Thread: would it be a sin?

I personally am a satanist by definition. Which means I dont believe in heaven or hell or god or satan. I am my own god. My thoughts on you origional question would be if it goes against your personal morals dont do it. In other words if you feel bad about it don't do it. The only diference between me and you in this situation is that I come up with my morals, you ( I am assuming) get most of yours from the bible. If you are fine with someone or something telling you your morals and values, listen to the bible then.

Fantastic thread!!! I've been thinking about this for some time. As someone has stated, I think religions (and the bible) have been created for power and control because they've been created by man who where seeking their own interests. I also don't believe in god, but that's a totally different matter... I fully respect people who believe in him and "follow him", but I don't agree with those who follow "standardized" religions blindly and use quotations from the bible to prove those same quotations (THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MAN!, so this is a CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO (circular thought)).
I think the video game comparison was perfect to resolve the issue. Although I love violent video games (GTA YEY!) I despite all violence in real life... So in my dreams I kill, beat up, rape... whatever... without felling guilty. Ok, in most of my lucid dreams I just summon people I haven't seen in a long time or miss...

Originally Posted by JCDenton

(THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MAN!,

It was translated by man and written through the word of God

Originally Posted by a_pirates_life_for_me

It was translated by man and written through the word of God

It was written BY man... If it was through the word of god or not, that you can't ever know.

But as I said before, I don't care about whether it is a sin or not... your not really hurting anyone so... who cares...

Originally Posted by JCDenton

It was written BY man... If it was through the word of god or not, that you can't ever know.

actually you CAN know, which is what non-religious people find hard to believe, but I'm not going to go through the whole explination of HOW you can know because 1) You probably wouldn't understand 2) you probably wouldn't care 3) you probably wouldn't believe me

Originally Posted by a_pirates_life_for_me

actually you CAN know, which is what non-religious people find hard to believe, but I'm not going to go through the whole explination of HOW you can know because 1) You probably wouldn't understand 2) you probably wouldn't care 3) you probably wouldn't believe me

I totally agree. Science, archeology, and history proves it. You just have to go out and do some studying.

Originally Posted by a_pirates_life_for_me

actually you CAN know

you probably wouldn't believe me

Don't these two sentences contradict each other?

How can you proove to me, that God spoke to people?

Originally Posted by skysaw

Don't these two sentences contradict each other?

no, because when I say "You CAN know" i'm talking about people as a whole when I say "you probably dont believe me" I'm talking about that one individual

God didn't just to talk to the people, they were under inspiration. They wouldn't write something else because there have been of writings of the man themselves that stated that the prophesies they were writing were from God. Normally man would want to take the credit. Some men like Daniel said they didn't even know what they were writing. God's spirit led them to write, not them alone.

Originally Posted by a_pirates_life_for_me

actually you CAN know, which is what non-religious people find hard to believe, but I'm not going to go through the whole explination of HOW you can know because 1) You probably wouldn't understand 2) you probably wouldn't care 3) you probably wouldn't believe me

You can convince but you cannot prove what is unprovable.

The "proof" provided by theological supporters is always along the lines of "you just know because God speak to your heart". Now, I can't claim to disprove that because, again, it's unprovable either way. But what I will say is that "having a strong feeling" or "just knowing" is not the same thing as having proof.

Being spoken to in an internal manner is subjective and does not constitute tangible, reproducible proof. No, let me repeat that - NO - physical "proof" can ever clear up the controversy over whether or not the words in the Bible were dictated by God or merely the creative writings of ancient wordsmiths.

You may convince, yes. But to prove is a taller order than anecdotal musings can ever objectively fill. Now, none of this is to say that religion is insignificant. I believe organised religion serves a worthy purpose and function in society. I just don't attribute supernatural capabilities to its foundations.

I believe in the power of attitude and its body of implications and that religion is actually a manifestation of that, only interwoven with the objective of explaining what cannot be explained with today's body of knowledge.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Don't these two sentences contradict each other?

No, he has faith and faith is believing without absolute proof, so a non-believer would not believe the explanation... probably

Originally Posted by skysaw

The real scary question is, if God did speak to someone, how do we know that person didn't write something completely different from what God said in order to further his own agenda?

Good Point. Brings up that Man can listen to God and not record exactly what He says. Plus, the bible is composed of multiple gospels written by different people with minor nuances and some gospels were rejected for being too different (Gospel of Judas, which has recently been discovered).

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

You can convince but you cannot prove what is unprovable.

The "proof" provided by theological supporters is always along the lines of "you just know because God speak to your heart". Now, I can't claim to disprove that because, again, it's unprovable either way. But what I will say is that "having a strong feeling" or "just knowing" is not the same thing as having proof.

Being spoken to in an internal manner is subjective and does not constitute tangible, reproducible proof. No, let me repeat that - NO - physical "proof" can ever clear up the controversy over whether or not the words in the Bible were dictated by God or merely the creative writings of ancient wordsmiths.

I think since multiple gospels say different things and deduce different meanings out of Jesus' teachings, the bible was written by man. Not to say they did so without God's ideas, but it doesn't seem that God directly ordered the saints or usurped their bodies.

Originally Posted by TheUniversalOne

I know I can't, might as well speak to God yourself.

Prayers? I once did prayers. Now I don't do prayers anymore, and I don't feel the slightest difference.

Originally Posted by Nekratal

you ( I am assuming) get most of yours from the bible. If you are fine with someone or something telling you your morals and values, listen to the bible

I wouldn't say exactly that I really believe in the bible, cause i'm not exactly sure about it. I believe in the book of mormon, and the morals I have may be in the scriptures but they would have been my morals anyway whether they were in the scriptures or not. I'm not letting something else tell me what my morals are, that's my decision.