The Satanic Temple are not Satanists | Forum

Well... because it's a Satanic forum though, sometimes, attended by Christians and spiritually-oriented, ritual chamber - obsessed pseudo-Satanic poseurs.

Now that has got to sting a little. After sometime inspecting your posts, at least since I have been here; I wouldn't use the term pseudo-satanic to describe you. Other choice phrases like myopic or mundane definitely but psuedo is reaching a great deal. 

I think you should examine the source though. A lonely miserable crazy-cat-lady who is most certainly a closeted mundane like yourself (mundane satanist). Even though at times, she seems to make a few relevant points; they are almost always in criticism of something, and certainly never any original or creative thoughts and/or expressions. You don't seem to be too much different in that respect but I digress. Her sycophancy for o9a or any woman she sees as strong, mirrors your Laveyian sheeple-ness. You both hate the opposite gender. I have to say, I think its funny that she is just as unlikely to get dicked-down, as you are to even finger a practice chick. 

I think you both could do with some genuine self-reflection and most certainly take the time to expand those myopic blinders. For you Tom, I would recommend going and trying to take an unbiased look at other forms of satanism. Hell even a month of JOS or SOHG might give you the push you need to open that dense mesh you call your mind a little bit. Normally I would say "Don't drink the Kool-Aid" but I'm not sure that'd be harmful in this case. Oh and learn what a ritual chamber actually is and does, pretty please. Poor Anna should admit 2 things to herself (if she can't anywhere else):

1. She's crushing hard on Chloe. Can females even have nut-swingers?

2. She is a closeted mundane satanist, not a freaking xtian. 

I know this all sounds harsh and really is one person's opinion formed from observation, but this little bit of self-honesty would do you both a great deal of "good". 

Now on with page 15 of 45.

Do I hate the opposite sex? No, I hate feminism which is not the same as hating the opposite sex. Feminist and woman are 2 different things. There exists even male feminists. If Anna hate men I won't be surprised because a typical trait for radical feminists is daddy issues.

If we take a look of JOS and SOHG then JOS don't have to be satanic. Luciferians for instance can also embrace their teachings or simply just dark witches. SOHG represents a rational perspective of the left hand path in general. LeRoy is very clear that not all members of SOHG are Satanists. 

When I talk about the ritual chamber I do not represents a specific point of view. I'm with other words not a LaVeyan or representation for CoS. 

The ritual chamber is to create a specific frame of mind and that frame of mind have different terms. In chaos magic for instance the frame of mind is called one-pointed state of consciousness. I just use the term intellectual decompression chamber because I know it's what Satanists are familiar with. The point is that the participants have the same point of focus with no analytic thinking that makes them none-self aware. Therefore it does not matter what ideology or philosophy the individual Satanist embraces because they gather for the worship of Satan, not for discussion. 

This is also the reason why I reject the concept of "forms of Satanism" or "brands of Satanism" because there is no reason for that split. 

You're a silly troll repeating the same bullshit every time you register here. Sycophancy? Not sure where you took that from. Care to give examples? All the rest of your diatribe is too stupid to comment on.

Lol. Tries so hard and the best it can do is still bumbling incompetence and dumbing down the reader.

But at least I got some useful clarification: 

Quote from Tom Riddle

The ritual chamber is to create a specific frame of mind and that frame of mind have different terms. In chaos magic for instance the frame of mind is called one-pointed state of consciousness. I just use the term intellectual decompression chamber because I know it's what Satanists are familiar with. 

I gotta question why the gnosis seems to be the center point of what you call your "LHP". Even the "one-point state" of Chaote gnosis is strait out of amalgamated RHP.  Just because they plucked a paradigm doesn't mean the use isn't more metaphysical abstract hoopla stripped of its sacred value. 

Ever seen a Baptist pray? That's all the gnosis of feeling the Lord through music. Evangelicals feeling the holy spirit achieve a gnostic "intellectually decompressed" state.  Especially when they start with their weird gibberish tongues shit. Islam's got the whirling dervishes. Gnostic states in indigenous cultures abound. And of course, the origin of "one pointed gnosis" in choas magic, Zen.  East is full of intellectually decompressed states like meditation, yoga, etc. 

I want to know how your gnosis is so individual you qualify that practice as LHP and differentiate it from the MANY MANY gnostic states of others in use for their personal attainment?  

*** late add-on 

Gnosis at most is some ancillary influence on your real time decision making, which is the central emphasis of the carnal.  

Which by the way means; relating to physical, especially sexual, needs and activities.

That means it is something experienced OUTSIDE THE STATE OF GNOSIS. IT'S REAL LIFE. Physical is not gnostic states. Embracing the physical is not done in the intellectial decompression chamber. A path of attainment lived, not meditated.  And that has fuck all with what symbols you use. 

I'll take this one:

Quite contrary LHP is a spiritual path.

Actually, that one takes care of itself.

Admit the Sin of Pretentiousness, Tom, before it's too late and worms devour your brain. 

The Bold Statement/Thread Hijack

* This is open to everyone, including those capable of an intelligent counter. 

BOLD STATEMENT: 

Satanism as LHP in Western normative culture is opposition to abstraction as a mode of personal attainment. It's NOT being wired for nebulous spiritual concepts. Not being wired for dogmas, movements, and superstition. It is the exalting of scientific rationalism and a direct hands on approach. 

In practice it is this: 

Person Q14 encounters adversity that appears hopeless. They need god from the machine, to use a literary reference. 

The LHP and RHP divides as such: 

RHP: Appeal to ideas instead of whats real. Turning to make-believe ritual or psychodrama first. These individuals derive confidence from unfounded things like "dark forces of magic" and "god" alike. They seek the make-believe world to filter their crises through.  

LHP: Planning in reference to what is known. The appeal to "forces of magic" causes an internal misfire for not having applicability with a cause/effect approach. It rejects magic. It is defiant pragmatism that vehemently opposes everything which doesn't have an observable direct effect on their life.  Such people are as equally prone to anarchism as they are antitheism. 

They would approach the metaphysical as such: 

"What of my soul?" 

That's an abstraction of superstition and metaphysical belief. It has no tangible relation to anything I can sense, so it has no use. Myself and the real people or possessions in my life are enough "spiritual motivation" to help me approach any problem no matter how adverse. And do it with whay I can grasp. And THAT it what will "make all the difference". 

* Meditation (and the like) is great, but at most it can help you think of SOMETHING REAL you can do to solve the problems you face, and never the center point of the "pathei-mathos".

I use this because it is the most across the board (without caveat) point of differentiation. 

Something cannot be both carnal AND esoteric with much consistency. If you embrace the carnal you embrace the real which isnt some esoteric hidden meaning shit. 

Anyone that knows the meaning of these words want to answer?

Zarathustra's Ape is getting annoying.. 

I prefer someone with knowledge of the phrase "pathei mathos" or can talk on its key differences from a normal approach.  Because that's where this discarding of abstraction becomes relevant. 

One turns ideas into actions; The other does actions to form ideas.