Page 11 of 14 « First<910111213>Last »
Topic Options
#61006 - 11/03/11 12:16 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

I'm sorry, but I still see this line of objection as a quibble.


Its not ”a quibble” because what you claimed as fact, proven beyond doubt, doesnt have any historical references to support it. These are your exact words:

Satanism is the worship of and allegiance to Satan the metaphysical being.”

”The chorus of indignation following my citation of Satanism's original, centuries-established meaning. . .”


I will make a very small request. Provide ANY proof, from ”centuries ago”, that your definition of Satanism, as the worship and allegiance to Satan (the metaphysical being), holds any truth whatsoever. You frequently refer to your own writings for support but do you have any objective scientific research that actually supports this thesis?

The above is what I find essential in your forthcoming reply so please prioritize this question.

 Quote:
Concerning pre-Church of Satan Satanism, cf. also COS Chapter #1.


I have read your book twice actually. I enjoyed most of it greatly but your section on pre-CoS Satanism is very much lacking and so short that it doesnt hold any greater substance whatsoever (you even missed refering to the first few individuals that were self-proclaimes Satanists in the so called western world). I am refering to serious academic research into the origins of Satan and Satanism – where it came from, what it has meant through the times etc.

 Quote:
That was occasionally but not invariably true outside the Church; sometimes he wanted to shock, leg-pull, or just deflect.


And how do you know the same wasnt true within the church? You have your persepctive but others from the same era have other perspectives – especially on the metaphysical reality or non-reality of Satan. Sometimes he goes back and forth in the very same book on certain things like the ego, spirit, Self, immortality of said things etc. My main thesis is that there doesnt really seem to have been ”a Satanism” during the early years but many kinds and interpretations within the same Church and indeed within the same man. After years and years people seem to want to prove that the CoS either used to be theistic or that it never was. I think it was both – at the same time – but perhaps, most of all, hungry for knowledge and full of theories.

Of great interest, regarding interpreting things your own way, is LaVeys words describing Satan as a dark force of nature while you always seemed to hold that Satan is something seperate from nature. The same goes for the ritual part of Satanism. Of course its meaningless without a ”real Satan” if we are to define things on your terms but people obviously dont and dont and if we are to interpret TSB as atheistic (which I think you can) there is a case for how ritual magic works in such a universe as well.


Edited by TheInsane (11/03/11 12:20 PM)

Top
#61009 - 11/03/11 03:22 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Fnord]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2522
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Kindly point me to that exchange, so that I may review what you said and whatever reply I made.

Forgive my one liner response but I think he's referring to that deception of Atheism thread located HERE. One of my personal favorites!

Just took a quick look through it; didn't notice any particular "eyeball" exchange. I'll just rest with my comment above. As soon as you question anything about "purely random/natural evolution", many people fear that you're heading towards the blind & stupid "creationism" of Christian fundamentalists. Therefore all evolutionary "heresy" needs to be stamped down instantly and absolutely. I don't feel that fear; neither of course am I a "creationist" in the Christian sense.

Having participated in 14 or so pages of that thread, moreover, I am content with my contributions to that discussion and will decline to start it all over again now. Others may re-gnaw it at their pleasure, certainly.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61010 - 11/03/11 03:31 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Just took a quick look through it; didn't notice any particular "eyeball" exchange. I'll just rest with my comment above. As soon as you question anything about "purely random/natural evolution", many people fear that you're heading towards the blind & stupid "creationism" of Christian fundamentalists. Therefore all evolutionary "heresy" needs to be stamped down instantly and absolutely. I don't feel that fear; neither of course am I a "creationist" in the Christian sense.


I think you see evolution wrong if you think it is randomness. Evolution is not random although there indeed is some "chance" involved but at large it is rather determined.

We don't even need to look at a large time-scale to see it at work. If two parents have a child, this child will, on average, have 50/50 % of their genes, including some mutations.

The very reason there are those mutations is because probability is involved. But the probability to "differ" is quite small.

D.

Top
#61011 - 11/03/11 04:29 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
The "stamping down" is because the theory of evolution is simple and sufficient as-is - offspring can exhibit a different set of characteristics from their parents (via mutation or different gene expression (eg blue eyes instead of brown)), combined with survival of the fittest. Both produce bias on who reproduces.

If you're going to suggest some other mechanism, you need to back it up, or you can't expect anyone to think anything other than that you do indeed fall into the "faith-based" bucket.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#61017 - 11/03/11 06:17 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2522
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
My chief problem is the dogmatic approach you have been taking to OTHER PEOPLE'S lives. You can hallucinate or visualize whatever it is in another person's mind or life but that does not make it so. You've played fast and loose with some kind of idea that Satan has to be the same thing for everyone, and despite what anyone says, you seem to feel that your theistic approach is the only way to go.

To most 600Cers, presumably, "Satanism" is just a personal-opinion concept, as is "Satan"; and for each person these are different. And since they are mere personal-opinions, they are not even especially important. They can be used at whim, changed at whim, and ignored at whim. "Satanism" is a particular sport shirt in your mental closet, so to speak.

To me - and here I am speaking as a Priest of the pre-1975 Church - Satan was real. To Anton Satan was real. I know this not just from the written examples I've cited or copied here, but from numerous private discussions with him over the years of our acquaintance. Let me try to summarize this thus:

Satan is the god (principle. Form. neter, et al.) of separation from and resistance to God (the cosmos, nature, the "deisim" touched upon in the SB). This capacity indwells all humans, but most do not reflect upon it - simply use it automatically and blindly. When they do reflect upon it, they are afraid of it as something not in harmony with, not under the law of the rest of the universe, so make [ultimately futile] gestures to demonize and destroy it.

This may happen, and since the de facto discarding of religious belief in the Enlightenment, usually happens in a purely secular context. "God" is an old comic-book cartoon, so so is "Satan". The scenario becomes one of just "going along" [with social norms, ecology, etc.] vs. being a free spirit, rebel, Beat, or other uncooperative fly-in-the-ointment. Such dissociation can be artistic, political, philosophical, or just for the hell of it.

This is where the Church of Satan came into the picture, and where its public image was concerned positioned itself. It was an affiliation statement for the oddball, and its religious image was just for fun and pageantry. That was the "9/1 parts" principle. At the I°/II° level, as elsewhere discussed, it was also as far as many members understood and regarded it. [This is also generally descriptive of the 600C today.]

To Anton and myself, however, Satan was a god. By such I mean that we understood this quality in humanity to be the reflection, the expression, the consequence of something more primal, all-inclusive, eternal and immortal. As such a god, it could be portrayed in any number of ways, by any number of names [as for instance the list in the SB]. We called it "Satan" simply within the context of our Western, Judæo-Christian society.

We worshipped this god. What do I mean by "worship"? Not at all what it means in the slave religions. Rather it was first an acknowledgment of its existence and expressed intention (= its manifestation in the consciousness of each human), secondly a commitment of one's soul to it. For Anton this was his personal, signed Pact as contained in his strongbox until the Ninth Solstice Message; for me it was my Priesthood oath and consecration. And what this meant, and I cannot overemphasize this, was that our entire conscious existence now became a radiation of this god. It was no longer just something you did, either deliberately or unconsciously; it was something you were. Everything you did now had a significance, a motive, and a force of inevitability beyond itself, beyond you as the doer. Each action thus became a sacred action.

Thus the Satanic Priesthood was not anything like profane church priesthoods, which are just jobs, flock-controllers & -satisfiers. The Satanic Priesthood was a state of being, and its effect upon others just something incidental to this.

Such a state of being and mind could not be taught in the ordinary sense. It would either actualize in someone or it would not. [Here, incidentally, were the pre-roots of what the Temple of Set describes as "Recognition".]

There was no "mission" of this Priesthood, except simply to be. Implicit was, as the Church proper, the stimulating, creative, rewarding, and enjoyable application of the Satanic quality in others, e.g. Satanism. It was simultaneously understood that this was a type of individualism which very few could handle either emotionally or responsibly. Society generally needed to remain within the grip, and under the control of J/C norms, traditions, and laws. Otherwise you would get the worst sort of mindless, random anarchy.

Thus the future of the Church of Satan would remain a very limited and self-restricted one. The more sophisticated it became, the smaller its numbers would be. In theory it would be increasingly dangerous to profane society the more it fully understood itself. In practice it would become that much more skilled at maintaining and presenting its 9/1 image.

Now that you know this, you can see it reflected in the NSM and in Anton's own Phase IV announcement. That was the present and the future. It was also the explanation for many of the things Anton [and I] said and did that by ordinary logic might be mystifying.

Now in the 600C, any more than then, this is not something which can be taught or argued into anyone else, and I do not expect to. I am not even sure that even this brief explanation is comprehensible. And certainly within 600C norms there will be strong resistance to/disbelief in it. I merely relate it; that's all.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
Now, it's obvious that YOU believe LaVey believed in an anthropomorphic manifestation of Satan... we've seen direct evidence that he didn't and LaVey isn't here to refute your claims.

I've actually cited several, extensive, and explicit statements by Anton that he did, most recently his note to me concerning the NSM. It is knee-jerk here for the Atheist contingent to simply tune that out, or rationalize it, or excuse it as a lie, etc. That is simply not my problem.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
All we have is an audio recording in which he categorically proclaims he does not believe in an anthropomorphic being, (this during the same time frame you claim he did) and also explaining why he felt it was ok for "mystical types" to believe in it.

I helped him compose it when the Occult Explosion outfit invited his contribution. We're right back to 9/1 again. The complete text of it is Appendix #91 in COS. Now that you've seen a goodly amount of my focus and style of expression here, it should be very easy to pick out not just my verbiage, but the concepts I've alluded to above, as for example:

 Originally Posted By: ASLV, The Occult Explosion Statement
It has been said that the most powerful thing in the world is an idea whose time has come ’round. The idea that the “enemy” might conceivably have something worthwhile to say is now with us. In fact, is that demon within each of us really an enemy, as we have so long been taught? Or will it be recognized as the guiding spirit of enlightenment which it actually is? You must remember that the word Daimon does not imply “evil”, but simply a “guiding spirit”, a “motivating spirit”.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
We also have ME, who can personally recount personal conversations between my self and LaVey where he spoke openly about his belief in Satan as a symbol.

This was after 1975, obviously.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
I can only assume, knowing LaVey's style, that he was writing to his audience when he wrote to you. I know for a fact that he didn't write that way to others... hell, I was a gopher, remember... I typed his correspondences to at times.

Well, of course he was writing to me when he wrote to me. Few if any others would have known what he was talking about, or understood it without thinking him nuts. Exactly the same could be said of some of my own esoteric correspondence with him. Would I have said or written the same thing to a newspaper reporter? Not very likely!

This of course is not at all the same thing as saying that we lied to one another. Very simply we had no reason to. Anton was quite comfortable criticizing as well as agreeing with me, especially magically and philosophically. [He was particularly concerned about my "naïve idealism" and altruism generally; he had a far harsher, more Hobbesian perspective on people & situations. Usually he was right and I was wrong. At one point I suggested to him that he just get an "I told you so." rubber stamp made, for his correspondence to me.]

 Originally Posted By: Jake
Your theism can't be denied. You have said you were contacted by SET. You believe in a physical manifestation of god(s) and fanatically claim to the existence of them with nothing but personal faith and belief. There's an old saying, "If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're delusional." I can't help but believe that there is actually truth in that quip without some tangible proof. If LaVey himself had told me he spoke to Satan on the telephone, I would AT LEAST have asked him for the phone bill.

Please see Chapter #2 of TOS, specifically the discussion of "anomolous experience". Where others are concerned, I have been quite content to let the North Solstice Working be judged by its practical consequences and effects. This is the norm for GBM workings, of course. Even publishing records of them, as with Crowley's Liber AL and my NSW, is an invitation to others' misinterpretation of the working experience.

Anton's first GBM working with Satan, or "conversation" if you prefer, was the "blinding flash" resulting in the creation of the Church of Satan that he described to Arthur Lyons in Art's original Satanism in America. Thereafter he had several "chats with the Man Downstairs", as he liked to call them; I think a few are mentioned in some of his COS-reprinted correspondence.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
As for being locked in with LaVey... he and I disagreed on things and argued about them, sometimes to the point of absurdity. He and I had VASTLY different opinions on the role of women, on military service (he suggested that I throw away 15 years of service and just work for the church, to which I asked, "Are you out of your fucking mind?) and other things as well. We were in agreement with many points, and I can include the precepts of Pentagonal Revisionism, the role of Satanism in the rising "Satanic imagery in rock music," and how to encorporate our message without it being lost in the hype" although he could never understand how I could actually listen to it, and much more. You see, I was only a gopher.

As should be evident to readers here, your association with Anton was far more personal than mere administrative gophering. You have previously touched upon various of your bull sessions with him, both privately and in groups of friends. He was obviously an interesting conversationalist. My previous point was simply that "Satan disappeared after 1975 except as an adjective" in such conversation; the metaphysical dimension of Satanism was gone.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
Whether or not I would have made a difference in The Church of Satan had I stayed on is a moot point. I KNOW I made a difference while I was there, and that LaVey considered my opinions and counsel. But while my heart and "soul" belonged to the Church of Satan, my ass belonged to Uncle Sam. My oath of loyalty that I gave to LaVey has not expired, nor has my oath of allegiance to my country. I would have taken or delivered a bullet for both, and still would.

I completely understand, of course.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
So when someone comes into my world and says things that I know are not true to the best of my belief and personal knowledge, I have a duty to that man's legacy to speak up. I don't care if a person is the Ipsissimus of the Temple of Set or the President of the United States. And if I fight, I'm going to fight HARD.

Just watch out for that "to the best of my belief and personal knowledge" caveat. Or, as my dad used to say, "Never fall on your sword in the semi-finals." ;\)

 Quote:
But I would do the same thing if someone said something about you that was blatantly wrong to the best of my belief and personal knowledge, as in the case of the child molestation charges, etc. They were investigated and proven to be unfounded... so no one has the right to bring them up as some kind of fact. I would fight that and demand proof.

I appreciate that too [so I assume no more "Mikey" from you].

 Originally Posted By: Jake
My only problem in this thread is that you seem to feel that your ideas trump the individual rights of others to have their own opinions. Sure, you make cute but condescending statements, but people these days are too intelligent not to read them for what they are. You can only speak for yourself... your beliefs... but unless you can come up with tangible proofs (and self citing is not proof) then people will challenge you, and rightly so.

Well, I have made pretty exhaustive efforts here to explain myself and my ideas in language that is meaningful to humans. This generally extends up Plato's "pyramid of thought" to the level of dianoia. Above that is nœsis, which, like GBM, is apprehensive, unique, and unprovable by OU methodology [except, as above, by the reflection of its results].

So I can "think for others" only so far here, and after that they're absolutely on their own. You not only have to want to do this thing; you need the mental perspective and discipline to do it coherently. It's a bit like the aforementioned jumping out of an airplane: you can describe it to others, and you can imagine what it might be like, but neither of these substitutes for actually doing it.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
Show me the talking Aardvark, and maybe I can be swayed.

Closer to an anteater, actually:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., The Temple of Set
The “Set-animal” of portraits and hieroglyphic inscriptions has remained the object of considerable controversy. Its long, curved snout, stiffly-upraised and forked tail, and tall, brush-like ears (?) appear to rule it out of any known animal category. The most extensive and thorough treatment of Set’s image to date is by H. Te Velde in his classic work Seth, God of Confusion.

Among the animals he cites as past candidates for the Set-animal are the ass, oryx antelope, greyhound, fennec, jerboa, camel, okapi, long-snouted mouse, aardvark or orycteropus, giraffe, hog, boar, hare, jackal, tapir, long-snouted Nile mormyr, and the Egyptian Nh-bird. Dismissing each of the above as essentially different from the portraits and statues of Set, Te Velde takes the position that the question cannot be resolved from the information currently available to Egyptologists.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61019 - 11/03/11 06:41 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Somebody get me a couple of fucking Excedrin.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#61020 - 11/03/11 07:01 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2522
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
Somebody get me a couple of fucking Excedrin.

With my compliments.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61030 - 11/03/11 09:17 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
I don't know, this is all a lot to take in but I do have a question.

If you remove the Satan from Satanism is it still Satanism?
Obviously the ToS has a Priesthood that some accept the godform of Set and others accept Set as Principle (if I am correct?)

Either way we can call this Setian, but if the majority of Satanists don't include Satan into Satanism, why wouldn't you just call this something else?

Atheistic Libertarianism for instance?

Top
#61031 - 11/03/11 09:25 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Oxus]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Oxus
I don't know, this is all a lot to take in but I do have a question.

If you remove the Satan from Satanism is it still Satanism?
Obviously the ToS has a Priesthood that some accept the godform of Set and others accept Set as Principle (if I am correct?)

Either way we can call this Setian, but if the majority of Satanists don't include Satan into Satanism, why wouldn't you just call this something else?

Atheistic Libertarianism for instance?



We didn't remove Satan from Satanism, some of us became the Satan. Those that keep him and don't become him, are much more questionable.

D.

Top
#61032 - 11/03/11 10:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
What oxus here has to say reflects my feelings on the gilmorean crew, yet the problem is there is no dichotomy between them and the theistic retards.

Some, as D highlighted, find a much more meaningful role for the devil, supported by both praxis and tradition - two things sorely lacking in the other two.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61033 - 11/03/11 10:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2522
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
I have a couple more questions for you, Dr. Aquino. The first one has to do with Anton LaVey. You would, I’m sure, argue that at one time he had what you claim you have, a sacred connection to/consecration by the Prince of Darkness. If this consecration is as wonderful as you say it is, why would he give it up?

I don't know. The events of mid-1975 caught me completely by surprise. It could have been financial pressures, prompting an attempt to generate more income from the Church. Remember, at that time I think it was about $25 to join and $10 annual renewal, that's all. Baphomet medallions cost us $3.50@ and we sold them for $7@. Hardly a religious racket.

Or it could have been pure psychological strain. Being the High Priest of Satan was a big, dark hole. Nothing like this had ever happened before, and there was no road map how to do it at all, much less perfectly.

In addition to his metaphysical office there was also the material one: being CEO of an organization which was expanding throughout the United States and showing signs of becoming international. Anton and Diane had no background or experience in such an operation. And of course the national Priesthood, Grottos, and individual Satanists were all looking to him for a road map.

Understand: The Church of Satan was not theologically preplanned like some venture capital company. It came into existence almost accidentally - Anton had been thinking of a B&D partnership with Monique von Cleef until Edward Webber suggested that he start a Church of Satan instead. Then it spent its first few years with its head more or less up its ass, but having lots of spooky fun as a Charles Addams alternative to what was going on a few blocks away at Haight/Ashbury. It began to get serious when it started to take itself seriously, which was about the time I joined it in 1969.

Some people thought Anton LaVey was the most dangerous man in the world, and drove by 6114 at night taking rifle shots at it. Some people thought he was a con-man out for a fast buck. Some thought he was a nut, clown, or "deviled ham". The SFPD arrested him because his lion roared at night. In general he lived under extreme strain, yet was expected to project an image of power and omniscience. He would visit my home in Santa Barbara occasionally just to get away from all that, bum around the beach in disguise (hat & dark glasses), and get his face licked by my Irish setter Brandy.

With hindsight I think it was a race to get the Church fully set up and functional without his having to deal with its growing pains ad hoc. The Church lost the race. Various things could have been done differently, but none of us expected that a clock was ticking to 1975.

 Quote:
The second question has to do with something you said to me earlier in this thread. Commenting on belief in Satan within the pre-1975 CoS (and presumably Set within the ToS), you said that a “blind faith” belief was/is viewed as inappropriate, “a mere mirror-flip from the slave religions”. And yet here you are, doing your damndest to sell us on believing in a literal Satan/Set, hammering the idea into our heads over and over. How do you reconcile these two seemingly conflicting positions?

I am not trying to sell you on any belief. That works for the slave religions, but not for Satanism [or, of course, Setian initiation]. This is a Grail Quest. Each of you who aspires to must find your own way to the castle, which involves being able to see it. Pick up a copy of this book, read, and learn. And don't be distracted by Parsifal's Christian-theme context *; this is an initiatory adventure far deeper than that. [This same book is one of the references of the Order of the Trapezoid.]

* Adolf Hitler, a Wagner devotee, remarked to Goebbels in 1941 that "after the war he would see to it either that religion was banished from Parsifal or that Parsifal was banished from the stage". Himmler was a bit more visionary and modeled the Grail Hall of the Wewelsburg after the similar Parsifal set.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61034 - 11/03/11 10:31 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2522
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw
Have fun proving that Set exists, that he revealed himself to you, and that Anton LaVey always believed in a literal Satan. I don't believe it, and neither do many others here, but if you say that others do, maybe it will become true.

All it takes is faith and trust and ... a l-i-t-t-l-e bit of pixie dust.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61041 - 11/04/11 02:30 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
We didn't remove Satan from satanism, some of us became the Satan. Those that keep him and don't become him, are much more questionable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me people are giving Aquino a hard time here because he accepts that Satan is real, while everyone else here appears to accept that Satan is symbolic and then go on to say that those who don't accept Satan being symbolic are delusional or just plain idiots.

Which leads me to ask - how do they arrive at this conclusion about Satan? Have they, as I assume Aquino has done, done many effective and practical Satanic rituals to evoke Satan? If so, then presumably nothing happened? Even if something did occur, how did they explain what occurred? Did they assume it was derived from their own imagination, and if so how did they arrive at this conclusion?

What I'm basically asking is if those who accept the symbolic interpretation of Satan have done practical Satanic stuff or not? If they have, then what? If they haven't, then aren't they just making an assumption about Satan based on a lack of practical Occult rituals?

Top
#61043 - 11/04/11 04:45 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Apeynon]
TheInsane Offline
member


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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me people are giving Aquino a hard time here because he accepts that Satan is real, while everyone else here appears to accept that Satan is symbolic and then go on to say that those who don't accept Satan being symbolic are delusional or just plain idiots.


I dont have a problem with theism really even if I am not a theist. The problem for me is that Aquino says so many things and claim them as the truth. His evidence for most of what he says has a base in his very subjective beliefs in a real being that he calls Set (that he percieved to be Satan from about 1969 to 1975).

He also tends to reply to people but dodge the difficult questions and thus providing to substancial answers. After days and days after claiming some kind of centuries established true definition of Satanism he still hasnt provided any proof that this claim holds any truth while we have been 3 or 4 people who have supported our claims (see page 2 and 3 I believe).

He also cant seem to understand any though that he doesnt agree with (see the older discussion on Self and non-Self if its dynamic or static, separate and independent or integrated and dependent on the world etc).

 Originally Posted By: Oxus

If you remove the Satan from Satanism is it still Satanism?
Obviously the ToS has a Priesthood that some accept the godform of Set and others accept Set as Principle (if I am correct?)

Either way we can call this Setian, but if the majority of Satanists don't include Satan into Satanism, why wouldn't you just call this something else?

Atheistic Libertarianism for instance?


Sure if there is no Satan in Satanism the name holds no value. But even if Satanism is theistic or atheistic or something else Satan is always a central concept or principle within the religion or philosophy. It is not about the existence of a metaphysical being neccesarily.

Personally I would loathe a label of ”atheistic libertarianism”. Firstly, while I am an Atheist, I do think that Satanism can be theistic. Second, I dislike the concepts of libertarianism. I am very far from a libertarian and I know plenty of Satanists that are. It just wouldnt be accurate to label a Satanist an atheistic libertarian except in certain individual cases.

Top
#61049 - 11/04/11 10:29 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, thank you for answering my questions. I still don’t see eye to eye with you, and I’m not sure I ever will, but you’ve definitely given me a lot to think about. A thought occurred to me last night, that you’re sort of like the Howard Stern of the 600 Club. Love you or hate you (more often the latter), interest seems to pick up considerably when you step up to the mic. At least, that’s the case with me. The last few nights I’ve had a hard time getting to sleep because I was so absorbed in thought (although for some reason I slept much better last night; maybe exhaustion just got the better of me). You’re one fascinating dude.

In your latest response to Jake (well, before offering him Excederin), you talked about the Satanic Priesthood oath and consecration. You said, “What this meant, and I cannot overemphasize this, was that our entire conscious existence now became a radiation of this god. It was no longer just something you did, either deliberately or unconsciously; it was something you were. Everything you did now had a significance, a motive, and a force of inevitability beyond itself, beyond you as the doer. Each action thus became a sacred action.”

I still, for the life of me, don’t understand what is so great about being a Satanic/Setian Priest. I know you’d answer with, “You’d have to experience it for yourself,” but any zealot could say the same thing regarding their “religious experience”. Satanic/Setian Priests, I’m sure, have highs and lows in their life just like the rest of us. Some are more accomplished than others, and all are less accomplished (“real-world” accomplishments) than the most accomplished “mundanes”. Some Priests have families, others do not. Priests get sick, get old and die just like the rest of us. You could argue that their lives are better than others after their physical bodies expire, but that seems to get into the “blind faith” arena (as none of us have yet experienced death).

So what’s the payoff? How is “apprehending Satan/Set” better than simply “being your own Satan” and living life on your own terms?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
Page 11 of 14 « First<910111213>Last »


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

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