Satan gave man love. Was it worth the hate?


French Patriot
#1
Satan gave man love. Was it worth the hate?

Adam thought so. He instantly and without argument orhesitation ate of that knowledge when Eve offered love to Adam.

Without Satan causing Original Sin, mankind could no know oflove or hate as love and hate are subject to being good or evil.

Would you do as Adam did?

Was Satan right in opening our eyes to love and hate?

Should we venerate Satan more than Yahweh who tried to deny mankindlove?

Regards
DL
 
Walter
#2
Go away, Avro.
 
French Patriot
-1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Go away, Avro.



Bite me brain dead fool.


Regards
DL
 
Walter
#4
Ad hominem is a poor argument, Avro, Go away.
 
French Patriot
+1
#5  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Ad hominem is a poor argument, Avro, Go away.

Bite me brain dead fool.


You obviously cannot form an argument or you would have instead of going into idiot mode.


Go away fool or be ignored.


Regards
DL
 
Walter
#6
Ad hominem is a poor argument, Avro. Go away.
 
ShintoMale
#7
Quote:

Satan gave man love. Was it worth the hate?

Satan did not gave man love.

Quote:

Adam thought so. He instantly and without argument orhesitation ate of that knowledge when Eve offered love to Adam.


wrong Adam and Eve were deceived. Adam and Eve were close to God. Satan told them they can become like God or like a god. which is impossible.

Quote:

Would you do as Adam did?

huh? no


Quote:

Was Satan right in opening our eyes to love and hate?

no Satan was rebelling against God and seeking allies in his rebellion.

Quote:

Should we venerate Satan more than Yahweh who tried to deny mankindlove?

wrong Yahweh was not denying mankind love. Yahwe created a garden for Adam and Eve in the garden they have everything they can live on and survive on.


what you are preaching is Luciferianism/Gnosticism this is preached in secret societies, secret orders like the Ordo Templi Orientis. this can be found in new age circles where they teach people,l can ascend and become godlike. The transhumanism movement also teach the Luciferian doctrine claiming that people can merge with machines and become like gods


Bill Cooper explain this clearly


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJSGnT-j4QE
 
Cliffy
-1
#8
The stories of the old testament are plagiarized from the Sumerian text, the epoch of Gilgamesh. They were written as allegories and metaphors. They were never meant to be taken literally.
 
French Patriot
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ShintoMale View Post



what you are preaching is Luciferianism/Gnosticism this is preached in secret societies, secret orders like the Ordo Templi Orientis. this can be found in new age circles where they teach people,l can ascend and become godlike. The transhumanism movement also teach the Luciferian doctrine claiming that people can merge with machines and become like gods


Bill Cooper explain this clearly


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJSGnT-j4QE


If I am preaching Luciferianism/Gnosticisn, does that even exist as we have no supernatural beliefs, then you must see the Jews as doing the same as they see Eden as where man was elevated and not where we fell.


Thanks for trying to label me incorrectly though.


I will deal with your other points separately.


http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...tive-theodicy/


[COLOR=rgba(51, 51, 51, 0.7)] ‘Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(51, 51, 51, 0.7)]
[/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgba(51, 51, 51, 0.7)] Regards
DL

[/COLOR]
 
ShintoMale
#10
Quote:

If I am preaching Luciferianism/Gnosticisn, does that even exist as we have no supernatural beliefs, then you must see the Jews as doing the same as they see Eden as where man was elevated and not where we fell.

sorry not buying the tired old excuse that "we have no supernatural beliefs" that is deception you all claim to have no supernatural beliefs but love to talk about Satan and praising him and practice rituals that invert Christian worship services and sacraments.

a recent example is the so-called Satanic Temple


in the FAQ they claim they do not worship satan but recently have an event that have blood letting and other rituals whic are supernatural in nature

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lack-Mass.html
 
French Patriot
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by ShintoMale View Post

Satan did not gave man love.

To love or not is a choice. Can you know good and evil or love and hate without the knowledge of what those are?


You have to know of the positive sides of both as well as the negative sides of both to make a free willed choice. Right?

IOW. You have to know what is on the menu before ordering what you want. Right?



wrong Adam and Eve were deceived. Adam and Eve were close to God. Satan told them they can become like God or like a god. which is impossible.



That is not what scriptures say. They say Eve was deceived while Adam just sinned and that is why they say that because of Adams sin death came to the earth.

Do you think it strange that Christians sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan?


huh? no

Then you would prefer being as bright as a brick and too stupid to even know you were naked. Ok.


no Satan was rebelling against God and seeking allies in his rebellion.



He already had a third of the heavenly hosts and A & E, not knowing anything about good and evil would not see her as any better or worse than god.


wrong Yahweh was not denying mankind love. Yahwe created a garden for Adam and Eve in the garden they have everything they can live on and survive on.


Sure, but love is generally good even as it has evil components and A & E had no idea of anything good or evil as they had yet to consume that knowledge.


Regards
DL
 
French Patriot
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ShintoMale View Post

sorry not buying the tired old excuse that "we have no supernatural beliefs" that is deception you all claim to have no supernatural beliefs but love to talk about Satan and praising him and practice rituals that invert Christian worship services and sacraments.

a recent example is the so-called Satanic Temple


in the FAQ they claim they do not worship satan but recently have an event that have blood letting and other rituals whic are supernatural in nature

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lack-Mass.html


Nothing Gnostic Christian there.


If you are going to tell me what I believe instead of asking me, perhaps we should end this here.


I see that you ignored more intelligent than Christian Jewish view and seem to have an axe to grind on Gnostic Christianity as well as the Jews.


Are you a Muslim of just one who wants to ignore facts?


Regards
DL
 
ShintoMale
#13
Quote:

Nothing Gnostic Christian there.

Gnosticism is similar to Luciferianism/satanism they believe that God in the bible is Evil

Quote:

If you are going to tell me what I believe instead of asking me, perhaps we should end this here.

ypou have posts all over the place praising Satan claiming he is good. don't give this "we are atheists " nonsense

Quote:

I see that you ignored more intelligent than Christian Jewish view and seem to have an axe to grind on Gnostic Christianity as well as the Jews.


Jews and Christians don't praise Satan
 
French Patriot
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

The stories of the old testament are plagiarized from the Sumerian text, the epoch of Gilgamesh. They were written as allegories and metaphors. They were never meant to be taken literally.


I agree and that is why I post to literalists as a way to show them how foolish the literal reading of myths are.


Our friend has a mind full of supernatural beliefs, I think, and that is why he is accusing Gnostic Christians of having the same mind destroying foolish beliefs in the supernatural.


Regards
DL
 
ShintoMale
#15
KRISHNA, AB claims, was virgin born, with shepherds/wise men appearing at his birth, that he was crucified etc. However, none of that is true.
Krishna was not born of a virgin. He was the eighth son of Princess Devaki and Vasudeva: “You have been born of the divine Devaki and Vasudeva for the protection of Brahma on earth.” (Mahabharata Bk 12, XLVIII).

It is the newer texts (Puranas, Bhagyatas, Hariyamsa) which incorporate such tales, but these were written mostly between 400-1000AD i.e. after the life of Jesus.

Krishna’s father was not a carpenter. Vasudeva was a nobleman in the courts of Mathura. His foster-father was a cow-herd: “Thou art the most beloved of Nanda, the Cow-herd” (Bhagavata, Bk 8, I, pg 743).

Krishna was not born in a manger. He was born secretly in prison, with no shepherds or wise men. And he was not crucified either. He was killed by a hunter who “mistaking [Krishna], who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft” (Mahabharata Book 16,4)

DIONYSUS, AB claims, was born of a virgin, turned water into wine etc. Again, this just wishful thinking on his part.
There is no virgin birth to speak of here. In the most popular story, Semele is impregnated by dirty old Zeus via a bolt of lightning and the result was Dionysus. Virgin birth? You decide.

Dionysus did not turn water into wine. He was the god of wine who is said to have filled three empty cauldrons with wine. It is interesting that three symbols of donkey, wine and vine associated with Dionysus are also found in Genesis 49:11, a messianic prophecy written in 1400 BC long before Dionysus was ever a twinkle in the eye of mythology. Coincidence? I think not. Someone plagiarized Moses.

Dionysus was not the Only Begotten Son. His father, Zeus sired several other children. And he could not be Alpha and Omega either. He had a distinct beginning to his existence.

ZOROASTER, AB claims, was also born of virgin, baptized in a river, healed a blind man etc. Again, all this is patently false.
There is no mention of a virgin birth in any of the early Zoroastrian texts. The texts clearly allude to conjugal relations between his parents, Dukdaub and Pourushasp (Denkard, Bk 5 2:1-2). However, in a later (embellished) text the god Ahura Mazda creates Zoroaster via the sacred Haoma plant!

The closest Zoroaster comes to being baptized is when he received a revelation on the bank of a river.

And as far as being tempted in the wilderness, the story in the “Vendidad Fargad” was penned sometime between 250 and 650 A.D, long after the Christian canon was compiled in A.D. 170.

The so-called healing of a blind man also comes to us from the 10th century CE. The Vendidad likely borrowed both stories from the Bible..

ATTIS’ so-called similarities to Jesus are probably the most absurd of all. Attis is said to have been born when his mother Nana was impregnated by an almond that fell from a tree. The tree itself had earlier germinated from the severed genitals of a hemaphrodite monster called Agdistis.
Agdistis was conceived, again, by our dirty old player Zeus and a girlfriend. Attis is later raised by goats after deadbeat grandpa Zeus and mother Nana abandon him. Should we really waste time pursuing the rest of this poppycock?

HORUS MANURE is how some Bible scholars have dismissed the claims by AB and others that Horus was born of a virgin, died on a cross, resurrected etc.
Horus was not born of a virgin. His mother, the goddess Isis, impregnated herself with the phallus of Osiris, her dead husband. One ancient Egyptian relief depicts Isis as a falcon, hovering over the erect phallus of a dead Osiris. So much for a virgin birth..

Horus was not born on December 25th. Aside from that date being of no importance to Christianity, it so happens that Horus’ date of birth was “on the second of the five epagomenal days” i.e. July 28.

Horus was not born in a manger. His mother Isis “gave birth to Horus in the swamps of Khemnis in the Nile Delta” (Encyclopedia Mythica).

There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth. Or at Jesus’ birth for that matter!

Horus was never baptized. There is no character named Anup the Baptizer in Egyptian mythology. Also there is no river called Eridanus in Egypt. Eridanus is a river in Greece.

Horus was never crucified or resurrected. Crucifixion didn’t exist until around 600 BC, long after the stories of Horus. An inscription found on the 4th century B.C. Metternich Stela describes Horus as being bitten by a poisonous scorpion while hiding in a marsh with his mother.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art (where the Stela is currently located), adds this comment on their website:

“Isis speaks and recounts that while she and Horus were still hiding in the marshes, the child became ill. In her despair, she cried for help to the “Boat of Eternity” and the sun disk stopped opposite her and did not move from his place. Thoth was sent from the sun boat to help Isis and cured Horus by reciting a catalogue of spells.”

It turns out that Horus was sick, not dead, from a scorpion bite and was cured by the gods. No reputable modern works of Egyptology ever mention Horus dying and being resurrected.
 
French Patriot
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ShintoMale View Post

Gnosticism is similar to Luciferianism/satanism they believe that God in the bible is Evil



ypou have posts all over the place praising Satan claiming he is good. don't give this "we are atheists " nonsense




Jews and Christians don't praise Satan


Indeed we see Yahweh as depicted as a vile demiurge. We do not believe he is real. That would be stupid.


Our myth was written specifically to put against the Christian myth before those fools began to read their myths literally.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were ascompared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using withthe literal reading of myths.



https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2



Further.



http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html



Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said thatwhen asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg,said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to yourneighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, goand study it."



Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.



"Origen, the great second or third century Greekcommentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take thesetexts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put thesesort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deepermeaning."



Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would havethem do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.



I said nothing of being an atheist.
We are closer to agnostic which comes from the word gnostic.


As to Christians not praising Satan, correct. They just praise sin as they call Adams sin a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Regards

DL



 
ShintoMale
#17
Christians are not praising sin that's a strawman argument
 
French Patriot
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by ShintoMale View Post

Christians are not praising sin that's a strawman argument



Then why do they sing that sin is a happy fault?


Further.


“Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faithand rejoice in Christ.”
Martin Luther


Regards
DL
 
ShintoMale
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by French Patriot View Post

Then why do they sing that sin is a happy fault?
Further.


“Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faithand rejoice in Christ.”
Martin Luther


Regards
DL


that alleged quote by Martin Luther is an example of Quote mining


http://jpserrano.com/2011/11/16/sin-...-use-it-today/

At PLTS, a popular phrase quoted is two words from Martin Luther. Students will triumphantly announce something like, “Well, Luther tells us to SIN BOLDLY.”

It seems it is more often than not used as an excuse to allow sins (not Sin) to continue in the life of the believer. It has become a license to allow breaking the commandments–behaviors that transgress the way God would have us live as members of the Kingdom of God here and now.

It also appears that the whole sentence where those two words came from has been lost. The phrase is taken out of context, much like the verse from the Bible I see in a lot of church kitchens “Eat, drink, and be merry . . . (for tomorrow we die.”). I think most may not even realize where it comes from.

Here is Luther’s full letter to Melanchthon, with the oft-used quote in it’s original context:

“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2 Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”

So then, this whole letter is doing several things. First, it is an indictment of who we are. Luther is clearly saying to Melanchthon that we (people) are sinners and because of our fallenness, we will continue to sin until the second coming. I believe that Luther is using a hyperbole here in order for us to understand exactly who we are. Our sins are real; they are not unimportant nor minimal…they do matter. Luther is trying to tell those people who think they are pretty good, except for those little sins here or there, that they are in fact really big sinners and should see themselves as big sinners. Hence why he says, “be a sinner.” What I hear in this is an admonition for me to own the state I am in now and a recognition that I am not a saint on my own. Nowhere in here do I hear Luther giving permission to sin–which is the way I hear the quote often used.

Secondly, we need to own our sin and understand it to be real, in order for grace to be real. If we have fake sin, then we don’t need grace. If our sin, however, is real, then we in fact need a grace that is real. What I hear in this is more about God’s grace to forgive and continually seek me out rather than doing whatever I want (or as it is more popularly summarized: SINNING BOLDLY!)

Lastly, what is missed in not quoting the whole phrase Luther uses is the admonition to let our trust in Christ be stronger than the sins we commit. Luther is telling Melanchthon (and us) that our trust in Christ is of first importance. It is to be stronger than our sin, and it is to cause us to rejoice in victory. This is important because I often I hear a defeatism in Lutheranism that keeps continually reminding people that we are sinners (which we are), but doesn’t in the same breath remind us that we are in fact freed from sin in Christ whom overcame.
 
French Patriot
#20
Nice research. Thanks for this.



I had an aunt Grace. The grace you speak of is fantasy.

Regards
DL
 

Similar Threads

11
Hate the Sinner, Love the Sin
by Tecumsehsbones | Jun 23rd, 2017
2
Pets - Some love em & some hate em
by Goober | Sep 30th, 2010