How powerful is Satan?

[MobBoss]

Well I find your naivety hilarious.

At 43, and with 20 years in the Army, I assure you...I am not naive.

I'd say that most people who "worship" "Satan" are teenagers doing it as a form of protest against society and to make them selfs feel special and "unconformist" without actually believing in Satan or God, whilst the rest believe Satan to be good, in that they believe that he either has been pardoned by God or they believe that it is "God" who is evil.

Really? Do they really get unconformist enough to commit murder?

And the "Church of Satan" wasnt founded by kids...just so you know.

So no "cult types" are "evil", there are no large groups of people wandering about delighting in being evil, except for the odd deranged sociopath probably locked up in an asylum.

I would say denying the existance of evil extremely naive.

It is only people of often only slightly different faiths who label their competition as evil because they fear loosing their faithful to them, and there is no better way to do that than to discredit and smear the opposition, just take a look at politics.

Now that is laughable.

It is the smearing that is evil, and the "righteous" who commits a sin by not being tolerant, whilst of coarse thinking they are doing the right thing.

Being intolerant of sin...isnt a sin. Perhaps you need to crack open your bible a bit more before making such statements.

SO what I believe frob is saying is that it is more often religious people who sin in the name of their faith rather than nonreligious people minding their own business.

Again, murdering people in the name of Satan isnt exactly 'minding your own business'.

Because in this example, religious people have a motive to discredit their competition by in fact lying.

Now thats very funny. Lying about the prince of lies. Nice turn, that.

As has been shown in a different thread, atheists are just as prone to act in a good way (HELPING THE POOR), as religious people.

Actually, no...studies have shown that religious conservatives donate far, far more to charity.

How can an atheist helping the poor and ill fortunate be on Satans side?

Dont know much about religous stuff do you?

 

[JollyRoger]

So I'm assuming Satan is powerless against 43 years olds with 20 years of military service.

 

[Elrohir]

We all assume that the Universe exists before engaging in a discussion - if your position is that it does not exist, then, by extension, all the arguments you make are meaningless.

You have to assume something "The Universe exists" is a good start that we can all agree on. If somebody doesn't, they have nothing to say, so it doesn't matter anyway.

I'm not suggesting that the universe doesn't exist - I'm suggesting that saying something doesn't exist because you can't prove that it does, absolutely, is a terrible argument, because you can't absolutely prove anything. You have to make underlying unproven assumptions before you can prove anything.

Believing my senses are roughly accurate is one thing. Accepting things that can't be senses are true is an additional assumption. I prefer to make as few assumptions as possible, and I think that philosophy is a lot more sensible than your "accept one thing, then accept any stupid thing you like" philosophy (or at least what you are suggesting).

-Drachasor

I'm not suggesting that you should "accept any stupid thing you like". I'm saying you shouldn't reject things out of hand simply because "it isn't provable" in an absolute sense. If you're going to apply that strict of a standard, then you should at least be honest about it and become a total nihilist. But if you're going to accept that it is legitimate to make some basic assumptions, and to believe other things based upon what is likely based upon those assumptions, then you have no right to say someone else's beliefs are nonsense when they do the same thing.

If you disagree with my basic assumptions (Like that evil exists, for example) then attack those. If you disagree with my beliefs based upon those assumptions (That mankind can be evil, for example) then attack those. But don't say that I'm being foolish for believing in something I can't prove, when you do the same. I have no problem with reasonable discourse, or discussing my beliefs - but you have to do it in a reasonable way, not in a hypocritical fashion.

 

[MobBoss]

So I'm assuming Satan is powerless against 43 years olds with 20 years of military service.

Is that what I said? Isnt being under your bridge all nice and comfy? Why come out to post crap like this?

 

[drachasor]

I'm not suggesting that you should "accept any stupid thing you like". I'm saying you shouldn't reject things out of hand simply because "it isn't provable" in an absolute sense. If you're going to apply that strict of a standard, then you should at least be honest about it and become a total nihilist.

I suppose in some ways I am an nihilist, though I do believe secular ethical systems are possible. I certainly don't believe in absolutes that can't be proved or otherwise have no evidence for them (apart from the bare minimum I need to, such as my senses are accurate).

If you disagree with my basic assumptions (Like that evil exists, for example) then attack those. If you disagree with my beliefs based upon those assumptions (That mankind can be evil, for example) then attack those. But don't say that I'm being foolish for believing in something I can't prove, when you do the same. I have no problem with reasonable discourse, or discussing my beliefs - but you have to do it in a reasonable way, not in a hypocritical fashion.

If by "evil exists" you mean that some people do bad things, then I can agree with you (and there's evidence for it). If you mean that evil is some sort of malevolent force that exists on its own, then that's just superstitious silliness.

-Drachasor

 

[JollyRoger]

Is that what I said? Isnt being under your bridge all nice and comfy? Why come out to post crap like this?

I would assume that Satan (if he existed in the form my Southern Baptist minister claims) is powerful enough to convince people that they were not naive when they really were. Claiming immunity from naivity based on age and occupation to some people would be evidence that the claimant might be naive.

 

[MobBoss]

I would assume that Satan (if he existed in the form my Southern Baptist minister claims) is powerful enough to convince people that they were not naive when they really were. Claiming immunity from naivity based on age and occupation to some people would be evidence that the claimant might be naive.

Now defending your personal trolling? Try sticking to what I actually said instead of trying to skew it via lawyerese next time. It would make you look a tad more credible and a tad less trollish.

Perhaps if you actually took a look at what we were discussing you will find it a totally different subject that what you are going after.

But...as ususal...dont let facts stand in the way of your trolling.

 

[drachasor]

edit: oopsies made a mistake. Ignore this post.

 

[MobBoss]

Take a deep breath.

Look at the topic of this thread and look at the poll.

Notice that Jolly Roger wasn't replying to anything you said in his original post.

-Drachasor

Dude...try looking at the exchange between Pokurcz and I. Then look at Jollys comments.

Stop trying to justify his trolling.

EDIT: Exactly.

 

[drachasor]

Dude...try looking at the exchange between Pokurcz and I. Then look at Jollys comments.

Stop trying to justify his trolling.

EDIT: Exactly.

I am not sure he was trolling though. Maybe he was trying to say some of your intolerant (and other) views might be partially the work of Satan (e.g. you aren't immune to his influence). You do seem overly sure of yourself.

(Not that I believe in Satan of course).

-Drachasor

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I am not sure he was trolling though. Maybe he was trying to say some of your intolerant (and other) views might be partially the work of Satan (e.g. you aren't immune to his influence). You do seem overly sure of yourself.

JollyRoger trolls to make his points, so both, IMO.

 

[JollyRoger]

Now defending your personal trolling? Try sticking to what I actually said instead of trying to skew it via lawyerese next time. It would make you look a tad more credible and a tad less trollish.

Perhaps if you actually took a look at what we were discussing you will find it a totally different subject that what you are going after.

But...as ususal...dont let facts stand in the way of your trolling.

You are 43 and have 20 years in the military. Certainly you should have learned by now how to defend yourself in a more dignified manner than crying troll. Do you disagree with me that someone can be naive despite age and occupation? Do you disagree with the proposition that Satan can delude a naive person into thinking they are not naive? If you disagree with either of these, do you have a reason?

 

[Hygro]

You're forgetting the point.

JollyRoger has surprisingly little power.

 

[warpus]

I'm not suggesting that the universe doesn't exist - I'm suggesting that saying something doesn't exist because you can't prove that it does, absolutely, is a terrible argument, because you can't absolutely prove anything. You have to make underlying unproven assumptions before you can prove anything.

Right, you assume that the Universe exists, and go from there. Anything else requires proof to be considered as a possibility.

And if we got that basic assumption wrong, then hey, it doesn't matter anyway, because we don't exist, so no loss.

 

[MobBoss]

You are 43 and have 20 years in the military. Certainly you should have learned by now how to defend yourself in a more dignified manner than crying troll.

Dignified manner? A rose is a rose is a rose. Your posts are trollish to the point of inanity. My statement was a reference that I am certainly aware of people who follow Satan and are very insistant upon promoting his existance. To deny that is to be very naive.

Yet you want to take trollish pot shots for some reason. Its certainly not dignified for you to post in such fashion....nor is it wanted.

Do you disagree with me that someone can be naive despite age and occupation?

People 'could' be naive regardless of age or occupation. Even lawyers in their 30s could be naive, I agree.

Do you disagree with the proposition that Satan can delude a naive person into thinking they are not naive?

For one, I am bought with the blood of Christ and Satan has no power over me. He has no power to 'delude' me unless I let him. I have no plans to let him.

You...he could delude all day and you wouldnt realize it.

 

[Garry Denke]

Greetings Cassie,

A Great Pun!

--

There I was, a-digging this hole
A hole in the ground, so big and sort of round it was
There was I, digging it deep
It was flat at at the bottom and the sides were steep
When along, comes this bloke in a bowler which he lifted and scratched his head
Well we looked down the hole, poor demented soul and he said

Do you mind if I make a suggestion?

Don't dig there, dig it elsewhere
Your digging it round and it ought to be square
The shape of it's wrong, it's much much too long
And you can't put hole where a hole don't belong

I ask, what a liberty eh
Nearly bashed him right in the bowler

Well there was I, stood in me hole
Shovelling earth for all I was worth
There was him, standing up there
So grand and official with his nose in the air
So I gave him a look sort of sideways and I leaned on my shovel and sighed

Well I lit me a fag and having took a drag I replied

I just couldn't bear, to dig it elsewhere
I'm digging it round cos I don't want it square
And if you disagree it don't bother me
That's the place where the holes gonna be

Well there we were, discussing this hole
A hole in the ground so big and sort of round
Well it's not there now, the ground's all flat
And beneath it is the bloke in the bowler hat

And that's that.

Hole In The Ground

--

NOW comes Lucifer, the Devil, and Satan in the eighth month, on the twenty and five-fold day of the month, in the seventh year of Bush fired but not burning, saying: behold, my favourite Ghost-writer of all time; the historical Jesus of Nazareth, author of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and Hebrews, and finisher of Revelation. Proof that my favourite Ghost-author of all time is indeed the writer: historical Jesus of Nazareth "author and finisher" of the faith: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews and Revelation; rests in the following eight (8) facts:

1. Matthew was a functionally illiterate tax collector;
2. Mark was a functionally illiterate missionary;
3. Luke was a functionally illiterate slave physician;
4. John was a functionally illiterate fisherman;
5. Jesus' warning against altering physics marks;
6. Jesus' Hebrews "author and finisher" 12:2;
7. Jesus' authored personal thoughts therein;
8. Revelation geo/paleo/particle physics text.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were good-hearted Rocky Balboa types (the Old first Rocky). Not much of a difference between them really. The early first century Roman system for collecting taxes lent itself to excess, exploitation, and corruption. Consider the structure in 25 CE. The Italian government 'bid out' the right to collect taxes in a region of the empire. Rome's government would say, We need 'x' amount of revenue from this region of the empire. Wealthy people (mob bosses) would bid on the right to collect (shake down) taxes in that region. Anything they collected above the Italian government's demand was their profit (the take). The Roman regional collectors often would hire managers (gangsters) in specific districts of the region (such as Zacchaeus) for the shake down. The man would have a specific sum he must collect in the district. Anything he collected above that sum was kept (his take). These managers would hire local Italian gangs in their district to do the actual collecting (like Matthew's gang). It was their job to actually collect (shake down) amounts assigned by their managers (gangsters). If they collected more than the managers requested, the amount they collected above what was required was kept (their take). It does not require a genius to imagine how Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, functionally illiterate Rocky Balboas, worked. Roman Catholic Church is rooted from this origin of the Italian (Roman) mob, their bosses, good-hearted thugs like Matthew, the functionally illiterate tax collector, and good-natured associates, like Mark the missionary, Luke the slave physician and John the fisherman. These four were all debt collectors actually, not one of them a capable author. Hence, the Ghost-writer. First century geo/paleo/particle physics' classes were much the same as today, the historical Jesus of Nazareth rambling about 3 day universal magnetic field reversals, to discharging particled ears. Entertaining and amusing is teaching, education is actually very much fun. Last geo/paleo/particle physics' field trip class? Crucifixion cross (-+|+-) charges .999... e diminishing .000...1 e light first day. Resurrection (+-|-+) charges .000...1 e increasing .999... e light third day. No nothings in this universe Cassie, not in the real .0123456789... one, as you know. Speaking of the Old first Rocky, it's lion head, calf head, man face, flying eagle wings Rock sudden-death overtime. All 144,000 planets having life's fresh water (ice) melting, cosmic rays pounding all of the smaller planet dwellers. Did the glorious queen of Revelation answer her mail? She did reply, "I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow". I, Lucifer, the Devil, and Satan in the ninth month, on the five-fold day of the month, in the seventh year of Bush fired but not burning, have a remedy for that.

And that's that.

Main Entry: il·lit·er·ate
Pronunciation: (")i(l)-'li-t(&-)r&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin illiteratus, from in- + litteratus literate
1 : having little or no education; especially : unable to read or write <an illiterate population>
2 a : showing or marked by a lack of familiarity with language and literature <an illiterate magazine> b : violating approved patterns of speaking or writing
3 : showing or marked by a lack of acquaintance with the fundamentals of a particular field of knowledge <musically illiterate>
synonym see IGNORANT
- illiterate noun
- il·lit·er·ate·ly adverb
- il·lit·er·ate·ness noun

Main Entry: functional illiterate
Function: noun
: a person who has had some schooling but does not meet a minimum standard of literacy
- functional illiteracy noun
- functionally illiterate adjective

And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a Bush. So he looked, and behold, the Bush was burning with fire, but the Bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, "I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the Bush does not burn." So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the Bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."

http://groups.msn.com/stonehengegeologyandgeophysics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stonehengegeologyandgeophysics

Cassie Rules!

Strange Cork
Moderator Action: Warned for spam. Stop with the nonsensical posts.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Kafka2]

Started promisingly, ended bafflingly. Classic Denke.

 

[Azash]

Any "force" you believe in is as powerful as its followers and enemies make it.

 

[MayNilad Man]

Y'know, we Christians don't say that people following other religions are going to be condemned to hell. What we do say is that these guys have but a partial piece of the truth which Christianity has so far revealed.

We don't call them evil, we call their acts evil because they are contrary to what God would desire of us which we Christians claim to have a much better understanding of.

 

[Pokurcz]

Mob Boss

It so happens that one of the most naive and outright stupid people I have ever met in my life is my former boss, who is 60 years old, and is a captain in the reserves.
But you are right in that I myself attribute naivety to younger people, I've always thought of you as a twenty years old, at the most.

Now the reason I find you naive is because you write things on the level of a person who believes in fairy tales.

People in &#8220;the church of satan&#8221; who murder people are nothing but deluded/deranged murderers. They obviously need psychiatric help and getting locked up, not an exorcist.

I am not denying the existence of evil/bad people. I am just of the opinion that &#8220;evil&#8221; people do evil things because they gain something on the expense of others, and probably suffer from some more or less deep going mental disorder, that makes them unable to relate emotionally to their victim.

So you believe the obvious situation of some Moslems labelling Christians as heretics and &#8220;evil&#8221; and Christians doing the same thing in return is untrue and a laughable notion?

Now I&#8217;d say that is hilariously naïve.

Judging people as &#8220;evil&#8221; because they are of a different faith is a great sin in my opinion.
The forgiving of other peoples sins is the highest Christian virtue, as is being tolerant of how other people differ from one self. Did not Christ preach forgiveness, like in the &#8220;forgive them father for they do not know any better&#8221; part of the crucifixion.

Again, murdering people in the name of Satan is mental illness and criminal.

I just recently heard about this small religion amongst Kurds, older than Islam, which claims that God has forgiven Lucifer, and therefore they worship Lucifer as Gods highest angel, but they get persecuted by the Moslems who see them as worshipers of the devil. It is obvious that the Moslem clergy is intelligent enough to discern between actual worship of evil and the worship of a forgiven sinner, ergo the Moslem clergy lie to further their ends.
Christians have done and do similar things.

There are plenty of non religious doctors in &#8220;Doctors without borders&#8221;, and the study I have read about clearly pointed out nonreligious people as at least as prone to do good as religious people.
Furthermore, do religious people do good because they are actually good, or do they do this because of the rewards they believe are in store for them in the afterlife, actually being selfish?

You do not know much of reality do you?