posted
I was talking with a family member last night about an incident several years ago involving Satan Worship. As I was talking about it, I realized that Christianity is the only religion I can think of that has an opposite religion/worship that stems as a reaction to its’ core beliefs.
I am not sure if I am right--I am not a religion expert. Has anyone heard of a religion that spawns a shadow like Satanism does to Christianity? Is there some opposite Buddha sect somewhere preaching AGAINST enlightenment through peaceful ponderings? Is there a branch of Islam that worships the opposite of what Mohammad taught?
I am not talking about extremist like terrorists or crusaders; I am talking about a religious shadow like Satanism is to Christianity.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting thought. In some ways, couldn't Satanism be, oddly, a heretical version of Christianity, based on the opposite of its teachings?
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is exactly how I have viewed Satanism. I wonder if there ane any other religions that have a "heretical version." IF not, I wonder if that means anything. Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there are splits off of Christianity itself other than that. I know there are several religions that have split into different sects. Buddism and Hinduism are just a couple.
Really, Satanism's not much different. Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are all kinds of "heretical" religions, and in fact many of the mainstream religions we see today sprung up as heresies originally. That said, there aren't many heresies which stand, like Satanism, diametrically and deliberately opposed to their parent -- although there have been a few since Zoroastrianism first (to my knowledge) introduced the idea of good/evil deistic dualism. Modern Satanism is largely a fictional invention of fundamentalist Christians, however, mixed with a bit of Ayn-Randian triumph of the self (by way of Crowley, natch.)
I suppose you can blame Milton for that one, if you have to.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Satanism is a "split" from Christianity. Satanism is in opposition to Christianity. Whether you are Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, or whatever, all Christianity seems to have some interpretation of Christ as the central figure to look up to. Satanism is a completely different religion that is in opposition to Christ and Christ's teachings. It is "Bizaaro World" Christianity.
Maybe the only reason there is a Satanist religion in the shadow of Christianity is because Christianity defines an evil persona. If evil is not personified elsewhere, there is no one to worship.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Modern Satanism is largely a fictional invention of fundamentalist Christians
So cat mutilators who make sacrifices for Satan and Satanic books in many bookstores are just an invention of fundamentalist Christians?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you talking about the various Necronomicons? All balderdash, a hodge-podge of ancient Sumerian myth combined in a way to help perpetuate the joke HP Lovecraft started in the 30s.
posted
Would you consider voodoo to be in the same class as satanism? You could almost say that it is the opposite of the wickan and the white witches (though it is somewhat of a stretch).
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm reasonably sure there is nothing particularly evil about voodoun. However, now that I think of it, I think there are a relatively small number of voodoun practitioners who worship the group of loa who are considered "evil".
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess if you consider Christianity to be a pantheon religion like, oh, the Norse gods or the Roman gods then there ISN'T an opposite religion...just different facets of the same religion. For a person to "believe" in Satan he must also "believe" in Jesus. It is one thing to think the whole religion is hooey but quite another to really have faith...but then deny the teachings of that faith! So I would put God, Satan, Lucifer, Jesus, Holy Ghost, Gabriel, etc. in the same sort of light as Thor, Odin, Loki, Baldur, Frey, etc. Just facets of the same belief system. Not opposites.
posted
I also agree with Tom, though. Satanism is pretty much a boogy man created by the Christians, not a real organized religion by any means. I am sure there are cults that call themselves Satanists but there are Cults who worship "Bob" and others who worship "Baal" and others who worship "whatever." Fundamentalists tended to see Satanists in anyone who they feared...gays/lesbians, people who played D&D, people who listened to certain rock music, people who read certain books...spook stories and paranoia and maybe a bit of propaganda.
posted
I would say that voodoo, candomble, and other versions of "mesa preta" spiritualism are all derived from African traditions, so in the sens of this thread, they are not like Satanism. What they seem to share with Satanism (or the myth of Satanism) is that part of these traditions is that if you revere dark "gods", they will grant you dark powers that many people would call evil.
quote: For a person to "believe" in Satan he must also "believe" in Jesus.
fil, In my opinion, there is a big difference between believing that Satan or Jesus exist and "believing in" them (i.e. worshipping them), so I have to disagree with that statement.
As James said (James 2:19) "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."
Posts: 107 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can disagree, sure, but even James agrees with me. Devils believe, they just freak out about it...'cause they are on the losing side. Maybe you are thinking of "worship" in place of "believe?" Believe, to me, is simply the act of thinking that there really is a God and a Satan. For you to believe in one, you must believe in the other. You can only worship one of them, though. I was using the common usage of the word "Believe" not the more focused, sacred and personal version.
posted
Satanism, as I understand it, accepts the Christian construction of the universe and just chooses to worship the negative rather than the positive personage in the dualism that Christianity sets up. Although I suppose that from an objective point of view, characterizations like "positive" and "negative" would be seen as subjective judgments, for all that I think most of us here would be more likely to make the judgment that Christ = positive and Satan = negative.
Oh, and for those who might be tempted to equate Wiccan beliefs and Satanism in any way - you probably should keep in mind that all the Wiccans I know get a bit testy about that. Their point of view is that it is ridiculous to say that their religion has anything to do with Satan. "Why," one friend of mine asks, "would I worship a personage I don't believe exists? Satan is a Christian concept and we aren't Christians." Just by way of information, and all.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its kind of silly that someone would worship Satan over Christ. If you have to beleive in Christ to worship Satan why would you turn your back on what you believe to be the truth? Doesnt make sense to me.
Maybe so you get something in this life so Satan gets something from you in the next?
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believe in Satan because you revel in death, destruction and chaos - all the evil that men do, you embrace. And its a convienent excuse for torturing small animals, abusing children and indulging your base desires.
Or, like the "Church of Satan", you believe that Christians got it wrong and Satan isn't evil, but rather a cosmic force (or something like that).
It is possible to believe in something without subscribing to the mainstream interpretation of it. Hence the many variations on Christianity.
Personally - eh. Every faith proclaims itself to be the one, true way. If God is indeed all-knowing, He/She/It is aware of why I don't believe. And if I'm damned to Hell for that, Heaven was never worth being in.
posted
There is another opposite that has not yet been mentioned, and this one may get me into some trouble here.
I believe that one of the opposites to true Christianity is practiced Christianity. Jesus taught compasion and tolerance for those with different cultures or beliefs (the good samaritan parable, for example). In truth, many self called Christians and their sects practice the worst form of exclusionism and religious intollerance.
I have walked into religious book stores that claimed to be Christian book stores and found entire sections of books that do nothing but run down Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's WItnesses, Adventists, and Christian Scientists. I was very offended by this on one occasion and said something to the store's owner. I asked why a "supposedly" (and that word offended her) Christian book store would stock books that ran down five other major Christian religions. Her response was that they were the worlds largest satanic cults and were not Christian at all. I picked up a few of these books and discovered that they were all printed at a place called Baptist Publishing House. I asked the woman and she said that the store was owned by the local first baptist church. I have found this to be the same in many towns.
So, they opposite of true Christianity must be practiced fundamentalist Christianity/
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Won't get you in trouble with me for pointing that out. It has been my experience that a lot of Christians spend way too much of their time trying to read other Christians out of the religion. Which I think is kind of stupid, since to me Christian basically means "a follower of Christ". Yet all of this reading in and out is based not on whether people believe Jesus to be the Christ, but on differences (sometimes rather microscopic differences) in dogma. Quite counterproductive, IMO.
Edit to reply to your last point: Although I wouldn't really restrict it to "fundamentalist" Christians - I've heard some pretty mainstream Christians do the same thing to the fundies, and they don't have any right to do it either, as far as I can see. No matter who does it, it comes out to judgmentalism that shouldn't be going on.
posted
The one fundamental religious notation that I have ever heard and believed follows thusly:
quote:Man is fundamentally flawed.
To that end, nobody can really agree on what the "True" faith is, but they all know they have it. And, if indeed they do have it, obviously nobody else can right.
After all, why follow a faith you know to be wrong and not follow the correct faith?
The blindness of faith is the inability to recognize the inherent assumption upon which faith is based.
As someone once noted, "I refuse to die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
quote:Satanism, as I understand it, accepts the Christian construction of the universe and just chooses to worship the negative rather than the positive personage in the dualism that Christianity sets up.
Can anyone think of another religion that accepts the tenets of the original religion and choose to worship the negative? Or is this only found in Christianity because it sets up a dualistic universe?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Christianity does not set up a dualist universe in any classic sense. Satan is not God's opposite, but Gabriel's (or Michael, whichever one's the best). There is the Creator, and the created.
posted
Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and four others have the position of Archangels (I have never seen the other four named, and Raphael is not named in the canonized Bible, but in apocraphyl writtings). They are generally thought to be the seven angels that will blow the seven trumps (Revelation).
I don't think it is possible to decide which one is "best."
While some believe that Satan may once have held this rank (the verse from Isaiah that reads "How art though fallen, Oh Lucifer, son of the morning.... and the references in Revelation), you should also look at the New Testament verses that say that he was a liar from the very beginning. (Sorry, I do not have a bible near my computer and am too lazy to go looking for one right now).
Islam seeks their roots through the eldest son of Abraham (through Hagar the handmaid0, while Christians and Jews derive through Isaac. Under this idea, Christians and Satanists just trace their roots through different sons (one Son capitalized, the other not) of the same God!
I must disagree with other posters who feel that most Satan worship is persecution derived and was mostly nonexistant. Even in Old Testament times, you had the worship of Baal, Beelzebub, and Molech. The Biblical era Hebrews were told to avoid these people and these practices, to such a point that they were commanded in Exodus not to allow a witch to live.
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
...which may be a mistranslation, with the word "witch" used in the KJV where the Hebrew means something closer to "poisoner"...anyone have more info?
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Satanism, to totally clear the myths and suppositions up, is not any one thing. It is definitely not something that is or was created to be diametrically opposed to Christianity, nor does it even require acceptance of Christian faith in the Divine in almost all respects. The term began as a wide-berthed pejorative aimed at anyone who was not Christian, in the "if you are not for us, you are against us" sense. It has since taken on many different and often unrelated forms, from intentional lampooning of Christian rite and ritual, to the more popular Humanist movement that snubs its nose at every other religion based in the Divine, including Judaism, Islam, Hindu, as well as Christianity.
It can easily be said that there existed no such system of belief called "Satanism" before the 17th century. In fact, it can additionally be argued that no group called themselves "Satanists" during or after the Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries). Of course, this Humanism-that-would-become-known-as-Satanism did not take seed at this time. Indeed, it was earlier works from authors during the Renaissance, which happened at different times in different nations, where the very beginnings of Humanistic thought took root.
These Humanists, though, were not the first to be labelled as Satanists. In fact, it began far before even the Crusades. Before the Dark Ages, even. Back before the Council of Nicea, where Roman emperor Constantine brought together many leaders in the Christian sects to develop what is now called the Bible, there existed many Christian groups who don't resemble any Christian organization today. Some of these were the Ebionites, the Marcionites, and the various "Gnostics." After the Bible canon was agreed upon during the Council of Nicea, and even before and during the deliberations, many of these less-populous sects were labelled heretical and "satanic" (though not using that term, as far as I know), and were said to be undermining and trying to weaken that which these larger groups—under the protection of emperor Constantine—were claiming as Christ's rightful church. Many of these groups were either forced to convert or exiled (or worse), and most records of their doctrines were destroyed (though obviously, some still exist today for us to know of them). Regardless, this is an example of where the "not with us means against us" mentality took root, and eventually found its way in the form that people in the 20th century—because the term as far as an organized religion didn't show up until the 1900's—have come to know (and fear) most things Satanic.
After the fall of Rome, and the subsequent splintering of the lands, there was a general lawlessness that existed throughout Europe. However, thanks to the legitimacy given to them by Constantine, Christians spent most of the time leading to the fall in the late fifth century building their own infrastructure separate-but-similar to the Roman governmental structure. This meant that after Rome was no more and the only real currency was land and protection, the now-valid Christian church had the infrastructure to sustain itself spread out over a great deal of the continent. There were cathedrals (smaller churches, actually) right next to where Roman governors' buildings used to stand. There was a bishop for every Roman governor. The Roman Catholic church owned more than a third of the land throughout Europe, and held onto it in most cases. So, while the vassals and serfs of the Dark Ages eventually became the lords (and knights) and serfs of slightly later, the church remained forever present, and remaining a commodity due to their land ownership and practical corner market on literacy, recordings (business and personal), and advisement. It was during this time when many of the saints of the (Catholic) church would appear, often in stories and situations strikingly similar to the mystic fables and myths that the "pagan" or "barbarian" peoples of the many lands often spoke of. Gouls and spirits of these non-Christian tribes would often become the demons and devils of religious lore, with the heroes always being a vessel of God, imbued with his light and might and power. It was no wonder so many converted or deferred to the (Catholic) church, and in the context of the times, often for quite sensible reasons. Those who did not convert or defer to the church, the "pagans," would be labelled as demon and devil worshippers. Once again, the "not with us then against us" mentality comes into play.
Some of those sects mentioned earlier did not just disappear completely. Some flourished for a time in the Byzantine Empire. The Bogomils, for example, were a church who were considered by the mainstream Christian churches of both Dark Ages Europe and the Byzantine Empire to be heritical at best (flat-out Satan worshippers at worst). During one of the Crusades, Pope Innocent III ordered the wholesale slaughter of the Christian Albigensians by calling them Satanic and anti-Christian, though like the Bogomils were neither, they just didn't agree with the (Catholic) Church.
Skipping ahead some, we can begin looking at other influences that led to the Humanist ideals that would eventually coalesce into what is considered today "Satanism." Possibly surprising to some would be the likes of Giovanni Boccaccio, who openly criticised the hypocrisy within the (Catholic) church and showed contempt for clergy with his bawdy tales. While using a disclaimer to have his work published, he also claimed to champion "true Humanism" (both the good and the bad). Jumping around, there is also Christopher Marlowe, whose story of Faustus, the man who sold his soul in exchange for feeling every human sensation during his life, was a direct challenge of the afterlife that the Christianity promised everyone who was pure of heart and spirit. The "do as you will" paradise written of by Francois Rabelais has been usurped verbatim by the present-day Church of Satan.
However, all of these influences did not a Satanic faith make. Yes, there were a few instances of "Black Mass" here and there, but they were always direct parodies of Catholic mass, and are not recorded as having been pointed directly to any actual acts of faith rather than an open and sarcastic contempt for the Christian (Catholic) church. It wasn't until the late (or end of the) 19th century that the beginnings of Satanism—as something more than an atheistic mockery of Christianity or an accusation made at something that is not Christian—first began to coalesce. Aleister Crowley is quite probably the most notorious for this solidification. His numerous books of mysticism, as well as his attempts at trying to establish multiple religions under the guidance of what he claimed was his "holy guardian angel," would be based on a hodge-podge mixture of many different cultures and religious practices, taking bits and pieces from sources ranging from the Catholic Church to ancient Egyptians to the pagan tribes that lived in England and were considered "witches" and demon-worshippers. From Crowley would come the spelling of the word "magic" with the "k" in it ("magick"), as well as the basic ideas for organization that modern-day "witch" religions (including the very young Wiccan faith) would use as a foundation. His "do what thou wilt" line was a direct copy of earlier work, as was the majority of his philosophical writings, and his "history" of things mystical are completely without a factual leg to stand on without disregarding almost all other historical evidence in existence. He died in 1947 a heroin addict who had been all but rejected from the publishing community.
Now, scandalous ending or no, Crowley's writing had quite an effect on the young Anton Lavey, who would go on to write the "Satanic Bible" which Taalcon either completely misunderstood when linking it or did not know what it contained. Lavey, unlike Crowley, claimed no spiritual guide or mystical being as his inspiration, and freely admits that his only reason for using "Satan" at all is to intentionally rankle the religious community. Most of his life was spent dispelling the myths of mysticism and divination, and almost all of his writings revolve mainly around a self-centered, intellectual humanism. In fact, the Church of Satan, Lavey's brain-child, is a completely atheistic organized religion based completely on humans reveling in and celebrating their own selfishness and self-appointed superiority, often at the expense of religion (with Christianity being a favorite target, of course). The only "Satan" in Lavey's church is the realization of individual humanism, not some biblical "baddie" of a spiritual nature. The rituals and rites described in Lavey's writings are based (almost) solely on the fabrications of Crowley, or made up from his own imagination. To the Church of Satan, this is not a weakening fact, it is an empowering one: that something powerful can result from the mind of a (hu)man.
So, to sum up, the idea that Satanism is a religion that cannot exist without Christianity being valid is ridiculous, at best. The accusations of Satanism throughout history are the direct result of groups either not being ecumenically in-line with the mainstream church(es), or were intentional sardonic spoofs of Christian rite and rituals made intentionally to insult and/or enrage Christians. Even the fantastic writings of Crowley and the organized subculture of Lavey—both of which are the most cogent foundation for what is today considered Satanism—are not tied to Christianity in any way other than dismissal and contempt. Until Lavey decided to wear the name as a badge, "Satanist" was an insult thrown at anyone who did not accept mainstream Christianity as valid—something one would think the LDS on this forum would appreciate more than most, having spent many years being labelled a "Satanic cult." There simply does not exist a religion called "Satanism" that accepts Christian faith as being in any way valid.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of religion:
quote:I must disagree with other posters who feel that most Satan worship is persecution derived and was mostly nonexistant. Even in Old Testament times, you had the worship of Baal, Beelzebub, and Molech. The Biblical era Hebrews were told to avoid these people and these practices, to such a point that they were commanded in Exodus not to allow a witch to live.
No offense intended, but you are seriously misinformed about the first Commandment, and the cultural context of the early Herbrews. First, the Commandment reads (almost literally translated): "There shall be no other god before me," not "There shall be no other god but me." You would be additionally incorrect in assuming—as modern Christian theology likes to assume—that these Hebrews were completely monotheistic in nature. As a matter of fact, they were not. Stories of the walls of Jericho and the bloody slaughter of the Phillistines aside, most historical evidence (as well as some text from the Old Testament... Ruth, I believe, is one) points to a very different establishment of the kingdom of Israel. This very different take has Hebrews and Philistines coexisting, with Hebrews making their kingdom in the Promised Land through integration and economic development. During this time, the worship of gods like Baal were not punished. In fact, as long as the Hebrew G-d was placed first, it was allowed by many (away from Hebrew temples). The establishment of Judaism (not called "Judaism" until the occupation of Rome, named for the Judean Hebrews) as a monotheistic religion can be roughly estimated to have occurred between around 800-600 BCE, long after the establishment of the kingdom of Israel.
Rivka can feel free to clear up any place I have possibly made a mistake, but I can assure you that your take on the mistranslations of the Mosaic laws and the Ten Commandments (for Hebrews, there were over 600, I believe) are not correct.
[edited to remove offensive link... I apologize, rivka]
[ July 08, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka absolutely refuses to read anything from come-and-hear. I have read enough of their stuff in the past to know that they blend mistranslated verses and twisted concepts, conflate ideas and verses that are actually very different, and do their absolute best to make traditional Judaism look as bad as possible.
Ain't playing.
(As it happens, I also disagree with your interpretation of the first commandment and the history of Jewish monotheism. But I expect you knew that.)
OTOH, it seems odd to me to assume that ancient idolatry has much to do with modern Satanism. And the "witch" verse is much debated, and I am not familiar enough with it to comment.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always assumed that the first commandment was not a statement of the existence of only one god, but a statement that the Hebrews were thenceforth not to put any god before the god of the ten commandments.
And, indeed, in my Biblical studies classes at university, it was taken as a matter of fact that the Hebrews were not monotheists at first. Of course, this was at a Christian university, and Rivka, being our expert in this area, is fully welcome to correct me on this point if necessary.
Oh, and the dualism I was referring to in my last post was not that of God/Satan, but that of good/evil. I have no idea if this dualism is formally established anywhere, but it certainly is a huge working assumption within Christianity as I am aware of it. Not that they were the only ones to think of it, of course.
posted
I don't care about the site itself, as it was just another link in a long list of similar ones.
However, how do you account for the evidence of coexistence between Hebrews and Philistines? How about the evidence found in the 80's that have come to the conclusion that they were the same people to begin with (that had obviously different religious views)? What about the claims made in that second link? The first link mostly discusses fringe sectarian groups anyway, just as an example that Judaism as it exists today was not always as it exists today.
Are you saying that you deny that ancient Hebrews did not deny the existance of other gods, but worshipped their G-d according to their covenant and the laws of Moses while maintaining a henotheism with regard to the existance of other gods?
I'm asking this not to challenge your faith or disprove you, I would just prefer you dispute what I say, and not a site that I did not author. I can understand questioning the veracity of a certain site, especially if it regularly borders on anti-semitic (my apologies if so). However, what I've been saying is something that is generally discussed in scholarly circles as well, and I would have a hard time believing that historians and professors around the country are part of some anti-semitic agenda.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One certainly need not have an anti-Semitic agenda to make historical claims that I disagree with.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about a Jewish source that says something close to what I said (though much more compressed and slightly different)?
What part do you not agree with? That ancient Hebrews did not deny the existence of other gods? That monotheism did not take root in the ancient Hebrews until some time after 800 BCE? That my original point that assuming ancient Hebrews were the same monotheism that Christian theology teaches today is incorrect?
Help me out. What part do you disagree with?
edit: if I edit out the link to that site, can we discuss it without the obvious distaste the site I linked caused you? I don't want it to be the basis of the disagreement.
[ July 05, 2004, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Even in Old Testament times, you had the worship of Baal, Beelzebub, and Molech."
Yes. But this was not reactionary satanism. It was the worship of Baal and Molech. (Beelzebub is just an insulting Hebraic nickname for Baal.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
T, you're a newbie. The ads displayed on the bottom are context-sensitive and designed to relate in some way to what is being discussed in the thread. (You can check it out on other threads, just for fun; this is pretty popular sport around here.) So something about this discussion of satanism, Molech, and the like has somehow become associated in Google's "mind" with Scientology.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I did not know that about the google ads. You have opened an entire new form of entertainment for me on hatrack. Thank you!
So beatnix19's thread on being left came up with a Mercedes ad. I find that funny. Guess if you are a guy and get divorced, the natural inclination is to get a fast car and a young woman. Google nails it again. I think I will buy a share or two.
You go beatnix19! Have fun with your therapy.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about thuggees? They worshipped Kali, the Hindu goddess of destruction, and viewed assassination as a religious duty.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well - I'd have to look at the Thuggee belief system more closely, but one could argue that death is a function of life and should be embraced as such.
Without removing the old, the new cannot flourish.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
