Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to ATHEISTS ARE NOT OUT TO DESTROY RELIGIONS YOU KNOW
Oddy
You don't agree that a group 'should be judged fully on its beliefs and its actions' and not by its name?
Do you not read my comments?
I have to figure you don't, since you then go on to agree that names are unimportant and absurd.
You have yet to be able to see beyond those theological constructs if you can not get beyond the use of the name Satan. if you see the name Satan as only being evil, then you are trapping yourself by one group's theological constructs and are not allowing for any form of true spiritual growth.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 29, 2006 at 4:26 PM
| link to this | reply
And Kooka….I’m going to try and write a post later tonight
explaining “ajlkhjlk” in a different way, based upon the Platonic levels of understanding. If you have time, please drop by my blog and read it and let me know what you think.
posted by
telemachus
on December 16, 2006 at 2:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka….
Actually no, I don’t agree with that! I think it is absurd. The reality is that even a bizarre name like “ajlkhjlk ” is absurd. You see, the whole point of that entire argument was to get people to see beyond theological constructs and perceive the ultimate righteousness of spiritual truths, like some you’ve mentioned: peace, serenity, integrity, honesty, justice, etc. You see, the reality is that such righteousness transcends names. Names will always be changing and evolving contextual references. Even a remote name like “ajlkhjlk ” will eventually develop such preconceived perception. It is that it is! Such truths are transcendent, immutable, and everlasting. They cannot be confined within common human language.
posted by
telemachus
on December 16, 2006 at 2:11 PM
| link to this | reply
And Oddy
I don't insist on using either Satan of Christianity. Those names are used by the people of those religions. Ask Christians to stop using Christ and God and just change the name to "ajlkhjlk".
it is amazing that I have to defend beliefs I do not even believe in. You need to stop focusing on the names of the deities and look at the beliefs themselves. The Church of Satan should not be judged as being good or evil because of the name of its deity. It should be judged fully on its beliefs and its actions.
OD you not agree with this?
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 16, 2006 at 1:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Oddy
The exact same thing can be said about Christianity. So no one should call them selves Christians either according to your logic here.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 16, 2006 at 1:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka….yes, I agree with you that the name Satan involves preconceived
ritual and mythology. That is precisely why it can never serve as an untainted term to represent spiritual truths. I’m sorry, but it is just too marred in the conceptualization of evil and badness about the world. Why do you insist on using it?
posted by
telemachus
on December 16, 2006 at 1:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Oddy
"I have not attempted here to suggest the use of any terminology associated with preconceived dogma, ritual, theology, or mythology."
If that is true, then why do you keep talking about the name Satan being evil, since that only comes from "terminology associated with preconceived dogma, ritual, theology, or mythology."
You said "It would just be problematic to change the focus of Satan from one of evil to one supporting beautiful truths."
All of what I just talked about are the beliefs of those who follow the Church of Satan. Are they evil beliefs or are they good beliefs? Where is the focus of their beliefs?
If “ajlkhjlk” is suppose to be untainted, then who can the one who is trying to start the movement have his views be so tainted by the Christian faith? if you can not grow beyond the name Satan to the see the value that is there, then you are never going to achieve your “ajlkhjlk”.
Right now you are proving to me that "ajlkhjlk" can never work because of people like you more than anything else. it is not accepting or all inclusive, but about as fully exclusive as any religion gets.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 16, 2006 at 1:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka…you are throwing accusations at me from out of the blue?
I did not suggest the things you are saying. Are you O.K.?
posted by
telemachus
on December 16, 2006 at 12:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka, I disagree with what you’ve said here.
I have not attempted here to suggest the use of any terminology associated with preconceived dogma, ritual, theology, or mythology. On the contrary, I informed you of the purposeful selection of “ajlkhjlk” as a term that would be untainted by historical stigma or dogma. Why can you not similarly acquiesce to the use of a neutral term?
posted by
telemachus
on December 16, 2006 at 12:51 PM
| link to this | reply
And Oddy
Please show me where in the beliefs held by the Church of ajlkhjlk (Formally called the Church of Satan) you can find this "focus of evil" and not "one supporting beautiful truths".. Or do you believe we should hurt animals outside of survival and food? Maybe you think we should not show respect when we visit people's houses. Might it be that you refuse to think that people should be responsible for themselves. or could it be that we should all make sexual advances without being invited to do so.
Seriously, go and actually show me where the beleifs of this Church are actually evil compared the beliefs of Christianity.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 16, 2006 at 12:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Oddy
Then we'll just call Satan ajlkhjlk and there should be no problem. So what do you have against the Church of ajlkhjlk?
As for being known to be evil throughout eh ages, Christianity still fits the bill just as well as Satan. To show prejudice against one title because there is evil associated with it is foolish and ignorant. If you dislike the use of Satan because some people feel the name to be evil, then you have to dislike the use of Christianity because there are a good amount of people in the world who feel that Christianity is evil. Otherwise you are being hypocritical.
How can you try to promote you load of B.S. that is ajlkhjlk when you yourself are unable to get beyond your 'superficial and preconceived notions' of the name Satan.. You are criticizing that Satanist would not be able to follow ajlkhjlk for the same reason you are unable to look at their beliefs openly and see that value that is there, since I have yet to find a set of religious beliefs that do not have worthy values in their claimed beliefs.
For ajlkhjlk to work you would have to accept the value of ALL religious beliefs first and foremost and be able to respect ALL religious beliefs equally, with no 'superficial and preconceived notions' from anywhere. Don't try to convert me to faith that you clearly are not able to follow yourself.
It is clear that I come much closer to accepting and living up to what you claim ajlkhjlk is all about then you do. You are trapped with one's religions views and refuse to grow beyond that set of beliefs.
I really wish I could help you free your mind and open up your understanding. It must be so cold and dark to keep yourself so trapped and blind to the world.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 16, 2006 at 12:37 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka…..as I’ve said, the issue at hand is less about what
any particular Satanic sect should choose to, or not to, believe, and more about the problems of the historical Satanic persona in both the religious and secular world. It would just be problematic to change the focus of Satan from one of evil to one supporting beautiful truths….and really, why do it. That is exactly the reason why ajlkhjlk was created, to establish a term that is void of superficial and preconceived notions about what it stands for. Hence looms the unexplained motive of why any such satanic practitioner would chose to adhere to this ridiculous contradiction.
posted by
telemachus
on December 16, 2006 at 11:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Oddy, check this link out
My guess is you won't believe a word of it, but it does answer your questions better than I could.
According to them I could never be a Satanist because I can not believe in Satan. Just as I can not believe in Christ or God.
So what is wrong with a group which believes in 'the principles of creativity, beauty, freedom, courtesy, tolerance, and pleasure.' Those really are such evil., anti-Christian concepts ain't they?
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 14, 2006 at 5:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Oddy
No, the majority of the world does NOT associate evil with Satan, since the vast majority of the world does not believe in Satan. Satan is a CHRISTIAN concept. An equal amount of people in the world associate Christianity with evil. So according to your logic no one should associate themselves with Christianity either.
Those who follow the Church of Satan do NOT believe their Satan to be evil. They do not believe what they do is evil. It is their beliefs that matter, not someone else's. Or do you wish to say that Christianity is just as evil as Satan?
Oh, and everything you listed as being a part of Satan worshippers is NOT part of the Church of Satan. That is all a bunch of B.S. religious propaganda. While such things do happen all around the world, it has nothing to do with the Church of Satan jsut as the actions Hitler took had nothing to do with his Catholic upbringing.
Basically you are refusing to look at the reality of it all and are instead hiding behind the lies and propaganda created by iconoclastic Christians who wish to tear down any religion that is not theirs. As I said, go and look at the values of the Church of Satan without your preconceived ideas about Satan and find for me where they are any worse than Christians.
And I don't ski.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 14, 2006 at 4:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka……you have written a great deal here without addressing the premise
I’ve laid out before you and that is the question as to why anyone in the world would ever want to adhere to the name of Satan, in any fashion, if they truly stand for morality? The real fundamental truth is that the vast majority of the world associates evil with Satan, so why would anyone that is good want to embrace that symbol? It makes no sense!
Additionally, there is much evil that has indeed been found associated with Satanic worshipers, including self mutilation, graveyard vandalism, animal mutilation, vile occultism practices, murder, etc. All the world over, for centuries and centuries, men have used the symbol of Satan to exemplify all that is wrong with the world. It would just be totally stupid for someone to say they are satanic moralists! It just does not work! Like I said, it’s like trying to market a perfume with the name of “stink”. Who’s stupid enough to do that sort of thing in the first place and besides that, who’s stupid enough to listen to it? Can’t we talk about something else? This is crazy.
Are you gonna be going up to ski slopes any this winter?
posted by
telemachus
on December 14, 2006 at 3:38 PM
| link to this | reply
How about this then Oddy
We'll just rename Satan as 'ajlkhjlk' . Since those who follow the church of Satan will tell you that their idea of Satan lives up to 'ajlkhjlk' as far as they are concerned.. Just because YOUR beliefs are unable to get past the name and accept the positive in their beliefs, does not mean there is none. Less than half the world believes in Satan you know. You want to destroy The Church of Satan, I mean the Church of ajlkhjlk, just because of YOUR preconceived beliefs about the name Satan. Yet I am being stubborn if I dislike you using 'ajlkhjlk' as nothing more than you renaming your concept of God in order to dodge the implication that go with the name. Or is the name more important than the beliefs?
Are you really so blind that you do not see your hypocrisy?
I blocked you once because you did nothing but insult me and refuses to even try to show me the least amount of respect. Although you never understood what it was you were doing and are still playing dumb about it. You are blind to what real spirituality is and are going to unable to ever understand it until you break away from the dogma you have trapped yourself in. You show this time and time again. You preach you load of B.S. that is 'ajlkhjlk', while doing all you can to show that 'ajlkhjlk' is only what you hold to be good and can not reflect the views or morals of anyone else.
Seriously, study the Church of 'ajlkhjlk's' beliefs without your prejudices about the real name of the group and tell me what is negative or wrong with those beliefs. In truth they are very close to the beliefs of Christian.
You need to wake up and see that you concept of Satan is one group's beliefs about a character with said name and that you will find a great deal of people around the world who will tell you that Christianity is 'nothing but filth that oozes out of those who harden themselves against their conscience and elect to promote dissention about the world'.
The greatest hurdle for you is to stop trying to force everyone to see the world from your POV and start actually trying to see it from other people point of view. Take what you say and turn it around and see if it fits from any other perspective.
You keep on tearing down the beliefs on one group because the name of their deity was used by your religion as a bad guy. Even showing the true origin and meaning of the term 'Satan' as used in the Old Testament.
As far as I am concerned the title the reflects the greatest evil that the greatest threat to freedom and peace and goodness in this world is' Conservative Fundamentalist". So by your logic, anyone using those words to describe themselves are painting themselves to be evil and fowl?
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 14, 2006 at 2:37 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka….your refusal to recognize that Satan is widely recognized
about the world as evil is quite ridiculous. Why would anyone want to embrace Satan as a symbol if they wish to support goodness? That would be no different than naming a new perfume “feces”. LOL!
Hypocrite? Weak understanding? A lot to learn? Preconceived ideas? Trapped? This is the iconoclastic verbiage that you throw about when you cannot step up to the plate and address the issue at hand. Oh yeah, I guess the next thing you’ll do is block me like the other Iconoclastic blogger did! Well go ahead! Then you can wallow around in your blog like the other Iconoclast, pretending that you’ve made some sort of point, only because you’ve refused to hear the other side of the argument. That is just about as ridiculous as trying to erect Satan as a symbol for goodness! Please, try to get realistic!
Listen, no one in their right mind is going to accept the ridiculous premise that the symbol of Satan should serve as a proper foundation for basic principals of truth like integrity, compassion, honesty, peace, and serenity. On the contrary, Satan represents the very opposite of these things in virtually every legitimate religion. Even outside of religion, in the secular world, Satan stands as a symbol of evil. And to be perfectly frank with you, I have no desire, nor intention, to tolerate the opposite of goodness because it is WRONG! If you choose to support such things, than you might just as well wish for your boys to grow up to be untrustworthy, war-like, greedy, liars! Is that what you want for them?
You need to wake up and recognize that Satan is nothing but the vile filth that oozes out of those who harden themselves against their conscience and elect to promote dissention about the world.
posted by
telemachus
on December 14, 2006 at 8:16 AM
| link to this | reply
Oddy
So you openly ridicule one set of religious beliefs just because the entity they worship was given a bad slant by your religion. Very few religions (Mostly the Christian based ones) believe in Satan or the Devil after all. As I have tried to point out to you many times before, Christianity is frowned upon as being just as bad by a great deal of people in the world. if we are to base the goodness of religion based off of people perception of said religion, Christianity would fair no better than the Church of Satan. After all the Church of Satan does not see their Satan as being evil, just the Christians do not see their beliefs as being evil. I know for a fact that there are many who would claim that to say that Christianity is not veil and promoting of evil ways is just as unsupportable as you claim the Church of Satan's value is.
Until you can get over your preconceived ideas and actually start to understand the value that all religious beliefs have no matter what, you will be trapped and will never be able to reach the level of spirituality you claim to be reaching for.
You keep proving to me that you have a much weaker understanding of spirituality and such than I do. You really do need to grow some and stop being so 'iconoclastic' towards the Church of Satan.
You really do have a lot to learn if you ever wish to stop sounding like a hypocrite.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 13, 2006 at 7:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka……as I’ve preached constantly on the blogit,
the test should be how close a religion comes to supporting basic spiritual truths, like compassion, integrity, honesty, peacefulness, etc. And as I’ve told you before, the Church of Satan cannot ever hope to ascend in this manner because Satan exemplifies the broad historical context of all that is wrong in the world……People clearly associate Satan with vileness and evil….so anyone truly wishing to exemplify goodness, would never, ever have anything to do with anything that could be said to be Satanic. Satan represents the fitful vileness of transgression against the conscience…..trying to contend otherwise is simply unsupportable.
posted by
telemachus
on December 13, 2006 at 6:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Oddy
I talk about Christians doing it because Christians are doing right in front of my face right now every time I turn around. They are passing laws in the country I live which are designed specifically to take away rights of people who do not live their lifestyle or share their beliefs. Right now here in America you will find no bigger group actively trying to destroy other regions than the Christians. Having such a 'bias' against the Christians who are doing that would be like having a bias about the Nazi party. I sorry if I enjoy freedom and wish for religious freedom to be an actual part of this country. I ma scared for the future if we do not stop this movement as soon as possible. If the Christians who are doing this have their way there will be no freedom left and the only acceptable religion in the U.S.A. will be their form of Christianity.
As always, my problem is not with Christians as a whole, but that active group which is doing all they can to make Christians look as bad as possible. The big problem is that the Christians who wish to have their religion be a personal thing and understand how to show respect to other religions are not speaking but instead defend the actions of these 'iconoclastic' Christians. Why, not because they agree with their ways but because those people are Christians and Christians believe they have to blindly defend other Christians.
Atheists can never hope to be as 'iconoclastic' as the Christians to which I speak of.
I find it interesting that to distract for the actual issue you jump and try to bring up the Muslims in the Middle East. That group was actually much less 'iconoclastic' than the Christians several hundred years ago. They have only recently became as iconoclastic as they are mostly due to economical problems and their leaders using anger towards other religions and societies as the main means to gather followers. The reason why they do not fit with this debate though is because you started talking about how bad the Atheists are here on Blogit. Well I've yet to find any Muslims here on Blogit who are 'iconoclastic', while I have seen many, many Christian bloggers who have been. There are more Christian iconoclastic bloggers here than atheist ones.
As for ridiculing and trying to destroy someone else's beliefs, were you not the one who could not accept than the Church of Satan had some good values just because you could not get over you personal dissemination of the name Satan? If the only reason a religion is bad in your eyes is because the name of the entity their worship just happens to have been given a bad rep in the books of your faith, then you really just do not get it and really should not be trying to make such points until you grow up spiritually enough to break through your personal intolerance.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 13, 2006 at 8:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
I’m not sure you truly feel this way, but your statement appears to reveal a bias against Christians. I mean, aren’t fundamentalist Muslims even more iconoclastic, with their theocratic governments? I just wonder why you would want to single out Christians? I just wonder why anyone has to embark upon a wholesale effort to destroy the beliefs of another? Why can’t people have the freedom to believe what they choose to believe without getting ridiculed or poked fun of?
posted by
telemachus
on December 12, 2006 at 5:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Oddy
I knew it was not about me. Christians are much more iconoclastic than any atheist I know. They are actively trying to destroy any and all sets of religious ideas that are not their own. Why do you think they fear the idea of acceptance and respect for other beliefs so much?
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 11, 2006 at 5:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Believe it or not Kooka, my post was not addressed specifically to you!
I find it quite comical and revealing that you thought that it was. Although you have exhibited iconoclastic tendencies in the past, it is possible that you may have perhaps transcended beyond that mode of thought. On the contrary, there are others here that clearly and unquestionably do have an iconoclastic agenda.
Also, I’m not leaving this comment to start a blog war with you; I just wanted to make certain that you realized that my most recent post was not directed at you personally.
posted by
telemachus
on December 11, 2006 at 5:49 AM
| link to this | reply