Thread 18134145

Jesus pretty clearly named Devil as a very active agent in the world. Why do Christians pretend he's just some kind of abstract principle or an absence of God? The doctrine of the NT is a hardcore dualist one, unlike OT which is just semitic slop.

Because that leaves Christians unable to solve the problem of evil, not that they ever will, like you point out it's deeply dualistic which also causes problems in terms of the qualities of god.

>>18134145 (OP)
Depends on the Christian.
Catholics (other than some modernists) very much believe the Devil exists and there is the office of exorcist.
I think only unserious Christians dont believe in the existence of the devil.

>>18134181
The solution is already available, which is to embrace Christ and live in his ways. To not embrace and resist evil is the failings of Man, not Christ.

>>18134193
>be good not bad
Some very high level philosophy there anon.

>>18134181
This post is an example of the moral and intellectual failings of New Atheism. The poster is ignorant of the fact that Christians do believe the devil exists and comes out with a bullshit explanation where he tries to pose as superior.

>>18134206
Yeah, nobody really said it was that complex. There's no hidden Gnostic runes or philosophical texts you have to decipher, just do good. Even in simplicity, it remains a challenge for people too far into their own bullshit.

>>18134217
>Even in simplicity, it remains a challenge for people too far into their own bullshit.
Usually Christians.

>>18134217
Okay so is discriminating against homosexuals good or bad according to the simple read?

>>18134224
>>18134294
no sticky dicky in poop hole
it's unhygienic

He is very much real and the brains behind the demons. The RCC still has active exorcists.

Check out Vincent Lampert

>>18134306
What about homosexuals who only jerk each other off and don't do anal?

>>18134224
Except there's no validity to saying "If everybody lived in Christ's way, then everything would go bad". Besides, you sideline sitters offer nothing in terms of real solutions, you just want to scoff, like indulging your own smug ego helps anyone.
>>18134294
Celibacy should be practiced amongst homosexuals, because Christ's light is the only love you need. I didn't create the nature of sin, that's just how it is. No, I don't think homosexuals should be killed or rejected.

>>18134322
When's the last time you jerked off and/or watched porn?

>>18134322
Christians can't even agree on what living in Christ's way even means and have killed each other in his name.

>>18134317
that's how it starts anon
but even if they limit themselves to that (they don't) it's still unnatural
homosexual feelings are not damning per se, as long as you don't act on them. It's important to get to the root cause of those feelings, and if unable to eradicate them you should consider celibacy

>>18134322
>No, I don't think homosexuals should be killed
Scriptural reference?

>>18134337
>unnatural
You're using this as another word for le bad because you can't come up with a reason why it's le bad.

>>18134336
That's the great deceit, isn't it. The church has long been corrupted, tying back to OP's subject.
>>18134338
If you're fucking each other in the ass as man to man, nobody is going to stop you, just don't be surprised when shit starts to go south. Thing to understand that sin is tangible and the consequences are real. To choose Christ over abominable lust is the way to go, because his love is greater than any of that.

>>18134347
It's been posted many times anon.
man is not supposed to find men sexually arousing
you are living in denial and trying to validate your fetish

>>18134351
There's literally a black-and white verse about homosexuality (male on male, which apparently is the kind that lives in your head) and its dispensation. A very very very clear law.
>>No, I don't think homosexuals should be killed
it's not this

which is a roundabout way of saying you don't know what you're talking about and you should drop this subject lol

>>18134351
Didn't Jesus teach accountability? Why is it always someone else's fault.

>>18134371
Which is thou shall not lay with another man if you're a man. I just said it. What you're failing to understand is the New Covenant, and are running to Mosaic Law in a gotcha moment, when death penalty doesn't have to apply, but rather genuine repentance.
>>18134374
I don't which point you're responding to, but not I'm going to take accountability for a whored out church who not only introduced goddess worship, but relegated Jesus Christ's status as mediator to nothing with worship of dead mortals.

>>18134370
We only get that from the Bible, and the same passages which tell us that also say that we should stone fags to death.
You're picking and choosing which parts you like just like every christ-chan.

>>18134431
Just do yourself a favor and type in New Covenant into ChatGPT or something and call it a day. No need for this tap dancing around the rose bush.

>>18134441
I don't know why I should take you seriously when you aren't even serious about your own religious commandments. You casually bore false witness against me here >>18134370, and not even for any seemingly noble reason, just for your own entertainment. And you did it in the midst of shilling Christianity.

>>18134145 (OP)
All gods are mythologies
All holy books are fictional

Jesus is just the protagonist
Satan is the antagonist

>>18134145 (OP)
Lets be honest here, this case is of f*cking complexity. To my limited knowledge, during the past centuries, allegorical or somewhat "figurative" interpretation of the bible were more popular by the people who could actually read. E.g. Maimonides.

The literal interpretation was just one of many.

Often, they claim that you could interpret the bible in moer than one way and that all this interpretation has been correct. This is possible by the greater wisedom of God.

When the scholars of the bible, starts to take the bible as more figurative, they start to face a problem.
Where can they start and where they need to stop?

Is the recurrection just to see as figurative or literal? What about the Christian ethical codex?

>>18134452
you answered to the wrong comment
go back and read the thread again

>>18134431
>we should stone fags to death
you have not read the Gospel
why lie?

>>18134452
I'm not even the guy you responded to. I'm trying to tell you about the New Covenant and how it relates to the OT stuff you're talking about.

>>18134502
he thinks you and I are the same person
it's ok, he'll figure it out eventually

>>18134385
>failing to understand is the New Covenant
Scriptural reference?
>and are running to Mosaic Law
Which other elements of Deuterocanonical or Levitical law also no longer apply? Is this still the simple read where you do good?
Or was that stupid, too?

>>18134539
It's pretty cut and dry that it's framed as "abominable", same as burning kids alive under the worship of Baal, which is also called "abominable". Is anybody could kill their kids for Baal nowadays? No. Is any man going to lay with another man. Of course. Who is redeemable? The answer is both. Which practice will still be used by the children of God now with the sacrifice of Christ?

>>18134581
>Is anybody could
*Is anybody still going to

>>18134337
>you should consider celibacy
How's that working out for you? lmao

I have the view, based on the book of Job, that Satan is tasked by G-d to test humans.

>>18134682
I'm not a homosexual so it does not apply
if I were, I would absolutely consider it

>>18134294
You're not supposed to interfere with heathens (those outside the church) beyond informing them of their sin.

But you aren't supposed to tolerate that behavior in your church congregation.
People so afflicted are okay to join so long as they put fornication behind them.
Same rule applies to womanizers.

>>18134431
>the same passages which tell us that also say that we should stone fags to death.
Yeah, I agree we should. But it has to be after they have been proven guilty (beyond a shadow of a doubt) in a court first.

Sodomites are unironically animals and if it can be established that someone is one, they need to be put out of their misery.

I personally will gladly be the first one to vote to execute them.

>>18134193
What did God mean by designing men to fail? For example, why did God decide that Jesse Pomeroy should murder and torture young innocent boys?

>>18136277
People who do that could have chosen differently so it's their own fault.

>>18134145 (OP)
> Jesus pretty clearly named Devil as a very active agent in the world.

No, he did not literally say those words. He said words that could be interpreted as those, depending on your framework. Muslims (and a lot of Christians) believe that Shaytaan exists but that Allah is just allowing him to run amuck for now. Is this dualism?

> Why do Christians pretend he's just some kind of abstract principle or an absence of God?

Some do. Most actually do not. The insistence that hell is simply the absence of God is a recent one in the grand scheme of things and serves a political purpose within modernity. What you're putting forth is an even rarer claim than that but is not completely unbelievable. In either case, it's just the individual developments of multiple tendrils of Christianity within the ideological landscape of today.

> The doctrine of the NT is a hardcore dualist one, unlike OT which is just semitic slop.

The OT is not a clean book and dates to different times and different conceptions of God. For most of it, there actually isn't a "God"; sometimes there is Yahweh, other times there is Elohim. The strict monotheism was mostly a post-exilic invention, though it didn't emerge from nowhere. Similar political developments have happened in other religions before (Atenism, for instance) but this one stuck long enough to be absorbed into Christianity and started a ripple effect with the other religions that would emerge here and there. In any case, it was constantly sabotaged by the effects of feudalism (Saint, Prophet, and Angel reverence in both Christianity and Islam just took over from there. Even Buddhism had people revere specific Buddhas depending on their region) until capitalism came in and killed it for good. The differences are not significant in and of themselves.

In Thessalonians paul says that satan prevented him from visiting the church, always wondering what he meant. But it does mean satan is active in the world acting against christians. And if satan can offer jesus all the kingdoms of the world in the temptation, does that make satan the king of the phyiscal world?

>>18136599
>In Thessalonians paul says that satan prevented him from visiting the church, always wondering what he meant. But it does mean satan is active in the world acting against christians.
Right, there is a spiritual battle going on that is constantly referenced, not only in the New Testament but in various parts of the Old Testament as well. Lots of the visions of Daniel, in chapters 7 to 12, for example, have to do with spiritual warfare going on behind the scenes of political events. Also in the beginning of the book of Job, we see a spiritual conflict unfolding behind the scenes, caused by satan, as the cause of what happened to Job. Again as a reference to spiritual warfare, in 2 Kings 6:16-17 Elijah causes a man to see a vision of angelic hosts, which he sees as horses and chariots of fire. The chariots are seen to be protecting the armies of Israel. In Matthew 26:53 Jesus refers to the fact that if he wants to, he can summon twelve legions of angels. In Acts 13:2 and Acts 16:6, the Holy Spirit is said to be directly ordering the actions of the apostles. Everything Paul says about spiritual warfare seems to line up with this groundwork, of which the above are a few examples. And what it says in the book of Revelation at the very end of the Bible also fits into this same framework - there are a lot of parallels between it and Old Testament prophecies as well.

>And if satan can offer jesus all the kingdoms of the world in the temptation, does that make satan the king of the phyiscal world?
It seems so. Jesus refers to him as the "prince of this world" (ὁ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἄρχων) in John 14:30. Similarly Paul called this entity "the god of this world" (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) in 2 Corinthians 4:4.

At one point in the epistle of 1 John, this entity is contrasted with Christ in us, where he writes, "greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world." (1 John 4:4). Overall this shows that the spirit of this world is opposed to Christianity.