|
|
 | | From: | satanservice.org at boboroshi (SOD of the CoE) | | Subject: | History and Terminology of Satanism and the GMC | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:14:42 GMT |
|
|
 | hey Ben and si! Ben, I'm following out the reference you
provided on Satanism as it relates to sociology (Moody's
article, as cited by James R. Lewis as "seminal"). more
on that later -- it proves to be quite illuminating.
first the WONDERFULLY-INQUISITIVE person who started this
thread, si :
#># if you don't believe in [Satan] - then whats the point
#># of calling yourself a [Sataist] then? ...
"Ben Schultz" :
#> ...Here's my answer to this asinine question...
#> If you don't worship the devil, why call it "Satanism"?
first a quibble/
it is NOT an asinine question, it is completely rational,
and proceeds from the motivations and results inherent
to the Great Martyrdom Cult, which some deny exists.
for more on the Great Martyrdom Cult, which masquerades
as several different "religions" and probably should be
considered several different religious expressions of the
same general sociological phenomenon related to Satanism
as a composite,
cf http://www.satanservice.org/theory/faq6.txt
in a nutshell, the reason that it is not asinine is that
the term 'satan' originated as a noun, and was changed by
the Christian religion after Jews (as in the fictional tale
called 'The Book of Job') to indicate a dualistic anti-God
that they couldn't reconcile with their chosen deity (cf.
JBRussell's outstanding tracing of what he very correctly
called concepts, 'personifications of evil' in his 4-book
work, Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, Mephistopheles, if I
recall their title-markers correctly; academic, lovely).
----------------------------------------------------------
/end quibble
#> This question has been gone over, hashed, and rehashed
#> (ad nauseum) by everyone even remotely involved with
#> Satanism....
quite so, but it is usually misunderstood by same none-
theless, because it is being treated more seriously than
it probably deserves or grapples with terminology along
vectors sociopolitical where material repercussion is
completely nonextant.
in the same way that religious the world over don't usually
understand their own history, shrouded as it is within the
storytelling romance of centuries, so also do Satanists not
understand the actual history behind the terms or cults
(which is very new and bubbles up within reactionary context).
that said, *thank you* for attempting once more to bring
this subject to the fore. it is ESSENTIAL in a proper
understanding of the subject of Satanism, and how it fits
into the overarching GMC of which it may be the pinnacle.
#> Let me ask you this, why do they call it....?
through time within the history of religion, countless
explanations vie for supremacy and authority within the
cults who make up the entirety. "why...?", therefore, is
almost completely dependent upon the person using the term
and, at best, constitutes a distraction or a mistaken focus.
#> ...You named your religious path after the person who
#> showed you the way. Satanism is no different.
to a certain extent this is true, but not as you intend it.
the reason that the Greek term 'Kristos' was integrated to
the cult of Joshua seems to have had something to do with
a struggle over language and the 'christening' of leaders
in Jewish faiths, from whom the Christians would spring.
that is, they were attempting to redefine 'messiah' or its
general conceptualization, to apply to a single individual
within their contending cult.
this varies from Satanism in that, where 'messiah' was a
*positive* term employed in varying manner by those from
whom it was stolen and re-used, the term 'satan', and
*especially* the term 'satanism' was a NEGATIVE term,
pasted across the perceptual field onto those who constitute
the perceived or *stylized* religiomagical adversary. it is
a CONSTRUCTED (imagined, projected, artificial) concept that
goes along with the dualistic bogey representing a Force to
Be Reckoned With and For Whose Warfare We Should Prepare.
today we might compare it with its modern expression in the
SRA "witch-hunts" of the 80s and 90s that are only now being
untangled and whose horrors obscured are being realized (in
the real pedophilia travesties perpetrated by conventional
religion until recently concealed and condoned by neglect).
an imagined network of child-sacrificing sociopaths for
whom NO evidence has ever been found was part of this 'Satanic
Ritual Abuse' fiction-making, stemming from such sources as
that of Pazder and his book with his FABRICATED-Memory-
Syndrome cohort in "Michelle Remembers".
this imagined network is a holdover from the projections of
CENTURIES of Christian fantasizing and bogey-making, trapped
within the sad dualism of their limited cosmology and archly
but competitively directed in compassion to "help" others.
once we get the notion that the terms "messiah" and "satan"
are of different CHARACTER, then we can begin to understand
how the sociopolitical effects of adopting these were at
variance, though of similar struggling character. identifying
a specific internal cult figure or culture hero (fictional at
base) as "The Messiah" purported by some Jews represents an
attempt to control the Carrot, drawing any number of the
faithful to certain behaviours and under the umbrella of
any number of sociopolitical governance bodies (churches).
comparably, identifying one's *own* cult with a hated or
feared label represents an attempt to control the Stick that
sends the faithful into fits of fearful violence and social
extrication and eradication of the "evil doers". initially,
representing an image of behaviour at odds with the prevailing
significances of the Hated/Evil can disrupt the condemnation
scheme (demonization), and eventually this can become completely
DEMOLISHED as novel cults grow up in the shade, as it were,
of actively positive human expression cohering in the novel
religiomagical group (on account of the general goodness of
human beings to our 'own' once conditioned toward a tribal
identity).
#> In Satanism, Satan is looked upon as an archetype.
while this is true, it is also incomplete. Satanists look at
Satan in any number of ways, which is demonstrable within any
forum in which Satanists interact or publication in which the
meaning of Satanism is allowed to vary. the individualism
which is essential to many types of Satanism makes spin-offs,
what is called "sectaranism", or more positively within the
Neopagan community "hiving off" more likely. egos clash,
people have novel revelations about who or what Satan is to
them, and a new cult of Satanism is born. the egotism and
immaturity of this new religion being what it is predisposes
such novelties to eruption, struggle, and aggravated dispute,
perfectly exemplified within the usenet newsgroup alt.satanism.
#> Satanists identify with the mythical being with enough
#> courage to challenge the "all-powerful creator of the
#> universe" and say, "What the hell are you thinking?"
literary satanism (as may be found in the writings of
great authors like SClemens/MTwain and GBShaw) sometimes
does have this valiant and heroic, promethean struggle
against the "archon" reminiscent of Gnosticism (cf. the
very approachable writings of Elaine Pagels, such as "The
Gnostic Gospels" or "The History of Satan" and the being
called "the demiurge", "demiourgos", or "Ialdabaoth".
it is not what all Satanists believe or so identify.
#> The image of Satan serves as a reminder to Satanists
#> that we are to question all things. We should challenge
#> the status quo. We should not accept things simply
#> because they have "always been that way."
while again quite true, this runs headlong into the ideal
of Individualism which obtains within several Satanist
trajectories, glorifying the ego and individual choice above
even the denouncement of stupidity and sheepish acceptance.
it might apply within the argument that fierce egotists
are deserving of their myopic acceptance of their desires.
#> And, most importantly, that we must stand by our
#> convictions no matter what the cost.
here's where the ground under the Satanism becomes some-
what unstable, rocky, and develops a quicksand quality.
RAWilson, whose writings and speeches I've encountered
and do not generally recommend, put forward a slogan which,
along with some uttered by other, comparably unskilled
and unreliable writers like PCarroll, have strongly
influenced the skeptical qualities and distinct
certitudes that may be found in the greater
Neopagan and nuevoreligious subculture:
"Convictions cause convicts."
along with those of Chaos Magick subculture's PCarroll:
"Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted."
these serve to empower the individual and to destroy the
clear-cut rules that any might attempt to portray to
us as "sacrosanct", utilitarianistically superior, or
"what we must do no matter what the cost" -- slavitude.
#> (www.devilzown.com/faq)
a wonderful page, thank you for pointing it out. now back
to the reason we're examining these extremely valuable
issues (si (a@a.com)):
"si" :
# So why not call yourself questioners. Or something similar.
because the intention (even if in the past, or unconscious)
behind the use of the term 'satan' is different than mere
"questioning". it becomes an active struggle, at least
initially. the Great Martyrdom Cult changes in its
composition through successive generations of cultists,
and those after the initial rosters may treat all of it
much more seriously, believe the legends and tales of
the cult as established as literal truth, and generally
fall away from the skepticism which is championed by
some modern Thelemites ('Doubt-Goat'!) and Satanists
(as CoS: Stupidity as a quality to be opposed, along
with states like "mindlessness").
using the Bogey-construction of the dualistic and demonizing
as a SELF-DESCRIPTION is like putting on a scary halloween
mask made using the descriptions of liars and manipulators.
it both grapples with the Blood Libel brought against their
religious competition AND attempts to redefine biased and
slanderous language.
cf. the FAQ on the GMC above as well as Manifesto Satanika,
at http://www.satanservice.org/theory/okmanifesto.html
which details some of the characteristics of the Satanistic
aspects and roles involved with the sociopolitical struggle.
its subject headers give the basic impression here:
The Dissenter; [against] The Coercive Horde;
The Revolutionaries;
The Great Martyrdom Cult;
and The Satanists.
# Why base the name of your religion
as with some categories of societal behaviour, such as certain
cults of Buddhism, some religions may not be entirely supportive
of religious aspects or characteristics. in this sense they may
be qualified as 'anti-religious', especially for those who have
a very specific idea of what "religion" includes. Satanism's
tendency toward materialism and atheism predisposes it to some
anti-religious impulses. as such, Satanism may not ideally be
categorized AS religion, and may not compare well because of it.
# around something you don't believe exists just to try
# and mock what you believe that thing stood against?
the focus of your assertion here is "just to try to mock".
I suggest to you and all who are in this conversation that
mockery is only one *aspect* of the use of the term 'satan'.
it includes a full grappling with the demonizing elements of
dualistic cults (in this case primarily Christian and Muslim),
from whom its condemnation-oriented language has been stolen.
# Doesn't make sense to me.
from a Christian perspective it is not supposed to be rational.
it is instead supposed to be *alarming*. the fact that anyone
might want to worship or otherwise pay attention to or ally
with what you may regard as the Great Adversary to your God
and your religion should give you pause at least, and your
calm, rational manner of approaching the circumstance of your
encounter with this language is admirable, demonstrating
qualities actually *encouraged* by Satanists (doubt, reflection,
skepticism, looking more closely at what seems peculiar, etc.).
# ...its called Christianity because thats how you come to God.
# Through Christ.
since we're not primarily discussing Christianity here I'm
leaving that for another thread. suffice it to say that large
numbers of explanations for "why it is called 'Christianity'"
have been fabricated through the years, none of them primary
in any authoritative sense on account of the church-based,
sectarian-making sociological network supported therein: from
Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation through to
Anabaptist individualists with whom Satanists might be
profitably compared (Baptists at times approach this level
of enshrinement of individual sovereignty with respect to
the establishment of relation to the deity and are other
very helpful comparison cults).
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
|
|
| | From: | Ben Schultz | | Subject: | Re: History and Terminology of Satanism and the GMC | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:40:21 -0600 |
|
|
|
Thank you for the insightful commentary. (And the compliment on the
web page)
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:14:42 GMT, satanservice.org@boboroshi (SOD of
the CoE) wrote:
>hey Ben and si! Ben, I'm following out the reference you
>provided on Satanism as it relates to sociology (Moody's
>article, as cited by James R. Lewis as "seminal"). more
>on that later -- it proves to be quite illuminating.
>
>
>first the WONDERFULLY-INQUISITIVE person who started this
>thread, si :
>#># if you don't believe in [Satan] - then whats the point
>#># of calling yourself a [Sataist] then? ...
>
>"Ben Schultz" :
>#> ...Here's my answer to this asinine question...
>#> If you don't worship the devil, why call it "Satanism"?
>
>first a quibble/
>
>it is NOT an asinine question, it is completely rational,
>and proceeds from the motivations and results inherent
>to the Great Martyrdom Cult, which some deny exists.
>
>for more on the Great Martyrdom Cult, which masquerades
>as several different "religions" and probably should be
>considered several different religious expressions of the
>same general sociological phenomenon related to Satanism
>as a composite,
>
>cf http://www.satanservice.org/theory/faq6.txt
>
>in a nutshell, the reason that it is not asinine is that
>the term 'satan' originated as a noun, and was changed by
>the Christian religion after Jews (as in the fictional tale
>called 'The Book of Job') to indicate a dualistic anti-God
>that they couldn't reconcile with their chosen deity (cf.
>JBRussell's outstanding tracing of what he very correctly
>called concepts, 'personifications of evil' in his 4-book
>work, Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, Mephistopheles, if I
>recall their title-markers correctly; academic, lovely).
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>/end quibble
>
>#> This question has been gone over, hashed, and rehashed
>#> (ad nauseum) by everyone even remotely involved with
>#> Satanism....
>
>quite so, but it is usually misunderstood by same none-
>theless, because it is being treated more seriously than
>it probably deserves or grapples with terminology along
>vectors sociopolitical where material repercussion is
>completely nonextant.
>
>in the same way that religious the world over don't usually
>understand their own history, shrouded as it is within the
>storytelling romance of centuries, so also do Satanists not
>understand the actual history behind the terms or cults
>(which is very new and bubbles up within reactionary context).
>
>that said, *thank you* for attempting once more to bring
>this subject to the fore. it is ESSENTIAL in a proper
>understanding of the subject of Satanism, and how it fits
>into the overarching GMC of which it may be the pinnacle.
>
>#> Let me ask you this, why do they call it....?
>
>through time within the history of religion, countless
>explanations vie for supremacy and authority within the
>cults who make up the entirety. "why...?", therefore, is
>almost completely dependent upon the person using the term
>and, at best, constitutes a distraction or a mistaken focus.
>
>
>
>#> ...You named your religious path after the person who
>#> showed you the way. Satanism is no different.
>
>to a certain extent this is true, but not as you intend it.
>the reason that the Greek term 'Kristos' was integrated to
>the cult of Joshua seems to have had something to do with
>a struggle over language and the 'christening' of leaders
>in Jewish faiths, from whom the Christians would spring.
>that is, they were attempting to redefine 'messiah' or its
>general conceptualization, to apply to a single individual
>within their contending cult.
>
>this varies from Satanism in that, where 'messiah' was a
>*positive* term employed in varying manner by those from
>whom it was stolen and re-used, the term 'satan', and
>*especially* the term 'satanism' was a NEGATIVE term,
>pasted across the perceptual field onto those who constitute
>the perceived or *stylized* religiomagical adversary. it is
>a CONSTRUCTED (imagined, projected, artificial) concept that
>goes along with the dualistic bogey representing a Force to
>Be Reckoned With and For Whose Warfare We Should Prepare.
>
>today we might compare it with its modern expression in the
>SRA "witch-hunts" of the 80s and 90s that are only now being
>untangled and whose horrors obscured are being realized (in
>the real pedophilia travesties perpetrated by conventional
>religion until recently concealed and condoned by neglect).
>
>an imagined network of child-sacrificing sociopaths for
>whom NO evidence has ever been found was part of this 'Satanic
>Ritual Abuse' fiction-making, stemming from such sources as
>that of Pazder and his book with his FABRICATED-Memory-
>Syndrome cohort in "Michelle Remembers".
>
>this imagined network is a holdover from the projections of
>CENTURIES of Christian fantasizing and bogey-making, trapped
>within the sad dualism of their limited cosmology and archly
>but competitively directed in compassion to "help" others.
>
>once we get the notion that the terms "messiah" and "satan"
>are of different CHARACTER, then we can begin to understand
>how the sociopolitical effects of adopting these were at
>variance, though of similar struggling character. identifying
>a specific internal cult figure or culture hero (fictional at
>base) as "The Messiah" purported by some Jews represents an
>attempt to control the Carrot, drawing any number of the
>faithful to certain behaviours and under the umbrella of
>any number of sociopolitical governance bodies (churches).
>
>comparably, identifying one's *own* cult with a hated or
>feared label represents an attempt to control the Stick that
>sends the faithful into fits of fearful violence and social
>extrication and eradication of the "evil doers". initially,
>representing an image of behaviour at odds with the prevailing
>significances of the Hated/Evil can disrupt the condemnation
>scheme (demonization), and eventually this can become completely
>DEMOLISHED as novel cults grow up in the shade, as it were,
>of actively positive human expression cohering in the novel
>religiomagical group (on account of the general goodness of
>human beings to our 'own' once conditioned toward a tribal
>identity).
>
>#> In Satanism, Satan is looked upon as an archetype.
>
>while this is true, it is also incomplete. Satanists look at
>Satan in any number of ways, which is demonstrable within any
>forum in which Satanists interact or publication in which the
>meaning of Satanism is allowed to vary. the individualism
>which is essential to many types of Satanism makes spin-offs,
>what is called "sectaranism", or more positively within the
>Neopagan community "hiving off" more likely. egos clash,
>people have novel revelations about who or what Satan is to
>them, and a new cult of Satanism is born. the egotism and
>immaturity of this new religion being what it is predisposes
>such novelties to eruption, struggle, and aggravated dispute,
>perfectly exemplified within the usenet newsgroup alt.satanism.
>
>#> Satanists identify with the mythical being with enough
>#> courage to challenge the "all-powerful creator of the
>#> universe" and say, "What the hell are you thinking?"
>
>literary satanism (as may be found in the writings of
>great authors like SClemens/MTwain and GBShaw) sometimes
>does have this valiant and heroic, promethean struggle
>against the "archon" reminiscent of Gnosticism (cf. the
>very approachable writings of Elaine Pagels, such as "The
>Gnostic Gospels" or "The History of Satan" and the being
>called "the demiurge", "demiourgos", or "Ialdabaoth".
>it is not what all Satanists believe or so identify.
>
>#> The image of Satan serves as a reminder to Satanists
>#> that we are to question all things. We should challenge
>#> the status quo. We should not accept things simply
>#> because they have "always been that way."
>
>while again quite true, this runs headlong into the ideal
>of Individualism which obtains within several Satanist
>trajectories, glorifying the ego and individual choice above
>even the denouncement of stupidity and sheepish acceptance.
>it might apply within the argument that fierce egotists
>are deserving of their myopic acceptance of their desires.
>
>#> And, most importantly, that we must stand by our
>#> convictions no matter what the cost.
>
>here's where the ground under the Satanism becomes some-
>what unstable, rocky, and develops a quicksand quality.
>
>RAWilson, whose writings and speeches I've encountered
>and do not generally recommend, put forward a slogan which,
>along with some uttered by other, comparably unskilled
>and unreliable writers like PCarroll, have strongly
>influenced the skeptical qualities and distinct
>certitudes that may be found in the greater
>Neopagan and nuevoreligious subculture:
>
> "Convictions cause convicts."
>
>along with those of Chaos Magick subculture's PCarroll:
>
> "Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted."
>
>these serve to empower the individual and to destroy the
>clear-cut rules that any might attempt to portray to
>us as "sacrosanct", utilitarianistically superior, or
>"what we must do no matter what the cost" -- slavitude.
>
>#> (www.devilzown.com/faq)
>
>a wonderful page, thank you for pointing it out. now back
>to the reason we're examining these extremely valuable
>issues (si (a@a.com)):
>
>"si" :
># So why not call yourself questioners. Or something similar.
>
>because the intention (even if in the past, or unconscious)
>behind the use of the term 'satan' is different than mere
>"questioning". it becomes an active struggle, at least
>initially. the Great Martyrdom Cult changes in its
>composition through successive generations of cultists,
>and those after the initial rosters may treat all of it
>much more seriously, believe the legends and tales of
>the cult as established as literal truth, and generally
>fall away from the skepticism which is championed by
>some modern Thelemites ('Doubt-Goat'!) and Satanists
>(as CoS: Stupidity as a quality to be opposed, along
>with states like "mindlessness").
>
>using the Bogey-construction of the dualistic and demonizing
>as a SELF-DESCRIPTION is like putting on a scary halloween
>mask made using the descriptions of liars and manipulators.
>it both grapples with the Blood Libel brought against their
>religious competition AND attempts to redefine biased and
>slanderous language.
>
>cf. the FAQ on the GMC above as well as Manifesto Satanika,
>
>at http://www.satanservice.org/theory/okmanifesto.html
>
>which details some of the characteristics of the Satanistic
>aspects and roles involved with the sociopolitical struggle.
>its subject headers give the basic impression here:
>
> The Dissenter; [against] The Coercive Horde;
> The Revolutionaries;
> The Great Martyrdom Cult;
>and The Satanists.
>
># Why base the name of your religion
>
>as with some categories of societal behaviour, such as certain
>cults of Buddhism, some religions may not be entirely supportive
>of religious aspects or characteristics. in this sense they may
>be qualified as 'anti-religious', especially for those who have
>a very specific idea of what "religion" includes. Satanism's
>tendency toward materialism and atheism predisposes it to some
>anti-religious impulses. as such, Satanism may not ideally be
>categorized AS religion, and may not compare well because of it.
>
># around something you don't believe exists just to try
># and mock what you believe that thing stood against?
>
>the focus of your assertion here is "just to try to mock".
>I suggest to you and all who are in this conversation that
>mockery is only one *aspect* of the use of the term 'satan'.
>it includes a full grappling with the demonizing elements of
>dualistic cults (in this case primarily Christian and Muslim),
>from whom its condemnation-oriented language has been stolen.
>
># Doesn't make sense to me.
>
>from a Christian perspective it is not supposed to be rational.
>it is instead supposed to be *alarming*. the fact that anyone
>might want to worship or otherwise pay attention to or ally
>with what you may regard as the Great Adversary to your God
>and your religion should give you pause at least, and your
>calm, rational manner of approaching the circumstance of your
>encounter with this language is admirable, demonstrating
>qualities actually *encouraged* by Satanists (doubt, reflection,
>skepticism, looking more closely at what seems peculiar, etc.).
>
># ...its called Christianity because thats how you come to God.
># Through Christ.
>
>since we're not primarily discussing Christianity here I'm
>leaving that for another thread. suffice it to say that large
>numbers of explanations for "why it is called 'Christianity'"
>have been fabricated through the years, none of them primary
>in any authoritative sense on account of the church-based,
>sectarian-making sociological network supported therein: from
>Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation through to
>Anabaptist individualists with whom Satanists might be
>profitably compared (Baptists at times approach this level
>of enshrinement of individual sovereignty with respect to
>the establishment of relation to the deity and are other
>very helpful comparison cults).
>
>blessed beast!
>
>boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
>Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
>TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
>Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
|
|
| | From: | Tani Jantsang © | | Subject: | Re: History and Terminology of Satanism and the GMC | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:48:04 GMT |
|
|
| Hey Bobo - chiming in.
"SOD of the CoE" wrote in message
news:SPXHd.3026$m31.38106@typhoon.sonic.net...
> hey Ben and si! Ben, I'm following out the reference you
> provided on Satanism as it relates to sociology (Moody's
> article, as cited by James R. Lewis as "seminal"). more
> on that later -- it proves to be quite illuminating.
>
>
> first the WONDERFULLY-INQUISITIVE person who started this
> thread, si :
> #># if you don't believe in [Satan] - then whats the point
> #># of calling yourself a [Sataist] then? ...
>
> "Ben Schultz" :
> #> ...Here's my answer to this asinine question...
> #> If you don't worship the devil, why call it "Satanism"?
>
> first a quibble/
>
> it is NOT an asinine question, it is completely rational,
> and proceeds from the motivations and results inherent
> to the Great Martyrdom Cult, which some deny exists.
Agree. I simply told the guy Si WHY people call it Satan-ism and in great
detail. Two groups, SR and TOS explain why. He bitched about the
information being too complicated. DUH. It's not complicated. It's very
clearly spelled out. The LaVeyan orgs are the ONLY orgs out there that are
NOT using "Satan" as "a distortion of legitimate Set or the concept of Sat
and Tan." Lavey IS talking about the devil - the CHRISTIAN devil - but he
claims it is much more than just that - he said it was a dark force in
nature that is unknown to religion or science. I put up his quotes on that
subject and you got them. Our FAQ explains the rest.
>
> for more on the Great Martyrdom Cult, which masquerades
> as several different "religions" and probably should be
> considered several different religious expressions of the
> same general sociological phenomenon related to Satanism
> as a composite,
>
> cf http://www.satanservice.org/theory/faq6.txt
>
> in a nutshell, the reason that it is not asinine is that
> the term 'satan' originated as a noun, and was changed by
> the Christian religion after Jews (as in the fictional tale
> called 'The Book of Job') to indicate a dualistic anti-God
> that they couldn't reconcile with their chosen deity (cf.
> JBRussell's outstanding tracing of what he very correctly
> called concepts, 'personifications of evil' in his 4-book
> work, Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, Mephistopheles, if I
> recall their title-markers correctly; academic, lovely).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> /end quibble
>
> #> This question has been gone over, hashed, and rehashed
> #> (ad nauseum) by everyone even remotely involved with
> #> Satanism....
>
> quite so, but it is usually misunderstood by same none-
> theless, because it is being treated more seriously than
> it probably deserves or grapples with terminology along
> vectors sociopolitical where material repercussion is
> completely nonextant.
>
> in the same way that religious the world over don't usually
> understand their own history, shrouded as it is within the
> storytelling romance of centuries, so also do Satanists not
> understand the actual history behind the terms or cults
> (which is very new and bubbles up within reactionary context).
>
> that said, *thank you* for attempting once more to bring
> this subject to the fore. it is ESSENTIAL in a proper
> understanding of the subject of Satanism, and how it fits
> into the overarching GMC of which it may be the pinnacle.
>
> #> Let me ask you this, why do they call it....?
>
> through time within the history of religion, countless
> explanations vie for supremacy and authority within the
> cults who make up the entirety. "why...?", therefore, is
> almost completely dependent upon the person using the term
> and, at best, constitutes a distraction or a mistaken focus.
OR the org using the term.
>
>
>
> #> ...You named your religious path after the person who
> #> showed you the way. Satanism is no different.
>
> to a certain extent this is true, but not as you intend it.
> the reason that the Greek term 'Kristos' was integrated to
> the cult of Joshua seems to have had something to do with
> a struggle over language and the 'christening' of leaders
> in Jewish faiths, from whom the Christians would spring.
> that is, they were attempting to redefine 'messiah' or its
> general conceptualization, to apply to a single individual
> within their contending cult.
YES, but the inclusion of the concept of Christos (applied to the man Jesus)
by one branch of the Jewish mystical cults is known as HELLENIZATION - eg,
from the Hellenes - Pagan Greeks.
>
> this varies from Satanism in that, where 'messiah' was a
> *positive* term employed in varying manner by those from
> whom it was stolen and re-used, the term 'satan', and
> *especially* the term 'satanism' was a NEGATIVE term,
> pasted across the perceptual field onto those who constitute
> the perceived or *stylized* religiomagical adversary.
True, but these days, at least two orgs and those that use those org's stuff
are NOT using it in the sense of an adversary at all. Set was not the
adversary of anyone most of the time. The Sat is not the adversary of
anything or anyone.
it is
> a CONSTRUCTED (imagined, projected, artificial) concept that
> goes along with the dualistic bogey representing a Force to
> Be Reckoned With and For Whose Warfare We Should Prepare.
>
> today we might compare it with its modern expression in the
> SRA "witch-hunts" of the 80s and 90s that are only now being
> untangled and whose horrors obscured are being realized (in
> the real pedophilia travesties perpetrated by conventional
> religion until recently concealed and condoned by neglect).
>
> an imagined network of child-sacrificing sociopaths for
> whom NO evidence has ever been found was part of this 'Satanic
> Ritual Abuse' fiction-making, stemming from such sources as
> that of Pazder and his book with his FABRICATED-Memory-
> Syndrome cohort in "Michelle Remembers".
You realize that most of these charges are identical to the charges
Christians once made against Jews? Jews realize it.
>
> this imagined network is a holdover from the projections of
> CENTURIES of Christian fantasizing and bogey-making, trapped
> within the sad dualism of their limited cosmology and archly
> but competitively directed in compassion to "help" others.
>
> once we get the notion that the terms "messiah" and "satan"
> are of different CHARACTER, then we can begin to understand
> how the sociopolitical effects of adopting these were at
> variance, though of similar struggling character. identifying
> a specific internal cult figure or culture hero (fictional at
> base) as "The Messiah" purported by some Jews represents an
> attempt to control the Carrot, drawing any number of the
> faithful to certain behaviours and under the umbrella of
> any number of sociopolitical governance bodies (churches).
The Messiah of the Jews is a flesh and blood man who they believe will come
to rule over a very real earthly kingdom - ISRAEL.
>
> comparably, identifying one's *own* cult with a hated or
> feared label represents an attempt to control the Stick that
> sends the faithful into fits of fearful violence and social
> extrication and eradication of the "evil doers". initially,
> representing an image of behaviour at odds with the prevailing
> significances of the Hated/Evil can disrupt the condemnation
> scheme (demonization), and eventually this can become completely
> DEMOLISHED as novel cults grow up in the shade, as it were,
> of actively positive human expression cohering in the novel
> religiomagical group (on account of the general goodness of
> human beings to our 'own' once conditioned toward a tribal
> identity).
>
> #> In Satanism, Satan is looked upon as an archetype.
>
> while this is true, it is also incomplete. Satanists look at
> Satan in any number of ways, which is demonstrable within any
> forum in which Satanists interact or publication in which the
> meaning of Satanism is allowed to vary. the individualism
> which is essential to many types of Satanism makes spin-offs,
> what is called "sectaranism", or more positively within the
> Neopagan community "hiving off" more likely. egos clash,
> people have novel revelations about who or what Satan is to
> them, and a new cult of Satanism is born. the egotism and
> immaturity of this new religion being what it is predisposes
> such novelties to eruption, struggle, and aggravated dispute,
> perfectly exemplified within the usenet newsgroup alt.satanism.
>
> #> Satanists identify with the mythical being with enough
> #> courage to challenge the "all-powerful creator of the
> #> universe" and say, "What the hell are you thinking?"
>
> literary satanism (as may be found in the writings of
> great authors like SClemens/MTwain and GBShaw) sometimes
> does have this valiant and heroic, promethean struggle
> against the "archon" reminiscent of Gnosticism (cf. the
> very approachable writings of Elaine Pagels, such as "The
> Gnostic Gospels" or "The History of Satan" and the being
> called "the demiurge", "demiourgos", or "Ialdabaoth".
> it is not what all Satanists believe or so identify.
Uh, MOST Satanists do not believe that.
>
> #> The image of Satan serves as a reminder to Satanists
> #> that we are to question all things. We should challenge
> #> the status quo. We should not accept things simply
> #> because they have "always been that way."
>
> while again quite true, this runs headlong into the ideal
> of Individualism which obtains within several Satanist
> trajectories, glorifying the ego and individual choice above
> even the denouncement of stupidity and sheepish acceptance.
> it might apply within the argument that fierce egotists
> are deserving of their myopic acceptance of their desires.
>
> #> And, most importantly, that we must stand by our
> #> convictions no matter what the cost.
>
> here's where the ground under the Satanism becomes some-
> what unstable, rocky, and develops a quicksand quality.
>
> RAWilson, whose writings and speeches I've encountered
> and do not generally recommend, put forward a slogan which,
> along with some uttered by other, comparably unskilled
> and unreliable writers like PCarroll, have strongly
> influenced the skeptical qualities and distinct
> certitudes that may be found in the greater
> Neopagan and nuevoreligious subculture:
>
> "Convictions cause convicts."
>
> along with those of Chaos Magick subculture's PCarroll:
>
> "Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted."
>
> these serve to empower the individual and to destroy the
> clear-cut rules that any might attempt to portray to
> us as "sacrosanct", utilitarianistically superior, or
> "what we must do no matter what the cost" -- slavitude.
>
> #> (www.devilzown.com/faq)
>
> a wonderful page, thank you for pointing it out. now back
> to the reason we're examining these extremely valuable
> issues (si (a@a.com)):
>
> "si" :
> # So why not call yourself questioners. Or something similar.
>
> because the intention (even if in the past, or unconscious)
> behind the use of the term 'satan' is different than mere
> "questioning". it becomes an active struggle, at least
> initially. the Great Martyrdom Cult changes in its
> composition through successive generations of cultists,
> and those after the initial rosters may treat all of it
> much more seriously, believe the legends and tales of
> the cult as established as literal truth, and generally
> fall away from the skepticism which is championed by
> some modern Thelemites ('Doubt-Goat'!) and Satanists
> (as CoS: Stupidity as a quality to be opposed, along
> with states like "mindlessness").
>
> using the Bogey-construction of the dualistic and demonizing
> as a SELF-DESCRIPTION is like putting on a scary halloween
> mask made using the descriptions of liars and manipulators.
> it both grapples with the Blood Libel brought against their
> religious competition AND attempts to redefine biased and
> slanderous language.
>
Imo, this is NO different from what Tupac was doing - among others. They
use the word NIGGAZ to self-describe - taking the offensive word, changing
the spelling and proudly proclaimint to BE that. They REFUSE to even spell
things in the "accepted" way and they have what hard science linguists are
even studying as a real evolving language of their own - and they INSIST on
using it, despite efforts to stop them by the mainstream who relies on
Webster's (stasis book) dictionary.
That's why I keep questioning the WHY of it - WHY didn't Anton Lavey
recognize these blacks and what they were actually doing? They are the MOST
adversarial people in the USA right now - and they were always (and still
are in some ways) The Other - The Hated Minority - demonized and even
dehumanized for CENTURIES. You don't seem to have an answer for that
either. Do you NOT recognize that these rappers are SATANIC in the LaVeyan
sense of the meaning?
> cf. the FAQ on the GMC above as well as Manifesto Satanika,
>
> at http://www.satanservice.org/theory/okmanifesto.html
>
> which details some of the characteristics of the Satanistic
> aspects and roles involved with the sociopolitical struggle.
> its subject headers give the basic impression here:
>
> The Dissenter; [against] The Coercive Horde;
> The Revolutionaries;
> The Great Martyrdom Cult;
> and The Satanists.
Well, in the past, that sociopolitical stuff would be clearly on the LEFT -
Big Liberal modes of reinterpreting former conservative laws. These days,
heh - well, I'd say that the white racists are the disenfranchised,
demonized adversaries, now. That is precisely HOW the "ideal of fascism" -
aka "white power" got into Satanism of the Laveyan kind, Bobo. It is NO
surprise to me that there is an alliance between the Nation of Islam (black
Nazis) and the other neo-Nazi groups (white Nazis).
>
> # Why base the name of your religion
>
> as with some categories of societal behaviour, such as certain
> cults of Buddhism, some religions may not be entirely supportive
> of religious aspects or characteristics. in this sense they may
> be qualified as 'anti-religious', especially for those who have
> a very specific idea of what "religion" includes. Satanism's
> tendency toward materialism and atheism predisposes it to some
> anti-religious impulses. as such, Satanism may not ideally be
> categorized AS religion, and may not compare well because of it.
You realize that if Si found what I posted "too complicated" he's gonna find
what you posted even more complicated.
>
> # around something you don't believe exists just to try
> # and mock what you believe that thing stood against?
>
> the focus of your assertion here is "just to try to mock".
> I suggest to you and all who are in this conversation that
> mockery is only one *aspect* of the use of the term 'satan'.
> it includes a full grappling with the demonizing elements of
> dualistic cults (in this case primarily Christian and Muslim),
> from whom its condemnation-oriented language has been stolen.
It has extended beyond that as "Is Fascism Satanic" shows. It has crept
into the religion of the Liberal Left (virtues being 1. diversity, 2.
tolerance, 3. demonization of all things white and male). Too bad the only
contact you have with the opposers of this stuff are Laveyans posing as
fascists. If you ever talked to one of the leaders of such things, a
serious person, you might learn WHY this backlash exists in society - and
creapt into Laveyan Satanism. I DO understand it, Bobo. As someone who'd
probably be on the KKK shit list - I don't support it - but I DO understand
it.
>
> # Doesn't make sense to me.
>
> from a Christian perspective it is not supposed to be rational.
> it is instead supposed to be *alarming*. the fact that anyone
> might want to worship or otherwise pay attention to or ally
> with what you may regard as the Great Adversary to your God
> and your religion should give you pause at least,
Check out Pastor Smulo's information - he confronted it in a very rational
way and at least spoke to leaders or founders of the orgs.
and your
> calm, rational manner of approaching the circumstance of your
> encounter with this language is admirable, demonstrating
> qualities actually *encouraged* by Satanists (doubt, reflection,
> skepticism, looking more closely at what seems peculiar, etc.).
Calm, rational manner? Uh.... you read these threads here?
>
> # ...its called Christianity because thats how you come to God.
> # Through Christ.
>
> since we're not primarily discussing Christianity here I'm
> leaving that for another thread. suffice it to say that large
> numbers of explanations for "why it is called 'Christianity'"
> have been fabricated through the years, none of them primary
> in any authoritative sense on account of the church-based,
> sectarian-making sociological network supported therein: from
> Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation through to
> Anabaptist individualists with whom Satanists might be
> profitably compared (Baptists at times approach this level
> of enshrinement of individual sovereignty with respect to
> the establishment of relation to the deity and are other
> very helpful comparison cults).
>
> blessed beast!
>
> boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
> Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
> TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
> Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
|
|
|
