Satan Hates Metro

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I have my own beliefs that unless I'm sitting with you having a beer, drink, coffee or whatever, I ain't getting into it! :monkey3

Good for you---
I just posted this to share something cool that my church is doing and wondering if anyone else heard about it---I know Associated Press pick up the story.

BTW---the church has decided not to use my Lord of Darkness LSB:monkey2
 
Well, technically we're all evil since we have sin--doesn't matter if it's a lot or a little, it's like accidentally dropping your hot dog in dog ^^^^, doesn't matter how much it got on there, it's ruined.

I think you may be getting mixed up in assuming someone with sin = someone who is evil.. which I completely disagree with.
 
Yeah, but eating the fruit also meant that we will all die at some point in our lives, men have to work all their lives and women have to go through intense pain giving birth, so...hrm, being a pet or living a life of pain and suffering and then death

That's a pretty nihilistic point of view to equate life with pain and suffering. But, compare that to a rock, which never lives, hence will never die. Would you prefer an opportunity to be one of the rare entities in the universe gifted with the chance to experience happiness, even if it would mean that you will one day die? Or would you prefer to mete out an existence ignorant of your condition? In the case of a pet, having all of your desires satisfied by no effort of your own, and with no risk of dissatisfaction, I see little difference between that and the existence of the rock.

Your understanding of Satan's motivations and the ramifications of "The Fall" seem tenuous at best.:rolleyes:

My understanding of Satan's motivations arise from the perspective of one who believes that Satan, nor God, exist in the first place. They are allegorical concepts used by people with a primitive level of knowledge attempting to understand their own place in the universe. In the case of the tribal Jews, they believed that the origin of Sin was mankind's possession of the capacity to know good and evil. That much is beyond debate. The first sin was the disobedience of the first human woman and man (we'll leave Lilith out of this as she was presumably born with her sin fully intact) against the commandment from God that they not partake of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil.

In reality, the one characteristic that defines humanity apart from the rest of the biological world (and beyond) is that we are capable of making the conscious choice between good and evil. To make that choice, we require knowledge of what is good and evil. It is our nature, and there is nothing criminal about it. You are free to like it or not, but your opinion of our nature is not going to change it. Like all facts of nature, it is absolute.

If Satan was the allegorical entity that bequeathed that nature to us, I would like to shake his hand. How people choose to use the power of free will is not "His" fault. It is their own. Their evil choices are their own, and their good choices are their own. That is the only real ramification of The Fall, other than the insistence that we should be somehow penitent for being what we are; that it is somekind of black mark on our perfection and worthiness of esteem in the face of the greater Universe. I agree that to choose evil is a sin. I do not agree that the ability to choose condemns one as a sinner from birth. That's just self-loathing written into a universal law. Even rocks don't hate themselves on principle.

:rotfl.....on a serious note though, I believe the devil, satan or whatever the hell u wanna call him is the best representation of mankind in general IMO....just my two cents, y'all...

That's a fact. At the same time, there is planty of humanity represented in the personage of God. Think of how many out there would prefer that mankid was not free to make it's own choices and live it's own life. Think of how many wish that they were the sole authority on what was good or evil. Think of how many have tried, and think of the destruction that they are responsible for.

Personally, if I were going to choose a symbol of pure evil, that would be it.

I dunno. I tend to believe that most people are basically good (or at least have the inclination to be good). To say that the embodiment of evil represents an entire species is perhaps overdoing it.

I basically believe, rather than painting a box red and tossing the whole of humanity in it, its more accurate to acknowledge that every person is in a constant state of flux between cursing humanity and blessing it.

I think that equating Satan with evil is overdoing it. Like I said above, Satan only opened the door. Whether we enter the room to love, or enter the room to kill is our own issue; not Satan's.
 
Last edited:
No argument here. Growing up in a Catholic household, I never really understood the Christian concept of God. Even Jesus. Honestly, I equate "God" as a fascist and Jesus as a hippie. That's why I always side with dear Lucie......the first and original rebel!:rock
 
That's a pretty nihilistic point of view to equate life with pain and suffering. But, compare that to a rock, which never lives, hence will never die. Would you prefer an opportunity to be one of the rare entities in the universe gifted with the chance to experience happiness, even if it would mean that you will one day die? Or would you prefer to mete out an existence ignorant of your condition? In the case of a pet, having all of your desires satisfied by no effort of your own, and with no risk of dissatisfaction, I see little difference between that and the existence of the rock.

I think we are quite ignorant of our condition anyways. We only know what we can be told, or what we can figure out for ourselves, but we couldn't possibly understand things that don't follow the same rules. Like trying to think of what a new color would look like, we can't possibly imagine.

The scope of our understanding is limited and so we are ignorant of a great many things.

And I think people can experience happiness without having to experience pain.
 
Sin makes us human. A willful lack of self control in the face of knowledge makes us evil.

So yeah, again, different definitions.
 
Good for you---
I just posted this to share something cool that my church is doing and wondering if anyone else heard about it---I know Associated Press pick up the story.

BTW---the church has decided not to use my Lord of Darkness LSB:monkey2

I hope you don't think that was meant as a shot at you or your church. It was just a blanket statement because it looked like some were going to get into a religious discussion/debate.

I didn't hear about this until your post. It is a cool way of getting across that message. It would never go over around here because most of the really religious people are too uptight.
 
I think we are quite ignorant of our condition anyways. We only know what we can be told, or what we can figure out for ourselves, but we couldn't possibly understand things that don't follow the same rules. Like trying to think of what a new color would look like, we can't possibly imagine.

The scope of our understanding is limited and so we are ignorant of a great many things.

Right. Rocks could have feelings and complex intellects. Wait, no they couldn't: they're rocks.

A new color would not be conceivable because the electromagnetic spectrum only produces seven visible wavelengths. What color are the invisible wavelengths? To the human eye, they produce no color. What does it matter that there is a possibility that they produce color to a non-human eye? What relevance does that have for any of the rest of human knowledge, other than that a hypothetical species might be able to visually perceive other wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation? Yes, there might be such a species. There might be a gremlin dancing on your head too, but he's invisible, and weightless, so he exists outside the power of your senses and you'll never know. Maybe there are flying monkeys pooping on us all day, but the poop is invisible, and weightless, and textureless, and scentless.

Do you see how meaningless that objection is? To say that we don't know anything because I can sit here all day making up imaginary scenarios that can't be 'refuted' because they are completely made up, is nonsense. Human beings have volition, and it is what distinguishes them from all other conscious organisms. This is an observable fact.

If you don't want to believe that you are conscious, just because your consciousness is a human consciousness, that's your business. Myself, I don't know what other kind of consciousness I could have. I'm a human, I'm conscious, and I don't see how those two facts conflict. Your example about color amounts to saying that we're blind because we have eyes.

No, we're not.
 
Sin makes us human. A willful lack of self control in the face of knowledge makes us evil.

So yeah, again, different definitions.

Wasn't Adam human before he sinned?

Right. Rocks could have feelings and complex intellects. Wait, no they couldn't: they're rocks.

A new color would not be conceivable because the electromagnetic spectrum only produces seven visible wavelengths. What color are the invisible wavelengths? To the human eye, they produce no color. What does it matter that there is a possibility that they produce color to a non-human eye? What relevance does that have for any of the rest of human knowledge, other than that a hypothetical species might be able to visually perceive other wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation? Yes, there might be such a species. There might be a gremlin dancing on your head too, but he's invisible, and weightless, so he exists outside the power of your senses and you'll never know. Maybe there are flying monkeys pooping on us all day, but the poop is invisible, and weightless, and textureless, and scentless.

Do you see how meaningless that objection is? To say that we don't know anything because I can sit here all day making up imaginary scenarios that can't be 'refuted' because they are completely made up, is nonsense. Human beings have volition, and it is what distinguishes them from all other conscious organisms. This is an observable fact.

If you don't want to believe that you are conscious, just because your consciousness is a human consciousness, that's your business. Myself, I don't know what other kind of consciousness I could have. I'm a human, I'm conscious, and I don't see how those two facts conflict. Your example about color amounts to saying that we're blind because we have eyes.

No, we're not.

Wow, you completely didn't understand what I was saying.

Whatever, religious threads are useless here anyways, most people here are athiests and in any case people have enough ideas about things and aren't going to change them from what they read here.
 
Then what were you saying?

And 9 times out of 10, the atheists believe the exact same things the theists believe (they usually replace God with something else), so I don't see what's useless about countering their justifications for belief.
 
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
(King David of Israel)
Psalm 14:1
 
I believe Adam existed, yes. Though I believe the creation (as found in the bible) is largely allegorical.

Per Adam being human, from an LDS perspective before "the fall" Adam was (for lack of a better word) a lesser sort of god. He was given dominion over the earth. Death had not entered into the picture and the world was basically in a paradisaical state.
 
And I'm speaking to the allegory. I don't believe that a state of subservience is preferable to a state of independence. If there is a God, I don't believe He is good if what He wanted for humanity was the non-autonomous state of being experienced by Adam and Eve prior to The Fall.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
(King David of Israel)
Psalm 14:1

And a monkey says in his heart, give me another ^^^^ing banana.
 
I hope you don't think that was meant as a shot at you or your church. It was just a blanket statement because it looked like some were going to get into a religious discussion/debate.

I didn't hear about this until your post. It is a cool way of getting across that message. It would never go over around here because most of the really religious people are too uptight.

No I did not think it was a shot at the church---I understand what you are saying.
I think it is good to have a respectful dialog without being uptight.
 
I believe Adam existed, yes. Though I believe the creation (as found in the bible) is largely allegorical.

Per Adam being human, from an LDS perspective before "the fall" Adam was (for lack of a better word) a lesser sort of god. He was given dominion over the earth. Death had not entered into the picture and the world was basically in a paradisaical state.

really!?.....:confused:
 
I don't believe He is good if what He wanted for humanity was the non-autonomous state of being experienced by Adam and Eve prior to The Fall.

And you are right. He didn't want humanity to sort of coast eternally.

From the Book of Mormon: Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
 
Back
Top