Satanism

* I think

 

People use Satanism in three ways: either to sound cool and edgy, to generally be a religious belief that’s ironically against religion or because they truly do worship Satan or chaos. I’m not a fan of any of those three, hence I won’t support it.

 

I agree @Castielle it is very stupid name, though my reasons are purely from marketing and PR perspective.
Regarding your comment neither I and also LaVeyan Satanist bible dont really believe that Satan exist the way you think, neither it does or doesnt want you win anything. There is no satan. Period. Same applies to god. Just to be clear, I am no satanist, so I am really dont want to be advocate for something I am not part of. I am just an atheist who is surprised that my own believes developed from what I learnt and from my life experiences and lessons have quite lot of common with that book. That's all.

Thank you @Icarυѕ for your interest in this topic and my comments, I read it all carefully, but I didnt come here to argue with anybody as I have already learned it will lead nowhere. I spent 12 years at catholic elementary and grammar schools, I have even Confirmation, so I am already aware of all you have said. At the same time I am aware, that no matter I would tell you, wouldnt change your mind. Therefore best we can do is just to avoid this argument and focus on why we really came here.
So good luck on your PMO free journey and stay strong!

 

Calm down friend, I'm not trying to convince you of anything nor convert you. I'm simply commenting on what you've written.

I never understood though why so many in their defense present an argument of authority. I've met plenty of Catholics who've spent a longer time in the Church than you and who don't understand the basic principles of their Catholic Christian faith. Just because you've been to catholic elementary school and were confirmed doesn't mean you know your Catholic theology. Now if you were in your 90s and went through Catholic school and confirmation prior to Vatican II then I would reconsider.

 

Very true I went to catholic school and it really didn’t help me understand god or the Bible it wasn’t until I stopped pmo and try to strengthen my faith did I understand Jesus and his teachings church is nice and all but I think it’s more important to have a personal relationship with god than relying solely on the church I basically had to reteach myself but then again when I was younger I didn’t really care enough and my parents forced me but I always knew God was real

 

Yeah, wasn't a good moment for me WS.. the OP put a similar reply on one of my forum threads.. Cheers

 

I agree and disagree but that's a topic for another thread. The main thing I was addressing is fallacy that just because someone says their Catholic doesn't automatically mean they know Catholic theology.

When I view Christianity I cant reconcile the belief that it's possible to have a personal relationship with Christ without His mystical body the Church. Even the bible itself stressed the importance and necessity for the Church in every Christian's life in 1 Timothy 3:15. But that's all I'll say on this subject.

LeVay satanism is a shock response to the Christian belief in self denial and redemptive suffering. Satan in the bible is an angel who rebelled against authority and many use him to embody their rebellion against an authority which tells them how to live their life. What many miss out on though is that Christ was also a rebel, but one who's rebellion was founded in selfless love and not selfish indulgence. The lesson here is that if love is not pointed upward towards something greater than ourselves where it can grow and grow then it points downward towards ourselves where it creates selfishness and destruction.

No matter what we do in this life we are servants, but one service leads to freedom while the other leads to slavery. The paradox of life is the service that leads to freedom is found in self-denial while the one that leads to slavery is found in slef-indulgence.

 

Pragmatic Person, this is why we need to focus on recovery from PMO. I resign from the debating society.

 

"Shock response" is great term. I believe this applies to much of the stereotypical atheism we have nowadays in general. ["You can't prove god", "You seriously believe that there is an old man watching over you?", "The bible is a book of fairytales", "It's all Freudian", "How can there be a god in the vast emptiness of space?", "You only believe what you believe because you grew up where you did".] It's always the same kind of argumentation, and I really can't hear it anymore as it misses the point.

 

Rumor has it Lavey was repenting on his death bed

 

The origin of morals has always been something I've been interested in. If we put man on the same scale as every other animal that exists then it would stand to reason that titles such as murderer, rapist, etc would no more be applicable to us than they would to any other animal in the wild. Yet then I think about our ability to be rational creatures and to look inward towards ourselvesx something no other animals has the ability to do. All other living creatures are happy and content because they don't question their animalness. They dont ponder if they're living up to their maximum potential because they always are doing just that. In fact everything like plants, insects, animals, and every living thing around us is always living to its maximum potential but human beings. I believe this is because our intellects have given us the power of choice and with choice comes responsibility and with responsibilities come obligations and an internal law aka conscience which we must answer to. When I've observed my own nature I have been perfectly designed to receive truth and love and live and serve those things. It is interesting also that whenever we want to justify our lack of self control we appeal to the wild and say "this is natural and good because animals are doing it".

 

Philosophers have tried to connect reason and morals for over two thousand years. If you believe in an "internal law" you might want to study Immanuel Kant's take on it (interpreting "internal" not as "internal to your personal subjective psyche" here, but "internal to reason itself"). He tried to conclude morals from the circumstance that we are thinking beings alone.



This video is a good introduction, but could still be a little misleading. May be read the comment and following discussion by "TruthUnadulterated".

 

For myself I don't believe we are the source of the moral law but rather that we have been perfectly designed to receive a moral law. I can see why my use of internal law would be misleading.

 

Nope. It's truth, whether you accept it or not.

Why would they call it Satanism if they don't believe Satan exists? That makes no sense.

Amen.

 

Can you really prove that it's true?

Not everyone interprets scripture the way you do.

 

There can be stuff, that has evidence to support it, yet no proof. You, as agnostic deist, should now that

 

What’s a satanic bible

 

I don't need to prove that something is true for it to be true. Objective reality exists whether we understand it or not. I'm not going to argue with you over whether or not Satan exists. He does, but if you choose not to believe that, that's your choice.

 

I didn't say I don't believe in satan. I think at the very least there's an evil force in the world.

It seems to me you're going against what you said here

https://www.nofap.com/forum/index.php?threads/no-proselytizing.169706/page-2#post-1439412

 

I suppose evidence is of empiric nature, while proof is strictly logical. Empirism is never logical as there is no logical way of getting from single observations to general claims about the nature of anything. The sun rose yesterday morning, it rose today, but that doesn't mean it will do so tomorrow, at least not from a logical viewpoint.