Sadly, no. We UU’s always lag behind the evangelical types and Catholicism when it comes to fund raising and bringing in the BIG crowds. 
It sounds good, but I’d never join any religion which would have me as a member.
They sound superficially good.
You’re missing out; Subgenius devivals are a lot of fun. 
signed,
Pope Ignatius Polyester
(also a Pope in the People’s Catholic Church, natch)
Such lists from actual religions tend to be guidance on how to treat others or on moral obligations. This reads more like a list of rights from some wishy washy UN document, or perhaps a list of reasons for you to have a grievance with someone.
CONFIDENTIAL to kanicbird: PRINCIPLE.
That is all.
Sage Rat and Slow Moving Vehicle are pretty close to the mark. The idea of offending people is interesting. Satanists (and many who look to the Americans’ Constitution) see religious expression as a sacred right, but there is no right to “not be offended”. The temple uses such offense and the attention it generates to further their agenda. I’m not saying this to be provocative, they freely admit as much. However, for all the hysteria-inducing gloom of their imagery, what with Baphomet, et al, their agenda is just to receive equal treatment for their beliefs from the government. Not superior, but certainly not inferior.
Granted, there may well be a love of attention or mischief. Lucian is a lawyer and Michelle is a model/exotic dancer. It’s certainly conceivable that argumentation or attention may be something to which they are drawn. But, another friend of mine, who is a Humanist preacher raised in the Southern Pentecostal tradition before joining the Community of Reason admitted that he loved the spotlight as well. Enjoying a job or cause doesn’t render it unworthy.
Dear Anton loved his theatrics and much of the Satanic Bible is ridiculous or just gibberish. “Enochian Keys”? :rolleyes: As for where Satan fits into the Satanic Temple; he is a symbol of independence, rebellion, and reason. Lucian and Michelle (I bring these two up again, because I have spoken with them first-hand and they have leadership roles in the organization) see him as a symbol for their values. After all, if we take the Bible at face value, it was the serpent who incited Eve to partake of knowledge. Better to stand on one’s own feet without gods or against them, than be subservient.
As far as symbols go, I myself wear a medal of St. Erasmus of Formia (aka St. Elmo). I do this in solidarity with my wife, as she has fought cancer and been wracked with abdominal pain and St. Erasmus is patron of abdominal pain (as well as childbirth and sailors), to remind her that her pain is always close to my heart. I got her an identical medal that she sometimes wears; mine has not left my neck for more than a few moments in many years. So, one needn’t regard a personage as literally real in order to recognize their potency as symbols.
Neither Michelle nor Julian struck me as Libertarian in the sense it is commonly used now. I don’t remember either of them suggesting that government is greatly over-grown. Rather, they think (rightly) that religious organizations aren’t pulling their weight via their codified exemption from both taxes and the vetting as non-profit agencies to which secular charities have to submit.
All-in-all, most of HSGP regarded Satanists as siblings in belief, though a louder, more controversial, more confrontational version of ourselves. Though, to be fair, we get death-threats, vandalism, etc. too. Were it not for the vulnerability of my family, I’d be just as confrontational, though at my age, I’ve pretty much just given up on America and only want a worker’s visa to emigrate to the First World.
I’d also disagree with the word “cult”. Though not a word used by clinical personnel, “cult” is nearly universally understood to mean a community or organization containing a dynamic that prioritizes the goals, needs, and wishes of (sometimes) the collective or (usually) the leader over the autonomy of the individual. Individual rights and freedoms are among the most important values of Humanism and Satanism. While courtesy, respect, and civility are expected, dissent is celebrated. By such standards, either community is even less a cult than many secular organizations and virtually all mainstream religions.
To be honest, I tend to see the word “Satanic” as being so semantically loaded, that it’s pretty much trolling to use it in your religion’s name.
Sure, but you need a bureaucrat to be in charge of policy.
It’s not got the pithiness of “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”, but it’s as good as you can get without all the coke and smack that goes into a real Beast’s creed.
The New Testament provided guidance led to the development of western civilization. These concepts wouldn’t have been conceivable absent the existence of Christianity. In some ways these tenets are a better interpretation of of the philosophy of Jesus than some modern Christian sects.
Yeah, if the were serious about this, they wouldn’t have chosen the name the Temple of Satan. That would put potential converts off.
If they wanted a symbol of a rebellious font of reason for humanity, why not choose a name like the temple of Prometheus? Same concept, less obnoxious.
Probably because they didn’t have a lot of confidence that people would make the connection with rebellion. OTOH, Satan doesn’t evoke “rebellion” to most people, so much as “evil for its own sake.”
So yeah, Prometheus would’ve been a better choice.
I consider myself a qualified G-d-botherer and don’t hate them. I feel they could have picked a better name, but I feel they do a lot of good work
NOT a “Judeo-Christian monument” but a Christian one. If it were a Jewish monument, the text would have been in Hebrew. The annoying Christians who made and mounted the thing may have told folks that the monument stood for Judaism too. They lied. The same way the city of Philadelphia lies when they say the lamp post decorations put up each winter are snowflakes. First off, snowflakes have six points not eight. Second, the decorations are obviously rayed crosses. Violates the establishment clause, it does. Pisses me off.
As do I.
Thanks, I really needed a good laugh.
Voyager and I noted this in the religion thread, but your usage of “superior” assumes the conclusion. Satanism is morally superior to you because it covers all of the morals; but this presupposes that the Divine command theory is false or that God does not exist. You are assuming that there is a single static set of morals or universal truths when there may be none, or they may be based on the whims or nature of a God.
~Max
I’m not assuming anything – these are just my opinions. I think these are superior, based on my own beliefs and choices about morality. If you disagree, what is the basis for your disagreement?
Much as with the case of a teapot orbiting Saturn, it is reasonable, in fact entirely rational, to presume the non-existence of god and divine command unless and until it is shown otherwise. So while some may choose to embrace moral ambiguity as an illustration of skill in rhetorical pedantry, others pick a side that seems sensible and just, and roll with it until it is proven to be otherwise. YMMV.
There isn’t any difference between assuming divine command as sensible and just until proven otherwise, and assuming Satanism (or anything else) as sensible and just until proven otherwise.
So, Nobody’s MVs.
Regards,
Shodan