# Reading > Religious Texts >  Satan is great!

## Metanoia

I've noticed there are alot of negative posts about Satan. I for one can say that by following the way of Satan, I have achieved many of my dreams and desires. Satan has helped me greatly, along with many others like L.Ron.Hubbard. Thank-you Satan, thank-you.

----------


## hellsapoppin

Wait a minute --- L Ron Hubbard claimed to have been a Christian and used several Christian symbols in his cult. He did not worship Satan. Therefore, you are mightily mistaken!  :Wink:

----------


## Pendragon

Does one thank one's Executioner for putting one's head in the noose for a hanging or on the block for a beheading? That is basicly what you are doing when you thank Satan for anything. He doesn't help anyone unless it benefits him, not the person.

----------


## bouquin

Could you please elaborate on a specific dream/desire that you have achieved through Satan and in what way exactly he has enabled you to do it.

----------


## Taliesin

> Wait a minute --- L Ron Hubbard claimed to have been a Christian and used several Christian symbols in his cult. He did not worship Satan. Therefore, you are mightily mistaken!


Well, Metanoia didn't speak about worshiping Satan, just following his way.
Quite a difference there.

Satan can be taken as a metaphor for making oneself the center of one's life, improving oneself, believing life before death considering herd morality and stupidity as to be the major sins and so on.

Lucifer, after all, means "the bringer of light".

I, of course, don't have much faith in that Satan fellow because I consulted my pineal gland and Eris told me that he is a bit too much of a drama-queen, really, and mixes with suspicious folk like the Easter Bunny and other such strange folks.

Hail Santa!

----------


## Rav Maji

> I, of course, don't have much faith in that Satan fellow because I consulted my pineal gland and Eris told me that he is a bit too much of a drama-queen, really, and mixes with suspicious folk like the Easter Bunny and other such strange folks.
> 
> Hail Santa!


LOLOLOL! The pineal gland (as well as other parts of the body as a whole) is the vibratory door to deep knowledge. Unfortunately, I eat too many hamburgers to gain access to the halls of the ascended. You might say I follow my own path. Does this make me a satanist?

----------


## Metanoia

> Does one thank one's Executioner for putting one's head in the noose for a hanging or on the block for a beheading? That is basicly what you are doing when you thank Satan for anything. He doesn't help anyone unless it benefits him, not the person.


 I beg to differ, sir. How well do you know the ways of Satan? In actuallity, he is poorly misunderstood. He is not the nefarious, selfish being that other religions have put him out to be, your viewing my Lord from the Christian opinion and the Christian opinion of Satan is un-fair. For instance, many of your Christian symbols were derived from the old Pagan religoins, and yet you look upon my religious symbols as "evil". It's also un-fair how you expect respect in regards to your God, but when it comes to a disscusion about my God it's ok to out-right insult my beliefs. And as to your remark about Satan not helping anyone unless it benifits him, the same can be said about your God as well. He only rewards those who devoutly follow his ways, those who with out question do as his all mighty wisdom commands. So, we really shouldn't be bashing each others God and religion, for it is mearly an opinion, nothing more nothing less. Of course we will never agree on what religion is right. So unless you have something good to say about Satan, please stay off my thread. Thank you, and God bless.  :Smile:

----------


## Logos

*Religious Texts Forum Rules*:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15410

--

----------


## Bakiryu

We are both our own god and devil, humans have both inside. following the way of satan only means following the path that was already in you to begin with.

----------


## Dori

> I beg to differ, sir. How well do you know the ways of Satan? In actuallity, he is poorly misunderstood. He is not the nefarious, selfish being that other religions have put him out to be, your viewing my Lord from the Christian opinion and the Christian opinion of Satan is un-fair. For instance, many of your Christian symbols were derived from the old Pagan religoins, and yet you look upon my religious symbols as "evil". It's also un-fair how you expect respect in regards to your God, but when it comes to a disscusion about my God it's ok to out-right insult my beliefs. And as to your remark about Satan not helping anyone unless it benifits him, the same can be said about your God as well. He only rewards those who devoutly follow his ways, those who with out question do as his all mighty wisdom commands. So, we really shouldn't be bashing each others God and religion, for it is mearly an opinion, nothing more nothing less. Of course we will never agree on what religion is right. So unless you have something good to say about Satan, please stay off my thread. Thank you, and God bless.


I'm still having trouble understanding the purpose of this thread. Could you elaborate?

----------


## Logos

> *Religious Texts Forum Rules*:
> http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15410
> 
> --


Posts have been removed. 

Any more posts that are off-topic or disrespectful of the forum's rules will result in infraction points.

--

----------


## hellsapoppin

``So unless you have something good to say about Satan, please stay off my thread. ``


Noted.

Can you give us details as to how you worship Satan?

What rituals do you practice?

Do you use symbols such as Ankhs or Pentagrams?

Are there any special garments you wear during your religious services? 

Is there some form of bible or other book held sacred by your fellow devotees?

----------


## Pendragon

> I beg to differ, sir. How well do you know the ways of Satan? In actuallity, he is poorly misunderstood. He is not the nefarious, selfish being that other religions have put him out to be, your viewing my Lord from the Christian opinion and the Christian opinion of Satan is un-fair. For instance, many of your Christian symbols were derived from the old Pagan religoins, and yet you look upon my religious symbols as "evil". It's also un-fair how you expect respect in regards to your God, but when it comes to a disscusion about my God it's ok to out-right insult my beliefs. And as to your remark about Satan not helping anyone unless it benifits him, the same can be said about your God as well. He only rewards those who devoutly follow his ways, those who with out question do as his all mighty wisdom commands. So, we really shouldn't be bashing each others God and religion, for it is mearly an opinion, nothing more nothing less. Of course we will never agree on what religion is right. So unless you have something good to say about Satan, please stay off my thread. Thank you, and God bless.


You must understand that I put little if no faith in symbols for that very reason. I am told that I am to call this symbol "holy" when it has been "pagan" for longer than people can remember. Then also, Satanists take a church symbol and make it theirs-- the inverted cross was the Cross of Saint Peter, symbolizing that disciple's death, having nothing to do with Satan. I say a symbol, or blessed object is only as holy as the person who holds the symbol or blesses the object. The same goes for evil. A curse or spell is only as powerful or evil as the person believes it to be.

What do I know of Satan? I was born on his terms. I rejected religion and walked on his terms. I became a drugged-up hypocrite, for I loved the music of the church and I wasn't goning to loose that. I stood behind the pulpit and lead the service stoned, playing my bass with all my might, while my friend played ragtime piano. I didn't care about the sermon, or anything else. Music man! That was where it was at!

I was so cold, I had to be pulled off people for danger of killing them, until I met Jesus. I still love music. But now I have something to share with people. Now I don't have a temper like a buzz-saw. I know something about my Adversary, however. And it isn't good. You request I stay off. I bow to your wishes, but one day you might regret not talking to me. I return your God Bless, and I trust that He will. If at anytime you change you mind and want to talk, PM me.

God Bless

Pendragon
Rev Dale Harris

----------


## Christian

I have something good to say about satan!

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and *slain thy people*: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned."

Jesus speaking of the devil says:

"I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."

Those who would follow satan are slain by him, because they would not accept the salvation of God and force God to exclude them from the books of heaven.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Do you use symbols such as Ankhs or Pentagrams?



Why must you asume that symbols of old Pagan relgions are Satantic? Satan and Satansim has nothing to do with Pagansim, Pagans do not worship Satan or beleive in Satan, and Satan never existed within thier religon. Satan was a figure of Christain invention.

----------


## islandclimber

but what is interesting is how satanism has appropriated many symbols from paganism, and given them new meaning, or even just meaning at all... for many of the oldest pagan or celtic symbols have no meaning that we know of, or we try to give them meanings based on no information, they travel through different religions and beliefs like wildfire, each time with a new and different meaning... and to tell the truth, that is perfectly fine by me... worshipping or devotion to symbols, idols, icons, gods even (or devils lol), is in my humble opinion placing too much emphasis on external things that we have created... 

maybe we could all love this world for what it is... beautiful... in both dark and light... "beyond good and evil" as Nietszche might put it...

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Why must you asume that symbols of old Pagan relgions are Satantic? ``


I didn't.

All I did was to ask if there was any symbols that she used and whether there is any similarity between them and those used by pagans.

I am *asking*, not *accusing*. OK?

----------


## Metanoia

> ``So unless you have something good to say about Satan, please stay off my thread. ``
> 
> 
> Noted.
> 
> Can you give us details as to how you worship Satan?
> 
> What rituals do you practice?
> 
> ...


To anwser a few of your questions, I'll start with how I worship Satan.
I worship the old Satan, the true Satan. Not the one that has been smeared and distorted by the Christain religion. When most people think of Satanism, they imagine animal (or in some cases human) sacrafices. Thses rituals are not apart of my branch of Satanism, there are many offshoots of the religion. "Devil worshipers" are the ones who call themselfs "the servants of evil". This is etirely different from the beliefs I follow.

The main reason I am a Satanist is beause there is a certain energy it gives me.For instace, a few years ago, a friend told me about a spring equinox ritual, it sounded interesting so I decided to go. The ritual meeting was out in a open field, far away from any road. We had to walk about 3 miles to get there. When we arrived,we created a circle by placing various kinds of rocks two feet from each other. We each chose a chant for the night, and took our places inside the circle. Nothing esle was to be spoken until the sunrise.

After the ritual was over, I felt rejuvenated and realized this was the religion for me. In Satanism, it is believed that we are our own God, and only until that is realized, can you gain your true power.


Anyway, I just wanted to make a point that Satanism is not what most people see it as. We are discriminated against, when most most people know nothing or very little about my religion. However, most of you have been respectful and I appreciate it.

----------


## Dark Muse

Though I am not a Satanist I have written articles about this very thing, dispelling the myths of Santinsim, and the way people misrepresent Devil Worship as being the same thing as Santisim, as I have done much research into true Satanisim for personal interest.

----------


## hellsapoppin

Metanoia,

Fascinating answer!

If you can supply more details on my other queries, please do so. 

Thanks!

----------


## azulnoel

Sounds like a nice experience but you didn't describe any kind of experience that included worshiping, communicating with or serving Satan. Could you please do so?
Anyway, before the Christians changed our thoughts of Satan, to paraphrase you, he was mentioned in the Hebrew bible. Is that the Satan you are writing of? What do you know of this Satan. What does the name mean? Did you know that it is derived from Shaitan? Do you know what that means?

----------


## Trillian

If it wasn't for Satan, would anyone take God seriously? Just a thought. :Biggrin:

----------


## Pendragon

> If it wasn't for Satan, would anyone take God seriously? Just a thought.


(My apologies, Metanoia, I fully intend to stay off your thread.)

But this is a very good question. I have always said that Christian Integrity consists only of what you would do if you couldn't get caught and there were no punishments. Most would not live like Christ but like Satan, for why bother with piety when there is no real need. Why speak truth when a lie is both easier and less troublesome, and no wrong? Why bother with Ten Crumbling Commandments when human nature goes against them? This is your only time around, live while you're alive! No?

But--If Satan and God exists as described in the Bible, you might want to check your options... If Satan exists as Metanoia has described him, again, you might want to check your options...

God Bless

Pen

----------


## hellsapoppin

Here's a thought: if it wasn't for this god, would more people worship Satan?

----------


## intoxicatedsoul

"In every city under the sun my name was the axis of the educational circle of religion, arts, and philosophy. Had it not been for me, no temples would have been built, no towers or palaces would have been erected. I am the courage that creates resolution in man.... I am the source that provokes originality of thought.... I am the hand that moves man's hands.... I am Satan everlasting. I am Satan whom the people fight in order to keep themselves alive. If they cease struggling against me, slothfulness will deaden their minds and hearts and souls, in accordance with the weird penalties of their tremendous myth.

"I am the enraged and mute tempest who agitates the minds of man and the hearts of women. And in fear of me, they will travel to places of worship to condemn me, or to places of vice to make me happy by surrendering to my will. The monk who prays in the silence of the night to keep me away from his bed is like the prostitute who invites me to her chamber. I am Satan everlasting and eternal...

~said satan to father samaan (excerpt from "satan" by khalil gibran)

amen, satan, amen.

full text here:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4885/ks.html

----------


## mtpspur

Points to the originator of this thread for not being shy about their beliefs. I have never put much stock in the pagan symbols and the blood sacrifices--those are for children and drama queens. Personally I intend to continue to bless the Lord Christ who loved me enough to die for my sins and ignore the one who persists in trying to make me ungrateful for the blessing. Enjoy your power while you have it but let me know how it goes when the summer is past and the heart hardens and the soul becomes dry as dust. Your friend is a fair weather one at best. He is a hard master who never allows rest. With fear and concern and a bit of hope for better things. Rich

----------


## hellsapoppin

full text here:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4885/ks.html


Thanx for that link --- very interesting, indeed.

----------


## stephofthenight

> And as to your remark about Satan not helping anyone unless it benifits him, the same can be said about your God as well. He only rewards those who devoutly follow his ways, those who with out question do as his all mighty wisdom commands. So, we really shouldn't be bashing each others God and religion, for it is mearly an opinion, nothing more nothing less. Of course we will never agree on what religion is right. So unless you have something good to say about Satan, please stay off my thread. Thank you, and God bless.



This is not true, I personaly have been blessed a lot by god, and the people on this forum who remeber me from when i first came here, understand just how undeserving i was. even while I followed the path of Satan God was still trying to help me, so no im sorry that argument doestn go both ways...

You posted this thred, in doing so you have to understand that you are going to get the good and the bad opinions, but i agree they shouldnt be rude, i personaly see satan as evil and manipulative. But thats just becuase I remeber thinking he was all amazing and there for me, but he wasnt. placing your faith in him is a major risk, becasue sometimes hes there sometimes hes not...And the factor that he manipulates people, just as he did me. Maybe your not ready to see it yet. But he realy is the greater evil of the two. 

~stephanie~

----------


## Metanoia

I just want to get this out of the way. I don't blindly follow a religion, and I place faith with myself before anyone or anything, Satanism has just helped open my mind to the power that was dormant within me. Satanism (the branch I follow) has lead me to to discover so many great things, not by forcing me, or threatening me, but by simply lifting a veil that has been obscuring the truth.

And placing your faith in any God can be a major risk... The Christain God was never there for me when I had faith in him. There was a time went I went to church, prayed, and followed the ways of The Bible, but That God never helped me in any way. Atleast in the religion I'm in now, allows me to tap into my own power, and make my own decision's to change my life. I don't have to wait until the after-life to get my rewards. Life is precious, and I can't sit around waiting for a God that has done nothing for me. You may judge Satan as "manipulative" but you're only seeing the negative side. The Satan I believe in can be good or evil, it comes down to how you choose to use the powers of Satan, not what Satan is or is not. Our clan, believes in maintaining balance in every aspect of our life. We as human beings, are not perfect, and we have good in us, as well as bad, just like Satan. So why should we follow the Christain God, that's not only radically different from us, but condems us for our natural human ways?

----------


## ReynardKitsune

i feel that satan is a negative thing too he is just so scary and won't do things he won't gain from

----------


## hellsapoppin

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...god_vs_god.jpg


 :Wink:

----------


## Kent Edwins

One thing that I've noticed about a lot of Satanic doctrine I've come in contact with is that it's largely dependent on Christianity in terms of defining itself. I am not claiming your (Metanio's) specific beliefs are merely an outlash, but I would like you to elaborate. Could you outline some of the basic tenants of what you believe? For example, what exactly, is Satan? And how does one do Satan's work? In your answer, please don't reference Christianity or simply criticize Christians for misunderstanding you. In fact, don't mention Christ or Christianity in your response at all if, if possible.

Thank you for creating such an intriguing topic!

----------


## ReynardKitsune

yes i believe all gods are the same based on the teachings they have and it is your personal preference if you wish to think that way

----------


## hellsapoppin

All of these discussions we are having here (and a great many kudos to everyone for their contributions) demonstrate that humanity flourishes when it has some form of metaphysical union. A god who proclaims himself beneficent but who hides behind clouds serves no real purpose other than to give false hope. It is a god who failed the Christians that were fed to the lions kept as pets by the Romans. The same failed six million Jews and 40 million abortion victims.

What people need is a present god who is manifestly present and who fulfills the infinite promises that we read of in the Bible or in other writings held to be sacred scripture.

----------


## kiz_paws

> I just want to get this out of the way. I don't blindly follow a religion, and I place faith with myself before anyone or anything, Satanism has just helped open my mind to the power that was dormant within me. Satanism (the branch I follow) has lead me to to discover so many great things, not by forcing me, or threatening me, but by simply lifting a veil that has been obscuring the truth.
> 
> And placing your faith in any God can be a major risk... The Christain God was never there for me when I had faith in him. There was a time went I went to church, prayed, and followed the ways of The Bible, but That God never helped me in any way. Atleast in the religion I'm in now, allows me to tap into my own power, and make my own decision's to change my life. I don't have to wait until the after-life to get my rewards. Life is precious, and I can't sit around waiting for a God that has done nothing for me. You may judge Satan as "manipulative" but you're only seeing the negative side. The Satan I believe in can be good or evil, it comes down to how you choose to use the powers of Satan, not what Satan is or is not. Our clan, believes in maintaining balance in every aspect of our life. We as human beings, are not perfect, and we have good in us, as well as bad, just like Satan. So why should we follow the Christain God, that's not only radically different from us, but condems us for our natural human ways?


Just a quick question -- I have noted that you continually refer to _"that Christian god"_. But really, there are other religions other than Christian and Satanism. Do you just say this because that was the god that you are familiar with? Just asking, as the Great Spirit (aboriginal Canadian, and others) is yet another great god, and so on... (the g-d of Jewish faith, the list goes on ....). 

Interesting thread, and everyone seems to be having a civil discussion.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Trillian

> I have never put much stock in the pagan symbols and the blood sacrifices--those are for children and drama queens. Personally I intend to continue to bless the Lord Christ who loved me enough to die for my sins and ignore the one who persists in trying to make me ungrateful for the blessing.


Don't mean to play (ahem) Devil's Advocate, but Jesus Christ _was_ a blood sacrifice. The ultimate Sacrifice, in fact. He took the place of the animal sacrifices that God had, up until His son's death, demanded for the atonement of sin. Matter of fact, the reason Cain murdered Abel was because God favored Abel's animal sacrifice of the best of his flock, and scorned the veggies that Cain offered. Point is, the "Christian God" had long demanded blood sacrifices before Christ ended the practice.

----------


## Lady Glynde

> All of these discussions we are having here (and a great many kudos to everyone for their contributions) demonstrate that humanity flourishes when it has some form of metaphysical union. A god who proclaims himself beneficent but who hides behind clouds serves no real purpose other than to give false hope. It is a god who failed the Christians that were fed to the lions kept as pets by the Romans. The same failed six million Jews and 40 million abortion victims.
> 
> What people need is a present god who is manifestly present and who fulfills the infinite promises that we read of in the Bible or in other writings held to be sacred scripture.



Well, hellsapoppin, let me begin by saying I'm not out to make you the enemy here, and also that I can't really speak for the Jews.

God is beneficient _because_ he hides behind the clouds, in a manner of speaking. If he made everything pumpkins and roses, no one would be truly free. God would just be a tyrant if we didn't have free will; we would be puppets on strings who lived life out perfectly but could never have the chance to be heroes. There are no heroes except in the battles where every hero might have been a coward. God throws down opportunities from behind the clouds which we can either take advantage of and be heroes... or not. 

The Christians were fed to the lions through their own free will because they would not renounce Christianity, so God did not fail them but rather let them attain the glory of a martyr. Honestly, I don't think they would have changed their fates if they could have... and neither would I have. 
What you are defining as false hope _would_ seem to be false from the world's point of view, wouldn't it?? The hope God gives us is of a different kind in that the person is hoping for something different.

All this is not meant to be mean AT ALL, and I understand completely how hard it would be for someone who doesn't have a personal relationship with Christ to understand this. What promises in particular are you speaking of?? And, just out of curiosity, why ARE you objecting to others' belief in God?? And also it's completely legit to wonder about this, because it's through reason that you come to faith.

Hope that wasn't too wordy, and that I answered some of your questions.

----------


## Lady Glynde

> If it wasn't for Satan, would anyone take God seriously? Just a thought.


If it wasn't for God, would anyone take the Devil seriously??  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Don't mean to play (ahem) Devil's Advocate, but Jesus Christ _was_ a blood sacrifice. The ultimate Sacrifice, in fact. He took the place of the animal sacrifices that God had, up until His son's death, demanded for the atonement of sin. Matter of fact, the reason Cain murdered Abel was because God favored Abel's animal sacrifice of the best of his flock, and scorned the veggies that Cain offered. Point is, the "Christian God" had long demanded blood sacrifices before Christ ended the practice.


The "blood sacrifice" was a precursor to Christ's sacrifice - its function was to always keep in front of humanity the price of sin until the time was right for Christ to come and settle our "sin debts" once and for all. Sin destroys all that it touches, and death is unavoidable once sin has been chosen: only through Christ's substitutionary death can any of us (all of us) hope to enter into the heaven. 

Cain's sacrifice was not scorned because it was "veggies" - God refused it because Cain decided to do things his way - even human bosses are less than tolerant about employees who do similar things.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> The "blood sacrifice" was a precursor to Christ's sacrifice - its function was to always keep in front of humanity the price of sin until the time was right for Christ to come and settle our "sin debts" once and for all. Sin destroys all that it touches, and death is unavoidable once sin has been chosen: only through Christ's substitutionary death can any of us (all of us) hope to enter into the heaven. 
> 
> Cain's sacrifice was not scorned because it was "veggies" - God refused it because Cain decided to do things his way - even human bosses are less than tolerant about employees who do similar things.


This strikes me as a chess game being played on a board without differentiated squares, with pieces that can move any which way one pleases. How does one _know_ why 'God' did this or that? And are there reports from heaven or hell for that matter of any who have entered there?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> If it wasn't for God, would anyone take the Devil seriously??


If it weren't for ancient texts stitched together from other ancient texts of uncertain authorship, would anyone take any of this seriously?

----------


## hellsapoppin

``God is beneficient because he hides behind the clouds``


I am quite certain that if you were a Jew in one of Hitler's death camps getting beaten and tortured every day, your viewpoint would likely undergo somewhat of a change. Perhaps some day you will be on your death bed in agony because of some form of incurable and painful disease. Again, it may be that your viewpoint won't be as rosy. 

I have known several people who survived Hitler's death camps and not one ever painted a rosy picture of the experience. None would care to repeat such an unhappy set of circumstances and not one ever expressed any gratitude to some god for having gone through it. Of all the people I have known who have ever suffered much in life only one said he would not have changed his experience. Interestingly, he was confined to a mental institution about 2 weeks later and I never saw him again.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> The Satan I believe in can be good or evil, it comes down to how you choose to use the powers of Satan, not what Satan is or is not. Our clan, believes in maintaining balance in every aspect of our life. We as human beings, are not perfect, and we have good in us, as well as bad, just like Satan. So why should we follow the Christain God, that's not only radically different from us, but condems us for our natural human ways?


I largely agree with your views about God, Metanoia. but if Satan is just like us, what's the point in worshiping him or following him? what I'm trying to say is, maybe you are more independent and self-reliant than you realize and that power etc that you mentioned stems from yourself, rather than from Satan? so why not chuck both God and Satan in the dust bin?

by the way, your nocturnal chanting ritual does sound interesting, but it doesn't strike me as very specific to Satanism. I'm sure staying up all night and chanting shamanic or tantric or even Christian verses or just staying up all night outdoors in the middle of nowhere without any chanting would have the same effect. no offence

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If it weren't for ancient texts stitched together from other ancient texts of uncertain authorship, would anyone take any of this seriously?


If you do some research, what you'll find is that there were very stringent requirements associated with the ancient texts - the accusation that they are corrupted and a mish-mash of other texts is largely spurious.





> ``God is beneficient because he hides behind the clouds``
> 
> 
> I am quite certain that if you were a Jew in one of Hitler's death camps getting beaten and tortured every day, your viewpoint would likely undergo somewhat of a change. Perhaps some day you will be on your death bed in agony because of some form of incurable and painful disease. Again, it may be that your viewpoint won't be as rosy.


The existence of suffering does not change the truth that a God that manifests Himself at every instance of evil & suffering is not a being that inspires love, but terror and obedience through fear and/or awe, not because of love. No Christian worthy of the name argues that the suffering of the Holocaust is justifiable - but there is a larger narrative at work of which the Holocaust is a smaller part. The Lady's point is valid, but instead of addressing it, it seems that you simply brought out one of the standard arguments against God - that He isn't some sort of cosmic policeman who intervenes and stops all evil - but that God mitigates free will and love totally.





> I have known several people who survived Hitler's death camps and not one ever painted a rosy picture of the experience. None would care to repeat such an unhappy set of circumstances and not one ever expressed any gratitude to some god for having gone through it. Of all the people I have known who have ever suffered much in life only one said he would not have changed his experience. Interestingly, he was confined to a mental institution about 2 weeks later and I never saw him again.


Understandable, but bringing out the "big guns" of the Holocaust simply tries to sledgehammer the opposing argument with a highly charged historical atrocity rather actually dealing with the argument's implications. Great suffering of unimaginable magnitude that goes unaddressed by God (_for now_, by the way) does not change the truth of the Lady's points.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> If you do some research, what you'll find is that there were very stringent requirements associated with the ancient texts - the accusation that they are corrupted and a mish-mash of other texts is largely spurious.


I assume you're aware that Biblical scholarships has established that there are four distinct authors of the Old Testament, and that shift from references to Elohim to references to Yahweh reflects the changing historical circumstances among the Jews.




> The existence of suffering does not change the truth that a God that manifests Himself at every instance of evil & suffering is not a being that inspires love, but terror and obedience through fear and/or awe, not because of love.


What is the source of that "truth"? Can you not distinguish between "truth" and "belief? 




> No Christian worthy of the name


There's the rub. "Worthy" according to which sect of Christians? Seventh Day Adventists, for instance, hold some beliefs that no other Christian group subscribes to.




> argues that the suffering of the Holocaust is justifiable - but there is a larger narrative at work of which the Holocaust is a smaller part. The Lady's point is valid, but instead of addressing it, it seems that you simply brought out one of the standard arguments against God - that He isn't some sort of cosmic policeman who intervenes and stops all evil - but that God mitigates free will and love totally.
> 
> Understandable, but bringing out the "big guns" of the Holocaust simply tries to sledgehammer the opposing argument with a highly charged historical atrocity rather actually dealing with the argument's implications. Great suffering of unimaginable magnitude that goes unaddressed by God (_for now_, by the way)


But if and when it IS addressed, will it retroactively eradicate the sufferings and early deaths of the victims of the Holocaust and Rwanda and Darfur? And once again - in suggesting that God will eventually address those issues - you appear to claim some insight into the mind and will of God.




> does not change the truth of the Lady's points.


That God hides his beneficence behind a cloud? Or is it rather that he chooses not to view what goes on in the world he allegedly created?

----------


## Rav Maji

Is being eaten by a lion bad? What if the lion is hungry? It would hurt ME to be eaten by a lion, therefore it would hurt others who happen to be eaten by a lion. Thus, being eaten by a lion is bad. Whereas it is natural for the body's mind to calculate suffering in terms of its own realm(s) of experience (the self feels itself, tending to react animalistically), it is also natural for the "body-mind" to create an infinite variety of new realms of experience, whereby localized parameters of suffering and the more animalistic logics are mutable to the point that "spiritual" or higher metaphysical logics are applicable. If one finds oneself being eaten by a lion, unable to escape pain and death, then the metaphysical mind can take over, satisfying a need for introspection, understanding, or more animalistically, a need for safety of sense. Granted, praying over a flat tire and praying to ease the pain of being ravaged by a lion are quite different situations- so there is a continuum of applied spiritual logics. 
At one end is the idea of sacrifice. Not only is it played out again and again in most nature religions (which most if not all are); sacrifice is a natural product of evolution as can be seen in the automatic altruistic/compassionate behaviors of social groups. At the other end of the spiritual logic continuum are the more animalistic tendencies to judge, or equate differences, by simplistic reaction to stimuli, according to baser animal and prefigured needs. This spread represents a wide diversity of innate, evolved spiritual presettings across various subgroups. Environment and experience can and do factor into the resulting spiritual solution, combining with particular spiritual subtypes.
It is almost like the personality subtypes of spirituality manifest similarly to talents. Some are prone to be able to believe, to think more metaphysically, while others aren't so much. 
Imagine how differently history might view itself, how much torture and war could have been avoided if everyone wasn't forced into the same logico-spiritual rubric. We are not created equally. Now, that being stated, we can increase our spiritual keenness through practice, essentially via the standard spiritual rigors already practiced by the religions. My basic argument is that it is important to be aware of one's own metaphysical as well as one's animalistic tendencies towards logic and behavior. Metaphysically, a lion does not have to be a lion and you do not have to be yourself being eaten. On the other side of pain and death is an infinite blessing we hold now, which is farther than any real infinity. 

Also, the western concept of demon, uncontrollable otherness manifested as twisted humanoid, may have originated when the Israelites were exposed to Babylonian Iconography. Originally, the precovenant hebrew religion was quite separated and very cultlike. Well, it [as well as its western derivatives] still is, quite. Centralization of religious practice/spiritual tendency occurs as a society centralizes. Domination of group thoughts may start at the metaphysical end of the continuum, being justified by the more animalistic virtues of social cohesion. Then there are always the power hungry, ego tripping totalitarians attempting to justify purity through force and murder. Satan was created to define that whipping post. Thus, considering satan as a metaphysical reference point for examining existence, making decisions, and just plain dealing with the everyday is great. But, using anger as a mechanism to describe satan, satanic actiton, satanic virtues, satanic rites simply plays right into the hands of the obverse religious construct. 

Religion is fixed to the human wheel; love is fixed to nothing.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Hi Prince - long time no see.




> I assume you're aware that Biblical scholarships has established that there are four distinct authors of the Old Testament, and that shift from references to Elohim to references to Yahweh reflects the changing historical circumstances among the Jews.


Right - I have no problem with this statement - which is a very different statement than the idea of "ancient texts stitched together from other ancient texts of uncertain authorship."

Josephus - writing in the 1st century - mentions in his writings the Jews' attitudes towards the Tanakh, which did not dispute the writings but rather spoke of them as if they were the de facto canon. This view was corroborated by Jewish leaders who met in Jamnia in AD 90 and 92. I could keep going, but the reality is that the texts accepted by the Jews as what a Christian would call the "Old Testament" are considered by the Jews to be very authoritative and not some questionable collection of assemblies.




> What is the source of that "truth"? Can you not distinguish between "truth" and "belief?


I'm not going to get into this silly debate with you. It's truth to _me_ - you're not required to see it the same way. Just as an atheist sees his _belief_  (dare I say "wish"?) that there is no God as truth, I see mine as being true. You have plenty of "truths" that you hold to be absolutely true that I might similarly categorize as "beliefs."




> There's the rub. "Worthy" according to which sect of Christians? Seventh Day Adventists, for instance, hold some beliefs that no other Christian group subscribes to.


A groundless tangent: why don't you deal with what I said instead of taking on this _straw man?_ I spoke of "Christians" to mean the basic theology that most Christians would agree upon.





> But if and when it IS addressed, will it retroactively eradicate the sufferings and early deaths of the victims of the Holocaust and Rwanda and Darfur? And once again - in suggesting that God will eventually address those issues - you appear to claim some insight into the mind and will of God.


I claim only to have read the Book He commissioned - which clearly makes it known that God will properly judge all, and that "vengeance is [His]." Paul tells us that the sufferings of this earth will be hardly a memory when we stand in the light of God and live with Him for eternity. That doesn't lessen the suffering here and now, but it tells us that salvation and eternal life in the presence of the source of all Life in the universe is adequate compensation.

As well, the part most non-believers skip is that God suffered too - in the form of Christ who was guiltless and sinless and willingly took on our rightful punishment by offering His perfect life as an atoning sacrifice on the cross. Where is God when people suffer? Right there with them.





> That God hides his beneficence behind a cloud? Or is it rather that he chooses not to view what goes on in the world he allegedly created?


_Please_. The worst part about talking about God with non-believers is their relentless insistence to speak of the creator of the universe as if He's some bumbling "super-human being." That's as bad as looking at the horizon and assuming the world is flat. 

Once we allow the given that God did create the world - and actually seriously entertain the idea of a being capable of doing so with only His _words_ - comments like the one above begin to sound patronizing in the least, and absurd at the worst.

----------


## Etienne

> Josephus - writing in the 1st century - mentions in his writings the Jews' attitudes towards the Tanakh, which did not dispute the writings but rather spoke of them as if they were the de facto canon. This view was corroborated by Jewish leaders who met in Jamnia in AD 90 and 92. I could keep going, but the reality is that the texts accepted by the Jews as what a Christian would call the "Old Testament" are considered by the Jews to be very authoritative and not some questionable collection of assemblies.


What is the point here? You talk about the 1st century... but when was the Old testament (or Tanakh) written? Answer: Over a very long period of time, centuries before the 1st century. And I don't see why you are trying to use Jews as an authority as Christians were Jews in the first place, they became Christians - as opposed to Christian Jews - only later, with Paul, for political reasons.




> I'm not going to get into this silly debate with you. It's truth to me - you're not required to see it the same way. Just as an atheist sees his belief (dare I say "wish"?) that there is no God as truth, I see mine as being true. You have plenty of "truths" that you hold to be absolutely true that I might similarly categorize as "beliefs."


I don't want to answer for the Prince, but here is a point that differentiate a believer from... let's call it an enlightened atheist. The difference is in dogmas, where something is considered to it's "truth value" from what we can infer of it from demonstrations or reason, but with ultimately no ultimate truth. This is a broad, simplified formula, but there is a big difference between your dogmatic beliefs (what you would call truths) and a reasonable belief (what I would call truth, but again, only in a bastardized way, for practical purpose).




> As well, the part most non-believers skip is that God suffered too - in the form of Christ who was guiltless and sinless and willingly took on our rightful punishment by offering His perfect life as an atoning sacrifice on the cross. Where is God when people suffer? Right there with them.


But this comes in blatant contradiction with the omnipotence of God, contradiction which is perpetually evaded and never answered for, the best answer I've had concerning this was: I don't know. But again this "I don't know" comes in contradiction with other things, which are useless to discuss now.




> Please. The worst part about talking about God with non-believers is their relentless insistence to speak of the creator of the universe as if He's some bumbling "super-human being." That's as bad as looking at the horizon and assuming the world is flat.


The worst part about talking about God with believers is their relentless insistence to speak of the creator of the universe as if He's something outside comprehension and we should just accept him out of the blue, but then at the same time, you know so many things about him because they were written in books of obscure origins and things that were decided by otherwise absolutely human and much politically driven humans that held an important political position inside the political institution of the Christian Church.

You know things because... no because, we should just assume they are so, and any objection or apparent contradiction is evaded by a perpetually evasive conception of God and of the Christian conceptual world. At one point this conceptual world was also physical, but then science went there and it was not so, so then the concept started being more and more evasive - in the same way as reason has revealed many contradiction but, and in that way scholastic philosophy can be fascinating, the sophisms and the juggling of different concepts and trying to fit everything needed (doctrines) in a single conceptual scheme has proved quite impressive, but in the end quite a failure. And then the Church lost it's power to immolate and censor...

----------


## SleepyWitch

*Red*, this kind of argument (that God has a monopoly on vengeance) shows an appalling disrespect and lack of interest in the suffering of one's fellow human beings (in this case Jews, but it can equally be applied to the poor whom we are not supposed to help because God will feed them in heaven). Of course, it is easy to say "God will redress their grievances in the hereafter" if the suffering that we talk about happened to someone else rather than us. Yep, I know the early Christians were persecuted by the Romans and fed to the lions, so Christians have had their share of suffering, too, and all that. I've got no idea what the Bible has to say about these questions, but isn't Christianity about helping others? plus, doesn't it say somewhere in the OT (where it talks about the battle of Yericho or something) that the enemies of God have to be fought? If Nazi mass murderers or plantation owners who live off the work of semi-enslaved labourers or politicians who don't care about the majority of the people they are supposed to look after are not enemies of God, then I don't know who is.
Sorry, but to me this whole let's-leave-it-to-God argument is just a thinly-veiled paraphrase of "Can't be bothered".
Well, probably my comment is so unsophisticated, commonsensical and lacking in philosophical refinement, that it does not warrant serious consideration  :Biggrin: 
(by the way, this comment is intended as a criticism of this line of thinking per se, not a personal attack, seeing as there are loads of people who subscribe to the view Red has brought up)



now back to Satanism  :Smile: 



> Satan can be taken as a metaphor for making oneself the center of one's life, improving oneself, believing life before death considering herd morality and stupidity as to be the major sins and so on.
> 
> Lucifer, after all, means "the bringer of light".


heheheheh, Tal, you crack me up  :FRlol: 
what do get if you add up a lot of Satanists? a bunch of metalheads?
seriously, if Satan is the opposite of a herd morality and stands for individualism etc. than 'Satanism' and 'Satanist' are a contradiction in terms, because these words imply that you've got a whole bunch of people who follow the same set of believes = herd mentality.

----------


## Lady Glynde

> *Red*, this kind of argument (that God has a monopoly on vengeance) shows an appalling disrespect and lack of interest in the suffering of one's fellow human beings (in this case Jews, but it can equally be applied to the poor whom we are not supposed to help because God will feed them in heaven).


Just because we aren't supposed to play God and decide who gets avenged or not doesn't mean that we aren't supposed to help our fellow man. God's greatest commandment was "Love the Lord your God above all things and your neighbor as yourself", thus we ARE supposed to help others. Remember the parable of the goats and sheep?? "Come into heaven for I was hungry and you fed me, naked and you clothed me... etc... For when you did it to the least of my brethren you did it to me." As Fr. Larry says, "when you go to Heaven and God asks, why didn't you help the thousands who died of hunger every day?? You'll say, they weren't my children... and He will say, No, they were mine." Amen.




> The worst part about talking about God with believers is their relentless insistence to speak of the creator of the universe as if He's something outside comprehension and we should just accept him out of the blue, but then at the same time, you know so many things about him because they were written in books of obscure origins and things that were decided by otherwise absolutely human and much politically driven humans that held an important political position inside the political institution of the Christian Church.


You shouldn't just accept him out of the blue. Absolutely not. You should reason it out like the intelligent person you are, and if it makes sense you embrace it and if it doesn't, you don't. But reason must go hand in hand with faith, because if we all depended solely on reason we would go mad trying to fit the ocean of truth into the pool of our human minds. Really. 
And there's always the factor that God invites each person in a separate way, at a separate time, and if you say no to him, it's your decision and yours alone, and of course you will not be able to accept Him because you've shut him out, for now at least. 
And the Church is not a political institution, nor are its It's called a religion for a reason.




> If it weren't for ancient texts stitched together from other ancient texts of uncertain authorship, would anyone take any of this seriously?


I should not call God an uncertain author if I were you. Besides, faith would not be faith if everything we believed in depended on a book. We believe in Divine Revelation, Heaven and Hell, Faith and Tradition, the Word of God as present in the Bible and so much more that it's like saying you'll die if you get one of your fingers cut off. Like picking up a grain of sand, scoffing, and saying, the beach isn't much, is it??
God is infinite goodness and truth, and even if one doesn't believe in God, goodness and truth still remain, so there will always be a God, if you understand that.
God is the only constant, and without His words to guide us I'm sure religion would be tougher but it sure wouldn't just die out. Although it's true, the Bible is an intrinsic part of our religion and important to the tenth power.





> I am quite certain that if you were a Jew in one of Hitler's death camps getting beaten and tortured every day, your viewpoint would likely undergo somewhat of a change. Perhaps some day you will be on your death bed in agony because of some form of incurable and painful disease. Again, it may be that your viewpoint won't be as rosy.


It's very possible. Almost certain from a human point of view, actually. And I think it would be unbelievably arrogant for me to say I wouldn't change my viewpoint, but I certainly pray that I would have the strength to suffer all for God if it were ever asked of me. I swear I'm telling the truth, and I know none of this makes sense to you, but I would die for my God, gladly so, and not much else. He's a real person to me, and if you don't wish to believe in something as beautiful as self-sacrifice in this world, then that's entirely your choice. I respect that.




> I have known several people who survived Hitler's death camps and not one ever painted a rosy picture of the experience. None would care to repeat such an unhappy set of circumstances and not one ever expressed any gratitude to some god for having gone through it. Of all the people I have known who have ever suffered much in life only one said he would not have changed his experience. Interestingly, he was confined to a mental institution about 2 weeks later and I never saw him again.


Well, that's them. You can't herd all religious together in your head and label them like a can of soup; in fact, you can't label any individual person at all, religious or not, with certainty. That's like shaking the can and assuming it's chicken noodle.
Obviously, they did not have enough faith, hope, or love of God to get them through it, because God will never send you any trial you can't handle. If you are confronted with such a trial and you don't ask for His grace to get you through it, you will most certainly fail. 
And as I said before, I can't really speak for Jews because they don't believe in the God of the New Testament.
And also as I have asked before, what promises in particular are you speaking of that God hasn't fulfilled?? And why ARE you objecting to others' belief in God??

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Just because we aren't supposed to play God and decide who gets avenged or not doesn't mean that we aren't supposed to help our fellow man. God's greatest commandment was


This is an example of the trouble I have with believers. Who but you yourself nominated this as "God's greatest commandment"? And once you exercise that right, does it not follow that you might paint God in any colour or with whatever lineaments you choose?




> You shouldn't just accept him out of the blue. Absolutely not. You should reason it out like the intelligent person you are, and if it makes sense you embrace it and if it doesn't, you don't. But reason must go hand in hand with faith,


But how can it? For isn't faith the surrender of reason? And whereas reason assumes the provability of something, faith in essence says "I believe, because it is impossible".




> And there's always the factor that God invites each person in a separate way, at a separate time,


Here again, where - other than in one's imagination, out of one's faith that is founded on nothing but ancient texts and the faith of those who came before you - where does that invitation exist?




> God is infinite goodness and truth, and even if one doesn't believe in God, goodness and truth still remain, so there will always be a God, if you understand that.


We are back now to where you declare what is God's "greatest commandment." "Infinite goodness and truth" are ideals well worth living by, but we can only affirm them out of our limited human intelligence. Either they are worth pursuing for their own sake, or because you have named them God, in which case you have abnegated your freedom as an intelligent being to choose as intelligently, as morally as you can. 




> I think it would be unbelievably arrogant for me to say I wouldn't change my viewpoint, but I certainly pray that I would have the strength to suffer all for God if it were ever asked of me.


So we are back to Abraham and Isaac and the prospect that you would sacrifice your child if God asked you to do so. That might be your definition of an obedient person, a God-fearing one, but it is not remotely my definition of a humane or thoughtful person.




> if you don't wish to believe in something as beautiful as self-sacrifice in this world, then that's entirely your choice. I respect that.


The self-sacrifice you preach is indeed the sacrifice of one's self to an ancient code and one that has changed according to the time or the particular conclave of theologians.




> And also as I have asked before, what promises in particular are you speaking of that God hasn't fulfilled?? And why ARE you objecting to others' belief in God??


The promise, if you will, that we were made in His image; _We_, that is, including Hitler, Pol Pot, the Ganjaweed, bigots, slave-owners, &c.

Why I personally object to others' belief in God is a question well worth asking but to which I have no answer. It may be the reverse of why you (I assume) hope to convert me or others like me to the 'truths' in which you believe. A tentative answer that I offer you is that I object because I would *like it to be true* but so much that I see around me convnces me that it cannot be, or God is a sadist.

----------


## dzebra

I don't think faith is the same as saying "I believe because it's impossible." In my experience, it's more like, "I believe even though it can't be physically proven because I see evidence and my heart is persuaded." It seems to me that even someone who doesn't believe in God would hold the view that the existence of God isn't "impossible," no matter how unlikely that person thinks it is.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What is the point here? You talk about the 1st century... but when was the Old testament (or Tanakh) written? Answer: Over a very long period of time, centuries before the 1st century. And I don't see why you are trying to use Jews as an authority as Christians were Jews in the first place, they became Christians - as opposed to Christian Jews - only later, with Paul, for political reasons.


Point: the charge that the Holy Scriptures are merely a corrupted collection of borrowings from other literatures and scribal errors is bogus. The discussion of the authority of the OT is an entirely separate (and complicated) discussion - but its authority is unquestioned - in part because the NT referenced it many, many times - most notably by Paul and Jesus himself.





> I don't want to answer for the Prince, but here is a point that differentiate a believer from... let's call it an enlightened atheist. The difference is in dogmas, where something is considered to it's "truth value" from what we can infer of it from demonstrations or reason, but with ultimately no ultimate truth. This is a broad, simplified formula, but there is a big difference between your dogmatic beliefs (what you would call truths) and a reasonable belief (what I would call truth, but again, only in a bastardized way, for practical purpose).


Your use of "reasonable" is subjective to say the least; what you really mean is "reasonable to me as based upon the criteria that I judge to be appropriate." To the Christian, such things as I call truth are quite "reasonable." When I listen to some of the gyrations people have to make to explain the universe, morality and such, I think "My, how unreasonable all this sounds." 

As well, you speak as if atheists have no "dogma" - I might be inclined to disagree.





> But this comes in blatant contradiction with the omnipotence of God, contradiction which is perpetually evaded and never answered for, the best answer I've had concerning this was: I don't know. But again this "I don't know" comes in contradiction with other things, which are useless to discuss now.


And that, my friend, is part of the amazing nature of Christ's incarnation here on earth: He was both fully God, _and_ fully human. That is something I cannot explain, but the scriptures makes that clear. As such, Christ's sufferings were totally human - He experienced all the suffering (physical, emotional and spiritual) that any human being here on earth could experience; as such, God understands our suffering on a _personal level_.





> The worst part about talking about God with believers is their relentless insistence to speak of the creator of the universe as if He's something outside comprehension and we should just accept him out of the blue, but then at the same time, you know so many things about him because they were written in books of obscure origins and things that were decided by otherwise absolutely human and much politically driven humans that held an important political position inside the political institution of the Christian Church.


How do you comprehend a being of such magnitude? I mean, _come on_ - if we're even going to discuss God hypothetically, we need to assume that the description of Him given in the Bible is true. All of reality was created by God - there is a certain incomprehensibility about such a being. But - that does not make God 100% mysterious - the Bible is intended to reveal God to us so that we can - to a certain extent - understand Him in some sort of remedial way.

I've never, ever said that people should "accept [God] out of the blue." What I've said is that if we're going to discuss Him, then we need a "ground" upon which to base that discussion; the Bible is that "ground." Once you dismiss that book as untrustworthy, now we cannot have any coherent discussion about God because the "parameters" of who He is are gone.




> You know things because... no because, we should just assume they are so, and any objection or apparent contradiction is evaded by a perpetually evasive conception of God and of the Christian conceptual world. At one point this conceptual world was also physical, but then science went there and it was not so, so then the concept started being more and more evasive - in the same way as reason has revealed many contradiction but, and in that way scholastic philosophy can be fascinating, the sophisms and the juggling of different concepts and trying to fit everything needed (doctrines) in a single conceptual scheme has proved quite impressive, but in the end quite a failure. And then the Church lost it's power to immolate and censor...


What objection have I ignored or failed to answer? What contradiction have I committed?

You speak as if contradiction were this terrible thing - and in debate it can be deadly - but, human existence is full of paradoxes and we accept that paradox is part of human existence; interesting that we demand that nothing else in life possess them.




> *Red*, this kind of argument (that God has a monopoly on vengeance) shows an appalling disrespect and lack of interest in the suffering of one's fellow human beings (in this case Jews, but it can equally be applied to the poor whom we are not supposed to help because God will feed them in heaven).


I'm not sure I indicated that God has a "monopoly on vengeance." What I am attempting to communicate is that - ultimately - God will provide the justice that is unattainable on earth. We know that justice is "blind" and that there are certain injustices that cannot and will not be addressed by humanity; God assures us that full and fair judgment will be rendered and that - in the case of justice that we cannot administer (like that deserved by Hitler) - we must wait for His time.

Your point about the poor is incorrect: the Bible (particularly the NT) makes it explicitly clear that we are to assist the poor and alleviate suffering where we are able to do so.




> Of course, it is easy to say "God will redress their grievances in the hereafter" if the suffering that we talk about happened to someone else rather than us. Yep, I know the early Christians were persecuted by the Romans and fed to the lions, so Christians have had their share of suffering, too, and all that. I've got no idea what the Bible has to say about these questions, but isn't Christianity about helping others? plus, doesn't it say somewhere in the OT (where it talks about the battle of Yericho or something) that the enemies of God have to be fought? If Nazi mass murderers or plantation owners who live off the work of semi-enslaved labourers or politicians who don't care about the majority of the people they are supposed to look after are not enemies of God, then I don't know who is.
> Sorry, but to me this whole let's-leave-it-to-God argument is just a thinly-veiled paraphrase of "Can't be bothered".


It's also pretty easy to assume that I (like many Christians) have not gone through my own share of significant suffering in this life. You make the assumption that I've led a pain-free life; granted, I've not spent time in a concentration camp, but that doesn't mean that all "lesser" suffering is insignificant. 

Yes - Christianity is about "helping others" - and I fully believe that evil ought to be resisted, often forcefully, and - if necessary - with deadly force. If I am in my house, and outside my door my neighbor is being assaulted, I would have no qualms about using deadly force to stop that assault -period. Yes: taking a life is a sin, but to let evil be perpetrated upon and innocent individual is (IMO) a greater sin. So - yes: we are to resist evil. But, in the case of evil that cannot be fixed by humans in a sufficiently objective, fair way, God reserves the right to mete out justice. I do not recall that I indicated anywhere that we were to passively sit around and let evil have its way.





> Well, probably my comment is so unsophisticated, commonsensical and lacking in philosophical refinement, that it does not warrant serious consideration 
> (by the way, this comment is intended as a criticism of this line of thinking per se, not a personal attack, seeing as there are loads of people who subscribe to the view Red has brought up)


You are too hard on yourself. Your comments are well-thought out and respectfully articulated. No offense taken.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> This is an example of the trouble I have with believers. Who but you yourself nominated this as "God's greatest commandment"? And once you exercise that right, does it not follow that you might paint God in any colour or with whatever lineaments you choose?



This rather esteemed gentleman actually did the "nominating":

"One of them [the Pharisees], an expert in law, tested him [Jesus] with this question: 'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?'
"Jesus replied: ' "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'"
(Matthew 22:35-40)

We don't _create_ truth - we _report_ it.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> This rather esteemed gentleman actually did the "nominating":
> 
> "One of them [the Pharisees], an expert in law, tested him [Jesus] with this question: 'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?'
> "Jesus replied: ' "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'"
> (Matthew 22:35-40)
> 
> We don't _create_ truth - we _report_ it.


Would that it were so! That Matthew were reporting this as a reliable first-hand witness to this exchange.

----------


## Etienne

> Point: the charge that the Holy Scriptures are merely a corrupted collection of borrowings from other literatures and scribal errors is bogus. The discussion of the authority of the OT is an entirely separate (and complicated) discussion - but its authority is unquestioned - in part because the NT referenced it many, many times - most notably by Paul and Jesus himself.


Your point does not follow from your previous post, it was merely a tautology.

So it all comes down to a matter of blind faith. The only thing we know of the NT is almost only what is internally said and so it is a big blind faith acceptation in the end. What do we know about the author of the Apocalypse? His name would be Paul, but then people thought it was THE Paul, but it was not as we also discovered the approximate dates of them being written and the Apocalypse doesn't match with THE Paul. Who was it then? And who decided which books were to be in the Bible, and which wouldn't be, was it Jesus, you think?

And I always wonder why people think Paul is such an authority, almost on the same step as Jesus, in th end all he did was transform the cult for political reason and allow it's proliferation in the Roman empire by indirect causes interposed. He was a great marketing man.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Would that it were so! That Matthew were reporting this as a reliable first-hand witness to this exchange.


Here we go again: your question got definitively answered and you're going to simply fall back on the standard "The text is unreliable, corrupt, etc" as a way of avoiding admitting that Lady G was right in her statement. 

The NT has been textually analyzed and it has a 95% accuracy rate - far higher than other ancient texts. 

If you took the time to examine Jesus' statement, you might find that his words are logically correct: all of the Law boils down to those two points - because if you are doing the first, then the second will naturally follow, as will all the rest of the Law.




> Your point does not follow from your previous post, it was merely a tautology.


That could very well be. I'm prone to talking in circles I hear.




> So it all comes down to a matter of blind faith.


No: the Bible encourages the believer to ask questions, to use our intellect to inform our faith. When it comes to matters that reason cannot fully grasp (due to the Bible's incomplete revelation of God and His purposes), then we are expected to exercise our faith - a faith based upon the promises the Bible has given us.





> The only thing we know of the NT is almost only what is internally said and so it is a big blind faith acceptation in the end. What do we know about the author of the Apocalypse? His name would be Paul, but then people thought it was THE Paul, but it was not as we also discovered the approximate dates of them being written and the Apocalypse doesn't match with THE Paul. Who was it then? And who decided which books were to be in the Bible, and which wouldn't be, was it Jesus, you think?


The Apocalypse was written by the disciple John while he was exiled on the isle of Patmos.

The NT canon was "fixed" by a gathering of Christian leaders (don't recall the exact date - somewhere in the 3rd century I'm guessing) and was done by adhering to 4 (or 5) stringent criteria (or which I don't have with me - I'm at work). As well, I think it quite reasonable to assume that if the Bible is the inspired work of God, then it would logically follow that God had a hand in making sure that the books that were cannonized were indeed those which accurately reflected the portrayal of Him He wished. Why would God allow His transcendant word to be marred by human error?




> And I always wonder why people think Paul is such an authority, almost on the same step as Jesus, in th end all he did was transform the cult for political reason and allow it's proliferation in the Roman empire by indirect causes interposed. He was a great marketing man.


Paul is an authority because his teachings perfectly coincide with Jesus' teachings as well as the revelation of God provided in the OT. Early church fathers (the disciples) would have squashed Paul's letters or refuted them if they lacked proper authority (since the book of Acts tells us that Paul had interactions with Peter, John, etc).

Paul (via guidance by the Holy Spirit/God) set church theology in place - there is no "all he did" statement that is properly applicable to him. "Great marketing" is a misreading of the first order. "Great marketing" does not make people accept a belief system that almost guarantees persecution and a more difficult path through life - and certainly not something that spreads through the known world and lasts for centuries. Not even close.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Here we go again: your question got definitively answered and you're going to simply fall back on the standard "The text is unreliable, corrupt, etc" as a way of avoiding admitting that Lady G was right in her statement.


My question was whether Matthew was a first-hand witness to what he reported. You have not answered that.




> I think it quite reasonable to assume that if the Bible is the inspired work of God, then it would logically follow that God had a hand in making sure that the books that were cannonized were indeed those which accurately reflected the portrayal of Him He wished. Why would God allow His transcendant word to be marred by human error?


It is reasonable to assume that if we grant that God reasons as we do; but since it is (I believe) a truism that God is unknowable, then statements of that sort are nonsensical. Besides which, the one open-minded word in your response is _if_: "if the Bible is the inspired work of God..."

----------


## Etienne

> The NT has been textually analyzed and it has a 95% accuracy rate - far higher than other ancient texts.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  I want some sources, a detail of the method they used and serious peer-review!




> If you took the time to examine Jesus' statement, you might find that his words are logically correct: all of the Law boils down to those two points - because if you are doing the first, then the second will naturally follow, as will all the rest of the Law.


I'm not sure what you are trying to prove... it's true because there is no inner contradiction?




> The Apocalypse was written by the disciple John while he was exiled on the isle of Patmos.


Hmm yes I realize I said Paul, but it was John, but at the same time, John of the Book of Revelations is not considered by scholars to be the same as the apostle - but in the end - they don't know. And that is my whole point.




> The NT canon was "fixed" by a gathering of Christian leaders (don't recall the exact date - somewhere in the 3rd century I'm guessing) and was done by adhering to 4 (or 5) stringent criteria (or which I don't have with me - I'm at work).


And yet, these Christian leaders were, in the end, the same that professed the crusades and inquisition: fallible human being, with a more political than religious position.




> As well, I think it quite reasonable to assume that if the Bible is the inspired work of God, then it would logically follow that God had a hand in making sure that the books that were cannonized were indeed those which accurately reflected the portrayal of Him He wished. Why would God allow His transcendant word to be marred by human error?


And why would he allow his creation (the world) to be rampant of evil? Why would it apply to a book and not to his ultimate creation? And how is it reasonable to assume that the Bible is the inspired work of God? Blind faith. Your very premises are blind faith, and yet, you go round and round and still round to give it an appearance of logic. A castle may be very solid, but if it's built on a cloud, can we say it's solid anymore? No it just falls and shatters. Just like a logical reasoning with blind faith premises does not stand as logical at all.




> Paul is an authority because his teachings perfectly coincide with Jesus' teachings as well as the revelation of God provided in the OT.


Oh! This reasoning is so flawed in so many ways, I'm not sure where I should start... I'll let you tell me if you really need me to explain.




> Paul (via guidance by the Holy Spirit/God) set church theology in place - there is no "all he did" statement that is properly applicable to him. "Great marketing" is a misreading of the first order. "Great marketing" does not make people accept a belief system that almost guarantees persecution and a more difficult path through life - and certainly not something that spreads through the known world and lasts for centuries. Not even close.


Persecution came much after, in fact converting to gentile Christianity for Jews was a way to ESCAPE persecution. And you do really think that great marketing doesn't make people accept a faith?

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Great suffering of unimaginable magnitude that goes unaddressed by God (for now, by the way) does not change the truth of the Lady's points.``


So say you. But that does not make it *fact*.

If you like suffering and feel it is a good thing that's fine for you. But it sure as hell isn't to me. Suffering exists because of this god's dual nature - it is his evil side that prompts him to make people suffer. No loving entity whether human or otherwise can possibly claim high moral ground after doing anything like that.

'Many are called but few are chosen'. This means that many of this god's apologists are going to find themselves in a place other than some divine kingdom. Therefore, it is a very good possibility that you will not be rewarded for your efforts in defending this cruel and evil god.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> My question was whether Matthew was a first-hand witness to what he reported. You have not answered that.


My understanding is that this Matthew is the same that was an apostle of Jesus. Either way, he drew from Mark's gospel, which was approved of by Peter. Thus, the book has apostolic authority.




> It is reasonable to assume that if we grant that God reasons as we do; but since it is (I believe) a truism that God is unknowable, then statements of that sort are nonsensical. Besides which, the one open-minded word in your response is _if_: "if the Bible is the inspired work of God..."


God is unknowable to the extent that He remains unrevealed by the Bible. What is revealed is knowable, and we are allowed to use that as a basis for our speculations - standard procedure even in science I believe.




> I want some sources, a detail of the method they used and serious peer-review!


How about a trade? Why don't you cite your sources that confirm the corrupt and plagiarized nature of the NT? There's all kind of insinuations made that the Bible (specifically the NT) is an unreliable text - where's the citations?




> I'm not sure what you are trying to prove... it's true because there is no inner contradiction?


I'm suggesting that the logic of Jesus' statement suggests that He's correct: that loving God with all one's mind, heart, and soul will result in the rest of the Law being kept. The statement adds up.





> Hmm yes I realize I said Paul, but it was John, but at the same time, John of the Book of Revelations is not considered by scholars to be the same as the apostle - but in the end - they don't know. And that is my whole point.


Thank you: that's my point: the scholars who attack the reliability of the Bible really "don't know." Their conclusions are just as susceptible to questioning as are mine.





> And yet, these Christian leaders were, in the end, the same that professed the crusades and inquisition: fallible human being, with a more political than religious position.


There is a difference in allowing humans free will in terms of their behavior towards each other and allowing them to destroy the information that was to serve as a "guidebook" for generations to come, when God no longer chose to manifest Himself as He did in the OT. God can choose to not allow human beings to interfere with His plans. To allow the mangling of the Bible would be to ensure that nobody got to know who God is.





> And why would he allow his creation (the world) to be rampant of evil? Why would it apply to a book and not to his ultimate creation? And how is it reasonable to assume that the Bible is the inspired work of God? Blind faith. Your very premises are blind faith, and yet, you go round and round and still round to give it an appearance of logic. A castle may be very solid, but if it's built on a cloud, can we say it's solid anymore? No it just falls and shatters. Just like a logical reasoning with blind faith premises does not stand as logical at all.


God gave us free will - hence many of the problems we have (but also the source of love; love cannot exist with freedom - period).

It takes as much faith to not believe in God as it does to choose to believe. Your world view is no more "provable" than mine. The "evidence" for the atheist world-view also rests on some puffy clouds of inference and speculation.




> Oh! This reasoning is so flawed in so many ways, I'm not sure where I should start... I'll let you tell me if you really need me to explain.


I'll pass. I gave a highly condensed answer because - personally - I get exhausted reading massive posts; I didn't figure most people wanted to read such things. I'm not denying that my logic is faulty - but I am saying that you're nailing me for statements that suffer in their brevity. A good question: why doubt his authority? How many historical works do you read and automatically doubt the authority of the writer? Besides, you ignored the stronger point - that Paul's authority is confirmed by the fact that the apostles and their followers did not refute Paul's writings.





> Persecution came much after, in fact converting to gentile Christianity for Jews was a way to ESCAPE persecution. And you do really think that great marketing doesn't make people accept a faith?


Yes, but the apostles and Paul were persecuted from the start by the Jews who had rejected Christ. As Paul said in the NT epistles, "if I was preaching salvation by works, nobody would have an issue with me - it is because I preach Christ resurrected that we are persecuted."




> ``Great suffering of unimaginable magnitude that goes unaddressed by God (for now, by the way) does not change the truth of the Lady's points.``
> 
> 
> So say you. But that does not make it *fact*.


It's not meant as a factual statement - it's meant as an _opinion_. I think that's pretty obvious.




> If you like suffering and feel it is a good thing that's fine for you. But it sure as hell isn't to me. Suffering exists because of this god's dual nature - it is his evil side that prompts him to make people suffer. No loving entity whether human or otherwise can possibly claim high moral ground after doing anything like that.
> 
> 'Many are called but few are chosen'. This means that many of this god's apologists are going to find themselves in a place other than some divine kingdom. Therefore, it is a very good possibility that you will not be rewarded for your efforts in defending this cruel and evil god.


Do you even read my posts? I said nothing about "liking" suffering.

Your ideas about God are wrong and unsupportable. As I've said numerous times, an evil god is not bound by any sense of justice or fairness and would most likely immediately eliminate any dissenters like yourself. Despots have little use for those who wish to "badmouth" them.

Your assessment of my ultimate end violates the Bible's injunction to "judge not lest ye be judged" - I'm certain I've never speculated about your eventual fate.

----------


## Etienne

> How about a trade? Why don't you cite your sources that confirm the corrupt and plagiarized nature of the NT? There's all kind of insinuations made that the Bible (specifically the NT) is an unreliable text - where's the citations?


The burden of the proof lies on you. I'm saying "they are doubtful because we don't know".




> Thank you: that's my point: the scholars who attack the reliability of the Bible really "don't know." Their conclusions are just as susceptible to questioning as are mine.


Not at all. If I find a message in a bottle of which I know nothing about, but then I say: "It's been written by Robinson Crusoe." Someone does not need to demonstrate that it has not been written by Robinson Crusoe to put that judgment in doubt, he only has to point out the lack of concrete data leading to this conclusion. As I said, the fact that "we don't know" is what my point is about, because you base a doctrinal trust in it, and therefore believe that you know.




> There is a difference in allowing humans free will in terms of their behavior towards each other and allowing them to destroy the information that was to serve as a "guidebook" for generations to come, when God no longer chose to manifest Himself as He did in the OT. God can choose to not allow human beings to interfere with His plans. To allow the mangling of the Bible would be to ensure that nobody got to know who God is.


I have about a thousand objections to this, but let's start with this one: Is cholera or plague a result of free will?




> It takes as much faith to not believe in God as it does to choose to believe. Your world view is no more "provable" than mine. The "evidence" for the atheist world-view also rests on some puffy clouds of inference and speculation.


Does it take as much faith not to believe in pink unicorns as to believe in pink unicorns? If I say I do not believe in a God because of the lack of evidence for it, I do not need to prove my world view, like you said. The lack of an entity is not to be proved, it's its existence that has to be proved (in the sense of demonstrated), and in this case it's the existence of God that is in question.




> I'll pass. I gave a highly condensed answer because - personally - I get exhausted reading massive posts; I didn't figure most people wanted to read such things. I'm not denying that my logic is faulty - but I am saying that you're nailing me for statements that suffer in their brevity. A good question: why doubt his authority? How many historical works do you read and automatically doubt the authority of the writer? Besides, you ignored the stronger point - that Paul's authority is confirmed by the fact that the apostles and their followers did not refute Paul's writings.


A post can be brief but logical and coherent, I do not buy that excuse, I'm afraid.

And why doubt him? Because we should doubt everything and accept things according only to their "value of truth" meaning the strength of their demonstration minus the falsification of these demonstrations, to make it simple.




> Yes, but the apostles and Paul were persecuted from the start by the Jews who had rejected Christ. As Paul said in the NT epistles, "if I was preaching salvation by works, nobody would have an issue with me - it is because I preach Christ resurrected that we are persecuted."


Because you think that a high brow Roman citizen like Paul cared in any way about "repression by Jews"? He himself was first sent in Palestine to repress Jews, come on...

Your last quote was quoted in my name by mistake by the way.

----------


## kiz_paws

Awesome debate, guys -- but how does this all fall into perspective with the statement "Satan Is Great", by the original poster? Just a thought ...  :Smile:

----------


## Etienne

What does the statement has to do with anything in the first place?  :FRlol:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The burden of the proof lies on you. I'm saying "they are doubtful because we don't know".


Textual criticism relies on extant manuscripts: the more extant manuscripts, the more accurately the original text can be recovered. Approximately 5500 original language manuscripts of the NT have been found, all produced within a 50 year span - this is very unique in ancient literature, to have such a large number of copies in such a short timespan. (By way of comparison: 634 copies of Homer's _Illiad_ produced over a 500 year span.) Comparing all these extant texts has produced the astonishing accuracy percentage of 99.5%. Such a percentage of agreement attests to the reliability of the copies and argues against corruption.

As well, an examination of writings of the early church fathers looking at scriptural citations reveals that almost the entirety of the NT can be reconstructed through these quotations. This assists in the accurate recovery of scripture as well.

Here is a brief bibliography if you're interested:

Metzger, Bruce; _The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content_
Blomberg, Chris; "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament" - in William Land Craig _Reasonable Faith_
Black, David Allen; "Key Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism" - Biola University Lecture CD




> Not at all. If I find a message in a bottle of which I know nothing about, but then I say: "It's been written by Robinson Crusoe." Someone does not need to demonstrate that it has not been written by Robinson Crusoe to put that judgment in doubt, he only has to point out the lack of concrete data leading to this conclusion. As I said, the fact that "we don't know" is what my point is about, because you base a doctrinal trust in it, and therefore believe that you know.


But the scriptures are very different from a bottle floating in the ocean: written documents have a history that can be traced. As well, if the documents were spurious, then they would have been challenged - there would have been written rebuttals to these documents. To my knowledge, no such thing exists. How can you really prove that anybody wrote a book s/he claims to have written if you didn't actually witness it yourself? There is far more evidence attesting to the veracity of the scriptures than your fanciful bottle.

Here's how the NT books were chosen at the councils of Carthage (393) and Hippo (397 AD):
1. The book had to have apostolic origin - meaning each book had to have been written by an apostle or his associate who preserved the apostle's teachings. (James and Jude were exceptions). This requirement also meant the books had to be written during the apostolic age - the time when the apostles were still alive (ending with John's death probably in the late 90s).

2. They had to have been generally accepted by the church and in continuous use in worship services.

3. The teachings of the book had to cohere and agree with accepted and undisputed Scripture

4. Books must be inspired by God - in other words, they must display a self-evidencing quality and the power to transform lives.

Those are fairly stringent requirements, and I'll assume that these men did not take their task lightly; if they were truly men of God, they prayed fervently and their choices were guided by the Holy Spirit.





> I have about a thousand objections to this, but let's start with this one: Is cholera or plague a result of free will?


OK, here's the longer answer:
Humanity has been given free will; because God defines Himself as "love" (cf.1 John 4:8), He refuses to take away humanity's freedom to reject Him and choose sin. God will not override human will because that removes the freedom He wants the human to have to freely choose and love him (God). As such, one of the terrible potentialities of this freedom is that we might misuse it. Apparently, God felt freedom was worth the risk. That explains the Crusades and such - misguided people serving God in the wrong way. God allows us to make mistakes because to not do so is a violation of our freedom, and then we would be serving God out of fear, not love.

Cholera and plague are unfortunate results of living in a world contaminated by sin - sin distorts and poisons all - including nature. God did not create these things - distortions brought about by sin did so.

Although God won't violate our free will, that does not mean that He will sit helplessly by and watch us (assisted by Satan who has an opposing agenda, don't forget) to dismantle His work in this world. The Bible is the revelation of God's character - and God does not have to let human free will interfere with His plans. Humanity can choose to go against God, but humanity does not have the power to hinder God's plans - His plans will be accomplished, with our without human assistance.





> Does it take as much faith not to believe in pink unicorns as to believe in pink unicorns? If I say I do not believe in a God because of the lack of evidence for it, I do not need to prove my world view, like you said. The lack of an entity is not to be proved, it's its existence that has to be proved (in the sense of demonstrated), and in this case it's the existence of God that is in question.


You stop your argument too soon - keep going backwards. Once we go back to the beginning, now the atheist must resort to faith, because the beginning of all things requires an explanation of some sort. Atheism (and by extension, abiogenesis) must somehow account for the existence of the universe in its finely balanced and precisely tuned nature: that's the point where the faith that is equal to mine must come into play.





> A post can be brief but logical and coherent, I do not buy that excuse, I'm afraid.


I'm talking about myself. I'm not very good at brief, logical and coherent posts, and I don't particularly like making people read my long ones - I've been told by many people that I talk too much.




> And why doubt him? Because we should doubt everything and accept things according only to their "value of truth" meaning the strength of their demonstration minus the falsification of these demonstrations, to make it simple.


As I have said, the factors supporting Paul's authority are far stronger than any challenges that I've heard put forth. You've offered no substantial challenges - only scepticism.





> Because you think that a high brow Roman citizen like Paul cared in any way about "repression by Jews"? He himself was first sent in Palestine to repress Jews, come on...


If you read Acts ch.9 you will see that Paul had an astounding conversion experience, and became Christianity's chief missionary. Repression by the Jews was serious stuff back then - here's what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11:

"I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. 27I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. "

Persecution by the Jews could be severe indeed, and this doesn't sound like any "high brow" life to me...




> Your last quote was quoted in my name by mistake by the way.


Yes, I saw that; sorry. The last quotation is from Hellsapoppin - my bad.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> I beg to differ, sir. How well do you know the ways of Satan? In actuallity, he is poorly misunderstood. He is not the nefarious, selfish being that other religions have put him out to be, your viewing my Lord from the Christian opinion and the Christian opinion of Satan is un-fair. For instance, many of your Christian symbols were derived from the old Pagan religoins, and yet you look upon my religious symbols as "evil".


Metanoia--Just came across this thread and I was curious from a purely historical point of view. Satan is a Hebrew name meaning enemy or adversary, and as far as I know the name originates in the Judeo-Christian tradition, with the first use of the name being in Genesis in reference to the serpent who tempts Eve. Your post seems to be suggesting that there was a Satan associated with an earlier tradition. Was it originally the name of a pagan god that was somehow adapted into the Hebrew? Would be interested to know if so.

----------


## Lady Glynde

> ``Great suffering of unimaginable magnitude that goes unaddressed by God (for now, by the way) does not change the truth of the Lady's points.``
> 
> So say you. But that does not make it *fact*.


There's nothing I can say to you. Fact is sort of an objective thing, and if we come to a point where something's fact to you that's not to me, we've just hit a brick wall. Unfortunately for you. 
PS I should think that the scientists that examined all the incorrupt saints etc. would not have liked it, but would have had to accept it as, ahem, _fact_.




> If you like suffering and feel it is a good thing that's fine for you. But it sure as hell isn't to me.


No one said they enjoy suffering. We're all human here, okay?? It's just that we who ask God for the grace to endure the suffering find that we can. And why can you not accept that?? Just because you think we are doing it for nothing doesn't destroy the fact that we're a lot more at peace than if we did not have this philosophy. 




> Suffering exists because of this god's dual nature - it is his evil side that prompts him to make people suffer. No loving entity whether human or otherwise can possibly claim high moral ground after doing anything like that.


Beg pardon, God who is all-good, never has anything to do with evil. And please, if you don't believe in God, you must believe in free will. And since we have free will, we must be held accountable for all our actions. Since you don't believe in God, how can you believe that it is Him who is forcing our dirty little hands into the cookie jar?? 
I defer to RedZeppelin's excellent answer on this one as well.




> 'Many are called but few are chosen'. This means that many of this god's apologists are going to find themselves in a place other than some divine kingdom. Therefore, it is a very good possibility that you will not be rewarded for your efforts in defending this cruel and evil god.


It's interesting how you quote the Bible you so flagrantly denounce as bunkum, _and_ profess to understand it perfectly. But since you _have_  quoted it, allow me to clarify: This means that all are invited to choose right over wrong, truth over lies, good over evil, and in reality there are few that choose it. This means that God will choose those who choose Him. He loves us and respects our decisions, the decisions He gives us to make.
The only person who will not be rewarded in eternity is the one who does not even try. 
Look at it this way; if there's no God, I'm none the worse for it. If there is a God... I rest my case. I've got nothing to lose, you have - all I'm saying is atheists are all taking a big chance when they refuse to open their hearts. 
You are called, you may not be chosen, and all the argument in the world will never get you farther than just that... the world.

*By the way, you have not yet responded to my post #50.*

----------


## Lady Glynde

> This is an example of the trouble I have with believers. Who but you yourself nominated this as "God's greatest commandment"? And once you exercise that right, does it not follow that you might paint God in any colour or with whatever lineaments you choose?


Um, no. 
"One of them [the Pharisees], an expert in law, tested him [Jesus] with this question: 'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?'
"Jesus replied: ' "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'"
(Matthew 22:35-40)
As RedZeppelin has said. 
It's also in Mark, somewhere around chapter 10, I think.




> But how can it? For isn't faith the surrender of reason? And whereas reason assumes the provability of something, faith in essence says "I believe, because it is impossible".


No, faith is not the surrender of reason. Reason in itself is not based on facts; I believe it is viewing facts and then using them to judge what is knowledge/truth and what is not. Just because something seems impossible to your mind and/or the minds of society doesn't mean it is impossible. That is just making public opinion your God. Baa, baa.
Faith in essence says "I believe, even though it is not viewed as possible." So actually, you would be using your reason; you would be deducing - from the fact that God can neither deceive nor be deceived - that His words are truth. 
People are just viewing the facts differently, and deciding that they are right.




> Here again, where - other than in one's imagination, out of one's faith that is founded on nothing but ancient texts and the faith of those who came before you - where does that invitation exist?


God's invitations come in many different ways. More than physical experiences and face to face encounters He speaks to your heart, He offers clear choices in the silence of your soul, ones that only you can personally say yes or no to. It is an opening of the will, a humbling of your thirst to know absolutely everything, a surrender of your obstinacy, and a realization of the state of humanity in its longing for truth and peace. But essentially a choice. God is sitting by the phone waiting for your call to the RSVP number he wrote on the gilt invitation.
You can look for this truth nowhere but in your own heart. And I'm sure you know this is true - nothing that I say that you argue with will change the fact that it all comes down to you and your decision. Although if you close yourself to him, you won't even know when he has come, and you may miss him. 
God never doesn't give you a chance (double negative, I know, it just made more sense). 
Also, my faith is not based on those who came before me. It's based on Him, and He doesn't change.




> We are back now to where you declare what is God's "greatest commandment." "Infinite goodness and truth" are ideals well worth living by, but we can only affirm them out of our limited human intelligence. Either they are worth pursuing for their own sake, or because you have named them God, in which case you have abnegated your freedom as an intelligent being to choose as intelligently, as morally as you can.


If you agree that infinite goodness and truth are ideals well worth living by, then you have accepted God in a kind of way. There's really no difference. They are worth pursuing for their own sake and so is God. If I have named them God and chosen them, it is the same as if I had just chosen them out of "my freedom as an intelligent being to choose as intelligently, as morally as I can." I chose God for the same reason I would have chosen truth and goodness to live by. God is truth and goodness. Truth and goodness are God. There's no separating the two... erm, three, it's a dogma.




> So we are back to Abraham and Isaac and the prospect that you would sacrifice your child if God asked you to do so. That might be your definition of an obedient person, a God-fearing one, but it is not remotely my definition of a humane or thoughtful person.


That's Old Testament; and if you didn't know, the rest of the story is that He didn't make him kill Isaac after all, it was just a test of faith. All we have is God's and we must be ready to give it all back to Him. God will never ask of you something you will not be able to do with His grace, just as He will never ask you to do something that is bad for you. Again, it's a surrender.




> The self-sacrifice you preach is indeed the sacrifice of one's self to an ancient code and one that has changed according to the time or the particular conclave of theologians.


So we are back to the "antiquated" card and the prospect that God is dependent on mankind for His existence. That may be your definition of our religion, but it is not remotely mine. 
The self-sacrifice I believe in/defend - not preach - is the sacrifice of oneself to God, not an ancient code. I'm seeing a fundamental repeat of the fact that you think religion is all about writings and tradition and old men with long beards... it isn't. It's God. As St. Francis says, it is in dying that we are born to eternal life; dying physically, sacrificially - you can't get away from that. 




> The promise, if you will, that we were made in His image; _We_, that is, including Hitler, Pol Pot, the Ganjaweed, bigots, slave-owners, &c.


That was not a promise. That was a statement of a fact. We are all created in God's image and likeness, we are all Temples of the Holy Spirit, we are all immortal souls. It is only the knowledge, or lack thereof, of the responsibility we are endowed with that directs our actions. Hitler, Pol Pot and all the rest of them decided that they were going to do what they wanted because they wanted it and to hell with those who said they were wrong. Because they did not believe all the above. 




> Why I personally object to others' belief in God is a question well worth asking but to which I have no answer. It may be the reverse of why you (I assume) hope to convert me or others like me to the 'truths' in which you believe. A tentative answer that I offer you is that I object because I would *like it to be true* but so much that I see around me convnces me that it cannot be, or God is a sadist.


That was actually directed at hellsapoppin, but thank you for you answer.
I'm really glad you would like it to be true.




> I don't think faith is the same as saying "I believe because it's impossible." In my experience, it's more like, "I believe even though it can't be physically proven because I see evidence and my heart is persuaded." It seems to me that even someone who doesn't believe in God would hold the view that the existence of God isn't "impossible," no matter how unlikely that person thinks it is.


Amen. You're great.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``God who is all-good, never has anything to do with evil.``

See Isaiah 45:7.


``if you don't believe in God``

I believe he exists. It's just that he has a dual nature and that he is entirely too evil to be worshipped.

``we have free will``

Again, what free will does an abortion victim have?


``It's interesting how you quote the Bible you so flagrantly denounce as bunkum``


Where did I see it is 'bunkum''??? Quite the contrary, it is partly true but only in so far as it reveals this god's evil side and hatred for people.


Response to answer 50 --- see above.


Now, as for my questions regarding miracles, *let's see you and others heal the sick, raise the dead, and walk on water*. Remember, Jesus said any of his ministers could duplicate and surpass all of his miracles. I am still waiting for a demonstration of this claim.


Again, where are your miracles???

----------


## dzebra

> ``God who is all-good, never has anything to do with evil.``
> 
> See Isaiah 45:7.


Your reference to Isaiah 45:7 is, I think, taken out of context. No translation other than the King James translates that word as "evil." The King James version uses a lot of words that have a slightly different meaning now than they used to. Other translations use the word "calamity"(esv,nkjv) or "disaster"(niv) or "bad times"(nlt) or "troubles"(ncv) or things like that. Seeing how that word is translated in more modern translations gives a better hint to the flavor of what was meant in the original language.

"Evil" is a moral thing. I'm convinced that the meaning of that word is more like a type of physical difficulty. Those are not morally evil, they are just bad times and difficulties that happen to people. Yes, God brings those about. God does not bring about immorality.





> Now, as for my questions regarding miracles, *let's see you and others heal the sick, raise the dead, and walk on water*. Remember, Jesus said any of his ministers could duplicate and surpass all of his miracles. I am still waiting for a demonstration of this claim.


Jesus did not say that anyone could duplicate and surpass his miracles. He said anyone could duplicate and surpass his works.




> Again, where are your miracles???


Miracles happen all the time, they are just not linked to specific human beings in the way they were when Jesus and the apostles were around.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I believe he exists. It's just that he has a dual nature and that he is entirely too evil to be worshipped.


This so-called "dual nature" is primarily due to a misunderstanding as to what good and evil are and the moral content of God's actions.






> Again, what free will does an abortion victim have?


Zero - but any victim of a violent action often has an equal amount. What's your point?






> Quite the contrary, it is partly true but only in so far as it reveals this god's evil side and hatred for people.


Convenient. You ignore the vast majority of the Bible that argues against you position and base your opinions on the scatterings of events that you largely misinterpret.





> Now, as for my questions regarding miracles, *let's see you and others heal the sick, raise the dead, and walk on water*. Remember, Jesus said any of his ministers could duplicate and surpass all of his miracles. I am still waiting for a demonstration of this claim.
> 
> 
> Again, where are your miracles???


Jesus Himself - the Son of God - also made it clear that miracles were largely a function of faith. In his own hometown of Nazareth he only did a few miracles because the faith there was weak - people who knew him growing up refused to see him as the Son of God (cf. Mark 6:1-6). Likewise, sceptics demanding a miracle get the same response the Pharisees got when they demanded one from Jesus: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it." (Mark 8:12)

The Son of God doesn't put on shows for sceptics - neither do Christians. Even if one of us did perform a miracle, non-believers have endless excuses to explain it away. Don't demand what you fully intend to discredit from the get-go.

----------


## hellsapoppin

~~ Isaiah 45:7 ~~

This has been discussed ad infinitum and I have given you references to prove it.

~~ He said anyone could duplicate and surpass his works. ~~

The word is ''ergon'' and is used for *anything* accomplished by Jesus. Moreover, John continues to read ''whatsoever ye ask in my name, that will I do ... if ye ask *anything* in my name, I shall do it''. {14:13-15}


~~ Miracles happen all the time, they are just not linked to specific human beings in the way they were when Jesus and the apostles were around. ~~

If what you are saying is correct, then it is you who are attempting to prove that your god is NOT immutable. According to the Bible, that is an impossibility.



~~~ miracles were largely a function of faith ~~~

Lazarus was raised from the dead. As you know fully well, a dead person cannot have faith. Yet he was raised. Since you have the ability to duplicate and surpass Jesus' miracles {according to the Bible}, you are bound to do the same.

So let's see you do it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> ~~~ miracles were largely a function of faith ~~~
> 
> Lazarus was raised from the dead. As you know fully well, a dead person cannot have faith. Yet he was raised. Since you have the ability to duplicate and surpass Jesus' miracles {according to the Bible}, you are bound to do the same.
> 
> So let's see you do it.


But a person can have faith before he dies, and Jesus sometimes performed miracles on behalf of someone else's faith.

Jesus placed some caveats on the assertion that Christians could do "miracles." He said "I tell you truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go throw yourselrf into the sea' and it will be done." (Matthew 21:21). 

Absolute faith without doubt is not as easy to possess as you may think.

As well, you missed (or ignored - either option is feasible) the fact that the faith I was speaking about in reference to Jesus' few miracles in his hometown were not due to his lack of faith (he had buckets of it) but the lack of faith of those around him. As I said, miracles do not occur because sceptics demand them - and even if I did perform a miracle right in front of you, the odds are pretty good that it would have zero effect. God does not - to paraphrase the Sermon on the Mount - "cast pearls before swine" (i.e. offer treasures towards those who would only scoff and dismiss them).

Your challenges are groundless. You have picked small sections of scripture and tried to use it out of context to attack Christians, but without a comprehensive understanding of the entire Bible and its intertextual interactions, you're attacks lack any real substance.

----------


## Ydfkdy

WOW!!! I do not mean to offend anyone,but through my past and my practices and what I have learned and the people I have met. I have seen the fallen angel myself personally cause you can not see good without seeing evil and I have seen alot more. I laughed at satan in his face in my dreams and went back to eating.People say dreams are just dreams but not all of them.Help me undrstand what is so great about the fallen,that a former friend more powerful then myself has not told me.

----------


## Etienne

If you've seen Satan, then perhaps it's time to have a consultation.

----------


## pbmn

> ~~~ miracles were largely a function of faith ~~~
> 
> Lazarus was raised from the dead. As you know fully well, a dead person cannot have faith. Yet he was raised. Since you have the ability to duplicate and surpass Jesus' miracles {according to the Bible}, you are bound to do the same.
> 
> So let's see you do it.


Even the holiest of people on earth do not have complete faith. A person can "follow the path of Jesus", but he will not have true faith until he gives up everything to be with God. Plus, as my teachers have told me in the past (go to a Catholic school) God's miracles are not always so unbelievable and miraculous, when one man helps another, that is the presence of God right there. And Redzepplin put it perfectly in another way:




> Absolute faith without doubt is not as easy to possess as you may think.


Not trying to convert you in any way, but I want you to understand that any old person who calls himself a Christian can't be guaranteed to go out and perform miracles such as raising a person from the dead. It is a lot harder than it sounds to have faith.

----------


## hellsapoppin

The entire congregation is supposed to be a ''royal priesthood'' {I Peter 2:9}. This means there is no longer any esoterica in Christianity. All are to have full access to all powers derived from possession of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, miracles of the type shown in the Bible are supposed to be openly happening today under the so called immutable divine laws.


This more than anything else embodies free will as it shows freedom from sin. Remember my earlier note when I indicated how Jesus said ''your sins are forgiven'' whenever he healed anyone. If a person is suffering illness or any form of oppression, he does not have free will. But when Jesus' words are proven in that matter through miracles, it confirms free will.

So let's see it in practice, not in theory.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The entire congregation is supposed to be a ''royal priesthood'' {I Peter 2:9}. This means there is no longer any esoterica in Christianity. All are to have full access to all powers derived from possession of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, miracles of the type shown in the Bible are supposed to be openly happening today under the so called immutable divine laws.


You are fully incorrect. Your understanding of scripture is incomplete, fragmentary, and selective. You have focused in on something you know to not be in active occurrence and have decided to use it to attack the legitmacy of those of us who claim the title "Christian." Nobody with a reasonable understanding of the Bible and Christianity would make the errors that you currently are.





> This more than anything else embodies free will as it shows freedom from sin. Remember my earlier note when I indicated how Jesus said ''your sins are forgiven'' whenever he healed anyone. If a person is suffering illness or any form of oppression, he does not have free will. But when Jesus' words are proven in that matter through miracles, it confirms free will.
> 
> So let's see it in practice, not in theory.


One may suffer from an affliction and still have free will. Your understanding of free will and sin is flawed, to say the least. Miracles are not a function of free will; they are a function of faith and God's decision to use a human being as a "transmitter" of His power: Christian miracles are not done by the believer's volition and individual power, but by God's moving within the believer's life/heart.

Try a different tactic: this one has no real substance - it is merely a misguided and groundless attack.

----------


## Lady Glynde

This is getting pretty complicated, allow me to clarify.

1. ``God who is all-good, never has anything to do with evil.``[/I]
See Isaiah 45:7.
2. dzebra -- Your reference to Isaiah 45:7 is, I think, taken out of context. No translation other than the King James translates that word as "evil." The King James version uses a lot of words that have a slightly different meaning now than they used to. Other translations use the word "calamity"(esv,nkjv) or "disaster"(niv) or "bad times"(nlt) or "troubles"(ncv) or things like that. Seeing how that word is translated in more modern translations gives a better hint to the flavor of what was meant in the original language.
"Evil" is a moral thing. I'm convinced that the meaning of that word is more like a type of physical difficulty. Those are not morally evil, they are just bad times and difficulties that happen to people. Yes, God brings those about. God does not bring about immorality.
3. This has been discussed ad infinitum and I have given you references to prove it.
4. Meaning, "my references are better than yours and I'm losing anyway so let's stop talking."

1.``if you don't believe in God``
I believe he exists. It's just that he has a dual nature and that he is entirely too evil to be worshipped.
2. RedZeppelin -- This so-called "dual nature" is primarily due to a misunderstanding as to what good and evil are and the moral content of God's actions.
2. God is not one to be measured by mankind's yardstick. Who are we to determine what is evil or not?? If free will, evil, good, and truth are determined by humanity alone, then humanity can also revoke these privileges. We are undeniably, completely, and irrefutably free beings, and if that freedom does not come from a supernatural, omniscient, self sufficient, loving, and moral being, then where does it come from?? If it comes from another source which is not supernatural, then we are not really free at all.

1.``we have free will``
Again, what free will does an abortion victim have?
2. RedZeppelin -- Zero - but any victim of a violent action often has an equal amount. What's your point?
2. The Jews you so frequently bemoan the fates of were innocent too. What _is_ your point??

1.``It's interesting how you quote the Bible you so flagrantly denounce as bunkum``
Where did I see it is 'bunkum''??? 
Quite the contrary, it is partly true but only in so far as it reveals this god's evil side and hatred for people.
2. RedZeppelin -- Convenient. You ignore the vast majority of the Bible that argues against you position and base your opinions on the scatterings of events that you largely misinterpret.-
2. I agree that it is funny how the Bible is correct sometimes and not at others. And those times when it is correct happen to be the ones where your position will be strengthened, or so you think. But that original message was directed at Etienne and/or PrinceMyshkin.
Oh yes, and I've just remembered the bible quote that goes: 
John 3:16 (New International Version)
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Hmm. Twould seem that God actually DOES love the world. Imagine that.

1.Now, as for my questions regarding miracles, let's see you and others heal the sick, raise the dead, and walk on water. Remember, Jesus said any of his ministers could duplicate and surpass all of his miracles. I am still waiting for a demonstration of this claim.
2.dzebra -- Jesus did not say that anyone could duplicate and surpass his miracles. He said anyone could duplicate and surpass his works.
The word is ''ergon'' and is used for anything accomplished by Jesus. Moreover, John continues to read ''whatsoever ye ask in my name, that will I do ... if ye ask anything in my name, I shall do it''. {14:13-15}
2.RedZeppelin -- Jesus Himself - the Son of God - also made it clear that miracles were largely a function of faith. In his own hometown of Nazareth he only did a few miracles because the faith there was weak - people who knew him growing up refused to see him as the Son of God (cf. Mark 6:1-6). Likewise, sceptics demanding a miracle get the same response the Pharisees got when they demanded one from Jesus: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it." (Mark 8:12)
The Son of God doesn't put on shows for sceptics - neither do Christians. Even if one of us did perform a miracle, non-believers have endless excuses to explain it away. Don't demand what you fully intend to discredit from the get-go.
3. Lazarus was raised from the dead. As you know fully well, a dead person cannot have faith. Yet he was raised. Since you have the ability to duplicate and surpass Jesus' miracles {according to the Bible}, you are bound to do the same.
So let's see you do it.
4. Redzeppelin -- But a person can have faith before he dies, and Jesus sometimes performed miracles on behalf of someone else's faith.
Jesus placed some caveats on the assertion that Christians could do "miracles." He said "I tell you truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go throw yourselrf into the sea' and it will be done." (Matthew 21:21). 
Absolute faith without doubt is not as easy to possess as you may think.
As well, you missed (or ignored - either option is feasible) the fact that the faith I was speaking about in reference to Jesus' few miracles in his hometown were not due to his lack of faith (he had buckets of it) but the lack of faith of those around him. As I said, miracles do not occur because sceptics demand them - and even if I did perform a miracle right in front of you, the odds are pretty good that it would have zero effect. God does not - to paraphrase the Sermon on the Mount - "cast pearls before swine" (i.e. offer treasures towards those who would only scoff and dismiss them).
Your challenges are groundless. You have picked small sections of scripture and tried to use it out of context to attack Christians, but without a comprehensive understanding of the entire Bible and its intertextual interactions, you're attacks lack any real substance.
4. Kudos to you both. God is not a performing seal.

1.Again, where are your miracles???
2.dzebra -- Miracles happen all the time, they are just not linked to specific human beings in the way they were when Jesus and the apostles were around.
3. If what you are saying is correct, then it is you who are attempting to prove that your god is NOT immutable. According to the Bible, that is an impossibility.
4. My miracles, as you call them, are perfectly clear and apparent. Have you ever heard of the Incorruptible Saints, holy people whose bodies have not decayed, stiffened, or otherwise displayed any signs of death for hundreds of years?? Have you ever heard of Padre Pio, who had the Stigmata, could read people's souls, and had the power of bilocation?? Have you ever heard of the Eucharistic Miracles, where the Body and/or Blood of Christ as truly present in the Host became cardiac tissue and blood, which are also incorruptible?? Have you heard of the woman who lived entirely on the Eucharist as her only food source for 33 years?? Please, research a bit before you point fingers. 

1.The entire congregation is supposed to be a ''royal priesthood'' {I Peter 2:9}. This means there is no longer any esoterica in Christianity. All are to have full access to all powers derived from possession of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, miracles of the type shown in the Bible are supposed to be openly happening today under the so called immutable divine laws.
2. You are fully incorrect. Your understanding of scripture is incomplete, fragmentary, and selective. You have focused in on something you know to not be in active occurrence and have decided to use it to attack the legitmacy of those of us who claim the title "Christian." Nobody with a reasonable understanding of the Bible and Christianity would make the errors that you currently are.
2. Possession of the Holy Spirit is not something everyone has, at least, to a degree large enough to be able to make miracles. It's not like you get baptized and become a magician. 

1. This more than anything else embodies free will as it shows freedom from sin. Remember my earlier note when I indicated how Jesus said ''your sins are forgiven'' whenever he healed anyone. If a person is suffering illness or any form of oppression, he does not have free will. But when Jesus' words are proven in that matter through miracles, it confirms free will.
So let's see it in practice, not in theory.
2. One may suffer from an affliction and still have free will. Your understanding of free will and sin is flawed, to say the least. Miracles are not a function of free will; they are a function of faith and God's decision to use a human being as a "transmitter" of His power: Christian miracles are not done by the believer's volition and individual power, but by God's moving within the believer's life/heart.
Try a different tactic: this one has no real substance - it is merely a misguided and groundless attack.
2. God will not judge you according to whether or not you had a disease. Come on, that's simple enough. Jesus only said "your sins are forgiven you" when he was healing someone's soul. There's more to a man than his body and more to health than physical fitness. A person can be completely healthy and human no matter how many limbs they're missing because of their inviolate souls; those can only be destroyed by spiritual sickness/death, brought on by our own choices and nothing else.


Thanks everyone for your contributions  :Biggrin:  .

----------


## Lady Glynde

> Does it take as much faith not to believe in pink unicorns as to believe in pink unicorns? If I say I do not believe in a God because of the lack of evidence for it, I do not need to prove my world view, like you said. The lack of an entity is not to be proved, it's its existence that has to be proved (in the sense of demonstrated), and in this case it's the existence of God that is in question.


Not really accurate at all. If someone captured a pink unicorn in the very act of nibbling on a sprig of buttercup grass in Bookyland and everyone acknowledged the existence of pink unicorns, it would take much more faith to _not_ believe in pink unicorns, wouldn't it??

----------


## Wintermute

Don't you folks realize that this is the same argument played out thousands of times in this forum and thousand of other forums on the planet. Honestly, is anyone 100% certain that they have chosen the correct path? Many of you, believers and sceptics, write as though you are absolutely certain. That is frightening to me. How can anyone be certain of anything in this amazing universe?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Don't you folks realize that this is the same argument played out thousands of times in this forum and thousand of other forums on the planet.


We certainly we do - but if every discussion forum that repeated itself blinked out of existence there would end up being only a handful remaining; most topics end up centering themselves around a few key positions/ideas. Since religion deals with the realm of belief and faith, there won't be the same "give and take" that one might have on a more "factual"-based discussion topic. That said, what you'll tend to see is two parties who have "dug in" because the foundation upon which they have based their position is - in their opinion - unshakable by any attack.

The argument stays the same, but the participants shift. I'm not here because I think I'll "win" - I'm here to hear the other sides' position defended convincingly. I'm less interested in telling my opponents why I'm right and more interested in them laying out in a fair and irrefutable way why _they're_ right - so far, that hasn't happened. I'm not worried that we're running around on a hamster treadmill. Half the fun is simply in the thrill of debate. If I wanted to really change minds, I wouldn't be here - I'd be writing a book or publishing an article or whatnot.





> Honestly, is anyone 100% certain that they have chosen the correct path? Many of you, believers and sceptics, write as though you are absolutely certain. That is frightening to me. How can anyone be certain of anything in this amazing universe?


It's called "faith" - but don't confuse the external confidence of the debate with the internal dialogue that we have; in my heart, I have plenty of moments where my faith is weak and I wonder about my vision of who God is and whether or not I undertand Him correctly.

----------


## Rav Maji

"Because we should doubt everything and accept things according only to their "value of truth" meaning the strength of their demonstration minus the falsification of these demonstrations, to make it simple."


What are the measures of strength and falsification? Truth is seldom valuable on its own. It is a variable that only serves to gain adherence within a limited set of constraints. Most truth can be boiled down to what makes us feel good, what helps keep our bodies functioning, and how lazy (slowly evolving) the world is. There is no value in truth deeper than why one wants to create it. There is no such thing as science, comparable or isolatable variables, or the completed idea-Look to the intuition behind the idea for the insight of non-insight. Truth is sticky, I know. But, it seems to be just a reason for believing and/or not believing. Both severely limit potentiality. 



"It's called "faith" - but don't confuse the external confidence of the debate with the internal dialogue that we have; in my heart, I have plenty of moments where my faith is weak and I wonder about my vision of who God is and whether or not I undertand Him correctly.
Today 08:36 AM"

So, there is a difference in how you act and how you feel?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> "It's called "faith" - but don't confuse the external confidence of the debate with the internal dialogue that we have; in my heart, I have plenty of moments where my faith is weak and I wonder about my vision of who God is and whether or not I undertand Him correctly.
> Today 08:36 AM"
> 
> So, there is a difference in how you act and how you feel?


That's a part of being alive, my friend. As children, we may be totally unified in feelings and behaviors, but as teens and young adults, we learn very quickly to "manage" our feelings - sometimes in healthy, socially appropriate ways; sometimes in dysfunctional, inappropriate ways.

I'm simply saying that there are "layers" of belief - that one can believe something to be absolutely true but still not escape 100% of doubt; we are inexact creatures limited by 5 fallible senses and a self-deceiving brain - how can we not, even if only on occasion, wonder if we're right?

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Nobody with a reasonable understanding of the Bible and Christianity would make the errors that you currently are.``

And your proof is where?


``Miracles are not a function of free will; they are a function of faith ``

Read the Bible and you will see they are a function of one's possession of the Holy Spirit. If you are a Christian you have it according to that book. So let's see you prove possession by healing the sick and raising the dead.


``misguided and groundless attack``

Wrong. Biblically based and no attack on anyone. Yours is an emotional rant totally lacking substance.

And if you feel that somehow you have been slighted, remember that you are obliged to turn the other cheek.  :Wink:

----------


## hellsapoppin

> Don't you folks realize that this is the same argument played out thousands of times in this forum and thousand of other forums on the planet. Honestly, is anyone 100% certain that they have chosen the correct path? Many of you, believers and sceptics, write as though you are absolutely certain. That is frightening to me. How can anyone be certain of anything in this amazing universe?



Seeing is believing. This is why Jesus did not present pad-and-paper to his congregants. He took decisive actions. Moreover, so did each of his ministers as his law was said to be immutable. It cannot change whether anyone wants to believe it or not.

Evidently, there are some here who feel it can be changed to suit their views. Yet, they offer nothing by way of scripture to prove their claims. 

As for certainty, if Jesus was here I am certain he would take decisive action and employ ministers who do the same. He would not likely employ people who make guarantees only to renege on those promises later on.

Jesus was a man of action. Fully half of his time was spent on preaching while the other half was spent healing and performing miracles. At no point in the New Testament does he say that this course was to be strayed from in any way. He said the *doers* not the *hearers* are to be blessed. So let's have preachers who are doers --- that's the type of ministry Jesus called for. And everyone who asks in his name is entitled to have just that. It's in the Bible whether anyone likes it or not.

----------


## Rav Maji

> That's a part of being alive, my friend. As children, we may be totally unified in feelings and behaviors, but as teens and young adults, we learn very quickly to "manage" our feelings - sometimes in healthy, socially appropriate ways; sometimes in dysfunctional, inappropriate ways.
> 
> I'm simply saying that there are "layers" of belief - that one can believe something to be absolutely true but still not escape 100% of doubt; we are inexact creatures limited by 5 fallible senses and a self-deceiving brain - how can we not, even if only on occasion, wonder if we're right?


It is noted that our bodies grow and change according to social variables. We learn to "manage" our feelings because we are constantly policed and/or rewarded by their consequences. In effect, we learn to doubt and/or accept certain emotions and thoughts (feelings) according to social guidelines. Questions: How much is faith predetermined by the level or type of its consequence? It seems any inner confusion would be the result of desiring alternate consequences that faith might not prescribe. That's what I'm getting at...Is religious faith prescribed (at least socially via consequence training), and if so does a prescribed faith come with all the same pitfalls (levels of unfaithfulness, confusion, doubt, frustration, anger, fear, etc.)
inherent to its tradition?

One thing about faith: It helps me to feel good to know I'm crazy and part of the big farce humans like to call civilization. So, I use faith like a pill or a bandage to dismiss the stress of life. Is faith ornamental to how I feel, or is it how I feel? I know my faith does not celebrate or love humanity. The consequences of my existence seem to be at odds with my existence.

----------


## pbmn

So with your logic, Hellsapoppin, any person can walk into a Church, call himself a Christian, and the Holy Spirit will come down on him, enabling him to do miracles? No. Faith is involved and is the sole requirement to obtain the Holy Spirit and all of God's miracles. Plus, I am pretty sure that Jesus tells Thomas that "blessed are they who have not seen but believed...", which definitely contradicts your arguement that "Seeing is Believing". Look up the word believing and you will understand that that is not true.

----------


## impishmonkey

YOU ARE WRONG! Satan is evil and only does what he thinks is good. HE HAS NO POWER. HE HAS TO ASK FOR WHAT HE DOES. GOD ALLOWS SATAN TO DO THINGS. i DON'T KNOW WHY BUT IN THE BIBLE IT TELLS A STORY OF WHEN GOD ALLOWS SATAN TO DO SOMETHING TO TEST HIS FAITHFUL FOLLOWER.

----------


## pbmn

> YOU ARE WRONG! Satan is evil...


I sort of agree with you, although you can calm down a little. Yeah, Satan is evil, although I think that he is God's way of sorting out "the sheep from the goats". That may or may not be the Catholic/Christian way to think of it, but that is what I believe. 


As it says in the Crucible, "Man, remember, until an hour before the Devil fell, God thought him beautiful in Heaven."

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Seeing is believing. This is why Jesus did not present pad-and-paper to his congregants. He took decisive actions."
"Jesus was a man of action. Fully half of his time was spent on preaching while the other half was spent healing and performing miracles. He said the doers not the hearers are to be blessed. So let's have preachers who are doers --- that's the type of ministry Jesus called for. "

So, you're acknowledging the miraculous actions of Jesus, while saying that his current followers are unworthy. I think even Redzeppelin has no argument with that.

Of course you have to reject all the claims that miracles are performed frequently enough by faith healers, for example, or at Lourdes, or, if I understand the process correctly, through every saint that has ever been canonized.

----------


## pbmn

I don't agree (what's new). Jesus did not perform his miracles to say, "Oh, look at me. I can do this, and this, and this. Believe in me!" Actually, Jesus believed that his true identity be kept a secret, that true FAITH bring followers to him, not people wanting him to save the Jews from Roman opression. 

In regards to canonizing a saint, many saints over the centuries have been seen as fakes (although I doubt that the Pope would want to revoke sainthood from anyone). Notice how most of these saints lived during the Middle Ages and the Crusades. One could pay for indulgences, so if they are rich, why not to be canonized? Notice how as time progressed, fewer and fewer people were canonized. This so prooves that as understanding and, let's face it, technology improved, so too did the standards. This shows that a miracle is that much harder to perform. If you look at Mother Theresa, she had NOTHING, she gave it all up to follow in the path of God, to "carry her cross" (Mark 8: 34-35).

----------


## Redzeppelin

> ``Nobody with a reasonable understanding of the Bible and Christianity would make the errors that you currently are.``
> 
> And your proof is where?


John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotton Son, that whoseoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Romans 8:35 "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword...Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us."

Titus 3:4 "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by the works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

1 John 4:7,8 "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God,and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."

That is a small sampling. As I have reiterated time and again: you cannot select only the parts of the Bible that support your idea of God's "evil" nature and ignore the overwhelming evidence provided by _the same book_ that God is the source of mercy and love towards humanity - humanity that has disobeyed Him, rejected Him, mocked Him and - ultimately - killed His Son. The only way to maintain your position in the face of such evidence is to simply keep repeating your points which are based only on selective, out-of-context quoting.





> ``Miracles are not a function of free will; they are a function of faith ``
> 
> Read the Bible and you will see they are a function of one's possession of the Holy Spirit. If you are a Christian you have it according to that book. So let's see you prove possession by healing the sick and raising the dead.


You treat Christianity as if it's merely a _title_; it is an identity that one takes on, but it is also a process that one enters into and grows throughout: "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." (Phillipians 1:6)

The potential to work miracles is there - but there are many factors behind such things. I won't waste time on details because it's clear you simply wish to repeat your challenge as if doing so makes it more substantial. It doesn't.





> ``misguided and groundless attack``
> 
> Wrong. Biblically based and no attack on anyone. Yours is an emotional rant totally lacking substance.
> 
> And if you feel that somehow you have been slighted, remember that you are obliged to turn the other cheek.


"Biblically based" only in that you're quoting the Bible. Quoting anything selectively and out-of-context allows one to distort ideas and bend words to one's will. You're doing a great job of this, but not of dismantling God or damaging Christianity. Christ Himself said that even the "Gates of Hell itself" would not "prevail against the church."

I don't recall ranting; I recall taking your flimsy argument to task and failing to see you answer my challenges with anything but a stubborn reiteration of your opinon.

Please don't quote Jesus to me. I'm not convinced you possess the proper understanding of the Bible to effectively use it against my arguments.

I have not indicated that you've done anything to me in terms of injury; I detect that you're simply trying to bait me with more of your Bible trivia. Don't bother - I'm only threatened by effective arguments.

----------


## hellsapoppin

Reminder: ask and ye shall receive.

I await the performance of those miracles.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Reminder: ask and ye shall receive.
> 
> I await the performance of those miracles.


When Christ was challenged by the Devil to perform a miracle (and the Devil used scripture to try and manipulate Christ into doing so), Christ responded with scripture. I will do the same:

"Jesus answered, 'It [scripture] says: "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." ' " (Luke 4:12)

Your challenge is not against believers, but against God Himself - since it is He (not believers) who is the source of all miracles. You can challenge God all you want - He won't be manipulated.

----------


## pbmn

> Reminder: ask and ye shall receive.
> 
> I await the performance of those miracles.


As someone once told me, "If you have no faith, and only will believe in it when you see a miracle, then you will never see one in your life".

God understands that humanity will always turn from the light, thinking that they too can be like God and "eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". For this reason, God will not waste his time to change your will, a free will at that that He gave you and all of us. We make our decisions, then God acts upon those decisions.

Also, if you can truly understand the Bible fully, throughout the Gospels, Mark to be more precise, Jesus only performed miracles when an act of true faith prompted him to do so, and he did them out of true compassion, not a way to convert others to believing.

And Redzeppelin, keep going, you're doing awesome.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> As someone once told me, "If you have no faith, and only will believe in it when you see a miracle, then you will never see one in your life".
> 
> God understands that humanity will always turn from the light, thinking that they too can be like God and "eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". For this reason, God will not waste his time to change your will, a free will at that that He gave you and all of us. We make our decisions, then God acts upon those decisions.
> 
> Also, if you can truly understand the Bible fully, throughout the Gospels, Mark to be more precise, Jesus only performed miracles when an act of true faith prompted him to do so, and he did them out of true compassion, not a way to convert others to believing.
> 
> And Redzeppelin, keep going, you're doing awesome.


Thank you - your clarification is well-said and spot-on.

----------


## Metanoia

> Just a quick question -- I have noted that you continually refer to _"that Christian god"_. But really, there are other religions other than Christian and Satanism. Do you just say this because that was the god that you are familiar with? Just asking, as the Great Spirit (aboriginal Canadian, and others) is yet another great god, and so on... (the g-d of Jewish faith, the list goes on ....). 
> 
> Interesting thread, and everyone seems to be having a civil discussion.


 The main reason I have reapetedly referred to "the Christain God" is because I was raised a Christain. My mother was Devoutly religious, she was so fanatical in her beliefs it interrupted her intire life, as a person and a mother. She never had time to be a normal person, for she was always immersed in her practice to be as perfect as possible, so she could impress her "all mighty-all perfect God." Her religion was her drug of choice. She became more and more fantatic as the years went by, and by the time I was a teenager I barley ever spoke to her. She lost her personality as her religion polluted her mind, and she became a puppet of the Christian church.

That is one of the main reasons that lead me turn by back on the Christain God. For years I was with out any religion, but my good friend often talked about Satanism and it appealed to me so much I decided to join, and I've been very content ever since.

----------


## kiz_paws

> The main reason I have reapetedly referred to "the Christain God" is because I was raised a Christain. My mother was Devoutly religious, she was so fanatical in her beliefs it interrupted her intire life, as a person and a mother. She never had time to be a normal person, for she was always immersed in her practice to be as perfect as possible, so she could impress her "all mighty-all perfect God." Her religion was her drug of choice. She became more and more fantatic as the years went by, and by the time I was a teenager I barley ever spoke to her. She lost her personality as her religion polluted her mind, and she became a puppet of the Christian church...


Wow ... this is definitely not what it is all about, I'd wager. But maybe, and I say this in all respect, maybe it was good that she was 'hooked' on religion (as it sounds like she was, based on what you have said), than hooked on drugs or alcohol, or any of the other self-destruction paths.

P.S. How do you like this can of worms that you have opened (i.e. the passionate discussion that evolved)?  :Wink: 

P.P.S. Thanks for answering the question. It makes total sense.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``"Do not put the Lord your God to the test." ``

That entailed committing a sin and not expecting consequences.

Asking for healings and miracles is something that appears throughout the New Testament. And Jesus never refused to do so. Neither did his apostles. 

The churches today fail to do so because they are not endowed with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, it shows that Satan has more power than they do. Perhaps there is some truth to the claim that Satan is great after all. :Wink:

----------


## dzebra

> Asking for healings and miracles is something that appears throughout the New Testament. And Jesus never refused to do so. Neither did his apostles.


Matthew 16:1-4

The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven... "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. Jesus then left them and went away.

Acts 8:18-21

When Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given when the apostles placed their hands upon peoples heads, he offered money to buy this power. Let me have this power, too, he exclaimed, so that when I lay my hands on people, they will receive the Holy Spirit!
But Peter replied, May your money perish with you for thinking Gods gift can be bought! You can have no part in this, for your heart is not right before God.

----------


## Lady Glynde

> ``"Do not put the Lord your God to the test." ``
> That entailed committing a sin and not expecting consequences.


How on _earth_ do you reach these conclusions??? This bible passage has nothing to do with sin, and certainly not sin without consequences, seeing as there's no such thing. 




> Asking for healings and miracles is something that appears throughout the New Testament. And Jesus never refused to do so. Neither did his apostles.


I've decided that you don't read the posts you refute at all. Jesus and His apostles never refused to heal etc. to those who believed that He could do it. Here's the Scripture you seem to perpetually require:
_Matthew 9~
1Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"
4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

20Just then a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak. 21She said to herself, "If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed."

22Jesus turned and saw her. "Take heart, daughter," he said, "your faith has healed you." And the woman was healed from that moment.

27As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"
28When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" 
"Yes, Lord," they replied.

29Then he touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith will it be done to you"; 30and their sight was restored._ 

Clearly, faith has very much to do with miracles. And in the case of the paralytic, forgiving someone's sins and healing their bodies are not the same thing.




> The churches today fail to do so because they are not endowed with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, it shows that Satan has more power than they do. Perhaps there is some truth to the claim that Satan is great after all.


Of course Satan is great. Satan is an angel, and God when he created angels He bestowed on them great wisdom, power, and holiness. One Angel killed 185,000 men in the army of the king who blasphemed God; and then there's the Angel who slew the first-born in each family of the Egyptians. But Satan is not endowed with the power of God, or the Holy Spirit, because he purposefully rejected them, he CHOSE to look to himself in his pride and arrogance and thus closed himself to God. 




> The main reason I have reapetedly referred to "the Christain God" is because I was raised a Christain. My mother was Devoutly religious, she was so fanatical in her beliefs it interrupted her intire life, as a person and a mother. She never had time to be a normal person, for she was always immersed in her practice to be as perfect as possible, so she could impress her "all mighty-all perfect God." Her religion was her drug of choice. She became more and more fantatic as the years went by, and by the time I was a teenager I barley ever spoke to her. She lost her personality as her religion polluted her mind, and she became a puppet of the Christian church.


Religion does not interrupt your life. Religion saturates your life and raises it to a whole new level. Religion does not pollute your mind, it makes you think in a whole new way about life on earth. Did you ever think that maybe you kept pushing her away through your resistance to her religion?? If she really knew God she would have looked on you as a great gift to cherish and nourish. Maybe she didn't really know God in the right sense.
If she did all she could, it was probably your choice to separate from her. Jesus himself said IN THE BIBLE that He came not to unite, but to divide. 
However, methinks that if she really knew God and you shared her religion you would have reached a whole new level of closeness with her. Or maybe your relationship wasn't that important to you. I don't know.




> That is one of the main reasons that lead me turn by back on the Christain God. For years I was with out any religion, but my good friend often talked about Satanism and it appealed to me so much I decided to join, and I've been very content ever since.


You had religion at one time???




> Reminder: ask and ye shall receive.
> I await the performance of those miracles.


Ask and ye shall receive does NOT mean that God is a little dolphin that flips for you anytime you lift your finger.
That means that God will listen to your prayer and give you what is best for you at that time, whether you agree with it or not. Because he LOVES you. How loving is a parent who lets you do drugs even though it seems to you that that's what's best??




> Seeing is believing. This is why Jesus did not present pad-and-paper to his congregants. He took decisive actions. Moreover, so did each of his ministers as his law was said to be immutable. It cannot change whether anyone wants to believe it or not.


"Seeing is believing" as you invoke it, would mean that you were not believing in God because of Himself, you are just believing in Him because he can do fancy tricks. That's not what belief is.




> Evidently, there are some here who feel it can be changed to suit their views. Yet, they offer nothing by way of scripture to prove their claims.


As Redzeppelin has said, your claims become invalid when they are proved to be saying that you believe in the bible insofar as it proves your points.




> As for certainty, if Jesus was here I am certain he would take decisive action and employ ministers who do the same. He would not likely employ people who make guarantees only to renege on those promises later on.


He would. He doesn't. He never has and never will. And since when are you an expert on what Jesus would do?? 




> Jesus was a man of action. Fully half of his time was spent on preaching while the other half was spent healing and performing miracles. At no point in the New Testament does he say that this course was to be strayed from in any way. He said the *doers* not the *hearers* are to be blessed. So let's have preachers who are doers --- that's the type of ministry Jesus called for. And everyone who asks in his name is entitled to have just that. It's in the Bible whether anyone likes it or not.


Just because priests are not healing people and walking on water doesn't mean that they are not doers. They are healing people's souls and guiding people's lives. That is more important a vocation than healing people's souls. Why do you keep beating your head against this wall?? Redzeppelin and many others, as well as ME in post #79. Namely:
4. My miracles, as you call them, are perfectly clear and apparent. Have you ever heard of the Incorruptible Saints, holy people whose bodies have not decayed, stiffened, or otherwise displayed any signs of death for hundreds of years?? Have you ever heard of Padre Pio, who had the Stigmata, could read people's souls, and had the power of bilocation?? Have you ever heard of the Eucharistic Miracles, where the Body and/or Blood of Christ as truly present in the Host became cardiac tissue and blood, which are also incorruptible?? Have you heard of the woman who lived entirely on the Eucharist as her only food source for 33 years?? Please, research a bit before you point fingers.

----------


## Lady Glynde

aRRrrghHHHHH.... Sorry to you all and I hate to do this, but I've got finals coming up and I can't keep spending so much time on the threads. It's killing me to leave just when we're getting into a really great discussion!! I know it's okay cause Redzeppelin and Pbmn and dzebra and all the rest of you are doing an awesome job. To you guys, Mark 8:36-38 "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37 Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." 
hellsapoppin, PrinceMyshkin, Etienne, and all the rest; I'm praying for you guys. Rather than the Truthful and Lovely of this world, I hope you come to know the Truth and Love of the next... aka God. Odds are, however, that you won't ever accept what we're saying because it is painfully apparent that you are just reasoning in circles and banging your heads against a brick wall. And I honestly don't think that you will ever let yourselves admit that you are occasionally wrong. 
And to all future posters, well, stick up for what you believe, but let's keep it civil and respectful.
I had a great time posting!! Perhaps I'll be back on summer vacation. Til then~
Lady Glynde

37, 38, 50, 67, 68, 79, 80, 102.
These are all my posts to date. I have noticed that you have only refuted the very surface issues, namely, perhaps four sentences from each. Does this mean you accept the rest as truth?? Or do you just ignore the truth of some of my statements?? You need to realize how detrimental it is to you in your search for truth to insist belligerently that there is nothing more that you can possibly learn of the Truth, all the while contradicting yourself by glossing over those points which would be a bit more difficult to refute.
It all comes down to your choice. There's nothing I can do to change that, so the ball is, and always will be, eternally in your court. It's not in the best interests of your own spiritual growth to constantly be asking others and just throwing and throwing at others your questions rather than asking yourself, looking inside.
So I look to all other members of this forum to please make sure that those who don't believe in God refute each of these points. Please and thank you.

----------


## hellsapoppin

They asked for a sign from heaven, not for one from earth. Jesus refused to grant the former, not the latter.

This is what happens when you take things out of context.

As for me, don't worry, I'm not asking for the sky to fall. Performing miracles of the type done by Jesus are not magic tricks as you say. They represent divine forgiveness of sin. If there are no miracles, then there is no forgiveness. On that basis Jesus would have died in vain.

Again, this may not be very convenient for you or those apologists who defend Christian teaching. But your words belie New Testament teaching and demonstrate that Satan is ''great'' in beliefs regarding sin without retribution.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> They asked for a sign from heaven, not for one from earth. Jesus refused to grant the former, not the latter.


Your lack of knowledge about the Bible is stunning. Miracles do not come "from" earth; they all come from God. Period.




> This is what happens when you take things out of context.


As you should well know.




> As for me, don't worry, I'm not asking for the sky to fall. Performing miracles of the type done by Jesus are not magic tricks as you say. They represent divine forgiveness of sin. If there are no miracles, then there is no forgiveness. On that basis Jesus would have died in vain.


Absolutely wrong yet again. Miracles represent the working of God's power in the natural world; they are not a result of or a consequence of or a "representation" of forgiveness of sin. 




> Again, this may not be very convenient for you or those apologists who defend Christian teaching. But your words belie New Testament teaching and demonstrate that Satan is ''great'' in beliefs regarding sin without retribution.


"Convenient" isn't the word that comes to mind; more like "absurdly wrong" is what seems most accurate. Satan's "greatness" aside, check the final chapters of Revelation: from what I read, the good guys win and the bad guys lose - definitively.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``"Do not put the Lord your God to the test." ``


This statement deserves further discussion.

The term for test (also rendered tempt) is the Greek word ekpeirazo or # 1598 in Strong's Concordance. Explanatory notes in blueletterbible.org generally indicate that this means putting the biblical god to trial via sinful conduct. Therefore, supplication for healing and miracles do not fall under this general rule.

Compare that with Malachi 3:10 which reads *prove me now herewith*. In this context it is clearly shown that one is free to expect miracles and fulfillment of biblical promises by conforming to that book's rules.

----------


## hellsapoppin

Redzeppelin says, ``Absolutely wrong yet again. Miracles represent the working of God's power in the natural world; they are not a result of or a consequence of or a "representation" of forgiveness of sin. ``


Note how he does not present any quote from the Bible to prove this remark.

By contrast, here is a quote from the New Testament which confirms my comment that miracles represent the divine forgiveness of sin:

*''that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, then saith he to the sick man with palsy, ''Arise, take up they bed, and go home''.* 

Matthew 9:6


Thus, contrary to Red's unfounded opinion, Jesus specifically stated that his miracles were designed to prove divine forgiveness of sin. This is precisely what I have been saying all along.

No miracles? No forgiveness. Therefore, if Red and the others here who deny what I say were correct, there would be no valid basis for Jesus' sacrifice.

----------


## Trillian

> Cain's sacrifice was not scorned because it was "veggies" - God refused it because Cain decided to do things his way - even human bosses are less than tolerant about employees who do similar things.


Like I said: God said steak, and Cain countered with veggies. Not trying to be disrespectful, but really, it is six of one, half a dozen of the other, and my point was actually directed to the person that commented that the whole blood sacrifice thing was for "drama queens", and claimed to be devoutly Christian. My point was that nearly all religions have some form of sacrifice involved, and scorning a group for the idea of sacrifice when your own group has a long history of the same thing is a bit hypocritical, don't you think? I am, by the way, a Christian. I just think fair is fair.

----------


## Trillian

> If it wasn't for God, would anyone take the Devil seriously??


Hee, hee, hee! Touche'! :Biggrin:

----------


## Metanoia

> Of course Satan is great. Satan is an angel, and God when he created angels He bestowed on them great wisdom, power, and holiness. One Angel killed 185,000 men in the army of the king who blasphemed God; and then there's the Angel who slew the first-born in each family of the Egyptians. But Satan is not endowed with the power of God, or the Holy Spirit, because he purposefully rejected them, he CHOSE to look to himself in his pride and arrogance and thus closed himself to God. .



This is (once again) the "Christian side" of the story. Christians took the old world God "Baphomet" and warped him into a nefarious, cruel, and selfish demon, that is the exact opposite and arch-enemy of the Christain God. This is nothing like the true satan. In reality, Satan is a combination of good and evil, male and female, therefore Satan is neither and both simultaneously. Again, you need to look at my religion as it's own entity, and not one based off the Bible. However, I can see why a Christian would fear and hate the version of Satan that has been so demonized and striped of all it's original values. Your looking apon my God through a completly different perspective, a perspective thats unjust, untrue, and slanderous. 





> Religion does not interrupt your life. Religion saturates your life and raises it to a whole new level. Religion does not pollute your mind, it makes you think in a whole new way about life on earth. Did you ever think that maybe you kept pushing her away through your resistance to her religion?? If she really knew God she would have looked on you as a great gift to cherish and nourish. Maybe she didn't really know God in the right sense.
> If she did all she could, it was probably your choice to separate from her. Jesus himself said IN THE BIBLE that He came not to unite, but to divide. 
> However, methinks that if she really knew God and you shared her religion you would have reached a whole new level of closeness with her. Or maybe your relationship wasn't that important to you. I don't know..




Please let me stop you here. I find it unfair of you to assume that I pushed my mother away. I was a child, I was always yearning for my mothers love, attention and acceptance. My mother valued her religion and unwavering devotion to her God, as more important than taking proper care of her children. When I was growing up I had no resistance to our religion, it was all I knew and I accepted it without a question for most of my life. I'm not doubting my mothers love for me, but she put her religion and God before her family. I would love to have a good relationship with my mother, I have tried to build our relationship back up several times, but she refuses to acknowledge me as her daughter because of my choice in religion. Should it really matter so much? It just goes to prove that even one of natures strongest bonds can be shattered and destroyed by the atrocity of a religious barrier. I make sure I don't let my religious beliefs get in the way of any personal relationships I have. I may not agree with my mothers beliefs, but I don't think it's important enough to stand in the way of our relationship. She on the other hand, will probably never speak to me again. I used to be angry with her, but now I just pity her. She could have grown old with those who loved her by her side, instead she will die a lonely old woman, with nothing more than her religious beliefs which she so desperately clings to.

----------


## Etienne

Satanism as a result of lack of parental attention, that makes sense.  :FRlol: 

Why do you need this Satan thing? Can't you not do it without that (in my opinion, ridiculous) cult thing? As it seems I cannot take it seriously as it only looks as a bland and blind opposition to Christianity. The thought behind your cult seems alright, it's just the cult part which I'm a bit skeptic about... it just seems as a rebellion tool, which is in fact useless, your rebellious energies should be used to go your own way create your own system of value and not just accept another set of value simply because they are tasty food to your need of rebellion.

Individualization, not opposition, should be your motto. Opposition is only a destruction, you need something and don't let anyone (satanism) but yourself build it.

----------


## Trillian

> Please let me stop you here. I find it unfair of you to assume that I pushed my mother away. I was a child, I was always yearning for my mothers love, attention and acceptance. My mother valued her religion and unwavering devotion to her God, as more important than taking proper care of her children. When I was growing up I had no resistance to our religion, it was all I knew and I accepted it without a question for most of my life. I'm not doubting my mothers love for me, but she put her religion and God before her family. I would love to have a good relationship with my mother, I have tried to build our relationship back up several times, but she refuses to acknowledge me as her daughter because of my choice in religion. Should it really matter so much? It just goes to prove that even one of natures strongest bonds can be shattered and destroyed by the atrocity of a religious barrier. I make sure I don't let my religious beliefs get in the way of any personal relationships I have. I may not agree with my mothers beliefs, but I don't think it's important enough to stand in the way of our relationship. She on the other hand, will probably never speak to me again. I used to be angry with her, but now I just pity her. She could have grown old with those who loved her by her side, instead she will die a lonely old woman, with nothing more than her religious beliefs which she so desperately clings to.


Ummm, are we related? I turned my back on my faith for many years because of my mother's devout indifference toward me and her fanaticism toward the church. The last time I had any contact with her, she refused to enter my house because she could "feel the evil" coming out of my home. I was listening to AC/DC. I have finally realized that I worship a much different God than she does, and that God does not permit me to turn my back on others just because their beliefs do not mirror my own. As an orphan to theology, I salute your bravery to strike out on your own, and find your own way. You are obviously not worshiping the Goat-Headed evil one, or sacrificing babies and puppies to achieve some dark power; this is not the Biblical Satan to whom you seem to be referring. Even God himself says that he would rather you be either hot or cold. Apparently people, much like Dr. Pepper, are gross when lukewarm. :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> ``"Do not put the Lord your God to the test." ``
> 
> 
> This statement deserves further discussion.
> 
> The term for test (also rendered tempt) is the Greek word ekpeirazo or # 1598 in Strong's Concordance. Explanatory notes in blueletterbible.org generally indicate that this means putting the biblical god to trial via sinful conduct. Therefore, supplication for healing and miracles do not fall under this general rule.


While your information is correct, you're leaving something out: Satan was challenging Christ to essentially "perform" a miracle by surviving a jump from the temple roof - the challenge was that God would violate physics and rescue Christ from certain death - such a violation of physics we call a "miracle." 

Your demand that Christians perform miracles as a way to validate the Bible is no different: it is a challenge meant to essentially "call God to account" since miracles come from Him and not believers.




> Compare that with Malachi 3:10 which reads *prove me now herewith*. In this context it is clearly shown that one is free to expect miracles and fulfillment of biblical promises by conforming to that book's rules.


Once again, you have quoted out of context to further your argument. Malachi 3:6-12 is concerned with tithes and offerings. God's invitation to "test me in this" (NIV wording) is not an invitation to miracle working, but an invitation to trust His promise that tithes and offerings - financial sacrifices - will be returned. Here's what you left out: " 'Test me in this.' says the Lord almighty, 'and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."

Asking God to keep His promises is different that asking Him to prove things by a miracle - hence my initial post referring to the Pharisees: they demanded a sign of Jesus' legitimacy as the Son of God; because of their unbelieving hearts, He refused to be - as Lady G said - a "performing seal."





> Redzeppelin says, ``Absolutely wrong yet again. Miracles represent the working of God's power in the natural world; they are not a result of or a consequence of or a "representation" of forgiveness of sin. ``
> 
> 
> Note how he does not present any quote from the Bible to prove this remark.
> 
> By contrast, here is a quote from the New Testament which confirms my comment that miracles represent the divine forgiveness of sin:
> 
> *''that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, then saith he to the sick man with palsy, ''Arise, take up they bed, and go home''.* 
> 
> Matthew 9:6


Many times in the Bible, Jesus forgave without performing a miracle. A couple examples:
1) Luke 7:47 - the woman who poured perfume on Jesus' feet: "Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgivenfor she loved much."
2) John 8:1-11 - the woman caught in adultery. Jesus said, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she replied. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and and leave your life of sin."

Jesus performed miracles partly as a way to verify His prerogative to forgive sins - but the miracle was incidental to the forgiveness of sin. When Jesus healed the paralytic lowered through the roof in Luke 5, he offered the man forgiveness. The Pharisees saw this as blasphemy. Jesus' response is instructive:

" 'Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? Which is easier: to say "your sins are forgiven," or to say, "Get up and walk?" *But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins*...' He said to the paralyzed man, 'I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.' "

Christ made it clear that miracles performed by Him confirmed His authority to forgive sins; they did not validate or mandatorily accompany forgiveness of sins.





> Thus, contrary to Red's unfounded opinion, Jesus specifically stated that his miracles were designed to prove divine forgiveness of sin. This is precisely what I have been saying all along.
> 
> No miracles? No forgiveness. Therefore, if Red and the others here who deny what I say were correct, there would be no valid basis for Jesus' sacrifice.


Your assessment of miracles and forgiveness is fatally flawed, because Jesus made it clear in Luke 5 that forgiveness was His priority - He gave it before He performed a miracle. Christ made it abundantly clear that miracles from Him were a sign of His authority - not of His forgiveness. That's why He challenged the Pharisees by saying to them that He had the power to forgive (a prerogative of God alone) because He possessed the power to heal (a power of God alone).

I'm sorry, my friend, but you're simply wrong.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Malachi 3:6-12 is concerned with tithes and offerings``

It is broader than that. It means that conformance with the law will generate the healings and blessings that one seeks.

Interestingly, the tithe is no longer required as shown in the NT. You need to see the broader picture in order for the Bible to make sense for you.

As for defying gravity, you are now saying what I said previously -- when warned not to put god to the test, it means to refrain from committing sin and expecting reward or divine protection. Besides, that was Satan who made the challenge, not a human being.

Jesus did not indicate _when_ he forgave the woman who poured perfumed oil on his feet. Moreover, he specifcally did NOT forgive the adulterous woman! Look again and you will see he said ''neither to I condemn thee''. You have to first condemn before you forgive. Since he did not condemn, he could not have forgiven her.


`Your demand that Christians perform miracles as a way to validate the Bible is no different: it is a challenge meant to essentially "call God to account" since miracles come from Him and not believers.`


You are entitled to your opinion but that does not make it fact. According to the very Bible that you are quoting from miracles are supposed to be a manifest fact of life. If you read I Corinthians you would read of its many gifts which include the ability to perform miracles { see 12:9} _the selfsame Spirit dividing to every man severally as he wills._ Here it is clearly written that everyone is supposed to have access to this power in some form. As I have told you before, divine law is supposed to be immutable. Jesus said heaven and earth could perish but his law would never change - not one jot in it will change until the Bible's promises are completely fulfilled {Matthew 5:18}.

If you don't believe those parts of your own Bible that are not convenient for you, that's fine. But don't tell me these immutable instructions aren't there. :Wink:

----------


## pbmn

What you are saying has some truth in it, but it is selective truth. It is more than definite that when Jesus said that "Neither too will I condemn you", he was forgiving her. Jesus is God, and God is Jesus. When a person sins, they are automatically condemned. The price to pay for adultery was to stone the women to death by all present. Jesus bent over and wrote out all the sins of the people present. Since Jesus was the only sinless being left, he was to be obligated to stone her to death. However, he did not by saying the quote above, implying that he forgave her for her offences.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> ``Malachi 3:6-12 is concerned with tithes and offerings``
> 
> It is broader than that. It means that conformance with the law will generate the healings and blessings that one seeks.
> 
> Interestingly, the tithe is no longer required as shown in the NT. You need to see the broader picture in order for the Bible to make sense for you.


Wrong. You are interpreting the response of God to mean "healings and blessings" but the text only indicates that trust in God will result in God blessing His people - and since you implied that the text referred to miracles, you would be wrong in imputing such a meaning to the text. And, "confromance to the law" became a moot issue in the NT when Jesus arrived and did away with the belief that keeping the Law kept one in God's good graces.

Please don't tell me about the "broader picture" I need - you're the one selectively quoting scripture out-of-context, attributing whatever meaning you tangentally can in order to try and make your point.




> As for defying gravity, you are now saying what I said previously -- when warned not to put god to the test, it means to refrain from committing sin and expecting reward or divine protection. Besides, that was Satan who made the challenge, not a human being.


But you are doing the same thing - you are quoting scripture (as did Satan) as a way of trying to suggest that a true Christian can do miracles; that is no different that Satan challenging Jesus to make stones into bread or jump off the temple roof and survive. Both were the exact same thing: _Prove to me you're who you claim to be._





> Jesus did not indicate _when_ he forgave the woman who poured perfumed oil on his feet. Moreover, he specifcally did NOT forgive the adulterous woman! Look again and you will see he said ''neither to I condemn thee''. You have to first condemn before you forgive. Since he did not condemn, he could not have forgiven her.


From Luke, ch 7:

"And behold, a woman in the city, _which was a sinner_, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment...[Christ said] 'Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which *are* many, *are* forgiven..." (37, 47)

The text indicates that when she came into the room, she was a sinner; when she left, she was forgiven.

To add to pbmn's correct post: the woman brought before Jesus was already determined to be guilty by Mosaic law - she had been caught in the act of adultery. Jesus does not question the legitimacy of the charge; he challenges the Pharisees' authority to implement justice. Jesus doesn't have to condemn her - the law already had. His refusal to condemn her automatically implies forgiveness because her guilt is unquestionable, and the Pharisees were correct that she was in violation of the law.

Both examples are cogent.





> You are entitled to your opinion but that does not make it fact.


You waste valuable time telling me things I am already quite aware of - things that are equally applicable to yourself and your own postings.





> According to the very Bible that you are quoting from miracles are supposed to be a manifest fact of life.


No. If miracles were a "manifest fact of life" they would cease to be "miracles" and be classified as normal occurrences. Part of their classification as miracles is their rarity. Please quote where it claims that miracles are a "manifest fact of life." Thanks.




> If you read I Corinthians you would read of its many gifts which include the ability to perform miracles { see 12:9} _the selfsame Spirit dividing to every man severally as he wills._ Here it is clearly written that everyone is supposed to have access to this power in some form.


Wrong again. 1 Corinthians 12 gives a rundown of the different types of gifts the Holy Spirit can bestow upon people. Paul tells us in vs 4 that there are " diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit [Holy Spirit]" which is "given to every man." Paul then lists the different types of gifts and it is clear from his use of "For to one is given," "to another" that these gifts are not equally bestowed upon all; some have one kind of gift, other people have another. The performing of miracles is not a universal gift. The part you highlighted only suggests that the same Holy Spirit is behind all gifts and gives them to all men; it does not suggest that every man gets the same gift.





> As I have told you before, divine law is supposed to be immutable. Jesus said heaven and earth could perish but his law would never change - not one jot in it will change until the Bible's promises are completely fulfilled {Matthew 5:18}.


Not every fragment of text you can pull out of the Bible qualifies as "divine law." Paul's listing in 1 Corinthians is not "divine law" but a revelation of how the Holy Spirit works in the lives of Christians.




> If you don't believe those parts of your own Bible that are not convenient for you, that's fine. But don't tell me these immutable instructions aren't there.


I believe the Bible just fine - it is your selective, fragmentary and distorted use of these passages that doesn't work for me. But I invite you to keep trying.

"Immutable instructions"? Where did you quote those?

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Prove to me you're who you claim to be.``

I wasn't aware that I was communicating with Jesus. I am communicating with you and am asking for manifestations of the Holy Spirit's gifts.


``Please quote where it claims that miracles are a "manifest fact of life." Thanks.``

Hundreds if not thousands of miracles were reported in the Bible. Show me where this is not supposed to happen today.


``the same Holy Spirit is behind all gifts and gives them to all men``

Granted. Now let's see those manifest gifts in every day life, especially those miracles.


``1 Corinthians is not "divine law" but a revelation of how the Holy Spirit works in the lives of Christians. ``

The Holy Spirirt in action is a manifestation of divine law.

``''Immutable instructions" ``

Same thing as immutable law.


``I believe the Bible just fine``

Good for you. Now let's see the miracles to prove your possesion of the Holy Spirit. If you don't have that, then let's see which members of your church have this gift. 


Miracles, healings, and control over the weather were done openly in the Bible. Nothing in that book suggests it is not supposed to be happening today. But if you can prove to me that they are not supposed to be happening, I'll gladly believe you.

----------


## hellsapoppin

BTW, in the Bible it was Satan who said that god's powers were limited. Thus, you are quoting his beliefs in your posts above.

Maybe there is some truth to the idea that Satan is great.  :Wink:

----------


## kiz_paws

> Please let me stop you here. I find it unfair of you to assume that I pushed my mother away. I was a child, I was always yearning for my mothers love, attention and acceptance. My mother valued her religion and unwavering devotion to her God, as more important than taking proper care of her children. When I was growing up I had no resistance to our religion, it was all I knew and I accepted it without a question for most of my life. I'm not doubting my mothers love for me, but she put her religion and God before her family. I would love to have a good relationship with my mother, I have tried to build our relationship back up several times, but she refuses to acknowledge me as her daughter because of my choice in religion. Should it really matter so much? It just goes to prove that even one of natures strongest bonds can be shattered and destroyed by the atrocity of a religious barrier. I make sure I don't let my religious beliefs get in the way of any personal relationships I have. I may not agree with my mothers beliefs, but I don't think it's important enough to stand in the way of our relationship. She on the other hand, will probably never speak to me again. I used to be angry with her, but now I just pity her. She could have grown old with those who loved her by her side, instead she will die a lonely old woman, with nothing more than her religious beliefs which she so desperately clings to.


I read these words and wondered that if a woman so deeply rooted in a religion that preaches love could literally toss her child out of her life -- well, it makes me wonder about this religion. It becomes a religion of words only -- yeah, love one another, and so on.... how valuable is all this when I read your words about what will be the end for her -- die a lonely old woman.

That is sad.

And for all those folks out there just ready to up and jump on words that question their beliefs -- how can you answer this post?? Really.

That woman is badly misguided because there is no love. And I thought that that was Jesus' most important commandment (well, for the Christian outlook). For a Jewish outlook (or any other religion, for that matter), I do not know what their rules are, etc., sorry.

And to me, *Metanoia* is showing more compassion and love than that of their parent. Makes one wonder.

And Metanoia, I am glad that you have found peace and a way to deal with this lack of a parent's support/love, etc. I don't know if it is the right thing, as I don't know anymore WHAT is the right thing. But peace and love should be important.

**ducks for a for-sure bombing of retaliation**  :Eek:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> ``Prove to me you're who you claim to be.``
> 
> I wasn't aware that I was communicating with Jesus. I am communicating with you and am asking for manifestations of the Holy Spirit's gifts.


You misunderstand yet again; I made it quite clear that your demand for miracles from Christians as proof of their identity _as_ Christians is equivalent to Lucifer's demand that Christ perform a miracle to prove his divinity. I made that abundantly clear.





> ``Please quote where it claims that miracles are a "manifest fact of life." Thanks.``
> 
> Hundreds if not thousands of miracles were reported in the Bible. Show me where this is not supposed to happen today.


You better check your numbers. God's interactions with humanity (of which miracles are a part) has changed from the OT (which is where many of God's miracles occur). Either way, there is nothing to suggest that miracles are a "manifest fact of life." Remember that the Bible is a selective history - it is primarily comprised of the "big moments" - there were plenty of times without miracles - especially the 400 odd years between the OT and the NT.





> ``the same Holy Spirit is behind all gifts and gives them to all men``
> 
> Granted. Now let's see those manifest gifts in every day life, especially those miracles.


You've skated by the fact that your point just got refuted and then you play the same record again. I've made it more than clear that your demand is not based in scripture.





> ``1 Corinthians is not "divine law" but a revelation of how the Holy Spirit works in the lives of Christians. ``
> 
> The Holy Spirirt in action is a manifestation of divine law.


No. The Holy Spirit is the 3rd "person" of the Trinity - his existence is not a manifestation of law; his job - as put forth by Jesus (esp in John) is as our "comforter" and advisor. It is the Holy Spirit that guides us to God - he's not in charge of the law, nor is he a symbol/representation of it.




> ``''Immutable instructions" ``
> 
> Same thing as immutable law.


Completely wrong; instructions tell one how to do something; law tells you the consequence of taking inappropriate action. Pretty obvious, I think.





> ``I believe the Bible just fine``
> 
> Good for you. Now let's see the miracles to prove your possesion of the Holy Spirit. If you don't have that, then let's see which members of your church have this gift.


Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 12 (the chapter you referenced) that the Holy Spirit distributes different gifts to different people. Give up - without a scriptural basis (beyond your distortion of the text) your demands hold no water.





> Miracles, healings, and control over the weather were done openly in the Bible. Nothing in that book suggests it is not supposed to be happening today. But if you can prove to me that they are not supposed to be happening, I'll gladly believe you.


There's no "proof" either way - except that a clear understanding of Jesus' ministry and mission on earth would make it clear that God's method of interacting with His people has distinctly shifted. Miracles in the OT were God's verification to His people of His relationship with them; in the NT they were the verification of Christ's authority to forgive sins. That some Christians have performed them and that the Bible says the ability to perform them is ONE of the Holy Spirit's gifts doesn't support your repetitive and groundless attack.

----------


## pbmn

> Maybe there is some truth to the idea that Satan is great



Then we will turn the tables on you. If Satan is great, then prove it. If you can find one account in the Bible that says Satan is great, perhaps even greater than God, post it.

Satan is great, but not in a good way, nor when compared to God. God created everything, so angels were endowed their powers through God. Satan is as great as God makes him, and God would never give all his power to another being (this is not selfishness, it is intelligence). When I say great, I am comparing him to humankind, not God. His one REAL power is that he can turn us from God through cheap tricks and temptation. Prove that he is great in a different way, and I will shut up.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Then we will turn the tables on you. If Satan is great, then prove it. If you can find one reputable source that says Satan is great, perhaps even greater than God, post it.
> 
> Satan is great, but not in a good way, nor when compared to God. God created everything, so angels were endowed their powers through God. Satan is as great as God makes him, and God would never give all his power to another being (this is not selfishness, it is intelligence). When I say great, I am comparing him to humankind, not God. His one REAL power is that he can turn us from God through cheap tricks and temptation. Prove that he is great in a different way, and I will shut up.


Allow me to modify this just a bit: the only convincing source is the Bible - it is the "measuring stick" by which we judge God and Satan because it claims to be the narrative of God's history with the people of earth. As well, it is the book hellsapoppin is currently using to (attempt to) discredit Christianity and God. Switching sources would weaken his/her position significantly since 
s/he claims that the Bible incriminates God. Such a source would _certainly_ establish Satan's "greatness."

Satan's primary weakness is that he is a created creature; as such, he cannot create; instead, he may only imitate or copy. Since God is the only uncreated Being, there is no possible way for Satan to top Him - the creator is always superior to His creation.

----------


## pbmn

Sorry, I'll edit it a tad.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``If Satan is great, then prove it.``


I did say ''maybe''.  :Wink:

----------


## pbmn

[Deleted]

----------


## hellsapoppin

I'm not a Satanist. Can't imagine what made you think I was one.

----------


## pbmn

Well, you are posting _against_ Christianity in a thread called "Satan is great!" and your username is "hellsapoppin". It isn't a huge leap from one point to another. I hadn't read this entire thing, but there are 9 pages, and I don't think I could read them all...

That's why I asked. I'll take back my last comment.

----------


## hellsapoppin

No problem. But my posts are not against Christianity, only against its failure to fulfil biblical promises.

 :Smile:

----------


## pbmn

Thanks for clearing that up for me, now I know what I am fighting against :Wink:

----------


## Metanoia

Of course there is not going to be any part in the Bible saying Satan is greater than God. No religion is going to claim any other God but their own as being the "greatest". The Christian church completly distorted Satan into a all evil demon who was of lesser power than the Christian God, but full of "cheap tricks" to tempt those who had a faltering devotion to the the Christian God. This was a clever ploy, I must say, to warp the true Satan and then use him as a tool to instill fear into the people; "if you stray from the Christian path, you'll burn in hell for an eternity with a cruel monster to rule over you." Sorry, the original and true Satan is nothing like one the Bible has created.

----------


## pbmn

I am not disagreeing with you, but just want to understand. What Satan are you talking about? Is it the same one as Lucifer, who was an angel of God, and was banished to Hell, because then that is not the Christians creating a terrible Satan, but the Jewish religion. Or is there another one? 

..."if you stray from the Christian path, you'll burn in hell for an eternity with a cruel monster to rule over you."...

That's not true, at least from the point of view of a Catholic. Anyone can get to heaven, they just have to believe that God exists (not like idolatry) and have to live a good life. Christianity is seen as a better way to get to heaven, but not the only (although there are some Christian religions that believe just the opposite).

----------


## SleepyWitch

wasn't Lucifer the son of the goddess Aurora in Roman mythology and then he got mixed up with Satan?  :Confused: 

edit: wiki article on Lucifer, for all it's worth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer




> Modern and late Medieval Christian thought derived from this interpretation the idea that Lucifer is a fallen angel who is Satan, the embodiment of evil and an enemy of God. In Christian literature and legend, Lucifer is generally considered to have been a prominent archangel in heaven, although Book of Ezekiel 28:14 says: "You were the anointed cherub who *covers*, And I placed you there."


er, help? who covers _what_?




> De-identification with Satan
> 
> Many modern Christians note that the Old Testament itself does not actually contain a literal account of the rebellion and fall of Satan. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are directly concerned with the temporal rulers of Babylon and Tyre, rather than a supernatural being; allegorical readings of these and other passages were typical of medieval scholarship but are usually not considered legitimate in modern critical scholarship. Accordingly, in most modern English versions of the Bible (including the NIV, NRSV, NASB and ESV) the proper noun "Lucifer" is not found; the Hebrew word is rendered "day star", "morning star" or something similar.
> 
> Revelation 12, meanwhile, is taken as a reference to Christ's triumph over Satan at his crucifixion rather than a description of a pre-historic event. Christians who reject the Lucifer myth generally believe that the origin of evil (theodicy) is unexplained in Scripture.
> 
> Liberal Christian scholarship often denies the existence of a literal personal being called "Satan" altogether, rendering the Lucifer myth irrelevant. It is argued that the name Satan itself (Hebrew: שָׂטָן) merely means "adversary" or "accuser", which may be a personification.


HELP! so this fight in heaven when Satan gets his butt kicked by Mike isn't even in the Bible at all? that's the only part I'd be interested to read, really! where can I read it then, if it's not in the bible?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Of course there is not going to be any part in the Bible saying Satan is greater than God. No religion is going to claim any other God but their own as being the "greatest". The Christian church completly distorted Satan into a all evil demon who was of lesser power than the Christian God, but full of "cheap tricks" to tempt those who had a faltering devotion to the the Christian God. This was a clever ploy, I must say, to warp the true Satan and then use him as a tool to instill fear into the people; "if you stray from the Christian path, you'll burn in hell for an eternity with a cruel monster to rule over you." Sorry, the original and true Satan is nothing like one the Bible has created.


Source?

"Ploy?" It's only a "ploy" if it's _untrue_. That has yet to be established, and those attempting to establish such generally have an axe to grind.

I'm fascinated by the idea that Christianity and the Bible are merely fabrications created to "keep people in line." That is absurd. Creating the intricate cohesive narrative of the Bible (that scholars have confirmed was written over a large span of time by different writers) and its paradoxical philosophy on human behavior (think of others first, love your enemies) are tremendously inconvenient ways to manage a society. Force is easier, quicker, and more practical. Seriously, if you really want to manipulate people, provide them with a belief system that isn't so rigorous in its requirements. What on earth would inspire a human being to create a system of beliefs that are so challenging and so opposed to human nature? What's the point? Why construct such a moral system - unless inspired by a higher being to do so? Why not create a system that is more self-serving, more in-line with human nature?

Evil can never be as powerful as good - everything about our existence - our greatest stories, and even the longing in our hearts for justice attest to this. CS Lewis said there were two dangers in dealing with Satan; one was to take him too seriously, the other was to not take him seriously at all.

PS - God doesn't "send" people to hell for "straying from the Christian path": people _choose_ hell because they'd rather be in charge of their own lives than let God - their creator - be in charge. Hell is a freely chosen place - nobody goes their against his/her will.

----------


## SirRaustusBear

Redzeppelin I'm always confused when people say that God doesn't send people to hell, they choose to go there. I'm an atheist and even if proof of God were presented to me I don't know that I would worship him, he just seems kind of egomaniacal (you know, demanding that everyone worship Him and whatnot). But, if when I die I find out I was wrong and there is a heaven and hell I would still prefer paradise to eternal burning and pain. So could I choose paradise without acknoledging God's greatness.

----------


## PeterL

It looks like both sides are losing and there are major problems with the Satan and God myths. Perhaps the God character made statements about his power that were slightly exaggerated, because he was feeling a little inferior and wanted to scare humans into thinking that he was all powerful. Some of the stories about Satan are just silly, but perhaps he was just a defeated rebel who tries to terrorize humans; or maybe he is not a rebel, but he has taken the guise of rebel and tempter to terrorize humans into being good boys and girls. Then again, maybe Gurdjieff was right.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Redzeppelin I'm always confused when people say that God doesn't send people to hell, they choose to go there. I'm an atheist and even if proof of God were presented to me I don't know that I would worship him, he just seems kind of egomaniacal (you know, demanding that everyone worship Him and whatnot). But, if when I die I find out I was wrong and there is a heaven and hell I would still prefer paradise to eternal burning and pain. So could I choose paradise without acknoledging God's greatness.


1. God commands us to worship Him because He is the only creature in the universe worthy of our admiration - He created EVERYTHING and sustains it through His will. What is so inappropriate about God asking for what is rightfully His? Once we accept that God is real, and that what the Bible says of Him is true, doesn't He deserve our reverence, appreciation and respect? As well, there is also a benefit for the believer: worshiping God a) brings us into a mindset more prepared to "hear" Him and b) reminds us in difficult times that we serve a God who is more than prepared to take care of us.

2. If you were a car lover and the ultimate car appeared before you, you'd probably gush over its perfection, its beauty, its power yadda yadda yadda. Well, if the Creator of all of the universe - its planets, stars, the earth, all its plants and creatures and YOU - showed up there's good chance that (whether you agree or not) that your body/mind/spirit would intuitively recognize your creator and that you would immediately fall to the ground in worship of Him - period. Your worship, however, would not be motivated by love so much as fear.

3. God will not appear to us until we have made our decsions on faith - because that's how love works: you don't wait until your partner "proves" s/he loves you before you fall in love with him/her - you take his/her word on it and reciprocate. God tells us - has _shown_ us - He loves us immensely. God gives freedom of choice - but you can't change your mind at the last minute. Those who have not chosen God by the time He appears will not be interested in spending eternity with Him because those who have served themselves all their lives would consider Heaven a sort of hell - what with its constant worship of the "egomaniacal" God and such.




> It looks like both sides are losing and there are major problems with the Satan and God myths. Perhaps the God character made statements about his power that were slightly exaggerated, because he was feeling a little inferior and wanted to scare humans into thinking that he was all powerful. Some of the stories about Satan are just silly, but perhaps he was just a defeated rebel who tries to terrorize humans; or maybe he is not a rebel, but he has taken the guise of rebel and tempter to terrorize humans into being good boys and girls. Then again, maybe Gurdjieff was right.


Your comments about God can't be taken seriously unless you consider God to be of the same category as the Greek/Roman gods of mythology - who were little more than glorified human beings with super-powers. The God of the Bible is nothing of the sort - and you have no support on your side to suggest that God had some sort of personality problem (i.e. low self-esteem). That's flat-out absurd. Any being that can call the universe into existence with His _voice_  has no problem with personality disorders and such.

What's your basis for calling the stories about Satan "silly" and which are you speaking of? Some are, some aren't.

There are more effective ways to get people to "behave" - any serious reading of the Bible would suggest that it is a book of far more complexity than simply a tool to manipulate others.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> HELP! so this fight in heaven when Satan gets his butt kicked by Mike isn't even in the Bible at all? that's the only part I'd be interested to read, really! where can I read it then, if it's not in the bible?


hey, I hate to quote myself, but could someone answer my question?
thanks  :Smile:

----------


## PeterL

> Your comments about God can't be taken seriously unless you consider God to be of the same category as the Greek/Roman gods of mythology - who were little more than glorified human beings with super-powers. The God of the Bible is nothing of the sort - and you have no support on your side to suggest that God had some sort of personality problem (i.e. low self-esteem). That's flat-out absurd. Any being that can call the universe into existence with His _voice_  has no problem with personality disorders and such.


The Canaanite Wind god Yahweh was just one among many gods that the Canaanites worshiped, until some of hie priests became rather uppity. Some of the other Canaanite gods were referred to in a positive way in the Bible, El for one. The God mentioned in "Paradise Lost" was also a god who didn't have a very good self image. There was one place where it almost seemed like he was trying to convince himself that he was the greatest. 

So do you think that one particular god is better than Dyeus Pater (name later corrupted to Jupiter)? 




> What's your basis for calling the stories about Satan "silly" and which are you speaking of? Some are, some aren't.


I was thinking especially about the Book of Job and Paradise Lost. They are silly, because, if Satan and the God are as powerful as it is claimed that they are, then there wouldn't be any conflict between them. The God would have won ages ago. 




> There are more effective ways to get people to "behave" - any serious reading of the Bible would suggest that it is a book of far more complexity than simply a tool to manipulate others.


Pavlovian techniques weren't generally available until fairly recently, so persuasion was easier to use.

----------


## hellsapoppin

pbmn,


Hou didn't have to delete your post!

Honestly, I was not offended in the least by your question. In fact, a couple of days before I got a PM from someone who asked whether I had been a Satanist. When I replied that I was not, she was surprised. Therefore, I can only assume that it was I who erroneously gave the impression of being one.

Your query undoubtedly served to correct other people's false impressions as well. Therefore, you did the right thing when you asked.

 :Smile:

----------


## SirRaustusBear

Redzeppelin, it seems that you are saying we should worship God because of his power and the fact that he is our creator. I have a couple of problems with this, the first being that those in power are not always worthy of worship or respect. The playground bully may demand that you worship him, and there may be adverse consequences if you do not (knuckle sandwiches, the playground equivalent of eternal damnation), but that doesn't mean one should worship him.

This desire to be worshipped seems kind of silly. Bullies want to be worshipped because it strokes their ego when everyone tells them how tough they are. God, if he is perfect, would not need his ego stroked, and it seems would care less about being worshipped and more about people doing what is right (you know, not hurting each other, the golden rule, etc.) The humanity of wanting people to bow before one makes me question God's perfection. He may be super powerful, but just because someone's holding a gun to my head doesn't mean the morally right thing to do is grovel.

Secondly, I don't feel we should worship God just for giving us life. It seems a vindictive (and once again egomaniacal, suggesting a secretly low self-esteem) God that would create us then demand we devote our entire lives to him. I'd just as soon not have been created at all.

If worship is meant to help us through rough times, as you suggest, it seems unreasonable to punish us for not doing it. After all, we are only hurting ourselves in that senario.

I have always wondered why in sunday school they taught us that the Jews were different from other contemporary groups because they loved rather than feared their God. Burning forever seems pretty scary, and the Christian/Jewish God seems no more compassionate that Zeus. He may be more fair (though I am not convinced of this), but certainly not more compassionate.

----------


## pbmn

> So could I choose paradise without acknoledging God's greatness


By the statement, "we choose whether we go to Heaven or Hell", it is meant that our *actions* decide where we go. Those are our choices, so that is how we essentially choose.


Your more recent post, SirRaustusBear, definitely makes sense, and it is a valid point. But why would God create you, and let you worship someone (or something) else? Worship doesn't always mean to grovel, it just means that we acknowledge Him as the only being in our life worthy of true admiration. God is not being selfish or paranoid by any means, but rather is helping us to stay on the right path.





> I have always wondered why in sunday school they taught us that the Jews were different from other contemporary groups because they loved rather than feared their God. Burning forever seems pretty scary, and the Christian/Jewish God seems no more compassionate that Zeus. He may be more fair (though I am not convinced of this), but certainly not more compassionate.


We do not fear God, but rather the punishment, something we too "created" when we rejected God and chose temptation and sin. God does not create evil or sufferin; we do. Also, at least from the perspective of a Catholic, Hell is *not* flames and physical pains. Hell's "punishment" (I wish I could think of a better word, as it is not a punishment) is something that our human minds cannot comprehend. It is a place where there is no love, no happiness, nothing. It is a place where we just are, nothing else, while Heaven is the opposite, a place where we will get the rewards that we did not get nor seek in our mortal life. Hope this helped a little...

----------


## SirRaustusBear

The idea of Hell as a limbo-like environment that is simply the absence of God does fit better with the it's your choice idea. I still think that saying you choose by your actions is more of an ultimatum than a choice: do as I say or recieve punishment. It limits your options and therefore cannot be considered a real choice.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Redzeppelin, it seems that you are saying we should worship God because of his power and the fact that he is our creator. I have a couple of problems with this, the first being that those in power are not always worthy of worship or respect. The playground bully may demand that you worship him, and there may be adverse consequences if you do not (knuckle sandwiches, the playground equivalent of eternal damnation), but that doesn't mean one should worship him.


Human beings aren't worthy of worship, but God is - He is not some glorified human being: He brought the universe into existence with _His words_. God cannot be compared to a bully - because the bully's power is illegitimate: it is not rightfully his to possess the power he has and the "tribute" he demands; God's power is legitimate, and - as Creator of all - He has a right to our praise.

I did not suggest that God's considerable power was in and of itself justification for worship (though it certainly is a part of it). God's power provides all of us (including you) with all the blessings your life contains (as well as the fact that you are alive at all). God created all that you see and enjoy - you haven't seen an incredibly beautiful sunset, or a magnificent mountain range or the beach at night? God created those things - and if we're willing to pay umpteen million for a painting of these things, you don't think that the creator of the _actual things_ we paint is worthy of our praise, our respect, our worship?




> This desire to be worshipped seems kind of silly. Bullies want to be worshipped because it strokes their ego when everyone tells them how tough they are. God, if he is perfect, would not need his ego stroked, and it seems would care less about being worshipped and more about people doing what is right (you know, not hurting each other, the golden rule, etc.) The humanity of wanting people to bow before one makes me question God's perfection. He may be super powerful, but just because someone's holding a gun to my head doesn't mean the morally right thing to do is grovel.


God holds no "gun" to anybody's head. We are free to accept/reject His love as we see fit. That's called free will, and free will is the essential component of love - because love cannot force.

God does care about right - that's why He left us an instruction manual and established a church charged with alleviating suffering and providing care to the people of the world.

It's like this: children who are taught to respect their parents live better lives; they have closer relationships with their parents, better relationships with authority and their spouses/co-workers and they have an attitude of gratitude about the things their parents provided them with; kids who grow up without respecting their parents tend to be very unhappy and struggle with authority and within their relationships. If this is so (and psychology tells us this is so) then why can't it be the same with our Heavenly Father? Perhaps his "demand" for worship is as legitimate as the parent's demand for respect. Doing so puts us in right relationship with God - God who does not want from us, but has things for us - if only we will learn who He is.





> Secondly, I don't feel we should worship God just for giving us life. It seems a vindictive (and once again egomaniacal, suggesting a secretly low self-esteem) God that would create us then demand we devote our entire lives to him. I'd just as soon not have been created at all.


Spoken as if Life was something cheaply and easily had.

Where does the Bible say that God "demands" we "devote our entire lives" to Him? You're missing the fact that the believer who chooses to surrender his life to God WANTS to please God, WANTS to offer Him praise, WANTS to be a good servant. 




> If worship is meant to help us through rough times, as you suggest, it seems unreasonable to punish us for not doing it. After all, we are only hurting ourselves in that senario.


We are not punished for not worshipping; it is something that the Christian who has a relationship with God WANTS to do. Just as a man who loves a woman praises her, the Christian who has a relationship with God desires to praise Him. What's wrong with that? His admonition to worship Him isn't directed at non-believers, so why are you even concerned in the first place?




> I have always wondered why in sunday school they taught us that the Jews were different from other contemporary groups because they loved rather than feared their God. Burning forever seems pretty scary, and the Christian/Jewish God seems no more compassionate that Zeus. He may be more fair (though I am not convinced of this), but certainly not more compassionate.


Zeus? _PLEASE_. God as the Bible describes Him is NOTHING like Zeus - Zeus who was an oversexed adolescent who really was nothing more than a glorified human being with "super-powers." Please. Don't make me laugh.

Let's look at it this way: Suppose you were justly sentenced to death for a crime you committed. I suppose you'd have great love for the guy who stepped forward and said "I'll take Mr. Bear's punishment - let him go free." I suspect you'd be strongly tempted to worship someone who rescued you like that - and at minimum you would certainly see him as a loving, compassionate man.

Well - guess what? That IS your condition (and mine, and everybody else on earth): we are all guilty of sin, of violating God's law - and the consequences or sin is death (not because God arbitrarily decided that, but because that's how it is: God is the source of Life - to reject Him is to reject life; choosing sin is choosing death, because sin will eventually carry you so far from God that you won't want to come back and death will be your final destination). Read through Romans - Paul tells us that we were in an unsolvable trap - we're sinners, and we are incapable of _not_ sinning because of our fallen human nature. How does God solve the problem? Wipe us out and start over? Nope - He sends down His Son - who lives a perfect, sinless life and takes our just punishment upon his innocent self - takes our death sentence for us. That is compassion my friend - because that action now means that all of us (you included, my friend) can spend eternity with God by simply accepting Him into our hearts and repenting of our sins. That is an amazing gift - and I think it's worthy of praise.




> The Canaanite Wind god Yahweh was just one among many gods that the Canaanites worshiped, until some of hie priests became rather uppity. Some of the other Canaanite gods were referred to in a positive way in the Bible, El for one. The God mentioned in "Paradise Lost" was also a god who didn't have a very good self image. There was one place where it almost seemed like he was trying to convince himself that he was the greatest.


Sources?

Where in the Bible is El mentioned positively?

Milton was a human author writing an _imaginative_ work - not a work of _divine inspiration_; as such, his portrayal of God (and/or Satan) carries no authority.




> So do you think that one particular god is better than Dyeus Pater (name later corrupted to Jupiter)?


You're kidding, right? See comments above. No other "god" makes the claims that God makes. No other god provides a cohesive narrative of the existence of the universe, the problem of sin, the solution to sin, the exlplanation of human nature as does Christianity's God.





> I was thinking especially about the Book of Job and Paradise Lost. They are silly, because, if Satan and the God are as powerful as it is claimed that they are, then there wouldn't be any conflict between them. The God would have won ages ago.


_Paradise Lost_ is a fictional work that was not divinely inspired. It is automatically disqualified.

Job was not written as a character study of Satan - or of God for that matter. What portrayal are you exactly looking for? Flames? Black horns? Fiendish laugh? How does one convincingly portray the Prince of Darkness? It's easy to criticize the portraits we have; much harder to provide the qualities of the one we would take seriously.




> Pavlovian techniques weren't generally available until fairly recently, so persuasion was easier to use.


I said nothing about behavioral mod - I was speaking of pure force; force has _always_ been in existence, and it is the most expedient way to get people to do what you want (cf. Machiavelli's _The Prince_). Writing a long narrative and convincing people to sacrifice their lives for an imaginary guy in the sky and to love their enemies and give their possessions to the poor is a ludicrous way to control people. There are much better, more efficient ways to control people than to tell them what the Bible tells them.

----------


## PeterL

> 


Sources?

Where in the Bible is El mentioned positively?

Milton was a human author writing an _imaginative_ work - not a work of _divine inspiration_; as such, his portrayal of God (and/or Satan) carries no authority.[/QUOTE]

The people who wrote the Bible were also humans, who wrote about human concerns. The Modern view of Satan is largely derived from Milton's work.





> You're kidding, right? See comments above. No other "god" makes the claims that God makes. No other god provides a cohesive narrative of the existence of the universe, the problem of sin, the solution to sin, the exlplanation of human nature as does Christianity's God.


Kidding!? No, what made Yahweh better than the other gods in the pantheon? All of the material about the god of the christians was lifted from other sources, principally from Persian sources. Don't forget that Mithraism was the most popular religion in the Roman Empire during the period when the Jesus cult was becoming established. If your god makes extraordinary claims, then there should be extraordinary proof of those claims.





> _Paradise Lost_ is a fictional work that was not divinely inspired. It is automatically disqualified.
> 
> Job was not written as a character study of Satan - or of God for that matter. What portrayal are you exactly looking for? Flames? Black horns? Fiendish laugh? How does one convincingly portray the Prince of Darkness? It's easy to criticize the portraits we have; much harder to provide the qualities of the one we would take seriously.


Milton was a genius among writers, and all genius is from the Gods and Goddesses, so Milton was divinely inspired. 

The Book of Job was written for other purposes, but it supplies a characxter study of the Adversary and of the Jewish god. If I wanted devils with horns, flaming pits, etc., then I would reread Dante. The God and the Devil in Job are much better characters. Satan had to ask permission before he could do anything to Job, and that was the point of the book. It made poor Satan seem pathetic.

----------


## thom

"Truly, My Satan, thou art but a Dunce,
And dost not know the Garment from the Man;
Every Harlot was a Virgin once,
Nor can'st thou ever change Kate into Nan.
Tho' thou art Worship'd by the Names Divine
Of Jesus and Jehovah, thou art still
The Son of Morn in weary Night's decline,
The lost Traveller's Dream under the Hill."
William Blake

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The people who wrote the Bible were also humans, who wrote about human concerns. The Modern view of Satan is largely derived from Milton's work.


The writers of the Bible were directly inspired by God to reveal His character, His concerns, His purposes. Although Milton may have been an inspired Christian, _Paradise Lost_ does not have the status of divinely inspired scripture, and he himself would more than likely recoil from the suggestion that his work might be considered an equal to scripture in terms of its revelation of God.





> Kidding!? No, what made Yahweh better than the other gods in the pantheon? All of the material about the god of the christians was lifted from other sources, principally from Persian sources. Don't forget that Mithraism was the most popular religion in the Roman Empire during the period when the Jesus cult was becoming established. If your god makes extraordinary claims, then there should be extraordinary proof of those claims.


Wrong - the suggestion that the Bible is a patchwork of "liftings" from other cultures is an academic speculation that carries little weight when one examines the particulars of Hebrew text - especially that considered holy scripture. It is highly unlikely that the Jews would have considered plagiarisms from other cultures as authoritative and holy scriptures. As well, such things would totally invalidate the Bible as a divinely inspired revelation of God's character, making it utterly worthless.

The "proof" discussion gets us nowhere in matters of faith and God. That is a long discussion that you may find fragments of throughout these threads - especially the evolutionary threads.





> Milton was a genius among writers, and all genius is from the Gods and Goddesses, so Milton was divinely inspired.


Genius comes from God, but genius does not equal divinely inspired. There are many atheists out there who are geniuses but I would not consider their words to be divinely inspired by any stretch of the imagination. God gives us gifts, but we are free to misuse them.




> The Book of Job was written for other purposes, but it supplies a characxter study of the Adversary and of the Jewish god. If I wanted devils with horns, flaming pits, etc., then I would reread Dante. The God and the Devil in Job are much better characters. Satan had to ask permission before he could do anything to Job, and that was the point of the book. It made poor Satan seem pathetic.


It provides only the barest sketch of God and Satan, and does so merely to "frame" the action of Job by providing a larger dramatic context for what happens to Job.

Satan IS pathetic - since you've read Milton and see his version as "authoritative" you certainly recall that Satan acknowledged that God could not be assaulted: His power is too great - so Satan, being a coward and a being without honor, chooses to do what tyrants generally do - torture and harm the people that the hero loves. We've seen that in countless movies - the hero is left untouched, but his family and loved ones are tortured instead. This part I believe Milton got right: Satan chose to victimize God's beloved creations because he cannot touch God.

Satan has to ask permission because his power comes from God - God gave Lucifer free will and Lucifer abused it - but because God is loving and fair, He didn't just strip Lucifer of his power simply because Lucifer chose his own path. But that's reality: all power comes from God. Lucifer can choose not to obey God, but he cannot override God's power.

----------


## PeterL

> The writers of the Bible were directly inspired by God to reveal His character, His concerns, His purposes. Although Milton may have been an inspired Christian, _Paradise Lost_ does not have the status of divinely inspired scripture, and he himself would more than likely recoil from the suggestion that his work might be considered an equal to scripture in terms of its revelation of God.


Perhaps, you do not consider it to be divinely inspired, but that's simply an opinion. It is my opinion that _Paradise Lost_ is inspired as much, or perhaps more than, the Bible. 





> Wrong - the suggestion that the Bible is a patchwork of "liftings" from other cultures is an academic speculation that carries little weight when one examines the particulars of Hebrew text - especially that considered holy scripture. It is highly unlikely that the Jews would have considered plagiarisms from other cultures as authoritative and holy scriptures. As well, such things would totally invalidate the Bible as a divinely inspired revelation of God's character, making it utterly worthless.


It appears that you believe that the Bible is literally true, down to the last comma. 






> Satan IS pathetic - since you've read Milton and see his version as "authoritative" you certainly recall that Satan acknowledged that God could not be assaulted: His power is too great - so Satan, being a coward and a being without honor, chooses to do what tyrants generally do - torture and harm the people that the hero loves. We've seen that in countless movies - the hero is left untouched, but his family and loved ones are tortured instead. This part I believe Milton got right: Satan chose to victimize God's beloved creations because he cannot touch God.
> 
> Satan has to ask permission because his power comes from God - God gave Lucifer free will and Lucifer abused it - but because God is loving and fair, He didn't just strip Lucifer of his power simply because Lucifer chose his own path. But that's reality: all power comes from God. Lucifer can choose not to obey God, but he cannot override God's power.


That's one view. The Yezidees believe that the chief of the Gods will eventually restore Lucifer to his former place of respect. There is a great deal of the Old Persian religion in Christianity and some of it in Judaism. Ahura Mazda (or Ormudz these days) and Ahriman were nearly equally matched. That view became common in Christianity in the early times, and was championed by Calvin and others who held the opinion that humans are basically evil, or very close to that. 

One point on which I agree with Milton is that creativity can come from sources other than the Christian God. As I pointed out earlier, the Christian God was also rather pathetic in _Paradise Lost_. From the way things were described, Satan wasn't defeated without great effort and loss. 

One question, why do you regard Milton's Satan as a coward and without honor? That he attacks God's creations is not an adequate answer.




> Wrong - the suggestion that the Bible is a patchwork of "liftings" from other cultures is an academic speculation that carries little weight when one examines the particulars of Hebrew text - especially considered holy scripture. It is highly unlikely that the Jews would have considered plagiarisms from other cultures as authoritative and holy scriptures. As well, such things would totally invalidate the Bible as a divinely inspired revelation of God's character, making it utterly worthless.


This item especially bothers me, because you are mistaken. There was a huge amount of cultural borrowing going on in that region in ancient times. The Hebrews were just another Canaanite tribe, until Abraham had his idea of making them something distinct. They worshipped the ordinary collection of Semitic Gods and Goddesses, even after Ezekiel told them not to. The ideas of a chief God which was dominant over the others was first put forward by the Persians, but the idea wasn't enthusiastically received. The teachings of the Old Testament were the common beliefs of that time and place. The idea of a saviour, the son of the principal god, who was born, lived as a man and was sacrificed for the sins of all was several centuries old when Jesus came along. Mithra was that saviour, and he was the son of Ahura Mazda. Mithraism was a heretical movement in Mazdaism, but it became the largest religion in that part of the world around the time when Jesus was walking around. 

Nearly everything in the Bible had sources outside of Judaism and in most cases several hundred years earlier.

----------


## dzebra

> HELP! so this fight in heaven when Satan gets his butt kicked by Mike isn't even in the Bible at all? that's the only part I'd be interested to read, really! where can I read it then, if it's not in the bible?
> thanks


A brief story of that is in Revelation 12. Satan is mentioned several times scattered throughout the book of Revelation (mostly between chapter 12 and chapter 20).

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Ahura Mazda (or Ormudz these days) and Ahriman were nearly equally matched. That view became common in Christianity in the early times, and was championed by Calvin and others who held the opinion that humans are basically evil, or very close to that. "

Those two sentences imply that you think that Zoroastrians share the belief that you ascribe to Calvin, namely that humans are basically evil.

That is most certainly not the case. To Zoroastrians all creation (within our cosmos at least,) comes from Ahura Mazda and is therefore essentially good.

Ahriman is a corruptor, but cannot change the essential goodness of creatures. 

This is quite a different starting point from the Christian one which postulates that the Fall of Adam corrupted human nature in its essence, so requiring God to become incarnate in order to change human nature back to its basic goodness.

----------


## PeterL

> "Ahura Mazda (or Ormudz these days) and Ahriman were nearly equally matched. That view became common in Christianity in the early times, and was championed by Calvin and others who held the opinion that humans are basically evil, or very close to that. "
> 
> Those two sentences imply that you think that Zoroastrians share the belief that you ascribe to Calvin, namely that humans are basically evil.
> 
> That is most certainly not the case. To Zoroastrians all creation (within our cosmos at least,) comes from Ahura Mazda and is therefore essentially good.
> 
> Ahriman is a corruptor, but cannot change the essential goodness of creatures. 
> 
> This is quite a different starting point from the Christian one which postulates that the Fall of Adam corrupted human nature in its essence, so requiring God to become incarnate in order to change human nature back to its basic goodness.


I don't see any significant difference between Mazdaism and Christian thought on the nature of the universe, etc. Ahriman was a powerful force in Mazdaism, and that was an influence on Judaism. The Satan of the garden of Eden was very much like Ahriman, a tempter and a corrupter. Neither of them could create on its own, but Ahriman was a twin of Ormudz. Satan was a weak littl thing that didn't do anything, until there was influence from Persia.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> A brief story of that is in Revelation 12. Satan is mentioned several times scattered throughout the book of Revelation (mostly between chapter 12 and chapter 20).


THANKS Dzebra  :Smile:

----------


## Whifflingpin

PeterL: "I don't see any significant difference between Mazdaism and Christian thought on the nature of the universe, etc. Ahriman was a powerful force in Mazdaism, and that was an influence on Judaism."


I'll not disagree with you about the Persian influence on Judaism.

The difference that I was pointing out is the difference in the views of the relationship between God and mankind, as held by Christianity and Zoroastrianism. Not really on topic in this thread, but I could not let it pass that you seemed to be implying that Zoroastrians share the Christian doctrine of original sin, or something like it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Perhaps, you do not consider it to be divinely inspired, but that's simply an opinion. It is my opinion that _Paradise Lost_ is inspired as much, or perhaps more than, the Bible.


OK - but there's a difference in "divinely inspired" because "I think so" and "divinely inspired" because the book claims it (and proves it - numerous lives have been changed through the holy scriptures; I'm not so sure the same is true about _Paradise Lost_). As a Christian, Milton would have thought your opinion of his work to be blasphemous. 




> It appears that you believe that the Bible is literally true, down to the last comma.


How do you believe in a book as being divinely inspired and then take it apart by suggesting that this part is "lifted from this culture and this part is mythical and not to be taken seriously, and this part is a scribal error" and so on? According to Paul, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:15-17 (New International Version) Paul's authority is linked to the Bible's truth. Once part of it is false, all of it becomes false because _it all links together_.




> That's one view. The Yezidees believe that the chief of the Gods will eventually restore Lucifer to his former place of respect. There is a great deal of the Old Persian religion in Christianity and some of it in Judaism. Ahura Mazda (or Ormudz these days) and Ahriman were nearly equally matched. That view became common in Christianity in the early times, and was championed by Calvin and others who held the opinion that humans are basically evil, or very close to that.


I will confess ignorance of much of what you've brought up here, but I will suggest that similarities can be explained in a number of ways. Scholars with an agenda (because in the area of religion, one either believes or doesn't, and those who don't generally tend to seek to disprove) will interpret things in a way consistent with their foundational belief system because many parts of ancient scholarship are not as clearly deliniated as a math equation and require a certain degree of subjective speculation.




> One point on which I agree with Milton is that creativity can come from sources other than the Christian God. As I pointed out earlier, the Christian God was also rather pathetic in _Paradise Lost_. From the way things were described, Satan wasn't defeated without great effort and loss.


Since the Bible - the only authoritative record of God/Satan doesn't recount this battle - then we can only say that Milton created _his version_ of the battle.




> One question, why do you regard Milton's Satan as a coward and without honor? That he attacks God's creations is not an adequate answer.


Cowards attack the weak when they realize they have no hope of defeating the strong. Satan came after us as innocent victims because he knew we were no match for his intelligence and manipulative ability. It was God whom he had the issue with, not us - but we were the convenient "hostage" that Satan held (that is, until Christ came down and took away Satan's power).




> This item especially bothers me, because you are mistaken. There was a huge amount of cultural borrowing going on in that region in ancient times. The Hebrews were just another Canaanite tribe, until Abraham had his idea of making them something distinct. They worshipped the ordinary collection of Semitic Gods and Goddesses, even after Ezekiel told them not to. The ideas of a chief God which was dominant over the others was first put forward by the Persians, but the idea wasn't enthusiastically received. The teachings of the Old Testament were the common beliefs of that time and place. The idea of a saviour, the son of the principal god, who was born, lived as a man and was sacrificed for the sins of all was several centuries old when Jesus came along. Mithra was that saviour, and he was the son of Ahura Mazda. Mithraism was a heretical movement in Mazdaism, but it became the largest religion in that part of the world around the time when Jesus was walking around. 
> 
> Nearly everything in the Bible had sources outside of Judaism and in most cases several hundred years earlier.


As I said, I'm not conversant in the literature enough to comment, but I will say this: that Christ-figures preceded Christ does not necessarily mean that Christ is derivative. CS Lewis has argued that Christ was the "myth made real" because no other figure that pre-dated Christ was actually a real, living person. Jesus Christ was a historical person. That's where the power of the Bible comes from over Greek mythology and the other religions of the time - Christ was _real_. As well, no other "religion" or mythology of the time gives the same cohesive and complete run-down of our origins, our human nature, the issue of suffering and the solution to sin.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Redzeppelin: "As well, no other "religion" or mythology of the time gives the same cohesive and complete run-down of our origins, our human nature, the issue of suffering and the solution to sin."

That is a matter of opinion. Having been a Christian for many years, I ceased to be so when I decided that the Zoroastrian religion gave me a more comprehensive and less mythological account of "our origins, our human nature, the issue of suffering and the solution to sin." Zarathustra ante-dates Jesus by about two millennia.

----------


## PeterL

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;542167]OK - but there's a difference in "divinely inspired" because "I think so" and "divinely inspired" because the book claims it (and proves it - numerous lives have been changed through the holy scriptures; I'm not so sure the same is true about _Paradise Lost_). As a Christian, Milton would have thought your opinion of his work to be blasphemous. 



How do you believe in a book as being divinely inspired and then take it apart by suggesting that this part is "lifted from this culture and this part is mythical and not to be taken seriously, and this part is a scribal error" and so on? According to Paul, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:15-17 (New International Version) Paul's authority is linked to the Bible's truth. Once part of it is false, all of it becomes false because _it all links together_.






> I will confess ignorance of much of what you've brought up here, but I will suggest that similarities can be explained in a number of ways. Scholars with an agenda (because in the area of religion, one either believes or doesn't, and those who don't generally tend to seek to disprove) will interpret things in a way consistent with their foundational belief system because many parts of ancient scholarship are not as clearly deliniated as a math equation and require a certain degree of subjective speculation.


One can only understand period and its philosophy by understanding what was going on around the time and place in question. If you are interested in Christianity and its roots, then I strongly suggest that you study the history and culture of the Near East, including the Empires of the Medes and Persians, the Persians, all of the Mesopotamians, and pay attention to Gilgamesh. You might also want to look at the religion of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Another important matter is the mystical traditions of the region. It appears that Jesus was a mystic, but I don't know who he studied with; alothough the Essenes are a good guess. The Essenes disappeared a few hundred years later, around the same time as the Sufis appeared in the same area with the same beliefs, etc.




> PeterL: "I don't see any significant difference between Mazdaism and Christian thought on the nature of the universe, etc. Ahriman was a powerful force in Mazdaism, and that was an influence on Judaism."
> 
> 
> I'll not disagree with you about the Persian influence on Judaism.
> 
> The difference that I was pointing out is the difference in the views of the relationship between God and mankind, as held by Christianity and Zoroastrianism. Not really on topic in this thread, but I could not let it pass that you seemed to be implying that Zoroastrians share the Christian doctrine of original sin, or something like it.


OK, yes the orthodox Mazdaists had a very different view of the relationship between humans and the gods. That is the main reason why Mithraism became so popular.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Redzeppelin: "As well, no other "religion" or mythology of the time gives the same cohesive and complete run-down of our origins, our human nature, the issue of suffering and the solution to sin."
> 
> That is a matter of opinion.


Yes - that's my opinion.




> Having been a Christian for many years, I ceased to be so when *I decided* that the Zoroastrian religion gave me a more comprehensive and less mythological account of "our origins, our human nature, the issue of suffering and the solution to sin." (RZ's emphasis)


And there's yours.

----------


## PeterL

> That is a matter of opinion. Having been a Christian for many years, I ceased to be so when I decided that the Zoroastrian religion gave me a more comprehensive and less mythological account of "our origins, our human nature, the issue of suffering and the solution to sin." Zarathustra ante-dates Jesus by about two millennia.


I looked into Zarathrustrianism a few years ago, read the Zend Avesta, etc. It is an interesting collection of beliefs, but I do not understand why you would think that it is "a more comprehensive and less mythological account of "our origins, our human nature, the issue of suffering and the solution to sin." It is no worse than Judeo-Christian religion, but it is steeped in a collections of myths that as deep as what the Hindus use, and the purification rituals were a bit too dirty for me. I don't like bathing in the urine of cattle; maybe that's just me.

----------


## PierreGringoire

To the moderator: What if my god was "Disrespect personified." Would I then be allowed to "disrespect the beliefs of others"? :Alien:

----------


## erikwithAk

> I beg to differ, sir. How well do you know the ways of Satan? In actuallity, he is poorly misunderstood. He is not the nefarious, selfish being that other religions have put him out to be, your viewing my Lord from the Christian opinion and the Christian opinion of Satan is un-fair. For instance, many of your Christian symbols were derived from the old Pagan religoins, and yet you look upon my religious symbols as "evil". It's also un-fair how you expect respect in regards to your God, but when it comes to a disscusion about my God it's ok to out-right insult my beliefs. And as to your remark about Satan not helping anyone unless it benifits him, the same can be said about your God as well. He only rewards those who devoutly follow his ways, those who with out question do 
> as his all mighty wisdom commands. So, we really shouldn't be bashing each others God and religion, for it is mearly an opinion, nothing more nothing less. Of course we will never agree on what religion is right. So unless you have something good to say about Satan, please stay off my thread. Thank you, and God bless.


first off i am here to say the i am not christain i am a christ follower i dont believe in the catholic god, or the baptist god, or the mormon god, i believe in the one who made this vast and amazing world we live in and find it slightly odd that all of the satanist that i talk to i tend to agree with.

you right we can go back and forth about who right and who is wrong.

but you do admit that he only rewards those who do exatly what he says so thats kind of comprimising from my perspective and on Gods side he will always be there for us in our times of need weather we devoutly serve him or not but more as set on where our heart is are we only in this for us or do we want to bring him glory

and he gives us the free will factor witch what your telling us is not included

anyway i just wanted to say that and that i respect your brliefs even though i do not agree with them

----------


## whoa2you

I know this is possibly an old topic but I find this quite interesting. I certainly see your side from the perspective of feeling your lord is painted in a negative image..My opinion, is basically that for as long as man has been around, we have feared what we do not understand. In that fear, lies our predjudices and negative feelings, etc. Most of us heard about satan,the devil, evil while in church. Since satan has assumed the role of Adversary(by Bible) definition, he represents the greatest single opposition to God; which we were taught was perhaps the greatest wrong one could commit-placing yourself above God. Now, that being said, I do not worship satan,lucifer, the devil, etc.; I do find it interesting to view people's opinions whether they be for or against. I doubt someone would change my mind on satan, I also am not here to change anyone's mind or convert anyone to my way of thinking. I am a christian and I feel that following the parable of "work through your own salvation through fear and trembling.."is how I look at my beliefs.

I am open to conversation because it is a learning tool. Through conversation and things learned, you can understand(which does not mean 'believe'). In questioning what you are told and understanding by listening, you can overcome your fear...

----------


## blazeofglory

> I've noticed there are alot of negative posts about Satan. I for one can say that by following the way of Satan, I have achieved many of my dreams and desires. Satan has helped me greatly, along with many others like L.Ron.Hubbard. Thank-you Satan, thank-you.


I like this post very much. Indeed Satan is part of us, and we are not always living with virtues but with vices too, and of course in day to day life we can not live or in fact survive without vices.




> I've noticed there are alot of negative posts about Satan. I for one can say that by following the way of Satan, I have achieved many of my dreams and desires. Satan has helped me greatly, along with many others like L.Ron.Hubbard. Thank-you Satan, thank-you.


All I believe is Satan is in everyone of us. We are Satans too and let us not single out Satan at all. He is everywhere.

----------


## ByTheMane576

> I like this post very much. Indeed Satan is part of us, and we are not always living with virtues but with vices too, and of course in day to day life we can not live or in fact survive without vices.


Personally, I could do with a bit less greed, hate, envy, and anger in the world.




> Why I personally object to others' belief in God is a question well worth asking but to which I have no answer. It may be the reverse of why you (I assume) hope to convert me or others like me to the 'truths' in which you believe. A tentative answer that I offer you is that I object because I would *like it to be true* but so much that I see around me convnces me that it cannot be, or God is a sadist.


I _think_ I can safely say that none of those who believe in God, on this forum at least, are trying to convert. You have simply brought up objections with our beliefs and we are defending them; I suppose you could take it up a level and say that we are telling you why we believe it to be true and letting you draw your own conclusions.

----------


## Pendragon

> All I believe is Satan is in everyone of us. We are Satans too and let us not single out Satan at all. He is everywhere.


Beg to differ. Satan *tempts* everyone of us. He doesn't live in and *control* everyone of us. 

John Bunyan's _The Holy War_ gives a great example. Beyond our senses and our emotions there is a tower in the heart. Only one can live in the tower at a time: God or Satan. Not both at once. 

God Bless

Pen

----------


## ClementOfRome

dear metanoid... (you know, after reading your name, all i wanted was some domino's pizza)

i'm sorry, are you serious? 

why worship satan? worship your self for pete's sake. are you that dependant on some higher ideal that you will pick the preverbal Chicago Cubs of Religious Relics?

wow, man... get out of your mom's basement, meet a girl, buy here a drink.

BE A TRUE SATANIST... WORSHIP YOURSELF!!!

shiesh!

----------


## Hypercrit Htd

Have you not read Bible? Satan work for Yahweh and not as nice. Worship of self? around since time of Cain. That what make men kill.

But Jesus saves.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> How do you believe in a book as being divinely inspired and then take it apart by suggesting that this part is "lifted from this culture and this part is mythical and not to be taken seriously, and this part is a scribal error" and so on? . . . Once part of it is false, all of it becomes false because _it all links together_.


I don't agree with this at all. To claim something is divinely-inspired (hence Man wrote parts) is NOT the same as claiming something is divinely-written (in which G-d wrote every last line with no human mediator). Certain parts of a holy book can be myth (which by the way doesn't equate to untrue, but rather a certain form of story-telling), some can be history, some can be divenely-inspired laws, some can be divenely-inspired prayers, while also recognizing that human beings took it upon themselves to incorporate secular laws at the time beside divine laws when constructing biblical books.

----------


## blazeofglory

Satan from us, from our own community and not distinct from us. Everyone is in part satanic. It is a matter of degrees.

----------


## weepingforloman

> I beg to differ, sir. How well do you know the ways of Satan? In actuallity, he is poorly misunderstood. He is not the nefarious, selfish being that other religions have put him out to be, your viewing my Lord from the Christian opinion and the Christian opinion of Satan is un-fair. For instance, many of your Christian symbols were derived from the old Pagan religoins, and yet you look upon my religious symbols as "evil". It's also un-fair how you expect respect in regards to your God, but when it comes to a disscusion about my God it's ok to out-right insult my beliefs. And as to your remark about Satan not helping anyone unless it benifits him, the same can be said about your God as well. He only rewards those who devoutly follow his ways, those who with out question do as his all mighty wisdom commands. So, we really shouldn't be bashing each others God and religion, for it is mearly an opinion, nothing more nothing less. Of course we will never agree on what religion is right. So unless you have something good to say about Satan, please stay off my thread. Thank you, and God bless.


This may have already been mentioned, but I didn't read it all and don't want to: God does not reward good behavior. That is the overly simplified cultural view of western theistic thought. It is not a question of rewards and punishments: it is a question of spiritual life and death, and only one of those is earned. Salvation comes through grace alone, through the death of Christ Jesus.

----------


## DeadAsDreams

I dont have the time to read through all the posts so this might have already been answered but Metanoia are you an actual orthodox satanist, or do you follow the laveyan school of thought?

----------


## hellsapoppin

"Have you not read Bible? Satan work for Yahweh and not as nice."


A while ago I pretty much wrote what you wrote and got nasty replies for doing so!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> "Have you not read Bible? Satan work for Yahweh and not as nice."
> 
> 
> A while ago I pretty much wrote what you wrote and got nasty replies for doing so!


I respectfully submit that both of you are egregiously incorrect in your assertions - and I say this with all due politeness  :Smile:  .

----------


## blazeofglory

Everyone has a Satan inside, and saint siding with him, residing in the same mansion or else why do you fight and reconcile with your opponent in a while. Why? When the Satan in you take over you your all acts will be satanic and when the saint rules you your acts will be virtuous or righteous. Everyone of us is not bereft of this attribute in point of fact. It is only a matte of degree not the question we are not one.

----------


## hellsapoppin

"I respectfully submit that both of you are egregiously incorrect in your assertions - and I say this with all due politeness."

LOL!

----------


## ByTheMane576

Ohhhhhhhh JEEZ!!!!!
Interesting signature hellsapoppin!!!!!




> Satan work for Yahweh


Ummm.... what???




> But Jesus saves.


Now I'm really lost. What religion exactly are you??




> When the Satan in you take over you your all acts will be satanic and when the saint rules you your acts will be virtuous or righteous.


So do you or don't you believe in free will??

----------


## Pendragon

> Everyone has a Satan inside, and saint siding with him, residing in the same mansion or else why do you fight and reconcile with your opponent in a while. Why? When the Satan in you take over you your all acts will be satanic and when the saint rules you your acts will be virtuous or righteous. Everyone of us is not bereft of this attribute in point of fact. It is only a matte of degree not the question we are not one.


No. All have temptation. What you do with that temptation shows what is in your heart. You know, the urge to call names on this portion of the forum ( and yes, to question a person's sanity or depth of knowledge is name calling) is strong, but it doesn't make all of us decide to give in. To the ones that do, check your heart and see if that is love or hate that rules you. It is indeed a question.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Judas130

> (My apologies, Metanoia, I fully intend to stay off your thread.)Why bother with Ten Crumbling Commandments when human nature goes against them? This is your only time around, live while you're alive! No?


because faith is built according with man's guilt. 
Satan is the force of nature within us all to embrace our animalistic side. in modern civilisation we are now doing this within the boundaries of law and civilisation. I don't think we should hide what we really are with guilt. I'd rather not have to repent or punish myself for staring at a lady's *** or thinking angry thoughts to someone who hurts my feelings. I am a man, a natural man would feel this way. If god exists, then i am told i was created in his image. Then I feel these feelings in his image, so does he not aswell? To restrain our animalistic side is to oppose God's image and to needlessly pervert the way he created us to be.

we are civilised animals governed by law, and that is how is should be kept. This religious guilt-tripping is unnecessary.

----------


## learntodiscover

> I just want to get this out of the way. I don't blindly follow a religion, and I place faith with myself before anyone or anything, Satanism has just helped open my mind to the power that was dormant within me. Satanism (the branch I follow) has lead me to to discover so many great things, not by forcing me, or threatening me, but by simply lifting a veil that has been obscuring the truth.
> 
> And placing your faith in any God can be a major risk... The Christain God was never there for me when I had faith in him. There was a time went I went to church, prayed, and followed the ways of The Bible, but That God never helped me in any way. Atleast in the religion I'm in now, allows me to tap into my own power, and make my own decision's to change my life. I don't have to wait until the after-life to get my rewards. Life is precious, and I can't sit around waiting for a God that has done nothing for me. You may judge Satan as "manipulative" but you're only seeing the negative side. The Satan I believe in can be good or evil, it comes down to how you choose to use the powers of Satan, not what Satan is or is not. Our clan, believes in maintaining balance in every aspect of our life. We as human beings, are not perfect, and we have good in us, as well as bad, just like Satan. So why should we follow the Christain God, that's not only radically different from us, but condems us for our natural human ways?


Ok, so How do you know that god has not helped you? In my belief, islam, I understand that Allah's blessings on me are great and uncountable. As an infant we are totaly helpless.......we cannot feed ourselves we cannot speak for ourselves we cannot do anything at all. How is it that we have made it through all that hardship of imense helplessness? I mention this because you said earlier that you have realised that you are your own god, then why is it that you were in that state......where you were unable to fend for yourself?.....and do you know where you will be going once you die and if you believe that you are your own god then can you prevent your death?

.....I don't mean to disrespect you, I just want you to explain your understanding and reasoning for you belief.

----------


## blazeofglory

God and man are not two things and at the end of the day this reality will turn up when both entities submerge. No dualities will remain and no disputes between believers and nonbelievers. Both believers and nonbelievers are brothers and sisters. Ideologies clash not them at all. If we discard ideologies, that are our religions we will live in perfect harmony. No fundamentalists, and fanatics, for they are breeders of such follies and come up divisive elements to split this integral worlds into so many faiths, creeds, and the like.

Let us feel we are one integral whole, people of all religions and non-religions, holy, unholy, all in tandem must be allied, in perfect coalition overcoming baser instincts to feel at one with the universe.

If I am blunt on anyone and hurt your sentiments I apologize, for these are my personal opinions, and you may have yours. I do not clash with you, but live in perfect harmony with you, and let not be my words barriers to all this, our relationship as humans.

----------

