top 100 commentsshow all 127

[–]HongKongPhooey 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Don't listen to him, hes a fraud. The real satanists are here https://thesatanictemple.com/

[–]chickenz 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I will share with you something... I am not sure of the details, but I was told that the story in the bible is that Adam and eve had a few children and then sometime later one of the children left to go somewhere and came upon a city of some kind..

Where did these people in this city come from?

BTW, I have met purely evil people that can recite the bible forwards and backwards

[–]HongKongPhooey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That is in the bible, and thats a great question chickenz

[–]chickenz 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]TarBaby 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

East of Eden in the Land of Nod. The gentiles existed. Adam and Eve were the first Jewish people God created, everyone else is a gentile unless they are related to Adam and Eve.

[–]chickenz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So, Adam and eve were the first, or not?

Omg, why has everyone been teaching in xtianity that they were the very first humans, if they weren't?

That is messed up, cuz that entirely changes the whole story.

[–]TarBaby 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Adam and Eve are the first humans in the garden of Eden, which they got chased out of when The Devil tempted them to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. They are the first Jewish people. They have to live on Earth after that and meet other humans who were created later so they had something to keep the bloodline going on without resorting to incest.

[–]chickenz 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Compared to my being told that Adam and eve were absolutely the first two people to exist..

Why people gotta lie?

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If they did not entirely propagate through incest then none of thier progeny is pure. They would need to mix every generation with more goy until they become them almost entirely.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, both stories clearly have all life being created right then and there. The real explanation is multiple legends were strung together and some of them are contradictory. The person who wrote Genesis 4 is clearly not the same one who wrote Genesis 2-3.

The Jewish people didn't exist until Moses, or at least Abraham. That's assuming Jews were ever really a separate class from gentiles, which the evidence shows they made that up.

[–]TarBaby 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

An excuse to sell pornography as a religion.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Selling porn is legal.

[–]HongKongPhooey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

The Dark Lord be praised 🙏👺

[–]satan666[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

You aren't even funny..

[–]HongKongPhooey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Funny? I'm serious, thanks for posting this, I think you are going to help a lot of people

[–]chickenz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

The bottom line behind the church of Satan, if you take the time to read their materials like I have, is that they do not actually believe in any Satan but that they are simply mocking the religious systems.

The following video is of Anton Lacey, the founder of the church of Satan in San Francisco

https://youtu.be/8m3hHYtdegw

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

This is true. But I have no doubt that it's orchestrated by the real devil to false flag Christian virtues as Satanic.

[–]chickenz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I play a lot, but I have witnessed the raw divine power of our creator. He can literally do any thing. He can bend the rules of the universe.

Satan orchestrates nothing, except that which he is allowed to orchestrate.

Evil knows, but It is the blind that can not see.

BTW, Islam plays a big role in this play.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

He's allowed to orchestrate basically everything. Even the laws of the universe are clearly his doing. Power and evil and bad always win here.

[–]chickenz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are a well educated person, so I will hesitate to debate or even disagree with you.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's a dangerous way to think.

[–]chickenz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have read many of your comments here, and so it is obvious you are extremely well educated, especially about religion topics.

Call me mr danger, that's how I roll.

[–]HongKongPhooey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Obey or feel gods wrath isn't exactly a profound moral teaching

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's not how it was framed by the original Christians. That was when the church took over. Another problem is that in the ancient languages most often it merely says "anger" rather than "wrath". And a lot of times "of God" was added later.

The Old Testament indeed sometimes had the "OBEY" attitude. That's because human authors perceived it that way. Everyone forgets that people wrote all these books and acts like God dropped them out of the sky. That's literally what I thought as a kid because that's how they make it sound. This is true of every single book. None are attributed to God or Jesus, even by tradition. Always one of their disciples.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Satan is far more forgiving than god. Don't piss that guy off or he'll go and smite you.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I can see where you're getting the second part from, but what makes you think Satan of all people is forgiving?

The ruthless god you speak of is actually the demiurge...who is identified as "Σατανας" in the Bible.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The question for me would be, why would I want Satan to be forgiving? God has a documented habit of being angry, jealous and genocidal. Satan gave free will, I find it unreasonable to assume that there be an expectation of forgiveness if this is misused.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That "God" is either filtered through human minds or Satan himself. The whole reason he gave us free will was not to help us, but rather because he knew it would be impossible for us to never choose evil, thus he would be able to condemn us indefinitely to reincarnate into his awful matrix world. That's why he is called Satan, because his main goal is to get everyone condemned. He is identified as "the god of this world".

Megathius had an interesting take on this. He believed in three main powers: God the Father, the "just" demiurge of the Jews, and the wicked pagan pantheon. If he was correct both the snake and the god in the Eden story could be bad. However I do find it more likely that it's simply meant to convey a message and not be broken down and have every little detail examined. It may have been a coded message against the law theology developing in Judaism, much like Revelation is coded so the Roman authorities couldn't understand it. And because of this it was able to survive. Then when it was possible to say it straightforward again, Paul wrote obsessively about how knowledge of good and evil comes from law and always leads to condemnation and death. You can either live by faith and mercy or die under law and condemnation. This wasn't new; the same ideas are found in the old prophets and wisdom literature, especially Jeremiah 7-8. The Torah is newer than those books, Ezra and the temple priests made it up to control people, with the help of certain angels and previously written fragments. Ezra also despised gentiles, the exact opposite of Paul. Paul's view makes perfect sense; Ezra's reeks of self-righteousness and hatred.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a stepping stone to true Satanism. The removed all the things people instantly reject so they can indoctrinate them with the base ideals. From those ideals true evil can be grown.

[–]HongKongPhooey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

if you take the time to read their materials like I have, is that they do not actually believe in any Satan but that they are simply mocking the religious systems.

No, they absolutely don't believe in Satan or God, and they are mocking religious systems, but not only that. It is a rejection of the entire moral system of Christianity as something undesirable because it is about obedience, submission to authority, and not doing bad things for fear of punishment by a vengeful father figure, rather than truly being moral, while Satan in his insistence on thinking for himself and refusing to serve another is the one displaying admirable qualities, even if they think they are fictional characters.

Their whole satanism schtick is too silly for my taste, but I rather agree with their assessment

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is a rejection of the entire moral system of Christianity

It's worse than that. That is where it starts because they can use examples of religious tyranny to push the claim that morality is tyranny. But they claim that there is no absolute right or wrong. That all morality is personal opinions being foisted on others.

They do this because the people who believe that won't challenge evil. Even when they know something is wrong they hide behind the excuse of "it's not my right to interfere". It takes a lot of courage and strength to stand up to evil and an excuse like that will keep a lot of people from summoning that courage. People need to feel shame when allowing evil.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The real purpose is to false flag Christian ideas as Satanic and help make Christianity into how you described it. If you look closely they believe in most of the things Jesus does, but claim them for themselves and act like Christianity is opposed to them. Then Christians believe it and start doing the opposite. It's crazy how deep this rabbit hole goes.

[–]jet199Instigatrix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Edge Lord be pissed

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You have been bamboozled.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Why is your lorde enslaving us in this torture matrix? Is it experimentation or just for kicks? And why do I seem so important to it?

[–]HongKongPhooey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

You are confused good sir, god is the authoritarian creator of the matrix, and satan is basically Morpheus

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

In that analogy Satan would obviously be the rougue program Neo fights.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Agent Smith. The collectivist. Everyone has to be him, no dissent allowed.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

He only spread like that to gain power. His goal was not to simply absorb everyone for the sake of absorbing everyone. He wanted freedom from the matrix. He would destroy everything to get control. He is the fallen angel that rejected the authority of the matrix.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You are one-dimensional. The matrix is clearly bad too and Neo also rejected it. Not everyone who's evil is on the same side, this isn't Disneyland. Not only that, but the machines didn't even care about Smith until Neo showed them that he would assimilate them too.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The matrix isn't bad. What is bad are the totalitarian forces in control of the matrix. Many people would choose to live there. If people had the choice to live there or live outside the matrix there would be no problem.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But we don't have a choice, and neither did the people in the movie until Neo made a deal...and the machines ended up double crossing him anyway.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We do have a choice.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Okay, then I'd really appreciate it if you'd tell me how because I really can't stand it here.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then why does the Bible call him "the god of this world" while God is "not of this world"? Why is Jesus so obsessed with providing a way out that he subjects himself to unthinkable torture to get it? New evidence is showing that the real threat is the rulers of this world and reincarnation traps, not "Hell". Hell is here. This is what the church forgot in their crusade against gnosticism, and even more so now that all they care about is culture wars for some reason.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (76 children)

Lucifer is the light 🤘

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (72 children)

How has lucfer made the world better?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (71 children)

Lucifer roughly translates as "morning star", "shining one", or the "bringer of light". It predates Christianity and refers astronomically to Venus, the brightest star in the sky.

Christians personify and refer to Lucifer as the devil, the fallen star from heaven. It is said that evil only exists in the world because of the free will brought upon by Lucifer.

Christians tend to think everything is evil, so I'd argue that free will has made the world better in many ways.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (51 children)

It is said that evil only exists in the world because of the free will brought upon by Lucifer.

That is said by Luciferians because thier propaganda proclaims that God does not give man free will. The Christian version says that the tree of knowledge gave Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil. That made them responsible for thier evil deeds. It gave them desires that are evil.

A young child that does not know better and takes whatever they can is not a kleptomaniac. In the same way Adam ans Eve were not capable of evil before they could understand it.

Another interpretation of the apple tree is that it represents sex. It gave them "carnal knowledge" which just means the ability to have sex and procreate. And God kicked them out of eden because of that.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (47 children)

In the same way Adam ans Eve were not capable of evil before they could understand it.

This stems from the same argument that people did not know stealing and murder was bad until the ten commandments were brought to them. It's largely nonsense to any common sense reader.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (46 children)

Those two arguments are very different. One speaks to a fundamental, magical change in the nature of humanity and consciousness. The other makes no claim that humanity was profoundly changed, it simply purports that being told something is the only way in which it can be realized. You are conflating them to make the first guilty by association with the absurdity of the latter.

Frankly the commandments argument is far more similar to the luciferian argument that morality is subjective. The argument goes like this: If two men disagree on what is moral which of them is right? In most cases there is no objective way to decide. Because of this there is no objective morality it is just a bunch of opinions, all of which are equally valid. So if I think murder is morally good that opinion negates your opinion that it is not. Therfore without an authority figure to dictate what is right and wrong nothing can truly be right or wrong, it's all just opinions. The commandments are that decision from the ultimate authority, and in that way they make murder wrong.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

It is a fantasy to imagine humans created perfect only to be corrupted, and later requiring a divine authority to dictate what is deemed as good and evil in an attempt to resolve this issue.

I am of the opinion that yes, morality is subjective. To believe otherwise is to ignore the varied cultures which have developed independently of eachother which hold very different standards of what is deemed morally acceptable. Philosophy has sought the answers to morality far longer than through religion and will do so long after these ancient texts die out.

That is one of those religious bullshits someone made up to manipulate people.

I relate the two because they are equally absurd, and both are the type of made up bullshit designed to inspire primitive minds and manipulate a community.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

It is a fantasy

So is luciferianism. The church of Satan. Every religion. Every non religious speculation of everything unprovable. Everything others say is proven but you can't verify yourself.

It's not a good argument to push one fantasy with the claim that the other fantasy is a fantasy.

and later requiring a divine authority to dictate what is deemed as good and evil in an attempt to resolve this issue.

Strawman argument. This was not how any religion presents thier argument. You invented this twisted retelling of the premise to resemble the original but be fundamentally flawed. Do better.

God is there from the beginning, and the argument for a God has zero to do with man, morality, the apple, judgement, or any of it. God is not created to resolve any issue with man's imperfection.

I am of the opinion that yes, morality is subjective.

A subjective morality means there is no right or wrong. Who are you to tell anyone else, be it a murderer or child rapist or dictator, that what they are doing is wrong? After all that is just your opinion and thier opinion says it's OK so long as they can justify it to themselves.

To believe otherwise is to ignore the varied cultures

No it's not. They are wrong. That is a belief intrinsic to your ideology. I don't think all cultures are equally good or equally moral.

Philosophy has sought the answers to morality far longer than through religion

And what is the philosophical answer? Because you already said morality is subjective and that is no different than saying it doesn't exist.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

So is luciferianism. The church of Satan. Every religion. Every non religious speculation of everything unprovable.

I agree, as an atheist, all these things are fiction to me.

It's not a good argument to push one fantasy with the claim that the other fantasy is a fantasy.

Now we're getting somewhere.

God is not created to resolve any issue with man's imperfection.

God was not created for resolution, but I did not suggest such. But the intervention of god was intended to resolve.

After all that is just your opinion and thier opinion says it's OK so long as they can justify it to themselves.

This is generally how civilization has evolved, we collectively come to an agreed moral code within our individual communities.

They are wrong.

They may beg to differ, buddy.

That is a belief intrinsic to your ideology.

I try to avoid alignment with any specific ideology. I joined this conversation for fun and some vague interest in the contradictory nature of religious and mythological history.

And what is the philosophical answer?

Where would you like to begin? The religious argument seems set on moral absolutism, whereas I might prefer a more relativistic approach. Nietzsche proposed that morality is connected to the individual culture. This is perhaps a better reflection of reality than that which religion attempts to push onto a culture.

[–]HongKongPhooey 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nietzsche proposed that morality is connected to the individual culture.

I think Gauthier proposed an interesting framework of morality based on Natural Law and Game Theory (Prisoner's Dilemma). This theory shows that mutual agreement/consent and the Tit-for-Tat strategy result in optimal social outcomes, and form the basis of common morality.

I.E. We see in all cultures that theft and murder are considered immoral, and this relates to game theory and natural law. In a small community in the absence of laws, people will tend to form this agreement naturally, as it is benefits the everyone to not have to vigilantly watch for thefts. Even if one person out of a community of 10 were to use his strength to take what he wanted, natural law dictates the other 9 ought to form an agreement to work together as a stronger group to put down the strong individual, and thus even the bully agrees out of self interest, and the optimal condition is achieved by adhering to these agreed upon codes of conduct, and punishing those that fail to practice the optimal strategy and harm the group as well as themselves

In case you are interested in more than my ad hoc explanation that likely does not do these ideas justice, this is the work I refer to. I am a fan of Nietzsche, but admit I am partial to this theory, which is actually quite similar to Kaczynski's writing on morality. No hard feelings if this isn't your bag, I just share because its something I found interesting, and I hold your taste in high esteem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#David_Gauthier's_Morals_By_Agreement_(1986)

David Gauthier's Morals By Agreement (1986) Main article: Contractarian ethics David Gauthier "neo-Hobbesian" theory argues that cooperation between two independent and self-interested parties is indeed possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics.[23] Gauthier notably points out the advantages of cooperation between two parties when it comes to the challenge of the prisoner's dilemma. He proposes that, if two parties were to stick to the original agreed-upon arrangement and morals outlined by the contract, they would both experience an optimal result.[23][24] In his model for the social contract, factors including trust, rationality, and self-interest keep each party honest and dissuade them from breaking the rules.[23][24]

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is generally how civilization has evolved, we collectively come to an agreed moral code within our individual communities.

This is generally how religion evolves. It is the multi generational moral framework that has stood the test of time and been analyzed and crafted by the wisdom of the ages. Therfore it is the best moral framework. God as an author is there so everyone doesn't feel they have the right to modify it according to thier whims.

Meanwhile we exist in a society controlled by elite pedophiles who only relatively recently secured power and are using that power to subvert that moral framework because they want to be allowed to rape children, hoard all the wealth and power, subjugate everyone, have young children sexualised and performing sexual acts on camera, chemically castrate young boys so they can have eunuch sex toys like the Romans had.

To that end they have brainwashed fools into rejecting the religious, and believing that morality is meaningless.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They may beg to differ, buddy.

Thier shit society proves they are wrong.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I try to avoid alignment with any specific ideology.

That's good, but you still have an ideology even if it is unique to you. Everyone does.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nietzsche proposed that morality is connected to the individual culture. This is perhaps a better reflection of reality than that which religion attempts to push onto a culture.

Religions ARE cultural constructs.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

So you want collectivism and tyranny of the majority. Mob rule is not a good idea.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How is morality not objective? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that harming someone is wrong.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is it wrong to harm someone in order to stop them from harming others?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the simple things, but all morality is so complicated not even a genius could get it all right on thier own. The best moral code so far is the religious one.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is it wrong to harm someone in order to stop them from harming others?

Try not to, but if you must then choose the lesser of the two evils. The problem with people is they usually want to brutally torture them just for kicks.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the simple things, but all morality is so complicated not even a genius could get it all right on thier own.

I'd say choosing the least of all the evils is a fairly evident solution.

The best moral code so far is the religious one.

There is no "the religious moral code". Religions are just as bad at determining what their religion prescribes, and even within the same one they can't agree, let alone across different ones.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

There doesn't need to be an authority figure. That's a lie the church made up to control people, of course appointing itself as that authority figure.

Morality is so simple, but most people have too much pride to admit that the standard is something they haven't even come close to.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

There doesn't need to be an authority figure.

There does because without one morality is subjective and therfore it does not really exist. I keep saying this but I don't think you are understanding it.

If no moral framework can be said to be better than any other than none of them have any validity.

A moral framework that has supremacy over others can't be altered willy nilly, or it would simply become a tool of the bourgeoisie to control the proletariat. Even though you can make the argument that they can corrupt anything over time, a religion based morality with widely disseminated teachings can't easily be altered.

If the religious teachings make the moral code alterable by men then that all falls apart and the bourgeoisie have instant access to control it. That is very bad for everyone.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Okay now you're literally using communist terminology, so idk if it's even worth trying to convince you. But I will say it's pretty obvious that harming someone is wrong, period. All the other superficial "morals" are religious inventions by humans. They're wrong and based solely on whether or not "I don't like it".

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

They're wrong and based solely on whether or not "I don't like it".

Bullshit. You simply don't agree with thier moral judgement so you slander thier decisions with these claims.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

A moral code needs to be far more robust that that platitude. If a murderer is going around killing people do I have the moral right to kill them even though I would not want them to kill me?

What about other moral questions. If homosexuality destroys societies should it not be considered immoral? I don't want society destroyed. I also don't want people to restrict my sexual desires. There is far more to this than you seem to have considered.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If a murderer is going around killing people do I have the moral right to kill them even though I would not want them to kill me?

If you must, choose the lesser of the two evils. It's pretty straightforward.

What about other moral questions. If homosexuality destroys societies should it not be considered immoral?

Those aren't moral questions, they are literally "I don't like X therefore X should not be allowed". This is reddit levels of powertripping.

I don't want society destroyed.

Then you are brainwashed by it.

I also don't want people to restrict my sexual desires.

Then it's wrong for them to do so. Unless you're going to rape or something, which I hope I didn't need to specify.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Those aren't moral questions, they are literally "I don't like X therefore X should not be allowed". This is reddit levels of powertripping.

Wrong. YOU are twisting the homosexual question into that because you personally like homosexuality and can't accept that it has negative externalities.

Other people consider it immoral to give into homosexual desires and thier moral judgment is just as valid as yours, right?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The tree of knowledge is clearly the law. Look how Romans 3:20 puts it:

Because in (the) law all flesh will not be made right in his eyes; for through the law is full knowledge of wrong.

Paul may not have realized it, but the parallels are clear. The tree of knowledge makes you guilty. The law also makes you guilty. The tree of knowledge kills you. The law also kills you. The tree of knowledge gives knowledge of wrong. The law also gives knowledge of wrong.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Like I already said: the tree of knowledge makes you guilty because you knew better and did it anyway. A child that takes things is not a thief because they don't have the brain development to know better. Stealing is wrong even if the child doesn't understand, and it's the parents responsibility and right to prevent the child from stealing.

Your analogy is reaching. I don't think it's a logical similarity.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How can you know better without having that knowledge? They were given a warning but didn't understand its consequences.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is not free will. This is a mind torture slavery prison reincarnation matrix where it takes an unbelievable amount of strength to overcome the flesh.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Lucifer roughly translates as "morning star",

That is one of those religious bullshits someone made up to manipulate people. Lucfer is the name of an angel that rebelled against God and was banished from heaven. Giving his name additional meanings so you can make claims about him based on those additional meanings is bullshit.

Venus is called the morning star because in the early morning the light washes out all the stars and only Venus is still visible. It appears to bring out the sun. Venus is the light bringer.

One plausible explanation for how Lucifer became associated with Venus goes like this: the Natives in America used to worship a God that they appeased by offerings of pain and suffering. They would brutally torture captives, especially settlers they captured, in order to please this God. The settlers categorized this as luciferian worship, probably because they seen similar things from pegans in Europe. One of the settlers told the Natives that Venus was Lucifer and they should pray to that instead of torturing people.

I personally find that story dubious, as I find most religious stories dubious. But the validity of the story is irrelevant. What matters is that it could have happened like this, or in a simmilar way. Because, frankly, this makes a lot more sense than anything as to why lucifer is associated with a planet.

At the end of the day these kinds of "this name means that" is ultimately a centuries old game of telephone. Trying to extract meaning from the minutia of the resulting gibberish is foolish.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is one of those religious bullshits someone made up to manipulate people.

Yes, most religion can be summed up this way. Much like the nonsense story of the birth of Jebus, it is an astronomical story, not a story of a boy. The three kings following the north star are the three stars on Orion's belt, they appear to follow the north star in the sky. Jebus was born of the young woman under the constellation Virgo. The sun 'dies' for three days in December before being 'reborn'. It is all the personification of the world around us.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

"Morning star" is actually the correct one. "Lucifer" was a misinterpretation by some translators.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Highly doubt it. Lucifer is a fallen angel and stars are up in the heavens. It's a contradiction to call Venus a fallen angel.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Lucifer was invented by translators. You won't find him in the Bible except in the Latin Vulgate and KJV.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Tell that to the church of Satan.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The church of satan is just a mockery of Christianity

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, it's also normalizing the idea that morality is subjective.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'd argue that free will has made the world better in many ways.

Is free will not the origin of all evil?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If you had no free will but had a choice, would you take it even if it had the potential for evil?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"No free will" is very broad and can be twisted to mean anything. Just to be clear, in this context it simply means not having the ability to do evil. I would choose not to have the ability to do evil and the guaranteed entry into heaven. I would choose to have unempeechable trust from everyone.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would choose against evil too. However that won't always get you trust or praise from others, in fact it's more likely to get you crucified. There's also no such thing as "heaven", though you could call exodus from the matrix heaven. And you do have another guaranteed ticket out available for you. As long as you don't fall for the deceptions, which could fool you in either case.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What about times where inaction would be evil, and that by committing a small sin is for the greater good? To steal a loaf of bread for a starving family is a sin.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What if you were forced to do evil?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know. I guess the context matters. I don't think simply being forced is a valid excuse, but if you can't physically resist then you can't be responsible.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's not even a real name, that's a mistranslation of "morning star".

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Most of the Christian religion is a mistranslation, this doesn't stop most modern believers thinking Mary was a virgin and not simply a young woman.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know. And if people could see this they would understand how Satanism makes no sense at all.