Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI

Quote:

---

Do prayers of supplication make any sense for a true Christian? If you accept God's will as the plan for your life and submit to it, what business do you have asking for anything? Shouldn't we be working on coming to grips with and accepting whatever comes our way and just being thankful for it?

---

I would suggest consulting a theologian. Ive found that all religious questions have already been asked at some point, deliberated upon, and answered quite thoroughly.

When I was serving my time in a Catholic boys school, we would try and stump the religion teachers - all Christian Brothers - with tough questions like that, yet they always had perfectly reasonable answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Was the point of the article to say that only Judaism & Christianity are valid religions?

---

I rather think that the point of the article is that Dennis Prager wants to tell us that preserving and protecting nature just for the sake of it is not a valuable and worthwhile endeavour.
His point is, that because nature in itself is amoral we have no obligation to go out of our way to preserve it.

BTW, another thought provoking article Gawain. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

Lazul hit the nail on the head when he spoke about modern Satanists.

---

Actually he did not - Lazul was describing something else besides Satanism.

Those who call themselves Satanists to anger Christians and Muslims - verus worshipping Satan are actually doing something else then practicing religion.

The term Satanism requires a belief to occur - that belief is in Satan being the diety in which they worship - if you practice Satanism - then by defination you are worshipping Satan. If you call yourself a satanist to make others angry - you are actually doing something else - its called being an antagonist (SP)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Just out of curiosity, I've been tossing an idea around lately that's been troubling me.

Do prayers of supplication make any sense for a true Christian? If you accept God's will as the plan for your life and submit to it, what business do you have asking for anything? Shouldn't we be working on coming to grips with and accepting whatever comes our way and just being thankful for it?

---

Sounds like "are we doomed to live a predestined life, or can we influence it?"
To be honest, I don´t know it, but I´d say it´s a bit of both. As a christian I´d say god has plans, but him being almighty includes that he can/may change his plans if we ask for it. In the end we come to the question:

If god knows everything before it happens, can we really decide on our own? Or do we always decide on our own and he just knows before how we will decide?

I think there are similar questions for atheists and people from other religions, but the bible says humans have to decide if they want to believe or not.

In other words, if god didn´t want us to think, why did he give us a brain? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Just out of curiosity, I've been tossing an idea around lately that's been troubling me.

Do prayers of supplication make any sense for a true Christian? If you accept God's will as the plan for your life and submit to it, what business do you have asking for anything? Shouldn't we be working on coming to grips with and accepting whatever comes our way and just being thankful for it?

---

It depends I guess, if you believe in total free will and a non-interventionalist God (well, expect Jesus and such) there is no point.
If you believe God actively guides each life then it doesn't make much sense to pray.
So you have to believe something in between those two extremes for prayer to make any sense, God sometimes lends a Hand. Even then, you have to believe He will do this in answer of prayer and not for His own reasons (like help in Holy War).

I don't know enough of the Bible to really say whether or not prayer can help. The story of Job essentially says you get what God wants to give you, actually I think most of the Old Testament is about how god does what he want whether you like it or not, but you should pray and be submissive because in the end he'll have the best in mind. In this life or the next.

I'm not so sure about the the New Testament. The Gospels would suggest a God that actively helps people, although he did do it through Jesus back then...

In Catholic tradition, the idea of power of prayer is very strong. You don't just pray to God, you pray to Mary and the Saints too. And they will help you then. (Not a prayer goes unanswered, I wonder if it's in the Bible or I remember that line from my upbringing).

Of course, who better to answer the question then a modern day Messiah a Rock Star !

"You cannot petition the lord with prayer !" -Jim Morrison

I think that settles it :bow:

You guys are missing my point. I'm not rehashing John Calvin's old arguments.

My point is, God has His desires, we have ours. If we're really trying to obey God's will, shouldn't we just 'take what we can get', and isn't the asking, in and of itself, rebellious and therefore sinful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You guys are missing my point. I'm not rehashing John Calvin's old arguments.

My point is, God has His desires, we have ours. If we're really trying to obey God's will, shouldn't we just 'take what we can get', and isn't the asking, in and of itself, rebellious and therefore sinful?

---

Asking for Guidance within the bounds of being a good Christian.

Asking for God to grant you material possessions or success - kind of goes against the grain of Christianity.

Well, that's closer to my point, but you're still missing it....

Let me give an example. You guys remember this February, when my dog disappeared for 2 1/2 weeks during an ice-storm and I was convinced she wasn't coming back?

At certain points, I felt a little guilty begging God to return her. If He wanted to return her, He would. If He didn't want to, He wouldn't. As a good Christian, aren't I supposed to get my mind around what God wants, not vice versa?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You guys are missing my point. I'm not rehashing John Calvin's old arguments.

My point is, God has His desires, we have ours. If we're really trying to obey God's will, shouldn't we just 'take what we can get', and isn't the asking, in and of itself, rebellious and therefore sinful?

---

Didn't Adam ask for Eve ?

I think you will find several stories in the Bible that have people praying for something (and God either giving it or denying it). I don't think it's inherently wrong.
We as people are 'less' than God, but are not His servants, we have to live by certain rules and we should strive for the Kingdom but I don't think we can't ask god for anything. we have to accept that he doesn't give it though :bow:

I don't understand how worshipping nature is bad... certaintly some of the most interesting cultures came out from it. Don't Buddhists worship nature? Their religion is pretty peaceful, I believe. And American Indians, at least most of them worshipped nature along with higher beings, I believe. I might be wrong, though.
And one thing is for sure, nature worshipers (if they can be lumped into one group, which they I'm pretty sure they can't) treated the enviornment a lot better than other forms of religion. And that is certaintly a good thing.

Quote:

---

The romanticizing of nature, let alone the ascribing of divinity to it, involves ignoring what really happens in nature. I doubt that those American schoolchildren who conducted a campaign on behalf of freeing a killer whale (the whale in the film "Free Willy") ever saw films of actual killer whale behavior. There are National Geographic videos that show, among other things, killer whales tossing a terrified baby seal back and forth before finally killing it. Perhaps American schoolchildren should see those films and then petition killer whales not to treat baby seals sadistically.

---

And there is one difference between human cruelty and animals killing each other: animals do so for survival. This is often not so with humans. Perhaps nature is amoral. Thus it is not evil, as this lady is describing.
And I have seen pictures of killer whales tossing about seals. It got me no more abset than when I saw lions eating gazelles. I get angry when people kill those baby seals to wear their fur. There is a huge difference between people acting cruel and the harshness of the animal world.

Quote:

---

I don't understand how worshipping nature is bad... certaintly some of the most interesting cultures came out from it. Don't Buddhists worship nature? Their religion is pretty peaceful, I believe. And American Indians, at least most of them worshipped nature along with higher beings, I believe. I might be wrong, though.
And one thing is for sure, nature worshipers (if they can be lumped into one group, which they I'm pretty sure they can't) treated the enviornment a lot better than other one. And that is certaintly a good thing.

---

I think what the article was saying is that nature is not a good example for humanity.

Ah. Well I can make the argument that worshipping anything is bad for humanity. I really don't get this guys point...

"Elevating nature above humanity is a bad thing" is the point I got out of it.

Radical environmentalism would stifle many human activities for to benefit nature. The author is questioning whether such an elevation of nature is really a good thing.

PJ, the articale you posted in that other thread, as well as Don's stories gave got me thinking.
All of those stories show extreme cruelty (10 year old boy raping a 3 year old, guy raping his neighbours dog to death, kids killing a mentally challenged nice person, woman drowning her kids so her boyfriend won't have to be a parent).
No where in nature is it that cruel. Harsh, yes. But animals don't go out of the way to do such cruel and horrible things. Yes, sometimes animals will drive off and kill weaker animals, etc. But that is for survival. The above examples are just human cruelty. So while nature might not have "good", it also has no "evil".

Quote:

---

Radical environmentalism would stifle many human activities for to benefit nature. The author is questioning whether such an elevation of nature is really a good thing.

---

It's not elevation because it's stopping destroying things that were around way before we are. It isn't just for nature's sake, though that is a big part of it. It is also for ourselves and our offspring that nature must be preserved.
And I must admit, I am confused by the author claiming god is above nature, thus nature doesn't need to be saved. Isn't it bad to destroy god's creations? If god didn't think that they were needed, why did god make them in the first place? If humans were "meant" to do all that they have done, why didn't god just not create Tasmanian tigers, dodos and other species humans have killed off?

You make a good point about the evils of man. All I can say is that you wont find love or compassion in nature either.

Quote:

---

And I must admit, I am confused by the author claiming god is above nature, thus nature doesn't need to be saved. Isn't it bad to destroy god's creations?

---

Maybe i read into it wrong. I dont think the author is saying not to save nature, only not to elevate it over humanity.

An example would be if they found a cure for cancer in an almost extinct animal and the only way to get that chemical compound would be to kill the animal. What should we do - drive the animal into full extinction or preserve a dying species for the sake of preserving it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

yes. But animals don't go out of the way to do such cruel and horrible things.

---

Not even cats ?

Quote:

---

It's not elevation because it's stopping destroying things that were around way before we are. It isn't just for nature's sake, though that is a big part of it. It is also for ourselves and our offspring that nature must be preserved.
And I must admit, I am confused by the author claiming god is above nature, thus nature doesn't need to be saved. Isn't it bad to destroy god's creations? If god didn't think that they were needed, why did god make them in the first place? If humans were "meant" to do all that they have done, why didn't god just not create Tasmanian tigers, dodos and other species humans have killed off?

---

The article is just saying one thing to try and justify another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

PJ, the articale you posted in that other thread, as well as Don's stories gave got me thinking.
All of those stories show extreme cruelty (10 year old boy raping a 3 year old, guy raping his neighbours dog to death, kids killing a mentally challenged nice person, woman drowning her kids so her boyfriend won't have to be a parent). [
No where in nature is it that cruel. Harsh, yes. But animals don't go out of the way to do such cruel and horrible things. Yes, sometimes animals will drive off and kill weaker animals, etc. But that is for survival. The above examples are just human cruelty. So while nature might not have "good", it also has no "evil".

---

Did you know that male bears will often eat the cubs if the mother does not watch them closely.

Did you know that certain species of fish will eat there own young.

The list goes on - certain behaviors in nature are also found in man. And vice versa.

Quote:

---

You make a good point about the evils of man. All I can say is that you wont find love or compassion in nature either.

---

While this is pretty much true, I believe that certaint animals certaintly do care for thier offspring, and sometimes even their mates. It varies species by species of course, but there are some animals that won't abandon a dead offspring or mate, and end up starving, or something to that effect.

Quote:

---

An example would be if they found a cure for cancer in an almost extinct animal and the only way to get that chemical compound would be to kill the animal. What should we do - drive the animal into full extinction or preserve a dying species for the sake of preserving it.

---

It's plants that have medicines, not animals, silly. ~;)
But just for the sake of arguement, could they wait until one of the animals dies, then artificially replicate that chemical? And if not, how much does this chemical does it have, and how much does it take to cure the cancer? Cause if their are only a few animals left, and they kill them all, only a few cancer survivors would be cured. It would be smarter to grow them in captivity, and wait until they die of natrual causes, this way being able to cure cancer patients in the years to come as well.

edit:

Quote:

---

Did you know that male bears will often eat the cubs if the mother does not watch them closely.

Did you know that certain species of fish will eat there own young.

The list goes on - certain behaviors in nature are also found in man. And vice versa.

---

Good point. And I don't know if this is cruelty, or an instinct to survive for example, males killing off offspring of a female with another mate so the male can mate with the female. I don't know if this is cruelty or not. And I do know that some animals will kill off their young if they are weak.
However, I would like to say that humans can be far more cruel than anything in nature. And kinder too, I suppose.
But one thing I believe is not found in nature: war. And that is certaintly one of the most barbaric human practices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

But one thing I believe is not found in nature: war. And that is certaintly one of the most barbaric human practices.

---

And Wolf Packs, Lion Packs fighting each other over hunting terrority.

Lions and henia's are supposely two animals that will fight each other at the slightlest hint of a trespass by one into another's terrority.

And then Males of many species fighting each other over females.

While its not war in the sense that human fight - animals do fight each other and often to the death because of the amount of damage they do to each other before one quits.

And then there are ants - where wars between different species of ants do happen.

One thing is that Nature is a very violent place - only the strong survive in the world of Nature. Nature has no place for the weak - that is why Nature is always amoral - it does not care if something is good or bad - but that it is strong enough to survive and flourish.

Quote:

---

In ancient Egypt, for example, gods included the Nile River, the frog, sun, wind, gazelle, bull, cow, serpent, moon and crocodile.

---

It's about here this article lost a lot of credibility for me (didn't take all that long really). If the author is unwilling to put any research into his examples, I doubt he did much for his main point. And if he is to be taken seriously on points of theology he should have the courtesy not to spout myths about religions.
Egyptian god's had features of animals (typically the animals head on a human body) but there was no 'frog god'. Their pantheon was as complex, if not more so, then those of the classical age (Roman, Greek, etc.), stories and legends included. However, the Egyptian god's could take the guise of an animal when needed (typically the one they held the head of) which is one of the causes of the famous animal cults, from where this silly misconception comes from.

Despite this bad start, I see the thread was able to lift itself to a decent discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Also Judaism was not the first to claim a supernatural God. Before them were the Zoroastrians who believed in a single God

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazul

First of all, jews/christians were not first to pray to One god, the Egyptians were.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Thats not what he claimed. Also the Egyptian religion didnt last long

---

True, true and true.
In truth we will never know who was the first to worship a monotheistic God, however it was not the Judeans. Both the Egyptian experiment (no matter how short) and the Zoroastrians beat them to it.
The Old Testament and Egyptian monotheistic religion don't have much in common, so I don't think the Jews took much (if anything) from there, however, the Old Testament as (re)written during the Babylonian exile has a lot in common with the Zoroastrian beliefs, like a rigid concept of heaven and hell and an eternal battle between God and Satan. No major surprise here though, as many Zoroastrians were also exiled in Babylon at the time.
The point is religions evolve, taking on parts of other religions (via various means). Dennis Prager is going to be shocked when he learns that many of the foundations of his Judeo-Christian values come from 'nature worshipping' religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Radical environmentalism would stifle many human activities for to benefit nature. The author is questioning whether such an elevation of nature is really a good thing.

---

To take a recent example, the hunting of whales.
Is the protection of whales elevating nature above humanity? Parts of humanity enjoy eating whales, so you could claim that they are suffering for the sake of nature. I live very close to the Humpback Whale migration route and I enjoy looking at the whales (it's an awesome sight, in the true meaning of the word) and it generates a lot of money in tourism and business, so by hunting them to near, if not total, extinction, you are also severely disadvantaging us.
So really, it's not such a black and white issue as many like to make out. Cutting down the forests benefits one group of people, protecting them another (and not just radical environmentalists). To base the decision entirely on God making us superior to nature seems folly, and often ignores the long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

An example would be if they found a cure for cancer in an almost extinct animal and the only way to get that chemical compound would be to kill the animal. What should we do - drive the animal into full extinction or preserve a dying species for the sake of preserving it.

---

Once it's been driven to extinction then no one can be saved. Lose-lose situation, no matter what opinion you have.

The solution? Clone the animal! But that opens another can of worms.

Quote:

---

One thing is that Nature is a very violent place - only the strong survive in the world of Nature. Nature has no place for the weak - that is why Nature is always amoral - it does not care if something is good or bad - but that it is strong enough to survive and flourish.

---

And that is the point of the article. You might as well worship your car. There is no morality in nature. It comes to me as a miracle when I look at the things man has made from nature. Its really incomprehensible. Should we feel guilty for beingthe smartest and the top of the food chain. No other animal would. Again people always seem to think of humans as unatural in some way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually he did not - Lazul was describing something else besides Satanism.

Those who call themselves Satanists to anger Christians and Muslims - verus worshipping Satan are actually doing something else then practicing religion.

The term Satanism requires a belief to occur - that belief is in Satan being the diety in which they worship - if you practice Satanism - then by defination you are worshipping Satan. If you call yourself a satanist to make others angry - you are actually doing something else - its called being an antagonist (SP)

---

If I had a nickel for every time I heard a Christian talk to me about Satanism...

Quote:

---

All I can say is that you wont find love or compassion in nature either.

---

Look at the way an elephant or cougar or grizzly bear cares for its young, and I think you'll see love. Even male and female ravens the things I've seen one do for theo ther, surely looks like love.

Quote:

---

Radical environmentalism would stifle many human activities for to benefit nature. The author is questioning whether such an elevation of nature is really a good thing.

---

First, we can argue extremist positions if you want, but I prefer to discard the most extreme and deal with the reasonable differences in thought that might come from objective analysis. The term radical environmentalist has come to be used as pejorative that includes any and all who would stop and question the industrial path we are on. The use of the term does no more to help the debate than does the use of terms like murderer for hunters, or callous desecraters does for those who pollute.

The motiviation for environmentalism comes from each person's moral and ethical framework. Some want to ensure that we don't cause a catastrophe that disrupts ecosystems or other conditions to the point that we cannot sustain life: e.g. overfishing that leads to marine ecosystme collapse, or smoke that leads to global warming/cooling, or pesticide use that leads to toxic chemicals in our food chain. The loss of ecosystems and the parts thereof could have significant adverse impacts on humans.

Others want to protect the environment simply because it exists. There may be some problems with this line of thought, but hey, if people want to believe that cows are their deceased relatives or God's army of angels is just waiting for the Temple of Israel to be rebuilt, who are we to deny them that.

From a Christian perspective, I sure don't want to have to stand there and explain to a wrathful God that I condoned or aided in the destruction of His wonderful creation. If I made a place as cool as earth and came back and found that some honyockers had totally fouled it up, I'd be pist.

There's a difference between worshipping nature and understanding the need to properly manage it.

Sometimes it is necessary to curtail the behavior of one or a few when the consequences of their actions will have negative impacts on the rest of us. This isn't 'placing nature above humans', it's requring that a few do not benefit while the rest of us suffer.

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

If I had a nickel for every time I heard a Christian talk to me about Satanism...

---

LOL - the word defines itself. But then again you probably don't understand what the concept of Satanism is in itself - but to help you out since you attempted to be flippant. Another trait of not only Satanists - but those who rather be antagonistical verus informative.

Quote:

---

Satanists are followers of a Satanic religion: Most religious historians, mainline Christians, liberal Christians, etc., view Satanism as Satanists themselves do: as a very small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies. There are perhaps ten thousand Satanists in North America. By far the largest Satanic organization is the Church of Satan. Accurate membership numbers are quite impossible to estimate.

---

However since you are an advowed Satanist - this is actually how the religion is defined - which is close to the context and intent of how I stated it.

Quote:

---

the terms "Satanist" and "Satanism" be used only to refer to religions that have some direct involvement with Satan in some form. Thus a "Satanist" is one who either:

1. Worships the Christian devil. Although the Christian Churches taught during the Renaissance that devil worshipers were very common, such individuals were in fact extremely rare, and remain so. The very few who do exist appear to be solitary practitioners; they do not appear to have formed an organization.
2. Accepts Satan as a pre-Christian life-principle concept worth emulating. These are religious Satanists, who follow a number of religious traditions, of which the largest by far is the Church of Satan.

---

and then there is this one - just for you.

Quote:

---

It is important to realize that the Satan that they recognize has few if any points of similarity with the historical Muslim or Christian concept of Satan. The Satanists' concept of Satan is pre-Christian, and derived from the Pagan image of power, virility, sexuality and sensuality. To almost religious Satanists, Satan is a force of nature, not a living quasi-deity. Their Satan has nothing to do with Hell, demons, pitchforks, sadistic torture, buying people's souls, demonic possession, performing miracles, human sacrifices, cannibalism, and profoundly evil deeds.

---

So you see NeonGod - we are both correct - Satanism has two forms - the one that I defined based upon the word Satan - and the one you claim to be. You do demonstrate the main trait of a Satanist - to be agtagnotisic when someone confronts your belief.

Care to understand something requires one to read and understand - instead of being flippant. However I doubt if you are truely a member of the Church of Satan - but are stating what you did to be antagonistic (SP).
http://www.churchofsatan.com/

Redleg, excellent point. I suppose terrotorial battles are wars. And indeed nature is amoral. But it is beatiful, and hopefully be here when we are long gone. That is why so many people love it. I don't worship it or anything else, but the articale seems that it's saying that Nature is a horrible thing. It is harsh and only favors the strong, but it is also a thing of beauty that must be preserved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Redleg, excellent point. I suppose terrotorial battles are wars. And indeed nature is amoral. But it is beatiful, and hopefully be here when we are long gone. That is why so many people love it. I don't worship it or anything else, but the articale seems that it's saying that Nature is a horrible thing. It is harsh and only favors the strong, but it is also a thing of beauty that must be preserved.

---

I for one am absolute dedicated to preserving nature as best we can - however that is a far cry from worshipping it.

That and I am not a very good Christian since I have a shelf full of Native American fetish's that have different meanings and I know what they are. And in my office I have a Navajo Sand Painting to ward off bad luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

LOL - the word defines itself. But then again you probably don't understand what the concept of Satanism is in itself - but to help you out since you attempted to be flippant. Another trait of not only Satanists - but those who rather be antagonistical verus informative.

---

I have no need to "be informative" to anyone arrogant enough to make sweeping, generalized statements about a religion of which they obviously don't much. I'm flippant, whoopee; you're arrogant. I suppose we're even?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So you see NeonGod - we are both correct - Satanism has two forms - the one that I defined based upon the word Satan - and the one you claim to be. You do demonstrate the main trait of a Satanist - to be agtagnotisic when someone confronts your belief.

---

Actually, I do believe Lazul, and then I, used the phrase "Modern Satanists", which excludes the "traditional" belief, meaning devil-worship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Care to understand something requires one to read and understand - instead of being flippant. However I doubt if you are truely a member of the Church of Satan - but are stating what you did to be antagonistic (SP).
http://www.churchofsatan.com/

---

You're not implying that I'm claiming to be a Satanist without understaning the implications of being one, are you? I assure you, I've read my share and understood. Not all Satanists are members of the Church of Satan, in fact, such an organization is in itself un-Satanic.

Oh, nice link. I'm incapable of typing it up myself...what am I supposed to do with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

I have no need to "be informative" to anyone arrogant enough to make sweeping, generalized statements about a religion of which they obviously don't much. I'm flippant, whoopee; you're arrogant. I suppose we're even?

---

being informative is what a message board is about - however I see that you are still not only flippant but also applying my arrogant standard.

However once again you have not shown where my defination is incorrect nor that it is a broad sweeping generalization. What has been shown is that it was not completely correct - that there is a slightly different defination that is also being applied along with the old defination that I initially used. And it wasn't even you that demonstrated that information.

So I guess you are trying to imply that the books on the occult that were being spread around in the 1970-1980's were not Satanism? Could of fooled me - especially since I picked a couple of them up to read out of coursity back when I was a little younger. Definations change over time - however once again its interesting to note that even Satanism from several sources still acknowledge that the worship of Satan as a diety is included in their definations. Has I have already shown.

Quote:

---

You're not implying that I'm claiming to be a Satanist without understaning the implications of being one, are you? I assure you, I've read my share and understood. Not all Satanists are members of the Church of Satan, in fact, such an organization is in itself un-Satanic.

---

Sure I am. You have demonstrated it yourself without knowing that the Church of Satan is actually located in the Church of Scientilogy (SP) and a few other things. The Church of Satan has as a doctrine exactly the "modern" defination of Satanism. Again a religous doctrine has a doctrine be it the classic Christian Defination of Satanism - or the new dogma of the Modern Satanist.

Again I refer to this defination taken from a Modern Satanism website.

the terms "Satanist" and "Satanism" be used only to refer to religions that have some direct involvement with Satan in some form. Thus a "Satanist" is one who either:

1. Worships the Christian devil. Although the Christian Churches taught during the Renaissance that devil worshipers were very common, such individuals were in fact extremely rare, and remain so. The very few who do exist appear to be solitary practitioners; they do not appear to have formed an organization.
2. Accepts Satan as a pre-Christian life-principle concept worth emulating. These are religious Satanists, who follow a number of religious traditions, of which the largest by far is the Church of Satan.

Quote:

---

Oh, nice link. I'm incapable of typing it up myself...what am I supposed to do with it?

---

Educate yourself on your advowed religion before assuming that others are incable of understanding a different concept - or that they don't have the base knowledge about the subject.

Gawain,
This is a request and not in any way meant to be an ad hominem: but could you please cite the source or provide a link when you post long editorials like the one you posted to start this thread? I always wonder where you're getting this from and who it is that is writing and in what forum. This would really help us a lot.

Now, as pointed out, the article make a number of uninformed and erroneous assumptions about ancient religions, most notably Egyptian and Zoroastrian faiths. This seriously undermined the author's credibility, to the point, I would say, that the entire argument collapses. Judaism did not begin this 'revolution' because the Judeans were not the first montheists. What remains of the argument, I'll leave to you all. But this just shows what happens when you don't do your research.