Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#39848 - 07/03/10 10:32 AM Satanic Supremacy
NeoZombie Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 60
Loc: Minnesota, USA
http://www.helium.com/items/1751012-satan

Satan as the Church would have you believe does not exist. Satan, the true creator of the universe, exists before your very eyes as everything that you experience as life. The word "Satan" first originated with the language Sanskrit: it meant, true creator god. In Hebrew the word "Satan" means enemy or adversary. This idea that Satan is an evil entity was and is being created by Christianity which has it's roots in the Jewish faith. True Satanism predates ALL religions. But there is more to the story. Let me share the truth.

In order for one entity or power to have absolute control that power must create an enemy. Somehow it creates inspiration and motivation within the doer. Take for example, God, his illusional enemy is Satan or the devil if you will. This has great sway in getting the "believer" to buy your faith and thus take the widows last two mites. So Satan as the church would have you believe does not exist because to them he's nothing more than money in the plate.

Now we have all heard the term "Amen" right? This term is also http://xepervita.blogspot.com/one of Satan's names(Amon Ra or Amen Ra) So when you say "amen" after every prayer you are in fact still praising " the true creator god" Satan himself. Don't "believe" me? Look it up yourself don't let me or the church be you last word on Satan.

The story of the Nazarene is most likely not right. But I'm not going to be the judge of whether or not Jesus was the son of God or not. It does however seem weird that they would trace the blood line of Joseph when God was the artificial inseminater.

There are so many places one can find salvation on earth and fear of hell is not one of them. Satan is very real. Manifest as the entire universe before your very eyes. That's the truth. You're standing in Him as Him through Him as You. I'm not going to change anyone's beliefs because I know what's true and what's not. Satan is real, He is not live evil, and He loves you. I have come to experience the fact that all teachings of all religions are in some way a variation of Satanism. They have just changed the names to enslave people into believing that one person has come as God when in fact we all do. Enjoy!?

Top
#39850 - 07/03/10 11:09 AM Re: Satanic Supremacy [Re: NeoZombie]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Stop posting this bullshit! Satan is no more real than God, Jesus, or Eris. You theists are a big part of everything that is wrong with the world. Pull your head out of your ass, stop believing in imaginary friends and grow up.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#39852 - 07/03/10 11:20 AM Re: Satanic Supremacy [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
NeoZombie Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 60
Loc: Minnesota, USA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Stop posting this bullshit! Satan is no more real than God, Jesus, or Eris. You theists are a big part of everything that is wrong with the world. Pull your head out of your ass, stop believing in imaginary friends and grow up.


Hey sorry man just wanted to share it. cause it was from a year ago. I have gotten much fun from the emails at that site. People react to that "bullshit" and start, thinking acting, and knowing.
And are you meaning to tell me that in all of those 1220 posts or whatever, you did not post any BS? Sorry if I find this site Very sweet and would like to at least be a pledge. You are not the fist to hate my writing and I'll be damned if you will be the last. Hail Darkness!

ps, I really like your signature.
_________________________
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/
*Xepera*

Top
#39853 - 07/03/10 11:24 AM Re: Satanic Supremacy [Re: NeoZombie]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Many people that join here have the faulty impression that because someone declares themselves a Satanist, by definition, all others that do too will consider them as equal and applaud any contributions they share. The reality is quite different. Most regulars, and certainly the old-timers, aren't that philanthropic and only welcome contributions that match a certain standard. For most newbies it is unsettling but as long as they are wise enough to behave correctly, they are mostly treated with a reasonable amount of respect. We often tell them to first read here, get a good grasp of how this site functions, and then, after careful consideration, contribute posts or replies. And should their understanding be limited, or of an inquiring nature only, they are advised to post only in the 101 section of this forum.

As such, I advise you to reconsider your approach here. The main problem you'll encounter is that while your posts might gain some attention at a place which I consider the playground of generation I-pod, down here they fail to match the minimum standard we prefer. For someone, who according his profile, is close to thirty, the intellectual capacity you currently display, and the grammatical understanding of your own language, is what we call sub par. If you should be a Satanist, I assume you could do better.

If however this is the best you can do, I suggest you limit your revelations to an environment with a more relaxed nature.

D.

Top
#39854 - 07/03/10 11:43 AM Re: Satanic Supremacy [Re: NeoZombie]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
Why are you alive? Go kill yourself.
To mods and admin sorry for one liner.
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#39858 - 07/03/10 12:00 PM Re: Satanic Supremacy [Re: Ringmaster]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I do not think these kind of replies serve much purpose.

If you look around on the Internet, you'll notice that acting like rabble is one of the characteristics of the mass. I prefer to distinguish myself from them, exercise control over my initial emotions or reactions and act in a preferably honorable manner. It does not imply I have no extreme positions on subjects, it only implies I do enough effort to try and differentiate myself from the cheap and easy approach the populus takes.

D.

Top
#39859 - 07/03/10 12:08 PM Re: Satanic Supremacy [Re: NeoZombie]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I understand wanting to share but somethings are best kept to yourself.

I have made posts that people disagreed with and did not like but I have never once posted anything that espouses theistic garbage.

I like my signature too; it is from the song "Hell Yes" by Alkaline Trio.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#39860 - 07/03/10 12:10 PM Re: Satanic Supremacy [Re: NeoZombie]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
 Quote:
The word "Satan" first originated with the language Sanskrit: it meant, true creator god.


The word "satan" doesn't mean anything in Sanskrit: Sanskrit Dictionary.

I believe Tani J. of the Satanic Reds was the first to put this satan = Sanskrit meme out. It's a creative idea, but not accurate.

The word "Sat" in Sanskrit and many of its related modern languages today means: "Creature," "Animal," "Fauna," and so on; as in a dog or a bug. The word "An" has no meaning or value in Sanskrit.

If you do it like this: Sa-Tan then it could have a possible Sanskrit meaning. Sa means "She or Her," and "Tan" could mean the verb: "To Spread." So in this case Sa-Tan would mean "She Spreads" butter or something.

You should learn not to trust everything you read, and perhaps verify what you read before you put your total faith into it.

Satan as a concept or idea does not fit into the ontology or cosmology of any religion in India.

Satan coming from Hebrew is pretty accurate, but there may be a source for the Hebrew as well.

"Satan" as a god/deity/being concept or idea also did no exist in the original tribal cult of the Israelites or Canaanites or Phoenicians: http://phoenicia.org/pagan.html.

We would have to ask ourselves when exactly the Israelites threw away their many gods and became monotheists adopting Yahwey - who was previously a form of dagon - and found themselves an enemy for their monotheistic god. Perhaps Zoroastrianism gave the Israelites a model to work with?

Ancient Greek was around longer in written form than Hebrew. There was a time when the Greek word "Diabolus," and "Aitia/n" were used interchangeably to sometimes refer to the Cause of something: A source. There is a word in Latin "Eitiologia" which means something like the study of causation or something. It would make sense that Greek philosophers and later Greek Jews creating the Christian and Gnostic memeplex would use a word which means or refers to an "Original Cause" [or "Accused"] for a character in their mythos that was the First Cause of the Original Sin?

There is a giant book written by a yahud called "Hebrew Is Greek" which would support this idea that "Satan," or rather Satanas [or something close to that] was Greek origin.

Wherever the word "satan" came from, it's not Sanskrit and doesn't mean "true creator god." Different words for "Creator" in Sanskrit.


Edited by Caladrius (07/03/10 12:12 PM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#39862 - 07/03/10 12:36 PM Re: Satanic Supremacy [Re: Caladrius]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
[quote=Caladrius]
 Quote:

I believe Tani J. of the Satanic Reds was the first to put this satan = Sanskrit meme out. It's a creative idea, but not accurate.

The word "Sat" in Sanskrit and many of its related modern languages today means: "Creature," "Animal," "Fauna," and so on; as in a dog or a bug. The word "An" has no meaning or value in Sanskrit.

If you do it like this: Sa-Tan then it could have a possible Sanskrit meaning. Sa means "She or Her," and "Tan" could mean the verb: "To Spread." So in this case Sa-Tan would mean "She Spreads" butter or something.


Actually in the maning Tani uses Sat it means "being" and Tan means "becoming". Asat is Sat with a negative prefix and means "non-being" in what she claims to be pre-sanskrit deva-nagari. I have also looked this up in books on tantra and dictionaries (unreated to Satanism) and it holds up.

In the end of course, as you say, the word Satan in all probability does not come from Sat and Tan but the idea fuses well with the worldview of Tani and co. And I would say its a great read if you come by their articles (not just the free ones but also the ones you have to pay for). Tani tends to rant to much but there is alot of good information in there.

Of course I tend to prefer easter thought to modern western thought so that probably helps. In reality I am way more attracted to the idea of Kali or dharmakaya than to that of Satan even if I see Satan as a possible (somewhat distorted) representation of the same thing.

Top
#39980 - 07/05/10 01:36 AM Re: Satanic Supremacy [Re: NeoZombie]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
"Satan" is a Hebrew word meaning "enemy", or "adversary". It was never used as a proper noun (capitalized "S", "Satan") until MUCH later when the biblical Satan became a mythological figure-- and even then he was a servant of God, not a deity of evil as he was viewed in Jewish late-antiquity. And Hebrew is not related to Sanskrit, as any academic linguist will readily attest. Tani's philosophical concepts are all well and good, but the "Sat + Tan" correlation is an afterthought he pulled out of his ass to make his ideas seem more important.

The lovely thing about ancient mythology is that it's so vague and misunderstood is that we can retroactively bend it to fit in with any idea we think up. Can't a person settle down in a religion without trying to prove how it's actually the Ancient, One True Faith (tm)?

Satan is not some ancient, mystic, pantheistic creator-god. He is a relatively recent deity, a bastard demon stitched together with bits and pieces of middle-eastern theology mixed in with European pagan folklore. He is an elusive spirit of light and darkness, the antinomian trickster figure of the Western mythos. Can't you just accept Old Nick for the diabolic underdog he is instead of trying to make him out to be some Yahweh-painted-black? If you're looking for some primal all-encompassing religion, you'd have better luck with Babylonian or Egyptian mysticism, instead of attempting to dress the Devil up in clothes that don't exactly fit His sinister proportions.

Granted, this is my own personal view of Satan. Everyone has their own interpretation. But once you end up falling back on iffy etymology to support your claims, or trying to prove that Satanism is actually the ancient "one true religion", it might be time to re-evaluate a few things.


Edited by The Zebu (07/05/10 01:44 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#39987 - 07/05/10 05:13 AM Re: Satanic Supremacy [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
... Satan is not some ancient, mystic, pantheistic creator-god. He is a relatively recent deity, a bastard demon stitched together with bits and pieces of middle-eastern theology mixed in with European pagan folklore. He is an elusive spirit of light and darkness, the antinomian trickster figure of the Western mythos. Can't you just accept Old Nick for the diabolic underdog he is instead of trying to make him out to be some Yahweh-painted-black? If you're looking for some primal all-encompassing religion, you'd have better luck with Babylonian or Egyptian mysticism, instead of attempting to dress the Devil up in clothes that don't exactly fit His sinister proportions ...

Elegantly and sensibly put! This is the mystery and dilemma that the original Church of Satan faced, the deeper it got into its metaphysical bases. On one hand, by 1966 CE "Satan" had catalyzed, like "God", into an identifiable, focused concept in human consciousness. The Church of Satan began with as strong a vision of and allegiance to its patron as any other contemporary church. But unlike other churches, which discourage or prohibit investigation into their origins and substance, it was increasingly important for us to discover and comprehend ours. By the early 1970s this investigation was very active, by Anton LaVey not the least - which is the rationale for my oft-mentioned opinion that if the crisis of 1975 had never occurred, the Church would eventually have evolved into something very much like today's Temple of Set anyway, with Anton of course continuing as High Priest indefinitely. He undeniably had both the intelligence and the vision to raise the Church far beyond its adolescence, and it's a tragedy that the 1975 crisis shattered this.

As for the etymological origins of "Satan", I rather like Set-hen, "Eternal Set", one of his formal titles during the XIX-XX Setian dynasties of the Empire period - coincidentally during the time of the fabled Habiru migration from Goshen that became romanticized as the "Hebrew Exodus". Gerald Massey has certainly made an exhaustive case for the Egyptian origins of Judæo-Christian mythology.

But in the final analysis, the contemporary "Satan" is his/its "own modern thing", just as you summarized. The "Satan" of today would have made no sense whatever to the ancient Egyptians, Mesopotemians, Jews, or Christians. It took several thousand years to hammer him together like the Burning Man.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 1 of 1 1


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

Generated in 0.024 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 24 queries. Zlib compression disabled.