Diabolatry - Theistic Satanism

[technomage]

Having read parts of the "satanic bible", I guess I'm basing my "judgements" on the "survival of the strong, despising the weak" idea that is presented there.

There is a point to mention here--the Satanic Bible was written around the concept of atheistic Satanism: I can't speak for our Welsh-named friend (fiend? ), but he may feel that this particular book does not apply to him.

[betzerg]

There is a point to mention here--the Satanic Bible was written around the concept of atheistic Satanism: I can't speak for our Welsh-named friend (fiend? ), but he may feel that this particular book does not apply to him.

That is exactly my point. From his theological position it would seem that he wishes to do what is "right" and "good" for all of humanity. Which is totally the antithesis of what I had read in the "satanic" bible.

Shalom,

BETZER

[technomage]

That is exactly my point. From his theological position it would seem that he wishes to do what is "right" and "good" for all of humanity. Which is totally the antithesis of what I had read in the "satanic" bible.

Ah! In that case I misunderstood your original post. My apologies, and thank you for clarifying.

[Geifodd]

Guacamole writes:

It's not Satanism per se that I am calling an "adolescent pretension." I am quite certain that you are serious about what you do. It's the symbolism of Satanism, the plundering of transgressive archetypes, without actual transgression that I am calling an "adolescent pretension." When you have to go to Pan or Prometheus, Bast or Thoth to provide a bit of your imagery, you've strayed rather far from the diabolic imagery of Christianity, the apocalyptic traitorousness of Loki, or even the adversarial mythologies of Set and Osiris. In appropriating positive and generative constructions of the divine, you strip the original imagery of it's intention, indeed the most powerful symbols of the very evil acts that give them their power. You have a Satan who doesn't labor to consign mortals to hell, a Set who doesn't seek to drown the world in darkness and thus snuff out all life, a Loki who isn't going to provide the means for the eventual mass deicide of Ragnarok. Instead, you have a swell personage who wants you to realize your full potential, recognize that what you do will affect who you are, and rise above your circumstances to be great. Some people would call that "God", capital G. That goes back to the "Why Satan" question. There doesn't seem to be a point except to be sheep in wolves clothing.

I don't think you understand. Satanists do not agree that the "original imagery" is intended to be symbolic of "evil" acts that "give them their power." Neither Set, nor Loki, nor Satan were originally concepts of evil -- at least not in any sense that I would could consider evil. Set was originally a storm god who acted as protector of the gods and who defended Ra *from* evil, and who was later demonized when the Osiris cult took full sway over Egypt. Loki was originally just a trickster god, not a full-blown evil menace. And the Judaic Devil, first appearing in Jewish folklore as Azazel (after the Babylonian Exile), was originally an angel who came to earth because he lusted after mortal women -- not because He wanted to take over the throne of heaven -- and who educated mortals in various arts of civilization, including the sciences, the liberal arts, cosmetics, weaponry, and even "witchcraft." (My source: the apocryphal book of Enoch). Prior to the Babylonian Exile, there was no Devil in Judaic myth; originally the term "satan" meant something far less extreme than the "arch-enemy of Jehovah."

The Judaic Devil comes largely from the Persian Ahriman, who indeed is equated with Satan by modern Zoroastrians, and who is identified with Azazil/Iblis, the Shaitan and Lord of the Djinn in Islamic mythology. But even Ahriman was not always considered to be evil. Originally he was simply a god of darkness and magic in polytheistic, pre-Zoroastrian Persia; neither darkness nor magic are "evil" in and of themselves.

No, the fact of the matter is that even if 99.9% of the people in the world believe that the Devil is evil, history shows that all of man's Devils in all of his religions were originally deities who were seen in a positive light somehow, but who, for one reason or another, were made into scapegoats and given the blame for all the "evil" and "sin" in the world (however these terms are defined by whatever particular religion). As a matter of fact the term "scapegoat" itself comes from the Jewish Day of Atonement ritual, during which two goats would be sacrificed, one as an offering to Jehovah and the other as an offering to Azazel. The goat for Jehovah would be ceremonially killed, while the goat for Azazel was driven alive into the wilderness.

Yes, but it again brings us to the question of "What's the point to diabolotry" if the same point is being fulfiled amply in belief systems that don't rely on the pretension of transgression?

Once again I don't think you're quite understanding where a person with a Satanist mindset is coming from. The Satanist really isn't interested in "the pretension of transgression" as you refer to it. Transgression is not the point. What we believe may be seen as a transgression by Christians, but I can assure you that Satanists themselves see what we believe as being the truth. Satanists tend to view Christianity and/or Islam as being "transgressions." Real, seriously devoted Satanists are not really "rebelling" except in the eyes of the opposition; they are simply following what they believe in their hearts to be true.

I wouldn't say any religoins identify "carnality" as a virtue at all.

And that's exactly my point, is that Satanism is a reigion which DOES identify "carnality" as a virtue.

At best, they identify "carnality" as a mundane aspect of human existence. It is the layman, heedless of the myriad scriptures, who pursues garden-variety trasngression, that is, carnality, without much consideration. That's what I mean when I say "mainstream". If everyone is doing it, then on at least one level, it's ordinary, isn't it?

First of all, what you think of as "mundane," the Satanist thinks of as holy. I certainly do not begrudge you for your views, but Satanists do not think of the carnal world as being "mundane."

And yes it may be "mainstream" to give in to your carnal impulses (after all, everybody does it) -- but how many religions actually encourage you to give in to your carnal nature? Compare that to the number of religions that think of carnal nature as being either sinful at worst or obstructive at best to a well-balanced spirituality. Satanism considers carnality to be sacred, and therefore an important key to our spirituality. Satanism may be "mainstream" in the sense that it lets you do what most people will do naturally, but it is certainly not "mainstream" in terms of what religions typically have to say about this.

Another way to look at is is that you've simply substituted one set of sexual limitations for another admitedly wider set, but a set that still recognizes transgressive sexual actions; child temple prostitution, rape, etc. Even with your emphasis on carnality and indulgence, you've not widdened the standards of sexual behavior much beyond what is considered normative in general society. Hence it is still, like Christianity, indulgence with limits and moderation.

There are just some things that I think are just plain wrong (like child prostitution). However, there are other viewpoints in the world that would state otherwise. Now, I certainly believe that Satan enjoys tempting people to think what are commonly thought of as "forbidden thoughts." But a Satanist is not entitled to act upon such "forbidden thoughts." Reflexive anti-morality is simply not Satanic by any means. Satan's temptation is intended to make you THINK and use your noodle -- to discern the difference between Good and Evil for yourself, as with Adam and Eve and the Fruit. Let's say for instance that Satan instills a Satanist with a desire to sleep with his sister. Now as disturbing a thought as this might be, let us say that the Satanist considers the thought and then arrives at a conclusion. He concludes that it is not a good idea to sleep with his own sister, considering that there's no telling how the kid might turn out. Incest is one particular "transgression" that is considered such for fairly obvious good reasons. All the Satanists I've ever spoken with would agree that Satan does not want us to commit incest (and that's a lot), but it is certainly not above Him to pitch the idea through someone's head now and again, just to get them thinking. And sometimes it takes a really shocking idea or two to get you thinking.

Again, that may be true with some rare exceptions, but that is the instinctive reflex of 99% of the people in the world. I'm not trying to say that your religion isn't unique- the point is that you've added some trappings to the mundane and decided to call it special.

Maybe in YOUR view that is what I have done, but the way I see things, what you call the "mundane" world does not need any "trappings" and does not need to be "called special" -- because it already IS special, in and of itself. Once again, Satanists consider the world of matter and flesh to be holy.

Honestly, it seems to me you are being disingenuous. That's the reason you have the tag line "friendly neighborhood devil worshipper". You know that the phrase is intentionally loaded with irony. You picked the phrase because it is designed to play on the religious sensibilities of typical religionists.

Actually that is only a secondary reason. My primary reason for calling myself "Your Friendly Neighborhood Devil Worshiper" is because, believe it or not, there is quite a contraversy among Satanists over the term "Devil worship." Some Satanists dislike the term because the LaVeyan branch has used it for the past 30 years or so as a scapegoat term for Satanists that they disagreed with. So people descended from the LaVeyan tradition tend to frown upon the word, especially since they are atheistic Satanists. I started calling myself "Your Friendly Neighborhood Devil Worshiper" a long time ago in order to play on the religious sensibilities of my fellow Satanists more than anything else. You'll find that we do that a lot.

And yes the phrase is saturated with irony. However, just because I have an ironic sense of humor does not mean that I believe worshiping the Devil is really a scandalous thing. It certainly doesn't bother me that people worship the Devil, and I don't see why it should bother anyone really. I'm more concerned about terrorists and criminals and corrupt politicians.

There is some cache to being the "friendly neighborhood devil worshipper", elsewise you would have picked a less ironic tag line, no? That's the reason you extol the sanctification of all carnality; the supposed "incredibility" of sexual liscence. That's the whole reason you have sought to rescue my measure of it as mundane and common place.

"Rescue?" Why does the entire carnal world need to be "rescued" from you?

Again, I'm not attacking it as insincere or somehow less than serious. It's just that the whole thing that supposedly makes Satanism "different" is the transgressive imagery, the "scandalous" construction of the faith to the conventional.

I'm sorry, but I've been a Satanist for almost ten years now and I just don't agree with you. The point to Satanism is not to be scandalous or transgressive, except as Christians might see these things. The point to Satanism, at least from a theistic Satanist perspective, is simply to worship Satan. Naturally Satanists do not see anything "transgressive" about this, rather we accept that people in OTHER religions BELIEVE it is "transgressive." Satanists certainly do not believe that there is any valid law against worshiping Satan -- not even any laws given by Jehovah.

It's the metaphor for the whole idea of taking the mundane and elevating it to something sacred by imposing a set of external trappings.

Once again, the "mundane" does not need to be "elevated to something sacred" by "imposing a set of external trappings." The carnal world is already sacred, it does not require human approval of its holiness.

Your mother dressed up in lingerie is still your mother. The behavior of 99% of the planet on any given day dressed up in Satanism is still the behavior of 99% of the planet on any given day.

That's true, and Satanists believe that's the way it should be.

I don't mean "pretensious" in the sense of something special or elevated. I mean "pretensious" in the sense of "having a pretense"; a likeness of something without having the actuality that makes the likeness a reality. I'm not saying that you don't worhip "Satan, the Prince of Darkness" and that you shouldn't call yourself a Satanist. However, it seems to me that whereas Satanism relies on the trangressive imagery of Satan or other "dark" gods, it actually isn't that transgressive.

Here's the problem in your above statement. Satanism to a person like myself does not depend on "transgression." If I were a Christian then yes I would see Satan as "transgressive," but since I am on Satan's side I do not see anything "transgressive" about Him. This is just natural, because I am a Satanist after all. One could equally state that following Christ is "transgressive" from a Satanic perspective.

[Geifodd]

That's what I mean when I say "having a pretense". Satanism, as you've described it to me, has the pretense of transgression without actually being transgressive. It's as if to say, "Hey, we all act this way, let's make a religion up about it and charge people to buy our booksnstuff."

I am really confused as to why you think I've been claiming that Satanism is "transgressive," considering that you are the first one to have used that word in this thread. Perhaps part of the confusion comes from my use of the term "the ultimate power of subversity in human spiritual experience" in my first post here. Naturally the Prince of Darkness is considered to be a god with some very subversive traits -- He doesn't let anyone boss Him around, He dares to think for Himself apart from the will of any other deity and He is constantly challenging the worship of Jehovah and other monotheistic gods by introducing different ideas into people's minds across the world.

What I mean when I said that inorder to be truly exterior you have to throw off the mores of the mainstream and be "ravishingly wicked or transcendently saintly" is simply that true transgression, in the human sense, not the spiritual sense, lies outside average, common place human behavior; think Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresea. You have, on the one hand true saints, people who have transcended commonplace human action and become for all intensive purposes a living human sacrifice for the greater good. You have, on the other hand true violators, people who have transcended commonplace human since and become for all intensive purposes literal monsters in human flesh, for whom morality and civilizing structures themselves become part and parcel for the iron rod of evil. In between are 99% of us. The rest us; Satanists, Christians,Theives, Preachers, Presidents, Laborers.

The path of Satanism does not call for you to be a Mother Theresa or an Adolf Hitler. It calls for you to be yourself, whoever you might be -- and it teaches that yourself is something that is always under construction. This belief may be reflected in other religions, which it most certainly is -- but naturally all people in all religions will sometimes agree on certain issues. When it comes down to it, Satanism is really a lot more like other religions than most people would expect. Satanists don't kill cats or sacrifice babies or try to be "ravishingly evil." Satanists are just like most other normal people -- we have jobs to do, bills to pay, mouths to feed, etc. Many people feel a need to experience a higher power in their lives, just to help them get through some of the crazy things that happen. Satanists are people who have found that experience with a higher power that they identify -- or that identifies itself to them -- as Satan.

Take for example Jesus. Whether he existed or not isn't the point here. In the narratives of the Gospels he is portrayed as the supreme transgressor of the ethic of the 99%. He denies himself, gives new teachings, heals the sick and possessed. He generally makes himself a thorn in the side of the people who want the status quo perpetuated. As the supreme transgressor he is executed. The writers of the New Testament compose all sorts of imagistic and metaphorical riffs off that essential theme, things like "Jesus becomes sin", but there it is. If Satan is the God of the World and his way, the way of the 99% is the law, then Jesus is the criminal. If you want to be truly revolutionary, truly a breaker of the law, then follow the Jesus of scripture, not the one that gives out a Benz for a prayer and a cure for cancer over the phone.

Sorry, but I see no reason to accept Jesus as my shepherd when I already have a perfectly good Master of my own. I'm not interested in being "revolutionary" or "breaking the law." I'm interested in being true to my self, and being true to my self means following Satan because He is in my heart of hearts.

Now understand something, right now, in that paragraph, I'm not saying follow Jesus for the one-true-way. I also believe that, but that's not the point of the above passage. I was simply describing why I think Jesus' conduct is remarkable, in contrast with the description you've given of Satanism. I could have composed something equally sacharine based on the standard of extraordinary conduct for Socrates, Abraham Lincoln, or the latest Medal of Honor winner. Satanism is normalcy for 99% of us. If you want to be extraordinary, to rise above the herd, honestly, find something else, and follow it with rigorous consistency. JMO...

Okay, so Jesus was a rebel in his day. But according to the same mythology, Satan was the very FIRST rebel to exist. The idea of rebellion didn't even exist until Satan came along and did His thing (speaking in terms of Christian belief of course). So to whom does Jesus owe his "transgressive" profession? Perhaps he did learn a thing or two while he was with Satan in the desert...

By saying that "Satanism is normalcy for 99% of us" I think you have a completely different idea of Satanism than I do. Satanism is certainly not normal as far as most people are concerned. I know you didn't it mean it this way, but please don't sit there and tell me that my religion is "normal" when I live in an area of the continental United States where you are likely to be KILLED by someone for even vaguely hinting that you are a Satanist in public. Considering that most Satanists have to hide their religion even from their own FAMILY MEMBERS, let alone from employers or religious fanatics who might try to take their children away from them, I would hardly say that Satanism is considered to be "normal."

I'm not saying that you haven't had experiences with Satan in specific, or that people haven't had divine experiences in general. I'm saying that if you dress up the ordinary in the extraordinary cloth, you've still got the ordinary. What the devil is teaching you is what 99% of people do. Why you feel the need for the devil to teach that to you is your own thing, of course. I can only describe how I see it.

I don't "need" the Devil to teach me to do what 99% of people do. As I already stated, I believe human morality precedes any notion of divinity. Therefore it is unnecessary for a person to have a religious code in order to have a moral code. Satan Himself does not teach a moral code, but instead pokes and prods the people He touches to *think independantly* about their moral codes, AS well as their religious codes. As the serpent in the garden of Eden, Satan did not teach Adam and Eve what was wrong and what was right, instead He gave them the ability to easily determine such for themselves by virtue of their carnal brains. People definitely have different opinions, but a Satanist perspective of Genesis is that Satan is the one who originally made it possible to have a moral code WITHOUT a religious code, hence why He is so "evil" -- because human beings no longer need "God" in order to be "good."

I think you could say that except that your Cosmic Policeman is the fact that if you do not follow what Satan is trying to teach you, or if you abuse the Rede, or work against your higher will, then you're working against yourself. That's you're Cosmic Policeman, your Karma, your Law of God, whatever. Again, you just dress it up somewhat differently. I would say, based on the ideas of self-realization, that you have your idea of "salvation" as well, but I wouldn't say that as I might start a row.

I do not agree that the truth of cause-and-effect implies the existence of a Cosmic Policeman. If you do bad things, you will more than likely have bad things happen to you. If you do good things, you will more than likely have good things happen to you. It's not Karma because it has nothing to do with any ideas about future lives, it's not the Wiccan Rede because there's no rule that says "An it harm none" (sometimes harm can be necessary, especially in self-defense). And what do you mean by "Law of God"? Do you mean Jehovah, the Supreme Being or Satan? It certainly doesn't count as either the Law of Jehovah or the Law of Satan in my view, considering that neither one of them is the Creator in my belief. As for the Cosmic Creator God -- who rightly knows if It is even self-aware?

Again, however you want to put it. There's still a cosmic policeman even if it is just the law of outcomes. Incidently, you're view is remarkably similar to the Buddhist concept of Karma, as opposed to the Hindu concept, fwiw.

Hardly, it does not include the notion of future reincarnations being determined by past Karma. It's just a real simple down-to-earth fact: if you don't want trouble, stay out of it. If you want to risk the trouble, you'd better be prepared to accept the circumstances. That is all. No policeman. There is nothing there to actively punish you if you do wrong or reward you if you do right. Whether you get punished or rewarded by your actions depends entirely upon the nature of your actions and the reactions that other people have to them.

It is remarkable, that two very different people can come to the exact same conclusion, despite both of them dressing up the process in very different clothes. Again, it begs us ask the question, at least from this example, of "why satanism".

I could just as easily ask "Why Christianity?" To a person like myself it makes perfect sense to see Satan as a "good guy" so to speak, because that is the way that we honestly experience Him. I can assure you that if we saw Him as a "bad guy" most of us would probably not follow Him.

Oh I understand what it means, I just think it difficult to justify in some cases- especially since here it seems you, being a Satanist, have two utterly arbitrary terms based entirely on perspective. Perhaps that is the strength of the Christian position, it recognizes the difficulty of acurately judging each other according to subjective terms and proposes instead that you cut people slack.

I don't think Christianity finds it too hard to accurately judge people by their actions -- "By their fruits ye shall know them," right?

Cutting people slack is often good -- but there is a line to be drawn. When people smite you on the cheek too much, sometimes you need to smite back instead of just turning the other cheek.

I fully follow you. I didn't mean to say that satanism saw it as a sin, after all you said it there was no concept of sin rather clearly. The problem is that if there is no concept of "sin" then nothing you can do, even identifying "one right way" is sin. It is problematic to identify "one right way" as being the wrong way if there isn't a wrong way. Nevertheless Satanism sees identifying "one right way" as being the wrong way. It's self-defeating.

Not as the wrong way for everybody, just as the wrong way for ourselves. Obviously some people feel drawn to Christ; no Satanist is going to tell such a person that they MUST turn away from Christ "OR ELSE." Christianity is right for some people, but not for people whose spiritual orientation lies elsewhere. When it comes down to it that's the real crux of the issue right there, spiritual orientation. Different people are just born with different religious sensibilities. It's sort of like sexual orientation. Some men like girls, some men like boys. Some guys like Jehovah, some guys like Satan. (Except there is a wider spectrum in this case than in the sexual, of course.)

I didn't say you said they were evil, just wrong, hence the condemnation.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that they were objectively wrong either. Of course monotheism is wrong to me, but obviously it is not wrong to all people. I do not condemn people simply for believing differently than I do, though I cannot say the same thing for many monotheists I've met. Admittedly I have come across many an atheist who had a problem like this as well.

So there is a way that's wrong then?

Sure -- and as you pointed out, I certainly think monotheism is wrong. I do not claim that every way is right, nor do I look down on people for disagreeing with me as to which ways are right and which ones are not.

That is a common sentiment amongst Pagans in general. It's think it is unfounded, considering the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Goths, the Saxons, the Vikings, the Ancient Chinese, the Aztecs... I'm sure I'm forgetting someone. Granted they weren't all trying to burn the Zoroastrian Temples, sacrifice a pig on the altar in the Jerusalem Temple to Jupiter, cut the heart out of war prisoners, compose loyal oaths based on declarations of divinity to the emperor, or sack monasteries, but I think that lot give the monotheists a run for the money. I guess you could say, no, I don't think that having a monotheistic view is the best predictor of being a cause of inter-religious strife.

To be true, polytheistic societies had their fair share of wars -- but hardly any of these wars were really spiritual in nature. Polytheistic societies tended to get along in terms of religion because each religion respected the other as having some grian of truth in it. The wars in polytheistic societies were usually over the normal things -- food, land, women, etc. The concept of "Holy Wars" or "Crusades" never really started getting big until the monotheists started popping up.

[Geifodd]

Sorry, Geifodd, I'm still having some more queries:-

Do you believe in the existence of a Supreme God? And what's your take on how Satan came into being?
Thirdly, in your first post you referred to how you see Satan as the Old Serpent- i.e the Old Serpent from Genesis?
And lastly, what's there in your Satanic Bible? And why the upturned cross?

1. I believe that there may indeed be a Supreme God, but I see It as being much too impersonal to be concerned with micromanaging human morality, or even remotely enforcing any humanly-meaningful morality on a cosmic scale. I suppose you might say that I believe in the Deist notion of God. However, not all Satanists share my viewpoint on this.

2. Satan is a created being like the rest of us, but He is higher up on the food chain than we mortals are. As for how He was created exactly, I have no clue. Some Satanists have some pretty wild theories as to where Satan came from, but my particular denomination (Church of Azazel) believes in maintaining a "here-and-now" focus in terms of theology, and in not taking any creation myths or end of the world myths literally.

3. The Devil was associated with serpents long before the serpent of Genesis became identified with Him. I myself would include the Serpent of Genesis as one notable manifestation of the Devil.

[Geifodd]

betzkerg wrote:

Having read parts of the "satanic bible", I guess I'm basing my "judgements" on the "survival of the strong, despising the weak" idea that is presented there.

It's pretty obvious that you, for one, do not adhere to this concept. The Satanic bible I read was nothing more than takinga christians concepts and saying the opposite. Almost like "I know you are but what I am"...or "every thing you say is just the opposite so hahaha."

Agreed. Personally I agree with only some parts of the Satanic Bible, like LaVey's views on sexual freedom in particular. However I do not like his statements about "survival of the strong and death to the weakling!" nor do I consider his ritual format to be worthwhile. Satanists like myself do not think it's a very smart idea to try and boss the Devil around in your rituals. That's a good way to get Him pretty mad methinks.

Actually, as surprising as this might seem to you, many Satanists disagree with The Satanic Bible. This is because the Satanic Bible is not really a Bible, just a manifesto of one man's beliefs (Anton Szandor LaVey). Not all Satanists agree with LaVey's beliefs, in fact many do not.

Actually, I do have no more of a desire to completely understand your religion than I do buddhism or hinduism...which seem very similiar but the contraversal name of "satan" or "lucifer" doesn't need to be used.

That's your opinion, not an objective fact. And I don't quite see why you think Buddhism and Hinduism are very similar to Satanism, as a matter of fact Satanism is typically quite different from them. Unless you're talking about Left Hand Tantra, which is a completely different ballgame altogether.

My opposition is to the very perversion of the nature of G-d expressed in the satanic bible that would not only wish to destroy monotheism, but all of G-d's creation except those who "tough it out". Concepts like compassion and integrety were laughed out and ridiculed.

I certainly don't see any reason to ridicule compassion or integrity. Nor do I want to "destroy" monotheism, in fact I don't believe Satan does either. People should be allowed to practice monotheism if they so please, but there should also be options other than monotheism and people should not be made to feel that all other choices but monotheism are wrong. Naturally you will disagree, and that is fine. We must agree to disagree.

Honestly...you're wanting to "serve" satan is much more of an emotional issue than a theological one.

*rolls eyes*

Most satanist I know have been hurt very deeply by mainline christianity and are not so much opposed to monotheism as to those who represent monotheism. Actually...of the eight true satanists I have known, four I know as a certainity, were deeply hurt as children by so called "christians".

Not all Satanists come from Christian backgrounds, however. I myself have never been a Christian. I was raised agnostic, and Satanism is the only religion I have ever practiced. Some Satanists come to Satanism because they are hurt by Christianity or Islam -- but many Satanists come to Satanism simply because they feel drawn to it by Satan Himself. I'm sorry if you can't understand this, but I suppose that's just one of those barriers between religions that we'll have to deal with.

[betzerg]

and you roll your eyes because.....????

You just stated that you were "drawn" to satanism...that seems to me like an emotional response...as opposed to studying the reasonableness of the religion and making a decisions based on the theology of it.

shlalom,

BETZER

[Geifodd]

and you roll your eyes because.....????

You just stated that you were "drawn" to satanism...that seems to me like an emotional response...as opposed to studying the reasonableness of the religion and making a decisions based on the theology of it.

shlalom,

BETZER

There is indeed an emotional reason to anyone choosing to follow a religion, but anyone who reads this thread should be able to tell that my decision for Satanism is ALSO based on reasoning and the theology of it. I have done nothing but post extensively detailed explanations of some Satanic theology. You don't seem to be able to see that, so THAT is why I roll my eyes at you.

[betzerg]

There is indeed an emotional reason to anyone choosing to follow a religion, but anyone who reads this thread should be able to tell that my decision for Satanism is ALSO based on reasoning and the theology of it. I have done nothing but post extensively detailed explanations of some Satanic theology. You don't seem to be able to see that, so THAT is why I roll my eyes at you.

There isn't a person alive who doesn't make an emotional decision in the area of religion if he is truly passionate and full of faith.

AFter this Kierkegaarding kind of "leap" in a certain direction, then one begins to build a defense for the faith. I build my presuppositions on a monotheistic G-d who has revealed Himself to mankind.

Starting with almost ANY presupposition man can use logical to convince himself of the validity of his position. It may take some "delusions"...and some "distortions" to make it all fit...but it can be done. the problem is with the concept of TRUTH. It is Truth that actually opposes our emotional decisions..and when that happens...it is the responsibility of all men to move in the area of truth.

Good luck....and may Truth find you...My prayer for you is that HaSatan will be revealed to you in his fullest...and in your disappointment may you find that which is GREATER...may you find Truth.

Shalom,

BETZER

[guacamole]

Guacamole:

I have to disagree with you. Unless you Satanism specifically advocates gross human misconduct, not the garden variety of misconduct that everyone does, then it isn't "as 'evil' as it gets".

Please tell me why Satanism NEEDS to specifically advocate "gross human misconduct." No sensible Satanist believes that Lucifer wants His followers to go running around killing people. Even from a Biblical viewpoint this would not make any sense, because how can Satan tempt people away from Christ if His followers are running around scaring everybody?

Careful, I didn't say that it specifically needed to advocate "gross human misconduct." I was simply observing one of the reasons that I think the transgressive ambiance of Satanism is simply a sacred pretense, because despite your claim that I'm afraid my Satanism is pretty much as "evil" as it gets, at least from a theological perspective., it precisely isn't. Please understand, I'm not meaning to insult you or belittle your beliefs. I'm simply trying to be honest. When I look back at history, some aspects of Medieval and Renaisance Christianity still have Satanism, as you've described it, beat by a wide margin in the 'evil' department, theologically or otherwise, and I still wouldn't categorize them as "as 'evil' as it gets". The point is, why pretend that Satanism is "as 'evil' as it gets" when it's the same thing that 99% of the people around the world do on a daily basis.

And many hardcore Christians would seem to consider blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to be the greatest and most unforgivable sin of all, which means that rejecting and blaspheming Jehovah is considered more evil than actually killing another human being.

I don’t think that’s the case. I noted that few people are confident of offering a definition of what it means to “blaspheme the Holy Spirit” and you’re trying to fill in where even Christians are reluctant to expound. Blaspheming Jehovah and doing so to the Holy Spirit wouldn’t be precisely synonymous. Yes, the Holy Spirit is part of Jehovah, but the Bible specifically restricts the sin to the Holy Spirit.

I think that some of the world religions that have practiced child temple prostitution or genocide are "as 'evil' as it gets". You may covet the title, but unless you do something truly "transgressive", you're still just dressing up the ordinary in extraordinary clothing.


Okay, I think part of the misunderstanding here is that you seem to think that I think of myself as being "evil" or "sinful." This is certainly not the case. I am not interested in being "transgressive" in a criminal manner like you describe above. I see no reason why I would need to be in order to be a Satanist.

I fully understand that. I don’t mean to argue that you would do those things, only that you have a somewhat inflated sense of your own ‘evil’. You’re not interested in truly criminal or moral/ethical deviancy. As far as I can see it, again simply to the point of being honest, you are simply looking for a justification of garden-variety transgression. There are plenty of ways to do this without the pretension of being “as ‘evil’ as it gets.”.

If you are a Southern Baptist, quite naturally you will believe a Satanist to be very evil because they reject "God" and choose to follow the Devil instead, and I have actually had people try to kill me before on account of my religious persuasion (I live in the Bible Belt), because they believed I would cause more and more people in the community to turn away from Christ.

I hesitate to speak or answer for the Southern Baptists myself. However, I think that if people hear you explain Satanism the way you do, then there is nothing more or less ‘evil’ about Satanism to a Southern Baptist than there is about ‘Catholicism’ or ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Atheism’. In a pinch, if you and a Southern Baptist were witness to a horrendous evil, the sort of which was within the power of the two of you to dispatch, you’d do it shoulder to shoulder without a moment’s hesitation.



However, part of the problem is your insistence on a codex of symbolism (the body of myths, religious figures, and folklore of deeds) that you know is either designed (if you’re as cynical as me) or just happens to be constructed (if we give Satanists a rather wide benefit of the doubt) to appear to be the sort of thing that an outsider would think they should rather vigorously oppose. For better or for worse, I can’t figure out which would be more unpopular in the human imagination, Nazis or Satanists. I dare say that in some towns a Nazi would get a similarly chilly reception. Trust me, I’m not trying to pin the two together or say that they are alike for any reason except this; that when you say that people have tried to kill you on account of your Satanism, it’s because they think that you do all the nasty, horrid things that the codex of Satanic symbolism; the body of myths, religious figures, and folklore of deeds; would imply to a person who hasn’t got the time or inclination to spend hours typing messages to you on a message board and figure out that you seem like a nice enough chap for a coffee and a game of Chess.

If you are a Satanist however, you will quite naturally NOT see what you believe or do as being evil, you will see it as being a good thing. Satanists do not believe they are worshiping "Evil" or practicing an "evil path." We believe we are worshiping a God who is wrongly scapegoated for human evil, not a God who is responsible for that evil.

I think that’s a problematic declaration on several levels. First, the construction and appropriation of diabolic symbolism is purposeful. You guys didn’t sit down and pick the names of divine figures from a hat and simply come up with the nasty ones by happenstance, now did you? No, the whole point is to revel in a representation of transgression. Look at it this way, you can’t go around saying thinks like “my Satanism is as ‘evil’ as it gets, theologically speaking” and then act surprised when the Fundamentalists get out the green wood. If you say, without nuance, that you are a Satanist, then people will treat you, without nuance, in the way they think a Satanist ought to be treated. That’s what the symbolic corpus of Satanism amounts to. So, I’m not quite sure how you can say, with utter conviction, that you Satanists do not believe you are worshiping “Evil” or practicing an “evil path”; firstly because of the relative position of Good and Evil in your belief, and secondly, because you lot admittedly portray yourselves as evil.

I'm not at all certain that the relationship between monotheism and polytheism is as binary as you depict. Some forms of monotheism, specifically Zoroastrianism, Christianity, some neo-Paganisms, and Hinduism actively blend in and play with polytheistic structures and vocabularies in their depictions of "God-is-one".

Zoroastrianism originally did not count as monotheism, it started as a duo-theism (belief in two Gods, and that the universe is divided between two supernatural superpowers). I do not know very many Christians who would consider themselves polytheists. I have yet to come across very many Pagans who count strictly as monotheists (even the ones who worship only one god are typically henotheists or monolators -- they worship one god, but they are open to the possibility of other gods existing). Some Pagans are pantheists, which is significantly different from monotheism in that "the One God" exists *inside* everything as opposed to be an entity distinct from Creation. Hindus also count as pantheists.

While those are some of the traditional or conventional divisions, I’m not sure they stand as starkly as you’d like. Zoroastianism was and is monotheistic in all but it’s theology; if you want to call it henotheism, so be it; the concept of One God who is worthy of worship and obedience is still present. You have yet to come across very many Pagans who strictly count as monotheists, and yet with that statement you allow for the possibility; I really don’t see the point of your exception. Christians do not consider themselves polytheists, however many of their fellow monotheists (Jews and Muslims for example) see that as the case. In any case, in Christianity you can pray to three different individuals, not just one; surely not a hallmark of hard and fast monotheism. When I talk to people I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are what they say they believe. Hence since I have talked to and read works by Hindus claiming that they are ultimately monotheists, I allow them that point of view. The very fact that we can sit here and split semantic hairs over who is what is evidence of my point: I'm not at all certain that the relationship between monotheism and polytheism is as binary as you depict.

I would say not. It's the popular conception of Christianity, but specifically speaking, it's not the actual teaching of Christianity. The specific greatest sin is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", as long as we define "greatest sin" as the "unforgiveable sin". I've yet to meet a person who can define "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."

I should think it is quite clear what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is intended to mean, and I agree with you that it is the "greatest sin" according to Christianity -- and Satanism is "transgressive" in that it completely 100% supports the idea of blaspheming Jehovah. But once again, Satanists themselves do not see this as a "sinful" thing to do, we see it as a good thing.

If you think it is quite clear what “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is intended to mean”, I urge you to submit your thesis for publication to any of a number of theological journals, since theologians have been puzzling over the phrase for quite some time and there is still no agreement. Again blaspheming Jehovah and blaspheming the Holy Spirit are not synonymous. Even if that were the case, I’m not sure that the simple denial of “Jehovah” by the Satanists would count.

Perhaps you mean the idea of the rejection of Christ causing you to end up in hell, as is the popular shorthand of popular evangelism. We Christians have no one to blame for that messy bit of theology than ourselves. Rejection of Christ doesn't cause you to end up in hell, even in the most conservative orthodox Christian theologies. It is the out come of your sin, the punishment merited from the wickedness in your life. The New Testament is quite specific about this.

The New Testament is also quite specific about Jesus "being the only way" to get into heaven, and that without him you'll be roasting forever in Jehovah's fireplace. I would have to say that most of the conservative Christians I know -- and remember that I live in the Bible belt -- are firm believers that if you don't have Jesus, you will get a taste of the second death, regardless of how good or moral a person you might be.

That is true, rejection of Christ, or rather, the refusal to accept the atonement offered through him for your sin, does mean that you will end up in hell. However, the idea behind it is very close to some ideas you’ve already expressed. I’ll put it a bit more traditionally; you’ll reap what you sow. The rejection of Christ doesn’t send to hell in any sense other than it simply allows the supernatural order of judgment to continue; it simply allows you to reap what you sow. The acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice, the work of grace, allows you to circumvent the reap/sow process.

These are of course the Christians who are somewhat pushy about getting people to convert to their religion. I have noticed that Christians who are not quite so pushy tend not to believe that you need Jesus in order to have a happy afterlife so much, and they also tend to NOT believe in Satan. Considering that they do not consider Satan much of a threat, I do not see any point in being "transgressive" toward such persons because, even as my dear Southern Baptist friends would surely think, such people have already been successfully "deceived" by the Dark Angel...

Indeed, Christianity is a religion with a very wide spectrum. Between those two poles you’ll find a universe of views and possibilities. I grew up in a church in which Christians believed that you need Jesus in order to be saved and which also believed in Satan, and yet was not given much to evangelism. Many Fundamentalists are quite content to let you wend a merry path to hell of your own choosing and say nothing about it.

I can't agree with that either. Many forms of Hinduism are quite accomodating to other faiths. Some forms of Rabbinic Judaism have abandoned the concept of needing to believe in "one true god" and have instead substituted keeping the commandments. Not even all Christianities are binary constructions of saved/unsaved as distinct and separate sets. I suppose one could blame that on the work of Satan. And some do. But its also an indication that even monotheism isn't easily definable.

I would agree that it's the work of Satan. However, a few things I would like to point out: once again, Hinduism is not monotheistic, it's pantheistic. Therefore, OF COURSE it is accomodating to other faiths, considering that it believes that all of the gods are really just one God anyway. I do not understand how Rabbinic Jews can reconcile the idea of keeping the Ten Commandments without reference to their "One true God," but whatever. And I have already dealt with the subject of Christians who have wandered away from the more conservative, cut-and-dry line of thinking to which their fundamentalist counterparts adhere.

I won’t argue with you about Hinduism. Believe what you want about it, only try not to correct the practiccioner if he or she insists on monotheism. Some Rabbinic Jews cite quotations in body of commentary on the Torah in which the idea that keeping the commandments is more important than believing in God. You might want to ask about it in the Judaism forum, since you can post there to ask questions. All of this goes to say that it is ironic, given your complaint about the way you get treated for being a self described “Satanist”, that you decide to shoehorn Monotheism in the narrowest, most severe category that you can find; one of intolerance and intellectual if not spiritual brutality. It would be worthwhile, I think, for you to explore Monotheism as a system that is less dogmatic than you currently allow.

That depends on what I thought truth was. As a Christian who believes in a devil, I know that he or his intermediaries have intervened in billions of lives around the world. Nevertheless I don't feel compeled to worship him. I often don't feel compelled to worship Christ, as a matter of point. So I don't know that I would say that intervention and calling are necessarily germane to determining who you worship.

I would say that they are. If you identify as a Christian, surely you have felt "the touch of the Lord" and you feel called to serve Christ. Otherwise, why are you calling yourself a Christian?

The point is that it doesn’t necessarily follow that intervention and calling merit obedience. Christians I know who’ve claimed the intervention and calling of the Devil, and who have refused it allegiance demonstrate this. You don’t need to obey or follow the one who intervenes and calls. I think that invariably you choose to heed or not heed based on many many other criteria.



Fwiw

Guaca.

[guacamole]

Just a note, we may get penalized for breaking up our posts like this. I'm not sure, but in any case we might want to try filling our comments in one post. We'll see...

Guacamole writes:

It's not Satanism per se that I am calling an "adolescent pretension." I am quite certain that you are serious about what you do. It's the symbolism of Satanism, the plundering of transgressive archetypes, without actual transgression that I am calling an "adolescent pretension." When you have to go to Pan or Prometheus, Bast or Thoth to provide a bit of your imagery, you've strayed rather far from the diabolic imagery of Christianity, the apocalyptic traitorousness of Loki, or even the adversarial mythologies of Set and Osiris. In appropriating positive and generative constructions of the divine, you strip the original imagery of it's intention, indeed the most powerful symbols of the very evil acts that give them their power. You have a Satan who doesn't labor to consign mortals to hell, a Set who doesn't seek to drown the world in darkness and thus snuff out all life, a Loki who isn't going to provide the means for the eventual mass deicide of Ragnarok. Instead, you have a swell personage who wants you to realize your full potential, recognize that what you do will affect who you are, and rise above your circumstances to be great. Some people would call that "God", capital G. That goes back to the "Why Satan" question. There doesn't seem to be a point except to be sheep in wolves clothing.

I don't think you understand. Satanists do not agree that the "original imagery" is intended to be symbolic of "evil" acts that "give them their power." Neither Set, nor Loki, nor Satan were originally concepts of evil -- at least not in any sense that I would could consider evil. Set was originally a storm god who acted as protector of the gods and who defended Ra *from* evil, and who was later demonized when the Osiris cult took full sway over Egypt. Loki was originally just a trickster god, not a full-blown evil menace. And the Judaic Devil, first appearing in Jewish folklore as Azazel (after the Babylonian Exile), was originally an angel who came to earth because he lusted after mortal women -- not because He wanted to take over the throne of heaven -- and who educated mortals in various arts of civilization, including the sciences, the liberal arts, cosmetics, weaponry, and even "witchcraft." (My source: the apocryphal book of Enoch). Prior to the Babylonian Exile, there was no Devil in Judaic myth; originally the term "satan" meant something far less extreme than the "arch-enemy of Jehovah."






The Judaic Devil comes largely from the Persian Ahriman, who indeed is equated with Satan by modern Zoroastrians, and who is identified with Azazil/Iblis, the Shaitan and Lord of the Djinn in Islamic mythology. But even Ahriman was not always considered to be evil. Originally he was simply a god of darkness and magic in polytheistic, pre-Zoroastrian Persia; neither darkness nor magic are "evil" in and of themselves.

First off, I think you are confusing my disagreement with not understanding you. I completely grasp what you are trying to say, I just disagree with it. Satanists may not agree that that “original imagery” is intended to be symbolic of “evil”. While the lesson on mythology is an interesting diversion, what matters is not the symbolic corpus as it originally appeared, but the symbolic corpus as it is utilized by the Satanists. As far as I can see, the reliance is on transgressive figures, not the positive figures from which they might have evolved. I may be wrong on this, but it does not seem that the devil worshipper is enthralled with the variant form of the diabolic god which was ‘good’ rather than ‘evil’. If you are interested in worshipping Set as the protector of the gods, then you seek to worship something that is ‘good’, not ‘evil’. Thus I say it’s a pretension to rely on the selective appropriation of ‘evil’ divine figures if what you’re after is the ‘good’ representation of them. If you aren’t interested in the ‘good’ representation of them, then their earlier iterations amount to a moot point.

No, the fact of the matter is that even if 99.9% of the people in the world believe that the Devil is evil, history shows that all of man's Devils in all of his religions were originally deities who were seen in a positive light somehow, but who, for one reason or another, were made into scapegoats and given the blame for all the "evil" and "sin" in the world (however these terms are defined by whatever particular religion). As a matter of fact the term "scapegoat" itself comes from the Jewish Day of Atonement ritual, during which two goats would be sacrificed, one as an offering to Jehovah and the other as an offering to Azazel. The goat for Jehovah would be ceremonially killed, while the goat for Azazel was driven alive into the wilderness.

And the point is that Satanism doesn’t rely on the “lost” concept of those gods as something ‘good’, but on the transgressive concept which followed after.

Yes, but it again brings us to the question of "What's the point to diabolotry" if the same point is being fulfiled amply in belief systems that don't rely on the pretension of transgression?

Once again I don't think you're quite understanding where a person with a Satanist mindset is coming from. The Satanist really isn't interested in "the pretension of transgression" as you refer to it. Transgression is not the point. What we believe may be seen as a transgression by Christians, but I can assure you that Satanists themselves see what we believe as being the truth. Satanists tend to view Christianity and/or Islam as being "transgressions." Real, seriously devoted Satanists are not really "rebelling" except in the eyes of the opposition; they are simply following what they believe in their hearts to be true.

I have to admit, what I don’t understand is, if you truly aren’t seeking to be seen as transgressive, why the reliance on a moral relativism, why utilize transgressive archetypes as transgressive archetypes.

I wouldn't say any religoins identify "carnality" as a virtue at all.

And that's exactly my point, is that Satanism is a reigion which DOES identify "carnality" as a virtue.

Which, may I point out, is pointedly… transgressive.

At best, they identify "carnality" as a mundane aspect of human existence. It is the layman, heedless of the myriad scriptures, who pursues garden-variety trasngression, that is, carnality, without much consideration. That's what I mean when I say "mainstream". If everyone is doing it, then on at least one level, it's ordinary, isn't it?

First of all, what you think of as "mundane," the Satanist thinks of as holy. I certainly do not begrudge you for your views, but Satanists do not think of the carnal world as being "mundane."

And yes it may be "mainstream" to give in to your carnal impulses (after all, everybody does it) -- but how many religions actually encourage you to give in to your carnal nature? Compare that to the number of religions that think of carnal nature as being either sinful at worst or obstructive at best to a well-balanced spirituality. Satanism considers carnality to be sacred, and therefore an important key to our spirituality. Satanism may be "mainstream" in the sense that it lets you do what most people will do naturally, but it is certainly not "mainstream" in terms of what religions typically have to say about this.

Correct. We are in agreement.

Another way to look at is is that you've simply substituted one set of sexual limitations for another admitedly wider set, but a set that still recognizes transgressive sexual actions; child temple prostitution, rape, etc. Even with your emphasis on carnality and indulgence, you've not widdened the standards of sexual behavior much beyond what is considered normative in general society. Hence it is still, like Christianity, indulgence with limits and moderation.

There are just some things that I think are just plain wrong (like child prostitution). However, there are other viewpoints in the world that would state otherwise. Now, I certainly believe that Satan enjoys tempting people to think what are commonly thought of as "forbidden thoughts." But a Satanist is not entitled to act upon such "forbidden thoughts." Reflexive anti-morality is simply not Satanic by any means. Satan's temptation is intended to make you THINK and use your noodle -- to discern the difference between Good and Evil for yourself, as with Adam and Eve and the Fruit. Let's say for instance that Satan instills a Satanist with a desire to sleep with his sister. Now as disturbing a thought as this might be, let us say that the Satanist considers the thought and then arrives at a conclusion. He concludes that it is not a good idea to sleep with his own sister, considering that there's no telling how the kid might turn out. Incest is one particular "transgression" that is considered such for fairly obvious good reasons. All the Satanists I've ever spoken with would agree that Satan does not want us to commit incest (and that's a lot), but it is certainly not above Him to pitch the idea through someone's head now and again, just to get them thinking. And sometimes it takes a really shocking idea or two to get you thinking.

That’s all well and good. However, all you’ve done is affirm the mainstream pov. Hence my assertion that all you’re doing is dressing the mainstream up in something kinky. It seems, considering the wide spectrum of other paganisms, that you could do this without trying to tweak the sensibilities of the Southern Baptists.

Again, that may be true with some rare exceptions, but that is the instinctive reflex of 99% of the people in the world. I'm not trying to say that your religion isn't unique- the point is that you've added some trappings to the mundane and decided to call it special.

Maybe in YOUR view that is what I have done, but the way I see things, what you call the "mundane" world does not need any "trappings" and does not need to be "called special" -- because it already IS special, in and of itself. Once again, Satanists consider the world of matter and flesh to be holy.

Again, we find ourselves in agreement. My point was nothing more than to echo the concept that you don’t need to utilize transgressive archetypes, dark gods and evil symbolism to arrive at that point.

Honestly, it seems to me you are being disingenuous. That's the reason you have the tag line "friendly neighborhood devil worshipper". You know that the phrase is intentionally loaded with irony. You picked the phrase because it is designed to play on the religious sensibilities of typical religionists.

Actually that is only a secondary reason. My primary reason for calling myself "Your Friendly Neighborhood Devil Worshiper" is because, believe it or not, there is quite a contraversy among Satanists over the term "Devil worship." Some Satanists dislike the term because the LaVeyan branch has used it for the past 30 years or so as a scapegoat term for Satanists that they disagreed with. So people descended from the LaVeyan tradition tend to frown upon the word, especially since they are atheistic Satanists. I started calling myself "Your Friendly Neighborhood Devil Worshiper" a long time ago in order to play on the religious sensibilities of my fellow Satanists more than anything else. You'll find that we do that a lot.

And yes the phrase is saturated with irony. However, just because I have an ironic sense of humor does not mean that I believe worshiping the Devil is really a scandalous thing. It certainly doesn't bother me that people worship the Devil, and I don't see why it should bother anyone really. I'm more concerned about terrorists and criminals and corrupt politicians.

It bothering you or being scandalous to you isn’t really the point. Because you chose it as part of your public representation on a theological message board, we know you chose it purposefully for its value in your representation. You could have easily gone with something that wouldn’t have the same irony value, but you didn’t. I would have quite another assessment of it if this were a Satanist message board but it’s not, hence I find you’re protestations to be rather weak. It scandalizes us. You know that, and that’s enough for your choice of it on a largely Christian message board. At any rate it appears that’s you’re story and you’re sticking to it.

There is some cache to being the "friendly neighborhood devil worshipper", elsewise you would have picked a less ironic tag line, no? That's the reason you extol the sanctification of all carnality; the supposed "incredibility" of sexual liscence. That's the whole reason you have sought to rescue my measure of it as mundane and common place.

"Rescue?" Why does the entire carnal world need to be "rescued" from you?

Who said it needed to be rescued from me? I’m saying you chose your tag line with the intention to be scandalous. Even if your intention was to be like Satan and get people thinking, that’s what you’re representation to us is meant to show.

Again, I'm not attacking it as insincere or somehow less than serious. It's just that the whole thing that supposedly makes Satanism "different" is the transgressive imagery, the "scandalous" construction of the faith to the conventional.

I'm sorry, but I've been a Satanist for almost ten years now and I just don't agree with you. The point to Satanism is not to be scandalous or transgressive, except as Christians might see these things. The point to Satanism, at least from a theistic Satanist perspective, is simply to worship Satan. Naturally Satanists do not see anything "transgressive" about this, rather we accept that people in OTHER religions BELIEVE it is "transgressive." Satanists certainly do not believe that there is any valid law against worshiping Satan -- not even any laws given by Jehovah.

Seriously, I don’t mean to tell you what you believe. I can only offer my take on it. As far as I can see it, if it wasn’t meant to be scandalous, even if only for other people, then you’d be working with a different corpus of symbols.

It's the metaphor for the whole idea of taking the mundane and elevating it to something sacred by imposing a set of external trappings.

Once again, the "mundane" does not need to be "elevated to something sacred" by "imposing a set of external trappings." The carnal world is already sacred, it does not require human approval of its holiness.

If the carnal world is already sacred and does not require human approval of its holiness then why say First of all, what you think of as "mundane," the Satanist thinks of as holy. Which is it, does it need to be elevated to something sacred, which is what I think you do, and which you observe that you do, or does it not need to be so?

Your mother dressed up in lingerie is still your mother. The behavior of 99% of the planet on any given day dressed up in Satanism is still the behavior of 99% of the planet on any given day.

That's true, and Satanists believe that's the way it should be.

I don't mean "pretensious" in the sense of something special or elevated. I mean "pretensious" in the sense of "having a pretense"; a likeness of something without having the actuality that makes the likeness a reality. I'm not saying that you don't worhip "Satan, the Prince of Darkness" and that you shouldn't call yourself a Satanist. However, it seems to me that whereas Satanism relies on the trangressive imagery of Satan or other "dark" gods, it actually isn't that transgressive.

Here's the problem in your above statement. Satanism to a person like myself does not depend on "transgression." If I were a Christian then yes I would see Satan as "transgressive," but since I am on Satan's side I do not see anything "transgressive" about Him. This is just natural, because I am a Satanist after all. One could equally state that following Christ is "transgressive" from a Satanic perspective.

Agreed, and I note as much in my next section…

[guacamole]

That's what I mean when I say "having a pretense". Satanism, as you've described it to me, has the pretense of transgression without actually being transgressive. It's as if to say, "Hey, we all act this way, let's make a religion up about it and charge people to buy our booksnstuff."

I am really confused as to why you think I've been claiming that Satanism is "transgressive," considering that you are the first one to have used that word in this thread. Perhaps part of the confusion comes from my use of the term "the ultimate power of subversity in human spiritual experience" in my first post here. Naturally the Prince of Darkness is considered to be a god with some very subversive traits -- He doesn't let anyone boss Him around, He dares to think for Himself apart from the will of any other deity and He is constantly challenging the worship of Jehovah and other monotheistic gods by introducing different ideas into people's minds across the world.

I’m not saying that you’ve been claiming that Satanism is “transgressive”. I’ve never said any such thing. I’ve said that you have a pretense of transgression, through the body of satanic symbolism. Two rather different ideas altogether…

What I mean when I said that inorder to be truly exterior you have to throw off the mores of the mainstream and be "ravishingly wicked or transcendently saintly" is simply that true transgression, in the human sense, not the spiritual sense, lies outside average, common place human behavior; think Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresea. You have, on the one hand true saints, people who have transcended commonplace human action and become for all intensive purposes a living human sacrifice for the greater good. You have, on the other hand true violators, people who have transcended commonplace human since and become for all intensive purposes literal monsters in human flesh, for whom morality and civilizing structures themselves become part and parcel for the iron rod of evil. In between are 99% of us. The rest us; Satanists, Christians,Theives, Preachers, Presidents, Laborers.

The path of Satanism does not call for you to be a Mother Theresa or an Adolf Hitler. It calls for you to be yourself, whoever you might be -- and it teaches that yourself is something that is always under construction. This belief may be reflected in other religions, which it most certainly is -- but naturally all people in all religions will sometimes agree on certain issues. When it comes down to it, Satanism is really a lot more like other religions than most people would expect. Satanists don't kill cats or sacrifice babies or try to be "ravishingly evil." Satanists are just like most other normal people -- we have jobs to do, bills to pay, mouths to feed, etc. Many people feel a need to experience a higher power in their lives, just to help them get through some of the crazy things that happen. Satanists are people who have found that experience with a higher power that they identify -- or that identifies itself to them -- as Satan.

I understand that’s what you see Satanism to be. What I don’t understand is, in light of that, the reliance on the body of symbols that you utilize.

Take for example Jesus. Whether he existed or not isn't the point here. In the narratives of the Gospels he is portrayed as the supreme transgressor of the ethic of the 99%. He denies himself, gives new teachings, heals the sick and possessed. He generally makes himself a thorn in the side of the people who want the status quo perpetuated. As the supreme transgressor he is executed. The writers of the New Testament compose all sorts of imagistic and metaphorical riffs off that essential theme, things like "Jesus becomes sin", but there it is. If Satan is the God of the World and his way, the way of the 99% is the law, then Jesus is the criminal. If you want to be truly revolutionary, truly a breaker of the law, then follow the Jesus of scripture, not the one that gives out a Benz for a prayer and a cure for cancer over the phone.

Sorry, but I see no reason to accept Jesus as my shepherd when I already have a perfectly good Master of my own. I'm not interested in being "revolutionary" or "breaking the law." I'm interested in being true to my self, and being true to my self means following Satan because He is in my heart of hearts.

It was simply a deconstruction of the idea of following a ‘dark’ path which is really anything but ‘dark’. It is conventional, ordinary, and rather a bit on the grayish side. It goes back to my not grasping why the transgressive imagery is necessary if you aren’t looking to be all that wicked to begin with.

Now understand something, right now, in that paragraph, I'm not saying follow Jesus for the one-true-way. I also believe that, but that's not the point of the above passage. I was simply describing why I think Jesus' conduct is remarkable, in contrast with the description you've given of Satanism. I could have composed something equally sacharine based on the standard of extraordinary conduct for Socrates, Abraham Lincoln, or the latest Medal of Honor winner. Satanism is normalcy for 99% of us. If you want to be extraordinary, to rise above the herd, honestly, find something else, and follow it with rigorous consistency. JMO...

Okay, so Jesus was a rebel in his day. But according to the same mythology, Satan was the very FIRST rebel to exist. The idea of rebellion didn't even exist until Satan came along and did His thing (speaking in terms of Christian belief of course). So to whom does Jesus owe his "transgressive" profession? Perhaps he did learn a thing or two while he was with Satan in the desert...

By saying that "Satanism is normalcy for 99% of us" I think you have a completely different idea of Satanism than I do. Satanism is certainly not normal as far as most people are concerned. I know you didn't it mean it this way, but please don't sit there and tell me that my religion is "normal" when I live in an area of the continental United States where you are likely to be KILLED by someone for even vaguely hinting that you are a Satanist in public. Considering that most Satanists have to hide their religion even from their own FAMILY MEMBERS, let alone from employers or religious fanatics who might try to take their children away from them, I would hardly say that Satanism is considered to be "normal."

It’s your reliance on calling yourself a Satanist that is likely to get yourself killed. Your religion is normal. If you sit down with your persecutors and tell them you are about being yourself no matter who you are, they’d say “darn tootin’” before they thump you on the back, because that’s what everyone already does, Christian, Satanist, or otherwise. You can’t tell me that when fast food jingles are the medium whose lyrics most closely match “being true to myself” that Satanism, at least how you have identified it in this thread, as something not to be feared and exterminated, that Satanism isn’t somewhat ordinary.

I'm not saying that you haven't had experiences with Satan in specific, or that people haven't had divine experiences in general. I'm saying that if you dress up the ordinary in the extraordinary cloth, you've still got the ordinary. What the devil is teaching you is what 99% of people do. Why you feel the need for the devil to teach that to you is your own thing, of course. I can only describe how I see it.

I don't "need" the Devil to teach me to do what 99% of people do. As I already stated, I believe human morality precedes any notion of divinity. Therefore it is unnecessary for a person to have a religious code in order to have a moral code. Satan Himself does not teach a moral code, but instead pokes and prods the people He touches to *think independantly* about their moral codes, AS well as their religious codes. As the serpent in the garden of Eden, Satan did not teach Adam and Eve what was wrong and what was right, instead He gave them the ability to easily determine such for themselves by virtue of their carnal brains. People definitely have different opinions, but a Satanist perspective of Genesis is that Satan is the one who originally made it possible to have a moral code WITHOUT a religious code, hence why He is so "evil" -- because human beings no longer need "God" in order to be "good."

If you don’t need the Devil to teach you what 99% of people do, and what he teaches you to do is what 99% of people do, then why bother with the Devil?

I think you could say that except that your Cosmic Policeman is the fact that if you do not follow what Satan is trying to teach you, or if you abuse the Rede, or work against your higher will, then you're working against yourself. That's you're Cosmic Policeman, your Karma, your Law of God, whatever. Again, you just dress it up somewhat differently. I would say, based on the ideas of self-realization, that you have your idea of "salvation" as well, but I wouldn't say that as I might start a row.

I do not agree that the truth of cause-and-effect implies the existence of a Cosmic Policeman. If you do bad things, you will more than likely have bad things happen to you. If you do good things, you will more than likely have good things happen to you. It's not Karma because it has nothing to do with any ideas about future lives, it's not the Wiccan Rede because there's no rule that says "An it harm none" (sometimes harm can be necessary, especially in self-defense). And what do you mean by "Law of God"? Do you mean Jehovah, the Supreme Being or Satan? It certainly doesn't count as either the Law of Jehovah or the Law of Satan in my view, considering that neither one of them is the Creator in my belief. As for the Cosmic Creator God -- who rightly knows if It is even self-aware?

All you’ve done is substitute a naturalistic or ethical explanation for the Cosmic Policeman, rather than a supernatural explanation. He’s still there, blowing his whistle and writing tickets, just, again, dressed up in different clothes. Protest all you want that it’s different. It ain’t. Plain and simple. Either God get’s you in traditional religion, or you reap what you sow. Either way.

Again, however you want to put it. There's still a cosmic policeman even if it is just the law of outcomes. Incidently, you're view is remarkably similar to the Buddhist concept of Karma, as opposed to the Hindu concept, fwiw.

Hardly, it does not include the notion of future reincarnations being determined by past Karma. It's just a real simple down-to-earth fact: if you don't want trouble, stay out of it. If you want to risk the trouble, you'd better be prepared to accept the circumstances. That is all. No policeman. There is nothing there to actively punish you if you do wrong or reward you if you do right. Whether you get punished or rewarded by your actions depends entirely upon the nature of your actions and the reactions that other people have to them.

You can say “no police man” all you want, but until you can get away with anything, there’s a policeman. You jump off a building and splat? Gravity. It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.



It would be worth reading about the Buddhist concept of Karma before you try saying that it has nothing to do with Karma. For example, from wikipedia:



In Buddhism, only intentional actions are karmic "acts of will". The 'Law of Karma' refers to "cause and effect", but Karma literally means "action" - often indicating intent or cause. Accompanying this usually is a separate tenet called Vipaka, meaning result or effect. The re-action or effect can itself also influence an action, and in this way, the chain of causation continues ad infinitum.



There is an element in Buddhism of Karma that is attached to rebirth, but it isn’t specifically and inherently tied to reincarnation.

It is remarkable, that two very different people can come to the exact same conclusion, despite both of them dressing up the process in very different clothes. Again, it begs us ask the question, at least from this example, of "why satanism".

I could just as easily ask "Why Christianity?" To a person like myself it makes perfect sense to see Satan as a "good guy" so to speak, because that is the way that we honestly experience Him. I can assure you that if we saw Him as a "bad guy" most of us would probably not follow Him.

The point is that the way you see Satan, anyone would see him as something of a good guy. That’s the point to the question “Why Satanism”.

Oh I understand what it means, I just think it difficult to justify in some cases- especially since here it seems you, being a Satanist, have two utterly arbitrary terms based entirely on perspective. Perhaps that is the strength of the Christian position, it recognizes the difficulty of acurately judging each other according to subjective terms and proposes instead that you cut people slack.

I don't think Christianity finds it too hard to accurately judge people by their actions -- "By their fruits ye shall know them," right?

Cutting people slack is often good -- but there is a line to be drawn. When people smite you on the cheek too much, sometimes you need to smite back instead of just turning the other cheek.

Christians definitely can distinguish people based on their deeds, that doesn’t mean that you don’t continue to love people sacrificially. It also asserts that you shouldn’t presume to know the whole story, hence you love.



I agree that sometimes you need to smite back sometimes. Scarily enough, so does Jehovah!

I fully follow you. I didn't mean to say that satanism saw it as a sin, after all you said it there was no concept of sin rather clearly. The problem is that if there is no concept of "sin" then nothing you can do, even identifying "one right way" is sin. It is problematic to identify "one right way" as being the wrong way if there isn't a wrong way. Nevertheless Satanism sees identifying "one right way" as being the wrong way. It's self-defeating.

Not as the wrong way for everybody, just as the wrong way for ourselves. Obviously some people feel drawn to Christ; no Satanist is going to tell such a person that they MUST turn away from Christ "OR ELSE." Christianity is right for some people, but not for people whose spiritual orientation lies elsewhere. When it comes down to it that's the real crux of the issue right there, spiritual orientation. Different people are just born with different religious sensibilities. It's sort of like sexual orientation. Some men like girls, some men like boys. Some guys like Jehovah, some guys like Satan. (Except there is a wider spectrum in this case than in the sexual, of course.)

That doesn’t make sense if Satanism works to oppose monotheism. If religion is like sexual orientation, then it’s senseless for Satanism to work to oppose monotheism, no?

I didn't say you said they were evil, just wrong, hence the condemnation.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that they were objectively wrong either. Of course monotheism is wrong to me, but obviously it is not wrong to all people. I do not condemn people simply for believing differently than I do, though I cannot say the same thing for many monotheists I've met. Admittedly I have come across many an atheist who had a problem like this as well.

Well, I may be putting words in your mouth, but the spoon is yours. If you Satanists work to oppose monotheism then on some level, it’s wrong. You can say that Monotheism is wrong for you, but since monotheism invariably claims that it is right for you (assuming a hard and fast type of monotheism) then your saying Monotheism is wrong for you amounts to saying that Monotheism is objectively wrong. In order for you to be able to say that Monotheism isn’t objectively wrong you have to be able to say that it might, in fact, be right for you, but you simply choose otherwise. That, I think, would cause further problems down the road for your reasoning, however.

So there is a way that's wrong then?

Sure -- and as you pointed out, I certainly think monotheism is wrong. I do not claim that every way is right, nor do I look down on people for disagreeing with me as to which ways are right and which ones are not.

Honestly, for you to say that you certainly think monotheism is wrong right after you imply that it isn’t objectively wrong doesn’t quite match up.

That is a common sentiment amongst Pagans in general. It's think it is unfounded, considering the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Goths, the Saxons, the Vikings, the Ancient Chinese, the Aztecs... I'm sure I'm forgetting someone. Granted they weren't all trying to burn the Zoroastrian Temples, sacrifice a pig on the altar in the Jerusalem Temple to Jupiter, cut the heart out of war prisoners, compose loyal oaths based on declarations of divinity to the emperor, or sack monasteries, but I think that lot give the monotheists a run for the money. I guess you could say, no, I don't think that having a monotheistic view is the best predictor of being a cause of inter-religious strife.

To be true, polytheistic societies had their fair share of wars -- but hardly any of these wars were really spiritual in nature. Polytheistic societies tended to get along in terms of religion because each religion respected the other as having some grian of truth in it. The wars in polytheistic societies were usually over the normal things -- food, land, women, etc. The concept of "Holy Wars" or "Crusades" never really started getting big until the monotheists started popping up.

I don’t know that I’d describe the imperialist tendencies of pagan religions to colonize and subsume each other as “get along in terms of religion”. But feh, I’m not interested in arguing it out.



Fwiw

Guaca.

[whoweepsforkirk]

geiffod, never mind that philosophy sheet, tell them about the succubbi and loki stealing your socks.

that stuff was cool.

also, it feeds my idiot side.

[Cynic Sage]

geiffod, never mind that philosophy sheet, tell them about the succubbi and loki stealing your socks.

that stuff was cool.

also, it feeds my idiot side.

What the Crap?!