ninetailschris said:
the difference is you made a judge purely based on personal view which caused you to prejudge a person without even noticing what he was doing. The guy was responding to what he said the bible said spoof course he would use the bible as that is source of the discussion. You basically were calling him a fundismentalist because of him quoting the bible when the discussion was based on what the bible said. So, basically on your bad call you just insulted him for doing what was actually neccassry for the discussion. It's like ifwe were to discuss what Washington say on x issue and when I quote his autobiograhpy you say oh your just like religious person. See how dumb that sounds? Off course he going to quote the bible because that is what argument was about...... What the bible was saying! "What do you mean by the bible being "The actual source". " The discussion was on what the bible said what is the best way to find out what it said.... quote the bible the actual source. "Of course an old book like the bible is fancier than some shady website, but I was assuming that whatever branch of satanism OP follows, they have some kind of holy script or doctrine of their own. " When did I say the bible was old and therefor has more crediable? If I wanted to discredit satanism I would point that there no historical moment in history to say this could be true or is. He doesn't even us the history of how satanism is truest even a moment to us how he "controlling" us. How does he know this was there a event to make us believe this. As you have you say they must have some holy script but they do! It's called the the black pope and it was made in 1966. " http://www.freewebs.com/specialbooks/The%20Satanic%20Bible%20(Underground%20Edition). pdf" Page 14
The who created the group he felt like people didn't understand him and that felt all Christians are hypocritical . the introduction is about how he saw men having lust with women and then seeing how Christianity was false because of this ( them being hypocritical). Then goes into rant about how god and the problem of evil. Oh joy. Then it gets good when the guy basically says I don't like God and feel like satan is really the hero of the story in the bible. But hey guys that just the introduction. Oh and don't forget this quote "In page 12 paragraph 5 where it admits it's not religion and was made really just to anti-deism and he thinks "lol" that this going to be consider a threat to people who are theist. Because it's freaking philosoically made by a guy who was rejected from his society and made a group based on this and the fact that saw some men be hypocritical than go to church. It's a religion and they don't even worship satan but they will defend satan because God is really the bad Guy! :(btw the guy really thinks he is sometype of ultimate ego manic by the way he prasies himself. There basically a parody of religion by the reading of there bible in that there making fun of Christianity by calling himself a church of satan. It's basically a bad joke by strong-atheist (people who are against religion and go out of there). There you go I just debunked everything you argued for. The making the thread is trolling because that is what cult does every since it's creation.
"seem equally grounded in reality." It's not a religion satanism. They don't even believe in satan. But Christianity I would suggest you look up people like William lane Craig or Gary habermas as they very educated men who have gotten degrees and aren't some random guy claim they know the bible that is a Christian.
|
First off, the guy was not trying to discuss what the bible was saying. His argument was about OP being evil, but could still be saved if he accepted christianity. The way he went about this was to quote the bible as authority. And that's probably also the single context he had. So I fail to see the point you're making about Washington.
You need to realize that there are different branches of satanism, and while the atheistic one which you described may be the most popular branch, it's obviously not the one that OP is describing, and the enki (?) branch might have it's own holy texts.
Just a quickie on William Lane Craig. Some youtuber called Thunderf00t has already shown that WLC's academic record isn't all that great, (worse than thunderf00ts). Also, there is a reason why WLC's domain is philosophy and not say, string theory or astrology. The inductive reasoning that he uses for his cosmological argument is similar to the reasoning used by 19th century physicits when they predicted that light would be measured as slightly slower and slightly faster when moving along or against the earths orbit, and they got their asses handed to them by the experimental data showing that the speed of light is absolute. I don't even understand how his premise of "All objects have a cause" can be framed in physics theory. If WLC has even seen what a mindfuck quantum mechanics and string theory is, I doubt he'd be so confident in his arguments.
I LOVE ICELAND!
