|
|
There are lots of religions out there and most of the major ones are no longer what one might strictly call "religious" because they are more like cultural things, family traditions, even cohesive units for ethnics, political gatherings, etc., a place to go to just sit when a family member is in critical condition in a hospital, a place to sit quietly, a homey place, a place they can go to talk openly (and at no cost) to a familiar Pastor, Priest or Rabbi if something burdens their hearts. Few Jews are religious, even so they are Jews. The same goes for today's Catholics and Protestants. Many of their members are scientists, they know evolution is real, they know basic physics and they often adopt a grander but very passive view of their deity; "study of such sciences are studying the WAY god made the world." "God" is put into the background as an "as given" and they pursue the study of REALITY with a real love (Eros) for knowledge without ever thinking about this background "god." All of these three Western religions tend, today, to view the overly religious type as "unhealthy." They also try to warn such people against joining some of the crackpot cults of there, most of which are Christian cults. These cults harbor such notions as: "Divine Revelations" from disincarnate entity-beings "out there;" secret texts that you have to do things or pay money to see and which contain more crackpot lunacy; denial of physical laws longs since proven to be absolutely true by empirical sciences; their own evolutionary theory which makes "humans" out to be "something special" but curiously also show that "humans" also have something wrong with them (either a state of sin or a state of being outcast from nature -- these are the same thing) that either humans need to be saved, fixed thru Divine whatever, discovered thru meditation and/or magical texts they alone can supply and/or otherwise "WORKED ON WITH STRIVING" with the notion that the merely-human must (a rule) strive to reach some sort of PERFECTION that makes absolutely NO sense in terms of anything real: whether that is going to a heavenly kingdom or becoming a unified field (misuse of physics term) of "pure mind." The majority of these cults are extremely adverse to the carnal body which is what makes us humans, physical beings, healthy animals and TIES US INTO a web of life. All of them have humans exclusively being created or tampered with or fixed or cursed by some disincarnated entity-being. These are CRACKPOT religions! They often have crackpot Prophets.
Then there is the American Atheist Society which is almost "religious" in its stance against all religion, even the type that is, today, non-religious as stated above. This society can hardly be called a cult. You can join, support, speak for them or not. They sell books, there are no coercive tactics to get people to join and no one cares if you quit or turn against them. They are a group of Freethinkers but they DO have one thing that is not Satanic. They have a strong humanitarian and ethical, even moral, stance that they take that OFTEN goes against nature and natural law when it comes to humans. They do not regard man as exactly like any other animal which biology, biochemistry and even now neurology has PROVEN to be true. But they aren't a cult in any way and they aren't a church.
And there is the Church of Satan which can be 1:1 compared to this American Atheist Society in how they are laid back and are NOT a cult in any form and DO NOT use coersion or bother you if you quit or turn against them. The Church of Satan can be shown to be in line with HARD-sciences which are not humanitarian or ethical in any sense and which are the literal bane (and the biggest satan of all) of the religions, not so much the Jewish one, but the two Christian ones. Their use of Satan can be seen on many levels: all the way from dark-HIDDEN-force-in- nature which permeates and motivates all of nature, which is a perfect definition of Second Law of Thermodynamics in chemistry (and biochemistry) and viewed as Entropy in hard physics. This highest view of Satan even has coincidental connotations: #2 is numerologically Satan's number -- Second Law? And Entropy is yes-AND-no associated with chaotic states and the random element as is the JOKER image of Satan. Many people studying hard-line physics coming upon this portion of study have even made jokes about this, being COMPLETELY unaware of the Church of Satan: "Hey, this here force, ha! this must be Satan!" Similarly, Satan can be viewed as that purveyer of UNDEFILED truths, not prettily tailored half-truths to make people feel good and maintain their position "above" the "mere" animals. This Satan is shown all the time by Darwin, Watson and Crick, the evolutionary biologists and biochemists. Similarly, modern neurologists coming upon the limbic brain and the hypothalamus, actually said in print that, "If the medieval Christians had known about this, they'd have been convinced that Satan resides in this portion of the brain." Also, the Satan is a symbol of rebellion in the sense of the Founding Fathers: "GIVE ME LIBERTY, or... I'll step on your head...." In this sense, the Satan can be seen as a politically oriented figure as most of the creative writers in the "Satanic School" have seen it, a champion of free speech, speaking what's in your heart, freedom of expression, and revolt against all forms of tyranny and oppression. Albert Pike spoke of this. Anton LaVey spoke of this in his many writings which were made public, unlike Pike's, and consist of a much larger amount made available to anyone who chooses to look at them. Anton LaVey has, in layman's language, said exactly what the hard sciences are proving all the time. In this sense, there is no way one could possible call the Church of Satan a "cult" of any sort or even lump it technically into the category of a religion. The Church of Satan offers rich psychodrama and literary imagery for anyone who wishes to BE a religious Satanist: something the American Atheists would never do. While the Atheists would deprive their own children of the joy of a Yule celebration and the fun of a Santa mytheme, the Church of Satan doesn't deprive anyone of anything, but offers up alternatives IF one chooses to go that route.
The Temple of Set? One can not even TRY to imagine that this came out of the Church of Satan by any philosophical means. It's not even possible to connect the two except to see clearly that a few of the wrong kinds of people tried to get INTO the Church of Satan and MAKE IT INTO a hard-core Fundamentalist Christian CULT complete with ascetic rules, divine revelations and secrets one must strive to attain. That had to have been their secret agenda all along for there is no OTHER explanation for what they are. It would be like believing that Fundamentalists grew naturally out of the America Atheists. IMPOSSIBLE! The difference is so glaringly clear that one has to wonder: what don't people see? Imagine Funda- mentalists using the sigil of the American Atheist Society, which is a stylized drawing of the atom, and taking this stylized atom as their own, claiming it represents Jesus or God's creation and then saying that "atom" is really the word Adam! That is a good analogy here.
There is a 1:1 correspondence that I just showed above between the Church of Satan and the hard sciences which can be compared to the "doctrines" of the American Atheists. Likewise, their methodology is the same. The only difference, as I pointed out, is the matter of "humanitarian values" owned by the American Atheists but not owned by the Church of Satan OR by hard-sciences.
There is also a 1:1 correspondence that I can show between the Temple of Set and not Catholic, Protestant or Jew, but HARD-CORE Fundamentalist Christianity! It is so blaringly obvious that I can't BELIEVE people don't see this. Both have a Stoic God a literal Being-Entity-GOD. Both are against carnality. Both preach against "the world," one in the form of "stay clear of the damned" and the other in the form of "avoid mundane people." Both encourage spending money on prayer meetings or mystical meditations in order to further DENY the carnal animal in the person. Both believe their God created or interfered with making human beings. One has Stoic God making all life but making humans sinful. The other has all life evolving but Stoic God making humans outcasts in nature. Both have this crackpot evolutionary theory with only the MINOR details varying. Both have divine revelations. Both teach the striving to perfection and insist that man is not perfect as he is but sinful/outcast. Both are founded on, and founded by types of people with, a clinically dissociative state of being known as dualism in philosophy and shown to be schizoid by psychology and now proven beyond a doubt to be a form of brain damage known as alexithymia and anosognosia by the top neurologists who can CREATE these states in normal humans by merely numbing portions of their brains and/or blocking normal healthy pathways. Both are joined by the more unhealthy and diseased types from this society. The Fundamentalist Christians usually get those imbalanced Catholics and Protestants and some sick, "self-hating" Jews. The Temple of Sset gets these too but, in addition, they get cast-outs from the Fundamentalists (if one can even imagine such a thing). They get the most repressed people one can imagine and then they preach further repression so that the individual becomes his OWN oppressor. This is so far from the Church of Satan that one would have to imagine that the Church of Satan came into being either from an alien Cosmos where all the laws of life don't apply, where perpetual motion exists and there is no flesh at all which sounds nice as science FICTION and pure fantasy; or that the Temple of Set came into being from the minds of a group of schizophrenics as sick and demented and mentally diseased as the earlier Gnostic dualists were.
There is NO bridge from COS into TOS. NONE. There is NO "logical transformation" that anyone can possible see or even FORCE into this picture. Fundamentalist Christianity does not flow out of Atheism! One person might become a religious fanatic after being an atheist but check to see if he has a severe biochemical imbalance: he always does! He got sick, his brain got effected and he: flipped out! Both Fundamentalism and Setianism are not just a denial of nature and their own animal nature. Both are a DENIAL of REALITY!
As to the assertions and deliberate attempts to confuse this clear picture, by Aquino? One can easily imagine "two Christian Pastors" in a room sitting and talking. Both are dressed alike and in the same profession. When one says "God," he means a kind of passive thing, maybe a being, he's not sure. When the other hears the word "God" and/or says it, to him it means Jesus, or a stern a stoic creator and overlord. Since both are saying the word "God" neither gets to know what the other one specifically MEANS. When one says "creation" he means it literally like a Fundamentalist while the other hears "evolution, Big Bang." Again, both use the word "creation" and MEAN two diametrically different things. Neither would know this about each other. Only further discussion and/or actions would expose the HUGE differences.
So then, one might say that Protestanism "grew out of" Catholicism. But they are so different. Did one "grow out of" the other or did a bunch of Catholics REVOLT? A bunch of Catholics revolted and threw out every single Dionysian AND feminine idea that the other had. Catholics because a syncretistic religion containing many varied groups of ethnic people combining native folklore with the Mary first and Jesus second mytheme and hundreds of Saints. Here one can clearly see two TYPES OF PEOPLE that split away from each other. Easy going, flowing, joyful types in the Catholic groups versus Victorian ethic, work-ethic, joyless types in the Protestant group. Also, Catholic clergy were truly learned men at the time with access to ancient doctrines and books and capable of speaking Greek and Latin. Protestant clergy came out of the bohunk variety of backwoods farmer, uneducated and stupid. This has all changed NOW, but that's the way it was back then.
Aquino's history of Egypt and Set are another matter. These show themselves as the claims of British Israel, if not even more so. Egyptians, disliking "Jews" who were not called Jews back then (Judah wasn't born yet) called the Jews "SET" and/or "SETH," not the other way around. Jews never had any concept of a devil or dualist "other side" to their own Deity which is nothing like what Christians imagine it is. "Satan" was not even a proper name in Hebrew, it was merely a WORD. Jews had "dark messenger" concepts such as Samael and Azazel and Malech ha Moveth, Sam Moveth Az, but there was no such thins as Satan as any kind of angel or messenger like this. Satan to them, at most, was like the "diabolus" which was a COURT APPOINTED extreme prosecutor and very well known in the ancient customs in regular court cases! The ONLY people who used the pentacle, the PURE pentacle, back then, were the Pythagoreans, the precursors of the Freemasons as is TOO WELL KNOWN to even belabor this point. The Eastern Star is on buildings today, still, for all to see: two points up. The ritual ceremonies, when done are identical in every single way to the ones their own ancestors performed, including walking "around the star" in pent-alpha formation. Set is not part of this tradition AT ALL. Set meant Seth, son of Adam: Egyptians used it accordingly to refer to what later became the Ishmael and Israel states. The word "Semite" was unknown back then and is, in fact, modern in usage for these ethnic groups and could not be older than the word "Shem" in ANY usage. So even the TOS use of the Pythagorean Pentacle is ludicrous: it would be exactly like Fundamentalists using the Atheists' atom symbol to represent their deity and then playing games with words as Aquino does, to say that "atom" is Adam. Aquino has it that Set plus "en," which he claims means "God" in Hebrew, is where Satan came from and blames the Jews for slandering Set. LIES! En, in HEBREW is a negative participle. It means "NOT." "En Soph" means "NO THING," but in their religion refers to the unknowable and IMpersonal, limitless and boundless kind of no-thing OUT OF WHICH came all things. In Hebrew, "EL" means God! In Chaldean, a related language, "en" means "not" and is identical to the "a" negative participle in Greek and Sanskrit. In ancient Greek, "en" means "one" and "to en" (the one) refers to the Apeiron that Pythagoreans talked about which is EXACTLY what Anton LaVey spoke of literally.
All the twisting of words, misinterpretations, and misquotes doen by Aquino "way back then" as to what Anton LaVey said (but what did he MEAN!!) amount to nothing. He is trying to prove, in analogy, that the symbol for the atom is really Adam and that Madalyn O'Hair was REALLY at a cross between Atheist thought and Fundamentalist Christian thought and that when she said "Nature" she really meant "God as a real being." And all he could possibly say to this (because he would HAVE to say something) would be designed to confuse fools. He'd go on to mention O'Hair and the Atheists as if he didn't notice the use of analogy, he'd neglect to mention the pentacle of Pythagoreans and/or Eastern Star (he always does) and he'd repeat, once again, his own foolish misinterpretations of what Anton LaVey MEANT by showing what he said or wrote. But it can be easily shown that when Anton LaVey says, "This Diabolicon is like the Books of Mormon or the Necronomicon of Lovecraft" he means what is obvious: the book is tomfoolery, fakery, crackpot Mormonism or pure fantasy invention as Lovecraft did which only crackpots would believe is real. Aquino can misinterpret all he chooses the easy-going fun-loving antics of the Master Joker Anton LaVey in his own attempt to try to put a stoic and serious face on what was never INTENDED to be so by Anton LaVey. He can delude himself into imagining he was the Good Angel (his own words) and that Anton LaVey was what: The Devil? Ummm, YEAH?
It is all of us, scientists or not, that trash pipe dreams, lies, and delusions and who hold fast to STARK HARD COLD BRUTAL REALITY and UNDEFILED truths that are seen by Fundamentalists (Christian or Setian) as DEVILS. It is furthermore, THEY that then wage a WAR against us, as Aquino has tried to do against the COS and all its higher ups. And to what avail? He is a man who, in analogy, believes that if he repeats "the world is flat" enough times that it will become true. If he keeps repeating his own misinterpretations of what happened in the COS "back then" he thinks he can make these things become true. NO SUCH THING! It can't work to fool anyone witha working brain! Setianism is IDENTICAL to Fundamentalism with a few qualifiers. Satanism is identical to Atheism with a few qualifiers. One does NOT come from the other. One is not related to the other.
Satanists need to see this in this very clear cut way here. And Setians? They need to strive their best to try to utter one single truth about this and ADMIT to what they are: Fundamentalists and NOT Satanists AT ALL, not in ANY way shape or form. That Setians are even on an internet [newsgroup] called alt.Satanism is an aberration. They belong on alt.Christianity arguing the with the Christians and telling them that is was not Jehova or Jesus who created man, but it was Set! Does it make any difference WHAT NAME they call their Creator Deity? Even the Jews with their Adonai don't have a literal Creator Deity!
End...as in bottom line. Copy this on disc. Spread it around repeatedly
because this needs to finally be told, set straight, and made more than
clear without resort to flaming.