Is Satanism Evil?

[Comrade Tortoise]

Also note, Comrade Tortoise, that LaVey's methods were directly meant to be non-literal. Any literal taking of his words, specifically the 'mere guidelines', is rather stupid, wouldn't you say?

You think whiney teenagers are going to make that distinction? Seriously. Most people are not smart enough to notice non-literal interpretations, and even if you account for some amount of dramatic flourish, it is still an ideology which is aimed at maximizing pleasure with very few checks on it.

The problem is: you interpreted those commandments literally. Mind you, many religions can be disturbing if you interpret their commandments and verses literally. Let's take a look at Christianity for example:

Again, whiney teenagers. Hell, I could apply satanism just to them, and the resuots would be fairly similar, just on a smaller scale

What happens to religious tolerance?

Didnt exist back when the ten commandments were written. Back in that day and age, the people of other religions tried to kill you, and you tried to kill them back.

You cant judge an ancient religion by modern standards, unless that religion is a stupid religion and still exists today. The christians that exist today largly only follow that to a persona extent. They dont worship allah and also worship jesus.

Now, we can both accept that fundamentalism is bad.

BUT. What is the difference here? If I cant judge a religion by modern standards, why then can I make judgments regarding the satanist ideology? I can because it IS modern. Levay intended it to be followed TODAY. It has current followers who are the original "satanists" and thus it can be judged by modern ethical standards.

What should the Christians do to the Buddhists, or the Hindus? Ah, I see the words now: "destroy", "break", and "cut down"

And again, we all know that fundamentalist christianity is bad.

This is a red herring. Argue Satanism on its merits, or dont argue, this is not a thread for bashing christianity, some of which's doctrins are indeed questionable or flat out bad ethically, but who's doctrins are not followed in this way anymore. Outside of the third world, you will not find anyone who interprets the bible in the way you described. Even modern fundamentalists stop at actually enforcing stoning disobedient children to death

Wrong. Hedonism does not call for responsible behaviour, but it is NOT the anthithesis of responsible behaviour either.

Here, let me provide you with the definition of Hedonism from dictionary.com

hedonism

n 1: the pursuit of pleasure as a matter of ethical principle 2: an ethical system that evaluates the pursuit of pleasure as the highest good.

what does that relegate other ethical concerns to? Secondary concerns at best. WHich is not a good responsible position to take, no matter what other ethical system you use.

Pleasure-seeking is what naturally drive us to behave; it is a very NATURAL thing. After all, that is what the principle of "stick and carrot" is based upon.

naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural, doesnt make it good. Because of my evolutionary heritage, I crave salts and fats, but if I were to persue them today with the same gusto my ancestors had to in order to survive, I would look like jabba tha hutt.

My example stands: if I decide to get drunk and drive afterwards, I will be put in jail and the pleasure and happiness I'm seeking is gone.

You are mistaking simple peasure seeking for Hedonism. In your standard everyday pleasure seeking, you seek small amounts of pleasure because it feels good. In Hedonism, you seek pleasure as an overriding ethical concern. Your getting so drunk that you cant walk, and subsequently having unprotected sex driven by heroin is a GOOD thing.

Even if you get addicted to heroin, it is not bad so long as you can keep getting your fix. WIthdrawls are not only bad, they are EVIl and something to be avoided by not stopping heroin use.

Fatty foods are good, so you should eat LOTS of them, vomiting up food so you can pack more in and enjoy them.

Do I need to go on? The latter example was what the Romans did. In addition to wild disease spreading orgies.

[Charon]

KAN, I would say a good number of your examples there were nowhere near as totally society destroying as the points LaVey makes. Yes a lot of people would die but society could still move on. Regardless of that you are refering to Old Testament things that occured and applying them to Christians. Which is a falsehood as many of those things were shot down Jesus during his little trist. As such many Christians do not follow them. Not to mention you seemed to have slipped away from quoting the commandments.

Also note, Comrade Tortoise, that LaVey's methods were directly meant to be non-literal. Any literal taking of his words, specifically the 'mere guidelines', is rather stupid, wouldn't you say?

The problem with that being that 'guidelines' don't exist in any tangible sense within religions. The hardcore out right ignore everything except what they like and most guidelines get pushed to the back. In a religious sense, those commandments WILL be taken literally and those guidelines will be ignored we need to take that into account.

[Narsil]

You think whiney teenagers are going to make that distinction?

I'm whiney, I'm a teenager, and I can make the distinction.

Seriously. Most people are not smart enough to notice non-literal interpretations, and even if you account for some amount of dramatic flourish, it is still an ideology which is aimed at maximizing pleasure with very few checks on it.

Possibly, but they were written for advancement within a society with shitloads of checks upon it. Since LaVey grew up in the western world if I remember correctly, so it's not as if societies themselves won't provide the checks automatically.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Possibly, but they were written for advancement within a society with shitloads of checks upon it. Since LaVey grew up in the western world if I remember correctly, so it's not as if societies themselves won't provide the checks automatically.

Save that he advocates rejecting those checks.

I'm whiney, I'm a teenager, and I can make the distinction.

Are you a goth?

[Narsil]

Are you a goth?

Not really, although I wouldn't mind having a similar overall style, black seems to suit me quite well, but I'm allergic to makeup: my face swelled like a balloon in a facepainting class.

Save that he advocates rejecting those checks.

The philosophy is very much to enjoy life, but to ignore societies checks would fuck that up with the repercussions.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Not really, although I wouldn't mind having a similar overall style, black seems to suit me quite well, but I'm allergic to makeup: my face swelled like a balloon in a facepainting class.

OK, I am going to spell something out. At lwast in the US, goths are almost universally idiots. In fact, most teens here are fucking morons that cant do literature analysis if forced to at gunpoint

The philosophy is very much to enjoy life, but to ignore societies checks would fuck that up with the repercussions.

One can get around those repercussions.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

This is a red herring. Argue Satanism on its merits, or dont argue, this is not a thread for bashing christianity, some of which's doctrins are indeed questionable or flat out bad ethically, but who's doctrins are not followed in this way anymore. Outside of the third world, you will not find anyone who interprets the bible in the way you described. Even modern fundamentalists stop at actually enforcing stoning disobedient children to death

The red herring is actually your part by defending Christianity, by making excuses that Christinanity should not be judged by modern standards while Satanism should.

Do you REALLY think stupid people are not able to literally interpreting the Bible and commiting atroticities based on what they read, anymore than whiney teenagers interpreting Satanism literally? Does the context when Bible was written really matter?

Nehemiah 13:23-27 (NIV):
Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab ... I rebuked them and called curses down on them ... I made them take an oath in God's name and said: "You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves. Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?"

And the Ku Klux Klan refers to this as "the old time gospel of racial separation". And we haven't even talked about Hitler.

Your excuses is not valid, Ben. You nitpicked some of the Bible verses that are "not evil" due to their context, while you completely ignoring that even people in modern times can still be stupid enough to interpret Bible literally and committing atrocities based on them. Moreover, you applied double-standard by implying that Satanism should be judged differently than the Bible because those were written on different times (Bible was written 2000 years ago, while Satanic Commandments was written in this century).

Too bad, the time where they were written is irrelevant. What is relevant is what people do when interpreting them literally. Do you think the anti-gay and the racists really care that the Bible was actually being written 2000 years ago?


But that's not the main point; the entire point is that you tried to demonize Satanism by interpreting the Commandments your own way. Here's some examples:

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

Well, there goes reporting crimes, coming out to one's parents, trying to get help with financial troubles, psychological therapy, informing you sexual partner that you are HIV positive... DO I really need to go on, or do you get the point?

This is entirely subjective and open to interpretation, not to mention that a Satanist does not need to necessarily interpreting this point YOUR way. Supposed I am a Satanist; do you honestly believe I will hide crime from the police based on this point? Well on my interpretation, I am SURE that the police WANT to hear my report, because it is THEIR JOB.

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

Do you know how many murders would happen on subways systems

Again, this is your narrow interpretation in order to demonize Satanism. Do you really believe that the word "destroy" should only be synonymous with "murder"? I can report him to the police and "destroy" him by making him (indirectly, by bringing him to cops) being raped in prison.

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

Yes, murder, rape, adultery, theft, dishonesty. All of those things we wish we could do, but thank god are prohibited by sane religions and ideologies.

This is maybe the worst; you were not only interpreting Satanic Commandment in such way that would make it look bad, but you were also entirely ignoring the concept of "victimless crime". Do you really believe that what is considered "sin" by what you-so-called "sane religious and ideologies" is always a crime?


By the way, since you were talking about rape, I'd like to point out some interesting note:

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

Rational and sane interpretation of this Commandment is that Satanism tell us to NOT to rape. As a side note, this is way more benevolent than that Bible verse that say "you can rape as long as you pay some silver to the girl's daddy".

hedonism

n 1: the pursuit of pleasure as a matter of ethical principle 2: an ethical system that evaluates the pursuit of pleasure as the highest good.

This is not saying whether the pursuit of pleasure, as an ethical principle, should override EVERY OTHER ethical principles out there and should encourage people to screw others in exercising Hedonism as ethical principle. Again, the exercise of Hedonism is subjective and open to interpretation.

For fuck's sake, Ben, would you stop that? You keep demonizing things that you don't like by interpreting them your own way. Neither Satanism and Hedonism should necessarily evil and destructive to society; nothing more than religion. And if Satanists, Hedonists, or even Christians screw other people by exercising their religious/moral belief, there is law to handle them.

[Charon]

Since society has laws, based upon rationality and reason, and Satanism is 'further the self', you wouldn't quite get very far if you were to break these laws, would you?

No, but that's not a very good argument. Because Satanism goes against the laws of society. You either go with them, or you go with the laws. If you go with the laws you are not practicing satanism.

But it also teaches that gays, lesbians, etc. are evil.

And Satanism teaches that if someone annoys me I should destroy them. What's your point?

It was just a figure of speech, there's the fact that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, free-thinkers, evolutionists, pro-intellectualists and many other people would kind of chafe under the rule of Christianity.

And they would be too busy indulging themselves under the rule of LaVey's Satanism.

Possibly. But too much is better than none.

As that is a question of personal idealogy and neither of us will budge on it I will leave this alone.

Which is completely and utterly false. Philosophical Satanism has completely nothing to do with religious dogma. It is a philosophy which takes upon a name.

As soon as he made commandments, attributed them to Satan, and put them into a matter of faith rather than a matter of fact it lost it's ability to be Philosophical in nature.

Has it been allowed to? Or has it merely been quashed by the whole Satan = Evil vibe coming from Fundie Nutjobs?

No evidence? Ok. And "Wha wha the evil Christians won't let us!" is not a good excuse.

So, freedom to enjoy life = will definitely go to extremes?

This is a religion. The answer is yes.

Standard "My religion is better than yours" stuff.

Which involves no belief system.[/quote]

Yet it has commandments and guidelines... huh.

What reason? And proof that, beyond a name, Philosophical Satanists actually worship Satan?

The reason? Getting mankind kicked out of Eden. Attempting to tempt Jesus numerous times. The whole thing with Job. Need I go on? As for proof? "Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence." Sorry, but when you put Satan's name in your commandments you lose Philosophical status. If it were just the name would be fine. But as I said before they switched from matters of fact to matters of faith. No longer a philosophy. The only thing that can save Satanism's philosophical status is if LaVey came up with some arguments.

A subjective analysis.

And kindness 'to those who deserve it' doesn't mean, kindness only to the self, it means kindness to those who deserve it.

Ah, but who deserves it more than oneself? This whole Satanism philosophy is very very vague. Even for a religion it's vague. Considering the first, fifth, and seventh commandments I'm willing to bet it's kindness to self.

So justice should not be sought. So you should forgive murderers rather than seek true justice?

As was already pointed to. Justice and vengeance are two different things.

It means that it rejects the typical "I'm insane, but not really" or "I'm posessed, but not really" lark, and makes a person completely accountable for their own actions.

And in the cases where one is actually insane? Dare I ask who will be deciding who is insane and who is just faking?

It means that humanity is worse than animals, and they treat humanity as such. And 'survival of the fittest' is only a natural reaction.

And this is supposed to help our society? I really really don't see how.

You've yet to point out anything bad without resorting to ye olde 'Christian Dogma'. Which doesn't apply, whatsoever, to Philosophical Satanism.

Bullshit. I have made numerous statements about how "Philosophical" (And I use that term loosely) Satanism is detrimental to society. And you began this discussion on tying in Christianity, live with it.

[Charon]

The red herring is actually your part by defending Christianity, by making excuses that Christinanity should not be judged by modern standards while Satanism should.

That's because LaVey style Satanism is only 40 years old.

Source

Anton Szandor LaVey (born Howard Stanton Levey on 11 April 1930 – 29 October 1997), was the founder and High Priest of the Church of Satan, and author of The Satanic Bible. He is often known as a "founder of Satanism", although the idea of Satanism antedated him.

Whoops, there goes the non-religious part. You form a church, you're out of the philosophical running and into the theological.

He claimed no supernatural “inspirationâ€Â

[Narsil]

Whoops, there goes the non-religious part. You form a church, you're out of the philosophical running and into the theological.

So this instantly means that Satanism is evil, eh?

And you have yet to prove, outside these terms, that Satanism actually worships anything. It is entirely possible to be Atheistic while being a Satanist, there's a difference between Satanism and Satan-Worship. And the next thing you quoted completely fucked up your own arguement.

Ah, so he BASED it on philosophers. This does not make it philosophy.

It also does not make it theological:

He claimed no supernatural “inspirationâ€Â

[Comrade Tortoise]

The red herring is actually your part by defending Christianity, by making excuses that Christinanity should not be judged by modern standards while Satanism should.

But what you described is not what ANY modern christian practices, because they view it as outdated and barbaric. Not even orthodox jews practice what you mentioned from the old testement anymore.

Don't you think stupid people are not able to literally interpreting the Bible and commiting atroticities based on what they read, anymore than whiney teenagers interpreting Satanism literally?

People dont WANT to literally interpret the bible, by and large, they gain nthing out of it, and the few that do actually do it are the fringe.

This is maybe the worst; you were not only interpreting Satanic Commandment in such way that would make it look bad, but you were also entirely ignoring the concept of "victimless crime". Do you really believe that what is considered "sin" by what you-so-called "sane religious and ideologies" is always a crime?

The people who would follow satanism WANT that sort of hedonistic lifestyle, and are more likely to take it literally our of pure self interest.

Your excuses is not valid, Ben. You nitpicked some of the Bible verses that are "not evil" due to their context, while you completely ignoring that even people in modern times can still be stupid enough to interpret Bible literally and committing atrocities based on them. Moreover, you applied double-standard by implying that Satanism should be judged differently than the Bible because those were written on different times (Bible was written 2000 years ago, while Satanic Commandments was written in this century).

See above. No one interpets the bible completely literally anymore in the first world (there are some groups in third world countries, bu they dont count)

That is because they discard what they dont like, and keep what they like. Even orthodox jews dont obey all the leviticus laws anymore.

If you are going to analyze two peices of literature, you have to acknowledge that they were written at different times by different people. What you would do, is akin to calling Newton an idiot because he didnt know about quantum mechanics.

This is entirely subjective and open to interpretation, not to mention that a Satanist does not need to necessarily interpreting this point YOUR way. Supposed I am a Satanist; do you honestly believe I will hide crime from the police based on this point? Well on my interpretation, the police WANT to hear my report, because it is THEIR JOB.

Oh please, cops ae overworked as it is, you think they want to deal with yet another crime?

DO you think my mother WANTED to hear that her son was gay, and do you honestly think that any of your friends really want to hear about your relationship troubles?

I could use a thousand different examples of how this commandment could fuck up society.

Again, this is your narrow interpretation in order to demonize Satanism. Do you really believe that the word "destroy" should only be synonymous with "murder"? I can report him to the police and "destroy" him by making him (indirectly, by bringing him to cops) being raped in prison.

Oh that is a hell of a lot better. Destroy someone's life because they annoyed you!

This is maybe the worst; you were not only interpreting Satanic Commandment in such way that would make it look bad, but you were also entirely ignoring the concept of "victimless crime". Do you really believe that what is considered "sin" by what you-so-called "sane religious and ideologies" is always a crime?

Levay doesnt nitpiclk ALL of the so called sins that lead to physical emotional or spiritual gratification. He doesnt specify which ones are bad, bu rather, ALL of them are to be committed. That included murder, which can lead to emotional qand physical gratification in serial killers.

Rational and sane interpretation of this Commandment is that Satanism tell us to NOT to rape. As a side note, this is way more benevolent than that Bible verse that say "you can rape as long as you pay some silver to the girl's daddy".

Again, stop with the christianity red herring. I am not a christian, therefore there is no point in your christianity bashing. So stop, it is off topic, and I WILL have this thread flushed.

As for the argument. No. You are flat out wrong. Sexual advances, means "hitting on" "flirting with" or "making passes at" if he had meant "dont rape" it would have been a simple word change from "dont make sexual advances" to "dont make physical sexual contact"

I was pointing out how fucking silly his writing was in that one.

This is not saying whether the pursuit of pleasure, as an ethical principle, should override EVERY OTHER ethical principles out there and should encourage people to screw others in exercising Hedonism as ethical principle. Again, the exercise of Hedonism is subjective and open to interpretation.

I am going to explain moral philosophy to you.

If something si considered the :highest good" in moral philosophy, that generally means that yes, it does overrule other concerns.[/quote]

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

The red herring is actually your part by defending Christianity, by making excuses that Christinanity should not be judged by modern standards while Satanism should.

That's because LaVey style Satanism is only 40 years old.

Source

Irellevant. See my reply to Ben that people can do bad things based on certain interpretation of the Bible, as people can do the same based on Ben's interpretation of Satanic Commandments.

Anton Szandor LaVey (born Howard Stanton Levey on 11 April 1930 – 29 October 1997), was the founder and High Priest of the Church of Satan, and author of The Satanic Bible. He is often known as a "founder of Satanism", although the idea of Satanism antedated him.

Whoops, there goes the non-religious part. You form a church, you're out of the philosophical running and into the theological.

He claimed no supernatural “inspirationâ€Â

[Comrade Tortoise]

Irellevant. See my reply to Ben that people can do bad things based on certain interpretation of the Bible, as people can do the same based on Ben's interpretation of Satanic Commandments.

Irrelevant. The issue here is not whether fundie christianity is evil, but whether or not satanism is, considering its followers.

[Charon]

Whoops, there goes the non-religious part. You form a church, you're out of the philosophical running and into the theological.

So this instantly means that Satanism is evil, eh?

I have never stated that Satanism is evil. Simply that it's foundings are bad for society. If you put words in my mouth again I will not be happy.

And you have yet to prove, outside these terms, that Satanism actually worships anything. It is entirely possible to be Atheistic while being a Satanist, there's a difference between Satanism and Satan-Worship. And the next thing you quoted completely fucked up your own arguement.

And yet have Satanic weddings, funerals, and baptisms? To have a CHURCH of Satan?

Ah, so he BASED it on philosophers. This does not make it philosophy.

It also does not make it theological:

He claimed no supernatural “inspirationâ€Â

[SirNitram]

I would point out that modern society has conceded that everyone's out for their own good; think about modern capitalism, for example. In an ideal free market(Rare as bloody fuck, but!), one obtains personal wealth by making a product everyone wants, at a price everyone can pay, thus enriching many lives in the pursuit of personal gain.

[Comrade Tortoise]

I would point out that modern society has conceded that everyone's out for their own good; think about modern capitalism, for example. In an ideal free market(Rare as bloody fuck, but!), one obtains personal wealth by making a product everyone wants, at a price everyone can pay, thus enriching many lives in the pursuit of personal gain.

Yeah, but the ideal world is almost never the world that actually exists.

Such a system would rely even more on personal altruism than our current one does in order to survive.

While we all might be self interested, we are also communal, in that we look after and help each other, and live by certain societal rules; without which our communities and economies collapse.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

The red herring is actually your part by defending Christianity, by making excuses that Christinanity should not be judged by modern standards while Satanism should.

But what you described is not what ANY modern christian practices, because they view it as outdated and barbaric. Not even orthodox jews practice what you mentioned from the old testement anymore.

And Hitler is not outdated and barbaric? And the Klu Klux Klan is not either? And the anti-gay?

Religious fundies have been known to keep someone who's in love each other from getting married. That's NOT outdated and barbaric?

Don't you think stupid people are not able to literally interpreting the Bible and commiting atroticities based on what they read, anymore than whiney teenagers interpreting Satanism literally?

People dont WANT to literally interpret the bible, by and large, they gain nthing out of it, and the few that do actually do it are the fringe.

[/quote]

Bullshit. See my point above.

This is maybe the worst; you were not only interpreting Satanic Commandment in such way that would make it look bad, but you were also entirely ignoring the concept of "victimless crime". Do you really believe that what is considered "sin" by what you-so-called "sane religious and ideologies" is always a crime?

The people who would follow satanism WANT that sort of hedonistic lifestyle, and are more likely to take it literally our of pure self interest.

Including rape, that is contradicting the Ninth Commandment of Satanism?

You made a hasty generalization that each and every Satanists should necessarily pursuing their self-interests by screwing others. If I have sex, a wild, sweaty, cummy sex with a woman who also wants it with me, do I commit a crime?

Your excuses is not valid, Ben. You nitpicked some of the Bible verses that are "not evil" due to their context, while you completely ignoring that even people in modern times can still be stupid enough to interpret Bible literally and committing atrocities based on them. Moreover, you applied double-standard by implying that Satanism should be judged differently than the Bible because those were written on different times (Bible was written 2000 years ago, while Satanic Commandments was written in this century).

See above. No one interpets the bible completely literally anymore in the first world (there are some groups in third world countries, bu they dont count)

That is because they discard what they dont like, and keep what they like. Even orthodox jews dont obey all the leviticus laws anymore.

If you are going to analyze two peices of literature, you have to acknowledge that they were written at different times by different people. What you would do, is akin to calling Newton an idiot because he didnt know about quantum mechanics.

And there is NO Creationsits either in the United States, and there is no anti-gay either, and of course, in this century, there is no more people who say thay interracial marriage is wrong.

Gimme a break.

By the way, that's a strawman. None I said that people need to interprete the Bible both literally and COMPLETELY in order to screw others. A Creationist does not have to be racist, and the other way around. Hitler was a racist, but he was not an anti-Evolutionist. In fact, he believed in both Creationism and Evolution, by saying that the Aryans were God-created and other races evolved from monkeys.

This is entirely subjective and open to interpretation, not to mention that a Satanist does not need to necessarily interpreting this point YOUR way. Supposed I am a Satanist; do you honestly believe I will hide crime from the police based on this point? Well on my interpretation, the police WANT to hear my report, because it is THEIR JOB.

Oh please, cops ae overworked as it is, you think they want to deal with yet another crime?

That's what you think; what I think is that the job of cops is handling crime, and some cops are actually thrilled by their jobs. So yes, they want to hear my report.

See? That's entirely subjective and case-by-case basis, so your narrow interpretation on that Commandment is invalid.

DO you think my mother WANTED to hear that her son was gay, and do you honestly think that any of your friends really want to hear about your relationship troubles?

Again, see my point above.

I could use a thousand different examples of how this commandment could fuck up society.

And I could use many real-world, objective examples of how Christianity could fuck up society.

Look, this is pointless. You treat Satanism in different standards than Christinanity, while in fact those can both equally harmful if interpreted in certain way. Both too, can be equally beneficial if interpreted in certain way. The Satanic Commandment implies that you should not screw up others, isn't that beneficial?

Again, this is your narrow interpretation in order to demonize Satanism. Do you really believe that the word "destroy" should only be synonymous with "murder"? I can report him to the police and "destroy" him by making him (indirectly, by bringing him to cops) being raped in prison.

Oh that is a hell of a lot better. Destroy someone's life because they annoyed you!

Let me quote that again:

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

Basically, it can be interpreted as "destroy someone's life because they annoyed you". But of course, only a blithering idiot will interpret this as "destroying someone's life if he bothers you, even when the definition of 'bothers' has nothing to do with what he does to you ", instead of my street mugger analogy above.

This is maybe the worst; you were not only interpreting Satanic Commandment in such way that would make it look bad, but you were also entirely ignoring the concept of "victimless crime". Do you really believe that what is considered "sin" by what you-so-called "sane religious and ideologies" is always a crime?

Levay doesnt nitpiclk ALL of the so called sins that lead to physical emotional or spiritual gratification. He doesnt specify which ones are bad, bu rather, ALL of them are to be committed. That included murder, which can lead to emotional qand physical gratification in serial killers.

So all and every Satanists should follow Levay words literally?

You did not come up with something I haven't addressed before; if a Christian racist murders a colored man, he will be put in prison. If a Satanist serial killer murders someone, he will be put in prison as well.

Rational and sane interpretation of this Commandment is that Satanism tell us to NOT to rape. As a side note, this is way more benevolent than that Bible verse that say "you can rape as long as you pay some silver to the girl's daddy".

Again, stop with the christianity red herring. I am not a christian, therefore there is no point in your christianity bashing. So stop, it is off topic, and I WILL have this thread flushed.

This is not red herring; this is an EXAMPLE on how a "legitimate" religion can be equally harmful, if not more harmful, if interpreted in certain way. Treat Satanism the same way you would treat a legitimate religion, then suddenly it is NOT as evil as you pointed out; that's my whole goddamn point.

Irrelevant. The issue here is not whether fundie christianity is evil, but whether or not satanism is, considering its followers.

See my goddamn point above.

As for the argument. No. You are flat out wrong. Sexual advances, means "hitting on" "flirting with" or "making passes at" if he had meant "dont rape" it would have been a simple word change from "dont make sexual advances" to "dont make physical sexual contact"

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

Or, it could mean that "sexual intercourses are only allowed if BOTH party are willing to do it", which is a more sensible interpretation.

Look, this is pointless; you keep insisting to interpret the Satanic Commandments in such way that makes it look bad or ridiculous, while more rational interpretation says otherwise.

I was pointing out how fucking silly his writing was in that one.

Of course; that's why I don't understand why people would interpret it literally, or in non-sensical way.

This is not saying whether the pursuit of pleasure, as an ethical principle, should override EVERY OTHER ethical principles out there and should encourage people to screw others in exercising Hedonism as ethical principle. Again, the exercise of Hedonism is subjective and open to interpretation.

I am going to explain moral philosophy to you.

If something si considered the :highest good" in moral philosophy, that generally means that yes, it does overrule other concerns.

Including the concerns that I would go to prison if I screw others in order to pursue my "highest good", which will actually denying me the "highest good" I'm pursuing, because being in prison is neither pleasant nor happy??

Do you honestly believe people is always THAT irrational? You were making an extreme assumption that people should necessarily screw up others in pursuing the pleasure and happiness as their highest good.

[SirNitram]

I would point out that modern society has conceded that everyone's out for their own good; think about modern capitalism, for example. In an ideal free market(Rare as bloody fuck, but!), one obtains personal wealth by making a product everyone wants, at a price everyone can pay, thus enriching many lives in the pursuit of personal gain.

Yeah, but the ideal world is almost never the world that actually exists.

Actually, it's shown to work quite well where the big corporations aren't throttling competition. Consider Google: Fast, reliable, accurate websearching. They have gained fame and fortune, and everyone was better off for it.

Such a system would rely even more on personal altruism than our current one does in order to survive.

.....No. It doesn't. It's the present system, actually, only not taking into account the variances introduced by greedy idiots.

While we all might be self interested, we are also communal, in that we look after and help each other, and live by certain societal rules; without which our communities and economies collapse.

Are you reading the posts, Aly? I just pointed out that our communities and economies are optimized to work with greed.

[Comrade Tortoise]

And Hitler is not outdated and barbaric? And the Klu Klux Klan is not either? And the anti-gay?

Religious fundies have been known to keep someone who's in love each other from getting married. That's NOT outdated and barbaric?

It is, and it is evil, however they arent taking the bible literally, because if they did, they would STONE GAYS TO DEATH

Bullshit. See my point above.

Already refuted.

You made a hasty generalization that each and every Satanists should necessarily pursuing their self-interests by screwing others. If I have sex, a wild, sweaty, cummy sex with a woman who also wants it with me, do I commit a crime?

No, you dont: but if you do it every night with multiple woman fueled by methamphetmine, you lead a destructive lifestyle, which, if widely practiced would lead to societal collapse.

You confuse "crime" with "bad outcome" DOnt.

And there is NO Creationsits either in the United States, and there is no anti-gay either, and of course, in this century, there is no more people who say thay interracial marriage is wrong.

And again, if they took the bible literally, they would stone gays to death, believe the earth is flat, etc.

Thanks for making my point.

By the way, that's a strawman. None I said that people need to interprete the Bible both literally and COMPLETELY in order to screw others. A Creationist does not have to be racist, and the other way around. Hitler was a racist, but he was not an anti-Evolutionist. In fact, he believed in both Creationism and Evolution, by saying that the Aryans were God-created and other races evolved from monkeys.

Thank you for making my point. People take from religions and ideologies what they want and discard the rest.

Unfortunatly, there is nothing to take from satanism that is actually good, except the commandment not to harm children.

Look, this is pointless. You treat Satanism in different standards than Christinanity, while in fact those can both equally harmful if interpreted in certain way. Both too, can be equally beneficial if interpreted in certain way. The Satanic Commandment implies that you should not screw up others, isn't that beneficial?

Not once I have I ever said that fundie christianity is good, in fact, I have stated several times that is bad, and that this line of argument is a red herring. So you need to stop distorting my fucking arguments, or pay the fucking consequences. I grow tired of your red herrings, strawmen, and blatant distortions. I could chalk a few of them up to language barrier, but it is getting to the point now where I am losing my patience.

Where the hell do the satanic commandments say that you should not screw up others in the general sense? It doesnt. There is a vaguely worded commandment not to rape, and a good one not to harm children. The rest is shit.

Basically, it can be interpreted as "destroy someone's life because they annoyed you". But of course, only a blithering idiot will interpret this as "destroying someone's life if he bothers you, even when the definition of 'bothers' has nothing to do with what he does to you ", instead of my street mugger analogy above.

No, he used the word "annoy", which has a very specific meaning, it does not mean "attack" or "rob". It could be applied to a mugger, (because being mugged is by definition annoying) but it could also be applied to someone who is talking on a cell phone too loudly, for example.

Satanism would require that you ask them to stop, and if you dont, harm them in some way; such as breaking said cell phone, or getting their phone number so you can harrass them, steal their wallet (because obviously they were crying out to be relieved of it when they refused to shut up) and send kiddie porn to their house.

You did not come up with something I haven't addressed before; if a Christian racist murders a colored man, he will be put in prison. If a Satanist serial killer murders someone, he will be put in prison as well.

And if the ideology taken on face value causes him to do so, then the ideology is one of evil. This is why most christians completely ignore, rathter than try to rationalize, most of the bible (andif they do, they chalk it up to being 2000 years old and written by tribal nomads, and leave it at that) Satanists cant do that. There is no context to which to apply those commandments and thus rationalize them because A) they are stand alone and B) they were written recently.

This is not red herring; this is an EXAMPLE on how a "legitimate" religion can be equally harmful, if not more harmful, if interpreted in certain way. Treat Satanism the same way you would treat a legitimate religion, then suddenly it is NOT as evil as you pointed out; that's my whole goddamn point.

Again, see above.

Or, it could mean that "sexual intercourses are only allowed if BOTH party are willing to do it", which is a more sensible interpretation.

But guess what! It isnt what the writing actually SAYS! My God! WHat a revelation!

When the bible says "kill the heathens" it can never mean anything other than "kill the heathens" That part has to be taken at face value.

HOWEVER, a christian can determine, based on how old the book is, that that particular commandment no longer applies, because "everyone was out to kill the ancient jews at the time, and thus they had to kill the heathens to survive. This is not the case anymore, therefore, we dont have to kill the heathens"

A satanist is incapable of doing that, because THOSE commandments have no literary context. They must be either accepted within the bounds of the language used, or rejected. And the word "annoy" can never mean anything other than its prima facea meaning. Nor the can the word "destroy" or "cruel" we have definitions for those words, and unlike the bible, they were originally written in english, so there is no risk of translation error.

Words have objective meanings, they may change slowly over time, but they are never subjective. A sentence has a distinct meaning if taken within the context of when it was written, and that meaning can never be changed.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

And Hitler is not outdated and barbaric? And the Klu Klux Klan is not either? And the anti-gay?

Religious fundies have been known to keep someone who's in love each other from getting married. That's NOT outdated and barbaric?

It is, and it is evil, however they arent taking the bible literally, because if they did, they would STONE GAYS TO DEATH

...or they are unable to, because the goddamn law prevent him to do so. But the fact that their anti-gay stance (or anti interracial marriage stance) is because the Bible say it is bad actually says something.

Mind you, when law permits, people can burn "witches" to death because the Bible says so (and they actually DID). So my points stands: "legitimate" religion can also be harmful if you interpret it in certain ways.

Bullshit. See my point above.

Already refuted.

No, it was not.

You made a hasty generalization that each and every Satanists should necessarily pursuing their self-interests by screwing others. If I have sex, a wild, sweaty, cummy sex with a woman who also wants it with me, do I commit a crime?

No, you dont: but if you do it every night with multiple woman fueled by methamphetmine, you lead a destructive lifestyle, which, if widely practiced would lead to societal collapse.

...or I can choose not to, because I know it would destroy my life, and deny me all the pleasures and happiness I'm pursuing.

You made extreme assumption that people will always necessarily irrational. You also made extreme generalization that pleasure and happiness is always have a bad outcome. Don't you honestly believe that marrying the woman I love does not count as seeking pleasure and happiness?

You confuse "crime" with "bad outcome" DOnt.

See my point above.

And there is NO Creationsits either in the United States, and there is no anti-gay either, and of course, in this century, there is no more people who say thay interracial marriage is wrong.

And again, if they took the bible literally, they would stone gays to death, believe the earth is flat, etc.

Thanks for making my point.

See my very first point above.

By the way, that's a strawman. None I said that people need to interprete the Bible both literally and COMPLETELY in order to screw others. A Creationist does not have to be racist, and the other way around. Hitler was a racist, but he was not an anti-Evolutionist. In fact, he believed in both Creationism and Evolution, by saying that the Aryans were God-created and other races evolved from monkeys.

Thank yiu for making my point. People take from religions and ideologies what they want and discard the rest.

BINGO!!! Thank you for making my motherfucking point. People can also interpret Satanism in such way by taking what's beneficial and discarding the harmful things.

Unfortunatly, there is nothing to take from satanism that is actually good, except the commandment not to harm children.

Because you interpreted it in such way. Take a look at the OP; look at the points highlighted by Dakarne.

Look, this is pointless. You treat Satanism in different standards than Christinanity, while in fact those can both equally harmful if interpreted in certain way. Both too, can be equally beneficial if interpreted in certain way. The Satanic Commandment implies that you should not screw up others, isn't that beneficial?

Look asshat, not once I have I ever said that fundie christianity is good. So you need to stop distorting my fucking arguments, or pay the fucking consequences. I grow tired of your red herrings, strawmen, and blatant distortions. I could chalk a few of them up to language barrier, but it is getting to the point now where I am losing my patience.

Look, dishonest twat. NOWHERE I said that you said fundie Christianity is good. What I've been saying that you treat Christianity and Satanism differently, while in fact, whether Satanism is evil or not is based on interpretation; just like Christianity or many other legitimate religions out there.

Where the hell do the satanic commandments say that you should not screw up others in the general sense? It doesnt. There is a vaguely worded commandment not to rape, and a good one not to harm children. The rest is shit.

It is because of your own interpretation. Of course, if every Satanists out there interpret the Commandments YOUR WAY, the world will go awry. But I fail to see WHY it should be interpreted that way.

Basically, it can be interpreted as "destroy someone's life because they annoyed you". But of course, only a blithering idiot will interpret this as "destroying someone's life if he bothers you, even when the definition of 'bothers' has nothing to do with what he does to you ", instead of my street mugger analogy above.

No, he used the word "annoy", which has a very specific meaning, it does not mean "attack" or "rob". It could be applied to a mugger, (because being mugged is by definition annoying) but it could also be applied to someone who is talking on a cell phone too loudly, for example.

Satanism would require that you ask them to stop, and if you dont, harm them in some way; such as breaking said cell phone, or getting their phone number so you can harrass them, steal their wallet (because obviously they were crying out to be relieved of it when they refused to shut up) and send kiddie porn to their house.

...and the Satanist would go to prison as consequences, same with a Christian will go to prison if he join Ku Klux Klan.

Why do you keep failing to see the goddamn point??

You did not come up with something I haven't addressed before; if a Christian racist murders a colored man, he will be put in prison. If a Satanist serial killer murders someone, he will be put in prison as well.

And if the ideology taken on face value causes him to do so, then the ideology is one of evil. This is why most christians completely ignore, rathter than try to rationalize, most of the bible (andif they do, they chalk it up to being 2000 years old and written by tribal nomads, and leave it at that) Satanists cant do that. There is no context to which to apply those commandments and thus rationalize them because A) they are stand alone and B) they were written recently.

Actually, this is what I've been objecting all along:

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

Take this one as an example: a Satanist can force his annoying guest out of his house, which can fall into "cruel" and "without mercy" category from his point of view; without the need of resorting to iron maiden or other torture devices as described in your non-sensical interpretation.

You made an extreme assumption that people would be necessarily that irrational and put themselves in danger of breaking the law.

You made an extreme assumption that a Satanist should necessarily behave according to your non-sensical interpretation and discarding their rationality. What makes you think the Satanist should behave according to your interpretation? Are you a Satanist priest now?

This is not red herring; this is an EXAMPLE on how a "legitimate" religion can be equally harmful, if not more harmful, if interpreted in certain way. Treat Satanism the same way you would treat a legitimate religion, then suddenly it is NOT as evil as you pointed out; that's my whole goddamn point.

Again, see above.

And see above.

Or, it could mean that "sexual intercourses are only allowed if BOTH party are willing to do it", which is a more sensible interpretation.

But guess what! It isnt what the writing actually SAYS! My God! WHat a revelation!

Again, you keep insisting that a Satanist should interpret the Commandment YOUR way.

When the bible says "kill the heathens" it can never mean anything other than "kill the heathens" That part has to be taken at face value.

HOWEVER, a christian can determine, based on how old the book is, that that particular commandment no longer applies, because "everyone was out to kill the ancient jews at the time, and thus they had to kill the heathens to survive. This is not the case anymore, therefore, we dont have to kill the heathens"

A satanist is incapable of doing that, because THOSE commandments have no literary context. They must be either accepted within the bounds of the language used, or rejected. And the word "annoy" can never mean anything other than its prima facea meaning. Nor the can the word "destroy" or "cruel" we have definitions for those words, and unlike the bible, they were originally written in english, so there is no risk of translation error.

Or they can use their rational interpretation and discard the non-sensical interpretation you have proposed.

You are making a false dillema here: just because it has no literary context, then it should be interpreted literally or in non-sensical way. You ignore the fact that a person can actually choose to take the spirit of the Commandments without having to be limited by literal interpretation.


On side note, it is interesting to note that literal interpretation of Christianity still happens despite the existence of literary context. So no, literary context is not a guarantee of non-stupid interpretation either.


EDIT: note that the Satanic Commandments is NOT even a moral code, let alone a strict one; it is merely general guidelines. So again, I fail to see why it should be interpreted your way. I also fail to see why the interpretation should be limited to literal one.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Sorry it took so long to respond. Been busy

...or they are unable to, because the goddamn law prevent him to do so. But the fact that their anti-gay stance (or anti interracial marriage stance) is because the Bible say it is bad actually says something.

Here I think is something that may be different between the US and Indonesia

Here, the fact that something is illegal doesnt really stop someone from doing it. Has to do with our culture of rugged individualists.

Here, someone doesnt do something because it is immoral. Here, if someone views something as the only moral choice, they will do it; the law be damned.

The fact that they DONT stone the gays to death, says something. It says that they dont view killing oin the name of their religion as immoral.

Also, I will point out that prohibitions on interracial marriage are strictly a jewish thing. They dont apply to christians after Jesus "fullfilled" the old covenant with the jews.

OK, because you obviously dont really read the bible, just go on skeptics annotated bible and find fun parts, I am going to explain something to you. Noting that I am not a christian, I have just read the bible and study religion in my spare time.

Way back in the day, God made a covenant with the jews. He puts special restrictions on them, in exchange, they become his chosen people. These include the Kosher dietary restrictions, and marriage regulations. Things of that nature.

Now, the end result of being God's Chosen People, is that if they follow the laws (which are fairly well understood to be arbitrary rules, rather than moral commandments. It is not immoral to eat pork, you just arent supposed to) and worship him, he will eventually send a Messiah, or savior down to bring the Jews ultimate salvation.

Christianity is an outgrowth of Judiasm which thinks this savior was a man named Jesus. When jesus came, he is said to have abolished the old laws. This means that the marriage and dietary restrictions do not apply to christians.

So, christianity has no problem with interracial marriages. Orthodox judiams doesnt have a MORAL problem with it either. You just cant be an orthodox jew if you do(unless they convert to orthodix judiasm). Because it is one of the arbitrary rules that they are supposed to follow.

Understand now?

Mind you, when law permits, people can burn "witches" to death because the Bible says so (and they actually DID). So my points stands: "legitimate" religion can also be harmful if you interpret it in certain ways.

Dude, even after it was made illegal, it was still done, and law turned a blind eye. It was only after burning witches started being viewed as evil that it stopped being done in the US.

You made extreme assumption that people will always necessarily irrational. You also made extreme generalization that pleasure and happiness is always have a bad outcome. Don't you honestly believe that marrying the woman I love does not count as seeking pleasure and happiness?

Black/WHite Fallacy. You assume that I mean all seeking of pleasure is bad. OK. Let me put it to you in simple terms you can understand.

If you were in fact a hedonist, in the event that you found a woman more physically attractive than your wife, you are morally bound to persue her. Because seeking the highest amount of pleasure is the HIGHEST good. It over-rules all bonds of loyalty, all trust. Those concepts are second to hedonistic self interest.

The vast majority of people ARE irrational. Again, this could be a cultural difference, but here, the law doesnt stop people from doing what they want. It is just used to retroactively punish them afterwards. What really stops people, is morality. And hedonism gives them moral liscence to do stuff they shouldnt. And most people, you might not be included in this, will get addicted to crack if they are hedonists.

The standard of morality for an ideology is not what it does for the individual. But rather, what it does if it is generally practiced. You and I both know that people are stupid. And they will take what they want from an ideology and discard the rest.

However: WHEN THERE IS ONLY ONE THING IN THE IDEOLOGY, THEY CANT VERY WELL DISCARD WHAT THEY DONT LIKE, AND STILL FOLLOW THAT IDEOLOGY. You cant just claim to be a hedonist, and not follow the central and only real tenant of hedonism. The world doesnt work that way. Sort of like how you cant claim to be a christian if you dont believe that jesus was the son of god.

There are certain minimum standards that a person must meet in order to be considered a member of an ideological group.

WIth Satanism, there isnt a whole lot of wiggle room. There are only a few comandments. So only following one or two of them, doesnt qualify you. You have to adhier a little bit more to the "quidelines" than "dont harm children or torture animals" to be considered a satanist.

That is like saying "I am a christian because I think Thou Shalt Not Kill is a good rule to follow"

It is asinine and absurd.

When an ideology is so small in scope, like satanism, you pretty much need to follow the whole thing to really be considered a satanist, simply because it's defining principles are so few to begin with. You might have a bit of wiggle room with one or two things, maybe they are a little open to interpretation, but you still need to follow them as a whole.

People can also interpret Satanism in such way by taking what's beneficial and discarding the harmful things.

See above. They can only do it to a very limited extent and still be considered satanists.

To use christianisty as a counterpoint (because I know it the best) the doctrine of faith is very large, and because it is in the form of literature, is open to fairly wide interpretation. The only thing that a person HAS to believe in order to be considered a christian are the following things which are explicityl spelled out.

1) God created the universe (how is open to interpretation) there was original sin. Man "feel from grace" so to speak

2) Jesus of Nazareth was the only son of God, and he was born via Virgin Birth to Mary.

3) After he was tempted in the desert by Satan, he rejected sin.

4) He went around performing miracles for a while, and trying to cinvince people that he was the messiah. This pissed the jewish clergy off, and with thelp of Jesus' friend judas, he was arrested and hauled before the romans.

5) After trying to save him, but facing down rebellion if he didnt, the roman governor had him crucified.

6) Jesus's sacrifice did several things. By believing in him, a person's sins, which keep them from heaven (because heaven is a perfect place and thus cannot have imprerfect souls) can be wiped clean. Second. It allowed him to go down to hell, rip open the gates and bring the jews who were faithful to god up to heaven (they died with sin on their soul, so jesus had to die for their sin to be forgiven)

6) Jesus was ressurected on the third day after his death, and walked the earth for 40 days before ascending into heaven. Promising to return one day and finally deliver the earth from all sin and suffering.

That is all you need to believe to be a christian. Everything else is up to interpretation, because it is literature, and largly allegory. Which is why there are so many christian sects and denominations today. Each one interprets the bible diferently, but the stuff I just listed is ALL the same, it is the minimum standard.

Now, to take a look at satanism. What can really be discarded and still have it remain satanism?

Remember, nothing can really be thrown out. It has to be interpreted based upon literary context; otherwise, you arent consistent.

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.

Not much wiggle room here. You can either indulge or abstain in any given instance. And while you might be able to say "indulge in the long term rather than the short" that is about as far as you can manipulate the passage, and still have it make sense.

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

Does this even make sense at all? Moving on

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

Here you have a bit of room for defining wisdom and self deciet

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

A bit of wiggle room with deifning who deserves love. but who an ingrate it, is fairly set in stone. "Dont bother with people who dont appreciate you" is essentially what it means. No wiggle room. Has to do with the objective meaning of words. I dont know about your native written language KAN, but meaning in english is very concrete. Has to do with being a trade language.

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

No wiggle room. If you are a satanist, you have to believe in revenge. Remember, it cant just be thrown out; it has to be interpreted. Satanism has to follow the same rules that all the other religions follow. If it is a holy document, you cant just take out pages.

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

Psychic vampires? Lots of room for interpetation there

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,â€Â

[Cynical Cat]

I'm closing this down. A few points before I do:

1) Comrade Tortoise has made claims about Christian doctrine which are clearly too broad. For example, some Christians (fortunately a minority of those I have encountered) do believe interracial marriage is wrong on a religious level. That they are bigots and that you can attack the Biblican justification for such bigotry doesn't mean it isn't a religious belief. Christian doctrine had spread well beyond what is contained in the Bible by the 3rd Century AD, let alone the 21st. Not applying Jewish dietary laws to gentile converts was one of the earliest examples of this. Mormonism is a particular fun example, as "divine revelation" can strike anyone.


2) The argument has degenerated into semantics, of which is there is plenty of room for wiggling and interpretation. One only has to see how fundementalist Muslims and Christians have maneuvered around such incovienent prohibitions for murder and compulsion in matters of religion throughout history and up to the modern day. We don't need a doctrinal despute here. All ideologies are subject to different interpretations. We see KAN's more moderate interpretation of Satanism (the better to defend it) along with Comrade Turtle's more strict interpretation (the better to attack it).

3) The men of straw are being assembled. I don't like to see it, even of positions I dislike.

[SirNitram]

Again, you keep insisting that a Satanist should interpret the Commandment YOUR way.

KAN. WOrds have objective meaning. A sentence can only be interpreted in a certain way in english

Hah! Nonsense, pure and total. 'The Catholics are revolting.' Are they smelly? Personally irritable? Or have they started a revolution?

Even with words without multiple meaings, it is the height of naivete to beleive there will be no interpretation. The universe called, it wants to know when you're coming back from Planet Pink Fluff.