It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Satanic blessing on our powerful "Christians".

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 

Guilt and regret can be ways towards self-improvement. LaVey says that if you feel guilty about something then don't do it again, and if you do continue doing it then you didn't really feel guilty in the first place.
We shouldn't feel bound to the need of confessing our "sins" to some human or deity, unless we gain some masochistic enjoyment from it (which I suspect quite a few religious people do).
There is also no self-improvement in feeling guilty over our natural desires, as long as they're legal and we don't act out of compulsion.
Nowadays Christianity has become a lot less guilt-ridden than in LaVey's time, so most Christians no longer repent for "unclean thoughts" or masturbation. It's really Christianity-lite compared to what it was.
I wish you well, and the Anglicans are good people (except for some fundamentalist off-shoots), and Henry VIII is a great Satanic figure who gave the pope the finger and started his own church so that he could divorse his first wife and enjoy his carnal attractions - now that's progress, well done!




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Jordan River
 

Guilt and regret can be ways towards self-improvement. LaVey says that if you feel guilty about something then don't do it again, and if you do continue doing it then you didn't really feel guilty in the first place.
We shouldn't feel bound to the need of confessing our "sins" to some human or deity, unless we gain some masochistic enjoyment from it (which I suspect quite a few religious people do).
There is also no self-improvement in feeling guilty over our natural desires, as long as they're legal and we don't act out of compulsion.
Nowadays Christianity has become a lot less guilt-ridden than in LaVey's time, so most Christians no longer repent for "unclean thoughts" or masturbation. It's really Christianity-lite compared to what it was.
I wish you well, and the Anglicans are good people (except for some fundamentalist off-shoots), and Henry VIII is a great Satanic figure who gave the pope the finger and started his own church so that he could divorse his first wife and enjoy his carnal attractions - now that's progress, well done!



shut up man. when it comes down to it I use to be a satanist. don't even get me started. basicly it's nothing different than humans doing to themselves now. unleashed and wild. (those who have no morals and or spiritual practices of any kind). I don't know anything about henry viii and could careless. bam jedijack-his-story.blogspot.com...
I don't really care what a egotistical asshole like lavey does. I've read his works I know the arts. When it comes down to it personally I know what side of the realm I'm on.
That lineage does not need to lead any more on earth
it would seem that ats can pop out anyone from the butthole of earth



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 

So you have no idea who founded the Anglican church, or who heads it today. But the rest of your rude, offensive post says it all. Room for self improvement indeed.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeathShield

reply to post by Matthew Dark
 

You do realize that Satanism is as diverse as christianity right? There is no "true" satanism besides what you have been lead to believe is true satanism. Anton LeVay ( which is what i can assume you practice since you have referenced the satanic bible.) only practiced an Atheistic model of satanism.


It's not atheistic if one focuses inward and realizes that we are 'gods' in our own way.



Where as traditional satanism is theistic, the literal worship of satan as a deity. Christianity in all forms is theistic (although i could be wrong, there may be atheistic christians in that they only adhere to jesus's teachings yet do not view him as a god of any sort) so to draw up comparisons between satanism and christianity we must first establish what branch of satanism we are talking about. Are we talking about Theistic Satanism or atheistic satanism? Luciferianism? A cult based on Azazel?


Actually no, there are no other forms of Satanism. What you're referring to as 'theistic Satanism' is actually considered 'reverse christianity', because in Satanism, there is no 'devil' character. There are no other branches, Satanism is Satanism, it's more philosophy of empowerment than anything else. Luciferianism is basically just a group of elitist, psuedo-intellectuals claiming that they have the 'light of enlightenment' and other such nonsense.

[edit on 1/16/10 by Matthew Dark]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Matthew Dark
 

That is all correct in light of the most modern, or postmodern movements.
I went through some older dictionary references and so forth, and there are ancient movements which have some correlation in the choosing of the "shadow side" of the divine good/evil dichotomy. The followers of Set (Egypt), Tiamat (in Babylon) or Shiva/Kali (India) are sometimes mentioned. Then we also have a deistic Satanism (reflected in deistic mainstream deity philosophy). Yet such worshippers never looked upon their somewhat counter-cultural "Gods" as "evil". They were just the destructive aspect of Godhead expanded and personified - a necesaary balance between creation and destruction. Their followers were certainly not persecuted and viewed as evil (unless they used belief to further criminality, like the Thugees in India).
To the Gnostics spirit was good and matter evil, and an evil God created matter to trap spirit - therefore the creator God was seen as evil, and His antithesis as noble and good. One thinks here of the Bogomils and many other Gnostic sects, even to a lesser degree the Cathars. For me Satanism follows in that counter-cultural ideal, and many Christians and others are happy with this, because it somehow proves what they are saying. Many Christian books on the occult take LaVey quite seriously in his more outrageous claims, which proves the shallowness of their research and results in much mirth for the informed Satanist. However, simply because LaVey and Crowley were great showmen extrodinaires does not mean the "Satanic Bible" is not a true statement on the reality of power, and the demands of an increasingly intellectually liberated class in the "Satanic" postmodern age.
Even Christianity today forgives naughty carnal leaders, and no longer stigmatizes divorcees (for example), which would have been unheard of in the 1950s. So we still have power that is now mixed with a lot of fun.
Most of these religious leaders are hypocrites who use religion for deflection, and at least LaVey can never be termed that - he never claimed morality or any kind of high ground.
Contemporary atheists like Richard Dawkins deny that religion has any exclusive claim to morality. In fact religion has to look elsewhere for morality, and if anyone practised all of what is in Leviticus or Deuteronomy today they would be locked up as criminally insane.
How would the pharisees have looked upon the historical Jesus (assuming He existed)? Clearly as a blasphemer, and He was even accused of being demon possessed, a charge He refuted with the unsound argument that a kingdom divided cannot stand (all religious movements including Christianity, New Ageism, Satanism and paganism are divided amongst themselves - a bit like herding cats really).
Therefore I second LaVey in his views presented in the 9 Satanic statements, most notably: "Satan represents all the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental and emotional gratification!"
This should not attract the criminally unhinged or mentally disturbed: Satanism usually believes in harsh "eye for an eye" punishment when the social contract is transgressed.
[edit on 17-1-2010 by halfoldman]
(PS. Apologies to Matthew Dark: This post has turned into a general discussion rather than a succinct reply.)

[edit on 17-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


After reading everything that you posted, I must say I'm impressed by your obvious intelligence. I wanted to leave you with a quote. Thanks for the information.


Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 

Thank you for that.
Just one caveat: if there's a major natural disaster in South Afirca soon, please don't blame it on me and my humble little thread!
Even if the Bible were true (which I consider a literary and historical impossibility) then to paraphrase it: it is surely better to be either "hot" or "cold", because if you're "lukewarm" the "Lord" will spit you out.
(Revelations 3:15-16)
Thank you for your open-mindedness and interest, sadly you do not indicate much more.
But all the best for you on your chosen path.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 



it is surely better to be "hot" rather than "cold", because if you're "lukewarm" the "Lord" will spit you out.


That is one that I often forget. Although I believe that comes from Revelation if I remember correctly. In times of uncertainty I try to remember this one.


John 10:28-29 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.


Edited to add. All the best for you as well my friend. You have an awesome gift.


[edit on 17-1-2010 by jackflap]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 

I've wondered, what do appellations like "eternal life" mean, and what is it to "perish"?
I always thought one meant "heaven" with harps and golden streets, and the other was roasting naked in hell with Gandhi and John Lennon.
But seeing these verses again so de-contextualized, I'm wondering, especially knowing a little on the people who wrote/translated this - it seems like "to perish" is simply to get some eternal, atheistic sleep?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I believe perishing in the Biblical text means to be eternally separated from your creator. To me, that would suck on an epic level. Misspelled eternally so I had to edit.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by jackflap]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark


It's not atheistic if one focuses inward and realizes that we are 'gods' in our own way.



I Must respectfully disagree with your other points. However this specific quote i highly agree to. Truly we are the gods of this world.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 

But does it mean I will burn literally for all eternity?
Eve gave us her original sin, so all babies, infants too young to be consciously "saved" must burn too? All the Hindus and Muslims, unrepentant Jews and poor tribal peoples who somehow heard the massage must also burn? I suppose the Catholics too...
It sounds like political afterlife hell, for people who are largely already in hell here on earth.
Unless of course you could be wrong, and the Muslims are right, in which case your eternity will suck as much as mine.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I believe the burning is referring to the realization that you've done it to yourself. You've chosen to ignore or disregard the clear signs and truths that were given and accepted a falsehood. Would it be literal burning? Probably.

The people who haven't heard or were misled will be dealt with by a loving God who wishes non would perish. If you are to believe what the Bible teaches about God that is. So to me, He has it all figured out and I do not have to wonder about such things.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
You do know that Satanism is a branch of Christianity, right? Just checking.

What a rubbish post. You need to stop taking yourself so seriously and get a real hobby like birdwatching. Better for the 'soul'.


No it is not. Satan outdates Christianity by thousands of years.

What a rubbish post. You need to do some research before trying to correct people about something. Maybe you need a better hobby like reading.

[edit on 1/17/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 

Well kudos to you, I suppose its good to let the great unknown be just that.
However, I can imagine that answer could be seen as a cop-out by some. Why bring up verses on "perishment" without any clarification or definition of what it means?
A big Auschwitz in the sky, or somewhere below? A camp for questioning, and thus undesireable minds?
Well to those who worship the incarnations of Jehova (El Shaddai - the God of War) and its many off-shoots - I understand it's not nice to talk about it.
And what about true criminals in jail, who may really deserve this kind of hell? If they say the Sinner's Prayer before they die, it's all forgiven, while innocent Hindu kids must burn in hell.
I appreciate that you say you do not make those decisions, so I will stop here.
Some people have no problem saying yes, yes, yes, they'll all burn in hell.
So when we recognize each other as truly non-judgemental people, then we should rather celebrate how precious that is in our age!



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

And what about true criminals in jail, who may really deserve this kind of hell? If they say the Sinner's Prayer before they die, it's all forgiven, while innocent Hindu kids must burn in hell.


True criminals in jail often find themselves in the position to finally seek the truth. It's hard to kick against the pricks. It is also true that if they really want Jesus to come into their lives, He will. All will be forgiven and their sins will be cast as far as the east is from the west and they will live and reign with Christ for eternity. If you believe what the Bible teaches.

As far as innocent Hindu children going to hell, I don't believe that to be the case. I already posted about those who may be mislead or have never heard. Mind you that this is my belief here. I'm not forcing a theology or anything.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


reply to post by jackflap
 



Well I can honestly say that I'm quite pleased that civility reigns in this thread. You both bring up interesting and quite valid points. I for one, can't in good conscience believe in that kind of afterlife because I'm really not sure if we, as conscious beings, retain all of our individuality upon the shedding of the flesh. I'm having a hard time reconciling the belief that upon death, we merely obtain a shift in consciousness, and are welcomed whole and intact, to another realm. However, regardless of belief system, I'm sure we can all agree that none of us know for sure what happens when the body dies, and that death, feared by some; revered by others, is, in all actuality, the greatest adventure of them all.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
What is a god with no followers though?

God is nothing without us, we are gods we give meaning to everything.

without us there can no be no god, schrodingers cat and all that.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackflap

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.


er.. you do understand that ... that quote is even more so directed at Christians themselves... than others..

to truly.. verrrrily know the scriptures.. past the point where you 'think' you know them...

do you really...


-



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I love watching people, who know nothing more about Christianity, than the most stereotypical of details, get together, and make judgments, and throw unsound, unstudied ideas around, as if they actually MEAN something.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join