It was the right call at the time. Now that the ONA army has moved on, perhaps moderators would be willing to change the rule. @Quagmire made it or at least was the public face of it, ask him.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To those who follow Joy of Satan and do the Dedicating your soul Ritual to Lucifer/Satan.
- Thread starter Luciferi Baphomet
- Start date
It was the right call at the time. Now that the ONA army has moved on, perhaps moderators would be willing to change the rule. @Quagmire made it or at least was the public face of it, ask him.
What's unethical to one person may be ethical to another.
Thanks - I'll ask Quagmire.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
I don't know who it was or what posts, but I bet a bottom dollar it was O9A and not ONA
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
well sheeee-it, wouldn't that be all of the Abrahamic faiths as well? Why aren't they banned?
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
It's no secret Setians and ONA are at war with one another . . .
Give me a break.
I'm just showing why the ban occurred. I didn't do it, I don't even have the ability.
The tradition challenges many of today's LHP organizations. If you study more of the tradition it may perhaps change ones perception of today's groups of the LHP. I don't adhere to The tradition myself, but I tend to side with the traditions view on certain things. For one thing I find it interesting of disrupting modern Western society.
Last edited:
Some ONA texts give lip service to "culling" people (actual human sacrifice). Not that I think any has really went through with it, but it's in their writings. The JoS is content to believe that they are attacking Jews and Synagogues through rituals.
One advocates doing something illegal, one is just disgusting. The site banned ONA discussion due to wanting to have a wider margin against any potential legal issues getting in the way of the forum's operations, I'd imagine.
With that said, the ONA does a lot less damage than the JoS, although I think that ONA is much more interesting. I don't mind discussion of things that most people think are terrible (serial killers, Nazi's whatever), but that doesn't mean I endorse or like those things. We shouldn't assume that someone who likes a subject endorses or promotes that thing. So I don't see why discussing the ONA should remain banned, but I could see why promoting and/or explicit agreement with the criminal aspects should be banned. Just in the same way we can discuss Nazi's on this board in the appropriate sections, without actually engaging in anything illegal or against rule 6:
6. Illegal Activities
Advocating or discussing personal engagement in illegal activities or criminal organizations (such as hate groups or terrorist groups) is prohibited in all areas of RF. Illegal activities are defined based on United States law, and include but are not limited to: drug use, theft, piracy, vandalism, and all violent crimes. Voicing opposition to illegal activities and criminal organizations, or debating changes to current criminal law, may be acceptable at the discretion of the RF staff.
Now, based on my understanding of that, discussion of ONA by itself shouldn't be banned, although it is. I would consider JoS to be a hate group but not a "criminal organization" and calling ONA a "criminal organization" or claiming that any "ONA" group have actually committed any crimes is pretty laughable (there are none known and I doubt any ever were). The two things I've noticed that define ONA inspired groups is both their lack of actually doing anything and their lack of organization or structure. "Anton Long" basically made up the whole ONA thing, and all these 'ONA' groups are just whoever says they wanna be ONA. But there isn't any ONA, and there never was at least as described by Anton Long.
One advocates doing something illegal, one is just disgusting. The site banned ONA discussion due to wanting to have a wider margin against any potential legal issues getting in the way of the forum's operations, I'd imagine.
With that said, the ONA does a lot less damage than the JoS, although I think that ONA is much more interesting. I don't mind discussion of things that most people think are terrible (serial killers, Nazi's whatever), but that doesn't mean I endorse or like those things. We shouldn't assume that someone who likes a subject endorses or promotes that thing. So I don't see why discussing the ONA should remain banned, but I could see why promoting and/or explicit agreement with the criminal aspects should be banned. Just in the same way we can discuss Nazi's on this board in the appropriate sections, without actually engaging in anything illegal or against rule 6:
6. Illegal Activities
Advocating or discussing personal engagement in illegal activities or criminal organizations (such as hate groups or terrorist groups) is prohibited in all areas of RF. Illegal activities are defined based on United States law, and include but are not limited to: drug use, theft, piracy, vandalism, and all violent crimes. Voicing opposition to illegal activities and criminal organizations, or debating changes to current criminal law, may be acceptable at the discretion of the RF staff.
Now, based on my understanding of that, discussion of ONA by itself shouldn't be banned, although it is. I would consider JoS to be a hate group but not a "criminal organization" and calling ONA a "criminal organization" or claiming that any "ONA" group have actually committed any crimes is pretty laughable (there are none known and I doubt any ever were). The two things I've noticed that define ONA inspired groups is both their lack of actually doing anything and their lack of organization or structure. "Anton Long" basically made up the whole ONA thing, and all these 'ONA' groups are just whoever says they wanna be ONA. But there isn't any ONA, and there never was at least as described by Anton Long.
Last edited:
I'm sorry about my response here. Yesterday was just a bad day.
I'm mainly concerned that someone will actually act out some of the ideas floating around on the Internet, which is why I tend to push the whole ethics thing. Nobody is going to Xeper rotting in jail.
Aštra’el
Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
So you say... despite obvious overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Okay, so the prohibition it seems only ever applied to the LHP DIR. It appears that we can discuss ONA in the 'open' debate forums (i.e. outside the DIR) if we want to (as long as we stay the right side of Forum rules, as we would have to when discussing any other topics)...Does somebody want to start a thread out there?
As much as I respect the Temple of Set and many Setians of who'm I admire. I also respect the O.N.A., the O.N.A doesn't whitewash their Satanism unlike many modern satanic organizations.
I don't push the whole ethics thing I am the exact opposite. As much as I adhere to some ethics from the COS. I believe in creating my own rules and law. The tradition itself does not believe in a right or wrong but would instead create their own laws and rules which I might agree with. As to my own opinion it does not necessarily concern me if a person would act out on their ideas off of the internet. It's their buisness not mine.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Is that what happened? I had no idea . . .
All good points. I guess nothing I would say would prevent anyone from doing anything stupid, so I think I'll not mention it again.
I never intended to force any particular ethical code down anyone's throat, and quite frankly, I'm not sure I really have much to offer in that regard anyway.
Per the OP, I did the whole contract with Satan thing when I was in middle school (before being exposed to any books or organizations). It's a ridiculous idea to me now, but I can't say I didn't have a little fun doing it.
It would be better to use red ink in a fountain pen though, as the real thing just turns brown and looks ugly.
