Pecan Acres Baptist Church. There are also other Dominionist churches out there, ones that ignore Jesus's statement that his kingdom is "not of this world" and believe that the world has been given to Christendom as it was once given to Adam and Eve. They are, thankfully, not at all normal. Which is what I was attempting to do. Again, in the form that the Commandments are practiced by most Christians, they are compatible with the Constitution. In their original form, as laws, they are not. I'm having trouble understanding that claim myself. Originally, they were, and they were frequently referred to as law. Except for the laws regarding coveting, they were all punishable by death in the OT. I'm glad that is the way you regard them. We disagree about their original intent, but we agree about their place in the modern world. 100% agreed. Except that, originally, it was punishable by death. Yep, laws aren't their for the people that obey them.
And that is the point. There are as many Christians who point out their errors in interpretation as there are atheists who do so - if not more so. There is exactly zero chance of that happening in the US. It is essentially a none concern in terms of reality. They cannot be 'laws' in a legal sense. Those that are laws have been made so. And everytime a society has attempted to make #1 a law and enforce it, it has ripped itself apart - the lesson is clear, it is neither possible nor what God wants and the Bible states as much. Not quite in the same context as jrisprudence. Again those that can be made law have been, those that cannot are not. It's pretty much always been that way. Even adultry, which in the age when marriage was a political thing, adultry was punishable by death. No one seems all that perterbed about Henry VIII's wives for soe reason? Not in the ten commandments. Please look at Leviticus 18. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18&version=NIV What is the punishment listed? From God? To be caste out, not killed. The laws you speak of are in deuteronomy, and they are not God issuing commandments but priests. God is a personal thing, he pretty clearly does not seek to be our political leader. That is not what this life is for. See above. Not according to God it wasn't. And it sure as hell is not according to Jesus in John is it? Agreed.
You can throw whatever label you want to on the situation, as it is a known lie that you toss into the arena. But to set the record straight with you: I carry in my wallet at all times, a document that specifically states who I am, what authority I have; and none of them (LEO's) bother me. My real name is registered with the Secretary of the State of Florida and with the Director of the Division of Elections (not as a voter) and with the Treasury Department of the United States and with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. My name has also made the Federal law books. So Daniel, if you really want to do some homework and prove to everyone on this forum that you know anything about the law(s) both State and Federal, then figure out who I am, and report to this forum that information along with the information wherein you made such a discovery. Oh let me give you another clue... the MSB. Now go along and do your homework and allow this thread to continue with its own topic of discussion in accordance with the OP.
What known lie? From my perspective, resorting fallacy can be considered a "sin" against philosophy, as a moral and ethic. Non sequiturs are usually consider fallacies as well. If you really wanted to establish confidence in your sincerity, you could simply use your real name.
And your system of philosophy is rejected by Theism as being incompatible with the philosophy involved in Christianity. Anything you have stated against religion and specifically in regard to Christianity is a lie, unless you are admitting the existence of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Deny their existence and you are the son of the Father of all lies.
I would have more confidence in your sincerity if you didn't resort to fallacies as much. In my opinion, simply refraining from resorting to fallacies (as a form of false witness bearing) is paying more homage to a god that insisted on a true witness bearing Commandment; even if it is compatible with philosophy and the discovery of truth value through argumentation.
Do you really think that I am disappointed by your lack of confidence in my sincerity? Another little error on your part.
A son of the father of all lies would not have a problem resorting to fallacy even if he never discovered any truth value through argumentation.
Except for the fact that God created that thing with the ability to be used in an evil or bad way. He could have just as easily created it without the property that allows it to be used in such a way. So yep, God. That pesky logic gets you every time, doesn't it? (And before you can ignore my actual point and slip back into your routinely used ridiculous red herring that I must believe God exists because I referenced him, I was speaking hypothetically - e.g. if your God exists.)
How is it, that our elected representatives to government who claim to have religious morals, can deny and disparage Intelligent Design "theory" by criminalizing a potentially, seed bearing plant that was Intelligently Designed by the Creator, according to a book called a Bible? It is simple inconsistencies such as those which make me want to petition a Pope, for a contingent of subject matter specialists to hold inquisitions into the moral rectitude and consistency of beliefs, regarding being entitled to the character of a person of those alleged morals.
Can't believe in Satan without believing in God. God created Satan. So to say that Satanists are atheists is sophistry.
They (at least the Laveyan ones) don't believe in Satan as a personal being. They use him symbolically, not literally. There are also theistic Satanists. Some believe in God as well as Satan, others only believe in Satan. They don't believe the way he is described in the Bible is accurate (surprise, surprise). A lot of it traces back to Gnosticism, but only a corrupted version, since the actual Gnostics would have been appalled at reveling in the pleasures of the material world.
Gnostics think Yaweh is Satan. Laveyan Satanists are happy to tell you they don't believe in Satan. But this just shows that they call themslves Satanists in order to be annoying, instantaneously losing any debate before it begins.
Yeah, but some took the flip side of that as well and decided that, if God was bad, figures like Cain and the Serpent were good. The Serpent figures heavily in a lot of Gnostic sects as a symbol of wisdom and liberation (sometimes identified with Sophia and/or Jesus), and some modern Satanists have decided to keep both this idea and the notion that the Serpent is Satan/Lucifer. I wouldn't mind so much if it was some absurdist thing that didn't take itself so seriously, like the Discordians.
Anyone can claim anything they wish to, the fact is, if you believe in the god Satan, then you are not an atheist. Bythe way, Levey did NOT found Satanism, lol that occurred more than 2000 years before his birth. Worshipers of Satan are mentioned throughout history. The Christians have persecuted Satanists for hundreds and hundreds of years.
"Welcome to the official website of the Church of Satan. Founded on April 30, 1966 c.e. by Anton Szandor LaVey, we are the first above-ground organization in history openly dedicated to the acceptance of Mans true naturethat of a carnal beast, living in a cosmos that is indifferent to our existence. To us, Satan is the symbol that best suits the nature of we who are carnal by birthpeople who feel no battles raging between our thoughts and feelings, we who do not embrace the concept of a soul imprisoned in a body. He represents pride, liberty, and individualismqualities often defined as Evil by those who worship external deities, who feel there is a war between their minds and emotions. As Anton LaVey explained in his classic work The Satanic Bible, Manusing his braininvented all the Gods, doing so because many of our species cannot accept or control their personal egos, feeling compelled to conjure up one or a multiplicity of characters who can act without hindrance or guilt upon whims and desires. All Gods are thus externalized forms, magnified projections of the true nature of their creators, personifying aspects of the universe or personal temperaments which many of their followers find to be troubling. Worshipping any God is thus worshipping by proxy those who invented that God. Since the Satanist understands that all Gods are fiction, instead of bending a knee in worship toor seeking friendship or unity withsuch mythical entities, he places himself at the center of his own subjective universe as his own highest value. We Satanists are thus our own Gods, and as beneficent deities we can offer love to those who deserve it and deliver our wrath (within reasonable limits) upon those who seek to cause usor that which we cherishharm. Magus Gilmores essay What, The Devil? from The Satanic Scriptures discusses this in greater detail." http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html Well goodness gracious... taken from that 'official website of the Church of Satan, there are many little phrases that are printed on the page which are repeated by some Atheists on this forum. Please do offer up your rationalization (excuses) for that ironic little commonality between the two groups. Is it perhaps a part of the dogma of Atheism?
Well, then I suggest you take it up with the satanists who claim they are actually atheists. Bear in mind, we call Satan the father of lies, and there are those who will tell you it is just a innocent thing, actualy traced back to ancient Paganism - which is why: #1 - its not Paganism. #2 - They trace their roots back to Baal worship, one of the devils demonic servants. In short, they lie - hardly surprising though is it? The real point of this thread is the danger of failing to define your beliefs. There are atheists galore on this site that insist on calling themselves agnostic atheists, but when that one is revealed to have serious weaknesses, then it shifts to gnostic atheism (which they usually didn;t bother to bone up on), and eventually, as they discover the difficulties of defending their position, it becomes and 'atheism is whatever I say it is!' And indeed people are saying it. And when the expansive individualist mentality become so loose that Satanists are calling themselves 'strong' atheists? We have a problem for atheism. But, when atheists, as often happens right here on this forum, get pretenbed and swear up and down that no one can define their pure atheism .... Well, there is a reaosn the church created the canon, and that religions have holy books and approved texts - standards. Not having them, as we see, leads to abuse. So, when you have avowed Satanists cheering you on? At what point do you stop and go, "Wait, this is not what I signed up for!"
It makes no difference what any website says, the fact is, that to be an atheist there is one requirement and one only--no dogma, no laws, no book of rules, no website governing membership--just a lack of belief in any god or gods. Since Satanists believe in Satan, one of the many biblical gods, then they are not and cannot be atheists, despite any claims to the counter, that is FACT, not an excuse. As far as I can tell, all humans have commonalities, not just groups, or particular people. Despite the differences between you and me, we have many commonalities. We both read and write English, we are able to communicate, hmm, I guess for us, that is about it. I am rational, you are not, I am honest you are not, and on and on, but we DO have SOME commonalities.
To me atheism isn't a movement. My definition of atheism is personal to me. I'm sure there are many atheists that would dispute my description and rationale, and vice versa. I'm sorry, but having canons, holy books and approved text - standards as you say also leads to all kinds of abuse. Consider the extremely wide range of beliefs tha exist within religions. Sects share "standards" yet arrive at different conclusions.
