Devil Worship?

I have a quick question here:

What is actually wrong with Devil worship?

And please give proper answer not just "It's evil".

Well it depends on what "Devil" you're worshipping, and how you're doing it.  Like, say you're sacrificing babies, then it's wrong, but if you're not harming anyone, and you're beliefs aren't evil (whithin the context of your society) there's nothing wrong with it.

There are plenty of things wrong with Devil Worship.  The devil is the anti-christ, and worshipping him would be like having death on your doorstep and welcoming into your house. Now I know that's a bad analogy, but I can't think of any good ones now.  All I know, from what I've been taught, is that the Devil represents all things that are against good.

I don't know about the devil :evil: =anti-christ :twisted:.

"A devil" is not the same as "The Devil", which has become another name for Satan, the fallen angel.  It is also different from The Anti-Christ, who will appear at the End of Days, and may be a devil in that it is the Son of Satan, if I remember my extra-Bibilical myths correctly (because none of these are clear in the Bible itself)

I think cheesejoff meant The Devil with a capital D, AKA Satan or Lucifer (who are not necessarily the same if you ask some scholars).

A TV show interviewing some Satan worshippers gave the impression that they do not believe Satan to be evil, but more like Baccus of Greek Myths, all about personal gains and enjoyment.

To me, they sounded more like Emo-kids gone Goth.  Or is it the other way around? :?:

Correct me if I'm wrong.

So if you're Steven Harper, isn't Paul Martin the Devil?

Or if you're George Bush, isn't Kerry the Devil?

If you're the Roman Catholic Church, aren't all other gods the Devil?

So there's clearly a political reason that the Church says it's bad to worship the Devil.  They want your business and they have no qualms about using smear campaigns to get it.  They explain that it's bad because God personifies goodness, being with God is good, being with far from God is bad, and the Devil personifies being far from God.  So in worshipping other gods you're drifting away from the One True God, which by the definition that they are willing to offer to you, is bad.  Mm'kay?

-Erasmus

LIke 6 strings says it depends what you mean by dvevil worship. If by the devil they basically mean some basically benevolent if mildly hedonistic god then while I view it as misguide it doesn't hurt anyone. However when Chritians hear devil worship they usually intepret it to mena worship of the Devil of Judao Chritian beliefs which is evil since the Satan is evil thus worshipping him would entail evil , thus worshipping him is bad and should be forbideden as it would entail harming others somethign secular osciety frowns upon.
Also Erasmus does your remark about Paul Martin indicate that you are in fact a Canuck like myself?

Cinlef

Also Erasmus does your remark about Paul Martin indicate that you are in fact a Canuck like myself?

As it happens, no.  You have simply overinterpreted the evidence, which led you too far, albeit in the correct (northerly) direction :)

-Erasmus

the correct (northerly) direction :)

Correction: hubwardly.

Gods, we're not turning it into Terry Pratchett's discworld, are we?

Gods, we're not turning it into Terry Pratchett's discworld, are we? :)

You're right, sorry; Discworld is way more interesting than Flat Earth.

Especially the bit about the four elephants and the turtle under the Earth. All hail the great A'tuin!  

Well, let's assume for the sake of debate that the devil exists. Which he doesn't. But whatever.

The creators of the devil (the authors of the Bible) define the devil, basically, as the embodiment of pure evil.

Now, I am of the opinion that no one does something that they consciously understand to be wrong. I think that people do things that may seem wrong to them in the short term, but have positive effects overall. Or so they believe.

Therefore, if you believe that the devil is the embodiment of pure evil, you shouldn't worship him. And if you don't believe that he's the embodiment of pure evil, then that's not the devil.

Now, I am of the opinion that no one does something that they consciously understand to be wrong. I think that people do things that may seem wrong to them in the short term, but have positive effects overall. Or so they believe.

Sorry, but this is where your argument breaks down, otherwise, your logic would be flawless.  I've shoplifted enough candy to be able to tell you that people do do things they know are wrong, and really just don't care all that much.

Quote

Now, I am of the opinion that no one does something that they consciously understand to be wrong. I think that people do things that may seem wrong to them in the short term, but have positive effects overall. Or so they believe.

Sorry, but this is where your argument breaks down, otherwise, your logic would be flawless.  I've shoplifted enough candy to be able to tell you that people do do things they know are wrong, and really just don't care all that much.

I think that you feel that the benefits of your actions outweigh any harm they cause. I mean, if you knew that every time you stole, someone died, you would probably stop.

Well, let's assume for the sake of debate that the devil exists. Which he doesn't. But whatever.

The creators of the devil (the authors of the Bible) define the devil, basically, as the embodiment of pure evil.

Now, I am of the opinion that no one does something that they consciously understand to be wrong. I think that people do things that may seem wrong to them in the short term, but have positive effects overall. Or so they believe.

Therefore, if you believe that the devil is the embodiment of pure evil, you shouldn't worship him. And if you don't believe that he's the embodiment of pure evil, then that's not the devil.

Right, but many Christians take parts of the bible to be "literal" therefore can't I do that also? Perhaps I believe that by worshipping him I will actually be spared from hell?

No. Believing in him will get you closer to hell, because God will think that you're a non-believer in him.

No. Believing in him will get you closer to hell, because God will think that you're a non-believer in him.

But the punishment is to be thrown into a lake of fire, not assuming that is a lake of water with flames on it, wouldn't the water entinguish the flames?

What?

But the punishment is to be thrown into a lake of fire, not assuming that is a lake of water with flames on it, wouldn't the water entinguish the flames?

What water?

Quote from: "T_Bout89"

No. Believing in him will get you closer to hell, because God will think that you're a non-believer in him.

But the punishment is to be thrown into a lake of fire, not assuming that is a lake of water with flames on it, wouldn't the water entinguish the flames?

Well, if you believe in the lake of fire, then you believe in god. Therefore, you're already believing in the supernatural. It shouldn't take much of a leap of the imagination to believe that supernatural lakes won't be extinguished.

Well, if you believe in the lake of fire, then you believe in god. Therefore, you're already believing in the supernatural. It shouldn't take much of a leap of the imagination to believe that supernatural lakes won't be extinguished.

Oh, *that* lake.  It never occurred to me that when they said "lake of fire" they really meant "lake of water with fire in it that supernaturally doesn't get extinguished by the water."  Cuz obviously a "lake of blood" is really a "lake of water with some blood floating around," and a "lake of oil" is really just a "lake of water with oil on top isn't it nice that oil floats," and a "lake of lava" is really... oh, ahaha, shit, a "lake of stuff that looks a hell of a lot like fire, but don't forget, there *must* be some water in there too!  Cuz it's a lake!"

Maybe it just means, y'know, "of fire"....?

-Erasmus

I also always assumed the mean a lake of just fire.

If you take the modern definition of the word, then it's possible to be an "area of liquid". But it's debatable whether that use would have been around in biblical times. It could well be the other meaning, ie, an area of water which usually leads to the sea.

If you take the modern definition of the word, then it's possible to be an "area of liquid". But it's debatable whether that use would have been around in biblical times. It could well be the other meaning, ie, an area of water which usually leads to the sea.

Actually I'm pretty sure in modern parlance a lake is a body of water that does *not* lead to, or from, the sea, except perhaps via a river.

I'm pretty so, no, I'm *certain* that a lake of X is a concave region in the ground that contains X, which is heavier than air, and probably liquid, and it would be true in biblical times as well as today.  If it's just a "lake", it defaults to water, the liquid we're most familiar with.  If you wanted a lake of water with fire on it, you'd probably call it a "burning lake".

Furthermore, I'll be damned if this isn't the least relevant tangent evahr.

-Erasmus

But fire is not heavier than air, it doesn't have a weight as it's a chemical reaction. Neither can it fill a concave region in the ground. Fire is not a substance, there must be some solid/liquid/gas to fill the lake.

Why do we assume the universes physics apply to Hell. Also this so is the least relevant tangent ever.
An amused
Cinlef

But fire is not heavier than air, it doesn't have a weight as it's a chemical reaction. Neither can it fill a concave region in the ground. Fire is not a substance, there must be some solid/liquid/gas to fill the lake.

Fire --- or at least, the flames themselves --- is totally a substance, with weight and everything.  First of all, it quite clearly takes up space.  Second of all it emits light.  It even conducts electricity.  It's a "cold plasma".  It's basically hot, glowing gas escaping from the burning fuel.

It can fill a lake-shaped ditch in the ground if there's something on the bottom that's burning, or if some sort of unholy magic is taking place.  Then as long as the flames are high enough, it can fill the volume of the ditch.

An interesting implication is that there must be something *under* hell.  Fire requires a constant supply of oxygen, which it draws from below.  So there has to be an environment underneath hell supplying hell with oxygen.

Any ideas what this supply of oxygen might be?

-Erasmus

Ok, so even if it did mean the flames themselves, there is no specification on the size of the lake?

So I can believe it's whatever size I want. Remember, if it's not specifically states in the bible, you can't just say "I don't think God would do that" or "I think it's more likely that..."
 
Personal opinions based on common sense work in this world, not the afterlife. Otherwise you might ask why, if God is omnipotent, did he let Lucifer rebel? If he wanted hell as a punishment, wouldn't he just create hell?
It doesn't mean God couldn't have let Lucifier rebel, it just means common sense doesn't apply.

Ok, so even if it did mean the flames themselves, there is no specification on the size of the lake?

So I can believe it's whatever size I want. Remember, if it's not specifically states in the bible, you can't just say "I don't think God would do that" or "I think it's more likely that..."
 
Personal opinions based on common sense work in this world, not the afterlife. Otherwise you might ask why, if God is omnipotent, did he let Lucifer rebel? If he wanted hell as a punishment, wouldn't he just create hell?
It doesn't mean God couldn't have let Lucifier rebel, it just means common sense doesn't apply.

On this note, here's something interesting:

If God is all-powerful, he can do whatever he wants.
I God is all-good, what he wants is the nonexistence of evil.

You can see where I'm going with this...

If God is all-powerful, he can do whatever he wants.
I God is all-good, what he wants is the nonexistence of evil.

Yeah, this sort of argument doesn't hold any water.  I don't know about other religions, but in Catholicism, it was very important to God that people have free will.  He wants them to *choose* to be good.  Probably he could force them to be good, but that's not what he's interested in.  Maybe because he wants us to prove ourselves, give us challenges, that sort of thing.

It's like you're doing an experiment, and you would like it very much if the results supported your hypothesis, but you're not about to fudge them just to get what you want.

-Erasmus