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

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, 120DaysofSodom said:

****(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.)

It's not a bug.
The other word / name for Devil is automatically replaced by the name of that truly vile women. 
See for further reference the Banned words? topic: 

And I would be very interested in your view on how @ErosWired discussed the 9 Satanic Statements as I have read the Satanic Bible but don't consider myself part of any denomination and see the book as a reference or starting point.

I couldn't resist challenging the (Christian) theistic viewpoint myself.

Hail You.

[Guest]

Enjoyed reading this thread and the depth of thought many have expressed. I would consider myself a theistic pagan who sort of keeps the Big S on a shelf (literally as I have symbols above my bed). Never raised xtian (never had an adult convo with my parents about why they hated church, always regretted that). However growing up in the UK I was of course culturally groomed by the church. I do come from the branch of the family that experiences "weird shit" which is enough to say why I'm theistic. It took a long time to shirk that culture and it's moral framework.

As I took a sort of classical approach to pagan life, picking up gods or forces as and when, it usually ties in with my thoughts and life at the time. I in no way expect anything from a god in terms of guidance or gifts or offerings, as I think we are equipped to make our own decisions and control our own lives. The Big S to me though represents independence of thought, and reassurance that I have it all in me. As I had quite little xtian indoctrination, I have only done one act of blasphemy which to me was done purely to affirm that I don't recognise the supreme authority of this god or his men over me. Others, particularly gay men, have been wounded far more then me by the church and it's control, so I do understand the need to perhaps do it more often and take diabolic pleasure in it.

Ultimately I would say that once I took responsibility for myself I became kinder, more tolerant and less likely to take shit from people who have contracted out their world view to old men in a church somewhere. If I act a bit of a tosser sometimes, it's my self awareness that I work on and make amends myself. The idea that I would impose my world view on someone else is horrific but I have no compulsion about standing up for myself when, largely xtians, start talking nonsense about my sexuality or personal morals.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, cannero said:

As I had quite little xtian indoctrination, I have only done one act of blasphemy which to me was done purely to affirm that I don't recognise the supreme authority of this god or his men over me. Others, particularly gay men, have been wounded far more then me by the church and it's control, so I do understand the need to perhaps do it more often and take diabolic pleasure in it.

The problem with - at least how I see it - on taking the exact opposite position of an oppressive system, one still allows it to define you partially. That's why it's important to stand up, not only for our own sexuality and morals but for other people as well who because of different attributes share similar experiences.

"The victim who is able to articulate the situation of the victim has ceased to be a victim: 
he or she has become a threat."   -   James Baldwin 

Using in this case blasphemous and other sensitive symbols can have the effect, to hit a nerve drawing out underlying bigoted points of view, or stands that in other ways can be interpreted as un-Christian.
Sometimes that works, sometimes it fails.

Enjoyed reading your contribution, very personal and with an honest sound to it with no hint of trying to convert anyone. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Guest

[loadzgoinholes]

Ok, first - if that devil/Palin thing is true, it is hilarious!

As codified belief systems go, I'm what you'd call a hard core atheist. But I love the libertine nature of LaVey's tenets. 

The "do unto others" concept has been around in every religion - irrespective of how hypocritically the actions of those who believe in the supernatural turn out to be. At base, all religion is entirely about a power structure. And in that sense it is very often the restrictive nature (authority has to come from SOMEwhere) where the individual becomes less than an individual and more of a subject. And that is where I find my greatest disgust for religion. Hitchens said it best "And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea."

But hey, if somebody gets off and fucks with more intensity because they believe some supernatural entity is heightening their actions, I'm happy to reap the benefits!😈 Those dirty, sinful (or, if a Satanist, celebrated) actions make things much hotter. I've had the "fallen" experience a couple of times: one an actual priest, the other just very religious - and wow were those great lays. It was liberating for them, yes; but also I don't for a second doubt they got off a little harder because they knew what they were doing was "wrong". 

So: float your boat on the tide that serves you, I guess. I'll end with a Douglas Adams quote:

“And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.”

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, loadzgoinholes said:

I'll end with a Douglas Adams quote:

“And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.”

"Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone to tell anyone about it, the Earth was unexpectedly demolished to make way for a new hyperspace bypass, and so the idea was lost, seemingly for ever."

[hntnhole]

On 8/18/2022 at 4:18 AM, BareLover666 said:

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

Neither am I.  The way I see it, they are more often diametrically opposed than in sync, or even complimentary of each other.  Religion being the "home" of the imaginary, albeit occasionally uplifting belief system, and science being the home of provable facts, and thus a rational belief system.  It's not that they cannot co-exist in the human mind, it's that generally religion demands that one suspend belief in facts, and accept the magical in it's place.  

Imagine, for instance, the absurdities of the proposal that all the religious Christian human beings that have passed, will one day be resurrected, and in-the-flesh.  This would require, for instance, that all the folks who's ships sank at sea, their corpses gobbled up by the fish, shit out, gobbled up by more creatures of the deep, repeated for millennia, will magically be restored, in their (verrrry well digested) flesh, and fly up in the sky at the magical sound of the last trumpet.  Of course, this magical process will be restricted only to the "faithful".  Science doesn't require anything like that of us. Rational thought doesn't require any intellectually insulting outrage like that.  One fish-bone plus another fish-bone (no matter how many times it interacted with human remains) equals 2 fish-bones, period.

It's entirely rational to believe that doing good by our fellow humans, and avoid doing bad things - as defined by rational thinking - is a productive and fulfilling way to live.  I'll place my faith in a rational belief-system, thankyouverymuch.

[Guest]

23 hours ago, ErosWired said:

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.

“Not all musicians believe in God, but they all believe in Johann Sebastian Bach.”   ―   Mauricio Kagel

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

t's entirely rational to believe that doing good by our fellow humans, and avoid doing bad things - as defined by rational thinking - is a productive and fulfilling way to live.  I'll place my faith in a rational belief-system, thankyouverymuch.

There are of course other things needed to live well;
Love, Compassion, Confidence, etc. or in one word:

Heart.

[hntnhole]

There is one area of human activity that we must thank Romanism and resultant Lutheranism for, namely the musical genius it inspired (which continues to this day).  

No one who knows what "midde c" means could dispute that J.S. Bach's gigantic abilities gave us both choral and instrumental creations of mind-boggling complexities of his counterpoint, and wonderfully lovely lyricism,  For uttermost delightful symmetry we thank Mozart, one of the best of the wanton rakes of his day, creating music of unparalleled grace, balance and sheer loveliness.  Of course there have been many artists following in those foundational footsteps, and as a musician, I can say there are scholars today who spend their careers studying these scores, and discovering previously-unrealized complexities of composition.  

So, given my disgust at the actual institution, fairness dictates that I at least give what credit is due to institutionally organized religion.  So far, I can only come up with this one .... 

 

[BannedWord]

14 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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.

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] 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] 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] 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.

[ErosWired]

On 8/17/2022 at 11:40 PM, 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,

John Milton did it first, of course, and did it best:

Here at least

we shall be free; the Almighty hath not built

Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:

Here we may reign secure, and in my choice

to reign is worth ambition though in Hell;

Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

- Paradise Lost, Book I, lines 258-63

[BBArchangel]

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

[ErosWired]

13 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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.
 

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:

14 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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.

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.

14 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

If (a) God or Gods exists we would first need a spectre-meter (!) in your analogy.

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.

[ErosWired]

51 minutes ago, 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.

😉

[ErosWired]

9 hours ago, loadzgoinholes said:

The "do unto others" concept has been around in every religion - irrespective of how hypocritically the actions of those who believe in the supernatural turn out to be.

One observation about that - this “do unto others” concept common to many faiths is specifically in the sense of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. The concept is that a person should act toward other individuals in ways that will inspire positive reciprocity.

Compare that with The Satanic Bible, the tenets of which are slanted slightly differently, and can be broadly interpreted as “do unto others as they do unto you”.

The difference appears subtle, but it is potentially profound. In the first case, performing the instruction always sets the stage for positive reciprocity, resulting in a positive feedback loop. This can happen as well in the second case, but - if the person does unto the other as the other did negatively unto him, a negative feedback loop can be instigated. Therefore, the second “do unto others” case has a significant flaw that renders it inferior as a social construct.