Who Believes In Me?
- Thread starter Anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- religions
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,814
JerryB said:
That's because satanists understand the ultimate futility of life while other organised religions still think their god wants them to act in that way.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Atrocities are committed in the name of all manner of religious faiths, but surely the point is that Christianity does not actually teach its followers to kill and murder (even if misguided representatives have done so). Indeed, it espouses the opposite to death and carnage; whereas Satanism definitely subscribes to ritual sacrifice, including human sacrifice. Even Crowley's published work, Magick in Theory and Practice, advocates child sacrifice. Crowley, of course, was accused of performing such rituals ~ something, incidentally, he never denied.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,814
Exorcistate said:
Oh well then it haaaaaaaaaas to be true....
A
Anonymous
Guest
Whether true or not, impressionable followers of Crowley, and indeed Satanism, nonetheless carry out ritual murder in the belief that this is what Crowlianity and Satanism requires of them. Edward Bibby copied the child ritual sacrifice advocated by Crowley in Magick in Theory and Practice. The Italian teenagers murdered a nun, inspired by Church of Satan member Marilyn Manson, and, as recounted in their own journals, because they wanted to serve Satan and believed this is what was needed.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,814
See the keyword there is impressionable. More than likely they would have killed even if they didn't have access to those materials.
What about Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe, Fred and Rose West, Haigh, Crippen.........et al? What religion were/are they?
What about Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe, Fred and Rose West, Haigh, Crippen.........et al? What religion were/are they?
Killings carried out by deranged indivduals, whatever their religious outlook, aren't all that commonplace. Even if they kill for Satan, Jesus, Allah, whatever - they shouldn't be taken as representative of a wider problem or some sort of grand plan. Killings by people who think they are or claim to be Satanists says absolutely nothing about Satanism. It certainly doesn't make the CoS some sort of organisation hell-bent on murder and mayhem. And even if it did, in the end game, they are doomed to failure - Satan can never win, if one ascribes to how Christianity describes the end of the world. As I've said before, if Satan is using these sorts of killings to further his own ends, he's remarkably inept in the wider scheme of things. The general poplace is more in danger of being hit by lightning than being killed by a Satanist.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I refer all posters to religioustolerence.org
here you will find information on both the formation of modern satanism, it's belefes and practices.
You will also find information on the blood lible a faling of organised religion and a persicution that modern satanists have to live under. In this respect they are no difrent to early christians, those of the jewish faith throughout history ect, ect (the list is endless.)
I see little tolerance in the tone of the antisatanist posts on this thread and morn the death of true 'christian' love.
But then Neicher (misspelt) wanted to envision a world without christian love and I'm inclined to agree. Christianity seems to have become more rather than less intolerant as the last 100 or so years have passed. A great example of this is the Catholic faith that has rejected much of the positive ideas from Vatican 2 in favour of a medival carving of deathheads.
Religion preaches tolerance with one mouth and hate with the other. I am sadend to see this in evidance on this thread.
(by the way, I am an athiest. Athiests are, paradoxicly, more spiritualy inclined than those who beleve in god as we think of god's non-existance aslmost constantly.)
here you will find information on both the formation of modern satanism, it's belefes and practices.
You will also find information on the blood lible a faling of organised religion and a persicution that modern satanists have to live under. In this respect they are no difrent to early christians, those of the jewish faith throughout history ect, ect (the list is endless.)
I see little tolerance in the tone of the antisatanist posts on this thread and morn the death of true 'christian' love.
But then Neicher (misspelt) wanted to envision a world without christian love and I'm inclined to agree. Christianity seems to have become more rather than less intolerant as the last 100 or so years have passed. A great example of this is the Catholic faith that has rejected much of the positive ideas from Vatican 2 in favour of a medival carving of deathheads.
Religion preaches tolerance with one mouth and hate with the other. I am sadend to see this in evidance on this thread.
(by the way, I am an athiest. Athiests are, paradoxicly, more spiritualy inclined than those who beleve in god as we think of god's non-existance aslmost constantly.)
I don't expect any Christians to be tolerant of 'Satanism' - and why should they be? Technically, it's diametrically opposed to everything Christianity stands for. The main drive of my posts WRT this matter is that what is perceived to be Satanism is more akin to either deranged acts or various groups who imagine themselves to be Satanists. But whether Satanism truly exists as an organised religion that is a true opponent of Christianity is another thing entirely. I don't think the CoS, OTO, etc. fit this bill at all.
A
Anonymous
Guest
It dosn't matter Satanism is in oposition to christianity or not it can still be a belief system and should be respected as such
A
Anonymous
Guest
That's a bit of a catch all. Could easily cover Nazism as well. Does the belief system of Himmler's SS elite, `Teutonic' knights, count as satanism, I wonder? Should we respect their beliefs, no doubt sincerely held?
What do these satanists really believe? What is it they think they're doing? And who to?
A
Anonymous
Guest
This is an apple, this is an orange.
Why bring fachism into it? Some satanists are fachists yes but then so are some christians and athiasts.
I do not see, beyond the moral panic conserning satanism, any evil in it as it is practiced by most of it's followers.
i would argue that linking satanism and fachism is a slur of the highesd degree.
Why bring fachism into it? Some satanists are fachists yes but then so are some christians and athiasts.
I do not see, beyond the moral panic conserning satanism, any evil in it as it is practiced by most of it's followers.
i would argue that linking satanism and fachism is a slur of the highesd degree.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sorry James, as far as `belief systems' go I think I have a valid point. Christians, also can be fascists. I'd happily make a similiar comparison, if we are discussing the abuse of power.
But, Nazism, went quite beyond politics, unlike Italian fascism, it was everything. It extended its hold even into religion. Quite purposely.
What is it satanists think they're doing? Isn't it about the pursuit of power? Freeing of the individual from constraints, perhaps. But, to what end?
A
Anonymous
Guest
I always thought Satanism was about the realisation that you are responsable for your own actions and have no recorse to a godhead.
I supose that for some liberation is a licence to be cruel but it aint necesarly so.
I do not think that libitarianism nesesarly ends in anarchy. This idea goes back as far as (and further than) deSade who based his work upon this idea. But it was not libirty that caused the crusades, the crusifiction of that gay man (I forget his name) in Texis or even the gas chambers.
These things where caused by socioeconomic preasures and the disfunction of individuals conciousneses (that's not a real word is it?)
The cruilty that a satanist may exibit is no more caused by the religion they follow than the cruilty that may be exibited by the follower of any other belief system.
I supose that for some liberation is a licence to be cruel but it aint necesarly so.
I do not think that libitarianism nesesarly ends in anarchy. This idea goes back as far as (and further than) deSade who based his work upon this idea. But it was not libirty that caused the crusades, the crusifiction of that gay man (I forget his name) in Texis or even the gas chambers.
These things where caused by socioeconomic preasures and the disfunction of individuals conciousneses (that's not a real word is it?)
The cruilty that a satanist may exibit is no more caused by the religion they follow than the cruilty that may be exibited by the follower of any other belief system.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I think that's `Existentialism,' actually. Surely the name, `satanist,' actually points to a putative `godhead?' Satan's not a real person after all.
As an anarchist, I take exception to you linking satanism to libertariansim. You can be a Christian and still be a libertarian, you know. Even `Stirnerite egoism' doesn't count as satanism. However repugnant it might seem.
A
Anonymous
Guest
No atempt to ofend and i'm sorry if I did.
Ofcorse you can be an advocate of free will regardless of your belief system.
Ofcorse you can be an advocate of free will regardless of your belief system.
Altho' there seems to be no central Satanist tenet (leaving aside what CoS, etc. may claim or say), in theory one would guess that it is a religion which worships Satan and is dedicated to opposing Christianity and it's moral teachings in order for Satan to triumph over God. However, that's the theory. In practice, I don't think anything like this exists in any cohesive form. I think people like to attach the label to themselves, for their own agendas and through misperception of other belief systems. And I'm sure some do it just to shock, or to gain some sort of notoriety, or because they identify with it because it fulfils some rebellious whims.
A
Anonymous
Guest
AndroMan said:
The problem with belief systems is that they can prosper equally well in aerobic and anaerobic environments, if you get my drift. Truth and reality and fact are irelevant to belief systems: they can cope fine without any of those things to feed them.
The phrase 'Everyone's entitled to their opinion' springs to mind. And then I scream at them, 'NO!! They're only entitled to INFORMED opinions!' (But I've been told that POV makes me a Fascist. And there I thought I was a Confucian.)
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2002
- Messages
- 784
Hmmm. Quite a conversation going here, eh?
First off, I'm pretty sure that Anton la Vey (don't jump on me if I can't spell it) was posing. Back when I lived in San Francisco, a roommate of mine knew him and often went to his digs. Considering that my roommate was very theatrical and very into bondage, I suspect Anton la Vey to be of the same type.
Second, here in the USA at least, Christianity has been co-opted by the literalists. They are loud. They say things that are very uninformed, and they amuse the media, so they get more culture-wide exposure than any other type of Christianity. (Except for this current bit about RC clergy and their perchant for child sexual abuse.)
Third, I do think that, in spite of the nastiness done in the name of G-d in the past, the Judeo-Christian culture has, actually, been a good influence on the West, especially by emphasizing that we humans need to take care of each other, even take care of people to whom we are not related by blood.
Fourth, the RCs, Orthodox, and (some) Anglicans may believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but they are forgetting that Jesus tended to speak in metaphors. Eating human flesh and drinking human blood would be very far from Jewish practice--Jesus being a Jew, after all. When I celebrate Eucharist, I believe that the congregation and I are reaching back in time to that last supper that Jesus had with his disciples--we are making a connection there and with all people who have sought after G-d in whatever form they perceive G-d to be.
Christians were never told to threaten other people into becoming Christians. In history, most forced conversions have a basis in economic realities, not spiritual ones. Always ask: who is going to profit?
Blessing on you all whatever you believe (or do not believe). Just don't bash each other, okay?
First off, I'm pretty sure that Anton la Vey (don't jump on me if I can't spell it) was posing. Back when I lived in San Francisco, a roommate of mine knew him and often went to his digs. Considering that my roommate was very theatrical and very into bondage, I suspect Anton la Vey to be of the same type.
Second, here in the USA at least, Christianity has been co-opted by the literalists. They are loud. They say things that are very uninformed, and they amuse the media, so they get more culture-wide exposure than any other type of Christianity. (Except for this current bit about RC clergy and their perchant for child sexual abuse.)
Third, I do think that, in spite of the nastiness done in the name of G-d in the past, the Judeo-Christian culture has, actually, been a good influence on the West, especially by emphasizing that we humans need to take care of each other, even take care of people to whom we are not related by blood.
Fourth, the RCs, Orthodox, and (some) Anglicans may believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but they are forgetting that Jesus tended to speak in metaphors. Eating human flesh and drinking human blood would be very far from Jewish practice--Jesus being a Jew, after all. When I celebrate Eucharist, I believe that the congregation and I are reaching back in time to that last supper that Jesus had with his disciples--we are making a connection there and with all people who have sought after G-d in whatever form they perceive G-d to be.
Christians were never told to threaten other people into becoming Christians. In history, most forced conversions have a basis in economic realities, not spiritual ones. Always ask: who is going to profit?
Blessing on you all whatever you believe (or do not believe). Just don't bash each other, okay?
A
Anonymous
Guest
RE: QUASI-RELIGIOUS/OCCULTIC NAZISM
According to Himmler, children conceived in a graveyard were imbued with the spirit of the dead that lay there. In consequence, SS personnel were encouraged to sire their offspiring to tombstones - tombstones of noble Aryans. Cemeteries which research had proved to house the bones of the appropriate Nordic types were duly recommended, and lists of them were regularly published in the offical SS newspaper. The belief also took hold that the Gods and the first Germans had once lived together on the island of Atlantis.
Each of the twelve presiding "knights" would have a room of his own, decorated in the style of a specific historical period - the period, according to most commentators, corresponding to his own supposed previous incarnation. In the great North Tower, the thirteen "knights" were to meet at ritualised intervals. Below, in the precise centre of the crypt beneath the tower, would burn a sacred fire, reached by three steps, and about the walls stood twelve stones pedestals, the true planned use for which is unknown. These numbers of three and twelve find constant repetition in the architecture of the rebuilding project. Symbolism was crucial: around the castle, and centred upon the crypt, the planned town was to radiate out in meticulosly plotted concentric circles. Himmler himself spoke frequently of geomancy, "earth magic," and ley lines, and Stonehenge. The offical journal of the Ahnenerbe - the occult research bureau of the SS - would constantly publish articles devoted to such subjects.
To Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführer SS, the group was effectively a new order of Teutonic Knights. In 1936, he sent out a memorandum defining the holidays, which were to be based upon paganism and mixed with this new "Nazism," for example Hitler's Birthday (April, 20th), as well as the pagan May Day, June 21st Summer Solstice, Harvest Feast, to the Winter Solstice and Yule were all reinstated. He also devised ceremonies meant to eventually replace Christian rituals in the New Order; naming rites to replace Christian baptism as an example.
According to Himmler, children conceived in a graveyard were imbued with the spirit of the dead that lay there. In consequence, SS personnel were encouraged to sire their offspiring to tombstones - tombstones of noble Aryans. Cemeteries which research had proved to house the bones of the appropriate Nordic types were duly recommended, and lists of them were regularly published in the offical SS newspaper. The belief also took hold that the Gods and the first Germans had once lived together on the island of Atlantis.
Each of the twelve presiding "knights" would have a room of his own, decorated in the style of a specific historical period - the period, according to most commentators, corresponding to his own supposed previous incarnation. In the great North Tower, the thirteen "knights" were to meet at ritualised intervals. Below, in the precise centre of the crypt beneath the tower, would burn a sacred fire, reached by three steps, and about the walls stood twelve stones pedestals, the true planned use for which is unknown. These numbers of three and twelve find constant repetition in the architecture of the rebuilding project. Symbolism was crucial: around the castle, and centred upon the crypt, the planned town was to radiate out in meticulosly plotted concentric circles. Himmler himself spoke frequently of geomancy, "earth magic," and ley lines, and Stonehenge. The offical journal of the Ahnenerbe - the occult research bureau of the SS - would constantly publish articles devoted to such subjects.
To Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführer SS, the group was effectively a new order of Teutonic Knights. In 1936, he sent out a memorandum defining the holidays, which were to be based upon paganism and mixed with this new "Nazism," for example Hitler's Birthday (April, 20th), as well as the pagan May Day, June 21st Summer Solstice, Harvest Feast, to the Winter Solstice and Yule were all reinstated. He also devised ceremonies meant to eventually replace Christian rituals in the New Order; naming rites to replace Christian baptism as an example.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Now that my question about 'satanism' has been thoroughly answered - and even though the person who voted for it in the poll above did not seem to take part in the discussion - can we move on?
I am curious about the category on the poll called 'non-practising Christians', because it sounds like a contradiction in terms - if you are not practising Christianity, how can you call yourself a Christian? What are you practising instead?
Or does it mean non-church-going? Can you be a devout Christian without going near a church?
Heather.
I am curious about the category on the poll called 'non-practising Christians', because it sounds like a contradiction in terms - if you are not practising Christianity, how can you call yourself a Christian? What are you practising instead?
Or does it mean non-church-going? Can you be a devout Christian without going near a church?
Heather.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The question ought to be put to those who devised this thread's questionnaire really. You are right, a "non-practicing Christian" is a "non-Christian."
Since the church is where two or more gather in His name, it is not a yardstick as to whether groups gather in a traditional building or not, but the latter makes sarcedotal dispensation of the sacraments in a consecrated area that much easier.
A practicing Christian is one who daily follows Christ to the best of his/her ability and is responsive to their calling as a disciple.
Since the church is where two or more gather in His name, it is not a yardstick as to whether groups gather in a traditional building or not, but the latter makes sarcedotal dispensation of the sacraments in a consecrated area that much easier.
A practicing Christian is one who daily follows Christ to the best of his/her ability and is responsive to their calling as a disciple.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2001
- Messages
- 755
A question has just occurred to me and i don't know the answer:
Could you live by the socially accepted moral codes AND be a Satanist or in other words could one be a 'good' Satanist.
Could you live by the socially accepted moral codes AND be a Satanist or in other words could one be a 'good' Satanist.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,814
Edward said:
That's like asking is it possible for the catholic church to accept that they have paedophiles in charge of parishes all over the world and can they possibly turn them over to the police please?
In my opinion if you're in the service of Satan you beleive in his ideals. Satan hates or hated mankind and veiwed it as nothing better than an animal, therefore a Satanist has to hate mankind.
Anyone who tries to argue otherwise is either not tuned into all the facts of their religion or they have some problems commiting themselves to their beleif.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2001
- Messages
- 755
I might be wrong (usually am) but I thought that Satan (meaning accuser?) was pissed off with Gods treatment of humans and was thus banished from heaven to earth to live among them as punishment, thus presumably (in his mind) loving humans more than God.
therefore does he also hate himself?
therefore does he also hate himself?
A
Anonymous
Guest
I thought that Satans beef with god about humans was that god loved humans more than he did the Angels.
Mind you, I could be wrong as well. (It's never beyond the bounds of possibility)
Mind you, I could be wrong as well. (It's never beyond the bounds of possibility
)- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,814
Edward said:
Under the assumption that Satan is also Lucifer and Lucifer being the arch angel that expected to be rewarded for his service to God by receiving the Earth kingdom for all angels then he certainly doesn't like mankind.
Lucifer considered himself and other angels to be of higher stature than humans because humans were nothing more than beasts made of earth whereas angels were made of fire. Lucifer took too much pride in his position in heaven and his appearance and was also unwillling to be God's obedient little slave for all etertnity.
God saw the threat in this and after a succesful invasion of Earth by Lucifer and a group of I think 6 other angels he finally imprisoned Lucifer deep beneath the Earth kingdom along with his followers in seperate cells.
At least this is how I remember reading it, albeit a long time ago.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Exorcistate said:
The viewpoint put forward in your first paragrasph is not exactly forgiving is it? Surly a person can beleve in Christ but not subscribe to any particular religion? I have always asumed that this is what a non practicing christian is.
I'm glad to see that the thread has got off the topic of satanism. It was threatening to get a bit boring.
A
Anonymous
Guest
You are confusing "denomination" with "religion."
If you believe in Christ and accept Him into your life, irrespective of any or even no denomination, you have, ipso facto, become a Christian, ie a follower of Christ, and you are therefore a "practicing Christian."
To believe in Christ means that you believe what He taught and would obviously want, at least, to attempt to put His teachings into action. Now whether you do this within the formal framework of a particular denomination, or choose to practice within a small group of similar minded Christians of no fixed denomination, does not effect your answer to the question of religion and whether or not you practice it.
If you believe in Christ and accept Him into your life, irrespective of any or even no denomination, you have, ipso facto, become a Christian, ie a follower of Christ, and you are therefore a "practicing Christian."
To believe in Christ means that you believe what He taught and would obviously want, at least, to attempt to put His teachings into action. Now whether you do this within the formal framework of a particular denomination, or choose to practice within a small group of similar minded Christians of no fixed denomination, does not effect your answer to the question of religion and whether or not you practice it.
A
Anonymous
Guest
i agree with your argument and apolagise if I misunderstood your post.
however I beleve that the 'non practicing christian' option is intended for people who do not engage in any form of formalised worship. By this i mean people who beleve but do not feal that their beleif needs to be demonstrated by worship either within a formal or informasl group. In other words those who beleve but do not 'practice' thgat belief. I know meny christians who fall into this catagory.
however I beleve that the 'non practicing christian' option is intended for people who do not engage in any form of formalised worship. By this i mean people who beleve but do not feal that their beleif needs to be demonstrated by worship either within a formal or informasl group. In other words those who beleve but do not 'practice' thgat belief. I know meny christians who fall into this catagory.