Page 7 of 14 « First<56789>Last »
Topic Options
#60754 - 11/01/11 12:53 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Octavian
[...] but I believe that the Neter's of the objective universe are non-conscious principles. They are mechanistic, non-conscious principles which in a sense regulate the functioning of the OU.


Speaking of definitions, the distinction here is important. Forms, or Neteru, or whatever you want to call them, are creations of Man, recognitions of general principles and perceived patterns in our environment.

They exist only in your head. To transform them from an idea to something that has independent existence is unwarranted. To conclude that a perceived pattern necessarily indicates a purposeful "regulation of the functioning of the OU" is likewise unwarranted (this is the "intelligent design" argument).

 Originally Posted By: Octavian
Set is so weird and distinct and out of place precisely because "he" is the universal of consciousness, which is non-natural and distinct/against the OU.


There is no "non-natural". (In the context of this discussion,) there's the OU and the SU, the latter of which exists only in your head. If Set is not a distinct entity in the OU, guess where he is?

Any claims that <fill in diety here> exist in the OU are the same tired old confluence of the human brain's pattern-matching heuristic trying to map his tribal need for a leader to tell him what to do onto the real world.

 Originally Posted By: Goliath
That's because questions like these are ultimately decided by power, and power alone. People shrug off traditionalists and purists because they can: that is to say, because traditionalists and purists lack the authority to demand other people's attention, or the influence to persuade them to pay attention, or the force to compel them to pay attention.


Probably the most useful paragraph in this thread these past few days
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60756 - 11/01/11 03:04 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Aznebtra]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Aznebtra
... I have not seen maquino active on any forums or temple communications, (that I have access to as a first degree) since I’ve joined the Temple ...

I do monitor the Temple's internal forum, and offer comments when I think them necessary or helpful. But I think you will find throughout the forum areas that Setians are extremely sophisticated in dealing with such questions as are raised, often more so than myself. If you or any other Setian ever has a question that you think only I can answer, you are always welcome to ask it, of course.

My interest in the 600C is, as I have said here many times, primarily a historical one. As you can read in my The Church of Satan, I was intensely involved with the original Church of Satan (1966-75), the predecessor to the Temple of Set. Hence I am interested in both the history and the philosophy of pre-Setian [in both the conceptual and the time/linear sense] Satanism being correctly understood and represented.

Note that this is not the same thing as prospecting the 600C for new Setians, which I would consider improper. Setian philosophy and Satanism are connected in that the former evolved from the latter, but the latter by its nomenclature and concepts remains within Judĉo/Christian culture, if only as a reaction to/rejection of it. Setian philosophy has no interest in any slave-religion ideology except as a curiosity and social pathology.

Since 1975 Satanism per se has been subject to a number of "identity crises". First there was Anton LaVey's announced switch to "nonSatan Satanism", essentially treating it as a mere catchall for his lifestyle, fetishes, and opinions. Then there was the rock-music world's dalliance with it - Black Sabbath, Mötley Crüe, Marilyn Manson, et al. - as a glamor device. There followed the vicious, international "Satanic Panic" of the 1980s-90s, in which it was equated to extreme criminality.

So today "Satanism" is a rather battered-and-bandaged term. The 600C caught my interest because only here have I seen individuals personally focused on Satanism attempting seriously to come to grips with it. I feel at least some nostalgic motivation to help.

As every credentialed/experienced university professor knows, there is always a tension between teacher and students. Smart students may decide they know as much as/more than the teacher, hence feel it more a measure of success to take him down than to merely get an "A". Stupid students are forced to confront their stupidity, which makes them angry at the teacher who exposed it. Some ego-inflated people feel that the very notion of subjecting their opinions to any sort of "classroom" is an intolerable insult.

So here I am adamantly not a "teacher", just a "resource": something like Plato's daimon whispering advice in his mind. Eventually I expect to fade quietly away, leaving behind not M.A.A.-students but just individuals whose perception of and interest in Satanism is that much less blurred, confused, and imprecise. What they do with that P&I is, as ever since having a bite of fruit in the Garden of Eden, their decision.

 Quote:
Even more surprising is that this seems to be a mutual act of trolling, by the disagreeing parties. (The two particularly bitter ones around the same age perhaps? I try to imagine my dad of this age doing this and it is completely absurd, and these people are supposed to embody a better state of being that the path of satanism says you can achieve?) My main concern is, what is someone who is supposed to be as enlightened as the temple claims, doing trolling the internet during their evenings?

It's nonsense to consider either Jake or myself "trolls", as we've both been here quite some time [him far longer than myself], and have engaged in many perfectly ordinary forum discussions.

I feel no "bitterness" whatever towards Jake. He had a close relationship with Anton LaVey during what I think was a very stressed period of Anton's intellectual life: the disintegration of the Church of Satan because of his 1975 decisions, the breakup of his intensely-close marriage with Diane, tensions with Zeena and Nikolas Schreck, the progressive self-insertion of Sharon Densley & relations, and probably the continued and spectacular flourishing of the Temple of Set in the background.

Jake has shown himself here to be a straightforward, honest, and no-bullshit kind of guy, which was I think just what Anton needed as a friend and confidante. I think Jake should have stayed around and Densley tossed out the door, but then I also think that Anton & Diane should have kissed & made up, and that Zeena & Anton should never have become estranged. As long as I'm in the realm of 'druther-fantasy, I would have liked to see Anton & Diane as guests of honor at a Temple of Set international conclave, and presented with Honorary Setian medallions. So there.

I think Jake just has a burr up his ass about me right now because this discussion has forced him to confront some problematic questions, that's all. Blaming the fire-alarm for the fire has been going on ever since Rosemary & Guy Woodhouse got pissed at Hutch for alerting them to the Bramford's unsavory history.

 Quote:
What is this Ipssissimus if it’s not gotten past engaging in this behavior

Well, let's take a look at that:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., Black Magic/The Crystal Tablet of Set
The degree of Ipsissimus - VI° Temple of Set, (10)=[1] A.'.A.'./G.'.D.'. - was treated evasively by Aleister Crowley, most probably because his claim to the lower grade of Magus had already caused him such difficulty. [Initiates of higher degrees soon learn to their annoyance that a proportionate percentage of their time is devoted to defending their suitability for such exalted titles. The temptation is to refuse to admit to them altogether, so that one may get on with one’s work unpestered.] In any case, an Ipsissimus is essentially a “successful Magus”: one whose Task is complete.

Inherent in such completion is a unique perception of the new ĉonic inertia which has resulted, placing the Ipsissimus at once within and without the ĉon itself. To function as an Ipsissimus, he must work to perfect and harmonize not only the created or modified ĉon, but also its entire relationship with preexisting and potential ĉons. Thus he enhances the Work of the Magi; thus he ensures that the Understanding of the Masters of the Temple is not futile because of factors beyond the ĉon in which they tend their gardens.

It is the Curse of a Magus not to be Understood, in that he has set out to define and promulgate something alien to the existing inertia of magical philosophy. It is the doom of an Ipsissimus to Understand a great many ĉons simultaneously: to see how they may be exclusive yet complementary, independent yet interrelated, sequential yet coincidental.

The Ĉon of Set was immediately preceded by the Age of Satan, so I am indeed doing a bit of Ipsissimusing by interrelating and harmonizing the two, as elsewhere with the Ĉon of Horus in my dialogues over the years with the O.T.O. and other Thelemites, etc.

I appreciate your forthright questions and trust I have answered them. Enjoy your personal initiatory adventure in the Temple of Set!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60757 - 11/01/11 03:19 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Autodidact]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
... Forms, or Neteru, or whatever you want to call them, are creations of Man, recognitions of general principles and perceived patterns in our environment.

They exist only in your head. To transform them from an idea to something that has independent existence is unwarranted. To conclude that a perceived pattern necessarily indicates a purposeful "regulation of the functioning of the OU" is likewise unwarranted (this is the "intelligent design" argument).

First you say that patterns in/of the natural environment [=OU] are "perceived". Then you say they exist "only in your head". Note the contradiction here.

It is indeed the collective Forms/Principles (or "patterns" if you prefer) of the OU which constitute the OU-neteru, or "God" collectively in the deistic sense. Human intellects, by virtue not only of being intelligent but also having an outside-perspective, indeed can perceive these patterns. We can give them scientific-law names, Platonic-Form names, neter-names, or whatever else identifies them.

At the risk of getting into PSYOPland here, human beings think primarily and overwhelmingly via pattern-perception/recognition, and only occasionally and with much more deliberation and difficulty in algorithms (="reasoning"). You are far more entangled with the neteru than you realize, which ought to keep you awake nights from now on. ;\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60758 - 11/01/11 03:30 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
Note that this is not the same thing as prospecting the 600C for new Setians, which I would consider improper. Setian philosophy and Satanism are connected in that the former evolved from the latter, but the latter by its nomenclature and concepts remains within Judĉo/Christian culture, if only as a reaction to/rejection of it. Setian philosophy has no interest in any slave-religion ideology except as a curiosity and social pathology.


I can't help it, I just like a good debate, so sue me for jumping upon the opportunity.

The criticism that Satanism is rooted in the Judĉo/Christian culture is correct. One can't deny that Satanism is expressed in our cultural form which is infested by it. But the claim that the Temple of Set completely abandons this culture is not so correct.

If we look at the key-elements of the ToS, we notice a quite familiar tradition.

There is a godhead/creator, there are the chosen, there is choice. There is life as a transitional phase, the prophet receiving and sharing the path to submit to, which ultimately, when done right leads to a reunion with the godhead.

This is a very traditional Magian approach (Spengler's Magian). We see these same key-elements in Hebrew, Christian and Muslim slave-religions. What makes it appear different is a bit like chocolate milk. Chocolate milk looks dark, tastes slightly different but the key element is still white milk. In the ToS, regardless of visual imagery, we can't deny noticing these same key elements.

So besides the cultural form, couldn't we say that maybe Satanism left much more of the Judĉo/Christian culture behind than the ToS did?

D.

Top
#60759 - 11/01/11 03:42 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

I think Jake just has a burr up his ass about me right now because this discussion has forced him to confront some problematic questions, that's all.


The only burr up Jake's ass is a pompous claiming by YOU that others aren't what they claim to be because they don't fit your perceptions. If you ever got off of your high horse and acted like your weren't the arbitrator of Satanic acceptability, it would go a long way towards others accepting you as something more than a blow hard.

You just "ain't all that," as the kids used to say. What you have to say regarding satanic acceptability might mean something to those who have drunk your bath water with you, but beyond that, nobody really give a fuck what you have to say about who is or who isn't a Satanist. If you want to lord over your bloodless Setians, have at it. They joined your show of their own free will, so let them sit quietly and eat their popcorn while that farce plays out.

But when you start telling people what they have to believe who HAVEN'T signed on to your particular brand of bullshit, we have every right to say FUCK YOU. If you don't like that, don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on your way out.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60760 - 11/01/11 03:48 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Autodidact]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
I have put my own personal view about Set and the Neteru forward earlier in this thread.

My comments in the later part of the thread were to have a conversation with D and try to present my own understanding of Setian metaphysics, thinking that might help the conversation.

The non-natural is a Setian way of describing Set and I think all of the sixth degree Setian's have used it describe how Set is so seemingly out of place, in a sense, as compared to the Neteru of the OU. Set has to be apprehended/perceived through the head to be known I think. Consciousness is regarded as so bizarre, so different/alien and seemingly against the non-conscious mechanistic functioning of the OU. Hence it is non-natural.


Edited by Octavian (11/01/11 03:56 PM)
Edit Reason: Marked

Top
#60763 - 11/01/11 04:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
The only burr up Jake's ass is a pompous claiming by YOU that others aren't what they claim to be because they don't fit your perceptions.

Well, that's easily enough resolved, as with Zebu: Believe and style yourself whatever you like, for any or no reason at all.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60769 - 11/01/11 04:50 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
First you say that patterns in/of the natural environment [=OU] are "perceived". Then you say they exist "only in your head". Note the contradiction here.


Ah, you see a contradiction because you assume the SU spans the boundary between the OU and "something else". I contend the SU is a subset of the OU - there is no "outside". Hence, there is no contradiction.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Human intellects, by virtue not only of being intelligent but also having an outside-perspective, indeed can perceive these patterns. We can give them scientific-law names, Platonic-Form names, neter-names, or whatever else identifies them.


I actually find this to be detrimental to, rather than supportive of, your argument. In the absence of evidence (as it appears to me), Occam's Razor suggests to me that it's more likely that humans merely apply their heuristics against current input, rather than there being a host of pre-existing Forms that humans recognize (including something as specific as a conscious entity serving as a template for all other conscious entities).

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

At the risk of getting into PSYOPland here, human beings think primarily and overwhelmingly via pattern-perception/recognition, and only occasionally and with much more deliberation and difficulty in algorithms (="reasoning"). You are far more entangled with the neteru than you realize, which ought to keep you awake nights from now on. ;\)


I've been a programmer and engineer for more than twenty years now, so I'm keenly aware of when humans are reasoning versus reacting emotionally. Watching or reading any coverage of politics is exercise enough in that regard.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60770 - 11/01/11 04:55 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
The criticism that Satanism is rooted in the Judĉo/Christian culture is correct. One can't deny that Satanism is expressed in our cultural form which is infested by it. But the claim that the Temple of Set completely abandons this culture is not so correct.

You are correct right out of the starting-gate insofar as Western social culture is overwhelmingly based upon Judĉo/Christian assumptions and values, most of them unconsciously taken-for-granted.

This was another of the problems we recognized early-on in the Church of Satan. If you're going to reject everything derivative of J/C, you're going to wind up [unless you choose another slave-religion, like Hinduism or Buddhism] with an anarchist or totalitarian society. The USSR is an obvious example.

So we set about somewhat awkwardly, if not hypocritically, keeping the good stuff and tossing the bad stuff. We did that for ten years; the Temple of Set has continued. So does everyone in the 600C.

 Quote:
If we look at the key-elements of the ToS, we notice a quite familiar tradition. There is a godhead/creator, there are the chosen, there is choice. There is life as a transitional phase, the prophet receiving and sharing the path to submit to, which ultimately, when done right leads to a reunion with the godhead.

Set is not the creator of humanity - simply the provider/awakener of each individual's isolate self-consciousness. The extent to which each individual examines, explores, and extends this capacity is a purely-personal option. Most aren't aware and don't bother. The incarnate, physical/OU shell (the body and its senses) provides a vehicle of convenience for the ba to become fully aware of itself and its distinction, but is not strictly necessary [as for instance in sensory-deprivation situations such as isolation tanks]. After the shell is discarded, the ba>ka remains as isolate and conscious as it previously was; there is no "reunion" with Set.

Further, unlike [and necessarily so] the slave-religions, the Gift of Set is completely individual-discretionary. Everyone has it; everyone can use it, usually unconsciously, in any number of creative and/or destructive ways.

The Temple of Set, which is based upon enlightened apprehension and exercise of the Gift, indeed advocates ethics accordingly. But these are also, necessarily, individually developed as one progressively dispenses with J/C or other non-consciously indoctrinated traditions, customs, and laws.

 Quote:
So besides the cultural form, couldn't we say that maybe Satanism left much more of the Judĉo/Christian culture behind than the ToS did?

It might seem that way to the extent that Satanism seems to advocate anarchy; that's certainly the emotional theme of the Satanic Bible's "Book of Satan". However, as noted, the Church in practice immediately replaced this with Anton's "9 parts social respectability to 1 part outrage" formula, and even that 1-part was very carefully indulged in.

The Temple of Set inherited a decade of 9/1 experience, but also operates in a context which has much less relationship with ordinary human society. We perceive, assign meaning to, and utilize different things for different reasons; and we have become experienced at keeping all of this from clashing with the various social systems around the planet in which Setians physically live.

Our most obvious goof in this was our failure in the 1980s to anticipate the danger and strength of the "Satanic Panic", including its impact on the previously-invisible Temple of Set. The consequence was an awkward and extensive period of public explanation of the Temple to people generally incapable of really understanding it. We became reasonably good at dumbing-it-down; I remember Geraldo Rivera coming over to me during the first break of his infamous "Halloween special" and asking me not to use words over two syllables!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60771 - 11/01/11 05:01 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
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
The only burr up Jake's ass is a pompous claiming by YOU that others aren't what they claim to be because they don't fit your perceptions.

Well, that's easily enough resolved, as with Zebu: Believe and style yourself whatever you like, for any or no reason at all.


Again with the "oh look at the magnanimous me" BULLSHIT.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT NOR AUTHORITY TO JUDGE OR DECIDE FOR OTHERS. NONE.

Maybe you've forgotten the words of The Book of Satan from The Satanic Bible:

"Before none of your printed idols do I bow in acquiescence, and he who saith "thou shalt" to me is my mortal foe!"

GROW UP, AQUINO. You have no authority, you have no standing and you have no credibility in telling others what they are or are not. Period. I don't care if you're delusional pre or post 1975... you opinions are simply your own and nothing more.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60773 - 11/01/11 05:14 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
Set is not the creator of humanity - simply the provider/awakener of each individual's isolate self-consciousness. The extent to which each individual examines, explores, and extends this capacity is a purely-personal option. Most aren't aware and don't bother. The incarnate, physical/OU shell (the body and its senses) provides a vehicle of convenience for the ba to become fully aware of itself and its distinction, but is not strictly necessary [as for instance in sensory-deprivation situations such as isolation tanks]. After the shell is discarded, the ba>ka remains as isolate and conscious as it previously was; there is no "reunion" with Set.

Further, unlike [and necessarily so] the slave-religions, the Gift of Set is completely individual-discretionary. Everyone has it; everyone can use it, usually unconsciously, in any number of creative and/or destructive ways.

The Temple of Set, which is based upon enlightened apprehension and exercise of the Gift, indeed advocates ethics accordingly. But these are also, necessarily, individually developed as one progressively dispenses with J/C or other non-consciously indoctrinated traditions, customs, and laws.



I used Godhead/creator in a very basic manner. Of course in the Christian myth Yahweh created man which is only different at a level of details. Set provided that what does make man, which is actually creating man.

The other details you specify again point towards similarities. In Christian myth, we have a soul and the free will to do either good or evil. The body is the vessel for this soul and when doing the right thing, after the body is left behind, the soul is rewarded with entrance into heaven; a reunion with the godhead.

As you see, the basic traditional theme does not differ. Which affirms it being part of a Magian cultural tradition.

D.

Top
#60776 - 11/01/11 05:26 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Autodidact]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
First you say that patterns in/of the natural environment [=OU] are "perceived". Then you say they exist "only in your head". Note the contradiction here.

Ah, you see a contradiction because you assume the SU spans the boundary between the OU and "something else". I contend the SU is a subset of the OU - there is no "outside". Hence, there is no contradiction.

Well, that gets rather tautological, since you're now insisting that there is no "real you" to perceive anything external to itself; that all of the external patterns are merely mini-mirrored inside your skull. But in that case there would be no "you" to identify the mini-mirrors or compare/relate them to the skull-external patterns.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Human intellects, by virtue not only of being intelligent but also having an outside-perspective, indeed can perceive these patterns. We can give them scientific-law names, Platonic-Form names, neter-names, or whatever else identifies them.

I actually find this to be detrimental to, rather than supportive of, your argument. In the absence of evidence (as it appears to me), Occam's Razor suggests to me that it's more likely that humans merely apply their heuristics against current input, rather than there being a host of pre-existing Forms that humans recognize (including something as specific as a conscious entity serving as a template for all other conscious entities).

"Heuristics" is simply a term for previously experienced and accumulated knowledge, again primarily patterns. This in no way gets past the necessity to perceive primal patterns.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
At the risk of getting into PSYOPland here, human beings think primarily and overwhelmingly via pattern-perception/recognition, and only occasionally and with much more deliberation and difficulty in algorithms (="reasoning"). You are far more entangled with the neteru than you realize, which ought to keep you awake nights from now on. ;\)

I've been a programmer and engineer for more than twenty years now, so I'm keenly aware of when humans are reasoning versus reacting emotionally. Watching or reading any coverage of politics is exercise enough in that regard.

As a programmer/engineer you are also presumably aware of the biggest difficulty that humans had interacting with machine-intelligence is that we are primarily/overwhelmingly pattern-thinkers while machines think in algorithms [except in sci-fi movies like 2001]. I'm not a computer expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if today's machines are overcoming/have overcome this problem. The world of the Terminator & Matrix films may be closer than we think ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60779 - 11/01/11 05:34 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
The only burr up Jake's ass is a pompous claiming by YOU that others aren't what they claim to be because they don't fit your perceptions.

Well, that's easily enough resolved, as with Zebu: Believe and style yourself whatever you like, for any or no reason at all.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT NOR AUTHORITY TO JUDGE OR DECIDE FOR OTHERS. NONE.

What part of "believe and style yourself whatever you like, for any or no reason at all" did you miss? [I even bought you a virtual beer too.]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60780 - 11/01/11 05:37 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Strange how when one makes it up as they go along(cough mikey) it's the real shit, yet if anyone else does same they are a faker.

Having a boner for being self conscious is hardly the Satanic highground.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60786 - 11/01/11 08:24 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I think the problem here is that Mr. Ipissymiss has been telling his bullshit story for so long that he has actually convinced himself that it is real.

I believe that Set talks to Mikey as much as I believe Set is nothing more than a psychosomatic manifestation brought on by some deep emotional trauma possibly related to his time with CoS or due to waaaaaaaay too much MK Ultra LSD.

I just wish he would shut up about it.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
Page 7 of 14 « First<56789>Last »


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

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.