Page 2 of 3 <123>
Topic Options
#29791 - 09/18/09 09:55 AM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Waxman Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/09/09
Posts: 14
Well, been a bit busy, so I didn't have a chance to get back in here and check on the topic I started. First off, this has turned into a great conversation from all the posts that I've read thus far.

Secondly, it was mentioned in one of the posts about the actual "worship" of Satan, and I guess I should have been more clear on that point. Basically, my belief is to put an "identity" to Satan more or less. Whereas the LaVeyan norm seems to be as more of a force or sorts, I just happen to put it into a person/form.

I do want to make it clear however, that there is no "worship" per se in my views associated with this. Another post mentioned something more along the lines of an acquaintance/guide type of relationship, which is more of my thoughts on it.

Also, I did read the Vera and JoS websites, and while there was some interesting information on these sites, they seemed a bit on the far fetched side in my opinion. I'm sure they are what some people are looking for, but just not myself.

Long story short, I've basically altered my LaVeyan viewpoint with replacing Satan as a deity/person/etc., which then I think at that point leans it towards a more theistic route.

Either way, I'm glad to see how far this thread has come...there have been many interesting points brought up by various members of the community.

Aaron

Top
#29793 - 09/18/09 10:13 AM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: Waxman]
Final Conflict Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/11/09
Posts: 47
 Originally Posted By: Waxman

Secondly, it was mentioned in one of the posts about the actual "worship" of Satan, and I guess I should have been more clear on that point. Basically, my belief is to put an "identity" to Satan more or less. Whereas the LaVeyan norm seems to be as more of a force or sorts, I just happen to put it into a person/form.


Thank you for clearing that up. Certainly this would differentiate you from most identifying as "theistic Satanists." Dmitri made a good point about one's beliefs regarding the nature of Satan being a personal matter, but not something that is necessarily shared universally. Satanism is, after all, an individualistic way of life.

However, I would ask whether you view Satan as an actually existing being (in reality), or conversely, if you don't view Satan as an actual being, but instead consciously suspend your disbelief to be able to evoke Satan as a mental entity of sorts.

My assumption then is that you are going more with your gut instinct and feeling in relating to this belief, rather than basing it upon the beliefs of others.

 Quote:
Also, I did read the Vera and JoS websites, and while there was some interesting information on these sites, they seemed a bit on the far fetched side in my opinion. I'm sure they are what some people are looking for, but just not myself.


This is definitely good to hear, since Vera and JoS and the like are rather kooky. ;\)

Top
#29794 - 09/18/09 10:37 AM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: Woland]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
It matters very little if someone tries to externalize or internalize his idea of Satan or even when he completely ignores the whole concept. What makes a person are his qualities and what he does with them. Some happen to be Atheist, others happen to prefer imagining there is a force or an entity. As long as it is their personal view it is pretty trivial.

We are quick to call a theistic satanist dumb as a rock, to a degree caused by seeing so many of them that are indeed dumb as a rock. But if we would judge the load of modern satanists we've seen pass here in the last decade, we can come to no other conclusion either. Most were dumb as a rock too. Still, we tend to equal theism with dumb and Atheism with smart. It's cultural.

I think all is dependent upon situation and context. I am a hardcore materialist at some levels because to solve certain riddles or to come to a satisfying conclusion, materialism is the perfect system. On other occasions it isn't that handy and a more spiritual approach might be preferred. We all do that in our lives, switch to the tool that is best for a given situation. As an example; look at the way we form relations. If logic would be a drive in that, a whole lot less relations would exist.

So if someone prefers to see Satan as an entity and it works for them, more power to that. We don't have to think the construct is that logical but in the end, we all have our realities we live in. If the satanist is the god of his life, why would he stop being a satanist when he recreates the reality around him as he sees fit? That others don't agree, what's that to him? In the end, who needs the approval of others to feel good about their life?

I consider myself an Atheist because what counts for me are probabilities. The other explanations do have a too low probability to be likely but at the same time, my thinking about Satan's work is very much in line with the medieval way of how they saw him; the destroyer of gods creation, the corrupter. In that respect I at times amusingly call myself a devil-worshiper. It's not that I would worship him but if I'd meet him in the pub, I'd surely buy him a beer. How I see the devil depends on context and situation. Intellectually or emotionally make the difference.

And to Waxman: your opinions are better than ours because if it wasn't like that, it would not be worth having them. What I believe or uphold, I do consider better than what others uphold. It doesn't imply my opinions are infallible or not subject to revision but in my world, my ideas rock. Make sure yours rock too.

D.

Top
#29803 - 09/18/09 02:22 PM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: Diavolo]
Final Conflict Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/11/09
Posts: 47
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo

We are quick to call a theistic satanist dumb as a rock, to a degree caused by seeing so many of them that are indeed dumb as a rock. But if we would judge the load of modern satanists we've seen pass here in the last decade, we can come to no other conclusion either. Most were dumb as a rock too. Still, we tend to equal theism with dumb and atheism with smart. It's cultural.


Speaking only for myself, it depends on the type of theism. If someone states that they worship the Devil and pray to him and that sort of thing, there is no way I could ever consider such a person as being intelligent.

It's for that reason that I cannot as a matter of principle ever consider a mainline Christian who believes Jesus Christ is God as being intelligent. I mean, such a person could be smart in the traditional sense; hell, they could be a rocket scientist (very few are), but ultimately I cannot help but view such a person as being dumb as a rock.

Now, someone who believes in God in a pantheistic or deist sense, that I wouldn't judge. I wouldn't agree with them obviously, but at the same time I would not pass judgement because at the very least such a belief is not necessarily false if we consider the possibility of there existing a universal force we aren't aware of, but may become aware of as scientific knowledge advances.

But the very idea of a human being a deity or any anthropomorphic deity to me is beyond irrational and cannot be reconciled with any traditional school of logic.

What Waxman is talking about however, is not necessarily believing that an anthropomorphic deity exists, but rather that an intelligent or creative force of some kind exists that he chooses to identify with Satan. This would be more along the lines of pantheism. And this is something that he identifies as a personal identification, in other words it's true for him but he doesn't expect that it will hold true for others.

Certainly, I would not consider such a position or belief as being dumb or even necessarily irrational.

Top
#29809 - 09/18/09 05:07 PM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: Final Conflict]
Tristanstein Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 11
Loc: Afghanistan
This has been very thought provoking. I would like to agree with Waxman on beliefs evolving. Evolution is a natural cycle that applies to everything. As far as disbelief in theistic Satanism I have to disagree. Everything that has evolved from Abrahamic religions has said that if you don’t believe in this one god you are wrong. How is this at all logical in a world filled with people that follow many different deities that are older then Abrahams? Before I go on I would like to say I hate the word deity. It is so human to try and label things and some things defy labels. So for some one to say it is wrong to believe in Satan or a force like Satan or Set because in there mind and in there perception of reality there is no Satan, is just as wrong as a Christian Jew or Muslim saying we are all going to hell.

Waxman, I would like to see some citations on your sources. I am trying to decide for myself if there is a deity behind the Satan image. I have experienced certain things that have led me to believe there maybe what I call the dark father. I have dreams and with out giving to much detail, I have been in his foot steps basically and never quite able to catch up with him but always in some way communicating with him. Then there are things I have seen, while awake and completely sober. It is nothing I have ever considered worshiping, but it is an entity I admirer greatly. or i could just have a screw loose.
_________________________
Give war a chance!

Top
#29814 - 09/18/09 08:55 PM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: Tristanstein]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Before I go on I would like to say I hate the word deity. It is so human to try and label things and some things defy labels. So for some one to say it is wrong to believe in Satan or a force like Satan or Set because in there mind and in there perception of reality there is no Satan, is just as wrong as a Christian Jew or Muslim saying we are all going to hell.


Hi Tristan. Couple of points I'd like to make here.

Firstly, on labels;Just what is a label anyway? In Satanism there has always been a tendency from some practitioners to dislike on labels for one reason or another. Generally they feel labels are constraining, or limiting somehow. But let me ask you, how would you be able to communicate anything without them? Labeling is what the human mind does when attempting to communicate any sort of information to anyone else. Labels, as it turns out, are words or gestures with meaning behind them.

Once you try to remove the meaning from a word, the effectiveness of that word for communicating an idea becomes lessened. So in effect, by attempting to remove 'labels' one is moving AWAY from being able to spread or absorb new ideas, and towards crypticity and mysticism.From where I sit this is counterproductive, indeed destructive, behavior. For this reason, people that constantly try to un-define Satanism to mean whatever the heck they want sorta bug me..but I digress.

By saying 'certain things defy labels' you are really saying some things are beyond our reach, and further, can't even be imagined or conceived of. I can't accept that.

Embrace Labels.
\:\)


Secondly, why should it be wrong to condemn a belief I see as being stupid as being stupid? For that matter, who decides what is wrong or right if not myself?

The cool thing about autotheism is that it frees one up to make just about any judgment about anything one chooses. PC society has become very egalitarian. As such making any sort of judgment against anybody or anything has become somehow impolite, just as asserting anyone is better than anyone else, or indeed that we are NOT all created equal sends them screaming for the hills.

Their god, after all, created them all equal. This memeplex of beliefs and ideas may have originated in abrahamic belief , but the religious are certainly not its sole keepers. You will not find any Satanists on THAT boat, however.

So then, what makes it wrong for a christian to believe, or even express, that you are going to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity? Does it offend your sensibilities? ;\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#29829 - 09/19/09 03:18 AM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: Final Conflict]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Of course certain forms of theism are incredible silly and it is not that I have respect for all opinions or think all forms are necessarily sane and certainly they are not equal. But in our culture –atheistic Satanism- we seem to put Atheism high up as the smartest position and then classify all other forms below that from reasonable smart to outright dumb. Not only the form, but we link our degree of contempt also directly to the person upholding that specific form. Their cultures do the same of course. The real question is if it matters much and if, at what levels. Of course when looking at probabilities, some are more probable than others but at times probabilities matter little in life.

I look at it like betting at a roulette table. The sanest thing to do is bet red/black or odd/even and that's what most of us here do. Putting your bet on one number is not that smart a move because the probabilities are not in favor but if; the profit is much higher. And maybe that is why people believe in certain forms; not because of the probability but because if they are right, they do gain so much more.

D.

Top
#29830 - 09/19/09 04:12 AM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: Dan_Dread]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
At the risk of sounding like I am splitting hairs I feel I must make apparent what I feel like is a difference between meanings/definitions and labels.

Words have meanings and definitions. Words are given meanings and definitions so we know what another person is talking about when using the word in question. When a word is over used, or misused, that word and everything it "stands for" does become "cheap" and, ironically, quite meaningless.

Labels, I think, are another creature all their own. To give yourself a label is certainly a way to "constrain" or "limit" yourself. I say this, because, when labeling yourself you are setting certain parameters for yourself that, if you do not stay within in them, that label no longer fits you/you no longer fit that label.

Is not fitting a label you have given yourself a bad thing? No. Is a label that you have given yourself not fitting you a bad thing? No. The problem is, as I see it, is that so many people are so quick to try and label themselves. These people feel the need for an identity, something they feel they can relate with, so strongly that they will easily pick up and drop labels like clock work.Giving yourself a label does not define who you are. You, and the measure of your character and your actions define who you are.

In some respects labels are bad because trying to mold one's self to fit them can be quite time consuming and aggravating. This time spent trying to be something you are not and probably never will is much more enjoyable being who you ARE. In other respects labels are useful as they help with ease of conversation. I think the important thing is to know when which is appropriate.

Please forgive me if the way I presented my opinions was a tad on the incoherent side. I attended a birthday party earlier and the libations were ample. Should any of my ideas need further extrapolation or elaboration, feel free to ask. As if you need my permission \:D
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#29841 - 09/19/09 05:16 PM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: Dan_Dread]
Tristanstein Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 11
Loc: Afghanistan
I appreciate your remarks.

True, labels do aid in communication but labels can be interpreted in different ways. It’s the reason why so many people think the world will end 2012. it’s the reason why people thought there where canals on Mars. Labels along with other forms of expression can miss there mark when they are over loaded with meaning. So I guess a better way to express my ideas on labels is to say I dislike how overbearing a label can become.

As far as theism goes, its not something I have committed myself to and I see no passionate need to defend it. I can not refute the possibility of a Satan or Set ether. The bottom line is that I can not agree with dispelling something that dose not align with my beliefs in the same fashion that the sheep do. Am I wrong for thinking this?

If I see something as stupid I will call it but I will not condemn an idea or its believers before I have come to a point where I can not see any truth to it. I think it is important to say what if. What if there is some truth to theistic Satanism or what ever the hell is behind that damn label.

This is a good example of a label being overbearing. Satan is symbolic to Satanism but the word itself has connections to other things i believe to be wrong and stupid. It sounds awesomely diabolic but it just seems to compromise the philosophy. Maybe I am over stepping my bounds by saying that but when I am in my own meditations I refer to that force as the dark father. The idea is the same, the label has changed. changed to something less convoluted. Because it is psychological it makes more since for me to detach from the image given to the label Satan by Christians. I would like to point out that I am autotheistic and this gives me the ability to judge this as the appropriate thing to do even though some might say I am un-defining Satanism.

Being threatened with a lake of fire or any other variety of damnations dose not hurt my feelings. Its simple stupid.
_________________________
Give war a chance!

Top
#30292 - 10/05/09 11:10 AM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: Dimitri]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
MawhrinSkel brings up an important point that I as a Theistic Satanist hope we can address- we need some facts to make any case about whether Satan is a good guy, or wants worship, or even if he cares about humanity. Maybe not a fact but at least a point of reference, I have come to the belief that Satan does not demand worship, but, if not being equals in terms of power, at least treats us as equals seeking enlightnment. This is based on Genesis- when he tells Adam and Eve to eat the apple that will give them knowledge "like a god".

I can only offer that I have had personal experiences making me aware of his existence, as well as other beings. My only argument to rebut those who would say "there is no evidence, only faith", is to bring up the "brain in the vat" theory, being that all experiences are perceived through electric signals, and a hallucination would be indistinguishable from reality if reality is, on a basic level, what our brain perceives. The other argument stems from this, the idea that no individual can ever be sure that any other individual, or even the world he perceives, is real. The way this theory is usually proposed is like a video-game screen- nothing exists that you are not actively perceiving or interacting with. If you see a car turn a corner and disappear, you don't know that it still exists once you stop perceiving it. While I and many people find this thinking ridiculous, it highlights the idea that nothing outside of one's own existence can be known.

I would then propose that there are indeed things that are real that we cannot perceive directly, like the existence of atoms, or cells, or the strings of string theory.
This argument admittedly does not offer construable evidence but rather offers that none exists and can ever truly exist.
I would lastly say that while this may not and should not convince any other individual of my beliefs, that I as the perceiver and sensible questioning individual cannot deny the validity of an experience that I, in my opinion, know to be true.

I don't speak for other theistic Satanists, and I don't know what they think about this, but I only worship Satan to the extent that I worship myself, in recognition that he is a being that is more powerful than me but that aids in my pursuit of self-elevation and self-empowerment. Other beings that have reveled themselves to me and aided in that pursuit have also become apart of my rituals but do not take precedence over myself.
Please let me know what you think of this logic, any holes in arguments, and other things. I am aware that the arguments proposed do not provide detailed knowledge of Satan, but I would have to say that my own interactions have and I am actively pursuing a greater understanding off these things.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#30300 - 10/05/09 08:47 PM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: Doomsage680]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
I realize you're not trying to convince us of your metaphysical beliefs, but you are implicitly asking that we "leave it be". As a diehard skeptic, I can't do that.

As I've said before, spiritual experiences are a dime a dozen. Everyone has them, but they can't all be true. Ever tried Chaos Magic? Get yourself deep enough in the Gnostic State and you'll be capable of ritually summoning the Care Bears to deceptively physical manifestation.

It doesn't even have to be something as ridiculously modern as that. I once had a discussion with a lady who called herself a "Demonolater" and insisted with the utmost sincerity that the spirit Astaroth was her "guardian demon" or some other term, and regularly had experiences with that spirit in which it manifested as a masculine-looking king clad in armor, astride some beast (basically from the Goetia description). However, I quickly pointed out that the name "Astaroth" comes from the likes of "Astarte", who was a benevolent Babylonian goddess-- "Astaroth" was merely a medieval typo fabricated by Christian necromancers. She was- in effect- worshiping a being that didn't even exist.

Of course, you can say that a person's spiritual experiences are their own business, which happened to be the argument she used (and seems to be a common last line of defense among supernaturalists). But, if- from a scientific point of view- the physical, emotional, and psychological stimuli measurable from spiritual experiences are all the same- then why give credence to yours over others, even personally? Or that of Care-Bear-olatry, for that matter?

My overall point is, just because we can never experience reality in its purest form doesn't give us license to redefine it willy-nilly according to our own religious prejudices.

===============

The Serpent of Eden is presented as a teacher and a liberator, and from some interpretations- benevolent. Basically, as you said, "treats us as equals seeking enlightnment" if you want to go all Valentinian on us. (Confessedly, I am of the same opinion). But this is the Serpent, not Satan. Satan is an entirely different being in the bible, portrayed as an angel loyal to God in the OT, and an all-powerful lord of evil and corruption in the NT- who, surprisingly, tries to bribe Jesus to bow down and worship him.

Satan is entirely relative to the individual. He is uplifting and inspiring to me, yet hideous and depressing to many Christians. There are more subtle differences among Satanists, but the same principle applies. You will never know about Satan's ultimate nature because it is impossible.

I have long since discarded metaphysical nitpicking for this very reason. It's utterly useless and confusing, and while it may prove an entertaining (albeit endless) puzzle to others, it leaves me with little more than a giant headache.

Satan is not a deity. Satan is not a symbol.

Satan is.
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#30315 - 10/06/09 07:13 AM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: The Zebu]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"My overall point is, just because we can never experience reality in its purest form doesn't give us license to redefine it willy-nilly according to our own religious prejudices."

Wow. I honestly never looked at it like that. I have however used this argument, or one understandably similar, to argue Objectivism with relativists. (The idea that morality is something that can be logically and rationally determined)

I would also agree that one can never know about Satan's ultimate nature. It's funny you mention Demonolatry, I actually stumbled upon the OFS's site yesterday (Ordus Flammeus Serpentis), I had googled Diane Vera and checked it out...I've been starting to get very suspicious of sites that lay out hierarchies and corresponding sigils with names. It just didn't seem legitimate. I used JoyofSatan for a while though I am very doubtful about it, their attempts to say that the Babylonians had corresponding gods with the Sumerians and with Egyptians as well as the Greeks just seem hard to believe.
In reference to the Serpent/Lucifer/Satan problem, I would argue that Revelations made the connection between the Serpent and Satan.
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
(Rev 12:9)
...For whatever the Bible may be worth, I suppose.

Zebu, (this is not meant to sound argumentative, just questioning) would you doubt the validity of EMF detectors? What I mean is that, if I did a ritual, with cameras and motion detectors and infrared and a crew of scientists with legitimate equipment, and when I said I believe there to be some bio-electric presence and the detectors starting picking up on one, would that add credence to my beliefs over, say a chaos magickian or otherwise delluded theist?
I was thinking of some way that a rational third party observer could scientifically record something "supernatural".

I am reminded of something i saw earlier today, some magician, I think he was on America's Got Talent, did a trick where Raven Simon picked a random object from a selection, hid it in a box without the guy knowing which one, and he did a performance where some ghost told him what it was and he wrote it down while going through some strange convulsions(freewriting?). Illusionist Criss Angel was one of the judges, and when the competitor said that he could really talk to ghosts and foretell the future or something like that, Criss got really mad and pulled out 2 envelopes, saying that he can have $1M of his own money if he can tell whats in either one. Of course, the competitor got mad and started criticizing Criss, but the point was made, and later it was revealed that in 1 envelope was a paper saying 911- the idea was that if anyone could have predicted on 9/10 what would happen on 9/11, the tragedy could have been averted. So for whatever reason, either no one is capable of proving their supernatural abilities, or no one has any.

I'll have to meditate or something to discern the greater truth behind my theistic beleifs. Thanks for the constructive criticism, I will use it to my advantage.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#30323 - 10/06/09 02:06 PM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
Thanks MahwrinSkel, clearly I didn't think that one through. I think I have started to address a separate topic, and if any other theists here wish to start a thread on finding some way to legitimately "prove that what occurred was causally linked to the existence of a supernatural force or entity", I would enjoy discussing this further. I'd like to restate that I wasn't trying to force any beliefs on anyone here, I noticed the thread seemed to have the "suspend disbelief" mode to allow this discussion and I'd like to thank Zebu and MahwrinSkel for politely critiquing my presented argument.
Till next time,
Doomsage680
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#30331 - 10/06/09 04:41 PM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: Doomsage680]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
In reference to the Serpent/Lucifer/Satan problem, I would argue that Revelations made the connection between the Serpent and Satan.

Revelations seems to be either a delusional acid-trip of automatic narrative, or a politically-charged allegory about the Roman Empire- rather than a word-for-word description of literal beings and events. Furthermore, it was written many centuries after Genesis and Job, and thus was drawing on an entirely different spiritual current. You can't expect them to correlate accurately, since Genesis was written as a mythological history, and Job was a parable about loyalty to God. The inclusion of the Serpent and Satan in Revelations seems to be merely the author pulling symbols out of scripture to get his message across.

You give the Bible- especially the New Testament- too much credit, in my opinion. Why, for instance, do you believe its identification of Satan with the Serpent, yet (I would hope) deny its foretelling of Jesus Christ emerging as the triumphant savior of the world?

Many Satanists (myself included) spend much effort trying to unravel the mysteries of Satanic mythos- Theists in particular seem rather fond of trying to determine "who" Satan is, or which ancient pagan deity our Lord of Darkness can be syncretically identified with.

Admittedly, there are many valid correspondences. In the Satanist's view of Satan, you see primarily a mixture of the biblical Serpent, the apocryphal Satanael, and the jewish Azazel, topped with medieval folk beliefs and early modern diabolism. There are also heavy doses of Typhon, Set, Ahriman, etc. Those seeking a more positive-looking syncretism might look beyond the typical religious bugaboos and stumble upon deities like Pan, Dionysus, and Prometheus. Or the more hardline-theist types might find themselves back in ancient Babylon with the likes of the Annunaki, convinced that of all the oldest-known deities in the world, Satan must be one of them.

But the flaw with all of this, is that in the end, you are at best left with a deity that lacks the rich multi-faceted aspects of Satan himself- at worst, you end up with a god so far removed from the starting point that it bears no resemblance to the original.

The Joy of Satan displays the most ridiculous outcome of this sort of thinking. Among other, more ludicrous conclusions, they have determined that Satan is in fact the Babylonian god Enki. Anyone who has had even a passing interest in Sumerian mythology knows how thoroughly (excuse the vulgar expression) retarded that is, and that ancient worship of Enki most certainly bore no resemblance whatsoever to the JoS's modern practice of Satanism.

Isn't that a huge problem? Shouldn't they then rename themselves "the Joy of Enki" and speak all their invocations in Akkadian or some other dead tongue? Apparently not, since Enki even told Maxine Dietrich in person that he doesn't mind being called Satan or worshiped with Satanic imagery (I'm not shitting you, it's on their fucking site). We are left only with the assumption that it's merely a half-assed guess made solely to cover up the holes in their metaphysical delusions. I can at least have respect for Michael Aquino, who wrote that Set shouldn't be called by the name of a "Hebrew Fiend".

In summary, Satan is unique among all the demons and pagan gods because he is the epitome of what Satanism is, as the namesake would blatantly suggest. Yes, Satan is an ugly, modern hodgepodge of countless differing gods, devils, demons, and angels rolled up in a giant mythologically-messy casserole that could not possibly fit into any traditional pagan framework, looking disturbingly artificial and religiously unsound. But that, in my opinion, is what makes Satanism worth it.
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#30332 - 10/06/09 07:23 PM Re: LaVeyan to traditional satanist path [Re: The Zebu]
Ankhhape Offline
Banned
pledge


Registered: 07/28/09
Posts: 99
This is where I have always disagreed in the Serpent / Satan / Lucifer thing (biblically speaking of course).

In that dreaded booklet I see the Serpent as Lucifer bringing illumination / gnosis to an equally dreadful situation that Man was thrust into. On the other hand I see this Satan archetype thing as the adversarial aspect of Mankind meant to challenge us.

Man is Mankind's worst enemy or is it the other way around?

Top
Page 2 of 3 <123>


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

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.