Page 5 of 14 « First<34567>Last »
Topic Options
#60687 - 10/31/11 12:28 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The criticism is somewhat silly and quite "pot-kettle". Now I'm no expert on Egyptology but I don't think I'm wrong if I say that the Temple of Set has little to do with the ancient religious approach towards the Set of those days. So when he criticizes satanists for not believing in Satan, one can ask him why he made up his own Set and doesn't limit himself to the practice around the old one. It's not because you pick something that was something in the past, a new created version suddenly get credentials.

Even Sethianism was well-defined before the Setians came along.

D.

Top
#60694 - 10/31/11 01:51 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
Aquino regards Set as a more accurate portrayal of Satan, without the boogeyman name and reputation. Aquino’s Temple of Set is, in his view, the sequel to the 1966-1975 Church of Satan – the CoS “grown up”. Therefore, it would seem that to Aquino, “worship of and allegiance to” (belief in) Set would be as fundamental to being an authentic Setian as belief in Satan is to being an authentic Satanist.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60696 - 10/31/11 02:04 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Diavolo]
Goliath Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 93
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Philosophers generally refer to themselves by school, which tend to be named after their founder... Religionists tend to refer to themselves by deity/tribe/dogma...


Actually this is what has always been done even when not all agree with the categorizations. Satanists of the "school" of Lavey are mostly called Laveyans, just like the theistic "schools" are considered Traditionals. Moderns would be the school originating in Laveyan satanism. The prefix is just there to indicate what line of thinking is represented in that sort of satanism.


That's true, but it doesn't really address what Jason C. King was saying.

It's quite common for religious denominations and sects to be named after their founders. Within Christianity, for example, we find the Lutherans (named after Martin Luther) and the Calvinists (named after Jean Calvin), along with many smaller groups named after their founders. But what unites all these groups is their devotion to God and Jesus Christ, and if you ask any of them what they believe, they'll tell you that they're Christians.

Philosophies and philosophical schools, by contrast, are never named after some metaphysical or legendary figure. They're either named after their founder (e.g. Platonism or Epicureanism), or after some essential point of their teaching (e.g. empiricism or utilitarianism). The Stoics got their name from the painted porch where their founder, Zeno of Citium, taught his philosophy.

There are a few exceptions to this rule, such as Zoroastrianism, Manicheanism, and even Raelianism. And Buddhism, of course, is named after the Buddha--but Buddhists reject the notion of a supreme god. So, exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. It's worth noting that Muslims reject the terms "Mohammedan" and "Mohammedanism," precisely because they worship Allah and not Mohammed.

The reasons for this should be clear. Gods are at the centers of religions, while philosophers and philosophical teachings are at the center of philosophies. Epicureans are Epicureans because they follow the teachings of Epicurus. Empiricists are empiricists because they believe there is nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses.

Christians, by contrast, are Christians because they worship Christ. This is why most Christians have always firmly rejected Unitarianism, or indeed, any doctrine that holds that Jesus of Nazareth was anything less than God Himself. It's also why conservative Christians continue to reject the insipid neo-Christianity of the Moderate Enlightenment, which tries to reduce religion to ethics, and worship to conduct--throwing out the Baby Jesus, but keeping the bathwater, as it were.

It seems to me that Dr. Aquino is arguing that philosophical Satanism is (at best) essentially the mirror-image of the Moderate Enlightenment's Christianity-without-Christ. And that, just as it makes no sense to talk of Christianity without Christ, it makes no sense to talk of Satanism without the Devil.

It's certainly possible to have a philosophy that's inspired by Devil worship, in the same way that Enlightenment Deists kept what they understood as Christian ethics, while rejecting Christian metaphysics. But Deism is not the same thing as Christianity--and given this fact, it seems inconsistent to use the name "Satanism" to describe a philosophy that was merely inspired thereby. If you subscribe to the teachings of Anton LaVey, then perhaps you should just call yourself a Laveyan. If your goal is to "manifest as the Adversary," then perhaps you should just call yourself an Adversarialist, or something.

I'm not sure that I agree with Aquino's argument. But I see his point.
_________________________
An illusion--with intelligence! A malignant vision, with a will of pure evil!

Top
#60700 - 10/31/11 02:33 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Goliath]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You say yourself there are exceptions. So yes you could say that if (Laveyan) Satanism is a philosophy, it should, conform the tradition, be called Laveyism and if it is religious, Satanism is the correct label.

But, and this is where it differs, Satanism is a praxis and as such, satan symbolizes this praxis, identical as Tao in Taoism. In Tao, the path is the only importance and this does not differ in Satanism. Therefor I see absolutely no conflict in the use of Satan in Satanism. It even becomes more logical when considering the roots Long provided for Satan. Satan is the Tao in Satanism.

D.

Top
#60703 - 10/31/11 02:48 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2515
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
Aardvark boy fails to mention that he gained those grand titles he so proudly proclaims as a member in good standing of the Church of Satan. When he left, they did not follow him in any way, except in his mind ...

You really should take the time to read COS. I disassociated myself from the Church organization when Anton made his decision to corrupt its initiatory degrees, including the Priesthood itself. I [and the approximately 100 others who left with me] regarded the Temple of Set as the legitimate continuation of the Church, albeit expanded "into a larger universe". So I no more left my Priesthood behind me than I left my doctorate behind me when I left the University of California.

 Quote:
The only titles and associations he can rightfully claim are those he no holds by granting them to himself under the auspices of the Temple of Set.

Set Recognized me to the V° of Magus in the Book of Coming Forth by Night, a document and decision which I and the other founders of the Temple of Set regarded as authentic. As for the degree of Ipsissimus VI°, please note in Appendix #8 of TOS that it [as all the other Setian degrees] involves a very methodical and careful evaluation process prior to formal Recognition.

 Quote:
That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee in most cheap donut shops.

Unfortunately, unlike the "Church of Satan" degrees after 1975, there is no cash value whatever to any of the Setian degrees. You would have to rely upon just your $1 bill.

 Quote:
Really, man, have you no shame? You've reduced yourself to a joke here and probably elsewhere on the web as well. That's right. People ARE laughing at you. The cartoon I put up once of LaVey calling you a "Putz" was indeed farcical on its face, but how he came to see you.

I don't hear much laughter, actually, and that which I do comes from those who really have no accurate idea why they are laughing. Thus it is merely an emotional defense mechanism to reassure their ignorance.

As for Anton LaVey, he disgraced himself and his High Priesthood in front of the entire Church, and I was in the unenviable position of having to reject his actions - not just privately, but in front of the entire Church, whereupon it immediately and completely disintegrated outside the front door of 6114 California Street. Whatever cartoons of me Anton drew to share with sycophants at that point don't concern me.

 Quote:
To assume that you would anger me with your bullshit is farcical itself. You are a clown and a disgrace. You are a pompous, swaggering hot air bag whose entire post 1975 life has been dedicated to self promotion at the expense of others.

This and your previous post are awash in purely-emotional insults and denunciations, which usually means anger.

For my post-1975 life please see my Vitæ. Such promotions as I have received have come from institutions such as the Army and Golden Gate University.

 Quote:
You've been shown to be a fraud, but in true Aquino fashion, think that people will ignore your bullshit be cause after all, you are "Mikey," which is what we called you post 1975... not Dr., or Magister or Priest... "Mikey."

Actually that nickname was originally applied to me in 1988 by Chaplain Adams-Thompson in his attempt to frame Lilith and myself for his fictitious "SRA" scam. When investigators later interviewed Anton, he made it a point to repeatedly call me "Mikey" throughout the interview, as well as accusing me of trying to rape Karla and perform fellatio on him. All of which was easy to refute with years of his informal letters & notes to "Michael", Karla's & my close-friendly correspondence through 1975, my correspondence with Anton & Diane through 1975, and my lifelong heterosexuality. All Anton's performance showed was how low he had sunk, to try so disgustingly to further the frame (which, had it been successful, could have resulted in Lilith's and my deaths in prison). So much for "Mikey".

 Quote:
I personally see you as pathetic, but I don't pity you. You've made yourself look like a damned fool. And now you wallow in it.

Well, we shall have to let others here judge as to which one of us has lessened his stature in this exchange.

 Quote:
I also personally think you might very well have been gay for LaVey... sorry, Charlie, but the boss didn't swing that way.

As noted above, Anton already tried that line with the FBI, and it fell as flat then as now. If this is what you're reducing yourself to, Jake, my sympathies.

And all just because I suggested that your actual loyalty was to Anton and not Satan, hence should not technically be called a "Satanist"?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60705 - 10/31/11 03:08 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2515
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I don't think I'm wrong if I say that the Temple of Set has little to do with the ancient religious approach towards the Set of those days.

Cf. Chapter #2 of Black Magic and Chapter #3 of TOS. Actually over the decades the Temple of Set has done a substantial amount of research into many aspects of ancient Egypt involving or reflecting the ancient awareness of Set. This has resulted in many papers, Scroll of Set articles, etc. - far too numerous to address here.

The popular image of the "Egyptian Set" is simply the Osirian-cult version, spread through writings dating from the post-XX Dynasty Egyptian decadence. We have been interested in the original, which dates to predynastic times.

Is today's Temple of Set something evolutionary when compared to back-then? Of course. Nevertheless we are satisfied that we continue to acknowledge and respect Set's earliest, as well as his contemporary significance.

While all this is very interesting, I think it departs from the actual thread topic of the "Satanism/Satanist" label.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60706 - 10/31/11 03:23 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
I [and the approximately 100 others who left with me] regarded the Temple of Set as the legitimate continuation of the Church, albeit expanded "into a larger universe". So I no more left my Priesthood behind me than I left my doctorate behind me when I left the University of California.


Yes, but such titles are worthless to us, because the CoS priesthood (along with that of nearly every other upstart cult) was totally bunk. I'm sure it was a nice group psychology exercise, but I'm not going to give any sort of spiritual credence to an upstart NRM that hadn't even been around for a decade. Seriously. Did Anton "lay his hands" on you? (On second though, I don't think I wanna know)

 Quote:
Set Recognized me to the V° of Magus in the Book of Coming Forth by Night, a document and decision which I and the other founders of the Temple of Set regarded as authentic.


Wouldn't it be nice if everybody learned from Crowley's mistakes, instead of deliberately repeating them? Really. Anyone can pull automatic writing out of their proverbial (and sometimes literal) ass. An iconoclastic libertine produces a "spiritual revelation" that looks like it was written by an iconoclastic libertine. A disgruntled CoS member produces a "spiritual revelation" that looks like it was written by (...and here's the kicker) a disgruntled CoS member. Who woulda thunk it?

Satanism is not a "religion" like that of the Nazarene. There are no churches, no seminaries, no ancient convoluted dogmas, no bogus claims of authority, no holy gurus to adulate.

 Quote:
Is today's Temple of Set something evolutionary when compared to back-then? Of course. Nevertheless we are satisfied that we continue to acknowledge and respect Set's earliest, as well as his contemporary significance.


Exactly. And I'm sure most of us also acknowledge and respect the significance of Satan.


Edited by The Zebu (10/31/11 03:25 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60707 - 10/31/11 03:40 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Goliath]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Goliath
It seems to me that Dr. Aquino is arguing that philosophical Satanism is (at best) essentially the mirror-image of the Moderate Enlightenment's Christianity-without-Christ. And that, just as it makes no sense to talk of Christianity without Christ, it makes no sense to talk of Satanism without the Devil.


I would agree with this. There is no Satanism without Satan. What I was reacting to, and still havent gotten an answer to, was the narrow definition of what Satan is and how this definition would somehow be the original (for ”centuries established”). There is nothing to support this claim.

However a few years back I was discussing the Satan issue alot with people and soemtimes with LaVeyans as well. At the time it seemed like most LaVeans made the claim that ”Satanism has nothing to do with Satan” or that ”we dont believe in Satan”. This is obviously proposturous and not very well thought through.

With only a tiny bit of knowledge on the Satan charachter its easy to see how even LaVeyan Satanism is ultimately resting on an interpretation of said carachter. How anyone could miss this is beyond me.

However, this is not to say that they neccessarily believe in a metaphysical being. I think a Satanist can be an Atheist or a theist. I myself tend to view my own belieft in a more philosophical light. There is an aspect of what I regard as Satan that I cannot prove to be true beyond all doubt (the boundless darkness, original chaos from which order stems from etc). Am I a theist? No, I dont consider Satan to be a god or a being or something concious. It just is and in this regard I can share the general view that Jason King seems to have on the subject.

The second part of this is the view on the method of gaining insight and knowledge. The mythical part of Satan provides a certain path, or paths even, to gain insights (”adversarial, transgressive, antinomian, heterodox”). This has been called by many names but the traditional left hand path concept embodies this the best purely as a method.



I hope the spelling was alright. My spell checker doesnt work atm. \:\/

Top
#60708 - 10/31/11 03:52 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: TheInsane]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
I'm interested in pragmatic scientific applications of Dark Energies, by whatever names. I realize that semantics, philosophy, public relations and even celebrity are important, but the intersection of metaphysics, metamind and logic captures my interest most.

Edited by dust-e sheytoon (10/31/11 03:55 PM)
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60709 - 10/31/11 03:57 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: TheInsane]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
I would agree with this. There is no Satanism without Satan. What I was reacting to, and still havent gotten an answer to, was the narrow definition of what Satan is and how this definition would somehow be the original (for ”centuries established”). There is nothing to support this claim.


The problem here is that you don't necessarily have to look at Satan as a deity. In Sophism some entity called Sophy isn't the element but something meaning "a dude that deals in wisdom". If you don't think of Satan as an entity but also as "a dude that deals in opposition", it is quite similar.

And this is much closer to what Satanism is. It isn't some philosophical school of thinking but a practical manner of living and as such, either the manner of living, or the label for living as such, is central.

Of course to Mike Satan has to be "real" because else Set can't be real. By linking them, the one falls with the other.

D.

Top
#60710 - 10/31/11 04:11 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

You really should take the time to read COS. I disassociated myself from the Church organization when Anton made his decision to corrupt its initiatory degrees, including the Priesthood itself. I [and the approximately 100 others who left with me] regarded the Temple of Set as the legitimate continuation of the Church, albeit expanded "into a larger universe". So I no more left my Priesthood behind me than I left my doctorate behind me when I left the University of California.

You might consider yourself sane as well, however, that does not make it so, and your actions and delusions clearly point to that NOT being the case. Just because YOU consider the use and retention of Church of Satan titles to be legitimate in some way or form is irrelevant. You can consider money stolen from a bank to be legitimately yours, but that make it so.


Set Recognized me to the V° of Magus in the Book of Coming Forth by Night, a document and decision which I and the other founders of the Temple of Set regarded as authentic. As for the degree of Ipsissimus VI°, please note in Appendix #8 of TOS that it [as all the other Setian degrees] involves a very methodical and careful evaluation process prior to formal Recognition.

SET recognized you? The Aardvark talks to you... delusional. Whether you consider the recommends of some invisible friend to be legitimate or not is a matter between you and a mental health professional. Those of us who are thinking and rational human beings will of course need proof... no your book is not proof. Your book is simply a record of that delusion as it occurred to you.


[quote}

I don't hear much laughter, actually, and that which I do comes from those who really have no accurate idea why they are laughing. Thus it is merely an emotional defense mechanism to reassure their ignorance.

You really should look into Beltone hearing aids. I understand you can get them in a variety of colors these days.

 Quote:

As for Anton LaVey, he disgraced himself and his High Priesthood in front of the entire Church, and I was in the unenviable position of having to reject his actions - not just privately, but in front of the entire Church, whereupon it immediately and completely disintegrated outside the front door of 6114 California Street. Whatever cartoons of me Anton drew to share with sycophants at that point don't concern me.

The only disgrace was in bringing a clown like you into the Church of Satan. LaVey was a man, prone to mistakes as any, yet more of a mensch than some wannabe Ipsissimus who had to couch his personal vanity and unoriginality in the visitations of some invisible friend. Jesus, Mars, Odin, Set... they are man made constructs, yet you simply couldn't get people to listen to what YOU had to say without claiming some direct line to divinity. That, to my mind is FAILURE.

[quote]
This and your previous post are awash in purely-emotional insults and denunciations, which usually means anger.

LOL! If I was angry, I make housecalls.

For my post-1975 life please see my Vitæ. Such promotions as I have received have come from institutions such as the Army and Golden Gate University.

I think I can speak for many here when I say, "WHO GIVES A RATS ASS?"

[Quote]
Actually that nickname was originally applied to me in 1988 by Chaplain Adams-Thompson in his attempt to frame Lilith and myself for his fictitious "SRA" scam. When investigators later interviewed Anton, he made it a point to repeatedly call me "Mikey" throughout the interview, as well as accusing me of trying to rape Karla and perform fellatio on him.

LOL! Good story though... if it had happened, either one of them would have kicked your ass, Mikey.

[quote]
Well, we shall have to let others here judge as to which one of us has lessened his stature in this exchange.

I'm standing tall. I have no doubt that that those who've interacted with me for years will know that I call 'em like I see 'em. Some have questioned when I have supported you in some attacks against you... but I did it because in those instances you were right. And I don't have to like someone to be fair.

[quote]I also personally think you might very well have been gay for LaVey... sorry, Charlie, but the boss didn't swing that way.


If you didn't come off like a whiny, jilted lover, people would not get that impression. And no, I am not the only one who's though it.

[quote]
And all just because I suggested that your actual loyalty was to Anton and not Satan, hence should not technically be called a "Satanist"?

What you suggest of me is of little or no consequence. You have no right or authority. You have no idea about me... you suppose. You have no authority to determine what any one thinks or feels beyond the one that looks back at you from your mirror.

Yes LaVey was my friend and my mentor, and yes I follow his system of Satanism. What of it? When you admit that your Aardvark encounter was simply delusion and you used it as a literary construct around which you formed the Temple of Set, perhaps you will have some credibility. SOME... not much.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60711 - 10/31/11 04:44 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
Set Recognized me to the V° of Magus in the Book of Coming Forth by Night, a document and decision which I and the other founders of the Temple of Set regarded as authentic.


This just in: Set has recognized me to the DCLXVI° of Ultimate Satanic Bad Ass of Ultimate Satanic Bad Assery PhD Esq. LLC Inc.^∞! This has just been documented here, on this very forum. And all of you WILL recognize it as legitimate or I will piss and moan henceforth, call all of you posers, write an E-book which I will plug at any and every opportunity and lord over each and everyone of you with my imaginary title and smug emoticons. >[:|]

 Quote:

Unfortunately, unlike the "Church of Satan" degrees after 1975, there is no cash value whatever to any of the Setian degrees. You would have to rely upon just your $1 bill.


Clearly, that one was way over your head.


Edited by 6Satan6Archist6 (10/31/11 04:47 PM)
Edit Reason: Lengthening my imaginary title
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#60712 - 10/31/11 04:49 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Dan:

Lest we forget...

_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60713 - 10/31/11 04:50 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Diavolo]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
I would agree with this. There is no Satanism without Satan. What I was reacting to, and still havent gotten an answer to, was the narrow definition of what Satan is and how this definition would somehow be the original (for ”centuries established”). There is nothing to support this claim.


The problem here is that you don't necessarily have to look at Satan as a deity. In Sophism some entity called Sophy isn't the element but something meaning "a dude that deals in wisdom". If you don't think of Satan as an entity but also as "a dude that deals in opposition", it is quite similar.

And this is much closer to what Satanism is. It isn't some philosophical school of thinking but a practical manner of living and as such, either the manner of living, or the label for living as such, is central.

Of course to Mike Satan has to be "real" because else Set can't be real. By linking them, the one falls with the other.

D.


I agree which is why I consider Satanism to possibly be atheistic or theistic - or something in between or totally other. It is not the existence or non-existence of a being that is central but the very path that one walks.

Top
#60714 - 10/31/11 05:45 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
Cf. Chapter #2 of Black Magic and Chapter #3 of TOS. Actually over the decades the Temple of Set has done a substantial amount of research into many aspects of ancient Egypt involving or reflecting the ancient awareness of Set. This has resulted in many papers, Scroll of Set articles, etc. - far too numerous to address here.

The popular image of the "Egyptian Set" is simply the Osirian-cult version, spread through writings dating from the post-XX Dynasty Egyptian decadence. We have been interested in the original, which dates to predynastic times.

Is today's Temple of Set something evolutionary when compared to back-then? Of course. Nevertheless we are satisfied that we continue to acknowledge and respect Set's earliest, as well as his contemporary significance.

While all this is very interesting, I think it departs from the actual thread topic of the "Satanism/Satanist" label.



That's all good but we both know that ancient Egypt was polytheistic, except that short interlude. So if we assume Set to be an "entity", why would it be different for all those other gods? Why not accept them all?

The same goes for Satan. One can hardly consider Satan as real and not acknowledge the one he is opposing.

D.

Top
Page 5 of 14 « First<34567>Last »


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

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.