Whilst reading Satan Speaks I remember the chapter where The Doktor discusses what the "Satanic Trilogy" looks like and I have since decided to get it as possibly my first Satanic tattoo between my shoulder blades. But my question is, who or what make up said Trilogy? While I was researching Celtic symbols I stumbled upon a newgroup from MSN, and I noticed it claimed to have "Satanic Text" so I clicked upon it expecting to see nothing but Xtian propaganda and instead I found an honest to Satan effort to provide information about Satanism. The only problem is most of the information provided is cited as by someone from the First Church of Satan
, being that this will be just another vampire praying on the strength of LaVey's true empire in my mind unless the reply to this says otherwise, I'm rather hesitant to believe anything that was said and I've taken it all with a grain of salt. The only reason I bothered to read it at all in the first place was to see what the "Satanic Trilogy" is said to be composed of. After reading thru the redoric it says that it's made up of "Our Daemonic Progenitors" (The Father), "Man As God" (The Son), and lastly "The Dark Force" (Holy Spirit). Had this not read as if written by someone who believes in an afterlife and such but is just pissed off at "God" because he didn't get that Hungry Hungry Hippos game he wanted from Santa that one year. It talks about "daemons" and guardian beings more evolved that we sitting upon a spiritual plain. I am beginning to grasp the theories of "The Law of the Trapazoid" and travel into the fourth dimension. And although my knowledge is as of now limited, I do not recall ever reading about "Watchers" and other beings evolved beyond our human forms. Nor have I ever read a legitimate Satanic writer state that reincarnation is anything more than a nifty idea. But these ideas were every present upon this article, and my concern is that the rest of the information is tarnished. The only real issue I have about the parts of "The Satanic Trilogy" would be the "Dark Force" and only because even they make it out to sound as if we draw our energy and magic from "evil" sources, why do I have a feeling they believe they perform "white magik"? Are there any good resources that can be recomended for my discovering more about mythology of things such as "The Satanic Trilogy" and where I can learn more about The Trapazoid? Any help would be greatly appreciated, and any other recomended reading would always be helpful provided it isn't already mentioned on the Church of Satan
website. I've already been able to finish most of those in the last 11 years although enough time has passed for it to be time to re-read and remember long forgotten ideas.
Another site that was linked to off the general Satanism information page was a site about LaVey. It is rather cheaply done but there are no issues with the layout or anything. And the information although lacking in any true substance is correct from what I've seen. Linked to that is a long list of "LaVey" and "LaVeyan Satanism" websites which my time is too valuable to spend my time weeding through it for tidbits I didn't already know. But they did have part of the newspaper article about LaVey's death in 22* A.S. in which the following quote was taken.
"But his brand of satanism was not about evil or animal and child sacrifices, family members said. It was more about rational freethinking and a disdain for the hypocrisy he believed corrupted Christianity."
All and all for a series of free webpages (a vast number at the beginning don't even discuss LaVey they just link to the Church of Satan
site for parts of the "Theory and Practice" area. I would think that they would need permission to link to the site due to the fact that would fall under bandwidth thieft, but what does the Church think about people who make sites such as these? And personal feelings either way would be appreciated, I'm rather curious as to see what is thought of these attempts to make Satanism more accessable to those thirsty for knowledge and wisdom. Would I be wrong in my concern that they may post mis-information and therefore should leave promotions of The Church to those who run it unless specifically given permission to post what they do or they state that the following ideas are not
the opinions of The Church of Satan
so that those who don't know any better don't travel down a misleading path?
I thank you for your time and efforts in aiding my quest for knowledge good sirs.
P.S. Just a quick personal reflection. I noticed a bit of a trendy with both these sites and a number of Satanists found upon this board. They seem to be worshipping LaVey as more than just the man who made Satanism into a practical belief system. At times it almost seems they worship him more than themselves and believe his ideas without question refusing to find fault with him. I personally can't think of anything major I disagree with The Doktor about except panty pissing, just doesn't do it for me. But I still take any new idea he puts into my head, I tear it apart, I see how I feel about it, and then I, for better or worse, wait until at seemingly the ideal moment the opinion becomes somehow important in my life and I'm able to drawn upon my past thoughts. (I know it's the delusional-self to blame for it's sudden usefullness but regardless I always seem to use the new knowledge that I gain in my studies.) I just feel that we should honour The Black Pope for all of his glory and achievements, knowing that my happiness in this life is something I will forever be indebted to him for, as we all are, a single man was able to change the world and make the unacceptable finally acceptable to the degree it is today in modern society. But it's almost like an Xtian worshipping only Jesus and forsaking God because Jesus is both an archtype, as LaVey is to myself and many others I believe, and a "savior"; but even if these weren't fables wouldn't they be wrong to forsake their true master as in the case of the Satanist, Himself?
* - 1997 was the year 22 A.S. correct? I know that Ano Satanas began in 1966 but that was year one correct? Thank you again sirs and madams.