Page 7 of 17 « First<56789>Last »
Topic Options
#40261 - 07/14/10 07:57 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: TheInsane]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
Did people practice some form of "heresy" and call it Satanism? Sure. But an actual and reasonable philisophy laying out mindsets that make sense that aren't mentally retarded gibberish I don't think so.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. Just because you claim something and call it religion doesn't make it one. Like it or not it has a lot to do with a group of like minded believers that accept the philosophy.

It seems to me you are trying to call an apple and orange one and the same.

I would still like to see how the point is proven and considered case closed.

I do apologize for the grammer I am currently on standby on a base in Iraq awaiting my next flight to another base and if able to edit when I land I will.
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#40266 - 07/14/10 10:07 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane

Consistent and coherent ideologies called and practiced as Satanism before Anton LaVey was even born.

Case closed?


#1 - Get a spell checker or learn to spell. Lazy writing is usually indicative of lazy thinking, and I see no reason to think this may be an exception at this point.

#2 - The fact that devil worshippers have existed certainly doesn't indicate any sort of coherency or consistency within there chosen superstitions. It also doesn't make them Satanists.

None of your historical devil worshippers defined Satanism in any meaningful way. Why do you keep beating this dead horse? If you want to redefine Satanism go start a myspace page and maybe some emo kids will get on board with your vision.It certainly isn't going to happen here.

To be honest, you just haven't contributed anything in your time on this forum that gives even the slightest indication that you have the first clue about Satanism. Why should anyone take you as any sort of authority on the matter?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40287 - 07/15/10 11:33 AM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: Dan_Dread]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
The fact that devil worshippers have existed certainly doesn't indicate any sort of coherency or consistency within there chosen superstitions. It also doesn't make them Satanists.


Satanism, as defined by nearly every single academic source for the past few centuries, is the religious veneration of Satan. I'd like to see somebody go back in time 60 years and tell somebody with a straight face, "worshiping the Devil is not Satanism". Just because we have nitpicky definitions of "worship", "Devil," and "Satan" doesn't magically erase the cultural and religious connotations that "Satanism" carries.

 Quote:
None of your historical devil worshippers defined Satanism in any meaningful way.


That is, according to your standards. Ben Kadosh felt fine being an eccentric Luciferian Freemason. The Ophite Cultus Sathanas went strongly with their odd sort of Gnosticism mixed with Wicca. LaVey, in turn, felt he hit the mark with countercultural elitism and social Darwinism dressed up in circus garb.

(It is ironic that many prominent pre-LaVeyan instances of Satanism were not reverse-Christian or based on Christian metaphysics, but instead steeped in other frameworks like Hermeticism.)

As with any idea, human beings have the ability to view a concept from another perspective, and to modify it for their own purposes in a way that is meaningful to them and their personal experiences.

However, don't make the mistake of thinking that everybody else in the world is suddenly going to buy your redefined terminology, especially if it goes against the overwhelming mass of human memetics that has driven western culture for centuries past.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#40302 - 07/15/10 04:30 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: Ringmaster]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Ringmaster

I would still like to see how the point is proven and considered case closed.


I gave you two names of self-professed Satanist that published Satanic writings before Anton LaVey was even born. Did you read their books? It is a fact that people considered themselves Satanists before 1966 and before Anton LaVey. The material is out there and not even hard to come by. Again I repeat Stanislaw Przybyszewski and Ben Kadosh. Look them up!

Also look up The Brotherhood of Saturn. Although these people did (do?) exist on the edge of some kind of Satanism. If one is to consider them Satanists or not can be debated.

Satanism is indeed the religious or philosophical veneration of Satan. What Satan is or represents can of course be debated.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

#1 - Get a spell checker or learn to spell. Lazy writing is usually indicative of lazy thinking, and I see no reason to think this may be an exception at this point.


I checked my last post with Microsoft Word spell checker and it found no errors other than the word "LaVey" which wasn’t included in the word list. Coming down on spelling when there are obviously no mistakes in my post makes me wonder where your head is at.

 Quote:
#2 - The fact that devil worshippers have existed certainly doesn't indicate any sort of coherency or consistency within there chosen superstitions. It also doesn't make them Satanists.

None of your historical devil worshippers defined Satanism in any meaningful way. Why do you keep beating this dead horse? If you want to redefine Satanism go start a myspace page and maybe some emo kids will get on board with your vision.It certainly isn't going to happen here.


Did you read Ben Kadosh? How can you say he didn’t define Satanism in any meaningful way? He most certainly did. Get the book and read it. My guess is that you haven’t even flipped through the first few pages but still try to argue that he didn’t define Satanism. Am I right? Have you read Ben Kadosh's book?

And who defined Satanism then? Anton LaVey exclusively? What about the people who existed before him who did have a coherent system of thought that they did describe as Satanic or Luciferian? How can you seriously claim that there was no Satanism before 1966 when your definition of Satanism didn’t appear until around that year. And what happened with all the other definitions that were in fact present even before LaVey was born? It would be like me starting a political party, call it communist, be pro-hierarchy and then say that those old communists really weren’t true communists.

If you read my other posts I have nothing against LaVeyan Satanism. Heck, my philosophical base started out with LaVey. However he wasn’t the first person who called himself a Satanist or to define an ideology called Satanism. And he won’t be the last. And that my friend is a fact. If you haven’t read the source material to these pre-LaVeyan Satanists then I don’t think you should try to argue that they didn’t exist.

I provide proof that people have called themselves Satanists and that they did indeed present a coherent ideology called Satanism long before Anton LaVey. My claims have historical support and I presented them for everyone. It is you my friend who haven't provided any reasonable proof for your point of view regarding this.

Oh and by the way, I ran this message through a spell checker and like the other post I made there are no spelling errors. Happy?


Edited by TheInsane (07/15/10 04:34 PM)

Top
#40303 - 07/15/10 05:33 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
Before hitting the sack..

The two names you are wanting to force down the throat indeed called themselves Satanists. Point here is they called a certain set of mind Satanism. A set of mind which differs from what is called Satanism in this current day (and in the past 50 years).
It does not matter anymore who or what they called themselves. From my point of view Satanism as defined by ASL is the most true one and the only one which can be called by that name. Call it close-minded but I prefer to stick to it.

Both these persons may have mentioned and distributed their ideas as Satanic or Luciferian, it does not matter. They were unsuccessful in spreading their definition. ASL (roughly) defined Satanism, or at least made it available, as it is today, he was successful and therefor his "ideals" will still stand. You can be an inversed Christian and call yourself Satanist, you are free to do so. Only be aware with whom you are dealing with. What you think which has been defined to be true can be false to another who operates under the same name. The mentioning of "read and learn" includes the beginner to watch his steps and not to get his ass kicked for ending up in the wrong environnement. (Unless he/she enjoys some sado-masochistic behavior).

Now quit whining about it and get on with your life or whatever other thing you were busy with.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#40312 - 07/15/10 08:46 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: The Zebu]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Hello, Zebu. The quality of your posts has dramatically improved over the last year. I think you look good in color. And with that said, on to business.


 Originally Posted By: The Zebu


Satanism, as defined by nearly every single academic source for the past few centuries, is the religious veneration of Satan. I'd like to see somebody go back in time 60 years and tell somebody with a straight face, "worshiping the Devil is not Satanism". Just because we have nitpicky definitions of "worship", "Devil," and "Satan" doesn't magically erase the cultural and religious connotations that "Satanism" carries.

For me this really comes down to how people understand language. Within linguistics, many ideas and concepts can get convoluted or not exist at all outside the scope of language itself. Ludwig Wittgenstein had some interesting things to say about this.

'Satanism' is a term that is oft convoluted. Many completely different and mutually exclusive ideas can be, and are, described by it. It is at the point where saying 'I am a Satanist' can mean almost anything. I find this unacceptable.

I like definition. I like my world streamlined and efficient. As language is a flexible tool, I see no problem with using it in a way that serves me. Do I have any problem saying devil worshippers aren't Satanists? I sure don't.

Yes it is true that most people only have a hollywood understanding of Satanism, and define it as such. Yes it is true there have been heretical christians in the past that have described themselves as Satanists. Does that in and of itself obligate me to further memetics I don't agree with? It sure doesn't.


 Quote:

As with any idea, human beings have the ability to view a concept from another perspective, and to modify it for their own purposes in a way that is meaningful to them and their personal experiences.

If we were to strive for egalitarian standards, all ideas would be given equal weight. I for one do not give all ideas equal weight. Just because someone else holds an idea as true or holds a certain perspective doesn't mean it isn't complete bullshit in my eyes. That goes doubly for popular ideas and cultural sacred cows.
 Quote:

However, don't make the mistake of thinking that everybody else in the world is suddenly going to buy your redefined terminology, especially if it goes against the overwhelming mass of human memetics that has driven western culture for centuries past.

Most people in the world believe there is some sort of imaginary friend(or possibly a team of them) watching them from some magical place. Most people believe in the 'greater good'. Most people think equality is a good thing. Fuck everyone else, seriously. I prefer sanity.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40313 - 07/15/10 09:02 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


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


I checked my last post with Microsoft Word spell checker and it found no errors other than the word "LaVey" which wasn’t included in the word list. Coming down on spelling when there are obviously no mistakes in my post makes me wonder where your head is at.

Honestly, I retract the statement about your writing. You weren't really in error it seems. Everywhere except the USA the word practise is a verb, and practice is a noun. Hence 'practiced' is a spelling error (and my spell checker picks it up as such). As it turns out, much like spelling night 'nite', it is perfectly valid in american english. It seems you have done away with the word practise altogether. \:\/
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40335 - 07/16/10 10:51 AM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: TheInsane]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

Still insisting that christian heresy is Satanism I see. I for one did not find any of your arguments to that end very convincing.

It's odd how the line between the two is so glaringly obvious to some and to others it may as well not exist at all. Some things can't be taught ;\)


Stanislaw Przybyszewski.

Ben Kadosh.

My point is proven. Consistent and coherent ideologies called and practiced as Satanism before Anton LaVey was even born.

Case closed?



Neither of those gentlemen sought to bring their religion into the public's awareness via legal means as Anton LaVey did in the formalization of The Church of Satan as a legally incorporated entity (non profit).

Yes, people have practiced "Satanism" (of a kind) in the past, including these gentlemen, but it is arguable as to whether they had a like effect as Anton LaVey on the religion of Satanism as a whole.

Prior to 1966 there was no formally organized Church of Satan. Since Anton LaVey publicly took the reigns and formally codified the religion of Satanism then I believe that he had the right to define the word.

Semantics and small details can be argued (and are) at will, but there can be no denying that Anton LaVey propelled the religion of Satanism into the public eye and has had, to date, the largest effect on "Satanism".
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#40338 - 07/16/10 12:09 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I doubt Laveyan Satanism is the most true form of Satanism. At some levels it reminds me a bit of an American action movie. You got the explosions, the car chase, the mandatory love-scene, everything is fast-paced and filled with spiffy one-liners and while it altogether is a pleasant pass-time, some perceive, while watching, that there is a remarkably deep story behind it which sadly wasn't explored in favor of trying to be a blockbuster.

Then you realize that not only for the popularity the deeper story wasn't explored but more important, because they didn't perceive it. Satanism, as defined in the 60ies is a child of the limitations of its founders. It's exactly what they wanted it to be and serves the audience they had in mind but it will never be more than this action-movie. Which perfectly explains the audience it attracts.

D.

Top
#40339 - 07/16/10 12:21 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: Diavolo]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I think it is more true than any other form. The other forms of so-called Satanism, that I have come across, postulate the existence of a literal Satan and all sorts of "powers" one can learn to go along with it.

If people want to call themselves Satanists based on whatever criteria they think makes them such I can't stop but I wont take them seriously either.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#40347 - 07/16/10 04:26 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: Diavolo]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
The other forms of so-called Satanism, that I have come across, postulate the existence of a literal Satan and all sorts of "powers" one can learn to go along with it.


While I mostly agree, that still leaves the nagging question of why one would choose a word with such heavy religious baggage in the first place unless one were prepared to accept that, regardless of your personal interpretation, other people would take it seriously as a religion.

I'd blather about my personal views, but there is really no need to go further. You have your perspective of Satanism and I have mine. To sum it up, we both can interpret Satanism as we see fit, but there is no use getting our panties in a wad when devil-worshipers decide to call themselves Satanists, especially when they resemble the more established definition of the word.

The same could be said as something as seemingly purile as Vampirism (bringing us back to the original topic). Vampires are, as (generally) defined by our Western Mythos, corpses that drink blood. Now, the most prominent voices that insist on defining themselves as "real Vampires" are certainly not undead, so one would at least expect them to drink blood- were it not that the great majority of them take great pains to demonstrate that they do not, in fact, drink blood, and that any person that does so is not a "real vampire".

Vampires, of course, are fictional, but a person is still left looking rather silly insisting that blood-drinking has nothing at all to do with vampirism. They would probably go further by trying to prove that vampires are not predatory at all, that the Children of the Dark are decent, law-abiding citizens, and would never harm a living soul.

Now, of course, anyone with common sense is left scratching their heads in confusion.


Edited by The Zebu (07/16/10 04:46 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#40350 - 07/16/10 05:54 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: The Zebu]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dimitri

 Quote:
The two names you are wanting to force down the throat indeed called themselves Satanists. Point here is they called a certain set of mind Satanism. A set of mind which differs from what is called Satanism in this current day (and in the past 50 years).
It does not matter anymore who or what they called themselves. From my point of view Satanism as defined by ASL is the most true one and the only one which can be called by that name. Call it close-minded but I prefer to stick to it.
Both these persons may have mentioned and distributed their ideas as Satanic or Luciferian, it does not matter. They were unsuccessful in spreading their definition. ASL (roughly) defined Satanism, or at least made it available, as it is today, he was successful and therefore his "ideals" will still stand.


I find it quite interesting that you consider popularity of a word to be what defines it. If we were to take your word for it then the Christian version of Satanism would for sure be the one definition we would use. The most common definition of Satanism by far is the Christian one.

Dan dread:

 Quote:
'Satanism' is a term that is oft convoluted. Many completely different and mutually exclusive ideas can be, and are, described by it. It is at the point where saying 'I am a Satanist' can mean almost anything. I find this unacceptable. . .
. . .If we were to strive for egalitarian standards, all ideas would be given equal weight. I for one do not give all ideas equal weight. . .


I agree with you but its beside the point. I am not trying to say that this kind of Satanism is more true than any other. Of course I regard my version of reality as the one closest to the truth as far as I am concerned at this moment. Otherwise I wouldn't believe it.
My problem is when people say things like "there was no Satanism before 1966" or "no one codified Satanism as a philosophy or religion pre-LaVey". This is not true. It just isn’t and there is proof to prove you wrong if you say so.
Just like there were a myriad of different Christians before the actual church was conceived some 300 years after the fact so does Satanism has its different branches long before Anton LaVey was even born, much less defined Satanism. And just like the Christian church the most influential branch has created offspring’s - some close to supersede the "original one". Were there Satanists and Satanism before the Church of Satan. Yes, there were (fact)! Were there Christians before the formation of the Christian church? Yes, there was (fact)!
So people can argue as much as they want about which version is the “true version” but it still stands that Anton LaVey was not the first person to use the word Satanism, he wasn’t the first to call himself a Satanist, he wasn’t the first to codify a religion or philosophy based on Satan and he wasn’t the first to organize an organization around his version of Satanism. From a historical perspective this cant really be argued.

 Quote:
Honestly, I retract the statement about your writing. You weren't really in error it seems.


Cheers for that! And I apologize beforehand. I write this post with a few beers in my system after a good night out with colleagues ;\)

Fnord

I mostly agree with you except that I do not think Anton LaVey wad the first to base an organization around Satanism and I do not think he has the right to define the word just because his idea reached the most popularity.

Diavolo
 Quote:
I doubt Laveyan Satanism is the most true form of Satanism. At some levels it reminds me a bit of an American action movie. You got the explosions, the car chase, the mandatory love-scene, everything is fast-paced and filled with spiffy one-liners and while it altogether is a pleasant pass-time, some perceive, while watching, that there is a remarkably deep story behind it which sadly wasn't explored in favor of trying to be a blockbuster.


Agreed wholeheartedly. That’s why I in general despite American movies, especially in the action genre. There is potential but in the end they don’t explore the terrains which are the most interesting and only goes for the quick fix, one-liner, and fast-paced CGI type of stuff. The original CoS had a lot of interesting ideas but they haven’t, to this day, even begun to truly explore them.

And like The Zebu says it is problematic when you use the term Satanism to describe your religious view. It is filled with history. It was used by Christians probably before there were self-professed Satanists and no matter how hard one tries it will, if not forever, then for a long long time be seen as something immensely connected to Christianity in one way or another. Basically the word comes with a lot of baggage and it probably wont ever have a clear cut definition other than that it is a “religious or philosophical system based on Satan” much like Christianity at its core really is a “religious system based on Jesus as the Christ”. Then it’s up to every practitioner or researcher to decide which version is the truest one or the most common one.

Top
#40358 - 07/16/10 09:05 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: The Zebu]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
While I mostly agree, that still leaves the nagging question of why one would choose a word with such heavy religious baggage in the first place unless one were prepared to accept that, regardless of your personal interpretation, other people would take it seriously as a religion.


Do you mean to ask why I call myself a Satanist? That is an easy one and I am sure you already know the answer to that. I identify with the archetype of Satan. The rebellion against and denial of the Judeo-Christian mythos and its life-denying ethic is one that resonates within me. Etc. etc.

That does not mean that I have to accept that other people will take on the same "label" with their own justifications. I may realize that people do it but I don't have to accept it and I certainly have to condone it either.

At the end of the day it might not really matter, unless I am trying to disassociate myself from the "Satanists" who believe in a literal Satan and use that as an excuse to engage in all sorts of stupid activities. And maybe it is all just a matter of opinion, but, dammit, my opinion is the one that matters.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#40359 - 07/16/10 09:06 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


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

My problem is when people say things like "there was no Satanism before 1966" or "no one codified Satanism as a philosophy or religion pre-LaVey"

Semantics Semantics Semantics. Satanism and devil worship have very little in common. What's the use of equivocating them? You can say so and so used the word Satanism before LaVey therefore Satanism was already around before him, but what was being described by those other people isn't even in the same ballpark as contemporary Satanism.

You can point out all day long historical or even contemporary figures that practice what they consider to be Satanism or even what you yourself consider to qualify as Satanism, so what? The map is not the territory.

Satanism is it's own, unique thing unrelated to other religions,understood by very few (even among those that claim the label for themselves), and actually lived by fewer still. Before Anton LaVey, nobody had given a name to that thing, and no other name is more robustly appropriate than the one given.

Satanists know what Satanism is, and why devil worship isn't the same animal. I see no reason to dilute the definition, neither in the name of inclusiveness, nor to cater to the understandings of others. Those that get it already know. I couldn't care less about the rest.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40371 - 07/16/10 10:18 PM My Satanism is bigger than your Satanism. [Re: Nemesis]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
It seemeth to me that we have been over all this before [and before and before and before].

Call yourself whatever makes you happy. If you won't be happy unless you can get other people to call you the same thing, I promise you an uphill climb through life.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 7 of 17 « First<56789>Last »


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

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.