Philosophy Discussion Forums

Geordie Ross wrote:Ok I can't take you seriously anymore. You're setting up a absurd false dichotomy in which the choice is religion, or satanism.

Philosophical Satanism is essentially just atheism, the exact same thing only made into a religious text. I suppose it's a modern day version of Lucretius "On the Nature of Things" only with a more rebellious and anti-Christian tone to it. Most hardcore anti-theistic atheists don't like Christianity or even the concept of God so they will enjoy reading the Satanic Bible. It does have some "magic rituals" like the Black Mass but these are purely psychological and aren't meant to involve anything supernatural at all.

According to your logic, atheism doesn't exist because you've changed it's definition to satanism.

It's certainly the same thing as non-theistic Satanism. It's worth reading the Satanic Bible if you can get a hold of it. Also Lucretius on the Nature of Things which is essentially what we would call atheism put into the form of a poetic religious sounding text which was written before Christ.

http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.html

If you oppose the concept of god you're automatically a satanist. Ridiculous.

Satan is a figure of speech that means "adversary" and atheism is adversarial toward religious faith, belief in God and particularly Christianity. So it would be reasonable to say that you are a "Satanic" individual. The Satanic Bible claims this is a very good thing to be though as to be a Satanist is to have attained the ultimate form of enlightenment it's possible for a human to attain, free from the yoke of an oppressor God and his Earthly representatives. This leaves you free to fully relish the pleasures of life while you're alive, seeing as you will spend a long time being dead and being dead is no fun at all.

Ha! I can't believe it, you're actually serious! fallacious absurdity is priceless on a philosophy forum.

Geordie Ross wrote:Ha! I can't believe it, you're actually serious! fallacious absurdity is priceless on a philosophy forum.

Are you adversarial to religion, faith in God and Christianity? If so then you are a "Satan" which is a figure of speech which Jesus even used on his followers.

"Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." Matthew 16:23

So you're fully "Satanic" from the Christian perspective and even Jesus himself would have called you that.

Ruskin wrote:

Dukedroklar wrote: I would also like to point out that Satan was Lucifer which means "the morning star, bearer of light". Things that make you go hmmm.

That was what Satan was before his fall as far as the tradition goes much like Anakin Skywalker is the same person as Darth Vader. Lucifer in the Bible may be referring to a human king of Tyre and not the same being as Satan however. Also the Roman god Phosphoros who was called the "light bearer" so he could have some connection. If you want to get into the occult literature Satan would be the archangel Samael and he first makes his appearance as a fallen angel in the Book of Enoch which is no longer canon but it is very cool.

According to many denominations, ancient Gods were actually Satan in disguise so Phosphoros being another name for Satan would fit with what they say. I haven't researched it enough to form an opinion.

I have read a very small amount of the book of Enoch and find it interesting to say the least. The reason I was drawn to it was due to the anomaly of the lineage in Genesis. Everyone in the lineage is listed by age when their first born came, then how many years they lived afterwards, their total age followed by the words "and he died". Everyone except Enoch.

Enoch lived 65 years and fathered his 1st born (Methuselah which also was the oldest recorded life 969 yrs) after which he "walked with God" for another 300 years fathering more children. At 365 years old however it does not say he died but says God took him; "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him". I find it very interesting that such strange terminology was used, "he was not" rather than the terminology used for all those listed before and after Enoch.

I have always suspected that "he was not" may mean that the person who was Enoch had advanced to a level where his old self no longer existed but became a new person or possibly an earthborn angel (for lack of a better word). Not sure what the Book of Enoch says about this. It would explain many of the angel sightings mentioned throughout the Bible that indicates many angels were in fact men. Even Jacobs ladder describes the angels as ascending to heaven and then descending back down to earth. I do not believe the order of that is an oversight by the writers.

Geordie Ross wrote:Ok I can't take you seriously anymore. You're setting up a absurd false dichotomy in which the choice is religion, or satanism. According to your logic, atheism doesn't exist because you've changed it's definition to satanism. If you oppose the concept of god you're automatically a satanist. Ridiculous.

I would point out that many if not most denominations say if you don't serve God then you serve Satan indirectly or follow a false God who is Satan in disguise. I am not stating this but they do.

Ruskin is correct in his assertion that the Bible calls any who do not follow God "Satan". This can not be disputed. However I believe this indicates the duality of man as pointed out in Ruskin's quote of:

"Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." Matthew 16:23

Remember how important a position Peter held and yet he was still called Satan by Jesus in this instance.

I believe this ties in with my theory that we humans are in fact the Satan of the bible (at least in most instances) and is related to the duality of man. Also, that regardless of how enlightened one may be we are all still vulnerable to our darker nature rather than following our higher self.

I would also say the KJV is different in subtle ways:

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

I believe the word savourest is more than "have in mind" as the translation states but means enjoys, lusts after, desires. In other words, desiring earthly things and pleasures rather than spiritual things.

As Lorde (pop artist) puts it in the song Royals:

"And we'll never be royals.

It don't run in our blood

That kind of luxe just ain't for us.

We crave a different kind of buzz.


I may not agree with other things Ruskin puts forth but I do think he's accurate in the areas I stated.

Have I wandered accidentally into Comedy Central?

The New Testament is awesome to me, it has changed my life immeasurably, but I think that it is largely misunderstood, because of the way that Jesus is perceived. I won't go into detail here, but the whole "walked on water" thing has had me thinking. Walking on water is a physical impossibility and God, does not to my knowledge break such fundamental laws of physics. However, Jesus was of a divine nature, and as we do not know what the divine consists of, it is arguable, albeit tenuously, that he possessed some type of advance technology within him, which allowed him to appear to be walking on water - like thrusters . . . The smart man, I feel, would of observed the ripples in the water, in order to ascertain if they were the type of ripples that were caused by contact such as footsteps, or the type of ripples that were caused by a constant force pushing through water, so to speak.

Walking on water would have just been an advanced form of levitation, there have been a number Christian Saints and others in history who have been said to have been able to do this.

http://www.deeptrancenow.com/levitating_saint.htm


Unfortunately no-one in modern times apparently can do this though perhaps we have lost that grade of faith/spiritual power or whatever.

The gullibility of humankind is awe-inspiring.

Wilson wrote:The gullibility of humankind is awe-inspiring.

How do you know that levitation or some form of telekinesis isn't possible? I think there is at least a little bit of evidence for it.

Poltergeist activity could also be telekinetic as well unless as some people would claim it's of demonic origin.

Ruskin wrote:How do you know that levitation or some form of telekinesis isn't possible? I think there is at least a little bit of evidence for it. Poltergeist activity could also be telekinetic as well unless as some people would claim it's of demonic origin.

Ruskin, I don't want to be insulting, but get help.

Wilson wrote: Ruskin, I don't want to be insulting, but get help.

Two billion people need help if we're talking about a belief that Jesus walked on water, paranormal abilities/miracles and non-physical spiritual beings actually exist. What did you think a belief in Christianity entailed? Perhaps atheists (a very tiny minority) are the people who need help?

Geordie Ross wrote:Ok I can't take you seriously anymore. You're setting up a absurd false dichotomy in which the choice is religion, or satanism. According to your logic, atheism doesn't exist because you've changed it's definition to satanism. If you oppose the concept of god you're automatically a satanist. Ridiculous.

If you are saying the same things as Satanists, then surely you understand how it's possible to see a connection, which is what you were denying earlier.

Cheers,
enegue

Ok let's dispelled this nonsense that is apparently ingrained in many users minds.

To alter the definition of a word in order to support your argument is a fallacy of the highest degree.

Satanism definitions;

1. The worship of Satan, typically involving a travesty of Christian symbols and practices, such as placing a cross upside down.

2. Innate wickedness : obsession with or affinity for evil ; specifically : worship of Satan marked by the travesty of Christian rites. (Miriam Webster)

3. diabolical or satanic disposition, behavior, or activity. (Dictionary.com)

I rest my case. Fallacy after fallacy will not warrant my time nor replies. Refrain from using them in your supposed philosophical arguments. Intelectual discourse is destroyed by such absurd arguments.

Geordie Ross wrote:Ok let's dispelled this nonsense that is apparently ingrained in many users minds.

To alter the definition of a word in order to support your argument is a fallacy of the highest degree.

Satanism definitions;

1. The worship of Satan, typically involving a travesty of Christian symbols and practices, such as placing a cross upside down.

2. Innate wickedness : obsession with or affinity for evil ; specifically : worship of Satan marked by the travesty of Christian rites. (Miriam Webster)

3. diabolical or satanic disposition, behavior, or activity. (Dictionary.com)

I rest my case. Fallacy after fallacy will not warrant my time nor replies. Refrain from using them in your supposed philosophical arguments. Intelectual discourse is destroyed by such absurd arguments.

You are describing devil worship, Geordie. Reiterating the Wikipedia article on Lavayan Satanism:
Contrary to popular belief, LaVeyan Satanism does not involve "devil worshiping" or worship of any such deities; it is an atheistic philosophy that uses the character of "Satan" as a symbol of pride, carnality, enlightenment, undefiled wisdom ...

What distinguishes you from a Lavayan Satanist is that your mockery of Christianity is not as flamboyant as theirs. Your philosophy, however, is very much aligned with theirs.

Cheers,
enegue

I don't believe in gods. Therefore I worship satan. Excuse me while I sacrifice a virgin and drink the blood of an orphan child.

I am not a Lavayan satanist. No matter how much you assert otherwise, I am an atheist. Falsely pinning tags onto my philosophical views will not help you.