Page all of 5 12345>
Topic Options
#34242 - 01/19/10 10:25 PM I have questions...
GodIsAMyth Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/08/09
Posts: 7
However after reading some of the threads and threats I am damn near mortified to ask them, but here goes.

I read the Satanic Bible (a long time ago). I agreed with all of the Nine Satanic Statements as well as the The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth. I have always felt like I should be a Satanist, but have never committed myself to it.

I don't believe in any kind of supernatural power. I have never tried magic, but I kind of feel like it is possible (which throws my supernatural beliefs out the window).

Is Satanism a lifestyle or a mindset?

I don't believe in a loving god. I claim to be an Atheist because the concept of god as anything other than a fairy tale is ridiculous to me, but I have always felt a dark presence within me.

I was raised Pentacostal and seemed to have an aversion to church from a very early age. I puked when I was baptized.

I know all of this may seem trvial and silly to some or most of you, but I would appreciate some helpful answers and even constructive criticism.

I guess my main question is where do I start?

Top
#34244 - 01/19/10 11:16 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: GodIsAMyth]
delusion Offline
pledge


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 77
Loc: hawaii
 Quote:
Is Satanism a lifestyle or a mindset?


I tend to think that one begets the other. Satanism is very much a mindset for me as I go about my day. This mindset has become a practice which is now a lifestyle for me. While time and experience add greater understanding of the world the core of my philosophy remains the same; satanic. Some one once told me that Satanism makes for a great primer onto which other things can be applied.


 Quote:
I guess my main question is where do I start?


You started 41 years ago where do you want to be now? If you are looking for an honest answer to your question then I would say just be. Be who you are. If you tend to find comfort or motivation in a classically styled ritual than do them. I am more of a bone dry Atheist so I rarely do rituals in a classic satanic format. Ritual of course is just one part of the philosophy to consider.

First I would say re-read TSB with a more critical eye one more time. There is a ridiculous wealth of reading that has been recommended on this site, read them all.

There is a certain type of bold individual who is satanic even if they never utter the title or hear it spoken. Understanding the basic ideas is the first step. At that point if your personality matches, those ideas/ideals will seed and blossom if not you will move onto the next thing.

Here is your first test... choose wisely.

Door number 1

or...

Door number 2

Good Luck,
Delusion

Top
#34245 - 01/19/10 11:37 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: GodIsAMyth]
Simon Jester Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 36
Hello there...

 Quote:
Is Satanism a lifestyle or a mindset?


Satanism is typically defined by the individual. Some may view it as a representation of the carnal aspects of life, others as a counterpoint to magian entrenchment.

 Quote:
I guess my main question is where do I start?


Read. Read. Read.

Top
#34250 - 01/20/10 04:02 AM Re: I have questions... [Re: GodIsAMyth]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: GodIsAMyth
I agreed with all of the 9 Satanic Statements as well as the The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth. I have always felt like I should be a Satanist, but have never committed myself to it.

Anyone can agree with the 9 & 11 without personally being a Satanist. The 9, for example, were just condensed extracts from Galt's speech in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which would probably make you a Randian.

 Quote:
I don't believe in any kind of supernatural power. I have never tried magic, but I kind of feel like it is possible (which throws my supernatural beliefs out the window).

The Satanic Bible contains an Invocation to Satan in which you swear yourself to him and request results from that allegiance. It works, but only if you are serious. If you treat it like a joke, play-acting, or as mere symbolic rhetoric, you might as well save your breath. The same holds true for the Rite of Satanic Baptism in the Satanic Rituals. These are what formally consecrate a Satanist as such; and thereafter, for the rest of your life and beyond, there is no turning back.

 Quote:
Is Satanism a lifestyle or a mindset?

It is neither. It is an awakening of your soul to the divinity which the Prince of Darkness has placed therein. Once that occurs, everything radiating from you flows from it, no matter in what circumstances you find yourself. You will not need to "pursue" either a lifestyle or a mindset, because they will simply reflect what you are.

 Quote:
I don't believe in a loving god. I claim to be an Atheist because the concept of god as anything other than a fairy tale is ridiculous to me, but I have always felt a dark presence within me.

Judćo-Christianity is, in a word, nonsense [including its scarecrow-imagery of "Satan"]. The sacred fire within each sentient being is not. You just have to become aware of it, and then have the courage and commitment to awaken it - which is always and inescapably a personal quest.

 Quote:
I was raised Pentacostal and seemed to have an aversion to church from a very early age. I puked when I was baptized.

I was baptized a Lutheran by Pastor Niemöller when he visited San Francisco after WW2. It didn't take either.

 Quote:
I know all of this may seem trvial and silly to some or most of you, but I would appreciate some helpful answers and even constructive criticism.

Neither trivial nor silly. It is the most fundamental question you can put to yourself, and most people expend their incarnate existence without doing so.

 Quote:
I guess my main question is where do I start?

By making the decision to swear yourself to the Prince of Darkness. And don't make that decision either hastily or lightly. Indeed I have always recommended that individuals examine and exhaust every lesser option first, because you may find some other religion, ideology, or informal habit that completely satisfies you. In which case why should you open this door at all?

Here in this forum, indeed, are a great many intelligent, intellectual, and sincere people who are actually atheists, but who enjoy styling themselves "Satanists" because that is a much more exotic and glamorous image. If you like that idea, you will find it highly, painstakingly, and comfortably polished herein.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34260 - 01/20/10 08:22 AM Re: I have questions... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Satanism is suitheist.


Wow. You sent me to the dictionary on that one - only to discover that neither of my college-level dictionaries had the word! Fortunately, Wikipedia did.

More on your statement after I quote another of your sentences. But first a detour.

 Quote:
I, and other Satanists on this site, have seen no evidence of such a being, and neither have we any interest in looking for it.


Count me in with you, because I interpret mystical experience as occuring strictly on, and having relevance strictly to, the Subjective. Which isn't by any means to to say that such experience lacks real and useful power. The Subjective is as real as the Objective. Power on the Subjective is as real and useful as power on the Objective. We merely need to understand the differences in how the two forms of power operate.

 Quote:
I am my own god.


The lower case "g" makes your sentence work for me. I had said previously that I don't like and don't use the metaphor, "I am my own God." But the upper case "G" makes all the difference there. I won't say, or even imply, even metaphorically, that I am omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, or the genesis of all matter and probability. But a lower case "g" god is a different matter entirely and I can embrace that metaphor, thus permitting me to agree that my Satanism is suitheistic. Still, I prefer to say that my Satanism is suidemonic.

 Quote:
The day I need a step-by-step manual to find my way onto god's throne is the day I shouldn't get there.


Very well said. Would make a good signature. \:\)

 Quote:

You can find your path through bitter experience, tasting life in its manifold pain, ecstacy, grief, joy, mystery, inscrutability and every sensation known to man. Learn. Live. Experience. Try. Ascend.


Speaking strictly metaphorically, "Satan helps those who help themselves."
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34261 - 01/20/10 08:24 AM Re: I have questions... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
The fact is that Anton LaVey did in fact go on the record stating that Satan existed. Check out his statements in the Satanic Bible and Rituals as well as in the Satanis and Witchcraft 70 films. The Problem is that he contradicted himself later on. So, as an outsider, it is hard to tell how much of what LaVey said was what he really felt and how much was for the media.

That being said, I have never questioned the integrity of Dr. Aquino. I do not know 100% what LaVey truly believed, but I am sure that he at least made statements to and/or gave the impression to Dr. Aquino that he DID in face believe in a literal "Satan". Dr. Aquino is not alone in this view, as others from the pre-schism CoS split with him and others such as Ed Webber, have verified Dr. Aquinos views.

Does that mean that LaVey believed in a literal Satan? Possibly, Possibly not. We all know that LaVey truly enjoyed "mythmaking" and the creations of his own life story bear that out. (that is not an insult at all, I respected LaVey a great deal and dont think it matters). He enjoyed creating a new set of facts about his life and a lot of that was the old carny mindset. In my eyes, it's completely possible that he NEVER believed in a literal Satan at all---- BUT that he may have told people that he did and enjoyed the "game" of it all. Perhaps he misled Dr. Aquino on some level to perpetuate his own image? I don't know. Perhaps, he DID in fact believe in a literal Satan at one point and changed his mind? Or maybe just decided to keep that fact to himself? Or Maybe he never truly believed it at all and was just role playing with those in the pre-1975 CoS that DID feel that way. I cannot say...

Even the post LaVey CoS has made similar statements. Blanche Barton has repeatedly claimed that LaVey believed in Satan as a literal being... and then says the exact opposite. Its often a case of semantics.... does she mean a literal "Satan" as an individual entity? or a "life force" or what? Again, its left a bit vague... perhaps on purpose.

Whether or not one agrees with Dr. Aquinos version of Satanism or not, it is unfair for anyone to question his integrity.

I just find it sad that he and LaVey never got a chance to bury the hatchet.... I am sure that despite their differences, had they an opportunity to sit down over a few drinks and talk on a personal level, perhaps they could have found a level on which to remain friendly.


Edited by 111Cal (01/20/10 08:46 AM)

Top
#34271 - 01/20/10 11:06 AM I yam what I yam! - Popeye [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
In these heady days of runaway "postmodernism", anyone can style himself whatever he pleases, and redefine words to, as Cinderella's stepsister said of the glass slipper, "make it fit!".

As noted above, accordingly, I am not condemning any Atheist here for self-gratification. Be happy!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34274 - 01/20/10 01:54 PM Re: I yam what I yam! - Popeye [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3892
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
There have been some interesting and informative answers given to the original poster, but I feel I can offer some insight from a slightly different perspective.

Firstly, on the matter of Satans existence, I feel the wrong questions are being asked. It's not 'does' Satan exist but 'how' does Satan exist. Satans 'existence is quite obvious to me but not as an entity or consciousness but as a self replicating memeplex that has been floating around in the collective unconsciousness of mankind since time immemorial. The ability of this memeplex to alter causal reality through altering our causal brains, and hence what that brain is doing, gives him a measure of control over our subjective reality. Of course there are also 16 bazillion other memeplexes out there effecting us in the same way.

Satanists could of course be described as atheists but I don't feel the term 'Atheist' is particularly useful in this context, and often even misleading. Calling us 'atheists' reduces the subject to a rather judeo-christian notion of yes/no cosmology, while the actual meat and potatoes of the religion have little to nothing to do with that question.

Besides the word 'Atheist' doesn't really describe anything besides the rejection of certain faith based notions that are neither here nor there. Satanists are only 'atheists' in contrast to those that hold silly beliefs with no epistemological leg to stand on( which unfortunately is almost everyone).

Everyone has the notion of 'wonder' and 'mystery' inside them. Satanists just turn this inward rather than outward.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#34277 - 01/20/10 03:51 PM I yam a synchronous snapshot. - Popeye [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
The same may very well be said of your steadfast assertion of Set's existence. The world runs perfectly well, and despite your recurrent claims that there's a Set-shaped hole in our perception of reality, I fail to see any use for it. And still you manage to squeeze him in there. He may have some subjective reality to you, but to me he is a made-up friend. Who am I to take him away from you?

Quite true: To persons unable to perceive Set, it is least troubling to dismiss him [and the other neteru] as mere figments of imagination. I don't mind that. What are dangerous are those who can't see, but are afraid of those they suspect do.

 Originally Posted By: Captain Nemo
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.

I somehow can't visualize Popeye saying, "What I am is a synchronous snapshot of my state at any one time, while I'm engaged in my growth over time, or a diachronous observation." But it might bring Bluto up short, and dazzle Olive Oyl at that.

 Quote:
However you may label it in your mind, it doesn't alter my state, my conviction or indeed my mind in any way before I see any good reason to. But that's OK. If it gives you any kind of satisfaction, go right ahead, but as mentioned above, I doubt you give my contention that I'm a Satanist much thought during a given day. When and if you do, I guess you're satisfied you're correct in your assumptions, which doesn't make your opinion more true. (Or any less, which is why it's beside the point.)

Um, O.K. I [and other people, and Set] call me a Setian because I acknowledge his existence and am one of his Priests. When all I could perceive was his corrupted image as the Judćo-Christian Satan, I was a Satanist. When before that I was an existentialist, not perceiving or believing in anything other than my physical senses, I was an existentialist. That's not as sexy as "Satanist" at cocktail parties, but it was intellectually honest.

 Quote:
I quite enjoy picking at your ideas, and to have you pick at mine.

If you're convinced my ideas are imaginary, why bother to pick at them? You might as well try to grasp a handful of air. As for your ideas, I have just said [again] that I don't mind them as they satisfy and pleasure you. At worst you'll confuse other people who generally give "Satanist" its traditional meaning, but if you want to do the "I'm-a-Satanist-but-I-don't-believe-in-Satan!" softshoe, hey, be my guest.

 Quote:
I just don't buy into the discrete existence of Set, neteru or ylem.

Well, if you're a Big Banger, you have to believe in George Gamow's ylem, because that was what supposedly Banged. [Which has nothing to do with the neteru.]

 Quote:
Why do you need Set at all?

I don't think that I "needed" Set in 1975 any more than I "needed" Satan in 1969. I was back then, as still today, simply interested in the truth about things, in this case the phenomena of consciousness and free will. When I came to recognize the Prince of Darkness as the source of these, all sorts of things clicked into place. And continue to do so. By now I have almost everything figured out, but I'm still working on Klein Bottles. Also I'm certain that the Earth was originally perpendicular on its axis, at which time everything down here was much neater, and one of these days I am thinking of straightening it out again. Which season would you prefer to be stuck in?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34279 - 01/20/10 04:54 PM Re: I yam a synchronous snapshot. - Popeye [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
GodIsAMyth Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/08/09
Posts: 7
Thanks folks. This isn't going to be as easy as I thought it would be, but I am finally at a place where I want to go ahead with what I know is in my heart. As I have been told to do, I will read read read!
Top
#34280 - 01/20/10 05:06 PM A remark [Re: GodIsAMyth]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
This isn't going to be as easy as I thought it would be, but I am finally at a place where I want to go ahead with what I know is in my heart. As I have been told to do, I will read read read!

To read is one thing, to understand is another and to experience is YET another.
Reading alone might help the understanding if only the thinking is applied. To experience is applying the understanding in your life.
Many read much, fewer understood and less than few have experienced. Weirdly enough, those who claim to have experienced and read the most fail badly at the understanding part.

A recent comment I made on my facebook page to draw attention to the few thinking individuals in my friendlist read as followed: "Er zit een subtiel probleem in de kunst van het spreken en het kunnen duidelijk maken over wat je zit te spreken. Maar het grootste probleem zit hem in de juiste bewoording van de uitleg."

Or translated : There is a subtle problem between the art of speech and the art of making clear what you are talking about. But the biggest problem lies within the usage of the correct wording for your explanation.

With this remark I am trying to say that you should know what you are talking about, that a clear understanding should be apparent. This helps a lot for the path you have chosen. If you state a belief in Satan or Set ( or a non-belief) you should be able to explain this (non)-belief and to motivate your explanation. Take a look at this and let it sink down a little. It might talk about Atheism, but I can also sit comfortable on my chair making video's wherin I state that someone might be too stupid to be a Christian/Satanist/Atheist/Setian/discordian/Buddhist/... while using the same arguments.


Enjoy !


Edited by Dimitri (01/20/10 05:20 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34281 - 01/20/10 05:29 PM Re: A remark [Re: Dimitri]
GodIsAMyth Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/08/09
Posts: 7
Dimitri, I know what I feel and I know what I think...but I have always had trouble expressing those thoughts and feelings to others. I have no intentions of trying to argue my feelings about Satanism or of trying to convince anyone to hop on board with me. Being an Atheist is hard enough, yet I continuously spew my thoughts and feelings about that where ever I can capture an audience (mostly on FB where 85% of my friends are christians).

I have every intention of opening my heart and mind to this, but I think I'll keep it to myself at least until I have a basic grasp of what the hell I'm talking about.

So far from this thread I have learned that I have a lot to learn. As with any set of beliefs this one seems to have just as many alternatives as most others.

Top
#34319 - 01/21/10 09:00 AM Re: A remark [Re: GodIsAMyth]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
Whats most important, I think... is that you simply remain true to yourself.... a lot of different opinions and points of view are on this board. You have some LaVey traditionalists, who prefer the post 1975-LaVeys death period of the CoS, you have some that have a theistic take on Satanism, you have some that atually prefer the current CoS and Gilmores goth influenced/vampire fetish style....

whatever works for you, works for you... and although you should keep an open mind--- the only one you need to please, is yourself.

Top
#34838 - 01/30/10 06:46 PM Re: A remark [Re: 111Cal]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
GodIsAMyth, you inadvertently caused, or rekindled, an argument between MawhrinSkel and Dr. Aquino. While I have enjoyed the exchange, I’m not sure it has done you much good.

The beauty of Satanism, in my humble opinion, is its simplicity. Who runs your life? You run your life. That's Satanism – and despite all our differences, I don’t think you’ll find anyone here disputing this fundamental idea.

I want to go back to your initial post on this thread. You said you’ve “never tried magic, but I kind of feel like it is possible (which throws my supernatural beliefs out the window).”

I would challenge you to think about magic in a different way. Magic happens because there is a magician. You are that magician. With all due respect to Dr. Aquino, there is nothing supernatural about magic.

You have been performing magic all throughout your life. You just weren’t aware of it. Magic is what you do to make your life better.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#34849 - 01/30/10 11:57 PM Re: I yam a synchronous snapshot. - Popeye [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Valor Offline
pledge


Registered: 01/27/10
Posts: 54
Loc: Coast of New England
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Quite true: To persons unable to perceive Set, it is least troubling to dismiss him [and the other neteru] as mere figments of imagination. I don't mind that. What are dangerous are those who can't see, but are afraid of those they suspect do.



Very well put!

"Great is the might of Set, Greater still he is through us!"

People are afraid of what they don't know. When we strive to meet or exceed our expectations we continually improve our Refinement, Black Magic and Becoming techniques, we become more than what we seem.

Then there are those who underestimate what they see, those such people who have "Become."

But there are those few wise ones, the awakened few who do see... and learn how to harbor their fear.

Yes, the unknown potential of a fellow Initiate can be extremely scary.


Edited by Valor (01/31/10 12:00 AM)
_________________________
~there are none so blind as those who will not listen~

Top
#34861 - 01/31/10 09:26 AM Re: Don't fear the reaper... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Like MawhrinSkel, I don’t believe in a literal Satan/Set. There was a time when I did, just like there was a time when I believed in God. But after giving the matter careful consideration, I concluded that both were figments of my imagination.

I have nothing against believers except when they attempt to push their beliefs on me or make statements to the effect of, I’m blind and/or afraid of “the truth” because I don’t share their beliefs.

Ultimately, I don’t concern myself much with the possible existence of metaphysical entities. I'd rather concern myself with what I know, and what I know is that I have the power to change my own life. I see tangible proof of this on a daily basis. Therefore I focus my efforts on myself, on making my life better by making smart decisions. It’s simple, and it works.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#34862 - 01/31/10 10:22 AM Re: Don't fear the reaper... [Re: William Wright]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Yeah. Scared to death myself. Invisible friends make me really fearful and shake in "trembling awe."

I deal in realities. Things that make me feel fearful are few and damned far in between, and some "god" or "being" or "vibration" or any other such intangible just isn't going to do it.

I really don't care what others believe in, because what ever gets them through the night is what they need in their lives. But the need to project that same need on others is absolutely no different than the Bible-thumping Christian who damns all that don't believe that Jesus is the son of God and you are doomed if you don't believe. It's the same need that you can see in any schoolyard bully to impose his will upon others.

I generally tended to ignore bullshit from schoolyard bullies too.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#34864 - 01/31/10 11:05 AM Re: Force in Nature - Powers of Darkness [Re: GodIsAMyth]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
Re-reading some pages in The Satanic Bible, I found these sentences I had forgotten about:

"Most Satanists do not accept Satan as an anthropomorphic being with cloven hooves, a barbed tail, and horns. He merely represents a force in nature - the powers of darkness which have
been named just that because no religion has taken these forces out of the darkness."

[Book of Lucifer - Hell, the Devil, and How to Sell your Soul - The Infernal Names.]

That works for me. A force in nature - the powers of darkness. Not someone you could have a conversation with, except as part of a ritual, or a dream, or an acid trip, any of which could be potent in your life, but all of which would be creations of your brain under special conditions.

One way (but not the only way) to think of that force in nature - the powers of darkness would be as the seven vital principles (deadly sins): vanity, envy, lust, gluttony, greed, malice, sloth. Ritual magic would then be a tool for kindling those principles, fanning the flames, basking in the heat, and igniting one's arrows to be shot at the closed gates in one's life, the better to break through them.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34868 - 01/31/10 03:12 PM Re: Force in Nature - Powers of Darkness [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
On the subject of "the dark force in nature" the Dark Doctrines Crew have written a lot about it. It isn't LaVeyan but LaVey himself appreciated their writings and even gave some of them high degrees within his church (even though the main people, Jantsang and Marsh, weren't even members). I highly recomend these writings. Stay out of the ranting that Tani Jantsang does from time to time though. The stuff you can buy is the best ones but there are good stuff for free as well on the http://apodion.com/vad/ website.
Top
#34870 - 01/31/10 04:08 PM Step right up! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
It seems that this statement of mine:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
To persons unable to perceive Set, it is least troubling to dismiss him [and the other neteru] as mere figments of imagination. I don't mind that. What are dangerous are those who can't see, but are afraid of those they suspect do.

in Valor's post above has attracted yet another chorus of anxious satanatheism. Relax, people; you fit into the "I don't mind that" part of the quote. "Set" is just the ancient Egyptian representation of the Principle according to which each one of us possesses and exercises a unique sense of isolate self consciousness and the perspective & discretion which inherently follow from that. Setians call that the Gift of Set. The 1966-75 Church of Satan called it the Black Flame. The Greeks called it the Promethean Fire. JudćoChristians call it the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You can call it anything or nothing as pleases you, as long as you don't scare the cats.

The second part of my quote refers to those (of whom I have met more than a few over the years) who suspect that I might actually be onto something, and for complex reasons are very afraid of seeing it in themselves. The usual solution is to silence, discredit, distort, defame, or kill me. The irony, of course, is that this would not change a thing. The Gift of Set exists in each sentient consciousness; the only way to destroy it is by drinking the Kheft.

I will admit [and this is part of the reason I have visited 600C more than I originally anticipated] that I am fascinated by the "satanatheist paradox": Here are many atheists/materialists who pounce furiously on the merest whiff of anything supernatural, yet just as adamantly can't seem to fulfill themselves without clutching at Satan, the eminently-supernatural J/C Devil, whom they scurry to rationalize into metaphor as adroitly as the Mask resculptures balloons.

In this satanatheists differ from Judćo/Islamic/Christians only [and certainly fortunately] in that the latter feel compelled to pray, flagellate, penance, mutilate, or otherwise crush "It" out of themselves. I'd rather watch the talented and ingenious balloon-artistry anyday.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34872 - 01/31/10 05:01 PM Re: Step right up! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
The second part of my quote refers to those (of whom I have met more than a few over the years) who suspect that I might actually be onto something, and for complex reasons are very afraid of seeing it in themselves.

So... Are you?


As for having lived for this quite short time (20years) I know I became aware of many phallacies and lies everyone likes to swallow. It has always been part of my nature to laugh away the statements of others whom were purely based on pure emotions and "feelings".

This part of my nature is the main reason why I look down on all things with a scent of "god".
As you said "Satanatheist paradox". A more general reason for this "Atheist paradox" is that the most sane thing to do is looking reality straight into the face, taking the sum of all things which can be seen/measured and which are known.
Atheist or theist, in the end, is but a set of mind.
And with a little bit of trickery, everything can be turned backwards or be justified.. on the condition the will and/or minds agree.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34873 - 01/31/10 05:42 PM Re: Step right up! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3892
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I am fascinated by the "satanatheist paradox": Here are many atheists/materialists who pounce furiously on the merest whiff of anything supernatural, yet just as adamantly can't seem to fulfill themselves without clutching at Satan

You seem to be hung up on some sort of mental false bifurcation you have constructed for yourself. You divide everyone into two classifications, that of theist and Atheist,assume those are both bedrock and meaningful designations, and further you seem to infer preset behaviors and beliefs 'atheists' should hold. There is nothing new about any of this, as in my experience these views are typical of a theistic mindset.

The hitch is that 'Atheist' is a meaningless designation. The word only has any relevance when viewed in contrast to a supernatural belief of some sort. As the non believer generally relegates such a belief to a passing side note, defining oneself in contrast to it seems a bit silly at best.

With that said, the Satanist is only an 'athiest in black robes'
to one who holds theistic beliefs as relevant or important. I certainly do not.

I could follow this with yet another explanation of the relevance of the Satan/adversary figure, how it relates to 'us', and the many reasons why people like myself and others have claimed it as our own, but frankly I see no benefit in doing so.

It is blatantly obvious to those of the right sort, and completely alien to others.

_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#34875 - 01/31/10 06:37 PM Re: Step right up! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Apion Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/06/09
Posts: 18
Hi Dr. Aquino,

Here are a few issues I got tied up on regarding Set's conscious independence. How does a personality operate without a "lens" (such as the physical body) to focus it into consensus reality? Sensory deprivation comes to mind on how the mind stops working smoothly without sensory input. "Where" is Set's mind located (as an extension to that question)?

The best explanation (which you've touched on) seems to equate Him with that ever present Witness that experiences all other objects in the universe (including the bodymind), that is to say the authentic Identity of all sentient beings. On track?

Top
#34877 - 01/31/10 06:48 PM Re: Step right up! [Re: Apion]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I'm going to have to agree with Dan here. This shit is starting to get real old. Aquino, you are nothing but a shit disturber. You ass is still chapped about something that happened over 20 years ago. GET OVER IT. Maybe you are just scared of being forgotten so you are trying to convince people that you still hold any relevance. I must say that I am not sure that you ever did. You continue to blatantly mock members of this site - hiding behind your smileys and Star Wars references because you really have nothing to say. If anyone else were to continually mock "us" the way you do you can bet your ass they would be shown the door. Apparently people seem to think you are special and therefore allowed certain privileges. I, for one, do not agree. And if this post gets me in "trouble" then so be it; a man can only take so much.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#34878 - 01/31/10 06:57 PM Re: Step right up! [Re: Dan_Dread]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1737
Loc: New York
I’m not sure which of Dr. Aquino’s categories I might fall under, since I tend to side 98 percent with Atheistic Satanism. That other 2 percent is a cautious curiosity of sorts.

The reason being, if anyone other then Dr. Aquino was making the statements that he makes, I would be able to dismiss them totally.
However, I find him to be of very high intelligence, and someone who has achieved considerable success in life. That “mustard seed” of curiosity therefore was implanted by the personal character of the one who makes a claim that I find so far outside of reality. I have no qualms in expressing that he has achieved in both personal success and learning much more then I.
Yet in no way do I fear him, “Set,” or any of his or Setian ideas.

On the other hand, there are people who follow the RHP, who I believe to be also highly intelligent, and successful, yet when it comes to their “Spiritual” beliefs, I can easily dismiss those beliefs, because they register in my brain as so “far out there,” while at the same time I still have the ability to respect their tangible achievements, and intelligence in areas outside of their spiritual beliefs.

The only concern that I am aware of having, is that the organic material that I am working with (my brain) does NOT easily dismiss him. I am aware of how a brain can be influenced by the ideas of other brains and I am always on guard against some malfunction in my software.

I strongly believe that there is no way that I would ever believe the claims of “Setiens,” or any other Theistic individuals, but I cannot dismiss the idea that they might be onto something that perhaps even they are only scratching the surface of. Things which some day might have a scientific explanation.

I also don’t believe that rituals of any kind can have an affect outside ones own mind, but using the same reasoning as above, I cannot completely dismiss the claims of those here whom I respect who’s names mostly appear in blue, that claim that they have achieved some results from rituals.

Although I consider myself pretty close to Atheistic as one can get, I also continue to question everything, which includes my Atheism.

So perhaps Dr. Aquino is right after all, about the fear that ‘Set’ can inflict on someone who is an Atheist, because although I do not fear the ideas, I do fear in a sense that my “software” can still be influenced to some degree by ideas which on a higher conscious level I dismiss.

Not sure if any of this makes sense, frankly I’m still trying to work it out myself.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#34887 - 01/31/10 10:17 PM Re: Step right up! [Re: Asmedious]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
6Satan6Archist6, I strongly doubt your post will get you in trouble. In fact, I commend you for it. It takes balls for you to say what you said. I sensed nothing cynical or trollish in your post. I suspect that you said what many others wanted to say. Well done.

As a former Setian, I find it unfortunate that Setian philosophy is so often reduced to LHP theism. Many Setians do not believe in Set. They do, however, believe in the concept of Xeper – which, as I understand it, is the idea that all of us have the power within ourselves to change our lives, for better or worse.

Some, such as Dr. Aquino, see Xeper as the Word of Set. I see it as simply a word that makes sense in the context of my life, like Beer and Pussy. I think it would be productive to move past the tired “Crisis of 1975” and explore the possibilities of 2010. A pipe dream, I suppose…
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#34888 - 01/31/10 10:53 PM Re: Xeper (Self-Making) [Re: Asmedious]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Asmedious
I’m not sure which of Dr. Aquino’s categories I might fall under, since I tend to side 98 percent with Atheistic Satanism. That other 2 percent is a cautious curiosity of sorts.

The reason being, if anyone other then Dr. Aquino was making the statements that he makes, I would be able to dismiss them totally.


That line of reasoning approximates my rationale for visiting the Temple of Set official site and spending some time there.

Something that still draws me is the concept of Xeper - "I have become" - which constitutes the Word uttered by Doctor Aquino in establishing the Temple of Set, and which I interpret for myself as self-making.

 Quote:
Yet in no way do I fear him, “Set,” or any of his or Setian ideas.


I wouldn't know how to fear an idea, nor a person who is unlikely to stand in front of me with a gun aimed at me.

 Quote:
I strongly believe that there is no way that I would ever believe the claims of “Setiens,” or any other Theistic individuals, but I cannot dismiss the idea that they might be onto something that perhaps even they are only scratching the surface of. Things which some day might have a scientific explanation.


The deciding factor is one's theory of knowledge, one's epistemology.

Believer: I had a conversation with Belial last night.
Unbeliever: In a dream?
Believer: No, it really happened.
Unbeliever: How do I falsify your claim?
Believer: Huh? You don't. You can't.
Unbeliever: Gesundheit.
Believer: Huh?
Unbeliever: You sneezed. Or might as well have. Belched. Coughed. That's as much sense as my epistemology can make of your claim.

But in the above, it was the part about really happening that derailed the conversation. It could have gone like this instead:

Believer: I had a conversation with Belial last night.
Unbeliever: In a dream?
Believer: Yup.
Unbeliever: Cool! Did you learn something?
Believer: Yup.
Unbeliever: Neat! Tell me about it.

If we allow a dream to remain a dream, something that happened strictly on the Subjective, created entirely by the brain, epistemology doesn't get in the way, and a fruitful dialogue can commence. The claim about having had a dream can't be falsified, but in practice most empiricists are willing to accept such claims so long as the claimant has proven reliable about factual assertions in the past. After all, if you tell me you're a conscious entity, I can't falsify that claim either. Any philosophical stance, taken too far, becomes absurd, even empiricism.

 Quote:

I also don’t believe that rituals of any kind can have an affect outside ones own mind, but using the same reasoning as above, I cannot completely dismiss the claims of those here whom I respect who’s names mostly appear in blue, that claim that they have achieved some results from rituals.


Scenario One:
Joe Blow does a ritual to get some woman he has never met to call him on the phone. He doesn't do anything else. He doesn't introduce himself to the woman. He doesn't enlist the aid of a mutual friend to draw the woman's attention his way. He doesn't take some public action that would catch the woman's attention. He does nothing but the ritual.

Will that ritual work? No. Even if someone tells me that such a ritual worked, I will consider the person to be mistaken at best or possibly (hopefully not) a liar. If the woman called Joe on the phone, some causal action outside the ritual chamber had to have occurred, even if Joe doesn't know about it. Maybe the mutual friend acted behind Joe's back after Joe expressed an interest in the woman.

Scenario Two:
Joe Blow does a ritual to get some woman he has never met to go out on a date with him. He then enlists the aid of a mutual friend to introduce him to the woman. He is charming, amusing, confident, intellectually stimulating, strong. After the initial meeting he finds excuses to encounter the woman a few more times, and each time he exemplifies the same list of virtues as previously. Finally he asks the woman on a date. She accepts.

Did the ritual work? Yes. Would I have expected it to work, given Jos's assertion to me that he planned to take the above actions? Yes. Was the ritual a relevant factor? Probably. Almost certainly. The ritual hit the target (the true target) dead center. Who/what was the true target? Joe! Not the woman. Joe.

Speaking metaphorically, Satan helps those who help themselves. In this scenario, the dark forces of lust and vanity were triggered and they did their work. Joe became powerful in his goals. His darkness became engulfing and when he reached out, it engulfed the object of his desires. But he had to reach out. He had to get off his ass and do things outside the ritual chamber.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34889 - 01/31/10 11:08 PM Re: Step right up! [Re: William Wright]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Kinda debating how to start this reply.

There is some stuff I do not agree with Aquino, and there is some stuff I do agree with.

I don't like the bashing of members because they don't follow TOS stuff, or his personal definition of Satanism. I don't go the TOS site and call anyone posers because they choose Set over Isis. Various members have expressed this as well. I just don't see the need to get into a pissing match over it. It appears the various sides will never meet and a mutual respect should continue if the posting of intelligent exchanges can continue.

I don't think the Black Flame or "The Gift of Set" exists in all men. If it's in you, it's in you. I don't think you can destroy it, maybe deny it, but not destroy it. Just like how if it's not in you, no amount of study will bring that flame to life.

People always hate, or try to destroy what they do not understand and fear.

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



Top
#34891 - 02/01/10 12:00 AM "Reality" [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
The second part of my quote refers to those (of whom I have met more than a few over the years) who suspect that I might actually be onto something, and for complex reasons are very afraid of seeing it in themselves.

So... Are you?

Authentic initiation is at once a thrilling and a scary experience - rather like this.

 Quote:
A more general reason for this "atheist paradox" is that the most sane thing to do is looking reality straight into the face, taking the sum of all things which can be seen/measured and which are known. Atheist or theist, in the end, is but a set of mind. And with a little bit of trickery, everything can be turned backwards or be justified.. on the condition the will and/or minds agree.

Good, now all you have to do is to establish the actual limits of "reality" and how you can detect them. More often this is an arbitrary, self-limiting attitude. That's not a put-down; indeed for most people it's psychologically necessary:

 Originally Posted By: HPL, The Call of Cthulhu
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34892 - 02/01/10 12:16 AM Rite you are. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.

I am fascinated by the "satanatheist paradox": Here are many atheists/materialists who pounce furiously on the merest whiff of anything supernatural, yet just as adamantly can't seem to fulfill themselves without clutching at Satan ...

You seem to be hung up on some sort of mental false bifurcation you have constructed for yourself. You divide everyone into two classifications, that of theist and atheist, assume those are both bedrock and meaningful designations, and further you seem to infer preset behaviors and beliefs 'atheists' should hold. There is nothing new about any of this, as in my experience these views are typical of a theistic mindset.

Well, you either believe in gods/dćmons or you don't, right? That makes you, by non-balloon-twisting use of the English language, either a theist or an Atheist [and I wish this board would stop forcing capitals onto terms where they are misleading].

 Quote:
With that said, the Satanist is only an 'athiest in black robes'
to one who holds theistic beliefs as relevant or important. I certainly do not.

If you're an Atheist who dresses up in black robes, waves a sword at a [Baphomet] symbol of someone whom he doesn't believe exists, and chants to that same nonexistent person in a ritual ... well, you're an Atheist who enjoys, or needs, to do that. That's certainly your prerogative.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34893 - 02/01/10 12:29 AM Re: Rite you are. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3892
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Hello, wall
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#34895 - 02/01/10 01:05 AM A first step into a larger universe ... [Re: Apion]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Apion
How does a personality operate without a "lens" (such as the physical body) to focus it into consensus reality? Sensory deprivation comes to mind on how the mind stops working smoothly without sensory input.

The physical senses are indeed "training wheels on a bicycle" to enable the psyche to become aware of itself by "bumping into things that it isn't". Noninitiates are content to let this bumper-car existence "define them", and don't worry, or bother beyond that. Initiation challenges you to discard the training wheels. As you do, you will experience the disorientation which results from having relied on them. That leads many to rush back to the wheels. Others continue into new universes, and that's what personal divinity is all about. But it is not at all a descent into madness, but rather, in Raghavan Iyer's words, coalescence into

 Originally Posted By: R.I.
... not the shadowy self or false egoity which merely reacts to external stimuli. Rather there is that Eye of Wisdom in every person which in deep sleep is fully awake and which has a translucent awareness of self-consciousness as pure, primordial light.

Sensory deprivation is a fascinating field; I am most familiar with the works of Dr. John Lilly in this area:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., Temple of Set Reading List
The Deep Self by John C. Lilly, M.D. NY: Warner Books #33-023, 1977. Lilly achieved prominence [or notoriety] as the principal proponent of, and experimentor with the sensory deprivation tank during the last two decades. This book summarizes and analyzes the findings of his earlier books and reports, and offers practical guidance concerning the construction and use of isolation tanks. Lilly, who along with his work was caricatured in the 1980 film Altered States, comments: "In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true or becomes true within certain limits. These limits are to be found experientally and experimentally. When the limits are determined, it is found that they are further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind, there are no limits. The body imposes definite limits."
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34897 - 02/01/10 01:54 AM ... on Main Street! [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
I'm going to have to agree with Dan here. This shit is starting to get real old. Aquino, you are nothing but a shit disturber. You ass is still chapped about something that happened over 20 years ago. GET OVER IT. Maybe you are just scared of being forgotten so you are trying to convince people that you still hold any relevance. I must say that I am not sure that you ever did. You continue to blatantly mock members of this site - hiding behind your smileys and Star Wars references because you really have nothing to say. If anyone else were to continually mock "us" the way you do you can bet your ass they would be shown the door. Apparently people seem to think you are special and therefore allowed certain privileges. I, for one, do not agree. And if this post gets me in "trouble" then so be it; a man can only take so much.

Feel better now?

There is a difference between mockery and holding up mirrors, though sometimes the recipient may see the same image in both cases. He may get momentarily indignant or outright angry; the important thing is what [if anything] he learns once the initial shock is over. That either corrects or substantiates his position. Either way he is the better and stronger for it.

I have neither asked for nor [as far as I am aware] been given any "special privileges" on 600C. My ass has been handed to me on a plate in some discussions here, usually because of sincere differences in perspective and opinion. That's cool. As Freddy the Pig once observed, "If we knew everything beforehand, things wouldn't be much fun, would they?"
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34899 - 02/01/10 02:17 AM Re: Rite you are. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
I've seen this argument before, that if I don't believe in the objective existence of a separate being/consciousness called Satan then I am somehow not a Satanist.

I'm not opposed to the experience of this objective Other. However I have not had the experience, and have not yet seen the logic that would indicate His/Her/It's existence. That being said, Satanism (as defined in published Satanic literature like the Satanic Bible) perfectly encompasses who I am. It is as much my personality as my religion and philosophy.

So what then am I calling on when swinging a sword at a Baphomet? Not objective beings, daemons, Forms, etc. Well perhaps Forms, but maybe in a different way than has been used in this thread already. I find the creatures of the human mind, the demons of the underworld that exist in the psyche, to be potent enough that I put my "faith" in them when I use Ritual. Yes there is a kind of dialog between me and Them, especially during ritual experiences. But I don't see how they exist outside of my own mind. Or how my consciousness is not merely a product of physical processes that have evolved over millions of years. It's a weird thought, but it was an important turning point in my life when I confronted the world for what it was and didn't shrink from it.

In a way that was my form of initiation. "Crossing the Abyss" for me was looking at the world as the purely carnal (and sometimes horrible) place that it is and accepting it. It's something I think some atheists still have trouble doing, especially that ones that spend their time tirading against gods.

My experiences are no less magical simply because they are not being prompted by an external Satan. I don't see why Magic can exist only in the context of a god in the same way that I don't see why the universe can exist only in the context of a god.


Edited by EvilDjinn (02/01/10 02:18 AM)
Edit Reason: Bad English

Top
#34900 - 02/01/10 02:22 AM Re: A first step into a larger universe ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Apion Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/06/09
Posts: 18
Thanks for the reply.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

The physical senses are indeed "training wheels on a bicycle" to enable the psyche to become aware of itself by "bumping into things that it isn't".


I've read the section on the psyche in Black Magic and I came with the idea after reading it that the psyche is the ultimate identity of the individual. If one can keep retreating back to grasp one's essential identity through "bumping into things that it [the psyche] isn't", one can come to the realization that the Self (capital-S = distinction from the ego-self) isn't anything that can be experienced; we can ask the question, "Who is aware of this experience? I do, therefore I can't be that which I am experiencing." If we follow this a little further, how can the psyche become aware of itself (alas, "who knows about this thing called the psyche?")? It's an interesting conundrum.

 Quote:
Sensory deprivation is a fascinating field; I am most familiar with the works of Dr. John Lilly in this area.


So am I. Thank you for the reference though!

Top
#34901 - 02/01/10 02:31 AM Re: "Reality" [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
Good, now all you have to do is to establish the actual limits of "reality" and how you can detect them. More often this is an arbitrary, self-limiting attitude.

These "limits of reality" are nothing more then the limits of the instruments used (ie, optical, sensory, scent,..).
It is easy to believe in something else. To show that something else is a whole other thing.

I wouldn't claim it is self-limiting. In the past 5 years I have learned to be critical of almost everything, yet that I should keep in mind that if A is being deconstructed that it may not implied for B,C,D,.. (even if it can be done most of the time). For those cases should be handled individually.

As for "self-limiting". Knowledge is a biscuit which should be taken slowly. You wouldn't teach a 3 year old the far limits of physics, isn't it? Self-limitation is being done by everyone, I would even say it is part of the primary instinct.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34902 - 02/01/10 02:41 AM All religions! - Roman Castevet [Re: Asmedious]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Asmedious
I’m not sure which of Dr. Aquino’s categories I might fall under, since I tend to side 98 percent with Atheistic Satanism. That other 2 percent is a cautious curiosity of sorts.

That would make you an agnostic, which is the only really intelligent thing to be, until/unless you happen to meet a god face-to-face, as it were.

Most atheists are atheists "reactively": not because Atheism in itself has proven itself, but because the world's "theisms" (principally but not exclusively J/C/I) are such utter nonsense. The fact that for the last 2,000+ years people have been killing one another over this nonsense doesn't help things. Hence wise [and humanitarian] individuals tend to throw the entire subject into the garbage.

So to borrow a metaphor, I suppose you could say that an agnostic is an Atheist who hasn't been mugged yet [by theism].

 Quote:
The reason being, if anyone other then Dr. Aquino was making the statements that he makes, I would be able to dismiss them totally. However, I find him to be of very high intelligence, and someone who has achieved considerable success in life.

I appreciate the compliment, but ultimately the only thing that really makes a difference is what you yourself discover, reason, and/or realize. The First Beast said it best:

 Originally Posted By: Aleister Crowley, Confessions
I admit that my visions can never mean to other men as much as they do to me. I do not regret this. All I ask is that my results should convince seekers after truth that there is beyond doubt something worthwhile seeking, attainable by methods more or less like mine. I do not want to father a flock, to be the fetish of fools and fanatics, or the founder of a faith whose followers are content to echo my opinions. I want each man to cut his own way through the jungle.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34904 - 02/01/10 02:52 AM Now watch carefully ... [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
These "limits of reality" are nothing more then the limits of the instruments used (ie, optical, sensory, scent,..).

Well, I think I have illustrated in various LBM-posts here just how fallible, deceptive, limited, and manipulative the physical senses are. They are used to jerk you around by everyone from stage magicians (benevolently) to politicians (not so benevolently).

"Science" is also a raging sea of selective, and often highly political and/or economic, data. The current bar-fights over abortion, global warming, economic crashes, etc. being cases in point.

None of this is to belittle your physical senses - just to encourage you to be all the more careful about trusting them too easily.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34906 - 02/01/10 03:26 AM Rite on! [Re: EvilDjinn]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: EvilDjinn
I've seen this argument before, that if I don't believe in the objective existence of a separate being/consciousness called Satan then I am somehow not a Satanist.

I'm not opposed to the experience of this objective Other. However I have not had the experience, and have not yet seen the logic that would indicate His/Her/It's existence. That being said, Satanism (as defined in published Satanic literature like the Satanic Bible) perfectly encompasses who I am. It is as much my personality as my religion and philosophy.

So what then am I calling on when swinging a sword at a Baphomet? Not objective beings, daemons, Forms, etc. Well perhaps Forms, but maybe in a different way than has been used in this thread already. I find the creatures of the human mind, the demons of the underworld that exist in the psyche, to be potent enough that I put my "faith" in them when I use Ritual. Yes there is a kind of dialog between me and Them, especially during ritual experiences. But I don't see how they exist outside of my own mind. Or how my consciousness is not merely a product of physical processes that have evolved over millions of years. It's a weird thought, but it was an important turning point in my life when I confronted the world for what it was and didn't shrink from it.

In a way that was my form of initiation. "Crossing the Abyss" for me was looking at the world as the purely carnal (and sometimes horrible) place that it is and accepting it. It's something I think some atheists still have trouble doing, especially that ones that spend their time tirading against gods.

My experiences are no less magical simply because they are not being prompted by an external Satan. I don't see why Magic can exist only in the context of a god in the same way that I don't see why the universe can exist only in the context of a god.

This post is so savvy that I've quoted the whole thing in the hopes that anyone who missed it the first time will read it here.

Just remember that the concept of That which is the Prince of Darkness is much older than 1966 [indeed much older and more multifaceted than the "Satan" of J/C/I], and that the SB was a snapshot of Anton's thinking as of 1969, as sanitized for commercial publication. Think of it as a sort of "call to arms" in the culture and society of that time.

As for what's going on in your head during a GBM ritual, the secret of any effective ritual chamber is that it is a mirror and an amplifier. Thus it's a key to a door, but that door is in your mind.

This is of course a whole different thing than a LBM ritual (such as the Missa Solemnis), or a purely illustrative ritual (such as the Tierdrama).
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34908 - 02/01/10 03:31 AM Re: Now watch carefully ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
Well, I think I have illustrated in various LBM-posts here just how fallible, deceptive, limited, and manipulative the physical senses are.

That's why I also mentioned "instruments used" ;\) .

 Quote:
"Science" is also a raging sea of selective, and often highly political and/or economic, data. The current bar-fights over abortion, global warming, economic crashes, etc. being cases in point.

Science is the art of knowing, investigation and study of facts and actions/events in nature.
I have to admit that modern science is being sponsored by politics, for the sole reason that those who are in power have the money to sponsor the somewhat costly experiments and investigations. The good times of doing "cheap" investigations is over. Science has evolved to extreme surrondings. It investigates the smallest bricks of the universe, it is trying to look billions of lightyears from the earth, ... all too costly.

Let me point out that:
- the ability and knowledge to perform abortion is scientific, BUT the actual action is pure politics and "leisure" (I.E. a personal choice purely dependant on those who want abortion and those performing the abortion).
- Global warming is interesting for those in ecology and environmental sciences, the whole video of Al Gore is pure politics on the other hand. An intelligent person has no problem showing the phallacies within the whole subject. ( Sadly enough, upon doing so you are considered a climate critic and therfor your views/findings are being dismissed).
Global warming is a fact, the influence of man on GW can be questioned. GW now, apart from a political statement, is an economical factor ( emission trading ) . The knowledge and mechanisms of GW are science, the politics around it aren't.

 Quote:

None of this is to belittle your physical senses - just to encourage you to be all the more careful about trusting them too easily.

Without senses a wise man would have nothing to trust. There is still the ability to enhance the senses.


Edited by Dimitri (02/01/10 04:25 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34909 - 02/01/10 05:04 AM Re: Rite on! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
This post is so savvy that I've quoted the whole thing in the hopes that anyone who missed it the first time will read it here.


Wait. EvilDjinn was saying, unless I grossly misunderstood, that the human mind is a function of the human brain, which evolved over millions of years of mutation and natural selection; and that demons and other diabolical creatures, including Set, including Satan, exist and have their power exclusively in the human mind. Do you agree with what I think EvilDjinn was saying? If so, then a lot of the debate can come to an end, since many of us, myself included, agree completely with what I think EvilDjinn was saying.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34929 - 02/01/10 12:42 PM ... and I'm going to FIND the fucker! [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
Wait. EvilDjinn was saying, unless I grossly misunderstood, that the human mind is a function of the human brain, which evolved over millions of years of mutation and natural selection; and that demons and other diabolical creatures, including Set, including Satan, exist and have their power exclusively in the human mind. Do you agree with what I think EvilDjinn was saying? If so, then a lot of the debate can come to an end, since many of us, myself included, agree completely with what I think EvilDjinn was saying.

Perception of the neteru requires both the intelligence and the detached point of perspective to do so, hence in that sense the neteru can be considered to have mental manifestation; their function, as Forms of "nature" is of course in the physical/objective universe outside of the mind.

The one exception to this is Set, as the neter/Form of isolate consciousness itself. In this sense to be aware of your own distinct & separate identity is simultaneously to be aware of Set [or, more primitively, "Satan"]. The only question is whether you're deliberately & sufficiently introspective enough to realize & acknowledge this.

In this charming sense, like the Kinks' "Everybody's in Show Biz" song, every self-conscious, sentient being is a Setian/Satanist. You can't help it. Conventional religions exist to prey upon people's fear of this "great unknown" within them, to sell them grace, penance, punishment, etc. for it - which is about as effective as the jumping-jacks-in-the-snow that Anton prescribed for the equally-frightening Nocturnal Lurker.

All of this is why discussions about the existence of Set, or in 600C vernacular Satan, always strike me as tautologically funny. But then human beings are a very funny species.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34933 - 02/01/10 01:10 PM What happened to my wallet? [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
That's why I also mentioned "instruments used" ;\) .

See the thread on "Mad Labs" for particularly fun [and of course reliable] such instruments. I am also reminded of ASLV's "Madness of Andelsprutz" ritual, in which the most-insane [thereby suitable for release to society] asylum inmate is provided with "a magnifying glass to detect imperfections, and a can of black spray paint to instantly cover up inconvenient imperfections".

 Quote:
Without senses a wise man would have nothing to trust.

That's why Uri Geller and the "remote viewers" made such fools of the "scientific testing" Stanford Research Institute. Trust nothing and no one. Except me and Indiana Jones, of course.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34934 - 02/01/10 01:26 PM See you at the Chestnut Tree Cafe. [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
So, according to you, my mind is the manifestation of Set in the physical world? Fine. I'll just call it plain ol' Satan if that's all right with you. My mind has a vast expanse of unplowed ground, and there is always more of it to explore. To this extent, yes, I can concede that Set has notional existence. My mind is always expanding and exploring new thoughts and ideas, and to have the mental guts to look reality in the eye, no matter how cruel and unimaginable it is, is not common.

By George he's got it.

 Quote:
I still don't see him appear before me. Maybe that's because I'm not intelligent or introspective enough.

Not at all ... Room 101.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34935 - 02/01/10 01:38 PM Re: ... and I'm going to FIND the fucker! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
I still don't see him appear before me.


I should probably stand aside and let the good Dr. answer this one himself... but I haven't gotten the impression that he's ever said Set materializes or has materialized.

Granted, I'm still reading the ToS book but this line makes things pretty clear to me:
 Originally Posted By: Aquino in ToS

I said there was nothing overtly sensational, supernatural or melodramatic about the Book of Coming Forth by Night working. I simply sat down and wrote it. It was not dictated to me by a materialized Egyptian god, nor did the words burn themselves into the pages like the fabled Hebrew Ten Commandments. The thoughts were “comfortable ” ones, comprehensible to me within my preexisting frames of reference.


Also of interest is this one:
 Originally Posted By: Aquino in ToS
What, then, distinguished the Book of Coming Forth by Night from a mere meditation or exercise in creative writing? No more and No less than a sensation I had then and a conviction ever since, that something beyond Michael Aquino was generating it.


Unless Dr. Aquino has said something here or elsewhere to the effect that a materialized Set has commanded his actions I don't see, really, what all the hubbub is about.

No one knows for certain what consciousness is or from whence it comes. Based on the books I've seen him recommend, and based on his writings, I'd say that the ToS is representative of a quest for truth for Aquino that happens to resonate with some others. Who cares what images he uses to get there?

I think it's a valid statement to say that most Satanists would agree that there does appear to be some sort of "dark and balancing" force in nature. Ritual is simply an attempt to qualify, quantify and test whatever this may be (as well as to serve the self). To my understanding what we 'know' as men is vastly outweighed by what we don't know.

One guy's quest for understanding doesn't bother me much. I find Aquino to be a fount of knowledge even if I haven't yet proven to myself that he's on to something. In fact, I've found some truth in the ToS's teachings as I've found some truths in Satanism.

I take my hat off to anyone who genuinely goes after answers to the best of their own abilities. If someone were to put all their thoughts in a box and never re examine them I'd say that they weren't people of the ilk I've encountered here.

Went a little tangential there... work awaits.


Edited by Fnord (02/01/10 02:03 PM)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#34977 - 02/01/10 11:15 PM Re: Step right up! [Re: Morgan]
6devil6ish6 Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/16/10
Posts: 16
Loc: australia mate
i think you have worded this response quite beautifully, and you seem to be a fair and just sort of woman, i like that. i wanted to tell you it is because of posts like this i have seen your profile and your website, so keep up the good work!!

it is nice to see a Satanist with faith in humankind.
_________________________
xxdevils.play.thingxx

visit my site
http://www.devilishlydarkculture.com

Top
#34982 - 02/01/10 11:47 PM Re: Step right up! [Re: 6devil6ish6]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Thank you.

There is just one problem.
I have no faith in humankind.

I see no need for "Satanist's" to get into a pissing match over shit that will never have common ground.

It just becomes a fight/discussion that no one wins and never ends. Whereby people just talk and no one listens.


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



Top
#34988 - 02/02/10 12:51 AM Re: Step right up! [Re: Morgan]
Valor Offline
pledge


Registered: 01/27/10
Posts: 54
Loc: Coast of New England
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Thank you.
It just becomes a fight/discussion that no one wins and never ends. Whereby people just talk and no one listens.


Yes, "There are none so blind as those who will not listen" say's my sig.

When we don't listen we are a tickin' time bomb for failure. Listening is 1 half of communication. Not just a little...but 1 half! I've wisely learned to incorporate "listening" as one of my hobbies. I won't set myself up for failure by ignorance brought on by not paying attention...it's just embarressing.

"Success is going from failure to failure without any loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill.
_________________________
~there are none so blind as those who will not listen~

Top
#34991 - 02/02/10 03:23 AM Re: ... and I'm going to FIND the fucker! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino


The one exception to this is Set, as the neter/Form of isolate consciousness itself. In this sense to be aware of your own distinct & separate identity is simultaneously to be aware of Set [or, more primitively, "Satan"]. The only question is whether you're deliberately & sufficiently introspective enough to realize & acknowledge this.


I think the main (and important difference) is that while I recognize myself as an Individual creature, I do not see myself as "outside" of nature. I always get this sense from your writings that Set and consciousness itself is somehow outside of the natural world, that the "Gift of Set" is itself something that makes human beings, for lack of a better word, unnatural. I don't see things this way.

Of course I also don't view Set as a being with his own consciousness (aside from what is constructed inside an individual's mind).

Top
#34997 - 02/02/10 05:39 AM Re: Baboonopolis [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
The human mind will often make decisions based on imperatives that do not appear in the animal kingdom. Animals act on necessity (although Nietzsche would have it otherwise; according to Mad Freddy, the goal of animals is the exercise of power - cf. "Beyond Good & Evil") and ascribing animals with human motives and drives is something that should be consigned to Disney flicks.


I think ascribing humans with non-animal motives would be Disney-esque too. To me, everything sifts down to food, reproduction, territory, and dominance. What humans are amazingly productive at is layering straum onto stratum atop the primal foursome, what Freud would call sublimation. This is our glory!

Science? Knowing/discovering what someone else doesn't/hasn't sifts down to dominance. Art appreciation? Being drawn to the beautiful/handsome/fearsome sifts down to reproduction. Space exploration? Boldly going and then claiming the place for one's own sifts down to territory. Education? Endlessly digesting information sifts down to food. What our big brains have done is explode the primal foursome into a cacophony of raucus possibilities no non-human animal could imagine but which every non-human animal might be driven toward, each in its own way, if only their brains were bigger, for the one thing the human has ever been and shall ever be, is an animal. King of beasts! That is man.

Much of what I've posted here thus far has been my attempt to put my finger on the right symbol/metaphor/archetype to energize/animate my ritual magic, as it had become stale. When I go back and re-read some of my key posts, I see the swinging of a pendulum, or rather two: one pendulum swings between indulgence and prudence, the other between pleasure and power. These dichotomies collapse into the primal foursome, food and reproduction and territory and dominance, the baboon within. Now in the fictional universe of my ritual magic I am the Egyptian god Babi.

This newfound clarity informs my signature, obviously, and has also opened up The Satanic Bible for me, and Satan himself, and the seven deadly sins. I'm still the same man I was before (Satanist born) but I'm stronger now because I'm clearer (Satanist self-made). I think you relate to that, MawhrinSkel.


Edited by Baron dHolbach (02/02/10 05:42 AM)
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#35023 - 02/02/10 02:43 PM Re: Baboonopolis [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
For the record, I enjoy your TL;DR ramblings... they're neither TL and it's not often I DR them \:\)
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
I know this is starting to sound like theistic nonsense, but really I'm just trying to find the borders of epistemiology. What can we find? What can we *know*?

That's exactly where I am. Every time I think I've found the precipice someone steps up to educate me of my mistake in thinking that.
Since we’re all kind of waxing tangentially here, I remember first learning of the periodic table and how all things in the physical realm are essentially definable by that. We don’t know what’s going on at the sub atomic level, but of what we can identify, I thought it rather astounding that my own body shared elemental components with all things on planet Earth… including my neighbor’s ’87 Yugo. Naturally, I then began to wonder about things that are intangible such as emotion and consciousness. Of what are they made? If all things in the physical realm are essentially comprised of the same components then how can we be certain that we don’t share emotional connections and or other imperceptible connections with things (maybe even non living things) other than us?
It was around then that I found Kierkegaard who completely blew my doors off with things like:

 Originally Posted By: Kierkegaard
The supreme paradox of all thought is the attempt to discover something that thought cannot think. A conscious human knows something and he knows that he knows it (ad infinitum). The paradox of consciousness is not that we are aware of ourselves but of other things as well, including those that do not constitute the 'real world'. Of course, when we 'conceive' or imagine something 'unreal' even our farthest imagination cannot transcend 'known' symbolism, which is why there are some things that defy definition. One of these is 'consciousness' itself.

I’m pretty much at the point where I view ‘reality’ as a Venn diagram of overlapping experience. Of course it’s evident that there is a ‘real ‘ and tangible world (universe) we just don’t know exactly what it is or how big it is. What’s not evident is the sheer volume of ways to experience it as each individual is a unique filter on the universe.
As for linking this all to Satanism I think that people who quest in this manner are daily eating from the tree of knowledge. I often feel myself afraid to look further or to understand the larger implications of what I know and what I don’t know. It would be really easy to ‘drop anchor’, adopt one of the earth’s static religions and simply stop thinking about things because ‘seeing’ can be a curse to those not wired to accept what they find. I know I’ll never stop trying to connect the dots. I know I’m ‘damned’ in my Grail Quest but that’s precisely how I’m wired.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35042 - 02/02/10 07:12 PM Re: Baboonopolis [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
I would not claim that humans aren't animals (we are!), but our tendency toward *conscious thought* as a part of our decision-making process is something apparently unique to us. I say 'apparently', since experiments have shown both dolphins and orangoutans to display similar kinds of decision-making abilities and capacity for abstract thinking.


The book Sperm Whales by Hal Whitehead is serious science and ends up hinting pretty strongly that sperm whales may in fact be fully sapient, as that may be the best explanation for some of their behaviors.

 Quote:
Essentially, what I'm getting at is that our intelligence is not really unique in *nature*, but to the best of our knowledge, it is the best-developed version of conscious thought.


That's why we're the king of beasts!

 Quote:
Another yard-stick is required, and the capacity for abstract thought and creativity spring to mind. Problem-solving is also an aspect of this.


Unless sperm whales can do it too, we are the only animals that can create a parallel universe in our heads, and then populate that parallel universe with marvels. We've been doing this for quite a while, too. Myth-making and magical thinking were the earliest forms of it. These evolved into all the arts and all the sciences.

But I want to distinguish between what we do, on the one hand, and why we do it on the other. What we do is far beyond the capabilities of, say, the baboon. But why we do it, in my view, isn't. Even as we probe reality with our microscopes and telescopes, we're looking ultimately for sublimated versions of good food to eat, hotties to fuck, stuff to have, and ways to be better than the next guy. Or else we're looking for the flip side of all that, the goal of the deer or rabbit instead of the wolf or lion, the escape from danger. What is danger? It is something that wants to eat you or fuck you against your will or kick you out of its territory or make you accept your inferiority to it.

 Quote:
My contention is that the entire visualization of the 'needs' pyramid is fundamentally flawed, in that it doesn't taper to a point at the end. Rather, I would say that it branches out to a myriad of explanatory models, since we - when all needs are satisfied - seek to understand, acknowledge and/or control our surroundings by whatever current paradigm we hold.


I think that's similar to what I'm saying. Sublimations expand geometrically outward from the initial core of basic animal drives. The possibilities are open-ended. It's very much analogous to how the physical universe is built up in all its wondrous complexity out of the four fundamental forces, the strong, weak, gravitational, and electromagnetic. Similarly, the human matrix of things to pursue is built up in all its wondrous complexity out of the four fundamental forces in the psyche, the drives for food, reproduction, territory, and dominance, with the flip side of running away from something else that wants to use you for one of those purposes, similar to how electricity has a positive or negative charge.

 Quote:
My main bone of contention with all faith is that it says "Don't Question".


Quoth Saint Augustine: "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity."

I agree that a statement like that is among the most contemptible a religionist could utter.

 Quote:
I have a pretty good idea of my own needs, and they involve some kind of cognitive apotheosis, which may or may not be beyond me. It's rewarding to reach for it, though, so no matter what lies beyond the horizon, it'll be an utter and complete blast to find out. Maybe it'll be soul-destroyingly horrible, but at least I reached for it.


Have you had any successes yet? What would success look/feel like?

 Quote:

I know this is starting to sound like theistic nonsense, but really I'm just trying to find the borders of epistemology. What can we find? What can we *know*? These are questions animals don't feel the need to ask, since they don't have our consciousness.


True. Animals ask questions, of course. But not abstract ones. Except, maybe, sperm whales.

 Quote:
The mind cannot exist without the body, and the body is useless without the mind. To say that the mind has a discrete existence beyond the physical world is true in one sense, false in the other. The mind seems real to us. It seems to live. Re: the soul. Brain surgery shows us that fiddling around with your two pounds of gray matter can have adverse effects upon your mind. The mind is a product of your brain and other physical attributes of your body. This doesn't directly indicate that your mind dies when your body does, but we have little evidence to indicate that it can hold discrete existence.


So all we can do is assume death is final, and make no claims to the contrary. Then, if it turns out that we pass through death to some other form of existence, we will finally have empirical evidence - and no one living will ever know! It'll be like being a newspaper reporter who has the scoop of the millenium and no one will print it! \:\)

By assuming death is final, we live our lives in the best possible way. We live! We eat, fuck, have, conquer, at every level of complexity from the simian to the supreme.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#35044 - 02/02/10 08:00 PM Re: Baboonopolis [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
A number of years ago, I wrote an essay comparing and contrasting Maslows' theory of Self-Actualization with LaVeys' theory of Modern Satanism.

You can find it here at one of my websites:
http://www.morganhell666.com


"One of the great struggles that one encounters in life is the struggle to achieve something more. The inner drive or force of will that separates an individual from the crowd. It is the realization that one is not happy in a simple content existence. It is the recognized inner struggle to progress and proceed forward towards being and accomplishing all that is possible for that individual to achieve. It is also taking this gained knowledge and understanding when is the best possible time to use it. Abraham Maslows' theory of self-actualization states that, "Self-actualization is a never ending process that moves in a dynamic sequence upward through a continuum. The higher the individual processes, the more "profound happiness, serenity, and richness of the inner life" he or she finds"(1). Anton LaVeys' book the Satanic Bible, explains his theories and philosophy of living and succeeding as an individual in todays' world. LaVey states that, "One of the magician's greatest weapons is knowing himself; his talents, abilities, physical attractions and detractions, etc., and when, where, and with whom to utilize them!"(2)........."


I don't like being compared to apes and monkeys. Too many Planet of the Apes movies. What's that line Heston says, "Get your damn paws off me, you damn dirty ape."

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



Top
#35064 - 02/03/10 01:05 PM Re: Baboonopolis [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Zorg Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 44
Loc: A Galaxy Far, Far Away
MawhrinSkel...what you are describing I call "walking on water". It is interesting to watch people use all of their resources to tread water or drown while feeling as if you are walking on top of things. Mind set is key. And, as some threads seems to indicate, there is that "extra something" in certain folks. I've always assumed it was a strong will.
_________________________
"The average person thinks he isn’t" Father Lorenzoni

"Plato was a bore."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#35067 - 02/03/10 02:34 PM Re: Baboonopolis [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
As to the Baron's question of what transcendence looks or feels like, I'd say it makes a world of difference in every aspect of your life. It can literally be seen on your face and in your eyes. It feels like you are at home in your own skin, at least that's how it feels right now. I think it's a combination of feelings commonly considered 'negative' and feelings commonly considered 'positive'. Neither label is correct. Your mind essentially moves beyond good and bad (or good & evil), and you are free to perceive the world as it truly is.


Sounds very Zen. Happiness through clarity. Not what I thought you would say, as I expected apotheosis to be something more bombastic. Nor had I thought to apply the beyond good and evil concept as a solution to the problem of how to achieve calm. Yet I see the path to it. If we accept that all is random, that no deity is pulling the strings of fate, then we cut ourselves free from any expectation that the universe will cater to our whims, and we jettison any possibility of victim mentality. Victim of what? Random chance?
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#35070 - 02/03/10 03:26 PM Re: Baboonopolis [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Zorg Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 44
Loc: A Galaxy Far, Far Away
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Like I said, it's an ongoing process. Claiming this is an end-state would be myopic of me. I can't even tell if any further developments would be subjectively positive or negative, only that they'd matter to me.



Take it from an oldster...there IS no end-state...except death.
Just when you say, "look Ma! No hands!", life throws a big rock your way, and it's tumble city...and time to get back up and learn the new lessons. School ain't NEVER out, in spite of what Alice Cooper thinks. ;\)
_________________________
"The average person thinks he isn’t" Father Lorenzoni

"Plato was a bore."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#107327 - 06/25/16 12:24 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: GodIsAMyth]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Quote:
I read the Satanic Bible (a long time ago). I agreed with all of the Nine Satanic Statements as well as the The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth. I have always felt like I should be a Satanist, but have never committed myself to it.


There's nothing in the Nine Satanic Statements or the 11 Satanic rules of the earth that are inherently satanic. It's like a big floppy dong flapping about in the Satanist's face that no one seems to notice or mind.

What you're dealing with are tropes. Nothing more. Think about this way: Strike out “Satan represents” and replace it with any random thing – “Nationalism represents”, for example. Would you still agree with these statements? Well then congratulations! You're a natural born Nationalist. Screw what nationalism actually means! You've read it in the Nationalist's Bible by Avon publishing, so that's all that matters.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#107328 - 06/25/16 05:54 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: antikarmatomic]
CanisMachina42 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1160
Loc: San Diego, CA
And this topic needed a bump why?

Let's not make the agenda too clear. You say there is nothing inherently Satanic, why not just commit at this point and say:

We're all born in a 'certain' image and Satan represents that which corrupts it."

Still, your point is valid, "(national socialism) represents responsibility to the responsible".

Let the sinister 4th Reich be upon us all.


Edited by CanisMachina42 (06/25/16 06:13 PM)
Edit Reason: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dgfsi9I7NHI
_________________________
Broke his leg and had to be shot...

Top
#107329 - 06/25/16 06:22 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: CanisMachina42]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CM
And this topic needed a bump why? 
Yeah, cause that's totally what I do: search for the most relevant topics to bump like how magic outcomes could just be coincidence. Grits and shiggles have nothing at all to do with it.

 Originally Posted By: CM
 You say there is nothing inherently Satanic, why not just commit at this point and say, "we're all born in a certain image and Satan represents that which corrupts it." 
I say? I am tossing out the crazy idea that words have, like, actual meanings.

You still seem to be of the impression that simply because I'm capable of reading a dictionary I must somehow be “opposed” to what the word means in principle - like some sort of oncologist who can't bear to see children suffer. That part's all in your head, dude. A direct approach, no matter how uncomfy its implications may be for you, is still less nonsensical than prancing around all like “I don't like what this word means, I want it to mean something else”
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#107330 - 06/25/16 07:29 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: antikarmatomic]
CanisMachina42 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1160
Loc: San Diego, CA
 Quote:
I don't like what this word means, I want it to mean something else”


This is true for me, and considerably more so when it's made one of opposing and separate forces.

IMO Satan (as nature) is part of a duality like hot water, A polarization that is an attribute of an equilibrium which only needs itself to exist.

In this analogy would cold water be like god? No, as it has the same molecular structure, just in a less excited state.

_________________________
Broke his leg and had to be shot...

Top
#107331 - 06/25/16 09:03 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: CanisMachina42]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CM
IMO Satan (as nature) is part of a duality like hot water, A polarization that is an attribute of an equilibrium which only needs itself to exist.

In this analogy would cold water be like god? No, as it has the same molecular structure, just in a less excited state.
That's all fine and dandy, though it involves a level of convolution that is more speculatively entertaining than it is useful. The actual nature of what Satan “is” would be more of a concern if the book were so entitled “Satan's bible” or even “the black book of Satan” for that matter. Then one must be able to define what exactly Satan is.

As it goes for the Satanic Bible in general and the Nine Satanic Statements, this is not so much of a concern since satanic is satanic regardless of what Satan actually is. The word already has a pretty clear meaning.

characterized by extreme cruelty or viciousness


Synonyms:

diabolical, fiendish,devilish, demonic, demoniacal,ungodly, hellish, infernal, wicked, evil, sinful,iniquitous, nefarious, vile, foul, abominable, unspeakable,loathsome, monstrous, heinous, hideous, horrible, shocking, appalling, dreadful, ghastly, abhorrent, despicable, damnable

Did the Satanic Bible make some reasonable points? Sure. Were they very original points? No – it's basically a syncretic hodge-podge of a lot of things that, although they have their own merits, are anything but satanic. In fact, I can't find a single satanic thing in these 9 "satanic" statements.

Just because an idea “clicks” does not mean that the idea is what it presents itself to be. Hop on to, say, LttD or SatanNet and see how they feel about calling it “LaVeyism” - it doesn't go over so well even though, in all honesty, it's decidedly a more accurate assessment of what we're dealing with.

If we want to fap about what Satan might actually be, that's fine – certainly something worth kicking around over some brewskis and a blunt, but in reality it's unimportant. I consider it a black-box. An anonymous interface - a place-holder for the cause or condition of evil without the apologetics you get with those who seek to justify, rationalize, or explain it. Essentially, I'm not terribly concerned with where and when it was made, or why it exists, so much as I am with how it works.

Admittedly this is not a very “comfy” angle of approach for a good number of people. The appeal of LaVeyism is obvious, and I don't shit on it for what it is – just saying “yeah that's nice n' all, but it ain't satanic so___”.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#107332 - 06/25/16 09:41 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: antikarmatomic]
CanisMachina42 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1160
Loc: San Diego, CA
 Quote:
characterized by extreme cruelty or viciousness


I don't think even extreme adversity is synonymous with cruelty, as cruelty requires a anthropomorphic emotive component.

There is no intent with nature.

It could be just representative of how nature works. Things progress and regulate themselves by adversity, as shown by evolution and The Lucifer Principle.

But I think I see what your getting at. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Satan as the "essence" of all that is sadistic and there to cause disruption and harm.

It's faulted logic to pin it on a construct that is not mutually inclusive with the cause.

Take "sadistic little shit kid" that kills his sister's cat when she calls him out for going in her room.

Was that Satan? Was he possessed?

Perhaps the kid was just a little closeted angry faggot with repression issues that responded like a repressed little bitch would when being called out on something.

The repression of course put there by the other side of this subjective dichotomy, which made him feel he needed to repress his sexual identity to begin with.

It's all a reaction to experience, which is also root to the definitions we may later apply.

It's Scientologist logic. It's saying all that makes mankind sick in wrong are the alien souls that attach themselves to us.

_________________________
Broke his leg and had to be shot...

Top
#107333 - 06/25/16 10:49 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: CanisMachina42]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CM
I don't think even extreme adversity is synonymous with cruelty, as cruelty requires a anthropomorphic emotive component. 

I totally agree.
Extreme adversity is not synonymous with cruelty. One could argue and make the case that “well cruelty can sometimes represents an adversity” or “the adversarial is sometimes perceived as being cruel” but then we're back at square one and well on our way toward equating satanic thought with, say, egalitarian principles and all that tire-spinning goofiness.

That it represents the adversarial only comes about when the semantic meaning of the word Satan is taken as a starting point. Once again, though, I'm not terribly concerned with what Satan “is” or even what “Satanism” entails, since these are matters determined in the court of popular opinion and whatever they decide, it has no influence on what evil is or the what the satanic, by definition, is. It remains completely unaffected by that whole circle jerk.

Whatever well-worded reasoning I encounter regarding what Satanism is, I have no beef with it having as much to do with the satanic as spoonerisms have to do with spoons – shit like that can and does happen. The short answer to all that is “ok, we're talking homonyms here – I was shopping for something else”. Whatever it is they have to sell me, it still dodges the question of evil which absolutely does require an emotive and anthropocentric component.

Calling evil or extreme cruelty a relative concept, subject to interpretation, or psychoanalyzing its whys and wherefores doesn’t negate its existence – if anything, it substantiates it in and of itself as a component of the human condition far more relevant than the metaphysical nature of some mythological being or the doctrines of some kooky half-baked humanist philosophy.

In my mind, the satanic is the key focal point, because its the only thing that has any real meaning you can work with. Satan is basically a black-box/place holder/over simplification for “whatever causes that” in a sorta “Ye shall know them by their fruits” type of way while Satanism is basically “whatever the fuck you want it to be, kid” and while “a hell of a good time” neither here nor there.

It should go without saying, that one needn't have cancer in order to express an interest in oncology - which is where I differ strongly with the idea that its a praxis of some sort.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#107334 - 06/25/16 11:43 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: antikarmatomic]
CanisMachina42 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1160
Loc: San Diego, CA
Thanks for clarifying.

I think the semantics comes when trying to unify Satan into "approach" and "what it is one is approaching" by thinking the two parallel each other always. There is no antithesis to Satan in nature, just moments of less Satan. The form of nature. The tie-in: Adversity.

I think the misunderstood thing may be that "A satanic personality" has nothing to do with Satan other than it's archetypal and heterodox connotation with the West. Sure it's represented by the Lucifer character in the Bible, but it could have easily been any other ideologically defiant archetype, like Prometheus.

In fact, I've decided I'm giving up this devil shit and becoming a "Promethean"
_________________________
Broke his leg and had to be shot...

Top
#107337 - 06/26/16 01:49 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: CanisMachina42]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CM
I think the semantics comes when trying to unify Satan into "approach" and "what it is one is approaching" by thinking the two parallel each other always. There is no antithesis to Satan in nature, just moments of less Satan. The form of nature. The tie-in: Adversity.
Indeed, and to be perfectly honest – I've always found “Satan means adversary” to be, well, “reaching”. I dunno about you, but I don't a read a lick of Hebrew, and even if I did - it's not too far off from saying “Christianity is a joke, because Christ in Hebrew is Joshua, and 'to josh' is to joke”. It's a bad pun that only sorta-kinda makes sense on, like, that one level. (I'm reminded of that Simpsons episode where they decide to name their quartet the 'B Sharps'.)

 Originally Posted By: CM
In fact, I've decided I'm giving up this devil shit and becoming a "Promethean"
See, that actually makes a metric shit-ton more sense across the board. Imagine that! a thing that actually means what it says and says what it means. It's such a crazy idea that it actually just might work.


Edited by antikarmatomic (06/26/16 01:50 PM)
Edit Reason: stop making sense https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvYvyybgphY
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#107338 - 06/26/16 04:58 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: antikarmatomic]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1820
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
Synonyms:

diabolical, fiendish,devilish, demonic, demoniacal,ungodly, hellish, infernal, wicked, evil, sinful,iniquitous, nefarious, vile, foul, abominable, unspeakable,loathsome, monstrous, heinous, hideous, horrible, shocking, appalling, dreadful, ghastly, abhorrent, despicable, damnable


Replacing Satanic with all those synonyms doesn't help much because they are all relative. What could be described as evil is as much subject to interpretation as what can be described as Satanic. There is no universal morality. Although the majority of human population agree, for example, that murder is evil, there are plenty of nuances. Is killing a fetus evil? Subject to a debate. Is killing an enemy at war, including civilians, evil? Subject to a debate. Is killing infidels evil? Depends on the religion/culture. Is killing criminals evil? Debatable. Is human sacrifice evil? It depends. In the ancient times, it was quite popular. And so on and so forth.

Moreover, the synonyms you gave imply subjective judgement. You can safely call a Don Juan type of a guy "diabolical, fiendish, devilish, demonic, demoniacal, ungodly, hellish, infernal, wicked, evil, sinful, iniquitous, nefarious, vile, foul, abominable, unspeakable, loathsome, monstrous, heinous, hideous, horrible, shocking, appalling, dreadful, ghastly, abhorrent, despicable, damnable" especially if you happen to be a woman and one of his victims. And that dude would actually do nothing except fucking and then abandoning naive females. Apart from that he could be a nice chap. He doesn't have to be a vile murderer or something.

 Quote:
I can't find a single satanic thing in these 9 "satanic" statements.


Satan as an archetype, is an accuser and an adversary, someone who opposes God's beloved children, tempts them, leads them to sin and then accuses them before the throne of God so that he can drag their souls to hell. Satanism primarily is a reaction to Christianity and, in a broader sense, it's a reaction to any established morality system. Given that, the Nine Satanic Statements are Satanic because they go against the Christian morality, which is still prevalent in contemporary Western society. It is especially visible here:

"Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!"

Christian morality tells you to love thy neighbor, even your enemy. But even secularized societies encourage respect and tolerance for all people, also helping them through various charities, and there is a widespread belief that every human has dignity, should be respected and given help in distress.

Or take this:

"Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!"

That goes against the notion that humans are special, better than other animals or that they have a soul or a special destiny.

Or this:

"Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!"

The seven deadly sins are considered grievous but not only by Christians. Anger and envy are generally considered negative emotions. Gluttony is considered unhealthy. Sloth, pride and sometimes lust are also generally frowned upon.

Satanic means more heretical than vicious. I also don't agree that nature can be described as Satanic. Satanic implies "against morality", immoral. Nature, on the other hand, is amoral, beyond morality.


Edited by Czereda (06/26/16 05:04 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#107339 - 06/26/16 05:29 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: Czereda]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CZ
Replacing Satanic with all those synonyms doesn't help much because they are all relative.


I didn't replace it. I listed them in accompaniment with its definition:

characterized by extreme cruelty or viciousness

Moreover I don't think that because, say, beauty is relative that's sufficient grounds to dismiss the word outright. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” “oh that settles it, then, there is no beauty”

 Originally Posted By: CZ
I also don't agree that nature can be described as Satanic.
No more so than it can be described as beautiful. Make of that whatever you like.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#107344 - 06/26/16 09:13 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: antikarmatomic]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Addendum.
 Originally Posted By: CZ
Satanism primarily is a reaction to Christianity and, in a broader sense, it's a reaction to any established morality system.


In that regard we can address the more recursive and insubstantial definition of the word “satanic”:

“of or characteristic of Satan. connected with Satanism”

This becomes problematic for incredibly obvious reasons which can be addressed proactively. There is no credible argument that Satanism as a religion existed prior to LaVey. Subsequently the C/S can rightfully claim authority of what Satanism entails – it is what it is. They cannot, however, rightfully claim authority over what satanic, by definition, is. That ship had already sailed sometime in the 16th century.

We're not arguing semantics, we're arguing that words have meanings.

More to the point, Christianity, by in large, agrees with Satanism's assessment of human nature. It would have to in order to necessitate a doctrine of salvation. In that respect Satanism essentially is inverse Christianity. There's no way around it. They only differ with respect to their evaluation of man's natural condition: is it a problem to be solved or a quality to be revered?

In Job we do see Satan as a sort of accuser and, because the name semantically means “adversary”, it is all too easy to fixate on that point. What escapes notice is that the manner in which the accusations are levied at Mr Job is excessively cruel. Additionally, if ignorance is bliss then perhaps the cruelest thing a creature could do to god's special little creature is to seduce them to partake of that which would allow them to differentiate between good and evil. Abrahamic interpretations of Satan paint a picture more of a jealous older sibling than that of a prosecuting attorney.

This does not have to be an historical fact; as Satan is, in effect, one of man's many attempts to side-step the problem of evil introduced by a supposedly benevolent deity. It is a rather primitive explanation, no doubt. However the allegorical nature of the causes of evil does not invalidate the existence of evil. Neither does the assertion that it is subjective. That age is just a number does not immunize us from the effects of old age.

“Disease, insanity, and death were the angels that attended my cradle, and since then have followed me throughout my life.” is a lament totally unassuaged by reassurances that angels do not exist.

To the points regarding the Nine Satanic Statements. It still all goes back to “I don't like what this word means, I want it to mean something else”. Equivocation and semiotics! (and because I ended that sentence with an exclamation point it is somehow more true)

 Originally Posted By: CZ
The seven deadly sins are considered grievous but not only by Christians.
of course, they're deadly (fatal) sins (to miss the mark). Basically a list of stuff that gets you killed. My only contention with them (aside from not being explicitly named in the bible as such) is that since the wages of sin is death, so calling them the seven deadly sins is a bit ham-fisted and redundant. It seems they only get special mention perhaps because they are not so obviously fatal.

As to tempting humanity to hell: well, hell is death - the natural alternative to eternal life… according to scripture, anyway.

Long story short. Evil is evil. If it were up your ass, you'd know it. If one need rationalize and justify it, chances are they are simply not up to the task of understanding it. They would be better served espousing humanism and dabbling in the occult and ESP research.

I'm not griping that LaVeyism is "pussified Satanism". It's arguably the only Satanism. Unfortunately that thing-codified-as-Satanism just isn't satanic.


Edited by antikarmatomic (06/26/16 09:22 PM)
Edit Reason: There was a faith healer of Deal Who said 'though I know pain's not real, If I sit on a pin, And it punctures my skin, I dislike what I fancy I feel.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#107355 - 06/27/16 04:30 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: antikarmatomic]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1820
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
In that respect Satanism essentially is inverse Christianity... To the points regarding the 9 Satanic statements. It still all goes back to “I don't like what this word means, I want it to mean something else”... that thing-codified-as-Satanism just isn't satanic.


You don't have to go as far as to cull someone or tear some animal to shreds in order to transgress the morality system. The Nine Satanic Statements go against the Christian morality, they are against all that which is sacred, God's teachings and precepts. In that respect, they are Satanic.

And yeah, humanism is partly Satanic too because it places a human in the center while rejecting God, invents rituals that are to be a replacement for the Sacraments. That is blasphemy.

Of course you can always argue that LaVey could go further and that those statements could be more diabolical. That doesn't make them un-Satanic though. It's all the question of how much coffee is in the coffee. Like those ONA folks we can quibble day after day that only espresso is the true coffee and cappuccino is a poser. But FFS, it's all coffee.


Edited by Czereda (06/27/16 04:34 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#107356 - 06/27/16 05:09 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: Czereda]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CZ
You don't have to go as far as to cull someone or tear some animal to shreds in order to transgress the morality system. 
There's nothing inherently satanic about transgressing a given morality system either. Apostasy is its own kettle of fish.

 Originally Posted By: CZ
And yeah, humanism is partly Satanic too because it places a human in the center while rejecting God, invents rituals that are to be a replacement for the Sacraments. That is blasphemy. 
Humanism is not even partly satanic; neither relating to satan nor being very cruel or evil.

 Originally Posted By: CZ
 Like those ONA folks we can quibble day after day that only espresso is the true coffee and cappuccino is a poser. But FFS, it's all coffee. 
That's their goofy-ass hang-up. All I'm saying is that it's tea, not coffee – not just “not coffee enough”. 'Nothing wrong liking tea, though. I've been known to settle for tea in a pinch. It's just that I don't sit back and try to convince myself and others that it is coffee. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is definitely___ something that walks and quacks like a duck. *shrugs*
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#107358 - 06/27/16 06:24 PM Re: I have questions... [Re: antikarmatomic]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
For example:

On an unrelated thread we were discussing molly, specifically what passes as molly these days. It's kinda the same deal – basically a lot of what's going around is “speed” sold as molly (MDMA). It's been going on so long that even some dealers have never actually done or sold molly ever. So I just had this conversation the other day “dude, it's not molly” “nah, it's real! I tried it last night and we was lit up” “yeah, I'm not saying it's fake, I'm just saying its not molly” “well it's the same as the last batch of molly – even stronger actually” “look, I get that, but it's not molly, it's speed – that last batch wasn't molly either” “well molly is a type of speed – methylenedioxymethamphetamine” “that's not how it works, man – the chemistry's a bit more involved than that” Suffice it say they're still going on about their molly that isn't molly and their reasoning is pretty convincing albeit, wildly incorrect. Same deal. Sure, a lot of people buy it but___ it's still not molly, though.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
Page all of 5 12345>


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

Generated in 0.086 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 84 queries. Zlib compression disabled.