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

[Guest]

Great addition, thanks.

Nice to find that suggesting to look into native-americas culture to someone was a good idea. Respect is infused in every word you write.

 

3 hours ago, Vancityaladdin said:

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'd see it as minority-stress more than as trauma but perhaps we mean the same thing and a sign that I am influenced by the Western religious tradition of exegesis and lesser by a Shamanic tradition of spirituality.

And perhaps a more spiritual approach might also be helpful with mental help and cure problems some of us encounter. But as is, most professionals in that field aren't aware what the original meaning of the word/name Psyche was that gave the name to both psychology and psychiatry. 
Science hasn't progressed that far - for now - they have a satisfactory explanation for our proverbial hearts and minds.

Nice reference to Milton's 'Paradise Lost' btw. Thanks for that. 🙂 

3 hours ago, Vancityaladdin said:

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 

I'm not sure that religion and science ever got along well.

And essential in the literal meaning of the word 'believing' might be that one could be mistaken, while in most to all (Abrahamic) faiths / religions there seems to be a pattern to 'know for sure' which easily turns to absolutism and extremism. 
That's where a rebel, deviant, a Loki or jester plays his (her, them) part.
Or the little boy in Hans Christian Anderson's fairy-tail to shout that the Emperor has no clothes on. Just like science does at times.

[Vancityaladdin]

44 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Great addition, thanks.

Nice to find that suggesting to look into native-americas culture to someone was a good idea. Respect is infused in every word you write.

 

I'd see it as minority-stress more than as trauma but perhaps we mean the same thing and a sign that I am influenced by the Western religious tradition of exegesis and lesser by a Shamanic tradition of spirituality.

And perhaps a more spiritual approach might also be helpful with mental help and cure problems some of us encounter. But as is, most professionals in that field aren't aware what the original meaning of the word/name Psyche was that gave the name to both psychology and psychiatry. 
Science hasn't progressed that far - for now - they have a satisfactory explanation for our proverbial hearts and minds.

Nice reference to Milton's 'Paradise Lost' btw. Thanks for that. 🙂 

I'm not sure that religion and science ever got along well.

And essential in the literal meaning of the word 'believing' might be that one could be mistaken, while in most to all (Abrahamic) faiths / religions there seems to be a pattern to 'know for sure' which easily turns to absolutism and extremism. 
That's where a rebel, deviant, a Loki or jester plays his (her, them) part.
Or the little boy in Hans Christian Anderson's fairy-tail to shout that the Emperor has no clothes on. Just like science does at times.

I'm humbled by your praise, thank you I'm glad I could accurately translate my perspective in this. Shaman isn't a word that originated from the Americas, the first Shamans were just children born with an open 3rd eye (or equivalent Chakra center expansion)

In western science, that is called "Neurodiversity" add or ADHD. and the spectrum of observation tolerance still has a Russian roulette chance for Clairvoyance or Schizophrenia ( it truly depends on the individual and what they are capable of enduring) 

This is when nature reaches out to us and we are shown how to extract the medicinal essence from the herb, or turn water to wine. This happens with every culture, every species, all around the world. 

Every culture has their unique observations, mine just happens to be scribing divine song. Liturgy that depicts in poetry our celestial story. For example a Midas touch becoming a metaphor for an a toxic obsession to work. 

That insight and clarity is how shamans/priests help the individual realize their true potentials (or Virgil if your name is Dante) 

Demonic exorcisms could be seen as a psychiatric scape goat where pent up stress and behaviour from a closed root Chakra can be given a name from the Goetia, absolving them of sin. 

That being said, can we appreciate how poetic our ancient ancestors were about life? Quite remarkable 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vancityaladdin said:

I'm humbled by your praise, thank you I'm glad I could accurately translate my perspective in this. Shaman isn't a word that originated from the Americas, the first Shamans were just children born with an open 3rd eye (or equivalent Chakra center expansion)

In western science, that is called "Neurodiversity" add or ADHD. and the spectrum of observation tolerance still has a Russian roulette chance for Clairvoyance or Schizophrenia ( it truly depends on the individual and what they are capable of enduring) 

This is when nature reaches out to us and we are shown how to extract the medicinal essence from the herb, or turn water to wine. This happens with every culture, every species, all around the world. 

Every culture has their unique observations, mine just happens to be scribing divine song. Liturgy that depicts in poetry our celestial story. For example a Midas touch becoming a metaphor for an a toxic obsession to work. 

That insight and clarity is how shamans/priests help the individual realize their true potentials (or Virgil if your name is Dante) 

Demonic exorcisms could be seen as a psychiatric scape goat where pent up stress and behaviour from a closed root Chakra can be given a name from the Goetia, absolving them of sin. 

That being said, can we appreciate how poetic our ancient ancestors were about life? Quite remarkable 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I aimed for the opposite effect, triggering pride.
Which is a Satanic (and Gay !) virtue.    But as long as it's not false humility anything is ok.

you're welcome.  You've given me some things to ponder on, which I enjoy.

[BannedWord]

18 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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

No, I really didn't intend to turn any argument into a personal one. That isn't me. As to the source, well, I was educated in a Catholic Prep school and did debating / extemporaneous as an activity. I don't reflect on that much as childhood was mostly a memory I'd prefer to forget.

18 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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.

If you're saying that some people aren't fit to be parents -- ok, I buy that argument. When you need to get a license for your pet but any general fuck-up can be a parent, our values are somehow screwed up. 

18 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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. 

The recent rulings in Ohio had built-in exceptions that permitted abortions for rape, incest, and other criminality. The recent case that was raised with the 10-year old who 'had to go to Indiana' raised a bunch more questions including the requirements that the activity be reported to law enforcement. The once-vocal doctor suddenly went silent once the topic of criminal reporting surfaced. If they'll focus on the underage victim, then focus on her and don't let up when it comes down to the act of how that happened and whether someone was criminally responsible for the statutory rape of a minor.

18 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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?

No "Mary". I felt like something was missing in my life when I turned to the church. I had an excellent priest who was my catechism teacher, he set a great example for others. I moved from his parish and his time at that parish was up (he was given his own and greater responsibility, I simply moved and a commute for church didn't seem sustainable). I struggled afterward to find the same sense of community and the local parishes were very insular -- no room at the inn for the outsider. After that, I struggled to find that reason in my life to really march to that drum any longer. I also couldn't reconcile a number of the writings and inherent contradictions to that same definition of "God" that was taught in Christianity -- why in the Bible did we turn from a vindictive deity to an overwhelmingly accepting and forgiving one? If there was a God, why did he let such horrible things happen to those He would hold up as exemplary? It all seemed consistently inconsistent. 

So I simply stopped practicing the dogma and questioning more, and finding myself looking at the whole thing as an exercise that no longer held the same meaning for me. I have great friends who are Catholics and more broadly Christians, I don't generally join their services if invited or the opportunity presents, but I also find it very difficult to accept a lot of what religion tends to teach us. So I'll describe myself as skeptical and agnostic, perhaps seeking something on which to hang my hat or an explanation for everything -- such as why those who've had near death experiences all return from them with the same vision of what happened. But until there's a very compelling argument, I'm still questioning. I'm just not a practitioner until something convinces me.

I know you probably meant that being cheeky, but wanted to explain it more fully anyway. 🙂 

[BannedWord]

20 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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.

We have had teachers and doctors and parents all come out supporting these types of things while kids are pre-pubescent. So I'd argue they're not safe. There are situations in which teachers have come out and said that they'd go to the extent of hiding a child's gender-change desires from parents and seek out medical help for them. All of that is really extreme, and we don't know or haven't studied the long-term effects of halting hormones at a child of that age. What does that do to them both physically and psychologically? 

I have some strong doubts that any child can truly comprehend before puberty whether they want to be a boy, girl, Hippo or Walrus or bird. Want to really give gender affirmation to a kid who thinks they're a bird? Force them to fly and let us know how that works out. (kidding, but there's a Babylon Bee piece that pokes fun at this).

20 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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.

The trouble is that we don't hear enough of the stories where kids have later come out with major regrets about a trans decision, like a former FtM who had her breasts removed, and now that she realizes she's more aligned to being a female she faces as a loss that she'll never have "her own" breasts because of the decision. I'm not saying that ALL decisions are wrong, but it's really important that the person is psychologically prepared for the permanence of that decision. 

"You're losing your penis and getting a labia and vaginal canal, so things like orgasm are going to be a lot different. Are you sure you're ok with that?" Not a decision for someone who can't even vote or drink in this country. It's not like buying a toaster where you can just return it if you aren't satisfied.

20 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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

I'll take that 99.99999% of people will not agree with me 100% of the time. 😉 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, TheSRQDude said:

including the requirements that the activity be reported to law enforcement. The once-vocal doctor suddenly went silent once the topic of criminal reporting surfaced. If they'll focus on the underage victim, then focus on her and don't let up when it comes down to the act of how that happened and whether someone was criminally responsible for the statutory rape of a minor.

I don't know what the law says, neither in your or my country about this.

It is a difficult question where there's justice on one end, and the confidentiality of a doctor on the other.
A good reason for medical confidentiality is that there are no obstacles for someone to receive the care they need, like because they themselves or their guardians choose not to seek medical attention for fear of the repercussions.

It's complicated, and might not have a perfect answer.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TheSRQDude said:

We have had teachers and doctors and parents all come out supporting these types of things while kids are pre-pubescent. So I'd argue they're not safe.

That makes no sense, if a kid isn't on the threshold of the body starting to make hormones, hormone blockers have no effect.
There's no hormones to block.

[BannedWord]

2 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I don't know what the law says, neither in your or my country about this.

Not complicated in the US. If someone is sexually molested and not of consenting age (varies by state between 16 and 18), the offending party is subject to charges of Statutory Rape. The incident must be reported by medical personnel to law enforcement for investigation and action. That's especially true of this, rape or incest, or pregnancy to someone not of consenting age (though a lot of teen pregnancies don't get prosecuted because parents were aware and all parties consented).

In the Ohio case, the doctor sending info to the press promptly shut down once people started asking about the offender who impregnated a 9 year old. They had a legal obligation to report it. Apparently that dawned on them when the topic was raised by several sources, among those being social media and the press.

2 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

That makes no sense, if a kid isn't on the threshold of the body starting to make hormones, hormone blockers have no effect.
There's no hormones to block.

The notion behind hormone blockers is to use them before hormones start to develop so that the body's development is paused in that pre-hormonal state and the hormones of the opposite gender can be administered. It's prophylactic in nature. I agree it makes little sense, but that's some of the lunacy that is happening with people here. A recent news story here showed video of a 4 year old having a "gender reveal" party. He was a girl.

🤷‍♂️

[ErosWired]

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.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TheSRQDude said:

Not complicated in the US. If someone is sexually molested and not of consenting age (varies by state between 16 and 18), the offending party is subject to charges of Statutory Rape. The incident must be reported by medical personnel to law enforcement for investigation and action. That's especially true of this, rape or incest, or pregnancy to someone not of consenting age (though a lot of teen pregnancies don't get prosecuted because parents were aware and all parties consented).

In the Ohio case, the doctor sending info to the press promptly shut down once people started asking about the offender who impregnated a 9 year old. They had a legal obligation to report it. Apparently that dawned on them when the topic was raised by several sources, among those being social media and the press.

The notion behind hormone blockers is to use them before hormones start to develop so that the body's development is paused in that pre-hormonal state and the hormones of the opposite gender can be administered. It's prophylactic in nature. I agree it makes little sense, but that's some of the lunacy that is happening with people here. A recent news story here showed video of a 4 year old having a "gender reveal" party. He was a girl.

🤷‍♂️

Not what I said or meant and I think you know that.

If morals were easy everybody could do it.

[BannedWord]

31 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Not what I said or meant and I think you know that.

If morals were easy everybody could do it.

True. But you brought up a point that, if it weren't so bizarre AND true, wouldn't even need stating. You know, like the jar of 'peanut butter' that has the label stating "Warning: May contain nuts.".  
I agree there's nothing to block, but we have medical professionals, for example, who will do so anyway regardless of whether it actually does harm (despite their Hippocratic oath). 

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, TheSRQDude said:

I have some strong doubts that any child can truly comprehend before puberty whether they want to be a boy, girl, Hippo or Walrus or bird. Want to really give gender affirmation to a kid who thinks they're a bird? Force them to fly and let us know how that works out. (kidding, but there's a Babylon Bee piece that pokes fun at this).

My primary objection to this line of "thought" is your choice of the phrase "want to be", as though gender identity is a matter of desire. There is no difference between that and the idiotic notion among certain heterosexuals that being gay is just a matter of "choosing" to be attracted to the same sex.

I knew, at a fairly young age, that it was other male in which I had an interest. Zero interest, really, in girls as potential dates or romantic partners or whatever. And why was that a problem? Because I knew - absolutely KNEW - that I was a boy, even without looking down at my genitals. Growing up in a household and extended family dominated by women, I had plenty of examples of different types of females, spanning the gamut from 1960's housewives to teenage Brady Bunch clones to old maid lesbian great-aunts who did exactly how they please  - and never once had any inkling that I was one of them.

If I as a boy could be so certain I was male, I could also see how a person born and identified as male at birth could nonetheless be absolutely certain she was female as well.

That doesn't automatically dictate the policies we should adopt, but it does suggest rather strongly (to me, at least) that we need to take young people who question their assigned-at-birth sex seriously. 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, TheSRQDude said:

True. But you brought up a point that, if it weren't so bizarre AND true, wouldn't even need stating. You know, like the jar of 'peanut butter' that has the label stating "Warning: May contain nuts.".  
I agree there's nothing to block, but we have medical professionals, for example, who will do so anyway regardless of whether it actually does harm (despite their Hippocratic oath). 

No, I responded to a (hysterical in my opinion) statement you made which I feel wasn't / couldn't be true about when a transgender child (prepubescent) in certain cases is prescribed hormone blockers. 

I tried to voice understanding for - in what to me seems an immensely difficult situation - the possibility that just before / at the start of puberty hormone blockers could be used to delay the onset of puberty where the body of the transgender youth would start to change in ways that can only be altered be more invasive surgery than necessary.

The parts of your contribution I feel are hysterical are the use of the word 'prepubescent' by which you imply it concerns younger children - not children at the onset of puberty - and that they're 'not safe' from teachers, doctors and parents like it is their intention to hurt or harm children in stead of helping kids - in, again: a VERY difficult and sensitive situation - who are transgender.

In this post you again assume it's harming the kids involved, when in fact doing nothing or waiting too long can also be harmful. I really feel you at the same time oversimplify and exaggerate matters which helps no one, least of all these children. 

Furthermore, when you compared being transgender with a wish to become a Hippo, a Walrus or a Bird it was very disrespectful to transgenders.

Like I have mentioned once or twice, these kids like all people who are transgender are in a difficult situation and although other people might not know how it feels from personal experience; the very least they can aspect from us is a genuine effort to empathise and a minimum of respect.

In retrospect I don't think it's very fair for someone (I think it was you) using their sensitive and vulnerable position in a conversation about religion

 

As someone who believes in 'more' - at leat in an afterlife-  you're not helping your case in convincing me there might be some kind of higher power. 
You are in stead giving an excellent example of my concern that a religious and dogmatic way of thinking can easily turn to 'evil', in this case by holding on to how things according to you should be in stead of being open to the needs of transgender people, apparently not even considering that medical professionals have the intention to help - not harm -  them.

It's like you are trying to impose your vision on them with the possible result that if such a (narrow-minded) vision would becomes law, all transgenders in your State or the US would be condemned to wait until they are grown-up and then face the choice for more invasive surgery than necessary and living with stronger physical gender-characteristics of the gender they are not.

That's cruel in my opinion and perhaps even abusive. 

 

If this is your reaction to my implying and stating that people who believe in the supernatural are insane, I apologise to the innocent people - especially transgenders and sexually abused girls who got pregnant - for them being dragged into this.

I will not for my statements directed at a vast majority of people believing in (a) God or Gods who I really feel should feel more secure about what they choose to believe, having such large numbers of people who agree with them.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Guest

[Guest]

This is an intelligent reflection on what you've read in (or about) the Satanic Bible with some excellent critical thinking. 

It's very ethical as you discuss morals and how following principles effect (other) people. I like it and am grateful for the energy and thought you put into this.

I would however like to challenge one part of it, the ability to prove or disprove the existence of God:

13 hours ago, ErosWired said:

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.

You give examples of things that exist, although we can't see them or otherwise register them with any of our senses, and where its existence has been proven by theoretical physics or higher mathematics.

What I like about the natural sciences  is it starts with an open question and trying to not be biased - one way or the other. Doubt, and being open te be proven wrong is at it's core.
In the end by testing theories by experiments, seeing if what the theory predicts actually is the case. 
So Einstein's Theory of Relativity added to (mainly) Newton's Theory of Mechanics and now we live in the age of String Theory.  Not because earlier discoveries where (completely) false but researchers found them incomplete to explain our universe and everything in it. 

You refer to the use of a spectrometer to measure there is oxygen outside of your gar, and not measuring this oxygen inside of it. This actually is proving a positive (outside of the jar) and logical reasoning with regards what's (not) inside of the jar. Not unlike what theoretical physics and higher math's do but on a (slightly) more modest scale.

But this started with discovering there was such a thing as oxygen, what it was and inventing ways to measure it;
It started with proving a positive, as it isn't possible to start with proving a negative. 
If (a) God or Gods exists we would first need a spectre-meter (!) in your analogy.

So no, atheism because there is no proof is not on an equal footing with faith based on... o
n what actually?
 

 

On a more practical note different religions differ in their definition of who God is, and people in India believe there are several, as the Greek and Vikings did in the past.
They also differ on their views of what this God (or Gods) wants from us, resulting in violent arguments and even wars.

If a God ever has existed, perhaps he, she or it (or they) has (have) left or willed itself out of existence because of the terrible mess the bunch of idiots we are as a human race are making of things.

Because I'm from Western Europe I know more about Christianity than the others and a lot of the things that someone called Jesus preached makes sense and are brilliant and still revolutionary with regards to ethical norms, how we could treat each other a lot nicer.
Personally I don't need to believe his mother was somehow still a virgin after becoming pregnant - by a Holy Spirit which makes the guy the offspring of God - to value what he apparently said. It only makes it harder for other people to hear all the useful and beautiful stories from religious texts and in stead of putting these inspirational texts to good use they start fighting because of which are and which aren't of a Divine origin. 

This God-person (or persons) clearly knows human nature very badly and can't be omniscient AND a very nice chap (or girl, or trans) because he (or she or them) then would be partially responsible for this mess.

 

Add to that the belief God (or Gods) having the power to create everything, actually having created or caused the creation of everything - including bone-cancer in children - and God seems (or the Gods seem) more like a sadist / sadists than (a) loving or benevolent creature(s).
According to different faiths and religions I'm risking eternal damnation for what they call this blasphemy and I'm taking it in the same stride as their view that I have damned my soul for loving other men, both romantically and facially. 

People - present company excluded @ErosWired and some others - should grow up and not need a God, the promise of Heaven or the threat of Hell to learn to live well.

❤️

Edited August 19, 2022 by Guest

[120DaysofSodom]

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.)

Edited August 19, 2022 by 120DaysofSodom