My religion is satanism

[lonecoyote]

So, what I'm understanding is that there is no red guy with horns and hooves like on the hot sauce bottle, no lake of fire, no nothing, just a celebration of selfishness, which is actually a pretty boring lifestyle, once the jadedness sets in. Where's the fun in this? Are there at least Black Masses, Satanic orgies or neat gothic outfits? If not, you people have no hook, and I don't see why you don't just go bowling on saturday night.

 

[heretic888]

and I don't see why you don't just go bowling on saturday night.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Bester]

Anton Lavey was a carnie barker, and developed some of his ideas after watching the people lyin, drinkin, cussin, and cheatin on Saturday, then being all pious on Sunday, just to go back to being hypocrites on Monday. He took ideas that would generate serious publicity (such as black masses with naked women) and put out a number of books on his thoughts. Much is standard "new age" that will sound familiar to anyone familiar to modern paganism or wicca, as well as a few interesting twists.

If it works for someone, great. If not, Great. There are a thousand other faiths, easy to shop around for something, or nothing, to believe in.

Why goto a special building on Sunday to listen to old fables, eat stale flat bread dipped in cheap wine, served by a guy in a dress?

There are 2 "types" of Satanism.
- The Anti-Christian type which worships the Xian "devil", does the blood sacrifice, inverted cross, etc crap.
- The "Neo" (Which Laveys is the largest) which focuses more on the individual, not feeling guilty for human emotions and actions, etc.

Me personally, it's not quite what I'm looking for. But, I have read his books, which is more than most of his critics can say.

 

[redfang]

C'mon now let's not throw pagans in with LeVey and Satanists.

 

[T3dragon]

Please don't throw us pagans in with satanists.

This is not meant as an attack or anything if it comes off that way , but i would like to go into my own background before that.

I have a copy of the "satanic bible". I have read it. My major hobby is the study of religions. I myself am basically a Neo-druid( not finding too many of those today). As a druid i have my own personal set of beliefs as all druids do.

From all I have read and heard about satanism(i was at a time anti-christian so don't think what i heard was too biased) all it really seems to be is a sorry attempt to "revolt" against christianity as a whole. If you notice everything you ever hear from my satanists is either has "satanism is this..." or "the church that....".

Really, all the "religion"(if you can call it that)is a self-centered and selfish group of individuals that are have no desire to help improve anything.

I know this all sounds like I see it as all bad. There are interesting and valid points throughout the "religion". The idea about stupidity and lack of intelligence toward others i can understand. I run into people who i wished were never around. I have even said, "if I had a choice i would make stupidity illegal". I mainly feel this way due to the fact that as a druid were are to be true "druids". Meaning mentors, teachers, doctors, scientists. One of the main goals in our own lives is to learn as much as possible and help that continue.

I see no advancement in using slavery widly as we used to. The things that happened with slavery is that we became dependent on it and our own human development became stagnant and "soft". I way through advancement is struggle. That is the main idea in evolution. Something has to come up so that we must change to meet it and survive.

The item I am arguing is: #7 on the satanic statements. It seems that satanism would wish that we would devolve, Give up all our advances in technology and science. This seems counterintuitive many because satanist's main or cardinal sin is Stupidity.

I don't see anything positive coming from this.

You may ask that why do i believe that when I am a Druid and my "duty" if to be a guardian of nature. Well, with all evolution comes change. This also has affected nature as well. The rapid increase of people on this planet is destroying the homes of other animals. But in this case most humans are not serving a purpose, but are just taking up space. That is why I say if a human is not contributing to the advancement of society then they should be removed. Animals on the other hand are woven into the food chain. WE are not because we are tooo far above it.

Oh DeLamar.J I would love to discuss this with you personally, I would like to see what you think of some other ideas.

Plz get in contact with me by e-mail or through Aim.

Best regards
T3

 

[DeLamar.J]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

:ultracool



Ill be adding some interesting satanic material to this thread soon that should clear a few things up. And one more thing, I am not a official member of the church of satan, Id like to be, I just havent went through the process yet. So what Im trying to say is that I am not a speaker for the church.

 

[DeLamar.J]

Now this thread will go somewhere.


Whether you admire (which I do) or loath Nietzsche there can be little disputing that, if he was nothing else, he was bold. Few have had the testicular fortitude to take the stands Nietzsche championed in the face of established moral authority, religious orthodoxy, and the prevailing sensibilities of the state. And there has been no such thing as an easy ride for his readers. Nietzsche challenges his readers to collaboratively sojourn with him on his various "thought experiments" and iconoclastic re-valuations of status quo assumption. The conclusions the reader is left with at the end of that journey tends to reflect as much about the reader's own biography as the message intended by Nietzsche. As a consequence, Nietzsche stands as perhaps one of the most misunderstood, inconsistently interpreted, and widely maligned social thinkers and philosophers of all time (not that he much cared).

Understanding the Anti-Christ as it was intended by Nietzsche may be best done by following the train of his thinking chronologically through his preceding works that build upon the basic premises set forth in his first work, Birth of Tragedy. For no where is the occasion for distorted interpretation and vilification greater than Nietzsche's late work, the Anti-Christ. Of course, Nietzsche invites much of this on himself beginning with his incendiary title and a text laced with in-your-face passages such as:

"Principle of `Christian love:' it wants to be well paid..."

"A certain sense of cruelty toward oneself and others is Christian; hatred of those who think differently; the will to persecute."

"Hatred of mind, of pride, courage, freedom, libertinage of mind is Christian; hatred of the senses, of the joy of the senses, of joy in general is Christian..."

"...the concepts `Beyond,' `Last Judgement,' `immortality of the soul,' the `soul' itself: they are instruments of torture, they are forms of systematic cruelty by virtue of which the priest has become master, stays master..."

"That strange and sick world to which the Gospels introduce us-a world like that of a Russian novel, in which the refuse of society, neurosis and `childlike' idiocy seem to make a rendezvous..."

"`Faith' has been at all times...only a cloak, a pretext, a screen, behind which the instincts played their game-a shrewd blindness to the dominance of certain instincts..." (I.e., "ressentiment"- resentment/envy/revenge)

"There are only bad instincts in the New Testament, there is not even the courage for these bad instincts. Everything in it is cowardice, everything is self-deception and closing one's eyes to oneself..."

"Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge..."

"The great lie of personal immortality destroys all rationality, all naturalness of instinct-all that is salutary, all that is life-furthering, all that holds a guarantee of the future in the instincts henceforth excites mistrust..."

"One must not let oneself be misled: they say `Judge not!' but they send to Hell everything that stands in their way. By allowing God to judge they themselves judge; by glorifying God they glorify themselves..."

"...their life of humility appears to be a duty, as humility it is one more proof of piety...Ah this humble, chaste, compassionate mode of mendaciousness...The reality is that here the most conscious arrogance of the elect is posing as modesty: one has placed oneself, the `community,' the `good and just,' once and for all on one side, on the side of `truth'-and the rest, `the world,' on the other...That has been the most fateful kind of megalomania that has ever existed on earth; little abortions of bigots and liars began to lay claim to the concepts "God,' `truth,' `light,' `spirit,' `love,' `wisdom,' `life' as if these were synomyms of themselves so as to divide themselves off from the `world..."

Should a devout Christian find these lines offensive? Naturally most no doubt have and will. But like Kierkegaard's critiques on "Christiandom" (which Nietzsche probably had not read), the Anti-Christ stands as a strong challenge that reflects what for many critically-minded individuals uninitiated to a Christian way of life are genuine stumbling blocks. Faith, it is assumed, must be predicated upon some personalized substance that extends beyond mere cultural obedience and lazy conformity. In the wake of a historical record that has been drenched in blood, repression, and cruelty, what exactly is the personal relevance of Jesus? A ticket to eternal life while holding onto a sense of comfortable superiority and entitlement in the interim? What about the moral teachings of Jesus? Have they ever truly been at the foundation of Christian institutions or have they been co-opted and contorted to alienate individuals from a deeper level of personal understanding that leads to morality that serves life?

There are two insidious tendencies in the human condition that Nietzsche sees as undermining healthy growth: fear and laziness. Nietzsche singles out the common practice of Christiandom to the extent that it manifests and propagates fear of becoming and the dulling effects of complacency. Nietzsche was an admirer of Jesus' bold vision and his courage to take a stand but he rejected his divinity and the religion built around him ("There has been only one Christian-he died on a cross"). Unlike his influential predecessor Schopenhauer, Nietzsche was not a nihilist. If Nietzsche "philosophized with a hammer" to sound out established idols and shibboleths, and when warranted, shatter them, it was to clear the way for what was more immediate and urgent to the human condition. That for Nietzsche, as illustrated poetically in Thus Spake Zarathustra, was to be fully alive now, learn to love fate, and to take full charge of all of one's senses, talents, and instincts and to bring them to bear creatively. Morality must develop from within the abundance of a life lived boldly, not from a repressive external system of coercion and reward.

 

[heretic888]

Arthur Schophenhaur was a nihilist?? Wha?? :idunno:

In any event, this is all well and good, but what has Nietzchean existentialism to do with "satanism"??

 

[47MartialMan]

So its ok to have satanism as a religion or belief, but not for someone in their mind to be a knight, soke, master, etc...?

 

[Loki]

Testicular fortitude!! That's great! Haha!!

1) I don't really get the idea of a religion in the first place if you're not looking for a community (i.e. herd). You can be part of a herd but stray off in your own direction if you like. That's how I see my life. I have my herd, but I follow it only when I see eye to eye with what it's going towards. Sometimes I find myself leading it in another direction.

2) It does sound like AynRandism to me too. It comes off as hedonistic and selfish (not self-interested). Focusing on yourself is a good thing, because you are the core of your universe, but disregarding others of lesser or no means to fend for themselves is cruel.

3) Naming it after Satan is to spite, that's all. It's a name that's meant to arouse anger and disgust. It's an extreme reaction to an extreme situation, much like Rand's philosophy of extreme self-interesr is an extreme reaction to the Communist regime under which she was raised.

~ Loki

 

[ABI]

4.3. The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

Isn't the starter of this thread breaking one of his religion's rules?

:uhyeah:

 

[Andrew Green]

"I would love to hear everyones opinion on my religion."

Nope, this is asking for opinions, which is allowed.

 

[Pale Rider]

Isn't vanity one of Satan's biggest sins? If so then this proves that regardless of whether or not a person actually believes in Satan/Lucifer but only believes in one's self - isn't that consider vanity?

 

[Andrew Green]

It is a sin under a Christian set of beliefs. This is not about Christian beliefs though.

Depending on how you interepret things "God" could be seen as the evil one.

Satan gave man the knowledge of good and evil, setting him free to make his own choices.

God wanted to keep man enslaved without that freedom.

Satan didn't flood the world and kill almost every living thing, God did.

God is always the one doing the "Fear and worship me and only me!" thing (Vanity?)

etc.

 

[Ray]

...Depending on how you interepret things "God" could be seen as the evil one.

Satan gave man the knowledge of good and evil, setting him free to make his own choices.

God wanted to keep man enslaved without that freedom.

You don't know that Heavenly Father meant to kept Adam and Eve living in a state of not knowing good from evil. In fact, God did give Adam and Eve a choice - to partake of a fruit or to not.

Since God is all-knowing, then it follows that He knew our first parents would partake of the fruit. He had a plan to take care of the fall -- redemption.

Satan didn't flood the world and kill almost every living thing, God did.

Do you suppose that this life is all there is? So God took nearly all of the inhabitants of the earth. Do you suppose that is the eternal end for them? Mankind was in an awful, sorry state at that time; very few people had a chance of choosing to be righteous, so great was the evil to which they were subjected.

God is always the one doing the "Fear and worship me and only me!" thing (Vanity?)

God is the one who give a choice: he doesn't compel you [in this life] to worship him -- you can choose.

 

[AWR]

I can't believe this thread made it's way on to this webiste.

You really have no idea what you are trifling with. I certainly respect your
right to chose any "religion" that attracts you, but the end result of this
course of action will not be pleasant.

Satan is real - I've had the misfortune of direct experience so please don't
scoff at that remark. There is nothing "divine" about him or those that
serve him.

Man can not serve two masters, which is what you appear to be trying to do.

AWR

 

[achilles]

Don't you think that this whole satanism thing is a little hippocritical? How can you even begin to talk about rules or sins or any other a priori non-sense if you then make a point of rejecting the source of a priori values. Honestly, how can you start rejecting social mores concerning child molestation, animal cruelty or any of that mating signal junk and still take on a completely aesthetic lifestyle, encourage others to do the same yet judge them? Read up on your Sartre and Nietzsche. If you want to get down to raw existence, it seems like you're just entering another realm of deception. Spooky deception, but deception all the same.

 

[Andrew Green]

Man can not serve two masters, which is what you appear to be trying to do.

Well...

I'm no Satanist (or Christian for that matter) but it seems to me the idea here is to serve NO master, not two masters. Serve yourself, not a supernatural diety.

As for your taking offense to a thread on Satanism, there are a good many that might take offense to a thread on Christian beliefs too.

 

[Andrew Green]

You don't know that Heavenly Father meant

Nor do you, or anyone else. It is all peoples different interpretations. Yours can't be proved anymore then what I proposed.


[/QUOTE] Do you suppose that this life is all there is?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, Yes, I do.

God is the one who give a choice: he doesn't compel you [in this life] to worship him -- you can choose.

And if you choose against... well, I guess you'd better enjoy BBQ's...

 

[Ray]

Nor do you, or anyone else. It is all peoples different interpretations. Yours can't be proved anymore then what I proposed.

Hmmm, you're right religion cannot be proven. It's sometimes axiomatic, if you accept the fundamental axioms then the rest follows. But no scientific experiments...

Do you suppose that this life is all there is?

Actually, Yes, I do.

Reminds me of an old Smothers Bros skit about a "new religion" Dickie invented, they believed in "death after life." Not much need for a religion if you don't believe in a life after death; just the decision wether hedonistic pleasure or "the greater good" makes life worth living, no?

And if you choose against... well, I guess you'd better enjoy BBQ's...

I believe that if you honestly know what it is you're choosing against, then you reap the appropriate consequence. But if you are correct that there is no life after death, then you have no worrys.