The "Satanism" Thread

Final_Product said:
I'm gonna go with desperate for attention.

That was my guess from the start.
I could write a book about how much this kid tries to get attention.
Even if he is right he is the biggest liar and hypocrite I've ever met.
I guess he is my Nemesis
 
Devildog11887 said:
Im no expert in Satanism, but a kid at my school claims to be a Pagan/Satanist

I talked to a Pagan girl and she said you couldn't do that and then I got into a debate with him over it.
He says he is Pagan because he believes in the earth magics but Satanist because he worships Satan. I asked him who created the earth magics and he said God. I then told him that he couldn't do that because he was following both God and Satan.
any insight would be gratefull, and I'm open to any ideas.

I don't believe it is possible, but if someone can set me straight, then I have no problem and will not imaturally start a flame war.
but according to some Christians, if you are worshipping a pagan god, and if this pagan god is undeniably doing the things you are telling it to do, then this god is actually Satan in disquise
 
I think it is indeed like my title says, Satanism is one of the most misunderstood religions (with the Islam).

I'd like to know what you all know about satanism and then I'll correct those wrong ideas, how does that sound?
 
Part of it is the fault of other people's ignorance, and part of it is the fault of the creators of Satanism foolishly naming their religion.

As I understand it, Satanism was created as a counter to Christianity, to be everything that Christianity is not. It's a religion of "smart hedonism" essentially, where you basically do what makes you feel good, provided the good you recieve from any situation does not outweigh (in your mind) the negative aspects or consequences. It's also a religion which bitterly attacks what it believes are the negative aspects of humanity. For instance, in Satanism, stupidity is one of the most haneous sins.

But then there are many different branches of Satanism, though the most commonly discussed is "LaVeyan Satanism," or the official "Church of Satanism." I criticize LaVey for adopting such a misleading title, when, in fact, they don't believe in an entity called "Satan" as all. The term Satan in their belief system is merely symbolic of the dark force which drives man's passions, lusts, and ambitions, essentially human nature. The Satanists embrace human nature, rather than try to rise above it (as they believe many members of other religions ignorantly try to do).

Aside from LaVeyan Satanism, there are a few splinter groups (such as the First Church of Satan, founded by LaVey's daughter, who felt the new administration was disingenuous to her father's cause), but the LaVeyans are quick to denounce them. It would seem that despite their attempts to be the opposite of Christianity, the same things are happening to them (denominationalizing, sects, splinter groups, cults, etc).

However, the term Satanist and Satanism can have a much more broad meaning, as the word has its roots in other practices besides those espoused by Anton LaVey. There are other types of "Satanism," that involve less secular practices.

Demonolatry (the worship of demons) considers Satan the head of all demons, or merely the sum force of which all demons are a part. Satan is also sometimes associated with the dark Egyptian god Set, so some count Setianism (which is practiced by neo-pagans) in cahoots with Satanism.

There's Luciferianism, which connects the pseudo-Biblical entity (meaning that the association arrived as a result of Christian mythology, but is no where found in Scripture, the only reference to Lucifer in the Bible is a reference to King Nebbechudnezzar of Babylon) of Lucifer with Satan, as synonymous, and the supreme being. Luciferianism shares a lot of sociological ideas with LaVeyan Satanism, but is definitely a separate belief system.

There's also Theistic Satanism, which is what most people think of when they hear the word "Satanism." TS basically revolves around the worship of Satan as an entity, particularly the Judeo-Christian character of Satan. However, following something similar to a Gnostic path, they interpret the Scriptures in reversal, claiming that Satan is the hero and Yahweh is the devil.

So yeah, Satanism is widely misunderstood and demonized system of belief, but many branches the term "Satanism" are misunderstood because of poor planning on their part, in my opinion. One would think that Anton LaVey could have come up with a more accurate descriptor than Satan, because his brand of Satanism doesn't have much to do with the entity Satan.
 
Satanism is rooted in the belief that "I should do what makes me happy"

It's decadance through and through, and ironically draws much of its (percieved) justification from Nietzsche! :p
 
Satanism is rooted in the belief that "I should do what makes me happy"

It is much more complicated than such a simple concept. Satanism IS NOT hedonism.

Arthyron said:
Part of it is the fault of other people's ignorance, and part of it is the fault of the creators of Satanism foolishly naming their religion.

Foolishly? I'd say they named it quite aptly, to go in direct opposition of that flawed system of Christianity. I'd say people's misunderstanding has nothing to do with the naming, and all to do with their ignorance.

Arthyron said:
As I understand it, Satanism was created as a counter to Christianity, to be everything that Christianity is not. It's a religion of "smart hedonism" essentially, where you basically do what makes you feel good, provided the good you recieve from any situation does not outweigh (in your mind) the negative aspects or consequences. It's also a religion which bitterly attacks what it believes are the negative aspects of humanity. For instance, in Satanism, stupidity is one of the most haneous sins.

Everything that Christianity is not? Well that would encompase alot, a bit too much. I'd say it was more of a intelligent system created in opposition of the flaws inherant of Christianity. It is not hedonism, it is rather the search of meaning in the life we have, the same way as in paganism; it is pragmatism, but not greed or materialism; it is eugenic, as you said - thinking of idiocy as the disgust it is; it is [mostly] naturalistim and relativim, but certainly not rejecting of values or ideals; and more. (I shall have to read the precepts again.) Too many mistake it for "self worship" and "hedonism" while those very things are "sins" of satanism.
 
If I had to give a couple of lines that really show the core of christian thought I would suggest:
"Be selfless in love for your neighbour"
"Love your enemies"

If you had to give a couple of lines that are reflective of the core ideals of Satanism what would you pick?

I would pick:
"pursure your own happieness"
"take maximum delight and pleasure from life"

feel free to also say why I am wrong :p
 
It is much more complicated than such a simple concept. Satanism IS NOT hedonism.

It is more complicated than hedonism, but it is a form of hedonism (it has stipulations attached to that hedonism), as pure hedonism is self-defeating, as it will eventually result in the practicioner's inability to pursue enjoyment. That's why they follow a more...refined system of hedonism.

Foolishly? I'd say they named it quite aptly, to go in direct opposition of that flawed system of Christianity. I'd say people's misunderstanding has nothing to do with the naming, and all to do with their ignorance.

Yet they've had to spend countless hours and words explaining themselves and clarifying that they probably wouln't have had to do had they chosen another name. Ignorance plays a part, but when creating a societal construct like a religion (particularly an established religion that intends to gather like minds to its cause), anticipating the target audience is part of that process. It's obvious that many people are ignorant or not very knowledgable about mythology and theology, so something esoteric, which, in itself requires investigation, would be a more wise choice, in my opinion.

Everything that Christianity is not? Well that would encompase alot, a bit too much. I'd say it was more of a intelligent system created in opposition of the flaws inherant of Christianity. It is not hedonism, it is rather the search of meaning in the life we have, the same way as in paganism; it is pragmatism, but not greed or materialism; it is eugenic, as you said - thinking of idiocy as the disgust it is; it is [mostly] naturalistim and relativim, but certainly not rejecting of values or ideals; and more. (I shall have to read the precepts again.) Too many mistake it for "self worship" and "hedonism" while those very things are "sins" of satanism.

Always the Christ-hater, both here and elsewhere. *sigh* Ah well. I'd appreciate it if you kept your opinions of my beliefs to threads where such opinions are relevant and appropriate.

I suppose it depends on your definition of hedonism. The definition I'm familiar with is something akin to "the striving to attain and increase one's pleasure and enjoyment." It's pretty consistent with what the Wiki definition is: Hedonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does your definition differ and where did you obtain your definition from?
 
Always the Christ-hater, both here and elsewhere. *sigh* Ah well. I'd appreciate it if you kept your opinions of my beliefs to threads where such opinions are relevant and appropriate.

A strange request to be sure in a thread titled, "Satanism..." It would be difficult to imagine a time wherein opinions and criticism of the supposed Hebrew Christ would be more appropriate. Peculiar...
 
A strange request to be sure in a thread titled, "Satanism..." It would be difficult to imagine a time wherein opinions and criticism of the supposed Hebrew Christ would be more appropriate. Peculiar...

It was directed at moogle in particular, he and I go way back on another forum. ;) I realize the irony of my request as it would pertain to the thread in general, that wasnt' my intent, sorry.

However, one can discuss Satanism without referencing Christianity, and even if one needs to mention Christianity, one doesn't neccesarily have to give any indication as to one's fondness or hatred regarding it. In moogle's post (the one I responded to), the criticisms of Christianity weren't neccesary nor did they help us better understand his view on Satanism. They presented nothing of value or worth to the present discussion, hence my request.
 
3 yrs ago i used to hang ard with ppl who claimed to b troo Satanists. From what i heard, they actually did believe in a Devil - literally. They invited me to "open the gates of hell", which failed miserably because i was there. But they told me that a certain satanic verse they got from a Shaman in Indonesia could open up a phase of 12 stages to deal with Lucifer himself. That with blood sacrifice frm each member, and so i let em take a few drops of mine.

I wasnt in on this thing, i was just curious to see what they claimed to b true. They then burnt that lil paper supposedly written with a medium not present on Earth while chanting some verses. We were supposed to sit in concentration and go through 12 stages of "tests" so that each of us could make a deal with Lucifer, like flying, infinite strength bla bla.

All of that failed tho, but I cannot disagree that i did encounter one of those people who flew over a crowd of 3000. And died a week later. It was unbelievable but i wasnt dreaming. They say if u take advantage of the power, the Devil takes his part of the deal - ur life.
 
Justin...you sure this particular amalgamation was a good idea?:Smug: :erk:

Yes, I think so. The three threads were redundant, and I dont see the point in watching the same discussion unfold in a new thread every X months- this new thread isnt unmanageably large, and one can draw on what was said before (there were some nice posts previously)... Why do you think its a poor move?
 
It was directed at moogle in particular, he and I go way back on another forum. ;)
I'm a witness to the past conlict. I've been tracking it since day one.
Yes, I think so. The three threads were redundant, and I dont see the point in watching the same discussion unfold in a new thread every X months- this new thread isnt unmanageably large, and one can draw on what was said before (there were some nice posts previously)... Why do you think its a poor move?
I agree with you Justin. It is a good move. There's absolutely no reason for us to have 3 threads all about the same thing, that collectively are no longer than 5 pages. Not only is it more eficient, but it saves space in the forum.