The Satanic Temple are not Satanists | Forum

Aborior Translatione
It reminds me of an old Belerusian proverb:

Вы можаце прывесці мутаванага мядзведзя да радыеактыўнага возера, але не можаце навучыць мутаванага мядзведзя лавіць радыеактыўную рыбу

Which translated means:  

"You can lead mutated bear to radioactive lake but can't teach mutated bear to catch radioactive fish."
The Forum post is edited by Aborior Translatione Apr 26
Cornelius Coburn
I figured that had something to do with Chernobyl.
Tom Riddle
Tom Riddle Apr 29
Quote from Anna

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?


Because Satan is not only the archetype of doubt. He is also the carnal and worldly as he was 
the tempter of that. He was LaVey's basic philosophy... And yes using Satan as a symbol also was to provoke society but all founders of religions have done something to provoke society. When Muhammed for instance came out and claimed he was the last prophet of the one god it was a huge provocation to the arabic society that had both pagans, Christians and Jews. When Gardner came out and said he was a witch (Wicca means "male witch") it was also provocative and his witches danced nude in circle in the moonlight worshipping the goddess. All founders of religions have been showmen and LaVey was the only one who admitted it. And no there is no reason today to use Satan as a way of provocation because the satanic culture has been established and the religion will maintain it.
The Forum post is edited by Tom Riddle Apr 29
Anna
Anna Apr 29

Quote from Tom Riddle
Quote from Anna

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?


Because Satan is not only the archetype of doubt. He is also the carnal and worldly as he was 
the tempter of that. He was LaVey's basic philosophy... And yes using Satan as a symbol also was to provoke society but all founders of religions have done something to provoke society. When Muhammed for instance came out and claimed he was the last prophet of the one god it was a huge provocation to the arabic society that had both pagans, Christians and Jews. When Gardner came out and said he was a witch (Wicca means "male witch") it was also provocative and his witches danced nude in circle in the moonlight worshipping the goddess. All founders of religions have been showmen and LaVey was the only one who admitted it. And no there is no reason today to use Satan as a way of provocation because the satanic culture has been established and the religion will maintain it.

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?"

The Forum post is edited by Anna Apr 29
Tom Riddle
Tom Riddle Apr 29
Quote from Anna 

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


And my answer to that was that Satan is not an accuser but THE accuser. It means he accuses specific things. Since Satan questioned Job's loyalty to Jahveh and tempted Jesus with the earthly pleasures so it makes him the accuser of blind faith and world denying philosophies. Many adversarial players have tried to excuse their trolling with "Satan means adversary" but they only demonstrates they don't know the character of Satan nor are they interested to know about him... 


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.

The Forum post is edited by Tom Riddle Apr 29
Anna
Anna Apr 29

Quote from Tom Riddle
And my answer to that was that Satan is not an accuser but THE accuser. It means he accuses specific things. Since Satan questioned Job's loyalty to Jahveh and tempted Jesus with the earthly pleasures so it makes him the accuser of blind faith and world denying philosophies. Many adversarial players have tried to excuse their trolling with "Satan means adversary" but they only demonstrates they don't know the character of Satan nor are they interested to know about him... 


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. 

The Forum post is edited by Anna Apr 29
Tom Riddle
Tom Riddle Apr 29
Quote from Anna 

My counterargument to that was that Anton LaVey would also have been more successful in gathering following and appealing to the masses if he didn't use Satan as his mascot.


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".



Quote from Anna 

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. 


That's your interpretation of it. I look at the entire 
context of Satan as a character and that evolution he went through, and I look at it from a satanic perspective. You prove again and again that your "dumbass" tirade is a pure projection of your own intellectual failures. You have not passed my test...
Cornelius Coburn
Quote from Anna

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. 


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

The Forum post is edited by Cornelius Coburn Apr 29
Anna
Anna Apr 29

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. 

The Forum post is edited by Anna Apr 29
Tom Riddle
Tom Riddle Apr 29
Quote from Cornelius Coburn

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.


The only effect TST has on the society is perhaps making it more Woke than it already is. The western society has become so silly, so Woke and so gynocentric misandristic. On the same time we will see more radical conservative Christians. This is the problem with satire. If you provoke a specific group then you prove they are important which will strength their beliefs.
Tom Riddle
Tom Riddle Apr 29
Quote from Anna

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


No, their goal is to gather Woke leftists. They are a mob who wants to change the supposed status quo. 


No. This is the only objective interpretation one could draw from reading the Bible. 


Interpretation is not objective Anna. What you come here is YOUR interpretation. There are no professionals. Bible scholars is a joke. If I was a Christian who had read the Bible I could make my own church if I wanted to.
Quote from Anna

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. 


No, what LaVey did was to hold Satan up as a mirror. Those who were Satanists could see themselves reflected in it. Therefore Satanists are said to be born and not made. Fact.
Quote from Anna

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. 


Your endless tirades will always expose your loser personality. 
The Forum post is edited by Tom Riddle Apr 29
Anna
Anna Apr 29
What does it mean "hold a mirror up to someone?"


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? 


Tom Riddle
Tom Riddle Apr 29
Quote from Anna What does it mean "hold a mirror up to someone?"

Satan is an archetype meaning that he represents a characteristic or trait. To be a Satanist is to be able to identify yourself with Satan. 


Quote from Anna

Key words: subversion, transgression, provocation. 


No, key words: doubt and embrace of carnality and worldly. A person with those traits will could identify himself with Satan because he would defies the opposite that would be forced on him. I have always been like that. I was a Satanist before I discovered Satanism and it's sad that I did not realized it long before as many things could have changed in my life.



The Forum post is edited by Tom Riddle Apr 29
Anna
Anna Apr 29
"No, key words: doubt and embrace of carnality and worldly."


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. 

The Forum post is edited by Anna Apr 29
Tom Riddle
Tom Riddle Apr 29
Quote from Anna "No, key words: doubt and embrace of carnality and worldly."


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. 


Christians are not doubters. They are believers. Only few people are doubters by nature. You for instance do not questioning your own assumptions. Atheists are also believers just in the way that they believe gods don't exists using the argument of reason. Socialists and liberals are believers as they do not questioning their own ideology.
The Forum post is edited by Tom Riddle Apr 29
Tom Riddle
Tom Riddle Apr 29
Quote from Anna "No, key words: doubt and embrace of carnality and worldly."


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. 


Also the majority follow world denying philosophies. Denying the fact that man is a carnal beast. That's not only religious believers but also political believers such as social constructivists. They believe man is a clean table and all kind of gender behavior is a social construct. Some buddhists are vegans because they believe it creates bad karma to eat meat. Jainism have rules against meat eating. 

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. 

The Forum post is edited by Tom Riddle Apr 29
Anna
Anna Apr 29

Quote from Tom Riddle
Also the majority follow world denying philosophies. Denying the fact that man is a carnal beast. 

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. 

Tom Riddle
Tom Riddle Apr 29
Quote from Anna 

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. 


It seems you define "religion" as Christianity. Yes Christianity and mainstream faiths are declining but people then replace it with other irrational things like feminism, social constructivism and communism. The herd mentality is based on lack of doubt. Yes they claim to be critical thinkers but their actions shows the opposite because of their blind herd mentality.



Quote from Anna 

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. 


Now you again commit a fallacy. I don't consider myself to be better. I'm better than YOU but I think most people are better than you. I'm not special but I'm different and have always been which can be pointed out by my family. Question your assumptions Anna... You only prove that I'm right that the majority of people are NOT natural skeptics.
Aborior Translatione

Quote from Tom Riddle
Quote from Anna "No, key words: doubt and embrace of carnality and worldly."


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. 


Christians are not doubters. They are believers. Only few people are doubters by nature. You for instance do not questioning your own assumptions. Atheists are also believers just in the way that they believe gods don't exists using the argument of reason. Socialists and liberals are believers as they do not questioning their own ideology.
What the fuck is an archetype of doubt?  Is that like saying the archetype of belief?  Who's the archetype of belief?


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. 

The Forum post is edited by Aborior Translatione Apr 29
Tom Riddle
Tom Riddle Apr 29
Quote from Aborior Translatione 
What the fuck is an archetype of doubt?  

Satan can be seen as an archetype of a doubter or an individual who accuses blind 
faith. 
The Forum post is edited by Tom Riddle Apr 29
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »
Satanic International Network was created by Zach Black in 2009.
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Spread the Word. Help Us Grow

Share:

Donate - PayPal

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps. You need not a PayPal to donate either just a debit or credit card.