cuchulain

Exactly. Sin originated with Satan, the flawed creation of God. God created Satan, thus Sin.

That could certainly be the case. But I know many people who would not say certain things to a persons face yet have no problem spouting it out online. I doubt that they have trouble encountering other people who just spout out what they are thinking, but it's possible. Or, perhaps it is a combination of both.

By the tenets of every single Satanist I have ever talked with or met, you would be considered weak for not being able to appropriate the funding necessary without the help of Satan. You do not seem to follow any Satanic form that I am aware of, so I ditto Myrddin's statement: I would be interested in learning more about what you believe. And as I said, you are perfectly free to believe in whatever you wish, it's certainly not my choice I am simply comparing you with other Satanists I know, and trying to reconcile the term. No offense is intended.

I quoted you, and you quoted me leaving out the part I quoted you from friend. You say thou wast perfect...etc...about man. But I was responding to the part where you said sin was in the garden before man. That is very circular Dan. Sin was in the garden before man you said, in the form of an already fallen and sinful creature. You said this in response to my saying that God created man who sinned and thus was directly responsible for his creation. You shifted the burden to a different creature, but fail to realize that my argument still applies: God created THAT creature with sin, or the capability of sin. Let's summarize: God is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end and everything in between. Therefore, God predates everything. If God predates everything, and Sin existed before everything...then God is capable of sin. Thus not perfect. It's a self defeating argument you are spinning, from my perspective.

I agree with mererdog, but would also say that it seems to me at times that the way we communicate has indeed changed what we would say to each other. I have seen things that people post online, things that are crude, rude, or vulgar, or hateful. I have spoken to a very few people that I have seen post that way, and they always have come across as shy or introverted to the point where they barely speak at all to people. This is just my own personal experience, of course. I wonder, what would it be like to have a conversation with mererdog face to face

The risk is strictly external, and so no risk at all. What others think of my choice to be ordained here, it does not affect me unless I choose to allow it to do so.

I have no belief in the figure of Satan...but beyond that your entire story, whether true or not from your perspective, is based on you taking an action. Not Satan. You ask your friends for money, not Satan. And Satan doesn't tell you to do so, you already have that mindset. Even most Satanists I know understand that all power resides internally, not externally. Most Satanists I know don't believe in a literal figure of Satan either. Rather, self empowerment. So I answer your topic descriptor of "believe" with: no. p.s. Not offensively, by any means. It's simply the response I have to this particular topic. My personal choice, just as it is yours to accept this story and spread it, friend.

Who created the sinful creature that was already in the Garden?

no

Sin could not have existed prior to man if it is a choice of man, especially if you claim(and you have) that God is all good. If God is the only rational being in existence before man, then he is the only option for sinning. And you claim him incapable of such an act. Therefore, Sin could NOT have existed prior to man, and God created it with full knowledge.

And while tobacco is acknowledged to be bad for the health, the automobile also produces side effects that are bad for the health.

If Jesus was chosen before the creation of the world, 1 Peter 1:20, as Gnostic Bishop shows...then God created the world knowing full well sin would come about and Jesus would be sacrificed for that sin. Preknowledge of God's actions, contrary to the claims that God had no knowledge of it beforehand. God created the world knowing sin would come about as a direct consequence, thus God is still responsible. But as I have said before, even if he didn't know: If God is all powerful, he is also all responsible in my opinion.

Dan, your analogies fail for one very simple reason. You follow an all powerful, all knowing deity that cannot do better. Sure a parent can clean up their kids milk mess. A parent on the scale of your God would be able to get the kid to not make the mess in the first place. Yet this is not the case with reality that I have observed, nor do you claim it to be, since you state we are all born in sin. Thus, your deity has failed to create perfectly. That's my opinion, by the way.

I celebrate that Dan can use the above argument as evidence for his deity while I can view the same exact argument as evidence against it.

If God created everything, then Sin could not have entered into the world without God's go ahead. You claim that man created sin. But God created man, and so indirectly created sin. I mean, I could create a gun, and then claim that any death it caused was the guns fault and not mine. It would amount to the same premise.

A righteous God cannot create something contrary to himself. That sums it up. Look at the world. He created everything, and the world is not righteous. Therefore, using your own logic, God is not righteous.

The difference between my child, and God's children: They don't have an omnipotent father. If God is all powerful, then he is all responsible as well. But as you said, we simply disagree on this issue

I disagree too, with the general premise. God created everything that is. He created sin, and therefore God is not righteous. That's the basic contradiction the bible has, that God did everything good but nothing bad, yet nothing existed before God, and evil exists. God created everything, including evil, but God is all good and cannot create evil...it's ALL contradictory. Hence part of the reason I am atheist. If it is partly contradictory, the premise is flawed and should not be accepted. The premise is the bible. I find it flawed, and so do not accept it. It just seems self evident to me, though clearly it isn't or everyone would see it If in the beginning there was only God, and God can do no evil, and evil did not exist before God but does AFTER God created everything...it's a contradictory statement.

Dan, if God were all powerful, only he would have the POWER of creation. Sin had to be created. Therefore, only God could have created it. Additionally, if sin were a choice there would certainly(mathematically speaking) be some examples of those who chose NOT to sin, so your postulation that everyone was a sinner would be blatantly false. Asking for us to provide biblical evidence to support the truth seems much like asking Muslims to do the same. It isn't my religion, therefore I feel not the slightest inclination to accept the book as a source of truth. You do, and that's fine for you friend. But you are asking a PC to interface with a Mac in my opinion. You want evidence that Christianity has lived by the sword? Well, that may or may not be in the bible, but it is certainly evidence historically in the real world we live in. Evidence that Christians persecuted others? As well, evident historically. You can do the foot work(or not) yourself, if you want the specific instances. That's your choice as well. By the way, I understand the analogies above work both ways, and that we as PC's are asking you as a Mac to operate in our manner as well. That's why I am trying to stop asking others to operate on my standards. I am certain I will fail at times, but the attempt seems worthwhile to me.

What do you see as a second wrong?

It is illogical for them to apply their standard to me, as well, no? What's good for the goose, and all?

sacrilege should apply only to members of the faith, imo. As has been said, to hold someone else to your own standards is simply illogical.

I understand what you are saying. I have come to the realization that the belief system, or lack thereof, is not what is important about the people. Rather it is the people themselves that are important, and the actions they take in the world at large. A preacher who stands on the pulpit expounding against homosexuals and telling his flock how evil such people are is doing more harm than good. A preacher who stands in the soup kitchen, cooking or serving or even simply trying to comfort those who are in such a position as to have to ask for help, is doing more good. Doesn't matter the denomination. Those of us under the atheist label as well can do harm or good. We can stand on the corner of the street and decry all Christians, as Anti Theists. Decry all religions, for that matter. But if we aren't actively doing something for the community we live in, if all we have to accomplish is hate, and spreading hate, then we haven't done more good than harm. Posting a billboard saying everyone can enjoy Christmas without believing in God...I tend to view this as a good thing. That's probably a personal value that I am applying, but I have heard atheists say they are uncomfortable attending family events because of a prayer, or some other such religious connotation intrudes. I have never had this issue, I simply don't bow my head. But perhaps some atheist who is uncomfortable with such will see a sign saying you don't need God to have a good Christmas, and realize they aren't the only one going through something. Maybe it will provide inspiration. Since the sign does not denigrate Christians, I see no harm in it. That's merely an example, and I am sure there are more.

Agreed, life is full of qualifiers. I see things in intent, for the most part. There are some instances where I disagree with the action even though the person thinks they are doing good. It does seem like we are on the same page, in a lot of ways. That's scary to me...

For evil to grow, yes. Not every action a person takes is good or evil, black and white. There are many shades of gray. A person might work for a company in an effort to feed his family and keep from taking from society through social programs, trying to be of benefit to those around him in some small way. A person could say this was a good act, but looking deeper find that the guy in question works for an immoral company which is bettered through his efforts, and in which his efforts contribute to the immoral actions of said company. Then a person could claim he is evil. In reality, he is simply trying to make ends meet, and so falls in the neutral category, for me.