Why the church of satan is not banned? Is satanism a religion?

[McBell]

You guys I think you may be missing the OP's point/definition.

Within Christianity especially, Satan is seen as enjoying/bringing all things evil, such as murder, rape, theft, lies, adultery etc. OP probably has such a character in mind when defining 'Satanism'. So to OP 'Satanism' would be the allowance/worship of these evil things such as murder and rape, in which case it would be, yes, illegal.

You have rather excellently described one of the many area where Christianity has strayed from the Bible.

 

[McBell]

In the faith realm, the satan is the personalized evil. That is definition of satan.
So, the satanists must be illegal.

The satanism does not worship the God, so it is not the Religion.

Because baseless accusations based on ignorance is not just cause to ban something?

 

[EtuMalku]

I could go into why these all actually happened but

a) it wouldn't make a shred of difference to you, so it would be pointless.

b) it would be completely off topic.

Also, not sure if you know but within Judaism Satan is an angel under G-d's authority.

I'm more aware of it than most

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In the faith realm, the satan is the personalized evil. That is definition of satan.
So, the satanists must be illegal.

The satanism does not worship the God, so it is not the Religion.

I get the feeling you don't understand how laws, or religion, actually work.

Among other things.

 

[1137]

The evil god is idol, is a false god. The True God is defined as Love. The satan is defined as Hatred. Let us dance further from this Knowledge.

And yet Satan obviously loves us and god obviously hates us.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I didn't say that Origines was a Satanist, just, that he already used the name of Lucifer to refer to Satan, as did many other people after him, long before Milton. Even Milton himself didn't saw the Satan in his books as a positive figure, strange as it might seem to us. That interpretation was only later.

Origin is claiming that opposition to Christ is merely a lucifer not that lucifer is an extant being or that Satan is a being named Lucifer. Origin's statement is like saying "Our enemies shall fade."

Now that sounds pretty new to me. Pretty much every single war in Europe during the middle ages was justified by Christianity.

It was justified by politicians, much like Dick Cheney justified his own invasions and like Pol Pot justified his massacres in Cambodia. I'm just saying that Origin is not equating a supernatural being with the terms satan and lucifer. He's not really in the equation.

The gnostics were earlier than that.

Yes but the modern theistic Satan concept isn't from Origin. Maybe there is some new embrace of some gnostic concepts among Satanists, and maybe they connect themselves to the gnostics now.

 

[Liu]

Origin is claiming that opposition to Christ is merely a lucifer not that lucifer is an extant being or that Satan is a being named Lucifer. Origin's statement is like saying "Our enemies shall fade."

I had a bit of trouble finding where he actually says this, could you please point me to the actual text? Then I could better see whether you are actually right when saying

that Origin is not equating a supernatural being with the terms satan and lucifer. He's not really in the equation.

Yes but the modern theistic Satan concept isn't from Origin.

I wasn't claiming so. You said that the concept of Satan as a fallen angel would be not older than Milton, and that was what seems to be wrong to me. I know I have read the name of Lucifer in medieval texts in contexts where it was clear that they meant Satan.

EDIT: However, if it's about the question whether they considered Satan to be an actual entity - just take a look at early medieval Credos in which newly converted renounced the devil. The way they are formulated clearly show the concept of an actual entity. There certainly are better examples, but that's the only that comes to my mind immediately.
EDIT2: Okay, the oldest extra-biblical literary text I know in which Satan appears as an entity would be the Muspilli (9th century): Muspilli - Wikipedia
There are older ones certainly, but I'm not well-versed in texts of the late antiquity.
You can still say "but that's all just metaphorical", but I doubt that normal people at that time would have considered it such.

Maybe there is some new embrace of some gnostic concepts among Satanists, and maybe they connect themselves to the gnostics now.

There certainly is such among some Satanists, there are gnostic Satanists now. But it's not something all of us would have much to do with.

 

[leibowde84]

Do you say, what it is O.K. to wear T-shirt with "I am murder, let us all murder babies" until you kill somebody?

It cannot be illegal to wear a shirt like that. It is deserving of ridicule, but it cannot be illegal ... at least not in the United States.

 

[questfortruth]

.....
Maybe these definitions apply to your religion (and even then, the old testament at least doesn't support it very much in my opinion). But Satanists typically don't believe in these definitions.....

Those definitions: God is good, satan is evil, are objective. Hereby one can accept the Bible or deny it.

 

[Liu]

Those definitions: God is good, satan is evil, are objective. Hereby one can accept the Bible or deny it.

They are beliefs. Why would they be objective? And as other people in this thread pointed out already, there are many parts of the bible that even imply that your god isn't as good as he claims, at least not unless you consider murder good under the circumstances given there.

And in any case, most Satanists deny the bible.

 

[crossfire]

The evil god is idol, is a false god. The True God is defined as Love. The satan is defined as Hatred. Let us dance further from this Knowledge.

What does love mean? Are you showing love to satanists?
Matthew 5:43-48

Love Your Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. For He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing out of the ordinary? Don’t even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.​

 

[crossfire]

The evil god is idol, is a false god. The True God is defined as Love. The satan is defined as Hatred. Let us dance further from this Knowledge.

What does love mean? Are you showing love to satanists?
Matthew 5:43-48

Love Your Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. For He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing out of the ordinary? Don’t even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.​

A little Knowledge from the Buddha also confirms Jesus' words above:

Dhammapada 1:1-6


1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.​

So, do you want to overcome Hatred instead of having your mind overcome by Hatred?

 

[Skwim]

C'mon guys.

​

.

 

[Serpent Child]

The Church of Satan (CoS) only represents and is LaVeyan Satanism, which is simply another form of atheism.
I can argue that Satan isn't an invention of the abrahamic religions, He was worshipped as the God Creator in ancient times.
Obviously, this is not the case that the abrahamic religions or Bible invented "Satan". Knowledge of the Ancient Languages proves otherwise. Satan existed in the Sumerian East, in the form of SATYAN, which translates to Eternal Truth. The Y in many languages is an E sound, which literally makes "SATEAN" or SATAN. In the White Arabic tribes such as the Yezidis, they still worship the "Peacock named SHAITAN". SA in Egyptian means Life. SAHU is the Egyptian spiritual body of the greatest height. The Hindu Mantra of Serpent Yoga, Kundalini Yoga, is SATANAMA. In Greek, in the "Apocalypse of John", Satan is called SATANAS and not "SATAN". "SATAN" is an english-ized version of this term. in the East, we have the SANATANA DHARMA or the PATH OF TRUTH, which is the Spiritual Path of Ascention. Satanaz and Wotanaz (Odin/Wotan, the Norse God) is found to have many connections.
Theres also SATA the Serpent aka Osiris in ancient Egypt.

Even the arguement of the legitimacy of Hebrew simply is self-defeating. The Hebrews had a language stolen from Egypt. The symbols of "Ancient Hebrew" are almost entirely the same as the Egyptian engravings. They are the same. "SATAN" couldn't have resulted as an original finding either, and the jews found this either in the Middle East, or in Egypt, or in any other place.

And while the name “Shaytan” (Saytan) or “Shaitan” is the Arabic version of Satan’s name, it goes back way farther to Mesopotamia having origins in Chaldea, which is one of the areas that the Yazidis have resided for sometime. They acknowledged Enki as the Sumerian manifestation of Melek Taus, who’s also known as Shaitan (Saitan, Sheitan, Seitan); a divine being that the abrahamic religions later on denoted as the “devil”. It’s also known that at one point, the Yazidis have fled to Russia and settled in the Caucasus region. According to “The New Soviet Psychic Discoveries, A First-Hand Report on the Startling Breakthroughs in Russian Parapsychology” in Russia and the Caucasus, there was a benevolent and protective being called “Shaytan” and he was very much loved and revered. In origin, the Yazidis are an Indo-European ethnic group with very ancient roots that goes way back to India where Melek Taus (Shaitan) is worshiped as Murugan aka Sanat (anagram of Satan) Kumara, who is also thought to be an Eastern equivalent of Lucifer. In Sanskrit, one of the Indo-European languages, the name “Shaytan” or “Saytan” can be seen as an anagram of “Satyan” or “Satyen” meaning “truth” or “lord of the truth.”

 

[Brickjectivity]

I had a bit of trouble finding where he actually says this, could you please point me to the actual text? Then I could better see whether you are actually right when saying

I'm looking, but its not easy. We're looking for Jerome's records of Origen's homilies on Isaiah or one of his letters, or his commentary on Isaiah. Its going to be something preserved by Jerome that Origen wrote, and its either going to be in a library or something that has to be purchased. Anyway, I stubbornly do not think that he would have considered Satan to be a being. He's just too far back in time for that to match my model of how things happened. If he did say that Satan was a being it would be surprising to me.

I wasn't claiming so. You said that the concept of Satan as a fallen angel would be not older than Milton, and that was what seems to be wrong to me. I know I have read the name of Lucifer in medieval texts in contexts where it was clear that they meant Satan.

The personification of error is known to me. Its portrayed as a living principle that is in people. The story of how this becomes Milton's fallen angel is preposterous and sad. I attempted to look at your Wikipedia link to the poem Muspilli. I am not able to find anything in English except for the Wikipedia article, so I cannot determine much from it except that it borrows imagery.

I wasn't claiming so. You said that the concept of Satan as a fallen angel would be not older than Milton, and that was what seems to be wrong to me. I know I have read the name of Lucifer in medieval texts in contexts where it was clear that they meant Satan.

EDIT: However, if it's about the question whether they considered Satan to be an actual entity - just take a look at early medieval Credos in which newly converted renounced the devil. The way they are formulated clearly show the concept of an actual entity. There certainly are better examples, but that's the only that comes to my mind immediately.
EDIT2: Okay, the oldest extra-biblical literary text I know in which Satan appears as an entity would be the Muspilli (9th century): Muspilli - Wikipedia
There are older ones certainly, but I'm not well-versed in texts of the late antiquity.
You can still say "but that's all just metaphorical", but I doubt that normal people at that time would have considered it such.

If those people renouncing the devil thought they were renouncing a being, I am very disgusted. Its an atrocity. I consider it to still be an atrocity to whatever extent a person is made to fear an invisible, untouchable, spiteful being. I hate it in all of its forms whether it appears among Christians or among Vudun practitioners or medieval whomsoevers. All I can say is that I regret if such a thing happened.

 

[Liu]

I'm looking, but its not easy. We're looking for Jerome's records of Origen's homilies on Isaiah or one of his letters, or his commentary on Isaiah. Its going to be something preserved by Jerome that Origen wrote, and its either going to be in a library or something that has to be purchased. Anyway, I stubbornly do not think that he would have considered Satan to be a being. He's just too far back in time for that to match my model of how things happened. If he did say that Satan was a being it would be surprising to me.

Okay, thanks for searching.

The personification of error is known to me. Its portrayed as a living principle that is in people. The story of how this becomes Milton's fallen angel is preposterous and sad. I attempted to look at your Wikipedia link to the poem Muspilli. I am not able to find anything in English except for the Wikipedia article, so I cannot determine much from it except that it borrows imagery.

I have a modern German translation, but I guess that won't help you much. I'll write a summary of the relevant parts for now:
The first part of the poem is about what happens when a human dies, and says that then heavenly beings and the "following of Satan" will fight each other and the soul will go to the winner. If the demons win, the soul will go to hell "where the acient Satan lives with fire" who'll torture him.
The second part is about a fight between Elias and the Antichrist, the latter of whom would "stand on the side of the old enemy, on the side of Satan".
The third and last part is about the final judgement and includes a warning that because of this one should beware of "the devil in disguise" who would take note of all human sins and then bring them up against the human before the judgement.

Not much, and as I said, I see how one could still say it's metaphorical, but it doesn't sound very metaphorical to me. It's not exactly the fallen angel story, either, it has more of Jewish belief (i.e. Satan working for God), at least in the last part, but that doesn't change the fact that he's considered an entity there.

If those people renouncing the devil thought they were renouncing a being, I am very disgusted. Its an atrocity. I consider it to still be an atrocity to whatever extent a person is made to fear an invisible, untouchable, spiteful being. I hate it in all of its forms whether it appears among Christians or among Vudun practitioners or medieval whomsoevers. All I can say is that I regret if such a thing happened.

Well, in some renunciations he's even listed together with heathen deities (e.g. Donar, Woden and Saxnot which there are listed as devils), so...

 

[EtuMalku]

The Church of Satan (CoS) only represents and is LaVeyan Satanism, which is simply another form of atheism.
I can argue that Satan isn't an invention of the abrahamic religions, He was worshipped as the God Creator in ancient times.
Obviously, this is not the case that the abrahamic religions or Bible invented "Satan". Knowledge of the Ancient Languages proves otherwise. Satan existed in the Sumerian East, in the form of SATYAN, which translates to Eternal Truth. The Y in many languages is an E sound, which literally makes "SATEAN" or SATAN. In the White Arabic tribes such as the Yezidis, they still worship the "Peacock named SHAITAN". SA in Egyptian means Life. SAHU is the Egyptian spiritual body of the greatest height. The Hindu Mantra of Serpent Yoga, Kundalini Yoga, is SATANAMA. In Greek, in the "Apocalypse of John", Satan is called SATANAS and not "SATAN". "SATAN" is an english-ized version of this term. in the East, we have the SANATANA DHARMA or the PATH OF TRUTH, which is the Spiritual Path of Ascention. Satanaz and Wotanaz (Odin/Wotan, the Norse God) is found to have many connections.
Theres also SATA the Serpent aka Osiris in ancient Egypt.

Even the arguement of the legitimacy of Hebrew simply is self-defeating. The Hebrews had a language stolen from Egypt. The symbols of "Ancient Hebrew" are almost entirely the same as the Egyptian engravings. They are the same. "SATAN" couldn't have resulted as an original finding either, and the jews found this either in the Middle East, or in Egypt, or in any other place.

And while the name “Shaytan” (Saytan) or “Shaitan” is the Arabic version of Satan’s name, it goes back way farther to Mesopotamia having origins in Chaldea, which is one of the areas that the Yazidis have resided for sometime. They acknowledged Enki as the Sumerian manifestation of Melek Taus, who’s also known as Shaitan (Saitan, Sheitan, Seitan); a divine being that the abrahamic religions later on denoted as the “devil”. It’s also known that at one point, the Yazidis have fled to Russia and settled in the Caucasus region. According to “The New Soviet Psychic Discoveries, A First-Hand Report on the Startling Breakthroughs in Russian Parapsychology” in Russia and the Caucasus, there was a benevolent and protective being called “Shaytan” and he was very much loved and revered. In origin, the Yazidis are an Indo-European ethnic group with very ancient roots that goes way back to India where Melek Taus (Shaitan) is worshiped as Murugan aka Sanat (anagram of Satan) Kumara, who is also thought to be an Eastern equivalent of Lucifer. In Sanskrit, one of the Indo-European languages, the name “Shaytan” or “Saytan” can be seen as an anagram of “Satyan” or “Satyen” meaning “truth” or “lord of the truth.”

A cut & paste job full of misinformation, no doubt from the idiotic JoS

 

[Callisto]

In the faith realm, the satan is the personalized evil. That is definition of satan.
So, the satanists must be illegal.

The satanism does not worship the God, so it is not the Religion.

Which god? There are many.

But to your question of whether it's a religion and in terms of the US, Satanism is a recognized religion.

How any one religion or bigot wants to view other religions is strictly their own view and only relevant to themselves and their adherents.

 

[questfortruth]

They are beliefs. Why would they be objective? And as other people in this thread pointed out already, there are many parts of the bible that even imply that your god isn't as good as he claims, at least not unless you consider murder good under the circumstances given there.

And in any case, most Satanists deny the bible.

The God is the Police. Is a police evil, when it kills criminals?

 

[LuisDantas]

The God is the Police.

Not sure of what you mean by that. I don't think you mean it literally. In my direct experience, at least, those are not one and the same thing.

Is a police evil, when it kills criminals?

Actually, yes, it is.