Page all of 5 12345>
Topic Options
#35028 - 02/02/10 04:37 PM The Name
Sceevin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/12/09
Posts: 16
Loc: Washington
First off, i agree with LaVey in the proper use of the word Satanism. I find it fitting.

But, by what right do we (as a community of satanists) have, to use the term Satanist and Satanism in the manner that we do? We obviously hit the 'veneration of the satan figure (or similar)'. But long before Anton LaVey was had even been conceived, the term Satanist has been used. I have (copies of) Templar Inquisition papers dated late 11 hundreds that declare the Templar as 'Satanists' in a way that we, as the current lot, would either call Theistic or Pseudo-satanic.

No matter how well liked or appreciated, just because an individual has the ability to write a book, does not give them the right to change the meaning of a word. If that were true, then god would mean Imaginary Sky-Fairy, and Jar of PeanutButter would mean Christian(two points to the individual who names those books).
This should not be perceived as me saying that this use is one hundred percent non-applicable. Remember my opening statement. This is just to say that, at least in my opinion, the elitist monopoly over the use of the term Satanist, is not valid.
This is a very abbreviated justification for my, as well as by others, use of atheistic-Satanism, as opposed to theistic-Satanism. I.E. to seperate us from the ONA, or the devil-worshippers.

What would our justification be for the elitist use of the term Satanism to apply to only us, and what seperates our justification from the differing philosophies that claim the title of Satanism, and makes our claim the superior?

This was brought on by my finding of several petitions to get the definition for Satanism oficialy changed to only include the atheistic philosophy.
_________________________
They will all burn in the fires of our black sun
"Engineer, Surgeon, Magician, I AM GOD!"-Rotwang

Top
#35033 - 02/02/10 04:50 PM Re: The Name [Re: Sceevin]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
If you insist I call the christian god "sky-fairy", no harm taken in changing that.
There is a difference between the term Satanist in 1100 and the term nowadays. It is called "evolution".

The use of Theist or Atheist Satanist has 2 options:
- lack of understanding what Satanism is
- an indication of personal mindset when it comes to the (non)belief in a god or metaphysical powers/entities.
Satanic philosophy leaves room for a belief in metaphysical constructs, yet in reality it is hard to find someone with the belief in such things without being delusioned.

 Quote:
This was brought on by my finding of several petitions to get the definition for Satanism oficialy changed to only include the atheistic philosophy.

That would be changing the definition of Satanism, and would reduce it to nothing more then "Natural atheistic humanist".


Edited by Dimitri (02/02/10 04:50 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35038 - 02/02/10 05:36 PM Re: The Name [Re: Dimitri]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
This was brought on by my finding of several petitions to get the definition for Satanism oficialy changed to only include the atheistic philosophy.


That would be detrimental for theistic satanists- because without LaVey they would have virtually no cultural presence or historical significance (outside of Norwegian Black Metal)- as well as for nontheistic Satanists- because they would not have adequate symbolism to convey their philosophical ideas.

It's also incredibly retarded to think that you can "change" the definition of a word because a handful of people click a button on the internet. Nobody cares about petitions, especially if the topic only pertains to a fringe-of-a-fringe subculture that the average man has never encountered in their life outside of a Hammer film.

 Quote:
That would be changing the definition of Satanism, and would reduce it to nothing more then "Natural atheistic humanist".


Not in the least. Humanism is simply altruistic religious moralism with "the good of mankind" substituted for "God". A more accurate term might be "agnostic Epicurean quasi-diabolic ceremonial ritualist". Which sounds lame.

I don't mind if devil-worshipers employ the same terminology I do- after all, as the OP pointed out, Satanism was defined as theistic worship of the Devil long before LaVey came onto the scene. However, Satanism can also be, philosophically, interpreted to mean "an ideology based principally upon traits and characteristics attributed to Satan", which is the canon that I use.

Which is more Satanic? Groveling down to the Devil, or seeking to attain His status?
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#35041 - 02/02/10 06:09 PM Re: The Name [Re: Sceevin]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

Those that fear the full definition of the word Satanist with or without a prefix should never use the title. As a human my beliefs while defined are in a constant flux. I will always question what I see and do most.

Right here I have seen those like us fight to define the word to not fit them, while others use a prefix to try to further define it to fit them. The truly elite wouldn’t be bothered with such nonsense. Call yourself or me what you will, unless it changes or affects me its all good.

If you would like to be called Sceevin defender of lesser Satanists the world over so be it, no sweat off my balls.

Couldn’t a theist be elite as well?

 Originally Posted By: Sceevin
What would our justification be for the elitist use of the term satanism to apply to only us, and what seperates our justification from the differing philosophies that claim the title of Satanism, and makes our claim the superior?

Careful with those two words us and we, they should be used very carefully here and not abused. Both can confuse you into thinking others care about or support that which you do.

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#35059 - 02/03/10 09:35 AM Re: The Name [Re: ta2zz]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada


You can redefine any word to mean anything you like, but that may dampen any intended communication value. 'Satanists', that is, those of the inherent disposition and phenotype that 'get' the Satanic Bible and the full scope of the philosophy presented therein, understand what that word means. In fact, I would go one further and say this understanding, or rather, the ease by which it comes, serves as a pretty good indicator of those on the right track and a pretty good filter for those that are not. Most simply can not divorce their mind from the 'outward facing' nature of the vast majority of religions, and simply can not wrap their minds around the concept of the realization and cultivation of inner divinity.

Satan is certainly a vital part of Satanism, but why does he have to be reduced to the same level of fairy tale mythology this religion stands opposed to? Surely given all of the sacred cows that are trampled under cloven hoof, Satan should not be reduced to that.

So who IS Satan in a non metaphysical cosmology?

Satan is a representation of the cold, brutal and unforgiving nature of the universe. Man has created religions and systems of thought that fly in the face of this cold hard factual reality; layers of sugar coating and faith driven nonsense that acts as a distorted lens. These systems represent a cultivation of ignorance, of a slave mentality. Those holding the reigns to this beast of course like it just fine, and in fact these slave-memetics have been cultivated to be just as they are. You are a cog in a machine, and you WILL spin at the speed and in the direction that you are supposed to spin. Government and religious mandate have legitimized a fantasy world in the interest of keeping the herd docile.

As Anton LaVey once pointed out, it was THEY who named 'us'. It was they who demonized all that is life affirming and real, while glorifying death worship and obedience. It was THEY that first inverted natures paradigm. If this collective morass of cultural memetics ,that stands as a polar opposite to how the world is perceived by those that have eyes to see, is represented by the externalization of 'god' (or gods) , surely Satan is the one fit to stand up and say 'enough is enough!'?



_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35061 - 02/03/10 10:02 AM Re: The Name [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
This is why I always comment on people who claim that there is a true Satanism because there isn't really anything like it. Satanism was indeed a term coined by the Christian church long before self-professed Satanists existed (at least to anyone's knowledge today).

Some like to say that Anton LaVey was the very first person who defined and codified Satanism as a practitioner which is also proven false by Per Faxneld for example. He arrives at the conclusion that the first self-professed Satanist (in the western world) with a clear system of thought based on the character of Satan was Stanislaw Przybyszewski (1868-1927). Others used the term as well although in a more loose kind of way. Classic Swedish writer August Strindberg was one of those people.

But yeah LaVey was probably the first one who created an organisation purely based on a system of though called Satanism. He was for sure the one with the most amount of success in regards to establishing his point of view as the most common.

But as with everything else things evolve. What was once a word invented by Christians to define people opposed to the church (because that was what it essentially meant) it has grown to a bona fide religion or philosophy that doesn't really have to stand on a Christian ground (even if many practitioners still have a hard time escaping the Christian world view). Just like the character of Christ, a saviour, is Jewish in origin it has developed into a religion that is viewed as a separate entity (even though they are closely linked of course).

I have said this many times before but it needs to be said again. Satanism does not have canonical writings. Neither do we have stories about a first prophet or alike that carried the true message of Satanism. Therefore no one can really claim that they are part of some form of original Satanism. What we have today is a whole bunch of different philosophies and religions based on the character of Satan and as long as they are based on Satan I think all can aspire to call themselves Satanism. Then its practitioners will naturally consider their version the correct one (or the most truthful one). This is only natural, who would choose a belief system they did not think was the most truthful? My point is that no one can really, with a sound foundation, lay claim to the term Satanism and keep it to themselves.

Top
#35062 - 02/03/10 10:25 AM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Meh. If 'Satanism can mean anything, it effectively means nothing. I would say there are many lines in the sand that separates what Satanism IS from what it is not.

This sort of wishy washy epistemological egalitarianism serves nobody, aside from those lacking the knowledge of self it takes to define ones own boundaries and plant their metaphorical flag in the sand.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35063 - 02/03/10 12:48 PM Re: The Name [Re: Sceevin]
delusion Offline
pledge


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 77
Loc: hawaii
Would you be so kind as to provide a link to this original documentation that makes those accusations or at least type in the quotes? I'm interested in those most of all.

The defining of Satanism has been done here before but your statement about documentation is all I heard.

Delusion

Top
#35066 - 02/03/10 02:06 PM Re: The Name [Re: delusion]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
The meaning of words change over time. I don't think that Satanism is "atheistic Satanism" simply because Doctor LaVey wrote books that said it was. I think that it is "atheistic" because LaVey wrote books that created something that was more meaningful and had a bigger impact on thought than a Christian insult.

Granted, there's plenty of people who still think of Satanism as mere devil worship. The definition is by no means mainstream, but it has gained more validity over the years as the works of Doctor LaVey became more recognized and his ideas more disseminated.

Consider other things. Like vampires. Today vampires are blood sucking immortal people. Originally, vampires were just corpses that rose from the grave, more like the modern conception of a zombie. Some legends said a vampire could be made, but many also said that you had to be born a certain way (with teeth or a caul) and then you'd become one after you died.

But Bram Stoker published his novel and created the modern vampire. There are elements that go back to the original folklore, but there also new things too. Another major influence was of course the 1931 film which further separated vampires from the image of a risen corpse.

Just some thoughts.

Top
#35071 - 02/03/10 03:50 PM Re: The Name [Re: EvilDjinn]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Meh. If 'Satanism can mean anything, it effectively means nothing. I would say there are many lines in the sand that separates what Satanism IS from what it is not.

This sort of wishy washy epistemological egalitarianism serves nobody, aside from those lacking the knowledge of self it takes to define ones own boundaries and plant their metaphorical flag in the sand.


Welcome to the real world! I don't say Satanism can mean anything. In the end it has to be a philosophy or religion based on Satan (in whatever shape or form he/she/it may take). What I am opposing is the notion, mainly by CoS members that, that Satanism is only what LaVey described it to be. The reasoning for this is that he “was the first person to codify Satanism as a belief system” or something like that. And it really isn't true. He wasn't first and that is a fact. The term itself is way older and Satanism described and practised did exist before LaVey. Now this isn't necessarily a problem, just something that leaves us with more freedom to interpret Satan and the philosophy suggested by that character.

All religions battle this problem even those with canonical scriptures. Look at Christianity. They have their book. It is what is in that book that they base their religion on. And still it takes so many different shapes that if one didn't know one could think they weren't even the same religion. In Satanism there is no canonical writing and there is no common origin and therefore it is even harder to define.

But look at it this way. Satanism is like a mosaic. It is filled with different interpretations and some differ a lot from each other. But when put together a certain shape takes form. What will be seen is the most prominent characteristics of Satanism. Certain individual pieces may not agree but in the big whole some ideas will emerge as the stronger ones. Therefore we can see a dynamic core of what Satanism is at this very moment. I believe you too know some of these lines that will appear when the mosaic creates a pattern – antinomianism, self-deification, chaos, love of wisdom or knowledge etc. However I do not believe that anyone can or have the right to say that Satanism is what LaVey wrote in TSB and only that (or that one cannot contradict it and still be a Satanist).

On TSB. I quite like many parts of that book but its painfully obvious that it focuses way to much energy of defining itself against Christianity (being reactive) rather than actually go deep into and develop original Satanic thought (being active). While it may be a great start for newbies coming from a Christian background it isn't the greatest book if one want deep Satanic thought.

 Originally Posted By: delusion
Would you be so kind as to provide a link to this original documentation that makes those accusations or at least type in the quotes? I'm interested in those most of all.

The defining of Satanism has been done here before but your statement about documentation is all I heard.

Delusion


Was this aimed at me? The study of Satanism pre-LaVeyan roots in the west is published in a book called “Mörkrets apostlar” by Ph.D Per Faxneld (I believe he achieved a Ph.D not long ago) at the University of Stockholm. I am not sure if the book is available in English but you can always ask him. There is an e-mail address to him on this page http://www.su.se/pub/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=8538&a=42100 (The link that says “Kontakt”). Or you can just start to look into people like Stanislaw Przybyszewski, Ben Kadosh and even Fraternas Saturni (even though some don't consider that group as purely Satanic in nature).

I actually found a short online papaer by Per Faxneld on Ben Kadosh as one example of pre-LaVeyan Satanism. It can be found here: http://www.ntnu.no/eksternweb/multimedia/archive/00082/Faxneld_82295a.pdf

Top
#35072 - 02/03/10 04:05 PM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Words only 'mean' what the party communicating them and the party receiving the communication agree to. The more people that communicate a definition of Satanism with boundaries and meaning, the stronger that meme gets. The more people that try to define it away into obscurity, the stronger that meme gets.

Within the context of Satanism it pretty much comes down to those that see themselves in TSB and 'get it' versus those that do not yet wish to also be included. It is this latter group that needs to, as you are, expand and obfuscate that definition.

The vast majority does not 'get it' though, so this really is not THAT important of a talking point. These discussions are only really useful in that they serve to clarify 'who's who', so to speak.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35074 - 02/03/10 04:53 PM Re: The Name [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Words only 'mean' what the party communicating them and the party receiving the communication agree to. The more people that communicate a definition of Satanism with boundaries and meaning, the stronger that meme gets. The more people that try to define it away into obscurity, the stronger that meme gets.

Within the context of Satanism it pretty much comes down to those that see themselves in TSB and 'get it' versus those that do not yet wish to also be included. It is this latter group that needs to, as you are, expand and obfuscate that definition.

The vast majority does not 'get it' though, so this really is not THAT important of a talking point. These discussions are only really useful in that they serve to clarify 'who's who', so to speak.


Just because a lot of people believe in one definition of the word does not make it right, merely popular.

Seems like you are one of those people who tries to give TSB some kind of canonical importance for Satanism at large. What is your foundation for such a belief? What made you think that TSB is the measuring stick for all Satanism? How much would one be allowed to deviate from TSB (if anything at all) without being accused of obfuscate the definition of Satanism?

And who in their right mind would not want to expand their views especially in a philosophy such s Satanism that at least to me stands for dynamic thought? One of the best things with Satanism is that its not bound to any one book or any prophet or alike. It doesn't make it weaker – it makes it stronger! As long as the philosophy is based on Satan it will hold Satanic ideas whether or not we subtract or add things to TSB's philosophy. Just like LaVey himself did when he created his own version of Satanism based on his previous knowledge of religions, philosophies, occultism and earlier incarnations of Satanism (yes, I believe it is in “Satanis” he actually talk a little bit about Satanism prior to himself and his CoS).

Top
#35083 - 02/03/10 06:26 PM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Before 1966 there was no 'Satanism' as any sort of coherent system of thought or philosophy, at least so named, so yes, I would ascribe much importance to TSB in terms of what Satanism is.

That is not to say I would go so far as to say Anton invented Satanism, but he did put the label on something already existent, something nobody before him had done.

Satanism itself is an internally coherent and consistent memeplex that just happens to describe a certain type of person. These people are generally quite rare; there are a LOT more followers of Satanism, by volumes, then there are Satanists. Agree, don't agree..it doesn't matter. 'We' know it to be true, and 'we' can sniff each other out.

That's just how it is. Use the word 'Satanism' to describe whatever you like. Won't change a thing. ;\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35086 - 02/03/10 09:31 PM Re: The Name [Re: delusion]
Sceevin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/12/09
Posts: 16
Loc: Washington
the documents are reprinted in the back of a book i have. Written by Charles G. Addison.
titled
The History of the Knights Templar: Publisher's Edition
2001

scans of the original documents are in the back, with english translations (i believe that the original is in french)
_________________________
They will all burn in the fires of our black sun
"Engineer, Surgeon, Magician, I AM GOD!"-Rotwang

Top
#35093 - 02/04/10 03:26 AM Re: The Name [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Before 1966 there was no 'Satanism' as any sort of coherent system of thought or philosophy, at least so named, so yes, I would ascribe much importance to TSB in terms of what Satanism is.

That is not to say I would go so far as to say Anton invented Satanism, but he did put the label on something already existent, something nobody before him had done.


I am quite irritated by your close-mindedness and unability to read what I write above. I already wrote that Anton LaVey was NOT the first person to "put the label on something already existent". There WERE Satanism in "coherent system of thought and philosophy" before Anton LaVey and yes it WAS named Satanism. What in this is it that you do not understand?

I mentioned my source for this information and mentioned two names wo did publish books or pamphlets expressing Satanic thought (called Satanism or Lucerferianism) way before 1966. So again Anton LaVey was NOT first with anything regarding Satanism. It is something created by the CoS to make them have some kind of authority over the word Satanism (no one should be surprised).

So again I point you to primarely two names: Stanislaw Przybyszewski and Ben Kadosh (Carl William Hansen). Both who wrote and codified versions of Satanism (and calling it just that) and both were way before 1966.

So please stop using the Anton LaVey was first argment since it holds NO truth.


Edit: This does not mean that I take anything away fron LaVey though. A lot of my philosophical base is due to that man and TSB. I just wish for people to recognize what is true in regards to the origins of Satanism and what is not.


Edited by TheInsane (02/04/10 03:29 AM)

Top
#35094 - 02/04/10 03:43 AM Re: The Name [Re: Dan_Dread]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Satan is a representation of the cold, brutal and unforgiving nature of the universe.


I was thinking to myself, yes, LaVey wrote something very similar, and then was surprised to find [in The Satanic Bible, The Book of Lucifer, - Wanted! God Dead or Alive) that what I remembered imperfectly was actually the following:

"To the Satanist 'God' - by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all - is seen as the balancing factor in nature, and not as being concerned with suffering. This powerful force which permeates and balances the universe is far too impersonal to care about the happiness or misery of flesh-and-blood creatures on this ball of dirt upon which we live."

"Anyone who thinks of Satan as evil should consider all the men, women, children, and animals who have died because it was 'God's will'."

Still, what else is Satan but the true face of God? Speaking metaphorically, of course; symbolically, anthropomorphically.

Natural selection is what happens when the cold, brutal, unforgiving nature of the universe collides with the replicating powers of a molecule, and the statistical likelihood of mistakes in that replication over geological time spans. Natural selection is the balancing factor between the advantages of trait X and the disadvantages of trait X. The point of optimal compromise between more X and less X is always found under the iron fist of life's tyrant king, natural selection, whose other name could be God, or Satan, or even Crom, made famous as the epithet and unworshipped deity of Conan.

Crom represents natural selection, and has always seemed to me to be a face of Satan. Yet I wouldn't have said he was the only face. But here I may have been wrong. Natural selection, operating upon replication's mistakes, is the genesis of every attribute of every form of life. Where I would have focused on the attributes, you focus on their genesis. My focus, the effects; your focus, the cause. The delights of food, reproduction, territory, and dominance are apples growing on a tree that was planted by death and watered by pain and fear.

Edifying. Thank you.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#35096 - 02/04/10 04:22 AM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:
I already wrote that Anton LaVey was NOT the first person to "put the label on something already existent". There WERE Satanism in "coherent system of thought and philosophy" before Anton LaVey and yes it WAS named Satanism. What in this is it that you do not understand?

He might not have been the first, yet he was the person who defined Satanism as it is today. He was the person who made it public, he was the person who defined it in modern day. Therfor his definition made Satanism what it is now. PERIOD!
I know it was not adressed to me, but I sense a great deal of stupidity and lack of insight flowing from your person.

The difference here is that the 2 persons you mentioned have FAILED to make it available for the grand public and have failed to reach the individuals who might have identified themselves with the philosophy. This makes ASL authentic and lets the philosophy called "Satanism" root itself in 1966 in the surroundings of LaVey and with the man self.


Edited by Dimitri (02/04/10 04:47 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35097 - 02/04/10 05:02 AM Re: The Name [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
It is quite funny how you judge an individualistic philosophy on the merit of how much mainstream success/knowledge it has achieved. So if there was a new Satanic church that excelled at promoting itself to the point where it totally overshadowed Anton LaVey would their definition of Satanism be the one and only?

 Quote:
He was the person who made it public


No he wasn't I already explained this above. The two names I told you about did produce Satanic writings avaliable to the public (they are still avaliable even).

 Quote:
he was the person who defined it in modern day


What do you define as modern day? In general it seems most people refer to the times after 1960 as postmodern times.

Stanislaw Przybyszewskis "Die Synagoge des Satan" was released in 1897 and Ben Kadoshs "Den Ny Morgens Gry, Lucifer-Hiram, Verdensbygmesterens Genkomst" was released in 1906.

 Quote:
The difference here is that the 2 persons you mentioned have FAILED to make it available for the grand public and have failed to reach the individuals who might have identified themselves with the philosophy. This makes ASL authentic and lets the philosophy called "Satanism" root itself in 1966 in the surroundings of LaVey and with the man self.



Again just because a lot of people believe in one definition of the word does not make it right (or the only valid one), merely popular. The root of a religion is not bsed on the popularity it achieved as you suggest but on where it first originated.


I do agree however that his "definition made Satanism what it is now" because you of course cant close your eyes to historic fact and LaVeys legacy is great in the world of Satanism.

Again I dont bash his philosophy just some of the myths regarding it.

 Quote:
I know it was not adressed to me, but I sense a great deal of stupidity and lack of insight flowing from your person.


Excuse me? Im the only one who supports what Im saying by explaining my sources and pointing people to clear evidence. Remember you were the one who didnt really know what is meant by philosophy and still critiques me for how I used the word in regards to ideologies and politics.

What stupid things do I say? Or is it a matter of me saying things that arent generally accepted that comes crushing down on what people have previously believed to be true? A iconoclasmic character is never popular you see...


Edited by TheInsane (02/04/10 05:08 AM)

Top
#35098 - 02/04/10 05:14 AM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:
It is quite funny how you judge an individualistic philosophy on the merit of how much mainstream success/knowledge it has achieved.

Correction: it promotes individual thinking. The success of a philosophy can be measured by the amount of people agreeing with it. A philosophy which is pure about individual thinking is called Egoism.

 Quote:

No he wasn't I already explained this above. The two names I told you about did produce Satanic writings avaliable to the public (they are still avaliable even).

Nietschze also produced "Satanic" writings. The two persons you mentioned indeed made their writings available, yet it hadn't the success ASL reached. They failed, that's it. ASL came along, defined the whole thing, published his ideas, and achieved success. That's about it. You can say their writings might contain ideas and views Satanists like, yet because of their failure are not the "bedrock".

 Quote:
The root of a religion is not bsed on the popularity it achieved as you suggest but on where it first originated.

Christianity is rooted in the middle-east, yet the belief has spread over whole of Europe, Russia, Asia and US. If a belief is not popular then it will be simply erased from existence. Popularity means practicing the religion, no popularity means no people who belief which equals to non-existence.

Learn to think.


Edited by Dimitri (02/04/10 05:15 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35100 - 02/04/10 05:41 AM Re: The Name [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dimitri:

First things first; I asked you a bunch of questions and you failed to answer most of them. Please go back and answer them. I do want to know what you think about them. The questions were:

So if there was a new Satanic church that excelled at promoting itself to the point where it totally overshadowed Anton LaVey would their definition of Satanism be the one and only?
What do you define as modern day?
What stupid things do I say?

 Quote:
Correction: it promotes individual thinking. The success of a philosophy can be measured by the amount of people agreeing with it. A philosophy which is pure about individual thinking is called Egoism.


I never said anything that contradicts what you say in the first two sentences. If you think I did please point me to it. The success of a philosophy can however also be measured on the success of its believers/followers and it does not out of necessity have to do with how great the number of followers are. The third is plain wrong though. A philosophy which is pure about individual thinking is not called Egoism. One can be altruistic in action but individualist in thought. Egoism is “the ethical doctrine that morality has its foundations in self-interest”.

 Quote:
Nietschze also produced "Satanic" writings. The two persons you mentioned indeed made their writings available, yet it hadn't the success ASL reached. They failed, that's it. ASL came along, defined the whole thing, published his ideas, and achieved success. That's about it. You can say their writings might contain ideas and views Satanists like, yet because of their failure are not the "bedrock".


Nietzsche produced writings that were to become a big influence on Satanism. He himself did not build his philosophy on Satan and therefore he wasn't a Satanist and he wasn't Satanic (he was pre-Satanism and I don't think its fair to call anyone anything before certain concept was even invented or known). Its like an old CoS FAQ (I think) that somehow promoted Walt Disney as a Satanist because of his worldly success (that's pretty laughable). I love Nietzsche though. I have read a lot of his books and he is a great inspiration. How much Nietzsche did you ever read?

I don't know if you can say that the people I mentioned failed. I don't know what their motives were to be honest (and neither do you because I bet it was me who made you concious of their existence in the first place am I right?). And again ASL did not “define the whole thing”. He did however define his version of “the thing”, as you put it.

I do agree with the bedrock comment though. However that bedrock was not the first stone in Satanism and not the last it just happens to be the biggest.

 Quote:
Christianity is rooted in the middle-east, yet the belief has spread over whole of Europe, Russia, Asia and US. If a belief is not popular then it will be simply erased from existence. Popularity means practising the religion, no popularity means no people who belief which equals to non-existence.


You misunderstood me. I did not refer to geographical roots. I referred to philosophical roots. \:D

Top
#35102 - 02/04/10 06:03 AM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:

So if there was a new Satanic church that excelled at promoting itself to the point where it totally overshadowed Anton LaVey would their definition of Satanism be the one and only?

On an almost daily basis new Satanic organizations arise, yet none has managed to overshadow the current one. Would their definition be the one and only? If it makes sense then it will surely do, but in reality none is existent. Did I mention that I hate "What if" questions? It shows lack of reality and insight by the person posing the question..

 Quote:
What do you define as modern day?

The period where humanity started to become very mobile, the questions concerning atoms were starting to get solved, the digitalisation and distribution of information. Starting from the time around 1940 till now.

 Quote:
What stupid things do I say?
Read your post within a few months (if you are still around) and you'll get the idea....

 Quote:
He himself did not build his philosophy on Satan and therefore he wasn't a Satanist and he wasn't Satanic (he was pre-Satanism and I don't think its fair to call anyone anything before certain concept was even invented or known).

It is fair to call someone Satanic. It does not imply that he is "one of us" but that the reasoning behind his statements and his ideas share a close resemblance. There is a distinction between calling someone a Satanist or calling one Satanic.

And I have read enough of Nietschze to know what I speak of.

 Quote:

I don't know if you can say that the people I mentioned failed. I don't know what their motives were to be honest (and neither do you because I bet it was me who made you concious of their existence in the first place am I right?).

I indeed never heard of them, but since the time I recognized myself in the label of Satanist I have never heard of these 2 people, let alone heard a quote or other motivation leading to the works of these persons. I can conclude:
a) Impopular or barely an influence on Satanism as it is today (I keep the influence open since I do not know on which authors ASL was being influenced by, and in the end hardly care about it)
b) Not worth mentioning for various reasons.

 Quote:
You misunderstood me. I did not refer to geographical roots. I referred to philosophical roots

Philosophycal roots are still middle-eastern. Christianity started as a Jewish sect, located eastern Mediterranean.
Western philosophy and beliefs are druidic, Norse/German mythology and when it comes to the US the different belief-systems of Mayas and Azteks come to mind. Still not holding any sense here...

I am seriously wasting my time on such a mudane person like you.


Edited by Dimitri (02/04/10 06:13 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35104 - 02/04/10 06:27 AM Re: The Name [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356


 Quote:
On an almost daily basis new Satanic organizations arise, yet none has managed to overshadow the current one. Would their definition be the one and only? If it makes sense then it will surely do, but in reality none is existent. Did I mention that I hate "What if" questions? It shows lack of reality and insight by the person posing the question..


Good a clear answer! At least you stand by what you said before. I may not agree that someone new can come and re-define a religion so much so that we can cast the past aside and give them mere footnotes in the history of a particular movement though. If one has a genuine interest on where certain ideas came from the philosophical origins are of big importance.

I leave you with your hatred of certain questions alone. I think that it can be good and developing to think in terms of “what if” though. If we could not do it we would indeed not be able to think about the future at all.

 Quote:
The period where humanity started to become very mobile, the questions concerning atoms were starting to get solved, the digitalisation and distribution of information. Starting from the time around 1940 till now.


Ok, I needed to clear this out since most regard this age today as the post-modern age (or in some cases late modernity or hyper modernity).

 Quote:
Read your post within a few months (if you are still around) and you'll get the idea....


I am not satisfied with this answer. To me it shows that you really have no clear things to point to in regards to answering my question.

 Quote:
It is fair to call someone Satanic. It does not imply that he is "one of us" but that the reasoning behind his statements and his ideas share a close resemblance. There is a distinction between calling someone a Satanist or calling one Satanic.


Fair enough!


 Quote:
I indeed never heard of them, but since the time I recognized myself in the label of Satanist I have never heard of these 2 people, let alone heard a quote or other motivation leading to the works of these persons. I can conclude:
a) Impopular or barely an influence on Satanism as it is today (I keep the influence open since I do not know on which authors ASL was being influenced by, and in the end hardly care about it)
b) Not worth mentioning for various reasons.


I agree with (a) but that's not what the debate was about. It was about the philosophical origins of Satanism and whether or not it is fair for someone who came along about 60 years after the first proven self-professed Satanist in the west and create a definition of the term that may or may not include these other people who were obviously before him. My whole point is that someone can easily be a Satanist without necessarily being a LaVeyan-Satanist and also point in the direction that Anton LaVey was not the first one in any case regarding Satanism except gaining world-wide noterity.

 Quote:
I am seriously wasting my time on such a mudane person like you.


You are welcome to leave the discussion at any time you see fit.

Top
#35110 - 02/04/10 09:39 AM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
I think you are forgetting a simple thing in regards to those two individuals.

Modern communication/translations systems, and the internet.

It is probably one of the main reasons why no one has ever heard of those two men. In fact, I would bet you came across their names through the internet as well.

Oh, and as for Nietzsche, he did have a quote somewhere in his writings where he wished he was a Satanist. I will try to find the quote again and post it.

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



Top
#35118 - 02/04/10 12:19 PM Re: The Name [Re: Morgan]
TheInsane Offline
member


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

Modern communication/translations systems, and the internet.

It is probably one of the main reasons why no one has ever heard of those two men. In fact, I would bet you came across their names through the internet as well.


Nope. As I said above I came across it in Dr. Per Faxnelds book on pre-LaVeyan Satanism in the western world. It is called "mörkrets apostlar". I have only seen it in swedish but it seems like his papaer on Ben Kadosh (also mentioned above) is written in english if you want to read it.

 Quote:
Oh, and as for Nietzsche, he did have a quote somewhere in his writings where he wished he was a Satanist. I will try to find the quote again and post it.


I'd be glad to see that quote. I can't remember him writing that anywhere but I would not be surprised if he did.


Edited by TheInsane (02/04/10 12:21 PM)

Top
#35125 - 02/04/10 09:30 PM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
I am quite irritated by your close-mindedness and unability to read what I write above. I already wrote that Anton LaVey was NOT the first person to "put the label on something already existent". There WERE Satanism in "coherent system of thought and philosophy" before Anton LaVey and yes it WAS named Satanism. What in this is it that you do not understand?


Sigh. It's not that I'm not reading your posts, it's that I've heard these tired old arguments a million times from LaVey bashers and devil worshipers for years and years, most of which would have trouble fitting their sense of entitlement through a regular sized door. I'm only surprised you didn't throw August Strindberg into the mix, as per the usual.

The problem is that all of these men were not Satanists at all, but devil worshipers. Devil worshipers operate under a certain cosmology for which there is already a name:christian. If you want to classify heretical christianity as Satanism feel free, but don't expect anyone that matters to join you.

Since you seem to pride yourself on facts and evidence, why don't you tell us just what it is any of these devil worshiping fellows offered up in the way of philosophy that is not simply inverted christian theology, and we can go from there.

And finally. I don't think you understood what I meant when I said putting a label on something already existent. I suppose that makes sense given your generously inclusionary and egalitarian view of what Satanism means. I think we will just leave that as that.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35128 - 02/05/10 12:06 AM The S-Word [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
[to "TheInsane"] The problem is that all of these men were not Satanists at all, but devil worshipers. Devil worshipers operate under a certain cosmology for which there is already a name:christian. If you want to classify heretical christianity as Satanism feel free, but don't expect anyone that matters to join you.

As "Satan" is/always has been the Judæo/Christian Devil of Holy Bible infame, this is a circular, and therefore pointless objection. And, outside the mutually-validating world of Satanatheists, the worship of Satan remains what "Satanism" means. Trying to black-spraypaint that inconvenient fact here stops at your keyboard.

There have been many champions of Satan over the centuries: Milton, Shaw, Bierce, Blake, Baudelaire, Twain, et al. Whether any of these personally labeled himself as a "Satanist" is as meaningless as whether a modern guerrilla fighter labels himself a "terrorist". It is what they said and did that is pertinent.

As with any propagandistic term (e.g. Nazism, fascism, communism, racism, liberalism, etc.). "Satanism" has been used imprecisely by nonSatanists to tar & feather targets to whom they can get the tar to stick. Once again that does not support your argument; it refutes it all the more. If the term "Satanist" didn't mean J/C Devil-worship, it wouldn't be such an effective weapon in that context.

During the 1930s-1970s British author Dennis Wheatley wrote several fiction & nonfiction books frolicking with the term "Satanist" [including one with that specific title in 1960]. His "Black Magic series" reached a far wider audience than Anton LaVey did in 1966, and is probably the single most influential advertisement of the specific term "Satanism" in the early 20th century. [The fact that his stories are pretty silly mixups of Theosophy, Thelema, Huysmans, and even labor unions, communism & "Black Power" (in the civil rights sense) is once again beside the point.]

All of this said, I am personally not unsympathetic to the desire of any sincere proponent of a term to want the right to define it. I spent a lot of irritating and occasionally dangerous time in lectures, symposia, interviews, and media confrontations during the 1980s, all across the USA and in several other countries, trying to wrench "Satanism" back from disgusting scum who wanted to redefine it as ritual pedophilia, cannibalism, and murder. My task was not made any easier by occasional self-proclaimed "Satanists" like Ramirez and thrill-seeking teenage cat-killers. As in the Armed Forces, I and other serious authorities in academia & law-enforcement finally prevailed, but it was a ghastly business that consumed an entire decade.

So now "Satanism" in 2010. I have no personal axe to grind; I am a Setian, not a Satanist, after all. My interest in Satanism per se is essentially historic, particularly concerning the 1966-75 C/S. Today you, and Gilmore, and whoever else wants to use it can take the term "Satanism" forward, in whatever costume you wish to dress it. I would offer only a few considerations to you:

(1) If you're going to wear a specialized nametag, be clear in your own minds as to just why that nametag, and no other, fits. If it's for a serious, well-thought-out reason, fine. If it's just to make a splash, you're only wasting time and making yourself look pretentious. [As previously commented, I am impressed by the number & quality of the former type on 600C - though I don't think it's quite 100%.]

(2) Affirming yourself a "Satanist" is, outside of the 600C clubhouse, still prejudicially dangerous, career-jeopardizing, and life-rearranging generally. Be sure that your coherence, focus, and dedication are worth all that. Otherwise you might as well just walk around for the rest of your life with a "KICK ME HARD" sign pinned to the seat of your pants for the same net effect.

(3) On the positive side, what are you expecting from being "a Satanist"? Just an excuse for being a sulky misanthrope? Or a reasoned, materialistic lifestyle? Or to evolve into a god? In short, refine your goal from the fuzzyvague to the coherent & explicit. Then go there. [This, by the way, is what Crowley actually meant by his "Do What Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law", though you wouldn't know it from watching most Thelemites!]

(4) And finally: If you think that you're being a Satanist by imitating, quoting, or otherwise play-acting Anton Szandor LaVey, you aren't.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#35129 - 02/05/10 12:33 AM Re: The S-Word [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dan_Dread

 Quote:

Sigh. It's not that I'm not reading your posts, it's that I've heard these tired old arguments a million times from LaVey bashers and devil worshipers for years and years, most of which would have trouble fitting their sense of entitlement through a regular sized door. I'm only surprised you didn't throw August Strindberg into the mix, as per the usual.


Well I am neither a LaVey-basher or a devil worshipper. In fact my philosophical foundation probably is most closely related to Anton LaVey than any other Satanist.

 Quote:
The problem is that all of these men were not Satanists at all, but devil worshipers. Devil worshipers operate under a certain cosmology for which there is already a name:christian. If you want to classify heretical christianity as Satanism feel free, but don't expect anyone that matters to join you.


The problem with this approach is that the distinction between Satanism on one hand and devil worship on the other is something that was created after 1966. Im not sure if the early CoS even made difference between the two (the later definitely do). There was no distinction between the two until the CoS started doing is. That is as far as I know. If you have evidence that says differently feel free to point me in that direction.

As I said before, there were Satanists before 1966 using the term Satanism. They did have a codified system of thought based on Satan. The earliest incarnations of this thinking that we can prove seems to be from the shift around the 1890's and the 1900's. To let an organisation that emerged 66 years later re-define, or develop their own version of the term according to their beliefs is ok. But to also let this same organisation claim that their definition is the only true one, that they were first to codify Satanism and that if one wishes to call oneself a Satanist they should adhere to this philosophy only is not ok by me because its built on false history.

Just to clarify; there is quite another thing to believe that one's own version of whatever philosophy is the most truthful one though. I mean everyone chooses the philosophy they think is one closest to the truth. So I am not trying to say that the philosophy of Anton LaVey is not true.

 Quote:

Since you seem to pride yourself on facts and evidence, why don't you tell us just what it is any of these devil worshiping fellows offered up in the way of philosophy that is not simply inverted christian theology, and we can go from there.


I don't have a firm enough grasp of either Ben Kadosh's Satanism nor Stanislaw Przybyszewski's. But Ben Kadoshs main Satanic writing is available here http://www.neoluciferianchurch.org/text/kadosh-english.pdf (I am in no way affiliated with the organisation that provides this text – I didn't really knew they existed until just now). I only eyed through it just now and it doesn't strike me as inverted Christian theology. Do you disagree after having read the text?

You mentioned August Strindberg who I already did mention in the thread (confirming all your prejudice about me ;)) and while he did write that he was a Satanist a few times in letters no one really seems to think he actually was one. He did seem to have contact with both Kadosh and Przybyszewski so his random use of the term might not be so strange. But he never presented any kind of coherent Satanic philosophy and can't really be regarded as a early Satanist.


 Quote:

And finally. I don't think you understood what I meant when I said putting a label on something already existent. I suppose that makes sense given your generously inclusionary and egalitarian view of what Satanism means. I think we will just leave that as that.


If you go by the standard CoS version then “putting a label on something already existent” usually means that they regard Anton LaVey to be the person who put together a philosophy or rather named it and packaged it. As they regard Satanists to be born and not made there have of course been Satanists before Anton LaVey – he just put a name to it.

I don't use a “egalitarian view of what Satanism means” because I like it but because this religion/philosophy does not have a clear historical background. I think that by ascribing something like that when it's not really there just isn't the way to go.

It is easier in some ways for Christianity for instance, even if its up to debate on whether their canonical writings really describe what happened. It doesn't matter since they regard this as their foundation and historical basis. i.e. there were no Christianity before Christ. There were however Satanism and Satanists before Anton LaVey and TSB.

Michael A.Aquino:

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
[to "TheInsane"] The problem is that all of these men were not Satanists at all, but devil worshipers. Devil worshipers operate under a certain cosmology for which there is already a name:christian. If you want to classify heretical christianity as Satanism feel free, but don't expect anyone that matters to join you.

As "Satan" is/always has been the Judæo/Christian Devil of Holy Bible infame, this is a circular, and therefore pointless objection. And, outside the mutually-validating world of Satanatheists, the worship of Satan remains what "Satanism" means. Trying to black-spraypaint that inconvenient fact here stops at your keyboard.


I once had contact with a member of the CoS that used to call himself a devil worshipper as a way to play the devils advocate to the self-professed devils advocates so to speak. His reasoning was that the very basis on why some rejected the term devil worship was that they somehow interpreted the word “worship” as someone who bowed down and served a certain god or being (in this case Satan). However the word “worship” does not out of necessity have to mean this but can also mean, for example, “to respect; to honor; to treat with civil reverence" which would fit in nicely with any kind of Satanism since Satanists do respect, honor and threat Satan with civil reverence (whether or not it is literal or symbolic).

Top
#35131 - 02/05/10 03:18 AM Re: The S-Word [Re: TheInsane]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
Are there no English translations of Stanislaw Przybyszewski's work? In the long run, it doesn't change who I am or what I believe. "Satanist" will mean what it means to me and I really don't care what the devil worshipers call themselves (though I wish they'd stop making the wikipedia articles a god damned mess; they're a testament to the failure of modern education).

But from a historical perspective, these earlier writings are very interesting. At the very least, they're a snapshot of other views on Satanism (which I've been reading and collecting for five years, regardless of whether or not I find myself in agreement with them). At the most, they might provide an interesting set of ideas. Though I doubt whether they'll be the straightforward, down to Earth kind of stuff I'm used to reading on the subject.

Top
#35132 - 02/05/10 03:52 AM Re: The S-Word [Re: EvilDjinn]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I don't know about translations of Przybyszewski's work. All I seem to find is a German and a Polish version (Even though I do know some basic German its far from good enough to read a book in that language). I wish I could go back and look in Per Faxnelds book and see if he writes anything about a translation of his work but I'm in the middle of a big move (abroad even) and my books are all packed into boxes and put away for the time being \:\( This is also why I might not be active for a while on the forums starting tomorrow which is when I move (Dimitri will be happy at least ;)).

And just to clarify I do not suggest that Anton LaVeys Satanism has no right to call itself Satanism. Far from it, I absolutely see it as a legitimate branch of Satanism. I just don't see it as the one and only branch.

What kind of historical documents do you have on Satanism? I would be interested to have a look at them. I too collect documents from very diverse Satanic streams of thought. Of course most of which I don't agree with but I love reading about it and get to know “the field”.

Top
#35134 - 02/05/10 04:57 AM Re: The S-Word [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Thats cool. I actually said that thing about Dimitri tongue in cheek. Hence the smiley \:\)
Top
#35139 - 02/05/10 08:35 AM Re: The S-Word [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

As "Satan" is/always has been the Judæo/Christian Devil of Holy Bible infame, this is a circular, and therefore pointless objection. And, outside the mutually-validating world of Satanatheists, the worship of Satan remains what "Satanism" means. Trying to black-spraypaint that inconvenient fact here stops at your keyboard.

Says the trolling devil worshiper.

 Quote:

I have no personal axe to grind

Just keep telling yourself that mike. That it is otherwise is plainly obvious to everyone.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35149 - 02/05/10 02:53 PM Re: The S-Word [Re: Dan_Dread]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Says the trolling devil worshiper.

Dr Aquino seems more like a 'dark' neopagan to me. I'm not sure he 'worships' anything.

While I can't really fault his argumentative skill from a LBM perspective, or his recent attempts to flex his rhetorical muscles, I do think that Aquino's arguments are lacking in logical soundness.

In particular, his philosophical substance dualism raises many problems (see QualiaSoup's excellent critique), as does his adoption of Platonist metaphysics (even Plato eventually doubted the literal metaphysical existence of the Forms!) and insistence of consciousness's survival after death:

 Originally Posted By: David Hume - Of the Immortality of the Soul; 38, 43 (1755)
Nothing in this world is perpetual. Every being, however seemingly firm, is in continual flux and change: The world itself gives symptoms of frailty and dissolution: How contrary to analogy, therefore, to imagine, that one single form, seemingly the frailest of any, and from the slightest causes, subject, to the greatest disorders, is immortal and indissoluble? What a daring theory is that! How lightly, not to say, how rashly entertained!...
All doctrines are to be suspected, which are favoured by our passions. And the hopes and fears which give rise to this doctrine, are very obvious.
Read the rest (the most important section is from 30 onwards) here.

If "Satan" represents anything, it is doubt, and a commitment to 'reality' - i.e. avoiding the "sin" of self-deceit - no matter how comforting that intellectual self-deceit may be...

Top
#35151 - 02/05/10 03:04 PM Re: The S-Word [Re: EvilDjinn]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: EvilDjinn
Are there no English translations of Stanislaw Przybyszewski's work?

There are some here.

 Quote:
... I really don't care what the devil worshipers call themselves (though I wish they'd stop making the wikipedia articles a god damned mess ...

After reading this I looked up "Satanism" on Wikipedia; never did previously. I thought the basic article is harmless enough, but what a MEGO bar-fight in the "Discussion"! Makes threads like this in 600C seem positively schmoozy by comparison.

Thinking back on 1966-75, I don't recall the conceptualization of Satan/Satanism ever being an issue. Satanism was just what Satanists did, and we were them. If there were an underlying message that we were interested in getting across to the profane, it was that Satanism was now a positive religion in its own right, rather than a mere reaction to/negation of J/C. And [in the 60s-70s] we didn't run into much resistance to this, even from the profane churches. Most of the static came from the Wicca crowd, who were always falling all over themselves about we'rewitchesnotsatanists.

Now, as then, I am reminded of Miles Davis: "I'll play it first and tell you what it is later."
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#35154 - 02/05/10 04:08 PM Hume never found the Silver Key. [Re: Meq]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Meq
I'm not sure [M.A.A.] 'worships' anything.

I acknowledge the intelligent identity of Set [or "Satan" as I recognized him 1969-75]. To echo the words of G.B. Shaw in The Devil’s Disciple: “I promised him my soul, and swore an oath that I would stand up for him in this world and stand by him in the next.”

 Originally Posted By: Meq
While I can't really fault his argumentative skill from a LBM perspective, or his recent attempts to flex his rhetorical muscles, I do think that Aquino's arguments are lacking in logical soundness.

Logic is the branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of reasoning by which a conclusion is properly drawn from a set of premises, without reference to meaning or context. Thus it is a tool applicable to the physical universe exclusively. The realm of the neteru is metaphysical.

 Originally Posted By: HPL, The Silver Key
In the first days of his bondage he had turned to the gentle churchly faith endeared to him by the naive trust of his fathers, for thence stretched mystic avenues which seemed to promise escape from life. Only on closer view did he mark the starved fancy and beauty, the stale and prosy triteness, and the owlish gravity and grotesque claims of solid truth which reigned boresomely and overwhelmingly among most of its professors; or feel to the full the awkwardness with which it sought to keep alive as literal fact the outgrown fears and guesses of a primal race confronting the unknown. It wearied Carter to see how solemnly people tried to make earthly reality out of old myths which every step of their boasted science confuted, and this misplaced seriousness killed the attachment he might have kept for the ancient creeds had they been content to offer the sonorous rites and emotional outlets in their true guise of ethereal fantasy.

But when he came to study those who had thrown off the old myths, he found them even more ugly than those who had not. They did not know that beauty lies in harmony, and that loveliness of life has no standard amidst an aimless cosmos save only its harmony with the dreams and the feelings which have gone before and blindly moulded our little spheres out of the rest of chaos. They did not see that good and evil and beauty and ugliness are only ornamental fruits of perspective, whose sole value lies in their linkage to what chance made our fathers think and feel, and whose finer details are different for every race and culture. Instead, they either denied these things altogether or transferred them to the crude, vague instincts which they shared with the beasts and peasants; so that their lives were dragged malodorously out in pain, ugliness, and disproportion, yet filled with a ludicrous pride at having escaped from something no more unsound than that which still held them. They had traded the false gods of fear and blind piety for those of licence and anarchy.

Carter did not taste deeply of these modern freedoms; for their cheapness and squalor sickened a spirit loving beauty alone, while his reason rebelled at the flimsy logic with which their champions tried to gild brute impulse with a sacredness stripped from the idols they had discarded. He saw that most of them, in common with their cast-off priestcraft, could not escape from the delusion that life has a meaning apart from that which men dream into it; and could not lay aside the crude notion of ethics and obligations beyond those of beauty, even when all Nature shrieked of its unconsciousness and impersonal unmorality in the light of their scientific discoveries. Warped and bigoted with preconceived illusions of justice, freedom, and consistency, they cast off the old lore and the old ways with the old beliefs; nor ever stopped to think that that lore and those ways were the sole makers of their present thoughts and judgments, and the sole guides and standards in a meaningless universe without fixed aims or stable points of reference. Having lost these artificial settings, their lives grew void of direction and dramatic interest; till at length they strove to drown their ennui in bustle and pretended usefulness, noise and excitement, barbaric display and animal sensation. When these things palled, disappointed, or grew nauseous through revulsion, they cultivated irony and bitterness, and found fault with the social order. Never could they realise that their brute foundations were as shifting and contradictory as the gods of their elders, and that the satisfaction of one moment is the bane of the next. Calm, lasting beauty comes only in dream, and this solace the world had thrown away when in its worship of the real it threw away the secrets of childhood and innocence.


 Originally Posted By: Meq
In particular, his philosophical substance dualism raises many problems ...

It might if Setian philosophy were indeed "substance dualism", but it isn't. Once again, "substance" (as defined in your linked video) is necessarily of the physical universe, hence is thus intelligible by the rational/logical/scientific. Apprehension of the neteru, including of Set, is nœtic. Nœsis is approached by recognizing, then transcending the lower levels of Plato's "pyramid of thought" (eikasia, pistis, and dianoia); but it does not follow [logically] from this process: it is an ecstatic state of awareness.

 Originally Posted By: HPL, Through the Gates of the Silver Key
For the rite of the Silver Key, as practiced by Randolph Carter in that black, haunted cave within a cave, did not prove unavailing. From the first gesture and syllable an aura of strange, awesome mutation was apparent—a sense of incalculable disturbance and confusion in time and space, yet one which held no hint of what we recognise as motion and duration. Imperceptibly, such things as age and location ceased to have any significance whatever. The day before, Randolph Carter had miraculously leaped a gulf of years. Now there was no distinction between boy and man. There was only the entity Randolph Carter, with a certain store of images which had lost all connexion with terrestrial scenes and circumstances of acquisition. A moment before, there had been an inner cave with vague suggestions of a monstrous arch and gigantic sculptured hand on the farther wall. Now there was neither cave nor absence of cave; neither wall nor absence of wall. There was only a flux of impressions not so much visual as cerebral, amidst which the entity that was Randolph Carter experienced perceptions or registrations of all that his mind revolved on, yet without any clear consciousness of the way in which he received them.

By the time the rite was over Carter knew that he was in no region whose place could be told by earth’s geographers, and in no age whose date history could fix. For the nature of what was happening was not wholly unfamiliar to him. There were hints of it in the cryptical Pnakotic fragments, and a whole chapter in the forbidden Necronomicon of the mad Arab Abdul Alhazred had taken on significance when he had deciphered the designs graven on the Silver Key. A gate had been unlocked—not indeed the Ultimate Gate, but one leading from earth and time to that extension of earth which is outside time, and from which in turn the Ultimate Gate leads fearsomely and perilously to the Last Void which is outside all earths, all universes, and all matter.

There would be a Guide—and a very terrible one; a Guide who had been an entity of earth millions of years before, when man was undreamed of, and when forgotten shapes moved on a steaming planet building strange cities among whose last, crumbling ruins the earliest mammals were to play. Carter remembered what the monstrous Necronomicon had vaguely and disconcertingly adumbrated concerning that Guide.

“And while there are those,” the mad Arab had written, “who have dared to seek glimpses beyond the Veil, and to accept HIM as a Guide, they would have been more prudent had they avoided commerce with HIM; for it is written in the Book of Thoth how terrific is the price of a single glimpse. Nor may those who pass ever return, for in the Vastnesses transcending our world are Shapes of darkness that seize and bind. The Affair that shambleth about in the night, the Evil that defieth the Elder Sign, the Herd that stand watch at the secret portal each tomb is known to have, and that thrive on that which groweth out of the tenants within—all these Blacknesses are lesser than HE Who guardeth the Gateway; HE Who will guide the rash one beyond all the worlds into the Abyss of unnamable Devourers. For HE is’UMR AT-TAWIL, the Most Ancient One, which the scribe rendereth as THE PROLONGED OF LIFE.”


 Originally Posted By: Meq
[M.A.A.'s] adoption of Platonist metaphysics (even Plato eventually doubted the literal metaphysical existence of the Forms!) and insistence of consciousness's survival after death.

Sorry, but quoting David Hume's attack on Plato is not the same thing as quoting Plato. Hume saw reality exclusively through the lens of empiricism:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., The Ruby Tablet of Set
David Hume (1711-1776) is the father of modern empiricism, which holds philosophical and political values to be determined by habit and by their apparent utility, not by abstract virtues or ideals. Cosmologically he adhered to deism. The mere existence of a political system or institution, according to this approach, demonstrates that it has a part in God’s overall scheme of things. If it didn’t have such a part, it wouldn’t have come into existence. What that scheme might be is not addressed by Hume, hence political philosophy and systems cannot be measured critically according to it.

Looking at the human mind, Hume sees perceptions, which consist of impressions “when we hear, see, feel, love, hate, desire, or will”; and ideas “when we reflect upon a passion or an object which is not present”. Impressions are more “strong” and “lively” than ideas. All ideas are derived from impressions. As a blind man cannot have an idea of a color nor a deaf man an idea of music, so “we can never think of anything which we have not seen [or otherwise sensed] without us or felt in our own minds”. We cannot have factual knowledge of anything which can be conceived otherwise. Since it is possible to think that the Sun will not rise tomorrow, we cannot know that it necessarily will. The laws of nature which say that it will might change between now and then. Mathematics and geometry are examples of things in which principles cannot be conceived otherwise. One cannot think of a triangle whose internal angles do not add to 180°.

What Hume is getting at is that much of what previous philosophers had considered necessary cause-and-effect relationships is not that at all, but simply habit. “All reasonings [about causation] are nothing but the effects of custom; and custom has no influence, but by enlivening the imagination, and giving us a strong conception of any object.” ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#35159 - 02/05/10 10:06 PM Re: Hume never found the Silver Key. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Quote:
I acknowledge the intelligent identity of Set [or "Satan" as I recognized him 1969-75]. To echo the words of G.B. Shaw in The Devil’s Disciple: “I promised him my soul, and swore an oath that I would stand up for him in this world and stand by him in the next.”

I just have a statement to make: 'Go get 'em Mike!'
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#35163 - 02/06/10 02:24 AM Re: The S-Word [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
Thelnsane, I probably don't have anything terribly new or interesting. What I meant really was that I read all the perspectives on the subject that I find. So I read CoS literature as well as other things available (like Doctor Aquino's work or the ridiculous Joy of Satan website).

I do find pre-Year One Satanists to be quite interesting. Part of it is wondering if I would consider them Satanists if I bumped into them today. Part of it is trying to fully explore "Satanic roots", so to speak.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

There are some here.


After reading this I looked up "Satanism" on Wikipedia; never did previously. I thought the basic article is harmless enough, but what a MEGO bar-fight in the "Discussion"! Makes threads like this in 600C seem positively schmoozy by comparison.

Thinking back on 1966-75, I don't recall the conceptualization of Satan/Satanism ever being an issue. Satanism was just what Satanists did, and we were them. If there were an underlying message that we were interested in getting across to the profane, it was that Satanism was now a positive religion in its own right, rather than a mere reaction to/negation of J/C. And [in the 60s-70s] we didn't run into much resistance to this, even from the profane churches. Most of the static came from the Wicca crowd, who were always falling all over themselves about we'rewitchesnotsatanists.


Thanks for the link!

I wouldn't imagine that the early days of the Church would have warranted much worry over "what it means to be Satanist." From what I gathered out of your book on the subject, you guys were kind of going along with things. I don't mean this disrespectfully, but it seemed like you went along with what Dr. LaVey was saying and with your experiences.

Also until offshoots started sprouting up (what was Wayne West's song and dance? "the Church of Man?"), there doesn't seem like you had many people challenging you on the definition, except for of course the tired old devil worshiper accusations.

My thoughts on the manner concerning "the old days" is that they represented growing, experimental times. This is of course purely speculation and based on no direct experience of those events, but all religions have to deal with "heresies" to some extent. Christians stamped out Arianism, then Pelagianism. The Cathars, the Gnostics.

I think the Arianism controversy is the best analog, because it represents a more fundamental change in worldview. Christianity had its "founding documents", but all the issues weren't clarified until important figures sat down and decided on things. And two thousand years later, everybody believes in the Trinity.

Such it was with Satanism. As much as we all hold it dear, it is a religion like any other and subject to the same problems. You have an early period where certain things are established, but even then it's not going to fully take definitive shape for some time.

Like other religions, Satanism is an artificial construct created by human beings and "like the...idols" is subject to change by them. And quite honestly, the suitheist interpretation is the "most legitimate" right now. No, LaVey and the CoS don't "own" the word "Satanism", but their definition seems to take hold far more than any other, after of course the inverse-Christianity association which I don't think many people are laying claim to.

I don't mean to degrade other ideas, but they are separate animals, representing fundamentally different worldviews. Part of the reason I do have respect for Doctor Aquino is that he's not claiming to be a Satanist anymore, but a Setian. Completely different ideas, completely different worldviews, and different names. Doctor LaVey may not have been "first" but he's advertised a lot better and reached more people.

He said the right things at the right time. I believe he named it the "Combination Lock" principle.

Top
#35182 - 02/06/10 11:44 AM "If your heads alright, ya don't need binoculars.. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
...to see the light." (Motörhead)

Post moved to new thread. Please continue that discussion there.

Discussions about the name itself of "Satanism" and its use of "Satan" are best continued on this current thread.

Top
#41327 - 08/02/10 06:44 PM Re: The Name [Re: Sceevin]
SODOMIZER Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
 Originally Posted By: Sceevin
This was brought on by my finding of several petitions to get the definition for Satanism oficialy changed to only include the atheistic philosophy.


It seems to me that "Satanism" is a very inclusive "big tent" type belief system for all who believe in left hand path philosophies.

In a philosophical sense, these are probably best described as Social Darwinist beliefs, where morality doesn't mean "do what's right" but means "let the strong dominate the weak."

Very Ragnar Redbeard, I know, but that's the main difference between Christian/New Age/liberal morality and Pagan/Satanist/conservative morality.
_________________________
SC / O9A

Top
#72076 - 10/20/12 10:34 AM Re: The Attempt [Re: SODOMIZER]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
I came here, as a vagabond, because some other thread was closed. There have been various attempts at legitimate exchange on this point or that.

What has been sorely absent, however, is an ability to take the counterpoint at face value, strengthen it, and rejoin in force.

So, Dr. Mike likes to promote his worldview, which is, as he understands it, the FRUITION of Satanism. Funny thing is, we're all here, to a greater or lesser degree, arguing to our own individual fruitions of Satanism.

Is Dr. Mike's any less valid?

He is arguing, not only to a philosophical preference (Platonism), but also to a real metaphysics. And doubtless, he would maintain that these two are not distinct insofar as Set Har-Wer is the manifested reality.

And what exactly is the latter? Just simply a universe infused with self-awareness. What Dr. Mike terms the SU.

It's easy to blindly critique the worldview of another. It's far more difficult to actually understand the best in your adversary and truly rejoin.

JK
_________________________



Top
#73157 - 11/23/12 02:54 PM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
The study of Satanism pre-LaVeyan roots in the west is published in a book called “Mörkrets apostlar” by Ph.D Per Faxneld (I believe he achieved a Ph.D not long ago) at the University of Stockholm. I am not sure if the book is available in English but you can always ask him. There is an e-mail address to him on this page http://www.su.se/pub/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=8538&a=42100 (The link that says “Kontakt”). Or you can just start to look into people like Stanislaw Przybyszewski, Ben Kadosh and even Fraternas Saturni (even though some don't consider that group as purely Satanic in nature). I actually found a short online paper by Per Faxneld on Ben Kadosh as one example of pre-LaVeyan Satanism. It can be found here: http://www.ntnu.no/eksternweb/multimedia/archive/00082/Faxneld_82295a.pdf


Per Faxneld has an essay on Stanislaw Przybyszewski in Chapter 3 of The Devil's Party: Satanism in Modernity . I'll have to start a new thread on him. We're still facing a translation issue. Faxneld has a number of possibly relevant essays on the University site, but I have found nothing uploaded in english. SP himself wrote in german and polish. There are no definitive translations available in print of SP's work (be weary of the meager pdf offerings)

PS: I found this response/poster linked on a thread titled "Ophite Cultus Satanas"

_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#73160 - 11/23/12 07:25 PM Re: The Name [Re: Le Deluge]
Doctor Demon Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/09/12
Posts: 14
Loc: Washington, DC
Regarding Stanislas Przybyszewski, there is a lot of good, credible information about his work in the article by Larry Wolfe titled "Dynastic Conservatism and Poetic Violence in Fin-de-Siecle Cracow," American History Review, June 2001.

Przybyzewski was clearly not a religious Satanist at all but rather a literary-style Satanist who, like Proudhon and Bakunin, used Satan as a shock symbol to represent their anarchist / socialist political views against the establishment conservative religious power structures of the day.
_________________________
---------
Doctor Demon



Top
#73162 - 11/23/12 07:46 PM Re: The Name [Re: Doctor Demon]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: Doctor Demon
Regarding Stanislas Przybyszewski, there is a lot of good, credible information about his work in the article by Larry Wolfe titled "Dynastic Conservatism and Poetic Violence in Fin-de-Siecle Cracow," American History Review, June 2001.

Przybyzewski was clearly not a religious Satanist at all but rather a literary-style Satanist who, like Proudhon and Bakunin, used Satan as a shock symbol to represent their anarchist / socialist political views against the establishment conservative religious power structures of the day.


Thanks. One can access that free online: AHR June 2001

Bakunin and Proudhon are both referenced in Faxneld's essay. The lack of source material is troubling. He was certainly a symbolist. I don't know that I'd place him solely into a political context. He doesn't seem to practice a "religious" Satanism though either.

Oddly enough, a movie is coming out about his life: The Yellow Coat
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#75347 - 03/06/13 01:24 PM Re: The Name [Re: Le Deluge]
Doctor Demon Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/09/12
Posts: 14
Loc: Washington, DC
I just now got around to reading Faxneld's article about Przybyszewski in The Devil's Party and I have to say that it is the best article about him that I have read yet. Really first rate. His connections to other's of that era who made positive depictions of Satan in their writings has made me reassess Przybyszewski's place in the history of Satanism. Seems he was more influential ... and more explicitly Satanic... than I originally thought. It is rather unfortunate that it has taken this long to get anthingout him in English.

I'd be interested to hear from others here who have read The Devil's Party and what they thought of it.
_________________________
---------
Doctor Demon



Top
#75380 - 03/15/13 12:57 AM Re: The Name [Re: Doctor Demon]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: Doctor Demon
I just now got around to reading Faxneld's article about Przybyszewski in The Devil's Party and I have to say that it is the best article about him that I have read yet. Really first rate. His connections to other's of that era who made positive depictions of Satan in their writings has made me reassess Przybyszewski's place in the history of Satanism. Seems he was more influential ... and more explicitly Satanic... than I originally thought. It is rather unfortunate that it has taken this long to get anthingout him in English.

I'd be interested to hear from others here who have read The Devil's Party and what they thought of it.


My concentration centered on Pryzybsweski. Off the cuff, a number of chapters were irrelevant to my queary in buying the book. I have denoted this subject for future discussion.
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#75628 - 03/29/13 01:46 AM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
334forwardspin Offline
member


Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 509
Loc: Las Vegas,NV United States
I find the name Satan in LaVeyanism to be completely pointless. It is adversarial to Christianity, but so are a lot of philosophies. If your just adversarial to Christianity, you can easily just be that without calling yourself a Satanist.

LaVeyanism isn't really adversarial in any way, other than that. But if that's all it takes, you can spin a lot of things and call them Satanism.

All the name Satan in LaVeyanism does is be dramatic, and have a bunch of CoS related things show up when your searching for something relating to spiritual Satanism. There is a good reason 90% of 'theistic' Satanists don't consider it to be real Satanism.

Top
#75630 - 03/29/13 02:07 AM Re: The Name [Re: 334forwardspin]
wesgenerations Offline
lurker


Registered: 01/05/13
Posts: 2
Loc: n/a
My limited understanding of Satanism must be noted, however, it seems that a lot of the dogma found in LaVeyanism are counterpositions to Christianity. As an athiest, I find that relationship between the philosophy and the religion is hurtful to credibility to the philosophy, because the allusions to Christianity dates LaVeyanism to a time where Christianity's influence was more pronounced, and some of those particular counterpositions confuse the overall philosophy of LaVeyanism.
Top
#75635 - 03/29/13 06:42 AM Re: The Name [Re: wesgenerations]
334forwardspin Offline
member


Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 509
Loc: Las Vegas,NV United States
Most LaVeyan ideology, as well as most of the ideology advocated on spiritual Satanism paths goes against Christian ideology. However, my main point was that just disliking Christianity isn't a reason to call yourself Satanic.

I do think LaVeyanism would hold more credibility if it didn't call itself Satanism however I don't think that's what your referring to.

What counter positions to Christianity do you think confuse the overall philosophy of LaVeyanism, and in what way?

Top
#75640 - 03/29/13 10:11 AM Re: The Name [Re: 334forwardspin]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: 334forwardspin

I do think LaVeyanism would hold more credibility if it didn't call itself Satanism however I don't think that's what your referring to.


You do realize that Anton LaVey codified his religion under the banner of 'Satanism', right? No one prior to him had done this in any official capacity therefore he had a right to use the word to define his weltanschauung.

There is no such thing as LaVeyanism.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#75641 - 03/29/13 10:19 AM Re: The Name [Re: 334forwardspin]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
Oh boy, here we go again – theistic Satanism vs. atheistic Satanism. This topic has been argued to death. How can you have Satanism without Satan? What need is there for a literal Satan in a philosophy centered on the self? Around and around we go.

Do what works for you and call it whatever you like.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#75643 - 03/29/13 10:48 AM Re: The Name [Re: wesgenerations]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: wesgenerations
My limited understanding of Satanism must be noted, however, it seems that a lot of the dogma found in LaVeyanism are counterpositions to Christianity.


For many it starts and ends there. Those who proceed beyond this point find themselves adversarial to nearly everything which is not the endpoint either. There has to be a reckoning, a sorting of wheat from chaff, in order for one to determine how his/her individuality is important. The LHP is about walking that path. Destinations will vary.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#75648 - 03/29/13 06:22 PM Re: The Name [Re: Fnord]
334forwardspin Offline
member


Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 509
Loc: Las Vegas,NV United States
It's not about a right to use the word, it's if the religion fits the meaning of Satanism, which it doesn't. I could say my religion is about eating fast food 3 meals a day and call it Satanism if I wanted to. There were theistic Satanists long before LaVey, don't kid yourself. They just would be killed if they were open about it back in medieval times.

Edited by 334forwardspin (03/29/13 06:23 PM)

Top
#75650 - 03/29/13 07:37 PM Re: The Name [Re: 334forwardspin]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: 334forwardspin
It's not about a right to use the word, it's if the religion fits the meaning of Satanism, which it doesn't. I could say my religion is about eating fast food 3 meals a day and call it Satanism if I wanted to. There were theistic Satanists long before LaVey, don't kid yourself. They just would be killed if they were open about it back in medieval times.


Can you name specifics? A number of posters (myself included) have researched this. What I found: Satanism was usually thrown about as a missive. Obviously, Satan was used as a literary allusion from Milton forward. One can also identify "dark gods" within various cultures. I have never seen an actual line drawn that traces this to the present.

General Response: There are theists here. More common are folks with differential metaphysical concepts. I leave it to folks identifying as satanists to define it for themselves. I have agreements and disagreements with LaVey for an obvious reason: I'm not a LaVeyan Satanist! Still, I find him a fantastic author. I relate to fellow posters as our paths converge in temporality. LHP has *some* commonalities regardless of your destination. I get the need for the Church of Satan or First Satanic Church to convey to the media a lack of criminality. They aren't criminals! The same holds true for many individual practitioners. Others seem to disagree on (a)moral grounds. So be it. It changes nothing.

I've seen these debates here many times. Again? People will identify as they wish. I know damn well a number of the regular posters have nothing to prove. They don't need anything defined for them (Unless it is, yet again, for the sake of argument). Again, so be it. Just keep in mind, its been done. The honest non-satanists find it as ridiculous as the satanists. That should give each new "true way satanist" serious pause.

My 2 pence.
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#75651 - 03/29/13 07:51 PM Re: The Name [Re: 334forwardspin]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: 334forwardspin
It's not about a right to use the word, it's if the religion fits the meaning of Satanism, which it doesn't.


Then define the meaning of Satanism.


 Originally Posted By: 334forwardspin
I could say my religion is about eating fast food 3 meals a day and call it Satanism if I wanted to.


Then, in effect, your religion is meaningless.

 Originally Posted By: 334forwardspin
There were theistic Satanists long before LaVey, don't kid yourself. They just would be killed if they were open about it back in medieval times.


One thing you probably don't want to do here is assume too much. We've had this discussion many, many times and we're not driving this thread down that road as well. Please stop posting long enough to read from time to time.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#75656 - 03/29/13 11:29 PM Re: The Name [Re: Le Deluge]
334forwardspin Offline
member


Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 509
Loc: Las Vegas,NV United States
Well, if we're just talking about before LaVey, there is Our Lady of Endor Coven which I believe was a form of theistic Satanism dating to 1948.

I know that a lot of things were just labeled as 'Satanic' by Christians in medieval times that really weren't, and because in that era people would have had to hide there beliefs there it can be hard to find evidence of actual Satanic groups. Obviously you also can't trust any info you find on a Christian site.

However, groups like Brotherhood of Satan claim to have been around since the medieval ages and before.

Top
#75657 - 03/29/13 11:42 PM Re: The Name [Re: 334forwardspin]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: 334forwardspin
Well, if we're just talking about before LaVey, there is Our Lady of Endor Coven which I believe was a form of theistic Satanism dating to 1948.

I know that a lot of things were just labeled as 'Satanic' by Christians in medieval times that really weren't, and because in that era people would have had to hide there beliefs there it can be hard to find evidence of actual Satanic groups. Obviously you also can't trust any info you find on a Christian site.

However, groups like Brotherhood of Satan claim to have been around since the medieval ages and before.


Sloane? Yeah. Naglowska is a candidate. I did find a couple from the Late 19th to early 20th Century. A truly codified Satanism though? Hard to find. The Dark Gods were paid homage to in a number of cultures. You just don't have that line from A to B. In my view, LaVey's gift was an unapologetic antinomian streak. A scream in the darkness during the "Summer of Love" in SF. On this count, he was not the first or last. I don't identify with his philosophy entirely, but he did start something. I believe his actions made him a satanist. That is enough.
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#75659 - 03/30/13 12:15 AM Re: The Name [Re: Fnord]
334forwardspin Offline
member


Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 509
Loc: Las Vegas,NV United States
I thought this response didn't post, it apparently did.

Edited by 334forwardspin (03/30/13 12:26 AM)

Top
#75660 - 03/30/13 12:25 AM Re: The Name [Re: Fnord]
334forwardspin Offline
member


Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 509
Loc: Las Vegas,NV United States
1. Since Satan means adversary, it should be adversarial in some way if it calls itself Satanism. Not saying it has to be anti-everything society says(that would be stupid) but it should be against doing things for the sake of conformity. Also, it should be against the idea of judging the value of things by their popularity, and not aim to get a large following.

2. It would be, your right. But the point is, I could spin anything into Satanism by the idea of being Satanic because your adversarial to Christianity. For my example for instance, I could say I am anti to the idea that gluttony is a sin, and strongly embrace it.

3. I only said that because you said LaVey was the first to call himself a Satanist.

Top
#75661 - 03/30/13 12:40 AM Re: The Name [Re: Le Deluge]
334forwardspin Offline
member


Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 509
Loc: Las Vegas,NV United States
Yeah, Sloane.

Ancient cultures I believe were known to have cults,groups etc. that worshipped dark gods of their religion, and embraced ideologies similar to Satanism. Modern forms of Satanism often have Sumerian,Egyptian,Greek dark gods in their traditions, but the ancient groups wouldn't have been Satanic.

A Satanic group that openly called themselves Satanic would not have been found in medieval times, for obvious reasons. However, I do believe there has been some evidence found of actual secretive Satanic cults since the 17th century in Europe, although a lot of claims of this were pure superstition. This, and I am sure there were individual Satanist practicing unorganized Satanism.

It is a hard topic to research and find real evidence of though.

As for LaVey, I'm not sure I'd say he was antinomian. His philosophies seem to be centered around following human nature. Many of his philosophies were good, some of them I disagree with.

However, there are many non Satanic people who follow Satanic philosophy, the just don't associate it with Satanism in any way. I wouldn't consider them to be Satanic.

Top
#75662 - 03/30/13 12:51 AM Re: The Name [Re: 334forwardspin]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
If you open the door to the Dark Gods, you do get a different picture. I wouldn't conflate them with Satanism per se. I subscribe to a different magazine, but I know not to call it Satanism. He played a given role for a given people.
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#75665 - 03/30/13 10:44 AM Re: The Name [Re: Le Deluge]
evilboy666 Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/29/12
Posts: 57
Loc: Texas
Call it waht you will. Satan or no satan,I find The ,from persoal experience, that the left hand path makes a person stronger. That Pentagram makes one think. There is power there !
Top
#75669 - 03/30/13 05:28 PM Re: The Name [Re: evilboy666]
Blackbanner Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/12/13
Posts: 29
Loc: Bartow County,Georgia
I would tend to agree with you Le Deluge.So would Doctor LaVey as he said you must first be super normal before you can be super natural.If you believe it makes you stronger then it will.Yes there is true power in the Baphomet especially.It is a great focal point.

Hail Satan!

Top
Page all of 5 12345>


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

Generated in 0.078 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 74 queries. Zlib compression disabled.