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 -  (11 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 -  (10 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)

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.

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

You are harming children by promoting homosexuality because you enjoy the benefits of widely normalized homosexuality in this society. Then turn around and claim that others don't have the right to say this is immoral.

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

What benefits do I get from it? How am I harming children?