Lonsomepolecat, you’ve obviously had some bad experiences and that’s too bad. I think you could use some serious smudging to get rid of some of that residual resentment and hostility. Lashing out so harshly at people that disagree with you says a lot about a person.
And for your info, I do have a sense of humor, I just don’t find you funny. If that makes me a self rightous asshole in your eyes, then I guess that’s how you see me. shrug
Lets have a serious dialogue about a wacky defense lawyer who leaks a story to the press , alleging that his client is not guilty because:
-Laci was abducted and killedby satanists
-her unborn child was used in a satanist ceremony
I think everybody ought to be outraged at the conduct of thisjerk. His place as a lawyer, is to dispute the prosecutor’s evidence, not invent fantastic tales about what might have happened!
Don’t you ever get dizzy up there on your high horse?
Spare us your phony compassion. That’s just a smarmy way of saying “I don’t have to take you seriously because you are obviously a badly damaged person.” Next time you’re tempted to bash someone for daring to poke some fun at your co-religionists, maybe you’ll ** think ** before you “lash out.” Some Pagans (as with any other religion) do and say foolish things, things that deserve a hearty horse laugh, and decrying those who laugh at them as bigots makes ** you ** a bigot.
No, you ** don’t ** have a sense of humor. Get one. You need it badly.
Sorry, LonesomePolecat’s post stuck that “Peaceful Warrior” song in my head…
“Peaceful Warrior, great big brain…Become one with Shirley Maclaine…”
Sense of humor, even about your own beliefs. It’s a precious thing. But at least the pagans are being nicer than some of the angry Christians I’ve been berated by…NO OFFENSE MEANT TO ANY CHRISTIANS, ESPECIALLY POLYCARP!
Gee, and you wouldn’t be talking out your ass about it?
Of course not.
Either provide proof to support your claim or retract it.
“Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law.” is not about killing or committing crimes without conscience.
I honestly don’t know what else to say to you. Calling me a bigot for not laughing at a religious joke? You’re really reaching there, guy. Anyhoo, I give up.
You are the funniest person to ever grace the planet earth. All who don’t find a particular joke you told funny are just self rightious jerks with no sense of humor. :rolleyes:
Feel better now?
oh, damn, this board has been CRAZY the past few days. I just now was able to read Zabali_Clawbane’s and ratty’s last posts.
Thanks very much both of you for posting calm, rational and coherent comments about this issue.
I fully agree with everything Zabali said and she said it much more eloquently than I could have.
Might I inquire as to where you heard this?
Unfortunately, the terms get confused, and thus dudes get confused over who is who and what is what.
To summarize we have the following:
Neopagans: those who follow a modern version of an old pagan faith, such as the Celtic faith. Some call themself 'witches". Sometimes “shamanists”. A legit faith.
Wiccans: a more or less new faith, with some ties to “neo-paganism” and borrowing some traditions from the old pagan faiths, and some symbolism & terms from Witchcraft & Satanism. Some Wiccans call themselves “witches”. Also legit- altho there are “poseurs” of course.
Witches- traditionally; someone who barters with the nether powers, that is demons & devils and spirits, thus a “satanist” in a way. However, for some odd reason, Wiccans & some Neo-pagans insist on calling themselves “witches”, then get all upset when dudes confuse them with sorcerers/witches/satanists. Not a “real” religion- IMHO. However, those that are “wiccans” but call themselves “witches” are in a “real faith”, of course (see above).
(If you really NEED to be called a “witch” then fine- but do not get all huffy when dudes get you confused with the traditional meaning of the word. Why not come up with a new word, rather than trying to change the meaning of a word loaded with so much negative connotation? Note that “rabbi” means “teacher”, and thus one could call themself “rabbi” if one “taught” a faith or religous philosphy. But then- if you did so- don’t get all riled if dudes think you are Jewish, please)
Pagans- those who follow “old school” non-bibilical faiths. The american Indian faiths are “pagans”. Their preists can be called “shamans”. Very real.
Satanists: those who worship the Adversary, Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness, etc. Some call themselves “witches”. Can legitimately be assumed to be “not nice”. Some deluded crazies do horrible things in the name of “satanism”- however, there is no evidence they are organized in any way. Real?
The “Church of Satan”: a modern re-doing of “Satanism” by Levay & co. Not the only “satanists” in the world. More “egoists” than “evil”. I am not sure if these guys take themselves seriously.
I admit there is exactly no evidence that “satanists” commited this murder. Which is exactly equal to the amount of evidence (that has been released) that Scott did it. Maybe that is the point that the attorney is making.
Greyson3 a person of the Druidic faith, told me of their faith’s history.
Also anthropological/archeological studies in the U.K.'s bogs. (I believe the National Geographic did a study there years ago.) Several people interred there, in the same ritual manner. That’s odd in a way, then you find that they are about the same age, they all died in almost identical ways at differing times, it seems to point at ritualistic killing.
I know this does not go on today, but some faith apparently did this once, and those studying it thought it most attributable to the Druids. Ok, I took that with a grain of salt, until I heard from a Druid’s lips that it once happened. Are you saying they were misinformed? If so, please politely educate me, I’m willing to learn.
Well, you said it like you were pretty sure of it. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of a specific scholarly paper or publication? Not that I am doubting your acquaintance’s word or your memory, but it is pretty easy to be misinformed about things that happened hundreds of years before you were born.
There is little that is actually known about the druids, seeing as they didn’t exactly keep meeting notes, and I have noticed a tendency for even the most well-intentioned people to attempt to fill in the gaps with information that may not really have any specific basis in fact.
Some people say it’s a spiritual sort of knowledge, and that’s fine, as far as it goes. It isn’t really the sort of thing that holds any weight in a historical discussion, however, as I am sure you understand.
Alas, I don’t remember the publication date on the National Geographic I read. It could have been a decade or more old, but I read it more recently than that.
I will try to find the archeological/anthropoligical study I watched, but I don’t know if I’ll have any luck or not. I remember them showing the slit throats, the tannins in the bog waters preserved the bodies, and you could see features etc. Maybe The National Geographic Society filmed their study too? Not sure, but I know I watched a film done by another group. As for the RL Druid who told me that it once happened, they are not on SDMB.
Fuck you if you can’t take a joke. I’m tired of you. Buh bye.
Did not mean to generalize.
My point was : “Satanists”, whoever they may be, do not, as a point have compunctions about telling white lies to sound better than they are.
IF, and I’m saying IF any Satnaist killed someone, they certainly wouldn’t Admit it.
Not like they figured God would get mad at them for lying.
I hope thats clearer.
And yet you’re doing it again.
Quite unlike those Christians who step right up to claim responsibility, right? Or are you going to claim those aren’t “real” Christians?
Come now, carrot, now you’re just aatacking summertime for the sake of attacking summertime. The fact is that Satanists, be they merely egoists or whatever, probably wouldn’t have a problem with telling “white lies”. The egoism doctrine considers the self to be primary, and telling a small lie to accomplish a personal goal would be consistent with that philosophy.
Care to prove that assertion, Monkey; or perhaps you prefer the “summertime method?”
A worthy goal in itself, yes?
While that is true, Summertime brought up this point in the specific context of murdering someone and lying about it. To say that “Satanists wouldn’t have a problem with that” is to gloss over the fact that quite a large number of people who aren’t Satanists don’t seem to have a problem with that.
On preview: Monty, I think that the “egoism doctrine” is part and parcel of The Church of Satan’s dogma. I mean, the first Satanic statement is “Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!” Now, while this may be interpreted differently by different practicioners (and I wish I knew some, it would be a big help), sin is obviously not a big no-no.
Well, then I guess I just better skiddadle then huh? I mean, you don’t want to deal with me anymore. :rolleyes:
Get over yourself.
Keep in mind that there are different groups that would call themselves Satanists. I’m not a member of the Church of Satan–in fact, Satanist isn’t quite the right label for me–and I can’t speak for the folks at that organization, but if you go through the FAQ for the First Church of Satan, you’ll find something a little closer to what I believe. I’ll write more later, when I’m not at work.
To address the specific question, if I were going to kill someone, I sure would lie about it, cause I don’t want to go to prison. That’s also a really good reason for me not to kill someone in the first place, unless it was in self-defense. If there was no law against it, I personally still wouldn’t kill anyone unless it was in self-defense. Others may have a different stand.
As far as the question of sin goes, a very wise person (whose name I can’t remember) once said that “Sin is doing what you know to be wrong.” If you believe something is wrong, and you do it anyway, you’re going to feel guilty. That’s not pleasant, so better to avoid it. It’s just a question of what you believe to be wrong.
The essence of LaVey’s Satanism, as I understand it, is an emphasis on individual choices and responsibility, with an eye towards living a pleasant life. I am responsible for what I do, and nothing can change that. So if I want to have a good time of it (and I do), I had better make the choices that lead there. Obviously, I’m not going to be very happy if I’m in jail and have no friends, so I should make choices that don’t lead down that path. Think of it as hedonism with a long-term eye. And I have no problem with that, but there are some other things he and his followers added that I don’t like so much.
btw, I thought lonesomepolecat’s mock application was one of the funniest things I’ve read recently.