Satanism

[ziggytrix]

I provided you a link, where you could find context, and pehaps an answer to your question. Are you retarded? If so I'm sorry I assumed you'd have been able to figure that out for yourself.

[Zero Signal]

I assumed that you knew what you were talking about before you posted the link. So sorry!

[ziggytrix]

I think I know more about which I'm speaking than you do. I'd love for you to show me otherwise.

So did you click the link? Did you read any of it? Do you have anything to say that doesn't sound like a regurgitated sermon or a child's "I know you are but what am I?" comeback?

It is FACT that no where in canonical scripture is the story of the Devil told. Have you even READ your Bible apart from selected scriptures in Sunday school?

[Zero Signal]

I did not dispute that there was no singular section of Scripture that gives a detailed account of Satan. I disagreed with the idea of simply just "scattered notices" when references are made all of the time in the Bible to him.

And what difference does it make at ALL if there is no singular section of Scripture defining him? The entire Bible together describes who he is and what his objective is in the world.

"It is FACT that no where in canonical scripture is the story of the Devil told. Have you even READ your Bible apart from selected scriptures in Sunday school?"

More importantly, why does his story even matter at all? The Bible is all about Jesus Christ anyway; the Old Testament (which prophesies his birth and his death and why he would die) as well as the New Testament (which gives the account of his teachings and his return to reclaim the Earth).

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

I did not dispute that there was no singular section of Scripture that gives a detailed account of Satan. I disagreed with the idea of simply just "scattered notices" when references are made all of the time in the Bible to him.

I refer you to the definitons of 'scattered' and 'notice'.

And what difference does it make at ALL if there is no singular section of Scripture defining him? The entire Bible together describes who he is and what his objective is in the world.

It makes NO difference to me, because I'm really not that concerned with Jewish folklore these days.

"It is FACT that no where in canonical scripture is the story of the Devil told. Have you even READ your Bible apart from selected scriptures in Sunday school?"

More importantly, why does his story even matter at all? The Bible is all about Jesus Christ anyway; the Old Testament (which prophesies his birth and his death and why he would die) as well as the New Testament (which gives the account of his teachings and his return to reclaim the Earth).

I'll take that as a "no".

It's important because the story of the Devil is as relevant to
Christianity as the story of Creation, of the Flood, or any other piece of the the Bible that wasn't "all about Jesus Christ anyway". The reason there is no singular canonical story of the Devil, is because there are multiple apocraphyl stories. One of the more popular ones being the "fallen angel" story you referenced (as though you knew fuck all what you were talking about) much earlier in this thread.

[Zero Signal]

Lucifer fell with a third of the angels.

God does not create darkness and evil. Therefore, God did not create Satan as an evil being. Lucifer chose to rebel and subsequently introduced sin into the world through Adam.

You do not need it spelled out to come to that conclusion, but perhaps some do.

The story of Satan is relevant as a point of origin for all of the sin and death and hatred in the world, and how to defend yourself against his attacks.

"as though you knew fuck all what you were talking about"

Please show where I was wrong and explain it. Thanks.

For someone "not that concerned with Jewish folklore these days", you sure claim to be the end all authority on it.

[ziggytrix]

"Please show where I was wrong and explain it. Thanks. "

You'd like me to highlight 5 words of something you said, taken out of context, tear it apart, and then act all smug? Sorry, that's your specialty.

I said you don't know shit. Not that you were factually in error - though I do wonder why you think exactly one-third of the angels fell with Lucifer. I wonder a bit at why you assume that Lucifer, Satan, Beelzebub, Belial, etc are all the same character. I wonder at your first post in this thread. Is that an original rant against the Devil? Did you write that yourself or is it a cut-n-paste?

You believe in a black and white reality where everything is "of the Lord" or "of the Devil" yet you believe a thing "of the Lord" became "the Devil".

I don't think ANY of that is based in FACT, but that doesn't make it "wrong". It's all based in mythos, which can't be proven any more than I can prove there are little green aliens in a galazy on the other side of the universe.

For someone "not that concerned with Jewish folklore these days", you sure claim to be the end all authority on it.

LOL. No I don't. It doesn't take a Biblical scholar to recognize a regurgitated Sunday school lesson for what it is.

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

"Please show where I was wrong and explain it. Thanks. "

You'd like me to highlight 5 words of something you said, taken out of context, tear it apart, and then act all smug? Sorry, that's your specialty.

I said you don't know shit. Not that you were factually in error - though I do wonder why you think exactly one-third of the angels fell with Lucifer.


Revelation 12:4: "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth."

The stars are the angels than fell with him, as angels are referred to as stars in the Bible (the host of heaven, in the Bible). It is expositional constancy, like the seven churches and the seven stars; the stars being the seven angels of the seven churches. it is not said that Lucifer deceived them, but more likely convinced them that he was right.


I wonder a bit at why you assume that Lucifer, Satan, Beelzebub, Belial, etc are all the same character.


Because those are Hebrew words that are used to describe him.


I wonder at your first post in this thread. Is that an original rant against the Devil? Did you write that yourself or is it a cut-n-paste?


I just posted what I knew, that's all.


You believe in a black and white reality where everything is "of the Lord" or "of the Devil" yet you believe a thing "of the Lord" became "the Devil".


There is nothing mutually exclusive about that.


I don't think ANY of that is based in FACT, but that doesn't make it "wrong". It's all based in mythos, which can't be proven any more than I can prove there are little green aliens in a galazy on the other side of the universe.

[Lil' Johnny]

Originally Posted by KoRnChild

what do you know emu? you think im a child?


that sounds a little queer to me

which means no... just why is "GOD" so good? whats his story?

Anyone who spells like a little kid is probably a little kid, or a retarded adult.

[Big Papa Goat]

Lucifer fell with a third of the angels.

God does not create darkness and evil. Therefore, God did not create Satan as an evil being. Lucifer chose to rebel and subsequently introduced sin into the world through Adam.

You do not need it spelled out to come to that conclusion, but perhaps some do.

The story of Satan is relevant as a point of origin for all of the sin and death and hatred in the world, and how to defend yourself against his attacks.

"as though you knew fuck all what you were talking about"

Please show where I was wrong and explain it. Thanks.

For someone "not that concerned with Jewish folklore these days", you sure claim to be the end all authority on it.

Sounds like pathological religion to me.

[kellychaos]

Worst Satanic thread EVER!!

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

Satan is Hebrew for "adversary".

Lucifer (which means "morning star") rebelled against God (along with a third of the angels in Heaven) because he wanted to be as powerful as God. Satan is the ruler of Earth as uses his arsenal of deceit to sway the minds and hearts of humanity away from God. He cares nothing for anyone; not those that worship him or anyone else for that matter.

That is the Christian view, but the Jewish view of Satan is different. The Jewish view is not that he rebelled against Gd, but rather that he is working for Gd as an agent to test the strength of the moral fiber of humankind. Although he entices humanity to do wrong, he is not an intrinsically evil being. He tempts mankind because Gd made him for that purpose. The Book of Job is an example of Satan questioning the sincerity of a person and testing him with hardship, all with Gd's permission to do so.

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

God does not create darkness and evil.

According to the Bible he does:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." -Isaiah 45:7

[WICKED]

Wikipedia has a pretty descent page on Satanism. Generally, there is "philosophical Satanism", which is more or less a drive for complete individuality, using the Biblical character Satan as an ideal case of such a state. I guess they love the ballz it must have took to stand in God's face and tell him off...
And then there's real Satanism, which is the actual worship of God's antipode.
Most Satanists these days are philosophicals. It seems the real ones consider them to be pussies.

[Chojin]

Gd Gd Gd Gd Gd Gd

[Sethomas]

G-d fucking dammit.

I think the whole "G-d" or "Gd" thing is asinine, considering it's a Germanic word and the commandment was to not take his name (Yahweh or Jehovah or whatever) in vain. Not just some random word that the Gothic tribes assimilated from Indo European.

[ziggytrix]

those silly Jws!

[Jeanette X]

Its my religion, not yours. What do you care how I spell it?

[ziggytrix]

It's OK for him to call your religious expression retarded, but G-d forbid someone say the P-pe is just an over-aggrandized old man in a st-pid h-t.

[kellychaos]

On a less scholarly tangent, I read a poem somewhere that viewed Satan as the absence of Gd (re: Good). In other words, not necessarily an active agent but it is in those places that places that Gd does not exist. The dark side and the light were also mentioned metaphorically, of course. I found that part kind of derivative.

[Rongi]

i know it's been said before, but saying "gd" or "g-d" is stupid. god isnt even his name, so why would it be unholy to call him by a name that was given to him so you wouldnt say his real name?

[Jeanette X]

If it made sense, it wouldn't be religious expression, now would it?

[Perndog]

What?

[Big Papa Goat]

Thats far less then I think you were expected to say on the topic

[kellychaos]

God versus Satan

Good versus Evil

Light Versus Dark

Order versus Chaos

Mass versus Void

The dichotomy ... fuck, fuck, fuck ... what say you lesser being in your defense?!! :/

Worst Satanic thread EVER!

[sadie]

i love mark twain's "letters from the earth."