After School Satan: Extracurricular Program for Schools

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

Ok, I accept your argument, though all it proves is that TST is as irrational and illogical as any other religion.

And I am sure they would say you are perfectly entitled to that opinion, though myself I don't see why it makes them irrational and illogical, I too think you are entitled to your opinion.

MrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

If a person that doesn’t go to mass, has sex before marriage, uses contraception, thinks abortion is ok in some circumstances, has no issue with gay people, may not even believe in gods and thinks the pope is a bit of a douche is allowed to call themselves a catholic then why can’t a person that does not believe in a supernatural being called satan call themselves a satanist. That stinks of religious discrimination to me.

Mmm... calling oneself a Satanist does rather denote that one has a particular interest, at very least, in Satan though. And when one is using the word 'Satan' to describe something that is not the common understanding of the word Satan, and, certainly when set out as a religion, contextually inappropriate to the degree of inviting miscomprehension (a bit like your use of the word daemon earlier), it has to be said it is at the very least misleading, and more likely deliberately deceptive.

My own feeling is that the group are being deliberately deceptive, and choose to use the name and iconography to bait Christians, having no real interest in, or dedication to, any concept of Satan other than as a ploy. Which undoubtedly would add theatrical entertainment value to the whole thing if anyone was being suckered in by it and generating the kind of outrage I suspect it was intended to, but so far it doesn't seem to really be the case.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

The idea of Satan, and similar characters in non-Abrahamic religions, predate christianity by centuries and probably by millennia.

Well... many religions tend to have adversarial characters, certainly, but that they are Satan, or the idea of him, would be a very Christian-centric view, don't you think? It might be fairer to say that Satan, like other religions' adversary characters, represents a struggle of human nature that predates all religions and gives rise to that kind of character in our mythoi.

I'd be inclined to say that the idea of Satan is very much a Christian construct; one which draws on the Bible, Biblical Apocrypha, and medieval folk tales incorporating aspects of other deities, but he doesn't predate Christianity, he's very much a part of it.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

Ok, I accept your argument, though all it proves is that TST is as irrational and illogical as any other religion.

You might find this interesting. It goes into a bit more detail around the philosophy of TST and the reasons for it formation. I found it quite informative.

MrP

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

You might find this interesting. It goes into a bit more detail around the philosophy of TST and the reasons for it formation. I found it quite informative.

Suggests that it is principally an extension of LaVeyan or Atheistic Satanism which by my reading is a pretty unpleasant crock of shít. Given it includes belief in magic, I'd hardly consider it rational either. YMMV.

MrPudding

smacl wrote: »

Suggests that it is principally an extension of LaVeyan or Atheistic Satanism which by my reading is a pretty unpleasant crock of shít. Given it includes belief in magic, I'd hardly consider it rational either. YMMV.

Hmmm...

The article I linked to wrote:

Ironically, the Church of Satan has never fully renounced supernaturalism, as we have.

I would consider magic to be supernaturalism, and, therefore, renouncing supernaturalism would, by definition, preclude a belief in magic.

EDIT: What does YMMV mean?

MrP

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

I would consider magic to be supernaturalism, and, therefore, renouncing supernaturalism would, by definition, preclude a belief in magic.

You'd think. However, from the wikipedia article;

rather than characterising these (magic) as supernatural, LaVey expressed the view that they were part of the natural world yet thus far undiscovered by science.

So not supernatural, just not yet discovered by science. Much like God and unicorns so

What does YMMV mean?

Your mileage might vary (i.e. the conclusions you draw might lead you somewhere different to where my conclusions lead me).

MrPudding

smacl wrote: »

You'd think. However, from the wikipedia article;



So not supernatural, just not yet discovered by science. Much like God and unicorns so



Your mileage might vary (i.e. the conclusions you draw might lead you somewhere different to where my conclusions lead me).

Next time I am talking to one of them I will ask directly what their view on magic is. I have my suspicions, based on what I have read and the conversations I have had so far, but I fully appreciate I may be wrong on that.

I suspect their view is likely to be something along the lines of, "if you want to believe in magic, knock yourself out, so long as you follow the tenents." I don't think a belief in magic would necessarily conflict with the tenents. Number 5 might be tricky, but as you point out, viewing it as nature yet to be understood probably sits reasonably comfortably with the 5th tenent.

Not a believer in magic myself, but if it floats your boat...

MrP

smacl

Interesting use of tenent as an obsolete version of tenet. I was wondering whether this wasn't an owner occupier religion like Catholicism there for a moment Whether or which, the idea of anti-egalitarianism as a core philosophical principal doesn't sit well with me. While I'm all for meritocracy I also believe that society is essentially collaborative and that it's members should be afforded equal opportunity. I reckon I'll stick with being a much reviled bleeding heart liberal however passe that may seem. I firmly believe that kindness and compassion are worthy aspirations.

MrPudding

smacl wrote: »

Interesting use of tenent as an obsolete version of tenet. I was wondering whether this wasn't an owner occupier religion like Catholicism there for a moment Whether or which, the idea of anti-egalitarianism as a core philosophical principal doesn't sit well with me.

Or it was a typo on my part, but YMMV I guess.

smacl wrote: »

While I'm all for meritocracy I also believe that society is essentially collaborative and that it's members should be afforded equal opportunity. I reckon I'll stick with being a much reviled bleeding heart liberal however passe that may seem. I firmly believe that kindness and compassion are worthy aspirations.

Nothing there I disagree with.

MrP