The Satanic Temple of Seattle, WA is hosting a lovely picnic at Cowen Park on July 31st. LGBT SATANISTS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON COME FORTH!
>>6456942
so have the works of Ghost been accepted as cannon hymns by the satanic temple yet?
>>6456942
Would recommend /x
>>6456942
Christians believe in a higher power, God, who loves and cares for us but not in a smothering helicopter-parent kind of way.
Are Satanists just Hedonists? Or do they believe in God and decide to worship Satan anyway even though God is superior in every way?
>>6456942
The one week I'm travelling they schedule the annual picnic.
>>6458510
>even though God is superior in every way
Not really. They're both super evil assholes. Satan is just honest about it while God tries to gaslight you.
>>6457760
>silly atheists think the reverted cross is anti-christian
It's always been a Christian symbol because st. Peter was, according to tradition, crucified upside-down since he didn't feel worthy of dying as Christ did.
>>6458777
How is God evil?
>>6458510
>>6458777
Nice try, St. Michael.
>>6460221
>laudable
>one must learn
>most irritating
>lest
>machiavellian
>pay homage
>fools follow along with the herd
>herd constraints
fedoras man...
People who worship Satan have absolutely no concept of religion or morality. They don't worship Satan because they think it's right, they do it to 'rebel' against their Christian parents or 'the system'.
They're basically massive edgelords with no actual religion, much like Atheists.
>>6460221
>being wrong is a sin
>if you disagree with me, you're wrong
>>6456942
I'm in Seattle. I don't know what Satanists are like. The closest I've gotten to alternative religion are some Wiccan friends.
Will there be free food?
>>6458510
"not in a smothering helicopter-parent kind of way" What off-key aberration of christianity are you involved with?
>>6458554
THAT'LL TEACH YOU TO TRAVEL.
>>6458777
Yes.
>>6460203
Yes.
>>6460221
Yes.
>>6460338
Morality is entirely subjective. You can say this or that is right or wrong but that's your subjective opinion.
>>6460900
Come along and find out! I'm sure there'll be food at the picnic. Some people will probably share but I really don't know if there's going to be any kind of free distribution of human fuel. Satanists are very kind people though so maybe!
>>6460338
hi anon.
did you write your post after spending months/years in company with at least 2 different groups of satanist, after reading several of their ideology books or are you just speaking out of your ass?
because while it is true that rebeling against their christian parents might be what dragged them to that religion in the first place, you might discover that it actually has a depth, not everyone is edgy and they definitely know very well what religions are.
>>6465431
>Morality is entirely subjective. You can say this or that is right or wrong but that's your subjective opinion.
It's easy to make fun of people who major in something like philosophy, but at least they'll never say stupid shit like this.
>>6465504
"Subjectivity" and "objectivity" aren't even mutually exclusive terms when it comes to describing morality. See: virtue ethics.
>>6465538
Which is completely relative to individual and societal acceptance. The morality of a society is determined by numerous factors. All of which have, can, and will continue to change. There is no concrete, unchangeable morality.
>>6465548
That doesn't make it any less "objective" though.
>>6465644
Morality defined and outlined by society does not make it objective truth... It's still subjective. Subject to the will of society.
>>6465710
There is still an objective manner of living that allows you to flourish under your own individual circumstances. That is virtue.
>>6465721
Then what is it? What is this elusive, objective way of life? If you can't explain what it is, you have no argument.
>>6465431
>agrees that God is evil
>hurr morality is subjective anyhow!
Choose one.
>>6465811
Ugh... In the context of if christianity were even real, there is good and evil. In such a universe, god qualifies as evil under christianity's own definition. Learn about context and nuance.
>>6460221
A E S T H E T I C S
>>6465731
I already explained what it is: adherence to virtue. The process through which human flourishing is achieved entails the identification and habituation of virtue. What part of this is so confusing for you?
>>6460188
Not a satanfag but if God according to Christian mythology created evil willingly and does nothing to stop it interfering with his creations despite being omnipotent, he's evil by definition.
>hurr durr free will
He also apparently sends people to infinite torture for finite """"crimes"""", which is a dick move.
>>6465811
>morality from a god
>subjective
Choose one.
>>6465482
>tfw philosophy major
>>6458510
As I understand it most all satenists (the LeVay kind in particular) don't believe in any literal figure of Satan, and just sort of worship the idea in nature or whatever.
But then they also seem to believe in magic so...
All seems a bit edgy for the sake of being edgy to me tbhfam
>>6465820
>God is evil!
I asked this before, but since that went unnoticed, I'll ask again-
Presupposing that God exists, how is he evil?
>inb4 muh genocides, muh stone homosexuals
God defines, by his own nature, what is perfectly moral and what is not. If he has declared that a genocide must happen, it's because that act is necessarily perfectly morally good - otherwise he would be incapable of ordering that act. This act then, regardless of our views (which aren't perfect) must be necessarily morally correct. Ordering this does not equate that genocides are generally good, but that it was a good in that context. This is not even taking into account the fact that these stories are highly allegorical and metaphorical and written to appeal to warrior tribes.
This is assuming that God exists according to the Christian definition of God. Try not to change the definition of God to shill that he, somehow, can be immoral when he defines what is moral and what is not.
>>6466630
>mentions free will
>doesn't even refute it
Free will is the reason why. There's no purpose in creating us if we have no free will.
>He also apparently sends people to infinite torture for finite """"crimes"""", which is a dick move.
This is a common buzz-word argument. It first assumes that God sends people to Hell, which isn't true. People send people to hell. You choose whether you want to go to Hell or to Heaven with God, you've chosen Hell. God didn't choose for you. Ergo, you sent yourself to Hell. God wants you to go to Heaven. That's why he guided the Israelites, that's why he sent down Jesus, that's why he built the Church to help us along our way.
You're looking at the whole salvation thing wrongly, I think. It's not about the "finite crimes" that are effectively sending us to Hell. It's the state of our hearts, our desire to be with God that makes it so. Acts are just symptoms of that state.
>>6466644
You're mistaken, I don't agree with subjective morality, I'm pointing out the other guy is agreeing with it.
>>6471607
Any God that is absolutely moral and good would not be able to create evil, that's a contradiction. To create evil is immoral, and an absolutely moral being could not and would not commit an immoral act. It just doesn't make sense.
>people send people to hell
This is the most retarded argument. If I'm a lifeguard and someone's drowning, I save them even if they don't know I'm there. My saving them is not contingent on their knowledge of my existence. I'm also not going to ignore them just because they broke a rule in the past and didn't say 'sorry'. If I don't save them, they aren't drowning themselves, I'm letting them drown.
>condition of our hearts
If someone's only crime is not believing in God, they aren't putting their hearts in a state of wanting to go to hell. No one wants eternal torture.
>acts are just symptoms of that state
I'm not really sure what you meant by this, but are you saying no Christian can commit an evil act?
A thread died for this bullshit.
>>6472005
>Any God that is absolutely moral and good would not be able to create evil, that's a contradiction.
That is my argument. It's illogical to think he can do evil acts. If we consider something evil, our view on that act is objectively wrong if God thinks it is right. You think he is evil. If he existed, he could not be evil - your view that he is evil is objectively wrong, then.
>I save them even if they don't know I'm there
God has zero (0) obligation to save us. We've outright deneid him, so him being the creator and the owner of us and all things created might as-well just say "well fuck you then", but he doesn't because he love us. He wants our co-operation with him if we wish to be saved. What's not to understand? Why do you feel entitled to being saved? Why is it evil that God requires consent if you wish to be saved?
In that regard, I don't think your analogy works because a lifeguard has an objective obligation to help anyone out, regardless whether they want it or not, when God does not.
>..they aren't putting their hearts in a state of wanting to go to hell
You either choose heaven (believing) or you choose hell (disbelieving). Disbelieving is choosing to go to hell. It's endangering your soul. If they do not want to cooperate with God, then they go to hell. That's what it's about, it's not about actually desiring eternal torture - it's about desiring your own self and futhering your own wishes rather than Gods. The consequence of doing this is eternal seperation from God.
>are you saying no Christian can commit an evil act?
Nope.
>>6472187
You're judging God good or evil by his own standard. Anyone will pass as good if you judge them by their own standard. By the human standard, which is the one that matters to humans, God is evil, or at the very least, not the all-good being the bible asserts he is. You can't expect someone who does not believe God is good to accept that he is just because he says he cannot be wrong. For all we know, he could be lying.
>Inb4 God sets the standard of good and evil, morality is objective etc etc
Then God is just good because he says so. He isn't good because his actions can demonstrate that, he's just good because he defines himself as good.
>>6473373
>you have to judge God by OUR standards!
Our standards, which have been corrupted by original sin, our standards which aren't backed up by perfect omniscience, our standards which are severely limited compared to God. Also God created us, so I think I hold his standards to a higher degree.
We don't believe God is perfectly morally good just because he says so, but because it's a logical requirement. He created the universe. He's the standard of perfection. Thus, any morality which he holds must be perfect. It cannot be imperfect, since God is not imperfect.
Any moral views we would have, which contradicts God, must be wrong since we're imperfect and God is perfect.
Satanists are so beyond cringe worthy.
What the fuck is the point? Is it the community? You having the need to be a part of some "dark mysterious" pact of retards? It's a group of adults/young adults who like to play dress up and try to be "scary". "We are actually very nice, and we just want people to live as they will!", oh, fuck off. People already do that, and they don't need Satanism. I read LaVeys little book and it was crap. Also he has an entire chapter based around bad-hygienic (and why it's okay). So fuck off you mentally unstable unwashed loons.
PS, I wouldn't count on "free food", they are proud of being greedy.
>TLDR Satanists are pretty much Juggalos with less clown makeup.
>>6473593
I'm not saying our standards are perfect. I'm saying that, as we are both humans (unless there's something you'd like to tell me), we have no choice but to use human reasoning. To use reasoning that is beyond our minds' ability to comprehend is impossible and asinine.
>any morality God holds must be perfect
Why? Just because he created the universe? That doesn't necessarily mean he's perfect. If your parents (who created you, in a sense) were horrible people, would you still care more about their morals than anyone else's? If God decided tomorrow he wanted you dead, even though you didn't do anything wrong, he's still moral just because he created you? Give yourself a little more credit, man. Our morals aren't so flawed that we can't make good decisions or judgments, even if they don't agree with authority. Humans have been making their own laws even without a god, and so far we've sentenced zero (0) people to burn for eternity just for not wanting to be with us.
Like it or not, you're talking about a being that by your own definition is beyond your comprehension. To impose morals that we could not possibly grasp it's understanding of would be like teaching quantum physics to a baby and punishing it for not understanding. And still, for all you know, God could be lying. You have yet to explain how any being that claims to be love, yet allows its beloved creations to burn forever for the crime of not knowing it exists can claim to be good. (Before you say it's allowing you a choice, it isn't a real choice in that one party does not understand the full meaning of, or the existence of the consequences. If it were presented by God directly to the human, zero people would choose hell. And since God is as according to the bible omnipotent, and loves every human infinitely, this is definitely in his character, if he is indeed good.)
>>6456942
Sorry but I'm a devout Vaderist.
If I was going to change religions and follow the teachings of a character from an old fairy tale I certainly wouldn't pick someone lame like Satan.
>>6473851
>To use reasoning that is beyond our minds' ability to comprehend is impossible and asinine.
Not if God has actually told us, in a comprehensible manner, how to live as he wants us to. That's what Christians claim.
>Just because he created the universe?
You're getting into whether God is perfect or not, which is a different argument. Going by the Christian definition of God, he is perfect. Under the Christian definition of God, he cannot be immoral.
The argument all along has been whether God is evil or not. Stop moving the goalposts and redefining God to fit your stupid narrative.
I don't want to argue with you anymore when you try to change definitions and move goalposts and shit, simply namedropping arguments you want me to respond to, despite it being talked about for thousands of years and it takes a lot of time and effort to explain.
Also your trying to contend that the definition of God is wrong all along seems to be changing the context as I've been called out on, presumably by you, before.
>>6465431
>What off-key aberration of christianity are you involved with?
Catholicism, the most mainstream branch of Christianity
dumbass
>>6466630
>He also apparently sends people to infinite torture
No, he doesn't. That's a creation of the media and is based off of the Muslim concept of hell. According to the Bible, you are thrown into the fires of Hell to burn.
>>6477945
Oh, I'm truly sorry. Many people like yourself were also sexually abused by catholic priests as children. You are not alone, Satan loves you.
>>6477747
My point still stands about God being evil from a human standpoint. You can't just shut down any argument against something by claiming that it can't be right because it just can't. I'm trying to bring up different things that God allegedly does or does not do that would prove anything else immoral or evil, but your response every time is just: well, he can't be evil because he isn't. Fine, I will concede that to someone who accepts that God is perfect, God is good and moral. But to me, and many others who don't accept something just because a two thousand year old book says so, God is an evil character.
>>6477965
Being burned forever does not count as infinite torture?
