Page 5 of 8 « First<34567>Last »
Topic Options
#27987 - 08/06/09 12:42 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2550
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
What I would say is probably the closest I ever heard Dr. LaVey say as being akin to belief in a manifestation of Satan as other than a symbolic being was when he was talking about the universality of certain archetypes that begin to attain a life of their own beyond their legend ...

In The Satanic Bible, we read, "There is no heaven of glory bright, and no hell where sinners roast. Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy! Here and now is our opportunity! Choose ye this day, this hour, for no redeemer liveth!"

And he speaks of the allegorical nature of "Satan" in the Infernal Diatribe: "How sad, that the allegorical personage most responsible for the success of spiritual religions is shown the least amount of charity and the most consistent abuse - and by those who most unctuously preach the rules of fair play!"

That's the LaVey that I spoke with and broke bread with and followed (still do). We spoke of death as the "great abstinence," but never as anything other than "just another damned thing you gotta do." He never once related anything that would indicate he felt there was any melding of energies or that there was some deity that was an overseeing factor in life or death. Was it an act for MY benefit?

Not at all. Anton [not unlike any seasoned Jesuit] was perfectly capable of discussing "Satan" [and "God" for that matter] on several levels of focus, from the abstract to the literal, the simplistic to the mind-boggling. I heard, and participated in, many discussions as you describe here, which were entirely appropriate to the audience and context. [And this is not meant in the least to be condescending. Simply speaking with others in language they can understand, about concepts they are not predisposed to reject.]

As touched upon previously, contemporary Americans [in particular] regard religion as comic-book fiction: useful for social networking, for chest-thumping vote-getting, for holidays, etc. They don't consider things like God, Jesus, angels, Satan, and/or devils actually real. Which is a good thing, else life here would be as crazy as in, for example, Islamic fundamentalist societies or medieval Europe.

Anton LaVey accordingly realized that, to be tolerated by and communicative with society, the Church of Satan had to present a "dispensable Devil". The public, even the Church's general membership, had to be able to laugh it all off, laugh him off. If for a moment he was thought to be anything more than San Francisco's latest Emperor Norton, he'd have been Unpersoned like Charles Manson.

Anton's sincerity about Satan emerged to and with individuals able to grapple with that same reality themselves, such as Magister John Ferro and myself. John was a Lecturer in History at the [Catholic] University of San Francisco; he was well able to handle this kind of "layering" both as the principal official at 6114 in the early days and in his public interviews. And of course I did much the same to the public, though I was much less guarded within, for instance, Louisville's Nineveh Grotto.

People have a need to believe certain things very strongly, and to disbelieve other things equally strongly. Orwell explored this well in 1984 with the terms "doublethink" and "crimestop". His character Syme, who was both smart and rash to see & discuss the machinery and the necessity underlying such devices, was in due course Unpersoned, liquidated.

In a television interview once, I was asked about Jesus. I said, "I know Jesus better than any of you. I have to." That got some attention! I went on, "Jesus is the Form of innocence, of nonconsciousness of self, of high intelligence wholly focused outwardly, responding entirely to the natural, e.g. 'God', phenomena of the universe. Mankind's "sin" is its capacity for introspection, self-consciousness, hence distinction and discretion. As with the metaphorical apple in the Garden of Eden, this awakening cannot be reversed or undone. Innocence cannot be regained; man can never become Christ; he can only curse and punish his consciousness, wish for an 'excuse' from it, which is what Divine Grace is all about."

And that's why "Satan" is so feared and hated, such that over the centuries people have tried to argue him away, physically punish or kill him away, or in our own civilized era simply Thoughtcrime him away. Deny his existence, turn him into a mere symbol, and you're safe from that dark thing at your conscious core. Let it out and you're like Batman, ravished and obsessed by his bat-demon, not merely participating in humanity's loss of innocence, but actively acknowledging and embracing the power and presence behind that loss. That is the ultimate outrage, the inexcusable "sin".

I am a bit surprised at myself that today I should be speaking out this way. After all, the Temple of Set discarded all of JudæoChristianity, including its corrupted and stolen imagery (such as "Satan") 34 years ago. Who cares if "Satanists" wander the world today insisting on their disbelief in Satan, if they have one or more "churches" whose names are an equal absurdity? As Captain Nemo said, imagine how dangerous they might be if they actually pierced the veil, actually saw, actually realized. Far better the Crimestop Atheism of Gilmore, Wolf, et al.

 Quote:
FORCED ENTRANCE
- by Betty Ford (my mother), age 13

There came a time when they were not content
To shriek against the portals and the shrine.
They crushed the silver gates, and in they went,
Hot-handed, on a search for the Divine.

And the white portals opened ceaselessly,
And the great purple curtains flapped and fell,
And the great mass of people swept to see
Naked Untruth, but how they could not tell.

Still they found nothing godlike, but a throne
Empty and time-worn, in an empty hall,
And a white heap of manuscripts, alone,
And the Sun’s rays that fell, nor ceased to fall.

And, in one sheltered crevass they went by,
A flight of stairs that wound into the sky.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27989 - 08/06/09 01:45 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Far better the Crimestop Atheism of Gilmore, Wolf, et al.

This is something that will probably never cease to puzzle me: atheists don't mask some belief for "crimestop" political reasons, for psychological reasons, or any other conscious or unconscious ulterior motive. We simply don't believe any supernatural fantasy creature is somehow less unreal than any other fantasy creature. As simple as this sounds, apparently to some major part of the population this is beyond taboo or evil; not gross, not obscene, not blasphemous, just unthinkable. We atheists can easily think of their gods. Some of us can even play-pretend for a while, genuinely beliving they exist while knowing we deceive ourselves. We can keep those conflicting thoughts in our minds simultaneously. But it seems that believers can't, and I have to wonder what else they're missing.

That went off-topic.

Closer to the topic, or at least to what was being discussed more recently in the thread, I don't think neither Jake nor I are trying to convince you (Aquino) that you might have misunderstood LaVey. Personally, I find it quite credible that you thought LaVey supported your view, and even that he might have done so. I'm genuinely impressed with the discourse you've created, too, and I wouldn't feel too good trying to dismantle it, because somehow it would feel like shredding an artist's work.

A decade ago, while I was a member of the Church of Satan, I had political reasons for "proving" you wrong. I no longer have that agenda, however, since I'm no longer a member, so now I'm asking out of sheer interest: what I'm at is simply that you seem rather isolated with that view; if you feel you need to convince others that LaVey really believed in the Devil, we happen to be a bunch of people that can't draw the same conclusions from the material you've provided. When you see a passage, you seem to see the Devil; we see no more than symbolism and powerful rhetoric. Less ambiguous texts, and in particular a number of people supporting your view would support your point much more than any explanations you provide, and would in fact add some color to LaVey's legacy. This I'd love (honestly!) to see.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#27992 - 08/06/09 03:04 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2550
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: wolf
Atheists don't mask some belief for "crimestop" political reasons, for psychological reasons, or any other conscious or unconscious ulterior motive. We simply don't believe any supernatural fantasy creature is somehow less unreal than any other fantasy creature.

True - unless the Atheist feels that terrible, gnawing compulsion to call himself not an Atheist but a "Satanist". That is not an act of belief; it is one of attempted destruction of the thing, and if not that at least cooption and corruption so that it cannot be a threat. It is O'Brien purifying Winston Smith by obliterating his vision of and love for Julia so that Winston [and Julia] are left empty husks. It is, as O'Brien said to/of Winston, "a stain that must be wiped out". Else you would not be drawn to "Satanism" forums, but would be completely contented within Atheist ones.

 Quote:
Personally, I find it quite credible that you thought LaVey supported your view, and even that he might have done so. I'm genuinely impressed with the discourse you've created, too, and I wouldn't feel too good trying to dismantle it, because somehow it would feel like shredding an artist's work.

By which, in so likening it, you relegate it to personal fantasy, as you apparently feel so compelled to do. That it might just possibly be a reality beyond the material cage into which you have locked yourself is inadmissible, psychologically intolerable.

 Quote:
A decade ago, while I was a member of the Church of Satan, I had political reasons for "proving" you wrong. I no longer have that agenda, however, since I'm no longer a member ...

There's a certain comic irony in my becoming the "Church of Satan"'s Satan, don't you think?

 Quote:
What I'm at is simply that you seem rather isolated with that view; if you feel you need to convince others that LaVey really believed in the Devil, we happen to be a bunch of people that can't draw the same conclusions from the material you've provided.

Actually there have been several thousand Setians over the years who haven't any difficulty with the notion whatever, and quite a few others in my experience with the same general perspective (often just casually). On the other hand the "Church of Satan", to the extent that anyone looks into it beyond its now-misleading name, just comes across as pointless at best, silly at worst. My hardest task when discussing it has been to convince others that it was ever anything beyond this.

 Quote:
When you see a passage, you seem to see the Devil; we see no more than symbolism and powerful rhetoric. Less ambiguous texts, and in particular a number of people supporting your view would support your point much more than any explanations you provide, and would in fact add some color to LaVey's legacy. This I'd love (honestly!) to see.

No you wouldn't; if I produced a document in Anton's own handwriting, affirming Satan's personal authority and Anton's representation of him on Earth, say something like this, you'd just rush to stamp it once again as "symbolism". You have no other option.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27994 - 08/06/09 03:29 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: TornadoCreator]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3128
I'm going to hop in for a little while.

Wolf, I hope you know you are speaking to the real Aquino here, you know; the one that is one of the "founding members" (if I may call it that way). A person who actually knew LaVey and was active from more or less the beginning of the CoS? Someone whose "Satanic experience" is way over that of both of us...
Yet you are trying to argue and question Aquino, or even looking like you are trying to convince him his idea is false?

On a personal note: I do not really care wheter the Dr believed in Satan as a literal being or a symbol. He has left us some of his ideas within his books, his beliefs and ideas. It's sufficient for me. I do not need more, I don't feel inclined to discuss wether or not what he believed. It's bickering over a detail. So what if he was "atheistic" or "theistic".. Give it a fucking break, unless you are writing a Danish autobiografy which no one will read anyway...

As morgan (or was it someone else) said: Does it really matter?


Edited by Dimitri (08/06/09 03:32 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#27995 - 08/06/09 03:40 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2550
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Wolf, I hope you know you are speaking to the real Aquino here, you know; the one that is one of the "founding members" (if I may call it that way). A person who actually knew LaVey and was active from more or less the beginning of the CoS? Someone whose "Satanic experience" is way over that of both of us...
Yet you are trying to argue and question Aquino, or even looking like you are trying to convince him his idea is false?

Thanks, Dimitri, but in fact Ole Wolf & I are old Internet-friends who just like to give each other a hotfoot now and then.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27997 - 08/06/09 03:50 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
True - unless the atheist feels that terrible, gnawing compulsion to call himself not an atheist but a "Satanist". That is not an act of belief; it is one of attempted destruction of the thing,

Yes, unless one is willing to acknowledge that Atheism is merely a negative (in the philosophical sense of the word) definition. That is, Atheism rejects gods, but it doesn't offer anything. It doesn't offer values, ethics, morals, or anything else. In contrast, Satanism offers these things, but it doesn't imply deities, as these things can easily be made up without gods. Satanism thus shares Atheism with Atheism, but there's more to Satanism than mere Atheism. As a Satanist, you choose these values that aren't offered by Atheism, but you remain an Atheist nonetheless.

 Quote:
There's a certain comic irony in my becoming the "Church of Satan"'s Satan, don't you think?

No offense, but I'd attribute a little more adversity to the Devil than merely considering Him my political opponent.

 Quote:
Actually there have been several thousand Setians over the years who haven't any difficulty with the notion whatever,

That is only reasonable if they think your view makes sense. Like I said, you've created an impressive discourse that has provided many people with a functional Weltanschauung, but I think that's your credit, not LaVey's. This is also why I think it would be wrong to take this credit away from you, tearing an artist's work to pieces, as it were. Believe what you may (and for good reason, too), but that was a sincere statement: you made something of it, which is probably more than can be said of most Satanists.

 Quote:
No you wouldn't; if I produced a document in Anton's own handwriting, affirming Satan's personal authority and Anton's representation of him on Earth, say something like this, you'd just rush to stamp it once again as "symbolism". You have no other option.

Sure I do; even if LaVey turned out a full-fledged believer, I could still decide to interpret him any way liked, including an Atheist one. That's how beliefe systems (like any ideological system) happen to work, because without gods, we're pretty free to do what we like with them.

You're somewhat right, however, in the sense that I'd be skeptical even if faced with a pact signed in LaVey's own blood: a handful ambiguous texts, including a piece of signed handwriting confirming his belief, would probably not cut it. I'd demand significant evidence of his devoted study of the nature of Satan, and evidence of his attempts to communicate with the Prince of Darkness, not to mention a handful more primary sources (oh bugger; not those pesky terms o' sociology agin...) than you alone to convince me. That is, you're an authority in your own right, but it might be a wee more convincing if a group of contemporary sources said independently of you, "yeah, that's what Anton told us, too."

Again, I don't intend to prove you wrong; my personal stance wouldn't change, because my stance doesn't require LaVey's authority. (Yes, I might be a little embarrassed for a while, but it wouldn't change my stance.) I'm just curious whether there really is any evidence that would, shall we say, convince those not already convinced.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#27999 - 08/06/09 04:00 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Dimitri]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Wolf, I hope you know you are speaking to the real Aquino here, you know; ... Yet you are trying to argue and question Aquino, or even looking like you are trying to convince him his idea is false?

Aquino already answered your question (thanks, Michael), so I'll just remind you I told you to get your who's who straight before pretending to know too much.

My only regret is that I've been too opposed to Aquino for political purposes, but at least this has taught me to only be hostile against complete idiots.

For now, Dimitri, have a look at my signature and figure out where you first saw it. Then think.


Edited by wolf (08/06/09 04:01 PM)
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#28000 - 08/06/09 04:24 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
If by this, you not so subtle hint at your accomplishment to be part in the creation of the Satanic Reds, please keep in mind that such accomplishments are a bit similar to stating you were the original clown McDonald's continued their image upon.

D.

Top
#28001 - 08/06/09 04:46 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Diavolo]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
If by this, you not so subtle hint at your accomplishment to be part in the creation of the Satanic Reds, please keep in mind that such accomplishments are a bit similar to stating you were the original clown McDonald's continued their image upon.

I don't recall asking you to think, and it doesn't appear your succeeded either.

The Satanic Reds was founded by two Magisters and a Priest of the Church of Satan, among others. (I didn't actually co-found it, although that's how it was presented at that time. I believe my response was somewhere along the lines of "sure, if that's what you feel" when they asked me to agree to be a co-founder.) Feel free to consider this a McDonald's franchise if you like, or feel free to have any opinion you prefer; I don't know what you were doing at that time, nor do I care.

But no: I wasn't referring to The Satanic Reds. You need to go a little further back. Or rather, Dimitri does.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#28003 - 08/06/09 04:50 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3128
 Quote:
But no: I wasn't referring to The Satanic Reds. You need to go a little further back. Or rather, Dimitri does.

Am I that an object of interest of you?
Second time you are calling me, if you really think I'm that an idiot why do you keep responding then?

It's healhty to have an ego if you at least have done something worthwhile... And I really mean something worthwhile and not the constant bickering and kissing ass from the CoS in the past.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#28004 - 08/06/09 04:53 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
tsk tsk tsk

 Quote:
Tani Jantsang is best known as the coauthor of eleven historical monographs on the world’s many manifestations of the left-hand path. She formed the Satanic Reds along with a few others, including noted Danish Satanists Ole Wolf and Hr.Vad.

Satanism TODAY
AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, FOLKLORE, AND POPULAR CULTURE
James R. Lewis



I was merely quoting this infallible source upon all things satanic which was highly recommended by some. Touché. ;\)

D.

Top
#28005 - 08/06/09 05:02 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Dimitri]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Second time you are calling me, if you really think I'm that an idiot why do you keep responding then?

Hopefully you're aware that you asked me a question, which I answered. Otherwise, if you're suffering from a limited attention span, please read the previous entries and find your own most recent entry. It contains a question. I answered the question. You are now asking why I answered it. Incidentally, I'm now asking myself that same question.

 Quote:
And I really mean something worthwhile and not the constant bickering and kissing ass from the CoS in the past.

As in the time, before you had even heard the 'S' word and hadn't even begun to speculate which specific kind of Christian you were, yes. Those were good days. But please think and perhaps even study per LaVey's suggestion that Satan demands study not worship. Then post on that issue, unless you have anything meaningful to contribute with. Your attempt to teach me who Aquino is wasn't particularly informing.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#28007 - 08/06/09 05:53 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Diavolo]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I was merely quoting this infallible source upon all things satanic which was highly recommended by some. Touché. ;\)

Paraphrasing Herbert Pauli, you're not right, and you're not even wrong. That is, you've missed the point so badly you don't even know what questions to ask, or what the "fight" is about: if you wish to yell "touché," at least make sure you've entered the arena lest you look like Dimitri.

I was about to answer some implied question about The Satanic Reds, assuming you were educated enough to understand just a fraction of basic research principles. But, then Amina reminded me of your vehement defense of people's right to dismiss the third Satanic Statement, and that you probably didn't know what was implied by a book (published 2001, having been on its way for three or four years) with the word "encyclopedia" in its title, so I'll start at an even lower level. Being a so-called "encyclopedia," the book consists of external contributions from a variety of parties, some of whom may have an agenda. Have a closer look at the entry you managed to find, and you'll find the source: it is Karl Mac Mc Kinnon, who was a member of The Satanic Reds. Hence, at the time (2001) the book was published, The Satanic Reds had a self-description that stated I was a co-founder. That was the "official policy." Today their official policy is more along the lines of "Ole Wolf hardly existed." The entry wasn't wrong at the time, but it is dated and it is found in a so-called encyclopedia.

Of course, reasonably educated people know that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to provide the "truth" but rather to be a reference. For a second you had me there, but fortunately Amina reminded me of your inability to even acknowledge an entire scientific field, so I had to significantly limit the extent of my explanation.

In any event, I'm not discussing Lewis' book, or an entry in an encyclopedia that he didn't write, nor were I debating with you to begin with. I'm merely wondering what on Earth this has to do with this discussion, because your contribution is about as uninformed and irrelevant as when your friend Dimitri had to tell me who Aquino is. But, thank you for at least starting on a who's who study, as it was a much needed improvement.

Now, let's get back on topic, please.


Edited by wolf (08/06/09 06:01 PM)
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#28008 - 08/06/09 06:12 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Tsk tsk tsk, the Danes sure got no sense of humour. Some say it is because of their wives.

What I'm doing here is prodding a balloon. You know what I like about Aquino? The fact that even when he has a legendary status in the satanic community, he acts very normal. In your case, I suspect that your ego logs in two minutes before you do. What did you really accomplish to act in such a manner?
As far as I know, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, you managed to become a CoS member some years ago, an insanely hard task I admit, you became their pet monkey for a while and when you discovered Satanists can be bad people too, and you got booted, you created about the biggest satanic emo-file there is online. Not to say I'm a fan of Gilmore but please, eternal victims are just pathetic. I didn't see Jesus write a complaint about his treatment so surely, you can do better than him.
Oh yeah, you were member of the Reds, a vegetarian steakhouse if you grasp the metaphor. I think that sums it up.

But unless you accomplished something immensely which by some weird accident none in the community ever noticed, feel free to enlighten us. Maybe create a new post about it, but if you're a modest guy ;\) you can PM too. I'm willing to be corrected and smooch smooch the buttcheeks of satanic demigods.

So yeah, let them go back to their topic, it surely was interesting.

D.

Top
#28021 - 08/06/09 09:23 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Diavolo]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
You know what I like about Aquino? The fact that even when he has a legendary status in the satanic community, he acts very normal. In your case, I suspect that your ego logs in two minutes before you do.


As always, these threads should be instructive. I think most people could take a lesson from your point.

A person will real status/power usually does not feel the need to to throw their weight or around or 'act' like a big shot. Ever notice how the smallest dogs have the most annoying bark?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
Page 5 of 8 « First<34567>Last »


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

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.