View Full Version : Guess This Religion...
Yobor
13-12-2005, 10:00 PM
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. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
8. Do not harm little children.
9. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
10. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
What does this religion sound like?
Blood-Pigggy
13-12-2005, 10:07 PM
Um, either you're exaggerating a religion, or that's the Zulu warfare religion celebrated in the more warlike tribes about a few hundred years ago or so.
Yobor
13-12-2005, 10:38 PM
No, it's a religion. It's metaphorical der. :-P Guess it.
TheVoid
13-12-2005, 10:56 PM
I know what that is. Let's say it's more of an "alternative" religion than a largely accepted cult. :whistle:
yobor, this religion sounds like a really good idea especially
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.
** 8. Do not harm little children.
9. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
actually they are all good rules but those are my faves from the list.
if it turns out to be christianty im gonna be right annoyed.
reminds me of some verses I read in the satanic bible.(I'm NOT a satanist btw).
Chuck the plant
13-12-2005, 11:49 PM
It IS from the satanic bible. :yawn:
Yobor
13-12-2005, 11:53 PM
Yeah definitely Church of Satan doctrine. I left out the magic dealie- one.
wendymaree
14-12-2005, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by omg@Dec 14 2005, 12:06 AM
if it turns out to be christianty im gonna be right annoyed.
Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek...that is, not to react if someone does something that you don't like. I've come to understand this, I think. In the big picture, it doesn't matter what people do to you. This doesn't reflect on you at all. It's only how you react to other people that shows what kind of person you are.
Hey, I've broken rule no 1 from the satanic bible. Yippee.
eek, does this make me a satanist then? i agree with all the rules except 1. evryone is entitled to express there opinions. and rule 2 seems against moaning. im english. its my right to moan.
Well, there are different trains of thought in regards to satanists from what I've learned.
Basically all the satanic bible does is reverse all of the sins to be virtues and all of the virtues to be sins. It was kind of interesting to read, but I also find the fact that most satanists are atheists quite annoying. They harp on the stupidity of christianity but don't realize that without it they wouldn't exist so they are hypocrites. It's basically a suped-up version of hedonism.
@wendy, technically you didn't break any rules because this is an open forum, and if anyone reads in here they are implying that they have interest in what we all have to say. Anyone who complains about your talking is breaking the rule about complaining about things they don't have to open themselves to(rule 7). You can still be a heathen if you want :twisted:
but that seems crazy to me. like thou shall not kill.. so to reverse it means, thou shall kill right.. but that goes against rule 9 doesnt it,? of course it says nothing against killing humans per se.. but then in the ten commandments it says thou shall not kill.. it doesnt specify species.
Yes, but there is always a loophole. Look at any war through out history. They two sides always thought they were out for the greater good, and justified the act of mass murder with their holy dogma.
yeah fair does man. i hate the way religion is twisted to allow people to kill each other, but if satanism is just reverseing the christian virtues then like hang on *goes to dig up bible*
ahem, sod that 2 drunk, ahh google
1: "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..." - This commandment is to believe in the existence of God.
so he isnt the lord then? but surely as you belive in satan then there has to be a god..? o wait satan is the creator is it?
2: "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
aww cmon, i agree with the satanists here, sculpture is cool
3: "You shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord..." - This commandment is to never take the name of God in a vain oath. In Exodus, the text reads "in a vain oath" (לא תשא את שם ה' לשוא), while in Deuteronomy it reads "in a false oath" (לא תשא שם ה' לשקר).
so satanists spend all there time saying "oh for gods sake" or "jesus christ you son of a female dog" ect ...
4: "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy" (the version in Deuteronomy mentions "Keep" rather than "Remember")
black sabbath rule! i thought satanists like the sabbath....
5: "Honor your father and your mother..." - This commandment is a development when compared to other laws of the Ancient East (for example, the Code of Hammurabi) that do not call for equal respect of the father and the mother.
ok so satanists dishonour there parents, but hang on, does that make evry teenager a satanist?
6: "You shall not murder" - The Hebrew Bible makes a distinction between murdering and killing (see Jewish interpretation below).
but if you are a satanist that reads as "dont murder unless you eat what you murder"
so ted bundy is pretty cool is it?
7: "You shall not commit adultery"
well hey, as a married man im with the satanists for reverseing that one ....
8: "You shall not steal" (sometimes interpreted as kidnapping, since there are other injunctions against stealing property in the Bible).
so satanists you are required by your own law to steal. have fun in prison, just a hint here though guys ,,, dont drop the soap!
9: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
hey satanists, lets go reverse that one. of course you freaky satan worshipping guys have never heard of the rule of life that states "never defecate on your own doorstep"
10: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..." (in Exodus, the text reads "... neighbor's house, ... neighbor's wife, nor his manservant..." etc. while in Deuteronomy, "thy neighbor's wife, ... thy neighbor's house, his field" etc.)
so. satanists are required by there own law to constantly desire the possesions of people around them.. mm fun..
this explains why satanists dont smile a lot really. and at the end of the day if you are following the princepts of reverseing evrything in the bible then like i hope you like it in prison, just remeber what i said abaout the soap ...
Originally posted by Evad@Dec 13 2005, 08:52 PM
They harp on the stupidity of christianity but don't realize that without it they wouldn't exist so they are hypocrites.
Excuse me, would you care to explain that?
Originally posted by Evad@Dec 13 2005, 08:52 PM
Basically all the satanic bible does is reverse all of the sins to be virtues and all of the virtues to be sins.
Assuming that you mean the actual publication known as "The Satanic Bible" by LaVey, then you're way off. It's actually a collection of essays and poems, to put it very roughly, and is divided into four books on various topics.
As for the follow-ups about the reversal of sins and virtues, that's also way off-base. The "inversionism" of Satanism is about the belief that one is his/her own God, whereas the traditional Judeo-Christian belief is that there exists a higher power. It's the belief that you are the master of your own destiny versus the belief that your life follows the plan of a greater being.
That said, I'm Roman Catholic, but to have an at all meaningful debate you should at least know what the hell you're talking about. It's not like you don't have access to the internet to at least do some cursory research.
Originally posted by plix+Dec 13 2005, 09:05 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (plix @ Dec 13 2005, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-Evad@Dec 13 2005, 08:52 PM
Basically all the satanic bible does is reverse all of the sins to be virtues and all of the virtues to be sins.
As for the follow-ups about the reversal of sins and virtues, that's also way off-base. The "inversionism" of Satanism is about the belief that one is his/her own God, whereas the traditional Judeo-Christian belief is that there exists a higher power. It's the belief that you are the master of your own destiny versus the belief that your life follows the plan of a greater being.
That said, I'm Roman Catholic, but to have an at all meaningful debate you should at least know what the hell you're talking about. It's not like you don't have access to the internet to at least do some cursory research. [/b][/quote]
"Assuming that you mean the actual publication known as "The Satanic Bible" by LaVey, then you're way off. It's actually a collection of essays and poems, to put it very roughly, and is divided into four books on various topics."
Although your description is admittedly better then mine, I was hardly off base. A simple google search could tell you that.
http://churchofsatan.com/Pages/NineStatements.html
These are the 9 statments of LaYey that sum up his brand of Satanism, and they are obviously geared diametricly towards the nine noble virtues that I meantioned previously. They ARE included in the satanic bible.
"As for the follow-ups about the reversal of sins and virtues, that's also way off-base...".
As for my follow up, It had nothing to do with the reversal of the virtues, as I covered that in my opening sentence. My followup explained why Satanists annoy me(which I will cover in the next sentence). Maybe you should re-read my initial post and reorginize your rebuttle.
The "inversionism" of Satanism is about the belief that one is his/her own God, whereas the traditional Judeo-Christian belief is that there exists a higher power.
This is what I was getting at when I said satanists annoy me. They knock Christians for blindly following a dogmatic ridged structured religion and preach that they are their own God.. Well I don't see how Satanists are any different from say a Catholic. Why not just say this is ME, instead of labling yourself a satanist?The answer: because they are as much sheep as the christians they pupose to hate are. Instead of thinking up their own philosophies they latch on to someone elses. Just stupid in my opinion, and pathetic too.
"It's the belief that you are the master of your own destiny versus the belief that your life follows the plan of a greater being."
They also believe that you can influence anothers fate as well no? Through spells? LaVey is also the man who coined the term "Emotional Vampire. Wouldn't these beliefs contradict what you have said as they are out of the "victims" control?
I am guilty of making a badly worded generalization, but way off base is a flat out fabrication of facts. I'm not sure why you would feel the need to discredit me, but whatever I did to make you so mad, I appoligise for here.
"They harp on the stupidity of christianity but don't realize that without it they wouldn't exist so they are hypocrites."<---me
Excuse me, would you care to explain that? <---you
Satan is a Christian character/theme/myth. Basically LaVey plagerized the idea from Christianity. It would follow with this train of thought, that without christianity, Satanism would be called by another name. And lets face it, the fact that they even call themselves satanists is just shock value. This is what I meant. No Christianity, no super-dupper shock extraviganza name. satanists are suckling at the tit of all of christianity.
lethe
14-12-2005, 05:26 AM
Lavey was a clown in a circus, and he knew that very well. That was what he performed, and he did it in a terrific way. The satyr between free invididual vs religion and Satanism vs Christiniaty is well achieved. Actually I'd consider myself satanist according to Lavey, but I'd refuse the acceptance of a Satan character, simply because I would need to believe in a godly character as well (many so called "satanists" seem to forget this).
Originally posted by Evad@Dec 14 2005, 12:01 AM
As for my follow up, It had nothing to do with the reversal of the virtues, as I covered that in my opening sentence. My followup explained why Satanists annoy me(which I will cover in the next sentence). Maybe you should re-read my initial post and reorginize your rebuttle.
I was generalizing in response to the majority of the thread that followed what you posted (since what you posted was rather tearse and factually correct). My rebuttal was targetted at those who were misrepresenting your overgeneralization that Satanism is simply the inversion of the entire Bible, when it isn't (as you yourself noted).
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Evad")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is what I was getting at when I said satanists annoy me. They knock Christians for blindly following a dogmatic ridged structured religion and preach that they are their own God.. Well I don't see how Satanists are any different from say a Catholic. Why not just say this is ME, instead of labling yourself a Satanist? The answer: because they are as much sheep as the christians they pupose to hate are. Instead of thinking up their own philosophies they latch on to someone elses. Just stupid in my opinion, and pathetic too.[/b][/quote]
Actually, Satanists dog Christians for following a greater being rather than acting for themselves. You then start to make statements which are anti-religion, and hence seem to be a little out-of-context here. Satanism is a religion, which you criticize for being a shared belief. In this way it is, of course, no different than any other religion including Roman Catholicism.
It's not a contradiction to believe that you only answer to yourself and at the same time share that belief with others. Even still, not all Satanists are members of the Church of Satan or another satanic organization.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Evad")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They also believe that you can influence anothers fate as well no? Through spells? LaVey is also the man who coined the term "Emotional Vampire. Wouldn't these beliefs contradict what you have said as they are out of the "victims" control?[/b][/quote]
The "spells" of Satanism are actually more like prayers than illusions. A lot of it is based upon Aleister Crowley's idea of "magick" (note the spelling) and is about inducing naturally possible change rather than exerting unnatural influence. So no, those beliefs don't contradict the core tenants of Satanism.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Evad")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It would follow with this train of thought, that without christianity, Satanism would be called by another name. And lets face it, the fact that they even call themselves satanists is just shock value.[/b][/quote]
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't exactly sure what you were trying to imply originally. That said, the name "Satanism" isn't a ploy intended for shock value (hence why the "pop-Satanists" of the Marilyn Manson era are so laughable), but is actually derived from the idea of "Satan" not as the anti-Christ/anti-God, but as an embodiment of free will, specifically the freedom to act in an "bad" way (for lack of a better term).
Originally posted by lethe@Dec 14 2005, 01:26 AM
...but I'd refuse the acceptance of a Satan character, simply because I would need to believe in a godly character as well (many so called "satanists" seem to forget this).
Satanism is the rejection of all deities and the belief that you are alone responsible for your own spiritual/moral development. It's not about worshipping "Satan."
its the term that confuses people i think. sort of hard to judge between your freedom loving smack injecting acid head satanists and your sacrificing babies to baphomet or belial, whatever satanists. why didnt they just call themselfs something else?
some suggestions
freedomists
heroinists
conning rich people out from there money ists
wendymaree
14-12-2005, 07:16 AM
Well, I know nothing about this, I must admit - except I knew a very bombastic, angry, mixed up guy once who said he was a satanist in his past and that did involve full on satan worship and involvement. He said he was also involved in some kind of occult rituals and magical working and developed some kind of powers...which was the attraction. However when he left this satanic cult, he said, and I quote: 'When the devil discovered he could no longer control me, he tried to kill me.'
I know all this sounds very weird, and this guy was a very weird person, but he did seem to genuinely experience horrors during the times when he was involved in this cult.
Aristharus
14-12-2005, 07:55 AM
I'd say read Wikipedia's article about Satanism. That'll probably clear a few things up.
its the term that confuses people i think. sort of hard to judge between your freedom loving smack injecting acid head satanists and your sacrificing babies to baphomet or belial, whatever satanists. why didnt they just call themselfs something else?
There is a reason for the term Satanism. It doesn't mean they'd worship Satan as a higher being, but they do hold The Bible's tale of Lucifer opposing God and becoming banished from Heaven (or however it goes) in high regard. Satan isn't thought of as evil, but as an independent thinker that didn't accept God's dictatorship.
Well, I know nothing about this, I must admit - except I knew a very bombastic, angry, mixed up guy once who said he was a satanist in his past and that did involve full on satan worship and involvement. He said he was also involved in some kind of occult rituals and magical working and developed some kind of powers...which was the attraction. However when he left this satanic cult, he said, and I quote: 'When the devil discovered he could no longer control me, he tried to kill me.'
I know all this sounds very weird, and this guy was a very weird person, but he did seem to genuinely experience horrors during the times when he was involved in this cult.
Read the chapter Gothic Satanism from the Wikipedia article.
Chuck the plant
14-12-2005, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by lethe@Dec 14 2005, 07:26 AM
but I'd refuse the acceptance of a Satan character, simply because I would need to believe in a godly character as well (many so called "satanists" seem to forget this).
Word! :ok:
@ Aristharus: Yet, by the very mentioning of a "satan" - not to mention by deriving their name from "him" - "satanists" acknowledge and imply the existence of this character, and therefore in turns also the existence of his counterpart, "God", be it even only in a metamophorical way. Deal with it, it was simply a stupid idea to go by that name to start with, because it's self-contradictory as anything... or, more likely, the first "satanists" felt soooooo evil and unruly by alligning themself with such an image... What a Kindergarten of "free spirits" :ph34r: LOL
@ omg:
Satanists who like Black Sabbath
a ) never paid much attention to the lyrics or
b ) only know the "Ronny James Dio"-phase... :whistle:
EDIT: Am I the only one who finds that "do not harm little children" a bit disturbing? To me this stricture somehow seems like "as soon as they're ripe, they're prey"... :ranting:
Tulac
14-12-2005, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by plix@Dec 14 2005, 09:01 AM
Satanism is the rejection of all deities and the belief that you are alone responsible for your own spiritual/moral development. It's not about worshipping "Satan."
By that logic every atheist is a satanist? :blink:
TheChosen
14-12-2005, 01:09 PM
Im not going to take a part in this religious talk...
punch999
14-12-2005, 02:27 PM
I am a agnostic in every way but leaning actually towards the Pagan way of life.
The problem with all relgions are is that they think they are better then all the others.
Himmler
14-12-2005, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Chuck the plant@Dec 14 2005, 12:26 PM
[quote]
EDIT: Am I the only one who finds that "do not harm little children" a bit disturbing? To me this stricture somehow seems like "as soon as they're ripe, they're prey"... :ranting:
you can't harm the little children because they are defendless...
Chuck the plant
14-12-2005, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Himmler@Dec 14 2005, 05:30 PM
you can't harm the little children because they are defendless...
Wow, THAT's some serious news.
That wasn't what I was talking about at all, though.
Originally posted by TheChosen@Dec 14 2005, 05:09 PM
Im not going to take a part in this religious talk...
it's ok, you don't have to if you don't want to. :bye:
As for the little children, the text doesn't say you should harm large children, in fact it as far as I got from your discussion it discurages senseless violence (picking fights and such), in favor of vengance to those who actualy deserved it (what could a child possibly do to a grown person like yourself?).
Chuck the plant
14-12-2005, 04:23 PM
Well, being "bothered" by someone is clearly stated as reason enough for that person to be "destroyed". They don't need to actually harm anyone, just bother them. Some people consider the mere existence of a certain person as "bothering". And children can be VERY bothersome at times. And why would one not talk about children in general, but stress the fact, that those children have to be small in order to be "protected" anyway, if not to clearly make a distinction, mark a line? And where would that line be anyway?
Originally posted by Tulac
By that logic every atheist is a satanist?
Yes, that's a core tenant of both beliefs. However, it's an over-generalization. What you're implying is that, essentially, Judaism and Catholicism are the same because they both, at their core, believe in the existance of a deity.
In actuality, Atheism and Satanism are categorized as being "Left-Hand Path" belief systems, a system which is based on the fundamental belief that there exists no greater being, only the "self." The "Right-Hand Path" systems believe that there does exist a greater being, such religions as Judaism, Christianity, etc.
What differentiates Atheism and Satanism is the "small stuff" -- the same less fundamental beliefs that separate Christianity and Judaism.
Yobor
14-12-2005, 09:54 PM
The Satan of The Church of Satan is different from the one in Christianity in almost every way. He is much more pagan than Christian based. Check out this link for more details (Unbiased third party site) http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis1.htm
To quote from the official CoS website, "We are a peaceful and life-loving religion". I emailed the CoS and got this in response:
>(Me) Hi! I am a fifteen year old who is interested in learning more about
>> Satanism. However, I do not have 200 dollars to join. In addition, many
>> people in my community are afraid and stupid, and don't bother to listen
>> past the word "Satan". I have never agreed so much with one document as
>> I have with the tenents of Satanism. I would just like to thank the
>> Church of Satan for existing.
Dear Mr. -------:
Thank you for your kind words.
At your young age it is best to study many different religions and
philosophies so that you can eventually be certain which one suits you best.
Satanism is taken up out of study and understanding human nature, so it is
important to learn about history, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and
science so that you can have evidence to back up your decision.
Also, it is very important to do well in school, as that will be a
foundation for whatever career you select.
Best wishes,
Administration
Church of Satan
Also, one of the reasons many Satanists are atheist is because the Church of Satan's teachings are exactly what many atheists believe, and they can unify under the CoS in order to help eachother with the pressure of "Stupid" people. Also, the religion is much more focused on the individual's perception of things, and is less organised than say, Christianity.
Evad, your idea of Satanism is all about devils and pitchforks. Satan to a Satanist is more like a symbol of nature and virility. Afterall, even the concept of Satan was taken, or absorbed from the Pagans, for who else is Satan but Poseidon, with his trident, and Hades, with his underworld?
The Ancient Egyptians prayed to their gods through magic spells as well.
One of the main philosophies of the CoS's Satanism is to love those who deserve your love, while being neutral about the rest.
TheVoid
14-12-2005, 10:19 PM
As much as I try, I just can't take this "religion" seriously.
Yobor
14-12-2005, 10:20 PM
?
It is just as legitimate as any other belief system.
About little children. On their site they specifically mention that children and animals are close to the power of life, and that they are sacred. They also say you should never take a persons life AGAINST THEIR WILL. This last statement made me wonder, but supposedly all the sacrifice mumbo jumbo is just hollywood right.
From what I've read on the curch of"S" web site they believe in the darkside. As chuck said ths implies there is a lightside. These two polarities represent what is customarily and historically viewed to be the Devil and God.I would like to view more of their literature to become informed. To bad you have to buy it all. Their bible isn't even free. Reminds me of scientology actually.
Yobor
14-12-2005, 11:47 PM
Grr. Scientology is crazy. But yes you have to buy them. This religion (CoS), unlike some others, has few actual churches, yet many members (Many as in, 10,000 in America) So how do else they get money to run the church?
Anyway, there is NO sacrifice in the CoS. None. Life is sacred, to a point, but there is absolutely no sacrifice.
punch999
14-12-2005, 11:59 PM
Erik erik erik.... We are going to need to talk about your new obsession.
Chuck the plant
15-12-2005, 12:34 AM
What I find MOST appealing about all those oh-so-free-minded "individualists" that the satanists are supposed to be is the fact that they obviously feel such a dire need for a common label and to use this label to identify themselves as a like minded mass... :angel:
Bp103
15-12-2005, 01:06 AM
it sounds like splinter cell to me LOL
Originally posted by Chuck the plant@Dec 14 2005, 08:34 PM
What I find MOST appealing about all those oh-so-free-minded "individualists" that the satanists are supposed to be is the fact that they obviously feel such a dire need for a common label and to use this label to identify themselves as a like minded mass... :angel:
Just like the Libertarians, the Anarchists, etc. Hell, I'm an individualist but I'm also an American. Does that make me a hypocrite? Satanists identify themselves with a school of thought because it's an easy way to explain them, though it doesn't define them. That's the entire point.
As an aside, how did you happen to come to the conclusion that all -- or even most -- Satanists feel a "...[dire need] to identify themselves as a like minded mass"?
"Satanists identify themselves with a school of thought because it's an easy way to explain them..."
"as an aside, how did you happen to come to the conclusion that all -- or even most -- Satanists feel a "...[dire need] to identify themselves as a like minded mass"?
These seem to contradict each other. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Wanting to fit in is not bad. Actually I believe people have it built into them to fit in. I'd even go as far to say this is a dire need. Anyone who proposes to the opposite is often times just rebelling against rejection or suffering from extreme insecurity. On this same note, I also think catering to an unfit ideology just to fit in can also stem from insecurity or rebellion. In either case it is dumb.
ps. I wish I was told my my religious leaders as a youth to excel in school. I was actually told that this earth would be over before I was 18 years old, and that instead of persuing selfish things like knowledge or wealth that I should increase the flock. I am impressed that the CoS admin told you to study as many religous philosophies as possible. Even though I can't bring myself to ally myself to this ideology you would do well to follow his advise young one.
Aristharus
15-12-2005, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Evad@Dec 15 2005, 10:39 AM
"Satanists identify themselves with a school of thought because it's an easy way to explain them..."
"as an aside, how did you happen to come to the conclusion that all -- or even most -- Satanists feel a "...[dire need] to identify themselves as a like minded mass"?
These seem to contradict each other. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Wanting to fit in is not bad. Actually I believe people have it built into them to fit in. I'd even go as far to say this is a dire need. Anyone who proposes to the opposite is often times just rebelling against rejection or suffering from extreme insecurity. On this same note, I also think catering to an unfit ideology just to fit in can also stem from insecurity or rebellion. In either case it is dumb.
ps. I wish I was told my my religious leaders as a youth to excel in school. I was actually told that this earth would be over before I was 18 years old, and that instead of persuing selfish things like knowledge or wealth that I should increase the flock. I am impressed that the CoS admin told you to study as many religous philosophies as possible. Even though I can't bring myself to ally myself to this ideology you would do well to follow his advise young one.
I wouldn't say they contradict each other. Especially if you read a couple of words more: "..it's an easy way to explain them, though it doesn't define them.."
I think the underlined part doesn't exist in "identifying themselves as a like minded mass". Especially as (if I have understood correctly) Satanism does encourage independent thinking and even LaVey's Satanist sins and commandments are just small guidelines and should not be taken too seriously at all times.
Think about other similar ideological groups as anarchists and such. Are they all just one like minded mass? Do you exactly know everything about a guy's thoughts if you find out he's an anarchist.
Actually, one of the satanist sins is IIRC thinking like the masses for other reasons than your own rational thinking. Of course, that would also include becoming a satanist without studying many philosophies before making any decisions.
Chuck the plant
15-12-2005, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by plix@Dec 15 2005, 04:13 AM
Hell, I'm an individualist but I'm also an American. Does that make me a hypocrite?
Well, you didn't CHOOSE to be part of "the american group". Satanists do.
As an aside, how did you happen to come to the conclusion that all -- or even most -- Satanists feel a "...[dire need] to identify themselves as a like minded mass"?
Lemme see... because they deliberatly label themselves "satanists", thus making themselves a part of that very group?
ReamusLQ
15-12-2005, 02:14 PM
My only comment is that being a satanist and an athiest kind of seems to contradict eachother, although I do admit to not knowing enough about Satanism to support my claim, and it may be completely false.
Athiests believe there is no God or higher power, but if they believe their is no God, why do they believe there is Satan? What makes him so special?
Yobor
15-12-2005, 02:21 PM
Yes, joining a church of Satan is adding oneself to a group, but the CoS specifically says that if you join, you will not agree with some people on different things, and you shouldn't TRY to agree with everyone. This isn't a unified mass, but more like a confederation of people with similar ideas. You won't find people attending a Satanic mass, except for in major cities like New York, and only then once in a while, like on holidays (Thanksgiving is called Gluttony Day LOL). Satanism is mostly practiced in people's homes without much uniformity. It is a very personal religion as opposed to a group religion.
@Reamus: The Satan part of the religion is something a lot of people are prepared to ignore, and join just for the other parts of the religion. It is like people joining a Christian church even though they do not agree with every single thing that is says.
Aristharus
15-12-2005, 04:57 PM
If I've understood correctly, almost no Satanist believes in Satan or any other higher being. Anton LaVey didn't.
The Satan part in the name represents just individual thinking which Lucifer had in The Bible, not believing there is Satan. They look at The Bible as complete fiction, even though the name is derived from the book.
Originally posted by ReamusLQ@Dec 15 2005, 10:14 AM
Athiests believe there is no God or higher power, but if they believe their is no God, why do they believe there is Satan? What makes him so special?
You're assuming that they worship "Satan" as an individual, superior entity. A deity, if you will. The fallacy in that thinking is that the term "Satan" actually represents an ideology to Satanists. It represents free will and the ability to control one's own destiny rather than defining one's existance as existing at the whim of an actual higher being, such as the Judeo-Christian God.
Yobor
15-12-2005, 08:59 PM
"Satan" is a spiritual force, like Mother Nature. Plix is most definitely correct.
ReamusLQ
15-12-2005, 10:51 PM
ok, I stand corrected.
So satanists are basically hedonists, as I purposed earlier. Why rename an already thought out philosophy? More so, why rename your religion diametrically to Christianity. I can't get around the fact that they named themselves Satanists. If they are in fact atheists, which some are I'm sure, then this just means they were taking a pick shot at Christianity. And forgive me for being blunt, but that's lame. Get a life. So they are saying," we know these guys think we are evil and that we are going to hell, so what? We don't care".Well All you Satanists out there, If they don't care then distance yourselves from Christians in all respects. I think that using the name Satanist is practicing a term that levay actually coined. "Emotional vampirism".
I don't believe that all Satanists are atheists. I read some of the web site they have last night, and LeVay talks about calling forth demons and opening yourself to powerful influences. He most definitely personifies these influences, and referrs to them as "them" or "they". Sure you could argue that he is useing imagry like christianity, but on the site it says he didn't write cryptically,, and that anyone could read the "bible" and not have to sort it out. He says to look within, this smacks of demon posession to me. You might look at it different, but I don't like the idea of opening yourself to dark influences, internal or otherwise. Many people have brought up the fact that this "Religion" is open to differing views. Sure some probably are atheists, but by saying that they all don't believe in the devil is as unprovable as saying they do.
This is what I truely believe and I think that you Yobor should be careful. The easiest way to get someone to enter a door is to tell them that they don't have to. Ask yourself what LeVays motive was to create this Religion. Religions have spiritual aims. If it wasn't spiritual it would be classified in a totally different catagory then religion.
@ Plix, are you sure you're roman catholic? Iwould assume that most Catholics would say even though most Satanists don't believe that they worship satan that they are still doing his work...
Yobor
16-12-2005, 12:18 AM
Dude, saying to Plix he should stop learning about the world is being rude. So stop, please.
But anyway, why not love pleasure?
And using Hedonism as a definitoon of Satanism is a barely thought out blanket statement. There is more to Satanism than just a love of fun.
Also, when LeVay says to open yourself, he means in a mental way, to look at the world in an accepting way as possible.
By naming itself the Church of Satan, the CoS cleary identifies it has different beliefs than Christianity. If you can't get over a name, well, tough muck. If I named a wonderful religion about hugging bunnies "We Love Hitler Kill the Jews and Arabs" (WLHKJA), when in fact they believe in no such thing, would you hate it, to?
Shunk Eat Enemy
16-12-2005, 12:58 AM
ROFL LOL lmao hahahahahahahahaha!!!! @ you
erik you are really being serious about this arent ya?!?
well its your decision im athiest and hate ALL religon so go figure
EDIT
8. Do not harm little children.
Does that mean beat up all the fat kids you want?!?
Originally posted by Evad@Dec 15 2005, 07:07 PM
So satanists are basically hedonists, as I purposed earlier. Why rename an already thought out philosophy?
As I said before, that's like saying "Jews are basically Christians" or, even more ridiculously, "Catholics are basically Baptists/Methodists/Protestants." Try learning a bit about Hedonism and you'll see that while both it and Satanism are "Left-Hand Path" philosophies (and that Hedonism isn't even a religion) that they differ greatly.
Originally posted by Evad
More so, why rename your religion diametrically to Christianity.
That's extremely arrogant and presumptious. First of all, are you aware that the idea of Satan didn't originate from Christianity? "Satan" originated in Jewish doctorine (and also happens to exist in Islamic doctorine) as the angel who challenged believers to exercise free will to do that which God forbid. A tempter, if you will. Satanism is fundamentally about the free will of the individual and the idea that the free will of the individual should encourage one to seek enlightenment from within, rather than turning to "higher beings" of unknown existence.
Originally posted by Evad
I don't believe that all Satanists are atheists.
Those "demons" are desires or alternative courses of action which represent free will. It's not so much about "demonic" possession as it is about the freedom to choose to do what's "wrong." But then again, what is "wrong"?
Originally posted by Evad
This is what I truely believe and I think that you Yobor should be careful. The easiest way to get someone to enter a door is to tell them that they don't have to. Ask yourself what LeVays motive was to create this Religion. Religions have spiritual aims. If it wasn't spiritual it would be classified in a totally different catagory then religion.
It's as much spiritual as it is philisophical. Satanism draws it's influences from the works of Aleister Crowley (undeniably a brilliant philosopher), Ayn Rand (the premiere moral objectivist), and a slew of other individualists. It's about finding spirituality internally rather than looking to the unknown for answers. It's about having faith in yourself rather than faith in a deity. I consider it -- and all that it is based upon -- profoundly insightful and very legitimate.
What you seem to "truly believe" is a sensationalized rendition of Satanism and the occult. People fear what they do not understand, and frankly I see no need whatsoever to villify a religion because it's unorthodox.
Originally posted by Evad
@ Plix, are you sure you're roman catholic? Iwould assume that most Catholics would say even though most Satanists don't believe that they worship satan that they are still doing his work...
Born-and-raised Irish Catholic (my mother's side of the family, my father's side is Episcopal). While I can't say that I'm particularly devout -- or that I even agree with a large amount of the Church's doctorine -- I'm very familiar with it. I'm also open-minded and am quite interested in Buddhism.
That said, who exactly are you to speak for Satanists? You've expressed nothing but a large degree of ignorance about the beliefs of the religion and seem to view it through the same biased eyes that a common televangelist does. Calling into question my completely unrelated religious beliefs (which, frankly, you know little-to-nothing of) is childish, tangental, and inflammatory.
Originally posted by Shunk Eat Enemy@Dec 15 2005, 08:58 PM
...im athiest and hate ALL religon so go figure
Actually, Atheism is the active belief that there exists no deities. That's a belief system and generally considered to be a religion in-and-of itself. I think the term you might be looking for is "Agnostic."
Or, you could be talking about organized religion, which is another matter entirely.
Originally posted by Yobor@Dec 13 2005, 11:00 PM
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. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
8. Do not harm little children.
9. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
10. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
What does this religion sound like?
A.S.LaWey :) Though I'm Christian, those his statements are quite fair.
Aristharus
16-12-2005, 05:42 AM
I think Satanism is more of a philosophy than a religion, even though there is a "Church". And as they don't believe in any deity, Skunk Eat Enemy as an atheist should agree with them in that and not "hate" them.
And I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before, but I'll do it. About the name Satanism: I suppose you're thinking of LaVey. Why did he name it after The Devil even though they don't worship it?
That's because Satanism is a much older word than that. At the time when it first became regularly used Satan wasn't such a big deal. Sure, he has always represented an opposing force in Christianity, but he hasn't always been the ultimate evil he is seen as today. When the word Satanism was taken into use, it didn't sound like it does today. Surely it must have had a negative sound to it to the people of that time, but they still didn't think about baby-eating, blood-drinking, goat-sacrificing gothic satanists, which will nowadays come to about anyone's mind at first. LaVey didn't invent the word himself. It had been defined before that.
ok, I've spent th elast 3 hours writing and re-writting a whole slew of defenses here, but we obviously disagree on some things, which is good. I meant no offence to plix, just thought he was a little liberal for Roman Catholic. Do what you want, have fun, and listen to your heart.
i always thought satan (or to use a slightly older name beazlebub) was a descendant of the babylonionian fly god
belial
beezle
beezlebub
beazlebub
to the ainchent jews whose religion is totally about clenliness (and also healthy eating) seeing people considering food touched by flys as blessed, or praying in front of a cloud of flys buzzing around rotten meat would have been the emodiment of evil, and slowely got absorbed into the culture as a word for the force of evil.
isnt satan a way of name the same force without direct invocation, and later used to distort pan, and make him evil, where is the root of the word. i know the root of the word beazlebub is belial, im interested to know where the word satan comes from.
as for anton levay and crowley. crowley was all about using mysticism to con rich people out from there money so he could buy more heroin. as for levay, the man was leeching off the rolling stones isnt it, and was a bit of an acid head by many accounts. and the people he associated with were also pretty acid drenched. so any (LOL) *majicks* of his were being witnessed by people who were already halucinating wildly, and evryone knows you can tell acid heads some pretty mad stuff and they have a tendancy to see it.
hence why most of the *real* old school ritual magick cults used a variety of drugs in there rituals, get the congregation off there tree, do a summoning, oh wow they saw the god...
its all a combination of mind tricks and illusions.
the odd thing being that the mirror rooms of the golden dawn temples that wernt demolished even years after, with the mirrors removed have a very odd rep. the town where i was born kings lynn had 2 temples, one that was demolished and the ruins of it are now in the middle of woodland, the other one still stands but has such a bad rep that no one has bought it in a long while, evry time it has been used, as a hotel and as a stately home the former mirror room has either had people kill themselves in it, oh and some lovely violent murders..
apparently back in the day the us military showed an interest in the mirror illusions of the golden dawn...
gotta be a bad sighn.
edit: if im not on for a while it aint down to no levay worshippers cursing me. im going on holiday to bulgaria, yippe!
Originally posted by omg+Dec 16 2005, 05:07 AM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (omg @ Dec 16 2005, 05:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> i always thought satan (or to use a slightly older name beazlebub) was a descendant of the babylonionian fly god [/b]
All I can find is mention of beelzebub in the Testament of Solomon, though it is only in an indirect manner.
******QuoteBegin-omg
isnt satan a way of name the same force without direct invocation, and later used to distort pan, and make him evil, where is the root of the word. i know the root of the word beazlebub is belial, im interested to know where the word satan comes from.[/quote]
Originally rooted in Hebrew (a translation), it means "accuser" or "adversary." [merriam webster and wikipedia concur on this etymology]
Originally posted by omg
crowley was all about using mysticism to con rich people out from there money so he could buy more heroin.
Hearsay. Heroin was actually perscribed to him at the time of his death, and his works on drug abuse won quite a bit of acclaim.
His "mysticism" was quite the opposite of ordinary parlour tricks. Look up the definition of "mysticism" and you'll be surprised; that is, unless you consider Buddhism and Hinduism "magic tricks."
All that aside, the man was a brilliant philosopher, an accomplished mountaineer, a chess prodigy, and a prolific writer. He was a little bit more than a con-man in it for drug money.
Originally posted by omg
as for levay, the man was leeching off the rolling stones isnt it, and was a bit of an acid head by many accounts...its all a combination of mind tricks and illusions.
Except that "magick" isn't about illusions, and it's actually quite a bit more like praying. Sure, it's occult, but then again, try thinking of praying in a non-religious context, for example -- it's just as odd.
Much of what you are alledging I'll bet is coming from the infamous "Satanic Roots of Rock 'n Roll" article which first appeared on USENET ~13 years ago and is little more than a glorified conspiracy theory. Google it (there are no shortage of copies of it) and you'll see what I mean.
Aristharus
16-12-2005, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by plix@Dec 16 2005, 01:33 PM
Much of what you are alledging I'll bet is coming from the infamous "Satanic Roots of Rock 'n Roll" article which first appeared on USENET ~13 years ago and is little more than a glorified conspiracy theory. Google it (there are no shortage of copies of it) and you'll see what I mean.
I was about to mention the exact same thing. I had already written a (bit too ironic) paragraph or two about how someone has been reading too much of certain articles on the net, but then I chose not to post it.
Most of the facts the article gives are true, but they're all either taken out of concept (for example the Lennon "We're bigger than Jesus!"-comment was mentioned there, I think) or the conclusions made from them are just plain wrong.
Yobor
16-12-2005, 05:40 PM
Oh, Atheism is the same thing as Secular Humanism, which represents in no way a religion, but more of a world view.
A) No holy texts
BGar) No deities
C) Totally based on facts
Thus, Secular Humanism is not a religion, hence the word "Secular"
*I added gar because it would have been a smiley face like so: B)
Havell
16-12-2005, 05:53 PM
Nah, atheism is a religion in the same way that any other is. We have a firmly held set of beliefs and are willing to defend them. Incidentally, an atheist who is opposed to religion is an antitheist.
Blood-Pigggy
16-12-2005, 06:00 PM
What're yer beliefs then?
Also Havell, I'm not so stingy about it, but the signature rules say that you can only have one line of text if you have a picture.
Just sayin'.
Havell
16-12-2005, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Blood-Pigggy@Dec 16 2005, 07:00 PM
What're yer beliefs then?
Also Havell, I'm not so stingy about it, but the signature rules say that you can only have one line of text if you have a picture.
Just sayin'.
Shhh! I'm seeing how long I can get away with it, it's been a few months now.
Anyway, my belief is that we have free will, that there is no higher intelligent force and that everything that exists came out of pure probability and natural selection.
Blood-Pigggy
16-12-2005, 06:36 PM
Other religions don't have free will?
Or do you mean you don't have set morals to follow?
Cause it kinda makes it sound like people in other religions are automatically bound and shackled to whatever they choose to follow.
Himmler
16-12-2005, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Shunk Eat Enemy@Dec 16 2005, 01:58 AM
well its your decision im athiest and hate ALL religon so go figure
EDIT
8. Do not harm little children.
Does that mean beat up all the fat kids you want?!?
I'm an atheist myself but do not hate relligions...I just don't take them serious..
as for the kids...if u're as tall as them and they have some strength I guess you could have "permission" to harm them...anyway I harm many kids...I like to pick on them :crazy:
Fruit Pie Jones
16-12-2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by omg@Dec 16 2005, 04:07 AM
i always thought satan (or to use a slightly older name beazlebub) was* a descendant of the babylonionian fly god
belial
beezle
beezlebub
beazlebub
Beelzebub (or Ba'al Zebub) translates as "lord of the flies," among other things, but doesn't appear to be related etymologically to Belial ("without value"). Both have been used as alternative names for Satan, though.
Tulac
16-12-2005, 10:28 PM
Church of Satan, Free masons, what's next?
allyfaucet
16-12-2005, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Tulac@Dec 16 2005, 11:28 PM
Church of Satan, Free masons, what's next?
Sliced bread! :D
All religions have freewill. Like said earlier, it is the choice in relation to the morals attatched to the religion in question that define the right and wrong of it all. Any religion that says you don't have a choice is actually a cult.
Originally posted by Evad@Dec 16 2005, 07:19 PM
Any religion that says you don't have a choice is actually a cult.
All "cult" means is that a religion/belief system isn't popular.
Chuck the plant
17-12-2005, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by plix+Dec 17 2005, 06:18 AM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (plix @ Dec 17 2005, 06:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-Evad@Dec 16 2005, 07:19 PM
Any religion that says you don't have a choice is actually a cult.
All "cult" means is that a religion/belief system isn't popular. [/b][/quote]
Nope. THAT is a "sect".
Stroggy
17-12-2005, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Fruit Pie Jones+Dec 16 2005, 11:29 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fruit Pie Jones @ Dec 16 2005, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-omg@Dec 16 2005, 04:07 AM
i always thought satan (or to use a slightly older name beazlebub) was* a descendant of the babylonionian fly god
belial
beezle
beezlebub
beazlebub
Beelzebub (or Ba'al Zebub) translates as "lord of the flies," among other things, but doesn't appear to be related etymologically to Belial ("without value"). Both have been used as alternative names for Satan, though. [/b][/quote]
Sometimes they are Satan, other times they are Satan's pawns.
Borodin
17-12-2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Yobor@Dec 16 2005, 06:40 PM
Oh, Atheism is the same thing as Secular Humanism, which represents in no way a religion, but more of a world view.
A) No holy texts
BGar) No deities
C) Totally based on facts
There are no facts where religion is concerned, only individual beliefs based on social patterning, sensory perception, and/or the sum of one's personal life experience. That's the whole problem, isn't it? Despite what X says (where X is any religion, be it Atheism, Christianity, etc), there is no one set of facts on this matter that can match up to reality as each of us finds it.
But since most of us, for some spectacularly strange reason, believe that our experiences are truer than those of everybody else, it follows that our religious beliefs are accurate, and all others are false.
Hey, and I *know* I'm right. ;)
Lonely Vazdru
17-12-2005, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Yobor@Dec 16 2005, 03:18 AM
If I named a wonderful religion about hugging bunnies "We Love Hitler Kill the Jews and Arabs" (WLHKJA), when in fact they believe in no such thing, would you hate it, to?
Don't know about Evad, but i would hate it. No only because of it's name but because of the hugging bunnies part too. And there's no such thing as a wonderful religion. :ph34r:
Originally posted by Chuck the plant+Dec 17 2005, 05:12 AM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chuck the plant @ Dec 17 2005, 05:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by plix@Dec 17 2005, 06:18 AM
******QuoteBegin-Evad@Dec 16 2005, 07:19 PM
Any religion that says you don't have a choice is actually a cult.
All "cult" means is that a religion/belief system isn't popular.
Nope. THAT is a "sect". [/b][/quote]
No, it's a cult. A sect is a small branch of a larger religion.
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/lango...ael_cultsqa.htm (http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_cultsqa.htm)
I wasn't defining a cult, I was saying that freedom is a main element of all religions. Why do you think Catholics preach about the sin of this and the sin of that? Because they realized that people have freewill and they needed to control this. A main element of a cult however, is disolving a members personal freedom. I'm not sure what your point to this argument is. There are many unorthadox religions that aren't cults.
About the religion of bunny hugging, yes I would hate it too. A name is a lable. Calling your religion something that it is not is like calling sugar salt. Imagine the first mass where a neonazi behind plunger came to the church and found all these guys hugging bunnies...kind of funny actually.
Yobor
18-12-2005, 12:21 AM
For the last time Atheism is not a religion! All that the word "Atheism" means, is the belief that there is no god. Thats it. End of story. Period, definition, just like the definition of teeth is "hard bonelike structures in the jaws of vertebrates"
SECULAR (Note the use of the word SECULAR, definition "Not religious" ) Humanism
(http://www.wash.org/humanism.html) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Humanism)
Although most Secular Humanists are atheist or agnostic we do not define ourselves exclusively by these terms. We prefer an emphasis on what we value: reason, free inquiry, critical thinking, the scientific method, freedom, compassion, moral excellence, and a high regard for our fellow human beings ~from the Secular Humansim website. Atheism is not a religion, but a single belief that there is no god. Secular Humanism is an additional set of beliefs that many Atheists concur with.
Originally posted by Evad@Dec 17 2005, 08:01 PM
I'm not sure what your point to this argument is.
My main point is that you are attempting to exploit the negative connatations of the word "cult" and the fact that you're misrepresenting what the word actually means.
That article you just linked to is a propaganda smoke-screen. From the article, "...[t]hese broad definitions [from Webster's Dictionary] do not accurately reflect the concerns generated by contemporary groups often regarded as cults" and "...are likely to exhibit three elements to varying degrees..." That entire article is an attempt at sensationalizing a generic label. Cult is a great media word since it's general enough to encompass any small belief system but has come to be associated primarily with the lunatic-led groups of the past quarter-century (Heaven's Gate, etc).
The whole "free will" thing has absolutely nothing to do with what the term means. Roman Catholicism (the root of Christianity) was once a cult, for example. Satanism, on the other hand, is cited in that article as being a cult according to the "revised" definition despite the fact that many, if not most, Satanists do not belong to a church nor follow any leader (which also rules out exploitation of those members by a psychotic leader) but themselves nor pose any danger to themselves or others because of their beliefs, the three rules cited as what now constitute a cult.
Originally posted by Yobor@Dec 17 2005, 08:21 PM
All that the word "Atheism" means, is the belief that there is no god. Thats it. End of story.
...and "religion" means "what you believe." An atheist believes that there is no higher power just as a christian believes that there is.
Yobor
18-12-2005, 02:21 AM
Look, for an Atheist and Secular Humanist like myself, belief is not an issue. I say "Believe" because Evad and many others say "Believe". The only thing I "Believe" in is facts, which to me looks like:
1(And only)) There is no divine.... anything. No supreme good or bad, no gods, no miracles, no magic. Just the facts.
"Believe" is a shitty word. You can't say you "Believe" facts and have it make sense. Cause facts aren't "Believable". They just are. I don't "Believe" in evolution. Evolution is fact. It simply is (I use evolution as an example and have no wish to get into a discussion about it I have many times before. http://www.abandonia.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3409&hl=
http://www.abandonia.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4226&hl=
)
But I agree with Plix concerning cults. A "Cult" is just a small religion. I create cults in my head every day "Oh, how cool would it be if it was like....". Early Christianity was a cult. It had few members, and to the Romans looked harmful to their society. Thus, a cult it born.
Originally posted by plix+Dec 17 2005, 09:07 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (plix @ Dec 17 2005, 09:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-Evad@Dec 17 2005, 08:01 PM
I'm not sure what your point to this argument is.
My main point is that you are attempting to exploit the negative connatations of the word "cult" and the fact that you're misrepresenting what the word actually means.
That article you just linked to is a propaganda smoke-screen. From the article, "...[t]hese broad definitions [from Webster's Dictionary] do not accurately reflect the concerns generated by contemporary groups often regarded as cults" and "...are likely to exhibit three elements to varying degrees..." That entire article is an attempt at sensationalizing a generic label. Cult is a great media word since it's general enough to encompass any small belief system but has come to be associated primarily with the lunatic-led groups of the past quarter-century (Heaven's Gate, etc).
The whole "free will" thing has absolutely nothing to do with what the term means. Roman Catholicism (the root of Christianity) was once a cult, for example. Satanism, on the other hand, is cited in that article as being a cult according to the "revised" definition despite the fact that many, if not most, Satanists do not belong to a church nor follow any leader (which also rules out exploitation of those members by a psychotic leader) but themselves nor pose any danger to themselves or others because of their beliefs, the three rules cited as what now constitute a cult. [/b][/quote]
Do you actually think this way? So this article is simply a propaganda smoke screen fostered by the media?
"That entire article is an attempt at sensationalizing a generic label."
If anything, this artical is attemting to eliminate vaugness in relation to the word cult and "the concerns generated by contemporary groups often regarded as cults".
The F.B.I has a classification of religious cults. You know why? Not because they watch the news. It's because they investigate homicidal maniacs.
Saying people should open their mind to the word "satan" meaning open-mindedness and critical thinking, and then turning around and crying about the word "cult" changing sounds a little two faced too by the way.
Lastly, I am not attempting to exploit anything here. When I used the word cult it was totally aparrent as to what I was talking about. Is there a better word to describe a religion that tells you to follow them or die? I didn't bring cult up to associate it to satanism, but it is ironic how it made the list.
Yobor
18-12-2005, 03:25 AM
I think cult is just a word, and it doesn't really matter. You could say "Extreme Religious Group" in place of the word "cult" and it would be exactly the same. I don't see the fuss over the word cult.
Originally posted by Yobor@Dec 17 2005, 10:21 PM
The only thing I "Believe" in is facts, which to me looks like:
1(And only)) There is no divine.... anything. No supreme good or bad, no gods, no miracles, no magic. Just the facts.
Facts can be proven, the existance of a devine being cannot just as it cannot be disproven. The "fact" is that the existance or non-existance of a greater being is unknowable, hence my earlier mention of agnosticism being the true non-religious classification.
As a minor aside, and while I agree that we really shouldn't get into the argument here, evolution isn't fact, it's theory. I'm not a creationist by any stretch of the imagination and I do believe in evolution, but it's far from perfect and there's a lot still to figure out about it.
Originally posted by Evad
I'm starting to believe you may be Roman Catholic after all. You didn't quote enough to give context. That's fair I guess, but I'd just ask that anyone who is reading this with interest to go look at the source material, and see what it really says.
First of all, that was really bigoted. I strongly suggest that you watch the ethnic stereotyping.
Second of all, I quoted out of context because I was emphasizing the language he was using rather than the points he was actually making. Notice the phases I bolded, such as "often regarded as." They're intentionally vague so as to side-step adressing the actual meaning of the word.
Originally posted by Evad
If anything, this artical is attemting to eliminate vaugness in relation to the word cult and "the concerns generated by contemporary groups often regarded as cults".
It's attempting to eliminate vagueness by redefining the meaning of a word which has existed for centuries. The reason I raised issue is because people intentionally do that frequently to serve their own purpose. In this instance, reclassifying cult to mean "organized lunacy" in the eyes of the general public is nice since that way any small religion -- a "cult" by the true definition of the word -- which a media outlet (for example) doesn't like can then enjoy the negative connotations.
"Cult" is vage by definition, just as "big" is vague by definition. Frankly, I'm at a loss here as to how to state the blatently obvious: that this is misleading and stupid.
Originally posted by Evad
Saying people should open their mind to the word "satan" meaning open-mindedness and critical thinking, and then turning around and crying about the word "cult" changing sounds a little two faced too by the way.
The etymology of "Satan" covered earlier is just that: the origin of the term. It's actually a very similar issue to this one as people associate the term only with the christian entity and have no idea that the term itself is rooted elsewhere.
Originally posted by Yobor@Dec 17 2005, 11:25 PM
I don't see the fuss over the word cult.
My problem is that it's profiling. It's sort of like how "Islamic" and "terrorist" have become interchangable in the United States. There are plenty of perfectly reasonable, normal "cults" which are simply esoteric, but that doesn't automatically make them evil.
I noticed that later, and was going to errase the entire paragraph as I too found it to be a little biggoted, sorry.I'll do it now.
My point is that the word has changed, for better or for worse.
Yobor
18-12-2005, 04:05 AM
Yes, the meaning of the word has changed. So do the names of all words. 'Gay' has changed from "Happy" to "Homosexual". 'Gangster' has changed from someone who runs and protects a speakeasy to someone who behaves in a certain fashion. Everything changes with time.
I have noticed that society gets progressively more liberal as time goes on.
*Note: All the following is based on the celf-centered US method of teaching history: U.S. History, and why you need to learn that same history every year.*
During the Revolution, the conservative peoples were the tories who wanted a king. The liberals were the revolutionists.
During the Civil War era, the conservatives were those who thought slavery was the correct option while Liberals were abolotionists. Now, this makes the conservatives look bad, but really being conservative is just not wanting too much change. By todays standards it is horrifyingto think of slavery that way. In the future, people will look back on the treatment of homosexuals in the same way. The definitions of society change no matter what anyone does to try to stop it.
Yobor, I am definitly impressed with your mind. You are looking for answers and that's great. Just remember that the cardnial sins are sins against the self. They are not to restrict you, they are to stop yourself from destruction from within. With our liberty we have gotten freedom to do just about anything we want. Nowadays just about anyone with a job can do anything they want. Take flying for instance. 200 years ago not even a king had the ammount of access to this planet as you do. With this freedom comes great responsability, and without some kind of internal monitor I believe that humanity would fail.
Yobor
18-12-2005, 03:27 PM
Personally, my internal monitor is myself and my own thoughts. I realize some people get strength from religion, but I am not that way. I'm not better, just different. But yes, sometimes religion is necessary for stability in a culture. But when cultures come together, it often creates problems. Xenophobia and extreme conservatism can start wars between these groups. Oftentimes, a religion of some sort may be at the heart of these xenophobic and extremely conservative thoughts.
To sum up, Sometimes Religion is good, and helps people become stronger, happier people
Sometimes Religion is bad, because it can encourage a loss of self. For example, I asked a friend of mine (15 years old, I know, so maybe it is just the age) about their thoughts on a certain subject. She responded, "I don't know I'll have to see what my church believes" This is horrible for a church to encourage this sort of behavior. Another church, the largest in the area (3000+ members) has much the same policy: We right, you wrong, don't ask. Much of the time they express feelings that you should not ever doubt the religion because you could go to hell. A simple questioning of yourself whether what you believe in is correct should not be worthy of hell.
This is not every church, but it is some.
Some churches encourage suicide bombers to blow up busses and buildings. Plain disgusting.
Other churches encourage "Holy Crusades" against yet more churches, claiming that only they are truly on god's side.
I speak of the churches, but the churches come along with the Religion. You could practice in private, but most people do not.
However, religion helps people get through times of crisis. Two days ago I went to the funeral of my 14 year old friend who committed suicide. Many people prayed to try to gain a feeling of comfort. Another time, my cousin died of cancer, and his family used prayer and the comfort of their church to gain strength to cope with the loss.
Religion is a strange thing.
Borodin
21-12-2005, 09:52 PM
Religion is a touchstone. It is only as good or bad as the understanding of the person who holds a belief structure. If they're prone to see things in black and white, with a world filled with evil people who need to be "chastised," then they'll find what they want in some aspect of their religion to justify these beliefs. If they see their god or gods as caring, loving beings, who seek to raise humanity to a similar level, they'll find that, instead.
Grinder
23-12-2005, 10:14 AM
I think this thread is pointless. Discussing religions in an international forum is stupid.
Keep this stuff private.
TheChosen
23-12-2005, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Grinder@Dec 23 2005, 11:14 AM
I think this thread is pointless. Discussing religions in an international forum is stupid.
Keep this stuff private.
I agree.
Tulac
23-12-2005, 11:15 AM
How about you let us do what we want? Are you the one making rules? No!
Who are you to tell us what is pointless?? If you don't want to participate in this discussion you don't have to, that's the beauty of an internet forum...
Grinder
23-12-2005, 01:06 PM
i think that this is pointless. I don't want you to do what i'm telling you, and i don't want to make any rules, I just wanted to state my opinion on this. But if you don't want my opinion, that's okay. I'm not interested in this discussion, anyway.
Tulac
23-12-2005, 01:11 PM
And by saying that we should keep this stuff private, you aren't telling us what to do...
And you're calling everyone who posted here stupid...
What you did is the same as if someone would be discussing whic cars are better, and someone would post hey this is pointles...
Internet forums are here so you can discuss what you want on them ffs, and if people can discuss which are better PCs or consoles, they sure can discuss about religion...
Yobor
23-12-2005, 01:20 PM
Why the hostility, Grinder? If you don't like it, don't read it. It's like porn, or going to church. If you don't like it, don't do it.
To the point Borodin made, I think a large percentage of people (I may be influenced by my area because where I live SUCKS) are incredibly extremist in the way they think. It seems to me like there are more of the first group of people you described than the second.
Tulac
23-12-2005, 01:21 PM
Well that probably is true in rural areas...
Yobor
23-12-2005, 01:28 PM
I don't even live in a rural area! Hah. My area is full of "rednecks", many of whom are racists.
THIS (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1231684&page=1) happens where I live some too. It sucks.
Tulac
23-12-2005, 01:35 PM
Well they might live in cities but they're still rednecks at heart, the hopes are they will be assimilated by urban population, not the other way round...
Grinder
23-12-2005, 01:39 PM
You're right Tulac. Go on and discuss what you want, it is your right. I just pointed out what i thought about this, which was a little rude. Although my opinion will always be the same, I'm sorry for interrupting your discussion.
sat in a net cafe enjoying reading the way this debate is progressing and two pointless posts have derailed it. great....
so far if you ignore the people saying we shouldent be discussing this it is probably the best religios debate that i have seen on this forum which has to be a good thing. it seems odd that christianty gets discussed and it descends into a flame war wheras satanism is discussed and it stays nice and peacefull.
Yobor
23-12-2005, 03:37 PM
Hahaha. Yes, discounting those two posts.
The infamous "Religion" thread, at times descended into flame-age, but so far this on has not. I enjoy discussing religion with others because it entertains me and hopefully entertains others. Also, I like to try and let other people learn about new things.
For example, TheChosen and his "Darkness is coming thread" obviously is ignorant of Satanism (:P). So, I would like to help him learn more about different things and hopefully become a better person.
Originally posted by plix@Dec 16 2005, 11:33 AM
Much of what you are alledging I'll bet is coming from the infamous "Satanic Roots of Rock 'n Roll" article which first appeared on USENET ~13 years ago and is little more than a glorified conspiracy theory. Google it (there are no shortage of copies of it) and you'll see what I mean.
sorry to dig this up but i was in the final seconds of my net cafe time and didnt have time to fully respond to it. and it has been kind of bugging me a little ever scince howerver i am now home from bourgas (dammit beer costs so much here :(
) but i would like to say i have never read this usenet article of which you speak. these are my own opinions. im not saying that creating servitors does not work,
(but crowley was a self confessed skag head cmon)
but i am saying if you want to convince someone into this then having them drugged up off there tits really works. some of my words on the subject may be lacking but i havnt practiced ritual majick magic majjick whatever scince i was 19 (and i gave away all my books minus the bibel , the koran and the dharma) which is like 6 years a go but i am aware of its power. but as i get older i wonder how much of it is beings created by your own will and how much of it is enforcing your will on other peoples to convince them, rather than a servitor , tulpa whatever doing the dirty work for you. people can use servitors to achive some amazing things. i have practiced spirtual healing and i belive it is more you are convincing people of ther own ability to self heal than it is some spiritual force. people who have a positive attitude statistically have a better chance of recovering from cancer. stress is linked to many different ilnnesses so by convincing someone you have a *power* to heal them can just help kickstart there bodys own ability to self heal.
but if it is a placebo effect the last thing you want is the person you are healing to be aware of that fact.
another *trick* i used to be able to do was burn people with my hands. i would envision the aura around my hands getting brighter and brighter and then get someone to put there hand between mine and give them a static shock. however i always made a lot of eye contact with the person before i did it. now as i get older i wonder was i really extending my bodys electromagnictic feild to create a static pulse or was i subconsiosly mesmerising them so they belived i was able to shock them. i used to be able to get good results with the pendulum as well but that is something that now betrays me. the thing is i broke two of the laws and its not laws of the satanist church. if someone crosses you you have the right to destroy them yeah? kind of an eye for eye sort of thing. well i was i guess you could say good at that stuff. i was pretty sharp with the runes. i sometimes wouldent tell peopel what i saw with them because people dont like bad news yeah. i predicted a freind of mine girlfreind was going to be raped by a close freind of ours . i dint exactly tell him, i was very vauge i just said danger to ther relationship was going to come from this man. 2 weeks later the bastard raped her. we lured him to a flat and beat the muck out from him on a stone floor. i got some instant karma in the fact that a freind of his gave me a kicking. i lost no ability though. kept chcucking the stones, and my astral projection was untroubled. (hte guy had a weak soul, pronbably to much acid, we just did a binding so he would never find love again.)
after we broke his nose
oddly enuff last i heard he is still single. and this is after years. the rules i broke though that made me lose the *talent* whatever the f u want to call it are these. im sharing this with you guys as some of you obviolsy take the lore pretty seriosly but according to it im not sure if i actually broke it if that makes sense.
but im interested in your opionions as people who are learning the art (a clive barker term i prefer to majick)
rule1: i was casting the stones for my wife. i got her to hold them and focos. unknowen to me she had been focusing on her dead grandmother. the cast i got freaked me out. the vibe was just wrong. i was totally circular with the well of the sisters slap bang in the middle and it made my hands feel cold. the energy in the room just went weird. and the stones never worked for me after that.i just couldent get the feel for them when i cast them. the thing about the stones is the pattern is as much importance as the actual symbols and i couldnt get the feel for the patterns anymore. i talked to a gypsy about it later and she said ther e are some very important steps you should use when doing any divination for the dead and in fact it is something you should never do unless you are contacting one of your own family and even then you have to be very carefull. (and alone)
so that was the end of me casting the runes. i had made the set with slates that has a very high quartz content that i had gathered from a cliff near tinatagel during the full moon and i havnt been back there scince becuse i started to think maybe the future should not be knowen unless maybe you get a solid dream about it.
rule2: ok this goes to people who have crossed you. i had a freind who shall remain nameless. we used to practice astral projection with each other. try to find freinds on the plains and give them messages in there sleep. we had a good rate but i think the fackt he lived in a caravan on a major leyline that was next to a hill that started as a prehistoric burial mound, became used for farming and then a variety of temples /churches from prehistory to the reformation when then monestery that had been built on it was reduced to ruins probably helped . we would go out there and meditate (and when i was younger take tape machines and tents cider and spliffs) anyway for a year this man was like my soul brother. then it turns out that he and my girlfreind had been f'ing each other for three months. three months... (i loved this man though so maybe it made me blind to it. i had tiotal trust in him andi thin as i learnt to travel from him his advoidance of me on the plains would be easier than my advoidance of him) so if someone crosses you you can destroy them right? well i broke into his caravan while he was away and i stole some hair from his brush, and took a shred from one of his scarves. i made a clay deffigy and put it in a circle in front of me than facing the effigy i played the drum and chanted words from wherever, (for 3 hours) i used to be quite good at channeling, i was getting to the point where i didnt really need ritual to get results, just focus.well i focused. i was clean at the time but the colors that were forming as i did this was unlike any halucination. it was a lot more real i suppose. then at the culmination i thrust three small stones (quartz) in the gut of the doll then i left it in the sunlight. he ended up in the hospital for 3 days under observation for freaksh stomach palpitations. i felt no guilt. the man had crossed me. but then the nightmares started. sometimes when you start aiming for the higher plains you get these things up there. like big whales i guess is the best way to describe them. well as before i was abley to nimbly advoid them now it was like the bastards where coming down to the lower levels . it was like they could see me, like they were attracted to me. sleep became a very unconfortable thing for me. i find it hard to belive looking back now but no amount of prayer to buddah, rings of salt, calling the corners to sanctify my sleeping area seemed to help. maybe the old adage bright lights attract moths is true.
so this man crossed me. it should be my right to destroy him. buyt yet after doing this i lost abilitys that had been a great plesure to me. i actually started using the bible sleeping with it under my pillow. you can say this for the bible though. as a book of dead names spirits fear it big style. i actually keep on next to my computer as it is here now that the majority of my deep thought takes place.
maybe if i had just punched him i could still project. who knows.
anyways im going to stop here becuse this is turning into a novel of my teenage life and theres loads i have left out (my experiances with the necronomicon in particular beacuse who comes to forums to read novellas right?) but it would be cool to here other people experiance with the art becuse basically it seems to me that do what the wilt be the whole of the law unlest thou harmest no other seems nice in practice but the second you put in the amendment unless they harm you you can lead to big trouble. just look waht eye for an eye policies have led to in isreal and america.
i look forwards to reading more peoples opions on the subject and there own experinces with majics the art whatever becuse there is a lot about the philosophy of it in her but no so much about the actual practice as in peoples personall experiances.
all flame and pointless statements please dont bother , it is nice to see this side of life discuseed intelligently despite the conflicting belief systems
peace out brothers of alternitive spirtuality :ok:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.