A debate on christianity

[Spockrates]

Before, I more or less had a different political view I was more to the extreme right, I am not implying so called hate groups. But I more or less followed my dad's footsteps as the herd. During the time I became involved with Satanism by reading books from the Church Of Satan. The more I perhaps read books by LaVey, the more my veiws changed. I more or less started to distance myself from the herd mentality. Satanism has mainly taught me individuality to that extent, for example "that it does not matter of what a person's ethnic background is, it's what merits the individual." In a way it benefited me. Satanism has mainly taught me to think for myself and to not conform with the herd.

Would you say that a hardcore, left-wing liberal could not possibly be a Christian?

 

[Desert Snake]

I'll give three types of such falsity, though the fault may be in the eyes of the beholder a rather than the minds of the authors:

(1) 1 Samuel 15:3

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Personally, I cannot understand how this command demonstrates the morality of God.

* * *

(2) 1 Timothy 2:12

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Rather than outright error, I believe this to be a kind of guess, and so open to the possibility of being incorrect.

In other places Paul is fond of saying, "God does not..." Here, he says, "I do not..." So it's logical to assume he is giving his own opinion, and thus, such a premise is not immune to giving people the wrong impression that this is some kind of divine edict. There are other places where Paul makes it even more clear he is giving his own opinion on some subject in which he is unsure what God's opinion is.

I am of the opinion that Paul is mistaken. I've learned a great deal from women who have taught me.

* * *

(3) Matthew 26:26

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.'"

Rather than outright error, these words of Jesus are to me obviously ambiguous, and so open to misinterpretation. Did he mean this?

"...this [bread] is [like] my body...."

Or did he mean this?

"...this [bread] is [actually] my body...."

It is one source of contention between Catholics and some Protestants.

I haven't made up my mind what the intended meaning of Jesus' words are, and so I'm something of a Christian without a religion.

OK. I believe I'm finished editing my last post. [emoji5]

No problem. It seems to me that you are at least in part a non-literalist. That may or may not affect specific arguments.

 

[Sutekh]

Would you say that a hardcore, left-wing liberal could not possibly be a Christian?

In my own view I do not consider religion and politics to be on the same line. I view politics and religion to be both separate. I do not consider them to be related. Perhaps someone who is left wing can be a Christian, however it depends. The Republican party for example attracts the traditional religious people among its cicrlce. While the Democratic left wing party may attract the not so religious people. I would more or less fit among the left wing category. But I cannot tell you if a hardcore left wing liberal can or cannot be a christian. I cannot therefore predict your answer.

 

[Spockrates]

In my own view I do not consider religion and politics to be on the same line. I view politics and religion to be both separate. I do not consider them to be related. Perhaps someone who is left wing can be a Christian, however it depends. The Republican party for example attracts the traditional religious people among its cicrlce. While the Democratic left wing party may attract the not so religious people. I would more or less fit among the left wing category. But I cannot tell you if a hardcore left wing liberal can or cannot be a christian. I cannot therefore predict your answer.

Agreed. I'm thinking that one can reject conservatism as a political or moral philosophy and still remain Christian. So if you were to have read Liberals such as Kant, Hegel or Schleiermacher, instead of La Vey and other respected Satanists, you might have set yourself free, but have become an individual of a different kind. Would you agree?

https://bible.org/article/liberalism

 

[Spockrates]

No problem. It seems to me that you are at least in part a non-literalist. That may or may not affect specific arguments.

A Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christian might call me a anti-inspirationist, saying I don't believe every word of the Bible is inspired by God and inerrant in the original autographs. I guess I've been called worse by better.

[emoji1]

 

[Sutekh]

Agreed. I'm thinking that one can reject conservatism as a political or moral philosophy and still remain Christian. So if you were to have read Liberals such as Kant, Hegel or Schleiermacher, instead of La Vey and other respected Satanists, you might have set yourself free, but have become an individual of a different kind. Would you agree?

I would perhaps agree, however I cannot necessarily fully explain my beliefs as much to the average person as you may perhaps think. My mind works differently.

 

[Spockrates]

I would perhaps agree, however I cannot necessarily fully explain my beliefs as much to the average person as you may perhaps think. My mind works differently.

As does mine. I once took a popular personality test, the result of which was that only 1% of the people who had taken the test think as I do. Of course, such originality doesn't make me better than anyone, only different. Perhaps I'll understand your thoughts?

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

I'd be OK with discussing either Christianity or Satanism--whatever you'd enjoy most. [emoji4][emoji106]

Both will be fine.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Well, Jesus is also a lucifer (bright morning star) in Latin, as the term is not a name, but a descriptive title that can apply to anyone.

In a way I still disagree but we all have our own opinions on things.

Venus is just mythology from the ancient Greeks. It is not meant to be followed.

Lucifer does not teach anything as Lucifer is not a person/being/entity. At most, Lucifer is a bad translation that traditionally has been taken out of context.

I still do believe that Lucifer is a being.
Btw what religion are you in or do you have one?

Many people are taught wrong, so no worries.

Edit: I also wanted to touch on something else from the first quote above...

Why do you think that Satan rebelled against God? Where in the Bible does it say that? I already know the answer but I am testing your knowledge.

Alright I see then.

1. He chose to want to free people from God's slavery.
2. I am not exactly sure.
3. Testing I see.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

God regretted killing nearly everyone after the OT Flood. You don't see God apologizing for killing nearly everyone after the NT Apocalypse.

So god is basically a murderer then?

 

[Neo Deist]

I'll give three types of such falsity, though the fault may be in the eyes of the beholder a rather than the minds of the authors:

(1) 1 Samuel 15:3

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Personally, I cannot understand how this command demonstrates the morality of God.

First, you need to understand that what you read in English might not be what is meant in another language...in this case ancient Hebrew.
Second, it was common practice way back when to annihilate your enemy so that no one could avenge them. They did not want children growing up and coming after them.
Third, it was seen as an act of mercy to put children to death so that they would not grow up and become like their parents. Better for them to be in the grave than heathens in the world.
Fourth, the Bible was clearly written by men of that time period, complete with their cultural idioms, superstitions and utter nonsense.

(2) 1 Timothy 2:12

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Rather than outright error, I believe this to be a kind of guess, and so open to the possibility of being incorrect.

In other places Paul is fond of saying, "God does not..." Here, he says, "I do not..." So it's logical to assume he is giving his own opinion, and thus, such a premise is not immune to giving people the wrong impression that this is some kind of divine edict. There are other places where Paul makes it even more clear he is giving his own opinion on some subject in which he is unsure what God's opinion is.

I am of the opinion that Paul is mistaken. I've learned a great deal from women who have taught me.

The culture from that era and part of the world was very anti-woman. Heck, that backwards mentality still persists today in the Middle East. Ignore it and live in the 21st century. The Bible is often not meant to be taken literally, but rather metaphorically or
allegorically. It is quite evident that there are sections that have nothing to do with God, and everything to do with men thumping their chests while keeping women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

(3) Matthew 26:26

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.'"

Rather than outright error, these words of Jesus are to me obviously ambiguous, and so open to misinterpretation. Did he mean this?

"...this [bread] is [like] my body...."

Or did he mean this?

"...this [bread] is [actually] my body...."

It is one source of contention between Catholics and some Protestants.

I haven't made up my mind what the intended meaning of Jesus' words are, and so I'm something of a Christian without a religion.

It is metaphorical. Catholics have their beliefs, and if they are into cannibalism, so be it.Besides, the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death by a group of anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. Take them with a grain of salt.

 

[Neo Deist]

So god is basically a murderer then?

No, because the global flood never happened. Regional flood maybe, but science has already shown that a global one did not occur. Everything that happens is either because of natural law (storms, seasons, tornadoes, etc.) or from human free will (murder, rape, DUI). None of that has anything to do with God.

 

[Desert Snake]

A Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christian might call me a anti-inspirationist, saying I don't believe every word of the Bible is inspired by God and inerrant in the original autographs. I guess I've been called worse by better.

[emoji1]

That's ok. The NT isn't a part of my religious texts at all

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

No, because the global flood never happened. Regional flood maybe, but science has already shown that a global one did not occur. Everything that happens is either because of natural law (storms, seasons, tornadoes, etc.) or from human free will (murder, rape, DUI). None of that has anything to do with God.

And what about those who kill in the name of god?

 

[Neo Deist]

In a way I still disagree but we all have our own opinions on things.

I still do believe that Lucifer is a being.

Of course you disagree and believe he is a being. Otherwise your whole angle on religion/personal beliefs is complete BS and based off a lie or misunderstanding. You are expected to defend your beliefs. That is your right and freedom of choice...even if it is based on a bad translation and completely unreal.

Btw what religion are you in or do you have one?

I grew up as a Southern Baptist but now identify as a modern deist. The philosophy of deism appeals to me on a much grander scale than any other religion in the world. I use logic to discern fact from fiction, natural from supernatural, and truth from falsehood. I am an ordained minister (though I do not serve a Christian church) and I have a Th.D. in Theology (Ph.D. equivalent).

Alright I see then.

1. He chose to want to free people from God's slavery.
2. I am not exactly sure.
3. Testing I see.

Satan never rebelled against God. The lesson from earlier stated that the term satan, or as it was originally written, ha-satan, is a title that means "the adversary." If you and I were playing a game of chess, I could refer to you as ha-satan (if speaking Hebrew) because you are my adversary. Furthermore, in the NT Book of Revelation, the terms appear again in Koine Greek (original NT language) but they should be correctly translated as Adversary, not the Hebrew term Satan (which is not a name but a title). So who or what exactly is this "Satan" from the Bible? An unnamed angel/being that does God's bidding.

God, as the supreme being and creator of the universe, has absolute power (omnipotent). If Satan were truly this fallen angel and nemesis, God could simply uncreate him and be done with it. All that NT fluff about 1000 year reign and crap is just a bunch of man made nonsense.

 

[Neo Deist]

And what about those who kill in the name of god?

Crazy people are just crazy, regardless of what they attach their motives to. Free will means that God does not interfere or intervene. Therefore, God does not instruct anyone to kill in His name.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Crazy people are just crazy, regardless of what they attach their motives to. Free will means that God does not interfere or intervene. Therefore, God does not instruct anyone to kill in His name.

Then what is the point of christians saying that those who "sin" need to "ask for forgiveness"? To me what is the point for them to say that "god gives us free will"?

 

[Neo Deist]

Then what is the point of christians saying that those who "sin" need to "ask for forgiveness"? To me what is the point for them to say that "god gives us free will"?

Because they have been brainwashed into the old rhetoric that has been repeated for centuries. The Church thrives on fear and guilt trips. Once people open their minds and think for themselves, they will come to realize that what they have been traditionally taught is not actually biblical.

 

[Spockrates]

First, you need to understand that what you read in English might not be what is meant in another language...in this case ancient Hebrew.
Second, it was common practice way back when to annihilate your enemy so that no one could avenge them. They did not want children growing up and coming after them.
Third, it was seen as an act of mercy to put children to death so that they would not grow up and become like their parents. Better for them to be in the grave than heathens in the world.
Fourth, the Bible was clearly written by men of that time period, complete with their cultural idioms, superstitions and utter nonsense.

Sounds good, till I read this:

Deuteronomy 10:16-19

"Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt."

Thus the apparent contradiction.

The culture from that era and part of the world was very anti-woman. Heck, that backwards mentality still persists today in the Middle East. Ignore it and live in the 21st century. The Bible is often not meant to be taken literally, but rather metaphorically or
allegorically. It is quite evident that there are sections that have nothing to do with God, and everything to do with men thumping their chests while keeping women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

About 300 years earlier than Paul, Socrates speaks at length about a great deal of wisdom taught him by a prophetess of Delphi. But perhaps the Romans and Ancient Jewish men were more chauvinist than the Greeks?

It is metaphorical.

How do you know?

Catholics have their beliefs, and if they are into cannibalism, so be it.Besides, the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death by a group of anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

How do you know?

Take them with a grain of salt.

Perhaps I should. That remains to be seen.

 

[Spockrates]

That's ok. The NT isn't a part of my religious texts at all

[emoji4]