God's attitude towards science and progress

[Stripe]

There is no better definition, unless you want to suggest one.

This whole reading business is all new to you, isn't it?

Find it for me.

:darwinsm:

You're hilarious.

 

[iouae]

This whole reading business is all new to you, isn't it?


:darwinsm:

You're hilarious.

I tried.

 

[Wick Stick]

I have not encountered a subject best left alone. Why fear angelology?

In my experience, the topic is divisive, despite being mostly unimportant. It's a "vain questions" thing.

There are different kinds of angels. One of those kinds is essentially human, though

Scripture?

Which part? The Bible speaks of cherubim, seraphim, wheels within wheels, multi-faced beasts, and thrones. That ought to be sufficient evidence of different classes of angels.

That there are angels of a human form would seem evident from Abraham's visitation.

Not "spirit bodies." Paul uses the phrase spiritual bodies, once: σῶμα πνευματικόν. Those are still bodies. πνευματικόν is an adjective describing the principle by which those bodies are moved.

I doubt that last sentence.

Here's the lexicon entry. It's definition 3.B.

You can, of course, point to the other definitions, but... I'm fairly sure I've studied this more than you. No disrepect intended. I found this topic fascinating, and I've read several books on it, including several of the philosopher's classical works, and done a study of comparative usage in literature contemporary to the Bible. Any chance you'll take my word for it?

Yes it is hypothetical. Glorydaz does not think God could have saved us without Christ dying, I think God could have, since God created angels without Christ having to die. So arose the question of how we differ from the angels. I say we have the same immortal, spiritual body since we will be in heaven some of the time, and need to be spirit to be there. Also the earth will be cauterised by fire, and we will need a spirit body to survive the fire which will engulf earth.

"God can't" is almost always an error. That said, my understanding of end times is that God returns to earth, not that we fly off into space.

 

[iouae]

Which part? ...
That there are angels of a human form would seem evident from Abraham's visitation.

Angels can manifest as humans. But that is not their usual body.

Here's the lexicon entry. It's definition 3.B.

You can, of course, point to the other definitions, but... I'm fairly sure I've studied this more than you. No disrepect intended. I found this topic fascinating, and I've read several books on it, including several of the philosopher's classical works, and done a study of comparative usage in literature contemporary to the Bible. Any chance you'll take my word for it?

No disrespect intended Wick Stick, but there is not a snowballs chance that you are right.

This whole chapter of 1 Cor 15 tells us what our spirit body will be like. I will highlight the proof

1Co 15:35
¶
But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
1Co 15:36
Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
1Co 15:37
And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
1Co 15:38
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. [INDICATING A DIFFERENT BODY AS DIFFERENT AS SEED IS FROM WHEAT PLANT]
1Co 15:39
¶
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
1Co 15:40
¶
There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
1Co 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
1Co 15:42
¶
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co 15:44
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Co 15:50
¶
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
1Co 15:51
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

This is not a close call Wick Stick.
How many different times and in how many different ways must Paul tell you that you are raised with a genuine, glorious, immortal, incorruptible spiritual body?

 

[Wick Stick]

I think we're just talking past each other now. That post had nothing to do with what I said. Like, complete non-sequitor. You spent a lot of words trying to disprove something that I didn't say in the first place.

I think I'll just call it a day, here. I find it frustrating when people don't understand what I'm saying.

 

[iouae]

I think we're just talking past each other now. That post had nothing to do with what I said. Like, complete non-sequitor. You spent a lot of words trying to disprove something that I didn't say in the first place.

I think I'll just call it a day, here. I find it frustrating when people don't understand what I'm saying.

I thought that you were saying that in the resurrection we don't have a spirit body.
I would genuinely like to know what you were trying to prove.

And you said you have expertise in a certain area. Is that expert in language or something else?

 

[Stripe]

I tried.

:rotfl:

 

[Wick Stick]

I thought that you were saying that in the resurrection we don't have a spirit body.
I would genuinely like to know what you were trying to prove.

And you said you have expertise in a certain area. Is that expert in language or something else?

Thanks for being civil. I wasn't trying to say that a spiritual body isn't different/superior from our current mode of existence. You spent some time refuting this point, but... I didn't say that in the first place.

However, a spiritual body is still a body (my original point). It isn't a disembodied aether. It doesn't belong only to some other dimension. It exists here in this plane of reality. It's still suited for earth.

As for expertise, I'm not going to claim that, per se. I was just saying that I've studied the topic of soul and spirit extensively. Like, I probably have enough hours studying this for some college credits, if there were such a class. I read most of Plato and Aristotle on the subject, some of the Renaissance guys on the four humours, studied the modern adaptations of those theories, such as Briggs-Myers, a long study of the Hydraulic Metaphor of the Human Body, and its use in the Bible, topical studies of pneuma and psuche in the Bible and in other literature contemporary to the Bible, and so on...

I guess all I'm saying is... I didn't just make this up, and I'm not just holding some doctrinal position dogmatically. I actually studied this topic in depth.

 

[iouae]

However, a spiritual body is still a body (my original point). It isn't a disembodied aether. It doesn't belong only to some other dimension. It exists here in this plane of reality. It's still suited for earth.

Thanks Wick Stick.

Just a few questions on a spirit body.

1) can a spirit body be hurt or destroyed?
2) does it need continual nourishment?
3) does it have eternal life inherent, or does it need an outside source (like God) to stay immortal?
4) can it travel instantly from one place in the universe to another?
5) does it need to breath?
6) do we have a spirit now, or will we become spirit later?
7) I presume spirit bodies are just like human ones, and can be imprisoned, or sit etc. i.e. are subject to forces and spirit barriers.

Thanks

 

[iouae]

I guess all I'm saying is... I didn't just make this up, and I'm not just holding some doctrinal position dogmatically. I actually studied this topic in depth.

I don't know if you have studied seraphs.

The KJV translates Strong's H8314 in the following manner: fiery serpent (3x), fiery (2x), seraphim (2x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
serpent, fiery serpent
poisonous serpent (fiery from burning effect of poison)
seraph, seraphim
majestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance upon God

When Israel was being bitten by serpents, these were actually seraphim, a type of angelic being with 6 wings.

Seraphim will play a role in end-time prophecy.

Here are the only times seraphim are mentioned.

Num 21:6
And the LORD sent fiery H8314 serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
Num 21:8
And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, H8314 and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
Deu 8:15
Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery H8314 serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint;
Isa 6:2
Above it stood the seraphims: H8314 each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
Isa 6:6
Then flew one of the seraphims H8314 unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
Isa 14:29
Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery H8314 flying serpent. H8314
Isa 30:6
The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and fiery H8314 flying serpent, H8314 they will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young *****, and their treasures upon the bunches of camels, to a people that shall not profit them.

 

[Wick Stick]

Thanks Wick Stick.

Just a few questions on a spirit body.

1) can a spirit body be hurt or destroyed?
2) does it need continual nourishment?
3) does it have eternal life inherent, or does it need an outside source (like God) to stay immortal?
4) can it travel instantly from one place in the universe to another?
5) does it need to breath?
6) do we have a spirit now, or will we become spirit later?
7) I presume spirit bodies are just like human ones, and can be imprisoned, or sit etc. i.e. are subject to forces and spirit barriers.

Thanks

I don't 100% know the answer to most of these. I could give you educated guesses, but frankly "it is NOT written."

#3 - yes it needs God (though this is true even of our current bodies)
#5 - spirit and breath are the same word, so yes a spiritual body requires breath (though it may not be the respiration you are probably thinking of)
#6 - we clearly have a spirit now

 

[iouae]

I don't 100% know the answer to most of these. I could give you educated guesses, but frankly "it is NOT written."

#3 - yes it needs God (though this is true even of our current bodies)
#5 - spirit and breath are the same word, so yes a spiritual body requires breath (though it may not be the respiration you are probably thinking of)
#6 - we clearly have a spirit now

Thanks Wick Stick.

When you read say, Ezekiel 1 do you see heaven as being like earth, with spirit beings like earthly beings.

In other words, do you see the spirit world as being very similar to the material realm?

When humans are transported to heaven they feel totally at home, no adjustment required.

If you feel like telling me anything about the spirit realm I would be interested in hearing it. I have done a lot of research on the spirit realm, but only in the Bible. My Mom grew up in a haunted house and she told me some stories which give me goosebumps even as I type this.

 

[iouae]

I was doing research on the idea that the gods gave cultures like ancient Sumer their technology.
All mainstream sources on ancient civilisations never say that the gods gave them their knowledge and science.

All I could find are folks like Zecharia Sitchin who say so.
This is what Wiki says of him.

"Zechariah Sitchin was an Azerbaijani-born American author of books proposing an explanation for human origins involving ancient astronauts. Sitchin attributed the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Anunnaki, which he stated was a race of extraterrestrials from a planet beyond Neptune called Nibiru"

This reminds me of...
"Erich Anton Paul von Däniken is a Swiss author of several books which make claims about extraterrestrial influences on early human culture, including the best -selling Chariots of the Gods?, published in 1968. Von Däniken is one of the main figures responsible for popularizing the "paleo-contact" and ancient astronauts "

There is a fascination with the inexplicable technology of the ancients.
It is such a pity that one has people like Sitchin and Von Däniken as the ones explaining these mysteries.

Here is the main problem with ancient mythology. Try reading Greek, Roman or Sumerian mythology such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. The writers of these ancient myths WRITE THE BIGGEST LOAD OF NONSENSE.

If one were to cull, from this nonsense, the theme that alien astronauts from the skies seeded humanity with knowledge, it is pure confirmation bias which energises these authors. Why do I say that?

Reading the epic of Gilgamesh, and from my memory of ancient mythology, it's like reading Terry Pratchet's "Diskworld". It's fiction. It's made up.

Every culture has its own mythology. And every culture tells a different story. Sure, they may have a flood myth mixed up in the story, but most mythology is gibberish. Because all mythology is different, if the gods gave them these stories, then the gods were liars.

Demons are liars. I do believe primitive cultures are very in tune with demons. Shamans and mediums everywhere tell stories. And the stories are all different. Surely, in creation mythology, there should be a common story. All mankind had a common origin. Yet the creation mythology gives completely different stories.

Thus I come away with complete frustration at mythology being able to add anything of value to science and technology origins. The Sumerians had very advanced technology, but my money is on it NOT coming from the gods. It's only recently that we have made technological progress, and that definitely did not come from "the gods". Primitive cultures throughout the world seem to have been held in the dark ages BY their gods.

 

[iouae]

One hears about the similarities in the flood record between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible.

But here is what is written in the first of 11 tablets telling the epic. Ask yourself if you would trust this tablet to tell you anything meaningful either about science, or morals? Or is this epic just like modern fiction, intended to entertain?

Tablet one[edit]
The story introduces Gilgamesh, king of Uruk. Gilgamesh, two-thirds god and one-third man, is oppressing his people, who cry out to the gods for help. For the young women of Uruk this oppression takes the form of a droit du seigneur, or "lord's right", to sleep with brides on their wedding night. For the young men (the tablet is damaged at this point) it is conjectured that Gilgamesh exhausts them through games, tests of strength, or perhaps forced labour on building projects. The gods respond to the people's pleas by creating an equal to Gilgamesh who will be able to stop his oppression. This is the primitive man, Enkidu, who is covered in hair and lives in the wild with the animals. He is spotted by a trapper, whose livelihood is being ruined because Enkidu is uprooting his traps. The trapper tells the sun-god Shamash about the man, and it is arranged for Enkidu to be seduced by Shamhat, a temple prostitute, his first step towards being tamed. After six days and seven nights of continuous lovemaking she takes Enkidu to a shepherd's camp to learn how to be civilized. Gilgamesh, meanwhile, has been having dreams about the imminent arrival of a beloved new companion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

 

[Wick Stick]

Thanks Wick Stick.

When you read, say, Ezekiel 1 do you see heaven as being like earth, with spirit beings like earthly beings.

I don't read Ezekiel 1 that way. I view it as an apocryphon/apocalypse. That is to say, when Ezekiel describes things, I take those images as clues to be interpreted by finding similar language in earlier books. What is spoken, either by the author or angel, I take as literal, meant to be explanations of the images.

In other words, do you see the spirit world as being very similar to the material realm?
...
If you feel like telling me anything about the spirit realm I would be interested in hearing it.

In one sense, they are identical. But in another, fundamentally opposite. Having a hard time with yes/no, here. Let me try a parable instead.

A man decides to build a house. He thinks long and hard about all the attributes that will be part of the house. Then he sits down, and he draws everything out. He has some skill, and he finishes creating a set of blueprints.

Next he obtains material, and he builds his house. Since he is skilled, he creates a perfect rendering based on his ideas and blueprints.

The relationship between the blueprints, and the actual house that was built, models the relationship between the spiritual and the physical. The man does not live in the blueprints as a stick figure on the page. He lives in the physical, material house. Yet the blueprints and plan precede the building. Without them, the house does not exist. Everything that is created is made out of material, but it is made according to a form, a plan, a thought.

All of Creation has these two attributes - Form and Substance.

Now, let's try to apply that to a man. We exist as minds within bodies. That the body is material seems evident. But the mind belongs to the other category - it exists as thoughts and plans. When a man dies, the body wastes away, and returns to dust. But the mind returns to abide within The Mind - that is, God.

And I find in my Bible that God has promised us a resurrection - that is, new bodies, and I mean bodies of a material kind.

That doesn't meant they are identical to the former bodies. Our bodies now do not take their form according to our plans and thoughts. They thrive or perish according to other factors - entropy and environs and our appetites. The new bodies are said to be pneumatikos - that is, they are driven perfectly by the mind that inhabits them. It is the difference between being a passenger in the car, and driving the car.

Did that make any sense?

 

[iouae]

I don't read Ezekiel 1 that way. I view it as an apocryphon/apocalypse. That is to say, when Ezekiel describes things, I take those images as clues to be interpreted by finding similar language in earlier books. What is spoken, either by the author or angel, I take as literal, meant to be explanations of the images.


In one sense, they are identical. But in another, fundamentally opposite. Having a hard time with yes/no, here. Let me try a parable instead.

A man decides to build a house. He thinks long and hard about all the attributes that will be part of the house. Then he sits down, and he draws everything out. He has some skill, and he finishes creating a set of blueprints.

Next he obtains material, and he builds his house. Since he is skilled, he creates a perfect rendering based on his ideas and blueprints.

The relationship between the blueprints, and the actual house that was built, models the relationship between the spiritual and the physical. The man does not live in the blueprints as a stick figure on the page. He lives in the physical, material house. Yet the blueprints and plan precede the building. Without them, the house does not exist. Everything that is created is made out of material, but it is made according to a form, a plan, a thought.

All of Creation has these two attributes - Form and Substance.

Now, let's try to apply that to a man. We exist as minds within bodies. That the body is material seems evident. But the mind belongs to the other category - it exists as thoughts and plans. When a man dies, the body wastes away, and returns to dust. But the mind returns to abide within The Mind - that is, God.

And I find in my Bible that God has promised us a resurrection - that is, new bodies, and I mean bodies of a material kind.

That doesn't meant they are identical to the former bodies. Our bodies now do not take their form according to our plans and thoughts. They thrive or perish according to other factors - entropy and environs and our appetites. The new bodies are said to be pneumatikos - that is, they are driven perfectly by the mind that inhabits them. It is the difference between being a passenger in the car, and driving the car.

Did that make any sense?

It does. Thanks a lot for that.

It sounds like spirit bodies will not be dragging us down and demanding our attention to maintain them. Our bodies now almost fight us, e.g. our appetites, and when we get sick.

I have a feeling that this only scratches the surface, and that there is more to this.

Also, we are given our high maintenance bodies, a world hard to live in, demon spirits around - all of these we have to fight.

Our lives are given us to make a decision that we want God and eternal life, against all downward pulls. When we have fought this "gravity" pulling us down, and have exercised ourselves to make the right choices, God no longer needs to have us live with this downward pull.

The created holy angels never had anything to fight from the start. And they succumbed to rebellion, not recognising a good thing when they saw it. We are approaching eternal life from the opposite side. We have always had to fight evil.

Here is almost the purpose of life in one verse...
Gen 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his[SIN'S] desire, and thou shalt rule over him[SIN].

 

[Wick Stick]

I was doing research on the idea that the gods gave cultures like ancient Sumer their technology.
All mainstream sources on ancient civilisations never say that the gods gave them their knowledge and science.

All I could find are folks like Zecharia Sitchin who say so.
This is what Wiki says of him.

"Zechariah Sitchin was an Azerbaijani-born American author of books proposing an explanation for human origins involving ancient astronauts. Sitchin attributed the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Anunnaki, which he stated was a race of extraterrestrials from a planet beyond Neptune called Nibiru"

This reminds me of...
"Erich Anton Paul von Däniken is a Swiss author of several books which make claims about extraterrestrial influences on early human culture, including the best -selling Chariots of the Gods?, published in 1968. Von Däniken is one of the main figures responsible for popularizing the "paleo-contact" and ancient astronauts "

There is a fascination with the inexplicable technology of the ancients.
It is such a pity that one has people like Sitchin and Von Däniken as the ones explaining these mysteries.

Here is the main problem with ancient mythology. Try reading Greek, Roman or Sumerian mythology such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. The writers of these ancient myths WRITE THE BIGGEST LOAD OF NONSENSE.

If one were to cull, from this nonsense, the theme that alien astronauts from the skies seeded humanity with knowledge, it is pure confirmation bias which energises these authors. Why do I say that?

Reading the epic of Gilgamesh, and from my memory of ancient mythology, it's like reading Terry Pratchet's "Diskworld". It's fiction. It's made up.

Every culture has its own mythology. And every culture tells a different story. Sure, they may have a flood myth mixed up in the story, but most mythology is gibberish. Because all mythology is different, if the gods gave them these stories, then the gods were liars.

Demons are liars. I do believe primitive cultures are very in tune with demons. Shamans and mediums everywhere tell stories. And the stories are all different. Surely, in creation mythology, there should be a common story. All mankind had a common origin. Yet the creation mythology gives completely different stories.

Thus I come away with complete frustration at mythology being able to add anything of value to science and technology origins. The Sumerians had very advanced technology, but my money is on it NOT coming from the gods. It's only recently that we have made technological progress, and that definitely did not come from "the gods". Primitive cultures throughout the world seem to have been held in the dark ages BY their gods.

The "gods gave us technology" IS a theme in many myths. The Book of Enoch is foremost among them, although in this case it is the fallen angels. The Greek myth of Prometheus is another well-known myth on that theme.

However, I do no remember anything like that in Babylonian myths. The axiom on which all of Babylonian mythology pivots is that "man was created to be a labor-saving device for the gods." Man serves the gods. Man worships the gods. That is his purpose.

You can probably see that this is precisely the opposite lesson. The gods laboring to give rest? Not in Babylon.

I know a Biblical scholar who holds that much of Genesis was written to be precisely the opposite of Babylonian religion. It's hard to argue the point. The conflict of Exodus happens because the Israelites are made to labor as slaves in Egypt. The 10 commandments specifically require one day of rest every seventh day. Even the NT reinforces this theme. "I will give you rest." "There remains a sabbath..." "Labor to enter His rest..."

I find this works as a good litmus test of churches. Do they want me there to serve and to worship? It appears that I am in Babylon, metaphorically speaking.

Or, are they there to give rest to the weary? This is true religion and undefiled, to look after orphans and widows in their distress.

 

[Wick Stick]

One hears about the similarities in the flood record between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible.

But here is what is written in the first of 11 tablets telling the epic. Ask yourself if you would trust this tablet to tell you anything meaningful either about science, or morals? Or is this epic just like modern fiction, intended to entertain?

Tablet one[edit]
The story introduces Gilgamesh, king of Uruk. Gilgamesh, two-thirds god and one-third man, is oppressing his people, who cry out to the gods for help. For the young women of Uruk this oppression takes the form of a droit du seigneur, or "lord's right", to sleep with brides on their wedding night. For the young men (the tablet is damaged at this point) it is conjectured that Gilgamesh exhausts them through games, tests of strength, or perhaps forced labour on building projects. The gods respond to the people's pleas by creating an equal to Gilgamesh who will be able to stop his oppression. This is the primitive man, Enkidu, who is covered in hair and lives in the wild with the animals. He is spotted by a trapper, whose livelihood is being ruined because Enkidu is uprooting his traps. The trapper tells the sun-god Shamash about the man, and it is arranged for Enkidu to be seduced by Shamhat, a temple prostitute, his first step towards being tamed. After six days and seven nights of continuous lovemaking she takes Enkidu to a shepherd's camp to learn how to be civilized. Gilgamesh, meanwhile, has been having dreams about the imminent arrival of a beloved new companion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

Myths are written to have layers of meaning, which often are not captured in translations. Take note of the fact that this Epic was written in one of the first languages, and words simply didn't exist for things that were abstract. Instead, if one wanted to talk about... anger, desire, love, jealousy... they created a character (usually a "god") in the story which was an essence of that trait.

The tale of Gilgamesh and Enkidu is meant to be a tutor about desire and ambition, both the positives and negatives.

Note also that, in Semitic languages in particular, words often have multiple meanings, and the use of a certain word or phrase can mean several different things. Translations to other languages invariably fall short in this regard, since the translator can only give one of those meanings.

Strip the story of it significations, and double entendres, and you're left with a bland-ish fairy tale.

 

[iouae]

The "gods gave us technology" IS a theme in many myths. The Book of Enoch is foremost among them, although in this case it is the fallen angels. The Greek myth of Prometheus is another well-known myth on that theme.

However, I do no remember anything like that in Babylonian myths. The axiom on which all of Babylonian mythology pivots is that "man was created to be a labor-saving device for the gods." Man serves the gods. Man worships the gods. That is his purpose.

You can probably see that this is precisely the opposite lesson. The gods laboring to give rest? Not in Babylon.

I know a Biblical scholar who holds that much of Genesis was written to be precisely the opposite of Babylonian religion. It's hard to argue the point. The conflict of Exodus happens because the Israelites are made to labor as slaves in Egypt. The 10 commandments specifically require one day of rest every seventh day. Even the NT reinforces this theme. "I will give you rest." "There remains a sabbath..." "Labor to enter His rest..."

I find this works as a good litmus test of churches. Do they want me there to serve and to worship? It appears that I am in Babylon, metaphorically speaking.

Or, are they there to give rest to the weary? This is true religion and undefiled, to look after orphans and widows in their distress.

The character of demons is that they are selfish, self serving, possessive, wanting worship, etc.

Each country and culture has a religion founded on that you try's demon or demons. And each culture has a "spirit" or feel to it which to a large extent comes from what that demon demands. I understand that the demon is there to be appeased.

And the demons do have little magic tricks or secret knowledge which they can give that culture - but the overall effect on the culture is not benefitted by worshipping a false god. I am a total believer in false gods - they are fallen angels. Folks worshipped these fallen angels. Historians dismiss these "gods" as myth. But they existed and influenced the culture just as voodoo influences Haiti's character today.

Thus the true God's religion would reflect the true God's character, which is that the Greatest - God Almighty - is the greatest servant.