Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI

[GoreBag]

By saying I had no knowledge of which I type.

That's an odd reductionist statement. I don't quite follow that logic - "You denied information I presented/will present by saying I knew nothing."

If you are well versed in the different forms of Satanism - then you would not have challenged my defination initially - but informed all that there are varying forms of the term Satanism. To clarify that the initial definition provided was not complete. However you decided to challenge and say that I had absolute no knowledge. There is a major difference in the techinque there.

Wrong is wrong.

The definition I have used happens to come from not just Wikepedia but from several sights that deal with the subject matter. Care to quess how many websites deal with Satanism as a religion that acknowledges the devil?

Sites, and there are plenty.

Trying to correct someone's spelling again I see. Very good - you lose points in a verbal debate for that one. But then if that is all you are focus on - then you might want to focus again on the definition of Satanism. Something you have yet to show that I am wrong on.

Well, this isn't a verbal debate, but if it was, I'd correct you for ending a sentence with a preposition.

LOL - other then a practicing Satanist - I probably am versed enough on the subject to understand it and discuss it. You assumed because I am a christian that I have not studied othe religions or cultures - your error not mine. When you want to discuss aspects of the Native American Culture which was part of the initial discussion - then you can pick several tribal groups that I have absolutely no knowledge of - but I do know several of the basic tenates of how Native America cultures percieved and practiced their religion. But as you state you drift from the subject with such accusations.

Probably? You're not quite sure? In any case, I'd be glad to take you up on that, provided we can end this quibble in some sort of satisfactory manner.

I'll remember to drop you a line if I become curious about the religions of North America's aboriginals.

Why yes, a protestant must understand and accept certain Catholic Ideas since by definition both are christian religions. The protestant religions are a branch off of the teachings of the Catholic Church and the New Testiment, which was initially written to support the spread of the new church founded in Rome. The Esipicol (SP) Church - a protestant religion cites several Catholic creeds in its religious dogma.

The Episcopal Church is really the Anglican Church...in America. As such, I would argue that it is not a Protestant religion, but Catholicism missing only a few not-so-crucial practices.

If a Protestant must accept Catholic ideas, then the purpose of Protestantism is defeated. Protestantism did break off from the Catholic church, yes, and they do share the view that the New Testament is crucial reading. I would say that that would make the New Testament a shared, Christian object, and not a Catholic object that Protestants revere, although that point may be contested because of the history. In any case, the key word you used was "certain"; Devil-worshippers may conduct themselves in the same way I do, and we may share certain beliefs, but I don't need to accept the existence of Satan as a deific being, as they do, in order to be a Satanist.

And no Stalin was not only a fascist - he was also a member of the Communist Party.

So what? I could join a Christian organization if I wanted.

And that gives you the grounds to inform someone that they have no clue about Satanism because they are Christian - yep sound logic on your part.

I agree, it is an unfair judgement, but is no less fair than the assumption that I am not a Satanist in practice as well as in name on the grounds that I did not accept a certain definition of a Satanist.

I don't go the Church of Satan - but I have read on it and studied it for a thesis in a philisophy class I once had.

Alright, I'll take your word on it.

Dogma is defined as - 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

To claim there is no dogma sounds kind of funny since I can easily post the creed of the modern satanist.

That creed would include passages and essays dealing with the idea that a Satanist may pick and choose his or her own beliefs as they pertain to Satanism, right?

LOL - and if you can not understand what is written - you ask. Once again why particpate in a message forum that discusses issues if you are not willing to help others understand and learn. Unless it is of course just to troll.

To download EB, mostly. At least, that was my inital reason for joining. Why spell if you can't do it properly? Unless, of course, you don't intend anyone to fully understand your posts.

If you want proper english and spelling with correct punctuation then your not wanting to discuss or inform others on your opinion - but to quibble on context - not discuss the content.

Your comments about my reasons for being on the forum at all are just as much about context than content.