It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Morally LaVey's Satanism is superior to Christianity.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

The iconography (as you say) is still lending from Abrahamic faith. Why couldn't he just call it 'The Order of the Happy Lama'?


posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:59 AM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by muzzleflash

What is contradictory about suggesting we don't need religious doctrine to be intelligent & civilised? None!



But you said it was divisive *(and thus assumed negative).

Then you said we don't need that to be civilized and intelligent.

Thus you are divisive and such by deeming another's belief system as inferior to the supposed belief system of the "civilized and intelligent".

Which is ridiculous really. Like I said, humans cannot be civilized or intelligent no matter what they think or do. Sorry it ain't gonna happen.

The contradiction is that you were putting a belief system above their belief systems. If you cannot see that contradiction, don't worry. It's no biggy.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:02 AM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by halfoldman

The iconography (as you say) is still lending from Abrahamic faith. Why couldn't he just call it 'The Order of the Happy Lama'?


Because it wouldn't be inflammatory and thus would garner no publicity.

They used the name "Satanism" to gain attention. It gets ratings. Higher ratings means better sponsors you know!!

And in the end, its all about the $$$!

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

There is no real Satan in other traditions, although "The Satanic Bible" mentions a whole list of cross-cultural figures who come close.
The idea is that society at the time (1969) was Satanic already, and the aim was not to be hypocritical about it. It was really a form of worship of the self. So it's not a sect who want to exit society, but rather to embrace it in its most gratifying forms. And what better symbol or archetype for responsible self-worship than Satan?
However, while the theory sounds humanistic, many also practice rituals and magick.
It is considered psychodrama, or a healthy channeling of emotions, but some also think it causes real magical results.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:12 AM
reply to post by muzzleflash

Actually calling it the "Happy Lama" sect would have made a lot more $$$$.
I cannot speak for the official church in the US, but despite the fact that it could be tax-free, it's always chosen to pay tax.
All religion is showbiz and should be taxed.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

I'm not sure about this,but i think I have read somewhere(Blavatsky??) that "Siva" in Hinduism is the equivalent to "Lucifer" , I could be wrong.

Blavatsky taught Crowley and Crowley taught Lavey , right?

Last question please, wasn't there a story about Lavey's son being castrated in a ritual?? ( HOAX??)

Thank you

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

Honestly, It's an endless cycle of divisive crap just like Satanism... ergo my belief system is better than yours... and like it or not, Satanism is still reliant upon the Abrahamic faiths to exist in it's own right. You're just swapping one book for another

Well, that depends on your intepretation. Is the composite figure of the devil or Satan we have now actually described anywhere in scripture?
So how can Satan be in Abrahamic faith if it has no description of him?
Baal, Pan, Poseidon, Shiva - a bit of all these gods has our Satan.

Yes I might be swapping one book for another - because the one is kind to animals and children and the Bible is not.

The fact remains, in that sense LaVey is morally superior by our standards, over the Bible.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by samsamm9

Couldn't care less what LaVey did.
I hope he enjoyed whatever it was, but it was never criminal.
It doesn't preach moralism, so it's responsibility to the responsible.

Those who preach moralism however can be held to their own standards.

As far as LaVey goes, couldn't care if he stole everything from Crowley or whosoever.

He left us with a great book.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:42 AM
As they say in academia these days: if you plagerize and steal from one person it's "theft", if you steal from many it's "research".
From Shakespeare to other religions - they all stole and steal.

As for the Crowley, Blavatsky claims - from their era I doubt they would have approved of LavVey.
LaVey never accepted Karma or complicated rituals.
I think this is an attempt by fundamentalists to portray the New Age Movement as Satanic. (It's actually more similar to Christian mega-churches - but then again, they are majestically Satanic).

[edit on 25-8-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by faceoff85

Sure, you can go into all kinds of non-literal inerpretations if you choose.
It depends on your paradigm - fundamentalist or metaphorical.
However when you do that you also abandon your right to take anything else "literally" out of the Bible.

No actually I'd place my faith on the line for it, the things I claim come straight from biblical teachings.. As an example, your above post is a response to my previous post so I'll add the accompanying scripture

Jeremiah 10:23 (American Standard Version)

23 O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

I respectfully withdraw, do not want to derail this thread any further

[edit on 25/8/2010 by faceoff85]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by faceoff85

Forgiveness, I'm not the brightest spark right now.
But I just went back to the previous page to thread our exchange with meaning.
But before I reply, could you, just shortly again sum up your point?
I'm not sure I understand what you would like to know?

Currently I get something like because God is a "father" He kinda has the right to discipline or form us?

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:18 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflashPrometheus? Oh wait haha.

I've always thought that Prometheus and the Serpent/Satan were deeply connected myths - I'm sure I'm not the first to grasp that, and no doubt there are books and academic papers out there about the subject.

It's interesting that Prometheus was considered an heroic figure by the Greeks for his services to Mankind, yet Satan was a great enemy in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim faiths for doing many of the same sorts of things.

Early Jews probably had far more ambiguous ideas about Satan - realistically, in the biblical accounts he is not necessarily an evil being, but a complex, troublesome and conflicting being who is as often a servant of God as he is an antagonist to Him (and by antagonist, I don't necessarily mean enemy). Over time, it seems his actions have been reinterpreted as being evil, because it became dogma that any questioning of God's will was by nature an evil act. I just don't think that was always the case. I think early Jews probably were more open to taking issue sometimes with the actions of their God. Many Biblical characters often directly oppose his instructions to them, or question him directly for the commands he gives them. It was probably more a political concern later, the Priests and Kings desire to keep people in line, that created the more dogmatic view of God as infallible, and thus Satan as pure evil for seemingly defying him.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

The sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter was to service in the temple NOT her life! There were NO human sacrifices in the worship of the people of Israel unless they were following the nations around them!

While there are many things in the OT that we don't completely understand to take the name of Satan on you no matter the technicalities is not something most people would EVER want to do.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by faceoff85

As for literalism:

Christians who say they take the Bible literally are either ignorant or self-deluded. No one takes the Bible literally. Serpent-handling Pentacostal Christians in Appalachia may come closer than anyone else. They put their life on the line each week when they try to follow literally the words of Jesus as reacorded by Mark 16. Christian leaders who berate those who don't take the Bible literally find other ways to interpret the last chapter of Mark. Similarly, I'm not aware of other people who advocate self-mutilation in obedience to Jesus' words in Mark 9:43-48 or the execution of disobedient children, as called for in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. The validity of a literalist approach is further undermined by the act of translation.

Source: Charles Kimball: "When Religion Becomes Evil: Five warning signs". 2003: P.57.
So in what framework does your teaching fall?

[edit on 25-8-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:47 PM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

All the sacrifices and laws of the Old Testament were shadows or types to point to the sacrifice of Christ and the Atonement he made for the sins of mankind! The Jews were in rebellion when Moses came down from the mountain with the LORD. They were given this tough law to follow to demonstrate that man cannot live a life without sin, and to show that a sacrifice could take away the stain of sin.

Christ being a perfect sacrifice only needed to offer himself one time for all sin. You have to read the Bible in totality and then read the OT again after gaining understanding from the NT.

Lucifer was a "son of the morning" and fell from grace for seeking glory and honor that were not his to have. Isaiah talks about his origins in Isaiah 14:12-15.

No intention to derail thread into a Christian/Satanist thread but to correct misinformation!

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by redhead57

I'm not at all convinced by your statement.
Nice theory though. Exactly where in the Temple at that stage (?) did women work?

Next thing you're gonna tell me a virgin who is raped must not marry her rapist? Deut 22:28.
White-wash isn't going to work.

And Jephthaha vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt fail deliver the children of Ammon in my hands, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth of of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
King James: Judges 11:30-31.

You dig? Understand? They sacrificed a virgin and burnt her. They murdered a woman for God.
Not that He minded.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:55 PM

Originally posted by snowspirit
LaVeyan Satanism has been and is misunderstood. It's closer to humanism.

I think so, too -- and I also think that LeVey made a terrible branding mistake. The dilemma he had was this, I suppose -- either he would choose a more normal run of the mill name for human philosophy, or pick something scandalous in the hope to be noticed. He chose the latter. It worked, but looked at the stigma...

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:58 PM
There were widows that prayed in the Temple and helped take care of the Levites. Human Sacrifice was forbidden in the Law and since Jephthah was not censured we cannot assume it was a burnt offering.

I have no need to white wash, I am just stating what I have learned and what I believe.

Again, no intent to derail OP.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by redhead57

Fair enough, whatever makes You happy.
It's actually quite a debated verse, and yours is a novel interpretation.
Most would say it's more than clear.
But maybe you're right - who knows.
Maybe the Inquisition and burning times were also just possibilities.
I mean that constant patriarchal terror isn't part of any pattern in the Bible.
No sir.

Let's all white-wash history and what is plainly stated.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by halfoldman
As they say in academia these days: if you plagerize and steal from one person it's "theft", if you steal from many it's "research".
From Shakespeare to other religions - they all stole and steal.
[edit on 25-8-2010 by halfoldman]


So everything I say is stolen from someone else I guess.

Makes you wonder, if everyone steals information, from where did all this information arrive in the first place?

And if all the information didn't exist at first, then who created it and who stole it?

Careful about who you think steals or even researches. Two people at two different places can come to the same conclusions.

I mean... Isaac felt an apple hit his head. Some guy in China at the same time probably had an anvil fall on his foot. Both learned about gravity... But our history says Isaac discovered gravity. Of course, that means gravity didn't exist until he realized it. Now everyone steals from Isaac the idea of gravity...

Even though millions of people had suffered due to gravity long before an apple rung Newton's bell.

And don't strain trying to figure it out, but all things have existed before we discovered them. The information has always been here.

BUT, there is one thing that didn't exist from the beginning - and that is the lie.

And the father of the lie would have you believe that self-worship is peaceful.

But I am pretty sure, regardless of who claims a religion, that the real reason behind peoples' anger and hatred and murder and thefts are due to selfishness and they feel enabled that their religion can be manipulated to make them feel what they are doing is okay. And of course, religions pop up saying, "Doing what feels okay is doing what is right because then everyone is happy!" Doubt it.

You know how many times I might have followed through with the temptation to slap someone as willingly blind as you? I simply don't do it because it's not right... but it would feel so good. Well, not for you. Which is why I won't do it.

But you would do it if it was your temptation. You would lead people into temptation just so that you are not alone in your own. You need others to relate to your insatiable amounts of temptation and anxiety. That way, you feel better knowing you're not alone...

How selfish is that?

And here is the crazy irony of it all - - by being so selfish, you actually feel worse and worse! You actually require more to be satisfied with life... and eventually you expire from a severe lack of desire... because you have given yourself everything... And who else has loved you or shared anything with you? What have you gained? Oh the vanity of life! That we do for ourselves and wonder with whom we have actually shared a thing.

Ahh... and the majestic beauty of the beasts and the amazing imagination of our children...

You worship self, but you worship these more? How ironic. Oh wait. It's not for the beasts or the children that you admire them - it's for yourself! Oh, so you think it is morally better to preserve the beasts and children because they provide for you awe and entertainment............ but if they did not provide this entertainment for you, it wouldn't matter that they have feelings and lives as well. It wouldn't matter that they have a right to live and love and share. It would be okay for them to be sacrificed if they didn't provide that magic for you which you lost by being so selfish, narrow, and negative.

And all the attacks on people of other religions - about how you see these other religions as morally wrong because there are people who take advantage of others by manipulating God and His Word - - JUST LIKE HOW YOU WOULD HAVE ANYONE WHO WAS SELFISH DO FOR THEMSELVES TO THEIR OWN ENDS. I wonder how many imperfect people we would find in the world of LaVey?

And there are followers of other religions who ADMIT their sins -- in fact, it is a big deal to most Christians to admit their mistakes!

Too bad that you pay attention to the foolish media-hogs and believe that how they portray themselves is how a truly devout follower is. How narrow and foolish is that; especially from a mind who believes that they have a superior intelligence by choosing a morally superior religion like Satanism.

So, anyway... I think the main reason why your opinions bother me is because you claim to admit that you don't care about who screws others over as long as they admit it - except, I highly doubt you will follow your own scruples and admit to attempting to manipulate everyone here and cause a stir for your own purposes. And in so doing, you would then have violated the T&C for trolling.

Especially since you have provided nothing actually to sustain your belief that Satanism is morally superior to Christianity. The idea of sacrifice to Christians, which only exists in the form of sacrificing one's self for others' benefit, as Christ did, is morally superior to Satanism's sacrifice of children and beasts.

Satanism doesn't sacrifice children and beasts? Oh, but you said it yourself. You said that Satanism holds those beings sacred.

Sacrifice is latin for, "Having been made sacred/holy/set-apart".

And as for our use of the word sacrifice, yes, Satanism does sacrifice the children and the beasts! Because, once again, one who worship's themself is one who does "good" things only because it benefits themself. Which means that anytime a satanist treats a child or animal well, it means that, at the very most, that person is certainly not giving anything up by treating that child or animal well. More likely than not, the satanist is more worried about being liked and getting attention and watching something cute than actually preserving the humanity or life of the weaker being.

I probably could write a book about all the ways satanism is morally bankrupt, but the main point I have to make is that your title is misleading because you yourself state that satanism does not claim to have morality. Therefore, at the very least, be a sport and change your title to something more accurate to your own opinion. Maybe "LaVey Satanism is more fun than Christianity."

And your name indicates you are middle-aged. Time to grow up a bit, I respectfully suggest, sir.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in