It's all part of a system that is not spiritually grown-up. Take responsibility for your actions. Dont put it on Jesus. The fact that Christianity makes you nerdy and sensitive such that they get giddy when its disscover something like rock music is not a sin ( "Jesus can rock? COOL!" ) is enough. People obsessed with sin and punishment are like people in trenches: God is obvious to them. It's not to me and Job sucks

The world is conscience related. That's why we are here. Atonment does away with conscience and that is why they eat Jesus

Finally, the basic premise of Christianity is that once you sin you owe an infinite debt to God which you can never repay. — Gregory

“There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future.” ― St. Augustine

You are obviously distorting and choosing your words and arguments to make your hypothesis look convincing and Christianity a terrible evil, devil worshipping religion.

An Observation: It's not working

Suppose you had to go to a "Christian" church, to be a part of any fold (community) per se. Which denomination would you choose? Suppose you had to be the leader of a new denomination, the Church of Gregory... and you had to convert other Christians who were discouraged with their faith... what would you do?

It doesnt matter of its working. Karma gets everyone "I.can't take away my own sin but Jesus can" says the Christian. That's straight up sinful

I would follow a Christian church that did not believe Jesus takes your sins, but which believes Jesus gives helping Grace

All a person has to do to take away guilt is do a good act equal to the crime committed. The scales balance. If you are incapable of that, all I can say is that the universe is not a theist God so maybe it has mercy in ways we don't know. But I doubt this. Karma seems to be the absolute rule. So do good, sure, but why believe in a God who violates justice in order to save people who Christian say have an infinite debt? You're believing in something obviously wrong in order to save your skin; that's why they call it faith

Hi there, I am a Philosophy student so bear with me because I am a bit new at this!
From what I’ve read, it looks like the overall conclusion of your argument in this post is that Christianity is a Satanic religion. First, I would like to address the second paragraph where you seem to conclude that the Christian God is lazy. It seems that the only example of striving you gave is “striving to defeat temptation.” So, if something is striving, then that thing is overcoming a temptation. However, I don’t see how this definition of striving could apply to the Christian God. The Christian God does not face temptation as far as I know. It seems as though the definition of striving you have provided would only apply to imperfect beings who are capable of facing temptations, not to immortal, perfect beings as portrayed in the Christian Bible. Furthermore, I am unfamiliar with the writing you referenced from Nietzsche, but it seems to me like they/you are using “will” and “striving” synonymously. I have no basis to argue against that, however it seems that you add “action” into the mix as being synonymous with those two words as well at the end of the paragraph. I don’t think you would say that “striving” is the only form of action, so even if you respond to say that your argument about overcoming temptation applies to the Christian God, it does not follow that the Christian God is “lazy” since striving is certainly no the only action that omits laziness
Secondly, I would like to address your conclusion that Catholics have a cannibalistic nature. From what I understand based on my friends and family who are catholoic and/or have attended Catholic schools, communion is regarded as a metaphorical action, no one is intending to eat the flesh of a human being. Even if a Catholic were to genuinely think they were eating the flesh of Jesus Christ, they aren’t actually eating another human being, so they aren’t being cannibalistic. It’s similar to someone stabbing a pillow while thinking it is a person, they aren’t committing murder, they just are under some sort of hallucination that they are. I disagree that the figurative nature of communion doesn’t matter, it is the entire point in my opinion. It is meant to be a symbol of Jesus’s sacrifice, etc. Jesus did say to do this in memory of him, but he didn’t say eat human flesh and be cannibals. So, in my opinion, this portion of your argument is false.
Third, regarding Christianity being pro-murder, I think this is too strong of a claim to make based on your provided evidence. One reason I believe this is because the two examples you gave were from the Old Testament of the Bible, not the New Testament where Christ actually becomes part of the picture, so at most your examples only provide evidence for Judaism being pro-murder. Now obviously Christians study the Old Testament and most believe in the Ten Commandments outlined in there, however the biggest part of Christianity is Christ himself. Could it not be the case that the God of the Old Testament changed once his son was born or once his son was sacrificed, i.e. changed into a God that no longer commanded murder or genocide? If that’s the case then since Christianity itself did not exist until that point in time and (from what I understand) the Christian God did not command murder in the New Testament , Christianity is not pro-murder.
Finally, your paragraph regarding guilt and repentance seems odd to me. First of all, from my understanding, karma is a part of Hinduism and Buddhism, not Christianity so it doesn’t seem relevant to this particular conversation. Secondly, you use “guilt” in two different ways. The first time you use it, it seems to be referring to someone being guilty of something versus the second time you use it, it seems that you’re using guilt as a sort of emotion we humans feel when we do something wrong. Regarding the latter definition, Jesus’s sacrifice was not to help Christians feel less guilty or shameful, it was to free Christians from eternal damnation. I am not quite sure what your argument is trying to accomplish, but many parts of it seem incorrect.
Thanks for your time!

"... for good people to do evil - that takes religion."

Wouldn't it be weird if Satanism was really inherent within Christianity? — Gregory

It'd be really weird if it wasn't. The "Christ Cult", canonized and creedally begat down massacred & martyred millennia, is a burned witches' brew of dogmatic

• inherited guilt
• vicarious redemption via (symbolically reenacted) human sacrifice
• self-abnegating masochistic "worship" of misery-torture-execution porn
• "blood libel" anti-semitism
• ritual (symbolic) cannibalism & vampirism
• child abuse by "Vicars of Christ" with threats of "hellfire" for little ones, their pets & parents if they resist ecclesiastical "grooming" for molestation, rape or other forms of sacramental sadism
• missionary demonization of non-christian "heathen savages"
• etcetera ...

On the way to Damascus, Saul of Tarsus must've met "Satan" at the crossroads who made him an offer he couldn't refuse. The hellenized jewish trickster then became "Paul" and, like Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor", gained the world by selling untold billions of credulous souls. Ah yes, "Satan" too works in mysterious ways (learned, no doubt, during his tenure in the Torah).

The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding -- at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. — The Antichrist (1888)

(emphasis added)

Anything that is powerful is prone to corruption. See above post. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing complicated about it.

If Group A has power, Group A will be targeted and possibly corrupted. If Group B has power, Group B will be targeted and possibly corrupted. How it always was, how it is now.

There are specific commandments given, since as it would seem, the 10 Commandments were too much to bear. Those are followed, promises are kept. If not, well, I wouldn't worry about it for too long anyhow.

I don’t think you would say that “striving” is the only form of action, — Emma

It is the only form of virtuous act. You can't excuse a being from this by saying he already has it without him doing it.

From what I understand based on my friends and family who are catholoic and/or have attended Catholic schools, communion is regarded as a metaphorical action, no one is intending to eat the flesh of a human being. — Emma

False. The Council of Trent clearly defined what the Eucharist and Mass are. It's in the Catechism. It's everywhere. They believe they eat Jesus

he Christian God did not command murder in the New Testament , Christianity is not pro-murder. — Emma

He never said he wouldn't do it. I've asked Christians and they always say they would kill someone if God commanded it

Finally, your paragraph regarding guilt and repentance seems odd to me. First of all, from my understanding, karma is a part of Hinduism and Buddhism, not Christianity so it doesn’t seem relevant to this particular conversation. Secondly, you use “guilt” in two different ways. The first time you use it, it seems to be referring to someone being guilty of something versus the second time you use it, it seems that you’re using guilt as a sort of emotion we humans feel when we do something wrong. Regarding the latter definition, Jesus’s sacrifice was not to help Christians feel less guilty or shameful, it was to free Christians from eternal damnation. I am not quite sure what your argument is trying to accomplish, but many parts of it seem incorrect.
Thanks for your time! — Emma

You're making distinctions that only distract from the truth

Just the concept of socialists having any power anywhere on the planet causes distress to a local man here who’s vocally vehemently opposed to liberalism. On a couple occasions he became so narrow-mindedly enraged that he, with his tightened fist trembling before him, uttered to me, “I’d vote for the devil himself if that’s what it took to keep those Godless socialists out of office!”

Nothing wrong with the devil if it's the right devil

Pope Francis, in the new Catechism's teaching that capital punishment is evil, has done what he has to do to curb the violence of Christians. Christians are always whinning that they are persecuted, but they are persecuted because they are trolls

The "Edict of Thessalonike" (380 AD by the roman emperor Theodosius I) said

"It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict."

The very Bible itself says "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will bring to nought." 1 Corinthians 1:19. Such violence desired violence in response, not violence of a physical or emotional nature, but intellectual violence of the kind Nietzsche spoke when he said philosophy was hatred

Christians destroyed books of their enemies and killed people while in power. See There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire (Transformation of the Classical Heritage)Michael Gaddis

Pope Francis, in the new Catechism's teaching that capital punishment is evil, has done what he has to do to curb the violence of Christians. Christians are always whinning that they are persecuted, but they are persecuted because they are trolls. — Gregory

They were persecuted but then it appears with this Edict of Thessonalike, that the state began persecuting in the name of Christianity. This violence is just as much "human" violence as it is "Christian".

Have you surveyed the work/thesis of Rene Girard at all? If he becomes a new Church father for any Christian faith in the future, then Jesus is to be interpreted as the Last Sacrifice (the last scapegoat), which amounts to a repudiation by Christians of all violence, the same kind that turned Jesus into a sacrifice. Christians today need to become conscious of what they are doing and not blindly flow in the currents of past dogma or batshit insane political ideology, which is rife with scapegoating ('the devil casting out the devil').

"If it weren't for Christians, I'd be Christian." Ghandi

"Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love... Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding." Martin Luther King Jr.

There will never be a last sacrifice because human beings are competing for power and resources by leveraging belief in the exercise of control (all kinds of subtle violence/violations). How could the meek possibly inherit the Earth? Maybe by the power of someone else's violence visited upon them.

How could the meek possibly inherit the Earth? Maybe by the power of someone else's violence visited upon them. — Nils Loc

All Christians want to dominate something in some way. They are not Eastern at all, or have not learned its ways

Law is only seen as law when it is law to you

Yet another philosophy forum thread on Christianity which makes no mention of love.

Waste of time.

All Christians — Gregory

Any statement which contains the phrase "all Christians" reveals the author to be an incompetent commentator on the subject.

Any statement which contains the phrase "all Christians" reveals the author to be an incompetent commentator on the subject. — Hippyhead

Christian love is not true love

ALL Christians will admit there "love" is not natural but "supernatural", which really means it comes from the part of the brain which wishes to dominate and troll their way into power

Like Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard at Second Petersburg, I will do whatever it takes to break the spine of Satan's legions which formed as a "religion" called Christianity. I prefer to call them insane. People have the disease to various degrees. The more truly Christian you are, the more truly insane you are

However, he never has nor never will strive because striving is a sign of an imperfect nature for a Christian. — Gregory

Perhaps I’m not understanding the way in which you use “strive, but your argument seems to be:

1. If God were to strive – which means to exert himself vigorously or try hard – for anything, then it
would make him imperfect in nature
2. God is not imperfect in nature
3. Therefore, God does not strive (1,2 MT)
4. If God does not strive, then that entails he is lazy
5. Laziness is not a Godly virtue but a Satanic one
6. Therefore, Satan is inherent in God (1,2 MP)

You make the claim that if God were to strive, then he would be imperfect. I don’t follow how you came to the conclusion that striving is a sign of imperfect nature. Perhaps your line of thinking is that if God is omnipotent then he should not need to strive because he is exerting himself extra. However, the very fact that Jesus came to this earth was an act of striving. You know how the story goes. God sent Jesus Christ to earth and Jesus by no means lived an “easy” life. Furthermore, Jesus’ death is historically regarded as one of the most painful deaths anyone could die, so much so that the word excruciating derives from the immense pain experienced by those who were crucified. Therefore, Jesus’ life and death are the very antithesis of lazy. God wills for us to know him and to love him, so much so that he
exerted an incredible amount of effort for us when he gave up his one and only son, Jesus, to this world.

Catholics believe in ritual required cannibalism. — Gregory

I would hardly say this is cannibalism. Just because Catholics take the eating of bread and drinking of wine as the literal body and blood of Jesus, doesn’t mean that the bread turns into flesh nor the wine to blood. The intensity of their belief in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine does not alter the metaphysical laws in place that hold the bread and wine in their original form. It’s the very act of consuming flesh and blood that makes someone a cannibal, not a belief (no matter the intensity) of consuming flesh and blood. Additionally, in the Bible it never says that the bread and wine turned into flesh or blood. When Jesus said, “This is my body… this is my blood” it’s similar to when my uncle gave me a soccer ball before he passed away and told me to remember him whenever I played with it. The ball reminds me of my uncle and the different memories I have of him. In the same vain, the eucharist / communion is a beautiful commemoration of Christ. Some branches of Christianity just choose to think of it more literally as his body. Regardless of how intensely they believe the bread and wine to be flesh and blood that does not constitute for cannibalism because they do not change from their original form.

Therefore within Christianity you must kill ANYONE God tells you too. — Gregory

My first question to you would be, do you believe war and killing to be immoral? There is a clear distinction between the words kill and murder, however, you seem to be using them loosely. Killing is the act of ending someone’s life, while murder is when you end someone’s life out of malice. If the God of the Israelites is the one and true God then it would be foolish for them to disobey his commands simply because they see it as “wrong”. Additionally, you are assuming that God is ordering the Israelites to kill without reasoning. Is there a particular instance where you God commands the Israelites to kill a certain people, but completely void of reason? Are you saying God has no reason or purpose or are you saying those reasons don’t align with what you believe to be right?

This attempt to avoid guilt and shame is the ultimate example of the Satanic nature of Christianity for me. — Gregory

Your basic premise of Christianity is incomplete. It should be: we have sinned against God and owe a debt that we cannot pay which means we will be punished, however, Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was enough to bear the entire debt of our sin and when we trust in him we too have life like he does. In other words, there is most certainly a second chance, but it can only be found through Christ’s sacrifice. Simply because Christians believe the spirit of Christ dwells within them doesn’t mean it’s synonymous or the same as the “soul swapping” spell. I will use another analogy, just because soccer and football use a ball doesn't mean that they are the same sport, or that they are played in the same way. Buddhists, Muslims, Satanists, Christians, and Jews all pray and practice going to church / mosque / temple. Does that mean they’re all the same? Of course, not because the acts themselves are very different and directed to different gods or deities.

You make the claim that if God were to strive, then he would be imperfect. — Josh Vasquez

I said the opposite

God sent Jesus Christ to earth and Jesus by no means lived an “easy” life. — Josh Vasquez

Who cares? It wasn't God's nature, nor the Father or the Holy Ghost

I would hardly say this is cannibalism. — Josh Vasquez

They believe it is cannibalism mr.

If the God of the Israelites is the one and true God then it would be foolish for them to disobey his commands simply because they see it as “wrong”. Additionally, you are assuming that God is ordering the Israelites to kill without reasoning. Is there a particular instance where you God commands the Israelites to kill a certain people, but completely void of reason? Are you saying God has no reason or purpose or are you saying those reasons don’t align with what you believe to be right? — Josh Vasquez

I am saying not to trust religion when it tells you to kill people

we have sinned against God and owe a debt that we cannot pay which means we will be punished, however, Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was enough to bear the entire debt of our sin and when we trust in him we too have life like he does. In other words, there is most certainly a second chance, but it can only be found through Christ’s sacrifice. — Josh Vasquez

That totally violates the doctrine of justice. Fundamentally

As Richard Dawkins often points out, if God wanted to show mercy he could have done it freely without killing himself, accepting the law, and binding us to his cross. Christian theology is just retarded

1. If God were to strive – which means to exert himself vigorously or try hard – for anything, then it
would make him imperfect in nature
2. God is not imperfect in nature
3. Therefore, God does not strive (1,2 MT)
4. If God does not strive, then that entails he is lazy
5. Laziness is not a Godly virtue but a Satanic one
6. Therefore, Satan is inherent in God — Josh Vasquez

Now tell me if this is worth discussing...

Simplistic pseudo-argument based on the individual opinion of the OP simply because he has some resentment towards Christianity. Pathetic.

I've found that putting questions of religion into "premise-conclusion structure" only takes away from clarity of thought on these issue. Catholics believes they swallow Jesus entire with one gulp. Lutherans do too. Other Protestants pretend to do this. But eating people is unnatural. Therefore Christianity is unnatural. Perhaps premise-conclusion is only useful in the reverse :)

The substance view of God that Christians have is illogical, for how can a person be striving, working, fighting, and doing in itself? A person can't just be those things. But I don't really care though what people think or want to think. I like to send my ideas out into the world though. Christians can expect no end to their toil

The substance view of God that Christians have is illogical, for how can a person be striving, working, fighting, and doing in itself? A person can't just be those things. But I don't really care though what people think or want to think. I like to send my ideas out into the world though. Christians can expect no end to their toil — Gregory

The problem is that you focus mainly on the Christian branch with (1) the bigest number of followers, (2) well-established dogmas and (3) the one that most represents the values ​​and morals of the masses, because if it is the most adopted religion, probably something has been seen in it by people. If you are looking for evidence in Christianity about traditions and views that might be considered "satanic" - whatever that term means to you - simply study about the Gnostics. There you have the hedonism and maleficity of satanism, sanctified by the use of Christ.

Let's take for example the Phibionites:

As the great christian priest Epiphanius described the sect:

"Phibionite feasts begin with the men shaking hands with the women, while secretly tickling their palms underneath. This may be a secret code to alert members to the presence of outsiders, or an erotic gesture. After dining, married couples begin to have sex, each with another member. The man, however, has to withdraw before climax, so that he and his partner can collect the semen and ingest it together, saying, “This is the body of Christ.” Leaders of the sect who have already reached perfection can perform the rite with a member of the same sex. There is also sacred masturbation, where one can take the body of Christ in the privacy of one’s room. The reason for this sex ritual? The Phibionites believe that this world is separated from the divine realm by 365 heavens. So to reach the highest world, a Phibionite redeemed must pass through all 365 heavens—twice. But each heaven is guarded by an Archon, and to be granted safe passage, a Phibionite must call out the secret name of one of the Archons, while doing the sex act. This belief guarantees every Phibionite male sex with a female member at least 730 times."

The largest branches - Catholicism, Orthodoxism and Protestantism - still are satanic?

Jesus said "this is my blood, take and drink". You have to think multi-dimensionally, going from one set of beliefs to another. If this was in an Indian religion, the Christian unaware of communion would declare it pagan and immoral. When he finds it in his own religion, suddenly it's fine. That is why I said aspects of Christianity, if seen as only in another religion, would be declared wrong. But when seen under the aspect of Christianity, suddenly it's ok. As for the substance view of God, it trivializes virtue. You don't realize the principalities and powers behind it though