• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

LHP - Luciferian vs Satanic views on Satanism - is satanism about more than adversity?

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Saint_Frankenstein said

To say that Satanism is merely about being adversarial makes it into a nonsense, as if it's not any deeper than that. As a person who views Satan as an actual Being, I just view it as a title that was given to Him. He has many titles, such as Lucifer, Azazel, Belial, Samael, Iblis, Shaitan, Samyaza, etc. Some people choose to approach Him using the names of other slandered cultural Adversaries such as Prometheus, Tiamat, Apep, Set, Loki, Enki, Typhon, Exu or any other cultural Devil figure that serves similar functions in world mythologies.

Also, there is no set definitions of Satanism or Luciferianism that we all must abide by. None of us agree on exactly what they are so all we can all do is speak for ourselves.

First off, I do not think that reducing satanism to simple adversity makes it into nonsense. To be certain, there is more to Satanism lest everyone be Satanic in some way. Today, Satanism is considered a Left Hand Path occult tradition with many, many branching ideologies. "Satanism" is almost an umbrella term that absolutely must be explained by each individual member. It has become this way because of add-ons to the original concept of Satan - most likely due to Christianity, their Devil, and misunderstanding and perversions of Jewish text.

Let's strip away all the extras and get down to the core. Satan is a title for angels that test the faith of man on God's behalf, such as in the story of Job. To start, the title was assigned to multiple entities and was never the name of a specific angel or God. Thus, worshiping an actual entity as Satan has no meaning historically. Symbolically sure, you can do anything you want symbolically - but Satan was never one specific individual.

The word "Satan" itself means adversary, and so a Satanist embodies adversarial energy / archetypes. This is the same as Luciferians embodying light-bearing archetypes, not worshiping a specific entity. So at its core, Satanism really is about adversity. That's all it comes down to.

To say that we are talking about one being being who has been given numerous titles also is only purely symbolic. Outside of Christianity, none of the numerous names given to the devil are connected in any way - and even within Christianity they are based off of misinterpretations of perversions of other religions. So, to see Satanism as anything other than being about adversarial energy is to work within a Christian paradigm - which is fine, but that essentially makes it Christianity. To call this entity all these different names can only be insulting. You can take the exact same religion and beliefs, remove the word "Satanism", and it would all be completely valid.

The claims of slandered gods use a modern, Satanic understanding rather than one that is historically accurate. Again, if it is symbolic then no qualms - this is what Setianism has done. Set was a god of storms and - again - to see him as demonized is to fit into a Christian paradigm. He even helped protect Ra in the underworld. Apep was never demonized, he was a concept created as a "demon" already. To worship Apep would be to desire the death of the Sun god and the end of all life - which is closer to the rapture than anything Satanic IMO.

I agree that there are no real set definitions for Satanism and Luciferianism, but there is logic. Without that then anyone could be a Satanist.

In summation:

1. Satan is the adversary - it was a title given to those who tested mankind. This means that relative to any man (or woman), one who tests and is adversarial is Satan relative to whom they are testing. This is the full extent of Satan's job. Further, these angels were just pawns to god, something the LHP tends to be very against.

2. To view this entity as a deity of some sort and then assign it negative Hebrew and Christian names raises numerous problems. For one, it seems disrespectful and insulting. Further, it requires you to work from a Christian paradigm since it relies on false connections and mythologies to apply the names. All these issues could be eliminated simply by dropping the Satanic label and practicing a wholly separate religion.

So, either Satanism is all about adversity or it is a Christian denomination.

3. Looking at old archetypes and myths from a Christianized perception does not help anything at all.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
First, I think I should clarify a bit where I'm coming from. I am a hard polytheist who believes that the Gods are literal Beings - not just symbols or archetypes. Symbols and archetypes can aid in our understanding of these Beings but They are ultimately beyond that and we cannot currently fully understand Them.

As for Satan Himself, I view Him as a God - not as a fallen angel or merely an archetype. I do not claim that He is Pan, Set, Loki, Prometheus, Exu, etc., but that there may be some similarities with those figures, making Them worthy for a Satanist to look into. However, the Semitic names are all names that have been applied to a certain Watcher in Jewish myth, which seems to be the same Being that I acknowledge as Satan. I do not know His exact origins. However, it makes sense to me that, if there are multiple Gods, then some of those Gods will not get along, as They are powerful Beings with Wills of Their own. I do not believe in any universal creator god.

Historical evidence shows that Yahweh was originally a Semitic war god that was later remade into the "one true god" we're all familiar with today. On the spiritual plane, I think the reason that happened was because Yahweh's ego got out of control and he basically became insane. Some Gnostic groups take the same view. Now, I think there are other Beings that are at war with Yahweh and his forces. To me, this Being would be called Satan since He is the number one enemy of devout conservative Christians and Muslims. However, I believe their mythology has it wrong in saying that Yahweh/Allah is the creator of all and that Satan is merely a rebel created being. I think that was just propaganda made to make it seem that Yahweh/Allah is more powerful than he really is.

I do not look at words like "satan" and "lucifer" and merely stop at their dictionary meanings. This makes following a path based on those mere words to seem rather empty and useless. To be adversarial on its own is meaningless. Same for being a light bearer. Many, or most, people are engaged in the search for knowledge in their own way. Even the people who carry the candles at Catholic Masses are called "lucifers". I call Satan Satan because He is the ultimate Adversary of the Abrahamic god(s) and everything else that opposes human progression and ascension. It is a title that was given to Him. Humans also gave Him the title of Lucifer. Yes, the title of Lucifer was given through a misreading of the text, but it has stuck and even inspired further development of the Christian Lucifer myth of a beautiful angel who rebelled and was cast out of heaven. So I view that title as being legitimate and I think He would deserve to have that title, anyway. Since I do believe that the Gods communicate with us, perhaps He inspired humans to apply that title to Him to reveal a bit of who He is to us, even though our understanding has been corrupted (but obviously a number of people have been able to see through the corruption).

I am inspired by Christian myths, but I am certainly not a Christian. How in the world can I be a Christian when I do not accept Jesus as my lord and savior? The only thing I have in common with Christians is that I think their god exists on some level, but is very different from what they think he is. Christianity is deeply embedded in the culture I live in, so I can't ignore it. We don't exist in a vacuum. I make use of some symbolism that came from Christianity, but that is simply for inspiration and to aid understanding and growth. The framework for my beliefs is pre-Christian and can be found in the various polytheistic and animistic systems of belief the world over. I merely don't see the point in ignoring the elephant in the room - the Abrahamic deity. Other Pagans choose to ignore him, but I recognize him as the danger that he really is.

To me, it's simple. If I'm going to be a polytheist, why would I ignore Yahweh/Allah? If I believe that the Gods have wills and interact with humanity, why would I deny that the same is true of Yahweh/Allah? Furthermore, why would I deny that there is an Adversary engaged in conflict with him?

Set was later demonized and equated with Apep, by the way. I like Apep because I tend to have a liking for things that most other people fear or misunderstand. That is way I most accurately fall under the label of a polytheistic Devil Worshiper. That is my "denomination" of Satanism, if you will. That doesn't mean that I only have a liking for Devils, just that I don't exclude Them from the possibility of reverence.
 
Last edited:

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
I always viewed it as being an adversary to to as much as possible, not being a radical. Satanism is at it's core about adversity but it branches into adversity of theological matters, adversity of philosophy and adversity of ethics. All of these things lead to another core principle of Satanism which is self satisfaction, intellectual fulfillment and true virtue.
Not many things in the perceived RHP category have this. The top two major religions lack virtue, intellectualism and unadulterated self satisfaction. Becoming an adversity to this majority also leads to others things as mentioned before but I believe you can simply sum up Satanism by using adversity as a singular core principle. Satanism is entirely about individuality for example which is the anti-thesis to RHP dictates and this alone stems from adversity.

Satanism is adversity, but it is also the practical and rational application of adversity. It would be like saying Philosophy is narrow minded when there is Philosophy of Religion, Jurisprudence, Ontology, Epistemology, Aesthetics, Ethics, Psychology, Axiology, Teleology, and Tautology. Adversity branches into a lot of things and should I mention philosophy is a major portion of that.
I guess you have to look at this from a monistic perspective and realize that a singular concept can mean so much and morph into so many things.

It is truly best to look at this situation and think about the nature of adversity as a basis for causation
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I always viewed it as being an adversary to to as much as possible, not being a radical. Satanism is at it's core about adversity but it branches into adversity of theological matters, adversity of philosophy and adversity of ethics. All of these things lead to another core principle of Satanism which is self satisfaction, intellectual fulfillment and true virtue.
Not many things in the perceived RHP category have this. The top two major religions lack virtue, intellectualism and unadulterated self satisfaction. Becoming an adversity to this majority also leads to others things as mentioned before but I believe you can simply sum up Satanism by using adversity as a singular core principle. Satanism is entirely about individuality for example which is the anti-thesis to RHP dictates and this alone stems from adversity.

Satanism is adversity, but it is also the practical and rational application of adversity. It would be like saying Philosophy is narrow minded when there is Philosophy of Religion, Jurisprudence, Ontology, Epistemology, Aesthetics, Ethics, Psychology, Axiology, Teleology, and Tautology. Adversity branches into a lot of things and should I mention philosophy is a major portion of that.
I guess you have to look at this from a monistic perspective and realize that a singular concept can mean so much and morph into so many things.

It is truly best to look at this situation and think about the nature of adversity as a basis for causation

I knew you'd pop up in this thread. :rolleyes: :p
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
I don't see why you couldn't participate. :)

I just haven't been affiliated to Satanism in so long and I come back to see the same debates arise up. I am trying to dig through an old forum to see if I can find my old argument for Satanism but I forgot my username :facepalm: and I closed the email I used for it :facepalm::facepalm:(1 facepalm was not good enough for that amount of fail).

But getting back on topic do you assert that adversity cannot best suffice for the Satanic and/or Luciferian grounding principle?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
But getting back on topic do you assert that adversity cannot best suffice for the Satanic and/or Luciferian grounding principle?

Yes. When you focus on such a narrow and mundane concept, it becomes next to meaningless. I think it has to be more than that to qualify as a philosophy or a religion.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
Yes. When you focus on such a narrow and mundane concept, it becomes next to meaningless. I think it has to be more than that to qualify as a philosophy or a religion.

You do know that the core foundation of Deism is adversity right? Deism itself was LHP during it's arrival. Deism slowly branched into many things because of its core foundation of opposing the church and because of this modern introduction of skepticism and free thought came about. This lead to an increase in philosophy, unbiased theology and spiritual fortification.
You seem to have a very narrow minded opinion on what a singular thing can do :yes:. Trust me on this because a singular underlying principle can change absolutely everything.

I am not saying Satanism is solely about adversity but you can sum up every single attribute with the word alone. I am not sure on how you are looking at this though because depending on the direction you may be able to understand me.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
You do know that the core foundation of Deism is adversity right? Deism itself was LHP during it's arrival. Deism slowly branched into many things because of its core foundation of opposing the church and because of this modern introduction of skepticism and free thought came about. This lead to an increase in philosophy, unbiased theology and spiritual fortification.
You seem to have a very narrow minded opinion on what a singular thing can do :yes:. Trust me on this because a singular underlying principle can change absolutely everything.

I am not saying Satanism is solely about adversity but you can sum up every single attribute with the word alone. I am not sure on how you are looking at this though because depending on the direction you may be able to understand me.

By clarifying what you are being adversarial towards and what it means to you, is an expansion of the concept beyond its mere stated definition. If you stop at just saying that it's about being an adversary, then everyone and everything is a satan and becomes useless.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
As for Satan Himself, I view Him as a God - not as a fallen angel or merely an archetype. I do not claim that He is Pan, Set, Loki, Prometheus, Exu, etc., but that there may be some similarities with those figures, making Them worthy for a Satanist to look into. However, the Semitic names are all names that have been applied to a certain Watcher in Jewish myth, which seems to be the same Being that I acknowledge as Satan. I do not know His exact origins. However, it makes sense to me that, if there are multiple Gods, then some of those Gods will not get along, as They are powerful Beings with Wills of Their own. I do not believe in any universal creator god.

Historical evidence shows that Yahweh was originally a Semitic war god that was later remade into the "one true god" we're all familiar with today. On the spiritual plane, I think the reason that happened was because Yahweh's ego got out of control and he basically became insane. Some Gnostic groups take the same view. Now, I think there are other Beings that are at war with Yahweh and his forces. To me, this Being would be called Satan since He is the number one enemy of devout conservative Christians and Muslims. However, I believe their mythology has it wrong in saying that Yahweh/Allah is the creator of all and that Satan is merely a rebel created being. I think that was just propaganda made to make it seem that Yahweh/Allah is more powerful than he really is.

My problem with all this is the huge leaps. You have to remember that from the outside we may seem to be coming from a very similar place (the Left Hand Path) but we in the in group know that Luciferianism and Satanism are vastly different. These leaps to believing in gods, a divine conspiracy, and the like simply will never work for me. To me it is just a cool story and viewing all these concepts are myths / archetypes fully explains it without any leaps. Perhaps this makes any debate on this subject essentially a waste of time - but perhaps not.

I do not look at words like "satan" and "lucifer" and merely stop at their dictionary meanings. This makes following a path based on those mere words to seem rather empty and useless. To be adversarial on its own is meaningless. Same for being a light bearer. Many, or most, people are engaged in the search for knowledge in their own way. Even the people who carry the candles at Catholic Masses are called "lucifers". I call Satan Satan because He is the ultimate Adversary of the Abrahamic god(s) and everything else that opposes human progression and ascension. It is a title that was given to Him. Humans also gave Him the title of Lucifer. Yes, the title of Lucifer was given through a misreading of the text, but it has stuck and even inspired further development of the Christian Lucifer myth of a beautiful angel who rebelled and was cast out of heaven. So I view that title as being legitimate and I think He would deserve to have that title, anyway. Since I do believe that the Gods communicate with us, perhaps He inspired humans to apply that title to Him to reveal a bit of who He is to us, even though our understanding has been corrupted (but obviously a number of people have been able to see through the corruption).

We don't have to stop with "Satan" and "Lucifer" at their dictionary meanings. We can look at that, the history, the myths, the archetype, the roles, etc. When we do this with Satan we see an agent of a divine being sent to test the faith of his followers. That is not a definition, that is an entirety - definition, history, myth, archetype, and role. Same with Lucifer - we know it was a term for Venus - the morning star - which leads in the sun. If you look at my article on "Who Is Lucifer" I give a logical breakdown of the meaning of the term and the purpose of Luciferianism. The same can be done with Satanism and run deeper than the definition. The problem is that everything will be built upon the foundation of an agent of God testing faith. The Christian devil / Islamic Ibis are the adversary of the Christian and Muslim God. The Hebrew God has no adversary. Calling the devil Satan is far more than being inspired by Christian mythology, it is adhering to Christian mythology an the perversion of the Jewish texts that go with it.

I am inspired by Christian myths, but I am certainly not a Christian. How in the world can I be a Christian when I do not accept Jesus as my lord and savior? The only thing I have in common with Christians is that I think their god exists on some level, but is very different from what they think he is.

An adherence to Christian mythology - even taken from a different angle - I would consider Christianity. If you are going to Christianize your deity an build him from a Christian foundation then you have essentially created a perverted version of Christianity.

Set was later demonized and equated with Apep, by the way. I like Apep because I tend to have a liking for things that most other people fear or misunderstand. That is way I most accurately fall under the label of a polytheistic Devil Worshiper. That is my "denomination" of Satanism, if you will. That doesn't mean that I only have a liking for Devils, just that I don't exclude Them from the possibility of reverence.

See this may be our problem. Devil worshiping is itself a form of Christianity - and there is nothing wrong with that. Satanism, on the other hand, is a different beast all together. Groups like LaVeyan Satanism or ONA best represent what Satanism is which is adversity from every angle - and I think we can all agree that both groups miss the mark. When it comes to theistic Satanism it seems to be either Devil Worshiping or a strange label. If you are a polythiestic devil worshiper I have no qualms with that. I think it is awesome and is made even more interesting in that it contrasts classical devil-worshiping - however I would not see it as "Satanism". I think it's best for "Satanism" to get down to the roots and be more of a Jewish conception than the Jewish mythology that has been repackaged by Christianity.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I always viewed it as being an adversary to to as much as possible, not being a radical. Satanism is at it's core about adversity but it branches into adversity of theological matters, adversity of philosophy and adversity of ethics. All of these things lead to another core principle of Satanism which is self satisfaction, intellectual fulfillment and true virtue.

Yes but if say we have two people - A and B. A and B disagree about everything on every subject and they debate it constantly. This means that whatever A believes, B is in a state of adversity to him. On every subject, B plays the adversary to A. The problem is that A plays the adversary to B as well - so who is the real adversary? Neither, it's simply differing philosophies.

Not many things in the perceived RHP category have this. The top two major religions lack virtue, intellectualism and unadulterated self satisfaction. Becoming an adversity to this majority also leads to others things as mentioned before but I believe you can simply sum up Satanism by using adversity as a singular core principle. Satanism is entirely about individuality for example which is the anti-thesis to RHP dictates and this alone stems from adversity.

We cannot say that the RHP does things right or wrong because there is no right or wrong. Virtue is irrelevant because there is no objective morality. Further, the definition of intellectualism is "the exercise of the intellect at the expense of the emotions". If you talk to a creationist they will believe to be providing objective information free of emotion. Sure we can attempt to say that they are wrong, but when you get down to it all intellectualism and belief in objectivity and logic comes down to pure, blind faith. Finally, it is safe to say that all people are chasing self satisfaction in their own way. The Christian and the Satanist both selfishly desire their goal, they simply view it differently.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
By clarifying what you are being adversarial towards and what it means to you, is an expansion of the concept beyond its mere stated definition. If you stop at just saying that it's about being an adversary, then everyone and everything is a satan and becomes useless.

Not really. I became a Muslim just because I did not want to be an adversary to a norm. I grew up within an Abrahamic religion so when I realize that it was not true I joined an Abrahamic religion that was 5 times as worst despite knowing of the falsehood found within Islam. i deluded myself because I could not be an adversary to a whole category of religious teachings.
People usually love being spoon fed everything. Do you know how awkward I felt as a Satanist having no true dogma? I came right off Islam and went into Satanism which was truly an experience to behold. People want to be told what to do and this is our default desired for intellectual enslavement. Satanist oppose this and they do so by releasing all the locks on intellectual capacity. No religion on earth does this. Satanism is not founded upon a historical claim but a cognitive capability. This is something that no religion does and not only this but this is outside the scope of religion making Satanism along with strands of Paganism a lack of religion. This just opens new doors because of the need to rebel against norms. This is not the childish and immature teenage rebellion phase but a fully adult need to intellectually fight and destroy unfounded norms. Satanism reeks of this and it employs this is so many bizarre and immaculate ways. Satanism is actually quite beautiful because of this because it is chaotic. It is like a Jackson Pollock painting and is merely an "action painting" based upon circumstantial demands
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
My problem with all this is the huge leaps. You have to remember that from the outside we may seem to be coming from a very similar place (the Left Hand Path) but we in the in group know that Luciferianism and Satanism are vastly different. These leaps to believing in gods, a divine conspiracy, and the like simply will never work for me. To me it is just a cool story and viewing all these concepts are myths / archetypes fully explains it without any leaps. Perhaps this makes any debate on this subject essentially a waste of time - but perhaps not.


We don't have to stop with "Satan" and "Lucifer" at their dictionary meanings. We can look at that, the history, the myths, the archetype, the roles, etc. When we do this with Satan we see an agent of a divine being sent to test the faith of his followers. That is not a definition, that is an entirety - definition, history, myth, archetype, and role. Same with Lucifer - we know it was a term for Venus - the morning star - which leads in the sun. If you look at my article on "Who Is Lucifer" I give a logical breakdown of the meaning of the term and the purpose of Luciferianism. The same can be done with Satanism and run deeper than the definition. The problem is that everything will be built upon the foundation of an agent of God testing faith. The Christian devil / Islamic Ibis are the adversary of the Christian and Muslim God. The Hebrew God has no adversary. Calling the devil Satan is far more than being inspired by Christian mythology, it is adhering to Christian mythology an the perversion of the Jewish texts that go with it.


An adherence to Christian mythology - even taken from a different angle - I would consider Christianity. If you are going to Christianize your deity an build him from a Christian foundation then you have essentially created a perverted version of Christianity.


See this may be our problem. Devil worshiping is itself a form of Christianity - and there is nothing wrong with that. Satanism, on the other hand, is a different beast all together. Groups like LaVeyan Satanism or ONA best represent what Satanism is which is adversity from every angle - and I think we can all agree that both groups miss the mark. When it comes to theistic Satanism it seems to be either Devil Worshiping or a strange label. If you are a polythiestic devil worshiper I have no qualms with that. I think it is awesome and is made even more interesting in that it contrasts classical devil-worshiping - however I would not see it as "Satanism". I think it's best for "Satanism" to get down to the roots and be more of a Jewish conception than the Jewish mythology that has been repackaged by Christianity.

I have never found Jewish religion interesting enough to adhere to its concepts. Some of the Jewish legends, particularly the apocryphal ones, interest me but I see no reason why I should respect the Jewish version of...anything! I understand that you are Jewish and so that may be influencing your opinion on this.

Devil Worship is not a form of Christianity. Even if a person believed that Satan was a fallen angel, they would still not be a Christian. My form of Satanism is a form of Dark Paganism, you could say. It makes no sense to claim that someone like me is a Christian just because we make use of some Christian symbols. What exactly do you think a Christian is?

You should read this: Devil Worship - Black Goat Cabal
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Not really. I became a Muslim just because I did not want to be an adversary to a norm. I grew up within an Abrahamic religion so when I realize that it was not true I joined an Abrahamic religion that was 5 times as worst despite knowing of the falsehood found within Islam. i deluded myself because I could not be an adversary to a whole category of religious teachings.
People usually love being spoon fed everything. Do you know how awkward I felt as a Satanist having no true dogma? I came right off Islam and went into Satanism which was truly an experience to behold. People want to be told what to do and this is our default desired for intellectual enslavement. Satanist oppose this and they do so by releasing all the locks on intellectual capacity. No religion on earth does this. Satanism is not founded upon a historical claim but a cognitive capability. This is something that no religion does and not only this but this is outside the scope of religion making Satanism along with strands of Paganism a lack of religion. This just opens new doors because of the need to rebel against norms. This is not the childish and immature teenage rebellion phase but a fully adult need to intellectually fight and destroy unfounded norms. Satanism reeks of this and it employs this is so many bizarre and immaculate ways. Satanism is actually quite beautiful because of this because it is chaotic. It is like a Jackson Pollock painting and is merely an "action painting" based upon circumstantial demands

Ah. So you see it as adversarialism towards a stifling and stupid prevailing culture. Yes, I can agree that that is part of it.

Eew, don't compare it to Pollack. I think his art is ugly. Lol.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
Satanism and Judaism, considering that Satanism was born out of Christianity itself it is hard to say that Satanism is not anything but Christian. Without Christianity thee would be no Satanism and without Judaism there would be no Christianity so to say that Satanism can depart from Christian yet alone Jewish mythology is absurd.
All religions you see today come from pagan sources whether it be Jesus and his relation to Ishtar, Inanna, Seth, and Heracles or the creation myth of Jewish mythos stealing from the Mesopotamians it does not matter. Trying to depart Satanism from Christianity is ludicrous and trying to depart it from Judaism, good luck. You are stating that you have separated then please tell me how you have done so because this just tickles my demented little soul.
Why should you not depart Satanism from Paganism then? Why not just say it must be departed from Christian yet keep its forefather in tact? You are making bizarre claims without justification and this sounds more and more like bias if anything.

I have never found Jewish religion interesting enough to adhere to its concepts. Some of the Jewish legends, particularly the apocryphal ones, interest me but I see no reason why I should respect the Jewish version of...anything! I understand that you are Jewish and so that may be influencing your opinion on this.

Devil Worship is not a form of Christianity. Even if a person believed that Satan was a fallen angel, they would still not be a Christian. My form of Satanism is a form of Dark Paganism, you could say. It makes no sense to claim that someone like me is a Christian just because we make use of some Christian symbols. What exactly do you think a Christian is?

You should read this: Devil Worship - Black Goat Cabal


Ya see Franky, almost all religions are in reality Pagan and this is why I came back to Satanism after such a long time. "ALL roads lead to Rome". You cannot escape the pagan roots of religions and to be a pagan means nothing considering that Christians and even Satanism is at it's very core pagan as it was built from pagan mythos and pagan religions. What you are doing is essentially smart and I have only seen this with a Satanist a handful of times.
I myself and reworking Satanism within an Islamic framework and of course Wathani'ism is playing a big role int hat ;)
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
The only way I'll agree that Satanism is "Christian" is in that Satanism is a reaction to Christianity and Christian culture - as in, it's a product of Christian culture. You could say that Haitian Vodou is "Christian" in that sense, too. But when people say that Devil Worshipers are Christians, that's not what they're saying. They're saying that, well...we're Christians and not Satanists. This is a common attack thrown at Theistic Satanists by atheists who somehow think they have the "real" Satanism and that those who believe in a real Satan are just dumb, deluded "reverse Christians". That's what I'm objecting to.
 
Last edited:

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
The only way I'll agree that Satanism is "Christian" is in that Satanism is a reaction to Christianity and Christian culture - as in, it's a product of Christian culture. You could say that Haitian Vodou is "Christian" in that sense, too. But when people say that Devil Worshipers are Christians, that's not what they're saying. They're saying that, well...we're Christians and not Satanists. This is a common attack thrown at Theistic Satanists by atheists who somehow think they have the "real" Satanism and that those who believe in a real Satan are just dumb, deluded "reverse Christians". That's what I'm objecting to.

It seems odd to me that atheistic Satanist love stealing a Christian word and then saying "no we do not actually believe in Satan". I cannot stand it when they pull a 'Peter Gilmore' on others.
Just so you know, I converted to Islam 3 minutes ago but I do not actually believe in Allah nor Muhammad :rolleyes:
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
It seems odd to me that atheistic Satanist love stealing a Christian word and then saying "no we do not actually believe in Satan". I cannot stand it when they pull a 'Peter Gilmore' on others.
Just so you know, I converted to Islam 3 minutes ago but I do not actually believe in Allah nor Muhammad :rolleyes:

Yes, they're weird. They're just atheists who like shock imagery. LaVeyan Satanism often seems like a joke that began to be taken seriously after the fact. I've asked some of them way they don't just be atheists and I haven't gotten an answer to that. Most likely because atheism is too "boring" for them.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Truthfully, what this really comes down to is the divide between theists and atheists in the LHP. I doubt the two will ever see eye to eye because our perspectives are so different.
 
Top