"Satanist" desecration!

I just love it when those ''writers'' always link the music to the ''devilish'' acts. If they (the kids) were listening to Britney Spears while having sex under some skulls I bet the newspaper wouldn't have mention it.
 
Where's Sonicarnal Artist when you need him? I too have noticed satan worshippers are usually nice geeky people, just wanting a group or an escape from society. If they want to find the true satanist in society- look no further than within the beltway of washington, or in any company board room. These people worship the idols of power and greed- not brotherhood and humility.
 
Esteban said:
There were also bottles of liquor, blankets, paper to roll marihuana, condoms, chains, cds of devil worshipping bands.

:lol: Nice to know that sacrificial orgies are safe from STD's. I can imagine the infernal lustfilled satanic sex they had. "Wait a sec Satan, I'll put on the rubber."
 
Where's Sonicarnal Artist when you need him? I too have noticed satan worshippers are usually nice geeky people, just wanting a group or an escape from society. If they want to find the true satanist in society- look no further than within the beltway of washington, or in any company board room. These people worship the idols of power and greed- not brotherhood and humility.

I agree with you on one thing, the fact that society as a whole likes to believe that satanists, among other things, are the source of the world's problems. This is certainly not true, but the media requires a scapegoat, and unfortunately, the general consensus of imbeciles would much rather place the blame on something they don't care to understand, rather than the large greedy conglomerate corporations they work for. However, being nice and geeky does not provide an excuse for one to act stupid. The fact is, I've read up on Anton Lavey's philosophy, and most of it is as blind as every other major worldly religion. It is the work of a somewhat intelligent man who realized the credulity of the typical individual, and turned his ideas into a fundamental belief system, luring thousands of ignorant people whom are too lazy and unoriginal to create their own beliefs into his mislead circle of fallacy. While they do indeed stress concepts such as brotherhood and humility, some of it is extremely misguided, such as the notion that an individual should indulge in their own lustful pleasures, or to put it more bluntly, an individual has the right to be a total whore. What irritates me the most about these self-absorbed morons is how offended they seem to get after a person like myself refers to them as a mindless follower, yet they'll be quick to turn around and say the same thing about every other organized religion. Only difference is, the majority of them are uneducated on the subject. Let's face it, anyone who would be so bold as to proudly declare themselves a satanist is an idiot. This leads me to another subject; The satanist religion has very little, or arguably nothing at all to do with the christian concept of "Satan." In fact, the only factor that suggests why Lavey would call it satanism is that they believe that there is a devil in all of us, or in other words, evil lies within every one of us. I agree with this idea, but then there's no reason to label it Satanism unless you wish to provoke a great deal of unwarranted controversy from all of those whom are too ignorant to actually do their research. Naming a belief-structure that has nothing to do with satan as "satanism" is the foolish equivalent of naming "The Catcher in the Rye" something like "Molesting the Rotten Corpse of Christ." Of course, this never occurred because J.D. Salinger wasn't an attention-craving lunatic. Every time a dimwit attempts to defend his half-assed beliefs with a paper-pushing argument like "Satanism is not about Satan!," it pisses me off. Excellent, asshole. Now how about showing people some credibility? The fact is, nobody gives a shit whether or not it's about Satan. Next time you might want to allow somebody with an IQ higher than 55 to speak for your your entire fundamental belief structure without having to use innocuous, pseudo-enlightening statements such as that. You'd think Lavey couldn't possibly be dumb enough to use a self-contradictory title for his life's work and devotion, but you'd be wrong. Anton Lavey sucks along with his entire gregarious union of dickheads.
 
Allow me to address this before someone who doesn't understand the concept of opinion retorts and leads me into another meaningless argument.

DISCLAIMER: THE PREVIOUS POST WAS SIMPLY A MATTER OF OPINION. THE AUTHOR DID NOT FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY TO STATE THE WORDS "IN MY HUMBLE OPINION" BEFORE EVERY OTHER DAMN SENTENCE. THANK YOU.
 
I actually agree with what you wrote, ive only read a little Crowley- and I thought it was quite ridiculous. I find it humerous that one could be a satanist- but then again, i hold the same opinion on catholics.

I suppose it is the idea of satan, thjat is important. Milton, Blake, to them satan is a rebel, and one to be praised. The fact that one would create a whole ritual system on a made up religious character almost flies in face of satans own rebellion against the system.
 
I actually agree with what you wrote, ive only read a little Crowley- and I thought it was quite ridiculous. I find it humerous that one could be a satanist- but then again, i hold the same opinion on catholics.

I suppose it is the idea of satan, thjat is important. Milton, Blake, to them satan is a rebel, and one to be praised. The fact that one would create a whole ritual system on a made up religious character almost flies in face of satans own rebellion against the system.

Very true. I've never read anything from Blake, but John Milton in his famous work "Paradise Lost," does indeed portray Satan as the central protagonist. It IS the idea of Satan, rather than the meaning behind it, that so many are attracted to. I choose to not base my fundamental beliefs on a fictitious character in a book, which is why I don't agree with Christianity or Catholicism either. They're all great stories, but so is Bram Stoker's "Dracula," and nobody worships a vampire. To me, it is equally absurd to follow Dracula as it is to follow God. Then again, I wouldn't follow an actual historical figure either, no matter how inspirational they may be to to others, which is why I'm not a Buddhist. In my opinion, agnosticism is the only valid way of thinking, simply because no matter what, you can't possibly be wrong. :)
 
Well saying you would never follow a historical figure slightly contradicts your screen name slightly, but oh well! Perhaps that was an intentional joke.

Seriously though, I really think you made a superb point with the long message above - much of which I agree with, although I personally believe in God. I don't have a problem with what anyone else believes though.

To say you can never be wrong if you are Agnostic is perhaps untrue though, but who am I to judge you on that!

:D
 
Well saying you would never follow a historical figure slightly contradicts your screen name slightly, but oh well! Perhaps that was an intentional joke.

Seriously though, I really think you made a superb point with the long message above - much of which I agree with, although I personally believe in God. I don't have a problem with what anyone else believes though.

To say you can never be wrong if you are Agnostic is perhaps untrue though, but who am I to judge you on that!

Well, my online alias "DiscipleOfPlato" isn't really meant to imply anything. Heh heh, I do find Plato's philosophy to be greatly interesting, though I don't actually consider myself to be his "disciple," or anyone's for that matter.
And that's perfectly fine for you to believe in God, just so long as you have the knowledge to support your beliefs. I can respect anyone's beliefs just so long as they genuinely believe it, and as long as they're not doing it as an act of fraudulence in order to fit in.

Also, perhaps I worded it incorrectly, but I meant to say that the reason why an agnostic can never be wrong is because the whole idea of agnosticism is that one does not deny the existence of God, an afterlife, etc. but only considers it one of the possibilities. In other words, since I choose to merely question rather than reject or accept religious doctrine, then no matter what is in fact true, I couldn't possibly be wrong because I never believed it. I'm honest enough to accept uncertainty, and the fact that man simply does not know what awaits them after death.
 
Fair enough, I repsect your views. I expected that your screen name wasn't really meant to imply anything serious by the way!

I'm glad my beliefs are accepted as well, and I assure you that they are not to "fit in" so don't worry there!
 
Not to be prick or anything, but I fault plato's philosophy with all that is wrong in todays world. The strict hierarchy, the tendency towards the one which was reinterpreted by neoplatonist christians as god, the holy spirit and Christ. and that god awful modern art that is so attached to form derived from plato. I respect his philosophy, but its use in the world has been rather oppressing.
 
Not to be prick or anything, but I fault plato's philosophy with all that is wrong in todays world. The strict hierarchy, the tendency towards the one which was reinterpreted by neoplatonist christians as god, the holy spirit and Christ. and that god awful modern art that is so attached to form derived from plato. I respect his philosophy, but its use in the world has been rather oppressing.

Well, keep in mind that I never said that I agreed with Plato's philosophy entirely. He was, however, one of the most genuinely intelligent thinkers of all time; a man who wasn't intimidated by those who criticized him, and dared to speak what he regarded as the truth, paying no heed to the consequences. That is why I have a great deal of respect for him. While his precise ideals don't hold much of a place in today's modern would-be democratic world, I think that it undoubtedly inspired a lot of the society-proclaimed "great" thinkers and philosophers of modern contemporary time, including Timothy Leary. Plato's ideas were a cornerstone in philosophy and productivity, and contributed greatly to where humans are today, whether you view our current age pessimistically or not. In my opinion, one should approach the works of Plato with an open mind, attempt to learn from it and deduce from it what you can, thus allowing yourself to relate to it, or question it if you must. This is the same with almost EVERY other ancient philosopher. These people, within the context of their time period, conjured up some of the most original ideas in the history of mankind, the same ideas that inspired what I assume you'd label a great thinker today to do what the individual does best, to think and question what is known to be right. I've always thought that a strict heirarchy could be put to good use if executed correctly, being that most human beings are not yet prepared for freedom, nor do they deserve it.
 
I totally agree, Plato was a innovative thinker, and hell if he hadnt thought up what he did, someone else would have. Still, it is hard to understand just how much of an impact Plato's thoughts had on the emerging christian world, as well as the humanists of the renaissance- we still bear the scars of his authoritarian thoughts. Have you heard the quote one is either a follower of plato or aristotle?
 
I'm not sure if someone has answered this already or not but:

Marilyn Manson was an officially ordained Priest of the Church of Satan. I believe he left following the death of founder Anton LeVey.


And I agree, the man is obviously misinformed.

That being said, it's not above some local youth acting out against authority to claim themselves in league with Satan himself in attempt to gain some respect. If the people who did do this were Satanic, $50 says they were freshmen in highschool or younger... actual Satanists don't waste their time with shit like that.
 
I totally agree, Plato was a innovative thinker, and hell if he hadnt thought up what he did, someone else would have. Still, it is hard to understand just how much of an impact Plato's thoughts had on the emerging christian world, as well as the humanists of the renaissance- we still bear the scars of his authoritarian thoughts. Have you heard the quote one is either a follower of plato or aristotle?

The neoplatonists of the Renaissance existed in a time period where an absolutist monarchy was the sole form of government, which is why it's easy to understand why Plato's ideals shone a prominent light on the era. And no, I've never heard the quote, though I can see it makes sense, considering just how disparate Plato and Aristotle's ideas were. Personally, although I have a lot of respect for him, Aristotle's works tend to bore me. Maybe it's just me though...

That being said, it's not above some local youth acting out against authority to claim themselves in league with Satan himself in attempt to gain some respect. If the people who did do this were Satanic, $50 says they were freshmen in highschool or younger... actual Satanists don't waste their time with shit like that.

I agree. Serious fundamental belief structures shouldn't be left in the hands of ignorant teenagers attempting to gain social acceptance, let alone be interpreted by them.