Satanism

[dessert]

Well - I’ll sort of go down my list as I understand the different banners of Satanism.

1 - Lavey Satanism

Usually well educated, well spoken atheists. Some are egotistical, egocentric, self-serving bigots as well, but there are some those in ever aspect of life. Lavey Satanism is largely a fad in my opinion, and when the money runs dry, people will be content with just calling themselves Atheists again. It is human nature to want to belong somewhere, and Lavey Satanism gives people with that particular ideology a place to call their own.

2 - Lucifarian

It is a different outlook on religion where Lucifer is helpful. And there are different aspects Him. It’s all a bit complicated and difficult to explain, so I would just recommend googling it if you’re interested.

3 - Rebellion

The second thing that jumps to mind. Teenagers - who know not what they do. They may ‘worship’ satan, but it is a phase. Usually some dysfunctional child who believes ‘this will really show them’. They dabble. Beyond that they eventually reject satan, or end up a drunk or drugy. So much for ‘showing them’, huh?

4 - The Excuse

Then there are others who blame their own actions on the devil. I forget the serial killer who claimed the devil made him do it. People who go for shock value.

5a - Devil Worshipper

These are the people who do worship Satan. Young adults, mostly - or unsuccessful, apathetic people who need someone to blame their misfortunes on. Usually they blame God, so Satan is the next best choice. They usually don’t mind telling people about it, even going so far as to boast about it. These ones usually believe they’ll get a reward for their services. Their detication is short lived.

5b -

People who serve satan, expect nothing in return, and know/accept the fate that awaits them eventually. We realize the only way to hurt god, is to hurt his children. You hurt their relationship through sin, temptation and manipulation. Since I’ve never met anyone like myself - beyond that there’s not a lot to say.

I was curious about what others take on it was. If you consider that ‘satanism’ that was the question I was asking you to answer.

Injustic doesn’t actually equate to satanism if you ask me.

Misguided yes, but satanism? No. Some people throw anything not catholic or christian under the banner of Satanism - but I see many distinctions.

It’s an interesting thought, and that is what I was asking about.

But Satan does expect to get something back, your soul. He is trying to associate us with his revolt against God, like a reactionary.
There is a contrast between light and darknesss.
“And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. so it is not stange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness . Their end will corespond to their deeds.” 2 Cor 11; verse 14,15
Do you have a Bible? Dessert

 

[CCM08]

Anton Levay was frankly a very silly man that manged to attract attention to his circus freak show because of social conditions that he neither created nor had any control over in the 80’s. Outside of the “human interest” blurbs until the “satanic scare” of the 80’s nobody even knew who he was. Even during the satanic scare he was hardly world famous. There’s really nothing to his philosophical system, do what you want when you want is hardly complicated philosophy or ideology. Outside of that it’s just shock value which appeals to teenagers looking to shock their parents. Levay’s choice to package his “philosophy” as “satanism” betrays this motive.
Though I will give those teenagers credit for actually having the stones to take it to the extreme. As opposed to this silly neopaganism wicca nonsense, which serves the same purpose but is for kids that don’t have the wrinkles to say they worship the devil.
As far as actual worship of the devil is concerned, I’m fairly unconvinced that it exists or ever has existed. Bodies like the Hellfire Club of London were rich athestic types doing what they could to shock the social norms of their day while debautching themselves to their heart’s content. Different context than Levay’s satanism, same goals.

 

[IanCorrigan]

**SatanismB]

Satanism is primarily the invention of the Roman church. In a dualistic cosmic moral drama, in which Good and Evil are at war, the folks who self-identify as on the side of ‘good’ will always expect there to be ‘soldiers’ of the other side, and will imagine what they might be like.

The early church understood any Gods other than their own to be ‘devils’ so there were always ‘devil-worshippers’ around until the church gained utter hegemony. Other than those Pagans, who never heard of ‘the devil’, the worship of ‘the devil’ or ‘lucifer’ has never had much reality.

‘Occult’ arts get associated with satanism, but almost no actual occult material recommends or teaches the worship of satan.There are no medieval books of devil worship, no archeology or folklore than suggests any conscious worship of satan. At least not before the early modern era.

Reformation churches feared satan at least as much as the romans ever did, and were vigorous witch-hunters, as well. By the early modern era (say, after 1650) the myths of ‘devil worship’ had penetrated the folk consciousness. Milton invented the Noble Enemy version of Lucifer, and the game was on. As a result, some occultists started to apply some traditional occult practices to ‘satanic’ ideas.By the 18th c there may have been conscious satanists, some perhaps of the anti-clerical, populist sort.

The late 19th and early 20th c. saw a return of spiritual occultism. The Theosophical Society, the Golden Dawn and others taught systematic methods of spiritual practice, that had no ‘satanic’ stuff involved at all, though Blavatsky flirted with the idea of ‘lucifer’ as a title for a sort of spiritual principle of light, and, later, Crowley did adopt some images of the enemy from John’s Revelation.

Trends in this western occult stream became the Neopagan sects (Wicca, etc) in the mid-20th c, most of which entirely dismiss any association with the idea of ‘satan’. There are some sorts of modern Satanists who imitate Neopagan Witchcraft, but even more goth…, and seem to want to be the people the medieval monks warned us against.

Types:
Lavey Church of Satan (1966) - atheist psychodrama-using neitzcheians.

Theistic Satanists - later modern satanists who actually worship spiritual beings. They usually conceive of Satan as the God of Individual Power, or as a model after which the individual can build their own godhood. The Temple of Set is the classic organization, but there are various types, some organized like the ‘covens’ of Neopagan Witchcraft.

Luciferians (1970s) Revival ‘witches’ who identify with the enemies of the Roman church in the middle ages. Other Luciferians would tell us they worship a figure like prometheus, who brought the fire of heaven to mortals.

What do you think people who practice it actually do?

Like any religion, a lot of them just self-identify, and practice occasionally, when they feel like it. Others are more devout, keeping a regular round of meditation, ritual, exercises, etc.

If there are ‘criminal satanic cults’ the police haven’t been able to find them. Occasionally some gang of drug-soaked teens gets the wrong idea, and go on a rampage, but there’s little evidence for long-term satanic cults or conspiracies. If there are groups that actually practice animal sacrifice they don’t write about it. (animal sacrifice has been permitted for religious purposes by US courts)
Most satanists just practice an alternative religion…

Those of you who aren’t christian:

I’m a Celtic Pagan, and student of religion and ‘the occult’. I’m not a satanist, and find satanic philosophy and mythography generally lame.

**Who, if anyone, do you believe is responsible for the reprehensable actions of mankind? **

This an area in which Pagans have no single answer. For those who think uncertainty implies weakness, I can only answer that it’s better to have three possible answers than just one certain one.

In general, Pagans assume that humans devise human ill-deeds on our own. There’s no assumption that a deity might whisper in our ears to do good or ill, generally. Human will is seen as a real part of the way things are.

The Gods love virtue - right action. They teach us various ways among various peoples - not all have the same gods or the same laws. Some deities seem to want tightly regulated behavior, others less so. The Gods hate oath-breaking, sneak-killing (murder), stingyness, and love honor and honesty, fair dealing and hospitality. The discussion of ethical philosophy is a regular concern, but Pagans figure it’s up to us to figure it out - we don’t usually expect prophets to speak the Gods’ words about it to us.

There is no ‘satan’ figure in most pagan myth, though there can be tricksters, plague-demons, giants of chaos, etc - but those aren’t usually ‘Gods’, and are usually understood as having been defeated by the Gods already. But that’s another topic.

Ian Corrigan**

 

[Mirdath]

Types:
Lavey Church of Satan (1966) - atheist psychodrama-using neitzcheians.

I would not call them Nietzschian but Objectivist. Nietzsche’s philosophy is hardly self-serving in the same manner as LaVeyan Satanism or Randian Objectivism. It’s a common misunderstanding of Nietzsche to say that his philosophy is all ‘me first’, but self-serving psychodrama is Rand all the way. Read them and compare – they’re very different.

Unlike Rand, Nietzsche was an unabashed idealist, always looking for and encouraging humanity to get over itself and move on to a greater thing as a whole, to be our best and strive to reach past even that. Objectivism can be summed up basically by ‘screw everyone else, look out for #1’, which has next to nothing in common with Nietzsche’s stance, particularly as outlined in Also Sprach Zarathustra. There’s something to be said for a little bit of self-service, but on the whole Objectivism is short-sighted, uncharitable, and solipsistic yet bizarrely attempting to justify it morally.

 

[CCM08]

**Who, if anyone, do you believe is responsible for the reprehensable actions of mankind? **

This an area in which Pagans have no single answer. For those who think uncertainty implies weakness, I can only answer that it’s better to have three possible answers than just one certain one.

In general, Pagans assume that humans devise human ill-deeds on our own. There’s no assumption that a deity might whisper in our ears to do good or ill, generally. Human will is seen as a real part of the way things are.

The Gods love virtue - right action. They teach us various ways among various peoples - not all have the same gods or the same laws. Some deities seem to want tightly regulated behavior, others less so. The Gods hate oath-breaking, sneak-killing (murder), stingyness, and love honor and honesty, fair dealing and hospitality. The discussion of ethical philosophy is a regular concern, but Pagans figure it’s up to us to figure it out - we don’t usually expect prophets to speak the Gods’ words about it to us.

There is no ‘satan’ figure in most pagan myth, though there can be tricksters, plague-demons, giants of chaos, etc - but those aren’t usually ‘Gods’, and are usually understood as having been defeated by the Gods already. But that’s another topic.

Ian Corrigan

The problem with this is a very simple one, you’re trying to frame paganism in Christian morality. There’s no answer to the question of “who is responible for the reprehensable deeds of men” because there is absolutely no way to frame any sort of morality within pagan theology. To a Christian, or a person raised in a soceity built on Christian concepts of morality, leaving a baby to die in the elements because it was unwanted to deformed is a terrible crime. In pagan soceities, such as the Greeco-Roman world, it was not only acceptable it was common place. Christianity is not a pacificist religion, but warfare is seen as immoral and to be avoided whenever possible. Pagan war gods and goddesses have always been at the center of pagan soceity. Under the “rules” created by Christian soceity something like raiding an unarmed monestary is dishonorable and shameful. The pagan Vikings had no moral objections to the practice. As such pagan gods may object to murder, but have always had radically different interpretations of what murder is, and it certainly doesn’t match our modern conceptions that are the result of living in Christian soceities. Nor have pagans ever had a problem with attacking others solely for the reason of conquest and empire building. As for honor, our standards of honor are based on Christian beliefs. Pagans have never shared these ideals, and as such saying paganism values honor is simply misleading. It values a form of honor that under the standards of Christian virtue simply doesn’t compare.
At the root of the problem is the simple fact that pagan religions have no concept of sin, and as such if you find the right god for your business any action (regardless of what a Christian would think of it) is acceptable. Whether it’s throwing a baby off a cliff like the Spartans because of deformity or starting a war. There are no sexual morals, whether it’s sex with young boys as per the Greek practices or the utter lack of a concept of adultry. Prostiution is a huge part of pagan religion, there were thousands of temple whores in Athens alone. There is equally no standard required in regards to the treatment of your fellow man. Any standard of treatment is simply a matter of birth. Paganism created chattel slavery, and any treatment of slaves is acceptable. So it was also with the lower classes of people in the pagan world. The only people meriting rights and respect under pagan practice are the very rich.
As such the real question is how can paganism to be altered to answer the clearly superior moral and social consequences that Christianity brought.

 

[EDUCE_1]

Have you checked a thesaurus recently? They’re synonymous.

They are not synonymous. There is a difference as in if we were to play a game of tennis for example, we are opponents. Now if we are to meet in field of battle then we are adversaries

Satan the devil is distinct from the satan in the book of Job. Angels do not always have pleasant functions – look at how the last plague on Egypt was accomplished, for instance. That there would be an angel who continually argued humanity’s unworthiness is no stretch at all. Further, in the initial chapter, we see all the angels coming to present themselves before God, with the satan among them. He acts as an agent of God, getting explicit permission before doing anything to Job; would a devil extend that courtesy of asking directly?

Divert half of it through a salt lick.

Let me clarify that I am speaking of the fallen Arch Angel Lucifer.

Hebrew meaning; Shining One

injil.org/TWOR/03.html

In conclusion I am stating that God is all good/ fresh water.
James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

 

[Mirdath]

Let me clarify that I am speaking of the fallen Arch Angel Lucifer.

Hebrew meaning; Shining One

The name Lucifer is not Hebrew but Latin. It means ‘lightbringer’. And let me clarify that when I speak of the book of Job I do not mean Lucifer at all. Milton kinda screwed everything up with Paradise Lost; most everyone thinks it reflects actual teaching, when in fact it conflates the Christian devil with the titan Prometheus from Greek mythology. Many Christians’ perception of Satan is not biblical but Miltonian, the same way their perception of hell is not actually Christian but Dantean.

 

[CCM08]

The name Lucifer is not Hebrew but Latin. It means ‘lightbringer’. And let me clarify that when I speak of the book of Job I do not mean Lucifer at all. Milton kinda screwed everything up with Paradise Lost; most everyone thinks it reflects actual teaching, when in fact it conflates the Christian devil with the titan Prometheus from Greek mythology. Many Christians’ perception of Satan is not biblical but Miltonian, the same way their perception of hell is not actually Christian but Dantean.

Yes, I’m certain many Christians really believe in the nine levels of hell. Seriously, is the intellecutal athiest world really so defunct in basic understanding of theology?

 

[Mirdath]

Yes, I’m certain many Christians really believe in the nine levels of hell. Seriously, is the intellecutal athiest world really so defunct in basic understanding of theology?

Many Christians do believe in a nine-layered Dantean hell, in fact. For future reference, I’m not atheist; and in this case, I merely report what I see. My understanding is not at fault; rather, that of a large number of Christians is.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Well Ive never heard of 9 layers. Or any layers or degrees of sin. (no special sections for Marilyn Manson fans)

Most christians I know simply understand hell is separation from God. A absence of God, and Love making it a lonely place.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Well Ive never heard of 9 layers. Or any layers or degrees of sin. (no special sections for Marilyn Mason fans)

Most christians I know simply understand hell is separation from God. A absence of God, and Love making it a lonely place.

Not all the fans of the Rev are satanists. Actually Manson himself is a satanist in name only. He was ordained as the Reverend Marilyn Manson of the Church of Satan.

Our Lady of Fatima gave St. Lucia a vision of hell.

“Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror.”

Fire and brimstone. Not where I want to spend eternity.