Satanist

Originally posted by buckky
Has anyone ever met a true Satanist ? I've heard that these people do exist, but I've never to my knowledge ran into one. I known every other screwball type of of cultist, but never a Satanist. Are they strickly the subject matter of movies or do they roam the earth.

When you sat ".,,a true satanist..." I've met a couple of politians. Do they count? :-)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yes, but the direct "creation" of Hell for any particular soul is the result of that person's own actions. While God knows a priori that a particular person will end up putting his soul in a state of Hell, the actual causing of Hell is the result of the person exercising his free will thus. In other words, the person has a choice - and cannot blame God for the mess he finds himself in.

I don't understand how free will can be a part of this. If god already knows what we are going to do and going on the presupposition that he created everything, he must be responsible for coding those events into the fabric of existence. God knows, prior to my birth (and indeed has always known) that I will become an atheist. Why would he stand by and watch me live my life this way, in the prior knowledge of the event and the responsibility of my creation and then see fit to punish me? This is not free will at all and I do not believe that hell is a choice. God knows I'm going to hell, he has always known. There is no choice here, he created me so that I could go to hell. He made me an atheist, how twisted is that?

To talk of it as "punishment" is to fall into the same trap again - conceptualise it as something external and imposed on us.

Again, as above, I see no trap here, free will is an illusion if god really exists, hell is a punishment or a threat of punishment. You only need to read the bible to see that this is true. Fair enough, it may not be fire and brimstone (though go 100 years back and I believe your view would be a minority one), but it is still a prison or a torture, concpetual or otherwise.

I believe that angels and devils are concrete beings; i.e. real. Heaven, like Hell, is a state of soul.

Okay, so do angels (corporeal) reside in heaven (conceptual)?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

Yes, but the direct "creation" of Hell for any particular soul is the result of that person's own actions. While God knows a priori that a particular person will end up putting his soul in a state of Hell, the actual causing of Hell is the result of the person exercising his free will thus. In other words, the person has a choice - and cannot blame God for the mess he finds himself in.

i think the appeal to free will here is a real sham, and i honestly don't see how the theist can think this exonerates god. it certainly doesn't change the fact that such a god introduces the hell-bound individual into the world knowing full well that the individual is indubitably and unequivocally headed for the eternal fires of hell. at best, such a god is callous; at worst, such a god is a megalomaniac with a penchant for the cruel and unusual.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Yes, but the direct "creation" of Hell for any particular soul is the result of that person's own actions. While God knows a priori that a particular person will end up putting his soul in a state of Hell, the actual causing of Hell is the result of the person exercising his free will thus. In other words, the person has a choice - and cannot ...[text shortened]... od is callous; at worst, such a god is a megalomaniac with a penchant for the cruel and unusual.

Hey LJ. How can you justify connecting God's omniscience to man's free will? You need to establish at least a philosophical link between the two concepts.

I let my son come in contact with the opposite sex even though I knew the kinds of trouble that inevitably follow (tic), but I found it most important that he get the chance to try his own hand at this risky venture we call life. I'd rather he live life, knowing he might get burned, than to not live it at all.

As far as God's omniscience goes. His knowing that someone ends up in hell is a knowing that He knows because He can see the future as well as He sees the past. At the same time. But the future can only be known (from His perspective) because it has actually already occured. He can not stop it or change it without changing all of the dynamics of life (the nature of free will etc.), and He has deemed His system to be perfect.

Like when I am playing solitaire. Sometimes I can see the loss in sight and would like to switch a few cards around. But violating the rules of that particular closed system to win would not bring any satisfaction.

You must deal with the existence and the nature of free will AND with the outside-of-time nature of God's omniscience.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Your "red pill/blue pill" analogy implies angels are more than morally omniscient. For example, did Lucifer know he was going to fail? What possible impulse could cause him to do what he allegedly did if he knew absolutely all the consequences?

I say that if the Christians are correct, any being can only refuse to be in accordance with God's will if they lack knowledge of the consequences of their choice.

Formost, my apologies for the delay in responding.

It may interest you to know that I was very pleased to see this post. This is among one of the great questions I have held for a very long time and have yet to discern a solid theory upon. A very good question indeed, one that I am still chasing. 🙂

om·ni·scient
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

How can God be omniscient and free will exist? Does one not contradict the other? Well, not if God is also:

om·nip·o·tent
1 often capitalized : ALMIGHTY
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence

If God could not permit free will and also be omniscient, by nature, he could not be omnipotent. It may be paradoxal by mortal understanding, but we can understand this much atleast. It must be so, or God is not God. If God can not do the paradoxal, then he is not omnipotent and thusly is not God. As far as moral culpability due to his nature of omniscience and omnipotence, God must also be omnibenevolent:

be·nev·o·lent
1 a : marked by or disposed to doing good <a benevolent donor> b : organized for the purpose of doing good <a benevolent society>
2 : marked by or suggestive of goodwill <benevolent smiles>

So, what does this mean? Well, I'll tell you what. It means God knows everything he wants to know. He can know anything, and thusly he is omniscient. God can do anything at any time. He COULD dismiss the entire existence of the world from time itself with a though if he were so inclined, because he is omnipotent. He does not though, because he is the very nature of benevolence. There is nothing God does which is not good. Thusly:

Free will exists because God loves mankind, and offers it the choice to live within his design or to reject it. To do otherwise would be to subject his will upon his creation, making it effectively a great machine extension of his will. This is not love, this is not good, thusly we have free will. Thusly, God must limit his omniscience, capable due to his omnipotence.

So, if you wish to blame God the next time you sprinkle pee on the toilet seat because he gave you the choice of not putting the lid up, that is your choice. It may interest you to know that he is even going to hold you responsible for peeing on his toilet seat. That is, unless maybe you say to him, "Hey, sorry man, I screwed up." in which case he will be happy to absolve you of your poor choice. You might have to live with some pee on the seat for a while, but otherwise you will be fine and are in no danger of being kicked out of his house later on.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me when people make the arguement that God is "callous, cruel, evil, immoral, etc." because of OUR evil. I hope I do not sound arrogant here, but I must confess that deep down inside there is a small part of me that hopes these people have children, and that one day these children go on a destruction spree of vandalism, etc. When they get slapped with the fiscal responsibility for what their children have done, I hope they remember their assertion here. It is my most ardent wish that when the officer brings their child home and explains what they have done that he calls the parents "callous, cruel, evil, etc.' and tells them that it is really all THEIR fault.

Ok, rant over, hopefull I did not offend anyone. If I did, apolgies in advance. 😀

Best Regards,
Omnislash 😉

Originally posted by Omnislash
om·ni·scient
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

How can God be omniscient and free will exist? Does one not contradict the other? Well, not if God is also:

om·nip·o·tent
1 often capitalized : ALMIGHTY
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence

If God could no ...[text shortened]... I did not offend anyone. If I did, apolgies in advance. 😀

Best Regards,
Omnislash 😉

I never find your posts insulting Omnislash, you are one of the few theists here that actually present your views in a structured way and show the compassion and search for understanding that Christians should have.

As to your post, I'm afraid I disagree. The paradoxical nature of your assertion is not a suitable answer. Whilst I respect your right to follow this belief from a personal aspect, in terms of the debate I don't feel it provides sufficient integrity to back up your side of the arguement. You are effectively saying that god's ability to perform paradoxical actions defines the fact that he is god, which gives him the abiltiy to perform paradoxical actions.

You are also asserting that god is omnibenevolent, but if you assume that by being omnipotent he is causally responsible for the natural occurences of the world (ie, those not produced by free will), then you must credit him with the responsiblity for such things as the tsunami in Indonesia. How is this omnibenevolent when thousands of people died and thousands more suffered the pain and misery of losing loved ones and being made homeless?

Originally posted by Starrman
I never find your posts insulting Omnislash, you are one of the few theists here that actually present your views in a structured way and show the compassion and search for understanding that Christians should have.

As to your post, I'm afraid I disagree. The paradoxical nature of your assertion is not a suitable answer. Whilst I respect your right to ...[text shortened]... ed and thousands more suffered the pain and misery of losing loved ones and being made homeless?

Ha ha, well, I'm glad you do not find my statements offensive. That was about as ornery as I get. 😀

As to you disagree men, I understand completely. The acceptance of such a treatise is highly dependant upon your personal criteria. I also am sure that I could express my thoughts more clearly, but as the subject is already paradoxal by nature......well, let's just leave it at my basic premise that for God to be God, he would have to be capable of doing a great many things which is paradoxal to the human mind.

As to the omnibenevolence, I generally try not to use the term as people have different notions as to what it entails. I would like to say right up front that I do not wish to make a case as the the "omnibenevolence" of God. I tend to attribute the term to him, but I resepect others perception of the term and give a nod towards the linguistics barrier. In short, I would say this in regards to my own criteria regarding Gods omnibenevolent quality and my criteria for it. God is "universally/completely good by nature/compelled to do good". I do not believe this means God must intervene with everything that evers happens. Quite to the contrary, I believe that were he to do so would contradict his very "omnibenevolent" nature by intrusive interference with his creation and the decisions made by it, natural order of occurences, including life/death etc. While I do not think he is prohibited from interaction (quite the converse actually) I beleive that such celestial intervention is more appropriately accomplished on a subtle level and in a, lets say, less than absolute kind of way.

I know we could get into such things as "unnecessary suffering, etc., etc." but let us save that arguement for anothe day (literally, I'm going to bed now. 😀 )

Best Regards,
Omnislash

Mostly gothic people believe in Satan. I have never met a Satnist and I truly do not want to. Their way of seeing things is way different then mine. It is just the exact opposite of christianity so I suggest for christians is to stay axay from it. I know alot of you may think it is not evil but here is my way of seeing thing if the word has Satan in it it will to me spell E.V.I.L.

Mostly gothic people believe in Satan. I have never met a Satnist and I truly do not want to. Their way of seeing things is way different then mine. It is just the exact opposite of christianity so I suggest for christians is to stay axay from it. I know alot of you may think it is not evil but here is my way of seeing thing if the word has Satan in it it will to me spell E.V.I.L.

oops made two posts there sorry 😳

Originally posted by metal man
Mostly gothic people believe in Satan. I have never met a Satnist and I truly do not want to. Their way of seeing things is way different then mine. It is just the exact opposite of christianity so I suggest for christians is to stay axay from it. I know alot of you may think it is not evil but here is my way of seeing thing if the word has Satan in it it will to me spell E.V.I.L.

That is rubbish. Most goths do not believe in Satan. If you have never met a Satanist, how do you know what their way of seeing things is? Alsatian has the word Satan in it, are they evil? What about Carlos Santana? Hmm... actually he probably is evil.

It helps to understand what the basis of Satanism is, beyond the tabloid version or beyond the versions popularized by the Inquisitorial monks Spengler and Kramer in the 1500s...

There are two essential pulls within the human being. One is toward selflessness -- toward the transcendent, the macro. The other is toward self -- toward the immanent, or the micro. Much of this two-pronged pull can be traced back to the cultural roots within Egyptian mysticism.

The basic Egyptian myth revolved around the conflict between Osiris and Set. Osiris was the so-called good guy, Set the so-called bad guy. But in reality Set was simply the rebel. Like Lucifer, he rebelled against a particular social and religious order that required him (and everyone else) to abandon their individuality in favour of deference to a supreme God (or pantheon of gods). And for the record, Set was around long before the Judeo-Christian bible

Basically, Set (or Satan, and Satanism), represents the paying homage to individuality, the self, and the ego. Part of this involves a certain exhaltation of the body, as the body is mostly a tool of the ego, being essential to a sense of separate self-hood.

Much of conventional religion has had as its basis the subjugation of the individual in the name of some supposed deference to an overseeing God or Godly intermediary (saint, church, priest, etc). This was so back in Egyptian times as well, except that there was a polytheistic pantheon of gods (often a different god for different regions). Round about 1350 BC the rebel pharoah Akhnetan tried to overthrow the corruption that was seeping into this system by establishing a religion of "One God", whom he called Aten, represented visually by the solar disc. Akhenetan was eventually assassinated (in all likelihood) and his attempt to begin monotheism (one God only) was defeated at that time, though not long after Moses revived the idea successfully. But alongside Akhenaten's attempted reform also arose the school of Set, the so-called "left hand path", of which some schools of Bengali Tantra appear to have been offshoots of.

The left-hand path has as its basis the attempt to bring spiritual awareness into our most commonplace activities, which includes the entire realm of self and ego-based and ego-driven affairs. Part of the idea there is that we cannot grow beyond these ego-driven tendencies without first beginning to be deeply honest about them. "Satanism" in theory is an attempt to align one's destiny with what is essentially a materialist, ego-based, self-based approach to life. You might say it's a bit like the spiritual version of capitalism -- everyone for himself.

Ideally other "higher" values might evolve naturally upon such a foundation of honesty, but I'm not sure that Satanism has ultimately been used that way. It seems to have become more a modern cult of simple rebellion against tradition religious values. The more evolved form of this left-hand path have likely been developed in certain branches of Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism, referred to as Tantra. There, the point of "embracing the ego" is not to indulge massively in self-centreded rebelliousness, but more to bring consciousness into the mundane elements of life, so as to transform one's egocentric tendencies from the inside out...

Originally posted by buckky
Has anyone ever met a true Satanist ? I've heard that these people do exist, but I've never to my knowledge ran into one. I known every other screwball type of of cultist, but never a Satanist. Are they strickly the subject matter of movies or do they roam the earth.

One of the members of my Starcraft clan is a Satanist.

Originally posted by chinking58
Lucifer knew that he wanted to be god! And was arrogant enough to think he could win the necessary battle. It was his pride, the ultimate sin that plagues us all, that gave him the nerve to go for it. Only God is omniscient. The idea that satan is God's equal in characteristics is simply not true (theologically speaking).

If he is familiar with th ...[text shortened]... for at the end, and is working hard to cause as much trouble as possible for his hated creator.

And was arrogant enough to think he could win the necessary battle.

Oh, I see. He did not know the consequences of his actions. He was not omniscient. His defiance of God came from ignorance.