Page all of 6 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#14495 - 11/15/08 07:03 PM So What's the Difference?
frankinstien Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/28/08
Posts: 16
Well I've read the Satanic Bible...So here's what I'm debating: If you read the good old Judaic-Christian bible it's a pretty dark force that the Hebrews worship. It does have quite a few restrictions but all those restrictions can be exempted if one is called by "god" to do god's will. The bottom line with the Christian and Hebrew teachings is obedience. The dogma of the Christian view is that god is such a narcissist the only way to forgive man for any sin is to sacrifice what the Hebrew god love's the most which is Jesus, go figure. What sin is however changes over time. Jesus supposedly said a man can have only one wife but he never set any limits to how many concubines a man could have. Others have the opinion that fornication or adultery is any sex outside of marriage and is inclusive of having sex with love slaves. However a concubine is a relationship that is very different than just having sex with a girl or boy friend.

In the end the Hebrew god is dark; killing anyone or planning to kill anyone that he sees as a stupid un-loyal ingrate. To call his hand for your own objectives falls in the same line as LeVey's rules for casting spells for wealth, love, revenge and health; it's only within a practical scope of the individual. That being the case then why do I need god or Satan to help me do what I can already do? I believe the answer to that is it helps me visualize my goals and focus my mind, after which dark forces take over. So asking for a miracle or blessing is similar to casting a spell.

Could what everyone believes to be god really just be the same guy, inclusive of Satan?

Top
#14500 - 11/15/08 08:08 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: frankinstien]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Hi.

We tend to avoid spending to much energy on the whys and wherefores of Judaism and Xianity.
Or for that matters; the writings of the good Herr La Vey.

Your point being that both bear similarities?
Very clever...

If you have a more than rudymentary knowledge of Xianity, you will now that Jehova is Satan etc.
God gave a damn, so to speak...
Not exactly a new thought.

We are more interested in Satan as an archetype of non-xian meaning and origin.
Older & newer stuff, y'see.

Anything new to bring to the table?
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#14515 - 11/16/08 02:56 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Woland]
frankinstien Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/28/08
Posts: 16
By new do you mean a definition of Satan as a spiritual entity or a physical force?

Also do Satanist believe in a creation?

Top
#14521 - 11/16/08 06:01 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: frankinstien]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
 Originally Posted By: frankinstien
By new do you mean a definition of Satan as a spiritual entity or a physical force?


Whatever...


 Originally Posted By: frankinstien
Also do Satanist believe in a creation?



A creation of what?
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#14522 - 11/16/08 07:28 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: frankinstien]
DistroyA Offline
member


Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 478
Loc: Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, UK
I think they meant "creator".

 Originally Posted By: frankinstien
By new do you mean a definition of Satan as a spiritual entity or a physical force?

Satan is neither a spiritual entity, nor a physical force. Satan is just basically a name that Satanists (Or at least myself anyway...) use to describe the forces of nature, and not a horned god. One could say that they are God and Satan all in one, for man is both good and evil. Everything is both good and evil, depending on one's perception.

So, in short, there is no deity to believe in. The only thing you should believe in is yourself. Ignore the bible and other clap trap and make up your own mind about what is and what isn't.

As for LaVey, he didn't create "rules" to follow, only guidelines. It's up to the individual to determine what is right and what is wrong.
_________________________
"A man chooses, a slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan of Ryan Industries (Bioshock)

Top
#14529 - 11/16/08 01:52 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: DistroyA]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Well I've read the Satanic Bible...

And judging by the rest of your post(s) it obviously didn't resonate with you. You should probably move on.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14535 - 11/16/08 02:40 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: frankinstien]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Originally Posted By: frankinstien
By new do you mean a definition of Satan as a spiritual entity or a physical force?

Also do Satanist believe in a creation?


Let me answer these questions for you.
1) Everyone has it's own definition for the aspect "satan". Some people see it as a mere force of nature and/or the real human nature wich keeps us species alive. Within this philosophy satan isn't a living being/creature/spirit. To get the full perspective of Satanism you should look up the different types of Satanism. Each "branch" has it's own philosophy and ideas.
To give some mainstream branches: devil-worshippers, gnostic Satanism, laveyan-Satanism, theistic Satanism,.. if you look up these 5 branches you'll quickly get a bigger perspective about Satanism. But a little word of warning; uphere we have some kind of respect towards some theistic satanists. But most here are more laveyan philosophy bounded and theistic/gnostic Satanism doesn't diserve much respect for some reasons. But you'll find out why.

2) If satanists believe in a creation? Ofcourse they do, everyone does. Some see it just as a force in nature without deity that created us trough evolution. Some believe in some kind of force wich created us. Some maybe believe in a more creational approach. It really is something personnal you should make it up for yourself. I have my ideas about it, and others their. Just keep in mind no one holds the truth on that matter simple because we can't know or because we weren't there and no evidence wich is universally correct can be found.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#14536 - 11/16/08 03:25 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dimitri]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Woa hold on there tex!

First, there are no branches of Satanism. That's just something that people that don't get it say. Devil worshippers and all those other nuts you named aren't 'types' of Satanists, they are nuts.
Equivocation isn't your friend.

Second,
 Quote:

If satanists believe in a creation? Ofcourse they do, everyone does. Some see it just as a force in nature without deity that created us trough evolution. Some believe in some kind of force wich created us. Some maybe believe in a more creational approach.

This is pure bullshit. I personally find the steady state theory to be as reasonable as any other theory we have. Saying that a creation is necessary and that all Satanists must believe in one is not only false, but shows you don't have much of a grip on science.
Please do not put words into other peoples mouths.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14537 - 11/16/08 03:43 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
This is pure bullshit. I personally find the steady state theory to be as reasonable as any other theory we have. Saying that a creation is necessary and that all Satanists must believe in one is not only false, but shows you don't have much of a grip on science.
Please do not put words into other peoples mouths.

Hmmm, better read thoroughly.
I also said "you should make it up for your self. It is a personnal view". Before jumping on your horse and crying your psychological universe has detected a blow of "false information" you better read it with more attention. I leave it open what others believe. If you believe in steady-state, fine for you. I didn't say creation is necessary, I only said erveyone has it's own opinion about it. Things as "don't have much of a grip on science" are out of order here. Only shows who really is the ass... But Let's keep it polite and not flame each other shall we?

 Quote:
First, there are no branches of Satanism. That's just something that people that don't get it say. Devil worshippers and all those other nuts you named aren't 'types' of Satanists, they are nuts.
Equivocation isn't your friend.

In your opinion they may be nuts. (Don't get me wrong, neither do I share the opinion theistic /gnostic Satanism exists and think that it is dumbshit.) However from an objective point of view I must take in account there are people who call it Satanism. And if he is here to learn about Satanism it is best to start from a neutral point of view and then let him work towards a certain "branch"/"ideology" of Satanism. If someone asks advice it is better to give the whole perspective and not one-sided information.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#14539 - 11/16/08 03:59 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dimitri]
blsk Offline
member


Registered: 09/22/08
Posts: 298
Loc: salem or
(Only shows who really is the ass... But Let's keep it polite and not flame each other shall we?)

-Seeing as how you just called Dan an ass, do you really want to avoid "flaming" or did you just want the last word?(and yes, it was a rhetorical question.)


(And if he is here to learn about Satanism it is best to start from a neutral point of view and then let him work towards a certain "branch"/"ideology" of Satanism. If someone asks advice it is better to give the whole perspective and not one-sided information)

-If he is here to learn about Satanism, it is best not to start filling his head with jibberish under the guise of Satanism. If someone asks advice it is best to give a reasonable and logical perspective. Any yes, it is one sided. The left.
_________________________
Ed made mens sewing cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9mhsW5aWJM

Top
#14540 - 11/16/08 04:00 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dimitri]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Hmmm, better read thoroughly.

Ok.

 Quote:

If satanists believe in a creation? Ofcourse they do, everyone does.

Your words. Look, it isn't up to me to try to interpret what you actually mean by your broken english. I just assumed you meant what you said.

 Quote:

If someone asks advice it is better to give the whole perspective and not one-sided information.

I disagree. I think that steering people toward pseudosatanism is a bad idea. I think there are too many of those little poser fuckwads darkening the earth already.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14542 - 11/16/08 04:40 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dimitri]
frankinstien Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/28/08
Posts: 16
 Quote:
If satanists believe in a creation? Ofcourse they do, everyone does


I personally do not believe in creation. What reality is has always existed, notions of a beginning or end are nonsensical. However this is not to be confused with the creation and destruction of forms, e.g. a universe is a form, life is a form, sub-atomic particles are forms. Reality has no cause; it is what it is, but it is the cause of the creation of forms. I differ from the steady state theory in that what matter(form) is in our universe is not a consistent creation. Universes(forms) are created and destroyed and no two universes are identical types of forms.

Subtly sub-atomic particles are intelligent, e.g. The act of absorbing a photon changes the election's behavior. However the type of behavior is determine by the type of photon absorbed. Electrons seem to make decisions. They can tell if the photon they absorbed is an electro-magnetic wave or a carrier force and if it is a carrier force they can decide what polarity it is. So it would appear that intelligent processes in an electron do exist.

Of course the term intelligence does not necessarily imply a conscious will, it may only be an ability to interpret information and act on it, and I am implying the latter and I am also implyng that reality is the source of this intelligence.


Edited by frankinstien (11/16/08 05:26 PM)
Edit Reason: connected reality to intelligence

Top
#14545 - 11/16/08 05:34 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: frankinstien]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
 Originally Posted By: frankinstien
What reality is has always existed, notions of a beginning or end are nonsensical.


Are you implying that an objective reality exists?
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#14547 - 11/16/08 06:43 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Woland]
frankinstien Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/28/08
Posts: 16
 Originally Posted By: Woland
Are you implying that an objective reality exists?


No I am not. The intelligence of sub-atomic particles suggests forms are derived from reality as a product of emergent behavior of a fundamental nature of reality. What that nature could be is a matter of speculation, but as a fan of Occam's razor I prefer as few assumptions as possible. With that said what could possibly produce a varied and complex set of emergent behaviors and have as few assumptions required to define it?

One solution could be a reality of standing waves. As these standing waves interact with one another they re-enforce or cancel each other out. This is basically a very simplistic computation, 1 or 0. By itself not very impressive or powerful, but in mass could do quite a bit(pun intended). Employing ideas from Wolfram's cellular automation, chaos theory and self organization a non-objective reality of standing waves could produce a universe.

Top
#14548 - 11/16/08 06:44 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Woland]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I've always been of the opinion that the universe formed from the "big bang," a probably random occurence that might even be repilicated normally at certain times throughout the timelessness of "time," and then all else that flowed from that event is a result of chemical interaction and "simple do dah luck." Could that mean that man on earth is a singular event? Yes. Could that mean that the same, or varying interactions caused life on other planets throughout the universe? Yes. Does it have some great religious meaning for the existence of god and/or Satan? No.

Life finds a way to propogate, once established, and, unless totally anihilated in some extreme event, uses its established building blocks to rebuild again and again to produce a more viable creature in each incarnation of the universal (small "u"... relative to earth only) genome.

This incarnation of mamalian creature simply has the propensity to attribute things beyond its knowledge to "gods" and "devils." It's a flaw that may be eliminated in the next incarnation... roll the dice.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#14550 - 11/16/08 07:30 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dimitri]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
 Quote:
In your opinion they may be nuts. (Don't get me wrong, neither do I share the opinion theistic /gnostic satanism exists and think that it is dumbshit.) However from an objective point of view I must take in account there are people who call it satanism.


And if I insist the sky is red, does that make it so? Because a small minority insist in calling their view of Satanism as such, does not make it Satanism. Your statement is wrong, and perpetuates the legitimacy of these idiots and their brand of "Satanism". Dan hit it right on in his response to you.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#14557 - 11/16/08 09:03 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: fakepropht]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
Satanism is a philosophy that does not necessarily equate to hardcore Atheism. Agnosticism, yes, but there is a difference.

I don't care what they call themselves. Nobody has it perfect, and if they exhibit intelligence, independent thought, and an understanding of the aspect of the so-called "symbolic Satan" then I really don't care if they think it's a force manifested by a sumerian deity, a father god, or the flying spaghetti monster.

However, the vast majority of them are NOT these type of people. They're mostly young gullible kids who don't think for themselves. In rebelling against Judeo-Christianity and embracing "spiritual Satanism" they most often just trade in one set of irrational superstitions for another.

I wouldn't quite say it is a "denomination", because Satanism is still Satanism no matter how you present it.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#14558 - 11/16/08 09:56 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: The Zebu]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Satanism is a philosophy that does not necessarily equate to hardcore Atheism.

This is a statement that is both true and false. From a pragmatic standpoint, we are autotheists, in that we draw all the deity we need from inside.

But from a cosmological perspective, ie the old external deity vs no external deity question, I don't see how a Satanist could be anything but atheistic. How could you put faith on the same plate as a religion with doubt at its center?

As for the term 'agnosticism', that is christian apologetics at it's finest. There is no good reason to create a dichotomy between 'god vs no god'. This is lending credibility to a meme that hasn't earned it.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14559 - 11/16/08 10:22 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
On thing I've used to tell people how we see ourselves as "our own god," in the Satanic sense. is to look at the world in two camps. There are those who choose to look outside for answers... always to some power greater than themselves. We can call these people who are "outward facing." They constantly look for reasons that don't include or center on man and his responsibility for his life, things around him that affect his world, and other "reasons why" x, y, and z happen. Seldom will man be in charge or control of his life, and always at the whim of others (gods, fates or "THEM," who tend to make their life difficult.

The Satanist, in becoming his own god, is unlike the gods others cling to one's personal god (himself). He is an "INWARD facing god," looking within himself and what he is capable of, for answers to questions regarding his own life. He has no need for external or outward facing gods. They can tell him nothing that can't be explained by inward perspectives. There's no laying off of bad fortunes to the malevolence of some hairy thunderer who has it out for you. The insular nature of the Satanist tells him that bad things happen. They happen to you and the happen to me, and what matters is not so much HOW or WHY, but how we handle the situations presented to us, and how we turn them to our favor, not with the aid of gods and devils, but by our own brains and personal efforts.

Dunno if that will make sense to anyone...
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#14560 - 11/16/08 10:39 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Jake999]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
YES! Once again Jake swoops in with a gem of crystal clarity.

All other religions share in that they 'face outward', drawing power, guidance, wisdom, etc from 'out there' somewhere. Satanism is the ONLY path that reverses this trend entirely.

I think that is why I get so agitated when people try to justify outward facing, guidance seeking superstitious nonsense as 'just another type' of Satanism, when in reality it is anathema.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14567 - 11/17/08 01:58 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Jake999]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
Absolute sense.

That is exactly what I have noticed is the biggest difference between me and my born again christian friend.

She looks outward and needs to know 'someone' or 'something' loves her no matter what she actually pulls from inside herself to make life work for her.
We often talk about this subject and how when she talks of 'talking with god' I hear, talking with subconcious. That is probably why we don't fight about it.

When I talk about 'listening to my subconcious or bull shit detector as I like to call it' she hears' talking to God'!

We are both happy to let the other be wrong and think what they like, as long as the end result is that what we beleive works for us it doesn't matter. It just so happends that I look inwards.

Zeph
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#14569 - 11/17/08 03:21 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
If satanists believe in a creation? Ofcourse they do, everyone does.


I am not too fond of the use of creation. Creation implies a conscious and deliberate process and nowhere I can find evidence of that when it comes to the universe or life. Personally I think the BigBang theory is the most probable, at least it got most evidence supporting it. All the others can be fine and spiffy but they lack a lot of evidence. The same for life, evolution is the theory that has a shipload of evidence supporting it, so I see no reason why not to consider it the most optional.
But those two at no point support creation of anything.

Everything happened by chance and nowhere is an indication of a conscious or intelligent factor messing with it. Creation is a label traditionally used by believers to insert god somewhere in the timeline and I personally see no reason to use it myself in that context.

D.

Top
#14573 - 11/17/08 04:28 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: ZephyrGirl]
frankinstien Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/28/08
Posts: 16
 Originally Posted By: ZephyrGirl
She looks outward and needs to know 'someone' or 'something' loves her no matter what she actually pulls from inside herself to make life work for her.
We often talk about this subject and how when she talks of 'talking with god' I hear, talking with subconcious. That is probably why we don't fight about it.

When I talk about 'listening to my subconcious or bull shit detector as I like to call it' she hears' talking to God'!


A good book on the subject is called "Wings of Illusion" by John F. Schumaker

He argues though that the insanity of the invisible man or any other well formed or institutional superstitious belief system actually helps prevent a lot of the ills of modern society such as anorexia, bulimia, depression, drug abuse, etc. He states that religion is a certifiable form of insanity but it helps society become less insane. In a nut shell Shumaker describes religion as a reaction to the dawning of human consciousness that awoke in the dark and formidable jungle scared and confused...


Frank

Top
#14575 - 11/17/08 04:45 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: frankinstien]
yussuf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/24/08
Posts: 5
Loc: Australia
 Originally Posted By: frankinstien
Well I've read the Satanic Bible........Could what everyone believes to be god really just be the same guy, inclusive of Satan?


there are types of Satanism and let me tell you why there are different types:

your belief is very personal and Satanism is one belief that you can mould yourself since it's very flexible...therefore people create a Satanism for them and than put it in a catagory that is different from others.

it is all about beliefs and you can't expect to know everything ^^ it's my opinion but someone will see it to be wrong but i'm atleast trying without using a bias view..so give me a break.. devil worshippers aren't nuts, don't be so ignorant those whack jobs were some of the few that help create the left hand path that some of us follow today.

believe it or not but the some of the documents that many occultists have seen and wrote books on are 600+ years old and back than theistic Satanism was big back than but not some much now since human sacrifices are illegal. just because someone follows a tamer version of the general Satanism doesn't mean you can rant on other types!

Top
#14577 - 11/17/08 05:03 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: yussuf]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Since when is expecting to not know everything an excuse or reason for relativism?

Devilworshippers are certainly nuts at some levels because seriously, believing in the opposer outside the abstract realm is just as silly as believing in the creator himself. It's not because they are left of the path that it makes them more sane in that aspect. A devilworshiper or a theistic satanist is a believer and suffers the same weakness.

And tamer, hmm you really think peeing on a crucifix, reciting stuff backwards and sitting on their knees praying to Lucy makes anyone wilder? In the head maybe. In a decade or two they'll probably have medication for that.

Btw, I'd love to see some books, manuals or grimoires out of that period that provide evidence for theistic Satanism. Feel free to share.

D.

Top
#14582 - 11/17/08 11:09 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Bacchae Offline
Satan's White Trash Neighbor
member


Registered: 05/13/08
Posts: 438
Loc: los angeles
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo


Btw, I'd love to see some books, manuals or grimoires out of that period that provide evidence for theistic Satanism. Feel free to share.

D.


me too. there arent any. of the dozens of surviving grimoires, all are extolling the christian god in an almost fearful panic. these are mostly what the wingnuts are inversing and calling theistic Satanism.

i generally ignore theists, but the whimpering, mewing, completely subservient "father satan" bullshit wears on my last nerve. its creepy, weak, and borderline homoerotic.

dear theists. go back to church. join a bible camp. put your faith in something that will help you. Satanism is for thinkers. not followers.

Top
#14587 - 11/17/08 01:47 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: fakepropht]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
Got a point there fakeprophet, but this goes a little deeper and your example with colours aren't really scientifically spoken correct. You see, what we all call "green" or "red" in fact can have a different color depending on the working of our brain. hard to explain, and I don't suppose you will get it even if explained properly..

Anyway that's off-topic.
Let me put it this way: some may call inverted christianity Satanism, it doesn't mean YOU have to call it Satanism. You just have to take it in account some may call it Satanism. That's what I'm saying, so dan's point and yours after reading my post is just a mistake by wrong interpretation. I'll make it clear with an example.

Christianity has different forms, protestant, orthodox, Catholism,...
Let's take for example the orthodox people. They claim they are holding the truth. They are being ignored and called "false believers". Neither of the 3 wants to be linked to each other. But then if we take it to our point of view we just call 3 forms "Christianity". (I know it is wrong don't bitch on that part but it will create an image on what I said). Same goes for Satanism. You have laveyen, gnostic, theistic,... Laveyens say theistic and gnostic Satanism isn't "real Satanism". But looking from a christian point of view they will call it Satanism. End of discussion.
This time it is not about "true or not real". It is just about the different point of views on Satanism. That's what I'm saying. Got the point now?

 Quote:
I am not too fond of the use of creation.

And indeed diavolo, I better hadn't used the word "creation". Some people are getting bit crazy and stop thinking when they see that word.


Edited by Dimitri (11/17/08 02:08 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#14588 - 11/17/08 02:17 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Look Dimitri, it doesn't matter what christians think Satanism is or whom qualifies in their view because most people are too stupid to see the difference between a slayerfan, a satanist and a goth. Actually, anyone that can be identified as a satanist by mere looking at him should be clubbed to death with a sheep but that's beside the point.

It also doesn't matter what some gnostic, theistic, postmodern or jamaican satanist says he is coz most of them have no clue at all. Because they can't walk the talk they adapt the talk. Browse the internet and you'll notice what I imply.

It all matters what a satanist's view upon it is because that's the only damn thing that matters. A satanist talks the talk and walks the talk but knows it is more about values and living up to them than gibbering about theory.

But then we end at the riddle whom a satanist is and whom not. Laveyans pass the test because they are laveyan? Hell no, most of them adore it to such a degree I am surprised they didn't build chapels and burn candles at an 'Anton of Seven Sins' statue.
Satanist are:..., it's very vague I know but it's a case of you know when you know.
So there is only one kind and all the rest is whatever.

D.

Top
#14590 - 11/17/08 02:45 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
But then we end at the riddle whom a satanist is and whom not. Laveyans pass the test because they are laveyan? Hell no, most of them adore it to such a degree I am surprised they didn't build chapels and burn candles at an 'Anton of Seven Sins' statue.
Satanist are:..., it's very vague I know but it's a case of you know when you know.
So there is only one kind and all the rest is whatever.

That is what I'm saying the whole time. Or I have explained it clearly, or some people just can't read...
Anyway, I wasn't talking about the relationsships between the different sorts. Just saying he should look up the different types. I never claimed theistic or gnostic is "real". Only mentioned there are people who call it "real". And that you should take it into account there are such people. Is it that hard to gasp?
When I typed the whole explanation it was with the idea the man who asked the question got an objective view on Satanism. And to what sorts of Satanism there are in the world. As from a point of view from a "normal" person.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#14602 - 11/17/08 07:22 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Bacchae]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
I agree with the concept of inward vs. outward divnity, although sometimes it's not as clear-cut with people hinging between theistic faith and satanic philosophy. But I do think that is the fundamental difference for most cases.

Overall, we have different standards as to what qualifies as "true Satanism", but that still doesn't change the fact that, as Dimitri said, there are many self-identifying Satanists with different perspectives on the issue- which overlap on a few basic premises. Most Satanists, for example, would agree on a philosophy based on thinking for oneself (of course most don't actually do this, but it's in the theory anyway), questioning the norm, and a rational pursuit of carnal desire. Even though it's still very wide and vague, if they follow this path honestly, then they're Satanists in my book. Of course, that's still open to further interpretation, and just my own perspective, which leads us right back to the beginning! Isn't this fun?
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#14619 - 11/17/08 10:30 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: The Zebu]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Dimitri,

 Quote:

That is what I'm saying the whole time. Or I have explained it clearly, or some people just can't read...

Lets get serious for a second here man. Your english is nowhere near good enough for you to be acting all indignant when people don't understand what you are supposed to mean.

 Quote:

When I typed the whole explanation it was with the idea the man who asked the question got an objective view on Satanism. And to what sorts of Satanism there are in the world. As from a point of view from a "normal" person.

Presenting a nugget of truth in a bucket of bullshit isn't being 'objective'. If you honestly think what those other guys are doing is Satanism, (as you must if you are presenting them on the same table as the real deal) then you probably shouldn't be answering questions about the subject under the guise of knowing what you are talking about. It's misleading.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14626 - 11/18/08 01:52 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: frankinstien]
Happy Birthday Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1725
Loc: New York
Re: frankanstein.

I sure hope that I'm just tired; but all I got from that post, is that I'm dumb as shit. No offense intended by the way, but damn, I feel I should be in a corner drooling on myself and playing with my toes. lol.

I really do need to start reading more science, instead of the Novels that keep me up at night.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#14643 - 11/18/08 11:44 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Dimitri,

 Quote:

That is what I'm saying the whole time. Or I have explained it clearly, or some people just can't read...

Lets get serious for a second here man. Your english is nowhere near good enough for you to be acting all indignant when people don't understand what you are supposed to mean.

 Quote:

When I typed the whole explanation it was with the idea the man who asked the question got an objective view on Satanism. And to what sorts of Satanism there are in the world. As from a point of view from a "normal" person.

Presenting a nugget of truth in a bucket of bullshit isn't being 'objective'. If you honestly think what those other guys are doing is Satanism, (as you must if you are presenting them on the same table as the real deal) then you probably shouldn't be answering questions about the subject under the guise of knowing what you are talking about. It's misleading.

Hey, that's your opinion, I think you are talking bovine excrement as well, you can't hear me complaining.
And I never said I know what I'm talking about. That's something you just made up. Once again, read more thoroughly.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#14646 - 11/18/08 12:09 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: The Zebu]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
 Quote:
Most Satanists, for example, would agree on a philosophy based on thinking for oneself (of course most don't actually do this, but it's in the theory anyway), questioning the norm, and a rational pursuit of carnal desire. Even though it's still very wide and vague, if they follow this path honestly, then they're Satanists in my book.


Which would include every nutbag standing on the corner with foil around their head and a sandwich board accusing the CIA of tapping his cranium for information. It would also include every polygamic Mormon. Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt should be a Satanist's icons. Very broad indeed.

A theistic or devil worshipping "satanist" does not think for himself. They have to run their decisions past the "Dark Lord" first. They get their information from "talking to the devil". They have to please and answer to a higher form. Sounds pretty much like Christianity with a different deity to me.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#14649 - 11/18/08 12:39 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Dimitri, this is leading nowhere. Stating you don't know what you're talking is a very weird thing to say. It's as if I would jump into a debate, ramble a bit and then say, oh I know jack shit about this stuff, I haven't even got a clue what I am saying myself. That's a very weird statement.

Anyways, I'm all for providing a noob some anwers in this section but people joining here and posting stuff like: 'wot kind of satanists are there' and 'do satanists believe in satan' is a bit like a guy telling you he's hungry while there is plenty of food in front of him. He's just too lazy to pick it up himself and wants you to shove it down his throat.
Typing 'Satanism' in Wiki takes about 2 seconds and after a quick read, you know the basics, according to wiki of course.

So, we don't need to provide people with an objective, out of our perspective view upon it. If they're too lazy to do the effort, we should virtually kick them in the balls.

Let's drop the you didn't put my text below the microscope and analysed it well enough because it leads nowhere. We euro-trash are at times not as understandable as we think we are and the us-trash often writes a version of english that gives us goosebumps. Room enough for confusion.

D.

Top
#14651 - 11/18/08 12:44 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
Dimitri, this is leading nowhere. Stating you don't know what you're talking is a very weird thing to say. It's as if I would jump into a debate, ramble a bit and then say, oh I know jack shit about this stuff, I haven't even got a clue what I am saying myself. That's a very weird statement.

Well you know.. it's something like "knowing yourself". I said "I didn't say I know what I'm talking about". This doesn't mean I'm saying I'm plain stupid. Just the fact I don't know everything.


Edited by Dimitri (11/18/08 01:08 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#14665 - 11/18/08 08:23 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dimitri]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Old religions, devil worshippers, reverse Xitans, Yedzies have been around for thousands of years. Long before Lavey took the term over and ran with it.

In Sir richard Burton diary from the late 1800, he calls the Yesdizs Satanists, he even gives example of their music. My copy is somewhere hiding in my house. In Layards book, Nineveh & Babylon from 1853, its the same thing (it's one of the book I am in the middle of).

In oriental Magic 1956 by syed Idries Shah, he mentions how cerain grimories are not available to westerner because they were never translated from Arabic. In his bibliography he lists a bunch of books that are not found in english.

Just because Modern Satanist do not believe in a "real" Satan verses an archtype idea, is no reason to denegrate the past history of the term. It was an old term meant to cause drama, and maybe its time for a new term, a new name/refernce point to show a more prominate difference between the past and presence uses of the terms satanist/ Satanism.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#14673 - 11/18/08 10:55 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Hi Morgan,

 Quote:

In Sir richard Burton diary from the late 1800, he calls the Yesdizs Satanists,

Couple of things. First, well, you nailed it. An example of someone describing someone else as a Satanist. There are a lot of examples of this, as on this level being called a Satanist is more of a pejorative than anything. I think it is an important distinction to be noted between this and people describing themselves as Satanists.

Secondly, the Yezidiz weren't/aren't really devil worshipers in any sense of the word. Their mythology doesn't include Lucifer (Malek Taus) as an adversary or devil type figure. In fact they are said to get quite offended when referred to as devil worshipers/Satanists.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14686 - 11/19/08 03:08 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Morgan]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
It was an old term meant to cause drama, and maybe its time for a new term, a new name/refernce point to show a more prominate difference between the past and presence uses of the terms satanist/ satanism.


Satanism is an old form yes and in its time, and likely even now to some, the intention is to cause drama but probably more at an internal level than at an external. Shock, drama or psychodrama sets you free from certain patterns but after a while they lose their use or potential. It only has a limited use.

A couple of years ago I'd have supported getting rid of that flea-infested label and moving on but I don't see a better label or form. We could move along with society and pick another and stronger taboo but it would be too forced and too alienated from the basic values. The constant struggle when using satanist can be troublesome at times but that very aspect is in touch with our lives, which is also a constant struggle.
So even with all the shit surrounding it, I would not know a better form to use. And the better you know it, the more you can demystify it, the stronger it becomes, internally.

D.

Top
#14687 - 11/19/08 03:45 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Along with that, SATANIST isn't dilutable. You can have a Church of Jesus Christ with Signs Following (snake handlers), or Second Baptist Fellowship of Nazarene In Commune With The Spirit. They're simply terms that Christians use to divorce themselves from another like group with ideals they would either shun or amplify in their branch of the ever cleaving schism that is Christianity.

But we ARE Satanists. We're not Church of Satan, but more palatable because we call ourselves The Left Hand Fellowship of Christ. We're NOT a fellowship. We are simply what we are, and if that offends anyone, we tell them, there's the door. "Don't let it hit you where the good lord split you." It's not our job to "fit in" and blend with the sheep.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#14688 - 11/19/08 04:03 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: The Zebu]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
Overall, we have different standards as to what qualifies as "true Satanism", but that still doesn't change the fact that, as Dimitri said, there are many self-identifying Satanists with different perspectives on the issue- which overlap on a few basic premises.


The riddle what makes a satanist a satanist has been debated here as long as I know and besides we all popping up some values on whom the majority of us agrees, we never came to a fixed definition upon it. It's a fairly complicated question what defines a satanist and when one is LHP or RHP.
I think it boils down to one simple word: control.

The left hand path is all about control while the right hand path is about surrender or submission. In the light of these two distinct words it is easy to make the division and put people in one of both categories. No matter how many similarities there are, the moment one aspect of you consciously dismisses control in favor of submission or surrender, you abandon the LHP.

D.

Top
#14703 - 11/19/08 08:00 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Response to last few posts...

"In fact they are said to get quite offended when referred to as devil worshipers/Satanists."

The thing I remember him mentioning that bothered them more was the use of the word satan/devil (?, I really have to find where that book is hiding). It was like if you use his name, he will hear you and pay attention to what you are doing and saying. I dont think he viewed it as a pejorative, I think it was just something he used to explain them, given the time and age that it was occurring in. He tended to be respectful of the various cultures he got involved in, and tried to fit in, and become friends. Otherwise I am sure he would have been killed before he did half the stuff he did. Sorry if I spelled the name wrong (Yezidiz), I should have paid more attention to that detail and not spelled it differently in 2 different sentences.

"The constant struggle when using satanist can be troublesome at times but that very aspect is in touch with our lives, which is also a constant struggle.So even with all the shit surrounding it, I would not know a better form to use. And the better you know it, the more you can demystify it, the stronger it becomes, internally."

This is very true, and I didn't quite think of it that way.

"But we ARE Satanists"

That was my point, there are variables, but all of the variables call themselves Satanists, and a lot of them predate Lavey.

"No matter how many similarities there are, the moment one aspect of you consciously dismisses control in favor of submission or surrender, you abandon the LHP."

So, control of self, and ones future makes you LHP, verses putting your self and beliefs in Satans/Xitans hands.

What about during ritual/psychodramas, when using an archtype to get over/accomplish a mental goal. Does that decision make you less on the LHP?

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#14705 - 11/19/08 08:30 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Morgan]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
In the conduct of a psychodramatic ritualization, one is adopting the PERSONA of that emotion, or that archetype to examine its influences within himself or to display one's mastery over it. You are still who you are in everyday life, just living in a moment of suspended reality, as we do when we watch a movie in which we KNOW the things we are seeing on the screen are improbable, but we allow our minds to "go with it" for two hours.

For example, if I am a wolf of a man, I might become the sheep within the context of a ritual. Why would I do this? One reason might be that I can role play my "victims," so that I can know their minds better, having become them, if only vicariously. "How would I react to this if I were a sheep? I'd cower. I'd freeze. I might stand still while a predator approaches." It would be hard for me to be bold, unlike my normal life state.

In the ritual sense, you're giving up NOTHING as a Satanist to immerse yourself in the exercise, and you are gaining useful tools that you can use in life.

A real life example: I am very assertive in my daily life and not likely to shrink from anyone or kow tow to their assumed superiority. During a psychodramatic presentation, I was cast as a "Casper Milquetoast," and played the role of a man who felt inferior to all other men. I had to allow myself to shrink from the harsh looks of another man and to feel the shame of backing down, even if I KNEW I wouldn't. And I found that it brought out a transferrence in me that I was unaware of... I quickly found that I began to snap at the closest victim, much as that quiet man in real life would. If someone weaker than I was to interact with me, they became the object of MY scorn. And it was a darkly pleasureable experience.

A good visual example of this in a theatrical setting would be William Sanderson's portrayal of Inkeeper E.B. Farnum in the HBO miniseries DEADWOOD. He's a man with desires for respect and admiration of his peers, but he's basically a slug of a man who folds under pressure, waffles in the face of the Alpha male characters and generally comes off as the quintessential loser. But when he's alone in a scene, or when chastising his underlings at the hotel that is his domain, he seethes and becomes vicious and predatory. He's still the old "E.B. Farnum" when he again walks into the light of day, but when in HIS ritual chamber, ex excorcises his inner demons.

So the Ritual Chamber is a lot like Las Vegas. What happens there STAYS there. You don't give anything of yourself away, only examine the "what ifs" of a given situation.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#14709 - 11/20/08 12:36 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Jake999]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Miss Morgan,
 Quote:

That was my point, there are variables, but all of the variables call themselves Satanists, and a lot of them predate Lavey.

Not that I really think it is all that important, as i feel that LaVey was describing something that was already there rather than inventing something new, but I would be interested in hearing about a group of people that identified themselves as Satanists before the Church of Satan came about.

I have heard it stated many times, and generally from people who's agenda is clearly 'LaVey baiting', that Satanism was alive and well before he came about to quantify it. These people have never been able to point out exactly where, mind you.

There are plenty of examples of solitary christian practitioners worshiping the devil. But really, so what? If you argue that these people are Satanists you are also arguing that Satanism and christianity are one and the same. Do you believe this to be the case?

What it really comes down to is what we are talking about when we use the word 'Satanist'. Are we talking about the word itself or what it describes? There are plenty of words with multiple meanings in our language. If we are talking about the latter it would be very hard to argue that Devil worshipers are Satanists. If we are talking about the former we are discussing semantics and nothing more, which is really bereft of any real world meaning.

Jake,
 Quote:

In the ritual sense, you're giving up NOTHING as a Satanist to immerse yourself in the exercise, and you are gaining useful tools that you can use in life.

Succinct and on target as usual. The immediate reaction is usually 'But thats a double standard!', as if that is supposed to stop us in our tracks. So it is, so what?
Belief is a powerful tool for catharsis. Belief fuels emotion, and vice versa. Being able to focus and master belief, rather than be mastered by it is quite a powerful bit of occult knowledge. During ritual, I really 'believe', through suspension of disbelief, in whatever I am conjuring, because belief serves me in there. The belief stays in there when I am finished, along with any expelled emotion.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14710 - 11/20/08 01:55 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
If you argue that these people are Satanists you are also arguing that Satanism and christianity are one and the same. Do you believe this to be the case?

Hmm, I'm going to get a lot of negative response on this, but anyway...

In a certain way they actually ARE the same.(Or taid otherwise: they WERE the same.) Put the bible and some of jesus' his quotes in another perspective and you almost have a satanic philosophy. In the very beginning you could actually say they were the same. But as the time passes worshipping the invisible man and many other pointless rules made their way and changed alot. And so today, Xianity now became the hypocrite-contradictional bullshit we all love...

Before some start to answer and attack me, I'd like to ask only those who actually read the bible to answer me. I did, and I know why I just said this. And don't start thinking I'm some kind of christian or theistic devil-worshipper. I am not. I only live by the rule "Know your ennemy".
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#14711 - 11/20/08 02:11 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dimitri]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well, I have read the bible extensively, both old and new testament. I could probably stretch my imagination far enough to find a parallel or two between some of the old testament beliefs and Satanism, but new testament?
I really have no idea what version of the bible you are reading, or what sort of eisegesis one would have to apply, to lead to the conclusion that the new testament can be interpreted as 'one and the same' with Satanism. (I assume you mean actual Satanism, not the devil worshiping crap. If you are talking about devil worship you have essentially said nothing, so I will assume you aren't)

Perhaps you can elaborate?

And as a side note, why do you feel christians are your enemy?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14712 - 11/20/08 02:36 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
I really have no idea what version of the bible you are reading, or what sort of eisegesis one would have to apply, to lead to the conclusion that the new testament can be interpreted as 'one and the same' with Satanism.

New testament, version from 1950. It is not the whole book has a satanic influence. Just like I said before, SOME quotes. Like it is easy to see in the very beginning of the new testament Jesus isn't actually preaching to "give your soul to god". Or to "pray and spread god's word". He is only telling people they should start thinking, taking their lives into their own hands. Only thing is, within time priests changed much of the aspects and made most of the things up. Thus indoctrinating people and making them believe something else.
I'll make a topic later on about it maybe some things will become more clear then.

 Quote:
And as a side note, why do you feel christians are your enemy?

I don't see them as ennemies. I only used the sentence as some sort way of thinking. As like starting a discussion. Before I start I always look up some things about the subject to refresh my mind, and try to get some depth about my "opponent". Makes most things easier.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#14719 - 11/20/08 11:36 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dimitri]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
There are a quite a few parts in the New Testament that are genuine wisdom that can sometimes even be interpreted in a somewhat "Satanic" sense, such as thinking for yourself, questioning authority (including doing away with irrational dogmas), and being true to your nature. (although, the "love thy neighbor" deal and the entire idea of "Salvation" are entirely contradictory to the objectivist-psuedooccult-secular-epicurian-social-darwinist idea today we give the label "Satanism.")

However, it is difficult to discern what "Christ's true message" was because it was obviously skewed by the authors of the gospels to suit their own agendas. They were not concerned with giving a realistic historical account of Jesus, but rather to portray a flawless idealistic mouthpiece for the message of what they believed to be "Christianity"... and that would better bolster the image of Jesus as "the Christ", which would also serve their goal as well to gain support from the Jewish population.

As far as Satanism goes, I have seen some poets and occultists express occasional admiration for "Satan" or "Satanic qualities", but I have never actually heard of anyone actually calling themselves "Satanists" or exalting Satan religiously prior to the late 60s. (aside from the bogus claims of groups like the OFS, ONA, and other "traditional" sects) I could be wrong, though.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#14722 - 11/20/08 12:15 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: The Zebu]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

However, it is difficult to discern what "Christ's true message" was

Since he probably never existed in the first place, at least not in the context he is presented in the bible, his 'true message' was left in the hands of the authors. The closest thing to a historical jesus we have is scant evidence for a 'Rebi Yehushua' who was an orthodox Jewish Rabi from the period with a rather large following. This man bears little to no resemblance to jesus of the gospels. (which incidentally were written LONG after the 'historical jesus' would have died. (50-200 years approximately)

And I agree if you pick and choose certain 'soundbites' from the bible you can make the jesus character sound Satanic or even like a Satanist..But I would imagine you could do that to anybody if you listened long enough. Taken as a whole there is nothing Satanic about the new testament, unless you count it's intended purpose as given by Constantine. (uniting and controlling the plebes)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14723 - 11/20/08 12:21 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: The Zebu]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
As far as Satanism goes, I have seen some poets and occultists express occasional admiration for "Satan" or "Satanic qualities", but I have never actually heard of anyone actually calling themselves "Satanists" or exalting Satan religiously prior to the late 60s. (aside from the bogus claims of groups like the OFS, ONA, and other "traditional" sects) I could be wrong, though.


Try The Litanies of Satan by Charles Baudelaire (1821 - 1867)

http://fleursdumal.org/poem/191
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#14726 - 11/20/08 01:25 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Jake999]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Baudelaire, Rops and a couple of others might come closest to something that could be called satanic but it was more an "art-episode". Great in what they did but I wouldn't really call them satanists as we have in mind.

The problem is hindsight bias when trying to find satanists, satanic qualities or satanic movements in the past and it makes us vulnerable to interpreting it in a positive -to us- manner. When taking some distance from things and using an objective perspective, as far as sources and science allow us, most things satanic aren't that satanic, even the satanic lore can be traced back into things very non-satanic.

D.

Top
#14728 - 11/20/08 01:45 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I agree Diavolo. Baudelaire and others were about as close as I could come to expressing a "satanic (small S) ideal in the musty dusties, but you're right. They could hardly be considered SATANIC as we would define the term even loosely today.

Today's Satanism bears very little resemblence to anything that has come before.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#14729 - 11/20/08 02:30 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Jake999]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
When taking some distance from things and using an objective perspective, as far as sources and science allow us, most things satanic aren't that satanic, even the satanic lore can be traced back into things very non-satanic.

Sounds logic to me, most things we call "satanic" actually are nothing more then natural instincts/forces/ideas who are denied by certain religions.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#14736 - 11/20/08 03:55 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Modern Satanism is a product of "our" time.
To me it seems, in many ways, to be the slightly darker side of New Age Religion.
A mishmash of old ideas, liberated from the crumbles left behind by great thinkers of yore,
all wrapped up in glossy paper with a pink ribbon round it.
Packaging...

To call Modern Satanism; Satanism, is in my view pure vanity.
An attempt to bring stasis into what MUST be constantly under scrutiny and attack.
The word dogmatic comes to mind...

I see Satanism in Jesus, the Nazaree.
Thoughtful kinda guy, the controversy of his convictions seems to be seeping out from the borders of heavily edited text.
Dont like him much, but I have little against the guy.

I most definitly see Satanism in Diogenes of Sinope.

I see Satanism in Polytheistic religions, no question about it.

I see a shitload of Satanism in both Sartre and Nietsche.

I see Satanism in Gestalt Psychology.

In fact; I see Satanism everywhere, in the recorded history of mankind.

It is not a brand, it is not a religion, it is (a?) movement.

_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#14778 - 11/20/08 10:41 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Woland]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
My personal take on it is Vive La Difference!

Satanism is at its best when it is at its most catalytic. You can argue there was "Satanism" before the Church of Satan, and there are those who will agree with you as well as those who will disagree. History is history. We use it as a yardstick against which to measure like events in a different timeline. Of course, comparing the "satanic" movement in France with Catherine Monvoisin (La Voisin) in the 1600's against The Church of Satan in even the mid 1960's is like comparing apples to oranges. There are similarities, there are characteristics of personality that might coincide on some level, but really, one has very little to do with another. The one thing you can see is that each is a catalyst for development and movement within the overall umbrella of "Satanism."

Now, say what you will about the Church of Satan as it is today. I might probably agree with you. It's a pale reflection of that which those of us in the 1960-1990's knew. How could it not be? There's a new Sheriff in town and his name is Gilmore. I'm paraphrasing here, but someone's said that the Church of Satan is driven by whomever is High Priest. Give that man a inverted gold star.

The Church of Satan under Anton LaVey as I knew it was catalytic. People loved it and people hated it, but it caused people to MOVE. There were groups that formed like The Church of Satanic Liberation, The Temple of Set, offshoots of The Process (Church of the Final Judgement,) and others, all inspired by or set up as direct competition to The Church of Satan. And it's continued until today with easy access and easy constructed E Churches to be found by the thousands on the internet.

You can almost look at The Church of Satan as the "Big Bang" of any true Satanic movement within the century. Love them or hate them, they were the only real game in town, and they played that game well. After the "great schism" that led to the creation of The Temple of Set, also opened were the flood gates for the creation of more and more pretenders to the throne, wannabes and flim flam men in devil's horns. The Church of Satan was no longer front and center.

The Church of Satan was the first such entity to recognize that even as the catalyst, there would always be "something new."

"The chief duty of every new age is to upraise new men to determine its liberties, to lead it toward material success - to rend the rusty padlocks of dead custom that always prevent healthy expansion. Theories and ideas that have meant life and hope and freedom for our ancestors may now mean slavery, destruction and dishonor to us!"
The Satanic Bible
Book of Satan II

That applied not only to the Church of Satan's emergence, but also a call for others to build upon what was brought about by the catalytic force that was the emergence of Satanism in 1966 C.E. There's no FAILURE in that a myriad of other thoughts began to stir in other minds, getting us to the place we are today. I see it as a joyful validation of the "satanic spirit," that spark of inspiration, coupled with a shitload of dedication that keeps the Church of Satan's catalytic "big bang" ever expanding and ever growing.

Sure. There are a lot of flakes out there. Most "satanic churches" are now little more that one or two people with a Macintosh or a Gatesmobile, ripping off graphics to make a slick web site. But there are dedicated people out there who are still working on the left hand side of the road as well. As the satanic movement we saw in the 60's matures and ages, who's to say we won't see a grand resurgence of someone with the vision and the charisma to REALLY bring it together.

To date, I haven't seen anyone fitting the bill. But who knows. I have a few years left on this orb. My only advice to those willing to follow those who offer you Hell on a cracker is, "Caveat Emptor - Let the buyer beware."
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#14853 - 11/24/08 10:01 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Jake999]
Phaethon Offline
pledge


Registered: 08/01/08
Posts: 78
Personally I believe, as well as many other satanists do I'm sure, that Satan is just a mascot of the things we love, indulging ourselves and destroying our enemies. I doubt id ever meet a big red guy with horns just as much as i doubt id meet a big old white guy in robes.
Satan simply represents what is against most people's ideas of right and wrong.

As a spiritual force, I'm not much into calling on spirits or demons.
_________________________
My God & I are one & the same,
We have the same face we have the same name.

Top
#14855 - 11/24/08 01:20 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: frankinstien]
Happy Birthday Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1725
Loc: New York
The reason that I don’t see much possibility for the emergence of a powerful, solid Satanic leader, the type of person that would rival even LaVey, is because I don’t believe that such a person would feel the need to create a church or a following of any kind.

I have met a few (very few) people, who practically mesmerized me with their charm, intellect, personal drive, financial success (achieved on their own by bringing all of their characteristics together), and most of all, how they were able to live their lives so freely and independently of everyone’s rules and games, that it would make most “Satanists” drool with envy.

These few people, don’t need words and philosophies or titles to start a movement, because they are living the life which Satanists generally talk about. In other words, while most Bullshit talks, these individuals actually live the life style, without giving it a title, or feeling the need to discuss their philosophies. They could afford a Satanic campaign, and easily attract followers, as well as afford to finance the building of physical “Satanic type” buildings (churches).
However, why would they want to do it? They are already surrounded by other people who are living the life style as well, and already have people who look up to them, and are willing to serve just about every whim they might have.

These people don’t dress in capes, and perform destruction rituals against their enemies, but instead wear business suits (if they so desire), and if need be, destroy their enemies using their brain, connections, finances, and power.
They live anywhere on the globe (earth) where they wish, and live in a way, where very few others can have influence or rules set on them.

These people, who could so easily form a “church,” will not be doing so, but instead, they do just about anything that it takes, to NOT be in the public eye, since their ego’s are already stroked to the max, by their own success, and their privacy ensures the continuation of said success.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#14859 - 11/24/08 01:37 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Jake999]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Originally Posted By: Jake999

Sure. There are a lot of flakes out there. Most "satanic churches" are now little more that one or two people with a Macintosh or a Gatesmobile, ripping off graphics to make a slick web site.


Actually they're all horrid pieces of shit... made with ugly outdated graphics and crude 90's-era angelfire layouts. I've been tempted to start my own E-Cult just so I can make a satanic website that DOESN'T suck.

Anyways, Satanism as a philosophy doesn't need any central church or authority, because it is inherently individualistic by nature. That said, if anything like that does arise, it will probably be a theistic movement.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#14881 - 11/25/08 12:21 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: The Zebu]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
I've been tempted to start my own E-Cult just so I can make a satanic website that DOESN'T suck.


In other words; the 600 club sucks?
Infidel!!!
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#14893 - 11/25/08 09:26 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Woland]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
Haha, not quite what I meant...

I mean an in-depth informative site explaining various topics of Satanic/LHP subjects, not a forum.

That said, this site is probably the most tolerable I've ever seen as far as Satanism-related forums go.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#14970 - 11/27/08 08:38 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: The Zebu]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I just read this long and interesting thread entirely and I appreciate. To me it’s like gasoline enabling me to move ahead on my “spiritual path” (or my own evolution if you prefer)

Thanks for having start this thread Frank :-)

As I’ve been a theistic Satanist (understand a Slayer fan), a Xian and practiced Zen Buddhism and now call myself a Satanist, I can’t resist to react on some points. I hope I can bring some added value to this topic…

About what is Satanism and who is or is not a Satanist, I would say words are like bags: they take the form of what you put in them. And “Satanism” & “Satanist” are words. So it’s just a matter of definition. Fights I saw about this definition are infantile to my eyes.

About INWARD & OUTWARD I would like to take a concrete case: Buddha. After having looked for guidance from wise man of his time, he sat under a tree and looked deeply inwards.
So was he on the LHP? Was he a Satanist?

About guidance, it’s not always negative. Look at the thread about mentoring by Morg, it brings valuable nuances.


Regarding

 Quote:
A good book on the subject is called "Wings of Illusion" by John F. Schumaker

He argues though that the insanity of the invisible man or any other well formed or institutional superstitious belief system actually helps prevent a lot of the ills of modern society such as anorexia, bulimia, depression, drug abuse, etc. He states that religion is a certifiable form of insanity but it helps society become less insane. In a nut shell Shumaker describes religion as a reaction to the dawning of human consciousness that awoke in the dark and formidable jungle scared and confused...


It matches my own experience: when I had suddenly the Xian faith I was struggling for getting out the drugs hell. I was addicted to coke, hero and speed, living out of reality. Then reality caught me up, the nightmare started and I was close to suicide… And “Jesus saved me”

Look at another Xian’s experience reported on this forum:

 Quote:
I have been to the bottom of the abyss, i wasnt always a Christian, it was in the darkness of nothingness when all seemed hopeless, pointless, a waste of time that the light of Christ dawned in my mind.


Do you see the similarity of the experiences?

As I already said to Lux, I see him as still trapped in an illusion I escaped.
Why do I escape? Probably because I’m a free thinker, because my mom nicknamed me “WHY” when I was 5 years old.


Finally, I’m wondering if Satanism is not just “yet another step” in my own evolution. Next (last?) one would be what Asmedious mentioned:
 Quote:
I have met a few (very few) people, who practically mesmerized me with their charm, intellect, personal drive, financial success (achieved on their own by bringing all of their characteristics together), and most of all, how they were able to live their lives so freely and independently of everyone’s rules and games, that it would make most “Satanists” drool with envy.


But Carpe Diem, I'm still a Satanist...

Anton tore the last traces of culpability in deserving my own goals away. Now I read The Prince in which I find powerfull weapons.

20 years ago I was a junkie; 2 weeks ago I met Dave Chappell (the vice president of Oracle) and I have FAITH in my own God that I'll leave a trace in the History!

Top
#16798 - 12/23/08 11:08 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Fabiano]
frankinstien Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/28/08
Posts: 16
Pandemonium,

When I stated in a previous post that I had taken the red pill I was metaphorically speaking of my rejection of religion. But death at times creeps up at me and when I see that senior eating alone in a restaurant corrupted by aged; I swear I never want to be like him or her, but what choice do I have? In that desolate moment I see the dead, their alive and well. For a moment I tolerate my aging and accept the lie, but when I wake from my illusion I hate my ignorance and I hate the lie.

Lucifer is GOD.


Edited by frankinstien (12/23/08 11:15 PM)

Top
#16800 - 12/24/08 12:32 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: frankinstien]
frankinstien Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/28/08
Posts: 16
Now if I can only catch the difference between their and they're I could be a poet...



Frank

"I swear I don't want the earth I only want venus."

Top
#16815 - 12/24/08 06:06 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: frankinstien]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
Or you could use the edit button. Spelling and grammar help, too.

Edited by daevid777 (12/24/08 06:08 AM)
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#16894 - 12/25/08 12:07 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Mike Offline
member


Registered: 09/11/07
Posts: 253
Loc: Farmingdale, NY
 Quote:
Woa hold on there tex!

First, there are no branches of Satanism. That's just something that people that don't get it say. Devil worshippers and all those other nuts you named aren't 'types' of Satanists, they are nuts.


Well, let's look at it this way..
Not everybody who considers themselves to be a "satanist" has the same view as to what Satan "is". Some believe him to be a physical entity, a spiritual guiding force, our true creator god, a fallen angel, a force of nature, or in a symbolic sense, mans carnal desires and the true nature of man.

There are people who will call themselves "spiritual satanists", "traditional satanists", "modern/LaVeyan satanists", "devil worshipers", and so on. The basic ideas of each are yes very similar in the sense that Satan stands for freedom and embracing ones true nature, becoming more powerful, living up to your highest potential, ect...However, the major difference is the way individual satanists see Satan. As I said, he can be seen as a spiritual entity or a force of nature (and the list goes on), and it is that which defines what form of Satanism you follow.

Sure when you really think about it there are more similarities than differences (except when it comes to the occultism aspect), but a satanist who believes Satan as a fallen angel and a satanist who sees Satan as a symbol will not agree that they follow the same "form" of Satanism. I suppose the terms "traditional" and "spiritual" satanists are simply there to define the individuals view on Satan.

And just because devil worshipers believe in Satan as a deity doesn't mean they're all nuts. People have believed in and worshiped gods for thousands of years..They couldn't have all been nuts. Although most of their gods were answers for things occurring in nature that they couldn't explain and the fact that we are now more advanced and able to explain these things, there are some who simply have strong faith in their beliefs, and no amount of logic or explanation will change their minds. It makes them ignorant, not crazy.
_________________________
-Mike, "The Patron Satanic Saint of the Youth"

Top
#16896 - 12/25/08 12:26 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Mike]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

People have believed in and worshiped gods for thousands of years..They couldn't have all been nuts.

I disagree. We live in a society that is wired completely backwards in almost every respect. Faith is a far reaching and destructive cancer.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#16897 - 12/25/08 12:26 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Mike]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
No not ignorant just naive. Someone who worships the devil is not a satanist because they perform the action of worshipping the "devil." Hence the name devil worshiper.

You can't call yourself a satanist while worshipping a diety or other anthropomorphic being. Even if you look at other sources and do searches on Satanism you will find that it is all besed off what Lavey "created." Even in the chaplains book in the military it is listed with Lavey. Granted it may not be the "right/fair" answer but in perspective it generally isn't the way a single individual views something it is how the masses views it, and you my friend are outnumbered in this sense.

I will write more but for now I have a briefing to go to.
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#16900 - 12/25/08 12:45 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Ringmaster]
Mike Offline
member


Registered: 09/11/07
Posts: 253
Loc: Farmingdale, NY
I don't understand how worshiping Satan as deity is not Satanism. Maybe by modern Satanism standards. If that's what you mean then worshiping anything is not Satanic. But, talking in a LaVeyan sense, if you break it down the Satan these people worship comes from within, therefore by worshiping Satan as their god, it is self worship (even if they don't realize it). To me this is self-deification.

And devil worshipers choose to worship Satan. They made that choice with their own will. Could this be seen as giving up their freedom? Sure, but they are merely surrendering themselves to themselves (unknowingly).

 Quote:
Even if you look at other sources and do searches on satanism you will find that it is all besed off what Lavey "created."


Exactly. That is what I meant by "more similarities than differences" between all the different "forms" of Satanism.

To a theistic Satanist, Satan is as much of a reality as anything, considering the fact that Satan exists in their head and thus is part of their perceived reality. Therefore by worshiping Satan, is is disguised self worship. And as you mentioned, everything is based on what LaVey "put together". It is all similar in values and what the individual satanist sees what Satan stands for.
_________________________
-Mike, "The Patron Satanic Saint of the Youth"

Top
#16902 - 12/25/08 12:55 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Mike Offline
member


Registered: 09/11/07
Posts: 253
Loc: Farmingdale, NY
 Quote:
I disagree. We live in a society that is wired completely backwards in almost every respect. Faith is a far reaching and destructive cancer.


This I do agree with, however to one who has faith believes it has the power to heal. My aunt and uncle are both born again christians...In this case, I do see them as nuts (like many other christian extremeists), but to them it's the lack of faith that is destructive. Who is right? If you ask the majority of society, what would their answer be? The problem is the answer you would receive. Do people have faith because they're nuts, or are they nuts for having faith? If it is the former, I've been there before. Most nuts do tend to have faith due to their irrational thinking. But nuts for having faith? Maybe stupid for having faith, but if they can still thinking logically about things other than religion, they still have some sanity.
_________________________
-Mike, "The Patron Satanic Saint of the Youth"

Top
#16905 - 12/25/08 01:09 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Mike]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Faith healing is a scam on the same level as cold reading. Many people believe in both of these, and many other scams as well. So what?

Sure people with faith believe you should have faith, but that is because they have been conditioned away from being reasonable. Religion instills from a very young age that faith has a higher epistemological value than reason, which is quite problematic, and being that it doesn't really work causes it's adherents to operate mostly on reason in their day to day activities or risk death.

But the very fact that these people are able to abandon reason at the drop of a hat is what makes them dangerous. That most people believe in this same sort of idea of an external authority being able to supersedes reason has lead to far reaching and tangible problems in all reaches of society.

ALL faith leads to this same problem.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#16906 - 12/25/08 01:13 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Mike]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
 Quote:
And devil worshipers choose to worship Satan.


And christians, catholics, ect... choose to worship christ and yet they are considered to be living in self deciet. Does this make the devil worshiper any different? If so how?

How is
 Quote:
worshiping Satan as their god, it is self worship
that true? It just sounds like an oxymoron. You either are a montheist, polythiest, or auothiest, you are not a combination. It doesn't make any sense to say I worship the devil but my knowing that it isn't real is making it worshiping myself. See the oxymoron involved in this? Also every person who worships something "comes from within" it is called devotion, and motivation. No one is forcing them to worship such and such diety.

 Quote:
To a theistic Satanist, Satan is as much of a reality as anything, considering the fact that Satan exists in their head and thus is part of their perceived reality. Therefore by worshiping Satan, is is disguised self worship.


Sounds like a utopia to me. How and why would you disguise self worship? You either view yourself as autothiest or not.

But now I have a mission and need to go for now more later.
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#16908 - 12/25/08 02:59 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Ringmaster]
Mike Offline
member


Registered: 09/11/07
Posts: 253
Loc: Farmingdale, NY
 Quote:
And christians, catholics, ect... choose to worship christ and yet they are considered to be living in self deciet. Does this make the devil worshiper any different? If so how?


Satan stands for different aspects than God. God has always told man to worship and follow him to be saved (or else..). There is nowhere in the bible for devil worshipers to say Satan wants people to worship him.

 Quote:
It doesn't make any sense to say I worship the devil but my knowing that it isn't real is making it worshiping myself. See the oxymoron involved in this? Also every person who worships something "comes from within" it is called devotion, and motivation. No one is forcing them to worship such and such diety.


Hm, I suppose. But they are technically worshiping a creation of their own imagination. I don't know what that would be called. It sounds like self worship to me.
_________________________
-Mike, "The Patron Satanic Saint of the Youth"

Top
#16910 - 12/25/08 03:20 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Mike]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm going to jump sides for this argument.

Technically there is no difference between a theistic satanist worshiping the Satan entity as an ideal and a modern satanist worshiping himself.

What a modern satanist worships is not himself but himself and his potential; his SuperEgo. If a modern was worshiping himself as is, he'd be a mediocre slacker because, due to the fact that merit and self-improvement is an essential part of the modern satanic philosophy, he can't but worship himself as will be, the god to become, the ego transcending his current position; the SuperEgo. This SuperEgo is not different from the Satan ideal of a theistic satanist.

D.

Top
#16911 - 12/25/08 03:43 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
The difference sir is a difference of faith vs no faith, which is HUGE.

I KNOW I exist, and I don't need to introduce any self deceptive fantasy into my worldview to have it make sense.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#16912 - 12/25/08 04:03 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Not really.

In essence human as his own god is a moot concept. In reality every human is his own god; nature has designed it in such a manner, you can't escape the fact that your consciousness is the center of the universe. Not everyone realizes it but all are. So we could say that glorifying that we are our own god is a bit similar to glorifying we are all human. That's great but besides great, that's it.

Now what do we actually glorify? Our existence? That would be rather shallow because if that was something to glorify, we'd be on the same level as Joe Six-pack. he exists too. So, what's next? Our being special? Well, I think everyone feels special so nothing to glorify either. So I can't come up with anything else but the SuperEgo. Due to the fact that I'm a critical and perfectionist egocentric asshole, I can't be happy and jolly for what I am today, no, there is room to improve, things to change, parts to explore. No stagnation, no mediocrity for me, so I can't glorify what is, I can only glorify what will be. SuperEgo, Satan, what's in a name?

Your ego is a self deceptive fantasy, your consciousness is, your worldview is. If you can't know reality as it really is, there is only a self-deceptive fantasy left to have faith in.

Gosh, I like switching sides. ;\)

D.

Top
#16914 - 12/25/08 04:36 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Your ego is a self deceptive fantasy, your consciousness is, your worldview is. If you can't know reality as it really is, there is only a self-deceptive fantasy left to have faith in.


The rest of your post agrees with my position, (even though you begin it with 'not really' as if it doesn't) so let me start here.

How is embracing reality in the only way we are capable of doing so 'self deceptive'? This makes no sense at all to me. Reality as it really is is indistinguishable from reality as we perceive it, for all intents and purposes. It is when you convince yourself into believing things that are incongruous with how you actually experience them that it becomes self deception.

Faith in this context , aka 'religious faith' is defined as belief without evidence..as is necessary to believe in any sort of spiritual bogeyman, be he called Satan, God, or FSM. No such faith is required to enshrine ones own superego, the existence of which is supported by mountains of evidence, both objectively measurable and subjectively experienced. It could and has been argued that the only true axiom is 'I exist'.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#16918 - 12/25/08 06:15 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Mike Offline
member


Registered: 09/11/07
Posts: 253
Loc: Farmingdale, NY
Well, everything Diavolo said and this:

It's all about perception. If you believe in Satan as an entity, you are giving it life with your head. For this reason there is no difference between someone who views Satan as a true being or recognizes Satan as his "SuperEgo" as D put it. The only difference is the level of understanding.
_________________________
-Mike, "The Patron Satanic Saint of the Youth"

Top
#16919 - 12/25/08 06:30 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Mike Offline
member


Registered: 09/11/07
Posts: 253
Loc: Farmingdale, NY
 Quote:
It is when you convince yourself into believing things that are incongruous with how you actually experience them that it becomes self deception.


I wouldn't go as far as to call it self deception, it's more of confusion. Understanding exactly what Satan is to a theistic Satanist, it is easy to see that the identity of Satan is a creation of the sub-conscious mind. When you convince yourself into believing things that differ from how you experience them, it is because you are experiencing them on a level that feels like reality and is perceived as a reality. This is where the confusion comes in. Those who have convinced themselves into believing because of what they have experienced are confused and cannot see the reason why their experience with it has changed and simply accept it as part of their reality, as opposed to one who has come to the realization that the Satan they believe in came into existence through them and exists solely in their perceived reality. Worshiping this entity in either case could technically be considered "self-worship", for the Satan they believe in came from within.
_________________________
-Mike, "The Patron Satanic Saint of the Youth"

Top
#16920 - 12/25/08 06:33 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Mike Offline
member


Registered: 09/11/07
Posts: 253
Loc: Farmingdale, NY
 Quote:
The difference sir is a difference of faith vs no faith, which is HUGE.


But to a theistic Satanist it isn't a matter of faith because of their experience with the entity. I explained this in my last post. If the person "knows" because of experience, it isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of truth (to them to say the least).
_________________________
-Mike, "The Patron Satanic Saint of the Youth"

Top
#16921 - 12/25/08 06:50 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
It could be argued indeed, although in that case 'I think I exist' would be more correct.

Of course we can't but accept reality as we perceive it is but not even this is a constant, as we experience ourselves. At some levels there will be no difference but emotional moods as an example translate reality differently. I'm not going to argue upon a consensus reality, you and I seem to embrace the same one but from an opposing point of view, I do not see much differences between satan as an ideal strive for, whether you call him an entity or not and our SuperEgo. It's form as I have addressed in previous replies. Even in modern ritual this old form is maintained. It's called psychodrama but essentially there is not much difference.

Faith is indeed belief without evidence but we're too hung up upon faith. Every human is having faith at some level or to some degree. Even our striving to become our SuperEgo is an act of faith, it's based upon knowing what we are and our potential but the assumption that we can accomplish our will is an act of faith to a degree. We do not have any evidence we are actually capable. It's an assumption, a plausible assumption maybe but nothing more than that.

D.

Top
#16927 - 12/25/08 07:37 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Mike]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm taking the opposing role in my argument with Dan but although you seem to think I'm agreeing with your position, I am not. As I have said before, there is content and wrapping and when I'm discussing another wrapping, I am still discussing the same content.

The position I am taking is not one you'll find often in theistic Satanism because most theistic Satanism is ONLY a construction of reality without having done the required deconstruction first. It's pure wrapping, pure form. I tend to dislike things that are pure form, it's a matter of believing to be while I prefer to be.

D.

Top
#16937 - 12/25/08 08:45 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

It could be argued indeed, although in that case 'I think I exist' would be more correct.

Well, not really. The axiom reads 'I think, therefor I am', and it is axiomatic because there is no way to argue against it without being self contradictory.
Such is the nature of an axiom.
 Quote:

I do not see much differences between satan as an ideal strive for, whether you call him an entity or not and our SuperEgo.

Agreed
Up until the second you actually believe there is an entity out there somewhere called Satan (or anything else). At that point the whole theory goes to shit. You CAN NOT be an autotheist while also believing there is some force out there that must be appeased. I have already explained why not several times.
 Quote:

We do not have any evidence we are actually capable. It's an assumption, a plausible assumption maybe but nothing more than that.

No, there is a mountain of evidence, and it grows every single time I enact my will with success.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#16949 - 12/26/08 12:58 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
If there is an entity called Satan, why worship him? What do you get out of it? In the end you'd still have to be dependent on yourself- not some god.

If you want to believe Satan is some deistic "supernatual force" rather than literally worship it as a god, that makes more sense, but then again having faith in such a thing seems pointless if it has no great consequence in your life.

I too have had "spiritual experiences", but the more I experimented with the ritual arts, the more I realized it was just all in my subconscious. And the more I learned about psychology and human/animal behavior, I found adequate and scientifically sound explanations for what I had previously attributed to "the spiritual". I realized that all my faith-based ideas, while being comforting, were ultimately useless in the face of practicality (and simply being honest with myself)

If faith serves no purpose other than to perpetuate its own existence, then it must be excised and destroyed without hesitation.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#16950 - 12/26/08 02:16 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
To D. & General company...

"So I can't come up with anything else but the SuperEgo. Due to the fact that I'm a critical and perfectionist egocentric asshole, I can't be happy and jolly for what I am today, no, there is room to improve, things to change, parts to explore. No stagnation, no mediocrity for me, so I can't glorify what is, I can only glorify what will be. SuperEgo, Satan, what's in a name?"

Yes.


Devil, god, christ, satan, yankees, knicks, and etc worshipping is still the SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU GET ON YOUR KNEES TO A "GOD IDEA".


When you choose to be YOUR OWN GOD, you only get on your knees during sex.

They are two different things.

Either the voices in your head are your own, or you think they come from somewhere else.....

Jeeze people, come on....
Mikey, you should know better by now...


Morg
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#16957 - 12/26/08 04:54 AM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
"I think therefor I am" doesn't imply "I" am but I "think" I am. It might be both an argument for existence but the very nature of existence might be different. Nowadays science proved Descartes wrong in his view of the I, the I isn't, the I we think we are is but let's not get too much into that.

To a degree it doesn't matter if we believe something exists or not. if John Wayne is my role model, does it matter if he is:

a) a real person
b) a movie character
c) made up by myself

No, what I believe is irrelevant compared to what I do with this belief. As long as I don't sit on my knees all day long, dressed as a cowboy, burning gunpowder at his statue and praying to become like him, it is irrelevant. If I actively strive to become the SuperCowboy it doesn't matter if this SuperCowboy is a real of fictional character. It's the same with modern Satanism. What is the use of believing in a psychological ideal to strive for, declare myself a satanist and then sit in the couch being what I am for the next 40 years. The approach is what counts and the approach is what makes a difference. Belief or not might only be a stimulus. It doesn't matter much how I call this stimulus, a deity, a dark force, or a psychological ideal.

If ritual is psychodrama and it works for some, why is taking the psychodrama out of the ritual and make it work there suddenly such a despised act?

There is not a mountain of evidence for what you are capable of doing in the future Dan. There is only faith in probabilities. Evidence counts for acts that are and were but not necessarily for acts that will be. Probabilities do and we need to have some faith in those.

D.

Top
#16968 - 12/26/08 12:14 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

"I think therefor I am" doesn't imply "I" am but I "think" I am.

Uhh what? D, sometimes I swear you argue just to argue. You do know what 'therefor' means, right?
But just for shits and giggles, why don't you make an argument against your own existence without contradicting yourself? (hint:to be successful 'you' can not be the one making the argument!)
It remains that our own subjective existence is indeed axiomatic.

 Quote:

To a degree it doesn't matter if we believe something exists or not. if John Wayne is my role model, does it matter if he is:

a) a real person
b) a movie character
c) made up by myself

It doesn't matter one bit. That is unless c is true but you have convinced yourself of a. At that point it becomes all sorts of problematic. I would be more than happy to re-hash why, if you'd like. Unless you suddenly have no problem with self-deception, in which case by all means feel free to believe in whatever your imagination can conceive of, and we will just skip this.

 Quote:

Nowadays science proved Descartes wrong in his view of the I, the I isn't, the I we think we are

No, I'm not gonna let that one fly by either. How has science proven this axiomatic statement incorrect?


 Quote:

No, what I believe is irrelevant compared to what I do with this belief

And that my friend is just it. What you 'do' with beliefs is use them to formulate other beliefs. It's a never ending web. False beliefs just spoil the sauce, and lead you AWAY from bedrock reality. Maybe that doesn't matter to you. It matters to me.

 Quote:

There is not a mountain of evidence for what you are capable of doing in the future Dan. There is only faith in probabilities. Evidence counts for acts that are and were but not necessarily for acts that will be. Probabilities do and we need to have some faith in those.

I once debated a christian that told me I had to have 'faith' that my chair would not disappear or fall apart every time I sat in it. You are presenting the exact same argument. The 3000 times I have sat in the chair before this one count as quite solid evidence that the chair can, indeed, hold my weight.

The thousands of times I have enacted my will with success do, in fact, count as evidence that I will be able to do so in the future.

Just to be clear, when I use the word 'faith' I am talking about religious faith, which is defined as 'belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary'. Also 'evidence' is not synonymous with 'proof'.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#16971 - 12/26/08 01:00 PM Re: So What's the Difference? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Not really. ;\)

Of course I just argue to argue at times. Getting a bit tired of it now and don't really feel like defending our theistic brothers too long. After all, if they'd be intelligent, they sure could defend themselves.

Personally I feel you get a bit too stressed by the word faith. I don't let it bother me too much. If someone tells me he thinks Satan is the dark force in nature, he's essentially talking shit too. There are no dark forces in nature but as long as that is what he uses to present satan to himself and others and the rest of his ideas are tolerable it is fine to me. It's not because someone has faith in something, he automatically triggers a chaineffect that ends with him thinking he's Napolean.

D.

Top
Page all of 6 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.092 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 100 queries. Zlib compression disabled.