More Research Needed Marilyn Manson is not an official member of the church of Satan, however he was friend with founder Anton Szandor LaVey. Lavey declared him a reverend of the church, which means he represents the church's ideas and beliefs very well (but not nessacarily on purpose or all the time) with his music. That form of Satanism has nothing to do with worshipping the devil. It can be understood by Reading the Satanic bible written by Lavey
I made it clear that I had not read the book, since the book had not been released at the time of me Recording the News in Focus Program. I told everyone to get a copy of the book and I simply challenged them to pay close attention to how scripture was used in the book. I have not had time to read the book but I hope to provide a News in Focus program on the book when I am done. Thanks to everyone who listens to the program
How am I sounding like I am pro Islam? I am pro telling the truth and honestly representing people. If I am christian I obviously reject Islam. I believe it is a false religion but that does not give Christians the right to say false things about it or to represent it in a false way.
I am not question the true God of the bible. I am just making sure people represent the issues fairly and accurately. I believe Islam is a false religion but I believe Christians have a responsibility to speak of it fairly and truthfully.
It is telling us the story of a war, when the prophet took over Mecca. It is telling the prophets army to fight back and if nessecary to defend yourself and your life you must kill. It also says if they surrender you may not harm them, you must shelter then and protect them.
What about statements like this found in the Qur'an?
take not life, which God hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.‚ÄĚ
All of this is the usual "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, commonly called "guilt by association." Moreover their generalization from a statistical sample (assuming the causality is real) commits the fallacy of induction.
But many Christians will commend this "science" because they like the conclusions.
Great comment, I did not think about it that way before I recorded my commentary. Thanks for offering a different perspective on the story.
It appears some people are upset about me mentioning their comments in my sermon. I did not mention any names and I simply commented on comments that are posted on a public forum. I do apologize for all who are upset. However, I would like to point out the following;
1/23/10 3:25 PM I posted the following comment in the comment section:
Great points everyone, I did not mention them in my commentary but I will be recording more about this subject in the next 24 hours and will ensure I include some of the comments that have been posted.
I told everyone publicly that I would be using their comments. Not one person responded or posted an objection.
I commented on comments that are posted on a public forum. People are upset that I did not engage them. However, these same people are posting comments on a story and a survey that was done without engaging that original author of the article or the people who conducted the survey! Is this not a double standard?
I am to engage the people commenting but the people commenting are not required to engage the original author of the article. This seems to be a twisted way of thinking.
Scott McMahan, very interesting thoughts! Do you think a pastor can properly expound a passage of scripture in less than 40 minutes? The book, Rediscovering Expository preaching seems to think you are looking at least 40 minutes.