The Satanic Temple are not Satanists | Forum

Well, I wrote it in response to this post of yours:

"I actually think it's even have the OPPOSITE effect. If you mock bible belt Christianity you only proves to it's adherents that they are important. TST creates only more radical conservative Christians and TST's insane followers can give radical Christians new methods to collect more members to their sects "you can see how the devil has possessed this crazy retard transgender dude, the end is near, so we must repent now!". 

Next time read the replies in their context. I appreciate every attempt to look clever but you're trying too hard. 

This was the context:

"What you do not understand is that it doesn't have to serve an utilitarian purpose. If Satan is an adversary and accuser (and you seem to claim likewise) then transgression is an end in itself. If we wish to talk about pragmatism, then LaVey would be more successful with his church endeavor if he called it the Church of Reason, the Church of Scepticism or the Church of Doubt. Yet he chose specifically Satan, not worrying too much about its provocative effect. Or, perhaps, that was his aim; pure provocation?"

And when it comes to your statement of LaVey would be more successful what do you mean with that? More success in what? TST has more members or followers but they are weak and has no real power.

Such retarded and frustrating faggotry was the main reason why I gave up teaching. 

But I will stand at the blackboard (since obviously I have to) and once again I will try to spell it out to you. Let's hope that this time I will get through to you.

You wrote in one of your previous posts that TST would be more successful in its political and social activity if they didn't use Satan as its mascot. Because, in this way, they allienate potential followers and symphathizers among liberal or gay Christians or Muslims. Moreover, they make radical Christians even more radical.

My counterargument to that was that Anton LaVey would also have been more successful in gathering following and appealing to the masses if he hadn't used Satan as his mascot. Calling his "church" any other name would have been far more pragmatic. Yet he used Satan.

So if you wish to make an argument concerning TST that using Satan is ineffective and counterproductive, then that would logically apply to LaVey too. Unless pragmatism is not the aim, which was the point I made. That the real reason for using Satan was transgressing social norms. 

Is this clear now to you? Or should I use some flashcards?

Concerning your dumbass argument about Satan in the Book of Job and the temptation of Christ; he was a test of faith and loyalty to God, nothing more to that. If you actually read the parts of the Bible you were talking about. 

Yeah this is a problem on just about every level. I myself have grown non-reactive and accustomed to the "Satanic" terminology but am realizing and should have known that's its' use among aquaintances is a bad idea and causes most to just stop and do a one eighty at mere face value.

Edit : how about 180 instead of 360

Yes he would but his goal was not to gain followers but to gather fellow Satanists who was a specific type of people. A type of people you would call "retards".

Gathering fellow Satanists is TST goal too so this point is null.

That's your interpretation of it.

No. This is the only objective interpretation one could draw from reading the Bible. The best way would be to read it in the original languages but we aren't that professional. Still, the character of Satan as the part of God's council is quite obvious, at least in the Book of Job. Clearly, he gets God's permission to test Job's faith and integrity, which prove to be unshaken in the face of the ordeal. Similarly, the temptation of Christ is the test of initiation. Satan as a fallen angel, deceiver and symbol of evil appears more in Paul's letters and Book of Revelation. The message is to warn believers against giving in to his machinations.

What LaVey does is taking the figure of Satan from the Bible and subverting it so that the characteristics of Satan become the epitome of individual emancipation. But this new meaning of Satan cannot be strictly drawn from the Bible. It's the subversion of the Biblical text, it's the key word: subversion. Putting it upside down.

You have not passed my test. 

That was a real gem. Seriously dude, grow at least a cat-size dick if you want to fuck with me. I meant that metaphorically, in case you didn't understand it too. 

This is strictly connected to the figure of Satan in the Bible as the tool of God's Judgement.

"And I heard a loud voice saying in Heaven, “Now have come salvation and strength, and the Kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ; for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accused them before our God day and night." 

Is this MY interpretation?

What LaVey does with Christ's blessings? 

What does he do when he writes about what Satan stands for? 

Key words: subversion, transgression, provocation. 

It's the mirror but for whom really? 

That would mean that at least 75% of Christians are Satanists. The same would go for the Jews, even more for Buddhists. 99% of Atheists are Satanists. I would be less optimistic about Muslims. I would give 50% if they live in the West and adopted the Western culture. Your "Satanism" is a common thing. According to your definition, I'm a Satanist too. 

Here in 2021 there have come even more new irrational beliefs. Many people believe without question what mainstream medias says. Many people believe they are right and cannot be wrong. 

No, the majority follow consumptionism. Religiosity is on the decline, at least when compared to the past. It was most visible during Covid pandemic. If what you say was true, people would flock to their churches or paraded in the streets whipping their asses and begging God for forgiveness. Instead, they flocked to supermarkets, buying everything they could and went on vacations en masse once the restrictions were lifted. If this is not the love of the worldly and materialism, then I don't know what is? The majority of people consider themselves doubters and free thinkers. If you ask them if they question shit, they will respond in the affirmative. Although they are as convinced of being in the right as you are. 

You are one of the many. You're like everyone else. Although you consider yourself different. Better. A special snowflake. It's a primary example of self-delusion. Your new new and revised definition of Satanism is an excuse for doing nothing and always playing safe. It costs less than Christianity. Actually, it doesn't cost you anything. You can be like an average Joe and still call yourself the aversary! You can conform and fancy yourself Satan! And you have a nerve to accuse others, who at least try to defy the status quo, no matter how awkward they are at it, of being posers. As if you wasn't a poser, yourself. As if sticking feathers up your ass wasn't posturing. 

Is the Morningstar an archetype? 

Maybe the Morningstar, and the character trait of the accuser, is also that of the savior? 

What if the same character trait that gave Christians their Lord and Jesus also cast Lucifer out the kingdom of heaven!  Accusation of God's nepotism/Accusation of Roman nepotism, and the ethical self-immolation from the master's grace. 

How could that be possible? Two opposing figures with the same character trait?  Trippy, man.