1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Johnathon Sharkey on Satanism and Christianity

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by robtex, Mar 4, 2006.

  1. robtex

    robtex Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    11,771
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    Nate, I got to go do the jujutsu thing, but a quick and imcomplete post to your two reply points.

    1) Sharkey said he rejects God because God kills and tortures where Satan does not. That would be a matter of debate but that is the reason given. We do know, if we believe the bible, either as the inspired word of god or the inerrant that God either kills or has analogies where he does. which brings me to point 2...

    2) In your examples Satan is behind the death of or destruction of but God does so directly. Behind is a theory until reasons are uncovered. God was by contrast at the forefront of death and destruction. I will look later too, but is there any place in the NT where Satan is actually killing or harming anyone or is he just alleged to have inspired it?
     
  2. Karl R

    Karl R Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    715
    Ratings:
    +263
    First, you assume God is all-powerful, which I'm guessing isn't what most UU/athiests believe. The ones I go to church with certainly don't.

    You assume that there was another way to correct the situation. Since the bible says that christ's sacrifice was necessary, your assumption certainly isn't a christian belief.


    Since you couldn't even recognize these as assumptions, I guess I'll have to explain even further:

    The bible describes a metaphysical problem. Humans have sinned. They aren't capable of being "good enough" by their own actions. There is no means of atonement that people can do that is sufficient to cleanse them.

    Atonement = amends or reparation made to correct a wrong-doing.

    You assume that some other form of atonement (less than Jesus' self-sacrifice) would have been adequate to perform this atonement for all humanity for all time. Unless you have some supernatural means of knowing metaphysical solutions to metaphysical problems, you're making a very big assumption.

    And even if it doesn't seem rational to you, I'd say that the metaphysical tends to defy rationality ... mostly by definition.

    What did Judas fall off of?
    What did Judas fall onto?
    How much damage was done to Judas before he fell?

    You see suspicious circumstances and immediately assume divine intervention. I see suspicious circumstances and immediately wonder if there was a vengeful disciple with an ax.

    Kind of ironic that you're the atheist and I'm the christian.

    You're assuming that god controlled Judas' actions. Humanity was given free will. That included Judas.

    Jesus predicted that he would be betrayed. What does that imply?

    If a meteorologist predicts a storm and the storm happens, did the meteorologist cause the storm? Omniscience (and even precognition) do not prove causality.

    By the time Jesus indicated that one of the 12 disciples would betray him, Judas had already been paid. At that point it wouldn't have necessarily taken supernatural powers to learn about Judas' treachery. A nosy neighbor might have been sufficient.

    In the ten commandments, the Hebrew translates into "Thou shalt not murder." In hebrew, the word for "murder" is different than the word for "kill". (I did check with a jewish friend to make certain that I understood the hebrew translation properly.)

    Instead of making vague statements like, "He kills throughout the Bible," could you actually cite the examples that you feel support your point? I've already stated that I don't believe in predestination, so I am not going to hold god accountable for every person that ever died. If you think god killed someone, give an example that showed more active involvement on god's part. I'll then explain my views on that particular example.

    I'd say that it's pretty presumptuous to put themselves on god's level.

    And if you believe that god tends to strike dead people who presume to be on his level, then it's an extremely dangerous presumption to make.

    Quite true, but since I start with what Jesus explicitly called "The Great Commandment" as the central point for my beliefs, I'd say I have a fairly defensible arguement for my selective interpretation.

    And as you pointed out, there are enough contradictions in the bible that some selective interpretation is mandatory.

    Jesus was quoting from Micah. His words weren't intended literally. He was telling the 12 disciples to expect persecution, even from within their own families.

    Did you read that entire chapter, or just those three verses? If you read the entire chapter, you might have noticed that Matthew 10:5-42 is all one long series of instructions to his apostles. These instructions begin with (verses 7-8):

    "As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'
    Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons.
    Freely you have received, freely give."

    Starting with verse 16, Jesus started explaining to the 12 disciples that they would face trouble on the trip. The verses you listed are part of that warning.

    That's apparently how rabbinical scholars interpret Genesis 9:5-6. I think it's a bit of a stretch, personally.

    Based on my reading of the bible, god has given man the right to end life under some circumstances. As I said earlier, the 10 commandments prohibit murder, but not killing. This implies that some forms of killing are acceptable.

    Jesus demonstrated that self-sacrifice is acceptable. Killing combatants in a time of war seems to be acceptable (waging war may or may not be acceptable). There are no clear prohibitions against killing in self defense or suicide.

    I'm always skeptical of someone who claims god commanded them to kill. I always believe that it's a bit more likely that their lying or delusional.

    Given statements that Bush has made, I really hope he's lying to further his political agenda. I can't rule out him being a delusional nutcase, however.

    Try reading the gospels again. The Romans tortured and killed Jesus. The phairisees persuaded them to do it. Where did god take direct action in the matter?

    Are you saying that god doesn't give people (like the Romans and phairisees) free will?

    If god doesn't give us free will, does that mean he's making you post these silly statements on the internet?

    Whether you believe that Jesus was god or just a person, he had free will too. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus agreed to go through with the arrest, flogging, crucifixion, humiliation, and death. Are you saying that god should have taken away Jesus' right to choose this course of action?

    Even if you believe that this death was unnecessary, Jesus clearly felt otherwise. He had the right to choose to sacrifice himself, even if that sacrifice was meaningless (which you obviously believe).

    Since a billion or so people believe that Jesus' death had meaning, his death now has meaning (if only to those people).

    I'd say the act of murdering someone makes it somewhat doubtful that they truly loved them (especially at the time of the murder).

    Just my take on the matter. Do you have some personal experience in this area?

    For a biblical definition of love, read 1 Corinthians 13:1-13.

    In general, god gave people free will. That includes the freedom to do some rather atrocious things to each other. A number of these atrocious actions are documented in the bible.

    It's fairly obvious that god feels our free will is more precious than our lives. Many people in our culture would agree.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Ðanisty

    Ðanisty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,956
    Ratings:
    +564
    Luciferians would also be inclined to agree with Sharkey and the Gnostics. Most of these questions are questions we've asked ourselves already. I would wager that for most, the answers to these questions led them to the path they follow now.
    One would first have to believe that God cares about free will. I don't believe that because God wanted to keep us on a short leash. It was Lucifer (the serpent) that opened our eyes to the knowledge, allowing us to truly make our own decisions. You guys discuss how God could fix the situation, but God is the one who created the situation. If he wanted man not to be "condemned," he merely needed to refrain from condemning man in the first place.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    1) The answer is simple: Sharkey's Satan is not the Satan of the NT, who does murder. God does not murder, but He does kill as an exercise of divine judgement. That is an important distinction.

    It is interesting that people who follow Satan reject the biblical definition of both God and Satan, yet try to find fault with God and redefine Satan according to their agenda. I don't think that the accusation that God tortures anyone is defensible. It smacks of Augustinian interpretation. In the NT, God destroyes the wicked, and his destruction is the perfect administration of divine justice. Satan kills. steals, and attmpts to destroy everyone (well theologically, only God can destroy), with an unbridled lust to do it mindlessly to anyone. Sharkey doesn't follow that Satan. He's being wrecklessly selective. God's destruction is aimed at redemption. Satan's attempts are to keep humanity in terror.

    2) I don't detect an indirect Satan and a direct God in the NT. Both are characters in the story with distinct roles. God is the Creator, Sustainer, and Judge. Satan is the liar, murderer, and theif.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Ðanisty

    Ðanisty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,956
    Ratings:
    +564
    The biblical definitions of God and Satan were defined by those who follow God. Why on earth would a Satanist accept these definitions?
    It is the Christian perspective that God destroys the wicked and that his actions are any form of justice. Obviously a Satanist would disagree with that opinion.

    You are asking a Satanist to be a Christian. That's just absurd.
     
  6. robtex

    robtex Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    11,771
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    Can you elaborate on killing as an exercise of divine judgement?

    Nate, I had more time to look at the NIV in biblegateway.com. I read the NT years ago and it is long so my memory is rustic, but I don't remember Satan killing anyone or stealing anything. I went to Biblegateway.com and used the keywords, Satan (and Lucifer to double check) kill, murder and steal and didn't get anything with the exception of revelations which is yet to happen making it speculation by the standards of history. Do you got any insight as to where Satan activly murdered anyone in the NT or OT outside of revelations?

    When I say direct and indirect what I mean is by the hand of God people died in the Bible. Indirectly he was responsible for the death of Christ's human body but directly it was the romans who are responsible. The point of using the direct/indirect theory is that in the Bible Satan is not directly responsible to anything but is defined as the antagonists to God. As such, and because the Bible is written from the perspective of Christians as opposed to Satanists, I feel indirect speculations of his murder hold a dimished capacity of intregrity (as in people died from Satan's evil or Satan's influence) because the source is not a neurtal source but an apologetic source which precludes and agenda and bais to events witnessed. It doesn't mean Satan could not be indirectly responsible for death and destruction (aka by his influence) but rather that the source of the evil which influenced the men and their wrong-doings in the Bible are speculative in nature and the Bible is not a neutral or objective source but rather a source with a specific agenda of promoting God as a omni-source for good and love.

    Why do you feel Satan is primary represented directly--as in the evil doer and not indirectly as the influencer? Or are we even on the same page with this?
     
  7. robtex

    robtex Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    11,771
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    First off thanks for being patient on my response. To answer the first and 2nd sentences I am under the understanding that God is omnipotent in the Christian sense. I now understand you don't find God to be omnipotent though many if not most Christians do. UU/s don't have a doctrine or belief structure. No dogma in UU which means there is no such thing as "UU's believe". Different UU's believe in differnt things and some of them, like myself are non-believers. Atheists either believe there is no God or have a lack of belief in God. I am a member of the latter which is called a weak atheist. For the nature of this debate I am assuming my lack of belief is wrong and assessing the Bible as if the characters and God exist. In reality, as a footnote I don't think the bible is anything but a fictional tale of morals and analogies and that neither the Christian (or Jewish ) God really exit nor a red fella with hooves and a tail.


    If God is not all-powerful he was at least powerful enough to create the universe and everthing in it according to Christianty. By doing such he presented the paradigm which became our existance. What I am assuming is two-fold and as follows:

    1) that in all likelyhood God had options in this atonement and choose amongst his options to have his son executed. The other options were not listed in the scripture

    2) If God did not have options it is because he created a universe without options. By doing such he condemned his future son to a day of torture and death.



    If you go back to the text of Judas death in the field he fell over in a field. It did not say he fell off anything but his feet. Falling over does not cause one to burst open particually in a field. Also he was not damaged when he walked into the field.

    As an atheist I don't think any of the events happened in the bible. For the purpose of debate I am assuming I am wrong and they did actually happen.

    What I am assuming about Judas, isn't that he didnt' have free will but that he was fullfilling his role in the cruxifiction of Christ. Basically for the cruxifiction to happen, and thus man's chance at salvation and number of events needed to happen. Amoung them were:

    1) Romans trial and torture of Jesus
    2) Romans putting Jesus on the cross
    3) The roman's identifying Jesus (which is where Judas's part came in)
    4) Peter (who cut off a roman's ear in Jesus's defense) and the others chilling enough to let Jesus be arrested.

    Each group and members had their role in letting the event materialize and as you said had the flexablity to support or detract from the event that led to man's salvation as a part of God's plan. Judas choose to partipate according to God's wished and than was admonished for being a team player in the plan.

    Jesus predicted he was to be betrayed showed that the cruxifiction as a whole was a procedure of predestination. By it being a procedure of predestination Judas was only acting in accordance with the master plan. Hardly worthy of admonishment considering his particpation was a link to the final event which led to all man's salvation.

    (rest next post)
     
  8. robtex

    robtex Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    11,771
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    No because the meteorologists did not cause the storm. However, God did cause the univese and by creating it with specifications he incurs some fault in the general direction it naturally takes. This is intimatly tied to the first mover arguement or thus the entire first mover arguement could never be validated.

    Irregardless of how Jesus found out, Judas's role was important to the master plan of man's salvation according to God. If Judas had not betrayed Jesus he would have betrayed God by defeying the creator in the universe who had a back-up plan for man's salvation after man had committed the original sin ( that sin being the attainment of knowledge in the garden of edan).

    When you play the word game with giving completely different defintions of kill and murder you absolve God of any and all responsiblity when it comes to his partipation in the death of mortals. Since God is the source of all good any killiing he is involved in is in the accordance with good. The fact of the matter is irregardless if you use murder or kill in the sentence the result is the same. A dead body. There are times when death may be justified but to say God can only kill not murder as murder is wrong is to hold him above any and all laws of morality which I realize Christians do but I would point out that this is a very non-objective way of looking at the deaths of anyone.

    Besides Sodom and Gomorrah, and the great flood, some examples would be Samuel 1 6:19, Samuel 2 5:19-25,kings 1:35-36, kings 2 8:1, Chronicles 1 2:3, chronicles 1 21: 14-15, chronicles 2 14:12-14....really this can go on for quite a while. I don't see how you could possibly justify and dignify every death in the Bible as a direct result or indirect (when he commands of it his followers of bible passages) other than to say as you said above that God only kills and the reasons are just because, after all he is God and God is just.


    I'd say that is pretty arrogant and scary to think any killing done by God is all right because he is God and above our level.

    I don't know why God kills so much in the Bible but by the level and the intensity of it he sure seems to dig killing people.


    If selective reasoning is mandatory of the Bible than you acknowledge its validity holds a dimished capacity. As such, it is silly to call it the inspired word of God or even the word of God period. Instead it should be called man's interpretation of God and given a dimished capacity of importance in the scope of one's belief in God.

    You don't know what Jesus said anymore than I or anyone else. Jesus didn't think any of his teachers were important enough to write down. Paul said, that Jesus said in the book of Matthew. You are really being selecting in intrepretation and a spin-doctor to interpret "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" as being pursecuted as opposed to coming back to kick some tail with my big bad sword. And yes I did read the chapter

    (rest in future post)
     
  9. robtex

    robtex Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    11,771
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    I would have to say there is a thin line between being commanded to kill and given premission to kill. Espcially if you (as Christians do) believe in an absolute morality. Basically you have premission to kill when killing is just according to your God and your God wants to you live in a just way which makes command and permission close in moral proximity. God doens't command you live justly but expects it.....


    Not a direct but an indirect. Man's salvation could only come as a result of the death of Christ by cruxifiction.For the cruxifiction to take place the romans need to kill Jesus. It is a cause and effect relationship and if you follow the trail back to the source there is God.


    No I am saying the Romans and phairisees were fullfilling a prophecy that was neccessary for man to achieve salvation.

    As an atheist, even if you God existed I couldn't care less what he wanted or expected of me.

    No I am saying God gave Jesus two choices

    1) Be cruxicified and that way man has the path to everlasting life and salvation
    2) Do not be cruxicified and man will not have everlasting life and salvation but instead will have damnation for his sins.

    Some choice.:149:

    I don't actually believe there was a child of God. But for the sake of the debate I think that his death and demise as a condition of man's savlvation tells us a great deal about the extend of cruelty the Christian God will go to to grant man everlasting life and salvation.

    vSince a billion or so people believe that Jesus' death had meaning, his death now has meaning (if only to those people).[/quote]
    That does not justify God's plan in the least. It may have meaning but it was still cruel and a horrible plan for man's everlasting life and salvation. I wonder which alternate plans God passed up in exchange for an event of torture and murder of his only son. A God poweful enough to create an entire univese had the power of options irregardless if he concealed the options or revealed them.


    But arranging a paradigm where they must be killed by others as "the method" neccessary for salvation and everlasting life is love? You cannot be serious! No personal experience.

    Within the suggestion of "selective interpretation" it is hard to know which passage is a passage describing the definition of love according to God. The verse you mentioned is a story about bringing back the Ark and the celebration that followed. Retrieving a box and having a celebration is your definition of love? How is the passage relevant to Sharkey's postulation that God condemned Jesus to die?


    He either gave free will or he didn't. There is no "in general he gave free will." If you think the stories are of war and death of man vs man in the bible are documentary in proposition than you are saying the Bible is the inerrant word of God as opposed to the inspired word of God and open to selective interpretation. It cannot be both. It is either one or the other.

    If you think that the bible requires selective interpretation than NOTHING in the bible is fairly obvious. Many of the people in the Christian culture disagree about just about everything in the Bible. That is why there are scores of differnt interpreted texts of the Bible and hundreds of differnt denominations of your religion. It is also a glaring reality check as the the notion that few things in the Bible is fairly obvious.
     
  10. Karl R

    Karl R Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    715
    Ratings:
    +263
    Thanks for clarifying that. That's a fairly conservative way of viewing scriptures. It's reasonably common down in Texas and the southern states, but somewhat rare in other parts of the country.

    You read the wrong book. Read 1 Corinthians 13:1-13. I think you read 1 Chronicles 13:1-14 by mistake.

    Let me know if that clarifies things.

    I believe god gave us free will, but I'd say "generally" because of the evidence provided by science:
    Skinner's behavioralism, Stockholm syndrome, etc.

    I'm not going to ignore how outside influences can affect the choices we make.

    If you're just starting with the bible and no other source of information, then you're right. Nothing is obvious.

    If you're attending a church, you'll hear a minister or priest repeatedly refer to several parts of the bible. These are the parts you'll probably consider the most important, and they're the parts you're most likely to read.

    If you start going beyond that, you'll probably read books by a number of theologians (who won't all agree), and you'll see several different interpretations and commentaries on many passages. Then you probably have enough information to start making critical judgements for yourself about how you're going to selectively interpret scripture.

    In my opinion everything I read requires selective interpretation. When George Bush gives a speech, it's not a good idea to believe every word he says. When there's a news story on CNN, it's not the entire story, and sometimes it's biased. Every history book is only one version of events. And Chris Angel doesn't really have mystic powers, despite what your five senses might tell you.

    Show me a source of information that's infallible. Our fundamental understanding of science changes repeatedly. Our teachers accidentally give us incorrect information. Our senses fail us and sometimes deceive us. Even if our senses are perfect, our memories are faulty.

    We have to use judgement in examining any source of knowledge, even divine sources.

    It also did not say that there was an eyewitness. You're assuming there was. I'm assuming there wasn't. Someone found his dead body in the field, and then took their best guess as to what happened.

    Read something like Christopher Columbus' journals and you'll see that he made an apalling number of assumptions with no basis on evidence. (Around the time of his third voyage he decided that the world was shaped more like a pear, and the raised portion was closer to heaven. He believed this raised portion was roughly south of the lands he had encountered.) You can't read something that was written 500+ years ago and safely assume that the author used logic in the same way we did.

    Let me give it a shot.

    The great flood:
    According to historians, every culture in this part of the world has a story about a great flood. Some of these stories predate the old testament version. The earliest seems to be the Babylonian version. We can safely assume there was flood (a natural disaster) in this region. Some historians hypothesize that a massive flood in the Tigris-Euphrates river basin was the event described in the story. Others believe that the story came from the time when the connection between the Mediterranian and the Black Sea first opened, and the Black Sea rose a few hundred feet.

    Either way, people told stories about it. Eventually the jews heard the story and modified it into a morality tale.

    Sodom and Gomorrah:
    After hurricane Katrina, a number of conservative preachers claimed that New Orleans was destroyed for its sins ... despite clear, scientific evidence pointing to natural causes.

    Go back 2500 years to a time when there was no science, and watch a sinful city get destroyed by a natural disaster. "The wrath of god" makes perfect sense as an assumption.

    It's possible that god did send a messenger to warn Lot and his family. I've heard stories of people in modern times who got warnings that allowed them to avoid disasters. That's an overt action to save someone, however. God obviously doesn't save everyone from every disaster. I'll discuss that topic later.

    1 Samuel 6:19
    The people who opened the Ark died ... right after the Ark had come back from a city that had been suffering "an outbreak of tumors" (some type of plague). Given that this is millenia before the cause of disease was discovered, I'll take a guess that a contagion was involved.

    2 Samuel 5:19-25
    This is part of an ongoing conflict between the Israelites and the Philistines (which had started years before). The Israelites defeated a Philistine invasion, and claimed that god was clearly on their side. History is written by the victors....

    King David prayed to god for guidance. He prayed for victory. Most generals do that.

    Kings 1:35-36
    Did you mean 1 Kings 1:35-36 or 2 Kings 1:35-36? The first has nothing to do with death, and the second doesn't exist.

    2 Kings 8:1
    A famine occurred (another natural disaster), and Elisha was forewarned.

    1 Chronicles 2:3
    Er was struck down by some mysterious cause. People rationalized it as an act of god. (Perhaps he was wicked in the sight of those people too.)

    1 Chronicles 21:14-15
    This seems to be a plague (another natural disaster) that occurred shortly after a census was taken. Verses 9-13 do put an interesting spin on the situation. The attempts to appease god are actions that we see throughout history during natural disasters.

    Unlike the Sodom and Gomorrah story, this actually occurs during a period where written history existed.

    2 Chronicles 14:12-14
    The Cu****es had invaded Judah. "The Lord struck down the Cu****es" ... I suspect god got a bit of help from the 580,000 people in the army Judah fielded.


    Out of eight examples, seven are pretty easily explained as natural disasters or warfare as usual. The second to last example might also be a natural disaster, but the prophecy with a choice of disasters makes it an interesting puzzle.

    (continued...)
     
  11. Karl R

    Karl R Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    715
    Ratings:
    +263
    Let me put this a different way. God's a lot smarter than us. At the bare minimum, he knows how to make a universe.

    To draw an analogy, for me to understand god's actions is sort of like an insect trying to understand mine. Regardless of whether my actions are good or evil, most of them are outside of an insect's experience, and therefore utterly incomprehensible.

    Basing your actions on something you only marginally understand is a recipe for disaster. In the old testament, god gave the law as an easy to understand way to live one's life. In the new testament, god became incarnate to give a comprehensible example of how to live one's life.

    Are you saying that god is responsible for 70 billion human deaths or so because he decided to make us mortal? Do you hold god accountable for every time he fails to prevent a death, every time he fails to warn people of a coming natural disaster? Eastern religions view mortal existence as suffering. Is god at fault for because he caused those people to live in the first place?

    Do you understand the consequences that would naturally occur if things went another direction? Would immortality make us better people? Would the universe be better off if humanity never existed in the first place?

    You think god is guilty because god caused consequences that you don't like. I am not willing to blame god unless I understand what consequences would have arisen from alternate choices.

    If you phrase it that way, you're right.

    But I would say that there's a much bigger difference between commanding someone to kill and saying that it's sometimes permissable to kill. Especially after you've made it clear that sometimes it's not.

    If you command someone to kill, then you've already implied they have your permission.

    I'm not sure that all of them are essential details, but let's assume they are.

    1 & 2. Charismatic radical leaders had a tendency to get executed at the hands of Romans. Under the circumstances, Jesus' execution was just a matter of time. By directly challenging the pharisees in Jerusalem, he guaranteed that they would want him dead also. Flogging and crucifiction were fairly common forms of punishment for the Romans.

    3. Any of Jesus' followers (not just the inner circle of 12) could have provided this information. Any one of them could betray him. Once enough people were followers, a traitor became a likelihood.

    4. One disciple lashed out, the others fled from a superior force. That doesn't seem like an unlikely set of reactions from a group of people.

    If these are all necessary elements for the crucifiction, it doesn't seem to take divine intervention to arrange it.

    Judas played a role. That role was necessary. So what? You're going to die someday, because god arranged it that way. But that doesn't mitigate my guilt if I personally end your life today.

    He was showing that the whole procedure was a fulfillment of prophecy. Prophecy doesn't require predestination. (Meteorologists don't cause the weather, even when they predict it correctly.)

    Obviously prophecy becomes much easier if you arrange the events afterward, but that's speculation, not proven fact.

    Let's assume this is true.

    Maybe god chose this option because it also fulfilled some other necessary purpose.

    Jesus was sent to provide an example to us how we should live our lives on earth. By dying in the way he did, he was letting us know the high cost that living a righteous life could have. Since that time, thousands of christians have died for their beliefs. At least they knew what they were signing up for ahead of time.

    Jesus told his disciples that they could end up paying this price, but they really didn't understand him until he demonstrated it.

    Gee, Jesus got to make some of the same sucky choices in his life that the rest of us get to make in ours.

    And he demonstrated that when you're faced with a sucky choice, you make the right choice, even if it's the hard choice.

    Christians focus on the salvation aspect of the crucifiction, but it wasn't the only aspect. There were other elements of the crucifiction that were almost as important.

    And unlike the salvation aspect, these other lessons might be valuable to people who don't believe in the christian god.

    Me too. I also wonder if they could have taught us nearly as much as the plan he chose.

    My mistake. I didn't type out my explanation clearly or fully.

    In this particular verse, Jesus is saying that his message is going to cause a lot of controversy (to put it mildly). Since Jesus wasn't trying to phrase it mildly, he used the extreme metaphor written above.

    The following two verses (which you quoted earlier) were Jesus quoting Micah. In them he was saying that their families would turn against them.

    Most of the rest of the chapter was explaining how the would be persecuted.

    Do you really think his disciples mistook these as fighting words? Jesus had already told them "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) and "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." (Matthew 7:12)

    Jesus had already made his core message clear.

    The original hebrew version of the bible makes a distinction between killing and murder. Modern english makes a distinction between killing and murder.

    If you want to say that god murdered people, you can't just prove god killed them. The words mean different things.

    Soldiers who engage in combat aren't charged with murder. They're not charged with attempted murder. People who administer the death penalty aren't charged with murder. Doctors who pull the plug aren't charged with murder. There are other end results that distinguish the two words. Is there a culture (ancient or modern) where the laws fail to distinguish between the two?

    If not, how is this difference solely tied to the christian god?
     
  12. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    1) Christ volenteered to be savior. He didn't have to do it. Christ could have called legions of angels to save Him, but he didn't, because He knew what had to be done. Christ had to bear the sins of the world by Himself.
    2) How many people has Satan influenced, and was one of the major causes of their spiritual death. Hmm...let me see. He took 1/3 of the host of Heaven to hell w/him. That's kind of a lot of people. A lot more than God has physically killed. Spiritual death is tons worse than physical. God created us and can take us again. People that have issues w/ this usually don't grasp the concept of life. We come here to get a body and be tested.
     
  13. JillianMarie77

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +14
    I could be wrong but I don't think satanists view satan as "the devil" What I mean to say is the christian view of satan isn't the only one that exists. Satanists don't believe that the christian god exists nor do they believe satan exists. He is used as an archetype, someone who represents the things they stand for like excess etc.

    Didn't I see a Gnostic on here? Their's is a very interesting view of Satan. Didn't satan, by giving knowledge to A&E kind of temper what the evil demi-urge did (OT god)?

    I think judaism has a different view of satan as well. Sort of as gods prosecuting attorney (I'll find that link if anyone is interested).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. ChrisP

    ChrisP Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,956
    Ratings:
    +871
    There are several gnostics on here and yes, their view of Satan can be quite interesting :D, but it also tends to vary a little. Gnostic doesn't always mean Gnostic Christian after all :p
     
  15. Ðanisty

    Ðanisty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,956
    Ratings:
    +564
    It really depends on the kind of Satanist. You're describing modern Satanists, which is the most common, but there are traditional Satanists too that believe in an actually entity.

    I would imagine the Gnostic version of Satan that you are speaking of would be very similar to the Luciferian view of Lucifer. In fact, i know a few Gnostic Luciferians.
     
  16. JillianMarie77

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +14
    Thats interesting. The first time I've heard it actually. Can you tell me what you mean by traditional satanists? In my understanding satanists of the past weren't satanists at all - just non-christians branded with the name.

    Definitely satanists of the LaVeyan variety are not that kind of satanist either.

    What is Luciferian?

    Are you familiar with the Temple of Set?
     
  17. Ðanisty

    Ðanisty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,956
    Ratings:
    +564
    We should probably have this discussion in the Left Hand Path subforum since it really doesn't have anything to do with Christianity and it might derail this thread...I don't know. You might even find what you're looking for there. If not, start a thread. I'll respond. :D
     
  18. BUDDY

    BUDDY User of Aspercreme

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,031
    Ratings:
    +488
    Hey, this is the first time that I have seen this thread. Pretty interesting stuff. I went to this guy's website and took a look around. I'm no expert or anything, but I am pretty sure that he is CRAZIER THAN A ****HOUSE RAT!!!

    Now, to the statement he made. If he can't worship a God that sacrifices his son, which is murder, how can he worship Satan who is in the heart of every murderer everywhere. Seems like a cop out to me.
     
  19. Ðanisty

    Ðanisty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,956
    Ratings:
    +564
    Maybe he just has a strong sense of loyalty and expects more from a father...
     
  20. gnomon

    gnomon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    8,830
    Ratings:
    +1,450
    Religion:
    atheist
    This man is funnier than Jesse Helms. Ridiculous belief aside, his political platform would actually be perfect for the far right Christians whose God he claims to disparage.

    This man is too ridiculous.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...