I think it's just a disagreement about tone. I'm happy to call Satanism a religion as long as that term is completely divorced from the connotation of sheepthink, fraud, and the rationalization of atrocities that attaches to "religion" in my mind. (Some of the most spaced-out and confused judicial writing is in First Amendment opinions trying to decide whether something is a "religion"!) I like "has a philosophy." I think Satanism also has a style--maybe because in so many ways it radiates from the heart of one magnetic, elegant, witty personality.

I agree with you about the sense in which it has philosophical content. As for religion, maybe the word "religion" just stinks to me because of OTHER applications, so I hesitate to apply it to anything cool.

Before our discussion I'd never thought to wonder where the word "religion" comes from. I just peeked in the OED and discovered that the earliest recorded sense is "A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church." It is interesting (to me at least, I love words) that a word that denoted such stringencies has evolved to be so supple and vague. We have litigation in the Supreme Court about whether something is a religion, but whether someone is a monk or not is pretty easy to figure out.

Look up "virtue."

Very cool (I paste the etymology and first definition below). A godlikeness rooted in manliness.

Someone could probably write an illuminating history of our religious and legal traditions, and maybe more, by tracing as "story arcs" the development of a few key words from earliest use to now.

>>[a. AF. and OF. vertu (F. vertu, = It. virtù, Sp. virtud, Pg. virtude), ad. L. virt{umac}t-, virtus manliness, valour, worth, etc., f. vir man.]

I. As a quality of persons.

1. a. The power or operative influence inherent in a supernatural or divine being. Now arch. or Obs.<<

Someone once pointed out the irony of a term originally refering to the strength and courage of a man coming to refer to the chastity of a woman.

I've even heard it used euphemistically for a body part--when someone "covered her virtue," she was covering something not usually associated through language with strong and courageous men.... :-D

It's probably because it takes so much strength to remain chaste.

I beg to differ. The core writings of Satanism want for nothing of clarity or rigor. The difference between the canonical writings of Satanism, and the practice of philosophers, lies elsewhere.

Questioning religions does not imply dismissing them. I questioned the logic in the Satanic Bible. I found that it contained logically sound premises and conclusions.

If I agree, I am not following. You would agree with me that this message board is useful? Are you following me?

Destruction does not mean murder.
Creative - 2: having the quality of something created rather than imitated : imaginative <the creative arts>
Process - 2 a (1): a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result <the process of growth> (2): a continuing natural or biological activity or function <such life processes as breathing> b: a series of actions or operations conducing to an end; especially : a continuous operation or treatment especially in manufacture
Source
I create a process which destroys my annoyance.

And I am not pulling your leg. I am serious. Your lack of an answer casts you in poor light.

Your passive writing reflects both a lack of understanding and literacy.

Very well then, have it your way:

YOU ARE WRONG! INCREDIBLY WRONG!

Exactly.

It was never a question of me "agreeing" with anything in The Satanic Bible, because to "disagree" would mean that I denied who I am.

So the whole idea of skipping or twisting any parts of The Satanic Bible is pointless.

You either are, or you aren't. Nothing to worry about.

If a government sprang up, using the 11 Rules of the Earth as its Bill of Rights or what have you, that's a country I'm moving to, post haste.

Herd Mentality or no, those rules make sense from an animalistic, pragmatic standpoint. Someone coming to my house to offend me has no business being there, nor do I ever seek to go somewhere where I will not be welcome.

C'mon, if he wrote these out with any less teeth, they wouldn't be as fun. This is Anton LaVey we're talkin about, who felt himself as a religious leader more in tune with Vlad the Impaler, then Mother Theresa :P