Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

[Orias]

What God are you reffering to? The God of the bible's vengence and justice is as terrible and absolute as his love is infinate. He even says he will destroy satan in the end. The assertion alone is insuffecient to establish it's claim as a fact and therefore impotent. Quote where I said assertions can't be facts. I will give you that, believe in, would have been better word choice than worship however the point still stands.

That depends on which bible you are referring to.

According to the Canaanites, the only similarities we share is our belief in Mot (Yahweh). Even then, I'm not so convinced, I mostly appreciate the idea.

Other than that, anything you ascribe your God to be is purely biblical and mine is not.

My God, involves all Gods and not.

Aside from that, I don't "believe in Satan" as a being, I believe in him as a symbol, a metaphor, and perhaps a key to knowing the "true God".

That is an interesting observation. For a satanist to have faith he must rely on revelation no more valid than mine for God.

And what revelation is that?

We both accept revelation as truth and so within the context of our accepted truths it was a true statement but a relative one. I would not have said the same thing to a non satanist that does not have the same basis for faith that I do. Your point is well taken but inapplicable in my context.

And for what faith do I share base with you?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I brought up the fact that Christ commissioned his apostleship and you have no sufficient reason to question it. You are the one that linked the two. You suggested he wasn't a trained professional apostle (whatever that is) I pointed out he had more relevant training than any of them, not that that made him an apostle. The decision of Christ is the only requirement for apostleship.
That is why he met the resurrected Christ. He knows more about the subject than anyone and infinitely more than you, and he claimed it was Christ and his entire life after that is consistent with that claim.
If it is a piece of church history then it is fact. If it only existed as tradition it might or might not be.

Were it either you of all people would never know the difference.

Christ already being dead, is sufficient reason to doubt it. As I have maintained, the evidence points to the fact that Paul simply lied about his vision. He was not trained at the foot of the live Jesus, therefore he was self-appointed with a lie told of a vision; his incompetence at teaching at the beginning and the fact the prophetic Jesus never said zilch about him being on the way soon, seals it.

But how did Paul first meet Peter and what was the purpose of this meeting? We only have Paul’s account of this, found in Galatians 1:18. According to his recollection his first encounter with Peter happened in Jerusalem, three years after his dramatic conversion. Paul emphasizes the time factor because he is establishing that he "did not even receive it [the Gospel] from a human person, nor was I taught, but through revelation of Jesus Messiah" (Galatians 1:12). His first contact with the apostles of Jesus and Peter in particular occurred three years after the Damascus Road revelation of Jesus as risen Lord to Paul. The point is that Paul’s understanding of the Gospel comes directly from Jesus, as the apostles’ full understanding of that same Gospel came directly from post-resurrection encounters with the risen Lord. When the three leading Jerusalem apostles "add nothing" to Paul’s grasp of the Gospel (Galatians 2:6), they agreed that Paul too "was entrusted with the Gospel" (Galatians 2:7). Paul says that his initial interaction with Peter came upon his own initiative. He "went up to Jerusalem to inquire (hi

storēsai) of Cephas" "(Galatians 1:17) and visited with him for fourteen days. What exactly happened during those exchanges is confined to our interpretation of this verb historēsai, variously interpreted as "visit" (NRSV), "get acquainted with" (NIV), "get to know" (NLT). Paul’s use of this word indicates that his visit was more than a social call. But can we be any more specific?97. The Purpose of Paul
As you can see your view is a fringe position about Peters experience and there was nothing ominous about their meeting. There is much more at this site if care anything about knowing the subject.

Your appeals to popularity are dismissed.

Paul wrote those books, so he said what he needed to say [all lies] to establish himself.

I have given you more than enough scripture and the position I have stated is obvious and virtually universal. There seems to be no way for truth to penetrate your wall of bias and so I will not waste anymore time trying to show you that water is wet.

Here is an entire paper that details why you are completely and utterly wrong by none other than Charles Spurgeon.
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols25-27/chs1567.pdf

Who?

When I said Gospels I meant it as a label not a description. It is contained in the gospels but not necessarily more than one but within the group. I will have to give you a pass on this one. I think this was an honest missunderstanding.

A clumsy excuse. You are not in the position to give me a pass, as it was you making the huge mistake, which you then try to brush off as inconsequential; that is a very public habit of yours here. And I am disinclined to give you a pass.

Will you produce the statement I made about seperate crucifixions.

It was quoted immediately before my post. that's what quotes are for, to show what one is responding to. Im not quoting it again, go look at the post.

I searched the internet and can't find a scrap of info for a modern organised religion of Odin. It is apparently not significant enough even for criticism.
What I have said was in no way a lie, but I will admit innacurate. I did as I said search for your "religion" at least twice but could not find a scrap of anything on it, of course I did not use the terms Odinism or Odinic whatever they mean. Oh and consider my statements about your reluctance that even though were patially true withdrawn. You see how that honor and ethics things works I have been telling you about to no avail. From what I have found so far it appears that my religion ate your religion. Of course I am joking but it seems all the Odins converted. Are there any practiceing Odins these days or are you the last of the Odinhicans?

You would love to think this, but if you actually read anything at all, you'd see that your faith's best efforts were as clumsy, and ultimately full of Fail, as is your own personal thought capacity, or even your ability to spell and write grammatically in your native tongue. If you wish to know how many we are, where we are in politics [both abroad and right here in the US, including in my own home city], you can learn to use the internet all on your own.

I've certainly had a fun time displaying your complete inability to the world; thank you for the entertainment.

 

[1robin]

Were it either you of all people would never know the difference.

What the heck is this? Talk about grammar.

Christ already being dead, is sufficient reason to doubt it. As I have maintained, the evidence points to the fact that Paul simply lied about his vision. He was not trained at the foot of the live Jesus, therefore he was self-appointed with a lie told of a vision; his incompetence at teaching at the beginning and the fact the prophetic Jesus never said zilch about him being on the way soon, seals it.

His death is no reason to dismiss anything. To discuss Christianity we have to assume the supernatural. Since any supernatural event is as improbable as the next you can't keep some and dismiss others. Besides his whole life after their meeting was consistent with the event. He did not need to be trained by Jesus. He was not to add a fifth gospel on the life of Christ. If four isn’t enough what good would 5 or 50 be. He was to facilitate the transition from law to grace and he was extremely suited to this. Argument from silence x 2and hereby rejected.

Your appeals to popularity are dismissed.

That might matter if that was all I said.

Paul wrote those books, so he said what he needed to say [all lies] to establish himself.

Prove it.

Who?

If you don't know then It's pointless.

A clumsy excuse. You are not in the position to give me a pass, as it was you making the huge mistake, which you then try to brush off as inconsequential; that is a very public habit of yours here. And I am disinclined to give you a pass.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with my statement. If I said there is a bird in those trees that is the same thing are perfectly acceptable. I finally found something I could agree with you on and you want to argue with that. Are you an employee of Monty Pythons argument clinic?

It was quoted immediately before my post. that's what quotes are for, to show what one is responding to. I’m not quoting it again, go look at the post.

NO

You would love to think this, but if you actually read anything at all, you'd see that your faith's best efforts were as clumsy, and ultimately full of Fail, as is your own personal thought capacity, or even your ability to spell and write grammatically in your native tongue. If you wish to know how many we are, where we are in politics [both abroad and right here in the US, including in my own home city], you can learn to use the internet all on your own.

Well why is mine here and includes yours former members. They must be sleeper cells because they are very quiet. Actually now that I know a little about it I have lost interest and with your grammar critique as well. It is always a last act of desperation to pick on grammar. Grammer: "The last refuge of a scoundrel". I don't usually stoop to that and consider it hypocritical since your posts are not any works of art themselves. I made an exception in your first statement to point this out.

I've certainly had a fun time displaying your complete inability to the world; thank you for the entertainment.

Where exactly did you perform this marvelous feat at? I would like to share in the laugh. Anyone who unjustly claims victory this much is undoubtedly covering for the fact he doesn't actually have it. "He who speaks does not know, He who knows does not speak"

 

[1robin]

That depends on which bible you are referring to.

You know exactly which one I am referring to. The one with the most by far verifiable facts. The one that has been studied and trusted more than any book in human history. The one that contains the only rational explanations to lifes most important issues, purpose, origin, meaning, and destination. You are quivocating for equivocations sake. I am of course referring to the original revelations contained in the biblical canon.

According to the Canaanites, the only similarities we share is our belief in Mot (Yahweh). Even then, I'm not so convinced, I mostly appreciate the idea.

I believe you are referring to the original concept of balance believed in first by the egyptians but I have no idea why that is relevant. Since the Cannanites were completely evil and wiped out by God there is nothing they believed that has any value for me.

Other than that, anything you ascribe your God to be is purely biblical and mine is not

.The bible says thatNew International Version(©1984)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. So that point is incorrect. There is also a spiritual experience component to God that I have experienced.

My God, involves all Gods and not.

Care to explain this self contradictory statement. I can't wait.

Aside from that, I don't "believe in Satan" as a being, I believe in him as a symbol, a metaphor, and perhaps a key to knowing the "true God".

OK, I think.

And what revelation is that?

You rely on revealed revelation, empirical data, spritual experience, and reason. Or some combination there of. So do I and everyone else.

And for what faith do I share base with you?

I was assuming that like other satanists I have talked with that you believe in revelation. If not you are the first I have met.

 

[Orias]

You know exactly which one I am referring to. The one with the most by far verifiable facts. The one that has been studied and trusted more than any book in human history. The one that contains the only rational explanations to lifes most important issues, purpose, origin, meaning, and destination. You are quivocating for equivocations sake. I am of course referring to the original revelations contained in the biblical canon.

All I know is that the bible was most likely polytheistic at its beginning, and had a boxing match with itself and then decided to take on the more evidently dominate God in the end.

I believe you are referring to the original concept of balance believed in first by the egyptians but I have no idea why that is relevant. Since the Cannanites were completely evil and wiped out by God there is nothing they believed that has any value for me.

No I was merely describing the Canaanite God of Death, Mot, which in later times is revealed to be Yahweh.

Aside from the reference, it can also be literally observed in Christianity's epic destruction of all foreign and imposing tribes. Death truly does wake in the waves of the Christians.

But thats not a concern of mine, since the concept "death" is relative to every living being.

Remember though, metaphors.

The bible says thatNew International Version(©1984)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. So that point is incorrect. There is also a spiritual experience component to God that I have experienced.

Thanks for backing up your biblical God, like I said

Care to explain this self contradictory statement. I can't wait.

It contradicts you, other than that my definitions of God are pretty efficient with all statements I make in reference of him.

OK, I think.

Are you sure?

You rely on revealed revelation, empirical data, spritual experience, and reason. Or some combination there of. So do I and everyone else.

Saying I rely on experience is different than saying I rely on faith.

To have faith in the words I say, is different than to have faith in what you will take from them.

I was assuming that like other satanists I have talked with that you believe in revelation. If not you are the first I have met.

Have you actually met a Satanist?

I doubt it, let alone have a truthful and upholding conversation with one.

I believe in change, the evolution of our manifest and invocation. If this makes us supernatural entities, I guess I could believe in what you call revelation.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

What the heck is this? Talk about grammar.

That sentence is grammatically correct, son.

His death is no reason to dismiss anything.

It's the perfect reason.

To discuss Christianity we have to assume the supernatural.

No we don't. It can be, and has been, examined as a myth-following which occurred in the real world.

Since any supernatural event is as improbable as the next you can't keep some and dismiss others.

Well, that's one spot where you are correct. When we discuss the bible I dismiss them all. That is one reason why I keep telling you that Paul's vision was an obvious lie. If you retained a single piece of stuff you've read preciously you might have gotten that.

Besides his whole life after their meeting was consistent with the event.

Not really.

He did not need to be trained by Jesus. He was not to add a fifth gospel on the life of Christ. If four isn’t enough what good would 5 or 50 be.

There were no gospels for him to consider. This is a ridiculous point.

He was to facilitate the transition from law to grace and he was extremely suited to this. Argument from silence x 2and hereby rejected.

Yours is the argument from silence.

Prove it.

I have offered a totally plausible theory via deduction based on the evidence. Prove he didn't.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with my statement.

It was as I stated.

NO

Ignorant

Well why is mine here and includes yours former members. They must be sleeper cells because they are very quiet.

Mine is here as well,. You simply display an almost unbelievable level of ignorance, backed by demonstrably false statements. Really, you couldn't give a much weaker showing. I guess the ways of an addict die very hard - in the gutter, smelling of unmentionable substances.

It is always a last act of desperation to pick on grammar. Grammer: "The last refuge of a scoundrel". I don't usually stoop to that and consider it hypocritical since your posts are not any works of art themselves. I made an exception in your first statement to point this out.

"Grammar"
It's just another demonstration of your lack of ability. You essentially bring a crayon to a gunfight. In the beginning I at least was trying to teach you how to properly spell the words you kept using. Then I saw others were doing it too. And you kept making the same mistakes. So at this point it's probably just an added dig at your sinking ship.

 

[1robin]

All I know is that the bible was most likely polytheistic at its beginning, and had a boxing match with itself and then decided to take on the more evidently dominate God in the end.

Where in the world do you get that? The bibles text itself suggest one God over and over as a vital core issue.

No I was merely describing the Canaanite God of Death, Mot, which in later times is revealed to be Yahweh.

This does not appear to be accurate. Yahweh was not a Canaanite god, and modern scholars see him originating in Edom, the region south of Judah. Originally the main god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, worship of Yahweh alone (monotheism) became entrenched in Judaism in the exilic and Persian periods.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
The hypothesis of a Canaanite deity named Yahweh or Yahwi[1] is accepted by some Ancient Near Eastern scholars,[2] although no direct evidence from archeology has been found. The name Yahwi may possibly be found in some male Amorite names.[3] Yahu may be found in a place name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)

The concept or Ja
Aside from the reference, it can also be literally observed in Christianity's epic destruction of all foreign and imposing tribes. Death truly does wake in the waves of the Christians.

First they were not Christians. Second they only destoyed a very few tribes. Most of their enemies were not destroyed. These tribes were all said to be absolutely corrupt and God gave them meny chances to repent and they refused. I could explain the reasons and point out how this was an exception and not the rule if you need.

But thats not a concern of mine, since the concept "death" is relative to every living being.

Even as a Christian I regard these events as important and relevant. I have spent a lot of time finding out why God did this back then and have arrived at the conclusion that it was just and consistent with his purpose. However I understand anyones trouble reconcileing these event with a loving God.

Thanks for backing up your biblical God, like I said

I do not understand the relevance of this response. I was pointing out that there are other ways to discover God than what is found in the bible.

It contradicts you, other than that my definitions of God are pretty efficient with all statements I make in reference of him.

No statement that can't survive its self can address another subject. Your statement implodes within its self. Any statement that makes two contradictory claims to truth can't possibly be true.

Are you sure?

It was hard to figure what you said out so I chose to agree because I saw no absolute incorrect claims in it.

Saying I rely on experience is different than saying I rely on faith.
To have faith in the words I say, is different than to have faith in what you will take from them.

The majority of the things people believe are actualy based on faith if examined carefully. For example the entire field of science is based on faith in a rational universe. You make hundreds of faith based decisions every day. Regardless faith wasn't in my list so why are we discussing it.

Have you actually met a Satanist?
I doubt it, let alone have a truthful and upholding conversation with one.

I do not think I have ever met one in person. I have listen to their attempts at debateing and talked to them in forums. You are more thanwelcome to point out a missunderstanding I have concerning satanism. I have also researched levay and Crowley to some extent.

I believe in change, the evolution of our manifest and invocation. If this makes us supernatural entities, I guess I could believe in what you call revelation.

We are material beings with a supernatural soul and spirit IMO. So I did mischaracterize your position or not?

 

[1robin]

That sentence is grammatically correct, son.

Don't call me son if you want to discuss anything with me. One of my greatest pleasures as of late has been the fact that I am unrelated to you. Your statement is in dire need of a comma.

It's the perfect reason.

Maybe in the bizzaro world you live in. Why is it you arrogantly think we pathetic humans have the capability to grasp all concepts of reality. Supernatural things are likely simply a dimension of reality that we have no way to detect as of yet. Of course I am assuming you are not omniscient (to which you probably disagree).

No we don't. It can be, and has been, examined as a myth-following which occurred in the real world.

By your rational any abstract non empirical concept is there for nonexistent. Good scholarship, you have just eliminated a large part of what makes us human.

Well, that's one spot where you are correct. When we discuss the bible I dismiss them all. That is one reason why I keep telling you that Paul's vision was an obvious lie. If you retained a single piece of stuff you've read preciously you might have gotten that.

What does read preciously mean? By dismissing them all you have guaranteed your eventual dismissal.

Not really.

Yes really. It sure is easy to make bare assertions, no wonder you have adopted the practice.

There were no gospels for him to consider. This is a ridiculous point.

I did not say he chose not to. I said that was his purpose, from God's perspective there were four other Gospels of Christ’s life.

Yours is the argument from silence.

Nice parrot work. Since that is exactly what he did and since Jesus would have known that when he chose him then it is not so silent after all.

I have offered a totally plausible theory via deduction based on the evidence. Prove he didn't.

It wasn't my claim it was yours "Paul wrote those books, so he said what he needed to say [all lies] to establish himself." and the burden is yours. Besides you are the one that demands empirical evidence (unless it is inconvenient apparently)so once again your burden. Theologian consensus developed over 1500+ years is a far better "theory" than yours.

It was as I stated.

In the world the rest of us live in your mere assertions are meaningless.

Mine is here as well,. You simply display an almost unbelievable level of ignorance, backed by demonstrably false statements. Really, you couldn't give a much weaker showing. I guess the ways of an addict die very hard - in the gutter, smelling of unmentionable substances.

In the Early Middle Ages the Vikings and the Lombards, among other people, still worshipped Odin, but by the later Middle Ages nearly all of the people who worshipped Odin had converted to Christianity, and hardly anyone worshipped Odin anymore.
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/germans/religion/odin.htm
That site is for children so you may be able to comprehend it.
HISTORY:
Ásatrú / Odinism is an ancient, Ancestral, pre-Christian religion that originated in the Northern, Eastern and Western parts of Europe thousands of years ago. It was "officially" eliminated about 800 years ago by the "Church," when the King of Sweden, who had been the last official hold-out, finally converted to Christianity. At that point (1,200 years after the appearance of Jesus) the whole of Europe finally became "Christianized,".
http://odin.org/intro.html

"Grammar"
It's just another demonstration of your lack of ability. You essentially bring a crayon to a gunfight. In the beginning I at least was trying to teach you how to properly spell the words you kept using. Then I saw others were doing it too. And you kept making the same mistakes. So at this point it's probably just an added dig at your sinking ship.

Just like a losing sports team’s diversionary blame cast on the referees and the sun in their eyes or the other team cheated. Your diversionary hypocritical efforts are a desperate diversionary waste of time. I also regard the silly use of emoticons as a substitute for actually not being able to make the point yourself and so an appeal to a diversionary pictorial substitute.

 

[Orias]

Where in the world do you get that? The bibles text itself suggest one God over and over as a vital core issue.

Thats something you were likely taught.

Considering the bible has changed numerous times throughout its existence, it has been proven that the early bible was polytheistic in design.

This does not appear to be accurate. Yahweh was not aCanaanite god, and modern scholars see him originating in Edom, the region south of Judah. Originally the main god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, worship of Yahweh alone (monotheism) became entrenched in Judaism in the exilic and Persian periods.[3]
Yahweh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The hypothesis of a Canaanite deity named Yahweh or Yahwi[1] is accepted by some Ancient Near Eastern scholars,[2] although no direct evidence from archeology has been found. The name Yahwi may possibly be found in some male Amorite names.[3] Yahu may be found in a place name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)

Whether or not it seems accurate to you is irrelevant, since archeological discoveries have little to do with gods and their pantheons.

Aside from that, Yahweh's first notable appearance can be found in Gen 2:4.

But really, the Old Testament has numerous descriptions and names of God, which match with the gods of the pre-bible era.

First they were not Christians. Second they only destoyed a very few tribes. Most of their enemies were not destroyed. These tribes were all said to be absolutely corrupt and God gave them meny chances to repent and they refused. I could explain the reasons and point out how this was an exception and not the rule if you need.

First off they were Christians, thats what they called themselves and thats what they fought for. The rest is purely propaganda and what is commonly taught at sunday school.

Even as a Christian I regard these events as important and relevant. I have spent a lot of time finding out why God did this back then and have arrived at the conclusion that it was just and consistent with his purpose. However I understand anyones trouble reconcileing these event with a loving God.

Sure.

I do not understand the relevance of this response. I was pointing out that there are other ways to discover God than what is found in the bible.

No, you used the bible to reference your claim.

Which was my point.

No statement that can't survive its self can address another subject. Your statement implodes within its self. Any statement that makes two contradictory claims to truth can't possibly be true.

This doesn't make sense, if your statements can't survive itself then how can you expect to address subjects outside of your own contradiction.

Like I said, it contradicts you and nothing else.

It was hard to figure what you said out so I chose to agree because I saw no absolute incorrect claims in it.

The words I said are easy to understand.

The majority of the things people believe are actualy based on faith if examined carefully. For example the entire field of science is based on faith in a rational universe. You make hundreds of faith based decisions every day. Regardless faith wasn't in my list so why are we discussing it.

Again, there is a difference between my faith in the words I say and my faith in how it will affect you.

I do not think I have ever met one in person. I have listen to their attempts at debateing and talked to them in forums. You are more thanwelcome to point out a missunderstanding I have concerning satanism. I have also researched levay and Crowley to some extent.

You're first mistake is assuming "Satanists", you can't generalize them as easy as it is to generalize the typical Christian.

It should be obvious why.

We are material beings with a supernatural soul and spirit IMO. So I did mischaracterize your position or not?

My position changes daily, I'm just along for the ride.

 

[1robin]

Thats something you were likely taught.

First of all how could you possibly know what I was taught. Second you can check what I said against a modern accepted bible version or the oldest codex and you will find it absolutely true. It is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of objective fact what the bible says.

Considering the bible has changed numerous times throughout its existence, it has been proven that the early bible was polytheistic in design.

I love a good scholarly challenge, this aint it. I have already researched some of your points and found them to be on the very outer fringe of accepted beliefs. I have spent many hours a week reading the bible and researching it's textual tradition. I have watched every major debate available on textual criticism. I have never heard a reputable scholar suggest what you are suggesting. We have actual copies of codex that go back to a time soon enough after Christ that scholars have determined was far to short for myth to develope. They are 95% accurate to any mainstream modern bible. You are just making up this stuff or asserting very little belived things as mainstream scholarship. Just asserting things doesn't make them true. Since the oldest Codexs' and the writings of the church fathers that go back to within a few years of Christ assert the very opposite to what you claim then please provide proof of what you say.

Whether or not it seems accurate to you is irrelevant, since archeological discoveries have little to do with gods and their pantheons.

It can and does say a lot about who and what a society believed. It however does not prove them correct. In this case it is about the who and what not the actual existence of the who and what. Regardless by your standards then your original claim is invalid in addition to being wrong, because there is no other method than the one you dismiss to have justified your claim.

Aside from that, Yahweh's first notable appearance can be found in Gen 2:4.

Ok, and soooooooo what does this mean. Actually Yahweh shows in Gen 1:1 himself but the word may have shown up later. What does that prove?

But really, the Old Testament has numerous descriptions and names of God, which match with the gods of the pre-bible era.

I doubt it because Hebrew was virtually unique in it's absence of vowels. So no other name that contained vowels could have been adopted.Also the majority of God's titles are related to a specific biblical concept that probably didn't exist in the same form anywhere else. Also if the oral tradition is excepted then all other societies probably borrowed from the Hebrews. See Tower of Babel. Regardless bring a name out and we will check into it. It can't be some generic word for God though that isn't relevant.

First off they were Christians, thats what they called themselves and thats what they fought for. The rest is purely propaganda and what is commonly taught at sunday school.

What are you talking about? The only tribes destroyed by a Godly nation are the when the Jews attacked their neibors. Christ hadn't come by this time the word Christian didn't even exist. There never has been a Christian nation that wiped out any other tribes. Do you really know anything about the bible? Christians have been in some wars but they were not Christian wars except for maybe the protestant revolution but there were no tribes or nations wiped out during it.

Sure.

We have an accord.

No, you used the bible to reference your claim.

Which was my point.

Let me put it a different way there are many ways to find a evidence for God outside the bible. Cosmological philosophy, the mindbobbling complexity in nature, the second law of thermodynamics, the rational nature of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the fact that our brains are the most complicated arrangement of matter in the universe for which nature alone couldn't produce. the reality of information in nature when information comes only from intelligence, etc.....infinatum. I also pointed out that the bible also makes that claim and so it is not just my idea.



This doesn't make sense, if your statements can't survive itself then how can you expect to address subjects outside of your own contradiction.
Like I said, it contradicts you and nothing else.

A statement that says "My God, involves all Gods and not."
First of all is incoherent and meaningless. It contradicts itself and so says nothing about anything else. That bucket is full of water and empty and that proves chicken tastes good.

The words I said are easy to understand.

I understood the words perfectly what meaning they have is quite another issue.

Again, there is a difference between my faith in the words I say and my faith in how it will affect you.

Actually the definition of faith is 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Since you know what your words are faith is not applicable. You actually know what words you use. This sounds like a bunch of new age metaphysics and I don't know what point you are making.

You're first mistake is assuming "Satanists", you can't generalize them as easy as it is to generalize the typical Christian.

So there are no unifying principles or beliefs apparently not even satan. You should call it the whatever I happen to believe in at the moment faith. I kid, I kid.

It should be obvious why.

Are you saying this in reference to your last statement above? If you are then I imagine faith in a being real or symbolic that represents chaos, base desire, false doctrine, hate, moral nihilism, and evil would produce some diverse adherents.

My position changes daily, I'm just along for the ride.

G.K. Chesterton (the apostle of common sence) said "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything. "http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/BelieveAnything.htm

 

[Orias]

This is just a sloppy mess.

I know what you were taught because all Christians are taught similar thingss.

Whether or not its outer fringe of accepted beliefs is irrelevant, since I don't care if other people agree or not. This is a personal observation of mine that fits with my personal philosophy, whether or not you agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

The word Yahweh first appears in Gen 2:4, any names spoken of otherwise before or after "Yahweh" are likely to be the others that I mentioned, since "Yahweh" is referred to specifically, much like all of the characters in the bible.

What does the absence of vowels in the Hebrew language have to do with references towards divine entities?

The Christian crusade is a factually documented event, you can attempt to justify it anyway you want but its a known fact that the Christian religion killed and oppressed thousands.

And I already clarified, just because a statement is meaningless and incoherent to you doesn't mean I can't find and fit my own definitions to suit my "God". You do the same thing.

You copy and paste one definition of faith from the free dictionary and assume that it backs up your argument. Your definition supports the lack of logic which in my book is a big no no.

And the best thing to assume about Satanists is that they will probably oppose you, and all others that oppose the Satanist.

Aside from this, both sides of this apparent argument support the OP.

With that I rest my case.

 

[1robin]

This is just a sloppy mess.

I will have to take your word for since you could actually show it here.

I know what you were taught because all Christians are taught similar thingss.

Doesn't that kind of make sence. Because we all read the same book. Wonderful observation. However you suggested that what I thought came from outside the bible and that is just wrong and even if true unknowable by you.

Whether or not its outer fringe of accepted beliefs is irrelevant, since I don't care if other people agree or not. This is a personal observation of mine that fits with my personal philosophy, whether or not you agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

The heck it is irrelevant. If only 3 people agree with you and a billion agree with me any rational person assigns value to that fact. I will accept your personal philosophy comments. However how do you back them up in the face of endless scholarship that dissagrees with you.

The word Yahweh first appears in Gen 2:4, any names spoken of otherwise before or after "Yahweh" are likely to be the others that I mentioned, since "Yahweh" is referred to specifically, much like all of the characters in the bible.

I have not researched the old testament lately but I do not see this as an issue. God had many names usually related to characteristics and events. I believe Yahweh is his holy name. I do not see any issues here.

What does the absence of vowels in the Hebrew language have to do with references towards divine entities?

Hebrew names do not contain vowels, the surrrounding peoples did. So how did the Jews borrow them? If they did they would have vowels and stand out like a sore thumb.

The Christian crusade is a factually documented event, you can attempt to justify it anyway you want but its a known fact that the Christian religion killed and oppressed thousands.

I except the awful crusades as a war in the name of Christianty. Your original comments said people wipeing out races of people. I naturally thought you were referring to the old testament where races were actually oblitterated. There are no cases of Christians wipeing out races of people. I will also add that what the Crusaders did is in complete opposition to the bible and so says nothing about God or the bible but does mean something about the misuse of religion. Jesus never killed anyone and said to never do it. I however honorably except the statistics in the Christian column resulting from the crusades in any discussion on atheist vs religious violence.

And I already clarified, just because a statement is meaningless and incoherent to you doesn't mean I can't find and fit my own definitions to suit my "God". You do the same thing.

I agree you can and have done that. I deny that mine are incoherent.

You copy and paste one definition of faith from the free dictionary and assume that it backs up your argument. Your definition supports the lack of logic which in my book is a big no no.

If you consider the universal definition of a word as illogical there is no hope.

And the best thing to assume about Satanists is that they will probably oppose you, and all others that oppose the Satanist.

That is fine and expected. However in the most revered book in human history we eventually win. I kid I kid.

Aside from this, both sides of this apparent argument support the OP.

I have no idea what you mean, but this one is probably my fault.

With that I rest my case.

There was a case. I must have missed it. Again I kid.

 

[Orias]

I will have to take your word for since you could actually show it here.

I was referring to the mess of a post you made previous to this one.

As in quality of grammar and break down and how difficult it was to understand you're inebriated point.

Doesn't that kind of make sence. Because we all read the same book. Wonderful observation. However you suggested that what I thought came from outside the bible and that is just wrong and even if true unknowable by you.

What?

The heck it is irrelevant. If only 3 people agree with you and a billion agree with me any rational person assigns value to that fact. I will accept your personal philosophy comments. However how do you back them up in the face of endless scholarship that dissagrees with you.

Scholars are taught how to ascribe, thats how I back it up.

Just because a million may disagree, doesn't mean that another million doesn't disagree.

I have not researched the old testament lately but I do not see this as an issue. God had many names usually related to characteristics and events. I believe Yahweh is his holy name. I do not see any issues here.

I think the issue is recognition.

But alas, it is irrelevant to the monotheists

Hebrew names do not contain vowels, the surrrounding peoples did. So how did the Jews borrow them? If they did they would have vowels and stand out like a sore thumb.

You don't need to pronounce God to believe in him, thats my point.

I agree you can and have done that. I deny that mine are incoherent.

Alright, that wasn't the point.

If you consider the universal definition of a word as illogical there is no hope.

How can one being speak on behalf of the entire universe?

Do able to do so logically, one must be a God

That is fine and expected. However in the most revered book in human history we eventually win. I kid I kid.

The book doesn't win, the people using it does.

I have no idea what you mean, but this one is probably my fault.

Its obvious, just read the thread title.

There was a case. I must have missed it. Again I kid.

Sigh at your sarcasm :sarcastic

 

[Heathen Hammer]

In the world the rest of us live in your mere assertions are meaningless.
In the Early Middle Ages the Vikings and the Lombards, among other people, still worshipped Odin, but by the later Middle Ages nearly all of the people who worshipped Odin had converted to Christianity, and hardly anyone worshipped Odin anymore.
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/germans/religion/odin.htm
That site is for children so you may be able to comprehend it.
HISTORY:
Ásatrú / Odinism is an ancient, Ancestral, pre-Christian religion that originated in the Northern, Eastern and Western parts of Europe thousands of years ago. It was "officially" eliminated about 800 years ago by the "Church," when the King of Sweden, who had been the last official hold-out, finally converted to Christianity. At that point (1,200 years after the appearance of Jesus) the whole of Europe finally became "Christianized,".
http://odin.org/intro.html

Your other drivel at this point isn't even worth a chuckle to respond to.
As for Odinism and Asatru, look, stay in your private little fantasy world if you like, where Christianity is alive and well and isn't losing it's fight to the Age of Reason; but, we defeated your best efforts, our faith is alive and growing [it was recognized as a state religion in Iceland in '72, so you're very behind] thanks to the information web we've created, and I gave you links which short out your little dream that we're gone. I mean, you're too dense to even realize that the website you link, is run by Odinists; you're too Dunning-Krugered to even realize your own posted link proves you wrong by it's very existence. You're quoting modern Odinists, in order to show that modern Odinists don't exist today. It's brilliant.
I mean, aside using Kidipedia to 'quote' some kind of accurate history! OMGs.

Q. If this truly was the religion of my ancient pre-Christian European Ancestors, how come I've never heard of it before?
A. We must be brutally honest to answer this question. To put it quite simply, the Christian Church did everything within its power to completely and utterly destroy and remove our Ancestral Faith from the landscape of Europe, many centuries ago. The actions of such Christian heros as Charlemagne who tricked and assassinated thousands of the Gothar (ancient tribal leaders), under a flag of truce, were by themselves only partially effective. But when combined with the confiscation of lands, refusal to trade with, and outright warring on any non-Christian tribe or nation, it becomes quite obvious why many descendants of the ancient Europeans have never heard of their religious birthright. Today most children in North America will learn of the ancestral faiths of ancient Greece, Rome, and even Japan, but not of Northern, Western, and Eastern Europe. There has been a deliberate and brutal attempt to quash any memory of this ancient Faith since about 1,000 AD. Unlike other cultures (Japan for instance, where their Ancestral Faith is highly respected), there was in Europe and North America (and still is), an incessant mocking and belittling of our European Ancestral gods and Faith, in favor of the foreign god and weak-kneed religion from the east. But the reality that this web site exists (along with hundreds of others), the ever-growing list of published books on the subject, and the existence of thousands of Asatru/Odinist groups across North America, Australia, and Europe, proves the staying power of our Ancestral Memory within the hearts and souls of our people. The fact that Asatru / Odinism is today the fastest growing religion amongst "European" white inmates incarcerated within the U.S. State and Federal Prison Systems (according to a statement by the FBI in 1999), says a lot. So although you may have never heard of it before—you've heard of it now!

Genius!


I've bested you in the discussion circle many times now, have watched you be spanked in other threads, and I'm really satisfied. For some time now you've been doing my work for me. For quite some time people and I have been at least making basic efforts to re-educate you [before simply giving up], but you ignore corrections, valid points, and the discussion of your repeated fallacious reasoning; even quotes from valid sources are either ignored or misinterpreted by you no matter how others try to guide you, kindly or vindictively.

Time for real discussions to recommence.

 

[1robin]

Your other drivel at this point isn't even worth a chuckle to respond to.

As for Odinism and Asatru, look, stay in your private little fantasy world if you like, where Christianity is alive and well and isn't losing it's fight to the Age of Reason; but, we defeated your best efforts, our faith is alive and growing [it was recognized as a state religion in Iceland in '72, so you're very behind] thanks to the information web we've created, and I gave you links which short out your little dream that we're gone. I mean, you're too dense to even realize that the website you link, is run by Odinists; you're too Dunning-Krueger to even realize your own posted link proves you wrong by it's very existence. You're quoting modern Odinists, in order to show that modern Odinists don't exist today. It's brilliant.
I mean, aside using Kidipedia to 'quote' some kind of accurate history! OMGs.

I quoted it because it was so simple I thought it would be clear to you. You have a remarkable talent for complicating the obvious and trivializing the momentous. I probably shouldn't have though because I forgot everything taught to kids is automatically wrong. It is dishonorable to misapply a literal interpretation to an obvious generalization. I am sure there are a few misguided individuals who believe in almighty Odin, there are always a few people that believe in any kind of nonsense. Your wrong about Christianity as well, it is still growing quite well. In fact there is currently a massive movement in China towards the faith. I honestly and truly don't care even a little bit about your "faith" I was more interested if you demanded the same level of evidence from Odin as you do from Christianity and that was answered in the negative quite fast. The rest were ancillary but true generalizations. It seems that in general Odin's followers became predominately Christian. I don't care that is just the facts.

I've bested you in the discussion circle many times now, have watched you be spanked in other threads, and I'm really satisfied. For some time now you've been doing my work for me. For quite some time people and I have been at least making basic efforts to re-educate you [before simply giving up], but you ignore corrections, valid points, and the discussion of your repeated fallacious reasoning; even quotes from valid sources are either ignored or misinterpreted by you no matter how others try to guide you, kindly or vindictively.

You have utterly failed in your ridiculous law position I can't even remember your other points. You do realize constantly claiming victory is usually done by insecure people who don't achieve it. If you were one of Lee's lieutenants at Appomattox you would have been yelling victory as the yanks took your arms away and bayonetted you into line.

Time for real discussions to recommence.

If you restrained your self from declareing victory every few sentences for absolutely no reason your posts would be half the size and 50% percent less inaccurate. Too bad you waited until after your posts to me to commence to make any real discussions. I am bored and frustrated with our discussion I suggest we adjourn it for a while.

 

[1robin]

I was referring to the mess of a post you made previous to this one.

A subjective innacurate conclusion is a meaningles verdict.

As in quality of grammar and break down and how difficult it was to understand you're inebriated point.

I will not deny grammer the rest of your assertions are wrong. I can't access the spellcheck program.

What?

Where? When?........sigh I was pointing out the complete insuffeciency of your knowledge base to make a meaningful claim about where my beliefs come from.

Scholars are taught how to ascribe, thats how I back it up.

So because scholars know how to ascribe (whatever that means) then no one should listen to what they say. Companies who must get their moneys worth and who pay big money to hire these scholars would probably disagree.

Just because a million may disagree, doesn't mean that another million doesn't disagree.

Maybe but that doesn't apply. There is a huge desparity in numbers in my favour of how many people share my view verses yours. Again that doesn't mean it is necessarily true, but it does have significant value.

I think the issue is recognition.

But alas, it is irrelevant to the monotheists

However you want to repackage the claim I do not see it's relevance. The Hebrews did not borrow other groups deities, not the ones in the bible anyway.

You don't need to pronounce God to believe in him, thats my point.

If that is indeed your point I agree.

Alright, that wasn't the point.

Then what was?

How can one being speak on behalf of the entire universe?

Do able to do so logically, one must be a God

I think you actually have a point here. The definition I posted also happens to agree with the biblical concept given by God. I gave you a secular definition because I thought you would accept it more readily. However this same concept is defined the same way in the bible and thereby universal.

The book doesn't win, the people using it does.

That is precisely why I said we win in my statement as I sow below.
"That is fine and expected. However in the most revered book in human history we eventually win. I kid I kid."
I did not make this statement to be offensive but as kind of a warning that if the bible is right then satanists wouldn't do well at the judgement. It's out of concern not scorn.

Its obvious, just read the thread title.

I don't know what an OP is.

Sigh at your sarcasm :sarcastic

That's about all it deserves.

 

[waitasec]

A subjective innacurate conclusion is a meaningles verdict.

the irony...sorry i had to.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It is dishonorable to

A proven liar may not speak to honorable men, of honor

 

[1robin]

[/size]
A proven liar may not speak to honorable men, of honor

What in wide world of Holy Heathens are you talking about? If you continue to call me dishonest we are through talking.

 

[1robin]

the irony...sorry i had to.

So far you have abondoned any meaningful points as well as meaningless questioning and have settled on unspecific sarcastic assertions. Next you will only respond with letters or symbols. Have you recieved the explanation for the picture yet?