Satanism



Posts: 579   Visited by: 452 users

Original post

Posted by Sunioj, 24.08.2006 - 16:14
Satanism, from contemporary individualism to the sub categories of MLO and left hand path...
Plain and simple, what do you all think about it?

Im curious to hear people share thoughts and ideas of this philosophy and let me start by saying that contemporary Satanism is very interesting since it focuses on building oneself spiritually.

Lets take an example like Jon Nodveidt's recent decision to end his life....
He killed himself and his band claims it was a ritual suicide, does this make his form of Satanism a religion because it has rituals or is MLO another form of interpreting Satanism?
16.06.2016 - 04:08
Rasputin
No one can take any Satanists seriously. Bronies carry more weight than Satanists.
Loading...
26.06.2016 - 19:38
DeathStrike
Written by Iron Wizard on 13.06.2016 at 01:41

I am a Theistic Satanist. I aww m mostly opposed to LaVeyan Satanism. It does have good good qualities to it, but I can't take it seriously. I am similar to Setians in a few ways I believe in something very similar to The Gift of the Black Flame, but I'm a Satanist. I do think there is an overwhelming presence of childishness in Satanism, partially as a result of The Church of Satan.

What does that mean?
Loading...
15.07.2016 - 00:40
Fatal Ascension
Written by DeathStrike on 26.06.2016 at 19:38

Written by Iron Wizard on 13.06.2016 at 01:41

I am a Theistic Satanist. I aww m mostly opposed to LaVeyan Satanism. It does have good good qualities to it, but I can't take it seriously. I am similar to Setians in a few ways I believe in something very similar to The Gift of the Black Flame, but I'm a Satanist. I do think there is an overwhelming presence of childishness in Satanism, partially as a result of The Church of Satan.

What does that mean?


Theistic Satanists literally believe in the existence of the devil. They're basically Christians who self identify as evil.
Loading...
28.07.2016 - 15:55
BeneathTheMoon
Account deleted
People continuously mold their own beliefs, whether rooted in religion or not, around their own existence and what they deem as valuable. As such, it becomes an individualized experience even if wholly exercised and practiced within the confines of a specific belief so, in this sense, one could argue all beliefs are driven by self-interest, as is existence itself. Why, then, dispute the value of one religion over another or the value of religion at all? Even the irreligious hold on to certain thoughts religiously, after all.
Loading...
04.08.2016 - 00:26
LuciferOfGayness
Account deleted
Written by Guest on 28.07.2016 at 15:55

People continuously mold their own beliefs, whether rooted in religion or not, around their own existence and what they deem as valuable. As such, it becomes an individualized experience even if wholly exercised and practiced within the confines of a specific belief so, in this sense, one could argue all beliefs are driven by self-interest, as is existence itself. Why, then, dispute the value of one religion over another or the value of religion at all? Even the irreligious hold on to certain thoughts religiously, after all.

Couldnt have said it better myself.
Loading...
11.09.2017 - 04:04
Übermensch242
It truly grinds my gears when people speak of "Theistic Satanists" or The Satanic Temple as if they're legitimate Satanists. They're NOT! The TST are a bunch of goths-gone-wild, hippie pantywaists.

If one does not identify with The Holy Bible, one is not a Christian.

If one does not identity with The Koran, one is not a Muslim.

So by the same logic, if one does not identify with The Satanic Bible, then one is not a Satanist.

Before Anton Szandor LaVey codified the tenants of modern day Satanism by publishing The Satanic Bible, before the CoS was established in 1966.......Satanism as we know it today was not a concept. Devil-Worshippers and Satanists are two different groups of people. Believe what you want, but don't call it Satanism.

Fuck the wannabees, fuck The Herd. Purge the weak, Hail the strong!

Ave Satanas. Hail Thyself.
----
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself"- Friedrich Nietzsche
Loading...
11.09.2017 - 10:39
IronAngel
That's the dumbest thing I've read today. And I read YouTube comments, so that's saying something.
Loading...
12.09.2017 - 02:39
Übermensch242
Written by IronAngel on 11.09.2017 at 10:39

That's the dumbest thing I've read today. And I read YouTube comments, so that's saying something.


By what criteria do you base that on?

What did I say that wasn't factual?

The way how some people refer to it as "LaVeyan Satanism" is redundant......Because there is only one Satanism. The philosophy was first codified in The Satanic Bible, all those other Johnny-Come-Latelys have no right using the term, 'Satanism' to describe what they are about.

Furthermore, that is the general consensus in Church Of Satan circles also......The groups which I am criticizing are referred to by CoS adherents as "Pseudos", rightfully so, because that's what they are! I didn't just sort of pull all of that from out of my ass.

I fail to understand how any of that is "dumb". You not agreeing with it does not imply fact. There is an objective standard to be observed here and you're not seeing it.

----
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself"- Friedrich Nietzsche
Loading...
12.09.2017 - 11:42
IronAngel
That you take seriously the self-definition and exclusionist identity politics of a religious sect is what's dumb. If the CoS thinks they're the only real Satanists, that must be true then, eh? Kind of like how Catholics aren't Christians because the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't think so?

Not only does the word predate LaVey by centuries (and was used specifically to refer to Satan-worship in the 1800s), it is also a typical derivation from the more common "Satan" and "satanic". A very neutral, descriptive word at heart.

So it's silly to think a given sect should monopolize a common English term that various competing religious groups also self-identify with. I mean sure, if you want to be a sheep and go with the herd, by all means, but that's not very critical thinking.

(And what was also dumb was your assertion that Christians "identify with", i.e. think they are, the Holy Bible or that that's what makes them Christian. If you're simply going by terminology, it seems that belief in Christ is what makes one Christian, though in reality of course it is a complex history of tradition, interpretation, canonical scripture and institutional identity politics. A Christian, we can safely say, is one who acknowledges the ecumenical creeds.)
Loading...