Satanism

[Chewbacca]

Here is a clear identity. Shamanism in its myriad of forms is the oldest religion in the world. The horned one called satan predates organized religions, and an original viewpoint of this archtype was of the virile masculine force of creation. The horns symbolize authority over powerful lust represented by the phallace. Being closer to the animal side of god and man this personage was commonly depicted with animalman form. As an Archtype of the collective unconscious this idea was born before any organized religion. This Archtype is a spiritual being. In its higher "form" it is viewed as the God, the masculine aspect of creation, Wise and just Father, judge. In its lowert aspect it is acts of rage and uncontrolled lust, battle, destruction by direct force. It only takes a little brainstorming to come up with more traits that are masculine both good and bad.

It was the assimmilation of pagans that the church turned this archtype and associated the name satan to it. The point I am making for myself and on the behalf of Satanists is the the church stole our diety and named it satan. Well dammit we are gonna take satan back and restore the integrity of what we consider a vital force of god, nature, and man. The church may have coined the term, but they stole the mold and ripped out the insides to put in their own.

In my opinion the concepts of hell and of some great and powerful evil being are tools created and used by institutions to control and alter people through fear. It works. The fact that a great many paths of ideology exist and thrive then and today that have no concepts of divine punishment or ultimate evil is testimony that such concepts are unneccessary on a path of spiritual growth.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

originaly posted by :Lord Shield

sure. free will. serve God or be burnt what a choice

Well what did you expect?? that has been the christian way since the crusades.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Here is a clear identity. Shamanism in its myriad of forms is the oldest religion in the world.

Sorry, doesn't wash. It's never been codified, is a collection of nonrelated beliefs, and has had huge gaps between periods of popular practice. You brought no proof of your historical claims, no quotes or bibliography, and yet expect us to believe you? On your word alone?

The name is irrelevant to Satanists. If, IF what you're saying is true, then we are dealing with cultures that did not speak English. Y'shua is the name Jesus went under for example. The actual name only serves as an identification in the relevent culture, which can and does change.

It wouldn't matter what Christians called Satan, or Lucifer. There would still be people with a problem with the faith, who'd identify with the serpent, the Angel of light, the being that believed itself a greater power than the creator, that fell, took a host of similar beings with it, and seeks to decieve humankind, to the point of blindness regarding Gods love for them.

Whatever we call that being, the Morning Star, the Deciever, whoever it is, it is clearly a different concept to that which you are talking about.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by K T Ong: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: In any case, Buddhists believe in obliteration of the soul. That is what Buddha desired. (He desired no desire?) Freedom from the Karmic cycle of being continually reborn into what he percieved as an existence of suffering. To Buddha, Life = Suffering. This is attained by a Buddhist Monk upon his death, losing all desire to be reborn. It all sounds like a valid option to me.

Buddhism has often been misunderstood, no less by Schoperhauer. Do your homework, please, Yorick. Buddhists do not aim at ceasing to exist. Nor did the Buddha equate all of life simplistically with suffering -- as if one simply never wins in the Wheel of Rebirth, so the only way out is a kind of spiritual suicide. This is actually a nihilist outlook which the Buddha himself condemned.

The Buddha actually once said, "Monks, there exists an Unborn, an Unmade, an Unbecome. If, monks, there were not this Unborn, Unmade, Unbecome, there would then be no escape from that which is born, made, become." What Buddhists aim at is a realization of this Unborn, Unmade, Unbecome. A realization of the eternal.

One of the keystone teachings of Buddhism is that of interdependent origination. All things (except the Unborn, Unmade, Unbecome) arise from various contingent causes and conditions, and are ipso facto transient and liable to be a source of suffering if we attach ourselves psychologically to them, if we cling to them. A car, for example, arises only from various factors such as the desire for cars, the knowledge of how to make cars, the materials required for making cars etc. Take one of these away and cars cannot exist. But once a car has come into being by virtue of the confluence of these causes, it will likewise go some day. Whatever has a beginning must have an end. Only that which is beginningless can be endless. If, in ignorance of all this, I make a fetish out of my car (I don't own one, BTW [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) and make it the object of my psychological attachment, then one day I'm going to be in tears. Same with everything else -- except, of course, the Unborn, Unmade, Unbecome, which the Buddha exhorts us to find.

I can elaborate more if you wish, Yorick, but for now let this do. And that much said, I do agree with you on Big Mammon being the one religion with the greatest number of followers today -- much to the planetary environment's sorrow, be it said...[/QUOTE]There are differing schools of thought regarding Buddha. The Greater Vehicle, The Lesser Vehicle, Lamaism, Tantric Buddhism etc. What I've read, I've read. Who I've spoken to has confirmed the views I've posted. I've known well over a hundred or so EX-Buddhists in my time in Singapore alone, and had ample time to chew the cud as it were.

We'll talk more if you wish, but I assure you, I have "done my homework."

[K T Ong]

Originally posted by Yorick: There are differing schools of thought regarding Buddha. The Greater Vehicle, The Lesser Vehicle, Lamaism, Tantric Buddhism etc. What I've read, I've read. Who I've spoken to has confirmed the views I've posted. I've known well over a hundred or so EX-Buddhists in my time in Singapore alone, and had ample time to chew the cud as it were. We'll talk more if you wish, but I assure you, I have "done my homework."

You don't give me the impression that you have, judging from your posts. Could you tell me what you've read? (Just curious to know.) There may be different schools of Buddhism but they all agree on certain core teachings. A school of Buddhism which denied what I said in my earlier post would be a contradiction in terms. As for talking to Buddhists (and EX-Buddhists at that, meaning in other words people who probably never really got into the Buddha's message), I think that's a rather different ball game from reading Christmas Humphreys or Thich Nhat Hanh. Would you recommend that a non-Christian learn about Christianity by talking to EX-Christians or by seriously reading Augustine or the Bible?

[ 05-21-2002, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Here is a clear identity. Shamanism in its myriad of forms is the oldest religion in the world.

Sorry, doesn't wash. It's never been codified, is a collection of nonrelated beliefs, and has had huge gaps between periods of popular practice. You brought no proof of your historical claims, no quotes or bibliography, and yet expect us to believe you? On your word alone?
[/QUOTE]I would think if you really cared you would research shamanism without bias. It may help. It is correlated and documented. It is fact that many shamanic practices and beliefs are similiar, although cultures may have existed on different continents at different times. What is also fact is there was as much variance as similarity. One example is belief in an unseen realm that intersects with the seen. Plants, animals and the earth itsself all have spiritual counterparts, spirits. Now while different cultures placed specific symbolism upon the archtypes available in their enviroment, the general ideology is the same. Native American Trikster is a coyote, where as an african example of a trikster is a spider-godess. In recent times fundamental beliefs inherent to shamanism have pervaded thought in many cirles. Books like the Doa of physics and The Psycology of Shamanism have linked many modern humanistic schools of thought like quantumn physics and psycology to the ancient Shamanic belief of how humans, life and nature work.

The practices of Native Americans, untarnish from christianity until near history in the scope of things is a prime example of a shamanic civilization thats endured from prehistory into practice today.

Worldwide, Shamanism certainly wasnt the first Organized religion, It certainly is the original religion. Unless the world is only 7,000 years old like some claim.

Is there any relevance to the age of religions anyway? A religion isn't more TRUE because it is older or not.

There is no more real evidence that Shamanism (my own preference) is real compared to Christianity. It all comes down to the person's own experiences and their interpretations and so forth

[Yorick]

Originally posted by K T Ong: As for talking to Buddhists (and EX-Buddhists at that, meaning in other words people who probably never really got into the Buddha's message), I think that's a rather different ball game from reading Christmas Humphreys or Thich Nhat Hanh. Would you recommend that a non-Christian learn about Christianity by talking to EX-Christians or by seriously reading Augustine or the Bible?

I think you're way off the mark there K.T. I have had many many discussions with "backslidden" christians, and found it only strengthened and illuminated my faith more. One should speak with both believers and the disgruntled. You've got to know where the holes are. Balance books with real life testimonies.

How many ex-Buddhists (now Christian) have you spoken with? As I said earlier, there's 14,000 odd meeting over at Jurong.

I don't feel I have to list a bibliography of the various biographies, commentraries and dissections of Buddhism, as they vary in source from secular/religious books, internet sites, print media, and temple propaganda. I certainly don't limit my research to one or two authors. That would be like getting my knowledge of Jesus from John Stott and the Apostle Peter alone.

[ 05-21-2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Here is a clear identity. Shamanism in its myriad of forms is the oldest religion in the world.

Sorry, doesn't wash. It's never been codified, is a collection of nonrelated beliefs, and has had huge gaps between periods of popular practice. You brought no proof of your historical claims, no quotes or bibliography, and yet expect us to believe you? On your word alone?
[/QUOTE]I would think if you really cared you would research shamanism without bias. It may help. It is correlated and documented. It is fact that many shamanic practices and beliefs are similiar, although cultures may have existed on different continents at different times. What is also fact is there was as much variance as similarity. One example is belief in an unseen realm that intersects with the seen. Plants, animals and the earth itsself all have spiritual counterparts, spirits. Now while different cultures placed specific symbolism upon the archtypes available in their enviroment, the general ideology is the same. Native American Trikster is a coyote, where as an african example of a trikster is a spider-godess. In recent times fundamental beliefs inherent to shamanism have pervaded thought in many cirles. Books like the Doa of physics and The Psycology of Shamanism have linked many modern humanistic schools of thought like quantumn physics and psycology to the ancient Shamanic belief of how humans, life and nature work.

The practices of Native Americans, untarnish from christianity until near history in the scope of things is a prime example of a shamanic civilization thats endured from prehistory into practice today.

Worldwide, Shamanism certainly wasnt the first Organized religion, It certainly is the original religion. Unless the world is only 7,000 years old like some claim.[/QUOTE]G'kar that's like me lumping all monotheistic religions under on umbrella. We all believe in a creator. Heck, it's like me lumping all the monotheistic religions AND pantheistic religions together. When you get down to it, people of have have much in common with each other.

What we are talking about is CODIFIED RELIGION, passed down in an unbroken line. Judaism and Hinduism are the only two which can lay claim to origin of belief. All cultures have a creation myth, I'm told most have a flood myth too.

These have writings and standardised practices. There is no way at all of telling whether shamanism, or monotheism existed first with records of them. All we can do is go back to the earliest writings, and say which is the first codified religion.

[Yorick]

No use going off broken clay figures. They could be for anything. Fun, family depictions. Besides, what ancient sculptures, carvings and depictions are going to exist for a God without physical appearance, who forbids idolatry?