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

[Steppe Merc]

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

I was aware of your love of nature, but didn't want to put words in your mouth. I am glad we agree that we have to preserve nature.
But the author seems to be lumping those that care about nature with nature worshipers with this:

Major elements in secular Western society are returning to a form of nature worship. Animals are elevated to equality with people, and the natural environment is increasingly regarded as sacred. The most extreme expressions of nature worship actually view human beings as essentially blights on nature.

The author seems to be condemming all of those that care about nature, which is a very slippery slope to be on. One could be called a nature worshipper (or more commonly tree hugger) for some of their views, but not be a nature worshipper. And I'm pretty sure there aren't that many nature worshippers around anymore.

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

Where did you aquire them, if I may ask? I've seen different Native American stores when I went to Colorado, and also closer to home in New Hope, and most of the stuff was either insanely expensive, and I really doubted any of it was remotley authentic. Some of the pipes were interesting though...
And nothing wrong with having a good luck charm, it's best to cover as many bases as possible.

[Papewaio]

I like a good sunset, roses, surf, forests, Kaori, Pine, insects, dolphins etc

I studied physics and hence natural phenomena is a subject I am very interested in.

I realise that we are natural beings and as such we are not physically above the other animals in the environment. Our grace is our minds, which are far more godlike then our physical form no matter what olympians, playboy bunnies or footballers you may desire to be like or with.

I think environmental damage is strategically stupid, I don't think you should destroy something that you need without the ability to rebuild it, I don't believe in a static pristine environment, I would meditate in a wood and absorb the experience of nature but in no way on God's green Earth would I ever worship nature as in pray to it.

[kiwitt]

I agree with what the article says that worshipping nature and treating it as divine is wrong. However, that is different from respecting it. We should respect nature enough to care for it as it sustains our life on this planet.

Some people like to believe that nature was created by a "Supreme Being". Given what I know about the size of the universe (Bigger than I can imagine), I find it extremely hard to see how "one" god could create all that. And if he did, where does he reside; another universe, and who created that one, and so on

No I stick with my view that the world and it's universe that it is a member of, is greater than I or anyone else can understand (that is why we have many scientists currently studying and research it).

People seek a "God" to help understand it, that is fine let them. I simply ignore those questions and concentrate of my nearest and dearest, and our day to day concerns.

BTW: I am not an environmetalist, but I do recycle, and limit what I consume.

[JimBob]

Where is the morality there?

It's Taoist morality. Taoism believes in allowing one's self to flow with the Tao like a log flows with a river(damn they like their water analogies). The water is moral in the Taoist sense because it does not try to destroy the mountain, or slash the earth. It just does. Action through inaction, wu-wei, pu, and such.

As to environmentalism. Destroying the environment ranks pretty high up on the dumb scale. If you destroy the environment you destroy yourself because we rely on the environment to provide food, water, oxygen (mildly important), and general enjoyment. Destroying it is like a runner cutting his leg off.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's Taoist morality. Taoism believes in allowing one's self to flow with the Tao like a log flows with a river(damn they like their water analogies). The water is moral in the Taoist sense because it does not try to destroy the mountain, or slash the earth. It just does.

And a sword doesnt try to penetrate flesh, it just does. Just let it flow through your body.

As to environmentalism. Destroying the environment ranks pretty high up on the dumb scale. If you destroy the environment you destroy yourself because we rely on the environment to provide food, water, oxygen (mildly important), and general enjoyment. Destroying it is like a runner cutting his leg off.

Brilliant. Why didnt I ever think of that?

I agree with what the article says that worshipping nature and treating it as divine is wrong. However, that is different from respecting it. We should respect nature enough to care for it as it sustains our life on this planet.

The article doesnt say its fine to destroy the enviorment. Its only stating that there are people out there who seem to think we are not natural and that worshiping nature is silly as it has no morality. It just is.

[kiwitt]

Gawain, I don't think I said the article says it is OK to destroy the environment. I was just comparing worship with respect. If it appeared that I did then I am sorry for any confusion.

[Redleg]

Where did you aquire them, if I may ask? I've seen different Native American stores when I went to Colorado, and also closer to home in New Hope, and most of the stuff was either insanely expensive, and I really doubted any of it was remotley authentic. Some of the pipes were interesting though...
And nothing wrong with having a good luck charm, it's best to cover as many bases as possible.

Sent a PM - but here is a good link for some types of fetishes.

http://www.e-pueblo.com/products/fetish.shtml

What some of them mean

http://www.indiansummer.com/addition.htm

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain, I don't think I said the article says it is OK to destroy the environment. I was just comparing worship with respect. If it appeared that I did then I am sorry for any confusion.

I understood you quite well there was no confusion other than maybe in my reply. Actually I was agreeing with you. Thats also what the article is saying. So the apologies are also mine for the confusion.

[Quietus]

LOL. Nature is LIFE itself. You should thank the sun that you are alive today!!!

You can feel and observe Nature, something you CANNOT do with your imaginary "Gods"(!!!) and fictional texts/scriptures.

[GoreBag]

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.

I'm not here to educate you.

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.

Could "have" fooled you, and yeah, they did. That period was full of Satanic mania and most of the information produced was propaganda. I assume you also picked up LaVey's Satanic Bible, and, plagiarism that it is, did not read it, or at least, did not understand what was written. Am I correct?

Has I have already shown.

WHAT?

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.

Well, since it is not immediately obvious to you, I guess I'll illustrate it. One of them worships the "evil" figure in a dualist religion, the other has no deity figure. This is the information that Lazul presented, which I affirmed.

And it wasn't even you that demonstrated that information.

How pertinent.

Sure I am.

And it's a surprise to you that I come off as arrogant?

You have demonstrated it yourself without knowing that the Church of Satan is actually located in the Church of Scientilogy (SP)

When was that brought up?

...and a few other things.

How specific.

The Church of Satan has as a doctrine exactly the "modern" defination of Satanism.

If you knew anything about Satanism, specifically the modern kind, or the Church of Satan, you would know that statement to be false.

Again a religous doctrine has a doctrine be it the classic Christian Defination of Satanism - or the new dogma of the Modern Satanist.

"A religious doctrine has a doctrine"..? Your proficiency with the English language baffles me.

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.

You can delve a little deeper into the philosophy of Satanism before I'll take that statement to heart.

Unrelated note: It's "definition".

[Lazul]

Redleg, I described the majority of those who call themselfs Satanists. Ive even done some work about modern satanists in school.
The modern thought of satanism started around 1700 I think when French nobles got sick of the Church and wanted to piss them of, so they started to pray to something they called "Satan" but ment that "Satan" was the the EGO of the human. While Christianity is focused on devoting your life to God, satanism ("modern") is about devoting yourself to yourself.
There are ofcourse other kinds of Satanism, ocult satanism, and there are examples of it through out history but they are Very very few.

I might add that the different words for the Devil; Baal, Mephisto, Beelzebub and Satan, are all stolen from other religions or sects wich became enemies of the christian church. For example In north africa the church of Baal was widely spread. The Christian Curch simple pointed at them called them ocultists and satanists.

Panz, nature does have example of something that could be called Compassion or Love. Some birds for example spend their whole life together even thou its not necessary.
Dolphins has Lust, they have sex for "fun". Monkeys have many emotions and feelings that are close to what we Humans have.
Many of the things we humans feel, do and so on can usually be seen in nature. Ants for example have wars and cats torture.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I think Satanists worship nature. I can't think of any other modern religion that does that.

Actually, nature, which is according to Judeo-Christian belief made by God, is indeed worshipped by most religions, because it's the most significant way in which God shows himself. Buddhism worships the perfection of nature and the brahma, world soul. Judaism and Christianity still has traces of a hatred of society and civilization and worshipping of nature in Genesis, first part. There are still traces of the original religion, which stated that birth of civilization, represented by the methafor of Adam and Eve eating those apples, is the reason for all human suffering today. In the beginning, God punished humans directly for their deeds, then he suddenly stops - but more or less hidden it's hinted that "humans will punish themselves because of the civilization they've created". And indeed the rest of the bible shows punishment after punishment given to humans for abandoning nature. Large scale wars, diseases, starvation, crime and so on, things that DID exist in nature but in MUCH smaller scale. Even though much of this message is well hidden and partly removed in favor of popular tales and similar, it's still apparent that the Jews during their nomadic period before settling in cities had a nature-friendly religion.

Re people who say nature is evil and lacks moral: Well, that's not true. The theory of evolution created by Darwin (and the even more misunderstood and wrong version of "survival of the fittest" that was used by nazis and is a popular misconception of the theory on the streets in the late 19th and early 20th century) is very lacking, and so wrong from reality that it's a model that shouldn't be used. For example it fails to recognize how altruism and cooperation is often more benefitial than egoistic struggle. If egoism and strength had been everything, humans wouldn't have existed. Humans are extremely weak, have extremely low agility, are slower at moving than most other animals, need extremely much food to survive in comparison to their body size, and they also have lost the ability to metabolize cellulose, which means they're unable to eat trees, grass and similar things, which means they have a real big problem getting food because they have neither the ability to metabolize the food they can get easily nor the ability to hunt down food that they CAN metabolize. At least ALONE. Only in flocks do they have a chance of hunting down what they need. Similarily, they are too weak to alone resist predators who want to eat them.

Really, if altruism and cooperation hadn't been important in evolution, only elephants and bears would exist because most other animals are too weak and fragile! Rabbits, rats, mouses, humans, apes, swines, cows, deers etc. etc. Most animals are in fact weak and small, but thanks to living in flocks they survive.

This cooperation was fundamental for survival in human flocks before civilization. Therefore internal fighting was restricted to the relatively peaceful sexual rang fights, who were fought in an honorable way where the winner would always have mercy over the loser because if he'd kill everyone he defeated in rang fights he'd lose his flock and thereby the only way of getting food - humans are too weak and fragile to be able to work alone any longer period of time. Sure, it might be egoistic to cooperate in an altruistic way for own gain, but if the circumstances are the right and favor altruistic behavior, then egoism is the most divine and morally correct instinct a being can have. Now this cooperation is no longer fundamental in the same way. A human in civilization can, thanks to enough money, grow in power and strength enough to do whatever he wants without being punished - on the contrary he might be rewarded. A rich sultan/khan/etc. could form a harem and his offspring could fill up earth, whereas a nice guy while rebelling would get impaled on a spear.

Another example of altruism and morality being favored by nature is the genetical variation. Animals who have a totalitar rule over the flocks, and only let the flock leader reproduce, soon lose genetical variation, which in the long term makes them MUCH more likely to become extinct. For very primitive animals with fast reproduction rate and almost no systems of DNA reparation, like insects, there's no harm in letting only one individual reproduce, as the lack of DNA reparation automatically allows creation of genetical variety among the offspring by plenty of mutations and the large amount of offspring. For animals with advanced DNA repair systems, like humans, genetical variety is necessary and therefore humans in nature don't only let the flock leader reproduce. The few mammals that have a system like that, for example lions, have plenty of genetical disorders and their chances of becoming extinct are huge. Ever wondered by female and not male lions hunt? It's because the male lion gene pool has been destroyed by inbreeding, because only the flock leader reproduces. So - harems and random raping didn't benefit the criminal in nature, and therefore criminals were removed by evolution.

We can't compare animals very distantly related to humans when judging cruelty or lack of cruelty in nature. For example, animals without a complex menstruation cycle and without complex enough genes to have a benefit from mating with a certain individual in the flock rather than anyone, wouldn't see raping as a sin. In fact, for those animals, being raped is the best thing that could possibly happen because then they're more likely to get an offspring. Humans and other animals complex enough to need a system for choosing the best possible partner benefit from avoiding raping, and that's also why female humans don't like getting raped - they have, by evolution, developed a system of instincts which by giving them suffering in a such situation tells them to avoid it.

To use the example with the killer whale to compare to human compassion: the killer whale killed a seal, not another killer whale. That is to be compared to humans killing other animals, not to be compared to humans killing other humans. And indeed, humans kill plenty of animals to eat them, just like the killer whales. They raise the animals they're going to kill in narrow little booths, give them food every day but keep them in their tiny prisons so they won't move to much because it'll spoil the meat. Then they kill them with machines specially created for killing animals. We're talking about "tossing a baby whale" for 5 years in humans society. Also, humans in civilizations are among the few animals that kill each other in very large numbers with special tools created solely for that purpose. Now what's a killer whale flock hunting for 5 hours compared to that? In fact, the killer whales are better christians than humans... And the killer whale video from national geographic also showed a compassion unusual even for humans - the whale's mother stayed and tried to help the baby for 5 hours, that's why it took 5 hours instead of 1 minute. Similarly, the killer whales showed considerable compassion to each other by helping each other with the hunt, sharing the work evenly. I know many humans who don't do the latter.

So neither murder nor rape, which are perhaps the worst sins in today's society, were favored in nature. This shows how nature didn't need laws and punishment after the deed to prevent those things from taking place - the deeds alone were their own punishment, or at least didn't favor the guilty in any way whatsoever.

Also, the most important thing of all is that our concept of what is moral and immoral has been created by evolution! Not only can we see that nature is indeed more moral than civilization by not favoring rape and murder, but we can also see that our concept of what is moral and immoral has been developed in a way that is pretty much exactly the same as the system you'd get in nature. You don't get an instinct which makes you scared or suffer psychologically when bad stuff happens unless it grants better survival to get that instinct.

Civilization has not been created by a serious striving for a good place to live, it has been created by greed and curiosity, but in civilization many people live who strive to improve the system with the outline already given by what the greedy have created. That's why it can never work.

So nature is indeed worthy of worship, also with Jewish and Christian ideals. From Jewish and Christian point of view, it's God largest and most important creation - it's the only way in which most people get contact with God. And if you open your eyes, you'll see that most cruelty in the world in born by the circumstances. The guilty of comitting a cruel deed are pressured, driven mad or similar, and the very factor that drove them mad was the environment around them. Today, with civilization, the environment around most people is very different from nature. It consists mostly of manmade civilizational institutions. That they are better at driving humans mad than the natural society, is evident from how much worse the deeds today are from those in nature. Today we fight wars (often those wars are justified, on both sides, due to civilizational institutions). It's not a "natural evilness" that drives us to war, it's natural and justified instincts that makes us react to UNNATURAL threats around us. In a society where we create too much threats, and can't avoid tensions, we sooner or later HAVE to fight wars. Sure, it's our natural instincts that makes us start the wars, but it's only because they were driven to make us commit such acts by society factors. If we want to live in a society that drives our natural instincts to commit evil deeds, then we have to abandon our natural behavior and fight our instincts. Become more of machines than humans. It usually works, for a majority of people. But since we're chosing such a hard way, there will always be some who fail. Some who can't fight their natural heritage, their natural instincts. One or two of those every century is enough to create war, to create destruction and death. And that's what humans have been doing since the eve of sin, the creation of civilization.

But God doesn't care anymore, according to the bible (Genesis). He stopped punishing humans shortly after they created their civilization. Shortly after they gave up on the nearly perfect system God had created for them to live in. And now, he lets the humans punish themselves, and that is what happens today. THAT is what inherited sin means, not that we'll get extra punishment after death, but that we'll be punished in life even though we might be innocent of committing any cruel deeds.


So, in conclusion, with all due respect, saying that nature isn't worthy of worship is either deliberate heresy or a misunderstanding of the message of the bible. It's to say mans creation - civilization - is greater than God's creation - nature.

Edit: Worship doesn't necessarily mean praying, as I've seen in some posts. Praying isn't worshipping, that's begging for services/items/good fortune. It's taking, not giving. Worship is about giving, not taking.

Real worshipping is by respecting. Worshipping nature in my meaning is to respect nature and realize we can't live without it. I find it very ridiculous when some people think saving nature is about being a good, helpful guy - it's about saving ourselves from certain death. Just try holding your breath from now on. Didn't work? I guessed so. Fresh air is only one of the many things we need nature to GIVE us. If we destroy nature, we can't expect nature to give us that. And that's also the case in many societies today. Fresh air and fresh water is not yet a scarcity in the western countries, but it will be. Eventually. In the 19th century hundreds of humans died in industrialized cities. We got rid of the problem by making the chimneys higher, so the polluted, poisonous air was more evenly distributed over earth. Now our production of such pollution is a thousand times bigger than in the 19th century. Soon, the long chimneys won't be enough if we continue as we are doing right now. The society structure, the civilization, is worth more than humanity now. We can't abandon our posts, we can't disobey the rules that civilization has given to us. We must keep producing, until we start dying from the polluted air, the melted polar ices, the earth stopping to yield any harvets, like flies in a hot car in a summer day. One third of the land area of earth is being used for growing things to eat. One third is unusable arid ground. The last third is forest. We now have a very nice choice, thanks to the behavior of our ancestors from the last thousands of years. Either we chop down more forest to grow more food for the ever growing earth population, with the result that the carbon dioxide in the air increases so much that the polar ices melt, and around 20 percent of the land area ends up under water, and that we might get a new ice age, and that the air becomes harder - maybe even impossible - to breathe. Or we leave the last third of the landmass of earth forested, and starve because we don't have enough food. This starvation will get even worse in the future because we're using methods of growing food that in the long term makes the soil quality sink. With enough energy, we can use separation methods to get many of the chemical elements removed from soils back to them, but more energy means more pollution, and the climate change alternative mentioned above. If we don't fix it, we'll step by step getting a smaller and smaller amount of useful soil, at the same time we eutrophicate the lakes and make fresh water harder - if not completely impossible - to find. Cheers ancestors , thanks for creating this civilization and killing me, your son, and my brothers and sisters. Or will it be my and my brothers' sons and daughters? Doesn't matter much, really.

[Redleg]

I'm not here to educate you.

Then why post in a message board. Your contradicting yourself.

Could "have" fooled you, and yeah, they did. That period was full of Satanic mania and most of the information produced was propaganda. I assume you also picked up LaVey's Satanic Bible, and, plagiarism that it is, did not read it, or at least, did not understand what was written. Am I correct?

You are incorrect. I base my judgement off of reading several different books to include research books by those who spend time researching the subject. Satanism consists of many different aspects. Denying that it involves the belief of Satan is a failure to understand the concept of religion and the dogma of that aspect of it.

WHAT?

try reading the defination of Satanism again - it has two definations. One that points out a belief in the devil and one that points out a belief in the physical "natural" aspects of life. Edit: And according to another avowed Satanist we are both wrong - seems to be even more definations of Satanism then just two.

Well, since it is not immediately obvious to you, I guess I'll illustrate it. One of them worships the "evil" figure in a dualist religion, the other has no deity figure. This is the information that Lazul presented, which I affirmed.

LOL - already stated several time and at least once by myself

How pertinent.

Yep

And it's a surprise to you that I come off as arrogant?

Nope

When was that brought up?

Its in the research - you claim to be the Satanist - you should know this stuff before accuse others of not knowing anything. Edit: well it seems that after even more research - that my point still stands - see the definations provided by another avowed Satanist in response to Lazul.

How specific.

yes indeed it is.

If you knew anything about Satanism, specifically the modern kind, or the Church of Satan, you would know that statement to be false.

LOL - you need to check out there website.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

If you actually knew all the aspects of your avowed religion to include all the different philisophies of it - you would not attempt to assume others have no knowledge. Hell I don't claim as a christian to understand all apsects of christianity - only the aspects that I know of, and I am continully surprised by the parts and aspects of the many forms of the religion that I have no knowledge of. It seems that instead of accepting that there is actually a different aspect to your religious term of Satanism - your being like some die hard communists who deny that Stalin was a communist leader.

So many websites to chose from which shows the doctrines of different Satanist - care to guess how many deal with one aspect of the term satanists over others. Here is one from Wikipedia - which is probably cosidered reliable by many in this forum.

Satanism is a religious, semi-religious and/or philosophical movement whose adherents recognize Satan, either as an archetype, literal being, pre-cosmic force, or anything inbetween. Some Satanists celebrate aspects of human nature represented by the usually Christian or literary (Milton, Goethe) Satan archetype. Many Satanists do not worship a deity called Satan or any other deity. Unlike many religions and philosophies, Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. However, some Satanists do have moral codes, e.g., the 9 Statements or 11 Laws of the Laveyan Satanists.

It should be noted that the depiction of so-called "Gothic Satanism" is not actually practiced in the world today. This is the Satanism accused during the Inquisition, with tales of murder and baby-eating.

Many contemporary Satanists eschew traditional religious beliefs, attitudes and worship in favor of a more egotistic worldview and practices such as magick. Groups or individuals described in some sense or another as Satanic can largely, though incomprehensively, be described as belonging to one of two unofficial sub-groupings: Philosophical Satanism or Religious Satanism.

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

"A religious doctrine has a doctrine"..? Your proficiency with the English language baffles me.

Well good - maybe you will understand this one - religions have doctrines and dogma. Many religions have different aspects that all fall within the same catergory of the religion. Satanists are in that same mold. There are two doctrines within the concept of Satanism - multiple sources back up this statement. Read the Wikipedia defination above to understand the full context of the statement.

You can delve a little deeper into the philosophy of Satanism before I'll take that statement to heart.

No need to - I understand fully both aspects of Satanism. (Edit: It seems that there is even more then two aspects of Satanism) One is the worship of Satan as I stated initially - and one aspects is has defined by other sources. Was I wrong in my initial statement - nope because I can find many websites and good source material that confirms it. However it seems that what you prefer to call Satanism - fall into more of hedonism.

Epicureanism is the best-known form of ancient hedonism. Epicurus identified pleasure with tranquility, and emphasized the reduction of desire over the immediate acquisition of pleasure. In this way, Epicureanism escapes the preceding objection: while pleasure and the highest good are equated, Epicurus claimed that the highest pleasure consists of a simple, moderate life, spent with friends and in philosophical discussion. He stressed that it was not good to do something that made one feel good if by experiencing it, one would belittle later experiences and make them no longer feel good. For example, sex might increase lust which in turn might cause one to be dissatisfied with one's sexual partner, leading to unhappiness.

The Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is sometimes classified as a type of hedonism, as it judges the morality of actions by their consequent contributions to the greater good and happiness of all. Note that this is considered to be "selfless" hedonism; whereas Epicurus recommends doing whatever makes an individual happiest (over the long run), Mill promotes actions which make everyone happy. Compare individualism and collectivism.

Some of Sigmund Freud's theories of human motivation have been called psychological hedonism; his "life instinct" is essentially the observation that people will pursue pleasure. However, he introduces extra complexities with various other mechanisms, such as the "death instinct".

Christian Hedonism is a term for a theological movement promoted by several prominent church leaders of past and present, the tenets of which are that humans were created by (the Judeo-Christan) God with the purpose of lavishly enjoying God through knowing, worshipping, and serving him. This philosophy recommends pursuing the happiness and love of God as the ultimate in human fulfillment. Similar to the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure is regarded as something long-term and found not in indulgence but in a life devoted to God.

Quite a few people equate hedonism with sexuality and having a very loose or liberal view of the morality of sex. On the other side of the spectrum would be antisexual, though the denial of sex as the highest pleasure in no way resigns one to fully abstaining from sex.

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

Unrelated note: It's "definition".

Correcting typos and spelling mistakes now are we?

Just love the verbal sparing - its very entertaining don't you agree.

[Redleg]

Redleg, I described the majority of those who call themselfs Satanists. Ive even done some work about modern satanists in school.
The modern thought of satanism started around 1700 I think when French nobles got sick of the Church and wanted to piss them of, so they started to pray to something they called "Satan" but ment that "Satan" was the the EGO of the human. While Christianity is focused on devoting your life to God, satanism ("modern") is about devoting yourself to yourself.
There are ofcourse other kinds of Satanism, ocult satanism, and there are examples of it through out history but they are Very very few.

I might add that the different words for the Devil; Baal, Mephisto, Beelzebub and Satan, are all stolen from other religions or sects wich became enemies of the christian church. For example In north africa the church of Baal was widely spread. The Christian Curch simple pointed at them called them ocultists and satanists.

Well I would counter with the definations of Satanism as provided by an avowed Satanist on the internet - which again goes along with such definations as provided by reliable sources like Wikipedia.

Traditional or Spiritual Satanism - Also called Theistic Satanism or Luciferianism, is the oldest known form of Satanism. It has been around for Thousands of years and has even been traced back to the Roman times before the christian lord and savior "Jesus Christ" ever walked the Earth. The Traditional Satanists do actually claim the existence of a Satan or Lucifer as a "Higher Power or a Guiding Force." The Traditional Satanists don't literally worship Satan or Lucifer as their God. Those misconceptions have been created by the church and other nae sayers who want their respective religions to flourish on the fear of society. The Traditional Satanist looks at Satan or Lucifer as a "Father Figure" and idolize him in that capacity. It is in my understanding that some Traditional Satanists have performed a Sacrificial Ritual, but it is not required in their beliefs. Some Traditional Satanists touch on Demonology and go a lot deeper into that aspect of the spiritual realms.

---------------------------------------------------------


LaVeyan Satanism - LaVeyan Satanism is a label given to Satanists found mostly within but is not limited to the Church of Satan™ members. Anton Szandor LaVey founded the Church of Satan™ in October of 1966. A.S. LaVey was a very outgoing Satanist who helped propel Satanism and bring it into the publics eye. A.S. LaVey has 5 books written by him, and several others written about him since. The most popular of these 5 is "The Satanic Bible." The contents of the book might not have originated on LaVeys desk, but he compiled the information in such a way as to literally spark a (r)evolution in your mind. This book alone has brought A.S. LaVey and the Church of Satan™ millions of dollars as well as thousands of members. It is a good read and should be the platform for which to build your lifestyle, beliefs, and thoughts. A.S. LaVey is only a man, a philosopher, and the founder of the Church of Satan™, but there are many out there who have chosen to Idolize HIM while at the same time they are a Satanist. This is where the LaVeyan Satanist term is coined.

--------------------------------------------------------


Rebel Satanism - Rebel Satanism is a form of Satanism where you find the most misfits and social outcasts. This is the form of Satanism that actually brings Satanists in general a bad name. They are the rebellious teenagers and the drug addicts who might not have ever even read The Satanic Bible and just use the "evil image" of Satanism as a release. I am not trying to imply that "Goth's" are social outcasts and degenerates in their rebellious ways, but this type of Rebel Satanism is such and commonly associated with Gothic Lifestyles. I have actually found some of the most thoughtful, kind, and intelligent people in the world are the freaks who wear spikes, black clothes and ragged hair. Being a Rebel Satanist is usually a phase and they move on to something else shortly after it gets "old" or they actually pick up a book or two with a "cooler" belief system.

---------------------------------------------------------


Modern Satanism - Modern Satanism is what the majority of Satanists are in this Century. There are several Orders, Temples, Guilds, Grottos, and Churches who have popped up since the Church of Satan™ began to change their ways and members broke off. The two biggest ones: The Temple of Set™, and the First Church of Satan™ were both founded by previous members of the Church of Satan™. Modern Satanism is very similar to LaVeyan Satanism only you wont see as many "LaVeyan" supporters. This does not mean LaVey is frowned upon, or walked on, but he is only one individual in the world, and we Modern Satanists tend to always want more.

Modern Satanism is a belief system that empowers the individual to be their own God, to be their own caretaker. This does not mean you cannot have a partner in life, a significant other, or a loved one. It means you take care of yourself as opposed to prayer and false hopes asked of a God or complete stranger to do it for you. You are supposed to accept your own responsibilities and be able to accept the outcome of your actions. As a Modern Satanist, you should not depend on a myth to pay for your actions. The stories that some Jesus Christ came to Earth and has paid for your sins does NOT mean you are above the laws today, and you will be held liable for any crimes committed.

As a Modern Satanist, You thank YOURSELF for all the hard work and repetition of a task to perfect it, not some man made God. You are the one who soaked many a rag with your sweat and hard labor to become what you are. You need not thank any higher power for these skills. You would want to thank family, friends, and coworkers for their support, and comforting they have provided along the way.

It is common to find a Modern Satanist who chooses not to be apart of ANY of the Orders or Organizations about and wants only individualism. Herd Mentality is something commonly found in the Christian or Catholic Church where you're made to feel as nothing without paying them your money, or having someone else in your life. Satanism per se teaches Self-ism and Individuality. Some Satanists refuse to "join" in on anything and it makes them more comfortable being "solo." Modern Satanism as a whole is NOT Anti-Christianity. Satanism is Anti-Stupidity. Some Satanists may be, but surely not all of us. There are Anti-Religious people in every aspect and every walk of life. Satanism per se, does not speak of opposing Christianity and destroying everything they believe in. I have always tried to spread Religious Tolerance, and the rest of the Satanic Community, for the most part, feels the exact same way.

Modern Satanism per se is not full of Hate and Racism. Satanism, by some, has been considered an Elitist Belief System. This is simply because as a Satanist you should always stride to better yourself. Never settling for second best, and Never think of anyone as being better than yourself. "Second Place Iis The First Loser". The Teachers whom we encounter in life have the knowledge to pass along, and the experience of doing it before you, this does not make then BETTER than you. There is segregation in every walk of life. It is NOT the Satanic Communities who house and support the Race oriented, Hate groups, or other Militant Factions, now is it? Yet there are militant and ignorant Satanists who feel they want to take the law into their own hands and end up harming people unnecessarily.

We as Americans have the 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. What most Americans do not understand is this: You have Freedom of Speech, the right to say anything you want to say, but this does not mean you are exempt of the ramifications of your words. The Freedom of Religion means you should be able to worship, and or believe as you see fit. Regardless of social acceptance and scrutiny, be it that it is within the boundaries of the law. At times I'm led to believe Christianity is above Freedom of Religion because if you don't believe what they do "you're wrong", "you're insane", "you need help", or my favorite one is, "you're going to hell!". I am sure not all of the sheep think this way, but enough of them do.

Modern Satanism is Anti-Stupidity. Satanists are challenged to think for themselves. Satanists are challenged to use their mind. To question what does NOT seem right to them, and to NOT accept something as fact simply "because it has always been done this way!". It is pure Stupidity to follow the crowd and not know where it is going. Know where you are and what you want, this always makes it easier to get there in tact. Satanism, as with ANY religion, has Dogma. These are Basic Rules and Guidelines in which to live by, and to better yourself by. Satanism is a religion that is very flexible, and allows you to be yourself in dress, attitude and life.


Below I have provided these very Rules and Guidelines are known as The Nine Satanic Statements, The Eleven Rules of the Earth, and The Nine Satanic Sins which were established by Anton Szandor LaVey and The Church of Satan™ but surely not the ONLY Guidelines in life which the Satanist must use for Parameters in life.

http://www.modernsatanism.com/

[GoreBag]

Then why post in a message board. Your contradicting yourself.

I'm beginning to wonder.

Satanism consists of many different aspects. Denying that it involves the belief of Satan is a failure to understand the concept of religion and the dogma of that aspect of it.

Where did I deny that there different kinds of Satanism?

try reading the defination of Satanism again - it has two definations. One that points out a belief in the devil and one that points out a belief in the physical "natural" aspects of life. Edit: And according to another avowed Satanist we are both wrong - seems to be even more definations of Satanism then just two.

Actually, I'm the Modern Satanist going by the account you posted just below the post which this post is quoting. I'm well versed in the different forms of Satanism.

Oh, and there's no such thing as a defination.

Its in the research - you claim to be the Satanist - you should know this stuff before accuse others of not knowing anything. Edit: well it seems that after even more research - that my point still stands - see the definations provided by another avowed Satanist in response to Lazul.

I know it. Nothing you have brought to my attention is new or shocking. Granted, I did accuse you of not knowing as much on the subject as I do, and I'm still quite sure you don't, but that's beginning to drift from the subject at hand.

If you actually knew all the aspects of your avowed religion to include all the different philisophies of it - you would not attempt to assume others have no knowledge. Hell I don't claim as a christian to understand all apsects of christianity - only the aspects that I know of, and I am continully surprised by the parts and aspects of the many forms of the religion that I have no knowledge of. It seems that instead of accepting that there is actually a different aspect to your religious term of Satanism - your being like some die hard communists who deny that Stalin was a communist leader.

So a Protestant must accept Catholic ideas? And Stalin WAS a fascist..

My problem with the Church of Satan is that it has become a funhouse mirror image of the organization its members despise so much, not that its official statement deviates from the conventional idea of LaVeyan Satanism.

Well good - maybe you will understand this one - religions have doctrines and dogma. Many religions have different aspects that all fall within the same catergory of the religion. Satanists are in that same mold. There are two doctrines within the concept of Satanism - multiple sources back up this statement. Read the Wikipedia defination above to understand the full context of the statement.

Well, yes and no. Modern Satanism, under whose mantle I would sit, is incomplete without a refutation of doctrine and dogma.

Correcting typos and spelling mistakes now are we?

Just love the verbal sparing - its very entertaining don't you agree.

It is. It is just as much a contradiction as your above example - that I'm not on a message board to provide information; in order for anyone to understand what information you are attempting to provide, you must adhere to certain rules of language, pertaining, in this case, to orthography.

[Redleg]

I'm beginning to wonder.

You might want to check into what a discussion forum is all about - its not a simple message board. The moderators and staff encourage debate. Therefor by itself the forum is designed to share ideas.

Where did I deny that there different kinds of Satanism?

By saying I had no knowledge of which I type.

Actually, I'm the Modern Satanist going by the account you posted just below the post which this post is quoting. I'm well versed in the different forms of Satanism.

If you are well versed in the different forms of Satanism - then you would not have challenged my defination initially - but informed all that there are varying forms of the term Satanism. To clarify that the initial definition provided was not complete. However you decided to challenge and say that I had absolute no knowledge. There is a major difference in the techinque there.

THe definition I have used happens to come from not just Wikepedia but from several sights that deal with the subject matter. Care to quess how many websites deal with Satanism as a religion that acknowledges the devil?

Oh, and there's no such thing as a defination.

Trying to correct someone's spelling again I see. Very good - you lose points in a verbal debate for that one. But then if that is all you are focus on - then you might want to focus again on the definition of Satanism. Something you have yet to show that I am wrong on.

I know it. Nothing you have brought to my attention is new or shocking. Granted, I did accuse you of not knowing as much on the subject as I do, and I'm still quite sure you don't, but that's beginning to drift from the subject at hand.

LOL - other then a practicing Satanist - I probably am versed enough on the subject to understand it and discuss it. You assumed because I am a christian that I have not studied othe religions or cultures - your error not mine. When you want to discuss aspects of the Native American Culture which was part of the initial discussion - then you can pick several tribal groups that I have absolutely no knowledge of - but I do know several of the basic tenates of how Native America cultures percieved and practiced their religion. But as you state you drift from the subject with such accusations.

So a Protestant must accept Catholic ideas? And Stalin WAS a fascist..

Why yes, a protestant must understand and accept certain Catholic Ideas since by definition both are christian religions. The protestant religions are a branch off of the teachings of the Catholic Church and the New Testiment, which was initially written to support the spread of the new church founded in Rome. The Esipicol (SP) Church - a protestant religion cites several Catholic creeds in its religious dogma.

And no Stalin was not only a fascist - he was also a member of the Communist Party.

My problem with the Church of Satan is that it has become a funhouse mirror image of the organization its members despise so much, not that its official statement deviates from the conventional idea of LaVeyan Satanism.

And that gives you the grounds to inform someone that they have no clue about Satanism because they are Christian - yep sound logic on your part.
I don't go the Church of Satan - but I have read on it and studied it for a thesis in a philisophy class I once had.

Well, yes and no. Modern Satanism, under whose mantle I would sit, is incomplete without a refutation of doctrine and dogma.

Dogma is defined as - 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

To claim there is no dogma sounds kind of funny since I can easily post the creed of the modern satanist.

It is. It is just as much a contradiction as your above example - that I'm not on a message board to provide information; in order for anyone to understand what information you are attempting to provide, you must adhere to certain rules of language, pertaining, in this case, to orthography.

LOL - and if you can not understand what is written - you ask. Once again why particpate in a message forum that discusses issues if you are not willing to help others understand and learn. Unless it is of course just to troll.

If you want proper english and spelling with correct punctuation then your not wanting to discuss or inform others on your opinion - but to quibble on context - not discuss the content.

[GoreBag]

By saying I had no knowledge of which I type.

That's an odd reductionist statement. I don't quite follow that logic - "You denied information I presented/will present by saying I knew nothing."

If you are well versed in the different forms of Satanism - then you would not have challenged my defination initially - but informed all that there are varying forms of the term Satanism. To clarify that the initial definition provided was not complete. However you decided to challenge and say that I had absolute no knowledge. There is a major difference in the techinque there.

Wrong is wrong.

The definition I have used happens to come from not just Wikepedia but from several sights that deal with the subject matter. Care to quess how many websites deal with Satanism as a religion that acknowledges the devil?

Sites, and there are plenty.

Trying to correct someone's spelling again I see. Very good - you lose points in a verbal debate for that one. But then if that is all you are focus on - then you might want to focus again on the definition of Satanism. Something you have yet to show that I am wrong on.

Well, this isn't a verbal debate, but if it was, I'd correct you for ending a sentence with a preposition.

LOL - other then a practicing Satanist - I probably am versed enough on the subject to understand it and discuss it. You assumed because I am a christian that I have not studied othe religions or cultures - your error not mine. When you want to discuss aspects of the Native American Culture which was part of the initial discussion - then you can pick several tribal groups that I have absolutely no knowledge of - but I do know several of the basic tenates of how Native America cultures percieved and practiced their religion. But as you state you drift from the subject with such accusations.

Probably? You're not quite sure? In any case, I'd be glad to take you up on that, provided we can end this quibble in some sort of satisfactory manner.

I'll remember to drop you a line if I become curious about the religions of North America's aboriginals.

Why yes, a protestant must understand and accept certain Catholic Ideas since by definition both are christian religions. The protestant religions are a branch off of the teachings of the Catholic Church and the New Testiment, which was initially written to support the spread of the new church founded in Rome. The Esipicol (SP) Church - a protestant religion cites several Catholic creeds in its religious dogma.

The Episcopal Church is really the Anglican Church...in America. As such, I would argue that it is not a Protestant religion, but Catholicism missing only a few not-so-crucial practices.

If a Protestant must accept Catholic ideas, then the purpose of Protestantism is defeated. Protestantism did break off from the Catholic church, yes, and they do share the view that the New Testament is crucial reading. I would say that that would make the New Testament a shared, Christian object, and not a Catholic object that Protestants revere, although that point may be contested because of the history. In any case, the key word you used was "certain"; Devil-worshippers may conduct themselves in the same way I do, and we may share certain beliefs, but I don't need to accept the existence of Satan as a deific being, as they do, in order to be a Satanist.

And no Stalin was not only a fascist - he was also a member of the Communist Party.

So what? I could join a Christian organization if I wanted.

And that gives you the grounds to inform someone that they have no clue about Satanism because they are Christian - yep sound logic on your part.

I agree, it is an unfair judgement, but is no less fair than the assumption that I am not a Satanist in practice as well as in name on the grounds that I did not accept a certain definition of a Satanist.

I don't go the Church of Satan - but I have read on it and studied it for a thesis in a philisophy class I once had.

Alright, I'll take your word on it.

Dogma is defined as - 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

To claim there is no dogma sounds kind of funny since I can easily post the creed of the modern satanist.

That creed would include passages and essays dealing with the idea that a Satanist may pick and choose his or her own beliefs as they pertain to Satanism, right?

LOL - and if you can not understand what is written - you ask. Once again why particpate in a message forum that discusses issues if you are not willing to help others understand and learn. Unless it is of course just to troll.

To download EB, mostly. At least, that was my inital reason for joining. Why spell if you can't do it properly? Unless, of course, you don't intend anyone to fully understand your posts.

If you want proper english and spelling with correct punctuation then your not wanting to discuss or inform others on your opinion - but to quibble on context - not discuss the content.

Your comments about my reasons for being on the forum at all are just as much about context than content.

[Redleg]

Wrong is wrong.

Yep you are definitly wrong - you have yet to show that I have no knowledge about the subject matter.

Well, this isn't a verbal debate, but if it was, I'd correct you for ending a sentence with a preposition.

And again you would lose points - attacking structure not content or context.

Probably? You're not quite sure? In any case, I'd be glad to take you up on that, provided we can end this quibble in some sort of satisfactory manner.

The quibble is yours not mine - your allegation is that the definition I provided is wrong - however you have not shown it to be wrong - just not complete.

The Episcopal Church is really the Anglican Church...in America. As such, I would argue that it is not a Protestant religion, but Catholicism missing only a few not-so-crucial practices.

And in that you would be incorrect.

If a Protestant must accept Catholic ideas, then the purpose of Protestantism is defeated. Protestantism did break off from the Catholic church, yes, and they do share the view that the New Testament is crucial reading. I would say that that would make the New Testament a shared, Christian object, and not a Catholic object that Protestants revere, although that point may be contested because of the history. In any case, the key word you used was "certain"; Devil-worshippers may conduct themselves in the same way I do, and we may share certain beliefs, but I don't need to accept the existence of Satan as a deific being, as they do, in order to be a Satanist.

The main one in common is that Jesus Christ is the savior - a common idea between both sects of christianity. Some protestant religions still site the Nicean (SP) Creed also.

So what? I could join a Christian organization if I wanted.

Your beginning to get the point.

I agree, it is an unfair judgement, but is no less fair than the assumption that I am not a Satanist in practice as well as in name on the grounds that I did not accept a certain definition of a Satanist.

Point taken - however again you haven't shown where the initial definition provided is incorrect. I have a tendency to go tit for tat with verbal sparing.
A weakness of mine so to speak. Statement as such normally get a response that is arrogant from me If I had a nickel for every time I heard a Christian talk to me about Satanism...

That creed would include passages and essays dealing with the idea that a Satanist may pick and choose his or her own beliefs as they pertain to Satanism, right?

That is the one - a creed counts as a doctrine from what I learned many years ago.

To download EB, mostly. At least, that was my inital reason for joining. Why spell if you can't do it properly? Unless, of course, you don't intend anyone to fully understand your posts.

Why spell correctly - no need to if the word is close enough for someone to understand. I have verbal conservations all the time with people who barely speak english and we communicate fine.

Your comments about my reasons for being on the forum at all are just as much about context than content.

Not at all - your in the backroom - which is primarily a discussion forum not a down load area. If you did not want to share your opinion and inform the community about different things that you have knowledge on - why come back to the tavern for a discussion?

[Taohn]

And a sword doesnt try to penetrate flesh, it just does. Just let it flow through your body.



Brilliant. Why didnt I ever think of that?



The article doesnt say its fine to destroy the enviorment. Its only stating that there are people out there who seem to think we are not natural and that worshiping nature is silly as it has no morality. It just is.

The natural world is moral to Taoists insofar as it embodies the principles of unassuming, effortless spontaneity in action. A common analogy: “birds do not build castles, plants grow imperceptibly.” The competition in the natural world is not inherent to human nature, as Taoists hold that mankind has fallen from grace/enlightenment (been cast out of Eden, if you will, though no deity was involved). Later incarnations of Taoism built up a mythology around this principle, where humans were once immortal, able to commune with plant and animal life (the use of this colourful analogy is not found in the earlier texts, however, where Taoism is more of a philosophy than a religion). To reclaim this state, the Taoists seek, not surprisingly, to live in accord with the Tao (way). Tao is a concept closely connected with the ontology of the world as it denotes a well-defined process, the cosmic norm, “or, more descriptively, the inevitable unfolding of things in the cosmological process.” Here, inevitable should not be construed as the result of a transcendental force which decides human fate, but rather as “destiny” in the sense of “the inevitable evolution of things according to the principles inherent to them.”

As a cosmic principle, Tao underlies all phenomena in the universe, and is in a sense their creator. However, in the Western tradition, the entire universe, all of existence, is the result of the will of God. The creation accounts show the act of creation as an exercise of will, and thus it can be said that the will of God is ontological, the fundamental grounds of existence. This is not so in Taoism, where Tao is the ‘creator’ in a sense more akin to the way that soil is the ‘creator’ of plants. But creator and created are held to be one and the same, and there is no fundamental distinction between the two. To borrow Western terminology, God is we, and we all are God. The idea of a willful creator is one of the earliest foundations of Western moral discourse, but the lack of such a principle does not undermine East Asian concepts of the same, though it does give the traditions a very unique flavour (the larger geographical term being justified in that this unity between creator an created is shared by many East Asian and even Indic traditions distinct from Taoism). Broadly, East Asian traditions are this worldly and much less concerned with notions of an afterlife. But it is this very worldliness that justifies the Taoist morality: the strife that permeates human existence is a direct result of being out of consonance with the Tao. Misfortunes, in their many varieties, decrease in likelihood to the degree that one lives in accord with Tao, the principles of which can be observed by careful observation of the natural world. There is nothing inherently “wrong” about the nature of the material world. Evil (i.e. suffering) can occur in our plane but it is by no means inevitable. This is not an individual matter, as personal discord with the Tao resounds throughout one’s society, the effect being compounded by each who is so benighted. Some quotes from the Tao Te Ching, the oldest and most highly regarded Taoist text, follow for your interest:

78.
Under heaven nothing is more soft and yielding than water.
Yet for attacking the solid and strong, nothing is better;
It has no equal.
The weak can overcome the strong;
The supple can overcome the stiff.
Under heaven everyone knows this,
Yet no one puts it into practice.
Therefore the sage says:
He who takes upon himself the humiliation of the people
is fit to rule them
He who takes upon himself the country’s disasters deserves
to be king of the universe.
The truth often sounds paradoxical.

18.
When the great Tao is forgotten,
Kindness and morality arise.
When wisdom and intelligence are born, t
The great pretense begins.
When there is no peace within the family,
Filial piety and devotion arise.
When the country is confused and in chaos,
Loyal ministers appear.

19.
Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone.
Give up kindness, renounce morality,
And men will rediscover filial piety and love.
Give up ingenuity, renounce profit,
And bandits and thieves will disappear.
These three are outward forms alone; they are not sufficient in themselves.
It is more important
To see the simplicity,
To realize one’s true nature,
To cast off selfishness
And temper desire.

77.
The Way of heaven
is like drawing a bow:
the high is lowered,
the low is raised;
excess is reduced,
need is fulfilled.
the Way of heaven
reduces excess and fills need,
but the way of humans is not so:
they strip the needy
to serve those who have too much.

13.
Accept disgrace willingly.
Accept misfortune as the human condition.
What do you mean by “Accept disgrace willingly”?
Accept being unimportant.
Do not be concerned with loss or gain.
This is called “accepting disgrace willingly.”
What do you mean by “Accepting misfortune as the human condition”?
Misfortune comes from having a body.
Without a body, how could there be misfortune?
Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things.
Love the world as your own self; then you can truly care for all things.

[GoreBag]

And again you would lose points - attacking structure not content or context.

Oh, nonsense. One can hardly think to have an argument with a wigger, full of his nonsense slang and silly colloquialisms. My problem with your lack of interest in maintaining a proper level of proficiency with the English language is just that; already have I had problems trying to understand what you're saying.

The quibble is yours not mine - your allegation is that the definition I provided is wrong - however you have not shown it to be wrong - just not complete.

Oh, that's a lie. You're keeping up the debate as much as I am.

An incomplete definition is a wrong definition when it is presented as the entirety of the definition. What do you know, that's about the way it's presented. By the way, it is structure that I'm "attacking", right? I've apparently gone from "context" to "structure" without knowing it.

And in that you would be incorrect.

How's that, now?

The main one in common is that Jesus Christ is the savior - a common idea between both sects of christianity. Some protestant religions still site the Nicean (SP) Creed also.

Semantics. My point stands.

Your beginning to get the point.

You're going to need to explain that comment.

Point taken - however again you haven't shown where the initial definition provided is incorrect. I have a tendency to go tit for tat with verbal sparing.
A weakness of mine so to speak. Statement as such normally get a response that is arrogant from me If I had a nickel for every time I heard a Christian talk to me about Satanism...

That's just about your original definition of Satanism, which was an incorrect statement. Yes, it was incomplete, and in that, it was also untrue and misleading. You have corrected yourself, and you have admitted that you have, but there seems to be something blocking you from admitting that it was, indeed, wrong.

That is the one - a creed counts as a doctrine from what I learned many years ago.

A doctrine that is not a doctrine. Hence "yes and no".

Why spell correctly - no need to if the word is close enough for someone to understand. I have verbal conservations all the time with people who barely speak english and we communicate fine.

You're lucky he's so intuitive.

Not at all - your in the backroom - which is primarily a discussion forum not a down load area. If you did not want to share your opinion and inform the community about different things that you have knowledge on - why come back to the tavern for a discussion?

Boredom, mostly. But now, I get to come back everytime and see another, differently spelled out version of "I wasn't wrong".

[Redleg]

Oh, nonsense. One can hardly think to have an argument with a wigger, full of his nonsense slang and silly colloquialisms. My problem with your lack of interest in maintaining a proper level of proficiency with the English language is just that; already have I had problems trying to understand what you're saying.

It's really rather easy - my use of the language is really rather simple. Spelling mistakes and typo's come from typing to fast and not always editing. However once again your arguement on this is what is called sharp-shooting - and in such you loose because your not argueing against the postion.

Oh, that's a lie. You're keeping up the debate as much as I am.

Now that statement is false - and a quibble on your part.

An incomplete definition is a wrong definition when it is presented as the entirety of the definition. What do you know, that's about the way it's presented. By the way, it is structure that I'm "attacking", right? I've apparently gone from "context" to "structure" without knowing it.

Actually the definition was not wrong - and contained one of the main points of the definition. Often one can make a word mean only one of the area's of the definition. Its done with several words in the common english language. Just check out a Webster's dictionary sometime.

How's that, now?

Already stated - that is really a simple answer to your statement.

Semantics. My point stands.

So its semantics now - one can say that about your arguement about Satanism.

You're going to need to explain that comment.

Naw - you should be able to figure it out.

That's just about your original definition of Satanism, which was an incorrect statement. Yes, it was incomplete, and in that, it was also untrue and misleading. You have corrected yourself, and you have admitted that you have, but there seems to be something blocking you from admitting that it was, indeed, wrong.

Like I stated comments like that get certain responses.

A doctrine that is not a doctrine. Hence "yes and no".

Its either a doctrine or its not a doctrine. One can pick and chose pieces of a doctrine - but one can not deny that they are at least following aspects of that doctrine. Hence the answer is very simple.

You're lucky he's so intuitive.

Not at all - its called communication.

Boredom, mostly. But now, I get to come back everytime and see another, differently spelled out version of "I wasn't wrong".

Boredom is often what leads one to have a discussion on a subject.

[Ser Clegane]

I would greatly appreciate if the discussion would focus on the topic at hand instead of further derailing into petty squabbling (borderlining personal attacks) about semantics and spelling errors

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And he comtinues

Without man, the environment is insignificant (Part XVII)
Dennis Prager (archive)

June 28, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send

One major conflict between the Judeo-Christian value system and the various secular ones competing with it revolves around the answers to these questions: Is nature created for man or is man merely a part of nature? Or, to put it in other words, does the natural environment have any significance without man to appreciate it and to use it for his good?

The Judeo-Christian responses are clear: Nature has been created for man's use; and on its own, without man, it has no meaning. Dolphins are adorable because human beings find them adorable. Without people to appreciate them or the role they play in the earth's ecosystem to enable human life, they are no more adorable or meaningful than a rock on Pluto.

That is the point of the Creation story -- everything was made in order to prepare the way for the creation of man (and woman, for those whose college education leads them to confuse the generic "man" with "male"). God declared each day's creation "good," but declared the sixth day's creation of man as "very good."

Critics find three biblical notions about nature unacceptable: that man shall lord over it; that it was created solely for man and therefore has no intrinsic value; and that it is not sacred.

I discussed the last notion -- that God is outside, not within, nature -- in Part XVI.

As regards man "subduing and conquering nature," this was one of the revolutionary ideas of the Old Testament that made Western medical and other scientific progress possible. For all ancient civilizations, nature (or the equally capricious and amoral gods of nature) ruled man. The Book of Genesis came along to teach the opposite -- man is to rule nature.

Only by ruling and conquering nature will man develop cures for nature's diseases. We will conquer cancer; cancer will not conquer us. And only rational beings, not irrational gods of nature, can do so. Judeo-Christian values are the primary reason science and modern medicine developed in the West. A rational God designed nature, and rational human beings can therefore perceive it and, yes, conquer it.

The notion that it is secularism, not Judeo-Christian values, that enabled scientific inquiry constitutes perhaps the greatest propaganda victory in history. Virtually every great scientist from Sir Isaac Newton to the beginning of 20th century saw scientific inquiry as the study of divine design.

As for the modern secular objection to the Judeo-Christian notion of man as the pinnacle and purpose of nature, one can only say woe unto mankind if that objection prevails. When man is reduced to being part of the natural world, his status is reduced to that of a dolphin. It is one of the great ironies of the contemporary world that humanists render human life largely worthless while God-centered Jews and Christians render human life infinitely sacred. Man's worth is entirely dependent on a God-based view of the world. Without God, man is another part of the ecosystem, and often a lousy one at that.

So let's say what cannot be said in sophisticated company: Nature was created as the vehicle by which God created the human being, and in order to give emotional, aesthetic and biological sustenance to mankind. Nature in and of itself has no purpose without the existence of human beings to appreciate it. In the words of the Talmud, every person should look at the world and say, "The world was created for me."

Does this mean that the biblical view of nature gives man the right to pollute the earth or to abuse animals? Absolutely not. Abusing animals is forbidden in the Torah: The ban on eating the limb of a living animal, the ban on placing two animals of different sizes on the same yoke and the ban on working animals seven days a week are just a few examples. To cause gratuitous suffering to an animal is a grave sin. As for polluting the earth, this, too, is religiously prohibited. If the purpose of nature is to ennoble human life and to bear witness to God's magnificence, by what understanding of this concept can a religious person defend polluting nature?

We are indeed to be responsible stewards of nature, but for our sake, not its (Part XVII)

I like how he starts

Without man, the environment is insignificant

It reminds me of the old saying without man there is no god. I mean what good is god to you if your not here? So then it could likewise be said that without man god is insignificant.

[AggonyDuck]

As for the modern secular objection to the Judeo-Christian notion of man as the pinnacle and purpose of nature, one can only say woe unto mankind if that objection prevails. When man is reduced to being part of the natural world, his status is reduced to that of a dolphin. It is one of the great ironies of the contemporary world that humanists render human life largely worthless while God-centered Jews and Christians render human life infinitely sacred. Man's worth is entirely dependent on a God-based view of the world. Without God, man is another part of the ecosystem, and often a lousy one at that.

Hmmmm, his thoughts seem quite strange to me. It's almost like he's obsessed by humanity and in claiming that humanity would not be a part of the natural world, but in fact be something better than nature itself.
You could compare it to a community ruled by a rich fella, who believes he is the reason why the community exists and the community exists to be ruled and conquered by him...(I would had said serve, but decided to stupidly put in some of Prager's words)
I would call that rich fella an egoist, so might it be that humanity is so consumed by our love of ourselves to notice the fact that we're a part of nature and not the reason for it?

Also is it so bad to have the same status as a dolphin or any other animal?
I can't really see anything negative with it, except the fact that to have a status there must be a difference in them. I suppose the reason for a status is just to simplify things. Give things an easy reason and so on.

I also think his comment about a man's worth being dependent on a God-based view of the world is total rubbish.
I do not have a god, yet a human being does have a worth to me, although this is dependent on my view of myself. So to me it makes to change the sentence to:
"Man's worth is entirely dependent on his view of the world."

I will end this reply with claiming that; Yes, man is a part of the ecosystem and we're usually a lousy one at that...