re: Does Satanism exist without Christianity?

quote:

---

I'm not aware of any denomination that teaches congregations that it is God's will that people (young people in particular) have pre-martial or extra-marital sex. If you are, you'll have to link me to something to take a look at.

So basically from that list we have homosexuality.

Now here's the thing—even if I agreed that every one of those examples was legit in the context of what we're discussing, that still wouldn't be very much to disagree upon, would it? Not only would it not be very much to disagree upon in terms of volume, but those things aren't very weighty moral dilemmas, are they?

If morality were entirely subjective we wouldn't be quibbling over R-rated movies. We'd have people killing and raping and stealing and cheating whenever they thought they could get away with it.

Even if you do like most atheists and claim that morality is an evolutionary development that genetically programs us to avoid violating feelings of empathy, well, that's still providing an objective basis for the vast consensus we agree upon to act according to. When you claim morality has no objectivity, you deny even that sort of basis.

Now, that sort of basis for morality has no way to validate the reality of right and wrong...it doesn't mean rape is actually "wrong," in the context of violating an actual objective framework of justice, it's just a popular feeling that most people have due to genetic programming, but it's at least some sort of basis outside the individual's mind.

The main thing that is happening with this discussion, though—and it's the same thing that almost always happens with this sort of discussion—is that the lines between epistemology and reality are blurred. This almost always happens when discussing morality with atheists and I can't decide whether it's because they assume certain premises due to their worldview (atheists do that a lot, IME) or if they are trying to avoid the very real philosophical problem that atheism inevitably leads to when discussing morality.

What atheists always want to frame the questions in terms of epistemology, and in doing so they try to sneak in the premise that morality is basically just information instead of conclusions drawn from circumstance in the context of an actual, real, objective reality of justice.

In other words, the almost universal argument of the atheist is, "No one needs God/religion/the Bible to know what is right or wrong."

This ignores the reality of the situation that if no objective standard of justice exists, there is no "right" or "wrong" as we commonly conceptualize those things. Rape may destabilize society (or it may not...one of the biggest problems with arguing morality as a function of utility is that many things we take for granted as being virtuous, such as democracy, are very arguably not the most stable, efficient, or utility-producing systems) and it may be shown to be a bad idea to allow it in society, but it's not "wrong" in the context of having violated actual rights or justice. Or if the basis is feelings of empathy, acting selflessly may make us feel good, but we didn't really do "good" in the context of acting in accordance with a system of justice. (And, what if our feelings change? What if in 50 years, that segment of the population that feels no empathy, the anti-socials, what if that percentage climbs from 1-2% to 10%? And in 100 years, what if it becomes 40%?)

The Christian will agree that the most basic and fundamental tenets of morality are self-evident to almost all humans. That's not the problem.

The problem is that while the atheist thinks those tenets are illusory social or genetic or personal constructs (hey, like gender!), the Christian thinks they are real, and that violating them has real consequences.

---

+1

quote:

---

I stopped reading here

---

Fragile much?

quote:

---

But yes, some Christians have chosen to disregard clear Biblical instruction

---

quote:

---

It seems to be individual local churches making those determinations.

---

I believe there are schisms in both the American Episcopalian and Methodist sects right now over it.

quote:

---

You mean like alcohol?

---

That's just one. Mormons can't drink coffee, either. Then there are also various sorts of drugs. Pork is off limits to some Christian sects.

quote:

---

that overindulgence of alcohol is destructive and therefore sinful. In order to avoid that sin, some denominations teach that you shouldn't drink at all,

---

That literally makes it a moral determination.

There are plenty of churches that demand strict prohibition because drinking itself is a sin.

10 reasons Christians should not drink alcohol

Only 1 involves drunkenness.

I follow lots of former clients who found sobriety in rural Baptist and non-denominational churches, and, trust me, they consider consuming 1 microgram of any intoxicant a sin because it's a tool of the Devil. That's usually the path used by these sorts of churches to make it a sin. That excludes moderation entirely.

That's GENERALLY the avenue (in a thread coming full circle of sorts) that creates lots of flexibility for each sect/church. If you believe that Satan is present on Earth and his goal is to corrupt humans, then literally anything can become a sin via being a tool of Satan.

quote:

---

Same as alcohol above. There's no Christian sect that considers the watching of an R-rated movie to be a sin for it's own sake.

---

I know some Mormons who would 100% disagree with you. And I'm talking normal society Mormons, not the ones with 13 wives under 13 who dress like the Amish.

quote:

---

I'm not aware of any denomination that teaches congregations that it is God's will that people (young people in particular) have pre-martial or extra-marital sex.

---

You're kind of changing what I said.

Just google "premarital sex is not a sin" and it will show you countless examples of churches and leaders agreeing.

quote:

---

even if I agreed that every one of those examples was legit in the context of what we're discussing, that still wouldn't be very much to disagree upon, would it?

---

Those are just a couple random big issues I wrote off the cuff. That is nowhere near an exclusive list.

You don't even have to get into the crazies (like the ones I referenced above who likely handle snakes during night services when the normies are away). Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses, modern Catholics, Baptists, Unitarians, modern Episcopalians, Orthodox churches, Christian Scientists, and Pentecostals are going to present a wide view of differentiation in how sin is perceived.

quote:

---

If morality were entirely subjective we wouldn't be quibbling over R-rated movies. We'd have people killing and raping and stealing and cheating whenever they thought they could get away with it.

---

Why? This ignores a lot of genetic, familial, social, psychological, emotional, and behavioral influence.

Within the paradigm of your perceived morality, all the things I listed above still influence the decision-making of humans. They are not exclusive concepts. People raised in extremely moral churches and households can commit extreme atrocities with the correct influence from my list.

quote:

---

Even if you do like most atheists and claim that morality is an evolutionary development that genetically programs us to avoid violating feelings of empathy

---

Not what I said.

quote:

---

What atheists always want to frame the questions in terms of epistemology, and in doing so they try to sneak in the premise that morality is basically just information instead of conclusions drawn from circumstance in the context of an actual, real, objective reality of justice.

---

I don't think anyone has made the claim ITT that morality is "basically just information". I think the only 2 statements against morality being from written religious works specifically involve "conclusions drawn from circumstance in the context of an actual, real, objective reality". Justice? That's getting a big vague, so I didn't include it.

quote:

---

This ignores the reality of the situation that if no objective standard of justice exists, there is no "right" or "wrong" as we commonly conceptualize those things.

---

Again, this exists from the religious POV, too. What holes you think you're picking out in the non-religious POV exist within the religious POV, too. This post was just about differences in Christian sects. Now include Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.

quote:

---

And, what if our feelings change? What if in 50 years, that segment of the population that feels no empathy, the anti-socials, what if that percentage climbs from 1-2% to 10%? And in 100 years, what if it becomes 40%?

---

This has always happened.

Again, this has literally happened within every religion.

You think the Islam that dominates Iran today is the same as the 1970s?

You think the Catholicism that dominates today is the same as the 19th and 10th centuries?

shite, just look at all the major US Christian sects that aren't even 200 years old. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Pentecostals, modern Baptists, etc. The Christian Revival period of the late 19th Century created a LOT of splinter groups that have grown into populated sects today.

quote:

---

Satan is a created being.

---

Created by God.

If there is no God, there is no Satan.

If you believe one of them exists, you have to believe the other one does.

quote:

---

It's literally the same process primarily used to communicate moral standards from religions

---

You are conflating communication within religions with deriving an objective moral standard. I would argue no other religion provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility of moral objectively precisely because the reject the biblical God and His teachings. But more specifically, reason alone cannot provide an “ought”, only an opinion based on personal preferences.

quote:

---

And this doesn't occur within religions, just the same?

---

It happens everywhere, but my point wasn’t that it occurs, but that it isn’t an adequate foundation by itself for objective moral reasoning precisely because it doesn’t provide a standard at all but allows others to identify standards. In other words, reason provides a means to an end, not the end, itself.

quote:

---

Their individual belief doesn't impact your belief.

---

For one, I didn’t say anything about its impact on my beliefs. I was talking about competing beliefs and worldviews and how everyone believes something that they believe is true, which necessarily means they believing competing worldviews, beliefs, and ideas are false. Anyone who promotes their own beliefs are competing against others who believe differently.

And the other thing is that Satanism certainly does impact Christianity and Christians even if it doesn’t impact the validity and truthfulness of the Christian faith.

For one, promotion of Satanism calls into question the Christian faith and teachings which can cause Christians and non-Christians alike to doubt what is true, and therefore lead some astray to everlasting damnation.

Second and similarly, the promotion of Satanism promotes a worldview that is antithetical to the Christian worldview and makes people think that worldview is just as valid to Christianity in terms of morality. We see the results of such worldly morality all the time, and that certainly does affect Christians.

I’ll stop there for now, but philosophies, beliefs, and worldviews do not typically exist in a vacuum. They influence actions.

quote:

---

Can't objective things be demonstrated?

---

Objective truths can be demonstrated. The limitation is with our ability to adequately perceive and understand them.

Cant have one without the other. Literally since the beginning of time. Good and evil will always be prevalent. Up to you which side to join.

quote:

---

But more specifically, reason alone cannot provide an “ought”, only an opinion based on personal preferences.

---

Why?

quote:

---

It happens everywhere, but my point wasn’t that it occurs, but that it isn’t an adequate foundation by itself for objective moral reasoning precisely because it doesn’t provide a standard at all but allows others to identify standards

---

Again, literally the same process within Christianity. Your arguments easily apply to Christianity as a whole to, and nobody else ITT is trying to invalidate the religion other than you.

quote:

---

and how everyone believes something that they believe is true, which necessarily means they believing competing worldviews, beliefs, and ideas are false.

---

Again, nobody else is trying to invalidate Christianity like you are, apparently.

quote:

---

Anyone who promotes their own beliefs are competing against others who believe differently.

---

It's not a competition, especially if your premise (one true morality granted to humanity by a god) is true. A competition implies any of the competitors can "win".

quote:

---

For one, promotion of Satanism calls into question the Christian faith and teachings which can cause Christians and non-Christians alike to doubt what is true, and therefore lead some astray to everlasting damnation.

---

Satanism and literally ever other philosophy or religion, including 99% of Christian sects that "compete" (as you put it) with your view of Christianity.

quote:

---

the promotion of Satanism promotes a worldview that is antithetical to the Christian worldview

---

Again, outside of the deity worship, not completely true.

quote:

---

and makes people think that worldview is just as valid to Christianity in terms of morality.

---

When the moralities overlap, does the fact that one comes from "Satanism" then invalidate everything in that overlap?

I've studied both the Protestant and Catholic Church, including the Protestant Reformation. I researched the Crusades, and read the glaring mistakes made during that period (there was wave after wave of crusaders). Mistakes made during the Crusades still haunt us today. IMO the effect of those mistakes is a contributing factor in the violent clash going on in Gaza today. I read Martin Luther. I researched his life, in particular his early family life, focusing on his broken relationship with his father. In that search, I understood, and was reminded of, the critical role a father plays in the life and formation of a young man. We can see in Luther's hatred for the Pope, his hatred and rebellion against his father (unfortunately his mother didn't help him deal with the hatred either). We can see across centuries satan's relentless assault on the institution of the Father and traditional family.

I'm not a sociologist or psychologist but I have witnessed my faith from the sugar cane fields of South Louisiana, to the Ghetto of the inner city, to the Catholic Immigrants dealing with the decaying effect of unbridled materialism and I will say again - unless this country finds the resolve to resurrect authentic Christianity (rooted in the Cross) and the traditional family the country will collapse. IMO the collapse has already begun actually.

The Church is good at building magnificent edifices with beautiful ornate stained glass windows, and schools, but it does a lousy job at evangelization. I call this tendency towards building structure, at the expense of witness, the 'immigrant Church mentality'. She is always building structures to meet the needs of a new wave of immigrants - a huge economic burden on the Laity. The Church is not just a fortress to escape the modern world, rather she is where Jesus resides, urging us to "go forth and spread the Good News (Gospel) So expect to be vilified, hated, and even crucified since we are now living in a post-Christian era inceasingly hostile to Christians.

Let me say, no form of religion that has at its root hatred for anyone should be considered authentic. Authentic Christianity always proclaims a simple message - Hate the sin, but love the sinner and "Be Not afraid". Always our model must be Jesus Christ Crucified and his exhortation to "take up YOUR Cross, and follow me" - Matthew 16:24-26. Unfortunately, in a material world obsessed with the pursuit of pleasure in all forms, many see the embrace of Christianity as an impossibility.

God laid out a clear path to salvation. Gradually over millennia Yahweh revealed His plan, beginning with Moses and the Hebrews wandering through the desert (you should read Exodus) for forty years, continuing with the Incarnation (The Word made Flesh), and ending with the establishment of His church the night before He died on the Cross. I'll say it again - there is NO salvation without the Cross.

I love my Catholic Church. She is wounded, scarred, and bent over from constant assault (internally and externally) by the evil one - but She has had roughly 2000 years to weed out heresy and schism. My Holy Catholic Church today presents to us a Church purged by trial and suffering. Her truth ransomed first by the blood of Jesus Christ then the blood of thousands (literally) of martyrs spanning millennia.

Just like my freedom here in America was purchased by the blood of Patriots. Among those Patriots, the blood of those brave young men who jumped off those Higgins Boats at Normandy. They gave up their tomorrows so that I could reflect on their sacrifice today.

A word of caution here. The latest trick by satan, and his legions, to weaken and destroy Christianity - this D.E.I. (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). Translation: You will embrace the LGBT Agenda in your Churches and like it.

Freedom isn't free.

Here is a question:

Don't the Ayatollahs in Iran see America as the great satan yet in Iran they are not Christians?