Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Heathen Hammer]

Prove it. Prove that Thor ripped the head of a poor, defenseless ox.

Your picking of a single facet of a tale you didn't even actually read, is not going to be entertained. Read our lore, find something that isn't a simple personal detail like 'what color were Thor's socks? NOW PROVE IT!" and get back to me.

No, it's not. As I've shown. Your assessment was hyperbole and misdirection.

It was spot on.

Not so, since you're trying to foist something upon God that clearly cannot be the case.

Oh, wait, so you're denying the Bible? Interesting.

Once again: Morality is for human beings. Why do you insist on anthropomorphizing God to the point that God is subject to arbitrary morality laws? In fact, why hold God accountable to stories that predate the God we're speaking of?

Because God presumes to be a moral teacher. thus, he must function in ways that not only instruct, but lead. And thus, he must place himself into an anthropomorphized frame of reference. or are you too, stumbling with the Dog Whisperer Fallacy? As i said, and others ahve noted: the Divine Command Theory is garbage.

Except the "rational examination" is an embarrassment, when you fail to accurately exegete the text in question.

LOL, are you also going to say the murder of millions is fine because of hermeneutics?

You're twisting the message of the story to mean something it was never meant to convey, though. I'm patently not OK with "millions dying," but that's merely a literary tool, not a historical fact. The point of the story is that God always saves a righteous remnant.

WHILE KILLING MISSIONS. That detail still remains. I realize, for your point, it's an inconvenient set of remains.. but it's still there. The story is void without it.

Israel saw itself as "God's righteous remnant." My guess is that the story was included in the compendium of sacred stories to show that that truth has always been the case. Even when the earth is destroyed (hyperbole), God saves a remnant (spiritual truth). It is relevant, because it's the theological point of telling the story.

But the theological point, created by a philosophically unsophisticated teller, has unfortunate implications, which you simply cannot ignore. If you're rational and moral, that is.

That being said, most Christians I'm acquainted with reject the whole "righteous remnant" issue. I know I certainly do. Even so, the story still speaks volumes about God's capacity to save.

And his capacity to kill, indiscriminately.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

what you have done is raise a judgment about a passage that has no critical support in our Tradition. You want our God to be as bloodthirsty, immoral and worthless as yours are. You have failed to show this.

Of course it has no support in your tradition. Your tradition would never show itself as immoral. That is left for outside analysis, based on morality and truth. Your tradition lies to itself, perhaps more than any other faith. Orwell has nothing on it.
It's not that I want your God to be bloodthirsty and immoral; he simply is, as demonstrated by his narrative.
And you so blatantly failed to prove mine are that way, with your obvious lack of insight into a narrative you failed to read, that I'm chuckling at the keyboard.

 

[Thief]

Oh, there's nothing 'hard' about it; what's so hard about you simply admitting it's completely immoral?

That's not hard at all, either.

And the word 'it' refers to what exactly?....God?
Still thinking 'it' might be gainful to accuse God of immorality?

And the term 'Almighty' means what to you?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Most graphs on the BC side show 3,000 to 4,000 years levels at a nearly horizontal line indicating a very slow curve not even noticeable until about 150 years ago. In AD 1850, an estimated one billion people lived on earth. From there it spikes straight into the stratosphere to 2008 at 6.6 billion. We live on a very tiny globe, the only place for life to exist with a suitable environment, as some have calculated it in calories and DNA life reproduction expectancy. Population Curve According to the Bible This is based a biblically cinsistent population curve that is correlated with secular population estimates.I could not get the picture of the curve copied correctly but can be found in a hundred sites. Being that the population curve is a standard asymptotic curve who's tail is virtually horizontal, then the population at the time in question was small in the low millions at most. The population in 1850 was 1 billion and that was 4000yrs later. Even if a billion people were killed in the flood it is by far less than would have had to live in the hell they would have created. This is an absolute fact because the size of the population that was killed is the starting point for adding up how many would have lived from then on.

'Small in the low millions' is really where you could have stopped. My point is, once again, underlined; thank you.

Your glowing self praiseing estimation of your accomplishment is directly preportional to the lack of merit of that claim. You must have missed the qualifier in my statement I said Justified. How can someone be convicted for a justified crime. I did not claim that all wars or killing is justified. Your your claim for falling flat falls flat. Even if your counter point had any merit at all it still falls short of there being no such thing as the justified killing of a guilty few in order to preserve an innocent many relativly innocent anyway.

It wasn't justified, though. And your petulant one-upsmanship with words is growing more immature as we progress. maybe you should take a break.

There are very few claims I have ever heard more obviously rediculous than this one of yours. His justification is absolutly related to his responsibility.
Argumentum semanticus procedural ad nausium (I can make up pointless latin as well)

Except I didn't make up pointless latin, i was using the proper phrase for your fallacy. I realize the fact that your writings are littered with them infuriates you, but.. that's your problem.

Amazing!! The point was simply that I have observed that groups of people do become unanimously evil and justifies God's claim and refutes your counterclaim. New Living Translation (©2007)
The LORD observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil.

lol, where have you observed groups of people becoming unanimously evil?? We cannot wait hear of your adventures. Wait.. was this observation - only in the Bible?

Once again claiming that which you cannot know. You have elsewhere insisted a strict adherence to the bible about this subject until it says something you don't like.

It's an obvious conclusion.

Let's see you said that surely not every one was evil who was killed at the time of the flood and provided no evidence to support this and then refered me to the bible which contains only statements that deny your assertion. What a tactic.

No, I said not everyone who was killed, could have been evil; lol what physical 'evidence' could there be had, for such a claim? the only place this claim appears is in the single tome which as I just pointed out, would not mention it, to forgo showing how God is a bloodthirsty killer of millions. It is only via outside rational dissection that this conclusion is reached. Gods, i love when you guys grasp at 'WHERES THE EVIDENCE!!1!". I don't think you understand what 'evidence' even is. The Bible isn't going to badmouth God in its own pages, genius.

I will grant you the size estimate of the ark. The Ark was between 500 and 600 ft long and a small aircraft carrier is 590 ft. That is not firm enough info for my claim so I retract it but not the point it was made for. Anyone in a time of no boats building a huge boat would have been the subject attention of everyone. My population info has already been addressed.

the attention of anyone within visual range; I think i can grant you that in return. That would barely be 100 square miles of radius. Do you know how large the Earth's landmasses are? This wasn't the Age of Information. So the information would not have disseminated to the entire millions of inhabitants. Also, 'no boats building'?

I disagree but even unreasonable things are often true. How do you justify a requirement for everything to be reasonable for it to be true many of the things known today would have been determined unreasonable five hundred years ago.

Because our reasoning today is superior, and thus, we can retroactively examine what was 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' then and come to better conclusions. The modern conclusion supercedes the previous one.

No one would conclude this judging from these posts.

No-one who wants me to be wrong would.

Yes I said humans wage war, and we spend millions (collectivly) on gathering testimonies in virtualy all cases of judgement. Are you dissagreeing with that? What is a passing-comment contest? I am not sure I want to win it.

You presented humans waging war as an 'well we do it too' excuse to allow God to do it. Two wrongs don't justify each other, and, also, I showed that we prosecute humans who do it indiscriminately or in fact, do it in the face of a huge number of different moralistic laws. laws which, if God were subject to, you would be forced to conclude his bloodthirstyness.
Essentially you shot yourself in the foot by agreeing that humans, doing what God does, are morally wrong; you then once again fail to understand that this moral idea would be self-reflexive, and if it were reversed onto God, you would have to conclude that we'd haul him up into War Crimes court for the killing of millions.

Essentially in a convoluted way, you've QED'ed several of my points for me.

You're welcome.

 

[sojourner]

Your picking of a single facet of a tale you didn't even actually read, is not going to be entertained. Read our lore, find something that isn't a simple personal detail like 'what color were Thor's socks? NOW PROVE IT!" and get back to me.

I see. You can't prove it actually happened. Fine. You're just going to attempt to turn it back on me. it won't work. You must prove what you say is fact. My point is proven by your reticence.

It was spot on.

Thanks! I haven't had such a good, hard laugh since Bush claimed that God was on "our side."

Oh, wait, so you're denying the Bible? Interesting.

I dismiss certain statements that portray God in a way that is incongruent with how we now understand God to be.

Because God presumes to be a moral teacher. thus, he must function in ways that not only instruct, but lead. And thus, he must place himself into an anthropomorphized frame of reference. or are you too, stumbling with the Dog Whisperer Fallacy?

Ever heard of Jesus? You know: God Incarnate? A leader. A teacher. Not only anthropomorphized, but fully human. "Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Humble yourself. All that sort of nasty, immoral crap.

LOL, are you also going to say the murder of millions is fine because of hermeneutics?

It's not "fine." But it's not the point of the story. To focus on that literary device is to completely miss the point of the story. Again: It's an ancient story. We no longer see God as an angry, mountain god, as the story suggests. but it's part of the aggregate Tradition of the human family. (In fact, it reveals more about us than about God.)

WHILE KILLING MISSIONS. That detail still remains. I realize, for your point, it's an inconvenient set of remains.. but it's still there. The story is void without it.

see above. Yes, it's there. So is Hitler. But you're not about to claim that Germany are a bunch of murderers, I hope. Move on! The rest of us have.

But the theological point, created by a philosophically unsophisticated teller, has unfortunate implications, which you simply cannot ignore. If you're rational and moral, that is.

Sure it does. But if you consider the source in a critical hermeneutic, you understand that those implications don't really matter. I believe Judaism does still utilize the remnant theology, but then again, they've been systematically violated over the years. The rest of us have no need for that particular aspect of theology.

And his capacity to kill, indiscriminately.

So? We just don't see God as an "indiscriminate killer" anymore. Regardless of what the Bible says. Many of us don't engage the folly of sola scriptura.

 

[jasonwill2]

[emphasis added, the first part removed]

Why in the name of all thats Holy would you reject the most tested, defended, and cherished book in the history of man and substitute it with the ravings of a con artist (Levay). My coworker said be read his satanic bible and it was by far one of the silliest books he ever read. In my research I have found him to be a poser publicity hound who is to be dismissed. Now Crowley was different, he was the real deal of course he would probably repent these days if given the chance. The end of his life was dominated by morphine addiction which is consistent with anyone who messes with Satan eventually. His last words are reported to be "I am perplexed" sounds about right.

There is a wealth of info consistent with biblical claims of possession. The claim that they are actually cases of sickness. while some are, some exhibit symptoms that defy a sickness diagnosis. For example haveing information which is unknowable to them or speaking in foreign languages unknown to them. The amityville horror while fiction is very loosly based on a well known and documented case of a boy named Robbie. The Catholic church along with others have developed techniques to rule out a mental issue. Before you make the predictable point that the church is claiming posession for some personal gain, their training includes the instructions that possession is the last conclusion that is appealed to in an investigation. These priests are to examine every other natural reason and only if every one is conclusivly ruled out then a supernatural diagnosis is considered and many times denied anyway.

A third of the world being Christian means two thirds isn't. Therfore a minority.

Being that the new testament if acknowledged is the words of Christ (God himself) they supercede anything else. You can ignore it but if you allow the new testament then you can not deny that Christs words have authority. Besides the old testament and new seem to be recording different characteristics of the same being. Are you familiar with the concept of progressive revelation?

First of all, do not mistake my beliefs for LaVey. LaVey was an atheist and a materialist. Also he wasn't a con, that is only said by either Christians who can't fathom how atheistic satanism works, or by Theistic Satanists who hold a grudge against the Church of Satan, which is partly justified by how Peter Gilmore has spoken of Theistic Satanists. The Satanic Bible isn't "silly", but to those who don't understand it. It is pragmatic living for realists.

Also Alister Crowley wasn't a Satanist in the least we actually have a topic in this in the Satanist directory... and when into it in depth.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/satanism-dir/104164-aleister-crowley-satanist.html

and his addiction was way over emphasized by people. Also I don't think it was morphine anyway. He wasn't the "real deal" of a Satanist because he wasn't a Satanist... he was the founder of Thelma and the author of the Book of Law as well as a lot of poems (such as White Stains) and a few novels (such as Moonchild). Also Satanists were not really around during his time either, at least I know of no groups. Satanism is a very young and recent religion, or rather a set of many eclectic religions ranging from Atheism to Theism.

Now you ask how I can reject The Bible, and why would I? That is pathetic to assume that your Bible is so cherished when it's only in your eyes. I reject the Bible because it is obviously false on historical, scientific, and moral grounds. These things that "back-up" the Bible are more often then not pitiful attempts by Biblical literalists and Young Earth Creationists ruining the image of their religion with their pseudo-scientific attempts.

Also any book that is in your words, "loosely based" on anything demonic, isn't credible in the least because of those two exact words.

Also by your standards of a minority, EVERY religion is a minority. The fact remains that Christianity is a majority in America as well as the world's largest religion by the sheer number of adherents. Christianity has polluted culture for thousands of years and dominated Europe for about 1,000 before the Catholics started to lose control. To say that Christianity is a minority is twisting the facts.

Also I don't care what your Christ allegedly said about The New Testament, he was dead for years when it was written.

I think you need to realize that what I was saying was that I was once a Fundamentalist, left that, and then about a year after leaving Christianity I then became a Satanist. Long before I discovered Satanism I was already rejecting The Christian Bible. The other remarks I made about the Old Testament is that the Jewish interpretations are probably how it was intended to be interpreted because it was written by them and for them. Christians grossly misunderstand Old Testament passages like the one with "Lucifer" in Isaiah.

You also do not understand another important fact: Jews do not believe in The Devil a.k.a. "Satan", because the term to them, as it was originally, is just a title that can be given to or applied to both humans and angels. And no, those angels are not fallen, in cases like The Book of Job Ha-Satan was working for Yahweh as an agent of his court. So to me to use the title "Satan" for my god is primarily a semantic reason, because of how it means "accuser". It is also true that to me Satan represents my flesh, which only amplifies the accuser and adversary parts of the meaning of the word Satan, but just because I use a word you do does not mean that I believe the same thing you do about anything. The word "Satan" has a completely different use and application to me.

Now if you have any questions about Satanism or LaVeyan Satanism in general, you can ask this in the directory and I can better answer you there. Arguing like this isn't a good way to communicate my beliefs to you, much less so when it is going into thread derails. Here is the link to the Satanism directory, me and many people can answer your questions in depth about it and why we choose our path over The Bible... just be respectful about it as per the Directory rule.

Satanism DIR - Religious Education Forum

So...
you want to steal something that's not really yours to begin with and keep it for yourself? How noble!

I'm pretty sure that my soul is mine... as well as my life. Why else would I be created with the ability to make choices unless I had spiritual autonomy?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I see. You can't prove it actually happened. Fine. You're just going to attempt to turn it back on me. it won't work. You must prove what you say is fact. My point is proven by your reticence.

Negative

I dismiss certain statements that portray God in a way that is incongruent with how we now understand God to be.

But unfortunately for you, the statements of the Bible are your only way of 'understanding God to be'. if the Bible states he slaughters millions, you ignoring those dreadfully inconvenient passages is simply hypocrisy, at best. And that's what the Bible states, in one of it's earliest passages.

Ever heard of Jesus? You know: God Incarnate? A leader. A teacher. Not only anthropomorphized, but fully human. "Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Humble yourself. All that sort of nasty, immoral crap.

If he was God incarnate, he was a bit of a hypocrite too, then.

It's not "fine." But it's not the point of the story.

the point of the story is irrelevant, especially given the slaughter it describes.

To focus on that literary device is to completely miss the point of the story. Again: It's an ancient story. We no longer see God as an angry, mountain god, as the story suggests. but it's part of the aggregate Tradition of the human family. (In fact, it reveals more about us than about God.)

Yes, it reveals you are willing to hide your dad's earlier murders, because now, we're a nice respectable family.

see above. Yes, it's there. So is Hitler. But you're not about to claim that Germany are a bunch of murderers, I hope. Move on! The rest of us have.

Wow. It doesn't get more disgusting than this, often, here, but grats.

Sure it does.

That admission was all that was needed, thank you.

So? We just don't see God as an "indiscriminate killer" anymore. Regardless of what the Bible says. Many of us don't engage the folly of sola scriptura.

I'm sorry but at this point, my statements have been essentially borne out. Appreciate it.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And the word 'it' refers to what exactly?....God?
Still thinking 'it' might be gainful to accuse God of immorality?
And the term 'Almighty' means what to you?

QED again; look, I have a lot of appreciation to spread around this thread today, but you really don't need to keep doing this.

 

[Thief]

QED again; look, I have a lot of appreciation to spread around this thread today, but you really don't need to keep doing this.

So you won't concede your stance that God is immoral?

And you are willing to take the risk and say so to His face....
at your first opportunity?

Just so I understand your conviction....

 

[Heathen Hammer]

So you won't concede your stance that God is immoral?

And you are willing to take the risk and say so to His face....
at your first opportunity?

Just so I understand your conviction....

Why should I concede my stance if it is true?

Your stance, is that to oppose him is foolish, not because it's wrong, but because he's too powerful to resist and will destroy you, if you oppose him.

There's a difference there you don't appear to understand. I've been pointing it out to you repeatedly, but... it's not sinking in.

To resist him, because he is immoral, is moral. Resisting him even in the face of his power, pushes it to being heroic.

 

[beerisit]

So you won't concede your stance that God is immoral?

And you are willing to take the risk and say so to His face....
at your first opportunity?

Just so I understand your conviction....

To do it to his face?
Oh my gawddddddddddd.
How scary is that?
Oh dear!

 

[1robin]

That would also be God's fault. He can predict how human psychology works; he's therefore entirely responsible for its impact.

Your statement is emphatically denied by the God of the bible. True love only flows from free will. If you have set up circumstances that guarranty or force love or belief it isn't genuine. A suffecient reason to love and believe must be made available with freewill to get a genuine love or belief. You are trying to assign a philosophy formulated by finite minds onto an infinate one.

 

[sojourner]

the statements of the Bible are your only way of 'understanding God to be'.

I don't buy sola scriptura, so, no, the Bible is not my only source of understanding God.

If he was God incarnate, he was a bit of a hypocrite too, then.

Inflammatory, provocative and hyperbolic.

the point of the story is irrelevant

How in the world can the whole point of the story be irrelevant???

Yes, it reveals you are willing to hide your dad's earlier murders, because now, we're a nice respectable family.

It reveals the fact that people tended to want to kill off what they didnt' understand -- or what they disagreed with.

Wow. It doesn't get more disgusting than this, often, here, but grats.

You're right. It doesn't. So why do you insist in dwelling on it?

That admission was all that was needed, thank you.

You're welcome. I hope you don't "hide" the rest of the story, and simply "dismiss" it as being "irrelevant."

I'm sorry but at this point, my statements have been essentially borne out.

Oh, I see. So you are going to hide what you don't like.
Thank you for your honesty about your dishonesty here.

 

[sojourner]

Why should I concede my stance if it is true?

Your stance, is that to oppose him is foolish, not because it's wrong, but because he's too powerful to resist and will destroy you, if you oppose him.

There's a difference there you don't appear to understand. I've been pointing it out to you repeatedly, but... it's not sinking in.

To resist him, because he is immoral, is moral. Resisting him even in the face of his power, pushes it to being heroic.

Sorry. I don't think you've proven that God is immoral.

 

[1robin]

'Small in the low millions' is really where you could have stopped. My point is, once again, underlined; thank you.

I thought I had edited that out but must have mistakenly left it. The curve was from secular sources. I should have said that it is consistent with the bible. All population curves I have seen are roughly equivalent to the one I mentioned.

It wasn't justified, though. And your petulant one-upsmanship with words is growing more immature as we progress. maybe you should take a break.

There is so much bad logic used to attack the bible and so little time I can't take a break. You are obviously not a competent authority with the knowledge to make the judgment.

Except I didn't make up pointless latin, i was using the proper phrase for your fallacy. I realize the fact that your writings are littered with them infuriates you, but.. that's your problem.

The use for which I used numbers is valid no matter how much Latin you can spew.

lol, where have you observed groups of people becoming unanimously evil?? We cannot wait hear of your adventures. Wait.. was this observation - only in the Bible?

I have seen groups of people when I was in the service that I could not detect a single benevolent action. This criteria is unrequired regardless. There only has to be suffecient evil to justify judgment.

It's an obvious conclusion.

If the maker is omnipotent. Your not are you?

No, I said not everyone who was killed, could have been evil; lol what physical 'evidence' could there be had, for such a claim? the only place this claim appears is in the single tome which as I just pointed out, would not mention it, to forgo showing how God is a bloodthirsty killer of millions. It is only via outside rational dissection that this conclusion is reached. Gods, i love when you guys grasp at 'WHERES THE EVIDENCE!!1!". I don't think you understand what 'evidence' even is. The Bible isn't going to badmouth God in its own pages, genius.

There is far less evidence for your counter claim of God's evil. You then claim the flood account only known from the bible was evil, then claim the bible would never record God's evil. That's self contradictory. If you attack God because "It's in the bible" you can't reject qualifiers because "they are found in the bible".

the attention of anyone within visual range; I think i can grant you that in return. That would barely be 100 square miles of radius. Do you know how large the Earth's landmasses are? This wasn't the Age of Information. So the information would not have disseminated to the entire millions of inhabitants. Also, 'no boats building'?

That's rediculous that info would have went everywhere people were in no time. There have been experiments that have shown that as fact. The population was not scattered all over the earth at this time according to the bible. They were in a fairly small geographical area. Basically Mesepotamia. I am not sure I am not missremembering about it being the first boat or the first rain. It doesn't matter anyway this event would have attracted everyones attention as there had never been aything else of this magnatude before.

Because our reasoning today is superior, and thus, we can retroactively examine what was 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' then and come to better conclusions. The modern conclusion supercedes the previous one.

Things like love, self sacrifice, and quantum physics seem unreasonable etc...... I don't think you understood the point anyway.

No-one who wants me to be wrong would.

I don't want you to be wrong I want you to argue in a reasonable manner and only cliam what you actually can know.

u presented humans waging war as an 'well we do it too' excuse to allow God to do it. Two wrongs don't justify each other, and, also, I showed that we prosecute humans who do it indiscriminately or in fact, do it in the face of a huge number of different moralistic laws. laws which, if God were subject to, you would be forced to conclude his bloodthirstyness.

No I did not. I mentioned we do things similar to God that are considered honorable so why consider the flood as dishonorable.

Essentially you shot yourself in the foot by agreeing that humans, doing what God does, are morally wrong; you then once again fail to understand that this moral idea would be self-reflexive, and if it were reversed onto God, you would have to conclude that we'd haul him up into War Crimes court for the killing of millions.

You just don't get it. It was an argument for the vadiity of witness testimony. And a correlation I mentioned above.

Essentially in a convoluted way, you've QED'ed several of my points for me.

You're welcome.[/quote]

 

[PolyHedral]

Your statement is emphatically denied by the God of the bible. True love only flows from free will. If you have set up circumstances that guarranty or force love or belief it isn't genuine. A suffecient reason to love and believe must be made available with freewill to get a genuine love or belief. You are trying to assign a philosophy formulated by finite minds onto an infinate one.

Then God is deceiving me by withholding information. Also, if God is genuinely unable to predict human behaviour, then he is hardly intelligent enough to have the title.

It's actually quite easy to prove things with a finite mind. Not even God can make pi rational.

 

[sojourner]

Then God is deceiving me by withholding information. Also, if God is genuinely unable to predict human behaviour, then he is hardly intelligent enough to have the title.

It's actually quite easy to prove things with a finite mind. Not even God can make pi rational.

If we "withhold information" about nuclear physics from a two-year-old, how is that deception? it merely means that the subject is incomprehensible to such a person.

 

[PolyHedral]

If we "withhold information" about nuclear physics from a two-year-old, how is that deception? it merely means that the subject is incomprehensible to such a person.

God can explain everything and anything if he is at all deserving of the title.

 

[1robin]

First of all, do not mistake my beliefs for LaVey. LaVey was an atheist and a materialist. Also he wasn't a con, that is only said by either Christians who can't fathom how atheistic satanism works, or by Theistic Satanists who hold a grudge against the Church of Satan, which is partly justified by how Peter Gilmore has spoken of Theistic Satanists. The Satanic Bible isn't "silly", but to those who don't understand it. It is pragmatic living for realists.

See the Occult Crime webpage and you'll notice a disproportionate number of crimes committed by Satanists. There's a reason for that, and it all can't be dismissed as "Satanic panic".

Myth 3. LaVey claimed his parents were Joseph and Augusta LaVey.
Myth 4. LaVey claimed he was introduced to the Dark Side by his Transylvanian Gypsy grandmother, who regaled him as a child with supernatural folklore and tales of vampires and werewolves.But his grandmother was not Transylvanian nor of Gypsy stock.
Myth 5. In 1945 the 15-year-old Anton LaVey was brought to the ruins of postwar Germany by his uncle, a U.S. Coast Guard officer. There the teenaged Anton LaVey was shown top-secret films inspired by Satanic cult lodges and their rituals. Anton LaVey claimed that the "German" rituals in his 1972 book The Satanic Rituals were actual transcripts of the filmed rituals he saw as a youth.In fact, little Howie spent the entirety of 1945 in suburban northern California, and never visited Germany at any time in his life. Myth 7. In 1947 Anton LaVey ran away from home and joined the Clyde Beatty Circus. But the reality is, the voluminous Beatty archives show no record of a "Levey" or "LaVey" as lion tamer or musician.
Myth 8. : In 1948 the 18-year-old Anton LaVey was engaged to play organ at the Mayan burlesque theater in Los Angeles. There he met a young stripper named Marilyn Monroe, with whom he had a passionate love affair in the period before her rise to film stardom. He lied! LaVey never knew Monroe.
Myth 9. Anton LaVey was exposed to the savagery of human nature during his stint as a San Francisco Police photographer in the early 1950s. The San Francisco Police Department past employment records includes no "Howard Levey" or "Anton LaVey".
Myth 10. Anton LaVey studied criminology at San Francisco City College during the Korean War. SFCC has no record of Anton LaVey's enrollment at any time. LaVey was, in fact, a high school dropout
Myth 11. Anton LaVey earned a Doctorate Degree. Anton LaVey is often referred to as "Dr. LaVey", but LaVey never actually earned a doctorate; he simply awarded himself a "Doctorate of Satanic Theology". The Church of Satan was not authorized to grant degrees

ANTON LAVEY - Visit usminc.org for all your questions about Anton Lavey
Looks like a con-man to me

Also Alister Crowley wasn't a Satanist in the least we actually have a topic in this in the Satanist directory... and when into it in depth.

Whatever you call him he was the real thing. He was sincere and absolutly devoted to his occult efforts.

and his addiction was way over emphasized by people.

Do you realise how many times just in our simple short discussions you have had to reject well known facts.

Now you ask how I can reject The Bible, and why would I? That is pathetic to assume that your Bible is so cherished when it's only in your eyes.

What in the world was that? It is the most popular book in human history. At least 2 billion people alive today believe in it, as well as billions more throughout history.

I reject the Bible because it is obviously false on historical, scientific, and moral grounds. These things that "back-up" the Bible are more often then not pitiful attempts by Biblical literalists and Young Earth Creationists ruining the image of their religion with their pseudo-scientific attempts.

The bible has 25,000 confirmed historical claims with no verifiably false historical claims. It is used by professional archeologists as a primary resource.

Also any book that is in your words, "loosely based" on anything demonic, isn't credible in the least because of those two exact words

. I don't remember what this is in answer to.

Also by your standards of a minority, EVERY religion is a minority. The fact remains that Christianity is a majority in America as well as the world's largest religion by the sheer number of adherents. Christianity has polluted culture for thousands of years and dominated Europe for about 1,000 before the Catholics started to lose control. To say that Christianity is a minority is twisting the facts.

Polluted huh: Some well respected scholars disagree.
A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciple’s feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
– James Stewart, Scottish theologian
"[The character of Jesus] has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists." W.E.H Lecky

Jesus is the supreme example of moral conduct known to man.
ME

Also I don't care what your Christ allegedly said about The New Testament, he was dead for years when it was written.

So? The witnesses were not.

I think you need to realize that what I was saying was that I was once a Fundamentalist, left that, and then about a year after leaving Christianity I then became a Satanist. Long before I discovered Satanism I was already rejecting The Christian Bible. The other remarks I made about the Old Testament is that the Jewish interpretations are probably how it was intended to be interpreted because it was written by them and for them. Christians grossly misunderstand Old Testament passages like the one with "Lucifer" in Isaiah.

I don't think your opinion counts more than a concensus of biblical commentators and scholars.

You also do not understand another important fact: Jews do not believe in The Devil a.k.a. "Satan", because the term to them, as it was originally, is just a title that can be given to or applied to both humans and angels. And no, those angels are not fallen, in cases like The Book of Job Ha-Satan was working for Yahweh as an agent of his court. So to me to use the title "Satan" for my god is primarily a semantic reason, because of how it means "accuser". It is also true that to me Satan represents my flesh, which only amplifies the accuser and adversary parts of the meaning of the word Satan, but just because I use a word you do does not mean that I believe the same thing you do about anything. The word "Satan" has a completely different use and application to me.

So roaming the earth roaring as a lion seeking whom he could devour is a benevolent statement. The old testament refers to Satan as a fallen angel not a generic force.


I know enough about satan as it is. I have no desire to research the distorted information about a malignent being. But you have been interesting, even though you have confirmed my take on satanists.

I'm pretty sure that my soul is mine... as well as my life. Why else would I be created with the ability to make choices unless I had spiritual autonomy?

You are given probationary use of a soul and freewill. You created neither.

 

[1robin]

God can explain everything and anything if he is at all deserving of the title.

The fact that he can or could does not mean he will. He has suffecient reasons (not known to us) to conceal information and you have no rational basis to demand or expect that he should do differently.