Hello, A Satanist has joined you

[jfhh]

I’m not a prejudice bigot like the homosexuals were calling the mormons in California that you are trying to make me out to be. Just a normal traditional Dad, protecting and defending his household from pure evil.

I haven’t followed closely the Cali situation. I assume any untoward acts were done by individuals, not representative of the whole.

I missed this before. I can’t believe you just called homosexuality “pure evil.” Maybe what they do is imperfect, but it is not “pure evil.”

 

[Layman]

As far as I know, that’s the Church’s position. Homosexuality is a disorder. Practicing it is thereore evil.

What’s fascinating is that it’s gone, in wider Western society, from being classed as a psychiatric disorder, to being lauded, in the space of a hundred years.

Really, if you wanted to make a case for the Decline And Fall Of The West, you could easily do it.

Plus which, you have marvel at the manipulation that’s gone into making two men inserting themselves in each other’s refuse outlets as morally acceptable.

Ah, to be able to read the secret history of the World!

PS: Note to mods: If this has descended to the not-really-Satanists trolling the ‘Catholic sheeple’, might be time to wind up this thread. Ta.

 

[Imryl]

fine then if you ain’t going to post pm your response ,please…

That is a very deep involved discussion that I really just don’t have the time to address at this time. Also, I’m not sure I have the proper background… It’s a very intriguing question though!

Maybe after December 18th. I should have lots of time then! ^.^

 

[LilyM]

Jesus proposed this ideal so we can assume that he himself embraces it for his life forever; otherwise he would be like a hypocrite.

What part of ‘Jesus can sacrifice His own body if He wants, WE are not permitted to sacrifice His body on His behalf’ don’t you understand?

Do you actually really think, because your logic is certainly heading there, that the Lord’s body is exactly the same thing as yours, and that you have all the same rights, responsibilities, standards of treament in regard to it as you do to your own, or that He does to His own body?

Let me spell it out - two distinct bodies, two distinct standards of treatment apply, and two different sets of ‘ideals’ as well. Your ideal way to treat your wife is not at all the same thing as the ideal way to treat your boss. And both are very different to the ideal way to treat yourself, not to mention the ideal way to treat Our Lord.

It sounds like you favor things like punching.

Show me where I said I favoured punching? I most certainly didn’t.

Your zeal is well zeal. Zeal can be dangerous as we know from the modern world. I hope you temper your zeal with the gentleness of a dove. Some in the OT did speak of zeal for God and his temple, and maybe that is not wrong.

So? Jesus’ zeal when he whipped the moneychangers out of the temple - because they were profaning it as these jokers would profane His body - was dangerous, sure. It was dangerous to sinners and dangerous to slack-asses who served God in a luke-warm fashion (and you remember what He had to say about THEM, don’t you).

In this day and age apathy, pc-ness and ‘live and let live’ reign, so I don’t think there’s any danger at all from a little well-placed zeal for the Lord. And trust me, it’s ALWAYS well-placed. If zeal isn’t appropriate in serving Him, then it’s just never appropriate anywhere, and we know from Jesus’ own example that THAT isn’t true.

 

[AlegreFe]

And yes, the wikipedia article on LeVeyan Satanism is dead on. It’s an athiest(godless) religion that believes in the empowerment of self, it’s not better than other religions, just a different take on the whole grand scheme of things . I just wish it was chosen a better name than Satanism, just sounds dreadful, doesn’t it?

Satan himself wanted to be “self-empowered” and that is why “Satanism” is a fitting name to have for that way of life. It does sound dreadful and it should. We need to die to ourselves and live for the Truth which is Jesus Christ. Unless you enjoy pain & eternal suffering in the infernos of hell then I suggest you change that “way of life.” If you don’t want to be Catholic, find something else.

You did not create yourself. So someone else must have. Satan is also a creature and not the Creator God. So how can you worship a mere creature? And that includes yourself. This business of being “self-empowered” is not wise. That is extremely prideful to want to be “self-empowered.” That is the deadly sin that Satan committed. And for that he burns eternally and wants to draw us all to him to burn in pain & agony for all eternity.

Satan draws people by disguising himself in ways people think is harmless such as “The Secret” or the “prosperity gospel” preachers. You are also “harmless” to us in that you want to engage in good conversation and be “tolerant” and want us to be “tolerant” with you. Satan loves it that he can hide “harmlessly” in people to draw them into certain ways of life such as “self-empowerment” or having such high “self-esteem.” Those people are “self-centered” instead of being Christ-centered.

I have no tolerance for Satan. I will have no tolerance for the way you want to live your life. I will be tolerant of you however. I can only believe that you are completely ignorant of any Christian faith and much more so of the Catholic faith and because of that ignorance, you look to the LeVeyan Satanist way of life. Please do not misunderstand that word “ignorance.” Some people misunderstand it as being “stupid” or senseless. I read a comment from Sam_777 to you and I would like to quote him here; "Think kid think, don’t let Satan deceive you, God have (has) given you a well engineered brain, utilize it." Those are wise words. I don’t think you’re stupid, just ignorant of what we should be as creatures of God.

 

[jfhh]

Show me where I said I favoured punching? I most certainly didn’t.

Well, do you? If you don’t want to answer, that’s OK and I understand.

 

[AlegreFe]

Interesting - why bring satan into the equation (or name the faith after Satan) at all if they are simply attempting to move away from a belief in God - why not just call themselves atheists?

Why bring satan into the equation? Because Satan himself started the business of “empowerment of self.” This is Satan’s huge deceit. Even the knowledgeable and seemingly nice humble people fall for Satan’s lies. And because “nice” people fall for the lie of self-empowerment, their way of life is being tolerated. This is a huge problem. Don’t let Satan fool you too. It’s good that it has “satan” in the name. That’s exactly what it is. Why have a “nice” sounding name to something that is clearly anti-Christian and points to “self” for empowerment? I don’t even think athiests point to “self” for worship or empowerment… do they?

 

[AlegreFe]

They almost sound convincing when they say that they don’t believe in Satan, but are attempting to move away from God, rather, a belief of God.

That’s exactly what Satan wants us to believe; that he doesn’t exist.

 

[jfhh]

Compared to God, Satan aka Lucifer is but a butterfly. A butterfly may appear beautiful to the speck of dust that is man, may appear powerful to the speck of dust that is woman, but it is compared to the Infinite, one star amongst an infinite collection.

There must be some good things about Lucifer. If Lucifer had literally zero good, was literally pure evil, then he’d go “Poof!”. Nothing can exist apart from God sustaining it and God only sustains good. Even if you think Lucifer is “out to get you”, Lucifer has many admirable qualities: intelligence, power, curiousity to name a few.

I doubt also that there are just two teams with each being monolothic. It’s really a lot more complex. Scripture says so as does Catholic theologians with great elaboration. Some go overboard apparently and fall into a “religion of angels” according to the bible.

I view the “fallen” angels as just being in conflict with the unfallen angels. They have different opinions or interests or goals. I view God as letting all the angels take care of humanity largely on their own and the angels ending up disagreeing amongst themselves as to what was best for humanity and the world (a la Babylon 5 if you’ve seen that awesome sci-fi spiritual-themed show)

More traditionally, we have the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas:

Article 8. Whether there can be strife or discord among the angels?

Objection 1. It would seem that there cannot be strife or discord among the angels. For it is written (Job 25:2): “Who maketh peace in His high places.” But strife is opposed to peace. Therefore among the high angels there is no strife.

Objection 2. Further, where there is perfect charity and just authority there can be no strife. But all this exists among the angels. Therefore there is no strife among the angels.

Objection 3. Further, if we say that angels strive for those whom they guard, one angel must needs take one side, and another angel the opposite side. But if one side is in the right the other side is in the wrong. It will follow therefore, that a good angel is a compounder of wrong; which is unseemly. Therefore there is no strife among good angels.

On the contrary, It is written (Daniel 10:13): “The prince of the kingdom of the Persians resisted me one and twenty days.” But this prince of the Persians was the angel deputed to the guardianship of the kingdom of the Persians. Therefore one good angel resists the others; and thus there is strife among them.

I answer that, The raising of this question is occasioned by this passage of Daniel. Jerome explains it by saying that the prince of the kingdom of the Persians is the angel who opposed the setting free of the people of Israel, for whom Daniel was praying, his prayers being offered to God by Gabriel. And this resistance of his may have been caused by some prince of the demons having led the Jewish captives in Persia into sin; which sin was an impediment to the efficacy of the prayer which Daniel put up for that same people.

But according to Gregory (Moral. xvii), the prince of the kingdom of Persia was a good angel appointed to the guardianship of that kingdom. To see therefore how one angel can be said to resist another, we must note that the Divine judgments in regard to various kingdoms and various men are executed by the angels. Now in their actions, the angels are ruled by the Divine decree. But it happens at times in various kingdoms or various men there are contrary merits or demerits, so that one of them is subject to or placed over another. As to what is the ordering of Divine wisdom on such matters, the angels cannot know it unless God reveal it to them: and so they need to consult Divine wisdom thereupon. Wherefore forasmuch as they consult the Divine will concerning various contrary and opposing merits, they are said to resist one another: not that their wills are in opposition, since they are all of one mind as to the fulfilment of the Divine decree; but that the things about which they seek knowledge are in opposition.

So we don’t know the whole story even with the conflicts amongst the “good angels” much less amongst all of them, good and “bad.” I’ll wait to learn more about the fallen angels side of the story before casting judgment. That may sound silly but I think it sounds silly only if you don’t really believe in angels.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I haven’t followed closely the Cali situation. I assume any untoward acts were done by individuals, not representative of the whole.

I missed this before. I can’t believe you just called homosexuality “pure evil.” Maybe what they do is imperfect, but it is not “pure evil.”

Well, I have not yet learned what the exact Catholic teaching is on this. Other than, homosexuals must remain abstinent and faithful to God if they want to be in communion with the Catholic Church. Anyone can correct me if I am wrong on that.

What I intended, was pure evil that is brought on by those homosexuals who do not care what their actions have on society and remain sexually active despite what God asks of them. And not just homosexuals either, without bringing up old posts, I’m referring to people who bring negativity into society in such an extreme way that practically anybody with common sense wants see it around them.

To me, this topic is just too easy. I, and I think a lot of people would agree, want to live in a society where we can drink moderately and on occasion, and not worry about alcoholics, worship God and learn about our enemy the devil, without people becoming Satanists.

Those are just a couple of things, the logic can be applied to any situation.

We are all imperfect, we are all sinners. It’s those of us who can recognize our weakness’s and overcome them to the best of our ability that flourish and make a prosperous society. Those who are weak and give in occasionally are living in sin, and those who do it without any regard to it’s consequences to those around them, are pure evil.

Like I said, my views are ignorant of the Church’s actual teachings and are likely to change once I start RCIA and become more Catechised, but probably not too much.

 

[Phillieagle]

I know Jesus is present in the Eucharist (I am not an orthodox Catholic btw; I am trying to be more orthodox if I can though). I don’t believe in transubstantiation. I prefer Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J.,‘s theory of transfinalization. That doesn’t make it OK to not respect the religious values of Catholics of course. But we shouldn’t return evil for evil. How did Jesus respond when Jesus’ actual body was about to be more than desecrated, violated in the Passion? When Peter tried to rescue Jesus with violence, Jesus rebuked Peter and healed the person he attacked. Let’s follow Jesus, not Peter. Jesus is probably the person who most effectively was able to reach the Jewish goal of union with God, embodying God in his body and life and word: the word of God, Jesus.

Did every one miss this in his argument. He does not believe in the presence of the Body of Christ. I have read 2 days worth of arguments with someone that believes that the consecrated host is bread. He is not Catholic. Has no respect for Catholics. Has over 90 Posts in 2 days in the folowing Topics. Prematital Sex is Okay, Homosexuality is Okay, And Satan is Okay. He has everyone stirred up. Lets be honest he needs prayer but you can not argue with a fool because it is hard to tell the difference.

He has his own agenda. It is to get people to believe the Catholic Church is wrong and he is right and that the sins of the flesh do not exist.

 

[jfhh]

Did every one miss this in his argument. He does not believe in the presence of the Body of Christ.

First of all I DO believe in the presence. I just prefer Fr. Karl Rahner, SJ (that’s Jesuit, i.e. Society of Jesus) theory of transfinalization over the more popular theory of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation isn’t something considered dogmatic. It’s not taught in Eastern Churches including Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome.

Prematital Sex is Okay

That’s not what I believe. I believe SOME premarital sex is OK under certain circumstances. I don’t believe in “anything goes” and I don’t believe in wild partying and anonymous impersonal hookups.

Homosexuality is Okay,

This is totally untrue. For ordinary men and women (i.e. not people who are intersex or who suffer other sexual ambiguity), I believe homosexuality is WRONG. That doesn’t mean I support prejudice against homosexuals or violence or other mean stuff.

And Satan is Okay.

I don’t know for sure if Satan exists, much less if he is “Okay.” I believe a being or beings like that exist but I feel we have only part of the picture from the bible. Only one side of the story. I don’t think any creature is perfect. Lucifer or whoever is like him, would have his faults but also have good aspects. Existence is a gift from God. It is good. That’s at least one thing good about Satan. His intelligence is another. His curiousity is another. Nothing is black and white. Satan is NOT the “anti-God”; that’s heresy. That is dualism similar to some pagan religions or Hinduism. The cosmos is not a battle between Good and Evil with God being Good and Satan being Evil. There’s Pure Good. There’s no such thing as Pure Evil.

I already said as you quoted, that I am not an orthodox Catholic. I like to think of myself as in between cafeteria and orthodox. Having the heart of a listener when it comes to church teaching but ultimately making up my own mind. I am ultimately responsible for myself and my own thoughts, beliefs, and actions. So that’s how I see it. It’s not “either or”. It’s not like you are either cafeteria or orthodox. There’s in between too. As I’ve mentioned in other threads maybe this one too, I also like to listen to other faiths. I believe the church is becoming more and more open to the idea of learning from people of other religions.

 

[dzheremi]

If you are Catholic, why are you asking for “the other side of the story” regarding Satan? Do you think that the Church is also has only part of the story?

What do you mean by “SOME premarital sex is okay”? Under which “certain circumstances” is it to be considered okay? I don’t know where you’re getting these ideas, but they’re certainly not what I was taught regarding Catholic teaching, and that was quite recently!

It sounds to me like you want the credibility that comes with identifying as Catholic on this Catholic forum while retaining the right to privately interpret for yourself what is true. What makes you think that you have that right?

 

[RubyT]

Ma’am, And mere ad hominem attacks will boot you nothing.

I accused you of nothing, rather warned you to beware of those things that are considered wrong by your religion (and wisely so). But commit them you did (this is an accusation)- perhaps confession would help (possibly the institution I admire most about your religion!) and self examination would bear rich, healthy fruit.

Dear Nepenthe,
It seems that you have only looked at one side of the conversation. Imryl has been attacking me from my first post. So you choose to point out my misgivings but ignore Imryl’s ad hominem attacks toward me. Whats up with that?

If you are going to judge others you should at least get all the facts. I never said I was perfect nor have I ever meant any ill will. We were in a discussion about the differences between satanism and christianity when this all started and he/she was quite rude. When I honestly tried to explain my position he/she just kept attacking with dripping sarcasm. He/she seems to think it is okay to attack Christians but Christians are out of line when they attack back. I mean no ill will toward anyone and as a scientist often engage in heated debates. I can fight and argue and still love you all. This is where your comments are actually unfounded. I prayed for Irmyl last night and tonight I will pray for you.

Is it fair for me to say to you if you are going to judge others that you should at least observe both parties actions before slaming one and sticking up for the other. You neglected to read all the post and thus had a one sided view.

Yes I am guilty of a rebuttal - I choose to fight back, a perfectly reasonble response to he/shes ignorant rhetoric about what Catholics believe. He/she’s comments were dripping with sarcasm and inuendo. He/she thinks it is okay to be rude to me but since I am Catholic I should not be rude back; how convenient for you non - Catholics.I am sorry that argument just doesn’t work. I am human with normal human responses. Gosh, seems like you folks hold us to higher standard than you do yourselves. Which of course is absolutely ridiculous. So in your opinion if I were a good Catholic I should just be really nice back to her no matter how ugly the treatment toward me. Why do you feel the need to stick up for them and reprimand (you called it a warning) me.
With all due respect Your response was much more than a warning it was judicious.

I did commit the same misgivings as Irmyl. I heard nothing from you regarding he/she’s misgivings. Your "warning’ would be much more valuable if it wasn’t once sided and completely biased. What gives you so much self appointed importance that you feel the need to tell me to look within myself for my faults.

Your self rightiousness astounds me since that is exactly what you are telling me are my faults. We could all use self examination including you my friend. God bless and happiness to you.

I say this meaning no harm or ill will. Don’t expect us Catholics to accept rudeness and snarkasm without some sort of a rebuttal.

 

[jfhh]

If you are Catholic, why are you asking for “the other side of the story” regarding Satan? Do you think that the Church is also has only part of the story?

I thought I explained it in this thread already. But yes. I think we have only part of the picture in the bible. I think we have things to learn from other mystical writings like for example the Gospel of Judas (not that this relates to Satan specifically, but this is the general idea)

What do you mean by “SOME premarital sex is okay”? Under which “certain circumstances” is it to be considered okay? I don’t know where you’re getting these ideas, but they’re certainly not what I was taught regarding Catholic teaching, and that was quite recently!

I don’t think you can specify all the situations where it would be okay and all the ones it wouldn’t. You have to go case by case for the most part. Some things though would be clearly not okay (like I already mentioned). Other things IMO are clearly okay (having sex the night before the wedding, especially if the couple are known to be infertile).

I don’t claim to know everything about what’s right or wrong. Not even the Vatican claims that. The Vatican has yet to rule on embryo implantation for example (some theologians say it’s okay to implant frozen embryos to rescue them from death; others say it’s intrinsically evil and cite the magisterium in various ways, but there’s no specific, clear ruling yet either way)

the right to privately interpret for yourself what is true. What makes you think that you have that right?

I’ve probably said I’m not an orthodox Catholic like ten times since joining, especially when giving advice to someone or giving an opinion on something on relevant to that. You are probably an orthodox Catholic. First Lady of California chooses to be a cafeteria Catholic. I choose to be in between like I explained, rejecting both extremes. The catechism and candidate for sainthood, Newman, says that our conscience is the aboriginal vicar of Christ. Even if the church is vicar of Christ, it is nevertheless mediated through this aboriginal vicar of Christ – IMO, for both moral truth and any other kind of truth. You are ultimately responsible for your self, for your own soul. I can’t – IMO – hand that over to the church. I do choose to listen to the church but I reserve the right to disagree if after careful thought it doesn’t make sense to me. I can’t think of too many things I disagree with on the church with 100% certainty though. One thing is that I don’t believe anyone will be forever trapped in hell in torment forever without end. There’s a nice First Things article on that issue that goes through the history of unorthodox Catholic theories and unorthodox/orthodox theories of today … but this is all a little off topic.

 

[Kevin42]

Other things IMO are clearly okay (having sex the night before the wedding, especially if the couple are known to be infertile).

If you want to have this opinion, there is nothing I can do to stop you. However, (and this is coming from a fellow sinner) I think you need to keep your opinion to yourself in this case so that you do not mislead ignorant Catholics or non-Catholics. This is NOT ok, and to suggest otherwise publicly could cause another to sin, or be seen as approval of sin. I would hope that you would try to form your conscience so that it will be in line with Holy Mother Church.

Pax et bonum.

 

[Imryl]

When I honestly tried to explain my position he/she just kept attacking with dripping sarcasm. He/she seems to think it is okay to attack Christians but Christians are out of line when they attack back.

Yes some of my remarks were sarcastic. But I was not attacking you, I was attacking your obviously flawed assertions. Perhaps you meant one thing, but what you said was something completely different. As I said previously, don’t assume people are going to know what you mean in one short sentence if it really takes ten to explain it in a clear and concise manner.

Example: Your assertion that God (God being somewhat ambiguous in the statement) is not human.

Also, I’ve not once said you weren’t entitled to snap back, nor did I say anything about the comments. I did mention that maybe we all, including myself, ought to step back and relax.

(She)

 

[Swan]

If the OP (or anyone else) is looking for a reason not to be either Christian or Catholic - he will surely find it when reading the multitude of posts filled with hair splitting, finger pointing, and self-righteousness that are in this thread. Seriously, go back read this drivel and try to imagine what a non-believer will think when reading it.

I know that folks following the revealed religions think that the fact that they are on God’s side makes all this other stuff inconsequential and/or okey-dokey, but for those of us who don’t believe in your deity, you really look, well, sad. In your rush to set a “good” example, you demonstrate such a lack of charity toward each other, that non-believers understandably want to stay clear.

I’m not trying to be rude or offensive and I’m sorry if I sound that way, but the OP comes here looking for a little dialog with folks who believe differently and when circumstances require his absence for a few days, you all turn on each other. And people wonder how religious wars get started.

 

[Phillieagle]

First of all I DO believe in the presence. I just prefer Fr. Karl Rahner, SJ (that’s Jesuit, i.e. Society of Jesus) theory of transfinalization over the more popular theory of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation isn’t something considered dogmatic. It’s not taught in Eastern Churches including Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome.

By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

This is direct from the Catechism. There is no options here.

Somewhere near the center of the crisis in the Catholic Church today is confusion about the meaning of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Pope Paul VI recognized this crisis before the close of the Second Vatican Council. He identified the two principal errors about the Real Presence that were already current in his day. The errors were capsulized in two words, “transfinalization” and "transignification by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Rahner was part of Vatican II. It is obvious from the above quote that what he was teaching was not the belief of the Church. Pope Paul rectified this in his encyclical Mysterium fidei which he published in 1965

Rahner’s motto was, “Our Lord must conform to the world, not it to Him.”

Rhaner’s philosophy was part of the down fall of the Catholic Church. The Jesuits after his death prevented a book from being published with letters to a girlfriend of 22 years. I would pick a better scholar to base my beliefs on…

 

[RubyT]

Irmyl, My apologies if I said anything harmful. I still feel that you never understood what I was trying to convey and thus by telling me my assertions were wrong was a flawed statement. By not understanding my assertions one cannot determine if they are flawed or not.But thats neither here nor there. At this juncture just know that I am always ready for any strong debate but never ever am I trying to be harmful or ugly. Albeit it may come out that way and I admit that.

Christians really do believe that we need to lose the flesh to gain the spirit. But it is really hard to explain. It is so difficult to comprehend what someone means with mere words lacking in expression and body lanquage. Still I meant no ill will and hope we can always care about each other. I have seen many of your posts and have not always disagreed. Perhaps my original response to your original response was lacking in tact. I really don’t mean to sound so harsh. My passionate nature and deep beliefs are something that I must try to temper. I am truly a kind and loving person as I am sure you are too.

Lets just agree to disagree and remain friends without all the back and forth banter. I only hope you read this and know that I do care about you and your personal beliefs as we all have a right to our own opinion. Again I am sorry if I was hurtfull or bitter.

Now just give me a big hug. :hug3: