Page 3 of 14 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#60605 - 10/30/11 02:44 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1638
Loc: Orlando, FL
Dr. Aquino, could you speak at any length about Satanism without referring to your heyday in the CoS? You seem to be preoccupied with the ToS/CoS split several decades ago, which really isn't relevant to many forum members here, aside from a couple of old-timers like Jake.

I think Diavolo's and other' posts have illustrated the breadth of Satanism categorically, that exist outside the basic models espoused by the pre/post '75 CoS. What is your response to these, such as the article quoted from Anton Long?


Edited by The Zebu (10/30/11 02:46 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60606 - 10/30/11 02:51 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
[quote=Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass]
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. This was a commitment which demanded a great deal from each Satanist, and frequently at substantial personal cost. This adventure, which may be examined in my Church of Satan ebook, made heroes of all of them.


This kinda reminds me of the generation on its way out saying " Back in my day we had real music. We had real rock n' roll! Not this noise you dweeber snappers listen to today!"

No doubt times have changed. And Dr. Aquino wants to hold fast to the principles and beliefs he solidified himself in that era.

I fail to see how the evolution of Satanism makes one a poseur. I do not see how atheistic Satanism makes one less of a Satanist than a theistic Satanist. And you mention Dr. Aquino something about poseurs wearing Baphomet T-Shirts. I seem to remember you wearing some really large Baphomet medallions dressed up like it was Halloween . How is that different? If not entirely more comical all together.

I have checked out your E-Book ' The Church of Satan .'Several years back. From what I remember it is a colossal volume of epic proportions. Granted I only thumbed through it. But I could not help but feel I was only gonna find a little meat floating around in that word soup of butthurtness. Just sayin ....







Edited by blackzach (10/30/11 02:54 AM)
Edit Reason: type-o
_________________________
http://satanicinternationalnetwork.com/

Top
#60608 - 10/30/11 04:12 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: 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.


You made claim "of Satanism's original, centuries-established meaning" without providing any proof. Others here have provided information of the actual historic origins of the word Satanism and it doesnt support your claim at all since it has nothing to do with metaphysics or a sentient being.

Furthermore you keep claiming that Anton LaVey did believe in an actual Satan pre-1975 and while I too would say hes pretty vague in discussing the subject the audio snippet Jake provided pretty much spells it out.

You really have no comment at all on either of these two things? Both seems to prove you wrong - unless you have some unknown information from somewhere. How can you go around and claim something as true when you know the facts does not support your viewpoint? Is it that you cant defend your position? Or are you afraid to look silly if you change your mind after all these years?

 Originally Posted By: blackzach
I have checked out your E-Book ' The Church of Satan .'Several years back. From what I remember it is a colossal volume of epic proportions. Granted I only thumbed through it. But I could not help but feel I was only gonna find a little meat floating around in that word soup of butthurtness. Just sayin ....


Regardless if you agree with Aquino or not I would strongly recomend his CoS e-book. It provides a nice insight, a first hand perspective from one of the early high ranking members. And alot of people gets their voices heard since most of the book is built on correspondance in the form of letters.


Edited by TheInsane (10/30/11 04:15 AM)

Top
#60612 - 10/30/11 09:48 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
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).


I don't know, if you read Eira; you'll encounter this:

 Quote:
Thus, Satanists do not follow gods. So what then of Satan, that greatly mis-understood living symbol? Satan is not tied to cultural phases, and does not in image represent a once great society.

Instead, Satan is the timeless flow of the cosmos, seeking existence. Satan is the grail itself, that secret guarded by the inadequate gods of our past.

Satan is the very essence of the striving to become a god - Satan is the arrogance within that enables us to leave behind the archaic gods, and to find the courage to be the new gods. Satan is how we live, how we die, and how we shall be after causal life. Satan is the word that when invoked presences the very essence of our striving and defiance. As a living Being, Satan desires new life, new expression, and the constant surpassing of each shadowy archetype created to represent Him.

As living Beings, when we are living right, we are Satan - both as individuals and collectively, as the new species of Human that is yet to be. Let us stop grovelling to old archetypes, stop forming fan-clubs for the Old Ones, and discard the superstition and academia that is so precious and so useless. We possess the creative genius to set in motion new Earth-shattering forms, and the arrogance to behave as the embodiment of the future that we, in essence, are.

The future implies an upward surge away from the near medieval times we still live in, and in this becoming of evolution, we do not need to seek answers from anywhere but within ourselves.

The future gods bear our names ...


That doesn't appear as a very Hebrew Satan to me.

Top
#60613 - 10/30/11 11:59 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1638
Loc: Orlando, FL
I was referring to this statement:

 Quote:
According to this tradition [1], the being now known by the exoteric name Satan is one of The Dark Gods (a.k.a The Dark Ones), who are entities existing, living, in the acausal continuum [2]. This Satan [3] is The Prince of Darkness and of Chaos, and He – along with some other Dark Gods – is portrayed as a shapeshifter, capable of assuming human form, Who has visited, or been manifest, on Earth. at various times throughout our human history.


I would like to put this in proper context, in that the ONA's portrayal of Satan is multifaceted and can be expressed in different ways for different purposes.

Anton Long makes a very good case for the Occidental origins of Satanism, and he is mostly right. However, there is still some Hebrew/Nazarene influence mixed in there-- otherwise Satan would not be considered an "entity", or be called the Prince of Darkness, or be invoked in Black Masses, and the like.

Of course, these foreign elements are not central, and any Satanist with the slightest apprehension of noumena will soon find that Satan is much more than that, and can be described as the adversarial essence of reality, of which Satanists strive to partake.
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60614 - 10/30/11 12:47 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Of course there is a Nazarene influence, largely because our whole culture is infested and as such, it expresses itself in our language and our metaphors.

Personally I don't find this very important, just like Satanism is useful but not essential. The whole essence could easily be moved into another cultural paradigm without losing potency. It would, as an example, be quite easy to switch the form and use Kali and the Panchamakara in the same sense as Satan and the Black masses are used now, even when this form wouldn't be that handy for us Westerners.

Top
#60622 - 10/30/11 02:16 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1638
Loc: Orlando, FL
Exactly. The Sinister Current has manifested in a variety of environments, from the early cults of Dionysos and antinomian Gnosticism to radical tantra and Aghori asceticism. Satan has been the most potent embodiment of the Left in the Western soul for several centuries. The forms change but the essence remains the same.
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60624 - 10/30/11 03:31 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Indeed, it manifests itself in a variety of environments.

I'm of the opinion, even when it is just my interpretation, that the origins of Satanism lead to the Far East and that there has been some cross-breeding of ideas during the times of early Gnosticism.

I see no praxis like this in the Nazarene, Hebrew, or Egyptian culture. As such, the claim that Set precedes Satan is a bit empty since the essence in those forms and the similarities of praxis lead in quite a different direction.

Top
#60630 - 10/30/11 04:45 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Latvian Offline
member


Registered: 07/15/11
Posts: 475
Loc: EU, Latvia, Riga (old town)
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
...Satan has been the most potent embodiment of the Left in the Western soul for several centuries. The forms change but the essence remains the same...
I think I'm going to learn and someday quote! \:\)

Do I have to write Your nickname?!?
_________________________
In Sorte Diaboli

Top
#60649 - 10/30/11 08:14 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
Diavolo, that Eira quote moves me. That is getting close to how I see things. Did Long write that or someone else associated with ONA?

That is the Satanism of an old soul, of someone who sounds as though they have lived a thousand years; rather than some rebel without a cause or some punk, yelling about their revolution, fighting the system, culling, or whatever.

I more or more see Satan as that other behind the definitions and labels which have been forced upon "him."

"He" is nothing but the flesh and blood of humans who have, or can and will take the next step up towards greatness, towards their own Godhood.

Top
#60650 - 10/30/11 08:38 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The version I got is dated 98 and the author is Beest.

If you google Eira and ONA, you'll find the whole piece quite easily.

Top
#60651 - 10/30/11 09:01 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1638
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
I think I'm going to learn and someday quote! ... Do I have to write Your nickname?!?


Sure, go to town. ^^

 Quote:
I'm of the opinion, even when it is just my interpretation, that the origins of satanism lead to the Far East and that there has been some cross-breeding of ideas during the times of early Gnosticism.


It is well known that some Hellenic philosophers interacted with Hindu mystics in classical times. It is also speculated by a couple academics that the Bacchanalia (the ur-Black-Sabbat, in my opinion) was an import from the cult of Rudra-Shiva. Manichean religion spread as far east as China; who knows how mobile other currents were? Of course such links are mostly conjectures.

 Quote:

I see no praxis like this in the Nazarene, Hebrew, or Egyptian culture. As such, the claim that Set precedes Satan is a bit empty since the essence in those forms and the similarities of praxis lead in quite a different direction.


There are some elusive fragments here and there, but nothing definite. The problem with a reconstructionist approach is that you end up either falling back on outdated romanticism, or the absurdity of changing around your paradigm every time a historian publishes a new study.

It could be possible that there might have been some sort of a radical, anti-authoritarian cult to Set several thousand years ago, but such things remain purely in the realm of speculation.

I do not think it is possible to accurately grasp the essence of Set, because we are not privy to the subtleties of the Kemetic weltanschauung. A westerner who feels an affinity for Kali can at least go to India, immerse themselves completely in Hindu culture, and participate firsthand in Her mysteries (one such American even ended up becoming an Aghor monk), but until we invent a time machine (or kill Michael J. Fox and take his), there is not much we can do besides read books by people who have looked at carvings on a wall.

There is a certain tendency, I think, with pagans and occultists to go for the most "ancient" gods, because they seem somehow more authentic. But if you go back far enough, everything is a literal blur, and all you have to rely on are pottery shards and hieroglyphs in some forgotten tongue that may be the Romanised name of a local war deity, or it might be the Gallic word for "ass-pirate". Then neopagans write a book about the Ass-Pirate religion which is mostly recycled New-Ageism because you can't make a comprehensive system of metaphysics based on a pottery shard, then it somehow gains currency among hippies and a couple Llewellyn deals later, BAM, you have just made yourself a new god that for all you know, could just actually mean "Ass-Pirate". There is no sense spending so much effort digging around in the past, if you end up filling too many gaps with memes from the present.

This is an exaggeration, of course, but the reality isn't too far off. Not everyone has to roll with Satan, but there's no sense in reinventing the wheel, either.


Edited by The Zebu (10/30/11 09:04 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60652 - 10/30/11 09:45 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
There have indeed been plenty or revivals of religions which people knew and still know close to nothing about. I only have to think of all those druids appearing during the 80ies who suddenly had whole reconstructed religions. Where I live some town names still remind us of their roots but besides some coins and pottery and some mentions in Roman documents, we know close to nothing about any religious practice. But that doesn't hinder those that really really wanna be like them.

It's a tricky affair trying to find the origins of what we call the satanic praxis because we are all great at only picking that what fits.

The way I see it there are two sorts of (religious) praxis; you got the slave approach where the followers are honoring their gods and fulfilling their desires and you got the scholar approach where the praxis is a quest for understanding. Most of these scholar approaches are situated in the Far East while the other parts are much more slave-inclined.

Gnosticism is like a crossbreed of both in which you clearly see some Hindi elements like the Brahman-Kali-Maya trinity. I wouldn't find it unlikely that Satanism, or at least a praxis as such whatever it was called before, originated there. There are many elements which have a similarity to specific Tantra approaches.

Of course, you can read into it whatever you like but if you start comparing the key-elements, to me they point obviously to the East.

Top
#60655 - 10/30/11 10:22 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2409
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
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.

Evidently my post mattered enough to you to prompt an insulting response. Nevertheless my comment concerning you was intended as a precise description of your actual dedication, ideology, and commitment, not as an insult. Throughout your posts here you affirm your admiration of and affection for Anton the man. Never once do I recall your expressing the slightest interest in Satan, the Prince of Darkness, in the Invocation within the Satanic Bible, the Baptism within the Satanic Rituals, or anything else pertaining specifically to Satan. Ergo you are logically not a Satanist, but an Antonist. If this correctly describes you, and if to you "Satanic" is actually an adjective which only goes as far as Anton's lifestyle and post-1975 nonSatan writings, what are you sore about - unless it is that you simply prefer the glamor, mystery, and Black Magical aura of calling yourself a Satanist?

As for my standing to speak for who is and is not a Satanist, I was an ordained Priest of Mendes III° and ultimately as a Magister Templi IV° the single highest Initiate of the Church next to Anton himself. So yes, actually, I think I am better qualified than anyone else on this planet to authenticate those who claim to take Satan's name. Since you ask.

 Quote:
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.

If Satan to you is a "delusional invisible friend", then I once again question your taking of his name. When you call yourself a "Satanist" to others, they naturally assume that you believe in and worship the Devil. [Except in the Humpty-Dumptyland of the 600C, of course.] You have the option to shatter this glamorous image with a followup Gilmoreism: "I'm a Satanist, but I don't believe in or worship Satan." Which, frankly, just makes you sound as ridiculous as he does when he blurts it.

Getting mad at me for pointing this out may serve to let some steam off, but when it subsides, the simple, basic semantic issue remains. It is a question of personal intellectual honesty.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60656 - 10/30/11 10:33 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3753
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I find it flabbergasting that even after all this time, mikey here can't open his mind the iota it would take to realize the heterodox tradition manifest as Satanism does not fit his goofy strawman dichotomy.

Old dogs, new tricks and all that. Just for the record though, Set just called me up and ordained me as his new rep on earth. Sorry mike the gig is up.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
Page 3 of 14 <12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.