Page 2 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#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: 3138
 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: 3138
 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: 3138
 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: 3887
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: 2573
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
Page 2 of 5 <12345>


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

Generated in 0.035 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.