I'm trying to make up some religions for a worldbuilding project of mine, set in a Late Middle Ages-like scenario, and I want one of these not to suffer much with the problem of evil. So I came up with two probable solutions, giving up on omnipotence:

1. Have a Zoroastrian-like dualistic system, with an omniscient, omnibenevolent God and omniscient, omnimalevolent God, each one suppressing the other's power and responsible for good or evil; or

2. Have only one, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, who created/shaped the world, but was constrained by the properties of matter, mainly that it's finite and abides to the laws of physics, so that he could only create/shape the world in a way that there would be both natural evil (e.g. the same powers that create earthquakes are the same that avoid erosion from creating utterly flat, barren landscapes, allowing for super high speed destructive winds) and moral evil (e.g. the same biological needs that makes people reproduce can make them rape).

So, in order to finally make a decision, I'm tackling some accessory issues:

a) I don't want the religion to shun the material world (including sex and "evil" animals), like lots of Gnostics did (and apparently early Zoroastrianism on the matter of animals);

b) I wish to avoid the one that has more propensity for misogyny (e.g. women are more corruptible, have less "light" or are more poorly made). I don't want to create a religion with modern sensibilities, though, only one that aknowledges that women aren't scum;

c) Less propensity to "us versus them" mentality, in which I think option 2 is more advantageous, for obvious reasons;

d) Which one is more favourable to the idea of free will;

and most important of all

e) Which one is more appealing to the common people, not only high-grade philosophers.

I'd be thankful if anyone could give some feedback

I want to create a very deep and detailed mythology for my world and one idea I want to do is create a dualistic cosmology where one God is "the shadow" or the id, who is chaotic, creative, a free spirited. And the super Ego...the controlling, hollow, organized, moral, orderly. And they both have followers in the firm of multiple religions in my world, playing a game of chess to get one over the other.

How does one add complexity to a dualisic cosmology and maintain moral ambiguity among the characters and world.

The gnostic story gets brought up a lot nowadays in different shows. Or a reference to dualism, relating to older cultural ideas not necessarily this dualism but this dualistic cosmology where god is the devil and this is important to appreciate in relation to what they said about Jaynes Bicameral mind stuff.

Anyways, hope all the formatting worked, there's the creator god and it got this realm of like pure spirituality with all these pleroma. Kinda like angels or something. Anyways one of them, Sophia, impregnates herself and creates a new entity that doesn't come from the creator. This is the Demiurge or any other number of names. Demiurge then is hidden away and decides to create it's own world, a physical world, and yet because the demiurge was part spiritual, from Sophia, what it creates is part spiritual. So the people of the world are half physical and half spiritual and your role, as a person adhering to this belief system, is now to look beyond the physical world. Or something.

You see it get brought up a lot when people talk about certain movies like the Matrix but I see it a lot in WW. Bernard at the start of the show asking Dolores if she ever questions her reality. The 2 "creators" of WW-one of whom is absent. This sort of reminds me of dualistic cosmology where there will be multiple creators or competing creators.

The big thing for Gnostic stuff is how they interpret Jesus. Basically saying when he says he's from God it's not the old testament God but the "true God" as it were. And all this stuff is really religious and hard to tear apart-lot of religious history is people saying different texts mean different things and people trying to square texts with what the governing element of any religion want. There was a time period, apparently, where the Gnostic branch of early Christians might of been in line to become what we think of as Christianity today but others would be selected to be the Church and a lot of the Gnostic texts would be excised from the Bible and many lost until the 40s.

I'm not religious and am just capitalizing everything to try and be respectful of those who are. I'm not trying to make any religious point just bringing up parallels

Why zen doesn’t have anything to do with sitting meditation.

Although this tired old subject has been now been talked to death many times over on r/zen, and is no longer interesting, we still get trolls spreading religious misinformation on an almost daily basis.

As such, I’ve decided to collate all the crucial evidence in the “big debate” into one OP to make it easier to give people everything they need to know in one simple link, as opposed to repeating myself all the time.

Thus, welcome. This is a huge and tedious OP, but I think it’s necessary.

---------

INTRODUCTION

Zen has nothing to do with seated mediation. On the contrary, Zen masters warned people against trying to engage in seated meditation for zen purposes.

The reason so many people believe there is a link between zen and meditation, for that “zen” means “meditation” (it doesn’t) is that there are churches out there that have been actively spreading these lies and co-opting the zen name for their own weird nonsense doctrines for the last 1000 years.

Unfortunately for them, despite much being lost and purposefully destroyed, we still have a few records left from the real Zen Masters.

WHAT IS ZEN, THEN, IF NOT MEDITATION?

Zen is the name for an enlightenment school/lineage which was started in China by someone now referred to as Bodhidharma in around AD500. Unlike the various religions, philosophies and cosmologies at the time, Zen was radically different.

Zen is not a religion or a philosophy or certain practices or knowledge. Zen is, in a nutshell, about seeing your true nature. It’s about recognising what “Buddha nature” means. The penny drops, the cat is out of the bag. This is something that occurs in an instant. You see your nature and become a Buddha. This happens when all beliefs, ideas, concepts and practices are seen through as mere fleeting elements of One Mind.

Zen dialogues are all attempts at demonstrations and explorations of the dharma, as it were.

Buddha means “enlightened one”. The zen masters saw their enlightenment as the only true enlightenment, and the exact same one the “O.G” Buddha/Siddarta/Gautama/Sakyamuni experienced under the Bodhi tree. They retained the essence of it in their teaching, but Buddhists misunderstood and made a complex and nonsensical set of religions out of it, deferring to practices and beliefs, morality and the casting of the Buddha as a supernaturally gifted messiah figure.

Zenlightenment isn’t like that though:

*Enli

This post will contain spoilers based on existing information in the game, the Pale Princess and the Six Pygmies, and new stuff from 2.4. My sources will be linked at the end of the post.

To save myself the headache, given the amount of Christian and Gnostic movements, I'll be focusing on the Christian Bible, the Manichaean Gnostic movement, and the Valentinian Gnostic movement, all of which I believe hold a lot of parallels to the history and story of Teyvat. Note that I am not an expert on any of these subjects, though I have been raised in a predominantly Catholic country and as a consequence, have had to sit through numerous classes of Christian Theology throughout my schooling. Please let me know if I get certain details wrong.

Edit: Added more spacing between sections for readability.

Christian Theology and Valentinian Gnosticism

To all ye Christians/Catholics out there, you can skip the next paragraph (but maybe not the bullet points).

The main scripture of Christianity is the Christian Bible, which is an anthology of texts that describe the religion's dogmas, the journey/relationship humanity has with God, and different accounts of what is believed to be historical events. The Bible is divided into the Old and New Testaments.

• The Old Testament includes the creation myth, how God guided the Israelites, and the books of wisdom. All of it has pretty heavy reminders of God's anger and the consequences of turning away from him.
• The New Testament introduces Jesus and his teachings. God here is presented as benevolent and kind, with his son, Jesus, bringing light and salvation to humanity. Jesus is pacifistic, non-judgmental, and pure, serving as a prophet to his Father.

Now, the problem that happens a lot when one examines Biblical text is that it's often difficult to reconcile the God described in the Old Testament (righteous, vengeful, warmongering) with the God of the New Testament (benevolent, forgiving, pacifistic).

And so, branches of Gnosticism arose from this paradox. How could an all-good and all-loving God do and allow such evils? Simple. You declare that he is neither of those things. He is the Demiurge, a false God that leads humanity away from enlightenment. This is why the early Christians denounced Gnosticism as heresy.

However, some branches of Gnosticism have beliefs that align with Christianity—Valentinian Gnosticism being a prominent example.

• Unlike other branches of Gnosticism, Valentinian Gnost

This is a repost from here: https://new.reddit.com/r/Metaphysics/comments/jidq3r/refutation_of_materialism/. It was suppressed on r/PhilosophyOfScience. It was deleted for no reason, and when I reposted it and complained I was banned, also for no given reason. It is a detailed explanation of what materialism, scientific materialism and scientism are, and why all of them should be rejected.

Firstly, so you know where I am coming from, I am a neo-Kantian epistemic structural realist. I reject substance dualism and idealism as well as materialism, and if forced to choose a pigeonhole then my ontology is some sort of neutral monism.

Here is the argument. Please follow the definitions and reasoning step by step, and explain clearly what your objection is if you don't like one of the steps.

1. The existence and definition of consciousness.

Consciousness exists. We are conscious. What do these words mean? How do they get their meaning? Answer: subjectivity and subjectively. We are directly aware of our own conscious experiences. Each of us knows that we aren't a zombie, and we assume other humans (and animals) are also subjectively experiencing things. So the word "conciousness" gets its meaning via a private ostensive definition. We privately "point" to our own subjective experiences and associate the word "consciousness" with those experiences. Note that if we try to define the word "consciousness" to mean "brain activity" then we are begging the question - we'd simply be defining materialism to be true, by assigning a meaning to the word "consciousness" which contradicts its actual meaning as used. So we can't do that.

2. What does the term "material" mean?

This is of critical importance, because mostly it is just assumed that everybody knows what it means. This is because the word has a non-technical, non-metaphysical meaning that is understood by everybody. We all know what "the material universe" means. It refers to a realm of galaxies, stars and planets, one of which we know to harbour living organisms like humans, because we live on it. This material realm is made of molecules, which are made of atoms (science added this bit, but it fits naturally with the rest of the concept - there is no clash). This concept is non-metaphysical because it is common to everybody, regardless of their metaphysics. It doesn't matter whether you are a materialist, a dualist, an idealist, a neutral mon

If you are a Lue hater or believe he is some misinformation agent, please read no further. Or do not believe that our Navy Pilots are seeing things in the sky. Move to the next topic. No need to squat and bash. We are still friends. But if you have come this far...

I have studied the Phenomenon for two years. I am a 51-year-old, non-religious, non-spiritual person with no pre-dispositions. I look at this topic not wanting a singular truth or outcome, just to approach the topic with deductive reasoning to answer the question, “what are our Navy pilots seeing in the sky?” I believe there are people giving us the answer; if we listen.

Let’s progress through the possibilities and listen to Lue’s and other’s thoughts. Granted, I insert my thought process throughout, but hopefully in a manner that is logical and and unbiased. Again, no predispositions.

As Lue would say, “And this is why we have to approach this with all options on the table, until they are no longer on the table.”

Option 1: Secret US Technology: This was the starting point. I thought this was a strong possibility. Skunkworks? New technology? Psyops? Where does all that money go? Area 51? Bigelow Technologies? Holograms?

This is an area of focus that seemed logical… until it didn’t.

Listen to Ryan Graves, a top Navy pilot and an Astrophysicist major, he saw these objects for “every day, for at least a couple of years”. (60 Minutes). George Knapp reported that these things are trying to be seen (TMZ Special). And now it’s in front of Congress? And seen throughout the world – Russia, China, Japan, India, Iran, Canada, Belgium and beyond?

This makes no sense if you are a Black Ops program that vails itself in secrecy.

Some claimed it was US military contractors testing out some new technology. For "every day, for at least a couple of years"? And around the whole world? Wanting to be seen? And since 1945? The first jet plane we used in combat was in the Korean War. And we had this technology? And where are they launching from? And how did this military contractor get the Navy pilots CAP points in the Tic Tac incident – decided at an extremely secret meeting prior to takeoff?

Christopher Mellon: “So, it’s not us, that is one thing we know.” 60 Minutes

Taken off the table.

Option2: Adversarial Technology – China or Russian technology?

Russians, after the

so which god would be the most transcendant; from what I understand Anu and Padomay fight, Nirn is created, the blood spilled from both create the Aedra and Deadra respectively. but before this stuff what exists? because I thought of Anu-iel if thats the name of Anu's soul but thats after not before; like is the Cosmology inherently Dualistic or am I missing something given the Kalpas. but then again even if the wheel/cycles change the combination of the components but did the components always exist or when did it start or is that just not a question in Elder Scrolls... I just got back into this series through the FudgeMuppet Podcasts and this lore is awesome.

Get ready for a long philosophical brain vomit y'all.

I recently read an interview of Gege for Le Figaro back in 2020. Here's the link for anyone interested : https://www.lefigaro.fr/bd/la-case-bd-jujutsu-kaisen-un-manga-loin-d-etre-manicheen-20200321

There's an interesting bit about Yuji and Sukuna having opposite colour schemes on purpose : Regarding the choice of colors, Yuji the hero is dressed in black, Sukuna the demon is dressed in white. “It's a strong choice, and a very conscious one on my part,” admits Gege Akutami. "I try to avoid as much as possible any Manichaeism in Jujutsu Kaisen . There is symmetry in the colors of the two figures. Black uniform and white scarf for the hero, white costume and black scarf for the demon. The two characters are both convinced to be right.”

Does "black uniform and a white scarf, white costume and a black scarf" remind you of something?

They're literally Yin Yang /s

Now I would have brushed it off as just being a way to represent their opposing characteristics. Until he mentioned Manichaeism. Taken from Wikipedia :

Manichaeism was a major religion founded in the 3rd century AD by the prophet Mani (c. 216–274 AD), in the Sasanian Empire. Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness.

Dualism in cosmology or dualistic cosmology is the moral or spiritual belief that two fundamental concepts exist, which often oppose each other. If I'm interpreting this correctly, Gege clearly wants to move away from absolute dualism, which is what Manichaenism is. He might be going towards a monistic view, further enhanced by the concept of body=soul that's presented and his constant use of Eastern concepts and faiths, which are also mostly monistic.

Back to why I believe their clothes do represent Yin and Yang. This concept has been misinterpreted many times by western creators and audience by looking at an Eastern concept from a Western lens (such as Christianity, which is also dualistic). It's not Good vs Evil. Yin and yang is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes how obviously opposite or contrary

There seem to be a bit of confusion surrounding the DC Cosmology, particularly regarding the differences in the underlying ideas of the writers. Rather than trying to develop a coherent understanding of these ideas, some are projecting their own ideas and onto it by cherry-picking certain words like "the story," to inflate the the Cosmology into something that doesn't mesh with the actual story.

Here I'm going to attempt to cover two directive writers take on the Csomology.

Morrison's take on the Cosmology

In the beginning there was God (the blank paper), and only God. A non-dual entity that simply was...until it "was made aware" of the Universe (the story). This awareness compromised God's non-duality. There were now two things in existence: the God and the Universe, the schism brought consciousness to God in the form of the Monitor-Mind or the Over-void who attempted to contain the Universe with the Source Wall. The universe eventually spread and became a multiverse. In response the Overvoid sought to understand it, to this effect it created Dax Novou, the Science Monitor, who upon entry became corrupted and split into two entities one kept the name but would eventually take the name Mandrakk, and the other became the Monitor Armor.

From the Multiversity Guidebook: Maps and Legends.

Mandrakk was the manifestation of the Overvoid's fear of the Multiverse who sought to destroy it, and the Monitor Armor the manifestation of its intrigue of the Multiverse who sought to preserve it.

To this effect Mandrakk would drain the Multiverse of its essence, and the Monitor Armor would be a vessel for that essence to preserve itself. It's important to understand that the story is identical to the Multiverse, and that the Overvoid isn't part of the story (beyond its extensions, the Monitors).

What this means is that Dax Novou became part of the story upon entry. So the Mandrakk and the Monitor Armor are parts of the story that seek to destroy and preserve it, respectively.

The non-dual nature of the Overvoid is important to understand too. Because no part of the story can exist outside of the story. This is why Mandrakk ceased to exist when he fell into the Overvoid.

So what about the Monitor (Mar-Novou) and the Anti-Monitor (Mobius) during the Crisis on Infinite Earths? It's implied to be a similar situation where the Anti-Monitor wants to stabilize the story by reducing it to a single Anti-M

So in context, I made my first D&D character Maximus, a Triton Paladin.

So in a nutshell, his religion is called Tricogiationism, it’s adherents are called Tricogiationis, meaning “Three Reflections.” It is a syncretic religion between Paulicianism (7th century Armenia) and Valentinianism (2nd century Alexandria).

Cosmology: the world begins by a single, yet tripartite entity, the Tripartite One (think Monad and Trinity). Within this being is an endless number of nameless aeons. One aeon falls from Grace, resulting in a division, the material world and a material god, which is actually a reflection. The so called “god of the physical world” is a reflection of the Tripartite One, the physical world is a reflection of the pleroma, and mankind (at least the pneumatics and psychics) are reflection of the aeons. When all the pneumatics and psychics attained gnosis by baptism (similar to the Paulicians’ practice), all the reflection will go back to the real source, while the Hylics, not reflecting anything, perishes. While it may be dualistic (like the Paulicianism), it is actually monistic (like the Valentinianism).

Practices: like the Paulicians, they reject icons and images of worship, yet participate in baptism and Eucharist.

Nobody asked for it, but here it is.

Infos about the two religions

Paulicianism https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11583b.htm

Valentinianism https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15256a.htm

Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia

Long story short, Zoroaster lived in a polytheist society, and one day had "an experience" and realized that there's only One God, so he founded Zoroastrianism.

Zoroastrianism exalts an uncreated and benevolent deity of wisdom, Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord), as its supreme being, which is universal, transcendent, all-good, and the uncreated supreme creator. Some core elements of the religion are:

- monotheism

- a dualistic cosmology of good and evil

- an eschatology which predicts the ultimate conquest of evil by good

- messianism

- judgment after death

- heaven and hell

- free will

Since I learned this at school, I always wondered if this guy actually had an experience with the Most High, the God of Abraham... This week while reading my new study Bible, it mentioned that the 3 magi that visited Jesus were eastern, and very likely Zoroastrians (Holman Study Bible, book of Matthew).

I'm not talking about whatever current Zoroastrianism is, but what it was between 5 BC until Jesus' birth.

Thoughts?

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

A couple of months back, I tried to put forth some ideas about physics. The basic concept is that Energy manifests effects in a Unified Quantum Field. The field is comprised of Vector and Scalar aspects.

Energy in the vector aspect manifests phenomena with vector properties and Energy in the scalar aspect manifests phenomena with scalar properties.

All waves and particles are then the result of Energy manifesting some pattern of effects in an underlying quantum field. And this is actually quite consistent with other Quantum Field Theories in general.

Now for Anaximander's idea about Aperion.

Anaximander, (born 610 bce, Miletus [now in Turkey]—died 546 bce), Greek philosopher who was the first to develop a cosmology, or systematic philosophical view of the world.

Anaximander was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who lived in Miletus, a city of Ionia. He belonged to the Milesian school and learned the teachings of his master Thales. He succeeded Thales and became the second master of that school where he counted Anaximenes and, arguably, Pythagoras amongst his pupils.

What is the concept of apeiron by anaximander?

Anaximander introduced the apeiron (the boundless) as the beginning of everything (ie. the first principle). According to his theory, the apeiron is undefined and ever moving. It gives birth to the contradictory terms of warm and cold, and of moist and dry, and their perpetual strife.

But, instead of contradictory, you might just as easily say dualistic or perhaps oppositional.

And Physics is full of dualistic, oppositional phenomena. So Anaximander's apeiron concept has some degree of functional value.

And the similarity with Quantum Field Theory?

There are 2 basic ways for Energy to manifest in the Field. In the Vector aspect, Energy manifests as waves where:

• no scalar effect (ie. zero energy manifesting as mass)

• Energy manifests as a wave with 100% velocity and zero % time (at the speed of light).

In the Scalar aspect, we get the similarity. Energy manifests as a voltage where:

• there is no vector effect (Energy exists in scalar form with mass, but zero velocity)

• Energy manifests as a wave where the "inner" part of the wave is anchored to the same point in spacetime while the outer part spins around the anchor point. Effect is zero % velocity and 100% time.

This "primal spin" (like Anaximander's apeiron) is what produces the contradictory/oppositional phenomena of physics. Orientation of spin determines things like c

Alot of great jokes get posted here! However just because you have a joke, doesn't mean it's a dad joke.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT NSFW, THIS IS ABOUT LONG JOKES, BLONDE JOKES, SEXUAL JOKES, KNOCK KNOCK JOKES, POLITICAL JOKES, ETC BEING POSTED IN A DAD JOKE SUB

Try telling these sexual jokes that get posted here, to your kid and see how your spouse likes it.. if that goes well, Try telling one of your friends kid about your sex life being like Coca cola, first it was normal, than light and now zero , and see if the parents are OK with you telling their kid the "dad joke"

I'm not even referencing the NSFW, I'm saying Dad jokes are corny, and sometimes painful, not sexual

So check out r/jokes for all types of jokes

r/unclejokes for dirty jokes

r/3amjokes for real weird and alot of OC

r/cleandadjokes If your really sick of seeing not dad jokes in r/dadjokes

Punchline !

Edit: this is not a post about NSFW , This is about jokes, knock knock jokes, blonde jokes, political jokes etc being posted in a dad joke sub

Edit 2: don't touch the thermostat

Do your worst!

How the hell am I suppose to know when it’s raining in Sweden?

Ants don’t even have the concept fathers, let alone a good dad joke. Keep r/ants out of my r/dadjokes.

But no, seriously. I understand rule 7 is great to have intelligent discussion, but sometimes it feels like 1 in 10 posts here is someone getting upset about the jokes on this sub. Let the mods deal with it, they regulate the sub.

They were cooked in Greece.

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

Two muffins are in an oven, one muffin looks at the other and says "is it just me, or is it hot in here?"

Then the other muffin says "AHH, TALKING MUFFIN!!!"

Don't you know a good pun is its own reword?

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

Now that I listen to albums, I hardly ever leave the house.

And now I’m cannelloni

Because she wanted to see the task manager.

And boy are my arms legs.

But that’s comparing apples to oranges

Heard they've been doing some shady business.

but then I remembered it was ground this morning.

Edit: Thank you guys for the awards, they're much nicer than the cardboard sleeve I've been using and reassures me that my jokes aren't stale

Edit 2: I have already been made aware that Men In Black 3 has told a version of this joke before. If the joke is not new to you, please enjoy any of the single origin puns in the comments

They’re on standbi

A play on words.

My daughter, Chewbecca, not so much.

Pilot on me!!

I'm trying to make up some religions for a worldbuilding project of mine, set in a Late Middle Ages-like scenario, and I want one of these not to suffer much with the problem of evil. So I came up with two probable solutions, giving up on omnipotence:

1. Have a Zoroastrian-like dualistic system, with an omniscient, omnibenevolent God and omniscient, omnimalevolent God, each one suppressing the other's power and responsible for good or evil; or

2. Have only one, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, who created/shaped the world, but was constrained by the properties of matter, mainly that it's finite and abides to the laws of physics, so that he could only create/shape the world in a way that there would be both natural evil (e.g. the same powers that create earthquakes are the same that avoid erosion from creating utterly flat, barren landscapes, allowing for super high speed destructive winds) and moral evil (e.g. the same biological needs that makes people reproduce can make them rape).

So, in order to finally make a decision, I'm tackling some accessory issues:

a) I don't want the religion to shun the material world (including sex and "evil" animals), like lots of Gnostics did (and apparently early Zoroastrianism on the matter of animals);

b) I wish to avoid the one that has more propensity for misogyny (e.g. women are more corruptible, have less "light" or are more poorly made). I don't want to create a religion with modern sensibilities, though, only one that aknowledges that women aren't scum;

c) Less propensity to "us versus them" mentality, in which I think option 2 is more advantageous, for obvious reasons;

d) Which one is more favourable to the idea of free will;

and most important of all

e) Which one is more appealing to the common people, not only high-grade philosophers.

I'd be thankful if anyone could give some feedback.

BamBOO!