Satanism as philosophy

[Cronos Impera]

WARNING: THIS ISN'T A MIND CONTROL THREAD, IF ANYONE EXPECTS TO SEE PICTURES OF ELVIS OR GAIN WORLD DOMINATION THIS IS THE WRONG THREAD. I HOPE I'M NOT BANNED.

So, ( despite the magic bullcrap) satanism as Anton Szandor LaVey imagined would promote selfishness as a religion with the belief that " Man is just another animal ".
Nothing could be farther from the true, all our so-called superior civilization is driven by two basic needs : Survival and Sexual\Natural Selection.

Survival: People form comunities for survival's sake. A comunity has more chances to survive a catastrophy than a single, lonely individual. Comunities provide security and food easier, so a lot of spare time can be used for social interaction and further deveolpment. This development is than used to benefit the entire group. And thus the social structure gets larger and more complex.
Teritory: Comunities need teritories to quench their needs and provide them with space for development. When two comunites clash, boundries are settled and states ( as we know them) are formed.
Culture: Culture appeared for courtship rituals or as a means to pass on knowledge, you know how appealing is poetry for ladies. Art started for the sole pourpose of seduction.

Civilization is a response to the natural enviroment, it's just a better way to survive. Natural selection guides the develpoment of technology and mankind alike. Religious doctrines which try to prove otherwise have failed in the past.

[Sjakihata]

It sounds like you've just read Plato's Republic (Politeia) - human is basically a zoon politikon (a social animal, anima sociales).

What has that to do with satanism?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Satan is the imbodyment of evil. If you start a religion and call it Satanism then its evil. If its not evil it should be called something else.#

Devil worship is wrong on basic moral grounds because a devil is, by definition, the embodyment of evil. Satanism is devil worship, not philosophy.

'nuff said.

Oh, and there are plenty of very carring and selfless Christians in the world, thankyou.

[Byzantine Prince]

Actually Satanism is not very strong philosophically, as clever as its main concept might be.

Worshipping an archetype of nature still means you have conform to some standards and that means you cannot be yourself, which automatically contradicts its main promise.

I do like its 'masturbate 5 times a day' policy however. Ok it isn't true that you ahve to do that but they do have a ritual where they masturbate and they call it 'magik'.

[rory_20_uk]

For those that might like slightly more information, http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis2.htm is probably worth looking at.

Of course, viewing it through the extremely biased setting of Christianity doesn't really help. After all, they had a fine time calling basically everything that wasn't Christianity Evil - and then slaghtering the followers in the name of peace...

[TB666]

Devil worship is wrong on basic moral grounds because a devil is, by definition, the embodyment of evil. Satanism is devil worship, not philosophy.

Actually no.
Devil worshipping and Satanism are different.
Devil worshippers worship well the devil but Satanists don't, they worship themselves.
Of course they don't build altars and stuff dedicated to themselves but they simply put themself in front of all others.
Satanism is pretty much just egoism that has gotten a religious touch on it.
They do have Satan as a rolemodel since he put himself first as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My point is why call it Satanism, if they're using Satan as a role model they're basically worshipping him. What do Christians do but use Jesus as a role model. Its like this.

Satan = Devil = Lucifer = Ashrael

They're all the same. Saying Satanism isn't devil worship is splitting hairs. There are plenty of much better mythological characters, such as Bachus, to use as role models.

Satanism is following Satan, therefore it is a form of Devil worship.

Why else would it be Satanism?

[rory_20_uk]

And why do you say he's evil? Because Christianity says he is? Surely you can see that is asking an extremely bias source for an opinion?

If you read the posts, let alone my link you'd see that they are NOT all following satan, merely view him as a role model.

Saying that there are better characters is like saying "Jesus - hmmm bit of a wimp. Why don't you all follow Zeus - there's a better god"

[TB666]

My point is why call it Satanism, if they're using Satan as a role model they're basically worshipping him. What do Christians do but use Jesus as a role model. Its like this.

Satan = Devil = Lucifer = Ashrael

They're all the same. Saying Satanism isn't devil worship is splitting hairs. There are plenty of much better mythological characters, such as Bachus, to use as role models.

Satanism is following Satan, therefore it is a form of Devil worship.

Why else would it be Satanism?

No, they are not worshipping him.

Worship usually refers to specific acts of religious praise, honour, or devotion, typically directed to a supernatural being such as a god or goddess.

Satanists don't do these things, devil worshippers do.
And they don't follow Satan other then the fact that they think that one action Satan did was great and it shows the true spirit of satanism.
Why is it is called Satanism is probably because it contains alot of anti-christian ideas hence it got labelled as Satanism by the church.
Christianity has "love your fellow man", Satanism has "If the fellow man doesn't show you respect then you can kill him".
Of course Satanists can't do these things since it is against the law and they respect that but still.
The satanists I know gets offended if someone calls them devil worshippers because the simple fact that they don't worship him.
People are just too lazy to find out what satanism really is so they just throw them together like they are the same thing.

[Byzantine Prince]

My point is why call it Satanism, if they're using Satan as a role model they're basically worshipping him. What do Christians do but use Jesus as a role model. Its like this.

Satan = Devil = Lucifer = Ashrael

They're all the same. Saying Satanism isn't devil worship is splitting hairs. There are plenty of much better mythological characters, such as Bachus, to use as role models.

Satanism is following Satan, therefore it is a form of Devil worship.

Why else would it be Satanism?

Devil = Pan.

Pan used to be worshipped.

Satanists don't worship Satan, they admire him. Buddhists don't worship Buddha etc.

The Satanist view of Satan is not the same as the Christian one, just like the Judaic form of Satan is different from the Christian. In Judaism Satan is considered a tester from God, not an evil figure, but one that tempts people to commit sin, as a test.

Plus any religion with ritual masturbation, individuality and openmindedness in it is fine with me, despite it being very weak philosophically.

[Lazul]

well as far as I know, one form of satanism started in Franche in the 18th century. Some nobles got anoyed with the church and their morals so they sort of.... went the other way. They had large sexual orgies, drink and ate heavily and called themself satanists just to piss the church of.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And why do you say he's evil? Because Christianity says he is? Surely you can see that is asking an extremely bias source for an opinion?

If you read the posts, let alone my link you'd see that they are NOT all following satan, merely view him as a role model.

Saying that there are better characters is like saying "Jesus - hmmm bit of a wimp. Why don't you all follow Zeus - there's a better god"

Satan is the embodyment of evil in the Bible, isn't not about religion but morality. Satan is a morrally corrupting figure. Plus admiring him is stupid because he's clearly still working for the big G, as he has no free will.

So it falls flat on its face. My point about other gods was that Satan embodies evil but Bachus doesn't. You can follow Bachus as role model without all the burn-in-hell baggage.

Devil = Pan is not true because Pan is a Greek earth god.

If you don't believe they worship Satan then fine but the BNP claims not to be racist as well.

A demonic figure should never be held up as a role model.

[A.Saturnus]

Wigferth, "Satan" is just a word, ok? I know people who call their cat satan, does that mean it's the embodiment of evil? There are people who call themselves satanists. They don't worship the devil, they worship themselves. They don't believe that the devil is an actual existing entity, thus they can hardly worship. It's a bit stupid to worship something if you think it doesn't exist, don't you think? The reasons why they call themselves satanists are several. Mainly because they reject some Christian concepts and follow ideas that counter those. There are also occultistic things in it.

They don't go around and sacrifice virgins or something like that. They are mostly normal people. Some of them are bastards. It's no big deal.

[Papewaio]

But why choose a word that already is wrapped up in so many meanings.

It seems like a bout of teenage rebellion, oh look at me I wear black/ my cap backwards/ trousers around my ankles/symbols of other faiths upside down... I am so different and yet I look like all the other cookie cutter alternatives .

It does not come across as a fully fledged mindset of an independent/intradependent adult. It looks petulant. and lacking in intellectual depth when someone has to borrow a name from another faith to name their own. "Oh look I am a towering intellect of cut'n'paste alternative culture". Sorry but I do not have much thrift for idiots whose only contribution to thought is going against what is because it is trendy.

[Redleg]

There are two forms of Satanism.

One is indeed based upon the worship of Satan as a diety. (SP)

The other form is a philisophy that has several sources to include LaVey, and the above mentioned French Nobles that called themselves Satanists to snub the church.

As a Philisophy, Satanism is no better then other humanistic philisophies.

The source Rory linked is actually a pretty good source of Religious information and some philisophy. Its not all inclusive - but it provides some decent background for those who rather be informed, then guess based upon the name of something.

[Sjakihata]

But why choose a word that already is wrapped up in so many meanings.

It seems like a bout of teenage rebellion, oh look at me I wear black/ my cap backwards/ trousers around my ankles/symbols of other faiths upside down... I am so different and yet I look like all the other cookie cutter alternatives .

It does not come across as a fully fledged mindset of an independent/intradependent adult. It looks petulant. and lacking in intellectual depth when someone has to borrow a name from another faith to name their own. "Oh look I am a towering intellect of cut'n'paste alternative culture". Sorry but I do not have much thrift for idiots whose only contribution to thought is going against what is because it is trendy.

Sounds like you had an interresting youth

[GoreBag]

Cronos, was this spurred on by anything?

[rory_20_uk]

Wigferth, your argument is redundant as soon as you say "in the Bible". As I have pointed out that is the Christian view on the subject - and is different from others, including the Jews who see Satan in a slightly different light. To discuss something, although it's advisable to come with an open mind, it is impossible to come without the ability to listen to others.

As Redleg mentions, it is likely that for many Satanists the title is purely there as to be reactionary and provocative against Christianity.

[Cronos Impera]

1.Okay, firstly Satan is a widely spread word across Mongolia and Tibet. Those people never had contacts with the Jewish or Christian beliefs.
2. The widely spread image of Satan, a man with horns and hoofs is simmilar to that of a satyr. Satyrs ware mythological beings that simbolized nature and joy of life. Baalzebut or "lord of the flies" is a mockery of Baal, the pheonician god of the sky, the cloud-walker. Jews built their religion in adversity to the other religions, so they would keep united under a single rule.
3. Satan means "The Accuser", he's the archytipe of rebel. Back in the Antiquity rebellion was a crime, rebels ware seen as bad people so Satan, the symbol of rebellion became also the symbol of Evil.
4. The Christian/Jewish religions ware copy/paste cultures a little. The Flood copy/pasted by the hebrews from the Epic of Gilgamesh is the most eloquent example. Christianity, as a religion, promotes a centralized gouverment and despotism. Constantine the Great converted to Christianity, understanding that it transformed unity/control into a religion and pluralism/liberty into crimes.
"The heroes of the past become the villans of the present"
Even the date of Christmas was settled for control, as it's of Saturnalia, one of the past pagan festivals. Christmas = Craciun = stump ( sanskrit)
Jesus was introduced to the Norse as the eastern version of Baldur.
Gheena, the Biblic hell was in fact a trash pit, in Romanian we still use gheena to describe the commo trash-pit.

Trashing buildings, raping women and killing people for distruction's sake don't turn you into a rebel, they turn you into an idiot. Challanging well-known philosophycal and social conceptions on the other hand do.
One view-point isn't enough .

Unfortunately, the popular image of satanism attracts large scores of pokemons to the movement. Those idiotic, senseless teenagers turn of the news bulletins, not the intelectuals. F*** them.

[Redleg]

However one views the history of Satanism it still comes down to modern terms and how the religion or philosophy is viewed.

Satanism in today's world consists of mainly two things. One is the cult that resolves around the worship of Satan as a diety. The other is the humanistic philosophy.

The past makes for some interesting reading - Cronos Impera, but the scope of the current discussion is not the past of Satanism, but the philosophy of Satanism.

The religious philosophy of the Satanic Church is the anti-hesis to the Christian Church. That is the philosophy that is primarily acknowledge in the west concerning Satanism as a religion.

As a philosophy Satanism while has some interesting humanistic approaches - is just another philosophy on how to live your life. Its more hedonistic then many others but not necessarily good nor wrong.

[GoreBag]

Ah, memories.

Did you miss my question, Cronos?

[Cronos Impera]

Cronos, was this spurred on by anything?

It's just a topic, I'm not a convert to satanism you know and I'm not trying to hit the Church .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wigferth, your argument is redundant as soon as you say "in the Bible". As I have pointed out that is the Christian view on the subject - and is different from others, including the Jews who see Satan in a slightly different light. To discuss something, although it's advisable to come with an open mind, it is impossible to come without the ability to listen to others.

Rory As has been said the Satan in Satanism is from the Bible, he's cut and paste. Saying the Bible is biased is silly because Satan is from the Bible, whether he comes from another religion originally or not the version in Satanism is the "polished" version from Christianity, not some proto-Satan the Jews nicked from someone else.

As to my not listening, I could say the same about you not listening to my arguement. Ask a Christian whether Satan is evil/the emobodiment of evil and you will get a resounding yes. Thats why when starting a religion you shouldn't name it Satanism, because the only reason to do that is to stick a finger up at Christianity.

As to his role in Jewdaism, I also said:

Satan is the embodyment of evil in the Bible, it's not about religion but morality. Satan is a morrally corrupting figure. Plus admiring him is stupid because he's clearly still working for the big G, as he has no free will.

Notice I never said Satan himself was actually evil. If you use your loaf you'll realise that Satan can't go against God because, as an angel, he's supposed to lack free will. Also in the book of Job God allows Satan to test Job. If you can stop him doing something to Job then he can stop him doing anything else either.

A.Saturnus, Would you call your cat Adolf Hitler? Before you say it, no its not different. Satan is not a word its a name. The name of the embodiement of evil in Christianity and so western culture in general.

[Cronos Impera]

Rory As has been said the Satan in Satanism is from the Bible, he's cut and paste. Saying the Bible is biased is silly because Satan is from the Bible, whether he comes from another religion originally or not the version in Satanism is the "polished" version from Christianity, not some proto-Satan the Jews nicked from someone else.

As to my not listening, I could say the same about you not listening to my arguement. Ask a Christian whether Satan is evil/the emobodiment of evil and you will get a resounding yes. Thats why when starting a religion you shouldn't name it Satanism, because the only reason to do that is to stick a finger up at Christianity.

As to his role in Jewdaism, I also said:

Satan is the embodyment of evil in the Bible, it's not about religion but morality. Satan is a morrally corrupting figure. Plus admiring him is stupid because he's clearly still working for the big G, as he has no free will.

Notice I never said Satan himself was actually evil. If you use your loaf you'll realise that Satan can't go against God because, as an angel, he's supposed to lack free will. Also in the book of Job God allows Satan to test Job. If you can stop him doing something to Job then he can stop him doing anything else either.

A.Saturnus, Would you call your cat Adolf Hitler? Before you say it, no its not different. Satan is not a word its a name. The name of the embodiement of evil in Christianity and so western culture in general.

Errr....... Adolf Hittler and Satan don't mix. Adolf Hittler was a christian and national-socialism emphasises on christianity. Jews ware persecuted throught history because christians thought " They served the devil". If you consider rebellion a sign of evil, well all revolutionaries go to hell.

In the Bibles Satan was a failed revolutionary, turned into a scapegoat used as a trashpit for unpleasant ideeas. Anything that challanges anything can be looked to as corrupting Corruption basiclly means an altering of something. Corruption is positive, as it allows diversity to develop.
In fact God does more harm in the Bible than Satan.
He 1. Wipes out two cities just to prove that he can ( Sodom and Gomora), despite Jesus emphasises on forgiveness
2. God isn't divine, He boasts of having created the first humans yet Cain had other ideas " anyone who will find me, will kill me (Genessis 4:14) Who ware the others if God created all humans.

The Bible is confusing and contradictory

1. Exit 22:18 : "Don't let the wizards live!"
Opposing commandment:
"You shall not kill"
For what reason can this commandment be broken? For this: "I am your God. Don't have other gods instead of me!
In the Bible rules are meant to be broken by following others.

2. Luca 14:26 : "If someone doesn't come to me and hate his father and his mother mama his wife or children or brothers and sisters , even his own soul, he can't become My apprentice."
Jesus promotes hatred instead of peace and love. Jesus advices us to destory our families. The man speaking is Jesus telling us to hate our fammilies and commit suicide.
3. Matthew 10:34 Don't think I've come to bring peace on earth; I haven't come to bring peace, but war.
Isn't that violence promoted through the pure Son of God. Is Jesus pure, peace loving.
"He who loves his mother or father more than he loves Me isn't worthy of Me, he who loves his son or daughter more than Me, isn't worthy of Me" Matthew 10:39
Are any of us "worthy"?

Purity is hipocritical and falsehood.

[A.Saturnus]

A.Saturnus, Would you call your cat Adolf Hitler? Before you say it, no its not different. Satan is not a word its a name. The name of the embodiement of evil in Christianity and so western culture in general.

I don't particularly like the name Hitler. It's too tinny. It might be cool for a day or two, but I would give my cat a name that still sounds good after the joke is old. But I would certainly not have a problem with someone who calls his cat Hitler. I understand though that some people would feel uncomfortable with the name. For example if they had relatives that suffered under Nazi Germany. But unlike Hitler, Satan didn't commit genocide. Because he doesn't exist.

Satan is the embodyment of evil in Western culture and therefore cool. Granted, it may be even cooler to say 'Hail Utgard Loki' instead of 'Hail Satan', but few people understand it.

Thats why when starting a religion you shouldn't name it Satanism, because the only reason to do that is to stick a finger up at Christianity.

You base your argument on the premise that you shouldn't stick a finger up at Christianity, something people like LaVey would wholeheartedly disagree with. An important part of the whole religion is to piss off Christians.

[monkian]

Satan is the embodyment of evil in the Bible, isn't not about religion but morality. Satan is a morrally corrupting figure. Plus admiring him is stupid because he's clearly still working for the big G, as he has no free will.

So it falls flat on its face. My point about other gods was that Satan embodies evil but Bachus doesn't. You can follow Bachus as role model without all the burn-in-hell baggage.

Devil = Pan is not true because Pan is a Greek earth god.

If you don't believe they worship Satan then fine but the BNP claims not to be racist as well.

A demonic figure should never be held up as a role model.

If Satan has no free will then how can he be evil if he cannot choose his actions ?

[TB666]

If Satan has no free will then how can he be evil if he cannot choose his actions ?

Probably so that "god" will have someone who is actually worse then he is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well first off, no, according to the Bible none of us are worthy. Abraham asked God to spare Sodam and Gomora if only one good person could be found among them. God agreed, then destroyed both cities.

Hitler and Satan are both quite offensive in general. Saying Hitler was a Christian is a cop out. He was supposed to be Catholic but he wouldn't ever listen to the Pope.

"In the Bibles Satan was a failed revolutionary, turned into a scapegoat used as a trashpit for unpleasant ideeas."

I agree. Yes the Bible is contradictory and confusing. None of it was written by Jesus though and it was edited by a Roman 380 years after he was born.

"2. God isn't divine, He boasts of having created the first humans yet Cain had other ideas " anyone who will find me, will kill me (Genessis 4:14) Who ware the others if God created all humans."

Saying God isn't divine is a matter of opinion. For a lot of people, myself included, God and Satan are real, please respect this.

"Satan is the embodyment of evil in Western culture and therefore cool. Granted, it may be even cooler to say 'Hail Utgard Loki' instead of 'Hail Satan', but few people understand it."

1. Losers are not cool and Loki and Satan are both losers.

2. Worshiping Loki is beyond idiotic, since he is destined to destroy the world and in the meantime is tied up in his son's intestines. Yeah, real cool mo'fo.

3. Evil is not cool, that just sounds childish. If I kill your parents for no reason is that cool?

"You base your argument on the premise that you shouldn't stick a finger up at Christianity, something people like LaVey would wholeheartedly disagree with. An important part of the whole religion is to piss off Christians."

No, I base my arguement on the idea that starting a religion to piss anyone off is a bad idea because it makes your basic premise negative.

"If Satan has no free will then how can he be evil if he cannot choose his actions ?"

Check my last post, he isn't evil, he's the embodiement, the poster boy.

[GoreBag]

It's just a topic, I'm not a convert to satanism you know and I'm not trying to hit the Church .

It rather seems like you have something to prove, is all.

[A.Saturnus]

Hitler and Satan are both quite offensive in general

No, Hitler is offensive in general. Whether Satan is offensive depends on your believes. For me Satan is not offensive since he's only an imaginary person. And sorry, I refuse to be careful about using the name Satan just because you believe that he exists and causes harm to anyone. I have no problem with using the name Satan, extracting interesting side-meanings out of the concept and use them in a new context. If you find that offensive, too bad for you. Show me proof that Satan was involved in some major atrocities and I might reconsider.

1. Losers are not cool and Loki and Satan are both losers.

They are outcasts. Satan was struck down by God for pride. He rules hell for all eternity. I call that cool.

2. Worshiping Loki is beyond idiotic, since he is destined to destroy the world and in the meantime is tied up in his son's intestines. Yeah, real cool mo'fo

Now you're getting intolerant because there are in fact people who worship Loki, since he's a member of the Norse pantheon. Is it necessary to hold some really silly parts of your believe under your nose? Besides, destroying the world is certainly cool.

3. Evil is not cool, that just sounds childish. If I kill your parents for no reason is that cool?

That depends how you do it. BTW, you could in principle say that the whole concept of 'cool' is a bit childish, but that would be really uncool.

No, I base my arguement on the idea that starting a religion to piss anyone off is a bad idea because it makes your basic premise negative.

What's wrong with a negative basic premise? LaVey might in turn have argued with Nietzsche that Christianity is principially nihilistic. Or like Lovecraft said it "the puritans are the greatest devil worshippers because they condemn everything that is beatiful." Their opinion of course, but the point is if you oppose Christianity completely, than the concept of the antagonist of God might just be the archetype for you.