Which version of Christianity is the right one?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 10:59 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 10:56 AM)TheWordsoftheBeast Wrote:  I am a satanist, if you hadn't gathered that already.

I keep the majority of my personal information private, although i would be willing to answer questions about satanism if people are unfamiliar.

But not the Worship Satan kind?

There are splinter groups which believe in the Christian mythology, who worship the devil, but they are not members of The Church of Satan.

We do not believe in mythology, so we begin our membership as atheists. Satan is not real, merely a symbol of something we wish to represent in our lives.

He represents the beast within us, the demon, or in other terms, the core of human beings, undefiled by masochistic belief systems. For example, we embrace wrath and hatred as a means of fuel for destroying our enemies. We see these attributes as being inherently human and good for our survival and strength. We directly oppose weak religions like Christianity which worship the meek and mild over the strong.

[Image: geoImcXGIQOmfb0Jil2zp_6od392QbLCXCF9r49S...boA1w=w300]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 11:05 AM)TheWordsoftheBeast Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 10:59 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  But not the Worship Satan kind?

There are splinter groups which believe in the Christian mythology, who worship the devil, but they are not members of The Church of Satan.

We do not believe in mythology, so we begin our membership as atheists. Satan is not real, merely a symbol of something we wish to represent in our lives.

He represents the beast within us, the demon, or in other terms, the core of human beings, undefiled by masochistic belief systems. For example, we embrace wrath and hatred as a means of fuel for destroying our enemies. We see these attributes as being inherently human and good for our survival and strength. We directly oppose weak religions like Christianity which worship the meek and mild over the strong.


That's what I thought.
I happen to adore Satanist.......... not the christian-satan-sort. But your sort - yes. Mostly for they clearly admit that they can be selfishly motivated yet it's generally a everybody-wins scenario. Yes, I've always admired the clarity of thinking and ultimate willingness to better the world - one person at a time. (ideology - not yet proven)

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 11:18 AM
Which version of Christianity is the right one?
The Gospel of John did surface around the time of the Gospels of Thomas, James and Philip, works that date to approximately 2 AD.

While previously disregarded as heretical, these documents are as hotly debated as the Q Source was in the 60's and late 70's, when the Nag Hammadi scriptures were translated, having been discovered in 1945.

Canon or not, they're still relevant to the canonization of early Christian orthodoxy. The fact that they're lesser known and popularly considered of questionable legitimacy is telling as well, as they were not included due to a schism in doctrine, and have been relegated to the fringes of Christianity. Which is ironic, since they're legitimate sources, and studied by well-respected researchers such as Marvin Meyer http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Meyer

The idea of "God as a verb" in Coptic texts comes from the early Christian ideas in which God was a word explaining the universe. Seraphim were short phrases, Cherebub short sentences, and on down. It was thought that the more knowledge one attained, the closer they became to knowing God.

It's unfortunate this idea has largely been discarded.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 11:20 AM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 11:11 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  That's what I thought.
I happen to adore Satanist.......... not the christian-satan-sort. But your sort - yes. Mostly for they clearly admit that they can be selfishly motivated yet it's generally a everybody-wins scenario. Yes, I've always admired the clarity of thinking and ultimate willingness to better the world - one person at a time. (ideology - not yet proven)

I wouldn't say no to admiration. Evil_monster

I don't particularly care for splinter groups either, since they play into the hands of Christian fundamentalists by believing in their mythology.

We go much farther than admitting that we can be selfishly motivated, we believe that we should be all the time, and that if you are not, you are likely deceiving others. I have never met a Christian who wasn't just as selfish and self centered as I am. Human beings are that way by nature. Christianity has only managed to come along and condemn the impulse, while not eradicating it. Now we are left with the condemnation of our nature, and a masochistic means of "forgiveness" from an invisible authority. Slavery and self loathing found the system.

If we better the world through our ideology, it won't be because we feel any admiration or empathy for the world, but because it serves our purpose. We acknowledge the simple fact that we have enemies, and there exist human beings on this earth who deserve destruction, failure, and humiliation. We do not shy away from providing such pleasures.

[Image: geoImcXGIQOmfb0Jil2zp_6od392QbLCXCF9r49S...boA1w=w300]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheWordsoftheBeast's post
01-03-2014, 11:28 AM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 10:55 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 06:39 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I have come to "believe" that Christianity is much older than the Jesus story and that the clue to it is in the name. The idea of crucifying someone wasn't invented for Jesus. It has a symbolism, otherwise the whole episode would have been incomprehensible. Linguistically, christ is just two syllables, a rolled, deep throat "Chrrr" followed by "Is" with a final "t" which denotes a condition "of" whatever proceeds it as in "colored". for instance. This word is in all language and is the same as "haris" in Sanskrit, "aris" in Greek etc. It simply denotes an old god who the Egyptians called Horus but goes back even further.

Is this your own idea, or is there some source for this? On its face, it makes little sense at all.

Quote:I think it is more important to look at the history of the time, independently of the NT and see what happened and when. For my part, I am satisfied, for the time being, that the Christianity of the new testament is a from of gnosticism which was circulating amongst a Jewish sect at the time and that the NT is a fictionalization of some events involving the Jewish high priest, Jesus of Gamala, who was a real person and who is similar in some ways to Jesus but whose timeline is later than the NT Jesus: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/1st-cen...2013-03-04

It's possible. I'm of the opinion, that the Jesus of the NT is a constructed character composed to undermine the memories of several leaders of the Jewish rebellions. For this to hold, you have to date the Gospels (in finished form) to no earlier than about 132CE. But there isn't anything prohibitting such a dating.

...pay your taxes, obey authority, no need for sacrifices or the temple you would perform them at, your kingdom is not of this earth - this is obvious Roman propaganda addressed to undermine the causes of the Jewish uprisings.


The linguistic point is from my readings of more recent developments in linguistics which look at word sounds between languages. I will have a look. There are even emerging studies which link human language to birdsong... http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/how-h...-0221.html

The rolled R sound Arrgh, as in Edinburgh, if you know how a Scot pronounces it, is a very old sound and is common to many languages. It means "fire" (arson) ie., the sun. So the "place of" the fire is the "hearth". The place of the sun is the "earth". The "th" ending means place or condition of as in "length".

Egyptians and Phoenicians constructed a language based on sounds and little pictures and the picture for the R sound, the letter R, is nothing more than the eye of Horus who is the sun/moon god.

From this sound for fire you get the idea of building a home around a fire, ie., architecture and from god/lord figure you get the concepts of Aristocracy, Hari Krishna and warrior concepts like "to harry". From the idea that people had that life eminated from the sun you get words like "origin" and from the colour of the sun you get "orange" and "aura".

The people in and around Petra were Horites and they worshpped this god and they are notable because they abandoned using camels and switched to another animal which is named after them, ie., horses. Even the hours of the day, in French, heures, and the horoscope goes back to this sound concept.

I know it is novel and wacko but as you have probably noted by now I like wacky ideas. I have found that they often turn out to be nearer the truth than conventional ideas which people have been fed by someone for a reason regardless of whether they are true.

I suppose that is where I get up people's noses. They might think I take it seriously and calling me a conspiracy theorist or whatever is going to make me see the errors of my ways. I actually enjoy a good conspiracy theory and I am not accepting of all of them. I initially agreed with Joe Atwill but then found some issues he did not answer fully and I realized that on certain points Ellis explains them much better. Maybe I will move on and find some better explanation than Ellis.

I used to believe the conspiracy theory of the JFK assassination. A couple of months ago I saw a TV program which cogently explained the whole incident based on live witnesses who are still around and I now believe it was Oswald acting alone but with an accidental shot from behind. I may be wrong but that program explained it better than, for instance, the Kingfisher book I read. It just made more sense of how the shots were fired and the circumstances around it. That is how I look at it. I don't really care if Ellis isn't a professional academic. He makes a lot of sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 11:20 AM)TheWordsoftheBeast Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 11:11 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  That's what I thought.
I happen to adore Satanist.......... not the christian-satan-sort. But your sort - yes. Mostly for they clearly admit that they can be selfishly motivated yet it's generally a everybody-wins scenario. Yes, I've always admired the clarity of thinking and ultimate willingness to better the world - one person at a time. (ideology - not yet proven)

I wouldn't say no to admiration. Evil_monster

I don't particularly care for splinter groups either, since they play into the hands of Christian fundamentalists by believing in their mythology.

We go much farther than admitting that we can be selfishly motivated, we believe that we should be all the time, and that if you are not, you are likely deceiving others. I have never met a Christian who wasn't just as selfish and self centered as I am. Human beings are that way by nature. Christianity has only managed to come along and condemn the impulse, while not eradicating it. Now we are left with the condemnation of our nature, and a masochistic means of "forgiveness" from an invisible authority. Slavery and self loathing found the system.

If we better the world through our ideology, it won't be because we feel any admiration or empathy for the world, but because it serves our purpose. We acknowledge the simple fact that we have enemies, and there exist human beings on this earth who deserve destruction, failure, and humiliation. We do not shy away from providing such pleasures.


You may run into some opposition here (on this site) but I get what you're saying 100%.
cheers

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
01-03-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
Oh, and as far as "conspiracy" theories go, any time two people decide to do something in a concerted way, it is a "consspiracy" so unless everything in history is accounted for by individuals acting alone, there have been a lot of "conspiracies" and since the vast majority of people couldn't read or write until fairly recently and no one in authority wanted them to know too much, then, hey, much of "history" is "conspiratorial". I don't find it is a very useful concept in deciding whether a particular historical analysis is correct or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 11:47 AM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 09:31 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I do despair for mankind if this thread is any indication.

Awww honey.
Honey - No.


You're gonna need some thicker skin if you're gonna hang out here.
Tongue

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 11:35 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Oh, and as far as "conspiracy" theories go, any time two people decide to do something in a concerted way, it is a "consspiracy" so unless everything in history is accounted for by individuals acting alone, there have been a lot of "conspiracies" and since the vast majority of people couldn't read or write until fairly recently and no one in authority wanted them to know too much, then, hey, much of "history" is "conspiratorial". I don't find it is a very useful concept in deciding whether a particular historical analysis is correct or not.

Facepalm

Since nobody has ever articulated anything remotely like "people never act together" as a basis for historical investigation, I must heartily commend you on a most exemplary straw man. Well done!

Thumbsup

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
TheWordsoftheBeast, just want to give you a heads up:

Satanists have probably received the same if not more opposition like theists from the majority of atheists and agnostics here.

Expect some opposition eventually if you continue to delve into you Satanism. I also see that you're somewhat of a firecracker, so expect some headbutting, again, if you continue to expound and talk about your system of belief.

I know you probably wouldn't be, but I just don't want you to get caught off guard.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: