 |
 Dark Matter Satanic Readings : Theistic or Traditional Satanism Information on Satanic beliefs. Articles, comments, links, recommended books, and more. |
| Main page >> A call for orthodoxy |
| This page refers to http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoAz/belief/serve.html Please notice that I am not a member of the Church of Azazel. Views, ideas, articles of faith etc. presented on these pages are not necessarily shared by the Church. |
|
What is orthodoxy?
thefreedictionary.com: orthodoxy - a belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards orientation - an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs conformism, conformity - orthodoxy in thoughts and belief Posted by me in the Church of Azazel Yahoo! Group on Sun Aug 1, 2004: Subject: On orthodoxy Dear all, (...) In regard to orthodoxy, talked about in at least one of the posts: Perhaps the word orthodoxy has a different meaning in English than it has in my native tongue. thefreedictionary.com says: *) orthodoxy - a belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards *) orientation - an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs This is exactly my agenda, and so this - once again - is where I am coming from. I'd like to see a Satanic church, and I'd like to help build it. And when I say church, I do mean church. The first step has to be to develop a sound theology. As already stated, I believe that the best way to do this is by setting out to do a creed, carefully discussing each point, writing articles or treatises to explain them. For instance (using http://www.angelfire.com/alt2/darkmatter/creed.html as an example): What does it mean that Azazel "came to us"? What is the spiritual significance of the fact that Azazel "stayed in the wilderness"? How is he calling us? Once the theology has been carefully explained, we need to do rituals. The rituals should of course reflect theology. We need to collect suitable prayers, or we need to write some, etc. When we have done all this, hopefully we will then have - as the dictionary puts it - "an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs". Conventional standards. This is what I understand by the word "church". A group of people who share the same basic beliefs, and who share the same basic rituals. Interpretations can to some degree vary, of course, but anything does not go. If people do not share the basic beliefs, or if their interpretations conflict with the "conventional standards", they do not belong in the church. They belong somewhere else. I am aware, of course, that to many "orthodox Satanism" will sound like a contradiction in terms. However, even though I agree with Diane that one should always dare to question all dogmas (see http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoAz/belief/serve.html), Satanism - to me - has nothing to do with anti-conformity, or being against "conventional standards". Anti-CHRISTIAN standards, certainly. But if we wish to counter Christian standards, we need some standards of our own. If we wish to make a church, we need standards. We need - so to speak - to be orthodox. Posted by me in the Church of Azazel Yahoo! Group on Tue Aug 3, 2004: Subject: Re: On orthodoxy We have a saying in my country which roughly translates into something like "Each man is blissful in his own beliefs." It means that it doesn't really matter what you believe in, as long as it makes you happy. Even though I do appreciate the good will - or how to put it - I have always rather disliked this saying. In my opinion it DOES matter what people believe in. If a village idiot believes that the world was created by a tortoise, it doesn't matter much. If the president of the United States believes that it is his Christian duty to go on crusade, or if the Catholic Church believes that it is its Christian duty to keep silent about pedophile priests, it matters plenty. Whether it makes them happy or not. Some things are just plain wrong, or just plain stupid, and sometimes we cannot afford to just let it pass. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want, but we should not allow ignorance or stupidity to rule. Also, as a religious person I cannot accept the notion that whatever anyone happens to claim to be true about Satan has to be accepted. Satan is a multi-facetted being, true, but if things contradict, something has to be wrong, - or we need to go to a deeper level in order to try to understand. This is what I mean by doing theology, and this is what I suggest that we spend our time doing, exploring our faith in order to come to a deeper understanding. I would personally like to gain some more clarity, and to have other people help me point out those of my beliefs that are wrong. We all make mistakes, we misunderstand things, we jump to conclusions, or we lack knowledge, and such mistakes - even if they make us happy - ought to be weeded out. Firmly holding on to beliefs that are clearly mistaken, just because they make us feel good or safe or important, is not - to me - what Satanism is all about. Satanism can - I would suggest - contain beliefs that go beyond reason, but it cannot contain beliefs that are contrary to reason. Beliefs that are contrary to reason make no sense. Posted by me in the Theistic Satanism Yahoo! Group on Wed Aug 11, 2004: Subject: Concerning Orthodoxy I am well aware that I belong to a very small minority - and on the web, perhaps it's not even a minority. Perhaps it's just me. To me, Satanism *is* a religion of the one, certainly, but I very much fail to see why this fact should make it impossible to make a church. I accept that people have different interpretations of their beliefs, but I do not necessarily accept the interpretations. What I suggest is not that some Satanic high council should decide what is *allowed* to believe, nor that people should in some way be punished for their intellectual sins. I simply suggest that Satanists in some way try to come together to sort out that which is clearly wrong from that which is coherent, and which makes sense. I believe that if Satan is real, and he is, then we ought to be able to come to some sort of agreement on what - or who - he is. We ought to be able to put this into words. Also, the fact that Satan is a multi-facetted being does - to me - obviously not mean that whatever anyone happens to claim about Satan has to be taken for granted. Christians say a lot of nonsense about Satan, and we should argue against them. Many Satanists say a lot of nonsense about Satan, and we should argue against them. I see no reason why we should choose to refuse one kind of nonsense, and then embrace another. I very much believe that each man has his own road to travel, but I see no virtue in 'each man his own beliefs'. We are limited beings, and we make many mistakes. We misunderstand, we lack knowledge, etc. Some of what I personally believe, I am sure, is wrong. If there was a Satanic church, I could go ask them, and I'd listen -- not because they'd be authorities, but because they'd have spent a long time discussing these things, coming up with some answers that I might be able to use. In case - which is not likely, but still - that I manage to come up with some even better answers myself, I would be able to add to the theology of the church. In this regard - or understood like this - I would support the making of a Satanic Catholic church. Yes. But, as said, I belong to a small minority. Please notice that the text on my website was originally written for the Church of Azazel group, which is a group - as I understand it - for talking 'church business'. Private e-mail, Sat Aug 21, 2004: ... I feel that I have perhaps not managed to explain my 'position', and due to my insistence on dogmatics, etc., I've quite possibly managed to give people a somewhat wrong impression of me. Satanism, to me, is not a religion built on dogmas. It is a religion built on experience. Contrary to Christianity, which has to do with faith, and believing in the divine, Satanism has to do with experiencing the divine. Experience is everything, and if there is no experience - if there are only dogmas - then there is no Satanism. If dogmas do not relate to, lead to, or tell us something about experience, we don't need them. The reason why I keep suggesting that we work on theology is because I firmly believe that it would help further Satanism. I am not familiar with all the Satanist writings on-line, I'll admit, but it *is* nevertheless my impression that there's a lack of essays, comments, etc., trying to explain what Satanism is actually all about. Most texts I come across do not really say anything, except for "I'm a Satanist. Hail Satan!" I suggest that we try to do better. If all Satanists do not agree with what is being said - and they certainly won't - I'd urge them to sit down and write some articles, etc., themselves, explaining their point of view. I personally, certainly, will listen to anyone who has something to say, provided that he or she has actually thought things through, and has bothered to explain the matter in a way that makes good sense. I will not, however, let people who just go "Can't be done" get me down, and I will not spend much time listening to people who has nothing to say but "I disagree". "I disagree" is no argument. What I'd like - for now - is not necessarily to be able to give answers to very complicated questions. I'd like for us to be able to give meaningful answers to relatively simple questions. |
| Copyright. Please notice: All texts contained on these pages are copyright © Dark Matter 2004. Do not copy without permission. Send e-mail. Quoting is allowed if the author and Dark Matter website URL are both reckognized. Add "Courtesy of Reginald Osiris, http://www.angelfire.com/alt2/darkmatter". |
| Contact. Send e-mail. Please notice: Only serious e-mails are answered. |
