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.

 

Karl Marx was a Practising Satanist

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 

This seems a very odd turn of conversation to be in this discussion. Are you saying that members of the church of satan hold a monopoly on the word 'satanist'? A word that (at least according to the link provided by drevill) has been around since the 16th century? Do you have any reason to doubt the link drevill provided?

Dictionary.com makes no mention of the church of satan.
My own Websters dictionary makes no mention of the church of satan

They both share the definition of 'a travesty of Christian rites in which Satan is worshiped'. The both claim that the word was first used around 1555-1565.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by babloyi]




posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


yes, that is exactly what i am saying. this is the year 2007 and we have an established and recognized church of satan. there is only one. since i am not allowed to apply whatever definition i see fit for any church i chose, then why should anyone else get to? as i said before, if i mention any other church, there is a general understandng of what that means and were i to lie about that, i would be corrected. what if what i was saying is just a practice that stopped along time ago. how about mormon's are polygamists. no, they arent. ask one. that was true at one time but as it stands now, the official mormon church does not recognize polygamy. so if you found someone with many wifes that believed in joe smith's teachings, is he a mormon? no, he is someone that has betrayed his church and been excommunicated. so the mormon church can decide what it means to be a mormon. the catholic church refuses to say they are a pedophile cult, so they get to decide what they are. but satanists, they can be anything that word has been given to mean at any time in history, according to any rules.
i am just curious how that is fair here. 100 years ago if i asked a gay person to grab me some fagets, that would have meant i was asking a happy person to get me bundles of wood. do those words mean those things anymore? why should every established church get the respect of having its name and characteristics defended aside from the church of satan? is it just because it is 'evil' so it is ok to call anyone you want a satanist? like i said, i do not get to call any pedophile a catholic priest but i am having trouble seeing the difference these days. on the other hand, there is a great deal of difference between a satanist today and a satanworshipper from another century.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 

It is probably not the best idea in the world for me to get embroiled in this off-shoot conversation, but... The edition of Webster's dictionary that I have was published in 1991. The Dictionary.com definition is from 2006. I'm sorry that the church of satan is not so influential on the english language that it has taken over the word. Just because the word vegetable can be used to refer to a person who is in a vegetative state, doesn't give them the right to say "You can't call those edible plants vegetables, that is what I am!". If I invented a new religion tomorrow, and called myself a 'fatso', doesn't mean that other people cannot use the word 'fatso' because it is offensive to me and my religion to be associated with fatness.

As malleable and volatile as the english language is today, a satanist is universally DEFINED as being 'an excessively evil person', or 'a person who worships satan' OR even 'One who identifies with Anton Szandor LaVey's philosophical teachings and the religion'. It's very obvious from what pause4thought is talking about, he is referring to the 2nd definition.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by babloyi]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


i think your definition of "universily" is rather flawed. i highly doubt you have checked to see what the definition is understood to be in most other cultures, let alone the entire universe. i get it, you want to cling to your dictionary to be able to attribute to satanism anything you want. that is fine, my webster's dictionary was published in '97 and it's definition for every religion is quite vague. each one is about as brief and uninformative as yours. so if all we are going on is the definition from the dictionary, well then it is just as fair for me to say that the catholic church is a pedophile cult and that christians are superstitious people who live in fear of invisible people, eat lamb heart on that 4th day of each month, have been know to burst into flames when angered, they have sex with farm animals and are often found living in nudist colonies under bridges.
guess what, my dictionary does not dispute any of that. neither does webster's online. so ok, i guess we are in agreement. it is fair to say anything you feel is evil, "satanic." and i will make up anything i want and call that christian.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 

Hey, I have no beef with satanism, christianity, catholicism, or any of the other stuff. I don't subscribe to any of those belief systems. I've yet to see a dictionary that defines catholicism as a 'pedophile cult', or christians as 'superstitious people'.

I am not talking about 'anything I feel'. I find the worshipping of satan to be just as irrelevant to me as 'following the left-hand path'. I'm just pointing out the reality of the english language in the world we live in today. Give it a couple of decades, and perhaps your definition will overtake and overshadow the other one. As it is today, both are correct.
If you have a definition of satanist (from elsewhere than LaVey's book, which obviously focuses on a different kind of satanism), that DOESN'T mention the worshipping of satan to part of the definition of satanist, feel free to show me.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by babloyi]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by re22666
 

Hey, I have no beef with satanism, christianity, catholicism, or any of the other stuff. I don't subscribe to any of those belief systems. I've yet to see a dictionary that defines catholicism as a 'pedophile cult', or christians as 'superstitious people'.

I am not talking about 'anything I feel'. I find the worshipping of satan to be just as irrelevant to me as 'following the left-hand path'. I'm just pointing out the reality of the english language in the world we live in today. Give it a couple of decades, and perhaps your definition will overtake and overshadow the other one. As it is today, both are correct.
If you have a definition of satanic (from elsewhere than LaVey's book, which obviously focuses on a different kind of satanism), that DOESN'T mention the worshipping of satan to part of the definition of satanist, feel free to show me.

satanic would be anything having to do with or related to satan. that is not what i said. i said satanist and satanism. no, the dictionary does not make the definitions that i cited, nor does it discount them. my point is that if the dictionary is the be all, end all of what words mean in scoiety then great, my definitions are just as valid as the OPs. what did karl marx do exactly, what rituals and practices were outlined in your dictionary definition of satanism? did it go into detail about his thoughts and feelings of spirituality? or was it this vague little blurb that you cited. so, if we can then take that little vaguery, disregard what the word officially means in the eyes of the government, the members of that church, and say anyone throughout history that was, in someone's subjective oppinion, anti-god was a satanist. then i can say anyone that was a pedophile a christian. why not? like i said, it runs rampant through their offshoots. the dictionary definition says nothing in the contrary.
my point is that the members of the catholic church get the respect they deserve to be recognized as what they wish, as with every other church. but the church of satan and it's people, satanists, can just be painted every and any color anyone on ATS feels to. freemasons, reptillians, republicans, democrats, austrailians, all satanic on ATS. know how you can tell? because they are all given completely different stories and rituals and practices, but they all suck so we can call them all satanists if we want. it just doesnt seem right to me but hey, what do i care. if a bunch of pedophiles want to discuss ignorantly about what a satanist is, i guess it is no concern of mine. i just wish you could all get together and agree on what a satanist really is. then i would not care if it was laveyan or anything else. it is this 'anything we see as evil was a satanist and here is why....followed by all kinds of rediculousness.' that is really just so disheartening. i just expected better here i guess. that was my fault.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 

I have edited my previous post, changing where I mistakenly used 'satanic' instead of 'satanist'. Sorry for the confusion.

I am not talking about creating a word's meaning by including whatever we want that is not DISCOUNTED in a dictionary meaning. I am talking about using the defintion present in any dictionary you can get, backed by 500 years of history, as well as common usage today, to mean (in addition to a follower of a certain religion formalised by Mr. LaVey) a worshipper of satan. Any definition of 'satanist' I can find is BOUND to include the concept of worship of satan. People living in today's world (as exemplified by pause4thought and drevill in this thread) use the word in the context of worship of satan. Are they all wrong simply because you identifiy yourself as a LaVeyan Satanist, and such a definition does not include worship of Satan?

I suppose I understand where you are coming from. You are annoyed that your religion is being merged and combined with the idea of satan-worship, and there is ample evidence that misinformed persons may be doing so. This is probably also a result of naming a church 'the church of satan'
. You can be assured that as far as I will use the term satanist, I will make it clear what is being spoken of. Even with the OP, considering he was speaking of Karl Marx (who died long before 1966), you can be sure he was not referring to the Church of Satan, nor implying that members of said church worship satan.

I think this off-topic has gone on long enough, and everyone has clarified their positions and understandings. Let the original discussion now continue?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by re22666
 

I have edited my previous post, changing where I mistakenly used 'satanic' instead of 'satanist'. Sorry for the confusion.

I am not talking about creating a word's meaning by including whatever we want that is not DISCOUNTED in a dictionary meaning. I am talking about using the defintion present in any dictionary you can get, backed by 500 years of history, as well as common usage today, to mean (in addition to a follower of a certain religion formalised by Mr. LaVey) a worshipper of satan. Any definition of 'satanist' I can find is BOUND to include the concept of worship of satan. People living in today's world (as exemplified by pause4thought and drevill in this thread) use the word in the context of worship of satan. Are they all wrong simply because you identifiy yourself as a LaVeyan Satanist, and such a definition does not include worship of Satan?

I suppose I understand where you are coming from. You are annoyed that your religion is being merged and combined with the idea of satan-worship, and there is ample evidence that misinformed persons may be doing so. This is probably also a result of naming a church 'the church of satan'
. You can be assured that as far as I will use the term satanist, I will make it clear what is being spoken of. Even with the OP, considering he was speaking of Karl Marx (who died long before 1966), you can be sure he was not referring to the Church of Satan, nor implying that members of said church worship satan.

I think this off-topic has gone on long enough, and everyone has clarified their positions and understandings. Let the original discussion now continue?

sorry but you assume alot like others around here. i never said it was my religion. i never said i took it personally. this is ATS, about the truth.i never identified myself as anything at all, now did i? i am not concerned about the spiritual aspect of this, or who worships what or who does not. i am just sick of seeing 'satanist' paraded around ATS as anything and everything anyone wants it to be. i am sorry but if we have to have an understanding as to what any other religion is, then i believe an established and recognized church deserves the same respect as any other. dictionary, i already disputed that. 500 years of history? ok i give you my gay boy getting fagets argument again. so i am not sure where that goes. all i am saying is that there are established legitimate religions, and there are people who do things. if some guy worships the devil, great, he is a devil worshipper. but if i cannot call christians pedophiles whenever the mood suits me, just because it is an established religion. then so does satanism in this day and age. just tell me how honest is it to have a site that reports here that karl marx is a satanist because of this and that, yet another claiming tom cruise is for another set of reasons and rituals and beliefs, and then g.w.bush is on another thread, for another set of reasons and with another set of rituals and beliefs. so if i were an alien and came to read this, i would know what a muslim is, i would know what a buddhist is, i would know what almost any religion is, but satanism would have my head spinning. each thread it is different, at a different time, in a different way. and none of them ever tied to an actual organized religion or church.
i am not here crying as a misrepresented modern day satanist. i am simply pointing out how ignorant it seems to me, to let one and only one established church and religion be portrayed in any manner that any sees fit. what would have been so bad about calling him a satan worshipper or luciferian type? either one would make more sense since he was not a member of a satanic religion or church. he was a guy, worshipping the devil. i do not understand why you cannot see the difference.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Bull # mates, don't buy in it! This is a load of crap.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Bull # mates, don't buy in it! This is a load of crap.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Bull # mates, don't buy in it! This is a load of crap.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 


Hello again re

babloyi has done a stirling job of proving that you have made a mountain out of a molehill.


i am simply pointing out how ignorant it seems to me, to let one and only one established church and religion be portrayed in any manner that any sees fit


It would only be ignorance if your basic premise were true: that when English-speakers read the word 'satanist' the 'Church of Satan' pops into their head - or that it ought to, because the CoS is synonymous with 'satanist' in the minds of educated people.

Poppycock.

99.999999999% of those who read the title of this thread would not have thought the issue had anything to do with a group that sprang up nearly a century after Marx died.

Just pointing out how ignorant it seems to me.


For what it's worth, this is what I've learned from you so far:

* The Church of Satan does not worship Satan

* The Church of Satan are satanists

* 'Satanist' should be used exclusively to refer to said cult

* The fact that the word has simply meant Satan-worshipper for centuries is irrelevant, as the CoS is a legally-recognized body

* Due to Point 1 above you expect English-speakers in general to give 'satanist' the opposite meaning to what it is understood to mean except by a few who push the CoS agenda.



what would have been so bad about calling him a satan worshipper or luciferian type?


Er, because there is a succinct English word for this, understood by all: 'satanist'. And because the fact that Marx's body had turned to soil decades before the 'CoS' dreamt itself up, the OP and educated readers might reasonably assume there would be no confusion, even if they all happened to be paid-up members.


either one would make more sense since he was not a member of a satanic religion or church


Your gaze has been so firmly fixed on the (spurious) semantic argument that you've missed the whole point: if Marx went through an initiation ceremony he was a member of a satanic religion.

And before you seek to once again avoid the real issues and insist there is a substantive difference between 'satanic' and 'satanist', here is what the Longman Dictionary of the English Language (225,000 definitions, 1,876 pages) says:

satanic - (characteristic) of Satan or satanism

satanism - worship of Satan by the travesty of Christian ceremonies (satanist)

re22666: I think by now we've got your point: 'I think on ATS 'satanist' should only refer to members of the CoS, to avoid confusion'. I also think you should by now have got what babloyi and I are saying: there is no confusion - 'satanist' means 'one who worships satan'. I for one have no intention of accepting that a group that claims not to worship Satan should have exclusive rights to its use! Or that all references to 'satanists' in past centuries should be rubbed out to avoid confusion with the modern-day CoS.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:00 AM
link   
No different from what the Masons/Illuminatists did.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by alundaio
 


An interesting angle. There may actually be a significant connexion.

Can you elucidate?

(Judging by the people who put together the second website in the OP you may well be on to something. Check it out.)



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Hmm... Interesting thread.

I understand there's a difference between 'satanist' in the traditional sense and what we're talking about.

So was it more occult/pagan type stuff or what?

Interesting yet confusing!



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mattguy404
 


Hi. I don't see a difference between occult activities and worshipping Satan. If you do, let us know where you're coming from. I'd be fascinated.

And I agree, we need to get to the bottom of this. I'm on the trail of more information at present. If you can dig anything else up, please feel free to add it.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by mattguy404
 


Hi. I don't see a difference between occult activities and worshipping Satan. If you do, let us know where you're coming from. I'd be fascinated.

And I agree, we need to get to the bottom of this. I'm on the trail of more information at present. If you can dig anything else up, please feel free to add it.


now it becomes clear why you are so stuck on what your definition of satanist is. you do not see a difference between occult activities and worshipping satan?????
how about the many many occult rituals that have nothing to do with worship or satan for starters? i think the point that was trying to be made is that not everything that is evil gets to be called satanism just because you see it that way. there is not one book about satan or satanism or satan worship in either of the occult bookstores in town here. how can you not see any difference?



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Azrael75
 


Hi Azrael


now it becomes clear why you are so stuck on what your definition of satanist is

If you read the whole thread you will see I have been trying to avoid getting stuck on this!


you do not see a difference between occult activities and worshipping satan?????

Correct. As a Christian I believe all occult powers are the result of demonic influence, and that Satan stands at the head. This is the standard Christian interpretation, accepted by hundreds of millions of people. However, rather than deriding the poster who suggested there was a difference I asked him to explain his viewpoint. You are also welcome to lay out your view, but let's just have a friendly discussion and try and understand each others' way of seeing it.


i think the point that was trying to be made is that not everything that is evil gets to be called satanism just because you see it that way

That is not what is being discussed here. In fact I deliberately tried to avoid that impression by using the word 'practising' in the title!

What is being discussed is the possibility that Marx had first-hand knowledge of satanism, and the (widely unknown) possibility that his promotion of atheism was a cover for hatred of God, not to mention how this could provide an insight into the vehement hatred of many communist governments for those who believe in God.

Are you aware, for example, that the authorities in the Soviet Union ran an organization called 'The League of the Godless'? and taught 'atheism' in schools and colleges which instilled all manner of hatred into students using ideas such as that Christians practice human sacrifice! Or that believers were exiled to labour camps and even executed for nothing other than practising their religion? Or how believers in China today still face imprisonment for the same reason?

Christians believe that Satan's whole business is to oppose knowledge and love of the Creator and those who seek to spread it. If Marx was a satanist, let's just say the glove fits.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


thanks for clearing up the point. anything and everything that is not what you consider "good" is satanic. the word 'praciticing' makes a difference to you but the name of a religion does not. if anything even remotely tied to what you call the 'occult' is satanic. then i guess you do get to call anything and everything you feel like, satanic. so given your set of standards, anyone that used tarrot cards or burned some special insence and prayed to an earth spirit, is a practicing satanist. got it. i hope that does not sound unfriendly, i am not looking to fight with you about it, just understand where you are coming from.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Azrael75
 



thanks for clearing up the point

And thanks for a friendly response.


anything and everything that is not what you consider "good" is satanic

(Squeezing my eyes in mild frustration-) no, no, please don't misunderstand. If that were the case I'd be using the word several times every day. As it is I'm not sure I use it once every year.

Incidentally I hope you don't mind me responding to all your points. I'm not trying to get one over on you; I just want to try and get some solid mutual understanding going.


the word 'praciticing' makes a difference to you but the name of a religion does not. if anything even remotely tied to what you call the 'occult' is satanic. then i guess you do get to call anything and everything you feel like, satanic


Firstly let me say that I will be the first one to admit that my world-view pretty much affects all topics that I think about. I expect that is the case for everyone.

Secondly, the point I was making is that by actively joining a group that worships the Devil, Marx would have been influenced by the Devil's agenda - from a Christian perspective.

As to your last sentence (quoted above) I can see your point: there is a danger of picking and choosing what we as Christians regard as occult-related, and therefore satanic. I'm not an unreasonable person. I can take that criticism on board and bear it in mind.


so given your set of standards, anyone that used tarrot cards or burned some special insence and prayed to an earth spirit, is a practicing satanist


I need to ask you to indulge in a little patience with me here. If you could at least follow Christian thinking on this, I hope you can see that it is not simply based on putting down non-Christian practice willy-nilly.

If Christ was indeed God's Son, he revealed what God's plan for man is with respect to how we human beings can relate to Him. Believing this, Christians believe that many people who have not heard or accepted Christ's teaching follow the teachings of others in a sincere desire to seek and please God or find spiritual enlightenment, but in the process they sometimes unknowingly come under the influence of dark spiritual forces.

Things like employing mediums/clairvoyants or use of tarot cards that can lead to hidden knowledge about people/events coming to light are believed to be examples of this. Burning incense could be linked with a whole range of activities, from an attempt to instill inner peace through meditation to an act of worship of a specific non-Christian deity. In the latter case, or if a person is specifically praying to an earth spirit, Christians believe that such practices dishonour the one, true Creator of the Universe and, many would believe, potentially expose the one practising these things to demonic influence.

I am aware many people could find this extreme. But what I am talking about is not demon possession, but a person being influenced to show less and less respect for the true Creator and increasingly oppose what He has revealed. It is not necessary to agree with me to simply understand that Christians believe such practices are inherently pleasing to God's enemy in the spiritual realm.

Despite what I have said I am not writing anyone off. For a start there are, in my opinion, parts of what is commonly referred to as the Christian Church which practice things which are not a million miles from what we are discussing (praying to Mary or the saints, using music to induce a certain state of mind, following various teachings that contradict what Christ said - not to mention burning incense, etc.!) It is simply a matter of being frank: if Christ revealed the true way to God, other ways serve Satan's purpose, and can in effect be linked with demonic influence while not being specifically occultic in nature.

Satan worship, however, is regarded as a conscious effort to knowingly honour and serve Satan. While some practices that might possibly leave a person open to influences from dark forces are too subtle to be called 'occult', little if anything that would accompany Devil-worship would fall outside that definition, from a Christian perspective. We move from the realm of the subtle to the blatant. Not least because the person's activity is deliberately directed at attaining oneness with the Devil and his minions.

To sum up: as a Christian I am not prepared to pretend that I don't think pagan practices in general have their dangers, or that occult practices such as tarot reading or holding seances are not asking for trouble. But with satanism we enter another level of danger altogether: the worshipper is in effect begging for contact with demons.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join