Page all of 6 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#45471 - 12/23/10 01:08 AM Ophite Cultus Satanas/Others before LaVey
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
This cult, otherwise known as Our Lady of Endor Coven, was started in the late 1940's. I should mention here it was started by a man by name of Herbert Sloane I stumbled across this group as I was looking for evidences of those that called themselves Satanists before the organization of the CoS by Mr. Anton LaVey.

They proclaimed themselves as Satanists and revered the serpent that came into the garden of Eden as Satan. Satan being considered the Bringer of Knowledge. (Much like a Luciferian's idea of Lucifer being the Light Bringer to humans.)

 Originally Posted By: Encyclopedia of Columbia
The cult of Satan, or Satan worship, is in part a survival of the ancient worship of demons and in part a revolt against Christianity or the church. It rose about the 12th cent. in Europe and reached its culmination in the blasphemous ritual of the Black Mass, a desecration of the Christian rite. The history of early Satanism is obscure. It was revived in the reign of Louis XIV in France...


 Originally Posted By: Works Cited http://yawiki.org/proc/Satanism#13
Johann 1. Georg Faust. (16th century, Germany) Many instructions, in German and in Latin, for making a pact with the Devil were attributed to him. These were collected and published in Germany in a few of the volumes of Das Kloster.

2. Many adherents of the Decadent movement, such as the Polish author Stanis?aw Przybyszewski, the Belgian artist F�licien Rops, and the French poet Charles Baudelaire (who published his poem, Les Litanies de Satan, "The Litanies of Satan" in 1857) either called themselves Satanists, or created overtly Satanist artwork and literature.


This was also from the aforementioned page:
 Quote:
At least two Satanic (or "Luciferian") sects existed in France in the 1930s. One was led by Maria de Naglowska, and had rituals dedicated to Satan and Lucifer. Another, led by a former Catholic priest, celebrated an inversion of the Latin Mass (a "Luciferian Mass"), which included the phrase "In nomine Domini Dei nostri Satanae Luciferi Excelsi" (a phrase that re-appeared 30 years later in Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible).

The Ophite Cultus Satanas ("the Ophite Cult of Satan"), a group founded in Ohio in 1948, said they worshipped the Ophite serpent, which they called Satanas (Satan).


There were a few more but I didn't want to flood the post.
Anyone have any comments or perhaps done any research of their own they'd like to offer up in reference to the Cult listed or Satanism before the 1960s?


Edited by OrgasmicKarmatic (12/23/10 01:11 AM)
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45474 - 12/23/10 02:01 AM devil worshippers [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
 Quote:
Anyone have any comments or perhaps done any research of their own they'd like to offer up in reference to the Cult listed or Satanism before the 1960s?

Yeah yeah, after not very careful consideration I think this is my favorite version of this beatdown.

http://www.the600club.com/topic35134-1.html

Featuring "Stanislaw Przybyszewski, Ben Kadosh and even Fraternas Saturni" (credit TheInsane), the row continues here

http://www.the600club.com/topic40287-6.html#Post40143

and there are Ophites in it by around there too, along with Templars, Cainites, and sundry.

It's all much ado about nothing though. FTW

 Originally Posted By: Dan Dread
Still insisting that christian heresy is Satanism I see. I for one did not find any of your arguments to that end very convincing.

It's odd how the line between the two is so glaringly obvious to some and to others it may as well not exist at all. Some things can't be taught
_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#45475 - 12/23/10 02:07 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Aklo]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
I am still in the processes of walking through all the information throughout this site. Thanks for the links, I will check them out but the pre-sentence of "favorite beatdown" kind of makes me wary of even reading it.

These were orgs that I was reading about and asking for honest opinions and research. Since you have given me yours, much appreciated.

Despite that, these people were self proclaimed Satanists whether or not the worshiped the devil. Theistic Satanists are NOT lesser Satanists. \:\)


Edited by OrgasmicKarmatic (12/23/10 02:09 AM)
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45486 - 12/23/10 06:38 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Basically its a matter of definition.

* People used the word Satanism pre-LaVey (everyone agrees on that)

* There were self-proscribed Satanists before LaVey (not everyone agrees on that since they regard LaVeys definition of the religion/philosophy to be the only correct one and these people stand out from “the true faith of Satanism” or whatever).

Basically there were people calling themselves Satanists with a religious or philosophical foundation based on Satan (sometimes a deep understanding and sometimes not so much). However LaVey cemented his legacy quite well so alot of people disregard those that came before him (most often without knowing what they actually stood for).

Revisionism of history happens all the time. Satanism is no exception...

Top
#45499 - 12/23/10 09:58 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
Theistic Satanists are NOT lesser Satanists. \:\)



Please watch the first 1 minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSgTjKo7ZqI

Your statement is actually much broader and less specific than you might think.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#45503 - 12/23/10 12:02 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Fnord]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Seriously, watch that video. ^^

 Quote:

Theistic Satanists are NOT lesser Satanists

No they aren't, in the same way a bicycle isn't a lesser car.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#45507 - 12/23/10 12:50 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Seriously, watch that video. ^^

 Quote:

Theistic Satanists are NOT lesser Satanists

No they aren't, in the same way a bicycle isn't a lesser car.


Good turn of a phrase and quite well put, Dan. It never ceases to amaze me how much the oranges want to be apples, and will warp time and space to make it happen, even if in their own minds.

How are an orange and a bicycle alike? They both have handlebars, except the orange.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#45508 - 12/23/10 01:01 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: OrgasmicKarmatic
Theistic Satanists are NOT lesser Satanists. \:\)

Strictly speaking, they are the only authentic Satanists. The 600C is predominantly a forum for atheists who find that term too dull for a sexy self-image. This mirror has been held up before, but you won't get any thanks for scraping the paint off it again.

 Originally Posted By: Anton LaVey, Tools for "The Madness of Andelsprutz"
...
• A microscope with which to detect imperfections.
• A spray can of black paint with which to cover up any inconvenient imperfections.
...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#45513 - 12/23/10 02:03 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Just want to clarify, if the comments were aimed at me, that I am no theist. I do not really share more with any of the pre-LaVeyans either than I do with LaVey.

People who claim that there were no self-proclaimed Satanists with a coherent ideology based on Satan before LaVey are just plain wrong. But yeah, LaVey had lots moe impact and saw more success - at least in regards to promoting his Satanism.

Top
#45514 - 12/23/10 02:42 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
However LaVey cemented his legacy quite well so alot of people disregard those that came before him (most often without knowing what they actually stood for).


Agreed.

 Originally Posted By: Fnord
Please watch the first 1 minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSgTjKo7ZqI

Your statement is actually much broader and less specific than you might think.


Watched the video. Enjoyed the video even though it is quite formal.

Revision: Today's Theistic Satanists are no lesser Satanists. Even if they project their energies to/through an external deity; the theists that I know still live by "Responsibility to Responsible".

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

No they aren't, in the same way a bicycle isn't a lesser car.


In the same way the pencil can be proven to be mightier than the pen.

 Originally Posted By: Jake999
How are an orange and a bicycle alike? They both have handlebars, except the orange.


Actual similarity between orange and bicycle? They are both VERY healthy for you. ;\) LOL

 Originally Posted By: Michael

Strictly speaking, they are the only authentic Satanists. The 600C is predominantly a forum for atheists who find that term too dull for a sexy self-image. This mirror has been held up before, but you won't get any thanks for scraping the paint off it again.


Im not so sure about the first statement that you made BUT yes, I have seen the threads now. Again, trailing the many, many threads around here takes time.

 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
Just want to clarify, if the comments were aimed at me, that I am no theist. I do not really share more with any of the pre-LaVeyans either than I do with LaVey.


Neither am I but I could be considered on to the untrained eye.

 Originally Posted By: TheInsane

People who claim that there were no self-proclaimed Satanists with a coherent ideology based on Satan before LaVey are just plain wrong


Agreed.

However, I must make mention that someone telling a LaVeyan Satanist that they aren't Satanists but products and claiming to be a one and true Satanism seems a tad bit ridiculous as well. (This not aimed at anyone in specific if anyone was wondering.)


Edited by OrgasmicKarmatic (12/23/10 02:44 PM)
Edit Reason: a btw
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45515 - 12/23/10 03:06 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
TheInsane Offline
member


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

However, I must make mention that someone telling a LaVeyan Satanist that they aren't Satanists but products and claiming to be a one and true Satanism seems a tad bit ridiculous as well. (This not aimed at anyone in specific if anyone was wondering.)


Absolutely! This is especially true with self proclaimed "traditional satanists" who claim that their tradition has a history of several hundered years or even thousands of years. Of course they havent really but people in general seem to think that the older something is the more true it is in regards to religion.

Top
#45516 - 12/23/10 03:40 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: OrgasmicKarmatic
Theistic Satanists are NOT lesser Satanists. \:\)

Strictly speaking, they are the only authentic Satanists. The 600C is predominantly a forum for atheists who find that term too dull for a sexy self-image. This mirror has been held up before, but you won't get any thanks for scraping the paint off it again.

 Originally Posted By: Anton LaVey, Tools for "The Madness of Andelsprutz"
...
• A microscope with which to detect imperfections.
• A spray can of black paint with which to cover up any inconvenient imperfections.
...



I think you forgot to link your e-book.

Anyway, all you have really pointed out here is the reason for your departure from Satanism in the first place - You are still now, as then, working in a RHP paradigm.

Satan doesn't need layer upon layer of superstition to be meaningful, nor does the word Atheist or Atheism really have any descriptive power in any positive sense.

Your view of Satanists as a bunch of people defining themselves by something they don't even believe in and flavouring it with Satanic trappings because it is too 'boring' is the same absurd strawman today as it was when you first wrote that.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#45517 - 12/23/10 03:46 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: I



No they aren't, in the same way a bicycle isn't a lesser car.


 Originally Posted By: OrgasmicKarmatic
]
In the same way the pencil can be proven to be mightier than the pen.

HUH?

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? \:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#45518 - 12/23/10 03:53 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
Analogy, Dan. (Pencil is mightier because it can be erased and a pen can't?.. Anyone? Hmmm...)

I do not misunderstand your point. All this is from your point of view. Accepted. Clear? ;\)
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45519 - 12/23/10 04:06 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Not my point of view so much as the Satanic one, but not everyone is going to get that.

Feel free to paint whatever you wish as Satanism, but until you can explain just how or why these views should be taken seriously, you should probably work them out so they are at least coherent in your own head.

Have you?

Why don't you explain to us how superstitious belief can fit into a paradigm centered on doubt? Let's quit dancing around and get to the point already. If it's just 'my point of view' that these things are mutually exclusive, lets have another.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#45520 - 12/23/10 04:15 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I myself am not really bothered about all those different types of Satanism. I prefer to interact with people based on what they are and not really on how they prefer to translate their world-view although I admit, I do have a hard time with anyone kneeling down for something or asking it for assistance. I don't find it dignifying.

Lavey created Satanism and since the devil-worshipers didn't protest, it became the most influential form of Satanism. After him, many tried the same, some more successful than others, and it's a part of the game to be the truest. After all, even all those different types of Satanism just behave according their nature and try to gain dominance. Time will tell who'll be the next king of the hill.

D.

Top
#45521 - 12/23/10 05:03 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Diavolo]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Feel free to paint whatever you wish as Satanism, but until you can explain just how or why these views should be taken seriously, you should probably work them out so they are at least coherent in your own head.

Have you?


Before you start making me out to be some "freedom for all" Satanist..

These views from their standpoint are to be taken seriously by themselves. They view their reverence for Satan/Dark Lord just as seriously as you take your ADM. They stood up for what they believed in and many were persecuted for what they believed.

I've said this many times to others but I never expected to say it to you..

Just because you say it isn't based on the pretense that you choose not to accept it, doesn't mean there aren't others that won't.

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.)

Satanism is adapting the idealism of Satan or the adversary. These people did it very well and managed to stand up successfully even if their ends came at the hands of those who became the tyrants of religious belief.

Your failure is the inability to understand that one can entertain and accept someone else's belief of Satanism without having to have it alter their own structured paradigm. You fight fire with fire here, Dan but all I hear is that you refusing on the pretense that you are right. Where is the real opinion here?

Bottom line to this is: Just because I choose to accept that they very much thought that their Satan was real to them and they formed an alliance with that Satan doesn't mean that I have to accept it as my own structure.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Why don't you explain to us how superstitious belief can fit into a paradigm centered on doubt?


Well, for one, I cannot fully explain something that I do not employ in my life but on the line of superstition, it is in the eye of the beholder. You throw their theories, their essential beliefs, against a wall and they fell flat in your mind. You then decided to take it upon yourself to find what indeed fit with you. They threw these things against the proverbial wall and it bounced back for them.

For some Satan is a very real thing. I find it equally reprehensible to call either party a "fake" because they are living out their lives in the way that they see it fit. If they want to revere Satan as an ally, then why the hell not?

Acceptance of others is not dirty and not everything has to be black and white or right and wrong? What IS right/wrong? Hell, what IS black/white? If our subjective universe is smaller than the universe really is can any one of us truly answer these questions? No, we can't. Take it on "faith" that we know what is best for ourselves and ours. ;\)


Edited by OrgasmicKarmatic (12/23/10 05:04 PM)
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45522 - 12/23/10 05:22 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356


 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
#45523 - 12/23/10 05:38 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
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.



Orgasmic...got any crackers for that word soup? ;\)

You say, you are not one of those 'freedom for all Satanists';which I can only assume means you do not accept all definitions of the word at face value, then go on to explain how you do just that.

Are you trying to make me dizzy on purpose?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#45524 - 12/23/10 05:58 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Orgasmic...got any crackers for that word soup? ;\)


Do you have something else you want to shoot my way that someone else hasn't started before you? (IE Word soup) I'm fairly certain I have started to clean up my responses.

What do you get from following the pack?

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

You say, you are not one of those 'freedom for all Satanists';which I can only assume means you do not accept all definitions of the word at face value, then go on to explain how you do just that.


Good assumption. I don't take anything at face value. I do my research, entertain ideas that I may or may not take value from and move on.

Hypothesis, research, experiment, result.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

Are you trying to make me dizzy on purpose?


Are you having issues understanding someone who can research and entertain an idea, respect the person who holds those ideas and not having that interfere with their own structures and beliefs in Satanism?
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45526 - 12/23/10 06:04 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think you are going too far down the path with respecting or accepting anyone that sticks the label of Satanism to anything. It is useless to be bothered because frankly, there is nothing one can do about it. If someone makes up something and calls it Satanism, you can hardly take them to court over it. But it does not imply one has to accept it. A lot of satanists are fools; one look at JoS, as an example, and you can't come to any other conclusion. So automatically adding someone to the "good" list because of the label leads to nothing but a degeneration of what one stands for.

D.

Top
#45528 - 12/23/10 06:12 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Diavolo]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I think you are going too far down the path with respecting or accepting anyone that sticks the label of Satanism to anything. It is useless to be bothered because frankly, there is nothing one can do about it. If someone makes up something and calls it Satanism, you can hardly take them to court over it. But it does not imply one has to accept it. A lot of satanists are fools; one look at JoS, as an example, and you can't come to any other conclusion. So automatically adding someone to the "good" list because of the label leads to nothing but a degeneration of what one stands for.

D.


Does that also mean that it is wrong to respect an individual for standing in their conviction? Satanism to one person is another man's trash. What I may claim to believe as a Satanist may be viewed as nonsense to the LaVeyan Satanist but does it not hold it's own then?

I do like and agree with this:

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I prefer to interact with people based on what they are and not really on how they prefer to translate their world-view..
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45529 - 12/23/10 06:21 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Of course not but that would depend on the person. I interact with people based upon what they are but this implies they have qualities I admire or respect and honestly, it isn't a that large group.

It doesn't imply I respect anyone because they have a certain view and stand to it. If a certain view is dumb, standing to it doesn't make a person admirable.

D.

Top
#45530 - 12/23/10 06:26 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Diavolo]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
I see your point. However, do you think it is impossible for a person to respect another regardless of their silly notions?

I believe it is possible to respect someone enough to hear what they have to say but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't have a different opinion or accept it as my own.

By accepting, I accept that is where their convictions lie.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45531 - 12/23/10 06:36 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think you are too easy with giving respect. If having a view is enough to get respect, one ends up respecting everyone. If one respects everyone, respect means nothing.

D.

Top
#45533 - 12/23/10 06:48 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
 Quote:
the pre-sentence of "favorite beatdown" kind of makes me wary of even reading it.

Yeah I know! Abrasively clear statements seem to actually hurt you \:\) Consider it payback for the motion sickness you give our little throbbing brains by continually circling around some point or another without ever actually getting to it.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre,
The falcon cannot hear the falconer ....


I'm sure there's a happy medium in the middle there somewhere. Maybe we can get her to read our palms \:\)

 Quote:
These were orgs that I was reading about and asking for honest opinions and research.

Dr. LaVey gives a lot of coverage, in various places, to people he considers predecessors in one sense or another. Examples include Rasputin, Zaharoff, Cagliostro, Deshayes, Twain, Bierce, Wells, Crowley and any number of lesser lights. While the particulars you are researching now may not have made that cut, I would consider them relevant in much the same way.

That is, they contribute to the material, but not to the application. Before LaVey, this was the stuff of literary characters, secret societies, propaganda about white magicians, and the dark underworld of the illegal and fictional and mythical and reprehensible. He didn't found a lodge, or coven, or cult, or gang; he made a church. Before LaVey and his initiates, you would be lucky to get "Atheist" on your dogtags, lucky to be able to study magic even in secrecy.

 Quote:
Theistic Satanists are NOT lesser Satanists.

Plain nonsense. Let's get this settled, if we can.

All opinions are not equal. The most properly egalitarian place in our system, is the courtroom. This is a convention. While people are not in fact genuinely equal -- some are taller, some stupider, some more valuable to society, some more likely to kill someone -- our experience with tyranny led us to understand that it was best to require that they be treated equally under the law, at least before sentencing. This is primarily due to the corruption that power is known to bring; it is impossible to find people who can safely set standards to decide, in advance, just who is more or less deserving of the protections provided by the rule of law.

But even in court, there is no pretense toward considering opinions equal. The concept of the "expert witness" proves this thoroughly. Some opinions -- those based on advanced knowledge and practical application over time -- are manifestly superior to others. The majority of opinions that citizens may hold are in fact worthless. As Joe Friday tends to repeat endlessly in Dragnet, "just give us the facts, ma'am"

Now let's apply this understanding in this context. The opinions of a theist like Blackwood are manifestly inferior, not only to those of pure autotheists like LaVey and atheists like Dawkins, but also to those of more advanced theists like Dr. Aquino. Is this not clear? What part is unclear?

Now the devil cults you are studying at are manifestly inferior, in the most important sense possible, the evolutionary sense; they are extinct. Whether your contemporary theists will fail in that sense, remains to be seen. But "not dead yet" is not the same as "millions strong". And I predict that the extent to which they succeed will be directly proportional, not to their position on the obvious dichotomy, but rather to the amount of genuine autotheism concealed behind that.

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#45534 - 12/23/10 07:03 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Aklo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Orgasmic


Do you have something else you want to shoot my way that someone else hasn't started before you? (IE Word soup) I'm fairly certain I have started to clean up my responses.

What do you get from following the pack?

Give me a break. Just because I am not the only one that has noticed your word to content ratio is absurdly out of whack does not mean I am 'following the pack'

 Quote:

Are you having issues understanding someone who can research and entertain an idea, respect the person who holds those ideas and not having that interfere with their own structures and beliefs in Satanism?

No, I am having trouble with someone that likes to contradict herself, and seems to have a lot of problems expressing her ideas clearly.

Either Satanism is SOMETHING(ie it is a thing/idea that is separate from other things/ideas) or it can be ANYTHING(it can be any idea or thing, therefore meaningless)

Do you think Satanism has meaning or not? Quit being so damned wishy washy and get off the fence.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#45537 - 12/23/10 07:26 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
I most certainly will NOT give you a break Dan. You tend to turn to insults a lot and from what I've seen (as many have).. those that start tossing around insults just really have nothing to say in general when it comes to the topic. They just have something to say about the person. \:\)

And how do I contradict myself?

Also, I have jumped off the fence and picked a side but of course, you put no thought into asking me exactly what I have claimed.

If one must know, one must ask. This is something I have said you as being a primary perspective of mine. If you are going to try and comment on who I am and my perspectives, why don't you try asking about it? Oh, wait, box mentality. Sorry, but you just wouldn't understand.

Some get it, some don't. \:\)
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45541 - 12/23/10 08:12 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I most certainly will NOT give you a break Dan. You tend to turn to insults a lot and from what I've seen (as many have).. those that start tossing around insults just really have nothing to say in general when it comes to the topic. They just have something to say about the person.

Bull fucking shit. Show me ONE instance of me 'turning to personal insults' in this thread, or get off your high horse.



 Quote:

And how do I contradict myself?

 Quote:

Before you start making me out to be some "freedom for all" Satanist.


 Quote:

For some Satan is a very real thing. I find it equally reprehensible to call either party a "fake"


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

 Quote:

If one must know, one must ask. This is something I have said you as being a primary perspective of mine. If you are going to try and comment on who I am and my perspectives, why don't you try asking about it? Oh, wait, box mentality. Sorry, but you just wouldn't understand.

Some get it, some don't. \:\)

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?

Again I ask this key question. Does Satanism have definition, or doesn't it?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#45542 - 12/23/10 08:20 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: OrgasmicKarmatic
I most certainly will NOT give you a break Dan. You tend to turn to insults a lot and from what I've seen (as many have).. those that start tossing around insults just really have nothing to say in general when it comes to the topic. They just have something to say about the person. \:\)

Don't worry about DD; he just needs someone to throw verbal hand grenades at him every now and then. ;\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#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 don’t 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: 3115
 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; ”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.” My interpretation was that he meant the philosophers for example that manifested Satanic traits but didn’t 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 aren’t 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 didn’t 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: 3115
 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 aren’t 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: 3115
 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: 3810
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: 3810
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 doesn’t like me and its as simple as that. Unconventional, questioning and adversarial people usually don’t make many friends but they do spark debate. I’d 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 don’t 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 – 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 doesn’t 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 wouldn’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t fit. Pehaps in PM or here – doesn’t 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 isn’t just happy with being but always strives to become something more. This is the basis of the elitist thought through merit – 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: 3810
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
#45589 - 12/24/10 04:01 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
So, let's review.

 Quote:
This post was research on Satanism before LaVey and those that called themselves Satanists before LaVey.

Was it? The people who have actually offered content on this point are TheInsane and myself, with an honorary mention for Dr. Aquino. You haven't engaged any of this content, your whole purpose here seems to be to defend yourself against 0s and 1s and play semantic games. This is a damn shame, because there are gnostics here with traditions older than history, but they are certainly not going to bother with anyone who is willing to ignore their own topic for three pages and disregard the abundant content already provided.

Dr. Aquino himself has been involved for much of his life in renovating a religous tradition that goes back 5000 years or more and has been given at least lip-service by virtually every modern occult group. And he will assert to his dying breath that it's left-hand path at its heart. He may take a beating on the quasi-theism, but there's a lot of substance to what he says. Get him to talk about apotheosis and you might see exactly what I mean.

But he's working in public, and has a coherent system that requires internal consistency and so on, so he has some limitations. Many of us who are doing black magic will, within the ritual chamber, indulge in material that has no such limitations, content that you would seriously not believe.

"...the creature had been around long before human lips formed the word 'Satan,' The Sumerians had a name for him. The Sumerians; a people so ancient they could trace the lineage of their kings from before the Great Flood. So ancient that they recorded the times when feuds in Hell were actually fought on earth. Sumerians saw the creature win his tract of Hell in battle. In righteous fear of the awful things It did that day, they fell into worship of the beast. And they recorded his name well."

Get it yet?

 Quote:
Neither am I but I could be considered on to the untrained eye.

Again you have hopped down off the fence for 2 seconds to profess some vague non-theism, and no one seems to have cared or noticed. Specifically those who seem to care didn't notice, those who noticed don't seem to care. Whose fault would this be?

. . .

About the fighting, I'm sure you think you are just defending yourself, but you aren't. Keeping the other side from scoring a goal is one thing. Hopping up and down yelling NUH UH once they've scored it, is retarded.

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#45591 - 12/24/10 05:35 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I am again disappointed in that you left out the most interesting part of my questioning (theism in vamachara, why the suit doesn’t fit me, dualism vs non-dualism and the lack of one historical root for Satanism) but I will answer what you did reply with;

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
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.


Nietzsche is the one philosopher I know best of the ones you mention and while he has Satanic traits for sure its quite clear if you know his philosophy that he was no Satanist – especially with a non-inclusive stance such as yours. There are essential differences on Nietzsches outlook and what you consider Satanism to be. For simplicities sake I will mention some of the things you mentioned in your post. Nietzsche was a proponent of change and denied Self-atomism. Furthermore he had no real ideas about magic and to be sure magic is a huge part of Satanism. There is more written about magic in TSB than there is philosophy and religion.

Furthermore, I never said they were different ways of doing the same thing. I only claimed that there were self-professed Satanists before LaVey and that some of them had a coherent ideology based on the character of Satan. Even you can’t deny that if you do not deny historical facts. I never said a thing about what my stance on them were and I never have. I get the feeling you think I sympathize with whatever these people wrote which just isn’t true.

I do find it funny (or perhaps sad) that you critique these peoples ideology when you elsewhere admitted to not having read any of the documents they produced. You really have no idea about what they stood for. How can you then dismiss them?

 Quote:
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.


That’s the thing, I deny self-atomism. I do not think that there is an eternal and unchanging core. The only thing that is unchanging is change itself. I do not consider man broken or as having fallen from grace. I definitely would claim that we are incomplete however an that we will never be complete. Complete is something static and since I believe the universe basis is chaos I believe nothing can be static. On the same reasoning I believe the very concept of perfection to be impossible since it indicated no change (because if it changes from perfect to something else it really isn’t perfect).

I don’t think dreams and ideals are something bad or negative as it can be the fuel for action (which indeed should the most important part in any ideology) and action itself is change. To me this is what the LHP is all about:

VAMACARA TANTRA is part of a broad evolutionary process in consciousness, which is moving toward an integration with the Natural World, the physical body and the many sexual expressions of human behavior. All of Nature is then perceived as a sacred manifestation of the Divine, where there is no separation between Spirit and Nature, Mind and Body. So consequently there isn't any great effort to go beyond or transcend Nature. Rather, the effort is to put one's self in accord with Nature and the physical body, and to express one's own creative potential more fully. . .

VAMACARA isn't part of the adolescent male's quest for dissolving the body in a ball of light, or seeking to conquer physical mortality. It doesn't seek the spiritual at the expense of the physical, because the two are already recognized as expressions of the same underlying reality. It doesn't seek physical immortality by turning away from death, because it also recognizes that birth and death are the complimentary sides of the same continuum.

Top
#45592 - 12/24/10 06:01 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1724
Loc: New York
 Quote:
VAMACARA TANTRA is part of a broad evolutionary process in consciousness, which is moving toward an integration with the Natural World, the physical body and the many sexual expressions of human behavior. All of Nature is then perceived as a sacred manifestation of the Divine, where there is no separation between Spirit and Nature, Mind and Body. So consequently there isn't any great effort to go beyond or transcend Nature. Rather, the effort is to put one's self in accord with Nature and the physical body, and to express one's own creative potential more fully. . .


Spirit? Really?
Let’s throw some other over used words in there like Energy, aura, and goddess, then we can all sit around and have a Wiccan tea party.

Merry meet ya’ll, and blessed be.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#45594 - 12/24/10 06:59 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
[Nietzche] ... had no real ideas about magic

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The Birth of Tragedy is a foundational text in modern magic. He discusses primitive religious feeling and ritual, its elaboration in the tragedies, its revival in opera, and sets the stage for cinema and interactive media. His points on the proper modern interpretation of Aristotle's catharsis and the use of all the arts in a piece are absolutely key. These considerations, and his emphasis on Will throughout his works, have an obvious profound influence on Crowley's work. And the movies developed in Germany thereafterward on these lines have an equally obvious and profound effect on LaVey. I'm talking about things like Nosferatu and Metropolis, sure. But that's not all, is it?

Triumph of the Will

Engaging multiple senses and modes of thought and uniting them around a single message to produce extraordinary results; what did you think Magic was?

 Quote:
I only claimed that there were self-professed Satanists before LaVey and that some of them had a coherent ideology based on the character of Satan.

Yeah I don't see how there's really any conflict on that point. But as you've also noted, overall it's one set of predecessors who provide the overt religious part of the material, and another set altogether who provide the philosophical part.

 Originally Posted By: Anton Szandor LaVey
The pseudo-Satanist has always managed to appear throughout modern history, with his black masses of varying degrees of blasphemy; but the real Satanist is not quite so easily recognized as such.

It would be an over-simplification to say that every successful man and woman on earth is, without knowing it, a practicing Satanist; but the thirst for earthly success and its ensuing realization are certainly grounds for Saint Peter turning thumbs down. If the rich man's entry into heaven seems as difficult as the camel's attempt to go through the eye of a needle; if the love of money is the root of all evil; then we must at least assume the post powerful men on earth to be the most Satanic. This applies to financiers, industrialists, popes, poets, dictators, and all assorted opinion-makers and field marshals of the world's activities.

Occasionally, through "leakages", one of the enigmatic men or women of earth will be found to have "dabbled" in the black arts. These, of course, are brought to light as in the "mystery men" of history. Names like Rasputin, Zaharoff, Cagliostro, Rosenberg and their ilk are links - clues, so to speak, of the true legacy of Satan . . . a legacy which transcends ethnic, racial, and econimic differences and temporal ideologies, as well. The Satanist has always ruled the earth . . . and always will, by whatever name he is called.

One thing stands sure: the standards, philosophy and practices set forth on these pages are those employed by the most self-realized and powerful humans on earth. In the secret thoughts of each man and woman, still motivated byt sound and unclouded minds, resides the potential of the Satanist, as always has been. The sign of the horns shall appear to many, now, rather than the few; and the magician will stand forth that he may be recognized.


So yeah, Walt Disney a bigger contributor than Ben Kadosh. Fact.

A Night on Bald Mountain

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#45595 - 12/24/10 06:59 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
A satanist is not much more than a description of certain qualities in a specific context. As such, these qualities can exist outside of the context, be similar to a satanist without being part of Satanism. All those different types of Satanists are not much more than descriptions in a different context and/or of different qualities.

The roots of the LHP are indeed in the Tantric tradition where the LHP and the RHP were just two different paths towards the same goal; enlightenment. Later on in history they split and became opponents, most likely because we Westerners are suckers for dualism.

Personally I feel much more aligned with the Vamamarga tradition and their ritual of the 5Ms. It is a tradition which is closely aligned with the Nietzschean philosophy and by definition a path of heterodoxy. It is also a path which has similarities with traditional (pre-satanic) devil-worship, in which I see the black mass as a (Western) translation of the Pancha-makara.

However, I am not bothered about enlightenment; I find it a rather fuzzy word. My path is an attempt at what Nietzsche called becoming what we are.

It's not for everyone.

D.

Top
#45611 - 12/25/10 05:35 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Diavolo]
TheInsane Offline
member


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

Spirit? Really?
Let’s throw some other over used words in there like Energy, aura, and goddess, then we can all sit around and have a Wiccan tea party.

Merry meet ya’ll, and blessed be.


Oh, one of the words of the Satanic boogeyman along with divinity, gods, prayer, belief, faith, anti-liberalism, theism etc \:D
"Spirit" can be used in a lot of different ways but I have to admit that when I read about the original tantric traditions from India it has a too deep religious message for me. After all I am born and raised in a completely different world. You have to remember for example that Anton LaVey did use the word spirit in a non-derogatory way. Nietzsche did too. Neither man really meant anything traditionally spiritual or religious by using it.

The main thing for me is the notion how it is all the same. Like modern quantum physics claim all material to really be energy moving. It appears materially solid, and the material does exist, but it has no material core (no "atom" - as in the original Greek meaning of the word). It is a doctrine of the interconnectedness of all things and that the main feature that everything shares is the change of shape and form. Very much like Heraclitus said in what is left of his work.

Aklo

On Nietzsches "the birth of tragedy" I can't really comment. Its one of the few books of his I havent actually read.

Nietzsches work on will and the will to power is a huge discussion which we probably shouldnt hold here (perhaps a new thread would thrive on the subject). For now I can only say that the "will to power" is so often interpreted as a will to power in the mundane life when it is really Nietzsches version of a metaphysical doctrine (even though he did try to move away from metaphysics). And again this has alot to with Heraclitus and his view of the all changing world and "forces" colliding, some dominate and some get dominated etc.

"The will to power" is about as commonly misunderstood as Crowleys "Do what though wilt" which hardly means do whatever you want as some people indicate. It is also a metaphysical notion and Will is actually seen as a semi-deterministic thing and the goal is to find its right "orbit" and stay on this path.

 Quote:
Engaging multiple senses and modes of thought and uniting them around a single message to produce extraordinary results; what did you think Magic was?


Correction to my other post;

"Furthermore he [Nietzsche] had no real ideas about ritual magic and to be sure ritual magic is a huge part of Satanism. There is more written about ritual magic in TSB than there is philosophy and religion."

I dont know if he touches on ritual magic in the Birth of Tragedy but I doubt it. However LaVey dedicated the whole second part of his TSB to the subject at hand which must have meant that he thought of it as way important for his religion.

 Quote:
So yeah, Walt Disney a bigger contributor than Ben Kadosh. Fact.


Sure he was but not to Satanism. But to be honest neither man had much impact on Satanism at all.

I do not agree with the quoted piece from LaVey. I think he bases it to much on the Christian Bible of all things. The reasoning that "if the Bible tell us this then it must mean that" doesnt really fly with me. I do not think success of every kind is Satanic in itself because it leads to a circle argument - if A then B, If B then A - therefore B and A.

To actually be a Satanist I do think you have to have a lived philosophy based on the character of Satan and acceptance of the label in one way or another. This is the essential part. Furthermore I think strife for success alone is not all there is. To me it is way more important for the Satanist to gain knowledge about him/herself and develop what he or she has in a direction that is beneficial. It doesnt have to involve becoming famous, becoming powerful or becoming rich.

Diavolo

One of Nietzsches more interesting concepts is indeed the notion of “becoming what you are” and furthermore, as a consequence of this, his rejection of Socrates (or was it Platos?) “know thyself”. The path of doing, the path of action of realizing and using your potential and not about know what you are since you are a plurality of ever changing selves that exist in power/slave relations. His notion was that you can search bur you can never find the core because there is none.

I also feel more connected to the philosophically based LHP of the east just as I feel more connected to their metaphysical ideas. I do believe that the LHP and the RHP is not opposed each other but are two different ways to the same goal which, as you wrote, is the original idea of the two paths. The word enlightenment is indeed fuzzy and I prefer the word wisdom (not that that is much better in regards to fuzzyness). Definition of those terms in itself would be a potentially disastrous thread :P
I have to say though that my work with antinomianism is way more connected to the mental part of breaking one’s own chains through mental practice rather than, as the agoras –traditional hindu practitioners of the LHP - for example, focus on physical taboos which can include indulging in feces or living in cremation grounds.

Top
#45613 - 12/25/10 08:06 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Vamamarga isn't only visible in the East; you'll also find traces or practices of it in the Gnosticism of the past. Maybe through that it seeped into Occultism and even Devil-worship. Although it might be a case of "will see what wants to see" which again isn't terribly important either.

I'm personally not as much interested in the metaphysical aspects as I am in the practical part. I think that to define your own morality, you'll logically have to deconstruct their morality first, which might inevitable lead you through a phase of amorality. You can not build a world without destroying the current one. It is indeed about breaking chains; after your birth, you are brought up in slavery, your prison being a reality created by them with all its laws and do's and don'ts. What I see as the LHP is a path from their reality into your reality. It is a path for the truly heterodox.

As such, many other branches in Satanism are not that interesting to me, although they can have interesting aspects. One of the problems is that most are too tightly anchored in the orthodox. Even when having a heterodox appearance, their core isn't. It also explains why I prefer the ONA when it comes to modern Satanism. If you'd look closely, you'll notice that Vamamarga is an essential part of it, and they can abandon the orthodox because they never forgot the most essential part of the LHP; living in the shadows.

D.

Top
#45614 - 12/25/10 08:18 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Dan_Dread]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
Did Satanism exist before ASL? Yes and no. Depends on what you mean by "Satanism". Groups such as the Fraternitas Saturni and the Ophite Cult of Sloane are interesting from the point of view of history, but like Latin, they are a dead language.

ASL identified a current of thought, and freely admitted that it was older than himself (see the entire TSR here). But he was the first to describe it as "Satanism" and reduce it to a workable and specific philosophy.

To OrgasmicKarmatic, I highly recommend Flowers' Lords of the Left Hand Path.

JK
_________________________



Top
#45616 - 12/25/10 10:59 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Jason King]
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: Jason King
ASL identified a current of thought, and freely admitted that it was older than himself


And just so we're clear, I identified a Current of the real and built my (postmodern) Satanism around that.

JK
_________________________



Top
#45618 - 12/25/10 02:47 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Diavolo]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Vamamarga isn't only visible in the East; you'll also find traces or practices of it in the Gnosticism of the past. Maybe through that it seeped into Occultism and even Devil-worship. Although it might be a case of "will see what wants to see" which again isn't terribly important either.


I havent been studying gnosticism that much. The only parts I ever read about (on a very basic level) was filled with dualism which I do not appreciate. Perhaps my initial judgment was wrong. Or perhaps there are other schools that are more closely linked with a more, what we today would call, eastern mindset.

 Originally Posted By: Jason King

To OrgasmicKarmatic, I highly recommend Flowers' Lords of the Left Hand Path.

JK


Yes, I would also recomend this book but with a small notion that it obviously works from within the Temple of Set "current". Therefore the definition of the LHP is the definition given by the ToS and Flowers tries to incorporate that to the older LHP traditions. I think he should have done it the other way around. Started at the beginning and gone forward explaining the similarities but also the differences in how the concept evolved in the west. Still a good book. Wish they could release a version without the typos though :P

Top
#45619 - 12/25/10 03:16 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Jason King]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
Lords of the Left Hand Path is a good overview of the subject, and presents several viewpoints of the Sinister that highlight some very strong currents in religion/occultism that are usually overlooked because they are not explicitly "Satanic".

Which, I think one of the problems inherent in these kinds of discussions is that it usually boils down to semantics games. There is a tendency among some people to prematurely dismiss ideas or works that do not readily fit their current point of view, or reject large portions of it due to pretenses over "labels"-- even by those that present themselves as the paragons of reason and open-mindedness.

There is a prevalent kneejerk reaction, for instance, to the term "theism", which is understandable in a country where stark militant Atheism is the only visible alternative to the traditional self-deprecating ritual groveling that passes as "divinity" these days.

But even our old friend Epicurus was a theist; he simply had a different view of what a god was compared to most of his countrymen-- which in turn differs still from the modern Anglo-American view. His disciple Lucretius despised religion as an institution, but that didn't stop him from kicking off his groundbreaking "De Rerum Natura" with a lavish Hymn to Venus. I once came across a self-titled "Atheist Reader" compilation in a bookstore (by Hitchens, think it was), which included the entire opus-- but with the Hymn surgically excised. It was a somewhat disappointing testament to the narrow-mindedness of others who never look beyond appearances, only cherrypicking ideas to feed their egos, lest anything "different" induce them to think outside the box.

Which, of course, is the entire essence of the Left Hand Path- to transcend the illusory matrix that prevents us from Becoming. Whether I call the essence of this path Satan, Lucifer, or God, is only a semantic game requiring scholarly perspective and a little wordplay to justify. But for those who choose to actually take the first step into the proverbial Abyss-- where names and outward forms of practice are of little pertinence-- is another matter entirely.


Edited by The Zebu (12/25/10 03:21 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#45621 - 12/25/10 03:43 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane

I havent been studying gnosticism that much. The only parts I ever read about (on a very basic level) was filled with dualism which I do not appreciate. Perhaps my initial judgment was wrong. Or perhaps there are other schools that are more closely linked with a more, what we today would call, eastern mindset.


It is impossible to escape dualism in all those older ideas, as it is impossible to escape the religious structure of most but we can hardly hold that against them; in those days people had a completely different world-view, strongly reinforced by those in power and close to no option to inform themselves outside those.
You should check Carpocrates whose ideas and practices show similarities with the practice of Vamamarga.

D.

Top
#45622 - 12/25/10 04:00 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Diavolo]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
[quote=TheInsane]You should check Carpocrates whose ideas and practices show similarities with the practice of Vamamarga.

D.


Cheers! I will take some time to researching Carpocrates \:\)

Top
#45624 - 12/25/10 06:01 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
When you'll explore the Gnosticism of the past, you might find more you'll enjoy. Just don't take it all too serious; they are pieces of a puzzle. In the end, the LHP is about finding and using the pieces you need to complete a puzzle which only makes sense to you.

D.

Top
#45642 - 12/26/10 10:10 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: The Zebu]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Which, of course, is the entire essence of the Left Hand Path- to transcend the illusory matrix that prevents us from Becoming. Whether I call the essence of this path Satan, Lucifer, or God, is only a semantic game requiring scholarly perspective and a little wordplay to justify. But for those who choose to actually take the first step into the proverbial Abyss-- where names and outward forms of practice are of little pertinence-- is another matter entirely.


Transcending the illusionary matrix is an idea that can be found in a lot of religious thoughts. In Gnosticism, certain sects saw the physical world as a prison; Buddhism has similar ideas and even in Christianity, life on earth is nothing but a transformational phase.

But where I see the difference with Satanism, is that instead of the end-result being an absorption or submission into the Divine, our transcendence beyond the matrix results in establishing a personal matrix and become the Rex Mundi in that. As such, Satanism is not merely a manner of thinking or believing (philosophy vs religion) but, above all, one of acting.

D.

Top
#45668 - 12/26/10 11:05 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Diavolo]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
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?


Yes, I did somewhere around there mention that Satanists are predators. No, I do actually respect Dan's ADM and he KNOWS that. I can respect and not interfere with their way of life. This probably comes from the fact that no one I've ever ran into has questioned me in my convictions except here. Which is a nice change.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
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.


Agreed.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
take responsibility for your own shortcomings.


I have taken responsibility to for my own shortcomings but I really do not think that trying to cover my bases is a shortcoming. Nor do I think it is anyone's place to point out my "shortcomings" unless they are trying to be productive with it. Which you weren't.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
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.


I don't think ANYTHING can count as Satanism. I think that both Theists and Atheists and Pantheists are all equal and for anyone to point their finger and call "fake" is reprehensible. Does that work for you?

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

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 ;\)


You do know quite a bit more than I do. Which is good. And yes, I do have a firm hold on my own beliefs.. you still haven't asked about. Which you gave me the answer why you haven't. Some of your judgments via our conversations and whatnot, are correct but as for what I believe, you are incorrect Mr. Dread. \:\)

[quote+Dan_Dread]Though I constantly refine what I DO, that says nothing about what I AM. [/quote]

It doesn't?
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45669 - 12/26/10 11:16 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
Aklo - You get your own arena.

 Originally Posted By: Aklo
Was it? The people who have actually offered content on this point are TheInsane and myself, with an honorary mention for Dr. Aquino. You haven't engaged any of this content, your whole purpose here seems to be to defend yourself against 0s and 1s and play semantic games. This is a damn shame, because there are gnostics here with traditions older than history, but they are certainly not going to bother with anyone who is willing to ignore their own topic for three pages and disregard the abundant content already provided.


Yes, and Aquino and TheInsane have offered me a lot of insight for me to read. How am I supposed to offer anything into their conversation without some of my own research being done? They have offered books suggestions and I have taken them. I have a long list and can only read so long.

Also, semantic battles happen all over this site and have since as far as I can remember being here and as long as 600 has existed. (Including WAY BACK into 2007 which is as far as the archived goes due to the reformatting of the site.) I pay much more attention than this paragraph even gives me credit for. Then again, I don't want credit. It was just something that I did research on and because a worthy discussion happened inside of it, I am able to further my knowledge on these things.

 Originally Posted By: Aklo
Again you have hopped down off the fence for 2 seconds to profess some vague non-theism, and no one seems to have cared or noticed. Specifically those who seem to care didn't notice, those who noticed don't seem to care. Whose fault would this be?

. . .

About the fighting, I'm sure you think you are just defending yourself, but you aren't. Keeping the other side from scoring a goal is one thing. Hopping up and down yelling NUH UH once they've scored it, is retarded.


Who is the one fighting? I certainly do not feel as though I am fighting with anyone nor do I feel like I am jumping up and down saying "nu uh".

And as for the proverbial fence, I dropped off the fence awhile ago. And I suppose you want me to take the blame for no one noticing? Okay, sure. I'll take the blame for that but does anyone really want me to go into what I believe because they are interested or is it more that they want to pick that a part too? It's amazing that you spent all that time writing this post and did not have anything to say but "Who cares? Oh, and there were some useful stuff in the three pages you seemed to ignore".

I ignore a lot less than you think.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45674 - 12/27/10 01:29 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: OrgasmicKarmatic
I don't think ANYTHING can count as Satanism. I think that both Theists and Atheists and Pantheists are all equal and for anyone to point their finger and call "fake" is reprehensible. Does that work for you?


Equality does not exist. To think all theists, atheists and pantheists are equal is a silly idea at best. That one isn’t bothered about them all calling themselves Satanists is one thing but concluding that therefore they are all equal is, fundamentally, having no respect for anyone. It implies that you put the smartest and strongest at the same level as the dumbest and weakest.

Only the dumb and weak will share that sentiment.

D.

Top
#45678 - 12/27/10 02:03 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Diavolo]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
Each side has their personal inequalities. Those are personal. Some fall short, intelligence or knowledge wise. Some don't. However, each side of Satanism has it's own equal right to be recognized as Satanism even if it's only entertained by their party alone.

Making Satanism sound like politics.

The inequalities fall on the individual not the chosen path of the individual.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45686 - 12/27/10 02:27 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
So what you are saying is that we should acknowledge anyone as a satanist simply because they say they are one and it should not matter at all what path they have chosen, even if that path is leading nowhere?

D.

Top
#45687 - 12/27/10 02:33 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Diavolo]
manofsteel Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 153
Loc: Indiana U.S.
Well really if you think about it she does have a point. Satanists are people who stand alone and hve their own beliefs no matter what the masses believe. Even if sometimes wrong we stand behind our beliefs strong and firm but we don't try to persuade everyone else to join our band of beliefs. We are who we are and that is that. I noone else likes it, well you know what you can do with yourself.
_________________________
Amongst the sheep emerges a wolf.

Top
#45690 - 12/27/10 03:59 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Moravagine Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/02/10
Posts: 16
Howdy OK,

If I might ask: what is your definition of Satanism?

I'm not trying to pick a fight or engage in some epic, pointless semantic battle [though some others here might, and I will respect your decision if you choose to avoid that mess \:\) ]. It might help with this thread though, and add a little context to the pre CoS research.


Edited by Moravagine (12/27/10 03:59 AM)

Top
#45691 - 12/27/10 04:02 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: manofsteel]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
So what you are saying is that we should acknowledge anyone as a satanist simply because they say they are one and it should not matter at all what path they have chosen, even if that path is leading nowhere?


You do not have to personally acknowledge any one path. For example, what I believe may be complete rubbish to you but my path is chosen and suited to fit my needs and wants. It does not make what I believe wrong; just wrong for you.

 Originally Posted By: ManOfSteel
Satanists are people who stand alone and hve their own beliefs no matter what the masses believe. Even if sometimes wrong we stand behind our beliefs strong and firm but we don't try to persuade everyone else to join our band of beliefs. We are who we are and that is that. I noone else likes it, well you know what you can do with yourself.


Agreed. Never go into anything thinking anyone has your back or your same ideas and don't stand down just because someone thinks that your ideas are trash. This doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the why when it comes to people's comments on your beliefs and maybe reformat them if they need to be but to be flimsy on your own beliefs is a definite no go as well.

I would not be where I am today (even if it's not as far as some) if I didn't stand by my convictions and take value from everything around me. Every experience I have in my life makes me stronger. \:\)
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45692 - 12/27/10 04:05 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: manofsteel]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
When you think everyone who claims the title of Satanist deserves to be recognized/respected as a Satanist, you are an idiot.

There are more than enough idiots running around claiming the title of Satanist that need to be put down.

Respect is earned, not just freely given. To give any idiot any measure of respect because they claim to be a Satanist is just stupid.

Just look at mess of stupid Satanic wanna-be websites and you-tube videos. None of them deserve respect or recognition.

When you believe that everyone who claims to be a Satanist deserves equal treatment, then you sure as hell aren't one and can't tell the difference.

Next....

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



Top
#45694 - 12/27/10 04:31 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Moravagine]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
I'll be damned. Someone actually asked.

I employ autotheism in my journey of Satanism. I believe that I am my own god and that only I control my life. I also believe in an natural inner force (Satan) that is unified through all living things; including the universe. I do not believe that this force drives me to do anything but I do believe that I can use this force to my advantage.

I have a rather Pantheistic view on Satan. I am not a theist although, to the untrained eye it would seem as though I did due to the ideas expressed about an inner force.

When it comes to where we came from: I don't really care.. I haven't put much thought into it because I believe that there is more into living each day in the present and not in the past. Every little second that goes by affects the future. This post, will effect my future in some way.

It is a philosophy and not a religion in my eyes. Satanism is in the DO and the HOW.. not the what. The what comes into play when you see a person employing Satanism. You just know.

I believe that a Satanist must be:
-Strong in their convictions (if you can't stand for one thing, you'll fall for anything)
-Be able to stand tall in their community through their contributions
-Be of sound mind
-Be able to take what they want/need for themselves
-Be able to be human without making "being human" an excuse
-Be able to accept their faults and change them if they can
-Always progress..

Anyhow I don't want to make a book of it. Hopefully, that gave you some kind of idea?
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45695 - 12/27/10 04:59 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: OrgasmicKarmatic
You do not have to personally acknowledge any one path. For example, what I believe may be complete rubbish to you but my path is chosen and suited to fit my needs and wants. It does not make what I believe wrong; just wrong for you.


I think you forget the option that a chosen path can be stupid or weak in which case it would certainly be wrong for me but this doesn't make it right for others. It is I who judge, regardless of their opinion.

Elitism is an essential part of Satanism because this elitism is a motivator in the process of becoming. It is through this elitism we can make a distinction between what is stupid and what is smart. As such, people acting according to what we call stupid or smart are stupid or smart. Without this elitism, there can be no Satanism. What you subscribe to seems to be a degeneration of it all. It is of course a state of mind which you sooner or later have to abandon because egalitarianism only works until someone enters your comfort zone and makes you realize that it is not because you find them equal, they are of the same opinion. Which will make you realize how natural inequality is.

What you subscribe to doesn't seem very satanic to me because you embrace the mass; the weak and worthless under the illusion that what might seem wrong to you isn't necessarily so and might be right for others which turns all wrongs into right. So no matter what we do or think, we're all good. We are all children of the same god.

It's the kind of Satanism that only, and excusez moi pour le mot, a housewife can come up with.

D.

Top
#45698 - 12/27/10 05:45 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Draculesti Offline
Impaler
member


Registered: 09/18/07
Posts: 325
Loc: Rockville, Maryland
As Diavolo said, equality does not exist. Philosophical systems, like the biological individual, are not equal. Consider this: one path is smooth with few imperfections and easily traveled; the other is rife with bumps, cracks, and holes, which make for a bumpy ride and an almost certain recipe for catastrophe. That being said, is the one path just as good as the other? In the first path, it is carefully planned out, and each layer is carefully laid out. In the other, the work is shoddy, various stones of disparate sizes are placed with little care or thought, creating an uneven path full of places to catch one's toe and cause one to stumble. But at least they've made a path!

The problem is, that they are trying to merge their path with the other, for the paths ARE distinct from one another. Their path, however, will never be like the other, nor shall the twain ever meet, because their construction methods are poor at best.
_________________________
The Holy Trinity: Me, Myself, and I.

Homo Homini Lupus

Top
#45704 - 12/27/10 11:01 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Draculesti]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
While many have no problem identifying the worthless in other religions or other levels in society (calling them mass or herd) they presume that once the label of Satanist is taken, those qualities disappear; as if through embracing the label, people magically transform. All levels of society and all followers of philosophies and religions contain people ranging from admirable to despicable, although the degrees of each might differ in all.

In Satanism it is not different. It is not because someone calls himself a Satanist, he automatically turns into something admirable or respectable. Many claiming the label do so for the wrong reasons, or out of ignorance, and because of this, we also end up with a lot of people that do not differ at all from the herd or mass we identify outside of Satanism. Strangely enough they all want to be regarded as full by others even when most of them lack essential qualities. What they don't realize is that, outside of the teen-environment where a certain haircut or dress-code might buy acceptance, in Satanism, as in every other aspect of the "real" world, acceptance requires effort.

Acceptance will only happen if people consider you worthy. And to be considered worthy, you need to have certain qualities and be able to put these to work. You need to prove yourself. If one attracts a lot of criticism or isn't considered as full, the best one can do is some introspection, wonder if there might be something valid to the criticism and use that as a catalyst for improvement. But few do succeed in this because it either requires qualities they don't posses or effort they can't give to it. Whenever their Satanism is nothing but that fashionable haircut, they'll quickly find out the limitations of it. Their cry for acceptance resembles that of a one-legged player desiring his position in the football team too.

It just ain't going to happen.

D.

Top
#45708 - 12/27/10 12:13 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Diavolo]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
This "I am so I get" idea started out in earnest in the late 60s and early seventies when the "witchcrap" phenomenon raised its ugly head. Suddenly everyone wanted to be a witch, and as soon as they declared themselves to be witches, they assumed that they were bequeathed the knowledge of the universe from Cernunnos, the Green Man or whatever fantasy figure caught their fancy. There was talk of imagining bolts of "blue flame" and levitating into the Astral Plane. Then, almost in the blink of an eye, we had 15 and 16 year old High Priests and High Priestesses claiming ancient lineage and massive power, which they would gladly demonstrate for you, but they had to wash up for dinner or their mom would kill them.

We see the same thing in Satanism. The arrogantly ignorant read a book, and decide, "Well, I like the philosophy," so I must be a Satanist. OK. That's done. I guess it's time for me to start throwing curses and... sure enough, a new King of Hell is born -- or queen. Ignorance is an equal opportunity thing. And they start rattling off what is and what isn't, which is usually some pop theory or contrived hybrid to allow them to fit in with whatever crowd they need for their social support and still find their "elitist core."

When you try to tell people that just being or declaring yourself to be a Satanist means nothing without the dedicated study and strengthening of one's personal life and psyche, they don't want to hear it. They see Satanists that people respect and decide, I can now be equal to (insert name here), because I have been a Satanist for a couple of weeks now. Surely a person with 2, 4, 10, 20, 30 or 40 years of experience CAN'T be that much more aware that I, so I'll just show them what I know, and they'll accept me with open arms. They're often shocked at the response, predictable though it may be.

It's that way with everything from working at a fast food chain to the military to corporate life. Someone gets in the door and they automatically feel that they've made it big time. They're IN... so they want top salary, a corner office and an expense account, just like the boss, who's earned his bones and has been in the business for 10, 20 or 30 years. They carp and complain when they find out they just aren't going to get it... predictably and expectedly.

Look boys and girls, don't take it so hard. It happens to us all. When I was coming up in the military, I was nothing but ideas. It took years of study and application and proven success for me to become accepted and eventually an authority on my specialty. When I retired, I could pick up the phone and call any counterpart around the world and say, "This is Jake and this is what I need." People knew that I knew what I was talking about.

I went from the military to a corporation. Big corporation. Fortune 500 corporation. One day, shortly after I had sharpened my pencils and put them neatly on the corner of my desk and admired my name on the door of my office, I picked up the phone and said, "This is Jake and this is what I need." I wasn't really prepared to hear, "Ok, and who the hell are you?" But again, with study and application and experience, the situation changed in my favor. But NOTHING is given to you simply because you fit the suit or wear a title.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#45713 - 12/27/10 02:43 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Jake999]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
I agree with the views of Jake999.

I am unable to comment on the baby boomer types from the 1960's and 1970's other than to note that the hippies evolution into witchcraft, wiccanism and paganism, not to mention the vast explosion in new age ideas, is a natural outcome of their egotism.

The children of the hippies, the generation Y's, are a problem that corporations, military and Satanism face, in that they have existed in a cotton wool background where their needs were instantly met. The Gen Y's come into the real world with delusions that all things are offered on a plate instantly, and they are entitled, with the world owing them something for little investment. I won't employ Gen Y's.
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#45718 - 12/27/10 04:38 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: manofsteel]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: manofsteel
Well really if you think about it she does have a point. Satanists are people who stand alone and hve their own beliefs no matter what the masses believe. Even if sometimes wrong we stand behind our beliefs strong and firm but we don't try to persuade everyone else to join our band of beliefs. We are who we are and that is that. I noone else likes it, well you know what you can do with yourself.


Maybe I read this wrong (if so I appologize) but did you actually write that even if we are wrong we should stand strong and firm in our beliefs? If so I cant disagree more. I think its important to be honest with oneself and be humble if a mistake is made and then go on and try to fix it not to stick to whatever it was that was the false belief.

Top
#45814 - 01/01/11 03:17 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: TheInsane]
manofsteel Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 153
Loc: Indiana U.S.
All I meant is that whatever you're beliefs are that you should not be shy and stand behind them. I am just saying that if Satanism or whatever is you're belief then let it be and don't back down. Not many people know about it because it is always covered up but if more people were open about it and actually explained what it meant I think we would have more people involved. I am saying people should be strong and don't back down from what they believe in is all. You don't have to show a Pentagram to the world but you also don't have to hide when people ask you you're religion or what you believe in is all I am saying. Stand strong and state your facts and after that if they don't understand then fuck em. Don't waste you're time but give it a chance.
_________________________
Amongst the sheep emerges a wolf.

Top
#45815 - 01/01/11 04:36 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: manofsteel]
Harvey Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 39
 Quote:
All I meant is that whatever you're beliefs are that you should not be shy and stand behind them. I am just saying that if satanism or whatever is you're belief then let it be and don't back down. Not many people know about it because it is always covered up but if more people were open about it and actually explained what it meant I think we would have more people involved.


Okay. That's one approach... I guess.

Do you feel that you might somehow benefit or improve your life by being outspoken? Are you attempting a recruitment drive? If so, good luck!

Dr. Aquino has covered this elsewhere. Pay heed - he knows what he's talking about. \:\)

Top
#45822 - 01/01/11 01:40 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Harvey]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Harvey
Dr. Aquino has covered this elsewhere. Pay heed - he knows what he's talking about. \:\)

One of my Dad's aphorisms was: "Never fall on your sword in the semi-finals."

Choose your wars, and focus on winning the war, not every battle. The First Beast put it like this:

 Originally Posted By: Aleister Crowley, The Confessions
If one had to worry about one’s actions in respect of other people’s ideas, one might as well be buried alive in an antheap or married to an ambitious violinist. Whether that man is the prime minister, modifying his opinions to catch votes, or a bourgeois in terror lest some harmless act should be misunderstood and outrage some petty convention, that man is an inferior man and I do not want to have anything to do with him any more than I want to eat canned salmon.

Of course the world forces us all to compromise with our environment to some extent, and we only waste our strength if we fight pitched battles for points which are not worth a skirmish. It is only a faddist who refuses to conform with conventions of dress and the like. But our sincerity should be Roman about things that really matter to us.

And I am still in doubt, as I write these words, as to how far it is right to employ strategy and diplomacy in order to gain one’s point. The great men of the world have stood up and taken their medicine ...

Adaptation to one’s environment makes for a sort of survival; but after all, the supreme victory is only won by those who prove themselves of so much harder stuff than the rest that no power on Earth is able to destroy them. The people who have really made history are the martyrs.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#45840 - 01/01/11 07:39 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Harvey]
manofsteel Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 153
Loc: Indiana U.S.
I'm not trying to do shit but say what I mean and I speak how I feel. You can take it however you like. I just try to live my life strongly and teach my kids to believe stronglyin themlelves and that is it. I don't care which road anyone takes to get there but self confidence is one of the most powerful tools anyone can have. That's all it is. If I was trying to recruit I difinetely wouldn't be on a already Satanism website you dipshit. But then again take it however you want. By the way before you go talking shit maybe you should at least gain some respect here first. You don't see me ridiculing people cause I am still pretty new myself. Good luck.
_________________________
Amongst the sheep emerges a wolf.

Top
#45841 - 01/01/11 07:54 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Morgan]
manofsteel Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 153
Loc: Indiana U.S.
Maybe before you jump to conclusions you should ask what I meant since I didn't say that exctly. I am saying as a person we should demand respect. There are many assholes who are satanists that I have read or heard that I give no respect at all. I am just saying personally I think just as I'm sure you do we all want respect in our lives. I try to treat people with respect and I expect it in return is all I'm saying. The same shit our grandparents taught us. I don't care what religion you are if you're an asshole then you're an asshole, plain and simple. Hope that cleared it up a bit. If not, have a nice day anyways. I'll refrain from name calling as some othere do?...
_________________________
Amongst the sheep emerges a wolf.

Top
#45843 - 01/01/11 09:08 PM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: manofsteel]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
I think my reply was more of a general quick response than actually to you manofsteel.

But as I said, respect is earned, not freely given.
Someone can demand respect all they want(in general, not you specifically), but not deserve it.

Oh, and yeah, I can be an asshole on occasion, I just don't care to sugar coat bullshit.

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



Top
#45847 - 01/02/11 01:00 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: Morgan]
creativevalue Offline
banned
pledge


Registered: 04/14/10
Posts: 93
Your reply to manofsteel made me think of alternative considerations. You say respect must be earned, which I understand. But that leads to situational scenarios?

Let's look at two variations:

1. Do you give respect to a stranger? Someone who you really do not know other than brief contact, would they as human beings deserve respect?

I would give them the normal respect expected in the situation, but I would be careful because I do not know them. This implies that there are different levels of respect. It also implies that respect is very different than "trust". Trust seems to be at a higher level than respect.

2. What of someone who has limited abilities, but works really hard at what they do. Do they deserve respect for trying hard to do good at something with the limited ability they have? Let's compare this person to a genius who is lazy?

I think I respect the person who really works hard to accomplish something even if they have lesser ability. At least they tried to change their the world, and may have had in impact in the process.

I do not respect the genius who did not try to use their talent to its full extent, because the genius could have done much more and chose to waste their ability.

I think this now brings me back to your statement about earning respect. Only there are now various degrees of respect, and it is possible to have more respect for someone with lesser ability who works hard, over someone who has greater ability and wastes their chances to improve.

Also, I noticed you don't care to sugar coat bullshit. I do not eat sugar either. However, I have a real weakness for unsweetended sugarless 100% chocolate! Do you "respect" unsweetened chocolate?

Top
#45849 - 01/02/11 02:12 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: manofsteel]
Harvey Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 39
MOM, he called me a dipshit!

Firstly, by saying this:

 Quote:
Are you attempting a recruitment drive? If so, good luck!


I was referring to this:

 Quote:
Not many people know about it [Satanism] because it is always covered up but if more people were open about it and actually explained what it meant I think we would have more people involved.


Obviously we're talking about the real world here, not the 600C. Got it? Good.

I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that most people can be rather dense. Particularly in relation to things like religion, politics and sexual orientation.

I am not aware of your situation, and frankly, I don't care. But I'll give an example: let's say you decide to explain your views on Satanism to an employer who happens to be a devout Christian/Muslim/whatever. You are unlikely to enter into a meaningful dialogue. More likely you'll lose favor with them, if not your job. It may be much wiser to avoid the issue entirely.

Surely you can think of other examples where expressing an unpopular opinion in mixed company might result in undesirable consequences for yourself.

Top
#45850 - 01/02/11 02:59 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: manofsteel]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
By the way before you go talking shit maybe you should at least gain some respect here first.


There is no set amount of time one is expected be here before they can "ridicule" others. All that is expected is that it is done intelligently. Insulting someone just for the sake of insulting someone is unacceptable behavior from anyone, regardless of how long they have been posting on this site.

 Quote:
You don't see me ridiculing people cause I am still pretty new myself.


Really? So you didn't just call Harvey a "dipshit"? My eyes must be failing me in my old age because I am sure that you did...
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#45867 - 01/03/11 03:27 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
manofsteel Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 153
Loc: Indiana U.S.
Well, uhh u may have me there but hey what can I say sometimes we all just get irritated. Anyway thanx for pointing that out. We can all be smart asses and dick heads I know. Whatever, I am known for not being so kind to people either when I think it's bullshit so let it fly, it makes for good conversation. So basically I'm saying happy mother fucking whatever we don't agree with. Enough said.
_________________________
Amongst the sheep emerges a wolf.

Top
#77774 - 07/04/13 10:35 AM Re: Ophite Cultus Satanas/Others before LaVey [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6673
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
Anyone have any comments or perhaps done any research of their own they'd like to offer up in reference to the Cult listed or Satanism before the 1960s?


I would think the -ism is an important factor to consider when looking for groups/individuals using Satan in a cultus prior to the 20th Century.

 Quote:
It's the kind of Satanism that only, and excusez moi pour le mot, a housewife can come up with.


I think Diavalo made a salient point here. This topic gives the appearance of coupon-clipping. What are you looking for specifically when you search for the existence of Satanism in past eras? A discount on a volume of study and practice?

He made other comments with regard to substituting labels such as Devil Worshiper, Luciferian, etc. At closer examination you often find LaVey at the core underneath all those masks. Even if the individual claims that they don't subscribe to the ideals of LaVey or haven't even read him. LaVey has influenced other writers so they are getting it by Proxy.

I interviewed M.C. from Cathedral of the Black Goat a while back, if you listen closely you can detect the Satanic Nuances underneath the fancy window dressing of the Devil Worshiper HERE. The markers of the "Devil in Man", are addressing very specific ideals held in Modern Satanism.

When looking for it in people/groups in previous centuries Satanism would have to mean something very specific for you to detect it. Another group that if special interest to new Satanists is typically the D Theurgistes Satanic Society, see: La'Bas, 1891(Novel). The group from the 19th century believed the Church invented Satan to turn them into Black Magicians and have them vilified in the Middle Ages (Templars). They were instead, using Lucifer as the great architect for conscious creation. It was around this same time, that the Rites of Exorcism were written and published, to ensure that 'Satan' as a demonic possessing entity would stick. There's a paper you can look for on-line, I think its called Epic of the Francs, or Epic of God of the Francs (the name escapes me at the moment). It will address the history by a 'Masonic' point of view. The D-Theurgistes Optimates, seek to destroy the 'false reality' created by the Church, destroy it utterly, and raise up Lucifer as god once more. It must destroy the system, burn it to the ground, so that they can usher in a new reality, fueld by belief.

Many of these folks just raise up an archetype and replace the Abrahamic God with it, the Anti-Hero then becomes their new Hero. This is why many just call Bullshit on the whole pony-show but especially if the paradigm they live by keeps them stunted and in a cycle of personal failure. I mean at what point are they going to realize themselves their own enemy? Those that use the 'Devil Worshiper' archetype with rational and reasoning behind it can usually articulate it fine without dancing around the issue.

People are going to believe in all kinds of things but knowing a person doesn't surmount to immediate respect for what they believe in. I think people confuse Consideration and Courtesy with Respect far too often. I can't help but laugh when some of my 'Satanist' associates make apologies aloud to Satan for a self-created form of guilt. Not much different than Christians asking God for forgiveness when they stumble away from the Orthodoxy. Inter-personal relationships often include considerations for thoughts and personality.

I can laugh and make fun, and my associates can either get offended or understand where I'm coming from. Otherwise, why bother associating with me in the first place? I wouldn't expect that person to abandon their beliefs because I think its silly no more than they expect me to abandon my own, however we don't grow if they remain unchallenged.

An old friend of mine refuses to cut poles because of the superstition of bad luck. If we're walking down the street together and we come upon a pole in a crowded area, she will go out of her way to ensure she's on the same side as I am. If we happen to cut poles, she insists on going back to un-cut the pole. I'll humor her sometimes because she's a trip, it doesn't mean I don't tell her how stupid I think it is. She really thinks bad luck will bestow her if we don't go back, even if I think that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. All she needs is something to go wonky and its personal affirmation for her. I understand it but I don't have to accept it or respect it. She's been programmed by cultural influence. I have tons of books on Superstitions, it covers the origins and uses today. Some of them are fairly commonplace like 'knocking on wood'. I see people that think superstitions are stupid use that one a lot. I can't help but smirk when they do it, and make fun when ever possible. I'll do it for shiggles to be sarcastic. I actually use quite a few Superstitious items in my home aesthetic, such as the Nazar Amulet to ward against the Evil Eye, Keys, Mirrors and a bunch of other items. It reminds me of how silly humans can be.


See: THE GOD YOU SAVE MY BE YOURSELF

 Quote:
Could it be that when he closes the gap between himself and his "God" he sees the demon of pride creeping forth - that very embodiment of Lucifer appearing in his midst? He no longer can view himself in two parts, the carnal and the spiritual, but sees them merge as one, and then to his abysmal horror, discovers that they are only the carnal - AND ALWAYS WERE! Then he either hates himself to death, day by day - or rejoices that he is what he is! -Anton LaVey
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#77846 - 07/08/13 07:52 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: creativevalue]
334forwardspin Offline
member


Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 509
Loc: Las Vegas,NV United States
 Originally Posted By: creativevalue

1. Do you give respect to a stranger? Someone who you really do not know other than brief contact, would they as human beings deserve respect?

I would give them the normal respect expected in the situation, but I would be careful because I do not know them. This implies that there are different levels of respect. It also implies that respect is very different than "trust". Trust seems to be at a higher level than respect.

2. What of someone who has limited abilities, but works really hard at what they do. Do they deserve respect for trying hard to do good at something with the limited ability they have? Let's compare this person to a genius who is lazy?

I think I respect the person who really works hard to accomplish something even if they have lesser ability. At least they tried to change their the world, and may have had in impact in the process.

I do not respect the genius who did not try to use their talent to its full extent, because the genius could have done much more and chose to waste their ability.

I think this now brings me back to your statement about earning respect. Only there are now various degrees of respect, and it is possible to have more respect for someone with lesser ability who works hard, over someone who has greater ability and wastes their chances to improve.
There's a difference in giving someone respect, and actually respecting them. I'll treat someone with respect, as long as they show it to me, basically I'm not an ass hole. But, to have respect for someone there has to be something about them I respect. It could be respecting something they've accomplished, or some trait they have.

Also, I must point out that people aren't just born with abilities and can't change them. It's about working smart, and taking effective measures to improve your abilities/skills. People who realize this, can overcome genetic disadvantages. However, it seems few people do use this to effect.

If someone is just born a genius, there is no reason to respect them because it means it just happened by chance, and there's nothing they did to make it happen. It's no more impressive than someone winning the lottery. I respect knowledge, because that is learned. Regardless of what your genetics, if you don't bother to take the time to learn things you won't be well versed in any field.


Edited by 334forwardspin (07/08/13 07:56 AM)

Top
#80638 - 09/30/13 02:11 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: mabon2010]
N2SYN Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/22/13
Posts: 17
Loc: Ohio,USA
Ahhh, now something I can sink my teeth into. I recently moved to Ohio, and one day stumbled upon "our lady of Endor" whilst searching out any paranormal phenomena in the area. Out of Toledo they were. I was curious about them myself, as I was with a lot out here, in these parts. I would also like to know if they were in fact, still intact, and are still on the surface as of today?
_________________________
Endless schools of thought, breed endless worlds~
Don't let this madness make you into a sub human~

Top
#80658 - 09/30/13 11:19 AM Re: Research of Satanism before LaVey [Re: N2SYN]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
Sloane certainly seemed dedicated to his unique gnostic/witchcraft current, but it probably atrophied over time due to a lack of the tightly-knit organization and robust public image that kept the CoS in the spotlight. His coven's footprints seem to have faded away sometime in the 70s. Such was the fate of many a cult, coven, and church in those days.

I recently stumbled across a detailed section on them in a book simply titled "Witches" (can't remember the author). It included a transcription of one of their rituals, which resembled a Wiccan sabbat with a heavy Valentinian influence, and some reverse-Christian bits thrown in to taste. An interesting item of occult history.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
Page all of 6 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.103 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 103 queries. Zlib compression disabled.