Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Misunderstood Devil: the Church of Satan
Options
-
03-10-2008 7:35pm#1Lately there has been a bit of misunderstanding regarding Satanism.
I thought I might post this to clear some of the misconceptions up.
There should be a distinction drawn between Satanism and Satan (or Devil) worship.
Modern Satanism is a philosophy espouses indulgance in the myriad pleasures and base drives of the human being while exalting the self as the highest form - essentially atheistic, the practices do include ritual magick and ceremonies conducted as psychodrama (i.e. for the personal effect it has on your own psychology - a knowing irony).
Satan worship (or Devil worship or any of its other variations) is the theistic belief in a higher deity or demon who is the embodiment of evil or anthiethical to the canon of the established Judeo Christian belief system. The practices of Satan Worshippers are diverse and often secretive or personal making it difficult to ascribe any specific dogma to them.
For the purpose of this post though I will focus solely on the better known LaVey Satanism practiced by the Church of Satan (CoS).
Anton Szandor LaVey (1930 - 1997) founded the Church of Satan in 1966 and claimed it to be the first open organisation dedicated to accepting mans true nature "that of a carnal beast". This original group was formed from an earlier group, that of the "Order of the Trapezoid" which had much the same ethos.
The basic ethos of the philosophy (or religion depending on your point of view) is summed up in the 9 Satanic Statements (a play on the Judeo Chrisitian "Ten Commandments") which, instead of being directives of what one must do, are considered to be a codification of how people are living naturally as well as the 9 Satanic Sins (another "pun" against the 7 deadly sins of Roman Catholic origin) and 11 Satanic Rules of the Earth which covers basic politeness and codes of personal conduct (insofar as they exist in Satanism.
Many people balk in regard to the choice of the title; Church of Satan and suggest that "humanism" of "selfism" would have been a better term and that the rituals and "magick" should be shed. This is resisted by the majority of Satanists for three reasons.
The first is that, as an icon, Satan (derived for purpopse from the Hebrew Shaitan or "accuser") represents the rebellious, individualistic streak that is the spine of Satanism. Satan is the pure antithesis of all the so-called "white light" styles of belief and as such represents the cardinal values of the system (indulgence, individuality and intelligence as opposed to the moralism and self-denial of the mainstream religions).
Second, Satan, the accuser of god, is the anthropomorphisation of questioning and screaming "The Emperor is butt naked!" and it is a very deliberate choice for this reason.
Finally, if I am honest, I think its because most Satanists like the term and the effect it has. For most people confronted with a "satanist" the reaction is fear, revulsion and mild panic because they immediately imagine that their afternoon is about to get very "Rosemarys baby". That state of shock, puts people out of their comfort zones and it can be a useful measure of what another persons true values are. This is of course more opinion than any sort of a "fact".
Controversy.
The Church of Satan and by extention, the philosophy of all "left hand path" groups have been surrounded by controversy. To ignore this would be an excercise in deceit when the goal is open and frank discussion.
The 70's and 80's saw the so-called "Satanic Panic" where thanks to a small number of rabid evangelists, lazy tabloid merchants and some very dubious child psychologists a mass hysteria swept over the US and Western Europe. the CoS, witches, Wicca and even the companies responsible for Dungeons and Dragons and a few other role playing games were accused of heinous criminality and investigated by federal authorities. Not a single case was ever proven and nearly every case was shown to be entirely fictional, the result of exactly the small-mindedness that Satanism had warned of in its philosophies.
Anton Lavey himself has a reputation in occult circles as something of a rogue. Many of his claims are wild and boastful with more than a small number of these being clearly for attention they bring (or, in my own opinion, to indulge the mans sense of humour). such claims whether true or not are entirely harmless and objectively do nothing to diminish the concepts he laid down in his book "The Satanic Bible" (accusations of plagiarism from Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged" as a little unfair since he did admit to influence but left it uncredited).
There is a lot more Satanism than this but I'll finish with a few short points.
- Satanism does not espouse, conduct or engage in any form of ritualised sacrifice of animals, children or people.
- Satanism does not believe in a litteral devil - or any deity for that matter. It is an atheistic religion and seems quite happy with the paradoxical nature of this label.
- Satanism and the CoS does not preach hate, church burning or anti-semitism.
- Satanism is a recognised religion in the US and UK (I'll haveto check up on the other countries).
Edit: Thanks to Thaedydal for indicating this would be welcome here ... wasnt sure where the hell to put it
0
Comments
-
-
Wow, its weird but a book with a very similar name (Misunderstood Devil: the Church of Satan) caught my eye in the library the other day!
Lol, I hope I havent ripped off a book title by accident.
If its one of the core texts or even one of the many (many) biographies or treatises on the church or its members it's likely worth a look. Some of the infighting between the different branches gets boring because its all family oriendted but the investigations by the authorities are like something out of an Orwell novel at times.
The core texts are certainly worth a gander in the their own right if even only to be able to say you've read them at parties
The Satanic Bible
The Satanic Rituals
The Compleat Witch (aka The Satanic Witch)
The Satanic Scriptures
The Devil Speaks!
The Devils Notebook
The Secret Life of a Satanist0 -
Hivemind187 wrote: »
The core texts are certainly worth a gander in the their own right if even only to be able to say you've read them at parties
The Satanic Bible
The Satanic Rituals
The Compleat Witch (aka The Satanic Witch)
The Satanic Scriptures
The Devil Speaks!
The Devils Notebook
The Secret Life of a Satanist
When I was more into Black Metal music I gave the old bible a read alright, and it was certainly an eye opener. It was exactly what I wanted to hear during that particular period of my life. I was exploring and questioning everything. Things have changed a little for me since then, but I look upon it fondly as part of my spiritual journey to freedom...
I still love the music of King Diamond (a satanist) and bands like Emperor, Satyricon, Morbid Angel... although I think Trey from MA has gone on a similar spiritual journey to myself and has come out in a very different place also.0 -
-
I think a lot of people who start off rejecting the faith structure they were brougth up in will go and take a look at what has been billed to them as the opssite, the dark side ect.
How far they have to go down that path until they free themselves of the restraints they feel were imposed on them varies. For some the contrast gets them questioning and they find where thier own personal morality and faith lies and for some it is with the religious/spiritual structure they were raised in and they go back renewed and confirmed in that.
For others the self discovery takes them futher away from home.
Now while I do have some idealogical issues with La Veyian Satanism ( it's not for me )
I do value that is encourages people to find thier own north on thier spiritual and moral compases, so that they can say " I feel/know X is a wrong action for me due to these personal reasons" rather then rule handed down by rote from some one else.
I have found that such developed personal codes ( which usually take breaking boundaries, making new ones and testing them when needed ) are held to a hell of a lot more then those imposed externally.
Other paths also expouse knowing yourself in all weathers and conditions and that indulging the flesh leads to better knowledge of the self.
Nicely put.
Satanism, though I am not a member of the CoS was the final nail in the coffin for superstitious beliefs. I'm no fan of the quasi mysticism involved in some practices (ToS or CoS) but the core philosophies certainly gave words to what I had been thinking and trying to express for sometime. I have moved on from the "spiritual" needs for the most part but I still find the values and some of the dogma a useful rock to cling to sometimes (even if I am fully aware of the transitory nature of personal philosophies).
I think a lot of people do go to it out of rebellion, a kind of "f*ck the system" attitude that most teens experience - there is much of that nature to the philosophy itself. Most people eventually become full on atheists or will become (lol) lapsed satanists like most other people when their daily lives drown out the philosophical needs. But you are right, any personal structures picked up during this period will be stronger - the mark of the convert
Oh ... and King Diamond and Mercyful fate are brilliant 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Thanks for your thoughtful response.Hivemind187 wrote: »I agree for the most part. However I find that there is a biological context for some people to have a dogma or "faith" ... it's certainly an inherent aspect of human nature to have certain rituals and repititions of action or belief etc. It's why we can be superstitious about something we cognitively know to be giberish.
So this biological concept is a good one. But it is still that, a concept. Humans are very good at creating concepts about things, but I'm curious as to whether this can actually help man day to day. Certainly, it is perceived that it helps man - anyone can see that. If you ask man, he will say; "Yes, this concept really helps me understand my life, I don't know where I would be without it". But within that there is the process of identification; I identify myself or my life with this concept, and it makes me feel better. But this doesn't answer my question; does it help? Really and truly, in a deep way. And do you know something? I won't tell you the answer because each individual should find out for himself. Personally, I have seen this attachment to a concept bring about conflict within me, within what I try to grasp, and what is going on externally - it seems to me the concept is something that comes from knowledge, from thought, from the process of identification... would you agree with that? But the problem is that thought is never new, it is old. The life around me is constantly in a flux, in a flow... so my concepts keep getting hammered by the world, and each time it happens, I suffer. I try to protect these ideas I have, to show people how great these ideas are, I try to live up to them... but I am always in conflict. But this is just my experience, and each person should find out through experience, not through a book.
And with this I'm also asking, what is this need we have to complete rituals? To be a part of something that is outside ourselves? Why do we always want to repeat? Every day we repeat, our mind adheres to a pattern. I'm only asking this question, I am not for one second suggesting that I am beyond or above these things because obviously I am not (all beings that exist in the field of mind and matter have these failings!). But perhaps if we stop conceptualising about these things for a minute, we can see them for what they are. Just to look at them and find out if they are making our minds fresher, more open, more vital, more free... or is something else at work? This is all I'm asking.With this in mind I dont see humanity progressing until such things can be willingly viewed as what is base and while not necessarily demonised or exorcised, risen above so that energy can be focussed on better things. I find Satanism to provide the necessary ritual and dogma on the one hand while on the other it smirks at such things in the knowledge that they are merely the illusion of the mind and emotion.
But this is another interesting question; if I am using ritual and adhere to some form of dogma, is it possible that I am excercising my mind in a particular pattern? Is it possible that I am repeating things daily (mentally or verbally), and conforming to a pattern that I call "non-conforminst"? Am I identifying myself with the greater in order to escape from what is, to me, a dull and foolish world? Is this another illusion of the mind... another way for me to separate myself from those people, concepts and things that I despise? That I find to be frightful and stupid? I want to disassociate myself from a religion, and I do it through another religion?Well, its complicated. I'm not a big fan of complicated, but here goes.
We can argue, convincingly and based on philosophical evidence and biological evidence that there is no ultimate morality. Therefore, as is obvious from my stated ideology, I dont believe that the concepts of "good" and "evil" etc are valid as anything other than human constructs or literary devices. Evil to you or I maybe be mundanity or even good to antoher being. My references to "good" above were in the context of the Christian and western views of the term.
Absolutely... they are just words. I don't believe the mind should follow any set pattern in this categorisation of what is good bad, etc. But one can find out through experience; through awareness and constant passionate observation of the movement of life. The truth reveals itself. And it won't come from a book.can they be left behind? Well, yes, to an extent. Intellectually you can easily put these ideas to one side and mark them as "useful fictions"
But I think it is best not to try and intellectually put anything aside... what I'm proposing is much more of a revolution in the mind; I'm asking if it's possible for the mind to come out of intellectualisation of anything. To have no concept, therefore not to make a mental attempt to put anything aside. But to just see what happens if the mind is extremely silent. Observant, aware of reality as it is. Aware of every single movement of the mind. Aware of the thoughts coming and going, and not attaching itself to them as being important things at all... What will happen?but on an emotional level I'm not entirely sure. Certainly much of the emotion involved in iour day to day encounters with morality can be eliminated but when you are confronted with the kind of scenes seen in Kenya (glue-kids) the human instinct is to intervene and do something to make it better. I think that that particular instinct is a hard wired fact of who we are and that we do tend to dress these things as being "noble" or "good" when the fact is that they are merely the end product of a chain of chemical reactions.
Yes, precisely... they are the end process of chemical reactions. That is all we are... a bunch of chemical reactions. I'm just trying to see if we can move away from the knee jerk reactions to these chemical reactions that incessantly take place in our mind... or even to just be aware of them for a moment, to find out what they really are. I think the ideas you mentions; nobleness and good, are often creations of the ego. If one is trying to be noble, again adhering to this concept... in order to appear noble.. then it is not noble at all. It is a work of the ego, the mind is just carrying out something based on previous knowledge and ideas of what it wants to be... trying to escape from it's own cruelty, anger, fear, whatever, through the vestige of nobility.I dont know enough to reference the rest of your point. I see what you are saying about the oblivion of the self potentially giving way to great understanding or mystery etc but to be honest I doubt if there is.
Don't doubt, find out
Don't believe my bull$hit or what anyone else says... because it is not true for you, it is somebody elses truth. What I'm asking, is can man leave behind the concepts and ideas about the thing, because what we are talking about here cannot be discovered or understood through a concept.I'm no metaphysicist (though I have tried) and I always return to the root of everything which is our biology. Some people are wired to be chattle following blindly into the slaughter house, others are wired to buck the system and wonder whats just over the next hill. Saying one is right and one is wrong is a little silly in my opinion since they are essentially biological products but in intellectual terms one is certain preferable to me than the other.
Again I'm totally in agreement here; if we come to label other humans as right, wrong, stupid, etc. we are again lost in the perceptions and illusions of our own mind. Ten people in a room see a man, and all ten people perceive him differently. So it is thus proven that all are lost in their own conditioning, including me and you, and the ideas that come about in our minds are completely old, mind-created objects that hold little sense or value. If we can see through this - see through the processes and workings of our own mind, pierce through the mind/matter realm into something else... then the endless is possible.
You say we are biological products - correct again. What happens when we discover this truth and experience it at a very deep level? What happens if I can picture myself growing old, decaying, dying, being burried, and turning into a skeleton? At an intellectual level, this gives the understanding of what we are... so can we experience this truth in a deeper way, in daily life, and can that help us to be less attached, and not led always by our psychological and intellectual whims?I'm glad that someone has taken something positive from satanism though, this reinforces what I said earlier (and what Thae mentioned) about it being one of those common stop off points on spiritual journeys or in the discovery of a ideology which works for the individual (in my case).
Or in the leaving aside of all ideologies, possibly?0 -
-
Stercus Accidit wrote: »I find the concept of being true to ones desires and nature as a red blooded mammal as one that suits me down to the ground.
Interesting isnt it? How many many people are already "satanists" and dont realise it.Stercus Accidit wrote: »I am, and pretty much always have been an atheist, and will not accept moral restraints or guilt based on religious dogma.
Pretty much sums up the position of many who drift through or stick with Satanism.Stercus Accidit wrote: »Once we are not hurting anyone, the idea of satisfying your desires and greater well being are very sensible.
Rational self-interest, objectively nothing wrong with it but for centuries having any sort of ambition or pride or desire to improve your lot was villified by major religions. Abstinence, sacrifice and fasting to what end? So that you could be more "loved" by your creator whose great plan was for you to live in the open air herding flocks of sheet before dying of dysentry at the ripe age of 29? Pfft ... give me a dancing girls and carbohydrates!Stercus Accidit wrote: »That this LaVay's ideal is named satanism is of no concern to me.
Metaphors work for some and not for others. It helps to make the point though (and you get to be the smirking git when everyone runs around like headless chickens screaming "devil worshipper!"... ok, so maybe its only mewho finds that amusing ) 0 -
So this biological concept is a good one. But it is still that, a concept. Humans are very good at creating concepts about things, but I'm curious as to whether this can actually help man day to day.
Humans create constructs which explain the world around them. Einsteins theory of reletivity is one such consturct, as is the model of the human brain, Darwins theory of evolution and a dozen others. These provide predictable and testable results in experimentation which provide evidence of their fact. They remain to most mere concepts.
Whether the philosophical constructs such as religion, faith, belief etc can help man day to day depends on how you mean "man". To the individual their is no way of measuring this since statisitics meaning nothing at an individual level but in a broader view they can be said to have benefit by means of experimentation or flirtation with different ideals. For example, peoplethought communism was a good idea, they tried it and it turns out that it doesnt really work. Great. Now we know. People thought Democracy would be weaker than the other, more extreme political ideologies it turns out that democratic nations, while having huge problems that never seem to be resolved and being based on mob rule through constant change are still more stable than the fascist or communist nations. Less so than monarchies I'll grant you.
Does satanism help at the individual level? You'd have to ask individual satanists.
Does Satanism help at a species or civilisation level? No idea. I can certainly envision things being a little better if a lot of the guilt and neuroses imposed by organised abstinence based religions were removed. The enlightened self-interest of Satanism is not unique to it though and I can say I would feel a lot safer with people who want to see the world prosper because of the benefit it would have to them in power than the raving loonies and bible thumpers currently running the show.Personally, I have seen this attachment to a concept bring about conflict within me, within what I try to grasp, and what is going on externally - it seems to me the concept is something that comes from knowledge, from thought, from the process of identification... would you agree with that?
I believe that the majority of concepts come from what is observed. Hypothesis and superstition seem to have a similar mechanism for coming into being.
Something is observed. Then the weight of comprehension about the reality which the observer inhabits is brought to the fore to help explain the observation.
If it is a scientist they will form a theory which could be tested in a lab (falsified). If it is a rain forest bushman, lacking the scientific method and centuries of discovery, they would likely attribute gods or mystical forces to it.
Though this is not entirely relevant to Satanism or the original post.But the problem is that thought is never new, it is old. The life around me is constantly in a flux, in a flow... so my concepts keep getting hammered by the world, and each time it happens, I suffer. I try to protect these ideas I have, to show people how great these ideas are, I try to live up to them... but I am always in conflict. But this is just my experience, and each person should find out through experience, not through a book.
Well ... thats really just your opinion isnt it? You do not find solace or explanation from the books you have read to date. That does not preclude finding the "answers" to whichever questions you are asking by reading more books.
I found a lot of my answers to question by reading Darwin, Hawking, Einstein, Paine, and LaVey. Was I searching for a philosophy that agreed with feelings and thoughts I already had? Yes, probably. does it make them any less valuable to me? Not in the slightest.
While experience is an important factor in the overall structure of your beliefs or philosophical outlook it shouldnt be the only component - in my opinion - debate, discussion, elaboration of ideas etc are as important to any philosophical position. In other words, taking any single source as your guideline is limiting yourself unduly - multiple sources, multiple points of view etc will allow you a far better and deeper understanding of your personal place in your personal reality.
Now, are you suggesting that Satanism is not relevant because it is a philosophy appearing in a book? Surely all religions, philosophies etc wouold be subject to the same fate by that logic?
Satanism, is not meant to control your life and your perceptions on things (in the same manner as many established religions) rather it encourages the individual to find what works for them. If Satanism and it's selfish, vengeful, indulgent hedonism works then thats great ... otherwise, move along Charlie.And with this I'm also asking, what is this need we have to complete rituals? To be a part of something that is outside ourselves? Why do we always want to repeat? Every day we repeat, our mind adheres to a pattern.
Let me advance a theory.
It's in our biology. You can see similar behaviors in many animals from mating rituals to nesting etc.
The difference in humans is that many of our rituals are performed in the knowledge of what they are. Either functional or comfortable.
Functional rituals performed daily would be brushing your teeth, washing the dishes etc. These are not as nescessary as eating or drinking or sleeping but we do them because they have a functional benefit. that the vast majority of people will do the same actions in the same rhythmn while performing such rituals each day is indicative of the biological nature of such things.
Comfortable rituals include the non-essential, non-tangibly beneficial repitions such as; saying grace before a meal, blessing yourself passing a grave yard, lighting candles for the deceased etc. they provide no physical benefit to you but they can be comforting by virtue of familiarity or providing a sensation of having "done something".
We want to repeat actions because the human mind is particularly well evolved to handle and work with patterns. There is no real deeper meaning to it than the biological.I'm only asking this question, I am not for one second suggesting that I am beyond or above these things because obviously I am not (all beings that exist in the field of mind and matter have these failings!). But perhaps if we stop conceptualising about these things for a minute, we can see them for what they are. Just to look at them and find out if they are making our minds fresher, more open, more vital, more free... or is something else at work? This is all I'm asking.
Certainly doing nothing but repeating the same patterns day in and day out will become monotonous. On top of being good with patterns human beings bore easily. Hence why we find so many ways to amuse ourselves. This is why we break up rituals throughout the day and do them near unconsciously for the most part - they make us feel secure and comfortable but if we had to invest effort in them their mundanity would bore us senseless. Personally I believe this is why so many religions are ostantacious, dripping with gold and marble.But this is another interesting question; if I am using ritual and adhere to some form of dogma, is it possible that I am excercising my mind in a particular pattern? Is it possible that I am repeating things daily (mentally or verbally), and conforming to a pattern that I call "non-conforminst"? Am I identifying myself with the greater in order to escape from what is, to me, a dull and foolish world? Is this another illusion of the mind... another way for me to separate myself from those people, concepts and things that I despise? That I find to be frightful and stupid? I want to disassociate myself from a religion, and I do it through another religion?
I think this is a two fold questions.
1) Does engaging in ritual make me conformist?
Yes. It makes you conformist to that specific ritual. If you are using ritual to be non-comformist to a different uniform then, if the ritual used is sufficiently abberant or divorced from the uniform you wish to separate yourself from then you are indeed being "non-conformist".
That is a very convoluted way of saying, you are being non-conformist with regard to a specific group or groups with whom you do not which to be associated.
2) What am I trying to escape? All religion, philosophy and constructs of thought or a specific religion/philosophy or construct of thought.
If you are attempting to escape all religion etc then good look to you because thats a way more involved question than I can answer. I would say that it is virtually impossible by reason that activily attempting to remove yourself from all constructs is in itself a constructed reality or philosophy therefore self defeating.
If you are attempting to escape a specific group or thought process then doing so through another religion is as good a mechanism as any. This is why we have atheists (to include those subscribing to the concept that all supernatural and/or theistic beliefs are wrong), protestants (to include all offshoots of any particular brand of religion for reasosn of ideological or political difference) and the reason we have Satanism (providing the intellectual freedom from superstition and the comfort of dogma and ritual - a philosophical third cousin).But I think it is best not to try and intellectually put anything aside... what I'm proposing is much more of a revolution in the mind; I'm asking if it's possible for the mind to come out of intellectualisation of anything. To have no concept, therefore not to make a mental attempt to put anything aside. But to just see what happens if the mind is extremely silent. Observant, aware of reality as it is. Aware of every single movement of the mind. Aware of the thoughts coming and going, and not attaching itself to them as being important things at all... What will happen?
Essentially oblivion of thought and the self to discover "what else" there is? Have you had a look into Buddhism because there is quite a bit in it that goes down these lines.
Satanism however, with it emphasis on thinking and indulgence would shrink from the kind of voiod you describe above. Not a criticism of your goals, merely an analysis from the context of the OP.Yes, precisely... they are the end process of chemical reactions. That is all we are... a bunch of chemical reactions. I'm just trying to see if we can move away from the knee jerk reactions to these chemical reactions that incessantly take place in our mind... or even to just be aware of them for a moment, to find out what they really are. I think the ideas you mentions; nobleness and good, are often creations of the ego. If one is trying to be noble, again adhering to this concept... in order to appear noble.. then it is not noble at all. It is a work of the ego, the mind is just carrying out something based on previous knowledge and ideas of what it wants to be... trying to escape from it's own cruelty, anger, fear, whatever, through the vestige of nobility.
I dont believe that there is a method of escaping the chemical reactions in our minds short of being dead or uploading our consciousness to a computer. The chemical interactions could be altered through thought but only the repeated thoughts on a specific topic with the result of creating additional synaptic pathways which would make the transfer of electrical impulses via (iirc) acytocholine or through the introduction of additional chemicals to the brain (such as alcohol, LSD etc). Perhaps I'm being to scientific or pragmatic about it but the deeper philosophical questions of self etc have always had their answers in biology in my opinion.
With regard to the concepts of good/evil, nobillity and the like I feel that these are merely the constructs that the human mind was bound to create given our biology and the interactions it was confronted with. I believe that humans are capable of growing beyond such primitive instincts and orders on an intellectual level but I find the idea that we can do so at an instinctive or emotional level to be unlikely.
More specifically I consider them to be a feedback loop. Our biology dictates instinct and to a certain extent emotional reaction to stimuli (say, the notion of something widely considered "evil", I'll pick abortion because it is probably most emotive). Confronted with the idea of abortion the human instinct (is usually) one of disaproval (disgust, fear, panic or upset at the notion). This is our biological input, set to default as "evil". Our intelligence allows us to consider the facts, positions, evidence and information regarding the issue and results in the intellectual decision that it is not "evil". This in our intellectual input feeding back into the biological one repeating over and over until the revulsion or instincitve reaction to the concept is eroded and the individual (while never entirely escaping the biological "sensation") suffers no cognitive dissonance or trouble with the balance of "good and evil".
This is a hugely simplified and poorly explained version of what happens so to the biologists etc who actually study this please dont hang me for poor articulation.Don't doubt, find out Don't believe my bull$hit or what anyone else says... because it is not true for you, it is somebody elses truth. What I'm asking, is can man leave behind the concepts and ideas about the thing, because what we are talking about here cannot be discovered or understood through a concept.
That is a question suited to individuals rather than as a generalised one. In essence, all things can be considered possible however I'm not sure that thye are possible for everyone.If we can see through this - see through the processes and workings of our own mind, pierce through the mind/matter realm into something else... then the endless is possible.
Fair enough. Not entirely certain where this ties back to Satanism though
The question of the "endless" is again something that seems more suited to Buddhism or other philosophies considering multiple planes of existance (Hinduism I think has a similar bent).You say we are biological products - correct again. What happens when we discover this truth and experience it at a very deep level? What happens if I can picture myself growing old, decaying, dying, being burried, and turning into a skeleton? At an intellectual level, this gives the understanding of what we are... so can we experience this truth in a deeper way, in daily life, and can that help us to be less attached, and not led always by our psychological and intellectual whims?
Another one for Buddhism I think (I might be wrong). For most people I think you will find that the concept of death is a remote and difficult to imagine thing and I think this is why humans go through a major psychological upheaval when confronted with a specific lifespan (those who have seen someone die from a terminal illness will know what I mean).
Intellectually most people are aware that once they snuff it they will be put in the ground and will rot there. There has been a lot of discussion surrounding this topic in the A&A forum. The emotional context for it is often absent though revealing that most humans (in my opinion) are not willing (or capable) of experiencing an acceptance of mortality - indeed it seems to be human nature to do everything we can to disavow our own mortality by hurling ourselves out of perfectly good airplanes, white water rafting, wrestling alligators or any one of the dozens of other objectively insane risks we take each and everyday (strapping ourselves to controlled explosions and hurtling at 60mph weaving between other controlled explosions doing the same thing).
My question, and this is to bring this back to the topic of Satanism, is why would we want to be more detatched from our reality? I can understand that some people feel that possessions and other accoutrements divorces them from what they consider to be real but I fear that this is not the same for everyone. I personally like my iPod and my PC and my jeans. I like my drink and my food (no need to point out that drinking is supposed to be a Satanism no-no) and my wine and my song. I particularly enjoy sex and all the other pleasures that indulging in reality brings.
These are, in effect, biological and intellectual whims and I am personally quite content to be led by them because it fulfills me and I enjoy it. I don't really understand why divesting ourselves of these drives - the abstinence of them - will give us a deeper understanding of anything.
Let me phraze this another way.
To my mind we require information in order to understand anything. Information comes from discovering and experimentation and confrontation with reality and the subject you wish to understand. Removing that information makes it impossible to gain "understanding" of any form.
The argument could be made that one could observe, but that is only going toprovide the intellectual or perceived understanding and not a total experience of understanding no?Or in the leaving aside of all ideologies, possibly?
Nihilism?0 -
-
-
Funnily enough, lots of pagans found out they were christians back in the dark ages without realising it, after the church absorbed their deities as saints.Hivemind187 wrote: »Interesting isnt it? How many many people are already "satanists" and dont realise it.
Weak link: The nobles would be around to knock you on the nod and swipe your women before you could say "maypole". And of course the church and noble classes were intertwined, so you see where I'm going with that...Hivemind187 wrote: »... give me a dancing girls and carbohydrates!
Einstein and Darwin didn't create a construct of any sort. They discovered some interesting facts and interpreted them in a way that would be useful to us. Attempting to link that to actual constructs, like religion and philosophy, is disingenuous at best.Hivemind187 wrote: »Humans create constructs which explain the world around them. Einsteins theory of reletivity is one such consturct, as is the model of the human brain, Darwins theory of evolution and a dozen others. These provide predictable and testable results in experimentation which provide evidence of their fact.
What are you talking about. One of the most influential nations in the history of the world, was also one of the first democracies. The problem with it was that throughout history there have usually been a gang of muscley toughs with a serious nutcase at the helm that hit people with sharp bits of metal whenever they got the idea again. It should be patently apparent to anyone with half a brain that democracies are going to be stronger, since they are meritocracies, the best rise to the top.Hivemind187 wrote: »People thought Democracy would be weaker than the other, more extreme political ideologies it turns out that democratic nations,
Counting number of monarchies remaining in the world... hmm...Hivemind187 wrote: »while having huge problems that never seem to be resolved and being based on mob rule through constant change are still more stable than the fascist or communist nations. Less so than monarchies I'll grant you.
Apologies, but I have neither the time nor inclination to work through the rest of your posts, so I hope you get the gist.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Advertisement