re: Question for Devil Worshippers about Satan

quote:

---

You think me stating that I will pray for someone is an argument ..... Absolutely.

---

Dude, you are a bitter, insane old man.

Serious question: Were you touched inappropriately by someone in the Clergy as a child?

There is a bitterness that oozes from you that can only be explained by something that terrible.

I hope that isn't the case, but you are insanely irrational and angry to the point it makes you look stupid...

quote:

---

but it does show that religious morality is also subjective

---

No it doesn't. God's law is what it is. It's not up for interpretation nor is it subjective.

People are the ones who use it to push their own agendas.

Fair question

I’d like to know answer as well

“Satanists” don’t actually worship Satan. They use that name as a troll on Christianity. “The Satanic Bible” is actually an atheist book advocating for worshipping the self. Obviously, it’s not even a little ironic that one could imagine Satan himself having a similar message. FYI, I have skimmed “The Satanic Bible” out of curiosity, and that book is about as deep as a rice paddy. Even a 12 year old can see how shallow and trite the philosophy is. It’s basically a book that states you improve your self-esteem by doing what you want and fulfilling your impulses rather than fighting them. It’s very very dumb.

This is obviously very different from Wiccan’s, even those that practice “dark” magic. Those practitioners are basically a revival of pre-roman celtic nature worship. It’s a pagan religion that uses superstition, astrology, herbs, and rituals to attempt to forecast and impact the physical world using the power of “intent” and “manifestation”. Believe it or not, these techniques can be helpful, as often mindset and focus are key in achieving goals. In tarot, one sees what they want to see, but that doesn’t make it useless. Imagine flipping a coin to make a decision between two alternatives. What side the coin lands on really does not matter, but the reflex, the emotional reaction you have to the outcome, tells you which outcome of the two you REALLY wanted. Tarot can be used as a tool to uncover that, and the rituals can be used as tools to focus your priorities so you can better achieve them, though the rituals themselves are nothing more than a placebo.

What’s interesting to me is that combining the two (worship of the self to build self-esteem, and using rituals and manifestation to discover what you truly want and prioritize) are the cornerstones of the modern self-help movement. These techniques, when used properly and with balance, can help people when stripped of the religious mumbo jumbo.

The final form of “devil worship” is the real evil that you never actually witness people doing. While most of it is just theater for shock value, Hollywood cults are real. They do sacrifice people, individuals really do “sell their soul to the devil” for fame. This is a modern spin on old school Baal, the pre-roman and pre-Judaism religion of Lebanon. Baal was the primary god of the Phoenicians. People sacrificed children to Baal in exchange for good favor and prosperity. There are many similar gods throughout mythology to Baal such as Moluch, but the common trope is the same: to achieve riches and earthly power/riches, you sacrifice an innocent and/or you give up your afterlife. There is nothing “healthy” or “rewarding” about this, only evil, selfishness, and greed within the fame machine.

quote:

---

Check Isaiah 45:7.

---

Is that what you believe? Is that where you believe morality comes from.

You seem to be sucking this question purposefully. I saw that in a different post, you admit to believing morality is subjective. Perhaps this is why you don’t want to discuss your thoughts on this.

In regards to the verse, itself: it is a description of God’s sovereignty over all things (in comparison to the idols and so-called gods of the nations that can’t do anything). God is not the author of sin, but He is sovereign over it.

If you did more than cherry-pick verses, you would see that in the chapter you cite, God says multiple times and in multiple ways that there are no other gods. They are useless idols of the peoples that cannot save and have no power to create or to direct the affairs of men as God does. This chapter argues against all that nonsense you post about God being one god among many.

quote:

---

Have you thought about the possibility of the inverse being true? Maybe you have it wrong and the other religions preserved the truth? I don’t believe that personally but how can you be so sure you have it right and everyone else is wrong?

---

Which religion do you suppose is right? None, I’d guess.

One of the reasons why I presuppose that Christianity alone is correct is because it alone can provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. Only the God of the Bible has the attributes necessary to be the creator and sustainer of the world; only He has the attributes necessary to be the basis for objective morality, for science, reason, language, and truth itself.

But to your point about other religions (plural) being possibly correct: that can’t be because the other religions make truth claims that contradict each other. By necessity, they cannot be true due to the law of non-contradiction. They could all be false or one could be true, but there cannot be multiple religions that are all true in the same way and at the same time.

quote:

---

Persia conquered Babylon and freed the exiled elite Judeans and created second temple Judaism. Pick up a book. The influence was from Zoroastrianism to Judaism, not the other way around. Cyrus the great built the second temple. In the Bible, YHWH calls Cyrus “my messiah”. Lol

---

Your entire argument seems to rest on the entirety of Judaism being based on scribal writings (re-writings?) after the return from the Babylonian captivity. It’s straight out of the Copenhagen School of postmodern revisionism. Archeological findings have confirmed both the existence of an Israelite nation prior to the Babylonian exile as well as evidence for key biblical figures that existed prior to said exile. The exile, itself, is evidence of an Israelite identity prior to the exile (what were they exiled from?), and the desire for a unique identity from the nations that they lived in would not have allowed such a drastic change from polytheism to monotheism, as you hope to believe.

You desperately want the Bible to be man-made fiction based on the man-made fiction of others so that you don’t have to be held accountable for your life.

Regarding Cyrus the messiah: he was an “anointed one” (which is what messiah means). Saul was God’s anointed. So was David. So we’re the priests. Cyrus was used by God for a special purpose.

quote:

---

Jesus concept might have been borrowed a little from Egyptian and other religions.

---

May have?

quote:

---

I don’t believe a historical Jesus existed.

---

Even the most unbelieving scholars don’t deny the existence of the historical Jesus. You are behind the times.

quote:

---

If you read 1 Enoch and then the ascension of Isaiah, you can understand where the mythology originated to an extent. You also have to have knowledge of first temple theology to make sense. El Elyon sent his son YHWH down from the 7th heaven wearing a shell of human flesh made from the seed of David. When he descended to the firmament, he was killed by spirits in tbe sky and his blood purified creation. Then he was resurrected.

---

What I find interesting is that you assume that these writings are the basis for Christian theology and give more weight to them than the Bible because you see them as substantiating your assumptions that the Bible is false and borrowed from other writings. You merely assume that such things are so, which at best makes your hypotheses no better than the Bible from a humanistic perspective.

Even your false differentiation between El Elyon and Yahweh shows how little you understand of how the Bible describes God. These names are used as descriptions and titles, not as different gods. God is called El Roi, El Shaddai, Yahweh Rophe, Yahweh Yireh, Adonai, Jehovah Sabaoth, and several others. These are not other names of other gods, like you think El Elyon is (that title is used in the New Testament to refer to Yahweh).

quote:

---

Christianity evolved over time with Paul and then with the writers of Mark. It wasn’t until Matthew that Jesus was even born as a human. It was nearly 50-100 years after Jesus’ supposed death and resurrection that they began to write about Jesus and then they started creating a fictive history of his life on earth. Originally, his death and resurrection happened in the sky.

---

Where is your evidence for such statements? Paul referred to Jesus as a man.

quote:

---

The writer of Matthew made the scene of Barabbas vs Christ akin to the first temple scapegoat sacrifice ritual. You’ll have to look up the scapegoat ritual and also Matthew 27:16-17. Did you know Barabbas’ name was also Jesus? Most English translations leave that part out but check out the Greek. The NIV gets this part right.

---

The story of the exchange of Jesus for Barabbas is found in all four of the gospels, so I don’t know why you are singling out Matthew.

There are a small minority of textual variants that say that Barabbas’ first name was Jesus, but those readings are suspect due to other unique and suspect readings in other places in those manuscripts, which is why most English translations don’t include that name. But even if it is true, it is entirely irrelevant.

quote:

---

I'm not. You do it frequently, and it's always when I've made fun of some aspect of your delusion. You're not really making any point, but it's absolutely part of your argument, and usually in tandem with some proselytizing.

---

I don’t even know how you could possibly be arguing over this point. You are saying that my statement that I will pray for someone is an argument. It’s not. It isn’t said to support my truth claims. It’s no more an argument than if I said I would eat a sandwich. It’s a statement of intent to action.

quote:

---

quote:
God's law is what it is.


According to...

---

Dude, enough of your straw man argument. You're the one saying Christianity is a man made construct that by it's nature can be interrupted in any way. That's not what were saying. The Law is from God and is infallible.

quote:

---

According to God’s

---

According to...

quote:

---

You're the one saying Christianity is a man made construct that by it's nature can be interrupted in any way.

---

That's exactly what it is. It can be nothing else.

You believe, absent proof, that it was guided by your god. There's nothing objective about that. There can't be.

quote:

---

I’m aware of what I said.

---

Good. You should no longer be confused.