Black Mass Planned for Oklahoma City Sept 2014

a reply to: Bone75

In a way yes.

a reply to: olaru12

I doubt there will be violence. And if it is violence from Christians, then they aren't actually practicing Christians.

The right thing to do as a Christian, or even as a human being is to love the S worshipers. They don't expect that, and they usually don't get it from others they commune with.
Satan has no love for anything except lies and hatred. And all the demons in hell have no love for each other, nor is there any love for them in any thing or being. Love is not a part of the lifeforce of the fallen ones.
They all do what they do, but it includes no love.
Humans all need love, and by loving those who have been deceived, you can show where the true glory and power is. With Christ. There is always hope for people, right up till the very end. Don't hate. And do not be afraid.
Did the Catholic announcment send any love towards those having this mass? They truly need it, and that is no joke. The very thing they need as people will never be given to them by the deceiver, and that is the thing to focus on.

I believe that every single time a cop shoots a dog, or a person, the teenager that had the video in his hand, or the teen on suicide watch, that is a ritual sacrifice by intent of the cop. That is the world we live in, not a pretty one, and again, this aint a religion. Its murder incorporated and just one branch of it. And this is twice now in public, Harvard or Yale was that? and here! Unbelievable that people don't tar and feather them all and drag them out of town. In a real world where people had guts they wouldn't dare pull this off.

a reply to: 3u40r15m

True. I could go on about others as well but since the Christians feature in the OP I felt the need to stay on topic

You Americans are so clueless it's ridiculous.

Any of you kids bother to look up what a black mass actually is? It is more than a mockery of a the religious ritual of a different religious group.

The black mass involves acts like the forced sexual violation of young girls, murder of babies born as a result of previous rituals, acts and words of hate, defiance, and degradation aimed specifically at a sub-group of people who practice certain religious beliefs.

But that is OK because it adheres to a constitution drawn up by a bunch of free masons. Oh, but say anything in opposition to activities people partake in that you find offensive then it's hate speech. Unless of course they happen to be Christian.

A black mass is as much a case of freedom of religious expression as Muslims beheading the infidel. Shall we have one of those at your town hall too? Might as well charge $15 a head while we're at it. It's constitutional after all.

Hey here's an idea. Let's hold a public demonstration on the various forms of rape. We can start with kiddies and rape our way through the different age groups, genders, and scenarios. To make it legal, let's use consenting parties, actors and such, and call it art. I'm sure there'd be tons of people out there happy to fork over 20 bucks to see that. If we're lucky we will get some citizens who actually give a damn about their society show up and protest. All great publicity for us, and we can mock them in the process. Better yet, we can have the punters mock them.

This is the mind of the people who are promoting this. There is no good fruit that comes from them and the people who participate in this type of activity by patronising their "events" are no better. They are all a liability to society.

Any you wonder why school kids are bullying, gang raping, and murdering their classmates, when their parents have such a flippant and accepting attitude toward such destructive practices such as this in the name of tolerance.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I went to a midnight mass on Christmas eve once in a old gothic cathedral and it seemed very dark and Satanic. I really enjoyed it though! (for one night)

* I am not religious

Here are the official Tenets of this group "The Satanic Temple" (Source: thesatanictemple.com)

THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS.

One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.

The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.

Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.

People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.

Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

I'm not sure how anybody could find fault with any of these, in fact, I find these moving and uplifting as opposed to say, the pure negativity of the so called "Ten Commandments"

Additionally, I would counsel any and all to think the idea of challenging the veracity of ANY religion through, before you start suggesting that we can pick and choose which ones are "real" or not, because from where I and many others are sitting, they're all based, at best, on mythology and fable.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Santeria, Voudoun and Candomble also incorporate elements of Catholic/Christian symbolism, iconography and even demigods (or whatever one wishes to call "Saints") into their rituals ... should these religions practiced by hundreds of thousands of people if not millions also be considered to be "mere perversion"?

The Gnostic Mass mirrors the Catholic Mass in many ways, as do the Anglican and Episcopal masses ... there's another million or so worshippers who would be deprived of their religious rights if this kind of thing (utilizing the form or elements of the mass) were the measure of preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights.

My perspective may be governed by the fact that all of it appears to be nothing more than bad dinner theatre to me ... but this is America after all. If you believe in the Constitution, I'm not sure how you could have a problem with any of this.

a reply to: UnderGetty

Well your description sounds similar to Borborite rituals from the days of old. Rest assured none of that will happen.

a reply to: PinealJockey

The term "mating signal" is a very disturbing term" Its an un-human, un-spiritual term when describing what should be a sacred act between a Man and a Woman.

Again, you are putting your own feelings and spin on it. That you feel it is un-human or un-spiritual does not make it so, and it does not make it evil.

Why use THAT term if not to imply somthing

Again, read it in its full context. Dont just pick and choose words.

Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

Do not make sexual advances unless given the ok. Seems like a pretty good rule to me.

What do YOU think it implys?

Exactly what it says.

Nothing to say about #11 or #4?

I didnt mention 11 because your take on it is downright silly:

#11) Sounds pretty evil. "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him." Destroying someone just cause they bother you sounds a bit excessive.

Nothing evil about it. Dont hurt anyone. If a person would attempt to hurt you, ask him to stop. If he will not stop, defend yourself to no end.

How is that evil in any way?

If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.

While i find this to be the ONLY one that is a bit over the top, i see nothing evil about demanding respect when within ones own home.

Whats funny is that you pick these rather.....arbitrary rules to harp on, and not the nine satanic statements, which far better fit what you are trying to push.

a reply to: imwilliam

I think it's possible that there's a subset of satanists that can be objectively viewed as primarily or largely motivated by the negative feelings they hold towards religion and Christianity in particular rather than sincere religious convictions, though I suppose that depends how you define religion.

I agree 100%. I just dont think it is fair, or accurate, to claim ALL satanism is predicated on mocking christianity.

Lets not forget either that the black mass is a inversion of the Catholic Mass and that mockery of the Catholic Mass, whatever else maybe present, is inherent in it.

That cant really be stated with any accuracy. Black masses predate most of our written history. They go WAY back in pagan traditions.

No, because at least at one time in the not so distant past, it was the stated goal, the reason for the groups founding, of at least one group of satanists, as reported by the now head of that group in an interview with a satanist. Reading the article, I don't see where it's still not a primary goal.

The impasse we are coming to is as follows: I am speaking of satanism. You are speaking of the church of satan.

I don't think its exclusively about Christians, but I do think it's significantly about them and I don't think that statement requires one to be a Christian to make.

Well, the church of satan only exists because christianity exists. I question, though, whether being the opposite of something is the same as making a mockery of it.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

I think you mentioned you know satanists, or have known them and I think one other member commenting on this thread has more than a passing acquaintance with their beliefs.

I don't want to take things too far off topic but . . .

There was a book brought up in the article I linked to, "Might is Right". The article claims that Anton LaVey used it for the basis of his book "The Satanic Bible" and it seems like both Mesner and the author of the article have a certain fondness for the book.

Do you know if this book was/is pervasively influential on modern satanists groups across the board?

For what it's worth:

Link to "Might is Right" by Ragnar Redbeard on Google Books: Might is Right

Anton LaVey, whatever else he was, was not a fool, but a bright, well-read individual. Might is Right dovetails very nicely with the works of Ayn Rand and both combined with a bit of 60s hedonism, medieval demonology, and an abiding dislike of Christianity, make up the bulk of Laveyan "Satanism."

Frankly, it's not really all that different from what most "Christians" spout today, except, of course, they technically forbid all the "fun parts."

Christians...talking about evil?

I suppose they have a point, the Satanists spent hundreds of years suppressing and murdering scientists and philosophers to prevent the proliferation of personal freedoms and understanding not sanctioned by the authorities, suppressing and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent women and girls under jumped up "charges" of witchcraft, institutional kidnapping and abuse of millions of minors (most notably in Ireland), and then there's the oft forgotten Satanist financial investments into immoral and evil payday loan companies (in the UK).

a reply to: UnderGetty

That's crazy.
Where did you learn that?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Might is Right dovetails very nicely with the works of Ayn Rand and both combined with a bit of 60s hedonism, medieval demonology, and an abiding dislike of Christianity, make up the bulk of Laveyan "Satanism."

Based on what you've said and that article/interview with Greaves sounds like "Might is Right" is worth a read then. Ayn Rand, based on some preliminary looking around, seems like a fairly serious commitment of time to me, I'm not looking to convert, just understand a little better. Would you suggest "The Virtue of Selfishness" if I can't find time for anything else?


Thanks and I hope you have a horrible day Grimpond.

a reply to: imwilliam

Frankly, it's only worth a read if you're interested in the development of Laveyan Satanism. It's been used a lot of times in this century as well by White Supremacists and that sort, as well as by more radicalized Wotanists and Asatru. (Followers of the old Norse religion).

Here I'll summarize both Ragnar and Rand for you in this regard: "You are answerable only to yourself. Are you going to be the one who eats, or the one who is eaten? Those who are weak are merely dependent upon the strong and drain their resources like parasites. Dominate and take what you want from this life, because, there is no other. Or, be a slave and be taken from."

Now, LaVey and particularly those downstream like Lucien and TST apply this mostly to a kind of extreme individualism which is not quite as ... malicious as R&R above. You, yourself, are the the only god that exists. Do everything you can to become as strong in your individuality as possible. Be creative and generate wealth for yourself and those you choose to share with. Shake off any belief or philosophy which would bind your committing everything in your life to becoming the absolute best specimen you can be. Lucien and his group are also adding in a more humanitarian "caring" side, trying to address and remediate violence toward children and religious discrimination.

ADDED IN EDIT: Is your last a reference to Terry Brooks' Shannara series?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I hate to say too much about this because I don't feel like I've read enough to really understand and establish a context/understanding. However, your summary did help, gives me a bit of a framework. Thanks for that.

Lucien and his group are also adding in a more humanitarian "caring" side

The above is part of what I was trying to gage/understand/harmonize a little better. Keep in mind as yet I'm only reading secondary sources/comments, but "Might is Right" seems almost brutal to me and that's not what I'm seeing in the official "tenets," such as you've posted, from the satanic groups. Ayn Rand seems "softer" than "Might is Right" but not as "soft" as groups like Greave's. . . Or at least these are my impressions at this point, for what they're worth, not having read the primary sources.

To be honest, I guess I'm wondering what meaning I might take from the tenets you posted if I'd read what men like Greaves and Lavey have, if there are nuances that are lost on me because I haven't read what they have, that sort of thing.

Frankly, it's only worth a read if you're interested in the development of Laveyan Satanism

I think you're talking about specifically about "Might is Right" . . . it seems like Ayn Rand has had a fair amount of influence on Libertarians and Conservatives as well, or am I completely off base? I've read that men like Rand Paul and Greenspan have said she was influential in their lives.

Appreciate the time you've spent on this in your responses.

a reply to: imwilliam

Actually a lot of Church of Satan (COS) Satanists (after the teachings of LaVey) are very politically libertarian if not conservative. Remember the focus on PERSONAL responsibility. There is no God or religion to refer to for moral guidance. If you choose to be merciful, or to give a "less fortunate" person help, you are taking a chance of making them dependent on you (i.e. a slave). Yet, most Satanists (COS) are very committed to family and friends, and feel justified in applying what they call "lex talionis" (eye for an eye justice) with extreme prejudice to anyone who wrongs them.

It's actually not an "evil" philosophy at all. I know that some would disagree. I judge based on what I see and hear.

a reply to: Gryphon66

In my reading, I'm starting to pick up on what I think is a little bit of friction between COS and groups like Greave's. Would you say that's accurate and/or substantial? Also seems like maybe Ayn Rand is more influential in groups like Greave's than in COS, maybe that there's even something of a rejection of Rand as sort of incomplete?


EDIT "maybe that there's even something of a rejection of Rand as sort of incomplete?" by members of COS I mean.