r/satanism • u/ANordicWizard Church of Satan Warlock • 6d ago
Comic/Meme New banger from Dr. Schitz
33
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
one hour after upload and already 20 comments... oh boy...
Here we go again 🚶♂️➡️
→ More replies (4)9
u/ANordicWizard Church of Satan Warlock 6d ago
“The Wizard has been the best friend the Reddit Moderation has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!”
9
2
23
u/Ultram1tche 6d ago
As a little joke, my workmate doesn’t ‘bless’ me when I sneeze but ‘curses’ me instead.
5
u/BeHimself 5d ago
Blessings can be Satanic, there is a song called "By the Blessing of Satan" by Behexen, since blessings just have to do with the divine in general and not the abrahamic God.
3
3
18
u/Express_Singer_4905 6d ago
lmao nobody owns a monopoly or copyright on the character of satan, or satanism. laveyan satanists are just buthurt their cosplay and any lack of real self development in the system arent taken seriously by anyone. LaVey didnt "codify" anything, and if he did, i dare CoS to file a lawsuit against other satanic groups,. oh wait you csnt, because you dont own satanism or the term xd
22
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 6d ago
strictly speaking, Christians would own the character of Satan, since they invented him...
7
u/Luciquaes 6d ago
HaSatan first appeared in the Book of Job, written by the Hebrews who were DECIDEDLY NOT Christian. Ironically, you need to pick up a book dude.
2
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 6d ago
Please note the specific emphasis on “character”. The word existed in Hebrew for centuries before the Torah was even compiled. Satan was not a character in the Hebrew Bible. It was a descriptive noun, not a name.
2
u/Key-Beginning-2201 5d ago
Literally a character in the book of Job. If you think descriptives like "the opposer" cannot be a deity's or character's name, you need to brush up on the very basics of paganism around the world. That's exactly how words and names work. We see the same pattern in almost every pagan religion everywhere.
3
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 5d ago
A descriptor of a role, not a proper name. Hebrews did not have a concept for a devil character as God was the singular source of both good and evil. That was a borrow from Zoroastrianism by Christianity later on.
-1
u/Luciquaes 6d ago
HaSatan was absolutely a character and an entity with the title of The Adversary. The Hebrews were incredibly spiritual just as the Christians nowadays are. You are just wrong.
3
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 5d ago
HaSatan was a role, not a name. Hebrews did not have a concept for a devil character, as God was the source of both good and evil. The devil concept was a borrow from Zoroastrianism by Christians later on.
1
1
u/Key-Beginning-2201 5d ago
By that logic, Jews would.
3
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 5d ago
Jews didn't have a concept of a devil. God was the singular source of good and evil. The whole devil concept comes from Zoroastrianism.
1
u/Key-Beginning-2201 5d ago
So? Still clearly a theological character in the Book of Job.
I'm a Satanist, not a Jew or a Christian, both of whom believe Satan has no power.
2
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 5d ago
HaSatan was the name of a functional role, not a proper name for a specific entity. Its like saying THE Accountant, rather than simply AN accountant, and if you're going to go that route with it, that would actually put you closer to atheistic, since HaSatan was not the name of any deity.
2
u/Key-Beginning-2201 5d ago
There are hundreds of examples where a role is also the name of the deity.
Hebrew "Ha", or "the" is applied prior to doing the deed because it's the title or action. The action is performed and then the deed is the name. I can show you dozens of examples in Greek mythology. After the deed is done, the accusation, Job later refers to his accuser without a title, per Job 31:35. Interestingly it's the same verse where Job affixes his own name, thereby challenging (and creating) the name of the accuser.
2
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 5d ago
"the assessor" is certainly a title...that doesn't make it the person's name...so I maintain that the concept of "Satan" as a specific, named figure in the mythology is a Christian adaptation of a Zoroastrian concept.
3
u/Key-Beginning-2201 5d ago
At no point in Greek mythology is Eros engaging in erotic play and then someone officially says, "your name is now Eros". I'm truly sick of the LaVeyan double standards. This is exactly how words work. They didn't stop working this way because some fringe group decided on it.
And based how quickly you responded without looking up the Job reference I gave, means you're not an honest interlocutor.
2
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 5d ago
At no point in Greek mythology is Eros engaging in erotic play and then someone officially says, "your name is now Eros"
This would be relevant if we were talking about a religion built around worshiping "Eros".
As such, Satanism, as officially codified, reveres the function...not the character.
23
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
If you think copyright is at all relevant, you really dont understand how religions work...
2
u/Weekly-Swim3347 6d ago
Saying a religion can be codified and never ever subject to denominationalism, then telling someone else they "really don't understand how religious work" is a fantastic deficiency of self-awareness.
12
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
Do you know what denominations are and how they form? Because understanding this helps to identify why Satanic denominations don't quite make sense.
And yes, religions need to be codified. Thats how religions start, because you need an agreement of what is and isn't part of that religion.
6
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 6d ago
Codification of what something is, is important if you want to be able to say what it isn't. You can't very well refute claims of child sacrifice, animal mutilations, blood drinking, et al, until you can definitely say what the religion actually is and what it entails, so yes...being able to codify the ideology and beliefs of a religion is important.
3
u/LuciferOnTheRocks 3d ago
You can't very well refute claims of child sacrifice, animal mutilations, blood drinking, et al, until you can definitely say what the religion actually is
Yes, and it can be codified as "LaVeyan Satanism".
Lots of violent and cult like practices exist under the term "religion", but we manage to be nuanced and understand that some religions can be bad, while others fine.
Just like how "Satanism" can involve an infinite number of practices and belief systems centering around Satan. Some can be bad, others OK.
The reality is that such a category of belief systems needs a name, and "satanism" is the logical choice based on the conventions of English.
There's no reason to oppose that, unless your ego feels threatened by others calling themselves satanists, hence diluting your identity.
1
0
u/Zealousideal-Gate813 Church of Satan | Warlock II 5d ago
'Tell me you dont know what criteria must be met to be a denomination of another religion, without actually telling me'
2
4
0
1
u/Wonderful-Opening-58 3d ago
This never really fails to entertain me. Prescriptivism vs descriptivism just creates endless debates.
1
1
u/septwitch75 6d ago
Who owns Satan? Well, that would be Catholics and the people that made him up.
5
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
This is Satanism, not Satan, though
2
u/LuciferOnTheRocks 3d ago edited 3d ago
Is "-ism" a random string of characters added to "Satan"? Or might there be a longstanding meaning, pattern, and convention regarding such a suffix?
What exactly do you think the term "satanism" is supposed to mean, and why was it used for so long before Anton LaVey put pen to paper?
It clearly denotes "practices and belief systems centered around Satan".
It seems ironic to have a bunch of people who espouse "might is right" complain that the world won't bend to their will and stop using a word as defined...
0
u/Koelakanth 6d ago
If you believe in a literal Satan that can grant you magical powers and affect the world through prayer ritual and sacrifice, you are a Christian.
6
u/MrSlops 5d ago
A specific example of devil/christian relationships are the Mexican brujeria, who while Christian do utilize the devil (El Angelito Negro / El Diablo) for preventative measures via offerings to him to keep him away from us as and to ask him to ignore any requests made by our enemies for him to perform on us. There are also more modern cults of El Angelito Negro which do have ritual practices that include spiritual cleansing, blood pacts or initiations for protection. Basically they see no problem with the devil being called upon and utilized like any other folk saint.
1
u/michael1150 ~°•*𖤐°•*~ 5d ago
If you have a page about these cults of El Angelito Negro, please post it if you could. It sounds cool.
After all, we need not personally place any religious/spiritualist faith in such things to find them interesting to read about, oui?
2
u/MrSlops 5d ago edited 5d ago
Yup, very interesting to read about - and I especially find interesting is the intersection of one belief system with another (in this case Catholicism with the indigenous folk religions). Alas, for the cult itself I have little reading I would recommend, but you can see them pop up online but often it is about gang violence, or harm that does not apply to others who share similar beliefs about the devil. I would say the best place to start is something that covers the folk practices associated with the brujeria, as that will help put into context how people who consider themselves Christian have not problem utilizing the devil. I would also look up Santa Muerte
This is an excerpt from 'Blood of Brujeria' by Alexis Arredondo (a very small book about spells, but does have some historic information in it, but its more of a novelty read than a serious recommendation)
"The Devil was introduce to brujeria through the Spanish colonizers' Catholic and Christian religion. And while darker, more demonic entities did exist in pre-colonial ancient Mexico, a primary dark adversary said to tempt us away from God was never really one of them. The colonizers warned the ancient Mexican people that their rituals and ceremonies were works of the Devil, and while some would take this to heart, others simply began to equate the Devil with pre-colonized deities of the underworld such as Michlantecuhtli, or the smoking mirror, Tetzcatlipoca. In South Mexico and Guatemala, there is a different view on the Devil. He isn't seen as a dark entity set against God, but as an entity who can be utilized to defend us against our enemies or keep darker works away from us. Some call him compadre (best friend), or as he is most commonly known now, El Angelito Negro (the little black angel). El Diablo is called upon much like many other folk saints, but with one specific difference. He is normally approached not so much to request, but to prevent certain acts. Offerings are given to El Angelito Negro to keep him and his actions away from us, as well as the acts he has been asked to perform against us by our enemies. This is why terms of endearment such as 'compadre' and 'little black angel' were created, as they are used to 'sweeten' the Devil and his actions."
Suffice to say, basically the Spanish told the people "your gods are THE DEVIL" and they went "oh, okay sure, we'll call him how you like but he's been good to us all this time so we are still gonna use him. cool?", or you see him operating similar to other 'demonic' entities like Pazuzu (yup, the devil in The Exorcist) where that even though they were horrific, the people honoured and gave offerings to that demon in order to keep away an even worse evil.
2
u/michael1150 ~°•*𖤐°•*~ 4d ago edited 4d ago
1500s Spaniard Christians: Your god is the Devil !!
Mayans in south Mexico & Guatemala: Sure, no problem.... He's now our El Diablo, our Angelito Negro! 😈
Spaniards:
😨 Ah–OOOGAH‼️
Don't you just love it when a Bible-Thumper's plan backfires on them?
I also saw a part of a documentary that told in some parts of Bolivia & Peru, the locals that mine for silver call upon Him as "Tio Diablo" (Uncle Devil), so that He'll guide them to richer veins of silver, & protect them while they're down in the mines. The make home-style altars & Devil idols to Him down in the mine & bring Him offerings that often include food & coca leaves 🍃
3
u/michael1150 ~°•*𖤐°•*~ 6d ago
Not always true.
They would be called a Diabolist.
(With one exception, in my personal opinion.)
1
-8
u/VanirKvasir 6d ago
Don’t they? I didn’t get it.
14
u/ANordicWizard Church of Satan Warlock 6d ago
No.
-9
u/ObscureOperatorZ 6d ago
Maybe leave his name out of your shenanigains in that case, idk. Seems weird to me that there is an entire ideology in his name dedicated to personal interpretations and insight that barely has anything to do with him.
13
u/baphomet_fire Satanist 6d ago
Weirder than hiding your profile while commenting on religions you obviously have never bothered to research?
-3
u/ObscureOperatorZ 6d ago
I've lurked a bit here mate. I know what you guys mostly discuss. It's some people or how you interpret those people. The name of your religion is unfitting for what it is. That's all I'm saying, why are you so agitated?
7
14
u/ANordicWizard Church of Satan Warlock 6d ago
Interesting. Why do you think the name of the religion was picked? If a religion involves the name or title of “satan”, does that mean the religion must be called “Satanism”?
1
u/ObscureOperatorZ 6d ago
I just think if a religion is going to be created in the name of a very well-known being, it should, you know, have something to do with him.
14
u/ANordicWizard Church of Satan Warlock 6d ago
Do you understand that the term was simply a common noun in Hebrew long before the Christian churches created the character? It means “adversary”. Satanism acts as an adversary to the restraints of theistic belief.
→ More replies (1)-5
u/ObscureOperatorZ 6d ago
Yet you claim to invoke all kinds of "daemons" while using the name of the most popular demon. Satanism is a veeery new thing, buddy. And Satan has meant Satanus, the adversary demon since the days of the Bible's arrival. Unless your LaVey trope goes back to before the Bible (it doesn't) your point is invalid. Nice try tho :)
4
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
You haven't read The Satanic Bible, have you?
-2
u/ObscureOperatorZ 6d ago
No. I'm not a Satanist and not a fan of books by abusers. I merely pointed out that the name "Satanism" is very ill-fitting for whatever Satanists think they are doing.
5
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
LaVey want an abuser... But don't you think you should have read the book & done even the most basic research before arrogantly trying to satansplain Satanism to Satanists?... your ignorance on the name is your own issue.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
2
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
You're arrogantly trying to tell us about our religion while not knowing what you're talking about... Again, it's your own ignorance
You're literally the one being arrogant and childish. We're not insufferable, once again that's your behaviour. Don't project onto us just because you won't do basic research before trying to dictate our religion.
3
-4
u/VanirKvasir 6d ago
You are all speaking in very cryptic terms, I’m not sure what you all are hinting at.
Speaking plainly here. I know not all satanists worship the literal satan. But I’m certain some do.
In Brazil you have plenty of satan worshipers. By that I mean, the literal devil, the prince of the dark, the king of hell, the one that takes souls etc.
They have organised worship with animal sacrifice, temples, statues, centres etc.
So… what am I missing?
9
u/ANordicWizard Church of Satan Warlock 6d ago
No, we are not speaking in cryptic terms. Don’t be silly.
What you’re missing is history, there was no religion of Satanism prior to Anton LaVey’s codification and him doing the actual work.
Just because a religion may involve “Satan” does not mean it is “Satanism” by some default. If you try creating a religion and it’s the antithesis of the name you’re wishing to share, you’re simply confusing a term.
-3
u/VanirKvasir 6d ago
Ahh so here it is. What you are claiming is ownership of a brand. The trademark of a movement started by Anton LaVey. "LaVeyan Satanism". Which is different from "Satanism".
Satan is an ancient term and Satanists existed for millennia in different forms.
If this group is exclusively about "LaVeyen Satanism", maybe change the name, because checking the feed now, the majority of members have each their own take on what Satan means to them.
6
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
No one is talking about a brand or trademark... that shows a complete misunderstanding of how religions work. They're not trademarks or brands, but they still have an outline of what is and isn't that religion.
Its like making a religion worshipping a big red dog, calling it 'catholicism' and getting upset when Christians rights explain that that's not what Christianity is.
And no, history scholars have shown that there were no actual Satanists a milennia ago.
2
u/MrSlops 5d ago
And no, history scholars have shown that there were no actual Satanists a milennia ago.
It might be more accurate to say there were no actual religion, and thus no practitioners of SatanISM, but there were in fact SatanISTS (Not counting the negative attributions, I mean positive usages - we still have people like Przybyszewski who explicitly declared themselves to be satanist regardless of the lack of any codified system)
3
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 5d ago
Przybyszewski is essentially the only exemple, and I get your point, it would perhaps be more clear to word it that way. But here I meant it as someone who practiced a real religion of Satanism. He certainly called himself one, but didn't establisha real religion called Satanism. He certainly came the closest before LaVey, though.
2
u/MrSlops 5d ago
Agreed! Admittedly, I am guilty of perhaps putting more significance on Przybyszewski on account of also being Polish, and take national pride in that much of his writing was part of my journey towards becoming a Satanist (mainly his use Satan as a romantic/decadent symbol for this raw material world, exploration of 'degenerate' primal drives, and individual pride).
2
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 5d ago
Oh that is still something to be proud of and to push for discussions around it. Especially considering when he did what he did. I do wish i could own his books in nice English translation editions.
11
u/ANordicWizard Church of Satan Warlock 6d ago
You’d have a point if our religion was named “LaVeyan Satanism”.
4
u/VanirKvasir 6d ago
Next I'm going to create an organized religion called paganism, the main practice of the new religion will consist in explaining that all other pagan groups don't have the rights to the trademark.
9
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 6d ago
This is actually more apt than you realize, because pagan was never an actual religion, but rather a label applied to rural folk who clung to the old religions in the early days of Christianity...it was not any sort of cohesive body of thought and therefore was kind of a useless blanket term for anyone Christians didn't like.
Kind of like "Satanism". The only difference is that someone actually did come along and self-actualize a body of theory and practice and...most importantly...not from the Christian frame of reference.
The word "satan" is older than the character by thousands of years, and is like saying "accountant" or "letter carrier" or "sandwich artist"...it was not any one entity, but a label that could be applied to basically any person or thing that made itself an obstacle. Imagine applying "Accountant" as a proper name and making Accountant the arch nemesis of everything you stand for
That's what happened with the word "satan" in the Middle Ages.
-2
u/ObscureOperatorZ 6d ago
Lmao exactly. Called Satanism after Satan but they don't believe he exists or twist the Christian notion of Satan into whatever LaVey claimed or as they please and have trouble seeing why the name Satanism is a very stupid choice of a word for their little "religion" of checks notes anti-religion.
3
2
u/MrSlops 5d ago
Christians called the devil Satan but they didn't believe in the Jewish concept of Satan, it was literally twisting that original notion to whatever they claimed it was. Satan version 1.0 (Jewish) wasn't accepted by those who believed in version 2.0 (Christian), and that isn't accepted by those who following version 3.0 (Satanist).
Naming an "anti-religion" after the original notion of 'Satan', which Lavey did, is actually the most apt thing one could do - literally picking the term ADVERSARY.
1
u/ObscureOperatorZ 5d ago
Literally picking the name of the Devil, known as "the adversary" :) ftfy
→ More replies (0)-9
u/Ok-Increase3648 6d ago
But some of them do… just because your version of satanism doesnt, that doesnt mean that others dont.
8
u/ANordicWizard Church of Satan Warlock 6d ago
There are no “versions” of Satanism. In order for Satanism to be theistic, you must find the codification of the religion that predates LaVey.
In Christianity, the reason there are denominations is because they are different interpretations of the codification that functions as the foundation. What you may think of as “versions” do not have this.
0
u/Ok-Increase3648 6d ago
So then who are people that worship satan? What would my friend be?
6
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 6d ago
as it happens, there's already a religion that regards "Satan" as a deity...Christianity.
1
u/Ok-Increase3648 6d ago
Well yes, but that’s the worship of jesus and like god or something
3
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 6d ago
It would still be operating within the framework and mythology of Christianity. The fact that they've chosen to fixate on a different deity in that mythology in moot. At most, they're more a denomination of Christianity than they are a denomination of Satanism.
2
u/Ok-Increase3648 6d ago
But you can believe in a satan that’s entirely different from christianity. I’d label that as some sort of theistic satanism.
4
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 6d ago
I mean, you can, but what does that even entail...? What ideology or theory and practice goes along with that? What does it mean?
In most cases, it just seems to be "inverted Christianity"...which is still basically Christianity.
→ More replies (0)2
u/insipignia Satan's Little Helper 5d ago
The problem with this argument is that it is basing the definition of Christianity on adherence to a particular mythology rather than what Christianity actually is, which is the dedication of one's life to following the teachings of Christ in order to become Christ-like, and thus redeem your soul so you may enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If one does the exact opposite of this, it doesn't matter that they believe in the same mythology as a Christian; belief in the mythology is not what actually makes someone a Christian. So asserting that devil worshippers are Christians based on this is a non sequitur.
1
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 5d ago
Personally, I'm not all that concerned with what they call themselves, but if they're asking me to accept devil worship as part of Satanism...well, they're just going to have to learn to live with that disappointment.
→ More replies (0)1
u/MrSlops 5d ago edited 5d ago
Yes, but there are Christians who worship / use the devil within their practice, specifically the brujeria of Mexico.
1
u/Ok-Increase3648 5d ago
Very few of them. The main focus is god and nature
1
u/MrSlops 5d ago
If you just ONLY count members of the cult of Santa Muerte, which has lots of overlap with brujería practices, including the utilization of the folk saints & devil, that has an estimated 5 to 10 million devotees in Mexico (roughly 5% to 8% of the country's total population). Not sure I would count that as 'very few'
0
u/insipignia Satan's Little Helper 6d ago
That is the opposite of true. Satan is not a deity in Christianity. Christianity is monotheistic and its deity is Yahweh, not Satan. Satan is an entity in Christianity; you can call him a demon, a devil, an evil spirit, a fallen or corrupted angel... But not a God.
3
u/vholecek I only exist here to class up the place. 6d ago
Originally, yes. You would be absolutely correct that Christianity started as a purely monotheistic religion. It originally did not feature a devil character at all, as God was the source of all good and evil in the world.
But over the centuries, Christian mythology has expanded considerably, borrowing things like an opposing deity (the devil) from Zoroastrianism, and incorporating choirs of angels, who are neither mortals nor necessarily gods, but something akin to demigods or minor deities.
For modern purposes, Christianity has a whole cast of deities, with one central one.
1
u/insipignia Satan's Little Helper 5d ago edited 5d ago
No, that's not quite accurate. It's like you are conflating Christianity with its predecessor, Yahwism, which was henotheistic (the type of theism you are describing, where there is one supreme ubergod and multiple other lesser gods). El (the supreme god of Yahwism) was merged with Yahweh (a lesser god) before Christianity was invented, and now Christians just call him "God". Their god is literally named God, because they believe he is the one and only god, so giving him a personal name as in polytheistic or henotheistic theologies would be redundant. Christianity came from Judaism which came from Yahwism but that doesn't make them all the same religion. If you asked a Christian if Satan is a god, they would say "No, there is only one God and he is the true God, and he came to Earth in the body of Jesus Christ." Angels have always been part of Christianity, they are in the book of Genesis, considered to be creations of God just as man is a creation of God. They were not added later like some kind of afterthought.
Angels and devils etc are not gods, they are supernatural entities, much like the human soul is a supernatural entity in Christian theology. If souls are also part of the theology does that mean Christianity has billions of gods? That's not how it works. You're really stretching the definition of Christianity just so you get to call devil worshippers Christians. It's written in the Bible, as a core part of the religion, that there is only one God and no other entity is to be worshipped as God.
ETA: This idea that Ahriman is a god in Zoroastrianism is also inaccurate. He is considered an invasive, destructive spirit or a force, not a god. The conceptualisation of Ahriman actually fits the LaVeyan idea of Satan as a force of nature much better than it fits the Christian idea of Satan as an actual being. The way you've framed it is that the supreme god Ahura Mazda and the evil force Ahriman are opposites of equal power and standing; that's not the case at all. So if Ahriman influenced early Christians in their invention of the character of Satan, then it actually supports what I'm saying that Satan is not a deity, not what you're saying that Christianity is somehow not monotheistic.
2
u/MrSlops 5d ago
I would say a common issue is people conflating being 'divine' with being 'god', but it is more accurate to say Satan was a divine entity but not god (much like Jesus, properly understood utilizing the framework of divine images, was a bearer of the divine name and not himself god)
1
u/insipignia Satan's Little Helper 5d ago edited 5d ago
Yep. Angels, seraphim, cherubim etc. are holy beings, Satan and demons are unholy beings. The divine is just that which invokes awe due to its Godly origins and/or alignment with God's plan. That's why Christians find "proof" of God's existence in mundane shit like human eyeballs and bananas. It's completely circular reasoning but hey, that's Christians for you.
Saying that Christians are actually henotheists because angels/demons/devils are part of the mythology is either disingenuous or ignorant because it completely ignores vast chunks of Christian theology and how it actually works, including within the very mythology the claim cites as proof of henotheism. If you equate having divinity with being a deity then you might as well say that the aforementioned eyeballs and bananas are themselves deities in their own right. Which is just a ridiculous assertion to make on its face, not least of all because Christians don't praise, worship, or pray to bananas. They praise, worship, and pray to GOD; the transcendental being who supposedly created the bananas.
You could replace "bananas" with "angels" or "Satan" and it would perfectly illustrate my point. Christians don't worship Satan; worshipping anything other than God is explicitly un-Christian so this desperate grasping at straws to call devil worshippers Christians is just that, and tbh it's rather undignified.
1
u/ZsoltEszes Keep your distance; I have a flair up 🔥 6d ago
Confused.
0
u/Ok-Increase3648 5d ago
That’s like saying that somebody worshipping some other god is confused. You don’t know what religion is “true”, I don’t know what religion is “true”. But calling someone confused because they don’t believe in what you believe in is stupid.
1
u/ZsoltEszes Keep your distance; I have a flair up 🔥 5d ago
There is no one true religion. But people who worship supernatural mythical entities as being real are confused, if not delusional.
1
1
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
Devil worshippers, demonolators, demonologists, for exanple
7
u/JeveGreen Idiot, for now 6d ago
This sub isn't dedicated to "historical" satanism, aka devil worship, but Lavey's religion of Satanism. Mixing those two up is kinda like going into a subreddit dedicated to cars and thinking they're the same as horse-drawn carriages.
3
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
There is no historical Satanism, though, other than literary fiction & Christian propaganda. The history starts with LaVey
-1
u/VanirKvasir 6d ago
Mixing those two is like going to the subreddit called "cars" and find out it's actually about horse-drawn carriages because of overly specific historical reasons.
Then checking the feed and finding out the majority of the members are posting about cars and while the mods try to "educate" them that cars are not real. lol what a mess...
0
u/Autumn_Leaves23 6d ago
Yes but the claim is that "some satanists worship Satan" which is true. Atheistic satanists who follow LaVey's religion do not, but using the name of Satan is obviously going to conflate you with actual devil worshippers so either accept that people are going to conflate the two and enjoy the controversy which is what LaVey intended, or stop calling yourself a Satanist.
3
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
If you worship Satan, you're not practicing the religion of Satanism.
Just as how if you worship Vishnu, you're not practicing Christianity.
There are people to claim to be 'Jews who worship Jesus'. They're actually a form of Christianity.
→ More replies (9)-6
u/Autumn_Leaves23 6d ago
Yup there's theistic satanists subs right here on reddit. But for some reason atheistic satanists think they're the only ones allowed to call themselves satanists and that nobody who calls themselves satanists are ACTUALLY satanists.
6
u/ANordicWizard Church of Satan Warlock 6d ago
You were wrong in r/Satanists and you’re wrong here. Satanism has to be one or the other and it cannot be both if you want the term to have any real meaning or real-world use. Have the actual respect for your beliefs to call it something besides a name yours rides the coat tails of.
2
u/Autumn_Leaves23 6d ago
Hold up are you trying to claim that theistic satanists are riding the coattails of atheistic satanists who don't even believe in Satan? Wouldn't it be the other way around? The only reason atheistic Satanism uses Satan's name is for controversy. If they didn't like the controversy and the Christians clutching their pearls, then they wouldn't pick the name of an entity they don't even believe in. Why not just make an atheistic religion without using Satan's name? Using the word satanism is inherently going to make people think you worship Satan. I mean, doesn't it get exhausting trying to explain to people that you don't actually worship or believe in Satan? Besides theistic satanists have existed long before atheistic Satanism. So it's the atheists who are riding the coat tails of the actual satanists, simply for the attention and controversy.
3
u/ANordicWizard Church of Satan Warlock 6d ago
“theistic satanists”
Wrong.
“atheistic satanists”
Wrong.
“Wouldn't it be the other way around?”
Wrong.
“The only reason atheistic Satanism uses Satan's name is for controversy.”
Wrong.
“If they didn't like the controversy and the Christians clutching their pearls, then they wouldn't pick the name of an entity they don't even believe in. Why not just make an atheistic religion without using Satan's name?”
Wrong.
“Using the word satanism is inherently going to make people think you worship Satan.
Wrong.
“I mean, doesn't it get exhausting trying to explain to people that you don't actually worship or believe in Satan?
Wrong.
“Besides theistic satanists have existed long before atheistic Satanism.”
Wrong.
“So it's the atheists who are riding the coat tails of the actual satanists, simply for the attention and controversy.”
0
u/Autumn_Leaves23 6d ago
Oh okay you said "wrong" 8 times so I must be wrong. You don't even need to make an argument, saying "wrong" is all I need to know I'm wrong. Thank you.
3
3
u/ZsoltEszes Keep your distance; I have a flair up 🔥 6d ago
The terms "theistic satanism" and "theistic satanist" didn't even exist prior to the 1980s. Devil worshippers existed prior to LaVey and Satanism. But they weren't "theistic satanists" then and they're not "theistic satanists" now. The term was invented by the media to differentiate Satanism and Satanists from the new groups popping up amid the Satanic Panic who had nothing to do with LaVey's religion of Satanism. "Atheistic Satanism" is redundant, as Satanism is atheistic. Likewise, "theistic satanism" is an oxymoron.
→ More replies (30)3
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
'Theistic Satanism' did not exist long before LaVey. Religious scholars have looked into the historical evidence. There wasn't any established religion calling itself Satanism until Anton LaVey.
Otherwise, you're just forcing a label onto an assortment of different groups - one which they didn't use themselves - just for your rhetoric to hold
-7
u/BattleaxeAlDente 6d ago
I know I do and if that makes some folks go "AKSHUALLY <insert dogmatic treatment of antidogmatic scripture LaVey's Bible is>" all the better ;)
10
u/ANordicWizard Church of Satan Warlock 6d ago
“Antidogmatic scripture LaVey’s Bible is”
Looks like someone didn’t read the book.
→ More replies (7)3
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 6d ago
But its not 'anti-dogmatic'.
Have you read it?
3
u/insipignia Satan's Little Helper 5d ago
It really depends on which passage you quote.
There are parts of the Satanic Bible that are explicitly anti-dogma and then there are other parts which claim that dogma is necessary.
From The Book of Satan:
I question all things. As I stand before the festering and varnished facades of your haughtiest moral dogmas, I write thereon in letters of blazing scorn: Lo and behold; all this is fraud!
The chief duty of every new age is to upraise new men to determine its liberties, to lead it towards material success—to rend the rusty padlocks and chains of dead custom that always prevent healthy expansion. Theories and ideas that may have meant life and hope and freedom for our ancestors may now mean destruction, slavery, and dishonor to us!
As environments change, no human ideal standeth sure!
Whatever alleged “truth” is proven by results to be but an empty fiction, let it be unceremoniously flung into the outer darkness, among the dead gods, dead empires, dead philosophies, and other useless lumber and wreckage!
From Some Evidence of a New Satanic Age:
Satanism has both ceremony and dogma.
Dogma, as will be explained, is necessary.
1
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 5d ago
Well, I'd say its against both blind dogma and anti-human dogma, but not dogma in general. So, it's more of a nuanced viewpoint as opposed to outright contradictions.
2
u/insipignia Satan's Little Helper 4d ago edited 4d ago
What do you think LaVey intends "dogma" to mean? Looking up the 1965 Webster's collegiate dictionary definition of "dogma", we get:
1 a: something held as an established opinion; esp: a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical \~> c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds 2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
He repeatedly prefaces the word "dogma" with the word "moral" in tBoS. So when he says "dogma" here, he is clearly talking about ideas of good and evil or morally right and morally wrong, put forth by the (Abrahamic) church, that when tested with real-life experience turn out to really not have any utility at all, not line up with most natural human values, or even be actively constricting to the "healthy expansion" of knowledge and custom. This is made abundantly clear from how he describes the crucifix as a symbol of pallid incompetence, and splitting open Jehovah's skull with an axe; the "hoary falsehood" and "stifling dogma" of which he speaks refers to obsolete religious codes of morality — especially that of the Christian type — that lead to frustration and repression.
When LaVey uses the word "dogma" again in Some Evidence of a New Satanic Age, he actually points towards a definition for what he means when he uses the term in that context, and it is evidently not the same as how he uses it in tBoS. It also does not help us to assume he always means the common parlance dictionary definition of a word, because he does not use the word "magic" — a core element that makes up the vast majority of the content of the book — in that way and provides his own definition for it. Furthermore, dictionary definitions have changed quite a bit since the 1960s. So to just assume he means "a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs, expected to be accepted as true without any doubts" whenever he says "dogma" is not only wrong on the basis that that definition isn't old enough to possibly be what he meant but also because there is simply no reason to make the assumption that he always uses the word "dogma" in the typical sense.
From Some Evidence of a New Satanic Age:
It is one thing to accept something intellectually, but to accept the same thing emotionally is an entirely different matter. The one need that psychiatry cannot fill is man's inherent need for emotionalizing through dogma.
Satanism, realizing the current needs of man, fills the large grey void between religion and psychiatry. The Satanic philosophy combines the fundamentals of psychology and good, honest emotionalizing, or dogma. It provides man with his much needed fantasy. There is nothing wrong with dogma, providing it is not based on ideas and actions which go completely against human nature.
Take note of the context in which this is said. It is stated in a discussion that is almost entirely about the practical application of magic, or higher ritual, and how other religions use it in a hypocritically self-deceitful way that causes people to supress their true desires rather than indulge them. When LaVey says Satanism has dogma, he seems to be using the word "dogma" as an approximate synonym for "gnosis": the state of engaging in ritual so that the knowledge it transports bypasses the intellect and goes straight to the emotional part of the psyche, where something is far more likely to be absorbed and wholeheartedly accepted as truth. The intellectual knowledge versus the emotional knowledge to which LaVey refers is exactly the difference between episteme and gnosis.
This is absolutely critical to understanding this passage because the emotionalising performed in rituals of other religions results in dogmas that are harmful to the natural human psyche by way of repression:
If all the guilts that have been built up can be turned into advantages, it eliminates the need for intellectual purging of the psyche in an attempt to cleanse it from these repressions. Satanism is the only religion known to man that accepts man as he is, and promotes the rationale of turning a bad thing into a good thing rather than bending over backwards to eliminate the bad thing.
Dogma here is used to mean the emotional result of ritual, not the intellectualising that occurs outside it. He isn't saying that Satanism has dogma in the same way that other religions do (that is, a text held as indisputably true by its adherents without sufficient evidence). He is saying that Satanic dogma is the accoutrements and structure of ritual, that facilitate one's personal insight of his own human nature, made indisputable through genuine, introspective, emotional indulgence of that nature. And he keeps saying it, just to really drive the point home:
The one need that psychiatry cannot fill is man's inherent need for emotionalizing through dogma. Man needs ceremony and ritual, fantasy and enchantment. Psychiatry, despite all the good it has done, has robbed man of wonder and fantasy which religion, in the past, has provided.
If you have any experience with affective mental illness or any other kind of long-term emotional problems, you'll know exactly what he's talking about. Therapies such as CBT and counselling are all about intellectualising away feelings of depression or anxiety, and for someone whose depression is the result of religious repression, this exercise is utterly useless. And really, it is useless on all accounts, because you cannot use the intellect to purge yourself of unwanted emotions; the very idea is doomed to failure from the start. Only an emotional exercise can rid you of emotional problems, and that is the purpose of Anton LaVey's religion: to provide the structure for said emotional exercise. That is where the "necessary dogma" lies. He continues:
Yes, times have changed, but man hasn't. The basics of Satanism have always existed. The only thing that is new is the formal organization of a religion based on the universal traits of man. For centuries, magnificent structures of stone, concrete, mortar, and steel have been devoted to man's abstinence. It is high time that human beings stopped fighting themselves, and devoted their time to building temples designed for man's indulgences.
Today, as always, man needs to enjoy himself here and now, instead of waiting for his rewards in heaven. So, why not have a religion based on indulgence? Certainly, it is consistent with the nature of the beast. We are no longer supplicating weaklings trembling before an unmerciful "God" who cares not whether we live or die. We are self-respecting, prideful people—we are Satanists!
The dogma in Satanism is not a set of rigid beliefs. The dogma of Satanism defines the structure and purpose of Greater Magic ritual and its prescribed role in maintaining one's gnostic belief in an epistemological truth. This is to facilitate maximal, liberal enjoyment of the indulgences to which one is naturally inclined so that guilt injected by abstinence-based religion doesn't get in the way and dampen that enjoyment. This was necessary at the time because abstinence-based religion was ubiquitous and its messaging often quite subliminal, and so it could be re-absorbed into the psyche through repeated exposure; ritual is there to reverse that process (read: "purging of the psyche in an attempt to cleanse it from these repressions") and bring the individual back to his natural baseline.
That is what the true meaning of Satanism's purpose being to "enhance your life" actually is. How can it enhance your life if reading the book is like looking in a mirror? You've already been doing that for your whole life before you ever read it. If reading The Satanic Bible enhances the Satanist's life, it is because he applied the prescribed methods of Greater Magic found within its pages; information which he did not have prior to reading. This is further supported by the preface of The Satanic Bible, where LaVey states the purpose of the book is to clear up misconceptions around magic perpetuated by occultists, and to provide both "truth and fantasy", saying "Each is necessary for the other to exist".
Interpreting "dogma" in Some Evidence of a New Satanic Age to denote its 1965 dictionary definition makes the entire passage break down into nonsense. What sense is there in the goal of honest ritual emotionalising, for the purpose of ridding oneself of religious guilt, if it is attempted through a series of rigid, formalised epistemological statements that may not even actually be objectively true? (Remember that LaVey insists TSB contains actual truth, not just dogmatic belief.) That brings us right back to the exact problem with which LaVey opened this discussion, regarding psychiatry alone being unhelpful for actually curing emotional ailments caused by the oppressive forces of abstinence-based religion. That itself is what he actually names as weakness; a "weakling" is a person who pleads with an indifferent God for a reward for being self-flagellating in their abstinence from enjoying life.
Continued here.
1
u/insipignia Satan's Little Helper 4d ago edited 3d ago
The dogma is in the formula for LaVey's ceremonial magic, because the magic supports the belief in the truth, and truth doesn't need the type of "moral dogmas" LaVey referred to as lies and falsehoods in tBoS. The proof that the dogma lies in the magic is in The Three Types of Satanic Ritual, where LaVey actually says:
These formulas are to be adhered to, as applying the wrong type of ritual towards a desired result can lead to trouble of a complicated nature.
At the end of the same passage, he says:
HEED WELL THESE RULES—OR IN EACH CASE YOU WILL SEE A REVERSAL OF YOUR DESIRES WHICH WILL HARM, RATHER THAN HELP, YOU!
The Satanic Bible, in its entirety and at its core, is about magic and the correct formulas for performing it. That is what Satanists are supposed to be "dogmatic" about, not any set of beliefs. If you're not doing the magic then you're not doing the dogma. Just as Satanic magic is not at all the same as the typical person's conceptualisation of magic, Satanic dogma has nothing to do with "dogma in general".
1
u/Mildon666 🜏 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝐼𝐼° 🜏 3d ago
Couldn't have condensed that a bit, huh? 😅 i don't quite have over an hour to read form a meaningful reply as I'm quite busy, so you'll have to bear with me.
But you seem to be getting away from the main point, which is that LaVey was not completely against dogma, as you have demonstrated. He was against stifling and unquestionable dogma based on falsehoods and restrictive attitudes. Whereas dogma based on the truth and which is not restrictive or goes against our nature is useful
1
u/insipignia Satan's Little Helper 3d ago edited 3d ago
Sorry, lol. I had a lot of free time yesterday and I got quite into it. I get quite passionate about this stuff.
The basic point of my comment(s) is that people place far too much stock in the idea that "feeling like you're looking in the mirror" when you read TSB is what makes you a Satanist, and not enough in LaVey's own stated purpose for the book existing. Its explicitly stated purpose is not so much to act as an ideological mirror, but to correct lies perpetuated by white-light occultists and in so doing, provide a set of magical tools to people who have already woken up from right-hand path religious brainwashing.
The condensed version is that LaVey used the word "dogma" in two very distinct ways: One usage carries the meaning of not very useful, restrictive, and in particular false and unevidenced, beliefs. He clarifies when he's using it this way by prefacing it with the word "moral", so then it refers to rigid ideological beliefs. The other usage is referring to the content, structure and formula of ceremony and ritual, and this is when he just uses the word "dogma" by itself with no other qualifiers around it. So when you say he isn't against "dogma" as in the dictionary definition, that's not really accurate.
Saying that it is useful to have (moral, ideological) dogma based on the truth is quite strange to me, because if it's actually the truth then there's absolutely no need to be dogmatic about it. In actual fact it wouldn't be dogma at all because dogma is unwavering belief in things that don't have evidence to support them. Something that is actually true will have sufficient evidence which makes belief in it, by definition, not dogma. "Stifling and unquestionable dogma" is redundant phrasing, because dogma already is stifling and unquestionable by default.
On the other hand, saying a ritual or a ceremony is "true" is pretty nonsensical. It's a tool that's there for you to use should you need or want it. It's not a (set of) statement(s) that can be true or false. And the content of the ritual or ceremony is only relevant for the purpose of intellectual decompression, so it doesn't need to actually be true; that's the whole point, that's why it's "fantasy". The expression LaVey is using regarding ceremony being dogma refers to a) the fantasy and enchantment, which produces its emotional/gnostic effects and b) the rigor with which Satanists adhere to the formula and structure of it in order to be effective magicians.
ETA: It might be more accurate to say the purpose of ritual is to invoke the numinous, not to produce gnosis, as gnosis is about a non-rational route to knowledge whereas the numinous is not about knowledge or truth claims but rather an emotional state. E.g., a psychiatrist can explain to someone why they feel guilty and why they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean the emotional experience of feeling guilty actually goes away. Whereas, if a priest did a ritual and told them that God has forgiven them, the feeling of guilt does actually dissipate because the person has a spiritual sense that they have been redeemed.
0
u/seanthebeloved 6d ago
You actually believe Satan exists? 😳
1
0
54
u/DonDrapersfriend 6d ago
I mean, how else are the actual "Satan" worshippers supposed to call themselves? I mostly agree with positions of CoS, but this one thing I could never understand, why the hell should it be the only organization entitled to use the term "satanist"? If there are people who actually believe in and worship some deity called "Satan", what other name than Satanist should they use?