satanism

[commie anarchist rebel]

k so like im a satanist, I believe that we control our own lifes and are our own god wi was wondering what the leftist oppion of this religion is

[C_Rasmussen]

To be honest I don't think you'll get any opposition on your beliefs. Now if you were a Christian that would be a different story...

[redstar2000]

Satanism is too far "below the radar" to excite much commentary here.

Wait until the money starts rolling in and you have a chance to "go mainstream".

Then, you'll catch...well, you know. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif

[Zingu]

Originally posted by commie anarchist [email protected] 31 2006, 05:57 AM
k so like im a satanist, I believe that we control our own lifes and are our own god wi was wondering what the leftist oppion of this religion is
Why bother making that a religion? Can't you live with those values without religion?

[AnnieAngel]

If you don't beileve in God other than that you are your own God.....how does Satan fit in? I'm confused, God created Satan. Are you saying you created Satan? Like we all create our own Satans by being our own Gods??

Why would you worship your own creation?

Annie :ph34r:

[Eleutherios]

Do you believe in supernatural entities? If so, it is no more than superstition. If you can demonstrate that something exists through some sort of experimentation, then it is not supernatural but part of the natural world. If you can't demonstrate its existence, then your claims are completely baseless. And if you don't posit the existence of supernatural beings, I don't see the need to use the word "religion" instead of "philosophy" or "worldview".

[dannie]

i think this person refers to laveyan Satanism, which in my early teens in my quest for an identity found pretty interesting. It's been a long time since I read or spoke about it. It's not a religion per se, more a lifestyle with a lot of bells and whistles

These are the 9 satanic statements, which are pretty much the basics of laveyan theory



1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

It's a combination of Nihilism, individualism and pseudo magic. I found it incompatible with my political believes (note: there is this cult, the satanic reds, there has been discussion about them on revleft before)


If you don't beileve in God other than that you are your own God.....how does Satan fit in? I'm confused, God created Satan. Are you saying you created Satan? Like we all create our own Satan's by being our own Gods??

As quoted in point 8: Satan embodies the catholic sins, laveyan Satanists believe those sins will enhance their lives (see statement 8)

check out: http://www.churchofsatan.com and http://www.churchofsatan.org/

these are two major "churches" , the first church of Satan split of the CoS, and it's high priest has died 2 times in the last 6 years

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by commie anarchist [email protected] 31 2006, 05:57 AM
k so like im a satanist, I believe that we control our own lifes and are our own god wi was wondering what the leftist oppion of this religion is
The same as all religions... its complete bullshit

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 06:38 AM
Why would you worship your own creation?

Correct me if im wrong but arent you a christian? So cant you awnser that question?


k so like im a satanist, I believe that we control our own lifes and are our own god wi was wondering what the leftist oppion of this religion is

Its a farce just like every religion, dont get sucked into it.

[AnnieAngel]

If Satan is the same Satan in Christianity, well then that just makes you Christian!!! Hellbound but a Christian. ;)

Annie :ph34r:

[chaval]

If Satan is the same Satan in Christianity, well then that just makes you Christian!!! Hellbound but a Christian

or jewish or muslim but that would make much sense would it

am i right in getting the sense that satanists (at least the ones described here) dont actually believe in satan as a real entity i.e. a fallen angel but rather as the embodiment of certain things classified as sins by religious institutions? sort of like the greek phlosophers' idea of "tahem"

[AnnieAngel]

Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!


How is that Jewish or Muslim?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 11:47 AM
If Satan is the same Satan in Christianity, well then that just makes you Christian!!! Hellbound but a Christian. ;)

Annie :ph34r:
True...technically speaking.

Satanism, theologically speaking, is a Christian heresy. :lol:

It accepts the Christian "explanation" of the universe but inverts its "meaning".

Not really all that different from the Gnostic Gospels, really.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by commie anarchist [email protected] 31 2006, 05:57 AM
k so like im a satanist, I believe that we control our own lifes and are our own god wi was wondering what the leftist oppion of this religion is
That's cool, I'm a Satanist to, may I ask how long have you been one? I've been a Satanist now for around 6-7 years, glad to see another comrade here. Also I am very well versed on Satanism, Black Magick, and the LHP (Left Hand Path), so if any of you have any questions, I would be willing to answer any that you might have.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 06:38 AM
If you don't beileve in God other than that you are your own God.....how does Satan fit in? I'm confused, God created Satan. Are you saying you created Satan? Like we all create our own Satans by being our own Gods??

Why would you worship your own creation?

Annie :ph34r:
We see Satan as an archetype, a symbol of man's true indulgic Self. When we say Hail Satan! what we are really saying is Hail Thyself! Because Satan is the personification of our true inherent nature, and not the illusory nature of the altruistic religions.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 06:42 AM
Do you believe in supernatural entities? If so, it is no more than superstition. If you can demonstrate that something exists through some sort of experimentation, then it is not supernatural but part of the natural world. If you can't demonstrate its existence, then your claims are completely baseless. And if you don't posit the existence of supernatural beings, I don't see the need to use the word "religion" instead of "philosophy" or "worldview".
No, Satanism recognizes no supernatural entities, it is an Athiestic religion.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 04:47 PM
If Satan is the same Satan in Christianity, well then that just makes you Christian!!! Hellbound but a Christian. ;)

Annie :ph34r:
No, Satan, or Shaitan is actually a composite of different archetypes stolen from neighboring pagan beliefs. The concept of Satan, comes from the myths of Ahriman, Pan, and Set, and is a mixture of all three archetypes, and gets most of his qualities from all three. Christianity, has plagiarized most of it's doctrine from pagan beliefs.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 07:50 PM
Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!


How is that Jewish or Muslim?
Both jews a muslims believe in a Satanic figure, ie. Shatain, and Iblis, so in a sense both Satanic figures has kept the churches (synagogues, mosques), in business because without them, no one would go.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 09:54 PM
True...technically speaking.

Satanism, theologically speaking, is a Christian heresy. :lol:

It accepts the Christian "explanation" of the universe but inverts its "meaning".

Not really all that different from the Gnostic Gospels, really.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
No, Satanism is completely different from christianity. Christainity is Theistic, and Satanism is Atheistic. To better explain it, christianity is Apollonian (nothing in excess), and Satanism is Dionsyiac (excess), they are polar opposites. Also the only thing Satanism borrows from christianity is the name Satan, and what we mean by Satan, is very different from how the christians view Satan.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Disciple of Prometheus+Mar 31 2006, 10:54 PM--> (Disciple of Prometheus @ Mar 31 2006, 10:54 PM)
[email protected] 31 2006, 06:42 AM
Do you believe in supernatural entities? If so, it is no more than superstition. If you can demonstrate that something exists through some sort of experimentation, then it is not supernatural but part of the natural world. If you can't demonstrate its existence, then your claims are completely baseless. And if you don't posit the existence of supernatural beings, I don't see the need to use the word "religion" instead of "philosophy" or "worldview".
No, Satanism recognizes no supernatural entities, it is an Athiestic religion. [/b]
How is it a religion then and not just a philosophy?

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 11:50 PM
How is it a religion then and not just a philosophy?
Religion can be defined as the most persuasive thing in ones life; meaning since Satanism is a representation of me, and my own persuits are the most persuasive thing in my life, then it is my religion. However Atheism, though it implies the void of a religious belief, most Atheists look to science and worldly knowledge for life's answers, in the same way a buddhist looks to buddha, or christians looks to christ. It's both philosophy and religion.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 04:47 PM
If Satan is the same Satan in Christianity, well then that just makes you Christian!!! Hellbound but a Christian. ;)

Annie :ph34r:
What i ment to say is that you worship your own creation as well so you can awnser your own question.


When we say Hail Satan! what we are really saying is Hail Thyself!

You must look like a compleate idiot standing around shouting "hail satan" :lol:


satanism is Atheistic

so why cant you just be an atheist without all the spiritual shit?


I am very well versed on Satanism, Black Magick

You beleive in magic aswell? lol, not a suprise really.


No, Satanism is completely different from christianity

Of course it is its the compleate opposite, Satanism is nothing more than a reaction to christianity.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 04:47 PM
If Satan is the same Satan in Christianity, well then that just makes you Christian!!! Hellbound but a Christian. ;)

Annie :ph34r:
You obviously don't have a very indepth knowledge of your own religion...

[Disciple of Prometheus]

You must look like a compleate idiot standing around shouting "hail satan" :lol:

Well, you look like a complete idiot talking about that to which you don't understand, otherwise you would know I don't go around saying Hail Satan! every 5 seconds, like a christian saying "god bless you," ;) .


so why cant you just be an atheist without all the spiritual shit?

Satanism, is a more refined definition, I could go by Atheist, but the main point of Satanism is to return carnality back to man, whereas Atheist just says, oh! that god doesn't exist, Satanism has it's own specific philosophy.


You beleive in magic aswell? lol, not a suprise really.

For one believe is not spelled "beleive," and as well is two words not "aswell." Again I really don't think you know what your talking about, the magick talked about in the Satanic Rituals by Anton LaVey is a lot different from the magick that your thinking about. There is lesser black magick, which is the psychological manipulation of people and the environment around you, it really is the understanding of the human consciousness, and how people act to certain things, and using that knowledge to your advantage, and there is Greater Black Magick which is the application of psychodrama and yes a ritual setting to get ones needs, which is probably the magick your thinking of. I for one practice lesser black magick more than I do greater black magick. Also there is a lot more to it, I just gave a very short definition of it. There is a big difference between my magick, and the magick of say a wiccan, mainly I don't buy into all that "mumbo-jumbo," that wiccans seem to enthralled with, when I do rituals mine are much more practical and to the point, not all this hand gestures, and point and area callings, and what have you.



Of course it is its the compleate opposite, Satanism is nothing more than a reaction to christianity.

How is it a reaction to christianity? Christianity has been around for 2006 years, and Satanism has only been around since 1966, if it were truly reactionary don't you think it would have happened sooner? I recommend going to the Church of Satan website, or here's a thought why not be brave and actually read the Satanic Bible, instead of insulting something you've never even read about.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Disciple of Prometheus+Apr 1 2006, 12:15 AM--> (Disciple of Prometheus @ Apr 1 2006, 12:15 AM)
[email protected] 31 2006, 11:50 PM
How is it a religion then and not just a philosophy?
Religion can be defined as the most persuasive thing in ones life; meaning since Satanism is a representation of me, and my own persuits are the most persuasive thing in my life, then it is my religion. However Atheism, though it implies the void of a religious belief, most Atheists look to science and worldly knowledge for life's answers, in the same way a buddhist looks to buddha, or christians looks to christ. It's both philosophy and religion. [/b]
Well, I suppose I define "religion" a little differently. To me, a religion is a socially transmitted set of beliefs about the supernatural. Things like Taoism (in its original form), materialist Buddhism, and Satanism as you describe it are not religions to me but rather philosophies. A philosophy can still be the most persuasive thing in one's life without being a religion, and someone can have a religion without it being the most persuasive thing in that person's life.

If we define religion as the most persuasive thing in one's life, then would anarchism be my religion? It influences my worldview and decisions more than any other set of ideas does. Or maybe survival would be my religion? Because whenever I decide to do something, the principle of surviving has always been priority #1.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Well, I suppose I define "religion" a little differently. To me, a religion is a socially transmitted set of beliefs about the supernatural. Things like Taoism (in its original form), materialist Buddhism, and Satanism as you describe it are not religions to me but rather philosophies. A philosophy can still be the most persuasive thing in one's life without being a religion, and someone can have a religion without it being the most persuasive thing in that person's life.

I see your point, though I kinda differ on some aspects of it, it's still a pretty good point.


If we define religion as the most persuasive thing in one's life, then would anarchism be my religion? It influences my worldview and decisions more than any other set of ideas does. Or maybe survival would be my religion? Because whenever I decide to do something, the principle of surviving has always been priority #1.

In a sense yes, I mean I'm not one for quotes to often but I think LaVey sums up my views on this pretty well,

"Religion is the most important thing in a person's life. If electric trains are the most pervasive thing in one's life, that is his religion. Anything can be a religion if it means a lot. If your present religion isn't the most important thing in your life, then skip it. Find whatever impels you most and make that your religion."-Anton LaVey.

So if Anarchism is your main passion, or survival that could be a "religion," if you like. You may say then how is Satanism your religion, and for me something doesn't have to be blatantly Satanic, to qualify as one of my passions, for example the whole concept of Anarchism is in it self Satanic; self-government, self-rule, autonomy, all are Satanic ideologies. Satanism really is for the individual, or the religious Solipsist as it were.

[AnnieAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 09:54 PM



Not really all that different from the Gnostic Gospels, really.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Please explain, are you speaking of the book written by Elaine Pagels or of the texts found at Nag Hammadi? Which texts are the inversion of the teachings of Jesus?

Annie :ph34r:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by AnnieAngel
Which texts are the inversion of the teachings of Jesus?

My limited knowledge of the "Gnostic heresy" is that the "God" of the Old Testament -- with "his" cruel laws and punishments -- was "really the devil"...whereas "Jesus" was an avatar of the "True God" -- way up and beyond the OT "god" -- who preached "inner liberation" from the Mosaic Law.

It was a variant of neo-Platonism...at least as I understand it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Axel1917]

Satanism is thoroughly reactionary. It is essentially the "virtues" of capitalism made into a religion. It places greed, selfishness, screwing over others for your own benefit regardless of costs, etc. as virtues. It is completely incompatible with Marxism.

I wonder if the author of the Satanic Bible was influenced by Ayn Rand! :lol:

[AnnieAngel]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 2 2006, 02:53 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 2 2006, 02:53 AM)
AnnieAngel
Which texts are the inversion of the teachings of Jesus?

My limited knowledge of the "Gnostic heresy" is that the "God" of the Old Testament -- with "his" cruel laws and punishments -- was "really the devil"...whereas "Jesus" was an avatar of the "True God" -- way up and beyond the OT "god" -- who preached "inner liberation" from the Mosaic Law.

It was a variant of neo-Platonism...at least as I understand it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
There are many and many and many various Gnostic heresies. You are correct some think that the Jewish God was by Sophia created in a "dimension" far from the pleathora through grief and error and could not see into the aeons above and so thought himself to be the one true God with none above him. Most considered this "demi-urge" or half-maker to be a just God, but not the true God.
This definition does NOT in any way make the Gnostics who believed it Satanists. They believed One God above all, and that the One God Is All. Jesus would have been various things to various sects, including the brother of Jehova to the original Logos of the true God, to the Mind of God to an enamation of one of those to an enamation of Adamas.

It wickedly varied and in no way at all is any of it Satanic since even if some of them they did believe Jehova to be an evil God, (which I'm not sure they did) they sure didn't worship him.

Annie :ph34r:

[Comrade-Z]

Satanism is thoroughly reactionary. It is essentially the "virtues" of capitalism made into a religion. It places greed, selfishness, screwing over others for your own benefit regardless of costs, etc. as virtues. It is completely incompatible with Marxism.

Selfishness is entirely compatible with marxism. In fact, it is a basic tenet of historical materialism that individuals operate according to perceived material self-interest.

(On a side note, how are these the virtues of capitalism? These selfish virtues are only "justified" for the capitalist class under capitalism. Everyone else is supposed to "sacrifice for the good of the nation" and "settle for their 'fair' share of the pie" and such. The time when the proletariat becomes thoroughly selfish to the extent that it won't settle for the scraps the capitalist class throws down will be the time when communist revolution will be possible.)

The problem with Satanism is it isn't logical. It takes something like selfishness and attaches a bunch of "universalist" hogwash to it--such as how selfishness universally entails pathologically acquisitive greed and screwing other people over. A materialist analysis would find that greed and competition have utility in serving self-interest only in certain contexts.

In this way and others, Satanism distracts and misleads people from taking a critical, materialist analysis of reality, which is what is needed for the self-emancipation of the proletariat. Classless, communist society demands a proletariat that knows what it is doing and what is going on--not one that is caught up in blind emotional identification with certain universalist concepts like "the will to power" or the like. Satansim is superstition just like any other religion.

The Satanism in which people worship even an archetypal conception of Satan is especially disappointing. All forms of worship and self-abasement are to be striven against.

Some of its concepts are admirable, but why can't they be based from a materialist conception of reality instead of steeped in mystical/universalist hogwash? For instance:


1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

Sounds good, as long as one is able to take a long-term view of one's existence and realize that there are some cases in which one's net happiness over time can be enhanced by some temporary deferral of happiness, while taking into account that it is a good idea to pay more attention to immediate happiness than eventual happiness as there is a probability that one may not still be alive when the chance for reaping that eventual happiness arrives.


2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

"Vital existence" is kind of funky/mystical terminology, but I agree with this if this is saying that we should live for our happiness in the material world instead of waiting for "pie in the sky when we die."


3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

Okay...I'm guessing this is saying that knowledge usually has more utility than ignorance. But you see what I mean by "universalist" rhetoric? Why does this have to be phrased in a quasi-mystical manner?


4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

Yes, there is generally very little utility in wasting resources on social parasites, which in our current society, primarily means capitalists.


5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

Once again, the universalist rhetoric and lack of critical thought. What if "turning the other cheek" happens to have utility in advancing one's self-interest on certain occasions? You see how Satanism could mislead you into acting against your own self-interest? Basically, whenever you "doctrinal-ize" something and remove it from critical materialist inquiry, you run into trouble.


6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

"Psychic vampires"? :lol: This is ridiculous. Psychic powers and other such mystical phenomena don't exist.


7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!

As nearly as we can tell, the homo sapiens species did descent from other such primates, which are all mammals and animals. So, yes, the homo sapiens species is of the animal category. And the mental faculties of the homo sapiens species have become especially well developed. On the other hand, "divine spiritual development" does not exist.


8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

Useless universalist rhetoric. Does gluttony, in all cases and to any extent, always lead to gratification? Oh, and there's no such thing as "sin." :lol:

Satanism also suffers from the drawback of many other ideologies, including marxism: it takes a "leader's" name for its own name, thus subtly encouraging leader-worship and followership of what that leader said. I've always been glad that anarchism is labelled anarchism and not "Bakuninism." Perhaps we can come up with a better, more precise name for marxism, such as "revolutionary materialism"?

[Eleutherios]

Satanism also suffers from the drawback of many other ideologies, including marxism: it takes a "leader's" name for its own name, thus subtly encouraging leader-worship and followership of what that leader said. I've always been glad that anarchism is labelled anarchism and not "Bakuninism." Perhaps we can come up with a better, more precise name for marxism, such as "revolutionary materialism"?
I agree that Marxism would be better off if it hadn't attached its name to one of its two founders, but "revolutionary materialism" doesn't quite describe it. As an anarchist, I am a revolutionary materialist too, but I am not a Marxist. Marxism is a special type of revolutionary materialism that advocates use of state power in the transition to a stateless, classless society. But that takes too long to say...

[Comrade-Z]

As an anarchist, I am a revolutionary materialist too, but I am not a Marxist. Marxism is a special type of revolutionary materialism that advocates use of state power in the transition to a stateless, classless society. But that takes too long to say...

But using the marxist definition of the state (tool of class rule), anarchists support the use of a transitional state in the form of a decentralized network of ultra-democratic workers' councils, workers' militias, and the like, until such a time as the capitalist class has been thoroughly dispossessed and neutralized.

I think you are conflating marxism with Leninism. Your stance is entirely compatible with marxism, but definitely not with Leninism, which calls for the use of a state of the "democratic" centralist type under the command of an unaccountable party elite. Being against this type of state does not make you "not a marxist."

I think marxism can be rightly called "revolutionary materialism" because it is based on a critical, materialist conception of reality, and it is used for revolutionary purposes.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:41 AM
Satanism is thoroughly reactionary. It is essentially the "virtues" of capitalism made into a religion. It places greed, selfishness, screwing over others for your own benefit regardless of costs, etc. as virtues. It is completely incompatible with Marxism.

I wonder if the author of the Satanic Bible was influenced by Ayn Rand! :lol:
Selfishness is the basic of all human instincts, and is the most inherent property or characteristic of the human condition/conciousness, to deny that is deny the self. So going by your logic, every one is altruistic? Everyone inherently cares about the other-person and all that other rap-trap? No, that is a false ideology, just like the whole concept of inherent altruism is a false ideology. Furthermore, Satanism does not impose any set political stand point, unlike christianity which is inherently right-wing, Satanism is designed to let the individual decide for him or herself which positions mean the most to him or her, so no it is compatible with Marxism. Just because we can use people doesn't mean we always do, were not a group of conmen trying to decieve everyone, we just use these skills to sustain a more favorable life, and to help all the groups, movements, and indeavors we support, so again it is very compatible with Leftist movement. Ever hear of the Satanic Red group?

[Disciple of Prometheus]

The problem with Satanism is it isn't logical. It takes something like selfishness and attaches a bunch of "universalist" hogwash to it--such as how selfishness universally entails pathologically acquisitive greed and screwing other people over. A materialist analysis would find that greed and competition have utility in serving self-interest only in certain contexts.

Satanism is very logical and realizes what the human nature boils down to, just because we don't say Selfishness is wrong like everyone else, doesn't mean we are a bunch of crooks and Soplsists, and think only of ourselves, just mean we are not entitled to, we choose the people we wish to associate with, and we choose the people to help and what not. This notion of we only care about ourselves is false, and is highly stupid to state that, unlike all the other religions who say love everyone, we recognize hate as a natural emotion, and we don't shun it, in the same way we recognize love. We love fully whom we choose to love, and hate fully the ones we choose to hate, so this kind of freedom means it is our decision, not some religious leader or gods/ess, saying we should and think about everyone before our self. Also that little bit of universalistic thought, that statement in it self is hogwash.


In this way and others, Satanism distracts and misleads people from taking a critical, materialist analysis of reality, which is what is needed for the self-emancipation of the proletariat. Classless, communist society demands a proletariat that knows what it is doing and what is going on--not one that is caught up in blind emotional identification with certain universalist concepts like "the will to power" or the like. Satansim is superstition just like any other religion.

How are we superstitious? We recognize only this world, we seek only worldly knowledge, the man's knowledge of the sciences, and literature and what have you. We are constantly focused on the here and now, not on the hereafter.


The Satanism in which people worship even an archetypal conception of Satan is especially disappointing. All forms of worship and self-abasement are to be striven against.

We don't worship anyone, literal beings or archetypes, but ourselves, we recognize only the self as being deemed worthy enough to worship, I don't know how many times I should say that before it sinks in for you people.


Some of its concepts are admirable, but why can't they be based from a materialist conception of reality instead of steeped in mystical/universalist hogwash? For instance:

Satanism rejects mysticism, and all theistic concepts, have I not said that already? Usually the things that are said, are said using the old phrases of the bible, and being refuted poetically, and symbolically not literal.


Sounds good, as long as one is able to take a long-term view of one's existence and realize that there are some cases in which one's net happiness over time can be enhanced by some temporary deferral of happiness, while taking into account that it is a good idea to pay more attention to immediate happiness than eventual happiness as there is a probability that one may not still be alive when the chance for reaping that eventual happiness arrives.

That saying means we can indulge when we want to, it is not imploring us to do so, just saying we can if we so desire, the opposite of other religions saying you must be abstinent.


"Vital existence" is kind of funky/mystical terminology, but I agree with this if this is saying that we should live for our happiness in the material world instead of waiting for "pie in the sky when we die."

Vital existence means the existence of the here and now, and we should focus on that and not the hereafter, not some "funky/mystical," concept.


Okay...I'm guessing this is saying that knowledge usually has more utility than ignorance. But you see what I mean by "universalist" rhetoric? Why does this have to be phrased in a quasi-mystical manner?

How is that quasi-mystical? That wasn't even mystical in the least bit, more poetic if anything.


Once again, the universalist rhetoric and lack of critical thought. What if "turning the other cheek" happens to have utility in advancing one's self-interest on certain occasions? You see how Satanism could mislead you into acting against your own self-interest? Basically, whenever you "doctrinal-ize" something and remove it from critical materialist inquiry, you run into trouble.

It's not "universalist," rhetoric, its using what is commonly believed as true, and using the same phrase that the christian bible has used, so people can quickly understand what is trying to be said, and saying why is should be changed, these are NOT strict rules, or doctrine/dogmatic rules, these are "rules," designed for the individual to implore is he so desires, see how this religion is all about choice? We don't force anything down any one's throat, you do it if you want to, these are more like "tips," as it were. Satanism, and Satanists are those who fight against any dogmatic rules. Also that means we should not take things sitting down, the christian bible's version of the phrase refers to when slaves were hit by their master, the humble and godly thing to do is to turn the other cheek, and just put up with the abuse/opression, our one from the Satanic Bible is implying to do the opposite.


"Psychic vampires"? This is ridiculous. Psychic powers and other such mystical phenomena don't exist.

Psychic does not mean psychic in the mystical sense, but in the psychological sense, there is an entire chapter devoted to "psychic," vampires in the Satanic Bible, and they simply are people who ask and ask and ask for things, either material or emotional, and who are emotionally, and materially draining, hence the poetic vampire part. A lot of what LaVey writes about is speaking symbolically not literally. If you had read the Satanic Bible you would have known that, ;) .


As nearly as we can tell, the homo sapiens species did descent from other such primates, which are all mammals and animals. So, yes, the homo sapiens species is of the animal category. And the mental faculties of the homo sapiens species have become especially well developed. On the other hand, "divine spiritual development" does not exist.

He was saying that's why people believe we are above animals, he's not saying he/we believe that, hence the quotations.


Useless universalist rhetoric. Does gluttony, in all cases and to any extent, always lead to gratification? Oh, and there's no such thing as "sin."

Satanism also suffers from the drawback of many other ideologies, including marxism: it takes a "leader's" name for its own name, thus subtly encouraging leader-worship and followership of what that leader said. I've always been glad that anarchism is labelled anarchism and not "Bakuninism." Perhaps we can come up with a better, more precise name for marxism, such as "revolutionary materialism"?

He saying that Satan represents the joys of life, to "eat till your full," kind of thing, and what have you, he is not saying you must do all the "sins," of the bible, or any such non-sense, he means that the sins of the bible, usually represent things that lead to material/here and now happiness, and that should be implored, instead of the ascetic way of the other religions, which say starve now and be feed in the afterlife. Also when we say indulge, we mean in moderation, responsibility to the responsible, ;) .

[Eleutherios]

But using the marxist definition of the state (tool of class rule), anarchists support the use of a transitional state in the form of a decentralized network of ultra-democratic workers' councils, workers' militias, and the like, until such a time as the capitalist class has been thoroughly dispossessed and neutralized.

I think you are conflating marxism with Leninism. Your stance is entirely compatible with marxism, but definitely not with Leninism, which calls for the use of a state of the "democratic" centralist type under the command of an unaccountable party elite. Being against this type of state does not make you "not a marxist."
Err, well, that's a pretty weird definition of a state. Anyways, I don't think "a decentralized network of ultra-democratic workers' councils, workers' militias and the like" is compatible with what Marx had in mind for the state. Marx did say, after all, that the state would wither away, but anarchists don't anticipate the decentralized networks ever withering away. We think, on the contrary, that it is absolutely necessary to keep such organizations alive in order to maintain a communist society. Marx and Engels were well aware of anarchists such as Bakunin, and they definitely did not consider anarchism compatible with their theories.

I think marxism can be rightly called "revolutionary materialism" because it is based on a critical, materialist conception of reality, and it is used for revolutionary purposes.
I don't dispute that. I'm just saying Marxism is not the only kind of revolutionary materialism.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:50 PM
Marx and Engels were well aware of anarchists such as Bakunin, and they definitely did not consider anarchism compatible with their theories.

Didn't Marx have Bakunin kicked out of the International?

[bezdomni]

Yeah, something like that.

Satanism seems like a novelty more than anything, to me. It's main purpose seems to be shock.

Why can't you just call yourselves hedonists? The only difference is the Satan and Magick bullshit.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Satanism seems like a novelty more than anything, to me. It's main purpose seems to be shock.

Shock? Who do I want to shock? I don't really want to shock anyone, if they get shocked, oops. The symbol we see to be Satan, and what we see Satan to really represent, is in the same vein as Bakunin described him in, God and State:

"Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge."-Mikhail Bakunin, God and State, Chapter I.

The only reason why it is "shocking," is because we have chosen the "bad guy," and not crowding around like kneeling cattle around some "good guy," of young and old. The reason for choosing Satan, Ahriman, Set, Loki, Mara, Tezcatlipoca, what ever you wish to call the adversary, is because all those archetypes represent the true human, the one not blinded by false altruism, and the ones that don't denounce humanity as obscene and profane, and claim natural instincts and lusts, as sinful and something that should be redeemed, that is what the adversarial archetype represents. To put it melodramatically, :D lol.


Why can't you just call yourselves hedonists?

Sure, I could use a whole list of "isms," to sum up Satanism, Cynicism, Atheism, Hedonism, Materialism, religious Soplsism, mild Nihilism, Empiricism, Skepticism, etc., but the fact is, Satanism is it's on philosophy, and is really all those "isms," into one.


Satan and Magick bullshit.

Satan and Magick bullshit eh? May I ask have read about real Satanism? Do you think I believe in Satan as a literal being, and believe in all that "hocus pocus," new-agey magic crap? Truth is I don't. There is a lot more to Satanic philosophy, if you look past all the smoke and mirrors Hollywood, and Holymen have put around it, ;) .

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Disciple of [email protected] 2 2006, 07:56 PM
Selfishness is the basic of all human instincts, and is the most inherent property or characteristic of the human condition/conciousness, to deny that is deny the self. So going by your logic, every one is altruistic? Everyone inherently cares about the other-person and all that other rap-trap? No, that is a false ideology, just like the whole concept of inherent altruism is a false ideology.
Altruism in humans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766490.stm)

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:58 PM
Altruism in humans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766490.stm)
Interesting, but what I have to ask is, if they did the study on so young of specimens, couldn't also be argued that the altruism though it can be apparent at first, but given the stimulus (seeing the world, and be alive in it for a number of years), that they infants had no reason to distrust each other? I mean they look different yes, and their is no questioning that they did help each other, and express pure altruism, but how often do babies show true selfishness? Not until the terrible twos maybe? I think once an individual (human, or ape), has had more experiences in living and surviving, they become a lot more suspicious of animals of both their own species and otherwise, and act a lot more selfish, and not as trusting as an 18 month old, as long as something acts nice and friendly and isn't making a lot of loud noises, the infant, won't feel threatened.

I mean it could also be argued that the young chimp is a "wild," animal and could have acted "like an animal," because of the "wild," gene, but were these wild chimps, or chimps that had been raised in captivity? There ones raised in captivity and would be a lot tamer, and more cooperative than those raised in the wild, because the one's that lived outside of captivity, act "wild," and more "selfishly," out of necessity and survival, which doesn't mean that given an offspring that the parent wouldn't show some altruism and protect their young, neither would they show extreme violence or "animal," behavior just because they lived in the wild.

Simply yes, human and primates, and usually most young animals are blank slates, they act altruistically because they know nothing else, but then when they learn or are taught about the world, and how to survive in it, and exposed to it, the become just as selfish as you or I; Memetic engineering.

We do have the capcity of being altruistic, but the selfish nature prevailing in all animals usually over rides this slight altruism, out of practicality, and necesssity in order to survive, and protect.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Disciple of [email protected] 3 2006, 07:58 PM
Interesting, but what I have to ask is, if they did the study on so young of specimens, couldn't also be argued that the altruism though it can be apparent at first, but given the stimulus (seeing the world, and be alive in it for a number of years), that they infants had no reason to distrust each other? I mean they look different yes, and their is no questioning that they did help each other, and express pure altruism, but how often do babies show true selfishness? Not until the terrible twos maybe? I think once an individual (human, or ape), has had more experiences in living and surviving, they become a lot more suspicious of animals of both their own species and otherwise, and act a lot more selfish, and not as trusting as an 18 month old, as long as something acts nice and friendly and isn't making a lot of loud noises, the infant, won't feel threatened.
Yes, of course people get more distrusting as they get older and have more experiences and therefore infants are more trusting due to their lack of experience with the world, but couldn’t it also be argued that this isn’t nature but simply a product of the environment we live in, and that a infant so young would show altruistic tendencies thats it is more "natural" to be altruistic than to be selfish.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:10 PM
Yes, of course people get more distrusting as they get older and have more experiences and therefore infants are more trusting due to their lack of experience with the world, but couldn’t it also be argued that this isn’t nature but simply a product of the environment we live in, and that a infant so young would show altruistic tendencies thats it is more "natural" to be altruistic than to be selfish.
True, but it would depend on what kind of "natural," you mean. Giving a human no environment at all, and no chance of harm, peril, or danger, then yes altruism would probably prevail, and I would say that is sub-concious, non-physical, and undeveloped psychological natural. Also if you put that same individual out into the world, with environment of nature, and such, and allowed them to develop, then selfishness would prevail, and I would classify that as semi-subconcious, external psychological, and physical natural. Now it would have to be decided which is more natural; the psychological, or the physical, living in the mind, or living in the world.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Disciple of [email protected] 3 2006, 08:24 PM
True, but it would depend on what kind of "natural," you mean. Giving a human no environment at all, and no chance of harm, peril, or danger, then yes altruism would probably prevail, and I would say that is sub-concious, non-physical, and undeveloped psychological natural. Also if you put that same individual out into the world, with environment of nature, and such, and allowed them to develop, then selfishness would prevail, and I would classify that as semi-subconcious, external psychological, and physical natural. Now it would have to be decided which is more natural; the psychological, or the physical, living in the mind, or living in the world.
I agree, but the world changes, if society were to evolve to a state were greed was non-existent due to the fact that you couldn’t accumulate wealth because of economical equality, then wouldn’t altruism prevail and selfishness be dispersed to a degree? Of course in this capitalistic society selfishness prevails due to the fact that you need to accumulate wealth to survive.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:30 PM
I agree, but the world changes, if society were to evolve to a state were greed was non-existent due to the fact that you couldn’t accumulate wealth because of economical equality, then wouldn’t altruism prevail and selfishness be dispersed to a degree? Of course in this capitalistic society selfishness prevails due to the fact that you need to accumulate wealth to survive.
I agree, but I still think that given any economic or political system, capitalist, Communist, Anarchist, and societal temperament, there will always be a strain of selfishness in man, I think that history has shown, that no matter how pure a man is, there is always instances of greed, and suppressed selfishness. Also what I mean by selfishness is not equated to greed, but more that the individual is concerned with his or her own survival, and needs first, and then the needs of others.

[tambourine_man]

(Disciple of Prometheus)

We see Satan as an archetype, a symbol of man's true indulgic Self. When we say Hail Satan! what we are really saying is Hail Thyself! Because Satan is the personification of our true inherent nature, and not the illusory nature of the altruistic religions.

i still don't get it.
why can't you just say "hail thyself" if that's what you really mean? what's the point of "personifying our true inherent nature" ( :rolleyes: ) in some alien construction, "satan" (which, by the way, is irrevocably linked to christianity and other dogma/superstition that we want to break ties with completely), when the direct route is just as accessible and far less...stupid?

(Disciple of Prometheus)

It's not "universalist," rhetoric, its using what is commonly believed as true, and using the same phrase that the christian bible has used, so people can quickly understand what is trying to be said, and saying why is should be changed, these are NOT strict rules
(emphasis added)

mmm okay, so now our point of reference is a superstition that we have been fighting against all along - christianity.
so, there it is, you've said it yourself: satanism is a reaction to christianity.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

i still don't get it.
why can't you just say "hail thyself" if that's what you really mean? what's the point of "personifying our true inherent nature" ( :rolleyes: ) in some alien construction, "satan" (which, by the way, is irrevocably linked to christianity and other dogma/superstition that we want to break ties with completely), when the direct route is just as accessible and far less...stupid?

How is it stupid? How does Satan equally stupidity; in my eyes christianity and the archetype of jehovah equates to blind and forced stupidity, so wouldn't Satan represent the opposite? We see him as the symbol for ourselves, and the symbol of our philosophy. When we say Satan, it is in part to evoke psychodrama (heightened emotions) with in the confines of the ritual chamber, we allow ourselves to play on all the superstitions that, outside of ritual we would find silly, but with in the walls of the ritual chamber we dispatch these thoughts, and open ourselves to enchantment and empowerment. Humans want enchantment, we crave the mysterious, the horrific, and such, why do you think fortune tellers, and haunted houses rake in so much cash?

Combining this need for enchantment, with man's develop need for something ritualized, and religious, we have designed ways to placate this through rituals designed to help the individual. For example, when we perform, a "destruction," ritual, were not saying "oooo this will destroy our enemy," we do these rituals to destroy the negative emotions attached and concerning the individual that has harmed us, either physically or emotionally, and then outside of the ritual, we allow ourselves to forget, and get over the individual that has wronged us, no different than therapy, or what have you. It should be pointed out, that we only resort to ritual, when regular measures and common ways of dealing with it, fail to work.

The magick of the Satanist, is more symbolic, and intended to help the individual, instead of leaving it to the gods/ess hand's, and other "mumbo-jumbo," that neo-pagans use. We use symbols all the time to symbolize a cause, and to conjure up certain images; like the sickle, and hammer represent the workers, and the fact they are red represent the workers blood that has been spilt, why do Communist use this symbol? Because it symbolizes the Communist cause, why then can't we use Satan, as the symbol of ourselves, and of our religion/philosophy?


mmm okay, so now our point of reference is a superstition that we have been fighting against all along - christianity.
so, there it is, you've said it yourself: satanism is a reaction to christianity.

Why is it wrong to speak poetically? Furthermore, we are reclaiming the carnality of man, that was lost when christianity/spirituality took over, and since carnality preceded "spirituality," would christianity, and all other spiritualities be a reaction, to our carnality?