Official Church of Satan Website - churchofsatan.com

submitted by satan666 from (churchofsatan.com)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

It is said that evil only exists in the world because of the free will brought upon by Lucifer.

That is said by Luciferians because thier propaganda proclaims that God does not give man free will. The Christian version says that the tree of knowledge gave Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil. That made them responsible for thier evil deeds. It gave them desires that are evil.

A young child that does not know better and takes whatever they can is not a kleptomaniac. In the same way Adam ans Eve were not capable of evil before they could understand it.

Another interpretation of the apple tree is that it represents sex. It gave them "carnal knowledge" which just means the ability to have sex and procreate. And God kicked them out of eden because of that.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

In the same way Adam ans Eve were not capable of evil before they could understand it.

This stems from the same argument that people did not know stealing and murder was bad until the ten commandments were brought to them. It's largely nonsense to any common sense reader.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Those two arguments are very different. One speaks to a fundamental, magical change in the nature of humanity and consciousness. The other makes no claim that humanity was profoundly changed, it simply purports that being told something is the only way in which it can be realized. You are conflating them to make the first guilty by association with the absurdity of the latter.

Frankly the commandments argument is far more similar to the luciferian argument that morality is subjective. The argument goes like this: If two men disagree on what is moral which of them is right? In most cases there is no objective way to decide. Because of this there is no objective morality it is just a bunch of opinions, all of which are equally valid. So if I think murder is morally good that opinion negates your opinion that it is not. Therfore without an authority figure to dictate what is right and wrong nothing can truly be right or wrong, it's all just opinions. The commandments are that decision from the ultimate authority, and in that way they make murder wrong.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

There doesn't need to be an authority figure. That's a lie the church made up to control people, of course appointing itself as that authority figure.

Morality is so simple, but most people have too much pride to admit that the standard is something they haven't even come close to.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

There doesn't need to be an authority figure.

There does because without one morality is subjective and therfore it does not really exist. I keep saying this but I don't think you are understanding it.

If no moral framework can be said to be better than any other than none of them have any validity.

A moral framework that has supremacy over others can't be altered willy nilly, or it would simply become a tool of the bourgeoisie to control the proletariat. Even though you can make the argument that they can corrupt anything over time, a religion based morality with widely disseminated teachings can't easily be altered.

If the religious teachings make the moral code alterable by men then that all falls apart and the bourgeoisie have instant access to control it. That is very bad for everyone.

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

Okay now you're literally using communist terminology, so idk if it's even worth trying to convince you. But I will say it's pretty obvious that harming someone is wrong, period. All the other superficial "morals" are religious inventions by humans. They're wrong and based solely on whether or not "I don't like it".

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

They're wrong and based solely on whether or not "I don't like it".

Bullshit. You simply don't agree with thier moral judgement so you slander thier decisions with these claims.

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

Personal preferences are not moral judgements. Evil people try to pass them off as such but this is not the case.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Every choice that has externalities has a moral component. In the case of homosexuality it has clearly pushed western society into extremely evil shit like putting preteens on hormone blockers, fucking up thier young minds through media and now education, and more. You can claim that it is just those things that are evil and not butt sex, but that us YOUR opinion. Others see it as a stepping stone, and more.

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

This is nothing but guilt by association. Bad actors hijack everything to further their goals.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

A moral code needs to be far more robust that that platitude. If a murderer is going around killing people do I have the moral right to kill them even though I would not want them to kill me?

What about other moral questions. If homosexuality destroys societies should it not be considered immoral? I don't want society destroyed. I also don't want people to restrict my sexual desires. There is far more to this than you seem to have considered.

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

If a murderer is going around killing people do I have the moral right to kill them even though I would not want them to kill me?

If you must, choose the lesser of the two evils. It's pretty straightforward.

What about other moral questions. If homosexuality destroys societies should it not be considered immoral?

Those aren't moral questions, they are literally "I don't like X therefore X should not be allowed". This is reddit levels of powertripping.

I don't want society destroyed.

Then you are brainwashed by it.

I also don't want people to restrict my sexual desires.

Then it's wrong for them to do so. Unless you're going to rape or something, which I hope I didn't need to specify.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Those aren't moral questions, they are literally "I don't like X therefore X should not be allowed". This is reddit levels of powertripping.

Wrong. YOU are twisting the homosexual question into that because you personally like homosexuality and can't accept that it has negative externalities.

Other people consider it immoral to give into homosexual desires and thier moral judgment is just as valid as yours, right?

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

No, because those are falsely called morals. It's really "I don't like it". I know this because I used to be that way myself.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Obviously any moral judgement you don't like you can slander with these kinds of claims. And any moral judgements of yours that others don't like they can claim are invalid for similar reasons.

You are just so arrogant you think your opinion is more valid than everyone else. So arrogant that you think everyone must agree with you because you are 100% right so if they just get to the truth they will be in agreement with you. Get over yourself.

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

It's the only logical conclusion. If you do things to others that they don't want done to them, while not tolerating the same being done to you, you are a hypocrite with double standards. Everything else is subjective.