 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Categorizing Satanism: Moojan Momen's 8 Pathways to Religious Experience" by Vexen Crabtree (2007). The categories are not designed so that each religion fits one category; most religions cater for multiple types of religious experience. The more successful religions accept more types of religious experience. How does Satanism fit with each mindset?
- Ritualism
- Legalism
- Evangelism
- Social Reformation
- Asceticism
- Monasticism
- Gnosticism
- Mysticism
The conclusion reads:
Satanism provides some acceptable elements for those looking for: ritualism (2/5), social reformation reactions (2/5), some philosophical forms of asceticism (2/5) but most of all for those who enjoy the intellectual and counter-cultural side of gnostic forms of religion (4/5). It will be acceptable to only the few mystics (1/5) who can ignore the heavily skeptical and rational theology of Satanism. It provides nothing for those who would seek out, or attempt to justify, legalistic, evangelical or monastic religious experiences as Satanism is highly individual, socially decentralised and world-embracing. Tags: anton lavey, asceticism, comparative religion, evangelism, gnosticism, legalism, momen, monasticism, moojan momen, mysticism, religion, religions, ritualism, satanism
Current Location: Monchengladbach, Germany
Current Mood:  annoyed
Listening To: "Nothing At All" by Lights of Euphoria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"How Does Satanism Fit Into Melton & Moore's 8 Religious Categories?" by Vexen Crabtree (2007) Tags: church of satan, comparative religion, j. gordon melton, melton, moore, religions, robert moore, satanism, vexen crabtree
Current Location: Starbucks, Camden Town, London
Current Mood:  anxious
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Satanism is a World-Affirming Religion, not a World-Renouncing One" by Vexen Crabtree (2007) Drawing on the useful distinctions Roy Wallis of religions into the mainstream world-accomodating, world-rejecting (think isolation, christian monasteries, nihilism, buddhism) and world-affirming (materialistic religions, some philosophies, daoism), I measure each type against Satanism. I do not just point out that Satanism is a materialistic, world-loving religion, but also examine what points of similarity and difference it has with world-accommodating and world-rejecting ones (surprisingly, there are some areas of agreement). Roy Wallis' categorisations are based on the reaction of a religion to the environment of the world. I am soon going to a similar category-comparison to J. Gordon Melton and Robert Moore, who grouped new religions into eight 'families', largely based on their internal beliefs. And finally, a third comparison will be with the categories that Mooman Moojan, William James and Max Weber all came up with. Tags: comparative religion, nihilism, reality, religion, satanism, world
Current Mood:  busy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New page: "The Food Chain: Esoteric Lessons From the Energy of the Sun" by Vexen Crabtree (2007), conclusion reads: "What appears at first to be a purely technical matter; studying the rise of energy from basic single-cell life forms through the trophic levels to the predators that gather food over massive areas, can lead us to some serious exobiological, philosophical and even theological debates. Firstly, advanced alien life is likely to find it hard to gain enough energy to survive from digesting us alone, so probably won't be inclined to try. But alien life may well use different metabolic pathways and different biological chemicals so we may find each other utterly inedible and potentially very poisonous. If life in the universe is generally carbon-based, then, it is possible aliens could digest at least parts of us. But they probably won't, as space-faring advanced species have probably out-grown genuine carnivorous diets, as perhaps we are doing by relying on increasingly processed food (eventually grown in vats) coupled with increasing care for animal rights. Now, dietary exobiology aside, the very fact that life evolved from its unconscious, automatic beginnings, to rely on a cycle of life and death (where life survives by killing other life) indicates that if the cycle of life has a 'designer', such a God is an evil one. Only an evil God would design life so that to stay alive, animals have to kill other animals. This 'victory of death' is the exact opposite of what a good god would have designed, where all animals and plants survive on mystical energy from heaven without need for killing or competing for food ('victory of life')." Tags: aliens, biology, death, earth, ecology, energy, evil, evolution, exobiology, food, life, predators, prey, satanism, sun, trophic, vampires, zombies
Current Location: German
Listening To: "Recoil" by Flesh Field
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've added quotes on The Great Prayer Experiment to my page "Prayer: Scientific Studies of Prayer". The results come after this nifty little quote from Prof. Richard Dawkins:
"Darwin's cousin Francis Galton was the first to analyse scientifically whether praying for people is efficacious. He noted that every Sunday, in churches throughout Britain, entire congregations prayed publicly for the health of the royal family. Shouldn't they, therefore, be unusually fit, compared with the rest of us, who are prayed for only by our nearest and dearest? Galton looked into it, and found no statistical difference. His intention may, in any case, have been satirical, as also when he prayed over randomized plots of land to see if the plants would grow any faster (they didn't)."
Anyway, the results of the 1800-patient scientific double-blind study, was: (the patients were divided into 3 groups): - Group 1: Received prayers, but were not told about them. This tests if prayers helped them recover more than normal patients. Their recovery was average.
- Group 2: Received no prayers, and were not told so. This tested if there was something about the experiment that was affecting the results. Their recovery was also average.
- Group 3: Received prayers and were told so. This tested the psychosomatic effects of knowing that one is being prayed for. This group "suffered significantly more complications".</p>
What amazing results!
The rest of my page on Prayer is my normal blunt arsenal of stark truths! Tags: charles bethea, christianity, health, prayer, praying, psychosomosis, richard dawkins, satanism, science, sociology, templeton foundation
Current Location: Germany
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A new page: Satanism and Love on www.dpjs.co.uk/love.html: The Value of LoveSatanism is not a religion of hate, it is a religion of truth and humanity. The Human emotion that best expresses our humanity is love. Hate is a dulling of the mind, a primal state that undermines the best Human qualities of intelligence, compassion and progress. Hatred has its place and cannot be done without, but, love is much, much more valuable: The emotions surrounding love are stronger than those of any other state; a Satanist does not deny the pleasure of love, the pleasure of doing good towards the ones (s)he loves, nor the pleasure of simply being in love. Love, affection and attention are necessary parts of a healthy mental life, whereas hate and bitterness can both be left behind (as long as you don't leave your wisdom behind too). Satan represents indulgence, and in doing so, Satan represents love. The Selfishness of LoveLove is perhaps the strongest emotion we possess. But it is ultimately selfish; the satisfaction and feel-good that it brings is an ultimate reward. Our instincts and needs underlie any altruistic behaviour, especially when it comes to love. That is part of the beauty of love... that you know your loved one loves you because it makes them feel good. You know that they know your love is selfish, and they are happy that you love them because it makes you feel good. Without this hidden, deeper selfishness, Human love would have less depth. Love is best and most beautiful when it comes from the depths of one person and extends to another, and both know that the other loves them for selfish reasons. We love someone because they make us feel good and they love us because we make them feel good. This combination is a supreme gift to our ego and helps explain why love is easily the most potent emotion. To Love is Stronger Than to HateLove brings with it fragility: our emotions can be hurt more by those who we love than by strangers. The same applies to concepts. When we love a concept it becomes sacred to us, and it hurts us when that concept is insulted. When we commit ourselves to loving relationships and cultivate love, we are on a path of personal strength that makes paths of hatred seem easy. To hate is to take an easy route: To love is to test yourself more, apply yourself more, and to put yourself at greater risk than to hate. We can wind ourselves up into long-lasting patterns of hatred easily, but love requires more skill, more patience, more talent, more humanity and more emotional strength. To hate is to take the easy route. Love is not easy. He who dares, wins. Tags: hate, hatred, humanity, love, relationships, satanism
Current Location: Afghanistan
Current Mood:  blank
Listening To: Some Croatian dance stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
contemplative
working