Karl Marx was a Practising Satanist

reply to post by Eleleth


There's a lot more to this than "an out of context line of poetry". And John Milton did not found a movement that sough to eradicate worship of God, leading to the incarceration and deaths of untold millions of believers.

This cannot be brushed aside so easily. If the glove fits, there may be a case to be answered.

Originally posted by pause4thought
Reply to re22666

can you please define "Satanist."

That is a very reasonable request - definitions always promote clarity in a discussion.

It appears we are dealing with someone who, for some as yet unspecified reason, became embittered against the One he had been told held his fate in His hands. (Perhaps a reasonable guess might be that a woman he loved became betrothed to another.) In order to express his newfound outright opposition to God he determined to join forces with those who worship the antithesis of God.

Judging by the words Marx used he may have made this choice in a very emotional state. He may therefore not have given careful consideration to the gravity of his decision. As is often the case he may well have entered the realm of inviting influence from dark spiritual forces without realizing they would bind and control him rather than allowing him to simply dabble to satisfy a passing urge.

There is evidence he took part in an initiation ceremony. I have no prurient interest in exactly what he got up to. The issue is that he got involved with those who seek to draw near to Satanic forces, and that this does not accord with the commonly-held belief that he was a straight-forward atheist.

As such he may possibly have remained on the periphery after a period of experimentation. On the other hand he may well have climbed a hierarchy. It is therefore not clear whether he became deeply committed or at some point drifted away from the activities hinted at. All we can see is evidence of real animosity towards God that appears to have led him to join with those who gather in Satan's name.

I will try to do some more digging. If I discover more information I will add it.

ok fair enough

catholic - pedophile that wields religion in order to usurp parent/child relationships in order to rape children.

is this a fair definition of catholic?

[edit on 8/23/2008 by re22666]

[edit on 8/23/2008 by re22666]

reply to post by pause4thought


hello Pause

James Billington Origins of the Revolutionary Faith.

A recurrent mythic model for revolutionaries – early romantics, the young Marx, the Russians of Lenin's time – was Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods for the use of mankind. The Promethean faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general modern belief that science would lead men out of darkness into light. But there was also the more pointed, millennial assumption that, on the new day that was dawning, the sun would never set (p. 6).

personally i do not believe that most myths are myths at all just fallen angels/demons etc

reply to post by re22666


Hello again.

It appears you missed how I went about defining 'Satanist'. Instead of trying to use an all-encompassing definition that might have given you grounds to respond with indignation (which you did anyway,) I defined what it meant within the confines of the title of this thread. I laid out as clearly as possible what it means to say Marx was a practising Satanist.

As such you have no grounds for saying my definition is all wrong.

For the sake of clarity I'll put it another way.

Thread title:

'(*unexpected person*) was a Christian'.

When asked what I mean by 'Christian' I could respond with 'he said this, did that, and chose to be baptised'. That would not, however, mean that I was defining all christians as those who said and did the same things and were necessarily baptized.

Fair enough?

(And sorry I didn't respond immediately. I had to let someone else use the computer.)



reply to post by drevill


Please don't think I'm ignoring your input. It's just that I'll have to look into the background of what you're saying before responding. There's quite a lot of new stuff there, and I'm not entirely sure what it means at this point.

Please feel free to elaborate.

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by re22666

 

Hello again.

It appears you missed how I went about defining 'Satanist'. Instead of trying to use an all-encompassing definition that might have given you grounds to respond with indignation (which you did anyway,) I defined what it meant within the confines of the title of this thread. I laid out as clearly as possible what it means to say Marx was a practising Satanist.

As such you have no grounds for saying my definition is all wrong.

For the sake of clarity I'll put it another way.

Thread title:

'(*unexpected person*) was a Christian'.

When asked what I mean by 'Christian' I could respond with 'he said this, did that, and chose to be baptised'. That would not, however, mean that I was defining all christians as those who said and did the same things and were necessarily baptized.

Fair enough?

(And sorry I didn't respond immediately. I had to let someone else use the computer.)



reply to post by drevill

 

Please don't think I'm ignoring your input. It's just that I'll have to look into the background of what you're saying before responding. There's quite a lot of new stuff there, and I'm not entirely sure what it means at this point.

Please feel free to elaborate.

actually no, that is not fair enough. if you are going to say that anyone was a practicing satanist. is it not important to at least understand what you define as a satanist?
or can i start a thread saying you were a practicing spaghetti monsterian and then go on in my thread to explain how that is still true because within the context of my thread, my definition of what that means fits a certain agenda only present, applicable, or scrutinizable within said context?

there is such a thing as a satanist, a catholic, a christian.
so i am asking are we allowed to define those any way we see fit and report that someone was one as a fact?

i understand what you say marx did as a satanist. what i do not get is where you get "satanist" from to begin with. so i need to know what a satanist is to you. how can we know marx was of this particular religion when you are just making up what the religion actually is?

and i believe i asked, is that a fair definition of catholic? is it fair to define them as such? you did not really address that either. i just want some facts behind all this since this is the place to deny ignorance right?

[edit on 8/23/2008 by re22666]

[edit on 8/23/2008 by re22666]

reply to post by re22666


Sorry, but if you get too obsessed with the definition you are going to end up looking like someone who just wants to go off topic. By all means start a thread on 'What is a Satanist?' if you wish. And by all means participate here. We are discussing the impact of Satanism on what Marx is known for: communist ideology, and its impact on the lives of who have faith in God. (If that wasn't obvious from the thread title, it was clear from the OP.)

While any of us could turn to a dictionary to define a Christian or a Satanist, in real life we find that such terms are malleable. My definition of a Christian depends entirely on the words of Christ, for example - one who has believed the Gospel and become His disciple. But there is no denying there are countless other definitions, such as 'someone who shows kindness to others within a country with a Christian heritage', 'someone who is a member of a church', 'someone born into a Christian family', etc. Recognizing this I see no need to hinder discussion just because I can't get everyone to see it my way!

One last time. Marx spoke of hatred towards God, a determination to avenge himself against God and appears to have done whatever is necessary to become initiated into a Satanist 'church', which even many people who have experienced feelings of embitterment against their Maker would not consider doing. Consequently 'Satanist' may well be a far more appropriate descriptor for Marx than 'atheist'.

Some may see that as dispelling ignorance. Not a nice word. But I certainly felt the scales fall off my eyes when I first came across this information.

reply to post by pause4thought


you do not see the absurdity in saying that "what a satanist actually is does not matter, now on to the point, what did marx's satanist views do to........." yes we could debate definitions and anyone can go to a dictionary. i suggest that you do so. you are saying that someone was a satanist. you are claiming that as a satanist, their satanic views were of great import. so i suggest to you that it is actually quite pertinent to this thread right here that it be defined what a satanist is. you cannot accuse anyone of anything and then say that you do not have to actually prove it or make it make sense because it is in in the context of your thread. what kind of logic is that?
you claim he was a satanist
you claim that was important
so.....what is a satanist? why are you so defensive about it instead of just answering the question realisticly by saying that this is WHAT YOU THINK A SATANIST IS. that is all. i just either want a clear definition and where it comes from or for you to stop pretending to enlighten anyone with your opinions and nothing more.

reply to post by re22666


A Satanist would follow Satan and oppose God, just as a Christian follows Christ and opposes Satan.

I am a patient man...

I am still convinced that most people are more struck by the suggestion that Marx believed both in God and Satan, and decided to follow the latter. He is almost universally regarded as an atheist.

Or do you require that I define 'atheist'?

How about 'oppose'?

I've already defined 'Christian'.

Who do you think I am, a lexicographer?

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by re22666

 

A Satanist would follow Satan and oppose God, just as a Christian follows Christ and opposes Satan.

I am a patient man...

I am still convinced that most people are more struck by the suggestion that Marx believed both in God and Satan, and decided to follow the latter. He is almost universally regarded as an atheist.

Or do you require that I define 'atheist'?

How about 'oppose'?

I've already defined 'Christian'.

Who do you think I am, a lexicographer?

i think you are someone that needs to know what a satanist is.

would it be fair for me to look at someone who follows jesus' teachnigs but also believes in zeus a christian?
how about someone that goes to a catholic church but also believes in witches and curses? am i catholic?
no. you have a person that believes something that another religion is based on. and you have someone that goes to a building but apparently doesnt hear what they are talking about.
you do not a christian nor a catholic make.
so, then why would it be fair to say that a satanist is someone who worships satan? the church of satan claims no belief in any deities, good or bad. so if marx worshipped satan, it sounds more like he was a misguided christian than a satanist. we have words for things for a reason, so that we know what we are talking about. there are official religions that refuse to have their labels attributed to anyone that wants them. you cannot setup a house and say you worship jesus, muhammed, and lets say mrs. butterworth and call it a catholic church can you? so why is satanism open for all this? call him what he may have been then, a devil worshipper, some luciferian cult member, a lost christian. he was hardly a satanist. so the title of your thread, as well as the OP, both rely on what a satanist is, so do not tell me it is not pertinent.
either he was not a satanist at all
or we get to just make up whatever we like about religions on ATS and then defend our lack of real knowledge by claiming it is protected under context of thread protection.

reply to post by re22666

then why would it be fair to say that a satanist is someone who worships satan? the church of satan claims no belief in any deities, good or bad.

Sorry dude, but you can't pull the wool over the eyes of a Christian that easily. I would never trust the church of Satan to tell the truth about itself. If it did it would be dishonouring the one it worships, by telling the truth.

The devil was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies

Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John 8:44

Your implication that the devil and Satan are somehow different entities is also a cheap attempt at deception.

...the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world...

Revelation 12:9

You can deny it till the cows come home if you will. The church of Satan knowingly worships Satan and opposes God, and it seems Marx was among their number.

I suppose it must be painful for Satanists to know the truth is out.

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by re22666

 

then why would it be fair to say that a satanist is someone who worships satan? the church of satan claims no belief in any deities, good or bad.

Sorry dude, but you can't pull the wool over the eyes of a Christian that easily. I would never trust the church of Satan to tell the truth about itself. If it did it would be dishonouring the one it worships, by telling the truth.

The devil was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies

Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John 8:44

Your implication that the devil and Satan are somehow different entities is also a cheap attempt at deception.

...the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world...

Revelation 12:9

You can deny it till the cows come home if you will. The church of Satan knowingly worships Satan and opposes God, and it seems Marx was among their number.

I suppose it must be painful for Satanists to know the truth is out.

ohh see now it is just funny. so you claim the church of satan lies about worshipping satan? who tells you that? satanists? well no, they are liars. christians? cuz they would know right? prove to me in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM that the church of satan recognizes and worships satan.

i never claimed there was a difference between satan and the devil. please reread.

reply to post by pause4thought


are you also claiming that karl marx was a member of the church of satan? please be specific as to what you mean that he was among their numbers.

reply to post by re22666

i never claimed there was a difference between satan and the devil. please reread.

Well you said this:

call him what he may have been then, a devil worshipper... he was hardly a satanist

Which appeared to imply a difference. I think do know where you are coming from now, though. You are saying he was not a member of the 'Church of Satan' movement that adheres to the teachings of 'The Satanic Bible' written in 1969.

If that is the point you have been trying to make all along, I'm sorry but it's a little childish, seeing as Karl Marx died in 1883.

People have dedicated themselves to the Deceiver since time immemorial in order to justify self-indulgence, immorality, general opposition to God and His ways, etc., and that is what Marx stands accused of. So I admit it here: this ATS thread does not restrict 'Satanism' to the confines of the movement that began nearly a century after Marx died!

Next point:

prove to me in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM that the church of satan recognizes and worships satan.

Worship is honouring someone and allowing them to have mastery over you. Assuming you are indeed referring to the new-fangled group above, they worship Satan and allow him mastery over them by

a) using his name as their object of reference

b) teaching and living by doctrines that directly contradict Christ's teaching:

"Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification"

Source: wikipedia on The 'Church' of Satan

That's quite enough, really. Seeing as deception is something they can justify on the grounds of gratification I wouldn't even trust them to state honestly or fully what they are really about. So it would be a bit of a waste of time creating a long list.

Anybody want to discuss how Marx' involvement with Satan-worship may help explain why his doctrines led to the Soviet gulags or the 'killing fields' in Cambodia?

Sorry re, but if you don't wish to discuss Marx I will ignore your contributions from this point. The pedantics have been more than sufficiently indulged.

But I apologize if I missed your drift earlier on.

reply to post by pause4thought


first of all, there is a distinct difference between devil worshipper, satan worshipper, whatever, and satanist. you drew the difference between satan and devil.

to your next point. i am not speaking of a newfangled group. you would not speak of catholics before the founding of the catholic religion would you? i am speaking of the officially recognized church of satan. there is an official understanding of what religions are. the government provides provisions for millitary and prisoners in their respects as well as granting said churches tax exempt status. so you cannot take the name of one church and link it to anything "satanic" that you like. it just does not work that way.

lastly, please, oh please, spare me and everyone your vast wikipedia knowledge ok. the very quote that you use simply proves that satan is an idea, a representation, not a person or god or deity which one can worship. i understand where you are coming from now. you feel you can call anything opposite of YOUR idea of christ's teachings a satanist. it does not work that way either. please do not try to counter anything i have to say about this with a quote from wikipedia.

pauses4thought was a mormon.
mormons are people who pracitce stealing babies to molest until they are old enough to work in apple cider brewing and bottling plants in secret tunnles that run underneath the pacific ocean. mormons have also been known to eat siblings, levitate, and are often seen naked, running through corn fields, wagging their tales.

see i can say anyone i want was any religion i want and then proceed to make up what that religion is.

or do you see anything wrong with this post?

[edit on 8/23/2008 by re22666]

here is what you seem to be missing. this is ATS, deny ignorance right? we are all here looking for truth, are we not?

ok so before there is an organized religion. how can one be a member of it? i am just curious how one does that?
each and every thread on ATS that mentions satanism, has its own unique definition of what that means. now why is your satanism and the many other satanisms on here not the same? which one is correct? which one was karl marx?
i will help.
before the church of satan exsisted, there were no satanists. there were occultists, satanworshipping weirdos, and the like that you seem to be mentioning. but not actual satanists. you cannot be a member of an organized religion that has yet to be founded ANYWHERE in the world.
unless this thread is also going to cover that karl was a time traveller.
now if he worshipped the devil, or cursed god, or whatever he did. then fine, lay that out, call it what it is.
if i ask people on ats what a christian is, i will get a general answer
i i ask what a mormon is, i will get a general answer
if i ask what a satanist is, i will get as many different answers as times that i ask.

so do you feel then that it is truly intellectually honest to start an entire thread based on the idea that someone was a member of a religion that did not exsist?

reply to post by re22666


hello

Satanist

Satanism "worship of Satan" dates from 1896, with ref. to France, where it was said to be active at that time; Satanist is attested from 1559, applied by their enemies to Protestant sects.

www.etymonline.com...

obviously Satanism was around before the actual church of Satan

David

Both communism and satanism are fruits of christianity. Without christianity there would be no anti-christianity (in the form of satanism and atheism).

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by re22666

 

hello

Satanist

Satanism "worship of Satan" dates from 1896, with ref. to France, where it was said to be active at that time; Satanist is attested from 1559, applied by their enemies to Protestant sects.

www.etymonline.com...

obviously Satanism was around before the actual church of Satan

David

obviously. since you have a sentence here that is gramatically nonsense that shows us so right? or does it say that the enemies of protestants labeled them satanists? or does it say that it started in 1896, the proof is from 1559? what are you saying. either way, you are wrong. every word has a meaning these days, and it seems that only people who want to believe anyone that opposed their "christian" ways was a satanist. they are all satanists. babykillers, catkillers, bloodletters, all that crap right? they are all satanists? are all people that worship god called the same thing? are they all goddists? then i guess it would not be fair to say anyone that worships satan is a satanist. actually that would be quite wrong since satanists do not believe in satan, satan worshippers do. there is a difference and i would just expect a little more scholarly approach to the subject. how about we just call anyone that lusts after children christian from now on. i mean, catholics, mormons, amish....there is such a long list of 'christian' offshoots that have an entire infrastructure in place allowing them entry into childrens pants. so all christians must be pedophiles or all pedophiles christian. you pick which of the two you like, it is your logic.

Originally posted by lucid eyes
Both communism and satanism are fruits of christianity. Without christianity there would be no anti-christianity (in the form of satanism and atheism).

satan was around loooooooooooooong before christ. or did you miss the first half of the bible?