Billion + believe in Satan. Should all schools be mandated to teach Creationism?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Greatest I am

Bentley
Maybe some of us want the US to dwell in the dark ages shifty

Digi
We have other threads for creationism and evolution. This is also a bit US-centric. Which, I get it, you focus on what you know. But the fear of the US falling behind in education isn't necessarily going to galvanize the comparatively multicultural KMC masses like you might think.

This is probably your most coherent thread in a while, in that most of your others are strawmen that misrepresent entire religions, or all but the most niche interpretations of them, and therefore miss any potential target audience. But this also doesn't tread new ground in the educational debate. However, to throw you a bone, sure, a more international approach to education, in both this and other areas, would undoubtedly be beneficial in most cases.

Star428
Yeah, continue to promote the ridiculous notion that there is no god or devil. I'm sure that'll fix everything. LOL... NOT. So many people like you having no belief in a divine creator is one of the things that's wrong with this once-great nation. I'd much rather make sure our children are protected from the influence of ignorant atheists who think the universe just "happened" accidentally from an explosion of absolutely nothing.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Star428
Yeah, continue to promote the ridiculous notion that there is no god or devil. I'm sure that'll fix everything. LOL... NOT. So many people like you having no belief in a divine creator is one of the things that's wrong with this once-great nation. I'd much rather make sure our children are protected from the influence of ignorant atheists who think the universe just "happened" accidentally from an explosion of absolutely nothing.

The universe didn't happen by accident and it did not come from nothing. However, that doesn't mean it was crated my mythological beings.

Digi
Originally posted by Star428
Yeah, continue to promote the ridiculous notion that there is no god or devil. I'm sure that'll fix everything. LOL... NOT. So many people like you having no belief in a divine creator is one of the things that's wrong with this once-great nation. I'd much rather make sure our children are protected from the influence of ignorant atheists who think the universe just "happened" accidentally from an explosion of absolutely nothing.

I won't resort to insults, and there's little value in conversing if we start off on that foot. To be clear, however, I only mentioned that a more worldly approach to some matters would be beneficial. Xenophobia and ignorance, whether religiously motivated or otherwise, is a far greater potential evil than any implications of either side of the creation/evolution debate. For example, I'm much more concerned with your tone toward atheists than I am with our disagreement on evolution. The latter is an academic matter; the former is an approach mired in negativity, a personal grievance instead of merely an intellectual one.

I'd also point out that the US remains one of the most stridently religious nations in the world. If it is "once great," the decline has little to do with a decline in religiosity. Atheism represents somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3% of the total population; hardly the critical mass needed to do much of anything.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Digi
I won't resort to insults, and there's little value in conversing if we start off on that foot. To be clear, however, I only mentioned that a more worldly approach to some matters would be beneficial. Xenophobia and ignorance, whether religiously motivated or otherwise, is a far greater potential evil than any implications of either side of the creation/evolution debate. For example, I'm much more concerned with your tone toward atheists than I am with our disagreement on evolution. The latter is an academic matter; the former is an approach mired in negativity, a personal grievance instead of merely an intellectual one.

I'd also point out that the US remains one of the most stridently religious nations in the world. If it is "once great," the decline has little to do with a decline in religiosity. Atheism represents somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3% of the total population; hardly the critical mass needed to do much of anything.

If a person gets upset when people tell him that Satan doesn't exist, does that make him a Satan worshiper? wink

Oneness
Originally posted by Digi
We have other threads for creationism and evolution. This is also a bit US-centric. Which, I get it, you focus on what you know. But the fear of the US falling behind in education isn't necessarily going to galvanize the comparatively multicultural KMC masses like you might think.

This is probably your most coherent thread in a while, in that most of your others are strawmen that misrepresent entire religions, or all but the most niche interpretations of them, and therefore miss any potential target audience. But this also doesn't tread new ground in the educational debate. However, to throw you a bone, sure, a more international approach to education, in both this and other areas, would undoubtedly be beneficial in most cases. How are you going to teach kids how to utilize technologies and scientific theories that don't even exist yet?

That's what schools are trying to do basically, as soon as they get that degree, before even, they've learned a bunch of shit that just became obsolete a year ago.

Foolish schools, all education is good for is indoctrination.

How about, we use atomics to annihilate every school structure to atoms and then let everyone learn whatever in the name of **** they want to learn without a degree?

Do you agree, idc, you agree whether or not you agree with my way my way my way. smile

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Digi


I won't resort to insults ...


Is this some new resolution of yours, or are you a different Digi than the one that sent me messages laden with them this summer?

Digi
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Is this some new resolution of yours, or are you a different Digi than the one that sent me messages laden with them this summer?

Neither, of course. But don't talk to me. I'm well aware that's it's near impossible for you to avoid a chance to expose what you've always seen as some great hypocrisy in my words. But your obsession with it, in the past at least, bordered on the unhealthy. Let it drop. I have no desire to justify anything I say to you, and there's no sense in rehashing any of our discussion.

Time Immemorial
Digi may God Bless you.

ares834
I do believe it would be beneficial for schools to teach at least the basics of contemporary religions. Not as fact of course, but rather in taught in a similar vein as mythology. It is ironic, I think, that we learn about a few ancient religions in school but many people are left completely ignorant of religions such as Islam or Hinduism. Hell, I'd expect that more people in the US know who Zeus is than Allah. It seems that much of the religious bigotry in the US is due to ignorance of other religions and teaching the basics of all the major religions to kids in schools would be quite a beneficial step.

Bentley
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Is this some new resolution of yours, or are you a different Digi than the one that sent me messages laden with them this summer?

Blue, go check my cleromancy thread.

Star428
I just want to clarify that my previous post was primarily directed at the deceiful talking snake who continues to spread his lies. I should've made it clear by quoting him. Replying right after Digi like I did might give the impression that I was referring to him in my previous post but I really wasn't. Sorry if I offended you, Digi.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Star428
I just want to clarify that my previous post was primarily directed at the deceitful talking snake who continues to spread his lies. I should've made it clear by quoting him. Replying right after Digi like I did might give the impression that I was referring to him in my previous post but I really wasn't. Sorry if I offended you, Digi.


What exactly distinguishes Digi from any other atheist being targeted in your post, quoted below?


Originally posted by Star428
Yeah, continue to promote the ridiculous notion that there is no god or devil. I'm sure that'll fix everything. LOL... NOT. So many people like you having no belief in a divine creator is one of the things that's wrong with this once-great nation. I'd much rather make sure our children are protected from the influence of ignorant atheists who think the universe just "happened" accidentally from an explosion of absolutely nothing.

Star428
Because the OP (not Diji) is the one who continues to talk trash about God. I mean, just look at all the disrespect threads to God he's made to get an idea of why I don't like him. I called atheists "ignorant" in that post but I really didn't mean to call all atheists that. I was mainly just upset with his continual trash talking about God.

Bentley
I did not know the OP was an atheist. Never stroke me as one.

Star428
LOL. That's a joke, right? Apparently you haven't read very many of his posts.

Digi
I don't think he is either, though I could be wrong.

Also, thanks for the apology. It's not about taking offense so much - this is the internet, and I've been here a long time - but more about being unable to discuss much in such an initially caustic environment.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Star428
LOL. That's a joke, right? Apparently you haven't read very many of his posts.

Typical Christian! roll eyes (sarcastic) 'Greatest I am' is a Gnostic, not an atheist. He believes differently then you do. To call him an atheist is like calling an Islamist and atheist.

Why do you have to be so hateful? Where is this love that is supposed to be in your religion? Do you reserve it only for those who agree with you?

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Bentley
I did not know the OP was an atheist. Never me as one.


With all due respect to Star, "Greatest I am" is about as atheist as the Pope.

He subscribes instead to something called Gnosticism. It's a form of Luciferianism, and its tenets, having names as exotic as those found in the Bible WITHOUT the name recognition of that work for most people, sounds like something from a bad drug trip.

Have you ever wondered how God could allow bad things to happen?
Have you ever wondered how the Bible could have God speak as if He Himself is the author of calamity in certain places?

Gnostics believe they have the answer.
A being would have to be so conflicted as to be mad in their view, and so the God identified by Christians as Jehovah, Yaweh, God the Father, etcetera IS mad in the Gnostic view, he is, in "fact" a being called the "Demiurge" or, more formally "Yaldabaoth", and is literally insane.

By contrast, however, Gnostics believe that the serpent of the garden, ie Lucifer, is actually a being who was concerned with the enlightenment of man, wisdom, hence the name "Light Bearer". The Bible is, in the Gnostic view, a sort of twisted propoganda form of the "real" story of God and Satan (ie Lucifer).

Hence, light is dark, black is white, good is evil, etcetera.

Re-examine what you see from "Greatest I Am" with this knowledge.

Better yet, examine the first 2 minutes (or as much as you choose) from the 7 minute clip below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_OZtVxNQtc

Better still, do just a little research on your own by Googling or Wikipedia-ing "demiurge" and Gnosticism.

Greatest I Am is not an atheist. He just believes, or at least claims, that the God of the Bible is the deceiver of mankind, not Satan.

Bentley
That makes a bit more sense, nobody who is atheist spends time nitpicking the Bible like that.

He'd like Three Versions of Judas.

Wonder Man
I think God should be a common talk in the home.
I don't know that we have to go as far as at school as well.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Wonder Man
I think God should be a common talk in the home.
I don't know that we have to go as far as at school as well.

Are you okay with schools teaching evolution and the big bang?

Star428
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
With all due respect to Star, "Greatest I am" is about as atheist as the Pope.

He subscribes instead to something called Gnosticism. It's a form of Luciferianism, and its tenets, having names as exotic as those found in the Bible WITHOUT the name recognition of that work for most people, sounds like something from a bad drug trip.

Have you ever wondered how God could allow bad things to happen?
Have you ever wondered how the Bible could have God speak as if He Himself is the author of calamity in certain places?

Gnostics believe they have the answer.
A being would have to be so conflicted as to be mad in their view, and so the God identified by Christians as Jehovah, Yaweh, God the Father, etcetera IS mad in the Gnostic view, he is, in "fact" a being called the "Demiurge" or, more formally "Yaldabaoth", and is literally insane.

By contrast, however, Gnostics believe that the serpent of the garden, ie Lucifer, is actually a being who was concerned with the enlightenment of man, wisdom, hence the name "Light Bearer". The Bible is, in the Gnostic view, a sort of twisted propoganda form of the "real" story of God and Satan (ie Lucifer).

Hence, light is dark, black is white, good is evil, etcetera.

Re-examine what you see from "Greatest I Am" with this knowledge.

Better yet, examine the first 2 minutes (or as much as you choose) from the 7 minute clip below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_OZtVxNQtc

Better still, do just a little research on your own by Googling or Wikipedia-ing "demiurge" and Gnosticism.

Greatest I Am is not an atheist. He just believes, or at least claims, that the God of the Bible is the deceiver of mankind, not Satan.

I should've been more clear in my original post. I've always known deep down that the OP is just a Satan wannabe. All one has to do is look at the deceitful trash he posts on an almost daily basis and his "talking snake" avatar. But, he at least makes claims with some of his statements that he is an atheist. I mean afterall, he said in his original post "we must save our kids from the belief in the supernatural" and the foolish belief in creationism. I've always realized that he's just a liar like his idol, the Prince of lies: Satan.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Star428
I should've been more clear in my original post. I've always known deep down that the OP is just a Satan wannabe. All one has to do is look at the deceitful trash he posts on an almost daily basis and his "talking snake" avatar. But, he at least makes claims with some of his statements that he is an atheist. I mean afterall, he said in his original post "we must save our kids from the belief in the supernatural" and the foolish belief in creationism. I've always realized that he's just a liar like his idol, the Prince of lies: Satan.

roll eyes (sarcastic) You seem to have no religions tolerance.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Star428
I should've been more clear in my original post. I've always known deep down that the OP is just a Satan wannabe. All one has to do is look at the deceitful trash he posts on an almost daily basis and his "talking snake" avatar. But, he at least makes claims with some of his statements that he is an atheist. I mean afterall, he said in his original post "we must save our kids from the belief in the supernatural" and the foolish belief in creationism. I've always realized that he's just a liar like his idol, the Prince of lies: Satan.


The religion forum is perhaps the most challenging I've found on KMC.
Any other place I would balk at the way you're framing this. Actually, I still do.

But I've also found that traditional guidelines don't work very well here.
I don't think I've ever called anyone names. I usually, instead, describe actions.
I would refrain from calling GreatestIAm a liar. On the other hand, it is extremely difficulty to have a meaningful conversation without at the least mentioning that there seems to be a ... disconnect of sorts with some of the things he says versus some of the OTHER things he says.

From the Christian perspective, Gnosticism is Luciferianism, an alternate form of Satanism. It would be difficult for things to be otherwise as Lucifer and Satan in the Bible are, arguably, indistinguishable from one another.
Most would probably say Lucifer IS Satan, and I myself find no good reason to argue differently.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Star428
I should've been more clear in my original post. I've always known deep down that the OP is just a Satan wannabe. All one has to do is look at the deceitful trash he posts on an almost daily basis and his "talking snake" avatar. But, he at least makes claims with some of his statements that he is an atheist. I mean afterall, he said in his original post "we must save our kids from the belief in the supernatural" and the foolish belief in creationism. I've always realized that he's just a liar like his idol, the Prince of lies: Satan.


Problem:

If Satan is the Prince of Lies, what would a follower of his Satan do?

But ... it might be more complicated than that.


In order to be an actual liar telling a lie, you not only have to be saying something untrue, you have to KNOW you are saying something untrue.

Does GreatestIAm meet that criteria?

I've actually spent some time researching such things.
I know from my exploration there are actually Satanists who call themselves Satanists who claim NOT to believe in a literal spirit-being Satan.
(Or Lucifer, for that matter.)

That's sticky.

If they don't believe in a literal Satan, why do they call themselves Satanists?
If they ARE Satanists, though, and their god IS indeed Satan, known as the Prince of Lies in Christianity, wouldn't it make sense for Satanists to lie and say they don't believe in Satan when they actually do?

How do you address a question like that politely?

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Star428
I should've been more clear in my original post. I've always known deep down that the OP is just a Satan wannabe. All one has to do is look at the deceitful trash he posts on an almost daily basis and his "talking snake" avatar. But, he at least makes claims with some of his statements that he is an atheist. I mean afterall, he said in his original post "we must save our kids from the belief in the supernatural" and the foolish belief in creationism. I've always realized that he's just a liar like his idol, the Prince of lies: Satan.


To get back more directly to what you're saying, I'm troubled by something else.

Satan, according to Christianity, is a deceiver.
Likewise, though, according to Christianity, Satan is more intelligent than any human on Earth.

If that's so, and Satan is also powerful (the Bible, in fact, calls him "the god of this world"wink then wouldn't Satan theoretically be able to deceive people into following Satan, THINKING that they are instead following God?


The other possibility is just as bad. If not worse.
And that possibility would be that people KNOW they are following Satan, but lie and say they are not, and present Satan as an angel of Light to the masses.

In point of fact, the Bible itself STRONGLY hints that this is precisely what some people do.

Shakyamunison
Both Satan and Lucifer are mythological being and do not exist.

Also, Gnosticism is not Luciferianism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm

^ You two are disgusting. Please take your name calling somewhere else.

Star428
I don't disagree with anything you said in those 3 posts, bluewaterrider.

Star428
[email protected] You're persistant. I'll give you that but no, he is not a myth and yes, they are the same being. It's just that after Lucifer was kicked out of heaven he became Satan, the devil. Same being. Just different names. Technically speaking, Lucifer=angel and Satan=devil.

Satan also has been called many other names in the bible.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Star428
[email protected] You're persistant. I'll give you that but no, he is not a myth and yes, they are the same being. It's just that after Lucifer was kicked out of heaven he became Satan, the devil. Same being. Just different names. Technically speaking, Lucifer=angel and Satan=devil.

Satan also has been called many other names in the bible.

I don't believe in angels, Satan or Lucifer. Now please prove to me that any of those exist, and I will change my mind.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Star428
[email protected] You're persistant. I'll give you that but no, he is not a myth and yes, they are the same being. It's just that after Lucifer was kicked out of heaven he became Satan, the devil. Same being. Just different names. Technically speaking, Lucifer=angel and Satan=devil.

Satan also has been called many other names in the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe in angels, Satan or Lucifer. Now please prove to me that any of those exist, and I will change my mind.



This question has been plaguing me for the better part of a year now, and perhaps for far longer: Assuming the Bible to be true, what WOULD Satan look like? In fact, assuming the Bible is true, what DOES Satan look like? Is there any evidence for him or his influence?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Corinthians 4 King James Version (KJV)

4 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;

2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%204&version=KJV

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
This question has been plaguing me for the better part of a year now, and perhaps for far longer: Assuming the Bible to be true, what WOULD Satan look like? In fact, assuming the Bible is true, what DOES Satan look like? Is there any evidence for him or his influence?...

Before you can assume that the bible is true, you must prove that the bible is true.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Star428
[email protected] You're persistent. I'll give you that, but, no, he is not a myth, and, yes, they are the same being.

It's just that after Lucifer was kicked out of heaven he became Satan, the devil. Same being. Just different names.
Technically speaking, Lucifer=angel and Satan=devil.

Satan also has been called many other names in the bible.


Again I come to this in light of a few Bible passages on the subject, especially the account where Satan takes Jesus up to a mountain, and tells Jesus that he will give Jesus all that Jesus sees -- if only he will bow down and worship Satan.


Nearly everyone I've heard cover this highlights the obvious counter.
Which is NOT used: "These things that I see are not yours to give, Satan!".


In light of the Corinthians verse given in my previous post ...?
That would make considerable sense.


If Satan IS "the god of this world", then most anything on it, for now, would be his to do with as he pleases. This would help explain why people need to actively seek God -- you're likelier to find the OTHER guy if you just look around at random.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Before you can assume that the bible is true, you must prove that the bible is true.

I know of very little in the world that follows that particular "rule", and the very definition of assumption negates your premise. Even in the world of science what happens is that people:


a) observe what is happening in the world around them

b) make an educated guess as to why this is happening based on everything they know

and

c) think of practical ways to test their hypothesis.

What should happen if this is true?
What should happen if it is NOT true?

d) revise theory if necessary, based on the results of additional observation and experimentation

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I know of very little in the world that follows that particular "rule", and the very definition of assumption negates your premise. Even in the world of science what happens is that people:


a) observe what is happening in the world around them

b) make an educated guess as to why this is happening based on everything they know

and

c) think of practical ways to test their hypothesis.

What should happen if this is true?
What should happen if it is NOT true?

d) revise theory if necessary, based on the results of additional observation and experimentation

If you assume that the bible is true then you must assume that people of the past had access to information directly from God. If that is true then you must answer one over powering question: Why is the bible true, but other books that claim to be the word of God are not true? For example the Koran, the Sutrus of Buddha, and the Vedas. There are many more. Therefore assuming that the bible is true is an extraordinary claim. According to science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you assume that the bible is true then you must assume that people of the past had access to information directly from God.


At least some people.

Seems reasonable enough, yes.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If that is true then you must answer one over powering question: Why is the bible true, but other books that claim to be the word of God are not true?

The simple answer would be that those other books were not authored, and/or not inspired by God in the way Christians believe the Bible to be.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
At least some people.

Seems reasonable enough, yes.

The simple answer would be that those other books were not authored, and/or not inspired by God in the way Christians believe the Bible to be.

That is an opinion, not proof. And extraordinary proof is required.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is an opinion, not proof. And extraordinary proof is required.

I don't know that your premise is correct. One, it doesn't seem to be the case that you can't start of with an assumption. In fact, unless I am gravely mistaken, along with observation, that actually where you start off, with science or just about anything else.

If you're trying to prove something right or wrong, you first have to have an hypothesis TO be proved right or wrong.

So there's that. It's valid enough, in other words, to start with an opinion, and then see if the opinion is justified in light of evidence.

For your Koran, mentioned in the post before this one, one possible "testing" question, and one which seems reasonable enough to me:

What do nations that follow Islam, that follow the Koran as the basis of their laws, customs, habits, practices, etcetera, what do they look like? How do they function, especially compared to societies that follow the Bible as a major or even the major basis of their functioning?

In other words, if the book the religion is based on says,
"In this day and age, do x,y,and z"
and you do so and get what was predicted and good results ...


I find it telling that the biggest charge people lay against Christians is that they don't practice what they preach.
By contrast, people actively fear some Muslims precisely because they DO practice what they preach. No less a figure than Richard Dawkins is willing to give some ground on this particular point, and earlier in other threads I posted a clip corroborating that.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by bluewaterrider

I find it telling that the biggest charge people lay against Christians is that they don't practice what they preach.
By contrast, people actively fear some Muslims precisely because they DO practice what they preach.
No less a figure than Richard Dawkins is willing to give some ground on this particular point, and earlier in other threads I posted a clip corroborating that.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Dawkins confronts a Muslim who says Islam is peaceful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ks4pCO5O8
7 min 14 sec
(the deadly penalty of apostasy in a Muslim country)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3:35
"I would be thoroughly in favor of education in the Bible as literature.
You can't understand English Literature without the Bible.
You can't take your allusions ...
This IS a Christian country, historically it's a Christian country,
You can't understand English History or English Literature without a knowledge of the Bible ...

By the way, I should say, the act of collective worship, I don't approve of it, but nevertheless:
The Christian religion ... is benign by comparison ...
The penalty for apostasy in the Christian religion is not death.
There is no penalty for apostasy at all in the Christian religion.
The Christian religion is comparatively benign, and we should respect it as such." -- Richard Dawkins
4:33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shakyamunison

Star428
No human knows what he looks like but he once was the most favored of God's angels and it's been said that he was the most beautiful of all of them. His influence (along with the other fallen angels') is why the world is in the bad shape it's in. But, there are forces for good (the loyal angels) who are in a constant state of spiritual warfare with them to combat their influence on humanity with their own influence.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Star428
No human knows what he looks like but he once was the most favored of God's angels and it's been said that he was the most beautiful of all of them. His influence (along with the other fallen angels) is why the world is in the bad shape it's in. But, there are forces for good (the loyal angels) who are in a constant state of spiritual warfare with them to combat their influence on humanity with their own influence.

I have read the stories. How do you know that this isn't just mythology? As far as I know, there is no physical evidence to support these stories.

In the spirit of the topic: I feel that there is a value in teaching these kind of storied, but not as fact, and not isolated. There are many great stories like this that should be taught. For example: There are wonderful stories in Hindu mythology that have been ignored by western culture.

Bentley
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Most would probably say Lucifer IS Satan, and I myself find no good reason to argue differently.

The name Satan comes from Shaitan, right? That figure is originally an angel under the service of God who tests humans, he never fell from God's grace like Lucifer did in abrahamic tradition. I think Islam believes the same? I can't remember of the top of my head.

In my opinion, this tradition alone is a good reason to divide the character Satan from Lucifer. Very little is left of the rightful Shaitan when we say the word Satan though.

bluewaterrider

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
This question has been plaguing me for the better part of a year now, and perhaps for far longer: Assuming the Bible to be true, what WOULD Satan look like? In fact, assuming the Bible is true, what DOES Satan look like? Is there any evidence for him or his influence?


Originally posted by Star428


... after Lucifer was kicked out of heaven he became Satan, the devil. Same being. Just different names. Technically speaking, Lucifer=angel and Satan=devil.

Satan also has been called many other names ...


Indeed. In fact, arguably and specifically:

Anointed Cherub. Abaddon. Adversary. Apollo. Apollyon. Beezlebub. Deceiver. Destroyer. Devourer. Devil. Dragon. Eosphorus. The god of this world. The King of Tyre. Lord of the Flies. Lucifer. Morning Star. Peter. Phosphorus. Slanderer. Son of the Morning.


Doubtless I've missed a few.

The bulk of the names listed above are easily found in most Bibles.

I've bolded some of the names that appear particularly relevant to this discussion. The names that go COUNTER to our conventional view of Satan as some horned-head, evil-looking, cloven-footed Pan-demon from Dante's inferno.
It might be a good idea to have a page where ordered Biblical verses are included here for reader reference. It simply cannot be stated enough that Satan does not look like or come in the guise of Satan on most occasions.
People looking for Satan to appear as a monster likely won't see obvious indications until it's too late. The Bible alludes to this:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. 11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth. 12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011&version=AKJV

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Star428


... after Lucifer was kicked out of heaven he became Satan, the devil. Same being. Just different names. Technically speaking, Lucifer=angel and Satan=devil.

Satan also has been called many other names ...


Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Indeed. In fact, arguably and specifically:

Anointed Cherub. Abaddon. Adversary. Apollo. Apollyon. Beezlebub. Deceiver. Destroyer. Devourer. Devil. Dragon. Eosphorus. The god of this world. The King of Tyre. Lord of the Flies. Lucifer. Morning Star. Peter. Phosphorus. Slanderer. Son of the Morning.


The format of KMC is not actually all that good for sharing information.
I'll probably need to write at length in a variety of ways to make my points clear.

Overall, the reason I responded concerning GreatestIAM is that I DON'T think that he is alone in giving a slanted view or view of God.
In fact, I would contend much of popular culture and religion and society does.

If Satan is, in fact, "the god of this world", as the Bible says he is,
if he was, in fact, able to give Jesus all that he offered when he tested him in the desert,
if he is the Prince of the power of the air,
if he was, in fact, with us from Garden of Eden times to the present
if Christians do, in fact, struggle with principalities, and rulers,
then, how could it possibly be otherwise?

Satan's influence should easily be the equal or superior of world figures like a Muhammad Ali, or a Barack Obama, or a Michael Jackson, or the Pope.
He should appear and be popular and revered. He should be virtually ubiquitous.
In fact he should have SEVERAL incarnations and avatars.

But he should, of course, be DISGUISED.
Few if any should ever realize that Satan is and what his true nature is.



I'd be interested in hearing your take on that assertion.


If you disagree with this argument, based on what is written in the Bible, especially, I'd be interested in knowing why.

Shakyamunison
It's not a good sign when people start replying to their own posts. laughing out loud

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Shakyamunison


It's not a good sign when people start replying to their own posts.



Why are you pretending that your mind is open to anything being said by anyone in this thread?

But your behavior is directly relevant to the thread topic at hand.
You're asking for suggestions that what the Bible says is true?
I think people are beginning to see some things for themselves.

I notice that recently the poster named "Breno" for instance, called you out on your own religious stance. Interestingly enough, though he identified himself as atheist, he called you out on BIBLICAL grounds:


Originally posted by Breno

Oh come on man! This (Nichiren Buddhism) crap is just as bad! You don't need much faith to believe in God but for this stuff it's par with mountain moving

"If you wish to free yourself from the sufferings of birth and death you have endured since time without beginning and to attain without fail unsurpassed enlightenment in this lifetime, you must perceive the mystic truth that is originally inherent in all living beings. This truth is Myoho-renge-kyo. Chanting Myoho-renge-kyo will therefore enable you to grasp the mystic truth innate in all life." (WND, 3)

Sorry to be blunt



Originally posted by Breno


In fact, I doubt there is little much difference between chanting Myoho-renge-kyo and whipping yourself up into a self induced frenzied delirium of euphoria,
as there is in a Christian getting himself in the spirit and babbling away in tongues.

And! What are you opening yourself up too when you're in that state of suggestion? You want to be careful mate!
Even in the bible it says that the devil appears as an angel of light. You don't need this foolishness to be a decent person and live your own unique and remarkable life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Chanting is a form of meditation.
I find meditation too difficult, because I have too much going on in my head. Chanting allows me to impose order onto my thoughts, and gain the same result as meditation.
It is not a "self induced frenzied delirium of euphoria". It is a calm, quiet place were I can be at peace ...


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=597286&pagenumber=9#post14982961


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Timothy 4 King James Version (KJV)

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%204&version=KJV

red g jacks
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I don't know that your premise is correct. One, it doesn't seem to be the case that you can't start of with an assumption. In fact, unless I am gravely mistaken, along with observation, that actually where you start off, with science or just about anything else.

If you're trying to prove something right or wrong, you first have to have an hypothesis TO be proved right or wrong.

So there's that. It's valid enough, in other words, to start with an opinion, and then see if the opinion is justified in light of evidence.

For your Koran, mentioned in the post before this one, one possible "testing" question, and one which seems reasonable enough to me:

What do nations that follow Islam, that follow the Koran as the basis of their laws, customs, habits, practices, etcetera, what do they look like? How do they function, especially compared to societies that follow the Bible as a major or even the major basis of their functioning?

In other words, if the book the religion is based on says,
"In this day and age, do x,y,and z"
and you do so and get what was predicted and good results ...


I find it telling that the biggest charge people lay against Christians is that they don't practice what they preach.
By contrast, people actively fear some Muslims precisely because they DO practice what they preach. No less a figure than Richard Dawkins is willing to give some ground on this particular point, and earlier in other threads I posted a clip corroborating that. for the sake of argument... what if you performed the same comparison hundreds of years ago when the caliphate was on top and christian europe wasn't doing so great..? why are today's results more relevant than results from the past, and who is to say that today's results are the way things are going to stay into the future?

in other words... that's not really a solid experiment to me.

Bentley
Originally posted by red g jacks
for the sake of argument... what if you performed the same comparison hundreds of years ago when the caliphate was on top and christian europe wasn't doing so great..? why are today's results more relevant than results from the past, and who is to say that today's results are the way things are going to stay into the future?

in other words... that's not really a solid experiment to me.

Great post Red thumb up

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by bluewaterrider


Gnostics believe that the serpent of the garden, ie Lucifer, is actually a being who was concerned with the enlightenment of man, wisdom, hence the name "Light Bearer".
The Bible is, in the Gnostic view, a sort of twisted propoganda form of the "real" story of God and Satan (ie Lucifer).
Hence, light is dark, black is white, good is evil, etcetera.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Gnosticism is not Luciferianism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm



Shaky, the link you yourself provided corroborates what I said initially:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snake: Some Gnostic sects honored the snake. They did not view the snake as a seducer who led the first couple into sinful behavior.

Rather, they saw him/it as a liberator who brought knowledge to Adam and Eve by convincing them to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus to become fully human.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm

Shakyamunison

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by red g jacks
for the sake of argument ... who is to say that today's results are the way things are going to stay into the future?


The Bible itself says that things are not going to stay the way they are now in the future.


Originally posted by red g jacks
why are today's results more relevant than results from the past?

I didn't say they were.
You would need time enough for Christian practice to be codified into the Bible that we know today before you can judge how a nation or community that follows Biblical principles fares versus others, though.

And, of course, time enough for Biblical reading and practice to be adopted by large numbers of people.


Originally posted by red g jacks
for the sake of argument... what if you performed the same comparison hundreds of years ago when the caliphate was on top and christian europe wasn't doing so great..?


I'd be interested in precisely such a comparison, but it would need to take into account what was just written above. You first need a word of God in the hands of people TO be followed and define that place as a Christian nation/community/ what have you before it can be judged as one.

Also, don't miss the pertinent point made in the previous post, the main charge against Christianity is that people DON'T practice what they preach.
You haven't done anything to disprove the Bible if no one actually follows what's written inside, and you've certainly done nothing to challenge the premise that WHEN followed, the results are better than those obtained by any OTHER book claiming to be the word of God.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Shaky, the link you yourself provided corroborates what I said initially:...

Your characterization is that Gnostic is evil, and that is not true. They do not worship Satan. They simply believe differently then you. Grow a little religious tolerance and stop calling everyone who doesn't believe like you, evil, or going to hell.

red g jacks
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The Bible itself says that things are not going to stay the way they are now in the future.




I didn't say they were.
You would need time enough for Christian practice to be codified into the Bible that we know today before you can judge how a nation or community that follows Biblical principles fares versus others, though.

And, of course, time enough for Biblical reading and practice to be adopted by large numbers of people.




I'd be interested in precisely such a comparison, but it would need to take into account what was just written above. You first need a word of God in the hands of people TO be followed and define that place as a Christian nation/community/ what have you before it can be judged as one.

Also, don't miss the pertinent point made in the previous post, the main charge against Christianity is that people DON'T practice what they preach.
You haven't done anything to disprove the Bible if no one actually follows what's written inside, and you've certainly done nothing to challenge the premise that WHEN followed, the results are better than those obtained by any OTHER book claiming to be the word of God. so in a nutshell, what are you saying exactly? that christian europe didn't follow the bible correctly back in the day but now they do? you're going to have to keep it brief with me since my attention span on this topic is pretty limited tbh. i'm not saying that to be rude but if you start giving me lengthy bible lessons i will probably tune out, just being honest. but i am curious what message it is that today's christian nations follow that they didn't back then and how that has been the deciding factor in their overall success? cause i probably have different ideas about why the west is doing better than the islamic world atm.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your characterization is that Gnostic is evil, and that is not true. They do not worship Satan. They simply believe differently then you. Grow a little religious tolerance and stop calling everyone who doesn't believe like you, evil, or going to hell.


There's a point at which stated distinctions do not make much of a difference.

Lucifer APPEARS differently than Satan for most, but, if they are, in fact, the same being ... ?

Also, I don't recall saying GreatestIAm is evil.
Or telling him he would go to hell.

Bentley
Originally posted by red g jacks
so in a nutshell, what are you saying exactly? that christian europe didn't follow the bible correctly back in the day but now they do? you're going to have to keep it brief with me since my attention span on this topic is pretty limited tbh. i'm not saying that to be rude but if you start giving me lengthy bible lessons i will probably tune out, just being honest. but i am curious what message it is that today's christian nations follow that they didn't back then and how that has been the deciding factor in their overall success? cause i probably have different ideas about why the west is doing better than the islamic world atm.

Free market? Open economy? A monopoly on technology and higher education? Better food and establishment in productive countries? More talent at stealing?

red g jacks
i would say it has a lot to do with the scientific revolution along with less emphasis on strict religious dogma. christianity has become sort of watered down in the west which has made it a lot more compatible with a modern progressive society. also i would say reformed christian values did help influence a lot of things that made things better such as humanism and what not but it wasn't the sole influence by any means.

as for islamic countries i think when they were on top it was a lot of the same virtues mentioned above which helped get them there. they took quite a few steps backwards when they started emphasizing a more fundamentalist approach imo, and that was made even worse through western colonialism which marginalized their political structures and bolstered the power of the mosques in those societies. and of course that same colonialism helped the west get to the point we're currently at financially so it cuts both ways.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
There's a point at which stated distinctions do not make much of a difference.

Lucifer APPEARS differently than Satan for most, but, if they are, in fact, the same being ... ?

Also, I don't recall saying GreatestIAm is evil.
Or telling him he would go to hell.

Don't give me that. Connecting someone's religion to Lucifer is clearly calling them evil.

red g jacks
to be fair he could just think he's deceived by satan. doesn't necessarily make him evil. plus greatest i am hasn't exactly been shy about blasting other people's religions so fair game imo.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by red g jacks
i would say it has a lot to do with the scientific revolution along with less emphasis on strict religious dogma. christianity has become sort of watered down in the west which has made it a lot more compatible with a modern progressive society. also i would say reformed christian values did help influence a lot of things that made things better such as humanism and what not but it wasn't the sole influence by any means...

So, what you are saying is that Christianity is better today because of outside influences?

If Christianity was a "true" religion, wouldn't it be better in its pure form, and worse when influenced for outside?

red g jacks
i think everything is a work in progress tbh, religion included. being a godless heathen myself i obviously don't believe in divinely inspired writing in general.

but to be perfectly blunt i do prefer some religions over others. fundamentalist islam is probably my least favorite aside from some fringe ones like scientology and black hebrews.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by red g jacks
to be fair he could just think he's deceived by satan. doesn't necessarily make him evil. plus greatest i am hasn't exactly been shy about blasting other people's religions so fair game imo.

True, to a degree, and I thought the same way in the beginning. But he was attacked by Christians from the very beginning, and has responded poorly.

Bentley
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, what you are saying is that Christianity is better today because of outside influences?

If Christianity was a "true" religion, wouldn't it be better in its pure form, and worse when influenced for outside?

It makes sense for a religion to adapt itself to how humans grow and learn, their practices and their experiences. I don't remember if it's from the Bible (it does have that snarky Jesus tone to it, but I'm not 100% sure and in this forum I'll be corrected if I'm misquoting), but the famous line "sabath is made for man and not man for sabath" comes to mind.

Maybe christianity was never meant to have a "pure form"? Or it got properly altered later, afterall, the church is supposed to be a living entity and by definition it should change.

red g jacks
^yea pretty sure that's from the bible. jesus said it after some of his friends were caught violating the sabbath iirc

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bentley
It makes sense for a religion to adapt itself to how humans grow and learn, their practices and their experiences. I don't remember if it's from the Bible (it does have that snarky Jesus tone to it, but I'm not 100% sure and in this forum I'll be corrected if I'm misquoting), but the famous line "sabath is made for man and not man for sabath" comes to mind.

Maybe christianity was never meant to have a "pure form"? Or it got properly altered later, afterall, the church is supposed to be a living entity and by definition it should change.

I believe that Christianity was man-made, and therefore, should grow and change over time. But that is in direct contradiction with a divine Jesus that leads the Church.

red g jacks
that really depends on how much authority you place on orthodox interpretations of scripture imo. maybe reinterpreting it isn't a contradiction if the original interpretation was flawed. plus if it's jesus changing the rules then you would have to assume he has the authority to do so.

Bentley
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that Christianity was man-made, and therefore, should grow and change over time. But that is in direct contradiction with a divine Jesus that leads the Church.

Well, Jesus was a man so his teaching are all man-made. Those who consider Jesus to be divine also admit, for most christian denominations at least, that he was truly a man.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bentley
Well, Jesus was a man so his teaching are all man-made. Those who consider Jesus to be divine also admit, for most christian denominations at least, that he was truly a man.

We seem to be on the same side of the discussion.

Bentley
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We seem to be on the same side of the discussion.

I think you do a good work at finding the sense of christianity by being beyond christianity.

That's a line that I cannot really say without making it sound stupid somehow, but I rather still say it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bentley
I think you do a good work at finding the sense of christianity by being beyond christianity.

That's a line that I cannot really say without making it sound stupid somehow, but I rather still say it.

Thank you, but I still have my demons (that's figurative demons not literal demons laughing out loud ).

Bentley
laughing out loud

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thank you, but I still have my demons (that's figurative demons not literal demons laughing out loud ).


This statement ... nags at the edge of consciousness.
To say the least.

The Christian view is that demons did, and arguably do, exist.

And literally, not merely figuratively.


I understand you are telling us you did not mean that literally, though, of course.

red g jacks
how would one know if they had literal demons?

serious question.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Bentley
Well, Jesus was a man so his teaching(s) are all man-made.
Those who consider Jesus to be divine also admit, for most Christian denominations at least, that he was truly a man.

This doesn't QUITE work ...

I'm tempted to ascribe this to something getting lost in translation, as French, not English, is your first language.

The truth, however, is that this is a somewhat difficult concept to relate even for native English speakers.


The flaw is hard to state directly but perhaps can be illustrated by parallel example:

"Jesus was a man. So his power to heal sick people was all man-made."
"Jesus was a man. So his ability to walk on water was all man-made."
"Jesus was a man. So his prowess at multiplying a boy's lunch into a meal for thousands was all man-made."

It is, of course, possible to say "Right! Everything listed above is an invention that did not happen, or used the most liberal interpretations imaginable! It is the fanciful storytelling of man. It is man-made."

On the other hand, if you believe Jesus really did all the things listed above, you would see the implication that Jesus was ONLY a man, fails.
From the Christian perspective, the authors of the Bible clearly intended us to understand there was a supernatural aspect to Jesus that is beyond man as we commonly employ the term, or at least that he used power which is not innately OF man.

Star428
[email protected] the ridiculous notion that Jesus was only a man. He was MUCH more than that AND He still is. You atheists keep the silly comments coming. They give me a good laugh.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Shakyamunison


Connecting someone's religion to Lucifer is clearly calling them evil.

Originally posted by red g jacks

to be fair he could just think he's deceived by satan.
doesn't necessarily make him evil.
plus, greatest i am hasn't exactly been shy about blasting other people's religions, so, fair game, imo.



For the record, I was not and am not trying to personally attack GreatestIAm.




The problem is precisely that Gnosticism IS connected to Lucifer, because it is tightly connected to the story of Creation, God, the Garden of Eden, and knowledge and wisdom, which Gnosticism asserts Lucifer, as the snake, helped BRING to mankind.

It is simply not possible to talk about Gnosticism in a meaningful way without connecting it to Lucifer.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
This statement ... nags at the edge of consciousness.
To say the least.

The Christian view is that demons did, and arguably do, exist.

And literally, not merely figuratively.


I understand you are telling us you did not mean that literally, though, of course.

In the Buddhist view point there are also demons, but they are mythology. No one should ever think that demons are real. Mythology is an important teaching tool used by Buddhas.

My personal opinion only; if you believe that demons are real, you need to seek professional help.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Star428
[email protected] the ridiculous notion that Jesus was only a man. He was MUCH more than that AND He still is. You atheists keep the silly comments coming. They give me a good laugh.

Please prove that Jesus was more then just a man. Otherwise it is just your belief.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Shakyamunison



My personal opinion only; if you believe that demons are real, you need to seek professional help.


There are many, many people in need of professional help, then, Shake:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... hile only 44% of Americans over 65 years of age surveyed by October 2012 Public Policy Polling believed in demon possession, 57% of Americans 47-65 did and, among the youngest group surveyed, Americans 18-29, 63% believed in demon possession. The demographic trend line seems obvious ..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/nononsense/forum/topics/young-adults-belief-in-demon-posession

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
There are many, many people in need of professional help, then, Shake
If everyone believed that the Earth was flat would it suddenly become flat? No.

The truth is not dictated by popularity.

Bentley
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
This doesn't QUITE work ...

I'm tempted to ascribe this to something getting lost in translation, as French, not English, is your first language.

The truth, however, is that this is a somewhat difficult concept to relate even for native English speakers.


The flaw is hard to state directly but perhaps can be illustrated by parallel example:

"Jesus was a man. So his power to heal sick people was all man-made."
"Jesus was a man. So his ability to walk on water was all man-made."
"Jesus was a man. So his prowess at multiplying a boy's lunch into a meal for thousands was all man-made."

It is, of course, possible to say "Right! Everything listed above is an invention that did not happen, or used the most liberal interpretations imaginable! It is the fanciful storytelling of man. It is man-made."

On the other hand, if you believe Jesus really did all the things listed above, you would see the implication that Jesus was ONLY a man, fails.
From the Christian perspective, the authors of the Bible clearly intended us to understand there was a supernatural aspect to Jesus that is beyond man as we commonly employ the term, or at least that he used power which is not innately OF man.

I didn't say Jesus was just a man. But Jesus was (is?)human, and when he ate, his digestive system worked like that of a man, when he went to the toilet, his feces smelled like that of a man, and when he did things that men could do, there was always a human dimension into it. At no point Jesus stopped being a full fledged human.

If you believe Jesus performed miracles, you also believe his disciples did so. By that I don't mean that those supernatural acts are particular to men, but as you said, while not innate of man, there is a potential proximity between those things and common folk. The divine aspect of Jesus is not something that should alienate him from other humans.

In christianity talking about Jesus while separating the man from the divine is dangerous. When I said he taught like a man would, that his teachings and reflections are man-made, I don't pretend to say his divine nature is erased by default, those things can both happen at th same times (truly divine, truly human) from the premise that Jesus is both. I don't see the point in trying to hassle between those two natures when it's unnecesary. I'm not making this up by the way, early christians worked around these concepts when they converted ancient Greece.

dyajeep
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Typical Christian! roll eyes (sarcastic) 'Greatest I am' is a Gnostic, not an atheist. He believes differently then you do. To call him an atheist is like calling an Islamist and atheist.

Why do you have to be so hateful? Where is this love that is supposed to be in your religion? Do you reserve it only for those who agree with you?

typical "YOU"... why do i have this feeling that you're just waiting for a Christian forumer to post something that you can twist to make him look bad? why? isn't love also supposed to be taught in Buddhism? and WHERE'S THE LOVE in what you're doing here in the forum?

if you think a "christian" calling someone an "atheist" is being hateful, then how much more hate are you doing against the Christians forumers here? confused





about Jesus...

He is the Son of God, and being the Son of God, His form/nature/being is also a God (a spirit with no flesh, bones and blood)... He is the Word that is with the Father in the beginning... then He was sent by the Father to earth to save the people from their sins... God prepared a human body for Him, a vessel, and was born by Mary... at this point, He was manifested in the flesh, fashioned as a human being in human likeness... at this point, His existence was said to be "days of His flesh", because He was a God manifested in the flesh... His body is human, but inside of it dwells the fullness of Godhead... when Jesus was crucified and died, His physical body died, but His spirit lives on... He went up to heaven as a spirit, not as a human being...

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Bentley


In Christianity talking about Jesus while separating the man from the divine is dangerous. When I said he taught like a man would, that his teachings and reflections are man-made, I don't pretend to say his divine nature is erased by default, those things can both happen at the same times (truly divine, truly human) from the premise that Jesus is both. I don't see the point in trying to hassle between those two natures when it's unnecessary. I'm not making this up by the way, early Christians worked around these concepts when they converted ancient Greece.


I cannot easily separate out what portion of you writes under influence of your religion, your personal thoughts, or our language barrier. I'm inclined to lean toward the last. The reason is, in American English at least, that words have a denotative meaning and a connotative meaning, and they are sometimes very hard to separate out. In point of fact, there are often several definitions in either class for any particular word or phrase.

Why is this significant?

Well, Shaky's entire premise is that there is NO divine portion to Jesus Christ.
Shaky claims not to believe he was God, and to believe that people who even believe Jesus was divinely inspired, let alone God himself, are delusional.

With the way you stated your previous posts, despite claiming yourself to believe in God in previous times, and even now that Jesus was God, you were effectively saying, "Yes, Shaky, you are 100% correct, and I have no disagreement with what you said."

Something isn't right there, but the mistake is understandable if you are unfamiliar with the shades of meaning the average American would pack into what Shake said.

Bentley
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
With the way you stated your previous posts, despite claiming yourself to believe in God in previous times, and even now that Jesus was God, you were effectively saying, "Yes, Shaky, you are 100% correct, and I have no disagreement with what you said."

Something isn't right there, but the mistake is understandable if you are unfamiliar with the shades of meaning the average American would pack into what Shake said.

This is what I said (italics are for emphasis):

Originally posted by Bentley
Well, Jesus was a man so his teaching are all man-made. Those who consider Jesus to be divine also admit, for most christian denominations at least, that he was truly a man.

I agreed in the fact that we cannot say Jesus, in his nature of man didn't teach, as he was fully a man when he taught, hence his teachings are man-made.

Then you took it as if I was admitting he was "just" a man, when my point was that it was never central part on the argument.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Bentley


I agreed in the fact that we cannot say Jesus, in his nature of man didn't teach, as he was fully a man when he taught, hence his teachings are man-made.

Then you took it as if I was admitting he was "just" a man, when my point was that it was never central part on the argument.


English doesn't quite work like that, not if you are, in fact, trying to say Jesus's teachings are GOD-made, just that he was fully a man when he spoke them.

At the least, the statement needed clarification, which, in this natural course of argumentation, you are giving us.

Bentley
Well, I was under the impression that my development was very much implied in my original comment, maybe I'm too cheap with words in order to make myself clear.

God-made sounds a bit redundant since God is the Creator of all things.Just thought about that while reading the phrase stick out tongue

Also, things can be divine in nature and still be made by man, even when those men aren't Jesus. Man-made things aren't God forsaken things by definition, so while the wording I used might've been confusing, the idea isn't exactly a violent one.

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Bentley
Maybe some of us want the US to dwell in the dark ages shifty

If you compare education statistics world wide, the U.S. is already in new Dark Age of ignorance.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Star428
Yeah, continue to promote the ridiculous notion that there is no god or devil. I'm sure that'll fix everything. LOL... NOT. So many people like you having no belief in a divine creator is one of the things that's wrong with this once-great nation. I'd much rather make sure our children are protected from the influence of ignorant atheists who think the universe just "happened" accidentally from an explosion of absolutely nothing.

Most mainstream religion have relegated your creator God to before the Big Bang so believe in your God of the Gaps all you like.

As to me, I am a gnostic Christian who thinks we should educate our kids better so that they do not end like you, with a belief that a good creator God would create as this clip shows.
If you truly believe that then show an argument justifying such vile creating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by ares834
I do believe it would be beneficial for schools to teach at least the basics of contemporary religions. Not as fact of course, but rather in taught in a similar vein as mythology. It is ironic, I think, that we learn about a few ancient religions in school but many people are left completely ignorant of religions such as Islam or Hinduism. Hell, I'd expect that more people in the US know who Zeus is than Allah. It seems that much of the religious bigotry in the US is due to ignorance of other religions and teaching the basics of all the major religions to kids in schools would be quite a beneficial step.

I agree and thanks for this.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Star428
I just want to clarify that my previous post was primarily directed at the deceiful talking snake who continues to spread his lies. I should've made it clear by quoting him. Replying right after Digi like I did might give the impression that I was referring to him in my previous post but I really wasn't. Sorry if I offended you, Digi.

To call someone a liar without showing where or what the lie is just makes you look like the liar.

Put your money where your lying mouth is. You should want all to see this lie of mine so produce it.

Or recant if you have the couth.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Star428
Because the OP (not Diji) is the one who continues to talk trash about God. I mean, just look at all the disrespect threads to God he's made to get an idea of why I don't like him. I called atheists "ignorant" in that post but I really didn't mean to call all atheists that. I was mainly just upset with his continual trash talking about God.

Your God is a vile genocidal son murdering prick.

If you want a formal debate on this then start an O.P. and I will gladly educate you about morals.

Let me start you up with the story of King David where your God tortured a baby for 6 days before finally killing it, all because God was angry with David.

Do you punish your kids when you are angry with your wife?

Try to moralize the torture of a baby. Please.

This all would like to see. Are you up for it or do you decline, loser.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Greatest I am
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
With all due respect to Star, "Greatest I am" is about as atheist as the Pope.

He subscribes instead to something called Gnosticism. It's a form of Luciferianism, and its tenets, having names as exotic as those found in the Bible WITHOUT the name recognition of that work for most people, sounds like something from a bad drug trip.

Have you ever wondered how God could allow bad things to happen?
Have you ever wondered how the Bible could have God speak as if He Himself is the author of calamity in certain places?

Gnostics believe they have the answer.
A being would have to be so conflicted as to be mad in their view, and so the God identified by Christians as Jehovah, Yaweh, God the Father, etcetera IS mad in the Gnostic view, he is, in "fact" a being called the "Demiurge" or, more formally "Yaldabaoth", and is literally insane.

By contrast, however, Gnostics believe that the serpent of the garden, ie Lucifer, is actually a being who was concerned with the enlightenment of man, wisdom, hence the name "Light Bearer". The Bible is, in the Gnostic view, a sort of twisted propoganda form of the "real" story of God and Satan (ie Lucifer).

Hence, light is dark, black is white, good is evil, etcetera.

Re-examine what you see from "Greatest I Am" with this knowledge.

Better yet, examine the first 2 minutes (or as much as you choose) from the 7 minute clip below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_OZtVxNQtc

Better still, do just a little research on your own by Googling or Wikipedia-ing "demiurge" and Gnosticism.

Greatest I Am is not an atheist. He just believes, or at least claims, that the God of the Bible is the deceiver of mankind, not Satan.

Some of what you know of Gnostic Christianity is now outdated. As a thinking man's religion, Gnostic Christianity has evolved along with man and God.

You do represent our old myths accurately though except for for your "Luciferianism" comment.

I do agree that we see the bible God as trying to keep man stupid but thank Eve more than the talking serpent from the Christian perspective and we do thank the serpent as you say but have it possessed by Sofia, our personification of wisdom, from our Gnostic Christian perspective.

Those differences is why many do not really understand Gnostic Christians. We have one view when criticizing Christianity and their vile theology and another when we are showing our myths.

Regards
DL

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Bentley


things can be divine in nature and still be made by man, even when those men aren't Jesus. Man-made things aren't God forsaken things by definition, so while the wording I used might've been confusing, the idea isn't exactly a violent one.



confused

"violent"?

Bent, I have no idea why you used that word, but I've been looking for a way to introduce this clip for the better part of a day now.

I'm going to do it as series of 4 miniature posts now.


Note that the clip (which will be given in the fourth post, not this particular one) integrates several of the concepts mentioned or hinted at earlier in this thread.

bluewaterrider
If I haven't stated it directly enough, perhaps this will make clearer:

"Luciferian" describes more than Gnosticism. It's a world system, and many of its concepts and symbols are readily found in popular culture.

There are few places where this is more true than the film arts and cinema.

Heroes and villains, interchangeable. Dark is light, light is dark.

But there's more to it than that. There's a visual language used here, and perhaps an auditory one as well.


Lucifer is, or was a powerful angel. He is now identified as the fallen angel, Satan. In fact there is a Bible passage that applies here, and it is echoed in the clip about to be shown besides being a general "meme" of sorts for Luciferians, Satanists, and the like.

Here is what it is derived from:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Chapter 10

17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010&version=AKJV

bluewaterrider
And so it is that along with star, sun, and moon symbols, Satan or Lucifer is represented by lightning or representations of lightning. You can verify this for yourself quite easily. Just type in "Satan" and "Lightning" as a search in Google images. Instantly you will find yourself confronted with images from both popular culture, especially the music industry, and images from officially devil-associated places like the Church of Satan. You'll even find the Nazi "SS" symbol. It is a ... "meme" for lack of a better word, that nearly always represents him.




This particular clip, taken from the movie Kill Zone aka Sha Lo Pang is haunting. Play it on a computer with good streaming capability and listen carefully to the music. Echoes the kind of New Age music I hear by composers associated with the Middle Americas.

This haunts because one premise I've become widely familiar with is that Satan masquerades as the god or even Pantheon of gods of numerous cultures.
One reason I kept on mentioning the names of Lucifer was that the name APOLLO is actually given in the Bible for him (Apollyon). In other words, Satan was the Greek god Apollo. Arguably, he is/was also the god "Ba'al".
Beings or gods associated with plague, and bloodletting, and human sacrifice.

bluewaterrider
Shaky's comment about religious "tolerance" brings this home. God in the Old Testament IS intolerant of other religions. It gets overlooked, however, in this politically correct age, that some religions we SHOULD be intolerant of.
For some religions are absolutely anti-life and murderous, and from all accounts many of the gods and followers of these supposed gods were murderous as well.

Echoed in this clip here. For that music in the Middle Americas style brings to mind the sun-worshipping cultures of the Maya, Incans, and Aztecs.

Especially the Aztecs. In my next post, perhaps, I'll give a link to what even Wikipedia has to say about their culture, the number of people sacrificed in the name of appeasing their god, thousands upon thousands "sacrificed" in a way remarkably reminiscent of what we see here.

The title of the song ... is "Store of the SUN".





Be warned. This IS violent ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZs48lJXhxM&lc=xQ2TAR639Cm9tjCzPPvU5PUDlrBv-HH94IT4JHkQ6y0

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Wonder Man
I think God should be a common talk in the home.
I don't know that we have to go as far as at school as well.

Check the stats on who knows religion the best. Believers or non-believers. You will see how ignorant of their own religions believers are.

For example. Most mainstream religious hierarchies now favor evolution and recognize its veracity while way too many believers still believe in a six day creation.

How stupid is that when believers do not believe their own hierarchies and do not trust their judgements.

Literalists are stuck in the Dark Ages.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

Greatest I am
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The religion forum is perhaps the most challenging I've found on KMC.
Any other place I would balk at the way you're framing this. Actually, I still do.

But I've also found that traditional guidelines don't work very well here.
I don't think I've ever called anyone names. I usually, instead, describe actions.
I would refrain from calling GreatestIAm a liar. On the other hand, it is extremely difficulty to have a meaningful conversation without at the least mentioning that there seems to be a ... disconnect of sorts with some of the things he says versus some of the OTHER things he says.

From the Christian perspective, Gnosticism is Luciferianism, an alternate form of Satanism. It would be difficult for things to be otherwise as Lucifer and Satan in the Bible are, arguably, indistinguishable from one another.
Most would probably say Lucifer IS Satan, and I myself find no good reason to argue differently.

Christians also see Eden as our fall while the Jews who own that myth saw it as man's elevation. Gnostic Christians, by reversing the Christian view are bringing the story back to the way it was originally meant to be understood.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/

That is why Jews do not have Original sin. Both man and God leave Eden as winners.

In the Christian interpretation, both man and God are seen as losers. Man with Original sin and God as a murderer of A & E because he forcibly stops them from accessing the tree of life.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
There's a point at which stated distinctions do not make much of a difference.

Lucifer APPEARS differently than Satan for most, but, if they are, in fact, the same being ... ?

Also, I don't recall saying GreatestIAm is evil.
Or telling him he would go to hell.

Gnostic Christians are Universalists.

The only saving we need is to be saved from ignorance and literal reading of myths. As you will know, that Christian practice is what ushered in the Dark Age and Inquisition.

So in fact, we do not believe in a Satan or Devil and blame person to person evil on evolution and the fact that we must compete against each other for resources.

We do not believe in a demiurge either but have put that character in our myths because in the day they were written, people did not understand evolution the way we do today.

The belief in supernatural entities is quite foolish and that is why our schools should be teaching the various creation myths more intelligently than what churches teach.

All churches are liars.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by red g jacks
to be fair he could just think he's deceived by satan. doesn't necessarily make him evil. plus greatest i am hasn't exactly been shy about blasting other people's religions so fair game imo.

I agree. Reciprocity is fair play and in discussions and debate, nothing is off limits.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by red g jacks
i think everything is a work in progress tbh, religion included. being a godless heathen myself i obviously don't believe in divinely inspired writing in general.

but to be perfectly blunt i do prefer some religions over others. fundamentalist islam is probably my least favorite aside from some fringe ones like scientology and black hebrews.

You might get a kick out of my next O.P.

Have a sneak preview. No comment required. I have yet to proof it but I tend not to change what I write much.

------------------------------

Will Islam defeat Christianity because it practices what it preaches while Christianity does not?

As a Gnostic Christian, I recognise the immorality of both Christianity and Islam but have noted that Islam follows its immoral tenets more than Christianity does theirs.

You will note how Islam tries to have Sharia law installed as the law of the land where they have the numbers while Christians intelligently never promote the implementation of Christian law.

I see both sets of these ancient Abrahamic sets of laws as quite barbaric and vile and not worthy of modern man and have noted that the world seems to agree as few countries follow religious laws. Most countries are not nearly so barbaric and backward thinking and have a better sense of justice.

Thank all the Gods for that.

I see Islam as trying to force the world into a Dark Age just as Christianity did when they had the power that Islam now yields.

Do you think they will succeed the way Christianity did and do you think Islam will be as brutal to the rest of the world as Christianity was if Islam can gain power by defeating Christianity and other religions?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
For the record, I was not and am not trying to personally attack GreatestIAm.




The problem is precisely that Gnosticism IS connected to Lucifer, because it is tightly connected to the story of Creation, God, the Garden of Eden, and knowledge and wisdom, which Gnosticism asserts Lucifer, as the snake, helped BRING to mankind.

It is simply not possible to talk about Gnosticism in a meaningful way without connecting it to Lucifer.

When talking of our myths and how we see Christian myths, you are correct. But we see the serpent, if controlled at all as being controlled by a wise Sofia, not an evil entity.

In speaking of reality, there is neither character.

Things like evil, wisdom, goodness cannot be personified in the real world.

Only fools will think mythical personifications to be real.

Hence the need to make sure our schools do not send more fools into the world who believe such garbage.

Regards
DL

red g jacks
g.i.a.... you ever read this?

https://img.sfbook.com/books/large/valis.jpg

Greatest I am
Originally posted by red g jacks
g.i.a.... you ever read this?

https://img.sfbook.com/books/large/valis.jpg

No. I understand that the author is often linked to Gnosticism but have not read him.

There is a lot of art out there that is called Gnostic. Sometimes I see it sometimes not.

Our myths are understandable but more complicated than what Christianity has. Fact is, I did not need them to force my apotheosis and read most of them after it.

Since then, I recognize that any myth or belief can and should be internalized to activate our higher mind or third eye and I have concentrated on getting that message out as well as trying to show Christians the immorality of their creed.

This last has been easier to do than trying to make seekers out of non-believers.

Regards
DL

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Shaky's comment about religious "tolerance" brings this home. God in the Old Testament IS intolerant of other religions. It gets overlooked, however, in this politically correct age, that some religions we SHOULD be intolerant of.
For some religions are absolutely anti-life and murderous, and from all accounts many of the gods and followers of these supposed gods were murderous as well.

Echoed in this clip here. For that music in the Middle Americas style brings to mind the sun-worshipping cultures of the Maya, Incans, and Aztecs.

Especially the Aztecs. In my next post, perhaps, I'll give a link to what even Wikipedia has to say about their culture, the number of people sacrificed in the name of appeasing their god, thousands upon thousands "sacrificed" in a way remarkably reminiscent of what we see here.

The title of the song ... is "Store of the SUN".

Be warned. This IS violent ...

Murderous like the Crusades and the Inquisition? Christianity has blood on it's hands. I am so thankful to now be a Buddhist.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Greatest I am
...Only fools will think mythical personifications to be real...

thumb up

red g jacks
Originally posted by Greatest I am
No. I understand that the author is often linked to Gnosticism but have not read him.

There is a lot of art out there that is called Gnostic. Sometimes I see it sometimes not.

Our myths are understandable but more complicated than what Christianity has. Fact is, I did not need them to force my apotheosis and read most of them after it.

Since then, I recognize that any myth or belief can and should be internalized to activate our higher mind or third eye and I have concentrated on getting that message out as well as trying to show Christians the immorality of their creed.

This last has been easier to do than trying to make seekers out of non-believers.

Regards
DL i started reading it but had to put it down. some of it was amusing enough but after a while i just couldn't be bothered with all the obscure religious references and got tired of googling stuff to try to figure out what the hell he was talking about. was just curious cause i thought you might have understood it better than i did since you have the world view that you have.

bluewaterrider

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Murderous like the Crusades and the Inquisition? Christianity has blood on it's hands. I am so thankful to now be a Buddhist.


As for the Catholic Church and its Crusades, the reason I didn't object to your "rightness isn't determined by popularity" statement,
is because I largely agree with it, and not merely because it seems to be adapted from 1984.



Exactly what Scripture of Christian Bible verse tells people to go out and collect people to be tortured and killed the way the executors of the Inquisition did?

As I've stated before, a person isn't Christian just because they or someone else calls them that.

The Bible itself makes this clear:



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 7:21-23Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:21-23

Bentley
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
confused

"violent"?

Bent, I have no idea why you used that word, but I've been looking for a way to introduce this clip for the better part of a day now.

I have a way of speaking with uncommon words from time to time stick out tongue

Without ever intending for it to be apologetic on violence, massive religious violence is born from prejudice and power struggles and has little to do with matters of faith. Not only religions have been instrumentalized into genocide, other ideologies such as nationalism, communism or anti-imperialism are excellent tools to incur into violence.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
As for the Catholic Church and its Crusades, the reason I didn't object to your "rightness isn't determined by popularity" statement,
is because I largely agree with it, and not merely because it seems to be adapted from 1984.

Exactly what Scripture of Christian Bible verse tells people to go out and collect people to be tortured and killed the way the executors of the Inquisition did?

As I've stated before, a person isn't Christian just because they or someone else calls them that.

The Bible itself makes this clear:


1. The Catholic Church is part of Christianity.
2. People don't need bible verses to do evil.
3. Christian
...adj.
........1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
........2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
........3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
........4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
........5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
...n.
......1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
......2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

That would mean that Catholics, Mormons, and even Gnostics are Christian.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. The Catholic Church is part of Christianity.
2. People don't need bible verses to do evil.
3. Christian
...adj.
........1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
........2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
........3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
........4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
........5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
...n.
......1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
......2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

That would mean that Catholics, Mormons, and even Gnostics are Christian.


That would also mean that YOU are Christian ... unless you want to exclude #5 from your definitions or don't think #5 can be applied to you.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
That would also mean that YOU are Christian ... unless you want to exclude #5 from your definitions or don't think #5 can be applied to you.

Your Karma is your own.

#5, I think they are referring to something like "That's very Christian of you". That is why it is #5

red g jacks
Originally posted by bluewaterrider

As I've stated before, a person isn't Christian just because they or someone else calls them that.

i'm not necessarily convinced that you have the authority to say who is christian and who is not. i'm not saying you're necessarily wrong either but i am not sure. does the bible explicitly give a guideline for determining who the real christians are beyond vague "you shall know them by their fruits" type verses? you would basically have to presume that you have the 1 correct interpretation of scripture to make this claim authoritatively.

Bentley
Christians as an adjective pretty much means you adhere to Jesus's teachings, Roman catholics and Orthodox catholics obviously qualify.

Of course, there are other confessions that adhere to the teachings of Jesus but add their own (contradicting?) concepts into the mix by other sources, or they consider Jesus not to be a God (Jews and Muslims both recognize the teachings of Jesus have the authority of a prophet). I'd say you wouldn't say Islam is a christian religion, so there must be another value of exclusion to the word. Arguably (not an expert in the matter to be honest) Mormons and Gnostics also have a different body of teachngs attached to them, but are more inspired on the gospels than those I just mentioned, so they might be classified as christians in that regard?

No idea. Obviously the word has a very loose significance and different confessions (ab)use it as they see fit.

juggerman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
3. Christian
...adj.
........1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
........2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
........3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
........4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
........5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
...n.
......1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
......2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

That would mean that Catholics, Mormons, and even Gnostics are Christian.

The dictionary's definition is not the same as God's in the Bible. Just look at #1. "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ OR following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus".

As blue showed earlier just believing isn't enough for God in the Bible but it's enough for the dictionary

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by juggerman
The dictionary's definition is not the same as God's in the Bible. Just look at #1. "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ OR following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus".

As blue showed earlier just believing isn't enough for God in the Bible but it's enough for the dictionary

I'm sorry, but I am not going to take your word for it. There are too many interpretations of the bible. The only thing we can go with is the definition of Christianity and what denominations of Christianity are commonly known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

juggerman
That doesn't really cover it tho. It clearly says in the Bible that just calling yourself a Christian is not enough.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by juggerman
That doesn't really cover it tho. It clearly says in the Bible that just calling yourself a Christian is not enough.

But we are not talking about people who just calling themselves Christians. We are talking about entire denomination of Christianity. For example: Catholics.

juggerman
But according to the definition you provided "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ" is enough to lump you in.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by juggerman
But according to the definition you provided "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ" is enough to lump you in.

That sounds reasonable to me. If you follow the teaching of Buddha, you are a Buddhist, right? If you follow the teaching of Mohammed, you are a Muslim?

I think that some Christians want to exclude other Christians from being Christian. That's their problem, not mine.

Bentley
Originally posted by juggerman
That doesn't really cover it tho. It clearly says in the Bible that just calling yourself a Christian is not enough.

The quote means in context that a true christian is not about what he believes, it's about what he does. If you are a murderer and you say you believe in Jesus, you're no true christian as you don't follow the christian teaching.

It's more of a figure of speech than an actual definition.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bentley
The quote means in context that a true christian is not about what he believes, it's about what he does. If you are a murderer and you say you believe in Jesus, you're no true christian as you don't follow the christian teaching.

It's more of a figure of speech than an actual definition.

That is what Excommunication is for.

Bentley
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is what Excommunication is for.

Not really, orthodox catholics were excommunicated from the roman catholic church from quite a long time, but they would still qualify as christians when definining each other. I could probably produce official documents from both sides recognizing the other as christian if proof is required.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bentley
Not really, orthodox catholics were excommunicated from the roman catholic church from quite a long time, but they would still qualify as christians when definining each other. I could probably produce official documents from both sides recognizing the other as christian if proof is required.

I was only talking about individuals.

Bentley
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was only talking about individuals.

In canon law it's the same thing.

But really, you cannot excommunicate someone "just" because they murder people. It would go against the idea of forgiveness and helping people to make up for their sins. Excommunication is almost exclusively a question of heresy or -potentially- hurting the faith of a community as a whole.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bentley
In canon law it's the same thing.

But really, you cannot excommunicate someone "just" because they murder people. It would go against the idea of forgiveness and helping people to make up for their sins. Excommunication is almost exclusively a question of heresy or -potentially- hurting the faith of a community as a whole.

Okay. It can also be abused.

Bentley
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Okay. It can also be abused.

Is there anything that can't be abused?

dyajeep
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. The Catholic Church is part of Christianity.
2. People don't need bible verses to do evil.
3. Christian
...adj.
........1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
........2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
........3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
........4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
........5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
...n.
......1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
......2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

That would mean that Catholics, Mormons, and even Gnostics are Christian.

Biblically? the only correct part of the definition is this:



that's the true Christian in the Bible... i don't believe on the other definitions...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bentley
Is there anything that can't be abused?

Perhaps.

juggerman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That sounds reasonable to me. If you follow the teaching of Buddha, you are a Buddhist, right? If you follow the teaching of Mohammed, you are a Muslim?

I think that some Christians want to exclude other Christians from being Christian. That's their problem, not mine.

Notice how you said "follow" yet the definition clearly says "Professing belief" first and the "or" indicates actually following isn't needed.

If I "professed belief" in Christ yet killed, raped, tourtured, slept with farm animals, never went to church, took his name in vain, forced children to do coke, and an host of other horrendous behavior; would I still be a Christian? According to the definition? Yes because I have professed belief in it with is all that's required. But according to God's own words in the Bible? Nope. Heck, not even according to the general populace I would imagine.

And that goes for Buddhists too. Would I be a Buddhist if I professed belief in it yet lived a lifstyle completely opposite of it? Probably not tho I admit I'm not sure as to what is accepted for it

I'm not trying to exclude anyone from Christianity, just pointing out the issue with the definition you provided

Bentley
Arguing about definitions is stupid. They are conventional, whatever is accepted it's right. Booooooooring.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by juggerman
Notice how you said "follow" yet the definition clearly says "Professing belief".

If I "professed belief" in Christ yet killed, raped, tourtured, slept with farm animals, never went to church, took his name in vain, forced children to do coke, and an host of other horrendous behavior; would I still be a Christian? According to the definition? Yes because I have professed belief in it with is all that's required. But according to God's own words in the Bible? Nope. Heck, not even according to the general populace I would imagine.

And that goes for Buddhists too. Would I be a Buddhist if I professed belief in it yet lived a lifstyle completely opposite of it? Probably not tho I admit I'm not sure as to what is accepted for it

I'm not trying to exclude anyone from Christianity, just pointing out the issue with the definition you provided

I can't answer to the Christian thing, cause there are a lot of Christians that don't follow what the bible teaches. It all depends of interpretation. As far as Buddhism, if you do things that are immoral , you run the risk of being excommunicated.

juggerman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can't answer to the Christian thing, cause there are a lot of Christians that don't follow what the bible teaches. It all depends of interpretation. As far as Buddhism, if you do things that are immoral , you run the risk of being excommunicated.

And they wouldn't be considered Christians according to what God said in the Bible

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by juggerman
And they wouldn't be considered Christians according to what God said in the Bible

No, it depends on what Christian denomination you are. Example, baptism, some denomination submerge their people under water, while other sprinkle water.

So, it depends on witch interpretation of the bible you believe. One group might consider the other group to not be Christian, but from an outside point of view, they are both Christian.

juggerman
But that "outside point of view" would still be contrary to what's in the Bible. Just because you see things a certain way doesn't mean they are that way.

Bentley
Originally posted by juggerman
But that "outside point of view" would still be contrary to what's in the Bible. Just because you see things a certain way doesn't mean they are that way.

Tsk. It's all about interpretation, speech is not something that cannot be assumed without a reader.

dyajeep
Originally posted by juggerman
Notice how you said "follow" yet the definition clearly says "Professing belief" first and the "or" indicates actually following isn't needed.

If I "professed belief" in Christ yet killed, raped, tourtured, slept with farm animals, never went to church, took his name in vain, forced children to do coke, and an host of other horrendous behavior; would I still be a Christian? According to the definition? Yes because I have professed belief in it with is all that's required. But according to God's own words in the Bible? Nope. Heck, not even according to the general populace I would imagine.

And that goes for Buddhists too. Would I be a Buddhist if I professed belief in it yet lived a lifstyle completely opposite of it? Probably not tho I admit I'm not sure as to what is accepted for it

I'm not trying to exclude anyone from Christianity, just pointing out the issue with the definition you provided

thumb up

and i literally laughed my a$$ off on:

Originally posted by juggerman
slept with farm animals,





Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can't answer to the Christian thing, cause there are a lot of Christians that don't follow what the bible teaches. It all depends of interpretation. As far as Buddhism, if you do things that are immoral , you run the risk of being excommunicated.

there is excommunication in Christianity...

"But those who are outside God judges. Therefore put away from yourselves the evil person."
I Corinthians 5:13

"Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,"
Titus 3:10

just saying...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by juggerman
But that "outside point of view" would still be contrary to what's in the Bible. Just because you see things a certain way doesn't mean they are that way.

Obviously, the bible is not very clear. Why else would there be so many different interpretations, and therefore, so many different denominations? So, not everyone agrees on what the bible says.

juggerman
There are things the Bible is very clear on

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by juggerman
There are things the Bible is very clear on

It depends on interpretation.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm not necessarily convinced that you have the authority to say who is christian and who is not. i'm not saying you're necessarily wrong either but i am not sure. does the bible explicitly give a guideline for determining who the real christians are beyond vague "you shall know them by their fruits" type verses? you would basically have to presume that you have the 1 correct interpretation of scripture to make this claim authoritatively.

With the possible exception of the Seventh Day Adventists, who have organized Bible verses into question/answer segments they entitle "Amazing Facts Study Guides", I don't know of places that seem more Bible-based, straightforward, or detailed than some of the churches that identify themselves AS "Church of Christ" churches.

And although they are famous for doing things a fairly traditional way, they nonetheless have informative web pages online.

Here's the summary of perhaps the most pertinent one for your question.

Note that if you visit the actual webpage, which I provide a link for below, you will find it backed up with the appropriate Bible verses.

Note that each of the five points is actually as detailed as the fifth one given here, but that I did not provide the expanded version of the other four simply for space considerations.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does one have to do in order to be forgiven of his sins?

He must:

1. Hear the Gospel of Christ

2. Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God

3. Repent of all his past sins

4. Confess that Christ is God's Son

5. Be Baptized for the remission of sins

... one must be baptized in order to be saved. Jesus said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" (Mark 16:16). Please note that baptism follows belief. One who does not believe that Gospel cannot be truly baptized. Therefore, babies cannot be baptized for they are too young to (1) have sin, (2) hear the Gospel, (3) repent of sins, and (4) confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Baptism also follows repentance. On Pentecost Day, Peter told those who asked what to do to be saved to "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized..." (Acts 2:38). One cannot be truly baptized who has not truly repented.

Baptism is a burial in water (Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12). Therefore, sprinkling or pouring are not proper baptism. Baptism is in order to be saved (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21). One is not saved before he is baptized! Baptism is "for the remission (forgiveness) of sins" (Acts 2:38). Just as Jesus shed His blood for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28), so we are baptized in order to receive the remission of sins. In baptism, the sinner's sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus (Acts 22:16; Revelation 1:5).




When he does this, he is added by the Lord to His church (Acts 2:41,47). He is born again (John 3:3-5; 2 Corinthians 5:17). He is in Christ where all spiritual blessings are to be found (Ephesians 1:3; Galatians 3:26,27). In short, he is a Christian (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.oceansidechurchofchrist.net/BibleBasics/what_must_i_do_to_be_saved.html

jaden101
Religion should only be taught in its historical context. How it shaped societal structures rather than the veracity of the religious texts. At least that aspect will have truth to it and will show the benefits and problems religion has brought throughout human civilisation.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>