Satanism

how exactly does creating something give you sovereign authority over it?

do parents have sovereign authority over the lives of their children? can your father order you to become an accountant or a baker or whatever? can he kill you if you disobey?

my girlfriend and i once created an embryo. we decided to abort it. i'm fine with that, since i don't believe it was a person, but i gather you would not be, despite your claim that creating something gives you sovereign authority over it.

You and your girlfriend didn't "create" the embryo; we humans cannot create ANYTHING. We can merely work with what's already here. God, on the other hand, formed us from nothing. We are the fruit of His imagination, of His love, of His power. So yes, I think He does have sovereign authority over us. children, while UNDER the authority of their parents, are just as human as their parents. Hence, for a parent to take their child's life would be murder.

personally, i believe that all moral authority is necessarily derived from consent. as such, even if there were a God, i would feel no obligation to honor any claims he made as to moral authority over me.

do you have a good reason i should?

please note that fear of his wrath is not a reason. that just makes your God a bully and a tyrant.

also, please note that "He knows what's best for me" is also not a reason. "what's best for me" is entirely subjective and dependent upon my preferences and goals.

Well, that depends on whether or not your preferences and goals are worthy to begin with. You've got to start from the ground up, and if the foundation isn't good, then nothing atop it is either, except what's placed there by Someone Who, quite frankly, "knows best". How on earth do you think, in your finite, human mind, that you can POSSIBLY know better than the Creator of the universe and everything in it? That astounds me. Actually, no it doesn't. Pride was Satan's downfall, and it is the cause of all sin. We want what we want when we want it.

In any event, do you not think His love for you would be enough? I'm 18, I still live in my parents' home, and while I don't have to do EVERYTHING they ask me, I still honor them by doing it, because they love me. Same with God.

Says you. Your only conviction that your God is real is based entirely upon FAITH. You have no evidence that he is any more real than any other god... ALL religions are based on faith... ALL believers in gods do so because of faith.

Although I disagree completely with that, I'd like to say that I said what I said mainly because of her rather immature comment concerning Vishnu "biting" God's head off. I figured I'd respond to an immature comment with one of my own (even though I do believe what I said).

Why are you so special? Why is your faith in a Yahweh any more significant than a Hindu's in Vishnu? Or even for that matter... an ancient Greek's in Zeus, a Roman's in Jupiter, an Egyptian's in Isis? These gods had countless people of faith who believed in them, and so by your reasoning... either ALL gods are real... or ALL gods are fake.

I don't think I'm so special. I think Yahweh is. Hence my faith in Him, and my belief that the rest are fake (either completely nonexistant except in the imaginings of man, or merely disguises of fallen angels to deceive). And how on earth can you possibly KNOW my reasoning? My reasoning in this matter depends upon a number of things, but the main one is a Man named Yeshua. He is the Image of God. I believe historical evidence points to His existance, and lends credence to the gospel accounts. Add in some other factors which I will not detail right now, and that's how I've come to my conclusion about the Biblical God. Were I to believe in Zeus, or Vishnu, or Jupiter or Isis, THEN I would be going on blind faith.

 

personally, i believe that all moral authority is necessarily derived from consent. as such, even if there were a God, i would feel no obligation to honor any claims he made as to moral authority over me.

How can something consent to being created before it exists?

 

The_Fireman - I would be laughing if I didn't realise you were actually being serious.

However, if you listen very carefully, you can hear the sound of the gods... laughing.

 

Are you going to answer my question redxavier?

 

Well, that depends on whether or not your preferences and goals are worthy to begin with.

no, it doesn't. "worthiness" is entirely subjective.

You've got to start from the ground up, and if the foundation isn't good, then nothing atop it is either

who says the foundation isn't good? "good" for what?

How on earth do you think, in your finite, human mind, that you can POSSIBLY know better than the Creator of the universe and everything in it? That astounds me.

why does that astound you? "better" and "worse" are inherently issues of opinion and preference, and are not dependent on the amount of knowledge you have about the universe and everything in it. "better" and "worse" means nothing in and of themselves; something can only be "better" or "worse" in relation to a purpose. are hammers "better" than screwdrivers? that question only makes sense if you know whether you're working with nails or screws.

no god could know what i'm trying to accomplish any more than i do myself.

Were I to believe in Zeus, or Vishnu, or Jupiter or Isis, THEN I would be going on blind faith.

no, you wouldn't. anything you take as being evidence of the existence of Yahweh could also be interpreted as the existence of a number of other deities. how do you know your interpretation is "right?"

you don't know, you believe that you know, or, in other words, you simply have faith, no more or less "blind" than anyone else's.

We want what we want when we want it.

what's wrong with that, in and of itself?

if you, or god, or anyone else, can think of a good reason why i might want something else instead, you're free to make your pitch. however, if i'm not interested, or convinced, i'm not interested or convinced.

We want what we want when we want it.

In any event, do you not think His love for you would be enough?

why should it be? i appreciate the sentiment on his part, but the fact that someone loves me doesn't obligate me to any course of action in my own life.

i have been fortunate enough to have an abundance of love in my life. however, i'm not obligated to stay with lovers i'm no longer in love with, simply because they're in love with me. it doesn't work like that. everyone has responsibility for handling their own emotions and respecting the decisions of others.

in any case, if you really love someone, you respect their choices. love is knowing who someone is and appreciating them for that, and helping them get where they want to go in life to the degree that you can and still be true to yourself.

love is not love if it's not given freely, without strings attached. if there's a god, and he loves me, he loves me, if not, he doesn't, but that's all his bag. whether he does or not carries no weight with me unless i allow it to do so.

I'm 18, I still live in my parents' home, and while I don't have to do EVERYTHING they ask me,

you don't have to do anything they ask you, unless you choose to do so.

I still honor them by doing it, because they love me.

that's your choice. you're not obligated to do so, nor i am obligated to do anything similar in my own life.

i'm living my life. people who love me might want certain things from me, or want me to live a certain way, but the fact that they love me doesn't obligate me to reciprocate.

i'm walking a certain path. if i love you, you're invited to come along, but you're not obligated. if your path and my path diverge, and i love you, i might rethink my own path and bend it to walk along with you for a while, or i might decide that my path is more important and bid you a sad goodbye. if you want to change your mind and come walking with me, that's wonderful, but you have no obligation to do so. i can't force you. if i really loved you, i wouldn't even feel comfortable asking, because the person i love is the person who walks that path.

Same with God.

exactly. same with god. if there is a god, and we happen to be in sync with each other, wonderful. if

 

it can't. accordingly, any moral claims based solely on the fact that the claimant created the other party are fundamentally untenable. that's the point.

Because you assume that consent is necessary. Why is consent necessary?

this is sort of one of the strengths of Satanism, actually: the reverence for freedom and responsibility and the moral sovereignty of the individual will.

Why is it a "strength?"

 

Because you assume that consent is necessary. Why is consent necessary?

because it's necessary in my opinion, and i have no less of a right to an opinion than anyone else, including any given all-powerful deity.

we all set the terms of what we, personally, consider moral or immoral, just or unjust, and i willingly surrender the right and responsibility to do so to no one, under any circumstances. you can force me to do anything, but you can't force me, in my own mind, to approve of it morally, insofar as it is my own mind. i suppose you could brainwash me into doing so, but that wouldn't really be "me" at the other end of the process.

Why is it a "strength?"

because it recognizes the fundamental subjectivity of all moral claims, and encourages us all to accept responsibility for whatever we put into that void, and to understand that that the fact that we are making a given moral claim is all the justification we need.

call it pride if you'd like. neither your judgement nor any god's mean anything to me unless i choose to embrace it on my own terms. Satanism, in some sense, boils down to a simple assertion: if you want me to bow my head, you're going to have to ask politely or break my neck.

and, well, frankly, in the end, if you have to break my neck, i'm going to laugh at your claims to any kind of real authority.

 

because it's necessary in my opinion, and i have no less of a right to an opinion than anyone else, including any given all-powerful deity.

we all set the terms of what we, personally, consider moral or immoral, just or unjust, and i willingly surrender the right and responsibility to do so to no one, under any circumstances. you can force me to do anything, but you can't force me, in my own mind, to approve of it morally, insofar as it is my own mind. i suppose you could brainwash me into doing so, but that wouldn't really be "me" at the other end of the process.

So basically, because you say so.

because it recognizes the fundamental subjectivity of all moral claims, and encourages us all to accept responsibility for whatever we put into that void, and to understand that that the fact that we are making a given moral claim is all the justification we need.

Why is recognition any better than non-recognition?

call it pride if you'd like. neither your judgement nor any god's mean anything to me unless i choose to embrace it on my own terms. Satanism, in some sense, boils down to a simple assertion: if you want me to bow my head, you're going to have to ask politely or break my neck.

So your opinion is what ultimately matter, then?

and, well, frankly, in the end, if you have to break my neck, i'm going to laugh at your claims to any kind of real authority.

Why would I care if you laugh?

 

"God has no equal."

What about all of the other gods in other religions.

What about them? They're fake. Yahweh is the only living God.

Now, I'm not all sure who this Yahweh fellow is, but to say all other gods are fake is a bit misinterpreted, as far as I know.

God, on the other hand, formed us from nothing. We are the fruit of His imagination, of His love, of His power. So yes, I think He does have sovereign authority over us.

Alter a word in there, and you have it. G-D CAN have authority over anything. Whether or not he wants to excercise that authority is a whole separate issue. But I believe G-D wants us to experience freedom meaning He'd not abuse or use His authority. But maybe humans think He would/does?

no god could know what i'm trying to accomplish any more than i do myself.

Even if G-D could know what you're trying to accomplish before you're aware of it:
a) would you want him to use that ability?
b) do you think G-D would really want to intrude your thoughts?

G-D

 

Are you going to answer my question redxavier?

Why Elfstar? I didn't post your quoted text - I'm not the one you asked.

 

Sorry, it wasn't exactly a question. I was just wondering if you agreed with my response. Earlier on the page you said:

Good and evil are merely concepts. In reality, the distinction is social and anti-social.

Believing that it is a black and white issue is, frankly, dangerous because it increases the likelihood of conflict between two people who disagree. Removing the grey means removing the middle ground.

Of course, religions seek to bend people to one perspective on issues, rooting out dissension and ultimately rewardly conformity, which is why they work so well, and why they're always doomed to fail.

Those familiar with history will know what I'm talking about... Christians, apparently representing the goodies, have done some terrible things, even 'evil' things. Heck, even their God is a murderer. So it clearly isn't a black and white issue.

And I responded: By your own beliefs, there is nothing wrong with conflict. You've simply made an arbitrary choice to support the social side instead of the anti-social side. Those on the anti-social side have simply made the opposite choice, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I was wondering if you disagreed with that statement.

 

Satanism has changed my life forever. Its teachings are incredible. I questioned my faith numerous times, but after finding out more on the religion, it drastically changed my aspect on life. Anton Levey is one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century.


For more information check here at:

http://www.churchofsatan.com/







Hail me!

 

By your own beliefs, there is nothing wrong with conflict. You've simply made an arbitrary choice to support the social side instead of the anti-social side. Those on the anti-social side have simply made the opposite choice, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I was wondering if you disagreed with that statement.

Pretty much. There is nothing with conflict, it's inevitable (but conflict isn't limited to combat remember, even a debate is a form of conflict). The whole point of defining good and evil in more realistic terms such as social and antisocial behaviour is so no arbitrary choice can be pronounced. Precisely because what's anti-social for one group is social for another. Hitler for instance may have been antisocial to jews and his political opponents within Germany, and his enemies on the fields across Europe, but he was still a patriotic leader for most Germans (and some were utterly devoted). Likewise, some Christians revere the Pope as the most holy man on Earth, some don't, some see him as a crusty old mortal manipulating the masses for his own personal power and ego, and others still would consider him a sort of anti-Christ. You've got at least 4 different perspectives... perspectives that render such definite descriptions as good and evil entirely meaningless. Who is good and who is evil depends entirely on personal interpretation.

But I caution you or any others against thinking that social and antisocial merely replace the words of good and evil. It's a different concept altogether.

 

Good: An act of Right. A good person seeks justice and is faithful.

Bad: An act of wrongdoing. A bad person seeks to elevate themselves with no respect for others.

Pious: A good person. One who believes in the "True" faith.

Atheist: A blasphemer or heathen who decides not to follow the "Good Book".

Pagan: One of the followers of a dead religion. Utterly despicable creatures. They are as good as rodents.

(Sorry Katana).

Satanist: Anyone who does not believe in the true God. Such people should be hung.

These are definitions from the oldest dictionary in our library. It is a 16th Century Christian Dictionary.
As you can see, Christians hold others in such contempt, that they allow dictionaries to become false with bias.

 

Um, if you'll pardon my jumping in... I would say that that's not the best time period to be getting those definitions from. The church in the Middle Ages had some pretty major problems. Anyway, here is how I would define the terms, and how I hope most Christians would.

Good: Doing what is right.

Bad: Doing what is wrong (sin). All humans are sinful because this world is sinful. Even Christians are still sinful. (I can expand on this, if you want.)

Pious: A "holier-than-thou" attitude. (Please note: personal piety is not a bad thing. Thinking you are better than others is.)

Atheist: Someone who believes there is no god.

Pagan: A heathen. Anyone who is not a Jew or Christian.

Satanist: A worshipper of Satan. (Is it just me, or is that kinda self-explanatory?)

 

So basically, because you say so.

pretty much, but that's what everything ultimately boils down to, anyway.

Why is recognition any better than non-recognition?

it's generally more useful in practical terms.

So your opinion is what ultimately matter, then?

ultimately, yes. if i thought my opinion was wrong, i'd change my opinion to match whatever i thought was right.

Why would I care if you laugh?

your version of God seems to be interested in petty micro-management of human life. don't eat shellfish, don't stick your penis in this or that, come and accept this obscure text written by a bunch of dead nomads as literal truth in every respect, for no particular reason beyond my saying so. he seems to want or even need people to continually prove themselves to him in totally arbitrary and nonsensical ways. the one thing people like that can't stand is being mocked for their petty concerns.

and, hey, even if i'm wrong, at the very least, i would walk away feeling like the winner.

And I responded: By your own beliefs, there is nothing wrong with conflict. You've simply made an arbitrary choice to support the social side instead of the anti-social side. Those on the anti-social side have simply made the opposite choice, and there's nothing wrong with that.

there's nothing objectively wrong with that, no, but by the same token there's nothing objectively wrong with me taking steps to neutralize anti-social elements or remove them from my society.

if you and i have incompatible and conflicting views, we come into conflict. i don't have to believe that i'm objectively right and you're objectively wrong in order to act to implement my vision of the world that i want to live in, even if it's at your expense. i'm not any more objectively "right" than you, but i don't need to be. the question of moral "justification" is moot, as there's no one to justify myself to. there's no judge or jury. the universe as a whole doesn't care who wins our small-scale power struggles and conflicts.

 

So basically, because you say so.

pretty much, but that's what everything ultimately boils down to, anyway.

How do you know?

Why is recognition any better than non-recognition?

it's generally more useful in practical terms.

Define useful.

Why would I care if you laugh?

your version of God seems to be interested in petty micro-management of human life. don't eat shellfish, don't stick your penis in this or that, come and accept this obscure text written by a bunch of dead nomads as literal truth in every respect, for no particular reason beyond my saying so. he seems to want or even need people to continually prove themselves to him in totally arbitrary and nonsensical ways. the one thing people like that can't stand is being mocked for their petty concerns.

Why are their concerns petty?

and, hey, even if i'm wrong, at the very least, i would walk away feeling like the winner.

Why would you feel like a winner?

And I responded: By your own beliefs, there is nothing wrong with conflict. You've simply made an arbitrary choice to support the social side instead of the anti-social side. Those on the anti-social side have simply made the opposite choice, and there's nothing wrong with that.

there's nothing objectively wrong with that, no, but by the same token there's nothing objectively wrong with me taking steps to neutralize anti-social elements or remove them from my society.

Why would you want to do that?

if you and i have incompatible and conflicting views, we come into conflict. i don't have to believe that i'm objectively right and you're objectively wrong in order to act to implement my vision of the world that i want to live in, even if it's at your expense. i'm not any more objectively "right" than you, but i don't need to be. the question of moral "justification" is moot, as there's no one to justify myself to. there's no judge or jury. the universe as a whole doesn't care who wins our small-scale power struggles and conflicts.

How do you know?

 

Satanist:Someone who worships Satan

Yes, I suppose, but back in them days, Christians felt that every person who was not a Christian was personally against them, and therefore was a Satanist. Even Buddhists (Which is really ridiculous, as Buddhists are the most good and peaceful people ever).

I feel that the Christian viewpoint on Satanism is a little weird. If you read Lavey's texts on "10 Easy Steps to Become A Werewolf", you'll know that he was really just a (Slightly Weird) Bloke trying to have some fun. Some of his texts are serious, but check out the Official Site to read them properly. He was smart, but I seriously doubt that Satanists go around Sacrificing people to satisfy their deity.
As many have said before, they are merely Hedonists with a cool name.

And not all Heavy Metal Fans are Satanists. Some claim to be, but are not really. Even I, who listens to Black Metal, the most Satanist type of metal, am not calling myself a Satanist.

 

[image=http://www.miba.auc.dk/~gryn/mothernorth/bands/burzumaske.jpg]

This is the image of a Church Burning in Norway. It appeared on the front of the Aske EP by Burzum, a Black Metal band with one member - Count Griscnach.

Also known as Varg Vikernes.

He was a member of the Inner Circle of the Satanic Terrorists. He killed the inner cirle founder Euronymous, and was then arrested.

However, thanks to former Emperor bassist Mortiis, we now know that the Inner Circle was nothing more than a bunch of Bored Teenagers. So not really all Heavy Metallers are Satanists.

Earlier this year, in Chile, a preiest was shot, and then the gunman killed himself.

The Police investigated the man's home, and pronounced him a Satanist because he had black curtains, a dream catcher and some Heavy Metal albums.

Sort of weird that, isn't it?

 

Sort of weird that, isn't it?

Sort of weird, no. Sort of dumb, hellz yes.

 

As many have said before, they are merely Hedonists with a cool name

I've stumbled across their website once, and they are clear on the difference between the official Church of Satan and devil worship. Satanists consider themselves the "alien elite" and just have a hatred of organized religion in general. They strive to be like Satan and just do whatever feels good, as long as you don't violate anyone else's rights. Actual devil worshippers who sacrifice goats and carve pentagrams on their foreheads are just fringe elements with psychological issues.

 

These are from the website, and you can't make anything of them other than a joke, really:

The Nine Satanic Statements

from The Satanic Bible, ©1969

by Anton Szandor LaVey


1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. Satan 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!

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

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

by Anton Szandor LaVey ©1967


1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another?s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

The Nine Satanic Sins

by Anton Szandor LaVey ©1987

1. Stupidity?The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. It?s too bad that stupidity isn?t painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.

2. Pretentiousness?Empty posturing can be most irritating and isn?t applying the cardinal rules of Lesser Magic. On equal footing with stupidity for what keeps the money in circulation these days. Everyone?s made to feel like a big shot, whether they can come up with the goods or not.

3. Solipsism?Can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won?t. Instead, Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of ?Do unto others as they do unto you.? It?s work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point.

4. Self-deceit?It?s in the ?Nine Satanic Statements? but deserves to be repeated here. Another cardinal sin. We must not pay homage to any of the sacred cows presented to us, including the roles we are expected to play ourselves. The only time self-deceit should be entered into is when it?s fun, and with awareness. But then, it?s not self-decei

 

People are mostly afraid of stanists, but the truth is, people are afraid of what they don't understand. I would say that satanism is a religion as any other, and should be aknowlaged as such.
What I don't understand is do people have so many problems with it.

 

As a Methodist, I don't believe in Satan or Hell. I think it's a really bad choice for anybody to worship the devil. It's just an excuse for doing bad things.

If I ever met a satanist, I'd just be nice and try to avoid them. I wouldn't know what to expect, so I'd stear clear of them to be safe.

 

KMC,

As a Methodist? You don't believe in Satan or Hell?
Which branch of the Methodists hold this as doctrinal?




My only question pertaining to the subject of Satanism as presented in the last few posts, is whether the late Mr. La Vey ever encountered the devil? Being the father of lies, as his protege' Anton might in similar fashion have chosen to lie about believing neither in Satan or God.

Would make sense.

Satanism, per se', for the most part stems from a philosophically atrophied maturity and is tantamount to a form of self-loathing. Which most individuals, the vast majority, recognize on one level or another which is by way of explanation the lack of attraction to the general populace.

Now, here I could make mention of my encounters with the demonic, however, undoubtedly many in the crowd would begin thinking it "intellectual" to attempt to argue against the reality of those incidents...as if they actually know better, which of course they do not.
But just the same it wouldn't hinder such inane attempts.

But, KMC, as a methodist your theology interests me, as the Methodists I know don't seem to share your metaphorical view of the demonic,...and well they do not, as the creatures are quite real. I hope you'll reconsider your position on this theological matter and place more faith in the scriptural content.

Pax