# My religion is satanism



## DeLamar.J (May 18, 2005)

I am a satanist. Quite a shocking thing to hear for some people. I have found a religion that gives me the enlightenment that I have always dreamed of. My life is better because of Anton LaVey and his religion. I have came to better understand myself, others, and everything around me because of satanism. Satanism has improved my martial arts, and my life.
Here is an article explaining this wonderful religion that has changed my life for the better. 
I would love to hear everyones opinion on my religion. I respect most everyone at martial talk, there are some very smart people here who I have learned so much from, and I would like to hear what you have to say.



Our philosophies

   If you have not already done so, we strongly suggest you purchase
   _The Satanic Bible_, and study it. It is a diabolical book, the
   basis for our philosophy. Satanism is not for everyone, but if it
   is for you, we welcome you. We are not a fan club, a pen-pal
   society, or a lonely hearts group. We are a group of dynamic
   individuals who stand forth as the ultimate underground alternative
   -- the Alien Elite. We realize what we have, what we are, and what
   we shall become. Our scope is unlimited, and the extent of your
   involvement is based upon your own potential.

   In recent years, we've wasted far too much time explaining that
   Satanism has nothing to do with kidnapping, drug abuse, child
   molestation, animal or child sacrifice, or any number of other acts
   which idiots, hysterics or opportunists would like to blame on us.
   Satanism is a life-loving, rational philosophy that millions
   of people adhere to. Now we're ready for something that goes quite
   a few steps beyond just explaining our principles. Every
   revisionist movement needs a set of goals/guidelines that are
   clear, concrete, and that will effect significant changes.

   The following Five-Point Program reflects attitudes which allow
   others to decide whether they wish to align themselves with
   Satanism or not. Each is necessary for Satanic change to take
   place. When asked what we're "doing", here's the answer:

   1) STRATIFICATION -- The point on which all the others ultimately
   rest. There can be no more myth of "equality" for all--it only
   translates to "mediocrity" and supports the weak at the expense of
   the strong. Water must be allowed to seek its own level without
   interference from apologists for incompetence. No one should be
   protected from the effects of his own stupidity.

   2) STRICT TAXATION OF ALL CHURCHES -- If churches were taxed for
   all their income and property, they'd crumble overnight of their
   own obsolescence, and the National Debt would be wiped out as
   quickly. The productive, the creative, the resourceful should be
   subsidized. So long as the useless and incompetent are getting
   paid, they should be heavily taxed.

   3) NO TOLERANCE FOR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SECULARIZED AND INCORPORATED
   INTO LAW AND ORDER ISSUES -- to re-establish "Lex Talionis" would
   require a complete overturning of the present in-justice system
   based on Judeo-Christian ideals, where the victim/defender has been
   made the criminal. Amnesty should be considered for anyone in
   prison because of his alleged "influence" upon the actual
   perpetrator of the crime. Everyone is influenced in what he or she
   does. Scapegoating has become a way of life, a means of survival
   for the unfit. As an extension of the Judeo-Christian cop-out of
   blaming the Devil for everything, criminals can gain leniency, even
   praise, by placing the blame on a convenient villain. Following the
   Satanic creed of "Responsibility to the responsible," in a Satanic
   society, everyone must experience the consequences of his own
   actions -- for good or ill.

   4) DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF ARTIFICIAL HUMAN COMPANIONS -- The
   forbidden industry. An economic "godsend" which will allow everyone
   "power" over someone else. Polite, sophisticated, technologically
   feasible slavery. And the most profitable industry since TV and the
   computer.

   5) THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE TO LIVE WITHIN A TOTAL ENVIRONMENT OF
   HIS OR HER CHOICE, WITH MANDATORY ADHERENCE TO THE AESTHETIC AND
   BEHAVIORAL STANDARDS OF SAME -- Privately owned, operated and
   controlled environments as an alternative to homogenized and
   polyglot ones. The freedom to insularize oneself within a social
   milieu of personal well-being. An opportunity to feel, see, and
   hear that which is most aesthetically pleasing, without
   interference from those who would pollute or detract from that
   option.

4.2. The Nine Satanic Statements

   1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
   2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe
      dreams.
   3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical
      self-deceit.
   4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of
      love wasted on ingrates.
   5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
   6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of
      concern for psychic vampires.
   7. Satan represents man as just another animal -- sometimes better,
      more often worse than those that walk on all-fours -- who,
      because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development,"
      has become the most vicious animal of all.
   8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to
      physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
   9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He
      has kept it in business all these years.

4.3. The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

    1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
    2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they
       want to hear them.
    3. When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go
       there.
    4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and
       without mercy.
    5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating
       signal.
    6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a
       burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
    7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it
       successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of
       magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose
       all you have obtained.
    8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject
       yourself.
    9. Do not harm little children.
   10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for
       your food.
   11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone
       bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

4.4. The Nine Satanic Sins

   1. Stupidity -- The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal
      Sin of Satanism. It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful.
      Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on
      stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they
      are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture
      that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn
      to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.
   2. Pretentiousness -- Empty posturing can be most irritating and
      isn't applying the cardinal rules of Lesser Magic. On equal
      footing with stupidity for what keeps the money in circulation
      these days. Everyone's made to feel like a big shot, whether
      they can come up with the goods or not.
   3. Solipsism -- Can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting
      your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is
      probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of
      expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy
      and respect that you naturally give them. They won't. Instead,
      Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of "Do unto others as
      they do unto you." It's work for most of us and requires
      constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of
      everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would
      be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or
      perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far
      from that point.
   4. Self-deceit -- It's in the Nine Satanic Statements but deserves
      to be repeated here. Another cardinal sin. We must not pay
      homage to any of the sacred cows presented to us, including the
      roles we are expected to play ourselves. The only time
      self-deceit should be entered into is when it's fun, and with
      awareness. But then, it's not self-deceit!
   5. Herd Conformity -- That's obvious from a Satanic stance. It's
      all right to conform to a person's wishes, if it ultimately
      benefits you. But only fools follow along with the herd, letting
      an impersonal entity dictate to you. The key is to choose a
      master wisely instead of being enslaved by the whims of the
      many.
   6. Lack of Perspective -- Again, this one can lead to a lot of pain
      for a Satanist. You must never lose sight of who and what you
      are, and what a threat you can be, by your very existence. We
      are making history right now, every day. Always keep the wider
      historical and social picture in mind. That is an important key
      to both Lesser and Greater Magic. See the patterns and fit
      things together as you want the pieces to fall into place. Do
      not be swayed by herd constraints -- know that you are working
      on another level entirely from the rest of the world.
   7. Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies -- Be aware that this is one
      of the keys to brainwashing people into accepting something
      "new" and "different," when in reality it's something that was
      once widely accepted but is now presented in a new package. We
      are expected to rave about the genius of the "creator" and
      forget the original. This makes for a disposable society.
   8. Counterproductive Pride -- That first word is important. Pride
      is great up to the point you begin to throw out the baby with
      the bath-water. The rule of Satanism is: if it works for you,
      great. When it stops working for you, when you've painted
      yourself into a corner and the only way out is to say, "I'm
      sorry, I made a mistake, I wish we could compromise somehow,"
      then do it.
   9. Lack of Aesthetics -- This is the physical application of the
      Balance Factor. Aesthetics is important in Lesser Magic and
      should be cultivated. It is obvious that no one can collect any
      money off classical standards of beauty and form most of the
      time so they are discouraged in a consumer society, but "an eye"
      for beauty, for balance, is an essential Satanic tool and must
      be applied for greatest magical effectiveness. It's not what's
      supposed to be pleasing -- it's what is. Aesthetics is a
      personal thing, reflective of one's own nature, but there are
      universally pleasing and harmonious configurations that should
      not be denied.



If you want to read more here is the link that I copied and pasted from with the whole FAQ. Also, you can visit the official church of satan web site. 

http://members.chello.at/herbert.paulis/CoS-FAQ.html


----------



## Andrew Green (May 18, 2005)

Interesting read.

 Where you raised Christian?  If so what made you switch over to a religion that would get you looked at as evil by many?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 18, 2005)

What does any of that have to do with the Satan of Judeo-Christian tradition.  Seems like a rather silly religion to me.  Especially when what you described isn't Satanism, it's more like Hedonism.  Unless you're actually worshipping the dark lord, why not just call your belief system Hedonism, it describes a philosophy, rather than some bizarre religious belief.  Just a thought.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What does any of that have to do with the Satan of Judeo-Christian tradition. Seems like a rather silly religion to me. Especially when what you described isn't Satanism, it's more like Hedonism. Unless you're actually worshipping the dark lord, why not just call your belief system Hedonism, it describes a philosophy, rather than some bizarre religious belief. Just a thought.


 That is basically what I understood Satanism to be.AS for Bizarre... no more so then Christianity


----------



## Mark Weiser (May 18, 2005)

While I do not care what you observe in your personal life all I can say since you brought this to the public forum is this. 

*LOL LOL!!*


----------



## arnisador (May 18, 2005)

I too was looking for a literal belief in Satan in this post, and came up empty...this sounds like a form of secular humanism.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 18, 2005)

*Satanism* is a religious and philosophical movement whose adherents recognize Satan as an archetype who all humans have some characteristics of, and Satanists celebrate aspects of human nature represented by the Satan archetype. Many Satanists do not worship a deity called Satan, or one by any other name. Unlike many religions and philosophies, Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism


----------



## Flatlander (May 18, 2005)

James, how many other spiritual philosophies have you researched prior to making this choice?


----------



## Tgace (May 18, 2005)

Selfishness makes the world go around....


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

Yes, self does seem to be the central theme in this religion. However what also is important to note is that Satan is not seen as a "evil" entity.

 It is a religion that tosses conformity and following a God in favour of self-development. Not worshipping Satan, but recognizing that he was a model for opposing conformity and empowering the individual.

 If the Satan of the Judeo Christian religion is used he is seen as a being that set an example of opposing an opressive God, and giving people the ability to decide for themselves what is right and wrong (Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)

 But the let the weak fend for themselves...  that just doesn't work for me...

 Perhaps James can fix me on this if I am reading things wrong.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 19, 2005)

I was a satanist before i converted to Christianity. I have the full range of his (and his daughters) books, Ive read them all cover to cover several times.

  That said...

 Anton Levay was a Carnival Huckster who said on numerous occasions that the "Church of Satan" was his way of "twisting the knife" so to speak, to really cheese off the Christian population whom he despised so much. It has nothing to do with Satan, Satanism, Devil Worship etc etc... (which amused me as he makes consistant reference to the Christain "Devil" in his books, esp. The Satanic Rituals, and The Satanic Witch.)

 In his own words, he stated that it is only about appeasing mankind's need for religious dogma, blah blah... Much like L Ron Hubbard stated the only way to get rich is to found your own religion and "poof" we had "Dianetics".

  All it really is, IMO, and from past experience, is an excuse to put yourself above and before others and see chicks naked.


----------



## Brother John (May 19, 2005)

Since it is part of your faith to proclaim your use of magic or else lose it,
HOW have you succesfully used magic?
Thanks


Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (May 19, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I was a satanist before i converted to Christianity.


Good goin!!!

and you aren't alone.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Since it is part of your faith to proclaim your use of magic or else lose it,
> HOW have you succesfully used magic?
> Thanks
> 
> ...


 Actually, from what I've read not all satanists believe in magic, just some groups....  The proclaim or loose it I don't think I've seen at all, but then I haven't looked to hard for it.


----------



## DeLamar.J (May 19, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yes, self does seem to be the central theme in this religion. However what also is important to note is that Satan is not seen as a "evil" entity.
> 
> It is a religion that tosses conformity and following a God in favour of self-development. Not worshipping Satan, but recognizing that he was a model for opposing conformity and empowering the individual.
> 
> ...




If it brings you personal gratification to help the weak, then by all means do it.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> If it brings you personal gratification to help the weak, then by all means do it.


 I can see that, but I would imagine something like a welfare program would be against the beliefs of Satanism.


----------



## Gemini (May 19, 2005)

Interesting. Being a Christian, it's not my cup o' tea, but to each their own. One's Religion is a very personal thing, so that's about as far as I'll go.


----------



## Brother John (May 19, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Actually, from what I've read not all satanists believe in magic, just some groups....  The proclaim or loose it I don't think I've seen at all, but then I haven't looked to hard for it.


 True: But it's not 'some groups' we are talking about. We are talking about "The Church of Satan" began  by Anton La Vey.

La Vey's group Does believe in, advocate and practice magic as a part of their system. It's La Vey's ideology he put forward so it makes sense that he'd have tried to practice magic.

Your Brother
John


----------



## OUMoose (May 19, 2005)

Satanists, and most others on the LHP, have an interesting view on life IMO.  They're paradoxical crusade against the herd mentality, only to congregate together to do it uniformly under a unified banner is fascinating.  

Personally (and this is honestly in no way a knock on J. or anything), I find the Church of Satan to be too much into grandstanding.  "Hey!! Look at me!! I'm not Christian!! You're all sheep!!"  *shakes head*  I do find the tenents of the Temple of Set to be a little easier to understand.  It was a branch of the Church of Satan when the founder decided the CoS was getting a little too wacky.  They don't see things as good and evil, but change and stagnation.  I found it pretty interesting to read their articles, and would encourage people to do the same.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Satanists, and most others on the LHP, have an interesting view on life IMO. They're paradoxical crusade against the herd mentality, only to congregate together to do it uniformly under a unified banner is fascinating.


 hehehe...  yeah, well that happens.

 Even in Martial Arts, JKD is a good example of that, a Martial arts idea about breaking conformity and doing what worked for Bruce Lee 

 I'd imagine some actually live by the ideas, and some just spit them out and follow the leader. 

 Oh well, what religion doesn't have its odd little bits that make you go "Whaa?"


----------



## SwedishChef (May 19, 2005)

I'm looking worship a golden calf. :idunno:  nah I'll just stick with Christianity.


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

to each his own.  Objectively speaking its probably not any wierder than any of the mainstream realigions.


----------



## BruceCalkins (May 19, 2005)

I'm not sure about your church but in my travels I have visited several Satanic Churches and Most of them did not believe in The "Devil"... They worshiped "Latinos" The Fallen Angel that sat at the right hand of God. Latinos gave man free will and God cast him out. Many Satanist Worship him before he fell and believe thay man would not be as we are if we didn't have free will. No one would have the right to chose for them self. (PS. I haven't follow this religion for over 20 years so I might be spelling the name Latinos wrong. But you get the name.)


----------



## clfsean (May 19, 2005)

Lucifer sat at the side of God... 

Latinos is plural for males of Latin (typical referring to Hispanic) descent...


----------



## Brother John (May 19, 2005)

PLEASE don't walk around East L.A. proclaiming that "Satanists worship Latinos". Could land you in a mess o' trouble. The Hispanic-American communities have enough problems as it is without being believed to be satanic.

(please know....I'm jokin around)

Your Brother
John


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Selfishness makes the world go around....



Ah yes, sounds more like AynRandism than Satanism...



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> All it really is, IMO, and from past experience, is an excuse to put yourself above and before others and see chicks naked.



Wait, are you arguing for it or against it?


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Ah yes, sounds more like AynRandism than Satanism...


 That rules.


----------



## DeLamar.J (May 19, 2005)

Have you ever noticed the similarities of JKD and satanism? They both teach you to be against herd conformity, and to think for yourself. I have a book by Bruce Lee called the warrior within, the philosophy of Bruce Lee. This book is very similar to satanic ways of thinking, almost like martial arts for satanists. He even talks about the great creative force within that brings him inner strength. He calls it Chi, and satanists call it satan, its the same thing, just by a different name. Its just if you say the dreaded S word it freaks people out.


----------



## DeLamar.J (May 19, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> James, how many other spiritual philosophies have you researched prior to making this choice?


I wasnt really looking for a religion to follow when I ran across satanism. I was raised as a christian, but Im just not the kind of person who can live by that religion. I just dont feel comfortable with it at all, I have always felt out of place at church. 
When I ran across satanism, Anton LaVeys version, I knew instantly I was one of them. It felt right for me, so hear I am. Yea you can tear down any religion with this or that, but for the most part, satanism makes the most since to me than any other religion I have ever been exposed to.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

Yup, in post #20


----------



## Sapper6 (May 19, 2005)

_"selfishness makes the world go round"_

perhaps the most intelligent post in this thread :idunno:


----------



## BruceCalkins (May 19, 2005)

Latinos / noun : Pronounced "La Tin Os". One of the many names given the dark lord of Haties. aka: Deablo, Satan, Lucifer, The Devil, Yamin, Hati Kamin, Tonolos. These are just a few of the names given the dark Lord. As God is also called Yaway in some cultures. 

(Not Spanish People) But a Old Latin Term


----------



## Ceicei (May 19, 2005)

SokeCalkins said:
			
		

> Latinos / noun : Pronounced "La Tin Os". One of the many names given the dark lord of Haties. aka: Deablo, Satan, Lucifer, The Devil, Yamin, Hati Kamin, Tonolos. These are just a few of the names given the dark Lord. As God is also called Yaway in some cultures.


 May I ask for the source of your reference?  Thank you.


----------



## BruceCalkins (May 19, 2005)

SECRET LIFE of a SATANIST: 



[Blanche Barton] Authorised Biography of Anton LaVey. All you wanted to know. Includes much private material and many cameos of the West Coast characters and occult scene. Well Illustrated. hard hitting and compulsively readable. £12.99 





*THE DEVIL'S NOTEBOOK:     *

[Anton La Vey] This contemporary collection of 46 essays on Satanism and its inter-relation with the 'ordinary' world makes compulsive reading. Includes classics like How to Become a Werewolf; Construction of Artificial Human Companions; Vampires: How to Be God: Erotic Inertia; Destructive Organisms, Politics, etc. La Vey's satanic philosophy at its best band containing illuminating insights into the man and hers personal perspectives. £10.95 

*THE NECRONOMICON: *

The Book of Dead Names £8.95. The Full working text of this legendary source of the Cthulu Mythos which underpins the Philosophy of Satanism and Aeonic evil
​*A Field Guide to Demons, Fairies, Fallen Angels and Other Subversive Spirits* 
by Carol K. Mack, Dinah Mack​​Just to name a Few I have read and Studied. Along with a 6 month study in Calf. in a Satanic Church​


----------



## terryl965 (May 19, 2005)

Well if you are happy then by all means live it up while here on earth and once gone bow to your true GOD whoever that maybe and explain your way on life. My Mothe Southern Baptist and my father Jewish so I too grow up and had to make a choice, atleast you do not believe in a head of lettuce like Re-Run did in whats happening, good luck and GOD BLESS!!!!!


----------



## DeLamar.J (May 20, 2005)

One might expect The Satanic Bible at least to offer a few prancing demons or a virgin sacrifice, but if you hopped this train expecting a tour of the house of horrors, you're on the wrong ride. Far from a manual for conquering the realms of earth, air, fire, and water, The Satanic Bible is Anton LaVey's manifesto of a new religion separate from the "traditional" Judeo-Christian definitions of Satanism. While LaVey rails against the deceit of the Christian church and white magicians, he busily weaves his own deceptions.


The Satanic Bible claims the heritage of a horde of evil deities--Bile', Dagon, Moloch, and Yao Tzin to name a few--but these ancient gods have no coherent connection between each other or to Satanism, except that all have been categorized by Christianity as "evil." Calling on these ancient names like a magician shouting, "Abracadabra," LaVey attempts to shatter the classical depiction of Satanism as a cult of black mass and child sacrifice. As the smoke clears, he leads us through a surprisingly logical argument in favor of a life focused on self-indulgence. The Satanic Bible is less bible and more philosophy (with a few rituals thrown in to keep us entertained), but this philosophy is the backbone of a religion that, until LaVey entered the scene, was merely a myth of the Christian church. It took LaVey, and The Satanic Bible, to turn this myth into a legitimate public religion.


----------



## Tgace (May 20, 2005)

Do a google on the terms "Latinos" and "Satan/Satinism" in any combination, cant find one refrence to "Latinos" beyond the normal use of the word.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 20, 2005)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Well if you are happy then by all means live it up while here on earth and once gone bow to your true GOD whoever that maybe and explain your way on life.


 Exactly, and Hades is gonna be none to impressed with all these folks claiming one all powerful God and that he and the rest of the "true" gods are "evil"....


----------



## Flatlander (May 20, 2005)

I don't know, James. The precept of self - gratification runs counter to my belief that all human (psychological,emotional) suffering is caused by desire. To excessively gratify oneself is to reinforce and solidify the delusion of the value of "things" and "items". 

Further, I would like to respond to these items from your post here.


> (from the heading "philosophies")
> 5) THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE TO LIVE WITHIN A TOTAL ENVIRONMENT OF
> HIS OR HER CHOICE, WITH MANDATORY ADHERENCE TO THE AESTHETIC AND
> BEHAVIORAL STANDARDS OF SAME -- Privately owned, operated and
> ...


 Here, what is proposed is the total segregation of people by specific likes and dislikes. I don't like the idea because a) people are so unique in their qualities that it would be nearly impossible to please all of the people (in each community) all of the time. Do you not think that, were this an advantageous method of building a community, we as humans would have evolved into such a social structure already? Beyond that, how interesting would life be without the richness of diversity? Creativity and art are borne out of imagination and variation, not sameness.

Also, I found a contradiction in there:

From the 9 Satanic Statements:



> 8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to
> physical, mental, or emotional gratification.


 This would include "Thou shalt not steal".....

From the 11 Satanic rules of the Earth:


> 6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a
> burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.


The entire concept seems to me to be anti - democratic. I don't know if I can get with that. My thinking is that a secularized society will never be a peaceful society, particularly under these precepts. And peace, for me, is the ultimate perfection.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 20, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> This would include "Thou shalt not steal".....


 I think it means the 7 deadly sins, not the 10 commandements.



> The entire concept seems to me to be anti - democratic. I don't know if I can get with that. My thinking is that a secularized society will never be a peaceful society, particularly under these precepts. And peace, for me, is the ultimate perfection.


 Democracy has not been a part of every peaceful society, and has been a part of a good deal of non-peaceful situations.

 I suppose the response might be that those that are smart enough and capable enough to rule should, the mob mind that comes as a result of "sheep" doing as they are told should have no say in the matter.

 I on the other hand believe that a religious society will never be a peaceful society.  Most wars have been a result of differeing religious view points.  Crusades, Inquisition(not a war, but not peace) Holocaust, even the current war is largely a result of Western Christian / Muslim beliefs.

 Thats not to say a secular one will neccessarily do any better though.


----------



## DavidCC (May 20, 2005)

I am pretty sure that indulging your desires is the opposite of self-development.  I indulged PLENTY of my desires in an unrestrained fashion for many years and the biggest "developments" were a beer gut and a bad memory.


----------



## kempo-vjj (May 20, 2005)

I myself cannot stand waisting my time in a church on sundays, I work to hard thru out the week, I do not agree with 1,000 different interpretations of how one must obey gods rules for salvation. But I definitely do not then go to the complete opposite side, Satan. My beliefe keep all religions open, find your own system. Who knows which religion is the one. To many politics, and power. Which is not god's fault, its human psychosocial behavior behind the church's power. I am agnostic. Maybe there isnt a god/devil maybe there is. I think knowledge of the world, ones self, and harmony with the rest is a pretty good recipe. No rules. just enjoy. Cannot rule somebody elses ideas until I have studied them myself. I have already ruled out satanism. thank you.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 20, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure that indulging your desires is the opposite of self-development. I indulged PLENTY of my desires in an unrestrained fashion for many years and the biggest "developments" were a beer gut and a bad memory.


 All comes down to what you want.  Want to eat fast food daily?  go for it.  Want to be healthy?  go for it.  Live hard, die young.  For some that is the way to go, for others it isn't who has the right to tell them otherwise? Do what you want, and accept the consequences I think is the logic here.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Ah yes, sounds more like AynRandism than Satanism...


Your darn right it does.  There is more then a little existentialism here.  

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Mr. Crowley, are you here?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Your darn right it does. There is more then a little existentialism here.
> 
> "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
> 
> Mr. Crowley, are you here?


The fine company at Bohemian Grove...


----------



## TaiChiTJ (May 20, 2005)

I am pretty sure that indulging your desires is the opposite of self-development. 

I tend to agree. 


Jim Morrison of Doors fame indulged his desires more so than most people on the planet ever have. He acquired a beer gut and basically stopped creating great music, his mode of self-development. 

Different theories exist as to how he expired, or even if he expired.

At any rate his expression, his genius, is gone.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 20, 2005)

Perhaps either worshiping or movement, has to do with Yin/Yang?


----------



## AikidoCal (May 21, 2005)

I would like to comment on the thread. 

Very non-typical thread for a martial arts board. I read much of it, not all. I thought satanism was to rebel and antagonize the middle ages there abouts Catholic Church. I though Satan was simply another name for antagonist. 

Considering early Middle Eastern religious folk who followed anyone of the monotheistic religions where or are very passionate in what they follow. Maybe passionate is an understand statement. Politics seem to be always linked to major religions and churches since way back before Moses. It doesn't surprise me that the idea of an antagonist is needed to play off against was required to get the point across and to unite people, especially those from the Middle East. For a people like that to come together with a common cause, your need a bad guy. Moses had a hell of a time trying to get the 10 commands passed in his day. People in the Middle East can be really intense to put it mildly. I fear what they consider a zealot. 

Satanists, witches ( originally midwifes and female barefoot doctors who where competition to men, men who used religion for that power ), and the lot of them, really have morphed over the centuries. Honestly, I think satanic religion is an oxymoron, isn't it? 

In all fairness I know people who unlike myself will swear up and down there is a personified Satan; horns, forked tail, red, pointy goatee and all. You know the artist conception that became the icon incarnation of what Satan is suppose to look like. Kind of what LaVey modeled his look after. I know people who subscribe to such stereotype of Satan ahd his existence did this to validate the existence of God or their power over others, knowingly or unknowingly. I always wondered why Satan wasn't a woman, I think it had to do with early Middle Eastern culture's perspective on women. You know to serve men, be men's property- If ya didn't own her how where you going to keep getting laid and cold beers when you wanted? Nothing keeps a woman around then owning her. I guess they figured you can't be married to Satan. Boy, where they wrong, huh guys... I have dated Satan and I will tell ya she was all that and more. :rpo:


Frankly, and honestly, I don't think either God or Satan any type of beings. Rather concepts and rules to follow that over the years morphed into. It is about character and people needed a personification, symbols, and other communication tools to grasp the ideas. It is the same for so many religions from that of the early Egyptians to Satanism. Satan the cause of all that is hard to deal with in the human complexity. You see it in the religions of the Vikings, the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Polynesians, Jews, in all cultures that have a mythology almost. I mean we have to blame (humanize) something into someone even if we make them up. Just as we do when in need of comfort. That is human. Unfortunately, people know to take advantage of it. 

I have more issues with politicians/coporations and what they say then someone outlining what they feel is Satanism. I agree the first poster (sorry for got your name) sounded hedonstic and seemed to be outlining a political stance then what we have come to expect Satanism to be discribed as. I never read Satanism to have a containment of ideas as presented. Is this an unorthodox Satanism? Wasn't Satanism at one time a way to rebel against the power of the Church, who had a lot of power over peoples lives. Like the Slaves in Haiti who used Hoodoo and Voodoo to gain power back over their lives from their European masters. Or anyone who did other stuff like questioned the Chruch was considered a Satanist? Basically, I don't think you needed to do a characture to be a Satanist. I find the the first poster's post different, a possible new change in what is defined as a Satanist how LaVey did in the 60's. His small part in the cultural revolution. Taking a stab at the "Establishment."  Long live Peter Fonda for not selling out, like Dennis Hopper, or did Peter eventually sell out? 

Anyway, as far as Satanists go, I have a problem with people doing heinous acts and crimes in the name for Satan or God for that matter. Why can't they just say they didn't in the name of their own sick selves? Why didn't Charles Manson, say "I did it because I told myself to do it, in the name of me." It's odd to me that, that doesn't happen?  That they always say it was something more powerful then themselves. Considering the size of guys like that egos, and power trips they are on. Sure that scares some people I guess, and fear is power with some people. So, I guess the modern day Satanism package is easier to subscribe to then making the all that stuff up themselves. I lost the fear of the boogie man by the age of 10. :idunno:

My religion is Vampireism. Not the early intended stuff where that meant you where gay, not the weird stuff you see on Oprah or Jerry Springer: the Nightcrawlers I guess is what they call themselves, they base themselves on early literature about Vampires. But the Hollywood stuff of Wesly Snipes, "Blade" is what I am about. My preferance is to be a hunter. Who wants to be hunted. It's great that Hollywood packaged it for me so I don't have to make it all up myself, or do all that reading either. :boing2:


----------



## BruceCalkins (May 21, 2005)

AikidoCal said:
			
		

> Satanists, witches ( originally midwifes and female barefoot doctors who where competition to men, men who used religion for that power ), and the lot of them, really have morphed over the centuries. Honestly, I think satanic religion is an oxymoron, isn't it?


The Witches you speek of are not Satanist.. This is from the Study of Wicca. Wiccans were the Midwives and early shamin. and in Wicca we do not even have a Satan. Wiccans do not believe in a single God or a Devil. we believe in the gods of the earth and sky and nature. 

As for Satanic Religion being an Oxymoron...  An Oxymoron is to things totaly different. Like "Jumbo Shrimp". Anything we study in faith can be a religion. if you want a true Oxymoron use  "Military Intelegance" :mp5:


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 21, 2005)

_My religion is Vampireism. Not the early intended stuff where that meant you where gay, not the weird stuff you see on Oprah or Jerry Springer: the Nightcrawlers I guess is what they call themselves, they base themselves on early literature about Vampires. But the Hollywood stuff of Wesly Snipes, "Blade" is what I am about. My preferance is to be a hunter. Who wants to be hunted. It's great that Hollywood packaged it for me so I don't have to make it all up myself, or do all that reading either._ There is a old song-"The Freaks Come Out At Night". When you get up in age and stop taking drugs, or have kids, your fantasy will be over. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




_The Witches you speek of are not Satanist.. This is from the Study of Wicca. Wiccans were the Midwives and early shamin. and in Wicca we do not even have a Satan. Wiccans do not believe in a single God or a Devil. we believe in the gods of the earth and sky and nature._ 
Somehow I knew that you maybe involved in this.


----------



## rutherford (May 21, 2005)

AikidoCal said:
			
		

> Very non-typical thread for a martial arts board. I read much of it, not all. I thought satanism was to rebel and antagonize the middle ages there abouts Catholic Church. I thought Satan was simply another name for antagonist.


  This is how I became a Satanist when I was 12.

I wasn't a popular kid, And, when people antagonised me I embrace satanism as a way to shock and attack those around me.  I spouted all sorts of nonsense like "I'd rather reign in Hell than serve in Heavan" and immature crap like that.  Hell, Devil Boy was a lot better than the nicknames I'd had before that.

. . . 

Thankfully, I grew up.


BTW, Mr. Calkins, Wicca is a modern creation that has few links to past.  Those witches you speak of would be better described by the term Pagan.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 21, 2005)

Sounds like people who wanted attention or couldnt deal with life's problems.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 21, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Sounds like people who wanted attention or couldnt deal with life's problems.


 I don't think so, just a different set of beliefs. 

 Chiristianity is not perfect either, no religion is.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 21, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I don't think so, just a different set of beliefs.
> 
> Chiristianity is not perfect either, no religion is.


I guess not. But there are social morals and charecter to abide by.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (May 21, 2005)

social morals? like when priests molested children? real pillars of the community.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (May 21, 2005)

SokeCalkins said:
			
		

> The Witches you speek of are not Satanist.. This is from the Study of Wicca. Wiccans were the Midwives and early shamin. and in Wicca we do not even have a Satan. Wiccans do not believe in a single God or a Devil. we believe in the gods of the earth and sky and nature.
> 
> As for Satanic Religion being an Oxymoron... An Oxymoron is to things totaly different. Like "Jumbo Shrimp". Anything we study in faith can be a religion. *if you want a true Oxymoron use "Military Intelegance" *:mp5:


ive always gotten a kick out of this phrase when it is used by peace loving hippies and the like. the truth is, a lot of the most brilliant thinkers in the past have been military people. the fact that we all discuss martial arts on this forum is a testament in that respect.


----------



## SwedishChef (May 21, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Ah yes, sounds more like AynRandism than Satanism...
> 
> 
> 
> I think Ayn Rand was Satan.  And I say that as a conservative.


----------



## BruceCalkins (May 21, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> BTW, Mr. Calkins, Wicca is a modern creation that has few links to past. Those witches you speak of would be better described by the term Pagan.


Sorry to disagree but Wicca is one of the oldest religions. Pre-Dates Catolic, and Most others. Satanic religion is even younger than Catolic dates.
Wicca and the belief of Nature Based Studies started in the days of shaminism.


----------



## BruceCalkins (May 21, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> ive always gotten a kick out of this phrase when it is used by peace loving hippies and the like. the truth is, a lot of the most brilliant thinkers in the past have been military people. the fact that we all discuss martial arts on this forum is a testament in that respect.


My Statement of Oxymoron was a Joke... I was in The USMC for my 4 years and worked with the USMC Self Defense School on Parris Island 80-84


----------



## AikidoCal (May 21, 2005)

SwedishChef said:
			
		

> I think Ayn Rand was Satan. And I say that as a conservative.


 Boy Oh Boy, was that VERY, VERY funny! I am still laughing!


----------



## Cryozombie (May 21, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> social morals? like when priests molested children? real pillars of the community.


Yes, lets generalize the failings of some individuals and hold it against all of the people involved.

Ya know, like, all Taekwondo people can't fight, women cant keep up with men... african americans are inferior to whites... or all christains are child molestors.


----------



## Tgace (May 21, 2005)

SokeCalkins said:
			
		

> USMC Self Defense School on Parris Island


:idunno:


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 21, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Yes, lets generalize the failings of some individuals and hold it against all of the people involved.
> 
> Ya know, like, all Taekwondo people can't fight, women cant keep up with men... african americans are inferior to whites... or all christains are child molestors.


I was about to reply along your same.

Of course any human, reglious or religious head can loose morals.


----------



## DeLamar.J (May 23, 2005)

http://cakonos.image.pbase.com/image/22126319.jpg


----------



## Andrew Green (May 23, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> I guess not. But there are social morals and charecter to abide by.


 Even in this there are social morals.  

 Don't kill animals unless you are going to eat them - If Christians had that one we wouldn't have some of the problems we have today with some endangered species...

 Treat others as they treat you.

 If you are in someones home, treat him with respect.

 just a few examples, but there are moral rules in this too.

 Also remember that for a good chunk of Christian history it was pretty much encouraged to kill non-christians...


----------



## DavidCC (May 23, 2005)

SokeCalkins said:
			
		

> Sorry to disagree but Wicca is one of the oldest religions. Pre-Dates Catolic, and Most others. Satanic religion is even younger than Catolic dates.
> Wicca and the belief of Nature Based Studies started in the days of shaminism.


well, maybe not...

Margot Adler writes:
[If scholarship is redrawing the picture of the Burning Times, it is also reconfiguring the origins of Wicca. Scholars have never accepted the myth of an unbroken Wiccan tradition, and now most Wiccans are being asked to look honestly at their history. In a recent essay in the scholarly neopagan journal Pomegranate, Cat Chapin-Bishop and Peter Bishop observe that modern-day witches often disavow their roots, including connections to Masonic ritual, Aleister Crowley, Yeats and Kipling, the Golden Dawn, Theosophy, spiritualism, and much more. These authors write: 

"The fanciful origin myths of Wicca told to us by Margaret Murray, the vastly inflated figure of 9 million dead in the burning times--these have long been discredited, and there is general acceptance now that Wicca is primarily a modern reconstruction of what we think might once have been. "
]


and  Misti Anslin Delaney and Wayland Raven  write:

[While some would lay claim to Old Dorothy, (Gardner's Dorothy Clutterbuck) truly, our religion began somewhere between 1939 and 1954 when Gerald Gardner began to synthesize what he had learned from the New Forest Witches with what he had learned of High Magick and ritual from the Masonic Order. It is difficult for historians to agree on how much of Gardner's Witchcraft was made up or co-opted from other mystic and secret societies, and how much may have come from his association with a person he called Dorothy Clutterbuck, who he said was part of a New Forest coven, and one of his first teachers. Dorothy was the person Gerald credited with initiating him into Witchcraft, though for a time her existence was in question. 
The religion--if indeed it was a religion, and not a purely a magickal Craft--that Old Dorothy taught to her initiate, Gerald, was the mother of modern Wicca, but it wasn't the same religion. In 1954 Gardner's new religion was introduced in his book, "Witchcraft Today." That Gardner's book was a synthesis of knowledge and wisdom from several sources and not a literal writing of the oral traditions of one famtrad does not lessen the genius of this work. While it may have contained historical fantasy as a backdrop and a rationalization, Gardner was in the process of giving birth to a new religion a religion that has fed the needs of the 21st century.]


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Even in this there are social morals.
> 
> Don't kill animals unless you are going to eat them - If Christians had that one we wouldn't have some of the problems we have today with some endangered species...
> 
> ...


I agree. This is what I am saying. It will seem that laws of a civilized society follow a routine of social morals. However, many countries do not follow all tyoes of these morals.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 23, 2005)

SokeCalkins said:
			
		

> My Statement of Oxymoron was a Joke... I was in The USMC for my 4 years and worked with the USMC Self Defense School on Parris Island 80-84





Ah.

I was an active duty infantry officer in the Marines from 1979-1982, and I never heard of a "self defense school" at either Parris Island or San Diego MCRD's.  I was an active martial artist at the time, and I surely would have heard or run into a graduate of this "school."  Its a small Marine Corps.

One of my platoon mates from Boot Camp, Chuck Conard, served as a D.I. at Parris Island during the time you served there.  I've posted Chuck's pictures here on MT.  I'll check with him on this.

When did you go to boot camp?  Who was your D.I.?  What was your series and platoon? 



Regards,



Steve


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

You caught that too huh?


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Hey, the topic is Satanism, not Sensationalism


----------



## Makalakumu (May 23, 2005)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> http://cakonos.image.pbase.com/image/22126319.jpg


Did anyone else catch this?  

:uhoh: :bomb: :uhoh:


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

Yeah..doesnt help garner much respect from me for his point here.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

I guess that was designed and found amusing by non-Christians.


----------



## DeLamar.J (May 23, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah..doesnt help garner much respect from me for his point here.


Sorry if I offended you, just trying to be funny. I dont get upset when people poke fun at my religion, so I assume that others feel the same way, which they dont.


----------



## arnisador (May 23, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> I guess that was designed and found amusing by non-Christians.


 Speaking as one...it didn't succeed here.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Well, i guess humor is as funny on one's perception.


----------



## DeLamar.J (May 24, 2005)

I always enjoyed this satanic saying:

"There is no heaven of glory bright, and no hell where sinners roast. Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy! Here and now is our opportunity! Choose ye this day, this hour, for no redeemer liveth!"

Hail Anton LaVey!

Hail Satan!

Hail Thyself!!


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

"The young child is totally egocentric --- meaning not that he thinks selfishly only about himself, but on the contrary, that he is incapable of thinking about himself. The egocentric child is unable to differentiate himself from the rest of the world; he has not separated himself out from others or from objects. Thus he feels that others share his pain or his pleasure, that his mumblings will inevitably be understood, that his perspective is shared by all persons, that even animals and plants partake of his consciousness. In playing hide-and-seek he will 'hide' in broad view of other persons, because his egocentrism prevents him from recognizing that others are aware of his location. The whole course of human development can be viewed as a _continuing decline in egocentrism_..."

- Howard Gardner, developmental psychologist


----------



## DeLamar.J (May 25, 2005)

http://greymatter.org/satanichamsterdance/


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

Ummm... yes, very nice. But, really. Now.

One of the general problems I find with systems like "satanism" is that it claims that adhering to one's hedonistic desires is The Way To Go ---- unless it just so happens that your personal desires take you to Christianity. 

In other words...

If you find "pleasure" in sado-masochism: a'okay!   

If you find "pleasure" in attending Mass: hiss! boom! bah!  :ticked: 

Honestly, I think its just more of the industrial ontology crap the West has been caught up in (on and off) for the past +200 years. And, I don't buy it for a second.

I much prefer the teachings of Buddhism, in that they don't perpetuate the absolute fantasy that personal desires lead to any state of happiness, fulfillment, or contentment. In fact, um, pretty much the opposite.

That, and the whole "satan" gimmicks are pretty silly. You'd do better to study some Jungian shadow psychology if you're so interested in "archetypes", not the writings of two-bit hucksters.

Laterz.


----------



## lonecoyote (May 25, 2005)

So, what I'm understanding is that there is no red guy with horns and hooves like on the hot sauce bottle, no lake of fire, no nothing, just a celebration of selfishness, which is actually a pretty boring lifestyle, once the jadedness sets in. Where's the fun in this? Are there at least Black Masses, Satanic orgies or neat gothic outfits? If not, you people have no hook, and I don't see why you don't just go bowling on saturday night.


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

lonecoyote said:
			
		

> and I don't see why you don't just go bowling on saturday night.



 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:


----------



## Bester (May 25, 2005)

Anton Lavey was a carnie barker, and developed some of his ideas after watching the people lyin, drinkin, cussin, and cheatin on Saturday, then being all pious on Sunday, just to go back to being hypocrites on Monday.  He took ideas that would generate serious publicity (such as black masses with naked women) and put out a number of books on his thoughts.  Much is standard "new age" that will sound familiar to anyone familiar to modern paganism or wicca, as well as a few interesting twists.

If it works for someone, great.  If not, Great.  There are a thousand other faiths, easy to shop around for something, or nothing, to believe in.

Why goto a special building on Sunday to listen to old fables, eat stale flat bread dipped in cheap wine, served by a guy in a dress? 

There are 2 "types" of Satanism.
- The Anti-Christian type which worships the Xian "devil", does the blood sacrifice, inverted cross, etc crap.
- The "Neo" (Which Laveys is the largest) which focuses more on the individual, not feeling guilty for human emotions and actions, etc.

Me personally, it's not quite what I'm looking for. But, I have read his books, which is more than most of his critics can say.


----------



## redfang (May 25, 2005)

C'mon now let's not throw pagans in with LeVey and Satanists.


----------



## T3dragon (May 25, 2005)

Please don't throw us pagans in with satanists.

This is not meant as an attack or anything if it comes off that way , but i would like to go into my own background before that. 

I have a copy of the "satanic bible". I have read it. My major hobby is the study of religions. I myself am basically a Neo-druid( not finding too many of those today). As a druid i have my own personal set of beliefs as all druids do. 

From all I have read and heard about satanism(i was at a time anti-christian so don't think what i heard was too biased) all it really seems to be is a sorry attempt to "revolt" against christianity as a whole. If you notice everything you ever hear from my satanists is either has "satanism is this..." or "the church that....".

Really, all the "religion"(if you can call it that)is a self-centered and selfish group of individuals that are have no desire to help improve anything. 

I know this all sounds like I see it as all bad. There are interesting and valid points throughout the "religion". The idea about stupidity and lack of intelligence toward others i can understand. I run into people who i wished were never around. I have even said, "if I had a choice i would make stupidity illegal". I mainly feel this way due to the fact that as a druid were are to be true "druids". Meaning mentors, teachers, doctors, scientists. One of the main goals in our own lives is to learn as much as possible and help that continue. 

I see no advancement in using slavery widly as we used to. The things that happened with slavery is that we became dependent on it and our own human development became stagnant and "soft". I way through advancement is struggle. That is the main idea in evolution. Something has to come up so that we must change to meet it and survive.

The item I am arguing is: #7 on the satanic statements. It seems that satanism would wish that we would devolve, Give up all our advances in technology and science. This seems counterintuitive many because satanist's main or cardinal sin is Stupidity.

I don't see anything positive coming from this. 

You may ask that why do i believe that when I am a Druid and my "duty" if to be a guardian of nature. Well, with all evolution comes change. This also has affected nature as well. The rapid increase of people on this planet is destroying the homes of other animals. But in this case most humans are not serving a purpose, but are just taking up space. That is why I say if a human is not contributing to the advancement of society then they should be removed. Animals on the other hand are woven into the food chain. WE are not because we are tooo far above it. 

Oh DeLamar.J I would love to discuss this with you personally, I would like to see what you think of some other ideas. 

Plz get in contact with me by e-mail or through Aim.

Best regards
T3


----------



## DeLamar.J (May 26, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> :lol:  :lol:  :lol:



 :ultracool 



Ill be adding some interesting satanic material to this thread soon that should clear a few things up. And one more thing, I am not a official member of the church of satan, Id like to be, I just havent went through the process yet. So what Im trying to say is that I am not a speaker for the church.


----------



## DeLamar.J (May 26, 2005)

Now this thread will go somewhere.


Whether you admire (which I do) or loath Nietzsche there can be little disputing that, if he was nothing else, he was bold. Few have had the testicular fortitude to take the stands Nietzsche championed in the face of established moral authority, religious orthodoxy, and the prevailing sensibilities of the state. And there has been no such thing as an easy ride for his readers. Nietzsche challenges his readers to collaboratively sojourn with him on his various "thought experiments" and iconoclastic re-valuations of status quo assumption. The conclusions the reader is left with at the end of that journey tends to reflect as much about the reader's own biography as the message intended by Nietzsche. As a consequence, Nietzsche stands as perhaps one of the most misunderstood, inconsistently interpreted, and widely maligned social thinkers and philosophers of all time (not that he much cared).

Understanding the Anti-Christ as it was intended by Nietzsche may be best done by following the train of his thinking chronologically through his preceding works that build upon the basic premises set forth in his first work, Birth of Tragedy. For no where is the occasion for distorted interpretation and vilification greater than Nietzsche's late work, the Anti-Christ. Of course, Nietzsche invites much of this on himself beginning with his incendiary title and a text laced with in-your-face passages such as:

"Principle of `Christian love:' it wants to be well paid..."

"A certain sense of cruelty toward oneself and others is Christian; hatred of those who think differently; the will to persecute."

"Hatred of mind, of pride, courage, freedom, libertinage of mind is Christian; hatred of the senses, of the joy of the senses, of joy in general is Christian..."

"...the concepts `Beyond,' `Last Judgement,' `immortality of the soul,' the `soul' itself: they are instruments of torture, they are forms of systematic cruelty by virtue of which the priest has become master, stays master..."

"That strange and sick world to which the Gospels introduce us-a world like that of a Russian novel, in which the refuse of society, neurosis and `childlike' idiocy seem to make a rendezvous..."

"`Faith' has been at all times...only a cloak, a pretext, a screen, behind which the instincts played their game-a shrewd blindness to the dominance of certain instincts..." (I.e., "ressentiment"- resentment/envy/revenge)

"There are only bad instincts in the New Testament, there is not even the courage for these bad instincts. Everything in it is cowardice, everything is self-deception and closing one's eyes to oneself..."

"Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge..."

"The great lie of personal immortality destroys all rationality, all naturalness of instinct-all that is salutary, all that is life-furthering, all that holds a guarantee of the future in the instincts henceforth excites mistrust..."

"One must not let oneself be misled: they say `Judge not!' but they send to Hell everything that stands in their way. By allowing God to judge they themselves judge; by glorifying God they glorify themselves..."

"...their life of humility appears to be a duty, as humility it is one more proof of piety...Ah this humble, chaste, compassionate mode of mendaciousness...The reality is that here the most conscious arrogance of the elect is posing as modesty: one has placed oneself, the `community,' the `good and just,' once and for all on one side, on the side of `truth'-and the rest, `the world,' on the other...That has been the most fateful kind of megalomania that has ever existed on earth; little abortions of bigots and liars began to lay claim to the concepts "God,' `truth,' `light,' `spirit,' `love,' `wisdom,' `life' as if these were synomyms of themselves so as to divide themselves off from the `world..."

Should a devout Christian find these lines offensive? Naturally most no doubt have and will. But like Kierkegaard's critiques on "Christiandom" (which Nietzsche probably had not read), the Anti-Christ stands as a strong challenge that reflects what for many critically-minded individuals uninitiated to a Christian way of life are genuine stumbling blocks. Faith, it is assumed, must be predicated upon some personalized substance that extends beyond mere cultural obedience and lazy conformity. In the wake of a historical record that has been drenched in blood, repression, and cruelty, what exactly is the personal relevance of Jesus? A ticket to eternal life while holding onto a sense of comfortable superiority and entitlement in the interim? What about the moral teachings of Jesus? Have they ever truly been at the foundation of Christian institutions or have they been co-opted and contorted to alienate individuals from a deeper level of personal understanding that leads to morality that serves life?

There are two insidious tendencies in the human condition that Nietzsche sees as undermining healthy growth: fear and laziness. Nietzsche singles out the common practice of Christiandom to the extent that it manifests and propagates fear of becoming and the dulling effects of complacency. Nietzsche was an admirer of Jesus' bold vision and his courage to take a stand but he rejected his divinity and the religion built around him ("There has been only one Christian-he died on a cross"). Unlike his influential predecessor Schopenhauer, Nietzsche was not a nihilist. If Nietzsche "philosophized with a hammer" to sound out established idols and shibboleths, and when warranted, shatter them, it was to clear the way for what was more immediate and urgent to the human condition. That for Nietzsche, as illustrated poetically in Thus Spake Zarathustra, was to be fully alive now, learn to love fate, and to take full charge of all of one's senses, talents, and instincts and to bring them to bear creatively. Morality must develop from within the abundance of a life lived boldly, not from a repressive external system of coercion and reward.


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2005)

Arthur Schophenhaur was a _nihilist_?? Wha??  :idunno:

In any event, this is all well and good, but what has Nietzchean existentialism to do with "satanism"??


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 27, 2005)

So its ok to have satanism as a religion or belief, but not for someone in their mind to be a knight, soke, master, etc...?


----------



## Loki (Jun 13, 2005)

Testicular fortitude!! That's great! Haha!! 

1) I don't really get the idea of a religion in the first place if you're not looking for a community (i.e. herd). You can be part of a herd but stray off in your own direction if you like. That's how I see my life. I have my herd, but I follow it only when I see eye to eye with what it's going towards. Sometimes I find myself leading it in another direction.

2) It does sound like AynRandism to me too. It comes off as hedonistic and selfish (not self-interested). Focusing on yourself is a good thing, because you are the core of your universe, but disregarding others of lesser or no means to fend for themselves is cruel.

3) Naming it after Satan is to spite, that's all. It's a name that's meant to arouse anger and disgust. It's an extreme reaction to an extreme situation, much like Rand's philosophy of extreme self-interesr is an extreme reaction to the Communist regime under which she was raised.

~ Loki


----------



## ABI (Jun 13, 2005)

> 4.3. The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
> 
> 1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.


Isn't the starter of this thread breaking one of his religion's rules?

 :uhyeah:


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 13, 2005)

"I would love to hear everyones opinion on my religion."

 Nope, this is asking for opinions, which is allowed.


----------



## Pale Rider (Jun 13, 2005)

Isn't vanity one of Satan's biggest sins?  If so then this proves that regardless of whether or not a person actually believes in Satan/Lucifer but only believes in one's self - isn't that consider vanity?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 13, 2005)

It is a sin under a Christian set of beliefs.  This is not about Christian beliefs though.

 Depending on how you interepret things "God" could be seen as the evil one.

 Satan gave man the knowledge of good and evil, setting him free to make his own choices.

 God wanted to keep man enslaved without that freedom.

 Satan didn't flood the world and kill almost every living thing, God did.

 God is always the one doing the "Fear and worship me and only me!" thing (Vanity?)

 etc.


----------



## Ray (Jun 13, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> ...Depending on how you interepret things "God" could be seen as the evil one.
> 
> Satan gave man the knowledge of good and evil, setting him free to make his own choices.
> 
> God wanted to keep man enslaved without that freedom.


You don't know that Heavenly Father meant to kept Adam and Eve living in a state of not knowing good from evil.  In fact, God did give Adam and Eve a choice - to partake of a fruit or to not.

Since God is all-knowing, then it follows that He knew our first parents would partake of the fruit.  He had a plan to take care of the fall -- redemption.


			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Satan didn't flood the world and kill almost every living thing, God did.


Do you suppose that this life is all there is?  So God took nearly all of the inhabitants of the earth.  Do you suppose that is the eternal end for them?  Mankind was in an awful, sorry state at that time; very few people had a chance of choosing to be righteous, so great was the evil to which they were subjected.


			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> God is always the one doing the "Fear and worship me and only me!" thing (Vanity?)


God is the one who give a choice: he doesn't compel you [in this life] to worship him -- you can choose.


----------



## AWR (Jun 13, 2005)

I can't believe this thread made it's way on to this webiste.

You really have no idea what you are trifling with.  I certainly respect your
right to chose any "religion" that attracts you, but the end result of this
course of action will not be pleasant.

Satan is real - I've had the misfortune of direct experience so please don't
scoff at that remark.  There is nothing "divine" about him or those that 
serve him.

Man can not serve two masters, which is what you appear to be trying to do.

AWR


----------



## achilles (Jun 13, 2005)

Don't you think that this whole satanism thing is a little hippocritical?  How can you even begin to talk about rules or sins or any other a priori non-sense if you then make a point of rejecting the source of a priori values.  Honestly, how can you start rejecting social mores concerning child molestation, animal cruelty or any of that mating signal junk and still take on a completely aesthetic lifestyle, encourage others to do the same yet judge them?  Read up on your Sartre and Nietzsche.  If you want to get down to raw existence, it seems like you're just entering another realm of deception.  Spooky deception, but deception all the same.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 13, 2005)

AWR said:
			
		

> Man can not serve two masters, which is what you appear to be trying to do.


 Well...

 I'm no Satanist (or Christian for that matter) but it seems to me the idea here is to serve NO master, not two masters.  Serve yourself, not a supernatural diety.

 As for your taking offense to a thread on Satanism, there are a good many that might take offense to a thread on Christian beliefs too.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 13, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> You don't know that Heavenly Father meant


 Nor do you, or anyone else.  It is all peoples different interpretations.  Yours can't be proved anymore then what I proposed.


 [/QUOTE] Do you suppose that this life is all there is?
 [/QUOTE] 
 Actually, Yes, I do.



> God is the one who give a choice: he doesn't compel you [in this life] to worship him -- you can choose.


 And if you choose against...  well, I guess you'd better enjoy BBQ's...


----------



## Ray (Jun 13, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Nor do you, or anyone else. It is all peoples different interpretations. Yours can't be proved anymore then what I proposed.


Hmmm, you're right religion cannot be proven.  It's sometimes axiomatic, if you accept the fundamental axioms then the rest follows.  But no scientific experiments...



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Do you suppose that this life is all there is?





			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Actually, Yes, I do.


Reminds me of an old Smothers Bros skit about a "new religion" Dickie invented, they believed in "death after life."  Not much need for a religion if you don't believe in a life after death; just the decision wether hedonistic pleasure or "the greater good" makes life worth living, no?


			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> And if you choose against... well, I guess you'd better enjoy BBQ's...


I believe that if you honestly know what it is you're choosing against, then you reap the appropriate consequence.  But if you are correct that there is no life after death, then you have no worrys.


----------



## Jay Bell (Jun 15, 2005)

> BruceCalkins:
> 
> Sorry to disagree but Wicca is one of the oldest religions. Pre-Dates Catolic, and Most others. Satanic religion is even younger than Catolic dates.
> Wicca and the belief of Nature Based Studies started in the days of shaminism.



I'm sorry, that's incorrect.  rutherford and DavidCC were on the money.  What is referred to as "Wicca" today was a creation in the 50's.  The *19*50's, based on the writings of Gerald Gardner.

Back in college, wiccan pals of mine used to spread the same fluff...that it was the oldest religion, yaddayadda.  It just isn't true.

A good writeup on the matter was put together by religioustolerance.org, found here. 

It's definately time, in my opinion, that "Wiccans" get real with things and stop playing the "Mine's older and better" nonsense.


----------



## Pale Rider (Jun 15, 2005)

I don't want to sound redundant, believe me.  I have been in deep discussions about this topic on another forum, and it didn't get anywhere.  No matter how strong my beliefs were for Christianity there were others just as equally strong in their beliefs.  The only thing that I saw were heated arguements flared more then anything.

Just my opinion here based on what I have seen in other forums.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 21, 2005)

There are a few things I'd like to point out at this moment in the discussion:

1) Vanity or egoism is a "sin" not only in Christianity, but pretty much damn near any other major religious tradition in the world. There are certainly parallel ideas in the Upanishads, the Dharma, the Tao Te Ching, the Koran, and even the informal animism of much of Shinto. Since roughly 600 to 500 BCE, going all the way back to guys like Pythagoras, religion has in large part been defined as a process of the submission, extinguishing, and transcension of the self. Satanism, with its hedonistic streak (which, I should add, is directly antithetical to true humanism), goes in an opposite direction by giving exaltation to the self.

2) The idea that Jehovah might actually be an evil deity is surprisingly a quite old belief, going as far back as the second-century Christian leader Marcion (writing circa 140 CE), who distinguished between the Creator in the Jewish Torah and the Father of Jesus Christ. This concept is implied in certain parts of the older Pauline epistles, and most likely draws upon the Platonic notion of a demiurge ("craftman", a mediator-god between human beings and the One --- ironically enough, in the New Testament, Jesus' "false father" is a carpenter or a "craftsman" himself).

3) I should point out that the problems of Biblical mythology, evil, predestination, free will, and omniscience make for some of the most heated debates of Christendom.

4) I should further point out that saying "its okay for God to kill millions of people with the deluge (flood) because they have immortal souls" is the most slippery of all slopes imaginable. Especially to those of us who don't subscribe to the illusion of ego immortality.

5) I should again point out that the "choice" most often given to people in traditional Christianity mythology is: believe in Me, or fry. Not very loving, if you ask me.

6) Personally, I wouldn't be too apt to use Biblical mythology as a historical source for how things "really were" 3,000 years ago. Given that, since the rise of State Christianity, we have seen the Crusades, the Inquisition, and a still-waging religious war in Ireland, I would be reluctant to claim how "corrupt" things were at any given time in history.

7) I'm in agreement with achilles. You're better off with existentialism than satanism.

8) The argument that religion only works with "life after death" or that life is meaningless without "life after death" is one of the most self-serving arguments ever advanced in history. Its basically saying that, "agree with me or you're a nihilist!". Reality, of course, doesn't work that way. Buddhism and Taoism both reject the notion of personal immortality (for the most part) and they get along fine with the world (hey, and they didn't even have a single Crusade or Inquisition, either!). The either/or fallacy? No thanks.

9) Jay is right about the Wicca thing.

Later.  :asian:


----------



## Ray (Jun 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> There are a few things I'd like to point out at this moment in the discussion:
> 
> 4) I should further point out that saying "its okay for God to kill millions of people with the deluge (flood) because they have immortal souls" is the most slippery of all slopes imaginable. Especially to those of us who don't subscribe to the illusion of ego immortality.


If you don't believe that humankind possesses an eternal spirit, then do you believe that is was "okay" for God to have made humans as mortal beings who will perish anyway? If we are mortal, and created, then isn't the "millions" who died in the flood a small number compared to all of humanity that will die?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 6) Personally, I wouldn't be too apt to use Biblical mythology as a historical source for how things "really were" 3,000 years ago. Given that, since the rise of State Christianity, we have seen the Crusades, the Inquisition, and a still-waging religious war in Ireland, I would be reluctant to claim how "corrupt" things were at any given time in history.


Insofar as the Crusades go, there were certainly bad things done by the Crusaders...but do you believe that the Crusades were only unprovoked attacks on peace-loving Moslems/Muslims living at that time? Or was it a reaction to the armies of Islam giving less of a choice than you think God does (convert or die)?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 8) The argument that religion only works with "life after death" or that life is meaningless without "life after death" is one of the most self-serving arguments ever advanced in history.


Interesting point, but I came to a different conclusion. At some point in my life I believed that there was no life beyond this one and that, regardless of what I did, it was for naught. So why bother?


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Its basically saying that, "agree with me or you're a nihilist!". Reality, of course, doesn't work that way. Buddhism and Taoism both reject the notion of personal immortality (for the most part) and they get along fine with the world


Interestingly enough, Buddhism and Taoism reject our notion of Reality...at least they reject my notion of Reality (which may or may not be the one that "doesn't work that way"). "Getting along fine with the world" isn't the goal of most religions...and even though Buddhism would extinguish self and put aside all desires, there is still the desire for Satori, Nirvana the eventual uniting (reuniting?) with the "cosmic conciousness"....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 21, 2005)

SokeCalkins said:
			
		

> Sorry to disagree but Wicca is one of the oldest religions. Pre-Dates Catolic, and Most others. Satanic religion is even younger than Catolic dates.
> Wicca and the belief of Nature Based Studies started in the days of shaminism.


 Wicca per-say is a modern creation, based in part on ancient concepts and thoughts.
It isn't thousands of years old, but some of it's concepts are. It is a faith based around a god/goddess pantheon, with the goddess being the dominant figure.   Which goddess?  That is up to you in how you view Her. As a side note, I have included the major holidays of the pagan faiths in the MT calendar, along with the Jewish, Muslem, and Christian ones that I am aware of.

I had the pleasure of discussing such things a few years back with both Trish Telesco and Silver RavenWolf. I used to work with Paul Telesco, Trish's husband. Both are wonderful ladies, accepted experts in their field and published authors with numerous volumes out.  My own direction lies in a personalized blend of Taoism, Egyptian Mythos and more recently Zen.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 21, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> If you don't believe that humankind possesses an eternal spirit, then do you believe that is was "okay" for God to have made humans as mortal beings who will perish anyway? If we are mortal, and created, then isn't the "millions" who died in the flood a small number compared to all of humanity that will die?



Actually, I don't think murder is "okay". Ever.

You're the one that implied "God" killing millions of human beings and other animals was morally tolerable because they have "immortal souls" (whoops, animals don't have souls!!). Outside of self-protection, I don't think its morally tolerable in any case whatsoever. And that's just for human beings. A deity should be on much higher standards (what, with him being "perfectly good" and all).

So, in summation, I think murder is a bad thing. Soul or not. God or not.

This lopsided counterargument, of course, makes the flawed assumption that I believe in a "God" in the first place. It is, of course, all a matter of definition. However, "God" as most people use the term is really just a cosmologized projection of the individual's superego. "God" in many respects is very much like Santa Claus (the omniscient, omnipresent Patriarch with a slew of supernatural minion-helpers who thereby makes of list of who has been "good" and "bad" and judges them accordingly). The only difference is that, once our children have "grown up" enough, we teach them that the much more plausible story of Santa Claus is a myth.

For the record, I don't believe in a sociocentric, tribal deity of any sort. My understanding of the divine is just a wee bit more cross-cultural, universalistic, and perennialist. 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Insofar as the Crusades go, there were certainly bad things done by the Crusaders...but do you believe that the Crusades were only unprovoked attacks on peace-loving Moslems/Muslims living at that time? Or was it a reaction to the armies of Islam giving less of a choice than you think God does (convert or die)?



Uh, no. I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

What I _actually said_ was that you can't hardly call the epoch of time of roughly 3,000 years ago to be "universally corrupt" when you look at the horrors that have been done since State Christianity came to power.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Interesting point, but I came to a different conclusion. At some point in my life I believed that there was no life beyond this one and that, regardless of what I did, it was for naught. So why bother?



Y'see, that's the little thing I can't seem to abide by. I don't think I can change the universe around because I find it personally comforting. Of course, life is easier when there's a Big Daddy watching out for me that will make sure my wittle soul will go on forever and ever in the magical Sky Realm. 

But, uh, it still remains a logical fallacy that something MUST be true because, gosh-darn-it-all, it makes life so much more yummy that way.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> "Getting along fine with the world" isn't the goal of most religions...



No, it isn't. 

But, again, if you _actually read what I said_, I wasn't at all talking about the "goal of most religions". I was countering your either/or fallacy that there must be a "life after death" or there is no meaning to life, or more to the point, no meaning to religion. Buddhism and Taoism are living contradictions to this absolutistic illusion.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> and even though Buddhism would extinguish self and put aside all desires, there is still the desire for Satori, Nirvana the eventual uniting (reuniting?) with the "cosmic conciousness"....



Um, well, yeah. No news here.

I suggest you actually immerse yourself in Buddhist literature if you're going to argue the finer points of Buddhist philosophy. The notion that the desire for Nirvana is exactly what prevents one from knowing Nirvana is a pretty well-established teaching in various Buddhist schools.

Honestly, Ray, I suggest you fine-tune your skills in logical discourse and actually _read_ what the other guy is saying --- as opposed to distorting things with strawmen arguments.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 21, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> [Wicca] isn't thousands of years old, but some of it's concepts are.



The key word being "some".


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't think murder is "okay". Ever.
> 
> You're the one that implied "God" killing millions of human beings and other animals was morally tolerable because they have "immortal souls" (whoops, animals don't have souls!!). Outside of self-protection, I don't think its morally tolerable in any case whatsoever. And that's just for human beings. A deity should be on much higher standards (what, with him being "perfectly good" and all).
> 
> ...


HEY?! Who says animals don't have souls? lol.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 22, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> HEY?! Who says animals don't have souls? lol.



Last time I checked, the Church.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 22, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, the Church.


 Church of what?


----------



## Ray (Jun 22, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Y'see, that's the little thing I can't seem to abide by. I don't think I can change the universe around because I find it personally comforting. Of course, life is easier when there's a Big Daddy watching out for me that will make sure my wittle soul will go on forever and ever in the magical Sky Realm.
> 
> But, uh, it still remains a logical fallacy that something MUST be true because, gosh-darn-it-all, it makes life so much more yummy that way.


Are you implying/assuming that I "decided to believe in God because it made my life more tolerable?" 


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I suggest you actually immerse yourself in Buddhist literature if you're going to argue the finer points of Buddhist philosophy.


At one point in my life, I was more up on Buddhism; so I'll admit I'm a little rusty on it; and I've gotten rid of most of the books I had on the subject.  But you're right, an honest evaluation of other points of view is a healthy thing; we truely miss out when we just off-handly dismiss what other people hold sacred...But apparently you'd rather just belittle what other people believe, with the scantest hint of knowing what it is they believe:


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Y'see, that's the little thing I can't seem to abide by. I don't think I can change the universe around because I find it personally comforting. Of course, life is easier when there's a Big Daddy watching out for me that will make sure my wittle soul will go on forever and ever in the magical Sky Realm.
> 
> But, uh, it still remains a logical fallacy that something MUST be true because, gosh-darn-it-all, it makes life so much more yummy that way.


Thanks for the tolerance.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 22, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Are you implying/assuming that I "decided to believe in God because it made my life more tolerable?"



Uh, no. Again, read what people are actually saying to you instead of projecting ad hominems.

If you read my argument _in context_, then what I _actually said_ was in reference to the logical argument you were putting forth in support of the existence of "God". You stated, and I quote, 

'At some point in my life I believed that there was no life beyond this one and that, regardless of what I did, it was for naught. So why bother?'

This particular argument states that there MUST be a "God" for no other reason than it gives meaning to one's life. This is a preposterously weak logical premise.

And that, Ray, was what I was referring to --- the logical argument you advanced, not whatever your motivations for your personal beliefs are (wich, to be blunt, I don't have slightest clue of).



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> But apparently you'd rather just belittle what other people believe, with the scantest hint of knowing what it is they believe:
> Thanks for the tolerance.



Once again, projecting strawmen ad hominems in place of an actual logical rebuttal. Surprise, surprise.   

I suppose its convenient to interpret any logical disagreement with one's position as a "personal attack" or "belittling", but this again is nothing short of logical fallacy itself. But, this has really less to do with "tolerance" and more to do with an apparent indignance at one's logical arguments being deconstructed.

"Tolerance" does not mean "accept whatever I say at face value without any question whatsoever". Well, at least not how most people use the word.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 22, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Church of what?



The Roman Catholic Church, among others. This is also the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the bulk of the Protestant denominations I have had experience with (Baptist, Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc).

This is why both deceased pets and those that commit suicide are not permitted to be buried within church grounds by most of these sects.


----------



## Ray (Jun 22, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Uh, no. Again, read what people are actually saying to you instead of projecting ad hominems.
> 
> If you read my argument _in context_, then what I _actually said_ was in reference to the logical argument you were putting forth in support of the existence of "God". You stated, and I quote,
> 
> ...


You do impress me with your intelligence.  But my thought that this mortal life seems worthless to me if this is all there wasn't meant as a "logical proof" of God's existence.  It was just one of the thoughts that had occurred to me over the years.  I wouldn't dream of trying to logically prove that God exists.


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 22, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This is why both deceased pets and those that commit suicide...


How bad must life be in your household for your pet to commit suicide?!  

*ducks*


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> You do impress me with your intelligence.



At this point, I should mention that the logical analyzing I provided in the above posts really has little to do with "intelligence" per se. It it something any 18-year-old with interest in a Critical Thinking course could do with fairly little difficulty.

I mean, really, the recognition of strawmen arguments and projection of ad hominems is really, really basic stuff.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> But my thought that this mortal life seems worthless to me if this is all there wasn't meant as a "logical proof" of God's existence.  It was just one of the thoughts that had occurred to me over the years.  I wouldn't dream of trying to logically prove that God exists.



Regardless of your intent, this "thought" was presented as a logical argument in support of your position. As such, it was to be treated accordingly.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> How bad must life be in your household for your pet to commit suicide?!
> 
> *ducks*



:mrtoilet:


----------



## Ray (Jun 23, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Regardless of your intent, this "thought" was presented as a logical argument in support of your position. As such, it was to be treated accordingly.


Nope.  You may have mistaken it as a logical argument in support of my position, but it was not.

However, you are welcome to treat it in any fashion you like.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2005)

Sure, Ray. Whatever you say.   

That being said, there is another issue I'd like to bring up...



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Hmmm, you're right religion cannot be proven. It's sometimes axiomatic, if you accept the fundamental axioms then the rest follows. But no scientific experiments...



This statement is only true insofar as one holds to a rigidly narrow conception of both religion and science. 

It is narrow science, in that it denies applying the scientific method to non-material paradigms (a materialism which disenfranchises not only religion and philosophy, but also psychology, anthropology, mathematics, logic, etc). It is narrow religion, in that it denies significance to actual religious _practices_ (such as, for example, contemplative prayer or meditation), in lieu of nothing but ideological beliefs in their stead.

This conceptualization, of course, is quite in keeping with Stephen Jay Gould's rather naive and simplistic 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria', as well as many other people's understanding of the relationship of religion and science. That doesn't change the fact it doesn't really work in reality.

When we abandon these narrow conceptions of religion and science, then the above conceptualization (that science and religion are somehow "exclusive" of one another) loses any substantive weight.

For a more in-depth discussion of this theme, I would suggest Ken Wilber's _The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion_.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Jun 23, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It is narrow religion, in that it denies significance to actual religious _practices_ (such as, for example, contemplative prayer or meditation), in lieu of nothing but ideological beliefs in their stead.


Meditation isn't strictly a religous practice. And there are other practices which religious people may do because of their belief, but these practices may be done non-religious people because they believe it's right to do (like feeding the hungry, visiting the widows and orphans, rehabbing people who need help). I'm not sure that even prayer is strictly a religious practice.

I may have a definition of religion that has tighter specifications that you do. When I define religion it has to do with a deity, deities, cosmic consiousness, or spirituality and so on...but probably not Jung's collective consiousness. Ideological beliefs without actions are worthless (or "Faith without works is dead"), but works without faith is still good.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> It is narrow science, in that it denies applying the scientific method to non-material paradigms (a materialism which disenfranchises not only religion and philosophy, but also psychology, anthropology, mathematics, logic, etc).


Using the scientific method on the items in your list is valid as far as I'm concerned.

"But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words." {Alma 32:27}.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> This conceptualization, of course, is quite in keeping with Stephen Jay Gould's rather naive and simplistic 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria', as well as many other people's understanding of the relationship of religion and science. That doesn't change the fact it doesn't really work in reality.


What doesn't really work in reality? 


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> For a more in-depth discussion of this theme, I would suggest Ken Wilber's _The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion_.


Thanks for the suggestion. I might pick it up.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Meditation isn't strictly a religous practice. And there are other practices which religious people may do because of their belief, but these practices may be done non-religious people because they believe it's right to do (like feeding the hungry, visiting the widows and orphans, rehabbing people who need help). I'm not sure that even prayer is strictly a religious practice.



The meditations and contemplative prayers I'm referring to _are_ religious practices, insofar as they are methods handed down for centuries from established religious traditions (most often monastic communities).

This notion that praying and meditating can be done in a "secular way" is true, insofar as one takes the elements of these prior practices and dumbs them down to align with a modern audience. This is why many moderns regularly take Zen classes and think its little more than "relaxing" or "stress reduction". Its also the same with people that understand yoga as "Indian stretching".

In these cases, my guess is money was the motivating factor behind this dumbing-down process...



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I may have a definition of religion that has tighter specifications that you do. When I define religion it has to do with a deity, deities, cosmic consiousness, or spirituality and so on...but probably not Jung's collective consiousness.



First off, its "collective unconscious".

Secondly, I'm not sure what this has to do with definitions concerning "religion" (admittedly, there are many). All of the terms you used ("deity", "cosmic consciousness", "spirituality") are just as open-ended as "religion".

Thirdly, my point was that you can't apply the scientific method to "religion" as long as you divorce active practice from religious expression. When referring to religious traditions of contemplative practice, however, its all fair game to "scientists".



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> What doesn't really work in reality?



Gould's notion that "religion" and "science" (which he apparently defines as subjectivity and objectivity) can be neatly compartmentalized, separated, and isolated. Reality doesn't work like that.

Laterz.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 23, 2005)

==============================================
*Mod Note:*

 Please keep this discussion on the original topic - Satanism.

 Thank you.

 -Dan Bowman-
 -MT Moderator-
 ==============================================


----------



## Seabrook (Jul 28, 2005)

Everyone in life has the freedom to choose what they believe in, whether good or bad. 

My beliefs are in complete contrast to everything of satanism. Here's my beliefs, taken right off my church's website:


[font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Every person is *loved* by God. This is so they may _receive_, _repent_, and be _reconciled_ to God and to one another.[/font] 

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Every person needs a moral *compass*, which is the Bible, the Word of God.  It will _guide_, _guard_, and _grow_ them for life.[/font] 

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Every believer has unique *gifts* from God.  This brings _significance_, _servanthood_, and _strength_ to their lives and to the body of Christ.[/font] 

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Every believer has a *role* in _modeling_, _mentoring_, and _mobilizing_ the kingdom of God globally.[/font] 
Jamie Seabrook


----------

