I would have never heard of that website if you hadn't kept quoting from it here on Sciforums. The only times I ever hear about it are when you post about it. If you've changed your mind about it, then stop obsessing about it. Don't remain psychologically attached to it. Just put it out of your mind and move on with your life. Turn your attention to new and hopefully more wholesome things.
Websites aren't going to free you. (Free you from what?) It sounds like you are seeking a spiritual teacher of some kind. That's difficult and calls for discernment at the best of times. It's doubly difficult on the internet, where people often (typically) present false facades. If you are seeking a teacher on the internet (or in real life) I would suggest looking for somebody associated with an established tradition. From some of your posts, you seem to be flirting with Buddhism. That's cool, I'm attracted to Buddhism too. So you should probably seek out real Buddhists. (Not just some guy with a website on the internet.) That way you can investigate their association with their lineage, what training they have that qualifies them to teach, and what other Buddhists think of them. I seem to recall you saying that you live in the Toronto area. There are no end of Buddhist groups around there, representing every form of Buddhism imaginable. http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/province.php?province_id=18&offset=0 My suggestion is to seek out a group in real life, not a teacher on the internet. Look for a group where you feel comfortable both with the teacher and with the other students. The other students will often be as helpful to you as the teacher. (You're all on the same path, even the teacher.) Ask any question you think of, don't worry if it sounds too elementary or you fear it might offend somebody. If anything seems weird or creepy to you, walk away. I'd suggest avoiding teachers who seem to be too charismatic, those with huge egos and those who are recipients of guru-worship from their students. If a teacher boasts of being enlightened, I'd seek a different teacher. Teachers who act like normal people are best. In the Theravada tradition, teachers are often monastics, so you can get some idea of their background from that and form some idea of how observant they are of the precepts. Then go gradually and listen to your gut. Trust your judgment. Probably not intentionally. But if you find something about it repelling you, trust your instinct which is trying to tell you something. Walk away. And make a clean break, don't obsess about it. That's not good. Keep in mind that finding a teacher or joining a spiritual group isn't likely to free you from every problem that you might have. Some problems have to be addressed in other ways.
Yazata, You've made the right decision not to visit the website. And thanks for the advice on putting it behind me.
Yazata, The owner of that Satanic website intentionally tried to stain people's minds and personalities by putting up those evil and scary pictures. In a correspondence with him in late 2013 I told him to "kill yourself you piece of shit" and his immediate response to someone else (not me) was "... that the Devil is also God?" I've seen him equate God to the Devil on more than one occasion.
Even if the Devil isn't God, God allows him to exist, and so he's responsible for it. The Devil does God's dirty work, he's like God's black site prisons and special forces operative.
I'd rather be dumb than telling people to kill themselves because I disagree with the content of their website.
The devil is too narrow and specialized a deity to make him an alpha God. The Devil is good at bad, evil and scary, but there is more to the universe than just that. The Devil web site appears to be using a variation of cultural diversity, to create an irrational argument of deistic diversity, where first and fourth world gods as considered the same. For this to work, the alpha God has to feel guilty and/or be dumb down for the illusion to work. God did become man, which was a willing dumb down. But even as a man, he was to clever for Satan, so Satan was demoted to the Devil, with even fewer duties; just scary stuff.
If I believed in God, and if I believed that God was the creator of hell who decrees that unspeakable never-ending torture take place there for eternity while doing nothing to stop it, and if I believed that Satan was the archtypical rebel against God, I'd be very tempted to be a Satanist. If Satan is the only one in that crazy scheme with the courage and the moral integrity to say 'no' to absolute evil, even if that means hopeless and ultimately doomed defiance of God himself, Satan becomes the most attractive and sympathetic figure in the story.
As the supersensible provenance of the universe's physical regularities, God would seem to unavoidably be responsible for engendering both categories of the events and circumstances which humans label good/evil. But the Trinity idea should surely enter as some factor when theological technicians attempt to fix apparent inter-consistency problems of Christian doctrine. For instance, if the "Father" unit of the "God is One but of three aspects" posit should be more of an apathetic machine devoted to proper balance in general being maintained (rather than feeling empathy and breaking rules / conservation for particular beings)... Then that facet of God could be construed as having a Satanic side (from the perspective of humans interpreting only in the context of their own immediate / local interests). This wouldn't be much unlike philosophical naturalism's god or replacement for that traditional concept: A dispassionate cosmos that allows both the good and the bad of its algorithm to play out. A dichotomy which wouldn't even be cognizable or legitimate from its own higher level (if it had such mentality), anymore than an industrial plant construction crew worries over ant hills that it ruins in the course of laying foundations and erecting buildings. To explore this a bit more... Trinity-wise, the "Holy Spirit" seems to be a communication medium (delivering prophecy, wisdom, etc) as well as an incubating influence that assists / molds recipients and eventually enables their apotheosis (those given immortal bodies or status after resurrection, judgement, etc). Concerning "God the Father" or the absolute background member of the triad... In Judaism, #3 of Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith states that "[...] the Creator, Blessed be His Name, has no body, and that He is free from all the properties of matter, and that there can be no (physical) comparison to Him whatsoever." Literature which employs anthropomorphic terms would thus be engaging in "linguistic conceits or metaphors, as it would otherwise have been impossible to talk about God at all". Such a lack of personhood / phenomenal expression and spatiotemporal location results in an intellectual existence as governing power slash enforcement of principles alone. Which in turn would account for the need (in Christianity, at least) of an anthropomorphic mediator (Christ) between humans and this older, indifferent rule-following agency. The latter a kind of divine, immaterial computer for which contingent exceptions to balances like "the penalty for sin is death [and suffering while alive]" are not doable. As an embodied avatar of such an overarching system that made the world possible, Christ in the course of living as a person acquires direct experience of what it is like to be a fallible mortal in a changing realm of becoming; and in the course of acquiring human emotions, makes the scapegoat sacrifice of personally paying the sin debt for everyone that the omnipresent abstract "Machine" demands. Since the former's existence as the Word or logos is implied by NT lit before the reification as a concrete, flesh avatar ("son of God")... Then Christ's brief stint on Earth, resurrection / apotheosis, ascension, and eventual Return during the Endtime is merely what the Word's origin would be in terms of the cause-effect conformity of the sensible world. Whereas in the Eternal counterpart, the idea or necessity of such origins and temporal relations would be less (if not completely) irrelevant. Leibniz's "this is the best of all possible worlds" stance could even enter the picture. In that the objective of Leibniz's God transcended self-centered human passions and sought "best" in terms of making manifest a particular universe scheme which allowed all possible things to be brought into co-existence with each other. (Relationally in time, when not tenable for simultaneous co-residency in space). Even the eventual temporal developments of virtual realities would allow outrageous affairs like magical wizards and dragons to be members of this natural cosmos of becoming. That people had to pay the price in terms of good/bad incidents likewise co-existing in the unfolding process was, again, to be remedied by the anthropomorphic Christ mediator bridging the gap between the general goal of the background version of God and the particular / personal interests of humans. Promising rescue from their penalties, future resurrection and membership in an alternative world more specifically suited for their needs. "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared." --Revelation 21:1
I'm not quite sure as to why the discussion has been completely shifted to the discussion of good vs. evil as well as God and his relation to Satan (didn't read all of what the website has to say yet), but the website at it's core presents the idea that a person who escapes from his/her instinctual emotions(aka gratification, morality, etc) will be able to take control of their life/accomplish personal objectives. Further than that, it even encourages destroying one's current self as being justified in order to accomplish that ultimate goal of objectivity. The thing is I can't disprove what this person says on his core values as it would lead someone near to that complete control of one's life being sought. They replicate the practices of prominent religious leaders in the past such as Buddha, but simply take the reformation of self to the next step- towards the level of placing utilitarianism as the backbone of morality. Of course proclaiming that "actual freedom" can be merely accomplished by following the steps of his website is difficult to believe and not really all that feasible. Just as what has already been said, a physical leader would be best if you were actually seeking a higher degree of spirituality in your life. Anyway, humanity can't be so easily discredited as it creates a real self for one to enjoy. It's much better to have that, despite all the flaws one might have, than being the virtual equivalent of someone with no emotion at all who only does things and doesn't do things based on what they've come to the conclusion/ been told that they're supposed to do.
