>> not that this will matter to anyone, but sometimes I wish we would package
ourselves to be a bit more marketable to the general public, a couple
superficial alterations and we'd be good to go, for instance, our domain name
lucifer.com, I realize that it's supposed to be figurative and symbolic and
all and that it represents a challenge to traditional Xian thought, but why
fight back with "their" terminology?<<
It chases would-be-evangelizers away pretty quickly without having to impose
any censorship to keep the discussion managable. Self-censorship is the best
kind and I think we should encourage evangelizers to practice it. I post and
read several atheist boards on AOL, and they are virtual magnets for the
evangelizers. Unfortunately the only way to keep those boards managable is to
for the hosts to censor the evangelists. It's unfortunate, but it works.
It's nice that we keep a pretty lively, intelligent discussion here without
imposing censorship on others. I think the "lucifer.com" contributes to this
situation.
Furthermore, of all Christian words, I think "Lucifer" is the nicest. It
means "Bringer of Light". So we can bring light, and chase away the
evangelists at the same time. What a nice combo.
I certainly don't concentrate on Lucifer for any metaphorical power like many
Satanists do with Satan, but I do like both the meaning and the reaction the
word "Lucifer" promotes. If knowlege and understanding are evil, then so am
I. However, I think that if anything is good, then knowlege and understanding
must be good.
As far as "Satanism" is concerned. I think it is a little bit over-the-top
and more deliberately in-your-face to Christians. I don't feel any need to be
that way about it, but perhaps some people who have felt more abused by
religion than I, get some sense of protection. I only desire some respectful
distance. I consider myself primarily Humanist, and an admirerer of
individualism (though not as fanatical as Satanists and Objectivists on
selfishness). But for those who have suffered abuse at the hands of religion,
Satanism is the Humanist choice, albeit a perverse one.
To me, Satanists are the dark comedians of the religious world. Sometimes the
most humane thing to do is to laugh.
-Jake
P.S. on that whole Nietche (sp?) inversion of morality thing, I don't buy it.
It is interesting to think about, and I understand why it is attractive in the
light of Christian hypocracies. But hypocracies are as human as illicit sex.
We really should get over both of them and move our expectations a little
closer to realtiy. Human "goodness" isn't as unatural as Nietche believed it
to be either. We are social animals and there is no getting over that.
P.P.S. That doesn't nullify what I said about ToC. That's still a really bad
rule to follow, although it may work as an occasional exception.
-Jake