Satanism as philosophy

[Byzantine Prince]

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing something because you hate someone?

I'm not even responding to that.

[AntiochusIII]

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

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

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

I assume you're taking the concept of Satan from the epic Paradise Lost? Since you seem to refer to "losing a war" which, if I remember correctly, did not really happen. That was just a literary work. The Bible itself -- or at least "half" of it -- considers Satan God's testing agent. Besides, what you fail to see -- others might be able to see. Or can see.

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

The concept of "cool" itself is childish. We teenagers like to be cool; you can't dictate how we are cool. We are just cool. It's just a word. Loki is Thor's brother, no? Then he's as much a god as any.

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

Ad hominem. Not work.

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

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

Doing something because you hate someone?

I'm not even responding to that.

Yeah...

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

[TB666]

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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

That form of satanism is called la République Française, it started in 1789

[A.Saturnus]

You're one sick puppy.

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

Doing something because you hate someone?

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

[Byzantine Prince]

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

What is anime? Geeky or cool?

Ubercool.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

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

[Big_John]

No-one needs to rape someone.

he didn't say they were necessities.

[A.Saturnus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You only say that to hurt satanists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You only say that to hurt satanists.

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

[A.Saturnus]

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

Where I stand is entirely irrelevant for the discussion.

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

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

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where I stand is entirely irrelevant for the discussion.

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

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

Seems like petty non-conformity to me but hey.

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

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

[GoreBag]

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

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

[AntiochusIII]

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

Ah, but insult people is fun. Unfortunately. Your second point is really irrelevant because, as I've stated, others might see him differently. I saw that one pic of Satan represented in the wikipedia article for Milton's Paradise Lost and I thought, "damn, this looks absolutely cool! What a badass of a general!"

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

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

Satanism is really varied. Some are truly misguided in their basic premises, some others interpret Satan the Milton way, a few just didn't even really believed in Satan. Just took the word's popular historical interpretation as their idol. Even the Bible contradicts the concept of Satan. And surely, other religions have their "Satan" equivalents, whether in purpose (God's inspector, or just Evil Master), looks (Satyrs), etc., no? You can't simply judge them in one premise, which is basically my point here.

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

I would require sources for this, then, since others disagree with you on his position in the Norse mythology. I couldn't find myself a conclusive source.

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

Then you are an absolutist in your moral point of view. I don't want this to turn into a debate about morals and their sources and relevance, since it would be a new, huge angle. Let's say many are relativist, or at least, partially.

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

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

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

Ubercool.

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

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

[Byzantine Prince]

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

Hey Wigferth! Did you read this or not?! In Judaism, which Christianity is based on, the Devil is a servant of God. Which makes more sense then him being against God, because that would mean that God is not infinitely powerful, and therefore not perfect. In order for God to be perfect, Satan has to be his servant.

Ignore these big letters[if you can!]

[Husar]

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

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

You forget that occultism is like worshipping satan indirectly...

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

[Byzantine Prince]

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

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

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

*Ethics was written by this man:Benedict de Spinoza

One of the greatest philosphers of all time, IMO.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

[Byzantine Prince]

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

I hate to be antagonistic, but if he was perfect how could he contract his essence into something that is imperfect. [Read: Tzimtzum]

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

Well the problem I see in this is that free will is not free at all if we cannot do whatever we want regardless of what is percieved as good, or what God wants(he doesn't want anything). It would be a very poor gift in my opinion, since it isn't worth being free and spending the rest of eternity in pain and suffering.

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

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

It can logically be proven absurd that God could act in any way to alter the natural world. He created it to perfection, he does not and cannot be messing with it. As for his "actions" in the Bible, I am not touching that.

Satanism is directly antagonistic to Christianity and as such can been seen as a work of Satan, not because Satan is evil but because turning away from Satanism would be turning to Christianity and so to God. The reverse is also true, which is why I say there's no real difference between devil worship and LeVay's Satanism.

Okay, but in all fairness Satanism is antagonistic mostly in name alone. I honestly cannot say that it is much worse from a Christian perspective than, say, atheism, which is also a turning away from, and denial of God. Satanism is kind of like Buddhism in that it is a mostly humanistic philosophy, and not so much worshiping of anything. If we are talking about devil worshipping, then we are not talking about a concrete religion, because devil worshipping is not done in any organized way. In other words it is just people who are pbsessed with myths created by authors and they think it's cool or something. It has about as much validity as a religion as metal culture.

[A.Saturnus]

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

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

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

That makes talking to you a bit like masturbation.

[A.Saturnus]

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

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

Seems like petty non-conformity to me but hey.

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

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

Ok, no one says you should.

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

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

[A.Saturnus]

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

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

[Husar]

Did the possibility ever cross your mind that other people could maybe believe other things than you do?

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

What we are discussing here is whether the satanists' believes make sense from their point of view.

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

That makes talking to you a bit like masturbation.

I hope you enjoy it.

[AntiochusIII]

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

Ah, then I guess we cannot continue our debate, pleasant and unoffensive as it may. For we have two underlying different warrants -- assumptions. Yours is the view that only look at Satan from a Christian perspective. Me, I look at them, as A. Saturnus stated, from the Satanists' point of view, in which, in and of itself, there are many. Occultists, moral relativists, satirists, noncomformists, and so on.

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

That clarifies enough, then. Even Loki himself is relative.

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

Ah, but I look at Goths from the only perspective physically available for me, the American High School one. I know there are "Goths" in many age groups but the high school one is, more often than not, what the stereotype is.

And telling me satanists have nothing to do with the "christian satan" and then telling me they call themselves satanists to piss off christians is just, weird and contradictory.

The word "Satan" by modern understanding is varied, and what Christianity contributes to the societal perspective of things does not necessarily mean Christianity owns it and that what it was is now what it is. "Satan" might be a concept, at least in the West, derived originally from the religion(s), but as the concept evolved its purpose changed, at least among those who "change" with it, such as Lavey's point of view. It becomes, in many "atheistic" Satanists' mind, just a single word that unites many concepts such as the libertarian principle, moral relativism, and self-centered ego, thus suitable to be used as an "idol," with or without the intention of making a connotation to the Biblical Satan, or just pissing off Christians. Like I said above, in this post, our underlying warrants are different.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

[Big_John]

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

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

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

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

[A.Saturnus]

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

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

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

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

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