My religion is satanism

[Jay Bell]

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 1950'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]

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]

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]

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?

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)?

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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]

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

The key word being "some".

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

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

 

[heretic888]

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

Last time I checked, the Church.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Last time I checked, the Church.

Church of what?

 

[Ray]

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?"

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:

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]

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).

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

*ducks*

:mrtoilet:

 

[Ray]

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]

Sure, Ray. Whatever you say.

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

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]

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.

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}.

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?

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.