A classical: pantheistic Satanism. Why would we be compelled to accept the view that there can be a nature/universe-oriented way of belief that can coexhist with a satanist stance?
Is Satanism not an atheist approach which automatically eliminates all possibility of divine belief?
Or is this belief so firmly established towards a "non-entity" not of absolute power but of simple absoluteness, that it transcends the bounds of the rule?
what do you think?
Sign In
Pantheistic Satanism | Forum
Share:
Hartnell
May 19 '16
Erm... wow. Where to begin?
Satanists understand that an external god is a projection of oneself, so we make ourselves our own gods and don't bother with the unnecessary step of psychological externalization. Belief in god in Satanism is a statement of self-confidence, not a statement metaphysical existence. It's more accurate to say that we are I-theists than athiests.
If this is hardto understand, try actually reading the Satanic Bible.
Kross
May 21 '16
@Hartnell: lol I'm not looking for a "correct" definition for anything (since there is none), I have my own firmly established and didn't come here to advocate them unless requested or compelled to. I'm here to study. To analyze. To stay locked within the hermetic conclusions of LaVey would be to contradict his indication to seek further knowledge. That said, I would gauge the opinions of others and value constructive criticism over scorn and wrongful remarks.
This part - Belief in god in Satanism is a statement of self-confidence, not a statement metaphysical existence.
Why would pantheism necessarily relate to any given concept of "god" as monotheistic (or not) entity?
And this - It's more accurate to say that we are I-theists than athiests.
I just agree with lol but can there be a point in-between? Where the atheist, disbeliever of divine entities and pantheist, that which trusts the flow of nature, meet?
@FraterLuciferi: A valid point I guess. So, to you, the whole that is known as "all-around-you" wouldn't count as a valid object of any consideration, cult or belief?
This part - Belief in god in Satanism is a statement of self-confidence, not a statement metaphysical existence.
Why would pantheism necessarily relate to any given concept of "god" as monotheistic (or not) entity?
And this - It's more accurate to say that we are I-theists than athiests.
I just agree with lol but can there be a point in-between? Where the atheist, disbeliever of divine entities and pantheist, that which trusts the flow of nature, meet?
@FraterLuciferi: A valid point I guess. So, to you, the whole that is known as "all-around-you" wouldn't count as a valid object of any consideration, cult or belief?
Hartnell
May 21 '16
It's all psychology to me. So it's not an issue of "in-between" but understanding the same psycholgical mechanism responsible for both. Kinda like a light switch can mediate "light and dark" -- I'm thinking on the level of the lightswirch. This isall about the locus of control. If you have an internal locus of control, then you're an I-theist. If you have an external locus of control, then the exact same function is projected outward into some concept like a god, leader, motherland, whatever. All those things are simply coverings for the locus, and that's where the metaphysical statement of belief is required. Is this making any sense.
I don't know what you mean by trusting the flow of nature. What nature? How does it flow? Can it be observed or is it merely an abstract idea taken to be concrete?
.
I just agree with lol but can there be a point in-between? Where the atheist, disbeliever of divine entities and pantheist, that which trusts the flow of nature, meet?
Kross
May 21 '16
@Hartnell- I believe I'm grasping it, yes. What I can conclude is that whatever might lie "in-between" the light / dark of said "lightswitch", it's pointless to consider it unless one is already certain about their notions of the two extremes that compose that central point. And allthrough it, the matter of the locus (didn't know that, went to research, thanks!)
In conclusion it's all a matter of what factors you tend most to value and an individual perspective and awareness of the self, to know where one stands regardless. Did I get it?
If you will accept the notion for the sake of this discussion, for example, what some would call "Chi", that which connects you to all other living things. As an all-time practicioner of several martial arts I would say you kind of...feel and eventually channel.
P.s: I would risk relating all this, in addition, to the laws of attraction, though I'm not the most informed individual to speak about those in depth
In conclusion it's all a matter of what factors you tend most to value and an individual perspective and awareness of the self, to know where one stands regardless. Did I get it?
If you will accept the notion for the sake of this discussion, for example, what some would call "Chi", that which connects you to all other living things. As an all-time practicioner of several martial arts I would say you kind of...feel and eventually channel.
P.s: I would risk relating all this, in addition, to the laws of attraction, though I'm not the most informed individual to speak about those in depth
Hartnell
May 21 '16
@Kross, I think I figured out a simple way to explain it. Do you remember that old cartoon Captain Planet?
Kross
May 21 '16
@Hartnell- honestly, no.. but you can use your example all the same and I will try to find the references you make
Hartnell
May 21 '16
I went ahead and did the write up. If you don't remember Captain Planet, fear not. I've written this so that you don't need to.
The set up for the show was this: five teenagers are made guardians of the planet by Gaia. In doing so, she gave each of them a ring unique to them and each ring had a different power over one of the classical elements + love. So, there was a teenager who had a ring that controlled fire, another wind, another water, another earth and finally one that had the ultra-cheesy power of “love”
In addition to having control over an element, the powers inside their rings could leave the rings themselves to combine and form Captain Planet. However, there was a catch. Since the power actually had to leave the ring to form Captain Planet, their rings were rendered useless so long as Captain Planet was flying around and doing his thing. After he'd saved the day, he would split up and the powers would return to the rings, after which the rings would work again.
When the rings had their powers is like an internal locus of control. In fact, just before Captain Planet decomposed back into the component powers he'd say the catchphrase “The power is yours” and in fact, it was – they were able to use their powers guided by their own wills.
An external locus of control is like when the powers combined to form Captain Planet. After that, the teenagers were powerless, but they could ask Captain Planet to do something but ultimately he decided whether or not he'd do it. Asking Captain Planet to do something is equivalent to praying to an external god.
So, the locus of control is ultimately about the locus of the power to control, use power, or affect change. Christians, generally having an external locus of control, pray and ask a “higher power” to affect change on their behalf. Satanists, on the other hand, as our own gods and having an internal locus of control, reserve that power for ourselves by simply getting off our asses and doing what needs to be done to affect the change we want.
From the Satanic Bible: “If we hope and pray for something to come about, we will not act in a positive way which will make it happen. The Satanist, realizing that anything he gets is of his own doing, takes command of the situation instead of praying to God for it to happen. Positive thinking and positive action add up to results.”
Kross
May 21 '16
@Hartnell - that was what I read about it yes.
very interesting example though, might just go watch the cartoon to analyze that!
very interesting example though, might just go watch the cartoon to analyze that!
Hartnell
May 22 '16
Lol, don't waste your time. I've already said everything worth knowing about it. It was a really shitty toon aimed at parents who thought making their kids care about the environment made them "good people". It could be enlightening as an example of "good guy badge by proxy", though.
The Forum post is edited by Hartnell May 22 '16
Hartnell
May 23 '16
You don't have to, it's irrelevant. Whether or not I made up the cartoon entirely makes no difference. It's a mere illustration of locus.
