Coexistence ? | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Culture » Current Events
Zach Black Owner
Zach Black Nov 22 '15
Co... 


Coexistence? No. We are Satanist. Although we do not promote religious bigotry or unneeded violence, should you choose to align yourself with a religion that is responsible for the murder and repression of millions under the false pretense of this or that God you ARE MY ENEMY.

I will not white knight around preaching coexistence. Nor will I question ' why can't we all get along' . We Satanists are not looking for acceptance or ' equality '. Make no mistake. I want nothing more than to see your religion of fear and hatred that is responsible for the deaths of millions destroyed. As long as I am alive this will be a goal of mine. 

The Forum post is edited by Zach Black Nov 22 '15
Share:
Hartnell
Hartnell Nov 23 '15
Um k.
Hartnell
Hartnell Nov 23 '15
Is this one of those "beyond question" thingies?
Hartnell
Hartnell Nov 23 '15
My bad: This is a copy not a replacement. Got it.
Nom de Plume
Nom de Plume Nov 23 '15
Amen
British Bullshit
British Bullshit Nov 30 '15
I'm not a Satanist, but i do consider Satanism to be the most reason-minded logical belief system against any other religion on the planet.
DEX
DEX Feb 17 '16
i agree that we should be stern in our view of eradicating other religions that are harmful to our society, but also that we should do so with hypocrisy in mind, that we dont wanna behave like the enemy.
Asmedious
Asmedious Feb 18 '16

Quote from DEX i agree that we should be stern in our view of eradicating other religions that are harmful to our society, but also that we should do so with hypocrisy in mind, that we dont wanna behave like the enemy.

I get what you are saying,  but I don't totally agree.   Often times the only way to defeat an enemy is by acting just like them, or even worse.


For example,  once an "enemy," takes physical action against another entity,  talking it out rarely works at that point.   


Or when an "enemy," starts negative propaganda against their victim,  then if said victim attempts to put out the fire by attempting to fight back with hard facts they might not be effective in doing so,  so they might have to fight back with other options.   Of course, in such a situation, the victim can chose to just let it go if the negative propaganda doesn't do any real harm.


Chances are that once on the defensive,  an entity will have to continue to be on the defensive only to maintain something close to an equal footing to the offender.  


I'm a big believer that the best defense is a strong and overwhelming offense.  I only referring to situations where something is worth defending in the first place.


I am not saying that I believe one should trample on others just because they can.   The point that I am trying to make is that once someone tries to attack you the best way to beat them is by being more ruthless then they are.   Again, I have to emphasize that first a decision has to be made as to whether it is worth fighting for a particular thing in the first place.


When one looks at wars through out history,  the victors usually were the ones who fought with the strongest might.   Once the battles begin,  usually the talking and agreements take place after the losers crawl out of the rubble,  and not while they seem to have an upper hand.


Diplomacy, consideration, and talking it out,  is generally the best way to go for both parties in my opinion,  but once one side decides to escalate things,  returning just enough opposition to keep the playing field even is rarely successful for a positive outcome.





Knievel74 Member
Knievel74 Feb 18 '16

Quote from Asmedious
Quote from DEX i agree that we should be stern in our view of eradicating other religions that are harmful to our society, but also that we should do so with hypocrisy in mind, that we dont wanna behave like the enemy.

I get what you are saying,  but I don't totally agree.   Often times the only way to defeat an enemy is by acting just like them, or even worse.


For example,  once an "enemy," takes physical action against another entity,  talking it out rarely works at that point.   


Or when an "enemy," starts negative propaganda against their victim,  then if said victim attempts to put out the fire by attempting to fight back with hard facts they might not be effective in doing so,  so they might have to fight back with other options.   Of course, in such a situation, the victim can chose to just let it go if the negative propaganda doesn't do any real harm.


Chances are that once on the defensive,  an entity will have to continue to be on the defensive only to maintain something close to an equal footing to the offender.  


I'm a big believer that the best defense is a strong and overwhelming offense.  I only referring to situations where something is worth defending in the first place.


I am not saying that I believe one should trample on others just because they can.   The point that I am trying to make is that once someone tries to attack you the best way to beat them is by being more ruthless then they are.   Again, I have to emphasize that first a decision has to be made as to whether it is worth fighting for a particular thing in the first place.


When one looks at wars through out history,  the victors usually were the ones who fought with the strongest might.   Once the battles begin,  usually the talking and agreements take place after the losers crawl out of the rubble,  and not while they seem to have an upper hand.


Diplomacy, consideration, and talking it out,  is generally the best way to go for both parties in my opinion,  but once one side decides to escalate things,  returning just enough opposition to keep the playing field even is rarely successful for a positive outcome.





Completely agree, Well said.
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