Topic awaiting preservation: Religeon freedom to choose who you worship (Page 1 of 2)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/24/uk.devilworship/index.html

Hehe...thanks tom.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

That's funny, because Satanists don't worship the devil.

Why should it matter what religious background you are from anyways? I mean does your neighbor need to know that you go to church every Sunday? No. So why should it matter in the military? Oh well.

BiGCaC

Indeed, freedom of religion is just what it says. In a pluralistic society, different religious beliefs and practices must be tolerated. Personally, I don't want to see satanism grow in popularity, in fact, I would prefer that no one practiced it, BUT anyone who chooses to do so is fully within their constitutional rights. At least that's the case here in the USA. I'm not as familiar with British law on this topic.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, Satanism isn't really that bad.
In fact, I only disagree with one of their major points.

The basic idea behind Satanism is "live and let live".
Or, as Alister put it, "do what thou wilt..." which is commonly taken out of context.
(Alister was a kook, but he did have a few good messages.)

Why, even Nike's slogan "just do it" can be considered Satanistic.

I'll put together some of my thoughts together later.
Right now I have to get my buttocks to the office for a bit.

The "Satan" in Satanism isn't the same "Satan" in Christianity, Bugimus. There's no animal or human sacrifices, no demonic creature with big horns and a pitchfork tail... Reality's Satanism isn't Hollywood's Satanism. Many of the words you'll read in other religious doctrines, like "magic" and "vampyres," have completely different meanings than what you've learned. If you're not a bigot, read the Theory-Practice essays for more information on Satanism. Satanism is more of a fantasy-philosophy than a religion, I think. Think of the Church of Satan as a Church of Ravers. Their prescribed values system is basically PLUR (Peace, Love, Understanding, Respect). ;p

Church of Satan

Honestly, I think the CoS is a bit extraordinary. The Temple of Set is far more reasonable yet I'm not a fan of any religion so...

The Temple of Set

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

What did I say that led you to conclude I don't know what Satanism is?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Does it matter?

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

Yes. That's why I asked the question.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Whether you know or don't know about Satanism doesn't matter, those links serve others too, not just you.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

quote:

---

The "Satan" in Satanism isn't the same "Satan" in Christianity, Bugimus.

---

Definitely seems to be aimed specifically at Bugs, meta. If it wasn't, then it should be a bit more generic, like maybe "The "Satan" in Satanism isn't the same "Satan" in Christianity". Note that the "Bugimus" is missing in my example. Had you posted that, then I believe Bugs would not have asked his question. And of course, you could edit that out and then explain why.

And you still haven't answered Bugs question Unless you consider

quote:

---

Whether you know or don't know about Satanism doesn't matter

---

an answer.

Not much logic in that, really. I mean, why go to the lengths to point it out to Bugs, and then say "Oh, it doesn't matter. And the links serve others, as well."?

Well, in that case, it doesn't matter to me, your links don't matter to me, and you don't either.

Have a nice day.

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-26-2004 12:53)

ooohhhh the furs a flying......

anyway i just thought it would inspire some debate.... for example when you join the military there is the equivalent of the american oth of allegiance, where you take an oath to serve the queen and country and you say it according tio which religeous denomination you belong to...

so i wonder how they will write this one into it...

I did have some stuff, but I'm going to go in a different direction.

You know, I'm really baffled by this whole idea of tolerance.
I don't tolerate - rather, I honestly don't care.

There is a difference between tolerating and not caring.

If something is activitely annoying and you put up with it, then that would be tolerance.
But how can someone's choice of religion in and of itself be annoying?

Does somebody else's choice of religion really matter? (Average Joe, not fanatics/zealots.)
What in your life changes?
Why care?

quote:

---

The basic idea behind Satanism is "live and let live".
Or, as Alister put it, "do what thou wilt..." which is commonly taken out of context.
(Alister was a kook, but he did have a few good messages.)

---

That would be Aleister Crowley. And yes by definition he was a neo-Satanist, long before that Anton LaVey crap (which is what I assume this soldier is apart of). Ancient Satanism (which is what Crowley would be) was defined by the Vatican as any religion that wasn't of a christianic holy denomination. This included Paganism, Islam, Atheism/Scientists, and... just about every other religion (though at the time the Vatican was only referring to the major religions in Europe).

Aleister Crowley was commonly known by the media and the lamens as a 'Satanist,' however he was more of a mystic. He was one of the elite who reach Degree 33 in masonry, the highest rank you can acheive, and later seperated from masonry as a Mystic. Moreso by his followers and and the scholars that study him, Crowley was known for his Mysticism. He wrote many books on Pagan Mysticism, Egyption Mysticism, Egyptian Tarot, Eastern Mysticism, and Cabbalic Mysticism. He also created an order that branched off of The Golden Dawn, called Ordo Templi Orientis. Ordo Templi Orientis is translated as Order of Oriental Templars or Order of the Temple of the East. In short it is referred to as Thelema or Thelemism. Followers are referred to as Thelemites. OTO was very similar to Masonry and the Illuminati as it combined the logics of Science and Mathamatics and combined them with Mysticism and Spirituality. Sort of like the ancient Illuminati, but more spiritual than scientific. Crowley was quite the arrogant man, one would not call him humble. He often referred to himself as The Beast.

Crowley wrote a book called 'Moonchild.' It detailed his procedures on how to ritualistically birth a sort of prophecetic child, or one of great knowledge, wisdom, enlightenment, etc. One day whilst browsing through my local (and shitty) library, I read something that was quite interesting. In 1969, after Crowley had passed, before LaVey's Satanism was created, and before Scientology. Anton LaVey attempted to create a 'moonchild' (I know to some this may sound extremely awkward or even flat out insane but try to be open minded). Anton LeVey had an overseer of the ritual, someone to watch and guide and make sure the ritual was done correctly. And of all people, Dr. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology and the study of Dianetics, was chosen by LeVey to oversee the ritual. And this was before Hubbard had created Scientology. Needless to say, it's doubtful that LaVey was successful, but this does pose some interesting questions.

In 1977 (or 75? one of those years) Anton LaVey founded the first Church of Satan in New York. I could go into detail of the religion but I figure you can just click this link to the official website for the Church of Satan and read for yourself.

And there's a brief history of Satanism. I hope that cleared some things up.

well, define it as you like and study it all you want, you all don't fool me.

(*been there - done that - it's a powerful thing, Satanism, but it pales in comparison to the power of love)

am i deceiving myself?

BiggaBush - This River

(Edited by outcydr on 10-26-2004 23:49)

I think Bugimus hit the nail on the head there. Satanism from the many different descriptions sounds dangerous, especially warjournal's. Doing what you want sounds like it could be a dangerous law. Could anyone elaborate on this one for me if there is a clause that says "within reason" or something like that?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

Ancient Satanism (which is what Crowley would be) was defined by the Vatican as any religion that wasn't of a christianic holy denomination. This included Paganism, Islam, Atheism/Scientists, and... just about every other religion (though at the time the Vatican was only referring to the major religions in Europe).

---

Atheism and the sciences are not religions.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

I think Bugimus hit the nail on the head there. Satanism from the many different descriptions sounds dangerous, especially warjournal's. Doing what you want sounds like it could be a dangerous
law. Could anyone elaborate on this one for me if there is a clause that says "within reason" or something like that?

---

Are you too afraid of the term "Satan" to visit the Church of Satan's homepage? www.churchofsatan.com


_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-31-2004 23:21)

The full phrase, from Mr Crowely himself, goes "do what thou wilt, and let it harm no one".

...let it harm no one?

Huh? Who'da thunk it, Satanists are our friends!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

(Edited by UnknownComic on 11-01-2004 01:34)

Damn straight.

Nothing against you DL, thanks for finding that, but wouldn't it be hard to do that? I mean "harm no one." That is very dfficult to do along side doing what you want.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Of course, you make the assumption that "do what thou wilt" remains unqualified, and means do whatever you feel like with no regard to the consequences.

With that addendum of 'let it harm none', things change very drastically.

It implies the need for thought - not simple reaction to your basist impulses.

Of course, I am neither a 'satanist' or a follower of crowley. You should know that by now...

This is true. I just think that with some of the actions that go through many of my friends' heads (and mine sometimes too), that if we got used to doing what we want (within reason), couldn't we eventually slide into doing those completely evil thoughts (without reason) that cross our minds now and then?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Atheism and the sciences are not religions.

---

I'm quite aware of this. Quite aware. But try explaining that to the 18'th century pope.

Yes, the Popes of old did some bad things, but that doesn't mean that Atheism isn't like a religion in the fact that it is a belief system modeled around the basic theory of there not being a God instead of the other way around. It is still the basic idea, just with a different center.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon - we have been through this discussion many times here.

Atheism is *not* a system of beleifs. It is the singular lack of belief in god or gods. Period.

Anything beyond that is outside the scope of atheism, and is a matter of individual preference.

In the same way that simply beleiveing in god does not make you christian, not beleiving in god (ie, being an atheist), does not make you part of any other group or part of any structured belief system.

It is *not* the same basic idea - not in the slightest..

quote:

---

that if we got used to doing what we want (within reason), couldn't we eventually slide into doing those completely evil thoughts (without reason) that cross our minds now and then?

---

Gideon, it's not a matter of dogma, religious beliefs, or moral compass.
Not hurting someone comes from self-control.
The 'power' is you regardless of those other things.

Well warjournal, I don't know about you, but from all the stresses in my life my personal power source is quite low, and I know that I have a hard time controlling myself in certain situations. Just read "owwww...it hurts bad," and you will get the picture.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Atheism is *not* a system of beleifs. It is the singular lack of belief in god
or gods. Period.

---

DL, I hate doing this but I want to prove my point. Isn't a "lack of belief in god or gods" still a belief? That is my personal understanding, but I could be wrong.

Believing in God does not make me a Christain, but since I do believe in God that does make me a Theist, with that belief system of believing in God. Does your theory then conclude that Theists do not have a structured belief system, or do they? Just a question, please don't get angry. I need a little clarification.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

DL, I hate doing this but I want to prove my point. Isn't a "lack of belief in god or gods" still a belief? That is my personal understanding, but I could be wrong.

Believing in God does not make me a Christain, but since I do believe in God that does make me a Theist, with that belief system of believing in God. Does your theory then conclude that Theists do not have a structured belief system, or do they? Just a question, please don't get angry. I need a little clarification.

---

A lack of belief can also be said to be a belief in something not being.
It's a matter of semantics that I don't care to get into just now.

Now, to clarify:

a theist is simply someone who beleives in a god or gods.
an atheist is someone who does not.

Neither term attaches any further meaning to the person it is used to describe.

Anything that you tie together with either of those terms is a way of elaborating your belief system in the context of whether or not you beleive in god(s), but it does not alter the meaning of the terms.

The fact that you are a theist has nothing at all to do with the judeau-christian concept of god. You infer that to be a theist means to believe in your god.

It does not.

quote:

---

Well warjournal, I don't know about you, but from all the stresses in my life my personal power source is quite low, and I know that I have a hard time controlling myself in certain situations. Just read "owwww...it hurts bad," and you will get the picture.

---

Yeah, been there done that.

Then I realized certain things.

First of all, you can't control your emotions. If you get mad, then you get mad. They happen and they are a part of life.

However, what you can control is how you act on them. Just because you are mad, you don't have to hurt anybody. This is where self-control comes in. It's all you, dude. Grind your teeth, count to ten, walk away, or whatever.

Another thing I realized is that I was getting bent out of shape over the silliest things. Or even things completely out of my control (that may or may not affect me). Once I started identifying the silly/uncontrollable things, I was able to negate them.

Now, there are those emotional things that I do have control over. Pissed about my job? Get a new one or transfer or something. Kids running with scissors after I already yelled at them once? Put the scissors away where they can't get them (or think that they can't get them).

Along those lines, I have also learned confrontation - with temperment. If a particular person is getting on my nerves, I confront and get it over with. My relationship with my mother is a classic example of this. I used to just grit my teeth when she got on my nerves. Now a days, I let her know and we actually have much a much better relationship because of it.

It's all you, dude.
Now quit yer snivelin' and fix those negative things in your life.
No one is going to do it for you.

*thoughtless bull**** deleted* sorry

(Edited by White Hawk on 11-20-2004 06:00)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The fact that you are a theist has nothing at all to do with the
judeau-christian concept of god. You infer that to be a theist means to believe
in your god. It does not.

---

No, it doesn't. All others who believe in a God are theists. I am meerly trying to say that Atheism is a system of beliefs centered around a religious thought, much like many other "theistic" beliefs.

quote:

---

warjournal said:

It's all you, dude.Now quit yer snivelin' and fix those negative things in
your life.No one is going to do it for you.

---

Well, too late, someone already did.

Great motivational speech there WJ. It would work on most people, but I guess I have grown callous to them. Anyway, I don't have a big problem controlling my emotions, actions, etc. At least now I don't. In my span of life I have learned from many sources that people deal with things poorly. Simply put: We screw up. I just decided that it was time to stop screwing around and allow someone who doesn't screw up to take control of my life. It worked. Please go and read my post on the other thread, it explains alot.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

No, it doesn't. All others who believe in a God are theists. I am meerly trying to say that Atheism is a system of beliefs centered around a religious thought, much like many other "theistic" beliefs.

---

*sights*

ohh boy, I guess you never listen to anyone anymore.

Just please reread DL's post. He already pointed out that your oppinion about atheism being a belief is fallible at most.

No Ruski, Gideon demonstrates no real ability to consider things from outside of his faith, unfortunately. Sad. He has made up his mind, and cannot be "swayed", apparently.

He also seems to misunderstand what others have posted.

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-20-2004 08:33)

=(

it's sad Shaman...really is.
Like I said before, I am even more saddened to know that 75% of the world's population is that way.

(Edited by Ruski on 11-20-2004 08:33)

quote:

---

I am meerly trying to say that Atheism is a system of beliefs centered around a religious thought, much like many other "theistic" beliefs.

---

No.

Read my post again.

If you still feel this way, read it again.

Rinse, repeat.

You are trying to attach a 'system' of beliefs to an objective term that defines *only* whether or not a person beleives that a god or gods exist.

I could also be a theist, and not be of any particular religion. The fact that I would be a theist would say absolutely nothing about what my system of beliefs are. I could, for example, be a theist who simply believed that god was all wrong, and that human science was the only answer, and was infallbile.

I could be steafast worshipper of Zeus.

I could hold Satan as the one true god.

I could worship Uma Thurman as god.

I could beleive that I am god.

Theism is not a religion. It is not a system of beliefs based on a religious idea. It regards *only* the concept of the existence of deities.

Same with atheism.

The concept of whether or not god exists is not a religious thought.

What you do after making that determination is what leads to religion.

No, Gideon, you haven't grown callous to what I've said.
You are being irresponsible and lazy.
Your life is your responsibility. Period.

Now, if you'll excuse me, dishes and laundry need to be done.
You see, they are being 'negative' and I need to 'fix' them.
No one is going to do it for me.
My life, my responsibility.

kbye

quote:

---

Gideon wrote:

DL, I hate doing this but I want to prove my point. Isn't a "lack of belief in god or gods" still a belief? That is my personal understanding, but I could be wrong.

and:

All others who believe in a God are theists. I am meerly trying to say that Atheism is a system of beliefs centered around a religious thought, much like many other "theistic" beliefs.

---

Yes, a "lack of belief in god or gods" is still a belief. However, it is not a SYSTEM of beliefs centered around a religious thought. Atheism refers to a lack of belief in a god, but is not a system of beliefs. It is not an organized doctrine, but simply a way of thinking. There are probably organized groups of people with a belief system that includes a lack of belief in a god or gods, but that is a separate thing.

Sorry to interupt, but I just though this was funny, and had to say, its good to see Webshaman back in his true form.

quote:

---

Webshaman - Well, in that case, it doesn't matter to me, your links don't matter to me, and you don't either.

---

Sort of busy, but finding this all very interesting...