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. JillianMarie77

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +14
    I didn't know such a forum existed here. And I thought the title here was general religious debates - I dind't know it was limited to christianity. Woops!

    Could you please direct me to this sub-forum? Thanks
     
  2. Ðanisty

    Ðanisty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,956
    Ratings:
    +564
    Oh, I didn't mean to imply that this forum was for Christian debates only...just that this thread seems to be dealing with Satanism in light of Christianity and I thought the questions you were asking were more suited to the Left Hand Path discussion forum. You're free debate any religion here, but debating isn't allowed in the discussion forums. It takes awhile to get used to this place, but it's pretty nice the way they've got it set up. Here's a link to the LHP subforum: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/left-hand-path-religions/
     
  3. robtex

    robtex Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    11,771
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    Ok but understand by thinking this way you are not argueing the morality of God's lethal actions or other actions but rather absolving him based on your self-appraised lack of total knowledge. I understand it is your reasoning as a Christian to not question your God but in the nature of debate it makes the debate a non-issue or one purposely unaddressed.


    You stated back in earlier posts that God is not ominpotent. Understand that this is far from the norm of what many if not most Christians feel about God. If one saw God as omnipotent (all poweful) and he made a world of suffering than he incurs the blame for the suffering he created. If God is not omnipotent and has to obey the laws of nature in his creation than the blame would not be appropiate.

    Blame may be a jaded way of wording it. I am thinking more of assessing his deeds in the Bible. I feel though that you are chasing red herrings by saying "we don't know every alternative therefore God's is the right one." I see it more as looking at what we do know and evaluating that based on our societal moral code. I get the feelign ANYTHING God does is ok with you because he is God. while I understand you quailfy this with trust and love you should realize that actions of God in the Bible many times lead to human death and suffering and to Jesus's own death too as a method of eternal salvation . Just like a tend to evalute a person more on his actions than his word I think it is reasonable to evaluate God the same way.

    Bible versus like Matthew 8:32 and Hewbrews 10:28-30 don't paint the kindest picture of Jesus or God.
    Even more important though, and what I feel you are guilty of is giving God a free ride when it comes to murder cause he is God. God drowning eveyone in a great flood (noah's flood) or encouraging armies to war in his name, or sending about plagues are acts of cruelty and to define them as something lesser because you worship the source (aka God) is suggestive of a bias. It isn't all right to kill or murder because one is God any more than it is ok based solely on some other trait, like being oriental.

    Karl, Jesus torture and murder were conditions that had to be met for mans salvation as orchestrated by God in his grand plan. To be blunt, in the Christian religion if Jesus had not been cruxified there would be no afterlife in Heaven but instead eternal damnation for all. Irregardless of how it played out God developed it as the only contingency for the salvation of man.

    In regards to Judas he did have a role and than when the role was over God discarded him like a piece of trash. He was kicked outta the disciple club and may have been burst open or committed suicide. Either way the message was clear. God had him as an important part of the salvation of man and when he did his part, which was very unpleasant he was forsaken as surely as Jesus felt he was when he was on the cross.


    Prophecy is contigent upon predestination. worldnetprincton.edu says prophecy is qoute, "knoweldge of the future. A prediction utter under divine inspiration."

    Religioustolerance.org says prophecy is qoute, " The foretelling of the future as a direct revelation by God."

    miramwells.org says prophecy is qoute, " Divinely inspired discourse following from the revelation and inpulse of the holy spirt.

    blakearchive.org in the glossary section says of prophecy qoute, "A prophecy is a visionary account of reality, future past and present."

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ficial_s&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:prophecy




    rest next post:
     
  4. robtex

    robtex Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    11,771
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    The Bible is very specfic on why Jesus was sacrificed. It had the purpose of man's salvation. Nothing more nothing less. We don't know how Jesus lived. We know how Paul speculated that he lived though Paul spent very little time with him by his own admission in the new testiment. Karl, just because I am curious due to your posts here.....have you ever read the entire first four gospels of the new testiment? I just ask because you seem lost on the major issues and themes in them. According to the bible Christians nor anyone else REALLY has a choice of accepting Christ or not. Because to not accept is to recieve internal damnation. That isn't a choice in my book. Incidently the severity of man's punishment for non-compliance and utter subservience to God is foreshawdowed by the extreme treatment and murder of Jesus as punishment for man's sins. God doesn't play around it comes to worship. If one choice is really extreme and negative in propogation I would question the validity of it being called a choice. In this case, eternal damnation, because of the severity of it is not a choice if one were to believe in your God.

    Another way to view this is God showed mankind what happens when they are disobedient by having his kid tortured and killed as a NECCESSITY to access to heaven. Than he plays the eternal damnation card but footnotes it with "freewill". What a guy.

    Are they relevant to the debate and if so what are they?

    Not that this is relevant to the debate but people who don't believe in the Christian God view the bible as a work of fiction.

    I dont' want to go too off topic on battling over a few versus. If you read the OT and the NT the one thing that is consistant throughout death and destruction. Sometimes God does it and sometime man does it with the direction or inspiration of God. It is obvious from the bible that God is a God of war. You can't have death and destruction from cover-to-cover in a holy book and speculate otherwise. Having said that, that John Sharkey made in his short speech. You can sit there and try to amend and spin various passages so the deaths are either non-existant, figurative, irrelevant or justified but they still exist. The point I was trying to isolate, and it is an imporant one, that Sharkey pointed out is that God killed consistantly throughout the bible but Satan did not. The question becomes why? And who comes out as kinder? The God who slew and commaned those to slew or the one who did not?



    That isn't paramount because we can get a good understanding by reading who died, how and why and make subjective deductions by the context provided. As a footnote, nothing can be proved in the Bible. It is speculated to have happened over 2000 plus years ago. Jesus's cruxifiction cannot be proven, the great flood can not be proven and the characters stated to have existed have yet to be proven. As far as your selective reasoning, which you stated earlier is needed to "interpret the Bible" realize when you decide some things in the Bible didn't happen you are calling the prophets who were attempting to spread the word of God through the Bible, the inspired word of God, liars and decievers.

    Soldiers who kill in combat are attempting to achieve a political agenda. Those that adminster the death penatly are also attempting to achieve a political agenda. Doctors who pull the plug are preforming the wishes of the family who under the circumstances likely feel that pulling the plug is the best option under the circumstances.

    What makes them different than God is that their choices by dispostion are limited by their mortality. God is much more powerful than man and has by impliation more choices. He however plays the death and destruction card from cover to cover which inspires me, as a reader, if I believed it was something other than a book of pure ficton, that he found joy and gratitiude in the death and suffering of man. We know he has a political agenda by his 10 commandments and his penatly for non-compliance by accepting Jesus which is eternal damnation. We also know that those who opposed him on earth were many times killed or severly punished by a God powerful enough to make an entire universe and all the life on earth but who either lacked the power for other options besides death or destruction or who preferred death or destruction. Considering the power of God I would be more inclinded to think the more evident answer given the variables was that of preference.
     
  5. Karl R

    Karl R Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    715
    Ratings:
    +263
    I'll try to make this post shorter than my previous one.

    I've read each multiple times. I've also studied the historical and cultural context they were written in.

    None of the quotes you provided implies that. Obviously you managed to infer that detail from them, but I can't see what basis you used for that inference.

    prophesy = the foretelling of the future as a direct revelation by God.

    predestination = the act whereby God is believed to have foreordained all things.

    ordain = to prearrange unalterably

    As I pointed out with my meteorologist analogy, it is possible for a person to predict the future without being involved in making it happen. Why do you believe that this is impossible for god to do?

    You're aware of what's been said, yet you've made another choice. Ergo, there is a choice.

    But let's place that choice into its historical and cultural context. In Jesus' time, judaism was terribly corrupt, similar to the roman catholic church around the time of Martin Luther. As one example, the whole institution of temple sacrifices was being misused to price-gouge worshippers.

    The roman gods were basically copies of the greek gods. I don't know the actual details of greek worship at that time, but I am aware that the greek myths include multiple stories of Zeus raping women, which leads me to believe he wasn't a great role model.

    If your two main choices are a corrupt church or cruel gods, then I'd suspect that your odds of salvation are not so good. Jesus came around preaching a simple life of love, honesty, and generosity. (And I'll admit that the christian church routinely falls away from this core teaching.) Jesus might have been condemning anyone who doesn't follow him, or he might have been pointing out that the other choices were highly likely to lead to condemnation.

    I would agree that Jesus' audience lacked good alternatives to the choice Jesus presented.

    That's incorrect. I'm considering them to be people who lacked the benefit of modern science and modern critical thinking to explain the world around them. Their audiences also lacked science. The writers who wrote down what they observed lacked modern science. And the people who read those words for the next 15 centuries or so lacked scientific knowledge.

    Did you expect god to ignore the needs of the immediate audience, just to make this book easier to understand a couple millenia later? I think god's message was intended for the audience that was present at that time. Some of the message was so clear that it's still valuable today. The rest is valuable if we can understand its original context and extrapolate the meaning into the time and culture we live in now.

    I acquire valuable knowledge from works of fiction all the time. I'm certain that many non-christians do too.

    Where is it consistent through the new testament?

    I realize you blame Jesus' death on god, but that would be a bit hard to prove. God didn't kill Jesus, the romans did. God didn't tell the romans to kill Jesus, the phairisees did. God didn't tell the phairisees to encourage the romans to kill Jesus. They did it because Jesus was challenging their authority.

    With the exception of Revelation (which is based on a vision, and open to wildly differing interpretations), I can only think of one person in the new testament that died at the hand of god. King Herod was struck down, but based on the description, I consider it much more likely that he suffered a massive heart attack or stroke. Witnesses then claimed that god was responsible.

    God doesn't command anyone to kill in the new testament. Jesus didn't command anyone to kill in the new testament. The apostles didn't command anyone to kill in the new testament. Jesus and a number of his apostles are martyred, but those incidents are caused by people excercising their free will to do evil.

    Please cite your source on the "Nothing more nothing less" part.

    Jesus' sacrifice was necessary, because Jesus was symbolically the sacrificial lamb for all time. (Feel free to reference the parts of jewish law pertaining to sacrificing lambs.) The torture was an embellishment added by the cruelty of humans.

    The crucifiction was prophesied, but prophesy does not imply that method was necessary, just that it was foretold. I'm certain that there are verses that state "the crucifiction was necessary for salvation", but you need to understand that "Jesus' crucifiction" (the manner of sacrifice) is used as a synonym for "Jesus' sacrifice".

    Similarly, Jesus' betrayal was prophesied. It wasn't a necessary element of the sacrifice.

    As I pointed out in a previous post, if Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, someone else eventually would have. Judas was condemned for his own choices.

    People used to think diseases were caused by evil spirits. (Which is why we say "god bless you" when people sneeze.) Because of science, I know that I should blame a virus for the cold that's afflicting me, not evil spirits.

    Similarly, I believe that natural disasters happened due to natural causes, despite what people in biblical times might have thought or said.

    Usama bin Laden can claim he is waging a holy war at the behest of Allah, but I am convinced that he's using Allah as a smokescreen to cover his political agenda. (Though it's possible that he's really a delusional madman who believes his own claim.)

    Similarly, I am strongly suspicious of anyone who claims that god commanded them to go to war ... even if that person got quoted in the bible.

    There is no bias. I hold all superstitions to the same standard, and all self-serving politics to the same standard.

    I believe in science. I believe in skepticism. I hold the bible to the same scrutiny that I would use on a newspaper, a history book, or a scientific journal. (And I don't blindly believe any of those, either.) My belief in one newspaper article is independent of my belief in the article next to it. Similarly, my belief in one part of the bible is independent of my belief of another part.

    And I realize this critical analysis is rare among christians ... just as it's rare among the rest of the population. That doesn't alter the validity of the bible ... or the morning newspaper.

    As a parent, you could prevent much of the suffering that your children incur. You could lock them up in a padded room, give them plush toys to play with, and make certain they are safe from any harm.

    Your children wouldn't suffer, but they'd have no opportunity to learn and grow.

    Acquiring knowledge involves pain, whether you're learning to ride a bicycle or getting involved in your first romantic relationship. God wants us to learn, grow, and mature. Suffering is a necessary part of the process.

    If you don't believe me, take a martial arts class. Getting kicked in the teeth dramatically speeds up the process of learning how to duck.

    I listed two of them in previous posts. Re-read my previous posts ... more carefully this time.
     
  6. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Robtex,

    You previously asked me for more elaboration on Satan in the NT. You had searched the NIV for Satan and did not get a full description of Satan. Your search was too narrow.

    You should also search for:

    evil
    demon
    murder/murderer
    sin
    temptation/tempter
    dragon
    serpant
    hell
    hades
    death
    devil
    darkness
    deception/deceit
    principalities
    world
    flesh

    As you can imagine, I don't have time for a full analysis.
     
  7. TheLeast

    TheLeast New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2
    Ratings:
    +0
    But Jesus said "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

    At these words the Jews were again divided. Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"

    But others said, "These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"
     
  8. Geoffthe3rd

    Geoffthe3rd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Ratings:
    +9
    Personally i do not think that dude has an ice cubes chance in hell of winning that state, sorry but i like politics and i can tell that when he openly said Satanist his chance went out the window
     
  9. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    54,860
    Ratings:
    +18,180
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    Really, no one wins if there not a Democrat or Republican. It has happened, but very rarly. Just saying your a third party will almost throw all of your chances out the window. Saying your a Satanist doesn't help, and neither does being under the Vampyres Witches and Pagans party. But being a former pro-wrestler, that might help him, since Jesse Ventura was a pro-wrestler, thats also assuming The Body had a good approval rating.

    I like some of Sharkey's ideas. Actually, the only ones I really don't agree with is the part of impaling all drug users and dealers.

    As far as him being arrested, if I understood it right, it was something he did as his wrestling gimmick, which to my knowledge, you can't legally hold someone who is acting out a part for a show. I've threatened dozens of people, and even entire cities, and no one has filed any legal complaints against "The Warhart" Luke Wolf. I've been criticised in the paper before, and have had people demanding apologies for bashing Christianity the way I did a few times (which I formally refused to apologize for acting my gimmick out), but nothing legal.
     
  10. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Me too.

    I thought that it would be really funny to try and get Baptist pastors to propagandize his platform like they do for Republicans.
     
  11. robtex

    robtex Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    11,771
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    What I am saying is Jesus death was a predestination. If he had not died nobody would get into heaven. It was a condition neccessary to be met for man's eternal salvation according to your faith. That makes it predestination. That point sharkey brought-up was that it was an very cruel act to put Jesus in that position and a fair and just God would not have done so but could and would have found an alternative.

    I don't see anyone who believes in your religion and thinking the two choices are (a) God (b) hell would choose hell. Hell, as presentented is not a viable option to a believer.


    I can accept that but understand that your religion and your bible is a matter of faith not a matter of rational. Part of being a Christian is believing in things which are hard for people to accept through rationale. For example resurrection, an afterlife, and heaven are all matters of faith but not of rationale.





    That is the reason I asked you if you had actually read the bible before. I can post links, scores and scores of them from the NT where God either kills or commands men to kill for him if it makes you happy but you are the very first christian who has ever bluntly said, "God does not kill in the nt". Do you really think God did not kill in the NT and if so do you want to spend time looking up scores of passages and posting their location in the Bible?

    AE said they are justified and Mike, a Chrsitian at my part-time job said God is judicial in killing mankind based on his omnipresent state and that might be a matter of debate, which would be difficult since the book is centuries old but to say flat out that God did not kill is incorrect.

    Follow me on this

    p1: Man committed the original sin and could not get into heaven
    p2: To fix this God sent his only son to earth to be cruxified for man's sins
    p3: Jesus went to earth was cruxified and man now can enter heaven.

    Now it is true, that man killed Jesus if you accept on faith that the cruxifition happened. However, it was the only condition presented by God whom you say is not omnipotent and therefore other alternatives in your belief may have not been avaliable. The fact remains that part of Jesus's role on earth, besides spreading the gospel was to die for man's sin. God was the originator of that plan and hence assumes the appropiate amount of responsibilty for it.

    Let me give you a parallel. Before I do, undersand I am not comparing God to this fella or any other mortal but instead comparing the senerios which may be similar. Charles Manson was convicted of killing a number of people in Cali. If you are not aware he never personally killed a single one of them. What he did do was create a vision and a plan and sent his cult to achieve his plan. He was tried and convicted for the murders, not for partipating, because he did not, but for planning them and sending others out to do so. In your estimation was Mason guilty to some degree and partially responsible for the deaths in cali or was he not because he didn't partipate?

    God in the same notion didn't partipate but he created the model where man to get into heaven NEEDED Jesus to die for their sins.
    Aka jesus dies for mans sins= heaven
    jesus does not die for mans sins = no heaven

    Lets leave Revelations out. It is a prophecy and until it happens (if it ever does) its is hard to hold anyone accountable.

    For enlightment to your comments: Matt 8:32 matt 13: 41-43, matt 22: 1-15, luke 10:10-15 (though he didn't act on it, the people likely frighten complied to what amounts to extortion), luke 19:22-27, acts 3:23, acts 5:1-10, acts 12:23, hewbrews 9:13,


    John 3:16
    rest next post:

    footnotes:

    bible passages taken from the following thre souces:

    1) KJV (from my library)
    2) Biblegateway.com
    3) skeptic's annotated bible. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
     
  12. Karl R

    Karl R Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    715
    Ratings:
    +263
    Nice misquote, Rob. :clap What I actually said was
    Do those sentences look the same to you?

    Yes it would.

    I gave you one example in my previous post. I've thought of two more since then (Ananias and Sapphira). Since all three are in Acts, that still hardly supports your claim of "If you read the OT and the NT the one thing that is consistant throughout death and destruction."

    Since scores and scores implies at least forty, and througout suggests more than one place, I'll agree that you're right if you can find forty examples (god killing or commanding someone to kill) located in at least three different books.

    Good luck.

    Acts 5:1-10 (the death of Ananias and Sapphira), Acts 12:23 (the death of Herod)
    Very good. 3 down, 37 to go. :clap Of course, Herod's death could have been caused by a massive heart attack or stroke.

    Matthew 8:32 (A herd of pigs dies while Jesus is healing a insane/possessed man.)
    Hebrews 9:13 (The writer discusses animal sacrifices at the jewish temple.)
    I suppose these are terribly sinister if you belong to PETA.

    Matthew 22:1-15 (Jesus tells a parable about a party. In the parable, one guest is thrown out of the party.)
    Luke 19:22-27 (Jesus tells another parable. In the parable, the king orders that his enemies be killed.)
    Jesus told a couple stories. Nobody died. In the first story, Jesus implies that people who don't prepare themselves, won't make it into heaven. In the second story, Jesus implies that people that don't want to serve god will die eternally (instead of living eternally). I suppose you could interpret it that god kills anyone who doesn't follow him, but you're living proof that's not an accurate interpretation.

    Acts 3:23 (Peter quoted Deuteronomy. Anyone who ignores a prophet will be cut off from his people.)
    That sounds like banishment.

    Matthew 13:41-43 (Jesus says that the "sons of the evil one" will be thrown into the fiery furnace.)
    The verses around it suggest that Jesus might be referring to Lucifer's minions being thrown into hell.

    Luke 10:10-15 (While giving instructions to his disciples, Jesus told them that some cities will be judged harshly during the final judgement.)
    Where's this extortion you were talking about? Nobody from those cities was close enough to hear Jesus.


    Jesus didn't command anyone to kill in the new testament. God didn't command anyone to kill in the new testament. You gave nine examples of death and destruction, and there's only three dead bodies. Were the other seven examples included just to waste my time?

    3 down. 37 to go. I feel so enlightened. :jester3:

    Standard christian belief in the trinity. Jesus and god are the same individual. The father/son terms are used metaphorically, in an attempt to describe how the two aspects of god related to each other.

    Jesus said "I and my father are one." (John 10:30)

    God made a plan where he became incarnate, and sacrificed himself to save others. I fail to see how that's so heartless.

    predestination = the act whereby God is believed to have foreordained all things.

    :banghead3 Would you take the time to read the definition? Even if I agree that god may have preordained one thing, that's a bit short of preordaining all things. Therefore, no predestination.

    God decided to become incarnate and sacrifice himself for humanity. He accomplished it. That sounds like self-determination.

    Technically, anyone who believes has already made that choice and doesn't need to worry about the "hell" option. (see John 3:16)

    By the way, how does John 3:16 prove your "nothing more, nothing less" point? I agree that it might prove the "nothing less" part, but that wasn't the part I was disputing.
     
Loading...