Evidence of Satan
I went to a cat lover's site on Facebook page. Somebody posted a picture of a man holding up the head of a decapitated cat. Can someone explain why somebody would do something like this? Is it necessary for the evolutionary process? Was evolution responsible for that?
If you acknowledge Satan, then it makes sense.I'm so sorry you had to see something like that. While I don't believe in Satan or Hell, if Hell did exist - it would be the perfect place for someone who would do something so horrible as that.
I think people that do those kinds of things really hate themselves. I know I can easily feel hatred toward them. It's too bad we have to share the air of our planet with them.Thank you for you comment. I appreciate it.
Such actions have nothing to do with Satanism or evil spirits. It's a mental disorder (chemical imbalance) or need of attention (if my kid did something that screwed up, he'd get attention alright, I'd beat the crap out of him - child abuse or not!). That's why mental hospitals pump up their patients with drugs instead of performing exorcisms. In the Satanic religion, one of their 10 commandments is not to not harm or kill animals except to be eaten or self defence.
Yes. Beating a child is certainly the best way to unscrew him up.
That's secular Satanism. Kind of like secular Judaism (Jews that don't actually believe in God). Satanists that actually worship Satan are quite different.
I did try but when I clicked on "report", FB hid it. So I couldn't access the profile that sent it. I'm just someone else reported it, though.
Some people want attention and any attention will do. Good or bad, it doesn't matter. It's human behaviour and has nothing to do with spirits at all.
If you acknowledge mental illness, it also makes sense. Humans are wonderful, but sometimes they break. Sometimes it's their heart, sometimes it's their liver, and sometimes it's their mind.
Melissa, as a Christian you ought to know this behavior is motivated by Satan, mentally ill or not. Why does nobody do good things when they are mentally ill? Why is it always destructive and bad? It's a cop out to merely label someone mentally ill when they do things evil. Mental illness on its own could never spawn something so evil.
I've seen mentally ill people standing on the streets wearing winter coats in the heat of the summer holding a bible above their heads shouting scripture. They are not doing anything bad, but are mentally ill.
I've seen many mentally ill people do very good things. It doesn't always make people violent and hateful, that's a misconception. It just produces behavior that is outside the norm. That behavior slides the entire spectrum.
But when someone does something good, we don't automatically think its because they are psychotic. When one does evil like this it is always put down to being mentally ill.
Do you believe these people were influenced by Satan? Can you tell me that every person who commits similar acts are mentally ill?Yes we do. Anything on the far end of either side of the behavior spectrum we assume is mental illness, and usually is.
If somebody shot themselves so that a stranger could have their organs, we would assume that was mental illness. There are many stories in exactly that same vein. People who have done extremely charitable acts before killing themselves.
Then there are the crazy cat ladies, who adopt and feed sometimes hundreds of cats, turning their homes into giant feces piles in the process, because they want to take care of the poor things.
As an aside, not every mental illness is a psychosis. Often, those with personality disorders, anti-social personality disorder jumps to mind, can abuse/kill animals.
I don't believe that any mentally ill person is influenced by Satan. That's because every mentally ill person I've ever met (and there are many) who has sought treatment and been compliant with it has shown drastic improvement. No exorcisms needed, just medication and therapy. So unless you believe that Satan can be destroy using Haldol instead of God...The thing is, you are just assuming that it is mental illness. Do you believe there is a chance Satan influenced these people?
No. No I don't.
Furthermore, I think such thought processes lead to the stigmatization of mental illness, both by the suffer and the population at large.
In other words, the mentally ill don't seek treatment because they are afraid others will think they are possessed. Others think them possessed and throw holy water rather than medication. Or worse, burn them at the stake, drown them, etc.
All in all, the suffer leads a horrible, lonely, frightened life. The person that believes they are surrounded by evil caused by the devil also leads a horrible, lonely, frightened life jumping at shadows and seeing evil everywhere.How can you be a Christian and not believe Satan influences people? Do you think Jesus thinks that? You are also assuming that these people are mentally ill. Mentally ill people, however, can also be influenced by Satan even though they may not know it.
Those evil people don't necessarily have to be possessed by demons like the girl from, "The Exorcist." Possession and being influenced by Satan don't always go hand in hand.Well, I don't precisely know the mechanisms on why I don't believe something, however as I am a Christian and I don't believe mentally ill people are influenced by satan, it is obviously possible.
If you see someone deviating from the norms of society in an extreme way, without profit, then it's safe to assume they are mentally ill.
Again, if you give a mentally ill person therapy and medication, they get better. If you throw holy water on them and pray over them, they don't. As the treatment for psychological conditions works, and the treatment for spiritual influence doesn't.... I'm going with the former.No, it is not safe to say that just because they deviate from the norms of society in an extreme way then they are mentally ill. It is such a cop out for evil people. Some people do evil because they enjoy it. Has everybody who has committed terrible crimes mentally ill?
It's not to say that there are no people who are mentally ill who don't commit crimes. But mental illness do you think these evil people suffer from?
There is a huge problem in the Christian Church. They do not emphasize the seriousness of the devil. They sugarcoat Christianity. Satan is not that bad...
That is a fatal mistake. As long as people don't appreciate evil from Satan, they cannot fight it thus he has more power. I really can't stand where mental illness is recognized by default.
I'm not practising any religion, but it seems obvious to me that satan, if it does exist, exists in the "ego" mind.
You can be led by your heart (god), or you can be led by your ego (anti god).
So over the years we choose a side, and if led by our hearts we do good things.
However if controlled & led by our "ego", we do bad things.
The guy with the Cat's head for example, that was his "mind" telling him to do it!.
He only did it for an "ego" boost of some kind, & certainly didn't do that from his heart.
Now when i say heart i literally mean heart, peeps don't realise that they can literally be led by their heart.
Only if they gain control of their ego mind, & let their heart through.
That guy is losing his battle in life, and his mind is gaining control.
So if he continues that way & doesn't realise it, he will do worse things for a bigger ego boost!.
Nothing bad is ever done from the heart, & only the mind can come up with a bad idea in the first place!.
I'd say the mind is responsible for ALL our feelings apart from love, i can manifest any feeling i want to just by "thinking".
Whereas love has to be "felt" through another person or entity, so the source of love is god, and we can feel this love any where, but only in our hearts.
The mind can't (in my opinion) generate love, like it can all other feelings.
The mind can however, come up with religion, and we know what having different religions has led to.Or he could have psychopathic personality disorder (or be a sociopath) and be exhibiting zoosadism as a symptom.
(I'm also not discounting financial gain and/or religion as a motivator)
But sure, devil possession and/or ego could be causing it as well. Why not? I suppose he could also be under the direct control of a parasitic mind worm from Ceti Alpha V too.It disturbs me that you being a Christian should just dismiss the devil. Did Jesus do that? No, He very much warned us against the devil. He even said the Pharisees were led by the devil.
Really? It disturbs me that some Christians espouse the very same ideas, with the same enthusiasm, that caused the burning of those suffering from mental illness at the stake. You would think that the religion, as a whole, would have learned something from that particular folly.
There is a very fine line sometimes between religion and superstition. Once you start playing hopscotch on that line, people with treatable conditions are dragged into the village square and stoned to death because they are possessed by demons.
Crossing that line, by the way, is also an indicator of mental illness, with extreme religiosity as a symptom.Burning people at the stake for evil things is not something I would do so don't put me in that category. Jesus didn't go around murdering the Pharisees because He said they were evil. He also never acknowledged them as having a mental illness.
I suspect this is why people believed Jesus was crazy, even his own family. As you say, my belief is an indication of mental illness.Considering how many people are diagnosed with mental disorders today and their penchant to embrace religious fundamentalism, it is highly likely those who prominent in religious beliefs back then had mental disorders.
It is said that Jesus spent sometime ousting demons, Witches and demons do in fact exist. I know as I was once turned into a newt… well, I got better.
Then Jesus had a mental disorder? I'm in good company!
Maybe, maybe not. But, it would appear that some of the people who actually wrote the Bible (which wasn't Jesus) did have some mental disorders. And, since many of the passages of the Bible were written well after the life of Jesus, we can only assume what they wrote was what Jesus said. If they had mental disorders, then it is likely they just made it up themselves.
Lol. Is there anything in the NT that suggests the writers may have mental disorders? And what is your definition of "written well after Jesus"? The earliest is just over 50 AD.
Have you read the NT? Is there anything to suggest the writers did not have mental disorders? Paul admits everything he wrote came from an hallucination.
Did Paul write the whole NT? Did all the writers have mental disorders? Paul didn't hallucinate. It was a vision. The supernatural can manifest itself in our dimension where we can see these entities.
How is a "vision" not a "hallucination."? If you are seeing super natural entities I suggest a visit to your local mental health professional.
Well, I suggest you acknowledge there are things you just don't understand. The world doesn't comprise of just what you know.
That's a good question, I'm not sure if any professionals have ever sat down and diagnosed the authors. Certainly, there are a great deal of errors, contradictions, cruelties and violence, let alone the hallucinations and visions the authors had written about in both the NT and OT, not to mention the fantasy laden claims of walking on water, healing the lame and blind and even the resurrection itself would be grounds for a white jacket.
Actually, most scholars agree the NT was written about 60 A.D. and 95 A.D, and not by the person who was named as the author or anyone who even knew the authors.You have to break that done to make your case. It isn't as simple as what you are pointing out.
The Bible says the gospel according to Luke, etc. They weren't the original writers. However, that doesn't mean the gospels were not written down earlier. Anyway, they existed in the form of oral tradition.
Dave, I suggest you do a little research on how the mind operates. The ego is not the entire mind, just the mostly aware part that constantly tries to figure out if and when it can give the ID or Superego what they want. Your heart does no thinking at all. It pumps blood. Love is an emotion which is closely linked to addition and produces a chemical reaction in the brain.
I didn't realise that they'd proven, that the mind creates the feeling of love Dr Lamb...They say that sexual attraction, & attachment are the two main drives in love, but their not love...Also scientists don't know, how emotions trigger physical feelings...They have a few theories, but nothing as far as i know 100% proven...So i suppose, it's a bit like their theory of Evolution...I know my ego is not my entire mind, & my mind will be good for me when my ego has been eliminated...So i have done a lot of research, but on my own mind.
Sorry, I don't have the time or the inclination to educate you but they do in fact know what chemical reactions are involve with love. A break up produces the same chemical reaction in the brain that a drug withdrawal does. There are facts.
So let me get this straight, before these scientist did this study, did they "test" the people to make sure they was in love?...(& not just in attachment & sexual desire etc)...I mean can scientists even prove love exists?, let alone say someone is "in love"...Can they come & test me & my Mrs, & tell us if we're in love or not just from a few MRI scans?....All iv'e read about is similar reactions, but nothing proven 100%.
Well i just read through that, but i can't see where the proof is....20 studies of how many people?, & how do they know they we're definitely in love to start with?..."University researchers "may" have found a pattern, in which sexual desire progresses into love"....So they conclude from that, that the mind creates love....It's a bit like their theory of evolution, they already have "their" answer, but have to find a way of making it work somehow....I say love is a natural force just like gravity is, & you know how gravity works, but you can't quite prove that either.
You do realize you would have just violated several laws by saying that if you were an employer.
Why does nobody do good things when they are mentally ill? Really?
Mental illness does not always do something bad. Ever watched Beautiful Mind? Be careful. Some of us have been diagnosed with mental illnesses and treat people way better than ones who sit around pointing fingers in people's eyes demanding to know why they don't think there's a Satan.I have a mental illness in the form of depression and I'm not bad. The point I'm trying to make is why is it when someone does good no one says they are mentally ill? I don't think even would say that I'm a compassionate person because I suffer from clinical depression. They will attribute it to something else. However, when someone does bad, it appears to some that it must be mental illness by default. And when I said, "Why is it also destructive and bad?", I'm arguing from the point of view of those who think all evil must stem from mental illness. It most definitely is not my point of view that all with mental illness must be evil. That's ridiculous and that is why I take offence when people say when people do atrocious acts then they must automatically be mentally ill.
Here on Earth, we acknowledge mental disorders, because they are the ones that not only make sense, but are the ones that provide the evidence.
And you have personally evaluated these individuals? Why do psychos not do good things?
I'm still crying about it. I have been extremely traumatized.
Two days later you are still crying about the cat? Nothing about that seems off balance to you?
Nope. I just have a very caring, sensitive heart. It was very traumatic to see. I think I'm starting to get why you don't believe in Satan now. You don't seem to understand the depth of suffering and evil there is in the world.
Actually, Claire, I doubt you could find a person in my circle of friends, acquaintances or peripheral contacts who wouldn't attest to the fact that it is commonly believed I have a caring and selfless heart. I believe I was born with a level of empathy which allows me to comfortably care and my actions are normally based on the question of what does the person I interact with need, not what do I. And, this is not limited to humanity. I catch and release a mouse in the house and move insects out of harms way when necessary.
I recognize acts which I consider to be evil. I simply attempt to not jump to ridiculous conclusions. I don't think it is caring or particularly sensitive to insist others are led by demons from the underworld. I think claiming to be caring and holding such a belief are mutually exclusive. I mean, you obviously think you care about the cat. I simply think you are using the cat in an attempt to convince yourself, and others, you care. But, you leave humans out of the caring equation. You don't attempt to understand what motivates, in order to help. You write it all off as the handwork of Satan. Considering the numbers involved in this write off, pondering the crimes against humanity which have been perpetuated in the name of such write offs, I wonder how anyone who thinks this way could possibly convince themselves they either care, or possess any amount of sensitivity.
Sorry. It's a cop out. I would be doing you a disservice to pretend that i believed your beliefs were, all around, caring or sensitive. I think positions such as the one you claim to hold are, in their own way, evil. I don't write you off as being in the hands of Satan. I simply think you missed a few hugs at critical points in development. This conclusion doesn't mean I don't think you should be held accountable for damage you do other adults with your beliefs. But, then again, I think others (if mature and well balanced) should have better sense than to be affected by your beliefs.Oh my God, you think I'm using this cat for some other agenda? You are saying I don't care? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If you cannot understand how someone can cry days on about something so horrific then we are not on the same wavelength.
Claire, most people bounce back from a traumatic event very quickly, other do not. It's my understanding that those that take longer to recover are under stress and or had a very traumatic event when they were a child. If you are still having trouble forgetting about a picture you saw on the internet a few days later it may be a good idea to seek some professional help.
When you love Jesus, pain is always so much deeper. I am a sensitive person, I agree, but that is just in my genetic make-up as well.
Anyone who cries for days on end about anything should seek professional help. IMO.
I don't cry days on end. Sometimes when I remember it I cry.
I think, my problem is that you are focused solely on the cat. No attempt appears to be made to find compassion for an individual driven to act out in such a manner. No attempt to rationally understand. No compassion for him or her.
I read something once. About a woman whose car had been hijacked by a violent individual. She showed compassion instead of fear. She attempted to connect with the individual, as opposed to condemning him. It was an amazing story of how caring turns events. Your condemnation of the individual in that picture can only drive such behavior patterns by those types. You've reacted exactly as they expected.That's very astute Emile R. Compassion for the cats (when we don't know they weren't photoshoped) and none for the sick people who made the photo.
You are wrong. My mother said, "Find it in your hearts to forgive them." Now by forgiving, it doesn't mean I should tolerate or condone it. It means not sustaining anger. It's horrible they are in that state of mind. I pray for them.
Hey Claire in my opinion your right to condemn him, what the guy did to the cat was an "evil" act...So if Emile R had to describe the "type" of person that would do an "evil" act, she would of course say an "evil" person...Also i would like to point out, that i care about all "good" Human Beings...I have no time for any person who does such an evil act, whether it's done to a cat/dog/human etc....It's the "intention" that counts, & he "intended" harm & suffering...So when i see some dick head do something like that, i feel "NO" sympathy for him what so ever....I just feel saddened at the way, that society is going now...All i would say though Claire is stop thinking about it, then it won't upset you any more...So when "ever" the thought pops into your head, you "have" to distract your mind away from that thought asap!...Do this with every negative thought that comes to you, you go & do something physical & totally concentrate on what it is your doing. :-)
You feel sympathy for the cat, but not the person? The person is obviously not well and could use some help.
So your saying that every person, that does an act considered evil needs help?...I feel sympathy for the "victim", not the perpetrator...Poor old Hitler aye, all he needed was some help...The "cat guy" doesn't need help, he needs punishing...I mean there's been plenty of "considered" respectable/famous/successful people, that have, as it turns out, been very "evil" minded people...So did Jimmy Saville need help?, or was he "beyond" help?...I say he was beyond help, because he was pure evil...But could a "mentally ill" person, pull off what he did?.
Actually, yes that's what mentally ill people do all the time, pedophiles are a very good example of a mentally ill person doing what their mental illness drives them to do. If he would have received help, then maybe those kids would be living normal lives now...
It would have also been peachy if Hitler got some help. History shows that he REALLY needed it, even before his rise to power.
I'm not sure if you think all mentally ill people are sitting in corners twitching and playing with brightly colored ribbons, but that's really not how it works. Generally, they can fake functionality or actually be truly functional in many areas of their lives. Mental illness does not equal evil. The more people who pass that stereotype around, the less people get treatment, and the more people get hurt.I knew an Episcopal minister once. He believed those considered the most lost would be the first to know God in death, since they were the most in need. That's love.
That's nonsense. The evil will certainly know God in death and it won't be pleasant. Just understand some people don't have a need. They just love evil. They spurn good and hate God. It takes humility to realize one had a need and that is something most evil people will not acknowledge. Heck, we have people today who aren't evil who cannot bear to be told they are sinners.
Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the study of psychology who would delve into Hitler's past could armchair diagnose him rather quickly. It's interesting to note, that while obviously a sociopath, he had several beliefs/behaviors that were kind, even generous. No one is evil Claire. People sometimes do evil things, some people do lots of evil things, no one is exclusively evil.
Actually, demonic possession explains his actions. He would change into something rather horrible when he gave his propaganda speeches. Then in a non demonic state, he can behave rather normally. It's the same with mind control. The victim has two different personalities that he doesn't know the other exists. They can assume the role of the "nice guy" and then the "bad guy".
I find it disturbing that you, as a Christian, do not acknowledge that people can be evil. That's not to say everyone who does evil must be evil to the core. There are many other factors to consider. Ignorance, fear, etc, may be why people do appalling things. However, there are just some people who just love evil and suffering and they know what they are doing.
Jesus had no problem calling the Pharisees children of Satan. He knew them as evil.It's funny how that when we give people behaving as if they were possessed specific medication they begin to act as if they are not possessed. Do you think the demons are afraid of the meds so they take off?
You know that it's 2014 and not 1714 right?So you know that Hitler was on meds? For heaven's sake, people can do horrible things when they suffer from schizophrenia. Medication can solve that. That has nothing do with demonic possession.
Hitler has a Satanist so obviously it is not a stretch to associate him with demonic possession.
There wasn't just one involved. One was holding the head of the cat while the others stood around grinning.
'Fraid not.
If you're wrong about that part of your post, can I assume you're wrong about everything else you wrote?Well just out of curiosity Emile R, how would you describe someone who did an evil act intentionally?.
I think, you have to determine what is the core definition of evil before you start bandying the term about. You also need to determine how that definition is applied. Evil is intentional harm. Cold and calculated, with the intent to be perceived as such. The enjoyment of being perceived as such by others. Wanting to be labeled as evil through a rational understanding of the term. This definition is mine, of course. It may not match yours.
We all, intentionally, do things considered evil by others. Of course, we attempt to justify our actions through explaining why what we think to be rational, is. And, since our thought process (by our estimation) was rational, our actions, by our estimation, are also; therefore not evil.
We attempt to insist that our actions are within the confines of the written law, with no regard for the reason the law is in place. Staying within those parameters allows us to continue to believe we have rationally eluded the label of evil.
By not attempting to understand how our behavior patterns harm another life we are able to continue to hide from the reality that we have, by our actions, caused harm to life outside our circle of compassion. We obviously enjoy these actions since we not only show no remorse, but argue in defense of being allowed to continue.
So, there exists an element of what can be described as evil in almost every interaction. It may not be intentional harm on our part, but this is only because we refuse to recognize the full ramification. We all do it in order to survive.
Where does one draw the line? What is true evil, what is necessary evil for survival purposes? That would depend on who was asked. The cat (if truly beheaded, and not photoshopped) was probably treated no differently than an animal humanely slaughtered in one of thousands of meat processing facilities, and more humanely than many. We accept the slaughter of millions of animals daily as not evil. Why? Because we justify behavior which we deem beneficial to ourselves. But, fairly, if you label the cat people evil you should slap the term on yourself the next time you order a burger. And, the next time you eat a vegetable. A life form was harmed for your enjoyment.
I, personally, don't believe evil exists since I can't imagine anyone rationally determining that it would be beneficial to be perceived as evil. I think each person has a circle of compassion they either purposely limit, or have not the ability to expand. I also think given the assistance to understand it is sometimes possible for that individual to imagine perception through the eyes of the life harmed and suffer true remorse. My heart goes out to those I think in need of that, through their actions. I can't imagine surviving the suffering they will impose on themselves once they come to a full realization of the harm they have done. For those unable to understand the pain inflicted by their actions, those unwilling to expand their circle of compassion, I do feel sorry for, also. But, feeling sympathy and having patience which would condone allowing them liberty to continue on a destructive path are not one in the same.
Hi, Dave.
I agree whole-heartedly with the intention. If the intention is to inflict suffering then it is evil. I mean, how many people were gassed and put into crematoriums at Auschwitz by the Nazis? Are they needy or mentally ill? Or do they just feel nothing for life? How can all Nazis be mentally ill? It's time to describe it like it is and it is evil.
I have recovered from that picture. Time does that. It would be disturbing if I still cried about it all day one and a half weeks later.
Thanks so much for your comment.I think you've made an excellent point here Claire, & i think that's why no one's commented!lol....We're all the Nazi's mentally ill?, no of course they weren't....They weighed everything up in their minds, ie should they help kill millions of men women & kids....They weighed it all up their job, career, promotion etc, maybe they would have been shot if they didn't help, or locked up in prison/tortured/disgraced etc....So they weighed it all up, & decided to help, because they was weak minded....Maybe their we're many that didn't help, & we're shot etc (probably aye)....Anyway i reckon they was weak minded to start with, but then when they got cracking with the "gassing" "shooting" etc.....The "Evil" one's carried on with it, while the Good one's would have left or been transferred etc....I don't believe for one single minute, that "ALL" the Nazis at Auschwitz we're "ALL" Mentally ill!....No, they was "selected" from various units, selected because they was cold hearted (dead inside) pure Evil people....I'm gonna post something soon to shut all these "do gooders" up, & i'm gonna post a theory of how someone could become Evil....You've really got me thinking now, & no one's done that for ages! :-)
Evil, like dropping atomic bombs over cities because they were ordered to so? This experiment has been repeated over and over. It's human nature to follow orders even when we are being asked to hurt people. It's not evil, it's human nature.
Yes, it is evil and they could have said no to dropping the bombs. We can overcome human nature if we just have the courage to say no. The man who dropped the actual bomb was never repentant. An airman, part of the US air force, flew over Hiroshima after the bomb was dropped. He said:
“My God, what have we done?”
Over the next twenty years, he gradually came to believe that he had been terribly wrong, that he had denied the very foundations of his faith by lending moral and religious support to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
So why do some repent and others not?Human nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experimentBecause gradually, over the years, reality fades and imagination and incorrect memory takes over.
The very valid reasons for dropping the bomb are forgotten or ignored in favor of current beliefs and morality. Just as the rest of us do; those that dropped the bomb do the same thing, and for even stronger reasons. That they directly cause so many deaths would be a terrible thing to bear.Incorrect memories take over? Let me tell you that the US did not have to bomb Japan. They surrendered before it was nuked. So it was not a case of something that had to be done to preserve the US.
What is good and what is evil does not change for the times. So you need to answer? Why were some who were involved in the attack on Hiroshima repentant and others not even though they were complicit in both the same thing?
Thanks. There were definitely Nazis who enjoyed what they were doing. I do believe, as you have ascertained, that there must have been some who murdered because of fear and not because they really wanted to. However, it was there choice in the beginning to align with the Nazis. Unless I'm wrong? The coerced ones could have have been horrified of what they were made to do and became desensitized. Then they would have had no compunction to murder. I don't know the full story of the background of these coerced men. It could be a shade of grey.
As you say, there were so many Nazis who knew what they were doing. Josef Mengele was one. He was a Nazi and he conducted mind control experiments by torturing people. The CIA adopted this practice. They most certainly did not believe Mengele was mentally ill.
I am very pleased that I make people think! Please post your theory!
I have more respect for a person caring for an animal than for one caring about humans. Humans can look after themselves domesticated animals cannot do that.
I don't see how it acknowledges Satan at all (considering in Judaism he's still an angel who works for God and was never a fallen angel, and his changes through the ages, he seems clearly a myth and a scapegoat to me). To me it just acknowledges that people can be twisted and depraved-- not from some outside source acting on them but from their own inner psychological and social make-up.
I'm sorry you had to see that though; what a truly traumatic thing to have to run across.I'm not Jewish so thus I don't believe he is an agent of God in the form of an angel. I'm Christian and thus acknowledge what Jesus says about Satan. And it's not good.
As I said to Emile, Satan can use anyone for his evil purposes. It's just that the beheading of a cat is a blatant manifestation of Satan. It's not subtle or done out of ignorance.
You're making quite the leap, Claire. "People do horribly dreadful things. Man must not be capable of that without outside influence. Therefore, Satan. "
Sorry, but humans are animals... And some pretty "horrible" stuff goes down in the animal kingdom if you view it through a PC human's point of view... Forced copulation is quite prevalent. In our closest relatives, you can observe bullying to the max, infanticide (which can be observed in most animal societies, especially ones fighting for territory) and the list goes on. Our culture is the only thing that causes us to turn our heads at such atrocities when it comes to humans. Just maybe 70-80 years ago, people took photos next to bodies of men hanging as though it was just a fun family outing. Our world is considerably more PC than it used to be. Death was common. Seeing death, rather, was common. People used to duel to the death when embarrassed by someone for goodness sake. Beheadings were community events. People considered "witches" were hanged. People in general were hanged for various reasons (many unjustly). I can go on and on. While I am an animal lover and am disheartened by what you have viewed, Im not so quick to say Satan's behind it. Probably because I don't believe in Satan. But you'd be surprised by what any living thing is capable of. I'm rarely surprised, though.
But just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean Satan dunnit (or influenced it).You can't compare humans to animals. They have no sense of moral code. They don't know the difference between what is good and evil. Are you telling me that we have no sense of moral code?
It doesn't matter what the stance of things were during the ages. There are some things that are evil and can never be anything else. What else do you describe someone who enjoys seeing a cat suffer?How do you no animals don't know right from wrong? My dog certainly does. Like us he needed to be taught right from wrong, but there are certain rights and wrongs that are instinctive. Just like us. And just like us he sometimes does stuff he knows is wrong but wants to get away with it.
Someone who needs some professional help.Your dog only knows he's wrong when there are consequences. There is no way he is going to stop being naughty because he is developing a conscious about it.
I'd like an example of a "wrong", that's "instinctive" please Rad Man.
When a male Lion takes over a pride he kills all the cubs that aren't his.
When attacked humans will murder to survive.
We think nothing of killing chickens or cows for food.When attacked humans will murder to survive, is the biggest load of s**t iv'e heard in a while....Murder is pre meditated, & not done from being attacked....(You seem to like wikipedia, so look it up buddy).....So i personally am not capable of dropping a bomb, & "murdering" millions of "innocent" people....Or gassing "millions" of men, women, & children....I tell you now mate, i would sooner die!.
That's why it's so important to proof read your own posts.
So you picked only one of three to comment on and even then all you did was attempt to correct my grammar. I should have used kill instead of murder. Yea, you got me there. LOL
Why so angry?If I were to venture to guess why the anger, it would be because it is important to some people to have the myth of Satan to explain why bad things happen and to convince themselves that humans are inherently evil in nature and require God to save them. Satan comes in because of two dueling ideas. 1. That God wouldn't make inherently evil people and 2. That without us being inherently evil, there would be nothing for God to save us from.
Therefore, the acceptance of such horrible concepts such as psychology and sociology threatens their belief in God, and as such what they hold to be the entire foundation on which their lives function. So the "anger" really isn't anger. It's a defense mechanism against that fear.
What's funny is that the psychology discipline actually has more religious practitioners than any other medical field. So the knowledge is really unlikely to make one turn into a heathen. Still, I guess superstition is easier to cling to, it requires less book work.I think that it's a matter of not wanting to accept responsibility for our own unwanted desires and emotions. Like if I want another donut, but I'm not that hungry, I can blame someone else for my gluttony. If I am attracted to another man and I'm in a relationship, I can blame that lust on someone else. Instead of accepting that we are not perfect, and that we actually do have the ability of self control.
That sounds reasonable as well.
A personification of something that makes you do bad things would likely make a wonderful scapegoat. Although I can also see (playing devil's advocate) why it would also be easier to resist those temptations if there was a clear, vivid picture of an adversary to fight.
Either way, both the evil and the struggle are all in one's mind. Those thoughts are (in general) perfectly normal and easily explainable. Not evil.Great point. Low self-esteem is a very likely culprit. When something goes well, thank God, when something doesn't go well, blame Satan.
Humans are animals, Claire. That's a fact. And animals, besides humans, do have moral codes. You obviously don't know much about them for you to say that. They have societies, they have an idea of "right" and "wrong," which can vary from animal society to animal society, as it does with humans. Much of it is instinctual, but sorry, humans aren't the only mammals/animals with a sense of morals. Anyone who's watched Animal Planet or Nat Geo WIld should be aware of that. As a matter of fact, I'll recommend a movie to you that I think shows it. It's called African Cats and here's a link for more info about it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1223236/
If you see morality from specifically a religious standpoint, then you'll miss it. But if you understand morals for what they really are, you'll see them in the believer, the un-believer, and animals alike...
That's an opinion, Claire. While I ABSOLUTELY agree that the era shouldn't matter, neither one of us would be likely to feel so strongly about it if we lived in those times. Certainly not in the same sense that we do now. Morals evolve with culture and society. Opinions, world views differ from generation to generation. Sorry, but that's life.
I'd say that someone who enjoys seeing cats or animals suffer in general is a very, very troubled individual. I don't use the term "evil". But that still doesn't mean Satan dunnit or influenced it. Too big of a jump.
Give me an example of animals with moral codes? Just briefly of what they do? I know that animals can show compassion but they don't do acts and think, "Is this right or wrong?"
God's commandments never change. Do you think He'd find someone less capable of murder because it was okay during a certain era? What era would it have been okay to decapitate a cat and gloat over it? Even the devil can use a mentally unstable person. He'd take advantage of that for his own purpose.
Yes, anything but evil to you. It's always something else. What troubles does a person have to revel in the misery of animals?I just read a story about an Asian elephant that was given the task to move posts in holes. In one of the holes he refused to drop the post in. The trainer didn't know why until they looked deeply in the hole and found a dog sleeping in the hole. The elephant wouldn't do what he was told because he reasoned he would hurt something.
But that's compassion. He didn't think, "Is it wrong to put a pole in when there is a dog inside of it?"
Unlike people who damn well know what they are doing when they torture animals. They know it is wrong but still do it.
As near as I can tell the more intelligent a life-form the more nuanced and unpredictable its behaviors tend to be. This is why things like murder, the seemingly senseless killing of a member of ones own species, is only seen in animals like dolphins, chimps, humans, etc.
If I were to render a guess I'd say its the big brain and the fact that we're more consciously aware, its a double-edged sword because it opens us up to more choices, including those illogical and immoral. This is why a shark that attacks someone isn't evil, but a man that attacks someone is, because we perceive the shark as doing something instinctual, it doesn't have any moral awareness but a human being does.
As for Satan, that's just superstition and at any rate far more horrific things have been done in the name of God than have ever been done in the name of Satan.I agree except for the part of Satan being a superstition. There are many Satanists who don't do things in the name of Satan especially those in powerful positions. Doing evil in the name of God is far more effective. Take for example George Bush Jnr. He says God gave him guidance to invade Iraq but he is a Satanist.
Have you ever witnessed Bush worshiping Satan? Have you ever seen a video of it? Has he ever said he worships Satan?
Does Bush make the identical claim you do - that God guides him? Does he claim to be a Christian, just like you do?
Then you have no reason to make such a statement and should be heartily ashamed of yourself. Bush is the same as you - Christian - and you know it.He is a member of Bohemian Grove and the Skull and Bones society. Look that up. It's very Satanic. Of course he is not going to say he worships Satan. God guides me but I don't claim He wants me to go to war based on lies which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. So does He act like a Christian? No. It's easy to say one is a Christian to cover up their Satanism.
I'm not ashamed to say the truth.Claire, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you.
The Skull and Bones society is not "very satanic"; there is nothing satanic about it at all. Neither is the Bohemian Grove, and you have exactly zero reason to slander either group.
The world is not full of Satanic people and groups, all out to "get" Claire (or anyone else, for that matter). Actual Satanic worshipers are quite rare and limited to very small, nondescript groups.Yes, I have no reason to slam organizations that perform human sacrifice. Of course not. They perform acts for Lillith at Bohemian Grove. Yes, Lillith is Satan.
Bohemian Grove human sacrifice re-enactment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNpQ6kM8ANo
A Skull and Bones Society initiation ritual:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBSPOkUtVVc
As I Christian, am I ought to acknowledge that this is what Jesus wants Christians to do? Answer me please. You have absolutely no clue about the Skull and Bones Society or what happens at Bohemian Grove. This is probably the first time you have heard of them. In fact, you have no clue about evil.
You need to get a reality check. This world is not what it seems. You think Satanism is rare? Think again. It is rife and they have so much power of the world's affairs. Who do you think are responsible for wars? Christians who love Jesus?
I have a friend whose ex girlfriend and the mother of his child is a witch. She is heavily involved in Satan. He has approached me to organize an exorcism. It is an extremely serious matter because it has spilled over into my life. On Friday after praying for this man an object flew off a desk. So catch a wake up. Satan rules this world.The text on the video says it is a human sacrifice, not a re-enactment. Obviously a lie.
Would you also call Romeo and Juliet an "re-enactment" of a murder? Because that's what that organization does, after all - put on plays (re-enactments) in a grove of redwood trees.
It is not I that needs a reality check, Claire - that would be those that are on the verge of paranoia, thinking some horrible ET is coming after them for eternal torture. Best stay away from the boy thinking Satan has his girlfriend.Do you really believe that they'd actually film human sacrifices for the public to see? The re-enactment is bad enough. I think you'd agree that it is not Christian behaviour. Comments on the Skull and Bones initiation ritual?
You must believe what you want to believe. Just don't say you weren't warned.That's what I said - it is not a human sacrifice in spite of the text on the video claiming that. It lies, in other words.
The initiation video is so poor it is impossible to determine anything from it. I can't even tell what it is supposed to represent, let alone what actually happened.
Oh, I've been warned. At least 1,000 times, by various people with various beliefs, all different. Some of them even warn that an ET is after me, as you do.
Unfortunately, none of them can produce any evidence of what they claim. No hell, no Satan, no demons, no god, no heaven, no Christ. Nothing but their word and things like this that they iclaim is satanic (or whatever) but without a verifiable connection to any religious figure or concept at all.It's not a lie. It's a misunderstanding. I thought it was real, too, before I knew otherwise. It's not hard to determine what is going on. An effigy, representing a human being screaming, is being sacrificed. That is hardly rocket science. I also don't believe this is what Christians should be participating in.
As I've said, you can never cry ignorance.
That is your right to think that.
Satan is a Persian import - Ahiriman, not indigenous to Israel.
But still was invented by the Persians/pagans.
Satan is an invention of nobody. He has always been. I don't care where the names originated. He is still there.
So says you.
Why, did satan born among the persians that no one else heard about him before? Christians copied a pagan deity just like they copied many other things or like their predecessors, jews, copied, but that does not make it real.So says the truth.
I'm not sure why you mention the Persians. Satan is a Hebrew name. Shaytân- is Satan in Persia. What do you mean no one else had heard of him before? Please don't give me that Christianity was borrowed from pagan deities. That has been refuted a long time ago.Unless you can prove it, it is merely your claim and opinion.
Who refuted?
Anyway satan was brought to judah by the jews from babylonia. No one in Israel has heard of satan before. Christianity got it from persia through the jews.(the only mention of satan in old OT is job which many says was basically a pagan book).
Then many pagans too didn't know about satan. The opposite of persian religion, indian where Ahura is villain there is no satan. Most ancient religions have no satan.And yet Ahura is a villain? So, most religions would have an opposite force of evil to what they consider a force of all good? Does it matter what you call it?
In Indian mythology Ausaras are villians but asura is not a single person but a whole tribe who is opposed to 'devas'. They don't represent the traditional satan. They have almost nothing to do with human sins. In fact some are great and just kings like Mahabali, who was so just that there was no poverty or infant mortality in his Kingdom, or some like Prahlada who were very dear to the gods.
Humans do whatever they please and they get their reward in this or next birth without any reference to any deity.Satan isn't actually a proper name. It's from a Hebrew word that means accuser. Jewish and Christian traditions differ as to whether THE devil is one or more evil spirits.
Satan, as claire claims is the deity presiding over evil or the anthropomophed version of evil. That particular concept came to christianity through the jews from the Persians(persians called him Ahiriman), sothe Persians invented satan. For earlier jews the 'adversary' is merely a god's servant.
Do you think she's unaware of the evolution of the legends? Either way, are you trying to change her mind?
Probably she knows, but she is selective in using her yard sticks.
You think I will be able to?
I haven't seen anybody changing ohers mind by argument or debate. The maximum I'll be able to do is make her stop replying to me in this thread and the minimum is I stop bored.
You can say it is a claim but it is still a claim that is the truth.
Like actual legitimate true versions of pagan deities, not some false story with the intent of misleading people into believing Christianity is just a spin off of pagan deities.
Could you please provide sources? I don't know if you are aware that the Jews don't believe in Satan like Christians do? The former believes that Satan is a messenger of God meant to refine us by putting obstacles in our way. In other words, he is not evil.
Satan is not only found in Job:
Zechariah 3:1
"Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him."
Except in this instance, God wasn't happy with Satan. Lol.Proof please.
Question is who refuted. It is not whether which stories are exact copies, which are inspirations and which are indigenous?, question is are there earlier parallels and who refuted that Christianity is not totally indigenous.
It's not only Zechariah and job, I said old OT not later additions or books after Babylonian exile. Why do you want sources for something that can be easily deducted?
Satan as evil was a persian creation but he was as powerful as god almost equal so not acceptable to jews but was not much of a problem for later christians. Even in gospel satan is mostly doing the job assigned(testing) to him not evil. Your version of epitome of evil is persian.It's not easily deduced that Satan comes from Persia. You need to come up with the source that says this. Why would you think Job is a pagan book? The name Satan may very well be pagan but that really is a moot point. Many pagan gods are actually just Satan himself. It's just a name. It am not sure if the Jews in Jesus' time believed in Satan or just demons. They knew about demonic possession but it is only Jesus who mentions Satan as evil.
In other words, satan is simply you misconstruing facts.
History of Christianity , Dermaid McCoullah.(not sure about the spelling, book attested by rowan Williams)
Jesus was uneducated fellow who knew nothing.No it is not. Satan's existence does not depend on history and what names he was called.
Jesus was uneducated and knew nothing? He taught in the synagogue. He read from Isaiah in the synagogue.
If you read, it means you are educated.
He could write, too. Jesus bent down and wrote in the sand with his finger. John 8:1-11
However, we have a scripture here that says:
John 7:15
"But when it was now the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and began to teach. 15The Jews then were astonished, saying, "How has this man become learned, having never been educated?" 16So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me.…"
Does that mean He was uneducated? No, He was. It just means that Jesus had way more knowledge than average education. Jesus gave the credit of that knowledge to God.
I don't think that really proves that Satan exists. I think that just proves that there's a lot of sick a**holes out there, and that the guy posting the pic either has a very dark sense of humor, or they might be insane. Or, they could be a bit of both.
No, it doesn't prove Satan exists. However, I'm asking if one acknowledges Satan exists then it makes sense. Let's for argument sake say this guy isn't insane. What would then possess him to do such a thing? Why would you not do it but he would?
Well if you're going by that logic, then what is your exact definition of the term insanity though? I remember watching a documentary once about the psychology of batman and his villains, as professional psychologists did compare the characters to various real life historical figures like Jeffrey Dahmer and etc.
I think one of them mentioned Ted Bundy, and said that he even though he was a serial killer that he did not reach the legal definition of the term insane. Therefore, it really depends on what you're definition of insanity is, but I personally think the people you're talking about are just straight up crazy. Unless you can prove it to me that guy isn't legally insane, then I honestly don't know what else to tell you.The problem I have is that people claim that evil people are insane by default. There are some who thing they must be insane and that influence by Satan cannot be true. There are some people who are insane and don't know the difference between right and wrong. It often involves sadism. It is an extreme form of mental illness.
I think I have argued that Satan can very much use mental illness for his advantage. How do I know? Because insane people can perpetuate much evil and suffering. The devil takes advantage of their ability to not reason. It's just odd that they would be compelled to do that evil in the first place. I personally know of a psychopath and he does nothing good. When we do wrong, Satan takes advantage of that. All evil comes from Satan.
In my opinion, I think a schizophrenic who is not treated must be considered absolved when they do heinous things. They cannot tell the difference between right and wrong.
So if this person who decapitated the cat was insane, from what exactly is he suffering from? What disorder does he have? We must also remember that this boy was not alone. He was in a group, all of them pleased with the suffering of this cat. Are they all insane?
So I asked you again: What would then possess him to do such a thing? Why would you not do it but he would?Wow, you brought up so many points. I'm not sure if i can address them all, but i'll try. In a sense, you're right that not all bad people are mentally insane. Some are bad because of how they grew up. For example, a racist might rape and kill a minority believing he did nothing wrong because he was taught throughout his whole life that minorities were inferior to him. Not saying, I agree with that, but there are people who grow up with that mentality.
As for what you said about knowing a psychopath personally...um....I shutter to ask, but how exactly do you know this psychopath? Sorry, I'm just curious.
However, I'm not going to address anything you said about psychopathic tendencies being the by product of satan because I'm not a psychologist. Therefore, it's not my place to say.
As for you saying that a schizophrenic should be absolved of their crimes if they're symptoms are untreated, I have to painfully disagree with you. Granted, they may not know what they do, but you don't want to allow those people to wonder off scott free to hurt any more people. At the very least, they should be declared insane to where they can get locked up in an asylum to get the help they need.
As far as this cat thing goes, I honestly never saw this pic that you're referring to. However, let me ask you this. Was the picture photoshopped? Was it altered in any way? The reason why I ask is because if it's a fake, then it might be someone with a very twisted sense of humor. Hell, Seth McFarlane usually puts in f**ked up crap like that in his family guy episodes on tv. Would you call him insane? Or what about the guys created south park? They show violent messed up crap all the time, yet would we call them insane?
I can't answer for the person that posted that picture, as i can only speak for myself. And in my own opinion, I wouldn't post something like that to begin with because for starters...I don't trust fb at all. And after doing research on that site before, I know anything you post up on there can come back to bite you in the proverbial a** one way or the other; hence I'm very selective about what i put on there anyway. And most of all, I wouldn't do something like that because I personally think anyone who does that shit to a poor animal is beyond sick.
They're just horrible. Even if the photo is fake, it's still a very bad joke on the poster's part .
It is true that many are a product of their environment but most know they are doing wrong. When they are tried in court, they deny it. Why not say he murdered because he thinks minorities are inferior? Some bring up the defence that because they were raped as a child then it must be understandable that they rape children as adults. Well first of all, they should know what suffering he puts children through if he experienced it himself. I know things are not black and white but if someone denies a crime they know they are guilty of then they are not showing remorse. That is evil. Many people get raped as children but they don't go on to rape.
This psychopath happens to be a relative. My psychiatrist diagnosed him as such when he spoke to him about this psycho. This person is very cruel and evil. He definitely shows the signs of being one according to what psychiatrists deem to be a psychopath.
Fair enough.
I most certainly did not mean they must get off scot free! They need to be locked up in a mental institution. Perhaps for life even. Then they must be treated there. In law, those people are not guilty of the crimes they do if they don't know the difference between right and wrong. They don't get convicted but are sent to a psychiatric hospital.
It's real, I'm afraid. I heard that those culprits got prosecuted for it. Even if it was, that twisted sense of human indicates an evil mind.
McFarlane is not insane. He is a Satanist. His disgusting show, "Family Guy" is all about hatred for Christianity and has occult symbolism in it. He even depicts the Boston bombing in an episode before it even happened!
So, McFarlane is an evil Satanist because he cracks a joke now and again about religion?
I suppose that would make all atheists evil Satanists.Nope - they are just too troubled with ideas like 'bacteria become human beings', gotcha again!
Most in the entertainment industry are Satanists. Of course he says he is an atheist. He can't very well say he is a Satanist. And I notice you left out the part where there is occult symbolism.
Those emoticons seem to be too internally troubled..
Shiot, you really need a wake-up call! Get with reality.
Yea, get with reality. Seth is a satanist, people are often possessed by demons and something terrible will happen at the London Olympics. Oh, and the Pope is a satanist as well.
So I assume you have thoroughly researched the claim of Satanism in the entertainment industry to come to your conclusion? It is not hard to learn about these things. Google it. In fact, the Satanism could not be more blatant. So open your eyes.
That should be the question posed to you. What research have you done? None?
Google what? Blatant? Several years, actually. What about you? None?
Satanism in the entertainment industry! Here is a teaser for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDM7D1teDco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEXUzCgn-nM
Yep.
Um...what makes you say that? I don't know where you get your sources from, but I doubt most people that work in the entertainment industry are satanists. Now, if you had said most people that work in the entertainment industries are liberals, then I might agree with you. But then again, that doesn't mean we don't have a good amount of people, in the entertainment industry, that are conservatives (i.e. Ronald Reagan back when he was an actor).
I don't think Seth is a satanist, but he does have a very dark sense of humor that most people are going to either love or hate. In some ways, I admire the guy because he's willing to take chances with his comedy that most people aren't willing to go, and I like it when filmmakers take chances with their work. But, I do agree with you that he does have a tendency to take things too far. Heck, I thought he went a bit overboard with all the death scenes in "A Million Ways to Die in the West", but it was still an enjoyable film though.
The thing about his style of comedy is that it's not for everyone. I do think he has a very warped sense of humor obviously, as I don't think anyone here will dispute that. However, that doesn't make him a satanist though.
Why do you doubt it? I have done a lot of research into this matter. Several years of it, in fact. I'd like you to comment on this short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDM7D1teDco
The thing with Satanists is that they insert occult symbolism in their work. That's the give away and that is what Seth does.I left a couple of comments on the youtube video you referred me to, but I don't know if they're the type of comments that you'd prefer though. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how seriously we should take Katy Perry, Eminem and Snoop Dogg claiming to have allegedly sold their souls to satan, as they could just saying this to stir up controversy to promote their next album.
Many musicians do this all the time. It's the main reason why Jay Z wore a medallion around his neck saying "whites are the devil", when he was still part owner of the brooklyn nets. Funny because the nba banned sterling over his racist remarks, yet jay z is allowed to get away with his openly racist medallion scott free. Talk about double standards.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to say is that a lot of musicians will lie and tell you flat out anything they think will make you listen to them. In fact, did you know that some christian band members aren't really christians? Some of them lie to sell their albums to christians because they know they can make money off of that demographic. here's a video on youtube that mentions that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtSBWBTxVxY
As for that old guy at the end of your video that you wanted me to look at...I got nothing. To be honest, I don't even know who that guy is, but then again, I don't really follow a lot of musicians. Movies are more my speed, so I'm afraid I don't know who he is. However, if he did sell his soul, then all I can say is that sucks. I don't know what else there is to say about that.
To be honest, I'm starting to feel bad now. From the way you said that you wanted me to comment in the short video, I'm guessing you were hoping that i would have something meaningful to say, but I'm sorry that I don't. If anything, I'm kind of at a loss for words about the video you wanted me to watch. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't really know what to say about it to be honest. Other than I doubt all of those musicians sold their souls to the devil, as it's been proven before that a lot of them lie to stir up controversy to draw up attention to their next album, or they'll lie if they think it'll make people listen to their music.
I could be wrong though about them selling their souls to the devil, as I don't know any of those people personally. However, this is just an educated guess. I do think there are forces out there that are beyond humanity's control. Things we have yet to understand. And who knows? Maybe some of them might be telling the truth, but I doubt all of them are, as I'm willing to bet quite a few of them were lying in that video. Eminem for sure because I remember when he made "8 mile", he mentioned how that film was based on his real life story. Well from watching that film recently, I didn't see any particular scene where Eminem sold his soul to satan for fame, so either he was lying about that movie being based on his life. Or he's lying during that song about him selling his soul to satan. Either way, he's a liar about one of those things.
As far as Seth inserting occult symbolisms into his cartoons, I honestly couldn't say. To me that sort of sounds like the conspiracy that disney inserts random sex references in their animated features like the dust spelling out "sex", when simba lays down on the edge of a cliff. Or, that priest in the little mermaid that looks like he has a massive erection and etc.
I mean it's an interesting theory, but sadly that's all it is. Just a theory. Maybe Seth is a satanist, or maybe he's not. i honestly don't know because I never met the man. All I know about him is from what I've seen of his work, and whatever the media says about him.
I'm sure there probably are some people in the entertainment industry that are secretly satanists, but I doubt it's as many as you're making it out to be. If that was the case, then why are we getting so many religious films this year like "son of god", "noah", "god is not dead", and "heaven is for real", to name a few. Hell, Greg Kinnear has already starred in two pro religious films like "heaven is for real" and "dear god", so surely he can't be a satanist.Thanks for your response. Many of them boast about their Satanism knowing that most people are not going to take it seriously. It's called hidden in plain sight. Think about it. Do celebrity gossip magazines ever mention them being Satanists? If they are just joking around, why don't they mention it? And we also have to consider what is not said. Those people who don't associate themselves with Satan at all publicly.
Here is an example:
Celine Dion
This is the same hand gesture of Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey. It means Satan.
We know that Celine Dion does not market herself as a Satanist at all. Neither does Cher:
But the truth is, you don't make it into the music industry without selling your soul. The music industry is influenced by Satanist Aleister Crowley. Among the artists inspired by him are the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and David Bowie. Crowley taught in his magick handbook, Magick in Theory and Practice, for the occultist, It's known as “the law of reversal” “. . . let him learn to write backwards. .
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20 … luence.htm
So the Beatles, being ardent fans of Aleister Crowley, popularised backmasking. That is the practice of putting hidden messages on tracks played backwards. Here is a case of Rihanna
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu63JOhJ6Dk
And Led Zeppelin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNE75XznfIE
From what I've learnt, this is a supernatural practice. Here is ex Illuminati member John Todd, who was murdered, explaining demons in the industry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otti-82jEAc
Yes, many Christian singers aren't Christian at all. In fact, many are Satanists. It's like the Vatican. It's not Christian either. It's Satanic.
I don't believe that Christian metal star that was mentioned in the video you posted me was atheist. I bet you he is a Satanist. Seth MacFarlane also hides behind atheism. As for Eminem's 8 Mile film, I don't think he'd make as much money from the film if he mentioned his devil worshiping. That would be too obvious. Mentioning Satanism in his music can be construed, as you do, as artistic expression. Presenting it as a fact is another matter altogether.
Now to the Christian films. There is an Satanic agenda to lure Christians away from Christianity by presenting their beliefs and Illuminati symbols in films they know Christians will watch like, "Noah". It is admitted that it is Anti-Christian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_oIpaSuDPs
There was quite a bit of controversy when it came to the film, "Son of God". Satan was completely excluded from the film because the actor that played Satan looked like Obama. I'm not sure if that was deliberate or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU437JrSn9E
But it is also interesting that there is a backward message of one of Obama's speeches that says, "Thank you Satan."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqALdkTArqs
The God is not Dead film sounds dodgy:
http://www.critical-theory.com/the-righ … 2-million/
Don't know much about the other films but you asked how Greg Kinnear could be a Satanist because he starred pro Christian films. I cannot comment on this person specifically but evil in general masquerades as good when it suits them. I've been foxed many times until this stage in my life. I now see through evil people. It took me 30 years to finally get it completely.
Thanks again for your time.
Bombarding people with "open your eyes Satanism is everywhere" has never really gotten anybody to change their minds.
Trust me, I know just as you about occult, Satanism, freemasonry, secret societies, symbolism, etc. But if you want to spread your warning, you're doing it all wrong.
"So I assume you have thoroughly researched the claim of Satanism in the entertainment industry to come to your conclusion? It is not hard to learn about these things. Google it. In fact, the Satanism could not be more blatant. So open your eyes."
This was not directed at me, but I want to address something. You can't expect someone to just believe you right of the bat. Telling someone "open your eyes" insinuates that they're refusing to open them. You began your argument by insisting that people should believe you, and that they should trust your authority on this. How am I to know YOU did your proper research. You've affirmed you have, but haven't given me much reason to think so. One, because your statements are riddled with historical inaccuracies, and two, you haven't given us specific facts, dates, etc. You gotta be more specific if you want people to take you seriously.
Never effective.Of course I cannot expect someone to just take my word for it. I say "open your eyes" when someone says there is no Satanism in the entertainment industry as a fact when they clearly don't have a clue. Then they laugh about it. So before they come to a conclusion before doing research, they must open their eyes.
It's like me saying evolution cannot possibly be true but I have done no research on it. That's willful ignorance.
Okay, let's discuss my inaccuracies."Okay, let's discuss my inaccuracies."
The inaccuracy was being sure you knew what the eye meant. I left an entire excerpt above.Deleted
lol so I gathered.
Mackey was 33rd degree.
All I'm saying is I respectfully disagree with your rigid interpretation of the data. The presence of a 33rd degree interpreting a symbol in one way and another 33rd degree interpreting it a different way means that there is disagreement within the circle of freemasonry.
Hence, no rigid interpretation, by definition. I think they know better than an outsider what it actually means. attempting to discuss them whilst ignoring their own assertions seems a little presumptuous.
That's what my years of research has led me to understand. It seems a little more realistic than saying there's only ONE way they interpreted it. History has taught us that most cults or religious groups are divided among themselves, including these people. But, each to his or her own interpretation.But aren't you going to discuss the points I've made? Have I not proven that Freemasonry is occult based?
"The eye plays a most important part in occult symbolism and probably owes its origin in western magical designs to the Eye of Horus, which was one of the most frequently used of Egyptian magical symbols.” (Fredrick Goodman, Magical Symbols p. 101, 1989) Bolds added"
"This ubiquitous image is most often referred to as the all-seeing eye or “eye of providence.” The eye, usually depicted in the sky looking out upon the earth, is an ancient symbol of the sun, and historically has been used as a symbol of omniscience. The idea of the solar eye comes to us from the Egyptians, who equated the eye with the deity Osiris; the human eye in its ability to perceive light was viewed as a miniature sun.” ( See “All Seeing Eye” definition at SymbolDicionary.net) Emphasis added"
We know that Baal is a god of Satanism. It happens to be a sun god as well.
In Matthew 12:27, Jesus calls Satan “Beelzebub,” linking the devil to Baal-Zebub, a Philistine deity (2 Kings 1:2).
Have I not proven that because of Osiris worship, the eye of God cannot be the monotheistic God that the three religions are based? What is the Masonic eye and what is the normal eye of God? Why are they different? It is a fact that the eye of providence is the eye of Horus. The only physical organ I can think of that represents the eye is the third eye in the pineal gland in the brain.
Here is another Mackey quote:
"The point within the circle is an interesting and important symbol in Freemasonry ... The symbol is really a beautiful but somewhat abstruse allusion to the old Sun-Worship, and introduces us for the first time to that modification of it, known among the ancients as the worship of the Phallus." [Short Talk Bulletin, February, 1936; Vol. 14, No. 2, Reprinted July, 1980, p. 7].
So, according to him, the point in the circle represents sun worship and the worship of the Phallus. And so Baal is also worshiped in Freemasonry because the obelisk is used in Baal worship and it represents the phallus.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/free19.htm
So it is very obvious that Freemasonry is closely related to Satanism. They are both occult based. No matter if Freemasonry is defined by Mackey or other Masons, it is still occult based.Uhhh...no? Baal was the Canaanite god of rain and thunder.
"Baal (/ˈbeɪl/ bayl; sometimes spelled Bael, Baël (French), Baell) is in 17th Century goetic occult writings one of the seven princes of Hell. The name is drawn from the Canaanite deity Baal mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as the primary god of the Phoenicians."
Miller, Patrick (2000).Israelite religion and Biblical theology: collected essays. Continuum International Publishing Group, p. 32. ISBN 1-84127-142-X
"The antiquity of the worship of the god or gods of Baal extends back to the 14th century BCE among the ancient Semitic peoples, the descendants of Shem, the oldest son of Biblical Noah. Semitic is more of a linguistic classification than a racial one. Thus, people speaking the same or similar languages first worshiped Baal in his many forms. The word Baal means "master" or "owner". In ancient religions the name denoted sun, lord or god. Baal was common a name of small Syrian and Persian deities. Baal is still principally thought of as a Canaanite fertility deity. The Great Baal was of Canaan. He was the son of El, the high god of Canaan. The cult of Baal celebrated annually his death and resurrection as a part of the Canaanite fertility rituals. These ceremonies often included human sacrifice and temple prostitution."
Human sacrifice. Wonderful. Often practiced in Satanism.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html
The obelisk is used in Baal worship. In fact, in means "Baal's (Bel's) shaft." In other words, his penis. Horrible that it is in Washington DC, for example.
We also get the demon, Beelzebub, who is Baal. Jesus was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub. “Beelzebub” is the Greek form of the name “Baal-zebub."
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Mean … 6LbvfmSxVY
All these pagan gods represent Satan whether people know it or not.
I'm not arguing you're wrong. I'm arguing that there are two sides to the story and that the evidence you have provided is contradictory. THAT is my argument. Therefore you can't expect everyone else to believe you. All the information you provided will be contradicted by another 33rd degree mason.
Remember, I think that it is an occult. Why would I argue against you?
My argument was, before it got all complicated, that your history was not accurate, concerning the eye. I showed you a contradicting excerpt about the eye from another 33rd degree freemason who published an entire encyclopedia on it. Therefore, the inaccuracy lies in your being certain of the meaning of the eye, when they disagree themselves.
He said it was an "allusion" and an "introduction," not a "representation." I wasn't able to see the context of his words, and it was taken from a severely "freemasonry is satanic!" site, which means I don't know whether to take it in the given context or not. I was not able to find the original source in its full context. I'll do some more research but I can only seem to find that one statement in by itself, not the whole thing. Whenever there is a "...." I wonder what it said and if it would somehow re-shape our definition of what was said. The purpose of me providing that statement was to prove to you that not all agreed on the symbolism of the eye of the pyramid. The excerpt which you provided was in reference to a different symbol completely. Therefore it is invalid against my WHOLE point, which is that the eye WAS NOT NECESSARILY (I hate caps, how do you italicize in paragraphs, looks like I'm yelling
)how you described, because the excerpt you provided was about a circle with a dot in the middle, not the eye of the pyramid. Now, If you were using it NOT about the historical accuracy of the eye, but to show that even Mackey said that there was occult representation, then first of all, that's pointless because I'm not arguing against that, but secondly, I think you stretch the words a little too far, even if it were not. "Allude" and "Introduce," in my opinion, in the miniscule context I am given, does not mean "represent." But each to their own interpretation. However I think it's vague enough to not be able to use it as supporting facts. You also have to keep in mind what he said elsewhere and weigh it against that. My suggestion would be to read a good portion of the Encyclopedia he wrote and point out several issues you have which indicate he affirmed it was an occult, if you wish to argue that he was pointing to facts which affirmed that freemasonry is occult, since that is his greatest, most thorough work.
So in summary, I repeat. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you can't be so sure you're right, with the given evidence. Every fact you presented has been contradicted by a high degree freemason. If two 33rd degree freemasons who I would imagine are very skilled in it (one of which who is responsible for the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Mackey) say opposing things, then are they not in disagreement? I think they know what their talking about. More than we do. As I have claimed from the very beginning, I never claimed to argue with you about whether or not it is true. I did claim that your historical facts were in accurate and therefore cannot be used as supporting evidence. I repeat. I think it is occult. But the facts you are providing aren't valid.What do you really think is practiced by occultists?
You are basing your entire argument on one Freemason. I refer to multiple Freemasons. Why would Aleister Crowley, a Satanist Freemason, refer to the eye as representing Satan? He was a 33rd degree Mason. This is not a rhetorical question. Please answer. Some Masons say it is the way it truly is and there are Masons, like Mackey, who water it down.
So let's go through this again. I took into consideration what Mackey wrote about the eye that you first quoted. He brings Solomon into it. Solomon was a black magician. They are Satanists. Mackey also mentions Osiris, who is a sun god. Sun worship is Satanism.
"Englishman John Yarker, a well-known nineteenth century Masonic magician and occultist, in his Notes on the Scientific and Religious Mysteries of Antiquity, makes mention of the fact that the High Priests of the ancient Jews also worshipped the sun God.
He writes:
The Mysteries we know were practiced in a secret subterranean chamber under the Temple of Solomon, at Jerusalem, where four and twenty elders adored the sun, with their faces toward the east.
In reality, in worshipping the sun, the ancients were worshipping Satan. G.H. Pember, in a scholarly work on the Mysteries, Earth's Earliest Ages, affirms this fact when he states,
"There is little doubt that the culmination of the Mysteries was the worship of Satan himself."2"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio … gica22.htm
Let's go through this quote again:
"The point within the circle is an interesting and important symbol in Freemasonry ... The symbol is really a beautiful but somewhat abstruse allusion to the old Sun-Worship, and introduces us for the first time to that modification of it, known among the ancients as the worship of the Phallus." [Short Talk Bulletin, February, 1936; Vol. 14, No. 2, Reprinted July, 1980, p. 7]. Mackey
Now I'm not referring to the eye symbolism when quoting this. What I am trying to say is that Mackey actually agrees with the Masonic views I have in that the point within the circle alludes to SUN WORSHIP. Why? Because the worship of the Phallus is Baal worship who is a sun god himself. The Phallus is represented by an obelisk.
"One Masonic author states that this symbol is used in Sun Worship, and then says: "The female principle, symbolized by the moon, assumed the form of a lunette [small circular opening], or crescent, while the male principle, symbolized by the sun, assumed the form of the lingam [Phallus] and placed himself erect in the center of the lunette, like the mast of a ship." ["Point Within A Circle", Short Talk Bulletin , August, 1931, Masonic Bulletin designed to read within the Lodges, p. 4]"
http://www.cuttingedge.org/free16.htm
All you have to do is use logic. You can trace all of it back to Satan worship. I'd like you, please, to find another Mason who has the exact views as Mackey. Because I have found many Masons that have matched mine. I would also like you for to explain what that Mackey quote of the point within the circle actually means.
Why are your facts valid but mine aren't?"What do you really think is practiced by occultists? "
Satan worship, of course. As I keep saying and continue to say. I'm not arguing you're wrong. It's my OPINION that that's probably the case.
"You are basing your entire argument on one Freemason. I refer to multiple Freemasons. Why would Aleister Crowley, a Satanist Freemason, refer to the eye as representing Satan? He was a 33rd degree Mason. This is not a rhetorical question. Please answer. Some Masons say it is the way it truly is and there are Masons, like Mackey, who water it down. "
Mackey is not the only one. Whether or not you believe someone waters it down is entirely your own opinion.
"So let's go through this again. I took into consideration what Mackey wrote about the eye that you first quoted. He brings Solomon into it. Solomon was a black magician. They are Satanists. Mackey also mentions Osiris, who is a sun god. Sun worship is Satanism. "
That's your opinion of the evidence, as well.
"Englishman John Yarker, a well-known nineteenth century Masonic magician and occultist, in his Notes on the Scientific and Religious Mysteries of Antiquity, makes mention of the fact that the High Priests of the ancient Jews also worshipped the sun God.
He writes:
The Mysteries we know were practiced in a secret subterranean chamber under the Temple of Solomon, at Jerusalem, where four and twenty elders adored the sun, with their faces toward the east.
In reality, in worshipping the sun, the ancients were worshipping Satan. G.H. Pember, in a scholarly work on the Mysteries, Earth's Earliest Ages, affirms this fact when he states,
"There is little doubt that the culmination of the Mysteries was the worship of Satan himself."2"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio … gica22.htm
Let's go through this quote again:
"The point within the circle is an interesting and important symbol in Freemasonry ... The symbol is really a beautiful but somewhat abstruse allusion to the old Sun-Worship, and introduces us for the first time to that modification of it, known among the ancients as the worship of the Phallus." [Short Talk Bulletin, February, 1936; Vol. 14, No. 2, Reprinted July, 1980, p. 7]. Mackey
Now I'm not referring to the eye symbolism when quoting this. What I am trying to say is that Mackey actually agrees with the Masonic views I have in that the point within the circle alludes to SUN WORSHIP. Why? Because the worship of the Phallus is Baal worship who is a sun god himself. The Phallus is represented by an obelisk."
He said "alludes to," not "represents." I see where you're coming from.
"One Masonic author states that this symbol is used in Sun Worship, and then says: "The female principle, symbolized by the moon, assumed the form of a lunette [small circular opening], or crescent, while the male principle, symbolized by the sun, assumed the form of the lingam [Phallus] and placed himself erect in the center of the lunette, like the mast of a ship." ["Point Within A Circle", Short Talk Bulletin , August, 1931, Masonic Bulletin designed to read within the Lodges, p. 4]"
http://www.cuttingedge.org/free16.htm
All you have to do is use logic. You can trace all of it back to Satan worship. I'd like you, please, to find another Mason who has the exact views as Mackey. Because I have found many Masons that have matched mine. I would also like you for to explain what that Mackey quote of the point within the circle actually means."
I don't have to do that, because what you are wanting me to do would not serve to prove or prove anything, hence moot.
I don't have to find a Mason that has the exact same views as Mason. I chose a reputable Mason who was of 33rd degree who had a differing viewpoint on what Freemasonry actually was, which served my purpose (THAT ALL FREEMASONS DO NOT DEFINE THE OCCULT AS SUCH AND IT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON) If he felt that way, there are others. I'm pretty sure you don't become 33rd degree by accident.
You are again missing my point. You're arguing that your evidence can be taken only one way. I say it can. If it was so easily interpreted, there wouldn't be debate about it.
You have nothing to prove to me. I already think they're Satan worshipers. I was critiquing your approach.
"Why are your facts valid but mine aren't?"
Again, I said that they weren't because they were based on a one-sided view of history and Solomon which could be contradicted by others in history. The whole entire point of this was to draw out fact which were more solid. And, I think, by debate, I have indirectly caused that to happen. People now have a more detailed view of why you think what you do. However, I stand my ground. I think they probably worship Satan, but if I do that based on the information you are giving me, I'd have to assume a lot of things (that Mackey watered his version down, that Solomon and Moses were magicians, etc.)
That's all. No hard feelings. I realize you are trying to get me to defend a case but I can't defend something I never claimed (i.e. that the occult was not Satanic)
He is many things, but...no. Just go home. You clearly don't have the capacity to use logic or reason.
Actually, it's just a sitcom about a New England family who get into increasingly-ridiculous situations (e.g. fighting giant chickens, time traveling, fighting off Mel Gibson on the top of Mount Rushmore, etc.) The fact that you take such a ludicrous show seriously further proves that neither logic nor reason are possible for you. Also, occult symbolism? Well, the show does make fun of everyone and anyone, so I wouldn't put it past him to make fun of voodoo practitioners.
I would ask for a source, but then I realized he also depicts Islamic Alarm Clocks blowing up the main character's house and fights with the giant chicken bringing down planes and buses, so you're probably confusing a "prophetic event" with another throwaway gag. Logic and reason are your friends. Get acquainted with them.What I'm referring to is not what direct mockery. It was a subtle insert. It's called hidden in plain sight.
The eye in the pyramid is the most significant symbol in Satanism and Freemasonry. It represents the eye of Lucifer.
People also hide their Satanism by blatantly making fun of it so they can safely expose it to others without detection.
So Seth got all pissed off when people insinuated that his series referred to the Boston Bombing. He said it was abhorrent. Rich coming from him since his whole show is abhorrent. Typical Satanist. Deny everything when busted.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 … 94958.html
He claimed there was splicing involved but they were two scenes from the same episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WQeqE943Uo
It is typical for programs to put future events in their programs. It happens even in cartoons:
Look at the poster on the top right that says, "Coming soon." This was made in April 2001.
Finally we have something from Nike that existed prior to the Boston bombing massacre:
Of course that was yanked off the market after the bombing. Look at these things collectively and you will see my point of view. Look at all the material I have given you.Do you honestly know nothing about anything? It represents the All-Seeing Eye of God. It's called the "Eye of Providence." "Providence" has always been a term to describe God. Always. Always. You would have to be deaf, dumb, blind, and fundamentally illiterate and ignorant to think otherwise.
Also, Freemasonry has nothing to do with Satanism, either. It was formed by a subsect of medieval Christian and Deist scientists who studied areas of knowledge that the Church deemed heretical, and so had to go underground and use symbology to further pursue knowledge without being murdered in any manner of hilarious ways by the Church (between 450 and 1500, it's kinda what the Church did best).
Nowadays, it's a rich-guys fraternity in which power brokers meet up and play golf while cutting business deals. And if that's Satanic, then so is Capitalism, because that's basically what's going on in the Masonic lodges. Well, Capitalism and super-expensive call girls giving lap dances.
Also, claiming that Johnny Bravo screenshot is "foretelling the future" is absurd, too. It's one building, and it's on fire--an obvious allusion to Die Hard, making fun of the fact that explosions are all you need to draw an audience into watching a dumb action movie--and you're somehow trying to claim that underpaid animators can predict the future? They should've spent those predictive powers preventing the show from being cancelled, instead.My friend, who is God in Freemasonry? It's Lucifer. We know the "Eye of Providence" is a Freemasonic symbol. Read the quote from 33rd degree Mason, Albert Pike:
"Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not!" [Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, p. 321, 19th Degree of Grand Pontiff; Red Emphasis added]
Quote from 33rd degree Freemason, Manly P Hall:
"The day has come when Fellow Craftsman must know and apply their knowledge. The lost key to their grade is the mastery of emotion , which places the energy of the universe at their disposal. Man can only expect to be entrusted with great power by proving his ability to use it constructively and selflessly. When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands, and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy. He must follow in the footsteps of his forefather, Tubal-Cain, who with the mighty strength of the war god hammered his sword into a plowshare." [Manly P. Hall, 33rd Degree, K.T., The Lost Keys of Freemasonry or The Secret of Hiram Abiff , Forward by Reynold E. Blight, 33rd Degree, K.T., Illustrations by J. Augustus Knapp, 32nd Degree, Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, p. 48; Emphasis Added]
That was before the Illuminati penetrated Freemasonry. And, well, that means Satanism got in, too. Why else do you think they share the same symbols?
That creature above is Baphomet, the god worshiped as Satan by Satanists and Freemasons. In fact, in Freemasonry, Baphomet is the Holy Spirit.
Baphomet -- "The Gnostics held that it [universal agent] composed the igneous [pertaining to fire] body of the Holy Spirit, and it was adored in the secret rites of the Sabbat or the Temple under the hieroglyphic figure of Baphomet or the hermaphroditic goat of Mendes ." [Pike, op. cit., p. 734, teaching of the 28th Degree; Emphasis added]
Freemasons are Gnostics.
The most vile of Satanists was Aleister Crowley, another 33rd degree Freemason. Here he is with his eye in the triangle hat.
and his quote:
Satan Cry Aloud!
Thou Exalted Most High!
Oh My Father Satan!
The Eye!
-Aleister Crowley
Magnum Opus
Book Four
Yes, it's the eye of Satan.
The triangle also means Set, also known as Satan or as perfect man.
On the surface, maybe, but that isn't the real deal.
None of the Die Hard films were made in 2001. It's nothing to do with unpaid animators being psychic. Many are Satanists themselves. They all know the Satanic agenda. In fact, it's scary how interwoven it it.
It's interesting to note Cartoon Network is owned by Freemasons.
Note the Freemasonic black and white squares.
Why did you not address the points I made about Seth MacFarlane? And the Nike, "Boston Massacre"? Do you agree with me?Okay, here are my sources:
About infiltrating Freemasonry:
Weishaupt as a Freemason:
Weishaupt (founder of Illuminati) affiliated himself with the Masons, joining the Munich Lodge [Theodor of Good Counsel], in 1777. He played on the egotism that runs through Masonry and created a secret order within a secret order. The most powerful image in Illuminist sorcery is the sign of Dagon (1 Samuel 5): the hand, palm forward with the five digits extended. Weishaupt taught that everything occurred in fives. Human history came in a cycle of five stages and someone who understood these could manipulate history to his own ends. The five stages were: Chaos; Discord; Confusion; Bureaucracy; Aftermath. Weishaupt gave wings to the geo-political ambitions of the Masons in a fashion not seen since the Templars. Though Masonry always had its political overtones, Weishaupt’s use of the Law of Fives, drugs and occult intrigues added momentum to the evil currents of the Lodge. This final fusion of statecraft with sorcery created the Freemasonry we know today without which modern witchcraft and the satanic revival of the 20th century would not have been possible. Every leading and influential witch, occultist and Satanist has invariably been a high-ranking Mason.
http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Freemasonry.htm
In the mid 1780s, the Illuminati were persecuted. It had been banned. The numbers dwindled. However, the Illuminati had infiltrated the Freemasonic lodges of other European countries like France.
I don't agree in my source that the Illuminati and Freemasonry are not related. They weren't related initially.
http://www.thinkaboutit-knowaboutit.com … t-two.html
These are the citations you want? I have given sources for the rest of the comment.
This is an excerpt from an encyclopedia written by freemason Albert Mackey:
"The Masonic Eye is symbolic of the Eye of God. It is the symbol of His Divine watchfulness and His ever present care of the universe.
Masonic Eye
The All Seeing Eye, like many other Masonic symbols, has been borrowed from the past from the nations of antiquity.
Hebrews and Egyptians: Both the Hebrews and Egyptians appear to have derived the use of the Masonic Eye from the natural inclination of figurative minds to select a human organ as the symbol of its closest matching function...much as the foot denotes swiftness, the arm, strength and the hand, fidelity.
Psalm 34:15: "The eyes of the Lord are upon the
righteous, and his ears are open unto
their cry."
Psalm 121:4: "Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall
neither slumber nor sleep."
From the Book of Conversation of God with Moses on Mount Sinai, translated by the Reverend W. Cureton, taken from an Arabic manuscript of the 15th century and published by the Philobiblon Society of London:
"Then Moses said to the Lord, O' Lord, dost thou sleep or not?
The Lord said unto Moses:
"I never sleep: but take a cup and fill it with water."
Then, Moses took a cup and filled it with water, as the Lord commanded him.
Then, the Lord cast into the heart of Moses the breath of slumber; so he slept, and the cup fell from his hand and the water which was therein was spilled.
Then Moses awoke from his sleep.
Then God said to Moses:
"I declare by my power, and by my glory, that if I were to withdraw my providence from the heavens and the earth, for no longer a space of time that thou hast slept, they would at once fall to ruin and confusion, like as the cup fell from thy hand."
The Egyptian God, Osiris: The Egyptians represented Osiris, their chief deity, by the symbol of an open eye and placed this hieroglyphic of him in all their temples.
His symbolic name, on the monuments was represented by the eye accompanying a throne to which was sometimes added an abbreviated figure of the god and sometimes what has been called a hatchet, but which may as correctly be supposed to be a representation of a square.
Solomon in Proverbs 15:3
Solomon alludes to this when he says: "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding (keeping watch upon) the evil and the good."
The Creator is without beginning and without end because He always is and has always been. He is both Omnipotent (having unlimited universal power) and Omnipresent (the quality of being everywhere at the same time).
The Masonic Eye of God watches over each of us.
*****
The information on this page is credited to Mackey's Revised Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Volume 1, page 52, 1929."
A slightly different interpretation. Which freemason do we believe?I'm not sure if you are aware Moses was a magician and practiced the occult? In fact, Moses was a serpent worshiper. Horrible to say, but that is Satanism.
"2 Kings 18:2-4
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
2 Hezekiah was 25 years old when he began to rule, and he ruled for 29 years in Jerusalem. His mother was Abi, daughter of Zechariah.
3 He did what the Lord considered right, as his ancestor David had done. 4 He got rid of the illegal places of worship, crushed the sacred stones, and cut down the poles dedicated to the goddess Asherah. He even crushed the bronze snake that Moses had made because up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it . They called it Nehushtan."
Solomon was a black magician.
"Fully convinced that their Scriptures sanctioned it, numerous mediæval Qabbalists devoted their lives to the practice of ceremonial magic. The transcendentalism of the Qabbalists is founded upon the ancient and magical formula of King Solomon, who has long been considered by the Jews as the prince of ceremonial magicians."
"CEREMONIAL magic is the ancient art of invoking and controlling spirits by a scientific application of certain formulæ. A magician, enveloped in sanctified vestments and carrying a wand inscribed with hieroglyphic figures, could by the power vested in certain words and symbols control the invisible inhabitants of the elements and of the astral world. While the elaborate ceremonial magic of antiquity was not necessarily evil, there arose from its perversion several false schools of sorcery, or black magic."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta24.htm
Moses being raised in an Egyptian household would most certainly have introduced pagan worship to the Jews. Therefore this eye was probably adopted by Osiris worship. The Eye of Providence is also called the Eye of Horus.
Back in ancient Egypt, black magic dictated state religion. See above link.
Much of the Old Testament is drenched in the occult.
Why does Mackey say, "The Masonic Eye of God watches over each of us." Who is the Masonic god? Why not just say the eye of God?
And what degree Masonry was Mackey? Also remember there is a sanitized version of Freemasonry.
It is important to realize that not all Freemasons worship Lucifer. There are those who truly don't have a clue. My mom has a church friend who ironically enough happens to be a Freemason. He has no clue about Freemasonry. He believe "G" stands for God and not Gnosis. He's harmless. It's just a fraternity to him.
Albert Pike wrote:
"The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretation. It is not intended that he shall understand them, but it is intended that he shall imagine that he understands them…Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry (32nd and 33rd masons).”
Morals and Dogma, Volume 2 (Chapters 25-32)
However, there are some 32nd degree Masons who seemed uninformed and deceived.
There's no doubt that Freemasonry is identical to the ancient mysteries like that of Ancient Egypt. It can be Baal, Osiris, serpent worship, Satanism, New Age, whatever. They are all interconnected.
Let's be clear. Lucifer in Freemasonry is not how Christians see him. They believe that Lucifer is there to liberate humanity from the tyrannical Christian God. He teaches them how to become gods themselves. That is what Lucifer does. He masquerades as an angel of light. However, none of these Masons think its bad to do atrocious things for Lucifer. Human sacrifices, war, etc. There are Masons and there are Masons. Many are good, others are bad who really know what Freemasonry is.
You can call it Satan, if you really want to. Nonreligious people may say its mental illness. Hindus would say his ojas are fading because of a degenerated root chakra. Buddhists and Shintos may say that he does these things because he has a poisoned soul. Jews might say God is punishing him and Muslims might say he succumbed to a djinn or demon. So, you can call it Satan if you want to, but in my opinion all of these formats I've just described essentially say the same thing.
Very good point. I guess one would only understand what I am claiming if they have experienced the presence of Satan themselves and know it's him.
- Emile Rposted 11 years ago
0It is shocking and sick. There are, sadly, more plausible explanations for the behavior than to think an unseen entity egged him on.
I don't know. Some people do like 'in your face'behavior. They like to shock. They like to one up other behavior patterns with a similar bent. The internet gives all of them face time with the rest of us. There's a certain amount of anonymity associated with the internet which allows some semblance of separation from actions and consequences. If that person saw this thread I would think they would be pleased to be talked about in this manner. This doesn't, imo, make them satanic. It simply makes them needy.
You don't know but it can't be Satan, right? There was no anonymity. There faces were clear as day. There were no aliases.
I find it horrific that you can just say these people are needy. I suppose people who rape babies are also needy. In fact, why fill jails with needy people? Just face up to it. There is a monster called Satan which people tap into.That's quite a leap you've made in what you think i find acceptable. Having a need doesn't prohibit incarceration, or the death penalty for acts. I simply find Satan a cop out. You are the one attempting to transfer blame, not me.
Don't blame me if you infer that beheading a cat is due to someone being needy. Mental illness, drugs, etc, are also cop outs. When one is influenced by Satan, it does not mean they are blameless. It is their own doing to be influenced by the devil. They didn't have to act upon it.
Sure, Claire. An invisible entity whispering into someone's ear, goading them into heinous behavior makes perfect sense. I suppose you have a good jinn on your other shoulder, too.
Calling me people needy when they behead cats makes a lot of sense, too, right?
Well, everyone has unfulfilled needs. With some, they need psychological help. Beheading cats is not the only symptom of a person in need of psychological help. Telling them they are children of Satan may make sense to you. To me, that simply exacerbates an existing problem within both mind sets.
The problem I see is that this belief in Satan allows some to create a barrier. Allowing them to cease to care for the individual. 'He's controlled by Satan' means that you hate him. Sure, you say it's just Satan you fight. You claim to love the individual, you only hate the act....but hate is what appears to motivate your words so you project hate with those words. Why would you expect anything other than hate in response?
Belief in cosmic evil is indicative of a problem in dealing with society. It is an escape mechanism. It is a cop out. It is turning your back on others. It is saying the God you claim to believe in is less powerful than the Satan you claim to believe in.We all have been controlled by Satan by some extent in our lives. Some relatively less than others. Hate the crime is what motivates my words. I suppose you could have called Jesus hateful. He said some rather horrible things to the Pharisees. There is something called zero tolerance. That means no evil is accepted. It gets results because some people may actually learn from that. Nip evil behavior in the bud and you can actually greatly help them.
Yes, you are controlled when you give Satan power. That doesn't mean you no longer have free will. It is the fault of the evil-doer to allow themselves to be controlled.
Sorry, Claire. I am not controlled by Satan. Nor is anyone else. You can certainly call Jesus' words to the pharisees hateful, but that means you don't understand what he was attempting to get across to them.
And, by the way. Hypersensitivity isn't really being sensitive. It is a symptom of a problem within the person. It is not showing sensitivity toward others. It's rather selfish.That's the con. Only someone controlled by Satan would say they are not being controlled by Satan.
And you don't understand what I was trying to get across? This is what Jesus wrote:
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."
Brood of vipers. He is saying that they are like sons of the devil. What about the condemnation of hell? What were his motives?You can take that to mean many different things. But, I'm not certain it is wise to build a belief structure involving a demonic figure rushing about, controlling people. I don't see where that can be interpreted into that passage.
If you could point out how he is saying that, it might help. All I see is condemnation of religious people who use religion to condemn others. Chastising those who use religion to justify practices which 'spiritually enslave' others. Condemnation of those who use their interpretation as justification to believe they were better than others by some cosmic ruler. I see a statement which could have been directed at you, or anyone who attempts to convince others that they should stumble behind personal beliefs of another on the threat of cosmic consequences if they don't.The issue was what Jesus meant and not any belief structure. I don't think Jesus would have compared the Pharisees to the devil if He did not believe they were influenced by Satan.
What are my threats of cosmic consequences? I just quoted what Jesus said.What are your threats of cosmic consequences? Your whole belief structure appears to revolve around an evil cosmic figure who preys on humanity and the only way to hope for help against that evil is to pray to another cosmic figure who can (apparently not save you, since you appear to suffer greatly from the presence of this evil figure) at some point in eternity, or somewhere in the cosmos, triumph.
We all have skewed perception. That is the nature of the reality we exist in. Our goal, if we are to survive as a species (imo), is to understand how this is, why it is, and rise above it. Our individual perception is the product of a lot of factors, but one primary factor is that we build our perception as we grow. Growth is a product of interaction with the reality we exist in. It is the product of our perception of our present and our history as a species. And, you have to remember, that you are not the only one whose perception is evolving. There are 7 billion others and all that came before us who have opened their eyes, looked at the world and come to conclusions. You appear to have allowed your belief system to become insular. The more insular you are willing to allow your perception to become, the more skewed your perception will be. And, we allow our perception to become insular as a defense mechanism. It is a comfort zone, for us. It’s a world that makes sense to the individual; in a reality that we have not come to a consensus on the sense of it. But, it causes a disconnect from the greater reality and it causes the skewed perception of others to become more skewed also. It can cause suffering to others.
That was the main point Jesus was making when he upbraided the pharisees. They had built a belief structure, a view of reality, then they had agreed upon it, and subsequently attempted to impose it on others; to the detriment of the perception of others. When we attempt to insist that our perception is valid and another's is not; that we are righteous because we have lived within the parameters of good we have built within our individual perception and others are not by our individual perception; that is the greater evil. The greater good is attempting to find the connecting threads, mend the ones that have been broken in our selfish refusal to search for them, and recognize that we are all connected. We are all good, at the core. 'God so loved the world'. Why can we not emulate this simple action? We simply refuse to search for the good in others nor are we willing to recognize it when it is right in front of our noses.
I am not attempting to imply that there are no actions within the human arena which are perceived as evil. But, all that came before bears some responsibility for what comes after. All that currently exist bear some responsibility for how this reality plays out. Nothing evil magically appears. We, as a species, through our interactions build the evil we perceive. There is nothing insular about our existence. We simply chose to perceive it as such in an attempt to assuage our egos, to the detriment of the rest of humanity.Being a Christian does not make one immune to the suffering caused by the devil. We live in his world and thus are subjected to evil all the time. Jesus wasn't immune from it. He suffered greatly at the hands of the devil yet He conquered Satan.
How can believing in a Satan be comforting for me?? I'd much rather think these sickos just have psychological issues. Then I don't even have to contemplate any other factor that people are way too frightened to even acknowledge. Saying there is no Satan is insular.
Actually, the reason why Jesus was an enemy to the Pharisees was because He hated their hypocrisy and thus blaspheming the Father. It had nothing to do with their belief structure. In fact, this is what He said:
Matthew 23:
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
Did Jesus not impose a "belief structure" that was rigid? Did He not say He was the truth, the way and the life? That the only way to the Father was through Him? Or that you are either for Him and against Him? Don't you have a problem with this either this or that mentality?
There's no way someone should acknowledge evil and say that is that. We need to know what factors caused these individuals to make them susceptible to the devil. When we look at murderers, they cannot be painted with the same brush. Some have had traumatic childhoods, for example. So there are many explanations but that doesn't change the fact that it is an act that Satan wants.
Maybe beheading a cat is a sign of evil that comes from Satan? People become mediums for Satan when they feel the need to do that sort of thing regardless if they have psychological problems or not. Some do things just because they're evil. Not because they need psychological help.
You are very wrong about that. I am being pursued by Satanists right now. They are pretty relentless. It's pretty clear they are evil and just want to destroy me but I pray for them. Why? Because that is the only way you can show that you want them to turn their lives around. It's a form of caring. I hate what they do but I believe some can turn to good if they have the potential to. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be praying for them. We all have been used by Satan in varying degrees in our lives. Does that mean I hate myself and everyone else? To be a medium for Satan, it doesn't mean you have to be a Satanist. If I do wrong then I have allowed Satan to work through me. It's that simple.
It is not an escape or excuse. It is just the truth. It's an explanation. The devil can use people with psychological issues, too. Anyone he can find. I really don't know how you conclude that I'm saying God is less powerful than Satan. God has infinite power and can stand alone. Satan, on the other hand, cannot exist alone. He needs people to do evil for him to survive. Suffering feeds him.
Humanity is a belligerent species that's seemingly intent on bringing about its own self destruction as quickly as possible.
If you want to blame "Satan" for that, then so be it. I don't think we need any help from a mythical figure with horns and a tail. We're doing just fine all by ourselves.
Eventually the Earth will just shake us off like a dog with a bad case of fleas.No one must ever blame Satan for their own actions. WE are responsible for what we do. That doesn't mean there is a supreme author of evil, though.
Claire
I am trying very hard to understand you!
First; you say that Satan controls people, but then you say WE are responsible for what we do.
Second; you have no empathy for mentally ill people but you say you are a Christian.
Thirdly; you say you love animals but then you say they have no higher emotions (I can think of many ways animals display positive feelings eg. many primates stop bullying when they see it)
Fourth; you have a habit of strong contradiction on ethical matters that seem to pay lip service to being Christian to lure Christians.
Finally; as you say you are into "conspiracy theories" I am sure you won't mind my comments.
What are your thoughts on this?It is people out of their own free will that allows Satan to control them. They are responsible for letting him do that in the first place. Satan cannot control people with their "consent".
Why would I have no sympathy for mentally ill people? You need to quote me. I haven't visited this thread in a while. What I do take exception to is that all evil seems to be blamed on mental illness. That is not true. Some just are love evil because they follow Satan.
Yes, animals show compassion, etc, but we cannot say they are level in our ethical matters. You can't just say, "Well, animals murder so then we can, too, because we are just animals themselves."
Animals do what instinct tells them to do. We must rise above that if instinct harms others.
What is the strong contradiction of ethical matters? Please remind me.Yes, they do but they are not equal to us in ability to think. If not, then no human should be held accountable for their acts if animals aren't? Why can they murder, like gorillas, but not us?
Actually there are some who are working on just that. Attempting to label certain other animals human so as to make killing them like killing humans.
At what point do we say that some of us are not human? An IQ of 60? 50 or 40? There are some animals that are smarter than our least intelligent.I think it is pretty clear that an animal could never be prosecuted for a crime because they do not have the exact moral code and culpability as humans do. Killing in their instance is instinct. For us it is not. It is not possible to put animals and humans on the same par. Really, do you believe that you can think like a dog all the time? Or could you reason better?
A person who has a low IQ is not an animal and never will be.I did not say nor mean to say that they would put the animals on trial. People are attempting to put people on trial for murder if they kill certain self aware animals as if the animals were human.
The point is there are some of us that are less intelligent than some other animals. How do we treat those other animals?It doesn't matter whether they have an highly IQ or not. Humans and animals cannot be measured by the same yardstick. I don't understand why you don't get that. Nobody condemns a gorilla for killing a rival yet it is totally different for a person? Why? Because they cannot be compared. We have the ability to think about how our actions are going to harm others, etc.
Still not understanding…
It's not a gorilla killing a gorilla that would be illegal, it's a person killing a gorilla that would be illegal. The idea is that certain animals with higher thinking, such and elephants, chimps or whales should be protected by law from murder from humans because they can have higher thought than some humans they should be treated with the same respect.
All people are animals. This fact is not based on their intellectual capabilities, but instead on their biological properties.
"Killing in their instance is instinct. For us it is not"
Who are you trying to fool? Of COURSE killing is instinctual to man; no animal that evolved as an omnivore (what we are) or carnivore (pure meat eater) could fail to have an instinct to kill. It's how we eat.Of course for eating food that is different. However, it is not instinct for me to kill someone who I'm angry with. Unless we rise above instinct? That is what makes us different to animals.
You SEEM to keep changing your mind about your statements and beliefs and/or exhibit two separate mind sets.. Read them back regarding your apparent distaste for the mentally ill. Quote:"And you have personally evaluated these individuals? Why do psychos not do good things?"
You sound really off beat for a Christian view point. I have rarely seen such a lack of compassion for the mentally ill in even an atheist.
And another quote:
"Melissa, as a Christian you ought to know this behavior is motivated by Satan, mentally ill or not. Why does nobody do good things when they are mentally ill? Why is it always destructive and bad? It's a cop out to merely label someone mentally ill when they do things evil. Mental illness on its own could never spawn something so evil."
An objective look at this does not reveal a Christian attitude at work but something strangely contradictory.
Here's another one of your own quotes:
"There is a huge problem in the Christian Church. They do not emphasize the seriousness of the devil. They sugarcoat Christianity. Satan is not that bad..."
This sounds precisely like somebody who is not a Christian and is stereotyping the entire "Christian Church" just like an atheist might.
Do you want me to continue? Can you explain these persistent contradictions and anomalies of philosophy?Do you know what a psychopath is? They do not care about the feelings of other people. They will hurt others to get what they want.
"Most mental health professionals define a psychopath as a predator who takes advantage of others using charm, deceit, violence and other methods to get what they want"
The point I'm trying to make is that there are people who think that if someone is doing evil then it must be due to mental illness. That is very insulting . I say mental illness just on its own could not spawn such evil. But when a someone does a good deed then no one would equate it with being psychotic. So mentally ill people are always deemed to be the scapegoat of all that is evil. There are some people who are born with the tendency to be psychopaths. That does not mean they have the right to exercise the characteristics of it. Half of it is nurture and half is nature. With discipline and guidance, they can turn out decent. I know of a psycho personally and he is a monster. He wasn't always like this but his situations in life spawned his psychosis.
To say all people who do evil must be mentally ill is rather insulting, don't you think? To automatically assume that a mental person was responsible for the beheading of a cat is rather lacking in compassion, right? I have a mental illness myself. I have clinical depression.
I say Christian Church collectively as in the Christian religion. Why does the church not teach us about our world leaders being devil worshipers? How the Vatican is Satanic? How Satan attacks the Christian person to the point one can get suicidal thoughts? These issues are not addressed. I say this because when I mention these things, some Christians think I'm nuts. Why? Because they have not been taught these things in Church.
Continue if you like.I note you haven't responded to the specific examples I have cut and pasted of your own inconsistencies.
You are talking about Chrisitans as if you are not one of them but you claim to be a Christain.Come again, I'm not sure what I have not addressed. Please refresh my memory.
Christians can have opposing views but that doesn't mean they aren't all Christians. I strongly disagree with much of fundamentalist Christians believe but that doesn't make me a non-Christian.Its all here in black and white for you to read. You are clumsily avoiding answering and showing hypocrisy.
You clearly say that "Christians" (ie all Christians) don't give enough credence to Satan. Now you say some Christians to cover your tracks.
You say mentally ill people are influenced by Satan yet you claim you too are mentally ill (clinical depression) but wont answer if you believe you too are allegedly influenced by Satan.
You put forward controversial propositions you don't believe in for the sake of argument which technically means you are a self admitted "concern troll".
Finally you don't answer to any points in the debate directly but continue to plead ignorance even after clarification has been given.Ag, please. We usually say "Christians" as in general terms but I tweaked it by saying some Christians. That is not an attempt to mislead anyone or be hypocritical.
Both mentally ill and non mentally ill people are influenced by Satan. I am influenced by him when I sin. It doesn't mean I'm evil. It makes me weak. However, that is definitely not in the same league as beheading a cat. However, people are evil when they know exactly what they are doing. They know that it inflicts suffering and they enjoy it. Often, they are psychopaths, too. This is not in the league of schizophrenia because those people barely know what they are doing during an episode. What I take exception to is that all those evil people are automatically deemed as mentally ill. It can be the only explanation when it is not.
I think I clarified the, "Devil's Advocate" argument. However, in this instance I do recognize this not being the case looking in retrospect because I started off this thread in the form of a question. An example of a devil's advocate argument would be elaborating on the question and saying it is true that God forsook the Jews because He abandoned them when He rescued them thousands of years ago. It makes sense to the outsider but it isn't necessarily true. So what is the point of devil's advocate? To get the argument started. In this case, a question posed is suitable for this sensitive topic.
Now that you have given clarification, I can answer this questions directly. It's not that I'm pleading ignorance. I just go through a lot of comments.
If a person like yourself puts a proposition that is not thier own they could be classed as a "concern troll".ie. an unethical practice.
How can you be a Christian but think negatively of Christians? Or Jews for that matter.How am I speaking negatively about Jews concerning this thread? Why should all Christians agree with one another? That's silly. We can't all agree. If I don't agree with some Christians they call me unsaved only because they cannot explain what they specifically believe in is illogical and incompatible with Christianity. A lot of the OT is incompatible for Christian. How can a Christian believe that Moses was a prophet for God when he wanted the death of women and children and said the spoils of war is rape of a virgin? I think negatively of a Christian when they believe it is true. But they only believe that because they are too scared to question the Bible. As I said, in return other Christians think negatively of me.
Once again you have failed to respond to the obvious point that a person who puts forward controversial opinions not "their own" for the sake of argument are 'concern trolls". These unethical types of argument are not acceptable or logical argumenst.
You clearly label in your profile that you put forward "conspiracy theories" but have instead occasionally put forward "concern troll" theories allegedly under the guise of some kind of conspiracy theory.
I am prepared to accept that you are mentally ill and you have self admitted that; however you also claim that mentally ill people are incapable of "doing anything good". Do you see your own contradiction here? ie. You are mentally ill, but you don't like mentally ill people as they do not do anything good and are influenced by Satan.
As for the "Jews"; all your religious threads directly and indirectly have a vein of antisemitism in them. How can a Christian be anti-Semitic?Here's a conundrum... after reading some of your posts Oztinato, you have a lot of viewpoints that don't line up with mine and I'm a Christian. Your views don't line up with Claire's... and she's a Christian. Her views don't line up with mine either.
So either none of us are Christians, only one of us is a Christian, or we're all three Christians that just don't agree on certain points.
I'm not a big fan of Claire's, and from what I've read of your posts, I'm not going to be pulling out my pom-poms for you either... but could we stop the "You aren't a Christian" crap? The one that decides that isn't posting here.Let me put it this way: my doubts about the religiosity of Claire is compounded by a number of other things that I have clearly pointed out here(her "concern troll" approach; her antisemitism; her contradictions about Satan/the mentally ill/herself; failure to respond to logic; failure to answer straight forward debate points; the taking of two opposing view points in the same posts etc etc)
It may be she is mentally ill (as she claims) and is unaware of the split in her thinking; unfortunately this does not excuse ethical failings and hypocrisy or antisemitism. It could also be a sign of her possible "Munchhausen" but that doesn't make it ethical.
Its this combination of factors that concerns me.In the case of my mental illness, it has nothing to do with me being incoherent or not arguing reasonably. Major depression is not that type of mental illness where you act crazy, etc.
OK so why aren't you responding to my points if you want to debate?
No I am not going to repeat them again as I have already repeated them several times.I'm sorry, but I really don't know what I am omitting.
I addressed the concern troll argument.
As for the mentally ill part, I assume this is the quote you are referring, too?
"Melissa, as a Christian you ought to know this behavior is motivated by Satan, mentally ill or not. Why does nobody do good things when they are mentally ill? Why is it always destructive and bad? It's a cop out to merely label someone mentally ill when they do things evil. Mental illness on its own could never spawn something so evil."
Specifically,
Why does nobody do good things when they are mentally ill? Why is it always destructive and bad?
This is not my point of view. They are questions based on the premises of the person claiming it has to be mental illness if one does evil. About the "good things", I am asking why when people do good are they not deemed as mentally ill? When someone does charity, you don't say they are motivated by a mental illness. Why?
Give me an example of my, "anti-semetism" in other threads? If I said the Crusaders were evil, am I being anti-Christian?Claire
can't you see that you keep alleging "putting forward ideas that are not your own for the sake of argument and controversy"? That is the definition of Care Troll. Do you get it yet?
I've commented on the other thread about your anti-antisemitism. You also very rarely say anything positive about "Christians" and yet you claim to be one.So, you think that Christians should only speak good of other Christians? Even those who aren't doing good things? A lot of Christians do bad things more often than not. Should their bad behavior be defended by other Christians because they are also Christian? That makes no sense and definitely don't happen in real life as some who proclaim themselves "real Christians" quickly assert that any christian that does something bad isn't a Christian
Of course its OK to criticize some Christians. If a person claims to be a Christian it is ethically impossible to criticize ALL Christians. Once we class entire groups (and not specific individuals) together for criticism we are acting in a bigoted manner.
For example, if we say "all Scotsman are stingy" we are stereotyping and being bigoted.Okay. I have yet to see where Claire criticized ALL Christians yet you are questioning her calling herself one. Christians disagree often and criticize the theology of others who were taught differently. For you to make a lot of accusations against her faith without proof is insulting
So you aren't going to address my points?
I am more than happy to address your points once you pay me the courtesy of addressing MY points which I have already made on numerous occasions to your requests.
Why are you still addressing me? I have no idea what points I have omitted. Really, I've covered everything.
I am still waiting for a logical reply!!
I will continue to silently read your posts and try to point out the inconsistencies in the logic.
...to clarify that evil is truly present in this world....what a sicko...
If you believe in the Bible, it says, Satan is like a roaring lion, moving about, and seeking whom he may devour. He comes to destroy, steal and kill. Satan at times gets in us because we allow his wickedness and makes us do terrible and sinful things. We must cast him out by prayer and scripture like Jesus occasionally did. In order for us to avoid satanic conduct we must believe, follow and become like Jesus otherwise, we’ll all become victims or victimizers. Read the Bible more: Satan was once in heaven but he was cast out with his angels and came down here to earth just to challenge God and destroy God's people and creation. That's why there is so much evil going on. Wake up everybody! This was meant to be a Holy World Nation… Thank you Claire for raising the issue. Be blessed!
If you read the original Hebrew scriptures of Judaism, Satan isn't even a fallen angel or a devil at all (never was).
Different versions of the Bible are not consistent on Satan.So true but impossible to successfully get an evangelical Christian to check it out for themselves.
Just to add my bit. I really do not think all bad behaviour can be attributed to mental illness, it often goes together I do not deny that and has had some experience with that. On the other hand I do believe satan and his angels are behind a lot of evil. I actually believe that it sometimes is the evil that results in mental illness.
Yes, and with no evidence of Satan, yet.
She's just evidence of poor parenting.
That's right. The definition of Satan is "Adversary". In the Hebrew texts, God often used his "accusers" to test mankind.
yes there is such a thing as Satan, God is more powerful than the devil will ever be, yes i believe in God and i have God's seed of love in me, not everyone is of God.
That's odd, why would God keep Satan around? Why doesn't God just get rid of Satan if He is so much more powerful? God has no problem flooding the Earth, killing millions of innocent people.
God is trying to, the only way i can put it is i have a narcissistic non mother, she has no empathy, not capable of ever thinking of anyone apart for herself, she is a liar and it's her word against mine, how powerful is she, very clever and very powerful, but she picks up on other people's sayings, that's one tactic she uses not to be exposed, that's the devil, God is always with me.God bless.
If God is so powerful, why is he taking so long? What exactly is the problem?
No, that's just a person who has a mental disorder.
Claire, you do know that huffing paint is bad for you, right? Because, based on the lunacy you keep spouting, I'm starting to worry that you don't know huffing paint is harmful.
Lol.Related Discussions
- 4003
The outdated 2nd amendment.
by Mike Russo 9 years ago
Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. The gun enthusiast who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny are...
- 51
Who needs guns? The world is full of mentally ill people, what is going on?
by Tara Carbery 12 years ago
Who needs guns? The world is full of mentally ill people, what is going on?This tragedy wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed guns. Why the hell do people need gun's anyway?
- 89
Mental Illness VS Demonic possession
by Harlan Colt 9 years ago
Mental Illness VS Demonic possessionIn Jesus day, he expelled many devils from possessed people. Do we today, confuse demonic possession for certain forms of mental illness? I believe there is a difference, but... what would you say is the difference? How does one know the difference?
- 23
Why Are Christians (Or Muslims) Very Helpful To Blind People and Repulsive To Pe
by ngureco 14 years ago
Why Are Christians (Or Muslims) Very Helpful To Blind People and Repulsive To People With Mental Sickness?
- 26
How Do We Solve These Mass Killings??
by Allen Donald 7 years ago
We've had three mass killings (that we've heard about) in the last month. Here they are:1. Las Vegas - Oct. 1 - a man using various guns kills 58 people and injures another 546.2. New York - Oct. 31 - a man uses a truck and kills 8 people and injures 11 others.3. Sutherland Springs, Texas - Nov. 5...
- 18
Why do some families of the mentally ill turn their backs on them?
by Theresa Collins 8 years ago
Why do some families of the mentally ill turn their backs on them?I have seen many people who are truly, seriously, mentally ill with diagnosis such as Schizophrenia have no one, absolutely no one. Their families have disownded them. Although it is extremely difficult to deal with someone with that...