Question Of What Is Right - Satanism + Asatru...

[phee]

It's religion, there is no "right". At least, none we will ever know and still be breathing.

My only words of advise are that perhaps you should not focus on being "anti-christian". I know it's trendy to be anti-christian, but a belief system should be about believing in something, not how much you don't follow the beliefs of something else.

I agree with this entirely

[DarkenedCharm]

I don't. And if you had been through the complete garbage I have been through at the hands / whims of so-called "Christians", you would have a strong aversion to the religion and way of life yourself. Yes. I am anti-Christian. No. It is not following a trend. Christianity is a religion founded on fear, and contains the highest "hypocrite-per-capita" rate of any other belief system. I'm sorry, but I cannot and will not share your sentiments.

[Mistercreeps]

I don't. And if you had been through the complete garbage I have been through at the hands / whims of so-called "Christians", you would have a strong aversion to the religion and way of life yourself. Yes. I am anti-Christian. No. It is not following a trend. Christianity is a religion founded on fear, and contains the highest "hypocrite-per-capita" rate of any other belief system. I'm sorry, but I cannot and will not share your sentiments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please don't base a religion on the people! Orginized religion is corrput anymore no matter what one you follow. If you listened to them at all you've been told many times over your going to hell because your Goth! I'm a Christain I believe in God because I feel it's right. Though as The Dark said there is no right. The only right is what you feel, not what someone else tells you is right. If you feel wearing both symbols as right then by all means do it! You understand what both stand for. Don't let others judgement get to you. Do what you do to be yourself. Don't follow the crowd. The only true happiness is being who you are not what someone else wants you to be.

[phee]

I think that basing a belief souly on being against something else is more of an "ant-belief"

Most of my contact with Christians has been for the most part negative as well, and I am by no means defending them at all... I am only saying that choosing to believe in something else entirely is probably a better thing that simply saying "I am going to believe in whatever they are against" You are still letting the "Christians" detrmine your belief system, instead of coming up with your own decisions and beliefs.

From what I understand Satanism is a reactionary religion the name "Satan" is biblical in it's source, it owes it's existance to the rejection of Christianity, and therefore would be nothing without it, in otherwords from my perspective, being a Satanist is more or less being dependant on Christianity for your beliefs, or another way of putting it is in essence being a Satanist is being a Christian... I have been so burned by biblethumpers and Christian hate mongers in the past that to actually be a Satanist seems rediculous, it's the same as being an "AntiBuddest" if there were such a thing.

Now if we are talking Nordic beliefs, this is entirely different, this religion formed all on it's own without needing to be dependant on another religion to exist. Therefore it seems to be stronger... This is true to me for pretty much any religion that formed for the most part "on it's own"

Take care

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I've long been puzzled by the confusing of the "followers of a given idea" and the idea itself. It seems irrational to me to base my opinion of a religion , mainly on the actions of some of its followers, especially one with so many different sects.

For instance i know a bunch of guys that call themselves a Buddhists but they turn out to be assholes and a hypocrites, doesn't invalidate the concept of Buddhism or mean that "buddhism is for assholes" or some such.

The idea that "there is no absolute truth" is a bit of a contradiction , as even in saying that your agreeing that there is , at least one absolute truth. That is, the "truth" that there is no absolute truth. "There might not be any absolute truth" or "Truth may be subjective based on context" seems more likely to be acurate, and more in keeping with the intention of many people that use the term.

[Brenda Starrr]

Yes. I am anti-Christian. No. It is not following a trend. Christianity is a religion founded on fear, and contains the highest "hypocrite-per-capita" rate of any other belief system. I'm sorry, but I cannot and will not share your sentiments.

I am definitely the exception to this. I grew up at the hands of my Catholic family, and I didn't agree with the Catholic way of being. So, I did what I wanted to do: believe without having to go to church and cough up money. I felt like that was silly. Why should I "pay" to go to church, when I can believe freely anywhere?

I'm most definitely not a hypocrite. People have the right to be whomever they want to be. I have friends who are Satan worshippers, and we get along great. I have friends of all beliefs. The key is that I don't discuss religion if I can help it. I simply accept them for who they are, not what they believe. And sometimes, the things that others believe outside of Christianity are things that I completely agree with.

I hope that makes sense....

[Ginevra]

I know this is probably going to derail the thread but, this point stuck out to me.

I am definitely the exception to this. I grew up at the hands of my Catholic family, and I didn't agree with the Catholic way of being. So, I did what I wanted to do: believe without having to go to church and cough up money. I felt like that was silly. Why should I "pay" to go to church, when I can believe freely anywhere?

I was raised Methodist. My father, his father and his father before him were Methodist.

My father firmly believes that tithing to the church is something that should be done. He always gave 10% of his income. Part of the reason for this is because our minister doesn't hold a "regular" job; the church IS his job. Thus, he has no income other than the tithing of the members. In addition, the tithes go to pay the bills of the church, such as electric, heat and water and any repairs that need to be made. When I was a teen, they saved up a portion of their tithes, and after a couple years, had enough to put a basement in, complete with an indoor bathroom. (Yes, I grew up in Hickville, leave me alone.)

So, "paying to go to church" is not always what it really is. If an organisation is run properly, these monies actually have a place and purpose and are used in the way they're supposed to be.

As for the question that started this thread, I think it is possible to take a bit of this and a bit of that and make it your own. I cannot stand here and say, "Being Methodist is THE only way to go/be." While I may feel my religion is right and in feeling so, will want to convert as many as possible to my beliefs, I don't feel the need to force my views on others. If it sounds good to you, you will convert on your own. You will see how I live my life and want it for your own. (I'm making an example based on the belief system that I was raised with.)

I don't know anything about LaVey or Satanism. It feels wrong to me when I try to read that type of material just as it feels wrong to try to read Crowley. That doesn't necessarily mean that there are things wrong with their writings. It's simply not comfortable to me to try to read and understand them.

Okay, yeah, I'm rambling. Sue me. heh

[Brenda Starrr]

I can't read LaVey or anything about Satanism, either. I see it in my local library, but I can't bring myself to read it. I've just felt that, growing up poor, the church looked at us funny when we couldn't give. At this point in my life, where I can now afford to give, I don't mind it so much. In my previous post, I was stating my train of thought from when I was younger. I should have made that clear. However, my grandfather always told us that God can hear us anywhere for free. That's where my way of thinking came from.

I also agree that you can take bits from everything and make it your own. I don't abide by a specific form of Christianity. I just know who I believe in, and I can't fault others if they don't believe the same.

Does that sound crazy? =)

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I can't read LaVey or anything about Satanism, either. I see it in my local library, but I can't bring myself to read it. I've just felt that, growing up poor, the church looked at us funny when we couldn't give. At this point in my life, where I can now afford to give, I don't mind it so much. In my previous post, I was stating my train of thought from when I was younger. I should have made that clear. However, my grandfather always told us that God can hear us anywhere for free. That's where my way of thinking came from.

I also agree that you can take bits from everything and make it your own. I don't abide by a specific form of Christianity. I just know who I believe in, and I can't fault others if they don't believe the same.

Does that sound crazy?  =)

No it sounds fairly common. Roll-your-own ethics/religion/spiritalism is the norm these days. =)

[Daniel]

From what I understand Satanism is a reactionary religion the name "Satan" is biblical in it's source, it owes it's existance to the rejection of Christianity, and therefore would be nothing without it, in otherwords from my perspective, being a Satanist is more or less being dependant on Christianity for your beliefs, or another way of putting it is in essence being a Satanist is being a Christian...

Ahh, not so much. I read a wonderful book about the origins of Satan by Elaine Pagel, who writes excellent books anyways. Satan really is a traditional bad guy, and did NOT originate with Christianity. The name Satan is from Christianity, and Lavay's CoS uses the name Satan. But, it is the same boogey man from a number of cultures. It is easiest to use the popularized one to drive a point home. CoS is about a message as well as a belief system, no doubt about it. I mean, let's face it, most of western society is Christian in some capacity, even though we are statistically becoming secular at quite a rapid rate. But, historically speaking, western culture, especially America, is very puritain.

For instance i know a bunch of guys that call themselves a Buddhists but they turn out to be assholes and a hypocrites, doesn't invalidate the concept of Buddhism or mean that "buddhism is for assholes" or some such.

Buddhism is very different from Christianity. It isn't a religion in the same sense. It is more like a path to walk, and there is no concept of "sins", or "right and wrong". It is simply a way of reaching enlightenment, if you choose to do so. There just isn't any pressure for you to do so if you don't want to. You have all eternity to keep living, dying and being reborn, living however you want to live. Whenever you are ready to wake up... here is how you do it. So, you can be buddhist and not follow any real buddhist teachings, and still qualify as a buddhist. They can't be hypocrites, because buddhist teachings do not say "You MUST do these things, or else!", which is the whole premise of Christianity, "Accept Jesus as your savior, or go to hell!". Buddhism is totally optional, to the buddhist.

I've long been puzzled by the confusing of the "followers of a given idea" and the idea itself. It seems irrational to me to base my opinion of a religion , mainly on the actions of some of its followers, especially one with so many different sects.

Sure. Most religious people WANT you to gauge their religion based off of their actions... but only the good ones! Even look over this thread. Many Christians feel leading by example is the best way to recruite new devotees. But, they don't want you to look at the bad seeds, because it doesn't represent the religion.

A religion is a cultural phenomenon. It is perfectly fair to judge it based on the followers, because without the followers, there is no religion. Most religions are only loosely based off of the doctrine, many brances of Christianity included. Most rites, rituals, traditions, hierarchies, etc are not based exclusively on The Bible.

If you are talking about judging the actual religious beliefs and traditions, then sure, yeah, you are better off doing your research, etc. You can subscribe to a certain set of religious beliefs and reject the church/organization altogether. I've known many Christians that do this.

I won't go so far as to say I am anti-Christianity... well, that's hard to say. I mean, I definitely wish Christianity would fall apart already, and think the world would be better off without it, and desperately want to move to a part of the world with much less Christian influence. But, I am not out trying to bring it down to the ground either. I'm also very, very past thinking Christians are "evil", like I did when I was much younger. I grew up in Indiana, a very conservative place where you are either Christian, or dislike Christians because they won't leave you alone. I have many Christian friends. But, I won't lie that my immediate reaction to finding out someone is Christian is a feeling of disappointment. I get over it, but that's my initial reaction. I have quite a number of people I admire who are Christian.

I suspect by the year 2040, the majority of Americans will not identify as Christian anymore. Statistics are pointing that way. The population will be a bit more balanced. Now, I do not think Christianity is this socially harmful thing because it is trendy, or even because of bad experiences in the past. I've read up on it in major, major ways. I've read The Bible (a lot), done intensive critical study. I've studied denominations, been to many churches, had conversations with everyone from pentacostal, gnostics, orthodox, catholics, you name it. I'm probably a better Christian than most Christians. I simply don't like the principals it is built upon, and really don't think Jesus was all that fantastic of a character or teacher. Other than Hell, all of the stuff he teached was introduced by some other scholar or philsopher previously. I won't get into a full blown criticism of The Bible and its teachings, but suffice it to say, I could write a few hundred pages on the subject.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Daniel said: Buddhism is very different from Christianity. It.....

Yeah I've been around the block once or twice. One of my best friends and i have been "involved" in Buddhism in one form or another for nearly 10 years, spent way to much of my free time reading and discussing the subject. Was just an example, i wasn't making any comment about the "validity of budissm as a religion(or not)" . Could insert any "group" term in place of Buddhism and it would have been making the same point.

Daniel Said: If you are talking about judging the actual religious beliefs and traditions, then sure, yeah, you are better off doing your research, etc.

This was , generally the point i was trying to make.

Your other point about it being valid to judge a religion by the actions of its followers is valid if we want to call the "The Religion" the actions of its followers and its cultural impact. The "core teachings" of a philosophy / religion / belief system, i think should be judged at least somewhat, independently of actions of people that happen to call themselves "followers of" that belief system as it is not giving the teachings themselves a fair shake. Why? that's a 10 pager that i just don't have the energy for at the moment.

[Black Sunday]

Satanism is Ayn Rand style Virtue of Selfishness type thinking. Nemo , a well-known satanist who tries to contrast LaVey with Rand still recognizes its extreem similarity with Objectivism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wow! I was reading this thread and before I read this post I was thinking, Levay sounds like Ayn Rand.

[phee]

wow! I was reading this thread and before I read this post I was thinking, Levay sounds like Ayn Rand.

:grin

[Daniel]

Daniel said: Buddhism is very different from Christianity. It.....

Yeah I've been around the block once or twice. One of my best friends and i have been "involved" in Buddhism in one form or another for nearly 10 years, spent way to much of my free time reading and discussing the subject. Was just an example, i wasn't making any comment about the "validity of budissm as a religion(or not)" . Could insert any "group" term in place of Buddhism and it would have been making the same point.

[Goth Brooks]

What do you think about this?

Does anyone know enough about the two to comment? If I were backed into a corner and made to choose just one to follow, it would be Satanism. Am I a retard, or am I reasonably normal in my confusion? Someone help, please...LOL I'm feeling like an ass as I type this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To get back to your original question, I will paraphrase what has been stated many a time by officials of the CoS. "If it works for you, who cares what anyone else thinks?"

It's not really a question of "right" and "wrong". Stepping away from the theistic side and focusing strictly on the pragmatic, there IS no right/wrong when it comes to any religion, all that matters is your beliefs help you to accomplish your goals and desires in life.

[Paper Hearts]

I was raised in a Catholic family, I truly think I believed in it as a child, everything they told me, but then children have such wonderful imaginations...I used to sleep with lost teeth under my pillow for the tooth fairy, as well. For whatever reason as I got older the less things made sense to me and at the same time, I had an indomitable curiosity to figure everything out. As a teen I discovered Jack Kerouac's autobiographical writings and I loved the idea of his life, of simply being a pilgrim, there seemed something so liberating in it and I read probably the full library of his work available at that time in a span of about two years; I'm not sure if I really liked his writing style, but it was the things he wrote about. I suppose that I associated with him so well because essentially he was a person who was searching, wandering, trying to find the meaning to things, and with feverous abandon. Kerouac was a "do nothing" Buddhist who wasn't very good at it, he wrote about his beliefs often. It was these writings that opened the way for me to other viewpoints. I bought and read the Dhammapada, the I ching, I read some books by the Dahli lama, I studied (though more distantly because it reminded me of Christianity and so seemed boring) Judaism, Islam, Satanism, yes, the whole sha-bang. -I moved west for a while (San Diego) and even had someone who was raised Mormon and a Navaho as roommates. Of course, through too much tequila, we talked about things like this together, also.

Through years of Catholicism, Buddhism and being an unorthodox pagan what I discovered, what I finally learned, was absolutely nothing. It was difficult to admit it, but none of these paths really knew anything, no one knew better than anybody else and that includes the Atheists (which I tried for a while too). I just felt arrogant saying I believed this or that, and I think it is a bit arrogant if not stupid for someone to pretend that they, yes them, they know exactly how shit works. -Some people are militant on top of things and it all seems very poor theatre this religion thing sometimes, it can be really grotesque. It's fine and probably natural to have feelings about things and possibly even to follow them, but it's intoxicating-we should realize that we are such romantic creatures; what I'm getting at is that I think intellect should be our most significant guide, we should try for that instead. It's not very pressing to know where we or things around us came from, it's meaningless if you think of it and it's not anyone's responsibility here.

I hate saying "agnostic" because if you call yourself that, it almost becomes your philosophy through at least how others perceive you, it also kind of implies that you are yet searching or truthfully care-I simply say: 'I have no idea', and I say it smartly, with a gleaming in my eye so that nobody tries to sell me some book or hand me one of their sucking little pamphlets. -I'll give the Atheists that, at least they don't show up at your door at ten AM on a Saturday trying to grow their spiritual influence through your disaffected ass like the others do. That aside, it's difficult to escape all manipulation from these institutions-even if you were raised an uncivilized heathen you're however slightly affected by them in some facet or other (i.e. there would never have been a 'Goth' movement without the pressures of a Christian society, 'Your Own Personal Jesus' for example, an anthem of sorts, etc.). -My Path is to try to break free from these things taking with me as little of them as possible to this new place where things are shockingly real (but isn't that what we all are trying for anyway, to know reality?). Nevertheless, If your way is joining two beliefs because you draw parallels between them instead of merely following a doctrine, then you are using your intelligence. One should follow their mind with snotty, unapologetic, condescension just to spite cunts who tell you otherwise.

[DarkenedCharm]

Wow.

Everyone who responded to this, thank you. Positive or negative, it has given me a LOT to think about. This last couple of posts really, really hit home with me.

[Black Sunday9]

I guess I am really late to this thread and I see some of my questions in my new thread have been answered here. I know I posted in this thread but I didn't really follow it closely. I guess that thread could be moved here.

I don't. And if you had been through the complete garbage I have been through at the hands / whims of so-called "Christians", you would have a strong aversion to the religion and way of life yourself. Yes. I am anti-Christian. No. It is not following a trend. Christianity is a religion founded on fear, and contains the highest "hypocrite-per-capita" rate of any other belief system. I'm sorry, but I cannot and will not share your sentiments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DarkenedCharm, I don't know if Christianity is based on fear. In fact I think many theologians are open minded and studied history and have concluded that they are Christian based purley on evidence and not fear.

Now the so called "evidence" is highly debatable, I'll give you that. But some people do see fulfilled prophecies by a man named Jesus when they study histroy. You or I may not see that but there is first hand testamonial from Greeks and Romans and Jews of a man who did aid King David, a man who did help Abraham, a man who did rise from the dead and speak to the apostles. I know speople who believes that divine intervention and divine intervention alone is what has kept the jews alive all this time after famine, wars and modern day terrorism....thus a fulfilled prophecy from Ezra 1.

What is the hypocrisy in christianity that you are reffering to? I'd be interested in rescurecting this thread if no one objects.

As for Asatru, I don't know much about it other than it's older than Christianity and many don't consider it a religion as much as a philosophy.

[Black Sunday9]

Again, a religion IS the body of people with in it. The doctrine or philosophies of a religion do not equal the religion. So it is perfectly fair to judge the body by the contributors. If a religion had no followers, it wouldn't exist. A philosophy, on the other hand, can exist if no one adheres to it. No one considers Greek Mythology a religion anymore, and even if they did, it is still based on the fact that at some point in time, people did believe in it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

where do you get this idea from? Religion exist only because of doctrine, not because of sect or cult. You say that if a religion had no followers then it wouldn't exist, however the doctrine would still exist. For example you said that in the future that the number of Chrisitans would deplete. If the world was ever without Christians that does not mean that scripture or the dead sea scrolls does not exist. Christianity is either a truth or a myth and is something to be judged by history, not something to be judged on by Pat Robertson or the Christians you met in Indiana. Basically Chrisitanity is a belief, not a cult.

[Steven]

Good points Spiral.

But then there is the dillemma....how then do we define universally what is:

"Good"

"truth"

"religion"

and even

"hypocrisy"

if we are using a relative approach? I have to agree wtih you that to claim no absolute seems like a contradiction.

Me, I need an absolute. I really do. I dont understand the "Opposition" approach to Christianity - as someone else wisely posted - it is a seemingly controlled approach to life. I'm a Christian. I used to not be. I'm 38, did soem things, seen some things. Lived a life without God, and with God - made the choice on my own - but I know both lives.

And although I beleive in a very real Satan - I dont go looking for Satanists or Pagans to throw rocks at or curse or tell their going to hell - how the hell do I know who's going to hell? I aint god - I can bareluy manage my checkbook. But I am definately a Christian - and some of you opposers may be suprised that I've welcomed your bretheren to my home, and even to my barbecue - and that my friends is sacred territory. Dark - I'm sorry you feel that you got burned by the tenants of Christianity, I've felt that way before too. But Christianity as an organized thing - vs - Christianity as the real thing are not the same. You'll find A-Holes and hypocrisy in Satanism / Paganism too.....anything really, that has PEOPLE in it. I had to learn to seperate the crap from the truth - I venture that most of the people that have hurt you inside of christianity would be rejected by Christ himself.

Steven

[The Lady]

But, it is the same boogey man from a number of cultures.

I'd like to point out to you that while this may or may not be true, the generally accepted explaination for the origin of Satan includes sacred gods, NOT (or not just) "boogey men" from several cultures as well. Pan, The Green Man, The Horned God, and many, many more. These are not boogey men... these archetypes represent my spiritual father, brothers, lovers and sons.

:: resolves to stay out of these threads from now on ::

:grin