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

[Guest]

6 hours ago, ErosWired said:

The willingness to accept that one may be wrong about anything at any time is, as you say, the absolute foundation of science. As soon as a scientist becomes immovable in his assertion that he knows the answer to something beyond all possible doubt, he ceases to be a true scientist.

For this reason, I have yet to encounter an atheist who is a true scientist. Every atheist I have ever met is absolutely, unshakably adamant that God does not exist, cannot exist, and nothing can possibly prove the contrary.

Now, in fairness, the same can be said of most religious believers, but most religious believers don’t attempt to use science to prop up their belief in the way atheists do. Atheists can no more prove that God does not exist than religious people can prove that he does, but the atheists attempt to dodge the point by claiming that it’s invalid to try to prove that something doesn’t exist. Which you do:

It does nothing of the kind. The interpretation of the spectrometer reading does not rely on data taken from what exists outside the jar, only from what exists inside the jar, and the properties exhibited by those contents. The absence of bands signifying the presence of oxygen provide proof of its absence. Reading the surrounding atmosphere would contaminate the study sample and result in erroneous data; indeed, the jar would likely have to be examined in a vacuum chamber of some sort to eliminate false readings.

But we can play it your way if you like. If my hypothesis is that oxygen is absent from the jar, I am testing to try to achieve a result that, if I am correct, can be taken as true, or positive. So even though the presence is negative, the hypothesis is positive. Now, apply that to the atheist’s hypothesis that God does not exist, and you realize that you’re testing for the positive result of the hypothesis.

Exactly my point. Chaucer didn’t have a spectrometer; the fact that it hadn’t been invented yet had zero bearing on the existence of oxygen. It simply hadn’t been created to give him the ability to see the evidence of it. It hadn’t been created yet. We don’t have a device that would allow us to see any evidence that any higher plane of being exists - yet. Anyone who claims to know that we never will is talking out his ass, because he can’t possibly predict the future. He’s only speaking on the basis of his belief, because he does not, in fact, actually know. Nor can he. None of his syllogistic reasoning of philosophical deduction amounts to knowledge of the presently unknowable.

But that doesn’t stop most atheists - or indeed most religious zealots - from trying, because they share a common trait, one that all scientists have to remain vigilant against: Arrogance. The insistance that they are right, no matter what.

This is my take on that. I can’t prove that God exists, but if I’ve lived my life as if God does, and upon my death I simply go *~poof~* into oblivion, I’ve still lived a life I could be proud of. But if I’ve lived my life as if God doesn’t, and upon my death I find myself standing in front of God in spite of my arrogance, I’m going to have some explaining to do. For me, the calculus is pretty simple - err on the side of belief.

Damn, you're smart.

If I get the gist of it, not heaving had my coffee yet, do you mean that while you are living your life like there's one God, an while I'm living like there's none - and I think both of us are trying to live well - both the idea that there is a god / are gods and that Gods don't exist are scientifically just hypotheses who both equally lack any real proof?

Is there in your view a practical advantage for the idea of God in philosophy and primarily ethics?
And if you won't mind answering I'd be interested to hear what you experience believing in his (or His if you prefer) existence, although it's an extremely personal question.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, TheSRQDude said:

So let me correct a few things, because you do not understand what I wrote and have gotten this completely wrong. I'll start with the most incendiary statement that my comments are disrespectful to trans people. And what you don't know about me here is, well, a lot.

I have two trans (MtF) nieces. We often joke in good nature about the very tough road they had in their trans journey. I have nothing but respect for them, I love them with all of my being, and was crushed when one of them passed from illness last year. I'll get to why my comment meant no disrespect shortly. 

Pre-pubescent use of hormone blockers: There's one very notable and quite public example, and that's Jazz Jennings.
[think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/fascinating-facts-about-jazz-jennings-47309868
Now I made no distinction about the timing of "pre-pubescent", since it encompasses everything up to the point of puberty. Jazz' journey has been very well documented on TV at least in the US. Her later gender affirming surgery was fraught with complications, notably because of lack of development of certain parts that should have grown further as part of reassignment. And that came out very publicly as well. One example.

Do we know enough about hormone blockers: [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/
The article about cites the use of Lupron, which was given to many kids to help block the onset of puberty, and has been later cited as causing other health problems that were not expected nor foreseen. Would it have been prescribed if so? Probably not. Do we know enough or have we studied enough about the long term impacts of hormone blockers? Again, one example where it can be argued that "no, probably not". As happens often with medications, more so if an off-label indication is used (e.g. Cialis being used for people with enlarged prostates).

Now to the statement that I made about "Hippo or Walrus or Bird". Suppose a child is say 5 --  and yes, this is happening and being covered in news stories and in social media -- and suddenly decides that they're a different gender. Or a princess. Or a Walrus, or anything else fanciful that a child's very active imagination can come up with at a young age. At that point, have they really psychologically matured enough to be making a life decision that will physically alter them forever if they proceed into gender affirming surgery? Think about that a moment. What did you want to be at say age 10? Are you that now? Chances are you aren't. So my example was tongue-in-cheek, but intended to show that people are tending to take very life altering decisions in a cavalier manner.

[think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/

That, again, is one example.

Now, to your point of whether I'm making an argument about your personal views on religion, or whether I am trying to enforce my views on others, I've done no such thing. I've simply brought forth counter-arguments on the topic. And yes, we've veered afield from the original discussion of "religion" in this topic, and my own views on religion have very little bearing on either my positions or views or the information I've provided. I will thank you to know the difference between that, and not to infer that you know all about someone (you probably didn't know I had Trans relatives or was close with other trans people) or whether "you're right, he's wrong". This isn't about that or your inference of disrespecting anyone. Read what I've written about to understand the context. I don['t profess to understand what a trans person's journey is, I haven't taken that walk. But I'm raising some points that ultimately either could use some thought or might help the transition at the right juncture.

Peace bro. I'm signing out on this because I've said all I need on the topic. Moderate me out if you'd like.

 

My condolences on losing your niece to you and her family.

I'm not a moderator and haven't flagged your contributions because even though I still feel your original posts where highly disrespectful to part of our community (transgenders), promoting bias and prejudice, in this case debating and challenging the statements might stop someone else thinking the same things.

Thank you for providing the context as it gives nuance absent in the - lengthy - contributions you originally posted in this thread.

Still I have to say that I think that nobody WANTS to be another gender than the one assigned at birth, just like someone like you didn't WANT to be a bisexual man and neither did I WANT to be gay. We all are what we are.

I don't mind sharing that I had my first puppy-crush at age 10, so YES I am who I have always been.

That's not the point though and perhaps you might want to consider that maybe not asking the 'what about you' questions, will be me more helpful in future.
I don't consider it an attack when you did it earlier, I never said that nor feel or felt attacked. But in a debate it's often used as a shyster trick, often by despicable politicians that sometimes identify as Christian (which IS a choice).
More importantly the huge disadvantage is that when you - or me or anyone else - can only refer to their own life experiences when understanding something complicated and different from their own experiences - like transsexuality, or bisexuality for that matter - it hints at an inability to empathise. If someone has this handicap it's not their fault, but someone might cope better when realising it and find ways to compensate their disability.

 I feel strongly that transgenders - especially when they realise it at a young age - face an extraordinarily difficult situation and I want people to be sensitive to them and the tough dilemma's they - when they are not of age yet together with their guardians - face.
I'm not going to read the articles you link to in this post as it might only prolong an insolvable argument. You give examples of where this goes wrong, I give examples where people are happy in the gender they identify with, blah blah blah. 

I respect you love your nieces. 
And although it doesn't apply to you personally, but because it concerns this subject (religion):

The meaning of the word Love is often stretched beyond it's actual meaning by religions and people, when they say and perhaps sincerely feel it but at the same time cannot or don't want to except someones sexuality, their choices or gender-identity.
Like I said before you and I got into this conversation: That's not it.

I wish your surviving niece all happiness and that she'll at the same time grows a thick skin - because we all need that - and the strength to fight antiquated and harmful philosophies that would want to hurt or diminish her.
To paraphrese some theologian:

"Grant Her the serenity to accept the things She cannot change, 
courage to change the things She can, 
and wisdom to know the difference."

Personally I'm happiest with the strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference but that too is Her choice. 😉 

Edited August 20, 2022 by Guest

[FilthyAsCharged]

On 8/19/2022 at 9:10 AM, 120DaysofSodom said:

The Abrahamic depiction of the devil was lifted wholesale from earlier myths about gods like Set, the ancient Egyptian god of darkness and disorder. The Egyptians did not believe, however, that Set was "evil", rather just a cyclical and essential part of life. The sun rises and the sun SETS. Set became one of the major archetypes for what would later in monotheistic religions be referred to as de.vil.

Im a LaVeyan Satanist, meaning I subscribe to Anton LaVey's philosophy laid out in the 60's and 70's which is very much epicurean and hedonistic. It is an atheistic ideology that focuses on embracing your humanity, indulging in pleasures, and rejecting everything about the Abrahamic religions, which are wicked ideologies that condition people to believe theyre born with something wrong with them and that the only way to fix it is to run to a fake god and beg forgiveness, and even worse than that, religion has this tendency to try and impose a universal morality on the world regardless of whether or not those that live in the world want to embrace that morality. This is why it was so easy to convince the world in the last 2000 years that there is something wrong with us because we are gay, when you see homosexuality reflected in nature in over 10,000 documented species. Nature is there and nature is going to come out the way that it does, just like we all here posses thoughts that border on what society labels as deviant, but you cannot convict a person of thought crime, regardless of how much religion wants to, and respecting people, respecting consent, is fundamental to Satanism. You dont do harm to others, unless they harm you first.

The baphomet (the horned goat) is used metaphorically in Satanism to symbolize this rejection of religion, and the pride you should take in your nature. Think of God as a machine, and de.vil is the rage against that machine. For those libertines like me that despise religion, Satanism is an ideology you probably already subscribe to and just dont know it yet. There arent rituals (at least none to be taken seriously). There is no worship of any deity. In Satanism, you worship yourself and yourself alone. There are no rulers; you are the arbiter of your own existence, and this is why I am also an anarchist because I live life freely on my own accord.

There are traditional Satanists - those that do believe there exists an actual deity named Lucifer and they worship this character. I guess if youre going to pick a god, Lucifer is the best of the gods we have because the one of Abraham has a track record that makes Hitler look like Ghandi, but again, without evidence, there is no reason to believe in any god apart from ones own willingness to believe in a god. LaVeyan Satanism is to basically say you reject religion, youre a hedonist, and you love to live life free from the constraints of what the three Abrahamic religions preach as "good" moral turpitude.

There is a lot more to it than this, but this is basically it in a nutshell.

****(I had to edit this because after posting, every mention of "devil" or something was automatically switched to "Sarah Palin". Hopefully the mods can fix that error on the website.)

Thanks for the detailed explanation of our beliefs.  I constantly have to explain I am not motivated by evil and idolatry but rather by indulgence , pleasure and self gratification. There are a lot of positives I gather from my belief system that people just don’t get. 

[Bttmrimpig]

I’m more left hand path, with the book of Baphomet. 
it’s more spiritual than sexual for me. I had always questioned Christianity and their total bullshit. 

[MuscledHorse]

On 8/18/2022 at 3:53 PM, ErosWired said:

I am not a practitioner of the philosophy under discussion. Although I am a Christian, I have largely abandoned organized religion in favor of a personal spirituality, an ardent faith in science, and a pursuit of rational thought. To that end, I feel inclined here to rather cheekily play the Devil's Advocate. The critique that follows is not meant as critical of any adherent of the practice, but rather as an opportunity to flesh out and deepen understanding and interpretation.

Let us examine the Nine Satanic Statements from LaVey's Satanic Bible:

1. [Lucifer (name substituted)] represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!

An analysis of the tenets of the philosophy of the movement show that the underlying factor behind most principles is gratification of one's impulses, under the rationale that denial of any natural impulse is a bad and harmful thing. The caveat is usually "with harm to none", but there is little acknowledgment of the inevitable contradiction encountered when two persons' impulses conflict. The philosophy at that point is recursive, falling back upon the self; when in doubt, the self prevails. Note items 4-6.

2. [Lucifer] represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

The emphasis here is on "vital", interpreted as physical, rather than spiritual. This assumes that a person's spiritual needs are not vital to his well-being, because there is nothing to be spiritual about. Yet the spiritual aspect of human beings is inarguably a vital component of their lives. This movement purports to reject anything that cannot be proven, which dovetails nicely with an emphasis on the physical. But the idea that you cannot prove a negative is untrue: I can hypothesize that oxygen does not exist within a jar on the table. If I apply a spectrometer I can confirm that, indeed, the jar contains no oxygen. Oxygen, however, is physical, and as we interface with the physical, we can test for it.

In the Middle Ages - not so much. Try explaining oxygen to Chaucer. Smoke, vapors, humours, even, fine if he can smell them, but show him a jar full of oxygen and the jar is empty. Take the lid off - still empty. Apply the spectrometer (be prepared to be burned as a sorcerer) - still empty, because you can't see it. The jar could have been full of God as far as he knew, or could prove.

Today? Same. Can you see the Fourth Dimension (Euclidean, not Minkowski)? Nope. And you never will, because your brain isn't wired for it. But it's there. So is the Fifth. Ask most any theoretical physicist or higher mathematician. If you believe in science or math, that is. Because you'll have to take it on faith until further notice, since we can't absolutely prove or disprove it with our senses. Kind of like a deity.

A claim that a deity exists is on an equal footing with a claim that it does not. You either take it on faith, or you don't, but not taking it on faith in the absence of proof isn't science - it's just another form of belief.

3. [Lucifer] represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

'The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man / knows himself to be a fool.'
     - William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act V, Scene I

I will not defile the wisdom any further than necessary.

4. [Lucifer] represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!

The deserving and the ungrateful - as judged by...? In item 6 below, we see the emphasis on personal responsibility, a natural outgrowth of the movement's emphasis on all things gravitating toward the individual self. This responsibility would seem to include judgment of others, and the granting or withholding of favor accordingly. This would at first seem to be in direct contradiction of expressions of tolerance and openness in accepting others' choices to live and love as they wish nonjudgmentally, but by not judging someone negatively, they have de facto judged them positively. They cannot claim neutrality, because they do qualify their acceptance with conditions; ergo, they judge. With the movement's emphasis on the self as the final arbiter of choice, that places the individual in a sort of vigilante position with regard to deciding who's deserving and who's an ingrate, and on what arbitrary terms.

5. [Lucifer] represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!

The claim that this movement derives from a rational foundation, even from a place of Social Darwinism, gets very murky here. Revenge has practical social utility only when designed as a deterrent to future behavior, not as a means to settle a score or obtain justice; yet it appeals to the same impulse regardless of the motivation. In an individual driven by an ethos that holds the gratification of personal impulse as the highest imperative, vengeance is default rather than strategic, and perpetuates cycles of negativity, violence and hate that adversely affect both individuals and societies. This is not a rational philosophy. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

6. [Lucifer represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!

The individual assigns the responsibility to be responsible to the self, but not necessary responsible to others for the self's actions. Personal judgment again comes into play - any other whose intersection with the individual frustrates the individual's impulse gratification is eligible for negative classification (as, one presumes among a number of choices, psychic vampires). Taking responsibility for fulfilling one's own needs and desires is not necessarily the same thing, or even compatible, with taking responsibility as a member of one's community or society. Hedonists are not, in general, the sort of people who sacrifice their time or deny themselves personal pleasures in order to make sure the hungry are fed or the naked are clothed, when they themselves get nothing out of the arrangement. Moreover, those who assume self-responsibility tend to believe that others should do the same, and take a dim view of anyone who, in their view, is not pulling his own weight. This is consistent with a Social Darwinistic might-is-right, survivial-of-the-fittest view that only the strong deserve to thrive.

7. [Lucifer] represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all!

Much has been made in these posts of the "scientific" and humanistic basis of the movement, but the fact that many adherents to not actually believe in a devil or are actually atheists does not mean the movement is based on science, or that its tenets are simply rational. Rather, science is evoked to rationalize many of its foundational principles, and that is something different. But parse the statement above for its core expression and you get: "[Lucifer] represents man as ... the most vicious animal of all" because of his "intellectual development". Yet the adherents to the movement A) claim to embrace what [Lucifer] represents while at the same time doing it with the intellectual sanction of science.

The point of the statement is that the movement seeks to treat the individual solely as an animal being, beholden only to its biological, physical needs and impulses. This presumes that every impulse one feels is natural, positive, and necessary, and should be indulged. It ignores the reality that there are 8 billion such individuals on the planet all trying to do the same thing simultaneously. It also ignores the reality that it acknowledges, that humans are not merely animals, but have a divine spiritual and intellectual component. While this component may have resulted in some of the worst of man's horrors, it has also resulted in some of the greatest of man's achievements, the most sublime of his arts. It might be argued, indeed, that it is man's baser impulses, rather than his higher, that have wrought more ill. To wit:

8. Sarah Palin represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

The movement embraces the Seven Deadly Sins as though they were not called that for a reason. Let's list them:

Pride - dangerously corrupt selfishness, putting one's own desires, urges, wants, and whims before the welfare of others
Greed - an inordinate desire to acquire or possess
Lust - unbridled desire, such as for sex, money, or power
Envy -  a sad or resentful covetousness towards the traits or possessions of someone else
Gluttony - overindulgence and overconsumption of anything to the point of waste
Wrath - uncontrolled feelings of anger, rage, and even hatred, vengeance-seeking
Sloth - a failure to do things that one should do

Each of these may lead to physical, mental or emotional gratification in the moment, but over time or in excess, each is likely to lead the individual to adverse consequences. In this, the movement is short-sighted, and a decision to pursue short-term satisfaction with little regard to the consequences is not rational.

9. Sarah Palin has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!

Oddly enough, I had been under the impression it was Jesus. But then, the Devil would say that; he's all about envy.

There are number of places Christianity--apart from its dogma that has grown up around the basic ideas--actually agree with Satanism. As with anything, context is important. For instance the reading of the first statement as a call to unbridled hedonism is incorrect (in part because other statements that follow place functional parameters on it. TO truly understand this statement you have to have a solid grasp of Xian history. Thanks to the HIGHLY influential writings of St. Augustine (City of God) and St. Benedict (the Regula) the full dogmatic church view of human life is this: life is a veil of tears, the physical world is tainted by original sin and the only thing worth bothering about in this life is preparing for the next one.  Place this view against the backdrop of the Roman Empire that was rotting from within, where actually gluttony (eating and eating, the vomiting and going to eat some more) were a thing and this the Xian church view not only becomes clear as a reaction ton it, but has certain practical sensibilities to it in an age where things like disease and natural disasters were only attributable to the actions of unseen deities or those practicing magic.

The subsequent church line that became deeply embedded in it was a denial of any earthly pleasures, like sex, in less it occurred under VERY specific conditions, otherwise this same act of copulation was dirty and sinful. LeVey's point here and within others of the statements is to restore a celebration and indulgence in physical Pleasures and living that the churchj denies. Scientifically speaking, sodomy is not unnatural as the Xian dogmatists claim, but their own obsession with abstinence and chastity IS unnatural and occurs nowhere in nature. And, among the mammal animal kingdom, scientific research has found sexual monogamy is the exception, not the rule. Thanks to Xian dogma, the idea of "cheating" exists; a toxic notion that bases the validity of an entire relationship on this one point and has done nothing but ruin otherwise healthy relationships and account for half the country music songs, most of Taylor Swift's output and one VERY angry song by Alanis Morissette.

So no, the opening statement is NOT a call to unbridled hedonism. You still have to be responsible for your actions and own the consequences of what you do and how you treat and interact with others.; you can't put any of this off on an unseen deity's "will." (aka the psychic vampire)

Now to the treatment of others statement: the one you took greatest issue with is really a restatement of the Jesus' famous caution about "casting pearls before swine."  Like teaching a pig to sing, it's a waste of time and annoys the target audience, so don't waste your time and energy where it won't be productive. As for the vengeance statement, there may be an unending forgiveness but there is a line past which you DO need to take a stand for yourself, and when you do, if you're going to spend that energy it's worth making it hurt so that maybe the recipient will think twice before trying those actions again. Unrestrained vengeance is not endorsed here. rather the permission to exact vengeance when it is due, such as I did with a former employer who I tried to raise concerns over safety and staffing versus operational metrics and was ultimately  fired on a fabricated, totally unrelated issue. Yes, vengeance was mine, but I'm a good chess player and prepared for that possible outcome where they did not. 

Point 7, on the human animal is actually accurate, even more so when you remember that Levey was writing this in the 1960's, only 15 years removed from the horrors of the atomic bomb and World War Two. The late, great professor of comparative religion, Joseph Campbell, would tell you that science is essentially a mythology, just like Christianity or Islam or any of the others that have come down the pike. Science performs all the functions of a deity driven mythology in terms of explaining how and why the world around us works the way it does and establishing our place within it. BUT all ideas CAN be misused. With dogmatic Christianity, which is vastly different from what's actually in the gospels or the writings of St. Paul, manipulated those ideas allowing men who desired power to have a way to attain it and hold on to, with full support of the invisible deity.

While science is more open to change as the models are tested, science is NOT immune to those same base human desires that turned things like Christianity and Islam into the dogma defined power structures that they are (something Kevin Smith pokes at in the film "Dogma"). The best example of this point is made in Start Trek 2; The Wrath of Khan when debating the use of the Genesis Project, Mr. Spock tells a horrified Dr. McCoy that the thing itself is not inherently bad or evil but how it is used by the men using it that makes it one or the other. The same sentiment is echoed by Bertolt Brecht in "Galileo" that one day science may cheer a discovery that the rest of the world greets with horror. Brecht is, of course, making a reference to atomic bomb which has just been unleashed on the world at the time he wrote the play. And Edwin Brock echoes it in the nihilistic poem "Five Ways to Kill a Man." Crichton makes this same point in Jurassic Park in the "your scientists were so busy saying 'could we?' they didn't stop to think 'should we?'" speech. SO science is just as susceptible to the baser side of human nature as any other mythology/religion. But under Satanism, it is incumbent upon us to take responsibility for our actions and the decisions we make. The unfortunate truth is that most people want a checklist for heaven that does not exist according to Jesus, but the religious grifters (televangelists, leaders like Jerry Falwell, Sr. and Franklin Graham) are more than happy to provide that checklist as long as you do everything THEY say you should do because God told them what His will is. This is why the Devil is the greatest friend the Xian church has ever had. The power holders shake the Fear Stick--the devil of the moment-- at the masses, the sheep (versus the goats, a common comparison in Xian writing), and they respond en masse, no questions asked.

As for theistic versus non-theistic Satanism, we will never know in this life, which is correct, if either. Bill Mahar, in Religulous, makes the assertion that atheism is just as stupid as unquestioning acceptance of a deity's existence since neither can be proven. Doubt, he says, is humbling, and we should be look at anything with a skeptic's eye because, as he puts it "History is filled with moments where humans have gotten it totally wrong" (as visual examples flash by on the screen).  Personally, the existence of Sataan, the enlightener (Notice the snake as giver of knowledge appears on the medical association's insignia and the apple is associated most closely with the communal source of knowledge, teachers.) or Asmodeous the demon of Lust are irrelevant to me as their existence or not does not change how I approach my life and my interactions with my fellow males and beasts on this planet. If they exist, I am sure they will approve of my centrist rational carnal life. If they don't exist, I'm certain they would approve if they did.

 

Sorry this is so long, but I felt the points raised need to be addressed in context. This should have been longer but hopefully everyone hasn't fallen asleep or been distracted by a buzzfeed or OMG quiz part way through.

[buster0772]

To me the satanic pathway as always had a fascination for me and I have been drawn to its erotic outlet,I would love contact with a satanic gay group 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, MuscledHorse said:

There are number of places Christianity--apart from its dogma that has grown up around the basic ideas--actually agree with Satanism. As with anything, context is important. For instance the reading of the first statement as a call to unbridled hedonism is incorrect (in part because other statements that follow place functional parameters on it. TO truly understand this statement you have to have a solid grasp of Xian history. Thanks to the HIGHLY influential writings of St. Augustine (City of God) and St. Benedict (the Regula) the full dogmatic church view of human life is this: life is a veil of tears, the physical world is tainted by original sin and the only thing worth bothering about in this life is preparing for the next one.  Place this view against the backdrop of the Roman Empire that was rotting from within, where actually gluttony (eating and eating, the vomiting and going to eat some more) were a thing and this the Xian church view not only becomes clear as a reaction ton it, but has certain practical sensibilities to it in an age where things like disease and natural disasters were only attributable to the actions of unseen deities or those practicing magic.

The subsequent church line that became deeply embedded in it was a denial of any earthly pleasures, like sex, in less it occurred under VERY specific conditions, otherwise this same act of copulation was dirty and sinful. LeVey's point here and within others of the statements is to restore a celebration and indulgence in physical Pleasures and living that the churchj denies. Scientifically speaking, sodomy is not unnatural as the Xian dogmatists claim, but their own obsession with abstinence and chastity IS unnatural and occurs nowhere in nature. And, among the mammal animal kingdom, scientific research has found sexual monogamy is the exception, not the rule. Thanks to Xian dogma, the idea of "cheating" exists; a toxic notion that bases the validity of an entire relationship on this one point and has done nothing but ruin otherwise healthy relationships and account for half the country music songs, most of Taylor Swift's output and one VERY angry song by Alanis Morissette.

So no, the opening statement is NOT a call to unbridled hedonism. You still have to be responsible for your actions and own the consequences of what you do and how you treat and interact with others.; you can't put any of this off on an unseen deity's "will." (aka the psychic vampire)

Now to the treatment of others statement: the one you took greatest issue with is really a restatement of the Jesus' famous caution about "casting pearls before swine."  Like teaching a pig to sing, it's a waste of time and annoys the target audience, so don't waste your time and energy where it won't be productive. As for the vengeance statement, there may be an unending forgiveness but there is a line past which you DO need to take a stand for yourself, and when you do, if you're going to spend that energy it's worth making it hurt so that maybe the recipient will think twice before trying those actions again. Unrestrained vengeance is not endorsed here. rather the permission to exact vengeance when it is due, such as I did with a former employer who I tried to raise concerns over safety and staffing versus operational metrics and was ultimately  fired on a fabricated, totally unrelated issue. Yes, vengeance was mine, but I'm a good chess player and prepared for that possible outcome where they did not. 

Point 7, on the human animal is actually accurate, even more so when you remember that Levey was writing this in the 1960's, only 15 years removed from the horrors of the atomic bomb and World War Two. The late, great professor of comparative religion, Joseph Campbell, would tell you that science is essentially a mythology, just like Christianity or Islam or any of the others that have come down the pike. Science performs all the functions of a deity driven mythology in terms of explaining how and why the world around us works the way it does and establishing our place within it. BUT all ideas CAN be misused. With dogmatic Christianity, which is vastly different from what's actually in the gospels or the writings of St. Paul, manipulated those ideas allowing men who desired power to have a way to attain it and hold on to, with full support of the invisible deity.

While science is more open to change as the models are tested, science is NOT immune to those same base human desires that turned things like Christianity and Islam into the dogma defined power structures that they are (something Kevin Smith pokes at in the film "Dogma"). The best example of this point is made in Start Trek 2; The Wrath of Khan when debating the use of the Genesis Project, Mr. Spock tells a horrified Dr. McCoy that the thing itself is not inherently bad or evil but how it is used by the men using it that makes it one or the other. The same sentiment is echoed by Bertolt Brecht in "Galileo" that one day science may cheer a discovery that the rest of the world greets with horror. Brecht is, of course, making a reference to atomic bomb which has just been unleashed on the world at the time he wrote the play. And Edwin Brock echoes it in the nihilistic poem "Five Ways to Kill a Man." Crichton makes this same point in Jurassic Park in the "your scientists were so busy saying 'could we?' they didn't stop to think 'should we?'" speech. SO science is just as susceptible to the baser side of human nature as any other mythology/religion. But under Satanism, it is incumbent upon us to take responsibility for our actions and the decisions we make. The unfortunate truth is that most people want a checklist for heaven that does not exist according to Jesus, but the religious grifters (televangelists, leaders like Jerry Falwell, Sr. and Franklin Graham) are more than happy to provide that checklist as long as you do everything THEY say you should do because God told them what His will is. This is why the Devil is the greatest friend the Xian church has ever had. The power holders shake the Fear Stick--the devil of the moment-- at the masses, the sheep (versus the goats, a common comparison in Xian writing), and they respond en masse, no questions asked.

As for theistic versus non-theistic Satanism, we will never know in this life, which is correct, if either. Bill Mahar, in Religulous, makes the assertion that atheism is just as stupid as unquestioning acceptance of a deity's existence since neither can be proven. Doubt, he says, is humbling, and we should be look at anything with a skeptic's eye because, as he puts it "History is filled with moments where humans have gotten it totally wrong" (as visual examples flash by on the screen).  Personally, the existence of Sataan, the enlightener (Notice the snake as giver of knowledge appears on the medical association's insignia and the apple is associated most closely with the communal source of knowledge, teachers.) or Asmodeous the demon of Lust are irrelevant to me as their existence or not does not change how I approach my life and my interactions with my fellow males and beasts on this planet. If they exist, I am sure they will approve of my centrist rational carnal life. If they don't exist, I'm certain they would approve if they did.

 

Sorry this is so long, but I felt the points raised need to be addressed in context. This should have been longer but hopefully everyone hasn't fallen asleep or been distracted by a buzzfeed or OMG quiz part way through.

Damn  good piece of writing. 👏
Not fallen asleep. Waking up with coffee atm.

[TwinkChaserSlut]

On 8/15/2022 at 9:07 PM, TommiVirgin said:

I don't know why it put Sarah Palin.
I typed in the other name.

I agree 100% Tommi. In my opinion, His existence is obvious in many ways, but I can agree to disagree on these subjects too.

[hntnhole]

18 hours ago, MuscledHorse said:

Hedonists are not, in general, the sort of people who sacrifice their time or deny themselves personal pleasures in order to make sure the hungry are fed or the naked are clothed, when they themselves get nothing out of the arrangement. Moreover, those who assume self-responsibility tend to believe that others should do the same, and take a dim view of anyone who, in their view, is not pulling his own weight. This is consistent with a Social Darwinistic might-is-right, survivial-of-the-fittest view that only the strong deserve to thrive

Agreed.  I would posit that Hedonism would ask the individual to care for others (as described above) as well as take care of their own needs.  One who loves pleasure is eminently capable of caring for the welfare of others, since both perceptions spring from the same well.  Neither excludes, but rather includes the other.  Thus, hedonists do "get something out of the arrangement", that being the pleasure of extending a hand to our fellow humans.  

I do not see the correlation to "might-is-right" etc.  Extending a helping hand to those who are in need doesn't equate with denigrating others, it doesn't doesn't equate to survival, it's only another facet of the pleasure that Hedonism encourages.  Hedonism does not equate with selfishness, it encourages inclusiveness; everyone gets to survive, and do so in as comfortable way as possible. 

To the Social Darwinistic issue:  A life devoted to the pursuit of pleasure is a positive life, inclusive of all, not exclusive of the perceived "weak".  While it's true that some folks are 'on the take' for whatever they can get, that's more of a societal issue than a personal one.  When a society or cultural construct allows some to be denigrated for whatever reason, the 'taking' mindset ensues naturally.  When that is clearly and demonstrably avoided, and everyone is allowed to flourish, it's to everyone's benefit.  Pie-in-the-sky maybe, but a worthy goal regardless.  

Thanks for the most interesting discussion!

[viking8x6]

On 8/19/2022 at 8:00 PM, ErosWired said:

On 8/19/2022 at 7:07 PM, BBArchangel said:

Damn, someone who quotes Milton! Now I’m all wet!

The mind is its own place, and in itself

Can make a heav’n of hell, a hell of heav’n.

😉

Malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to Man.

[viking8x6]

On 8/17/2022 at 4:18 PM, hntnhole said:

On 8/17/2022 at 11:28 AM, 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.

That would be the northern European pantheon, not they Olympians.

But it's more than two. Try four (in English, anyway):

Tiw's day
Woden's day
Thor's day
Freya's day (or Frigg's)
 

[hntnhole]

This discussion is the chief reason I enjoy BZ so much.  Very bright, intelligent men, from all corners of the world, discussing thoughts of this depth.  

AND, devoted barebackers !!!!!!!!!   Eat this discourse for breakfast, religious pinheads !!! 

(of course, there are other aspects of BZ that are decidedly interesting as well, but of lesser import)

Edited August 21, 2022 by hntnhole
qualifier

[hntnhole]

3 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

Tiw's day
Woden's day

Not only didn't I know that, the professor of Scandinavian studies (yes, the undergrad college I went to was that limited) didn't happen to mention it, when he did mention Thursday and Friday.  You're one very bright dude !!!

Tack sa mycket (no umlauts on the computer 🙁- or if there are, I have no idea where).

[Guest]

I really should get laid more iso of participating in bright, intelligent conversations and apparently failing miserably in dragging the level down.
I may not be very good at it, this Satanism-thing. 

Edited August 21, 2022 by Guest

[hntnhole]

15 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

iso

Assuming that ^ is shorthand for "in stead of", nope.  Do BOTH !!!

We need your input as much as other guys too.  

Edited August 21, 2022 by hntnhole