It is demonstrably false that there are no standards for 'true' or 'fake' Satanism. The Church of Satan describes their standard revolving around the philosophy (meager) set out by their founder-leader Anton LaVey. They explain that 'fake' Satanism does things which they find objectionable or at odds with the rationalist, materialist, even atheist notions preferred by present and former members of their church (sacrificing animals in pursuit of religion, for example).
"There is no one way that a Satanist is “supposed” to be. Uniqueness and creativity are encouraged here, not mindless conformity. It doesn’t matter what kind of music you like to listen to; it doesn’t make any difference whether you prefer gothic music, black metal music, classical music, old popular tunes, show tunes, or many different types of music. It doesn’t matter what style of clothes you like to wear. You don’t have to wear black, or t-shirts with “Heavy Metal” band logos, or trench coats. There is not an “official” Satanic music and style of dress, and you should beware of people who claim otherwise. What does matter is that you are a mature, sensitive, self-aware individualist who revels in the Darkness, and who wishes to align yourself with others who share your views. In this world of prefabricated, media-saturated, unoriginal drones, it is up to the Satanist to cherish, maintain, and preserve true individuality and creativity. Satan represents freedom from hypocrisy, from convenient lies, and challenges that which is presumed to be true. His image of pride, strength, and defiance, inspires us to our own strengths."
"All you have to do to be a real Satanist is start living like one. Dr. LaVey wroteThe Satanic Bible so that people could pick up a copy, read it, and know everything they need to know about Satanism and how to put it to work in their own lives. "
-- https://www.churchofsatan.com/satanic-youth-communique.php
Other quite rational standards can be brought to bear with good support. The preponderant manifestations of Satanism endorse or enshrine individualism and self-determination as essential elements of Satanisms. Granted that this observation is sound, the standard excluding as 'fake' those which SACRIFICE the autonomy or independence of its participants (subsuming them to a Satanic leader, for example -- Docile Sheep Satanism let's call it; though the worse comparable example is leader-worshipping Fascist Satanism because it holds before the convert the prospect of becoming the leader who is being worshipped) might be classed as 'frauds'.
Ultimately, also, if you just have a bunch of independents or solitaries following their own path, then it is questionable whether you actually have a religion. Religions, by and large, are group endeavours. This begins to bring up the question of whether Thelema and Satanism truly have anything more than individual proponents and participants. The question routinely arises as to whether there are any actual Satanic or Thelemic groups. Most of those who are part of groups of course answer that there are, and that they are examples, sometimes exclusively. A sizable number of solitaries, after some exposure to groups and reflection on the matter, conclude that there aren't any, and that 'Satanic group' or 'Satanic church' is actually an oxymoron.
Sign In
Does Satanism attract "failures"? | Forum
Member
Shawn
Oct 20 '15
Heh;) Your demonstration continues. Personally I've come to the conclusion that people will do anything to miss the point. Well done. Give yourself a cookie. Now, make sure to point out that LaVey was full of shit while forgetting that Stupidity is the #1 Satanic Sin. Yup, not being stupid. That's so full of shit.
Shawn
Oct 20 '15
Oh wait, forgot I was talking to numbnutz the trained monkey.
Please enjoy simply repeating "Satan encourages free thought" ad nauseum -- that's easy, and requires NO thought.
Owner
Member Troll
Oct 21 '15
Few seem capable of adequately interpreting LaVey, probably because he was speaking and writing in short-hand or was simply not interested in elaboration.
...point out that LaVey was full of shit while forgetting that Stupidity is the #1 Satanic Sin. Yup, not being stupid. That's so full of shit.
Until i was provided with an elaboration on "Stupidity is the #1 Satanic Sin" i used to simply maintain that those who were asserting that something unchangeable (stupidity) was a moral failure were in fact being stupid and therefore sinning. This served to make lots of LaVeyans and their dogmatic followers stupid. It's funny that it took going to someone else of Jewish background who was saying something similar to get me the gist of it. I figure most Satanists employing it are simply hot to call people stupid. Maybe it makes them feel smart or constitutes a kind of disinformation weirdness to make fun of those whom they think are morons by calling them Satanic Sinners. It does nothing for those who are called on it, usually, because either the person isn't a moron and the accusation is lost on them or the person is a moron and the accusation becomes itself moronic. Welcome to the Monkey House.
There is no "satanic sin" other than your blind faith in a satanic sin...
I'm sorry, Frater, but this is demonstrably false. Not only that, early Satanists detailed a whole list of Satanic Sins which i know you have seen. Just because you don't acknowledge them as such doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Now what are they, and what are they intended to achieve? That's another matter entirely. Arguably they set out some of the social divide in terms of morality or tactics. Lines were drawn by CoSatanists and these were important enough for them to call them 'sins' and publish them in their books.
Shawn
Oct 21 '15
"Now what are they, and what are they intended to achieve?"
Now that's a good question.
Member Troll
Oct 21 '15
For example, i gather that the truly dumb or stupid people were actually just ignored or set outside the church, ridiculed, or otherwise driven away.
The whole 'Stupidity is Sin' thing makes sense if you are talking about particular actions which are demonstrably stupid actions taken by otherwise smart people. Those with intelligence have no excuse for their action and therefore they may be faulted MORALLY for their inattentiveness, follies, or futility.
Therefore, Frater, i think you are mistaken and i don't think you have any basis for what you are saying here. The rational alternative is that early Satanists were themselves stupid and all sinful, which seems a bit harsh.
Shawn
Oct 21 '15
@Frater: I had decided only to address you in incrementing integers, but then you said the most amazing thing:
"The man was a businessman and I'm pretty sure he never revealed his real satanic beliefs. Satanism is originally a cult religion but I consider it to be good LaVey published Satanism despite the fact he was just a businessman."
Being a businessman is Satanic. And that's all I'm going to say about that. ;)
Anna
Oct 21 '15
The whole 'Stupidity is Sin' thing makes sense if you are talking about particular actions which are demonstrably stupid actions taken by otherwise smart people. Those with intelligence have no excuse for their action and therefore they may be faulted MORALLY for their inattentiveness, follies, or futility
I think this whole thing with Satanic Sins was a tongue in cheek just like the very name "Church of Satan" was a sort of an ironic jab at Christian Church. LaVey does away with the Christian sins and introduces instead his set of "sins." They are only sins by name, having nothing to do with morality. One could interpret them as sins against the reality. If one commits them, reality is likely to correct these sins/mistakes, which means one can suffer consequences for one's actions.
Padowan
Oct 22 '15
The Satanic Sins represent things to avoid if you are to exemplify all that is laid out in the SB as guidelines for the Satanist. If you were to 'commit' said sins you would essentially be a hypocrite and lack self awareness. Calling them sins gives them relatability to the ones entrapped by old standards of belief.
@troll
Stupidity will be revealed through a consistent and persistent choice to ignore logic and reason. Whereas you and I will realize when a refutation is sound others will outright ignore the logic, no, deny the existence of the logic itself.
The winner of this debate, unfortunately, will not be the one that demonstrates a sound argument but instead it will be the most persistent. Personally, I choose not to beat my head against walls. Good luck. ;)
The Forum post is edited by Padowan Oct 22 '15
