How is human sacrifice a Satanic practice?

[Iti oj]

Aren't illegal acts by nature intrinsically adversarial? I suppose I'm not quite seeing the distinction you're attempting to make here.

As an aside, anything certain groups regard as sufficiently taboo will get the label "satanic" slapped on them, regardless of whether or not it fits by the standards of those who self-identify under that label. Same thing happens with the word "witchcraft." They're both, for better or worse, all-purpose snarl words to certain groups.

i thinking its hating christians more then the man. or something

 

[Mindmaster]

Idle hands are The Devil's workshop.

 

[devandkumar11]

The word sacrifice is derived from "sacer" meaning sacred1. A sacrifice may be a part of a religious ritual or rite that is meant to honor a god, or spirits. Sacrifice of animals is protected according to the US Constitution, as long as the sacrificed animal is not tortured and the animal is consumed afterward.

 

[kerriscott]

The word sacrifice is derived from "sacer" meaning sacred. A sacrifice may be a part of a religious ritual or rite that is meant to honor a god, or spirits.

To be pedantic (as I often am and have been accused of being, including here on this forum) sacrifice is from the Latin sacrificium, and, as a noun, means not only to kill as an offering (to a deity or whatever) but also (i) "the destruction or surrender of something valued or desired for the sake of something having, or regarded as having, a higher or a more pressing claim" (i.e. not involving deities) and (ii) "A victim; one sacrificed to the will of another; also, a person or thing that falls into the power of an enemy or a destructive agency" (again no deities or religions, or even politics, necessary).

Sacrifice, as a verb, means "to offer as a sacrifice; to make an offering or sacrifice of", and applies to all the senses above.

Thus, sacrifice does not necessarily impute the sense of 'sacred' and does not necessarily imply or involve "a religious ritual or rite that is meant to honor a god, or spirits."

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Well, seeing as there is an incident in the Bible of human sacrifice, and that "Satanism" as a real "religion" or "practice" is more myth than fact, then I'd submit that human sacrifice is not Satanic.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Generalisations..meh

Ask yourself, does the idea of human sacrifice scare you, or excite you? Does it fill you with dread or moral outrage? The answer to the op question lay within ones answer to these ones.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The Aztecs, the Mayans; Rome, Carthage; Mars, Jupiter, Bhaal.

There seems to be a real pattern of civilizations and religions who participated in human sacrifices to fall.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A life not your own is not yours to take.
[/FONT]

 

[kerriscott]

There seems to be a real pattern of civilizations and religions who participated in human sacrifices to fall.

All 'civilizations' decline and fall. The current Western one - if we can dignify it with the somewhat disputed term 'civilization' - will also decline and fall.

The practice of human sacrifice is therefore irrelevant to such a fall.

Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved. A life not your own is not yours to take.

Meh. Personally, I prefer the O9A take on life and humans: "that some humans, by nature, by character, are rotten – worthless – and, when this rotten character is revealed by their deeds, it is beneficial to remove them, to cull them." Source - Anton Long, Concerning Culling as Art.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

This is a DIR thread not open to debate, so I will recuse myself before breaking forum rules

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Meanwhile the O9A strengthens the christian cause by martyring people in the name of Satan.

You completely misunderstood the nature and meaning of martyrdom in Christianity. Martyrdom is undeserved death for the belief in God or for supporting the Church or other Christian community. It is often a matter of choice. Martyrs are usually people who prefer to die rather than renounce their faith. Nowadays, it happens in some Muslim countries that Christians are killed by the Muslim fundamentalists for the mere reason of being Christians (proselytizing could be a reason too) though converting into Islam could probably save them.

So nope, being murdered in the name of Satan doesn't necessarily make one a martyr, even if it is unfair. Some time ago in Poland two teenagers were stabbed by their friends during the "Satanic" ritual. Nothing to do with the ONA, just the youth stupidity. Anyway, the victims were no martyrs. Their death was...oh well...bad luck.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The Aztecs, the Mayans; Rome, Carthage; Mars, Jupiter, Bhaal.

There seems to be a real pattern of civilizations and religions who participated in human sacrifices to fall.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A life not your own is not yours to take.
[/FONT]

Since this is an educational dir, let me take this opportunity to educate you. Two things;

First, outside of cos approved venues, LaVey was just a guy, a Satanist perhaps but no more an authority figure than some catholic priest.

Secondly, even within the early cos the 'rules' , 'sins' and 'statements' were taken very tongue in cheek. It was pomp, showmanship. It was only after LaVey died those things became hard dogma for those that either missed the boat, or had something to gain from it(Gilmore and company)

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Interesting, tx.

 

[1137]

All 'civilizations' decline and fall. The current Western one - if we can dignify it with the somewhat disputed term 'civilization' - will also decline and fall.

The practice of human sacrifice is therefore irrelevant to such a fall.


Meh. Personally, I prefer the O9A take on life and humans: "that some humans, by nature, by character, are rotten – worthless – and, when this rotten character is revealed by their deeds, it is beneficial to remove them, to cull them." Source - Anton Long, Concerning Culling as Art.

So it's Christianity with culling instead of Hell, not to mention completely and totally subjective.

 

[Mindmaster]

I think at least in terms of O9A the "acceptability" of who is to be culled is quite arbitrary. Personally, that is my problem with it not that certain pieces of human trash need to be taken to the curb. What qualifies one as human garbage? For all the prattle it seems like there are no rules -- thus it basically goes down to reckless action. Even the extremist Muslims have rules to their killing -- I may not personally like what they do, but I know how to stay off the list.

Is the human trash simply everyone that thinks O9A is full of it or worthless? Or, worse assuming that O9A associates are some sort of ubermensch and that everyone else is worth killing if they are not able to be manipulated or used to O9A ends? Again, it's sweeping and broad and subject to the lines of thought that lead to the Holocaust in Germany, and similar efforts recently in Kosovo. Apparently, some people really like repeating stupid events in history and can't learn a thing.

Whatever that actually boils down to it doesn't matter and speaks to the inferiority of the philosophy -- there is too much grey area to make sense of it. Any philosophy that can't cohabit with others is doomed to fail and die because it is goes against human nature. As a species humans thrive through their extra-special-super-awesome-power of COOPERATION. We've found a place for rocks, intellectuals, and everyone in-between.

Satanism (in the truest sense) is about the exaltation of human nature -- in fact a theistic such as myself considers it the highest form of devotion. Thus, wanton destruction of humans is completely off the board -- why kill people that you actually need? That's the part O9A doesn't explain. The unwashed masses are great for self-defense and menial work if nothing else. It's against our human nature to kill without any direct reward for the action and even then there is not much point if you aren't say going to starve to death without doing so (a situation which probably won't happen... in any future time).

 

[kerriscott]

culling [is] completely and totally subjective.

It depends on what you meant by 'subjective'. If you meant (i) 'proceeding from or taking place within the individual consciousness or perception', or (ii) 'having its source in the mind', or even (iii) 'not impartial or literal', then the answer is no, it is not subjective..

However, if you meant something akin to "expressing, bringing into prominence, or from, the individuality of the artist or author" then the answer might be a qualified 'yes', because the criterion is individual judgment regarding the physis - the nature, character - of a person as revealed by their deeds in the real world and then by them failing certain tests of character.

Thus, the fact that there is a criterion, derived from the logos of the Order of Nine Angles and the axiom of individual authority, and such required tests of character, means that in conventional terms it is not 'subjective'.

Perhaps you could explain how, in your opinion, it's "Christianity with culling instead of Hell".

 

[kerriscott]

I think at least in terms of O9A the "acceptability" of who is to be culled is quite arbitrary

No, it's not arbitrary if by arbitrary you mean "to be decided by one's liking; dependent upon will or pleasure; derived from mere opinion."

Rather, as I mentioned in another reply here, there is a criterion. There is a certain standard, and there are certain tests that have to be undertaken before a person is considered 'acceptable' for culling.

Thus there are 'rules'.

Satanism (in the truest sense) is about the exaltation of human nature

Perhaps that should be: "satanism, in your opinion/in the opinion of or according to the dogma of temple X, is about the exaltation of human nature". Otherwise, we'll probably end up squabbling about what genuine/real/authentic satanism is or isn't, when IMO there's no answer, only opinion and dogma and claims. We might as well ask Quid Est Veritas?

That said, your opinion isn't my view of satanism, or - AFAIK - that of the Order of Nine Angles. The O9A view of satanism is of (i) developing (evolving, changing) suitable human beings via various occult, and exoteric, arts; and (ii) of recognizing that our nature is jumelle (made or shaped by the duality of sinister-numinous; the sinisterly-numinous); and (iii) that some humans have a worthless character that cannot be changed and that therefore they are or may used as dupes (marks) or be suitable for culling.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

There is a certain standard, and there are certain tests that have to be undertaken before a person is considered 'acceptable' for culling.

Not necessarily. In the case of the "sworn enemy" a group of people is selected. Any member of that group is considered to be an acceptable target and no tests are required. So it is quite arbitrary.

The same is with inciting a war, rebellion or terrorists attacks. The victims are random people.

 

[Erebus]

human sacrifice is not adversarial.

Got to disagree with you there. Murder is perhaps the ultimate taboo throughout human history and so to commit murder is an attack on the legal system, your society and its ethical codes and quite possibly against your own morality. That seems adversarial to me.

Is it a good idea? I would say no. As far as self improvement is concerned the only question you are answering is "how will killing somebody affect me?" and unless you happen to be psychopathic and/or an extreme sadist the answer is probably "very negatively." In addition you of course face the risk of imprisonment or even death as a result of your actions. Assuming that wasn't your goal (some people kill in order to go to prison or as suicide by cop) then to me that seems like a monumental risk for very little gain.
Self preservation, looking out for the interests of your loved ones and a realistic assessment of risk vs reward all point to murder being a very poor idea as far as I can see.

The attentive among you may have spotted that I've used the word "murder" a couple of times now. There are of course ways to kill people legally. Going into a military or political career immediately spring to mind. I genuinely believe that some people are born killers and that something like a military career is the best route for them to take. I get the impression though that when people talk about "Satanic sacrifice" they generally aren't talking about killing in a manner condoned by the state.

Finally I'll touch on shock factor a little. I seriously doubt that 99.9% of the people who condone human sacrifice have ever murdered anybody or will ever do it in the future. At best I see it posed as a hypothetical question, something to make people consider where they draw the line. At worst it's showmanship without substance.

 

[Mindmaster]

That said, your opinion isn't my view of satanism, or - AFAIK - that of the Order of Nine Angles. The O9A view of satanism is of (i) developing (evolving, changing) suitable human beings via various occult, and exoteric, arts; and (ii) of recognizing that our nature is jumelle (made or shaped by the duality of sinister-numinous; the sinisterly-numinous); and (iii) that some humans have a worthless character that cannot be changed and that therefore they are or may used as dupes (marks) or be suitable for culling.

I don't see the point of arguing about dictionaries so I won't -- but, jumelles means binoculars, twins, or shackles in French. Duality of any sort isn't really implied by that term. Language is funny, eh? (I can read French, English, Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Latin... don't babble me or I'll throw the fish at you.) Language is like a paint brush and the words are like colors on a palette I shall not argue my choice of red, black, or any color in between with you. If you can't see the picture and only the brand of paint I'm done with you.

O9A can't redefine the term Satanism because the term was there before they were around. If O9A isn't an Order (as some previous posts and articles allude to) then arguably yes the culling criteria is completely arbitrary since it is largely up to the individual or at least small groups as far as "when to pull the trigger." This is exactly the logic at play in other extremist organizations and terror cells. Why is that confusing to understand? Are you ****** at me because I logically came to that conclusion? How is that analysis wrong? That's a question you aren't answering. Who decides what part of the O9A canon comes into play? How do you know that all of these little cabals are all playing by the rules? What can you do if they don't? See those are questions!

My theory that O9A has nothing to do with Satanism is simple. You expect people to change, or rather demand it or you consider them unworthy or whatever. Satanism (all legit forms of Satanism, whether it be Atheistic, Theistic, or Whatever) believe that human nature in actually is perfect as is -- the only problem being interference from societal pressure and norms. Thus, by living in accordance to "the powers that be" a Satanist is accidentally living in antimonian fashion by living in a natural state. What's sinister about that is beyond me personally, and I'm a diehard theistic Satanist. Mind you, I am speaking without any consideration of any particular group -- even yours with exception of the first sentence. I view O9A mostly in a theatrical light at least in terms of the publications because they're so NOT Satanic in any sense to me. Between the circle talk, made up words, and other gibberish I really fail to take it seriously. O9A involves dogma, fascist elements, mind control paradigms (tear down-build up, jargon, cells), and bunch of other silliness that no self-respecting Satanist would have anything to do with EVER. Certainly that's my observation, but that isn't _MY OPINION_ that crap is all over O9A websites. You really can only miss it if you're dumber than a bag of hammers in the first place.

LaVey often referred to that as "Carnal Nature" but it's really just something that Satanists have been doing for as long as they've been around. Thus, normally Satanists don't identify the average population any worse than they would a few misguided children. They will generally do no harm even if they don't figure "it" out, so why bother making problems for them? Some of them will naturally grow out of their misconceptions so where is the harm in letting them do so?

 

[Satan's Right Hand Man]

I don't see the point of arguing about dictionaries so I won't -- but, jumelles means binoculars, twins, or shackles in French. Duality of any sort isn't really implied by that term.

When ONA uses certain words in its lexicon, such words usually are given esoteric [in-group] meanings that fit within the weltanschauung of ONA. LMAO... French for binoculars, twins, and shackles. LMAO. Mundanes are mundane...

If it weren't for dictionaries and wikipedia you mundanes would be in hella deep shyt. There is another way to discern the meaning of words besides depending on dictionaries. You empath/intuit or deduce the meaning via context, usage, and overall essence of the writing.

This strange way of coming to an understanding of the meanings of words without dictionaries is how most people learn to understand the meaning of words regarding verbal communication. Nobody carries a dictionary in their pocket when speaking with people. The people come first... the words comes second... the usage of the words by the people comes third... and after a significant number of people use a word in certain ways it finally gets included into a dictionary.

A group of people may thus use words in their own way. If such ways of using words don't get put into dictionaries it may mean that the number of users of such words is not significant enough.

It's telling when a person lacks the ability to come to understand the meaning and shades of meaning of words without dictionaries etc.

O9A can't redefine the term Satanism because the term was there before they were around.

Anton Long & the Order of Nine Angles doesn't "redefine" the term "Satanism." ONA & Anton Long actually defines the term Satanism as it was once defined and used before the religious/philosophical redefining took place.

See this ONA MS for the definitions and usage of the words "Satan," "Satanism," & "Satanist": The Geryne of Satanism.