Satanism according to the Satanic Bible

@sprinkles Fair enough, the "adversary" of man is mentioned in texts predating the talmud. The other information of its creation are correct, but that in itself is where the differences in perception come from, that which is man-made. I will not go further, because any further would be pointless due to our differences in belief.

Originally Posted by Waiting

@sprinkles Fair enough, the "adversary" of man is mentioned in texts predating the talmud. The other information of its creation are correct, but that in itself is where the differences in perception come from, that which is man-made. I will not go further, because any further would be pointless due to our differences in belief.

Well thank you, I appreciate that. Again, it wasn't about beliefs, it was about differences in perception that are man made.

I never intended to say anything about which is true or should be believed or anything like that. Just the change of concepts which happened (not even why they happened, just that they happened)

Roland, you're deluding others and yourself. You can't dissassociate satan with the church of satan. Why not call it the church of egg then? Or the church of sad idiots, who obviously never read any decent philosophers, getting conned by some bald scammer who retired as a multi millionaire.

This philosophy is ass over tits backward and anyone who follows it will turn into a brainwashed douchebag. The sad thing is, they're probably convinced that it's the bridge to ubermensch. I should go and beat them over the head with the heaviest copy of Thus Spake I can find. Maybe they'll wake up.

Or, maybe I'm completely wrong, and their philospirituality is resplendent with valuable, ORIGINAL ideas that I just haven't heard yet. If this is the case, feel free to list them here if you so desire. I'm just dying to hear them.

Originally Posted by sprinkles

Well thank you, I appreciate that. Again, it wasn't about beliefs, it was about differences in perception that are man made.

I never intended to say anything about which is true or should be believed or anything like that. Just the change of concepts which happened (not even why they happened, just that they happened)

I guess I misunderstood then, because I do agree with those facts. I apologize for the miscommunication.

I checked out the Joy of Satan website. All I have to say about it is this: Satanism and Judeo-Christianity is starting to sound like a silly rift between God and Satan that mankind somehow got dragged into. Both sides accuse the other of basically the same things. So I guess I'm neutral on both.

Leave mankind out of this, you gods, demons and angels and what not up there lol.

Has anyone ever read his book for women? It's all about how to mix drinks and vamp to attract a guy with the opposite body type of yours. Some of his ideas are okay, but the people who follow Levey word for word tend to be delusional nutjobs wanting to detach from reality. One day you're a video store clerk...you go out into an empty park with a bunch of your peers, drink some pig blood and suddenly you're a warlock. Come on.

I do disagree with how the original Satan was bastardized into something evil by the church.

Who wants to create a cult? We can share the proceeds...

Originally Posted by gestalt

Roland, you're deluding others and yourself. You can't dissassociate satan with the church of satan. Why not call it the church of egg then? Or the church of sad idiots, who obviously never read any decent philosophers, getting conned by some bald scammer who retired as a multi millionaire.

This philosophy is ass over tits backward and anyone who follows it will turn into a brainwashed douchebag. The sad thing is, they're probably convinced that it's the bridge to ubermensch. I should go and beat them over the head with the heaviest copy of Thus Spake I can find. Maybe they'll wake up.

Or, maybe I'm completely wrong, and their philospirituality is resplendent with valuable, ORIGINAL ideas that I just haven't heard yet. If this is the case, feel free to list them here if you so desire. I'm just dying to hear them.

I think you have completely missed the entirety of what I have been trying to say. Not trying to dissassociate satan with the church. In fact I would prefer not to associate with 'satan' at all. I dont call it church of egg because then I would be discussing something for where there is no reference for people to know wtf I am talking about. The book that I have been referring to happens to be titled the Satanic bible, so I happen to use that same name when I am talking about that same book. Arguing on its name anywyas is not doing anything for this discussion and is completely irrelevant.

I am deluding nobody. Have been pretty straightforward to what I have been wanting to say. Read my posts and you will see that I am not claiming satan to even exist so am not associating with him other than reference in title for that just happens to be the name of the 'symbol' behind the book. If the ideology was called 'Gragondolforcism" then this thread would be titled 'Gragondolforcism and the Gragondolforcistic Bible'; the name as stated is irrelevant.

The philosophy may be 'ass over tits backward' in your opinion, that's fine, but to deduce that 'anyone who follows it will turn into a brainwashed douchebag' is rather brainwashed douchebaginess in itself. Who says it is them that needs to wake up?...

Originally Posted by bowieownsmysoul

Has anyone ever read his book for women? It's all about how to mix drinks and vamp to attract a guy with the opposite body type of yours. Some of his ideas are okay, but the people who follow Levey word for word tend to be delusional nutjobs wanting to detach from reality. One day you're a video store clerk...you go out into an empty park with a bunch of your peers, drink some pig blood and suddenly you're a warlock. Come on.

I do disagree with how the original Satan was bastardized into something evil by the church.

Yeah I certainly agree that it probably shouldnt be followed word for word, as I dont believe any single philosophy should be taken word for word and have made this clear

@Roland787

As stated before, it is possible that the author simply was making a statement by using the word Satanism rather than actually advocating worshiping evil.

That being said, I guess that leads me to my next question, what should we do about it?

Roland, your approach seems to be one of general awareness boosting, and I agree with this approach in part, but let me share some of my concerns.

Unlike controversial subjects such as convincing people "white privelage" exists, etc... this subject has attached to it the name of evil, which brings to light people's fear of superstition or in other words, well, magical evil, or simply, "evil." This means that simply reading Satanism could bring harm to someone, subconsciously and subliminally. Since we are often influenced subliminally, it isn't an illogical instinct for people to have, to avoid even considering Satanism.

So it seems, if provided that the author wasn't in fact advocating evil, to be a huge major obstacle to raising awareness.

Unless one can disable someone's automatic self defense mechanism against the possibility of subliminal evil influencing our behavior, and that being manifested in what the author called Satanism, then boosting awareness will simply raise resistance, and do nothing.

So I accept the possibility, as was said in my last post in here, however, in application of boosting awareness, I believe you are skipping a step. I understand though that this thread was probably partially exploratory in how to approach this topic with people on your part as well, and in that, it is an obvious success.

Anyway, the question then becomes, for me at least within the theoretical possibility of the author not being malevolent pending further research, "How to disable "superstition's" influence enough to be able to rationally accept the possibility of non-malevolence.

For me, personally, even after accepting the possibility, it still seems like too much of a risk. The stigma's attached to 666, the pagan symbols, the word, have all been very very strong in my conditioning.

I suppose first a thread on paganism, or whatever the roots that satanism uses to construct its theory, should be discussed. Then you could show where they differ, although, you can show how the differing parts relate to other modern theories, such as Richard Rorty's Pragmatism or something (a more relativist philosophy).

Maybe you've started to cover this already. I know you have for the name at least, but what about the symbols, and most importantly, what about the history.

I certainly hope that the author shared his or her influences. Otherwise that is an entire added concern to be skeptical about, which can compound into the superstitious subliminal skepticism as well, both then and even now if not addressed properly, as I think you are willing to do.

Originally Posted by Souled In

As stated before, it is possible that the author simply was making a statement by using the word Satanism rather than actually advocating worshiping evil.

Really all that's to be achieved by it, given his actual teachings weren't advocating evil

That being said, I guess that leads me to my next question, what should we do about it?

IMO I'm not sure exactly. As you say I am really just trying to boost awareness into a more open-minded thinking. Partly what we need I believe is that we need to form some kind of foundation to build off anyways. Firstly by setting the basic standard to what we would consider 'moral'.

To what this 'morality' is exactly is still left up to debate, obviously. I believe it to be, as I've stated, to promote well being and happiness and/or the minimizing of harm and suffering. Even if something does not exactly promote health or happiness, as long as it does not cause harm and suffering without consent (meaning if you personally choose to harm yourself with drugs or whatever your vice, as long as it doesnt start harming others [which is when drug users should be punished, not when just using recreationaly]), then there is nothing morally wrong with it.

Once harm is imposed onto others is when it gets 'wrong'. And this includes people prying into other peoples' business telling them what they can and cant do, because that is imposing a will.

Roland, your approach seems to be one of general awareness boosting, and I agree with this approach in part, but let me share some of my concerns.

Unlike controversial subjects such as convincing people "white privelage" exists, etc... this subject has attached to it the name of evil, which brings to light people's fear of superstition or in other words, well, magical evil, or simply, "evil." This means that simply reading Satanism could bring harm to someone, subconsciously and subliminally. Since we are often influenced subliminally, it isn't an illogical instinct for people to have, to avoid even considering Satanism.

I understand the misconception people have of it, which is exactly why I posted this thread as I did with this title. Those who may at least be willing to hear what it says with a somewhat open mind will give it a shot, even if just a small one. But keep out those who would be completely opposed to it no matter what just because it disagrees with their religion. I didnt exactly want this getting into a huge religion argument, however little it may have anyways is just natural due to the topic.

It has only been attached to evil anyways because of the big three, there is nothing 'evil' about it. There may be some things some people disagree with, but evil? no. And I cant help what its called, so I have no say in that when Im just referring people toward it. Take it as they will, chances are if they're somehwat open-minded they may actually give it a half-ass read and see it's not all it's hyped up to be, and if they can get through all their preconceptions on the subject then maybe they will actually walk away with something.

So it seems, if provided that the author wasn't in fact advocating evil, to be a huge major obstacle to raising awareness.

Yes, definitely a huge flaw in his thinking there. Do I approve of the message he was trying to send by keeping the name, yeah, but I don't exactly think it was the best choice as all it did was drive almost everybody from even giving him a second thought, which is sad really.

So I accept the possibility, as was said in my last post in here, however, in application of boosting awareness, I believe you are skipping a step. I understand though that this thread was probably partially exploratory in how to approach this topic with people on your part as well, and in that, it is an obvious success.

May have skipped a step myself as you stated, and made the same mistake as the author did by just going right into with 'Satanism'. Appreciate your recognization that I was probably (I say probably because tbh I dont exactly know what my intentions were when I first started this thread, just wanted to get a ball rollin, lol) just exploring others' opinions on this and exactly, how to approach it. I guess we could start another thread discussing 'modern morality' or something along that line. (If you want me to actually start a thread on this I will, just let me know. Or start one yourself and post me the link here)

Anyway, the question then becomes, for me at least within the theoretical possibility of the author not being malevolent pending further research, "How to disable "superstition's" influence enough to be able to rationally accept the possibility of non-malevolence.

That is the biggest problem we face today (at least one of them) in that it has gotten itself into almost every single political group, politicians etc.

For me, personally, even after accepting the possibility, it still seems like too much of a risk. The stigma's attached to 666, the pagan symbols, the word, have all been very very strong in my conditioning.

I'm all for getting rid of any symbols. I hold no regards to 666, or the cross, or anything really as they are just symbols used to represent one thing or another to a certain group of people. The only certain group of people I want symbolized are human beings, as a whole. Not these individual countries and religions and all these very opposing ideas, we will never experience world peace with these in place.

I suppose first a thread on paganism, or whatever the roots that satanism uses to construct its theory, should be discussed. Then you could show where they differ, although, you can show how the differing parts relate to other modern theories, such as Richard Rorty's Pragmatism or something (a more relativist philosophy).

I dont think any specific -ism need be discussed, rather we should just be discussing human ideology/morality altogether. Not any 'religion' with any dogmas, nor philosophy with very vague teachings will allow us to accept each other as we are. Maybe 'Common Global Morality' and discuss different things that are 'right/wrong' in other places as well, find what we 'all' agree on and whats still open for more discuassion.
I dk, if you have any other discussion ideas though I'd be open to them.

Maybe you've started to cover this already. I know you have for the name at least, but what about the symbols, and most importantly, what about the history.

I certainly hope that the author shared his or her influences. Otherwise that is an entire added concern to be skeptical about, which can compound into the superstitious subliminal skepticism as well, both then and even now if not addressed properly, as I think you are willing to do.

I havent really looked that much into the authors actual influences, and really couldnt really care less tbh. His influences are his own, and the work he put out from them has been enough to grab my attention and get me thinking on different things, thats all the influence I need really.