Page 3 of 6 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#45550 - 12/24/10 12:11 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Fnord Offline
senior member


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

I can CHOOSE to entertain these people that stood for their convictions and beliefs in Satan in the physical (which is VERY Satanic by the by.)


A belief in a physical (OU) manifestation of Satan is very Satanic... How?
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#45558 - 12/24/10 01:57 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Fnord]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Bull fucking shit. Show me ONE instance of me 'turning to personal insults' in this thread, or get off your high horse.


Oh my. I don't know why you are so worked up? Is it because I included you in a pack (wolves do tend to travel in them) or that I pointed out that you used the same sorry insult that others have.

Which is it?

I call bullshit in your innocence here Dan because those who have used the terms "word salad" or, in your case "word soup" was used in the attempt to insult the way I write. Bullshit yourself. \:\)

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

So which is it? Either the word, Satanist, means something, or it doesn't. You seem to be trying to have it both ways.


Firstly, those quotes do not contradict themselves. Please, I need further proof that I contradict myself anywhere in this thread.

Secondly, Satanism being individualized means something different to everyone. It is reprehensible in my eyes for either side to point a finger and call each other the "fake" Satanism. FFS, how much clearer can I state that?

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
One shouldn't have to ASK you what you think right after reading you go on for half a page about it. Yet, we still do. Why is that?


This post was research on Satanism before LaVey and those that called themselves Satanists before LaVey. The fact that you are trying to make it into something more than that is just ridiculous. That would be like your going to my thread on Luciferianism and asking me just what I believed there although it was clearly an attempt to make Luciferian ideas clearer for others. Get it?

Yes, there are those that fit the bill as Satanists. Some don't even take the label and yet live Satanically. If you want to know what it is I believe, why don't you ask me? This post was not a post to inform anyone of my beliefs but to show different types of Satanism that existed and evolved. If you deny Satanism's history and evolution, you are denying yourself your right to know where it originates and how it became what it was today.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45559 - 12/24/10 02:00 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Michael
Don't worry about DD; he just needs someone to throw verbal hand grenades at him every now and then. ;\)


I get that. He knows that I won't stand down. I am stronger than that. \:\)

 Originally Posted By: Fnord
A belief in a physical (OU) manifestation of Satan is very Satanic... How?


This statement and it being unclear I take full responsibility for. I meant the conviction they had and the ability to stand up as an adversary in a world of religious tyrants was a Satanic quality. I apologize for the confusion.


Edited by OrgasmicKarmatic (12/24/10 02:16 AM)
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45561 - 12/24/10 04:34 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I noticed you called satanists predators (somewhere) yet you seem to have respect for anyone's world-views (except Dan's of course), so logically I'd have to conclude you respect their ways of life too. This begs the question how much of a predator you can be when everyone seems to be your equal?

Is it just something that sounds good and Satanism is nothing but word-magic or are there severe differences between what a satanist is and what the rest are?

D.

Top
#45563 - 12/24/10 05:25 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
TheInsane...still pissing into the wind I see. Why do you even bother? The suit will never fit you.

Satanism is a name given to an existent phenomenon, a current manifested by others before LaVey, but had nothing to do with the dreaded S word prior to him. Many, yourself included, just do not possess the tools to see this for what it is. Don't feel bad son, it ain't for everyone.


Im not surprised you adressed me without actually answering my questions and statements. Does this mean you can't answer them?

Again, you are free to think that I do not fit the suit, I don't really care. However you should be challenged on what you say and since you can't support your claims about what the LHP is. So I ask you the same question again. Go back and read my last post and please answer my question.

If you again try to shift focus I will assume that you simply donít know what you're talking about in regards to what the LHP is both now and traditionally but apart from the LaVeyan Satanic current if you will.


And a new question, if Satanism was an existing phenomenon who were some Satanists according to you before LaVey? One of the main things about being part of a religion or philosophy is to accept the label. I definitely see Satanic traits in philosophers, writers etc before LaVey but if you deny the actual self-professed Satanists pre-LaVey who then were part of the already existing phenomenon of Satanism? One of the most ridiculous things that the CoS used to claim was that alt Disney was a Satanist just based on his worldly success). Its silly to even address such a notion. And while Nietzsche, Rand and Crowley (probably the 3 persons who most regards as an influence on modern Satansim) could be regarded as Satanic in one way or another neither was a Satanist.


 Originally Posted By: TheInsane


 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
I think you may have missed my point. The second you worship(befriend/believe in/accept) a 'greater power' outside of yourself, you have departed from the LHP. There is no such thing as theistic Satanism. Clearer? \:\)


I think its fair enough if you are honest and explain that your definition essentially is LaVeys definition and tell people that. However, as I've seen before, you do not present the history of self-proclaimed satanist correctly. You also dismiss their system of thought even though you admit to not having read any of the documents they produced. And now you try to equal LHP with your "true Satanism". Sure they are connected but LHP can absolutely be theistic. Its roots are from a theistic religion - a tradition that is still alive and well today (vamachara, vama marga, tantric hinduism).

So really what is LHP to you and when did it get transformed, according to you, into a atheistic system only?

Top
#45564 - 12/24/10 06:18 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:
And a new question, if Satanism was an existing phenomenon who were some Satanists according to you before LaVey? One of the main things about being part of a religion or philosophy is to accept the label.

I think you should reread Dan's commentary. The people who pulled up the label before ASL are not to be considered as the same Satanists today. They are using the same name but can be (and probably are) very different then the definition of Satanism NOW.

When it also comes down about being part of the Satanic philosophy, simply accepting doesn't make you one. Recognition without any adaptation is the magical process. The fact that for your certain attitude you have had since your birth is almost entirely related and described within the philosophy while enabeling to put up a one-word description makes it worth-while.

 Quote:
I definitely see Satanic traits in philosophers, writers etc before LaVey but if you deny the actual self-professed Satanists pre-LaVey who then were part of the already existing phenomenon of Satanism? One of the most ridiculous things that the CoS used to claim was that alt Disney was a Satanist just based on his worldly success). Its silly to even address such a notion. And while Nietzsche, Rand and Crowley (probably the 3 persons who most regards as an influence on modern Satansim) could be regarded as Satanic in one way or another neither was a Satanist.

Anyone can claim who is and who is not. Don't you think it's more intelligent to actually be instead of reference/reverence towards others?
It's not because some have had "Satanic traits" by popular history that those people should be considered Satanists. Debate about their ideas, not about their possible mindset and labels which you are trying to pull them on..
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#45565 - 12/24/10 07:18 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dimitri:
 Quote:
I think you should reread Dan's commentary. The people who pulled up the label before ASL are not to be considered as the same Satanists today. They are using the same name but can be (and probably are) very different then the definition of Satanism NOW.


My interpretation of his commentary came from this; ĒSatanism is a name given to an existent phenomenon, a current manifested by others before LaVey, but had nothing to do with the dreaded S word prior to him.Ē My interpretation was that he meant the philosophers for example that manifested Satanic traits but didnít use the S-word. I may be wrong though.

 Quote:
When it also comes down about being part of the Satanic philosophy, simply accepting doesn't make you one.


Agreed for sure. I am however of the opinion that you have to accept the title to actually be considered a Satanist together with putting the actual philosophy into practice. I do not think a person is a Satanist if he or she rejects the title but as you said a lot of people who accept the title arenít really Satanists either.

 Quote:
Anyone can claim who is and who is not. Don't you think it's more intelligent to actually be instead of reference/reverence towards others?


For sure! Which is why I stand against labeling someone something they clearly didnít consider themselves to be (at least not to the public) even though they had a huge impact on the movement that became Satanism for example.

Top
#45569 - 12/24/10 10:17 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:
I am however of the opinion that you have to accept the title to actually be considered a Satanist together with putting the actual philosophy into practice. I do not think a person is a Satanist if he or she rejects the title but as you said a lot of people who accept the title arenít really Satanists either.

A mindset which is quite common in about every philosophy or religion. You are most certainly true you have to somewhat "accept" the label and other possible results from starting to wear the label in the open. There are differences between people. The label of Satanist is one a person with a very specific mindset only can wear. It has been said there only is Satanism, adjectives before the label most of the time indicate that a person wants to fit the label (but will lack parts of the mindset/common sense needed).

I remember someone saying here that it is not a philosophy of dry theory and theoretical study but has to be lived in the open field (Credits to Jake, Diavolo, Dan and Morgan..one of them said it the first time and if not then they at least repeated it long enough on other occasions) (also mentioned in the SB, don't ask me pages or chapters since I don't know the whole book by heart).

I don't know for what reason Dan is thinking you are trying to fit the label (and failing it), but I think you are simply trying too hard to swallow way too much unrelated theory and history about Satanism instead of living it.

I'll be not surprised if some comment with an attempt of justification will come this way. You are what you write here and I would love to believe you are living a "Satanic" life. Only your posts are giving another view then the one you supposedly want to have it.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#45570 - 12/24/10 11:30 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dimitri]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
There is a saying : "Deeds not Words"

Anyone can write a book, or post on the internet, but it is what they do in real life that matters.

Unless you live the path through action, how can you be a Satanist?

Here then is my challenge, what have you done as action in real life to earn you the right to call yourself a Satanist?
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#45572 - 12/24/10 11:40 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: mabon2010]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:
Here then is my challenge, what have you done as action in real life to earn you the right to call yourself a Satanist?

Living it like I see fit.
There are some things I see as great achievements and perhaps have exaggerated about (who doesn't when being utterly intrigued and motivated by personal discoveries?). Some events I was present which can be called a priviledge in some circles (and I felt was a priviledge) but probably doesn't look that intriguing or interesting to the greater mass.

Also makes me wander with the idiot premise of "I've made a contribution towards Satanism, what's yours?". I think it's more intelligent to make your life an achievement instead of writing tons of books and research papers and opinions/blogs about all things related towards/with Satanism.


Edited by Dimitri (12/24/10 11:47 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#45575 - 12/24/10 12:26 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: mabon2010]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: mabon2010
Here then is my challenge, what have you done as action in real life to earn you the right to call yourself a Satanist?


Challenge yourself first. I think you'll find the proverbial "three fingers" pointing back at you long before anyone on 600 is belittled by such posturing.

JK
_________________________



Top
#45578 - 12/24/10 01:47 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Jason King]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3812
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: orgasmickarmatic

I call bullshit in your innocence here Dan because those who have used the terms "word salad" or, in your case "word soup" was used in the attempt to insult the way I write. Bullshit yourself.


When you write and write and write and never make a point, what you have is word salad. This is not a 'personal attack', but an observation. I am far from the only one to point this out either; take responsibility for your own shortcomings.

 Quote:

Secondly, Satanism being individualized means something different to everyone. It is reprehensible in my eyes for either side to point a finger and call each other the "fake" Satanism. FFS, how much clearer can I state that?

So Satanism is anything anyone wants it to be. This flies in the face of your statement that 'you are not an anything goes satanist', which you later clarified as meaning Satanism has definition, ie it can't be anything. You are either being disingenuous or you are not thinking this through. I'd like to think it is the latter.

 Quote:

Yes, there are those that fit the bill as Satanists. Some don't even take the label and yet live Satanically. If you want to know what it is I believe, why don't you ask me? This post was not a post to inform anyone of my beliefs but to show different types of Satanism that existed and evolved. If you deny Satanism's history and evolution, you are denying yourself your right to know where it originates and how it became what it was today.

Honestly, I don't even think you know what you believe. I base this off a LOT of interaction with you, not just this thread. As for the history of Satanism..you were what..1 when I first started studying this? I may know a thing or two ;\)

The fact is, devil worship has absolutely nothing to do with Satanism as it is practised now, and like every other faith based religious system, is completely antithetical to it. That many choose to dye their wool black does not make them wolves.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#45580 - 12/24/10 02:06 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3812
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
TheInsane.

You can't teach Satanism, and you have already shown the stuff you are made of elsewhere. It's no sweat off my balls if you want to identify every christian heretic in history as being of the LHP but it doesn't really help your credibility.

Your all inclusive vision of what Satanism is quite telling. To some, what makes Satanism distinct is glaringly obvious, to others its a game to play on the internet. Again, no sweat off my balls.

Regardless, I will share a pearl for the readership. LHP is the lawless way. Doing rather than dreaming. Being rather than becoming.Carnality rather than spirituality. Looking inward rather than looking outward. There is no redefinition here, only the inevitable end of following a logical progression though to the end. This fits both from the original eastern paradigm(vama marga) though the linguistic paradigm shift into the western based LHP paradigm we have today.

Do you think maybe changing the name and personality of the object of worship changes the fundamental 'stuff' of the path itself? Think carefully.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#45586 - 12/24/10 02:55 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
I don't know for what reason Dan is thinking you are trying to fit the label (and failing it), but I think you are simply trying too hard to swallow way too much unrelated theory and history about Satanism instead of living it.

I'll be not surprised if some comment with an attempt of justification will come this way. You are what you write here and I would love to believe you are living a "Satanic" life. Only your posts are giving another view then the one you supposedly want to have it.


Dan doesnít like me and its as simple as that. Unconventional, questioning and adversarial people usually donít make many friends but they do spark debate. Iíd like to think I have done so more than once and you are one of the people who I feel jumped into a debate and where we could actually have a good exchange of ideas.

I have written close to nothing about my personal life here so how anyone can judge whether my life is lived in a Satanic way or not is not really justified. I think all this stems from heated debates about the topics on politics and will where I hold a position that does differ from some of the more influential members here.


 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
You can't teach Satanism, and you have already shown the stuff you are made of elsewhere. It's no sweat off my balls if you want to identify every christian heretic in history as being of the LHP but it doesn't really help your credibility.
Your all inclusive vision of what Satanism is quite telling. To some, what makes Satanism distinct is glaringly obvious, to others its a game to play on the internet. Again, no sweat off my balls.


I donít regard everyone who claims the title of Satanist as a Satanist. However I always try to bring forth the truth when people like you claim there was no such thing as self-professed Satanists pre-LaVey (something not even LaVey denied Ė at least during the early years) that did have a coherent ideology based on the character of Satan.

The problem and blessing (well you know what I mean) with Satanism is that it has no one historical origin. No holy book and no static doctrine. Its in its essence to be dynamic, full of doubt and evolving. The Christians can easily claim that they are of the right faith because they regard their interpretation of the holy scripture as the correct one. Satanism doesnít have a holy scripture and thus no scripture claiming to be the truth now and forever.

I have my definition of Satanism that I think is true (otherwise I wouldnít believe what I believe) and as far as I remember you agreed with me or understood my viewpoint in a lot of cases. At the same time I donít discard every other branch of Satanism but I do not accept them all either. The Joy of Satan is one example and the Temple of the Black Light is another of the latter.

You and me do have differences in ideology but I fail to see what in my views you consider to be unsatanic. I would like a debate on this for you to clarify your point instead of just saying the costume doesnít fit. Pehaps in PM or here Ė doesnít matter to me.

 Quote:
Regardless, I will share a pearl for the readership. LHP is the lawless way. Doing rather than dreaming. Being rather than becoming.Carnality rather than spirituality. Looking inward rather than looking outward. There is no redefinition here, only the inevitable end of following a logical progression though to the end. This fits both from the original eastern paradigm(vama marga) though the linguistic paradigm shift into the western based LHP paradigm we have today.


I think your definition in a lot of ways is correct but what you forget is that the LHP in the traditional sense really is a non-dualistic wisdom tradition. It is to realize that the body and the spirit is the same thing and this is also the basis of antinomian thought that stems from realizing wisdom from what is regarded as impure by the main branch of religion or society. It is not a strife to dissolve yourself or to conquer death. It is a strife to understand the underlying non-dualistic foundation of the world. It also takes a theistic approach in most cases but the though is that the all is one and thus divinity is also in us. Now this is traditional vamacara and of course it differs from western manifestations (yours and mine) but to claim that the LHP can only be equated with the LaVeyan interpretation of the concepts is to close minded and disregards history of a tradition that has existed for thousands of years and still exists today.

Now my biggest disagreement with your definition of the LHP above is the notion of being rather than becoming. To me Satanism is essentially a view of life and the world as constantly becoming, changing and evolving much in the sense of Heraclitus (and Nietzsche for that matter). I also see that the Satanist isnít just happy with being but always strives to become something more. This is the basis of the elitist thought through merit Ė meritocracy.

Top
#45588 - 12/24/10 03:54 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3812
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
This is mostly a matter of equivocation..a trap of language with many pitfalls. Satanism is certainly riddled with them. When I think of Satanism pre LaVey I think of people like Ragnar Redbeard, Max Stirner, or Neitzche, who although lived before their philosophy was crystallized with a label, were still manifesting the same philosophy and ideology.

On the other hand, people like your selection of devil worshippers were doing something completely different. To say these two very distinct things can be lumped under the same header, or imply they are different ways of doing the same thing, seems counterproductive. The fact that you don't miss a beat trying to shoehorn the latter into the same box as the former is why we keep having this same..tired..discussion.

As for being vs becoming...

I am what I am, at my core. Though I constantly refine what I DO, that says nothing about what I AM. It is the prophets of the RHP that sing the song of becoming something ELSE, generally because of the belief that as we are now we are somehow broken or incomplete. This latter I find to be very anti-human at its core.

In that, Satanism is about BEING the animal we are rather than trying to leave that behind in the name of some idealistic notion of what we SHOULD be.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
Page 3 of 6 <12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.05 seconds of which 0.015 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.