Your thoughts appreciated

[RyanS2]

I was working on some of my philosophical beliefs, and would appreciate anyone willing to critique it or to let me know what they think. It's a bit long, but I think it's filled with good information, (at least that's my perspective, feel free to disagree), and I wanted to see how others thought about it as well:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/moralitypt1.html" target="_blank">Part 1</a>
<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/moralitypt2.html" target="_blank">Part 2</a>

[French]

Dear RyanS2

I have no idea about satanism. Here, in Europe, some groups claim to be satanist : in fact, these groups are pro-nazis. Their main occupation is to destroys jewish cemetery or freemansonies' graves. Sometime, also, they murder a priest. So, of course, the words "satanism" is unpleasant here, and associated to anti-semitism and racism. The same can be said in Europe about pagans : most religious groups who claim to be pagan are in fact fascist and antisemitic. I suppose you have no relation with these terrifying peoples.

However, I schall try to read your opus. As I have some difficulties with the english langage, it might be long. Just a first remark : Virgil was roman, not greek. His work is of cource greatly influenced by the hellenistic poets ( especialy Theophilius) but was written in latin.

Have you readen the poem poet abou satan by the arab poet of the 10th century Abu-Nowas ? and the poetries on the same topic by Baudelaire ("Satan, have mercy for my long misery") who wrote many splendid texts about your idol ?

More seriously, I like the idea that immorality and illegality are diffferent things. But for me, this difference is a consequence of the declaration of human rights. What is forbid is what can cause damage the freedom of others. So as long as a bad action does not limit the freedom of others, it must be allowed. If your girl-friend leaves you, what she does is not nice, it hurts you a lot, it might incit you to commit suicide, however, your freedom is not damaged by her action. And her behaviour must not be forbidden.

Camille

[French]

I meant Theocritus not Theophilius. Sorry

[RyanS2]

Greetings French, thanks for correcting the oversight, I'll rectify it as soon as possible.

The Satanists in Europe belong to a group called the ONA, stands for "Order of Nine Angels", and their offshoots. They're a bunch of freaks who do weird things like invocations to Hitler, (they actually worship Hitler, have altars with him, etc.) Satanists here despise them because we feel the worship of anything external is a violation of the LHP, (Left-hand path). The left-hand path exalts "Man as God", but not "race or religion" as God. I don't know if you can get a hold of American books where you are, but Dr. Stephen Flowers wrote a book called "Lords of the Left-hand path" which deals with why the ONA and their ilk is disqualified from the list, as did I:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/left.html" target="_blank">Left-hand path</a>

It's strange though to think why they'd be anti-Semitic, the founder of Satanism, Anton Lavey, was a Jew, and most of the mystical orientation is from Kabballah, a Jewish form of mysticism.

However, one important thing for the function of any group is to have a proper amount of "scapegoating". Quite simply, it's hard to get any followers off merits alone, generally, somebody has to be the bad guy, so the ONA stuck it with Christians, Jews, and any other such groups which they believe are infringing upon their "rights" as the "elite".

"Have you readen the poem poet abou satan by the arab poet of the 10th century Abu-Nowas?"

No, I haven't. Thanks for the information though. Do you know if he's talking about Satan or about Iblis? The Islamic perspective of Satan is much different than the Christian one, it falls more in line with Judaism.

[owleye]

Ryan...

I found the attitude you brought to the development of your moral theory, as indicated in the first half of the first part of it, quite distasteful. As a result I could not get beyond this. I'm aware that I could have merely moved on without responding at all, but I thought I'd give you a chance to tell me something about your theory but where I don't have to wade through the clutter that comes from your having to ridicule other theories, which in almost every instance I find unbecoming of a serious thinker.

owleye

[RyanS2]

Owl, it's quite alright, you are entitled to your opinions. The only viewpoint I make fun of at any length is an idea that I consider harmful, that there is a certain commandment, (which is just an adaptation of "Ethics of Command") of moral laws that always come into play at any situation. For instance, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. The overall concept is more important than having moral commandments is having the ability to think in a moral way, or be morally rational. In some cases I am declamatory, and with good reason. Steven L. Ross comment that all women who choose abortion just want to murder and have no respect for life is tasteless, so I don't apologize for berating him.

I think you may be knee-jerking, however. In very few instances do I say "my way good, your way bad", in fact: 'The trend within ethics has been to disregard one point of view, and to maintain what looks like exclusionist camps. That is to say that you must believe "X", anything outside of "X" is bad, you're not one of them.... all philosophical arguments have their weak points and their strong points.'

Even in my criticism of Kant, I still maintain that having the right intent is a good part of a moral formula, (Kant's idea), but without seeking good ends as well, the intent is pointless. The only other thing I reject outright is Neo-Platonic idealism, or that we should identify something as the "all-good". However, if something is all-good, something else must be "all-bad", and whatever doesn't fit your all-good must be this all-bad. It leads too quickly into psychological scapegoating to try and put the blame onto something else, real or imaginery. I listed 9 forms of ethics, and in the discourse, showed how they could be applicable to a situation, and when they were not. The only one dutifully criticized is "Ethics of Command", but I really have a hard time imagining any atheist agreeing that we should base our morality on the Bible, the Qur'an, or any other holy book. (Typically, Neo-Platonic ideology fits in with "Ethics of Command", so much so that the later Church period started banning Aristotle because his ideas followed to the end would lead to the natural conclusion of pantheism and a rejection of the supremacy of the Church.) I think you may want to re-read it and realize that even when I criticize something, I also point out the parts of it that are true as well.

[owleye]

Ryan...

l did take some time to read through Part 2, which presumably had something to do with a contrast between "Satanism" and "Humanism." However, in no way was I able to read with understanding. I'm sure it must be a difficulty on my part. I often have trouble with reading. I look for certain landmarks, and finding none, I can't be sure what it is I'm reading.

With respect to humanism, I do have some understanding. But, I was not able to find anything meaningful in your depiction of it. Perhaps I should try again, but first let me offer my own interpretation of it to see we are on the same wavelength.

Though I respect that there is a majjor difference between a religious humanism and a secular humanism, I think the main emphasis on the part of humanism is that humans have a capacity to bring about goodness and evil from their own powers. This is contrasted, if I understand it, with those who believe god or the devil are responsible for the goodness and evil in the world.

Is this compatible with your thesis?

owleye

[RyanS2]

Greetings Owl;

Thanks again for the input. The idea behind secular humanists is almost always for that of what's called utilitarianism, or that we should seek to do a maximum amount of good for society. However, taken to the fullest extent, this means that activities like watching a movie or other mindless activities humans do all the time are almost seen as bad, they do nothing to enhance humans. So, I believe that utilitarian approach is only necessary to an extent, a greater portion of our relationship is between ourselves, family, and friends, rather than to society as a whole.

Though I respect that there is a major difference between a religious humanism and a secular humanism, I think the main emphasis on the part of humanism is that humans have a capacity to bring about goodness and evil from their own powers. This is contrasted, if I understand it, with those who believe god or the devil are responsible for the goodness and evil in the world.

Pretty much. It's basically the idea that humans can influence their World, for better or for worse, and that to externalize this into something else is pointless, and not only pointless, but harmful because it doesn't seek to rectify a problem that exists. As James Still puts it in another thread, (he's quoting someone, but I'm unsure of whom), if atheism were to take over today, we'd still have to deal with the problems that made theism arise. In other words, a mock battle with Satan might make us feel better, but in the end, it's ultimately fruitless to real problems.

[owleye]

Ryan...

"The idea behind secular humanists is almost always for that of what's called utilitarianism, or that we should seek to do a maximum amount of good for society."

If what you say is true about secular humanism being "almost always" utilitarian in their ethics, why do you think this is the case? That is, which is the origin and which is the result, or, alternatively, what is it they have in common that links them? Utilitarianism is rather of late origin developed within a longer history of the ethics of utility itself, from Hobbes and Hume within the British tradition. It blends in well with modern capitalism, since it considers preferences and interests of individuals worthy of satisfaction. The greatest good for the greatest number presumably is just this sort of preference satisfaction. Most theorists, I think, try to amplify this basic premise with something that would make higher goods, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," good even if folks did not prefer them.

In any case, I don't believe it is accurate to say that utilitarianism is the theory that each of us should do the maximum amount of good we can for society. It is consequentialist, to be sure, and if we find ourselves in a moral dilemma, I gather we should weigh the costs against the benefits, but I don't think society itself is the target, rather it is its members, taken individually. And this is one of the things Marx fought against.

"So, I believe that utilitarian approach is only necessary to an extent, a greater portion of our relationship is between ourselves, family, and friends, rather than to society as a whole."

Does this mean you have two theories? If so, what happens when there is a conflict? Should a mother not send her son to war, knowing there is a good chance of his being killed?

owleye

[RyanS2]

Greetings Owl:

"why do you think this is the case?"

I'm not exactly sure why, but I formulated this opinion after going through several atheist writers on this webpage and getting the overall consent. Naturally, there are people who disagree, but even among atheists who believe in meta-ethical relativity, (two people can have different opinions and neither be wrong nor right), the underlying argument is one for utilitarianism. You do point out that is a new development, and so is hardcore atheism like it is today. There are some arguments of it having existed in Greece and even possibly Arabia, but from my investigation, it appears that most of it was a deitistic attitude that the God that created this World had left this World, rather than strict denial of any supernatural being or beings. Even in the Arabian to English translation of atheist, it doesn't mean "one who doesn't believe in God", it means more along the lines of "one who doesn't honor God". I.e. the concept of a strict denial of God simply wasn't even in their language. However, even disregarding that, secular humanism is certainly even a newer movement than utilitarianism is, so I don't think the age of the movement means anything.

"In any case, I don't believe it is accurate to say that utilitarianism is the theory that each of us should do the maximum amount of good we can for society."

I took that definition from Rawls, "A Theory of Justice", p. 407-16. It's called the "counting principle", which is to say that we should seek to meet a maximum number of good acts for society as a whole by a system of accountability. However, by taking the conclusion to its logical ends by greatly exaggerating it, it means actions which are not really benefiting society are almost the equivalent to evil, though lesser in evil than something which takes away from the counting principle. I found the idea too Hegel/Marxist for me that somehow individual autonomy should be given up for pure purpose to people I don't know. If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing more with Rawls concept of utilitarianism more than me, but I begin to sense thta you are not a strict utilitarian, and believe that the right of an individual takes precedence over the right of a state.

"Does this mean you have two theories?"

Using the "counting principle", I'd say that if the choice was between fifty points for society, or fifty points for yourself and family, (and neither adding to society nor detracting from family by choosing one or the other), the family and yourself is more important. Also, taking utilitarianism to its furthest extreme, it seems to justify predation so long as predation is good to the society as a whole. So, I think on this grounds, neither you nor I accept pure utilitarianism, and agree that an individual has certain rights which take place over the needs of society as a whole. This is of course, agreeable or disagreeable by you, and also on whether or not you think I'm making a strawman out of a utilitarian argument.

"If so, what happens when there is a conflict? Should a mother not send her son to war, knowing there is a good chance of his being killed?"

I don't think it's possible for a mother to "send" her son to war. Whoever is going to war is making their own choice, (self plus family are the most important), I would strongly disagree with the concept of anyone being able to send other people to war, which is why I am against drafting, which I'll briefly mention in a minute. In a strict utilitarian society where society itself is always more important, than it should be of no choice to the person if they want to go to war or not, provided it benefits the population as a whole. I believe that if a society protects an individuals' autonomy and rights, then an individual of their own free will shall sign up to go to war to protect that right, and not just that right for themselves, but for the rights of that mother who may not want her son to go to war. If the people of a society are not willing to fight for their freedoms, I almost have to wonder if that civilization is even worth preserving.

[punta]

Fascinating.

Just skimmed so nothing to really contribute offhand. You've put a lot of work into it and it's a lot to absorb.

Would you mind if i posted a link to your site from a predominantly Christian board to see their reactions (flame or flee)?

ps. You might want to check the spelling on the Satanism versus Humanism header.

[owleye]

"I took that definition from Rawls, "A Theory of Justice", p. 407-16. It's called the "counting principle", which is to say that we should seek to meet a maximum number of good acts for society as a whole by a system of accountability."

I'm not familiar with this "counting principle" but my impression was that Rawls' theory of justice has Kantian roots, and is rather an argument against utilitarianism. But, as I am not well versed in Rawls, let me merely pass over this.


"If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing more with Rawls concept of utilitarianism more than me, but I begin to sense thta you are not a strict utilitarian, and believe that the right of an individual takes precedence over the right of a state."

I don't believe I have given any indication of what my ethical theory is. I'd thought it was your theory that was under discussion.

"Using the "counting principle", I'd say that if the choice was between fifty points for society, or fifty points for yourself and family, (and neither adding to society nor detracting from family by choosing one or the other), the family and yourself is more important."

This is obscure, but I hope it is clarified by your response to the example I came up with.

"I don't think it's possible for a mother to "send" her son to war. Whoever is going to war is making their own choice, (self plus family are the most important),"

Good point about who's choice it is, but this doesn't quite remove the problem for the mother. A youngster (and many adults for that matter) can readily be swayed by the propoganda machine that is in full force by those who are moving us to war. Who is in the best position to determine whether such a war is a just war? It could be argued that the parents have an obligation to protect their children and would thereby have an interest in determining whether the war is just and to make a case to their son in accordance with this.

"I would strongly disagree with the concept of anyone being able to send other people to war, which is why I am against drafting, which I'll briefly mention in a minute."

Ok. But does this imply that your theory does not recognize the legitimacy of the establishment by government of a military? Or does it mean merely that it must be based solely on volunteers.

"In a strict utilitarian society where society itself is always more important, than it should be of no choice to the person if they want to go to war or not, provided it benefits the population as a whole."

Again, I'm not sure that this is what a utilitarian society is all about, but with respect to it, I take it your theory argues against this position.

"I believe that if a society protects an individuals' autonomy and rights, then an individual of their own free will shall sign up to go to war to protect that right, and not just that right for themselves, but for the rights of that mother who may not want her son to go to war."

What does the 'shall' mean in "shall sign up?" Can I replace this by 'should'? What would your position be on war propaganda, with respect to the issue of deciding on the basis of our "own free will"?

"If the people of a society are not willing to fight for their freedoms, I almost have to wonder if that civilization is even worth preserving."

Though you have not stated your main ethical principle with any clarity, I wonder how this sentiment fits with it. Do you have any example "civilizations" that were unwilling to "fight for their freedoms?"

owleye

[RyanS2]

Greetings Owl:

Unfortunately, I don't have the time just this minute to get back to you in full, so accept my apologies until I have time to fully address your questions. My argument is for rational egoism, (sorry if this was unclear to you, my fault), that is to say that if we are rational about what we owe loyalty to, and utilize it to the best of our advantage, we will come into a natural interplay where we seek to help society.

As an example of a place where the citizens were unable to fight, even with arguably one of the greatest propaganda machines ever, consider the case of the Macedonian conquest of Athenian civilization. The Athenians had Demosthenes, one of the greatest orators and propaganda machines ever. However, the people were involved in petty squabbles and unconcerned about their welfare, and wouldn't unite. Demosthenes went to Byzantium and Perinthus to get them to the Athenian side, so we must say he did more than his fair share. The failure was the result of a civilization unwilling to repel the advancing armies, who wouldn't form a union of Greek city-states strong enough to repel Philip.

It wasn't because the Greeks were unable to do such a thing, after all, they had done this before in uniting against Persia.

Punta, you could if you really wanted, I don't own rights to who wants to link to my site, but I was coming here to see where my ideas needed greater clarification. For instance, if Owl, who's pretty intelligent, can't understand my central point, then it must be taken that there are many others who wouldn't be able to grasp my central point. So, I'd rather not have the article linked until I have done a better job at clarifying my position. However, thanks for the spelling suggestion, get right on it.

Owl, when I get the time, I'll be sure and address the rest of your concerns.

[jpbrooks]

Hello, RyanS2.

Sorry for digressing here, but most Satanists that I have talked to don't have much to say about Setianism. That reluctance may have something to do with the way Setianism originated, (viz., as a result of dissention from Lavey's Church). So, if you are not comfortable discussing Setianism, it's ok. But, if so, I would like to ask how your branch of Satanism differs from Setianism, and also from the W.W.O.S..

Also, I noticed that you have a lot of ad links on your website (which, BTW, is a very informative one). Are you an affiliate for all of the advertisers that you have posted links to on your site?

I'll be back later.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

[punta]

...I'd rather not have the article linked until I have done a better job at clarifying my position...

Gotcha.

[owleye]

Ryan..

I appreciate the clarification that your position can be described as rational egoism. In the absense of more specifics, I suspect it is not unlike what many have thought as acting on the basis of "enlightened self-interest." I do have a question or two with respect to your position statement, however.

"if we are rational about what we owe loyalty to, and utilize it to the best of our advantage, we will come into a natural interplay where we seek to help society."

Do you mean by 'loyalty', a kind of fidelity that keeps promises made or otherwise fulfills obligations incurred? If so, in what way does rationality enter into this? How is "best of our advantage" determined? Can this be a cost-benefit analysis? If so, I suspect you are utilitarian in your thinking, and not egoistic, though it very much depends on the determination of what's best. How am I to determine the weight of obligation to my family against the weight of obligation to my country who is currently at war.

With respect to the example of the fate of the Greeks at the hands of the Macedonians, would it be your conclusion that the Greeks in some sense deserved their fate because they couldn't unite in a defense of their realm? Would this make it right for the Macedonians to put an end to this "civilization?"

owleye

[RyanS2]

Greetings again Owl. I'll address your questions in a minute, you have some hard-thinking questions, but that's definitely a good thing. From our conversation, I'm making a new webpage that helps to answer your questions in an easier format. Then, if you still have further questions, I can keep trying to answering them as satisfactory as I can.

Hello Brooks. The Temple of Set broke themselves off from the popular Satanic crowd and wanted to stay away from any and all controversy, so everything is kept in-house so to speak. When they first broke off, naturally, every Lavey orientated person, particularly Tani Jantsang, wanted to be sure and trash them as thoroughly as possible. As they stayed out of the controversy, Lavey-orientated groups realized it was a fruitless endeavour to keep it up. Most Satanists really don't know very much about them. I've talked to Acquino a few times, but he's been getting more and more reclusive as time passes on. Being I'm not an actual member of the ToS, I can't answer every question you may have, but I can make a good try too. I suspect though that unless this is orientated towards philosophy, you should probably start a new thread in the Non-Abrahamic religions section of this messageboard so we can both avoid breaking the forum rules.


"I would like to ask how your branch of Satanism differs from Setianism, and also from the W.W.O.S.."

Setianism has a definitive statement on the existence of entities outside of our normal senses, i.e. Gods and Goddesses or beings generally outside of our scope of knowledge. They believe the only way to know "Set" is to contemplate Set and to work with Set, and you'll gain an ontological sense of Set's existence. Our org makes no statements for or against the existence of entities outside of our perception, I disbelieve in them, one of my co-founders believes in them, and one of my priests believes in them. So, as an org, there is no official statement on the existence of any metaphysical being.

The biggest difference is what our agenda is. I have two agenda's. The first is to form a more objective standard as to what exactly a Satanist is. Not only just "what" a Satanist is, but "why" that is. For instance, ask a Satanist what exactly a Satanist is and you'll receive any assorted number of answers, but almost invariably the term "Left-hand path" will come up. Now, if you probe further and ask, "What is the Left-hand path?", almost no one will know, and they'll have no idea where it originated. So, I went and found out what the term means, where it came from, and what it meant. That gives us a good starting point for what a Satanist is, so that people can go "Oh, that's what Satanism is about".

My second thing is that I am forming a mystery school, taken from my and others who work with me's experiences in various such organizations as Blue-lodge Freemasonry, Order of the Golden Dawn, Ordo Templi Orientis, etc. I believe that if someone actually knows something they won't be afraid to put it up for others to see, but a lot of Satanic organizations and mystery schools in general seem to be hiding behind guru claims. "If you join our organization, you'll find out...." Utter nonsense to me. So, right or wrong, we post up all of our information for everyone to see, and doubtless there will be instances where some views will have to be modified, but that wouldn't happen in the first place if things weren't publically available.

The website isn't actually operational yet, the links that are on there are just the typical stuff that they put on there when you sign up for a website and haven't paid for their webspace upgrades and all the other attachments. So, you'll probably encounter a lot of dead links. I posted it up here because I'd rather clarify my views now while it's still not operational than have to deal with bulk requests once it is.

[Laurentius]

AVE

Here are my thoughts.

Satan is, has been, and will be the symbol of evil. Thus, Satan-ism is just another word for evil-ism.

Many other "-isms" were assimilated to some sort of evil movements, but few really defined themselves as such, and even fewer meant to stay that way.

Satanism seems to me an implicit glorification of the evil, which intends to stay that way.

If one really wants to be original and revolutionary, not just shocking and/or speculative, one should choose another name for one's ideology.

And that's what I think.

AVE

[vagrant]

I would agree. Using the name "satanism" seems to be (if you will excuse the harshness here) a ploy for childish shock value.

The name carries unnecessary baggage.

[RyanS2]

Originally posted by vagrant:
<strong>I would agree. Using the name "satanism" seems to be (if you will excuse the harshness here) a ploy for childish shock value.

The name carries unnecessary baggage.</strong>

Indeed it does, but I use the Hebrew definition for Satan, "Adversary", and in Jewish theology, Satan has no connotation of being evil. Why do I consider myself the adversary? Well, I challenge our ideas about our cultural heritage:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/slavery.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/slavery.html</a>

I challenge our ideas about human sacrifice:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/priests.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/priests.html</a>

If you're a budding pagan feminist, you won't like what I have to say about Lilith:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/lilith.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/lilith.html</a>

and I don't believe that the Aryan Invasion Model of India's past has any real truth in it:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/indiahistory1.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/indiahistory1.html</a>

If the name really offends people so much, I can't really say they're atheists so much as Christians who don't believe in God, because that shows there is too much dependance upon Christian archetypes, mythos, and ideas.

{ed:} It reminds me of a meeting at a Gnostic Lodge where we discussed, if in fact, it was possible to be free from religion. There's a school of thought that whatever religion you were raised with, it will always be your religion, and you will forever be either reacting against it or conforming to it, but never truly free from it. I don't think many atheists will like the idea of that, because it means that no one is really free from religion, and thus makes "without theism" a bit of a misnomer. If someone was raised as a Christian, they could only say, "I'm a liberal Christian" or "I'm a reactive Christian", since they are never actually free from it. However, it amuses me that many people hold religious, iconographic, and moral ideas derived directly from Christianity, and Christianity only, yet swear they are not Christians. Some of those topics include same sex marriages, ideas on pornography, ideas on violence in media, etc.

In this case, it's most obvious. Satanism as being an object of evil is entirely derived from Christian concepts, nowhere else. Even religious inquiry into Satanism by sociological groups shows little evidence of Satanism being linked to anything evil: <a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/demograph.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/demograph.html</a>

Now, as French pointed out, there are underground groups in Europe, (as far as I'm aware, all of the groups dropped out of the public scene once they started to commit criminal acts), which do practice the idea of becoming what is considered to be the greatest evil of the 21st century, namely, Nazi's. The very word "Nazi" evokes the automatic equation of evil, if the word "nazi" is used in almost any sentence, you can feel that the comparison will hardly be benevolent.

However, it's not unique to Satanism, some neo-Nazi's claim they are Christians, some claim they are pagans, some claim they are Satanists, etc. In fact, I received an e-mail about my article on Dionysus and another article about the origins of 666 and the Book of Revelation by a man claiming he was from Greece. He said that there are occasional spats with public disputes and violence with pagan groups against the overwhelming majority of Christians in Greece. I'm not sure about the veracity of that information, or the circumstances surrounding it, but most minority religions tend to be benign, it'd seem strange to me to view sporadic violence of a minority as a large-scale epitomy of evil.

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>

[RyanS2]

Greetings Owl:

As stated, I wrote a piece dedicated to your questions.

<a href="http://satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/moralitypt3.html" target="_blank">http://satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/moralitypt3.html</a>

Does that help clarify my thoughts or ideas any better for you?

[jpbrooks]

Originally posted by RyanS2:[QB]

The website isn't actually operational yet, the links that are on there are just the typical stuff that they put on there when you sign up for a website and haven't paid for their webspace upgrades and all the other attachments. So, you'll probably encounter a lot of dead links. I posted it up here because I'd rather clarify my views now while it's still not operational than have to deal with bulk requests once it is.



Hello again, Ryans2, and thanks for your reply.

My replies are delayed because I (being relatively new to the internet) am devoting a considerable amount of my time online to learning more about this medium of communication.

I spend more time at Setian websites than Satanic ones. So, my view of Satanism is probably biased as a result. But isn't Satanism a "reaction" against the influence of Christianity in the world? And if so, wouldn't it be part of a "more general" view that opposes "belief systems" that predominantly influence "societies"?

Also, isn't the advertising industry, on the whole, oriented toward getting us to desire what the advertisers want us to desire and de-emphasizing our ability to think and make choices "independently" from the influence of others? If so, wouldn't this orientation be opposed to Satanism?

Also, I see that you are involved in martial arts. May I ask which one(s)?
My aspirations in the martial arts have been cut short due to a recent injury. But I was never really that good at it anyway. The instructor in my last self-defense class was an expert in Korean Karate and several other forms of martial arts (I never knew his belt level) who was apparently fascinated with poking people in the eyes and pulling people's ears off.
I can honestly say that throughout my brief "learning experience" in the martial arts, I was either afraid of what my instructors might do to me or what they might be getting me involved with.
Now, I'm interested in martial arts mainly as a form of physical (and mental) exercise.

[ May 26, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

[RyanS2]

Hi Jpbrooks:

I can understand the internet dilemma. Sometimes I get too busy doing other things and don't visit this website for weeks. Once you learn how to navigate the internet and differentiate the fakes and frauds from the real websites with knowledge on them, you'd be absolutely amazed at how much information is available online.

Going to Satanism, it would really depend. Debatable is who the first Satanist was. I don't really consider Crowley the first Satanist because of two problems. First that he didn't call himself a Satanist, though he was labeled worse things than that, and because of his central doctrine of the Willed dissolution of the opposites. In a Crowleyian philosophy, we all contact our HGA's, (Holy Guardian Angel), and find our True Will, which makes us into accord with the Universe, (similiar to dharma), and we all become "our own stars", freely independant of each other, yet still part of the same system.

However, Crowley was a cross between a Luciferian and a modern day Satanist. He hints many times that his HGA is really Lucifer, (which would make him a Great Black Brother. If you don't know what a Great Black Brother is, it's someone who hasn't contacted their HGA, but instead, is under the influence of a daemon which is misguiding them to serve its own purpose. In Crowley lingo, the daemons are parts of your mind/ego which are manifesting themselves because you haven't properly exorcised elements within your subconscious.

The person thinks they are doing the right thing, and gains lots of power through this knowledge and Conversation, but ultimately goes into their own destruction. Crowley considered Jesus to be somewhat of a Great Black Brother, and Christianity members of the Great Black Brotherhood.), and not only is Lucifer his HGA, but he laments the loss of Satan as a literary figure, "A devil which had unity would be a God."

Crowley had somewhat of a Milton conception of Satan. You can't use the Satan of the Middle Ages as a literary character. He was supposed to embody the seven deadly sins, but they are all contradictory. If you're slothful, you can't be wrathful as well, wrath implies acting out on anger, and no sloth could be bothered to do such a thing. So, you really have to 'invent a devil' in order to make it anything worth worshipping. That's more or less what Acquino did with the ToS.

Skipping forward, Lavey found Satanism somewhat as a joke. Since Christianity harped on about the evils of Satan, he thought it would be amusing to call himself a Satanist and make a philosophy which was everything the Christian Church would hate. Free-thought, denial of God, encouragement of pursuing sexual desires, etc. According to Acquino himself, when he first joined, Lavey was actually trying to build a real Satanic theology/philosophy system, and he was helping him. However, towards the early to mid 70's, the CoS kept getting put in the spotlight, along with Lavey, and he finally got so infuriated by the tabloids he shut off the organization, and Acquino says that Lavey wouldn't recognize the hard work he and others had put into the new system. So, he split.

Acquino makes the ToS, but he's still got a dilemma on his hands. Satan sucks as a literary character, and he's even worse as a theological character. So, Acquino chooses Set instead to be the figurehead. Set's more mysterious, has a deeper history, and has more traditions. Acquino thus decided he had the perfect Satanic theological character, and that's where the ToS comes into play. Plus Set's one of the older Gods, (possibly one of the oldest Gods), which is important because seemingly, Western society has a fixation that almost always leads to the idea that "older is better".

Concerning Satanism being a reaction per se', it's not necessarily so. However, Satanism advocates openly looking into a religion to see what's wrong with it, so that it has a natural tendency to create friction. Most Satanists, or at least me and the people I have in my org, don't see anything particularly wrong with Christianity. If you cut out certain portions of it, you can, in fact, make a very good religion. The same thing applies to Gnosticism, Yezidi, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, etc. I actually want to write a book which has a redneck Jesus as the main character, who preaches things from each religion once the garbage is removed and the good stuff stays. I think atheists might get a kick out of it, but I can't say that many religious people will like the idea. You'd be amazed though if you decide to try this experiment how good of a book you can make.

"Also, isn't the advertising industry, on the whole, oriented toward getting us to desire what the advertisers want us to desire and de-emphasizing our ability to think and make choices"

In some senses. What the advertising company does is demographically target an audience for their ideas by selecting spokespeople that will appeal to them. Britney Spears won't sell many CD's to the fifty and over crowd, so conversely, if you use her as an icon, you already know what groups you are targetting. However, even the best advertising policies only reach about 10 to 15 percent of the people they want. Of course, on the flip side, when you're dealing in millions of dollars, 10 to 15 percent is quite an increase. If people are really so stupid as to watch a commercial and believe, without hesitation, what they just heard, I have to say that I am almost inclined to say that they deserve to be taken advantage of. So long as there is free competition where someone can check out other people offering the same product, get magazine for consumer reviews, books on the subject, etc., advertising is of no harm. However, if we were limited in the information we could receive, then I'd say advertising is a much more serious problem.

As for martial arts, I typically stick with grappling styles like Judo, BJJ, and Greco-Roman wrestling. I can fight on my feet, but I typically tend to fight better on the ground. I never get too far along in belt ranks because I like to travel, but I also rarely train in koryu martial arts that take a long time to get promoted in. You can almost never find the exact same school in two different areas, so I'd be a perpetual low-ranked kyu my whole life....

I like martial arts for the sporty aspects of it, keeps my weight down, meet new people, have fun, and compete. The martial arts I listed above don't really have a philosophical side to them like koryu schools do. If I ever think I'm getting it tough, I just think about a friend who trained in Korea with Gen. Choi, (founder of Tae Kwon Do), for 17 years. I just can't compare, "I had a tough day in the gym" stories with him...

[owleye]

Ryan....

Well, I read your web-page and once again I find it rather unrewarding if it was intended to provide clarity to any moral principles you might have. Both utilitarianism and Kantianism are at least useful in providing me with some basis for judging what ought I to do. Yours, by contrast, is muddled and undoubtedly useless. The purpose of examples is intended to help in determining how a theory being offering would handle other situations. They are supposed to be examples of some general principle capable of helping us out with new situations that arise. However, since I don't really detect a principle at work, the examples become useless for that purpose. As such, in order to determine your political stance on abortion or gun control or your moral stance on deceit or helping others, I have to query you. And I suspect in every instance you will respond with "it depends" as if this qualification is going to make me appreciate it better.

I also believe you have completely misunderstood utilitarianism. Moreover, I'm fairly confident you have no understanding of Kantian moral theory either. Finally, I suspect you don't understand Rawls' theory of justice.

Bottom line is that your problem is not just that your ideas are muddled and confused. You don't even grasp the basic ideas that you are contrasting your view with. More thought and less verbiage would be appreciated.

owleye

[Laurentius]

AVE

Originally posted by RyanS2:
but I use the Hebrew definition for Satan, "Adversary"

This reminds me so much of these missionaries' arguments: that some specific term you refer to used to mean something else in Hebrew, or in Greek, and so on and so forth...

What if we all used the English terms with their meanings during the Middle Ages?

Or differently put, it does not matter what Satan meant 4000 thousand years ago - it means "the evil by excellence" now.

Originally posted by RyanS2:
in Jewish theology, Satan has no connotation of being evil

What?

You're not only distorting the truth through omission (Satan is not just an adversary, but "The profoundly evil adversary of God and humanity, often identified with the leader of the fallen angels; the Devil" or "The grand adversary of man; the Devil, or Prince of darkness; the chief of the fallen angels; the archfiend"), so you're not just distorting the facts but also using false information: Satan did bear the connotation (which in time became the denotation) of evil.

Jehova is famous for his absolute jelousy against anyone that may usurp his rights or power. Any adversary of Jehova is evil, and Satan is the symbol of them all - so, he is the evil.

Thus, Satan-ism can only be Evil-ism.

Originally posted by RyanS2:
If the name really offends people so much, I can't really say they're atheists so much as Christians who don't believe in God, because that shows there is too much dependance upon Christian archetypes, mythos, and ideas.

The name "Satan" does not offend - it just means evil.

Your whole argument does not hold. Words and meanings come from different sources (religion happens a very a fruitful one), and language is assimilated before people even know anything about ideologies.

Etymology is the wrong (i.e. irrelevant) way to judge people's creeds.

The term "Satanism" may only represent a shape, a form, a mold, for you - with no intention, from you, to be filled with evilness. However, a matrix that denotes "evil" will inevitably grow an evil content, whether you face it or not.

AVE

[vagrant]

The word "satan" does offend me, I personally find it just about as objectionable as "chipmunk".

BUT, I am also aware of the sociological/psychological baggage associated with the word. You do yourself a disservice (*see note below) with its use as it appears, as I stated before, that you use it for childish shock value. If your intent is to mean "adversary", why not call it Adversaryism or Adversarialism which doesn't subject your concepts to any preconceptions to its content.

(I don't want it to be misunderstood that I necessarily agree with his positions, my only issue of concern is with its naming)

[RyanS2]

Well Owleye, I'm sorry that you feel that way. To each their own, as they say.

"In order to determine your political stance on abortion"

Strictly speaking, it's not a political stance, but I'm pro-abortion. I feel that even a precursory reading of the text made that clear. You seem to be miffed that I don't provide any absolute statements, which is pretty much impossible when you are dealing with something called "relativity". So, the situation plus context plus person involved equals the decision that will be made. If you don't like that, well then, I truly do apologize to you. Here is in condensced form, easy reading format:

Be based upon empathy:

Based upon a system of justice, not just "Might is Right".

Then you should:

Recognize your own morality:
Recognize the Moral Conflict:

Stop here. Depending upon what moral values you have, (as a person, yes you), the moral conflict will be different. As such, I can, in no way, shape, format, or in any way, tell you what to do. My apologies if this is less than fulfilling for your own standards.

Who is affected by this decision and what are their relationships to it?

Weigh the good and bad of the action

Look for similar cases

Discuss the problems with the other relevant parties

Can I live with my choice?

There you go. If you find that less than appealing, again, I do apologize. However Owl, perhaps you are correct, maybe I completely misinterpret Kant and Utilitarianism. Kant is a bit hard to understand, and when I asked you the difference between "collective individuals" and "Society", you have yet to give me any workable definition. You can call me "Stupid, stupid, stupid" all you want, but I don't think that will cause any progression, either for you or me. I'm just as much here to learn as anybody else, so I'd appreciate not engaging in pointless pontification and condemnation.

On that note, you seem to feel I am strongly misrepresenting something, so: What books, videos, audio tapes, websites, specific lectures, etc., do you think totally embody the concept, utilization, aspects, and other things which utilitarianism, as you think it best defined, is?

"The name "Satan" does not offend"

It must, at least in some way, shape, or form, or you wouldn't have thought it a relevant point to bring up.

"it just means evil."

So, I can go through the Bible and start marking "Evil" in it when Satan's name pops up, and linguistically speaking, that is a proper translation?

"language is assimilated before people even know anything about ideologies."

Reminds me a bit of the word "witch-craft" and "Wicca". Not so long ago, about five years, a Senator went publically on television and accused Wiccans of eating babies. If you want to discuss what your ideas or perceptions on words are, that's fine. How relevant that is to the people actually involved in it is another matter, anymore than I think the definition of praying will be shifted to "talking to one's hands."

"Etymology is the wrong (i.e. irrelevant) way to judge people's creeds."

Oh, well, I'm sorry then. Your ideas/perceptions then are the relevant stick for judgement then? You are external/exterior to anything related to it, how much of an opinion do you really think you can form? Certainly, you can't claim, "I speak from experience..."

"However, a matrix that denotes "evil" will inevitably grow an evil content, whether you face it or not."

The same way that atheism was supposed to lead to the moral decay of the fabric of our society? If etymology is thrown out, then the only thing I am left to formulate ideas on are what people external to the ideas/organizations, etc. believe. Which just strikes me as being a bit silly, you wouldn't dream of accepting a conservative Christian's idea of atheism, (and they still compose a good 80% of the population), and I assure you that Emma Goldman's idea stated on the first page of this website would not be what they would say.

Why then, could it even be feasible to let someone else define someone else's ideas? The debate on the name issue seems a little bit outside of what this particular forum is about, so I won't comment any further on that issue.

[Laurentius]

AVE


Originally posted by RyanS2.
The debate on the name issue seems a little bit outside of what this particular forum is about, so I won't comment any further on that issue.

Well, despite Shakespeare, the name is the point this time, I think ("my thoughts appreciated"...).

Won't comment? That's okay. I'm used to having the last word. :D

Originally posted by RyanS2.
It must, at least in some way, shape, or form, or you wouldn't have thought it a relevant point to bring up.

Not offend - disturb.
Not because of the term necessarily - because of the inadvertence. You can't claim to be some knight of a moral revolution on Satan's back.

Originally posted by RyanS2.
So, I can go through the Bible and start marking "Evil" in it when Satan's name pops up, and linguistically speaking, that is a proper translation?


That has already been done:

Satan = the Devil, Lucifer, Ahriman, Belial; Samael, Zamiel, Beelzebub, the Prince of the Devils; the tempter; the evil one, the evil spirit; the Adversary; the archenemy; the author of evil, the wicked one, the old Serpent; the Prince of darkness, the Prince of this world, the Prince of the power of the air; the foul fiend, the arch fiend; the devil incarnate; the common enemy, the angel of the bottomless pit; Abaddon, Apollyon.

Originally posted by RyanS2.
Your ideas/perceptions then are the relevant stick for judgement then? You are external/exterior to anything related to it, how much of an opinion do you really think you can form? Certainly, you can't claim, "I speak from experience..."


Well, what is your argument that people's creeds should be judged according to the etymology of the terms they use, which (a)may have nothing to do with today's meanings and (b) may very likely be unknown to these people?

:)
AVE

[RyanS2]

(Sigh). Laurentius, you claimed that Satan speaks of a word which is formed "before time began", or something to that effect. Correct? So, by strict etymological definition, this WOULD be the first idea formed, from whence words came, correct? Yes or no will suffice. If you say "no", does this mean that words and ideas are not unchanging, that they do change and thus this idea of formulating before time/space gave them their meaning they were still in existence? Just curious on that one.

Nor do most people have the same perception of Satan, Hinduists, Yezidi, Jews, etc., do not share the perception, so again, you cannot claim some kind of universal omniscience with your answer. (Also, do a quick math check, Christians do not compose the majority of the World's population). That would be the fallacy of Biased Sample.

So, what is your answer based upon? Popular appeal to a Western audience? Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy argument, in case you didn't know that. Now, you can cite etymological fallacy as one as well, but you made the appeal to time, not me, so whatever is the etymologically correct one is the most time fulfilling one as well. Your next appeal is to heroes (?), or more specifically, "You can't claim to be some knight of a moral revolution on Satan's back."

I don't think I've ever claimed to be some kind of a knight, but I'm curious what heroes of other religions do you particularly aspire to be? St. John, St. Bacchus the Martyr, Buddha? Also, Satan has been used as a literary hero, Charles Baudelaire, James Branch Cabell, and quite a few others have used Satan as a hero. This happened long before you and I were walking and talking as well.

Again though, this has nothing to do with philosophy, at all, anymore than asking is rationalism actually rational?

Now, back onto philosophy, Owl, I went and checked through some definitions of utilitarianism, just to make ultra-sure that I wasn't completely stupid, as you suggest. (Or actually, flat-out accuse.) So, let's see what I got. Everyone loves to quote webter's dictionary, so let's see what we get from there:

"a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number"

Yep, that's exactly what I said it was. But heck, that's a stupid dictionary. Dictionaries aren't written by experts in each subject, so maybe Webster and I are both wrong. So, I went to here:

<a href="http://www.utilitarian.org/criticisms.html" target="_blank">http://www.utilitarian.org/criticisms.html</a>

Let me quote it:

"(Utilitarianism) is only concerned with the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people - unfortunately this mistake has even been made by some who call themselves utilitarians. From the very first formulation by Bentham, to the more recent modifications by Singer, the principle of Utility has concerned itself with all happiness, no matter the identity of the being in which it is felt. The interests of non-human animals must be counted equally with those of humans; and if we are ever visited by UFOs, we must consider the alien's interests too."

The author of a website called "http://www.utilitarian.org" agrees with my definition with it! Finally, I checked the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and here's what they said:

"Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action. Whatever produces the most happiness in the most people is the moral course of action. Kant has an insightful objection to moral evaluations of this sort."

Now, you seem to invoke the mytotatic reflex when you read, so let me point something else out. I asked you if you considered the definition Rawls gave for utilitarianism accurate, I didn't make a single statement about whether or not Rawls had anything to do with utilitarianism, you seem to have confused that issue. Also, you say I don't understand Kant, since you won't take any book references I give you as having any validity, I went to the IEP again and this is what they said of Kant's view:

"On Kant's view, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action."

Which is the same thing I have stated. Bertrand Russell, in "Wisdom of the West", p. 243, makes this critique of Kant:

"If what counts is the frame of mind or intention, then you can cheerfully fall into a thorough messs, provided only you feel it is your duty. The miserable consequences that your action might call forth are of no account whatever. Well might Socrates warn the protagonist of such an ethic that ignorance was the overriding sin."

Which is a critique more extreme of Kant than I ever set forth. So, I am left wandering about something. Am I, Bertrand Russell, Dr. Matt McCormick, (IEP article on Kant), Dr. James Fieser, and Dr. Bradley Dowden all wrong? Since you have (yet) to list one reference to back up your rather harsh and uncritical comments, I am wondering if it is I that isn't grasping the material.

[jpbrooks]

Sorry about missing your reply, RyanS2. I normally spend time reading through the threads in this forum on the weekends, but for the past month my time online has been cut short considerably, and as a result of having to be selective about which threads to check, I miss some. In any case, here are my belated responses.


Originally posted by RyanS2:
[QB]


I can understand the internet dilemma. Sometimes I get too busy doing other things and don't visit this website for weeks. Once you learn how to navigate the internet and differentiate the fakes and frauds from the real websites with knowledge on them, you'd be absolutely amazed at how much information is available online.



The volume of information is incredible! In most instances, I seek scholarly sources for information on a subject first in order to establish a "foundation" from which to evaluate information from other sources.

But the problem that I have been running into lately is that while the web makes it quite easy, in most cases, to find information on subjects that are "old", popular, and have been discussed ad nauseam, it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to find information on very new or obscure subjects.



Going to Satanism, it would really depend. Debatable is who the first Satanist was. I don't really consider Crowley the first Satanist because of two problems. First that he didn't call himself a Satanist, though he was labeled worse things than that, and because of his central doctrine of the Willed dissolution of the opposites. In a Crowleyian philosophy, we all contact our HGA's, (Holy Guardian Angel), and find our True Will, which makes us into accord with the Universe, (similiar to dharma), and we all become "our own stars", freely independant of each other, yet still part of the same system.



I haven't done a lot of research on Crowley yet, but you're probably right about him not being the first Satanist. But (and this probably goes to the heart of the issue) I'm still not certain why a Satanist would be inconsistent in adopting a Crowleyan perspective on "theology". More specifically, must all Satanists uniformly reject the doctrine of the "willed dissolution of opposites"?



Skipping forward, Lavey found Satanism somewhat as a joke. Since Christianity harped on about the evils of Satan, he thought it would be amusing to call himself a Satanist and make a philosophy which was everything the Christian Church would hate. Free-thought, denial of God, encouragement of pursuing sexual desires, etc. According to Acquino himself, when he first joined, Lavey was actually trying to build a real Satanic theology/philosophy system, and he was helping him. However, towards the early to mid 70's, the CoS kept getting put in the spotlight, along with Lavey, and he finally got so infuriated by the tabloids he shut off the organization, and Acquino says that Lavey wouldn't recognize the hard work he and others had put into the new system. So, he split.



Yes, Lavey's earlier books seemed to be more about rituals and liturgy than his later ones. But aren't his later writings still consistent with Satanic principles even though they have little to do with the development of a Satanic theology/philosophy?



... Plus Set's one of the older Gods, (possibly one of the oldest Gods), which is important because seemingly, Western society has a fixation that almost always leads to the idea that "older is better".



True, but Set also predates Christianity, which helps a religion based on Set to undercut the criticism that it has been influenced by Christianity.



Concerning Satanism being a reaction per se', it's not necessarily so. However, Satanism advocates openly looking into a religion to see what's wrong with it, so that it has a natural tendency to create friction. Most Satanists, or at least me and the people I have in my org, don't see anything particularly wrong with Christianity. If you cut out certain portions of it, you can, in fact, make a very good religion. The same thing applies to Gnosticism, Yezidi, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, etc. I actually want to write a book which has a redneck Jesus as the main character, who preaches things from each religion once the garbage is removed and the good stuff stays. I think atheists might get a kick out of it, but I can't say that many religious people will like the idea. You'd be amazed though if you decide to try this experiment how good of a book you can make.



I'm more interested in learning to critically inquire into Christianity (and other religions and philosophies) from various world-view perspectives. So, I would be interested, for example, in what kinds of questions a "redneck" Jesus would ask about "mainstream" Christianity and its adherents.



As for martial arts, I typically stick with grappling styles like Judo, BJJ, and Greco-Roman wrestling. I can fight on my feet, but I typically tend to fight better on the ground.



One of my self-defense instructors told my class that a powerful wrestler, who is an expert in grappling techniques like Judo, can always beat anyone skilled in "boxing" styles/techniques, especially once he or she gets his or her hands on the "boxer".

I'm curious about how Krav Maga compares in competition with the Eastern forms of martial arts. Perhaps there have been competitions pitting experts in these forms with one another, but I have never seen one.

I'll be back later.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

[RyanS2]

'I haven't done a lot of research on Crowley yet, but you're probably right about him not being the first Satanist. But (and this probably goes to the heart of the issue) I'm still not certain why a Satanist would be inconsistent in adopting a Crowleyan perspective on "theology". More specifically, must all Satanists uniformly reject the doctrine of the "willed dissolution of opposites"?'

It's impossible to say I am purely LHP or RHP, since the terminology comes from the Kabbalah Tree of Life, with all paths intercrossing and connected to each other. It's simply that a Crowley perspective is like a sort of Utopia in which we all submit to a universal will. Satanism is a naturally egoistic religion, and the idea of submitting to one great universal with disregard to individual autonomy is a bit foreign. A Thelemite may argue that once a Utopian state is achieved, "every man and woman is his own star", meaning that we exist in autonomy because we have achieved a Universal goal or will under which we act, an umbrella of safety. I would disagree.

"Yes, Lavey's earlier books seemed to be more about rituals and liturgy than his later ones. But aren't his later writings still consistent with Satanic principles even though they have little to do with the development of a Satanic theology/philosophy?"

They started to degenerate into pure social commentary, though some of the quotes are humorous. One of my favorites is paraphrased as, "It's strange that people ask Christians for the definition of a Satanist. You wouldn't ask Hitler about the joys of a Honnukah." He became too misanthropic for most people's taste, an isolationist.

"True, but Set also predates Christianity, which helps a religion based on Set to undercut the criticism that it has been influenced by Christianity."

Sort of, but it's still interpretated in a Judaic/Christian conceptualization rather than purely Egyptian. No matter what you would call the religion, (even taking the suggestion of "adversarism" seriously), the stigma sticks, so I think it's best just to grab the bull by the horns rather than shy away from the controversy.

'I'm more interested in learning to critically inquire into Christianity (and other religions and philosophies) from various world-view perspectives. So, I would be interested, for example, in what kinds of questions a "redneck" Jesus would ask about "mainstream" Christianity and its adherents.'

Heh, varies from each group. Sort of like when I read a Muslims' thoughts about Christianity, they have a totally different mindset and question basis, so that questions which would seem absolutely ludicrous to you and I are asked in full sincerity. The same thing applies when I read a Buddhists inquiry into Christianity as well. It's a totally different paradigm, completely different balls of wax. They accept things a priori which we don't, (i.e. that the Qur'an is eternal and perfect), so that they use scriptures and ideas which we would question analytically w/o any reservation.

'One of my self-defense instructors told my class that a powerful wrestler, who is an expert in grappling techniques like Judo, can always beat anyone skilled in "boxing" styles/techniques, especially once he or she gets his or her hands on the "boxer".'

Depends. As my friend LeTerian Bradley would say, "Judge the person, not the art!!" If you can't grapple though it's hard to fight off someone who can, I've been side-swept, (how embarrasing), in micro-seconds by skilled grapplers, and I'm mildly proficient at it.

"I'm curious about how Krav Maga compares in competition with the Eastern forms of martial arts."

It's a down and dirty style. It has cognates in the dirty fighting techniques in Kung fu, most forms of Bujutsu, and techniques used by guys like Paul Vunak and Marc MacYoung. I don't think you'd ever do a competition with that kind of stuff, it's meant to kill someone or permanently injure them. That's part of the thing I like about grappling as opposed to striking arts is that I can safely, (legally), control someone, while in a striking art you would have a very hard time doing that.