Simplifying Christianity and its Inverse(Satanism)

Post Reply New Topic

Has anyone else ever noticed that Christians can become extremely vocal when others challenge the validity of their religion, but that they also grow strangely silent when challenged to actually do something that could immediately validate everything they've said?

The Christ I admire - it's the Christians I can't stand.

It seems very strange that Dante is so often referred to as an expert on Hell as if his poetry were brought down from a mountain top inscribed in stone tablets.

Fnord:

What do you expect? I freely admit to basing my faith on prayer, introspection, and a book written about a guy who died almost 2,000 years ago. Your statements that no scientific evidence supports that, often elicit protests from Christians who aren't used to being argued with. So yeah, they'll get all hot-headed.

Then atheists throw out some inane demand that God show up immediately and alter reality in front of you. Do you really expect a conversation after that? We know He doesn't work like that, and if He granted your demand for a personal reality-alteration and turned your left foot into cheese, then instead of believing you'd just think He was an as*hole. Even though he would have done exactly as you asked.

No, I can't prove it, and no, I'm not going to ask God to show up at your door and turn your left foot into Swiss cheese. He could do it, but I don't think it'd take something that drastic. But you'll probably take that as proof He doesn't exist, since you're so overwhelmingly important that He'll throw aside the other plans He has to convert you and show up in person. Which would actually kill you, according to the Bible, what with the sinful nature humans have, and the brain-melting anti-sinful nature He has.

Some atheists, from what I've seen here, mostly base their belief on a whole lot of science that other people have done, and decide that from what other people have agreed is true, there isn't any evidence of God. So they insult us, then demand the proof they know we can't provide, and feel all warm and fuzzy since they've defeated another idiot Christian. At least, I hope they feel all warm and fuzzy, since it doesn't bother us after about 15 minutes, if that.

Satanism is simply the inverse of Christianity, and it intentionally believes in things simply because they are considered a sin in Christianity, even though these things lead to no good end.

I consider myself an independent Christian. This gives me the perspective to see the flaws in organized Christianity, while still being faithful to my beliefs. The flaws I've seen run very deep, and while they are slowly fading it will be a long time before Christianity as a whole becomes what it always should of been, a religion of kindness and tolerance rather than one of fear and willful blindness.

It is my hope that Christianity (and all religions for that matter) will look at science and say "We'll deal with the why, you can deal with the how", and science will look back and say "That's how it's always worked".

After my Gaia thread I feel it neccesary to point out this is only my opinion based on my own experience and using my own limited intellect, I am neither condemning or condoning anyones beliefs.

I agree with the people who commented that Satanism is an opposite reaction to certain types of organized Christianity. I think it's important to differentiate between this and true Paganism or other Earth based beliefs and practices demonized by the less enlightened. I would go further and say that much in the church is an opposite reaction to what it 'percieves' as Satanism. Many years ago I was in a Christian based drug rehab and I heard more talk about Satan and the Devil and spiritual attack and warfare than about God or Love. It's as if everyone there saw too many MTV style rock videos or horror films. Let's face it the Bible even says God made good and evil and he is on speaking terms with his so called enemy.

Another point, has anyone read the recently discovered lost gospels? It's clear why they were left out when the Catholics first canonized the Bible. They are much more in line with Gnosticism (the more educated will know they were persecuted and killed by the early Catholic Churches leaders). Also they strongly support the fact that the early Christians largely believed in reincarnation and sin/karma based rebirth till a soul was ready for Salvation. From what I've read I don't think everybody was meant to understand many of the teachings of Jesus and I don't think it is meant to be spread like random carpet bombing. Much I think is too profound to be told to just anybody which is why parables were used. Buddism and other Eastern religions and philosophys use similar layered teachings to cater to an individuals ability to comprehend and not get 'freaked out' or confused. (The book of Revelations very nearly didn't make it).The Gnostics were big on inner knowlege, meditation and knowing thy self, this brought them in conflict with the universalists (catholic tranlated means universal) who were under the thumb of the Romans who wanted to water down Christianity in order to control the masses. So we have the Roman Catholic Church a weak parody of the real thing, sad. By the time of Luther and the reformation too much damage was done to its reputation with other world religions, not least of all the Pagans and Muslims.

Hope I haven't got anything too wrong, and my objective is to clarify not confound, or at least help people see there is always room for an alternative third opinion.