Satanism=theism??? <-- Christian propaganda, folks...
Possessive
church of satan, I have to wonder at the irony of the anti-satanism
that appears to be rampant here in alt.atheism. I've lurked for half a
year or so now, and after seeing countless statements along the lines
of "satanists are even crazier than christians - they believe in god
but they worship the devil, how crazy can you get?" I feel compelled
to speak up.
Many atheists in here pride themselves on not accepting other people's
dogmatic statements without references and explanations, and so they
should. I can only applaud when a talented flamer rips apart a
particularly misinformed proselytizing theist, teasing and taunting
and subjecting the unappreciative theist to their repertoire of
sophisticated jokes and biting insults - maybe taking a few breaks
during which they calmly explain that atheists DO have morals despite
what their local reverend preaches, and that atheists AREN'T angry at
their god, much like they're not angry at the tooth fairy, and that
atheists DON'T just reject god so that they are free to lead lives
full of debauchery... etc. All this I applaud.
What I don't like is when the same atheists who demand proof and
references for the existence of god suddenly do a 180 and gullibly
swallow all the nonsence thrown at them concerning the church of
satan. If any of them would bother doing ANY research on the topic,
they'd soon discover that Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder - dubbed
the black pope - was as intelligent, rational and atheist as could be.
Why do they fall for the christian propaganda? Why do they persist in
believing, despite no evidence save the worthless testimony of the
bible, that satanism is just the flip side of christianity?
All of the following excerpts are from the satanic bible:
Book of Satan 4:2:
"There is no heaven of glory bright and no hell where sinners roast!
Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy!
Here and now is our opportunity! Choose ye, this day, this hour, for
no redeemer liveth!"
The nine satanic statements, statement 2:
"Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!"
The nine satanic statements, statement 3:
"Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical
self-deceit!"
The nine satanic sins:
1. Stupidity
2. Pretentiousness
3. Solipsism
4. Self-deceit
5. Herd conformity
6. Lack of perspective
7. Forgetfulness of past orthodoxies
8. Counterproductive pride
9. Lack of aesthetics
OK, I'm done, you can flame me now! :-/
Possessive
mike
Possessive wrote:
Awhile ago I found myself in a flame war with someone for being a satanic
atheist, and I now realise it is silly to flame about something that
insignificant.
I'm sure you cared to hear that, but anyway just thought I'd let you know.
8^\
-mike
clot...@ieee.org
wrote:
Why don't you give it up? Go all the way. Be a non-believer.
Clothaire
HAAWA
Mickey
He already is. All the mentions of Satan are purely symbolic. What I
can't understand is why Satan is needed at all, even as a symbol, when
the ideas stand perfectly well on their own.
Mickey (Michelle Malkin) BAAWA knight
High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
send e-mail to:moc.gnirpsdnim@7bniklam
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
The man who worships a tyrant in heaven naturally submits his neck to
the yoke of tyrants on earth. - George W. Foot, Flowers of Freethought
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
William Harriss
>clot...@ieee.org wrote:
>>On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 21:58:27 GMT, posse...@coldmail.com (Possessive)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Being an atheist who is also sympathetic towards the philosophy of the
>>>church of satan, I have to wonder at the irony of the anti-satanism
<snip defense of satanism>
>>>OK, I'm done, you can flame me now! :-/
>>>
>>>
>>>Possessive
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>Why don't you give it up? Go all the way. Be a non-believer.
>>
>>Clothaire
>>
>>HAAWA
>
>He already is. All the mentions of Satan are purely symbolic. What I
>can't understand is why Satan is needed at all, even as a symbol, when
>the ideas stand perfectly well on their own.
Yeah, it's kinda creepy that it has the "ye" and "liveth" type
language (is this from the KJV Satanic Bible :) For an atheist to
borrow so many trimmings of xtianity seems, to me, a little counter
productive.
Seriously, what do all those xtian parallels do for you, Possessive?
>
>
>Mickey (Michelle Malkin) BAAWA knight
>
>High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
>
>send e-mail to:moc.gnirpsdnim@7bniklam
>
>^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
>The man who worships a tyrant in heaven naturally submits his neck to
>the yoke of tyrants on earth. - George W. Foot, Flowers of Freethought
>^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
William "#1150" Harriss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled
with the entrails of the last priest.
--Denis Diderot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sh...@baawa.org
posse...@coldmail.com (Possessive) wrote:
First of all I'd like to say I've had the link to a Satanism FAQ (and yes I've
read it, and other Satanism pages) on my homepage for several weeks now.
Learning is fun :o) So I don't fall under the Ignorant Atheist category here.
<snip>
> If any of them would bother doing ANY research on the topic,
> they'd soon discover that Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder - dubbed
> the black pope - was as intelligent, rational and atheist as could be.
Well then why didn't he just leave it at that? Was he SUCH a huge ego-wanker
he had to create his own church? That's a bit sad.
<snip>
> Book of Satan 4:2:
> "There is no heaven of glory bright and no hell where sinners roast!
> Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy!
> Here and now is our opportunity! Choose ye, this day, this hour, for
> no redeemer liveth!"
And he had to write his own Bible. Sheesh. Even sadder.
<snip>
> The nine satanic statements, statement 3:
> "Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical
> self-deceit!"
>
> The nine satanic sins:
> 1. Stupidity
They break this, as far as I'm concerned.
> 2. Pretentiousness
> 3. Solipsism
> 4. Self-deceit
> 5. Herd conformity
Why do ppl become Satanists when they are really simply atheists? Three
reasons: It's cool to rebell and shock ppl, they are chronic
attention-seekers (I'm a Satanist. Notice me, notice me), and because they
can't stand not to belong to something (or to have something to "worship").
If that's not herd conformity, what is? Pssssh. Excuse me while I snigger
derisively.
> 6. Lack of perspective
> 7. Forgetfulness of past orthodoxies
> 8. Counterproductive pride
*snigger*
> 9. Lack of aesthetics
Why on Earth do people become Satanists? You can follow all these principles
as an atheist *without* having a book to make sure you keep the rules. It's
ludicrous. Theists point to us and say atheism is a religion. In the case
of the Church of Satan, it *is*. I really can't think of anything more
stupid than that.
> OK, I'm done, you can flame me now! :-/
*boom* ;o)
>
> Possessive
>
--
shan #1163
EAC TNA BAAWA(ssc)
CASHP #10-97 CASHK #97-002
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bill Thacker
Possessive <posse...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Being an atheist who is also sympathetic towards the philosophy of the
>church of satan, I have to wonder at the irony of the anti-satanism
Well, I'll explain my own part of it, anyway.
Ever read "The Hobbit" ? Any fantasy book will do; you just need a
clear protagonist and a sinister antagonist. In this case, it's
Gandalf and Sauron. The book is clear: Gandalf is good, and Sauron is
bad. If Sauron wins, he plans to make everyone unhappy.
If I encountered a group of people who worship Gandalf, I think
they're wacky because Gandalf doesn't exist. If I encounter another
group who worships Sauron, not only are they wacky for worshipping a
fictional character, but I'm also inclined to think they're pretty
twisted for worshipping one whose express purpose is to make people
unhappy. I inwardly suspect that these "worshippers" are sick
bastards.
>What I don't like is when the same atheists who demand proof and
>references for the existence of god suddenly do a 180 and gullibly
>swallow all the nonsence thrown at them concerning the church of
>satan. If any of them would bother doing ANY research on the topic,
And why should I? It's fiction.
>they'd soon discover that Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder - dubbed
>the black pope - was as intelligent, rational and atheist as could be.
So why'd he decide to worship the villain?
>Why do they fall for the christian propaganda?
That's where Satan comes from to begin with, isn't it? Now you're
telling me that when JRR Tolkein wrote "The Hobbit", he was mistaken
about Sauron, who's really a decent guy and got a bad reputation
because he pissed off the elves over a land deal up North, so it's
really OK to worship Sauron. You're inventing fictions within
fictions, and it's hellasilly.
>All of the following excerpts are from the satanic bible:
>
>Book of Satan 4:2:
>"There is no heaven of glory bright and no hell where sinners roast!
>Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy!
>Here and now is our opportunity! Choose ye, this day, this hour, for
>no redeemer liveth!"
So Satan can't speak modern English, either?
Tell me, when was this satanic bible written? What was the original
source of this "revealed truth?" Why shouldn't I assume it's just a
bunch of people who were disgusted with Chrsitianity, but too afraid
of death to embrace atheism?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Atheist #1363 gun...@ds.net
Bill's Rail Buggy Page: http://www.ds.net/~gunner/buggy/buggy.html
VI VI VI: the editor of the beast.
Shaun Denney
On 12 Nov 1998 16:01:36 GMT, w...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com (Bill Thacker)
wrote:
>In article <364b88ae...@news.get2net.dk>,
>Possessive <posse...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>>Being an atheist who is also sympathetic towards the philosophy of the
>>church of satan, I have to wonder at the irony of the anti-satanism
>>that appears to be rampant here in alt.atheism.
>Well, I'll explain my own part of it, anyway.
>Ever read "The Hobbit" ? Any fantasy book will do; you just need a
>clear protagonist and a sinister antagonist. In this case, it's
>Gandalf and Sauron. The book is clear: Gandalf is good, and Sauron is
>bad. If Sauron wins, he plans to make everyone unhappy.
>If I encountered a group of people who worship Gandalf, I think
>they're wacky because Gandalf doesn't exist. If I encounter another
>group who worships Sauron, not only are they wacky for worshipping a
>fictional character, but I'm also inclined to think they're pretty
>twisted for worshipping one whose express purpose is to make people
>unhappy. I inwardly suspect that these "worshippers" are sick
>bastards.
Makes perfect sense ot me - however:
>>What I don't like is when the same atheists who demand proof and
>>references for the existence of god suddenly do a 180 and gullibly
>>swallow all the nonsence thrown at them concerning the church of
>>satan. If any of them would bother doing ANY research on the topic,
>And why should I? It's fiction.
The point being that we often attack Christianity from an informed
viewpoint, and are sceptical of anything we are told by Christians
about Christianity, but those of us who attack Satanism often know
nothing about it other than what we are told by *Christians*. Why
should we take their word in this when we dn't believe a damned thing
they say about anything else without backup? 8)
I think it's the inconsistency Posessive objects to as much as
anything.
>>they'd soon discover that Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder - dubbed
>>the black pope - was as intelligent, rational and atheist as could be.
>So why'd he decide to worship the villain?
Many people here, having read the Bible with an open mind, have
concluded that it is *Yahweh* who should be regarded as the villain of
the piece. He *boasts* of his evil acts (creating evil, deceiving
people, sanctioning genocide, rape, abduction and pillage), and only
comes out looking good to his brainwashed followers.
Satan, OTOH, is portrayed as his adversary, and hardly any specific
bad things are attributed to him other than opposing to the
god-monster and trying to liberate mankind from its service.
>>Why do they fall for the christian propaganda?
>That's where Satan comes from to begin with, isn't it? Now you're
>telling me that when JRR Tolkein wrote "The Hobbit", he was mistaken
>about Sauron, who's really a decent guy and got a bad reputation
>because he pissed off the elves over a land deal up North, so it's
>really OK to worship Sauron. You're inventing fictions within
>fictions, and it's hellasilly.
Silly, yes, but if you buy into the fiction in the first place I think
the Satanists have far fewer scriptural contradictions to deal with
than the Christians.
>>All of the following excerpts are from the satanic bible:
>>Book of Satan 4:2:
>>"There is no heaven of glory bright and no hell where sinners roast!
>>Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy!
>>Here and now is our opportunity! Choose ye, this day, this hour, for
>>no redeemer liveth!"
>So Satan can't speak modern English, either?
Aw c'mon! How are you meant to declaim in modern english? It doesn't
work!
>Tell me, when was this satanic bible written? What was the original
>source of this "revealed truth?" Why shouldn't I assume it's just a
>bunch of people who were disgusted with Chrsitianity, but too afraid
>of death to embrace atheism?
Perhaps disgusted with Christianity, but too brainwashed to realise
that their scripture is fiction, forcing them to reinterpret it rather
than discarding it?
Cheers
Shaun Denney
a.a.#136
============================
My views, not my employers'
============================
Possessive
>On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 21:58:27 GMT, posse...@coldmail.com (Possessive)
>wrote:
<snip my rambling about the church of satan>
>Why don't you give it up? Go all the way. Be a non-believer.
I AM a non-believer. Explaining that atheism and satanism are not
mutually exclusive was the whole point of my post in the first
place...
Possessive
Possessive
>Mickey wrote:
>>Clothaire wrote:
>>>Possessive wrote:
>>>
>>>>Being an atheist who is also sympathetic towards the philosophy of the
>>>>church of satan, I have to wonder at the irony of the anti-satanism
><snip defense of satanism>
>>>>OK, I'm done, you can flame me now! :-/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Possessive
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>Why don't you give it up? Go all the way. Be a non-believer.
>>>
>>>Clothaire
>>>
>>>HAAWA
>>
>>He already is. All the mentions of Satan are purely symbolic. What I
>>can't understand is why Satan is needed at all, even as a symbol, when
>>the ideas stand perfectly well on their own.
>
>Yeah, it's kinda creepy that it has the "ye" and "liveth" type
>language (is this from the KJV Satanic Bible :) For an atheist to
>borrow so many trimmings of xtianity seems, to me, a little counter
>productive.
>
>Seriously, what do all those xtian parallels do for you, Possessive?
Call me anything you like, but I love the holier-than-thou language
present in both bibles. I don't consider it to be an xian copyright or
anything. Shakespeare, for instance, wouldn't be half as much fun
without it.
As for the other xian parallels... I appreciate satire as much as the
next person, and I think the satanic bible is the ultimate xian
parody. It is a very witty book - LaVey had an excellent sense of
humor. As a bonus, there is substance to the satire. Behind the
flowery language and in-your-face anti-xian rituals, there is a lot of
truth about human nature.
Also, I don't see why you think borrowing the trappings of xianity is
counter productive for the cause of atheism (whatever that cause may
be... perhaps the EAC can help me out on this one). How does it affect
the growth of the atheist population around the world?
Possessive
Possessive
>Possessive wrote:
>
>First of all I'd like to say I've had the link to a Satanism FAQ (and yes I've
>read it, and other Satanism pages) on my homepage for several weeks now.
>Learning is fun :o) So I don't fall under the Ignorant Atheist category here.
>
><snip>
>
>> If any of them would bother doing ANY research on the topic,
>> they'd soon discover that Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder - dubbed
>> the black pope - was as intelligent, rational and atheist as could be.
>
>Well then why didn't he just leave it at that? Was he SUCH a huge ego-wanker
>he had to create his own church? That's a bit sad.
Well, LaVey was of the opinion that the need for dogma and ceremony is
an inherent part of every human being (this is one of the major points
on which I disagree with him). Thus, he reasoned, a religion is
necessary - but one that does not require the worship of any god.
Enter the church of satan.
><snip>
>
>> Book of Satan 4:2:
>> "There is no heaven of glory bright and no hell where sinners roast!
>> Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy!
>> Here and now is our opportunity! Choose ye, this day, this hour, for
>> no redeemer liveth!"
>
>And he had to write his own Bible. Sheesh. Even sadder.
What's so sad about writing a book and calling it a bible? Other books
are written that are called bibles - I have a cookbook entitled 'The
Dinner Bible' ('Middagsbibelen' in the original language, Danish). Do
you think that's sad as well? FYI, it has a lot of good recipes!
><snip>
>
>> The nine satanic statements, statement 3:
>> "Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical
>> self-deceit!"
>>
>> The nine satanic sins:
>> 1. Stupidity
>
>They break this, as far as I'm concerned.
Why?
>> 2. Pretentiousness
>> 3. Solipsism
>> 4. Self-deceit
>> 5. Herd conformity
>
>Why do ppl become Satanists when they are really simply atheists? Three
>reasons: It's cool to rebell and shock ppl, they are chronic
>attention-seekers (I'm a Satanist. Notice me, notice me), and because they
>can't stand not to belong to something (or to have something to "worship").
>If that's not herd conformity, what is? Pssssh. Excuse me while I snigger
>derisively.
*Sigh* I fear that I'm going to have to do something very theist-like
and say, "Well, they're not TRUE satanists!" I realize this is a
bigtime fallacy, but... Not all satanists are teenagers who want to
piss off their parents and become more popular in their suburban high
school. I'm of the opinion that those who are like that have either
not read or not understood LaVey's books. However, I can't judge who
is and who isn't a TRUE satanist, so I'll just acknowledge that you
are right about the fact that satanism does appeal to a lot of
insecure, attention-seeking idiots who don't realize that what they
call individuality is in reality just a different kind of conformity.
I choose not to judge the validity of a philosophy by the people who
follow it. You may choose to do so if you wish.
>> 6. Lack of perspective
>> 7. Forgetfulness of past orthodoxies
>> 8. Counterproductive pride
>
>*snigger*
Let me reiterate: I choose not to judge the validity of a philosophy
by the people who follow it. You may choose to do so if you wish.
>> 9. Lack of aesthetics
>
>Why on Earth do people become Satanists? You can follow all these principles
>as an atheist *without* having a book to make sure you keep the rules. It's
>ludicrous. Theists point to us and say atheism is a religion. In the case
>of the Church of Satan, it *is*. I really can't think of anything more
>stupid than that.
To answer your first question, many people don't *become* atheists,
they simply realize that there is a name for the philosophy they've
developed over the years. Names are often useful. Although I disagree
with a lot of LaVey's teachings, I tell people who ask about my take
on religion that I sympathize with the satanic philosophy, so that
they have a vague idea who I am. It saves time.
And yes, it is possible to follow the principles of satanism without
calling oneself a satanist, if that suits you. Personally, I have
nothing against names. I find them practical.
Possessive
Possessive
>clothaire wrote:
>>Possessive wrote:
>>
>>>Being an atheist who is also sympathetic towards the philosophy of the
>>>church of satan, I have to wonder at the irony of the anti-satanism
>>>that appears to be rampant here in alt.atheism.
<snip my rambling>
>>>OK, I'm done, you can flame me now! :-/
>>>
>>>
>>>Possessive
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>Why don't you give it up? Go all the way. Be a non-believer.
>>
>>Clothaire
>>
>>HAAWA
>
>He already is. All the mentions of Satan are purely symbolic. What I
>can't understand is why Satan is needed at all, even as a symbol, when
>the ideas stand perfectly well on their own.
>
>Mickey (Michelle Malkin) BAAWA knight
First of all, it's she, not he. :-)
Some atheists identify themselves as buddhists, some as secular
humanists. The way I see it, 'satanist' is just another name that
helps people understand who you are and where you're coming from. Some
people like labels, some people don't... I personally find them very
practical.
Possessive
Bill Thacker
Shaun Denney <sd...@NOSPAMcam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>On 12 Nov 1998 16:01:36 GMT, w...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com (Bill Thacker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <364b88ae...@news.get2net.dk>,
>>Possessive <posse...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>What I don't like is when the same atheists who demand proof and
>>>references for the existence of god suddenly do a 180 and gullibly
>>>swallow all the nonsence thrown at them concerning the church of
>>>satan. If any of them would bother doing ANY research on the topic,
>
>>And why should I? It's fiction.
>
>The point being that we often attack Christianity from an informed
>viewpoint, and are sceptical of anything we are told by Christians
>about Christianity, but those of us who attack Satanism often know
>nothing about it other than what we are told by *Christians*.
As I was of the opinion that Judeo/Christians (literally) wrote the
book on Satan, that seemed sensible.
We have an informed viewpoint on Christianity because we've been
force-fed their doctrine since childhood. It's not like most of us
were raised atheists and went out and read a Bible just so we argue
with trolls in alt.atheism.
If Satanists are in truth fellow travellers to us atheists, they need
to do what Possessive did: come here and say, "Satanism isn't a religion,
it's a parody of religion. We don't think Satan exists, he's just a
Prometheus-like metaphor for free thought. Our worship service
consists of putting on black robes and chugging beer while cheering
our favorite foobtall team to victory."
We in alt.atheism aren't exclusive. I'm sure the EAC would welcome
atheist Satanists among their membership, and that Satanist posters
would be welcome to participate in our discussions.
But if Satanists don't bother to tell people what they're about, it's
inevitable that someone else will. They need to manage their PR
better.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Atheist #1363 gun...@ds.net
Bill's Rail Buggy Page: http://www.ds.net/~gunner/buggy/buggy.html
"Faith is when you believe in something
a crazy person wouldn't believe." - Archie Bunker
Possessive
>Bill Thacker wrote:
>>Possessive wrote:
>
>>>Being an atheist who is also sympathetic towards the philosophy of the
>>>church of satan, I have to wonder at the irony of the anti-satanism
>>>that appears to be rampant here in alt.atheism.
<snip>
>>>What I don't like is when the same atheists who demand proof and
>>>references for the existence of god suddenly do a 180 and gullibly
>>>swallow all the nonsence thrown at them concerning the church of
>>>satan. If any of them would bother doing ANY research on the topic,
>
>>And why should I? It's fiction.
>
>The point being that we often attack Christianity from an informed
>viewpoint, and are sceptical of anything we are told by Christians
>about Christianity, but those of us who attack Satanism often know
>nothing about it other than what we are told by *Christians*. Why
>should we take their word in this when we dn't believe a damned thing
>they say about anything else without backup? 8)
>
>I think it's the inconsistency Posessive objects to as much as
>anything.
Phew, someone gets it... Thanks, Shaun!
<snip>
>>>Why do they fall for the christian propaganda?
>
>>That's where Satan comes from to begin with, isn't it? Now you're
>>telling me that when JRR Tolkein wrote "The Hobbit", he was mistaken
>>about Sauron, who's really a decent guy and got a bad reputation
>>because he pissed off the elves over a land deal up North, so it's
>>really OK to worship Sauron. You're inventing fictions within
>>fictions, and it's hellasilly.
>
>Silly, yes, but if you buy into the fiction in the first place I think
>the Satanists have far fewer scriptural contradictions to deal with
>than the Christians.
Let me say this once and for all: satanists do NOT consider the bible
to be anything but fiction.
<snip>
>>Tell me, when was this satanic bible written? What was the original
>>source of this "revealed truth?" Why shouldn't I assume it's just a
>>bunch of people who were disgusted with Chrsitianity, but too afraid
>>of death to embrace atheism?
>
>Perhaps disgusted with Christianity, but too brainwashed to realise
>that their scripture is fiction, forcing them to reinterpret it rather
>than discarding it?
Nope. Disgusted with xianity, intelligent enough to realize that their
scripture is fiction, forcing them to create their own
philosophy/religion.
Possessive
Possessive
>Shaun Denney wrote:
>>Bill Thacker wrote:
>>>Possessive wrote:
>>>>
>>>>What I don't like is when the same atheists who demand proof and
>>>>references for the existence of god suddenly do a 180 and gullibly
>>>>swallow all the nonsence thrown at them concerning the church of
>>>>satan. If any of them would bother doing ANY research on the topic,
>>
>>>And why should I? It's fiction.
>>
>>The point being that we often attack Christianity from an informed
>>viewpoint, and are sceptical of anything we are told by Christians
>>about Christianity, but those of us who attack Satanism often know
>>nothing about it other than what we are told by *Christians*.
>
>As I was of the opinion that Judeo/Christians (literally) wrote the
>book on Satan, that seemed sensible.
>
>We have an informed viewpoint on Christianity because we've been
>force-fed their doctrine since childhood. It's not like most of us
>were raised atheists and went out and read a Bible just so we argue
>with trolls in alt.atheism.
>
>If Satanists are in truth fellow travellers to us atheists, they need
>to do what Possessive did: come here and say, "Satanism isn't a religion,
>it's a parody of religion. We don't think Satan exists, he's just a
>Prometheus-like metaphor for free thought. Our worship service
>consists of putting on black robes and chugging beer while cheering
>our favorite foobtall team to victory."
So many newsgroups, so little time... :-/ And when most people are
convinced that satanists worship the devil, it takes even MORE time to
make them understand...
A nitpick: Satanism IS, technically speaking, a religion: it has
rituals and dogma (which basically says: question everything,
including this book! Kind of a catch 22...) and a church (the only
church in America which has refused the state's offer of tax
exemption, btw). The only thing church of satan does not have is a
deity.
>We in alt.atheism aren't exclusive. I'm sure the EAC would welcome
>atheist Satanists among their membership, and that Satanist posters
>would be welcome to participate in our discussions.
>
>But if Satanists don't bother to tell people what they're about, it's
>inevitable that someone else will. They need to manage their PR
>better.
<lol> I'll call headquarters right away...
Bill and others, I suggest you check out the satanic bible sometime.
LaVey's sense of humor and eloquence is reminiscent of Stix's (or
should that be Stix's sense of humor and eloquence is reminiscent of
LaVey's?), so most of the atheists in here would probably appreciate
him.
Possessive
Shawn
Possessive wrote in message <364b88ae...@news.get2net.dk>...
>Being an atheist who is also sympathetic towards the philosophy of the
>church of satan, I have to wonder at the irony of the anti-satanism
>year or so now, and after seeing countless statements along the lines
>of "satanists are even crazier than christians - they believe in god
>but they worship the devil, how crazy can you get?" I feel compelled
>to speak up.
>
>Many atheists in here pride themselves on not accepting other people's
>dogmatic statements without references and explanations, and so they
>should. I can only applaud when a talented flamer rips apart a
>particularly misinformed proselytizing theist, teasing and taunting
>and subjecting the unappreciative theist to their repertoire of
>sophisticated jokes and biting insults - maybe taking a few breaks
>during which they calmly explain that atheists DO have morals despite
>what their local reverend preaches, and that atheists AREN'T angry at
>their god, much like they're not angry at the tooth fairy, and that
>atheists DON'T just reject god so that they are free to lead lives
>full of debauchery... etc. All this I applaud.
>
>references for the existence of god suddenly do a 180 and gullibly
>swallow all the nonsence thrown at them concerning the church of
>satan. If any of them would bother doing ANY research on the topic,
>the black pope - was as intelligent, rational and atheist as could be.
>believing, despite no evidence save the worthless testimony of the
>bible, that satanism is just the flip side of christianity?
>
mistake I will ever make again. I do have an idea of what the Church of
Satan is about and I do recognize that it is an atheist philosophy.
The problem is that Anton chose to use Satan for several reasons. only part
of which was humor. It was chosen partially for its parity value. However
mostly I think it was for the shock value as much as anything else if not
more so. After all Anton was a capitalist and wanted to be rich and famous
and he needed a gimmick. Also it gave the Church of Satan the instant
ability to say that they are misunderstood when in pointed fact Anton chose
to make them misunderstood by choosing a controversial figure to idolize.
Then there is the minor fact that satanism far outdates Anton LaVay and the
Church of Satan. If memory serves me right Satanism originated in Europe as
a Pagan act of rebellion essentially choosing the most repulsive figure in
the Judeo-christian mythos and revearing him as an intentional act of
passive agresion.
Although I am sure that there have been a few exceptionally unstable
individuals who praised the ideals of evil that Satan represents to western
culture, I seriously doubt that the majority of the people who have
subscribed to the label really believed in the dogma preached by christians.
So I recognize that the philosophy of satanism is essencially an atheist
outlook. And I do not by definition say that anyone who wears the label
satanist to be a loon as I do theists. I do however think that they are
either dishonest (Hold on I'll elaborate later.) or simply stupid.
First I'll answer why I say they are stupid. The reason is that they are
choosing a lable that has already been defined and there for will
automatically cause people to misunderstand their possition and put them in
the possition of constantly trying to explain themselves.
Also by choosing the label satanist they choose to misrepresent themselves
as something they are not. Satanism implies theism, It would be as I were to
choose to call my self a christian even though I am very much an atheist.
Which comes to why I say they are dishonest.
I think that if no other Satanist has caught on to it (which I seriouslly
doubt) that Anton did, with absolute intention chose to mislabel his belief
system so his followers would then be able to take the high ground and say
"You are the fool for you did not read what our philosophy is all about."
Gee that puts whoever your arguing against in an unpleasant position of
looking the fool because they were set up. I say intentionally. Also there
is the advantage of the added revenue of people having to buy the damn book
in order to understand what you really are about.
So Possesive. Which are you the stupid person who follows without
understanding the basis of your religion? or are you the dishonest person
who likes to take advantage of a misleading label to make others look
foolish and market the Satanic Bibble?
Shawn #1074
sh...@baawa.org
posse...@coldmail.com (Possessive) wrote:
> sh...@baawa.org wrote:
>
> >Possessive wrote:
> >
<snip>
> Well, LaVey was of the opinion that the need for dogma and ceremony is
> an inherent part of every human being (this is one of the major points
> on which I disagree with him).
You mean... herd mentality? He created a church based on herd mentality then
made it a sin... wow, he really *is* god-like.
LaVey's opinion is wrong, btw, as if you needed me to point that out.
> Thus, he reasoned, a religion is
> necessary
Which it isn't. Couldn't he have just joined a rotary club? Mabe the
Masons? There you have ceremony and dogma, without any pretense at religion.
Mind you, then he wouldn't have been the Big Guy.
> - but one that does not require the worship of any god.
> Enter the church of satan.
The name chosen specifically to shock/rebel, IMNSHO. If he was as
intelligent as he seems to be, he'd know *exactly* how ppl would
respond/react when he chose that name. What's wrong with Secular Humanism,
all of a sudden?
<snip>
> >
> >> The nine satanic statements, statement 3:
> >> "Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical
> >> self-deceit!"
> >>
> >> The nine satanic sins:
> >> 1. Stupidity
> >
> >They break this, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Why?
See what I said below. Did you even bother to read all the way through my
post before you answered it? **There is nothing stupider than turning
atheism into a religion.**
<snip>
> >Why on Earth do people become Satanists? You can follow all these principles
> >as an atheist *without* having a book to make sure you keep the rules.
It's
> >ludicrous. Theists point to us and say atheism is a religion. In the
case
> >of the Church of Satan, it *is*. I really can't think of anything more
> >stupid than that.
>
> To answer your first question, many people don't *become* atheists,
That's right, they don't, because atheism is simply the lack of theism. It
is where you arrive when you lose (or never had) theism. OTOH, you have to
*join* the church of satanism to be a satanist and therefore you *become* BY
AN ACT OF WILL a satanist.
> they simply realize that there is a name for the philosophy they've
> developed over the years. Names are often useful.
> Although I disagree
> with a lot of LaVey's teachings, I tell people who ask about my take
> on religion that I sympathize with the satanic philosophy, so that
> they have a vague idea who I am. It saves time.
I also sympathise with satanic philosophy, I'm an atheist after all, and all
satanism is is atheism for people who can't bear to be without the crutch of
dogma and pomp.
> And yes, it is possible to follow the principles of satanism without
> calling oneself a satanist,
Yes, it's called atheism.
> if that suits you. Personally, I have
> nothing against names. I find them practical.
You find them comfortable. Because you Belong. How nice for you.
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: Being an atheist who is also sympathetic towards the philosophy of the
: church of satan, I have to wonder at the irony of the anti-satanism
: that appears to be rampant here in alt.atheism.
"Rampant"?
I can't remember the last time a satanist was getting flamed here.
--
****************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
- Hippocrates of Cos
****************************************************************
Shaun Denney
wrote:
>Shaun Denney wrote:
>>Bill Thacker wrote:
>>>Possessive wrote:
<snip>
>>The point being that we often attack Christianity from an informed
>>viewpoint, and are sceptical of anything we are told by Christians
>>about Christianity, but those of us who attack Satanism often know
>>nothing about it other than what we are told by *Christians*. Why
>>should we take their word in this when we dn't believe a damned thing
>>they say about anything else without backup? 8)
>>I think it's the inconsistency Posessive objects to as much as
>>anything.
>Phew, someone gets it... Thanks, Shaun!
Glad to be of service 8)
><snip>
>>>>Why do they fall for the christian propaganda?
>>
>>>That's where Satan comes from to begin with, isn't it? Now you're
>>>telling me that when JRR Tolkein wrote "The Hobbit", he was mistaken
>>>about Sauron, who's really a decent guy and got a bad reputation
>>>because he pissed off the elves over a land deal up North, so it's
>>>really OK to worship Sauron. You're inventing fictions within
>>>fictions, and it's hellasilly.
>>Silly, yes, but if you buy into the fiction in the first place I think
>>the Satanists have far fewer scriptural contradictions to deal with
>>than the Christians.
>Let me say this once and for all: satanists do NOT consider the bible
>to be anything but fiction.
I think this is something of an over-generalisation. There certainly
appear to be Satanists who *do* buy into the mythos, worship Satan as
an actual deity, and want nothing to do with LaVey. There doesn't
appear to be many of them, but they do exist. That's why I also agree
with Bill that atheistic Satanists should identify themselves as such,
in order to avoid confusion. After all, the concept of satan as the
living enemy of god was widespread long before the idea of satan as a
mere icon of independence and scepticism.
><snip>
>>>Tell me, when was this satanic bible written? What was the original
>>>source of this "revealed truth?" Why shouldn't I assume it's just a
>>>bunch of people who were disgusted with Chrsitianity, but too afraid
>>>of death to embrace atheism?
>>Perhaps disgusted with Christianity, but too brainwashed to realise
>>that their scripture is fiction, forcing them to reinterpret it rather
>>than discarding it?
>Nope. Disgusted with xianity, intelligent enough to realize that their
>scripture is fiction, forcing them to create their own
>philosophy/religion.
Again I agree with Bill here (I think it was him anyway) - nobody is
forcing them to create and follow their own religion, and doing so
appears to violate the very tenets of the religion which they have
made for themselves. If they value independence, rationality and so
forth the *last* thing they should subscribe to is an organised
religion, theistic or otherwise.
Shaun Denney
wrote:
> The way I see it, 'satanist' is just another name that
>helps people understand who you are and where you're coming from. Some
>people like labels, some people don't... I personally find them very
>practical.
Ob.Man In Black: They're terribly comfortable; in future I think
everyone will be wearing them! 8)
Possessive
>Possessive wrote:
>> sh...@baawa.org wrote:
>> >Possessive wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Well, LaVey was of the opinion that the need for dogma and ceremony is
>> an inherent part of every human being (this is one of the major points
>> on which I disagree with him).
>
>You mean... herd mentality? He created a church based on herd mentality then
>made it a sin... wow, he really *is* god-like.
What's so sheep-like about enjoying the company of like-minded
individuals while trying to make other people appreciate your beliefs
so that this world may become a better place?
>LaVey's opinion is wrong, btw, as if you needed me to point that out.
I think some individuals *need* dogma and ceremony, many enjoy one or
both and then there are some who have no use for it. <shrug> Whatever
floats your boat.
>> Thus, he reasoned, a religion is
>> necessary
>
>Which it isn't. Couldn't he have just joined a rotary club? Mabe the
>Masons? There you have ceremony and dogma, without any pretense at religion.
>Mind you, then he wouldn't have been the Big Guy.
I don't think LaVey's ambition was directed towards becoming a big
shot, I think he wanted to enlighten people. <another shrug> I didn't
know him personally and I'm making the assumption that you didn't
either. How can either of us know for sure whether he was just a very
intelligent and manipulative get-rich-quick schemer or a very
intelligent and manipulative and sincere schemer?
>> - but one that does not require the worship of any god.
>> Enter the church of satan.
>
>The name chosen specifically to shock/rebel, IMNSHO. If he was as
>intelligent as he seems to be, he'd know *exactly* how ppl would
>respond/react when he chose that name. What's wrong with Secular Humanism,
>all of a sudden?
Obviously, using the name 'satan' was and is provocative, and it's
safe to say that LaVey understood the implications of naming his
religion after one of the most famous versions of the devil.
Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with exploiting the
xians' conservative anti-satanic stance to achieve world recognition
for your cause. I see nothing wrong with the exploitation of something
stupid and/or destructive.
Nothing is wrong with secular humanism, except that as far as I know,
the basic principles aren't the same as the satanic ones. I know next
to nothing about secular humanism, so I'd appreciate it if you'll
correct me if there's something I'm mistaken about. The way I see it,
secular humanism and satanism are both atheist philosophies, based on
rational and critical thinking, that include some sort of guidelines
on how to live your life. The latter part differs greatly from one to
the other. Some atheists may prefer the satanic ones while others
prefer the secular humanist ones.
><snip>
>
>> >
>> >> The nine satanic statements, statement 3:
>> >> "Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical
>> >> self-deceit!"
>> >>
>> >> The nine satanic sins:
>> >> 1. Stupidity
>> >
>> >They break this, as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> Why?
>
>See what I said below. Did you even bother to read all the way through my
>post before you answered it? **There is nothing stupider than turning
>atheism into a religion.**
Yes, I did read your post all the way. I just don't see why there
isn't anything stupider than turning atheism into religion. I can
think of lots of things that are much less intelligent. As a matter of
fact, I can think of so many that I don't think turning atheism into
religion qualifies for the descriptor 'stupid'.
So I ask again: Why?
><snip>
>
>> >Why on Earth do people become Satanists? You can follow all these principles
>> >as an atheist *without* having a book to make sure you keep the rules.
>It's
>> >ludicrous. Theists point to us and say atheism is a religion. In the
>case
>> >of the Church of Satan, it *is*. I really can't think of anything more
>> >stupid than that.
>>
>> To answer your first question, many people don't *become* atheists,
AAARGH! I *meant* to say, "many people don't *become* _satanists_"!!!
Big, bad mistake. Changes the meaning of the whole thing. Let me
re-write that sentence:
Many people don't *become* satanists, they simply realize that there
is a name for the philosophy they've developed over the years.
There, now it looks right.
>That's right, they don't, because atheism is simply the lack of theism. It
>is where you arrive when you lose (or never had) theism. OTOH, you have to
>*join* the church of satanism to be a satanist and therefore you *become* BY
>AN ACT OF WILL a satanist.
FYI, membership of the church of satan isn't required in order to call
oneself a satanist. I don't know any satanists who are actual members.
One is a satanist if one lives one's life satanically.
>> they simply realize that there is a name for the philosophy they've
>> developed over the years. Names are often useful.
>> Although I disagree
>> with a lot of LaVey's teachings, I tell people who ask about my take
>> on religion that I sympathize with the satanic philosophy, so that
>> they have a vague idea who I am. It saves time.
>
>I also sympathise with satanic philosophy, I'm an atheist after all, and all
>satanism is is atheism for people who can't bear to be without the crutch of
>dogma and pomp.
Satanism isn't just atheism + dogma. Satanism is atheism + dogma + a
lot of moral guidelines.
>> And yes, it is possible to follow the principles of satanism without
>> calling oneself a satanist,
>
>Yes, it's called atheism.
I fail to see how you can consider atheism to be a collection of
principles one can follow. Atheism = lack of theism, you know that as
well as I do. What moral guidelines can be derived from a lack of a
belief???
>> if that suits you. Personally, I have
>> nothing against names. I find them practical.
>
>You find them comfortable. Because you Belong. How nice for you.
Actually, I find them practical and nothing more. I find your
condescending assumption that I find them 'comfortable, because I
belong' to be a bit stupid, for the following reason:
You don't even know if I'm a satanist or not. I've identified myself
as someone who sympathizes with the satanist philosophy, nothing more.
You're assuming that I'm satanist, and on top of that you're assuming
that I find the label 'satanist' to be comforting. On top of _that_,
you're assuming that I find it comfortable because it makes me belong.
That last assumption is also based on several (false) assumptions,
namely, that being a satanist requires membership of the church of
satan, and that I in fact know other satanists with whom I feel that I
belong.
ALL of your assumptions are false.
Possessive
Possessive
>Possessive (posse...@coldmail.com) wrote:
>
>: Being an atheist who is also sympathetic towards the philosophy of the
>: church of satan, I have to wonder at the irony of the anti-satanism
>: that appears to be rampant here in alt.atheism.
>
>"Rampant"?
>
>I can't remember the last time a satanist was getting flamed here.
I'm not talking about satanist-flaming, I'm talking about little snide
comments that indicate that the atheist with his mouth open knows
nothing about satanism. The following prime example is an excerpt of
Joshua Lesion I's Re: Satanism post from the 26th October:
>We're not heathens. We're not Satanists. We're not witches. We're
>not Christians. We are infidels. We're atheists. We are freethinkers,
>materialists, skeptics, etc. We don't believe in myths, we believe in
>reality.
Possessive
Possessive
>Possessive wrote:
<snip my defense of satanism>
>>What I don't like is when the same atheists who demand proof and
>>references for the existence of god suddenly do a 180 and gullibly
>>swallow all the nonsence thrown at them concerning the church of
>>satan. If any of them would bother doing ANY research on the topic,
>>they'd soon discover that Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder - dubbed
>>the black pope - was as intelligent, rational and atheist as could be.
>>Why do they fall for the christian propaganda? Why do they persist in
>>believing, despite no evidence save the worthless testimony of the
>>bible, that satanism is just the flip side of christianity?
>
>Having been caught with my pants down on this issue before it is not a
>mistake I will ever make again. I do have an idea of what the Church of
>Satan is about and I do recognize that it is an atheist philosophy.
>
>The problem is that Anton chose to use Satan for several reasons. only part
>of which was humor. It was chosen partially for its parity value. However
>mostly I think it was for the shock value as much as anything else if not
>more so. After all Anton was a capitalist and wanted to be rich and famous
>and he needed a gimmick. Also it gave the Church of Satan the instant
>ability to say that they are misunderstood when in pointed fact Anton chose
>to make them misunderstood by choosing a controversial figure to idolize.
What's wrong with exploiting the xian weaknesses (in this case, their
uptightly anti-satanism) to further your anti-xian cause? And what's
wrong with making money? I don't think his wealth discredits his
sincerity. <shrug> Maybe I'm naive.
It's a good point about how LaVey sort of forced others to
misunderstand him at first. He did have an advantage there, depending
on the way you look at it. But so what? The guy was smart - of course
he was going to exploit opportunities whenever he could to further his
cause.
>Then there is the minor fact that satanism far outdates Anton LaVay and the
>Church of Satan. If memory serves me right Satanism originated in Europe as
>a Pagan act of rebellion essentially choosing the most repulsive figure in
>the Judeo-christian mythos and revearing him as an intentional act of
>passive agresion.
People redefine things all the time. I know of no actual
devil-worshippers, past or present, although I suppose they couldn't
ALL have been made up by the xian priests... Or could they?
>Although I am sure that there have been a few exceptionally unstable
>individuals who praised the ideals of evil that Satan represents to western
>culture, I seriously doubt that the majority of the people who have
>subscribed to the label really believed in the dogma preached by christians.
I agree.
>So I recognize that the philosophy of satanism is essencially an atheist
>outlook. And I do not by definition say that anyone who wears the label
>satanist to be a loon as I do theists. I do however think that they are
>either dishonest (Hold on I'll elaborate later.) or simply stupid.
>
>First I'll answer why I say they are stupid. The reason is that they are
>choosing a lable that has already been defined and there for will
>automatically cause people to misunderstand their possition and put them in
>the possition of constantly trying to explain themselves.
Use a spell checker if you're not that good at spelling.
Possition=position, and little typos like 'lable' are caught as well.
Sorry to nitpick, but I find that my attention to what people have to
say decreases if they can't spell common words.
>Also by choosing the label satanist they choose to misrepresent themselves
>as something they are not. Satanism implies theism, It would be as I were to
>choose to call my self a christian even though I am very much an atheist.
>
>Which comes to why I say they are dishonest.
>
>I think that if no other Satanist has caught on to it (which I seriouslly
>doubt) that Anton did, with absolute intention chose to mislabel his belief
>system so his followers would then be able to take the high ground and say
>"You are the fool for you did not read what our philosophy is all about."
>
>Gee that puts whoever your arguing against in an unpleasant position of
>looking the fool because they were set up. I say intentionally.
The way I see it, satanists call themselves satanists because it is
the easiest way of defining what they're about (anti-xianity). The
downfall is that the name is often misunderstood. With time, hopefully
that will come to pass as more and more people find out what it really
is. One day, historians may explain to their students as an aside that
"Satanism wasn't always considered to be an atheist philosophy, kids.
Once upon a time, satanism was the same as devil-worshipping. Then
LaVey came along and changed the definition."
>Also there
>is the advantage of the added revenue of people having to buy the damn book
>in order to understand what you really are about.
I haven't bought the satanic bible and I know what satanism is really
about.
>So Possesive.
PossesSive, thank you.
>Which are you the stupid person who follows without
>understanding the basis of your religion? or are you the dishonest person
>who likes to take advantage of a misleading label to make others look
>foolish and market the Satanic Bibble?
I'm the person who recognizes the good as well as the unnecessary in
LaVeyan satanism. :-p
Possessive
Shawn
Possessive wrote in message <364dabfd...@news.get2net.dk>...
>Shawn wrote:
>
>>Possessive wrote:
>
><snip my defense of satanism>
>
>>>What I don't like is when the same atheists who demand proof and
>>>references for the existence of god suddenly do a 180 and gullibly
at them concerning the church of
>>>satan. If any of them would bother doing ANY research on the topic,
>>>they'd soon discover that Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder - dubbed
>>>the black pope - was as intelligent, rational and atheist as could be.
>>>Why do they fall for the christian propaganda? Why do they persist in
>>>believing, despite no evidence save the worthless testimony of the
>>>bible, that satanism is just the flip side of christianity?
>>
>>Having been caught with my pants down on this issue before it is not a
>>mistake I will ever make again. I do have an idea of what the Church of
>>Satan is about and I do recognize that it is an atheist philosophy.
>>
>>The problem is that Anton chose to use Satan for several reasons. only
part
>>of which was humor. It was chosen partially for its parity value. However
>>mostly I think it was for the shock value as much as anything else if not
>>more so. After all Anton was a capitalist and wanted to be rich and famous
>>and he needed a gimmick. Also it gave the Church of Satan the instant
>>ability to say that they are misunderstood when in pointed fact Anton
chose
>>to make them misunderstood by choosing a controversial figure to idolize.
>
>What's wrong with exploiting the xian weaknesses (in this case, their
>uptightly anti-satanism) to further your anti-xian cause? And what's
>wrong with making money? I don't think his wealth discredits his
>sincerity. <shrug> Maybe I'm naive.
>
Nothing in of its self is wrong with exploiting the weakness of xians,
However there are so many other more appropriate weaknesses to attack.
Personally I like exploiting their immorality.
Once again nothing is wrong with making money, However ones motivations will
always bring into question their sincerity. To ignore that factor is
foolish. And I would say naive. As I said it does not discredit the person
automatically however it must be considered with everything else.
>It's a good point about how LaVey sort of forced others to
>misunderstand him at first. He did have an advantage there, depending
>on the way you look at it. But so what? The guy was smart - of course
>he was going to exploit opportunities whenever he could to further his
>cause.
>
I think that his method is counter productive. The word atheist is loaded
enough in the perceptions of xians however at least we can defend the
concept for what it is rather than try to redefine it. As must be done with
Satanism.
>>Then there is the minor fact that satanism far outdates Anton LaVay and
the
>>Church of Satan. If memory serves me right Satanism originated in Europe
as
>>a Pagan act of rebellion essentially choosing the most repulsive figure in
>>the Judeo-christian mythos and revering him as an intentional act of
>>passive aggression.
>
>People redefine things all the time. I know of no actual
>devil-worshippers, past or present, although I suppose they couldn't
>ALL have been made up by the xian priests... Or could they?
>
Oh I'm sure that there have been some however most likely they were simply
insane. The others have used it for a means to an end much like most
powerful xians have.
>>Although I am sure that there have been a few exceptionally unstable
>>individuals who praised the ideals of evil that Satan represents to
western
>>culture, I seriously doubt that the majority of the people who have
>>subscribed to the label really believed in the dogma preached by
christians.
>
>I agree.
>
>>So I recognize that the philosophy of satanism is essencially an atheist
>>outlook. And I do not by definition say that anyone who wears the label
>>satanist to be a loon as I do theists. I do however think that they are
>>either dishonest (Hold on I'll elaborate later.) or simply stupid.
>>
>>First I'll answer why I say they are stupid. The reason is that they are
>>choosing a label that has already been defined and there for will
>>automatically cause people to misunderstand their position and put them in
>>the position of constantly trying to explain themselves.
>
>Use a spell checker if you're not that good at spelling.
>Possition=position, and little typos like 'lable' are caught as well.
So what, all it proves is that I'm lazy. One typo and one word misspelled.
Hell thats pretty good considering what a poor speller I am. And you Mr
Nitpick misspelled as many words as I.Nonsence=Nonsense.
>Sorry to nitpick, but I find that my attention to what people have to
>say decreases if they can't spell common words.
>
Why? Its well known that English is a hard language to spell correctly.
After all we have all these rules that have so many exceptions, Like I
before E except after C (except in Atheist.)
So I'm a little lazy. I judge people intelegence based on their ability to
express their ideas not their spelling. But just for you I will run spell
check this once.
>>Also by choosing the label satanist they choose to misrepresent themselves
>>as something they are not. Satanism implies theism, It would be as I were
to
>>choose to call my self a christian even though I am very much an atheist.
>>
>>Which comes to why I say they are dishonest.
>>
>>I think that if no other Satanist has caught on to it (which I seriouslly
>>doubt) that Anton did, with absolute intention chose to mislabel his
belief
>>system so his followers would then be able to take the high ground and say
>>"You are the fool for you did not read what our philosophy is all about."
>>
>>Gee that puts whoever your arguing against in an unpleasant position of
>>looking the fool because they were set up. I say intentionally.
>
>The way I see it, satanists call themselves satanists because it is
>the easiest way of defining what they're about (anti-xianity). The
>downfall is that the name is often misunderstood. With time, hopefully
>that will come to pass as more and more people find out what it really
>is. One day, historians may explain to their students as an aside that
>"Satanism wasn't always considered to be an atheist philosophy, kids.
>Once upon a time, satanism was the same as devil-worshipping. Then
>LaVey came along and changed the definition."
>
Mayhaps however I see no need to fight an unnecessary battle to change the
definition of a word when the word atheist suits me just fine.
>>Also there
>>is the advantage of the added revenue of people having to buy the damn
book
>>in order to understand what you really are about.
>
>I haven't bought the satanic bible and I know what satanism is really
>about.
>
Hmm... Have you read the satanist bible? If not how can you say what it is
really about. How many other times have orders expressed one belief
publically while believing differently in the inner circles?
>>So Possesive.
>
>PossesSive, thank you.
>
Sorry.
>>Which are you the stupid person who follows without
>>understanding the basis of your religion? or are you the dishonest person
>>who likes to take advantage of a misleading label to make others look
>>foolish and market the Satanic Bibble?
>
>I'm the person who recognizes the good as well as the unnecessary in
>LaVeyan satanism. :-p
>
If you say so.
Shawn #1074
Possessive
>Possessive wrote:
>>Shawn wrote:
>>>Possessive wrote:
<snip>
>>>The problem is that Anton chose to use Satan for several reasons. only
>>>part of which was humor. It was chosen partially for its parity value. However
>>>mostly I think it was for the shock value as much as anything else if not
>>>more so. After all Anton was a capitalist and wanted to be rich and famous
>>>and he needed a gimmick. Also it gave the Church of Satan the instant
>>>ability to say that they are misunderstood when in pointed fact Anton
>>>chose to make them misunderstood by choosing a controversial
>>>figure to idolize.
>>
>>What's wrong with exploiting the xian weaknesses (in this case, their
>>uptightly anti-satanism) to further your anti-xian cause? And what's
>>wrong with making money? I don't think his wealth discredits his
>>sincerity. <shrug> Maybe I'm naive.
>
>Nothing in of its self is wrong with exploiting the weakness of xians,
>However there are so many other more appropriate weaknesses to attack.
>Personally I like exploiting their immorality.
OK, so you personally prefer exploiting the xian immorality. LaVey
preferred exploited the xian fear of satan, among other things. To
each man his own, I guess.
>Once again nothing is wrong with making money, However ones motivations will
>always bring into question their sincerity. To ignore that factor is
>foolish. And I would say naive. As I said it does not discredit the person
>automatically however it must be considered with everything else.
Great, we agree. So let's consider everything else. What other
problems do you have believing in LaVey's sincerity?
>>It's a good point about how LaVey sort of forced others to
>>misunderstand him at first. He did have an advantage there, depending
>>on the way you look at it. But so what? The guy was smart - of course
>>he was going to exploit opportunities whenever he could to further his
>>cause.
>
>I think that his method is counter productive. The word atheist is loaded
>enough in the perceptions of xians however at least we can defend the
>concept for what it is rather than try to redefine it. As must be done with
>Satanism.
If the satanists are willing to face the problems posed by trying to
redefine a word, then that's their problem, no?
<snip>
>>People redefine things all the time. I know of no actual
>>devil-worshippers, past or present, although I suppose they couldn't
>>ALL have been made up by the xian priests... Or could they?
>
>Oh I'm sure that there have been some however most likely they were simply
>insane. The others have used it for a means to an end much like most
>powerful xians have.
So what you're saying is that 1. devil-worshipping satanists have
existed throughout history, and 2. most of them were just pretending
to worship satan. Personally, I think that it's extremely unlikely
that they were exploiting the name 'satan' in the exact same way LaVey
did, mostly because they'd get lynched by the xians. I mean, witches
were hunted down and burned at the stake only a few centuries ago, who
knows what would have happened to publicly satanic figures? Until you
give me some references for your claim, I'll have to stick to my
belief that _if_ any actual devil-worshipping cults have existed, they
were both sincere and anonymous.
<snip>
>>Use a spell checker if you're not that good at spelling.
>>Possition=position, and little typos like 'lable' are caught as well.
>
>So what, all it proves is that I'm lazy. One typo and one word misspelled.
>Hell thats pretty good considering what a poor speller I am. And you Mr
>Nitpick misspelled as many words as I.Nonsence=Nonsense.
First of all, it's Miss Nitpick, not Mr. :-)
Secondly, the nit I chose to pick wasn't the only one present - I just
don't see the need to bother to point every single one out. You make
quite a few grammatical errors as well. I'm not attempting to
discredit what you're saying by attacking the way you say it, though.
It just hurts the eye to read bad English, that's all.
Lastly, I don't know how I managed to misspell 'nonsense'. I must have
been very tired. :-/
>>Sorry to nitpick, but I find that my attention to what people have to
>>say decreases if they can't spell common words.
>
>Why? Its well known that English is a hard language to spell correctly.
>After all we have all these rules that have so many exceptions, Like I
>before E except after C (except in Atheist.)
You think English is hard? Try Danish! Example: the word
'selvfølgelig' is pronounced 'sè-FØ-lee'. I'm told by non-native
speakers that taking dictation is really, really hard. Finnish is
supposed to be a killer as well.
The only people I know who say English is hard are native English
speakers. But maybe that's because I haven't discussed this subject
with a representative number of people... <shrug>
>So I'm a little lazy. I judge people intelegence based on their ability to
>express their ideas not their spelling. But just for you I will run spell
>check this once.
<lol> I don't believe you ran a spellcheck...
Intelegence=intelligence.
<snip>
>>The way I see it, satanists call themselves satanists because it is
>>the easiest way of defining what they're about (anti-xianity). The
>>downfall is that the name is often misunderstood. With time, hopefully
>>that will come to pass as more and more people find out what it really
>>is. One day, historians may explain to their students as an aside that
>>"Satanism wasn't always considered to be an atheist philosophy, kids.
>>Once upon a time, satanism was the same as devil-worshipping. Then
>>LaVey came along and changed the definition."
>
>Mayhaps however I see no need to fight an unnecessary battle to change the
>definition of a word when the word atheist suits me just fine.
But you're not the one fighting the battle, so what do you care? You
can't reproach someone for doing something just because you wouldn't
want to do it yourself, can you? Other arguments are necessary.
Besides, the word 'atheist' doesn't cover the satanic philosophy.
>>>Also there is the advantage of the added revenue of people having to buy the damn
>>>book in order to understand what you really are about.
>>
>>I haven't bought the satanic bible and I know what satanism is really
>>about.
>
>Hmm... Have you read the satanist bible? If not how can you say what it is
>really about. How many other times have orders expressed one belief
>publically while believing differently in the inner circles?
Of course I've read the satanic bible. Otherwise I wouldn't be having
this discussion, would I?
If I bought every book I read, I'd either be spending all my money on
books or I wouldn't be reading very much.
>>>So Possesive.
>>
>>PossesSive, thank you.
>>
>Sorry.
It's okay. :-)
>>>Which are you the stupid person who follows without
>>>understanding the basis of your religion? or are you the dishonest person
>>>who likes to take advantage of a misleading label to make others look
>>>foolish and market the Satanic Bibble?
>>
>>I'm the person who recognizes the good as well as the unnecessary in
>>LaVeyan satanism. :-p
>>
>If you say so.
I love it when people say that. :-) (Well, not always, if they do it
too much it gets on my nerves, but in this case it's very satisfying!)
Have a good godless weekend, Shawn.
Possessive
William Harriss
>William Harriss wrote:
>
>>Mickey wrote:
>>>Clothaire wrote:
>>>>Possessive wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>Yeah, it's kinda creepy that it has the "ye" and "liveth" type
>>language (is this from the KJV Satanic Bible :) For an atheist to
>>borrow so many trimmings of xtianity seems, to me, a little counter
>>productive.
>>
>>Seriously, what do all those xtian parallels do for you, Possessive?
>
>Call me anything you like, but I love the holier-than-thou language
>present in both bibles. I don't consider it to be an xian copyright or
>anything. Shakespeare, for instance, wouldn't be half as much fun
>without it.
Fair enough.
>
>As for the other xian parallels... I appreciate satire as much as the
>next person, and I think the satanic bible is the ultimate xian
>parody. It is a very witty book - LaVey had an excellent sense of
>humor. As a bonus, there is substance to the satire. Behind the
>flowery language and in-your-face anti-xian rituals, there is a lot of
>truth about human nature.
>
Are you saying that satanists don't believe in satan?
>Also, I don't see why you think borrowing the trappings of xianity is
>counter productive for the cause of atheism (whatever that cause may
>be... perhaps the EAC can help me out on this one). How does it affect
>the growth of the atheist population around the world?
I wasn't referring to the "cause of atheism" per se, I was just
pointing out the apparant *personal* conflict between atheism and
satanism; "having no belief in any gods", versus "having a belief in
Satan". But if what you say is true, I guess I had satanists all
wrong.
So is what you're describing just the "Church of Satan", or is this
pretty much all "satanists"? Do any of them believe in god/satan?
>
>
>Possessive
Possessive
>Possessive wrote:
<snip>
>>As for the other xian parallels... I appreciate satire as much as the
>>next person, and I think the satanic bible is the ultimate xian
>>parody. It is a very witty book - LaVey had an excellent sense of
>>humor. As a bonus, there is substance to the satire. Behind the
>>flowery language and in-your-face anti-xian rituals, there is a lot of
>>truth about human nature.
>
>Are you saying that satanists don't believe in satan?
Yes - with the understanding that when I say 'satanist', I'm referring
to the church of satan kind of satanists. I don't know of any others,
but if there are actual virgin-sacrificing, baby-stealing
devil-worshippers out there, then they're keeping awfully quiet
because I've never heard of them. The only kind of devil-worshippers
I've heard of have been made-up ones. If that kind of idiots truly
exist, then do tell me. I really hope they don't... <shudder>
>>Also, I don't see why you think borrowing the trappings of xianity is
>>counter productive for the cause of atheism (whatever that cause may
>>be... perhaps the EAC can help me out on this one). How does it affect
>>the growth of the atheist population around the world?
>
>I wasn't referring to the "cause of atheism" per se, I was just
>pointing out the apparant *personal* conflict between atheism and
>satanism; "having no belief in any gods", versus "having a belief in
>Satan". But if what you say is true, I guess I had satanists all
>wrong.
It is true. You can check out some satanist homepages for easy
confirmation.
>So is what you're describing just the "Church of Satan", or is this
>pretty much all "satanists"? Do any of them believe in god/satan?
Well, like I said above, I don't know of any satanists except LaVey
satanists, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any. There are
billions of kooks out there, so who knows, possibly some of them
worship a devil, but they sure don't make it to the media very often.
Possessive
William Harriss
>William Harriss wrote:
>
>>Possessive wrote:
<snip>
I guess it makes sense in a way; the hardcore god believing satanists
are the dangerous child-sacrificing, blood drinking types, while the
atheist satanists just write poetry and goof on people. Cool.
Fred Stone
> posse...@coldmail.com (Possessive) wrote:
>
> >William Harriss wrote:
> >
> >>Possessive wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I guess it makes sense in a way; the hardcore god believing satanists
> are the dangerous child-sacrificing, blood drinking types, while the
> atheist satanists just write poetry and goof on people. Cool.
Yep. Check out "The Temple of Set" for the satan-believing satanists.I
don't think they go for human sacrifice, but...
--
Fred
aa # 1369
EAC Microbiologist - Saccharomyces division
boog
William Harriss wrote in message <364f91f4...@news.mindspring.com>...
>posse...@coldmail.com (Possessive) wrote:
>
>>William Harriss wrote:
>>
>>>Possessive wrote:
><snip>
>
>I guess it makes sense in a way; the hardcore god believing satanists
>are the dangerous child-sacrificing, blood drinking types, while the
>atheist satanists just write poetry and goof on people. Cool.
>
exist? I always thought of them as a figment of Christians
maginations( helped of course by people looking to get a rise out
Christians)
When I was a teenager I knew many satanists, who were really atheists
looking to piss off their parents and christians. I came to the assumption
that all satanists were pretty much atheists.
Deb
Rick Boston
Fred Stone <76264...@compuserve.nospam.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I guess it makes sense in a way; the hardcore god believing satanists
>> are the dangerous child-sacrificing, blood drinking types, while the
>> atheist satanists just write poetry and goof on people. Cool.
>
>don't think they go for human sacrifice, but...
A "True" satanist does not use "Human" sacrifice, they use "Blood" as a
symbol...it is their "Right"
to exercize faith in any God in a maner that they see fit...it is those with
no faith , those lukewarm, that
the Almighty will spit out of his mouth...remember he himself said "you must
be boiling hot for me, or Ice
cold agianst me, those lukewarm I will spit out of my mouth...the
distructive forces of nature, What most
Xtians would call "Evil" happen to be an entegeral part of the "Whole"
creation process, that is why I can
Also call them Bratha, and Sista...For they are the Omega side whereas I am
now Alpha, I still love them
for their Devotion to the Almighty for he himself said "I am THE Alpha and
THE Omega"
ShantarOmegan
Possessive
>William Harriss wrote:
>>
>>I guess it makes sense in a way; the hardcore god believing satanists
>>are the dangerous child-sacrificing, blood drinking types, while the
>>atheist satanists just write poetry and goof on people. Cool.
>>
> Do you God believing satanist(that make sacrifices and drink blood) really
>exist? I always thought of them as a figment of Christians
>maginations( helped of course by people looking to get a rise out
>Christians)
I doubt that virgin/baby/animal-sacrificing, blood-drinking
devil-worshippers actually exist today. They'd be in a jail or a
mental institution the way I see it.
I figure that they were made up by xian priests and bishops in an
attempt to scare people - telling parents that the big bad satanists
would come for their baby unless they had it baptized right away was
probably an excellent money-making gimmick.
> When I was a teenager I knew many satanists, who were really atheists
>looking to piss off their parents and christians. I came to the assumption
>that all satanists were pretty much atheists.
LaVey satanists are atheists. Every satanist I've ever met has been a
LaVey satanist. Not one of them has been satanist for the sake of
pissing off their parents - as a matter of fact, most of them love and
are very proud of their parents (those are the teenagers, I have no
idea what the adult satanists think of their parents, most of whom are
probably dead). There are many reasons to call oneself a satanist
apart from wanting to piss off parents and xians.
a very tired Possessive
Possessive
>William Harriss wrote:
>>
>> I guess it makes sense in a way; the hardcore god believing satanists
>> are the dangerous child-sacrificing, blood drinking types, while the
>> atheist satanists just write poetry and goof on people. Cool.
>
>Yep. Check out "The Temple of Set" for the satan-believing satanists.I
>don't think they go for human sacrifice, but...
Real, honest-to-god, actual, living, breathing satan-worshippers? That
is *so* scary! <shudder>
Possessive
Possessive
>I guess it makes sense in a way; the hardcore god believing satanists
>are the dangerous child-sacrificing, blood drinking types, while the
>atheist satanists just write poetry and goof on people. Cool.
Yeah, it would be the theist satanists who were fucked up in the head,
wouldn't it?
I wish we could just kill them all and let their god sort them out.
Possessive
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone wrote:
>
> >William Harriss wrote:
> >>
> >> I guess it makes sense in a way; the hardcore god believing satanists
> >> are the dangerous child-sacrificing, blood drinking types, while the
> >> atheist satanists just write poetry and goof on people. Cool.
> >
> >Yep. Check out "The Temple of Set" for the satan-believing satanists.I
> >don't think they go for human sacrifice, but...
>
> Real, honest-to-god, actual, living, breathing satan-worshippers? That
> is *so* scary! <shudder>
>
> Possessive
Just sad. I know a couple of them in the Miami area, their lives are even
more screwed up than the average fundy xtian.
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone <76264...@compuserve.nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> I guess it makes sense in a way; the hardcore god believing satanists
> >> are the dangerous child-sacrificing, blood drinking types, while the
> >> atheist satanists just write poetry and goof on people. Cool.
> >
> >Yep. Check out "The Temple of Set" for the satan-believing satanists.I
> >don't think they go for human sacrifice, but...
>
> A "True" satanist does not use "Human" sacrifice, they use "Blood" as a
> symbol...it is their "Right"
> to exercize faith in any God in a maner that they see fit...it is those with
> no faith , those lukewarm, that
> the Almighty will spit out of his mouth...remember he himself said "you must
> be boiling hot for me, or Ice
> cold agianst me, those lukewarm I will spit out of my mouth...the
> distructive forces of nature, What most
> Xtians would call "Evil" happen to be an entegeral part of the "Whole"
> creation process, that is why I can
> Also call them Bratha, and Sista...For they are the Omega side whereas I am
> now Alpha, I still love them
> for their Devotion to the Almighty for he himself said "I am THE Alpha and
> THE Omega"
>
> ShantarOmegan
Rick, if I wanted to hear a sermon, I'd go to church.
You know, it might be interesting to discuss things with you, if you could be
rational about it.
Keith Doyle
Mickey <hyp...@B5B7STSW.com> wrote:
>
>He already is. All the mentions of Satan are purely symbolic. What I
>can't understand is why Satan is needed at all, even as a symbol, when
>the ideas stand perfectly well on their own.
Satan is an anti-christian symbol. This makes satanism appear to be
more "not-christianity" than it is atheist, even though they are both
not christianity.
--
Keith Doyle
(remove underbars from reply address for e-mail)
--
"Simple ain't easy." -- Thelonious Monk
Keith Doyle
Possessive <posse...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>As for the other xian parallels... I appreciate satire as much as the
>next person, and I think the satanic bible is the ultimate xian
>parody. It is a very witty book - LaVey had an excellent sense of
>humor. As a bonus, there is substance to the satire. Behind the
>flowery language and in-your-face anti-xian rituals, there is a lot of
>truth about human nature.
>
>counter productive for the cause of atheism (whatever that cause may
>be... perhaps the EAC can help me out on this one). How does it affect
>the growth of the atheist population around the world?
That kind of satanism is meaningless outside of the context of
christianity. Since I personally think even the context of
christianity is pretty irrelevant, that tends to render the
same unto satanism.
--
Keith Doyle
(remove underbars from reply address for e-mail)
--
"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!"
-- Clark Adams
boog
Possessive wrote in message <3650953...@news.get2net.dk>...
>boog wrote:
>
>>William Harriss wrote:
>>>
>>>are the dangerous child-sacrificing, blood drinking types, while the
>>>atheist satanists just write poetry and goof on people. Cool.
>>>
really
>>exist? I always thought of them as a figment of Christians
>>maginations( helped of course by people looking to get a rise out
>>Christians)
>
>I doubt that virgin/baby/animal-sacrificing, blood-drinking
>devil-worshippers actually exist today. They'd be in a jail or a
>mental institution the way I see it.
>I figure that they were made up by xian priests and bishops in an
>attempt to scare people - telling parents that the big bad satanists
>would come for their baby unless they had it baptized right away was
>probably an excellent money-making gimmick.
>
>> When I was a teenager I knew many satanists, who were really atheists
>>looking to piss off their parents and christians. I came to the assumption
>>that all satanists were pretty much atheists.
>
>LaVey satanists are atheists. Every satanist I've ever met has been a
>LaVey satanist. Not one of them has been satanist for the sake of
>pissing off their parents - as a matter of fact, most of them love and
>are very proud of their parents (those are the teenagers, I have no
>idea what the adult satanists think of their parents, most of whom are
>probably dead). There are many reasons to call oneself a satanist
>apart from wanting to piss off parents and xians.
>
>
>a very tired Possessive
Well, keep in mind I was a teenager at the time, so my satanist and
non-satanist friends were all pretty much rebellious teenagers, and probably
don't really hate their parents anymore(if they did at all)
Deb
Possessive
boog wrote:
>Possessive wrote:
>>boog wrote:
<snip>
>>> When I was a teenager I knew many satanists, who were really atheists
>>>looking to piss off their parents and christians. I came to the assumption
>>>that all satanists were pretty much atheists.
>>
>>LaVey satanists are atheists. Every satanist I've ever met has been a
>>LaVey satanist. Not one of them has been satanist for the sake of
>>pissing off their parents - as a matter of fact, most of them love and
>>are very proud of their parents (those are the teenagers, I have no
>>idea what the adult satanists think of their parents, most of whom are
>>probably dead). There are many reasons to call oneself a satanist
>>apart from wanting to piss off parents and xians.
>>
>>
>>a very tired Possessive
>
>Well, keep in mind I was a teenager at the time, so my satanist and
>non-satanist friends were all pretty much rebellious teenagers, and probably
>don't really hate their parents anymore(if they did at all)
First off, sorry for the delay in replying. :-(
Secondly, maybe your friends were just dabbling with satanism to rebel
against their parents, but that doesn't mean that all satanists are
only in it because of an immature desire to shock. Most satanists I
know keep their philosophy/religion to themselves.
Possessive
boog
Possessive wrote in message <365c459d...@news.get2net.dk>...
I never meant to suggest that satanists were immature, sorry if I did. I
only meant to say that the people that I knew as a teenager were all
rebellious (satanist and non-satanists included), because I was too, you
know birds of a feather.... Although I'm pretty sure my rebelious friends
(I've lost touch with most) haven't changed their ideals too much, I'm sure
they're no longer rebellious but the basis behind their shock [tactics? poor
word?] was a general disgust with religion, that ideal, I doubt they would
changed.
I know one satanist still, and as a teenager he made it his mission (I did
too) to shock and offend every christian he met. He is mellowed now, works
nine to five (instead of being in a Death-Metal band), but as far as I know
he is still a satanist.
It does seem to me that it is the intent of satanists, to mock, shock and
protest the christian world, otherwise, what would be the point? I am not
against this, but I do not see any other point to having such an
organization.
If there is feel free to enlighten me, because as it stands the only
satanists I know are my friend and Marilyn Manson (not personally of course)
I'm sure there are other musicians that I listen to, but I can't think of
them right now.
Deb
>
>Possessive