Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#382189 - 05/22/09 04:32 AM Origins of Satanism
Atralux Lucis Offline


Registered: 05/21/09
Posts: 35
Loc: Australia
Possibly one of the most annoying and frustrating things I must suffer under scrutiny is the claim that Lavey's Satanism isnt 'true' (not I say the word with disgust for that word is not in my good books any more) satanism in the sense that it does not worship the devil.

My question is, were the original satanists (La Voisin and others that performed black masses etc.) actually practice the animal sacrifice, baby fat candles, virgin killing, and genuine belief in the christian devil as people believe is the origins of satanism.
I make the argument that these original satanists were making a stand against the church rather than turning to the other side, and that any belief was the belief of freedom and that the devil was the symbol of that freedom (as we have with modern satanism).
The modern theists i think were heavily influenced buy the christian propaganda and followed those stories and then enforced those disgusting acts of animal sacrifice and the like that has given satanism a bad name.

Basically, were the original Satanists genuine or were they simply a few sects of devil worshipers?
_________________________
Lascivian Atralux Lucis

It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful.- Anton Szandor LaVey

Top
#382201 - 05/22/09 05:50 AM Re: Origins of Satanism [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Happy Birthday verszou Offline



Registered: 09/05/07
Posts: 1814
Loc: Denmark
I'd say that those you mention sounds like christian heretics, devil worshippers or what other labels they may use, not Satanists.

There are some people who predate Church of Satan who are recognized by some members as de facto Satanists, Benjamin Franklin for instance is often mentioned.

A good test would be to measure these historical persons and see how well they applied the Satanic rules of the earth and other dogma to their own lives - if you compare them, do they fit the bill or not?
_________________________
While having never invented a sin, I'm trying to perfect several.

Top
#382207 - 05/22/09 06:15 AM Re: Origins of Satanism [Re: verszou]
Atralux Lucis Offline


Registered: 05/21/09
Posts: 35
Loc: Australia
But then, La Voisin for example was mentioned often by LaVey, and he also made referance to other historical figures (commonly thought of a satanists) did they have a belief in satan or rather a belief by default as a rejection of christianity
_________________________
Lascivian Atralux Lucis

It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful.- Anton Szandor LaVey

Top
#382208 - 05/22/09 06:24 AM Re: Origins of Satanism [Re: Atralux Lucis]
TraceLines Offline


Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 58
Loc: Upstate South Carolina, USA
I think verszou is telling you to determine their theistic beliefs yourself via whatever means. Then, when you determine, make the decision yourself if they were LaVeyan Satanists.

Note to those that jump on the 'LaVeyan Satanism' trip: 'LaVeyan' used as a clarification of meaning, not as a point of proper nomenclature.


Edited by TraceLines (05/22/09 06:27 AM)
_________________________
Too much zeal clouds judgment.

Lack of zeal results in doing nothing worth judging.

Top
#382210 - 05/22/09 06:28 AM Re: Origins of Satanism [Re: TraceLines]
Atralux Lucis Offline


Registered: 05/21/09
Posts: 35
Loc: Australia
Well seems reasonable enough but then how does one duspute the issue of 'true' satanism.
Poeple claim that theitic satanism is the only 'true' satanism and laveyan is simply rubbish.
I disagree with this and my point was can we argue that the original satanists were not devil worshippers but closer to us than them.

Also most of these figures are considerably shady so finding reliable info would be quite a difficult task.
_________________________
Lascivian Atralux Lucis

It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful.- Anton Szandor LaVey

Top
#382211 - 05/22/09 06:42 AM Re: Origins of Satanism [Re: Atralux Lucis]
TraceLines Offline


Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 58
Loc: Upstate South Carolina, USA
Then you aren't asking if they're LaVeyan, you're asking if they're theistic Satanists. That is a matter of historical fact. If you want to argue the point of what is 'true', or not, then it really depends on your viewpoint and perspective.

To a LaVeyan (again, for clarifications, not nomenclature), a 'true' Satanist is one that follows the worldview laid out in his books. To a theistic Satanist, worshiping the devil would be a 'true' Satanist.
_________________________
Too much zeal clouds judgment.

Lack of zeal results in doing nothing worth judging.

Top
#382212 - 05/22/09 06:46 AM Re: Origins of Satanism [Re: Atralux Lucis]
MagdaGraham Offline
CoS Priestess

Registered: 06/23/04
Posts: 13369
Loc: Scotland
Quote:
It's a shame stupidity is painful- Anton Szandor LaVey


Try again.
_________________________
We are the makers of manners. (Shakespeare)

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=3

Top
#382213 - 05/22/09 06:53 AM Re: Origins of Satanism [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Ygraine Offline

CoS Magistra

Registered: 07/11/01
Posts: 2851
Loc: Florida
Well, hello there Atralux Lucis. You certainly hit the ground running, here! I am going to assume your enthusiasm is such that you've made a few etiquette mistakes, easily fixed, but that you are sincere and genuinely want to take part in this forum for some time to come.

I understand. Many are so relieved at finding this place that they just go completely over-board in trying to make their/find their place here.

So...before I entertain your question, I am going to suggest you re-read the board rules. Consider this---if Satanism is dogmatic enough to have a literal bible, The Satanic Bible, then it is probably right to assume that those who run this board are equally dogmatic about the rules and regs for participating. Knowing and following the board rules goes miles in terms of making a lasting positive impression.

Should you accidentally violate the rules, such as answering in the hierarchy only section, do not take the correction personally or respond negatively---least of all in that thread! Accept your mistake and move on to more promising topics.

Finally, what I tell most newcomers here, read more than write.

Now, in a previous post you wrote:
Quote:
I found that the 'rules' were more of guidelines. They arent set in stone to follow but are basically advice Lavey would have seen to improve your own quality and not make others around have to suffer you.

Following them in such a fashion to continuously apologize for breaking one sort of lowers oneself into following rules as strictly as those of the church would.
I agree with many of Lavey's rules, guidelines, etc. but not all and I dont follow them all without exception nor apologize for breaking one."


I have to say, I would hardly title something "Rules of the Earth" or write a bible, or form a church, or label certain things sins if I felt they were merely guidelines.

Obviously, as we here represent LaVey's church, we have to accept these rules as rules. We are unlikely to show up at various doorsteps to inquire if our rules are being followed, but we are unlikely to allow posts or demonstrations of non-Satanic behavior (as evidenced by BREAKING said rules) to remain here. That would be silly.

No one here is looking for apologies, just so you know. Nor would there ever be a need for one if you simply follow the rules here and don't go flag waving regarding one's you don't necessarily follow to the letter. The surveillance system is down for the time being.

Also:

Quote:
I read the Diabolicon by some Aquino fellow which details an interpretation in Statement for of the Seraphic wars (God vs Lucifer) and then the creation of hell, mankind and other things."


We avoid granting those who attempt to make a living off Dr. LaVey's work, without appropriate grace and compensation, any attention at all. You may be unaware of this, and that is understandable, but the fellow you mention is not one we wish to promote. Please take no offense when I edit that post.

Quote:
Possibly one of the most annoying and frustrating things I must suffer under scrutiny is the claim that Lavey's Satanism isnt 'true' (not I say the word with disgust for that word is not in my good books any more) satanism in the sense that it does not worship the devil.


Right!!!??!! 'just pisses us off no end. It is annoying when it comes from pseudo-intellectual Christians, but it makes one want to vomit when it comes from what we have started to label "Sataniflipparoos," or "flipparoos for short.

A flipparoo, simply, is a Christian Heretical Devil Worshiper. He may call himself a Spiritual, Traditional. Literal, or some other form of Satanist, but he isn't. 'just a Christian with an identity issue.

Quote:
My question is, were the original satanists (La Voisin and others that performed black masses etc.) actually practice the animal sacrifice, baby fat candles, virgin killing, and genuine belief in the christian devil as people believe is the origins of satanism.


There is nothing new under the sun, and all religions, Satanism included, borrow themes, words, ideas, and symbols from what has come before them. That, however, does not mean that what these heretics were practicing was Satanism. Everything they are alleged to have done would have been in direct opposition, but obviously in the belief of, the Christian Church. The fact that we did not borrow the things most linked with Christianity (any form of sacrifice, literal worship) plainly demonstrates our differences more than what we share.

Quote:
I make the argument that these original satanists were making a stand against the church rather than turning to the other side, and that any belief was the belief of freedom and that the devil was the symbol of that freedom (as we have with modern satanism).


Interesting argument and not without merit---the freedom bit, I mean. I would disagree as obviously I cannot view those people as Satanists which makes, for me, the argument moot.

See---rules have to be shared and agreed with. Ideas do not.

Quote:
The modern theists i think were heavily influenced buy the christian propaganda and followed those stories and then enforced those disgusting acts of animal sacrifice and the like that has given satanism a bad name.

Basically, were the original Satanists genuine or were they simply a few sects of devil worshipers?


Agreed regarding the flipparoos. More though is I think they NEED to bow, to serve, to relinquish responsibility so they need a literal deity. The freedom that comes with Satanism, the freedom of self-divinity through personal responsibility, demands far too much for these emotional weaklings.

I'm gonna go with devil worshipers who provided a multitude of thematic assets, symbols, and information that fed into the creation of true Satanism.

Y~


Edited by Ygraine (05/22/09 07:01 AM)
Edit Reason: silly me
_________________________
Magistra, Church of Satan/
Autocrat of the Damned





http://magistrayrainetwo.blogspot.com/

Top
#382224 - 05/22/09 08:50 AM Why complicate it? [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Danny Mc. Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 2146
Loc: Taxationland
What is the one thing theists need? A dulistic adversary maybe?
Why? To fill the pews and coffers(to keep them in business).
Would it not stand to reason that theists would endorse these evil doers? To strike fear in their spiritually needy congregations.

Now examine the Nine Satanic Statements. Is it not clear? I as a Satanist reject spiritualism. I could care less for god or his evil counterpart. The only concern I have is REALITY. And it's beautiful indeed! wink
_________________________
"To be born into this world a sentient, self-conscious and reasoning being, surrounded by inexhaustible glories in Nature, which we may comprehend, possess,enjoy; to be able to rise on the wings of a lofty imagination; to be able to get glimpses of the ideally perfect; to apprehend the Divine; it is to the development and enjoyment of these high powers that the young man is invited. How dare he refuse to qualify himself by the most perfect training of all his powers." Lyman J. Gage 1910


"Follow Me!", John M. (Delta).

"I've learned that you shouldn't compare yourself to others - they are more screwed up than you think." Something Magistra Isabel posted. laugh

Top
#382226 - 05/22/09 09:02 AM Re: Why complicate it? [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Svengali Offline
CoS Magister

Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 12460
Loc: Florida, U.S.A.
Dr. LaVey is VERY clear on the place of Lavoisin etc. in relation to REAL Satanism. It is in THE SATANIC BIBLE in the chapter on The Black Mass.

Most people who claim to have actually read THE SATANIC BIBLE seem to have only looked at it for awhile lost in their own thoughts.
_________________________
Live and Let Die.
"If I have to choose between defending the wolf or the dog, I choose the wolf, especially when he is bleeding." -- Jaques Verges
"I may have my faults, but being wrong ain't one of them." -- Jimmy Hoffa
"As for wars, well, there's only been 268 years out of the last 3421 in which there were no wars. So war, too, is in the normal course of events." -- Will Durant.
"Satanism is the worship of life, not a hypocritical, whitewashed vision of life, but life as it really is." -- Anton Szandor LaVey
A membership ticket in this party does not confer genius on the holder. -- Benito Mussolini
MY BOOK: ESSAYS IN SATANISM | MY BLOG: COSMODROMIUM | Deep Satanism Blog

Top
#382228 - 05/22/09 09:07 AM Re: Origins of Satanism [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Happy Birthday verszou Offline



Registered: 09/05/07
Posts: 1814
Loc: Denmark
Originally Posted By: Atralux Lucis
Well seems reasonable enough but then how does one duspute the issue of 'true' satanism.
Poeple claim that theitic satanism is the only 'true' satanism and laveyan is simply rubbish.
I disagree with this and my point was can we argue that the original satanists were not devil worshippers but closer to us than them.

Also most of these figures are considerably shady so finding reliable info would be quite a difficult task.


I think you may be right there - but then again, if that is what you want, then the task you have chosen for youself is a hard one.

It really depends on how deeply you want to know. In my view one should examine the reasons first, i.e. why is it important to you to argue against these people? Would you feel better for refuting the claim of 'true' Satanism from a theistic satanist? Would you think it made any difference?

Don't get me wrong, I do understand if your sense of justice or what you may call it compels you to speak out against them. But if they are christian heretics, then arguing against them may very well make as much sense as arguing against other 'true believers'. It is worth pointing out if they claim things that are factually wrong about CoS, but it may not be worth your time to try to convince them one way or another about things that went before.

Just my personal point of view - the CoS have some very capable active members dealing with the theistic satanists, like Magistra Ygraine, she obviously has more knowledge and experience on this matter than I do. I recommend her writings elsewhere on the net if you are interested in the subject.
_________________________
While having never invented a sin, I'm trying to perfect several.

Top
#382256 - 05/22/09 11:38 AM Re: Why complicate it? [Re: Svengali]
Azathoth Offline


Registered: 03/10/09
Posts: 152
Originally Posted By: Svengali
Most people who claim to have actually read THE SATANIC BIBLE seem to have only looked at it for awhile lost in their own thoughts.


Judging from the reviews on Amazon.com, I think that's true of every book.
_________________________
"I don't know how masochism became synonymous with masculinity."- Rev. Bill M.

Top
#382257 - 05/22/09 11:45 AM Re: Origins of Satanism [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Azathoth Offline


Registered: 03/10/09
Posts: 152
Originally Posted By: Atralux Lucis
Well seems reasonable enough but then how does one duspute the issue of 'true' satanism.


You don't.

I couldn't care less if I'm practicing "true" Satanism or not (beyond the standards of the Church of Satan, of course, which I find reasonable.) I'm practicing a rational philosophy that I love. I wouldn't want to practice any other, even if by some mumbo jumbo they could prove to be "the true Satanism." This is the best general philosophy of life I've found and that's all that matters to me.

You're mixing up the symbol with the ideas. If this religion contained no mention of Satan in it, I would still practice it because it makes the most sense.

What do you get from debating others? I don't think you get a commission for converting idiots.
_________________________
"I don't know how masochism became synonymous with masculinity."- Rev. Bill M.

Top
#382263 - 05/22/09 12:19 PM Re: Origins of Satanism [Re: Azathoth]
Svengali Offline
CoS Magister

Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 12460
Loc: Florida, U.S.A.
Originally Posted By: Azathoth
Originally Posted By: Svengali
Most people who claim to have actually read THE SATANIC BIBLE seem to have only looked at it for awhile lost in their own thoughts.


Judging from the reviews on Amazon.com, I think that's true of every book.



Judging from some of the "conversations" that happen up here in the public forum, I'd say its true of about 90-99% of the participants.
_________________________
Live and Let Die.
"If I have to choose between defending the wolf or the dog, I choose the wolf, especially when he is bleeding." -- Jaques Verges
"I may have my faults, but being wrong ain't one of them." -- Jimmy Hoffa
"As for wars, well, there's only been 268 years out of the last 3421 in which there were no wars. So war, too, is in the normal course of events." -- Will Durant.
"Satanism is the worship of life, not a hypocritical, whitewashed vision of life, but life as it really is." -- Anton Szandor LaVey
A membership ticket in this party does not confer genius on the holder. -- Benito Mussolini
MY BOOK: ESSAYS IN SATANISM | MY BLOG: COSMODROMIUM | Deep Satanism Blog

Top
#382264 - 05/22/09 12:39 PM Re: Origins of Satanism [Re: Svengali]
Fnord Offline


Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 215
Loc: Texas
The reading part is deceptively simple... it's perhaps the application part that freaks people out. There is great power in that little tome. It's different (to most) in the way that the little questions it generates require inward reflection rather than outward discussion.

My impression anyway.


By the by... to the original poster:
Please take a look at your signature. The irony is exquisite.


Edited by Fnord (05/22/09 12:41 PM)

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >


Forum Stats
13309 Members
73 Forums
44545 Topics
407990 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 04:49 AM
Advertisements

hold