Page 2 of 6 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#32169 - 11/23/09 08:48 PM Re: Theosophy? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
 Originally Posted By: MichaelA.Aquino
I don't take issue with it - just acknowledge it for what it actually is.


What it actually is, is Satanism. “Atheistic Satanism” is somewhat accurate but an oversimplification of what it is. It is atheistic because there is no external deity being worshipped. More accurately, it is auto-theistic. The individual is the “god,” the one that needs to be pleased, or in a sense “worshipped.” If it were truly Atheistic Satanism, it wouldn't be Satanism, it would be LaVeyanism or something. By this I mean people who follow his philosophy but not his religious views on auto-theism as stated in TSB.

“Theistic Satanism,” be it Setian, Traditional, or reverse Christianity, isn't Satanism either (at least not the way Satanism was set down by Anton LaVey). Externalizing the deity and worshipping it still leaves one as the worshipper. Satanism as laid out by LaVey, and the kind that most on here follow, breaks this idea of the person having to worship anyone but themselves.

 Originally Posted By: MichaelA.Aquino
"atheistic Satanism"-chanting (which reminds me ever so much of the "we're-witches-not-satanists!" mantra of the Wiccans)


To me, this is completely different. Satanists who use the term atheistic to explain their beliefs do not do it to avoid judgement. They do it to explain themselves to those who don't understand that Satanists do not worship an externalized deity. Again, auto-theistic Satanist would be more accurate, but I don't think many people would understand this either so it is easier just to say “atheistic.” As far as Wiccans go, they try to claim that they are “white witches,” not Satanic or “black witches.” As LaVey said, and I agree, white witches do not exist. No matter how much they make it seem that their magic works only for “good,” anything they try to get through magic is selfish, or else they wouldn't bother. Satanists don't try to steer away from satanic stigma. If they did, they wouldn't call themselves Satanists. They merely try to make it understood what they actually do and do not do, unlike the Wiccans who try to be accepted by others.

Rather than viewing “Atheistic Satanists” as Wiccan-like, I view “Theistic Satanists” as just like any other religious person. They feel the need to worship something else, the only difference is that they follow the opposition to the mainstream or something “dark and evil.” Even if you view those who call themselves “Atheist Satanists” as “atheists yearning for 'cocktail-party glamour'” (which they aren't), it is still better than those who worship something which doesn't exist.

Top
#32187 - 11/24/09 12:40 AM Re: Theosophy? [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
TheCusp Offline
Douchebag
stranger


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 14
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
If searching for a divine force is for you, then go right ahead. I like to study religions to see how they're constructed, simply because it gives us some interesting insights into how we choose to fashion ourselves mental/memetic crutches, built from superstition and fear.


It's more like I was searching for peers who were worth talking to. My interest in the subject was of similar vein to yours, but there is also a certain romantic appeal to theosophy with the mention of giants and such that I can appreciate without having to believe in. Like the saga of Mel's Hole. I don't give a damn if it's true or not, it's one of the greatest stories ever told. Who doesn't love a bottomless hole? Even better two of them!

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
My interest probably stopped short of yours. Clear from the outset that HPB was a wacko & con artist who could write enough flowery fantasy to attract, well, "the usual suckers". [How someone as smart as Iyer got involved is anyone's guess.]


The majority of people are wackos, that doesn't render her work completely useless. When approaching anything of this nature, I try to remember something I read in one of Castaneda's books. People can't be wrong about what they experience, they can only be wrong about the conclusions they draw from those experiences. If you have the patience to sort through all the opinions and conclusions and pick out the relevant descriptive detail, there are treasures to be found everywhere.

Unfortunately HPB has a lot of conclusions...

I also try to keep in context the time period at which it was written, and the general mindset of the people at the time. Go back further and read Emmanuel Swedenborg's Heaven and Hell, which he explored while in hypnogogic and dream states. The catholic mindset had a huge influence at the time and completely influenced and limited the metaphoric tools he had available to describe his experiences. But if you have the patience to bridge the time gap and make the connection, there is good shit in there.

What you make of it is up to you. I'm fond of the works that have taken on completely different and epiphanal understandings in different points in my life. Each rationalization was equally valid, it just that each new one would take me outside of my current box that seemed like limitless freedom until I suddenly found myself beyond it's boundaries.


Edited by TheCusp (11/24/09 12:49 AM)

Top
#32189 - 11/24/09 01:05 AM Re: Theosophy? [Re: FriendlyS]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
I think it boils down to authenticity. There are shallow atheistic Satanists who only use the diabolical as "icing on the cake".... and there are atheistic Satanists who truly embrace Satan as a deep-rooted symbol and meaningful definition of existence.

Likewise, there are theistic Satanists who are simply swapping out Jesus for Satan as another expendable idol to grovel down to... and there are others whose metaphysical definitions are so abstract that they are nearly identical to atheists were it not for their nomenclature.

In short, there are hypocrites on both sides of the fence.

I realize what Herr Aquino is getting at, which I too take issue with the modern Church of Satan for, but for slightly different reasons. It is my conviction that the constant mantra of "We're just atheists with frills, atheists with frills..." demeans the inherent value of Satanism overall by making it ideologically subservient to something else. Atheism is a natural consequence of my Satanism, not the other way around. Likewise, for any authentic Satanist, they would be such regardless of the metaphysical reality of their symbolism.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#32194 - 11/24/09 01:34 AM Re: Theosophy? [Re: The Zebu]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
"We're just atheists with frills, atheists with frills..." demeans the inherent value of Satanism overall by making it ideologically subservient to something else.

When put like that, I can agree with you and Mr. Aquino. Stating that a Satanist is an Atheist first with a few additions does not help anyone understand what Satanism is really about.

However, I still don't believe that when true Satanists use the term atheistic to describe Satanism, it is a cop-out like the Wiccans who claim that their magic is "white" and RHP strictly in an attempt to be mainstream. It is simply a way to in a sense, dumb it down for people who think that Satanism is about actual devil worship.

 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
there are others whose metaphysical definitions are so abstract that they are nearly identical to atheists were it not for their nomenclature.

To these Theistic Satanists, which as far as I know about the ToS (which is not too much), Setians seem to fall into this category more than the others, I have more respect for (I meant no disrespect to Mr. Aquino in my previous post) than those who just substitute a RHP idol with a LHP idol. Still, as far as (LaVeyan) Satanism goes, I think that one of the main ideas was to turn people from worshipers to the worshiped (if only by themselves). Theistic Satanism (for the most part) still goes against this idea and as I said before, keeps the worshiper worshiping.

Top
#32502 - 12/03/09 06:07 PM Re: Theosophy? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
 Quote:
why should I be Snoopy and snatch it away from him?


A delicious attribute of this site irrevocably remains the cruel battle between
Atheistic Satanists (ala Lavey), and Deistic satanists. Unfortunately, both sides are still out (of their minds).
Why is it so hard to carefully analyze all information readily available to those with half-a-brain and a high-speed broad-band connection to accept rational conclusions...Evidently, it seems to be a long, hard jump for most people.
Have fun...Stay single. ;\)

BTW - Thank our troops when you see them. ;\)


Edited by GillesdeRais (12/03/09 06:08 PM)
Edit Reason: ebola sudan
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#32507 - 12/03/09 09:24 PM Re: Theosophy? [Re: GillesdeRais]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
 Originally Posted By: GillesdeRais

A delicious attribute of this site irrevocably remains the cruel battle between
Atheistic Satanists (ala Lavey), and Deistic satanists. Unfortunately, both sides are still out (of their minds).
Why is it so hard to carefully analyze all information readily available to those with half-a-brain and a high-speed broad-band connection to accept rational conclusions...Evidently, it seems to be a long, hard jump for most people.
Have fun...Stay single. ;\)


Wow! Thanks for the unnecessarily cryptic nonsensical remarks!
By the way, it would be "theistic" Satanists, not "deistic" Satanists. A deistic Satanist would...well, would pretty much be like an atheistic Satanist!
I'm sure most atheistic Satanaists have little to no problem with the theistic types, and vice versa! Both types typically just don't like annoying fucks with no insight or nothing really interesting to say, especially if what they do say doesn't actually say anything.

Just out of simple curiosity, what is the rational conclusion that you have jumped to?

 Quote:

BTW - Thank our troops when you see them. ;\)


And...you're welcome, I suppose?
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#32511 - 12/04/09 04:39 AM Re: Theosophy? [Re: CJB]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
 Quote:
Both types typically just don't like annoying fucks with no insight or nothing really interesting to say

WoW! You just proved my point, fortunately. Thank you for buying into nothing that proved your own point so eloquently. \:\)

BTW-Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? I hope she likes herpes!


Edited by GillesdeRais (12/04/09 04:48 AM)
Edit Reason: ebola Sudan
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#32514 - 12/04/09 05:46 AM Re: Theosophy? [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
Thank Maw, I'm suitably chastened. For your viewing pleasure, I'm including this link
BTW - If I visit Norway, can you provide me with fish? ;\)
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#32515 - 12/04/09 05:54 AM Re: Theosophy? [Re: CJB]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
 Quote:
A deistic Satanist would...well, would pretty much be like an atheistic Satanist


I think you are flirting, dangerously, with Nemesis...Just saying.
Look, if you're trying to bait me into a REAL argument, lets tackle determinism vs. free will, or the second sentence from Plato's MENO. I would really be interested in your sickeneing views.

BTW - I just posted new nude photos of Morgan on my website. Whips? Chains? Fun is fun!


Edited by GillesdeRais (12/04/09 05:57 AM)
Edit Reason: ebola Zaire
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#32516 - 12/04/09 06:10 AM BTW Maw, my friend and critic. [Re: GillesdeRais]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
Here is a classic example of why no one really understamds dirty Satanists (Wicked, evil, naughty Zoot). Misconceptions abound, and while I dont identify myself as a Satanist, I still believe in freedom for all/ BTW - Fair warning, this IS disturbing.


The answers to "why" are as varied as the individuals that make the choice.

One of the more common things that lead people to investigate what Satanism may be, is the fact that Jews, Muslims, and Christians all say he WAS an arch angel and part of God's close personal entourage, yet very few details are offered. People are curious and they want to know why Satan would be God's greatest ally, then switch and become his adversary.

Another opinion is that in the Bible, Satan is said to have asked a logical question ... "Now that creation is complete, and man has been made in God's image, and yet has chosen to defy God by eating the forbidden fruit, is God even neccessary anymore?"

And according to the Bible, God has stepped back and is now currently watching without intervening ... and has cast Satan and his followers out of Heaven and down to the earth, where Satan now rules ... and since we all live where Satan currently rules, SOME choose to learn about Satan, and once they realize the truth about it, some of them choose to become Satanists.

... of course there are many other reasons too, these are just a few of the big ones that get many people to take the time to find out exactly what Satanism is.

... once they take the time to find out what the real Satanism is like, they realize how wrong their first impression was ... there are no super evil virgin sacrifices on burning altars in caves in volcanos with demons ... its more like just finding the part of God that lives in you and making yourself more Godlike, which is only borderline blasphemous, but declaring yourself your own God goes against the big three religions of Jews, Christians, and Muslims and so is considered, BY THEM, to be in league with the devil.

Once it is realized that Satanism only means the following of a few simple ideas and concepts, apparently first offered by Satan, and NOT the actual following of and worshipping of Satan as the new God, it is finally made clear that Satanism places the individual at the center of the universe, to look at things from a purely personal point of view ("how does THAT affect ME?") while religions with a deity will all place their God at the center of the universe and make all serve the God. It is the pureness and simpleness of this point of view that will often trigger the decision to become a Satanist ... but it was the erroneous and incomplete explanations of Satan offered by the Bible that started the process of discovery leading to the decision to become a Satanist.

While most religions clearly state the need for a God, and offer their God as the true one, Satanism asks if a God is really needed, and if we can get by without one, by just being the best and the most that we can be ... it asks if you would rather be an obidient pet sheep to a dominant God, or would you rather rule yourself ... and this is what appeals to those who make the choice ...

12
Pts


Rat


Edited by GillesdeRais (12/04/09 06:30 AM)
Edit Reason: Anthrax Leprosy
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#32524 - 12/04/09 12:32 PM Re: BTW Maw, my friend and critic. [Re: GillesdeRais]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: GillesdeRais


Once it is realized that Satanism only means the following of a few simple ideas and concepts, apparently first offered by Satan, and NOT the actual following of and worshipping of Satan as the new God, it is finally made clear that Satanism places the individual at the center of the universe, to look at things from a purely personal point of view ("how does THAT affect ME?") while religions with a deity will all place their God at the center of the universe and make all serve the God. It is the pureness and simpleness of this point of view that will often trigger the decision to become a Satanist ... but it was the erroneous and incomplete explanations of Satan offered by the Bible that started the process of discovery leading to the decision to become a Satanist.

While most religions clearly state the need for a God, and offer their God as the true one, Satanism asks if a God is really needed, and if we can get by without one, by just being the best and the most that we can be ... it asks if you would rather be an obidient pet sheep to a dominant God, or would you rather rule yourself ... and this is what appeals to those who make the choice ...


If I'm going to keep it real as a Satanist and as an individual, I have to give credit where credit is due and tell you that this was the most succinct and insightful paragraph and a half that I have read on the boards in a long time. Kudos to you Gilles.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#32525 - 12/04/09 12:45 PM Re: BTW Maw, my friend and critic. [Re: Jake999]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
Thanks Jake, I;m not a Satnist (LaVeyan), but I appreciate your praise. To me you are a voice of reason on a Dark Ryde
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#32526 - 12/04/09 01:49 PM Re: BTW Maw, my friend and critic. [Re: GillesdeRais]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: GillesdeRais
Once it is realized that Satanism only means the following of a few simple ideas and concepts, apparently first offered by Satan, and NOT the actual following of and worshipping of Satan as the new God, it is finally made clear that Satanism places the individual at the center of the universe, to look at things from a purely personal point of view ...

In the original Church of Satan there was never any question of "worship" [in the subservient sense]; it was rather a case of acknowledgment and allegiance in a very clear, real sense - both of which vanished in 1975, after which "Satan" became merely a symbolic reflection of Anton LaVey's attitudes and whims. [Hence my contention that after that year there was certainly an ASLV fan club, but nothing that could be called a "church", and certainly no Satan.]

 Quote:
While most religions clearly state the need for a God, and offer their God as the true one, Satanism asks if a God is really needed, and if we can get by without one, by just being the best and the most that we can be ... it asks if you would rather be an obidient pet sheep to a dominant God, or would you rather rule yourself ... and this is what appeals to those who make the choice ...

Satanism never even bothered to ask that question; it denied any need for subservient worship a priori. The Church of Satan didn't even deny the existence of a theoretical universal God; it just assumed that if he existed, he didn't give a damn about us, so there was no reason to give a damn about him. (Satanic Bible #40). Satan, on the other hand, was present to us in our very individual consciousness; to invoke him was to apprehend the furnace underlying each fire: "I have taken thy name as a part of myself."

I will of course credit "atheistic satanists" for at least being honest about what they are and aren't; and certainly one is free to call oneself anything one wishes [and wants to take the time to argue/justify to others]. This does not affect my central point, which is that in established English "Satanist" and "Atheist" are two different, and incompatible concepts. You can jam them together as exhaustively and painstakingly as you like; nevertheless intelligent onlookers will still consider you hypocrites with a psychological need for "dark glamour" at best, confused cowards at worst.

Back in the 1960s, and still perhaps today, there was a somewhat similar phenomenon: "Christian atheists", which Anton dismissed on page #43 of the SB. His objection in 1969 was the same as mine in 1975.

As previously, I don't harp on this point to offend anyone here. Satatheists [well, how about that term?] have constructed a house for themselves that they like; it's theirs to live in. I merely do what Anton insisted that Satanism should do: hold a mirror up so that you can see yourselves with objectivity, not narcissism. Beyond that, as Ben Kenobi said to Luke, "You must do as you think best, of course."
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#32598 - 12/06/09 08:56 PM Re: BTW Maw, my friend and critic. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Hi Dr. Aquino (and Jake),

I have to admit that I am sometimes confused by the opinions and “beliefs,” which Dr. LaVey and the early church held.

I have just finished reading Peter Gilmore’s book The Satanic Scriptures.

To be honest I don’t know how high priest Gilmour is regarded by 600 Club members, and whether his work is regarded as important and relevant, but it seems that the church currently believes that Satan is a symbol and that it was always this way.

But is this merely a revision of the “nature or category” of Satan as a result of the 1975 crisis?

I have to admit that I have trouble seeing the post 1975 church as just a Dr. LaVey fan club, but I think I may understand why you may think this Dr. Aquino, based on the implementation of Phase Four, and the questions regarding the possible sale of the Priesthood of Mendes.

I recall reading in your book on the Church of Satan that you believed that Dr. La Vey was sincere in the execution of his office as high priest and that he had in fact made a real pact with Satan.

It was so long ago and unfortunately I was just a youngster thousands of miles away.

I see myself as an Atheist, but I do love the sorts of symbolism which Dr. LaVey employed. I also enjoy that old film-noir aesthetic and films like Caligari and Phibes and Nightmare Alley.

I adopted this philosophy of Dr. LaVey’s because it seemed to be a culmination of many of those aspects of western thought and art, which really meant something to me.

To be the absolute subject of the world; to order that world in ways which would delight me and yet cause me to question myself and my world in some deeper sense - this seemed to me to be Dr. LaVey’s gift.

I do not know what fires the core of the absolute subject – I assume it is just me.

Top
#32601 - 12/06/09 09:55 PM Re: BTW Maw, my friend and critic. [Re: ]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Just one more post.

The idea of it fascinates me.

How can one have a Church of Satan?

Is it to be a more or less tightly knit group of grottos which are publicly known in some sense; headed by a well qualified, well trained and committed priesthood, with a central grotto and high priest, who somehow co-ordinates national activity and/or policy from a distance?

Or is it submerged with a hidden priesthood and no grottos or else secret grottos, with a high priest, who insists that one gain tangible results in the real world, rather than being focused on full-time church membership?

Can real world results and a full-time church membership and involvement be possible, or rather could one make a sort of career out of being a member of the Priesthood of Mendes?

Does the notion of a Christian church somehow influence the way a Satanic church is constructed, seen and run?

How can the Church of Satan be a church? How does it function outside of the conceptual framework of a Christian church?

Top
Page 2 of 6 <12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.