It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anton LaVey & The Church of Satan

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
THE ELEVEN SATANIC RULES OF THE EARTH
(copyright Anton Szandor LaVey 1967)
1: Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2: Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3: When in anothers lair show him respect or do not go there.
4: If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
5: Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6: Do not take that which does not belong to you.
7: Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully.
8: Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself to.
9: Do Not harm little children.
10: Do Not kill animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11: When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

THE NINE SATANIC SINS
1: Stupidity.
2: Pretentiousness.
3: Solipsism.
4: Self-deceit.
5: Herd Conformity.
6: Lack Of perspective.
7: Forgetfulness of past orthodoxies.
8: Counterproductive Pride.
9: Lack of aesthetics.



I dont see anything wrong with these. Maybe ill adapt them into my own religion. If more people followed these simple Sins and Rules. I think we would be better off.




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by RadioheadLee
Personally, i follow the Satanic Bible and will continue to do so because it makes me happy.
And every night when i get that 'sensual desire' , ill satisfy it and go to bed with a big smile on my face. Not being being crude or anything, but when im heating things up and in the final thorws of the vinegar strokes, ill defy anyone to tell me that i dont look happy!!

Have you found happiness Tamahu ? no offence mate, but you sounded a little bit angry in your last post : )

If what you believe in hasn't brought you happiness, then i dont see why we should discredit LaVey's idea's for the same reason.

I know youre referring to long-term happiness, but if that takes a long time to achieve, whats the point? no-one knows for certain how long they'll be on earth so ill continue to have my little bit of happiness every day untill i die.


EXCELLENT post, RadioheadLee!! I particularly want to applaud the ending of your statement- but there`s one thing you neglected to mention- life is nothing but a series of individual days, individual moments. For each one you find happiness, that`s part of the overall victory.

I`m afraid your words may have been lost on some of the other posters in this thread, though.

I stopped replying to it because, in essence, the other poster proved my point for me- I asked him a very simple request; to refute LaVey with logic, not an appeal to some jumbled modern interpretation of acnient religious ideals.

You`ll notice he was unable to do so, and he immediately started quoting more of the ancient religious ideals that I`d already pointed out have nothing to do with LaVey`s philosophy.

Ancient religious ideals are not capable of refuting logic. To put it more simply, you cannot refute the statement 'A=A' by saying "But I have faith that A=B". You can have all the faith in the world, and you have a right to it, but that faith dosen`t negate reason. To use a specific example, the fact that person "x" derives happiness from fulfilling his 'base' desires. Someone else can make the statement on 'faith' that he has not found 'true' happiness, but that statement of faith still dosen`t invalidate the happiness person 'x' has found from physical pleasure.

LaVey`s (and as was previously mentioned, Ayn Rand`s, who preceeded him) philosophy was about pride in one`s self and achievements. That is the *essence* of the Left Hand Path.

Tamahu`s statement "But the gist is that the ego, "me", "I", "myself"(Shaytan or Ahriman) is the cause of suffering(...)" shows that he is completely philosophically in opposition to everything LaVey pointed out. If someone has so little regard for himself that he insists on equating his soul to some sort of teeming beehive of perpetual existential anguish, then that`s his position, but christ, I think most of us have a bit of a higher view of ourselves than that.


Seriously, there`s very little philosophical difference between his statement that 'I am the cause of suffering' (paraphrased), and the statements of christians when they say 'Redeem me of my sin, Lord.' It`s both springing from an indoctrinated mentality; 'I`m unworthy.' Well, that`s fine if someone out there chooses to feel unworthy- but some of us reject that religious indoctrination totally and utterly and choose to have pride in ourselves and our achievements, and I think I`d rather follow a philosophy that encourages that pride, like the philosophies of Rand and LaVey.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
"Jumbled"?

Well I'm no Geshe, but I thought my replies were at least somewhat clear and concise.






















Originally posted by wagnerian21
If someone has so little regard for himself that he insists on equating his soul to some sort of teeming beehive of perpetual existential anguish, then that`s his position, but christ, I think most of us have a bit of a higher view of ourselves than that.




No, the "Soul"(Buddha Nature) is Perfect.

It is the Legion of demons or egos(kleshas) which keep it imprisoned within the sub, un, and infra-consciousness that are a "teeming beehive of perpetual existential anguish".

Do we even know our "ourselves" enough to what our "self" is?

Let alone to be proud of it?

I'll ask what the Buddhists ask and it is this.

Meditate on this supposed independant "self" and see if you can find it.

I'll bet you can't.

And even if you do find some sort of intrinsic Self through in depth meditation, it will most likely to be nothing like the fabricated "self" that our subjective minds have fabricated over eons and eons of existence.


And this has everything to do with Anton LaVey's philosophy.

Said philosophy is a perfect example of the type of delusions we've been fed which keep us trapped within this perpetual bitter Valley of Tears, that we constantly try to find lasting satisfaction through, but never do(well maybe you do, but if you're sincere, you'll likely see that the more you try to feed sensual-desire, the more you set yourself up for disappointment).

It's nice to talk about living in each moment as it comes(and this is actually how the Great Mahatmas, Buddhas, Christs, Magi, etc. live and how we can live too)...

...but as long as we keep creating the causes and conditions for suffering(considering that all is interdependent, which is not a belief but is self-evident), we'll never transcend it.


I mean, for real; what does Anton LaVey's philosophy have on the real Adepts such as Buddha, Pythagoras, Yeshua, Muhammad, Krishna, Lao-Tzu, Hermes Trismegistus(Tehuti), etc.?



But anyway, look on the bright side.

For one to walk the Path of the Razor's Edge, desire doesn't have to necessarily be eliminated per-se', but can ultimately be Transmuted through the Karma-Mudra.








www.lamayeshe.com...









...The highest vehicle is known as the Tantric vehicle which comprises not only techniques for heightening your own realization of emptiness or mind of enlightenment, but also certain technique for penetrating the vital points of the body. By using the body's physical elements, we can expedite the process of realization, eliminating ignorance and its imprints. This is the main feature of the tantric vehicle...










...A text called the Sacred Words of Manjushri, composed by the Indian master Buddhajnana, mentions that because of the physical structure of our bodies and the elements that we possess as human beings inhabiting this planet, even on an ordinary level, there are certain occasions when we experience the subtle level of clear light, naturally. These occur during sleep, yawning, fainting and sexual climax.

This shows that we have within ourselves a certain potential which we can explore further. And among these four states, the best opportunity for further development is during the sexual intercourse.

Although I am using this ordinary term, sexual climax, it does not imply the ordinary sexual act. The reference here is to the experience of entering into union with a consort of the opposite sex, by means of which the elements at the crown are melted, and through the power of meditation the process is also reversed.

A prerequisite of such a practise is that you should be able to protect yourself from the fault of seminal emission. According to the explanation of the Kalachakra Tantra in particular, such emission is said to be very damaging to your practice. Therefore, because you should not experience emission even in dreams, the tantras describe different techniques for overcoming this fault.

This contrasts with the Vinaya explanation, which sets out the code of discipline for Buddhist monks, in which exception is made for emission in dreams, because it is beyond your control, whereas in tantra it is considered an offence. The experience of melting the mind of enlightement is brought about by ordinary afflicted desire, so the practitioner must be able to generate it.

The point is that due to the force of desire, you are able to melt the elements within your body. Consequently, when you experience the nonconceptual state, you should be able to direct your attention to meditation on emptiness. So, when you experience a nonconceptual state as a result of the elements melting within your body, if you are able to generate that understanding into a realization of emptiness, you will have achieved the feat of transforming a disturbing emotion, desire, into the wisdom realizing emptiness.

When you are able to employ this nonconceptual blissful mind in realizing emptiness, the result is a powerful wisdom that serves as an antidote to counteract and eliminate diusturbing emotions. Therefore, it is a case of wisdom derived from disturbing emotions counteracting and eliminating them, just as insects born from wood consume it.

This is the significance of the Buddha's assuming the form of a meditational deity, the principal deity of the mandala, and entering into union with the consort when he taught the tantric path. Therefore, in the course of their practice, practitioners generate themselves on an imaginary level into such deities in union with a consort.

Another unique and profound feature of tantra concerns the process for attaining the twofold body of the Buddha, the form body and the truth body. According to the sutra system, the practitioner works to attain the form and the truth bodies of a Buddha as a result of cultivating the altruistic aspiration for enlightenment. However, the body of the Buddha does not come about without causes and conditions and these causes and conditions must be commensurate their effects. That is to say, cause and effect should have similar aspects.

The sutra systems speak of the causes of the Buddha's form body in terms of an unique mental body attained by highly evolved Bodhisattvas, which, serving as the substantial cause of the Buddha's body, eventually becomes the form body of the Buddha. This is also mentioned in the writings of the low vehicle. Although they do not describe a complete method for actualizing the omniscient state, they do speak of certain types of practices which are geared towards achieving the major and minor marks of the Buddha.

Highest Yoga Tantra, on the other hand, outlines the unique causes and methods for actualizing both the truth body and the form body of a Buddha
...
















[edit on 12-9-2006 by Tamahu]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Wagnerian21 - thank you for the kind words, it made me smile and its good to know someone who can see where im coming from. thanks mate.

And this....... ''but there`s one thing you neglected to mention- life is nothing but a series of individual days, individual moments. For each one you find happiness, that`s part of the overall victory''


Simply worded to perfection.

I must admit i was excited by the idea of a post debating Anton LaVey and the CoS, but this thread has kinda lost me with constant references to other religions and Gods, lines and lines of text which never really tell me why i, personally, shouldnt live my life by the 11 Satanic rules of the earth, and some who cannot claim to be happier now than myself or anyone else on this board just because of what we believe in. Im not saying anyone is misguided, but it appears that the people who dont follow Satanism on this board, are the ones who try their best to bestow their beliefs on others and change their way of thinking.

What i can say, with conviction and honesty, is that with the CoS i have found a reflection of myself and a group of like-minded people who think in the same way. Everyone lives their lives and enjoys themselves while they do it. I certainly wont sit around waiting for a better tomorrow , especially when there isnt 1 single person on this earth who can guarantee whats on the other side.

I dont wish to offend anyone, convert them, or tell anyone they are wrong for what they believe in.

One last thing, and this is to Tamahu. I respect everything you've put forward on this thread, and you've certainly raised some great ideas but there is one thing i cant get to grips with.

This was taken from a body of text you had quoted...

''A prerequisite of such a practise is that you should be able to protect yourself from the fault of seminal emission. According to the explanation of the Kalachakra Tantra in particular, such emission is said to be very damaging to your practice. Therefore, because you should not experience emission even in dreams, the tantras describe different techniques for overcoming this fault ''

Now, again, im trying my best to avoid being crude here in case we have young people around. But i have to strongly, REALLY STRONGLY disagree with this. Anyone who has had great sex ( or solo sex for those who cant ... ) will know that the climax is where all the energy is released and is quite possibly one the greatest feelings humans can touch upon. And to describe it as a 'FAULT' .....leaves me a bit speechless.
If we all live our lives not giving into the primal instinct of lust or love, wont the human race die out?

Thank you everyone.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   

especially when there isnt 1 single person on this earth who can guarantee whats on the other side.




Says who?

That's one of the worst pitfalls of the exoteric side of Religions, is that we can't perceive all of the Superior Dimensions of the Cosmos here and now.

True Religion teaches that We create our own destiny based on the fact of Interdependence.






The Book of the Dead


"The Intellectual Animal falsely named man dies unconsciously and is born unconsciously, and goes blindly from the cradle to the grave, without knowing where he comes from or where he is going. By creating the Soul we awaken the Consciousness and only then become aware of the mysteries of life and death."












Meaning that in Esoteric Buddhism, Gnostic Christianity, Kabbalah, Shetaut Neter, Taoism, etc. we learn how to manifest the Divine Within our Consciousness, in order to climb the Tree of Life and perceive the Astral Plane, Mental Plane, Causal Plane, the Logoic Planes and beyond, right here in this very life; as all of these dimensions are of our own True Nature/Neter(The All is in All), whether we are physically alive, or in the in-between states(Bardos, Amenta, Duat, Devachan, etc.)

The Dream Walking of the Native American Indians also teaches this Science.

If your interested in this, I'd suggest the following on-line Gnostic Course on Dream Yoga:

www.gnosticteachings.org...

(Though you may want to learn how to Meditate first if you're interested in Astral travel)


So both Satanism and exoteric-Christianity fail to allow us to see what is beyond physical(and psychological) death; because with the former we are only taught to depend on sense-gratification for happiness, and with the latter we are only taught to suppress desire(instead of Transmuting it) and to rely on a external anthropomorphic mystery-god who is sitting on a cloud somewhere.






One last thing, and this is to Tamahu. I respect everything you've put forward on this thread, and you've certainly raised some great ideas but there is one thing i cant get to grips with.

This was taken from a body of text you had quoted...

''A prerequisite of such a practise is that you should be able to protect yourself from the fault of seminal emission. According to the explanation of the Kalachakra Tantra in particular, such emission is said to be very damaging to your practice. Therefore, because you should not experience emission even in dreams, the tantras describe different techniques for overcoming this fault ''



Now, again, im trying my best to avoid being crude here in case we have young people around. But i have to strongly, REALLY STRONGLY disagree with this. Anyone who has had great sex ( or solo sex for those who cant ... ) will know that the climax is where all the energy is released and is quite possibly one the greatest feelings humans can touch upon. And to describe it as a 'FAULT' .....leaves me a bit speechless.


If we all live our lives not giving into the primal instinct of lust or love, wont the human race die out?




The teaching of Tantra and Alchemy, is that when we have the oppertunity to fully actualize Divine-Consciousness(meaning that when we acquire a human body), we need to abandon the animal kingdom that our Consciousness has already gained experience in.

Fornication(seminal emission) is for animals.

Mercury, the Messenger of the Gods, can be found within the sexual fluid.

When the semen is Transmuted(instead of Satanically expelled), it carries the Intelligence of the Holy Spirit from the Sexual glands, via the Caduceus, to the brain and its glands.







This is part of how the Alchemist/Yogi/Tantrika acheives Illumination.

But to reach orgasm is to offend Christus-Lucifer, the Holy Spirit.






Sexual Magic


...At the base of the spinal column there is a bone called the coccyx; in this bone there is an ethereal center called Muladhara, and within this ethereal center there is an inlaid serpent of fire. This serpent is the fire of the Pentecost. The fire of the Holy Spirit. This fire is terrific; it has tremendous power. This is the Igneous Serpent of our Magical Powers. In India, this serpent is called the Kundalini.

The wise men of India awaken Kundalini with Sexual Magic. Sexual Magic is very easy: A man and a woman may sexually unite and they will be "one flesh." Both, however, men and women, must withdraw from the sexual act before and without spilling the seminal liquor [through the orgasm]. The seminal liquor must not be spilled within the womb; far from it, the Seed must not be allowed to spill outside that organ. The man must withdraw from the woman, and the woman from the man, restraining the sexual impulse to avoid spilling the seminal liquor.








By restraining the sexual impulse, the Semen [Sexual Energy] is turned into very subtle energies which rise up to the brain through two delicate nerve cords. These cords are the two witnesses which we are told about in the Apocalypse. They are the two olive branches of the temple, the two Candlesticks that stand before the throne of the God of Earth.

A Yogi makes his home without needing to break the sixth commandment of the Law of God:

Thou shalt not Fornicate.

During the act of sexual magic, it is possible for a spermatozoon, which the lunar hierarchies use to fertilize the womb, to escape without there being any need to spill the semen.

God is the Innermost, and his throne is the spinal column. Sexual forces are solar and lunar. When the solar and lunar atoms unite in the coccyx; then the igneous snake of our magical powers awakens. With this snake we can awaken all the powers of the wise men.

This serpent enters through the lower orifice of the spinal cord. The cord is hollow inside. Along the spinal cord there is a canal through which the sacred fire of the Holy Spirit rises upward, little by little, until it reaches the brain. When the igneous serpent reaches the brain, then the soul is united with the Innermost and thus enters Eden.

The soul which unites with the Innermost has power over earth, over water, over fire. It can command winds and hurricanes. It can hear and see the things of the heavens, of the earth and the Abyss and is able to know all divine things.

Jesus Christ said:

Verily, verily, I say to you, the one believing in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do. - John 14:12

…and so the only way to enter Paradise is through the gate through which we left it. That gate is sex. Nobody can enter Paradise through false gates.

Single people must transmute the seminal liquor with deep breathing, keeping the lungs full thirty seconds or more. This Swara exercise must be performed daily.






This is why H.H. the Dalai Lama stressed that to emit the semen is a fault.







Originally posted by RadioheadLee
...lines and lines of text which never really tell me why i, personally, shouldnt live my life by the 11 Satanic rules of the earth,






Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, but know that thou shalt have to answer for all thy deeds.




"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, Love is the Law; but Conscious Love"




Do what thy GOD wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, Love under the will of GOD.





May I suggest the 11 Rules of the God(dess) of Heaven and Earth?
















posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
About this:




Originally posted by RadioheadLee
Im not saying anyone is misguided, but it appears that the people who dont follow Satanism on this board, are the ones who try their best to bestow their beliefs on others and change their way of thinking.






Perhaps, to some degree you are correct about that.

Almost all of us have ego, including of course myself.

I won't deny that "I" have a psychological ego that wants to turn others from the path of strengthening the ego(such as Satanism).






Black Magic


..."The intellect as the negative function of the mind is demoniacal.

Everyone that enters into these studies, the first thing that they want is to dominate the mind of others. This is pure and legitimate black magic. No one has the right to violate the free will of others. No one has the right to exercise coaction upon the mind of others because this is black magic.

The ones that are guilty of this grave error are all of those mistaken authors that are everywhere. All of those books of hypnotism, magnetism and suggestion are books of black magic.

Whosoever does not know how to respect the free will of others is a black magician; those who perform mental works in order to violently dominate the mind of others convert themselves into perverse demons. These people separate themselves from the Innermost and they crumble into the Abyss."

- The Initiatic Path in the Arcana of Tarot and Kabbalah







But at the same time, our Inner-Essence or Buddha-Nature pushes us to the Gnostic Path, despite the egos that try with all their might to stop it.




So in the beginning, the would-be Initiate or Rough-Ashlar, starts with the Gnostic ego...:




Thelema: Willpower


...in the beginning the Gnostic serves himself with the Gnostic ego and teaches with the Gnostic ego. Am I teaching here with a Gnostic ego? I might, but later on, my God will kill my Gnostic ego too, because he is Solomon the King, and he needs to marry the beautiful Shulamite...








So, no matter what; we are always faced with situations in which we have to choose to either speak/act, or not to speak/act.






The Four Ways to Acquire Karma


1. Negative Actions:

Against others (For example, homicide)
Against ourselves (For example, suicide)

2. Negative Words:

Against others (speaking badly about others)
Against ourselves (speaking badly about oneself)

3. Negative Thoughts:

Against others (wishing someone else will suffer)
Against ourselves (wishing we will suffer, as in an accident or with death)


4. Failing to act when we could. We acquire karma for the good deeds in Word, action, or thought that we could perform, but do not.


Any action, thought or word is considered negative when it contradicts the Will of our own inner Being.

If we do not know the will of our inner Being, how can we perform upright action?

It is urgent that we ascend the ladder of Jacob within ourselves in order to stand face-to-face with our own inner Being and receive His commands directly.

The Innermost commands through the Voice of the Silence. To hear his voice, we must learn how to meditate. To hear his voice, we must Remember Him from moment to moment. To perform His will, we must deny our own self-will.


If any man will come after me, let him first deny himself... - Jesus of Nazareth







This is where it gets tricky, because in the beginning, the Disciple has not incarnated the latent Inner Wisdom-discrimination in order to know Intuitively the proper course of action at all times.


Should we speak against degeneration when it is put forth in our presence, as speaking against it may positively benefit the beings who are deceived by it?

Or would we be encroaching on their free-will?

Should we remain silent...?

...or would remaining silent allow the causes and conditions that would compell the propagator of degeneration to harm others with it, who may have realized the truth in our words had we spoken it?

Would we be speaking truth in an effective way without impeding other's free-will, or even be speaking truth at all?


So due to past Karma, the Disciple is continuing to perpetually create more karma...

...that is, until she or he attains Chastity in body, speech, and mind; and learns how to extract the Essence from the personality and egos through meditation, in order to receive instruction from God, Chokmah or Inner-Wisdom.




So basically, I've posted all this in order to not justify any possible fanaticism that may be found in my posts; but to show that my intentions are sincere, even though the Gnostic ego is at work in some aspects.


I first proposed that Anton LaVey may have been sent by the Black Lodge in order to enslave people by their own desire/suffering, it was challenged, and I defended my position.

And then the debate went off on a tangent.



Anyhow, I've experienced directly that desire is one of the, if not THE cause of suffering; and have therefore at least had a taste of Bodhicitta, that is to say: The positive-desire to free oneself, and therefore others, from the causes and conditions of suffering.






Black Lodge



The diabolic intelligence which seeks to pull souls into attachment to desire-sensation and the awakening of the consciousness (negatively) that is trapped within the ego.



Excerpted from The Perfect Matrimony : "From the dawn of life, a great battle has raged between the powers of Light and the powers of Darkness. The secret root of that battle lies in sex. Gods and Demons live in eternal struggle. The Gods defend the doctrine of chastity. The Demons hate chastity. In sex is found the root of the conflict between Gods and Demons... There are Masters of the Great White Lodge. There are Masters of the Great Black Lodge. There are disciples of the Great White Lodge. There are disciples of the Great Black Lodge. The disciples of the Great White Lodge know how to move consciously and positively in the Astral Body. The disciples of the Great Black Lodge also know how to travel in the Astral Body... The White Magician worships the inner Christ. The Black Magician worships Satan. This is the "I," the me, myself, the reincarnating ego. In fact, the "I" is the specter of the threshold itself. It continually reincarnates to satisfy desires. The "I" is memory. In the "I" are all the memories of our ancient personalities. The "I" is Ahriman, Lucifer, Satan."








Regards





[edit on 28-9-2006 by Tamahu]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I don't know how someone can claim to know so much about Satanism, yet miss some very, fundamental principles it believes in, Tamahu. Yet, that's not for me to argue nor have any interest in defending it. Just doing my ATS duty to deny ignorance *salutes*.

Now, something I can discuss with great detail is Christ. It's not the first time I've seen someone try to tag Karma with Jesus (though only once or twice before) but it's pretty evident conceptually that what Karma says versus what Jesus said were not alike at all, even opposite in many places. Christ says you can be forgiven of all your sins without cost. Karma is associated with your actions developing a negative or positive cost (with heavy emphasis on the negative). I'd also appreciate the scripture utilized in the context it was written. I cannot say "Christ said.." then fill in my own words thereafter the quote marks, because that would be lying. Or at best if I don't have an intent to deceive and truly believe that for some reason I don't understand the English set before me, then it is "tooling". Both are devices used to re-engineer something from truth to falsehood for personal gain.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Topic: Anton LaVey & The Church of Satan

Somewhere along the line, this seems to have been forgotten.


For those having difficulty with the concept, here's some information on both courtesy of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia: Anton LaVey

Wikipedia: Church of Satan

And -- very important when discussing the Church of Satan -- here's the official Church of Satan website:

Church of Satan

Having studied this topic myself -- and overcome the many, many misconceptions I previously had about this organization -- I think it's important to point out that failing to read what Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan actually have to say guarantees failing to be able to discuss them intelligently, because this religion bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to common notions of "devil worship".

If anything, LaVeyan Satanism much more closely resembles Ayn Rand's Objectivism with a "mascot" (Satan) deliberately chosen for shock value.

Trying to understand the actual nature of the Church of Satan without reading The Satanic Bible is akin to trying to understand Christianity without reading the Holy Bible. Actually, such an exercise is probably even more prone to error, because there are a great many false assumptions made about Satanists on the part of Christians and others which are promoted as "facts".

I recommend Denying Ignorance and studying what Anton LaVey and Satanists actually have to say rather than posting false and misleading assumptions about them, and ask that members be mindful of the fact that the vast body of disinformation surrounding them does not require further expansion.

While I appreciate the desire on the part of some members to discuss other religions, let's please respect the fact that they are not the topic of this thread, and that members are free to comment on them in other threads, and make new threads as needed to discuss them.

Here's the original post.

Posts which do not address the topic of Anton LaVey & The Church of Satan will be subject to editing or deletion.

Let's please stay on topic.




[edit on 9/29/2006 by Majic]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I agree the topic should stay on track, though am surprised that some people think they can tell a Satanist what they do and do not believe.


Originally posted by Majic
because there are a great many false assumptions made about Satanists on the part of Christians and others which are promoted as "facts".


Whoa hey, why do Christians get the blame for what Tamahu is posting? This Christian was in a Satanist's training course so I think it's an assumption to say Christians don't know, are judgemental or make false assumptions
. Hate to break it to you, but a Christian knows quite a bit about theistic Satanism at the very least, though perhaps not in whole Anton's version. Vice-versa as well, the Devil quotes scripture.

The schism between Christianity and theistic Satanism is typically who is right in the fight, God or Satan. The friend of mine who was my "tutor" for lack of a better word had very few disagreements with me after I was a Christian over the course of events as they occured. Where we differ was in what was considered right, who we worship, and the motivations behind our thinking/actions. I'm not saying this is how it is carte-blanc, but the overstatement I've quoted is a hasty generalization.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Giving The Devil His Due


Originally posted by saint4God
I agree the topic should stay on track, though am surprised that some people think they can tell a Satanist what they do and do not believe.

Yes, there is definitely some irony in that, I think.


Giving The Christian His Due


Originally posted by saint4God
Whoa hey, why do Christians get the blame for what Tamahu is posting?

Whoa hey, where did I say that?


I was speaking in general terms, and, upon reflection, will apologize for the generalization. Rather, I'll amend that to mean "every Christian with whom I have discussed the subject to date"*, which admittedly doesn't include all Christians.


Your reference to "theistic Satanism" is an important distinction, since the brand of Satanism practiced by members of the Church of Satan tends to be rather atheistic in nature -- although LaVeyan Satanists are quite free to worship an actual Devil if they want to.

Lest I be misunderstood: if you want to discuss the theological issues surrounding Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan, that would seem very much on topic to me.


Giving The Majic His Due

Since the original topic is about Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan (and whether or not he was Jewish, apparently -- as far as I can tell he wasn't, and I seriously doubt he would have denied it if he was), I just wanted to remind members of that, since we seemed to be drifting far, far away from topic.

And I want to be absolutely clear that I don't want any member to feel in any way discouraged from discussing other brands of Satanism (there are many sects of Satanism, it seems) or other religions such as Buddhism in other threads where they are on topic.

But when I see a picture of the Dalai Lama -- whom I'm pleased to have met and admire tremendously, I should point out -- in a thread about Satanism, I know something's amiss.


So I'm just asking that we focus on Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan in this thread, and don't want anyone to take that the wrong way. :shk:





*And if you should prove to be different, you will have won my respect and admiration, because the track record so far has been rather dismal. Please don't take that as prejudicial, it's just based on my experiences to date.


[edit on 9/29/2006 by Majic]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
I was speaking in general terms, and, upon reflection, will apologize for the generalization.


Thank you, it takes a person of strong character and thoughtful consideration to be willing to do so.


Originally posted by Majic
Rather, I'll amend that to mean "every Christian with whom I have discussed the subject to date", which admittedly doesn't include all Christians.


Fair enough. Let's talk



Originally posted by Majic
Your reference to "theistic Satanism" is an important distinction, since the brand of Satanism practiced by members of the Church of Satan tends to be rather atheistic in nature -- although LaVeyan Satanists are quite free to worship an actual Devil if they want to.


I'm sure there are many blanks to be filled in for me regarding the connection between the two and think this helps. I can say that the CoS people I've heard here deny Satan exists in deity form and that the theistic Satanist I knew called the CoS folk "soft and confused", going into quite a bit detail about being on the "right" path (as he saw it) but not knowing why.


Originally posted by Majic
Lest I be misunderstood: if you want to discuss the theological issues surrounding Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan, that would seem very much on topic to me.


Here's the thing. That educator of mine would say that the Church of Satan title rightfully belongs to his version of Satanism and the borrowed usage thereof is inaccurate.


Originally posted by Majic
Giving The Majic His Due

So I'm just asking that we focus on Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan in this thread, and don't want anyone to take that the wrong way. :shk:


I'm with it and appreciate the call to re-focus. I don't compliment enough the right thing, but tend to speak up at the wrong thing (as a lot of us tend to do). I'm not sure if you recall, but I'd mentioned before your posts are the cause for which I joined ATS. Since then, I've seen some very remarkable thing occur right before my eyes. So, thank you for that and hope someday I can share some of these things with you as well. I truly believe you're on the brink of a very remarkable discovery. That would be for U2U or other thread though... back to the topic, apologies for the interruption.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Devilishly Clever


Originally posted by saint4God
I'm sure there are many blanks to be filled in for me regarding the connection between the two and think this helps. I can say that the CoS people I've heard here deny Satan exists in deity form and that the theistic Satanist I knew called the CoS folk "soft and confused", going into quite a bit detail about being on the "right" path (as he saw it) but not knowing why.

To be fair to poor, unfairly-maligned Christians, I think a lot of the confusion surrounding the Church of Satan was deliberate.

Dr. LaVey was quite the master of irony, in his own way.


Indeed, as a former Christian myself, I was deceived, and until I actually took the plunge and read The Satanic Bible (a very enjoyable and highly recommended read, I must say), all I had to go on were what I had heard about the Church of Satan, almost all of which was decidedly false.

This despite the fact that Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan have always been very up front about who they are and what they believe.

"Gimme Back My Devil!"


Originally posted by saint4God
Here's the thing. That educator of mine would say that the Church of Satan title rightfully belongs to his version of Satanism and the borrowed usage thereof is inaccurate.

Anton LaVey partially established the Church of Satan on the notorious foundation of Satanism built over the years by the various Christian faiths.

Since Satan is a character whose image has been essentially custom-tailored by Christians themselves, it can be reasonably claimed that LaVey sought to "steal" Satan from them, and if Christians wish to cry "foul" over that, I think they are very much entitled to do so.

However, building a religion upon the foundation of another is hardly anything new (*cough* *cough*), so for Christians to resent the Church of Satan doing so without themselves being hypocrites would require a rather long, formal and heartfelt apology to Judaism.


The pitfall of discussing the Church of Satan without knowing what it actually is rests in looking foolish in the eyes of those who do know what it is -- and for that, the wise strategy is to simply ask those who know: its members.

I took it upon myself to study the Church of Satan about five months ago, and I can assure anyone who has not done so that once they have, they will be privy to a joke of cosmic proportions.


On The Brink


Originally posted by saint4God
I'm with it and appreciate the call to re-focus. I don't compliment enough the right thing, but tend to speak up at the wrong thing (as a lot of us tend to do). I'm not sure if you recall, but I'd mentioned before your posts are the cause for which I joined ATS. Since then, I've seen some very remarkable thing occur right before my eyes. So, thank you for that and hope someday I can share some of these things with you as well. I truly believe you're on the brink of a very remarkable discovery. That would be for U2U or other thread though... back to the topic, apologies for the interruption.

Aw shucks.


I think we're all on the brink of a very remarkable discovery.

But we can't see if we don't look, so I always advise approaching everything with as open a mind as possible.





P.S. Since I'm not a Satanist but just an interested commentator, if any Satanists out there take issue with anything I've posted here, please speak up! I think I've got a pretty good handle on it, but am very much prone to error, as I'm sure we all know.


[edit on 9/29/2006 by Majic]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
To be fair to poor, unfairly-maligned Christians,


I'm not sure what Christians had to do with the topic or my post. I was discussing the perspective of a theistic Satanist upon the CoS followers. Whom are you addressing? I hope I'm not represented in this broad brushstroke. If I am assumed as such, I ask to be given a chance...as everyone of of us to should...without brushstrokes. It's only fair.


Originally posted by Majic
I think a lot of the confusion surrounding the Church of Satan was deliberate.

Dr. LaVey was quite the master of irony, in his own way.


Could be, surely.


Originally posted by Majic
Indeed, as a former Christian myself, I was deceived, and until I actually took the plunge and read The Satanic Bible (a very enjoyable and highly recommended read, I must say), all I had to go on were what I had heard about the Church of Satan, almost all of which was decidedly false.


Certainly there are misconceptions about any faith...as some here seen to have about say...I don't know, Christianity as well.



Originally posted by Majic
This despite the fact that Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan have always been very up front about who they are and what they believe.


Which is it? Is it intentionally confusing or up front?


Originally posted by Majic
"Gimme Back My Devil!"

Anton LaVey partially established the Church of Satan on the notorious foundation of Satanism built over the years by the various Christian faiths.


It does seem to be as a response to Christianity rather than a branch of theistic Satanism. I don't know that much about the orgins of it but learning more each day.


Originally posted by Majic
Since Satan is a character whose image has been essentially custom-tailored by Christians themselves, it can be reasonably claimed that LaVey sought to "steal" Satan from them, and if Christians wish to cry "foul" over that, I think they are very much entitled to do so.


Christians don't want Satan...or was that part of the book overlooked...repeatedly?


Originally posted by Majic
However, building a religion upon the foundation of another is hardly anything new (*cough* *cough*), so for Christians to resent the Church of Satan doing so without themselves being hypocrites would require a rather long, formal and heartfelt apology to Judaism.


Christianity isn't a new religion. If you wanna call it Messianic Judaism, go ahead. Want to call it "Followers of the Way"? I'm down with it. Hopefully you see there are conceptual differences between CoS and Christianity. If not, we have a lot of discussing to do. Perhaps it's that you don't see the consistency between the Hebrew people before, during and after as the same folk? That requires more study, granted, but it's there. Only by throwing out a bunch of books in the middle of the Bible can that oversight be achieved.


Originally posted by Majic
The pitfall of discussing the Church of Satan without knowing what it actually is rests in looking foolish in the eyes of those who do know what it is -- and for that, the wise strategy is to simply ask those who know: its members.


Certainly one should not declare that which they do not know. I'm with you.


Originally posted by Majic
I took it upon myself to study the Church of Satan about five months ago, and I can assure anyone who has not done so that once they have, they will be privy to a joke of cosmic proportions.


I've heard of that before and similar (Church of the Sub-genius). I'm sure it's funny to somebody somewhere.


Originally posted by Majic
On The Brink

Aw shucks.


I could be wrong about that.


Originally posted by Majic
I think we're all on the brink of a very remarkable discovery.

But we can't see if we don't look, so I always advise approaching everything with as open a mind as possible.


The difference is, with what you've seen (as I read that nice long thread you had some years ago about your experiences) you understand various concepts or things unseen that could be very useful. Then again, it can go ignored. That's really up to you.


Originally posted by Majic
P.S. Since I'm not a Satanist but just an interested commentator, if any Satanists out there take issue with anything I've posted here, please speak up! I think I've got a pretty good handle on it, but am very much prone to error, as I'm sure we all know.


I hope we all have this outlook as well.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by saint4God]

[edit on 29-9-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Religious Persecution


Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not sure what Christians had to do with the topic or my post. I was discussing the perspective of a theistic Satanist upon the CoS followers. Whom are you addressing? I hope I'm not represented in this broad brushstroke. If I am assumed as such, I ask to be given a chance...as everyone of of us to should...without brushstrokes. It's only fair.

You're right. Please forgive my crude and unsavory broad-brushed painting.


Though I think there's a sort of symbiosis between Christians and Satanists, my comments about Christians are inappropriate for this thread and driving us both away from the subject of the dreaded Church of Satan, so please excuse my own off-topic digressions.


Getting back to LaVeyan Satanism, I think the confusion surrounding the Church of Satan was deliberate, but not necessarily dishonest.

LaVey chose Satan as the church icon for several reasons, and offending established religions and their practitioners seems to have been among them.

I think there are several layers of irony underlying the decision -- some of which may even be unappreciated by most Satanists.

Certainly, I find the concept of an atheistic religion which endorses ritual magic something of an enigma myself.


Perhaps most Satanists do, too.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Religious Persecution

You're right. Please forgive my crude and unsavory broad-brushed painting.


No worries friend, I don't think it's a conscious thing, rather some history that had formed these negative opinions. I'd like to hear more about them on a more appopriate thread or U2U sometime if you're interested.


Originally posted by Majic
Though I think there's a sort of symbiosis between Christians and Satanists, my comments about Christians are inappropriate for this thread and driving us both away from the subject of the dreaded Church of Satan, so please excuse my own off-topic digressions.


...and if I weren't throwing flags declaring "foul!" everyone would have gotten your point and gotten back on track so perhaps it's my fault for picking through the details.


Originally posted by Majic
Getting back to LaVeyan Satanism, I think the confusion surrounding the Church of Satan was deliberate, but not necessarily dishonest.

LaVey chose Satan as the church icon for several reasons, and offending established religions and their practitioners seems to have been among them.

I think there are several layers of irony underlying the decision -- some of which may even be unappreciated by most Satanists.

Certainly, I find the concept of an atheistic religion which endorses ritual magic something of an enigma myself.


I'll agree with that.


Originally posted by Majic
Perhaps most Satanists do, too.


I can see how a theistic Satanist would.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't know how someone can claim to know so much about Satanism, yet miss some very, fundamental principles it believes in, Tamahu. Yet, that's not for me to argue nor have any interest in defending it. Just doing my ATS duty to deny ignorance *salutes*.




I never claimed to know "so much" about Satanism.

I've only pointed out the erroneousness of it in regard to the few things that I do know about it.




Now, something I can discuss with great detail is Christ. It's not the first time I've seen someone try to tag Karma with Jesus (though only once or twice before) but it's pretty evident conceptually that what Karma says versus what Jesus said were not alike at all, even opposite in many places.





It is the Sensual and Intermediate Minds that have a hard time reconciling the self evident fact of Karma(cause and effect) based on the fact of interdependance/dependant-origination, with the Divine teachings of Grace, Forgiveness and Penitance of Master Christ Yeshua.






Foundations Of Gnostic Teachings, What every Gnostic should have knowledge about...



...Fortunately my dear friends, justice and mercy are the two principal columns of the Universal White Fraternity.

Justice without mercy is tyranny; mercy without justice is tolerance, complacency with the transgression. In this world of misfortune in which we find ourselves, it is necessary to learn to handle our own business affairs, to guide the ship of our existence through the diverse ports of life.

Karma is negotiable and this is something that can greatly surprise the followers of diverse orthodox schools.

Certainly, some pseudo-esotericists and pseudo-occultists have become too pessimistic regarding the law of action and consequence; they mistakenly suppose that the latter unfolds in a mechanical, automatic and cruel manner.

Scholars believe that it is not possible to alter such a law; sincerely, I have to dissent with them, because I am very dissatisfied with their way of thinking.

If the law of action and consequence, if the nemesis of existence were not negotiable, then where would divine mercy be? Frankly, I cannot accept cruelty in the divinity. The reality, that which is all perfection, that which has diverse names, such as Tao, Aum, Inri, Sein, Allah, Brahma, God, or better said Gods, etc., can, in no way, be something without mercy, something cruel, tyrannical, etc. Because of all of this I repeat in an emphatic manner that karma is negotiable.


When an inferior law(Karma) is transcended by a superior law(Christ), the superior law(Christ) washes away the inferior law(Karma).


Do good deeds to pay your debts. The lion of the law is combated with the scale.

Whosoever has capital in order to pay, pays, and does well in his business affairs; but whosoever does not have wit capital in order to pay, has to pays with pain...






The only non-negotiable Karma is that of sin against the Holy Spirit, which is fornication(spilling of the semen); and this is called Karmasaya and Kamaduro, both of which must be payed through pain and suffering.




All this is something that both Satanism and exoteric Christianity ignore.




For more on this, see the following:



Grace And The Burden Of Salvation


The soteriological belief of many Christians that heaven is won purely by the grace of God, and that we cannot do anything to influence the outcome has, if you integrally study the Bible, nothing to do with Christianity.

Heaven is won by the grace of God because if there was not mercy and grace for us, we would already be in hell...


...When we point out the previous passage of the Bible, every Christian believes (that) they (are) “the few.” It is just a painful ruse though, to play upon one's self. The idea that everyone goes to Heaven without paying what they owe is pure fabrication!







Regards



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Radioheadlee- thanks for the compliment, I just kind of phrase things as they come to me though. Good to know that I was at least able to make some kind of sense, though.
That`s really all I was aiming to do.

People are going to talk about what they know, Tamahu included. That`s fine, that`s not a knock against him. He honestly seems to believe what he`s saying, and that`s cool, people can believe whatever seems right for them. But he`s approaching this discussion with the belief that the basic points he`s referring to are irrefutable, the same as any right hand path believer would. The point I was trying to make was that referring to the tenets of a religion as proof of the correctness of one`s position in a debate isn`t really going to work when the person on the other side of the debate dosen`t believe in that religion.

I`m not trying to knock him, I just don`t happen to think anything he`s saying constitutes a refutation of anything LaVey said, particularly in the eyes of anyone who isn`t a Gnostic.

I`m not necessarily pro-CoS, not by any means, though I`m not against them either- I just don`t happen to have any connection to them. I never had a chance to meet LaVey, though it would have been cool. I just appreciate his work for the common-sense, rational approach he took to the occult, and the humor some of his essays display. Ayn Rand I appreciate for much the same reasons- the 'a=a' metaphor I referred to actually originated with her philosophy.

That dosen`t even mean I don`t appreciate the Dali Lama as well. I like the Dali Lama, at least from what I`ve studied of his work.

I just don`t comprehend why some people seem to find it necessary to get on the internet and call LaVey a liar and a con man when they never even met the man. It seems a little disingenious- some people, you`d think he ran over their puppy. The guy was a philosopher, really, and pretty straightforward. If you disagree with his ideas, cool. That`s fine. I don`t necessarily agree with everything the Dali Lama believes, but I have respect for him regardless. The CoS and I would differ on points of philosophy too, but I have respect for them as well.

I don`t, however, think it`s cool for a person with a Christian viewpoint to jump up and say 'LaVey was wrong, Satanism is thus-and-such' and contradict everything LaVey ever said. They aren`t on that path and they have no de-facto right to jump in and impose their own definitions on what the path is or is not. That`s rather offensive, in my view at least. People always have to jump up and show off their 'goodguy badges', as LaVey himself pointed out.

I find inspiration in both Buddhism and Satanism, as well as Objectivism, as well as other philosophies. I consider myself Left Hand Path, and I`m not really interested in other 'labels'.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wagnerian21
I don`t, however, think it`s cool for a person with a Christian viewpoint to jump up and say 'LaVey was wrong, Satanism is thus-and-such' and contradict everything LaVey ever said. They aren`t on that path and they have no de-facto right to jump in and impose their own definitions on what the path is or is not. That`s rather offensive, in my view at least. People always have to jump up and show off their 'goodguy badges', as LaVey himself pointed out.


I agree a Christian who does not know about Satanism should not say these things nor take such an approach. I'm glad I didn't. Hopefully it was well understood that I do indeed have a background in theistic Satanism and not the LaVeyian version (as I stated and represented). It's blind to say that because now I'm a Christian I could not have foreknowledge on other beliefs. It's also assumptive to say that one can not learn more after becoming a Christian because of various "inhibiting factors". The most I know about LaVeyian thinking is via ATS, which doesn't count as experience. I can give a viewpoint from my current perspective as well as the one I was educated on (theistic Satanism) in much the same way a veteran can talk about the differences between military and civilian life. That doesn't mean he knows all about the government but at least it gives him some operational knowledge on the perspectives from at least those two standpoints. It causes me to wonder though, why it is offensive for someone who currently believes differently can talk about something they were previously educated in? After all, isn't that what schools and colleges do? The subjects are different, but the results are the same.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Regarding dogma, and good and evil:






"In pure esotericism, good is all that is in its place; bad is all that is out of its place. Likewise, fire in the kitchen, when in its place, besides being useful, is good.

Yet, the fire out of its place, burning the furniture of the living room, would be bad and harmful. Thus, any virtue, no matter how holy it might be, is good in its place; yet, it is bad and harmful out of its place. We can harm others with our virtues.

Therefore, it is indispensable to place virtues in their corresponding place. What would you say about a priest who preaches the Word of the Lord inside a brothel? What would you say about a meek and tolerant male who blesses a gang of assailants attempting to rape his wife and daughters? What would you say about that type of tolerance taken to such an extreme? What would you say about the charitable attitude of a man who, instead of taking food home, shares his money among beggars who have a vice? What would be your opinion of a helpful man who in a given moment lends a dagger to a murderer?

Remember, dear reader, that crime also hides within the rhythm of poetry. There is much virtue in the perverse one and as much evil in the virtuous one.

Even though it may appear incredible, crime also hides in the very perfume of prayer."
- Revolutionary Psychology



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Xia Guoyuan, a 40-year old farmer in Xiaguanyuan Town in Hubei Province's Xiantao City, feels satisfied with his rice harvest. He was selected last year to plant genetically modified (GM) rice, able to resist pests in scientists' trial programmes, last year. Xia has now saved about 80 per cent of the pesticides.

"The output of the new (GM) rice strain is similar to those of traditional varieties, but for each mu (0.065 hectares) of new GM rice, I can save up to 80 yuan (US$9.66) in pesticide and labour costs, which are about 30 per cent of my total costs," Xia said.


www.chinadaily.com.cn...

Now considering the breaking news of the price of rice in China, we must ask ourselves this question "What does the price of rice in China have anything to do with the topic?" I submit the answer is the same as Revolutionary Psychology.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join