Stop what you're doing and laugh at the U.S.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

All he says is, that a "bad" person needs to repent, but because he's a bad person, he's not "good" at it. A "good" person needs to repent less but can repent "better" than the "bad" person. There are two extremes: A) the Devil who needs to repent for everything he does, because he is the devil in person, and B) God, who is perfectly good and doesn't need to repent for anything, because all he does is good and he's perfect at repentance.

So far, so good.

I can repent, because I'm bound to my conscience. That means that a "good" person has a "better" conscience than a "bad" person. Does this mean I'm a good person? After this definition, yes. So the better I am, the closer I am to God. The less failures I do in my life, the "godlier" I become. If I live my life for other people, I eventually become God - at least in a way, I'm still bound to my mortal body. This is the weak point in his argument. Lewis wrote "Mere Christianity" for both laity and intellectuals. Sure, it's nice if everyone can catch his point, but his arguments lack substance.

I've bolded the important sentence.  Yes, you become "godlier" the closer to perfect you are.  That goes without saying, simply by definition.  But good luck having a life without any failures, ever.  That's a weak point in your argument, not Lewis's; you assume that someone could somehow, some way be free from sin and failure, not just at a particular time, but for their entire life: past, present, and future.  We know it's theoretically possible; after all, that's what Jesus did.  But we also know that it's practically impossible; we think selfish or unclean or unkind thoughts several times a day at an absolute minimum, even if we don't act out on those thoughts.  Heck, even supposed altruism with the improper mindset is wrong; false humility and false charity were what made the Pharisees so despicable to Jesus.  We can be good, yes.  We can never be perfect.

It's well known in psychology that narcissistic liars propagate lies both in their favour and against the ones who oppose them. Honest people don't do this as there is no necessity to twist the truth in their favour as it is already in their favour. The facts speak for themselves.

Funny how you set up an interesting point and then completely go the wrong way with it (partially based on flawed premises).

We'll start with your points about the devil.

Satan doesn't demand to be followed.

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; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Satan doesn't make any claims against God.

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Satan is modest and silent and mysterious.

That's a strange perspective from someone who believe that both God AND Satan don't speak at all, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.  Also, Satan has never been considered modest anywhere in the Bible, he's surely not silent (or rather, no more silent than God), and there's no mystery to him.  He's evil, he's a tempter, and he twists our will and God's words in an attempt to turn us against God.  Where's the mystery?

God tempts people to his side with the promise of eternal paradise.
God proclaims that people who don't believe in him are not to be trusted.
God states that people who do not beg him for forgiveness for their sins are tortured eternally.
God attributes acts of evil to Satan's work.

What's your basis for saying these things are lies? Remember the saying, "the truth hurts"? It does.  We know from simply looking around and from personal experience that lies are lies because they're easier on us.  We want to believe falsehoods because if they ARE true, it's nicer for us than if the truths are true.  Otherwise, what would be the point of lying? It's the person who's right that can speak openly and honestly about consequences; it's the person who's wrong that tries to muddle and hide them.

[Mangled*]

Funny how you set up an interesting point and then completely go the wrong way with it (partially based on flawed premises).

That's a strange perspective from someone who believe that both God AND Satan don't speak at all, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.  Also, Satan has never been considered modest anywhere in the Bible, he's surely not silent (or rather, no more silent than God), and there's no mystery to him.  He's evil, he's a tempter, and he twists our will and God's words in an attempt to turn us against God.  Where's the mystery?

God tempts people to his side with the promise of eternal paradise.
God proclaims that people who don't believe in him are not to be trusted.
God states that people who do not beg him for forgiveness for their sins are tortured eternally.
God attributes acts of evil to Satan's work.

What's your basis for saying these things are lies? Remember the saying, "the truth hurts"? It does.  We know from simply looking around and from personal experience that lies are lies because they're easier on us.  We want to believe falsehoods because if they ARE true, it's nicer for us than if the truths are true.  Otherwise, what would be the point of lying? It's the person who's right that can speak openly and honestly about consequences; it's the person who's wrong that tries to muddle and hide them.

It's not based on any false premises. The Bible would be God's (the devil's) propaganda, so why are you quoting it in order to try and invalidate this idea? You are forgetting that in this model God is evil and so his account on how he behaves and how Satan behaves cannot be trusted, you cannot use it to draw conclusions like you have.

Where is Satan's (God's) scripture that we know is holy and true? This goes back to the comparrison to narcissism and modesty. God is spreading all the gossip and rumour, he defames Satan in his propaganda. Satan is modest and doesn't need to do such things.

[croat1gamer]

Why do you guys ignore me?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

So, if Satan is so modest, he shouldn't have his own religion or an (un)holy book, right?

From: May 13, 2011, 02:44:42 pm

Why do you guys ignore me?

For my part, it was because your statement didn't make much sense to me.  What do you mean by this?

You two guys didnt hear for the concept of self-sacrifice and altruism?
Also, truly forgiving oneself >>> repenting.

Also, you'll have to explain how you came to the conclusion that "taking the Lord's name in vain" means applying labels to him.  To me, it means, "Don't refer to God pointlessly," like saying "oh my god" or "thank god" flippantly.

Furthermore, describing something doesn't necessarily limit it, or rather, it's not necessarily a bad thing if it does.  If I were to call God "perfect," it only limits him from being imperfect.  Besides, there's nothing wrong with limiting God.  God can't sin, by definition.  That's a limit, but so what? It's simply a logical limit.  A sin is defined by being contrary to God's will, so he can still do ANYTHING.  Those things will just never be sins.

[croat1gamer]

The book was written by Anton LaVey and constitutes around his understandings of the world.
Also, double-check what you say. At least on wikipedia.

edit:
Im in a hurry again, anycase:
Truly forgiving oneself means that you really forgave yourself for something bad that you have done, whereas repenting would mean that you grieve yourself because of some bad action and want to rectify that.
E.g. You steal 10$. You can repent by realizing it, grieving that you have done such an act, trying not to do it again and return the 10$ as a penance or doing some 'good' things. But can you live with yourself that youve stolen an amount of money, and nothing can change that fact (unless time travel is invented).

edit2:
To the "god cant sin"- If man was created on god's image, why isn't man perfect?
Considering the logical limit, god is supposed to be a divine being, thereby the logical limits cannot apply to him.

If you limit something, at least one thing will not be good on him. You always can negate something defined. Just because something seems perfect to you, doesnt mean that it is perfect to someone else. Anything applies to that except the 'fact' "God is".
Also, please read what i said/quoted considering the first sin/genesis.

[Mangled*]

So, if Satan is so modest, he shouldn't have his own religion or an (un)holy book, right?

Well firstly that isn't even canonical within Christianity.

Secondly that isn't the word of Satan and doesn't claim to be. It's not Satans Gospel.

Do you think the Gods in different religions are all the same one? If not then do you think the devil and all his manifestations in different religions are the same?

Why do you guys ignore me?

I didn't see in what way your point was relevant to the point I was making.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

bring back milkman dan. he could teach you guys a thing or two about satan

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Do you think the Gods in different religions are all the same one? If not then do you think the devil and all his manifestations in different religions are the same?

To an extent, yes.  Obviously no one is going to ever be 100% sure what exactly God is, so why shouldn't people see different sides of the same being a little differently? Allah is what the Muslims believe God is like, Yahweh is what the Jews believe God is like, and so on, but it's all the same God.  And if that's the case, why SHOULDN'T we all be thinking about the same Satan, regardless of religion?

[DarkCrusade]

So why do people think their religion is the only one and others are hairless apes?

[croat1gamer]

If you analyze the most religions, they end up pretty similar, just with their interpretations varying.

@ darkcrusade- Classic psychology- us and them.

@ mangled- Id like to hear other's opinions on my thoughts, so i can improve my viewpoints on everything.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

So why do people think their religion is the only one and others are hairless apes?

Because people are stupid, and they'd rather look for differences than similarities.

[Mangled*]

@ mangled- Id like to hear other's opinions on my thoughts, so i can improve my viewpoints on everything.

I wasn't certain what point you were making though, if you could just clarify that, it's a while ago now I know.

To an extent, yes.  Obviously no one is going to ever be 100% sure what exactly God is.

Well you seem pretty sure. I mean, like you said, the word of God overrides the word of man, so you must be pretty certain of what God is. Right? Certain enough to know that science can't touch God and science is flawed in comparrison to God. Yet you say you're not 100% certain what God is? Or do you mean everybody except you is uncertain?

I'm confused! You believe in an absolute certainty that you admit to being uncertain about.

Because people are stupid, and they'd rather look for differences than similarities.

Sort of like the stupid people who'd rather look at the differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals then? The differences that determine which is evil and which isn't. Right?

Backpedal your way out of that one.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

To an extent, yes.  Obviously no one is going to ever be 100% sure what exactly God is.

Well you seem pretty sure. I mean, like you said, the word of God overrides the word of man, so you must be pretty certain of what God is. Right? Certain enough to know that science can't touch God and science is flawed in comparison to God. Yet you say you're not 100% certain what God is? Or do you mean everybody except you is uncertain?

I'm confused! You believe in an absolute certainty that you admit to being uncertain about.

Being slightly uncertain about something is not a reason to throw it out altogether.  That's like saying, "Hey, I'm not exactly sure how fungi release spores, so they must not."  No.  Even if there are some unknowns, you go with what you believe to be the best explanation and stick to it.  I believe that we can never know everything about God, but I also believe that the Bible is our best bet for what we can know.

Because people are stupid, and they'd rather look for differences than similarities.

Sort of like the stupid people who'd rather look at the differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals then? The differences that determine which is evil and which isn't. Right?

Backpedal your way out of that one.

That's rather presumptuous use of the term "backpedal" there, almost as though you think I'm being inconsistent.  I'm not, and if you'd have been paying attention to what I said when we were talking about homosexuality, you'd know that.  Remember how I said that I considered homosexuality to be a sin, yet I still had gay friends? Remember how I said that that difference didn't matter between us, because we had a lot more in common, and as a result we were good friends? No? That's a shame, because the exact same concept applies here.  I can believe that radical Muslims are wrong when they blow themselves up to get their 70 virgins, but still accept that Islam is a religion very much like Christianity, with people trying to do God's will in return for an eternal reward.  I can see and respect similarities even in the face of differences; it's a shame you can't do the same.

[homerofgods]

Cool NASA site, somewhat related: http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html

[Mangled*]

Being slightly uncertain about something is not a reason to throw it out altogether.  That's like saying, "Hey, I'm not exactly sure how fungi release spores, so they must not."  No.  Even if there are some unknowns, you go with what you believe to be the best explanation and stick to it.  I believe that we can never know everything about God, but I also believe that the Bible is our best bet for what we can know.

But are you certain that it's okay to be uncertain when you're talking about believing in an absolute certainty? Are you certain that we can be uncertain or are you uncertain that we can be certain? Those are two subtly different things.

I see where you're coming from with the fungi, and that is actually an analogy that works!! But it's a pretty standard principal that can cater to any position. I'm certain that there was a Big Bang, I'm uncertain of the precise mechanics behind it.

That's rather presumptuous use of the term "backpedal" there, almost as though you think I'm being inconsistent.  I'm not, and if you'd have been paying attention to what I said when we were talking about homosexuality, you'd know that.  Remember how I said that I considered homosexuality to be a sin, yet I still had gay friends? Remember how I said that that difference didn't matter between us, because we had a lot more in common, and as a result we were good friends? No? That's a shame, because the exact same concept applies here.  I can believe that radical Muslims are wrong when they blow themselves up to get their 70 virgins, but still accept that Islam is a religion very much like Christianity, with people trying to do God's will in return for an eternal reward.  I can see and respect similarities even in the face of differences; it's a shame you can't do the same.

Well you've used the 'I have gay friends' card, that is backpedaling in my book, it's pretty much irrelevant if you have gay friends or not. It doesn't justify holding that belief, and it doesn't make it any better. Yeah you do have a lot in common with gay people, we all do. Because we're all people, so of course we're similar, we all have different ideas and things we like to do and well... the list is endless really. So saying you're similar to gay people, again, is just a completely pointless statement that doesn't do anything to sweeten your belief that homosexuality is a sin.

I know racist people who say it's ok because they have black friends. Sure they do, and they recognise that we all have similarities. But at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that underneath it all they still think black people are inferior. Lets pretend that bigotry doesn't really matter because we all have hands and feet.

Also do I see the similarities between Christianity and Islam, believe me. In fact I see them as being much more similar than you do. If they're so similar then why don't you become a Muslim for a week? - Because they're different enough to be different.

[KYnetiK]

Food for thought:

It's well known in psychology that narcissistic liars propagate lies both in their favour and against the ones who oppose them. Honest people don't do this as there is no necessity to twist the truth in their favour as it is already in their favour. The facts speak for themselves.

So what if God is really the devil and the devil is actually God?

-The devil tempts people to his side with the promise of eternal paradise.
-The devil proclaims that people who don't believe in him are not to be trusted.
-The devil states that people who do not beg him for forgiveness for their sins are tortured eternally.
-The devil attributes acts of evil to God's work.

Meanwhile:
-God doesn't demand to be followed.
-God doesn't make any claims against the devil.
-God is modest and silent and mysterious.

Interesting perspective isn't it? It actually fits perfectly. Though I'm sure people will disagree by default. Afterall, the devil is perfect and God is not to be trusted.

My mother and I openly discussed this concept in depth during my youth. Even as an eight year old I found it absolutely retarded that this concept was so blatantly obvious yet overlooked by so many everyday people. I find it even more retarded that over 15 years later the premise remains the same, despite the pop-culture memepool that reflects this very behaviour back at us, such as Star Wars for instance.

It was easy to conclude, even as a child, that if the Christian god is real, according to their own beliefs and flawed rationalisations, then that god was more likely to be the devil purporting to be the real god. Then you learn how Satan was invented as history and politics found convenient, and quickly realise the entire concept is hogwash - nothing more than tools of manipulation. So you turn to the next religion, only to discover the same process of deception -  a total abortion of Natural Law and interaction.

After 25 years of life, I remain convinced that if any form of religion had anything to do with reality at all, it would be an amalgamation of quantum mechanics and Daoism - metaphysics which which cannot be truly expressed or understood in language.

By applying common sense even a child can see the gaping holes in organised religion - if given the chance to learn and think for themselves.