Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: boboroshi@satanservice.org (SOD of the CoE) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.politics.satanism,alt.christnet.satanism,alt.satanism Subject: Origins and Definitions of Satanism (was Did LaVey invent Satanism?) Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 111 Sender: yronwode@sonic.net Message-ID: <8chaf9$vs7@bolt.sonic.net> References: <317486bf.ed44d9da@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com> <8cblgv$j93$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <0b38dc67.5599ebc7@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com> Reply-To: boboroshi@satanservice.org (SOD of the CoE) X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 06:22:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 955002148 208.201.224.36 (Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:22:28 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:22:28 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:22608 alt.politics.satanism:2202 alt.christnet.satanism:3070 alt.satanism:143918 50000405 IVom Hail Satan! Satanist bupahs writes: >The entire point of my argument is LaVey did not invent he seems to have invented (perhaps with help) modern Satanism (esp. of the type promoted by himself and his church, which I call CoSatanism). >nor father Satanism he seems to be the main figure behind modern Satanism at least, and I haven't found any others before him who wished to be identified as Satanists before him. RMerciless says that he knows of one, but I didn't catch that reference. the Luciferians merely described their path as Satanism, but why did they bother with the distinguishment "Luciferianism"? >and that there is more than ONE version of practiced Satanism. this goes without saying as long as one doesn't intend to CONTROL what is provided the description of 'Satanism'. you and I are more liberal in our acceptance here. an example of a place where the CoSatanists would draw a line and likely say that a self-described Satanist didn't really qualify is when they begin to engage animal sacrifices. now I happen to have been told by some CoSatanists that they have performed animal sacrifices (in which they were intending to eat the animal afterward), yet some of the CoSatanists are adamantly against this and LaVey pretty much speaks against it in his bible. even more would say that people like Richard Ramirez or Sean Sellers are not Satanists, though some like me would accept them as Satanist sociopaths. [bupahs to Tani] >Do you get some form of royalty for pushing Marsh's article? they have a mutual back-scratching society going. >Why does the CoS care what SOME PEOPLE in the FCoS do? that's obvious, because of the word "First" which Lord Egan has cleverly inserted into your church's name. >I never said that no one else could think freely. Free Thought >extends past the CoS you do realize, just because my practiced >version of Satanism differs from yours it does not make it any >less valid. the never-ending quandry: either CoSatanists claim that LaVey instructed "do what you will and be responsible for your actions" (which is false, he instructed 'do unto others as they do unto you') or they cry foul when someone doing what they will wishes to be responsible for practicing Satanism in a way which they don't see is compatible with some OTHER notion about what LaVey said. it is confusing, but becomes rather understandable over time. the point is to be more right about something than someone else. >Its not a waste of time to dispel lies spewed forth by certain >CoS Priests. it is if you don't actually "dispel" them, if you are merely one of a number of voices spewing back. they aren't really worth your time, I think. the better ones will make themselves known and you will be able to discern them and interact with them in a reasonable fashion. HPaulis is cool, for example, and even Tani is fine if you don't mind her long posts and feel you must agree with her. >I advertise my organization every time I post and >wake up one more person to the CoS' blatant misrepresentation >and lies. all organizations eventually engage this type of propagandizing. it is for this reason that we should skeptically examine any organization claiming to be "Thelemic" or "Satanic" (because these predominantly individualistic spiritual philosophies are not really containable inside an organization, which will inevitably violate these standards for self-preservation and self-identification). >...The Church of Satan does not have an exclusive right to Satanism, but they may be Satanic in claiming to have such. >they are not the only version of Satanism, depending on who you ask as regards the criteria. >The Church of Satan has passed on, the CoS died the minute its >representatives started ignoring their organizations own teachings. all organizations which have as their foundational philosophy the support of the individual eventually turn to supporting the expressions of their OWN personnel at the expense of those who have not become members of their cadre and contributed to the group (herd) ego. this is a principle I think you will even find in your First Church of Satan eventually. the smaller the org, the more likely it can hold out, of course. ;> blessed beast! boboroshi Satanic Outreach Director, Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) -- mailto:nagasiva@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html mailto:boboroshi@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/ emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired