Discussion:
"To completely overthrow mystically-oriented religions, Satanists choose active opposition." -- ASL TCoS, BB79
(too old to reply)
SOD of the CoE
2004-12-30 11:56:01 UTC
Permalink
50041230 viii om Hael Satan!
happy Tweendays

bobo:
#> ...a certain *character* of expression,
#> like "Satanism is..." or even "to me, Satanism is..." and better
#> "Satan is..." "I think of Satan as positive because...".

Tani Jantsang:
# Satanism is what a person WILL DO, automatically, when and if they are
# directly in touch with that Boundless Darkness that infuses the parts of
# nature that are emanated from the Light. They will DO the Will of that
# Boundless Darkness and their own Will, it will be One Will.

I read something keen today. summary of Satan's Master Plan according
to LaVey and Barton: the aim is the overthrow of mystical-religions
("The Church of Satan").

# They will think outside the box and probably be hated by a lot of
# people if they speak openly outside the box to them.

like setting posts Followup-To: alt.satanism and broadcasting widely.

# ...hard to pin down, very VOID like by nature, kind of chaotic by
# nature. They are bound by no dogmas, not even dogmas they might
# make for themselves for a week.

no discipline?

# They are BORN satanists....

not mudbloods, or wozzles or whatever Col. Potter calls them.

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
SOD of the CoE
2004-12-31 12:35:22 UTC
Permalink
50041231 viii om Hael Satan!

bobo:
#>#> ...a certain *character* of expression,
#>#> like "Satanism is..." or even "to me, Satanism is..." and better
#>#> "Satan is..." "I think of Satan as positive because...".

Joseph Littleshoes <***@pacbell.net>:
# Of the evolution of myth. Devils are but the Gods of conquered
# peoples.

simultaneously coincident with such authors as JBRussell and those
even who appear to have cavorted with devils, such as Crowley. the
contention about devils from the outside is not first-person and
therefore not someone's contention about their Satanism, which was
my intention in description above.

Tani Jantsang:
#># Satanism is what a person WILL DO, automatically,
#># when and if they are directly in touch with that
#># Boundless Darkness

# But what is this "boundless darkness"? what does it mean,
# what does it do?

while I cannot answer for Tani, I can provide my best guess as to
what she might say. the boundless darkness cannot truly be defined
or clearly identified. it is called by a variety of names, some of
which she has laid out in other contexts, such as Mahakala. all of
the various referents are just different ways of saying the same
thing and referencing some kind of internal experience.

#># that infuses the parts of nature that are emanated from
#># the Light.
#
# I understand certain myths suggest or claim we (the physical
# universe) come from the light "let there be light" and all
# that but it does not really explain anything,

attempting to salvage the most literal interpretation first,
it might mean something literal if 'light' refers to energy.
at that point one might bring to the discussion the variable
appearance of energy and mass and their rough equation with
respect to the speed of light (ask Einstein how he got it).

# at best this "light" is explained as a metaphor,

even for energy, I'd wager, though I tried above to make it
into something more fanciful.

# and even if there is a physical corollary i have not had it
# explained to me and doubt any one has come up with a convincing
# explanation of how "light" tuned into matter. E =Mc 2 i understand at
# least in theory but the usual religious explanations for this "light"
# and its conversion or "fall" into matter have not been resolved,
# satisfactorily, at least to me. Even taking the mathmatical equation at
# face value as a type of explination for the phenomina it does not
# explain why the phenomina "is" merely how it functions.

the 'why' of phenomena is always unavailable to us and
inferred by multitudinous mythologies and imaginative tales.

#># They will DO the Will of that Boundless Darkness and their
#># own Will, it will be One Will.
#
# Are you writing of primal, instinctual, animalistic reaction
# to the universe? And "Satan" and "darkness" somehow
# exemplifying this?

that one I can't really guess. it sounds about right.

#> I read something keen today. summary of Satan's Master Plan according
#> to LaVey and Barton: the aim is the overthrow of mystical-religions
#> ("The Church of Satan").

I grabbed the actual quote for the Subject: line:

"To completely overthrow mystically-oriented
religions, Satanists choose active opposition."
------------------------------------------------
-- Anton Szandor LaVey
in "The Church of Satan", by Blanche Barton,
Hell's Kitchen Productions, 1991; p. 79.
================================================

# Some people have had a limited amount of success in "overthrowing"
# religion and mysticism. "The opiate of the masses and all that".
# Yet i would tend to agree with the Confucian point of view about
# it and human nature, no matter how irrational it may be, the human
# animal has a tendency towards superstitious awe of the universe and seeks
# to propitiate it with fetish and taboo, the Lars and Pente. And the powers
# that be would probly be more successful in co opting it and using it to
# their own benefit rather than fighting against it *consider the most
# recent U.S. election). If the human animal ever gets rid of religion it
# will probly be more due to a maturing of the species, like an individual
# "growing up" hopefully, at some point the species as a whole will untie
# the apron strings that still bind it to "The Great Parent".

so it seems that you substantially agree with ASLaVey and TJantsang.
as their 'mysticism' is sloggy and extreme, it is difficult not to.
however, I'd suggest that neither of them had a very thorough
understanding of the breadth to which what is called "mysticism"
might be applied, as has become apparent in recent conversation
about such topic in this forum. since Tani says that she doesn't
really care if her language is understood and conforms to standard
conventions on the topic of mysticism (indicating that any semblance
between hers and the terminology, for example, of contemplatives,
is completely unintentional and that the "special" quality of
mysticism obviates her "everyday experience" to another category),
I turn instead to LaVey, whose expression on mysticism seems about
as concise and anti-mysticism plain:

Hail Satan!

It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.

"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!

If anyone thinks that by denying his natural desires
he can avoid mediocrity, he should examine the Eastern
mystical beliefs which have been in great intellectual
favor in recent years. Christianity is "old hat," so
those who wish to escape its fetters have turned to
so-called enlightened religions, such as Buddhism.
Although Christianity is certainly deserving of the
criticism it has received, perhaps it has been taking
more than its share of the blame. The followers of the
mystical beliefs are every bit as guilty of the little
humanisms as the "misguided" Christians. Both religions
are based on trite philosophies, but the mystical
religionists profess to be enlightened and emancipated
from the guilt-ridden dogma which is typified by
Christianity. However, the Eastern mystic is even more
preoccupied than the Christian with avoiding animalistic
actions that remind him he is not a "saint," but merely
a man -- only another form of animal, sometimes better,
*more often worse*, than those who walk on all fours;
and who, because of his "divine spiritual and
intellectual development," has become the
most vicious animal of all!

The Satanist asks, "What is wrong with being human,
and having human limitations as well as assetts?" By
denying his desires the mystic has come no closer to
overcoming compulsion than his kindred soul, the
Christian. The Eastern mystical beliefs have taught
people to contemplate their navels, stand on their
heads, stare at blank walls, avoid the use of labels
in life, and discipline themselves against any
desire for materialistic pleasures.
------------------------------------------------------
pp. 83-4, The Satanic Bible, LaVey.
======================================

and

The Eastern mystical beliefs teach humans to discipline
themselves against any conscious will for success so
they might dissolve thmeselves into "Universal Cosmic
Awareness" -- anything to avoid good healthy self-
satisfaction or honest pride in earthly accomplishments!

It is interesting to note that the areas in which this
type of belief flourishes are those where material gains
are not easily obtainable. For this reason the predominant
religious belief must be one which commends its followers
for their rejection of material things and their avoidance
of the use of labels which attaches a certain amount of
importance to material gains. In this way people can be
pacified into accepting their lot, no matter how small it
may be.

Satanism uses many labels. If it were not for names, very
few of us would understand anything in life, much less
attach any significance to it; -- and significance compels
recognition, which is something *everyone* wants,
especially the Eastern mystic who tries to prove to
everyone how he can meditate longer or stand more
deprivation and pain than the next fellow.

The Eastern philosophies preach the dissolution of man's
ego before he can produce sins. It is unfathomable to the
Satanist to conceive of an ego which would willfully
choose denial of itself.

In countries where this is used as a sop for the willingly
impoverished, it is understandable that a philosophy which
teaches the denial of the ego would serve a useful purpose
-- at least for those in power, to whom it would be
detrimental if their people were discontented. But for
anyone who has every opportunity for material gain, to
*choose* this form of religious thought seems foolish indeed!

The Eastern mystic believes strongly in reincarnation.
To a person who has virtually nothing in this life, the
possibility that he might have been a king in a past life
or may be one in the next life is very attractive, and does
much to appease his need for self-respect. If there is
nothing in which they can take pride in this life, they can
console themselves by thinking, "there are always future
lives." It never occurs to the believer in reincarnation
that if his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather,
etc. had developed "good karmas," by their adherence to
the same beliefs and ethics as his present ones -- then why
is he now living in privation, rather than like a maharajah?

Belief in reincarnation provides a beautiful fantasy world
in which a person can find the proper avenue of ego-
expression but at the same time claim to have dissolved
his ego. This is emphasized by the roles people choose
for themselves in their past or future lives.
------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 92-3.
======================

these selections from the Satanic Bible go some distance in
showing how LaVey viewed mysticism (esp. Eastern) and its
negative aspects. perhaps I'll critique this later as to its
problems and weaknesses in the face of global mystical ideas,
and explore the advanced notions of mysticism supposed by
LaVey and others, including my own theories.

blessed beast!

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
FrankB
2004-12-31 12:45:26 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:35:22 +0000, Chicken Soup suggested the following
Post by SOD of the CoE
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
if you insist :
***@satanservice.org

Do you deliver hot spiced pizza's also ?

./
! Sala'm oual'eikhoum
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-02 20:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Hi to both Bobo and Joseph, see in.
Post by SOD of the CoE
50041231 viii om Hael Satan!
#>#> ...a certain *character* of expression,
#>#> like "Satanism is..." or even "to me, Satanism is..." and better
#>#> "Satan is..." "I think of Satan as positive because...".
# Of the evolution of myth. Devils are but the Gods of conquered
# peoples.
True, or they are deities that are perceived as devilish or dangerous by
outsiders to the culture.
Post by SOD of the CoE
simultaneously coincident with such authors as JBRussell and those
even who appear to have cavorted with devils, such as Crowley. the
contention about devils from the outside is not first-person and
therefore not someone's contention about their Satanism, which was
my intention in description above.
#># Satanism is what a person WILL DO, automatically,
#># when and if they are directly in touch with that
#># Boundless Darkness
# But what is this "boundless darkness"? what does it mean,
# what does it do?
What does it NOT do is a better question. If is infused in all things of
nature, it urges them on, motivates them. Part of this "Thatness" is
formulated on here:
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/entropy.html
Post by SOD of the CoE
while I cannot answer for Tani, I can provide my best guess as to
what she might say. the boundless darkness cannot truly be defined
or clearly identified.
Right, but as shown above (url) some of what it does CAN be quantified, seen
and measured (which blows my mind!!!)

it is called by a variety of names, some of
Post by SOD of the CoE
which she has laid out in other contexts, such as Mahakala. all of
the various referents are just different ways of saying the same
thing and referencing some kind of internal experience.
Internal first, then external also - and even as shown in url, some geniuses
measured it.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#># that infuses the parts of nature that are emanated from
#># the Light.
#
# I understand certain myths suggest or claim we (the physical
# universe) come from the light "let there be light" and all
# that but it does not really explain anything,
CF Big Bang - point singularity - that's the "light" before it went bang and
expanded. That explains a lot in scientific terms.
Post by SOD of the CoE
attempting to salvage the most literal interpretation first,
it might mean something literal if 'light' refers to energy.
at that point one might bring to the discussion the variable
appearance of energy and mass and their rough equation with
respect to the speed of light (ask Einstein how he got it).
# at best this "light" is explained as a metaphor,
It's no metaphor.
Post by SOD of the CoE
even for energy, I'd wager, though I tried above to make it
into something more fanciful.
# and even if there is a physical corollary i have not had it
# explained to me and doubt any one has come up with a convincing
# explanation of how "light" tuned into matter.
See science for origin of universe and how the point singularity and such
became hardened, i.e., MASS.

E =Mc 2 i understand at
Post by SOD of the CoE
# least in theory but the usual religious explanations for this "light"
# and its conversion or "fall" into matter have not been resolved,
# satisfactorily, at least to me. Even taking the mathmatical equation at
# face value as a type of explination for the phenomina it does not
# explain why the phenomina "is" merely how it functions.
Why it is, is why it is. Why is the universe expanding? We know it IS doing
that, but why? Heh. It's the "WHAT IS."
Post by SOD of the CoE
the 'why' of phenomena is always unavailable to us and
inferred by multitudinous mythologies and imaginative tales.
Not so. The "WHY" of a lot of the stuff we talk about at least, IS
explained scientifically and more - it is USED in technology. As Heisenberg
said I think to Einstein - it doesn't matter if we know the literal WHAT IS
IT regarding electrons - are these particles or waves or whatever. We can
USE it - DO things with it.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#># They will DO the Will of that Boundless Darkness and their
#># own Will, it will be One Will.
#
# Are you writing of primal, instinctual, animalistic reaction
# to the universe? And "Satan" and "darkness" somehow
# exemplifying this?
No. It's not anthropomorphic. See formula and explanation in URL I just
gave. Life and all things WILL DO that - whether they want to or now,
whether they know they do it, or not.
Post by SOD of the CoE
that one I can't really guess. it sounds about right.
#> I read something keen today. summary of Satan's Master Plan according
#> to LaVey and Barton: the aim is the overthrow of mystical-religions
#> ("The Church of Satan").
Mystical religion is on the rise for one very simple reason: society is in
chaos and the economy SUCKS. So their master plan is a pipe dream. I
believe they were also against pipe dreaming and thought only fools pipe
dream - and I agree on that point. It's better to know WHY such ideas arise
in society and proliferate, than try to overthrow them. Give everyone a good
job with lots of leisure and a really GOOD living wage, no threats of
terrorist bogeymen around every corner (while the borders are wide
open.....) - and religion of all kinds will fade (again). That's how you
combat it. Question is, WHY would anyone set out to combat it with no clue
as to HOW to combat it and no ability to do it at all? Those people can't
FIX the society or economy at all. So their master plan is a pipe dream. I
can't see Anton making up a plan like that - the man was NOT a pipe dreamer.
Post by SOD of the CoE
"To completely overthrow mystically-oriented
religions, Satanists choose active opposition."
------------------------------------------------
-- Anton Szandor LaVey
in "The Church of Satan", by Blanche Barton,
Hell's Kitchen Productions, 1991; p. 79.
Ah, she wrote that. He did not write that.
Post by SOD of the CoE
================================================
# Some people have had a limited amount of success in "overthrowing"
# religion and mysticism. "The opiate of the masses and all that".
# Yet i would tend to agree with the Confucian point of view about
# it and human nature, no matter how irrational it may be, the human
# animal has a tendency towards superstitious awe of the universe and seeks
# to propitiate it with fetish and taboo, the Lars and Pente. And the powers
# that be would probly be more successful in co opting it and using it to
# their own benefit rather than fighting against it *consider the most
# recent U.S. election). If the human animal ever gets rid of religion it
# will probly be more due to a maturing of the species, like an individual
# "growing up" hopefully, at some point the species as a whole will untie
# the apron strings that still bind it to "The Great Parent".
so it seems that you substantially agree with ASLaVey and TJantsang.
as their 'mysticism' is sloggy and extreme, it is difficult not to.
however, I'd suggest that neither of them had a very thorough
understanding of the breadth to which what is called "mysticism"
might be applied, as has become apparent in recent conversation
about such topic in this forum. since Tani says that she doesn't
really care if her language is understood and conforms to standard
conventions on the topic of mysticism (indicating that any semblance
between hers and the terminology, for example, of contemplatives,
is completely unintentional and that the "special" quality of
mysticism obviates her "everyday experience" to another category),
I turn instead to LaVey, whose expression on mysticism seems about
I don't see how doing "spells" is anti mystical. I don't see how even
knowing the names of those deities or devils of other cultures is anti
mystical.
Post by SOD of the CoE
Hail Satan!
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
Diets are DIE its. Rubbish, I say to that.
Post by SOD of the CoE
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist.
OK, same page.

He would rather eat a
Post by SOD of the CoE
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment.
YES!

It seems, to the Satanist, that after
Post by SOD of the CoE
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
Well, I never had that experience and don't tend to hang with those who did.
Post by SOD of the CoE
If anyone thinks that by denying his natural desires
he can avoid mediocrity, he should examine the Eastern
mystical beliefs which have been in great intellectual
favor in recent years. Christianity is "old hat," so
those who wish to escape its fetters have turned to
so-called enlightened religions, such as Buddhism.
Yah, but they make pooop out of it and misunderstand everything.
Post by SOD of the CoE
Although Christianity is certainly deserving of the
criticism it has received, perhaps it has been taking
more than its share of the blame. The followers of the
mystical beliefs are every bit as guilty of the little
humanisms as the "misguided" Christians. Both religions
are based on trite philosophies, but the mystical
religionists profess to be enlightened and emancipated
from the guilt-ridden dogma which is typified by
Christianity. However, the Eastern mystic is even more
preoccupied than the Christian with avoiding animalistic
actions that remind him he is not a "saint,"
No no, that's only the specific "eastern mystics" that the west knows about.
The western readers tend to have a blind spot for such warrior conquerers
and meat eaters and hearty drinkers like Amursana, Temursana and so forth,
with their many many wives :) In other words, they ignore FAT, DRUNK,
POLYGAMIST Marpa the Adept and Teacher, in favor of the student Mila Repa,
the guy who had to become an ascetic elsewise he destroy himself - to give
you just one example. Btw, Chinese Confucist culture is Atheistic.

but merely
Post by SOD of the CoE
a man -- only another form of animal, sometimes better,
*more often worse*, than those who walk on all fours;
and who, because of his "divine spiritual and
intellectual development," has become the
most vicious animal of all!
The Satanist asks, "What is wrong with being human,
and having human limitations as well as assetts?" By
denying his desires the mystic has come no closer to
overcoming compulsion than his kindred soul, the
Christian. The Eastern mystical beliefs have taught
people to contemplate their navels, stand on their
heads, stare at blank walls, avoid the use of labels
in life, and discipline themselves against any
desire for materialistic pleasures.
This is simply not so; and it's all Anton ever knew of it also until he saw
some of our stuff. But it is pretty much what western people THINK. Then
again, as I said to Bobo - my relatives and the whole community were filled
with former Red Army soldiers (they fought in the war without the Geneva
Convention rules, remember?), NKVD personnel, and even some that sided with
the Nazi SS - people who fought in a war of extermination with no rules and
did atrocities the likes of which drove the SS insane when they saw women
and KIDS doing these things to grown soldiers. However, coming here as not
so welcome immigrants, even quipped at as "blood thirsty descendents of
Jenghis Khan, - these same people managed to portray a character that wears
a halo that can do no wrong, that was innocently caught between two "very
bad evils" the Commies and Nazis. How did they manage to do that? Easy.
Western people believe what they want to believe; it's all show for them.
Show them a Lama dressed in Lama costume hell bent intent on getting himself
a god damned cup of coffee and ignoring everyone in his path to the building
where the food/coffee is - and they manage to see "a Lama deep in
meditation" - they think that because the Lama ignored them and made a bee
line inside the building. Show them the same Lama dressed in jeans and
t-shirt and they don't even know it's a Lama.
Post by SOD of the CoE
------------------------------------------------------
pp. 83-4, The Satanic Bible, LaVey.
======================================
and
The Eastern mystical beliefs teach humans to discipline
themselves against any conscious will for success so
they might dissolve thmeselves into "Universal Cosmic
Awareness" -- anything to avoid good healthy self-
satisfaction or honest pride in earthly accomplishments!
A statement made based on pure ignorance. Most of the "oriental despots"
were adepts in the yogas, btw. Just thought you'd want to know that. No one
can doubt that they indulged.
Post by SOD of the CoE
It is interesting to note that the areas in which this
type of belief flourishes are those where material gains
are not easily obtainable.
HA, yes, but the despots and Lamas, often also war lords (they double as
both) tend to have material things, UH. Even Dalai Lama - living amidst all
that gold, hey? But this echoes what I said above. If you want to stop the
MAJORITY OF PEOPLE (not the priests or leaders) from believing many things -
FIX THE FUCKING ECONOMY. There is no OTHER way to combat the proliferation
of beliefs. And someone left out the UFO religion here.

For this reason the predominant
Post by SOD of the CoE
religious belief must be one which commends its followers
for their rejection of material things and their avoidance
of the use of labels which attaches a certain amount of
importance to material gains. In this way people can be
pacified into accepting their lot, no matter how small it
may be.
The Europeans did the same during the time of land barons kings and serfs.
I criticized the Dalai Lama on that shit. Even in the late 1970s, when he
came to visit us - I can honestly say that not ONE SINGLE person there was
POOR even even lower middle class. NONE.
Post by SOD of the CoE
Satanism uses many labels. If it were not for names, very
few of us would understand anything in life, much less
attach any significance to it; -- and significance compels
recognition, which is something *everyone* wants,
especially the Eastern mystic who tries to prove to
everyone how he can meditate longer or stand more
deprivation and pain than the next fellow.
Again, a statement made out of pure ignorance. I'm what western people
would call an eastern mystic - I even have a fucking "divine title" in the
damned community which really amounts to nothing except to say I have a
knack for a few things and did as a kid - which is WHEN I got the title - as
a kid. I drink, I eat OH GOD YES I eat delicious food, I love to dance, I
love the beach - and whatever else - I definitely VALUE the piece of peace I
have, I like my TV shows and the FUN I'm able to have because I'm NOT poor.
I don't regard ANY of the things I can do as mystical - tho others might. I
should care that others see it that way? I tell them it's not mystical, I
even try to explain HOW to do it if they ask - no use with most. I give up.
Post by SOD of the CoE
The Eastern philosophies preach the dissolution of man's
ego before he can produce sins. It is unfathomable to the
Satanist to conceive of an ego which would willfully
choose denial of itself.
Again, a statement made out of ignorance - and notably what most western
(idiots) people think of eastern stuff. God, are they BLIND?
Post by SOD of the CoE
In countries where this is used as a sop for the willingly
impoverished, it is understandable that a philosophy which
teaches the denial of the ego would serve a useful purpose
-- at least for those in power, to whom it would be
detrimental if their people were discontented. But for
anyone who has every opportunity for material gain, to
*choose* this form of religious thought seems foolish indeed!
Agree. But if Lama finds out he can teach simple relaxation techniques to
pent up fools and make money - he will surely do that and tell them that
they have reached nirvana (after they spent enough). What, fault eastern
people for taking advantage of fools? Why? No one forces them to buy.
Post by SOD of the CoE
The Eastern mystic believes strongly in reincarnation.
To a person who has virtually nothing in this life, the
possibility that he might have been a king in a past life
or may be one in the next life is very attractive, and does
much to appease his need for self-respect. If there is
nothing in which they can take pride in this life, they can
console themselves by thinking, "there are always future
lives." It never occurs to the believer in reincarnation
that if his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather,
etc. had developed "good karmas," by their adherence to
the same beliefs and ethics as his present ones -- then why
is he now living in privation, rather than like a maharajah?
Read Marx. Right now, no one in China is living in privation.
Post by SOD of the CoE
Belief in reincarnation provides a beautiful fantasy world
in which a person can find the proper avenue of ego-
expression but at the same time claim to have dissolved
his ego. This is emphasized by the roles people choose
for themselves in their past or future lives.
More ignorance tho - the writer has NO CLUE what the actual doctrine of
reincarnation is. It states that you ARE all your lives right now - and
they ain't necessarily all human. No use dwelling on it - because the
entire YOU that's you right here and now is NOT the same "you" in some other
life. THAT is what it really states. Even Alexandra David-Neel explained
this pretty clearly.
Post by SOD of the CoE
------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 92-3.
======================
these selections from the Satanic Bible go some distance in
showing how LaVey viewed mysticism (esp. Eastern) and its
negative aspects. perhaps I'll critique this later as to its
problems and weaknesses in the face of global mystical ideas,
and explore the advanced notions of mysticism supposed by
LaVey and others, including my own theories.
What use is there to explore ideas of eastern practices when the person
spouting them is purely ignorant of the realities? Whatever rocks yer boat.
Post by SOD of the CoE
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
tyaginator
2005-01-02 22:07:25 UTC
Permalink
brief explanatory note regarding a source.

C$> To completely overthrow mystically-oriented
C$> religions, Satanists choose active opposition."
C$> ------------------------------------------------
C$> -- Anton Szandor LaVey
C$> in "The Church of Satan", by Blanche Barton,
C$> Hell's Kitchen Productions, 1991; p. 79.

Tani:
# Ah, she wrote that. He did not write that.

the quote is from Barton's interview with LaVey.
do you think she'd fabrcate his words? if so, why?

Barton wrote "The Church of Satan", but LaVey is quoted.
the book's pretty in many spots. it is one of the most
coherent works from LaVey and Barton combined.

blessed beast!

tyaginator => boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/

50050102 aa-viii om followup alt.satanism
SOD of the CoE
2005-01-09 08:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Tani:
#>#> She also told the newspapers that he really believed in the devil....

"Tani Jantsang ©" <***@SPAMpost.com>:
# 1. Aquino: "belief in a literal Devil was axiomatic to all our (Aquino &
# Lavey) conversations and collaborations.

yow. and they were friends too. church pals.

# 2. Barton explained to the San Francisco Chronicle 11./8/97 at a press
# conference following Lavey's death in 1997 that Lavey had believed in the
# Devil.

quotes?

# 3. In an article in the Occult Explotion Lavey acknowledged that many

Occult Exploitation? Occult Exploration?

# members of the COS who are mystically inclined prefer to think of Satan in
# a very real, anthropormorphic way. Of course we do not discourage this,
# because we realize that it is very important to many individuals to
# ritualistically conceptualize a well wrought picture of their mentor or
# tutelary divinity. In answer to those who would label us Devil worshipers
# or Satan worshipers, I must say that Satan demands study, not worship.
# [Note that he does not reject the belief in Satan, only the worship of it.]
# 2 page 740.
^^^^^^^^^^

what does this mean? media interviews are one thing, bibles another.

# I HATE to have to go do your research for you, Bobo.

sorry dear, I was curious because you'd said stuff.
naturally I wanted to hear what more you had to say. :>

# Really. You can do better than that. Some documents that
# have this in them are not copy pasteable.

# He also made quite a few mystical statements in print about
# music and The Muse.

inconsistent, like Crowley? that wouldn't explain his
persistent criticism of hippies drugs and Wiccans.
perhaps that part was his social/ethnic background?

hm, stupid hunk white supremacist Satanists meeting up with
a bald goatee-wearer named "LaVey" would figure him French
and when hearing he was called 'Tony', maybe Italian (even
some Mephistophelean orgiastic organist).

maybe he had to survive by hiding from the back-woods
hicks that hated Jews and commies and Satanists until
one day Satanism became A-OK for racist brutes to join
based on Black Metal logic. maybe a leather biker HPs?

blessed beast!

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/

50050109 aa-viii om
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-11 08:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by SOD of the CoE
#>#> She also told the newspapers that he really believed in the devil....
# 1. Aquino: "belief in a literal Devil was axiomatic to all our (Aquino &
# Lavey) conversations and collaborations.
yow. and they were friends too. church pals.
# 2. Barton explained to the San Francisco Chronicle 11./8/97 at a press
# conference following Lavey's death in 1997 that Lavey had believed in the
# Devil.
quotes?
Don't have the quotes - but I just gave you the exact reference. "He
believed in the devil" is what she told them.
Post by SOD of the CoE
# 3. In an article in the Occult Explotion Lavey acknowledged that many
Occult Exploitation? Occult Exploration?
Occult Explosion - sorry bout that.
Post by SOD of the CoE
# members of the COS who are mystically inclined prefer to think of Satan in
# a very real, anthropormorphic way. Of course we do not discourage this,
# because we realize that it is very important to many individuals to
# ritualistically conceptualize a well wrought picture of their mentor or
# tutelary divinity. In answer to those who would label us Devil worshipers
# or Satan worshipers, I must say that Satan demands study, not worship.
# [Note that he does not reject the belief in Satan, only the worship of it.]
# 2 page 740.
^^^^^^^^^^
what does this mean? media interviews are one thing, bibles another.
They are his own words. You seem to want to eliminate some of what he
said - and only focus on other parts of what he said. Sorry, but that's a
quote from Lavey.
Post by SOD of the CoE
# I HATE to have to go do your research for you, Bobo.
sorry dear, I was curious because you'd said stuff.
naturally I wanted to hear what more you had to say. :>
# Really. You can do better than that. Some documents that
# have this in them are not copy pasteable.
# He also made quite a few mystical statements in print about
# music and The Muse.
inconsistent, like Crowley? that wouldn't explain his
persistent criticism of hippies drugs and Wiccans.
perhaps that part was his social/ethnic background?
Yes, he was very inconsistent - read Ole Wolf's essay there. You have it.
Read it. From what I gather, aside from his dislike of drugs and drug
users - he didn't like the hippie attire since he prefered guys looking like
old style gangsters and girls looking like hookers (old style). He states
what time period he liked the best - and the attire that went with that time
period. These were his PERSONAL tastes - but to say they have a thing to do
with Satanism is crazy.
Post by SOD of the CoE
hm, stupid hunk white supremacist Satanists meeting up with
a bald goatee-wearer named "LaVey" would figure him French
and when hearing he was called 'Tony', maybe Italian (even
some Mephistophelean orgiastic organist).
Well, back during George Lincoln Rockwell and James Madole days, they were
calling him a Jew and saying some other pretty bad shit about him - so I
doubt that any white supremacists would think otherwise.
Post by SOD of the CoE
maybe he had to survive by hiding from the back-woods
hicks that hated Jews and commies and Satanists until
one day Satanism became A-OK for racist brutes to join
based on Black Metal logic. maybe a leather biker HPs?
Later on, in the later 80s and 90s he seemed to cater to anyone that seemed
to LIKE him.
Post by SOD of the CoE
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
50050109 aa-viii om
Azure
2005-01-03 06:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Sorry Satan and the other "Fallen Angels" came down out of the heavens
and mingled with man, therefore read the teachings don't interpret
everything try reading in "Black and White".
Satan, Azazel refused to sign the pact with the other angels to portray
themselves as Gods before man.
They Fell from the Heavens in a "Great Meteor" which dug a "Bottomless
Pit".
They left a Mountain with a voice activated Door in it.
They gave a Sword and Spear of Light.
There was a Talking Idol in the form of a man.
The Bible is the strongest evidence to support the issue, but it is also
the Bard, Badghavadghita, the teachings of Delphi, the Thebans and
others.
Post by SOD of the CoE
50041231 viii om Hael Satan!
#>#> ...a certain *character* of expression,
#>#> like "Satanism is..." or even "to me, Satanism is..." and better
#>#> "Satan is..." "I think of Satan as positive because...".
# Of the evolution of myth. Devils are but the Gods of conquered
# peoples.
simultaneously coincident with such authors as JBRussell and those
even who appear to have cavorted with devils, such as Crowley. the
contention about devils from the outside is not first-person and
therefore not someone's contention about their Satanism, which was
my intention in description above.
#># Satanism is what a person WILL DO, automatically,
#># when and if they are directly in touch with that
#># Boundless Darkness
# But what is this "boundless darkness"? what does it mean,
# what does it do?
while I cannot answer for Tani, I can provide my best guess as to
what she might say. the boundless darkness cannot truly be defined
or clearly identified. it is called by a variety of names, some of
which she has laid out in other contexts, such as Mahakala. all of
the various referents are just different ways of saying the same
thing and referencing some kind of internal experience.
#># that infuses the parts of nature that are emanated from
#># the Light.
#
# I understand certain myths suggest or claim we (the physical
# universe) come from the light "let there be light" and all
# that but it does not really explain anything,
attempting to salvage the most literal interpretation first,
it might mean something literal if 'light' refers to energy.
at that point one might bring to the discussion the variable
appearance of energy and mass and their rough equation with
respect to the speed of light (ask Einstein how he got it).
# at best this "light" is explained as a metaphor,
even for energy, I'd wager, though I tried above to make it
into something more fanciful.
# and even if there is a physical corollary i have not had it
# explained to me and doubt any one has come up with a convincing
# explanation of how "light" tuned into matter. E =Mc 2 i understand at
# least in theory but the usual religious explanations for this "light"
# and its conversion or "fall" into matter have not been resolved,
# satisfactorily, at least to me. Even taking the mathmatical equation at
# face value as a type of explination for the phenomina it does not
# explain why the phenomina "is" merely how it functions.
the 'why' of phenomena is always unavailable to us and
inferred by multitudinous mythologies and imaginative tales.
#># They will DO the Will of that Boundless Darkness and their
#># own Will, it will be One Will.
#
# Are you writing of primal, instinctual, animalistic reaction
# to the universe? And "Satan" and "darkness" somehow
# exemplifying this?
that one I can't really guess. it sounds about right.
#> I read something keen today. summary of Satan's Master Plan according
#> to LaVey and Barton: the aim is the overthrow of mystical-religions
#> ("The Church of Satan").
"To completely overthrow mystically-oriented
religions, Satanists choose active opposition."
------------------------------------------------
-- Anton Szandor LaVey
in "The Church of Satan", by Blanche Barton,
Hell's Kitchen Productions, 1991; p. 79.
================================================
# Some people have had a limited amount of success in "overthrowing"
# religion and mysticism. "The opiate of the masses and all that".
# Yet i would tend to agree with the Confucian point of view about
# it and human nature, no matter how irrational it may be, the human
# animal has a tendency towards superstitious awe of the universe and seeks
# to propitiate it with fetish and taboo, the Lars and Pente. And the powers
# that be would probly be more successful in co opting it and using it to
# their own benefit rather than fighting against it *consider the most
# recent U.S. election). If the human animal ever gets rid of religion it
# will probly be more due to a maturing of the species, like an individual
# "growing up" hopefully, at some point the species as a whole will untie
# the apron strings that still bind it to "The Great Parent".
so it seems that you substantially agree with ASLaVey and TJantsang.
as their 'mysticism' is sloggy and extreme, it is difficult not to.
however, I'd suggest that neither of them had a very thorough
understanding of the breadth to which what is called "mysticism"
might be applied, as has become apparent in recent conversation
about such topic in this forum. since Tani says that she doesn't
really care if her language is understood and conforms to standard
conventions on the topic of mysticism (indicating that any semblance
between hers and the terminology, for example, of contemplatives,
is completely unintentional and that the "special" quality of
mysticism obviates her "everyday experience" to another category),
I turn instead to LaVey, whose expression on mysticism seems about
Hail Satan!
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
If anyone thinks that by denying his natural desires
he can avoid mediocrity, he should examine the Eastern
mystical beliefs which have been in great intellectual
favor in recent years. Christianity is "old hat," so
those who wish to escape its fetters have turned to
so-called enlightened religions, such as Buddhism.
Although Christianity is certainly deserving of the
criticism it has received, perhaps it has been taking
more than its share of the blame. The followers of the
mystical beliefs are every bit as guilty of the little
humanisms as the "misguided" Christians. Both religions
are based on trite philosophies, but the mystical
religionists profess to be enlightened and emancipated
from the guilt-ridden dogma which is typified by
Christianity. However, the Eastern mystic is even more
preoccupied than the Christian with avoiding animalistic
actions that remind him he is not a "saint," but merely
a man -- only another form of animal, sometimes better,
*more often worse*, than those who walk on all fours;
and who, because of his "divine spiritual and
intellectual development," has become the
most vicious animal of all!
The Satanist asks, "What is wrong with being human,
and having human limitations as well as assetts?" By
denying his desires the mystic has come no closer to
overcoming compulsion than his kindred soul, the
Christian. The Eastern mystical beliefs have taught
people to contemplate their navels, stand on their
heads, stare at blank walls, avoid the use of labels
in life, and discipline themselves against any
desire for materialistic pleasures.
------------------------------------------------------
pp. 83-4, The Satanic Bible, LaVey.
======================================
and
The Eastern mystical beliefs teach humans to discipline
themselves against any conscious will for success so
they might dissolve thmeselves into "Universal Cosmic
Awareness" -- anything to avoid good healthy self-
satisfaction or honest pride in earthly accomplishments!
It is interesting to note that the areas in which this
type of belief flourishes are those where material gains
are not easily obtainable. For this reason the predominant
religious belief must be one which commends its followers
for their rejection of material things and their avoidance
of the use of labels which attaches a certain amount of
importance to material gains. In this way people can be
pacified into accepting their lot, no matter how small it
may be.
Satanism uses many labels. If it were not for names, very
few of us would understand anything in life, much less
attach any significance to it; -- and significance compels
recognition, which is something *everyone* wants,
especially the Eastern mystic who tries to prove to
everyone how he can meditate longer or stand more
deprivation and pain than the next fellow.
The Eastern philosophies preach the dissolution of man's
ego before he can produce sins. It is unfathomable to the
Satanist to conceive of an ego which would willfully
choose denial of itself.
In countries where this is used as a sop for the willingly
impoverished, it is understandable that a philosophy which
teaches the denial of the ego would serve a useful purpose
-- at least for those in power, to whom it would be
detrimental if their people were discontented. But for
anyone who has every opportunity for material gain, to
*choose* this form of religious thought seems foolish indeed!
The Eastern mystic believes strongly in reincarnation.
To a person who has virtually nothing in this life, the
possibility that he might have been a king in a past life
or may be one in the next life is very attractive, and does
much to appease his need for self-respect. If there is
nothing in which they can take pride in this life, they can
console themselves by thinking, "there are always future
lives." It never occurs to the believer in reincarnation
that if his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather,
etc. had developed "good karmas," by their adherence to
the same beliefs and ethics as his present ones -- then why
is he now living in privation, rather than like a maharajah?
Belief in reincarnation provides a beautiful fantasy world
in which a person can find the proper avenue of ego-
expression but at the same time claim to have dissolved
his ego. This is emphasized by the roles people choose
for themselves in their past or future lives.
------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 92-3.
======================
these selections from the Satanic Bible go some distance in
showing how LaVey viewed mysticism (esp. Eastern) and its
negative aspects. perhaps I'll critique this later as to its
problems and weaknesses in the face of global mystical ideas,
and explore the advanced notions of mysticism supposed by
LaVey and others, including my own theories.
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
Ben Schultz
2005-01-03 17:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Other than the passage in Isaiah, which is a discussion of the
physical country of Babylon & its king, and the book of revelations,
which is the end of the world, where does this book discuss the fall?
Post by Azure
Sorry Satan and the other "Fallen Angels" came down out of the heavens
and mingled with man, therefore read the teachings don't interpret
everything try reading in "Black and White".
Satan, Azazel refused to sign the pact with the other angels to portray
themselves as Gods before man.
They Fell from the Heavens in a "Great Meteor" which dug a "Bottomless
Pit".
They left a Mountain with a voice activated Door in it.
They gave a Sword and Spear of Light.
There was a Talking Idol in the form of a man.
The Bible is the strongest evidence to support the issue, but it is also
the Bard, Badghavadghita, the teachings of Delphi, the Thebans and
others.
Post by SOD of the CoE
50041231 viii om Hael Satan!
#>#> ...a certain *character* of expression,
#>#> like "Satanism is..." or even "to me, Satanism is..." and better
#>#> "Satan is..." "I think of Satan as positive because...".
# Of the evolution of myth. Devils are but the Gods of conquered
# peoples.
simultaneously coincident with such authors as JBRussell and those
even who appear to have cavorted with devils, such as Crowley. the
contention about devils from the outside is not first-person and
therefore not someone's contention about their Satanism, which was
my intention in description above.
#># Satanism is what a person WILL DO, automatically,
#># when and if they are directly in touch with that
#># Boundless Darkness
# But what is this "boundless darkness"? what does it mean,
# what does it do?
while I cannot answer for Tani, I can provide my best guess as to
what she might say. the boundless darkness cannot truly be defined
or clearly identified. it is called by a variety of names, some of
which she has laid out in other contexts, such as Mahakala. all of
the various referents are just different ways of saying the same
thing and referencing some kind of internal experience.
#># that infuses the parts of nature that are emanated from
#># the Light.
#
# I understand certain myths suggest or claim we (the physical
# universe) come from the light "let there be light" and all
# that but it does not really explain anything,
attempting to salvage the most literal interpretation first,
it might mean something literal if 'light' refers to energy.
at that point one might bring to the discussion the variable
appearance of energy and mass and their rough equation with
respect to the speed of light (ask Einstein how he got it).
# at best this "light" is explained as a metaphor,
even for energy, I'd wager, though I tried above to make it
into something more fanciful.
# and even if there is a physical corollary i have not had it
# explained to me and doubt any one has come up with a convincing
# explanation of how "light" tuned into matter. E =Mc 2 i understand at
# least in theory but the usual religious explanations for this "light"
# and its conversion or "fall" into matter have not been resolved,
# satisfactorily, at least to me. Even taking the mathmatical equation at
# face value as a type of explination for the phenomina it does not
# explain why the phenomina "is" merely how it functions.
the 'why' of phenomena is always unavailable to us and
inferred by multitudinous mythologies and imaginative tales.
#># They will DO the Will of that Boundless Darkness and their
#># own Will, it will be One Will.
#
# Are you writing of primal, instinctual, animalistic reaction
# to the universe? And "Satan" and "darkness" somehow
# exemplifying this?
that one I can't really guess. it sounds about right.
#> I read something keen today. summary of Satan's Master Plan according
#> to LaVey and Barton: the aim is the overthrow of mystical-religions
#> ("The Church of Satan").
"To completely overthrow mystically-oriented
religions, Satanists choose active opposition."
------------------------------------------------
-- Anton Szandor LaVey
in "The Church of Satan", by Blanche Barton,
Hell's Kitchen Productions, 1991; p. 79.
================================================
# Some people have had a limited amount of success in "overthrowing"
# religion and mysticism. "The opiate of the masses and all that".
# Yet i would tend to agree with the Confucian point of view about
# it and human nature, no matter how irrational it may be, the human
# animal has a tendency towards superstitious awe of the universe and seeks
# to propitiate it with fetish and taboo, the Lars and Pente. And the powers
# that be would probly be more successful in co opting it and using it to
# their own benefit rather than fighting against it *consider the most
# recent U.S. election). If the human animal ever gets rid of religion it
# will probly be more due to a maturing of the species, like an individual
# "growing up" hopefully, at some point the species as a whole will untie
# the apron strings that still bind it to "The Great Parent".
so it seems that you substantially agree with ASLaVey and TJantsang.
as their 'mysticism' is sloggy and extreme, it is difficult not to.
however, I'd suggest that neither of them had a very thorough
understanding of the breadth to which what is called "mysticism"
might be applied, as has become apparent in recent conversation
about such topic in this forum. since Tani says that she doesn't
really care if her language is understood and conforms to standard
conventions on the topic of mysticism (indicating that any semblance
between hers and the terminology, for example, of contemplatives,
is completely unintentional and that the "special" quality of
mysticism obviates her "everyday experience" to another category),
I turn instead to LaVey, whose expression on mysticism seems about
Hail Satan!
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
If anyone thinks that by denying his natural desires
he can avoid mediocrity, he should examine the Eastern
mystical beliefs which have been in great intellectual
favor in recent years. Christianity is "old hat," so
those who wish to escape its fetters have turned to
so-called enlightened religions, such as Buddhism.
Although Christianity is certainly deserving of the
criticism it has received, perhaps it has been taking
more than its share of the blame. The followers of the
mystical beliefs are every bit as guilty of the little
humanisms as the "misguided" Christians. Both religions
are based on trite philosophies, but the mystical
religionists profess to be enlightened and emancipated
from the guilt-ridden dogma which is typified by
Christianity. However, the Eastern mystic is even more
preoccupied than the Christian with avoiding animalistic
actions that remind him he is not a "saint," but merely
a man -- only another form of animal, sometimes better,
*more often worse*, than those who walk on all fours;
and who, because of his "divine spiritual and
intellectual development," has become the
most vicious animal of all!
The Satanist asks, "What is wrong with being human,
and having human limitations as well as assetts?" By
denying his desires the mystic has come no closer to
overcoming compulsion than his kindred soul, the
Christian. The Eastern mystical beliefs have taught
people to contemplate their navels, stand on their
heads, stare at blank walls, avoid the use of labels
in life, and discipline themselves against any
desire for materialistic pleasures.
------------------------------------------------------
pp. 83-4, The Satanic Bible, LaVey.
======================================
and
The Eastern mystical beliefs teach humans to discipline
themselves against any conscious will for success so
they might dissolve thmeselves into "Universal Cosmic
Awareness" -- anything to avoid good healthy self-
satisfaction or honest pride in earthly accomplishments!
It is interesting to note that the areas in which this
type of belief flourishes are those where material gains
are not easily obtainable. For this reason the predominant
religious belief must be one which commends its followers
for their rejection of material things and their avoidance
of the use of labels which attaches a certain amount of
importance to material gains. In this way people can be
pacified into accepting their lot, no matter how small it
may be.
Satanism uses many labels. If it were not for names, very
few of us would understand anything in life, much less
attach any significance to it; -- and significance compels
recognition, which is something *everyone* wants,
especially the Eastern mystic who tries to prove to
everyone how he can meditate longer or stand more
deprivation and pain than the next fellow.
The Eastern philosophies preach the dissolution of man's
ego before he can produce sins. It is unfathomable to the
Satanist to conceive of an ego which would willfully
choose denial of itself.
In countries where this is used as a sop for the willingly
impoverished, it is understandable that a philosophy which
teaches the denial of the ego would serve a useful purpose
-- at least for those in power, to whom it would be
detrimental if their people were discontented. But for
anyone who has every opportunity for material gain, to
*choose* this form of religious thought seems foolish indeed!
The Eastern mystic believes strongly in reincarnation.
To a person who has virtually nothing in this life, the
possibility that he might have been a king in a past life
or may be one in the next life is very attractive, and does
much to appease his need for self-respect. If there is
nothing in which they can take pride in this life, they can
console themselves by thinking, "there are always future
lives." It never occurs to the believer in reincarnation
that if his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather,
etc. had developed "good karmas," by their adherence to
the same beliefs and ethics as his present ones -- then why
is he now living in privation, rather than like a maharajah?
Belief in reincarnation provides a beautiful fantasy world
in which a person can find the proper avenue of ego-
expression but at the same time claim to have dissolved
his ego. This is emphasized by the roles people choose
for themselves in their past or future lives.
------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 92-3.
======================
these selections from the Satanic Bible go some distance in
showing how LaVey viewed mysticism (esp. Eastern) and its
negative aspects. perhaps I'll critique this later as to its
problems and weaknesses in the face of global mystical ideas,
and explore the advanced notions of mysticism supposed by
LaVey and others, including my own theories.
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell

www.devilzown.com
SOD of the CoE
2005-01-04 04:11:54 UTC
Permalink
hi Azure.

Azure <***@faerie.org>:
#> Sorry Satan and the other "Fallen Angels" came down out of the heavens
#> and mingled with man,

the clouds (supernatural Nth-dimensionals gating in-out of the clouds)?
the skies (extraterrestrial interlopers)?
the superior realms (devas, gods, angelos, or archons)?

#> Satan, Azazel refused to sign the pact with the other angels to portray
#> themselves as Gods before man. They Fell from the Heavens in a "Great Meteor"

there's one that Muslims worship toward (the House of God: Ka'ab).
it becomes a kind of axial or concentric symbolism.

#> The Bible is the strongest evidence to support the issue,

ok, thanks. so many to choose from. the Satanists have a few now too.

#> but it is also the Bard,

that's a book? I thought it was a storyteller.

#> Badghavadghita,

usually Bhagavad Gita, the Song of the Divine. well, not yours.

#> the teachings of Delphi, the Thebans and others.

they have entertainers and actors in heaven?


yo Ben! have you got "Satanism Today...."?

Ben Schultz <***@devilzown.com>:
# Other than the passage in Isaiah, which is a discussion
# of the physical country of Babylon & its king, and the
# book of revelations, which is the end of the world,
# where does this book discuss the fall?

there's supposed a mention in the Newer Testament too,
but its crafting as echo to Judaism allows many views.

all the same, try The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha:
Noah/Enoch primarily, from what I can tell. the parts
to which he may be referring are probably contained at
the TOKUS website on one of the Propaganda pages:

ahhh, here it is.

http://www.satanservice.org/propaganda/apoc.eno.txt

Milton and others ran with it, flooding the cosmology
into the culture until it became a cult truth. it is
also undoubtedly an echo of other middle-eastern faiths.

blessed beast!

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/

50050103 aa-viii om followup-to alt.magick.tyagi,alt.satanism,alt.mythology
Azure
2005-01-04 05:40:04 UTC
Permalink
It doesn't so why is everyone down on Satan?
Hebrews gave the teachings, look up Azazel, or find ENOCH.
Then explain to me why the Hebrew teachings talk of God as the Lake of
Fire, and Satan being evil for refusing to sign a pact with others to
portray themselves as Gods, and walking away from the group to freely
give knowledge to mankind.
That's Evil?
Post by Ben Schultz
Other than the passage in Isaiah, which is a discussion of the
physical country of Babylon & its king, and the book of revelations,
which is the end of the world, where does this book discuss the fall?
Post by Azure
Sorry Satan and the other "Fallen Angels" came down out of the heavens
and mingled with man, therefore read the teachings don't interpret
everything try reading in "Black and White".
Satan, Azazel refused to sign the pact with the other angels to portray
themselves as Gods before man.
They Fell from the Heavens in a "Great Meteor" which dug a "Bottomless
Pit".
They left a Mountain with a voice activated Door in it.
They gave a Sword and Spear of Light.
There was a Talking Idol in the form of a man.
The Bible is the strongest evidence to support the issue, but it is also
the Bard, Badghavadghita, the teachings of Delphi, the Thebans and
others.
Post by SOD of the CoE
50041231 viii om Hael Satan!
#>#> ...a certain *character* of expression,
#>#> like "Satanism is..." or even "to me, Satanism is..." and better
#>#> "Satan is..." "I think of Satan as positive because...".
# Of the evolution of myth. Devils are but the Gods of conquered
# peoples.
simultaneously coincident with such authors as JBRussell and those
even who appear to have cavorted with devils, such as Crowley. the
contention about devils from the outside is not first-person and
therefore not someone's contention about their Satanism, which was
my intention in description above.
#># Satanism is what a person WILL DO, automatically,
#># when and if they are directly in touch with that
#># Boundless Darkness
# But what is this "boundless darkness"? what does it mean,
# what does it do?
while I cannot answer for Tani, I can provide my best guess as to
what she might say. the boundless darkness cannot truly be defined
or clearly identified. it is called by a variety of names, some of
which she has laid out in other contexts, such as Mahakala. all of
the various referents are just different ways of saying the same
thing and referencing some kind of internal experience.
#># that infuses the parts of nature that are emanated from
#># the Light.
#
# I understand certain myths suggest or claim we (the physical
# universe) come from the light "let there be light" and all
# that but it does not really explain anything,
attempting to salvage the most literal interpretation first,
it might mean something literal if 'light' refers to energy.
at that point one might bring to the discussion the variable
appearance of energy and mass and their rough equation with
respect to the speed of light (ask Einstein how he got it).
# at best this "light" is explained as a metaphor,
even for energy, I'd wager, though I tried above to make it
into something more fanciful.
# and even if there is a physical corollary i have not had it
# explained to me and doubt any one has come up with a convincing
# explanation of how "light" tuned into matter. E =Mc 2 i understand at
# least in theory but the usual religious explanations for this "light"
# and its conversion or "fall" into matter have not been resolved,
# satisfactorily, at least to me. Even taking the mathmatical equation at
# face value as a type of explination for the phenomina it does not
# explain why the phenomina "is" merely how it functions.
the 'why' of phenomena is always unavailable to us and
inferred by multitudinous mythologies and imaginative tales.
#># They will DO the Will of that Boundless Darkness and their
#># own Will, it will be One Will.
#
# Are you writing of primal, instinctual, animalistic reaction
# to the universe? And "Satan" and "darkness" somehow
# exemplifying this?
that one I can't really guess. it sounds about right.
#> I read something keen today. summary of Satan's Master Plan according
#> to LaVey and Barton: the aim is the overthrow of mystical-religions
#> ("The Church of Satan").
"To completely overthrow mystically-oriented
religions, Satanists choose active opposition."
------------------------------------------------
-- Anton Szandor LaVey
in "The Church of Satan", by Blanche Barton,
Hell's Kitchen Productions, 1991; p. 79.
================================================
# Some people have had a limited amount of success in "overthrowing"
# religion and mysticism. "The opiate of the masses and all that".
# Yet i would tend to agree with the Confucian point of view about
# it and human nature, no matter how irrational it may be, the human
# animal has a tendency towards superstitious awe of the universe and seeks
# to propitiate it with fetish and taboo, the Lars and Pente. And the powers
# that be would probly be more successful in co opting it and using it to
# their own benefit rather than fighting against it *consider the most
# recent U.S. election). If the human animal ever gets rid of religion it
# will probly be more due to a maturing of the species, like an individual
# "growing up" hopefully, at some point the species as a whole will untie
# the apron strings that still bind it to "The Great Parent".
so it seems that you substantially agree with ASLaVey and TJantsang.
as their 'mysticism' is sloggy and extreme, it is difficult not to.
however, I'd suggest that neither of them had a very thorough
understanding of the breadth to which what is called "mysticism"
might be applied, as has become apparent in recent conversation
about such topic in this forum. since Tani says that she doesn't
really care if her language is understood and conforms to standard
conventions on the topic of mysticism (indicating that any semblance
between hers and the terminology, for example, of contemplatives,
is completely unintentional and that the "special" quality of
mysticism obviates her "everyday experience" to another category),
I turn instead to LaVey, whose expression on mysticism seems about
Hail Satan!
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
If anyone thinks that by denying his natural desires
he can avoid mediocrity, he should examine the Eastern
mystical beliefs which have been in great intellectual
favor in recent years. Christianity is "old hat," so
those who wish to escape its fetters have turned to
so-called enlightened religions, such as Buddhism.
Although Christianity is certainly deserving of the
criticism it has received, perhaps it has been taking
more than its share of the blame. The followers of the
mystical beliefs are every bit as guilty of the little
humanisms as the "misguided" Christians. Both religions
are based on trite philosophies, but the mystical
religionists profess to be enlightened and emancipated
from the guilt-ridden dogma which is typified by
Christianity. However, the Eastern mystic is even more
preoccupied than the Christian with avoiding animalistic
actions that remind him he is not a "saint," but merely
a man -- only another form of animal, sometimes better,
*more often worse*, than those who walk on all fours;
and who, because of his "divine spiritual and
intellectual development," has become the
most vicious animal of all!
The Satanist asks, "What is wrong with being human,
and having human limitations as well as assetts?" By
denying his desires the mystic has come no closer to
overcoming compulsion than his kindred soul, the
Christian. The Eastern mystical beliefs have taught
people to contemplate their navels, stand on their
heads, stare at blank walls, avoid the use of labels
in life, and discipline themselves against any
desire for materialistic pleasures.
------------------------------------------------------
pp. 83-4, The Satanic Bible, LaVey.
======================================
and
The Eastern mystical beliefs teach humans to discipline
themselves against any conscious will for success so
they might dissolve thmeselves into "Universal Cosmic
Awareness" -- anything to avoid good healthy self-
satisfaction or honest pride in earthly accomplishments!
It is interesting to note that the areas in which this
type of belief flourishes are those where material gains
are not easily obtainable. For this reason the predominant
religious belief must be one which commends its followers
for their rejection of material things and their avoidance
of the use of labels which attaches a certain amount of
importance to material gains. In this way people can be
pacified into accepting their lot, no matter how small it
may be.
Satanism uses many labels. If it were not for names, very
few of us would understand anything in life, much less
attach any significance to it; -- and significance compels
recognition, which is something *everyone* wants,
especially the Eastern mystic who tries to prove to
everyone how he can meditate longer or stand more
deprivation and pain than the next fellow.
The Eastern philosophies preach the dissolution of man's
ego before he can produce sins. It is unfathomable to the
Satanist to conceive of an ego which would willfully
choose denial of itself.
In countries where this is used as a sop for the willingly
impoverished, it is understandable that a philosophy which
teaches the denial of the ego would serve a useful purpose
-- at least for those in power, to whom it would be
detrimental if their people were discontented. But for
anyone who has every opportunity for material gain, to
*choose* this form of religious thought seems foolish indeed!
The Eastern mystic believes strongly in reincarnation.
To a person who has virtually nothing in this life, the
possibility that he might have been a king in a past life
or may be one in the next life is very attractive, and does
much to appease his need for self-respect. If there is
nothing in which they can take pride in this life, they can
console themselves by thinking, "there are always future
lives." It never occurs to the believer in reincarnation
that if his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather,
etc. had developed "good karmas," by their adherence to
the same beliefs and ethics as his present ones -- then why
is he now living in privation, rather than like a maharajah?
Belief in reincarnation provides a beautiful fantasy world
in which a person can find the proper avenue of ego-
expression but at the same time claim to have dissolved
his ego. This is emphasized by the roles people choose
for themselves in their past or future lives.
------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 92-3.
======================
these selections from the Satanic Bible go some distance in
showing how LaVey viewed mysticism (esp. Eastern) and its
negative aspects. perhaps I'll critique this later as to its
problems and weaknesses in the face of global mystical ideas,
and explore the advanced notions of mysticism supposed by
LaVey and others, including my own theories.
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
Ben Schultz
2005-01-04 06:47:52 UTC
Permalink
I have the book of Enoch. The problem is that Satan in Hebrew works is
not a being, but an office. The chief of the Satans (named Samayaza)
is the creature you are referring to in that tale. Other Satans exist
after as evidenced in the book of Job.

Azazel is a demon that modern theologians equate with Satan, but I
have found no historical data to support the idea that Azazel was
anything other than a fallen agent of the Hebrew god. Whether he was
one of the Satans or just an angel seem rather immaterial to the
actual discussion.
Post by Azure
It doesn't so why is everyone down on Satan?
Hebrews gave the teachings, look up Azazel, or find ENOCH.
Then explain to me why the Hebrew teachings talk of God as the Lake of
Fire, and Satan being evil for refusing to sign a pact with others to
portray themselves as Gods, and walking away from the group to freely
give knowledge to mankind.
That's Evil?
Post by Ben Schultz
Other than the passage in Isaiah, which is a discussion of the
physical country of Babylon & its king, and the book of revelations,
which is the end of the world, where does this book discuss the fall?
Post by Azure
Sorry Satan and the other "Fallen Angels" came down out of the heavens
and mingled with man, therefore read the teachings don't interpret
everything try reading in "Black and White".
Satan, Azazel refused to sign the pact with the other angels to portray
themselves as Gods before man.
They Fell from the Heavens in a "Great Meteor" which dug a "Bottomless
Pit".
They left a Mountain with a voice activated Door in it.
They gave a Sword and Spear of Light.
There was a Talking Idol in the form of a man.
The Bible is the strongest evidence to support the issue, but it is also
the Bard, Badghavadghita, the teachings of Delphi, the Thebans and
others.
Post by SOD of the CoE
50041231 viii om Hael Satan!
#>#> ...a certain *character* of expression,
#>#> like "Satanism is..." or even "to me, Satanism is..." and better
#>#> "Satan is..." "I think of Satan as positive because...".
# Of the evolution of myth. Devils are but the Gods of conquered
# peoples.
simultaneously coincident with such authors as JBRussell and those
even who appear to have cavorted with devils, such as Crowley. the
contention about devils from the outside is not first-person and
therefore not someone's contention about their Satanism, which was
my intention in description above.
#># Satanism is what a person WILL DO, automatically,
#># when and if they are directly in touch with that
#># Boundless Darkness
# But what is this "boundless darkness"? what does it mean,
# what does it do?
while I cannot answer for Tani, I can provide my best guess as to
what she might say. the boundless darkness cannot truly be defined
or clearly identified. it is called by a variety of names, some of
which she has laid out in other contexts, such as Mahakala. all of
the various referents are just different ways of saying the same
thing and referencing some kind of internal experience.
#># that infuses the parts of nature that are emanated from
#># the Light.
#
# I understand certain myths suggest or claim we (the physical
# universe) come from the light "let there be light" and all
# that but it does not really explain anything,
attempting to salvage the most literal interpretation first,
it might mean something literal if 'light' refers to energy.
at that point one might bring to the discussion the variable
appearance of energy and mass and their rough equation with
respect to the speed of light (ask Einstein how he got it).
# at best this "light" is explained as a metaphor,
even for energy, I'd wager, though I tried above to make it
into something more fanciful.
# and even if there is a physical corollary i have not had it
# explained to me and doubt any one has come up with a convincing
# explanation of how "light" tuned into matter. E =Mc 2 i understand at
# least in theory but the usual religious explanations for this "light"
# and its conversion or "fall" into matter have not been resolved,
# satisfactorily, at least to me. Even taking the mathmatical equation at
# face value as a type of explination for the phenomina it does not
# explain why the phenomina "is" merely how it functions.
the 'why' of phenomena is always unavailable to us and
inferred by multitudinous mythologies and imaginative tales.
#># They will DO the Will of that Boundless Darkness and their
#># own Will, it will be One Will.
#
# Are you writing of primal, instinctual, animalistic reaction
# to the universe? And "Satan" and "darkness" somehow
# exemplifying this?
that one I can't really guess. it sounds about right.
#> I read something keen today. summary of Satan's Master Plan according
#> to LaVey and Barton: the aim is the overthrow of mystical-religions
#> ("The Church of Satan").
"To completely overthrow mystically-oriented
religions, Satanists choose active opposition."
------------------------------------------------
-- Anton Szandor LaVey
in "The Church of Satan", by Blanche Barton,
Hell's Kitchen Productions, 1991; p. 79.
================================================
# Some people have had a limited amount of success in "overthrowing"
# religion and mysticism. "The opiate of the masses and all that".
# Yet i would tend to agree with the Confucian point of view about
# it and human nature, no matter how irrational it may be, the human
# animal has a tendency towards superstitious awe of the universe and seeks
# to propitiate it with fetish and taboo, the Lars and Pente. And the powers
# that be would probly be more successful in co opting it and using it to
# their own benefit rather than fighting against it *consider the most
# recent U.S. election). If the human animal ever gets rid of religion it
# will probly be more due to a maturing of the species, like an individual
# "growing up" hopefully, at some point the species as a whole will untie
# the apron strings that still bind it to "The Great Parent".
so it seems that you substantially agree with ASLaVey and TJantsang.
as their 'mysticism' is sloggy and extreme, it is difficult not to.
however, I'd suggest that neither of them had a very thorough
understanding of the breadth to which what is called "mysticism"
might be applied, as has become apparent in recent conversation
about such topic in this forum. since Tani says that she doesn't
really care if her language is understood and conforms to standard
conventions on the topic of mysticism (indicating that any semblance
between hers and the terminology, for example, of contemplatives,
is completely unintentional and that the "special" quality of
mysticism obviates her "everyday experience" to another category),
I turn instead to LaVey, whose expression on mysticism seems about
Hail Satan!
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
If anyone thinks that by denying his natural desires
he can avoid mediocrity, he should examine the Eastern
mystical beliefs which have been in great intellectual
favor in recent years. Christianity is "old hat," so
those who wish to escape its fetters have turned to
so-called enlightened religions, such as Buddhism.
Although Christianity is certainly deserving of the
criticism it has received, perhaps it has been taking
more than its share of the blame. The followers of the
mystical beliefs are every bit as guilty of the little
humanisms as the "misguided" Christians. Both religions
are based on trite philosophies, but the mystical
religionists profess to be enlightened and emancipated
from the guilt-ridden dogma which is typified by
Christianity. However, the Eastern mystic is even more
preoccupied than the Christian with avoiding animalistic
actions that remind him he is not a "saint," but merely
a man -- only another form of animal, sometimes better,
*more often worse*, than those who walk on all fours;
and who, because of his "divine spiritual and
intellectual development," has become the
most vicious animal of all!
The Satanist asks, "What is wrong with being human,
and having human limitations as well as assetts?" By
denying his desires the mystic has come no closer to
overcoming compulsion than his kindred soul, the
Christian. The Eastern mystical beliefs have taught
people to contemplate their navels, stand on their
heads, stare at blank walls, avoid the use of labels
in life, and discipline themselves against any
desire for materialistic pleasures.
------------------------------------------------------
pp. 83-4, The Satanic Bible, LaVey.
======================================
and
The Eastern mystical beliefs teach humans to discipline
themselves against any conscious will for success so
they might dissolve thmeselves into "Universal Cosmic
Awareness" -- anything to avoid good healthy self-
satisfaction or honest pride in earthly accomplishments!
It is interesting to note that the areas in which this
type of belief flourishes are those where material gains
are not easily obtainable. For this reason the predominant
religious belief must be one which commends its followers
for their rejection of material things and their avoidance
of the use of labels which attaches a certain amount of
importance to material gains. In this way people can be
pacified into accepting their lot, no matter how small it
may be.
Satanism uses many labels. If it were not for names, very
few of us would understand anything in life, much less
attach any significance to it; -- and significance compels
recognition, which is something *everyone* wants,
especially the Eastern mystic who tries to prove to
everyone how he can meditate longer or stand more
deprivation and pain than the next fellow.
The Eastern philosophies preach the dissolution of man's
ego before he can produce sins. It is unfathomable to the
Satanist to conceive of an ego which would willfully
choose denial of itself.
In countries where this is used as a sop for the willingly
impoverished, it is understandable that a philosophy which
teaches the denial of the ego would serve a useful purpose
-- at least for those in power, to whom it would be
detrimental if their people were discontented. But for
anyone who has every opportunity for material gain, to
*choose* this form of religious thought seems foolish indeed!
The Eastern mystic believes strongly in reincarnation.
To a person who has virtually nothing in this life, the
possibility that he might have been a king in a past life
or may be one in the next life is very attractive, and does
much to appease his need for self-respect. If there is
nothing in which they can take pride in this life, they can
console themselves by thinking, "there are always future
lives." It never occurs to the believer in reincarnation
that if his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather,
etc. had developed "good karmas," by their adherence to
the same beliefs and ethics as his present ones -- then why
is he now living in privation, rather than like a maharajah?
Belief in reincarnation provides a beautiful fantasy world
in which a person can find the proper avenue of ego-
expression but at the same time claim to have dissolved
his ego. This is emphasized by the roles people choose
for themselves in their past or future lives.
------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 92-3.
======================
these selections from the Satanic Bible go some distance in
showing how LaVey viewed mysticism (esp. Eastern) and its
negative aspects. perhaps I'll critique this later as to its
problems and weaknesses in the face of global mystical ideas,
and explore the advanced notions of mysticism supposed by
LaVey and others, including my own theories.
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell

www.devilzown.com
Azure
2005-01-05 08:47:41 UTC
Permalink
I found Rome has Hidden the teachings of the BADB, because the
Descendants are a Threat to the "CHURCH", not Man or God, but the
"Corporate Structure of the Church".
For that reason Rome even went so far as to on 2 occasion I believe in
the 5th and again in the 7th Century, Burn DIRECT Teachings of Christ,
because they were a threat to the "CHURCH".
My problem is Rome twisted every story they could together and demonized
the teachings of the Descendants circa 750 AD.
There were no "Fallen Angels" as we call them before that.
If God made "ANGELS" then they are a "SPECIAL CREATION" of GOD, under
Gods control far more than man they walk the same plane of existence
with God.
As such God being "ALL Knowing and All Perfect" would not intentionally
create DEMONS and MONSTERS who STEAL its children from it.
SATAN is not some "ANGEL" who fell from grace with God, but the legends
do say the "ANGELS FELL FROM THE HEAVENS".
Advanced Telepathic and Telekinetic Races would be "GODS" to ancient
man, who would have no way of explaining an extra terrestrial ship which
crashed into the mountains.
Post by Ben Schultz
I have the book of Enoch. The problem is that Satan in Hebrew works is
not a being, but an office. The chief of the Satans (named Samayaza)
is the creature you are referring to in that tale. Other Satans exist
after as evidenced in the book of Job.
Azazel is a demon that modern theologians equate with Satan, but I
have found no historical data to support the idea that Azazel was
anything other than a fallen agent of the Hebrew god. Whether he was
one of the Satans or just an angel seem rather immaterial to the
actual discussion.
Post by Azure
It doesn't so why is everyone down on Satan?
Hebrews gave the teachings, look up Azazel, or find ENOCH.
Then explain to me why the Hebrew teachings talk of God as the Lake of
Fire, and Satan being evil for refusing to sign a pact with others to
portray themselves as Gods, and walking away from the group to freely
give knowledge to mankind.
That's Evil?
Post by Ben Schultz
Other than the passage in Isaiah, which is a discussion of the
physical country of Babylon & its king, and the book of revelations,
which is the end of the world, where does this book discuss the fall?
Post by Azure
Sorry Satan and the other "Fallen Angels" came down out of the heavens
and mingled with man, therefore read the teachings don't interpret
everything try reading in "Black and White".
Satan, Azazel refused to sign the pact with the other angels to portray
themselves as Gods before man.
They Fell from the Heavens in a "Great Meteor" which dug a "Bottomless
Pit".
They left a Mountain with a voice activated Door in it.
They gave a Sword and Spear of Light.
There was a Talking Idol in the form of a man.
The Bible is the strongest evidence to support the issue, but it is also
the Bard, Badghavadghita, the teachings of Delphi, the Thebans and
others.
Post by SOD of the CoE
50041231 viii om Hael Satan!
#>#> ...a certain *character* of expression,
#>#> like "Satanism is..." or even "to me, Satanism is..." and better
#>#> "Satan is..." "I think of Satan as positive because...".
# Of the evolution of myth. Devils are but the Gods of conquered
# peoples.
simultaneously coincident with such authors as JBRussell and those
even who appear to have cavorted with devils, such as Crowley. the
contention about devils from the outside is not first-person and
therefore not someone's contention about their Satanism, which was
my intention in description above.
#># Satanism is what a person WILL DO, automatically,
#># when and if they are directly in touch with that
#># Boundless Darkness
# But what is this "boundless darkness"? what does it mean,
# what does it do?
while I cannot answer for Tani, I can provide my best guess as to
what she might say. the boundless darkness cannot truly be defined
or clearly identified. it is called by a variety of names, some of
which she has laid out in other contexts, such as Mahakala. all of
the various referents are just different ways of saying the same
thing and referencing some kind of internal experience.
#># that infuses the parts of nature that are emanated from
#># the Light.
#
# I understand certain myths suggest or claim we (the physical
# universe) come from the light "let there be light" and all
# that but it does not really explain anything,
attempting to salvage the most literal interpretation first,
it might mean something literal if 'light' refers to energy.
at that point one might bring to the discussion the variable
appearance of energy and mass and their rough equation with
respect to the speed of light (ask Einstein how he got it).
# at best this "light" is explained as a metaphor,
even for energy, I'd wager, though I tried above to make it
into something more fanciful.
# and even if there is a physical corollary i have not had it
# explained to me and doubt any one has come up with a convincing
# explanation of how "light" tuned into matter. E =Mc 2 i understand at
# least in theory but the usual religious explanations for this "light"
# and its conversion or "fall" into matter have not been resolved,
# satisfactorily, at least to me. Even taking the mathmatical equation at
# face value as a type of explination for the phenomina it does not
# explain why the phenomina "is" merely how it functions.
the 'why' of phenomena is always unavailable to us and
inferred by multitudinous mythologies and imaginative tales.
#># They will DO the Will of that Boundless Darkness and their
#># own Will, it will be One Will.
#
# Are you writing of primal, instinctual, animalistic reaction
# to the universe? And "Satan" and "darkness" somehow
# exemplifying this?
that one I can't really guess. it sounds about right.
#> I read something keen today. summary of Satan's Master Plan according
#> to LaVey and Barton: the aim is the overthrow of mystical-religions
#> ("The Church of Satan").
"To completely overthrow mystically-oriented
religions, Satanists choose active opposition."
------------------------------------------------
-- Anton Szandor LaVey
in "The Church of Satan", by Blanche Barton,
Hell's Kitchen Productions, 1991; p. 79.
================================================
# Some people have had a limited amount of success in "overthrowing"
# religion and mysticism. "The opiate of the masses and all that".
# Yet i would tend to agree with the Confucian point of view about
# it and human nature, no matter how irrational it may be, the human
# animal has a tendency towards superstitious awe of the universe and seeks
# to propitiate it with fetish and taboo, the Lars and Pente. And the powers
# that be would probly be more successful in co opting it and using it to
# their own benefit rather than fighting against it *consider the most
# recent U.S. election). If the human animal ever gets rid of religion it
# will probly be more due to a maturing of the species, like an individual
# "growing up" hopefully, at some point the species as a whole will untie
# the apron strings that still bind it to "The Great Parent".
so it seems that you substantially agree with ASLaVey and TJantsang.
as their 'mysticism' is sloggy and extreme, it is difficult not to.
however, I'd suggest that neither of them had a very thorough
understanding of the breadth to which what is called "mysticism"
might be applied, as has become apparent in recent conversation
about such topic in this forum. since Tani says that she doesn't
really care if her language is understood and conforms to standard
conventions on the topic of mysticism (indicating that any semblance
between hers and the terminology, for example, of contemplatives,
is completely unintentional and that the "special" quality of
mysticism obviates her "everyday experience" to another category),
I turn instead to LaVey, whose expression on mysticism seems about
Hail Satan!
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
If anyone thinks that by denying his natural desires
he can avoid mediocrity, he should examine the Eastern
mystical beliefs which have been in great intellectual
favor in recent years. Christianity is "old hat," so
those who wish to escape its fetters have turned to
so-called enlightened religions, such as Buddhism.
Although Christianity is certainly deserving of the
criticism it has received, perhaps it has been taking
more than its share of the blame. The followers of the
mystical beliefs are every bit as guilty of the little
humanisms as the "misguided" Christians. Both religions
are based on trite philosophies, but the mystical
religionists profess to be enlightened and emancipated
from the guilt-ridden dogma which is typified by
Christianity. However, the Eastern mystic is even more
preoccupied than the Christian with avoiding animalistic
actions that remind him he is not a "saint," but merely
a man -- only another form of animal, sometimes better,
*more often worse*, than those who walk on all fours;
and who, because of his "divine spiritual and
intellectual development," has become the
most vicious animal of all!
The Satanist asks, "What is wrong with being human,
and having human limitations as well as assetts?" By
denying his desires the mystic has come no closer to
overcoming compulsion than his kindred soul, the
Christian. The Eastern mystical beliefs have taught
people to contemplate their navels, stand on their
heads, stare at blank walls, avoid the use of labels
in life, and discipline themselves against any
desire for materialistic pleasures.
------------------------------------------------------
pp. 83-4, The Satanic Bible, LaVey.
======================================
and
The Eastern mystical beliefs teach humans to discipline
themselves against any conscious will for success so
they might dissolve thmeselves into "Universal Cosmic
Awareness" -- anything to avoid good healthy self-
satisfaction or honest pride in earthly accomplishments!
It is interesting to note that the areas in which this
type of belief flourishes are those where material gains
are not easily obtainable. For this reason the predominant
religious belief must be one which commends its followers
for their rejection of material things and their avoidance
of the use of labels which attaches a certain amount of
importance to material gains. In this way people can be
pacified into accepting their lot, no matter how small it
may be.
Satanism uses many labels. If it were not for names, very
few of us would understand anything in life, much less
attach any significance to it; -- and significance compels
recognition, which is something *everyone* wants,
especially the Eastern mystic who tries to prove to
everyone how he can meditate longer or stand more
deprivation and pain than the next fellow.
The Eastern philosophies preach the dissolution of man's
ego before he can produce sins. It is unfathomable to the
Satanist to conceive of an ego which would willfully
choose denial of itself.
In countries where this is used as a sop for the willingly
impoverished, it is understandable that a philosophy which
teaches the denial of the ego would serve a useful purpose
-- at least for those in power, to whom it would be
detrimental if their people were discontented. But for
anyone who has every opportunity for material gain, to
*choose* this form of religious thought seems foolish indeed!
The Eastern mystic believes strongly in reincarnation.
To a person who has virtually nothing in this life, the
possibility that he might have been a king in a past life
or may be one in the next life is very attractive, and does
much to appease his need for self-respect. If there is
nothing in which they can take pride in this life, they can
console themselves by thinking, "there are always future
lives." It never occurs to the believer in reincarnation
that if his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather,
etc. had developed "good karmas," by their adherence to
the same beliefs and ethics as his present ones -- then why
is he now living in privation, rather than like a maharajah?
Belief in reincarnation provides a beautiful fantasy world
in which a person can find the proper avenue of ego-
expression but at the same time claim to have dissolved
his ego. This is emphasized by the roles people choose
for themselves in their past or future lives.
------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 92-3.
======================
these selections from the Satanic Bible go some distance in
showing how LaVey viewed mysticism (esp. Eastern) and its
negative aspects. perhaps I'll critique this later as to its
problems and weaknesses in the face of global mystical ideas,
and explore the advanced notions of mysticism supposed by
LaVey and others, including my own theories.
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
Ben Schultz
2005-01-05 09:50:36 UTC
Permalink
The church in, and outside of, Rome is purported to have done a lot of
things. Some of which I believe, others I don't. Many of which are
purely speculation. And, in all honesty, I don't really care about
beyond that fact that it makes for interesting reading & conversation.

Personally, there are only four people in this world, or any other
world, that I am accountable to. Two of them I am directly responsible
for bringing to life. The other I choose to be accountable to.

Demons, gods, aliens, or whatever... It's all the same in the end.
Whether you look to the heavens for the second coming or the mother
ship, you're just trading one master for another.
Post by Azure
I found Rome has Hidden the teachings of the BADB, because the
Descendants are a Threat to the "CHURCH", not Man or God, but the
"Corporate Structure of the Church".
For that reason Rome even went so far as to on 2 occasion I believe in
the 5th and again in the 7th Century, Burn DIRECT Teachings of Christ,
because they were a threat to the "CHURCH".
My problem is Rome twisted every story they could together and demonized
the teachings of the Descendants circa 750 AD.
There were no "Fallen Angels" as we call them before that.
If God made "ANGELS" then they are a "SPECIAL CREATION" of GOD, under
Gods control far more than man they walk the same plane of existence
with God.
As such God being "ALL Knowing and All Perfect" would not intentionally
create DEMONS and MONSTERS who STEAL its children from it.
SATAN is not some "ANGEL" who fell from grace with God, but the legends
do say the "ANGELS FELL FROM THE HEAVENS".
Advanced Telepathic and Telekinetic Races would be "GODS" to ancient
man, who would have no way of explaining an extra terrestrial ship which
crashed into the mountains.
Post by Ben Schultz
I have the book of Enoch. The problem is that Satan in Hebrew works is
not a being, but an office. The chief of the Satans (named Samayaza)
is the creature you are referring to in that tale. Other Satans exist
after as evidenced in the book of Job.
Azazel is a demon that modern theologians equate with Satan, but I
have found no historical data to support the idea that Azazel was
anything other than a fallen agent of the Hebrew god. Whether he was
one of the Satans or just an angel seem rather immaterial to the
actual discussion.
Post by Azure
It doesn't so why is everyone down on Satan?
Hebrews gave the teachings, look up Azazel, or find ENOCH.
Then explain to me why the Hebrew teachings talk of God as the Lake of
Fire, and Satan being evil for refusing to sign a pact with others to
portray themselves as Gods, and walking away from the group to freely
give knowledge to mankind.
That's Evil?
Post by Ben Schultz
Other than the passage in Isaiah, which is a discussion of the
physical country of Babylon & its king, and the book of revelations,
which is the end of the world, where does this book discuss the fall?
Post by Azure
Sorry Satan and the other "Fallen Angels" came down out of the heavens
and mingled with man, therefore read the teachings don't interpret
everything try reading in "Black and White".
Satan, Azazel refused to sign the pact with the other angels to portray
themselves as Gods before man.
They Fell from the Heavens in a "Great Meteor" which dug a "Bottomless
Pit".
They left a Mountain with a voice activated Door in it.
They gave a Sword and Spear of Light.
There was a Talking Idol in the form of a man.
The Bible is the strongest evidence to support the issue, but it is also
the Bard, Badghavadghita, the teachings of Delphi, the Thebans and
others.
Post by SOD of the CoE
50041231 viii om Hael Satan!
#>#> ...a certain *character* of expression,
#>#> like "Satanism is..." or even "to me, Satanism is..." and better
#>#> "Satan is..." "I think of Satan as positive because...".
# Of the evolution of myth. Devils are but the Gods of conquered
# peoples.
simultaneously coincident with such authors as JBRussell and those
even who appear to have cavorted with devils, such as Crowley. the
contention about devils from the outside is not first-person and
therefore not someone's contention about their Satanism, which was
my intention in description above.
#># Satanism is what a person WILL DO, automatically,
#># when and if they are directly in touch with that
#># Boundless Darkness
# But what is this "boundless darkness"? what does it mean,
# what does it do?
while I cannot answer for Tani, I can provide my best guess as to
what she might say. the boundless darkness cannot truly be defined
or clearly identified. it is called by a variety of names, some of
which she has laid out in other contexts, such as Mahakala. all of
the various referents are just different ways of saying the same
thing and referencing some kind of internal experience.
#># that infuses the parts of nature that are emanated from
#># the Light.
#
# I understand certain myths suggest or claim we (the physical
# universe) come from the light "let there be light" and all
# that but it does not really explain anything,
attempting to salvage the most literal interpretation first,
it might mean something literal if 'light' refers to energy.
at that point one might bring to the discussion the variable
appearance of energy and mass and their rough equation with
respect to the speed of light (ask Einstein how he got it).
# at best this "light" is explained as a metaphor,
even for energy, I'd wager, though I tried above to make it
into something more fanciful.
# and even if there is a physical corollary i have not had it
# explained to me and doubt any one has come up with a convincing
# explanation of how "light" tuned into matter. E =Mc 2 i understand at
# least in theory but the usual religious explanations for this "light"
# and its conversion or "fall" into matter have not been resolved,
# satisfactorily, at least to me. Even taking the mathmatical equation at
# face value as a type of explination for the phenomina it does not
# explain why the phenomina "is" merely how it functions.
the 'why' of phenomena is always unavailable to us and
inferred by multitudinous mythologies and imaginative tales.
#># They will DO the Will of that Boundless Darkness and their
#># own Will, it will be One Will.
#
# Are you writing of primal, instinctual, animalistic reaction
# to the universe? And "Satan" and "darkness" somehow
# exemplifying this?
that one I can't really guess. it sounds about right.
#> I read something keen today. summary of Satan's Master Plan according
#> to LaVey and Barton: the aim is the overthrow of mystical-religions
#> ("The Church of Satan").
"To completely overthrow mystically-oriented
religions, Satanists choose active opposition."
------------------------------------------------
-- Anton Szandor LaVey
in "The Church of Satan", by Blanche Barton,
Hell's Kitchen Productions, 1991; p. 79.
================================================
# Some people have had a limited amount of success in "overthrowing"
# religion and mysticism. "The opiate of the masses and all that".
# Yet i would tend to agree with the Confucian point of view about
# it and human nature, no matter how irrational it may be, the human
# animal has a tendency towards superstitious awe of the universe and seeks
# to propitiate it with fetish and taboo, the Lars and Pente. And the powers
# that be would probly be more successful in co opting it and using it to
# their own benefit rather than fighting against it *consider the most
# recent U.S. election). If the human animal ever gets rid of religion it
# will probly be more due to a maturing of the species, like an individual
# "growing up" hopefully, at some point the species as a whole will untie
# the apron strings that still bind it to "The Great Parent".
so it seems that you substantially agree with ASLaVey and TJantsang.
as their 'mysticism' is sloggy and extreme, it is difficult not to.
however, I'd suggest that neither of them had a very thorough
understanding of the breadth to which what is called "mysticism"
might be applied, as has become apparent in recent conversation
about such topic in this forum. since Tani says that she doesn't
really care if her language is understood and conforms to standard
conventions on the topic of mysticism (indicating that any semblance
between hers and the terminology, for example, of contemplatives,
is completely unintentional and that the "special" quality of
mysticism obviates her "everyday experience" to another category),
I turn instead to LaVey, whose expression on mysticism seems about
Hail Satan!
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
If anyone thinks that by denying his natural desires
he can avoid mediocrity, he should examine the Eastern
mystical beliefs which have been in great intellectual
favor in recent years. Christianity is "old hat," so
those who wish to escape its fetters have turned to
so-called enlightened religions, such as Buddhism.
Although Christianity is certainly deserving of the
criticism it has received, perhaps it has been taking
more than its share of the blame. The followers of the
mystical beliefs are every bit as guilty of the little
humanisms as the "misguided" Christians. Both religions
are based on trite philosophies, but the mystical
religionists profess to be enlightened and emancipated
from the guilt-ridden dogma which is typified by
Christianity. However, the Eastern mystic is even more
preoccupied than the Christian with avoiding animalistic
actions that remind him he is not a "saint," but merely
a man -- only another form of animal, sometimes better,
*more often worse*, than those who walk on all fours;
and who, because of his "divine spiritual and
intellectual development," has become the
most vicious animal of all!
The Satanist asks, "What is wrong with being human,
and having human limitations as well as assetts?" By
denying his desires the mystic has come no closer to
overcoming compulsion than his kindred soul, the
Christian. The Eastern mystical beliefs have taught
people to contemplate their navels, stand on their
heads, stare at blank walls, avoid the use of labels
in life, and discipline themselves against any
desire for materialistic pleasures.
------------------------------------------------------
pp. 83-4, The Satanic Bible, LaVey.
======================================
and
The Eastern mystical beliefs teach humans to discipline
themselves against any conscious will for success so
they might dissolve thmeselves into "Universal Cosmic
Awareness" -- anything to avoid good healthy self-
satisfaction or honest pride in earthly accomplishments!
It is interesting to note that the areas in which this
type of belief flourishes are those where material gains
are not easily obtainable. For this reason the predominant
religious belief must be one which commends its followers
for their rejection of material things and their avoidance
of the use of labels which attaches a certain amount of
importance to material gains. In this way people can be
pacified into accepting their lot, no matter how small it
may be.
Satanism uses many labels. If it were not for names, very
few of us would understand anything in life, much less
attach any significance to it; -- and significance compels
recognition, which is something *everyone* wants,
especially the Eastern mystic who tries to prove to
everyone how he can meditate longer or stand more
deprivation and pain than the next fellow.
The Eastern philosophies preach the dissolution of man's
ego before he can produce sins. It is unfathomable to the
Satanist to conceive of an ego which would willfully
choose denial of itself.
In countries where this is used as a sop for the willingly
impoverished, it is understandable that a philosophy which
teaches the denial of the ego would serve a useful purpose
-- at least for those in power, to whom it would be
detrimental if their people were discontented. But for
anyone who has every opportunity for material gain, to
*choose* this form of religious thought seems foolish indeed!
The Eastern mystic believes strongly in reincarnation.
To a person who has virtually nothing in this life, the
possibility that he might have been a king in a past life
or may be one in the next life is very attractive, and does
much to appease his need for self-respect. If there is
nothing in which they can take pride in this life, they can
console themselves by thinking, "there are always future
lives." It never occurs to the believer in reincarnation
that if his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather,
etc. had developed "good karmas," by their adherence to
the same beliefs and ethics as his present ones -- then why
is he now living in privation, rather than like a maharajah?
Belief in reincarnation provides a beautiful fantasy world
in which a person can find the proper avenue of ego-
expression but at the same time claim to have dissolved
his ego. This is emphasized by the roles people choose
for themselves in their past or future lives.
------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 92-3.
======================
these selections from the Satanic Bible go some distance in
showing how LaVey viewed mysticism (esp. Eastern) and its
negative aspects. perhaps I'll critique this later as to its
problems and weaknesses in the face of global mystical ideas,
and explore the advanced notions of mysticism supposed by
LaVey and others, including my own theories.
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell

www.devilzown.com
Azure
2005-01-07 05:19:20 UTC
Permalink
You simply do not understand.
Ancients saw a danger and made a way of escaping, its time to use it.
I agree with who we are responsible to and for.
I alone, My House, My Family.
But then people have the right to say "I can not have a family" based on
their "God"!
Why do I not have a right to exist based on the teachings of my "God"?
Post by Ben Schultz
The church in, and outside of, Rome is purported to have done a lot of
things. Some of which I believe, others I don't. Many of which are
purely speculation. And, in all honesty, I don't really care about
beyond that fact that it makes for interesting reading & conversation.
Personally, there are only four people in this world, or any other
world, that I am accountable to. Two of them I am directly responsible
for bringing to life. The other I choose to be accountable to.
Demons, gods, aliens, or whatever... It's all the same in the end.
Whether you look to the heavens for the second coming or the mother
ship, you're just trading one master for another.
Post by Azure
I found Rome has Hidden the teachings of the BADB, because the
Descendants are a Threat to the "CHURCH", not Man or God, but the
"Corporate Structure of the Church".
For that reason Rome even went so far as to on 2 occasion I believe in
the 5th and again in the 7th Century, Burn DIRECT Teachings of Christ,
because they were a threat to the "CHURCH".
My problem is Rome twisted every story they could together and demonized
the teachings of the Descendants circa 750 AD.
There were no "Fallen Angels" as we call them before that.
If God made "ANGELS" then they are a "SPECIAL CREATION" of GOD, under
Gods control far more than man they walk the same plane of existence
with God.
As such God being "ALL Knowing and All Perfect" would not intentionally
create DEMONS and MONSTERS who STEAL its children from it.
SATAN is not some "ANGEL" who fell from grace with God, but the legends
do say the "ANGELS FELL FROM THE HEAVENS".
Advanced Telepathic and Telekinetic Races would be "GODS" to ancient
man, who would have no way of explaining an extra terrestrial ship which
crashed into the mountains.
Post by Ben Schultz
I have the book of Enoch. The problem is that Satan in Hebrew works is
not a being, but an office. The chief of the Satans (named Samayaza)
is the creature you are referring to in that tale. Other Satans exist
after as evidenced in the book of Job.
Azazel is a demon that modern theologians equate with Satan, but I
have found no historical data to support the idea that Azazel was
anything other than a fallen agent of the Hebrew god. Whether he was
one of the Satans or just an angel seem rather immaterial to the
actual discussion.
Post by Azure
It doesn't so why is everyone down on Satan?
Hebrews gave the teachings, look up Azazel, or find ENOCH.
Then explain to me why the Hebrew teachings talk of God as the Lake of
Fire, and Satan being evil for refusing to sign a pact with others to
portray themselves as Gods, and walking away from the group to freely
give knowledge to mankind.
That's Evil?
Post by Ben Schultz
Other than the passage in Isaiah, which is a discussion of the
physical country of Babylon & its king, and the book of revelations,
which is the end of the world, where does this book discuss the fall?
Post by Azure
Sorry Satan and the other "Fallen Angels" came down out of the heavens
and mingled with man, therefore read the teachings don't interpret
everything try reading in "Black and White".
Satan, Azazel refused to sign the pact with the other angels to portray
themselves as Gods before man.
They Fell from the Heavens in a "Great Meteor" which dug a "Bottomless
Pit".
They left a Mountain with a voice activated Door in it.
They gave a Sword and Spear of Light.
There was a Talking Idol in the form of a man.
The Bible is the strongest evidence to support the issue, but it is also
the Bard, Badghavadghita, the teachings of Delphi, the Thebans and
others.
Post by SOD of the CoE
50041231 viii om Hael Satan!
#>#> ...a certain *character* of expression,
#>#> like "Satanism is..." or even "to me, Satanism is..." and better
#>#> "Satan is..." "I think of Satan as positive because...".
# Of the evolution of myth. Devils are but the Gods of conquered
# peoples.
simultaneously coincident with such authors as JBRussell and those
even who appear to have cavorted with devils, such as Crowley. the
contention about devils from the outside is not first-person and
therefore not someone's contention about their Satanism, which was
my intention in description above.
#># Satanism is what a person WILL DO, automatically,
#># when and if they are directly in touch with that
#># Boundless Darkness
# But what is this "boundless darkness"? what does it mean,
# what does it do?
while I cannot answer for Tani, I can provide my best guess as to
what she might say. the boundless darkness cannot truly be defined
or clearly identified. it is called by a variety of names, some of
which she has laid out in other contexts, such as Mahakala. all of
the various referents are just different ways of saying the same
thing and referencing some kind of internal experience.
#># that infuses the parts of nature that are emanated from
#># the Light.
#
# I understand certain myths suggest or claim we (the physical
# universe) come from the light "let there be light" and all
# that but it does not really explain anything,
attempting to salvage the most literal interpretation first,
it might mean something literal if 'light' refers to energy.
at that point one might bring to the discussion the variable
appearance of energy and mass and their rough equation with
respect to the speed of light (ask Einstein how he got it).
# at best this "light" is explained as a metaphor,
even for energy, I'd wager, though I tried above to make it
into something more fanciful.
# and even if there is a physical corollary i have not had it
# explained to me and doubt any one has come up with a convincing
# explanation of how "light" tuned into matter. E =Mc 2 i understand at
# least in theory but the usual religious explanations for this "light"
# and its conversion or "fall" into matter have not been resolved,
# satisfactorily, at least to me. Even taking the mathmatical equation at
# face value as a type of explination for the phenomina it does not
# explain why the phenomina "is" merely how it functions.
the 'why' of phenomena is always unavailable to us and
inferred by multitudinous mythologies and imaginative tales.
#># They will DO the Will of that Boundless Darkness and their
#># own Will, it will be One Will.
#
# Are you writing of primal, instinctual, animalistic reaction
# to the universe? And "Satan" and "darkness" somehow
# exemplifying this?
that one I can't really guess. it sounds about right.
#> I read something keen today. summary of Satan's Master Plan according
#> to LaVey and Barton: the aim is the overthrow of mystical-religions
#> ("The Church of Satan").
"To completely overthrow mystically-oriented
religions, Satanists choose active opposition."
------------------------------------------------
-- Anton Szandor LaVey
in "The Church of Satan", by Blanche Barton,
Hell's Kitchen Productions, 1991; p. 79.
================================================
# Some people have had a limited amount of success in "overthrowing"
# religion and mysticism. "The opiate of the masses and all that".
# Yet i would tend to agree with the Confucian point of view about
# it and human nature, no matter how irrational it may be, the human
# animal has a tendency towards superstitious awe of the universe and seeks
# to propitiate it with fetish and taboo, the Lars and Pente. And the powers
# that be would probly be more successful in co opting it and using it to
# their own benefit rather than fighting against it *consider the most
# recent U.S. election). If the human animal ever gets rid of religion it
# will probly be more due to a maturing of the species, like an individual
# "growing up" hopefully, at some point the species as a whole will untie
# the apron strings that still bind it to "The Great Parent".
so it seems that you substantially agree with ASLaVey and TJantsang.
as their 'mysticism' is sloggy and extreme, it is difficult not to.
however, I'd suggest that neither of them had a very thorough
understanding of the breadth to which what is called "mysticism"
might be applied, as has become apparent in recent conversation
about such topic in this forum. since Tani says that she doesn't
really care if her language is understood and conforms to standard
conventions on the topic of mysticism (indicating that any semblance
between hers and the terminology, for example, of contemplatives,
is completely unintentional and that the "special" quality of
mysticism obviates her "everyday experience" to another category),
I turn instead to LaVey, whose expression on mysticism seems about
Hail Satan!
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
If anyone thinks that by denying his natural desires
he can avoid mediocrity, he should examine the Eastern
mystical beliefs which have been in great intellectual
favor in recent years. Christianity is "old hat," so
those who wish to escape its fetters have turned to
so-called enlightened religions, such as Buddhism.
Although Christianity is certainly deserving of the
criticism it has received, perhaps it has been taking
more than its share of the blame. The followers of the
mystical beliefs are every bit as guilty of the little
humanisms as the "misguided" Christians. Both religions
are based on trite philosophies, but the mystical
religionists profess to be enlightened and emancipated
from the guilt-ridden dogma which is typified by
Christianity. However, the Eastern mystic is even more
preoccupied than the Christian with avoiding animalistic
actions that remind him he is not a "saint," but merely
a man -- only another form of animal, sometimes better,
*more often worse*, than those who walk on all fours;
and who, because of his "divine spiritual and
intellectual development," has become the
most vicious animal of all!
The Satanist asks, "What is wrong with being human,
and having human limitations as well as assetts?" By
denying his desires the mystic has come no closer to
overcoming compulsion than his kindred soul, the
Christian. The Eastern mystical beliefs have taught
people to contemplate their navels, stand on their
heads, stare at blank walls, avoid the use of labels
in life, and discipline themselves against any
desire for materialistic pleasures.
------------------------------------------------------
pp. 83-4, The Satanic Bible, LaVey.
======================================
and
The Eastern mystical beliefs teach humans to discipline
themselves against any conscious will for success so
they might dissolve thmeselves into "Universal Cosmic
Awareness" -- anything to avoid good healthy self-
satisfaction or honest pride in earthly accomplishments!
It is interesting to note that the areas in which this
type of belief flourishes are those where material gains
are not easily obtainable. For this reason the predominant
religious belief must be one which commends its followers
for their rejection of material things and their avoidance
of the use of labels which attaches a certain amount of
importance to material gains. In this way people can be
pacified into accepting their lot, no matter how small it
may be.
Satanism uses many labels. If it were not for names, very
few of us would understand anything in life, much less
attach any significance to it; -- and significance compels
recognition, which is something *everyone* wants,
especially the Eastern mystic who tries to prove to
everyone how he can meditate longer or stand more
deprivation and pain than the next fellow.
The Eastern philosophies preach the dissolution of man's
ego before he can produce sins. It is unfathomable to the
Satanist to conceive of an ego which would willfully
choose denial of itself.
In countries where this is used as a sop for the willingly
impoverished, it is understandable that a philosophy which
teaches the denial of the ego would serve a useful purpose
-- at least for those in power, to whom it would be
detrimental if their people were discontented. But for
anyone who has every opportunity for material gain, to
*choose* this form of religious thought seems foolish indeed!
The Eastern mystic believes strongly in reincarnation.
To a person who has virtually nothing in this life, the
possibility that he might have been a king in a past life
or may be one in the next life is very attractive, and does
much to appease his need for self-respect. If there is
nothing in which they can take pride in this life, they can
console themselves by thinking, "there are always future
lives." It never occurs to the believer in reincarnation
that if his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather,
etc. had developed "good karmas," by their adherence to
the same beliefs and ethics as his present ones -- then why
is he now living in privation, rather than like a maharajah?
Belief in reincarnation provides a beautiful fantasy world
in which a person can find the proper avenue of ego-
expression but at the same time claim to have dissolved
his ego. This is emphasized by the roles people choose
for themselves in their past or future lives.
------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 92-3.
======================
these selections from the Satanic Bible go some distance in
showing how LaVey viewed mysticism (esp. Eastern) and its
negative aspects. perhaps I'll critique this later as to its
problems and weaknesses in the face of global mystical ideas,
and explore the advanced notions of mysticism supposed by
LaVey and others, including my own theories.
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
Ben Schultz
2005-01-07 07:02:24 UTC
Permalink
You can believe anything you want. It doesn't affect me, so I couldn't
care less.
Post by Azure
You simply do not understand.
Ancients saw a danger and made a way of escaping, its time to use it.
I agree with who we are responsible to and for.
I alone, My House, My Family.
But then people have the right to say "I can not have a family" based on
their "God"!
Why do I not have a right to exist based on the teachings of my "God"?
Post by Ben Schultz
The church in, and outside of, Rome is purported to have done a lot of
things. Some of which I believe, others I don't. Many of which are
purely speculation. And, in all honesty, I don't really care about
beyond that fact that it makes for interesting reading & conversation.
Personally, there are only four people in this world, or any other
world, that I am accountable to. Two of them I am directly responsible
for bringing to life. The other I choose to be accountable to.
Demons, gods, aliens, or whatever... It's all the same in the end.
Whether you look to the heavens for the second coming or the mother
ship, you're just trading one master for another.
Post by Azure
I found Rome has Hidden the teachings of the BADB, because the
Descendants are a Threat to the "CHURCH", not Man or God, but the
"Corporate Structure of the Church".
For that reason Rome even went so far as to on 2 occasion I believe in
the 5th and again in the 7th Century, Burn DIRECT Teachings of Christ,
because they were a threat to the "CHURCH".
My problem is Rome twisted every story they could together and demonized
the teachings of the Descendants circa 750 AD.
There were no "Fallen Angels" as we call them before that.
If God made "ANGELS" then they are a "SPECIAL CREATION" of GOD, under
Gods control far more than man they walk the same plane of existence
with God.
As such God being "ALL Knowing and All Perfect" would not intentionally
create DEMONS and MONSTERS who STEAL its children from it.
SATAN is not some "ANGEL" who fell from grace with God, but the legends
do say the "ANGELS FELL FROM THE HEAVENS".
Advanced Telepathic and Telekinetic Races would be "GODS" to ancient
man, who would have no way of explaining an extra terrestrial ship which
crashed into the mountains.
Post by Ben Schultz
I have the book of Enoch. The problem is that Satan in Hebrew works is
not a being, but an office. The chief of the Satans (named Samayaza)
is the creature you are referring to in that tale. Other Satans exist
after as evidenced in the book of Job.
Azazel is a demon that modern theologians equate with Satan, but I
have found no historical data to support the idea that Azazel was
anything other than a fallen agent of the Hebrew god. Whether he was
one of the Satans or just an angel seem rather immaterial to the
actual discussion.
Post by Azure
It doesn't so why is everyone down on Satan?
Hebrews gave the teachings, look up Azazel, or find ENOCH.
Then explain to me why the Hebrew teachings talk of God as the Lake of
Fire, and Satan being evil for refusing to sign a pact with others to
portray themselves as Gods, and walking away from the group to freely
give knowledge to mankind.
That's Evil?
Post by Ben Schultz
Other than the passage in Isaiah, which is a discussion of the
physical country of Babylon & its king, and the book of revelations,
which is the end of the world, where does this book discuss the fall?
Post by Azure
Sorry Satan and the other "Fallen Angels" came down out of the heavens
and mingled with man, therefore read the teachings don't interpret
everything try reading in "Black and White".
Satan, Azazel refused to sign the pact with the other angels to portray
themselves as Gods before man.
They Fell from the Heavens in a "Great Meteor" which dug a "Bottomless
Pit".
They left a Mountain with a voice activated Door in it.
They gave a Sword and Spear of Light.
There was a Talking Idol in the form of a man.
The Bible is the strongest evidence to support the issue, but it is also
the Bard, Badghavadghita, the teachings of Delphi, the Thebans and
others.
Post by SOD of the CoE
50041231 viii om Hael Satan!
#>#> ...a certain *character* of expression,
#>#> like "Satanism is..." or even "to me, Satanism is..." and better
#>#> "Satan is..." "I think of Satan as positive because...".
# Of the evolution of myth. Devils are but the Gods of conquered
# peoples.
simultaneously coincident with such authors as JBRussell and those
even who appear to have cavorted with devils, such as Crowley. the
contention about devils from the outside is not first-person and
therefore not someone's contention about their Satanism, which was
my intention in description above.
#># Satanism is what a person WILL DO, automatically,
#># when and if they are directly in touch with that
#># Boundless Darkness
# But what is this "boundless darkness"? what does it mean,
# what does it do?
while I cannot answer for Tani, I can provide my best guess as to
what she might say. the boundless darkness cannot truly be defined
or clearly identified. it is called by a variety of names, some of
which she has laid out in other contexts, such as Mahakala. all of
the various referents are just different ways of saying the same
thing and referencing some kind of internal experience.
#># that infuses the parts of nature that are emanated from
#># the Light.
#
# I understand certain myths suggest or claim we (the physical
# universe) come from the light "let there be light" and all
# that but it does not really explain anything,
attempting to salvage the most literal interpretation first,
it might mean something literal if 'light' refers to energy.
at that point one might bring to the discussion the variable
appearance of energy and mass and their rough equation with
respect to the speed of light (ask Einstein how he got it).
# at best this "light" is explained as a metaphor,
even for energy, I'd wager, though I tried above to make it
into something more fanciful.
# and even if there is a physical corollary i have not had it
# explained to me and doubt any one has come up with a convincing
# explanation of how "light" tuned into matter. E =Mc 2 i understand at
# least in theory but the usual religious explanations for this "light"
# and its conversion or "fall" into matter have not been resolved,
# satisfactorily, at least to me. Even taking the mathmatical equation at
# face value as a type of explination for the phenomina it does not
# explain why the phenomina "is" merely how it functions.
the 'why' of phenomena is always unavailable to us and
inferred by multitudinous mythologies and imaginative tales.
#># They will DO the Will of that Boundless Darkness and their
#># own Will, it will be One Will.
#
# Are you writing of primal, instinctual, animalistic reaction
# to the universe? And "Satan" and "darkness" somehow
# exemplifying this?
that one I can't really guess. it sounds about right.
#> I read something keen today. summary of Satan's Master Plan according
#> to LaVey and Barton: the aim is the overthrow of mystical-religions
#> ("The Church of Satan").
"To completely overthrow mystically-oriented
religions, Satanists choose active opposition."
------------------------------------------------
-- Anton Szandor LaVey
in "The Church of Satan", by Blanche Barton,
Hell's Kitchen Productions, 1991; p. 79.
================================================
# Some people have had a limited amount of success in "overthrowing"
# religion and mysticism. "The opiate of the masses and all that".
# Yet i would tend to agree with the Confucian point of view about
# it and human nature, no matter how irrational it may be, the human
# animal has a tendency towards superstitious awe of the universe and seeks
# to propitiate it with fetish and taboo, the Lars and Pente. And the powers
# that be would probly be more successful in co opting it and using it to
# their own benefit rather than fighting against it *consider the most
# recent U.S. election). If the human animal ever gets rid of religion it
# will probly be more due to a maturing of the species, like an individual
# "growing up" hopefully, at some point the species as a whole will untie
# the apron strings that still bind it to "The Great Parent".
so it seems that you substantially agree with ASLaVey and TJantsang.
as their 'mysticism' is sloggy and extreme, it is difficult not to.
however, I'd suggest that neither of them had a very thorough
understanding of the breadth to which what is called "mysticism"
might be applied, as has become apparent in recent conversation
about such topic in this forum. since Tani says that she doesn't
really care if her language is understood and conforms to standard
conventions on the topic of mysticism (indicating that any semblance
between hers and the terminology, for example, of contemplatives,
is completely unintentional and that the "special" quality of
mysticism obviates her "everyday experience" to another category),
I turn instead to LaVey, whose expression on mysticism seems about
Hail Satan!
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
If anyone thinks that by denying his natural desires
he can avoid mediocrity, he should examine the Eastern
mystical beliefs which have been in great intellectual
favor in recent years. Christianity is "old hat," so
those who wish to escape its fetters have turned to
so-called enlightened religions, such as Buddhism.
Although Christianity is certainly deserving of the
criticism it has received, perhaps it has been taking
more than its share of the blame. The followers of the
mystical beliefs are every bit as guilty of the little
humanisms as the "misguided" Christians. Both religions
are based on trite philosophies, but the mystical
religionists profess to be enlightened and emancipated
from the guilt-ridden dogma which is typified by
Christianity. However, the Eastern mystic is even more
preoccupied than the Christian with avoiding animalistic
actions that remind him he is not a "saint," but merely
a man -- only another form of animal, sometimes better,
*more often worse*, than those who walk on all fours;
and who, because of his "divine spiritual and
intellectual development," has become the
most vicious animal of all!
The Satanist asks, "What is wrong with being human,
and having human limitations as well as assetts?" By
denying his desires the mystic has come no closer to
overcoming compulsion than his kindred soul, the
Christian. The Eastern mystical beliefs have taught
people to contemplate their navels, stand on their
heads, stare at blank walls, avoid the use of labels
in life, and discipline themselves against any
desire for materialistic pleasures.
------------------------------------------------------
pp. 83-4, The Satanic Bible, LaVey.
======================================
and
The Eastern mystical beliefs teach humans to discipline
themselves against any conscious will for success so
they might dissolve thmeselves into "Universal Cosmic
Awareness" -- anything to avoid good healthy self-
satisfaction or honest pride in earthly accomplishments!
It is interesting to note that the areas in which this
type of belief flourishes are those where material gains
are not easily obtainable. For this reason the predominant
religious belief must be one which commends its followers
for their rejection of material things and their avoidance
of the use of labels which attaches a certain amount of
importance to material gains. In this way people can be
pacified into accepting their lot, no matter how small it
may be.
Satanism uses many labels. If it were not for names, very
few of us would understand anything in life, much less
attach any significance to it; -- and significance compels
recognition, which is something *everyone* wants,
especially the Eastern mystic who tries to prove to
everyone how he can meditate longer or stand more
deprivation and pain than the next fellow.
The Eastern philosophies preach the dissolution of man's
ego before he can produce sins. It is unfathomable to the
Satanist to conceive of an ego which would willfully
choose denial of itself.
In countries where this is used as a sop for the willingly
impoverished, it is understandable that a philosophy which
teaches the denial of the ego would serve a useful purpose
-- at least for those in power, to whom it would be
detrimental if their people were discontented. But for
anyone who has every opportunity for material gain, to
*choose* this form of religious thought seems foolish indeed!
The Eastern mystic believes strongly in reincarnation.
To a person who has virtually nothing in this life, the
possibility that he might have been a king in a past life
or may be one in the next life is very attractive, and does
much to appease his need for self-respect. If there is
nothing in which they can take pride in this life, they can
console themselves by thinking, "there are always future
lives." It never occurs to the believer in reincarnation
that if his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather,
etc. had developed "good karmas," by their adherence to
the same beliefs and ethics as his present ones -- then why
is he now living in privation, rather than like a maharajah?
Belief in reincarnation provides a beautiful fantasy world
in which a person can find the proper avenue of ego-
expression but at the same time claim to have dissolved
his ego. This is emphasized by the roles people choose
for themselves in their past or future lives.
------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 92-3.
======================
these selections from the Satanic Bible go some distance in
showing how LaVey viewed mysticism (esp. Eastern) and its
negative aspects. perhaps I'll critique this later as to its
problems and weaknesses in the face of global mystical ideas,
and explore the advanced notions of mysticism supposed by
LaVey and others, including my own theories.
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell
www.devilzown.com
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell

www.devilzown.com


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Tom
2005-01-03 22:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azure
Sorry Satan and the other "Fallen Angels" came down out of the heavens
and mingled with man, therefore read the teachings don't interpret
everything try reading in "Black and White".
Now, what did I tell you about taking "Goldilocks and the Three Bears"
literally?
Azure
2005-01-04 05:44:47 UTC
Permalink
What did I tell you about the fact I believe Faerie Tales.
Pharae where a real history, Gaia, Rhea, Danu, Lough, Paris, Nemedia,
Nuada, Jason, they did exist, to bad you can't understand that.
Post by Tom
Post by Azure
Sorry Satan and the other "Fallen Angels" came down out of the heavens
and mingled with man, therefore read the teachings don't interpret
everything try reading in "Black and White".
Now, what did I tell you about taking "Goldilocks and the Three Bears"
literally?
Tom
2005-01-04 18:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azure
What did I tell you about the fact I believe Faerie Tales.
That you believe fairy tales, Goldilocks.
Azure
2005-01-05 09:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Up yours NAZI.
Otherwise drop the "Goldilocks", I am a Red not a WHITE.
Pharae and Tautha De Dannan are actual History.
Post by Tom
Post by Azure
What did I tell you about the fact I believe Faerie Tales.
That you believe fairy tales, Goldilocks.
Tom
2005-01-05 17:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azure
Up yours NAZI.
Hee.
Azure
2005-01-07 05:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Don't use my name in vain.
GI
It means "Mountain" in Scythian.
You ain't a mountain carved by the river which emanates from the Lake or
Oasis.
I AM.
Post by Azure
Up yours NAZI.
Hee.
Tom
2005-01-07 16:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azure
Don't use my name in vain.
Let me guess. You're the One True God, right?
Post by Azure
I AM.
I thought so.
Asiya
2005-01-03 19:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by SOD of the CoE
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea that one must sacrifice
the body, mind, or spirit, whether it comes to mystics or Satanists. But
is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of the physical and
emotional?
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
Ben Schultz
2005-01-03 22:04:47 UTC
Permalink
"Fulfillment" being the key word you inadvertently left off of your
question.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:09:28 GMT, "Asiya"
Post by Asiya
Post by SOD of the CoE
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea that one must sacrifice
the body, mind, or spirit, whether it comes to mystics or Satanists. But
is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of the physical and
emotional?
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell

www.devilzown.com
Asiya
2005-01-05 01:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Schultz
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:09:28 GMT, "Asiya"
Post by Asiya
Post by SOD of the CoE
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a
good hearty meal, exercise his imagination, and
transcend by means of physical and emotional
fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance
to be human for once!
I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea that one must
sacrifice
the body, mind, or spirit, whether it comes to mystics or Satanists. But
is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of the physical and
emotional?
"Fulfillment" being the key word you inadvertently left off of your
question.
So...is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of physical and
emotional fulfillment?
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-05 19:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Asiya
So...is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of physical and
emotional fulfillment?
Transcend what? Most Satanists enjoy life, a piece of peace in their lives.
Some engage in magic. But how about transcending this here below:

Exploding Crisis For America's Poor
By Frosty Wooldridge
NewsWithViews.com
1-2-5

Have you ever walked through a ghetto in America? Did you see the looks on
the faces of the inhabitants? How about their children? Did they understand
their plight? Did you see the drugs, fatherless kids, despair, violence and
hopelessness? I have because I was an elementary teacher in the ghetto. It's
worse than Elvis Presley's famous song, "In the Ghetto." That's ghetto grows
by leaps and bounds with America's illegal immigration invasion.

Today we suffer an emerging crisis so great it promises profound upheaval
across America. Black unemployment trends show sobering findings: "By 2002,
one of every four black men in the United States was out of work for over a
year. This idleness was twice as high as that of white and Hispanic males,"
according to Andrew Sum, director for the Center for Labor Market Studies at
Northeastern University in Boston.

"That was a conservative count," Sum said. "The study did not consider
homeless men or those in prison. It is believed that 10 percent of the black
male population under age 40 is incarcerated."

Worse, black teenager unemployment grows off the charts. In a report in the
Associated Press, May 1, 2003, by Genaro C. Armas, "Black Children in
Deepest Poverty Up 50 percent," states that 932,000 children fell into the
poverty level in 2001 which was an increase from 622,000 from 1999. It's the
highest number since 1979.

Each teenager out of work follows the adage, "Idle hands are the devil's
workshop." Teen crime in U.S. cities grows with the unemployment epidemic.
That creates accelerated use of drugs and sales of drugs. The pushers create
systems that addict kids on the streets, which in turn create crime for want
of money to buy drugs.

They move into evolving gangs reported recently in USA Today. MS-13 Gangs
with 8,000 members now operate in 28 American cities. They distribute drugs,
run extortion rings, operate drive-by assassinations and recruit new
members. The former Attorney General Janet Reno of the United States
estimated 500,000 members from all gangs now operating in this country.
Education, or the lack of it, is a key player because 44 percent of black
men do not have a high school diploma according to Professor Sum. This leads
to public assistance, social services, crime and anti-social behavior.

Not mentioned by Professor Sum in his report is the devastating impact of
this emerging crisis being exacerbated by an average of 4.1 million legal
and illegal immigrants added to the U.S. workforce annually. Most arrive in
the United States with skills no greater than two hands. They outnumber
America's poor. They colonize jobs. They possess Third World desperation for
work. They work under the table, which allows their employers to pay no
taxes or pay no worker's compensation costs.

Illegal and legal immigrants have grabbed all the cabbie jobs. They've
stolen all the landscaping jobs. They've commandeered paving, construction,
masonry, lawn mowing, dry wall, roofing and hotel jobs.

They're sweeping all our floors for corporations, eating up our fast food
jobs and washing all our dishes. They work all our farm jobs, pick our
fruits and drive tractors as they work from dawn to dusk.

And get this, the line from the Third World of willing illegal aliens who
will do the jobs that Americans supposedly won't do, grows longer. You have
to ask yourself at what point will there be any jobs left that Americans
will do?

Are they supposed to immigrate to the Third World countries to find work?
What is the point of our Congress outsourcing, insourcing, offshoring and
immigrating this country to death? What about our working poor? When will
our Congress speak to our country's issues?



Write me for that 20-point action plan on how to stop this illegal alien
migration madness. Remember that each of us creates 'critical mass' to stop
this insane loss of our nation and its ability to function as a sovereign
country.

Sources:

1, "EXTREME POVERTY NUMBERS INCREASE" by Elizabeth Levin, LA Times, 5/1/03

2, "SHARP INCREASE IN NUMBER OF BLACK CHILDREN IN EXTREME POVERTY" by Genaro
Armas, AP 4/30/03

3, "AN EMERGING CATASTROPHE" by Bob Herbert, NY Times, July 19, 2004

4, Time Magazine-"Who Left the Door Open" September 12, 2004

Order Frosty's new book "Immigration's Unarmed Invasion"
Post by Asiya
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
Satyr
2005-01-03 23:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Asiya
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the betterment of
the mind and spirit, and to consider giving pleasure to one's body
(the very shell without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST PEOPLE WHO
DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND"
INTO IDIOCY! By way of bending their behinds around to meet their
navels, subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice and
tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state of spiritual
development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a good hearty
meal, exercise his imagination, and transcend by means of physical
and emotional fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands for so many
centuries, one would welcome the chance to be human for once!
I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea that one must
sacrifice the body, mind, or spirit, whether it comes to mystics or
Satanists.
To set up any categorical "thou shalt nots" is the essence of dualism
in general, even that of the monist variety.
Post by Asiya
But is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of the
physical and emotional?
Heh. Good question.

I thought LaVey's philosophy, such as it was, tended toward
materialism. Therefore by definition there's nothing to transcend.
What's the point of ladders when living in Flatland?
Asiya
2005-01-05 01:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Satyr
Post by Asiya
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the betterment of
the mind and spirit, and to consider giving pleasure to one's body
(the very shell without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST PEOPLE WHO
DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND"
INTO IDIOCY! By way of bending their behinds around to meet their
navels, subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice and
tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state of spiritual
development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a good hearty
meal, exercise his imagination, and transcend by means of physical
and emotional fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands for so many
centuries, one would welcome the chance to be human for once!
I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea that one must
sacrifice the body, mind, or spirit, whether it comes to mystics or
Satanists.
To set up any categorical "thou shalt nots" is the essence of dualism
in general, even that of the monist variety.
Post by Asiya
But is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of the
physical and emotional?
Heh. Good question.
I thought LaVey's philosophy, such as it was, tended toward
materialism. Therefore by definition there's nothing to transcend.
What's the point of ladders when living in Flatland?
Good point. Maybe transcending what LaVey calls the "unreasonable
religious demands"?
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
Ben Schultz
2005-01-05 04:53:46 UTC
Permalink
I think you hit the nail right on the head.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 01:39:19 GMT, "Asiya"
Post by Asiya
Post by Satyr
Post by Asiya
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the betterment of
the mind and spirit, and to consider giving pleasure to one's body
(the very shell without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST PEOPLE WHO
DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND"
INTO IDIOCY! By way of bending their behinds around to meet their
navels, subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice and
tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state of spiritual
development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a good hearty
meal, exercise his imagination, and transcend by means of physical
and emotional fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist, that after
being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands for so many
centuries, one would welcome the chance to be human for once!
I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea that one must
sacrifice the body, mind, or spirit, whether it comes to mystics or
Satanists.
To set up any categorical "thou shalt nots" is the essence of dualism
in general, even that of the monist variety.
Post by Asiya
But is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of the
physical and emotional?
Heh. Good question.
I thought LaVey's philosophy, such as it was, tended toward
materialism. Therefore by definition there's nothing to transcend.
What's the point of ladders when living in Flatland?
Good point. Maybe transcending what LaVey calls the "unreasonable
religious demands"?
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell

www.devilzown.com
Satyr
2005-01-05 16:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Asiya
Post by Satyr
Post by Asiya
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the betterment
of the mind and spirit, and to consider giving pleasure to one's
body (the very shell without which the mind and spirit could not
exist) to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT NORMALCY ONLY TO
"TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of bending their behinds around
to meet their navels, subsisting on wild and exotic diets like
brown rice and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a good hearty
meal, exercise his imagination, and transcend by means of
physical and emotional fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist,
that after being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance to be human
for once!
I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea that one must
sacrifice the body, mind, or spirit, whether it comes to mystics
or Satanists.
To set up any categorical "thou shalt nots" is the essence of
dualism in general, even that of the monist variety.
Post by Asiya
But is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of the
physical and emotional?
Heh. Good question.
I thought LaVey's philosophy, such as it was, tended toward
materialism. Therefore by definition there's nothing to transcend.
What's the point of ladders when living in Flatland?
Good point. Maybe transcending what LaVey calls the "unreasonable
religious demands"?
Well, there is that, certainly. For the record, I tend to agree with
LaVey on this point and many others. But it isn't just religion that
places these "unreasonable demands" on us. Society does a pretty good
job of that too and breaking these chains is an on-going and difficult
process. The one major problem I have with LaVey is that his religion
imposed its own dogma and unreasonable demands on the individual, just
as surely as any other.
Asiya
2005-01-06 08:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Satyr
Post by Asiya
Post by Satyr
Post by Asiya
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the betterment
of the mind and spirit, and to consider giving pleasure to one's
body (the very shell without which the mind and spirit could not
exist) to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT NORMALCY ONLY TO
"TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of bending their behinds around
to meet their navels, subsisting on wild and exotic diets like
brown rice and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a good hearty
meal, exercise his imagination, and transcend by means of
physical and emotional fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist,
that after being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance to be human
for once!
I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea that one must
sacrifice the body, mind, or spirit, whether it comes to mystics
or Satanists.
To set up any categorical "thou shalt nots" is the essence of
dualism in general, even that of the monist variety.
Post by Asiya
But is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of the
physical and emotional?
Heh. Good question.
I thought LaVey's philosophy, such as it was, tended toward
materialism. Therefore by definition there's nothing to transcend.
What's the point of ladders when living in Flatland?
Good point. Maybe transcending what LaVey calls the "unreasonable
religious demands"?
Well, there is that, certainly. For the record, I tend to agree with
LaVey on this point and many others. But it isn't just religion that
places these "unreasonable demands" on us. Society does a pretty good
job of that too and breaking these chains is an on-going and difficult
process.
Agreed.
Post by Satyr
The one major problem I have with LaVey is that his religion
imposed its own dogma and unreasonable demands on the individual, just
as surely as any other.
Such as what? I've only read the Satanic Bible once, as a teenager, and
don't remember much of the dogma. What I don't like about the passage
that Nagasiva quoted is the implication that one should be concerned
*only* with having a good time physically and emotionally, that there is
no room for spiritual fulfillment, must choose one path or the other.
One can use the physical and emotional "worlds" for spiritual purposes,
and one can experience and enjoy the physical and emotional separately
but also do spiritual work.
In the quoted passage, LaVey seems to be no better than the mystics he
denounces.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
SOD of the CoE
2005-01-06 10:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Hael Satan!

"Asiya" <***@KAPHCHETHsbcglobal.net>:
# "Satyr" <***@NoPressedPighotmail.com>:
#> Asiya:
#># "Satyr" <***@NoPressedPighotmail.com>:
#>#> Asiya:
#>#># "SOD of the CoE" <***@boboroshi>:
#>#>#> [Quoting LaVey]:
#>#>#> It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the betterment
#>#>#> of the mind and spirit, and to consider giving pleasure to one's
#>#>#> body (the very shell without which the mind and spirit could not
#>#>#> exist) to be coarse, crude, and unrefined.

this text is what led me to think him Epicurean, hedonistic.
the implication is that fine, specialized, refinement,
is the better epitome for those engaging bodily pleasure.

#>#>#> AS OF LATE, MOST
#>#>#> PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT NORMALCY ONLY TO
#>#>#> "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of bending their behinds around
#>#>#> to meet their navels, subsisting on wild and exotic diets like
#>#>#> brown rice and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
#>#>#> of spiritual development.
#>#>#>
#>#>#> "Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a good hearty
#>#>#> meal, exercise his imagination, and transcend by means of
#>#>#> physical and emotional fulfillment.

'transcending' here might be merely to rise above the rudimentary
fulfillment of basic sustenance needs, the indulgence in fantasy
for purpose of engaging an alternative to the immediate, and thus
achieve "fulfillment" of a physical (e.g. sexual) and emotional
(e.g. joy, love, etc.) character. nothing superordinary. it leads
to the cessation of struggle, anxiety, and relaxes the entirety.

#>#>#> It seems, to the Satanist,
#>#>#> that after being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
#>#>#> for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance to be human
#>#>#> for once!
#>#>#
#>#># I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea....

it isn't one or the other, it is recompense or relish after denial.

#>#> To set up any categorical "thou shalt nots" is the essence of
#>#> dualism in general, even that of the monist variety.

that being what came before, it seems rational to test out license.

#>#># But is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of the
#>#># physical and emotional?

presumably by physical and emotional fulfillment. my guess not based
on anything I'll bring up in support is that the word 'fulfillment'
is being used archly here to relate to mystical objectives, and that
the 'transcendance' implied is relaxation in the throes of satiation,
that which Satan has the capacity to assist in manifesting.

#>#> I thought LaVey's philosophy, such as it was, tended toward
#>#> materialism. Therefore by definition there's nothing to transcend.

not necessarily so. even in materialism there are possible constraints
of escapable nature, such as transcending one's sociocultural condition
or circumstances of birth, one's present conditions or surrounds, etc.

#>#> What's the point of ladders when living in Flatland?

removing obstacles within the dimension of motion.

#># Good point. Maybe transcending what LaVey calls the "unreasonable
#># religious demands"?
#>
#> Well, there is that, certainly. For the record, I tend to agree with
#> LaVey on this point and many others.

wonderful considerations.

#> But it isn't just religion that
#> places these "unreasonable demands" on us. Society does a pretty good
#> job of that too and breaking these chains is an on-going and difficult
#> process.
#
# Agreed.

my point above, and one which LaVey does emphasize in the same text.

#> The one major problem I have with LaVey is that his religion
#> imposed its own dogma and unreasonable demands on the individual,
#> just as surely as any other.

'his religion' is too vague here to really address. quotes which go
some distance in sustaining such extreme contentions? there are few
which do more than stave off the worst of the SRA witch hunts that
he later, apparently, sought to redirect toward church-deserters.

# ...What I don't like about the passage that [bobo] quoted is the
# implication that one should be concerned *only* with having a
# good time physically and emotionally,

that isn't what it says. it speaks for the *Satanist*. if "one" is
a Satanist, then this, according to LaVey, who is laying out what
a Satanist does, is, and how the Satanist responds to certain
factors, within "The Satanic Bible", is what the Satanist says.
he calls it 'hogwash', frankly doubting the efficacy of 'mysticism'
which apparently reduces human beings to oddities, and instead
finds value in the pursuit of sensual, material pleasure.

# that there is no room for spiritual fulfillment,

this is more difficult to speak to, since the term 'spiritual' is
used so often as an *anti-material* identifier. from this slanted
perspective no such fulfillment in the general sense is possible,
that is correct. only a kind of self-dissolution into powerless
disorientation (compare what scientists say about how monotonous
activities give one 'the feeling of placelessness' in which one
fails to discern boundaries between oneself and the universe and
therefore attains to some kind of 'mystical experience') is
really possible from this materiality-oriented perspective.

coming from a similar place as regards materiality, yet prone to
both consider scientific enterprises valuable *and* to examine
the potentially positive repercussion of mystical endeavours, I've
primarily sought to identify the reality *behind* the terminology
(what one might call 'a rectification of names', to borrow a
sinologism). as such, 'spiritual fulfillment' *is* satiation and
may be had from the proper engagement of the material world with
the proper refinement (something Crowley called the Rules of Art).

# must choose one path or the other.

if seen as two paths. the pretzel-bodies can 'transcend into
idiocy'. where all subjective experiences are comparably equal as
long as they contain the general common character, navel-gazing
and yogic systems don't appear to result in any more astounding
insights than epicurean delight and hedonistic indulgence (what
might be called 'intelligent hedonism' or 'enlightened
euphoricism, respectively).

the repercussion of the repetition of each activity, however, and
to what it *ultimately* leads, seems to be LaVey's primary focus.
the mystics maintain that it is grander than it can be proven
to be, whilst the Satanist becomes satiated and entertained and
does not expect anything more than this, complete in himself.

# One can use the physical and emotional "worlds" for spiritual
# purposes,

seeing them as "separate worlds" may be part of the problem. if
the spiritual is an ideal without referent, then using the real
for imaginary purposes is ludicrous. if, like me, you are content
to relegate the spiritual to the subjective quality of human
living rather than some superordinary dimension, then doing
what LaVey is suggesting is *exactly* the pursuit of spiritual
purposes through epicurean methods (resulting in satiation).

# and one can experience and enjoy the physical and emotional
# separately but also do spiritual work.

again, our focus here is the Satanist. "one" can do all these as
one sees fit. since the physical and the emotional are BASE and
MORE IMPORTANT than any fabricated mentalisms called "spiritual",
it goes without saying that doing work of any kind will probably
include the physical and, possibly, the emotional. these aren't
easily-discerned dimensions in human experience except, maybe,
for the dissociative and somatically-discombobulated.

# In the quoted passage, LaVey seems to be no better than
# the mystics he denounces.

I would argue that, to the contrary, his usage of the term
'mystic' is pointed, sharp, and proceeds from a vantage whereby
one might use *magick* to achieve what we might call "nonmystical
transcendance" of sociocultural conditioning. this was the aim,
ostensibly, of the conducting of Black Masses within a Christian
context suggested by LaVey, and seems also to have been the
purpose of Greater Black Magick (at least by description).

blessed beast!

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/

50050106 aa-viii om
precisely 5 months from the turning of the Aeonic Year (ix!!)
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-07 08:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by SOD of the CoE
Hael Satan!
#>#>#> It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the betterment
#>#>#> of the mind and spirit, and to consider giving pleasure to one's
#>#>#> body (the very shell without which the mind and spirit could not
#>#>#> exist) to be coarse, crude, and unrefined.
this text is what led me to think him Epicurean, hedonistic.
the implication is that fine, specialized, refinement,
is the better epitome for those engaging bodily pleasure.
The problem, Bobo, is that people that talk that line (and MANY do, not just
Satanists) are usually people with very kinky desires that just came out of
a closet. So they blather about it, overmuch, to justify it. They usually
100% mean sexual things - as Lilith Aquino once said bluntly on an Oprah
Winfrey show, that is what LaVey was about and she's certainly know it well
enough from being IN that org for a very long time - and she resented Oprah
bringing them up when she and her husband were on her show representing
another org that's separate and NOT "all about sex."
Post by SOD of the CoE
#>#>#> AS OF LATE, MOST
#>#>#> PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT NORMALCY ONLY TO
#>#>#> "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of bending their behinds around
#>#>#> to meet their navels, subsisting on wild and exotic diets like
#>#>#> brown rice and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
#>#>#> of spiritual development.
#>#>#>
#>#>#> "Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a good hearty
#>#>#> meal, exercise his imagination, and transcend by means of
#>#>#> physical and emotional fulfillment.
'transcending' here might be merely to rise above the rudimentary
fulfillment of basic sustenance needs, the indulgence in fantasy
for purpose of engaging an alternative to the immediate, and thus
achieve "fulfillment" of a physical (e.g. sexual) and emotional
(e.g. joy, love, etc.) character. nothing superordinary. it leads
to the cessation of struggle, anxiety, and relaxes the entirety.
Again, another point that I never really understood. WHO doesn't already do
that, Bobo? WHO? I never met anyone in my LIFE that didn't go out and enjoy
themselves to the fullest, even when they couldn't really afrord to be doing
that! The ONLY people I ever ran into in my entire life that fit that
"anxiety, struggle, relaxing their attitude about themselves" were people
who were kinky - or the rare thing I did run into - gay and in the closet.
I'm saying I RARELY met gays in the closet, even. Well, in the NJ-NY area -
go figure. The "fantasy" that people fear to indulge in is always something
kinky and sexual - it's NEVER something like watching soap operas on TV or
THAT kind of fantasy, Bobo. Why was LaVey so against TV fantasy? Well, he
was. GET IT? Even among some of the Born Again types I bump into at times
down here (never ran into them up north) - they are always doing stuff and
enjoying themselves.

So I have always asked - JUST TO WHOM was Lavey saying this shit to? Lots of
people wondered about that as they looked around at everyone they knew
having fun. NOBODY I ever knew well or partied with. NOBODY in my family.
He sure the hell wasn't talking to the Italians or Jews. SO WHO? WHO is he
writing that for? I never figured that out - except to think maybe some
very rare case of a very repressed person - and then again I have to insist,
my 54 years of experience - the ONLY people I ever met like that were
SUPREMELY kinky and afraid of their own desires because they were pretty
bizarre. I can count the numbers of that kind of person I met in my entire
life on ONE HAND!! Not many!
Post by SOD of the CoE
#>#>#> It seems, to the Satanist,
#>#>#> that after being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
#>#>#> for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance to be human
#>#>#> for once!
#>#>#
#>#># I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea....
it isn't one or the other, it is recompense or relish after denial.
Repeat what I said above, Bobo. WHAT denial? WHO? WHO is he talking to?
I know LaVey was STRONGLY anti drugs - so he wasn't against ALL physical
denial at all - and he did write enough times against drugs that get you
high. Just say no? LMAO.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#>#> To set up any categorical "thou shalt nots" is the essence of
#>#> dualism in general, even that of the monist variety.
that being what came before, it seems rational to test out license.
#>#># But is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of the
#>#># physical and emotional?
presumably by physical and emotional fulfillment. my guess not based
on anything I'll bring up in support is that the word 'fulfillment'
is being used archly here to relate to mystical objectives, and that
the 'transcendance' implied is relaxation in the throes of satiation,
that which Satan has the capacity to assist in manifesting.
Again, WHO is he writing that for?
Post by SOD of the CoE
#>#> I thought LaVey's philosophy, such as it was, tended toward
#>#> materialism. Therefore by definition there's nothing to transcend.
not necessarily so. even in materialism there are possible constraints
of escapable nature, such as transcending one's sociocultural condition
or circumstances of birth, one's present conditions or surrounds, etc.
#>#> What's the point of ladders when living in Flatland?
removing obstacles within the dimension of motion.
#># Good point. Maybe transcending what LaVey calls the "unreasonable
#># religious demands"?
#>
#> Well, there is that, certainly. For the record, I tend to agree with
#> LaVey on this point and many others.
wonderful considerations.
#> But it isn't just religion that
#> places these "unreasonable demands" on us. Society does a pretty good
#> job of that too and breaking these chains is an on-going and difficult
#> process.
#
# Agreed.
my point above, and one which LaVey does emphasize in the same text.
#> The one major problem I have with LaVey is that his religion
#> imposed its own dogma and unreasonable demands on the individual,
#> just as surely as any other.
'his religion' is too vague here to really address. quotes which go
some distance in sustaining such extreme contentions?
Whether he intended to make it a "THOU SHALT" or not, it seemed to become a
"thou shalt" where his taste in attire, such as gangster old style for males
(but definitely not black ganster attire), whore clothing for women - red
lipstick, high heels, etc etc - became some kind of "Satanic norm" - and I
mean you need only look at the PHOTOS of the original COS members and
pictures of such people in the news back then, the men and women. It's also
in the Satanic Witch (originally the Compleat Witch).

there are few
Post by SOD of the CoE
which do more than stave off the worst of the SRA witch hunts that
he later, apparently, sought to redirect toward church-deserters.
# ...What I don't like about the passage that [bobo] quoted is the
# implication that one should be concerned *only* with having a
# good time physically and emotionally,
that isn't what it says. it speaks for the *Satanist*. if "one" is
a Satanist, then this, according to LaVey, who is laying out what
a Satanist does, is, and how the Satanist responds to certain
factors, within "The Satanic Bible", is what the Satanist says.
he calls it 'hogwash', frankly doubting the efficacy of 'mysticism'
which apparently reduces human beings to oddities, and instead
finds value in the pursuit of sensual, material pleasure.
# that there is no room for spiritual fulfillment,
this is more difficult to speak to, since the term 'spiritual' is
used so often as an *anti-material* identifier.
HMM!! Interesting. I didn't know it meant that, Bobo. To me, the feeling
one gets from listening to certain Chopin pieces is SPIRITUAL. It's a deep,
very deep feeling. LaVey got those feelings too - with MUSIC, notably. He
even called it THE MUSE!! So I find it hard to believe that LaVey meant
that - since he KNEW what the MUSE felt like and defined it the same way I
do. But again, culture clash. For me, spirit/mind/body are ONE thing. If
you detach the BODY from the mind - you also effectively detach the SPIRIT
from the mind!!! That is how I read that and understand it. I can't
understand it any OTHER way, either. A person with no body (so to speak)
has "no soul." Blacks say that all the time - and they are RIGHT. They
have no CHI!! I agree with that 100%.

from this slanted
Post by SOD of the CoE
perspective no such fulfillment in the general sense is possible,
that is correct. only a kind of self-dissolution into powerless
disorientation (compare what scientists say about how monotonous
activities give one 'the feeling of placelessness' in which one
fails to discern boundaries between oneself and the universe and
therefore attains to some kind of 'mystical experience') is
really possible from this materiality-oriented perspective.
coming from a similar place as regards materiality, yet prone to
both consider scientific enterprises valuable *and* to examine
the potentially positive repercussion of mystical endeavours, I've
primarily sought to identify the reality *behind* the terminology
(what one might call 'a rectification of names', to borrow a
sinologism). as such, 'spiritual fulfillment' *is* satiation and
may be had from the proper engagement of the material world with
the proper refinement (something Crowley called the Rules of Art).
AGREE!!
Post by SOD of the CoE
# must choose one path or the other.
if seen as two paths. the pretzel-bodies can 'transcend into
idiocy'. where all subjective experiences are comparably equal as
long as they contain the general common character, navel-gazing
and yogic systems don't appear to result in any more astounding
insights than epicurean delight and hedonistic indulgence (what
might be called 'intelligent hedonism' or 'enlightened
euphoricism, respectively).
the repercussion of the repetition of each activity, however, and
to what it *ultimately* leads, seems to be LaVey's primary focus.
the mystics maintain that it is grander than it can be proven
to be, whilst the Satanist becomes satiated and entertained and
does not expect anything more than this, complete in himself.
# One can use the physical and emotional "worlds" for spiritual
# purposes,
seeing them as "separate worlds" may be part of the problem. if
the spiritual is an ideal without referent, then using the real
for imaginary purposes is ludicrous. if, like me, you are content
to relegate the spiritual to the subjective quality of human
living rather than some superordinary dimension, then doing
what LaVey is suggesting is *exactly* the pursuit of spiritual
purposes through epicurean methods (resulting in satiation).
# and one can experience and enjoy the physical and emotional
# separately but also do spiritual work.
again, our focus here is the Satanist. "one" can do all these as
one sees fit. since the physical and the emotional are BASE and
MORE IMPORTANT than any fabricated mentalisms called "spiritual",
Ah, fabricated mentalisms are devoid of soul - they LACK spirit. Spirit
comes from the unification of mind/body as One Whole. It's like
inspiration.
Post by SOD of the CoE
it goes without saying that doing work of any kind will probably
include the physical and, possibly, the emotional. these aren't
easily-discerned dimensions in human experience except, maybe,
for the dissociative and somatically-discombobulated.
# In the quoted passage, LaVey seems to be no better than
# the mystics he denounces.
I would argue that, to the contrary, his usage of the term
'mystic' is pointed, sharp, and proceeds from a vantage whereby
one might use *magick* to achieve what we might call "nonmystical
transcendance" of sociocultural conditioning. this was the aim,
ostensibly, of the conducting of Black Masses within a Christian
context suggested by LaVey, and seems also to have been the
purpose of Greater Black Magick (at least by description).
I think you are rewriting LaVey here - .
Post by SOD of the CoE
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
50050106 aa-viii om
precisely 5 months from the turning of the Aeonic Year (ix!!)
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-07 07:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Asiya
Post by Satyr
Post by Asiya
Post by Satyr
Post by Asiya
It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the betterment
of the mind and spirit, and to consider giving pleasure to one's
body (the very shell without which the mind and spirit could not
exist) to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT NORMALCY ONLY TO
"TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of bending their behinds around
to meet their navels, subsisting on wild and exotic diets like
brown rice and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
of spiritual development.
"Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat a good hearty
meal, exercise his imagination, and transcend by means of
physical and emotional fulfillment. It seems, to the Satanist,
that after being harnessed with unreasonable religious demands
for so many centuries, one would welcome the chance to be human
for once!
I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea that one must
sacrifice the body, mind, or spirit, whether it comes to mystics
or Satanists.
To set up any categorical "thou shalt nots" is the essence of
dualism in general, even that of the monist variety.
Post by Asiya
But is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by use of the
physical and emotional?
Heh. Good question.
I thought LaVey's philosophy, such as it was, tended toward
materialism. Therefore by definition there's nothing to transcend.
What's the point of ladders when living in Flatland?
Good point. Maybe transcending what LaVey calls the "unreasonable
religious demands"?
Well, there is that, certainly. For the record, I tend to agree with
LaVey on this point and many others. But it isn't just religion that
places these "unreasonable demands" on us. Society does a pretty good
job of that too and breaking these chains is an on-going and difficult
process.
Agreed.
Post by Satyr
The one major problem I have with LaVey is that his religion
imposed its own dogma and unreasonable demands on the individual, just
as surely as any other.
Such as what? I've only read the Satanic Bible once, as a teenager, and
don't remember much of the dogma. What I don't like about the passage that
Nagasiva quoted is the implication that one should be concerned *only*
with having a good time physically and emotionally, that there is no room
for spiritual fulfillment, must choose one path or the other.
One can use the physical and emotional "worlds" for spiritual purposes,
and one can experience and enjoy the physical and emotional separately but
also do spiritual work.
In the quoted passage, LaVey seems to be no better than the mystics he
denounces.
Uh, they also used to go on about NOT using the web (comparing it to a
spider's web) and NOT getting online and NOT having a TV. And the way he
actually lived (deeds) was very much like a monk.

NO one gives a shit what people DO for fun, fullfillment, etc - but when a
person claiming to be the HP of a Church makes an "issue" out of what OTHERS
are doing, and tries to declare "what Satanists DO" - then it IS no better
than the mystics he denounces.
Post by Asiya
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
Tom
2005-01-07 15:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
NO one gives a shit what people DO for fun, fullfillment, etc -
Sure they do. That's why there are laws against using recreational drugs
and having sex in unapproved ways.
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-07 21:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Nobody was talking about illegal things.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
NO one gives a shit what people DO for fun, fullfillment, etc -
Sure they do. That's why there are laws against using recreational drugs
and having sex in unapproved ways.
Tom
2005-01-08 06:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
NO one gives a shit what people DO for fun, fullfillment, etc -
Sure they do. That's why there are laws against using recreational drugs
and having sex in unapproved ways.
Nobody was talking about illegal things.
One way people show that they *do* give a shit what others do for fun,
fulfillment, etc., is that they pass laws concerning it.
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-08 09:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
NO one gives a shit what people DO for fun, fullfillment, etc -
Sure they do. That's why there are laws against using recreational
drugs
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
and having sex in unapproved ways.
Nobody was talking about illegal things.
One way people show that they *do* give a shit what others do for fun,
fulfillment, etc., is that they pass laws concerning it.
Yes they do care enough to pass laws - just like they pass laws against
drunk driving. That is because people doped up on drugs DO affect others
around them adversely. That is why there are laws. Would you want a doctor
to be high when operating on you? I wouldn't.

But the convo is about mystics and LaVey and THAT KIND of "enjoying and fun"
stuff. LaVey was not in favor of drugs - he was very much against using
them. Hmm, some mystics are not against it (NA mushrooms, etc). But no one
in this thread was talking about that kind of enjoyment or epicurean fun and
fulfillment.

Put it this way - I would care enough to STOP people from playing kickball
or volleyball in my house. They mght break my things.

My point to the point they were making is that I have no idea WHO LaVey was
preaching to since I never met ANYONE that did not go out and enjoy
themselves or fullfill themselves and etc. I'm surprised Bobo has no
response to that or answer to it.

What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that shit about
"overthrowing mystical thinking" or whatever that quote said. What the hell
did HE think HE was saying when he said some 100% MYSTICAL stuff about
"Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D minor was the most SATANIC song he ever
heard." He named a few other things as well. What? It's CHURCH music, for
shit's sakes. What is Satanic about it? Ah, I see - he meant "He LIKES the
song." Well, heh, Passacaglia in C minor is BETTER. But who does NOT hear
something 100% MYSTICAL when he's declaring that Bach's song is Satanic? I
really doubt Bach thought it was Satanic when he wrote it. Far from it.
Tom
2005-01-08 18:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
NO one gives a shit what people DO for fun, fullfillment, etc -
Sure they do. That's why there are laws against using
recreational drugs and having sex in unapproved ways.
Nobody was talking about illegal things.
One way people show that they *do* give a shit what others do for fun,
fulfillment, etc., is that they pass laws concerning it.
Yes they do care enough to pass laws - just like they pass laws against
drunk driving.
Then I guess it's alright to talk about "illegal things", since it relates
directly to your assertion that "No one gives a shit what people do for fun,
fulfillment, etc."

Perhaps your objection to my comment was due to the fact that it directly
contradicts your assertion.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
That is because people doped up on drugs DO affect others
around them adversely.
Being doped up and engaging in behavior that risks other people is not the
only use of a recreational drug that is illegal. That's only the excuse
that's used to convince the gullible when such laws are proposed. What is
illegal is not the behavior that follows becoming doped up. It's a crime to
be doped up at all, if it's for recreational purposes.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
That is why there are laws. Would you want a doctor
to be high when operating on you? I wouldn't.
Do you object to his getting high when he's not operating or otherwise
engaged in doctoring? The law declares this to be illegal, too. The law
pretty clearly says you're not allowed to engage in *any* recreational drug
use, no matter if you're a danger to others or not.

Let's take another example. Why is it illegal for a person who is on his
death bed and in excruciating pain to use herion? Do you think he's goig to
go joy riding or rob a liquor store? The law makes no discrimination. It's
*illegal* to use heroin, no matter what.

Why does the law read that way? Who is at risk?

So, if the law isn't aimed at only folks who represent a danger to others,
then that isn't what the law is for. Get it?
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
But the convo is about mystics and LaVey and THAT KIND of\
"enjoying and fun" stuff.
Morality. That's what I'm talking about too. The laws against certain sex
acts and certain drugs are due entirely to the urge to control what others
do for fun, fulfillment, etc. That same urge is what causes Christians,
Muslims, and other people who perceive themselves as moral paragons, to
object to Satanism.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
LaVey was not in favor of drugs - he was very much against using
them. Hmm, some mystics are not against it (NA mushrooms, etc). But no one
in this thread was talking about that kind of enjoyment or epicurean fun and
fulfillment.
Then your own comment that "no one gives a shit what people do for fun,
fulfillment, etc" is also irrelevant, not to mention that it's completely
and demonstrably false.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
My point to the point they were making is that I have no idea WHO LaVey was
preaching to since I never met ANYONE that did not go out and enjoy
themselves or fullfill themselves and etc.
But that's not what you said. You said "NO one gives a shit what people DO
for fun, fullfillment, etc."

My point is that this is false. People do indeed give a shit what others do
for fun and fulfillment.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
I'm surprised Bobo has no
response to that or answer to it.
I'm not. Brian often ignores people who make him uncomfortable by
disagreeing with him. You seem to have the same tendency, BTW, so it really
shouldn't come as a surprise to you at all.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that
shit about "overthrowing mystical thinking" or whatever that quote said.
In order to find out, first you should look up the quote exactly. Then try
reading it in context.
Delila
2005-01-08 20:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Being doped up and engaging in behavior that risks other people is not the
only use of a recreational drug that is illegal. That's only the excuse
that's used to convince the gullible when such laws are proposed. What is
illegal is not the behavior that follows becoming doped up. It's a crime to
be doped up at all, if it's for recreational purposes.
Yep, although it's perfectly legal to be falling-down drunk on alcohol.
Weird, hmm?
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
That is why there are laws. Would you want a doctor
to be high when operating on you? I wouldn't.
Do you object to his getting high when he's not operating or otherwise
engaged in doctoring? The law declares this to be illegal, too. The law
pretty clearly says you're not allowed to engage in *any* recreational drug
use, no matter if you're a danger to others or not.
Let's take another example. Why is it illegal for a person who is on his
death bed and in excruciating pain to use herion? Do you think he's goig to
go joy riding or rob a liquor store? The law makes no discrimination.
It's
Post by Tom
*illegal* to use heroin, no matter what.
Why does the law read that way? Who is at risk?
The pharmaceutical industry? That's why (medicinal) marijuana is still
illegal; they know it can alleviate symptoms, those synthetic drugs can't.
But since pot is a natural herb that anyone can easily grow themselves for
just pennies, those greedy pigs wouldn't earn any money on it, and so it
stays illegal.
Post by Tom
Morality. That's what I'm talking about too. The laws against certain sex
acts and certain drugs are due entirely to the urge to control what others
do for fun, fulfillment, etc. That same urge is what causes Christians,
Muslims, and other people who perceive themselves as moral paragons, to
object to Satanism.
Bingo. As if lawmakers have ever been able to legislate morality.
Post by Tom
My point is that this is false. People do indeed give a shit what others do
for fun and fulfillment.
SOME people.


D.
Tom
2005-01-09 06:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Delila
What is illegal is not the behavior that follows becoming
doped up. It's a crime to
be doped up at all, if it's for recreational purposes.
Yep, although it's perfectly legal to be falling-down drunk on alcohol.
Weird, hmm?
Well, they did try Prohibition a while back, too. A Constitutional
Amendment, no less, to stop people from drinking alcohol recreationally.
Post by Delila
Let's take another example. Why is it illegal for a person
who is on his death bed and in excruciating pain to use
heroin? Do you think he's going to go joy riding or rob a
liquor store? The law makes no discrimination. It's
*illegal* to use heroin, no matter what.
Why does the law read that way? Who is at risk?
The pharmaceutical industry?
They can sell heroin just as easily as they do any other drug. It's just
that heroin got a reputation for recreational use that far exceeded its
clinical use.
Post by Delila
That's why (medicinal) marijuana is still
illegal; they know it can alleviate symptoms, those synthetic drugs can't.
But since pot is a natural herb that anyone can easily grow themselves for
just pennies, those greedy pigs wouldn't earn any money on it, and so it
stays illegal.
I disagree. I see it as a moral issue rather than an economic one. If it
was pure economics, the law would be designed to provide *someone* with a
profit. As it is, nobody makes any money on it except outlaws.
Post by Delila
That same urge is what causes Christians,
Muslims, and other people who perceive themselves as moral paragons, to
object to Satanism.
Bingo. As if lawmakers have ever been able to legislate morality.
Failure only reinforces irrational faith. I recommend "When Prophecy
Fails", by Leon Festinger.
Post by Delila
My point is that this is false. People do indeed give a
shit what others do for fun and fulfillment.
SOME people.
Yes, some.

What percentage is "some"? Nine out of ten? Less than half? Less than one
in a hundred?
unknown
2005-01-10 11:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Delila
What is illegal is not the behavior that follows becoming
doped up. It's a crime to
be doped up at all, if it's for recreational purposes.
Yep, although it's perfectly legal to be falling-down drunk on alcohol.
Weird, hmm?
Well, they did try Prohibition a while back, too. A Constitutional
Amendment, no less, to stop people from drinking alcohol recreationally.
Post by Delila
Let's take another example. Why is it illegal for a person
who is on his death bed and in excruciating pain to use
heroin? Do you think he's going to go joy riding or rob a
liquor store? The law makes no discrimination. It's
*illegal* to use heroin, no matter what.
Why does the law read that way? Who is at risk?
The pharmaceutical industry?
They can sell heroin just as easily as they do any other drug. It's just
that heroin got a reputation for recreational use that far exceeded its
clinical use.
Post by Delila
That's why (medicinal) marijuana is still
illegal; they know it can alleviate symptoms, those synthetic drugs can't.
But since pot is a natural herb that anyone can easily grow themselves for
just pennies, those greedy pigs wouldn't earn any money on it, and so it
stays illegal.
I disagree. I see it as a moral issue rather than an economic one. If it
was pure economics, the law would be designed to provide *someone* with a
profit. As it is, nobody makes any money on it except outlaws.
it is the interstate commerce, believe it or not one of the main
reasons weed is still illegal is because of the economy. if medical
marijuana was legal in all 50 states it would dramatically drop the
price of a bag of weed. plus the way pot is bought and sold is usually
drive to a different town buy lots of weed drive back home and sell
it. people that use drugs are like bees getting pollen from flowers
and then going to other flowers to keep them healthy. less pot being
bought and sold, less money being spent and less money being
circulated into the economy.
as far as what people do for fun pot heads have lots of friends and
lots of fun times, most of them don't hurt anyone in the
process(except for the stupid people but they are just stupid).
alcoholics beat their kids and shit on themselves. alcohols does
nothing good for you were as pot and mushrooms expand you mind and
your life. a pot head can do everything a sober person does like go to
school and become a doctor or lawyer, but a pot head just realizes
that it aint worth it, because they can smoke weed and feel more
accomplished then any successfully business man. i am a pot head that
has not smoked weed for two and a half years thanks to the government,
that i give money to so they can waste it on shit i don't agree with.
that is a form of slavery in my eyes, that is unethical and morally
wrong.
Post by Tom
Post by Delila
That same urge is what causes Christians,
Muslims, and other people who perceive themselves as moral paragons,
to
Post by Delila
object to Satanism.
Bingo. As if lawmakers have ever been able to legislate morality.
Failure only reinforces irrational faith. I recommend "When Prophecy
Fails", by Leon Festinger.
Post by Delila
My point is that this is false. People do indeed give a
shit what others do for fun and fulfillment.
SOME people.
Yes, some.
What percentage is "some"? Nine out of ten? Less than half? Less than one
in a hundred?
Tom
2005-01-10 17:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Tom
I disagree. I see it as a moral issue rather than an economic one. If it
was pure economics, the law would be designed to provide *someone* with a
profit. As it is, nobody makes any money on it except outlaws.
it is the interstate commerce, believe it or not one of the main
reasons weed is still illegal is because of the economy. if medical
marijuana was legal in all 50 states it would dramatically drop the
price of a bag of weed.
Some unjust laws are intended to benefit certain parties, but not all.

For instance, immigration laws severely restricting the entry of foreign
workers profit the big farmers who are then able to hire these workers at
less than the legally allowable wage and provide less than the legally
allowable working conditions. The law creates a ready-made underclass to
exploit. The big farmers profit from this and actively discourage changes
in the legislation in their lobbying efforts.

The only people profiting from the illegality of marijuana are the black
marketeers, who have no place at all in the legal economy, as the big
farmers do. There's no Marijuana Growers PAC lobbying Washington to keep
pot illegal. Or is there? Who lobbies against the medical marijuana
initiatives? Who lobbies for it? Where does the money trail lead?
unknown
2005-01-11 06:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by unknown
Post by Tom
I disagree. I see it as a moral issue rather than an economic one. If
it
Post by unknown
Post by Tom
was pure economics, the law would be designed to provide *someone* with a
profit. As it is, nobody makes any money on it except outlaws.
it is the interstate commerce, believe it or not one of the main
reasons weed is still illegal is because of the economy. if medical
marijuana was legal in all 50 states it would dramatically drop the
price of a bag of weed.
Some unjust laws are intended to benefit certain parties, but not all.
For instance, immigration laws severely restricting the entry of foreign
workers profit the big farmers who are then able to hire these workers at
less than the legally allowable wage and provide less than the legally
allowable working conditions. The law creates a ready-made underclass to
exploit. The big farmers profit from this and actively discourage changes
in the legislation in their lobbying efforts.
The only people profiting from the illegality of marijuana are the black
marketeers, who have no place at all in the legal economy, as the big
farmers do. There's no Marijuana Growers PAC lobbying Washington to keep
pot illegal. Or is there? Who lobbies against the medical marijuana
initiatives? Who lobbies for it? Where does the money trail lead?
corrupted organizations like the CIA. but their hand is in all sorts
of other illegal activities than mere weed.

it is true that the drug dealers are making money but they are taking
huge risks. more money can be made selling crack cocaine and meth, so
if a drug dealer wanted to get rich that is what he would sell. the
majority of pot heads sell to maintain their habit. i don't think it
is much as a money trail as it is a primer for big business, if the
economy is going strong corporations are the ones that benefit the
most.

i like anton levays ideas for society, i think there would be more
happy people, more love and strength if the world could except his
ideas. i don't agree with the over use of drugs but i think people
should be allowed to use them as long as they held up there end and
were responsible to themselves and others. i think one of the main
reasons people get into drugs is because of unhappiness. christianity
has a lot to do with this because you are taught to think your are
weak and unworthy of life. life is such a beautiful thing and we
should be free to enjoy it. we should worship and protect our earth
and ourself, the world should work as one and be good to one another.
sometimes i wish anton leavey would have called satanism something
else like human integrity and honor. maybe then the sheep would at
least give it somewhat of a chance.
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-08 23:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
NO one gives a shit what people DO for fun, fullfillment, etc -
Sure they do. That's why there are laws against using
recreational drugs and having sex in unapproved ways.
Nobody was talking about illegal things.
One way people show that they *do* give a shit what others do for fun,
fulfillment, etc., is that they pass laws concerning it.
Yes they do care enough to pass laws - just like they pass laws against
drunk driving.
Then I guess it's alright to talk about "illegal things", since it relates
directly to your assertion that "No one gives a shit what people do for fun,
fulfillment, etc."
Perhaps your objection to my comment was due to the fact that it directly
contradicts your assertion.
No, my objection to your comment is that it is entirely off topic, because
it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was asking Bobo with regards to
LaVey's preaching. LaVey was NOT saying "go out and use drugs" or even
opting for revised legislation with regards to drugs and such things illegal
in society; he was NOT one of those "legalize pot now" types AT ALL.

LaVey said what he said - and it's clear what he MEANT - my question was WHO
was he talking to? Who does NOT do what he was preaching in the first
place? Asking that while keeping in mind that LaVey was NOT preaching in
favor of drug use or anything illegal is a key to keeping on topic.

Obviously people also give a shit what people do for fun when their fun
involves vandalizing property, cars, mailboxes, gang raping someone, robbing
a store and etc. But that's NOT the focus of the question. The focus was
WHO LaVey was preaching this to. He was NOT talking about how people have
ILLEGAL fun. Not at all. That's 100% clear in his writings.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
That is because people doped up on drugs DO affect others
around them adversely.
Being doped up and engaging in behavior that risks other people is not the
only use of a recreational drug that is illegal.
You are trying to engage me in a topic about drug use. This is NOT the
topic, NOT what LaVey as talking about, NOT WHO LaVey was talking to,
either. Keep in mind, the topic starts like this: LAVEY SAID. My question
to Bobo is WHO is he talking to? We already KNOW for a fact that he is NOT
talking to people that would do anything that is considered illegal, and he
is ALSO NOT talking to drug users. He was adamantaly and staunchly against
drug use - and he wrote about it. So then we know who he was NOT talking
to, so then, WHO WAS he talking to? Bobo can't answer that, he has not
answered that. I said a considerably lot more about just WHO I've run into
that was the kind of repressed that LaVey DOES seem to be talking about.
NONE of them were drug users, btw - drug users don't have to unrepress
themselves in order to use drugs - they seem to just do it. The people I
have run into that FIT into what LaVey is preaching to were extremely kinky
people. Reread what I said - ALL of it, not just some parts of it.

That's only the excuse
Post by Tom
that's used to convince the gullible when such laws are proposed. What is
illegal is not the behavior that follows becoming doped up. It's a crime to
be doped up at all, if it's for recreational purposes.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
That is why there are laws. Would you want a doctor
to be high when operating on you? I wouldn't.
Do you object to his getting high when he's not operating or otherwise
engaged in doctoring? The law declares this to be illegal, too. The law
pretty clearly says you're not allowed to engage in *any* recreational drug
use, no matter if you're a danger to others or not.
Doctor's don't tend to get high on illegal drugs. They write themselves
prescriptions. You are asking ME a personal question? I would prefer a
doctor that has had enough sleep to do his work right, and be sober as hell
and in a right mind. Now, this is FREEDOM OF CHOICE on my part - freedom to
pick and choose a doctor. I don't personally hang out with drug users and
that IS my free choice. I think it's more or less, such people just don't
GO to places that I go to.
Post by Tom
Let's take another example. Why is it illegal for a person who is on his
death bed and in excruciating pain to use herion? Do you think he's goig to
go joy riding or rob a liquor store? The law makes no discrimination.
It's
*illegal* to use heroin, no matter what.
Morphine. Or morphine plus methadone - they seem to give methodone for pain
these days, along with other very strong drugs.
Post by Tom
Why does the law read that way? Who is at risk?
I don't know - but you railing this at me is NOT part of the topic about
what LaVey was preaching and WHO he was preaching it to. You have tried to
turn this into a topic about legalizing drugs and the illogical laws
regarding drugs. That's NOT the issue at all. It was NEVER an issue with
LaVey. Bobo started this topic about what LaVey said. I asked Bobo WHO
LaVey as talking to and said the rest of what I said. You turned it into a
platorm to preach for "NORMAL." I think the US policy on "war on drugs" is
a joke. But LaVey never ever brought that up or cared about it - he was
AGAINST drugs.
Post by Tom
So, if the law isn't aimed at only folks who represent a danger to others,
then that isn't what the law is for. Get it?
I got it back when pot was legal in NYC, or at least there were no laws one
way or the other about it. I got it when they made it illegal. I'm old.
I don't care about it save that it's wasting my tax money. I don't use pot
or like pot. I think the gov should sell drugs and get money to fix the
deficit from it.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
But the convo is about mystics and LaVey and THAT KIND of\
"enjoying and fun" stuff.
Morality. That's what I'm talking about too. The laws against certain sex
acts and certain drugs are due entirely to the urge to control what others
do for fun, fulfillment, etc.
There is no law against MOST sex acts. LaVey was NOT talking about the
legality of any of this. He was talking to extremely repressed types of
people that, imo, don't have their heads screwed on. There is a law against
sex with animals and children - Lavey was NOT in favor of that, by the way.
It never fails, but certain people (you?) bring up the same old shit - the
sex thing and the drugs thing.

That same urge is what causes Christians,
Post by Tom
Muslims, and other people who perceive themselves as moral paragons, to
object to Satanism.
LaVey's Satanism was ANTI drug use. Get that thru your head.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
LaVey was not in favor of drugs - he was very much against using
them. Hmm, some mystics are not against it (NA mushrooms, etc). But no
one
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
in this thread was talking about that kind of enjoyment or epicurean fun
and
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
fulfillment.
Then your own comment that "no one gives a shit what people do for fun,
fulfillment, etc" is also irrelevant, not to mention that it's completely
and demonstrably false.
No, it is a good argument since I was addressing LAVEY'S statements which
everyone knows, were very specific and did NOT include drug use and such.
You are off topic.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
My point to the point they were making is that I have no idea WHO LaVey
was
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
preaching to since I never met ANYONE that did not go out and enjoy
themselves or fullfill themselves and etc.
But that's not what you said. You said "NO one gives a shit what people DO
for fun, fullfillment, etc."
Keep to the topic - no one gives a shit what people do for fun, fulfillment,
etc IN LAVEY'S TERMS. What LAVEY meant. Bobo made the topic about LAVEY -
not about the fucking drug laws.
Post by Tom
My point is that this is false. People do indeed give a shit what others do
for fun and fulfillment.
Yes, in the BIGGER sense sure they do. But LAVEY did not object to that.
Topic is "IN LAVEY WORLD, based on LAVEY DEFINITIONS" no one gives a fuck
about that.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
I'm surprised Bobo has no
response to that or answer to it.
I'm not. Brian often ignores people who make him uncomfortable by
disagreeing with him. You seem to have the same tendency, BTW, so it really
shouldn't come as a surprise to you at all.
You are not disagreeing with me. You are switching from LAVEY WORLD to the
whole world and the legal system. Jeff Dahmer enjoyed his sexual
experiences - the whole nation objected to it. DUH. Obviously - and I mean
OBVIOUSLY I was not addressing that. I was talking strictly within the
CONFINES of LAVEY world - HIS ideas of fun and filfillment. Who is Brian?
Bobo had a very preconceived idea that he tries to keep very positive - and
he does seem to ignore facts that entirely contradict his preconceived
ideas.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that
shit about "overthrowing mystical thinking" or whatever that quote said.
In order to find out, first you should look up the quote exactly. Then try
reading it in context.
Did, been there, done that. He didn't do anything of the sort, and he
himself made some pretty mystical statements without realizing they were
mystical, about music and such - as I also pointed out - again, with no
responses from Bobo.
Tom
2005-01-09 07:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
LaVey said what he said - and it's clear what he MEANT -
Yet, you indicated earlier that you did not know exactly what he said. If
you don't even know what was said, how can you be so sure you know what he
meant?
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
my question was WHO was he talking to?
That one's easy. The reader of the book.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Who does NOT do what he was preaching in the first
place?
Lots of people resist doing what they would like to do. They don't always
do that, but they do it a lot. Even Satanists (if they're not entirely
stupid) resist indulging all their impulses. Lavey makes a point here, in a
typically hyperbolic form, of course. Satanists are widely known to do and
say things that are over the top. They're performance artists, mainly.

It's almost always an error to take a Satanist at face value.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Obviously people also give a shit what people do for fun when their fun
involves vandalizing property, cars, mailboxes, gang raping someone, robbing
a store and etc.
Or anything else, so long as it's *their* fun, not *our* fun. In-group
behavior = cool, out-group behavior = uncool. Get it?
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
The focus was WHO LaVey was preaching this to.
Like I said. To anyone reading his book.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
That is because people doped up on drugs DO affect others
around them adversely.
Being doped up and engaging in behavior that risks other people is not the
only use of a recreational drug that is illegal.
You are trying to engage me in a topic about drug use.
You are arguing about drug use while I simply used it as an example to show
you the error in your claim than nobody gives a shit about what people do
for fun and fulfillment.

You are off-topic. Shut up about drugs already. Talk about what evidence
you have that people don't give a shit how other people do for fun or
fulfillment. I've given you several pieces of evidence indicating that
people do indeed care about what others do for fun and fulfillment. Now
it's your turn. Got any evidence to support that claim?
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
either. Keep in mind, the topic starts like this: LAVEY SAID. My question
to Bobo is WHO is he talking to?
Third time. The reader of his book.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
He was adamantaly and staunchly against
drug use - and he wrote about it.
"If, however, you do not plan on practicing witchcraft but only believing in
it, use all the drugs you like." -- From "The Satanic Witch", by Anton
LaVey
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
There is no law against MOST sex acts.
There are laws against any homosexual acts in many states. Some states have
laws against oral or anal sex between heterosexuals, too. Some have laws
making adultery illegal. And all of them have laws against exchanging
money for sex.

That's quite a lot. And every single one of those laws is aimed at
suppressing something that other people do for fun or fulfillment.

I'm still waiting for a single shred of evidence from you in support of your
claim than people don't give a shit what other people do for fun and
fulfillment.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
LaVey's Satanism was ANTI drug use. Get that thru your head.
"If, however, you do not plan on practicing witchcraft but only believing in
it, use all the drugs you like." -- From "The Satanic Witch", by Anton
LaVey
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
But that's not what you said. You said "NO one gives a shit what people
DO for fun, fullfillment, etc."
Keep to the topic -
Are you denying you said that?

If comments about your own statements are off-topic, then your statements
themselves are off-topic.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
no one gives a shit what people do for fun, fulfillment,
etc IN LAVEY'S TERMS.
Where does he say that? Give us a quotation.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
My point is that this is false. People do indeed give a shit what
others do for fun and fulfillment.
Yes, in the BIGGER sense sure they do.
Then stop trying to defend what you yourself admit is wrong.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
But LAVEY did not object to that.
Topic is "IN LAVEY WORLD, based on LAVEY DEFINITIONS" no
one gives a fuck about that.
Who are you quoting now? Not LaVey, apparently. You said he was opposed to
drug use. If he *didn't* give a fuck, why are you saying he *did* give a
fuck and showed it by being opposed to recreational drug use? And why do
you say he was opposed to recreational drug use when he is quoted as saying
"If, however, you do not plan on practicing witchcraft but only believing in
it, use all the drugs you like"?

You seem to be all tangled up in contradictions. It seems very likely at
this point that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, because
you sure aren't making any kind of consistent sense.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
You are not disagreeing with me.
Fascinating. I say I am disagreeing with you, but you insist that you know
better than me what I'm doing. You sure know a lot for a person with very
little actual information.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that
shit about "overthrowing mystical thinking" or whatever that quote said.
In order to find out, first you should look up the quote exactly.
Then try reading it in context.
Did, been there, done that.
You wrote, "What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that
shit about
'overthrowing mystical thinking' or whatever that quote said."

Don't you know what that quote said? Why not?

No wonder you ask what the quote means. You don't even know what it is.
Dagon Productions
2005-01-09 21:24:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
LaVey said what he said - and it's clear what he MEANT -
Yet, you indicated earlier that you did not know exactly what he said. If
you don't even know what was said, how can you be so sure you know what he
meant?
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
my question was WHO was he talking to?
That one's easy. The reader of the book.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Who does NOT do what he was preaching in the first
place?
Lots of people resist doing what they would like to do. They don't always
do that, but they do it a lot. Even Satanists (if they're not entirely
stupid) resist indulging all their impulses. Lavey makes a point here, in a
typically hyperbolic form, of course. Satanists are widely known to do and
say things that are over the top. They're performance artists, mainly.
It's almost always an error to take a Satanist at face value.
Tom hits on a good point here. At this point it becomes a matter of
actions and words...
unfortunately, tani is a self admitted liar and her actions point to her
being a snitch worthy
of being shanked.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Obviously people also give a shit what people do for fun when their fun
involves vandalizing property, cars, mailboxes, gang raping someone,
robbing
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
a store and etc.
Or anything else, so long as it's *their* fun, not *our* fun. In-group
behavior = cool, out-group behavior = uncool. Get it?
trani is a staunch believer in the law. Can't understand that some laws
are unreasonable whatsoever.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
The focus was WHO LaVey was preaching this to.
Like I said. To anyone reading his book.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
That is because people doped up on drugs DO affect others
around them adversely.
Being doped up and engaging in behavior that risks other people is not
the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
only use of a recreational drug that is illegal.
You are trying to engage me in a topic about drug use.
You are arguing about drug use while I simply used it as an example to show
you the error in your claim than nobody gives a shit about what people do
for fun and fulfillment.
You are off-topic. Shut up about drugs already. Talk about what evidence
you have that people don't give a shit how other people do for fun or
fulfillment. I've given you several pieces of evidence indicating that
people do indeed care about what others do for fun and fulfillment. Now
it's your turn. Got any evidence to support that claim?
She doesn't. All hot air and flatuation.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
either. Keep in mind, the topic starts like this: LAVEY SAID. My
question
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
to Bobo is WHO is he talking to?
Third time. The reader of his book.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
He was adamantaly and staunchly against
drug use - and he wrote about it.
"If, however, you do not plan on practicing witchcraft but only believing in
it, use all the drugs you like." -- From "The Satanic Witch", by Anton
LaVey
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
There is no law against MOST sex acts.
There are laws against any homosexual acts in many states. Some states have
laws against oral or anal sex between heterosexuals, too. Some have laws
making adultery illegal. And all of them have laws against exchanging
money for sex.
That's quite a lot. And every single one of those laws is aimed at
suppressing something that other people do for fun or fulfillment.
I'm still waiting for a single shred of evidence from you in support of your
claim than people don't give a shit what other people do for fun and
fulfillment.
It's just a coverup to justify her endless hours of couch potato tv
watching.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
LaVey's Satanism was ANTI drug use. Get that thru your head.
"If, however, you do not plan on practicing witchcraft but only believing in
it, use all the drugs you like." -- From "The Satanic Witch", by Anton
LaVey
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
But that's not what you said. You said "NO one gives a shit what people
DO for fun, fullfillment, etc."
Keep to the topic -
Are you denying you said that?
If comments about your own statements are off-topic, then your statements
themselves are off-topic.
Are you really expecting trani to be logical?
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
no one gives a shit what people do for fun, fulfillment,
etc IN LAVEY'S TERMS.
Where does he say that? Give us a quotation.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
My point is that this is false. People do indeed give a shit what
others do for fun and fulfillment.
Yes, in the BIGGER sense sure they do.
Then stop trying to defend what you yourself admit is wrong.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
But LAVEY did not object to that.
Topic is "IN LAVEY WORLD, based on LAVEY DEFINITIONS" no
one gives a fuck about that.
Who are you quoting now? Not LaVey, apparently. You said he was opposed to
drug use. If he *didn't* give a fuck, why are you saying he *did* give a
fuck and showed it by being opposed to recreational drug use? And why do
you say he was opposed to recreational drug use when he is quoted as saying
"If, however, you do not plan on practicing witchcraft but only believing in
it, use all the drugs you like"?
You seem to be all tangled up in contradictions. It seems very likely at
this point that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, because
you sure aren't making any kind of consistent sense.
Very typical trani behavior.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
You are not disagreeing with me.
Fascinating. I say I am disagreeing with you, but you insist that you know
better than me what I'm doing. You sure know a lot for a person with very
little actual information.
Very typical trani behavior.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that
shit about "overthrowing mystical thinking" or whatever that quote
said.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
In order to find out, first you should look up the quote exactly.
Then try reading it in context.
Did, been there, done that.
You wrote, "What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that
shit about
'overthrowing mystical thinking' or whatever that quote said."
Don't you know what that quote said? Why not?
No wonder you ask what the quote means. You don't even know what it is.
trani has a hard time dealing with the obvious.

-Douglas
--
**********************************************
Dagon Productions
Chaos Magick & Occult books
http://www.dagonproductions.com
***@dagonproductions.com
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-11 08:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
LaVey said what he said - and it's clear what he MEANT -
Yet, you indicated earlier that you did not know exactly what he said. If
you don't even know what was said, how can you be so sure you know what he
meant?
I do know what he said - tho I can't quote it chapter and verse and I
rerfuse to go fetch shit that's not copy pasteable. Let Bobo do that - he's
the one doing this research. You keep trying to turn this into a drug
conversation - and you succeeded in doing that with some other posters here.
But that is just NOT the issue with LaVey's "fun and fulfullment" statement.
What I said about "no one I know" refers 100% to what LAVEY meant when HE
talked about fun and fulfillment. He was very anti drug use.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
my question was WHO was he talking to?
That one's easy. The reader of the book.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Who does NOT do what he was preaching in the first
place?
Lots of people resist doing what they would like to do.
You neglect to read my first post to Bobo on this "who was he talking to."
It's pretty generally accepted that he was taking to a very small group of
very repressed white people - and no one else. LaVey's versions of fun and
fulfillment were what anyone today would call VERY square except for his
"statements" about free sexual life styles. In reality, LaVey did not like
gays very much, especially the effeminite types. What I said was very
clear - I have never met anyone in my life that was repressed like that or
who did NOT do what they liked to do (given the LAVEY guidelines, keep that
in mind). The ONLY people I ever ran into that were repressed and in a
closet were very kinky people. I never even met GAYS like that in the NY -
NJ area. And so..

They don't always
Post by Tom
do that, but they do it a lot. Even Satanists (if they're not entirely
stupid) resist indulging all their impulses. Lavey makes a point here, in a
typically hyperbolic form, of course. Satanists are widely known to do and
say things that are over the top. They're performance artists, mainly.
LaVey himself never said anything over the top. Read his works - all of
them.
Post by Tom
It's almost always an error to take a Satanist at face value.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Obviously people also give a shit what people do for fun when their fun
involves vandalizing property, cars, mailboxes, gang raping someone,
robbing
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
a store and etc.
Or anything else, so long as it's *their* fun, not *our* fun. In-group
behavior = cool, out-group behavior = uncool. Get it?
I didn't say that. Vandalizing a mailbox is not LEGAL. LaVey was a law
abiding person and in favor of the law. Hell, he wanted MORE law and
order - in case you didn't know that.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
The focus was WHO LaVey was preaching this to.
Like I said. To anyone reading his book.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
That is because people doped up on drugs DO affect others
around them adversely.
Being doped up and engaging in behavior that risks other people is not
the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
only use of a recreational drug that is illegal.
You are trying to engage me in a topic about drug use.
You are arguing about drug use
No, I'm not. But this goes to show you that misunderstandings arise when
you chime into a post made to Bobo that was CARRYING ON from where it left
off. Hence, you saw my statement completely devoid of CONTEXT.

while I simply used it as an example to show
Post by Tom
you the error in your claim than nobody gives a shit about what people do
for fun and fulfillment.
No, listen carefully. HERE are the guidelines:

WHAT LAVEY WAS IN FAVOR OF AND TALKING ABOUT:
No one would give a shit what anyone else did if they followed HIS
guidelines for fun and fulfillment. No one.
Post by Tom
You are off-topic. Shut up about drugs already. Talk about what evidence
you have that people don't give a shit how other people do for fun or
fulfillment.
Take a look at what LAVEY advocated - which is the topic I will not budge on
since Bobo brought it up. NO ONE would object to what HE advocates for fun.

I've given you several pieces of evidence indicating that
Post by Tom
people do indeed care about what others do for fun and fulfillment. Now
it's your turn. Got any evidence to support that claim?
Your pieces of evidence do not refute what I said - I agree with YOU on YOUR
topic. But you are not sticking to LAVEY's definitions of fun and
fulfillment. OK, a veggan would object to Lavey's ideas of fulfillment for
a delicious meal. There ya go.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
either. Keep in mind, the topic starts like this: LAVEY SAID. My
question
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
to Bobo is WHO is he talking to?
Third time. The reader of his book.
Not an answer. Think ebonics then: WHO was he TALKing to?
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
He was adamantaly and staunchly against
drug use - and he wrote about it.
"If, however, you do not plan on practicing witchcraft but only believing in
it, use all the drugs you like." -- From "The Satanic Witch", by Anton
LaVey
I'll bet it's out of context. That was originally the COMPLEAT Witch. (not
misspelled).
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
There is no law against MOST sex acts.
There are laws against any homosexual acts in many states. Some states have
laws against oral or anal sex between heterosexuals, too. Some have laws
making adultery illegal.
You kidding?

And all of them have laws against exchanging
Post by Tom
money for sex.
Yah, I know that. But if you exchange things money BUYS instead of raw
cash - then it's legal :)
Post by Tom
That's quite a lot. And every single one of those laws is aimed at
suppressing something that other people do for fun or fulfillment.
I'm still waiting for a single shred of evidence from you in support of your
claim than people don't give a shit what other people do for fun and
fulfillment.
I said NO ONE I EVER KNEW would object to it. NO ONE I EVER KNEW is a
qualifier - considering I used to live in the NYC NJ area - it's not
surprising.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
LaVey's Satanism was ANTI drug use. Get that thru your head.
"If, however, you do not plan on practicing witchcraft but only believing in
it, use all the drugs you like." -- From "The Satanic Witch", by Anton
LaVey
Chapter? Page number? I have the original Compleat Witch.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
But that's not what you said. You said "NO one gives a shit what people
DO for fun, fullfillment, etc."
Keep to the topic -
Are you denying you said that?
Nope, but I said it with qualifiers seen in PREVIOUS posts.
Post by Tom
If comments about your own statements are off-topic, then your statements
themselves are off-topic.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
no one gives a shit what people do for fun, fulfillment,
etc IN LAVEY'S TERMS.
Where does he say that? Give us a quotation.
I'm saying that. Not him. LaVey's ideas of fun and filfullment were what
you might call pretty square today. His favorite time period was pre 1950s.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
My point is that this is false. People do indeed give a shit what
others do for fun and fulfillment.
Yes, in the BIGGER sense sure they do.
Then stop trying to defend what you yourself admit is wrong.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
But LAVEY did not object to that.
Topic is "IN LAVEY WORLD, based on LAVEY DEFINITIONS" no
one gives a fuck about that.
Who are you quoting now? Not LaVey, apparently. You said he was opposed to
drug use. If he *didn't* give a fuck, why are you saying he *did* give a
fuck and showed it by being opposed to recreational drug use? And why do
you say he was opposed to recreational drug use when he is quoted as saying
"If, however, you do not plan on practicing witchcraft but only believing in
it, use all the drugs you like"?
I'd bet that is out of context - or MAYBE it's in the newer "satanic witch"
and not in the original compleat witch.
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that
shit about "overthrowing mystical thinking" or whatever that quote
said.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Tom
In order to find out, first you should look up the quote exactly.
Then try reading it in context.
Did, been there, done that.
You wrote, "What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that
shit about
'overthrowing mystical thinking' or whatever that quote said."
It is a RHETORICAL question, duh.
Post by Tom
Don't you know what that quote said? Why not?
No wonder you ask what the quote means. You don't even know what it is.
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
SOD of the CoE
2005-01-09 07:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Tani:
# Tom:
#> Tani:
#># Tom:
#>#> Tani:
#>#># NO one gives a shit what people DO for fun, fullfillment, etc -

primarily it depends on how much noise it makes and how close
the people are living to one another.

#>#> Sure they do. That's why there are laws against using
#>#> recreational drugs and having sex in unapproved ways.
#>#
#># Nobody was talking about illegal things.
#>
#> One way people show that they *do* give a shit what others do
#> for fun, fulfillment, etc., is that they pass laws concerning it.
#
# Yes they do care enough to pass laws - just like they pass laws against
# drunk driving. That is because people doped up on drugs DO affect others
# around them adversely. That is why there are laws. Would you want a doctor
# to be high when operating on you? I wouldn't.

me either. heavy equipment operators, etc.


# ...I have no idea WHO LaVey was preaching to since I never met ANYONE
# that did not go out and enjoy themselves or fullfill themselves and
# etc. I'm surprised Bobo has no response to that or answer to it.

oh, my cue, I missed it, sorry. :>

LaVey was saying (2nd paragraph in to the
chapter 'Satan's Master Plan':

"Satanism isn't just an atheistic stance but an
*anti-*theistic stance. Mankind is quickly
overpopulating this planet; we can no longer
afford the luxury of faith as a substitute for
reason. When will people get it through their
heads there's no God to solve our problems! In
order to survive, we must smash this 2000-year-
old habit of passivity and death-adoration.
Christianity, as always, is the only thing
standing in the way of progress.

"Choosing not to go to church isn't enough. It's
not going to stop the brainwashing of millions
of other people. There can be no room for this
ecumenical attitude of, 'Well, if God works for
them and makes them happy, it won't hurt me to
let them go on believing it.' But it does hurt
you. When there are that manyk people in positions
of authority thinking muddled, incoherent thoughts,
it's going to affect you. To completely overthrow
mystically-oriented religions, Satanists choose
active opposition. We don't need to show any
tolerance or good fellowship to these sheep now
that we're calling the shots. Have Christians
ever shown Satanists any mercy?"
---------------------------------------------------
Anton Szandor LaVey, quoted by Blanche Barton,
p. 79, The Church of Satan.
==================================================

# What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that shit about
# "overthrowing mystical thinking" or whatever that quote said.

the above context, does it help you understand it more, now?

# What the hell did HE think HE was saying when he said some
# 100% MYSTICAL stuff about "Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D minor
# was the most SATANIC song he ever heard." [?]

this is why I maintain that his (and your) ideas about mysticism
are extremes.

# He named a few other things as well. What? It's CHURCH
# music, for shit's sakes. What is Satanic about it?
# Ah, I see - he meant "He LIKES the song."

I don't think so. my impression is that its trajectory of origin
*and* declaration of societal epitome is being cited. he likes
that piece of music because the great Christian wrote it and it was
turned into the greatest inspiration for *HORROR AND THE MACABRE*
that has never again been equalled. his aesthetics are clear, and
that LaVey is an organist predisposes him to pick it of course.

# ...I really doubt Bach thought it was Satanic when he wrote it....

that's why he didn't call Bach a Satanist, just characterized music.

blessed beast!

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/

50050109 aa-viii om
unknown
2005-01-10 11:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by SOD of the CoE
#>#># NO one gives a shit what people DO for fun, fullfillment, etc -
primarily it depends on how much noise it makes and how close
the people are living to one another.
#>#> Sure they do. That's why there are laws against using
#>#> recreational drugs and having sex in unapproved ways.
#>#
#># Nobody was talking about illegal things.
#>
#> One way people show that they *do* give a shit what others do
#> for fun, fulfillment, etc., is that they pass laws concerning it.
#
# Yes they do care enough to pass laws - just like they pass laws against
# drunk driving. That is because people doped up on drugs DO affect others
# around them adversely. That is why there are laws. Would you want a doctor
# to be high when operating on you? I wouldn't.
me either. heavy equipment operators, etc.
# ...I have no idea WHO LaVey was preaching to since I never met ANYONE
# that did not go out and enjoy themselves or fullfill themselves and
# etc. I'm surprised Bobo has no response to that or answer to it.
oh, my cue, I missed it, sorry. :>
LaVey was saying (2nd paragraph in to the
"Satanism isn't just an atheistic stance but an
*anti-*theistic stance. Mankind is quickly
overpopulating this planet; we can no longer
afford the luxury of faith as a substitute for
reason. When will people get it through their
heads there's no God to solve our problems! In
order to survive, we must smash this 2000-year-
old habit of passivity and death-adoration.
Christianity, as always, is the only thing
standing in the way of progress.
"Choosing not to go to church isn't enough. It's
not going to stop the brainwashing of millions
of other people. There can be no room for this
ecumenical attitude of, 'Well, if God works for
them and makes them happy, it won't hurt me to
let them go on believing it.' But it does hurt
you. When there are that manyk people in positions
of authority thinking muddled, incoherent thoughts,
it's going to affect you. To completely overthrow
mystically-oriented religions, Satanists choose
active opposition. We don't need to show any
tolerance or good fellowship to these sheep now
that we're calling the shots. Have Christians
ever shown Satanists any mercy?"
---------------------------------------------------
Anton Szandor LaVey, quoted by Blanche Barton,
p. 79, The Church of Satan.
==================================================
# What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that shit about
# "overthrowing mystical thinking" or whatever that quote said.
i think he was trying to say that some mystical religions do not have
a base understanding of reality. but there are religions out there
that do have logical thinking behind the ideas.
Post by SOD of the CoE
the above context, does it help you understand it more, now?
# What the hell did HE think HE was saying when he said some
# 100% MYSTICAL stuff about "Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D minor
# was the most SATANIC song he ever heard." [?]
this is why I maintain that his (and your) ideas about mysticism
are extremes.
# He named a few other things as well. What? It's CHURCH
# music, for shit's sakes. What is Satanic about it?
# Ah, I see - he meant "He LIKES the song."
I don't think so. my impression is that its trajectory of origin
*and* declaration of societal epitome is being cited. he likes
that piece of music because the great Christian wrote it and it was
turned into the greatest inspiration for *HORROR AND THE MACABRE*
that has never again been equalled. his aesthetics are clear, and
that LaVey is an organist predisposes him to pick it of course.
# ...I really doubt Bach thought it was Satanic when he wrote it....
that's why he didn't call Bach a Satanist, just characterized music.
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
50050109 aa-viii om
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-11 09:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by SOD of the CoE
#>#># NO one gives a shit what people DO for fun, fullfillment, etc -
primarily it depends on how much noise it makes and how close
the people are living to one another.
True, true. HIs neighbors did object to the lion roaring at night - they
heard it.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#>#> Sure they do. That's why there are laws against using
#>#> recreational drugs and having sex in unapproved ways.
#>#
#># Nobody was talking about illegal things.
#>
#> One way people show that they *do* give a shit what others do
#> for fun, fulfillment, etc., is that they pass laws concerning it.
#
# Yes they do care enough to pass laws - just like they pass laws against
# drunk driving. That is because people doped up on drugs DO affect others
# around them adversely. That is why there are laws. Would you want a doctor
# to be high when operating on you? I wouldn't.
me either. heavy equipment operators, etc.
Agree. Drinking a glass or two of WINE with the evening meal if very
healthy for you - and good for the heart.
Post by SOD of the CoE
# ...I have no idea WHO LaVey was preaching to since I never met ANYONE
# that did not go out and enjoy themselves or fullfill themselves and
# etc. I'm surprised Bobo has no response to that or answer to it.
oh, my cue, I missed it, sorry. :>
Well, read all the posts I made on this thread - ALL of them were aimed
toward you since you brought it up before others took it to another page in
another book (NORMAL?)
Post by SOD of the CoE
LaVey was saying (2nd paragraph in to the
"Satanism isn't just an atheistic stance but an
*anti-*theistic stance. Mankind is quickly
overpopulating this planet; we can no longer
afford the luxury of faith as a substitute for
reason. When will people get it through their
heads there's no God to solve our problems! In
order to survive, we must smash this 2000-year-
old habit of passivity and death-adoration.
Christianity, as always, is the only thing
standing in the way of progress.
OH, I agree with that statement - but I think he was brearking his own rule
against pipe dreaming. My RHETORICAL question is - WHO the hell was he
talking to? Who the hell is this all powerful "we" that's going to smash
this? Bobo - people are saying that God manipulated the Tsunami atom by
atom and picked and chose who died and who lived. Heh. Faith is stronger
than ever right now, and right here - and in our own government. And it's
holding back stem cell research - for one example of progress hold backs.
We have a president that knew he could get in by JUST getting the
evangelical vote and nothing else. Faith is bigger than ever. Here and in
the Islamic world - it's on the rise, not on the wan. I said to you that
LaVey did not seem to KNOW WHY. ECONOMICS is why. Hard times make
believers out of people - and I posted to that effect.

I said a great many things to YOU on this thread - even if they ended up
posted to other people. Go read them.
Post by SOD of the CoE
"Choosing not to go to church isn't enough. It's
not going to stop the brainwashing of millions
of other people. There can be no room for this
ecumenical attitude of, 'Well, if God works for
them and makes them happy, it won't hurt me to
let them go on believing it.' But it does hurt
you. When there are that manyk people in positions
of authority thinking muddled, incoherent thoughts,
it's going to affect you. To completely overthrow
mystically-oriented religions, Satanists choose
active opposition. We don't need to show any
tolerance or good fellowship to these sheep now
that we're calling the shots. Have Christians
ever shown Satanists any mercy?"
---------------------------------------------------
Anton Szandor LaVey, quoted by Blanche Barton,
p. 79, The Church of Satan.
OK. 1. I agree with the statement as a statement. 2. Since he wrote that,
faith based shit has pretty much taken over this country and there is the
Islamic thing now, too. 3. There are very BIG organizations out there that
have WAY more clout than all the Satanists in the world combined - and THEY
can not put a DENT in this faithism we see today, bigger than ever. So my
question "what did he think he was saying" and "who was he talking to" are
rhetorical. 5. "Now that we're calling the shots?" What kind of pipedream
fantasy is that? Was he deranged when he dictated that? Dreaming? Just
crazy? I wrote "Mastering Satanism" to all Satanists and any other
alternate YEARS ago - and god dammit it shows that I didn't have rose
colored glasses on. We are liiving inside of a Christian ENCIRCLEMENT - and
right now, Bobo, we exist AT THERE MERCY. I see some bad shit coming to
this country. I feel it.
Post by SOD of the CoE
==================================================
# What the hell did LaVey think he was saying when he said that shit about
# "overthrowing mystical thinking" or whatever that quote said.
the above context, does it help you understand it more, now?
Oh for shit's sakes. I understand it perfectly. See my points. I'm NOT
one to pipedream - not ever. What he is saying there is a PIPEDREAM. I
NEVER mistake the ideal for the real. I have ideals. But I'm a staunch
feet on ground realist, too. That is why so much of what I say is
contradictory (why that bothers idiots who think I'm lying about it is proof
of their own idiocy). Do I LIE to my enemies? FUCK YES I do. Everyone
does - and if they say they do not then they can be proven to be lying -
PROVEN - by empirical tests. Everytime I go anywhere to buy something and
haggle with the sales people and GET MY WAY and MY PRICE I'm lying, and so
are they when they say they CAN NOT lower the price - and then DO lower it -
ha ha!
Post by SOD of the CoE
# What the hell did HE think HE was saying when he said some
# 100% MYSTICAL stuff about "Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D minor
# was the most SATANIC song he ever heard." [?]
this is why I maintain that his (and your) ideas about mysticism
are extremes.
I'm not sure I know what you mean. His ideas about mysticism were like
goddess or gods in the sky - I think. I do not consider K yoga mystical,
Bobo. I do not consider knowing it's gonna rain mystical either. He
himself spoke of dark force in nature that science has no name for. I know
that that is - I do not consider it mystical. Did he? Apparently, he
believed in a literal devil at one time. That's mystical right there.
Post by SOD of the CoE
# He named a few other things as well. What? It's CHURCH
# music, for shit's sakes. What is Satanic about it?
# Ah, I see - he meant "He LIKES the song."
I don't think so. my impression is that its trajectory of origin
*and* declaration of societal epitome is being cited. he likes
that piece of music because the great Christian wrote it and it was
turned into the greatest inspiration for *HORROR AND THE MACABRE*
that has never again been equalled. his aesthetics are clear, and
that LaVey is an organist predisposes him to pick it of course.
One or two movies? Well, quite a few Chopin pieces were also turned into
horror movie themes. So what? So has the Moonlight Sonata. He may have
been an organist, but he was unable to play the keyboard (for 2 hands, no
feet) version of Passacaglia in C minor I sent him - and said so.
Post by SOD of the CoE
# ...I really doubt Bach thought it was Satanic when he wrote it....
that's why he didn't call Bach a Satanist, just characterized music.
He listed quite a few composers - what I see in common about the pieces is
that they are all VERY beautiful pieces!
Post by SOD of the CoE
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
50050109 aa-viii om
Satyr
2005-01-08 16:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Asiya
Post by Satyr
Post by Asiya
Post by Satyr
I thought LaVey's philosophy, such as it was, tended toward
materialism. Therefore by definition there's nothing to
transcend. What's the point of ladders when living in Flatland?
Good point. Maybe transcending what LaVey calls the "unreasonable
religious demands"?
Well, there is that, certainly. For the record, I tend to agree
with LaVey on this point and many others. But it isn't just
religion that places these "unreasonable demands" on us. Society
does a pretty good job of that too and breaking these chains is an
on-going and difficult process.
Agreed.
Post by Satyr
The one major problem I have with LaVey is that his religion
imposed its own dogma and unreasonable demands on the individual,
just as surely as any other.
Such as what? I've only read the Satanic Bible once, as a teenager,
and don't remember much of the dogma. What I don't like about the
passage that Nagasiva quoted is the implication that one should be
concerned *only* with having a good time physically and emotionally,
that there is no room for spiritual fulfillment, must choose one
path or the other. One can use the physical and emotional "worlds"
for spiritual purposes, and one can experience and enjoy the
physical and emotional separately but also do spiritual work.
In the quoted passage, LaVey seems to be no better than the mystics he
denounces.
Such as exactly what your objection here addresses. So much of
"Satanic dogma" seems to boil down to a rejection of "spiritual
fulfillment", even a dogmatic denial that such a thing exists. I feel
that I'm as good at "wallowing in the mire" of "material pleasure" as
most anyone. Yet what I experience therein can be, and often is,
deeply fulfilling on a "spiritual" level. The lightening flash of an
earth-shattering orgasm, the flash of insight during formal
meditation, or while quietly pondering some obscure symbol of the QBL,
or even that stirring within when watching a hawk take wing, soaring
against a clear blue sky, all these things are facets of my personal
experience of the Divine.

I feel that our business here is to transcend divisions of left and
right, spiritual and material, even "good" and "evil". In the final
analysis, I saw LaVey merely putting a different spin on the divisions
he found. It's a useful exercise, this "Evil be thou my good", but it
isn't the goal.
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-08 23:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Satyr
Post by Asiya
Post by Satyr
Well, there is that, certainly. For the record, I tend to agree
with LaVey on this point and many others. But it isn't just
religion that places these "unreasonable demands" on us. Society
does a pretty good job of that too and breaking these chains is an
on-going and difficult process.
Don't you know that the entire 60s was a challenge to all of these demands
and a rebellion against all of them? Lavey was part of the 60s thing - but
he oddly hated the very liberalism that made it possible for him to even DO
what he was doing. That's very strange.
Post by Satyr
Post by Asiya
Agreed.
Post by Satyr
The one major problem I have with LaVey is that his religion
imposed its own dogma and unreasonable demands on the individual,
just as surely as any other.
"The Church of Satan is a dictatorship." LaVey to Priestess Ygraine in
person.
Post by Satyr
Post by Asiya
Such as what? I've only read the Satanic Bible once, as a teenager,
and don't remember much of the dogma. What I don't like about the
passage that Nagasiva quoted is the implication that one should be
concerned *only* with having a good time physically and emotionally,
that there is no room for spiritual fulfillment, must choose one
path or the other. One can use the physical and emotional "worlds"
for spiritual purposes, and one can experience and enjoy the
physical and emotional separately but also do spiritual work.
In the quoted passage, LaVey seems to be no better than the mystics he
denounces.
Such as exactly what your objection here addresses. So much of
"Satanic dogma" seems to boil down to a rejection of "spiritual
fulfillment", even a dogmatic denial that such a thing exists.
Yes, they even try to deny that CHI exists (obviously, they never got hit by
a person using it from ONE INCH away, and knocked across a room). In that
kind of climate - with most of these orgs, if anyone brings up something
like that, imagining that he can now speak freely (when he couldn't speak
freely before, maybe in his christian home or church?) he gets ganged up on,
flamed, bullied. Same old shit.

I feel
Post by Satyr
that I'm as good at "wallowing in the mire" of "material pleasure" as
most anyone. Yet what I experience therein can be, and often is,
deeply fulfilling on a "spiritual" level. The lightening flash of an
earth-shattering orgasm, the flash of insight during formal
meditation, or while quietly pondering some obscure symbol of the QBL,
or even that stirring within when watching a hawk take wing, soaring
against a clear blue sky, all these things are facets of my personal
experience of the Divine.
Agree, MOST people feel these things and do these things. My queston to
Bobo was WHO was LaVey preaching this to? We already know, it's as-given,
that he was NOT preaching in favor of drugs or anything else the gov made
illegal. Keep in mind also that there seems to be a great difference
between LaVey pre 1975 and Lavey after 1975 when he became this kind of
hardened atheist who had a "girl Friday" that was probably a lot more
wanting to "overthrow mysticism" than he was. He didn't actually DO much
of anything after 1975. Overthrow mysticism - HA - funny. What do you
call a bunch of people in a grotto getting together, dresssing up in robes,
lighting black candles, and chanting in ceremonies? NOT mystical? I don't
know if they did that after 1975 - but they sure the hell DID do things like
that - before 1975.

I have found that people that become hardened atheists are people who USED
TO believe in some kind of fairy tale god - or satan - like a literal god or
devil - like in Hollywood movies where you conjure up the devil and there he
is, in the flesh, talking to you. When such fantasies don't bear fruit
(because they are crazy in the first place and/or the product of people with
low IQ or some mental problem) the person gets angry at HIS OWN mental ideas
of god/devil and turns against ALL mysticism and declares: there is no god
and no devil. The next step, is that they become as fundamentalist as the
Robertson types and DECLARE against any and all that DO feel mystical
experiences - REAL ones, like the ones YOU just defined! And definitely
like the ones I define many times on here (and get flamed thru the roof for
mentioning). Bottom line, I think people that CRAVE god/devil in the
fantasy way in the first place are EMPTY people lacking something within.
And when they don't get what they expected, they continue to be EMPTY people
lacking within. You can see that by the DEEDS they actually do - not in the
words they say. Do they ever even once feel the warm kiss of the sun on
their cheek? The wind gently caressing their faces? Do they hear the
sounds of the web of life around them - which is what they are supposed to
be linked up to (but are probably NOT linked up to because they have turned
their back on it)? I think they don't. They wall themselves up, literally
and figuratively, against ALL nature - and then declare there is nothing
there.
Post by Satyr
I feel that our business here is to transcend divisions of left and
right, spiritual and material, even "good" and "evil". In the final
analysis, I saw LaVey merely putting a different spin on the divisions
he found. It's a useful exercise, this "Evil be thou my good", but it
isn't the goal.
Agree - his people in his org official statement zines had to do a bit of
explaining that they didn't mean "REALLY EVIL STUFF." Well define REALLY
evil versus evil? The whole thing was just inverted Christian dogma - but
the PROBLEM is that I never met ANYONE, not even Born Again Christians, that
did NOT do those little 9 statements he focused on - and no one seems to
give a shit about it. Hence my question to Bobo - WHO was he writing all
that for?
Asiya
2005-01-09 06:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Agree - his people in his org official statement zines had to do a bit
of explaining that they didn't mean "REALLY EVIL STUFF." Well define
REALLY evil versus evil? The whole thing was just inverted Christian
dogma - but the PROBLEM is that I never met ANYONE, not even Born
Again Christians, that did NOT do those little 9 statements he focused
on -
The Nine Satanic Statements are:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical
self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love
wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern
for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more
often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his
"divine spiritual and intellectual development", has become the most
vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to
physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has
kept it in business all these years!

I know of many people, in various environments, lifestyles, careers, etc
who would disagree strongly and/or be terribly offended by at least one
or more of these statements.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
Satyr
2005-01-10 18:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Satyr
Well, there is that, certainly. For the record, I tend to agree
with LaVey on this point and many others. But it isn't just
religion that places these "unreasonable demands" on us. Society
does a pretty good job of that too and breaking these chains is an
on-going and difficult process.
Don't you know that the entire 60s was a challenge to all of these demands
and a rebellion against all of them? Lavey was part of the 60s thing - but
he oddly hated the very liberalism that made it possible for him to even DO
what he was doing. That's very strange.
Yes, exactly. Have snipped a lot here, but I substantially agree with
what you posted.
SOD of the CoE
2005-01-04 04:27:20 UTC
Permalink
assalam alaykum,

hi Asiya!

bobo quotes LaVey's Bible (Satanic):
#> It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
#> betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
#> giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
#> without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
#> to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
#> PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
#> NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
#> bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
#> subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
#> and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
#> of spiritual development.
#>
#> "Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat
#> a good hearty meal, exercise his imagination,
#> and transcend by means of physical and emotional
#> fulfillment.

the only "transcend" in the above was into idiocy.
transcending is valuable to be obtained or attained?
LaVey means something Epicurean or hedonistic here?

#> It seems, to the Satanist, that after being harnessed with
#> unreasonable religious demands for so many centuries, one
#> would welcome the chance to be human for once!

ignoring other conditioning's possible perturbation-effects.


"Asiya" <***@KAPHCHETHsbcglobal.net>:
# I don't agree with this "one or the other" idea that
# one must sacrifice the body, mind, or spirit, whether
# it comes to mystics or Satanists.

body mind and spirit are pretty much integrated from
what I can tell. imaginative peoples suppose dimensions
and any number of dualistic claptrap without support,
some of it used to justify all kinds of magical aim.

# But is it the goal of the Satanist to transcend by
# use of the physical and emotional?

the LeVayan Satanist "would rather eat a good hearty
meal, exercise his imagination, and transcend by
means of physical and emotional fulfillment."

this does seem to suggest something transcended, but what?

LaVey speaks of these mystics as planning to
"arrive at a great state of spiritual development."
CoSatanists don't ever try to do this? Greyfaces?

blessed beast!

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/

50050103 aa-viii om
FrankB
2005-01-04 05:16:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:27:20 +0000, SOD of the CoE suggested the following
Post by SOD of the CoE
assalam alaykum,
Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !

Cleuless retard, can't you spell an Arab greeting correctly ?

No, don't answer, it is going to be too much fun.
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-04 06:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Salam Aleichem

MORE importantly: La I'llaha, Il Allah Hu!

It means: There is no reality that exists except the reality that is, and
the formlessness out of which and back to which all forms return; beyond
the "IS" and the "IS NOT" - pure Being.

Sounds a LOT like our "Thatness," which is technically beyond Asat and Sat,
too.

For the moron that thinks I'm some kind of "Christian Culture" cause one
aunt thought it a good idea to get me baptised a year after I was born, JUST
IN CASE I wanna convert to Catholicism in the USA --- heh, I have a LOT more
exposure to Islamic people - cousins. Heh, THEY say I'm a Moslem and won't
take no for an answer. There are quite a few basic similarities between the
DDocs and ISLAMIC thought - of course, Islamic thought is open to
interpretation and the law of Ijmah insists that "if all the people in a
culture do a thing, then it must be alright with Allah - for if is was not
alright with Allah, they couldn't do it. Kinda like "do as you will."

I would naturally tend to see these similarities since I'm HEARING what's
being said thru ears conditioned to the normal beliefs of MY culture - not
someone else's. Often, when Islamic Tatar-Turks used to swing into battle,
they'd yell out "La I'llaha, Il Allah Hu" and "Allah Akhbar."
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:27:20 +0000, SOD of the CoE suggested the following
Post by SOD of the CoE
assalam alaykum,
Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
Cleuless retard, can't you spell an Arab greeting correctly ?
No, don't answer, it is going to be too much fun.
FrankB
2005-01-04 07:14:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:51:51 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Salam Aleichem
Wrong again.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
MORE importantly: La I'llaha, Il Allah Hu!
It means: There is no reality that exists except the reality that is, and
the formlessness out of which and back to which all forms return; beyond
the "IS" and the "IS NOT" - pure Being.
Almost correct : it stops at "There is no reality that exists except the
reality that is", the rest is your further interpretation of the islaâm 's
ummah.

And you misspelled two words :
La (no)= lh'
Hu = a final for "to all", must be "ou" and juncted wit 'LLah, like this :
'LLah-ou.
Azure
2005-01-05 08:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Like the Gaelic Teaching better:
I Alone,
not sure of the exact spelling something like
Shien Feien.
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:51:51 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Salam Aleichem
Wrong again.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
MORE importantly: La I'llaha, Il Allah Hu!
It means: There is no reality that exists except the reality that is, and
the formlessness out of which and back to which all forms return; beyond
the "IS" and the "IS NOT" - pure Being.
Almost correct : it stops at "There is no reality that exists except the
reality that is", the rest is your further interpretation of the islaâm 's
ummah.
La (no)= lh'
'LLah-ou.
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-05 19:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azure
I Alone,
not sure of the exact spelling something like
Shien Feien.
Isn't it pronounded like shawn feyn? "we ourselves"
Post by Azure
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:51:51 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Salam Aleichem
Wrong again.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
MORE importantly: La I'llaha, Il Allah Hu!
It means: There is no reality that exists except the reality that is, and
the formlessness out of which and back to which all forms return;
beyond
the "IS" and the "IS NOT" - pure Being.
Almost correct : it stops at "There is no reality that exists except the
reality that is", the rest is your further interpretation of the islaâm 's
ummah.
La (no)= lh'
'LLah-ou.
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-05 19:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Actually it's not wrong since I'm using our letters to write it in the first
place. It's not written with the same alphabet.
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:51:51 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Salam Aleichem
Wrong again.
Nope, tho if I had to spell it using our letters, I'd have spelled it more
phonetically like this:

Sahlahm alaykhem
Post by FrankB
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
MORE importantly: La I'llaha, Il Allah Hu!
It means: There is no reality that exists except the reality that is, and
the formlessness out of which and back to which all forms return; beyond
the "IS" and the "IS NOT" - pure Being.
Almost correct : it stops at "There is no reality that exists except the
reality that is", the rest is your further interpretation of the islaâm 's
ummah.
Nope - you can translate that in a few different ways, and I've heard it
done so by people who SPOKE the language from birth and also from Islamic
Turk cousins (who do have the more esoteric definition). Let me try The Web
Search, HA!!

WOW - it's on the web

QUOTE
This remembrance practice is based upon the phrase La I'llaha, Il Allah Hu.
It is a variation.

The phrase can be considered as "There is nothing that exists but that which
exists and the unmanifest from which and to which it comes and returns."
Or,
"There is no reality except the reality that is - beyond the forms, beyond
the IS and the IS NOT - pure Being.

UNQUOTE!
Post by FrankB
La (no)= lh'
'LLah-ou.
Nothing is misspelled. They don't use our letters.
Asiya
2005-01-05 01:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:27:20 +0000, SOD of the CoE suggested the following
Post by SOD of the CoE
assalam alaykum,
Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
Cleuless retard, can't you spell an Arab greeting correctly ?
That is one way to transliterate it, there are others.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
FrankB
2005-01-05 09:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Asiya
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:27:20 +0000, SOD of the CoE suggested the following
Post by SOD of the CoE
assalam alaykum,
Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
Cleuless retard, can't you spell an Arab greeting correctly ?
That is one way to transliterate it, there are others.
Too many others, indeed.
--
Fb
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-05 20:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrankB
Post by Asiya
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:27:20 +0000, SOD of the CoE suggested the following
Post by SOD of the CoE
assalam alaykum,
Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
Cleuless retard, can't you spell an Arab greeting correctly ?
That is one way to transliterate it, there are others.
Too many others, indeed.
OK expert - WHAT does this say? Uh, it was readable enough for an Arabic
person who is also a professor to read it without much difficulty at all.

"Ma enfasalna El-la lenaltaky thaneyatan
Rag-am al-ateya bela hodood
Thikraka abadan taj-aloka karee-ban min-ny
Wa-ana matheya ma-aka ela al-abad
Wa-fy sa-ato Entesafo al-layl al-baheem
heena takoodo al-kawakebo almotala-le-ato Almohet
sayar-tafe-bo Esmoka eela al-sama haytho al-lla al-nejoom
Fayan-damejo ma-ah weela-ah roohy."

I also have the actual Arabic for it - but it might not show up on here as
an attachment.

So - translate it!
Rainey
2005-01-05 20:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
Post by Asiya
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:27:20 +0000, SOD of the CoE suggested the following
Post by SOD of the CoE
assalam alaykum,
Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
Cleuless retard, can't you spell an Arab greeting correctly ?
That is one way to transliterate it, there are others.
Too many others, indeed.
OK expert - WHAT does this say? Uh, it was readable enough for an
Arabic person who is also a professor to read it without much
difficulty at all.
"Ma enfasalna El-la lenaltaky thaneyatan
Rag-am al-ateya bela hodood
Thikraka abadan taj-aloka karee-ban min-ny
Wa-ana matheya ma-aka ela al-abad
Wa-fy sa-ato Entesafo al-layl al-baheem
heena takoodo al-kawakebo almotala-le-ato Almohet
sayar-tafe-bo Esmoka eela al-sama haytho al-lla al-nejoom
Fayan-damejo ma-ah weela-ah roohy."
I also have the actual Arabic for it - but it might not show up on
here as an attachment.
So - translate it!
Fun!!
FrankB
2005-01-06 05:32:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:04:58 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
Post by Asiya
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:27:20 +0000, SOD of the CoE suggested the following
Post by SOD of the CoE
assalam alaykum,
Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
Cleuless retard, can't you spell an Arab greeting correctly ?
That is one way to transliterate it, there are others.
Too many others, indeed.
OK expert - WHAT does this say? Uh, it was readable enough for an Arabic
person who is also a professor to read it without much difficulty at all.
"Ma enfasalna El-la lenaltaky thaneyatan
Rag-am al-ateya bela hodood
Thikraka abadan taj-aloka karee-ban min-ny
Wa-ana matheya ma-aka ela al-abad
Wa-fy sa-ato Entesafo al-layl al-baheem
heena takoodo al-kawakebo almotala-le-ato Almohet
sayar-tafe-bo Esmoka eela al-sama haytho al-lla al-nejoom
Fayan-damejo ma-ah weela-ah roohy."
Oh dear... What a mess. You even put capital letters in it and vowels that
even don't exist : "e" in arabic.. !!
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
I also have the actual Arabic for it - but it might not show up on here as
an attachment.
Please, send the attachment in arabic characters :
here -> ***@netscape.net
I prefer to read the Arab version, there's absolutely nothing i can make
out of your screed there in roman alphabitised script, please send the
message in an arabic fontset, thanks.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
So - translate it!
Only and only if i have the original..
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-06 06:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrankB
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:04:58 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
Post by Asiya
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:27:20 +0000, SOD of the CoE suggested the following
Post by SOD of the CoE
assalam alaykum,
Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
Cleuless retard, can't you spell an Arab greeting correctly ?
That is one way to transliterate it, there are others.
Too many others, indeed.
OK expert - WHAT does this say? Uh, it was readable enough for an Arabic
person who is also a professor to read it without much difficulty at all.
"Ma enfasalna El-la lenaltaky thaneyatan
Rag-am al-ateya bela hodood
Thikraka abadan taj-aloka karee-ban min-ny
Wa-ana matheya ma-aka ela al-abad
Wa-fy sa-ato Entesafo al-layl al-baheem
heena takoodo al-kawakebo almotala-le-ato Almohet
sayar-tafe-bo Esmoka eela al-sama haytho al-lla al-nejoom
Fayan-damejo ma-ah weela-ah roohy."
Oh dear... What a mess. You even put capital letters in it and vowels that
even don't exist : "e" in arabic.. !!
REALLY! Gasp! I - repeat I wrote it phonetically. Now, if an Arabic
speaking person who is ALSO a Professor of Arabic had NO problem with it -
well then!
Post by FrankB
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
I also have the actual Arabic for it - but it might not show up on here as
an attachment.
I prefer to read the Arab version, there's absolutely nothing i can make
out of your screed there in roman alphabitised script, please send the
message in an arabic fontset, thanks.
I'd post it, but - if you are using google, you will not see it. Some
people would see it. OK, I'll email it. But I'll tell you straight, there
is nothing all that "wrong" about my phonetic spellings at all! I'm not
sure if it's MODERN Arabic, tho. I'll email it as a scanned image and
attach it. I don't have Arabic true font. .
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-06 06:39:35 UTC
Permalink
"Tani Jantsang �" <***@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message news:dY4Dd.2157$***@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Also this one:

Ia mayyitan ma khadirun yata-bakha sarmadi,
fa itha yag ash-shuthath al-mautu khad yantahi.

THAT was written by a person that fluently SPEAKS Arabic and probably knows
the "correct" English lettes to use for phonetic spelling. He translated
something from English to Arabic.

What does it say?
FrankB
2005-01-06 08:50:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:39:35 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Ia mayyitan ma khadirun yata-bakha sarmadi,
fa itha yag ash-shuthath al-mautu khad yantahi.
THAT was written by a person that fluently SPEAKS Arabic and probably knows
the "correct" English lettes to use for phonetic spelling.
Indeed it is better, but i can only send you this quote translated by
email and not on so many newsgroups out of respect of the words sarmadi, al-shutath and
the adverbial khadirun. Sorry, Arabic is sacred to me. But i'll email it
to you.
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-07 08:26:23 UTC
Permalink
OK< I emailed you the scan of the other Arabic - but keep in mind, *I* put
that into phonetic - and if I said it to an Arabic speaking person, they
WOULD understand me speaking it!! I didn't use any kind of "standard"
phonetic for the first longer one I gave you (I emailed you).

Are you a Moslem? Well, I have Moslem cousins, but they are Tatars, Uzbeki
(Turks from outside of Turkey). OK, email it.
Post by FrankB
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:39:35 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Ia mayyitan ma khadirun yata-bakha sarmadi,
fa itha yag ash-shuthath al-mautu khad yantahi.
THAT was written by a person that fluently SPEAKS Arabic and probably knows
the "correct" English lettes to use for phonetic spelling.
Indeed it is better, but i can only send you this quote translated by
email and not on so many newsgroups out of respect of the words sarmadi, al-shutath and
the adverbial khadirun. Sorry, Arabic is sacred to me. But i'll email it
to you.
FrankB
2005-01-07 09:15:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:26:23 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Are you a Moslem? Well, I have Moslem cousins, but they are Tatars, Uzbeki
(Turks from outside of Turkey).
Besslem ! to them than :)

And say that i need more "ekmek" and "yumurta" and that
my door is always "açik" for them :-))
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-07 11:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrankB
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:26:23 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Are you a Moslem? Well, I have Moslem cousins, but they are Tatars, Uzbeki
(Turks from outside of Turkey).
Besslem ! to them than :)
And say that i need more "ekmek" and "yumurta" and that
my door is always "açik" for them :-))
HA!! Well, Uzbeki people? Maybe try kumiss (however ya spell that) and
(blyah!!) butter tea - a serious insult if you don't drink it (BLYAH!!).
They speak Tatar and Russian there - but I don't think they use the ger
anymore :)
FrankB
2005-01-07 11:03:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:28:02 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:26:23 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Are you a Moslem? Well, I have Moslem cousins, but they are Tatars, Uzbeki
(Turks from outside of Turkey).
Besslem ! to them than :)
And say that i need more "ekmek" and "yumurta" and that
my door is always "açik" for them :-))
HA!! Well, Uzbeki people? Maybe try kumiss (however ya spell that)
Don't know, got no clue in Russian or Uzbeki and the Turkish words i
posted above are the only ones I know because the guy at the night shop
on the corner is Turkish :)
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
(blyah!!) butter tea - a serious insult if you don't drink it (BLYAH!!).
In Northern India, Uttar Pradesh also.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
They speak Tatar and Russian there - but I don't think they use the ger
anymore :)
What is "ger" ?
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-07 21:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrankB
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:28:02 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:26:23 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Are you a Moslem? Well, I have Moslem cousins, but they are Tatars, Uzbeki
(Turks from outside of Turkey).
Besslem ! to them than :)
And say that i need more "ekmek" and "yumurta" and that
my door is always "açik" for them :-))
HA!! Well, Uzbeki people? Maybe try kumiss (however ya spell that)
Don't know, got no clue in Russian or Uzbeki and the Turkish words i
posted above are the only ones I know because the guy at the night shop
on the corner is Turkish :)
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
(blyah!!) butter tea - a serious insult if you don't drink it (BLYAH!!).
In Northern India, Uttar Pradesh also.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
They speak Tatar and Russian there - but I don't think they use the ger
anymore :)
What is "ger" ?
Large round sort of like a "tent thing" that can be assembled and taken
apart pretty fast, that people used to live in - some are as big as a
house - and they are very warm inside.
FrankB
2005-01-07 23:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrankB
What is "ger" ?
Large round sort of like a "tent thing" that can be assembled and taken apart
pretty fast, that people used to live in - some are as big as a house - and
they are very warm inside.
Mhh.. nice, can you get me some links because i am very very interested
in
'travellers', nomad people.

Has it some relationship to the Turkish `Odin' : Gük ?

( you know that blue "watching" eye on a shell shaped amulet
you see in turkish restaurants and places)

Thanks.
--
Fb
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-08 08:40:14 UTC
Permalink
See inside.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
What is "ger" ?
Large round sort of like a "tent thing" that can be assembled and taken
apart pretty fast, that people used to live in - some are as big as a
house - and they are very warm inside.
Mhh.. nice, can you get me some links because i am very very interested in
'travellers', nomad people.
Links to that? It's the way people lived before Lenin there. BIG tents,
rounded in shape. You'll have to find links yourself.
Has it some relationship to the Turkish `Odin' : Gük ?
Turkish "Odin?" uhh, Guk? Do you mean the Tuq? A totem flag banner that
could be used - that IS used by non Islamic Tatars? Or do you mean kok?
That means "blue," like KokoTengri? I can't make the umlauts on the
letters here.

No, ger is a HOUSE - but it's not like houses Europeans live in. You can
move them, take them apart, put them together again, let horses pull them
and live in them. SHIT I can't remember the god damned English word for
it - it's LIKE an American Indian Tee Pee.
( you know that blue "watching" eye on a shell shaped amulet
you see in turkish restaurants and places)
AH, ok, I guessed right. Guk means Kok. BLUE, or at least has some
relation to the word kok, which means blue. NO - a ger is a HOUSE, I can
scan a drawing someone made for me for a novel and email it to you - but
it's from INSIDE it. AH - YURT. THAT is the English word. YURT. A ger is
a yurt. I hate that when my brain just can not think of the word for
something (heh, in English....)

Listen, no use using Turkish - do you see this sentence?
Herkes ask cumartesi gece.
Well, in Tatar that is Subote askhun tastan durte.
I have to transliterate the letters into our letters too - so I have no CLUE
how it's spelled with our letters. A LOT of Russian nouns are Tatar words,
by the way.

I think kirmizee is "red" in Turkish? Well, in Tatar you say that ulyan or
ula'an (dialects). I think you say "black " in Turkish siya. In Tatar it's
the word kara or hara. They are related languages but so is German and
English and English speakers can't understand German - and vice versa.
Turks are originally Tatars, but they are mixed up with a LOT of other stuff
and are really different people today. They do not understand Tatar
language. Heh, our word for God is BOG. According to a lot of Germans from
Germany that I know here (either from clubs or they are on vacation and I
see them a lot here) that see both Turks and Tatars - we do NOT look like
each other or act like each other, either. Turks look sort of like
Mediterranean people. We Tatars look a lot like Eastern Slavs. Or E. Slavs
look like us :) I know a Danish guy that looks like one of us - and his
mother DEFINITELY looks like us.
Thanks.
--
Fb
Azure
2005-01-11 05:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Check Tsin's, Scythians, Sioux, Eponymous, Achi, Achaeans, Tautha De
Dannan, Gealic/Halic/Hylic, Tribes of Salt, Salt of the Earth.
Post by FrankB
Post by FrankB
What is "ger" ?
Large round sort of like a "tent thing" that can be assembled and taken apart
pretty fast, that people used to live in - some are as big as a house - and
they are very warm inside.
Mhh.. nice, can you get me some links because i am very very interested
in
'travellers', nomad people.
Has it some relationship to the Turkish `Odin' : Gük ?
( you know that blue "watching" eye on a shell shaped amulet
you see in turkish restaurants and places)
Thanks.
--
Fb
Delila
2005-01-08 02:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
What is "ger" ?
Large round sort of like a "tent thing" that can be assembled and taken
apart pretty fast, that people used to live in - some are as big as a
house - and they are very warm inside.
Oh yes, that's what I saw on that show I mentioned in the egroup on PBS.
Very sturdy and cozy.


D.
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-08 08:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Delila
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
What is "ger" ?
Large round sort of like a "tent thing" that can be assembled and taken
apart pretty fast, that people used to live in - some are as big as a
house - and they are very warm inside.
Oh yes, that's what I saw on that show I mentioned in the egroup on PBS.
Very sturdy and cozy.
OH, you mean some of them STILL live like that now? Or maybe they live like
that AGAIN since the USSR collapsed? I didn't know that. Well,
considering how COLD it is - you bet they are cozy :)
Post by Delila
D.
FrankB
2005-01-06 08:15:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:32:41 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:04:58 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
Post by Asiya
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:27:20 +0000, SOD of the CoE suggested the following
Post by SOD of the CoE
assalam alaykum,
Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
Cleuless retard, can't you spell an Arab greeting correctly ?
That is one way to transliterate it, there are others.
Too many others, indeed.
OK expert - WHAT does this say? Uh, it was readable enough for an Arabic
person who is also a professor to read it without much difficulty at all.
"Ma enfasalna El-la lenaltaky thaneyatan
Rag-am al-ateya bela hodood
Thikraka abadan taj-aloka karee-ban min-ny
Wa-ana matheya ma-aka ela al-abad
Wa-fy sa-ato Entesafo al-layl al-baheem
heena takoodo al-kawakebo almotala-le-ato Almohet
sayar-tafe-bo Esmoka eela al-sama haytho al-lla al-nejoom
Fayan-damejo ma-ah weela-ah roohy."
Oh dear... What a mess. You even put capital letters in it and vowels that
even don't exist : "e" in arabic.. !!
REALLY! Gasp! I - repeat I wrote it phonetically. Now, if an Arabic
speaking person who is ALSO a Professor of Arabic had NO problem with it -
well then!
See below..
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
But I'll tell you straight, there
is nothing all that "wrong" about my phonetic spellings at all!
Yes there is, because there's no vowel O and E in classical Arabic
(Egyptian)
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
I'm not sure if it's MODERN Arabic, tho.
I can assure, it is not modern and not classic either.
If an Arabic speaking professor can understand what you posted here i can
agree that. It is like an experienced programmer that looks at the script
of a learning programmer : he understands the intentions and sees the
errors, but he fully understands it and smiles at you : "yeah, great, go
on" :-)
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-07 08:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrankB
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:32:41 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:04:58 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by FrankB
Post by Asiya
Post by FrankB
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:27:20 +0000, SOD of the CoE suggested the following
Post by SOD of the CoE
assalam alaykum,
Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
Cleuless retard, can't you spell an Arab greeting correctly ?
That is one way to transliterate it, there are others.
Too many others, indeed.
OK expert - WHAT does this say? Uh, it was readable enough for an Arabic
person who is also a professor to read it without much difficulty at all.
"Ma enfasalna El-la lenaltaky thaneyatan
Rag-am al-ateya bela hodood
Thikraka abadan taj-aloka karee-ban min-ny
Wa-ana matheya ma-aka ela al-abad
Wa-fy sa-ato Entesafo al-layl al-baheem
heena takoodo al-kawakebo almotala-le-ato Almohet
sayar-tafe-bo Esmoka eela al-sama haytho al-lla al-nejoom
Fayan-damejo ma-ah weela-ah roohy."
Oh dear... What a mess. You even put capital letters in it and vowels that
even don't exist : "e" in arabic.. !!
REALLY! Gasp! I - repeat I wrote it phonetically. Now, if an Arabic
speaking person who is ALSO a Professor of Arabic had NO problem with it -
well then!
See below..
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
But I'll tell you straight, there
is nothing all that "wrong" about my phonetic spellings at all!
Yes there is, because there's no vowel O and E in classical Arabic
(Egyptian)
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
I'm not sure if it's MODERN Arabic, tho.
I can assure, it is not modern and not classic either.
If an Arabic speaking professor can understand what you posted here i can
agree that. It is like an experienced programmer that looks at the script
of a learning programmer : he understands the intentions and sees the
errors, but he fully understands it and smiles at you : "yeah, great, go
on" :-)
I emailed it to you - a scan of the actual Arabic. I'll repeat - I
personally put it into phonetic sounds that I could relate to - and if I say
it, it comes out right. The professor may have said ok go on, but he was
able to translate MOST of it with a problem on only a few words. He asked
for the actual Arabic - and then it was very easy to translate. I emailed
you the actual Arabic. It's not modern.
Delila
2005-01-06 12:54:22 UTC
Permalink
"Tani Jantsang ©" <***@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message
news:dY4Dd.2157>>>>
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
REALLY! Gasp! I - repeat I wrote it phonetically. Now, if an Arabic
speaking person who is ALSO a Professor of Arabic had NO problem with it -
well then!
I'd post it, but - if you are using google, you will not see it. Some
people would see it. OK, I'll email it. But I'll tell you straight, there
is nothing all that "wrong" about my phonetic spellings at all!
Exactly. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to spell words from a language
that uses a totally different way of writing. English-speaking people
transliterate any given Arabic, or whatever term differently, then, say,
German-speaking people. You should see how they spell "Falluja" in German:
"Falludscha".


D.
FrankB
2005-01-06 13:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Delila
Exactly. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to spell words from a language
that uses a totally different way of writing. English-speaking people
transliterate any given Arabic, or whatever term differently, then, say,
"Falludscha".
Thanks to point that out, and that is why i asked that person to email me
the sentence in the original script, with our without diacritic signs,
because it is indeed very important.
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-07 08:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Delila
news:dY4Dd.2157>>>>
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
REALLY! Gasp! I - repeat I wrote it phonetically. Now, if an Arabic
speaking person who is ALSO a Professor of Arabic had NO problem with
it -
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
well then!
I'd post it, but - if you are using google, you will not see it. Some
people would see it. OK, I'll email it. But I'll tell you straight,
there
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
is nothing all that "wrong" about my phonetic spellings at all!
Exactly. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to spell words from a
language that uses a totally different way of writing. English-speaking
people transliterate any given Arabic, or whatever term differently, then,
say, German-speaking people. You should see how they spell "Falluja" in
German: "Falludscha".
Try Faloozdha. LMAO.
Post by Delila
D.
FrankB
2005-01-06 14:12:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:32:41 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Attachment recieved, really difficult !!
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
"Ma enfasalna El-la lenaltaky thaneyatan
Rag-am al-ateya bela hodood
Thikraka abadan taj-aloka karee-ban min-ny
Wa-ana matheya ma-aka ela al-abad
Wa-fy sa-ato Entesafo al-layl al-baheem
heena takoodo al-kawakebo almotala-le-ato Almohet
sayar-tafe-bo Esmoka eela al-sama haytho al-lla al-nejoom
Fayan-damejo ma-ah weela-ah roohy."
Translation approximatelively, i am not native English and the text is old
Arab without diacritic signs, hugh!!

1We leave to join on other times/occasion
2 Albeit that savage waves may [ here is something i don't get : the nominative or the accusative ? ]
for hdoud', depends on the type of "d" that i cannot cleary distinguish in your JPG.
It is a plain "d " the character looking like a Western reversed "c".
Then :
3 Rememberings/recalls will bring ( ancient 'you'and very polite form of you) thee, thou ? near me.
4 I will be with you/linger with you as long as faith wants,
or "than i shall be with you all the time/forever".
5 This at midnight and the silence of midnight brings it along.
6 This as long as shiny planets/astres guide the great seas.
7 Your beloved name shall be taken to the highest star.
8 Your beloved name shall play/trick/enchant my devotion
(the last phrase implicates also the non faithfull soul and the faithfull soul)

Volà.

Ok thnkx bye :-)
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-07 08:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrankB
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:32:41 +0000, Tani Jantsang © suggested the
Attachment recieved, really difficult !!
OK, well, the professor didn't have a hard time :)
Post by FrankB
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
"Ma enfasalna El-la lenaltaky thaneyatan
Rag-am al-ateya bela hodood
Thikraka abadan taj-aloka karee-ban min-ny
Wa-ana matheya ma-aka ela al-abad
Wa-fy sa-ato Entesafo al-layl al-baheem
heena takoodo al-kawakebo almotala-le-ato Almohet
sayar-tafe-bo Esmoka eela al-sama haytho al-lla al-nejoom
Fayan-damejo ma-ah weela-ah roohy."
Translation approximatelively, i am not native English and the text is old
Arab without diacritic signs, hugh!!
AH HA - so then it IS old!! I thought it was, but I had no idea HOW old.
Post by FrankB
1We leave to join on other times/occasion
2 Albeit that savage waves may [ here is something i don't get : the
nominative or the accusative ? ]
for hdoud', depends on the type of "d" that i cannot cleary distinguish in your JPG.
It is a plain "d " the character looking like a Western reversed "c".
3 Rememberings/recalls will bring ( ancient 'you'and very polite form of
you) thee, thou ? near me.
4 I will be with you/linger with you as long as faith wants,
or "than i shall be with you all the time/forever".
5 This at midnight and the silence of midnight brings it along.
6 This as long as shiny planets/astres guide the great seas.
7 Your beloved name shall be taken to the highest star.
8 Your beloved name shall play/trick/enchant my devotion
(the last phrase implicates also the non faithfull soul and the faithfull soul)
Volà.
Ok thnkx bye :-)
WOW! OK. Here is a link to the whole "business" about that phrase - and it
shows letters from the Professor.

http://www.geocities.com/we_part/index.html
Asiya
2005-01-05 01:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by SOD of the CoE
assalam alaykum,
hi Asiya!
#> It has become very fashionable to concentrate on the
#> betterment of the mind and spirit, and to consider
#> giving pleasure to one's body (the very shell
#> without which the mind and spirit could not exist)
#> to be coarse, crude, and unrefined. AS OF LATE, MOST
#> PEOPLE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES EMANCIPATED HAVE LEFT
#> NORMALCY ONLY TO "TRANSCEND" INTO IDIOCY! By way of
#> bending their behinds around to meet their navels,
#> subsisting on wild and exotic diets like brown rice
#> and tea, they feel they will arrive at a great state
#> of spiritual development.
#>
#> "Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat
#> a good hearty meal, exercise his imagination,
#> and transcend by means of physical and emotional
#> fulfillment.
the only "transcend" in the above was into idiocy.
transcending is valuable to be obtained or attained?
LaVey means something Epicurean or hedonistic here?
It certainly is hedonistic, which is all well and good. But LaVey
doesn't say what he considers transcendence to be (transcend what?). I
did a search for "transcend" in a PDF where this passage comes from, and
it only appears in this passage (in this context). He doesn't explain.
It's a strange word to use since he's bitching about "unreasonable
religious demands" and people not being allowed by religion to be human,
and he doesn't consider transcending ordinary human nature to be a
worthy pursuit.
Post by SOD of the CoE
LaVey speaks of these mystics as planning to
"arrive at a great state of spiritual development."
CoSatanists don't ever try to do this? Greyfaces?
Maybe just not Laveyian Satanists.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-05 20:50:09 UTC
Permalink
For Bobo too.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#>
#> "Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat
#> a good hearty meal, exercise his imagination,
#> and transcend by means of physical and emotional
#> fulfillment.
the only "transcend" in the above was into idiocy.
transcending is valuable to be obtained or attained?
LaVey means something Epicurean or hedonistic here?
No, it says "exercise his imagination, and TRANSCEND by means of physical
and emotional fulfillment." Do you see ONLY hedonism in that statement? I
do not. There is more there.

A person can transcend in many ways, such as experiencing a brand new kind
of delicous food, or watching a show on Science or whatever. Transcend
what? Well, transcend the bland flavors of the past, learn how to cook
better - transcend what knowledge you learned in school, etc etc. I won't,
no I will get into the practical problems with the facts about how BAD LaVey
was at really material things - like when it involved money, fixing pluming
and electricity in a house, dusting it, keeping it clean, fixing peeling
paint with plaster and new paint, etc., keeping a house up to par and all
that kind of MUNDANE heh stuff. How hard can it be to TRANSCEND your own
limited knowledge of, say, plumbing, and teach yourself HOW TO DO it? It
can't be too hard. You just need the right tools. Transcend your knowledge
of TOOLS then. Go into a store (that requires he gets out of his house) and
ASK. How hard can it be to transcend your knowledge of dusting and
cleaning? Wait, most folks know how to do that. It requires a person get
off their butt and use their hands to do it.
It certainly is hedonistic, which is all well and good. But LaVey doesn't
say what he considers transcendence to be (transcend what?). I did a
search for "transcend" in a PDF where this passage comes from, and it only
appears in this passage (in this context). He doesn't explain. It's a
strange word to use since he's bitching about "unreasonable religious
demands" and people not being allowed by religion to be human, and he
doesn't consider transcending ordinary human nature to be a worthy
pursuit.
There is no way to transcend human NATURE - the best a person can do is KNOW
his or her human nature, be aware of it fully, understand his or her talents
and also his or her limitations. Transcendance can be of the very mundane
kind, as I just said above. You have hands. Learn how to USE them to fix
your place and keep it up to par. In my opinion, there is NO excuse to NOT
do that. But HEAPS of folks do not do that. That is how neighborhoods
become "ghettos."

The so-called "spiritual" stuff is even explainable by physical means these
days. Like meditation. However, I'd be the first to say that you are NOT
gonna get the sink fixed by doing kundalini yoga or doing spells. You are
NOT gonna get chipped paint fixed and repainted by doing yoga or spells.
You have to get off your lazy butt and USE YOUR HANDS - and LEARN how to do
it physically, with physical practice. At first, a person not used to that
kind of labor will be clumsy - but after a few tries, he becomes quite
expert at it.

And that is precisely some of the stuff I don't like about these "hard
line - ELITIST" satanists, including LaVey. What excuse is there for him to
have done such monkish things such as "not making out a will?" Did he want
his mate and 2 daughters to end up in a bitter court fight? He couldn't
abide lawyers, ey - too mundane for him? He was too above all that mundane
shit, ey? How about a simple notary that could have come to his home? He
didn't even do that. In this day and age, that seems UNBELIEVABLE to me.
Or dying dead broke in a catholic CHARITY hospital - what excuse is there
for that? Or letting his house fall into such ruin that it was condemned?
What excuse is there? Did he take a VOW of poverty?

I'll tell you and Bobo something: IGNORE what people say. Look at what
they DO and DO NOT DO. What they do and do not do is WHO they really are
and what they really are.
Post by SOD of the CoE
LaVey speaks of these mystics as planning to
"arrive at a great state of spiritual development."
CoSatanists don't ever try to do this? Greyfaces?
I have to wonder WHY he went on such froths about these mystics. He went on
froths against wiccans too. Why did he even notice them, or bother noticing
them? Did these mystics PICK ON HIM or bother him in some way to catch his
attention? I really don't get it and never did quite get it. Who CARES
what other people are doing, so long as it doesn't HURT YOU? And FTR, I
said these very things in this paragraph, and wrote these very things in
this paragraph, TO LAVEY. WHY does he care so much? WHY does he concern
himself with all that? Maybe he was jealous of the Dalai Lama - the BIGGEST
most influential "mystical" leader living in the USA? Dalai Lama spiritual
leader my ass - in reality he was the KING of the only nation with slaves in
the 1950s who never saw a poor starving day in his life and never had to
work hard at all. The man is RICH.

There is one Laveyan whose advice for "a spell to get a job" I freaking
loved - "step one, get paper; step two fill out a resume; step three.... "
you get the idea? Someone should have told LaVey to do the same thing - and
told him to either learn to fix a house up or call in people who can do it
for him and PAY them. I may not like his org too much, but HELL man, he
fucking lost the god damned Black House? Even I think that SUCKS. Someone
maybe should have tried to keep it intact as a "historical landmark" or
something. There were Satanists around long before him - I met a few of
them and they were NOT public people that talked too openly about their
business. But he WAS the first person to go public and make a whole
declaration about it. You'd think he's have had enough foresight to WANT
to keep that house, just for that purpose? No such thing. He just let it
all go to ruin. It was HIS house, it wasn't really some church. And when
he went, the house went with him. Gone.

And for those that have lost tech jobs or some other jobs due to outsourcing
and due to heaps of illegals taking jobs that AMERICANS DO WANT TO DO, who
have otherwise hard times finding jobs - heh, there are always FAST FOOD
jobs and Security jobs and of course, of course - WALMART. Truth to tell,
MOST of the hard work service jobs like landscapers, construction, painting,
cleaning, hotel, that kind of thing and such, jobs that people make GOOD
MONEY in, btw - are being taken up by HIspanic contractors who then hire
illegals. Next, they buy HOMES!! Yup, on the money they make, they are
buying homes. Next they become landlords. Get a skill, like plumber,
electrician, painter, builder etc - and EXPECT competition because it's out
there. Oh, but this is SO VERY MUNDANE. Well, it's the only way to
TRANSCEND poverty and at least keep your own place up to par.
Maybe just not Laveyian Satanists.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
Asiya
2005-01-06 08:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> "Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat
#> a good hearty meal, exercise his imagination,
#> and transcend by means of physical and emotional
#> fulfillment.
the only "transcend" in the above was into idiocy.
transcending is valuable to be obtained or attained?
LaVey means something Epicurean or hedonistic here?
No, it says "exercise his imagination, and TRANSCEND by means of
physical and emotional fulfillment." Do you see ONLY hedonism in that
statement? I do not. There is more there.
A person can transcend in many ways, such as experiencing a brand new
kind of delicous food, or watching a show on Science or whatever.
Transcend what? Well, transcend the bland flavors of the past, learn
how to cook better - transcend what knowledge you learned in school,
etc etc.
<snip>
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
There is no way to transcend human NATURE - the best a person can do
is KNOW his or her human nature, be aware of it fully, understand his
or her talents and also his or her limitations. Transcendance can be
of the very mundane kind, as I just said above.
Becoming the best human you can be? I'll drink to that. But what
distinguishes that from other systems/religions/doctrines?
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
I have to wonder WHY he went on such froths about these mystics. He
went on froths against wiccans too. Why did he even notice them, or
bother noticing them? Did these mystics PICK ON HIM or bother him in
some way to catch his attention?
I was curious about that too.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
SOD of the CoE
2005-01-06 09:35:50 UTC
Permalink
why completely overthrow them? perhaps because they are anti-natural.

"Asiya" <***@KAPHCHETHsbcglobal.net>:
# "Tani Jantsang ©" <***@SPAMpost.com>:
#> [bobo quotes LaVey's SB and then responds:]
#>>> #> "Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat
#>>> #> a good hearty meal, exercise his imagination,
#>>> #> and transcend by means of physical and emotional
#>>> #> fulfillment.
#>>>
#>>> the only "transcend" in the above was into idiocy.
#>>> transcending is valuable to be obtained or attained?
#>>> LaVey means something Epicurean or hedonistic here?
#>
#> No, it says "exercise his imagination, and TRANSCEND by means of
#> physical and emotional fulfillment." Do you see ONLY hedonism
#> in that statement? I do not. There is more there.

by itself there is insufficient text to ascertain its meaning.
the fact that 'transcend' doesn't appear near to its instance
here elsewise in the text (if so) is relevant. from what I've
understood of LaVey's overall expressions, 'transcend' would
well relate to cultural conditioning (the aim of Greater Black
Magick, so called).

#> A person can transcend in many ways, such as experiencing a brand new
#> kind of delicous food, or watching a show on Science or whatever.

I don't follow. sounds like a very loose interpretation of 'transcend'.

#> Transcend what? Well, transcend the bland flavors of the past,
#> learn how to cook better - transcend what knowledge you learned
#> in school, etc etc.

you are talking about gleaning informative experiences.

#> There is no way to transcend human NATURE....

typically that born to one might be transcended with diligence
in refinement, while that which is enculturated might be transcended
through discipline of mysticism, deconditioning in the LaVeyan sense.

# Becoming the best human you can be? I'll drink to that. But what
# distinguishes that from other systems/religions/doctrines?

sounds like humanism.

#> I have to wonder WHY he went on such froths about these mystics.

he was reactionary. this much seems obvious. he identifies it,
in fact, himself, and explains (as an ideal) how this informs
his activities and the activities of his church. without trying
to second-guess the man, it would seem that letting him speak
for himself (by quoting him, in other contexts or the same)
would be the best method of ascertaining this.

#> He went on froths against wiccans too.

sure, and feminists, and hippies. all these were around him and
gleaning attention from the culture in which he was living.

#> Why did he even notice them,

could have been as simple as media reflection, which seems to
have been of importance to him in his antics with the CoS for
some time.

#> or bother noticing them?

when competitors for attention become evident, putting them
down and explaining how they are inferior is sometimes a
means of propping oneself up.

#> Did these mystics PICK ON HIM or bother him in some way
#> to catch his attention?

in the SF area post-67 the Pacific Rim influences were heavy.
this was in part the reason for the enshrinment of figures
in the area (Sausalito) such as Alan Watts.

# I was curious about that too.

taking it out of context and asking why he ranted about it
is misplaced. the fact that this is in the Satanic Bible is
relevant. this is supposed to be a competition against his
religiomystical rivals. where they had self-debilitatively-
constrained parameters within which to work (how convenient
for the institutions managing these mystics!), CoSatanists
are instead not subject to these restrictions for practice
of their interests (which apparently vary).

blessed beast!

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/

50050106 aa-viii om
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-07 08:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by SOD of the CoE
why completely overthrow them? perhaps because they are anti-natural.
You opened that door. There are great deal of things that Lavey himself did
that were anti-natural - involving urine. He writes of it himself. So the
man was NOT adverse to anti-natural behavior. He admitted he never took a
bath, or rarely did. Is that natural? Perhaps. It's not hygienic and in a
modern society that is freaky behavior. He obviously never went to the
beach. I think that's freaking weird. Was it "natural" for him to hole
himself up in a gloomy, badly lit house and never go out in the sun? No,
it's NOT natural, Bobo.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> [bobo quotes LaVey's SB and then responds:]
#>>> #> "Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat
#>>> #> a good hearty meal, exercise his imagination,
#>>> #> and transcend by means of physical and emotional
#>>> #> fulfillment.
#>>>
#>>> the only "transcend" in the above was into idiocy.
#>>> transcending is valuable to be obtained or attained?
#>>> LaVey means something Epicurean or hedonistic here?
#>
#> No, it says "exercise his imagination, and TRANSCEND by means of
#> physical and emotional fulfillment." Do you see ONLY hedonism
#> in that statement? I do not. There is more there.
by itself there is insufficient text to ascertain its meaning.
the fact that 'transcend' doesn't appear near to its instance
here elsewise in the text (if so) is relevant. from what I've
understood of LaVey's overall expressions, 'transcend' would
well relate to cultural conditioning (the aim of Greater Black
Magick, so called).
See my other post. I have to wonder WHO he wrote this all for.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> A person can transcend in many ways, such as experiencing a brand new
#> kind of delicous food, or watching a show on Science or whatever.
I don't follow. sounds like a very loose interpretation of 'transcend'.
Read the rest of what I said about knowledge (skills, etc). People that
have an Eros for Knowledge definitely DO transcend when they find out MORE
about what they are interested in. It's not a loose interpretation at all.
Keep in mind, he specifically also wrote about the MUSE - and he meant it in
the same identical way I happen to use that word, "Muse" and the word
"spirit." GOT SOUL? What do you think "I got soul" means? It means I
FEEL, and I have CHI. It's a body/mind unity - and that IS "soul." It's
chi.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> Transcend what? Well, transcend the bland flavors of the past,
#> learn how to cook better - transcend what knowledge you learned
#> in school, etc etc.
you are talking about gleaning informative experiences.
No, I'm talking about a great deal more - epicurean stuff, EATING. Eros for
Knowledge.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> There is no way to transcend human NATURE....
typically that born to one might be transcended with diligence
in refinement, while that which is enculturated might be transcended
through discipline of mysticism, deconditioning in the LaVeyan sense.
# Becoming the best human you can be? I'll drink to that. But what
# distinguishes that from other systems/religions/doctrines?
sounds like humanism.
I didn't say that. Asure did.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> I have to wonder WHY he went on such froths about these mystics.
he was reactionary. this much seems obvious.
But against WHAT? Who was he talking to? See my other post on this, this
thread..

he identifies it,
Post by SOD of the CoE
in fact, himself, and explains (as an ideal) how this informs
his activities and the activities of his church. without trying
to second-guess the man, it would seem that letting him speak
for himself (by quoting him, in other contexts or the same)
would be the best method of ascertaining this.
I know what he said, Bobo. And he said a great deal, eg, about the Muse
too. But I ignore what people say and look at what they actually DO. It is
wise to do that, btw.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> He went on froths against wiccans too.
sure, and feminists, and hippies. all these were around him and
gleaning attention from the culture in which he was living.
Yes, and due to the liberal climate of his time, he was ABLE to come out
like he did with a COS. He said in an interview that there is no way he'd
do it later on. Wiccans were indulging and having fun. Hippies the same.
What was HIS problem? He has scathing words when he later on goes into a
froth against "wiggers" and that would be white boys TRANSCENDING their
whitebread bland culture by adopting BLACK gangsta cultural norms. WHY did
he object to that? Both his stuff and the black norms are HIGHLY anti
christian and REactionary, Bobo! I don't know of anything MORE reactionary
than someone like Tupac Shakur or Snoop Dog. Plus Snoop Dog is CUTE :) WHY
did he object to that form of catharsis? (This spin I gotta hear).
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> Why did he even notice them,
could have been as simple as media reflection, which seems to
have been of importance to him in his antics with the CoS for
some time.
It didn't GET him anything, Bobo. On the contrary. I can go for a person
like him if he is out to GET something - but not when he fucks up what he's
trying to get and does NOT get it as a result.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> or bother noticing them?
when competitors for attention become evident, putting them
down and explaining how they are inferior is sometimes a
means of propping oneself up.
But when it didn't work - why did he continue and continue and continue? He
did not prop himself up by grouching like that.
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> Did these mystics PICK ON HIM or bother him in some way
#> to catch his attention?
in the SF area post-67 the Pacific Rim influences were heavy.
this was in part the reason for the enshrinment of figures
in the area (Sausalito) such as Alan Watts.
Nice spin, but it didn't work for him Bobo.
Post by SOD of the CoE
# I was curious about that too.
taking it out of context and asking why he ranted about it
is misplaced. the fact that this is in the Satanic Bible is
relevant. this is supposed to be a competition against his
religiomystical rivals. where they had self-debilitatively-
constrained parameters within which to work (how convenient
for the institutions managing these mystics!), CoSatanists
are instead not subject to these restrictions for practice
of their interests (which apparently vary).
OH yes his Satanists are constrained. LaVey personally kicked a person out
for showing up high as a kite on pot. He was vehemently anti drugs, Bobo.
He was also vehemently against Wiccans doing ceremonies naked! WHY? It
has been noted by a lot of people that wiccans are a hell of a lot more free
and easy and dionysian than Satanists - who tend to be pretty damned
conservative! I do find that very very odd!
Post by SOD of the CoE
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
50050106 aa-viii om
Tom
2005-01-07 15:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by SOD of the CoE
why completely overthrow them? perhaps because they are anti-natural.
You opened that door. There are great deal of things that Lavey himself did
that were anti-natural - involving urine.
It's pretty funny.

"What you're doing is unnatural!"

"No! What *you're* doing is unnatural!"

And so on.
SOD of the CoE
2005-01-09 07:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Hael Satan!

"Tani Jantsang ©" <***@SPAMpost.com>:
# "SOD of the CoE" <***@boboroshi> on CoS/LaVey and media:
#> ...have been of importance to him in his antics with the CoS for
#> some time.
#
# It didn't GET him anything, Bobo....

incorrect. it got him on the pop-culture map, gleaning socioballoon
attention, expanding membership numbers. regardless of where it went.

#> when competitors for attention become evident, putting them
#> down and explaining how they are inferior is sometimes a
#> means of propping oneself up.
#
# But when it didn't work

not sure I agree with the premise.

# - why did he continue and continue and continue?
# He did not prop himself up by grouching like that.

consistency? he knew his niche and focussed properly?

#> ...the fact that this is in the Satanic Bible is
#> relevant. this is supposed to be a competition against his
#> religiomystical rivals. where they had self-debilitatively-
#> constrained parameters within which to work (how convenient
#> for the institutions managing these mystics!), CoSatanists
#> are instead not subject to these restrictions for practice
#> of their interests (which apparently vary).
#
# OH yes his Satanists are constrained. LaVey personally
# kicked a person out for showing up high as a kite on pot.

considering what LaVey wrote about psychoactives and the
sanctity of his lair (/church), his actions were completely
understandable. whatever the guy did upset him. the account
seems sparse as you present it.

# He was vehemently anti drugs, Bobo.

as is his right to be if he wants to within his org. based
on his assertions about what "drugs" do to a person, his
response was not only justifiable, it was completely rational.

do you think Satanists are self-destructive and self-debilitating?
do you think Satanists are prone to having healthy libidos,
an aesthetic appreciation of fine apparel, art, and architecture,
ramped to rank by socioeconomic status, and ignoring laws if possible?

<snip>

if you want to show how LaVey was anti-Wiccans doing their
ceremonies naked then please show us some text. as I recall
it, such slams read more like usenet insults to women whom
LaVey didn't have the maturity or cultural background
to appreciate (i.e. relating to sexuality and nudity).

# He was also vehemently against Wiccans doing ceremonies
# naked! WHY? It has been noted by a lot of people that
# wiccans are a hell of a lot more free and easy and
# dionysian than Satanists - who tend to be pretty
# damned conservative! I do find that very very odd!

the argument might be made that Satanism's origins in
Christianity predispose it to a certain conservatism,
displaced to "liberated" conventions of comparable
dimension inverting certain moral constants and those
regarding controversial religiomagical terminology
(not necessarily going as deep as social conditioning,
or so underdeveloped as to require far more treatment).

what did these things you heard or read hold for you?
you apparently met him and were exchanging stuff. what
I'd seen he'd said about hippies and feminists, Wiccans
and "drugs", *never* predisposed me to his company. :>
I find hippies, women, powerful, wonderful. I am a
different kind of Satanist, of course, and have other
aims and pleasures than his lair and his tastes might
accomodate. worshipping goddesses and establishing
anarchistic networks, communes for holistic happiness
seems much much more sane to me, & far more demonstrative
of power, community, and the essential quality Satanists
must have in order to combat the stupidity so many men
and women who are creating for our civilizations and
religions. it ought based on NATURE, and not on service
to fantasy-beings or in pursuing silly afterlives).


you ask who he was talking to. the book "The Church
of Satan" seems to be directed to active Satanists,
or those who want to know about Satanic rituals. it
seems primarily to inform prospective CoSatanists.

it starts out, on the back cover:

TCS} Do you have to sell your soul to Satan
TCS} and sign a pact in blood?

maybe one of the reasons I was sent one. :>

and then it proceeds to finish with:

TCS} In addition, Miss Barton outlines the direction
TCS} this ever-growing organization is taking today.
TCS} In her chapter "Satan's Master Plan." And she
TCS} lays it on the line with what every reader will
TCS} want to know: "How To Perform Satanic Rituals."
TCS} +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TCS} "The Church of Satan", Blanche Barton,
TCS} Hell's Kitchen. ISBN 0-962328-62-6, 1990; $8.95
TCS} =================================================

it's keen, blessed beast! as such, Satan's Master Plan
may include all manner of dufus philosophy and rankor.
it might contain wisdom and wit. quotation talks.
misrepresentation walks.

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/

50050109 aa-viii om
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-07 08:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Asiya
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> "Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat
#> a good hearty meal, exercise his imagination,
#> and transcend by means of physical and emotional
#> fulfillment.
the only "transcend" in the above was into idiocy.
transcending is valuable to be obtained or attained?
LaVey means something Epicurean or hedonistic here?
No, it says "exercise his imagination, and TRANSCEND by means of physical
and emotional fulfillment." Do you see ONLY hedonism in that statement?
I do not. There is more there.
A person can transcend in many ways, such as experiencing a brand new
kind of delicous food, or watching a show on Science or whatever.
Transcend what? Well, transcend the bland flavors of the past, learn how
to cook better - transcend what knowledge you learned in school, etc etc.
<snip>
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
There is no way to transcend human NATURE - the best a person can do is
KNOW his or her human nature, be aware of it fully, understand his or her
talents and also his or her limitations. Transcendance can be of the
very mundane kind, as I just said above.
Becoming the best human you can be? I'll drink to that. But what
distinguishes that from other systems/religions/doctrines?
You are interpreting what I clearly said. I did not exactly say what you
just said here. Reread what I did say.
Post by Asiya
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
I have to wonder WHY he went on such froths about these mystics. He went
on froths against wiccans too. Why did he even notice them, or bother
noticing them? Did these mystics PICK ON HIM or bother him in some way
to catch his attention?
I was curious about that too.
Well, read the rest of what I said - about his own dealings with material
reality. Go figure. It's called hypocricy. It would be no big deal if HE
didn't rail against Christian hypocrites.

You see, for me, I do what I do - and that's that. I dont' give a shit who
likes it, or objects to it - it's LEGAL so fuck em. Now if my philosophy
about life and what the IDEAL for society would be - is contradicted by the
things I DO IN ***THIS*** society as it is here and now, I don't give a shit
about that. Is that hypocricy too? I don't even give a shit about that.
Do what you want to do. Do not do what you do not want to do. If you break
the law, don't get caught, HEH. This all has nothing to do with an IDEAL
for how society SHOULD be. The two are not the same thing. I'm a
Roddenberrian 100% to the max. However, we live in a strongly capitalist
society right here and now. We ain't in space much to speak of either. The
ideal and the REAL are not the same things. I say that to anyone who asks.
"What should I do?" Well, what do you WANT to do? I can't tell them. I
won't tell them. I refuse. I can suggest a person that's sick go to a
doctor - but I'd not FORCE them to do it. I don't care WHAT they do.

I went into a lot of detail about REAL DEEDS that LaVey did. Forget the
writing. LOOK at the real deeds. That's the real man.

I find it hilariously funny when Christian Kings in league with the Pope
back in those days, used to insist that people do not steal. But the Kings
were thieves. They used to insist that the people should not kill. But the
King killed anyone opposed to him. Get what I mean?

What do I KNOW about a society where they have RULES saying "don't steal,
don't kill?" I know that that group of people must have a LOT of murder and
stealing going on in their own society. What do I KNOW when I see "We are
an Equal Opportunity Employer" on a door? I know that this sign is up there
BECAUSE the society used to discriminate and NOT equally employ people.
It's very simple. It's very LOGICAL, too. People who never knew
discrimination, would have no CONCEPT of such a sign on a door. People from
societies where no one ever stole things, would have no CONCEPTION of
stealking. Get it?
Post by Asiya
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/asiya/
Dagon Productions
2005-01-08 22:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Asiya
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by SOD of the CoE
#> "Hogwash!" says the Satanist. He would rather eat
#> a good hearty meal, exercise his imagination,
#> and transcend by means of physical and emotional
#> fulfillment.
the only "transcend" in the above was into idiocy.
transcending is valuable to be obtained or attained?
LaVey means something Epicurean or hedonistic here?
No, it says "exercise his imagination, and TRANSCEND by means of physical
and emotional fulfillment." Do you see ONLY hedonism in that statement?
I do not. There is more there.
A person can transcend in many ways, such as experiencing a brand new
kind of delicous food, or watching a show on Science or whatever.
Transcend what? Well, transcend the bland flavors of the past, learn how
to cook better - transcend what knowledge you learned in school, etc etc.
<snip>
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
There is no way to transcend human NATURE - the best a person can do is
KNOW his or her human nature, be aware of it fully, understand his or her
talents and also his or her limitations. Transcendance can be of the
very mundane kind, as I just said above.
Becoming the best human you can be? I'll drink to that. But what
distinguishes that from other systems/religions/doctrines?
You are interpreting what I clearly said. I did not exactly say what you
just said here. Reread what I did say.
Post by Asiya
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
I have to wonder WHY he went on such froths about these mystics. He went
on froths against wiccans too. Why did he even notice them, or bother
noticing them? Did these mystics PICK ON HIM or bother him in some way
to catch his attention?
I was curious about that too.
Well, read the rest of what I said - about his own dealings with material
reality. Go figure. It's called hypocricy. It would be no big deal if HE
didn't rail against Christian hypocrites.
You see, for me, I do what I do - and that's that.
Yes, you do what you do, which is being as hypocritical as those you rail
against. admit that you lie

You are the turkish durga of bullshit, nothing more. Anyone that gives you
the time of dayto you is missing some gray matter between the ears.

-Douglas
--
**********************************************
Dagon Productions
Chaos Magick & Occult books
http://www.dagonproductions.com
***@dagonproductions.com
Tani Jantsang ©
2005-01-08 23:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Forever the moron - you prove it everytime you post a flame to me. Since
YOU just gave me the time of day...... you must be missing grey green
matter between your ears.

You are too stupid to distinguish between the ideal and the real - and/or
what I have to say about the non-issue of hypocricy. Let's make it clear:
I don't give a fuck about hypocricy. But I notice that hypocrite bashers
are ALL hypocrites themselves and their fans HATE IT when I point it out.

Here is YOUR hypocricy: I'm against illegal aliens and would shoot them at
the border, round them up and sent them all home. Ideal.

I hire independent contractors, legal citizens with licenses to work, that
I know are using ILLEGALS to do the work - and they make more money than
corporate employees - and yet it's about 1/3 the cost to me to hire such a
person. That's the REAL.

There is no hypocricy at all. I say so. That you think what you say or what
anyone else says about what I DO is going to matter is laughable! REALLY
laughable.

You are also too stupid to distinguish between saying 1/10th the truth and
letting idiots run wild with that and make up whatever THEY wish to make
up - and lying. You are incapable of disguishing between altering a date
when answering the question of a nosy potential enemy that I know is going
to USE IT against me - and a lie. The two are not the same. And none of
this matters in any grand scheme of things where THE REAL matters.

You voted for the BIGGEST fucking liar on the planet, by the way - and that
DOES matter in all grand schemes of things in real life. Congratulations.

Now, if you mean Bobo is lacking grey green matter in his brain for
conversing with me - well, if Bobo falls for that kind of intimidation, then
he's a door mat. I know that. You know that. Anyone with real brains
knows that.

You are obsessing, Douglas. AGAIN.
Post by Dagon Productions
Yes, you do what you do, which is being as hypocritical as those you rail
against. admit that you lie
You are the turkish durga of bullshit, nothing more. Anyone that gives you
the time of dayto you is missing some gray matter between the ears.
-Douglas
--
**********************************************
Dagon Productions
Chaos Magick & Occult books
http://www.dagonproductions.com
Dagon Productions
2005-01-09 21:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Forever the moron - you prove it everytime you post a flame to me. Since
YOU just gave me the time of day...... you must be missing grey green
matter between your ears.
Alas, the proof that this isn't true is that fact that I can discern
your bullshit from fact.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
You are too stupid to distinguish between the ideal and the real - and/or
I don't give a fuck about hypocricy. But I notice that hypocrite bashers
are ALL hypocrites themselves and their fans HATE IT when I point it out.
Here is YOUR hypocricy: I'm against illegal aliens and would shoot them at
the border, round them up and sent them all home. Ideal.
I hire independent contractors, legal citizens with licenses to work, that
I know are using ILLEGALS to do the work - and they make more money than
corporate employees - and yet it's about 1/3 the cost to me to hire such a
person. That's the REAL.
There is no hypocricy at all. I say so. That you think what you say or what
anyone else says about what I DO is going to matter is laughable! REALLY
laughable.
Pure hypocrisy... you know what is going on but you do nothing to
allieve the situation or
set it up to stand up to your political statements.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
You are also too stupid to distinguish between saying 1/10th the truth and
letting idiots run wild with that and make up whatever THEY wish to make
up - and lying. You are incapable of disguishing between altering a date
when answering the question of a nosy potential enemy that I know is going
to USE IT against me - and a lie. The two are not the same. And none of
this matters in any grand scheme of things where THE REAL matters.
You make up shit all the time and admit you lie... which I gather you
are doing so here.
You admit you lie on usenet, correct?
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
You voted for the BIGGEST fucking liar on the planet, by the way - and that
DOES matter in all grand schemes of things in real life. Congratulations.
Who did I vote for?
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Now, if you mean Bobo is lacking grey green matter in his brain for
conversing with me - well, if Bobo falls for that kind of intimidation, then
he's a door mat. I know that. You know that. Anyone with real brains
knows that.
You are obsessing, Douglas. AGAIN.
Not at all tani, I've not been here for some time, and I posted (rang)
and you drooled.

Drool some more trani.

-Douglas
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Dagon Productions
Yes, you do what you do, which is being as hypocritical as those you rail
against. admit that you lie
You are the turkish durga of bullshit, nothing more. Anyone that gives you
the time of dayto you is missing some gray matter between the ears.
-Douglas
--
**********************************************
Dagon Productions
Chaos Magick & Occult books
http://www.dagonproductions.com
--
**********************************************
Dagon Productions
Chaos Magick & Occult books
http://www.dagonproductions.com
***@dagonproductions.com
Nomen Nescio
2005-01-09 01:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dagon Productions
Yes, you do what you do, which is being as hypocritical as those you rail
against. admit that you lie
Bwhahahahaha. Yeah, apparently she told a one jerk that Phil was a paperboy - and that was a whopper of a lie. And so what? Anyone that uses that to flame Phil - well then, I guess she knows exactly who told them that (and probably adviced them to use it in a flame). Bwhahaha. Clever bitch.
Post by Dagon Productions
You are the turkish durga of bullshit, nothing more.
And who did she tell about the title you rag and nag aginst, a title that would mean nothing outside her own culture? Well then, that's who told you to use it in a flame, you fucking stupid moron.


Anyone that gives you
Post by Dagon Productions
the time of dayto you is missing some gray matter between the ears.
Bwhahaha. Look in the mirror, you self-mutilating dumbfuck shit for brains idiot that stuck a needle in his arm and loved it for years. You already ruined a brain that was already ruined when you dug a hole in your pee pee. Say hit to that FAT whore that eats you. You are so wound around Tani's little finger that it's a long standing joke.
Post by Dagon Productions
-Douglas
Loading...