How many guys are into satanic beliefs? Satanic religion? Why

[Sharp-edge]

5 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I felt it still is a good read, thought-provoking and for anyone interested in Satanism: start with that. One can leave it at that, or do whatever they want.
Anton LaVey also provides some of his basic insights in human psychology, although possibly not a very optimistic one per se.
Glad to have helped.

 

...
Really...? 

It's not a very unifying concept is it - believing in this god- person - if numbers are still that high today? My criticism is not directed exclusively at Americans even when they are  - but this re-affirms my view that there's a lot of hate, violence and indifference in the world, between people believing in God, JHWH, Allah or whatever.

And with my apologies for upsetting anyone - although not for hurting their religious feelings because I seriously think then you really need to doubt more and grow a sense of humour: 
- If 95 % of people (from wherever in the world) believes something without empirical or scientific proof, they'll believe anything;
- It explains why so many people believe in conspiracies, gossip and fake news by lying politicians and crafty commercials and companies who want your money;
- I really feel that it shouldn't be exempt from the appropriate Psychiatric diagnoses, e.g. psychosis; 
If you feel that the Devil, demons, angels or gods exist I really think you need to be able to seek professional mental help.
It has no place for grown men and women to believe in fairy tales...

Hear, Hear!
But does it include my preaching they really should't believe with such an absolute certainty, and doubt a lot more?

*) I don't mean doubt science... especially please anyone: do not doubt Covid-19 vaccines or the existence of viruses... 

I stand corrected. 

 

In your (longer) edition to the conversation you actually sum up why I feel believing in the Devil as an existing entity or person doesn't rub well with me;
It would imply the existence of a benevolent and (near-) all powerful God as well, which I cannot accept.

Perhaps we need more heretics to challenge and test existing preconceptions in our societies, to rid ourselves of false (meaning baseless and unhelpful) ones. That might be the function of having a - symbolic - adversary.

Personally I have a higher lever of tolerance for people believing in a god or gods for comfort and consolation - life can be hard and if it helps someone, I'm happy for them. I do fear it has the opposite effect and keeps them feeling powerless, lonely or hurt by offering a source of source of strength outside of themselves in stead of helping them to find that strength inside of them - or discover that they have always had this strength.
Religion and faith then stand in the way of empowerment. 

And a belief in the Devil on the other hand can too easily be a scapegoat for the evils that are all too human, resulting from traits like selfishnes, stupidity, closed-mindedness and suffering from a lack of empathy. Believing it was a Serpent why we are not living in a paradise now, takes away Adam's and Eve's responsibility for listening to a lying, smooth-talking snake.
One should never blindly follow prophets. Or politicians for that matter.

Devil is but a fallen angel he's not a God so he is less powerful than God. I'm not sure how someone is called heretic and not dogmatic and all that stuff but I guess someone can believe a modified version of Christianity but he would have to name it somehow so as for people to know that this is not a Catholic or other belief.

Personally I can't say I believe in Christianity but I do like the Olympian Gods as a concept. Interestingly I dont think ancient Greeks had someone to have the role of Devil. There were malevolent gods like Eris, the daughter of Night and Envy but nothing similar to devil.

[Guest]

I think you missed the part where I said people who are certain of the existence of the supernatural, should really doubt more.
And grow a sense of humour. 

4 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

Does their belief interfere with your exercise of your own beliefs?

No, yet it interferes often with the acceptance of homosexuality and equal gay rights.

5 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

I could have belief in conspiracies that some would find incredulous...at least until they're actually proven. Is that so fundamentally different than your lack of belief in God or its accompaniments?

Yes.
My lack of thinking there are gods and such, can be disproved scientifically. 
Proving the absence of something cannot in way that's scientific in a verifiable way, so the 'burden of proof' lies with the believer.

8 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

Is it illogical to believe that someone or something is the personification of demons, angels, pure evil or the like?

Yes.
Besides illogical I think it can be harmful when we focus on a personification in stead of the responsibility and ethics of humans and the individual. 
I also experienced that good intentions turn to plain evil, when people are convinced their own ethical norms are the only valid ones, and too many of them can't be reasoned with because they hide behind texts thousands of years old, and their interpretations of the centuries iso listening to the needs of people right now.

8 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

Does it harm you or anyone for someone else to believe in Jesus Christ or Mohammed or Buddha? 

Often it does, when faith is so strong people think they know for sure one of these exists, combined with sets of rules on how to live that restrict the personal freedom and acces to healthcare for gay- and bisexual people.
It also often harms women when their rights are restricted based on such superstitions. 

12 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

Perhaps we could use the example of "Does Santa Claus exist?" As a single entity, no. As an ideal of generosity and the virtue of giving, yes, regardless of whether it is a single person. Perhaps that is what many or most tend to attribute to your idea of "God, Devil, demons and angels", though it doesn't exist in a firm and single individual or a very concise definition. 

Just a thought.

I have no problems with symbols, ideals and rituals as long as these hurt no one.
So that's a good thought.

If people are inspired by someone who's dad was a carpenter who once told people to be nice, and not judge how other people live their life while hurting no-one I also have problem with that.
Brilliant idea actually, it's just such a shame I don't hear a lot of that coming out of churches and mosques. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Sharp-edge said:

Personally I can't say I believe in Christianity but I do like the Olympian Gods as a concept. Interestingly I dont think ancient Greeks had someone to have the role of Devil. There were malevolent gods like Eris, the daughter of Night and Envy but nothing similar to devil.

True.

These gods could be gentle and kind or fall in love, but also cheat, rape, manipulate, go to war, kill, have incestuous relationships and then didn't giving a flying ass who got hurt.
They were personifications of certain aspects of life and existence. They were extremely powerfull and morally just as ambiguous as we humans.

As a metaphor for the rich and powerful they perhaps still work.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Guest

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

I think most people are able to seek professional mental help. Whether they "need" it is a topic for debate. Even Freemasonry, a group that has long been speculated as having associations with Satanism, holds a requirement that you have a belief in a "supreme being". For just that one constituency, we could keep a lot of mental health professionals gainfully employed for quite some time if we take your statement as gospel. 😁

Does their belief interfere with your exercise of your own beliefs? Probably not. I could have belief in conspiracies that some would find incredulous...at least until they're actually proven. Is that so fundamentally different than your lack of belief in God or its accompaniments? Is it illogical to believe that someone or something is the personification of demons, angels, pure evil or the like? Does it harm you or anyone for someone else to believe in Jesus Christ or Mohammed or Buddha? 

Perhaps we could use the example of "Does Santa Claus exist?" As a single entity, no. As an ideal of generosity and the virtue of giving, yes, regardless of whether it is a single person. Perhaps that is what many or most tend to attribute to your idea of "God, Devil, demons and angels", though it doesn't exist in a firm and single individual or a very concise definition. 

Just a thought.

 

What's the medical and moral difference in your view - between:

Person A. who believes he/she/they hears voices compelling to go on a killing spree, rape or violently attack people;

and:

Person B. who believes there's an entity nobody else can see or hear, that tells him/her/they to kill non-believers, restrict acces to health-care because those people shouldn't have been fucking with someone in the first place anyway?

 

How mentally damaging - yet more subtle - is it to teach boys and girls growing up that having sex, is a punishment from God for something their alleged first ancestors did, and that exploring sex with someone who's also a boy (or girl) is unnatural, a very grave sin or an 'objective disorder' in stead of it being very normal feelings of attraction, lust and falling in love?

 

I recently learned a couple of years back 95 % of Americans believed in the existence of God and I like a challenge when being overwhelmingly outnumbered like this. Thanks @BootmanLA.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Guest

[BannedWord]

3 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

I think you missed the part where I said people who are certain of the existence of the supernatural, should really doubt more.
And grow a sense of humour. 

You're right. Totally missed that one. Too much multi-tasking of late.

3 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Yes.
My lack of thinking there are gods and such, can be disproved scientifically. 
Proving the absence of something cannot in way that's scientific in a verifiable way, so the 'burden of proof' lies with the believer.

That's fair. But perhaps they aren't asking you to prove or disprove, but asking you to accept them in the same way that you're asking that they accept you. 

6 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Besides illogical I think it can be harmful when we focus on a personification in stead of the responsibility and ethics of humans and the individual. 
I also experienced that good intentions turn to plain evil, when people are convinced their own ethical norms are the only valid ones, and too many of them can't be reasoned with because they hide behind texts thousands of years old, and their interpretations of the centuries iso listening to the needs of people right now.

Just waiting for this one. I'd be willing to wager that, at least in this community, if I said that Donald Trump was the true personification of the devil, I'd get people to jump on that bandwagon. 😆 I'd also bet that if I replaced Trump with Joe Biden in that sentence, I'd be drawn and quartered. 

I actually agree with you on that one, and suspect that most people tend not to assign the right perspective to the actions of others. Especially so in politics.

30 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Often it does, when faith is so strong people think they know for sure one of these exists, combined with sets of rules on how to live that restrict the personal freedom and acces to healthcare for gay- and bisexual people.
It also often harms women when their rights are restricted based on such superstitions.  

I'd say we agree more than we disagree here but perhaps on some different grounds. No single group should be disadvantaged. There needs to be more moderation that doesn't exist today.

For instance, if we said that say abortion is a 'right', where does that end and infanticide begin? There are certain people on the extreme end of this who contend that it should be a right up to and postpartum. So what's the reasonable answer? If we say the Second Amendment is a right (which is actually is, Roe was just a legal decision), is it a right without any restrictions? It isn't. There are reasonable restrictions, and a vast majority of legal firearm owners. Two topics, there should be a reasonable moderation on either.

37 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

I have no problems with symbols, ideals and rituals as long as these hurt no one.
So that's a good thought.

If people are inspired by someone who's dad was a carpenter who once told people to be nice, and not judge how other people live their life while hurting no-one I also have problem with that.
Brilliant idea actually, it's just such a shame I don't hear a lot of that coming out of churches and mosques. 

Unfortunately, people have walked away from the notion of "love each other as I have loved you". I don't know if that is a fault of the organized religion or those who are practitioners. Is it the fault of the religion that there are priests who are 'minor attracted persons'? Is it that they have no outlet for those desires? Or is it just the people themselves? Open question -- not expressing an opinion. 🙂 

[downtownswallow]

I'm not a Satanist.  I wasn't deflowered until I was of a legal age.  Never had sex with my Dad or any other family member.  I do not want to become poz.  I do not seek out men that are poz or take loads from strangers.  I'm just an older, pretty darn boring man that lives a very sane life and wants it to be as long as possible.

[BannedWord]

18 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

What's the medical and moral difference in your view - between:

Person A. who believes he/she/they hears voices compelling to go on a killing spree, rape or violently attack people;

and:

Person B. who believes there's an entity nobody else can see or hear, that tells him/her/they to kill non-believers, restrict acces to health-care because those people shouldn't have been fucking with someone in the first place anyway?

There is no moral or medical difference. Full stop. Neither should be occurring, not have I suggested there should be. So I'm not distinguishing a difference in behavior.

[BannedWord]

1 hour ago, BareLover666 said:

How mentally damaging - yet more subtle - is it to teach boys and girls growing up that having sex, is a punishment from God for something their alleged first ancestors did, and that exploring sex with someone who's also a boy (or girl) is unnatural, a very grave sin or an 'objective disorder' in stead of it being very normal feelings of attraction, lust and falling in love?

I think we may have veered off the beaten path of religion on this one into a much darker area. If someone else made this as a statement, let's take that one off the table. My objection is one of instruction and one of medical practice. This is an area where I think we may be inflicting damages that could be avoided.

1. Instruction. At an appropriate age, where the child has the capacity to understand sexuality, is when instruction should be given. Not in Pre-K through 3rd grade. Let the parents give their kids "the talk" first and then perhaps delve off into the wide range of other topics they should know without any shame or religion or guilt inflicted on that. At age 6, I was probably way too innocent to comprehend any of that. 

2. Medical advice and practice. I object to medical professionals (much less non-medical personnel) administering hormone blockers because at say age 5 a boy likes playing with dolls and thinks he should be a girl. What happens next year when he wants to be a super-hero or a walrus or elephant? "Nope, too late, you thought you should be a girl last year so we messed around with your hormones, too bad for you Jamie." Kidding, aside, we don't have enough experience with the impact of this on humans at that age, and what kid actually understands what they want to be before they fully understand themselves in the body they're in? If he/she wants to have gender affirming procedures later on when they're capable of understanding the ramifications, go for it. Pre-teen?!? WTF? No offense intended to anyone trans, but let the kid be a kid first, then grow from that innocence. And despite what any teacher might think, the parents should be involved in the decision until such time as the child can be emancipated.

Sorry, think this needed to be said. Forget the religious guilt, I could give a toss about that and agree with your points on that one.

(If someone wants to moderate this out, go for it, I probably offended tens of people somewhere in this.)

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

You're right. Totally missed that one. Too much multi-tasking of late.

I forgive you. 😘

That's fair. But perhaps they aren't asking you to prove or disprove, but asking you to accept them in the same way that you're asking that they accept you. 

I accept them, I just don't accept the - forgive me - bullshit repeated over the millennia.
God has been proclaimed dead by Nietzsche, I don't think it ever existed and If it dead it's time to retire so his kids can grow up.
If we can't do without it now and still get along like decent people that's a sad thing indeed. 

Just waiting for this one. I'd be willing to wager that, at least in this community, if I said that Donald Trump was the true personification of the devil, I'd get people to jump on that bandwagon. 😆 I'd also bet that if I replaced Trump with Joe Biden in that sentence, I'd be drawn and quartered. 

Not HUNG, drawn and quartered?
Sorry bout ur penis bro. 😈

I actually agree with you on that one, and suspect that most people tend not to assign the right perspective to the actions of others. Especially so in politics.

I'd say we agree more than we disagree here but perhaps on some different grounds. No single group should be disadvantaged. There needs to be more moderation that doesn't exist today.

Yep, we probably do and why would we use a Deity in a civil discussing, or the promise of heaven or the threat of hell?

For instance, if we said that say abortion is a 'right', where does that end and infanticide begin? There are certain people on the extreme end of this who contend that it should be a right up to and postpartum. So what's the reasonable answer? If we say the Second Amendment is a right (which is actually is, Roe was just a legal decision), is it a right without any restrictions? It isn't. There are reasonable restrictions, and a vast majority of legal firearm owners. Two topics, there should be a reasonable moderation on either.

I'm a man and chances I'd be responsible for conceiving a child are slim, so I am hesitant to judge a woman seeking an abortion or forbid it outright. 
And it's a difficult question, which gets even harder when religious people pollute the discussion about when a fertilised ovum becomes a person with fairytales about souls. 

You referencing to 'a right up to postpartum' is something I have only heard from 'pro-lifers' in the same argument where they paint caricatures of women who like having abortions or preferring it to the use of condoms and other contraceptives. I think it's very childish and mean when people do that.

And by the way, somewhere in the last trimester / weeks of a pregnancy it's called a Caesarian Section, if performed correctly it's actually less traumatic to mother and child. That's why - if I'm not mistaken - Joe vs. Wade forbade medical techniques in that part of the pregnancy that would result in the death of the foetus (roughly...)

Unfortunately, people have walked away from the notion of "love each other as I have loved you". I don't know if that is a fault of the organized religion or those who are practitioners. Is it the fault of the religion that there are priests who are 'minor attracted persons'? Is it that they have no outlet for those desires? Or is it just the people themselves? Open question -- not expressing an opinion. 🙂 

Love is a subject for poets and bards.

And I'm expression options like hell today, so I do blame religion and other superstitions in part for fucking with peoples minds and twisting their natural innocent sexuality to something harmful. 
 

Nice use of rhetorical questions in your earlier post by the way, and compliments on making these questions about me and making an abstract argument personal.

Have you no pity with a totally outnumbered minority, you beast of beasts? 

Furthermore to prevent RSI by copy pasting every single line you've written, see above where the bold and italic lines are my responses to your interesting contribution to this conversation.

Hail yourself.

[BannedWord]

3 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Nice use of rhetorical questions in your earlier post by the way, and compliments on making these questions about me and making an abstract argument personal.

Have you no pity with a totally outnumbered minority, you beast of beasts? 

Furthermore to prevent RSI by copy pasting every single line you've written, see above where the bold and italic lines are my responses to your interesting contribution to this conversation.

Hail yourself.

I actually didn't intend to make an abstract personal. Sorry about that one. I'm writing on my self-imposed lunch break. We've already had a couple discussions, hopefully you know that I don't view any of these as personal attacks as much as they're exchange of ideas. And thank...well...thankfully we can do that civilly. 🙂 

Re: The 'Postpartum' discussion. No, I'm pro-choice "to a point". I've heard the most extreme supporters of choice suggest that the mother has a right to terminate the child after it has been born. That's when it does cross the line into infanticide: The child was born, was viable outside the womb, and its life was ended. Not a Caesarian section, but anything where the life is ended after the child is viable and out of the womb. That still leaves considerable leeway for circumstances.

Remarkably, most Americans (can't speak to Netherlands or Europe) believe there should be an outer limit, after which the pregnancy should not be 'voluntarily terminated'. The figure I've heard was that 85% believed that after 15 weeks, abortion wasn't something they would agree with. I think that is reasonable. Your mileage may vary. I don't believe in all-or-nothing on either side. 

As to religion -- I'm a non-practicing Roman Catholic. If I believe in anything, it's the possibility of something beyond the life we're in now. If belief gives someone a sense of comfort or peace, I'm not so jaded to think that is awful. Whatever gets you through the night (or hard times) is alright.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

This is an area where I think we may be inflicting damages that could be avoided.

1. Instruction. At an appropriate age, where the child has the capacity to understand sexuality, is when instruction should be given. Not in Pre-K through 3rd grade. Let the parents give their kids "the talk" first and then perhaps delve off into the wide range of other topics they should know without any shame or religion or guilt inflicted on that. At age 6, I was probably way too innocent to comprehend any of that. 

If I were a dad I'd teach my 6 year old that when he starts to touch his peepee or her vagigi in public I really understand it feels nice, but it's not very decent to do it in public. And to wash his/her hands before dinner.
(Kids that age do that you know... It's very funny).

For a daughter I'd have to read up on what's going on down there, but if I had a boy I know that he needs to be taught to wash under his foreskin as I'm not American and we mostly don't cut of parts of babies here without medical reasons. Circumsisions aren't totally forbidden, neither are they covered by health-care-plans but they are sort of frowned upon more-and-more if done for religious reasons.

I don't think there's much harm in answering questions kids have about what sex is, or where babies come from. When in stead of an "iiiieeeeeuuuuw" or an "I'm NEVER doing that!" they seem to want to hear it, it might be time to give them factual and more information about it.

42 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

2. Medical advice and practice. I object to medical professionals (much less non-medical personnel) administering hormone blockers because at say age 5 a boy likes playing with dolls and thinks he should be a girl. What happens next year when he wants to be a super-hero or a walrus or elephant? "Nope, too late, you thought you should be a girl last year so we messed around with your hormones, too bad for you Jamie." Kidding, aside, we don't have enough experience with the impact of this on humans at that age, and what kid actually understands what they want to be before they fully understand themselves in the body they're in? If he/she wants to have gender affirming procedures later on when they're capable of understanding the ramifications, go for it. Pre-teen?!? WTF? No offense intended to anyone trans, but let the kid be a kid first, then grow from that innocence. And despite what any teacher might think, the parents should be involved in the decision until such time as the child can be emancipated.

Sorry, think this needed to be said. Forget the religious guilt, I could give a toss about that and agree with your points on that one.

If kids in the US hit puberty at age 5 so they might benefit from hormone-blockers you're really in trouble.
And perhaps you might want to have some government agency look into the use of growth hormones in beef and other animal products people and kids eat.

So I think that pre-teens are probably safe from this.

When kids say between 12 - 17 are seriously feeling they aren't their birth gender it's tough. For them, for their parents and the medical people involved. 
I think in a no-win situation there can be said something in favour of using hormone-blockers to delay puberty and buy more time, for exactly the reason you give and try to make as sure as possible to not do anything that can't be reversed.

And I'm glad I'm happy with my peepee and never to have faced any of such dilemma's. 

 

42 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

I probably offended tens of people somewhere in this.

I've offended 95 % of Americans for believing in an imaginary friend and calling them loony.  
I think I like you.
For an amateur. 😉 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Guest

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, TheSRQDude said:

I actually didn't intend to make an abstract personal. Sorry about that one. I'm writing on my self-imposed lunch break. We've already had a couple discussions, hopefully you know that I don't view any of these as personal attacks as much as they're exchange of ideas. And thank...well...thankfully we can do that civilly. 🙂 

Re: The 'Postpartum' discussion. No, I'm pro-choice "to a point". I've heard the most extreme supporters of choice suggest that the mother has a right to terminate the child after it has been born. That's when it does cross the line into infanticide: The child was born, was viable outside the womb, and its life was ended. Not a Caesarian section, but anything where the life is ended after the child is viable and out of the womb. That still leaves considerable leeway for circumstances.

Remarkably, most Americans (can't speak to Netherlands or Europe) believe there should be an outer limit, after which the pregnancy should not be 'voluntarily terminated'. The figure I've heard was that 85% believed that after 15 weeks, abortion wasn't something they would agree with. I think that is reasonable. Your mileage may vary. I don't believe in all-or-nothing on either side. 

As to religion -- I'm a non-practicing Roman Catholic. If I believe in anything, it's the possibility of something beyond the life we're in now. If belief gives someone a sense of comfort or peace, I'm not so jaded to think that is awful. Whatever gets you through the night (or hard times) is alright.

You didn't?
And here I was thinking you were using debating techniques from religious / Christian indoctrinated people (the rhetorics etc.). How disappointing. 

For some people I sometimes feel that there really should be no limit on the time a post-partum abortion should be allowed, nay obligatory. But then I remind myself I'm a Satanist, not a monster.
Even for people who use bombs, guns or other ways to violently articulate they are "pro life", I support admittance in a mental institution.

Being part of a majority doesn't make someone be right. But I can see the logic of setting some limit, like Wade vs. Roe did. 

I'd have to know at what point a woman reasonably can know she's pregnant to say anything intelligent on a fixed limit, and I'd allow for exceptions to the rule because I've heard about women - usually younger / barely out of puberty - who are surprised by going into labour having had completely no warning they where pregnant.
Which makes a good argument for sex-ed and making contraceptives availably to young people who are full of hormones and possibly less-filled with common sense as we all where at some point and if we're lucky sometimes still are. 

And I'm calling the extreme people you name loony too. Luck them up, preferably in the mental institution with the pro-lifers who use lethal weapons and bombs. 
I know... I'm evil. 😈

I think I remember you know, something in the way you deliver your arguments rings with some passed irritation.
You're soo lucky a don't take The Satanic Bible literally...  And that's funny - or at least it's funny inside the 10th level of Hell I call my brain - because you actually had to have (or will have) to read it to get the reference... 😂🤣

As a non-practicing Roman Catholic is one of your given names Mary?
I've always found that a bit queer for the RC's in the south of my country, giving boys a girl's name.
And why did you stop practicing, are you that good at it now and have since been promoted to a professional?

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Guest

[hntnhole]

4 hours ago, Sharp-edge said:

Olympian Gods

What other belief-system has two days of the week named after them (Thursday and Friday) ???    

In the event someone doesn't realize it,, Thor's day morphed into Thursday, and Freya's day into Friday.  At least the Ancient Ones are more validated by our weekly schedule of the passing days than any other Contrivance. 

I can't say I've ever heard of Priestsday or Bishopsday or Cardinalsday or ArchCardinals day or Popesday.  😇

[hntnhole]

4 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I also experienced that good intentions turn to plain evil, when people are convinced their own ethical norms are the only valid ones, and too many of them can't be reasoned with because they hide behind texts thousands of years old, and their interpretations of the centuries iso listening to the needs of people right now.

Well said.  I don't have time to respond just now*, but I'll rip off some time tomorrow.  I think it better go to the Politics dept though, since your response touches on a crucial (and non-magical) component.  Thanks for the excellent conversation.

no, it's not a trick, dammittal .... it's dinnertime, and I don't deal well with being hungry .... ☹️

[Vancityaladdin]

Lol okay guys I think it would be very very helpful if ya'll define your understanding and perception of spiritual concepts before going into your opinions because it sorta looks like everyone interprets this stuff differently. 

Ill clarify that I am a shaman, the way I observe reality aligns with musical philosophy. So to me, everything in reality is made up of vibrations and i as well as many others enjoy the benefits of noticing when some vibrations are in unison or harmony etc.

The Satanic focus and deep dive into Inferno, I have noticed is a rebellion to the Heteronormative identity shaming religious organizations have used to take away the freedom of the individual.

Its a rationalization of opting for the one who would accept their heart rather than the one the community is forcing upon them. 

Which is interesting to me since I've learned that convents and monasteries used to be LGBTQ sanctuaries as in times of harmony, a non hetero child would be considered chosen by the gods to exist as an unbiased arbiter. 

Therefore it could be suggested that if our life were a video game, all LGBTQ are a base priest class simply by having the option to participate in the breeding cycle. 

(That does not give any predation a pass, but it could explain why it's such a consistent abuse of power dynamic ) 

I see how like Lil Nas Call me by your name depicts opting for having control over your own hell rather than never being accepted into their heaven, the infernal fallen angels are symbols of freedom and self actualization.

Do the individuals who agree with this need mental health support? 

Probably to address the damage done from years of abuse and rejection that has led them to seek rationalization of their trauma.

I don't think believing in religion or spirituality is a sign that the individual is mentally underdeveloped. Rather that it's a paradigm achieved through creativity/right side of the brain dominance. 

Religion and science used to get along when they didn't fight for a budget lol