Well, I think a lot of declared "satanist" are much anti-christians. They're rebelling against the christian church and what they bound to it. For exemple, as far as I know, LaVey satanism is just a kind of lust and freedom philosophy, but to be free, without inhibitions and refuse all kind of master, you don't have to worship satan, be an anarchist is far enough I think.
In Scandinavia, I think the satanist groups like the Inner Circle are much paganist that don't accept the forced christianisation of their land and culture, they can also fight against christian values, as Nietzsche did. There are also desapointed christians, revolted by all the evil on earth, who think Jesus lied and let them suffer, that satan rules the world etc... or those who hate church for being amongst the riche and powerfull, so they hate Christ in the name of His Words, waht is a little bit paradoxal! There is a very good exemple in Huysmans' Là Bas (I'm sorry, I do not know the english title, but it is deffinitly very interesting, and the style is delicious).

So, I think much of the satanist are in fact not fightning against Christ but against Church, perhaps, if they only read the gospel without already made thoughts, they would see the christian church changed a lot the original meaning of Christ's words and that is unfair to hate God (for satanist do believe in God) because of His unperfects priests. I personaly thing "St" Paul is quite responsible for that...

Christianity IS the result of changed meanings and altered scriptures, so there is nothing to really look into or any point in looking past the 'sins of the church'. The abrahamic faiths demand you to submit your will to a higher power and thus is the contradiction of so called, free will. These attributes are very, very, apparent even in the Gospels IMO. Listen, I'm don't call myself a Satanist by the decree of theistic or individualistic, but the things that Satanism rejects is something that is present in ALL abrahamic systems.

taking satanism litteraly is stupid and here is why:
satan is an invantion of christians and jews that was suppose to make people be afraid of not believing in god, if you are anti-judeo-christian how can you believe in satan which is a judeo-christian myth? this was said by Varg Vikernes, you may say he stated that he is a satanist, but he said that he only said it because he was still heavily under the influence of Euronymous, some say this is one of the reasons he killed him

Those who listen to black metal and are satanists just because of that are retards.

Just 1 interesting thing:
On one forum(will not advertise) one guy told them that, if they believe that God is an imagined figure by christians than satan is too and satanism is useless. Then the other guys replied that satanism has many forms and it has nothing with christianity but it was funny to see them with inverted crosses on avatars

Varg has in-depth good point and he is pretty informed and he is not an antichristian(pagan) because he saw s0m c0rpZpa1n7 d00d3s and thatz c00l, he is that because he really believes in his opinion

dagorwen - but in Scandiania thay only attack to Cristainity whit weapons, and burn churches, non of southern countries it can not hepen, but we know Xristo 12 cenutries more how there so

Written by Berfones on 24.05.2008 at 18:47

taking satanism litteraly is stupid and here is why:
satan is an invantion of christians and jews that was suppose to make people be afraid of not believing in god, if you are anti-judeo-christian how can you believe in satan which is a judeo-christian myth? this was said by Varg Vikernes, you may say he stated that he is a satanist, but he said that he only said it because he was still heavily under the influence of Euronymous, some say this is one of the reasons he killed him

perfectly right for some of the so called satanist, but others are kind of "inverted christians" who believe in God in a Christian way and hate Him. But for the "nietzschean" satanist, why do they need to have such an idol like satan and all thoses symbols? They could just be free as they whish, but maybe Freedom is just too frightening and wild for ensalved minds, so they had to find a new "master"...

I couldn't imagine that on a metal-oriented forum there was such a high percentage of christianity supporters

Written by Freezer on 26.05.2008 at 16:37

I couldn't imagine that on a metal-oriented forum there was such a high percentage of christianity supporters

Am I a christianity supporter? or the bands? or members? I am deffinatly not, the bands are not( and the satanic one are just going with the flow, as I said about Varg and Euronymous), the members, I don't know

well, I am, and I also know priests and even monks who are metalheads!!!!

Pastor Bob Beeman! And on this forum we have Dane, he is a minister in a metalchurch or something like that!

Please stay on topic ffs. If you want to talk about Christian metalheads and how unique it is, go to the christ thread.

Written by Dagorwen on 26.05.2008 at 16:08

Written by Berfones on 24.05.2008 at 18:47

taking satanism litteraly is stupid and here is why:
satan is an invantion of christians and jews that was suppose to make people be afraid of not believing in god, if you are anti-judeo-christian how can you believe in satan which is a judeo-christian myth? this was said by Varg Vikernes, you may say he stated that he is a satanist, but he said that he only said it because he was still heavily under the influence of Euronymous, some say this is one of the reasons he killed him

perfectly right for some of the so called satanist, but others are kind of "inverted christians" who believe in God in a Christian way and hate Him. But for the "nietzschean" satanist, why do they need to have such an idol like satan and all thoses symbols? They could just be free as they whish, but maybe Freedom is just too frightening and wild for ensalved minds, so they had to find a new "master"...

I'm assuming that you both are addressing theistic Satanism, which for your information doesn't only extend to worshiping the 'great deceiver' its also death worship, chaos gnosticism, and a belief in individual spirits. Which gets a bad wrap just because it is tied in with the word 'Satan', no.

The 'Satan' in theistic 'Satanism' stands for what the belief system has in common with. Which in the context of Chaos Gnosticism, one believes that death and chaos are essential parts to this universe and the way it works. Just like Satan is an essential part of the realm of Christianity, without evil, there cannot be good. Without death, there cannot be life.

Best example, Jon Nodveidt. He didn't just believe in Satan, he believed in entities that were representative of the same characteristics in every setting, including Sumerian chaos deities. Thus is 'Chaos gnostic' (THEISTIC) Satanism.

From the horses mouth: (http://www.templeoftheblacklight.net/main.html)


Within our Temple of the Black Light both Lucifer and Satan are used as forms, descriptions and representations of one and the same essence. Our understanding is that there is a difference between rendering the words 'Lucifer' and 'Satan' as just forms and descriptions, and believing that they are the 'true names' of that which they represent. This is because our tradition states that the ancient dark gods are all nameless and beyond causal comprehension, and that all forms given to them by humans are just that, forms, and not something that should be viewed as static in essence and meaning.

Written by Sunioj on 28.05.2008 at 17:42

Please stay on topic ffs. If you want to talk about Christian metalheads and how unique it is, go to the christ thread.

Written by Dagorwen on 26.05.2008 at 16:08

Written by Berfones on 24.05.2008 at 18:47

taking satanism litteraly is stupid and here is why:
satan is an invantion of christians and jews that was suppose to make people be afraid of not believing in god, if you are anti-judeo-christian how can you believe in satan which is a judeo-christian myth? this was said by Varg Vikernes, you may say he stated that he is a satanist, but he said that he only said it because he was still heavily under the influence of Euronymous, some say this is one of the reasons he killed him

perfectly right for some of the so called satanist, but others are kind of "inverted christians" who believe in God in a Christian way and hate Him. But for the "nietzschean" satanist, why do they need to have such an idol like satan and all thoses symbols? They could just be free as they whish, but maybe Freedom is just too frightening and wild for ensalved minds, so they had to find a new "master"...

I'm assuming that you both are addressing theistic Satanism, which for your information doesn't only extend to worshiping the 'great deceiver' its also death worship, chaos gnosticism, and a belief in individual spirits. Which gets a bad wrap just because it is tied in with the word 'Satan', no.

The 'Satan' in theistic 'Satanism' stands for what the belief system has in common with. Which in the context of Chaos Gnosticism, one believes that death and chaos are essential parts to this universe and the way it works. Just like Satan is an essential part of the realm of Christianity, without evil, there cannot be good. Without death, there cannot be life.

Best example, Jon Nodveidt. He didn't just believe in Satan, he believed in entities that were representative of the same characteristics in every setting, including Sumerian chaos deities. Thus is 'Chaos gnostic' (THEISTIC) Satanism.

From the horses mouth: (http://www.templeoftheblacklight.net/main.html)


Within our Temple of the Black Light both Lucifer and Satan are used as forms, descriptions and representations of one and the same essence. Our understanding is that there is a difference between rendering the words 'Lucifer' and 'Satan' as just forms and descriptions, and believing that they are the 'true names' of that which they represent. This is because our tradition states that the ancient dark gods are all nameless and beyond causal comprehension, and that all forms given to them by humans are just that, forms, and not something that should be viewed as static in essence and meaning.

Well, the fact is that Christians do not claim that they are free, without any boudary or taboo, without inhibitions, some satanist do, it is why it is a little bit more ridiculous for a satanist to worship a black god claiming that he is free than for a Christian, who wants to be God's servant.
What you said remenbers me of Sade (French writer and philosopher, 18th century) he wrote in a cosmic poem that the very essence of nature is chaos, death and self destruction, so that evil and crime serve the nature's logic. But then, you have to concider if being human is being natural or anti-natural, reject the given, the animal part in you (what said Hegel for instance), if civilisation is opposite to nature or go with it.

I personnaly think that those dark deities symbolise some wilde energies in us, some chaotic and mighty instincts that society may consider as "bad" but which are parts of human being, that we shall learn to use, not to worship (that's perhaps not very christian, but I express here my own views, not the Church's views)

Written by Dagorwen on 28.05.2008 at 18:41

Well, the fact is that Christians do not claim that they are free, without any boudary or taboo, without inhibitions, some satanist do, it is why it is a little bit more ridiculous for a satanist to worship a black god claiming that he is free than for a Christian, who wants to be God's servant.

What you said remenbers me of Sade (French writer and philosopher, 18th century) he wrote in a cosmic poem that the very essence of nature is chaos, death and self destruction, so that evil and crime serve the nature's logic. But then, you have to concider if being human is being natural or anti-natural, reject the given, the animal part in you (what said Hegel for instance), if civilisation is opposite to nature or go with it.

I personnaly think that those dark deities symbolise some wilde energies in us, some chaotic and mighty instincts that society may consider as "bad" but which are parts of human being, that we shall learn to use, not to worship (that's perhaps not very christian, but I express here my own views, not the Church's views)

I guess it depends on how you look at it, from the notion of free will given by god's grace, many christians I know claim to be free without boundaries. I personally see this as a contradiction, because to me, freedom is also not fearing judgement or pain inflicted for your sins.

Going into more specifics for nature and chaos etc. this theory as it were that one cannot live without the other is expressed by so many cultures, and I think it gives us the ability to not fear things that are, as you said, taboo or listed as 'evil' by society. But rather accept things for the way they are without blaming it on a 'big bad guy'.

This is interesting, because I think that humans, even though we prevent the effects of nature in our daily lives by modern medicine, living conditions, genetically modified food etc. we are still prone as a whole race to being crushed by a tidal wave of energy that has been diverted from us all these years.

I think that is apparent when one looks around at global warming, the way people's immune systems get weaker when they are out of nature's way, or grow up in cities. Nature has a way of compensating resources that it has been stripped of by destroying.

Cheers.

Fact is that the figure of Satan can also be portrayed as a symbol of knowledge. In a sense we can say that by reversing the meaning of "evil", they are also trying to get back all the obscured knowledge, which the Right Hand Path DOES NOT want to set free.

Given that I am a "simple" atheist, and not a satanist (even if I share some views with them). I must say that their outright declaration of "uselessness" of the ritual, used only by who wants to and without referring to any real godly figure, is a good point.

@Mad Laughter: Okay it would appear that one point you made is incorrect which kinda makes you a moron.....Buddhism being the same as Christianity, Islam and all that. FALSE! I am Buddhist and I have no god either! do your damn research. It's just as non-theistic as Satanism. One or two comments you made are things that would cause both a Buddhist AND a Satanist to shake their heads at you, why? Cuz both groups of people (Buddhists, Satanists) ARE VERY MUCH AGAINST IGNORANCE ACCORDING TO THEIR PHILOSOPHIES!

As a Buddhist, I must say, I agree totally with LaVey's outlook on Religion as a whole....his view on the whole god concept is actually correct I think. Buddhism and Satanism share the same identical view points on the existance of god, we both belief that 'god' is within ourselves.
The difference is just the ethics (or lack thereof). LaVey's Satanism lacks ethics.....Buddhism draws near to ethics, LaVey's Satanism sees no problem with overindulgence and simply dives right in.......Islam/Christianity/Judaism 'runs away' from pleasures/indulgences and they PRETEND the problem doesn't exist (especially Islam), But in Buddhism, these things are confronted face-to-face so that we may overcome them as individuals.


.............just setting things straight, I believe I stayed on topic for the most part.

Written by Guest on 01.06.2008 at 02:02

@Mad Laughter: Okay it would appear that one point you made is incorrect which kinda makes you a moron.....Buddhism being the same as Christianity, Islam and all that. FALSE! I am Buddhist and I have no god either! do your damn research. It's just as non-theistic as Satanism. One or two comments you made are things that would cause both a Buddhist AND a Satanist to shake their heads at you, why? Cuz both groups of people (Buddhists, Satanists) ARE VERY MUCH AGAINST IGNORANCE ACCORDING TO THEIR PHILOSOPHIES!

As a Buddhist, I must say, I agree totally with LaVey's outlook on Religion as a whole....his view on the whole god concept is actually correct I think. Buddhism and Satanism share the same identical view points on the existance of god, we both belief that 'god' is within ourselves.
The difference is just the ethics (or lack thereof). LaVey's Satanism lacks ethics.....Buddhism draws near to ethics, LaVey's Satanism sees no problem with overindulgence and simply dives right in.......Islam/Christianity/Judaism 'runs away' from pleasures/indulgences and they PRETEND the problem doesn't exist (especially Islam), But in Buddhism, these things are confronted face-to-face so that we may overcome them as individuals.


.............just setting things straight, I believe I stayed on topic for the most part.

Indeed, Buddhism is very different from the monotheistic religions

From a broad perspective the whole idea behind modern Satanism appeals to me. Hell, if you examine the way I live my life, I would probably even be considered a LaVeyan Satanist. What I don't understand is how this philosophy gets tied into something formal and structured, like the Church of Satan. I love the idea of Satan as a metaphor for human nature and self sufficiency but I can't shake the feeling that Mr. LaVey was pulling a fast one on everyone to score some cash and fame.

I don't know, maybe he wanted the initial orginization for the sake of the spread of his life philosophy?

Written by Guest on 01.06.2008 at 02:02

As a Buddhist, I must say, I agree totally with LaVey's outlook on Religion as a whole....his view on the whole god concept is actually correct I think. Buddhism and Satanism share the same identical view points on the existance of god, we both belief that 'god' is within ourselves.
The difference is just the ethics (or lack thereof). LaVey's Satanism lacks ethics.....Buddhism draws near to ethics, LaVey's Satanism sees no problem with overindulgence and simply dives right in.......Islam/Christianity/Judaism 'runs away' from pleasures/indulgences and they PRETEND the problem doesn't exist (especially Islam), But in Buddhism, these things are confronted face-to-face so that we may overcome them as individuals.

Can you elaborate about Buddhist attitude or standpoint of overindulgence? allow to wallow in overindulgence or "run away" from it, for Buddhism?. You mean "face-to-face" to overcome overindulgence or else?

Written by FOOCK Nam on 05.06.2008 at 17:50

Written by Guest on 01.06.2008 at 02:02

As a Buddhist, I must say, I agree totally with LaVey's outlook on Religion as a whole....his view on the whole god concept is actually correct I think. Buddhism and Satanism share the same identical view points on the existance of god, we both belief that 'god' is within ourselves.
The difference is just the ethics (or lack thereof). LaVey's Satanism lacks ethics.....Buddhism draws near to ethics, LaVey's Satanism sees no problem with overindulgence and simply dives right in.......Islam/Christianity/Judaism 'runs away' from pleasures/indulgences and they PRETEND the problem doesn't exist (especially Islam), But in Buddhism, these things are confronted face-to-face so that we may overcome them as individuals.

Can you elaborate about Buddhist attitude or standpoint of overindulgence? allow to wallow in overindulgence or "run away" from it, for Buddhism?. You mean "face-to-face" to overcome overindulgence or else?

Let's take LUST for example.......
The Satanist view, is that one is to be free from moral codes, whether you watch too much porn or have wayyyyy too much sex (to the point of extreme excess), Satanists think it's okay, "If you love it, let it kill you" lol. They don't pretend the problem isn't there, they know the problem is there, they just have no shame about it haha. Satanism, not criticising it, but truthfully, it is the most effortless and easiest belief system to follow, because THERE IS NO EFFORT. A huge part of the belief is being void of regret.

Islam for instance, make their women cover up in order for the males not to be tempted by lust......And YES that does work in a Muslim society, but in reality, are they really LEARNING ANYTHING? NO! Making women cover up is not solving the problem, it's making it worse because then when an Islamic male so happens to walk across a nude beach by accident, lust will hit him all at once and he won't know what to do! They 'run away' from lust, having learned NOTHING! Let's say they're at the nude beach again, they'll spot a girl with an overwhelmingly nice rack and PRETEND that it has no effect on them, LYING TO THEMSELVES!

But in Buddhism, we don't do things like that, we learn to conquer our own lustful desires within ourselves using the mind! We ACCEPT that lust exists, but it's up to us to face our problems, this method is much better because you can actually LEARN how to better yourself. If the Buddhist walks down a nude beach, they will ACCEPT that that girl has a nice rack, but will have to consciously make the effort not to be too caught up in the lust.

and a short comparison of the 3 beliefs concernign Alcohol consumption.....

The Satanist: NO LIMIT

The Muslim: NONE WHATSOEVER

The Buddhist: To monks it is none whatsoever, but to an everyday Buddhist....IT IS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO LEARN THEIR LIMITS AND FIND THE BALANCE between the Satanist and the Muslim view on drinking. So see, one drinks too much, the other too little and the other in between.

hope that answers the question

@Lowelas OF FIRE: very clearly for your answer. But I still wonder a thing from the end of your answer. The Buddhist monk is non for alcohol consumption but the Buddhist does but limits and balance. So, between them the Buddhist monk and Buddhist individual, is there any gap of difference? Who is more nearly enlightened ? And as such in your answer, is the Buddhist monk have position as higher than common Buddhist individuals? and a question I dont know there where you live but do Buddhist there worship Buddha or put him on the altar and bowing when theres occasion. ? and feel free to pm me to answer or answer in the Buddhism thread .

@Jed: Here in The Bahamas, there is no 'scene' of Buddhists, where you are I'm sure there's Buddhist monks on every corner, but here it is Rastas who are on the corners......and (staying on topic) Satanism is highly misunderstood! It's generally a Christian country (as are most 3rd world countries in these parts). Here, Anton LaVey is not a very well known figure, but Satanism is frowned upon because it has the word 'Satan' in it, so it makes Christians wimp out rather than investigating logically.......Also the fact that the Rastas referre to everything negative as "Babylon" or "Satan" doesn't help the Satanist sub-culture in these parts either.

annd about "who is more nearly enlightened", keeping from drinking might not necessarily make you get closer to enlightenment, because some people who don't drink are fvcking ignorant about it lol (and are 'running away' from the alcohol). Ignorance doesn't help.....So because the Muslim doesn't drink and a Buddhist might, doesn't mean the Muslim will necessarily reach the ultimate goal before the other.

HAIL SATAN!!!

Satan represents freedom...freedom = true power! That is what i live by...and I feel quite powerful!

Written by FoxZdemoN on 18.06.2008 at 20:28

Satan represents freedom...freedom = true power! That is what i live by...and I feel quite powerful!

Satanism is freedom? soory but I think that your satan doesnt exist.

Written by Guest on 20.06.2008 at 15:11

Written by FoxZdemoN on 18.06.2008 at 20:28

Satan represents freedom...freedom = true power! That is what i live by...and I feel quite powerful!

Satanism is freedom? soory but I think that your satan doesnt exist.

both are nonsens, satan excist and makes you slave of your own will (not free)

Written by FoxZdemoN on 18.06.2008 at 20:28

Satan represents freedom...freedom = true power! That is what i live by...and I feel quite powerful!

If you want to be free, you need nobody but yourself, you can (I do not agree, but you're free ^^ to do whatever you want) uses the symbol of satan as a provocative symbol, but if you consider it like more as a symbol, you're enslaved, for instance if you say that satan is your master, so you're not free anymore, if you're atheist, absolute freedom = no god nor master, no allies, for to have an ally is to be bounded to something. So if you want to be free, you have to be lonesome, without god, without satan. If you chose one camp, you're not free anymore. (in an atheist point of view, what I'm not)

Written by Dagorwen on 20.06.2008 at 16:44

Written by FoxZdemoN on 18.06.2008 at 20:28

Satan represents freedom...freedom = true power! That is what i live by...and I feel quite powerful!

If you want to be free, you need nobody but yourself, you can (I do not agree, but you're free ^^ to do whatever you want) uses the symbol of satan as a provocative symbol, but if you consider it like more as a symbol, you're enslaved, for instance if you say that satan is your master, so you're not free anymore, if you're atheist, absolute freedom = no god nor master, no allies, for to have an ally is to be bounded to something. So if you want to be free, you have to be lonesome, without god, without satan. If you chose one camp, you're not free anymore. (in an atheist point of view, what I'm not)

But are we ever really free? We are always bound by the laws of nature, both mentally, physically, and some even believe spiritually.

yes, of course, freedom is a modern illusion, see also what Kierkegaard says about the tragic of the modern man (which is indeed the loss of the sense of tragic, what means to fight hopelessly against stongest might) I think it's in The Concept of Anguish. But as freedom as some can represent it, as absolute freedom, doesn't really exist (well, we could discuss about it, perhaps beyond some boundaries we may find a kind of total liberty...) so satan only symbolizes vanity, pride and hybris. So in any case, satan CANNOT be the solution!

it's the most human belief but that doesn't make it the best one. humans tend to only think about now, but not about the future. the best belief is a belief that is individualistic good and herd-good.(for the explanation for those two last things: see my post in the christianity thread