Satanism as philosophy

[Cronos Impera]

WARNING: THIS ISN'T A MIND CONTROL THREAD, IF ANYONE EXPECTS TO SEE PICTURES OF ELVIS OR GAIN WORLD DOMINATION THIS IS THE WRONG THREAD. I HOPE I'M NOT BANNED.

So, ( despite the magic bullcrap) satanism as Anton Szandor LaVey imagined would promote selfishness as a religion with the belief that " Man is just another animal ".
Nothing could be farther from the true, all our so-called superior civilization is driven by two basic needs : Survival and Sexual\Natural Selection.

Survival: People form comunities for survival's sake. A comunity has more chances to survive a catastrophy than a single, lonely individual. Comunities provide security and food easier, so a lot of spare time can be used for social interaction and further deveolpment. This development is than used to benefit the entire group. And thus the social structure gets larger and more complex.
Teritory: Comunities need teritories to quench their needs and provide them with space for development. When two comunites clash, boundries are settled and states ( as we know them) are formed.
Culture: Culture appeared for courtship rituals or as a means to pass on knowledge, you know how appealing is poetry for ladies. Art started for the sole pourpose of seduction.

Civilization is a response to the natural enviroment, it's just a better way to survive. Natural selection guides the develpoment of technology and mankind alike. Religious doctrines which try to prove otherwise have failed in the past.

[Sjakihata]

It sounds like you've just read Plato's Republic (Politeia) - human is basically a zoon politikon (a social animal, anima sociales).

What has that to do with satanism?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Satan is the imbodyment of evil. If you start a religion and call it Satanism then its evil. If its not evil it should be called something else.#

Devil worship is wrong on basic moral grounds because a devil is, by definition, the embodyment of evil. Satanism is devil worship, not philosophy.

'nuff said.

Oh, and there are plenty of very carring and selfless Christians in the world, thankyou.

[Byzantine Prince]

Actually Satanism is not very strong philosophically, as clever as its main concept might be.

Worshipping an archetype of nature still means you have conform to some standards and that means you cannot be yourself, which automatically contradicts its main promise.

I do like its 'masturbate 5 times a day' policy however. Ok it isn't true that you ahve to do that but they do have a ritual where they masturbate and they call it 'magik'.

[rory_20_uk]

For those that might like slightly more information, http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis2.htm is probably worth looking at.

Of course, viewing it through the extremely biased setting of Christianity doesn't really help. After all, they had a fine time calling basically everything that wasn't Christianity Evil - and then slaghtering the followers in the name of peace... :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

[TB666]

Devil worship is wrong on basic moral grounds because a devil is, by definition, the embodyment of evil. Satanism is devil worship, not philosophy.

Actually no.
Devil worshipping and Satanism are different.
Devil worshippers worship well the devil but Satanists don't, they worship themselves.
Of course they don't build altars and stuff dedicated to themselves but they simply put themself in front of all others.
Satanism is pretty much just egoism that has gotten a religious touch on it.
They do have Satan as a rolemodel since he put himself first as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My point is why call it Satanism, if they're using Satan as a role model they're basically worshipping him. What do Christians do but use Jesus as a role model. Its like this.

Satan = Devil = Lucifer = Ashrael

They're all the same. Saying Satanism isn't devil worship is splitting hairs. There are plenty of much better mythological characters, such as Bachus, to use as role models.

Satanism is following Satan, therefore it is a form of Devil worship.

Why else would it be Satanism?

[rory_20_uk]

And why do you say he's evil? Because Christianity says he is? Surely you can see that is asking an extremely bias source for an opinion?

If you read the posts, let alone my link you'd see that they are NOT all following satan, merely view him as a role model.

Saying that there are better characters is like saying "Jesus - hmmm bit of a wimp. Why don't you all follow Zeus - there's a better god" :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

[TB666]

My point is why call it Satanism, if they're using Satan as a role model they're basically worshipping him. What do Christians do but use Jesus as a role model. Its like this.

Satan = Devil = Lucifer = Ashrael

They're all the same. Saying Satanism isn't devil worship is splitting hairs. There are plenty of much better mythological characters, such as Bachus, to use as role models.

Satanism is following Satan, therefore it is a form of Devil worship.

Why else would it be Satanism?
No, they are not worshipping him.

Worship usually refers to specific acts of religious praise, honour, or devotion, typically directed to a supernatural being such as a god or goddess.
Satanists don't do these things, devil worshippers do.
And they don't follow Satan other then the fact that they think that one action Satan did was great and it shows the true spirit of satanism.
Why is it is called Satanism is probably because it contains alot of anti-christian ideas hence it got labelled as Satanism by the church.
Christianity has "love your fellow man", Satanism has "If the fellow man doesn't show you respect then you can kill him".
Of course Satanists can't do these things since it is against the law and they respect that but still.
The satanists I know gets offended if someone calls them devil worshippers because the simple fact that they don't worship him.
People are just too lazy to find out what satanism really is so they just throw them together like they are the same thing.

[Byzantine Prince]

My point is why call it Satanism, if they're using Satan as a role model they're basically worshipping him. What do Christians do but use Jesus as a role model. Its like this.

Satan = Devil = Lucifer = Ashrael

They're all the same. Saying Satanism isn't devil worship is splitting hairs. There are plenty of much better mythological characters, such as Bachus, to use as role models.

Satanism is following Satan, therefore it is a form of Devil worship.

Why else would it be Satanism?
Devil = Pan.

Pan used to be worshipped.

Satanists don't worship Satan, they admire him. Buddhists don't worship Buddha etc.

The Satanist view of Satan is not the same as the Christian one, just like the Judaic form of Satan is different from the Christian. In Judaism Satan is considered a tester from God, not an evil figure, but one that tempts people to commit sin, as a test.

Plus any religion with ritual masturbation, individuality and openmindedness in it is fine with me, despite it being very weak philosophically.

[Lazul]

well as far as I know, one form of satanism started in Franche in the 18th century. Some nobles got anoyed with the church and their morals so they sort of.... went the other way. They had large sexual orgies, drink and ate heavily and called themself satanists just to piss the church of. :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And why do you say he's evil? Because Christianity says he is? Surely you can see that is asking an extremely bias source for an opinion?

If you read the posts, let alone my link you'd see that they are NOT all following satan, merely view him as a role model.

Saying that there are better characters is like saying "Jesus - hmmm bit of a wimp. Why don't you all follow Zeus - there's a better god" :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

Satan is the embodyment of evil in the Bible, isn't not about religion but morality. Satan is a morrally corrupting figure. Plus admiring him is stupid because he's clearly still working for the big G, as he has no free will.

So it falls flat on its face. My point about other gods was that Satan embodies evil but Bachus doesn't. You can follow Bachus as role model without all the burn-in-hell baggage.

Devil = Pan is not true because Pan is a Greek earth god.

If you don't believe they worship Satan then fine but the BNP claims not to be racist as well.

A demonic figure should never be held up as a role model.

[A.Saturnus]

Wigferth, "Satan" is just a word, ok? I know people who call their cat satan, does that mean it's the embodiment of evil? There are people who call themselves satanists. They don't worship the devil, they worship themselves. They don't believe that the devil is an actual existing entity, thus they can hardly worship. It's a bit stupid to worship something if you think it doesn't exist, don't you think? The reasons why they call themselves satanists are several. Mainly because they reject some Christian concepts and follow ideas that counter those. There are also occultistic things in it.

They don't go around and sacrifice virgins or something like that. They are mostly normal people. Some of them are bastards. It's no big deal.

[Papewaio]

But why choose a word that already is wrapped up in so many meanings.

It seems like a bout of teenage rebellion, oh look at me I wear black/ my cap backwards/ trousers around my ankles/symbols of other faiths upside down... I am so different and yet I look like all the other cookie cutter alternatives :rolleyes: .

It does not come across as a fully fledged mindset of an independent/intradependent adult. It looks petulant. :gah: and lacking in intellectual depth when someone has to borrow a name from another faith to name their own. "Oh look I am a towering intellect of cut'n'paste alternative culture". Sorry but I do not have much thrift for idiots whose only contribution to thought is going against what is because it is trendy.

[Redleg]

There are two forms of Satanism.

One is indeed based upon the worship of Satan as a diety. (SP)

The other form is a philisophy that has several sources to include LaVey, and the above mentioned French Nobles that called themselves Satanists to snub the church.

As a Philisophy, Satanism is no better then other humanistic philisophies.

The source Rory linked is actually a pretty good source of Religious information and some philisophy. Its not all inclusive - but it provides some decent background for those who rather be informed, then guess based upon the name of something.

[Sjakihata]

But why choose a word that already is wrapped up in so many meanings.

It seems like a bout of teenage rebellion, oh look at me I wear black/ my cap backwards/ trousers around my ankles/symbols of other faiths upside down... I am so different and yet I look like all the other cookie cutter alternatives :rolleyes: .

It does not come across as a fully fledged mindset of an independent/intradependent adult. It looks petulant. :gah: and lacking in intellectual depth when someone has to borrow a name from another faith to name their own. "Oh look I am a towering intellect of cut'n'paste alternative culture". Sorry but I do not have much thrift for idiots whose only contribution to thought is going against what is because it is trendy.

Sounds like you had an interresting youth :idea2:

[GoreBag]

Cronos, was this spurred on by anything?

[rory_20_uk]

Wigferth, your argument is redundant as soon as you say "in the Bible". As I have pointed out that is the Christian view on the subject - and is different from others, including the Jews who see Satan in a slightly different light. To discuss something, although it's advisable to come with an open mind, it is impossible to come without the ability to listen to others.

As Redleg mentions, it is likely that for many Satanists the title is purely there as to be reactionary and provocative against Christianity.

~:smoking:

[Cronos Impera]

1.Okay, firstly Satan is a widely spread word across Mongolia and Tibet. Those people never had contacts with the Jewish or Christian beliefs.
2. The widely spread image of Satan, a man with horns and hoofs is simmilar to that of a satyr. Satyrs ware mythological beings that simbolized nature and joy of life. Baalzebut or "lord of the flies" is a mockery of Baal, the pheonician god of the sky, the cloud-walker. Jews built their religion in adversity to the other religions, so they would keep united under a single rule.
3. Satan means "The Accuser", he's the archytipe of rebel. Back in the Antiquity rebellion was a crime, rebels ware seen as bad people so Satan, the symbol of rebellion became also the symbol of Evil.
4. The Christian/Jewish religions ware copy/paste cultures a little. The Flood copy/pasted by the hebrews from the Epic of Gilgamesh is the most eloquent example. Christianity, as a religion, promotes a centralized gouverment and despotism. Constantine the Great converted to Christianity, understanding that it transformed unity/control into a religion and pluralism/liberty into crimes.
"The heroes of the past become the villans of the present"
Even the date of Christmas was settled for control, as it's of Saturnalia, one of the past pagan festivals. Christmas = Craciun = stump ( sanskrit)
Jesus was introduced to the Norse as the eastern version of Baldur.
Gheena, the Biblic hell was in fact a trash pit, in Romanian we still use gheena to describe the commo trash-pit.

Trashing buildings, raping women and killing people for distruction's sake don't turn you into a rebel, they turn you into an idiot. Challanging well-known philosophycal and social conceptions on the other hand do.
One view-point isn't enough .

Unfortunately, the popular image of satanism attracts large scores of pokemons to the movement. Those idiotic, senseless teenagers turn of the news bulletins, not the intelectuals. F*** them.

[Redleg]

However one views the history of Satanism it still comes down to modern terms and how the religion or philosophy is viewed.

Satanism in today's world consists of mainly two things. One is the cult that resolves around the worship of Satan as a diety. The other is the humanistic philosophy.

The past makes for some interesting reading - Cronos Impera, but the scope of the current discussion is not the past of Satanism, but the philosophy of Satanism.

The religious philosophy of the Satanic Church is the anti-hesis to the Christian Church. That is the philosophy that is primarily acknowledge in the west concerning Satanism as a religion.

As a philosophy Satanism while has some interesting humanistic approaches - is just another philosophy on how to live your life. Its more hedonistic then many others but not necessarily good nor wrong.

[GoreBag]

Ah, memories.

Did you miss my question, Cronos?

[Cronos Impera]

Cronos, was this spurred on by anything?

It's just a topic, I'm not a convert to satanism you know and I'm not trying to hit the Church :viking:.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wigferth, your argument is redundant as soon as you say "in the Bible". As I have pointed out that is the Christian view on the subject - and is different from others, including the Jews who see Satan in a slightly different light. To discuss something, although it's advisable to come with an open mind, it is impossible to come without the ability to listen to others.

Rory As has been said the Satan in Satanism is from the Bible, he's cut and paste. Saying the Bible is biased is silly because Satan is from the Bible, whether he comes from another religion originally or not the version in Satanism is the "polished" version from Christianity, not some proto-Satan the Jews nicked from someone else.

As to my not listening, I could say the same about you not listening to my arguement. Ask a Christian whether Satan is evil/the emobodiment of evil and you will get a resounding yes. Thats why when starting a religion you shouldn't name it Satanism, because the only reason to do that is to stick a finger up at Christianity.

As to his role in Jewdaism, I also said:

Satan is the embodyment of evil in the Bible, it's not about religion but morality. Satan is a morrally corrupting figure. Plus admiring him is stupid because he's clearly still working for the big G, as he has no free will.

Notice I never said Satan himself was actually evil. If you use your loaf you'll realise that Satan can't go against God because, as an angel, he's supposed to lack free will. Also in the book of Job God allows Satan to test Job. If you can stop him doing something to Job then he can stop him doing anything else either.

A.Saturnus, Would you call your cat Adolf Hitler? Before you say it, no its not different. Satan is not a word its a name. The name of the embodiement of evil in Christianity and so western culture in general.

[Cronos Impera]

Rory As has been said the Satan in Satanism is from the Bible, he's cut and paste. Saying the Bible is biased is silly because Satan is from the Bible, whether he comes from another religion originally or not the version in Satanism is the "polished" version from Christianity, not some proto-Satan the Jews nicked from someone else.

As to my not listening, I could say the same about you not listening to my arguement. Ask a Christian whether Satan is evil/the emobodiment of evil and you will get a resounding yes. Thats why when starting a religion you shouldn't name it Satanism, because the only reason to do that is to stick a finger up at Christianity.

As to his role in Jewdaism, I also said:

Satan is the embodyment of evil in the Bible, it's not about religion but morality. Satan is a morrally corrupting figure. Plus admiring him is stupid because he's clearly still working for the big G, as he has no free will.

Notice I never said Satan himself was actually evil. If you use your loaf you'll realise that Satan can't go against God because, as an angel, he's supposed to lack free will. Also in the book of Job God allows Satan to test Job. If you can stop him doing something to Job then he can stop him doing anything else either.

A.Saturnus, Would you call your cat Adolf Hitler? Before you say it, no its not different. Satan is not a word its a name. The name of the embodiement of evil in Christianity and so western culture in general.

Errr....... Adolf Hittler and Satan don't mix. Adolf Hittler was a christian and national-socialism emphasises on christianity. Jews ware persecuted throught history because christians thought " They served the devil". If you consider rebellion a sign of evil, well all revolutionaries go to hell.

In the Bibles Satan was a failed revolutionary, turned into a scapegoat used as a trashpit for unpleasant ideeas. Anything that challanges anything can be looked to as corrupting Corruption basiclly means an altering of something. Corruption is positive, as it allows diversity to develop.
In fact God does more harm in the Bible than Satan.
He 1. Wipes out two cities just to prove that he can ( Sodom and Gomora), despite Jesus emphasises on forgiveness
2. God isn't divine, He boasts of having created the first humans yet Cain had other ideas " anyone who will find me, will kill me (Genessis 4:14) Who ware the others if God created all humans.

The Bible is confusing and contradictory

1. Exit 22:18 : "Don't let the wizards live!"
Opposing commandment:
"You shall not kill"
For what reason can this commandment be broken? For this: "I am your God. Don't have other gods instead of me!
In the Bible rules are meant to be broken by following others.

2. Luca 14:26 : "If someone doesn't come to me and hate his father and his mother mama his wife or children or brothers and sisters , even his own soul, he can't become My apprentice."
Jesus promotes hatred instead of peace and love. Jesus advices us to destory our families. The man speaking is Jesus telling us to hate our fammilies and commit suicide.
3. Matthew 10:34 Don't think I've come to bring peace on earth; I haven't come to bring peace, but war.
Isn't that violence promoted through the pure Son of God. Is Jesus pure, peace loving.
"He who loves his mother or father more than he loves Me isn't worthy of Me, he who loves his son or daughter more than Me, isn't worthy of Me" Matthew 10:39
Are any of us "worthy"?

Purity is hipocritical and falsehood.

[A.Saturnus]

A.Saturnus, Would you call your cat Adolf Hitler? Before you say it, no its not different. Satan is not a word its a name. The name of the embodiement of evil in Christianity and so western culture in general.

I don't particularly like the name Hitler. It's too tinny. It might be cool for a day or two, but I would give my cat a name that still sounds good after the joke is old. But I would certainly not have a problem with someone who calls his cat Hitler. I understand though that some people would feel uncomfortable with the name. For example if they had relatives that suffered under Nazi Germany. But unlike Hitler, Satan didn't commit genocide. Because he doesn't exist.

Satan is the embodyment of evil in Western culture and therefore cool. Granted, it may be even cooler to say 'Hail Utgard Loki' instead of 'Hail Satan', but few people understand it.


Thats why when starting a religion you shouldn't name it Satanism, because the only reason to do that is to stick a finger up at Christianity.

You base your argument on the premise that you shouldn't stick a finger up at Christianity, something people like LaVey would wholeheartedly disagree with. An important part of the whole religion is to piss off Christians.

[monkian]

Satan is the embodyment of evil in the Bible, isn't not about religion but morality. Satan is a morrally corrupting figure. Plus admiring him is stupid because he's clearly still working for the big G, as he has no free will.

So it falls flat on its face. My point about other gods was that Satan embodies evil but Bachus doesn't. You can follow Bachus as role model without all the burn-in-hell baggage.

Devil = Pan is not true because Pan is a Greek earth god.

If you don't believe they worship Satan then fine but the BNP claims not to be racist as well.

A demonic figure should never be held up as a role model.

If Satan has no free will then how can he be evil if he cannot choose his actions ?

[TB666]

If Satan has no free will then how can he be evil if he cannot choose his actions ?
Probably so that "god" will have someone who is actually worse then he is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well first off, no, according to the Bible none of us are worthy. Abraham asked God to spare Sodam and Gomora if only one good person could be found among them. God agreed, then destroyed both cities.

Hitler and Satan are both quite offensive in general. Saying Hitler was a Christian is a cop out. He was supposed to be Catholic but he wouldn't ever listen to the Pope.

"In the Bibles Satan was a failed revolutionary, turned into a scapegoat used as a trashpit for unpleasant ideeas."

I agree. Yes the Bible is contradictory and confusing. None of it was written by Jesus though and it was edited by a Roman 380 years after he was born.

"2. God isn't divine, He boasts of having created the first humans yet Cain had other ideas " anyone who will find me, will kill me (Genessis 4:14) Who ware the others if God created all humans."

Saying God isn't divine is a matter of opinion. For a lot of people, myself included, God and Satan are real, please respect this.

"Satan is the embodyment of evil in Western culture and therefore cool. Granted, it may be even cooler to say 'Hail Utgard Loki' instead of 'Hail Satan', but few people understand it."

1. Losers are not cool and Loki and Satan are both losers.

2. Worshiping Loki is beyond idiotic, since he is destined to destroy the world and in the meantime is tied up in his son's intestines. Yeah, real cool mo'fo.

3. Evil is not cool, that just sounds childish. If I kill your parents for no reason is that cool?

"You base your argument on the premise that you shouldn't stick a finger up at Christianity, something people like LaVey would wholeheartedly disagree with. An important part of the whole religion is to piss off Christians."

No, I base my arguement on the idea that starting a religion to piss anyone off is a bad idea because it makes your basic premise negative.

"If Satan has no free will then how can he be evil if he cannot choose his actions ?"

Check my last post, he isn't evil, he's the embodiement, the poster boy.

[GoreBag]

It's just a topic, I'm not a convert to satanism you know and I'm not trying to hit the Church :viking:.

It rather seems like you have something to prove, is all.

[A.Saturnus]

Hitler and Satan are both quite offensive in general

No, Hitler is offensive in general. Whether Satan is offensive depends on your believes. For me Satan is not offensive since he's only an imaginary person. And sorry, I refuse to be careful about using the name Satan just because you believe that he exists and causes harm to anyone. I have no problem with using the name Satan, extracting interesting side-meanings out of the concept and use them in a new context. If you find that offensive, too bad for you. Show me proof that Satan was involved in some major atrocities and I might reconsider.


1. Losers are not cool and Loki and Satan are both losers.

They are outcasts. Satan was struck down by God for pride. He rules hell for all eternity. I call that cool.


2. Worshiping Loki is beyond idiotic, since he is destined to destroy the world and in the meantime is tied up in his son's intestines. Yeah, real cool mo'fo

Now you're getting intolerant because there are in fact people who worship Loki, since he's a member of the Norse pantheon. Is it necessary to hold some really silly parts of your believe under your nose? Besides, destroying the world is certainly cool.


3. Evil is not cool, that just sounds childish. If I kill your parents for no reason is that cool?

That depends how you do it. BTW, you could in principle say that the whole concept of 'cool' is a bit childish, but that would be really uncool.


No, I base my arguement on the idea that starting a religion to piss anyone off is a bad idea because it makes your basic premise negative.

What's wrong with a negative basic premise? LaVey might in turn have argued with Nietzsche that Christianity is principially nihilistic. Or like Lovecraft said it "the puritans are the greatest devil worshippers because they condemn everything that is beatiful." Their opinion of course, but the point is if you oppose Christianity completely, than the concept of the antagonist of God might just be the archetype for you.

[Byzantine Prince]

God, this got stupid. Why was my post ignored? I feel ignored all the time lately. Maybe Satanism is not so bad for me afterall. :sneaky:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, Hitler is offensive in general. Whether Satan is offensive depends on your believes. For me Satan is not offensive since he's only an imaginary person. And sorry, I refuse to be careful about using the name Satan just because you believe that he exists and causes harm to anyone. I have no problem with using the name Satan, extracting interesting side-meanings out of the concept and use them in a new context. If you find that offensive, too bad for you. Show me proof that Satan was involved in some major atrocities and I might reconsider.

Well bully for you, glad you don't care about offending people. You could have said that its your right to offend people providing you're trying to make a point but "the word is fun" is just a bit shallow.


They are outcasts. Satan was struck down by God for pride. He rules hell for all eternity. I call that cool.

I fail to see how losing a war and being dumped in the worst place in the universe is cool. If you're king of a steeming dung heap it doesn't make the heap smell like roses.


Now you're getting intolerant because there are in fact people who worship Loki, since he's a member of the Norse pantheon. Is it necessary to hold some really silly parts of your believe under your nose? Besides, destroying the world is certainly cool.

Loki is not a member of the Aesir or the Vanir, in point of fact he is a giant. As you say he was cast out and thus is no longer really a member of the Pantheon. Outcasts might be "cool" but losers aren't. Destroying the world is cool? If I kill all your family and friends in hidious ways is that cool?


That depends how you do it. BTW, you could in principle say that the whole concept of 'cool' is a bit childish, but that would be really uncool.

Evil=killing, raping, causing pain etc. You think thats cool? You're one sick puppy. Just because evil is taboo doesn't make it cool. Oh, being cool is childish. I replaced cool with "good" "honest" "honourable" and some other things I find far more contructive about ten years ago.


What's wrong with a negative basic premise? LaVey might in turn have argued with Nietzsche that Christianity is principially nihilistic. Or like Lovecraft said it "the puritans are the greatest devil worshippers because they condemn everything that is beatiful." Their opinion of course, but the point is if you oppose Christianity completely, than the concept of the antagonist of God might just be the archetype for you.

Doing something because you hate someone?

I'm not even responding to that.

[AntiochusIII]

Well bully for you, glad you don't care about offending people. You could have said that its your right to offend people providing you're trying to make a point but "the word is fun" is just a bit shallow.Everyone can be offended at anything. Don't tell me you're part of the PC crowd, because that's not cool. At all. The "legitimate" offense is often taken from crimes long past in history: "nigger" (sorry if I offended anyone, but censorship is stupid) is offensive because it was once -- and still -- an insult with a connotation of "you're just a slave," or "Hitler" because he committed true atrocities against millions of humans. Satan as a concept is a dispute and far from conclusive. One of my friends (quite a psycho, but that's beside the point) is a self-proclaimed "Satanist" who probably thinks it's cool to have Lucifer as his idol. :dizzy2: I could call myself a Satanist just so, like those nobles refered to earlier, to piss people off.

I fail to see how losing a war and being dumped in the worst place in the universe is cool. If you're king of a steeming dung heap it doesn't make the heap smell like roses.I assume you're taking the concept of Satan from the epic Paradise Lost? Since you seem to refer to "losing a war" which, if I remember correctly, did not really happen. That was just a literary work. The Bible itself -- or at least "half" of it -- considers Satan God's testing agent. Besides, what you fail to see -- others might be able to see. Or can see.

Loki is not a member of the Aesir or the Vanir, in point of fact he is a giant. As you say he was cast out and thus is no longer really a member of the Pantheon. Outcasts might be "cool" but losers aren't. Destroying the world is cool? If I kill all your family and friends in hidious ways is that cool?The concept of "cool" itself is childish. We teenagers like to be cool; you can't dictate how we are cool. We are just cool. It's just a word. Loki is Thor's brother, no? Then he's as much a god as any.

Evil=killing, raping, causing pain etc. You think thats cool? You're one sick puppy. Just because evil is taboo doesn't make it cool. Oh, being cool is childish. I replaced cool with "good" "honest" "honourable" and some other things I find far more contructive about ten years ago.Ad hominem. ~;) Not work.

Evil = ... ... ... I don't know. Read the social contract theories (or the Bible, heck) and pick your definition. Or invent one. Or just take society's definition as your own.

Cool = you know what? That's one relative concept. What is anime? Geeky or cool?

Doing something because you hate someone?

I'm not even responding to that.Yeah...

It's called rebellious nature. The opposite of conforming, you know...

[TB666]

Loki is Thor's brother, no? Then he's as much a god as any.

He is Odin's blood brother and yes he is a god.:book:

[Louis VI the Fat]

well as far as I know, one form of satanism started in Franche in the 18th century. Some nobles got anoyed with the church and their morals so they sort of.... went the other way. They had large sexual orgies, drink and ate heavily and called themself satanists just to piss the church of. :laugh4::laugh4: That form of satanism is called la République Française, it started in 1789 :laugh4:

[A.Saturnus]

You're one sick puppy.

Well, thanks. Not something I've been called yet. Broadens my horizon I guess.
Fortunately Antiochus already addressed most of your points and he did so very well.
But look, I'm not the enemy ok? I do not advocate killing anyone because it's cool. I'm not a member of the Church of Satan. I've read LaVey's Satanic Bible and while I entirely agree with him in his chaptor on sexual freedom, I'm rather ambivalent on most parts of the book. However, apart from the esoteric nonsense, it's an interesting read.
Yes, that satanism is really a bit silly. Just like all other religions, when you think about it. But that doesn't make the followers of any religion idiots. Idiots they are only if they get too excited about the absurd little details.


Doing something because you hate someone?

I didn't even use the word 'hate'. I said 'oppose completely'. That opposition may be entirely philosophical. Let's not jump to conclusions, especially if they contain strong words like 'hate' or 'sick puppy'

[Byzantine Prince]

No, evil is not killing, raping, causing pain. Killing, raping, and causing pain are just facts of life. Evil is a mode of the imagination, with no ground in reality. Anyone could call anything evil just because it get's in his way.


What is anime? Geeky or cool?
Ubercool.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everyone can be offended at anything. Don't tell me you're part of the PC crowd, because that's not cool. At all. The "legitimate" offense is often taken from crimes long past in history: "nigger" (sorry if I offended anyone, but censorship is stupid) is offensive because it was once -- and still -- an insult with a connotation of "you're just a slave," or "Hitler" because he committed true atrocities against millions of humans. Satan as a concept is a dispute and far from conclusive. One of my friends (quite a psycho, but that's beside the point) is a self-proclaimed "Satanist" who probably thinks it's cool to have Lucifer as his idol. :dizzy2: I could call myself a Satanist just so, like those nobles refered to earlier, to piss people off.

I'm not PC I just don't sse a reason to use words that insult people for fun. Seems to me the only reason Satan is cool is because he is outcast and looked down on.


I assume you're taking the concept of Satan from the epic Paradise Lost? Since you seem to refer to "losing a war" which, if I remember correctly, did not really happen. That was just a literary work. The Bible itself -- or at least "half" of it -- considers Satan God's testing agent. Besides, what you fail to see -- others might be able to see. Or can see.
The concept of "cool" itself is childish. We teenagers like to be cool; you can't dictate how we are cool. We are just cool. It's just a word. Loki is Thor's brother, no? Then he's as much a god as any.
Ad hominem. ~;) Not work.

Sorry, you lost me with the whole "what you can see." Yes Satan is God's testing agent but it seems to me Satanists ignore that as well. I did reference Job above, actually. Satan rebelled against God, so we are told, and was cast down. Milton's Paradise Lost is an elaboration of the Bible, which is a bit spartan on details. My point stands.

You're wrong about Loki, he was not Odin's brother. His parents were the giants Farbauti and Laufey. The idea that he was Thor's or Odin's brother was, I believe, a late attempt to reintegrate him. He was however a companion of both Odin and Thor during their travels.


Evil = ... ... ... I don't know. Read the social contract theories (or the Bible, heck) and pick your definition. Or invent one. Or just take society's definition as your own.

If it offends my concience then its bad, at the extreme end of the scale, with baby eating etc. is evil.


It's called rebellious nature. The opposite of conforming, you know...

Non-conformity is a joke. All the Goths around at the moment think they are non-conformists, what they've missed is that they're just conforming along with everyone else. Want to be a real non-conformist? Become a Librarian.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, thanks. Not something I've been called yet. Broadens my horizon I guess.
Fortunately Antiochus already addressed most of your points and he did so very well.
But look, I'm not the enemy ok? I do not advocate killing anyone because it's cool. I'm not a member of the Church of Satan. I've read LaVey's Satanic Bible and while I entirely agree with him in his chaptor on sexual freedom, I'm rather ambivalent on most parts of the book. However, apart from the esoteric nonsense, it's an interesting read.
Yes, that satanism is really a bit silly. Just like all other religions, when you think about it. But that doesn't make the followers of any religion idiots. Idiots they are only if they get too excited about the absurd little details.

I said if you find it cool you're a sick puppy. Since you appear to say you don't then you're not. That sounds like contradiction with "evil is cool" though.


I didn't even use the word 'hate'. I said 'oppose completely'. That opposition may be entirely philosophical.

I beg your pardon. I still think setting out with a negative premise is a bad idea. There's an old Roman proverb about not setting out to destroy someone for the sake of it because in the end you don't win, you just destroy your reason for living. Come up with the principles of your religion, then if it goes against Christianity oppose it. Don't start with Christianity and build a religion based on the opposite.

Byzantine Prince, killing raping and causing pain are not facts of life. I'm not going to argue the point because I can tell you're a moral relativist. No-one needs to rape someone.

[Big_John]

No-one needs to rape someone.he didn't say they were necessities.

[A.Saturnus]

I said if you find it cool you're a sick puppy. Since you appear to say you don't then you're not. That sounds like contradiction with "evil is cool" though.


If you'd care what I wrote and what you wrote... You statement did not contain an 'if', but ok, I'll grant you the ellipse. I said in the course of this thread, for the sake of the argument, that certain evils can - possibly - be cool, because you prematurely equated evil with 'not cool'. I further made no claim or alluded that any evils were not cool, so allegations of contradictions on my side are unfounded. I certainly did not mean to appear to say that I don't find killing cool (nor did I make explicit claims about the opposite) so I insist on the right to consider myself to be called a potential (since we allowed for the ellipsis) 'sick puppy'.


I beg your pardon. I still think setting out with a negative premise is a bad idea. There's an old Roman proverb about not setting out to destroy someone for the sake of it because in the end you don't win, you just destroy your reason for living. Come up with the principles of your religion, then if it goes against Christianity oppose it. Don't start with Christianity and build a religion based on the opposite.

No one said anything about destroying Christianity (I urge you again not to jump to conclusions). As far as I know, did neither LaVey nor any official representative of the Church of Satan ever call for the destruction of any religion, nor did they state that that would be the purpose of their cult. Again, the opposition is purely philosophical in nature. You could say Christianity was the inspiration for Satanism. Just like various other religions were inspirations for Christianity.


I'm not PC I just don't sse a reason to use words that insult people for fun.

It's impossible not to offend people. What you said in this thread might be offensive to a lot of people, for example the advocates of young dogs fallen to ill-health.


Seems to me the only reason Satan is cool is because he is outcast and looked down on.

You only say that to hurt satanists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you'd care what I wrote and what you wrote... You statement did not contain an 'if', but ok, I'll grant you the ellipse. I said in the course of this thread, for the sake of the argument, that certain evils can - possibly - be cool, because you prematurely equated evil with 'not cool'. I further made no claim or alluded that any evils were not cool, so allegations of contradictions on my side are unfounded. I certainly did not mean to appear to say that I don't find killing cool (nor did I make explicit claims about the opposite) so I insist on the right to consider myself to be called a potential (since we allowed for the ellipsis) 'sick puppy'.

Well if you're not going to be clear on where you stand then you remain a potentional anything saint/sinner, angel/daemon, hero/villian.


No one said anything about destroying Christianity (I urge you again not to jump to conclusions). As far as I know, did neither LaVey nor any official representative of the Church of Satan ever call for the destruction of any religion, nor did they state that that would be the purpose of their cult. Again, the opposition is purely philosophical in nature. You could say Christianity was the inspiration for Satanism. Just like various other religions were inspirations for Christianity.

Here I was talking about negativity in general and the proverb, not Satanism. My point was negative premises are only valid so long as they have something to oppose, which is why they don't work to well.


It's impossible not to offend people. What you said in this thread might be offensive to a lot of people, for example the advocates of young dogs fallen to ill-health.

If what I said is offensive to some thats fine but I'm saying because I oppose the sentiment, not because I want to cause offence, offence is just, as you say, unavoidable. Its still not my primary purpose.


You only say that to hurt satanists.

No, I say it because he was cast out and looked down upon and non-conformists like to see themselves that way because it shows society can't deal with them.

[A.Saturnus]

Well if you're not going to be clear on where you stand then you remain a potentional anything saint/sinner, angel/daemon, hero/villian.

Where I stand is entirely irrelevant for the discussion.


Here I was talking about negativity in general and the proverb, not Satanism. My point was negative premises are only valid so long as they have something to oppose, which is why they don't work to well.

In spite of the name, satanism doesn't need an opposition to exist. It is based on an idea that is opposing a Christian one, but that idea is self-sufficient. The fact that it was inspirated by antagony to Christian ideals is merely a historical circumstance.


If what I said is offensive to some thats fine but I'm saying because I oppose the sentiment, not because I want to cause offence, offence is just, as you say, unavoidable. Its still not my primary purpose.

Good, then we're in agreement. If I would call my cat 'Hitler' or 'Satan' - which I wouldn't do as I explained - than not to offend people but because I can and because I may find it funny. It still stands that calling your cat 'Hitler' is acceptable, even though it may offend people because offence is unavoidable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where I stand is entirely irrelevant for the discussion.

Well then we'll never know if you are sick puppy or a saint, that was my point.


In spite of the name, satanism doesn't need an opposition to exist. It is based on an idea that is opposing a Christian one, but that idea is self-sufficient. The fact that it was inspirated by antagony to Christian ideals is merely a historical circumstance.

Seems like petty non-conformity to me but hey.


Good, then we're in agreement. If I would call my cat 'Hitler' or 'Satan' - which I wouldn't do as I explained - than not to offend people but because I can and because I may find it funny. It still stands that calling your cat 'Hitler' is acceptable, even though it may offend people because offence is unavoidable.

No, because I try not to give offense just for "fun." I wouldn't go around saying Nigger all the time because it rolls off my tong and I like the sound.

[GoreBag]

I wouldn't go around saying Nigger all the time because it rolls off my tong and I like the sound.

And that's why you'll never understand the concept of Satanism.

[AntiochusIII]

I'm not PC I just don't sse a reason to use words that insult people for fun. Seems to me the only reason Satan is cool is because he is outcast and looked down on.Ah, but insult people is fun. Unfortunately. Your second point is really irrelevant because, as I've stated, others might see him differently. I saw that one pic of Satan represented in the wikipedia article for Milton's Paradise Lost and I thought, "damn, this looks absolutely cool! What a badass of a general!"

Also, offense has its purpose. Have you ever heard of the term Juvenalian Satire?

Sorry, you lost me with the whole "what you can see." Yes Satan is God's testing agent but it seems to me Satanists ignore that as well. I did reference Job above, actually. Satan rebelled against God, so we are told, and was cast down. Milton's Paradise Lost is an elaboration of the Bible, which is a bit spartan on details. My point stands.Satanism is really varied. Some are truly misguided in their basic premises, some others interpret Satan the Milton way, a few just didn't even really believed in Satan. Just took the word's popular historical interpretation as their idol. Even the Bible contradicts the concept of Satan. And surely, other religions have their "Satan" equivalents, whether in purpose (God's inspector, or just Evil Master), looks (Satyrs), etc., no? You can't simply judge them in one premise, which is basically my point here.

You're wrong about Loki, he was not Odin's brother. His parents were the giants Farbauti and Laufey. The idea that he was Thor's or Odin's brother was, I believe, a late attempt to reintegrate him. He was however a companion of both Odin and Thor during their travels.I would require sources for this, then, since others disagree with you on his position in the Norse mythology. I couldn't find myself a conclusive source.

If it offends my concience then its bad, at the extreme end of the scale, with baby eating etc. is evil.Then you are an absolutist in your moral point of view. I don't want this to turn into a debate about morals and their sources and relevance, since it would be a new, huge angle. Let's say many are relativist, or at least, partially.

Non-conformity is a joke. All the Goths around at the moment think they are non-conformists, what they've missed is that they're just conforming along with everyone else. Want to be a real non-conformist? Become a Librarian.Goths...ha! The girls are hot, but the guys look stupid. But hey, teenagers...

I'm not a noncomformist myself, though a teenager for sure, and think many are quite a little, shall I say, vain, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they're stupid. Our argument here, thus, really have no base. You and I share at least a certain degree of dismissal at popular noncomformism among the young -- the rebellious spirit that would die out -- which is an oxymoron but true. :dizzy2:

Ubercool. :2thumbsup:

*prepares himself for the Saturday Night round of Ghost in the Shell and Fullmetal Alchemist*

But many others disagree, and consider us Japanophiles geeky. That's a point relevant to the debate in its demonstration that "cool" is highly relative.

[Byzantine Prince]

The Satanist view of Satan is not the same as the Christian one, just like the Judaic form of Satan is different from the Christian. In Judaism Satan is considered a tester from God, not an evil figure, but one that tempts people to commit sin, as a test.
Hey Wigferth! Did you read this or not?! In Judaism, which Christianity is based on, the Devil is a servant of God. Which makes more sense then him being against God, because that would mean that God is not infinitely powerful, and therefore not perfect. In order for God to be perfect, Satan has to be his servant.

Ignore these big letters[if you can!] :laugh4:

[Husar]

Wigferth, "Satan" is just a word, ok? I know people who call their cat satan, does that mean it's the embodiment of evil? There are people who call themselves satanists. They don't worship the devil, they worship themselves. They don't believe that the devil is an actual existing entity, thus they can hardly worship. It's a bit stupid to worship something if you think it doesn't exist, don't you think? The reasons why they call themselves satanists are several. Mainly because they reject some Christian concepts and follow ideas that counter those. There are also occultistic things in it.

They don't go around and sacrifice virgins or something like that. They are mostly normal people. Some of them are bastards. It's no big deal.
You forget that occultism is like worshipping satan indirectly...

And basically being selfish is following satan in the christian view, just as rejecting christian values is. If they call themselves Satanists just to piss off christians, then they are following satan, wether they believe he exists or not. One of satan´s best strategies is making people believe he doesn´t exist.
It´s not like Chrisitans think that satan worshippers will rule hell together with satan, they will get all the pain and whatever else is in hell.
And telling me satanists have nothing to do with the "christian satan" and then telling me they call themselves satanists to piss off christians is just, weird and contradictory.:inquisitive:

And btw I didn´t read all posts, I refuse to change my opinion regarding this anyway.:juggle2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Byzantine Prince, yes I did and I agree, its one of my main points about Satanism as rebellion, it would be like following god's accountant or estate agent. Uber-uncool.

AntiochusIII, yes, I am a moral absolutist, which I believe I stated above. Just so long as you recognise the fact. It is relevant though because its the core of my problem, Satan represents evil. He may be god's servant but he's there to lead you off the path.

Husar, yes. Exactly. I couldn't have said it better my self.

The Loki debate depends on who you believe, the main division being Icelandic and Danish, IIRC. In general the Icelandic is considered both older and less corrupted but there is no absolute definitive version.

[Byzantine Prince]

It's good that you agree with me thus far, let us see how far we can go with that. If Satan is not separate from God as we agreed, then he was created by God, just like everything else. So if everything that was created by God is perfect by nature, and has all the attributes that God himself has, then if Satan is evil so is God. Because God has all the attributes, he is the originator of everything. So God is evil and good? He wants us to suceed AND fail? No, God doesn't have a will[read: Ethics*].

So this renders good and evil meaningless, or at most modes of thinking in a moral way that is not true morality [read: Ethics*].

I think that is what Satanism is trying to avoid with their philosophy. Just the name of the religion is not important, not to anyone who can see past it that is. The fact that they consider themselves gods is what we are to take notice. They are not without their silliness mind you, magick and all that crap.

*Ethics was written by this man:Benedict de Spinoza (http://www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/spinoza2.htm)

One of the greatest philosphers of all time, IMO.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Problem: God did not create everything to be perfect, only God is perfect.

God gave man free will and Satan is used to test man. God does not want us to fail but if he doesn't test us then how can we suceed?

As to saying God doesn't have a will, well he does becuase in the bible he makes decisions.

While I appreciate that you are well read I don't think that abstact philosophy applies. We are talking about religions. One, Christianity and the second, Satanism. Satanism is directly antagonistic to Christianity and as such can been seen as a work of Satan, not because Satan is evil but because turning away from Satanism would be turning to Christianity and so to God. The reverse is also true, which is why I say there's no real difference between devil worship and LeVay's Satanism.

[Byzantine Prince]

Problem: God did not create everything to be perfect, only God is perfect.
I hate to be antagonistic, but if he was perfect how could he contract his essence into something that is imperfect. [Read: Tzimtzum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum)]


God gave man free will and Satan is used to test man. God does not want us to fail but if he doesn't test us then how can we suceed?
Well the problem I see in this is that free will is not free at all if we cannot do whatever we want regardless of what is percieved as good, or what God wants(he doesn't want anything). It would be a very poor gift in my opinion, since it isn't worth being free and spending the rest of eternity in pain and suffering.

On a sidenote pain and suffering are physical feelings, and not devine ones. If I die I highly doubt I will still feel any pain or suffering, it doesn't make sense to me.


As to saying God doesn't have a will, well he does becuase in the bible he makes decisions.
It can logically be proven absurd that God could act in any way to alter the natural world. He created it to perfection, he does not and cannot be messing with it. As for his "actions" in the Bible, I am not touching that.


Satanism is directly antagonistic to Christianity and as such can been seen as a work of Satan, not because Satan is evil but because turning away from Satanism would be turning to Christianity and so to God. The reverse is also true, which is why I say there's no real difference between devil worship and LeVay's Satanism.
Okay, but in all fairness Satanism is antagonistic mostly in name alone. I honestly cannot say that it is much worse from a Christian perspective than, say, atheism, which is also a turning away from, and denial of God. Satanism is kind of like Buddhism in that it is a mostly humanistic philosophy, and not so much worshiping of anything. If we are talking about devil worshipping, then we are not talking about a concrete religion, because devil worshipping is not done in any organized way. In other words it is just people who are pbsessed with myths created by authors and they think it's cool or something. It has about as much validity as a religion as metal culture.

[A.Saturnus]

And basically being selfish is following satan in the christian view, just as rejecting christian values is. If they call themselves Satanists just to piss off christians, then they are following satan, wether they believe he exists or not. One of satan´s best strategies is making people believe he doesn´t exist.
It´s not like Chrisitans think that satan worshippers will rule hell together with satan, they will get all the pain and whatever else is in hell.


Did the possibility ever cross your mind that other people could maybe believe other things than you do? Of course, Christians may think that satanist are devil-worshippers because they are selfish. Just like communists, goths or gay rights activists, just ask any southern baptist. What we are discussing here is whether the satanists' believes make sense from their point of view. Admittedly, that requires a minimum of the ability to be objective and to look beyond your own convinction. The satanists don't believe that they will either suffer OR rule in hell because they don't believe hell exists.


And btw I didn´t read all posts, I refuse to change my opinion regarding this anyway.

That makes talking to you a bit like masturbation.

[A.Saturnus]

Well then we'll never know if you are sick puppy or a saint, that was my point.


I just wonder why you brought up the concept in the first place. That wasn't very constructive for the topic at hand, was it?



Seems like petty non-conformity to me but hey.


Let's settle on the 'hey'-part.



No, because I try not to give offense just for "fun." I wouldn't go around saying Nigger all the time because it rolls off my tong and I like the sound.

Ok, no one says you should.


The reverse is also true, which is why I say there's no real difference between devil worship and LeVay's Satanism.

You are free to believe what you want, however that's not just wrong but absurd. Devil worship involves actively and consciously worshipping the devil. Here the name is telling. LaVey's (and not LeVay) satanism does not include any worshipped entity other than the individual church member. 'Satan' only appears there as an symbolic figure.

[A.Saturnus]

Goths...ha! The girls are hot, but the guys look stupid. But hey, teenagers...

I happen to know quite a number of goths and not all of them are teenagers. Many of them don't care whether they confirm to anything either.

[Husar]

Did the possibility ever cross your mind that other people could maybe believe other things than you do?
Did your eyes ever cross the phrase "christian view" while reading my text?


What we are discussing here is whether the satanists' believes make sense from their point of view.
You don´t really think that their believes don´t make sense to them? They believe in it, if it wouldn´t make sense from their point of view, they wouldn´t believe in it.:dizzy2:


That makes talking to you a bit like masturbation.
I hope you enjoy it.~;p

[AntiochusIII]

AntiochusIII, yes, I am a moral absolutist, which I believe I stated above. Just so long as you recognise the fact. It is relevant though because its the core of my problem, Satan represents evil. He may be god's servant but he's there to lead you off the path.Ah, then I guess we cannot continue our debate, pleasant and unoffensive as it may. For we have two underlying different warrants -- assumptions. Yours is the view that only look at Satan from a Christian perspective. Me, I look at them, as A. Saturnus stated, from the Satanists' point of view, in which, in and of itself, there are many. Occultists, moral relativists, satirists, noncomformists, and so on.

The Loki debate depends on who you believe, the main division being Icelandic and Danish, IIRC. In general the Icelandic is considered both older and less corrupted but there is no absolute definitive version.That clarifies enough, then. Even Loki himself is relative. :laugh4:

I happen to know quite a number of goths and not all of them are teenagers. Many of them don't care whether they confirm to anything either.Ah, but I look at Goths from the only perspective physically available for me, the American High School one. I know there are "Goths" in many age groups but the high school one is, more often than not, what the stereotype is.

And telling me satanists have nothing to do with the "christian satan" and then telling me they call themselves satanists to piss off christians is just, weird and contradictory.The word "Satan" by modern understanding is varied, and what Christianity contributes to the societal perspective of things does not necessarily mean Christianity owns it and that what it was is now what it is. "Satan" might be a concept, at least in the West, derived originally from the religion(s), but as the concept evolved its purpose changed, at least among those who "change" with it, such as Lavey's point of view. It becomes, in many "atheistic" Satanists' mind, just a single word that unites many concepts such as the libertarian principle, moral relativism, and self-centered ego, thus suitable to be used as an "idol," with or without the intention of making a connotation to the Biblical Satan, or just pissing off Christians. Like I said above, in this post, our underlying warrants are different.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I still don't see whay it has to be Satan, and just to clarify, we are talking about the Christian Satan because Satanists admire him for his rebellion, which is a Christian view of him.

Why not Bacchus or Dionysus (Yes I know they're the same but I'm talking about names). Both represent freedom and self determination, not to mention pleasure and even orgy, so why Satan?

I still don't see any other explanation but to piss off the church.

[Big_John]

I still don't see whay it has to be Satan, and just to clarify, we are talking about the Christian Satan because Satanists admire him for his rebellion, which is a Christian view of him.

Why not Bacchus or Dionysus (Yes I know they're the same but I'm talking about names). Both represent freedom and self determination, not to mention pleasure and even orgy, so why Satan?

I still don't see any other explanation but to piss off the church.ancient gods are not, in general, part of current cultures. if you want to create a counter-cultural movement, it makes sense to adopt the current archetype. these days, that happens to be the judeo-christian satan.

[A.Saturnus]

Did your eyes ever cross the phrase "christian view" while reading my text?


Yes, but I fail to see how that's relevant. We're not discussing Christian theology. Obviously the satanists err by the standards of many religions. Why don't you point out in what way their ideology contradicts buddhistic believes?
Wigferth questioned the sensibleness of the satanist religion and I objected that it is not less sensible than other religions.
Saying that they'll go to hell isn't a reasonable argument in that context.


You don´t really think that their believes don´t make sense to them? They believe in it, if it wouldn´t make sense from their point of view, they wouldn´t believe in it

Not necessarily correct. It is possible to question a system of believes on an objective basis. Even if we grant them their premisses, they might be contradictory or wrong conclusions might be drawn.

Is that thread really only two pages long? It feels like 8 :dizzy2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

ancient gods are not, in general, part of current cultures. if you want to create a counter-cultural movement, it makes sense to adopt the current archetype. these days, that happens to be the judeo-christian satan.

I still think Satan is a really bad role model. Anyway, whats wrong with Christianity in the first place? I know the church sucks but the idea is really rather nice. Peace, love and forgiveness.

[GoreBag]

I still think Satan is a really bad role model. Anyway, whats wrong with Christianity in the first place? I know the church sucks but the idea is really rather nice. Peace, love and forgiveness.

You've convinced me.

[Big_John]

I still think Satan is a really bad role model. Anyway, whats wrong with Christianity in the first place? I know the church sucks but the idea is really rather nice. Peace, love and forgiveness.are you asking me or just making a statement of opinion?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well if I wasn't asking I wouldn't have posted. What is wrong with the basic Christian premis?

[GoreBag]

Are you asking for an opinion, here? It looked like a rhetorical question to me, too.

[Big_John]

What is wrong with the basic Christian premis?is there such thing as a "basic christian premise"? the philosophies of most religions seem much too complex to be simplified as such. regardless, i'm an atheist of some sort, and a skeptic in general, so the philosophical problem i have with christianity (and most religions) is the supernatural aspect. generally speaking, the faults i find with religion/spirituality are derived from that.

now, to take your presentation of "peace, love and forgiveness". i have no problem with the first two.. almost all people wants those things, and they are of course not proprietary to spiritualities. as such, they seem to obviate spiritual philosophy, if "peace" and "love" are a sizeable part thereof.

as for "forgiveness", what exactly needs to be forgiven? to whom, by whom? please explain.

[Cronos Impera]

What's wrong with the Christian beliefs.
1. Falsehood
God seems to break his own laws, the Christian God is a tyrant.
In the Exodus God kills all the Egyptian newborns for.......political reasons( The independance of the Israelites). If God is so divine why does he care to intervean in politics. How can you cal him just. God in the Bible makes regular abuses. God send plagues, his prophets "fix" them ( Abraham is a well-known chancer and scammer - He behaves like Loki- decieving the Pharaoh and a Caanite King). Abraham prostitutes his wife with God's approval.

Satan's actually the "good guy". After all he as a revolutionary and hummanist figure he shows more mercy than God. He shows compassion towards Christ, he tries to discuss with Abraham but he gets stoned. Etc...

Christianity as it is promotes tyrany and abuses. It turns deceit, conformity and fear into a religion. If God is so mercifull how comes he created Hell or God didn't create nothing and it's just another god trying to gain influience.
God may have originated in Egypt during the reign of Echnaton, the first monotheistic tyrant. Monotheism was developed to encourage a centralized system.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is a massive over-simplification. For starters you aren't talking about the Christain God but the God of the Israelites.

1. It was all the first borns and there were a few signs prior to this, a few plagues maybe? The Egyption Pharoh had the Israelites enslaved, something you're ignoring. The Pharoh is responsible for his people and he chose to have them suffer, he was ample given warning.

2. Abraham does what he has to to get by. Prostitutes his wife? Sorry don't remember that in Genesis.

How about some references.

[A.Saturnus]

I still think Satan is a really bad role model. Anyway, whats wrong with Christianity in the first place? I know the church sucks but the idea is really rather nice. Peace, love and forgiveness.

This isn't the place to discuss Christianity and it's potential flaws, as that would require a whole new thread. The main problem LaVey had with Christianity is the forgiveness part. Not that he's principially against it, but he argued that it is an unrealistic doctrine to follow. If someone hits you, hit back.
Of course, apart from that, he also had a entirely different view on sexuality than some past and contemporary Christians.