Page 6 of 7 « First<34567>
Topic Options
#36978 - 03/24/10 08:14 AM Re: Zu befehl, Herr Doktor Andelsprutz! [Re: felixgarnet]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Claims to the truth are claims to the truth, and supernatural claims should all receive equal scrutiny. You say the distinction exists in that aquino doesn't proselytize, yet he will jump on anyone that doesn't agree with his particular worldview, to the point of being outright rude.

Behavior that would get anyone else doing the same banned.


And honestly I think calling Aquinos theology LHP is a stretch.

So again, why is this particular outlandish theistic claim afforded special consideration while similar claims are offhandedly dismissed as rubbish?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#36979 - 03/24/10 09:01 AM Re: Zu befehl, Herr Doktor Andelsprutz! [Re: Dan_Dread]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Maybe because he didn't start the threads. He just answered questions put forth by members here. Sometimes with more patience than I can understand.

The LHP is at times pretty big to very small. It is just a matter of deciding where to put your feet.

I don't think its a matter of special consideration, its just that various newbies keep asking the same questions and it seems to never end. Want to end any SET threads, don't respond to them.

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



Top
#36981 - 03/24/10 12:05 PM "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2515
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Claims to the truth are claims to the truth, and supernatural claims should all receive equal scrutiny. You say the distinction exists in that aquino doesn't proselytize, yet he will jump on anyone that doesn't agree with his particular worldview, to the point of being outright rude.

And you think that this entire post of yours isn't rude?

Where my posts are concerned, on occasion they may have been frank and factual to the point of unsettling some cozy prejudices, but never ad hominem - beyond the aforementioned whoopie cushion response to [rude] hecklers.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Behavior that would get anyone else doing the same banned.

Apparently not, because you're still here.

 Quote:
And honestly I think calling Aquinos theology LHP is a stretch.

As discussed in the Crystal Tablet of Set:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
THE TWO PATHS

The terms “Left-Hand Path” (LHP) and “Right-Hand Path” (RHP) are used in different and often incompatible ways by various occultists. Reportedly the terms originated in Tantrism, a school of Mahayna Buddhism in northern India which taught that Buddhahood can be realized through various theurgic practices. For mantra and mudra ceremonies the female was positioned to the right of the male; for erotic rites she was positioned to the left. Theosophy’s H.P. Blavatsky felt sex-magic to be immoral and perverse, so she subsequently employed the term LHP to characterize the magical systems she didn’t like, and the term RHP to characterize the ones she did, i.e. Theosophy. Post-Blavatsky the terms have been expanded through popular usage to refer generally to what the Temple of Set defines as white magic (RHP) and Black Magic (LHP).

Most popular-occult organizations, to be sure, use the two terms simply to identify their moral biases. What they consider “good” is RHP, and what they consider “evil” is LHP. After Aleister Crowley left the Golden Dawn, he portrayed it as a “Black Lodge” and his own A.'.A.'. as the “Great White Brotherhood”; while on the other side of the fence W.B. Yeats and other G.'.D.'. leaders considered Crowley to be the Black Magician.

To further complicate the matter, there have been some deliberately criminal “Satanic” organizations which have avowedly followed the LHP as defined by those who consider it synonymous with degenerate and destructive practices. Such episodes have of course served to reinforce the conventional religious image of Satanism and Black Magic as nefarious practices.

So enduring was this stereotype that the Church of Satan found it very difficult to break free from it during the entire decade of its existence. All sorts of creeps, crackpots, criminals, and cranks pounded on the door of the Church, assuming that it would excuse and encourage whatever social shortcomings they embraced. The Temple of Set has avoided this problem, presumably because “Satan” is popularly associated with “evil” while “Set” is largely unknown outside of Egyptological circles.

The Temple of Set’s LHP orientation is, as noted above, a function of its definition of Black Magic. No moral or ethical stances are implied by the terms LHP and RHP per se, since they refer to techniques and systems rather than to the ends to which they are applied.

As defined within the Temple of Set:

• The Left-Hand Path (LHP) involves the conscious attempt to preserve and strengthen one’s isolate, psychecentric existence against the objective universe (OU) while apprehending, comprehending, and influencing a varying number of subjective universes (SU).

• The Right-Hand Path (RHP) involves the conscious attempt to dissolve or merge the self with the objective universe (OU).

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
So again, why is this particular outlandish theistic claim afforded special consideration while similar claims are offhandedly dismissed as rubbish?

I daresay because some 600Cers are sincerely curious about the significance and substance of Setian philosophy.

And I think mercifully we won't re-beat the dead horse of Atheism posturing as Satanism/LHP.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36987 - 03/24/10 03:12 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Mike

And you think that this entire post of yours isn't rude?

As I have overlooked about 100 of your posts which consist of looking squarely down your nose at all us 'wannabe' Satanists, I think you have been afforded way more than enough courtesy.

 Quote:


Apparently not, because you're still here.

Oh yuk yuk yuk. Is that really the best you can do? I present a worldview that is consistent with the theme of this site. Why are you here again? Preachin' the 'good news' of set?

 Quote:

I daresay because some 600Cers are sincerely curious about the significance and substance of Setian philosophy.

Yes I would say most of the sheep out there are eager to swallow faith based tripe such as you offer. Some of them post here. This was once a sanctuary from garbage such as you present.

 Quote:

And I think mercifully we won't re-beat the dead horse of Atheism posturing as Satanism/LHP.

Oh I'm sure you will at the very next opportunity. You can't help yourself.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#36988 - 03/24/10 03:18 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
One more thing. Only religionists such as yourself view 'Atheism' as some sort of complete worldview. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. That in and of itself isn't a philosophy, or a religion, or even a position relating to anything real or relevant. That Satanism doesn't need to invoke imaginary friends doesn't reduce it to 'Atheism'. I find your repeated attempts to paint it that way as either willfully ignorant or purposefully disingenuous. Take your pick.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#36993 - 03/24/10 07:09 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2515
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
As I have overlooked about 100 of your posts which consist of looking squarely down your nose at all us 'wannabe' Satanists, I think you have been afforded way more than enough courtesy.

So an inconvenient truth is an excuse for rudeness? If so, I must remember to insult my dentist the next time he tells me I need a root canal.

And I don't recall ever calling anyone here a "wannabe Satanist", which would imply a wistful, cowardly pretense to the term. No, the "Satanatheism" on this board [which I rather think is less unanimous than you imagine] is ostensibly honest and, in the opinion of its professors, justifiable. As noted, I see no reason to repeat my critique thereof.

 Quote:
I present a worldview that is consistent with the theme of this site.

If you are its unquestioned spokesman, I am indeed impressed.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
I daresay because some 600Cers are sincerely curious about the significance and substance of Setian philosophy.

Yes I would say most of the sheep out there are eager to swallow faith based tripe such as you offer. Some of them post here. This was once a sanctuary from garbage such as you present.

Well, if you wish to call any 600Cer who disagrees with you a "sheep", and anything that doesn't fit tightly into your anal ideology "garbage", I suppose that's your privilege.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
And I think mercifully we won't re-beat the dead horse of Atheism posturing as Satanism/LHP.

Oh I'm sure you will at the very next opportunity. You can't help yourself.

Well, you see, I have this occasional slight problem with my right arm ...

 Quote:
One more thing. Only religionists such as yourself view 'Atheism' as some sort of complete worldview. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.

Um, no, that's agnosticism. Atheism is a belief that gods absolutely do not exist. Both of these, like theism, leave open the question of just what a "god" is/would be. That's where it gets messy.

 Quote:
That Satanism doesn't need to invoke imaginary friends doesn't reduce it to 'Atheism'. I find your repeated attempts to paint it that way as either willfully ignorant or purposefully disingenuous. Take your pick.

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36994 - 03/24/10 08:14 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
What needs to be said has been said on my part, and your reply was exactly as expected. So with that done, I would just like to point out that your definition of Atheist is incorrect.

Although an Atheist might make the claim that deities do not exist, one does not need to make that claim to be an Atheist. Anyone who does not hold a belief in personal deities is an Atheist.
A - Without
Theism - belief in a personal god

Pretty basic stuff. Agnostic on the other hand is theism-light, in that it lends enough credibility to the idea that deities might exist to give it equal floor time with the idea that they don't, which is extremely intellectually dishonest given the evidence.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#36997 - 03/24/10 10:07 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2515
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
What needs to be said has been said on my part, and your reply was exactly as expected.

Yet here you are saying more. You can't help yourself.

 Quote:
So with that done, I would just like to point out that your definition of atheist is incorrect.

Nope.

 Quote:
Agnostic on the other hand is theism-light, in that it lends enough credibility to the idea that deities might exist to give it equal floor time with the idea that they don't, which is extremely intellectually dishonest given the evidence.

Nope.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#37000 - 03/24/10 10:17 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Yes yes believe as you need to to make your wacky theistic paradigm float. You theists haven't been entirely successful at hijacking the word Atheist to serve your ends, though. Why don't you click the link to said word in this post for further information.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37001 - 03/24/10 10:23 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
exadust Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/09/10
Posts: 91
Loc: georgia
Actually agnostic atheists state that they do not personally believe in any deities but cannot prove whether they exsist or do not exsist based on the lack of evidence either way.

Personally I won't believe in any deity until he/she materializes in front of me proclaiming he/she is in fact a deity.

Until that day just call me an Atheist Satanist!
_________________________
Herein you will find truth and fantasy. Each is necessary in order for the other to exsist.

Top
#37002 - 03/24/10 10:23 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Dan - why do Dr Aquino's beliefs matter so much to you? If the Temple of Set and its system is so distasteful to you, why are you so bothered by it? I wouldn't post on a born-again Christian site to tell members they are wrong and incessantly ask them to justify their faith. I understood the 600 Club Forum offered the opportunity for debate on a wide spectrum of issues related to the LHP. The Setian take is one, yours is another, mine yet another; we all walk this Path alone, essentially.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#37006 - 03/24/10 11:51 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: felixgarnet]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
All forms of theism disgust me. Faith is a virus..a scar on the psyche of mankind. The legacy of the RHP.

Seeing it proliferated here, by someone that doesn't even attempt to veil his contempt for what I and many others here believe, has driven me to make posts like this. Maybe I am just talking to the wall, I dunno, but I feel that I am probably speaking for more than just myself here. It sticks in my craw.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37009 - 03/25/10 12:20 AM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
Agnostic on the other hand is theism-light, in that it lends enough credibility to the idea that deities might exist to give it equal floor time with the idea that they don't, which is extremely intellectually dishonest given the evidence.

Actually, gnosticism is a stricter empirical view that Theism. A person can be an Atheist and still believe in spirits and karma and heaven and the like. (Many Buddhists are atheists, but still believe in preposterous ideas such as literal reincarnation of the soul.)

Agnosticism, however, implies a rejection of "gnosis", ie, direct experiential knowledge of the supernatural. That is, agnostics deny anything that is not a strict materialistic view of the world, which pretty much serves as a basis for rejecting all supernatural phenomenon, gods and all. I think what you're referring to is Deism, which is a more wishy-washy (or "transcendental", depending on your view) interpretation of Theism.

My only real beef with Dr. Aquino is that his metaphysical view of Set can be adequately explained without resorting to his figurehead as an theistic isolate consciousness. (That is, just because you have a blinding flash of inspiration doesn't mean that an ancient Egyptian god is speaking to you personally.) Occham's Razor, etc, etc.

Regardless, he's conducted himself rather civilly in this forum. It's a bit annoying having to flip through his 50-billion-page biographies every time he responds to a question, but if I were him, I'd be tired of answering the same gazillion questions I'd have heard endless times over the past 35-odd years. I just think he deserves a little bit more respect, even if you disagree with him.


Edited by The Zebu (03/25/10 12:22 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#37012 - 03/25/10 12:57 AM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: The Zebu]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

A person can be an Atheist and still believe in spirits and karma and heaven and the like.

EXACTLY. 'Atheist' really doesn't say that much. There is no such thing as an 'Atheist philosophy' or an 'Atheist worldview'.'Atheists' can believe all sorts of things as long as some sort of deity isn't one of them.

Saying Satanists are 'just atheists' is meaningless.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37013 - 03/25/10 01:28 AM Gnosticism & Charlie [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2515
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Actually, gnosticism is a stricter empirical view that Theism. A person can be an Atheist and still believe in spirits and karma and heaven and the like. (Many Buddhists are atheists, but still believe in preposterous ideas such as literal reincarnation of the soul.)

Agnosticism, however, implies a rejection of "gnosis", ie, direct experiential knowledge of the supernatural. That is, agnostics deny anything that is not a strict materialistic view of the world, which pretty much serves as a basis for rejecting all supernatural phenomenon, gods and all. I think what you're referring to is Deism, which is a more wishy-washy (or "transcendental", depending on your view) interpretation of Theism.

I think that in general usage today "agnosticism" carries the more "undecided" connotation per my linked dictionary definition. I like your stricter, more precise interpretation, however; that is probably how it originated.

In the Temple of Set we became interested in Gnosticism primarily because of its concept of ćons, which term figured significantly in both the current Ćon of Set and the previous Thelemite Ćon of Horus. In 1992 in the Scroll of Set I wrote:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
ĆONS

As far as most occultists are aware, references to ćons began with Aleister Crowley’s much-advertised Ćon of Horus, which he proclaimed to have followed first the Ćon of Isis (roughly pre-Christian paganism) and then that of Osiris (roughly 2,000 years of Christianity). Since Crowley’s understanding of Egyptian mythology was essentially that of the Osiris/Isis/Horus trinity, this tied Western civilization up into a nice, neat package.

Not only was Crowley responsible for bringing about the Ćon of Horus, we are told, but that of Osiris as well - in a previous incarnation as the High Priest of Osiris [and Priestess of Isis] Ankh-f-na-khonsu. The detailed story of this is told in his memoir of that incarnation, “Across the Gulf”, in Equinox #I-7:

 Originally Posted By: Aleister Crowley
But Thoth the mighty god, the wise one, with his ibis-head and his nemyss of indigo, with his Ateph crown and his phśnix wand and with his ankh of emerald, with his magic apron in the three colors; yea, Thoth, the god of wisdom, whose skin is of tawny orange as though it burned in a furnace, appeared visibly to all of us. And the old Magus of the Well, whom no man had seen outside his well for night threescore years, was found in the midst; and he cried with a loud voice, saying, “The Equinox of the Gods!”

And he went about to explain how it was that Nature should no longer be the center of man’s worship, but man himself, man in his suffering and death, man in his purification and perfection. And he recited the Formula of the Osiris as follows, even as it hath been transmitted unto us by the Brethren of the Cross and Rose unto this day ...

In his own writings Crowley does not indicate where he came by this concept of “ćons” or exactly what is meant by it. A little detective work, however, takes us back to the days of the Golden Dawn and the writing of a book entitled Egyptian Magic by Florence Farr, Scribe of the G.'.D.'., in 1896. This book, part of a 10-volume series Collectanea Hermetica edited by W.W. Westcott, contained a very interesting chapter called “The Gnostic Magic of Egypt”, from which the following quote:

 Originally Posted By: Florence Farr
Let us first consider the essential principles of Gnosticism, which are briefly as follows:

First - A denial of the dogma of a personal supreme God, and the assertion of a supreme divine essence consisting of the purest light and pervading that boundless space of perfected matter which the Greeks called the Pleroma. This light called into existence the great father and the great mother whose children were the ćons or god-spirits. That is to say from the supreme issues the nous or divine mind and thence successive emanations, each less sublime than the preceding. The divine life in each becoming less intense until the boundary of the Pleroma, or the fullness of God, is reached. From thence there comes into being a taint of imperfection, an abortive and defective evolution, the source of materiality and the origin of a created universe, illuminated by the divine but far removed from its infinitude and perfection.

Now the Gnostics considered that the actual ruler and fashioner of this created universe and its beings good and evil was the Demiurgos, a power issuant from sophia or wisdom. By some it was said that the desire of souls for progression caused the origin of a universe in which they might evolve and rise to the divine.

The Gnostics definitely believed in the theory of cycles of ascent and return to the evolutionary progress of worlds, ages, and man; the ascents & descents of the soul; the pre-existence of all human souls now in worldly life; and the surety that all souls that desire the highest must descend to matter and be born of it. They were the philosophical Christians.

The rule of the Christian church, however, fell into the hands of those who encouraged an emotional religion, destitute of philosophy, whose members should be bound together by personal ties of human sympathy with an exalted sufferer and preacher rather than by an intellectual acceptance of high truth.

The Gnostics dissented from the creed then being taught, on the ground of the inferiority of the hero-worship of Christ to the spiritual knowledge of the supernal mind, which they considered he taught.

The Gnostics were almost universally deeply imbued with the doctrines of Socrates and Plato; and a religion of emotion and reverence, combined with moral platitudes, did not seem to them of a sublimity sufficiently intense to be worthy to replace the religious mysteries of Egypt, India, and Persia, the theocracy of the Jews, or the sublime truths hidden in the myths of Greece.

In Religion in Ancient History S.G.F. Brandon (Professor of Comparative Religions, Manchester University) comments:

 Originally Posted By: Prof. Brandon
In his “First Epistle to the Corinthians” Paul had occasion to contrast his teaching with that of other systems known to his readers. In so doing he was led to give this significant account of his own: “Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, which are coming to naught: but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: which none of the rulers of this world knoweth: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (ii. 6-8).

In our official English translations the proper meaning of this passage is obscured at two crucial points. The Greek word translated as “world” here, severally in its singular or plural forms, is aion, which does not mean this physical world or Earth, but “time” or “age”.

Paul’s use of aion here accordingly shows that he was thinking in terms of an esoteric system of “world-ages” that probably derived ultimately from Iranian and Babylonian sources, and that in various forms was much in vogue in current Grćco-Roman thought. Next the words translated as “rulers of this world” (archontes tou aionos toutou) do not refer, as is popularly supposed, to the Roman and Jewish authorities who were responsible for condemning Jesus to death. They denote dćmonic beings who were associated with the planets and believed to govern the lives of men on Earth.

As Farr and Brandon both go on to observe, Gnostic Christianity was regarded as a very serious threat to the Christian church and was intensely persecuted. Had it become prevalent, the next 2,000 years might have evolved quite differently in Western civilization - with a very intellectual, philosophical, and initiatory religious climate instead of the intolerant, ferocious, and ignorant horror of dogmatic Christianity ...


 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
My only real beef with Dr. Aquino is that his metaphysical view of Set can be adequately explained without resorting to his figurehead as an theistic isolate consciousness. (That is, just because you have a blinding flash of inspiration doesn't mean that an ancient Egyptian god is speaking to you personally.) Occham's Razor, etc, etc.

Which is why, as noted here previously, I have never expected anyone else to take the North Solstice X Working "on trust". I have analyzed its significance to me; and others are entirely welcome to their own opinions about it.

 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Regardless, he's conducted himself rather civilly in this forum. It's a bit annoying having to flip through his 50-billion-page biographies every time he responds to a question, but if I were him, I'd be tired of answering the same gazillion questions I'd have heard endless times over the past 35-odd years.

While visiting the 600C I've attempted to "condense" specific answers to inquiries where possible. But sometimes the questions are complex, and an adequate answer comparably so. [It's much easier when the subject is one's favorite films, etc.]

I also don't mind in the least having my feet held [politely] to the fire on "big questions", because it is thus that one sees the imperfections in either one's concepts or the presentation of them.

 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
I just think he deserves a little bit more respect, even if you disagree with him.

Since Charlie's already been quoted in this thread, perhaps his sympathetic observation concerning respect to Jesus is relevant:

 Originally Posted By: Charles Manson
Why should I care about people who don’t care about themselves? They all want someone else to do it for them. They all want to be “saved”, but they won’t make the first move to save themselves. They just sit around and wait for someone else to come to their rescue and save them. Again.

All I have to say is how god damn many times do they expect him to keep coming back anyway? Every time he comes back they give him nothing but shit. He came back during the thirties in Germany and they still haven’t stopped whining about it.


_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 6 of 7 « First<34567>


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

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.