Demons, the malevolent kind

[Aino Ailill]

TeaDidikai

redtearsblackwings

I think that out of all the believe systems that are around there can't be just one that has got it compleatly right

This is called an argument from ignorance. Your thoughts on the matter do not negate objective reality.

Quote:

or compleatly wrong.

So you believe that the Frosts raping little kids has a point of merit in it?

Is the religion itself entirely about the rape of little kids? That and nothing else?

Even if it is, not demonizing sex could be considered a 'point of merit,' though that should not, in any way, be taken as condoning their abuse.  

[Aino Ailill]

redtearsblackwings

Aino Ailill

What is a demon if not a malevolent entity?

Thats a very good point.

It wasn't intended as a point.  

[Aino Ailill]

So, on a broad spectrum, it would be correct to define a demon as a race which largely performs acts that are detrimental to humans (be it physically harmful or promoting falsehood), malice is optional?  

[chaoticpuppet]

Aino Ailill

TeaDidikai

So you believe that the Frosts raping little kids has a point of merit in it?

Is the religion itself entirely about the rape of little kids? That and nothing else?

Through one of the Frosts books, they advocate the rape of minors to become initiated into their 'wicca'.

Tea's thread about it from over a year ago  

[Aino Ailill]

chaoticpuppet

Aino Ailill

TeaDidikai

So you believe that the Frosts raping little kids has a point of merit in it?

Is the religion itself entirely about the rape of little kids? That and nothing else?

Through one of the Frosts books, they advocate the rape of minors to become initiated into their 'wicca'.

Tea's thread about it from over a year ago

Their initiation does not comprise the entirety of the religion. As such, it seems a strawman to challenge that some merit be found in that particular aspect when the claim was laid that all religions have some aspect that make them 'not completely wrong.'  

[CuAnnan]

Aino Ailill

So, on a broad spectrum, it would be correct to define a demon as a race which largely performs acts that are detrimental to humans (be it physically harmful or promoting falsehood), malice is optional?

I don't know that you can do that.
Each religion would define demons, or their analogs, differently and attempting to fit them under one definition would create a word who's meaning is so vague that it undermines the word itself.  

[bondage bunnie]

Recursive Paradox

bondage bunnie

There is no single world view or religion that can be all correct

I find it distinctly amusing that you make an assertion as per your world view that immediately negates itself logically.

It's like the people who make objective reality claims about how all of reality is subjective. The irony. It poisons me with hilarity.

Ok so you kind of understand what im saying then, but then completely missed the point. And yes I think religion is Nihilistic. Doesn't stop me from having one.

On a philosophical level "There is no world view that can be completely correct." the thesis fail its initial idea for it is a defeatist statement. All i have to say is when someone comes up to me and says "I have all the answers", I respond with "Credible sources required."

Sorry about the christian bashing its a bad habit wasn't intended.
And fine Zionist bad choice of words how about the Ecumenical religions.  

[Aino Ailill]

CuAnnan

Aino Ailill

So, on a broad spectrum, it would be correct to define a demon as a race which largely performs acts that are detrimental to humans (be it physically harmful or promoting falsehood), malice is optional?

I don't know that you can do that.
Each religion would define demons, or their analogs, differently and attempting to fit them under one definition would create a word who's meaning is so vague that it undermines the word itself.

A word is supposed to have unity. It should be able to be transplanted from one scenario to another and keep its integrity. Otherwise, what is the purpose of calling each separate interpretation by the same word? It does not offer clarity or easy communication.  

[CuAnnan]

bondage bunnie

Recursive Paradox

bondage bunnie

There is no single world view or religion that can be all correct

I find it distinctly amusing that you make an assertion as per your world view that immediately negates itself logically.

It's like the people who make objective reality claims about how all of reality is subjective. The irony. It poisons me with hilarity.

Ok so you kind of understand what im saying then, but then completely missed the point. And yes I think religion is Nihilistic. Doesn't stop me from having one.

On a philosophical level "There is no world view that can be completely correct." the thesis fail its initial idea for it is a defeatist statement. All i have to say is when someone comes up to me and says "I have all the answers", I respond with "Credible sources required."

Sorry about the christian bashing its a bad habit wasn't intended.
And fine Zionist bad choice of words how about the Ecumenical religions.

Can someone translate this into English, please? Apart from the first paragraph, I can't dissemble it.  

[FlySammyJ]

CuAnnan

Aino Ailill

So, on a broad spectrum, it would be correct to define a demon as a race which largely performs acts that are detrimental to humans (be it physically harmful or promoting falsehood), malice is optional?

I don't know that you can do that.
Each religion would define demons, or their analogs, differently and attempting to fit them under one definition would create a word who's meaning is so vague that it undermines the word itself.

Also, I'm not sure 'race' is the word you really want to use there. It implies a common origin of all these beings, as well as a separation from all other spiritual beings. Speciation, as it were. Unless you want to go with the ethnic definition of race, which would also be difficult to apply.

Also there's no such thing as race. kthnxbye  

[Aino Ailill]

demisara

CuAnnan

Aino Ailill

So, on a broad spectrum, it would be correct to define a demon as a race which largely performs acts that are detrimental to humans (be it physically harmful or promoting falsehood), malice is optional?

I don't know that you can do that.
Each religion would define demons, or their analogs, differently and attempting to fit them under one definition would create a word who's meaning is so vague that it undermines the word itself.

Also, I'm not sure 'race' is the word you really want to use there. It implies a common origin of all these beings, as well as a separation from all other spiritual beings. Speciation, as it were. Unless you want to go with the ethnic definition of race, which would also be difficult to apply.

My use of 'race' was not to imply that all demons were of a single common ancestry but all demons belonged to a common ancestry (or related group, as they may not reproduce), of which there may be many.

Say, cats, mice, and gerbils are demons. They are not related to each other (well, they're mammals but meh) but they might each be called 'demon' in that they are, as a species, inclined to bring Man to harm.

So, yes, speciation. So, what is the issue with this?

Quote:

Also there's no such thing as race. kthnxbye

Proof, pl0x.  

[CuAnnan]

demisara

Also there's no such thing as race. kthnxbye

Sure there is.
It's just a socially and anthropologically constructed thing.
It exists, though.  

[FlySammyJ]

Aino Ailill

demisara

CuAnnan

Aino Ailill

So, on a broad spectrum, it would be correct to define a demon as a race which largely performs acts that are detrimental to humans (be it physically harmful or promoting falsehood), malice is optional?

I don't know that you can do that.
Each religion would define demons, or their analogs, differently and attempting to fit them under one definition would create a word who's meaning is so vague that it undermines the word itself.

Also, I'm not sure 'race' is the word you really want to use there. It implies a common origin of all these beings, as well as a separation from all other spiritual beings. Speciation, as it were. Unless you want to go with the ethnic definition of race, which would also be difficult to apply.

My use of 'race' was not to imply that all demons were of a single common ancestry but all demons belonged to a common ancestry (or related group, as they may not reproduce), of which there may be many.

Say, cats, mice, and gerbils are demons. They are not related to each other (well, they're mammals but meh) but they might each be called 'demon' in that they are, as a species, inclined to bring Man to harm.

So, yes, speciation. So, what is the issue with this?

No issue, I was just trying to clarify your meaning. I don't have much experience with this sort of being, so I can't comment.

Quote:

Quote:

Also there's no such thing as race. kthnxbye

Proof, pl0x.

The American Anthropological Association's stance
So yeah, it's culturally constructed, and you can't make generalizations (biological or cultural) based on it. Skin tone can tell you nothing about a person. Ethnicity, now that's a whole other matter.  

[Aino Ailill]

demisara

Aino Ailill

demisara

CuAnnan

Aino Ailill

So, on a broad spectrum, it would be correct to define a demon as a race which largely performs acts that are detrimental to humans (be it physically harmful or promoting falsehood), malice is optional?

I don't know that you can do that.
Each religion would define demons, or their analogs, differently and attempting to fit them under one definition would create a word who's meaning is so vague that it undermines the word itself.

Also, I'm not sure 'race' is the word you really want to use there. It implies a common origin of all these beings, as well as a separation from all other spiritual beings. Speciation, as it were. Unless you want to go with the ethnic definition of race, which would also be difficult to apply.

My use of 'race' was not to imply that all demons were of a single common ancestry but all demons belonged to a common ancestry (or related group, as they may not reproduce), of which there may be many.

Say, cats, mice, and gerbils are demons. They are not related to each other (well, they're mammals but meh) but they might each be called 'demon' in that they are, as a species, inclined to bring Man to harm.

So, yes, speciation. So, what is the issue with this?

No issue, I was just trying to clarify your meaning. I don't have much experience with this sort of being, so I can't comment.

Quote:

Quote:

Also there's no such thing as race. kthnxbye

Proof, pl0x.

The American Anthropological Association's stance
So yeah, it's culturally constructed, and you can't make generalizations (biological or cultural) based on it. Skin tone can tell you nothing about a person. Ethnicity, now that's a whole other matter.

Ah, I didn't mean 'race' as in 'Caucasian' but as in 'the Race of Man.'

OED:

3. Any of the major divisions into which living creatures may be separated. (Chiefly not in technical use.) Cf. KIND n. 10.

a. A class, kind, or species of beings other than humans or animals.


b. The class of humans; mankind. Formerly freq. with the.

c. The kind or class to which similar animals or plants belong.


In the OED, there are eight separate entries for 'race' as a noun and twelve when including the adjectives (2) and verbs (4)!  

[TeaDidikai]

Aino Ailill

Is the religion itself entirely about the rape of little kids? That and nothing else?

Pretty much. See, since it's pretty much Standing Stone + Child Molestation, you can cut away the child rape and review Standing Stone alone.

Quote:

Even if it is, not demonizing sex could be considered a 'point of merit,' though that should not, in any way, be taken as condoning their abuse.

Since there are sex positive religious positions independent of raping children, I'd say that we can skip that shoehorned sense of merit and apply it where it belongs.