Yeah, it's an excuse to do whatever you want for whatever reason.

Somebody needed an excuse. Now a bunch of people do.

i dunno, i like the principles behind that anton levey guy.

There's no need to justify anything if nothing is wrong.

You don't really understand the concept of God, either. You're thinking more along the lines of greek God's.

Kirby et. al:

Satanism is NOT "doing your own thing". It's a form of Christianity, because it's the same belief system, although with a slightly altered viewpoint. However, Satanists are Christians who choose to oppose God, instead of siding with Him. I can't speak for them, but I imagine they oppose God because they feel rebelliousness and defiance towards a higher authority.

Also, they don't necessarily worship Satan. So-called "Satanists" just wouldn't feel very rebellious towards him because he's not in charge.

That's exactly what I was getting at...

About government laws:

The government puts up traffic regulation signs that determine how fast you're supposed to go on land owned by the goveernment, which is inherently owned by the people.

Lets say a specific street has a maximum speed of 35 mph. Not everyone follows this law, but for the sake of argument, lets say everyone follows this policy.

They put a school up in this area, and the speed limit is lowered to 15 mph, as per state regulations that all school areas must be undera 15 mph speed limit.

Why do you follow the law? Some people drive 20 mph in this 15 mph zone, until there's a police car. Other people drive 5 or 6 mph in this zone and watch out for kids, regardless of the fact that they can drive at 15 mph. They follow their own laws.

Who do you think is the moral person? I don't follow any of the united state's law. I follow my own laws, and a majority of them are within the bounds of the US's law.

Ok, this is in response to the question I posed, answered by Axis back a page.

Q: Are you of the belief that God is perfect?
A: Yes.

Follow-up question:

Do you believe that God is omnipotent/omniscient and an eternal being outside the natural universe, supreme over the laws of nature (supernatural)?

Yes, I do. I see a leader who does not lead by example, and that makes me avoid him.

(To JediKirby)

Before I continue, allow me to point out that you are arguing your law vs. God's law, which means that this entire argument is operating under the assumption that God exists. (Regardless of your own beliefs, it can be considered a hypothetical argument for all intents and purposes.) Attempting to turn this into "God doesn't exist" will forfeit your current argument, as it is already operating under the assumption that he does.




And if you break the US's laws (and are caught), you'll be punished for it, wether or not you agree with the laws in question. You're not the one in charge, so you're not the one who gets to make the rules. No matter how much you pretend that you are in absolute control, it doesn't change the fact that there are higher authorities than you, who have their own rules, and who will enforce those rules regardless of your opinion of them.

God is largely believed to be an omniscient entity, so avoiding "being caught" is out of the question. Likewise, he is also believed to be omnipotent, and is believed to have created the universe and to rule over it, thus putting him in a position of authority over his creation. He also has rules, and punishment. His rules are the ones that are enforced, not yours.

You are trying to justify your actions, saying that because you follow laws (albeit, arbitrarily instituted by yourself, when you really have little authority in the broader scope of things), that you are not subject to God's laws, even though he is, in this scenario, the higher authority. It just doesn't work that way.

Actually, he does. Ever heard of a man by the name of Jesus?

And Jesus, like his god, advocated the death of innocents.

And trees! He was a carpenter!

And fish.

Yes, but he made more of those. 5,000 more!

Kirbs, that's not exactly Satanism, but close.

I see prayer as a mind focus.

Too many people forgot how to pray, or don't know how.

Jesus made the best fish ever. Useing wood for fire.

That is all.

I dunno, I kinda liked it when Jesus used the propane camp stove that Peter bought him. It tasted kind of like paint but you don't get as much ash.

Care to cite proof of that allegation?

The US can charge me for whatever they deem a crime. Their punishment is for themselves, not for me. I, myself, have ultimate power over MYSELF. If I kill a man and I am arrested, I still am my own God. I am willing to accept the concequences of some God's laws if they don't abide by my own. Simply because one God or Law is more powerful than the other does not make it the law of the weaker one. I do as I please within america, and know that I may or may not receive punishment for doing as I please.

This gets back to my original argument: Which is a better law to follow: One you yourself can justify, or one that you collect simply because the source can inforce that law? I'd rather live with confidence than with faith, even if that means facing a higher law than my own some day. Some of us aren't sheep to the flock. That, however, doesn't make us wolves in sheep's clothing. I believe I can be just as, if not more moral than a follower of God with only my own morals as a guide.

Statistically speaking, just what do you think the odds are of that being true? I mean, you're what, about 20? Exactly what do you think you have learned in your 20 years of existance that makes you better then all the rest of us...or even a being that's been around for eons?

What you are talking about is a subjective veiwpoint of right/wrong, good/bad, pure/evil. While you can justify what you do is right, so too can a rapist, killer, and theif. It's possible to rationalize anything to the point of convincing yourself that what you're doing is right, even if everyone else totally disagree's with your subjective veiwpoint. But when you take a step back, is it really "right"? Can you even honestly tell me that you fully understand where precisely the line is drawn between "right" and "wrong"?

Just curious.

I never said I know what's right for everyone else. I know better than anyone else what's right for me.

The problem is that you don't.

No one can ever be 100% sure of the consequences of their actions, and wether they may be beneficial or not. We can make educated guesses based on the information we've learned, but we can never truly know for sure, because we are not omniscient, and more often than not we base our guesses off of flawed or incomplete information.

Here's an example. I'm sure at some point in your childhood you thought you knew better than your parents. Be it crossing the street, touching the stove, eating cookies before dinner, whatever. Point is, there was something that, as a child, you wanted to do, but even though you "knew" that nothing bad could come from it, your parents wouldn't let you.

Does a child ever truly know what's best for himself? No. Children are stupid. If you gave them the chance, the average child would live off of birthday cake and koolaid for the rest of their life. The parent, however, knows that this is unhealthy, wether or not the child does, and restricts the child from doing this.

Even adults do this. Adults make mistakes. If an adult always knew what was best for themselves, why do so many people screw up?

And you do not have ultimate power over yourself. Can you make your hair change it's color by will alone? Can you decide how your body functions? No, you can't.

You are entirely insignificant in the scope of the universe. To claim that you have ultimate knowledge and power is ridiculous, and bordering on insanity.

He never claimed ultimate knowledge. You made that jump. You're right about a parent knowing what's best for a child, but that becomes less so every passing day, or it should. Besides, using your own logic, who are you to say he doesn't know what's best for him?

I concede that, but he did claim to know what's best for himself. My point was that you can't know what's best for yourself without knowing every possible variable and every potential outcome of your actions, and all of that is impossible for us to know in the first place. So, to know what is truly best for yourself, you would have to have ultimate knowledge to begin with.




That was mostly an example to illustrate the point that even when we think we know everything, we don't. Yes, we learn as we grow, but we can never learn everything there is to know.



How do I know that he's not omniscient, then? Well, how do you know that I'm not omniscient (and thus would by definition know everything about him)? How do any of us know that any of the rest of us even exist? We don't, but this whole discussion is operating under the assumption that everyone participating in it is a human being, and human beings have proven themselves throughout the course of our history to not be all-knowing.

I do not claim to know. I claim to be making educated guesses based on the information that I've learned throughout my life, and based on the assumptions (hypothetical or not) that have been granted by the argument. JediKirby, however, claimed to know, not to guess or assume, and it is with that which I am arguing.

God created those people and it was his right to kill them and punish them. We cannot murder because that is not our right, it is Gods. But that was pointless because I get the sense that you really don't want or care to understand one way or the other.

So basically, it's semantics. Your entire argument is based on one word.

In other words, you do precisely what you want. That's not morals that's doing precisely what you want. And when you say justify, what do you mean?

Justify: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com}

1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.
2. To declare free of blame; absolve.
3. To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin. Used of God.
4. Law
a. To demonstrate sufficient legal reason for (an action taken).
b. To prove to be qualified as a bondsman.
5. Printing To adjust the spacing within (lines in a document, for example), so that the lines end evenly at a straight margin.
v.intr. Printing


If you're not justifying it against anything other than you want to do, that's just a fancy way of "saying screw everyone and anything else I'll do what I want to do." And by doing so you forfeit the right to criticize anyone else's actions. You can hardly say, "That guy's bad for murdering 15 gay people because he hate gays", because he is simply doing the exact thing you are, morally. You may not like it, but you have no ground from which to condemn him.

This phrase is fitting here:

YO MOMMA.

She know's whats best for you.

He's arguing that he knows better than an all-knowing entity. I'm arguing that he can't know better unless he, too, is all-knowing, and offering evidence that he is, in fact, not all-knowing. The definition here is important, because "All-guessing" or just "Really freaking smart" don't cut it.

Assuming he believes in one.

The argument assumes that God exists, even if hypothetically.

His argument is that he is his own God. He never said he believes God exists.

That's from the post that I first responded to, and where the discussion between him and I began. Wether or not he believes God actually exists (hell, regardless of wether or not God exists period,) this argument (hypothetical or not) is based on the assumption of God existing, and of Kirby's laws being "better" than God's laws. That's what I'm arguing against.

The problem with satanism is that it focuses mostly on what the person who practices it wants, instead of on God's plan for their life. People who are not saved by God are completely captive to their own flesh, and the flesh wants nothing more to satisfy its own desires, and satanism exists to give the flesh what it wants.

The part that is so deceptive about satanism in all its various forms is how innocent and even noble it seems-- people are reassured when they find out that it doesn't involve sacrificing kittens or drinking blood or anything wierd like that. (Part of the deception involves making something look more attractive than it really is and dispelling myths surrounding it) Instead, people are convinced that they can achieve peace and fulfillment by doing what they want and/or giving themselves over to what seems like a good cause. It's incredibly seductive-- I've walked the edge of this without even knowing it.



Even though it claims to be about self-improvement and being all you can be, you are actively defying God and God's plan for your life and promoting yourself as God instead. It's the very same deception and tactic that was presented to Adam and Eve-- the claim that you can be like God and control everything in your life.

While satanists claim to be altruistic, they are only satisfying their own desires, and that makes it wrong.

You're assuming God's omnipotant opinion is the same ideas we hear in the bible. A long time ago, I said that I can't believe you expect me to follow the rules that some guy said that some God told him to tell me, as opposed to my OWN laws. I am my own absolute God. Being God does not mean that I can be whatever I choose to be, it means that I govern myself. For instance: You'd have to force me to kill myself, because I, being my own God, would not do that.

And I wouldn't want to follow anything that claimed omnipotence while also claiming that praising him was the best thing for me. I'd rather live in my own ignorance than spend my life in servitude. Does a slave thank his master for beating him, even if it's better than being killed? No. I have no master, and will never have a master by my own will.

i hope the real god is one of a vague mostly unknown faith that has a tiny number of followers.

i'll happily burn in that dudes hell, just to see the look on the faces of all the godbotherers.

Yes, actually, they do. Try doing some research on psycological studies pertaining to BDSM.

Furthermore, if a cop lets you off with a warning when you were clearly speeding, would you not thank him? If a judge let's you off with community service, would you not thank him?



You have masters whether you like it or not. We just give them fancy titles that reduces the negative conitation associated with the word "master". Anyone with the power and authority over you is your master. You can *****, whine, moan, whatever, but if a cop wants to arrest you and take you to jail, there's little you can do about it.

If you want to live your life believing you are your own master. Fine, go right ahead. But you're living in denial...

Bevvil pretty much hit the nail on the head, but something else I'd like to add...



You already said "If, indeed, there is a God and he created us and gave us all of these laws," in reference to the previous discussion of the christian's God. So, yes, I am assuming that, because it was already granted by your argument.

Wether or not God exists (or wether he exists as the Bible describes), and wether or not your laws are better than God's laws, are two completely different arguments. Granted, if God did not exist, or existed as a different entity than described in the Bible, then your argument would have more substance to it. However, that's a different scenario than the one that we're currently discussing (the one that you presented).

If you don't want to believe in God, or any god, that's your business, not mine, and I'm not trying to change that. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic when you say that, in a scenario of there being a higher, absolute authority over you, that you can safely ignore it's laws and follow your own, and pointing out the flaws in assuming that you know better for yourself than anyone else, when still operating in the scenario of an omniscient entity that, by definition, knows all.

Like I said, I'm not arguing God's existence. I'm simply arguing that you're not as all-knowing or all-powerful as you've said you are, when compared to a being that has (hypothetically) absolute knowledge and power.

OMQ! What are you saying?! I SEE YOU'RE SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES!! I WILL NOT BE FOOLED!!!!

weth·er
n.

A castrated ram.



hehe, don't worry, I had to check the spelling before I used it in my last post. Such a wierd word to spell. The English language (especially in written form) is too complicated. Words with the same sound should have the same spelling...and why not when we gage the meaning of a word in spoken language by it's context and not it's spelling. Not to mention the fact that you can't see the spelling of a word in spoken language anyhow...<shrug>

Sorry, just wanted to lighten this thread up a bit...

Perhaps that means you're pronoucing it wrongly.

I other words you do what you please regardless of anything else. You can't really say that anything is wrong, though, if you take that position.

And also, what God has said is best for us, is best for us. He created the universe for us in a certain way, and sin involves using it in a way that he did not intend. Because of our fallen natures we are rebellious against God and like you, don't want to obey Him.

Your attitude is one shared by everyone who is not a true Christian, you're just honest about it.

Nah...

for instance:
weather, wether, & whether

to, too, & two

deer & dear

etc.

are all pronounced the exact same way. What's worse about deer is that you really have to pay attention to the context because you could be talking about one deer or many deer. <shrug> Who thinks up this stuff anyway? English teachers? Did they not think there was enough content to fill a course to begin with?