Think about it ... just a second

Well, he might have believed he was God, and really wasn't, in which case he was a lunatic insane. That is a logical possibility, although one I cannot buy into for other reasons (later, if you wanna hear them).

Interestingly enough, this famous "apologetic" of a "trilemma" -- Liar, Lunatic, or Lord (Josh McDowell ripped it off from CS Lewis, who got it from Chesterson) was actually first presented by a skeptic. Albert Schweitzer (yeah, THAT Schweitzer!) wrote a famous book called The Quest of the Historical Jesus, where he grasped the truth that the liberal desire to make Jesus a historical figure who was a "good teacher" but not God was simply impossible. His conclusion was that Jesus died a deluded religious fanatic, and "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" was not a cry of God under his own curse of sin, but the wails of a frustrated man who saw himself as throwing himself into the gap of history to "force" God to come and change things, and instead died an utter failure.

One of the things you see right away when diving into history of thought is that most of the good thoughts have already been thunk, and you are just figuring out which stream of thought makes the most sense. It is kind of humbling to realize how stupid I am when missing the obvious :).
When I have gotten people to be honest with me, especially after them realizing the evidence and accepting the deity and only source of redemption fact of Jesus that they were seeking something that would take the burden of guilt and judgement out of their life. They have said it was their way of trying to just make Jesus go away so they did not have to deal with their faults, sins or whatever you want to call it. I even have heard them say that when Jesus was historically proven to them it was the next step to try to discount sins and authority. Even some who believe in Jesus and accept Him for what He is have said they did not want to give up their pet sins so they just attempt to make their sins go away by relabeling them "choices". Satanists and atheists write books and do speeches because they know that about human nature and its a broad stroke of the pen to lead people astray.
 
@DannyStayzHome I am not familiar enough with your scriptures to “cherry pick” them, however I believe @tanstaafl72555 is correct when he says they need to be taken as a whole in their entirety, which is both difficult and something few do.

I think we may also have a bit of misunderstanding each other, which makes sense as we’re coming at various texts and treatises from wildly different perspectives and positions. However, as I read the passage I linked to a few times an interesting thought did occur to me regarding the concept of “authority”. I am going to make an assumption, based upon the many comments I’ve read in multiple venues by Christians about submitting to your lord as believing that your god is the ultimate authority and by extension your scriptures which you believe to be the word of god. More on this in a second.

Before I connect the dots that are in my head, in recent years there has been a revival of sorts of people looking to relearn and go back to the old ways of their ancestors, which varies according to geographic regions, but is largely what I will call greater Germanic and Scandinavian areas. This can be seen in the subjects like Odinism and Asatru. These are very different than the new age paganism with a sprinkle of this and a dash of that, but instead go back to the concept of the origin of authority being the gods. In this case, however, the gods are not the same as the Abrahamic one.

Back to the point of authority, in the case of the Odinist, the “authority” is that of our ancestors and our ancestral gods, much like the Christian believes the ultimate authority is the Christian god.

To make a comment on paganism, including Odinism, you are correct in that, “paganism is absolutely against everything about God“, but not in the way I frequently see Christians refer to it. It is NOT Satanism or satanic; it isn’t even defined in terms of the Abrahamic view, though the Jews do refer to the pagan gods as demons and in doing so at least recognize their existence. Also, the existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other. As I have said in this thread or another, I am not Jewish, my ancestry is mostly Germanic, and I choose to follow my ancestral gods rather than that of a sect of Judaism and pointing to the NT (a rewrite hundreds (?) of years later in a different language Greek rather than Hebrew) saying that yours is now the one true god of everyone doesn’t make the sale for me.

What the Odinist doesn’t have, that you do, is both the volumes of written history and a large social connection, though the latter is changing. While there are a few poetic edas, e.g. Beowulf, and other documents like the Codex Oera Linda that delve into the concepts of law in those early societies prior to the invasion by Rome it still remains a very folkish system; very opposite that of Christianity. It leaves the people who choose to follow it having to interpret and intuit it for themselves, much like our ancestors originally did.
You say it isn't satanism or satanic. First one must realize what satanism is before they can recognize what it is not. People tend to gravitate to the idea that satanism is red robes and naked beings tied to an altar for rituals and sacrifice. That is actually the bottom line when a person has depraved so far morally they cannot go deeper without making it a physical manifestation. Satanism pure and simple is anything that leads one away from the truth of Jesus and keeps them from accepting His offer. It is anything that promises a different path or truth which in totality is a lie. You see sane and moral people do not fall for devil worshiping cults and rituals. So Satan leads them astray clandestinely. Paganism in any form is a trick from Satan pure and simple. If it leads one to a different path other than the truth it is satanic even if not physically satanism
 
Back
Top Bottom