Satanism and the truth of Christianity

[Skwim]

Satanism is not an organized religion with dogmas and doctrines. We don't need to agree and LHP people usually don't. We often hate each other.

Yet the US government recognizes it, or at least some forms of it, as a religion, giving it religious tax exempt status, and recognition in the armed services (just looked this up). From what I've gathered so far, Satanism is pretty much a do-it-yourself "religion" wherein one can believe whatever they want, and label it Satanism. Satan is

1) not real. He doesn't exist in any form whatsoever, even mythical
OR
2) a mythical being who may or may not be venerated
OR
3) as real as the god of Abraham, and may or may not be worshiped​

With such a broad range of beliefs, far more than those existing among all the denominations of Christianity, the terms "Satan" and "Satanism" seem pretty meaningless.

So, how do you Satanists feel about this conclusion? Reasonable, or does it need to be fixed somehow? If it needs fixin' please feel free to correct me.

 

[ak.yonathan]

No Satanists give the Bible credence except for Christians that are pretending to be Satanists. Popular Satanists are actually atheists, but there probably more unknown theistic Satanists who keep it to themselves and are basically offline..

How can there be Christians pretending to be Satanists? A Christian is someone who exemplifies the example of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ most definitely rejected Satan (read Matthew 4 verse 10).

 

[Liu]

With such a broad range of beliefs, far more than those existing among all the denominations of Christianity, the terms "Satan" and "Satanism" seem pretty meaningless.

So, how do you Satanists feel about this conclusion? Reasonable, or does it need to be fixed somehow? If it needs fixin' please feel free to correct me.

One might add that these terms get their meaning from two other points: Satanists, at least those online, tend to consider themselves to belong to one and the same religion, even if they believe in utterly different things. At least for those Satanists that in any way are LHP (or at least not outright RHP) I'd definitely say so. So it's a social construct.
And it's a historically grown term. If it would only include LHPers, I'd simply consider it a synonym to that, but it's slightly broader, and there also are many western LHPers who don't call themselves Satanists.
So, probably we all who base our concept of the Prince of Darkness not foremostly on concepts of Satan should all stop calling ourselves Satanists and simply call ourselves LHPers instead. But what is a concept of Satan? Even the believes of an "actual" Satanist typically change over time ever so slightly and may after a while have nothing to do anymore with traditional concepts of Satan. But there is no exact point to determine when they have changed too much, and that has happened often enough to broaden the term to its current use.

How can there be Christians pretending to be Satanists? A Christian is someone who exemplifies the example of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ most definitely rejected Satan (read Matthew 4 verse 10).

We typically call such people Christians here since they in their cosmology and moral concepts are much closer to Christians than to any kind of LHP worldview. From the point of view of a Christian they of course are heretics - but Christian heretics.

If one however has such a worldview like us where dogmas are not set in stone, the approach becomes much more important than the content, and so we say that people who approach life, religion etc. rather like a Christian does are Christians, no matter what exactly they believe.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yet the US government recognizes it, or at least some forms of it, as a religion, giving it religious tax exempt status, and recognition in the armed services (just looked this up). From what I've gathered so far, Satanism is pretty much a do-it-yourself "religion" wherein one can believe whatever they want, and label it Satanism. Satan is

1) not real. He doesn't exist in any form whatsoever, even mythical
OR
2) a mythical being who may or may not be venerated
OR
3) as real as the god of Abraham, and may or may not be worshiped​

With such a broad range of beliefs, far more than those existing among all the denominations of Christianity, the terms "Satan" and "Satanism" seem pretty meaningless.

So, how do you Satanists feel about this conclusion? Reasonable, or does it need to be fixed somehow? If it needs fixin' please feel free to correct me.

Although we have a wide variety of beliefs and approaches, we do have things in common. You may want to give the Wiki page a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

 

[ScottySatan]

I'm not sure how big it is, but I believe there is a subjective component to reality. Satan is the Adversary. The ancient Bugaboo of the righteous leaders of men. He is neither a constant thing nor a consistent thing for everyone. He is the figure you tell stories about to scare people into submission, but at the same time, can be a real person or thing. He is the Jew to Hitler and Queen Izabella. He is Marilyn Manson. He is the Columbine shooter. He is a Tea Party member of Congress. He is the piece of earth that caused the devastating earthquake in Haiti. Something significantly more real than a myth, but not some discrete being sitting underground and watching us.

There's also a connection between Satan and the educated. The first Satan was the first person to become a self-aware seeker of knowledge, rejecting the dogma of his day to try out and discover an awesome new thing. The bible has a great example of this, where the evil tree from the original sin was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For that reason, I think Luciferianism and Setianism are very similar religions, but draw the line where an adherent has to bow down or make sacrifice.

The word Satan was chosen by Anton LaVey because that's the name of the major Bugaboo of his time and place and still is for most of us. Since most of us are from a judeo-chrstian society, Satan is the name that still holds the most power for us. The name is not important except for the power that it brings, the reaction of the masses, the just, the white lighters.

 

[Liu]

Although we have a wide variety of beliefs and approaches, we do have things in common. You may want to give the Wiki page a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

Most of the things we have in common seem to be common in other kinds of at least the western LHP, too. That's why I wrote we could as well just drop the term Satanism and say we are different kinds of LHPers.

For that reason, I think Luciferianism and Setianism are very similar religions, but draw the line where an adherent has to bow down or make sacrifice.

Since many Luciferians are atheistic I wonder why you'd say their religion would demand making sacrifices to their god. And as far as I know Setians normally don't do such either even though they actually seem to have a greater tendency to some kind of theism.
The differences seem to rather be in the metaphysical assumptions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not sure how big it is, but I believe there is a subjective component to reality. Satan is the Adversary. The ancient Bugaboo of the righteous leaders of men. He is neither a constant thing nor a consistent thing for everyone. He is the figure you tell stories about to scare people into submission, but at the same time, can be a real person or thing. He is the Jew to Hitler and Queen Izabella. He is Marilyn Manson. He is the Columbine shooter. He is a Tea Party member of Congress. He is the piece of earth that caused the devastating earthquake in Haiti. Something significantly more real than a myth, but not some discrete being sitting underground and watching us.

There's also a connection between Satan and the educated. The first Satan was the first person to become a self-aware seeker of knowledge, rejecting the dogma of his day to try out and discover an awesome new thing. The bible has a great example of this, where the evil tree from the original sin was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For that reason, I think Luciferianism and Setianism are very similar religions, but draw the line where an adherent has to bow down or make sacrifice.

The word Satan was chosen by Anton LaVey because that's the name of the major Bugaboo of his time and place and still is for most of us. Since most of us are from a judeo-chrstian society, Satan is the name that still holds the most power for us. The name is not important except for the power that it brings, the reaction of the masses, the just, the white lighters.

Very well said!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Most of the things we have in common seem to be common in other kinds of at least the western LHP, too. That's why I wrote we could as well just drop the term Satanism and say we are different kinds of LHPers.

You and others should feel free to call yourselves whatever you please, just as I will call myself whatever I please. My primary labels are that of Satanist and Luciferian.

 

[Skwim]

Although we have a wide variety of beliefs and approaches, we do have things in common. You may want to give the Wiki page a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

Interesting remark from the linked site.

"The Internet promotes awareness of other Satanists, and is also the main battleground for the definitions of Satanism today."
​

Satanists are battling over the definition of Satanism, which pretty much reflects the lack of agreement I've seen here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Interesting remark from the linked site.

"The Internet promotes awareness of other Satanists, and is also the main battleground for the definitions of Satanism today."
​

Satanists are battling over the definition of Satanism, which pretty much reflects the lack of agreement I've seen here.

Why would you expect anything different?

 

[Skwim]

Why would you expect anything different?

Because when people adopt a particular name they do so because it has a fairly definite meaning, one they identify with. It connotes some kind of commonality that others recognize and accept. With Satanism I see no such thing, a lack that's mirrored by the ongoing arguments over the definition of "Satanism." So I've been surprised by the huge range beliefs among those who call themselves Satanists. One I can honestly say I don't recall seeing anywhere else.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Because when people adopt a particular name they do so because it has a fairly definite meaning, one they identify with. It connotes some kind of commonality that others recognize and accept. With Satanism I see no such thing, a lack that's mirrored by the ongoing arguments over the definition of "Satanism." So I've been surprised by the huge range beliefs among those who call themselves Satanists. One I can honestly say I don't recall seeing anywhere else.

All religions and philosophies have in-group arguments over what said religion or philosophy actually is or should be. This isn't unique to Satanism. It's just that 'Satanism' is more of an umbrella term for a group of related religions and philosophies, rather than one monolithic thing.

 

[Skwim]

All religions and philosophies have in-group arguments over what said religion or philosophy actually is or should be.

Actually they all don't. And where there is dispute a group will either retain some commonalty or break off and be renamed.

This isn't unique to Satanism. It's just that 'Satanism' is more of an umbrella term for a group of related religions and philosophies, rather than one monolithic thing.

So just how are those who believe Satan is

1) not real. He doesn't exist in any form whatsoever, even mythical
AND
2) a mythical being who may or may not be venerated
AND
3) as real as the god of Abraham, and may or may not be worshiped
​

related? Particularity related in such a way that retaining the label "Satanism" makes sense.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually they all don't. And where there is dispute a group will either retain some commonalty or break off and be renamed.

I guess you just don't see it. Whatever.

So just how are those who believe Satan is

1) not real. He doesn't exist in any form whatsoever, even mythical
AND
2) a mythical being who may or may not be venerated
AND
3) as real as the god of Abraham, and may or may not be worshiped
​

related? Particularity related in such a way that retaining the label "Satanism" makes sense.

Because, in Satanism, your views on theism are irrelevant to whether you're a Satanist or not. So you can be an atheist, a monotheist, a polytheist, a pantheist, etc. or none of those. What matters more are the general values we have in common and how your positive view of Satan inspires you in life.

 

[ScottySatan]

Most of the things we have in common seem to be common in other kinds of at least the western LHP, too. That's why I wrote we could as well just drop the term Satanism and say we are different kinds of LHPers.

Since many Luciferians are atheistic I wonder why you'd say their religion would demand making sacrifices to their god. And as far as I know Setians normally don't do such either even though they actually seem to have a greater tendency to some kind of theism.
The differences seem to rather be in the metaphysical assumptions.

to clarify: I wasn't trying to imply that they do. I was trying to touch on how all LHP religions have a lot of misguided members who do. It's an important distinction to point out because those folks don't go around calling themselves fakes.

 

[ScottySatan]

Interesting remark from the linked site.

"The Internet promotes awareness of other Satanists, and is also the main battleground for the definitions of Satanism today."
​

Satanists are battling over the definition of Satanism, which pretty much reflects the lack of agreement I've seen here.

You're right. When someone tells me they're a Satanist, to me it can mean any damned thing.

But you know what...to a Satanist, standards are like a toothbrush. Everyone's got one and they don't want yours.

 

[Liu]

You and others should feel free to call yourselves whatever you please, just as I will call myself whatever I please. My primary labels are that of Satanist and Luciferian.

I agree. But still we can discuss the meaningfulness of the labels we use. And in my case, I'll continue calling myself a Satanist as well - I only wanted to point out that there are also arguments against using that term to thereby show in which other ways it does make sense to use it nevertheless.

@ScottySatan : Sorry, I misunderstood you; I now see how your sentence is ambiguous.

 

[Father Heathen]

So just how are those who believe Satan is

1) not real. He doesn't exist in any form whatsoever, even mythical
AND
2) a mythical being who may or may not be venerated
AND
3) as real as the god of Abraham, and may or may not be worshiped
​

related? Particularity related in such a way that retaining the label "Satanism" makes sense.

The commonality lies within the philosophies, regardless if Satan is held to be literal or symbolic.

 

[Skwim]

The commonality lies within the philosophies, regardless if Satan is held to be literal or symbolic.

We have Satanists who don't believe Satan exists in any form whatsoever, those who consider him to be simply a myth, and those who believe him to be as real as the god of Abraham. So, just what are these philosophies that bind the three together?

 

[Aštra’el]

I simply identify as "Pagan", although I am most certainly a Satanist as well, and a Luciferian, among other things. Still, I do not feel the slightest bit of kindred towards other "Satanists", as I would consider most of them weak and pathetic as so many merely define "Satanism" as merely having broken free from Abrahamism and adopted some path where seeking knowledge is of the utmost priority. In my subjective opinion... that is awesome, but Satanism is so much more than that. So, so much more.
​