Question for Laveyian Satanists

[greenhead]

[Medusa]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

Satanists do not deny the religion of Christianity, Judaism or Islam. I was in love with a Muslim. I know it exists.

How is selective mythological (in this case) philosophical admiration seen as valid when the all notions of Christianity and so on are false.

LaVeyan Satanists are mostly Atheists. Even Satan is a myth to us. We just use the myth to our benefit while still understanding it's a myth.

Where does external information on Satan appear prior to these Monotheistic religions and does it develop independently?

I don't know. LaVeyan Satanism was founded in 1966. You might need to ask Theistic Satanists where they get their info on Satan.

The idea of evil being subjective and the belief that evil isn't tied to universal morality (correct me if i'm wrong) neither Christianity (in which the basis of evil as compared to good is defined) seems strange to me.

I guess it's good you aren't a Satanist.
The Lion kills the deer. It's evil to the deer, but not to the lion. The mother spanks the child for doing wrong. It's evil to the child but not the mother. This tribe circumcises it's children at age 8. That tribe at 8 days. Both view each other as evil. It's all subjective. Even killing.

So without an example in a context, lying, cheating and stealing is considered what? Or murder for pleasure?

Depends. Lying to your spouse about the money you stashed away isn't illegal. Lying to the IRS about your deductions is illegal. Cheating at a game of monopoly is legal. Cheating on the safety precautions a food manufacturer does is illegal. Etc etc.

Why the chants, rituals and ceremonies alongside this as well if it refuses the concept of satan as a deity.

It's called the Intellectual Decompression Chamber

[greenhead]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

Okay, but you didn't answer about killing for pleasure? Animals will remain animals and and primitive societies have not accquired basic human rights? So if it is wrong and it is justified by anything other than self-defense, is it okay?

Does Satanism encourage taking advantage (not sexually i know) or being arrogant towards the weak and vunerable? if it does ( i can't remember read the s. bible 9 years ago) If it does why doesn't it acknowledge that anyone or any close person towards the satanist including the satanist himslf can be placed in this position based on murphys law and random circumstance.

if your an atheist why fixate on a myth you only regard as a symbolic entity? Should it be considered the other way around where your philosophy includes satan as opposed to being based on him? Does this have to do with not being able to move away from judeo-centered upbringing or culture?

Aren't there at least 20 different hedonistic, free-thinking, self-indulgent and social-darwinistic intellects, philisophers, and mythological gods?

[Medusa]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

Weird, I didn't look at the title. I thought this was my 'Ask a Satanist' thread. Anywho...

Okay, but you didn't answer about killing for pleasure? Animals will remain animals and and primitive societies have not accquired basic human rights? So if it is wrong and it is justified by anything other than self-defense, is it okay?

I'm a little confused about what you are asking. So I'll take my best shot.
Is killing for pleasure wrong? For me, yes. That's an individual answer. Each Satanist has formed their own moral compass based on their personal experiences.

The real answer is this: Satanists are responsible for their actions 100%. There is no passing the blame in any form. In essence if I do something good, I get the accolades I rightly deserve. If I do something bad, I get the consequences I rightly deserve. A Satanist will base their choices on exactly how much of each they are willing to get or give up.

As to taking advantage etc etc. Satanist believe the weak are there for the strong. They serve a purpose. Do we 'take advantage' in a predatory sense? Only if we are a douchee human being I suppose. I mind my business. But if someone dumb starts messing with my happy, they are in for some ass kicking. Only someone completely unhappy with themselves starts picking on weak people. I tend to let universal law weed those out all by themselves. Nature doesn't need my help.

if your an atheist why fixate on a myth you only regard as a symbolic entity? Should it be considered the other way around where your philosophy includes satan as opposed to being based on him? Does this have to do with not being able to move away from judeo-centered upbringing or culture?

This is the long version form of the 'so why call yourself a Satanist if you are an Atheist' question. I get this alot. It's a good question.
Atheism: The lack of a belief in a deity.
Satanism: a certain set of philosophies, morals and beliefs.

I am an Atheist. But all that says is I don't believe in deities. It doesn't answer what my morals are, my beliefs or rules I live by. I navigate my life through this world in the form of Satanism. I do not base my beliefs on Satan. Since Satan isn't real. I do however enjoy the idea of what the symbol represents to me personally. An individual which works inner as opposed to outer.

Aren't there at least 20 different hedonistic, free-thinking, self-indulgent and social-darwinistic intellects, philisophers, and mythological gods?

I'm not hedonistic nor self indulgent. Trust me. I'm a responsible and sensible human being. I don't do drugs, drink or sleep around. I know. I should be a muslim!

[greenhead]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

Okay that’s a fair answer on your side also considering the nature of your belief system.

But to me real Satanism is a belief in acknowleding monotheistic Judeo-Centered religions including Christianity but do not believe they fully represent Satan. They believe all the info on Satan in the Old Testament is 100 percent correct and there is more to him, furthered expanded texts, magick and occultism and so forth. They believe in these stories but choose to side with Satan in a pure biblical sense.

They believe in a philosophy that believes everything wrong, harmful, predatory, unfair, corrupt, and deceiving for personal gain opposed to any form of morality is right as long as in gives you empowerment, satisfaction, control, momentary or prolonged states of pleasure without any constraint and serves Satan or greater moral or Christian moral evil.

The belief is that evil, within the notions of meaning human and judeo-religious defined morality is good and good which involves compromise, humility, self-sacrifice, communal responsibility alongside the virtues of god chain man’s natural instincts and innate selfish desires of free will and pure sin according to god.

Therefore murder for the sake of it, pathological lying/cheating/stealing, non-consenting sex, political corruption, etc.. is permitted according this belief system. The idea if you are strong enough to hide, control and maintain it than it does not destroy you, but if you aren't than it will and thats nature's law of punishing the weak. Through consequences, guilt, jail, revenge etc..

I obviously disagree with this crap but it runs more parallel with what Satan actually is according to the system that is was created in.

Because it seems like Lavey aside of reinterpreting Satan is only selecting certain attributes of Satan and Hell and mixing it with foreign concepts rather than the whole thing alone, which also leaves a large chunk out. This makes Lavey’s ideas seem really hollow and/or in denial to me.

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

Okay that’s a fair answer on your side also considering the nature of your belief system.

But to me real Satanism is a belief in acknowleding monotheistic Judeo-Centered religions including Christianity but do not believe they fully represent Satan. They believe all the info on Satan in the Old Testament is 100 percent correct and there is more to him, furthered expanded texts, magick and occultism and so forth. They believe in these stories but choose to side with Satan in a pure biblical sense.

This is an argument of semantics. They've defined themselves in this thread as LaVeyan Satanists and now you're arguing about their use of the term. Most of them would probably call what you're describing as 'Demonolatry' or 'Dark Paganism' or 'Adversarial Paganism'. Who is right? Subjectively, you both are.

Also, are you using the term 'Satan' as a proper noun or just as a translation of 'the Adversary'? There are plenty of adversarial-type gods other than the Judeo-Christian Satan. In fact, to be honest, 'Satan' as a proper noun is an amalgamation of at least 15 different adversarial/chthonic/therionic/pre-Christian deities that have simply been demonized.

[greenhead]

[Medusa]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

When someone tells m about my religion I've had for 26 years... I bow out.

toodles.

[LuciaStar]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

No there are branches of Theistic Satanism that practice what i was describing, which sometimes is synonymous or runs parellel with satan worship. Again its centered on monotheistic beliefs of one figure. Many of them use black magic and occultism as a tool but i don't see it as dark pagan, or demon worship( that is non-specific to satan, could be from any culture pagan or non)

I also know of some branches of Theistic Satanism that don't really practice what you describe. The thing is... they are simply branches of one religion in whole which is why statements like this here:

Lavey Satanists don't acknowledge this belief system. Instead of disagreeing with it they think it doesn't exist or that is it isn't real satanism

...can be either seen as you trying to dictate what someone believes in (by simply saying it isn't real Satanism) or it can be seen that you're being willfully ignorant about the various branches of religion and the differences in those branches.

It also does not change the fact that statement can apply to various religions. No, you don't have to accept the difference LaVeyan Satanists have compare to other Satanists but you also shouldn't try to tell someone what your idea of their religion should be and how their system is wrong. They practice it. You don't. They know what it means to them. You don't.

/drops two cents in and leaves.

[Siloh]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

Well, Medusa dropped this thread like a dead mouse, so I guess I'll also step in an dispense my cents.

Maybe I am entirely misunderstanding your confusion, but it seems to me that you are missing the LeVeyan terms "iconoclasm," "Adversary," "psychodrama," "objective subjectivism," and the whole concept of Anton LaVey saying (in a nutshell), "I have read a lot of stuff from a lot of minds. I'm going to bridge the gap between psychology and religion right quick before someone else tries this and screws up."

Okay, so LaVeyan Satanists, by definition, are atheists. I mean, let's talk broadly here and not get into all the little differences that make LaVeyan Satanists so individual. For me, the iconoclasm of Satan, particularly the story of Original Sin, is super useful because Satan came to Eve and said, "Don't worry about The Man. Take matters into your own hands and eat that delicious fruit placed conspicuously in the center of this holy paradise, because when you do, you will be as God, knowing both right and wrong."

It's like a damn red pill blue pill posit. Do you want to be told the truth, or do you want to go out in all your human primal glory and go find the Truth?

So Satan is not some guy hanging out in hellfire for me. He's not the Antichrist. Boiled down, he is nothing more than an idea to me, because I don't believe in that stuff. Because it doesn't agree with my sense. But, you know, he's an idea, like friendship and love and hate and kindness and right and wrong and souls are an idea. Instead, Satan is the voice that comes to me in situations and says, "Embrace your humanity" or "I love the animal you were created as."

Take Anton's daughter's Satanic baptism, for example. He decided that because Baptism is all about washing the yucky sin outta you, inherited by the "mistake" of a woman who found Knowledge, he flipped it all around and encouraged his three-year-old daughter to be happy with herself and welcome her into all life's pleasures and wonders by having a pretty ceremony, some sweets, etc. They weren't confirming her soul to the Dark Lord so that she could grow up to crave the blood of freshly christened children.

I think another thing you may be confused about is the time in which this all went down. Visit some good ol' Bible Belt rural towns, then attempt to function as some kinda freaky free thinker for a minute. A huge problem with being different in a place where different is totally unwelcome, for me, is that you're either mistaken for the herd in your mildness and brushed off, or you go to extremes and piss a bunch of people off. If you want to LEAD different as an up-and-coming culture, you really just have the latter option (stay with me on the "broadly qualifier mentioned at the start). Anton LaVey was going for the jugular, it seems to me, in doing Satanism in a hugely Christian country (60s America!). If he came up with all the founding ideas for Satanism and then called it a philosophy, leaving Satan out of things entirely, first off he'd be out a great mascot and figurehead, and second, what kind of splash would that have made?

Maybe in your studies you've come across the pejorative "reverse Christian" term, where someone is a "Satanist" only in that they flip everything from the Church and just spend a lot of time making old Church ladies faint. Well, that term is certainly pejorative, but I think LaVey could have been accused of the same behavior in the early days of the CoS. He knew all this fully, though. His psychodrama was important work at the time in terms of garnering the attention necessary to gain momentum and, I dare say in many cases, solidarity. Just how many people do you suppose watched his antics with Black Mass and all thinking, "Wow, you know, I am suffering in this society, and I also need some psychodrama to break loose. Hail Satan, a**holes!"

So you see, or maybe you don't, how Satan is an extremely important figure in a religion designed to give those athiests who feel aligned with its philosolhies and principles the same rich ritual, ceremony, and psychological enrichment that deists enjoy. LaVey is often quoted saying that all religions are in show business; Satanism just admits it.


If you are merely confused because the CoS does not recognize other branches of Satanism as Satanism, I'd say it's because they went through the trouble of legitimizing LaVeyan Satanism (under the title "Satanism") in the Federal government. Frankly, I can't blame them for their pride. After all, Satan and I agree, they're only human!

[greenhead]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

You are entilted to enjoy your beliefs to the max. but it will always seems strange or incomplete to others that Lavey cherry picked what he liked about Satan as mythological figure and also downplaying the darkside of overglorfying free will/instinct and egotism that comes along with this.

But hey if it works for you just thats fine. i'm just questioning beliefs here. No disrespect.

[Medusa]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

You are entilted to enjoy your beliefs to the max. but it will always seems strange or incomplete to others that Lavey cherry picked what he liked about Satan as mythological figure and also downplaying the darkside of overglorfying free will/instinct and egotism that comes along with this.

But hey if it works for you just thats fine. i'm just questioning beliefs here. No disrespect.

I totally get you are confused about LaVeyan Satanism. Which is why it's a good thing you aren't a LaVeyan Satanist.

[Peri_Dot]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

but it will always seems strange or incomplete to others that Lavey cherry picked what he liked about Satan as mythological figure and also downplaying the darkside of overglorfying free will/instinct and egotism that comes along with this.

I think you are going to find almost every religious/spiritual/philosophical person strange then because pretty much everyone cherry picks/downplays parts of their religion/philosophy. That's how we ended up with so many denominations of Christianity, for example.

[Lareth]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

I've been following this conversation for a little while, and my questions would be:

Where exactly does this kind of satanism differ from humanism in ethical aspects?
Why should one focus on this kind of archetype, what is your motivation?

[Siloh]

Re: Question for Laveyian Satanists

Medusa, you crack me up.

I've been following this conversation for a little while, and my questions would be:

Where exactly does this kind of satanism differ from humanism in ethical aspects?
Why should one focus on this kind of archetype, what is your motivation?

I think the focus on Satan as historically integral to being radical in a time of a hugely Christian culture on the 60s has been well covered.


The other standpoint is the personal attachment to what Satan represents as a figurehead, related in my summary of how I feel about Original Sin. Satan is a pretty good representation of, well, what "Satan" means--The Adversary.


But here's how I also look at it, as a fan of LaVey who doesn't feel entirely comfortable with calling herself a full-on LaVeyan Satanist due to discrepancies I don't care to address now (though you can find all my hard ore questions in the illustrious Medusa's thread, Ave Satanas!).

As an American who was raised Jewish, I have been ever-steeped in Judeo-Christian belief, culture, mythology, etc. I mean, it's really everywhere in this sometimes beautiful, sometimes scary, but generally impressive way. Images of Judeo-Christian beliefs permeate most of my reality, even if its elements originated in all kinds of wacky ways from whatever myths before its influence, because that's the lens I inherited from my culture. Are ya with me? When I see winged, sword-wielding humanoids, I think angels, God's Army, of the archangels--those bewinged beautiful creatures built from loyalty, hold the free will, add a dash of holy fire. Judeo-Christian angels.

I love mythology. I'm a damn writer; I've chosen to specialize in thematically coherent representations of reality through mostly fictional accounts, because you can write down all your thoughts on truth and the universe, and who the frig cares? But if you weave a rich story with representations of facets of the natural world in which we exist, whether or not anything at face-value in the story has a place in reality, the message comes across more smoothly, because an engaging experience has been created for other minds to access.

So personally, I think that myth is really important as a point of relation, and myth is honestly as or more important than religious tenants to me, because--oh, Anton--everything is plastic in stories. Interpretation dominates, which is great spiritually in my opinion, because it allows for individual enrichment, the same way you always think about this that and the other song as relating to X, Y, and Z events in your personal history.


So there's the importance of myth for me at a basic level.

I've weighed Loki and Dionysus as possible Adversary figureheads for my spiritual appropriation. I really like them. I connect with each of them pretty well. They represent a lot of why I want represented.

But going back to the Judeo-Christian lens, I feel so distanced from them, because as much as I could pick out thigs in my life to attribute to that adversarial force of nature and call it Loki, I'm distanced from them by my personal context. Because really, as an atheist who grew up Jewish, the only religion to have intimate influence in my life has been that of Judeo-Christian religions.

I probably heard about Loki and Dionysus in my early teens. I probably knew what the Devil was since I was thre or four. When my mind reaches for a picture of these beings, Lucifer has a thousand associations for me to every one association I have to the others.


So, the run-down is


Satan was a historically important image for Lavey

Mythology is important in religion and spirituality for a multitude of reasons

Satan is a highly accessible icon


There are other reasons. Probably buckets. But these are the main points for me.


And philosophy is great. We should all have a daily dose. But LaVey wanted more than that for his movement. He wanted to give a category of atheists religion.

If it helps, look at other philosophically heavy religions. Could I not either describe my philosophy as Buddhist but just as easily say "I am a Buddhist"?


OP:
I deduce from your latest response that your intention with this thread was not to learn about Levayan thought as I originally perceived but to challenge its validity as a religion? I guess that's cool. But I surely misunderstood you initially. I apologize for my confusion and any resulting inconvenience to your cause.

---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

I can't even help myself.

Also, this whole strange and incomplete cherry-picking business, though there are literally hundreds of examples to choose from,

Meet 3,000 years of Judiasm. Enter Jesus. Enter the cherry pickers. Enter the New Testament. Enter millions of people willing to kill and die for a truth mostly stolen from and 3,000 years younger than another religion, with a ton of the rules straight gutted out.

Growing up, I thought Christians were heathens, because thou shalt have no other Gods before me . I still think the good Jew Jesus must be absolutely spinning in his grave about that. But, hey, I learned to not go up to Christians and tell them about this when I was about eight, because it turns out people tend to like their religious convictions to be wholly respected, even if tons of it appears to make absolutely no sense. Why should it if it works?

I also want to know who has a patent on Satan. Maybe we should ask our deistic Satanist friend Michael, who by the way doesn't see Satan through a Judeo-Christian lens at all and rather as a totally separate deity.

In fact, let's talk about examples of Christian cherry picking with Satan, where they downplay the whole Morning Star Lucifer was a critical player in the creation of the world events, and--

Wow. I'm actually so overwhelmed by the number of examples of veritable cherry picking that I'm getting entrenched in my options for a response. I guess I'm done.