How powerful is Satan?

Satan is powerful enough to ...

  • make bad things happen to bad people

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    89
  • Poll closed .
And there, I disagree. The Bible obviously cannot be the basis of any moral system; but really knowing what is right and wrong is not sufficient. The Bible is useful in a sense because if you accept its precepts, and if you already have a basis for moral behavior, it can help you to actually follow said beliefs. It by itself is neither necessary nor sufficient but sometimes, when one is faced with a decision to either follow the beliefs they have or to ignore them, it can help them to follow them.

If you already have the conviction to be good, then I don't see how the Bible is different than, say, a list of movies or some good books. You can get moral tales from a number of places if you want to look for them (and you already have admitted you have to go looking through the Bible to get the good tales instead of the bad).

-Drachasor
 
Wrong again. Your dialectic method won't work if you keep forgetting vital parts.

A better question would be , So "mental illness", according to you, is "anything that causes one to make immoral decisions influenced from stupid , illogical reasons such as mythology ?. Especially in today's age of information?

Well describing a belief in mythology as "stupid and illogical" right off the bat has the tendency to hamper further discussion. And of all the information we have today, none of it specifically disproves any particular mythology of which I am aware, not completely. Illogical such beliefs may be, but then humans are not logical beings and belief in one particular form is not therefore menatl illness.

How would you describe the various Witchhuntings and so on ?

A variety of things, but not the result of mental illness.

Really, though, we have all gotten way off topic.
 
No, MobBoss, it isn't.

I am pretty sure I know myself better than you do. Yes, it is.

But it is dependent on your interpretation, is it not? The Bible also says "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone," but I don't see you resisting the temptation to disparage atheists or other people.

Again, if you dont study the word, you are prone to take it out of context. Everything in the bible is a lesson, or an allegory to a lesson. It has nothing to do with me 'disparaging' an atheist for saying I am mentally ill for my belief for example.

Given the, err, complexity integrating all passages of the bible into one moral system, shouldn't you be a bit more wary that you may have or might make a mistake?

Nope. If I have a question about a certain passage or word I study it in depth, often going to the original hebrew or greek to make sure I have a good understanding of what is being said.

Shouldn't that make you a bit less judgmental of others? As I said, it just seems like hubris.

/shrug. What you call hubris, I call being informed in my belief.
 
Nope. If I have a question about a certain passage or word I study it in depth, often going to the original hebrew or greek to make sure I have a good understanding of what is being said.
How do you know if a word in Hebrew or Greek is the correct definition?

I myself have ran into this when I am faced with a Japanese Kanji that have multiple meanings and sayings for one character. Plus I am not literate in Hebrew nor Greek.
 
How do you know if a word in Hebrew or Greek is the correct definition?

I myself have ran into this when I am faced with a Japanese Kanji that have multiple meanings and sayings for one character. Plus I am not literate in Hebrew nor Greek.

By using a concordance....something like Strongs.
 
I am pretty sure I know myself better than you do. Yes, it is.
No it isn't. It's just a fact of human nature. Of course, you might think its one way, but that's ignoring the inherent human capacity for being moral. "Original Sin" is an inane concept.
 
No it isn't. It's just a fact of human nature. Of course, you might think its one way, but that's ignoring the inherent human capacity for being moral. "Original Sin" is an inane concept.

And I utterly and totally disagree. I dont base my morals upon my 'human nature'.....I daresay if I lived my life based upon my base desires I wouldnt be nearly as nice a person as I am today. There is no 'inherent' capacity for humans to be moral....none at all.
 
I dont base my morals upon my 'human nature'.....I daresay if I lived my life based upon my base desires I wouldnt be nearly as nice a person as I am today.
Well, if you were such a bad person to start with then I suppose it's good that you're doing everything you can to improve.
 
I am immune as long as I live a righteous life....and JollyRoger is an atheist. That pretty much sums it up.
Wouldn't the righteous thing be for you to try to have compassion with me and try to convert me? Has Satan found a hole in your immunity and tempted you to treat me unrighteously?
 
I am to tired now to read everything through or say anything really "important", but it is obvious to me that MobBoss is definitely in the claws of the devil because he is obviously committing the sin of overt self importance and pride with claiming himself being immune to the devil.
No matter how righteously and biblically he lives his life his hubris is definite proof that he is as much a disciple of the devil as the next person.

Good night!
 
No matter how righteously and biblically he lives his life his hubris is definite proof that he is as much a disciple of the devil as the next person.
In general terms (ignoring MobBoss), I'd tend to agree that hubris and self-righteousness are indeed immoral and unrighteous behaviours. Or at the very least extremely off-putting.
 
I am to tired now to read everything through or say anything really "important", but it is obvious to me that MobBoss is definitely in the claws of the devil because he is obviously committing the sin of overt self importance and pride with claiming himself being immune to the devil.

The real test is if what I was saying was scriptural or not. It would be hubris and pride for me to say thus and so and give myself the credit; but that is not what I do here. I completely give God the credit and glory and admit it is only through his promise in scripture is such the case.

No matter how righteously and biblically he lives his life his hubris is definite proof that he is as much a disciple of the devil as the next person.

'No matter how righteous and biblically he lives'.....shows right there that your thinking is, was and will always be biased against Christians. Particularly ones that take their faith seriously.
 
'No matter how righteous and biblically he lives'.....shows right there that your thinking is, was and will always be biased against Christians. Particularly ones that take their faith seriously.
No, it's biased against fundamentalists, not Christians. What you're doing is similar to if I claimed to be righteous because I follow Zoroastrian scriptures or the philosophy of Karl Marx.

Anyone who bases their whole outlook on life on a fixed set of ideas and texts and then claims moral superiority is a fundamentalist, and is most certainly not righteous.
 
No, it's biased against fundamentalists, not Christians. What you're doing is similar to if I claimed to be righteous because I follow Zoroastrian scriptures or the philosophy of Karl Marx.

Anyone who bases their whole outlook on life on a fixed set of ideas and texts and then claims moral superiority is a fundamentalist, and is most certainly not righteous.

I dont think that is up to you to decide. Certainly, there are people biblically that are referred to as being 'righteous'. Are we any different than they in our faith or are we called to the same ideals and tenents? And I am supposed to be full of hubris because I embrace what is in the bible?

Please.

Btw, if a fundamentalist chrisitian is someone who believes in the word of God, then shouldnt all christians be fundamentalists? I my opinion they should. Excuse me for not watering down my faith enough to please you.

I think you are in line for some new definitions. Those words you are using dont mean what you think they mean.
 
I am immune as long as I live a righteous life....and JollyRoger is an atheist. That pretty much sums it up.

So, any naivety you express is merely self-generated, while JR has devil-induced naivety?

How do you tell when the naivety expressed by yourself or others is Satanically inspired vs. just the regular kind?
 
I dont think that is up to you to decide.
Decide what?

And I am supposed to be full of hubris because I embrace what is in the bible?
Well, because you leverage that embrace into some kind of proof of absolute moral superiority.

What?:confused: Begging doesn't help your argument.

Btw, if a fundamentalist chrisitian is someone who believes in the word of God, then shouldnt all christians be fundamentalists? I my opinion they should.
People are free to exercise their faith however they wish, irrespective of what you think they should do. At least in the US.

Excuse me for not watering down my faith enough to please you.
The question whether you are a unrighteous fundamentalist is not relevant enough for me to either please or displease me. It could have some bearing on you, though.

I think you are in line for some new definitions. Those words you are using dont mean what you think they mean.
I'm using the second definition in Websters Dictionary. You're using the first. The first is an archaic leftover and has no bearing in real-world discussions on morality.
 
I will disagree with the claim that fundamentalists are less religious than non-fundamentalists that was made above; they are different metrics, being a lot of one doesn't affect how much one is of the other.
 
Well, because you leverage that embrace into some kind of proof of absolute moral superiority.

Not at all. Is it my fault you feel threated by me embracing my faith? Not at all.

What?:confused: Begging doesn't help your argument.

Wow. I bet you were tops in your debate class with those skills.

People are free to exercise their faith however they wish, irrespective of what you think they should do. At least in the US.

I never said otherwise.
 
Not at all. Is it my fault you feel threated by me embracing my faith? Not at all.
If a majority of people had the same self-righteous attitude about faith that you have, yes, I would feel threatened!

Guess what part of the world is closest to that right now?
 
Back
Top Bottom