Page 5 of 5 <12345
Topic Options
#6350 - 03/25/08 07:52 AM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: Sordid Archetype]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
To answer this simple question we must first ask ourselves 'who' or 'what' is 'satan'?
When we can define what 'satan' is... or what being a 'satan' is.... then you have an answer!

I suggest forgeting about attempting to distinguish between organisations that claim to be 'real satanists'.

These types are playing the mainsteam religion game in a new guise!
Don't forget... jesus was a satan to the jews, muhammad was a satan to the arabs at the time!
So who are you a satan to?

Top
#6513 - 03/27/08 10:06 PM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: DistroyA]
LUCIFERIFIC Offline
active member


Registered: 02/01/08
Posts: 629
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: DistroyA
 Originally Posted By: LUCIFERIFIC
Cpboeg she called you a clone. Thank you Professor Amina for the enlightening, yet terribly long drawn 4 page thesis on a well defined Satanism.

Amina did you cry in school when you got a bad grade? Cuz it feels like you are an over achiever. It's like your fighting with all your might to be right or correct in some way, even when most of the active forum members here strongly disagree with you on many points. This thread feels like a school.




Does it really matter whether there is one or more religions/ideologies that go under the name of "Satanism"?


I know, who cares?

There's only one "satan." Even if we take a look at the great world religions and see that they are very different, they all have one thing in common - a devil: Rahu to Buddhism; Rudra to Hinduism; Shaitan to Islam... and so on. Even thoe these devils may have different names, they are all the same basic symbol representing the same basic thing: human nature, which these people finds vile.

Why fragment Satan? Who cares if one Satanist has a handful of outward practices and beliefs that may be differentfrom us? If Satanism is based on the Ego, than we will obviously have these differences... because we're not the same fucking people!

"He who has the power to define, has the ultimate power." Robert Anton Wilson.

I reserve the right to define my own words, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, religion, and reality. I refuse to let some Geek girl define things for me. Fuck that shit.

Kayla


Edited by LUCIFERIFIC (03/27/08 10:07 PM)
_________________________
Lux Ex Tenebris
Lux Lucet Ex Orientis


~~352~~


Top
#6518 - 03/27/08 11:18 PM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: ZephyrGirl
This version of the forum has only been around for about the last year.


Six or seven months more like - from early autumn/fall 2007.
(Gosh, has it been that long?)


On the subject of Satanism(s)... 'Satanists' come in all varieties here, all with their own take on Satanism (and for many, who else qualifies as a 'true' Satanist).

Perhaps a more pertinent question for many might be: What does Satan symbolise for YOU?

Personally, I prefer Satan without the 'ism'.
I follow no single 'ism', but rather seek to find inspiration from diverse schools of thought, without buying into a single set of ideas of how things are.
'Ism' seems to suggest a fixed way of thinking or set of doctrines - then again, dogma is what it's all about for many...


So that almost gives my own answer to my own question:
Satan to me represents freedom from rigid dogmatism, including (but not limited to) disempowering and unsubstantiated moral dogma.
In place of these values are survival, personal empowerment, pleasure, humour, intelligence, passion, individuality, and just a subtle hint of misanthropy (or at least realism concerning the human beast)...

Top
#6545 - 03/28/08 04:12 PM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: Stag]
Amina Offline
member


Registered: 03/08/08
Posts: 177
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Stag
In other words, the word "Satanism" means different things to different people. Sometimes these meanings are mutually exclusive. Since no authority exists to establish exclusive rights to the word, each of us must take personal responsibility for its use. This is hardly controversial stuff, surely?


Thank you. Nice to see that at least one got the point. My guess is, that the text would have had no comments at all, if the few lines mentioning the ONA had been excluded. If anyone had a reason to complain about the view that you yourself also express above, it would have been people from the CoS who insist on only one definition of Satanism.

- Amina

Top
#6546 - 03/28/08 04:16 PM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: LUCIFERIFIC]
Amina Offline
member


Registered: 03/08/08
Posts: 177
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: LUCIFERIFIC
I reserve the right to define my own words, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, religion, and reality. I refuse to let some Geek girl define things for me.


And that is exactly what the text asks of you: to define your *own* understanding of Satanism. Sorry to say so, but as far as I can see you are actually agreeing with me.

- Amina

Top
#6547 - 03/28/08 04:35 PM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: DistroyA]
Amina Offline
member


Registered: 03/08/08
Posts: 177
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: DistroyA
Does it really matter whether there is one or more religions/ideologies that go under the name of "Satanism"?


Yes and no. It isn't a problem that you have a lot of different definitions of Satanism, but it would be hard to say anything about the phenomena unless you focus on only one kind as "the one and only" (as the CoS does), or describe different kinds of Satanism AS different kinds. The Temple of Set, The Church of Satan, Order of Nine Angles, Satanic Reds and individual satanic philosophies belonging to individual satanists each have its own history, philosophy, view on Satan, rituals (if used) and so on. Is Satanism atheistic? If you ask the CoS it is. If you ask the ONA or ToS it isn't and so on.

This is so obvious that I can understand why it must give you an headache to try to explain it as some insane idea from a strange "geekie girl".

- Amina

Top
#6548 - 03/28/08 04:45 PM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: Amina]
LUCIFERIFIC Offline
active member


Registered: 02/01/08
Posts: 629
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: Amina
 Originally Posted By: LUCIFERIFIC
I reserve the right to define my own words, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, religion, and reality. I refuse to let some Geek girl define things for me.


And that is exactly what the text asks of you: to define your *own* understanding of Satanism. Sorry to say so, but as far as I can see you are actually agreeing with me.

- Amina


What!? You spent like 6 pages arguing with people trying to get them to agree with YOUR definition and understanding of "True Satanism" which you clearly expressed in your original 'thesis'.

Whatever Amina.
_________________________
Lux Ex Tenebris
Lux Lucet Ex Orientis


~~352~~


Top
#6587 - 03/28/08 10:52 PM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: Amina]
LUCIFERIFIC Offline
active member


Registered: 02/01/08
Posts: 629
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: Amina
 Originally Posted By: LUCIFERIFIC
I reserve the right to define my own words, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, religion, and reality. I refuse to let some Geek girl define things for me.


And that is exactly what the text asks of you: to define your *own* understanding of Satanism. Sorry to say so, but as far as I can see you are actually agreeing with me.

- Amina
Ok, lets retrack our claws for a moment, brush our mutual hatred for each other a side, because its getting in the way of understanding one another; and talk about this. I've been thinking (which is very rare) and I've come to the conclusion that we are both right.

See the problem we are having is a "cultural" one, and a high school one. Lets think about it for a moment:

First I was a cheerleader in high school, and one of the popular girls; i mean really popular, and we just didn't like girls like you - you know, the kind that did their homework and read and hung out in the library; we copied off of you, and maybe even pretended to like you, so you'll let us copy so we can graduate; but cheerleaders and dweebs don't mix. But look, we're not in high school any more, i've learned that now. We're in the real word now where we don't need to do homework. I don't need to pretend to like you and copy off you, and nobody is going to grade your thesis. Lets psychologically graduate from high school together today.

Secondly your "European." Whereas I'm American. I placed the word "European" in quotations because the European Union is such a new Idea that on an Emotional level, europeans don't feel Europeans, in a collective way. But we Americans aren't like that. It doesn't matter if one american is from California, Utah, New York, or Montana - we're all American. You europeans are different. A Danish is still in DEFINITION very different from a French or English person.

In a way Satanism is like this to us. You see, Satan is an abstract symbol; just like the American flag is an abstract symbol. We pay some sort of homage or honor to Satan, just like we pledge our alligence to our flag; but we americans come in all sorts of different races, colors, backgrounds, ancestries, and religions; dispite this on an emotional and psychological level we all know we basically are Americans. Our difference here does not mean that our understanding or or definition is different from american to america. Even to both democrats and republicans America is still ONE; and yet we have our superficial personal differences; this doesn't mean that one american is more a True American than another.

This is how Satanism is to ME; as i see and understand it. Satan is an abstract symbol to which most of us here agree on; yes we each have our own uniquness which may influence our Satanism superficially; but on a subjective level Satan is ONE.

On the other had you need to blockade your Satanism in very well defined psychological boarders - just as europe is brocken down into well defined boundaries. Take for example Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Dispite the fact that all three royal houses are related, and the language are dialects of each other and even mutually intelligible, you guys insist that there is a definite difference and have a hard time accepting that a Danish is a Swedish and both are Europeans.

See, so we are both right. Yes there are many Satanisms as you say, because this is how your brain has become accustom to interpreting things. But Yes there is only one basic Satanism and it needs no fracturing definitions as I say, because this is how I, as an American, interpret things.

So lets just shake hands, smile at each other, accept that we are both right and wrong, focus on the Satanism we have in common, and try to be friends and enjoy each others company, since it doesn't seem as you'll be going away, and a computer screen is a very small place making it impossible to not bump into each other.

Just because we disagree on a few topics doesn't mean we should hate each other. My brother and sister are both Satanists, with beliefs and opinions that differ radically from mine, and I get into heated argument like this with them all the time; but I still love them to death and would do anything for them.

I know we argued and fought, and i did call you names, but it was just out of frustration. I never meant anything by it. You are a very intelligent individual and you possess talents and skills which i envy and would want to have Amina. I don't hate you Amina... You just forgot about what they say about First Impressions. My first impression of you weren't all that welcoming. But I'm over it.

Lets just let this dumb argument go, so this thread won't turn into an epic saga or trilogy; and hang out in other forum topics? This isn't fun any more, and its neither going anywhere or teaching anyone anything except how we both can be childish and dumb. It makes us look very bad; and quite frankly I'm beautiful and I can't afford to look bad. And it doesn't do much for Satanism as a whole either.

So lets just let this thread die and go away, and you and I can participate in other threads in a more productive way. There's a lot of dumb idiots in here, and me and you teamed up, we can either educate them to death (which is something your very good at) or kick their asses (which is something I'm good at). Let forget about this drama, show people here we're mature and can be friends, and that Satanism has made us at least intelligent enough to realize we have more in common, and that making this thread any longer is not going to do anything. The last thing we need in Satanism in my opinion is infighting; more inbreeding yes; infighting no; or the muslims will get us some day. If we can put so much time and effort fighting and hating each other, we can put in the same amount of time and effort into liking each other and being Satanic Sisters and Friends.

<3 Kayla


Edited by LUCIFERIFIC (03/28/08 11:24 PM)
_________________________
Lux Ex Tenebris
Lux Lucet Ex Orientis


~~352~~


Top
#104171 - 12/01/15 01:06 PM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: Amina]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6863
Loc: Virginia


Contributors include: Amina Olander Lap, Troll Towelhead, Venus Satanas, and Anton Long.

Publisher: Oxford University Press; 1 edition
Publication Date: October 30, 2015
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.

Ties in with THIS TOPIC

From the LaVeyan Satanism Wiki:

 Quote:
with religious studies scholar Amina Olander Lap arguing that it should be seen as being both part of the "prosperity wing" of the self-spirituality New Age movement and a Human Potential Movement group


In the book The Invention of Satanism, it focuses on the 'movement' aspect, in that these so-called 'types of Satanism', fall under Behavioral Science in relation to ideologies that seemingly change and adapt with the modern era.

The authors state:

 Quote:
Substantially, some groups within the subcurrent are easily identifiable as satanic religions with supernaturalism, doctrine, practice, community, and organization; others are more mystical, spiritual or more philosophical side, a loose network or carnal brotherhood or fellow seekers ( or at least temporary allies.


Amina's paper here just runs down the laundry list of obstacles in discernment:

 Quote:
Satanism can only be defined meaningfully if the term describes a concept that can be distinguished from other concepts.


Since Wicca was brought up within these pages, for contrast, what discerns the Satanic or a Satanism from that which is the Wicca?

Leland's treatise (Aradia) has been used as a sort of back story for the fertility (aka sex) cult forged in the 50's. Lord (Lucifer) and Lady (Diana) are archetypal structures used to carry idea sets. Amina (not knowing its background) described it as Theistic. This isn't necessarily true and in contrast to 'Theistic Satanism', it's not as cut and dry as believing these people worship godheads. They are more or less symbols for things (i.e. forces, energies, natural dynamics, physics, etc et. al).

Just as Satanism is muddied by individuals injecting their own Ethics and Morals (enter the CoS or The Satanic Temple for that matter), the same is true for Wicca. Enter Doreen Valientee's discontent with Gerald's Sexism. Later the injection of the Rede just makes it even more confusing for people. Not many understand what it means, or they translate it to be "Stay away from the Dark Arts!"

Just as there are white-lighter Wiccans we see this sort among 'Satanists' as well.

After reading through the pages here, it just seems like a bunch of reactionary commentary based on Amina's Rhetoricals (One Satanism or more Satanisms?).

In an earlier work:


Amina contributed to the area of categorizing Satanism(s).

 Quote:
This chapter is a thematic reading of several core texts authored by the Church of Satan's high priest, Anton LaVey. By looking closely at the anthropology found in The Satanic Bible, The Satanic Witch and The Satanic Rituals, the analysis substantiates the prevalent categorization of modern Satanism as a self-spirituality. The constitution of “damaged” and “satanic” selves, respectively, and how one is liberated from one to the other leads to the conclusion that LaVey indeed should be included in the company of humanistic psychology, self-religion and human potential groups; on the other hand he also differs in his materialistic and ego-driven interpretation of human potential. LaVey's Satanism is thus related more to the secularized “prosperity wing” of New Age thought than the varieties of spirituality found in the cultic milieu today, and should be considered a distinct discourse of world-affirmation.


Getting back to her Essay:

 Quote:
Which Definition Is Best?
To answer the question of which definition of Satanism is the best one, it is necessary to evaluate its degree of selfcontradiction and its clarity of concepts. If a definition cannot provide a concept that can be distinguished from other concepts, as happens if the definition is too broad, the definition is useless or deficient at best. If the definition involves mutually exclusive constructs, then the concept does not provide any clarification.

Furthermore, if Satanism is to be accepted as a philosophy, it must be defined according to the usual requirements of a philosophy. Among other requirements, Satanism must consider the fundamental philosophical questions, and a philosophical method must be applied in arguments. If these requirements are not met, either the definition does not define a philosophy, or the philosophy is primitive and lacks substance.


If the individual were seeking to have their 'satanic philosophy' accepted as a credible philosophy, I suppose that would be important to them. It's also the antithesis of LHP and cause for much discourse among these 'temporary allies' as James Lewis calls them.

Toying with the Needle started by Diavolo, seemed to be exploring the topic of "anything can be Satanic", an aspect Amina pointed to when attempting to distinguish Satanism from other concepts.

As for who has the goods and who doesn't? Plenty of self-identified 'Satanists' have contributed to papers and books on the subject. Very few are considered 'Religious Scholars', the gen-pop tends to consider the latter more credible. It doesn't mean their assertions are etched in stone nor are they finite. Scholars in any field of study often disagree, peer reviewing ideas is thought to keep people more truthful and rest on the facts (when possible). When it comes to the Behavioral Sciences, whether I personally agree or disagree with many types of Satanism is irrelevant. The gen-pop will parrot and cite from what they believe are credible sources and make their own judgments.

For me, I think all of this mayhem has always been part of the allure of Satan (ism). All that confusion, no real way to make it all easy to understand or palatable to the masses. I'm fine with people believing it's just a joke, or some cartoon parody of Red Devil Guy. Other people take it way more seriously and take on a life's pursuit to write books and make tv appearances to make sure the public gets the 'correct' interpretation. Maybe it serves them in a personal way I'll never understand. *shrugs*
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#104173 - 12/01/15 01:27 PM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: SIN3]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
To be honest "Satanism" is a something which cannot be nailed down. It's simply too versatile. People trying to do so are almost always showing more personal inclinations and not so much "Satanism" itself.

As far as the books go... the only worthwhile "contributor" I see would be Anton Long... as far as credibility with that one goes. The other three I generally consider as some kind of laughing stocks.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#104174 - 12/01/15 07:55 PM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1853
Loc: Poland
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
For me, I think all of this mayhem has always been part of the allure of Satan (ism). All that confusion, no real way to make it all easy to understand...


Perhaps because understanding/enlightenment is an illusion. In the thread "Eihnaephe" I mentioned Socratic dialogues. It's quite relevant here as we are dealing with an attempt to define an abstract noun which is Satanism and the Socratic dialogues mostly deal with trying to define such abstractions like courage, friendship, temperance etc. They all end up in confusion, with nobody being able to give a perfect definition. Every attempt at defining is quickly deconstructed hence "I know that I know nothing."

Someone from the CoS once wrote that trying to define Satanism is like trying to nail custard to the wall. If Satan is the essence and the embodiment of "evil", then it would be advisable to define "evil." Is this possible at all? I don't know if you read this text "The Joy of the Sinister." There is a sub-chapter there titled "Toward Understanding Satanism" and it's an attempt to define Satanism by way of defining such words like Satan, evil, diabolical, wicked, bad in moral character and so on, using a dictionary as a help.

Of course, you can open your dictionary and on the basis of some arbitrary and imperfect definition of the word "evil" argue that killing people is evil, therefore Satanic. Here is a problem, however, because in some cases killing is not only justified but also regarded as something noble and virtuous. Let's take, for example, Kayla's example of a rebellion. Fighting against and killing your oppressors is often regarded as "good." I'm thinking about my own country and its history and how often the Catholic Church itself supported the fight and, in consequence, killing the occupants of the nation, how the Catholic priests supported and were often involved in fighting the Communist regime, how transgressing the laws of the regime was regarded as a sacred duty. At that time, nobody thought of it as something wicked, sinister or diabolical.

Or let's take the Cristero War in Mexico. These people killed innocent civilians at times, yet they considered their cause holy. Slaughtering people indiscriminately in the name of merciful God is something that Crusaders regularly did and they didn't even repent for that as nobody considered it a sin. I'm using Christian examples deliberately as these people would roll their eyes if someone called them the spawn of Satan.

You could argue that human sacrifice is something wicked but Aztecs would disagree with you. Killing the enemy at war is hardly ever considered evil. Even if women and children die, the end justifies the means. It was often claimed by some O9A bloggers that ISIS and their acts are Satanic and adversarial but they aren't seen in this way by the Muslim fundamentalists. To them the Western style of life is what they regard as Shaitan and an adversary.

So one could argue that being Satanic is transgressing the norms of your own society. But what if the society you're part of is in a state of war and carrying arms and killing enemies is a sacred duty? Then, being a hippie and sticking flowers in your hair would be Satanic as it would go against the social norms. It's all extremely subjective.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
As far as the books go... the only worthwhile "contributor" I see would be Anton Long... as far as credibility with that one goes. The other three I generally consider as some kind of laughing stocks.


I couldn't agree more though it might not be so obvious to the general public, including academic researchers. It all boils down to the marketing skills and who is the best at pimping their stuff to the masses. I read only a Google preview of the book SIN linked but I see that a considerable part of it is dedicated to the Satanic Temple. It doesn't surprise me. The most popular doesn't equal the best but it definitely catches the most attention. So I wouldn't be so quick to appreciate the scholarly works as even the scholars can have serious problems with separating the wheat from the chaff.

By the way, I really enjoyed Amina and Kayla's War of Vaginas. Very entertaining and the final reconciliation brings to my mind the final episode of Dynasty, when Alexis Colby reunited with Blake Carrington and his family after five years or more of a soap opera and they all lived happily ever after in a perfect harmony...


Edited by Czereda (12/01/15 07:57 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#104180 - 12/02/15 09:28 AM Re: One Satanism or more Satanisms? [Re: Czereda]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6863
Loc: Virginia
Perhaps it's more appropriate to say, a "Mutual Understanding", because I think on an individual level, each have their own. It's a no brainer to me but when I hear another person define it or try to explain the practice thereof in their own terms, it's Alien to my own.

Satanism is so often treated like it's a sentient helper or a pet, i.e. "Satanism helped me do... [fill in the blank]"

Reference texts like Dictionaries are misunderstood and often misused, they are just a point of reference in language. The Satanic requires context and as you've pointed out, it depends on what the Nomos is at the time. This is where the Prescriptive is applied to what is being described. It's also only one aspect, even if you'd consider it Prime. There are many angles.

 Originally Posted By: CZ
The most popular doesn't equal the best but it definitely catches the most attention.
There has always been a competitive nature to the Descriptive. Individuals or groups desire to have the best real estate on the market which again is part of all the mayhem. Is it any wonder why so many would-be Satanists tow the line? I think it does everyone a favor, even if on an individual basis you find the cognition issue annoying. I admit, a lot of the low-brow interpretations are a nuisance but you have to ask yourself: What do they stop you from doing?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page 5 of 5 <12345


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

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 25 queries. Zlib compression disabled.