The Nine Satanic Statements

Great. After two thousand years of ascetic masochism, the last thing humanity needs is a church of over-indulgent sadists.

Both God and Satan are wrong. I, of course, am right.
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

Both God and Satan are wrong. I, of course, am right.
I believe that is exactly what Lucifer would say too.:D
 
But he isn't Lucifer. So...
 
THE Lucifer? The Roman god of light and knowledge whence came the Christian name for Christ's very own adversary?

Bash Satanism all you want but make sure that if you do, you have no knowledge of it's theories and practices, thus sounding as efficiently unknowledgable as possible. :goodjob:
 
@PP - No. A satanist would not go around causing harm to others unless it was provoked. I don't mean a homeless person asking for money gets beaten bloody. I mean someone hurts your child or wife physically or verbally or mentally... I look at it like a John Wayne type thing. 'Don't start none and there won't be none.' One doesn't go looking for trouble, but if trouble is served, deal with it accordingly and in some instances, with interest.
 
Originally posted by floppa21
THE Lucifer? The Roman god of light and knowledge whence came the Christian name for Christ's very own adversary?
:confused: Lucifer ( the name of the Fallen Arch-Angel )is only mention in Isaiah which 45 copies of this book has been found in the dead sea scrolls. the two other arch-angels are Michael and Gabriel all which has more to do with the Jews and the nation Isreal then to the church itself. Satan is one of the titles given to Lucifer which is an adversary to man.( the arch-angels battling it out would make a different meaning to "Star Wars" :) )
 
The biggest trick satan has ever accomplished is fooling humanity into believing that he never existed in the first place
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
So then I was mistaken. A Satanist is not a Sadist, he's an Epicurean.

He still ain't a novelty, floppa ;)

I never said he was! It is a form of humanism and one I particularly like for the arguments brought up against other organized religions.
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
So then I was mistaken. A Satanist is not a Sadist, he's an Epicurean.

He still ain't a novelty, floppa ;)

A Satanist is not an Epicurean. I am an Epicurean. Satanism is traditionally, a "philosophy" or sometimes an ontology that promotes the ideals that the Christian Satan embodies, which has to do with rugged individualism to, at times, an inversion of Judeo-Christian morality for sheer effect. Epicureanism exists as itself, with no need to follow up in an pseudo-spiritualism or reactinary pose like Satanism. Often Satanism is supplimented by a sort of ritualism. Much of Satansim is concerned with symbology. To contrast the two philosophies further-Epicureanism is concerned with gratification of the will, while Satanism is concerned with gratification of the ego.

Also, Satanism is a relatively new concept. What is often called Satanism by the media is simply Medieval Satanism or worship of the Judeo-Christian character of the same name. This is very rare, but has had surgences in France from about the end of the Gnostic era onward, if I recall correctly.
 
But Nietzche is not an Epicurean, Mescalhead... ;) So I fail to see how you can follow Nietzche and Epicurus at the same time.
 
You assume that I follow either philosophy verbatim. No one ever does. They are also extremely congruent I find it. I've thought about a few contrasting arguments, but I also put a high value in Sartre and Schopenhauer, so they often enter the picture. It is not so difficult to prioritize.
 
Satanism represents the same thing as the other religions/cults - an effort for a group of humans to justify their desire to belong to the said group. For some reason we don't seem to be happy just being in a group for the group's sake, and need to add a whole lot of nonsense on top of it. The Satanist group seems to be flabby pale people who secretly wish they were comic book heroes. But that's not much of a creed, so why not make up a bunch of stuff with sketchy references to millenia-old apocrypha?
 
But its not as silly as the Royal Society For Putting Things on Top of Other Things.
 
jpowers' sig applies well to the discussion methinks.
 
Originally posted by floppa21
h4ppy - That would depend on one's definition of 'true satanism' now wouldn't it?

As for metaphysical goo and spiritualism, there isn't much of either in Lavey's brand of Satanism.

I see these statements as both truth and a marketing tool. They are each very true but they are also what we want to hear as Gael said.

Special attention should be put on the 8th statement. Satan is no more an entity or being than God is to a Satanist. 'Do I believe in Satan? Yes. Do I believe in a horned pitchfork wielding demon? No.'

Also notice that a common theme in these is that they are directly in contradiction to so much of what Christianity is based on. The self deceit in #3, the 'spiritual pipedream' in #2, kindness to those who DESERVE it in #4...

In this day and age, Lavey has better rules to live by than Jesus. If you live as Jesus would have you live, you will inherit sh*t.

I'm not a Satanist, so I might be wrong :satan:

I think you are defining what's known among satanist circles as "modern satanism", or kind of "humanism" with a twist. There are also traditional Satanists out there, who actually worship the red horned guy (to direct your attention to www.immortal.com - forums) ;)
 
One word: "YAWN"
 
Back
Top Bottom