Are Satanists serious?

[1inChrist]

Since *you* posted that it was your *job* to bring the Good News of His Glory here.

When I said ''Job'' it was just a figure of speech.

Think before you troll.

Think before you reject Him.

If you want to know why I'm home and not at Church just ask, don't insult me.

 

[c4ts]

Satanists are very serious. They bathe in evil and worship the Beast. They are the scum of the earth and no different than demons in my opinion. They are human demons and are to be avoided.

How ironic. That's what the Romans said about Christians.

 

[MoeFaux]

I've never understood satanists. If you believe in god, and you believe in satan, why on earth would you choose the loser of the story? It just seems stupid.

For that reason, I try to avoid so-called satanists. That, and they're nuts. Only Stevie Nicks should try and dress like Stevie Nicks.

It should also be pointed out that even those who don't believe in satan are considered to be satanists by believers. Atheists, agnostics, non believers are all said to be under the spell of satan.

 

[The GM]

If you want to know why I'm home and not at Church just ask, don't insult me.

I have no need to insult. I asked a direct question. By the creed that you claim to follow, you should not be hanging out here on the Sabbath. It's pretty cut and dried.

But since we do have this dialogue open, here's another question:
Wives are to submit themselves to their husbands. That being the case, and your 'dad' being the spiritual head of the household, why would he allow your mother to go away for 26 years to mission when it is clearly not a married woman's position to mission without her husband present?

 

[DarkMagician]

I've never understood satanists. If you believe in god, and you believe in satan, why on earth would you choose the loser of the story?

For the same reason some people still root for their team, even if it's the crappiest team in the world.

For the original topic, how can anything be serious if it takes from H. P. Lovecraft stuff?

 

[CFLarsen]

I've never understood satanists. If you believe in god, and you believe in satan, why on earth would you choose the loser of the story? It just seems stupid.

Kevin Lomax : In the Bible you loose. We're destined to lose dad.
John Milton : Well consider the source son.
"The Devil's Advocate"

For that reason, I try to avoid so-called satanists. That, and they're nuts. Only Stevie Nicks should try and dress like Stevie Nicks.

It should also be pointed out that even those who don't believe in satan are considered to be satanists by believers. Atheists, agnostics, non believers are all said to be under the spell of satan.

Oh, my. And me, with my new Stevie Nicks outfit...

 

[plindboe]

That's a good question!

If we are talking about what traditional Buddhism teaches, then I would say no. Even though there are (or may be) supernatural forces around us, the world hasn't been created by them. So, out goes 1 and 2. There is, however, a strong emphasis on 3.

That some Buddhist teachers are treated as if they were divine, is quite another matter.

The problem with calling Buddhism a religion is that we should also call any political or moral ideology a religion: Politics also tells us how we should live, e.g. by suggesting what is legal and what is not (based on morality).

But it is somewhat of a grey zone.

I can't say I have given it too much thought of this subject in the past, but certainly interesting to hear your opinion. Personally I have never thought a god is necessary for a religion. Some characteristics would be a belief in the supernatural(which rules out political ideology), devotion, faith and it should be institutionalized.

People often make up their own definitions, based upon their own impressions, but I believe the safest way is to look for a consensus in dictionaries. Since nearly all dictionaries mention that Buddhism is a religion, I'll go with that.

 

[c4ts]

If Buddhism isn't a religion, then why so many monastaries?

 

[CFLarsen]

If Buddhism isn't a religion, then why so many monastaries?

Why isn't it "monkastary"?

A monastary is a place for contemplation, a place where you shut out the noise and detractions from the outer world (no, not Planet X!), so you can focus on what concerns you.

In the Middle Ages, there were often knights or other people who chose to stay at a monastary for a short while, without becoming full-time monks.

 

[Operaider]

Are there Satanic churches?

Or do they just meet in someones garage and hold their black mass?

 

[Beerina]

From what I can tell, "Satanists" are just atheist libertarians that chose a name specifically to piss off christians. That would be "modern" satanists, of course. There are apparently also "traditional" satanists who are more of the "worship satan, the fallen angel" types.

IMHO, both are to be avoided.

I recall in my one and only religion class back in college how there was some variation on the standard western religion tree that Satan-the-serpent was the good guy in the garden of Eden, giving knowledge of good and evil to the children of a jerky God who didn't want them to know it.

Seems the original God was an awesome and perfect being. So awesome in fact, that a carbon copy of Him self-instantiated into being. This copy was good and perfect, with the exception that it wasn't the original. It was still good and perfect enough that a copy of it self-instantiated, and so on, and so on, up to the 7th copy.

At this point, enough errors had accumulated that no further copies self-instantiated. Needless to say, that God was pissed off at this. So He created Man, and, being a jerk, kept Man in ignorance. Satan, an angel from the original god, broke the news to Man, giving him knowledge of good and evil.


It really makes a lot more sense.

Which isn't saying much.

 

[Kess]

This article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3948329.stm ) seemed timely:

Navy approves first ever Satanist
The British Armed Forces has officially recognised its first registered Satanist, according to a newspaper report.
Naval technician Chris Cranmer, 24, has been allowed to register by the captain of HMS Cumberland.
The move will mean that he will now be allowed to perform Satanic rituals on board the vessel.

My first reaction was good for him - it's no dafter than any other religion or cult - but predictably some politicians are already expressing shock and outrage. However, I'm intrigued by the "Satanic rituals" bit - are we talking sacrificing babies/goats/virgins here (tongue firmly in cheek) or what?

Kess

 

[BillC]

My first reaction was good for him - it's no dafter than any other religion or cult - but predictably some politicians are already expressing shock and outrage. However, I'm intrigued by the "Satanic rituals" bit - are we talking sacrificing babies/goats/virgins here (tongue firmly in cheek) or what?

And here are some actual ships on which he can serve:

• HMS Banshee
  HMS Lucifer
  HMS Inferno
  HMS Tormenter
  HMS Vampire
  HMS Witch[/list=a] and my favourite...
  • HMS Beelzebub[/list=a]
    List of Royal Navy vessel names

 

[Checkmite]

I disagree with DD's list of the different types of Satanists. Since it's only fair to count those who actually call themselves Satanists, there are only two types: the self-important "xian-haters" who just want to spite Christians, and rebellious lackwits, most (but not all) of whom are kids. The "Lord's Prayer backwards" classification can be eliminated, since both of the above groups partake in such activities. And I wouldn't really classify LaVey et al as "merry pranksters"; I think "abrasive instigators" is a more apt description. Group One does what it does superficially but loudly, hoping to attract negative attention and emotional reaction. Group Two does what it does simply because it's "not supposed to" and wants to prove to itself that it nevertheless can if it wants. Group One consists of people who are absolutely no threat because they have no compelling need to do anything truly bizarre; merely irritating people is enough for them. People who invent idiotic/cruel "rituals", sacrifice kittens, and knock over gravestones belong to Group Two. People who are called "Satanists" by other groups don't count if they don't declare themselves to be so; people who belong to the Temple of Set (for example) don't call themselves Satanist; therefore, they are not.

When a member of one of these groups (practically guaranteed to be exclusively Group Two) damages property or life, they should be prosecuted. Otherwise, none of these people should be taken seriously. Group One can be easily ignored, and nearly everybody in Group Two will eventually grow up and get a life. Meanwhile, we have these people to thank (albeit indirectly) for messes like the SRA scare of the 80s.

 

[SezMe]

Piscivore, your avatar looks upsidedown to me