Page 1 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: 3151
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: 1647
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: 3935
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: 3935
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: 3935
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: 3935
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
Page 1 of 5 12345>


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

Generated in 0.035 seconds of which 0.01 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.