Of course { cold water about to be applied to this thread }, none of this works!
It can’t be proven mathematicaly that spells work.
If anyone would care to worship me and obey my every command, I’m right here.
hhmm… well back to the Satanists.
Thanks for the explanations. I thought they were just worshipping the “other side”… not that they were “free thinkers”. I’d read their Church commandments and thought them pretty reasonable… but nothing close to “religion”. :smack: I should have noticed something was amiss !
As for the naked woman with all those symbols around… if I get horny about that “blasphemous context” description… have I “shed myself of the cultural-religious baggage” ? Even if the symbols are a bit “not nice”.
Personally I have deep distaste for all christian religion and their hypocrisy… and similarly I wouldn’t support “worshipping” of Satan as a religion either. Even if they are in fact “free thinkers” by using heavy negative christian symbology they are still trapped to those same traditions in a way ?
I’d prefer a different approach to the matter… and being raised without religion I wouldn’t need as much “shedding of baggage” or picking up ugly references to a religion (catholic) I don’t care much for anyway. Though I agree with the idea that the Devil/Satan might have some good points to teach us.
No, you haven’t. (I think. I am, surprisingly enough, not Anton LeVey. Not even reincarnated, though it seems every Bob and his brother are! 
) But from what I understand, having any “reaction” at all - positive or negative - to the symbols indicates you’re still under their influence.
And in this you would be much more akin to LeVey himself than many of his followers - some of the sects I mentioned earlier broke off from LeVey when he suggested that they’d completed part one of his vision and no longer needed the symbols - Christian or Satanic. He envisioned leading his followers away from symbols all together. Many of them didn’t want to be led away, and grew disgruntled and left. LeVey, ironically enough, saw these folks sort of as “poor lost souls” who had missed his point.
Perhaps, although if this is true (that you don’t have any cultural baggage to shed) you’d be the first person I’ve ever met in that situation. Most people hold the symbols in some sort of “holy place” even if they don’t consider them holy. You’d be hard pressed to find many people at the mall who would break a crucifix into pieces, for example, or use it as a coffee stirrer. There are others who are so disturbed by the Christian influence that they hate the church and, by extension, the symbols. For these people, seeing or handling a crucific causes bodily revulsion or distaste. Either way, the symbol is causing a reaction.
Check out the offshoot of the Church of Satan- Miohael & Lilith Aquino’s Temple of Set. They do worship Satan/Set/Typhon as an actual Evil God. I have heard that Anton LaVey’s younger daughter Zeena, with her husband Nikolas Schrek may have adopted a similar stance. (Btw, last I saw Zeena, on Bob Larson’s THE FIRST FAMILY OF SATANISM video, she was hot. Also, her & Nikolas did have quite a rapport with Bob.)
As stated by someone before, what is recognized as “Satanism” in the West - with organizations such as the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set - is philosophic Satanism. They do not believe Satan is the Great Evil. They use Satan as a symbol for their antinomianism. They cannot be said to worship the Great Evil.
Ritual Satanists, the few deranged minds who believe sacrificing to the Great Evil will help them earn favors, perhaps may be said to worship the Great Evil, but they are not part of any religious movement.
Luciferians, of course, cannot be said to worship the Great Evil either: they believe that their Object of Worship (Set, Lucifer, Melek Ta’us) is an agent of deliverance, enlightenment, etc., not evil.
WRS
hehe… exactly… some people just changed the “symbols” they revered. Sheep !
I said I didn’t need to shed as much… I understand the impossibility of zero reaction. In fact I have negative feelings to christian symbols. Toying around with other “bad” christian symbols is just mucking around with scary stuff for shock value IMO.
Where does “respect” for the symbol stop and respect for other people’s religion begin ? I think its a hard line to determine. Even with my dislike for catholic bullshit… I wouldn’t “use crosses as a coffee stirrer” 
In good part as a respect to others I would think and less so for the cross itself. (I don’t know what beleivers touched it either ! yuck !) I wouldn’t break a David’s Cross or a Buddha Statue either. Freethinking doesn’t require shedding so much I think…
The best analogy I could make... would be of requiring someone to in order for someone to become a real Gay... to have to let go of all macho and hetero references. Not being gay... but knowing a few... I would venture that gays don't have to be total flowers and dandies in order to be a real gay. Some can be quite "butch". The same way I don't think free thinkers need to necessarily have 100% detachment from christian culture/symbology.
Maybe this detachment as an idealized "goal" or objective would be a better parameter for seeking "free thought".How about Kali cults in Hinduism?
The thing is, once you start talking about polytheistic or pantheistic religions, the concept of “evil” and “good” powers makes as much sense as talking about “evil” or “good” people.
Take Roman polytheism. Are Mars or Pluto or Bacchus evil gods? Crazed Bacchae tearing people to shreds with their bare hands doesn’t sound exactly good. But Bacchus/Dionysus wasn’t worshipped as a force of evil, even if his worshippers did terrible things. Likewise, worshipping a personification of war and glorifying war doesn’t sound so nice either. But Mars wasn’t worshipped as a personification of evil either.
Er, cite?
What I can find is stuff like “While Judaism, Christianity, and Islam created their “Satan” distortion of the Set neter of ancient Egypt in order to fashion an “evil scarecrow” to intimidate and control their societies, they could not help endowing “Satan” with such Setian attributes as independence, creativity, honesty, artistry, and intellectual genius - as these same attributes, except in severely controlled and approved forms, are “sins against God” in J/C/I culture” and “But we have not found that any interest or activity which an enlightened, mature intellect would regard as undignified, sadistic, criminal, or depraved is desirable, much less essential to our work”.
The only uses of the word “evil” in their FAQ that aren’t in scare quotes are in historical comments about visions – the first one discussing the influence of the Osirian/Isian cults in portraying Set as an evil entity (which is accurate as far as it goes, but does not go as far as they suggest it does) and discussing the original Church of Satan’s lack of characterisation of Satan as an evil entity.
If they were ignorant enough to portray Set as an evil entity, I might have issues with them; as it is, they’re following Him in His more ancient role as the one who has striven to become entirely Himself, and who in doing so has achieved the strength required to destroy uncreation.
I’ve done a bit of research on the Temple of Set. An interesting group. I would say that attract some pretty intelligent people. Their doctrine is not as simple or plain as other Luciferians groups (what with xepering and whatnot); perhaps what does make them distinct from other Satanic/Luciferian groups (some Setians detest the label “Satanic”) is that they recognize Set as an actual entity, more than a symbol. Their Church is supposed to be lead by a priesthood that Set chooses. Other Satanic/Luciferian groups may have a priesthood, but few (if any) believe they have the one true priesthood. As a Luciferian/Promethean group (which would be more accurate labels rather than “Satanic,” even though they are an off-shoot, in some ways, of the Church of Satan), they see Set as a liberator.
(This reminds me of a very important doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses - of those I can ascertain from the top of my head - wherein proper authority, specifically priesthood authority, is essential. JW’s are included because they believe their leading organization is chosen by, in communication with, and is the only one that loyally serves God.)
Kali cults - ah, now there’s an interesting phenomenon. The group that gave us the word “thug.” 
Perhaps, for some, Kali comes closest to what I was asking about. But Kali is a very complex figure. (Probably very ancient as well, which doesn’t make Kali any more simple but the quite the opposite.) She is viewed as evil (blood-thirsty) but also very loving and protective. Kali is, if I remember correctly, the patron, as it were, of Bangladesh. Nonetheless, sacrifices that would be blasphemy or heresy to other deities are made to Kali: blood, animals, even humans (or so they say: I wouldn’t be surprised). But it’s done out of reverence and love, interestingly, and not out of fear (unless someone suspects Kali of cursing one, or someone wants to ward away Kali’s wrath).
Poor Great Evil One. Almost every religion has basically made the Great Evil subordinate to God’s power and might, despite the power and influence ascribed to the Great Evil, so much so that it seems no one feels the need to placate the Great Evil instead of God (with a few exceptions).
WRS
This is a fascinating thread. And although I knew some of what WhyNot was saying about Satanism, I certainly had no clue about the complexities of the rest (like Santaria), when they’ve simply been portrayed as all bad. I’m going to have to read up some more on this. Keep up the fight in helping to erradicate some of my ignorance. It’s much appreciated.
Anyway, I also couldn’t pass this up…
(Bolding mine.)
Loudly? Regularly? With great strength and energy? Just for you or many others?
::: giant grin :::
So then, was that a Freudian slip? I almost initially read it as a post endorsed by the entire Meat Beasts family. Which would be cool. The family that message boards together… um, has no secrets. Then it came across as something infinitely more sexual. :eek: In this thread, wonder if that’d be considered evil? 
Regardless, it gave me a really good laugh for the day. I salute you for the smile!
It’s not my area of expertise, but to really understand the Church of Satan, you have to keep in mind that it was founded in the 60s and was in large part a reaction to American culture before the mid-60s. It should make a lot more sense then.
I remember many, many years ago watching a documentary about different religious groups in the Middle East, and especially Iraq (it was shortly after the Persian Gulf War) and one of the groups featured was an Islamic/Gnostic sect which I can’t remember the name of that worshipped Satan/Sheitan as the God of the Material World. They seemed to have the mindset that God was very remote, but Satan was near and present, being the god of This World and all, and therefore should be worshipped and propitiated.
They didn’t seem to regard Satan so much as a Great Evil as they did the Gnostic concept of the Demiurge, though.
Wish I could remember the name of the sect.
The Asbestos Mango - they’re probably Yezidis.
What is interesting is that Yezidis have a taboo against saying any word that begins with “sh,” out of respect for the word “Shaytan” (“Satan” in Arabic; literally “demon.”) Perhaps this is where the concept of Yezidis worshiping Satan comes from, although it’s a matter of perspective. To the Muslims (and Assyrian Christians) around them, they definitely worship Satan - after all, they venerate the name of “Shaytan,” but the Yezidi concept of who/what “Shaytan” is differs from what Christians and Muslims believe.
What also backs up the claim that the people you’re talking about are Yezidis is that although Yezidis worship Melek Ta’us, Melek Ta’us is but the highest angel and not God Himself. Basically, God placed the running of the world in the hands of Melek Ta’us. Melek Ta’us is bit more involved than Lucifer of modern Luciferianism: Melek Ta’us is involved in the creation and sustaining of the world; He is also directly involved with His community (the Yezidis), providing for them, protecting them, guarding them. Modern-day Lucifer is very benign and uninvolved compared to Melek Ta’us.
Melek Ta’us being worshiped as the supreme angel but not God Himself is somewhat similar to the belief in Santeria that Oloddumare (God, the Supreme God) has left the running of the universe in the hands of the Orichas, Oloddumare Himself becoming remote. But although the Orichas are Beings of great power, They are the ancestors of humanity. Thus, the saying in Santeria, “The ancestors come before the Orichas” is redundant: the Orichas are ancestors, but not as near as those who have just passed before us; Orichas are the ancestors/spirits who are the most developed. As such, it is possible for any spirit to advance to the stage of Oricha - and, indeed, no one knows how many Orichas there really are. In Santeria, creyentes and iniciados work with the major, most popular, and most well known Orichas: the Orichas worked with are not to indicate all the Orichas that exist.
Iraq is a rich place, religiously speaking: there are Ithna Ashari Shi’ites, Sunnis, Yezidis, Mandeans, Alavis, Kurds, and Assyrian Christians. Fun fun fun!
WRS
And this is a very interesting question. Being uneducated about a religion can certainly make it appear as if what they’re doing is evil, as we’ve illustrated simply by fighting ignorance about Satanism. So if I think someone worships evil, perhaps I need to learn more, and then it becomes apparent that they don’t.
But maybe they’re the ignorant ones. After all, even Hitler thought he was doing the good and right thing for his country. Perhaps the question goes even deeper and becomes not only do people believe what they’re worshiping is evil, but do people ever believe what they’re *doing *is evil?
Hindsight is, of course, 20/20, and we might regret something later and view it as part of our “evil past,” but does anyone do stuff or believe stuff that they themselves consider evil in the moment that they are doing it?
Actors who play bad guys well tell us that they play them as if they were the hero - because the bad guy thinks he *is *the hero. Is the same true of people? Is the same true of our religions? Could we *all *be worshiping the Great Evil and just not recognize it?
Woah. I gotta go lie down.
Hoho…
Keep it up, smartass, and I’ll wipe it on your curtains!
Furiously…doing…something…
-Resident MeatBeast
Just be glad you didn’t transpose anything.
Sorry WeRSauron for the hijack. May you all return to your discussion without any further mentioning of beating, unless it pertains to evil-worshippers. Which I’m sure our resident beast is not one of.
Well, WhyNot, from a Gnostic perspective, the God of the material world is the Demiurge who, while not the Devil (or so I believe they believe), is not a very nice Person. He blinds and binds humanity, keeping them asleep in ignorance. If one does not have gnosis and, with it, the knowledge of the true God, one may most probably be a servant of the Demiurge. So as far as Gnostics may be concerned, we may all be worshiping, in ignorance, the Demiurge.
Of course, no one has mentioned the Campus Crusade for Cthulu. Now they worship a Being whom they know is evil. Now, is the reward for that death amongst the last or amongst the first? I never remember.
WRS
IIRC, the reward for Cthulhu worshippers it to be eaten first, so they don’t actually have to witness the horror and destruction that ensues when the Old One rises from his underwater sleeping place.
Is Cthulhu worship for real? I was always under the impression it was all a joke, like the Discordians or the UUs.
I’m joking, of course! I kid because I love.
But seriously, are there actual Cthulhu worshipers?