the dictionary and encyclopedia disagree with you magistraY.


Satanism: Definition from Answers.com


Just as christians are followers of christ (thus the name) satanists are followers of satan. Linguistically it makes no sense what you're saying. It is antithetical to reason to oppose religion by being religious.

And Catholics are cannibals who eat the body and drink the blood of Christ.

And all witches worship the devil (say that at a Wiccan cocktail party and see how it goes.)

And I was raised being told "ain't" isn't a word because it wasn't in the dictionary.

Shall I go on?

Those who cannot comprehend metaphor in terms of religion, or go to the most traditional sources for their information,

are bound to be left behind when new ideas and concepts evolve and become the norm.

The IRS, The Army Chaplain's Handbook, and The Encyclopedia of American Religion DO see it my way, and since they and not the dictionary exercise some legal control, I'll settle for them.

I fail to see your point. Are you trying to say that because people had misconceptions in the past that they have them now? The problem is i'm not talking about 'people' i'm talking about the dictionary.

if by traditional sources you mean the dictionary...

I see it as people misapplying and misusing the word by calling their beliefs 'satanism' when it does not apply to what satanism actually means. Why would anyone purposely do that? For shock value perhaps. To take something that is evil personified from one religion and then name your system of beliefs after it, can be done for no other reason than for protest.

If i am wrong then give me one legitimate reason to call your beliefs "satanism" if you do not believe in Satan.

you are a fool if you believe law power has any control over definitions. We could pass a law making "Dog" actually mean "cat", but it still would be incorrect.
It's partially your fault that people have misconceptions about satanism for calling it something that it is not.

A *** is a bunch of sticks. It says so in the dictionary.

Gay is happy.

I could go on. Words change meanings all the time.

Besides, you picked wiki's answers.com and used the English translation of a HEBREW word, not a name, that means, originally : the opposer, the accuser, and the adversary---which is exactly what a Satanist is:

One who opposes the status quo and integrity of "traditional" religions.

You also seem a tad hostile. Blaming me, personally, for misconceptions that have existed since our church was founded and I was three years old.

Your hostility, in fact your reaction, is another reason we like the metaphor--those insecure or frightened by new ideas, or rigidly maintain the ideology of the very religion they claim to above (Christianity) are precisely those we like to keep at arms length. They deny Christianity, deny religion, but then depend on the views established by the Christian majority.

The first image we have of Satan in the Bible is when he offers wisdom.

Satanists believe in study, not worship. We shock the Judeo-Christian-Islamic herd by embracing the very thing they are taught to fear: Knowledge.

They should be shocked. Anyone who feels a god should punish them for learning deserves to be shocked....at themselves, for voluntarily supporting ignorance.

Shock value is a form of protest. We do not believe in signs and placards, in sit-ins and physical forms of protest. We use shock value to make a protest. As I pointed out--we are the accusers, the opposers, and the adversaries of all religions that deny all that is beautiful and life affirming about humanity: Wisdom, self-pride, sexuality, indulgence, and true justice.

As for evil personified--re-read the Bible. It is genocidal, woman hating, and child-abusing (spare the rod....)

So, by their standards, and they are the majority, we are evil and the metaphor is appropriate.

Regardless, our bible, our literature, as well as The FBI's report on Ritual Crime prove that our religion, above all else, is law-abiding. Feel free not to like us, or support us. Feel free to continue being hung up on your lack of metaphorical understanding. Keep feeling superior.

I'd prefer you not play the name-calling game, because it is weak, and then I'd have to say something equally pointless and lame about your lack appropriate punctuation---why should either of us get so personal? By virtue of being here we have agreed to disagree and merely point out our conflicting views.

You've made the point that despite all legal and current proof to the contrary, we must either worship Satan, or be misusing the name Satanist.

If that is all you have to complain about, your job here is done.

PS:
For those looking beyond wikianswers as the be all and end all of fact please check out:

Church of Satan: The Official Web Site

No, I disagree.

I doubt, however, whether we can find common ground here and on this particular issue it is fair to say we've voiced our opinions, and to continue on would be redundant.

Perhaps in another thread there will be more opportunities to discuss other aspects of religious thought.

Y~