• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are Satanic Temple’s Seven Tenets Morally Superior To Ten Commandments?

You do know that noting in those links either addresses the points I made, or refutes, them, don't you??? Are you actually reading and understanding what I wrote, and are you doing more than cutting/pasting without further understanding?

I understand them perfectly and agree with them...and yes, they do refute what you said...
 
I understand them perfectly and agree with them...and yes, they do refute what you said...

How do they do that? I would say that they don't. Explain please, especially the point about the date of the writing of Daniel.
 
I understand them perfectly and agree with them...and yes, they do refute what you said...

Do you?? Tell me, how does it refute what I said?? How does it address the points I made?? How does it, for example, address the point that the book of Daniel was written in 164 to 162 bce, and therefore is 'after the fact' writing of many things?? It doesn't even address it, it makes assumptions.

You do realize there is a difference between repeating an unsupported claim, and supporting it, don't you?
 
Do you?? Tell me, how does it refute what I said?? How does it address the points I made?? How does it, for example, address the point that the book of Daniel was written in 164 to 162 bce, and therefore is 'after the fact' writing of many things?? It doesn't even address it, it makes assumptions.

You do realize there is a difference between repeating an unsupported claim, and supporting it, don't you?
Cults are as cults do.
 
Yours isn't.

There is no such thing as objective morality. It is always decided by the individual, including you. Morality is about should and shouldn't, which is inherently subjective. There is no universal, objective moral code. It does not exist.
 
Do you?? Tell me, how does it refute what I said?? How does it address the points I made?? How does it, for example, address the point that the book of Daniel was written in 164 to 162 bce, and therefore is 'after the fact' writing of many things?? It doesn't even address it, it makes assumptions.

You do realize there is a difference between repeating an unsupported claim, and supporting it, don't you?

If you have reading comprehension problems...not my problem...
 
If you have reading comprehension problems...not my problem...

That seems to be your standard answer to points that you can't or won't understand. Do you know anything about the date of the writing of the book of Daniel?
 
That seems to be your standard answer to points that you can't or won't understand. Do you know anything about the date of the writing of the book of Daniel?

I understand more than you...I understand that some critics question the authenticity of Daniel...agreeing with the position taken by a third-century heathen philosopher and enemy of Christianity, Porphyry, who contended that the book of Daniel was forged by a Palestinian Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes...I understand that this forger supposedly took past events and made them appear to be prophecies...I understand that the genuineness of the book of Daniel was not seriously questioned from that day until the early part of the 18th century...I also understand that Jesus Christ’s own acceptance of Daniel’s prophecy is an even more significant evidence of its authenticity than some idiot philosopher or any other idiot critics of Daniel's authenticity...I'll take Jesus's words most of all over any others, including and especially yours or Ramoss's so don't forget that the next time you waste your time responding to me...Matt. 24:15; Dan. 11:31
 
I understand more than you...I understand that some critics question the authenticity of Daniel...agreeing with the position taken by a third-century heathen philosopher and enemy of Christianity, Porphyry, who contended that the book of Daniel was forged by a Palestinian Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes...I understand that this forger supposedly took past events and made them appear to be prophecies...I understand that the genuineness of the book of Daniel was not seriously questioned from that day until the early part of the 18th century...I also understand that Jesus Christ’s own acceptance of Daniel’s prophecy is an even more significant evidence of its authenticity than some idiot philosopher or any other idiot critics of Daniel's authenticity...I'll take Jesus's words most of all over any others, including and especially yours or Ramoss's so don't forget that the next time you waste your time responding to me...Matt. 24:15; Dan. 11:31
Who took down Jesus's words in shorthand? The bible is fiction.
 
I understand more than you...I understand that some critics question the authenticity of Daniel...agreeing with the position taken by a third-century heathen philosopher and enemy of Christianity, Porphyry, who contended that the book of Daniel was forged by a Palestinian Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes...I understand that this forger supposedly took past events and made them appear to be prophecies...I understand that the genuineness of the book of Daniel was not seriously questioned from that day until the early part of the 18th century...I also understand that Jesus Christ’s own acceptance of Daniel’s prophecy is an even more significant evidence of its authenticity than some idiot philosopher or any other idiot critics of Daniel's authenticity...I'll take Jesus's words most of all over any others, including and especially yours or Ramoss's so don't forget that the next time you waste your time responding to me...Matt. 24:15; Dan. 11:31

Name some of the false messiahs and prophets that Jesus predicted would come. And how did the "elect" become the "elect"?

If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time.
 
Name some of the false messiahs and prophets that Jesus predicted would come. And how did the "elect" become the "elect"?

Anyone who does not preach and teach the truth is a false prophet, according to Scripture...today, more than any other time in history, there is an over abundance of false prophets who are distorting the truth of God and His Word, just as Jesus foretold there would be in the last days...the end is close...you can count on it...
 
Anyone who does not preach and teach the truth is a false prophet, according to Scripture...today, more than any other time in history, there is an over abundance of false prophets who are distorting the truth of God and His Word, just as Jesus foretold there would be in the last days...the end is close...you can count on it...

The end is not close. That is not the truth. Anyway, in the story Jesus promised to come back within the lifetime of his contemporaries. He's a bit late. Your cult has had its share of false prophets predicting the end of the world.
 
If you have reading comprehension problems...not my problem...

That insult does not support your claims.

What is also is lacking in your response is any indication that you understand and have read your own links, or read or understood what I have written.

Let's look at a couple of those prophecies.

For example. Micah. ,about the Messiah being born in Bethlehem

If you read Michah in CONTEXT.. something that seems to be lacking, you will see it is out of the clan of Bethlehem, not the town of Bethlehem. Right then and there, that makes the stories in the N.T. 'written to' and 'shoe horned into place', since it misunderstands the 'out of Bethlehem' quote in Michah.


Next, let's look at the JW's misunderstanding about Daniel. Your point about Daniel 8:23. One of the problems is that the book of Daniel uses what are called "persian borrowed words". These were Persian words that were not introduced into the language until well after the events. This shows that the 'Book of Daniel' was written after those events, and it wasn't a prophecy, but an after the fact writing.

From http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4874-daniel-book-of

he Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. This assertion is supported by the following data: The kingdom which is symbolized by the he goat (viii. 5 et seq.) is expressly named as the "kingdom of Yawan"—that is, the Grecian kingdom (viii. 21) the great horn being its first king, Alexander the Great (definitely stated in Seder "Olam R. xxx.), and the little horn Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164). This kingdom was to persecute the host of the saints "unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings" (viii. 14, R. V.); that is, "half-days," or 1,150 days; and Epiphanes did, in fact, profane the sanctuary in Jerusalem for about that length of time, from Kislew 15, 168, to Kislew 25,165 (I Macc. i. 57, iv. 52). The little horn described in Dan. viii. 9-12, 23-25 has the same general characteristics as the little horn in vii. 8, 20; hence the same ruler is designated in both passages. The well-known passage ix. 23-27 also points to the same period. The first and imperative rule in interpreting it is to begin the period of the seventy times seven units (A. V. "seventy weeks") with the first period of seven (ix. 25), and to let the second period, the "sixty-two times seven units," follow this; forif this second period (the sixty-two weeks) be reckoned as beginning again from the very beginning, the third period, the "one week," must be carried back in the same way. The context demands, furthermore, that the origin of the prediction concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem be sought in Jer. xxv. 11-13 and the parallel passage, ib. xxix. 10. The "anointed," the "prince," mentioned after the first seven times seven units, must be Cyrus, who is called the anointed of the Lord in Isa. xlv. 1 also. He concluded the first seven weeks of years by issuing the decree of liberation, and the time that elapsed between the Chaldean destruction of Jerusalem (586) and the year 538 was just about forty-nine years. The duration of the sixty-two times seven units (434 years) does not correspond with the time 538-171 (367 years); but the chronological knowledge of that age was not very exact. The Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Meyer, p. 104) computed the Persian rule to have lasted fifty-two years. This is all the more evident as the last period of seven units must include the seven years 171-165 (see "Rev. Et. Juives," xix. 202 et seq.). This week of years began with the murder of an anointed one (compare Lev. iv. 3 et seq. on the anointing of the priest)—namely, the legitimate high priest Onias III.—and it was in the second half of this week of years that the Temple of the Lord was desecrated by an abomination—the silver altar erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in place of the Lord's altar for burnt offering (see I Macc. i. 54).

So, your link does not address those, and , well, basically is giving out misinformation. That makes that entire site untrustworthy.
 
Anyone who does not preach and teach the truth is a false prophet, according to Scripture...today, more than any other time in history, there is an over abundance of false prophets who are distorting the truth of God and His Word, just as Jesus foretold there would be in the last days...the end is close...you can count on it...

Name some false "prophets" and what they prophesied. Name some that claimed to be the "messiah".
 
Name some false "prophets" and what they prophesied. Name some that claimed to be the "messiah".

I can give you the names of some Jehovah's Witnesses who were false prophets.
 
Satanism is primarily a bunch of edgy atheists. There are a handful of people who believe in satan as part of a magical practice, but they are a very tiny minority - they, unsurprisingly, tend to also be generically humanist. I'm fairly certain that there are no actually satanic satanists. Would YOU worship a doomed-to-failure strawman of a villain from some other religion's holy text if you were a psychopathic baby-eater? Would you actually care to worship ANYTHING?
 
You couldn't prove that in a million years.

You can't prove otherwise in a million years either. In fact, all the examples you can show are subjective.
 
Where do you get your morals from? Certainly not from the Jewish Bible you OTHERWISE like to defend.

I get mine though thought, compassion, and empathy, conditioned by social expectations. Most people are like that. Some are merely social expectations.. since they appear to lack compassion and empathy, and don't think about it.
 
Where do you get your morals from? Certainly not from the Jewish Bible you OTHERWISE like to defend.

That is funny. You think people get morals from somewhere. Is there a Morals R' Us store somewhere?
 
Back
Top Bottom