How is human sacrifice a Satanic practice?

[kerriscott]

I don't see the point of arguing about dictionaries so I won't

Given that we're here to engage in debate, and given that to be constructive such debate should be rational, it's my view that its helpful if we make it clear - sometimes - exactly what we mean by certain terms. Thus, we can perhaps avoid some misunderstanding if we are using the same term or word in different ways.

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

Several points here.

In the two Anton Long essays Toward Understanding Satanism and in The Geryne of Satan, there's a fairly comprehensive analysis of the meaning, historical use, and etymology, of the words satanism and satan.

It's clear from the essay Toward Understanding Satanism that the O9A hasn't redefined the term satanism, but rather is using it in accord with the definitions given in the authoritative source, and the definitive record, of the English language (the complete, printed, Oxford English Dictionary), and that it is the CoS, the ToS, and other latter-day satanists, who have attempted to redefine it by removing from it the following standard attributes of Satanism, of the diabolical, and of the Satanic:

(a) practising or disposed to practise evil;
(b) actually or potentially harmful, destructive, disastrous, or pernicious; baleful;
(c) malicious; mischievous, sly;
(d) bad in moral character, disposition;
(e) hard, difficult, misleading, deadly, amoral.

Thus the Order of Nine Angles incite, propagate, and encourage what is "hard, difficult, actually or potentially harmful, destructive, disastrous, or pernicious, baleful", as in culling, insight roles, terrorism, criminality, political/religious extremism, code of kindred honor, and physical ordeals, such as living alone in the wilderness for around three months.

The O9A is also "mischievous, sly, bad in moral character, disposition" via its Labyrinthos Mythologicus, its dark arts such as 'sinister cloaking', and its definition of mundanes.

As for 'evil', the standard definition is: (1) To harm or injure; to ill-treat. (2) Bad, wicked. (3) Doing or tending to do harm; hurtful, mischievous, misleading. (4) Offensive, disagreeable; troublesome. (5) Hard, difficult, deadly.

The O9A certainly is and has been "offensive, disagreeable troublesome" and "mischievous, misleading", as in inciting/encouraging/propagating terrorism, culling, political/religious extremism, as in the Labyrinthos Mythologicus, and as in having people slyly engage in insight roles and dupe people (seeing them as marks), all of which may or actually do "harm or injure, or ill-treat."

Now, if you compare what the Order of Nine Angles incite, propagate, and encourage, with the CoS, ToS, and most latter-day satanists, it should be fairly obvious who has attempted, and who is attempting, to redefine 'satanism' and terms such as 'evil'. For who else, other than the O9A and those inspired by the O9A, incite, propagate, and encourage what the O9A do in the name of satanism?

Of course, in riposte to this, some may well - as others have in the past - claim that there is no evidence (other than, for example, the life of Myatt) that O9A actually put into practice what they preach. Which claim - in relation to the definition of terms and what is being incited, propagated, and encouraged - is irrelevant, and irrelevant because such as claim is a good example of the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.

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

Yes indeed. But the O9A claim that satanism involves far more than carnality, and egoism à la Ayn Rand.

 

[kerriscott]

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.

One of the key words in respect of such "collective culling" is selected. There are thus criteria, and which criteria mean that such culling is not, as you said, "quite arbitrary", given that 'arbitrary' means "to be decided by one's liking; dependent upon will or pleasure; at the discretion or option of any one."

One criterion is that of the O9A logos; another is sinister strategy and whether such a collective culling (and which type of culling includes armed conflict, rebellion, terrorism) will aid Aeonic aims. And so on. There is thus an informed judgement (based on sinister, not 'moral', considerations of course), and a 'sunedrion' where someone acts as 'Devil's Advocate' on behalf of those who may be targeted or become involved.

 

[Mindmaster]

Mundanes are mundane...
[--snip--]
It's telling when a person lacks the ability to come to understand the meaning and shades of meaning of words without dictionaries etc.

It wasn't me who started with the dictionary, but I have no problem whipping out my BIG Dictionary if needed. (Haha, I kill me!) Anyway, "geryne" is another gobbledygook word merely used to sound all occult-y. Why not use the word "secret" in it's place? That'd be too easy. Anyway, you can always tell how correct a line of thinking is by its simplicity. Anytime there is smoke and mirrors you can be sure that you will be David Blained soon enough. If it looks like someone is putting on a good show they probably are.

That article is trite with hasty generalizations supported by anecdotal evidence. Just because for example mainstream Christendom is unaware of some actual Satanists, Satanisms, or whatever doesn't mean that is what happened. Being a Satanist a few hundred years plus in time on the way back probably would get you killed. I can't imagine that it would be popular to out yourself at that time. All of the cited texts are written by pious Christians or the O9A themselves and simply patched together to appear to make a point. This is like saying we know all about the Celts because of what Julius Caesar had to say about them. Sworn enemies aren't exactly the most reliable source of information. To say it would be biased is pretty understated. Compare to say how many people were outing themselves as homosexuals at the time and one could infer that tolerance pretty much didn't exist.

 

[kerriscott]

Anyway, "geryne" is another gobbledygook word merely used to sound all occult-y. Why not use the word "secret" in it's place? That'd be too easy.

The word geryne was correctly used in accord with its meaning and etymology and used because the O9A have - quite deliberately - a distinct esoteric vocabulary. Or O9A-speak, if you prefer.

This distinct esoteric vocabulary serves to further distinguish the Order of Nine Angles from other LHP and satanic groups and individuals. In addition, it can sometimes serve an esoteric purpose in that those interested in the O9A need to make an effort to learn O9A-speak in order to understand O9A esoteric philosophy. This effort might lead them to some interesting discoveries and possible esoteric correspondences. Thus, in the specific matter of the word geryne, the novice might discover a connection with 'runes', and which discovery might take them off into a learning about that subject. And so on. Now that's being esoteric, isn't it?

That article is trite with hasty generalizations supported by anecdotal evidence.

If that's what you believe, do feel free to write a scholarly riposte.

 

[Satan's Right Hand Man]

That article is trite

That's a subjective evaluation of objective data.

You seem to lack the ability to communicate properly. On page 4, in post 39 you made the implication that the Order of Nine Angles redefined the term satanism, and that it 'doesn't get to redefine' it: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3836983-post39.html

Kerriscott & I provided for you actual objective data regarding the definition and usage of the term satanism and how the ONA uses the term satanism. The data Kerriscott & I provided shows that your presumption of ONA redefined the term satanism is inaccurate and incorrect.

Rather than be intellectually honest enough - and rather than demonstrating intellectual fortitude - to acknowledge that your presumptions and implications were inaccurate and incorrect and unfounded, you go off on a subtopical tangential by conjecturing about speculative narratives of how Satanists living in old Christendom were hiding out and were thus invisible. And you failed to even give the slightest objective data to back your conjecturing and speculations.

Given the above recounting of events: you are an intellectual coward and you are intellectually dishonest/disingenuous.

Let me ask you two simple questions:

1. How do you define satanism?
2. Why are you allowed to redefine satanism, but ONA isn't?

 

[jeff77]

That article is trite with hasty generalizations supported by anecdotal evidence.

In truth, it's a scholarly article, quoting the Greek and Hebrew of various words, and providing scholarly references.

All of the cited texts are written by pious Christians or the O9A themselves and simply patched together to appear to make a point.

The cited texts refer to "the earliest use of terms such as Satan and Satanism in the English language."

That's in line with the author's stated intention of giving their historical usage in the English language. This historical use is very interesting. For example, the author writes that:

"The earliest usages of the term Satanist, that is, of the suffix -ist applied to the term Satan - so far discovered - also imputes a similar meaning to foregoing; that is, of an adversarial, a diabolical, character or nature, of heretics, and of heretical/adversarial doctrine.....Only much later, from around 1896 CE onwards, was the term Satanist used to describe those who were alleged to worship Satan."
​

Also:

"Thus satan/sathan/sathanas as a term - historically understood - describes: (1) some human being or beings who diabolically plot or who scheme or who are opposed to those who consider themselves chosen by their monotheistic God; and/or (2) some human being or beings who are heretical and adversarial, against the status quo, and especially, it seems, against the religion of the Nazarenes."

​

Don't you find this interesting?

 

[1137]

I hate that you new comers are filling up this DIR with dogma quoted like fundamentalists proselytizing. Maybe you're scarier than RHP religions or Dark-RHP groups like ToS but you're certainly no different. A simple gang would be more intimidating.

 

[jeff77]

I hate that you new comers are filling up this DIR with dogma quoted like fundamentalists proselytizing

How is explaining things about the O9A, answering questions about, correcting some misapprehensions, and pointing out what the O9A view of certain things, "dogma quoted like fundamentalists proselytizing"?

Example. Someone states that "the O9A has redefined satanism." Someone else responds by quoting from O9A texts to explain the O9A position, and correct that misapprehension. The operative term in these posts is Order of Nine Angles "this or that". So isn't it logical that the posts contain quotes from O9A material?

I find it interesting that if the discussion is about LaVey, the CoS, or Aquino, or the ToS, no one accuses those posting quotes from LaVey, CoS, Aquino, ToS, of quoting dogma like fundamentalists proselytizing.

Yet again, apparently, people (newcomers and otherwise) are singled out for doing, re the O9A, what many other satanists and occultists do all the time in relation to discussions and posts about other LHP/satanic groups, and LHP/satanic individuals with a documented public profile. Why the double standard?

 

[Satan's Right Hand Man]

I hate that you new comers are filling up this DIR with dogma quoted like fundamentalists proselytizing.

Yet you do the same exact thing. You're here sharing your beliefs, views, and opinions about your personal redefined/recreated version of "Luciferianism." You left links to essays you've written about your version of Luciferianism. In other forums you left links to essays you've written about Thelema and a Thelemic order you created. And you don't condemn yourself for being a "fundamentalist" or as someone who is "proselytizing?" But when some ONA people do the exact same thing you are: 1) share their ONA beliefs, views, and opinions, 2) share their ONA essays, 3) share their ONA order, you actually condemn them for acting like "fundamentalists proselytizing."

You also seem to be suggesting that you guys here be given the freedom to say whatever you want about the ONA, and to have ONA not interfere in correcting you guys if you make errors or if you misrepresent ONA. Somebody in this thread made a foolish misrepresentation that ONA redefined satanism. Several someones tried to correct them by quoting relevant parts of writing. And you consider this to be acting like fundamentalists, or quoting dogma?

Why? Why the negative reaction when ONA does the exact same thing you are?

It's easy to understand everybody's reaction here when you look at things form the perspective of business:

The few of you users here in this LHP DIR are like small mom and pop businesses. You've set up shop here in this dead commercial district. And each little shop tries to sell its own little redefined versions of Satanism, the LHP, and Luciferianism.

ONA is like a very big corporation. It sets up shop in your little business turf. And they're out doing you.

Nearly every ONA related thread here since years back gets over 1000 views/hits.

Nearly every ONA related thread here gets lively activity, produces lively discussions, and debates.

The sad thing is that what you see here are the signs of things to come, and you guys don't even realize it. You're liberal mundane venues are dead, humdrum, and uninteresting. You mundane "Satanists," "LHPers," and "Luciferians," are far to disorganized and liberal to stand a chance with a memeplex and subgroup as coherent as ONA. And so, how you react to this is natural and understandable.

[youtube]hXGh0dSbd4o[/youtube]

 

[1137]

No, when I tell you my own philosophy I am not being dogmatic. There is no congregation a fundamentalism is pointless. And I've never claimed it to he true or right objectively, simply my take and therefore not preaching. Maybe dictionaries really would come in handy.

 

[1137]

How is explaining things about the O9A, answering questions about, correcting some misapprehensions, and pointing out what the O9A view of certain things, "dogma quoted like fundamentalists proselytizing"?

Example. Someone states that "the O9A has redefined satanism." Someone else responds by quoting from O9A texts to explain the O9A position, and correct that misapprehension. The operative term in these posts is Order of Nine Angles "this or that". So isn't it logical that the posts contain quotes from O9A material?

I find it interesting that if the discussion is about LaVey, the CoS, or Aquino, or the ToS, no one accuses those posting quotes from LaVey, CoS, Aquino, ToS, of quoting dogma like fundamentalists proselytizing.

Yet again, apparently, people (newcomers and otherwise) are singled out for doing, re the O9A, what many other satanists and occultists do all the time in relation to discussions and posts about other LHP/satanic groups, and LHP/satanic individuals with a documented public profile. Why the double standard?

There is no double standard. You'd have to go back a bit at this stage but I've called out everyone here who's done this. There's entire threads. You simply assume it's a double standard, which seems like self victimization to me - like Christians saying they're persecuted.

 

[Estro Felino]

If professional cattle ranchers and farmers think culling cattle and sheep is good with regard to genetic health/stalk, why don't they kill themselves?

I love this guys innocent smile and equanimity when speaking about the level of human culling he does.

I am 100 % sure that you are kidding. Lucky you who have time to make jokes

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Say what you want about ONA, but it's undeniable they are talking the lhp talk, which is the point of this dir is it not?

LHP, as in the traditional LHP which heavily emphasises the separation from illusion through the means of living heterodox lifestyles and approaching and confronting 'nastika'(which some that would prefer the term mean something else entirely describe as 'shock' or 'young thinking')

In my eyes 'they' (ONA folk), being that they incorporate and continue LHP tradition as it has been defined for thousands of years, have as much right to be here(insofar as the stated purpose of this being a LHP forum), if not more, than any creative soul that chooses to describe himself as LHP without any actual philosophical conection to the traditional, thousands of year old LHP.

 

[1137]

We've covered the whole "heterodox" nonsense.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yes, you've established that you do not agree with the definition of LHP, as it has been established for thousands of years, and that you feel you have every right to make up a new definition more in accordance with your own views.

Yet, that leaves you on shaky ground when calling for others that do speak to a more coherent and established LHP to be removed based on the fact that you don't agree with/grok this established LHP. Do you know what hubris is?

 

[1137]

Yes, you've established that you do not agree with the definition of LHP, as it has been established for thousands of years, and that you feel you have every right to make up a new definition more in accordance with your own views.

This is not the case, though I couldn't hope for anything besides straw men from the likes of you. The original LHP was simply about doing "taboo" things out of belief they worked. The practitioners were not setting out to spit in the face of society, they did it for themselves, which is the very spirit of the LHP. It's very different from being heterodox simply to spit at society. Whereas the original practitioners could survive without society, individuals like yourself could not. You rely on how society feels about you, your practices, your beliefs. Instead of carving out a place for yourself you let society carve it out and simply live in it, filling a role society desires in the first place. The O9A proves this with the importance on "insight roles", which require a system of societal morality in the first place. So you're the one trying to twist the meaning I guess - too weak or afraid to stand on your own.

I gave an example of this before. Say we both hate a movie - I hate it because I thought it was bad, you hate it because it's popular. Then, to the untrained eye, outsiders call us both hipsters.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I agree, it isn't a Satanic practice, nor is it ethical in Satanic practice. Human sacrifice is ethical in Christianity, so quite the opposite.

It would make sense that LHPers, when in the need for a sacrifice, would sacrifice things pertaining to themselves rather than another.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

This is not the case, though I couldn't hope for anything besides straw men from the likes of you.

Typical **** flinging in lieu of cogent response.

The original LHP was simply about doing "taboo" things out of belief they worked.

How very glib. Can you source this opinion?

The practitioners were not setting out to spit in the face of society, they did it for themselves, which is the very spirit of the LHP. It's very different from being heterodox simply to spit at society.

Indeed, as I (as have the ONA folk in question)have spoken to and written about ad infinitum. Not only in spirit, but in methodology and practice.

Whereas the original practitioners could survive without society, individuals like yourself could not. You rely on how society feels about you, your practices, your beliefs. Instead of carving out a place for yourself you let society carve it out and simply live in it, filling a role society desires in the first place. The O9A proves this with the importance on "insight roles", which require a system of societal morality in the first place. So you're the one trying to twist the meaning I guess - too weak or afraid to stand on your own.

Nice rant, yet not reflective of anything I, or the ONA, has ever written here or elsewhere. It seems the problem you have lay either in your lack of comprehension or perhaps outright dishonesty. I challenge you to either source any writing by myself, or by any 'ONA' people, that would support your vacuous claims here.

The O9A proves this with the importance on "insight roles", which require a system of societal morality in the first place.

Here you show you understand neither the function nor the form of what constitutes an 'insight role'. An insight role is an esoteric journey, to place yourself in a certain head-space by emulating, fully, a practice, lifestyle or belief set until you are of it, and further having the wherewithal to return from it. It is a test of ones character, and has absolutely nothing to do with 'a system of societal morality'

I gave an example of this before. Say we both hate a movie - I hate it because I thought it was bad, you hate it because it's popular. Then, to the untrained eye, outsiders call us both hipsters.

yes, and I then explained that the LHP is esoteric in nature, and what Crowley meant by 'as above, so below', and that your opining about my position of doing stuff because of what others thought didn't reflect the methodology...

Yet here you are telling the same lies.

The fact remains, for you to be here calling out LHP people for saying LHP things on a LHP board because you think to do so is 'preaching', despite the fact you write non LHP things about a non LHP philosophy on the very same board and expect, somehow, that you should be given MORE leeway to do so, is frankly laughable.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It would make sense that LHPers, when in the need for a sacrifice, would sacrifice things pertaining to themselves rather than another.

Exactly that. The entire premise of ADM is to put your views, beliefs and emotional attachments to the fire, to the altar.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

The sad thing is that what you see here are the signs of things to come, and you guys don't even realize it. You're liberal mundane venues are dead, humdrum, and uninteresting. You mundane "Satanists," "LHPers," and "Luciferians," are far to disorganized and liberal to stand a chance with a memeplex and subgroup as coherent as ONA. + video

Hmm... it looks like Satan's Right Hand Man is gonna to invade and destroy all the mundane pseudo-Satanic venues or, at least, make them all look ONAnish/ONAsque. All the boring and hopeless mundanes will either stamp the ONA label on their buttocks or die, unless they opt out of the so called "Satanism" altogether. In the end, only the ONA remains and of course Christianity, always willing to welcome the sinners and lost souls back onto its womb. And it's not a joke.

Nearly every ONA related thread here gets lively activity, produces lively discussions, and debates.

The saying goes that standing in a garage doesn't make you a car. Picking up a label and using certain discourse doesn't yet mean anything, unless you start putting your money where your mouth is. Sure, you can't say much about someone's life if you don't know them personally, but certain types of online behavior can be indicative. If people engage in junior high school games on the internet, it says a lot about their personality. If they have time to drag some silly drama for ages and pages all over the net, then you can doubt they have much time left for anything else.