Black background

*considers joining the Church of Satan*

I had a friend who was legit satanist. He talked about how the satanic church is the teaching that you are most valuable more than anything else, serve thyself before you serve others.

There are things that I agree with in its teachings. However, I don't see it as black and white. I think there's give and take when considering the needs of the many vs the needs of the few.

What Do Satanists Believe?

" ... That turns out to be a difficult question to answer. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Satanists are a rather fractious bunch, with many different organisations, beliefs and rituals. Many of these organisations are wholly or partly occult, with much hidden from non-adherents. Some are spiritualists: they worship Satan as a deity. Adherents of the Joy of Satan Ministries, for instance, “know Satan/Lucifer as a real being”, and believe he is “the True Father and Creator God of humanity”. Others—notably the Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey, the most renowned occultist since Aleister Crowley; and the Satanic Temple—are materialist, and reject belief in supernatural beings. Lucien Greaves, a spokesman for the Satanic Temple, describes himself as “an atheist when it comes to supernatural beliefs”, and says that for him Satanism stands for “individual sovereignty in the face of tyranny, and the pursuit of knowledge even when that knowledge is dangerous”. LaVey’s “Satanic Bible” proclaims “Life is the great indulgence—death the great abstinence! Therefore make the most of the HERE AND NOW! ... Choose ye this day, this hour, for no redeemer liveth!” ... "
retrieved: https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/01/09/what-do-satanists-believe

The sheer joy I get from Christofascists calling Satanism "Evil" because "Satan." Leaves me no work in showing how stupid they choose to be.

When the top doctors in the world met in Paris to figure out which planets aligned to create the miasma responsible for the bubonic plague, would you have called them stupid? When you disagree with me, I know better than to think you're stupid. We just disagree. Intelligence is only part of how we reach our beliefs.

How do you ask me this question regarding the past? If you're asking me to adopt the context of that time, then that is irrelevant because we aren't in that time. However, if I could take the knowledge I know now to that time, I would ask them to bring supporting data and evidence which supports that claim, shows me a cause and effect, rather than correlation. The data would also need to be repeatable with control groups with over at least one-thousand individuals studied for each group.

That's the difference between now and then. Not only have we learned how to effectively test our theories, but we have a community that keeps itself honest in a near dog-eat-dog mentality not only for individual prestige but for the sole interest of keeping its reputation.

So yes, given my current context versus theirs? Yes, they're stupid.
When Christians can recognize Satanism for what it is, instead of calling it "evil" for the sake of having the word "Satan" their credibility will improve.

As always, I recognize that there are Christians who understand the difference and indeed let people live their own lives. I respect them and admire them. However, those Christians are not taking the stage. Instead, the Christofascists are, and they're changing laws in our government to reflect their views, as such, in this context, I speak to those. As originally stated, I did in fact say "Christofascists." If you disagree with how I characterize and categorize them, then why are you responding to it if you do not match the description? You are the exception to this rule, correct?

I just wondered what is your bar for declaring someone stupid. If someone believes what they were told by their parents from birth, is that stupid? My biggest issues tend to be the anti-abortion and homophobic actions of religious people. The vast majority aren't stupid, we just disagree. As for fascists, I see plenty. Calling them that is a good way to guarantee you will never change their minds. If you try to make them an other, they have no reason to listen.

We've seen that they're already not willing to listen. I've avoided directly calling them stupid. I've often questioned their logic and been critical of their stances regarding various subjects which calls into question their double standard.

They're stupid because they've been offered to be shown that these people [satanists] are not the "dEvil worshipping" "Baby sacrificing" "anti-christs" that they claim to be. In that, by these terms, while could be semantically taken apart to say "it is true what they say." because one could argue "anti-Christ" simply means "anti-Christian" but we know that isn't the connotation intended with this phrase, but to liken one to the harbinger of the "end times."

Christians own the "othering" technique. They've done so for thousands of years. One wonders why it has survived as long as it has...

My favorite is, "Tens of thousands of religions for tens of thousands of years have predicted the end of days, and none has been right yet, but I'm sure you have it sussed out." On the surface I'm agreeing with them, and that helps get the message past the "other" filter. I have found true stupidity to be rare. There are a ton of other barriers to knowledge, and imgflip is a front row seat to most of them.

I see the phrase "end times" as plural. There've been Christian symbols that signify the end of times such as wearing the mark of the beast, extreme "other" mentality, etc. etc. There are plenty of signs that they reference. But what I've found, is that all of these things that they mention come at a time of great change within societal structure. So, I see the "end of times" as not the "end of all time" but the "end of times" as a plural statement, that they reoccur and often.

To be clear, I recognize and value progressive Christians who endorse personal liberty while upholding the true value of the first amendment; the freedom of speech, the freedom to, of, and from religion.

Imgflip is no a barrier of knowledge than the ones who use it - it is what you make it. I wish I could see more christian memes that are pro-liberty. Perhaps, I should make "leftist" memes that are pro republican minority. In fact, I think I'll make sure to put one of those in for every one that is critical of MAGA.

One could argue that every day is the end of one world and the beginning of another.

One could argue anything.

Freedom to, of and from... oooh, I like that! That's a more succinct distillation of my mindset than this neckbeard libertarian came up with by myself LOL.

To be clear, the constitution states that (and I quote) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Many have interpreted this to be that "No law will be made" being the first part "respecting" meaning to adhere, conform, acknowledge, regarding, etc. "an establishment of religion." So, any law that reflects religious values beyond the common good, is unconstitutional. Such examples would be prohibiting non-essential jobs from working on the sabbath. (Which is actually a Saturday, not a Sunday. Sabbath, being derivative of the Jewish word "Shabbat." Not sure how Christianity or Judaism became confused which day of the week was which. Pretty sure I was told though.

And of course, since no one cares about womens rights, just the non-rights of a non-existent human, there is deliberation on when life begins. I have found that Anti-Liberty (Pro-Life) groups say life begins at conception, which is not any recognized scientific model for life. The closes that it comes to is biochemical life, but if that was true, life begins a lot earlier than that. These people make some sort of appeal to sentimentality and using science as a mask saying that "when you can hear a heartbeat." Which, is no standard for when something is considered "living." It's like a heavily cherry-picked physiological definition.