, that should be more than enough for you to get an idea of what I am arguing for and against.

[alihaymeg]

From what I have studied concerning the "Devil" or "Dragon" as portrayed in the Biblical texts, it does seem to be a metaphor for something. The most likely "thing" or "concept" that it seems to refer to is religion. This is a completely foreign idea to most people but I think I can lay out some evidence for this.

The "Devil" or "Dragon" is never mentioned in relation to what we generally perceive to be heinous sins or crimes. The first mention is in the Garden; in God's territory. It is not attempting to get Eve to kill or commit some other typical sin. It is enticing her with preaching. It uses the very words of God to entice her to embrace the flesh over the spirit.

In Job we see the "Devil" answering a question asked directly by God. "Have you seen my servant Job?" It is God who instigates the trials of Job. Job also is tempted in the spirit not in the flesh. It is his religious peers that try to convince him with religious ideas to repent of some hidden sin.

When Jesus is tempted, it is also with religion. The "Devil" quotes scripture to him. It is a religious attack.

Then with one breath Jesus calls Peter "blessed" because what he understood was not revealed in his mind but in his spirit. Then with another breath, when Peter uses his carnal religious mind to rebuke Jesus for saying that He must suffer and be killed, Jesus calls Peter "Satan". He doesn't say "stop acting like "Satan" He calls him "Satan". Because Peter had been indoctrinated with the idea that the Messiah would restore the kingdom to Israel and that He could not possibly be killed, he was seeing with his mind instead of his spirit. (Religion) Jesus never called any of the prostitutes or drunkards "Satan" It was always the religious that were given that designation.
Religion seeks to force a person to adhere to some physical moral code that looks something like the old covenant.  That covenant was broken and rendered useless. The covenant established by Christ is a spiritual one. He himself said that the letter of the Law kills, but the spirit makes alive.


The Bible seems to show that the entity that "masquarades as an angel of light" may be religion.

I'm sure most of us agree that religion is destructive and carnal.

[velkyn]

Pontius Pilate (...)was the Prefect (governor) of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36
- some parts of it are pretty inscrutably true, there are corroborating Roman records.  Whether or not he "tried Jesus" or washed his hands of the matter, who knows?
But "word dancing" aside; yes, now you know I consider some of its contents to be true, the above being an example of one of those truths.  What does that tell you?  That I believe the authors of the new testament were at least casually acquainted with the geo-politics of the Roman empire a generation or so previous?

thus we have proof that all modern political thrillers are true.