Which of the Nine Satanic Sins do you believe in?

submitted by Gravi from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LarrySwinger2 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (54 children)

You're on a slippery slope, a lot of these people are paederasts and spooks. You'd better quit this shit and read the Bible instead. It's a good source of ethics.

[–]Gravi[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (39 children)

Reminder, I am in Europe and am unable to contact them nor am I interested in contacting them.

And also I've told in chat at least that I have no further interest in LaVey satanism except for some things that are interesting for me.

I shall read the Bible one day, but I do not deem it logical nor my source of ethics, I've formed my own that are a compilation of many experiences and other things.

[–]LarrySwinger2 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I guess I misunderstood the above post then, I thought you were talking about a Satanic congregation. (There's various occult organizations present throughout Europe, so it wouldn't have surprised me.) Yes, a lot of priests want to be hip, that's why he may not have had an issue with it.

It's good that you've formulated your own rules for proper conduct. At the very least, read the Bible to become cultured. It's also great literature.

[–]Gravi[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Alright, I edited it a bit to make it more clear.

I haven't heard of any occult in my country.

I've got a lot of literature to read and I have some different bibles passed on to my mother, some newer, some about 100 or more years old.

[–]Alienhunter 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

There's several breeds of satanist.

There's the occultist types doing goat sacrifices and what not. Who actually worship Satan directly.

There's the intellectual Satanists who see Satan as a liberation type figure and believe in the absolute supremacy of the self over any kind of god like authority.

And finally there's the primary group of satanists you see in modern culture, who are more a parody of religion than actual worshipers.

The thing is, while I fully support the idea of studying satanism, as with the tree of knowledge you must learn what evil is to be able to know what good is, all the various threads of it are for fools and idiots.

The literal satanists who actually believe in and worship Satan believe in and worship a lesser spiritual being whose existence is tolerated by god in the same way one may tolerate a gnat in their house until it's time to squish it. They are idiots.

The intellectual satanists who don't believe in god fail to see the purpose of the Satan allegory and the allegorical significance of god. Satan rages against the natural order of the world and is destroyed. We can as well rage against the physical reality of life to our own doom.

And finally while I can appreciate the parody of the final group making fun of the church, as indeed the church should be mocked where mockery is due, those kind of satanists take it far beyond the joke to the point they become the joke themselves.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The intellectual satanists who don't believe in god fail to see the purpose of the Satan allegory and the allegorical significance of god. Satan rages against the natural order of the world and is destroyed. We can as well rage against the physical reality of life to our own doom.

As usual you have it completely backwards. I can't believe how easily simply switching the labels can change someone's beliefs. Anyway there's a certain evil figure in the New Testament who rules over the world. Called "the god of this world" or "the ruler of this world". See if you can figure out who this god is.

Early Christians even believed in a figure known as the demiurge who either created or hijacked the creation. This is the god who had to be appeased with ransom, and he is also referred to with the term satan on a number of occasions. Yes satan is actually a term meaning "opponent", not a name. Obviously God does not have to pay a ransom to himself. And just take a look at the world and what you call the "natural order". It's fundamentally evil, rotten to the core. And you're worshiping that instead of following the golden rule?

[–]1Icemonkey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

Morals come from wisdom. Wisdom comes from God.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (26 children)

Try Natural Law.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Natural law is demonic

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Natural law is demonic

1,000,000% BULLSHIT

It's fucking nature, and you just called all of your mythical god's creation demonic.

Try learning about it before you literally demonize it. Fucking retarded.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Nature is demonic and is run by the god of this world, who is also known as "Satan". This is what ancient Christians believed and it's in the New Testament. Why do you think all the pagans religions worship it? Now we're trying to flip the labels so Christians can be corrupt and well-meaning people will be tricked into doing the will of the devil.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

You're fucking retarded and so is the concept of "God".

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Nature existing by itself isn't logical.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Nature doesn't require that you understand it, nor do you need to, nor do you need a myth to.

[–]1Icemonkey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The word of God is what is written in the Bible. Those writings are wisdom from which morality is born. Where in nature is the word of the creator and the wisdom and morality written?

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Bullshit. I just wrote that. I am one of God's creations. God writes bullshit through his creations.

Look up Mark Passio Natural Law and learn something.

Fuck God.
Fuck authorities.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Fuck natural law. Nature creates nothing but suffering.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Natural Law creates nothing.
Natural Law simply exists.

Life is not a bitch.
Life is not good.
Life is bittersweet.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Life is simply bitter. 99.9% of everything that's ever happened is bad.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Take more vitamin D.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, the word of the Roman Catholic Church as of 382 AD is what is written in the Bible. Who gave them the authority to determine what the word of God is? In the Bible the דבר יהוה always comes to people, not from a book. And the Bible itself, in Jeremiah 7-8, says that the Torah, which is part of the Bible, has been corrupted or is even a complete forgery. So it literally calls itself corrupted. And since the Bible cannot be wrong, this MUST be correct.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I would recommend researching how it's been edited over the millenia. Because the differences may shock you. The reason the old testament is so horrible is the new simply hasn't had nearly as much time to be corrupted.

[–]Gravi[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Of course, that is one of the more interesting things I want to know, because it could not have been the same over so many years.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Torah and Paul are probably the worst. They're to the point where the majority of the content is forgeries.

[–]Gravi[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I could ask the priest to whose congregation I go to about it.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The priest isn't going to give you anything credible. 99.9% of Christians fall for something called Biblical inerrancy, the idea that the Bible is exactly the word of God without error. They completely made it up, and it's funny because the Bible itself says the lying pen of scribes tampers with it. The Bible was also created by Rome in the 4th century, not Jesus in the 1st.

[–]Gravi[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I asked him about it, he told me that god has also written the bible, thus it cannot be corrupted and also that he coordimated people to write it, so just as you said.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Show him Jeremiah 8:8. If he tries to deny that it's referring to our books of "Moses", show him Jeremiah 7:22. You must use an interlinear or a very literal translation here, because almost all Bibles alter this verse precisely because it's so damning to the concept of Biblical inerrancy. But it indeed has God denying that he ever gave commandments which are in the Torah! So there's no way around it, the Bible says the Bible is corrupt. And since the Bible can never be wrong, this HAS to be correct.

This is the kind of stuff they don't want you talking about and get mad if you do.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

One half of it is. The other half is vile.

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I wouldn't call the New Testament 'vile' exactly.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I just mean editors mixed in a whole bunch of crap over time.

[–]DeadAndBuried 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Leviticus 25:44-46

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

[–]LarrySwinger2 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

You are looking at the texts through a modern filter. They're both moderations of the situation before. The Leviticus portion limits where slaves may come from to outside nations. This reduces the prevalence of slavery, and unites Israel. Note that slavery was everywhere during antiquity and nobody saw abolishment of slavery as even remotely feasible.

The Deutronomy portion prevents raped women from remaining unmarried, because men would only marry virgins at the time. And fines obviously combat the crime.

Therefore, both laws are indicative of progress for the time.

[–]DeadAndBuried 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Progress then does not deter from being vile today, as was the implication of prior comment, no?

[–]LarrySwinger2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

No, it wasn't. We aren't talking about today; these laws stem from oral traditions that developed during the 13th century BCE. You're seeing it through the lens of a modern, radically individualistic point of view, that's why it seems vile to you, but that isn't objective. What passes for progressivism today, on the other hand, is a real source of villany.

[–]DeadAndBuried 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Why would I proclaim to deny the fact that the stories in both the old and new treatments are vile when they are? I hold a very low opinion of all religion, religious folk, religious figures, religious texts and all who are featured in them. They were vile then and they are vile now, as modern progressives are vile. You cannot claim they were not vile before due to being progressive only to vilify modern progressives for the same ideological nonsense. Religion is vile, and it is not merely my personal opinion but a general understanding that religion is, and has been a constant cause of harm to individuals, groups, nations and every person who comes in contact with them. There may be some positive outcomes as a byproduct of religion but this is not the rule.

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Argumentum ad populum.

[–]DeadAndBuried 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, appealing to the popular idea that ancient law is vile despite the few enlightened thinkers who proclaim them to be ahead of their time...Why on earth didn't I think that the genocidal, rapey bible was to be commended.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What's funny about this is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all portray Jesus as having many of the same complaints.

[–]DeadAndBuried 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wasn't John his gay lover? In which case, he'd hardly have a bad thing to say for his sausage buddy. The bible is obviously going to portray their son of le god in a positive light, not a conman who tricked simple folk with party tricks and wordplay to gain a following in spite of the Romans.