Trinity Denied Issue 4 - Month Two, and still no Antichrist
Introduction
Yes, we're back, finally. After a much-wasted summer(and now, winter) Trinity Denied has been revived... You might notice I've reverted to the older format. I figure special columns and nice "pretty" layouts really don't make a difference, so why bother when the issue is so late already?
It's been awhile since Issue #1, and some views of mine have shifted, or have even been "corrected" as I see it. An update to Issue #1 was written awhile ago, but whether or not I will publish it hardcopy is still not decided. If you can, check it out at the website. Some things in this issue might even be out-of-date as it should have been released several months ago. Expect #5 to be out a few weeks after this one, and I promise this time that "a few weeks" won't mean "one year."
I hope in this and future issues to advance Trinity Denied more in-depth into Satanism. The first few issues were primarily a generic "THIS IS SATANISM, NOT THAT, DAMNIT" type outcry. This issue will offer more in that, but on a "higher" level, at least in my opinion. This issue will state some positions and opinions, and from there Trinity Denied will become a newsletter directed towards Satanists, not just a newsletter about Satanists. The decision to do this is the result of a discussion with a Satanist who "utilized" Trinity Denied's original purpose(which will switch from the focus to an element in future issues), so I give her due credit. Enjoy, and remember, feedback is welcome.
Oh, and by the way: This is by far the best issue ever. Read it!@#
The Purpose of Trinity Denied
Readers of the first issue will recall this topic already being covered... However, I think it's time to revise and re-state our purpose.
Trinity Denied's point? To provoke. I am on no "righteous mission" to "save" people, our purpose is not evangelism. The purpose of Trinity Denied is to express opinions and thoughts. "Why?" Because we want to.
Destroying misconceptions about Satanism is not as strong as a purpose anymore... And you'll see why as you continue to read. My intentions are to express opinions, and to allow others(i.e. the other writers, and readers) to do the same. Trinity Denied will still remain a Satanic Newsletter, because its primary writers ARE Satanists. The focus will still remain on Satanism, or to put it more accurately, its focus will fit Satanism more "correctly" as we see it. If you enjoy reading Trinity Denied, great. If not, E-Mail us, bitch and moan all you want. I've only gotten *one* "negative" E-Mail so far, and I know you can do better than that.
Satanism Revisited
The classic new COS type Satanist almost always says the same thing when asked about Satanism, and I am not an exception. You might recall the first issue of Trinity Denied, where I went into "What is Satanism", and spoke of pseudo-Satanism and the like.
My views regarding this have developed[read: not drastically changed, but developed] and I've finally found exactly WHAT and WHY Satanism is[to me, of course..which is part of Satanism's charm.]
This will be in a question-answer type format...sorry if it seems corny, heh.
"What is Satan?"
Almost anyone can answer this in one way or another. To me, [and many others] Satan represents opposition, "the adversary." I already talked about this in the first issue, but let's get into more detail.
"Opposition of what, and why?"
"Satan" can be many things. Even atheistic Satanists like myself will proudly uphold the Christian concept of Satan, although we truly hold no belief in any such entity. We see "Satan" of the New Testament as the advocate for humanity and individualism--opposing God of both Testaments, a God who defies reason and demands subservience. Satan tries to be better than God, and is cast into hell where he is tortured for eternity for it.
The Old Testament Satan is another issue. The Jewish Satan is a servant of God, even though his name means "opposition." While the meaning of the Hebrew word "Satan" is utilized in Satanism, the Jewish concept of Satan is not. If the Jewish God had an enemy named Leroy, and Judaism was the most common religion of America, and if Judaism promoted ignorance and denied science and knowledge, LaVey would have founded "The Church of Leroy".
Christians tend to see this character as a "bad guy", out to terrorize the world and torture people in hell. But who is the true Lord of the Christian hell? Not Satan. Almost any Christian will agree that "Satan is suffering just like those who are in hell." [It's in the Bible, after all.] It wouldn't make sense otherwise. Clearly Satan wouldn't punish people for behaving like he did. Some Christians justify "Satan's attempts to deceive" by saying "if you were going down, wouldn't you take everyone else you could with you?" Maybe they would...heh.
[sidenote]
I've got one new comment on hell. The hard-core Christian preaches on and on about how God sent his son to earth and killed him, so that we unworthy humans wouldn't have to go to hell. But who created hell? Should we thank an imaginary being for offering us the opportunity to worship him to avoid his place of torture? Here is an analogy:
You get in an elevator. I say "don't go up." (I'm God) You, being ignorant of what good and evil are begin to grow curious, especially since the up button is five times larger than the down button. Well maybe that's not accurate. Let's just say you've been pressing down for weeks and it's getting old. Finally after sitting in the elevator doing nothing for twenty minutes you push "up". (Allusion to Adam and Eve for the biblically challenged, and apologies to Jews who hate seeing the OT and NT smashed together, but the Christians did it first so there.)
Suddenly you find yourself 100 feet off of the ground, and the entire frame of the elevator/building is gone. You're about to fall to your death when I come, and grab you by the shoulders(I'm floating of course).
Suddenly I perform some God-magic and make five-foot spikes with barbs appear from the ground 100 feet below. "If you thank me for not dropping you, I won't," I say. ("And then you can thank me for eternity, and I will brainwash you so that you enjoy it", but that's another matter...)
Naturally you would thank me for not dropping you in fear of your life, to save your life, because I'm there in "the flesh". But since God's existence depends on nothing more than legends and myths passed down over time, in REALITY there is NO EVIDENCE of this "God" existing in the first place. (That isn't the point, anyway.)
"But what about heaven!"
Bah. Hell is the default. Any person who could be happy in a place like heaven[ever read a Biblical description of heaven, by the way?] while knowing others are suffering eternally in hell is surely no "Love thy neighbor" Christian.
John 3:16, "And God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that man might not perish but have eternal life" would make a LOT more sense if "perishing" wasn't eternal suffering but simply death(falling from the 100 feet vs. falling 100 feet onto barbed spikes except they don't kill you, they just hurt for eternity-n-stuph). But saying "God loved you so much, that if you say GOD IS MY SAVIOR FROM HELL he won't throw you there" is ridiculous. Jesus is considered salvation...from what? Hell, of course. But your only ticket out of hell is saying "Jesus is my savior from hell." God-logic, it's odd. Oh well.
Is this entire interpretation/analogy incorrect, misinterpreted? My reactions are usually direct toward Christian interpretation of the Bible, Satan, Jesus, etc. Feel free to attack my disillusioned way of interpreting the Bible.
[end sidenote]
In my sick, twisted, demented mentality..."Satan" of the Bible is portrayed as an ironic hero...just in less of a direct manner than say..Paradise Lost. Who cares if John Milton was a super-Christian, how can you NOT portray Satan as a hero? (heh)
So the Satanist proudly supports the mythical devil of the Bible, wielding it as a spiteful weapon against THE CONCEPT of the egotistical, destructive, and unreasonable God of the Bible. This usage is symbolic, for our own purposes.
Beyond the symbolic meaning is "our" meaning. What is Satan, beyond a symbol for opposition? I call the "force of nature" Satan. What is this "force of nature"? Some Satanists specify it, labelling it entropy, or chaos, or change. I believe that the "force of nature" is unified, but I see it as all things responsible for the complexity and existence of the universe. This includes entropy, chaos, gravity, universal tendencies, etc, etc.
"But why call it Satan?"
Because it opposes. Saying that nature in itself SIMPLY IS, SIMPLY DOES opposes the concept of a "God responsible for creation."
Whether or not the things we call "Satan" or "Satanic" are "the purest", "the correct", "true"(that is, not opposition, but the way things are) in the first place, we call them Satan/Satanic, because to say such things opposes the common view. And if/when the common view changes, Satanism will still be Satanism--any changing of the name would destroy all efforts.
Oh yeah, and because it's fun. It's not done out of defiance, but if it happens to defy, hey, ok. I don't mind defying a religion that makes sheep out of men.
"So what's your purpose?"
Well, [on a note] the Church of Satan has five main purposes, things to achieve. I personally as a Satanist do not really have any set "religious goals". I express my opinions, my beliefs and lackings thereof. I am not out to "destroy Christianity, destroy the weak," but I will happily attack them. I allow them to attack my beliefs as well. I welcome it. I would be happy to see Christianity crumble and fall, but I think it will do that to itself... And I think Satanism is best found by the individual, not forced upon them.
I won't say that I wouldn't mind shattering a few beliefs in a few people, but I don't publish this magazine to convert the world to Satanism. I believe that every person is a Satanist in one way or another, in some form, some manner. Some of us are just moreso than not, and some of us just know it.
"So why do you publish this, if you're not out to convert people?"
Because I want to. I enjoy expressing my opinions and beliefs. And in the end, I assert that we are all Satanists...in one way or another.
"If Satanism is about individuality, why do you call it Satanism and organize it as a religion? Why not call it nothing, and leave it up to the person?"
Satanism is left to the individual. Establishing Satanism as a religion was done because it is effective. Establishing "the anti religion" as a religion was the ultimate act of audacity. Audacity works, if it makes sense. LaVey's purposes were clear when he did so... but one must remember being a Satanist is not "I read the Satanic Bible, and agreed with everything it says." To put it shortly... Satanism is the religion of the individual. Satanism is about the individual, the ego. Calling it "Satanism", a "religion" unifies these concepts without breaking them, by giving one a limited morality, and a limited "rule system". The only true conformity is realizing/knowing you agree with the moral code: "I have the right to exist and enjoy my life, I will protect this right, and I will realize others have this right as well." LaVey calls this "objective subjectivity", that is: "You are this, but you are what you are."
"But what about those you call 'pseudo-Satanists?' Wouldn't they consider you the same? Why do you call yourself Satanists if it gets you in all kinds of trouble caused by misunderstanding?"
Ahh, but you see, these "Satanists" are the best thing that ever happened to Satanism. While it might bother the "real Satanists", the "pseudo- Satanists" are doing us a good deed. How, you say? Pseudo-Satanists are a self-implemented selection process. Pseudo-Satanists serve us two purposes:
- Stupid people who are attracted to "Satanism" stumble into Pseudo- Satanism more often than what I call Satanism. This keeps them out of "the real thing." You might say this is "the wrong mentality, they give you a bad reputation!" Ahh, but read purpose two.
- People who don't research, study, and learn for themselves never stumble into "the real thing" when they are turned off by Pseudo-Satanism. Once again Satanism is "naturally purified".
Skeptics will see this as a stretch, a twisted rationale...but consider it for a moment. It keeps stupid people in their own little playground, and keeps those who think they "know all they need to know about Satanism" out. What does this leave? Satanists. This is not to say there is an "exact, and true" Satanist. Such a thing cannot exist. That is the very nature of Satanism. Confusing, yes...at first.
"But those who call "Pseudo-Satanists" would call you the same thing! You're not Satanist if you don't WORSHIP SATAN, idiot!"
Purpose #2 works here. Those who look up "Satanism" in the dictionary would immediately be turned off by it. But tell me...who is the real Satanist? The person who worships a quasi-deity of mythology stolen from various other religions, or the person who upholds the entire concept of such an entity in all that the entity symbolically stands for? I'll leave that question up to you.
"But what about rituals?"
Magic and rituals are a definite part of Satanism, but not all Satanists practice them. Magic is a strange concept to many to say the least, and many see it as absurd. Regardless, magic does work in one way or another. Satanic rituals are relieving, exhausting purgings of emotional energy...and they work. They do two things: relieve pressure/stress/anger/whatever and gratify the ego. Rituals are about power, legally exercised power that anyone can perform in their own home. Rituals serve a strong purpose.
Incidentally, there's an article in this issue about the mechanisms of magic.
"Is there more to it?"
Always. Satanism, by its very nature is a very individualistic religion. Every Satanist is a different person--Every Satanist is a Satanist. Whether or not you agree is no concern of my own.
The Mechanics of Magic
Magic often throws off those who find most of Satanism to be reasonable. Instantly they think "Satanic Rituals" and become instant skeptics and critics. When my best friend once told me he had performed magic long ago I almost laughed at him. But magic has proven itself to me, something "God" has not.
Magic is defined as "changing in accordance with one's will things that using 'normally accepted' means would be unchangeable." (And "black magic" means doing it for your own self-aggrandizement, which would make Jehovah...hmm!) The idea of what is "normally accepted" of course changes over time...or as LaVey better said(probably not a perfect quote), "All science was magic at one point or another."
This leaves much room for modern magic to become "scientifically validated" over time, although I doubt it ever will.
The magic I practice is Satanic Ritual, mainly the three LaVey goes in- depth on. I've devised a ritual or two on myself as well(with success). The skeptic will immediately scoff at magic, but for them I offer the concept of energetic orgasm.
"What!?!" The purpose of a ritual is to take intense emotional feelings and purge them. A Satanic Ritual is full of symbolism, imagery, "occult language" and the like. The purpose in the end is to work up the emotions of the party in need to the point where they are completely purged. (Catharsis)
Once a ritual is performed, the parties involved(at least in my experience) find themselves immediately relaxed, no matter how tense or angry they were prior to the ritual. During the ritual, one feels the actual energy building up inside of them. Over time, this buildup is so intense that when the final "HAIL SATAN!"s are shouted, they find themselves exhausted, and ambivalent towards their original purpose(That is, it really doesn't matter to them anymore.)
Once again, LaVey has already discussed this, so going too in-depth on rituals, sex, and ambivalence would almost be plagiarism. The point of this article is to go beyond that, and offer imaginative explanations as to why rituals work...whether or not they are "correct" doesn't really matter, it's just "maybes" and "what ifs".
The first issue is whether or not they work to begin with...in my experience, they do.
That's out of the way.
One concept I've wondered about when I first performed a ritual was that of energy transformation. That is, I am taking emotional energy and discharging it into another person, thus leading them to a path of whatever I choose. This requires some creative imagination and some stretching of what exactly "energy" is. For example, if I wanted to curse someone, I would work up my anger to the point of explosion and direct it using my mind's abilities into their own life. As I said, it's kind of a stretch, but who knows?
Taking that a little further leads me to chaos theory. Because of chaos, every small change or detail in a large system can have vast influence on the entire system. For example, weather predictions begin to lose accuracy after a few days because regardless of how well you monitor the clouds, there are details as small as a butterfly(like, literally, maan) that can screw up everything. This, in fact, is how chaos theory was "discovered"...A scientist dropped a few decimal points in a weather-forecast program and found a totally different pattern than he had to begin with.
But here's a better way to illustrate chaos.. (At least 98% of this is imagination, not my experience.) You get into a car accident. You get into a car accident because you were taking your friend home. You were taking your friend home because you happened to see him at school. You were at school because you had to turn in a math paper that you finished earlier that day. You turned it in late because you put it off for a week. You put it off for a week because you didn't want to do it. You didn't want to do it because you hate math. You hate math because you don't understand it. You don't understand it because you missed some important concepts a year or two ago. You missed these concepts a year or two ago because you got sick. You got sick because you shared a drink with someone who didn't know they had the flu. They got the flu because some guy on a bus coughed on them. And so on, and so on, and so on. (Damnit, I said this is imagination; I like math.)
"Well shit, if that guy hadn't coughed on my friend I never would have gotten into this wreck." You could take chaos back almost infinitely to the point of the universe's formation, and blame the setting-into-motion for your own misfortunes. You can also take a different influence and go back from there; "You got into a car accident because you were distracted by..."
(Oh, and by the way, going back is bad, i.e. saying "if I hadn't done this or that this wouldn't have happened." Try hard not to do it, I do it often and it sucks.)
So what does this "chaos magic theory" propose? Directed chaotic influence. That is, throwing some bad vibes into someone's already chaos- "guided[!]" existence. Does it work? I think so. The only "mystical" thing I truly believe in is magic..because it's proven itself to me--whether coincidence is responsible or not, magic works in at least ONE way. The term "chaos magick" has been coined, but as of now I'm not sure if this is what I'm talking about or what, so I'll just call it "chaos magic theory."
More remains in the field of magic, including "Lesser Magic." Lesser Magic does not involve rituals, "energy" and the like.. Lesser Magic involves sometimes subliminal, sometimes obvious influence through eye contact, speech, etc. Psychology ties in well, and Lesser Magic is applicable to hundreds of situations...one example would be cursing one without cursing them. One who believes in magic but also has low self-esteem would be easily crushed in this manner. Simply telling them of your plans to destroy them through magic would set them on the path of destruction, with little effort on your part...these types are rare, however, and so Greater Magic is available.
Evolution is...
"Awwman, science," you say? Oh well, I'll write whatever I want to. Read it, even if you don't want to. Science can be fun! Heh..This little outburst is the result of several discussions/debates/arguments. Thanks to 'Bonz' for saying "Evolution is" about a year ago.
Evolution is...NOT the process of which monkeys turn into men. If this is why you choose not to "accept" evolution, you are stupid.
Evolution is...NOT a goal-oriented process to reach perfection. Nature is not perfect, conditions are never completely static. Evolution operates on IMPERFECTION, NOT PERFECTION. There is no GOAL, NO PURPOSE, NO DESTINY. There is no REASON to have "perfect adaptation," so get over it already. No such thing can exist. Natural selection is not goal oriented, it's a filter. Conditions change, things die, others live. NO GOAL!
Evolution is...NOT A RELIGION! This is the one that annoys me the most. Some Christians(here comes a rant) in their inability to comprehend systems outside of "belief systems" see evolution and even science as some kind of religion, some system of belief. WRONG. Evolution is a[That is, THE ONLY] scientific explanation for the diversity of life. Nothing else. No, it's not a belief system.
Evolution is...A FACT AND A THEORY! Yes, that's right. Evolution as "change" is a fact, evolution as "descent" is a theory. Gravity is also a theory. "Not believing in gravity" doesn't make falling on your ass any more pleasant.
Evolution is...NOT WITH PURPOSE! I already mentioned this. Things don't change for the better, they just change. Nature has no better or worse. Understand this, and understand nature. Us puny humans have "better" and "worse", but cares what us insignificant humans have to say about nature?
There is no "more evolved"! Just because a human is more complex than an earthworm doesn't mean the human is more "advanced." We're complex. There are more things that can go wrong with us. Whee. And we are NOT "more evolved" than chimpanzees. There is no "better." Have an ego, enjoy it--but don't feel "better" than your dog just because your molecules are arranged in a slightly different manner.
Evolution is..chaotic. (Perhaps some might disagree, but ohwell...) That is, evolution works by disorder. Reproductions are never perfect, and you have disorder. You have change, aka "evolution." The tiniest of changes over time lead to the most enormous of differences. Remember chaos theory in the magic article? THAT is evolution's "guide", not a compromise Christian- "evolutionists" call "God." Evolution is chaos into chaos, perceived to be orderly by some of its chaotic by-products. This very "un-Godly", chaotic concept goes against the very idea of an intelligent creator out to serve his ego, so I call it "Satan." (Don't you just love how it alllll ties together?
Heh)
Ok, I'm done. Next time someone takes the liberty of defining evolution(and worse, debating it!) in some ignorant, half-assed retarded manner, you'll know what to say. And if you're one of those "someones," shut the hell up and read a science book.
A Movie Review
This issue of Trinity Denied should have been released several months ago. As of now it's February and it should have been out in September. I figure I might as well toss this in because I wanted to say something about the movie Fallen. This review will probably be obsolete by the time I get the issue out, but oh well.
Fallen, starring Denzel Washington, John Goodman, and Donald Sutherland is one of the best movies in theaters in a long time. The movie has a kind of Christian good-vs-evil feel to it, but I'll settle for what I can get. The movie is basically about a detective who sends a murderer to the death chamber and soon finds out the man he murdered was innocent, he just happened to be possessed by the demon Azazel at the time.
Azazel is one of Lucifer's angels who was tossed out of heaven and forced to live devoid of form. Due to this he[?] must live through others by possessing their bodies. Azazel moves through people by touch, which gives the movie some interesting chase scenes.
The end of the movie is one of the best movie endings I've seen in a long time, and it makes the whole movie even better. Where it was interesting at first and throughout, the ending changes the perspective for everything else. That's all I'm going to give away, so go see it.
Miscellaneous Thoughts, Quotes, Aphorisms[?]
Arvada West Newspaper Class Requirements: An "A" or greater in Journalism, and you must not be the publisher of a Satanic newsletter. [Actually the 'real' requirement is a "B" in Journalism, although certain newspaper staff passed with a "C".]
Why do/would people want eternal life? If you could do everything you wanted to, what would be the purpose of living? The boundaries of life make what you CAN achieve all the better, for otherwise they would be stale and boring achievements. Marilyn Manson(hated by [many] Satanists and Christians alike) says it well in "The Reflecting God": "Without the threat of death there's no reason to live at all." Nietzsche spoke on the subject in The Wanderer and His Shadow: "Death. - The certain prospect of death could sweeten every life with a precious and fragrant drop of levity - and now you strange apothecary souls have turned it into an ill-tasting drop of poison that makes the whole of life repulsive."
I speak and write as an essay. The assertions I make are by my opinion...Thus is assumed. To constantly ensure that others realize that should be unnecessary. As a teacher of mine[McEwen] says it: "Don't apologize for having a brain." "I think," and "In my opinion" should be assumed...No one speaks from objective, perfect "truth".
Some like to say "The human brain cannot comprehend God." Funny, it can invent gods in the hundreds, but can't comprehend one absurd version of it. To say the human brain is too limited to understand is to put humans in a hole where once they believe, they cannot think their way out of it.
Nietzsche spoke on the harm of convictions. Emerson spoke against consistencies and advocated for humans to speak in "hard words", even if what you said in one day contradicted what you said in another. I say combine the two, be wary of strong convictions that you have for the sake of having...But maintain yourself. The only person who should dare change your thoughts should be you. Philosophers and theologians should exist to provoke thought, not direct it.
I stopped sinning about four years ago.
If "God" is necessary to know "why", don't forget to ask yourself "why" you believe in the first place.
Do not be ashamed of your alignment...and do not falsely align yourself for the sake of acceptance. One person who accepts you is better than ten thousand who accept "you".
Two quotes that sickened me recently(well, not so recently anymore):
"Maybe you should think about accepting Jesus."
--My mother, after a bad day
"Are you an atheist? [Yes.] I'm sorry."
--Anonymous
The true measure of a religion's worth is its ability to maintain itself, even when you drop it, look at it, and criticize it. If you can pick it back up, dust it off, and re-adopt it without an afterthought, it's worthy of your acceptance.
I like reading school yearbook comments, where three students give their opinion on some idea, like violence or gangs. Usually it's some dumb, "no- shit" type response, like "I think terrorism is bad," or "I don't want AIDS, because it kills you." Sometimes it's "God is necessary for families to thrive." I wish they'd ask me a stupid question, so I could answer with some smartass comment like "I think terrorism is good, because its end result is always a national comraderie when the bad guy gets his ass kicked."
I occasionally fear stating my own thoughts, because "What if someone else has already said it?" I fear making my own music, because "What if it sounds like someone else's?" I often wonder if there will be a point when all things have been said. Sometimes I even make up my own random sentence, thinking "No one has EVER said this, EVER." Sometimes I even do something weird, thinking "No one has EVER done this, EVER." Purple monkeys do make good hairnets. Ha.
Conclusion
The longest and best issue of Trinity Denied has reached its end. I was going to put a letter to the editor in this issue with a subject of "Trueth" [sic]. I figured "why waste money on printing it?" It was your basic "I don't come to judge you, but believe you silly-Christians-who-just-don't- know-it, or go to hell!" rant. Those responses will be ignored. I will not be patronized by those who have no authority to do so. And no authority to do so exists, so ha!
Credits
Trinity Denied Issue #4: Month Two, and still no Antichrist
Final editing done on November 6, 1997.
Actual final editing done some time in February, 1998.
All articles in this issue were written by Andrew Jones.
All articles are the property of their authors.
Contacting Trinity Denied
E-Mail: TDenied@Hotmail.Com
WWW: members.aol.com/LHumongous/tdenied.html
Farewell, Anton Szandor LaVey...In your words you will live forever.
Hail Satan!
Hail Azazel!(heh)
