Please take this subject and all other discussion of personal belief systems elsewhere. This is not an appropriate venue. If you persist in discussing personal beliefs here - anywhere - you must expect that someone will disagree with you. There isn't any polite response to someone who professes belief in an Invisible Pink Unicorn other than dismissal.
If the persistence of this Off Topic thread is indicative of some tacit approval by the Mods, then I suggest that same Mods petition v1ctor for the return of an Off Topic forum (and be prepared to moderate 24/7). Good luck. Best wishes.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)
Off Topic / Religion -> Bible chat rooms? [Closed]
-
rolliebollocks
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Aug 28, 2008 10:54
- Location: new york
other see people see religion as a way of life others something to hold to when in dire need. This discussion see it as a face on the wall while holding a cream pieQuote:
Please take this subject and all other discussion of personal belief systems elsewhere. This is not an appropriate venue.
Why does it bother so much? Why can't you just ignore it?
Yeah, Lavey's particular brand is most certainly atheistic. I don't know as much about the Setian branch, only that it's an offshoot caused by professed corruption among the ranks of the original Church Of Satan. Also, the CoS fragmented later as well, and it kind of became a power struggle between Anton's daughter and some of the higher-ups. The whole thing's a mess, really... but hey, that's what happens when you take a seemingly perfect concept and introduce the human element... leave it up to the humans to mess everything up. Hell, that's where capitalism and communism both fail too... on paper, both systems are perfect, but when you add humans, both fall apart at the seams because there are always going to be those who wish to control others. Anyways, my wife is a Lavey Satanist, and most of their doctrines I agree with... I just refuse to follow them for the sake of following them; I do them because it's what's right and natural, not because someone told me to do them (such as having no time or tolerance for ingrates, never turning the other cheek in the face of adversity, taking responsibility for your own actions, and never harming a child). Satanists are some of the most realistic and honest people you could ever hope to meet... unless you're a fool, in which case you're screwed because they don't suffer fools gladly. :) (I mean "you" in the general sense, not speaking to anyone in particular.)rolliebollocks wrote:As I recall, Satanism is an atheistic religion. When Lavey outwardly said he did not believe in a literal devil, only a concept that inverted traditional morals, it caused a schism in the Church of Satan, which resulted in the Temple of Set.
Theistic Satanism is a different story... they actually have a god, which is Sat-Tan (it means "the all and the one"), a creator god not unlike all other creator gods throughout history. Of course, Theistic Satanists are very rare nowadays.
And then you have the devil-worshipers, or what we usually just call the "cultists". These are the shock-value weirdos who are nothing more than anti-Christ psychopaths out to make a name for themselves. These are the losers who do all the stupid things you hear about in the media when they talk about "Satanists". Any time you hear about a "Satanist" doing something patently stupid, such as severe child abuse or animal slaughter, be assured that it's one of these jackasses and not a real Satanist. Lavey Satanists do not kill animals unless it's for food, and although Theistic Satanists have been known to perform animal sacrifice, it's also for food. You'll never find them sacrificing cats; they see cats as sacred, and who wants to eat a housecat anyways? :)
-
rolliebollocks
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Aug 28, 2008 10:54
- Location: new york
@Eponasoft
That's interesting. The one thing I remember about Satanism is that it's extremely pragmatic. The ritual end is based around concepts of repression. In fact, acting as a surrogate to the emotions Christians normally associate with sin. For instance, if someone really Π$/- you off, instead of killing them, you perform a ritual in which you symbolically kill them. I remember in highschool thinking that it was a giant scam, because all I needed to become a reverend in the church, was like 100 bucks sent to LaVey's church.
I hung around in the goth scene a lot when I was younger, so I met a lot of left-hand-path occultists, and Satanists, no not very many LaVey-ians. Crowely-ites were more common. A few Pazuzu-worshipers. I myself got into Chaos Magick, because it didn't require that I join a group of people who enjoyed their arbitrary power over me, which was the reason I couldn't stand Catholicism.
The Crowley-ites almost certainly do orgies as a part of their ritual magick. But they're also careful students of mythology, and take religion seriously. Early Christian Gnostics practiced ritual sex magic as well. There was the mysterious "ritual of the bridal chamber" and the Ophites were said to use menstrual blood when consecrating the Eucharist. Early Taoism is also said to have some form of ritual sex, though early Taoism is very much unlike the Taoism of Lao Tzu.
I still practice chaos magick, which is also highly pragmatic. But then again, I've salad-barred the writings and taken only what I want. I use meditation and self-hypnosis, mostly. And I like the emphasis on belief-as-strategy.
That's interesting. The one thing I remember about Satanism is that it's extremely pragmatic. The ritual end is based around concepts of repression. In fact, acting as a surrogate to the emotions Christians normally associate with sin. For instance, if someone really Π$/- you off, instead of killing them, you perform a ritual in which you symbolically kill them. I remember in highschool thinking that it was a giant scam, because all I needed to become a reverend in the church, was like 100 bucks sent to LaVey's church.
I hung around in the goth scene a lot when I was younger, so I met a lot of left-hand-path occultists, and Satanists, no not very many LaVey-ians. Crowely-ites were more common. A few Pazuzu-worshipers. I myself got into Chaos Magick, because it didn't require that I join a group of people who enjoyed their arbitrary power over me, which was the reason I couldn't stand Catholicism.
The Crowley-ites almost certainly do orgies as a part of their ritual magick. But they're also careful students of mythology, and take religion seriously. Early Christian Gnostics practiced ritual sex magic as well. There was the mysterious "ritual of the bridal chamber" and the Ophites were said to use menstrual blood when consecrating the Eucharist. Early Taoism is also said to have some form of ritual sex, though early Taoism is very much unlike the Taoism of Lao Tzu.
I still practice chaos magick, which is also highly pragmatic. But then again, I've salad-barred the writings and taken only what I want. I use meditation and self-hypnosis, mostly. And I like the emphasis on belief-as-strategy.
roook_ph, I don't think ritual orgies are very common in Satanism; they're just not "evil" like many religions would like everyone to believe. They do tend to be more common around Aleister Crowley philosophy followers though. Satanists are not afraid of sex, they are not afraid of their own bodies, they are generally not afraid of homosexuality, and many of them support "evil" things such as gay marriage, polygamy, and reproductive rights for women.
rolliebollocks, it depends on how they look at it. In Satanism, it is considered a sin to be taken advantage of by a shyster, but NOT a sin to kill said shyster if they try to cause you harm. That's part of the whole "not suffering fools gladly" thing. :) Those who cheat and deceive others are the enemies of Satanists. From the 11 Rules Of the Earth: "When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there." "If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy." "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him." and from the Nine Satanic Statements: "Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!" "Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!" "Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!" and the very first statement: "Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!" Of course, people tend to believe that when they say Satan that they are referring to an actual being... which is wrong. "Satan" refers to one's self... "Hail Satan!" is showing reverence for yourself.
rolliebollocks, it depends on how they look at it. In Satanism, it is considered a sin to be taken advantage of by a shyster, but NOT a sin to kill said shyster if they try to cause you harm. That's part of the whole "not suffering fools gladly" thing. :) Those who cheat and deceive others are the enemies of Satanists. From the 11 Rules Of the Earth: "When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there." "If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy." "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him." and from the Nine Satanic Statements: "Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!" "Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!" "Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!" and the very first statement: "Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!" Of course, people tend to believe that when they say Satan that they are referring to an actual being... which is wrong. "Satan" refers to one's self... "Hail Satan!" is showing reverence for yourself.
Religion contains theories based on the fundamental principles (the belief). It is, in a way, organized belief.rolliebollocks wrote:@marcov
Religion is a theory,Not necessarily. Religion is based on a belief, which is not necessarily the same as a theory.
But the fundamental principles are not a theory.
Within their own artificial constraints of the belief, and without experimentation to support it.Religion theorizes on the nature of being.
In the normal scientific meaning of theory, this isn't one.
Nearly everything does somewhere somewhat. But that doesn't suggest a substitution.It overlaps on ground that science also deals with.
A hypothesis becomes a theory when it is broadly accepted and verified by experiment. That's where the problem with equating religion to a theory (either at the base, or the frame on top). The only experiment is comparing to e.g. religious texts which are open to various interpretation.
Religion requires belief, but so does string theory, which is based on mathematical suppositions, that explain contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics.
In science in general the concept of theory is very well defined, as something that doesn't apply to religion.
Religion is maybe comparable with science, but my guess would be that it would be more comparable with something like law (which is more interpretitive) than hard beta science.
Scientists are humans too. But I don't see the relevance of this remarkScience also has been used to brutalize people, often under the guise of medicine. Homosexuals, autistic people, and in general people who didn't fit into the normative standard had their frontal lobes scraped out from their eyes as a treatment.
Well, except the sometimes moronic attempts at influencing public life (like the creationists lobby to get it taught in education). That is infuriating, and violates the church-state separation. A base principle in nearly every constitution
Well, actually religion and science are quite close in the answer to that question: "Go forth and multiply" and "procreation" are not that far apart :-)I myself have tried to think of "what is the purpose of existence as a whole?"
Satan is a christian concept. IMHO Satanism is a Christian sect. Just one that is further from the norm. It is certainly not atheistic, since Atheism does not know the concept of Satan.As I recall, Satanism is an atheistic religion.
IIRC the Satan concept is purely Christian, and is the devil an archangel in Judaism (and evil nor good).
Actually the concept of Satan (and specially in the Beelzebub/Baal) and hell are very interesting. I don't know if this is real research or just a fun article, but I read somewhere that hell really exists. It is a place about 100km from Jeruzalem, at a spot where Kanaanites possibly performed sacrifices, possibly also human (to Baal).
Both Hell and Beelzebub/Satan seem to be formerly pagan concepts, vilified as a warning and embedded into the faith.
It is actually quite humorous that a follow religion like Christianity (and even worse, the Satanists, but they are hard to take serious anyway) then award such a big value to these concepts. (IIRC the devil entered the Christian faith as major entity in the 3rd century AD)
In that sense they are the same as the Greek concept of "Daemon" (wood spirit, performing maintenance on the landscape, much like lepricons in Celtic mythology). Because these local spirits vilified to a Demon. These local spirits were relative
This process actually produced a verb, to demonize something.
-
rolliebollocks
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Aug 28, 2008 10:54
- Location: new york
I wasn't suggesting they were identical, just that religion is a theory on the nature of reality, and so is science. If you choose to define theory in such a manner which excludes religion, then it ceases to become one. Marxism is a theory, too. Politics and religion have a quite a bit of overlap. My suggestion is that the two aren't as distinct as people imagine, that they both become lenses through which people refract information through.Nearly everything does somewhere somewhat. But that doesn't suggest a substitution.
I'm not saying the two are the same, I'm saying that they tread on each other's territory.
It becomes necessary to make this point when someone points out all the evil things people do in the name of religion. My point was that it's not the religion's fault, that people will use whatever justification they can find, be religion, science, natural law, common sense, whatever.Scientists are humans too. But I don't see the relevance of this remark
In the CoS Satan is a metaphor, not a literal being. There is no literal God, there is no literal Satan. Merely having a concept of something does not make it literally true. But if you don't buy that argument, you can always read about the schism between Anton LaVey and Michael Aquino, and how this very question caused the CoS (which is a specific organization) to splinter off into the Temple of Set.Satan is a christian concept. IMHO Satanism is a Christian sect. Just one that is further from the norm. It is certainly not atheistic, since Atheism does not know the concept of Satan.
This is a matter of fact, not a theory.
There is no actual evidence that the Canaanites ever sacrificed living infants to Ba'al. In a specialized oven known known as a tophet the bodies of infants were discovered, and the Bible makes specific mention of infant sacrifice. But we don't really know that the infants were alive when they died, and not just cremated. There is debate concerning this.Actually the concept of Satan (and specially in the Beelzebub/Baal) and hell are very interesting. I don't know if this is real research or just a fun article, but I read somewhere that hell really exists. It is a place about 100km from Jeruzalem, at a spot where Kanaanites possibly performed sacrifices, possibly also human (to Baal).
In the bible, Beelzebub is a corruption of the name of Ba'al (which merely means lord). Zebub is a fly. Thus the Hebrews were making fun of how filthy the Canaanites were by calling their god the "Lord of the Flies".
A few miles outside of Jerusalem there was a trash heap that was perpetually on fire. Jesus used its name as a metaphor for hell in the NT: Gehenna.
Satan isn't a Christian concept at all, and Satanism isn't a Christian sect. What you're thinking of are anti-Christ devil-worshipers. These are not Satanists. And again, atheist simply means "no theism", or "no belief in deities". Only Theistic Satanists revere a god, but like I said earlier, these people are very rare nowadays... modern-day Satanists are indeed atheists.marcov wrote:Satan is a christian concept. IMHO Satanism is a Christian sect. Just one that is further from the norm. It is certainly not atheistic, since Atheism does not know the concept of Satan.
Ancient Christians stole the name Satan from Sat-Tan, which is an ancient pagan Creator deity that predates Judaism. They needed a name for their devil, so why not steal some names from pre-existing deities? Sat-Tan (the all and the one, creator of the cosmos), Lucifer (god of the morning star, the light bearer), Mephistopheles (destroyer of goodness, he who hates the light), etc... these are all names attributed to the Christian devil concept over the centuries... all names of ancient deities and spirits that were either revered or feared. The devil imagery comes from a combination of Pan (Arcadian god of the pasture), Triton (messenger of the sea, the son of Poseidon), and Beelzebub (lord of the palace of heaven, lord of the flies), three other ancient pagan deities.
Oh by the way... Christians invented the word "pagan". It means "country dweller" and was the name given to people who lived outside of the city... and thus outside of their newly-created religion. Most people in the area at the time were still reverent to Mithra.
Now... why Lavey chose to name his religion "Satanism" is beyond me... I can only surmise that he did it for the shock value. Lavey Satanism has nothing to do with Theistic Satanism... the "spiritual" side of Lavey Satanism seems to be something of a mockery (or at least a reinterpretation) of the Christian spiritual hierarchy. They even recognize Belial... which, according to my studies, seems to be one of the original lesser deities of Judaism before they became monotheistic. Belial sits at the bottom of the Baphomet Pentragram and represents the element of earth... and thus the gratification of earthly pleasures. The name also represents freedom (the one without a master) and self-responsibility.
Oh, interestingly enough, a couple of things about the Baphomet Pentagram... first of all, it's not even a pentagram, it's a pentacle. A pentagram is not surrounded by a circle... a pentacle is. Also, many people believe that the "evil pentagram used by Satanists" is inverted... similar to how they believe that the upside cross is a Satanic symbol. However, the pentacle used by Satanists is actually rotated 72 degrees... it's not inverted. The pentacle is another symbol stolen by ancient Christians from earlier religions... they needed a symbol for "the five wounds of Christ". The inverted cross is the Cross Of St. Peter and is strictly a Catholic symbol... yep, it's Christian in nature, not Satanic... only anti-Christians use the symbol, and only for the shock value.
Pretty much all religions steal from previous religions.
@marcovmarcov wrote: In that sense they are the same as the Greek concept of "Daemon" (wood spirit, performing maintenance on the landscape, much like lepricons in Celtic mythology). Because these local spirits vilified to a Demon. These local spirits were relative
This process actually produced a verb, to demonize something.
The lepricon is not a Demon.
At most he is mischievous.
A lepricon is a cobbler who saves cold coins and keeps them in a pot at the end of a rainbow.
If you catch him, he will grant you three wishes to set him free.
The two most malevolent creatures of Celtic folklore are :
1) The Banshee.
Her piercing wail will crack glass, and a death always follows if you are unlucky enough to hear her.
2) The Kelpie.
This is a horse who lives near water, It can appear as something else to you (Maybe a beautiful woman), it will lure you and trap you.
In appearance it is not unlike the FreeBASIC logo.
Nah, they're not really scary people. Sometimes, individuals try to act all tough because they attach the label to themselves, but you'll find that everywhere... for example, how many times have we seen C++ programmers trying to be all tough in front of BASIC programmers? Anyways, as with all religions, not all of them follow all the rules. Everyone's only human after all. The difference between Satanism and most other religions is that their rules are actually *possible* to follow, rather than just being idealistic pipe dreams that no one could ever follow unless they were an automaton. But I actually find Satanists to be some of the friendliest people there are, simply because they're down-to-earth, take no BS from others, and are genuine and sincere. I think that's part of what makes them so intimidating.HD_ wrote:Wow, Satanists sound like a scary lot. Do they act on the rules Eponasoft quoted?