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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.