satanists

[ray]

I'm sorry but please tell me how satanism is an intelligent religious choice?I just can't get over the stupidity of it.....I mean God created Lucifer so obviously he can unmake him and why or how would you follow someone who you know is evil and you know is just using you for his own ends...answer?

[bluefinger]

I'm sorry but please tell me how satanism is an intelligent religious choice?I just can't get over the stupidity of it.....I mean God created Lucifer so obviously he can unmake him and why or how would you follow someone who you know is evil and you know is just using you for his own ends...answer? Depends on what kind of Satanism you are referring to... the Christian idea of satanism, or LeVeyan Satanism....

[Universal Mind]

the Christian idea of satanism That is the dumbest religion on the planet. I don't think it's even possible for a religions to be stupider than that one. I don't agree with the supernatural ideas in Christianity in the first place, but if somebody does, they are really stepping into the absurd zone by trusting the master of pure evil AND for thinking an infinitely powerful being that is everywhere cannot take him in a fight. I mean, duuuuuuuuhhhhhhh.....

[bluefinger]

That is the dumbest religion on the planet. I don't think it's even possible for a religions to be stupider than that one. I don't agree with the supernatural ideas in Christianity in the first place, but if somebody does, they are really stepping into the absurd zone by trusting the master of pure evil AND for thinking an infinitely powerful being that is everywhere cannot take him in a fight. I mean, duuuuuuuuhhhhhhh..... Even that is dependent on where you source your belief in what Satan is supposed to be. In the OT, Satan is more of the loyal opposition to God, always coming over to disagree, but never declaring any animosity. It is only in the NT where Satan is made to be the supreme ruler of all ebulness...

[Original Poster]

Satan is not evil to satanists, he was exiled by a patriarchal bastard with a superiority complex. I won't get into LeVayism because it's essentially atheism with black magic. The demon worshipping types don't believe in the bible, though, obviously, so your point is irrelevant, UM.

[Universal Mind]

The demon worshipping types don't believe in the bible, though, obviously, so your point is irrelevant, UM. That is a false generalization. Besides, if they are not talking about the Satan of the Bible, the book where the character originated long before the other Satan versions, they are going with spin off mythology and should know that they are talking out of their asses. It is like saying you worship Jesus, but not the Jesus of the Bible, instead some Jesus who showed up in some other story hundreds of years later. Any way you look at it, they are idiots.

[MrDoom]

I'm sorry but please tell me how satanism is an intelligent religious choice?I just can't get over the stupidity of it.....I mean God created Lucifer so obviously he can unmake him and why or how would you follow someone who you know is evil and you know is just using you for his own ends...answer? One does not need to work within the bounds of Christian theology. One could very well come to the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian deity is evil, or that Satan heroically killed that god, or that this demiurge is in fact not omnipotent/omniescient/omnipresent, and such a belief system would be no more or less valid than that of Christianity. I'm sorry but please tell me how Christianity is an intelligent religious choice?I just can't get over the stupidity of it.....I mean humans created God so obviously we can unmake him and why or how would you follow someone who you know is evil and you know is just using you for his own ends...answer? -Alternatively- I'm sorry but please tell me how Christianity is an intelligent religious choice?I just can't get over the stupidity of it.....I mean Satan killed God so obviously he is strongest and why or how would you follow someone who you know is dead and you know is just a celestial corpse...answer?

[Universal Mind]

Satan is a Judeo-Christian character. He is a character of a specific book. Making up stuff about him that is not in the Bible is like saying Hannibal Lecter travels the world and gives children ice cream cones.

[Dreamcaster]

Actually "Satan" isn't the name of any one angel (or devil technically). Satan was originally a description. It is Hebrew for "adversary". http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/satan.htm The word was used to describe a type of angel, namely an angel who creates conflict in the world of man. Like bluefinger said, this angel described in the OT was not against God, he was just against man. The word Satan was reinterpreted as a name by Christianity. According to the Christian version of this character he is the adversary of both God and man. To answer Rays question, it isn't an intelligent religious choice unless you want to live a lie, destined to promote unhappiness and inequality. I imagine it is a faith designed to promote the self at the expense of others. It's a Faustian deal of sorts where you benefit in the short term and lose out in the long term. It's a lot like Atheism (this is not an insult, just an observation). In LaVeyan Satanism, the Satanist does not worship Satan in the theistic sense, but plays the role of an adversary to spiritual creeds, espousing hedonism, Randian Objectivism, Nietzschean philosophy and atheism. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism See Universal Mind, so technically you and Satanists are on the same page. Just different ways of achieving the same goal; not that it's a good thing mind you. Truthfully, in all honesty I don't understand this faith at all, nor do i want to understand it. I think the only person who could truly answer this question for you is someone who is Satanic. As a Christian I don't condone this faith at all. ray, why do you ask this question?

[Universal Mind]

Actually "Satan" isn't the name of any one angel (or devil technically). Satan was originally a description. It is Hebrew for "adversary". http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/satan.htm The word was used to describe a type of angel, namely an angel who creates conflict in the world of man. Like bluefinger said, this angel described in the OT was not against God, he was just against man. The word Satan was reinterpreted as a name by Christianity. According to the Christian version of this character he is the adversary of both God and man. To answer Rays question, it isn't an intelligent religious choice unless you want to live a lie, destined to promote unhappiness and inequality. I imagine it is a faith designed to promote the self at the expense of others. It's a Faustian deal of sorts where you benefit in the short term and lose out in the long term. It's a lot like Atheism (this is not an insult, just an observation). See Universal Mind, so technically you and Satanists are on the same page. Just different ways of achieving the same goal; not that it's a good thing mind you. Truthfully, in all honesty I don't understand this faith at all, nor do i want to understand it. I think the only person who could truly answer this question for you is someone who is Satanic. As a Christian I don't condone this faith at all. ray, why do you ask this question? That is not how it is in the Bibles I have read (parts of). Satan was a very specific angel who fell and turned into a snake and did all kinds of freaky stuff to screw up the world and oppose what God wanted. What goal do I and Satanists have in common? I didn't catch what you meant there. Be more specific.

[Xaqaria]

That is not how it is in the Bibles I have read (parts of). Satan was a very specific angel who fell and turned into a snake and did all kinds of freaky stuff to screw up the world and oppose what God wanted. Nope. Satan is never described in detail in the bible. In almost all cases, the appearance of satan can be replaced with the simple concept of an adversary to man and it still makes sense in context. The only time the bible really refers to satan as an actual person is in Job, but its a description of a conversation between satan and god, so there aren't really any humans who could claim to have actually been witness to it. Its something that started out as an archetype or concept and has been personified just like most ancient ideas. Have a look for yourself: every instance of "satan" in the bible. Also, the lord of the demons' name is Beezelbul, not Satan.

[Dreamcaster]

That is not how it is in the Bibles I have read (parts of). Satan was a very specific angel who fell and turned into a snake and did all kinds of freaky stuff to screw up the world and oppose what God wanted. What goal do I and Satanists have in common? I didn't catch what you meant there. Be more specific. Actually, the idea that Satan is a description and not a name is based on studies by doctorate historians who have studied the Bible. It also isn't my personal position. It isn't a religious position. It's a historical position. Most likely the version of the Bible you were reading was the Christian Bible where Satan is described as a persons name, but note the Christian bible originated from the Jewish OT and in the Jewish OT the word "Satan" was a description not a name. In LaVeyan Satanism, the Satanist does not worship Satan in the theistic sense, but plays the role of an adversary to spiritual creeds, espousing hedonism, Randian Objectivism, Nietzschean philosophy and atheism. If you read the above quote carefully, it states that LaVeyan satanists don't worship Satan. They have adopted Satan as a tool in their crusade against "spiritual creeds". For example, they use Satan to promote atheist beliefs. In the same manner you seek to discourage spiritual creed and promote atheism. See, your on the same page. I'm sorry but please tell me how Christianity is an intelligent religious choice? MrDoom, do you think any religious choice is an intelligent one? If so which? Christianity is an intelligent religious choice because it seeks to promote positive social change. It's about motivating people to follow moral conventions which evolve a persons sense of humanity. Essentially it's about putting others before one's self thus overcoming the impulses of the ego. It does this by taking advantage of the unconscious and subconscious mechanisms of association. This is why their are so many symbols and metaphors and rituals. These practices embody primal traits that define us all and helps to develop them so we can consciously grasp them. For the record, God doesn't create the problems in the world. One thing a lot of people don't realize is that human beings are extensions of God. As extensions of God we all carry a little of Gods power of creation. "Ask and yea shall receive" . In the Garden of Eden Satan/Lucifer told Eve if she ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil she would become a little bit more like God. Adam and Eve ate from the tree with the intention of becoming more like God and as a consequence they got what they wanted, but the fantasy of being like God differed drastically from the reality. It's like saying you want to be a CEO of a Multi-million dollar company because you want to be rich, but not taking into account the numerous responsibilities and pressures that come with the job. What this story teaches is that we all have a little of God's power within us. The problems in the world aren't created by God, they are created by people who use their God given power irresponsibly. He gives us the freedom to choose how we use that power. We are not His slaves, we are his children. If we want to use that power for good He lets us, but the problem is every one's definition of right and wrong differs. For example I could say atheism is evil. Does that mean that God should take your God given power away based on my belief's. I imagine you believe what you do is right? Everyone has their own justifications for what they do whether they are a hero or a monster. In essence, God doesn't create the problems in the world. We inherit His power. Unfortunately their are many humans who use that power for "evil". Evil comes from human beings not God. He could force us to do what is right, but that would require him to take our free will away. For those of you who question whether God is real, watch this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNzEN...eature=related See if you understand it.

[bluefinger]

MrDoom, do you think any religious choice is an intelligent one? If so which? Christianity is an intelligent religious choice because it seeks to promote positive social change. It's about motivating people to follow moral conventions which evolve a persons sense of humanity. Essentially it's about putting others before one's self thus overcoming the impulses of the ego. It does this by taking advantage of the unconscious and subconscious mechanisms of association. This is why their are so many symbols and metaphors and rituals. These practices embody primal traits that define us all and helps to develop them so we can consciously grasp them. Positive? Even though groups of people from various religions (including that of Christianity) use their beliefs to justify hatred towards those different to them, and are determined to make sure certain groups of people do not receive the same rights as everyone else? There are more positives to be had in a secular society than one motivated by religion, if the case were to be measured in positive social change.

[MrDoom]

MrDoom, do you think any religious choice is an intelligent one? If so which? Autotheism. There lies in all people the potential for godhood and greatness, though not all are capable or worthy of attaining it. The delusions of both altruism (Christianity, socialism, conventional Western morality, etc.) and ego (Satanism, consumer capitalism, hedonism) distract the mind into hopeless fantasies away from reality as it exists. I consider myself somewhere between the triad of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucian philosophy, if you care to call those religions. Christianity is an intelligent religious choice because it seeks to promote positive social change. Positive according to whom? By whose standard? It's about motivating people to follow moral conventions which evolve a persons sense of humanity. Essentially it's about putting others before one's self thus overcoming the impulses of the ego. It does this by taking advantage of the unconscious and subconscious mechanisms of association. This is why their are so many symbols and metaphors and rituals. These practices embody primal traits that define us all and helps to develop them so we can consciously grasp them. Do the Satanists not openly proclaim the power of theatrics and symbolism? It would seem to me that the Satanists promote the same thing as you Christians claim to do, except the standard of measurement is placed upon the individual, and personal accomplishment is valued above all else. In that sense Satanism is more realistic than Christianity.

[Dreamcaster]

Positive? Even though groups of people from various religions (including that of Christianity) use their beliefs to justify hatred towards those different to them, and are determined to make sure certain groups of people do not receive the same rights as everyone else? There are more positives to be had in a secular society than one motivated by religion, if the case were to be measured in positive social change. See, that's where the problem is. That statement proves you have no understanding of what Christianity is all about; just like Universal Mind not knowing the true origins of the character Satan. Christianity IS about equality. Jesus Christ's entire message revolved around the idea of not alienating people, even if you don't agree of like them. The Jewish tax collectors who collected taxes for the Roman occupation (thus considered traitors); prostitutes; leapers; gentiles; Samaritans - Christ sought to bridge the gap between all people's. This principle is embodied through Christianity. The problem you are referring to is the problem that occurs when perfect ideas are applied by human beings. Humans are imperfect, it's an unfortunate truth. It's only natural that the original teachings of Christianity will get distorted by some over time. This doesn't mean Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism, etc. is imperfect, it simply illustrates people applying these teachings are imperfect. For example, a fine tuned violin is a perfect tool which when wielded properly can create beautiful music. If you take that violin and put it into the hands of a person who doesn't know how to play the violin and they play some contorted version of Bach's Concerto whatever, does that mean the violin is imperfect? No, it means the person playing the guitar is imperfect. Even Democracy is a perfect idea, but it doesn't mean that an imperfect person can't try and distort it. Joseph McCarthy tried to distort democracy in the 1950's, or even Bush in his current administration; did that make Democracy imperfect? The problem with atheism is people like you. (No offense) It's like the whole of atheism revolves around slamming other people's faiths. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Instead of slamming other faiths and their positions, you should point out the merits of atheism (if there are any). It would seem to me that the Satanists promote the same thing as you Christians claim to do, except the standard of measurement is placed upon the individual, and personal accomplishment is valued above all else. In that sense Satanism is more realistic than Christianity. Are you saying then MrDoom that you don't believe in the power of the collective? If you got into a car accident and were critically injured would you heal yourself? Even you aren't invincible. In Christianity, both individual accomplishment is also encouraged, but people are then encouraged to use those individual feats to help better those around them. Why is love and compassion so unrealistic? I consider myself somewhere between the triad of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucian philosophy, if you care to call those religions. What makes these religions so different from Christianity? They too incorporate ritual and myth and symbolism into their faith or what you refer "to as the power of theatrics and symbolism". Positive according to whom? By whose standard? Since it's one of the largest faiths in the world, I guess a good portion of the world. You say it's not positive, and I see you have your grievances, but it would be dishonest for you to say you don't see any of the positive effects it has had on the world. After the fall of the Roman Empire how do you think what was left of the Roman Empire held civilization together? During the dark ages it was the Roman Catholic Church that help Europe together. You under estimate the importance of giving people something to believe in. Christianity encouraged the pilgrims to settle "The New World". Have you ever watched the movie "The Gladiator" or "Apocalypto"? Can you imagine a society where human sacrifice and/or massacring people for sport is used to tame the masses. Christianity tames the masses through altruism. you mean you can't see the positive in that? Motivating Moral is important.

[bluefinger]

See, that's where the problem is. That statement proves you have no understanding of what Christianity is all about; just like Universal Mind not knowing the true origins of the character Satan. Christianity IS about equality. Jesus Christ's entire message revolved around the idea of not alienating people, even if you don't agree of like them. The Jewish tax collectors who collected taxes for the Roman occupation (thus considered traitors); prostitutes; leapers; gentiles; Samaritans - Christ sought to bridge the gap between all people's. This principle is embodied through Christianity. The problem you are referring to is the problem that occurs when perfect ideas are applied by human beings. Humans are imperfect, it's an unfortunate truth. It's only natural that the original teachings of Christianity will get distorted by some over time. This doesn't mean Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism, etc. is imperfect, it simply illustrates people applying these teachings are imperfect. For example, a fine tuned violin is a perfect tool which when wielded properly can create beautiful music. If you take that violin and put it into the hands of a person who doesn't know how to play the violin and they play some contorted version of Bach's Concerto whatever, does that mean the violin is imperfect? No, it means the person playing the guitar is imperfect. Even Democracy is a perfect idea, but it doesn't mean that an imperfect person can't try and distort it. Joseph McCarthy tried to distort democracy in the 1950's, or even Bush in his current administration; did that make Democracy imperfect? The problem with atheism is people like you. (No offense) It's like the whole of atheism revolves around slamming other people's faiths. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Instead of slamming other faiths and their positions, you should point out the merits of atheism (if there are any). lolwut? As a bisexual, I'm gonna have to point out the inherent intolerance of homosexuality in Christianity. In the Bible (OT and NT), there are numerous references on how homosexuality is a bad thing (quite clear ones too). Again, so much for equality. Most of my argument against religion isn't even because of my atheism, but because of the intolerance I see because of differences in opinion and belief (this isn't just criticism I'm talking about, I'm talking about active suppression of people's rights). Also, secular societies like Japan, for instance, have the lowest murder rates in the developed world, whilst the US, being mostly Christian, has one of the highest murder rates in the developed world, even when compared with the likes of Britian and France. This isn't even going into the statistics for teenage pregnancies, etc. Also, Britian has allowed Gay marriage, and yet the US hasn't (except for a couple of states). All this is caused by people imperfectly interpreting scripture and justifying normally bigoted opinions as religious beliefs. However, there are certain things in scripture which are pretty clear, and thus can be used by anyone to enforce outdated beliefs. This is exactly why I am all for the separation of Church and State. Due to the former's flaws in terms of interpretation and belief, if it were to mingle with state affairs, a lot of unpleasant things will arise. So you want merits on how atheism is good? Well, first of all, I'm not bound by dogma and superstition. I have simply realised that the existence of any deity is pretty much irrelevant under many factors, and that every deity has equal validity to the other (No true god sort of thing), which in my case, is no validity. It is only a position I take in regards to certain things. For everything else, I go about by my own personal philosophy and moral compass. In fact, I find the naturalistic viewpoint very enlightening and wonderful, far more than anything religion can offer. I can be critical of any religion, just like you can be critical of my belief. Nothing is above criticism in my eyes. EDIT: Also Since it's one of the largest faiths in the world, I guess a good portion of the world. You say it's not positive, and I see you have your grievances, but it would be dishonest for you to say you don't see any of the positive effects it has had on the world. lol, appeal to a majority. Fail. (In other words, a logical fallacy if the first bit comes across as being too simplistic in response. You aren't going to win a debate by resorting to the use of known logical fallacies in order to justify an argument)

[Sornaensis]

@Dreamcaster: Explain to me the ups of morality as a Christian rather than a secular person. In christianity you are more or less being blackmailed to behave, but as a secular person you are moral/good/etc. on your own volition. That's almost like x2.

[MrDoom]

Are you saying then MrDoom that you don't believe in the power of the collective? No. Collective action is useful, but any collective works because of the actions of individuals. Inflating collective worth is as much a delusion as inflating self-importance. Why is love and compassion so unrealistic? It is not love and compassion that are unrealistic, it is how they are treated and implemented. Christianity tells me to love everyone, even my enemies. It tries to force unnatural emotions and feelings where they are undue. Satanism, on the other hand, encourages love for those who bring joy to your life, and hatred (or at the very least, dislike) for those who try to rain on your parade. I consider both flawed ideologies, but if I had to pick one, I'd go with Satanism, simply because you can act more naturally within its principles. Christians, Jews, and Muslims tell me that I am in a state of sin by the very act of my existence. Satanism and eastern philosophies accept individuals for who they are. What makes these religions so different from Christianity? They too incorporate ritual and myth and symbolism into their faith or what you refer "to as the power of theatrics and symbolism". Their approach is radically different from that of Western religion and philosophy. Whereas Western religion begins with its god, Buddhism for example begins with an examination of the person on a psychological level. Western philosophy also tries to perform the impossible by taking a detached view and separating the observer from the world being observed. Eastern philosophies are more proactive in this regard. I do not accept any of them whole-sale, nor do I treat them in a religious sense, but a philosophical one. Since it's one of the largest faiths in the world, I guess a good portion of the world. Many of these people are given no choice in their upbringing and have no idea that any valid alternatives exist until Christianity or whathaveyou is firmly ingrained into their perspectives. In any case, the mob is not always the best judge of what is best. I can think of fewer political systems more wrongheaded and corrupt than that of democracy. You say it's not positive, and I see you have your grievances, but it would be dishonest for you to say you don't see any of the positive effects it has had on the world. There have been positive effects, but not because of Christian beliefs or theology in particular. At best Christianity has had a secondary, second-order role in the development of the sciences. Had the world been primarily Muslim or Jewish, or even pagan, there would have been little effect on the state of the technological world as it exists today. After the fall of the Roman Empire how do you think what was left of the Roman Empire held civilization together? During the dark ages it was the Roman Catholic Church that help Europe together. You under estimate the importance of giving people something to believe in. Christianity encouraged the pilgrims to settle "The New World". Again, Christianity could have been replaced by nearly any other religion, or some other source of authority and legitimacy, and things would have largely gone as they did. None of this was because of Christian principles in particular. Have you ever watched the movie "The Gladiator" or "Apocalypto"? Can you imagine a society where human sacrifice and/or massacring people for sport is used to tame the masses. Yes, the one we live in today, and as it has been for centuries. Christianity tames the masses through altruism. you mean you can't see the positive in that? Sheep only need taming so that they may be harvested by the lions of society. The masses exist to support the powerful and exceptional. That does not mean they ought to be abused; no more than one should abuse the crop they sow. Motivating Moral is important. Morality is irrelevant to those who are smarter, stronger, or more creative than the mediocre average. You cannot apply one single standard to all people. That is the delusion of democracy as well as Christianity.

[ray]

Mrdoom may i ask what your religious principle is?(besides nihilism)

[Dreamcaster]

In christianity you are more or less being blackmailed to behave, but as a secular person you are moral/good/etc. on your own volition. Christians aren't blackmailed into being moral. We are moral because we find it is spiritually nurturing. It supports us emotionally and mentally and it gives us purpose. Honestly, on a day to day basis I imagine our morality probably seems the same; but what happens as decades pass, centuries, millenia s? Religion helps to keep morality centered. Without a religion, as time passes morality would drift so erratically, too erratically. Who knows, tomorrow maybe bestiality will become an acceptable practice as well as televised executions for the sake of entertainment, and suicide. I mean, maybe you haven't noticed, but anything seemingly can be justified these days. I mean pedophiles are impulsively drawn to children, does that mean we should let statutory rape become an acceptable practice? Is it their right if the child consents? Is it the child's right? Maybe not accepting such practices is discriminatory to pedophiles? I don't mean to offend anyone. I mean I know to the gay community feel they should have the freedom to express such impulses. It may seem to be a right, but to religious communities like Christianity your actions don't just affect you, they affect the community at large. Does it seem acceptable in modern times because it is or is it a sign of just how loose our morals have become. To sum it up, morality a slippery slope, and it's the intentions of such communities like Christianity to slow that dissension as much as possible. How long before we manage to justify the examples I put forth. Religion acts as a control helping us to adhere to some standard. I know that such a standard seem rigid to some, but it is necessary. The examples I mentioned might seem far-fetched now, but I'm sure the ideas of a oral sex being an acceptable practice, gay marriage, sex scenes in movies, etc seemed far-fetched a century ago. Religion helps to root your morality so it isn't simply centered on what's popular at that particular period of time and place. I mean if I threw you into Nazi Germany would you think exterminating Jews was an acceptable practice? Be honest. I don't mean to insult anyone on the board or their sexual preferences. Also, secular societies like Japan, for instance, have the lowest murder rates in the developed world, whilst the US, being mostly Christian, has one of the highest murder rates in the developed world, even when compared with the likes of Britain and France. This isn't even going into the statistics for teenage pregnancies, etc. Also, Britain has allowed Gay marriage, and yet the US hasn't (except for a couple of states). I believe it's a logical fallacy to infer that because the U.S. is largely Christian and that because it has a high murder rate, that automatically one has to do with the other. Maybe it has to do with other factors like the size of the country, or how we educate our children, etc. lol, appeal to a majority. Fail. (In other words, a logical fallacy if the first bit comes across as being too simplistic in response. You aren't going to win a debate by resorting to the use of known logical fallacies in order to justify an argument) It's funny because I just came from the Evolution OR Christianity... Why? thread where someone uses that exact same majority argument to prove their argument against Intelligent Design. Are you saying that the idea of a majority belief in an idea can't infer validity? No. Collective action is useful, but any collective works because of the actions of individuals. Inflating collective worth is as much a delusion as inflating self-importance. I agree actually. Moderating is the key, and guess what; Christianity does teach moderation. That's why laziness is a sin. You make it seem like Christianity doesn't teach people to be independent, but that's furthest from the truth. It is not love and compassion that are unrealistic, it is how they are treated and implemented. Christianity tells me to love everyone, even my enemies. It tries to force unnatural emotions and feelings where they are undue. Satanism, on the other hand, encourages love for those who bring joy to your life, and hatred (or at the very least, dislike) for those who try to rain on your parade. I consider both flawed ideologies, but if I had to pick one, I'd go with Satanism, simply because you can act more naturally within its principles. Christians, Jews, and Muslims tell me that I am in a state of sin by the very act of my existence. Satanism and eastern philosophies accept individuals for who they are. Hatred is a very destructive force. Look at the Nazis, Rwanda, etc. hatred can burn like a raging forest fire. A small spark can become an inferno. Teaching unconditional love is a form of prevention meant to stem the tide of that fire. Based on what you just said you could justify hating anyone. I'm sure the Nazis felt their hatred was justified. Perhaps I should just start hating bisexuals and atheists because they "try to rain on my (your) parade." Christianity teaches love of one's enemies because hate is sooo easy. The extreme of one emotion is meant to cancel out the other. It prevents our minds from being clouded by the anger that leaves us all emotionally vulnerable. Are you saying that you don't make mistakes; because implying that you don't sin is suggesting just that? The idea that we are born imperfect is meant to humble us. It reminds us that we aren't God. We are perfect because we were created by God, but we aren't infallible. If we all believed we were perfect we could justify anything. Anything we suggest by the nature of such an argument would be justifiable. There would be no such thing as wrong. Western philosophy also tries to perform the impossible by taking a detached view and separating the observer from the world being observed. Completely untrue. Christianity is about love and compassion for one another. The fact that we see God as our "Father" and that we are his "children" is meant to help us to make that personal connection. We learn to see ourselves through others; that's why it's wrong to hate someone else, even your enemies. To hate anyone, even your enemies is like hating yourself. We see ourselves through others. This is why we believe in being altruistic. Christianity, not only is it not detached, but it is far more in tune with the reality around us than you care to admit. Many of these people are given no choice in their upbringing and have no idea that any valid alternatives exist until Christianity or whathaveyou is firmly ingrained into their perspectives. In any case, the mob is not always the best judge of what is best. I can think of fewer political systems more wrongheaded and corrupt than that of democracy. You make it seem as though Christians are so uneducated, which is once again... furthest from the truth. People don't embrace Christianity because their stupid. We see the alternatives, we simply chose Christianity in the end. Why is that so hard to believe? There have been positive effects, but not because of Christian beliefs or theology in particular. At best Christianity has had a secondary, second-order role in the development of the sciences. Had the world been primarily Muslim or Jewish, or even pagan, there would have been little effect on the state of the technological world as it exists today. Christianity isn't a science, it's a religion. Again, Christianity could have been replaced by nearly any other religion, or some other source of authority and legitimacy, and things would have largely gone as they did. None of this was because of Christian principles in particular. That's completely untrue. Because during that period of time it wasn't any religion that was flourishing, it was Christianity. You imply that people can just rally behind anything, but this isn't true. It was the sacrifices of the christian marters of that time that ultimately inspired the people; the idea that people so strongly believed in something that they refused to deny it. This inspired people to rally behind it. People don't just die for anything. If the principles of Christianity were so weak as you suggest it would have died out long ago, yet it's still here still strong. If just any religion could have replaced it, it would no longer be one of the biggest faith in the world. Sheep only need taming so that they may be harvested by the lions of society. The masses exist to support the powerful and exceptional. That does not mean they ought to be abused; no more than one should abuse the crop they sow. And I imagine your one of these lions because if your not your a sheep. Sheep don't need taming because their already tame and the only sheep who are vulnerable to the lions (unholy beasts) of society are the sheep that stray from the Shepard. The sheep that remain close to the Shepard remain under his protection, and the Goliaths are slain long before they reach the sheep by their own self-destructive nature. Sheep aren't tame because they are weak, they are tame because they are strong and that strength comes from the Shepard (the one true Lion). It is the strength to cloth society, thus protecting them from the element of oblivion. it is the power to heal society from the hatred spewed by unholy lions. Morality is irrelevant to those who are smarter, stronger, or more creative than the mediocre average. You cannot apply one single standard to all people. That is the delusion of democracy as well as Christianity. So what are you exactly, politically? See now, that's exactly the kind of philosophy that causes a holocaust.

[bluefinger]

Christians aren't blackmailed into being moral. We are moral because we find it is spiritually nurturing. It supports us emotionally and mentally and it gives us purpose. Honestly, on a day to day basis I imagine our morality probably seems the same; but what happens as decades pass, centuries, millenia s? Religion helps to keep morality centered. Without a religion, as time passes morality would drift so erratically, too erratically. Who knows, tomorrow maybe bestiality will become an acceptable practice as well as televised executions for the sake of entertainment, and suicide. I mean, maybe you haven't noticed, but anything seemingly can be justified these days. I mean pedophiles are impulsively drawn to children, does that mean we should let statutory rape become an acceptable practice? Is it their right if the child consents? Is it the child's right? Maybe not accepting such practices is discriminatory to pedophiles? I don't mean to offend anyone. I mean I know to the gay community feel they should have the freedom to express such impulses. It may seem to be a right, but to religious communities like Christianity your actions don't just affect you, they affect the community at large. Does it seem acceptable in modern times because it is or is it a sign of just how loose our morals have become. To sum it up, morality a slippery slope, and it's the intentions of such communities like Christianity to slow that dissension as much as possible. How long before we manage to justify the examples I put forth. Religion acts as a control helping us to adhere to some standard. I know that such a standard seem rigid to some, but it is necessary. The examples I mentioned might seem far-fetched now, but I'm sure the ideas of a oral sex being an acceptable practice, gay marriage, sex scenes in movies, etc seemed far-fetched a century ago. Religion helps to root your morality so it isn't simply centered on what's popular at that particular period of time and place. I mean if I threw you into Nazi Germany would you think exterminating Jews was an acceptable practice? Be honest. I don't mean to insult anyone on the board or their sexual preferences. Wow, a couple of strawman arguments in there. Bestiality, paedophilia and general nastiness becoming acceptable without religion? LOL. A person's morality is defined on their sense of empathy and upbringing, regardless of the religion they believe in. Also, equating changing perceptions on sexual preferences to loose morality is offensive. My sexual preference does not dictate my moral compass, and insinuations that it does are offensive. This is exactly what I mean about the intolerance that religious communities show to groups of people who are different from them. I believe it's a logical fallacy to infer that because the U.S. is largely Christian and that because it has a high murder rate, that automatically one has to do with the other. Maybe it has to do with other factors like the size of the country, or how we educate our children, etc. I was making a comparison to make a point that being religious doesn't always infer being more moral. Also, there are cultural issues to take account of when making certain comparisons (for example, Japan has an unusually high suicide rate... something that has come as a consequence from it's culture). Also, on the education front, the US has some of the poorest science results amongst developed nations, and standards of education aren't as high as some other countries (Japan, UK, etc), despite having some of the best universities in the world. Again, comparisons, not appeals to a majority (because otherwise, we'd be looking at population sizes, and not rates). It's funny because I just came from the Evolution OR Christianity... Why? thread where someone uses that exact same majority argument to prove their argument against Intelligent Design. Are you saying that the idea of a majority belief in an idea can't infer validity? LOL. Talk about missing the point completely. Comprehension, learn it. You'll see that the argument I made was about credentials and backing up claims with proper hypothesises and research, not pandering to a majority. A valid idea that has been extensively researched and tested runs through the gauntlet of the Scientific Method in order to confirm it's validity and to see whether it fits with all the currently existing evidence for whatever area that idea deals with. Note, this is not appealling to a majority. It is called meeting the burden of proof. Something certain ideas have failed to do on a consistent basis (such as ID). ETA: A majority may believe in whatever, but that does not give the idea any validity. A valid idea must be substantiated with proper evidence and research in order for it to be accepted by the Scientific community. Science is a harsh meritocracy, not a democracy, and for good reason.

[MrDoom]

One word before I begin: Godwin's Law. Mrdoom may i ask what your religious principle is?(besides nihilism) Nominally, I am an atheist, that being a component of nihilism by definition. However I do not agree with the principles of secular humanism as so many other atheists do. I see it as Christianity repackaged without the theology. I reject socialism and democracy as well, those being products of secular humanism's (and by extension Christianity's) egalitarian trend. I agree actually. Moderating is the key, and guess what; Christianity does teach moderation. That's why laziness is a sin. You make it seem like Christianity doesn't teach people to be independent, but that's furthest from the truth. "Laziness" is relative. There are times for action and there are times for inaction. How can you apply one single standard to a wide range of individuals? Hatred is a very destructive force. Look at the Nazis, Rwanda, etc. The Germans also greatly loved their Fuhrer, their State, and their Aryan race. Love can be as destructive as hatred, and both can also be put to good use. hatred can burn like a raging forest fire. A small spark can become an inferno. Teaching unconditional love is a form of prevention meant to stem the tide of that fire. You equate hate with fire, and speak of the destructive nature of fire. But fire is also a source of life and constructive energy as well as destructive. That is what makes it such a great symbol of versatility. Fire can temper metals, cook food, and create light, amongst other things. "Unconditional" love is an imaginary fiction. We make judgements and stipulations all the time. Based on what you just said you could justify hating anyone. I'm sure the Nazis felt their hatred was justified. Perhaps I should just start hating bisexuals and atheists because they "try to rain on my (your) parade." More power to you. Christianity teaches love of one's enemies because hate is sooo easy. Perhaps that's because feeling negative emotion is a natural part of being human. Love can be easy, too, when it is due. The extreme of one emotion is meant to cancel out the other. Extremes? Who ever said anything about extremes? Hatred and love are not dualistic (the range of human emotions is not a sliding scale between love and hatred (as Donnie Darko so elegantly put it), but multi dimensional), nor are they absolutes. If you're trying to maintain a healthy attidute by "balancing" two opposing extremes in a tug of war in the hope that they "cancel out", little good will come of it, unless you like having emotional and psychological issues. It prevents our minds from being clouded by the anger that leaves us all emotionally vulnerable. And in turn you cloud your mind with "unconditional" love. I imagine you've seen or read William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Are you saying that you don't make mistakes; because implying that you don't sin is suggesting just that? The idea that we are born imperfect is meant to humble us. It reminds us that we aren't God. We are perfect because we were created by God, but we aren't infallible. If we all believed we were perfect we could justify anything. Anything we suggest by the nature of such an argument would be justifiable. There would be no such thing as wrong. That would depend on what your ideal of "perfection" is. I also reject the notions of "sin". Completely untrue. Christianity is about love and compassion for one another. "Suffer not a witch to live". The fact that we see God as our "Father" and that we are his "children" is meant to help us to make that personal connection. It sounds more like coping mechanism to act as a surrogate for your real father. We learn to see ourselves through others; that's why it's wrong to hate someone else, even your enemies. To hate anyone, even your enemies is like hating yourself. We see ourselves through others. This is why we believe in being altruistic. I don't see how that demonstrates that hatred is "wrong". You make it seem as though Christians are so uneducated, which is once again... furthest from the truth. People don't embrace Christianity because their stupid. We see the alternatives, we simply chose Christianity in the end. Why is that so hard to believe? It's hard to believe because culture is not uniformly diffuse, nor do religious parents often present a wide range of religious options to their chilren. They present their own religion as the only option. That's completely untrue. Because during that period of time it wasn't any religion that was flourishing, it was Christianity. But not because of anything intrinsic to Christian doctrine, except for its broad range of targeted consumers. You imply that people can just rally behind anything, but this isn't true. Oh but they can. In fact, people actively seek for things they can rally behind. Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, patriotic frevor, school pride. We have a psychological need to fit in, and to have one undeniable truth that we can base all of our assumptions about the universe upon. It was the sacrifices of the christian marters of that time that ultimately inspired the people; the idea that people so strongly believed in something that they refused to deny it. That's the symptom of a "true believer" syndrome. Was it because these martyrs were martyrs, or was it because they were Christian? To put it thus: had the world been primarily Islamic, and had these martyrs been Islamic, would the outcome had been different? This inspired people to rally behind it. People don't just die for anything. You'd be surprised at what people will shorten their life spans over. If the principles of Christianity were so weak as you suggest it would have died out long ago, yet it's still here still strong. If just any religion could have replaced it, it would no longer be one of the biggest faith in the world. You assume that people are on the whole rational individuals. You also assume that truth or utility has anything to do with the prominence of an idea. For an idea to spread, it doesn't have to be true, or useful; it just has to be marketable. And I imagine your one of these lions because if your not your a sheep. I'm a mountain goat. Sheep don't need taming because their already tame and the only sheep who are vulnerable to the lions (unholy beasts) of society are the sheep that stray from the Shepard. The sheep that remain close to the Shepard remain under his protection, and the Goliaths are slain long before they reach the sheep by their own self-destructive nature. Sheep aren't tame because they are weak, they are tame because they are strong and that strength comes from the Shepard (the one true Lion). It is the strength to cloth society, thus protecting them from the element of oblivion. it is the power to heal society from the hatred spewed by unholy lions. Very poetic. However even the shepherd can be killed. Cultures, religions, nations, and political ideologies rise and crumble. Even Christianity will one day come to and end, or change beyond recognition. The sheep are nothing without the shepherd. The lions and wolves are ultimately dependant upon the sheep for sustinence, but are not beholden to them, and have independance. So what are you exactly, politically? I am a nihilist. See now, that's exactly the kind of philosophy that causes a holocaust. Rejecting morality doesn't mean you act like Skeletor. Hitler was a deluded fool who thought he had yet another Big Idea to sweep the world with. Killing 100,000,000 people isn't wrong. Nor is it right. From certain perspectives it can be beneficial, in others it is a great harm. In any case, if you do start mass killings, don't be surprised when some self-righteous coalition of nations retaliates.

[bluefinger]

One word before I begin: Godwin's Law. Actually, that is two words.... but still a valid point.

[MrDoom]

Actually, that is two words.... but still a valid point. I think I meant to only type "Godwin", and then at the last second put "Law".

[bluefinger]

I think I meant to only type "Godwin", and then at the last second put "Law". Hahah, just me nitpicking. No worries though, it is still a good thing to point out though. I'm surprised I didn't mention it myself, even though I was all "lolwut" reading that post.