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

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.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL@ 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.

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:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... [W]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

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
[B]There are many, many people in need of professional help, then, Shake

The truth is not dictated by popularity.

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 [b]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. [/B]

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Typical Christian! 🙄 '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? 😕

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...

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.

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 [b]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. [/B]

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.

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.

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 😛

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.

Originally posted by Bentley
Maybe some of us want the US to dwell in the dark ages 😖hifty:

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

Regards
DL

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

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

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

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

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

I am a proud Gnostic Christian and esoteric ecumenist.

Gnostic Christian morality is way above Christianity and that is why Christians killed us and burned our scriptures the moment they could.

Free thought was not allowed then or now by Christianity.

I have asked our friend to show the morality behind his God torturing a baby. Let's see if he has the balls to try to justify such an immoral act.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by 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.

I wrote something to explain why things get caustic.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason with God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL

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 en[b]lightenment 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. [/B]

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

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.

😕

"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.

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