Satanism

How many Heaven Dollars do you get per conversion DB?

E_S

 

A 1.95 for one conversion, 3.95 for each additional conversion. And if you smote a homosexual for living in sin you get an additional 100 Heaven Dollars.

 

Ooh, smoting!

We should make a boardgame, FIDo. Part Monopoly, part Risk!

E_S

 

We could call it modern crusades and instead of army regiments we could use televangelists and missionaries to spread the word of the lord. For god we could use the thimble. Or that old shoe thing. God does seem like an old shoe, doesn't it?


And...and...we could have the Jimmy Swaggart circle of power. Where our televangelists would get caught with prostitutes and weep on national television to gain forgiveness.

 

Oooh, can I be the car? Or the Napolenic-era cavalry?

E_S

 

Of course. Or you could be the street preacher with the "End is nigh" written on two pieces of wood.

Oh and Catholic corner where all the priests that've molested kids go to be reassigned. And you can even elect the Pope. In this case it'd be one of the cardinals that helped in the cover-up of child molesting charges. *cough*Benedict*cough*

But yeah. We should make this game. Oh and whenever you land on the chance cards 'logic and reason' they're automatically tossed out.

 

Ender_Sai,

Your comments addressed to me would seem to fall under the auspices of "ask a stupid question..."

To which FID presented his version of the proverbial "stupid answer" retort.

All of which hearkens back to my comments pertaining to philosophical immaturity and atrophy, which are components of spiritual blindness.

Thus, the question becomes who is really being victimized? Is damage actually being done to another or oneself? I suppose cruelty in all it's myriad insatiable forms does injury to both, but generally moreso the one inacting the base impulse, and this of course returns to my comment in passing regarding "self-loathing." Might even be restated as falling under a principle of 'receiving as one gives.'



It would be nice, not to mention conducive to an authentically intellectual conversation, to make one's points clear and not 'poetically' obscure as in the case of the loosely aforementioned "tele-evangelists" and "priests charged with molestation." For instance, what do they have to do with the price of tea in China?

The obscurity makes those mentions nonsensical at best, and somewhat without point.

Then again, I might wonder if a point was being innocuously implied that some tele-evangelista(my term) and some predatory wolves in priests vestimentum are in reality---by intention or unintention---philosophical Satanists...to which I would agree.

Now I don't truly believe the former was the intent, but notwithstanding it undermines the seeming inherent motion being presented.

What I think was being suggested is that some how the tele-evagelistas and the priests who prey instead of pray somehow invalidate and inauthenticate Christianity. That is nonsense and fodder of highest order and magnitude and the approach of only the most myopic calibre.

There are so many avenues---in a serious discussion---by which to approach such suggestions.

The first being summed up as "wolves in sheep's clothing,"...an expression extracted from scriptural warnings of apostasy within the Church. The wheat and chafe which Christ prophesied. Such that the fulfillment of such efficacious prophetic clarity and acumen in no way reasonably invalidates the Church corporate.

Another issue would be that these tacit(by virtue of the obscurity of the posts intent) accusations are invariably founded upon a premise of morality and seemingly clear moral imperatives and convictions...which of course can be argued on the grounds a satanist has no true standard of resolute moral convictions...instead being in line with subjective relativism.

Such that implicit finger-pointing pertaining to implied hypocrisy becomes little more than the very foggy thinking found in the colloquial truism expressed commonly as "...the pot calling the kettle black."

To which it might be responded in apt cliche' fashion "...two wrongs don't make a right."



Yada, yada, yada.


Whichever way one chooses to take it, it won't be upon the high-road, and satanism begins to look philosophically silly and foolish in the appraisal of most sensical individuals. Not the least of which considerations is that in the case of the brand of satanic activity as described and prescribed by the late La Vey it is a sham from start to finish.

La Vey can certainly be analogized succinctly, appropriately, and aptly with the most dubious aspects of the chicanery of certain tele-evangelista. The premise of deceit and self-service and opposition to God is foundationally identical. At least in the opinion of many astute observers. And to attempt to fallback to absurd arguments that La Vey was merely presenting a parody on parade is still falling back, to whit, loosing and not gaining ground.

So, it may well be a very fair question to ask how one might intellectually embrace La Vey while disdaining the tele-evangelistas as both would at core be selfishly immature individuals playing radical "me, me, me" charades. And if La Vey was merely following his animal impu

 

Someone wrote satnism is just an excuse for doing evil things. Excuse me, but what about those christian priests pedofils who sexualy abused little children. Come on, THAT is an act of evil, but they should be representatives of god, which should be a symbol of something positive, good in christian belief. But most of those priests (who get cought) get out of the trouble only because they are priests.
That is their excuse for doing evil deeds. Of course, not all priests are like that.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what you belive in, people can be evil or good on both 'sides'.

 

Ahh...if I were a betting man I'd have won.

 

Hunting in a baited field doesn't take any particularly astute or canny insight.

But those attributes are general good components for actual intellectual discourse.


A Fable or Parable of sorts;

Because of a man's need for feelings of superiority he set out to ask a question amidst strangers. Being superior than the rest he predicted that one of 2 things would happen;
1.)Someone would answer. In which case he was superior because he manipulated the outcome and puppeteered the poor dupe.

2.)His question would be ignored, and being the case it would show his superiority because he could ask questions which apparently no one had the answer to...or someone would have responded, right?(Being the case, see point #1.)


The parable rephrased;

Rule #1: The Boss is always right.

Rule #2: If the Boss is ever wrong see Rule #1.


EDITED.

Merely making a point on approaches in reasoning.

 

Not that. Oh and there was no baiting involved. That was just feeding off the E_S's game idea and thinking aloud...or...if you wish, typing aloud.

 

Indeed.

"By their fruits you will know....."

 

At this point it's getting a little too obscure in here.

I have no idea what the last two posts are referencing.

"What we have hear is a failure to communicate."

 

Well I was indicating a quote from Jesus that was basically an answer he gave his dicsiples when they asked how are we to knowe who to follow. In other words if an organization is producing rotten fruits albeit only a few its still probably not them.

 

The first post is about the misrepresentation of Satanists by Christians. It's to 'clear the air' so to speak. Although all I've seen are Christians trying to do the opposite. Interesting topic I'd say. But it achieves nothing if the same misconceptions are perpetuated.

 

DarthOB1,

Can't argue with that formula. But can investigate what we think our fruits are and ought to be.

FID,

I'm certainly not trying to misrepresent "satanists."

You didn't say that I was, but just taking your post at face value I thought it worth mention. I'm familiar with La Vey from a waaaays back.

Over the years the man seemed to present a confusing presentation of his version of satanism, from it being merely a form of atheism to something more metaphysical. Or vice versa, or scrambled in-between.

But even that makes sense from the perspective of the Christian who regards satanism as a form of rebellious confusion, which it basically is at core. If even one wishes to promote it as merely another anti-establishment/ challenge the status quo sort of quasi-ideological pursuit.

 

Nah, I never specifically single people out because that'd be unfair. And I'm all for equal opportunity lashings.

 

Beat me, whip me, call me Edna.

Watch it, you're starting to sound a little too Torqamada.

 

Nah, whipping is bad. And has been outlawed in several states.

 

Nah, whipping is bad. And has been outlawed in several states.

Tell that to my girlfriend.

 

FID,

Are you an avowed "satanist" or just sort of caught positionally by default, or just hanging out in here to enjoy the long dark tea time of the soul until lashing is re-legalized?

 

JKH,

<In the distance we hear a faint echoing, "Spank me, Daddy!"
"Who's your daddy!?!">

Don't ask/Don't tell.

 

Are you an avowed "satanist" or just sort of caught positionally by default, or just hanging out in here to enjoy the long dark tea time of the soul until lashing is re-legalized?

I am a Pagan leaning Atheist. But I have kept up with this thread. Ans lashing should be legal again, viva la lash!

 

Pagan atheism? That kinda sounds like a bit of an oxymoron from where I'm sitting.

Care to give an outlay?

You seem to be suggesting you're inhabiting a positionally borderline/tentative transitional period. So what's attracting you to paganism?

 

I abscribe to some pagan views while being an atheist. It can get confusing.