• OK, maybe I 'm being dense here but it sounds like you take being spiritual and merely add Satan and his demons into the mix? Why?

    "Now and then it's good to pause in our pursuit of happiness and just be happy."
    — Guillaume Apollinaire
    "Men and women are the two faces on the coin of humanity; to deface either of them is to devalue humanity." - Pru Goward
    "The Air Force pinned a medal on me for killing a man and discharged me for making love to one." - Leonard Matlovich
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 24 Jun 2009, 00:53
    NeedleDee said:
    OK, maybe I 'm being dense here but it sounds like you take being spiritual and merely add Satan and his demons into the mix? Why?


    Well, to be fair, why not? Why is it any less valid than any other mythological pantheon? A Satanist could just as easily ask, "OK, maybe I 'm being dense here but it sounds like you take pagan spirituality and merely add Jesus and the angels into the mix? Why?" Do you imagine that Christianity was first?

  • wwRoss said:Well, to be fair, why not? A good and fair point.
    wwRoss said: A Satanist could just as easily ask, "OK, maybe I 'm being dense here but it sounds like you take pagan spirituality and merely add Jesus and the angels into the mix? Why?"Well they could, but I would argue that those who follow Jesus are generally Christians. It may well have stolen much from the various Pagan religions, but Christianity is certainly not a pagan religion/way of life.

    Apart from Satanists, most pagans do not believe in the existence of Satan. As far as many pagans are concerned, Satan is a Christian notion. Though the notion of Satan is most likely a Zoroastrian notion, which is far older than Christianity.

    "Zoroaster also recognized Ahura Mazda's twin brother: Angra Manyu, (a.k.a. Ahriman) the God of Evil. The only things that he created were snakes, demons, and all of the world's evil. 2 The old gods of the previous polytheistic religion became the demons of the new faith. Thus, Ahriman became the first Devil that the world has seen, and his assistants became the first cohort of demons under the control of a all-evil deity"
    source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm (about 2/3rds down the page)

    "Now and then it's good to pause in our pursuit of happiness and just be happy."
    — Guillaume Apollinaire
    "Men and women are the two faces on the coin of humanity; to deface either of them is to devalue humanity." - Pru Goward
    "The Air Force pinned a medal on me for killing a man and discharged me for making love to one." - Leonard Matlovich
  • ** Apart from DEVIL WORSHIPERS / THEISTIC SATANISTS, most satanists do not believe in the existence of Satan as an entity either.

    There's no problem a few frag grenades can't fix.

    Cookies for Godlessness
    My Twin in life, love, mind, and music: ISoS
    The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So do the spirits who are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be spirit. -Nietzsche
  • RageofAnath said:
    ** Apart from DEVIL WORSHIPERS / THEISTIC SATANISTS, most satanists do not believe in the existence of Satan as an entity either.
    Really? I did not know that. In which case I stand corrected.

    "Now and then it's good to pause in our pursuit of happiness and just be happy."
    — Guillaume Apollinaire
    "Men and women are the two faces on the coin of humanity; to deface either of them is to devalue humanity." - Pru Goward
    "The Air Force pinned a medal on me for killing a man and discharged me for making love to one." - Leonard Matlovich
  • If we say about satanists understood as theistic ones, they are just bunch of idiots who worship a being that hates them.

    If we say about different kinds of satanists, they aren't so bad, but still creating a religion on a basis of blasphemy to a different one is rather despisable.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 21 Jul 2009, 21:51
    nezumi-szczur said:
    If we say about satanists understood as theistic ones, they are just bunch of idiots who worship a being that hates them.

    If we say about different kinds of satanists, they aren't so bad, but still creating a religion on a basis of blasphemy to a different one is rather despisable.


    Well, I don't know that it's this simplistic. Whether or not a Satanist defines Satan as a being or not, I rather doubt that in their conception of Satan that Satan hates them.

    Some historical perspective: Satan was originally the adversary, but not necessarily of God or even humans. He challenged a person's devotion to God for the purpose of weeding out the least faithful. He served a necessary function for God as part of his plan as part of God's very own entourage. He was like a stern lieutenant. This doctrine has evolved into a much simpler dichotomy, a battle between the two.

    Just as Christians have defined Satan in different ways at different times I would think a Satanist would have the freedom to define Satan in a way that best fits the rest of the Satanist doctrine.

    If I remember correctly, Lavey sets it up like this: Satanists believe in a God, but that the highest being in the universe is impersonal, so enormous that he has little time or energy for such a small speck as our planet and the people on it. Instead, Satan is a god or demigod that has taken interest and dominion over this specific world, so he's the being or power to tap into spiritually. I don't remember if he lays out a specific list of attributes for Satan, but teasing them out would be simple anyway just from reading the Satanic Bible.

    Far from Satan automatically hating humanity, I've read Satanist literature that speaks of Satan's love. The situation seems to be that instead Satan doesn't automatically have any emotion about any one particular entity, that much like with humans relating to other humans any sort of camaraderie would have to earned. The same with hatred toward humans; if you piss Satan off, then yes he will then hate you. I guess. It's been awhile since I delved into LaVey's work, but I'll go ahead and give them the benefit of the doubt here.

    As far as your statement about blasphemy I think you should be more mindful of your own religion's history. In a world full of polytheistic faiths how is a monotheistic one not a direct slap in the face? The first commandments were most definitely despicable to anyone that held belief in any other god(s) but the god of Moses.

  • I have to dispute your fourth paragraph that speaks of the LaVeyan satanism. It is my understanding that satanists do not believe in god. I do not remember reading it explicitly in The Satanic BIble, but I do remember interviews with the new Church of Satan grand magus Peter H. Gilmore in which he said that satanism starts with atheism. The Wikipedia page on the Church of Satanism confirms this: "Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, 'It’s indifferent. There’s no God, there’s no Devil. No one cares!'. Read a very interesting interview here.

    Meshuggah: "A combination of the powerful and the avant-garde, the band is as visceral and imposing an act as you’ll ever see and hear, guitarists Fredrik Thordendal, Mårten Hagström, and bassist Dick Lövgren hammering out lurching, monolithic riffs as they headbang in robotic unison, vocalist Jens Kidman barking out surreal verses like a twisted drill sergeant while gesticulating like a puppet on strings. - Adrien Begrand (PopMatters)
  • @wwRoss: don't treat me as a close-minded christian fanatic, because I am more a heretic. If we speak about satan worshippers (not LaVeyans or anything similar), they are some kind of sect which treats evil as something good. If we talk abvout theistic satanists - if they don't think that satan hates them and that he even loves them, why do they call him 'satan'. In Jewish, Christian and Muslim tradition, satan was an angel that found humanity to be inferior to angels and wanted to destroy people.

    In case of blasphemy - christians have done many wrong things, but it's nothing wrong with them existing. Christianity (and itss 'root' - judaism) was not based on being anti-pagan. Satanism was meant to be anti-christian.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 24 Jul 2009, 18:44

    Some quotes

    "In LaVey's view, the Devil was not that, but rather a dark, hidden force in nature responsible for the workings of earthly affairs, a force for which neither science nor religion had any explanation. LaVey's Satan is "the spirit of progress, the inspirer of all great movements that contribute to the development of civilization and the advancement of mankind."

    "The Roman god, Lucifer, was the bearer of light, the spirit of the air, the personification of enlightenment. In Christian mythology he became synonymous with evil, which was only to have been expected from a religion whose very existence is perpetuated by clouded definitions and bogus values! It is time to set the record straight. False moralisms and occult inaccuracies must be corrected. Entertaining as they might be, most stories and plays about Devil worship must be recognized as the obsolete absurdities they are."

    "It is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in God. The concept of "God", as interpreted by man, has been so varied throughout the ages, that the Satanist simply accepts the definition which suits him best. Man has always created his gods, rather than his gods creating him. God is, to some, benign - to others, terrifying. To the Satanist "God" - by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all - is seen as the balancing factor in nature, and not as being concerned with suffering. This powerful force which permeates and balances the universe is far too impersonal to care about the happiness or misery of flesh-and-blood creatures on this ball of dirt upon which we live."


    Read it yourself here.

    Edited by a deleted user on 24 Jul 2009, 20:06
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 24 Jul 2009, 18:55
    nezumi-szczur said:
    @wwRoss: don't treat me as a close-minded christian fanatic, because I am more a heretic. If we speak about satan worshippers (not LaVeyans or anything similar), they are some kind of sect which treats evil as something good. If we talk abvout theistic satanists - if they don't think that satan hates them and that he even loves them, why do they call him 'satan'. In Jewish, Christian and Muslim tradition, satan was an angel that found humanity to be inferior to angels and wanted to destroy people.

    In case of blasphemy - christians have done many wrong things, but it's nothing wrong with them existing. Christianity (and itss 'root' - judaism) was not based on being anti-pagan. Satanism was meant to be anti-christian.


    I'm not treating you any way at all. I don't know you. You write and I respond and vice versa, each of us treating each others' words and ideas.

    As far as your defense of Christianity existing. I don't see how you've shown that Christian doctrine wasn't blasphemous to competing faiths of the day or how it's not today for that matter. True, Satanism is more forward about being blasphemous, but that's part of their actual doctrine, to be egotistic, forward, loud, rude. So, how is it not okay for "them existing" as well?

    I'm just trying to understand what you're saying and set up my own points in a way that will move the debate/discussion forward. I can only do this as best I see fit, and I really don't know why you took offense in the first place.

    "if they don't think that satan hates them and that he even loves them, why do they call him 'satan'. In Jewish, Christian and Muslim tradition, satan was an angel that found humanity to be inferior to angels and wanted to destroy people."

    I already covered that. They can define him any way they want. It can simply be a matter of claiming that the other religions have it wrong, that their definition of Satan in particular is wrong. This is not atypical of religion, any religion.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 24 Jul 2009, 18:57
    Waldheri said:
    I have to dispute your fourth paragraph that speaks of the LaVeyan satanism. It is my understanding that satanists do not believe in god. I do not remember reading it explicitly in The Satanic BIble, but I do remember interviews with the new Church of Satan grand magus Peter H. Gilmore in which he said that satanism starts with atheism. The Wikipedia page on the Church of Satanism confirms this: "Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, 'It’s indifferent. There’s no God, there’s no Devil. No one cares!'. Read a very interesting interview here.


    Then their doctrine has evolved. Good for them, but that seems to be very different from what LaVey set up. See the quotes and link I posted above.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 24 Jul 2009, 19:18
    nezumi-szczur said:
    @wwRoss: don't treat me as a close-minded christian fanatic, because I am more a heretic.


    To go further, I can only go off of what I know about things. If I seem to be treating you like you're naive it's rather that I'm setting up the mainstream opinion because that's the only starting point I have until you tell me how you see it concerning any particular issue or topic.

    When I say something like "Some historical perspective" and then go on to set that perspective up, it's not me saying "you're stupid, so I'm going to tell you how things really are and what you're supposed to believe." It's me saying "this is what I know or have read about this particular subject, so now how do your personal beliefs differ or diverge from this?"

    On the issue of the definition of Satan: there are different perspectives I'm sure and we're both just drawing from different sources. Here is one of mine: "Originally, this figure was the one who challenged the religious faith of humans in the Hebrew Bible." That's from the Wiki article on Satan. That's not what actually informed my idea of how Satan was originally defined. I've read it elsewhere, studying religion in college and watching learning channel specials. I'm just citing it.

    Like I said I can only go off what I know or how I understand something. From what I understood this really was the original conception of Satan.

    Satan # 2.2 In the Bible says:
    Where Satan does appear in the Bible, he plays the role of the Accuser.

    According to the article on 'Satan' in the Jewish Encyclopedia, Satan's role as the accuser is found:

    in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: 'From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.' (Job 1:7) Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as having the evil purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering. (ib. ii. 3-5.)

    Yet it is also evident from the prologue that Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress. He cannot be regarded, therefore, as an opponent of the Deity; and the doctrine of monotheism is disturbed by his existence no more than by the presence of other beings before the face of God. This view is also retained in Zech. 3:1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the 'angel of the Lord' who bids him be silent in the name of God.

    In both of these passages Satan acts only under permission; but in I Chron. 21:1 he appears as one who is able to provoke David to destroy Israel. The Chronicler (third century B.C.) regards Satan as an independent agent, a view which is the more striking since the source whence he drew his account (II Sam. 24:1) speaks of God Himself as the one who moved David against the children of Israel. Since the older conception refers all events, whether good or bad, to God alone, (I Sam. 16:14; I Kings 22:22; Isa. 45:7; etc) it is possible that the Chronicler, and perhaps even Zechariah, were influenced by Zoroastrianism, even though in the case of the prophet Jewish monism strongly opposed Iranian dualism. (Stave, Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judenthum, pp. 253 et seq.) An immediate influence of the Babylonian concept of the 'accuser, persecutor, and oppressor' (Schrader, K. A. T. 3d ed., p. 463) is impossible, since traces of such an influence, if it had existed, would have appeared in the earlier portions of the Bible."

  • @wwRoss: the idea of christianity was to believe in one God and other stuff everyone knows from the Bible (as well as some apocryphical books, which shouldn't be forgotten - even if we can't say that they were written by disciples or other Biblical figures, they are stil philosophically interesting). ofcourse, christians started fighting with other religions, but it wasn't the original idea of christianity (Jesus even healed children of a pagan woman in one of the Gospels). Satanism was always partially about mocking Abrahamic religions, destroying their symbols, making sexual paordies of their rituals etc.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 25 Jul 2009, 19:44
    We've hit a brick wall here. I guess it just doesn't bother me. In your original post that sparked this you called Satanists despicable for creating a faith in direct opposition or mockery of Xianity. Here, you're just saying it again, and I'm just defending it again. If that's what their religion is, then that's what it is. I guess to me, it's like . . . so what? Maybe it's because I'm not a Christian, but I can't see what's so offensive about Satanism; it's too pathetic and childish to really get me angry. Satanism is too silly to me for me to find it despicable. The original intent doesn't get to me either; a Satanist destroying a sacred symbol is no worse to me than the Crusades or the Inquisition. That and it's hard for me to imagine that they didn't have their own personal reasons for wanting to rebel against Xianity. According to their doctrine it's useful and important to them. We've got to just leave it at this I think. You have your emotional reaction and I have mine; they're just going to be different. Make no mistake. I'm not justifying Satanism. I'm not telling you that your feelings toward it are wrong. I'm just explaining why my feelings toward it are completely different.

  • Well, I understand it. I am not saying that satanism is worse than Inquisition or Crussades but it doesn't mean that it's good. But Inquisition and Crussades were actually contradictory to Jesus' words. And satanists desacrating holy symbols, vandalizing churches etc. are fulfilling their doctrine. As someone (I don't remember who) said - 'the ideas are not responsible for what people do with them'. But when idea is violent and blasphemous, how can people follow it in a different way?

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 26 Jul 2009, 20:23
    I was talking more about ritualistic rebellion like mocking the communion with a black mass.

    Well, my feelings toward actual violence and destruction are the same for all religions. Obviously I don't support it. I think I see your point now. But today are there really that many of those kind of Satanists? As far as I knew research on violent, abusive Satanic cult activity suggested that it was mostly nonexistent, that it was local legend, rumor and oversensationalized media nonsense. I always thought that the FBI had investigated any such reports and 99% of the time they've found no evidence for such activity.

  • But today are there really that many of those kind of Satanists? As far as I knew research on violent, abusive Satanic cult activity suggested that it was mostly nonexistent, that it was local legend, rumor and oversensationalized media nonsense. I always thought that the FBI had investigated any such reports and 99% of the time they've found no evidence for such activity.

    QFT.

    Nezumi, your reaction would be quite justified if the satanists you describe actually existed beyond a few punk kids in their parent's basement. The fact is, Satanism is generally NOT about any of the things you describe, and wwRoss has attempted to show this to you, but you simply closed your ears and made a definitional retreat instead of engaging the material. Why did you even come to this forum if you do not want to engage opposing points of view?



    And PLEASE show a source for this quote
    "if they don't think that satan hates them and that he even loves them, why do they call him 'satan'. In Jewish, Christian and Muslim tradition, satan was an angel that found humanity to be inferior to angels and wanted to destroy people."

    In my extensive research I have not yet run across this. The closest thing I can think of is that Iblis refused to bow to Adam as his superior in the Qur'an, but from what I have seen that was because he refused to bow to ANYONE but Allah. It had to do with his loyalty to Allah, not his hatred for man.

    There's no problem a few frag grenades can't fix.

    Cookies for Godlessness
    My Twin in life, love, mind, and music: ISoS
    The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So do the spirits who are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be spirit. -Nietzsche
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 18 Jun 2010, 15:00
    It's just a commodity. Satanism has no historic precedent, nor is it seriously practiced with sincere faith in any such notion of Satan.

    Satanism: A Fictitious Religion That's Cooler than Scientology (TM)

  • Satanism as a religion is not at all fictional, as there certainly are many modern variants of both Right hand Path and Left Hand Path movements including theistic ones nowadays.

    I would classify all these as new religious movements and they share many similiarities with New Age movements, but that aside, there ARE spiritual beliefs.

    I would argue that theistic branches should very well fall into a subcategory of Christianity, although undoubtly none of these groups will agree.

    LaVeyan Satanism along with the Temple of Set are special occasions because as mentioned, they got little to do with Satan. For LaVey, Satan was considered a metaphor for a stronger force in life that when properly used and recognized can empower humans to do things beyond their normal behavior. Left Hand Pathers might for example believe in psychic abilities while Right Hand ones might take a more scientific approach and think of it as a psychological tool for self-empowerment.

    The Temple of Set just pushed the Left Hand Path to the more extreme.

    The thing that must be understood with esoteric groups is that there is a great variety among individual members of each group and not just between each discipline, which is very different from many other religions. Nowadays it is more common to be able to craft one's own explanation of the world and life without breaking any laws against the faith in question.

  • Yeah, it's interesting. Within New Age, occult, and fringe belief systems people think about whole traditions more like entries on their resumes than exclusive paradigms. I was guilty of this as a teenager. I guess that picking and choosing or being influenced by or borrowing doctrines doesn't necessarily lead to contradictions, but sometimes the combinations get really bizarre.

Anonymous users may not post messages. Please log in or create an account to post in the forums.