"I expect devoted New Agers stomping all over the thread next, claiming that their path(s) are older than dirt and that everybody else stole from them.
Getting back to Satanism, there are almost as many forms and shapes of it as there are Satanists. And regarding LaVey, one should really familiarize himself with his time and what the man was about before taking his words at face value. Those affiliated with the Temple of Seth and some others do react acutely to the name of LaVey, but that proves nothing about the origins or trueness of Satanism."
You misinterpreted the reasoning behind that statement, as you make the acclaimation that it is of my opinion that the Temple of The Dark Light or the Temple of Set is the "one true religion." The point I was making was that traditional Satanism is in no way, shape, or form attached to the Judeo-Christian religion except through some broad misinterpretation of the word "Satan." As for Lavey, he's a complete douche bag. I really don't care what anyone says about that ****; I vehemently despise that wretched scum, as well as H. P. Love Craft and Aleister Crowley.
I understand Levey's teachings perfectly, as he elaborates in his interviews about how he was deliberately being contentious for the sake of coming off as profound to religious fanatics. So, I'm afraid I must remain intransigent on my position of detesting him despite how much respect anyone here may hold for that lilliputian.
As far as Satanism in general is concerned, we are all considered Satanists in that we are all unilaterally opposed to one another on the issue of philosophy and religion, just as we are all inadvertently Taoists- which literally translates to as"The way-" since we all arbitrarily determine what we perceive as "truth." But, the issue again reverts back to context, as I'm sure no atheist or Buddhist would make the profound statement of falling under the category of Satanism.
And as far as this goes:
"Those affiliated with the Temple of Seth and some others do react acutely to the name of LaVey, but that proves nothing about the origins or trueness of Satanism,"
that is very presumptuous to believe that I was proclaiming that those religions were or are the progenitors of Satanism. But I wouldn't deny it in the sense that as far as organized religion goes, it has been anthropologically proven that the Babylonian and Egyptian socities have the oldest written records of what scholars would identify as Satanism. And if it is revealed that some other antecedent religion of national prominence is discovered, one of which can clearly delineate the idea that it is not the oldest form of organized Satanic religion, then you simply make revisions to your history books, i.e. initiate mutatis mutandis to meet the new modus operandi.
"If God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him."
Look up Joy of Satan and The Temple of The Black Light.
There are countless others, but I find them all to be very monotonous and boring; too much repetitiveness for my liking.
p.s. If you have a problem with National Socialism, just ignore a lot of the **** in some of the sites. Many people are associated with the political side of National Socialism because is it built upon the hatred of others which coincides with many of the beliefs of some Satanist tenants. Of course, this depends greatly upon which branch of Satanism that you adhere too.
"If God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him."
Getting back on topic... there has been almost nothing that pertains to the Big Bang theory for pages after pages. Poor OP will find his thread a complete mess when he comes back.[/QUOTE]
Yeah back on track, thank God.
We are all taught to fear death, yet death is not the taker of life, just the receiver. The ticking of the clock draws us near. Time is death, and it shall take.
Posts: 518 | Location: Seattle Washington | Registered: April 10, 2006
Peanut butter jelly with a baseball bat Peanut butter jelly with a baseball bat
Now, break it down and freeze Now, break it down and freeze Now, break it down and freeze Now, break it down and freeze
Now tic tac toe (uh-huh) Tic tac toe (let's go) Tic tac toe (you got it) Tic tac toe (let's ride)
Now, freestyle, freestyle, freestyle, freestyle, freestyle, your style Now, freestyle, freestyle, freestyle, freestyle, freestyle, your style
Where he at! Where he at! Where he at! Where he at!
There he go There he go There he go There he go
Joins in the dance....
We are all taught to fear death, yet death is not the taker of life, just the receiver. The ticking of the clock draws us near. Time is death, and it shall take.
Posts: 518 | Location: Seattle Washington | Registered: April 10, 2006
Originally posted by CoffeeOwl: I didn't say anything about the New Testament, that's strictly for Christians. But aren't you a Muslim? Then the first five books of the Old Testament, Torah, is one of your sacred books. I didn't mention anything outside of those books.
Yes i am, dear owl. But when God sent down the Qur'an.... all the rest of the sacred books were "rejected".
Mm. What is this then:
And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter. [Q2:4]
Where the revelations sent before were preserved?
And what is this:
Say: "We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to God do we bow our will (in Islam)." [Q3:84]
You would have hard time following this particular verse if you never opened Torah.
Yes you are right.. Quran has preserved all the previous revelations in itself.
And those verses you have mentioned, are present in Quran.
But we believe, that The Torah, Psalms and Gospel haven't remained genuine. It has been corrupted. Therefore, Quran is all that we need, and what is preserved in quran from the previous books is genuine.
Posts: 1815 | Location: In a room full of emptiness. | Registered: May 20, 2006
Originally posted by Nihilis: You misinterpreted the reasoning behind that statement, as you make the acclamation that it is of my opinion that the Temple of The Dark Light or the Temple of Set is the "one true religion."
I have no aversion to the idea of others sharing your view. But if you say that something precedes other religions, you better back it up with verifiable sources, ancient dates attached, archeological evidence presented, or convincing comparative reconstruction made. Web sites alone aren't enough. Any monkey with a keyboard can type whatever they want and make it look like an ultimate truth.
quote:
The point I was making was that traditional Satanism is in no way, shape, or form attached to the Judeo-Christian religion except through some broad misinterpretation of the word "Satan."
And who was arguing that besides -GhOst-?
quote:
As far as Satanism in general is concerned, we are all considered Satanists in that we are all unilaterally opposed to one another on the issue of philosophy and religion, just as we are all inadvertently Taoists- which literally translates to as"The way-" since we all arbitrarily determine what we perceive as "truth." But, the issue again reverts back to context, as I'm sure no atheist or Buddhist would make the profound statement of falling under the category of Satanism.
It's quite presumptuous to speak for all. And the only thing that ties Taoism to someone's arbitrary perception of anything is regarding it as a big mistake.
quote:
And as far as this goes:
"Those affiliated with the Temple of Seth and some others do react acutely to the name of LaVey, but that proves nothing about the origins or trueness of Satanism,"
that is very presumptuous to believe that I was proclaiming that those religions were or are the progenitors of Satanism. But I wouldn't deny it in the sense that as far as organized religion goes, it has been anthropologically proven that the Babylonian and Egyptian societies have the oldest written records of what scholars would identify as Satanism. And if it is revealed that some other antecedent religion of national prominence is discovered, one of which can clearly delineate the idea that it is not the oldest form of organized Satanic religion, then you simply make revisions to your history books, i.e. initiate mutatis mutandis to meet the new modus operandi.
You don't read what I post, you read your own reaction to it, complete with acclamations, presumptions, and fabricating statements that I never made. Satanism is not connected to anything of Abrahamic origin (LaVey's marketing escapades don't count for anything), so how those religions can be its progenitors?
And would you please specify which scholars define which ancient records as Satanic? The sites you mention in the next post omit this information. Along the same lines, before worrying about future changes it would be wonderful to see some basis for existing allegations. Changing the titles of existing sacred books to promote the agenda and using the same names and concepts as in well-known religions isn't good enough.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: CoffeeOwl,
~~~~~~~ CoffeeOwl
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. ~ Author unknown ~
Posts: 4828 | Location: Outskirts of Silicon Valley, California | Registered: April 05, 2006
Originally posted by Viol3nt Corpse: Yes you are right.. Quran has preserved all the previous revelations in itself.
And those verses you have mentioned, are present in Quran.
But we believe, that The Torah, Psalms and Gospel haven't remained genuine. It has been corrupted. Therefore, Quran is all that we need, and what is preserved in quran from the previous books is genuine.
Quran does not contain earlier revelations, it merely refers to them. And since the thread keeps going to hell in a handbasket, I would like your opinion on the following (and it would be helpful to know what branch of Islam you belong to, because not all of them say that Torah, Psalms, and Gospel are corrupted): if Allah allowed for his earlier revelations to be corrupted by weak humans, does not it mean that he was not always all-powerful? What would be point of being able to right the wrong but still doing nothing? And how can you trust that Quran itself escaped the fate of earlier books, being in the hands of the same weak humans after being given to Muhammad?
~~~~~~~ CoffeeOwl
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. ~ Author unknown ~
Posts: 4828 | Location: Outskirts of Silicon Valley, California | Registered: April 05, 2006
Originally posted by CoffeeOwl: And would you please specify which scholars define which ancient records as Satanic? The sites you mention in the next post omit this information. Along the same lines, before worrying about future changes it would be wonderful to see some basis for existing allegations. Changing the titles of existing sacred books to promote the agenda and using the same names and concepts as in well-known religions isn't good enough.
Just thought I would throw this up here from The Satanic Bible.
"It is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in God. The concept of "God", as interpreted by man, has been so varied throughout the ages, that the Satanist simply accepts the definition which suits him best. Man has always created his gods, rather than his gods creating him. God is, to some, benign - to others, terrifying. To the Satanist "God" - by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all - is seen as the balancing factor in nature, and not as being concerned with suffering."
"To sum up the Satanic conversation....I'm LaVeyan. The main problem with people now-a-days reading anything by LaVey or any quotes from him is that most people take him so literally. LaVey, and especially the religion of Satanism is all about metaphors. Reading the meaning behind the meaning. The word Satan has absolutely nothing at all to do with Christianity. The word Satan, as described before, derives from Hebrew, meaning "the opposer" or "the accuser." Christianity took this and adapted it to mean opposition to the Church and God. In LaVeyan Satanism, Satan is a representation of life, virility, strength, etc., not a supernatural being. And no, other branches of Satanism have no affiliation with LaVeyan Satanism, or LaVey himself. In Theistic Satanism, for example, Satan is a deity. There's also Luciferian Satanists, Modern Satanists, and a few others."
Very good Evil Angel (I'm not saying this condescendingly, but I think that it would be so much funnier if I did)
p.s. The response to Coffee Owl is going to be a very long one I thought someone who has had some experience in linguistics would have some grasp on what I was insinuating, but I guess not. I'll have to speak in terms of mot juste in order to alleviate the confusion.
p.s. 2 If you are a chic Evil Angel, I want your babies.
"If God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him."
(I'm not saying this condescendingly, but I think that it would be so much funnier if I did)