Page 1 of 3 123>
Topic Options
#110777 - 12/07/16 04:47 PM A Difference In The CoS
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
I have read here about and have seen a difference in The Church of Satan even since the early 90's. Namely, after LaVey's passing. I also know that Dr. Aquino would point out differences since his 1975 departure.

However, I ran across this interesting article. While there is a lot in it, this quote pretty much nailed it in my opinion:

 Quote:
By 2001—four years after the Doctor’s death, the original Black House now razed to the ground—power was transferred to Peter, and he was tired of all the baggage that came with the name Satan.


Of all of the criticisms leveled against the current CoS as well as newer groups, this is the one that resonates most with me. As LaVey wrote in The Satanic Bible, and I am putting a different twist on this, but if they are denying the reality of Satanism and find themselves preaching the philosophies of Atheism, why not call it by it's rightful name-Atheism? Certainly it would be far less hypocritical.

This is not to say that one has to be a Devil worshiper. Rather it is to acknowledge Satan as a reality.

If Anton LaVey meant for Satanism to simply be Atheism I doubt that he would have devoted HALF of The Satanic Bible to Greater Magic and had a follow up book The Satanic Rituals completely dedicated completely to the topic.

What I find interesting on this note is how many Satanists will accept the story of how Jayne Mansfield died as a result of a curse that LaVey placed on Sam Brody, but will then say, "Oh, we're just atheists."

You either are or you aren't.

Top
#110778 - 12/07/16 10:46 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: LoneWolf78]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
[Extract from my The Church of Satan]

... Such anecdotes offer a glimpse of yet another curious contradiction within the Church of Satan. In its original denunciation of established religions - all of them, not just Christianity - it attacked not only Jehovah but all externalized deities as being crippling, imaginary fantasies with which man had unnecessarily burdened himself. As Anton put it in an early Church handout [later included in his Satanic Bible]:

 Quote:
THE GOD YOU SAVE MAY BE YOURSELF

All religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man. He has created an entire system of gods with nothing more than his carnal brain. Just because he has an ego and cannot accept it, he has had to externalize it into some great spiritual device which he calls “God”.

God can do all the things man is forbidden to do - such as kill people, perform miracles to gratify his will, control without any apparent responsibility, etc. If man needs such a god and recognizes that god, then he is worshipping an entity that a human being invented. Therefore he is worshipping by proxy the man that invented God. Is it not more sensible to worship a god that he himself has created in accordance with his own emotional needs - one that best represents the very carnal and physical being that has the idea-power to invent a god in the first place?

If man insists on externalizing his true self in the form of “God”, then why fear his true self in fearing “God” - why praise his true self in praising “God” - why remain externalized from “God” in order to engage in ritual and religious ceremony in his name?

Man needs ritual and dogma, but no law states that an externalized god is necessary in order to engage in ritual and ceremony performed in a god’s name! Could it be that when he closes the gap between himself and his “God”, he sees the dæmon of pride creeping forth - that very embodiment of Lucifer appearing in his midst? He no longer can view himself in two parts, the carnal and the spiritual, but sees them merge as one; and then, to his abysmal horror, discovers that they are only the carnal - and always were! Then he either hates himself to death, day by day - or rejoices that he is what he is!

If he hates himself, he searches out new and more complex spiritual paths of “enlightenment” in hopes that he may split himself up again in his quest for stronger and more externalized “gods” to scourge his poor, miserable shell. If he accepts himself but recognizes that ritual and ceremony are the important devices that his invented religions have utilized to sustain his faith in a lie, then it is the same form of ritual that will sustain his faith in the truth - the primitive pageantry that will give his awareness of his own majestic being added substance.

When all religious faith in lies has waned, it is because man has become closer to himself and farther from “God” - closer to the “Devil”. If this is what the Devil represents, and such a man lives his life in the Devil’s fane, with the sinews of Satan moving his flesh, then he either escapes from the cacklings and carpings of the righteous or stands proudly in his secret places of the Earth and manipulates the folly-ridden masses through his own Satanic might until that day when he may come forth in splendor, proclaiming, “I am a Satanist! Bow down, for I am the highest embodiment of human life!”

By these criteria, then, the Church of Satan was not a church in the precise sense of the term, nor did it worship Satan as an existential being in his own right. Rather it was Atheism with psychodrama. As Truzzi correctly observed, that was something which could be credibly argued to skeptical audiences.

There was, however, a problem: Satanists participating in rituals of Black Magic quickly became aware of an “interest” or “influence” in the atmosphere of the chamber that felt somehow alien to their own personalities. The pageantry and the oratory would fade into the background, and the participants would find themselves gripped in a sensory empathy so piercing, so powerful that it would leave them exhausted, drained, and shaken at the conclusion of the rite. It was not a chance occurrence, but an inevitable, recurring one. After such experiences participants were subdued, introspective, and disinclined to exchange comments on their feelings. There was perhaps even a slight feeling of embarrassment, as though one had somehow “slipped” from being a proper psychodramatic Atheist.

And Anton LaVey was himself the most familiar with this sensation. His behavior during a ritual was not that of an actor, nor of a megalomaniac, but rather of a High Priest in the sincere sense. In public and to less experienced Satanists he would continue to “excuse” the Church of Satan as Atheism-with-frills, but alone with intimates he would speak of Satan, the Church, and his own office therein with the greatest reverence and respect. He did not “believe” after the fashion of the ordinary mystic or fanatic; he continued to have a healthy contempt for such types. It would be more accurate to say that he had achieved a very deep understanding of a remote, rarely-penetrated part of existence in which intelligence and will besides those of mankind exist. Nor did he “worship” this other essence; rather he empathized and communed with it. And so these two forces - the atheistic and the Satanic - coexisted in varying proportions for the entire duration of the Church of Satan. One would expect them ultimately to conflict and provoke the final crisis, but that did not prove to be the case. The atheistic argument entered that crisis only as a later rationalization, for by that time it had long ceased to be taken seriously within the Church ...

Top
#110780 - 12/08/16 12:32 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
Dr. Aquino,

First, I would like to thank you. You have well earned your stripes and yet you come here. I have seen you banter, joke, take criticism and share knowledge with anyone here who cares to see it. That is far more than could be said about many who parade titles around but would be beyond approach unless, of course, you paid them for access, trinkets, or both.

On to the subject at hand.

I know what you are talking about. It would seem kind of a balancing act from the essay that you quote from TSB coupled along with the Ritual element of it. I have always viewed the book as one part philosophy and one part religion. Not something that is entirely in contradiction but certainly one that demands a certain type of verification.

Likewise, I also know the feeling that you are speaking of when I have performed Rituals myself. Though I never felt the sense of embarrassment in "slipping". The first time was a kind of half expected thing. However, you are right about the consistency of it.

 Quote:
. It would be more accurate to say that he had achieved a very deep understanding of a remote, rarely-penetrated part of existence in which intelligence and will besides those of mankind exist.


To an extent I even got that from the following quotation from the chapter Life After Death Through Fulfillment Of The Ego:

 Quote:
If a person has been vital throughout his life and has fought to the end for his earthly existence, it is this ego which will refuse to die, even after the expiration of the flesh which housed it. Young children are to be admired for their driving enthusiasm for life. This is exemplified by the small child who refuses to go to bed when there is something exciting going on, and when once put to bed, will sneak down the stairs to peek through the curtain and watch. It is this child-like vitality that will allow the Satanist to peek through the curtain of darkness and death and remain earthbound.


It seems as though he could have elaborated on that part and then stopped.

I also get what you are saying about not worshiping it but communing and empathizing with this Force? If that would be the correct word.

Certainly, I would think that he held a contempt for believers. It always seemed to me that he was more about gaining knowledge as opposed to belief.

So far, from observing various sides of 1975, this is what caused the crisis: The integrity was lost because he became too focused on taking money from anyone and if they believed every word he said so much the better. I could be wrong on that though.

What I do know is that you are willing to openly discuss it and the CoS has always tried to sweep it under the rug. That brings up something else that loses credibility with me. How that they seem Hell bound on covering up or erasing certain parts of their history or how various past members, including yourself, are a forbidden topic of discussion.

My take on that is that just because someone is no longer a part of something that does not or should not take away from any contribution that they made. Because, like it or not, without that past, where would they be today?

As always, I appreciate the insight that you offer in my continued studies and practice.

Top
#110782 - 12/08/16 11:31 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
The entire development of the CoS/Satanic Bible was to satirize organized religion, its demons and to embrace man's core nature. If there were any effects of group gatherings, I think it's a leap to say that LaVey recognized a supernatural component. These conclusions tends to come from outsider opinions and observations.

The inclusion of ritulization, dogma, etc. were clearly outlined to cater to that nature. Not necessarily recognize an 'other' in the grand scheme of things. When things got a bit out of hand with vying for attentions and titles, LaVey sold them off to make a point. I don't think the point was to support the belief that:

 Quote:
There was perhaps even a slight feeling of embarrassment, as though one had somehow “slipped” from being a proper psychodramatic atheist.


People can mindfuck themselves, check with any method actor that loses his way when training for a part.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110785 - 12/08/16 02:36 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: LoneWolf78]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Thanks, Lone Wolf. In general I feel that I have fulfilled the task that Set gave to me in 1975 where reestablishment and constitution of his Temple are concerned, and that I have now also completed what book-records I think should survive my time on this planet for reference & convenience of others, both Setian and nonSetian. I do not expect to be here much longer, so am gruntled to have these tasks completed.

Visiting 600C is for me a bit of admitted nostalgia for the 1966-75 Age of Satan, which was, in the words of Obi-wan Kenobi, "a more civilized age". Here I attempt to resurrect a bit of that atmosphere, which is also why I use my Church IV° insignia as my avatar here. In effect I am posting as the Magister Templi IV°-II' I was then: what Anton would call a magical working of ECI (Erotic Crystalliation Inertia). [From my perspective, he descended into his personal, 1940s noir ECI after 1975 and never emerged from it thereafter.]

As surveyed in my The Church of Satan, there was no attempt at a formalized, organized Satanic religion prior to 1966, and - despite his longtime, serious interest in the Black Arts - I think it's clear that Anton had no idea how big a door he had opened when founding the Church. What started out as an impulsive natire evolved into something much deeper and more substantive, in which we all found ourselves playing a sort of catchup. It very wuickly left the "sandbox" of ordinary religion, and by 1975 even the convept of "religion" as conventionally understood.

In that sense it is no wonder to me that 600C is flailing around so much trying to "redefine Satanism". This is an area of interest, so to speak, for which Judæo-Christian terminology and iconography are hopelessly inadequate. I see today's "Satanists" as yearning for something like the sinister glamour of the movie The Devil Rides Out, without naïvely abandoning today's sophistication. Can't be done, really. Which is why 600C is inherently an "impossible" forum, doomed to beating around the bush of its avowed central subject. It persists because it remains "an itch that demands to be scratched".
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110786 - 12/08/16 02:49 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
The entire development of the CoS/Satanic Bible was to satirize organized religion, its demons and to embrace man's core nature. If there were any effects of group gatherings, I think it's a leap to say that LaVey recognized a supernatural component. These conclusions tends to come from outsider opinions and observations.

The inclusion of ritulization, dogma, etc. were clearly outlined to cater to that nature. Not necessarily recognize an 'other' in the grand scheme of things. When things got a bit out of hand with vying for attentions and titles, LaVey sold them off to make a point.

Sin, that certainly summarizes the "party line" of Anton post-1975, continuing into Gilmore's business today. If you or anyone else wants to believe that, fine. Against it I simply submit The Church of Satan. I am completely content for individual "water to find its own level" accordingly. \:\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110788 - 12/08/16 04:26 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
Mr. Aquino, I think you assume too much. It's not that I'm towing a party-line, it's that I fully understood what it was I was reading, observing and experiencing.


I acknowledge that you have your experiences and perspective based on your beliefs.

Believe it or not, there are people in my social circle that try to convince others that I hold beliefs in the Supernatural too. It's just the way interpersonal relationships play out, especially when they are based on differences vs. similarities.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110790 - 12/08/16 06:45 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Soon old Mikey will be dead, and with nobody to tirelessly pump his ebooks, his narrative with him.

Meanwhile we still have Anton on film from 1973 plainly stating he wasn't theistic at all.

All that time trying to retcon history will be wasted. Ahh well, at least he'll be heeded post humously within that weird aardvark cult he started. There's always that. Oh ya, and mindwar. Pretty sure governments will start replacing traditional warfare with that any time now.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#110792 - 12/08/16 08:13 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Dan_Dread]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
 Quote:
Meanwhile we still have Anton on film from 1973 plainly stating he wasn't theistic at all.


Yet, he also made the claim (which the atheistic CoS still touts to this day) that his curse on Sam Brody caused the death of Jayne Mansfield.

He also took credit for a curse that he placed on the hippie movement resulting in the so called Manson murders.

In Blanche Barton's books she reaffirms all of these and more including parking spaces just happening to appear for him.

Can I prove or disprove any of these claims?

No.

I was not there.

But, since doubt is an integral part of Satanism, I keep an opened mind. Disbelief is believing.

Did Anton LaVey believe in the reality of Satan?

Only he would know the answer to that.

I would only say that their is a difference between belief and knowledge .

For instance, I do not believe that The 600 Club message boards are a reality. Iknow that they are.

Once something has been validated consistently you can deny it, but you never have to believe it.


Edited by LoneWolf78 (12/08/16 08:15 PM)

Top
#110793 - 12/08/16 08:41 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Implied in your book’s title is Michael Aquino’s Interpretation of the Church of Satan. Granted, that doesn’t flow nearly as well as The Church of Satan. My point, of course, is that your book is less an objective history of the organization and more your take on the organization. If you had been its leader or an impartial observer, your book would have more objective value. But you were a member who left the organization and to this day has an ax to grind. As Al Pacino’s Satan said in The Devil’s Advocate, “Consider the source.”
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#110794 - 12/08/16 09:41 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: LoneWolf78]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: LW
Yet, he also made the claim (which the atheistic CoS still touts to this day) that his curse on Sam Brody caused the death of Jayne Mansfield.


Yeah___ but the occult and Atheism are not mutually exclusive. One refers to knowledge of the hidden. The other refers to lacking a belief in gods. One can have it both ways - and quite easily, though it lends itself predictably to all sorts of pseudo-occult kookery (psuedo-occult (n): That the occult is just things science has not explained yet). Fact is, that which is occult will never be empirically verifiable - by definition.

Even so, it's fun to watch people walk face first into that bong-rip-inspired pole as well.

_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110795 - 12/08/16 09:54 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: antikarmatomic]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
 Quote:
One refers to knowledge of the hidden. The other refers to lacking a belief in gods. One can have it both ways


I agree. I would just add that it is quite easy to lack belief once you have validated knowledge.

 Quote:
Fact is, that which is occult will never be empirically verifiable - by definition.

I would address this in the same way that I would William Wright's comment here:

 Quote:
If you had been its leader or an impartial observer, your book would have more objective value.



Most things are completely subjective to the individual' experience. The experience itself may be objective, however, each individual will experience it subjectively.

However, more directly to William Wright's comment. I do not wish to be rude, but seriously, the leader of any group would put out an objective book on his or her group?

Surely you jest.

Top
#110796 - 12/08/16 10:36 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: LoneWolf78]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: LoneWolf78
more directly to William Wright's comment. I do not wish to be rude, but seriously, the leader of any group would put out an objective book on his or her group?

Surely you jest.

Point taken – the leader of any group is by definition its spokesperson, its cheerleader. For that matter, even seemingly impartial observers can have hidden biases. I guess my larger point was that Aquino’s account of his time in the CoS is just that - a personal account, no more and no less.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#110797 - 12/08/16 11:25 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Sin, different persons with different capacities, motives, and agendas represent a given phenomenon differently, to themselves and others. If your interpretation satisfies you, so be it.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110798 - 12/08/16 11:37 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Soon old Mikey will be dead, and with nobody to tirelessly pump his ebooks, his narrative with him.

At your level of comprehension, Michael Aquino's existence is irrelevant and his writings unintelligible.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 1 of 3 123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.