Satanic Bible

CivBase wrote:
Yah... because people are fat because they refuse to indulge their pride.

so they need to learn. most of those people also externally attribute their life's problems. and those that don't are happy being fat

KristallNacht wrote:and then indulging in your PRIDE will cause you to return your body to a better condition, so indulging in both your gluttony and pride will balance out.

If you think pride in your self and the indulgence of pride (also known as arrogance) are one and the same, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Furthermore, if the indulgence of pride was all it took to reverse the ill effects of gluttony, explain America's obesity problem. We're some of the most gluttonous, most prideful, and most arrogant people around, and that seems to do us shit all when it comes to not being fat.

KristallNacht wrote:well, 1. lots of people do, and rarely is it emotionally damaging except where cheating is involved.

While lots of people do sleep around, how many people have actually completely separated sex with any value or meaning that it used to have?

KristallNacht wrote:and 2. its still a choice someone else is making. that person is still choosing to sleep with you, so emotional damage done to them is of their making, just as emotional damage done to you is of your making.

Not if there is some expectation for you to not sleep with other people or to keep sleeping with them.

KristallNacht wrote:try all 7 deadly sins.

Well, we've already covered gluttony, and we've covered lust to some degree, but let's recap.

Lust: This vice is basically desiring women sexually. While everyone has lust, to indulge this vice is to basically sleep with every girl you feel lust towards. Aside from the emotional damage we've already discussed, you greatly increase the chances of getting an STD, getting a girl pregnant, etc.

Gluttony: We've covered this one just fine, I think.

Greed: Greed is all about hurting others in order to satisfy your own personal desires, so I don't see how this could possibly be contrued as "harmless."

Sloth: When you are being lazy, you are doing so at the expense of anyone who might be relying on you. Slothfulness at works is at the expense of your employers and their customers. Slothfulness at school is at the expense of the teachers who spend time trying to teach you and possibly your parents/the government/the military or whoever else might be paying if you aren't. Slothfulness in your social life is at the expense of your friends and family. And, when slothfulness gets bad, you begin to fail, and then you either completely fail, which effects those around you, or someone steps in and tries to hold you up, which heavily effects that person.

Wrath: Ya...you did know what the seven deadly sins were, before claiming that all seven were harmless vices, right?

Envy: Well, if you're really really good at being jealous all the time of everything, and never acting on it, then go ahead and be jealous. But considering that almost no one is, this one is bound to manifest itself in some harmful way.

Pride: As before, this is not being proud of yourself for accomplishing something, but being arrogant. I think a better term for this deadly sin is hubris. Didn't hubris piss off everyone in Rome and get Caesar killed?

KristallNacht wrote:1 chapter of the Book of Lucifer. most of the chapters focus on single ideas.

maybe you should try reading it, rot. since all your questions are answered right in the book.

My questions? That's one question so far that I've asked, and I almost doubt you answered it completely truthfully. If the keyword of Satanism is indulgence, then despite your claims of indulgences being harmless, Satanism covers only loving those who deserve your love and never turning the other cheek all the time, even if it doesn't use those exact words the entire way through.

And, you still are ignoring my real questions. I'm happy to tear apart these meager arguments about indulgences being harmless and to point out how very short sighted you have to be to actually believe that, but I am still waiting for an answer. If you are not going to continue to argue about Christianity, we both know it has nothing to do with the relevance to this thread, so you can either take back all of the ridiculous claims you made, or you can defend your claims.

Rot, how about, you read it, and then we can discuss. because seriously, everything you're even talking about is covered.


and NEVER did I say Indulgence was ultimately harmless. I said that as long as it hurts no one, there is zero reason not to indulge.

KristallNacht wrote:Rot, how about, you read it, and then we can discuss. because seriously, everything you're even talking about is covered.


and NEVER did I say Indulgence was ultimately harmless. I said that as long as it hurts no one, there is zero reason not to indulge.

You seriously avoiding his true question, your not fooling anyone.

Death no more wrote:You seriously avoiding his true question, your not fooling anyone.

To address the bigger issue of ignorance.

KristallNacht wrote:Rot, how about, you read it, and then we can discuss. because seriously, everything you're even talking about is covered.

Oh? Why not enlighten me. Don't let me stop you from whipping out some specific passages to support your arguments and enlighten me.

KristallNacht wrote:and NEVER did I say Indulgence was ultimately harmless. I said that as long as it hurts no one, there is zero reason not to indulge.

You just contradicted yourself. You admitted that indulgences are ultimately harmful, but then said that if an indulgence is not harmful, then you should indulge. By that logic, you should never indulge!

KristallNacht wrote:To address the bigger issue of ignorance.

The key difference, NT, is that I am not claiming to know everything about the Book of Satan, just the core values based on the passages you felt were important enough to put in the main thread. You, on the other hand, claim to know everything about the Bible and Christianity, but your actual Biblical knowledge is even worse than my rudimentary knowledge of the Book of Satan. You might as well response to my real questions. Avoiding them at this point is so clearly a cop out and attempt to drop the subject without admitting defeat that I'm sure even people who would normally side with you know it.

Rot, did you do speech and debate?

And if so... What were your NFL points.

I haven't done speech and debate, and the only acronym for NFL that I am aware of has something to do with football (...National Football League? fuck if I know).

The main problem I see with this book is that it is based soley on logic. That sounds pretty good at first, but there are some things that logic gives you the wrong answer on.

What would that book say to this, NT? You are a jew in a concentration camp. The SS just made you walk up a 1000ft tall flight of stairs with a boulder strapped to your back. Now you have the choice to either jump, or push off the person in front of you. What would you do?

...

Nocbl2 wrote:...

How insightfull...

And are you trying to come to a conclusion if the book is reasonable? Well of course, thats what the poll ask. Well I can't really tell who is arguing for what, and why.

CivBase wrote:The main problem I see with this book is that it is based soley on logic. That sounds pretty good at first, but there are some things that logic gives you the wrong answer on.

What would that book say to this, NT? You are a jew in a concentration camp. The SS just made you walk up a 1000ft tall flight of stairs with a boulder strapped to your back. Now you have the choice to either jump, or push off the person in front of you. What would you do?

You may not recall, but NT is the guy who worships Hitler and thinks Jews belong in a concentration camp, so he'd push the guy in front of him.

And Nazis are brought in to an internet debate. What a surprise.

Angatar wrote:And Nazis are brought in to an internet debate. What a surprise.

You shut your communist mouth.


Surprise surprise

Death no more wrote:

Angatar wrote:And Nazis are brought in to an internet debate. What a surprise.

You shut your communist mouth.


Surprise surprise

Better red than dead.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I haven't done speech and debate, and the only acronym for NFL that I am aware of has something to do with football (...National Football League? fuck if I know).

National Forensics League ( no it is not about cutting people open)

You should do it, but I guess it is too late. Your in college aren't you?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

CivBase wrote:The main problem I see with this book is that it is based soley on logic. That sounds pretty good at first, but there are some things that logic gives you the wrong answer on.

What would that book say to this, NT? You are a jew in a concentration camp. The SS just made you walk up a 1000ft tall flight of stairs with a boulder strapped to your back. Now you have the choice to either jump, or push off the person in front of you. What would you do?

You may not recall, but NT is the guy who worships Hitler and thinks Jews belong in a concentration camp, so he'd push the guy in front of him.

Hitler was a good lier. Not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, but had speech skills like Obama, Lincoln, and Ghandi put together. To bad he killed himself.

Angatar wrote:And Nazis are brought in to an internet debate. What a surprise.

To be fair, NT is essentially a professing Nazi, so no Godwin's Law for you.

Zaki90 wrote:Hitler was a good lier. Not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, but had speech skills like Obama, Lincoln, and Ghandi put together. To bad he killed himself.

I don't consider empty charisma to be the best of qualities. More like too bad he didn't kill himself sooner.

I am not ready to dip back into this convo again, as I have not yet finished reading the Book of Satan, but this is worth addressing.

[quote= "Rotaretilbo"]

Zaki90 wrote:Hitler was a good lier. Not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, but had speech skills like Obama, Lincoln, and Ghandi put together. To bad he killed himself.

I don't consider empty charisma to be the best of qualities. More like too bad he didn't kill himself sooner.[/quote]
Hitler was, quite honestly, a genius.
His command of troops and attention to detail gave him both grand strategic vision and the ability to micromanage the armies down to the company level (Not too sharp on the army level, though). His insight into politics and human nature was the driving force behind his oratory.

Unfortunately, he was also racist to an extreme (Influenced by Goebbels) and certifiably insane after 1943. Realizing that everyone actually IS out to get you is not good for the psyche.

So, I mourn for the potential he had, and the means he used his abilities for.

rasq wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:I am not ready to dip back into this convo again, as I have not yet finished reading the Book of Satan, but this is worth addressing.

[quote= "Rotaretilbo"]

Zaki90 wrote:Hitler was a good lier. Not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, but had speech skills like Obama, Lincoln, and Ghandi put together. To bad he killed himself.

I don't consider empty charisma to be the best of qualities. More like too bad he didn't kill himself sooner.

Hitler was, quite honestly, a genius.
His command of troops and attention to detail gave him both grand strategic vision and the ability to micromanage the armies down to the company level (Not too sharp on the army level, though). His insight into politics and human nature was the driving force behind his oratory.

Unfortunately, he was also racist to an extreme (Influenced by Goebbels) and certifiably insane after 1943. Realizing that everyone actually IS out to get you is not good for the psyche.

So, I mourn for the potential he had, and the means he used his abilities for.

But its Hitler.... I would rather see him fuck up and WW2 end sooner than let genocide happen. Dude are you a fucking Nazi?

Death no more wrote:

rasq wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:I am not ready to dip back into this convo again, as I have not yet finished reading the Book of Satan, but this is worth addressing.

[quote= "Rotaretilbo"]

Zaki90 wrote:Hitler was a good lier. Not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, but had speech skills like Obama, Lincoln, and Ghandi put together. To bad he killed himself.

I don't consider empty charisma to be the best of qualities. More like too bad he didn't kill himself sooner.

Hitler was, quite honestly, a genius.
His command of troops and attention to detail gave him both grand strategic vision and the ability to micromanage the armies down to the company level (Not too sharp on the army level, though). His insight into politics and human nature was the driving force behind his oratory.

Unfortunately, he was also racist to an extreme (Influenced by Goebbels) and certifiably insane after 1943. Realizing that everyone actually IS out to get you is not good for the psyche.

So, I mourn for the potential he had, and the means he used his abilities for.

But its Hitler.... I would rather see him fuck up and WW2 end sooner than let genocide happen. Dude are you a fucking Nazi?

You can still appreciate Hitler without being a nazi.

You can appreciate his mind, but not so much his morals. Now, back on subject.

Angatar wrote:And Nazis are brought in to an internet debate. What a surprise.

Meh, it was the first example that popped into my mind.

Death no more wrote:

rasq wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:I am not ready to dip back into this convo again, as I have not yet finished reading the Book of Satan, but this is worth addressing.

[quote= "Rotaretilbo"]

Zaki90 wrote:Hitler was a good lier. Not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, but had speech skills like Obama, Lincoln, and Ghandi put together. To bad he killed himself.

I don't consider empty charisma to be the best of qualities. More like too bad he didn't kill himself sooner.

Hitler was, quite honestly, a genius.
His command of troops and attention to detail gave him both grand strategic vision and the ability to micromanage the armies down to the company level (Not too sharp on the army level, though). His insight into politics and human nature was the driving force behind his oratory.

Unfortunately, he was also racist to an extreme (Influenced by Goebbels) and certifiably insane after 1943. Realizing that everyone actually IS out to get you is not good for the psyche.

So, I mourn for the potential he had, and the means he used his abilities for.

But its Hitler.... I would rather see him fuck up and WW2 end sooner than let genocide happen. Dude are you a fucking Nazi?

I bet you voted that this was unreasonable, shout at homeless to get jobs, and tell everyone that wears red a communist.

Probably.

Ignorant bitch.

No, im pretty sure he simply disagrees with its reason, something you should learn when coming to the stunning conclusion that not everyone agrees with you.

And, I am pretty sure it's reasonable to want Hitler to have ruined his own regime and prevent 6 million people from dieing if that isn't too liberally squelching to Hitler's intellectual potential, cause you know, if you disagree with that, then your just some kook who yells at homeless people or people WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU (ahem ahem).

You must think that anyone who countermands what you are saying has absolutely no thinking going on, and is some bible thumping loony or something, what a sad conclusion when going into an argument. Sure, OK, Hitler was brilliant, so what... the smartest person in the world is a bouncer, so what the hell sort of point is this to raise.

Ringleader wrote:No, im pretty sure he simply disagrees with its reason, something you should learn when coming to the stunning conclusion that not everyone agrees with you.

And, I am pretty sure it's reasonable to want Hitler to have ruined his own regime and prevent 6 million people from dieing if that isn't too liberally squelching to Hitler's intellectual potential, cause you know, if you disagree with that, then your just some kook who yells at homeless people or people WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU (ahem ahem).

You must think that anyone who countermands what you are saying has absolutely no thinking going on, and is some bible thumping loony or something, what a sad conclusion when going into an argument. Sure, OK, Hitler was brilliant, so what... the smartest person in the world is a bouncer, so what the hell sort of point is this to raise.

You wrote 3 paragraphs and attempted to use big words to counter me, then told me I am right.

Nice.