• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

If Jesus died for our sins...

hahaha your favorite philosopher is the leader of the satanic church? Nice. My favorite philosopher is L. Ron Hubbard!

My second favorite philosopher is Tom Cruise.

Dude, you might as well be into Wicca--you probably dont know what philosophy is or how its practiced.

Laveys books suck. I tried to read some when I worked in a bookshop with rare and collectors books. Terrible prose, totally uninspired; its just a shocking cover to hook in gullible people willing to pay $300 or more dollars for it (that actually the real price.)

Anything good Lavey wrote is copied from real philosophers, like epicurus. His book is plagued with copied ideas.

I really dont know why you would waste your time with teenage angst stuff like that.

That guy just made shit up.

Watch any interview of his and he speaks literally like a 12 year kid who thinks he's being deep by being edgy.

Sure, the interviewers suck, but its only cause no real interviewer would interview a man with no talent or skill, intelligence, or charisma.

I always read your short, stupid posts. If you arent talking about yourself they are always mean.

I know enough about you to not like you. You are the dictionary definition of a troll. You only spew shit; "moronic this" "suck this/suck that" blabla.

You have showed on here that you actually have no capacity for real conversation. Youre just high off those stupid fucking opiates all day spewing shit.

My backhanded insults make me suuuch a douchebag. So what about all the nonsense you spew?

Arent I being adverserial now? You as a reader of Lavey should love the way I am opposing all your beliefs!

tss....you wasted your precious time reading that dumb stuff, dude... "philosophy," yeah right.
 
@Shady's Fox

If I am fighting, I am only fighting myself.

But the point was to talk philosophy, which is also psychology and spirituality, this being its original greek meaning.

But for this you have to make rational points which resonate as 'truth' with people.

But when one offers one's true thoughts and feelings these dudes come out of the wood works, spew shit, and offer no rational points in return.

The internet would be an amazing thing if people could live up to it. But its all porn and trolls.
 
☝ you see. Its the glorification of stupidity, all for the shock value.

The beatles took drugs and changed the world...

Others just become more dumb



420 lol!!! Yeaah drugs, sex, yaaa!

ezgif.com-resize.gif
 
Last edited:
The Axe said:
If after the opiate addiction, the broken marriage, totaling your car while drunk driving, a suspended license, drug packages intercepted by customs, and a house that may or may not be habitable, if after all that, you want to be some kind of gnostic psychedelic warrior, dispensing trip reports to the acolytes, then God bless you, go for it.

As for Job: the interpretation I gave is the meaning the author intended when he wrote it, and how its been understood for centuries, millennia.

I won't be cheering on the next drug report, there's something about that much drug use, that makes me think its not appropriate to congratulate you for it.
Click to expand...

I see judgment is something you enjoy. Yeah, I was addicted to opiates. yeah, I married an abusive woman and divorce saved my life. Yeah I got a DUI, yeah I got a package intercepted by customs, yeah my house has some structural issues I was unaware of when I bought it, yeah my dad died recently after battling ALS for 6 years. Shit happens, people make mistakes. I don't get what that has to do with anything. Is it invalid that I share my experiences because I made mistakes? I trip a couple of times a month, the most ever is once a week for short periods. I disagree that there is anything wrong with that. I have experiences that mean something to me, that form the basis for my spirituality, and I choose to share them for various reasons: I like sharing, I like writing, I like recording my experiences for a community of psychedelics users that want information about psychedelics, and most of all I hope that someone can gain something from my experiences. I think it just offends you and/or makes you feel threatened that I have discarded Christianity in favor of a personal, experience-based form of spirituality, so you choose to demean me and my experiences instead of accepting that we all have our own path. All I tried to do was offer a different interpretation of the story of Job. I don't care if the author had a different point. I don't care if other people interpret it favorably. I was sharing my opinion/interpretation. You don't have to agree with it, but I find it pretty telling that you have chosen to basically attempt to demean my character publicly as a result of me sharing my interpretation of the story of Job.

I probably shouldn't keep replying to this... but it bothers me.
 
Xorkoth said:
I see judgment is something you enjoy. Yeah, I was addicted to opiates. yeah, I married an abusive woman and divorce saved my life. Yeah I got a DUI, yeah I got a package intercepted by customs, yeah my house has some structural issues I was unaware of when I bought it, yeah my dad died recently after battling ALS for 6 years. Shit happens, people make mistakes. I don't get what that has to do with anything. Is it invalid that I share my experiences because I made mistakes? I trip a couple of times a month, the most ever is once a week for short periods. I disagree that there is anything wrong with that. I have experiences that mean something to me, that form the basis for my spirituality, and I choose to share them for various reasons: I like sharing, I like writing, I like recording my experiences for a community of psychedelics users that want information about psychedelics, and most of all I hope that someone can gain something from my experiences. I think it just offends you and/or makes you feel threatened that I have discarded Christianity in favor of a personal, experience-based form of spirituality, so you choose to demean me and my experiences instead of accepting that we all have our own path. All I tried to do was offer a different interpretation of the story of Job. I don't care if the author had a different point. I don't care if other people interpret it favorably. I was sharing my opinion/interpretation. You don't have to agree with it, but I find it pretty telling that you have chosen to basically attempt to demean my character publicly as a result of me sharing my interpretation of the story of Job.

I probably shouldn't keep replying to this... but it bothers me.
Click to expand...
If I caused you feel demeaned I apologize. What I wanted was a sincere post from you. Sorry to be so difficult about it! You made my day brother.
 
It's cool, man, shit gets heated sometimes. That's interesting for me to note that you have been interpreting my posts as insincere, because I really almost always am trying to be sincere... gonna try to be aware that at least someone is interpreting me differently than I'm interpreting me, so maybe that says something.
 
Woodburner said:
This is why I and my local church parted company. I refused to 'let Jesus take the punishment for my sins'. For some reason they objected to that.
Also they kept telling me I was a sinner, when in fact I was a particularly innocent child. Not only me though, but everyone in their eyes was born a sinner . . . What?! A newborn baby, that barely knows it exists, is a filthy sinner?
There is tons of stuff in Christianity that makes me want to throw up, it's so screwed up. Poor Jesus. :*(
Click to expand...

If we are all sinners, which we are, one would not expect the divisions and discrimination without a just cause that Christianity imposes against women and gays with their homophobic and misogynous teachings.

I guess that Christians males are low grade sinners as compared to women and gays, even though Christians adore a genocidal moral mobster of a god.

Next time you are4 labelled as a sinner, point out that Yahweh is guilty of crimes against hiumanity and that moral people will reject his vile satanic ass.

Regards
DL
 
sewerslide.666mg said:
I believe the bible is a self help book so to speak...
Click to expand...

As a teacher of decent moral thinking, the bible cannot be beat.

You just have to reverse much of the Christian interpretations.

Stranger to see such a great work create an immoral religion like Christianity.

Christians are supposed to end in hating the genocidal son murdering Yahweh, yet they stupidly end in adoring that satanic
prick.

Regards
DL
 
LordFran said:
I speculate that at the end of the road we become our own final judge or executioner.
Click to expand...

What verdict do you give to yourself?

As a universalist, like Jesus, I have to find us all, --- not guilty, --- because we were made to be what we end as by others who would have interacted with us and molded us to be as we are.

They/we must all share the blame for reality and our collective sin.

Regards
DL
 
No such thing as 'collective sin'. There is only Sin, which we hold collectively. Which is why it's separated into 7 sins. They are traits which we all share not collectively but individually.
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
As a teacher of decent moral thinking, the bible cannot be beat.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to read your counter point to that.

There doesn't seem to be any unified morality behind the Biblical stories. Most of it seems like exactly what it is- a collation of stories housed together pretty well arbitrarily with very little connection to one another. Hence, you have God demanding that the Jews slaughter and enslave their enemies while being told 'thou shalt not kill'. You also get that brilliant notion whereby "killing" people and misusing the name of God are seen as ethically as bad as one another.

Shrooms00087 said:
No such thing as 'collective sin'. There is only Sin, which we hold collectively.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean? What's the difference between 'Sin' and 'sin'?

The interesting idea about 'sin/Sin' is that it isn't actually bound to human morality at all. Something is sinful only if it transgresses any allegedly divine edict. Christians are obsessed with this notion of sin which is evidence that Christianity is not actually moral, and the good actions of Christians are not moral in intent, but are simply aimed at pleasing or keeping faith with God. Rather than an action being objectively right or wrong with such a value being defined by logic or reason, a Christian must only ask if the God of their book says its right or wrong. That's why Christians and other people of the book constantly do immoral and awful things and have throughout history despite the abundance of ethical guidance they should have at their disposal- the books are plainly immoral and misguided and yet they form the heart of God's 'divine edict' and people use them as if they contain an objective, factual code of ethics. Indeed, its a Sin to even question the value or truth claims of these works.
 
swilow said:
What does that even mean? What's the difference between 'Sin' and 'sin'?

The interesting idea about 'sin/Sin' is that it isn't actually bound to human morality at all. Something is sinful only if it transgresses any allegedly divine edict. Christians are obsessed with this notion of sin which is evidence that Christianity is not actually moral, and the good actions of Christians are not moral in intent, but are simply aimed at pleasing or keeping faith with God. Rather than an action being objectively right or wrong with such a value being defined by logic or reason, a Christian must only ask if the God of their book says its right or wrong. That's why Christians and other people of the book constantly do immoral and awful things and have throughout history despite the abundance of ethical guidance they should have at their disposal- the books are plainly immoral and misguided and yet they form the heart of God's 'divine edict' and people use them as if they contain an objective, factual code of ethics. Indeed, its a Sin to even question the value or truth claims of these works.
Click to expand...

We all have the potential to sin but it isn't a collective guilt thing. It's a personal thing about a specific sin.
 
Christianity specifically fetishises collective guilt though- it's the basis of original sin (which could be termed 'collective guilt' and still be as meaningful). I might be missing something from this conversation I think...
 
swilow said:
I'm glad to read your counter point to that.

There doesn't seem to be any unified morality behind the Biblical stories. Most of it seems like exactly what it is- a collation of stories housed together pretty well arbitrarily with very little connection to one another. Hence, you have God demanding that the Jews slaughter and enslave their enemies while being told 'thou shalt not kill'. You also get that brilliant notion whereby "killing" people and misusing the name of God are seen as ethically as bad as one another.



What does that even mean? What's the difference between 'Sin' and 'sin'?

The interesting idea about 'sin/Sin' is that it isn't actually bound to human morality at all. Something is sinful only if it transgresses any allegedly divine edict. Christians are obsessed with this notion of sin which is evidence that Christianity is not actually moral, and the good actions of Christians are not moral in intent, but are simply aimed at pleasing or keeping faith with God. Rather than an action being objectively right or wrong with such a value being defined by logic or reason, a Christian must only ask if the God of their book says its right or wrong. That's why Christians and other people of the book constantly do immoral and awful things and have throughout history despite the abundance of ethical guidance they should have at their disposal- the books are plainly immoral and misguided and yet they form the heart of God's 'divine edict' and people use them as if they contain an objective, factual code of ethics. Indeed, its a Sin to even question the value or truth claims of these works.
Click to expand...
This is one reason I despise these religions.
 
OK, this one is easy. If Jesus died for my sins then I would be blameless
 
draculic acid69 said:
Lord Fran you don't know anything about me yet you assume you do.Anton Lavey is my fav philosopher.but u won't like that.
Again your backhanded insulting makes u come across as a douchebag.
Click to expand...

Douchebags backhand insult
I specialize in backhanded compliments :) that way I get to be true to my real cunt self and people can't be mad because I technically complimented them :D (y)
 
Gormur said:
OK, this one is easy. If Jesus died for my sins then I would be blameless
Click to expand...
Yet were all sinners until we believe fully in someone that may not even have existed that says they're the son of god.which is ridiculous.yep if he died for our sins we'd be blameless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top