Hva ER satanisme?

[kalle_klovn_1990]

Ja, som dere ser lurer jeg på hva satanisme egentlig er. Jeg har bare fått for meg at en stereotype satanist går rundt med svarte klær og nagler og tilber satan, men jeg tror det er mer ved å være satanist.

Så hvis noen vet en del om dette hadde det vært artig, for jeg er nyskjerrig.=)

 

Jørgen

[Snillingen]

http://www.snl.no/article.html?id=746713&o...earch=satanisme

[Bruktbilen]

Satanismen er en religiøs, semi-religiøs og/eller en filosofisk bevegelse, der følgerene anerkjenner Satan som en arketyp, en fysisk skapning, prekosmisk kraft eller et aspekt ved menneskets natur.

 

More info

 

Det er desverre ikke som i Buffy der folk drar til kirkegården og ofrer en lam...

[Sponis]

Satanisme har ingeting med satan å gjøre. I følge LaVey, som grunnla den satanistiske kirken og skrev den satanistiske bibelen, er satan kun et symbol på satanismens motsetninger til kristendommen. Hvor kristendommen står for og oppfordrer til nestekjærlighet, dyrker LaVey satanismen egoismens og enkelt individets goder.

 

Kirkebrenning og denslags har selvfølgelig ingeting med satanisme å gjøre.

Endret 3. januar 2007 av Goz

[McBitch]

Kudos til deg for at du vil lære mer om det og ikke nøyer deg med å tro på alt vrøvlet man hører

[Petrvs Romanvs]

There are many attempts right now to define Satanism so that it ceases to be an unknown.  Given this, one might say that the Order-based social organism is attempting to infiltrate and destroy this rebellious little faction by requiring self-identification.  Self-definition is the first step to co-opting a new social trend.  As I define Satanism for everyone I do it a disservice, so take this in the spirit in which it is meant - as a reflection of my experience and dreams.   It in no way describes an orderly organization, but a social trend, recurrently surfacing and disappearing.

 

Satanism is the latest in a line of manifestations of the Great Cult of Martyrdom.  I'm not quite sure of its origins, but examples of it include Christianity and Witchcraft/Wicca. Long ago these latter religions were manifestations of the GMC, but over time they have been co-opted by the establishment into social indoctrination schemes. Today Christianity and Wicca (this last is part of a conglomerate known to many as Neopaganism) are mixtures of honest mystical rebellion and conformist religious cliques.

 

Definition is the first stage of the corruption of the GMC. As we offer to define it, so does it pass into another form. We know that this may sound quite evasive, but the GMC is evasive. It is the manifestation of the unconscious mind of our society.  The more we attempt to understand it, the more it becomes impossible for us to understand.  It is the equivalent of the Buddhist sunyata, which we can never quantify, yet it has an everlasting quality of presence.

 

The GMC is an occult network of those whose minds are triggered by society into a direct confrontation with the orthodox for the purposes of internal coherence.  It surfaces with different names, at different times, and with different 'philosophies', but always toward the same eventual endpoint.

       

Essentially what the GMC comes down to is practicing my spirituality in such a way as to bring up the repressed unconscious energies of the culture in which I live.  This often involves focussing upon certain 'unpopular' deity-images, doing 'taboo' things and sometimes bringing the 'hidden' practices out into the public eye.

 

The term 'Satan' is taken from Judaism, where 'Shaitan' is God's Attorney, a sort of 'Bad Cop' to Jehovah's 'Good Cop'.  Satan seems to be the representative of the Id, to put it in psychological terms, who challenges us to explore, expand, experience ecstasy, exultation.

 

Satan isn't 'the Bad' to all Christians.  Some see Hir as the essential symbol of our world, as sensuality and its beckoning pleasures.  Some see Satan as the Deceiver who lures us, as does Maya, to do that over which we'll suffer. 

 

Does Maya have a personality, traditionally?  I think that Sri Ramakrishna and company give Her one.  I know that some Christians see Satan as one of the Faces of God, and no more fear Hir than they would a horror-show.

 

Some see Hir (Satan) as a spoiled brat who disobeys the Good and Worthy God-Parent.  However, some see Hir as a Guardian to tremendous Mystery and Wisdom.  Some see Hir as the world.  Note how often Satan and the work of this being are associated with 'evil' by fundamentalists and identified with 'the flesh'. Satan has many faces for many people, and I think that this exemplifies some of Hir titles ('the adversary'; 'Father of Lies', etc.).

 

When someone engages energies which are in some way contradictory to our path, they become our 'Satan'.  Such a person is seen in different ways by different people.

 

Some wish to rid themselves of this entity, vacating the office until another entity comes along.   For some, Satan is also an ally/guardian, in that She safeguards very important energies of consciousness and, if appropriately challenged, will yield this resource.

 

The Satanist becomes an image which the orthodoxy abhors. She behaves and speaks in ways which derive from the unconscious mind of the society in which she lives - i.e. those energies which the society has repressed are given expression in hir).  It ain't about shoving the Orthodoxy's face in any 'facts', though it may include counter-propaganda.  It is a visceral, archetypal image which is portrayed in behavior and words.

 

We are talking about those people who use a sort of social judo upon the masses, those who hold a mirror (or more accurately, a picture of their deep selves) and march it down the throats of those in power. This usually results in those in power stripping them of this picture, displaying their fangs and becoming the picture to the detriment of the martyr. All the martyr did was to live their life. This happened not to fit in well with the popular psyche. We're not talking 'sociopaths' here, we're talking social psychiatrists, or maybe 'social exorcists'.

 

GMC has to do with reflecting the shadow side of society. Ideations are threatening to society if it is stuck in one world-view, but they aren't like a nightmare. We are talking imagery here. Some nice ideas in imagery, but not much with regard to Science.

 

The worst that modern Science has to offer is conscious extinction at the end of personal life. Most 'sciences' won't examine this subject, however, because it goes beyond 'physically observed data'.  Phew!

 

This is the reason that modern Science is stuck on materialism. It began as a faction of the GMC, but it was co-opted by those Christian 'scientists' who didn't take it to the interior world of the psyche. Magick involves taking Science to the subjective world. That is why it is spurned by modern Science.  That is why it is spurned by modern Christianity.

 

It is much easier to leave the repressed energies in the social psyche rather than dredge them up by focussing on Sociology and Psychology. Today these fields are treated with disdain by most 'hard-scientists'.

 

What makes a Christian/Witch/Satanist is hir individual power. Resistance to oppressive authority is what all of these at one time or another have shared. Just because modern Satanism has not been as corrupted as has what is now called 'Christianity' doesn't make it of a different tradition in regards the GMC. There are yet elements of the Christian complex which retain vestiges of the GMC's influence.

 

The Roman Catholic Church is not Christian, not in the sense of the Great Martyrdom Cult. The original Christians, the ones who were opposed by the Roman Pagans were martyrs. When the Romans co-opted the language and behaviors of these martyrs (in effect, calling themselves Christian without adopting the values/theories), then the Cult submerged. They resurfaced in Europe in response to the Roman Catholic Church and called themselves 'Witches' (and perhaps 'Satanists').  When this holocaust subsided, the Cult submerged once more and has been recently resurfacing in the form of 'Witches', and more often, 'Satanists' in response to the repressive Euro-American Puritanism still rampant in our culture.

 

There are many reasons that some Satanists (I don't) run counter to Christianity:

 

1) Historical oppression (in their lives, in Europe, elsewhere) associated with this religion.

 

2) Definition of themselves and their path (some find it important to accept the polar Satan/God model and act from it).

 

3) Herd-mentality (some are just along for the ride, and the current trend in 'Satanic' groups is to be at least slightly anti-Christian -- especially anti-organized-Christian).

 

4) Adversarialism (this is where I get into the picture slightly). Some of us find it important to invoke the god of adversarialism in defense of wisdom. Ignorance just seems to dissapate when I start to ask questions, challenge assumptions, argue vehemently.

 

There are several divisions one could make as to the belief systems of various "Satanic" groups. This (arbitrary) division was included to point out various Currents or influences in modern day satanism rather than an attempt at categorization.

 

1. The Dabblers: adopt Satanic trappings for a brief period of time, usually for entertainment rather than serious purposes. Many modern youths fall into this category.

 

2. Churches of Satan: are patterned after the teachings of Anton LaVey. These groups believe in individualism, gratification of the ego, self-reliance and the ideal of the Nietzchean Superman. These groups use Magick as a tool for earthly power. They see Satan as the driving force behind achievement in mankind.

 

3. Gnostics: can be divided into two major categories:

3a. Promethean Gnostics: Believe in a literal "Satan", but believe that the creator of the world (Jehovah) is the evil deity. Satan is seen as the "bringer of light"; a beneficent god. This is an old "heresy" seen in groups such as the Yezidis or the Ophites.

3b. Dark Gnostics: Worship the dark force in nature. These groups follow the whims of a capricious god, which most westerners would see as being "evil." There are a few historical Christian heresies which would fall into this category. Kali worshipers could also be categorized here as a cross cultural example of a "Satanism."

 

4. Secondary Satanists: follow a faith outside the Christian mainstream. Most would not consider themselves as being "Satanic" and strictly speaking should not be defined as Satanists (as per se with some of the Gnostic groups), but the ignorant often categorize them as Satanists. Voodoo and Santeria could be grouped here, as could medieval witchcraft (if it actually existed). Certain forms of Tantric Buddhism could also be placed in this category.

 

5. Hellfire Clubs: Were a phenomenon of the 18th century, mentioned because of historical relevance to modern Satanisms. The first of these was founded by the Duke of Wharton in the early 1700's. Most infamous was sir Francis Dashwood's Medmenham club (Often incorrectly called the Hellfire Club). Dashwood was a close friend of Benjamin Franklin, who may have been a member of this group. Franklin's description of the Medmeham club's secret chambers is one of the few we have, so his membership seems likely. In any case, Dashwood and Franklin co-authored the "Franklin Prayer Book" (often called the Book of Common Prayer) which is commonly used in America. Another famous member of the Medmenham club was the Earl of Sandwich, inventor of (guess what) the Sandwich. Hellfire Clubs were exclusive groups dedicated to much political intrigue, partying, and some occasional occult activities. Other similar groups included the Irish Brimstone Boys and Blue Blazers.

 

6. Romantic/Promethean Satanists: Literary/historical "Satanists" -William Blake, Charles Baudelaire, Maupertin, Carducci, Lautremont and Gabriele D'Annunzio. Artists and romantics with "sympathy for the devil" have a long tradition; Satan being a great patron of the arts.

 

7. Left-Hand Path Pagans: There are several European groups, most of them consisting of small "covens" of several people, that are or could be considered Satanists. Two of the larger of these groups are The Fraternity of Baelder and the Order of Nine Angles (ONA). These groups allegedly have longer traditions, and "more authentic" origins (whatever that might mean). ONA is especially fond of calling itself the "traditional Satanists." These groups tend to have more "extreme" views than the others mentioned, and have little, if any authoritarian structure.

 

Some may be interested in joining some kind of organization of like minded Individuals. Most Satanists will agree that organizations are best when least intrusive on the individual, and would recommend caution in joining or associating with any group. Don't let anyone tell you what to believe, or what to do. Advice or recommendations are one thing; orders or commands quite another. Remember that you are a free being, not a pawn in someone's power fantasy. Trust your feelings; if you feel you may be the victim of a working of Con Artistry (oft referred to as Lesser Magick), you probably are, at least in some sense.

 

It is important to realize that all organizations, Satanic and otherwise, are dangerous; by their very nature they have more available physical, economic and psychological resources than the individual who would interact with them, hence one should exercise caution in ones dealings with any organization or one could find oneself with less freedom, a destroyed reputation, legal troubles, or worse.

Endret 4. januar 2007 av Nisje Olm

[JBlack]

Ahh... Goth-versjonen av New Age altså.

 

Sorry, kunne ikke dy meg. Men det er helt klare paralleller til New Age i det Nisje Olm siterer. Masse prat om sin egen mystiske kraft og styrke og om motsetningsforholdet til den slemme vitenskapsbaserte materialismen.

[Sponis]

Nå er LaVey satanismen eldre enn New Age da.

[Cryovat]

Satanisme er vel for det meste en individ-basert livsfilosofi vevd inn i masse magisk vås.

[Thlom]

Nå er LaVey satanismen eldre enn New Age da.

7641142[/snapback]

Mnja. New Age er jo "alternative" religioner, gjerne med diverse artifakter som krystaller, tarrotkort osv. Dette er gamle greier, men begrepet new age blei introdusert i amerikanske medier på 80-tallet. LeVey skreiv den sataniske bibelen på slutten av 60-tallet og dreiv med denne satanismen sin i omtrent samme periode.

[Gjest medlem-82119]

Satanisme kan grovt sett deles i to leire.

Anton Lavey`s church of satan har bygget opp en religion hvor mennesket selv har ansvar for å skape en best mulig kardemomme-verden.

Den er mye mer direkte enn kristendommen og mye mer human etter mitt syn.

De har regler de følger:

 

http://www.feastofhateandfear.com/archives/lavey.html

 

De tror normalt ikke på satan som en konkret person, men ser på begrepet satan som et slags beskrivende idegrunnlag for et alternativ til kristendommen.

 

Den andre delen er de som grovt sett mener at hvis det som står i bibelen er kristendom så vil det å leve motsatt av det som står i bibelen være satanisme.

Mange av dem kjører seg inn i et hjørne når de kommer til bibelens omtale av bl.a homofili hvor enkelte utøver homofile gjerninger bare fordi det står i bibelen at det er synd.

 

Utover dette er det mange individualister som praktiserer ulike varianter av sin tro, og mange mikser inn en god porsjon norrøn tro oppi det hele.

 

Det ironiske oppi alt dette, er at satanismen som skal være slem bl.a har konkrete regler som sier at man ikke skal skade barn mens bibelen som skal være den snille snakker om å ofre din førstefødte og barneblodet flyter både her og der.

Derfor vil det umiddelbart være lett å få sympati med laveys versjon dess mer man leser om den.

Mange kjendiser har vært medlemmer av chuch of satan, bl.a sammy davis jr. og jane mansfield.

Idag er vel den mest kjente marilyn manson som er nestleder.

 

du kan lett finne info om dette ved å google litt..

 

Lykke til!

Endret 4. januar 2007 av medlem-82119

[Niqābninja]

satanisk.com

satanisk.org

Ordo Illuminatorum

 

Kan være gode norske kilder (:

Da til den sataniske retningen basert på LaVeys skrifter.

[Kakofoni]

Ahh... Goth-versjonen av New Age altså.

 

Sorry, kunne ikke dy meg. Men det er helt klare paralleller til New Age i det Nisje Olm siterer. Masse prat om sin egen mystiske kraft og styrke og om motsetningsforholdet til den slemme vitenskapsbaserte materialismen.

7639162[/snapback]

Nå gadd jeg ikke lese Nisje Olms sitat. Men det må være feil, eller være Aleister Crowley eller noen annen galnings satanisme.

 

For ifølge LaVeyan-satanismen (som er størst, formoder jeg?), så støtter den veldig mye den vitenskapsbaserte materialismen. LaVeyan-satanister må ikke nødvendigvis være ateister, men la sunn fornuft styre synet på livet.

[Petrvs Romanvs]

Kort fortalt handlet sitatet om (hvis en tar vekk romantiseringen):

 

Hva er det første i en tankerekke? Selv mener jeg det er noe før formuleringen av en setning, overgangen fra en impuls til noe bevisst skjer så fort at de fleste tar det for gitt. Hvem reflekterer over sine masker mer enn de må? En lærer fort å kamuflere sine innerste tanker og til å manipulere sine omgivelser. Hvordan kan man kjenne seg selv når man stadig pynter på den første impuls?

 

Underbevisstheten kan sies å være fylt opp med demoner, ettersom det vi forkaster stadig blir mer forvridd og dermed uforståelig. En teori jeg nettopp leste gikk ut på at demonene man møter egentlig er en selv, man kan også si at disse har makt over en i den grad man er ignorant -> Satan (motstander).

 

Det beste er kanskje å avskrive alt som makyo, men selv en zenmester kan oppleve satori for andre gang.

 

I wonder why...

Endret 2. februar 2007 av Nisje Olm

[TLZ]

Ahh... Goth-versjonen av New Age altså.

 

Sorry, kunne ikke dy meg. Men det er helt klare paralleller til New Age i det Nisje Olm siterer. Masse prat om sin egen mystiske kraft og styrke og om motsetningsforholdet til den slemme vitenskapsbaserte materialismen.

7639162[/snapback]

Nå er det mange LaVey-satanister som aviser "overnaturlige" ting ol. og har et mer materialistisk livsyn. Og hvis jeg ikke tar helt feil så har vel LaVey sagt at ideene hans er det samme som Ayn Rands, med ritualer og slikt lagt over dem.

[abbath_immortal]

Ja, som dere ser lurer jeg på hva satanisme egentlig er. Jeg har bare fått for meg at en stereotype satanist går rundt med svarte klær og nagler og tilber satan, men jeg tror det er mer ved å være satanist.

Så hvis noen vet en del om dette hadde det vært artig, for jeg er nyskjerrig.=)

 

Jørgen

7636592[/snapback]

 

satanisme er firihet.

[jesse]

Ja, som dere ser lurer jeg på hva satanisme egentlig er. Jeg har bare fått for meg at en stereotype satanist går rundt med svarte klær og nagler og tilber satan, men jeg tror det er mer ved å være satanist.

Så hvis noen vet en del om dette hadde det vært artig, for jeg er nyskjerrig.=)

 

Jørgen

7636592[/snapback]

 

satanisme er firihet.

8031106[/snapback]

 

Frihet? Å tilbe en taper?

[dot_]

Jesse: du tror vel ærlig talt ikke at det eksisterer en djevel?

[jesse]

Jesse: du tror vel ærlig talt ikke at det eksisterer en djevel?

8032872[/snapback]

 

Jo, faktisk. Men ikke den varianten som er rød, og har horn og hale. Og han styrer heller ikke noe helvete. Bibelen forteller at hans navn var Lucifer, som betyr Lysets Engel. Han ble av gud gitt tilnavnene Satan og Djevelen, som betyr motstander og løgner

[dot_]

Jo, faktisk. Men ikke den varianten som er rød, og har horn og hale. Og han styrer heller ikke noe helvete. Bibelen forteller at hans navn var Lucifer, som betyr Lysets Engel. Han ble av gud gitt tilnavnene Satan og Djevelen, som betyr motstander og løgner

8032993[/snapback]

 

Ok.