jauggy Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I can't believe this testimony of a satanist: About myself: Though I was raised as a Christian, I became an atheist in my early twenties. I was a strong atheist for over fifteen years before coming to Satanism. I did not even believe in the existence of the human soul. I attended University, majoring in the physical sciences for a number of years, and have been an active former member of American Mensa.http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/Outsiders.html How can a mensa student believe in this? Christians who say that after believing in Jesus their life has changed for the better, should realise how pointless that argument is given that anyone can say it. Example: I performed the dedication ritual several years ago, at midnight on the evening of April 30th. My life over these past few years has drastically changed for the better. I have found blissful happiness and profound joy as I have never experienced before. I have no doubts that Satan/Lucifer is the Creator God of humanity. There are no words to express my deepest love for him. He has touched me to tears many, many times and has blessed me and my family profusely. I strongly encourage everyone to perform the commitment ritual. I have never known a more beautiful, loving, magnificent being as my beloved Father Satan. Exhalted be His Name and May He Reign Forever!! How to dedicate your soul to Satan Look at the testimonials: http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis6...ESTIMONIAL.html What do you guys think? Are they just as nuts as Christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 People that worship imaginary beings what ever the name of the being are all sligtly nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Satanism is a religion based upon the philosophy of Anton Szandor LaVey (commonly referred to as 'LaVeyan Satanism') as outlined in The Satanic Bible and other works. "Satan" is appropriated as a positive symbol of this worldview, an archetype or the ultimate symbol of the self and egotism. LaVey explains that Satan is only a symbol in an interview with Washington Post magazine. "Satan is just a symbol, nothing more," LaVey says. "Satan signifies our love of the worldly and our rejection of the pallid, ineffectual image of Christ on the cross." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jauggy Posted December 8, 2006 Author Share Posted December 8, 2006 Thanks for the info. However that satanist website is not about LaVeyan Satanism. They actually believe him to be a real entity. I have had many conversations with Father Satan and Azazel, only very few have I ever written down. Satan and his Top Ranking Demons do not usually appear face to face to most people. Those of us, who work directly with him, as he advises us and dictates instructions we are to carry out, see him face to face... http://www.freewebs.com/eridu666/Conversation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 right..... yeah, he's as batshit crazy as a christian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jauggy Posted December 8, 2006 Author Share Posted December 8, 2006 Look at the wiki entry on Satanism. It's funny because an Xtian got their hand on it and its very obvious: Satanism is often mistaken as being a religion that encourages cruelty and irresponsible behaviour, but LaVey's brand is very different. Central is the idea inherited from Nietzsche that an individual must enforce his own meaning on life and rise above the perceived conformity of the masses. The Satanist is seen as equivalent to Nietzsche's Übermensch; LaVey claimed "Satanists are born, not made" and that "[satanists]have a disease called independence that needs to be recognised just like alcoholism." There is a libertarian element here; diversity is encouraged, everyone is expected to discover their own sexuality, chart their own personality, and decide their own ambitions in life. In this stress on individuality, Satanism is considered a "Left-Hand Path" religion. Satanism is all about violence and cruelty. No matt er what anyone says satanism is all about being against God and they do promote the killings of people that do not agree with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Look at the wiki entry on Satanism. It's funny because an Xtian got their hand on it and its very obvious:Satanism is often mistaken as being a religion that encourages cruelty and irresponsible behaviour, but LaVey's brand is very different. Central is the idea inherited from Nietzsche that an individual must enforce his own meaning on life and rise above the perceived conformity of the masses. The Satanist is seen as equivalent to Nietzsche's Übermensch; LaVey claimed "Satanists are born, not made" and that "[satanists]have a disease called independence that needs to be recognised just like alcoholism." There is a libertarian element here; diversity is encouraged, everyone is expected to discover their own sexuality, chart their own personality, and decide their own ambitions in life. In this stress on individuality, Satanism is considered a "Left-Hand Path" religion. Satanism is all about violence and cruelty. No matt er what anyone says satanism is all about being against God and they do promote the killings of people that do not agree with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism thats not there now. I guess the wiki moderators must work overdrive to keep that stuff off there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Viewing Satan as a metaphor, al-la Anton LaVey: acceptable. Viewing Satan as a real entity in any way: Personally, I find LaVeyan Satanism a decent religion overall, and I draw much influence from it. But thinking there is a real Satan anywhere else than in one's mind? Yeah, slightly nuts, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachelness Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Strange bunch IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurari Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I agree with Varokhar. This is something somebody made up. It doesn't follow LeVey Satanism, and seems more along the lines of some emo Christian kid wanting to be rebellious without actually giving up the idea of having a god who loves them and watches out for them. How can a mensa student believe in this? Quite easily. Just because you are extrodinarily booksmart doesn't mean you are very streetsmart or emotionally mature. I used to hang out with a bunch of people at the local MENSA chapter and they were really some of the biggest dumbasses I've ever met*. One of them enjoyed being an internet troll talking about stupid scat humor, and acted like an old high schooler...very cliqueish and immature and you were either her bestest friend or totally against her. She managed to screw up her personal life on a regular basis and couldn't figure out why. Brilliant editor and businesswoman though. *This of course is not a generalization on all MENSA members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roman Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 jauggy: your satanist is no satanist. I'm sure you know that. Additionally, A. S. LaVey (real name Howard Levy) was a plagiarist and a pitiful wretch who plundered the writings and philosophies of Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, and Aleister Crowley. He was an abuser of animals and women. He was a common con artist. The Satanic Bible was just a sleazy business deal with Avon Books. Levy died in squalor and shame. You may have encountered actual satanists; one never knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 LaVey was definitely a plagarist (giving lip service to Ayn Rand, but no printed credits to anything else he indeed borrowed from) but I'll stick up for him and say he was no animal or woman abuser. In addition to never having actually taught these things, those allegations only came up when his daughter Zeena and her husband wrote a book with all sorts of wild claims, which to me seems like any other books of the sort - written for money and press. But LaVay did dump his first wife, Carol Lansing, for Diane Hegarty, which is pretty shitty. Good ideas (or meldings of others' good ideas) don't always come from the best of people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jauggy Posted December 9, 2006 Author Share Posted December 9, 2006 jauggy: your satanist is no satanist. I'm sure you know that. What is that supposed to mean? That's like saying my dog is not a dog. I'm guessing you mean "your satanist is not a typical satanistTM" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 jauggy: your satanist is no satanist. I'm sure you know that. What is that supposed to mean? That's like saying my dog is not a dog. I'm guessing you mean "your satanist is not a typical satanistTM" I'm sure he means that the Satanist to whom you referred was not a LaVeyan Satanist - and, despite everything, LaVeyan Satanists were the first to actually codify a religion by the name of "Satanism." Therefore, we can assume (rightly, I'd think) that it's the LaVeyan flavor which officially can claim to be "Satanists." Kind of how a Xian can say he believes in Jebus but his definition of Jebus isn't in harmony with the one book (the Babble) which codifies Jebus-belief, you follow me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jauggy Posted December 9, 2006 Author Share Posted December 9, 2006 That is correct that they are not a LaVeyan Satanist. But they are still Satanists. The person on that website uses the Al Jilwah book (whatever that is). Similar to how a Mormon uses the Book of Mormon but would still be considered under the Christian umbrella. * The reason why I am arguing is this is because its so similar to when a Christian points to another Christian and says, "You're not a TRUE ChristianTM". The Catholics are the "official" Christians if we were to define "official" as the first. I don't think any protestant would agree with this though. *Evangelicals would disagree with this. See here for more info: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldswho.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 The Catholics, are the "official" Christians if we were to define "official" as the first. I don't think any protestant would agree with this though. Definitely not, but on the other hand, Protestants can back up their version of Jebus and Xianity by cherry-picking the appropriate Babble verses, just like the Catholics do. The LaVeyan Satanists and the Satanists who believe in a real Satan are even more disparate than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jauggy Posted December 9, 2006 Author Share Posted December 9, 2006 The definition of Christian like Satanism is not agreed upon. That's why you have these accusations of "You're not a true Christian" etc. Whether or not someone is a Christian depends entirely on how you define the word. This website gives a summary of different possible definitions of "Christian" according to different denominations: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn2.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn3.htm Interesting is this part: Each group has their own definition of "Christian" which agrees with their own beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, church tradition, written text, evolved theology, etc. There appears to be no way to compromise on a single definition that is acceptable to all. One apparently cannot call on a higher power to resolve the problem, because there seems to be no way to assess the will of God on such matters. If there were such a method, then different definitions would have been harmonized centuries ago. People would simply have prayed to God and asked Him to define what a Christian is. Then, a consensus would exist today on the true meaning of the word "Christian." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I would think that the "Spiritual" Satanists who endorse the entity of Satan would fall under the Christian umbrella as well. They believe and worship Christian concepts, where LaVeyan Satanists do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I would think that the "Spiritual" Satanists who endorse the entity of Satan would fall under the Christian umbrella as well. They believe and worship Christian concepts, where LaVeyan Satanists do not. Excellent point, Taph. I'm sorry to have been misunderstood by so many fellow members/posters, but I assumed a level of understanding that does not exist. I was only talking about THAT GUY, not which brand of satanism he smokes, or anyone else...just HIM. He exhibits the qualities of a fake and a troll. That's what I meant, and only that. But I am perfectly willing to discuss any facet of so-called satanism, or any path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Excellent point, Taph. I'm sorry to have been misunderstood by so many fellow members/posters, but I assumed a level of understanding that does not exist. I was only talking about THAT GUY, not which brand of satanism he smokes, or anyone else...just HIM. He exhibits the qualities of a fake and a troll. That's what I meant, and only that. But I am perfectly willing to discuss any facet of so-called satanism, or any path. The problem is that we have to make due with two dimentional communication that is message boards. Where as in person, we have the luxury of the nuances of non-verbal cues that help to communicate our ideas better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts