Page all of 8 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#25832 - 06/20/09 10:27 AM First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
OK. This is something I've taken an interest in for a while because I find it to be rather infuriating that Satanism has actually developed "factions"

I've looked as much as I can. I read the literature and the philosophies. Yet still I can see no real difference between the First Satanic Church and the Church of Satan. There must be a difference or Karla LaVey wouldn't have felt so strongly as to found a new organisation.

Now I realise this forum is much more affiliated with the First Satanic Church but I'm much more familiar myself with the Church of Satan myself and even then I'm not a member and have not read all the literature linked with it. I can't really see any differences between the organisations myself and would appreciate if someone could tell me what the area of dispute is that caused the separation.

Thanks for your time and expertise to anyone who answers.

- TornadoCreator
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#25834 - 06/20/09 11:56 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: TornadoCreator]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3845
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Are you joking?

For starters, there are no 'factions within Satanism'. There are people that form groups/organizations around pretty much any theme you can name, that is just the nature of mans sociology.

Satanism itself is what it is, sort of how volleyball is still volleyball regardless of how many enthusiasts belong to volleyball clubs.

The real question is, why should it bother you that these organizations exist given the fact that neither of them effect your day to day life in any way whatsoever?

As for the difference between these two particular organizations, I myself find several obvious discrepancies.

One is an internet org and the other is not.
The FSC member base are largely in and around SF, and they hold regular real world functions. The CoS has no real center, and has members scattered all over the world.

One will accept anyone with enough money to send them,and one will not. From what I understand the FSC selects members based on quality rather than expendable income.

Which leads me to another point, leadership. The CoS is pretty much being run by the same people that run the TOV, which is the biggest money scam since scientology. As far as I know Karla LaVey runs her church based on the same principles and ideas set forth in her fathers book.

From where I sit these are very significant differences.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#25839 - 06/20/09 04:20 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Dan_Dread]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
Well, I knew those differences, I was just wondering if there where any differences in philosophy.

I feel you're being a little anti-CoS as I know they request an application along with the $200 where they ask why you wish to join amongst other things, it's not just a cash scam.

From what I can see, the way they conduct themselves as organisations are only minor differences, in the grander scheme of things, and it feels like the only reason multiple organisations like these exist is because of a dispute between Blanche Barton and Karla LaVey over Anton LaVeys will.

If this is the whole story then there's no issue. I just don't like seeing petty arguments between Satanist groups and there seems, at least online, to be some confrontation between the two organisations.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#25841 - 06/20/09 04:35 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: TornadoCreator]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3128
Together with the things Dan noticed, the FCS to me seems to seperate itself from the CoS by letting it's member think and discuss certain principles written in TSB.

I noticed the strong almost dogmatic approach towards the philosophy by forcing their members to have TSB as a complete indisscusable work.
This, while I have the slight feeling FSC has a more subtle approach and doesn't let TSB shine out as "complete, indisputable work". They give me the impression there is still room for discussion.

And maybe the most obvious thing: CoS promotes ass-kissing to keep the red card and maybe get a higher rank, while FSC isn't really busy forcing their members to kiss ass to get a better position.

CoS can be entered by any dumbshit (at least nowadays) with too much money, FSC only approves membership if you can show them you are worth it. More elite approach, less likely to have anyone stupid entering, more intelligent people gathered since membership is only approved if shown worthwhile...

Both "promote" same philosophy, they each take a different approach about it and their inner workings. And I have to admit that how the FSC operates appeals me more then the CoS.


(I have to admit my knowledge about the two organisations are limited, CoS knowledge is based on their official forum and certain people who got kicked out/ left for various reasons. FSC knowledge is based upon what they have written down on the official site and on this forum since it is tagged as the offical forum of the FSC).


Edited by Dimitri (06/20/09 04:37 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#25843 - 06/20/09 05:13 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Dimitri]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
I see.

I was under the impression there was something more than that, a different in actual philosophy rather than just organisation method.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#25872 - 06/21/09 02:41 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: TornadoCreator]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
They both follow Anton LaVey's philosophy. The difference is how they are ran is all. FSC runs more or less like Anton LaVey ran the CoS.

The current CoS is more of a husk of its original state where you have a bunch of priests feeling special so they treat the newer members with contempt. Its not really a very open organization and most probably due to its open arms to anyone which contradicts what they then treat them like.

I personally prefer the FSC over the CoS though CoS is the original, and i might still join, FSC is a much more religious/philosophically open group

Top
#26471 - 06/30/09 05:30 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: TornadoCreator]
FromGehenna Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/24/09
Posts: 53
It can be summed up quite simply in once sentence, people:

The Church of Satan is a commercial enterprise, the First Satanic Church is not.

The CoS follows the golden rule of any commercial business venture: "Make is as easy as possible for people to give you money."

Therefore why should they turn down some goth shmuck kid into death metal who thinks it would be cool (fuck yeah! Manson!) to have the ol' red membership card.

Peter H Gilmore may be a top-flight curator at a major New-York based museum, but it os Blanche Barton (one would assume) who receives residuals from the sale of the Satanic Bible and memberships in the CoS.

As for The Vampire Temple, don't get me even started on that crock of shit. Magister Nemo builds castles in the air and then collects rent on them! (paraphrased Quote from Douglas Adams.)

Top
#27099 - 07/15/09 01:28 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: FromGehenna]
bluj666 Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/14/09
Posts: 38
Loc: Tennessee,USA
I thought one of the major differences was that the FCS is a more theistic verson of LeVay's work, while the CoS was an atheistic approach. I could be wrong.
Top
#27108 - 07/15/09 07:15 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: bluj666]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
You are wrong. Try going to their respective websites and reading through their manifestos. It would've taken you the same amount of time to do that, as it did to make this post stating your ignorance of the matter.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#27119 - 07/15/09 12:51 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Nemesis]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
Actually, in defence of bluj666. I got that impression from many forums and chat rooms I had been in until a little over a year ago. Many so called "Theistic Satanists" claimed to be followers of the First Satanic Church and even those that where not theistic, considered my stance of 'theist = brainwashed fool' to be too disrespectful. There are many posers out there using the name of the FSC without actually caring if they agree with it.

Edited by TornadoCreator (07/15/09 12:52 PM)
Edit Reason: put CoS when I ment FSC
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27124 - 07/15/09 01:21 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: TornadoCreator]
lewisb Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 5
The main problem i have with the CoS is that it seems to no longer stream its members. I thought that membership of the group was for the elite of society not just for people who can afford to pay the membership fee.
Top
#27125 - 07/15/09 01:28 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: TornadoCreator]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
Actually, I think it's because people get the "First Satanic Church" mixed up with the "First Church of Satan". The former is the atheistic-based organization founded by Karla LaVey based on her father's philosophy... whereas the latter is a superstitious lonely-hearts club put together by a middle-aged/overweight quasi-wiccan (and over half its' website, unsurprisingly, is devoted to discrediting LaVey rather than explaining its' own ideas)

I can't help but think that all the "Reformed First One True Church of Satan" nomenclature bullshit is all unsavoringly Christian.

If theists do ascribe to the FSC's name, it is likely because they don't look beyond the website to see what the organization's actual stance is.



Edited by The Zebu (07/15/09 01:29 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#27133 - 07/15/09 03:28 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: The Zebu]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
TC: bluj666 was asking the difference between the churches themselves, not their followers. I'm sure there are a lot more theistic followers of CoS than atheists, despite the fact that CoS denounces theism. Don't forget, the red card = the cool factor.

Zebu: I'd completely forgotten about the First Church of Satan. It's possible that was the church bluj666 was asking about. If he was, then I retract my above post.

Bluj666: You can see that there are quite a number of acronyms floating around. CoS is, as you know, The Church of Satan, run by Gilmore (at least officially ;\)). FSC is the First Satanic Church (as Zebu mentioned) and was started by Anton's daughter Karla LaVey. This site is also affiliated with Karla's church. FCS is The First Church of Satan, more the theistic, Wiccan, "dark path" kind of Satanism that appeals to the goth kids who need something to replace Christianity with. Which ones exactly were you comparing?
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#27156 - 07/16/09 12:33 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Nemesis]
hellbent666
Unregistered



Dude, I take an enormous amount of offense to how you talk about Allee. He is an amazing man, and his life was almost ruined by the CoS. Imagine your whole community thinking you are a child molester because some moody bitch over at the CoS said you were and got everyone to believe them. He's also an accomplished black magician. Please, while he still is around lets be respectful of him and his accomplishments. He is a genuinely good man, and his wife is really cool too.
Top
#27162 - 07/16/09 01:28 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Nemesis]
bluj666 Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/14/09
Posts: 38
Loc: Tennessee,USA
Well the reason I thought the FSC was Theistic was because its claim to being more along the lines of LeVays teachings. Which several of the Orginal members of LaVeys satanic church claim that in private practices and meetings that LeVay beleived in a literal satan and the powers of the rituals they practiced, and that the atheistic stance was more for commercial appearance. Former members such as the ones that started the Temple of Set.
Top
#27163 - 07/16/09 01:47 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: bluj666]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
LaVey certainly didn't believe in a literal "Satan", although I suspect that he was much more open to ideas about magic and the supernatural, ie, believing that spells actually created a sort of powerful energy that could influence the physical world. (I'll give him a break on that one, it was the 60's after all). He might have had some kind of an abstract deistic view of Satan like Michael Aquino posited, but there's not much that can actually be proven aside from hearsay.

Karla LaVey's chief bone of contention with the CoS was mostly the way the Church was being run. In philosophy, they are essentially the same- as other users have pointed out.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#27165 - 07/16/09 01:59 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: bluj666]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I can tell you for a fact, as a member of LaVey's (and THAT is the correct spelling of the name) personal staff at the Black House...did not believe in an anthropomorphic "Satan." I was in direct contact with him over a number of years... direct as in next to him personally. In all of the conversations I have ever had with him, not once did he EVER suggest such a thing. The whole idea of a physical manifestation of Satan to him was silly.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#27328 - 07/21/09 07:48 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: bluj666]
god.over.djinn Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/23/09
Posts: 75
Loc: Melbourne
 Originally Posted By: bluj666
several of the Orginal members of LaVeys satanic church claim that in private practices and meetings that LeVay beleived in a literal satan... Former members such as the ones that started the Temple of Set.


Hi Bluj666,

Perhaps the people who started the Temple of Set are not really the final arbiters of truth on all things Satanic. After all, they are theistic (which puts their ability to think clearly in question), and if I understand correctly, their theism is not even concerned with Satan, but rather that Egyptian god who had a similar name.

The people who founded the ToS knew Anton intimately? That does not prevent them from misrepresenting him out of confusion or malice or both.

Even without the testimony of Jake, we still have the actual writings of LaVey, as well as videos (Googlable) of him discoursing on things. The general vibe is that he was quite sincere about his Atheism.

He was just an interesting dude who wrote some inspiring stuff, not some Hubbardian religious engineer and master con.

G.O.D.
_________________________
SATAN, a recursive acronym invented by GOD: "SATAN: Advocating The Adversarial Nihilist"

Top
#27330 - 07/21/09 08:06 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: god.over.djinn]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: god.over.djinn
Perhaps the people who started the Temple of Set are not really the final arbiters of truth on all things Satanic. After all, they are theistic (which puts their ability to think clearly in question)

While I'm not really a huge fan of Setian metaphysics, the form of theism espoused by Michael Aquino (who happens to be a member here) seems to be more subtle than an anthropomorphic Egyptian deity.

I might be mistaken but to my eyes it looks somewhat like a form of Neoplatonic panentheism with a Jungian individualistic twist. Aquino uses terms such as neter (Platonic Form, also akin to Jungian archetype), and his infamous 'xeper'.

Aquino's first informative forum post is here, and there you may find links to his personal website, containing his lengthy tome on the Church of Satan, and his work-in-progress (and also lengthy) companion piece on the Temple of Set. I believe he has directed members to the latter work who are interested in his theology, and the question of whether or not he is actually a theist.

Top
#27352 - 07/22/09 01:35 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: TornadoCreator]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2550
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Interesting thread. During 1966-1975 there was absolutely no question whatever that Anton and the rest of the Priesthood of Mendes believed in the literal, sentient existence of Satan. I repeat: No question whatever. This was precisely what gave the Church its presence and energy beyond being merely some sort of Halloween-party social club. Download my Church of Satan ebook here for a glimpse of that experience.

After the crisis of 1975 both Anton and his latter-day disciples leaned over backward to deny Satan except as "symbol", "metaphor", etc. Bluntly, at that point there was no other option open to him, and of course there were plenty of people who were quite happy to affect "Satanism" for its cocktail-party and rock-concert glamor as long as they didn't have to take that real, soul-ravishing step of swearing their soul to the Prince of Darkness. I don't condemn them for being what they are; I only affirm that they remain only that.

After 1975 the "Church of Satan" was simply an Anton LaVey fan club, and remains so after his death. Join it with that idea in mind and you won't be disappointed. Join it thinking that it's a Church of Satan and you will find nothing of either therein.

Karla's First Satanic Church is a relative newcomer, e.g. following Anton's death and her & Zeena's clash with Sharon Densley over who would control the "Church of Satan" name and assets henceforth. Densley won, and Karla was apparently sufficiently repelled to start the FSC.

While I have not talked with Karla about it, nor visited any of its functions, my impression [also from its website] is that it is an effort to recapture something of the spontaneity and innocence of the original Church in its founding years. That was a Church of Satan which "let its name speak for itself" and simply felt no need to argue on behalf of its beliefs. Miles Davis' comment comes to mind: "I'll play it for you and tell you what it is later."

During all the years I knew her as a good friend, I always felt that Karla was an entirely sincere and honest person. She would always tell you frankly what she thought [of you, of anything else]. What she believes in right now, I daresay, is the magnificence of her father's personality and legacy at their zenith, and that's what the FSC is really all about, and all that it needs to be about.

So the original question of this thread - "Which one should I join?" - comes around again to the worn but pertinent answer: "What are you looking for?" Social glitter? Nostalgia? A toast to a hero? Or do you actually want to take, as Obi-wan Kenobi observed of Luke Skywalker, "your first step into a larger universe"?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27358 - 07/22/09 06:16 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

After the crisis of 1975 both Anton and his latter-day disciples leaned over backward to deny Satan except as "symbol", "metaphor", etc. Bluntly, at that point there was no other option open to him, and of course there were plenty of people who were quite happy to affect "Satanism" for its cocktail-party and rock-concert glamor as long as they didn't have to take that real, soul-ravishing step of swearing their soul to the Prince of Darkness. I don't condemn them for being what they are; I only affirm that they remain only that.



Sorry, but that was NOT my experience, either as a lay member of The Church of Satan, an Administrator of the Church of Satan, or as a current Satanist whose only agenda is in being what I am today, and in recalling, as accurately as I can, what has happened in my life.

I won't sit here and tell anyone that LaVey was a universally loved character, because he wasn't. I joined the Church in the early 70's, while I was in Incirlik, Turkey, became active after 1980, when I returned to the CONUS after a tour at Rhein Main, Germany, and after being an Agent, hosting the Melek Taus Chapel, and a long correspondence with Central before being called to a meeting at the Grosvenor Hotel on Van Ness in San Francisco. In all of that time, before and after, not once did I EVER hear anything even approaching acceptance of an anthropomorphic "Satan," other that in the flowery language and rhetoric used when writing in the Cloven Hoof, and then it was quite easy to see the basis in allegory and symbolism.

Was there an "Anton LaVey fan club?" Well, sure. We had people all the time calling in and writing letters and wanting to be Anton LaVey's "BFF." What figure in popular culture DOESN'T generate fans based on simple over-identification with some conception or personal kinship? But was it something courted? Never saw that myself, and one of my details was to open, read and file the mail that came in, back in the little office behind the "kitchen." LaVey usually gave a cursory glance at the ones with the "SATEN wunts me to be yer sex slayve" or "You are so much to me in my life" letters. In my time there, he did occasionally, respond to a lucid request for information or when someone might write something that had meaning to him, but that was rare... I also would have typed that letter on the nights I was at the Black House. I did very few.

And while those I saw at the Black House were usually pretty much "pro LaVey" (DUH), it would be wrong for me to categorize the Black House as some kind of Satanic Oberamergau, or plgrimage site. While I was there, LaVey actively discouraged visitors and fans from coming to San Francisco, hoping for a sit down with "the Boss."

I know the past of much of the history of The Church of Satan and other groups has been an endless point, counterpoint debate in letters back and forth with detractors and supporters. After I stopped being an Administrator, I pretty much assumed that there was some conspiracy between the Church of Satan and its detractors to support a failing US Postal Service with their multitudinous mailings. I don't do that. I can only relate my personal experience such as it was. People can take it or leave it.

I long ago stopped being a "Church of Satan" member and am simply one who believed in what I read in The Satanic Bible enough to support it and to get personally involved. I don't have an agenda or an axe to grind with Mr. Aquino or any real feelings about the "schism" that eventually formed The Temple of Set. Hell... a church without a schism of some kind IS a fan club. Am I a friend or supporter of the CURRENT Church of Satan leadership and what the Church of Satan has presented itself as today? Hardly. And I can pretty much pinpoint that to the emergence of people who were coming into the Church of Satan at the time I left the Administration, some of whom, like Peter Gilmore and Peggy Nadramia, I processed membership paperwork for, and Blanche Barton, who was a "rising star" at the time.

So, all of that said, I can only relate my personal experience to the best of my recollection, from a period in the early 1980s to the mid 1980s, when I was in the Administration. If it differs from that of others, it differs from that of others. I make no judgements on their personal experience or whatever agenda that might bring to the table.

Not my problem and I have no dog in the fight.


Edited by Jake999 (07/22/09 06:18 AM)
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#27359 - 07/22/09 06:17 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
With all due respect - and I mean that sincerely - a universe based around a "literal, sentient" deity is no larger than one without such an anthropomorphic figurehead.

To me it is quite smaller, for while sentience is demonstrable in humans, and possibly may exist in extraterrestrial lifeforms (an as yet unanswered question), it is an anthropomorphism to attribute such sentience (and we only have experience of human sentience) to a metaphysical entity of cosmic significance such as a deity.

All of human experience testifies to the indifference of the universe to human life, and the same may be said towards our cherished notion of sentience.

A larger universe, as the philosopher John N. Gray put it, involves a shift from human solipsism.
Or, in the words of Albert Camus, to open oneself to the benign indifference of the universe.

For, as David Hume succinctly put it, the life of man is of no more importance to the universe than that of an oyster.

Top
#27367 - 07/22/09 02:55 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
Sorry, but that was NOT my experience, either as a lay member of The Church of Satan, an Administrator of the Church of Satan, or as a current Satanist whose only agenda is in being what I am today, and in recalling, as accurately as I can, what has happened in my life.

There is no reason it should have been your experience unless you were ordained to the Priesthood of Mendes III°+ prior to 1975, which you weren't. That experience and consecration took the apprehension of Satan, and his Church, to an entirely different order of perception. This completely disintegrated post-75, subsequent to which not just the "priesthood" but all of the old initiatory degrees evaporated into mere gestures of Anton's favoritism.

It is just as true that at the I°/II° levels of Church membership pre-75 it was perfectly possible to be an "intellectual" Satanist only. Most were, particularly in America where literal belief in a real/sentient deity has been conveniently absent from mainstream religion since the deism of the Enlightenment [and the Founding Fathers]. We are socialized to give lip service, to go through the rituals & functions, of course, but never to really pierce the veil, so to speak. The only exceptions are the extremely stupid, for whom Judæo/Christianity is a living comic book, and the extraordinarily nœtic, from whom the experience is consuming. The church institutions consider the former profitable, hence churn out comic book pageants to milk and manipulate them. They consider the latter dangerous and eliminate/unperson them.

This inheritance is basic Rousseau. He, like many other Enlightenment philosophers, postulated an impersonal God more-or-less identical to the “divine natural law”. He saw no connection between the actual essence of God and conventional religious institutions; they distort and pervert. They are valuable only insofar as they contribute to society as reflections of the general will. As a popular ordering device he would rather cynically propose the institution of a “civil religion” requiring belief in God, immortality, happiness of the just, punishment of the wicked, and sanctity of the social contract and the laws. Subordinate to the civil religion, religious creeds would be tolerated if they themselves are tolerant.

So yes, most people who came to the Church of Satan expected the same superficiality, just now in Halloween drag. It wasn't until some of them actually undertook Greater Black Magical workings that they began to sense this was something completely different. Which made some back away from that Abyss and others continue into it [which is not always the safest thing to do, as illustrated in Forbidden Planet].

Anton LaVey, like the rest of us, began with socialized insincerity. He quickly transcended this, as he frequently discussed with me, but he also was very much aware of the danger of such an image, both within and without the Church. Hence his calculated and deliberate public statements, which permitted him, in the words of Oliver Stone, to walk between the raindrops.

Now, as then, it is certainly possible to be an "intellectual Satanist" and play safely in the sandbox of symbolism and metaphor. This is also the most comfortable and unthreatening way to fit into society; everyone else assumes your religion is just as superficial and optional as theirs, just with different decorations. If they really believed in God/Jesus, and thought that you really were a disciple of the Devil, they'd exorcise you like Regan. If unsuccessful at that, they'd kill you.

So once again the topic of this thread comes around to each reader: What kind/extent of Satanist do you want to be? If what Peter Gilmore or Karla LaVey offers punches that ticket, you're home. If not, you can look for some other kind of compatible/validating/reinforcing environment, or you can undertake your own, unique, personal quest (which is what authentic initiation is all about).
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27369 - 07/22/09 03:23 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Meq]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2550
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Meq
a universe based around a "literal, sentient" deity is no larger than one without such an anthropomorphic figurehead.

Quite true, if all you're doing is "personifying" the universe [which is essentially what the Enlightenment Deists did]. That changes nothing.

The significance of isolate self consciousness (of which Setians comprehend Set the neter, and of which Satan is the derivative reflection within J/C mythology) is that it is distinct from the universe, a discretionary actor upon it. The greater your realization of this in your own being, the greater your understanding of the other/natural neteru (collectively the ectropy of the universe - what J/C cartoons as "God"), the more you evolve from an active/reactive meat machine into a divine consciousness in which universal supports & reinforcements are as unnecessary as training wheels on a bicycle.

By the way, this is not a cakewalk, and many who open this door regret doing so. As long as I'm doing movie allusions, here I'll cite Altered States, in which the good Dr. Jessup initially observed [following a few glasses of wine]:

 Quote:
I’m a man in search of his true self. How archetypically American can you get?

Everybody’s looking for his true self. We’re all trying to fulfill ourselves, understand ourselves, get in touch with ourselves, get ahold of ourselves, face the reality of ourselves, explore ourselves, expand ourselves.

Ever since we dispensed with God, we’ve got nothing but ourselves to explain this meaningless horror of life. We’re all weekending at est or meditating for forty minutes a day or squatting on floors in a communal OM or locking arms in quasi-Sufi dances or stripping off the deceptions of civilized life and jumping naked into a swimming pool filled with other naked searchers for self.

Well, I think that true self, that original self, that first self, is a real, mensurate, quantifiable thing, tangible and incarnate. And I’m going to find the fucker!

He found it all right, but absent initiation was almost destroyed, rather than fulfilled by it.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27403 - 07/23/09 02:27 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
OLD PEOPLE FIGHT!!!


Sorry, couldn't help myself.


Edited by The Zebu (07/23/09 02:27 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#27407 - 07/23/09 03:16 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: The Zebu]
Bacchae Offline
Satan's White Trash Neighbor
member


Registered: 05/13/08
Posts: 438
Loc: los angeles
did you actually stop whatever it was you were doing, just to make this cute little graphic so that you could chime in and mock respected members of the community in the middle of a discussion??
Top
#27413 - 07/23/09 05:31 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Dr Aquino,

From what I read of your "Temple of Set" ebook, the schism with the Church of Satan was largely due to the question of, and I quote, "Did it believe in Satan and his fellow dæmons as actual intelligent, active, willful entities extant in time and space?"

Intelligence and will when applied to metaphysical entities are an anthropomorphization. This entails an anthropomorphic worldview, projecting our humanity where it isn't so. As such, the universe becomes smaller, not larger.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The significance of isolate self consciousness (of which Setians comprehend Set the neter, and of which Satan is the derivative reflection within J/C mythology) is that it is distinct from the universe, a discretionary actor upon it. The greater your realization of this in your own being, the greater your understanding of the other/natural neteru (collectively the ectropy of the universe - what J/C cartoons as "God"), the more you evolve from an active/reactive meat machine into a divine consciousness in which universal supports & reinforcements are as unnecessary as training wheels on a bicycle.

That sounds a lot like a crypto-Gnostic notion of 'god above god'. We have a spark from the divine beyond the limitations of our worldly flesh with which we can escape the causal reality of the universe.

Fine for those who despise our natural and carnal nature, but in contrast, the upshot of the work of thinkers like Spinoza is that we cannot escape from the causal nature of the universe. We can only hope to understand and appreciate our place in it, and find freedom from the tyranny of unhealthy emotion by understanding how the laws of nature guide all our physical and mental life.

We can, in short, become a more adapted meat machine. We cannot transcend our fleshly nature and rise to a truly metaphysical divine state.

Top
#27431 - 07/23/09 12:33 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2550
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
OLD PEOPLE FIGHT!!! Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Cute cartoon; I like the Set slippers. However I still hit the gym several times/week and fill in the gaps with martial arts, so no walker just yet.

Incidentally I do not see Jake and myself as "fighting" over the question of Anton's personal beliefs. Anton was quite adroit at projecting different personalities to different audiences, and of course he did this to me too, particularly before we became close friends. Here, as in my ebook, I simply relate my impression of him underneath the situational personæ.

As for the 1966-75 Church of Satan, it welcomed all sorts of Satanists, from the casual to the literal, and this was really not a big deal. We were quite capable of conducting extremely serious workings, then spoofing the same workings. Serious workings sometimes accidentally turned into slapstick ones. Anton could look very dignified and regal, but if some pompous critic visited him, he might welcome him wearing a cheap Halloween-costume red cape and carrying a plastic red trident, maintaining, of course, a grave & serious manner.

As for Jake, while we've not met, he certainly comes across to me here as a sensible, reliable, and thoughtful person, and I daresay we would hit it off well over a cup of coffee. In many ways, the time that he spent around 6114 was much more "complicated" than mine, because, as peculiar as it might sound, in 1966-75 the Church was a very innocent adventure.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27432 - 07/23/09 01:22 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Don't see myself as "fighting" with Mr. Aquino either. His intellectual bonafides are well established, and it would be unfair of me to disparage his experiences within the framework of The Church of Satan and his recollections as anything less than genuine. I can tell you quite truthfully, that while there WERE differences that were probably insurmountable between him and Dr. LaVey, there was still a respect (although sometimes grudgingly so) for his intellect and his ability.

As for "old men" fighting... we are similar in age. He is three years and eleven days my senior. And I would wager that there are few who would be stupid enough to think that either of us couldn't hold our own intellectually or physically. Also agreed is that we would probably enjoy each other's company over a cup of coffee. Gentlemen of good will can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

I certainly agree. The "pre-schism" Church of Satan and "post-schism" Church of Satan were two very different animals and this was reflected in the way that Dr. LaVey projected himself to the public and the membership at large. He was sometimes cynical of what he saw Satanists who would "sew their wild oats" on Saturday and be in church on Sunday, praying for a crop failure.

Administrators knew that there was fun to be had, but woe be unto those who were not on point and professional when it came to the business end of The Order. Rituals were performed, to be sure, but there was always a "world view" of the Church of Satan, when we considered what we were then trying to do. So there wasn't nearly as much of the type of tounge-in-cheek creative blasphemies that marked the earlier period of the Church, although we did have our moments.

And I can see where the reality of the "schism" changed LaVey's outlook on Satanism and Satanists, as well. People tend to think that the Church of Satan just took anybody, and I suppose on some level, it's a valid assumption. People like to belong, and collect validation stickers. A base-level Church of Satan ID card filled that need for many. They knew it. We knew it. People would join to get the ID card and we would never hear from them again, and that was OK, because active participation in was never a prerequisite for affiliation.

So, the Church of Satan at Central as I knew it was quite different than the one that would have existed when Mr. Aquino was present. There were times when I felt like the "gate keeper" in The Wizard of OZ, telling people, "NOBODY SEES THE WIZARD, NOT NO WAY, NOT NO HOW!" It wasn't an open door policy by any means. And there were people we screened carefully before allowing access to Dr. LaVey, either at the Black House or any other meeting place. He did receive death threats, as I'm sure Mr. Aquino can appreciate as well, so it was not uncommon for me to be armed when I answered the door, and I have frisked one or two people in my time just based on what I jokingly call "my spidey sense" that something didn't feel right.

There also was a more deliberate sense of "this is our one chance" to get things done, so we might as well do them well. And we often worked our asses off to do what needed to be done, from writing and rewriting things for The Cloven Hoof and other articles for public consumption or to prepare for an interview or a visitation by some of the many notables that one might see there from time to time. LaVey's philosophy for his staff was often, "Be a slave in here, so you can be a Master OUT THERE."

But there were definitely some "slapstick moments" as well! I don't know how well it's known, but Dr. LaVey loved his catalogs of "gags" and "props," so you would never know what the hell he would come up with, from false teeth (you see him using them in one of his videos currently on YouTube), to of all things, rubber snot. Many a serious conversation disolved into gales of laughter and grown men reduced to tears because someone might decide that it was time to activate the "cosmic whoopie cushion."

As for who LaVey drew around him at that point in time to be part of the Admin, well... that depended on what was needed. Back then, Priests and Magisters were nowhere near as common as they are today. I've often said that if you spoke to a Priest, you were fortunate, and speaking to a Magister was an event. When you were called to work at Central (volunteer were rarely used), you pretty much lost your "rank." You did what needed to be done. For example, I arrived as a Warlock (II°). I know that others "outranked" me, but the egos were sublimated to get the job done. Promotions happened, but it wasn't a big thing.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#27434 - 07/23/09 03:11 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
I can tell you quite truthfully, that while there WERE differences that were probably insurmountable between him and Dr. LaVey, there was still a respect (although sometimes grudgingly so) for his intellect and his ability.

I think that Anton and I hit it off as well as we did, as long as we did, in no small part because we were so diametrically different except in our allegiance to the Prince of Darkness. I felt admiration and affection for him, but no need to imitate or bootlick. Correspondingly he felt no need to play Ming the Merciless to me, either in his home or when a houseguest at mine. Had anyone suggested that this was going to wind up like Ben-Hur and Messala, I think we'd both have thought it crazy.

 Quote:
Also agreed is that we would probably enjoy each other's company over a cup of coffee. Gentlemen of good will can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

If you're still around SF, email me sometime and we'll do it - before all of the city's ancient restaurants disappear. Blum's, Zim's, the Hippo, Joe's, Maye's ... all gone. \:\( The Lost Weekend is now Rick's; it's ghostly to see the ceiling outlines of the old organ platform still there.

 Quote:
... So there wasn't nearly as much of the type of tounge-in-cheek creative blasphemies that marked the earlier period of the Church, although we did have our moments.

Well, one advantage of you and me both being, ahem, Old Farts is that we lived through the '60s and the whole Haight scene, hence know just how carefree and experimental so many things were back then. By the 1980s everyone had a rod up his ass and a short fuse attached to it. When I got back from Vietnam in '70 and started the Nineveh Grotto in Louisville (which was about as BibleBeltsy as you could get), the Church of Satan was the instant darling of the town; we were invited to local media, high school & university talks, had local divinity students over to our rituals, and everyone had a blast. During one of Anton's visits, I took him down to Fort Knox where he got a VIP welcome. Hard to imagine today, isn't it?

 Quote:
He did receive death threats, as I'm sure Mr. Aquino can appreciate as well ...

That began to get serious in the early '70s as I recall. Before then there was no fence at 6114, and Anton parked out front with no fear of vandalism. All of San Francisco dug him, right along with Allen Ginsberg, Ken Kesey, Bill Graham [well, probably more than Graham!].

 Quote:
I've often said that if you spoke to a Priest, you were fortunate, and speaking to a Magister was an event.

Not the case pre-75, because the initiatory degree system was evolving, finding its own meaning and identity, right along with the Church proper. I think accurate to say that the designations "came after the individuals" as reflections of a certain common-level of grok, if you will, as to what this adventure was ultimately all about. An individual was formalized as a Priest or Priestess because he or she was compellingly seen to be and do that emanation. I can't tell you how utterly alien this was to the clergy of the mainstream religions with whom we came into contact.

Getting rather off-thread here; apologies.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27436 - 07/23/09 03:41 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

If you're still around SF, email me sometime and we'll do it - before all of the city's ancient restaurants disappear. Blum's, Zim's, the Hippo, Joe's, Maye's ... all gone. \:\( The Lost Weekend is now Rick's; it's ghostly to see the ceiling outlines of the old organ platform still there.


Thanks for the kind offer, but I'm currently just north of Memphis. After retiring from the military in 1989, I was fortunate enough to go to work for a company that was refurbishing military bases closed under BRAC. We took over Mare Island and converted it back to civilian use, so I was making good $$$, and I was smart enough to buy a home in the Fairfield area in 1980. So, with stock investments, a little good luck and an obscenely bloated real estate market, we were able to retire when I turned 53, left the state and bought several properties locally, where I now reside and have rental homes.

I STILL miss the San Francisco Bay Area, especially for its eclectic and sometimes bizarre people, but definitely for the fantastic cuisine. But BBQ and Billy Bob ain't half bad either.

And sorry for going off topic...
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#27447 - 07/23/09 08:53 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Jake999]
Satansfarm Offline
member


Registered: 01/12/08
Posts: 352
Loc: america
As far as factions within the left hand path disagreeing with each other, I consider this to be healthy. If everyone agrees, it gets boring fast. I don't get along with people just because they profess to have the same club card. Quite frankly, anything at all that smacks of some kind of fraternity or hierarchy implies exclusivity to me. I refuse to have to prove myself to anyone.
Though I may have learned alot from Dr. LaVey, I continue to research on my own. After all, it is I who reaps the rewards or consequences of my actions, not any group.

Top
#27490 - 07/25/09 04:42 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Satansfarm]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
General comments:

This is truly awesome and unique. Both Jake and Micheal A. have first hand knowledge of the inner works of the CoS in it's heyday and are laying it out here. You youngin's should shut the fuck up and listen. You might just learn something.

Honestly, why is this not in a book? Would such a thing be possible? Could we get a collection of interviews and develop a storyline of how the CoS came to be, evolved and latter collapsed? I have an author in mind whom I know personally. If I could work out the details do you think I could get much participation from good sources?

In any event, it seems to me that Zeena would have been the better heir to the CoS throne. In the interviews I have seen with her and Nicholas they seem to be interested in moving the CoS forward.

Gilmore and the current crop seem only interested in resting on the coat tails and laurels of LaVey and pop-culture icons like Marilyn Manson. Honestly, does anyone actually look 'up' to Gilmore?

Karla, god love her, actually seems interested in taking the Church back to it's Sideshow Revival roots. Can I get witness!? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I am looking to fry bigger fish. Of course, I think 'we' would well welcome her gracing us with a token post or two in the same way that Micheal has.

Never the less, when I look out into the great Abyss of the internet sideshow I see nothing more powerful than myself. I see no church or group that has anything to offer me. I only see where I have things to offer them. Given this reality, I would much rather work on building better connections and opportunities between the like minds and fellow travelers in my own orbit. I have long said that The 600 Club should be THE premier nexus for travelers of the LHP.

Now, to that end, I do rather appreciate the Setian perspective. In my experience they always bring their A-game to any conversation and would only serve to raise the discourse here.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#27509 - 07/26/09 01:05 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Fist]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Fist
Karla, god love her, actually seems interested in taking the Church back to it's Sideshow Revival roots.... I think 'we' would well welcome her gracing us with a token post or two in the same way that Micheal has.

A reverse "Amen" to that. This site does, after all, have a prominent link banner on Karla's site as the "Official Forum of the Satanic Church".

I know Karla is a very busy person and strongly favors "in-person" contact to the ambiguities of the World Wide Web, but still, I feel one single post from her would greatly enrich this site's status as a Satanic Community.
Perhaps she has her personal reasons for not doing so, and I'm interested in if Rick would like to enlighten us if that is the case.

As for Gilmore... I have wondered if he ever lurks here, or even posts anonymously. Neither would surprise me to be honest. He did feel strongly enough about this site to write a whole article denouncing 'us', which found its way into his 'Satanic Scriptures' (google "The Myth of the Satanic Community"). Yet doesn't his church have its very own Internet forum (LttD)?

As for Anton's grandson Stanton, if he cleans himself up it would be interesting to have him here also - although given his history of behavior Rick has understandably expressed strong reservations about having him as a member.

Top
#27521 - 07/26/09 05:12 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"This online community, however, has appeared to me since I first found it to be a meeting ground for people of strong will, great ability and intelligence. People do not come here to be adored. They come here to correspond and exchange experiences, test their arguments, learn from others (another issue the Magus addresses, by the way) and expose to themselves where they may be wrong or weak. As such, this community is not a circle-jerk club or a weeping hearts circle. It is a testing ground for nuclear weapons and a brain trust for growing Satanists."

Exactly, and thus why the current CoS doesn't like it.
The current CoS wants followers, cow-towing, and those who don't question.

We are different, we question, we learn, and we want more.

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



Top
#27528 - 07/26/09 10:11 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
It think Gilmore's general message was, "Satanists cannot have an online presence unless it is overseen by the Church of Satan".... although he does make very valid points about the posers and lonely-hearts-clubs one runs into frequently on the Left-Hand-Web.

I should like to converse with Karla some time, but in a way I'm glad she doesn't meddle in the forum and make it some attempt to form an "online congregation", which might overshadow or undermine the FSC's real-world efforts and make it seem like some lame internet-only group like most communities out there.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#27543 - 07/26/09 12:39 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: The Zebu]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Somehow I don't think Karla would do that sort of thing. Mr. Aquino contributes to the forum without ever stooping to "recruitment" measures. If anything, I'd hope Karla would join and occasionally contribute to a conversation like our Setian member ;\)
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#27547 - 07/26/09 02:23 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Nemesis]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Welllllll...

I can see very well where a healthy dose of condemnation can be applied to the "Satanic Community" on line, because in reality, if it wasn't for Wikipedia and Google, the halls of chat would be mostly as silent as "that voiceless bird that feeds upon the brain-pulp of him (her) who hath tormented me..." There are so many "experts," whose vast experience amounts to little more than the ability to click a few keys and claim the glory of plagiarism... or at least a healthy rewrite.

And when someone with real experience does come aboard, they're often treated to some of the most inane prattle, endless arguments over minutia, one-upsmanship and blatant ignorance that it's no real surprise when they leave. The web has formed a crucible that has become a melting pot of egalitarian shallow acceptance, made tepid due to its dilution of expectancy and it's acceptance of mediocrity.

Is there a reality of Satanism beyond the computer screen and the assumed credibility based on the ability to click keys in a somewhat comprehensible way? You'd be hard pressed to prove it, because in truth, and I wish it weren't so, the vast majority of those on line only have experience through the exploits and opinions expressed on those Wikipedia and Google pages. And just who writes these pages? People just like those reading. I can all but guarantee you that those who wrote the pages on The Church of Satan's formative years were not there to experience them live and in person... again, I wish that were not true.

And in the end, maybe the web is the ONLY real "Satanic Community." In constructing one's own alternative reality, it can act as one's very own intellectual decompression chamber... you can be what you want to be. It gives those who have not a sense of having. It's akin to casting one's vision of the Is To Be in ritual, although there's no followup required to bring the vision into fruition, other than logging in later to see if there's a response.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#27548 - 07/26/09 03:23 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Meq]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2550
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Meq
Dr Aquino,

From what I read of your "Temple of Set" ebook, the schism with the Church of Satan was largely due to the question of, and I quote, "Did it believe in Satan and his fellow dæmons as actual intelligent, active, willful entities extant in time and space?"

Intelligence and will when applied to metaphysical entities are an anthropomorphization. This entails an anthropomorphic worldview, projecting our humanity where it isn't so. As such, the universe becomes smaller, not larger.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The significance of isolate self consciousness (of which Setians comprehend Set the neter, and of which Satan is the derivative reflection within J/C mythology) is that it is distinct from the universe, a discretionary actor upon it. The greater your realization of this in your own being, the greater your understanding of the other/natural neteru (collectively the ectropy of the universe - what J/C cartoons as "God"), the more you evolve from an active/reactive meat machine into a divine consciousness in which universal supports & reinforcements are as unnecessary as training wheels on a bicycle.

That sounds a lot like a crypto-Gnostic notion of 'god above god'. We have a spark from the divine beyond the limitations of our worldly flesh with which we can escape the causal reality of the universe.

Fine for those who despise our natural and carnal nature, but in contrast, the upshot of the work of thinkers like Spinoza is that we cannot escape from the causal nature of the universe. We can only hope to understand and appreciate our place in it, and find freedom from the tyranny of unhealthy emotion by understanding how the laws of nature guide all our physical and mental life.

We can, in short, become a more adapted meat machine. We cannot transcend our fleshly nature and rise to a truly metaphysical divine state.

Let's start with a Wiki-Quiki:

 Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
Gnosticism (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to diverse, syncretistic religious movements in antiquity consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge; this being is frequently identified with the Abrahamic god, and is contrasted with a superior entity, referred to by several terms including Pleroma and Godhead.

Using this definition [granted there are other, fancier ones] for now, gnosticism shows the influence of the ancient Mystery religions upon Christianity. And it is just as apparent why the Christian churches were so adamant about stamping it out, e.g. a personal path to Heaven/Grace/Jesus/God was a free lunch.

There is a similarity to Setian philosophy only insofar as we recognize the psyche/ka/soul as essentially independent of the material body, and reliant upon it only for a sort of educational realization of itself through the physical senses. You begin to find out who you are by sensing and rejecting what you aren't. With most people, this begins and ends with their physical body. Initiation continues the process within the body and its senses towards the psyche.

There are many problems with this, for instance that of self awareness without the construction/articulation of a thought-process (which is habitually built up from sensory material). Descartes quoth "Cogito, ergo sum." and supposed that he had eliminated sensory misinformation; but what could he "cogito" without it?

There are answers to this in Eastern techniques of meditation, not to mention more fun stuff in the West like John Lilly's sensory-deprivation tank experiments [see again Paddy Chayefsky's Altered States and the lively 1980 film made from it].

But Christian Gnosticism postulates that there is still a true, universal Godhead to which materially-freed souls return, therein presumably to be absorbed, reblended, and consciousness-melded. The lower, materialist "Demiurge" is just getting in the way of this.

Set, on the other hand, is not a "master universal god", but the neter of isolate consciousness of self distinct from it. As with the other neteru, human manifestation of this is a "particularization of the general". You might compare the Gnostic Christian Godhead to the collective natural neteru, the ectropic principles/laws of physical existence.

 Quote:
Fine for those who despise our natural and carnal nature ...

One of the ironies of modern Satanism is that it began with supposed rejection of the spiritual and glorification of the natural/carnal. But this was a false dichotomy, because Christians wallow in carnality too; they just pretend they don't. And in the 66-75 Church of Satan, consequent to our acknowledgment of carnality, we were increasingly able to see that it was not the end or limit of our personalities. Rather it was something that needed to be fully understood in order to be transcended. We began to see the Powers of Darkness as significant and important precisely because they lift the Satanist beyond a world in which he is the slave of his body and the material universe of which it is a cog. Greater Black Magic (GBM) involves the conscious creation of universes, somewhat like Nietzsche's "horizon building" save that he did not search into the presence or power that enabled this feature of consciousness.

This kind of GBM can be used for exalted aspirations: one's personal Grail Quest, as it were. But it can also be used on baser levels, and a pertinent example of this is indeed Anton LaVey post-1975, who constructed a universe of preferred and limited horizons for himself in which he dwelled thereafter. He and his actions were reasonable and justified if you saw into that universe, eccentric and paranoid if you did not. This is perhaps the greatest danger of GBM: that you can create/exist in universes which are incompatible and get into trouble with the creatures of one while indwelling the other. [And if you smell some HPL here, you're right.]

Now in this context let's go back to the thread topic. What is it that's off-kilter about the post-75 "Church of Satan"? Just that it's an Anton LaVey fan club misusing "Church" and "Satan" accordingly? No, that's really just incidental. The real reason that it's so confused about itself is that it's trying to imitate [without understanding] Anton's GBM universe while insisting that it only exists in the material one. Hence its behavior here just comes across clumsy and silly.

Karla, on the other hand, is doing what her Dad did, e.g. creating her own GBM universe; but she doesn't live constantly within it as he did. She does it selectively and deliberately, on the occasions/events where it is potent. Otherwise she exists quite awarely and competently in what I term "the World of Horrors". Hence her FSC has a clarity of identity, even if its public outbursts are a bit startling to staid old San Francisco.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27855 - 08/03/09 10:57 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Meq]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Meq
As for Gilmore... I have wondered if he ever lurks here, or even posts anonymously. Neither would surprise me to be honest.

I doubt it somewhat. If the Church of Satan is anything like about ten years ago, probably a handful of people are actively "spying" on the forums to see what other groups might be cooking up, and which new (non-)Satanists appear. Peter Gilmore himself really did seem to read boards and other forums such as alt.Satanism; I base this on occasional emails I and others would receive from him asking to help clear something up, but more often than not he'd appear unaware of it when something came up. I'm very certain that if he ever wants something posted, he'll ask someone to do it.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#27857 - 08/03/09 11:16 AM 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
There is no reason it should have been your experience [that LaVey believed in a literal Devil] unless you were ordained to the Priesthood of Mendes III°+ prior to 1975, which you weren't. That experience and consecration took the apprehension of Satan, and his Church, to an entirely different order of perception.

It's easy to find indications of LaVey believing in the Devil based on those of his writings that are more or less deliberately ambiguous. But then, one could find such indications in much of my own writing, and I certainly don't believe in the Devil. No-one can know for certain whether LaVey really believed in the Devil, but if such a belief held any importance in his group, I would expect that his magical circle and the initial, higher-ranking membership of the Church of Satan would have left some material indicating it: figures illustrating magical connections, writing about the "true nature" of Satan, etc.

<sociology_warning> In most groups believing in some deity, the deity has a central role. For obvious reasons, followers (and founders) of such groups are quite occupied figuring out what that deity wants and how to communicate with it. LaVey appears to have left very little material about such a deity, so if he really believed in Satan, it seems he can't have cared much. </sociology_warning>

If LaVey really believed in the Devil, I'd have expected you to own copies of such material that supports it with little doubt to be raised. This is entirely absent from, e.g., your The Church of Satan, however, and that lends quite some credibility to those that maintain that LaVey was an Atheist.


Edited by wolf (08/03/09 11:19 AM)
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#27858 - 08/03/09 02:16 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
If LaVey really believed in the Devil, I'd have expected you to own copies of such material that supports it with little doubt to be raised. This is entirely absent from, e.g., your The Church of Satan, however, and that lends quite some credibility to those that maintain that LaVey was an atheist.

??? From my Church of Satan:

 Quote:
I’m in league with the Devil as much as any mortal can possibly be.
- Anton Szandor LaVey
Satanis, the Devil’s Mass, IV/1969

* * *
In the name of Satan, the ruler of the Earth, the king of the world, I command the forces of Darkness to bestow their Infernal power upon me! Open wide the gates of Hell, and come forth from the Abyss to greet me as your brother and friend!
Grant me the indulgences of which I speak! I have taken thy name as a part of myself! I live as the beasts of the field, rejoicing in the fleshly life! I favor the just and curse the rotten!
By all the gods of the Pit, I command that these things of which I speak shall come to pass! Come forth, and answer to your names by manifesting my desires!
- Anton Szandor LaVey
The Satanic Bible, IV/1969

* * *
And what do they do, now that it is safe to use His Great Infernal Name? They deny Him! They have the opportunity to cast the very creed of defamation, which killed their brothers and sisters of the past - cast that creed before the world in triumphal mockery of its age of unreason! But no! They do not thrust the bifid barb of Satan aloft and shout, “He has triumphed!” His Art and Works which brought men to the rack and thumbscrew, can now be learned in safety! But No! He is denied! Denied by those who cry up His Art and ply His Work!
Let it be known that every man who delves into the Arts of Darkness must give the Devil and His Children the due their years of infamy deserve! Satan’s Name will not be denied! Let no man shun or mock His Name who plays His winning game, or Despair, Depletion, and Destruction await!
- Anton Szandor LaVey
Cloven Hoof, March V/1970

* * *
And before our sight Satan lost shape and became again the essence of Lucifer, and we beheld a brilliance that infused all of Hell and sent great bolts of prismic light into the surrounding void. And the brilliance said, I am Lucifer revealed, who am the Eternal Flame. I go now to Earth, for no longer shall man be confounded in Godly ignorance. And then the brilliance became as a flash of fire in the vastness of space, and we knew that Satan had departed from Hell.
But on Earth, where man wandered in mindless bliss, the firmament blazed forth with fiery tongues, and all the land was covered by the Black Flame, which burned not, though it bewildered the eye to see it.
And Raphael and his guardian Angels were dismayed, for nowhere could they see man or the spirit which had come to him. Then did Raphael call upon Michael to strike the Black Flame with the force of God, but even then was the Flame vanishing of its own accord. And at first it seemed that Earth was unchanged, but in the eyes of man did Raphael see the first gleam of thought.
- The Statement of Azazel, The Diabolicon, V/1970

* * *
I received the Diabolicon safely. It is indeed a work which will have a lasting impact. It is done in an ageless manner and with complete awareness.
You have my sincere gratitude for the fine gift you have so graciously bestowed upon us, and you may be assured that it will assume a meaningful place in the Order.
- Anton Szandor LaVey to Michael A. Aquino
March 27, V/1970

* * *
Through this, the Black Flame of Satan, thou walkest in Hell. Thy senses are awakened to the joy of rebirth. The gates are flung wide, and thy passage is heralded by the deathless cries of His guardian beasts. His searing brand shall be evermore emblazoned on thy consciousness; its fiery meaning shall make thee free.
The blood of those who fail is eternally bright on the jaws of Death, and the hounds of night pursue their hapless quarry relentlessly. They who walk amongst us who bear deceit: verily they shall perish in blindness. Turn thy back on the vile and despise them; follow the Black Flame to unending beauty in mind and body.
- Anton Szandor LaVey
The Satanic Rituals, VII/1972

* * *
Hear, my anointed man, in whose mortal flesh I, Satan, have chosen to inspire my material Self - into whose keeping I have given my true Church - whom I have made Magister within the Realm of my Shining Trapezoid - whom I have incarnated as a Magus - Hear, now, Anton Szandor LaVey.
Recall first the pact which, years ago, you drew up before me, and to which you set your own name. Think not that I have been unmindful of that act long past, pale and lonely though it might seem beside the wreaths you have won from your own kind. You could not know but that you risked more than your life - yet you stretched forth your Will through the darkness of the angles to seek mine. Though you have brought many honors to me, never was there such as this.
Take now the pact. In that chamber which you know to be most beloved of me, build now with your own hands a Flame that is sacred to me. Let your hands pass through the Fire - once for each angle of my Shining Trapezohedron. Speak again that great Key which suspends the barrier between Hell and Earth, that I may bear witness to that which you undertake in my name.
Receive now my tribute. Our pact shall be consumed in the Flame, and with this act I release you from your bond with me. Through your alliance with the Powers of Darkness you have been granted knowledge far beyond that normally accorded your race. And for this you have been manifest as a Magus. But now - of my own Will and bound by no pact - I, Satan, bestow upon you my greatest gift - for which there is no degree in my Order. By my Will, Anton Szandor LaVey, you are divest of your human substance and become in your Self a Daimon.
- The Ninth Solstice Message
North Solstice IX/1974

* * *
The follow-up to the Diabolicon was cybernetic in its timing and content. It pleases me that you perceive that which you do. All titles aside, you have entered a new realm of comprehension, and truly deserve the name of “Satanist”.
- Anton Szandor LaVey to Michael A. Aquino
August 22, IX/1974

Incidentally I happened to see Anton's written Pact with Satan, which he kept in a private strongbox along with a few other personal items. I of course was not invited to photocopy it at the time, and I can only suppose he did ceremonially burn it consequent to the Ninth Solstice Message. [He brought out the strongbox one evening because he and I happened to be discussing The King in Yellow, and he also kept his rare first edition of same in that box.]

As for testimony from the "higher ranking initial membership [pre-1975]", I suppose I might mention that I was the single and sole member of the Church raised by Anton to the second level of the fourth degree: Magister Templi IV°/II'. The only one senior to me was Anton himself (Magus V°). The other Masters, most notably John Ferro and Charles Steenbarger, were Magistri Caverni IV°/I'.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27861 - 08/03/09 03:21 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
??? From my Church of Satan:

Thanks. I don't actually remember all of these quotes, but presumably that's because none of them convinced me that LaVey might have believed in the Devil when I read your book. I'm using a similar language in various texts because of the symbolic impact in appropriate contexts, so it's certainly possible to write such passages without believing in Satan. For the same reason, it is the apparent context of the examples you provided that doesn't convince me, as the quotes all seem to be written in a context where symbolism is important--that is, they seem to have been intended to convey a message that is hard to express otherwise.

To me, still the best indicator that LaVey might have believed in something was his dabbling with the occult like so many others at that time, his references to this force that he felt he might be tapping into, etc. However, noting how few such direct references he has made in a non-ritualistic context, I find it difficult to believe it can have mattered much to him, making him more of an unnecessarily (in my opinion) open-minded agnostic than an actual believer.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#27891 - 08/03/09 10:42 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Does it really matter what LaVey might have believed? Is it really worth arguing over?

The only person who can really answer that question, i.e. the man himself, is dead.

The writings of LaVey resonate with me, Satanism fits with who I am. Wheter or not the person who codified it believed in a literal Satan does not matter to me because it has no effect on me.

I fail to see why anyone else would care either.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#27892 - 08/03/09 11:20 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I've seen many of these quotes and am firmly convinced that they're a case of flowery symbology. I won't of course deny you your opinion, but it having been in the company of Dr. LaVey when his creative juices were flowing and his fingers were flying across the keys of his Mac, some of the most symbolically eloquent phraseology often resulted. Much of it fit in with his immersion into his own world inside the Black House, for application in rituals and in support of some correspondence or Cloven Hoof entry at the time.

I'd liken it to Robert Frost or Carl Sandberg in their poetic license. Words to stir emotion and the wandering of one's imagination into the many possibilities that exist within a world of one's creation; options that simply do not exist in the world beyond those walls. He brought personification to the impersonal nature of the universe, much as Sandberg sought to breath life into an inanimate Chicago in his 1916 poem.

But while I can't agree with your assessment or his theistic belief, I'd urge you to hold on to that memory, if it holds meaning for you. I'm sure we all carry vivid and indelible images of whatever time we spent in his company.


Edited by Jake999 (08/03/09 11:21 PM)
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#27893 - 08/03/09 11:35 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
... none of them convinced me that LaVey might have believed in the Devil when I read your book. I'm using a similar language in various texts because of the symbolic impact in appropriate contexts, so it's certainly possible to write such passages without believing in Satan. For the same reason, it is the apparent context of the examples you provided that doesn't convince me, as the quotes all seem to be written in a context where symbolism is important--that is, they seem to have been intended to convey a message that is hard to express otherwise.

As previously discussed here and elsewhere, I have my own six years (1969-75) of close personal friendship, dialogue, and both Lesser and Greater Black Magical workings with Anton to leave no doubt in my own mind. But I am also familiar with how psychologically, indeed desperately important it is to most other people that Satan [through the Judæo/Christian iconographic lens] not exist - as, in this instance, to force all of Anton's unequivocal statements above into some/any kind of Procrustean bed of "symbolism". Because if Satan does actually exist, then there is an entire metaphysical superstructure beyond the material universe, and most people are utterly unwilling and unprepared to even contemplate, much less confront that. I am frankly of the opinion that this is for the best:

 Originally Posted By: Captain Nemo
Think of it. On the surface there is hunger and fear. Men still exercise unjust laws. They fight, tear one another to pieces. A mere few feet beneath the waves their reign ceases, their evil drowns. Here on the ocean floor is the only independence. Here I am free! Imagine what would happen if they controlled machines such as this submarine boat. Far better that they think there's a monster and hunt me with harpoons.

Far better too that the mass of humanity not believe in the Powers of Darkness, or the Intelligence from which they emanate, except as a comic book metaphor like "God". That way too they can comfortably dismiss Anton LaVey: junkyard intellectual, con artist, poseur, carny geek, who played the role of the Devil in Rosemary's Baby and porked Marilyn Monroe.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27897 - 08/04/09 01:15 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
In general to some......

Jake and Michael both knew LaVey in person, in real life.
They both spent time with him, and etc...

They are the only people who can really talk about their experiences with the man, and what they felt was going on during that time.

Everyone else is pulling shit out of their ass, while contemplating what the man might have thought.

I always thought first hand knowledge was so much better than google/wiki masturbatory intellectual bullshit.

\:\)


Morgan


Edited by Morgan (08/04/09 01:16 AM)
Edit Reason: added to some...
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27910 - 08/04/09 03:33 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Morgan]
Azathoth68 Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/18/09
Posts: 51
Loc: Denver, CO USA
Is there, in the Temple of Set, at higher degrees, a belief that Set is a manifestation of an actual supernatural being? Or is it merely an archetype, Dr. Aquino?
Top
#27919 - 08/04/09 09:19 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Azathoth68]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2550
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Azathoth68
Is there, in the Temple of Set, at higher degrees, a belief that Set is a manifestation of an actual supernatural being?

Yes, but once again, as we began to realize within the original Church of Satan when we undertook GBM through the "Satanic lens", we're not talking about a "cartoon god" here. Rather what Plato and Pythagoras apprehended as a "Form" or "First Principle", what before them the Egyptians understood as a neter. Approximate it as "the general of which all particulars are extensions or manifestations": In the case of Set, it is the phenomenon of consciousness; and in our several particularizations our unique, isolate, infinite, and immortal self consciousness. It is this which places Set apart from all of the [natural] neteru, which in the Satanic sense placed Satan apart and opposite from all else [that was "God"]. It is this phenomenon in each and every one of us which makes us authentic gods and goddesses, not mere stimulus/response "meat machines" of natural law.

This is of course not a phenomenon, a reality, which is limited to Setians or Satanists. It is inherent in all sentient beings. The difference with us is that we have focused upon, it, explored it, identified it, and undertaken to strengthen and evolve it within ourselves. Which is what GBM is all about.

This is at once what makes Setian initiation, or authentic Satanism in its context, both so exhilarating and so dangerous. Beings bound by nature obey limitations within that universe, which on the whole are harmonious to its operation and preservation. The moment you "take your first step into a larger universe", as Obi-wan Kenobi said to Luke Skywalker, all of this is gone; in Nietzsche's terminology you are "beyond good and evil"; you have eaten of the fruit which has opened your eyes and expelled you from the Garden of Eden.

And as Plato also realized, this nœsis is not some sort of external "teaching"; rather it is an awareness inherent in our consciousness: what he called anemnesis. Once you are awakened to it, once you become sensitized to it, you understand it to be an intrinsic function of your existence. Plato illustrated this "awakening" in his Parable of the Cave; Ouspensky discussed it at length in The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution; there are many other illustrations, as for instance the Morlindalë.

All of which is to say that you have no need to ask me about the existence of Set/Satan. You already know the answer. You just have to look within your own genius, ask the right questions to get to it. And that is the true Grail Quest.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27930 - 08/05/09 07:40 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Morgan]
Amina Offline
member


Registered: 03/08/08
Posts: 177
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
I always thought first hand knowledge was so much better than google/wiki masturbatory intellectual bullshit.


Yes, but I guess it is also a question about what you want to investigate. I for one don't really care if LaVey believed in one thing or another. Looking at other religious people and inventors of cultural objects (or human being in general), I would be surprised if his views did not change or evolve during his lifetime. If you ask the average religious person (disregarding fundamentalistic sects) they are not even able to explain the details of what they believe, or give the same explanation if you ask them 10 minuts later. LaVeys is not crystal clear in his texts, so I would no expect him to be so in person.

What *I* find interesting is his writings. If he had lived without writing anything or otherwise sharing his opinions, no one would have know about them. One could argue that maybe he wrote one thing and believed something else, but I am not sure if this could contribute much to anyones understanding of LaVeys satanic philosophy. Other religious leaders and philosophers have done this too, but accusing him of putting a show on and lying to people would be like arguing that lesser magic was a sin. No one knows what LaVey believed. What we have is his writings. If people find them useful they will use them in there own way, unrelated to how LaVey himself would have agreed or disagreed with the interpretation. The devil read the bible his own way, even the Satanic Bible.

I could also add that "masturbatory intellectual bullshit", or what some call "text interpretation" is what is usually used when someone wants to explain a religious or philosophical text. Including bibliographic data about the author helps the interpretation, but trying to explain Freuds philosophy as a product of his own relationship to his mother, or rejecting the validity of Nietzsche because of his insanity or Crowley because of his drug use would not make people much wiser. Like a novel, the text has its own life and merit and can be investigated independently of the author.

- Amina

Top
#27943 - 08/05/09 05:29 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
As previously discussed here and elsewhere, I have my own six years (1969-75) of close personal friendship, dialogue, and both Lesser and Greater Black Magical workings with Anton to leave no doubt in my own mind.

I have no doubt this is how you experienced it, and as Jake has also said, this is an experience you should keep.

I'm mostly wondering how you can have gotten this notion, because personally I can only see minor, possible hints at best. In fact, I think Blanche Barton might be one of the best sources supporting LaVey's possible belief in a literal Satan, because having been close to him many years since 1975, she told the press he had believed in the Devil when she was interviewed about his death. (But then again, using Blanche Barton as a source would mean I'd be grasping at straws.)

 Quote:
But I am also familiar with how psychologically, indeed desperately important it is to most other people that Satan [through the Judæo/Christian iconographic lens] not exist - as, in this instance, to force all of Anton's unequivocal statements above into some/any kind of Procrustean bed of "symbolism".

Such a psychologically founded importance would require us to actually feel a need for metaphysical entities to begin with. If we don't feel the need, then we don't really need such a defensive layer against the feeling either.

 Quote:
Because if Satan does actually exist, then there is an entire metaphysical superstructure beyond the material universe, and most people are utterly unwilling and unprepared to even contemplate, much less confront that.

Sure, but one might also say that if fantasy worlds existed, they would open up a whole new world, too. I prefer to not count on that, wasting years of my life hoping to catch a glimpse of a dragon in the sky. I'm quote satisfied that if metaphysical structures don't exist, there's still plenty to be explored right here.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#27960 - 08/05/09 10:11 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Amina, you really didn't add anything at all to this discussion.
If anything you proved my point that some people have to comment on stuff even when they have nothing to say.

"using Blanche Barton as a source would mean I'd be grasping at straws"

It is from what I understand, she is not even actively involved anymore, and didn't play that large of a role in how Anton thought anyway.

Its not a matter of whether or not Anton believed in Satan as a deity during various periods of time. It's a matter of how individuals interpret the things he has written and how they are applied to your life.

Fuck it, the man has passed on, and left behind some very good writings. If all you do is sit and debate what it all means instead of actively applying it to your life and accomplishing shit, your not a Satanist.

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



Top
#27962 - 08/05/09 10:16 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Morgan]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Its not a matter of whether or not Anton believed in Satan as a deity during various periods of time. It's a matter of how individuals interpret the things he has written and how they are applied to your life.

Fuck it, the man has passed on, and left behind some very good writings. If all you do is sit and debate what it all means instead of actively applying it to your life and accomplishing shit, your not a Satanist.

Morgan



Bingo! With that, maybe this thread should be locked too before it turns into yet another bitch-fest.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#27967 - 08/05/09 11:43 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
... Sure, but one might also say that if fantasy worlds existed, they would open up a whole new world, too. I prefer to not count on that, wasting years of my life hoping to catch a glimpse of a dragon in the sky. I'm quote satisfied that if metaphysical structures don't exist, there's still plenty to be explored right here.

THE PRINCE AND THE MAGICIAN
from The Magus by John Fowles

Once upon a time there was a young prince, who believed in all things but three. He did not believe in princesses, he did not believe in islands, he did not believe in God. His father, the king, told him that such things did not exist. As there were no princesses or islands in his father's domaines, and no sign of God, the young prince believed his father.

But then, one day, the prince ran away from his palace. He came to the next land. There, to his astonishment, from every coast he saw islands, and on these islands, strange and troubling creatures whom he dared not name. As he was searching for a boat, a man in full evening dress approached him along the shore.

"Are those real islands?" asked the young prince.

"Of course they are real islands," said the man in evening dress.

"And those strange and troubling creatures?"

"They are all genuine and authentic princesses."

"Then God also must exist!" cried the prince.

"I am God," replied the man in full evening dress, with a bow.

The young prince returned home as quickly as he could.

"So you are back," said his father, the king.

"I have seen islands, I have seen princesses, I have seen God," said the prince reproachfully.

The king was unmoved. "Neither real islands, nor real princesses, nor a real God, exist."

"I saw them!"

"Tell me how God was dressed."

"God was in full evening dress."

"Were the sleeves of his coat rolled back?"

The prince remembered that they had been. The king smiled. "That is the uniform of a magician. You have been deceived."

At this, the prince returned to the next land, and went to the same shore, where once again he came upon the man in full evening dress. "My father the king has told me who you are," said the young prince indignantly. "You deceived me last time, but not again. Now I know that those are not real islands and real princesses, because you are a magician."

The man on the shore smiled. "It is you who are deceived, my boy. In your father's kingdom there are many islands and many princesses. But you are under your father’s spell, so you cannot see them."

The prince returned pensively home. When he saw his father, he looked him in the eyes. "Father, is it true that you are not a real king, but only a magician?"

The king smiled, and rolled back his sleeves. "Yes, my son, I am only a magician."

"Then the man on the shore was God."

"The man on the shore was another magician."

"I must know the real truth, the truth beyond magic."

"There is no truth beyond magic," said the king.

The prince was full of sadness. He said, "I will kill myself."

The king by magic caused death to appear. Death stood in the door and beckoned to the prince. The prince shuddered. He remembered the beautiful but unreal islands and the unreal but beautiful princesses "Very well," he said. "I can bear it."

"You see, my son," said the king, "you too now begin to be a magician."
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27973 - 08/06/09 05:01 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Morgan]
Amina Offline
member


Registered: 03/08/08
Posts: 177
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Amina, you really didn't add anything at all to this discussion.


This is out of topic, but Morgan is out of line.

Morgan, I hope someone MAKES you a mod to satisfy your need for attention and power, or if not inform you that you are not in a position to pass fatwas on who is allowed to speak, and what they are allowed to say. I think I have been civilized and addressed you without name calling or attacks on your personal status or dignity, but I think your personal agenda against me is getting a bit tiresome by now. Could you try aiming for the ball for once? If you don't like my contributions, try reading something else. No one if forcing you to pay attention to what I write.

- Amina

Top
#27978 - 08/06/09 07:41 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Amina]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Sorry kids, but when conducting research first hand interviews with the people involved are the Gold Standard. Writers, detectives, police, insurance investigators, and the Court, all rely on eye witnesses.

You interview several people and determine what the common threads are in their stories. Quite simply, the generation raised on the World Wide Web is lazy and has a tendency believe most of what they read online without applying any critical thought to the content. I really think this laziness is linked to smoking large amounts of 'the chronic.'

There is an annoying trend toward 'me-to-ism' where kids who have no first hand knowledge of the events seek validation by showing how much they 'know' from internet research.

I have personally encountered this twice here in threads about ONA and the Punk scene of early 80's.

Now if everyone doesn't mind, I believe the adults were talking...
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#27980 - 08/06/09 09:09 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Fist]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
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. An example of this would be Lilith, there from almost the beginnings of man's quest to link his pedigree to GOD. Some of these legends that attained a life of their own exist for many even today, becoming part of the "comfortable lie" passed down to a child by its mother and father who, believing in them themselves, think of them as heritage, rather than myth.

I've heard some people refer to these as "thought forms"; ideas brought to life by the need to believe. If one just believes hard enough, it COULD be true, like clapping one's hands to keep Tinkerbell from dying, or changing the outcome of a prize fight, as in the old Twilight Zone episode, THE BIG TALL WISH (1966)... "You GOTTA BELIEVE, Bolie!"

We know that in every legend, there is a grain of truth, and in that grain, there is always room for man to rewrite the scripts of existence, from the smallest atom to the mightiest mountain. So, we can take a concept and run with it as our personal or societal needs dictate. To a society in one aspect of time, there is a need for gods and devils, and man can be sure that each is as real as the flesh on his body and the thoughts in his head. That same society in another aspect of time can put those selfsame gods and devils into their mythological perspective, because they have proven their worth only as fillers for that which is yet to be discovered. Once the discovery is made that renders them obsolete, they still hold a fond place in our overall societal framework, but in nostalgia and in reveries. We no longer revere in giving them anthropomorphic manifestation, but we can honor them for what they were.

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? If so, it was a damned good one, and hardly necessary. He had me at at, "In this arid wilderness of steel and stone I raise up my voice that you may hear. To the East and to the West I beckon. To the North and to the South I show a sign proclaiming: Death to the weakling, wealth to the strong!"

So, in a very real way, we're comparing apples to oranges even though the commodity (LaVey) is the same for both Dr. Aquino and myself. Each of us has ample bedrock on which to build our respective memories, and each is assured of the rightness of our vision and their own interpretation of Dr. LaVey's message. It could almost make one a firm believer in the concept of parallel universes.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#27983 - 08/06/09 11:50 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Morgan]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
"using Blanche Barton as a source would mean I'd be grasping at straws"

It is from what I understand, she is not even actively involved anymore, and didn't play that large of a role in how Anton thought anyway.

It's only been a few days since you said one should pay attention only to those that were close to the source. Please make up your mind.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#27985 - 08/06/09 12:11 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Jake999]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 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.

But then again, this is similar, and probably identical, to Richard Dawkins' concept of a "meme". (Which, incidentally, is rather religiously defined when one takes a closer look at his ontology and similar taboo among certain participants on this board.) There's something similar at play in his statement that a deceased person will live on in the minds and sinews of those whose respect he has gained; a social-Darwinistic concept of someone's ability to modify the biology of future generations. So there's a hint of something that transcends a person's current existence, but not anything that necessarily exists outside of human beings.

 Quote:
We know that in every legend, there is a grain of truth

Depends: we can't think of unthinkable things, so in that sense there's a grain of truth. But, legends play the role of ideas passed, so the basic "truth" is mostly to convey a particular idea or message. The specifics, such as references to some mythical being, does not in the least imply that there's some grain of truth forgotten. That is, the only truth a unicorn conveys is that of a horse.

 Quote:
It could almost make one a firm believer in the concept of parallel universes.

Love that one, Jake. Based on LaVey's various texts, as well as several of Aquino's texts, including Church of Satan, my personal impression is that LaVey was unusually open-minded and accepting of other people's perception of Satan, supporting his audience rather than contradicting it: a child of his time, perhaps, at a time when it was highly accepted that everyone's truth might be the genuine truth.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#27986 - 08/06/09 12:35 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
The Magus by John Fowles

In a sense, this passage summarizes the entire book, except that young Mr. Urfe doesn't become a magician in the end.

I've talked with people who literally had to put the book away because they felt they were being drawn into the magician's mind play themselves. Personally, I enjoyed watching Urfe repeatedly thinking he'd seen through the magician's traps only to walk right into another one.

Fowles was a dyed-in-the-wool Atheist, though.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#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
#28032 - 08/07/09 02:32 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3128
 Quote:
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.

Study I do enough.. in another context then you. I study sciences, to be more exact "HARD science" with which I indicate it isn't the softy shit like sociology/psychology/philosophy where thousands of assumptions and illogical fallacies are, I also have quite some knowledge of these but will only use it when neccesary.. I can even give you a hard time if needed.. letting you and your wife WAY behind.

I mirror your sentence to you.. "post something meaningfull if you have something to contribute". The only thing I see you doing is bickering, empty posturing and acting as a little baby..
You say that you are "discussing" aquino for political reasons about Satanism, I see it as kicking a dead horse for ego boosting.. NO one notices and no one cares or gains.

Your empty posturing about "your achievements within Satanism" are worth nothing. I merely put it on the same level as some Christian claiming to have seen Christ in his refrigirator.. fun to watch but the feeling of pity arises when he opens his mouth.
What you have done is becoming a leader of a group of Satanists (like there are thousands of so-called leaders) whose political affilation is almost the opposite of the main principles.

I can also try and become a voice or "expert" by your terms, but I am smart enough not to do so.. And my reason therfor is Satanic, I indulge myself in my own life, not caring what others are doing. My contributions are purely aimed for science, and even within my short timespan I have lived I already made some contributions when it comes to green energy. (Not by using it, but by finding, studying and making it applyable in life for others.. i.e. my findings and results have led to technologies whom might be available for the masses within the coming 5 years.. or even shorter).
The Satanic reds, and your other sites are worth nothing more then a ning group like mysatan, WSA352 or any other internetgroup or "informationsite". The only difference you have is that you don't put the words shit,fuck,bitch, asshole, hail satan,... twenty times in one sentence. And there the difference ends.

As Diavolo already mentioned about your emo text: I've read it also, it's one of the first things I always do.. screen people.
And may I point this out:
http://www.luckymojo.com/satanism/firstchurchofsatan/cosfiles/Amina_Ole_Peter.html
 Quote:
Clarifier: Corax is Amina Lap. Paimon is Kenneth, her ex boyfriend. She is connected to Hr.Vad's Dark Doctrine group with Ole Wolf and others.

THIS is what went before:

This is high praise for the work of Amina: Look at this: speaking of Amina who is in SReds now. Ole Wolf's girl. Ole Wolf is one of the founders of Satanic Reds, in 1997.

Odal said: man, she has collected every single article from danish papers since the 80s - way over 600 articles in her database....shit, man if they knew what she was doing, they'd fucking send her flowers every day

The thing I indicated has let me believe that you and your wife don't gasp Satanism at all.. It indicates me you and your wife are simply obsessed by the subject and in reality aren't worth a damn despite your claims about your degrees. The only thing I see is empty posturing (once again) without ANY indication you live a "Satanic way of life".

The link also reveals to the rational and analyzing thinker that you were kicked out for ignorance, posturing and other Satanic sins. From the looks of that text (even with your adaptations to let you come as a hero) I side with Gilmore for doing the right thing... Take your ignorance elsewhere..
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#28033 - 08/07/09 02:34 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Fist]
Satansfarm Offline
member


Registered: 01/12/08
Posts: 352
Loc: america
The people who can actually perform ritual magic and get results are few in number. These same people would naturally have the most curiosity as to where this power comes from, and have the most likely answers. Each component of the rituals described in the Satanic Bible, is a factor in the effectiveness of these rituals.
My greatest curiosity is, what power is it that responds to the infernal names and the Enochian calls? In my own practice of magic, I have included other components, tailor made for myself. Magic evolves with me, and is not a static thing frozen in time forever like a fly in amber. To be the devil's advocate here, I would like to introduce a third, Satanic option in the argument First Satanic v. CoS. Rudolf Steiner has some interesting ideas about who we are, where we are going, and how we can still communicate with ourselves on these different planes, or heh heh, different angles.
Ok, I said it. I will now duck and run for cover. I can use the tomatoes and eggs thrown at me to make an omelette for tomorrow's breakfast.

Top
#28066 - 08/07/09 10:42 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Satansfarm]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
Dimitri og Diavolo: if you feel like siding with Tani Jantsang, or wish to be naïve enough to even trust what she says, be my guest. Her behavior in recent years is only going to make yourselves look even more stupid and uneducated than you've managed to do thus far, which in fact would be no small accomplishment.

As for the "hard sciences," Dimitri, at the age of 19 one is a first-years student at best, where one has only learned enough to impress the chumps, but nowhere near enough to look anything but a fool in the eyes of those that know. I have a background in the hard sciences, by the way.

In any event, since you two aggressively uneducated shit-disturbers have such an intense need to go so far off topic it can barely be stored in the database, please start another thread (and preferably on another board) for your personal attacks and your "holier than thou" attitude so the rest of us can go on with the debate.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#28084 - 08/07/09 04:07 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"In any event, since you two aggressively uneducated shit-disturbers have such an intense need to go so far off topic it can barely be stored in the database, please start another thread (and preferably on another board) for your personal attacks and your "holier than thou" attitude so the rest of us can go on with the debate."

You are here about a week and telling people to leave.
Why don't you go back to your own board.

Maybe the problem is really you?

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



Top
#28094 - 08/07/09 07:38 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Satansfarm]
Azathoth68 Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/18/09
Posts: 51
Loc: Denver, CO USA
 Originally Posted By: Satansfarm
The people who can actually perform ritual magic and get results are few in number.


Maybe the fact that fewer and fewer people get success from their working, especially when working with intent, is a good sign for those that arent living under their crosshairs. ;\)


Edited by Azathoth68 (08/07/09 07:57 PM)

Top
#28121 - 08/08/09 02:14 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Azathoth68]
Satansfarm Offline
member


Registered: 01/12/08
Posts: 352
Loc: america
What I meant was, that the gift of magical ability is rare. One can amass huge amounts of magical knowledge, be able to recite all the Enochian calls by memory, and still not get any results. LaVey himself outlined this in one of his later tomes, either the DEVILS NOTEBOOK or SATAN SPEAKS.

Still, the Satanic philosophy is a good one to live by if it suits you, regardless of magical ability or not. We acknowledge the fact that all people are NOT created equally. The human animal is varied, so much so that it is almost as if the creatures are several different species. We are not necessarily talking race here, it is about ability.

As for those in the crosshairs, many times it is far worse to allow them to continue on as they are, wallowing in the misery of their day to day existences.

As for factions developing within the Satanic belief system, I consider this natural and healthy. Those who feel that the world should remain static, familiar, and comfy - cozy will more than likely find disappointment. The world changes constantly. Survival depends on acting decisively according to circumstances, not a neat little set of rules followed with blissful obedience.

Top
#28123 - 08/08/09 02:48 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3128
 Quote:

As for the "hard sciences," Dimitri, at the age of 19 one is a first-years student at best, where one has only learned enough to impress the chumps, but nowhere near enough to look anything but a fool in the eyes of those that know. I have a background in the hard sciences, by the way.

Is that all you got? "just a first year student"? At least one with a brain who isn't writing emo texts or shitty cartoons about himself. Nor anyone whi is quoting himself to justify his empty importance.

Fuck it baldy, if you are smart enough you should have noticed that you are the one who is being pushed to get out. Not me, nor any familiar like Diavolo. Or did my response really hit you in your cyber-electronic balls? You might have a degree, but you have not yet proven to be "intelligent".

Maybe you didn't know this, but respect still has to be earned. Even tough you think you are the "new black pope" and claim to have 15 years of experience within Satanism. It really doesn't change a thing. If Jake (or Aquino) for an example hadn't made nice contributions and well-thought over posts I and others would have gladly kicked their asses out. You can't expect the same as long as you keep your current profile up. You might THINK you are that of a big deal in Denmark but on international level you are practically on the same level as me.

Even more, I wouldn't even spread out the words "founding member of Satanic reds" too often. Or even let it pass on as an evidence for your "experience". I regard every Satanic group as nothing more then a way for the black sheeps to seek for conformity. You may try to give it a twist like "It's for the Satanists with like-minded political ideas". It simply doesn't fly for various reasons. Herd conformity, and most of the time the founding members are feeling "insecure", "alone", mis understood... and then the bullshit spreading starts.
Don't take this last part as an attack on your "group" only, it counts for every nutjob who starts such a thing.

This forum only differs from it because of the various views who get confronted. Everyone here has had it's piece of ass-spanking. The ones with the strongest will survived and the weaklings dissappear for always or for a certain period of time.


Edited by Dimitri (08/08/09 03:47 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#29715 - 09/17/09 02:38 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: bluj666]
lefthanded Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/01/09
Posts: 20
Loc: Virginia,Us
well i feel like they are both EXTREMELY similair in their beliefs... They both say in there sites they are atheistic(sic) of course... are there any true theistic Satanist churches in the US?
_________________________
you cannot kill what you did not create
HOMAGE TO SATAN

Top
#29719 - 09/17/09 03:33 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: lefthanded]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3845
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
The temple of Set is the closest thing to a coherent and serious Theistic Satanic organization that I can think of, but they seem to actively distance themselves from the S word, and deny being Satanists on any level. There is the Joy of Satan, which despite many rolled eyes and groans of exasperation have continued to exist for quite some time;But their mythos really has very little to do with anything that can be recognized as Satanism. It is more akin to some sort of neo-nazi scientology.

As far as I know, there aren't any serious (public) 'theistic satanist' organizations out there that last more than a very short time. Theistic Satanism, as it turns out, is generally a transitory belief. There just doesn't seem to be enough meat and potatoes behind it to form any sort of cohesive entity.

As a solitary practitioner, insofar as theistic beliefs are concerned, maybe you should have a look at ONA material. As far as I can tell that is the closest thing to a coherent(to some) traditional Satanism system existent today.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#29989 - 09/24/09 12:30 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: bluj666]
FlameReborn Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/15/09
Posts: 36
Loc: SPFLD,OH,USA
 Quote:
The Church of Satan is a commercial enterprise, the First Satanic Church is not.


I agree, it seems completely wasteful to spend $200 just to join, and all you get is a CoS Fan Club id card, not to mention the interrogation you have to endure on the Membership form. I have looked at FSC's website and it seems that alot of their website is still under construction. However, I was very impress and probably will join.

On her website she mentions specifically that it shouldn't cost you loads of money to join the Church. This leads me to believe that when her father was High Priest he didn't rob people's pocketbooks.

The more I am here the more I begin to hate Peter Gilmore.

-FlameReborn



Edited by FlameReborn (09/24/09 12:33 AM)

Top
#30613 - 10/19/09 04:58 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: FlameReborn]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
I clearly don't have the knowledge of the satanic community or history of the organizations to have an opinion on any of this. Really all I know of it is what I've read in TSB and what little I find online. In fact I don't think I've ever (to my knowledge) met another real satanist as opposed to trendy kids that just want to feel different and piss off their parents. And also not really being an active member here is another reason I have to humble myself on the matter.

But if there's one thing to get out of this earthquake of debate is that I've learned more about the history of the churches and the figures of Satanism from reading this thread than any published work or intended source of information about it. For that I have to thank you guys for getting yourselves so worked up. It's been a truly beneficial experience for me.

Please don't think I'm making light of the debates or mocking anyone in any way. I honestly have taken away a lot for me to ponder and digest from this.

Top
#32792 - 12/11/09 03:11 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: TornadoCreator]
FdB Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 24
Loc: Las Vegas, NV / Dallas, TX / K...
Post deleted per Victoria's request.

Edited by Nemesis (12/13/09 09:51 AM)

Top
#32793 - 12/11/09 05:05 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: FdB]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Well stated and well received, ma'am. And if you would, please convey my respects to Karla who may or may not remember me from my time with her father at the Black House. She first met me when I picked her up at SFO on her return from Amsterdam.

Thanks for the clear and informative post.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#32795 - 12/11/09 06:43 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: FdB]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Thank you for your thoughts. With any luck Karla will indeed join us.

'We' welcome all individuals who are the 'genuine article.'

 Quote:
In our organization, to be important, you must become important. Not in the eyes of the church, but in the eyes of every day people. We strive to be something better than "how many essays can you write" or "what ritual did you do". We want immortality through our outside actions. We want to Xeper, if I may borrow the word, in a much broader way. We want to impact the world and shape it to our will for the benefit of all mankind. This is much harder than getting a stupid title.


Indeed. And, that the direction we are taking The 600 Club. My personal goal is for this to be the nexus of like minds and fellow travelers who would not otherwise find each other. I always make it a point to visit other members in person whenever I might travel into their area. We should all have that goal - to network and develop relationships in the real world. However, we first need to know where we can find each other. Purely physical outfits like the FSC are mostly (as near as I can tell) an SF only affair. Of course there is nothing wrong with this but it does limit your talent pool. In many ways, we here are simply cyber-commuting to church.

In my next trip to Europe I plan to pay a few of our members a visit. But that would not be possible using the traditional church model. We would never even know of the others existence much less know if we were socially compatible. The 600 Club allows us to develop relationships first. It allows us as a loose confederation to overcome the tyranny of distance.

In any event, we always welcome like minds and fellow travelers here. Tell a friend and don't be a stranger....
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#32797 - 12/11/09 10:30 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: FdB]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2550
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fluffy D. Bunny
... As a close friend of Karla's and an 10 year member of the FSC, I would like to add some clarifications ...

Ms. , as I read your post, it occurred to me that an extended statement like this might be very helpful to persons visiting the FSC website. Right now the "Q&A" area there is still available. Why not do a Q&A version of your comments and put it there? My only suggestion would be to forego mention of/comparison to other groups and just focus on your own unique and positive ideas. That just avoids defining the FSC "against" anything else, which I don't think it needs to do.

As a minor aside, I always thought it was fun that the Temple of Set and the First Church of Satan share the same San Francisco post office: 94147. What makes this even more, ahem, mystical is that this is the only PO in SF with a huge light sculpture on its front facade - about 4 stories high. You can miss it in the daytime, but at night with all its colored lights on, it's quite spectacular. Its name: "The Holy Grail".
Go Karla!

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#32800 - 12/11/09 11:32 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
FdB Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 24
Loc: Las Vegas, NV / Dallas, TX / K...
lol. I think the post office thing is because its the Main post office in San Francisco and has after hours box access. But I never really though about the building itself.

Karla has been in the works of redesigning the website, but often it takes a back seat to other pressing matters. I do know that the next iteration will be much bigger in scope, the site is 10 years old now and needs a revamp.

Much of the site design contemplation is on the new look. Karla wants the drab darkness gone and to give it a feel of who we are. We don't need the 60's and 70's appeal anymore. So I have no idea what's coming.

But i'll have it up as soon as I get the specifications. Other than that I never take the liberty of having the site modified on my own. The Church is Karla's business and I wouldn't want to interfere with her company in the same way I don't want her interfering with mine. Mutual respect.

I will suggest to her that we collect as many questions from the 600club as we can find and put together answers for them. I think that is a great idea.
_________________________
-FdB-


Top
#32801 - 12/11/09 11:35 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
FdB Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 24
Loc: Las Vegas, NV / Dallas, TX / K...
ROFLMAO! OMG I never even noticed who I was responding to. LOL. You obviously would know why that post office was chosen! lol

Its great to hear from you again, its been a few years since we last talked. I will definitely tell Karla the idea of the Q&A came from you. Think she'll like that. \:\)

Victoria
_________________________
-FdB-


Top
#32847 - 12/13/09 04:46 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: FdB]
FdB Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 24
Loc: Las Vegas, NV / Dallas, TX / K...
Sorry my original post had inaccuracies which have now been corrected and approved. I requested the original post be removed, this one isn't drastically different, but worded in a misleading way on my part. My apologies for any confusion.

----------------------------------------

I found reading the posts in this thread interesting. Yes I know its been a very long time since I wrote anything here lol. As a friend of Karla's LaVey and an 10 year member of the FSC, I would like to add some clarifications.

First I want to say that I am friends with Lord Egan (John Dewey) but haven't seen him in quite some time. I have also had wonderful conversations with Dr. Aquino over the years and I find each of them first class people, who just have a different take than I do on things. But just because we don't agree, doesn't make any of them a quack. Freedom of thought and expression should be the first and foremost goal of any Satanist to protect.

While I do know the details of what happened between the CoS and the FSC, I do not feel it productive on anyones part to rehash the events. Especially since the legal battles are still on going. I will say that the clash has nothing to do with religion or the running of the church and more to do with personal family matters and the LaVey estate. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

I can't tell you what the CoS now stands for, I am not a member, nor am I on friendly grounds with them. Most of you know how the CoS views me and all I have to say on that is, whatever. lol. 

So first I want to tell you that a major difference in the FSC than ANY other group is that we don't have positionary titles. Titles are nothing more than good-guy badges and a false sense of self importance. In our organization, to be important, you must become important. Not in the eyes of the church, but in the eyes of every day people. We strive to be something better than "how many essays can you write" or "what ritual did you do". We want immortality through our outside actions. We want to "Xeper", if I may borrow the word, in a much broader way. We want to impact the world and shape it to our will for the benefit of all mankind.

We are atheistic for the most part. Many of us do believe in a universal energy. Think of it as electricity running the show, but we don't worship it. Everyone has a different way of expressing it, I like to use we are the opposite of Buddhism. But those are my words, not others.

Some of us do not have a need for formal rituals and don't perform them as a group. Some still like to do do them, but we feel that they are nothing more than dogma to help an individual to change a current path of thinking. Many of us have retired the need for them because we feel that it causes too much confusion for some individuals who may become reliant on such a practice, which is counter productive. It also doesn't help that many of these practices were meant to be nothing more than a "show" for the public and the practices of mocking other religions really isn't necessary.

We do not have an online presence. We do have a website. We meet in public a lot and we also have public events such as Black X Mas and the Valentine show etc. We are not segregated to San Francisco, but the most high profile events are held there.

Although we meet, we do not have what are called grottos or pylons. Why would we based on what you have learned so far. But people do seem to hook up and do things on their own, which is more functional. I like to say we are a network of people who rely on each other to get things done, even if its only moral support.

I am involved in politics and other than the ToS, I don't think any other group is. I was a Texas Republican Delegate in the last election, making sure McCain didn't get elected lol. One of my personal goals has been to take back the Republican party and get all the Christians out. Yea I know I could be wasting my time on better things, but it amuses me and I learn a lot doing it. Like how to properly bash the windows out of my car when dealing with them (another joke). Note: The group has many diverse political affiliations.

We don't let you become a member because you send in money. We are much more like the ToS here. You need to send a letter (note best to write clearly). FSC is looking for you to be very honest on what you believe, why you want to be a member, what you expect of us and generally who you are. This isn't a contest and it isn't an elite club.

If your beliefs align with the Church and what it's goals are then you will undoubtedly become a member. If you don't, why would you want to be one. You should belong to a group that you mesh well with. Plus we always stand by our statement that you DO NOT NEED TO JOIN A GROUP to be a Satanist. And yes it takes a long time to get a response. But that is because Karla oversees responses to each and every person who is accepted. She is very busy, but if you have patients and you mesh with us... your in. Yes we are a worldwide organization, we are not segregated to San Francisco or the United States.

There are many groups out there. When joining a group find out if THEY believe the way you do, don't go the other way around. Do not try to fit in. You want a group where you can be yourself and grow, otherwise your going to be miserable and accomplish nothing. Do not concern yourself if someone out there thinks the group is kooky. We all think someone is.

If you are gay/lesbian/bi or transgendered, then join a group that supports equality 100%. Join the FCS . Do not join the CoS who has gone on record saying they don't support gay marriage and only tolerate homosexuality.

If you believe in a classic Church of Satan the FSC might be right for you.

There are now so many "denominations" of Satanism, proving that we are a bonafide religion, it doesn't make sense to join something that isn't a perfect fit for you.

I hope this clarifies some things about us. And while I am not speaking in official capacity, I am sure this is an accurate representation of us as a group.

Victoria
_________________________
-FdB-


Top
#32869 - 12/13/09 04:38 PM The First Satanic Church [Re: TornadoCreator]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2550
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
In addition to being a dignified and respectful memorial to Anton LaVey, a thoughtful expounder of the social aspects of his philosophy, and a distinguished representative of the Satanic tradition generally, one should never forget the First Satanic Church's groundbreaking presence as well.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#32884 - 12/13/09 11:31 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: FdB]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Quote:
We want to impact the world and shape it to our will for the benefit of all mankind.

We are atheistic for the most part. Many of us do believe in a universal energy. Think of it as electricity running the show, but we don't worship it. Everyone has a different way of expressing it, I like to use we are the opposite of Buddhism. But those are my words, not others.


Don't you think buddhists (as any other religion) want to shape the world for the benefit of all mankind?

Why then do you say FSC is the opposite of Buddhism ? Could you develop?

(I'm personnaly annoyed by churches wanting to shape the world for my benefit (as I'm included in mankind) ;-)

Top
#32886 - 12/13/09 11:56 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Fabiano]
Natalia666 Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 34
Loc: Alabama
How odd that the CoS does not support gay marriage or transgenders. Sounds more like fundamental Xtianity than Satanism. Very odd.

Thanks for sharing the info about the FCS. This is the first time I have heard of it. As a young person I am happy to see the teachings continue. I have heard only negative about the present day CoS. I am curious, what kind of activities/newsletters do they hold? The website entails very little. Also if they have "lessons" of any sort. I am only curious because I am involved in another LHP organization and don't want to spread myself too thin.

As for Buddhists "shaping reality". I see Buddhist teachings as more so "escaping" reality by meditative bliss. Not that being at peace is a bad thing, just rather dull. While Satanists grab reality by the guts!
_________________________
"One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman."
-Simone De Beauvoir




Top
#32954 - 12/15/09 09:11 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
You've got it right on there. I think a while ago I made a post saying that "Mayaism" would be a more accurate term for the Satanic religion, in that it represents a wholesale rejection of spirituality in favor of enthroning material existence and independent will, embodied by the tempter Maya, which represents the antithesis of Buddhism.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#32977 - 12/16/09 07:43 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: The Zebu]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
The Zebu, Maya is either the mother of Buddha or an Hinduist concept. The one wich tempted the Buddha is Mãra. So I guess you meant "Mãraism".

Maw, thanks for this buddhism lesson but I already know it.
I know the difference between a Arahant and a Bodhisattva.
The Arahant is the goal to attain in Theravada. He reaches the enlightment for himself. The Mahayana, which historically comes later, goes further : the logic behind is that if you're a Arahant who won his Nirvana and you want to attain the pinacle of altruism you should be capable of voluntary declining the Nirvana you gained, come back on earth in the samsara and stay there till all souls are enlighted.

Note also that the hinduist maya concept is defined as the illusion of duality. Enlightment leads to see that there is no such duality. So things are not simple as that...

I think that confusion about religion & spirituality comes from the fact that few make the difference between what Gordon Allport names intrinsic religion and extrinsic religion.

Extrinsic religion could be called "churchianity" : belonging to a particular church, adhering to its dogma,...
Mystics represent the intrinsic religion: they live very personnal experiences and are generally against dogmas. For instance, Catherine of Siena said to the pope Urban IV that "he had to control his hard and violent mood". Mystics are often anoying for their own church.

I'm conviced all problems comes from this "churchanity" rarely from intrisic religion.

Finally, note that Buddha never pronounced on life after death, so reincarnation does not come from him.

Regarding the Nirvana, it's the paradise of the Xian and the virgins of the muslims. In every religion you have a lure for attracting rookies (magick in Satanism). It's what motivates them when starting on the path. Later, they might attain some "enlightment". They get their paradise or magic powers but it's never what they tought it to be when they started...

Mind and body are part of the reality. The reality IS. It can't be good or evil. It just can be pleasant for some and unpleasant for others. Denying the mind or denying the body is a 'head buried in the sand' attitude ;-)

Top
#32980 - 12/16/09 09:06 PM Disneyland [Re: Fabiano]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2550
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fabiano
The one who tempted the Buddha is Mãra. So I guess you meant "Mãraism".

Foolish mortals who have not yet met Mara eye to Eye may do so here.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33017 - 12/17/09 10:41 PM Re: Disneyland [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
RollinStalker Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/01/09
Posts: 41
Loc: san francisco ,Ca
Mr Aquino thank you for your site direction to mara temple of doom connection. i liked the women going beyond tokenism aswell.
but i would much rather put my trust in salad fingerssalad fingers
rather than mara.

Still,
rollin Stalker
_________________________
FIRST AND LAST AND ALWAYS

Top
#34263 - 01/20/10 08:34 AM Re: Disneyland [Re: RollinStalker]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
I think that Karla LaVey could make a huge impact on the Satanic Community if she wanted to. Apparently she is not that interested in it.

The current CoS has a LOT of detractors and a LOT of people do not like Peter Gilmore's leadership and the directions it has taken in the last decade. I hate to sound judgemental, but the CoS has become a Goth/Vampire fetish freak show.... almost a Pro Wrestling version of Satanism! I do not mind theatrics and I do not mind the use of imagery..... but sometimes it seems like its just shock value for the sake of shock value!

( I will site, "Rex Church" as an example of this... a man, who has made his career out of imagery and taken it to the ridiculous extreme now with the horn implants! )

A lot of people out there, who identify as Satanists, would most likely gravitate towards Karla LaVeys as a more "traditional" alternative to the CoS. However, her website has been stagnant for years, other than updates on her radio shows or club appearances and I wish that she would get a bit more active.

Top
#34265 - 01/20/10 09:10 AM Re: Disneyland [Re: 111Cal]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3128
 Quote:
I think that Karla LaVey could make a huge impact on the Satanic Community if she wanted to. Apparently she is not that interested in it.

Yes she might have the impact.
Lets shine the light to another perspective; instead of letting the old ones reshine why not climbing the way up yourself and giving it a huge impact yourself? If you have the skills to tell stories, if you have the guts to take the quest on, if you know what you are talking about, what the hell are you waiting for?

The pushing and looking back at past figures within the philosophy sounds like a search for conformity. The cries for letting Karla becomming a new black pope or spill-figure for Satanism sounds to me as cries for herd-conformity. Fuck it, past is past, if you want a big impact or change in Satanism it is up to you if you really are craving for it.

 Quote:
However, her website has been stagnant for years, other than updates on her radio shows or club appearances and I wish that she would get a bit more active.

Satanism is lived outside the digital world. While internet can be used as tool to spread ideas and knowledge (or general stupidity which occurs most of the time), it is not a place where you can built up experiences like in real life. Yes her site is stagnant, it does not mean she isn't busy with Satanism.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34266 - 01/20/10 09:14 AM Re: Disneyland [Re: Dimitri]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
I see your points, but I do know people who know Karla and she is not that active.... in her local Area, she is somewhat known, but outside of that she has no national presence.

Me Personally? I have no interest in that role. I may be a good story teller and I think I am reasonably intelligent, but I lack that sort of "media charisma" that is needed for that role. Sorry, but its true!

Top
#53426 - 04/24/11 10:42 PM Re: Disneyland [Re: 111Cal]
Shea Offline
member


Registered: 03/24/11
Posts: 108
Loc: Chicago
The CoS certainly does have a lot of detractors, but there are those of us that appreciate it for what it is as well. I myself just recently joined; I have no large desire to attain a title, nor do I consider myself the next "Great Black Hope" of Satanism. I appreciate the essentially atheistic/noir style the CoS carries, and I very much respect the written works of Anton LaVey.

Gilmore is a capable administrator, and a personable media figure. I recall hearing too that the CoS "tolerates" homosexual relationships--I don't particularly feel like taking the time to hunt down them going on record to say as much. However, I do recall that in "The Satanic Scriptures" Gilmore advocates the interpretation that any sex, as long as it's between consenting adults, is permissible and that marriages between homosexual couples should be made legal.

Sadly, there's a lot of doublespeak and contradiction within the LHP. Personally, I don't trust anyone who says, "But this is what he meant." or "This was the official, but hidden, tradition." etc.

Top
#53428 - 04/24/11 11:41 PM Re: Disneyland [Re: Shea]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
Honestly, I couldn't care less what rules or mandates people who claim to be Satanic "leaders" espouse from their black pulpits.

Such matters are only of interest to the profane masses-- they hear Satanism is a "religion", and there is a "church"... so the media pelts their self-proclaimed "priests" with questions about dogma and opinions on social issues and current events out of overstimuli-deprived curiosity.

If the CoS and other public clubs enjoy their little mass-media games, then let them have their fun, if only for the joy of throwing crumbs before starved pigeons and watching the ensuing squabble. But essentially, the LHP is a radical and diverse school of thought, and its fundamentally anarchic nature leaves little room for such PR indulgence.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#53555 - 04/27/11 10:12 AM Re: Disneyland [Re: The Zebu]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
I find it amusing that people that define themselves as Satanists search for purity and righteousness in ideology. Tisk tisk tisk, no sooner are you set free do you ask to have your shackles fastened again. Do not look towards Churches and Orders for guidance.... this unSatanic in the highest order. The CoS the ToS the ONA ( and who claim to be apart of it that anyone can verify, which means it could be an elaborate hoax? ) are all recent devices..... look beyond such things or you find yourself back on your knees........
Top
#53558 - 04/27/11 01:34 PM Re: Disneyland [Re: Zakary]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
What gives you the idea that anyone here submits to an ideology? We live it, because it's who we are. Groups, churches and temples are what we use, if we're so inclined. How you managed to twist this upside-down is beyond me, but I'd be happy to hear your reasoning.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#53567 - 04/27/11 05:16 PM Re: Disneyland [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
Hmmmm.......... well Anton used the idea and format of a Church greatly for the irony I think....... unless you grew up in the 60s you probably couldn't appreciate the way the CoS used some of symbology and metaphors used by LaVey..... But again lets get back to your question......? What do I mean? What I means is we, and I mean those of the lhp do not subject ourselves to the institutions and rules of others in a sheep like fashion. As you suggest...... yes we might 'use a church or temple', the operative word is 'use', or enter into an arrangement for mutual gain........ but never as a devotee to someones ideology or leadership...... this for rhp cattle is it not? I know many will disagree and stamp hooves but what makes us what we are is rebellion, rebellion against the fallibility of man.
Top
#53568 - 04/27/11 05:29 PM Re: Disneyland [Re: Zakary]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
Depends on how you figure such a relationship to be submissive. Adhering to a church, a temple or an organization for your own ends means you have to share. If such are your druthers, then you may benefit.

My question here is how you construe this as a temple. No one here has submitted to anything other than a code of conduct to participate in an online forum. If people participate in churches or temples, that is their own prerogative, intended to further their own ends.

As for submitting to the ideology of Satanism - no bending was required. This is who I am. The shoe fits. I don't call myself a Satanist out of affectation. I call myself that because it's who I am.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#53572 - 04/27/11 06:09 PM Re: Disneyland [Re: Zakary]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Zakary
As you suggest...... yes we might 'use a church or temple', the operative word is 'use', or enter into an arrangement for mutual gain........ but never as a devotee to someones ideology or leadership...... this for rhp cattle is it not? I know many will disagree and stamp hooves but what makes us what we are is rebellion, rebellion against the fallibility of man.


So you submit to no rules... except this one. And you somehow determine that this is what everyone else is as well. Interesting.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#53576 - 04/27/11 06:38 PM Re: Disneyland [Re: Jake999]
Shea Offline
member


Registered: 03/24/11
Posts: 108
Loc: Chicago
The idea that there is freedom without barriers (either self-imposed or externally imposed) is an idealistic fallacy. Those who embrace the idea of pure rebellion often end up making a master of the idea of rebellion for rebellion's sake.

Like SkaffenAmtiskaw points out, the most important and necessary aspect of Satanism is not iconoclasm or the act of "pure" rebellion but just the necessity that one see themselves reflected in the religion--no backwards bending or submission at all necessary.

Top
#53577 - 04/27/11 07:03 PM Re: Disneyland [Re: Shea]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
Hmmmm....... some very serious and interesting insight here indeed....... I think we all know very well what I mean don't we....... Yes rebellion for rebellions sake is silly...... no doubt? I'm talking about rejection of herd conformity........ Look, you will always have schisms..... amongst adherents to religions and ideologies.... the 'those that know best brigade'. The important thing is principles.
Top
#53578 - 04/27/11 07:06 PM Re: Disneyland [Re: Shea]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Exactly.

Rebellion for rebellion's sake is meaningless. Being in opposition does not mean simply opposing. It means not blindly accepting... not rejection of everything based on some precondition of rebellion against anything and everything. Satanism also champions pride, but we also recognize when pride is arrogant and counterproductive and that is a sin against one's own self interests. Dichotomies exist. The wise Satanist learns that early and learns that one can live with dichotomy, so long as they do so with an open mind.

So if something is in actual opposition to the way you need to live your life, certainly you find a way to oppose it. If a law is on the books that says you will not eat strawberries on Wednesday, and you feel like eating strawberries on Wednesday, then you eat strawberries on Wednesday. It doesn't make you a hero. It doesn't make you a rebel. It doesn't make you a Satanist. What it makes you is a person who saw a need and an illogical barrier to fulfilling that need, so he came up with a solution that was right for him.

Others might come up with a different logic and solution for THEIR life, but that is what Satanism is. It's YOUR life... you make what decisions you need to make and move on. If they are at odds with the world around you, then they are at odds with the world around you. It only matters in you life if it suits your need and not some sense of counterproductive pride, as if you saw the law that said, "Do not eat strawberries on Wednesday" and, deciding, "Nobody tells me what to do," scarfed down a flat of the fruit out of spite... never mind that you are deathly allergic to strawberries. When you let counterproductive pride obscure your judgement, you may make a point... but make sure you have the antidote in your pocket.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#53589 - 04/28/11 02:48 AM Re: Disneyland [Re: Jake999]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
Yes I agree totally with you. But then again I've read your posts over the years and agree with your particular approach on most things. I would catagorize myself as a LeVayean Satanist if anything...... if I had to define my way of thinking in a few words. I also believe that Satan is a dark force within nature, not unlike LaVey. I don't think the CoS and FCoS are different in this respect. I would also accept the title of 'theistic Satanist' in this sense, the recognition of this force/archetype/dynamic. However, not in the Judaic sense of a god that one worships of course. I suppose this is why many consider 'theism' in Satanism a contridiction...... which from a semantic point of view it is I guess...... I can also appreciate the ToS's position in this context. A question I have is: do people think the difference between the CoS FCoS and ToS is a semantic one? seeings they all recognise this 'dark force'. What do you think?
Top
#53590 - 04/28/11 03:09 AM Re: Disneyland [Re: Zakary]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I can't speak for TODAY's Church of Satan under Peter Gilmore, or for FCOS... although I don't think that Karla or Dr. LaVey would think that the differences between Satanism in the LaVey mind and the Temple of Set were merely semantic.

The Dark Force of which you speak in either The Church of Satan (ASLV) or the FCOS is in no way a conscious entity or has any real concern with humanity in general. It simply IS... it's part of the natural dichotomy. And while we might term it "satanic," any relationship we have with it is a symbolic thing... a wish to find a way to use that dark force for our advantage. It doesn't care about us, any more than electricity or magnetism cares about us, but like those more recognizable forms of energy, if one can find the way to interact with it, who knows what power might be wrought. I personally think of it as something like "chi," only on a wider scale.

Now, when you contrast this nebulous force with what even the most benign theist sees in his "god," you see that there's a need there to "touch the face of god," and to interact with him and gain his (or her, not to be sexist) benefits personally. The "gift of Set" is telling, in that it shows that there is a personal attachment, not really all that different between the way Christians view their relationship with Jesus of their "God." Sure, there are trappings of darkness, and spooky titles and books... but the personal nature of the connection is something that just doesn't fit with the LaVey dynamic.

That said, there are times in ritualization that one might indeed personalize this connection with that "dark force," but one has to remember that this is in context of a psychodramatic presentation. It is, by it's very nature, a voluntary suspended disbelief, allowing one to emotionally touch what the mind intellectually knows is unreal... like immersing oneself into the plot of a movie that's grabbed your mind and takes you along on the director's vision of the artist's script. Once you leave the intellectual decompression chamber, life is as it was, and the world the faculties perceive as reality returns.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#53592 - 04/28/11 05:56 AM Re: Disneyland [Re: Jake999]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
Yes I suppose it comes down to the desired mode of experiencing the dark forces. I think that in the end it may be all the same or a means to the same ends. The practise of ritual and magic in the context of invocation and application is about the development and expression of the self...... 'Satan manifest in flesh' if you like? Or perhaps the process is about an interplay between the external environment and the mind..... ' when I find god I find purpose and definition thus I find myself'. Perhaps in this manor the theistic Satanist looks for the personification and characterisation of Satan in symbolism to obtain a refined concept of self and meaning, almost like an externalised form of internal development?
Top
#61177 - 11/06/11 07:42 AM Re: Disneyland [Re: Zakary]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
neither the CoS or the FSC are true heirs to LaVeyan Satanism.....

clearly Gilmore is a competent man, who makes a nice side living off the CoS and loves the attention (like the nerdy boy in high school who wanted to be heard) but the changes post - ASL have turned it into a vampire-fan club that offers nothing, and does nothing.

the FSC has not grown at all since ASL's death, and Karla tends to use it more as an avenue to promote live shows and events that she enjoys, and not as anything more....

Top
#61190 - 11/06/11 01:48 PM Re: Disneyland [Re: 111Cal]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
I don't see how one can judge an organization as "the heir" to LaVey's ideas when they don't need an organization in the first place. The only standard you have to go off of is LaVey's PR presence, in which case the standard of a philosophical legacy degenerates into shallow showmanship.

Besides, I think we're railed on the CoS and its splinters enough for for not picking up the slack. I don't see the need to piss on what is now submerged under an ocean of piss.


Edited by The Zebu (11/06/11 01:49 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
Page all of 8 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.135 seconds of which 0.006 seconds were spent on 131 queries. Zlib compression disabled.