It's fine to worship Lucifer

[Tsar]

I am talking about the Roman god of light.

People need to realize that Lucifer was a Roman god and stop associating a positive being with a fallen angel who the Jews decided to appropriate the name of a positive Roman deity.

One thing that I don't like about the Abrahamic religions is using Lucifer as a synonym for Satan.

No!

Satan isn't Lucifer. Lucifer isn't Satan.

So...

What type of being is the evil being in Christianity?

A fallen angel or a devil? The big bad being can't be two different classifications of beings.

Also, a deity doesn't change or completely flipflop in how it does things.

Then there's Armageddon in the Bible. If Yahweh or God is truly omniscient and Satan isn't as powerful, then, why would God need angels to battle demons, and have a war against Satan?

These are all things that really make discrepancies and people always say it's just because God gave people free will, it's part of God's plan, or it's just the way it is. Sometimes they say to have faith.

Common people! That's all common excuses and deflection explanations.

That's why atheists can easily target the Abrahamic religions. Doesn't anyone recognize that?

[MrMan]

I am talking about the Roman god of light.

People need to realize that Lucifer was a Roman god and stop associating a positive being with a fallen angel who the Jews decided to appropriate the name of a positive Roman deity.

WIkipedia says the following in the 'Lucifer' article:
"In the classical Roman period, Lucifer was not typically regarded as a deity and had few, if any, myths, though the planet was associated with various deities and often poetically personified."

There was even a quote from Seneca to back it up.

'Lucifer' shows up in the King James translation of Isaiah 14 in a prophecy against the king of Babylon. This, and a prophecy against the king of Tyre, are traditionally taken as referring to Satan. But 'Lucifer' means 'light bearer' in Latin, and referred to the morning star. In one passage the Latin takes a passage referring to Christ as the day Star and uses 'Lucifer' to translate it. But somehow, 'Lucifer' became associated strongly with Satan in the English language. So not all Bible scholars would agree that Lucifer was the name for Satan before his fall.

But I do not think it was the name of a Roman god. Of course, Rome was around for a long time, and I cannot say that at some stage of history that there wasn't some Roman that worshipped the morning star along with all the other stars. The morning star is named Venus as far as the planets go, but I don't know that the Romans associated the star with the goddess Venus in their mythology, either. And Romans would declare dead Caesars to be god and also think they turned into stars. So some of them may have associated stars with gods.

What type of being is the evil being in Christianity?

A fallen angel or a devil? The big bad being can't be two different classifications of beings.

Huh? Why not? There are lots of animals. Not everything is the same kind of thing. Some people think both Satan and demons are fallen angels. Another believe that was popular in the intertestamental period and among some early Christians is that demons are the spirits of a hybrid of humans and angels.

Also, a deity doesn't change or completely flipflop in how it does things.

What are you talking about?

Then there's Armageddon in the Bible.

That's a location, a certain valley in Israel.

If Yahweh or God is truly omniscient and Satan isn't as powerful, then, why would God need angels to battle demons, and have a war against Satan?

Non sequitur. I don't see how you have an argument here.

[Tsar]

I am talking about the Roman god of light.

People need to realize that Lucifer was a Roman god and stop associating a positive being with a fallen angel who the Jews decided to appropriate the name of a positive Roman deity.

WIkipedia says the following in the 'Lucifer' article:
"In the classical Roman period, Lucifer was not typically regarded as a deity and had few, if any, myths, though the planet was associated with various deities and often poetically personified."

There was even a quote from Seneca to back it up.

'Lucifer' shows up in the King James translation of Isaiah 14 in a prophecy against the king of Babylon. This, and a prophecy against the king of Tyre, are traditionally taken as referring to Satan. But 'Lucifer' means 'light bearer' in Latin, and referred to the morning star. In one passage the Latin takes a passage referring to Christ as the day Star and uses 'Lucifer' to translate it. But somehow, 'Lucifer' became associated strongly with Satan in the English language. So not all Bible scholars would agree that Lucifer was the name for Satan before his fall.

But I do not think it was the name of a Roman god. Of course, Rome was around for a long time, and I cannot say that at some stage of history that there wasn't some Roman that worshipped the morning star along with all the other stars. The morning star is named Venus as far as the planets go, but I don't know that the Romans associated the star with the goddess Venus in their mythology, either. And Romans would declare dead Caesars to be god and also think they turned into stars. So some of them may have associated stars with gods.

What type of being is the evil being in Christianity?

A fallen angel or a devil? The big bad being can't be two different classifications of beings.

Huh? Why not? There are lots of animals. Not everything is the same kind of thing. Some people think both Satan and demons are fallen angels. Another believe that was popular in the intertestamental period and among some early Christians is that demons are the spirits of a hybrid of humans and angels.

Also, a deity doesn't change or completely flipflop in how it does things.

What are you talking about?

Then there's Armageddon in the Bible.

That's a location, a certain valley in Israel.

If Yahweh or God is truly omniscient and Satan isn't as powerful, then, why would God need angels to battle demons, and have a war against Satan?

Non sequitur. I don't see how you have an argument here.

My post got erased by an auto-refresh. I am not going to repeat everything.

Summary:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#R ... _etymology
Read. You skipped over the Roman religion.

2. The Modus Operandi of deities doesn't completely change.

3. Yahweh is not omnipotent or omniscient if he must have a battle with Satan called the Battle of Armageddon. Read it. If Yahweh were truly omnipotent. then he could instantly defeat Satan without needing to have a battle and possibly lose. Because having a battle implies Yahweh can lose against Satan. If Satan was guaranteed to lose against "omnipotent" and "omniscient" Yahweh, then there's no need for Yahweh to have a Battle.

4. Cultural and religious appropriation happens all the time. It has throughout history. Once again, anyone who believes Lucifer is synonymous with Satan is not very smart about religions and is small minded to believe in anti-Roman cultural appropriation.

5. There are many flaws in Christianity. Historic flaws, biological flaws, scientific flaws, and more.

The argument "God is all powerful and can do all things" might have appeased ignorant peasants in a time when humanity was primitive, but it doesn't work against people who want answers.

Other religions don't seek to make the spiritual beings all powerful or involved in everyone's lives. Why should they?

Anyone who has a direct experience with a spiritual being will forever be unable to accept Christianity or any Abrahamic religion or any religion as being accurate because spirituality is different than religion.

The only real way to defeat atheism, which I realized years ago, is to not defend flawed religions, and instead defend spirituality.

There's no reason to defend religions unless it's mainly present as a cultural relic.

Any being worth believing in and that is a benevolent being, doesn't seek to force belief in itself, or trick people, or deceive people. It seeks to get people to believe in it by making an appearance or showing itself.

Atheists can and have pointed out many valid logic flaws. That's a fact. The only thing that the atheists do wrong when it comes to their arguments is that they deny everything spiritual, deny an afterlife, deny spirituality, and automatically decide there's no way any spiritual beings could exist. That's why they're hated or disliked.

An atheist and a fundamentalist Christian are similar in they both use circle logic. An atheist can't ever prove their argument and never will. Christians will always use God as the answer for why there's a flaw or discrepancy.

It is a fact that Western Christianity (the Catholic Church and all Protestants) is rapidly losing believers. People are leaving because of the scandals, the hypocrisy, the fornication of almost every believer, the lack of birthrates, and because of the errors. It doesn't resonate with people who seek spiritual answers and I realized 10 years ago that Christianity doesn't actually give spiritual answers or real spiritual growth. It gives a religious path.

Spiritual answers and spiritual growth are completely different than a religious path. And who set the religious path? People who wiped out the Pagans and forcibly mandated that religious path. Christianity didn't win the hearts and minds of everyone, it won through the Crusades and Inquisitions and the mass slaughter of pagans, the destruction of trees, and mandates of a Roman Emperor to be the official religion. Christianity won through the sword, just like Islam won through the sword.

[TruthSeeker]

Revelation 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

[MrMan]

Summary:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#R ... _etymology
Read. You skipped over the Roman religion.

It doesn't sound like there was a consensus on Lucifer being a name for a Roman god. It was the name of a star, so the Latin translator used that word to refer to references to that star in Greek and Hebrew. That doesn't mean they were trying to say the king of Babylon or Satan were the same as Greek gods associated with that star (or associated with that star much earlier in Roman history.)

2. The Modus Operandi of deities doesn't completely change.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. But throughout the Bible, God has agents do things and involved them in His plans, angels, humans, etc. He doesn't just do everything Himself, like you see to think he must do.

3. Yahweh is not omnipotent or omniscient if he must have a battle with Satan called the Battle of Armageddon

There are different interpretations of the book of Revelation. I am not familiar with any method of interpretation that has God the Father directly engaging in a physical type Bible with Satan at Armaggedon.

Here is a quote from Revelation 16.

14 For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings [g]of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

15 “Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.”

16 And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, [h]Armageddon.(NKJV)

Notice kings of the earth going to battle in a certain valley in Israel.

Read it. If Yahweh were truly omnipotent. then he could instantly defeat Satan without needing to have a battle and possibly lose. Because having a battle implies Yahweh can lose against Satan.

1. Where do you get this idea of God battling Satan, directly like that, at Armaggedon?
2. God having a 'battle' does not imply that God would lose.
3. If God can defeat Satan with the snap of His fingers but does not do so, that does not mean that He cannot do so. Since God is omnipotent, He does not have to do things in whatever way you imagine that He must.

If Satan was guaranteed to lose against "omnipotent" and "omniscient" Yahweh, then there's no need for Yahweh to have a Battle.

If God has plans to do things His way, not the way you imagine, that doesn't mean He is not omnipotent.

4. Cultural and religious appropriation happens all the time. It has throughout history. Once again, anyone who believes Lucifer is synonymous with Satan is not very smart about religions and is small minded to believe in anti-Roman cultural appropriation.

It is much more likely the word was chosen because it refers to the Morning Star in Latin. I don't think Jerome was trying to make the King of Babylon out to be some mythological era that the Romans might not even have been worshipping in his era. I also don't think he was trying to make Christ out to be some minor Roman deity. He used a Latin word used to refer to the Morning Star.

Anyone who has a direct experience with a spiritual being will forever be unable to accept Christianity or any Abrahamic religion or any religion as being accurate because spirituality is different than religion.

Plenty of Christians have had supernatural experiences with the Holy Spirit. Experiences with spiritual gifts are supernatural experiences. Supernatural healing is a supernatural experience. Hearing the Holy Spirit speaking is a supernatural experience. Getting supernatural knowledge about something is a supernatural experience. One might argue specific answers to prayer is a supernatural experience also. I've experienced and/or witnessed such things.

The only real way to defeat atheism, which I realized years ago, is to not defend flawed religions, and instead defend spirituality.

What is 'spirituality' by this definition-- some sort of interaction with a demon?

[Tsar]

2. The Modus Operandi of deities doesn't completely change.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. But throughout the Bible, God has agents do things and involved them in His plans, angels, humans, etc. He doesn't just do everything Himself, like you see to think he must do.

That is a contradiction. If someone whether a human or a god, was omnipotent and omniscient, they can be everywhere and do everything at once, and already know everything that happens. Sending lesser beings would be ineffective and slow down everything and lesser beings aren't as powerful.

I never said a deity had to do everything themselves but then, if there's a contradiction in omnipotence and omniscience, then a deity isn't omnipotent. An omniscient being would need servants to help. But not an omnipotent being. Also, if a being was omniscient, there wouldn't have been a rebellion. No deity would just sit back and let a rebellion happen without stopping it before the damage has been done.

Also, is God male or sexless? Because it is true that Christianity is a patriarchal religion but it isn't practical for a male being who has never encountered a female to create females. Why do most religions have female deities but Christianity doesn't? Everything in nature has an opposite to balance it out or it's sexless or both.

One man Adam, one woman Eve, implies humanity has incestuous origins because the offspring wouldn't have anyone else of differing genetics, and then that implies that somehow, all the different races evolved from those original people. No offense but that's one of the most unbelievable parts of the Bible, but it's basic biology and science. That's basically as fictional as atheists saying people evolved from monkeys.

Another fact about Abrahamic religions is that Lilith was Adam's first wife. She was created by Yahweh just like Adam was. But she cheated and went to become Satan's Queen and then Yahweh supposedly created Eve from Adam's rib? I guess that means they are identical in genetics except for being different in sex. Which then implies a more asexual and incestuous origin to humanity if Eve was created by Adam's rib.

Then the flood myth where 2 of every animal was gathered and saved. That is also impossible and unfeasible both in ancient times and in modern times. There's no way for it to repopulate and many populations need much more than 2, and again it implies an incestuous repopulation.

Most of the claims and stories are folklore or taken from other religions and given a Judaized revision which is what the Torah was.

The only real way to defeat atheism, which I realized years ago, is to not defend flawed religions, and instead defend spirituality.

What is 'spirituality' by this definition-- some sort of interaction with a demon?

No, interactions with other gods or spiritual beings, and for religious people to stop defending their religions, and instead focus purely on the concepts.

Instead of defending Yahweh or Religion, which Yahweh is just a God of Jews who gained Goyim followers, and Religion is a centralized path with a leader as the spiritual authority, it's best to stop defending them.

Yahweh can defend himself against atheists. He doesn't need Christians or Muslims to defend him. Jews never defend Yahweh against atheists and Yahweh is their god.

Benevolent spiritual beings don't need others to try to force belief. Faith comes naturally.

Defending the concept of a higher power is an argument that can be one as long as there's no claim about what that higher power is and it's best to leave it open-ended because it can attract others.

Circle logic can't prove Yahweh and atheists can't disprove an infinite open-ended concept that a higher power exists. Atheists have a stronger rational argument against the Bible because of its flaws and discrepancies.

God says so isn't an explanation for anything. Neither is God is all powerful.

@Pixel--Dude pointed out the time it took Yahweh to make all of creation, which implies Yahweh was bound by time constraints but if heaven exists outside of space-time then that is a contradiction, but if time exists in heaven, then god isn't a timeless deity present since the very beginning of time. Time is a human construct and it moves differently in other places of the universe. Also, if people were spiritual beings, we would experience things differently than we do in our material existence.

Another fact is that the existence of one god doesn't mean that other gods don't exist. Mutual exclusivity isn't a spiritual truth. Mutual exclusivity is a way to keep people I one single religious path and centralized religion has been a control mechanism and one of history's most profitable businesses.

[MrMan]

2. The Modus Operandi of deities doesn't completely change.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. But throughout the Bible, God has agents do things and involved them in His plans, angels, humans, etc. He doesn't just do everything Himself, like you see to think he must do.

That is a contradiction. If someone whether a human or a god, was omnipotent and omniscient, they can be everywhere and do everything at once, and already know everything that happens. Sending lesser beings would be ineffective and slow down everything and lesser beings aren't as powerful.

There is not a contradiction. If one is omnipotent and cannot do what he wants, that would be a contradiction. If God is omnipotent and does not do everything the way _you_ think He should, there is no contradiction.

Something to keep in mind is that omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent are terms theologians came up with over the centuries. They aren't terms out of the Bible. The Bible says many things about God's great power and that God is the creator. Later theologians use terms like 'omipotent.' David says the following:

Psalm 139
7 Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in [c]hell, behold, You are there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 Even there Your hand shall lead me,
And Your right hand shall hold me.

The theologian says that and says 'omnipresent', even though the Bible doesn't exactly say that.

Then, of course, there are smart alecks who say, 'Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?' This has to do with the inherent logical contradiction of whether someone who is omnipotent can do self-contradictory things. The question doesn't have anything to do with God or the Bible. 'Omnipotent' is not in the Bible, not in any translation I have seen. There are many verses about God's power.

I never said a deity had to do everything themselves but then, if there's a contradiction in omnipotence and omniscience, then a deity isn't omnipotent. An omniscient being would need servants to help. But not an omnipotent being.

God create intelligent beings and involves them in the things He does, both humans and angels and whatever other type of intelligent being He chooses to include. You aren't showing a contradiction. You are assuming God would do things in accordance with the way you think, just do everything yourself. Your assuming if God has angels and people do things, that He must __ need__ help.

Also, if a being was omniscient, there wouldn't have been a rebellion. No deity would just sit back and let a rebellion happen without stopping it before the damage has been done.

How do you know? Have you ever been a deity? I know you made some boasts on here with such claims, followed a little later with discussions of health concerns, financial woes, issues finding women (which are human problems).

One philosopher answer the question of the problem of God and evil in the world by saying God could allow evil if He has a good reason. That's a good answer. We do not know everything, or the reasons.

But I would point out you are getting hung up on the terminology created by later theologians-- all the omnis, rather than the specific things God actually revealed about Him self through prophetic utterances He gave to prophets or the teachings of Jesus.

Also, is God male or sexless? Because it is true that Christianity is a patriarchal religion but it isn't practical for a male being who has never encountered a female to create females. Why do most religions have female deities but Christianity doesn't? Everything in nature has an opposite to balance it out or it's sexless or both.

God is revealed as Father. Why would God have trouble figuring out how to make a woman.

One man Adam, one woman Eve, implies humanity has incestuous origins because the offspring wouldn't have anyone else of differing genetics, and then that implies that somehow, all the different races evolved from those original people. No offense but that's one of the most unbelievable parts of the Bible, but it's basic biology and science. That's basically as fictional as atheists saying people evolved from monkeys.

There is a 'genetic Eve' in our prehistory that we are all descended from. God gave laws against incest at Mt. Sinai and this was before that. Another interpretation of Genesis is that God made mankind, and then He made Adam in the garden and formed Eve from her. God had breathed the breath of life into Adam. That would give Cain and Able the opportunity for wives were were not related.

Another fact about Abrahamic religions is that Lilith was Adam's first wife.

I believe that story is found in Jewish writings from around 300 to 500 AD. The word translated 'lilith' shows up in Isaiah 44:14, a 'night creature' in a list of other animals. Over time, maybe from Babylonian influence, some Jews began to have legends about a dangerous spirit, the wife of Adam story. Lilith is not a part of Christian belief. It's not mainstream Islam. It's a late Jewish legend.

then Yahweh supposedly created Eve from Adam's rib? I guess that means they are identical in genetics except for being different in sex. Which then implies a more asexual and incestuous origin to humanity if Eve was created by Adam's rib.

If God can create DNA from dirt, you don't think he can change DNA in a rib?

Then the flood myth where 2 of every animal was gathered and saved. That is also impossible and unfeasible both in ancient times and in modern times. There's no way for it to repopulate and many populations need much more than 2, and again it implies an incestuous repopulation.

Two of some, and seven of others. Rangers and dog breeders breed brothers and sisters together for multiple generations and they can grow populations that way.

I am also not convinced the wording of Genesis requires a global flood. In some contexts 'ha-eretz' is translated 'the land' and refers to the land of Israel. In other contexts, it is translated 'the earth.'

What is 'spirituality' by this definition-- some sort of interaction with a demon?

Interaction with demons is not spiritual. They are spirits, but witchcraft is a work of the flesh, so why would interacting with demons be spiritual.

Instead of defending Yahweh or Religion, which Yahweh is just a God of Jews who gained Goyim followers, and Religion is a centralized path with a leader as the spiritual authority, it's best to stop defending them.

I wonder if focusing on your disdain for the Jews led you to betray and reject Christ. God created the earth and mankind, but after Babel, he apportioned them to others. He took Abraham and later Israel as His inheritance, his portion. He promised Abraham that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed. He told the Messiah, "Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance." After Christ ascended, He told His apostles that all authority had been given to Him in heaven and on earth. All nations now must submit to Christ.

@Pixel--Dude pointed out the time it took Yahweh to make all of creation, which implies Yahweh was bound by time constraints but if heaven exists outside of space-time then that is a contradiction, but if time exists in heaven, then god isn't a timeless deity present since the very beginning of time. Time is a human construct and it moves differently in other places of the universe.

I don't see where the Bible addresses the idea of God existing outside time or heaven being outside time. That is something some Christian philosophers and theologians, professional or lay, have asserted. Another approach to the issue is called 'divine time'-- the idea that time is almost like an aspect of God's being that we tap into or experience.

Also, if people were spiritual beings, we would experience things differently than we do in our material existence.

How would you know that? What set of experiences do you use as a frame of reference for this statement? When have you switched from being a nonspiritual to a spiritual being to experience the difference?

Another fact is that the existence of one god doesn't mean that other gods don't exist. Mutual exclusivity isn't a spiritual truth.

Other entities that people call 'gods' exist. The Bible teaches that. Paul even wrote in I Corinthians 8, 'For though there be that are called gods in heaven and on earth, we know that there is but one God.' I think we all agree that Pharaohs and Caesar Augustus existed. Some people considered them to be gods.

But now, God requires all men to repent of idolatry.

[Tsar]

Instead of defending Yahweh or Religion, which Yahweh is just a God of Jews who gained Goyim followers, and Religion is a centralized path with a leader as the spiritual authority, it's best to stop defending them.

I wonder if focusing on your disdain for the Jews led you to betray and reject Christ. God created the earth and mankind, but after Babel, he apportioned them to others. He took Abraham and later Israel as His inheritance, his portion. He promised Abraham that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed. He told the Messiah, "Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance." After Christ ascended, He told His apostles that all authority had been given to Him in heaven and on earth. All nations now must submit to Christ.

Also, if people were spiritual beings, we would experience things differently than we do in our material existence.

How would you know that? What set of experiences do you use as a frame of reference for this statement? When have you switched from being a nonspiritual to a spiritual being to experience the difference?

Another fact is that the existence of one god doesn't mean that other gods don't exist. Mutual exclusivity isn't a spiritual truth.

Other entities that people call 'gods' exist. The Bible teaches that. Paul even wrote in I Corinthians 8, 'For though there be that are called gods in heaven and on earth, we know that there is but one God.' I think we all agree that Pharaohs and Caesar Augustus existed. Some people considered them to be gods.

But now, God requires all men to repent of idolatry.

1. No, my disdain didn't. I factually said that religion is faith based and a religious path cannot in any way be proven with anything rational. Trying to convert atheists who are fixed on disproving a god or religion will never work because you are forced to prove your argument is correct in a rational way. That's why any religion with a god cannot win against the atheists, especially the Abrahamic religions. You can prove concepts with probability and reason. It's better to lead a horse to water and let it drink.

2. There's no proof that the god in Abrahamic religions is the true God or only God. I am not denying their existence but I am claiming the Jews are a mostly Satanic people. That's been proven throughout history. Maybe a tiny subset of Jews was originally a decent people but the majority are Satanic and evil. It's been proven by their actions. Anyone who exalts Jews is worshipping evil. The greatest defenders of Israel from 1948 onwards has been White Christians, mainly Protestants thanks to the Scofield Bible which is more like a Talmud for Zionist Collaborators and later Catholics who are anti-Islam, anti-atheist. Judeo-Christian doesn't exist. European civilization was built by Pagans and when the Pagans were converted to Christianity (many forcibly under threat of slaughter or by pressure) with Christian values. But weakness is spread by Christianity.

3. Just like @Pixel--Dude, I have had spiritual encounters. I always had a spiritual viewpoint since I had them. Atheists have made valid facts about discrepancies. National Socialism also makes some valid reasons why any trace of Judaism in society must be removed to protect society from all Jewish influence. Sure, I don't discount the possibility that the Abrahamic religions have some truth, but not entirely or completely.

If people want to believe Jews are the Chosen People, then fine, go live in Israel or rebuild Khazaria and be slaves to the Jews.

Jews have already been rebuilding their Khazaria in Europe and North America and other White countries. They are destroying the ethnic homelands of Whites and destroying all traditional values and all good values.

Jews were given total sympathy after a trivial Holocaust where maybe 300,000 Jews died probably because the Allies destroyed railway lines that supplied food. There was no 6,000,000 Jews that died. That number was thrown around for decades before WW2 including against Imperial Russia. 6,000,000 must be a superstition or folklore but it's not factual. The Holocaust is just secular Jew-worship and many nations have anti-blasphemy laws if people question the narrative.

Spirituality has the highest probability of being accurate. Christianity is purely faith based. The spiritual concepts in Christianity can be true but the religious doctrine is purely faith.

Atheists who became believers had NDEs and probably had a spiritual encounter with related to the Christian religion. Plenty of other people will have encounters with other beings in NDEs or other spiritual encounters.

Tell me which of these statements is false with a rational reason:
Christianity is rapidly losing believers
Reason cannot prove a religion
Religion uses circular logic just like atheism
Spiritual concepts can be proven to be the most probable
You cannot prove a "specific" God exists using reason

Here's an easy statement which is 100% factual.
1. Jews did not build the pyramids
2. Jews were not slaves in Egypt

If you are completely into faith, you will deny history because the Old Testament tells you it's true. It's not true based on historic evidence and archaeological evidence.

Historical evidence has zero evidence of Jews in Egypt. There's zero records. Zero archaeological evidence. Nothing. Nothing except words from the Torah. Jews always love to claim the accomplishments of superior civilizations were their creations or accomplishments.

You also don't want to explain why the mass slaughter, forced conversions, and top-down mandates were necessary for Christianity (and Islam) to become dominant religions. It's a fact pagans were exterminated.

Religion is an easy way people can become spiritual and be taught values. Religion tells the answer it wants to give.

Spirituality is about learning and seeking out an answer for one self.

Competition in religion is not a threat to a religion if it has the ability based on it's own merits, writings, and actions of followers to be true.

Knowledge is only a threat to religion if it has discrepancies or if it fears people will find a path they believe is more true.

[Outcast9428]

All the proof one needs of which spirit has our best interests at heart is to see what happens to countries that submit before God as opposed to countries that abandon God. Western liberal nations and communist nations chose Lucifer’s path over God’s path and we are paying for that mistake.

Trying to become a god yourself is one of the first steps toward a sinful lifestyle. If we submit ourselves before God he will take care of us. When people who don’t know any better try to rebel against their caretaker and falsely paint their caretaker as a tyrant, bad things happen. If God was such a tyrant then why did he give man the Garden of Eden?

[MrMan]

Lots of stuff here. More than I can respond to here. The Bible says Israelites were put to work building cities. It doesn't say they built the pyramids. @Tsar and @Pixel--Dude

[MrMan]

Lots of stuff here. More than I can respond to here. The Bible says Israelites were put to work building cities. It doesn't say they built the pyramids. @Tsar and @Pixel--Dude

In the story of Moses doesn't it suggest that the slaves were the Israelites, Yahweh's chosen people? It's generally assumed the Pharaoh made them build the pyramids as well. Which I think is ridiculous.

'Generally assumed' by whom, exactly? I have seen the idea twice on this forum. I don't think I've ever heard anyone else say that. I haven't heard any scholarly texts promote the idea that the Hebrews built the pyramids. I don't think I've heard it in a sermon or read about it from some sermon hundreds of years ago. The time period doesn't work out well.

Aliens built the pyramids. The Anunnaki, or ancient gods. Not human slaves. There is no way anyone could have built these ancient cities from around the world using primitive tools. Such feats of engineering would be exceedingly difficult even with technology we have today.

I think you get your religion from the History Channel. I've seen clips of Ancient Aliens, and of course turned it off, irritated that what used to be a serious channel promotes such silly bunk. They really play fast and loose with their history. There is an Ancient Near East Semitic languages scholar with a doctorate in the field who also writes sci fi fiction and goes to some of the conferences where there are a lot of 'ancient aliens' adherents. The man's name is Michael Heiser. I saw one of his videos that takes an example from Ancient Aliens about lizard people where they show some little statues of lizard people looking things, then go into an ancient text and make them out to be some sort of god/alien thing from another text. There was no context to tell what the lizard statues were, and nothing tying them to the gods described in the text Ancient Aliens was talking about, and the two were separated by centuries.

That being said, some of the things worshipped as gods may actually be the same things that are now identified as aliens. Two scholars, UFO researchers, decades ago, one of whom wrote a report for congress, both concluded that accounts of interactions with aliens were similar to if not identical to accounts of interactions with demons. The more intense UFO encounters, where there are conversations, seem to be more of an occult experience than an encounter with a regular physical being. There have been reports of alien abductions that stopped when the victim mentions the name of Jesus.

Dr. Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist, one of the few, who has interviewed a large number of people who reported seeing UFOs. A lot of the cases are explained by weather balloons, the planet Venus, and natural phenomenon. When he got into the minority of cases that were not explained away so simply, he found that the more involved an individual was with the occult, the more intense his or her experience with UFOs, aliens. Dabblers in the occult might see a space ship. Those more involved with the occult might see the alien. Those deeply involved tended to be the ones who had the conversations, etc.

Space ships didn't follow the laws of physics. Light beams could stop at one place and not dissipate. Creatures could communicate using telepathy. A lot of the features of these accounts were more in line with supernatural encounters.

When he was a grad student spending countless hours under a telescope, and did not see UFOs, he noticed that some people could come in for a few minutes and see them. He realized it was more likely the observer that made the difference.

He also noted that the technology of UFOs mimics our current technology or is just ahead of it. UFOs in the early 20th century were very slow by our modern standards. 'Alien' stories appeal to whatever current beliefs are. They used to come from the back side of the moon, but that is not believable now, so the story changes.

[Cornfed]

In the story of Moses doesn't it suggest that the slaves were the Israelites, Yahweh's chosen people? It's generally assumed the Pharaoh made them build the pyramids as well.

Eh, it's generally assumed that the Exodus took place during the Hyksos period, long after the pyramid building period.

[Cornfed]

I agree with you @Tsar seeing these beings during spiritual experiences is far more empirical that the testimony of an old book.

So you are placing your own nitwit fantasies against prescriptions for building the most successful societies in recorded history. Pretty silly of you.

[Cornfed]

Are you suggesting Christianity is responsible for some of the greatest societies? Theocracies have always historically been bad for people.

Eh, science and technological progress flourished under very religious Christian societies. Even Calvinism is widely thought to have enabled economic progress, despite its flaws. Historically the most religious people have always been the most successful in every meaningful respect, at least where that religion was Christianity.

[Cornfed]

Are you suggesting Christianity is responsible for some of the greatest societies? Theocracies have always historically been bad for people.

Eh, science and technological progress flourished under very religious Christian societies. Even Calvinism is widely thought to have enabled economic progress, despite its flaws. Historically the most religious people have always been the most successful in every meaningful respect, at least where that religion was Christianity.

If you are such an anti-Semite then why do you believe in a Jewish religion?

The Jews were simply designed to give rise to Christianity. Surplus Jews really should have gone into the offal pit after that, similar to black slaves in America.