Page 2 of 14 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#60549 - 10/29/11 02:18 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1639
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
The chorus of indignation following my citation of Satanism's original, centuries-established meaning above rather, I think, Q.E.D.s my point about "Satanist"-poseurs.


Actually you've made a mistake, here. Prior to the 1800s, Satanism never really referred to a specific praxis or ideology- rather, "Satanism" was mostly a byword for rebellion, heresy, and wrongdoing. The apparent traits of Satanism-- veneration of the devil, black masses, blood pacts, etc, were simply considered to be a subset of Witchcraft. The idea of Satanism as a religious system itself did not gain currency until it became used to defame Freemasonry. By the time LaVey got his hands on the word, it had already been circulated extensively by the likes of Taxil, Montague Summers, and Dennis Wheatley, who are largely responsible for the contemporary conception of Satanism.

In fact, the first known name for a diabolic religion is Luciferian, as written in the Papal Bull entitled Vox in Rama.


Edited by The Zebu (10/29/11 02:25 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60553 - 10/29/11 03:53 AM 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
 Originally Posted By: Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.

The chorus of indignation following my citation of Satanism's original, centuries-established meaning above rather, I think, Q.E.D.s my point about "Satanist"-poseurs. We live in an H.D.-age in which convenient redefinition is common; and because it is so common, the rabble do not really care.

To those of us who were members of the original 1966-75 Church of Satan, however, the concept of Satanism, and the name of Satanist, were profoundly, explicitly, and precisely respected. In short, we did care.


1. If you put your own value into words they will mean nothing in the end when talking to others. The main point of language is to get your point across and for that to happen we must accept that we cant define or redefine words ourselves.

2. "Satanism's original, centuries-established meaning"? Really? Where is the evidence for this claim? If we go back to the oldest meaning of Satanism - from the time when the term was coined - it is more about anything opposing Christianity in the eyes of the people in power. This means it could be almost anything.

3. It is also interesting that you bring up the CoS as a support for your claim. I agree with you that the atheistic stance of the latter Church wasnt as prominent pre-1975 - and in general the Chruch seemed more open and less ruled with an iron hand. However Anton LaVey himself would claim it was always this way (atheistic that is) and indeed there is no direct proof of any theism in his writings. So we have two people, one higher up in the CoS pre-1975, and also the founder and member for life in Anton LaVey and you would argue the exact opposite points.

 Originally Posted By: The Zebu

In fact, the first known name for a diabolic religion is Luciferian, as written in the Papal Bull entitled Vox in Rama.


This is the praxis that was banned by Gregorius IX and it is probably a myth. Konrad von Marburg was an inquisitor and had been recieving reports about supposed "luciferianism" through questionable methods while interrogating heretics. This lead to an official description of their methods and a ban of the same in the Vox in Rama. There is no evidence of such a practice actually existing except for the confessions of percieved heretics under inquisitory interrogations and we all know what kind of confessions those interrogation produced.


Edited by TheInsane (10/29/11 04:07 AM)

Top
#60559 - 10/29/11 09:57 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Again we see the same old canard that "pre 1975 LaVey believed in..." when we have his own voice telling us exactly what his feelings are regarding the literal existence of "Satan." This from Nat Frieland's 1973 LP THE OCCULT EXPLOSION, but recorded at least in late 71 or in 1972:

http://www.darkryde.com/Audio/LaVey-OccultExplosion1973.mp3

He says what the stance of the Church is, that some in the Church still see Satan as an anthropomorphic being, and why he does not discourage this. His words. Direct testimony. Now, it is true that he wrote to Michael Aquino in a stilted and sometimes almost comically corny way referring to Satan in a way that sounds as if LaVey is referring to Satan as an anthropomorphic being. Aquino takes this as PROOF that LaVey believed in SATAN.

But again, we have LaVey's OWN WORDS, direct testimony, of what he believes, but that others of the Church still believe in an anthropomorphic manifestation of Satan, and so on... so LaVey, in his writings to Aquino is simply WRITING TO HIS AUDIENCE IN WORDS THE AUDIENCE COULD UNDERSTAND. He was using Aquino's on belief in Satan as real metaphorically. Simple as that. That Aquino took everything LaVey said as a validation of his own naivete, does nothing to bolster his case, but only shows that LaVey was indeed able to read people and custom tailor his message to his audience, both through the spoken word and through the written word as well.

Aquino remains deluded in the belief in an anthropomorphic devil to this day. Pre or post 1975, we have direct proof in LaVey's own words that Aquino has simply projected his beliefs onto those of LaVey, when clearly, no such corresponding belief existed for LaVey.

He cannot change his stance because to do so would negate a 35+ year old campaign to share his delusion as truth, despite the obvious facts against his claims. He'll go to his grave with his delusion. It's all he has.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60566 - 10/29/11 01:01 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Antigod]
voxintus Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/29/11
Posts: 7
Loc: northern california
people really dont do Satanism at all. self delusion,guilt,herd conformity, these are not satanic tenets and most of soceity fits that mold. Atheism is just lack of belief, its not even a philosophy. Satanism is what people CAN become, but most aren't satanic IMO.
_________________________
"Trust those who claim to seek the truth and doubt those who claim to have it."

Top
#60569 - 10/29/11 01:49 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1639
Loc: Orlando, FL
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the accusations were true; only to emphasize that, historically, the idea of "Satanism" labeled as such is a recent one, and that the things we commonly associate with Satanism were usually called by different names.

Overall, I think, it is important to take into account both the historical and contemporary meanings of a word, and realize that even a single name can convey different meanings. One will obviously favor the meaning that has the most value to them, but should not waste time fighting against the currency of other meanings.

I'm sure Dr. Aquino is well aware of the currency of other Satanic perspectives-- he just gets a kick out of trolling us. (Is it really still fun after so many years of doing it, or does the modern ability to instantaneously prod Satanists over the internet make it all the more fun?)


Edited by The Zebu (10/29/11 01:50 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60577 - 10/29/11 03:36 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2480
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
I'm sure Dr. Aquino is well aware of the currency of other Satanic perspectives-- he just gets a kick out of trolling us. (Is it really still fun after so many years of doing it, or does the modern ability to instantaneously prod Satanists over the internet make it all the more fun?)

As I have previously observed, anyone can call himself anything he likes. If bored atheists want to glamorize their image by styling themselves "Satanists", they are assuredly at liberty to do so. Some men who wish they were women put on dresses and stumble around in high heels too. Whatever makes you happy.

At issue here are two principles: legitimacy and hypocrisy. The former may be established by law, or over time by custom.

Satanism-as-such proposed to become purely atheistic/symbolic after 1975, when Anton LaVey, after betraying his High Priesthood of Satan, had no ego-acceptable alternative except to disavow him. Prior to that there was no question of either his sincere belief in Satan, as amply evidenced in COS, the Satanic Bible, the Satanic Rituals, etc. That he simultaneously publicly discussed Satan/Satanism's symbolism did not bother any of us in the least; it was simply a social-survival mechanism, as Anton acknowledged with his "nine parts social-respectability to one part outrage" formula. [So did I on appropriate occasions.]

Characteristic of Jake's post-1975 "Church of Satan" is, throughout all of its publications and Anton's own statements, the complete absence of Satan. The noun was now an adjective, used to describe whatever Anton LaVey himself thought, said, or did. It also attracted a new kind of disciple: one who admired Anton's personality and lifestyle in lieu of being a believer in Satan and a practitioner of Black Magic. The glamor of the 1966-7 Church was there for the basking, but now one could live safely within the "nine parts" without worrying about that pesky, and dangerous, "one part". The post-1975 "Satanist" could now have his Devil's-food cake and eat it too.

Since then this convenient and safe "Satanism without Satan" has continued to be fashionable. It is certainly the strongest commonality between Peter Gilmore's "Church of Satan" and the 600 Club; and precisely because it reduces "Satanism" to a matter of complete personal whim, it also makes the term ultimately meaningless. The question which began this thread accordingly generated automatic agreement.

Whether this morphology means anything to each of you is, as also previously, a purely-personal decision. I said above that this is also a question of hypocrisy, but that is only if you do not really believe in the legitimacy of your convenient redefinition. If that is indeed all that you can see, at least you are not a hypocrite.

I am going to risk a one-time violation of the 600C's ban of poetry to conclude with this, written by my mother at age 13:

 Originally Posted By: Betty Ford, Pegasus in Pinfeathers, 1925
FORCED ENTRANCE

There came a time when they were not content
To shriek against the portals and the shrine.
They crushed the silver gates, and in they went,
Hot-handed, on a search for the Divine.

And the white portals opened ceaselessly,
And the great purple curtains flapped and fell,
And the great mass of people swept to see
Naked Untruth, but how they could not tell.

Still they found nothing godlike, but a throne
Empty and time-worn, in an empty hall,
And a white heap of manuscripts, alone,
And the Sun’s rays that fell, nor ceased to fall.

And, in one sheltered crevass they went by,
A flight of stairs that wound into the sky.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60579 - 10/29/11 04:01 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
And still you didnt really adress mine or Jake's comments or questions. How come?
Top
#60580 - 10/29/11 04:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think this is rather interesting for those pondering about Satanism or satan.

 Quote:
The Geryne of Satan

Order of Nine Angles

The Geryne of Satan

Introduction

This brief essay will outline a few interesting facts about the terms Satan and Satanism (and thus Satanist), including their historical usage in the English language, and thus may guide the sagacious to an understanding of the geryne [1] of Satan: that the mysterious secret of Satan is the simple heretical, japing, and confrontational reality of being or becoming a satan.

Satan

The scribes of the Septuagint mostly rendered the Hebrew שָׂטָן as ὁ διάβολος/τω διάβολω – and which Greek term implies someone who is an adversary and who thus is pejoratively regarded (by those so opposed) as scheming, as plotting against them; that is, the sense is of ἐπίβουλος - scheming against/opposed to (the so-called ‘chosen ones’). Someone, that is, who stirs up trouble and dissent.

Only in a few later parts – such as Job and Chronicles – does the Hebrew seem to imply something else, and on these occasions the word usually occurs with the definitive article: hasatan – the satan: the chief adversary (of the so-called ‘chosen ones’) and the chief schemer, who in some passages is given a fanciful hagiography as a ‘fallen angel’.

Now, given that the earliest known parts of the Septuagint date from around the second century BCE [2] – and thus may well be contemporaneous with (or not much older than) the composition of most of the Hebrew Pentateuch (the earliest being from around 230 BCE [3] ) – this rendering by the scribes of the word satan as ὁ διάβολος/τω διάβολω is very interesting and indicative given the meaning of the Greek, and supports the contention that, as originally used and meant, satan is some human being or beings who ‘diabolically’ plot or who scheme against or who are ‘diabolically’ opposed to those who consider themselves as ‘chosen’ by their monotheistic God, and that it was only much later that ‘the satan’ became, in the minds of the writers of the later parts of the Old Testament, some diabolical ‘fallen angel’.

Thus, it is generally accepted by scholars that the Hebrew word satan (usually, a satan) in the early parts of Old Testament means a human opponent or adversary (of God’s chosen people, the Hebrews) [4] or someone or some many who plot against them.

Now, as has been mentioned in several previous ONA texts, in heretical contradistinction to others and especially to contradict the majority of modern self-described Satanists, the ONA asserts that the word satan has its origin in Ancient Greek.

That is, that it is our contention that the Hebrew word derives from the old (in origin Phoenician) word that became the Ancient Greek αἰτία/αἴτιος – as for example in the Homeric μείων γὰρ αἰτία (to accuse/to blame) or as in “an accusation” (qv. Aeschylus: αἰτίαν ἔχειν) – and that it was this older Greek form which became corrupted to the Hebrew ‘satan’ and whence also the ‘Shaitan’ of Islam. Furthermore, in the Greek of the classical period αἰτία and διαβολή – accusation, slander, quarrel – were often used for the same thing, when a negative sense was meant or implied (as in a false accusation) with the person so accused becoming an opponent of those so accusing, or when there was enmity (and thus opposition, scheming, and intrigue) as for example mentioned by Thucydides – κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας διαβολὰς (2.65).

Given that, for centuries, שָׂטָן as described in the Old Testament of the Hebrews was commonly written in English as sathans [5] and thus pronounced as sath-ans (and not as say-tan) it is perhaps easy to understand how the Greek αἰτία – or the earlier Homeric αἴτιος – could become transformed, by non-Greeks, to שָׂטָן

In respect of this God and this ‘fallen angel’, as mentioned in another ONA text:

” There is good evidence to suggest that, historically, the writers of the Old Testament drew inspiration from, or adapted, older stories, myths and legends about a Persian deity that came to be named Ahriman, who could thus be regarded as the archetype of the Biblical Satan, and also of the Quranic Iblis. Similarly, there is evidence that the God – Jehovah – of the Old Testament may have been based upon myths and legends about the Persian deity who came to be named Ahura Mazda.” A Short History and Ontology of Satan

Furthermore, despite claims by some Hebrew and Nazarene scholars, it is now becoming accepted that the oldest parts of the Old Testament were probably written between 230 BCE and 70 BCE, and thus long after the time of Greeks such as Aeschylus and long after Greek word aitia was used for an accusation.

It is also interesting that there is an early use, in English, of the plural term satans as adversaries, which occurs in the book A paraphrase on the New Testament with notes, doctrinal and practical published in London in 1685 CE and written by the Shropshire-born Richard Baxter:

” To hinder us in God’s work and mens Salvation, is to be Satans to us. O how many Satans then are called reverend Fathers, who silence and persecute men for God’s work.” Matthew, xvi. 23
In an earlier work, published in 1550 CE, the chyldren of Sathan are corralled with heretics:

“Dyuers Bysshoppes of Rome beynge Annabaptystes, heretyques, scismatiques, & chyldren of Sathan.” John Coke. The debate betwene the heraldes of Englande and Fraunce. 1550, g. Givv [Débat des hérauts d'armes de France et d'Angleterre. Paris, Firmin Didot et cie, 1877 ]

Thus, satan/sathan/sathanas as a term – historically understood – describes: (1) some human being or beings who diabolically plot or who scheme or who are opposed to those who [6] consider themselves chosen by their monotheistic God; and/or (2) some human being or beings who are heretical and adversarial, against the status quo, and especially, it seems, against the religion of the Nazarenes.

Satanism

The earliest use of the term Satanism in the English language, that is, of the suffix -ism applied to the word Satan – so far discovered – is in A Confutation of a Booke Intituled ‘An Apologie of the Church of England’ published in Antwerp in 1565 CE and written by the Catholic recusant Thomas Harding:

“Meaning the time when Luther first brinced to Germanie the poisoned cuppe of his heresies, blasphemies, and sathanismes.” A Confutation, Antwerp, 1565, ii. ii. f. 42v

Three things are of interest, here.

(1) First, the spelling, sathanismes – deriving from sathan, a spelling in common usage for many centuries, as for instance in Langland’s Piers Plowman of 1337 CE:

“For þei seruen sathan her soule shal he haue.” Piers Plowman B. ix. 61

and also, centuries later, in the 1669 CE play Man’s the Master by William Davenant:

“A thousand Sathans take all good luck.” (v. 87)

(2) The second point of interest is that, as the above and other quotations show, the term sathan was also commonly used to refer to someone or some many who was a schemer, a plotter, a trickster, or an adversary.

(3) The third point of interest is that the first usage of the suffix – by Thomas Harding – as well as the common subsequent usage of the term Satanism has the meaning of an adversarial, a diabolical, character or nature or doctrine. That is, the earliest meanings and usage of the term Satanism are not ‘the worship of Satan’ nor of some religious or philosophical belief(s) associated with the figure of Sathan.

Furthermore, as mentioned previously, an early (1685 CE) usage of term Satans also imputes the foregoing meaning of adversarial or diabolical character:

“To hinder us in God’s work and mens Salvation, is to be Satans to us. O how many Satans then are called reverend Fathers, who silence and persecute men for God’s work.” Richard Baxter. A paraphrase on the New Testament with notes, doctrinal and practical. London, 1685 CE, Matthew, xvi. 23

Indeed, in 1893 CE the writer Goldwin Smith used the term Satanism in this older general sense to refer to a type of destructive social revolution:

” That sort of social revolution which may be called Satanism, as it seeks, not to reconstruct, but to destroy.” Goldwin Smith. Essays on questions of the day. (Macmillan, 1893 CE)

Similarly, an earlier 1833 CE article in Fraser’s magazine for Town and Country used the term in connection with Byron:

” This scene of Byron’s is really sublime, in spite of its Satanism.” Vol 8 no. 524

Thus, the English term Satanism/sathanism – historically understood – describes: (1) a blasphemy, a heresy or heresies; (2) a destructive (that is, practical) type of opposition.


Satanist

The earliest usages of the term Satanist, that is, of the suffix -ist applied to the term Satan – so far discovered – also imputes a similar meaning to foregoing; that is, of an adversarial, a diabolical, character or nature, of heretics, and of heretical/adversarial doctrine:

” The Anabaptistes, with infinite other swarmes of Satanistes.” John Aylmer. An harborowe for faithfull and trewe subjects agaynst the late blowne blaste concerning the gouernment of wemen. London, 1559, sig. H1v

“Be ye Zuinglians, Arians, Anabaptistes, Caluinistes, or Sathanistes?” Thomas Harding. A Confutation of a Booke Intituled ‘An Apologie of the Church of England’ . Antwerp, 1565.

“By nature an Athiest, By arte a Machiuelist, In summe a Sathanist, loe here his hire.” Marphoreus. Martins Months Minde. 1589, [7]

Only much later, from around 1896 CE onwards, was the term Satanist used to describe those who were alleged to worship Satan:

” There are five temples of Satanism in Paris itself.” Arthur Lillie. The worship of Satan in modern France. London 1896.

” It is believed on the Continent that apostate priests frequently consecrate for the Satanists and Freemasons.” Joseph McCabe. Twelve years in a monastery. London, 1897.
Thus, the English term satanist/sathanist – historically understood – describes: (1) an adversarial, a diabolical, character; (2) those who adhere to or champion heretical/adversarial doctrines.

Conclusion

As someone wrote over two thousand years ago – εἰδέναι δὲ χρὴ τὸν πόλεμον ἐόντα ξυνόν, καὶ δίκην ἔριν, καὶ γινόμενα πάντα κατ΄ ἔριν καὶ χρεώμενα. [8]

Anton Long
Order of Nine Angles
122 Year of Fayen
(Revised 2455853.743)

Notes

[1] The Old English word gerȳne – from Old Saxon girūni – means “secret, mystery”.

[2] The earliest MS fragment – Greek Papyrus 458 in the Rylands Papyri collection [qv. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 20 (1936), pp. 219-45] – was found in Egypt and dates from the second century BCE.

[3] It is, of course, in the interests of both Nazarenes and Magians to maintain or believe that the Hebrew Old Testament of the Hebrews was written centuries before this date, just as such early dating is a common mundane assumption perpetuated by both those who consider the Internet is a reliable source of information and by those who have not studied the subject, for some years, in a scholarly manner. Had such a scholarly study been undertaken, they would be aware of the scholarly disputes about the dating of Hebrew Old Testament – and of the Septuagint – that have existed for well over a hundred years, as they would also be able to make their own informed judgement about the matter.

My own informed judgement is that there is good evidence to suggest that 230 (± 50) BCE is the most likely earliest date for the Hebrew Old Testament. I should, however, add, that this is still a ‘minority opinion’, with many academics still favouring the more ‘safe’ (that is, the currently more acceptable) opinion of 350 (± 30) BCE.

[4] For example – καὶ ἦσαν σαταν τῷ Ισραηλ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας Σαλωμων (3 Kings 11:14)

[5] See the section on Satanism, below.

[6] καὶ ἔστη διάβολος ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ

[7] See The Martin Marprelate Tracts (1588–89) and the Cambridge History of English Literature, volume III - Renascence and Reformation, Cambridge UP, 1920, p. 394f

[8] One should be aware that Polemos pervades, with discord δίκη, and that beings are naturally born by discord. [Trans DWM.]



Anton Long - The Geryne of Satan



Top
#60584 - 10/29/11 05:07 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1639
Loc: Orlando, FL
Long makes a very valid case for the variety and depth of the term.

I only have one small problem with his logic, in regards to this:

 Quote:
in heretical contradistinction to others and especially to contradict the majority of modern self-described Satanists, the ONA asserts that the word satan has its origin in Ancient Greek.


The Satanism of the ONA does, in fact, present Satan as being a name for a metaphysical/acausal being-- which only has precedent in Hebrew/Christian religion... but to his credit, the practical aspects of Satanism (heresy, transgression, antinomianism) outweigh the esoteric embellishments thereof (rituals, entities, occult correspondences, etc).


Edited by The Zebu (10/29/11 05:08 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60598 - 10/29/11 10:35 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
As I have previously observed, anyone can call himself anything he likes. If bored atheists want to glamorize their image by styling themselves "Satanists", they are assuredly at liberty to do so. Some men who wish they were women put on dresses and stumble around in high heels too. Whatever makes you happy.

At issue here are two principles: legitimacy and hypocrisy.

You dismiss Satanists who don’t believe in the existence of Satan as poseurs, yet you recognize those in your organization who don’t believe in the existence of Set as Setians. No hypocrisy there…
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60599 - 10/29/11 11:50 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2480
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
You dismiss Satanists who don’t believe in the existence of Satan as poseurs, yet you recognize those in your organization who don’t believe in the existence of Set as Setians. No hypocrisy there…

None at all. The term "Setian" refers specifically to formal affiliation with the Temple of Set, and neither the I° or II° of such affiliation requires apprehension of the source of our metaphysics - rather just an understanding of and commitment to our ethics, an interest in becoming skilled in [hence an Adept of] the Black Magic we teach, and a trust in the Priesthood of Set that its perception of and dedication to Set are authentic and sincere.

This is indeed much the same scenario as existed in the original 1966-75 Church of Satan. In short, if you became Satan's Priest, you became Satan's Priest. If you were a Satanist I° or Witch/Warlock II°, it was entirely permissible for you to take rituals or Black Magical workings on trust. A "blind faith" belief would have been [and was, when it occurred] viewed as inappropriate: a mere mirror-flip from the slave religions.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60600 - 10/30/11 12:18 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2480
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
And still you didnt really adress mine or Jake's comments or questions. How come?

Your echoing of Mr. Dumpty doesn't require any further comment from me.

Jake's status as an intimate of Anton LaVey's post-1975 is well-known, as is Jake's admiration for Anton during and subsequent to that association. I have no reason to impugn this in the least. Does it make Jake a Satanist? Not unless Jake's actual allegiance and dedication was to Satan, not Anton. Otherwise, strictly speaking, he is an "Anton LaVeyist". Indeed, for Jake to reject that more accurate but less metaphysical term would be hypocritical, and arguably insulting to Anton as Jake knew him post-1975.

"Satanist" is a glamorous and powerful label, so lots of people think using it is cool. If they can figure out or rationalize a way to assert it without actually swearing their souls to the Prince of Darkness, they'll do it. This can be by attempted redefinitions of the term, or by "adjectiving" it to Anton's personality, or simply by wearing a T-shirt with a Baphomet on it.

If what pleases you, Jake, or anyone else here truly fulfills you, then by all means enjoy it and don't pay any attention to me.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60601 - 10/30/11 12:26 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Zach_Black Offline
member


Registered: 05/14/11
Posts: 541
Loc: San Diego, California
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
And still you didnt really adress mine or Jake's comments or questions. How come?

Your echoing of Mr. Dumpty doesn't require any further comment from me.

Jake's status as an intimate of Anton LaVey's post-1975 is well-known, as is Jake's admiration for Anton during and subsequent to that association. I have no reason to impugn this in the least. Does it make Jake a Satanist? Not unless Jake's actual allegiance and dedication was to Satan, not Anton. Otherwise, strictly speaking, he is an "Anton LaVeyist". Indeed, for Jake to reject that more accurate but less metaphysical term would be hypocritical, and arguably insulting to Anton as Jake knew him post-1975.

"Satanist" is a glamorous and powerful label, so lots of people think using it is cool. If they can figure out or rationalize a way to assert it without actually swearing their souls to the Prince of Darkness, they'll do it. This can be by attempted redefinitions of the term, or by "adjectiving" it to Anton's personality, or simply by wearing a T-shirt with a Baphomet on it.

If what pleases you, Jake, or anyone else here truly fulfills you, then by all means enjoy it and don't pay any attention to me.


Sorry we all can not all be as devoted to an imaginary friend Dr. Aquino. Be it whatever dark name you choose to call it.


Edited by blackzach (10/30/11 12:31 AM)
_________________________
http://satanicinternationalnetwork.com/

Top
#60603 - 10/30/11 12:56 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Zach_Black]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Michael Aquino defining me... novel. Here's a little tip for you, Aardvark boy. Nobody
gives a rats ass what you think they SHOULD be. We don't live in YOUR world. You go right ahead and pontificate, strut and puff out your chest about who is and who is not a Satanist. It matters to no one but yourself.

You are, quite clearly deluded and a man with significant issues. I really suggest you see a psychiatrist... no, not the VA... go see a civilian one. They work with people having invisible friends all of the time. Have Lilith fix you a box lunch. It's gonna be a long session.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60604 - 10/30/11 01:10 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
You dismiss Satanists who don’t believe in the existence of Satan as poseurs, yet you recognize those in your organization who don’t believe in the existence of Set as Setians. No hypocrisy there…

None at all. The term "Setian" refers specifically to formal affiliation with the Temple of Set, and neither the I° or II° of such affiliation requires apprehension of the source of our metaphysics - rather just an understanding of and commitment to our ethics, an interest in becoming skilled in [hence an Adept of] the Black Magic we teach, and a trust in the Priesthood of Set that its perception of and dedication to Set are authentic and sincere.

This is indeed much the same scenario as existed in the original 1966-75 Church of Satan. In short, if you became Satan's Priest, you became Satan's Priest. If you were a Satanist I° or Witch/Warlock II°, it was entirely permissible for you to take rituals or Black Magical workings on trust. A "blind faith" belief would have been [and was, when it occurred] viewed as inappropriate: a mere mirror-flip from the slave religions.

You can’t have it both ways, Dr. Aquino. Either you must believe in Satan/Set to be a Satanist/Setian, or you don’t have to. You can’t say that the Satanist without Satan/Setian without Set is a poseur, then say that you recognize them as a Satanist/Setian as long as they trust that the priesthood of their organization is authentic and sincere. Well, I guess you can say it if you want, but the less gullible here will see through your double-speak.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
Page 2 of 14 <12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.034 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.