• Gregory
    1.9k
    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.
  • Asif
    241
    @Gregory In their origins I agree the three abraham religions are satanic. Same with any ideology that subordinates human freedom to some abstract first Authority. Ditto Platonism marxism statism.
    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!
  • whollyrolling
    482
    I think you guys are both conflating these Christian concepts of God and the Devil. The terms 'God' and 'Satan' apply to specific things within the religion. If God commits an evil act it isn't 'Satanic' because only things from Satan can be 'Satanic', and vice versa, if Satan doesn't appear to be evil, he's not 'Godly'. God's evil acts are not considered evil by a Christian, or they are but maybe the end justifies the means.

    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.
  • 3017amen
    2.6k


    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.
  • Gregory
    1.9k
    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.
    whollyrolling

    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
  • Gregory
    1.9k


    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.
  • whollyrolling
    482
    This is exactly what I've been talking about. How do you know what a Christian thinks?

    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'.
  • whollyrolling
    482
    Hey man, if you think you've got all my responses figured out, just carry on both ends of a conversation in your head. This is a public forum though.
  • Gregory
    1.9k
    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.whollyrolling

    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?
  • Gregory
    1.9k
    what you're attempting to address is independent of Catholicism.whollyrolling

    False
  • whollyrolling
    482
    If it's false, then demonstrate that Catholics are 'Christ-like', or any one Catholic, or any Christian for that matter, or any person. I'm still talking about a book and the stories it contains, you're still talking about some people who didn't read it, and a lot of speculation, and a lot of stuff that exists nowhere in the text.

    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.
  • Gregory
    1.9k
    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.whollyrolling

    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.
  • Gregory
    1.9k
    If it's false, then demonstrate that Catholics are 'Christ-like', or any one Catholic, or any Christian for that matter, or any person. I'm still talking about a book and the stories it contains, you're still talking about some people who didn't read it, and a lot of speculation, and a lot of stuff that exists nowhere in the text.whollyrolling

    Is this supposed to mean something?

    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.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
  • Bert Newton
    28
    The early gnostics believed Yahweh, the god of the old testament, was evil.

    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.
  • Gregory
    1.9k
    Let me clarify this a little further. The Old Testament relates how the Jewish nation mass killed children and pregnant women of other nations because a super-being whom believed in told them that these humans were evil and that "He" desired their death. These were acts that were carried out. Can't anyone see that believing in a super-being who can call the shots for us with regard to the death penalty is a threat to society? And why should this be surprising? Islam is a threat to society. Christianity is just a sister religion. Again, the three monotheistic religions of the West are a threat to society. Atheism is not
  • whollyrolling
    482
    You're grasping at straws. Eastern religions are not about non-violence, and violence has been the way of humanity for all of recorded history.

    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.
  • whollyrolling
    482
    Whether I have a personal problem with anything is irrelevant to a discussion about God being 'Satanic' or 'Satanism' being "inherent within Christianity". You're jumping all over and making emotional appeals because you have a weak argument, and you can't seem to stay on the topic you've introduced.

    Wouldn't it be weird if Satanism was really inherent within Christianity?
    Well it turns out that this might be true.
    Gregory
  • Gregory
    1.9k


    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
  • whollyrolling
    482
    The way you're arguing and the things you're claiming, you seem like someone who'd think a weak case is ironclad.

    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.
  • Gregory
    1.9k


    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
  • Gregory
    1.9k


    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
  • whollyrolling
    482
    You're one of these people who start a fake topic and then ramble about the same thing as their last 100 conversations.
  • Gregory
    1.9k


    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.
  • Julianne Carter
    6

    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?
  • JerseyFlight
    782
    "Is Christianity really Satanic?"

    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.
  • Outlander
    654
    You'd have to determine whether you mean in its originality as in its formation or what some people consider it to be today. We really would not know one, the other, or anything in between. It comes down to people reading words printed on paper by men of unknown origin and intent.

    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.

    Reveal
    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.
  • Nils Loc
    765
    The word "Satanism" was adopted into English from the French satanisme.[14] The terms "Satanism" and "Satanist" are first recorded as appearing in the English and French languages during the sixteenth century, when they were used by Christian groups to attack other, rival Christian groups.[15] In a Roman Catholic tract of 1565, the author condemns the "heresies, blasphemies, and sathanismes [sic]" of the Protestants.[14] In an Anglican work of 1559, Anabaptists and other Protestant sects are condemned as "swarmes of Satanistes [sic]".[14] As used in this manner, the term "Satanism" was not used to claim that people literally worshipped Satan, but rather presented the view that through deviating from what the speaker or writer regarded as the true variant of Christianity, they were regarded as being essentially in league with the devil. — Wikipedia: Satanism
  • Gregory
    1.9k
    I'm not sure Satan exists. Saying "disbelieving in Satan is his (satan's) greatest trick" is not a technical argument. I think people in the West have emotional attachments to Christianity, even though it contains elements which, if they first encountered them in another religions and region, would consider "devil worship". That was my thesis for this thread. People hard tried to make it sound loopy but its not.

    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)
  • Outlander
    654


    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.
  • Gregory
    1.9k


    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
  • dimension72
    35
    Your whole post sounds like a conspiracy theory. It sounds like you're nitpicking anything you can find in the Bible to support your argument that Christianity is satanic. The evidence and warrants presented just don't connect well and don't make much sense.

    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.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment