Are there any Satanists among us?

[BurtWorm]

Would you care to enlighten us about what you believe and how you worship?

(I'm curious because I've been listening to Roky Erickson for the last couple of days, and while I'm not sure if he's a Satanist, he certainly sings reverently about Lucifer and fire demons.)

[trotsky]

1. If both God and Satan were real, from what I know about both of them...

I'd probably rather worship Satan. Because based on the mythology, Lucifer (i.e, "Light Bringer" - how can that be bad?) was simply asking questions and pissed God off. Lucifer was the first freethinker! And of course since the victors write the history books, I think God made up all sorts of nasty stuff about him so no one would be "tempted" to think for themselves.

[BurtWorm]

2. Actually Lucifer was another name for the planet Venus

and refers specifically to the fact that it shines so brightly just before dawn, heralding the morning. The Babylonians called Venus Ishtar or Astarte. Being an alien goddess, she became considered an enemy of Jehovah. That's how Lucifer became associated with the devil in the West.

[trotsky]

7. So what are you saying?

That I can't sell my soul to Satan for a donut?

Mmmmm.... forbidden donut...

[Beetwasher]

14. LOL! I Would LOVE To Sell My Soul!!!

Any takers? I'll take just about anything for it...

As a matter of fact, I think I'll put it up for sale in the lounge right now! That oughta be fun!

[Az]

17. The trick is to buy a bunch of souls

Then due to odds and such some of them will eventually convert and then..... teehee.

[seaj11]

19. Not only that, but

the only passage in the biblical canon which "Lucifer" is mentioned was interpreted to refer to the Devil. It is now thought to refer to a Babylonian king who was loved by his people (the "light-bearer").

[bobbobbins]

3. I think the devil just has us all tricked

the bible was written by satan, and the god represented there is the devil. The devil as we know it is probably the real god, bastardized by the devils heathen bible

[moobu2]

5. You could be right

Which side has committed more evilness, God's Christians or the Devils worshipers?

The devils side would have to go on a murderous rampage for a 1,000 years to catch up.

[Vogon_Glory]

4. I Suspect Real Satanists Are In The GOP

I suspect that real Satanists are in the GOP. If I wanted to wreak misery on humanity I'd find the Republican Party and its Social Darwinist policies to be a far more useful tool than "bleeding heart liberal" Democrats.

[BurtWorm]

6. Without a doubt you'll find lots of evil in the GOP

But I'm not sure Satanism is about wishing evil on humanity. From what I understand, Satanism is an ancient form of worship--you give the devil his due in the hope he'll leave you and yours alone--practiced all over the world. It's quite possible that the only reason it has such a horrible reputation in the west is that "monotheism"'s jealous god forbids worship of others.

[Selwynn]

8. First of all, Satanism isn't "evil."

There's a big difference between cults going around doing illegal stuff in the name of "satan" and LaVeyan Satanism or other forms.

Wikipedia is awesome on this topic (it's pretty much awesome on everything)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

[Az]

10. Wow!

I just looked up Principia Discordia on wikipedia and they have it. Great googely moogely.

[Selwynn]

11. Wikipedia is like the best site on the web :D

[Az]

13. I love how it relies on the basic goodness of people

for its accumulation of knowledge. It relies on the fact that in general people are good. Being an open forum it would be easy for a generally malicious people to sabotage the work. Instead it consistantly improves.

[Selwynn]

15. While flowery and noble, that's not entirely true

Submissions are reviewed, and edited, some rejected. It is very much like Open source software.

Certainly, collaborative efforts among people are very warming to the heart and certainty give evidence to what good human beings are capable of. But it also brings out the same capacity for bad as well, as malicious people have often seriously hurt collaborative projects because of the fact that they rely on trust relationships, and people are often malicious and untrustworthy.

Wikipedia has a review committee which is responsible for filtering out the bogus or malicious additions. Articles go through a "vetting" process specifically because people often cannot be trusted. :)

[Az]

16. True enough

But I believe my point survives if not intact in essence. Wiki is the result of people who wish to be part of something good for no other reason than being part of it.

[Selwynn]

18. If it wasn't for the good people, there would be no wikipedia

So yes, I agree with the general point. All collaborative efforts persist thanks to the good work and diligence of caring people committed to some certain purpose. Humanity at its finest.

[Tux]

22. True

And gives us a voice. WikiNews had an article about Republicians lower ethics in the Senate. I changed the last sentence to refer to them as butt monkeys. I love open source.

Now, I must meditate on what I did wrong.

[BurtWorm]

12. Very interesting stuff there.

Thanks for that. :toast:

[Az]

9. I have had friends who were Satanists

But to me it just seemed too much a ego driven tweaking of orthodox religious mindsets. I have Eris and Discordianism for that. It was as if they weren't invited to the Christian club so they were going to make their own club and invert everything just to thumb their nose at those uppity Christians. Not my cup o tea.

[htuttle]

21. Historically, that's where 'classical Satanism' came from

Inverting everything in the 'Christian club', that is. The so-called black mass was an inversion of the Catholic mass.

Sort of like 'Backwards Day', but at Church.

[Az]

23. I have a different theory concerning satanic cults

In studying early Christian sects we find that the Romans had an interesting view of them. They saw the different sects as experential cults. Each attempting to commune with God through different rites and practices.

If we assume that the early Christian sects differed with the Roman Pagan sects in that they believed they could directly commune with their god rather than through an oracle then it lends some light to this situation. Each sect would enact a different kind of rite to enable the sensation of communing with God. Numerous rites are described by the Romans including drinking, drugs, physical exertion, fasting, sex, and a host of other practices. The thing is each of these can induce an altered state of mind.

Now lets further assume that one or more of these practices gained a social upperhand over the other sects. Eventually becoming the controling sect. The natural thing to do would be to demonize the other sects and their practices while enshrining their own methodology.

Of course once a heiarchy of clergy is established they have to control access to the divinity. So they restrict access to the means of communing with the god. Thus whatever substance was used is either diluted or replaced with a representation. Thus the communion is a dull echo of the means of communing with God. Interestingly other rites such as self flagelation and fasting remain within some sects.

But of the sects that were demonized their rites will become associated with evil. They will be named as communion with Satan. Even though their origins are from the same basic attempt to commune with God. A simple social powerplay reduces them to statis of corruption and evil.

[htuttle]

24. Well, that happened in many layers, over several centuries

As the Catholic Church encountered each local god in turn, it usually declared them devils or demons. This went on throughout the first half of the first millenium. Many named demons or names of the devil, such as Beelzebub (a Philistine god worshipped at Ekron), were formerly local or regional gods.

At the Council of Toledo in 447 AD, they finally nailed down the official appearance of the devil:

a large black monstrous apparition with horns on his head, cloven hooves -- or one cloven hoof -- ass's ears, hair, claws, fiery eyes, terrible teeth, an immense phallus, and a sulphurous smell.

Other than the ears, claws, teeth and smell (no doubt added for effect), it's the splitting image of the god known as Cernunnos/Herne or the 'Green Man' that was a part of European paganism at the time.

As far as the 'black mass' goes, the earliest accounts I've heard of were in the 7th century in the form of Church warnings to priests not to do it. The real heyday of the so-called black mass was probably the 17th Century during the reign of Louis XIV, when they basically became upper-class sex parties -- much like 'black masses' among Satanists today.

[seaj11]

20. Great thread! nt