Is Christianity really Satanic?
Christianity has a dichotomy between the God of Abraham and Satan. They are opposed to each other in the mind of the Christian. Wouldn't it be weird if Satanism was really inherent within Christianity?
Well it turns out that this might be true.
The typical Christian understanding of God is that he wills the good both necessarily AND freely. God is a free but non-contingent being in their world view. However, he never has nor never will strive because striving is a sign of an imperfect nature for a Christian. But then how can God be considered virtuous? Norse mythology and other similar ancients beliefs from around the world had deities who knew temptation. They knew have to fight and how to work. Nietzsche wisely said that Christianity is nothing but a new kind of Platonism. And this makes a lot of sense. He and Schopenhauer defines Will as striving. They are right in that if there was never striving there was never will (there might be rest at the end of the process though). So Christianity is a type of idol worship, a perfect Form that is personified in three people. A process that leads to peace is entirely different from an eternal necessary state of never striving. Catholicism does defines God as Pure Act. But it is not "action" in any logical sense. If a child, when faced with their first temptation, defeats it through striving and gains a virtue, he/she would be better than the Christian God because the Christian God never did this. So what hides behind this lazy Christian God? Could it be Satan? Let's continue..
Catholics (the biggest Christian denomination) believe that at Mass, through communion (or the Eucharist), they literally swallow Jesus's entire body all at once. There is the medium of the bread's "accidents", but because of their view of substance, Catholics believe in ritual required cannibalism. They base this on the Bible too. I know that other denominations interpret the Bible more figuratively, but it doesn't matter because Jesus said at the Last Supper "do this in memory of me". So even in these other churches have mock cannibalistic required rituals. Sounds Satanic, no?
It get's worse. The Christian God in the Old Testament ordered the mass murder of entire populations
by the Jewish soldiers. Christians try to argue that those killed were all bad people, even the children that were ordered killed. However, Abraham was ordered by the Christian God to kill his son Isaac.
No Christian would say Isaac was evil. Isaac represented at that moment the "innocence" of Jesus as
the "lamb led to the slaughter" by his own father. Therefore within Christianity you must kill ANYONE God tells you too. Therefore the conclusion is Christianity is pro-murder. It is not a family friendly religion and it is not safe for people to believe in it in the modern world. Suppose a leader of a nation is Christian and thinks Jesus is ordering him to start a war. According to Christian doctrine he is required under pain of Hell-fire to start that war. Isn't this a huge problem? Who could be behind this but the Devil?
Finally, the basic premise of Christianity is that once you sin you owe an infinite debt to God which you
can never repay. So there is no second chance, changing you own life, or natural repentance and the wiping away of your guilt and karma. The way the Christian God deals with the situation is to sacrifice an innocent person and put his karma and merit into someone else. This is very close to what can be called "soul swapping" in Satanism. The truth is that through mercy I can take away your punishment, but I can NEVER say you didn't do what you did. But Christians still believe God takes your repentance, WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CHANGE YOUR SOUL, and adds the merits of Jesus in order to have a "new creation", basically a hybrid of you and Jesus. This attempt to avoid guilt and shame is the ultimate example of the Satanic nature of Christianity for me.
Now I am not saying that Satan is real. There is no proof a supernatural realm-order exists. However, according to the definitions of Satanism given by students of religion and even Christians themselves, Christianity classifies as a Satanic religion in my opinion.
The Western monotheistic religions may have had a purpose for their time, but they are too contaminated in my opinion to be of value to the future world.
Well it turns out that this might be true.
The typical Christian understanding of God is that he wills the good both necessarily AND freely. God is a free but non-contingent being in their world view. However, he never has nor never will strive because striving is a sign of an imperfect nature for a Christian. But then how can God be considered virtuous? Norse mythology and other similar ancients beliefs from around the world had deities who knew temptation. They knew have to fight and how to work. Nietzsche wisely said that Christianity is nothing but a new kind of Platonism. And this makes a lot of sense. He and Schopenhauer defines Will as striving. They are right in that if there was never striving there was never will (there might be rest at the end of the process though). So Christianity is a type of idol worship, a perfect Form that is personified in three people. A process that leads to peace is entirely different from an eternal necessary state of never striving. Catholicism does defines God as Pure Act. But it is not "action" in any logical sense. If a child, when faced with their first temptation, defeats it through striving and gains a virtue, he/she would be better than the Christian God because the Christian God never did this. So what hides behind this lazy Christian God? Could it be Satan? Let's continue..
Catholics (the biggest Christian denomination) believe that at Mass, through communion (or the Eucharist), they literally swallow Jesus's entire body all at once. There is the medium of the bread's "accidents", but because of their view of substance, Catholics believe in ritual required cannibalism. They base this on the Bible too. I know that other denominations interpret the Bible more figuratively, but it doesn't matter because Jesus said at the Last Supper "do this in memory of me". So even in these other churches have mock cannibalistic required rituals. Sounds Satanic, no?
It get's worse. The Christian God in the Old Testament ordered the mass murder of entire populations
by the Jewish soldiers. Christians try to argue that those killed were all bad people, even the children that were ordered killed. However, Abraham was ordered by the Christian God to kill his son Isaac.
No Christian would say Isaac was evil. Isaac represented at that moment the "innocence" of Jesus as
the "lamb led to the slaughter" by his own father. Therefore within Christianity you must kill ANYONE God tells you too. Therefore the conclusion is Christianity is pro-murder. It is not a family friendly religion and it is not safe for people to believe in it in the modern world. Suppose a leader of a nation is Christian and thinks Jesus is ordering him to start a war. According to Christian doctrine he is required under pain of Hell-fire to start that war. Isn't this a huge problem? Who could be behind this but the Devil?
Finally, the basic premise of Christianity is that once you sin you owe an infinite debt to God which you
can never repay. So there is no second chance, changing you own life, or natural repentance and the wiping away of your guilt and karma. The way the Christian God deals with the situation is to sacrifice an innocent person and put his karma and merit into someone else. This is very close to what can be called "soul swapping" in Satanism. The truth is that through mercy I can take away your punishment, but I can NEVER say you didn't do what you did. But Christians still believe God takes your repentance, WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CHANGE YOUR SOUL, and adds the merits of Jesus in order to have a "new creation", basically a hybrid of you and Jesus. This attempt to avoid guilt and shame is the ultimate example of the Satanic nature of Christianity for me.
Now I am not saying that Satan is real. There is no proof a supernatural realm-order exists. However, according to the definitions of Satanism given by students of religion and even Christians themselves, Christianity classifies as a Satanic religion in my opinion.
The Western monotheistic religions may have had a purpose for their time, but they are too contaminated in my opinion to be of value to the future world.
Comments (62)
But,one must realise many adherents to these faiths or ideologies do not follow their faith in its extreme origin but follow a sanitised super diet coke liberal or person version. They can be of value. People even make use of Plato Nietzsche and heidegger so why not!
I think if you're going to talk about a religion, you should do so on its own terms, otherwise you're just making stuff up and saying made up things about the stuff you made up. The average Christian hasn't read or followed the book.
And do you have any idea how many completely different kinds of Catholics there are worldwide?
Also, the original post in this thread covers like a hundred different complex topics, about none of which a sound or rational thing was posited.
Lack of perfection and/or finitude is the euphemism for the metaphorical concept known as the devil/evil .
Consider that you may be getting lost in the emotions of religious dogma/extremism.. But if you think it's a real Being, you may want to run and hide before it's too late!!!!
Kidding aside, I would recommend focusing on the OT Wisdom Books, and NT/Jesus' philosophy.
I provided four examples of things which Christians, if they saw them in another religion, would consider Satanic. Since they are so close to their own, they can't see the forest for the tree. I don't considering worshiping Pure Form (idolatry), eating Jesus (cannibalism), God commanding Abraham to form the intention and attempt to kill his son (murder), and Christians asking another being to take their sins out of them because of an innocent man (scapegoating) to be all that complex.
I also know far more about Catholicism than you'll ever know, I'd bet
Christians usually put God's nature as the most prior within God. Nietzsche rightly asked where are God's victories then. We humans work and try to be good. How can God's nature be the essence of all
those things? How can he just sit there and be it?? That would be a substance view of God and you shouldn't hide behind the fact that these topics take some thought and then refuse to recognize this as idolatry. A substance can never be better by itself than action. I know you are going to counter that God DOES will. Imagine, however, a soldier deciding to charge the enemy. Are we to say God's nature has this without having to do it? Without having to feel the fear and doing that good? Again, this is just absurd.
If you want to have an alternate non-Platonic view of God, that's fine. If you want to reject Catholicism and also say Protestantism now doesn't pretend it's cannibalizing someone, ok. I agree some Christians say that the Old Testament is mostly just stories to teach a lesson. Yet that is creating a New Christianity. What I was refuting was typical Christianity. And good luck having Christianity without scapegoating.
There's a book full of words, and then--because Christianity is a personalized religion--there are as many different ways to 'be a Christian' as there are Christians. That's what, a little over 2 billion?
It doesn't matter what you think you know, it's irrelevant, we're not comparing scholarly genital sizes, and what you're attempting to address is independent of Catholicism.
The story in which God commands Abraham to kill his son is a poor example, and you're making it obvious that you don't understand the literal text or the metaphor it implies. You were talking previously about it as though Abraham actually killed his son and God commended him for doing so. Now you're talking about God's intentions, and it was made clear in the text that God never intended Isaac to be harmed. Also, he's God, so he can just bring the kid back to life or give Abraham 20 replacement sons while Isaac lives in heaven, or whatever. It's the bible.
Christians, as well as Jews, never asked for Jesus in the story. Jews actually rejected him, which is an integral part of the story, and he told his disciples to spread his message to 'the gentiles'.
It doesn't matter if an angel stopped it. God commanded Abraham to form the intention to kill, and he went up a mountain to do it. If God commands a Christian president to push the nuke button, the Bible says he has to do it regardless if God might stop the bomb in mid flight. Christianity and Judaism are like Islam: they are based on violent ancient texts. You don't see that as a problem?
False
What I see as a problem is irrelevant to the topics you've introduced, and now you've jumped from "God is Satanic" to whether or not I personally endorse certain religions.
That the killing was stopped is the whole point of the story, and I would argue that the whole point of the story matters to the story.
That's not true. God supposedly can't tell someone to think, believe, or will something evil. So it wasn't evil for Abraham to walk up the mountain to kill his innocent son! That's what the Bible teaches literally. It does matter that this is in the text. The Eastern religions are in general about non-violence. This is not the way it is with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The Old Testament has God commanding the Jews to hamstring horses and let them die in the sun. What is the typical Christian response? "God let the horses appear to suffer but really took the suffering away while they died". So we have a religion where you are bound to follow what you believe God is telling you do under pain of hell fire, up to and including killing innocent people and animals.
Is this supposed to mean something?
Quoting whollyrolling
No. I was asking if you have a problem with God telling people to try to kill innocent people, even their own families. I didn't ask what your religion is
Yes, by all measures of morality and goodness today the three middle-eastern Abrahamic religions; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, are backwardly bronze-age sinister.
I'd say it's time we all grew up and let them go, but what can you do.
Again, you're getting sidetracked by contempt for certain religions, that's not the topic. Start a different thread about humanity's concern for the suffering of animals throughout history, and perhaps another for the violence of various world religions throughout history.
What does any of this have to do with whether or not God is 'Satanic'? Satan didn't order the killing of sons or nations, God did, so within the context of the book, commanding these things is Godly, not 'Satanic'.
Satan doesn't condemn people to hell, God does, so this is also Godly, not 'Satanic'.
It seems you skirted a few of my points.
Quoting Gregory
I feel like my case is strong. I've been very careful in my arguments against Christianity. Christianity has those four elements I've described that in another religion would be described as "from the devil". Other parts of Christianity are so appealing that Christians are willing to forgive these four mortal sins and try to justify them. Again, I've been very clear by what I mean when I say Christianity is Satanic. I don't see where I've strayed from the topic
Your argument isn't against Christianity. Your argument is that the Christian God is 'Satanic', and it would be difficult to make it any less clear.
You're not good at debating. If Christianity has its inversion within itself, then it is a false religion. I'm making the case (successfully) that, as usually understood, Christianity is wrong and also dangerous. I have more of a problem with Islam, but have realized as the scales fell from my eyes that Christianity is not much better. Islam has a universal mandate in their religion to murder. Christians wait for their God to give specific instructions. Did you know that John Paul II brought the canon of Eastern Orthodox saints into the western Roman church? Well many of those "saints" were killers of "sinners". We are talking about a belief system. In the Christian system its "legal" so to kill anyone whosoever if the deity says to. In fact, its not only legal but obligatory. You can go to the eternal torture chamber if you refuse. The system is not family friendly, just like Islam
Also, if you think my case is weak, then you think it IS moral to take someone's state of soul out of them and put someone else's in. In which case you don't know the basics of morality and is possibly a bad person trying to deal in black magic, which the very idea of atonement is. Christopher Hitchens pointed this out years ago. Get up to date. You're not a Neanderthal
Youre not a careful thinker. Whether the Eucharist is in accord with natural law or whether atonement is moral is not a fake topic. Not all Christians are bad but their system is objectively evil. Or should I say... Satanic.
This argument raises some intriguing points, and I’d like to critique them.
You assert that God “never has nor never will strive because striving is a sign of an imperfect nature for a Christian. So how then can God be considered virtuous?” This implies that if God did strive, he would be imperfect in nature; if he did not strive, as you claim, he would be perfect. I’m not sure how this leads to your conclusion that God cannot be considered virtuous. You cite Nietzsche’s belief that the values in Plato’s work can be found in Christianity (he took issue with otherworldly experiences and philosophical idealism in both Christianity and Platonism.) I can understand using this to back your claim that “Christianity is a kind of idol worship,” but how does this connect to the idea that God is less powerful and virtuous because we do not observe him striving? Do you mean that God must strive to achieve perfection or perform creation? The argument that God’s power is measured by the effort he exerts or temptation he overcomes could lead to a counter claim that God is so powerful that he simply doesn’t have to strive for anything.
You use examples to point out the “Satanic nature of Christianity.” I thought this was a stronger part of your argument: the eradication of populations and the story of Abraham and Isaac are both represented in the Bible, and represent actions that are morally troublesome. However, religious stories frequently present upsetting concepts. The Greek gods condoned and participated in wars (the Trojan war), the Greek god Zeus engaged in adultery and rape (the story of Leda), and the goddess Hera sent snakes to kill a baby (the story of Hercules). We can shift gears to another religion, say, Hinduism, with the same effects. The god Shiva is described as beheading his own son, who he believes is a rival for his wife’s affections. Would you say that these other religions are also Satanic?
You assert that somebody could take the Bible’s teachings literally, leading them to start wars and commit murders. This seems valid: religious fanaticism can drive people to commit immoral acts. If that is the case (and it is), it seems possible that somebody could commit horrible deeds in the name of Christianity. You present the dilemma of Jesus ordering someone to start a war. This argument is missing a link that would prove it to be an example of Satanic beliefs. If Jesus told you to start a war, and you obeyed, wouldn’t that still be an example (albeit it an unfortunate one) of Christianity, rather than Satanism?
Interesting argument, Christianity is a form functional Satanism. Psychologically this makes sense, because the concept originated from the same psyche that created God, which means it is lurking in there, ready to manifest itself unconsciously. Based on the actual function of the Christian God, He is far worse than Satan. I think you have a valid kind of deconstruction argument here.
Even assuming the translated text is original (enough) and accurate- the widely held interpretation(s) from it could easily just be that.
Plus you always have the simple liar.
[hide="Reveal"][i]A: I'm a Christian.
B: Cool, me too.
A: Can I borrow your car?
B: Uh. I mean...
A: I need to get to church.
B: But it's Tuesday.
A: That's volunteer day at the old folks home.
B: Oh. Well. I.. what did you say your name was again?
A: *kills someone and takes their car keys* Never mind, I found a ride!
B: Dude!
A: What?
B: You just killed someone!
A: And?
B: That's bad!
A: No it's not. I'm a Christian.
B: So if I just killed you right now, that's fine then?
A: No. I'm a Christian. Maybe you're the one who's not a Christian.[/i][/hide]
The new Testament says God works on the Sabbath. If there is a God, he would have to work. You can't excuse God from effort and say he lives and loved in eternal bliss and happiness. A man who atrives for good (" good Samaritan "?) would be getter than his creator if his God never felt pain. Now saying God feels pain presents some philosophical difficulties as pointed out by Edward Feser and others. (see his videos against theistic personalism) So Christianity can be tricked around until it no longer have evil elements, but it would have to reject much of it's tradition (with a small t)
What I get annoyed about is- he's just one out of at least 665 others (or 615 depending on your sources). Nothing would indicate any additional strength or power. It's just so random and really speaks volumes, nay, fills libraries, about the true nature of compassion and understanding of the Creator.
Blah to all-powerful supernatural beings. The world could have come from a timeless computer which creates the wave functions. I have no need for a father figure in the sky and never will understand it. It's immature of you to rely on the compassion of the supernatural
And yes, Jesus never ordered his apostles to kill people, as it is related in the Bible. But Jesus might have killed people and the Christian Jesus reserves the right to order his followers to slaughter whom he desires. Christians have always believed this. Psalms says to "take the little ones and dash them against the rocks". It's supposed to make you happy
I'm sure you've read the Gospel of Matthew. How can you say Jesus's teachings of the the Beatitudes from Chapter 5 are at all satanic? Or, from the Old Testament, the maxims in the book of Psalms and book of Proverbs? It's very difficult after reading the Bible to somehow conclude that it is satanic in nature. Read the book of Job.
It's all part of a system that is not spiritually grown-up. Take responsibility for your actions. Dont put it on Jesus. The fact that Christianity makes you nerdy and sensitive such that they get giddy when its disscover something like rock music is not a sin ( "Jesus can rock? COOL!" ) is enough. People obsessed with sin and punishment are like people in trenches: God is obvious to them. It's not to me and Job sucks
“There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future.” ? St. Augustine
You are obviously distorting and choosing your words and arguments to make your hypothesis look convincing and Christianity a terrible evil, devil worshipping religion.
An Observation: It's not working
Suppose you had to go to a "Christian" church, to be a part of any fold (community) per se. Which denomination would you choose? Suppose you had to be the leader of a new denomination, the Church of Gregory... and you had to convert other Christians who were discouraged with their faith... what would you do?
It doesnt matter of its working. Karma gets everyone "I.can't take away my own sin but Jesus can" says the Christian. That's straight up sinful
I would follow a Christian church that did not believe Jesus takes your sins, but which believes Jesus gives helping Grace
From what I’ve read, it looks like the overall conclusion of your argument in this post is that Christianity is a Satanic religion. First, I would like to address the second paragraph where you seem to conclude that the Christian God is lazy. It seems that the only example of striving you gave is “striving to defeat temptation.” So, if something is striving, then that thing is overcoming a temptation. However, I don’t see how this definition of striving could apply to the Christian God. The Christian God does not face temptation as far as I know. It seems as though the definition of striving you have provided would only apply to imperfect beings who are capable of facing temptations, not to immortal, perfect beings as portrayed in the Christian Bible. Furthermore, I am unfamiliar with the writing you referenced from Nietzsche, but it seems to me like they/you are using “will” and “striving” synonymously. I have no basis to argue against that, however it seems that you add “action” into the mix as being synonymous with those two words as well at the end of the paragraph. I don’t think you would say that “striving” is the only form of action, so even if you respond to say that your argument about overcoming temptation applies to the Christian God, it does not follow that the Christian God is “lazy” since striving is certainly no the only action that omits laziness
Secondly, I would like to address your conclusion that Catholics have a cannibalistic nature. From what I understand based on my friends and family who are catholoic and/or have attended Catholic schools, communion is regarded as a metaphorical action, no one is intending to eat the flesh of a human being. Even if a Catholic were to genuinely think they were eating the flesh of Jesus Christ, they aren’t actually eating another human being, so they aren’t being cannibalistic. It’s similar to someone stabbing a pillow while thinking it is a person, they aren’t committing murder, they just are under some sort of hallucination that they are. I disagree that the figurative nature of communion doesn’t matter, it is the entire point in my opinion. It is meant to be a symbol of Jesus’s sacrifice, etc. Jesus did say to do this in memory of him, but he didn’t say eat human flesh and be cannibals. So, in my opinion, this portion of your argument is false.
Third, regarding Christianity being pro-murder, I think this is too strong of a claim to make based on your provided evidence. One reason I believe this is because the two examples you gave were from the Old Testament of the Bible, not the New Testament where Christ actually becomes part of the picture, so at most your examples only provide evidence for Judaism being pro-murder. Now obviously Christians study the Old Testament and most believe in the Ten Commandments outlined in there, however the biggest part of Christianity is Christ himself. Could it not be the case that the God of the Old Testament changed once his son was born or once his son was sacrificed, i.e. changed into a God that no longer commanded murder or genocide? If that’s the case then since Christianity itself did not exist until that point in time and (from what I understand) the Christian God did not command murder in the New Testament , Christianity is not pro-murder.
Finally, your paragraph regarding guilt and repentance seems odd to me. First of all, from my understanding, karma is a part of Hinduism and Buddhism, not Christianity so it doesn’t seem relevant to this particular conversation. Secondly, you use “guilt” in two different ways. The first time you use it, it seems to be referring to someone being guilty of something versus the second time you use it, it seems that you’re using guilt as a sort of emotion we humans feel when we do something wrong. Regarding the latter definition, Jesus’s sacrifice was not to help Christians feel less guilty or shameful, it was to free Christians from eternal damnation. I am not quite sure what your argument is trying to accomplish, but many parts of it seem incorrect.
Thanks for your time!
Quoting Gregory
It'd be really weird if it wasn't. The "Christ Cult", canonized and creedally begat down massacred & martyred millennia, is a burned witches' brew of dogmatic
[b]• inherited guilt
• vicarious redemption via (symbolically reenacted) human sacrifice
• self-abnegating masochistic "worship" of misery-torture-execution porn
• "blood libel" anti-semitism
• ritual (symbolic) cannibalism & vampirism
• child abuse by "Vicars of Christ" with threats of "hellfire" for little ones, their pets & parents if they resist ecclesiastical "grooming" for molestation, rape or other forms of sacramental sadism
• missionary demonization of non-christian "heathen savages"
• etcetera ...[/b]
On the way to Damascus, Saul of Tarsus must've met "Satan" at the crossroads who made him an offer he couldn't refuse. The hellenized jewish trickster then became "Paul" and, like Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor", gained the world by selling untold billions of credulous souls. Ah yes, "Satan" too works in mysterious ways (learned, no doubt, during his tenure in the Torah).
[quote=The Antichrist (1888)]The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding -- at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.[/quote]
(emphasis added)
If Group A has power, Group A will be targeted and possibly corrupted. If Group B has power, Group B will be targeted and possibly corrupted. How it always was, how it is now.
There are specific commandments given, since as it would seem, the 10 Commandments were too much to bear. Those are followed, promises are kept. If not, well, I wouldn't worry about it for too long anyhow.
It is the only form of virtuous act. You can't excuse a being from this by saying he already has it without him doing it.
Quoting Emma
False. The Council of Trent clearly defined what the Eucharist and Mass are. It's in the Catechism. It's everywhere. They believe they eat Jesus
Quoting Emma
He never said he wouldn't do it. I've asked Christians and they always say they would kill someone if God commanded it
Quoting Emma
You're making distinctions that only distract from the truth
Nothing wrong with the devil if it's the right devil
The "Edict of Thessalonike" (380 AD by the roman emperor Theodosius I) said
"It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict."
The very Bible itself says "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will bring to nought." 1 Corinthians 1:19. Such violence desired violence in response, not violence of a physical or emotional nature, but intellectual violence of the kind Nietzsche spoke when he said philosophy was hatred
Christians destroyed books of their enemies and killed people while in power. See There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire (Transformation of the Classical Heritage)Michael Gaddis
They were persecuted but then it appears with this Edict of Thessonalike, that the state began persecuting in the name of Christianity. This violence is just as much "human" violence as it is "Christian".
Have you surveyed the work/thesis of Rene Girard at all? If he becomes a new Church father for any Christian faith in the future, then Jesus is to be interpreted as the Last Sacrifice (the last scapegoat), which amounts to a repudiation by Christians of all violence, the same kind that turned Jesus into a sacrifice. Christians today need to become conscious of what they are doing and not blindly flow in the currents of past dogma or batshit insane political ideology, which is rife with scapegoating ('the devil casting out the devil').
"If it weren't for Christians, I'd be Christian." Ghandi
"Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love... Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding." Martin Luther King Jr.
There will never be a last sacrifice because human beings are competing for power and resources by leveraging belief in the exercise of control (all kinds of subtle violence/violations). How could the meek possibly inherit the Earth? Maybe by the power of someone else's violence visited upon them.
All Christians want to dominate something in some way. They are not Eastern at all, or have not learned its ways
Waste of time.
Any statement which contains the phrase "all Christians" reveals the author to be an incompetent commentator on the subject.
Christian love is not true love
Quoting Gregory
Perhaps I’m not understanding the way in which you use “strive, but your argument seems to be:
1. If God were to strive – which means to exert himself vigorously or try hard – for anything, then it
would make him imperfect in nature
2. God is not imperfect in nature
3. Therefore, God does not strive (1,2 MT)
4. If God does not strive, then that entails he is lazy
5. Laziness is not a Godly virtue but a Satanic one
6. Therefore, Satan is inherent in God (1,2 MP)
You make the claim that if God were to strive, then he would be imperfect. I don’t follow how you came to the conclusion that striving is a sign of imperfect nature. Perhaps your line of thinking is that if God is omnipotent then he should not need to strive because he is exerting himself extra. However, the very fact that Jesus came to this earth was an act of striving. You know how the story goes. God sent Jesus Christ to earth and Jesus by no means lived an “easy” life. Furthermore, Jesus’ death is historically regarded as one of the most painful deaths anyone could die, so much so that the word excruciating derives from the immense pain experienced by those who were crucified. Therefore, Jesus’ life and death are the very antithesis of lazy. God wills for us to know him and to love him, so much so that he
exerted an incredible amount of effort for us when he gave up his one and only son, Jesus, to this world.
Quoting Gregory
I would hardly say this is cannibalism. Just because Catholics take the eating of bread and drinking of wine as the literal body and blood of Jesus, doesn’t mean that the bread turns into flesh nor the wine to blood. The intensity of their belief in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine does not alter the metaphysical laws in place that hold the bread and wine in their original form. It’s the very act of consuming flesh and blood that makes someone a cannibal, not a belief (no matter the intensity) of consuming flesh and blood. Additionally, in the Bible it never says that the bread and wine turned into flesh or blood. When Jesus said, “This is my body… this is my blood” it’s similar to when my uncle gave me a soccer ball before he passed away and told me to remember him whenever I played with it. The ball reminds me of my uncle and the different memories I have of him. In the same vain, the eucharist / communion is a beautiful commemoration of Christ. Some branches of Christianity just choose to think of it more literally as his body. Regardless of how intensely they believe the bread and wine to be flesh and blood that does not constitute for cannibalism because they do not change from their original form.
Quoting Gregory
My first question to you would be, do you believe war and killing to be immoral? There is a clear distinction between the words kill and murder, however, you seem to be using them loosely. Killing is the act of ending someone’s life, while murder is when you end someone’s life out of malice. If the God of the Israelites is the one and true God then it would be foolish for them to disobey his commands simply because they see it as “wrong”. Additionally, you are assuming that God is ordering the Israelites to kill without reasoning. Is there a particular instance where you God commands the Israelites to kill a certain people, but completely void of reason? Are you saying God has no reason or purpose or are you saying those reasons don’t align with what you believe to be right?
Quoting Gregory
Your basic premise of Christianity is incomplete. It should be: we have sinned against God and owe a debt that we cannot pay which means we will be punished, however, Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was enough to bear the entire debt of our sin and when we trust in him we too have life like he does. In other words, there is most certainly a second chance, but it can only be found through Christ’s sacrifice. Simply because Christians believe the spirit of Christ dwells within them doesn’t mean it’s synonymous or the same as the “soul swapping” spell. I will use another analogy, just because soccer and football use a ball doesn't mean that they are the same sport, or that they are played in the same way. Buddhists, Muslims, Satanists, Christians, and Jews all pray and practice going to church / mosque / temple. Does that mean they’re all the same? Of course, not because the acts themselves are very different and directed to different gods or deities.
I said the opposite
Quoting Josh Vasquez
Who cares? It wasn't God's nature, nor the Father or the Holy Ghost
Quoting Josh Vasquez
They believe it is cannibalism mr.
Quoting Josh Vasquez
I am saying not to trust religion when it tells you to kill people
Quoting Josh Vasquez
That totally violates the doctrine of justice. Fundamentally
Now tell me if this is worth discussing...
Simplistic pseudo-argument based on the individual opinion of the OP simply because he has some resentment towards Christianity. Pathetic.
The problem is that you focus mainly on the Christian branch with (1) the bigest number of followers, (2) well-established dogmas and (3) the one that most represents the values ??and morals of the masses, because if it is the most adopted religion, probably something has been seen in it by people. If you are looking for evidence in Christianity about traditions and views that might be considered "satanic" - whatever that term means to you - simply study about the Gnostics. There you have the hedonism and maleficity of satanism, sanctified by the use of Christ.
Let's take for example the Phibionites:
As the great christian priest Epiphanius described the sect:
"Phibionite feasts begin with the men shaking hands with the women, while secretly tickling their palms underneath. This may be a secret code to alert members to the presence of outsiders, or an erotic gesture. After dining, married couples begin to have sex, each with another member. The man, however, has to withdraw before climax, so that he and his partner can collect the semen and ingest it together, saying, “This is the body of Christ.” Leaders of the sect who have already reached perfection can perform the rite with a member of the same sex. There is also sacred masturbation, where one can take the body of Christ in the privacy of one’s room. The reason for this sex ritual? The Phibionites believe that this world is separated from the divine realm by 365 heavens. So to reach the highest world, a Phibionite redeemed must pass through all 365 heavens—twice. But each heaven is guarded by an Archon, and to be granted safe passage, a Phibionite must call out the secret name of one of the Archons, while doing the sex act. This belief guarantees every Phibionite male sex with a female member at least 730 times."
The largest branches - Catholicism, Orthodoxism and Protestantism - still are satanic?
Jesus said "this is my blood, take and drink". You have to think multi-dimensionally, going from one set of beliefs to another. If this was in an Indian religion, the Christian unaware of communion would declare it pagan and immoral. When he finds it in his own religion, suddenly it's fine. That is why I said aspects of Christianity, if seen as only in another religion, would be declared wrong. But when seen under the aspect of Christianity, suddenly it's ok. As for the substance view of God, it trivializes virtue. You don't realize the principalities and powers behind it though
I have already stated and will say again:
The fight against Christianity was fought and lost by the Roman civilization; we, our world, our civilization - the West - is based on more than 1700 years of Christian dogma, so why turn against the values ??and morals that this same thought has brought us? Christianity created who I am and who you are, because without it, there would be no Protestant Reformation, Renaissance, Enlightenment, contemporary democracy, etc ... Obviously, the Christian religion, today ended up becoming a weird kind of mythology where everyone has their own personal interpretations thanks to secularism and with it decadence and nihilism, however, without that same Christian purpose, of reaching the divine, what will become of the West? If one group of people is concerned with questioning their own values, another group, confident of their truths, will take possession and control of the weak, history proves it. The Christians worshiped a convicted criminal, refused to swear by the emperor's genius, harshly criticized Rome in their holy books, and suspiciously conducted their rites in private, the romans saw this as horrendous and decadent, and yet, they lost. The same is happening right now minus the religious movement - or if you consider "ideologies" the new type of religion, then it is happening -. The cycle happens again and again, I see it, you seem to see it, but you still want to go with the flow of time, alright then, you already know what will happen ...
Sounds like you must become Catholic. My logic never forces me into a religion like you. Christians are willing to murder for God, put their own responsibility on him, and eat his enfleshed body. What more do you need?