Quote:
Originally Posted by Somnilocus
To be fair, Satanism isn't about worshipping an evil power. They just interpret the Bible differently than others, and are generally good people. Satanism is in fact more about respecting and "worshipping" the self. Of course, just like Christians, some "Satanists" misinterpret the teachings-or, should I say, just have their own interpretation that the majority wouldn't agree with. Besides, there's so many types of Satanism.. what do you think of LaVeyan Satanists?
...
Why do you say that Satanism is inherently "bad"?
|
Fair questions. Satanism is traditionally one of these:
1) A worship of Satan, a supernatural being defined as the archetypal incarnation of evil (e.g. Satan, Baal-Zebub, Loki, Hel, Baphomet etc.) as opposed to an archetypal good incarnation (e.g. God, Allah, YHVH, Buddah, arguably Zeus, Odin, etc.). In this type of example, Satanists are worshiping and following a negative archetype which society, in general, sees as evil or bad.
2) A non-supernatural following of a "dark force" in each of us (such as in LaVeyan Satanism) where self, and the power within, is what one follows. The focus tends to be on enjoyment of the moment, a disregard for consequence and a tendency towards hedonism. There is no aspect of responsibility to others, generosity or value of society, peace, etc. Instead, this type of Satanism, being focused on perfecting the self, treats the individual as ultimate. Generally speaking, society sees this level of self-ism or selfishness as a negative.
Certainly there are many spin offs that don't follow either of these basic ideas to the letter, but these are the traditional definitions. Certainly Theistic Satanism, being a following of an "evil" deity is going to be classified as "bad" without further comment. LaVeyan Satanism, while not necessarily expressly harmful, can take the concept of the "ultimate self" to a disregard of the value and lives of others. If self is the ultimate, then it follows that all others are lesser. The Christian "Golden Rule" which asks the Christian to treat others kindly as a default is disregarded in Satanism and replaced by the statement "Do unto others as they do unto you." which results in the Satanist, at best, mirroring the worst of anyone they encounter (not the best idea in society, but passable for a hermit, otherwise, inevitably, injury or death will result).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Somnilocus
Consider that more people have been killed in the name of God than in the name of Satan.
|
Addressed above (looks like you are cherry picking). Killing 'in the name of' God is still killing and God is primarily an excuse. Historical evidence points to power or other motivations as the primary driver, not God, and even in the rare cases where 'the name of' God is the primary driver, most of those cases involve a (intentional) misinterpretation of faith. Has anyone killed in the name of God where he truly believed that God wanted the killing? Sure, it has happened many times. Does God indeed want the killing to occur, there are very, very, few documented cases of this (depending on one's belief in Scripture). Is it therefore the case that killing in the name of God is simply a misinterpretation (intentional or otherwise) of one's beliefs. Almost all of the time this is the case.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Somnilocus
Before I say anything else, consider that all the wars you cited are American and that there are wars constantly going on throughout the world that we rarely hear about in the mainstream media or even in schools.
So, besides those wars, there were many others that most DEFINITELY were caused by religion... among the more well-known... the French Wars of Religion; the Second Sino-Japanese War; the First through Seventh Wars; the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre; the Thirty Year War; the Wars of the League; the Saxon Wars, etc. etc.
|
Actually in my post, I stipulated these facts (cherry picking again). My argument is that by saying "most", one is asserting that religion is the cause of greater than 50% of wars. Typically, as I posted above, there are many causes and religion is often used as an excuse, but is not typically the primary cause of the war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Somnilocus
And of course, the Crusades should probably be mentioned... and what about inquisitions? What about current conflicts such as between Palestine/Israel? There are many wars being fought this day in the name of religion.
|
I also covered these above (got a bucket of cherries though). The "name of religion" in these cases is an excuse (again see my comments above unless you REALLY need me to restate them).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Somnilocus
Even when religion isn't the motivating factor for war, religion often has a place... the Pope would send his blessings to the commanders, and even bless battleships. (of course, ALL religions often play a part, but this is just an example).
|
Religion has a place. Interesting. Banking also has a place. Someone is holding the money and cashing those paychecks. For that matter, the spoils of wars are often used to prop up failing economies and more than one war has been fought over commodities. Perhaps we can blame wars on banks (actually money is a far greater motivator towards war than religion ever has been). How about farming? Farming has a place. Farmers make huge profits when governments buy their produce to feed soldiers. A farmer who can sell to the army does quite well as opposed to having to deal with the vagaries of the market. Pick your industry and you can make the same argument, they all have their place.
The fact is that when a
government goes to war, any number of excuses can be used. Religion is simply one of those.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Somnilocus
You could even argue that religion is the source of all war, because people go to war based on their morals...
|
Morals are not necessarily religion. Atheists have morals, but no religion. The same is true (perhaps even more so) with Agnostics. Morals are simply our individual definition of what is "right" and "wrong", so any of us who have such archetypal ideals have morals regardless of what (if any) religion we follow. So again, religion is an excuse, at best.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Somnilocus
So, no, your teachers aren't trying to force an Atheist agenda on everyone. Religion has certainly be the source of MANY, many wars, and many, many deaths.
|
I stipulated this as well in my arguments above. Sure, religion has been the cause of wars and deaths, but is it more than 50%? I'm not close to convinced by your arguments.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Somnilocus
But religion isn't inherently bad... almost always, it's people that twist its message for their own desires, or cherry pick certain passages.
|
Agreed, in fact that is largely my point in the discussion above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Somnilocus
Even so, is that not just as troubling? I wouldn't say an excuse so much as JUSTIFICATION. Without religion, how would it have been justified to the people? What would they have done without religion? Certainly religion hasn't DETERED war...
|
How would it have been justified to the people? You must be kidding, right? As I mentioned in prior posts, long before there was Catholicism and Protestantism in England, the Irish and English have been fighting (the same is true with most border wars which is the vast majority of wars in history). Justification was at various times money, land, some perceived insult, freedom, oppression, tyranny, kidnappings, murders, food, etc. The fact is that prior to the modern era (circa 1800), nobody had to justify wars to the people because the primary forms of government were monarchies, empires and feudal systems. A peasant didn't get a justification because the peasant would simply be killed by his lord/master/emperor if he did not fight. There weren't free people that would require a justification prior to going, one simply obeyed the nobiilty, clan leader, etc.
As to deterrence, that I also covered above (see my notes on Attila The Hun above). Religion has been used as a tool of peace just as it has been used as an excuse for war (it just isn't well reported). Probably not as often, I'll agree.
If you speak to most religious leaders, they will agree that their religion's aim is not war, and thus it follows logically that if the religious leaders don't seek war, and religion is considered part of the cause, that in fact, someone who was not a religious leader used religion as an excuse.
-- Jeff