Nazis

[Draco_Argentum]

1195728923[/unixtime]]This is why I don't like centralized church organizations. They get run like a business and struggle to survive and thrive rather than adhere to the tenets they were founded on and spread good works and the good news.

Also the bigger an organisation the more internal politics. Who wins the conniving games to rise in power in a large organisation? Asshats. Not always of course, but a willingness to screw over people at key junctures of your career gives you an edge. Shit floats to the top and then gets to direct a powerful force.

[Maj]

The Mormon church in SLC is pretty cool. They stockpiled all kinds of tanks, firearms, food supplies... all so that when the Demons invade, they can fight them off, or at least have a last stand. It's pretty sweet.

I don't know about the weapons - that's not something they ask us to do at church, but they do encourage members to stockpile food (preferably enough to last a year) and emergency supplies. Each district has a storehouse that has everything from blankets to flashlights and batteries to cubic asstons of food. During natural disasters and other times of trouble, the church freely distributes to people affected.

[JonSetanta]

But that's the thing, Calibron... the organization becomes self-sustaining, with or without the original founders or true intention of original purpose. People come and go but the conglomerate endures, snowballing more people until enacted upon by external forces.

I didn't mean trash in a literal sense, but that by running around on foot attempting to convert others to the same religion such behavior stirs up conflict and strife. People generally don't want to change religions just because that sale was made to them, they will change when necessary and if their current mindset fails to provide them internal structure and pleasure.
"Faith-spreading" practices like that of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Hare Krishnas is redundant, needless, at times offensive, and.. well.. obnoxious.

[Neeek]

1195691255[/unixtime]]
Neeek: If you read this, since you're the lawyer in these parts, would you tell me... If a church used its tithes to pay for political lobbying, wouldn't it lose its non-profit status?

Answering this question anywhere near correctly and fully would require several months of research and even then would probably not fully (or completely accurately) answer the question.

So I'll just go with "it depends" and leave it at that.

[CalibronXXX]

1195770111[/unixtime]]But that's the thing, Calibron... the organization becomes self-sustaining, with or without the original founders or true intention of original purpose. People come and go but the conglomerate endures, snowballing more people until enacted upon by external forces.

Yeah I know, I was just complaining about that.

[JonSetanta]

Ah. OK!
Yeah seems this thread is just fulla complainin, and not like I'm stating I'm not part of it... <_<
I'm only partially serious about the "pagan revival". It really is just a fantasy. Monotheism has been proven, through icono-Darwinism or whatever to call it, to be an effective unifying method and driving force for conquering smaller cultures. I tip my hat to that.
Doesn't mean it's right, but that's what I see.

[shirak]

Frank, I'd be very interested in some facts to back up your claims. I have yet to see you make a non-informed claim but you start sounding like a zealot yourself. Facts please.

[Koumei]

1195817308[/unixtime]]you start sounding like a zealot yourself.

My life for Aiur! Entaro Adun!

(And of course I know what a zealot actually is. But that's funnier.)

Maj: Trust me. I read it in a Doom novel. That's nearly as reliable as Wiki. They had tanks and stuff, as well as about ten years of supplies. They also tried to infiltrate everything that existed, just to get a heads-up when the world ended.

And the IRS, which, unless I'm mistaken is the tax company, had access to biochemical weapons and flamethrowers.

[CalibronXXX]

1195817308[/unixtime]]Frank, I'd be very interested in some facts to back up your claims. I have yet to see you make a non-informed claim but you start sounding like a zealot yourself. Facts please.

Frank is more than willing to dance on the very edge of truth and make facts bend almost to the point of breaking when it comes to dissing anything similar or related to Christianity.

[shirak]

1195819041[/unixtime]]Frank is more than willing to dance on the very edge of truth and make facts bend almost to the point of breaking when it comes to dissing anything similar or related to Christianity.

I'm a Satanist. I'm perfectly OK with dissing Christianity. I find wordplay an enjoyable challenge. I really don't mind Frank's conversational style. I just find it weird that he hasn't posted his sources yet.

[CalibronXXX]

I've come to understand that declaring yourself a satanist basically means you fully embrace and revel in the human condition in all its vile, petty glory. Is this near the truth?

[Username17]

The Mormons are a secretive and oppressive organization. They do not publish their roster numbers, their finances, or their "secret teachings" - which yes, they do have. Remember, they were not modelled on Scientology, Scientology was modelled on Mormonism.

It is the sandard tactics of Mormons and Scientologists to argue from the standpoint that because their actual teachings are secret that anything other people say about it is a lie. But you know what? When you've dealt with as many ex-members of the organization as I have, the commonalities really add up. And the "We didn't actually publish that so you can't prove we said it" excuse wears awful thin.

--

The Mormon Church was created by a convicted con artist and child molester, Joseph Smith. And I truly have no reason to believe that it has changed. And not just because there are peripheral branches of Mormonism which openly practice polygimy with underage girls to the point that they have extra teenage boys who they leave to fend for themselves in the desert. Not just because I actually know someone who is the daughter of her father's "secret wife" that was sanctioned by the LDS church.

No. I say this because when the half-brother of a very close friend of mine was molesting his twelve year old sister, he nearly got a Dis-Fellowship out of the deal.

I have a lot of bad things to say about Mormonism specifically, and frankly I don't think anyone here wants me to say it. I think most of it violates the CoC we have here, despite the very great leniency that code has.

-Username17

[shirak]

1195820137[/unixtime]]I've come to understand that declaring yourself a satanist basically means you fully embrace and revel in the human condition in all its vile, petty glory. Is this near the truth?

For some people, yes

[Koumei]

I'll never understand Satanism. There are two forms that I know of:

1. Actual worship of Satan, the guy in the Christian Bible. Yeah, because we all want to support the losing team. In said book, he already lost. His source material is "the thing where he gets his ass handed to him." Sure, you could declare that to be false, but then you're saying that the thing that says he exists is false.

Unless Satan was another thing Christianity borrowed/adopted/stole, if only the name, and Satanism refers to the original source. But I have not managed to find anything that says that.

2. Worship of the self. Which is fine. Whatever floats your boat. D&D Clerics do it all the time, after all, and they even get spells out of the deal. But call it something else. Satan doesn't actually seem to fit into this picture.

Any explanation would be awesome, even if it would ruin what I basically find "funny".

[CalibronXXX]

Just for the record, I don't support Mormonism and think that at the very least it is one of the more bat-shit insane religions out there. Even if Mormonism wasn't so...let's say "off"...I still wouldn't support it as a general rule; I'm against the breaking up of the Church into sects, it's counter productive, and really all you need is your local church and a system to loosely confederate them in case something starts persecuting Christians hardcore.

As for Satanism, I can totally understand the self worship aspect of it. If I weren't devoted to The Lord I'd more like than not be all over self worship.

The actual worshiping the devil types I can't understand at all; it makes practically no sense to me whatsoever.

[shirak]

1195825023[/unixtime]]1. Actual worship of Satan

I call these people anti-Christians. Satanists generally laugh loudly whenever the topic comes up. These are guys are fucking idiots.

1195825023[/unixtime]]2. Worship of the self. Which is fine. Whatever floats your boat. D&D Clerics do it all the time, after all, and they even get spells out of the deal. But call it something else. Satan doesn't actually seem to fit into this picture.

Any explanation would be awesome, even if it would ruin what I basically find "funny".

These happened in part for marketing purposes and in part because almost everything that the worship of the self entails is somehow proscribed/frowned upon by the strict "Church" that most people have in mind when they speak of Catholicism. So LaVey chose the ultimate sinner, Satan, as a symbol for all this self-worship stuff.

Basically, you are supposed to refer to your inner self that has been oppressed by Christians values and mores as "Satan" and try to be him. Which I take as "be yourself, only better" and that's how my personal view of Satanism rolls.

[RandomCasualty]

1195821146[/unixtime]]
I have a lot of bad things to say about Mormonism specifically, and frankly I don't think anyone here wants me to say it.

Oh, I want to hear you say it.

[shau]

And the IRS, which, unless I'm mistaken is the tax company, had access to biochemical weapons and flamethrowers.

Which is still not even close to being the weirdest thing in that book.

[Koumei]

shau: Truth. Though the first and second books weren't completely out there. The third is where things just go to crazy town and stop being Doom.

RandomCasualty: Actually... so do I. I'm morbidly curious now.

shirak: That makes a lot of sense, even if I think it should have a different name. Heck, why not let every "Satanist" have their own religion - "Rebecca Hastingsism", "Robert Mootism", "William Snacksism", "Richard Monglerism" and all that.

[Crissa]

Satan isn't actually in the Christian Bible. It's in translations and catechism.

Also... Many churches have violated political donation and support laws - if you have forgotten, we just had a big row over a half-dozen Federal Prosecutors who were fired for doing their jobs. The Attorney General resigned after not being able to explain away that these people were fired for being insufficiently partisan.

It's no joke. The current administration is corrupt above and beyond what Nixon even dreamed of. The Republican Party is corrupt above and beyond anything that has ever happened in our country's history.

Oh, and history does repeat itself. Look up 'Jonestown' or 'The Great Disappointment. Doomsday cults are popular.

And today's doomsday cult says that Jesus will make the world right, no matter how damaged we make it. Which is a wonderful message to those who profit off of destroying our habitat.

-Crissa

[shirak]

Koumei: While that could work, I find it silly. If you ever become a Satanist, feel free to call yourself a Koumeist. After all, personal freedom is a cornerstone of Satanism.

Crissa: AFAIK, the texts refer to "The Adversary" which is what "Satan" means. Neh?

[CalibronXXX]

Personal Freedom

Everyone's a slave to something, be it your responsibilities, your habits, your god, your desires, your emotions, your government, your preconceptions, or, the classic, another person.

Unless of course Buddhism is your bag and you yearn for non-existence(in which case you're still bound by the parameters of not existing). Me, personally, I'm just fine being a slave to the will of the omnipotent, infinitely loving Lord of all creation.

[angelfromanotherpin]

It's almost definitionally impossible to be a slave to what you actually want. That's more the domain of fanatics or addicts.

[CalibronXXX]

I don't think addicts really want the thing they are addicted to, just that they are driven to it by their addiction. The thing they're addicted to may very well may them miserable.

[tzor]

1195877532[/unixtime]]Satan isn't actually in the Christian Bible. It's in translations and catechism.

That's a technical nit pick. "Satan" is a word derived from Hebrew. By the time you get to the New Testament almost all the writings were in the universal language of world trade Koine Greek. (One Gospel was written in Aramaic but was quickly translated to Koine. I'm not sure if an intact original has ever been found, the aramaic nature is derived from its structure.) I think there are perhaps a few words of hebrew in the New Testament, mostly direct quotes from the crucifixion.