The Church of Satan

[ApparentlyASocialist]

I strongly agree with the philosophies of Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan. Does anyone else here agree with me that the Church of Satan has a great view on things?

[Susurrus]

They are objectivists in economic philosophy...

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

LaVey and others associated with church are mildly interesting, in some things however both he and the rest of CoS are mainly just a bunch of Randian cockslits, so, no.


They are objectivists in economic philosophy...

Allegedly the church excepts everyone regardless of politics but you're probably right.

[Astarte]

I think LeVey is pretty laughable. LeVey-Satanism really just is like "dark" Republicanism.

[Madslatter]

Aren't the philosophies of the Church of Satan super individualistic? I remember having read the Satanic Bible in freshman year because I thought I was a badass in my small town with lots of fundamentalists who would get really upset dumb things like that. I don't remember any of the details so I could be wrong.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Aren't the philosophies of the Church of Satan super individualistic? I remember having read the Satanic Bible in freshman year because I thought I was a badass in my small town with lots of fundamentalists who would get really upset dumb things like that. I don't remember any of the details so I could be wrong.

The Satanic Bible is like if Ayn Rand fucked Aleister Crowley and had a baby, basically.

[Euronymous]

Randism with some Satanic imagery to attract the teenagers.

[Susurrus]

Actually, I think he(Lavey) was mainly only influenced by Dan Rayn's social theories(I may be wrong). However, in practice I believe all of his followers are capitalists, and a great deal are bourgeoisie.

[redsky]

I've gathered that Levay & co. are great showmen. For another taste of the movement, try Thorrson and the Trapezoid. I'm not real well read in it and am not a follower but it and he seem like a realer deal.

[Ocean Seal]

I strongly agree with the philosophies of Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan. Does anyone else here agree with me that the Church of Satan has a great view on things?
In my opinion they offend Satan greatly. Because according to their views he's essentially Ayn Rand, I mean I know it takes a lot to make Satan look bad, but they've managed to associate him with an even more unsavory character.

[Astarte]

The Satanic Bible is like if Ayn Rand fucked Aleister Crowley and had a baby, basically.

Unfortunately, LeVey did not inherit any kind of real "mysticism" if there was any to be inherited, just packaging ... interestingly, Levey-Satanism is also completely atheistic, and ceremonies are referred to as "psycho-dramas".

I think if you are interested in alternative interpretations of Abrahamism that other Abrahamic institutions might consider "Satanic", or "Heretical", you would be a lot better off studying apocrypha and pseudepigrapha to start with.

[Madslatter]

The Satanic Bible is like if Ayn Rand fucked Aleister Crowley and had a baby, basically.
Yeah, that fits what I remember from it.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think LeVey is pretty laughable. LeVey-Satanism really just is like "dark" Republicanism.

Than you have no idea what Lavean Satanism is.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Unfortunately, LeVey did not inherit and kind of real "mysticism" if there was any to be inherited, just packaging ... interestingly, Levay-Satanism is also completely atheistic, and ceremonies are referred to as "psycho-dramas".

Well, I know that, I'm just saying basically it's kind of like that; Rand was an Atheist, Crowley was Mr. Occult, some vino was consumed, some eyes were locked, one thing led to another and there you go. It makes sense given the fact that Rand reminds me of the witch from Snow White, I can see why Crowley would be attracted.


I think if you are interested in alternative interpretations of Abrahamism that other Abrahamic institutions might consider "Satanic", or "Heretical", you would be a lot better off studying apocrypha and pseudepigrapha to start with.

Rumi is about as 'mystical' as I care to get but the OP might be interested.

[Bostana]

I disagree. Any and every religion divides people. Now I am not saying to destroy religion, but religion isn't what the world needs right now.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I strongly agree with the philosophies of Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan. Does anyone else here agree with me that the Church of Satan has a great view on things?

Not particularly, but I have always maintained in what manner a Satanist has interpreted and worshiped Satan. Pending on your intrepretation the Church of Satan is either ultra-capitalist bourgeoisie oriented,or progressive leftism.The church itself I disagree with and the religion itself,since it is a religion,I disagree with, but in terms of what religion is, Lavean Satanism is among my "favorites" since it says some rather practical,and progressive things.

[Astarte]

but in terms of what religion is, Lavean Satanism is among my "favorites" since it says some rather practical,and progressive things.

Can you name a few practical and progressive things it says?

[ZeroNowhere]

Eh, they aren't real Satanists, they're just poseurs. The philosophical equivalent of bland shock rock, really.

[ComradeMan]

Lavean Satanism is among my "favorites" since it says some rather practical,and progressive things.

I'm waiting with bated breath for these practical and progressive things it says....

Out of curiosity do Satanists do any charity work or try to alleviate the suffering of the sick and poor?

[fionntan]

Is there any real satanists on this forum. Ive read a bit on Anton not his real name as you prob know and the man is a head the ball but the wackyness of all that rubbish always interested me. As does all religions but sure...

[Rafiq]

A bunch of Libertarian scum bags... Though there are satanic communists, I hear..

[Rafiq]

I'm waiting with bated breath for these practical and progressive things it says....

Out of curiosity do Satanists do any charity work or try to alleviate the suffering of the sick and poor?



Of course not, because "sick and poor people are lazy scum and looters of the creative class".

They're randarian scumbags

[rednordman]

A bunch of Libertarian scum bags... Though there are satanic communists, I hear..:laugh:mmm...i with all these crazy sub genres and sects in religion and politics, i wonder if there are any Satanic Stalinist's...lol

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Eh, they aren't real Satanists, they're just poseurs. The philosophical equivalent of bland shock rock, really.

What a asinine statement.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I'm waiting with bated breath for these practical and progressive things it says....

Out of curiosity do Satanists do any charity work or try to alleviate the suffering of the sick and poor?

Progressive: 1:In the beginning Anton Lavey sanctioned homosexuality as a normal,and acceptable human condition.This was during a time (decades ago,can't remember the exact time) when all the other religious,and political, system condemned same-sex unions.

2:Sexuality and masturbation were championed as suitable alternatives to lack luster human intimacies.Again,one of the few religious beliefs that accepted sexual activity as the normal condition.

3:Acceptance of the "Seven Deadly Sins."

While I no longer cruise the Satanic forums when I was on I would constantly see a large influx of gay men,lesbians,and transgendered individuals.This surprised me a bit.Lavean Satanism is among the most progressive forces out there when it comes to sexual identity.

Do satanists do charity work? I dunno,do you? Does socialism demand that you give your time helping bourgeois institutions? You are trying to categorize an entire subset of practice upon your own misinformation.

I see practical as acceptance of science and humanity as the championed force which moves us.Satanism championed these facts while all to many other systems either fell sway to pseudoscience or wholesale lies.The fact that Satanism didn't succumb to this,while upholding atheism and rejecting violence,is quite the mini-accomplishment.

[Susurrus]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/12/9/d1d3feea-4158-48bf-83ab-8584244a06d2.jpg

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You've already been asked to back up your previous statements about CoS being "progressive" and all that hogwash. Why don't you explain yourself a little bit if you're going to run around calling people's statements "asinine"?




Personally, I think that Lavey is a clown. He stitched together various philosophies from Nietzsche to Rand into something that somehow manages to be of less value than its constituent parts. It's self-indulgent horse shit that Lavey peddled to bored Hollywood socialites in the 1950s and his descendants currently peddle to rebellious teenagers with no imagination. The statement about it being the "shock rock" of philosophy is actually spot on. After all, there's nothing really original in his "work". You can go to his sources and get a much more authentic picture than he paints. He just threw a bunch of "edgy" writers/thinkers together and called it Satanism.

You're right,it wasn't an asinine statement-it was a bullshit statement.You slandered an entire group of people because you couldn't see past your own narrow-mindedness.

Now it is your turn: How does Lavey's work come off as less than its component parts? This time please try and use something other than gimmicks and stereotypes.I have never seen a teenage Satanist all my time on the Satanic forums despite the fact that they are extremely anti-ageist.

[PhoenixAsh]

Really? CoS progressive? In what sense?

Because from what I know and understand of CoS they are the biggest bunch of self indulgent reactionaries out there entirely motivated by selfcentered hedonism. I can understand yo can modulate it to yoru own needs but the CoS rejects the needs of others as being a motivator. It is heavilly influenced by Rand and Nietsche which should be a fair indication of the reactionary nature of this church.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Temple of Set ftw.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Really? CoS progressive? In what sense?

Because from what I know and understand of CoS they are the biggest bunch of self indulgent reactionaries out there entirely motivated by selfcentered hedonism. I can understand yo can modulate it to yoru own needs but the CoS rejects the needs of others as being a motivator. It is heavilly influenced by Rand and Nietsche which should be a fair indication of the reactionary nature of this church.

I have already described how they are progressive.Scroll a few posts up.

At any rate,can you describe how they being self-centered,self-indulgent,and so forth is a bad thing? It all depends on your interpretation of what these things mean.If you see self-centered as egoist than you must explain how that is harmful.A satanist could explain how that is good and is beneficial to your local community.

It is of course reactionary (Lavey himself has said as much), but at this point I am not referring to the actual church but rather the ideology.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Temple of Set ftw.

They amuse me....some of it is hard to believe,but so is all religion.lol

[PhoenixAsh]

I have already described how they are progressive.Scroll a few posts up.


Being open for homosexuality isnt enough for being progressive.



At any rate,can you describe how they being self-centered,self-indulgent,and so forth is a bad thing? It all depends on your interpretation of what these things mean.If you see self-centered as egoist than you must explain how that is harmful.A satanist could explain how that is good and is beneficial to your local community.

Its bad because you are self-centerd and self-indulgent and these are negative traits which are developed at the expense of others. The CoS sees these as positive traits because they are self centerd and self indulgent.

No self respecting CoS member would argue why these are positive traits for the community because they would give fuck all about how their behaviour affects others and only how the behaviour of others affects them. I take it you have read their teachings? Because from this statement it seems you have not?

The CoS does not concern itself with the needs of the many and in fact call that "Herd Conformity" which is considered one of the Satanic sins. They concern themselves with the needs of the induvidual first and foremost and only concerns themselves with the needs of others in so far as this will avoid conflict or which will directly benefit the induvidual. If this stops being the case the CoS focusses on vengeance and destruction rather than association, coexistance and mutual aid.




It is of course reactionary (Lavey himself has said as much), but at this point I am not referring to the actual church but rather the ideology.

Yeah...I do not see those two as seperate.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Being open for homosexuality isnt enough for being progressive.



Its bad because you are self-centerd and self-indulgent and these are negative traits which are developed at the expense of others. The CoS sees these as positive traits because they are self centerd and self indulgent.

No self respecting CoS member would argue why these are positive traits for the community because they would give fuck all about how their behaviour affects others and only how the behaviour of others affects them. I take it you have read their teachings? Because from this statement it seems you have not?

The CoS does not concern itself with the needs of the many and in fact call that "Herd Conformity" which is considered one of the Satanic sins. They concern themselves with the needs of the induvidual first and foremost and only concerns themselves with the needs of others in so far as this will avoid conflict or which will directly benefit the induvidual. If this stops being the case the CoS focusses on vengeance and destruction rather than association, coexistance and mutual aid.




Yeah...I do not see those two as seperate.

As well as all the things you left out-transgendered people,sexual championship and so on...

Herd conformity is only a sin so as far as you consider it a satanic sin.Lavey has said that conformity is only a negative aspect if you refuse to accept that everyone inevitable is a social animal and inevitable belong to a herd,even if the said herd is a non-conformist herd.

I have read the satanic literature and another prime point of satanism is that if you don't agree with something than it can be thrown out the window.Always question and always be on the offensive.Never assume anything.This is what makes them different from other religions;others say obey,satanism says question.

the vengeance and destruction bit only refers to ritual destruction and vengeance.

I take it you haven't read any of the satanic works?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yeah...I do not see those two as seperate.


Than I do not think I can argue with you.

There are several different Satanic churches with each their own take on Levean Satanism.If you see the two as inseparable than it would be pointless to continue this.

[ZeroNowhere]

What a asinine statement.
I suit my tone to the subject-matter.

[PhoenixAsh]

As well as all the things you left out-transgendered people,sexual championship and so on...

Again...that does not make them progressive.



Herd conformity is only a sin so as far as you consider it a satanic sin.Lavey has said that conformity is only a negative aspect if you refuse to accept that everyone inevitable is a social animal and inevitable belong to a herd,even if the said herd is a non-conformist herd. you do understand that the CoS is the keeper of the original Laveyan Satanism don't you?

They consider it a sin as does the Satanic bible.

Now...as for Lavey himself....

His body of believes which he expressed in the foundation of the CoS was:

* Tax the useless and incompetent; subsidise the resourcesful and the productive. Which he professed later as being in line with Rand. So basically this comes down to: tax the poor; subiside the rich

* Privately owned communities, environments and controlled.

* Exclusion of all which is not deemed esthetically pleasing from ones environment.

* Ego comes first, anything else is secondary

* Exclusion of those who are needy



I have read the satanic literature and another prime point of satanism is that if you don't agree with something than it can be thrown out the window.Always question and always be on the offensive.Never assume anything.This is what makes them different from other religions;others say obey,satanism says question.Well..actually...no it can't. LaVey founded the CoS and was part of the trapezoid. And they had very specific notions which behaviour was and was not tolerated in the church. From the start the church has always claimed to be the one and only legitimate Satanism....and they have a set of rules and behavioural regulations....which regulate progression in church hierarchy or warrent being expelled.



the vengeance and destruction bit only refers to ritual destruction and vengeance.

I take it you haven't read any of the satanic works?I have read many of the satanic works. And they all desrcibe the process of destruction not only as purely ritual but being sought in the form of vengeance or eye for an eye attitude.

Not only that but many of them are based on Social Darwinism ...including the Satanic Bible.

[PhoenixAsh]

Than I do not think I can argue with you.

There are several different Satanic churches with each their own take on Levean Satanism.If you see the two as inseparable than it would be pointless to continue this.

I see the CoS and Lavey inseperable. If you do not then you do not follow LaVayan satanism...since Lavey himself stated that the only legitimate form of satanism is being performed by the CoS and currently the CoS still rejects any other Satanic organisation as being the legitimate form of Satanism and how it was originally meant to be.

In fact...I can hardly see how you can not see the CoS and Laveyan satanism as inseperable because it is after all the church LaVey founded...anything else are simply schisms.

[Weezer]

LaVey was an objectivist, egocentric, ultra-individualist numskull who made up the Church of Satan in an attempt to look cool and edgy and to justify his selfish individualism.

The only thing he did was make objectivism and Ayn Rand's works more of a cult than they already are. (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/5/4/9476/33834)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I see the CoS and Lavey inseperable. If you do not then you do not follow LaVayan satanism...since Lavey himself stated that the only legitimate form of satanism is being performed by the CoS and currently the CoS still rejects any other Satanic organisation as being the legitimate form of Satanism and how it was originally meant to be.

In fact...I can hardly see how you can not see the CoS and Laveyan satanism as inseperable because it is after all the church LaVey founded...anything else are simply schisms.

If that is your understanding than yes,but again I will state that I am referring to Satanic ideology, and not Lavey and his church in general.

Edit: When I learned satanism it was from a modern satanic church, one which Lavey wouldn't recognize.So I do not have a dogmatic view of satanic practices and ideology.

[NGNM85]

LaVey was a charlatan. His half-baked philosophy is stolen from Aleister Crowley and Ayn Rand.

[PhoenixAsh]

If that is your understanding than yes,but again I will state that I am referring to Satanic ideology, and not Lavey and his church in general.

Edit: When I learned satanism it was from a modern satanic church, one which Lavey wouldn't recognize.So I do not have a dogmatic view of satanic practices and ideology.

OP was specifically about LaVey and CoS. Not about Satanism in general. LaVey and CoS are reactionary asshats. So my arguments are applicable to those two...aswell as that Set-sect.

Satanism in general is much broader than those two. It does focuss on the self and self idolation....but I agree that if you modulate Satanism beyond that and practice it outside most groups, caverns and covens it could be made into a progressive ideological semi-religion.

[ComradeMan]

OP was specifically about LaVey and CoS. Not about Satanism in general. LaVey and CoS are reactionary asshats. So my arguments are applicable to those two...aswell as that Set-sect.

Satanism in general is much broader than those two. It does focuss on the self and self idolation....but I agree that if you modulate Satanism beyond that and practice it outside most groups, caverns and covens it could be made into a progressive ideological semi-religion.

No, I see it only as a parody of religion to be honest and inasmuch does not offer much really. Theistic satanism also has some pretty nasty baggage too- as part of its belief system. Atheistic satanism... well, just seems pointless at best.

[#FF0000]

I have an educational video that should give you an idea of what the church of satan is like

TVuiF_TdsBw

[ComradeMan]

I have an educational video that should give you an idea of what the church of satan is like

[YOUTUBE].....

:lol:

Yeah, have come across people like that here, except they are usually more sinister and more into fascism/nazism, and they are usually anti-semites.

[#FF0000]

:lol:

Yeah, have come across people like that here, except they are usually more sinister and more into fascism/nazism, and they are usually anti-semites.

Really. In my experience they tend to lean libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Sharkey).

[Astarte]

No, I see it only as a parody of religion to be honest and inasmuch does not offer much really.

Really, this is how I feel about "Satanism" in general -Levayan or "theistic". No real historical heretical Abrahamic movements ever called themselves "Satanists".

"Satanism" is just a blanket term for Abrahamics to label others with an alternative theology. i.e. how some Protestants call the Catholic Church "Satanic" ... Islam calls the USA "The Great Satan", etc... Abrahamic religions have no problem throwing around the appellation "Satanism" at infidels, be they fellow Abrahamics or "pagans".

In fact.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet


Baphomet (English pronunciation: /ˈbæfɵmɛt/, from medieval Latin Baphometh, baffometi, Occitan Bafometz) is an imagined pagan deity (i.e., a product of Christian folklore concerning pagans), revived in the 19th century as a figure of occultism and Satanism. It first appeared in 11th and 12th century Latin and Provençal as a corruption of "Mahomet", the Latinisation of "Muhammad",[1] but later it appeared as a term for a pagan idol in trial transcripts of the Inquisition of the Knights Templar in the early 14th century. The name first came into popular English-speaking consciousness in the 19th century, with debate and speculation on the reasons for the suppression of the Templars.[2] Since 1855, the name Baphomet has been associated with a "Sabbatic Goat" image drawn by Éliphas Lévi.

Thus, Baphomet - *the symbol* of Satan Levay co-opted was first used by Christianity to slander pagans and Muslims.

There really is no "genuine" Abrahamic/theistic "Satanism", only different interpretations of Abrahamic theology and accusations of Satan-worship as a means of maintaining ideological control of the center.

I think the only "real" theistic ideology that could be considered somewhat "Satanic" or really rather "Luciferian" would be Freemasonry.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

OP was specifically about LaVey and CoS. Not about Satanism in general. LaVey and CoS are reactionary asshats. So my arguments are applicable to those two...aswell as that Set-sect.

Satanism in general is much broader than those two. It does focuss on the self and self idolation....but I agree that if you modulate Satanism beyond that and practice it outside most groups, caverns and covens it could be made into a progressive ideological semi-religion.

Agreed.

And that is all I wanted to hear.:cool:

[deLarge]

:laugh:mmm...i with all these crazy sub genres and sects in religion and politics, i wonder if there are any Satanic Stalinist's...lol

I'm a Satanic Marxist-Leninist. Well, a Gnostic Luciferian/Thelemite anyway...

As for the Church of Satan in particular, I think that Boyd Rice--whatever my theological and political disagreements with him are--puts it best:



"To whom it may concern,

As it is widely known, Anton Szandor LaVey repeatedly expressed his sincere desire to me that his mantle as leader of the Church of Satan pass to me upon his death. In his estimation, I was the sole person qualified to carry his tradition into a new era. At the time I demurred, explaining that I was a loner and not a team player or a people person.
Now I have changed my mind. After thirteen years of introspection, I have decided to step up to the plate and humbly accept the role bestowed upon me by my close friend and mentor. Why? Because remaining loyal to LaVey's spirit and memory has come at the cost of distancing myself from the organization perpetuating itself in his name.
At one time, the sycophants and functionaries at the forefront of the CoS may have been called apparatchiks or pencil pushers. Today they are bloggers, whose sole arena of combat is the internet. When they employ "satanic" ideals, it's in endless squabbles in cyberspace - rarely in real life or the real world. The LaVey I knew abhorred such types, and frequently told me as much.
I am told that many in the Church of Satan were offended by my book NO, and particularly by my essay on individuality; which they perceived as a potshot taken at them. How very perceptive - it was exactly that! If Anton were alive to read the text, he'd agree wholeheartedly; and laugh his ass off. He often lamented to me that his ideas vis-à-vis individualism were misguided and that he'd in effect "given birth to a monster"; or that such ideas applied to a few rare souls and not to everyone with the price of admission.
Consequently, my first official act as new leader and only truly ordained High Priest of the Church of Satan is to declare that the organization no longer exists. True LaVeyan Satanism only exists insofar as it is manifested in deeds - in life and living. Never in mere words. Elitism is self-defining, it is not a commodity that can be bought or sold for a few hundred dollars, or whatever the going rate is for a little, red membership card.
In the future, LaVey's ideas can only survive in so much as they constitute a living reality, and never as mere platitudes on the printed page or computer screen; and in the future, such ideas must be taken to the next level. They must be recognized as purely foundational. Not an end point, but a starting point. LaVey expressed as much to me when he appointed me Grand Master of The Order of the Trapezoid. Satanism is an initiation into the wisdom of materiality, and the trapezoid represents the mastering of materiality - the pyramid sans its keystone. It is a foundation and a beginning.
In closing, I know my words will find resonance only amongst a rare few. That's as it should be. I am not trying to "take over" the internet orthodoxy currently known as the Church of Satan, nor would I want to. I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
I am simply telling you I am Anton LaVey's handpicked replacement as High Priest. Do with that what you will. I will not ask you for money. I will not send you newsletters or post blogs. But I will never steer you wrong, nor ever disgrace the memory of my dear friend and mentor, Anton Szandor LaVey. He lives within each soul that manifests his ideas and worldview. He will remain forever dead to those who are content to pay mere lip service to them. For the former, a new era awaits; for the latter, an old error remains in play. Let the dead bury the dead - life is for the living.
Boyd Rice
High Priest, Church of Satan
Grand Master, Order of the Trapezoid
H.S.d."

[Blackburn]

Most Satanists are Liber-fuckin-tarians.

I vote for the OP to be restricted.