How many of you guys would call yourself a satanist

Dougla2 wrote: »

well Satanism isn't fiction sure Satan doesn't exist Satanism doesn't claim he does , the magic part is fiction but most of it is similar to Buddhism.

Sure, in the same way Star Trek isn't fiction. Sure, the actual travelling in space bit isn'y. But most of it is similar to Buddhism.

Now, fine, if some book some guy wrote in the 1960s is an incredibly rewarding myth to wrap up your life in. Its just the fragments posted here that read like twaddle, and especially senseless twaddle at that.

My honest reaction is that Eight I Really Rather You Didn'ts actually contain more useful information, and they're only for a laugh. The eleven Earth whasists are just incoherent. Travelling through open country. I wish we had the vomiting smiley they have on the thepropertypin.com.

One last question. What did PT Barnum say was born every minute?

Nemi wrote: »

One last question. What did PT Barnum say was born every minute?

A troll, I think. Why?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Ah, you missed my ninja edit, it's almost like I knew what was coming.

Most already freely admit they follow a work of fiction in one form or another, they just tend to dress it up as "allegory" or "representative" or whatever...

Yeeeaaahh, in a way, but mostly no.

I honestly do think there's a little difference between how the writings that form the Bible came together, and some guy writing a sort of heavy metal version of the Celestine Prophecy in the 1960s.

Look, I know we think all that stuff is made up, and it probably is. But there most certainly are lots of people around who reckon Jesus did exist, and was the son of God, and that Mohammed did get visions of the Angel Gabriel, and that the Quran is the authentic inerrant word of Allah.

But this yoke isn't. Its as fictional as the FSM, just fiction to be taken seriously.

And maybe that's great. Sure, doesn't Tom Cruise speak highly of Scientology?

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, Zen Buddhists have a saying that if you meet Buddha on the road, kill him.

But I think its a metaphor.

Zillah wrote: »

Er, wait. One maintains that desire leads to suffering and only by escaping the cycle of desire can one achieve true happiness. The other maintains that one should indulge all desires and show contempt for weaker fools.

How are they in any way related?

If I was you, I'd invite him to my house and slap him with a wet fish. Its the only way to deal with heresy.

He'll thank you later.

Zillah wrote: »

Nemi, you've been drinking, haven't you?

No, but that's a damn good idea.

Taxi!

Darlughda wrote: »

Who ate your porridge, little bear?

Satan....obviously.

Darlughda wrote: »

So what or who is Satan?

Phhh :rolleyes: Where have you been? It is this guy

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Nemi, you seem to be desperately trying to shoehorn these ideas into the framework of religion. But as far as I can see from what's been posted, it's not a system of belief (mostly) but rather a set of philosophies to live by. It's one I disagree with, sure, but we can't label everything we disagree with as religion.

Just a couple of thoughts. Firstly, I am (sort of) equating it to Pastafarianism, as an obviously manufactured thing.

Though, secondly, isn't the fact that the name of Satan is employed to give the thing a frisson interesting? I mean, in other threads, people are apparently perplexed at why someone would follow a mainstream religion. Yet, if people find satanism attractive just as a pose, is it really so beyond our understanding that someone else might find Jesus or Mohammed would give them whatever taste and feel they want to their way of living?

My initial posts, to be honest, were just expressions of quite genuine mirth at this sort of thing. But, now that you mention it, the fact that people stumble from religion into something like this is probably something that would yield understanding, if we critically thought about it.