Satanism is the ONLY Rational Religion

[Chas]

We know there isn't a Zeus ruling the skies or a Poseidon ruling the ocean at this point but the Bible already pointed this out ahead of time. You have a physical natural order and a non-physical creator of this natural order. You have God, Gods creation and the creatures of Gods creation. This isn't something that has been proven wrong therefore the premise still holds.
rpose made creation which I would strongly suggest to you it is.

Why don't you believe in Zeus or Poseidon? They are as credible as your god.

[Sword of Christ]

Why don't you believe in Zeus or Poseidon? They are as credible as your god.

If they existed as physical beings and had power over the physical world as they were described then we would see them wouldn't we? God you don't actually see as there is nothing physically there to see. Though I'm sure there are immortal godlike beings besides God that's kind of what angels and demons are meant to be.

[EvolutionKills]

Why don't you believe in Zeus or Poseidon? They are as credible as your god.

If they existed as physical beings and had power over the physical world as they were described then we would see them wouldn't we? God you don't actually see as there is nothing physically there to see. Though I'm sure there are immortal godlike beings besides God that's kind of what angels and demons are meant to be.

Gotta love how they just define the problems away, right Chas?

Which is funny because I seem to remember reading about ladders up to heaven and Yahweh getting into wrestling matches with Jacob, which seems silly for a non-physical deity...

[Sword of Christ]

Gotta love how they just define the problems away, right Chas?

Zeus and the other gods of Olympus were just physical living people the same as ourselves they just happened to have powers and be immune from the affliction of death. They were more an explanation for why life for humanity sucks than anything else. When you get the Mystery Cults they begin to take on more of a symbolic role though, see the death and resurrection narratives.

[Esquilax]

You don't have to contort anything as God is a logical proposition to begin with. Denying evolution or the age of the Earth in favour of a literal reading of the Bible isn't logical at all seeing that would be denial of hard data and facts. You can point out that none of these thing particularly impacts upon the universe as a purpose made creation which I would strongly suggest to you it is.

Here's what I'm saying: you never once see the interpretations you give about scientific discoveries until after those discoveries have been made. The factual accuracy of the bible seems more determined by the age in which you live than it does the actual content of the book: before we learned so much about evolution, obviously the creation account was literally true. Before we found out the world was round, the bible clearly said it was flat, and only now do we see all these supposed predictions of a round earth. The scriptures have no predictive power bar that which you add in later.

Given this, how can you possibly say that this stuff is what the bible meant to say all along? And if this is so, why recourse the the vague, incorrect language that it did, if in fact it was a book full of true information?

If we found out tomorrow that evolution was false and the earth really was six thousand years old (hypothetically!) would you not completely reverse your evolution accepting, old earth stance, and be claiming that the bible knew these things all along?

[Sword of Christ]

Here's what I'm saying: you never once see the interpretations you give about scientific discoveries until after those discoveries have been made.

I think you would have to make the scientific discoveries first before you can fit them into the overall theological context?

The factual accuracy of the bible seems more determined by the age in which you live than it does the actual content of the book

I'm not convinced that anyone originally believed in a literal tree of knowledge of good and evil, talking snakes and all that business, or at any rate there was a level of understanding below that of the outer story those in the know would understand. It seems reasonable to suggest that the story was intentionally spiritual teachings in the form of a myth with all kinds of symbolism regarding the human condition and their relationship to God. If it wasn't intended to be a factual scientific account from the start then it hasn't become particularly outdated the same message is going to apply regardless of the era in which you live. Young Earth Creationism as we know it today which uses the Bible as the basis for a scientific explanation of the world only began life in the modern era it isn't an ancient understanding of the text. If you really wanted to follow through on that you would need to believe that the Earth is flat and centre of the universe and there is a water above a crystal dome firmament above our heads. That's how people saw the world back then so that's how they represented it.

: before we learned so much about evolution, obviously the creation account was literally true.

I don't think it particularly was if you take into account the dreamlike quality and imagery of the story. It was revealing some kind of truth in a way that the human mind can understand. Also note that God commands his creation to "bring forth" this that and other so what you have is a natural order of self generation, evolution fits into that context just fine as that's exactly what it is.

Before we found out the world was round, the bible clearly said it was flat, and only now do we see all these supposed predictions of a round earth.

That's what people thought the world was at the time so that's how they depicted it. How else would they depict it?

The scriptures have no predictive power bar that which you add in later.

They didn't predict anything of a scientific nature at all they revealed mans relationship to God and creation. That's still going to apply regardless of any scientific knowledge you could ever attain about anything.

Given this, how can you possibly say that this stuff is what the bible meant to say all along?

The Bible says that the universe is the purpose made creation of a single supreme intelligence. So if you can explain what we have discovered through science that would render this supposition null and void I would be interested to see it. The process of creation described in Genesis fits with an orderly sequence of natural formation over time from a starting point in time, time itself had a beginning.

And if this is so, why recourse the the vague, incorrect language that it did, if in fact it was a book full of true information?

If what they said about the nature of God was true back then then it's still going to be equally true today. The only thing that has changed is our understanding of the physical processes and natural laws of the universe and the people who wrote the Bible were fully aware that there was such a natural order. They didn't know very much about it due to their lack of science but they understood the gist. It could be we only have advanced science today because we understood the universe to be something understandable and rational. Science has it's origins in magic, alchemy and all that kind of thing so it could be seen as an extension if humanities spiritual impulse rather than divorced from it as an entirely different alternative to God.

If we found out tomorrow that evolution was false and the earth really was six thousand years old (hypothetically!) would you not completely reverse your evolution accepting, old earth stance, and be claiming that the bible knew these things all along?

A literal reading of Genesis and the 6000 year old Earth only goes back to the 17th century so that's something relatively new that was introduced at a much later date not something that was an article of faith originally that science did away with. It's not to say that people knew about evolution or that forms of life generate themselves from other forms though there were some precursors to evolutionary theory that go right back to ancient times. There's a good book about it here.



The main thing Darwin discovered was the process of natural selection forms of life generating themselves from other forms over the ages was an idea that was in circulation for a very long time. Or at any rate they hypothesized some kind of processes that generated new forms of life over consecutive ages. But what you're doing is saying "These people lived in the past, so they would believe anything! aren't they stupid?!" which is called chronological snobbery.

[WesOlsen]

If they existed as physical beings and had power over the physical world as they were described then we would see them wouldn't we? God you don't actually see as there is nothing physically there to see. Though I'm sure there are immortal godlike beings besides God that's kind of what angels and demons are meant to be.

This is an interesting point that a lot of christians/muslims make, that god occupies no physical spacial/temporal location and is composed of nothing. The problem is that there is either matter or anti-matter in the observable universe. If god is composed of something he should be scientifically detectable, theoretically (maybe not with our current level of technology but hypothetically speaking of course), whereas if he is composed of nothing he is empty space, not even composed of quarks or some sort of spacial-membrane. Either there is a god or there isn't, vague definition-dodging attributes don't help either yourself or us when it comes to the god debate. Angels and demons on the other hand, they're frequently described as having a very earthly presence, as are Jinns in Islam. These guys should definitely be measurable if they have any sort of physical properties, if they too are composed of nothing, then by definition they don't exist either.

The Bible says that the universe is the purpose made creation of a single supreme intelligence. So if you can explain what we have discovered through science that would render this supposition null and void I would be interested to see it. The process of creation described in Genesis fits with an orderly sequence of natural formation over time from a starting point in time, time itself had a beginning.

That's what people thought the world was at the time so that's how they depicted it. How else would they depict it?

But this is our problem, you arbitrarily cherry-pick the truth from the fiction. Some biblical information is literally true whereas other biblical information really is just what people thought at the time. It seems you've adopted the more liberal 'the basic gist of the bible creation story is true, but most specific claims are man-made interpretations' stance.

Mathew 4:8 - 'Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them'

An exceedingly high mountain indeed if we are to literally see every kingdom of earth, including those of South america and Australasia. Of course you say people discerned a flat-earth notion at the time, but then what real criteria are we supposed to use for discerning the literal from the symbolic, in the present day? If most of the banal desert stories of oxes, raping daughters, bartering, collecting sticks etc is just epoch-relative bewilderment at the natural world, then why not just extend this interpretation to the final few stories about genesis as well? We are given no rational criteria, which is precisely why christianity has splintered in to so many different sub factions who bicker (often with fatal consequences) at how to interpret the thing. What use is a book of truth if nobody can decipher it? Even if you make the case that all christian factions are sort-of right, it doesn't change the fact that to this day some of them are still prepared to butcher one another for their differing views. We just can't accept that this confusing and vague mess is divine revelation, we see it as 100% man-made.

[Chas]

Gotta love how they just define the problems away, right Chas?

Zeus and the other gods of Olympus were just physical living people the same as ourselves they just happened to have powers and be immune from the affliction of death. They were more an explanation for why life for humanity sucks than anything else. When you get the Mystery Cults they begin to take on more of a symbolic role though, see the death and resurrection narratives.

So, the latter are slightly less childish than the former.

[EvolutionKills]

Gotta love how they just define the problems away, right Chas?

Zeus and the other gods of Olympus were just physical living people the same as ourselves they just happened to have powers and be immune from the affliction of death. They were more an explanation for why life for humanity sucks than anything else. When you get the Mystery Cults they begin to take on more of a symbolic role though, see the death and resurrection narratives.

Right, so why are all of the other mystery cults untrue, but the one Jewish mystery cult just happens to be the one that is actually true? Why don't you ascribe the same level of plausibility to Osiris or Mythra, seeing as how they too had mystery cults and could also fit within your 'non-physical' definition seeing as how both were celestial deities.

You appear to know that you religion didn't arise in a vacuum, yet the significance of that fact seems to elude you.

[doomed]

Am I really one of the very few people that actually thinks the Satanic Bible makes sense? I'm even adhering to some of it's "principles"and my life got improved in a way. I'm not sure about what sociopathy have to do with it, really. Well, I already met some imature satanists over the internet, but I can't see them as satanists for some reason. I might've misread it judging by the author's fame though.