- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does Satanism exist without Christianity?
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:28 am to Flats
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:28 am to Flats
quote:
You attempting some "so you're saying" bullshite does not equal me making an argument.
You literally said that 5 dudes made up a new right. That right was marriage. Without that right, the government could outlaw Christians from getting married.
I'm sorry that blew up in your face.
1
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:31 am to Azkiger
quote:
You literally said that 5 dudes made up a new right.
Because they did.
quote:
That right was marriage
No, it was gay marriage. They didn't like the way legislatures defined marriage so they changed it to fit their personal political desires.
The rest was you becoming a Jordan Peterson meme.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Are you saying there are things in this plane/universe that God did not create?
They're going to say that evil is the absence of God. This is the same Christian apologetics bowl of spaghetti noodles that also claims nothing can be outside of God.
We're essentially playing Magic the Gathering with an opponent that will, on the spot, cut out and write up whatever card they want.
This post was edited on 12/18/23 at 9:35 am
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:35 am to Flats
quote:
No, it was gay marriage. They didn't like the way legislatures defined marriage so they changed it to fit their personal political desires.
Can the government discriminate against its citizens based on immutable characteristics?
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He's basically a Mary Sue
There is Luke 2:46 where Jesus is teaching in the temple at 12 years old.
Still a gap, but it does hint/show that there is some history of development.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:44 am to Azkiger
quote:
Can the government discriminate against its citizens based on immutable characteristics?
Sure.
https://www.sss.gov/register/
You can phrase it however you like, and I know you will, but I don't think you can counter my previous description. SCOTUS did not like how the states defined marriage so they issued a decree from on high that satisfied their personal moral code. If they want to, 5 people in that position can mandate that the states must include bigamy in their legal definition of marriage. Some people will recognize that for what it is, 5 people creating laws that they can't convince the legislature to create, others will talk about their vast intelligence and understanding of emanations of penumbras.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:45 am to Padme
There is no real Satanism. There
are posers who are bored and dissatisfied with life.
are posers who are bored and dissatisfied with life.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:52 am to Flats
quote:
Selective Services
A vestige from a time when women couldn't vote. It's no more relevant to our current conversation than government-sanctioned slavery...
Or maybe you will claim that the constitution allows for people to own slaves... Anything to prevent those sodomites from tying the knot, huh?
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:55 am to Azkiger
quote:
Anything to prevent those sodomites from tying the knot, huh?
You're usually better than this. You've gone from "so you're saying" to an appeal to ridicule, all while steadfastly refusing to take an honest look at what I'm actually saying. You have fun with that.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:57 am to Flats
quote:
You've gone from "so you're saying" to an appeal to ridicule
There was a point you ignored in that post. And I get why you ignored it, you're seeing the hole you fell into.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 9:58 am to VOR
quote:
There is no real Satanism.
This conversation would say otherwise:
Father Andrew Trapp — a young priest in my own diocese of Charleston records here his interview with a former Satanist in France.
The poor guy probably felt like he was being interrogated by the CIA by this point, but knowing that I might never have this opportunity again, I asked Nicolas one final question. I told him that I had also heard that those who were very deep in Satanism could actually tell whether a communion host had been consecrated or not. For example, they will not steal communion bread from Protestant communion meals, nor will they steal unblessed communion bread for desecration at these "Black Masses." It would not work because some of the Satanists would immediately recognize that it was just ordinary bread. They would be able to tell that Jesus Christ was not sacramentally present there.
I asked Nicolas whether this also was true. He again replied that it is, and he told us that he could do this himself before his conversion from Satanism. A chill went down my spine. If someone were to put ten identical communion hosts in front of him, nine unconsecrated and one consecrated, he would have been able to point directly and immediately to the host that had been consecrated. I asked him in amazement, "But how were you able to know?!?" He looked at me and the words he spoke are forever burned in my memory: "Because of the hate," he said. "Because of the burning hate I would feel toward that host, apart from all the others."
This post was edited on 12/18/23 at 10:00 am
Posted on 12/18/23 at 10:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The "ought" comes from some sort of moral law-giver.quote:Why?
But more specifically, reason alone cannot provide an “ought”, only an opinion based on personal preferences.
Assume for a second that there is no God (I'm sure you're way ahead of me). Where does obligation to be moral come from, and what standard of morality are we obliged to obey? If morality is entirely a social construct, then it doesn't truly exist in an objective way for us to reason to. We would just be reacting to the positive and negative effects of our actions in society, which will change over time, based on what we desire most in life.
Someone who is suicidal and doesn't care about getting along with others will have no social pressure to conform to, so for them, morality is whatever they personally think it is. How can I, myself, simply use reason to come to the same moral conclusions as the suicidal individual? The only thing reason can do is help me navigate my cultural and societal surrounds. It can't lead me to an objective moral truth when none exists.
quote:An objective moral standard exists within Christianity that is not possible outside it based on the nature of morality and the moral law-giver. How we apply that standard may be different based on our right understanding and our sinful desires that skew how we think about it, but the standard exists. The goal of the Christian is to apply that standard in a consistent way that serves man and glorifies God.
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.
All philosophies, ideas, beliefs, and worldviews are held because the one holding it believes they are correct. No one believes something as true that they know is false; that would be a contradiction. To hold something as true is to hold all other non-conforming beliefs, ideas, etc. as false by logical necessity, so when a person promotes what they believe to be true, they are by natural consequence arguing against all other ideas, beliefs, etc. that contradict it.
quote:Atheists attempt to do it all the time, openly, and with purposeful intent. So do Muslims who believe Christians blaspheme Allah by claiming Jesus is God. So do Jews who deny Jesus is God. So do Jehovah's Witnesses who claim that God is not sovereign over this world but Satan is. It goes on and on, but as I already said, when you make an exclusive truth claim, you logically exclude all claims that do not align. The only practical exception are those who are ignorant about it and claim that all truth claims are equal and valid.
Again, nobody else is trying to invalidate Christianity like you are, apparently.
quote:I'm speaking of a competition in the sense that all those "playing" believe that there is a singular goal and are attempting to "win" by defeating all opposition. That is done all the time in an ideological sense by proposing for your own ideas while attempting to defeat the ideas of others and the arguments against your own.
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".
Also, even in the sports world, teams an "compete" and give it their all even when they are overly matched with no real shot at winning. Christianity being true does not mean that all other ideologies and beliefs cannot fight against it. It may be futile in the end, but in the meantime, they do their best.
quote:Satanism and all other competing beliefs apart from Orthodox Christianity lead others astray. While it's true that few Christian sects or denominations are in 100% agreement, differing on minor particulars of the faith does not invalidate the shared core of the faith that is necessary for brotherly agreement and salvation. It's why there are so many different denominations within Protestantism that can rightfully call each other "brother", because what they share in common is what defines the faith.
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:No, it's true. This is where Christianity differs from all other moralities in other religions and philosophies: Christianity does not teach that outward appearances alone are what make "good works" actually good. In Christianity, a good work is something that conforms to the commands of God and are done for His glory. Romans 14:23 states that whatever is not done by faith is sin. That means, the atheist who gives to the needy is still in sin when he does it for any reasons that do not include honoring God (doing it because it's right in God's eyes).
Again, outside of the deity worship, not completely true.
quote:Sort of? It depends because the Satanic Temple, for instance, seems to have a different understanding of the words that are in overlap with Christianity as well as having different motives that make application of that "overlap" look very different.
When the moralities overlap, does the fact that one comes from "Satanism" then invalidate everything in that overlap?
Tenant 1 states that we should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason. I agree we should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures, but not in accordance with "reason" alone, but in accordance with God's Word. We shouldn't have empathy and compassion simply for the sake of having it, but because other creatures don't belong to us, but to God. And how we act with compassion and empathy is going to look different between the Christian and the Satanist. A parent punishing their child to train them doesn't seem very compassionate from the child's perspective.
Tenant 2 states that the struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions. I disagree with this. Justice, by definition, is based on standards like laws, and without laws and institutions, I don't know how we identify what justice even is. For the Christian, justice is intrinsically tied to laws and institutions. To the Satanic Temple, justice is above laws and institutions.
For tenant three, it says one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. The Christian would disagree as we believe everyone is subject to the will of God ultimately, but that each person is expected to submit their wills to the authorities that God has put in place over us.
I could go on with each point, but my point is that just because similar or even same words are used, we mean different things by them and apply those principles differently because our underlying and foundational beliefs are vastly different.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 10:07 am to TigerSprings
quote:
The poor guy probably felt like he was being interrogated by the CIA by this point, but knowing that I might never have this opportunity again, I asked Nicolas one final question. I told him that I had also heard that those who were very deep in Satanism could actually tell whether a communion host had been consecrated or not. For example, they will not steal communion bread from Protestant communion meals, nor will they steal unblessed communion bread for desecration at these "Black Masses." It would not work because some of the Satanists would immediately recognize that it was just ordinary bread. They would be able to tell that Jesus Christ was not sacramentally present there.
I asked Nicolas whether this also was true. He again replied that it is, and he told us that he could do this himself before his conversion from Satanism. A chill went down my spine. If someone were to put ten identical communion hosts in front of him, nine unconsecrated and one consecrated, he would have been able to point directly and immediately to the host that had been consecrated. I asked him in amazement, "But how were you able to know?!?" He looked at me and the words he spoke are forever burned in my memory: "Because of the hate," he said. "Because of the burning hate I would feel toward that host, apart from all the others."
This is bringing back memories of the story the bishop told our children's Sunday school class when I laughed ant called him a liar.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 10:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is bringing back memories of the story the bishop told our children's Sunday school class when I laughed ant called him a liar.
I see why you're getting downvoted.
Everyone knows that Father Andrew Trapp would never lie about Nicolas, and Nicolas would never tell a lie to Father Andrew Trapp. You can take this hearsay to the bank and cash it.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 10:16 am to VOR
quote:
There is no real Satanism
Thats naive as frick.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 10:20 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Assume for a second that there is no God (I'm sure you're way ahead of me). Where does obligation to be moral come from,
In the "state of nature", from an individual perspective, there is none. A human raised in feral conditions won't be "moral" as the enlightened society versions of humans would judge.
quote:
and what standard of morality are we obliged to obey?
Morality is a societal and social construct. As societies change, morality has changed. If you want to see a great example of this, read the Old and New Testaments.
quote:
If morality is entirely a social construct, then it doesn't truly exist in an objective way for us to reason to.
If morality is entirely a construct of any religious sect, then it doesn't exist in any objective way for us to reason to, if other sects have opposing moralities. The same standard works with religion, too.
quote:
We would just be reacting to the positive and negative effects of our actions in society, which will change over time, based on what we desire most in life.
This isn't even correct.
quote:
The only thing reason can do is help me navigate my cultural and societal surrounds. It can't lead me to an objective moral truth when none exists.
It led you to a particular sect of a particular religion for which you find the morality acceptable to that very same reasoned process.
quote:
An objective moral standard exists within Christianity t
Again, different versions of Christianity cannot agree on a universal moral standard.
Do you believe same sex marriage is moral? Or, more specifically, does your particular sect of Christianity?
quote:
Atheists attempt to do it all the time, openly, and with purposeful intent.
Not in this thread, which is what I was referencing (and to which you replied). Don't try to change the framing so you can argue a different point.
quote:
While it's true that few Christian sects or denominations are in 100% agreement, differing on minor particulars of the faith does not invalidate the shared core of the faith that is necessary for brotherly agreement and salvation.
There have been many conflicts and murders that strongly disagree with this assertion.
And I say that to in no way criticize Christianity. I am just pointing out that you're minimizing the actual history of these conflicts. They've only become minor in recent history (really after industrialization developed society into proto-modernity). The vast majority of the 2000 years of Christianity have involved constant violence among the sects over these differences. They're not nearly as minor as you're portraying them.
quote:
In Christianity, a good work is something that conforms to the commands of God and are done for His glory. Romans 14:23 states that whatever is not done by faith is sin. That means, the atheist who gives to the needy is still in sin when he does it for any reasons that do not include honoring God
Again, not a universal truth within Christianity.
You have reasoned (or rely upon the reasoning of others, but still that involves your own reasoning in making the choice to believe this rhetoric) this in the same way you're claiming humans can't reason morality.
The choice to believe involves reason and discernment. This applies within Christianity and outside of Christianity.
quote:
I could go on with each point, but my point is that just because similar or even same words are used, we mean different things by them and apply those principles differently because our underlying and foundational beliefs are vastly different.
Foundational beliefs you choose to believe based on the same reasoning you argued is impossible to rely upon to form moral beliefs.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 10:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Foundational beliefs you choose to believe based on the same reasoning you argued is impossible to rely upon to form moral beliefs.
Do you have moral beliefs?
If so, what are they based on?
Posted on 12/18/23 at 10:30 am to Flats
quote:
Do you have moral beliefs?
Yes
quote:
If so, what are they based on?
Analyzing society, psychology, religions, and philosophy.
There is a reason there is a lot of overlap at the fundamental level among various sources over the course of human history, post-society. An early clue was the decision to include religion into the state in antiquity. Humans found rather quickly after we developed society that including religion to validate societal regulations (based in morality after societal trial and error) was much more effective than threats from the state alone.
This pattern has not changed over the last 12,000 years, really.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 10:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I believe there are schisms in both the American Episcopalian and Methodist sects right now over it.
Thus the point. There have always been individuals and groups that have committed heresy.
quote:
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.
Mormons are their own thing. Not eating pork is literally the definition of ceremonial, as it dates back to the CEREMONIAL law of Leviticus.
quote:
In order to avoid that sin, some denominations teach that you shouldn't drink at all,
That literally makes it a moral determination.
Uh, no. If I tell my daughter that dressing like a slut makes it more likely that a boy on a date might get the wrong idea about her intentions and he ends up crossing a line due to his assumptions, him crossing the line is the violation. Her dressing like a slut only makes it more likely that a line may get crossed. It's not a good idea, but it's not of itself a violation.
quote:
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.
I wasn't intending to change what you said. I did Google it and was surprised by the results until I clicked on a few of them and saw the sources.
I think this is a good place to stop where this conversation has gone, stop with the endless quibbling over examples, and try to bring it back to you original point, which is that if there really was such a thing as objective morality, everyone would be on the same moral page.
But that's not necessarily true at all, and this is as good an example of why not as possible.
First of all, just because someone knows (or ought to know) what the correct moral action is, that doesn't mean they'll choose to take it. This is a great example. So is homosexuality. The Bible is very clear on both of those yet some refuse to obey, and one of the biggest justifications commonly used in such situations is the one Satan used all the way back on Genesis: "Did God really forbid XYZ?"
But again, knowing objective morality and choosing to admit what it is (because once you admit what it is, you are responsible for following it) are two different things. It does not logically necessarily follow at all that an objective morality would = universal compliance or even universal teaching, as no one ever claimed that knowledge of that objective morality would be perfect.
You claim that I have ignored society and genetics when flipping that premise around, but I don't think I have.
I could reiterate what i have already said, but instead I think I'll throw one other critique out there in the form of a question: How much autonomy do people have distinct from society, and how much autonomy do people have distinct from their genetics?
You'll be able to make a case for the first, but the second is impossible to make a case that stands up.
In order to do so, you'd have to postulate a "you" that is separate and distinct from the impersonal material forces that atheism claims is responsible for every thought, behavior, and emotion that human beings experience. Some "you" would have to choose
something different than the illusion of you (which is really what atheism claims) has been programmed to choose.
If people have no choice (and according to the logical conclusion of materialist atheist premises, choice as we commonly conceive of it is impossible), of what use is the concept of "morality" anyway?
Posted on 12/18/23 at 10:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Are you saying there are things in this plane/universe that God did not create?
Like 5 of these discussions happening across 5 threads, I'll go back and respond.
Page 11 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News