Satanist murders

[Trey of Diamonds]

True, Satanism as it is understood by some Christians is more urban legends, which is why I don't think it should be considered real Satanism when kids who believe these urban legends go out and try to fulfill what they see as actually being Satanism. As I said in the LHP DIR, these are cases of self-fulfilling prophecies; a product of SRA-type propaganda. I unashamedly blame certain unbiblical ideas of Satan floating around in Christian circles.

Unfortunately, when it comes to religion, we can't say what is real and what is not. If a person truly believes in their religion then it is as real as the one we truly believe in, no matter what we may think of it. To a certain degree, it is our belief that makes a religion real.

 

[jasonwill2]

Unfortunately, when it comes to religion, we can't say what is real and what is not. If a person truly believes in their religion then it is as real as the one we truly believe in, no matter what we may think of it. To a certain degree, it is our belief that makes a religion real.

Did you catch my edit? I included an edit with some links,

Why "Satanic ritual crime" doesn't make sense even from a Christian point of view

I don't think, at least from a 'Biblical' perspective, that these kinds of crimes make sense to be "Satanic" as it is counter-productive to Satan's goals of leading people away from Christ. I mean, doesnt Satan disguise himself as an angel of light? This would be against that as he is hurting his good rep. I hardly think people killing in his name would help him in corrupting people in subtle and less violent ways so that they do the more evil thing of trusting in mankind's widom to not need god, as killing people will make people realize they need god. But that is from a Christian perspective, not mine.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Did you catch my edit? I included an edit with some links,

Why "Satanic ritual crime" doesn't make sense even from a Christian point of view

I don't think, at least from a 'Biblical' perspective, that these kinds of crimes make sense to be "Satanic" as it is counter-productive to Satan's goals of leading people away from Christ. I mean, doesnt Satan disguise himself as an angel of light? This would be against that as he is hurting his good rep. I hardly think people killing in his name would help him in corrupting people in subtle and less violent ways so that they do the more evil thing of trusting in mankind's widom to not need god, as killing people will make people realize they need god. But that is from a Christian perspective, not mine.

You are projecting your view of Satan's goals onto other people. If people want to murder people in the name of Satan then they will see that as Satan's goals. What you think Satan's goal mean nothing to them.

As for what Satan's actual goals are there isn't really enough info to go on and far too much supposition being offered as fact.

 

[Me Myself]

A lot to comment on here, but firstly I think the following post by Quintessence makes some excellent points.


I have to agree with all of the above.


Dictionary definitions are problematic because they are loaded with meaning ascribed by the prevailing views in society. I have seen some dictionary definitions which also say in black and white terms that Satanists are evil. In which case you have to ask by what standards they are measuring evil? And the answer would be by the standard of the Judao-Christian norms in the mind of the writer.
Most Satanists who identify as such these days are members or are affiliated to the Church Of Satan and are in fact atheists, who don't worship at all in the commonly understood interpretation of the word. So dictionary definitions are not always accurate in a religious context.

Oh I am not saying at all that dictionaries should be the only place from which to extract definitions, specially when it comes to religion.

What I do am saying is merely that "satanism" and "satanist" have many definitions, or at least more than one, and one of them IS that of the dictionary. Sure, just one, but still.

I am merely pointing at the fact that for english language, they were satanists. I don`t think they have anything to do with atheist satanists for example, other than in name.

 

[jasonwill2]

You are projecting your view of Satan's goals onto other people. If people want to murder people in the name of Satan then they will see that as Satan's goals. What you think Satan's goal mean nothing to them.

As for what Satan's actual goals are there isn't really enough info to go on and far too much supposition being offered as fact.

No, that are not his goals imo, but from a "Biblical" perspective.

 

[Me Myself]

No, that are not his goals imo, but from a "Biblical" perspective.

From your opinion. You don`t know them, you can`t say that.

Besides, even if they prayed to the biblical "satan" they would be satanists (yes, even if you want to call them "reverse christians" too )

 

[jasonwill2]

From your opinion. You don`t know them, you can`t say that.

Besides, even if they prayed to the biblical "satan" they would be satanists (yes, even if you want to call them "reverse christians" too )

A Satanist wants to be like Satan, that is the link between all forms of Satan. But the people in these links are more crazy than religious.

don't you get it? Even if they are "Satanists", Satanism is not what drived them to commit these acts, that is my entire point.

 

[Me Myself]

A Satanist wants to be like Satan, that is the link between all forms of Satan. But the people in these links are more crazy than religious.

don't you get it? Even if they are "Satanists", Satanism is not what drived them to commit these acts, that is my entire point.

1- Crazy and religious are not mutually exclusive at all

2- Their specific beliefs that were centered around Satan did push them to do what they did to some degree. They did this because they thought Satan was favoring them for doing such rituals. On this, they were acting like Satan (you know, the deity name you borrowed from christianity after they borrowed it from the jews ) . So they are religious fanatics in the same way that suicide bombers and medieval crussaders. Just that for Satan instead of Muhammed or Christ.

So satanism did drive them to do such acts, but not YOUR branch of Satanism. THEIR branch of Satanism.

 

[jasonwill2]

1- Crazy and religious are not mutually exclusive at all

2- Their specific beliefs that were centered around Satan did push them to do what they did to some degree. They did this because they thought Satan was favoring them for doing such rituals. On this, they were acting like Satan (you know, the deity name you borrowed from christianity after they borrowed it from the jews ) . So they are religious fanatics in the same way that suicide bombers and medieval crussaders. Just that for Satan instead of Muhammed or Christ.

So satanism did drive them to do such acts, but not YOUR branch of Satanism. THEIR branch of Satanism.

Blaming satanism for murder is like blaming Islam for suicide bombings. It's not causally connected.

 

[Me Myself]

Blaming satanism for murder is like blaming Islam for suicide bombings. It's not causally connected.

You need to read better. I am not blaming satanism. I am saying his specific satanic beliefs (which I would guess are very different from most people calling themselves satanists ) are partly to blame.

They thought that murdering a human and eating him was going to grant them favors from Satan. The bombers thought that by killing themselves they would get favours from Allah. I am not saying it was islam`s or satanism`s fault, I amsaying thatthis specific beliefs of believing that this will be favored by satan (which is their satanic belief) was a contributing factor.

That was not the argument though. I am merely saying that they are satanists, in the same way the bombers were muslim.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

From your opinion. You don`t know them, you can`t say that.

Besides, even if they prayed to the biblical "satan" they would be satanists (yes, even if you want to call them "reverse christians" too )

If a Hindu stole 30 people and hostaged them into a train and blew them up in the name of Krishna, from your opinion Krishna doesn't ask for that, but you don't know that and can't say he doesn't.

 

[Me Myself]

If a Hindu stole 30 people and hostaged them into a train and blew them up in the name of Krishna, from your opinion Krishna doesn't ask for that, but you don't know that and can't say he doesn't.

If he says he is a devotee of Krishna, I would have no reason to deny it.

Sure, I may very well believe he is doing things Krishna would never ask, but that doesn`t mean he isn`t a devotee of Krishna. He might get his interpretation of Krishna from very different sources than me.

So while I would say Krishna doesn`t condone that, I wouldn`t say he wasn`t acting out of devotion to Krishna, because I truly cannot know that.

 

[jasonwill2]

You need to read better. I am not blaming satanism. I am saying his specific satanic beliefs (which I would guess are very different from most people calling themselves satanists ) are partly to blame.

They thought that murdering a human and eating him was going to grant them favors from Satan. The bombers thought that by killing themselves they would get favours from Allah. I am not saying it was islam`s or satanism`s fault, I amsaying thatthis specific beliefs of believing that this will be favored by satan (which is their satanic belief) was a contributing factor.

That was not the argument though. I am merely saying that they are satanists, in the same way the bombers were muslim.

If he says he is a devotee of Krishna, I would have no reason to deny it.

Sure, I may very well believe he is doing things Krishna would never ask, but that doesn`t mean he isn`t a devotee of Krishna. He might get his interpretation of Krishna from very different sources than me.

So while I would say Krishna doesn`t condone that, I wouldn`t say he wasn`t acting out of devotion to Krishna, because I truly cannot know that.

Meaning he misunderstands his own religion, seeing as how Krishna would reject the devotional acts.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

No, that are not his goals imo, but from a "Biblical" perspective.

That's what I said. You believe his goals are one thing and they believe his goals are something else. They don't speak for you and you can't speak for them.

 

[Me Myself]

Meaning he misunderstands his own religion, seeing as how Krishna would reject the devotional acts.

Not at all. More than one religion with Krishna as leading figure, some will say x is good and some will say x is bad.

you are confusing misunderstanding the religion with misunderstanding the deity.

As far as we know, maybe Satando favor them, but it is not the deity "satan" that you worshp, but another deity called Satan. Your view is not that of the bible nor of the Torah about Satan, so maybe they are satanists that do worship the spirit called Satan that is described by christians (and thus, still not christians becqause they do not worship Jesus) and not the one described by you.

Technically speaking, their "Satan" was known as "Satan" way before your Satan. If you want to exclude any Satanism is "true" yours would go first

 

[jasonwill2]

That's what I said. You believe his goals are one thing and they believe his goals are something else. They don't speak for you and you can't speak for them.

But Fundies and "Bible believing" Christians can't theologically accept Satan as an encourager of these crimes without double-thinking their theologies on Satan's goals.

If you want to exclude any Satanism is "true" yours would go first

Blasphemy?

 

[Me Myself]

Why? The spirit that was called Satan as a representation of evil by Christians may very wellbe a different spirit than the one you worship.

If this was the case, these murderers were worshipping this spirit, and this spirit was indeed pleased with them. Now your branch that calls the absolute God Satan exists since which year? 1800? 1900?

Calling the ultimate big bad Satan was first, so I see no reason to believe there does not exist a spirit with such name that has been recieving the influences attributed to it.

If we want it to be onlyh one "true" satanism, then we get the first spirit called "Satan" : he wasn`t the big bad nor the big god, he was an angel of God, in Jew`s mythos.

So don`t exclude. Your intepretation of what Satan is is the newest and would be around the firsts to go if we start excluding.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

But Fundies and "Bible believing" Christians can't theologically accept Satan as an encourager of these crimes without double-thinking their theologies on Satan's goals.

Of course they can. You seem to think that these people are logical and actually think about the things they believe rather than regurgitate the bile they have been fed since birth. Don't go looking for logic where none exists.

 

[jasonwill2]

Of course they can. You seem to think that these people are logical and actually think about the things they believe rather than regurgitate the bile they have been fed since birth. Don't go looking for logic where none exists.

If you force enough bible on Fundies, I've seen them change their position.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

If you force enough bible on Fundies, I've seen them change their position.

Good for you. I tend to get bored with them fairly quickly and wander off to annoy the squirrels.