Satanism (modern religion? evil? wrong?)

[4dmin]

posteb by: JAIMECBR900

then state your sources... and Satan is different from Satanism? One is a force the other is a religion.

Personal experience with Satanists, reading the Bible, reading excerpts from that Satanic bible of yours, common sense, strong personal beliefs, my own research of both lay information and actual books......is that enough for you or should I keep splitting hairs?

again you aren't quote or posting sources, which leads me to believe you have no idea of what you speak of other than assumtions. what research? you did a paper on the occult, you saw something on tv, what???

See above and you are confusing me with Vernon. I never said I saw anything on TV. If I had seen the show yall are referring to, I'd busted you out a long time ago.

just answer the damn question w/ sources not IT'S WRONG. Why is it wrong? If i gave you the same statement about christianity you and other would be all over me.

You do all the time. What's, "where's your scientific proof?" then? What "sources" are there if something doesn't exists (according to you)? Your mind? Your ideas? Your whole basis for doubting the bible relies on one simple premise: Where's tangible proof?

So, I'll use the same logic you employ then: Why am I dumb for NOT wanting to be a Satanist IF after your extensive "research" YOU aren't one either? What's that make you then?

yes i have read LaVey/Crowley book(s), since it is the only credited source for the "RELIGION" called SATANISM. There is only one church of satan that i'm aware of, if you konw of another or another satanic bible please let me know, reading about the occult is way more interesting b/c of the interpetation. You have the bible, but shouldn't there be something for the advisary its beliefs are built around.

Have you also read the book, "Hypocrisy, Plagiarism, and Lavey...by John Smulo"? Maybe you should.

I have. It's an essay about how Lavey blatantly plagiarised an almost century old work by an author that went by the alias of Ragnar Redbeard and called it the "Satanic bible". It shows example after example of 100% direct plariarism on Lavey's part and calling the work his. It also sources many total fallacies confirmed by Lavey's own DAUGHTER about what Lavey's claimed background is and isnt. Did you know that Lavey was actually born NOT Anton Levey but actually Howard Stanton Levey and he's part Jewish? His entire background was questioned from where he said he worked before to being a lion tamer in a circus and you know what the rebuttal to that was????? "Oh, that's just things jealous people say...." Sounds familiar.

^ The difference i can answer 100% w/o giving some BS run around answer. ITS WRONG!!!

Still doesn't change the fact that you are defending one thing with one arguement and then turning around and by that same arguement trying to discredit something else. You can't have it both ways.

-If you say the Bible is false because "men" wrote it, then you shouldn't use another "bible" that was written by a man just 36 yrs ago as gospel?

-If you dismiss the Bible as false because there is no Scientific proof of it, why do you defend another "bible" that has even less proof?

-If you contend the Bible is false because there are different versions of it, how come the Satanic bible, which is simply a collection of works from several different sources, any more credible?

-IF the Satanic bible that you are defending mentions Christ, Angels, and God.....wouldn't that serve as yet another "source" to prove they all do in fact exist?