Satanism

That's a fairly confusing position, xingu. If you are willing to admit deities are man made, what support then is left to believe in deities?
If you think the monotheistic bible god is just another is a string of man made creations, on what foundation would you rest a belief in a monotheistic deity?
Or any deity?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

The men who wrote the Bible created its God.........

Easy to assert this. A bit more difficult to make a convincing case for it, but you can try.

As I asked ?er, can you show evidence that man 'created' the God of the Bible?

Who, specifically, do you assert 'created' the God of the Bible and why did he do so?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
The men who wrote the Bible created its God.........

Easy to assert this. A bit more difficult to make a convincing case for it, but you can try.

As I asked ?er, can you show evidence that man 'created' the God of the Bible?

Who, specifically, do you assert 'created' the God of the Bible and why did he do so?

Quite obviously no one knows. You're continued questioning along these lines is a blatant attempt to ignore the obvious. That being that you can't prove that your 'god' exists anymore than anyone else can disprove it.

As for 'why' someone would, that has been outlined, in detail, on numerous threads by numerous people.

0 Replies

Quote:

Easy to assert this. A bit more difficult to make a convincing case for it, but you can try.

As I asked ?er, can you show evidence that man 'created' the God of the Bible?

Can you provide evidence that man didn't create the God in the Bible? It's obvious that man wrote the Bible. The God in the Bible is based on humans, much like the pagan religions. God in the Bible is barbaric, unjust and cruel. Most humans, today, are better than your God of the Bible.
Your God of the Bible was based on how humans believed and behaved at the time the Bible was written. If a Bible were to be written today I don't think you would find a God massacring a whole tribe except for the virgins, which would be given to the victorious soldiers to be raped.

What is needed today is a new God, not one who answers all problems with death and destruction, who rules by fear.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/instructions_for_genocide/dt05_01p07_01.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/7.html

But these were the values of the authors of the Bible so they became the values of the God they created.

Quote:

Who, specifically, do you assert 'created' the God of the Bible and why did he do so?

Zorasterism, a religion of Persia at the time of the exile, had a strong influence on the religion the Jews created. It was from Zorasterism that Judaism (and hence Christianity and Muslim) acquired the idea of Satan, angles and devils. Religions evolve. They borrow from others and modify. Christianity is a blend of Judaism and paganism. Those were the two predominant religions at Christianity's origin. This blending of religions continues to this day.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/santeria.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism#Syncretism_in_Christianity

Because of the scarcity of records and it's distant past a lot of the history of early Judaism will forever be lost. With so much ignorance it is easy for conservative religious to create silly assertions as God wrote the Bible and demand from naysayers evidence that doesn't exist.

0 Replies

The commandments that the God of the Bible gives to men are not those that any people would have came up with on their own.

So arduous are his demands that people today, such as you, still complain about them.

Hard to believe that these commandments and the God who requires obedience to them is something man would have created on his own, since his own failure to live up to them would negate any supposed power over the masses that you might postulate as his motive for creating a god.

When man creates a god, you get things like fertility cults, or gods with nebulous requirements that just about anyone can meet by simply claiming that they mean well.

When man creates a god, then that god is all about getting man what he desires.

Your own desire for a 'new God, completely unlike the God of the Bible', is evidence enough that man would not have created that kind of God in the first place.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The commandments that the God of the Bible gives to men are not those that any people would have came up with on their own.

Well that is certainly an opinionated statement.

Quote:

So arduous are his demands that people today, such as you, still complain about them.

People will always complain about laws that they find inconvenient. Including laws they themselves have voted in favor of at one point or another. Situations change.

Quote:

Hard to believe that these commandments and the God who requires obedience to them is something man would have created on his own, since his own failure to live up to them would negate any supposed power over the masses that you might postulate as his motive for creating a god.

Unless of course the benefits outweigh the potential consequences, such as free food, free funds, etc etc.

Religion isn't supposed to make 'sense', it's merely supposed to inspire the masses to blind loyalty. Regardless of what affinities you wish to tie to whichever leaders may or may not have created your religion, the one undeniable truth is that being at the focal point of such mass adoration yields a tremendous amount of power.

Quote:

When man creates a god, you get things like fertility cults, or gods with nebulous requirements that just about anyone can meet by simply claiming that they mean well.

Nebulous requirements. Interesting concept there. Now tell me, which version of Christianity do you subscribe to?

Quote:

When man creates a god, then that god is all about getting man what he desires.

Your own desire for a 'new God, completely unlike the God of the Bible', is evidence enough that man would not have created that kind of God in the first place.

I'm sorry, but your use of the word 'evidence' in this is laughable. Xingu's desire for a new God is evidence of nothing other than changing times. What worked in the past in a different region of the world is no longer optimum.

0 Replies

Hi ?er,

Laugh if you wish. But put yourself in the place of a Jewish religious leader for a moment. You're a priest, or a Levite, or perhaps the High Priest.

Would you 'create' a God , such as the One in the Bible, or 'invent' such a tale as is recorded in the Bible when it paints such an unflattering picture of your nation, and particularly of the religious leadership of the nation (YOU!) as a group of backsliding, corrupt, and inept group? It describes even the best of them, Moses, as one who could not enter the Promised Land due to his disobedience.

Who can you logically say could have invented such a thing? The text skewers the very persons that you might suppose are trying to empower themselves with it's 'invention'.

Rather than empower them, it puts them on the same level , or below, those that they are supposed to be leading.

It puts them (YOU!) in charge of a messy , bloody , physically demanding job instead of sitting in comfort, pontificating and giving orders.

Would you have created such a position for yourself? Lots of laws that even the leaders themselves couldn't keep. Come on now, apply a little logic and try to tell me who would 'create' a God and a Bible like this?

0 Replies

I understand your point RL, I just disagree with it. The crux of your argument is that noone in their right mind would choose such a path for themselves.

This simply doesn't stand to close inspection. The fact that there are so many differing theologies now that, one would assume, stemmed from one base religion, is evidence enough that no matter how strict a set of codes or bylaws may be, when you leave the core text as ambiguous as the bible is then you leave numerous loopholes for yourself to wiggle out of.

And you say logically. . . who said logic had anything to do with the creation of a religion? I submit to you the names David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, etc.

Bloody hell! For all we know it could have been a unique fiction written by a pioneering author that was just taken the wrong way by a desperate public.

Now granted, any sane and logical person would have nothing to do with creating such a religion and placing themselves at it's head. Of course, most sane and logical persons would have nothing to do with worshiping an invisible being in the first place.

0 Replies

Hi ?er,

You bring up Koresh, etc and you make my point. Koresh made up his own set of rules to empower himself. The thing he DIDN'T do was to put himself in a bad light as he built his following. He painted himself as the infallible prophet of God.

The writers of the Bible (if you are assuming they were the religious/civil leaders of the Jews) did the OPPOSITE. They are constantly pictured as inept, corrupt, rebellious, faithless, etc.

Now, if you are assuming it was someone OTHER THAN the Jewish religious leaders, just who do you think would create a religion to put someone other than themselves at the head?

Also, since the Bible was composed over a period of over 1500 years, your 'conspiracy theory' lacks a central character or cast of characters who have the longevity necessary to put it into practice.

Picture yourself as an aspiring early Israelite religious leader. Fun loving fertility cults are in all the countries around you.

How are you going to convince the whole nation that their God is vastly different from the gods of the neighboring countries? That they are going to have to offer sacrifices for sin if they commit adultery, etc.? That they are to abstain from the neighborhood idolatry and all the fun that goes with it? How are you going to sell them on the idea that YOU are the authority to be listened to (especially when the text you present to them indicates your instability) when the lure of the neighboring countries is intense?

How are you going to convince them that the multitude of laws that you are presenting them with are actually laws that were presented to their forefathers who were enslaved in Egypt, escaped from Pharaoh, received the Law, dwelt in the desert for a generation, conquered Canaan etc, when neither they nor their families have any memory of this history you tell them is theirs?[/u][/i] Do you think these people were blank slates, with no cognizance of how they had been raised and were ready to accept a brand new history of their people, a brand new set of laws, a brand new religion, etc. ? Don't you think they would notice if you desired to change all of this?

In addition, to sell your program to the masses, you have absolutely nothing to offer. It's a lot more fun to be a pagan sinner.

So how did they do it?

Your theory is absolutely barren when it comes to nuts and bolts. You postulate that the Israelite system of worship, the Pentateuch, the Israelite civil laws, the dietary laws, the hierarchy of the priesthood etc were constructed of whole cloth; but the possibility of this being pulled off is virtually nil.

You think that the history presented in the Old Testament is a wild fable?

The only thing more incredible would be if it DIDN'T happen, and you were able to convince thousands of people with no collective or national memory of it, that it DID happen.

(It would be like you trying today to convince all of America today that what they think they know of American history is not true at all. You try to teach the nation that instead of George Washington, the Founding Fathers, the Mayflower, the Civil War etc that ACTUALLY their history is quite different. They weren't founded by English settlers at all. Actually that America was founded by German settlers who fought their way across the Continent, used supernatural means to escape across the ocean and that instead of the Christian heritage they thought they had, instead their German forefathers had brought with them the pagan practices of ancient Bavarians and Austrians and this was what their parents and grandparents had been practicing all along! Try convincing a nation that you have their true history and what they think they know bears no resemblance to the truth.)

So yeah, I say that your explanation is illogical.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi ?er,

You bring up Koresh, etc and you make my point. Koresh made up his own set of rules to empower himself. The thing he DIDN'T do was to put himself in a bad light as he built his following. He painted himself as the infallible prophet of God.

The writers of the Bible (if you are assuming they were the religious/civil leaders of the Jews) did the OPPOSITE. They are constantly pictured as inept, corrupt, rebellious, faithless, etc.

Perhaps, but they painted themselves thusly to show that they were one of the brethren, and as such the 'messiah' label wasn't applicable to them. In short, they could sin all they want and were praised for being 'truthful' about their failings. Seems sort of a win/win doesn't it?

Quote:

Also, since the Bible was composed over a period of over 1500 years, your 'conspiracy theory' lacks a central character or cast of characters who have the longevity necessary to put it into practice.

Pucky. Just because John the baptist, or whoever you wish, decided to pick up one of the old running yarns and add to it doesn't make it any more significant or realistic.

Quote:

Picture yourself as an aspiring early Israelite religious leader. Fun loving . . . blah blah blah . . .
In addition, to sell your program to the masses, you have absolutely nothing to offer. It's a lot more fun to be a pagan sinner.

So how did they do it?

The kicker here is, you don't have to convince anyone of anything. Just like any other bogus belief system, it will become popular if there is a long enough line of lemmings ready to bite into whatever you're serving up. In your scenario of sex-laden, pleasure-driven societies, perhaps the religion that forces you to abstain from those things becomes the trend. Who knows? You certainly don't, despite all of your grandstanding and postulating here. You have no idea what started the original church.

Oh, that's right, the invisible man did it. Sorry, that makes much more sense.

Quote:

Your theory is absolutely barren when it comes to nuts and bolts.

As is your religion.

Quote:

You postulate that the Israelite system of worship, the Pentateuch, the Israelite civil laws, the dietary laws, the hierarchy of the priesthood etc were constructed of whole cloth; but the possibility of this being pulled off is virtually nil.

And yet you offer nothing better as a viable solution.

Quote:

You think that the history presented in the Old Testament is a wild fable?

The only thing more incredible would be if it DIDN'T happen, and you were able to convince thousands of people with no collective or national memory of it, that it DID happen.

(It would be like you trying today to convince all of America today that what they think they know of American history is not true at all. You try to teach the nation that instead of George Washington, the Founding Fathers, the Mayflower, the Civil War etc that ACTUALLY their history is quite different. They weren't founded by English settlers at all. Actually that America was founded by German settlers who fought their way across the Continent, used supernatural means to escape across the ocean and that instead of the Christian heritage they thought they had, instead their German forefathers had brought with them the pagan practices of ancient Bavarians and Austrians and this was what their parents and grandparents had been practicing all along! Try convincing a nation that you have their true history and what they think they know bears no resemblance to the truth.)

So yeah, I say that your explanation is illogical.

Nice tangent. No, i'm not saying that everything in the OT is 'wild fable'. Just the parts about magic, miracles, and other hocus pocus.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Satanism has only existed since 1966.

Is this true? No Satanists at all prior to 1966?

All the witches and others of the past were more along the lines of Wiccan or something?

0 Replies

Yes, this is true.
Before 1966 'satanist' was just something christians called non christians
Before 1966 nobody had applied this label to themselves

0 Replies

'Sup, Dok?

0 Replies

Hi Questioner.

Quote:

i'm not saying that everything in the OT is 'wild fable'. Just the parts about magic, miracles, and other hocus pocus

You would probably admit though, the presence of obvious fiction casts a very dark shadow on any potential veracity of the rest.
There are probably quite a few stories in it's pages that are, at least roughly,historically accurate, at least in my not-so-humble opinion. The problem is, only the things that can be verified by secular sources are worth anything from a forensic standpoint; again because of the smatterings of obvious fiction.
Every great work of fiction contains elements of truth, and the bible is the bestselling novel of all time. Why not just leave it at that?

0 Replies

Hi Neo
I just got off work, and got a new comfy computer chair.
Life can't get any better

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Hi Questioner.

Quote:

i'm not saying that everything in the OT is 'wild fable'. Just the parts about magic, miracles, and other hocus pocus

You would probably admit though, the presence of obvious fiction casts a very dark shadow on any potential veracity of the rest.
There are probably quite a few stories in it's pages that are, at least roughly,historically accurate, at least in my not-so-humble opinion. The problem is, only the things that can be verified by secular sources are worth anything from a forensic standpoint; again because of the smatterings of obvious fiction.
Every great work of fiction contains elements of truth, and the bible is the bestselling novel of all time. Why not just leave it at that?

Oh, I will freely admit that, and follow it up with the statement that the only real reason I was continuing along this ridiculous conversation at all is the fact that RL was taking it so seriously. I was rather having fun with it.

However, if you will take the time to read what I wrote previously (before Real Life's rant) you'll note I stated: 'For all we know it could have been a unique fiction written by a pioneering author that was just taken the wrong way by a desperate public. '

Real life, in his own particular fashion, pointedly selected a portion of someone's rebuttal he wished to respond to, neglecting the meaning around it. The portion he latched onto in this instance was something that was obviously intended as an aside, and not as a main crux, nor even as a statement of belief on my part.

Be that as it may, you and I are on the same page here Dok.

0 Replies

Quote:

Be that as it may, you and I are on the same page here Dok.

Well we are certainly reading from the same book at least. I don't really disagree with anything you said, I was just commenting on it.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Hi Neo
I just got off work, and got a new comfy computer chair.
Life can't get any better

I'll keep you in mind when I pop this cool one. . .

Catch you later.

0 Replies

Doesn't Satan need The Bible? And Doesn't The Bible need Satan?

(The above will probably offend both Christians and Satanists equally.)

How many people have become Christians because they are so afraid that Satan will get them and that they will burn in hell? How many people become Christians to get a free pass out of hell and away from Satan, and not because they "Love the Lord" or some such?

One thing I find rather ironic is Satan traces a lot of his fame to The Bible also.

Oh, sure, Satan-like entities have been mentioned for thousands of years prior to The Bible.

But when Satan got Bible airplay, he went worldwide. Took it to the next level and went on a worldwide tour. Due to all things: The Bible!

Is is possible to "not believe" in The Bible, and "believe in" Satan? Doesn't Satan actually need and gain his star-power, fear-power, yea part of his very existence from The Bible? Satan became pretty darn powerful in Bible days...according to the Bible.

I mean, if one totally disbelieves the Bible, Satan loses a lot of his fear-power. Satan becomes like another little leprechan or a minor demigod. Troublesome, but only at the level of playing little pranks that irritate you. Like a mini Greek God or something.

Satan needs people to believe The Bible. And The Bible needs people to fear in and believe Satan.

The 2 are like in a symbiotic relationship. Perhaps they should seek counseling for Co-Dependency?

Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Thanks for bringing this back to the point extra.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know