Topic: Are Atheists really Satanists / Luciferians?

[Babalon]

There are only two sides in the battle for the souls of man, God or Satan.  If you are not for one, you are for the other as in, if you are not for God, you are for Satan.

Uh uh.

And what if I, a "magician" (or manwitch as someone once called me on here), tell you that I DO serve God. The one TRUE God. Like uppercase "G" God?

[JamesR]

Going by strict definitions, I do not really know how disbelief in God leads to being concerned only about the self. Atheism has no doctrines or teachings other than God does not exist. Many of them--at least in theory--could still have their own ethical theories and even live by an altruistic worldview. Some of them can even be spiritual people who believe in a higher power or in supernatural entities; just not a God or gods per say. I think that oftentimes we are too fast to mistake atheism for strict naturalism, and while the two philosophies usually go together, not all atheists are strict naturalists (even though like 95% of them are!). The former kind--the ones I call 'Spiritual Atheists'--tend to be very confused and want a higher meaning and purpose in the world with some type of spiritual satisfaction, but do not want to find it from a theistic religion because they have problems with it or are too embarassed to adhere to it because of what their peers will think (usually a mix between both!) Many of these tend to be pseudo-Buddhists for a while and some come to Christianity when they get older and undergo a period of deep depression.

The latter kind of atheist--the ones who adhere to strict naturalism and are the largest group of atheists--could very well be perfect Satanists. Usually they undergo periods of development in their worldview. They usually start off thinking that they can justify instrinsically altruistic morality in a naturalistic world; these are mostly the 'new atheists' who start off listening to Christopher Hitchens and are under the delusion that they can have a nearly identical moral system as most people but without God. These people usually mature (or degrade!) into the next stage of naturalistic atheism; that of the objectivist. Now, instead of trying to justify intrinsically altruistic morality, these atheists usually give up on it and only focus solely on the self and try to develop their own ethical system to justify their selfishness. Ironically they seem really sensitive when you call them selfish--probably because they know deep down that what they are doing is not really right and this is probably why they go through all of the trouble to develop a selfish ethical system to justify their lifestyle; to make them feel better and ease the guilt. These are the atheists who usually listen to people like Ayn Rand and tend to be the most 'Satanic' out of all of them in my opinion. Finally, atheists mature into the third and final stage; which is also the most detrimental stage. They finally realize that any morality/ethics is impossible in a naturalistic worldview and just give up on them altogether and in a sense, give up on themselves and life in general as well. They tend to hate everything and everyone; including themselves, and become miserable people. Nietzsche was right when he predicted that everything is permissible without God. These atheists like to reduce humans to that of animals and become slaves of their sorrow.

[orthonorm]

Babbles!

Nice to see you back.

Just wanted to say hi and that I am the resident Crowley expert.

Enjoy playing with the peanut gallery.

[orthonorm]

There are only two sides in the battle for the souls of man, God or Satan.  If you are not for one, you are for the other as in, if you are not for God, you are for Satan.

Whatever happened to: if they are not against us, they are for us?

People love the other formulation so much better.

[Babalon]

Babbles!

Nice to see you back.

Just wanted to say hi and that I am the resident Crowley expert.

Enjoy playing with the peanut gallery.

Oh no you didn't, You old goat! Good to read you.
 Just to clarify though:
I said scholar.

[Kerdy]

There are only two sides in the battle for the souls of man, God or Satan.  If you are not for one, you are for the other as in, if you are not for God, you are for Satan.

Uh uh.

And what if I, a "magician" (or manwitch as someone once called me on here), tell you that I DO serve God. The one TRUE God. Like uppercase "G" God?

Magician and witch are not the same and "hand faster than the eye" has nothing to do with worshipping God, unless I missed something, so I fail to see your point.  I apologize for not understanding your reference.

[Kerdy]

There are only two sides in the battle for the souls of man, God or Satan.  If you are not for one, you are for the other as in, if you are not for God, you are for Satan.

Whatever happened to: if they are not against us, they are for us?

It isn't accurate.

[Justin Kissel]

[Babalon]

There are only two sides in the battle for the souls of man, God or Satan.  If you are not for one, you are for the other as in, if you are not for God, you are for Satan.

Uh uh.

And what if I, a "magician" (or manwitch as someone once called me on here), tell you that I DO serve God. The one TRUE God. Like uppercase "G" God?

Magician and witch are not the same and "hand faster than the eye" has nothing to do with worshipping God, unless I missed something, so I fail to see your point.  I apologize for not understanding your reference.

Did you think I was talking about pulling rabbit's out of hat's?
As "spiritual" practices, I don't see them as the same thing. Yet culturally, as well as in English translations of your scripture, they often use the terms Magic and Witchcraft interchangeably. Whatever it might be, i'm not arguing etymology. I'm simply saying that the dualistic approach to "God" and his "Adversary" is unable to account for people like me and my relationship with "God". I'm not trying to insult you or your faith, i'm just throwing my hat in the ring.
...

That's what i'm sayin Bro. That's what i'm sayin..                               [     Place fist here     ]

[Cognomen]

(or manwitch as someone once called me on here)

It was in love.    Don't spell me, bro!

And what if I, a "magician"  tell you that I DO serve God. The one TRUE God. Like uppercase "G" God?

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but other than a few reckless people, most of the folk I've known on similar paths to yours believe this. 

I don't mean that derisively, by the way.

[Babalon]

(or manwitch as someone once called me on here)

It was in love.    Don't spell me, bro!

Haha!

And what if I, a "magician"  tell you that I DO serve God. The one TRUE God. Like uppercase "G" God?

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but other than a few reckless people, most of the folk I've known on similar paths to yours believe this. 

I don't mean that derisively, by the way.

Sure, sure. Everyone want's to convince each other that they're on the golden road..This is why i think conversion and evangelism is so powerful. If you can convince another person that what you "know" is in fact, THE truth, how much better off are you?  My "knowledge", if i can be so arrogant as to pretend that i possess any, of "God" is derived exclusively from personal experience. I am not driven by faith, i am driven by tried and tested methods. I've heard every counter-argument in the book yet i can't be swayed from my conclusion. Not that i'm "set in my ways", but that the experience and communion i've partaken in- has left its overwhelming presence in my life as a testament to it's validity. No dogma, just the experience. I don't fancy myself one of these Sylvia Browne water-heads, nor am I an ascetic (maybe sometimes). I try things from diverse systems, not because i'm "searching" (like a drunk for the light-switch) but because i know they can work, and i want to know why they work. Questions of salvation are not a real factor in my life and i find the idea "casting out devils with devils" to be absurd. (I only mention that because I've actually been accused of something like it, go figure!).

[Cognomen]

I didn't mean to imply that they (or you) think they're on the golden road (well, some of them do).  Just that they're into some of the stuff you are, but that they also believe that they are serving the one True God. 

Of course you've got the smattering of Satanistas out there, but I was just stating that not everyone who gets into magic, the occult, or whatever, is doing it out of a loathing of or disbelief in God.

I get your point though and understand the bit about experience. 

How do you know, or rather, what leads you to believe it's God your dealing with?  I'm curious, not arguing a point.

[orthonorm]

There are only two sides in the battle for the souls of man, God or Satan.  If you are not for one, you are for the other as in, if you are not for God, you are for Satan.

Whatever happened to: if they are not against us, they are for us?

It isn't accurate.

Are you ever correct?

Mark 9:40

http://bible.cc/mark/9-40.htm

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I was considering busting out my Baudelaire translations on this thread but I didn't want to appear pretentious. Or am I even more pretentious for mentioning that I did them and not producing them?

Yes; doubly so. 

[Kerdy]

There are only two sides in the battle for the souls of man, God or Satan.  If you are not for one, you are for the other as in, if you are not for God, you are for Satan.

Whatever happened to: if they are not against us, they are for us?

It isn't accurate.

Are you ever correct?

Mark 9:40

http://bible.cc/mark/9-40.htm

Yes, often.  Cherry picking scripture isn't intelligence, wisdom or wit.  It's what Protestants do.  Context is usually the important ingredient people forget to include.

See what I mean?

Rom 14:23 "for whatever is not from faith is sin"

But, since you produced scripture first, I supply this:

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me" (22-30)

[Kerdy]

There are only two sides in the battle for the souls of man, God or Satan.  If you are not for one, you are for the other as in, if you are not for God, you are for Satan.

Uh uh.

And what if I, a "magician" (or manwitch as someone once called me on here), tell you that I DO serve God. The one TRUE God. Like uppercase "G" God?

Magician and witch are not the same and "hand faster than the eye" has nothing to do with worshipping God, unless I missed something, so I fail to see your point.  I apologize for not understanding your reference.

Did you think I was talking about pulling rabbit's out of hat's?

I have no idea what you are talking about. 

[Cognomen]

Whatever happened to: if they are not against us, they are for us?
Mark 9:40

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me" (22-30)

SCRIPTURE FIGHT!!!!!

I'm confused.

[Hiwot]

I was considering busting out my Baudelaire translations on this thread but I didn't want to appear pretentious. Or am I even more pretentious for mentioning that I did them and not producing them?

Yes; doubly so. 

 

[orthonorm]

Whatever happened to: if they are not against us, they are for us?
Mark 9:40

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me" (22-30)

SCRIPTURE FIGHT!!!!!

I'm confused.

Don't worry, Kerdy is more so and without being aware of it.

[Kerdy]

Whatever happened to: if they are not against us, they are for us?
Mark 9:40

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me" (22-30)

SCRIPTURE FIGHT!!!!!

I'm confused.

Don't worry, Kerdy is more so and without being aware of it.

Actually, I was attempting to show how silly it is to take a quip of scripture out of context and attempt to use it to establish a definitive doctrine unrelated to that scripture or the topic being discussed.

[orthonorm]

Whatever happened to: if they are not against us, they are for us?
Mark 9:40

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me" (22-30)

SCRIPTURE FIGHT!!!!!

I'm confused.

Don't worry, Kerdy is more so and without being aware of it.

Actually, I was attempting to show how silly it is to take a quip of scripture out of context and attempt to use it to establish a definitive doctrine unrelated to that scripture or the topic being discussed.

Well you showed a lot more than that.

Bait. Set.

You. Take.

Frankly, among your circle of friends where who knows what passes for thinking and evidence you might might find yourself making sense.

This is interwebz. Varsity level depending on the participants. I tripled lettered.

You have yet to make JV.

[Kerdy]

Whatever happened to: if they are not against us, they are for us?
Mark 9:40

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me" (22-30)

SCRIPTURE FIGHT!!!!!

I'm confused.

Don't worry, Kerdy is more so and without being aware of it.

Actually, I was attempting to show how silly it is to take a quip of scripture out of context and attempt to use it to establish a definitive doctrine unrelated to that scripture or the topic being discussed.

Well you showed a lot more than that.

Not really.

[orthonorm]

Whatever happened to: if they are not against us, they are for us?
Mark 9:40

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me" (22-30)

SCRIPTURE FIGHT!!!!!

I'm confused.

Don't worry, Kerdy is more so and without being aware of it.

Actually, I was attempting to show how silly it is to take a quip of scripture out of context and attempt to use it to establish a definitive doctrine unrelated to that scripture or the topic being discussed.

Well you showed a lot more than that.

Not really.

We have a long way to go. I don't have much hope, but I won't quit you yet.

[Justin Kissel]

Modern day man witch:

[Kerdy]

If we are speaking of magic in the biblical sense, it is wrong and sinful.  If we are talking about David Copperfield, it isn't.  I have no idea how this became a focus of the discussion. 

If one rejects God, they, by default, are playing for the other team.  This is clearly explained.  There are only two teams to choose from.  If one says they are for God, yet engage in things they should not, that person is either willingly sinning or is a liar.  Only that person and God knows which.  I honestly find it difficult to understand how there is any confusion about these things.

So, if an atheist rejects God, whether he is she knows it or not, they fight on the side of Satan. By loose definition, I would say to the OP, yes.  We can "what if" it all day, but to do so seems to question God, the Apostles, the ECF's, Tradition and Scripture.  I, for one, am not prepared to question all of that.

[Babalon]

If we are speaking of magic in the biblical sense, it is wrong and sinful.  If we are talking about David Copperfield, it isn't.

And i'm saying that the term magic in the scriptural sense is somewhat of a loosely defined term. Stage magicians are lying entertainers. Last time i checked, lying is wrong and sinful. 

If one rejects God, they, by default, are playing for the other team.  This is clearly explained.  There are only two teams to choose from.  If one says they are for God, yet engage in things they should not, that person is either willingly sinning or is a liar.  Only that person and God knows which.  I honestly find it difficult to understand how there is any confusion about these things.

There is no confusion, and i'm not exactly trying to bend your scripture to fit my actions. I do things that are contrary to your scripture with full knowledge of the supposed consequences. Consequences, that i don't find to be true. I'm not arguing who's God's phallus is mightier, i'm simply stating that the whole "I worship God" thing is a loaded statement, which offers nothing in the way of determining who's on the "right path.". It's not as simple to me, as it supposedly is to you.

So, if an atheist rejects God, whether he is she knows it or not, they fight on the side of Satan.

Fair enough.

We can "what if" it all day, but to do so seems to question God, the Apostles, the ECF's, Tradition and Scripture.  I, for one, am not prepared to question all of that.

It's okay, i'll do it for you.

[yeshuaisiam]

If we are speaking of magic in the biblical sense, it is wrong and sinful.  If we are talking about David Copperfield, it isn't.

And i'm saying that the term magic in the scriptural sense is somewhat of a loosely defined term. Stage magicians are lying entertainers. Last time i checked, lying is wrong and sinful. 

If one rejects God, they, by default, are playing for the other team.  This is clearly explained.  There are only two teams to choose from.  If one says they are for God, yet engage in things they should not, that person is either willingly sinning or is a liar.  Only that person and God knows which.  I honestly find it difficult to understand how there is any confusion about these things.

There is no confusion, and i'm not exactly trying to bend your scripture to fit my actions. I do things that are contrary to your scripture with full knowledge of the supposed consequences. Consequences, that i don't find to be true. I'm not arguing who's God's phallus is mightier, i'm simply stating that the whole "I worship God" thing is a loaded statement, which offers nothing in the way of determining who's on the "right path.". It's not as simple to me, as it supposedly is to you.

So, if an atheist rejects God, whether he is she knows it or not, they fight on the side of Satan.

Fair enough.

We can "what if" it all day, but to do so seems to question God, the Apostles, the ECF's, Tradition and Scripture.  I, for one, am not prepared to question all of that.

It's okay, i'll do it for you.

If you are an atheist, you most likely follow your own will.

If you follow your own will, then by definition to those who are religious, you are doing as Lucifer did in Isaiah 14.  This is making yourself a God/ruler to yourself.

That is Satanism.

[JamesRottnek]

If we are speaking of magic in the biblical sense, it is wrong and sinful.  If we are talking about David Copperfield, it isn't.

And i'm saying that the term magic in the scriptural sense is somewhat of a loosely defined term. Stage magicians are lying entertainers. Last time i checked, lying is wrong and sinful. 

If one rejects God, they, by default, are playing for the other team.  This is clearly explained.  There are only two teams to choose from.  If one says they are for God, yet engage in things they should not, that person is either willingly sinning or is a liar.  Only that person and God knows which.  I honestly find it difficult to understand how there is any confusion about these things.

There is no confusion, and i'm not exactly trying to bend your scripture to fit my actions. I do things that are contrary to your scripture with full knowledge of the supposed consequences. Consequences, that i don't find to be true. I'm not arguing who's God's phallus is mightier, i'm simply stating that the whole "I worship God" thing is a loaded statement, which offers nothing in the way of determining who's on the "right path.". It's not as simple to me, as it supposedly is to you.

So, if an atheist rejects God, whether he is she knows it or not, they fight on the side of Satan.

Fair enough.

We can "what if" it all day, but to do so seems to question God, the Apostles, the ECF's, Tradition and Scripture.  I, for one, am not prepared to question all of that.

It's okay, i'll do it for you.

If you are an atheist, you most likely follow your own will.

If you follow your own will, then by definition to those who are religious, you are doing as Lucifer did in Isaiah 14.  This is making yourself a God/ruler to yourself.

That is Satanism.

I suppose you always follow the Father's will?

"Satanism: 1.) Innate wickedness; 2.) obsession with or affinity for evil; specifically : worship of Satan marked by the travesty of Christian rites" - Merriam-Webster

[Babalon]

If we are speaking of magic in the biblical sense, it is wrong and sinful.  If we are talking about David Copperfield, it isn't.

And i'm saying that the term magic in the scriptural sense is somewhat of a loosely defined term. Stage magicians are lying entertainers. Last time i checked, lying is wrong and sinful.  

If one rejects God, they, by default, are playing for the other team.  This is clearly explained.  There are only two teams to choose from.  If one says they are for God, yet engage in things they should not, that person is either willingly sinning or is a liar.  Only that person and God knows which.  I honestly find it difficult to understand how there is any confusion about these things.

There is no confusion, and i'm not exactly trying to bend your scripture to fit my actions. I do things that are contrary to your scripture with full knowledge of the supposed consequences. Consequences, that i don't find to be true. I'm not arguing who's God's phallus is mightier, i'm simply stating that the whole "I worship God" thing is a loaded statement, which offers nothing in the way of determining who's on the "right path.". It's not as simple to me, as it supposedly is to you.

So, if an atheist rejects God, whether he is she knows it or not, they fight on the side of Satan.

Fair enough.

We can "what if" it all day, but to do so seems to question God, the Apostles, the ECF's, Tradition and Scripture.  I, for one, am not prepared to question all of that.

It's okay, i'll do it for you.

If you are an atheist, you most likely follow your own will.

If you follow your own will, then by definition to those who are religious, you are doing as Lucifer did in Isaiah 14.  This is making yourself a God/ruler to yourself.

That is Satanism.

You obviously didn't read anything i've said to you. This entire thread has somehow stemmed out of your nonsensical statements about the "occult". I simply wanted to correct you on your misunderstandings about one Edward Alexander Crowley.

I'm not an Atheist and am, in fact, quite religious. My definition of "my will" is considerably different than what you're supposing it is.  Satanism, in the past couple of centuries, has become a wild generalization that folks like to throw out in order to cover a large surface area of subjects considered "heretical". Also, Don't forget that a heretic simply means "one who chooses". 

Also, as James has stated:

"Satanism: 1.) Innate wickedness; 2.) obsession with or affinity for evil; specifically : worship of Satan marked by the travesty of Christian rites" - Merriam-Webster

[Pan Michał]

Satanism, in the past couple of centuries, has become a wild generalization that folks like to throw out in order to cover a large surface area of subjects considered "heretical".

2012-1948=64

Also, Don't forget that a heretic simply means "one who chooses".

My Latin dictionary states that "haereo, haerere, haeresi, haesum" is to "to cling, stick, be attached to something".

[Babalon]

Satanism, in the past couple of centuries, has become a wild generalization that folks like to throw out in order to cover a large surface area of subjects considered "heretical".

2012-1948=64

I don't get it.

My Latin dictionary states that "haereo, haerere, haeresi, haesum" is to "to cling, stick, be attached to something".

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=heretic

Tomato, Tomoto.

[Pan Michał]

I don't get it.

The year of the foundation of satanism. No centuries, just decades.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=heretic

Tomato, Tomoto.

"Heresy" is a loanword from Greek to Latin, and has couple of dozens of meanings. One of which is "to cling to something". This "to cling to something" was adapted to Latin writings. Since then, it was never used in other meanings than this one. It's good to check the context. Without it I could easily say that "atheist" means "ungodly", or "abandoned by gods", cause that's the original Greek meaning.

[Babalon]

I don't get it.

The year of the foundation of satanism. No centuries, just decades.

You've missed the conversation my friend, try again.

We aren't talking just about Laveyan Satanism. Mystic's and Magicians outside the boundaries of Christendom have been accused of Devil-Worship and "Satanism" since at least the 1800's.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=heretic

Tomato, Tomoto.

"Heresy" is a loanword from Greek to Latin, and has couple of dozens of meanings. One of which is "to cling to something". This "to cling to something" was adapted to Latin writings. Since then, it was never used in other meanings than this one. It's good to check the context. Without it I could easily say that "atheist" means "ungodly", or "abandoned by gods", cause that's the original Greek meaning.

Okay.

[Pan Michał]

You've missed the conversation my friend, try again.

We aren't talking just about Laveyan Satanism. Mystic's and Magicians outside the boundaries of Christendom have been accused of Devil-Worship and "Satanism" since at least the 1800's.

Ok, now I understand. So, we are not talking only about laveyan satanism, but theistic satanism, gnosticism, palladism and so forth. I'm sure though, that both of us will agree we should stick to the official definitions, in other case we'll get all tangled up. So we can't speak in loose term "satanism", because it's like merging Jehova's Witnesses with Roman Catholics and saying they're "Christians". The former believe in God, the latter believe in defiance, but that's where similarities often end.

[Babalon]

You've missed the conversation my friend, try again.

We aren't talking just about Laveyan Satanism. Mystic's and Magicians outside the boundaries of Christendom have been accused of Devil-Worship and "Satanism" since at least the 1800's.

Ok, now I understand. So, we are not talking only about laveyan satanism, but theistic satanism, gnosticism, palladism and so forth. I'm sure though, that both of us will agree we should stick to the official definitions, in other case we'll get all tangled up. So we can't speak in loose term "satanism", because it's like merging Jehova's Witnesses with Roman Catholics and saying they're "Christians". The former believe in God, the latter believe in defiance, but that's where similarities often end.

Yes... But that has been my whole point prior to this post. If you read the OP, and those that follow, they were all too comfortable with labeling any and all "spiritual" path's other than the Christian one, as Satanic. I was simply calling it what it was. Nonsense. A tradition of nonsense, that is no younger than a "couple of centuries." 

[Kerdy]

You've missed the conversation my friend, try again.

We aren't talking just about Laveyan Satanism. Mystic's and Magicians outside the boundaries of Christendom have been accused of Devil-Worship and "Satanism" since at least the 1800's.

Ok, now I understand. So, we are not talking only about laveyan satanism, but theistic satanism, gnosticism, palladism and so forth. I'm sure though, that both of us will agree we should stick to the official definitions, in other case we'll get all tangled up. So we can't speak in loose term "satanism", because it's like merging Jehova's Witnesses with Roman Catholics and saying they're "Christians". The former believe in God, the latter believe in defiance, but that's where similarities often end.

Yes... But that has been my whole point prior to this post. If you read the OP, and those that follow, they were all too comfortable with labeling any and all "spiritual" path's other than the Christian one, as Satanic. I was simply calling it what it was. Nonsense. A tradition of nonsense, that is no younger than a "couple of centuries." 

Unless, of course, you see other paths for what they are.  Created by Satan to keep people from God, distractions, etc., making them Satanic in origin.  As I stated previously, a battle waged by only two forces.  One trying to get people on the right path (Christianity), the other sending them anywhere else (everything else) other than Christianity. 

[Babalon]

You've missed the conversation my friend, try again.

We aren't talking just about Laveyan Satanism. Mystic's and Magicians outside the boundaries of Christendom have been accused of Devil-Worship and "Satanism" since at least the 1800's.

Ok, now I understand. So, we are not talking only about laveyan satanism, but theistic satanism, gnosticism, palladism and so forth. I'm sure though, that both of us will agree we should stick to the official definitions, in other case we'll get all tangled up. So we can't speak in loose term "satanism", because it's like merging Jehova's Witnesses with Roman Catholics and saying they're "Christians". The former believe in God, the latter believe in defiance, but that's where similarities often end.

Yes... But that has been my whole point prior to this post. If you read the OP, and those that follow, they were all too comfortable with labeling any and all "spiritual" path's other than the Christian one, as Satanic. I was simply calling it what it was. Nonsense. A tradition of nonsense, that is no younger than a "couple of centuries."  

Unless, of course, you see other paths for what they are.  Created by Satan to keep people from God, distractions, etc., making them Satanic in origin.  As I stated previously, a battle waged by only two forces.  One trying to get people on the right path (Christianity), the other sending them anywhere else (everything else) other than Christianity.  

That's great, beliefs are neat. Man's Ego has an amazing capacity for self-assurance and preservation. Just don't lose sight of the fact that it's just that, a belief. One which hold's no grounding in "reality" as far as anyone can tell.

[JamesRottnek]

I don't get it.

The year of the foundation of satanism. No centuries, just decades.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=heretic

Tomato, Tomoto.

"Heresy" is a loanword from Greek to Latin, and has couple of dozens of meanings. One of which is "to cling to something". This "to cling to something" was adapted to Latin writings. Since then, it was never used in other meanings than this one. It's good to check the context. Without it I could easily say that "atheist" means "ungodly", or "abandoned by gods", cause that's the original Greek meaning.

That depends on what you mean by 'satanism.'  The term dates back, IIRC, to the sixteenth century.

[Kerdy]

You've missed the conversation my friend, try again.

We aren't talking just about Laveyan Satanism. Mystic's and Magicians outside the boundaries of Christendom have been accused of Devil-Worship and "Satanism" since at least the 1800's.

Ok, now I understand. So, we are not talking only about laveyan satanism, but theistic satanism, gnosticism, palladism and so forth. I'm sure though, that both of us will agree we should stick to the official definitions, in other case we'll get all tangled up. So we can't speak in loose term "satanism", because it's like merging Jehova's Witnesses with Roman Catholics and saying they're "Christians". The former believe in God, the latter believe in defiance, but that's where similarities often end.

Yes... But that has been my whole point prior to this post. If you read the OP, and those that follow, they were all too comfortable with labeling any and all "spiritual" path's other than the Christian one, as Satanic. I was simply calling it what it was. Nonsense. A tradition of nonsense, that is no younger than a "couple of centuries."  

Unless, of course, you see other paths for what they are.  Created by Satan to keep people from God, distractions, etc., making them Satanic in origin.  As I stated previously, a battle waged by only two forces.  One trying to get people on the right path (Christianity), the other sending them anywhere else (everything else) other than Christianity.  

That's great, beliefs are neat. Man's Ego has an amazing capacity for self-assurance and preservation. Just don't lose sight of the fact that it's just that, a belief. One which hold's no grounding in "reality" as far as anyone can tell.

Your belief and ego or everyone else's? 

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Orthonorm--I think this latest exchange between Kerdy and Babalon was worthy of your condescension.

[Kerdy]

I think this latest exchange between Kerdy and Babalon...

We had hardly any exchange.  What are you talking about?

[Babalon]

You've missed the conversation my friend, try again.

We aren't talking just about Laveyan Satanism. Mystic's and Magicians outside the boundaries of Christendom have been accused of Devil-Worship and "Satanism" since at least the 1800's.

Ok, now I understand. So, we are not talking only about laveyan satanism, but theistic satanism, gnosticism, palladism and so forth. I'm sure though, that both of us will agree we should stick to the official definitions, in other case we'll get all tangled up. So we can't speak in loose term "satanism", because it's like merging Jehova's Witnesses with Roman Catholics and saying they're "Christians". The former believe in God, the latter believe in defiance, but that's where similarities often end.

Yes... But that has been my whole point prior to this post. If you read the OP, and those that follow, they were all too comfortable with labeling any and all "spiritual" path's other than the Christian one, as Satanic. I was simply calling it what it was. Nonsense. A tradition of nonsense, that is no younger than a "couple of centuries."  

Unless, of course, you see other paths for what they are.  Created by Satan to keep people from God, distractions, etc., making them Satanic in origin.  As I stated previously, a battle waged by only two forces.  One trying to get people on the right path (Christianity), the other sending them anywhere else (everything else) other than Christianity.  

That's great, beliefs are neat. Man's Ego has an amazing capacity for self-assurance and preservation. Just don't lose sight of the fact that it's just that, a belief. One which hold's no grounding in "reality" as far as anyone can tell.

Your belief and ego or everyone else's? 

....What?

Is English not your first language? It's okay if it isn't, that would explain a lot.

I meant all beliefs and "Ego's".

[Kerdy]

You've missed the conversation my friend, try again.

We aren't talking just about Laveyan Satanism. Mystic's and Magicians outside the boundaries of Christendom have been accused of Devil-Worship and "Satanism" since at least the 1800's.

Ok, now I understand. So, we are not talking only about laveyan satanism, but theistic satanism, gnosticism, palladism and so forth. I'm sure though, that both of us will agree we should stick to the official definitions, in other case we'll get all tangled up. So we can't speak in loose term "satanism", because it's like merging Jehova's Witnesses with Roman Catholics and saying they're "Christians". The former believe in God, the latter believe in defiance, but that's where similarities often end.

Yes... But that has been my whole point prior to this post. If you read the OP, and those that follow, they were all too comfortable with labeling any and all "spiritual" path's other than the Christian one, as Satanic. I was simply calling it what it was. Nonsense. A tradition of nonsense, that is no younger than a "couple of centuries."  

Unless, of course, you see other paths for what they are.  Created by Satan to keep people from God, distractions, etc., making them Satanic in origin.  As I stated previously, a battle waged by only two forces.  One trying to get people on the right path (Christianity), the other sending them anywhere else (everything else) other than Christianity.  

That's great, beliefs are neat. Man's Ego has an amazing capacity for self-assurance and preservation. Just don't lose sight of the fact that it's just that, a belief. One which hold's no grounding in "reality" as far as anyone can tell.

Your belief and ego or everyone else's? 

....What?

Is English not your first language? It's okay if it isn't, that would explain a lot.

I meant all beliefs and "Ego's".

*shakes head at silly antics*

It's much more enjoyable to engage people in conversation when they don't spiral down to this sort of dialog, but alas, we all have our moments.  Perhaps this is yours.  Mine was a couple of days ago.

As long as you have included yourself in your statement, I'm fine with it.

[Babalon]

You've missed the conversation my friend, try again.

We aren't talking just about Laveyan Satanism. Mystic's and Magicians outside the boundaries of Christendom have been accused of Devil-Worship and "Satanism" since at least the 1800's.

Ok, now I understand. So, we are not talking only about laveyan satanism, but theistic satanism, gnosticism, palladism and so forth. I'm sure though, that both of us will agree we should stick to the official definitions, in other case we'll get all tangled up. So we can't speak in loose term "satanism", because it's like merging Jehova's Witnesses with Roman Catholics and saying they're "Christians". The former believe in God, the latter believe in defiance, but that's where similarities often end.

Yes... But that has been my whole point prior to this post. If you read the OP, and those that follow, they were all too comfortable with labeling any and all "spiritual" path's other than the Christian one, as Satanic. I was simply calling it what it was. Nonsense. A tradition of nonsense, that is no younger than a "couple of centuries."  

Unless, of course, you see other paths for what they are.  Created by Satan to keep people from God, distractions, etc., making them Satanic in origin.  As I stated previously, a battle waged by only two forces.  One trying to get people on the right path (Christianity), the other sending them anywhere else (everything else) other than Christianity.  

That's great, beliefs are neat. Man's Ego has an amazing capacity for self-assurance and preservation. Just don't lose sight of the fact that it's just that, a belief. One which hold's no grounding in "reality" as far as anyone can tell.

Your belief and ego or everyone else's? 

....What?

Is English not your first language? It's okay if it isn't, that would explain a lot.

I meant all beliefs and "Ego's".

*shakes head at silly antics*

It's much more enjoyable to engage people in conversation when they don't spiral down to this sort of dialog, but alas, we all have our moments.  Perhaps this is yours.  Mine was a couple of days ago.

As long as you have included yourself in your statement, I'm fine with it.

It's also enjoyable to engage people in conversation when they don't ask unnecessary questions.

[Kerdy]

You've missed the conversation my friend, try again.

We aren't talking just about Laveyan Satanism. Mystic's and Magicians outside the boundaries of Christendom have been accused of Devil-Worship and "Satanism" since at least the 1800's.

Ok, now I understand. So, we are not talking only about laveyan satanism, but theistic satanism, gnosticism, palladism and so forth. I'm sure though, that both of us will agree we should stick to the official definitions, in other case we'll get all tangled up. So we can't speak in loose term "satanism", because it's like merging Jehova's Witnesses with Roman Catholics and saying they're "Christians". The former believe in God, the latter believe in defiance, but that's where similarities often end.

Yes... But that has been my whole point prior to this post. If you read the OP, and those that follow, they were all too comfortable with labeling any and all "spiritual" path's other than the Christian one, as Satanic. I was simply calling it what it was. Nonsense. A tradition of nonsense, that is no younger than a "couple of centuries."  

Unless, of course, you see other paths for what they are.  Created by Satan to keep people from God, distractions, etc., making them Satanic in origin.  As I stated previously, a battle waged by only two forces.  One trying to get people on the right path (Christianity), the other sending them anywhere else (everything else) other than Christianity.  

That's great, beliefs are neat. Man's Ego has an amazing capacity for self-assurance and preservation. Just don't lose sight of the fact that it's just that, a belief. One which hold's no grounding in "reality" as far as anyone can tell.

Your belief and ego or everyone else's? 

....What?

Is English not your first language? It's okay if it isn't, that would explain a lot.

I meant all beliefs and "Ego's".

*shakes head at silly antics*

It's much more enjoyable to engage people in conversation when they don't spiral down to this sort of dialog, but alas, we all have our moments.  Perhaps this is yours.  Mine was a couple of days ago.

As long as you have included yourself in your statement, I'm fine with it.

It's also enjoyable to engage people in conversation when they don't ask unnecessary questions.