If you’re a satanist, you’re just a Christian who hates God. 🤷♂️
I get it, it’s fun saying you’re a satanist to get a reaction from Christians.
Comment on Does anyone struggle with spending money foolishly on prostitutes?
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 days agoWhy would you assume that the teachings of the Christian bible are correct, not in just this matter, but any other? Why not any other scripture? Buddhists, for instance, would say that any desire prevents you from progressing spiritually.
Because Jesus Christ rose from the dead. OP is a Christian and believes that.
Satanists (me!) would say that no desire is inherently wrong, and that it’s how the desire is expressed, and it’s whether it overrides someone else’s autonomy that makes a thing right or wrong.
Why should OP listen to and try to appease a Satanist? Your opinion is irrelevant at that stage. This is the same as a Christian telling an atheist that their gay relationship is wrong. Just reversed.
MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Semester3383@lemmy.world 2 days ago
you’re just a Christian who hates God.
I’m a former Christian that’s been deeply disappointed by the followers of god, or gods; the hypocrisy and mental gymnastics of the purported followers was what eventually led me out of Plato’s Cave. If Jesus was real, and Christians truly followed the actual words of Christ in the four gospels (not Paul, Paul was a dick), then I’d likely never have started questioning my own faith. As it was, it still took me 25 years, four years in seminary, and working as a missionary before I started to question anything.
The reaction is certainly part of it. But that’s definitely not all of it.
Atheist says what I don’t believe: I don’t believe in any god, or anything supernatural. (Could there be one? Sure. But I haven’t seen any falsifiable evidence. So technically I’m agnostic, but I round up to atheist.)
Satanism says what I do believe: I believe that men are free to do as they want, as long as the don’t infringe on the rights of others. I believe in bodily and personal autonomy (including abortion, drugs, and yes, suicide). I believe in being free from unjust and unwarranted authority. I choose to model my life as much as I reasonably can on the version of Lucifer presented in Paradise Lost and other Romantic-era books.
Anton LaVay was an ass, a misogynist, a bit homophobic, and generally a bit of a douche-canoe, but he was very right in that the idea of a Satan, and of sin, was the best friend religion ever had; without the idea that men are inherently sinful, no one has any need for religion, because no one needs to be redeemed. You need to feel bad, because if you don’t, then there’s no reason to keep showing up at church every week to receive forgiveness.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 days ago
Satanists are like: “We don’t actually believe in satan” which is funny because that’s exactly what satan wants you to think
Semester3383@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Any evidence for that, aside from a book that doesn’t cite sources? Look mate, I can believe that Harry Potter really defeated He Who Shall Not Be Named and saved the muggle world from his domination, but does that make it right? Would that be a positive thing to base all of my life on?
…And yet, they do that all the time, don’t they? Not only that, but they try to pass laws preventing them from happening. Or to prevent trans people from accessing appropriate healthcare. Or to ensure that women don’t have rights to their own bodies.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 days ago
The book is the source. And those sources willingly faced torment and execution for that fact.
I do not condone that.
Never heard of this happening.
Semester3383@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Most of the history that’s accepted from that time comes from multiple sources–rather than just one–and has some kind of archaeological evidence backing it up. In contrast, there’s essentially zero writing about a Jesus of Nazareth aside from books written a minimum of 70 years after he supposedly lived. If you choose to treat a single book as proof of truth, why the bible? Why not the Torah, or Quran? There’s certainly better evidence that Muhammed is at least a historical figure, although even that is debated. For that matter, why not the Tao Te Ching (although, again, the actual existence of a Laozi is very debateable)?
You say that you’re a Christian; the vast majority of Christian sects condemn homosexuality and marriage equality. Christians are called to evangelize (Matt. 5:14-16), and likewise the bible says in multiple places that homosexuality is sinful (along with divorce, eating cheeseburgers, and, well, just about everything that’s enjoyable in life). But you don’t condone it?
Oh really? You’re not aware of laws being passed that prevent access to and criminalize reproductive care, or laws that ban gender affirming care? Really?
Really?
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 days ago
That’s quite early for historical documents of that time. And you’re wrong. St Paul’s letter to the Galatians was written at the latest, 57 AD. Considering Jesus died and ascended around 33 AD, that’s at most 24 years after. So essentially, it’s like if someone who survived 9/11 were to come out now and write about it.
The Bible isn’t a single book. It’s a compilation of separate writings. Bibles being a single book is comparatively a modern thing.
The Torah is part of the Bible.
Mohammed is a historical figure. Jesus is also a historical figure. These aren’t debated by anyone with any credibility. To say the existence of Jesus or Mohammed is debated is like saying climate change is debated.
I do not believe the Qur’an because it comes off to me as one guy with bad character writing a book for military power and more wives. It also severely contradicts the Bible.
Yes, the Bible does say that homosexuality is sinful. Everyone is sinful. Evangelisation isn’t about stopping people from being gay, and that’s it. It’s about bringing them to Christ first. Then homosexuality is a matter of the Church.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13
I was under the impression the gender stuff is moreso coming from scientists concerned about children taking harmful medicine. If you’re referring to abortions, that’s not about what women do with their own bodies. It’s about an invasive external procedure to destroy someone else’s body that’s growing inside of them.