So all the people who are suffering and dying of this coronavirus.
Whose sins are they dying for ?
I think Satan is killing all the atheists so that they won't be able to repent. Most of the deaths are in the blue states and Europe has become more liberal.
shareHaha, that's funny that you pointed out that the deaths in the blue states. Even too, the right wingers are now saying it's a liberal hoax, when it is affecting them the most. Haha.
shareSome researchers are now saying this respiratory virus may be like HIV, i.e. no vaccine to kill it. It would mean there would only be drugs to treat the symptoms. That would mean only drugs like hydroxychloroquine to treat it. I dunno. What I do think is the virus has mutated into a more powerful and deadly one in Europe. The research seems to point to it. It is hitting New York, New Jersey, and the East coast states the hardest. The right wing wants to lift the lockdown type conditions once the apex has passed. That might not be the smartest thing to do without a vaccine and not enough testing of the drugs. What has hurt and failed the US is lack of good test kits. We are far behind in this area.
shareI also believe that the coronavirus is not over. I anticipate a second wave, and who knows if that will be in May or this fall/winter. This virus will stay with us in some shape or form until a vaccine is made. I don't understand why it's hard for people to believe that this virus could have the same potential as the Spanish Flu. We're at 150,000 global deaths currently, and the virus has existed since November. We do live in this age of TikTok/Trump, so everyone thinks that the world revolves around them and that nothing bad can happen to them. That's what the Pharaoh in Exodus believed. The plagues hardly phased him, as he ignored it.
shareIn regard to the life spirit or God's breath (see, we live with the supernatural as well as the natural), I was guessing that Satan would be a being that wants to kill the non-believers in order to get their souls. IOW, the atheist scientists must find that abiogenesis happens even though there is no evidence in what they consider hundreds of millions of years. They must explain the big bang better. They must explain our origins better. Or is it 4.5 billion or 14.7 billion years? It seems kind of ridiculous to me. That said, atheists don't believe in God nor Satan. That's perfectly fine with Satan as he is the one who likes and wants to hide. He is quite powerful and I respect him for that and not fear him. He may only appear when you are the weakest.
shareWell Satan isn't the only one who's hiding is he ? Has anyone seen the Invisible Sky Daddy in the last 2,000 years ?
The invisible sky daddy you mention is Satan. He and his followers live in the middle heaven according to the Bible. He is described as the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air." God doesn't live in the sky.
shareWait . . .you believe in the virus mutating but you don’t believe scientists? Evolution?
shareIt's part of natural selection that creation scientist Alfred Russel Wallace wrote about. The difference between his version and Darwin's is that mutation is about survival due to changes in the environment. OTOH, Darwin liked what Herbert Spencer wrote in "survival of the fittest." It really isn't about the fittest. However, social Darwinism, eugenics, and the like intrigued Adolph Hitler to no end. He hated Jews and other social outcasts for some reason and this gave him glee in regards to his Aryan supremacy beliefs. Darwin's ideas led to the Holocaust. Coincidence? I think not. Bad things aren't usually coincidence.
share""survival of the fittest."
You know that "fittest" in that context means, "survival of the ones which are most fitted to their environment"? Not "the most buffed".
Yes, I agree but what you just said is what happens for them to survive better. It doesn't happen for them to become the fittest species. In other words, Darwin wasn't using the term in proper context. There will always be other creatures that are fitter because they are a higher species. Man was designed to be the fittest species.
shareWell, your first sentence is correct, but there's more to it than that. What happens is that they adapt and modify themselves in response to changes in their environment which might otherwise have threatened their survival, eg, (ground-dwelling egg-laying animals developed feathers on their limbs to escape predators, and became birds.)
But even a constitutionally-weakened member of that species could survive, simply because it could fly. It didn't necessarily have to be the most able-bodied member of its particular group, (or tribe).
Darwin was using the word "fittest" in its proper context. In the 19th century, English usage was in some respects a little different than it is today. "Fit" meant "appropriate, proper, or qualified etc." The word "fittest" meant only "that which was most appropriate, proper, or qualified."
Man is not necessarily fitter because he is a higher species. There are numerous instances of our inability to survive in environments in which some other species' are perfectly comfortable. For example, we can't live unaided at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, but many species of marine animals do quite well there, with only their gills. Man is certainly not the fittest species down there.
Man is the most successful at the task of survival in his natural element, because he has the intelligence to invent various ways and means to avoid death in it. He wasn't "designed" to be the fittest. Evolution and natural selection merely gave his species longevity because its members lived long enough to breed.
It's still a fascinating subject.
Well, "survival of the fittest" led to socialDarwinism, eugenics, Hitler, the holocaust, and black genocide in the US, so there was some I am better than you connotation. I rather just have seen it about survival as the species evolved to help it survive better. Also, It is a reason for variations within a species.
As an aside, I'm just curious. What creatures evolved into flying birds or animals? I agree there were flying birds that became flightless. I don't think dinosaurs nor reptiles became flying creatures. We do not see any transitional fossils. The reverse engineering has been a failure. It seems like evolutionists just want another example of a creature mutating into a totally different family of animals, i.e. macroevolution, but it isn't observable science.
It's a tad ludicrous to say that an 1808 theory of the evolution of a species, humans, led to 1945 wartime genocide. Just as you can't say that the discovery of atomic structure in 1808 led to the bombing of Hiroshima in 1945.
That's a fallacy in Logic. Its name is "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which means, "After this, therefore because of this".
You may be right in claiming that certain individuals interpreted a science theory in an unintended way to support their erroneous beliefs, but that's also a type of fallacy of Logic, (I don't recall which).
As for flying, I understand that the first animals to develop feathers were some small species' of reptile.
I'm not sure I understand the gist of your comments regarding "reverse engineering" being a failure; and evolutionists wanting examples of mutation.
First, you are committing your own fallacy that you bring up. Darwin wrote his On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859. The title itself sounds racist in order to sell books; it became the best selling science book of all time. Darwin's second book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex 1871 is the one that is singled out as clearly racist:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (p. 521, emp. added)."
Furthermore, he supported Eugenics which his cousin, Frances Galton, came up with. That sealed the deal for Hitler in the 1930s and also Eugenics also influenced black genocide and compulsory sterilization in America. We still have Planned Parenthood or abortion and black sterilization in poor neighborhoods to this day. Learn some history and get some better science that Darwin.
Would you point out where you believe I used that fallacy?
The titles of Darwin's books were not chosen in order to "sell books". They were dry, documentary tomes, intended for Academics. They only sound provocative to modern sensibilities, wherein even saying something as innocuous as "Black is black" is construed as deliberate racism. There are other examples of that ridiculous sensibility which are even more ludicrous, but I won't quote them here. I'm sure you know them all.
The great disadvantage of the modern education is that it leaves people without the skill of grasping the meaning behind words, and instead teaches them to assign prefabricated meanings by rote, governed by an agenda not of their own making. You seem to be a good example of this failure. As such, you are difficult to reason with or to persuade. Hence, I won't bother. Life's too short.
"Learn some history and get some better science that Darwin."
Learn some real history and avoid introducing an element into a discussion if you don't intend to own it. (Hint: You first raised Darwin, not me).
>>It's a tad ludicrous to say that an 1808 theory of the evolution of a species, humans, led to 1945 wartime genocide. Just as you can't say that the discovery of atomic structure in 1808 led to the bombing of Hiroshima in 1945.<<
In your example. It has post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy or post hoc fallacy for something I did not state and a straw man fallacy in your second sentence.
First, you state my point is ludicrous and you use some year before Darwin was even born. Your reasoning does not mention how Darwin took Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest" and included in his later publishing of Origin of Species. This directly led to socialDarwinism while Darwin was alive, eugenics (from Darwin's cousin and Darwin supported it), Hitler, the holocaust, and black genocide in the US. I can provide links if you want the real history of how it ties to Hitler and later history.
Second, Darwin did not create theory of evolution which you mentioned. All he did was come up with an explanation for it using his version of natural selection. OTOH, Alfred Russel Wallace's version did not have survival of the fittest. Moreover, Darwin was given a single cell to work with. I do not doubt the evolutionists can concoct a way to explain origins of life from a single cell. That isn't in question, but the origin is. Spontaneous generation was debunked and now we have abiogenesis which is the modern argument for the same.
>>Learn some real history and avoid introducing an element into a discussion if you don't intend to own it.<<
What's your real history? I provided my history how Darwin's ideas led to socialDarwinism, eugenics, Hitler, etc.
Not sure where I got that date from, but you're right that it is incorrect.
However, the rest of your reply is full of errors. My first comment was a refutation and contradiction of your assertion. It was not an example of 'post hoc' fallacy because it doesn't claim that something is true simply because it happened after something else, (as you are trying to assert). Quite the opposite. You did state, (and it's been the theme of your thesis here), that Darwin led directly to Hitler. I said that's ludicrous. And it is.
You insist on seeing, (or imagining), an unbroken link between Darwin's studies of natural evolution in the animal world, which includes Humans, and the rise of a social phenomena like the political extermination of certain classes of society. Extermination, wholesale murder, is an aberrant behaviour which has been practised by numerous people in history, well before Darwin. And in all cases, the spurious rationale used to make it seem necessary was that the victims were "inferior"; even before Darwin suggested it.
But the real reason in Hitler's case is that the victims were an inconvenience and/or a potential risk to the majority. Hitler wanted the Jews gone because he perceived them as a pernicious element in European society. Far from considering them "outcasts and inferior", he saw them as having a powerful and dangerous effect on society because of their superior abilities in Finance. He wasn't able to openly cite that ability as his reason for "hating" them, (because a sensible leader should welcome competent people in his citizenry), but he feared that they would eventually replace German society and that possibility troubled him.
"Second, Darwin did not create theory of evolution which you mentioned. All he did was come up with an explanation for it using his version of natural selection."
Nonsense.
(cont.)
(cont.)
It's clear to me that you're arguing from the perspective of a religious believer for whom scientific theories are at best a fly in the ointment, and at worse the cause of all evil in the world. Despite your denial, you are leading a wild goose chase. You abruptly switch from discussing a contrived explanation for mass murder, (it's all because of a science text book), to a couple of paragraphs about the "life cycle" of viruses. I already know about that.
In any case, I think I'll end my participation at this point. I can see nothing but a frustrating exercise in religious argument looming, and they're not my favourite pastime.
>>It's clear to me that you're arguing from the perspective of a religious believer for whom scientific theories are at best a fly in the ointment,<<
Thank you. It means I get in the last word. I love that.
>>"Second, Darwin did not create theory of evolution which you mentioned. All he did was come up with an explanation for it using his version of natural selection."
Nonsense.<<
This is fact. I tend towards ignoring most of what you say because of this.
>>It's clear to me that you're arguing from the perspective of a religious believer for whom scientific theories are at best a fly in the ointment,<<
No, I use creation science or real science. I also use the Bible as science backs up the Bible despite it is not a science book.
Evolutionist theories are at best a fly in the ointment.
Satan created the Antibible of evolution. This is why the liberals and atheists in the blue states are the ones mostly dying with COVID-19. Satan is getting all the souls he can.
Yes, you may have the last word. However, the last rational word was mine.
shareHeh. How can one be rational when there is no abiogenesis? Not even one cell.
Furthermore, we do no see any apes or monkeys become bipedal. We had Pedals the bear that became excellent as being bipedal due to injury of her front paws.
We also had the chicken come before the egg demonstrated by scientific method in 2017.
And big bang can't really get off the ground because of it violating the laws of physics.
Anyway, I still think Satan is killing all the atheists and agnostics as he can with the coronavirus in order to collect as many souls as he can today. The above is evidence that he and God exists.
Well, JB, I sincerely hope that really was your last word on the subject!
Because it's far too much nonsense for me to deal with.
For a poster who said he is gone, you sure show up a lot. Considering.
What I provided was real science. There is no abiogenesis. That is the new spontaneous generation as it was debunked by Dr. Louis Pasteur. Pasteur also debunked abiogenesis as only life can create life or living cells create other living cells.
The creation scientists also proved the chicken came first to answer the long time riddle that had generations stumped. They found a protein on the eggshell that could only be produced by the ovaries inside a hen.
We can state that the laws of thermodynamics can't create energy to cause the big bang. Energy can't be created nor destroyed or is that not believed by atheist scientists?
Finally, it continues to be the liberal and atheist blue states where people are dying from COVID-19.
Do you have anything to add? I thought not.
Look, you've had your last word, and it was no more coherent or intelligent than your first. Now go away.
shareWe're just having a conversation about Jesus and the coronavirus. I just thought it was Satan killing all the atheists in the blue states instead of what the OP implied.
The other thing I've found is there are no multiverses. The photon either goes through the left slit or right slit when a device measures it called scientific observation. No human consciousness required. The wave cannot exist in our world. It's either an illusion or something we can't explain yet like quantum entanglement.
Thus, there isn't a world where the blue states have less coronavirus than the red states.
sod off, will you.
shareSure, but your opinion of "It's clear to me that you're arguing from the perspective of a religious believer for whom scientific theories are at best a fly in the ointment..." isn't true. What you are is wrong. This has nothing to do with religion, but creation science. For example, creation science had Sir Frances Bacon who came up with the scientific method. The creationists have had more breakthroughs than the secular or atheist scientists by far throughout history. Sir Isaac Newton for example.
The secular or atheist scientists are who does the peer reviews today. The side that produced much of science has been excluded since the 1850s. That's why today's science of evolution is fake. So if anything, it's your atheist religious beliefs of fake science of evolution that is off. Way off. Now you can sod off :).
you're on Ignore as of now.
shareI thought you were weak.
shareWell it's not everyone who can fall thirty feet onto a concrete floor and walk off with just a bit of a limp you know Jason.
He didn't fall on his head did he?
My first point was about Darwin and survial of the "fittest." It means that I am better than you and led to socialDarwinism, eugenics, Nazism (white supremacy), Hitler, and the Holocaust.
Natural selection is just about survival.
Just so you know I'm not leading you on a wild goose chase, natural selection has plenty to do with COVID-19 as the coronavirus has mutated into a deadly killer virus. For one, humans may not know they have it as some are asympotomatic. Also, it can spread easily in confined spaces and via liquid droplets. It can trick the body into overreacting to a dead cell and cause havoc leading to ARDS. Or it can slime the lungs and cause an underlying condition for the next time it hits. Moreover, it has devised a way so that a vaccine can't be created using antibodies against it. A different approach may have to be used or maybe there won't be a vaccine such as with HIV.
shareI am a Jew who believes in Jesus as the Son of God. I think Satan does technically have a hold on atheists and new agers in a certain way. If not literally, in a psychological way. The philosophy of atheists and new agers is this: anything goes, basically. That's pretty scary.
shareWhat's strange is evolution is like Satan's Antibible. There is no way that scientists of different times could collude to write what they did. And today, I find that everything that is considered evolution contradicts what God wrote thousands of years before. I think evolution started with uniformitarianism and Darwin's explanation for Theory of Evolution in the 1850s.
Here are some things that are opposite off the top of my head:
GOD >>>>> SATAN
Said it first in the Bible over 1500 years (can not change) >>>>> Said it throughout the years (hypothesis and theories can change)
Universe >>>>> Multiverse
Creation ex nihilo (supernatural creation in 6 days) >>>>> Universe ex nihilo, i.e. big bang (defies laws of physics, infinite temperature and density, all is set up in 20 mins); Before this, it was eternal universe
6,000 yrs old Earth and universe >>>>> 4.5 B yrs old Earth and 13.7 B yrs old universe
Created Adam and Eve >>>>> Humans evolved from monkeys
Created birds 4th day; dinosaurs 5th day >>>>> birds evolved from dinosaurs
Clear explanation of how universe and Earth formed and science backs it up >>>>> Wild hypothesis of infinitely hot and dense unseen particle called singularity; Some event called big bang triggered a cosmic expansion in microseconds that formed the basis for our universe; not clear explanation of what happened
Life can only create life >>>>> Life forms through abiogenesis (based on spontaneous generation that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur)
Started with void >>>>> Started with infinitely hot and dense unseen quantum particle
God is timeless and spaceless >>>>> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence
God is light, i.e. EMS or light >>>>> Things happen through dark energy, dark matter
Universe is bounded and has a center >>>>> Universe is boundless and does not have a center
Earth is special >>>>> There is nothing special about the Earth
Heaven (upward direction) >>>>> Hell (downward direction)
Are you both for real?
(see, we live with the supernatural as well as the natural)
^^^
Please demonstrate this a fact!
Please CONFIRM the "Supernatural"....Please provide any kind of demonstrable evidence that the Supernatural has been detected, exists and These results can be duplicated?
Please Provide some Kind of testable evidence(NOT Feelings or personal experiences) of the "supernatural" so we can know you are correct when you say "see, we live with the supernatural as well as the natural"
lol ....Next time just say "IMO see, we live with the supernatural as well as the natural"
because thats absolutely all it is...
You nor anyone else on planet earth in all of HISTORY has been able to DETECT the supernatural, Science is Literally BLOCKED from investigating it...
In All of History, Whenever someone has declared something Supernatural, and We found the actual answer, Its never been actually been "Supernatural"...every time we've found the answer for something that was previously "explained" by Supernatural, That answer has been NATURAL....
I'm not kidding you might as well say "see, we live in the belly of a giant invisible Whale as well as the natural)
That statement has as much "Truth" to it as your statement...
You believe in god and the supernatural, That fine(I actually envy you and wish I did) but make no mistake, You believe Based ONLY on Blind faith and zero actually demonstrable evidence
not only is there no evidence for the supernatural, It may in fact be impossible for there to be any and impossible that there COULD ever be any
You literally have the same evidence for the supernatural, as you would for an Invisible giant whale that created everything and Loves you and we are all living in his invisible Belly....
the atheist scientists must find that abiogenesis happens even though there is no evidence in what they consider hundreds of millions of years.
^^^
experiments have been done to show the building blocks of life could have came from non life....Now those experiments are not concrete "Proof"...But you can not factually say "No evidence"
If God or the supernatural had even .01 of the evidence that The Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution had, Then Theists could actually for the first time present some evidence instead of every argument always coming down to "Faith"
They must explain the big bang better. They must explain our origins better
^^
Wrong!!
couldnt be more Wrong!
so disastrously wrong its Shocking!
Scientist's or athiests lack of answer doesnt give Creation one more ounce of true....
The Theory of Evolution could be Proven WRONG tomorrow and it doesnt Help creation one ounce.
"They must explain the big bang better. They must explain our origins better"
This ^ statement suggests you have a stunning misunderstanding of what Scientist's or atheists stance is
You are are literally saying "find an answer" to something that May not be answerable and CERTAINLY isnt answerable right now, lol Its not sciences fault YOU DONT LIKE the correct answer!
science is Blocked from investigating The Moment of and before the Big Bang.
The Correct answer is "I dont know"..I get it, You dont like that answer(I dont either, In fact it haunts me)
But the facts are, no one Including YOU can say what caused the Big Bang or What may be responsible for our origins, Scientist's or atheists simply give the truthful answer and say "we dont know".....You and other Religious people CLAIM with no demonstrable evidence that You have the answer....
If the correct answer is for The Ultimate Origin of the Universe is "I dont Know" , All evidence Points to a Big Bang, that Is almost Universal and accepted by Nearly all Major experts who study in this field, But How and Why Is An absolute mystery in which right now the ONLY Truthful and correct answer is "I dont Know"....as for abiogensis and Evolution, again evidence for Evolution is pretty overwhelmingly, Evolution is FACT, changes over time happen and is an observed FACT, The Theory Of Evolution by Natural selection is The Process that describes diversity of life and once again its a theory, But A Theory is the HIGHEST possible level to obtain in science, in order to get there, You have to test,confirm ,replicate, It has to meet The Highest possible standards...and once again The evidence is so strong that nearly all The experts in These field that study it MOST, almost all universally agree.
Now you are free to ignore the experts who study this most(all the I Highly doubt you do that in any other measure in life)
You are free to ignore the evidence and claim you understand theoretical Physics better than Experts and Hilariously claim "Umm something cant come from nothing" But at the end of the day that doesnt get you centimeter closer to Proving creationism....
YOU Proclaiming you have the answer with no ability to prove or demonstrate that answer is actually correct is nothing more than wishful thinking....
but again I can not state enough how disastrously WRONG "They must explain the big bang better. They must explain our origins better" this statement is!
If you want to prove creationism....You have to do on facts and evidence, No amount of "Poking holes in evolution or abiogenesis" will help, No amount of claiming you are smarter than the experts in these field Will help...
The Big Bang, evolution and abiogenesis are theories, right now based on all the actual evidence we do have.....The People who dedicate their lives to these subjects and know them best OVERWHELMINGLY agree the facts and evidence are there to support the theories
Its fine that you dont agree, You believe something else...but its your job to PROVE IT, You have the burden of Proof,
if you disagree with the Overwhelmingly Majority of experts in these fields...
You have to provide proof of your claims!
simply saying "no, I think you need to explain the big bang better" does NOTHING for your claim.
you have to Prove Creationism
again, The Theory of Evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow and you are not 1 step closer to proving Creationism, The Lack of Evidence you BELIEVE there is for Evolution, The Big Bang and Abiogensis, Isnt evidence for creationism or god....You have to provide your own evidence !
That's perfectly fine with Satan as he is the one who likes and wants to hide. He is quite powerful and I respect him for that and not fear him. He may only appear when you are the weakest.
^^^
watch this ....
"That's perfectly fine with the invisible Giant BAD Whale as he is the one who likes and wants to hide. He is quite powerful and I respect him for that and not fear him. He may only appear when you are the weakest.
There is exactly as much truth and evidence for The Invisible Giant BAD Whale is there is for Satan or God...
I didn't have time to read it all, but will come back later. Just wanted to explain what the supernatural is in our world. It is right in front of your eyes every day. It is LIFE itself. Once life is gone, then it cannot come back (unless you had a near-death experience). Life cannot be created. Only living creatures can create life through reproduction. However, we cannot create life. Life cannot form from non-life.
Otherwise, we would see it. I heard and read about abiogenesis; It was called spontaneous generation earlier, but that was debunked by Dr. Louis Pasteur. He demonstrated through the scientific method that only life creates life. There is no scientific method to back up abiogenesis. People believe that because today we have the science of atheism or fake science.
I've read some of your other complaints and they're weak as your thinking and formulating arguments. I couldn't continue reading it, so I stopped. If there is another point you want me to address, then I will but try to be specific.
We know that only life creates life. Thus, it is evidence for God and creation science as the scientific method backs up Dr. Louis Pasteur's experiment. Abiogenesis cannot possibly happen. Furthermore, in 2017 it was demonstrated that the chicken came before the egg. Evolutionists must have the egg come first, so they keep ignoring the findings.
There is so much evidence to back up God's word in the Bible that the only way remaining for those who insist on the wrong theories of the science of atheism, like you, is death itself. If our supernatural[/i] lives do not continue and most of us end in sleeping states AFTER DEATH, then the science of atheism was right in that is all there was. Life was not supernatural, but natural and once we die, we die. However, the evidence does not show that any of evolution is valid theory.
Will you risk your supernatural [i]life in order to prove it is natural life, despite the scientific method evidence, and risk spending eternity in the Lake of Fire?
If you want to continue this discussion, then I can explain the greatest thing an atheist ever said. It stumped me for over a year.
It both amuses and disgusts me at how bloodthirsty Christians are, always so eager for the destruction of ‘non-believers’.
shareIf that were true, none of us would preach to you. We would rejoice in your own demise. Despite how hostile you have been, I don´t want you to spend eternity being punished. You keep returning to this conversation though, so something here must be convicting you.
shareHow have I been hostile? I’m trying to save you from the prison of religion and I appreciate that you are trying to save me fro Hell but I Find it disgusting how often Christians thoroughly enjoy declaring that people are going to suffer for opposing them and I KNOW you know what I mean.
share"This disgusts me, this is repulsive etc etc..." The tone of your posts definitely seems hostile. Fwiw, it´s not enjoyable at all to tell someone they are unsaved, in fact its quite uncomfortable since the standard reaction is as written in John 15:18 but as followers of Christ we are commanded by the Bible to plant seeds and put the fear of the Lord into unbelievers since the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Prov 9:10. Mark 16:15.
shareNo blood exchanged in discussing ideas. It's more God's warning to atheists, agnostics, and other weird believers I think. In regards to politics, we find state atheism killed the most people in terms of blood.
shareConsidering LaVeyan Satanists are skeptical atheists, I don't think "Satan" would kill his followers!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan
I lived in the same neighborhood as LaVey in San Francisco and knew his daughter. I leave it at that ;).
share