Thread: Satanism: The Worlds True Religion?

Religion is not about having a great deal of fun.

Religion must foster Civilization. Religion can do this by endorsing and encouraging morality. No Civilization is possible if the great plurality of people feel free to be themselves -- predatory animals motivated only by self-interest.

Yes, you may suggest that Protestant Christianity has not done such a good job of endorsing and encouraging morality, and you would be right. But I wonder why you would object to it. Examine Christian Doctrine. If you already approve of Satan, then what do you find so objectionable about a "Religion" whose only object is the forgiveness of Sin, and then the Protestant Sects that believe that in Wealth and Power as the indications of God's favor and election. Certainly one can not get more Satanic then that.

But Christianity was once a Civilized Religion, but this was when Catholicism had been largely Marian, and when the influence of the Religious Orders went well beyond the influence of the Bishops. Nowadays, the Catholicism of the Paulist Bishops is almost indistinguishable from the Creed of the Protestants -- supposing that the purpose of Religion is simply to justify Sin, and to allow Sinners at their death to overrun Heaven.

People often speak of Modern Civilization, but what we really have is a surprisingly successful Barbarism. There has been so much residual Morality left over from Catholic Civilization, and from the influences of the other Higher Religions around the World, that there has been still enough flow of Surplus Wealth so that the Modern Barbarians have been able to satisfy their appetite for pillage. But with each generation, more damage is done, and there is less store of Morality that supports the production and maintainance of the necessary Surplus Economies. Sooner or later, selfishness and competitive predations will destroy the last remnants of cooperation and the infrastructure for Surplus Wealth and Civilization will collapse.

Then Barbarism will be in its own element. Every man against every other. Thomas Hobbes described this Life of Barbarism as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Barbarism is only fun when it has a Civilization to pillage, but once the Civilization is burned down and bare bones, and Barbarism can only turn upon itself.

And then Civilization will have to make its slow crawl back in progressive levels of superior Social Organization. Organized Families will defeat prowling individuals. Organized Clans will rein in predatory families. Organized Tribes will subdue the Clans. Nations will consolidate the Tribes. And eventually Nations will unite in a Civilization. But at each progressive level of Social Organization, there must be a Belief System that proposes and convinces that it is better to Cooperate then it is to indulge in predatory self-interest.

Yeah, I checked out that website.

"In addition, this book (Bible) has been infused with psychic energy and power to instill fear and to make it believable. "

Yes, we are all under the spell of mind control from a book.


Now I must say, that the site had some good points to it. A lot of people get so into the lifestyle that they miss the point entirely. I would degrade that also, but there are things on there (edit grammar) that are too manipulated to believe.

Maybe its just me.

Yeah, I know. But, I don't think its a closed case. I've seen some of their techniques performed, so I know it can't all be lies. And everyday I see a system of brainwashing in our society. But I do find it all very interesting.

No religion is false by my opinion, i think that god is just too big to fit in only one religion. people call him different names, worship him in different ways because they just cannot accept that the thru way to god is thru dem, seek god with your eyes closed, not thru "holy" books and organisations like joy of satan

the enki you are writing about is mentioned in "12 planet" by zacharia sitchin, read it its a good book, his theory is most likely to be "true" to me

expose yourself, not christianity or any other religion

Jah, God is a woman, god dammit. I wish people would take that into account for once, Leo and I both know the anticrhist, anti-feminist Paul who disgraced the word of jesus decided God would be a man because he couldn't put his faith in a giant vagina.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Jah, God is a woman, god dammit.
[/b]

i think that god is much bigger than man or woman, but i do believe in feminine face of god. water is the answer.

since I'll never have any idea what happened thousands of years ago, I think it would make as much sense to worship satan as it would to worship god. It's kind of like the flying spaghetti monster except more plausible. hail satan!

(I edited this post to put the quotes in bold because they wouldn't quote correctly...)

The Origins of Satanism

Satanism is not a Christian invention
Satanism predates Christianity and all other religions
Satanism is not about spooks, goblins, vampires, Halloween monsters or other related entities
Satanism is not about "evil"
Satanism is not an invention of, or a "reaction" to Christianity
Satanism is not a creation of Anton LaVey
Satanism is not about death
True Satanism is about elevating and empowering humanity to reach equality with the Gods, which was our True Creator (Satan's) intention

Okay. That's just plain false. First, "Satanism" does not predate Christianity, let alone all other religions. For one thing, the origins of the word "Satan" is a Christian one, so it is impossible for Satanism to predate Christianity and Christian terminology. The other ridiculous thing about this is that determining what religions were the "first" religions is pretty much impossible to do (I just got my Anthroplogy bachelor's degree and I studied religion in cultural and archaeological anthropology).

Some people argue that neanderthals had religion. Do you really think they were Satanists? By that name? With the same concepts as it holds today? I don't think so. In fact, I think to claim that is true is absolutely BS.

When was "Peace Be Unto Him" written? By whom?

Some 10,000 years ago, the Gods left us.

So is that what caused the end of the most recent Ice Age? And what of the religions before that?

The Gods are an extra-terrestrial race of beings. As a matter of fact, there have been several different alien races that have lived here on planet Earth on and off and have taken an interest in human beings, either as friends, enemies or neutrals.

While I think this is pretty outlandish in itself, I'll let it slide for the sake of argument. The possibility of aliens having visited our planet - sure, I'll buy that. The possibility that humans would see these beings as divine - also possible under the assumption that these aliens did in fact come around and were, in fact, worthy of worship or honor or what-have-you.

I've always been a critic of the aliens-as-gods gig, but I'll admit it's at least somewhat possible.

The main Gods who interacted with humanity and are our creators (through genetic engineering) are the race of Gods known as the Nordics.

This is where it starts getting harder to buy, even as a possibility. How exactly did people know about this system of "genetic engineering" before such a thing was a concept? And, um... why woudl the gods who created us be called "Nordics?" That also makes no sense. Who gets to name these gods? Why do they have that name? What do they call themselves? How old is this name? Where did it come from? I don't buy it. I could make up something just as believeable and nobody would believe me because it doesn't make sense in the first place.

Some are helpful to humans as are Satan and the Elder Gods who have been labeled as “Demons.”

Why would helpful beings be named as demons? When were they determined to be "demons?" Again, the JCI religions were the first ones to even use the name "Satan," so you can't say that Christianity demonized an older being...

The original religions (long before the arrival of Judaism, Xianity, and Islam, which is an offshoot of xianity) all had one thing in common- the emphasis on the serpent. The serpent is the symbol of the kundalini, the DNA helix, wisdom, and knowledge.

This is just nonsense. First of all, what's their problem with Christianity that they can write out the other two but not that one? That's just childishness. Second, the religions that predate Judaism, and others that have existed since then and to now, do not all emphasize the serpent. The serpent is also not always the symbol of what is listed here, but more often a symbol of death and birth, reincarnation and such. Where'd they get this s**t? I'd like some examples of these so-called "original" religions. Like I said, nobody knows what the original religion(s) were. To pretend to know is far too pompous to believe.

Thousands of years ago, there was a time when human beings had power close to that of the Gods. This was when the Gods lived side by side with humanity.

Apparently this was during the Ice Age, since they earlier said that they left 10,000 years ago. What idiots. They can't even get dates and history working together. I guess they assume that people won't have any idea about the history of the world when they look at this.

The Gods left images in stone for a future time when knowledge would once again be discovered. Markers of specific times such as the Egyptian Sphinx (Age of Leo, 10,500 BCE), the scarab (Age of Cancer, 8,800 BCE), the twins, (Age of Gemini, 6,640 BCE), the bull (Age of Taurus, 4,480), and the rams heads (Age of Aries, 2,320 BCE)- all of these go back thousands of years and provide evidence that civilization is much older than previously assumed.

So which is it? Did these alien gods leave the images or are they evidence of civilization being much older than they previously assumed? Also.. why on earth would these alien gods use the fairly recent astrological figures for their sculptures when the stars would have been different then and the people wouldn't recognize the same astrological figures anyway? Why didn't they use the Chinese astrological figures? I hate this argument because it also denies humans the ability to make such monumental architecture. People made the Sphinx and the pyramids, not aliens. Give them the credit they deserve. Sheesh.

Ancient temples, many that are still intact in Egypt are aligned with the constellations and stars; evidence of the extra-terrestrial Gods.

This is not AT ALL evidence of extra-terrestrial gods. To think so is absolute denial of the facts and real evidence. Spend enough time (years) in nature and you'll figure out where the sun comes up during special times of year. This, again, is a denial of the abilities of humans to construct things as simple (yes, I said simple) as astrological calendars and markers. It's not hard to do. What is hard to do it create such monuments, but this is also completely within human ability.

At some point, circa 8,000 BCE, the Earth and the Original Creator Gods who befriended humans were attacked. Guns, bombs and other weapons are obsolete in advanced worlds. Warfare is of the mind and soul and is spiritual. The Gods who were outnumbered left and humanity was at the mercy of enemy alien beings. The being known as “Jehova/Yaweh” suddenly appeared on the scene. This being never revealed his identity. His destination of choice was Egypt. With the destruction of Atlantis, remaining knowledge made its way to Egypt where it was kept and preserved within the royalty families, and the Egyptian priesthood.

I don't get it. This doesn't make sense.

The entity known as “Yaweh” proceeded to attack and destroy Egypt. He led the Israelites into the desert for an extended length of time where new generations who had no ties to the past were prepared to annihilate surrounding communities where ancient knowledge was kept.

A little anti-Semitic, aren't they?

Places that possessed knowledge and allegiance to the Original Gods were viciously attacked. Their people were mass murdered, their centers of learning and libraries were sacked and burnt to the ground, statues and other relics representing the Original Gods were destroyed, and Yaweh designated any remaining women and children to be turned over to the Hebrews to be kept as slaves.

You do realize that this is the common story for any conquering nation? It is demonizing Judaism and Christianity by creating a new (yes, "new") version of Christian history. I'm taking this as fiction at this point.

. . .further attempts to destroy all knowledge of the ancient past and the Original Gods. The book known as the “Bible” emerged; full of stolen bits and pieces of former civilizations and religious doctrines. All of these were twisted and corrupted to fit the mold of this new so-called “religion.” The Original Gods were demonized and their reputations were destroyed. Yaweh/Jehova took over as the presumed “creator” and *owner* of humanity.

Somewhat true, but with a really poor timeline and explanation of world events. Also common for conquering nations to do, however.

“prophet” Mohammed, who was visited by enemy extra-terrestrial “Gabriel” was given the same message convert others to Islam or murder them.

Um... except that wasn't what the prophet Mohammed was told.

With the Christian and Moslem religions, human beings were deceived into destroying and removing any knowledge on their own, so Yaweh and his entities would no longer have to constantly provide the necessary supervision.

LOL That didn't work too well, did it?

Duality became the theme. “God” vs. the “Devil.” “Good” vs. “Evil.”

Yeah, that duality thing is rather problematic.

“Satan” is the Hebrew word for “adversary” and anything opposed to this new doctrine was labeled as “satanic” or of the Devil.

Hah! They even admit that the name is Hebrew! What idiots.

Teachings of ancient civilizations were stolen, corrupted and wound up in the Judeo/Christian bible and passed off as Judeo/Christian doctrines where people were deceived into believing they had originated.

Heh, yeah, that's what conquering nations do.

Human sexuality was severely regulated and frowned upon by the church. This is because sexuality and orgasm as the life force are essential to spiritual advancement and the raising of the kundalini serpent.

So these "Satanists" are sex-crazed, eh? I don't doubt the ability of sexual experiences to be "religious," but to say that these things are "essential" to spiritual advancement is simple nonsense and very dangerous. I could see this type of logic going in very, very bad directions.

the Catholic Church (The original Christian religion)

Not true. The first Christian religious organization was in Africa.

Enemy aliens were quick to enforce the fear through horrific visions of “Hell” and the afterlife for anyone who ventured onto the astral.

This makes no sense when one considers all of the positive imagery that came out of this period in other parts of the world and with other Christians.

Islam took control of the Middle East and other regions physically inaccessible to xianity at that time and directed the same campaign- the removal of all knowledge, which was forcibly replaced with the false doctrines of the Koran.

This also makes no sense. Christiainity did have access to the Middle East. And The Muslims held onto a lot of scientific knowledge that was lost during the "Dark Ages." Islam is very rooted in knowledge, scientific and mystical.

Satanism which is the original religion has suffered.

Still talking nonsense about being the "original religion."

Paganism recognizes the Elder Gods, but as a whole remains ignorant concerning the history of these Gods, and because of this, mixes enemy and friendly Gods, which is extremely dangerous. Modern Pagans are also ignorant to the fact we have a Creator God who has been labeled as the “Devil.”

Oh, so the Pagans are ignorant because many don't recognize the Christian concept of Satan as even existing, and becuase they're not in touch with the aliens? *snicker*

Humanity has paid the price. Spiritual degeneration has resulted in misery, sickness, disrespect for worthwhile life, and has been at the mercy of cruel fate through ignorance.

Is that why the human race is growing in numbers and lifespen is increasing?

True spirituality never even enters into the picture.

I would beg to differ on the basis that Christianity is NOT solely based upon meaningless recitals of pre-determined words. There is a lot of spirituality available in various demoninations. Besides, these guys don't even define "true spirituality."

Upon researching the origins of various myths and religions, I find many authors are at a disagreement, both religious and secular. This is due to the Christian Church's systematic destruction and removal of ancient knowledge. To make matters worse, many of the remaining original documents that escaped destruction were altered.

Oh, so anyone who disagrees must be under the false teachings of the evil aliens against humanity's freedom. I see. So, people who actually study history and archaeology, and science, logic, etc. - they're missing all of the REAL knowledge held by the aliens. So... we should believe the aliens, not our logical minds.

Most of the Egyptian God/esses can be traced all the way back.

Back to where, exactly?

The sphynx was constructed during the age of Leo, circa 10,500 BCE. "There has been much dispute concerning the age of certain structures due to the fact that most Egyptologists are of the Muslim religion. The Koran claims that the world began roughly 6,000 years ago. If a Muslim states a building is 8,000 years old, he is disputing the Koran. They cannot do that, they won't even talk about it, won't even discuss it."*

This is such BS. Like I said before, Muslims are all about science and logic and the advancement of knowledge.

There are many relics and structures which pre-date Judeo-Christianity by thousands of years. One thing they all have in common is the focus on the SERPENT.

More BS. All relics and structures that predate JCI religions do NOT have to do with a serpent. So stupid...

Satan has always been known to be the bringer and giver of knowledge to humanity; the one who, along with his Demons (the Old Gods) wishes to elevate humans to equality with the Gods.

Lol... yeah, that's what Christianity says. :eyeroll:

We did not evolve naturally, as opposed to animals who have overall better health and immunity.

LOL. Animals have just as many problems as we do. Sheesh.

Every culture, such as the Philistines, that worshiped other Gods was made war upon and genocide ensued.

Oh, so that's why there aren't any other religions in the whole wide world that aren't Christian or Islamic?

Most people either study physical science or the occult knowledge. Not very many study both. This is where people would benefit, by studying both, for in the end, it all comes together.

Maybe these people need to study history and earth sciences, human sciences, and a little bit of logic.

I couldn't stop laughing by the end of that one... it's just so ridiculous. Thanks for the laugh. I really hope anyone who comes across this crap will actually do their own research before following blindly behind people who are also blind.

dreammask Please edit your post and make sure each quote starts with [ quote ] and ends with [ /quote ] (No spaces). I can make heads or tails of who wrote what in here.

Originally Posted by icuurd12b42

dreammask Please edit your post and make sure each quote starts with [ quote ] and ends with [ /quote ] (No spaces). I can make heads or tails of who wrote what in here.
[/b]

I can't. I don't know why. All the appropriate tags are there, but it won't display them as quotes for some reason. I tried repeatedly to fix it. I even took the quote in this post to see what it would do and it still won't show it as a quote, even though it will show as a quote if I post a new message with it. I might try re-posting the entire thing and delete the old one. If that will even work...

This has got to be the coolest thread I've ever seen!! Thanks WER I printed out your Orignal Post! I'm flying to Utah from Cali today and I'll save it to read on the plane! I have some links of interest for this thread!

http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/godswaterbuckets.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/nibiru.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/nephilim.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/caduceus.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/kundalini.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/dragons.html

Crystal Links is the Shit!

Originally Posted by dreammask

I can't. I don't know why. All the appropriate tags are there, but it won't display them as quotes for some reason. I tried repeatedly to fix it. I even took the quote in this post to see what it would do and it still won't show it as a quote, even though it will show as a quote if I post a new message with it. I might try re-posting the entire thing and delete the old one. If that will even work...
[/b]

I know the feeling. I used to write html documents with a text editor. All it takes is one (unseen) extra quote or one extra /quote or a spelling mistake in the tag to mess up the whole thing.

Originally Posted by DreamDudeDave

Crystal Links is the Shit!
[/b]

great link ! thank you very much

YW!!

----------

Check this Out:

Satan = Say Ten = 10 = 1+0 = 1 (Oneness AKA Individualism)

Xianity = XI-Anity = XI = 11 = 1+1 = 2 (Duality AKA Separation)

I love the Power of Words !!! And Numbers !

Just wanted to say, great post DreamMask. It takes quite a bit of effort to get through replying in kind to posts that long, I know. But I always appreciate it when somebody puts in the time and thoroughly refutes something like that.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Just wanted to say, great post DreamMask. It takes quite a bit of effort to get through replying in kind to posts that long, I know. But I always appreciate it when somebody puts in the time and thoroughly refutes something like that.
[/b]

Heh, thanks. I don't usually put in the time to discuss things like that, but I was really bored that day.. oO;

Glad you enjoyed it. ^_^

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Jah, God is a woman, god dammit. I wish people would take that into account for once, Leo and I both know the anticrhist, anti-feminist Paul who disgraced the word of jesus decided God would be a man because he couldn't put his faith in a giant vagina.
[/b]

This is where Sanskrit Philosophy has it correct -- that the Male Aspects of Divinity are Central, Inherent, Unchanging, Eternal... and Uncaring. The Male Aspect of God is incapable of Change and so incapable of Action, and therefore not anything of a Providential God at all. I forget who it was, but a Great Philosopher had said that a "Although God exists, if this God is not a Providential God, then it hardly matters, no?"

But underneath the untouchable and immutable Heavens of the the Male Aspects of God, there is the
Great Sphere of Maya, the Universe of Duality, and this Universe of overseen by the Female Divinities. And it is from these Feminine Deities that we can expect Grace. They are the Providential God.

And it bears out in observation. Over the Centuries, and among the Religions, there have been HUNDREDS of documented and verified sightings (verified to the Legal Standard, though we have yet to have a Goddess appear in a laboratory and allow Herself to be strapped in for a double blinded controlled variable study, with Herself on one side and a Placebo on the other), all of Female Divinities. But NOBODY reports having seen the Male God.

The most famous and now most reoccurring are those of The Blessed Virgin Mary.

It is odd, even the Catholics half renounce Her. After the defeat of Catholicism on the field of Battle, the Council of Trent, to incorporate their Defeat into Permanent Doctrine, declared that Mary was not Divine and that She would no longer be "Worshipped" but simply "venerated". Of course, what really is the difference? Does one 'worship' on both knees, but 'venerate' only on one? But still the conscious assertion of devotional limitation was a royal Slap in Her Face. But tell a baby that it should not worship its Mother but only venerate Her. We have doctrine being written by the Paulist Bishops who were happy enough to surrender to the Protestants so that they could join the same Country Clubs. They don't care about True Religion... never did... they believed in Paul. Their rejection of Mary would have been more complete, but then the Religious Orders, the sourse of most enthusiasm in The Church, would have flatly rebelled and and left the Bishops with a loss to their incomes, and they couldn't have that...

Anyway, Mary is a Virgin. She does not have a 'vigina'.... not a physical one. If one reads Anne Catherine Emmerich, Catholicism's foremost Visionary, one finds that Mary gave birth to Christ by materializing Him out of her body. Indeed, Mary's Parents and the Priesthood who supported that Holy Family KNEW that Mary was the Promised Mother of the Messiah BECAUSE she was born without a vigina -- a Virgin by her very construction and design. Her having a baby would necessarily be a Miracle.

When Mary became pregnant and Joseph became huffy and decided to leave, the Angel Gabriel came to him and that was what the Angel explained. So Joseph to a peak under the covers when Mary lay sleeping, and he stayed. She had been faithful and the Baby was of God because, well, there simply was no other explanation.

Now, I know this is difficult of proof, but the next time you have a Dream Vision of the Feminine Goddess, if one has a private interview, then ask for a glance under the Divine Skirts, and you will find something reminicient of a Divine Barby Doll. Yes, there is a space between the Legs, but certainly no big gaping vigina.

She is a Virgin not from choice, but because that is What She IS.

Dream Mask argues like a Protestant. Looks at all the Chapters and Verses, and then piles them up and answers with returning burst of more chapter and verse. All sense of Essay is lost as everything is mere reaction and response, retaining a bad plan from the original Poster, and making it worse by doubling it.

Here one should argue in a Ciivilized Manner, realizing that nobody keenly read all of that original garbage anyway. At most people glanced it down and took the general feel of it. THAT would be the thing to argue against... not every silly detail, but the Intent and Agenda of it. And that could be done with an original essay.

But still, look, people praise Dream Mask though admitting they did not bother even to read it.

Now I am not saying the details should be ignored. No. Not at all. But ONLY the details that are important enough to be covered in a self-contained and internally coherent Essay. This is a blessing as it allows one to forget and ignore every trivial discrepancy. All of the boring stuff. One should READ an essay, and then in arguing against it, NEVER LOOK BACK, but just argue against what had been striking enough to remember. n

I'd just like to add that in case I've never mentioned it before I checked out that website. Dreammask I find has been missing the point, and taking down a strawman, though I didn;t read everything from what I ascertained it appears that way.

This website claims satanism is not an invention by Anton LeVay, and yet here they are teaching the same shit he was, that Christianity took all the ancient religions and associated them with Satan, and so as a reactionary movement these satanist, as opposed to LeVayists which do the exact same thing, label themselves Satanists in order to put it back in the Christians faces. It's Deja Vu all over again, people choosing to worship the ancient religions in an anti-christian way.

This site preaches Paganism, and just calls it something that's more offensive to Christians.

So yeah... MYAH!

And Leo Volont, that's why I prefer the South American form of Catholicism. I like to keep my mind open to different beliefs but it always seemed to m e like the Europeans failed, then conquered the Americans and made them switch over, and then the Americans that did switch over got it right. For instance black churches preached love while white churches preached segregation and infallibility. South American churches loved Mary over God and prayed to her more often, seeing her as the empathetic one, and what's more, to do one on your thing about Paul telling people all sins are forgiven as long as they're catholic and follow catholic traditions and raise catholic kids... well the general South American take on that is rather different as well.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

And Leo Volont, that's why I prefer the South American form of Catholicism. I like to keep my mind open to different beliefs but it always seemed to m e like the Europeans failed, then conquered the Americans and made them switch over, and then the Americans that did switch over got it right. For instance black churches preached love while white churches preached segregation and infallibility. South American churches loved Mary over God and prayed to her more often, seeing her as the empathetic one...

[/b]

Yes, indeed. I really think the Capital of the Church should move to the Quadalupe Shrine in Mexico City. The Sanctity and Effect of that Holy Apparition far exceeds anything that legend attributes to Rome, and since Rome collapsed as the Capital of an Empire it has merely been a fossilized bone, a remnant of History, and has ever since been in reality nothing more than a pack of thieves, a playground for the corrupt, and a center for revolution and fascism, swinging from one side to the other and never bothering to stop in the middle. And when Rome elected an Ex-Nazi, a Cardinal who had purged the decency out of the Church of South America by appointing a full slate of Reactionary Right Wingers to be Heads of the Latin Church, well, the People should have taken things into their own hands and declared their own Church on the model of the Byzantines, the Greeks, the Coptics. Screw Rome and its ex-Nazi Pope Rat.

Honestly, people should read the History of the Apparition of Guadalupe. In just 10 years there were 10 Million Conversions... nearly every single one brought to the Church by the Native Don Juan, who had witnessed the Appartion. And everywhere he went, he was followed by the Miracles and obvious Patronage of this Divine Mary. Indeed, the people of Mexico are often poor , and so pilgrimage to the Shrine in Mexicao City often imposes a hardship, but in times of great need or desparation, they make the trip. And then in every case, we hear of subsequent miracles. Yes, in Latin America, the Religion of Mary is the Last Living and Active Religion in the World, one where children are not told that the Age of Miracles is past and gone.

So let Rome be damned. And let Pope Rat go down with that stinking ship of filth.

Yes, Portugal, Polland, Hersegovina and Ireland and some other districts may still be Marian Catholic, but let them be the other continent... the satellite believers. The Latin Church has been the demographic center of the Catholic World for 5 centuries now, while being denegrated to the Political backwaters. That has to change.

Welcome to the boards Dream Mask! I enjoyed your cogent responses.

Hope you don't tire of our generous demeanor.

Originally Posted by Leo

Dream Mask argues like a Protestant. Looks at all the Chapters and Verses, and then piles them up and answers with returning burst of more chapter and verse. All sense of Essay is lost as everything is mere reaction and response, retaining a bad plan from the original Poster, and making it worse by doubling it.

Here one should argue in a Ciivilized Manner, realizing that nobody keenly read all of that original garbage anyway. At most people glanced it down and took the general feel of it. THAT would be the thing to argue against... not every silly detail, but the Intent and Agenda of it. And that could be done with an original essay.

But still, look, people praise Dream Mask though admitting they did not bother even to read it.

Now I am not saying the details should be ignored. No. Not at all. But ONLY the details that are important enough to be covered in a self-contained and internally coherent Essay. This is a blessing as it allows one to forget and ignore every trivial discrepancy. All of the boring stuff. One should READ an essay, and then in arguing against it, NEVER LOOK BACK, but just argue against what had been striking enough to remember. n
[/b]

Thanks for the suggestion, but seeing as people did compliment my tactics, and I may choose to respond as I desire, I see no reason to change my argumentative tactics on this particular topic. I have found that it often is most convincing to argue each point than it is to throw in a red herring and argue something less connected to the topic. I take essays like that posted as a philosophical argument (obviously a poor one, considering the layout and points made), but a philosophical one nonetheless. I therefore respond accordingly. I argue with the points I disagree with. In a philosophical argument, it does nothing at all to argue a different point altogether. It simply states another alternative. Who cares about the alternative? There are thousands of alternatives one could argue. Instead of pulling up alternatives or arguing the gist of the argument, one should point out all discrepancies, all errors of logic, and finally conclude by stating that the argument is fatally flawed in itself.

I personally think I should look back at the argument to ensure that I am hitting all the correct points. What good does it do to my argument to do a quick read-through and begin writing an almost completely unrelated post according to what I think the author might possibly be talking about. Wouldn't it be better to read carefully and argue just as carefully? Otherwise you'll be sloppy and people will point out your oversights with ease. For a longer argument, perhaps a book, I might skim over most of the writing, highlighting or transcribing anything I find interesting or of import, and address those points. I do not, however, put away the book and work solely from my recollection of skimming it.

Of course most people didn't spend much time reading the original essay, and those same people probably didn't spend much time reading my response. That's not the point. The point is that I correctly addressed what I felt necessary to address (plus some). I could easily written a short, precise opinion of the original essay, thus pointing out my perspective, but people wouldn't take it as seriously. People take you more seriously if you put some thought and effort into your philosophical arguments.

Originally Posted by dreammask

Thanks for the suggestion, but seeing as people did compliment my tactics, and I may choose to respond as I desire, I see no reason to change my argumentative tactics on this particular topic. I have found that it often is most convincing to argue each point than it is to throw in a red herring and argue something less connected to the topic. I take essays like that posted as a philosophical argument (obviously a poor one, considering the layout and points made), but a philosophical one nonetheless. I therefore respond accordingly. I argue with the points I disagree with. In a philosophical argument, it does nothing at all to argue a different point altogether. It simply states another alternative. Who cares about the alternative? There are thousands of alternatives one could argue. Instead of pulling up alternatives or arguing the gist of the argument, one should point out all discrepancies, all errors of logic, and finally conclude by stating that the argument is fatally flawed in itself.

I personally think I should look back at the argument to ensure that I am hitting all the correct points. What good does it do to my argument to do a quick read-through and begin writing an almost completely unrelated post according to what I think the author might possibly be talking about. Wouldn't it be better to read carefully and argue just as carefully? Otherwise you'll be sloppy and people will point out your oversights with ease. For a longer argument, perhaps a book, I might skim over most of the writing, highlighting or transcribing anything I find interesting or of import, and address those points. I do not, however, put away the book and work solely from my recollection of skimming it.

Of course most people didn't spend much time reading the original essay, and those same people probably didn't spend much time reading my response. That's not the point. The point is that I correctly addressed what I felt necessary to address (plus some). I could easily written a short, precise opinion of the original essay, thus pointing out my perspective, but people wouldn't take it as seriously. People take you more seriously if you put some thought and effort into your philosophical arguments.
[/b]

furry woodland creature christmas adventure!
cuddly teddy bear: "Hail Satan!"

Originally Posted by dreammask

Jah, God is a woman, god dammit. I wish people would take that into account for once, Leo and I both know the anticrhist, anti-feminist Paul who disgraced the word of jesus decided God would be a man because he couldn't put his faith in a giant vagina.
[/b]

dude feminists piss me off alot. its like... u wanna vote? i dont care. its like... just get in the goddamn kitchen and make me some pie.

Originally Posted by dreammask

Thanks for the suggestion, but seeing as people did compliment my tactics,[/b]

They flattered you, but didn't read anything.

And you are now fooled into being unreadable for the rest of your life.

Well, let me offset the flattery and call you the worst of boring drudges, without a mind of your own. All you can do is react, and nitpick, but you can't create an idea of your own.

To write your own essay is apparently way beyond your abilities.

There. NOW, can you be impartial.

When you DO write an essay I will promise to lie and tell you it is WONDERFUL so that flattery may encourage you in the proper direction, if flattery is the only thing that has any influence on you.