The name says it all

[IncitingRiots]

I think my biggest disagreement with LaVey is concerning his stance on mind altering substances. To me the dictum of indulgence vs. abstinence and responsibility to the responsible can easily applied to the recreational use of drugs. It is my choice to make after all and I am not hurting anyone.

Another thing is the use of rituals. I don't disagree with the use of ritual, I just don't perform them. I have had no need as I purge my emotions through other outlets. For me, the most important part of The Satanic Bible was the first have. The second have was just added for space filler and entertainment.

I never said that I don't define Satanism as his worldview. It is really simple: There is no God but one's self. We only live once so enjoy the time you have.

[DianeVera]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

I never said that I don't define Satanism as his worldview.

But you also wrote, in an earlier post:

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

And I am not a LaVeyan Satanist.

Do you, nevertheless, define Satanism as LaVey's worldview?

If you do define Satanism as his worldview, then you definitely are what I would call a LaVeyan Satanist, even though you may disagree with LaVey on a few relatively minor points.

The Church of Satan dislikes the term "LaVeyan Satanism" on the grounds that it suggests that there might possibly be such a thing as non-LaVeyan Satanism, contrary to their claim of monopoly on the term "Satanism."

However, to anyone who defines "Satanism" more broadly than the CoS does, it makes sense to refer to LaVey's worldview as "LaVeyan Satanism," and to refer to those Satanists who are largely (even if not 100%) in agreement with LaVey's worldview as "LaVeyan Satanists."

[IncitingRiots]

I just said that it was his world view. Did you miss that part somehow?

I don't care what CoS likes or dislikes; I am not a member and have no desire to be one.

[DianeVera]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

I just said that it was his world view. Did you miss that part somehow?

That's what I thought you said, but I am just making sure.

If indeed you are a Satanist who regards Satanism itself as the worldview of Anton LaVey, then you are a LaVeyan Satanist. Only LaVeyan Satanists are at all likely to define the word "Satanism" that way. To almost anyone else, broader definitions of "Satanism" are more reasonable.

[IncitingRiots]

You can try to give me any label you want, it doesn't make it true though.

[reality10]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

I am not worried about any thing after death.

Hello, I have a question for you if you don't mind. Hypothetically, if you are correct that there is nothing to fear after death, Christians have absolutely no risk in their lives whatsoever. Life is over and done. Nothing felt at all.

However, HYPOTHETICALLY...if you are wrong and the bible is right that there really is a hell to fear after death with a real "Devil" who hates your guts and wants to see you burn eternally with him, who is taking the bigger risk?

I'm not trying to poke at you. Just looking for some rational discussion as you have suggested on your first post. Looking forward to your reply.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by reality10

Hello, I have a question for you if you don't mind. Hypothetically, if you are correct that there is nothing to fear after death, Christians have absolutely no risk in their lives whatsoever. Life is over and done. Nothing felt at all.

However, HYPOTHETICALLY...if you are wrong and the bible is right that there really is a hell to fear after death with a real "Devil" who hates your guts and wants to see you burn eternally with him, who is taking the bigger risk?

You know, even when I was religious I knew Pascal's Wager was an *****ic argument.

TRiG.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by TRiG

You know, even when I was religious I knew Pascal's Wager was an *****ic argument.

TRiG.

Whoever wrote this word filter is an eejit.

TRiG.

[reality10]

Originally Posted by TRiG

You know, even when I was religious I knew Pascal's Wager was an *****ic argument.

TRiG.

Please explain why this arguement is "*****ic"?

[TRiG]

Find the religion with the nastiest Hell.

Believe it.

[Tee Ar @ FB]

A carbon isotope ratio (C-13 per C-12) is lower than what's predicted by A-bio-genesis
(i.e., generation of Life by random, natural processes).

The average mass of a carbon atom is 0.011,15 of an atomic mass unit more than that of C-12;
the latter's is exactly 12 amu = 12 grams per mole (mole = 602.20 sextillion =~ 6 x 10^23 atoms or items).

Atheists, you bet your Life.

My source, via radio, is Astro-physicist Hugh Ross, an "Old Earth/ middle-age universe" kind of Protestant, whose PhD was conferred by the Univ. of Toronto, Canada (not a Bible-college).

Next Sunday on the John Ankerberg Show (Daystar channel */ online) he & his associate, Dr. of Biochemistry Fazale Rana, continue their discussion about Sci. & Script. They have discussed the Anthropic Principle, the narrow range of conditions in which Life can exist. E.g., 2 kinds of stars needed to explode near each other [chronologically & spatially] to furnish fluoride & other vital elements.
________________________________________________

* -- in L.A., channel 50-3

[IncitingRiots]

Originally Posted by reality10

Hello, I have a question for you if you don't mind. Hypothetically, if you are correct that there is nothing to fear after death, Christians have absolutely no risk in their lives whatsoever. Life is over and done. Nothing felt at all.

However, HYPOTHETICALLY...if you are wrong and the bible is right that there really is a hell to fear after death with a real "Devil" who hates your guts and wants to see you burn eternally with him, who is taking the bigger risk?

I'm not trying to poke at you. Just looking for some rational discussion as you have suggested on your first post. Looking forward to your reply.

Pascal's wager.

If your God is real it doesn't matter because I want nothing to do with it anyway.

What if you are wrong and the God you worship is not the right one?

[IncitingRiots]

Originally Posted by Tee Ar @ FB

A carbon isotope ratio (C-13 per C-12) is lower than what's predicted by A-bio-genesis
(i.e., generation of Life by random, natural processes).

The average mass of a carbon atom is 0.011,15 of an atomic mass unit more than that of C-12;
the latter's is exactly 12 amu = 12 grams per mole (mole = 602.20 sextillion =~ 6 x 10^23 atoms or items).

What does that have to anything?

[Tee Ar @ FB]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

What does that have to anything?

This militates against terrestrial abiogenesis.

Let us not hastily cast aside the (probably) intelligent Progenitor of Life with ingratitude. He gives us lots of benefits, despite calamities & requisite precautions. Earthquakes (orogeny by tektonic subduction) yield minerals. Sunflowers, & gametes, contain zinc *, a lack of which correlates with death after vaccinations **.
(Beware the double-dose of mercury for children & pregnant mothers ***.)

The body is a good servant but a poor Master
(saith Paulus who "would not be mastered by anything" - letter to Corinth, I.6.12).
He reviles both Hedonism (II Tim. 3.4) & Asceticism (Colossians 2.20 - 23), but he approves pleasure (I Tim. 6.17).

May you be blessed, in this life (-J.C., in Matt's Gospel 5.45), &, I would hope, in the next.
__________________________________________
* -- says a Clinical Nutritionist, Robert J. Marshall, CCN, PhD, which degrees were conferred by UCLA circa 1975. He has broadcasted ~ 20 years via Crawford & Salem networks. He may be heard 6 days a week --
confer KRLA (secular politics), KKLA (Prot.), KBRT (Charismatics & Monergists).

** -- confer Russell Blaylock, MD, a retired orthopedic surgeon, in "What To Do If Force Vaccinated," which is furnished by radio host Jeff Rense. R.B. writes for NewsMax.com, Rush Limbaugh's favorite.
Dr. Marshall suggests chelation of mercury by reduced co-enzyme Q-10 (quinol, vs. oxidized quinone). Sublingually absorbed NADH (co-enzyme 1, precursor to ATP) goes to the brain, but if swallowed, it detoxifies the liver. It's safe in large doses (& reduces Parkinsonism).

*** -- according to Stanley Monteith, MD, retired ortho-pedic surgeon, announced via Radio Liberty.

[IncitingRiots]

I meant what is this doing in this thread? If you want to debate the origins of life on this planet that would probably be best done in another thread. Though it seems like you are misrepresenting the issue and there is a lot of incoherent babble in that post as well.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

I meant what is this doing in this thread? If you want to debate the origins of life on this planet that would probably be best done in another thread. Though it seems like you are misrepresenting the issue and there is a lot of incoherent babble in that post as well.

I agree.

TRiG.

[reality10]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

Pascal's wager.

If your God is real it doesn't matter because I want nothing to do with it anyway.

What if you are wrong and the God you worship is not the right one?

Then I have nothing to lose because the God of biblical Christianity is the only faith that speaks of a hell that is eternal - that once you are in - you can't get out. I have yet to find another religion out there that speaks of an eternal hell that once in - you can't get out. Lots of religions with sugar coated hells. But none like the one spoken of in the bible.

If I am wrong about the God I serve, I have nothing to lose. I will simply end this life I've happily lived with no further cares. Either way, right or wrong, I will end my life satisfied feeling no pain. Pretty good deal if you ask me.

[IncitingRiots]

So you only believe in your God out of fear? Wow. That's not love, that's extortion.

Oh and actually the Bible talks very little about hell. It wasn't until about the 1500's that all the teaching about hellfire and brimstone became the focus of sermons. And most of the descriptions about Hell did not come from the Bible but Dante's Divine Comedy.

[IncitingRiots]

None of what you are saying has any relevance to anything in this thread. You went from trying to refute abiogenesis to talking about addiction and HIV. I'm beginning to think you have the attention span of a ferret on crystal meth.

[IncitingRiots]

I find it funny how, lacking any real argument, mod edit. What's even funnier is that you will probably get away with it because you believe in the same lie as everyone else on here but if I were to say something like that I would be chastised for it. mod edit

[reality10]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

So you only believe in your God out of fear? Wow. That's not love, that's extortion.

Nope. I never said that nor implied it. Just stating the fact that it is the only faith that speaks of such and therefore I have nothing TO "fear" after death because of my faith in the Jesus Christ of the bible.

However, I DO "fear God" as biblically suggested. However, that is not the same kind of "fear" that you are suggesting. It is a worshipful "fear". An "awe" over His wonderous powers.

But no, I don't believe God "OUT OF" fear. Quite the opposite in fact. I fear Him "BECAUSE" I believe Him. The reverse of your statement.

Oh and actually the Bible talks very little about hell. It wasn't until about the 1500's that all the teaching about hellfire and brimstone became the focus of sermons. And most of the descriptions about Hell did not come from the Bible but Dante's Divine Comedy.

A realtive statement but who cares anyway? It doesn't matter of thousands of verses speak of it or only one verse. God only has to say something one time for it to be valid to the Christian faith.

[IncitingRiots]

Nope. I never said that nor implied it.

Oh really? That must be why you said:

"Then I have nothing to lose because the God of biblical Christianity is the only faith that speaks of a hell that is eternal - that once you are in - you can't get out. I have yet to find another religion out there that speaks of an eternal hell that once in - you can't get out."

That sure sounds like belief out of fear; fear of a Hell that you can never get out of. And really you missed the whole point when I asked what if you are wrong. If you are wrong then the Jesus of the Bible does not exist. Assuming it were another God they would probably very displeased with you for believing in the wrong God therefore you would have much to fear.

However, I DO "fear God" as biblically suggested. However, that is not the same kind of "fear" that you are suggesting. It is a worshipful "fear". An "awe" over His wonderous powers.

Have you even read the Bible? That "biblically suggested" fear is exactly the type of fear of I was talking about. People were taught to fear God for God is a vengeful God and will not hesitate to send you into a lake of fire for all eternity at the slightest misstep. If it truly was 'awe' like you claim then why would you use the word 'fear'? Those two words are nowhere close to being interchangeable.

A realtive statement but who cares anyway?

Apparently not you. Sad really; that sort of mindset has lead to a lot of atrocities.

It doesn't matter of thousands of verses speak of it or only one verse. God only has to say something one time for it to be valid to the Christian faith.

First off, God didn't speak anything - the Bible was written by mortal men. Secondly, wouldn't it only take one contradiction or inconsistency to invalidate it then too?

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by reality10

Nope. I never said that nor implied it.

This is getting silly.

TRiG.