I feel the more information we can learn off of one another, the more we can accept and realize we are on different journeys, and perhaps get a feel of free-will and thinking due to all the many ways we choose to build our paths - Theistic, or not! Maybe, we can even learn a little something new about ourselves?
Thank you, and HAILS!
I was wondering, what personal views does everybody here (if Satanist) - believe in, concerning Satanism?I used to play a game with people once. It was called "pick the most Satanic tarot card." I think if you can make such a pick, and defend it ideologically with a straight emoji, you have at least some basis for your Satanism. Atu XV is cheating, btw. Try the Ten of Disks . . .
OP - Satanism is about challenging ones beliefs and stepping out of ones comfort zone to become the best version of oneself, looking beyond indoctrination and long held biases for what helps someone lead the most successful and enjoyable life possible. It's also about seeing the joke and laughing at ourselves and the world around when we get too serious. I always saw the Devil as a suave character and with that confidence comes someone you do not want to push around because you just know you would regret it.
I am theistic (I believe in a nameless and boundless something) but I do not see Satan as that power, but Satan as the power of the material plane, my body, and desires. Malkuth or Midgard if you will. Not quite magical but still having a unique power over the existential realm.
Two of Pentacles - balance is key.Believe it or not, I agree. Well, sort of. Even though the entirety of reality exists within a meta-balance, no single time-slice (or, more broadly, Nirmanakaya) exhibits this feature. The reason for this is rather simple and has to do with the hyper-interconnected nature of reality itself. The existence of the electron requires the existence of the positron, neither of which is an electrically "balanced" particle.
What about the Eight of Cups? It symbolizes ideas and happenings that have reached the end, or full potential, giving rise to new ideas - such as in Satanism, where we are all learning and growing with it in some ways or another? It also represents perhaps new ideas for a better change - new information or outlooks on the path? Me being a Theistic,
I was wondering, what personal views does everybody here (if Satanist) - believe in, concerning Satanism?I used to play a game with people once. It was called "pick the most Satanic tarot card." I think if you can make such a pick, and defend it ideologically with a straight emoji, you have at least some basis for your Satanism. Atu XV is cheating, btw. Try the Ten of Disks . . .
The only source to Satanism is Satan and that's why it's . . .I hope you realize the problematic nature of this statement. Substituting terms for terms, one is left with Christianity. And Satanism is NOT Christianity with different labels. Watch my video here (the one everyone keep rating #1) to see a bit of the difference.
No, Satanism isn't a reaction to Christianity but a reaction to the slave-mentality of religion in general, at least from a LaVeyan standpoint. It is also a rich magical tradition all on its own from the Goetia, Qliphoth, and certain sects of vampirism.
This is not true as stated, and depends on a conflation of two parallel, yet distinct mythologies. And this error is only due to the use of Latin as the vulgar language of the 2nd stage Catholic Church (with Greek being the first).
Lucifer predates Christianity as he is a roman god and Satan was a name given to Lucifer later in the hebrew bible...
I am trying to tell you Satan predates Lucifer so Satan cannot be the name given to Lucifer since, you know, history. Yes, the demons of Christian myth are pre-Jewish gods but Lucifer is not part of that demonized pantheon no matter what you want to believe.What are you trying to tell me? My point is just that the "demons" in the bible are all gods of ancient times and that's why it's only logic if these "demons" exists (including Satan/Lucifer) then they are gods and not angels or demons... No one knows who the founders of Satanism actually are other than those who wanted the honor for it... So, Satan is the only source to Satanism whatever we want it or not...
Satanism is defined by people's gnosis with the idea of Satan, so Satanism can, and is, defined in human terms by humans because it is not a philosophy or religion based upon prophecy, divine vision, or mystical experience, but working within nature, personal insight, and life altering results based magic (if magic is your thing). Because Anton LaVey wrote the Satanic Bible with a fluid but specific definition of the path and because it would not be a flourishing underground movement without the Satanc Bible being written, yes, Satanism is defined by humans and how the Satanist lives their lives and not by some deity.
Do you have any sort of proof besides your own lips? Historical facts for instance?
Heh and Easy EI am trying to tell you Satan predates Lucifer so Satan cannot be the name given to Lucifer since, you know, history. Yes, the demons of Christian myth are pre-Jewish gods but Lucifer is not part of that demonized pantheon no matter what you want to believe.
What are you trying to tell me? My point is just that the "demons" in the bible are all gods of ancient times and that's why it's only logic if these "demons" exists (including Satan/Lucifer) then they are gods and not angels or demons... No one knows who the founders of Satanism actually are other than those who wanted the honor for it... So, Satan is the only source to Satanism whatever we want it or not...
Satanism is defined by people's gnosis with the idea of Satan, so Satanism can, and is, defined in human terms by humans because it is not a philosophy or religion based upon prophecy, divine vision, or mystical experience, but working within nature, personal insight, and life altering results based magic (if magic is your thing).
Satan, simply, is defined by how the Satanist lives their lives and not by some deity.
'The Satanic Bible' was published in 1969 AD and is the first public manuscript written with a clear presentation of Satanism from a non-Judeo-Christian perspective from a human that claims no ties of divine gnosis from the being Satan but to define a path for the rebel and the joker in human terms.Do you have any sort of proof besides your own lips? Historical facts for instance?
SL MaGregor Mathers and Aleister Crowley translated books such as the Goetia that deal with demonic magic in the 19th century magic but they are still written through the lense of Qablistic magic which is Judeo-Christian based (yes, Crowley was a Right-Hand Path magician although a bit eccentric).
After LaVey's initial Church of Satan organizations such as the Temple of Set, Order of Nine Angles (O9A), and the Greater Church of Lucifer (still in its infant stage) emerged. Each of these organizations (their websites are easily found via Google and you can purchase their books quite easily as well on amazon.com) state that Satanism (or Setianism for the Set folk) is defined by individual experience and perception:
"Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams" Anton Szandor LaVey, the Satanic Bible, Second Satanic Statement.
"What matters is the individual developing, from their own years-long (mostly decades long) practical experience, a personal weltanschauung: that is, discovering their own individual answers to certain questions concerning themselves, life, existence, the Occult, and the nature of Reality." Anton Long on Authority, omega9alpha.wordpress.com
"The Temple of Set is an organization with one task: to provide an environment in which individuals discover, pursue, and realize their unique purpose and destiny." Patty A. Hardy IV*, High Priestess of Set, xeper.org
"There are two major criteria for being considered a true lord (or lady) of the left-hand path: deification of the self and antinomianism." Stephen E. Flowers, Lords of the Left-Hand Path
"As individuals, we are accountable for all of our actions, good and negative and must be aware of this sobering fact. There is no governing deity or invisible authority which has this responsibility over us." Michael W. Ford, Jacob No, Jeremy Crow, Hope Marie, Wisdom of Eosphoros.
In the King James version of the Bible only in Isiah 14 does it name 'Lucifer' but in the side notes it says "or day star" and all of the references do not name Satan or Lucifer. In Daniel the fall refers to stars, in Revelations it refers to a dragon, but Lucifer nor Satan are named. When it comes to the idea that Satan and Lucifer are the same that is etymologically incorrect being that 'satan' is Hebrew for adversary and 'lucifer' is Latin for light bearer.
The passage you refer to is not helping your argument because if we take the passage on face value alone it would seem that Lucifer is a failure and kind of dick because he was cut down (probably by a badass sword) because he failed his nation.
The Christian Church utilized, and continues to utilize, the term Satanist as derogatory towards others not of their faith whether it is a Jew, Pagan, Buddhist or fellow Christian from a different sect. If that is the Satanism you are clinging to, fine, but your argument insists Satanism is a path towards enlightenment - which is laid out by modern authors and fellow Satanists not what the Vatican would term a Satanist.
I'm not sure what you're asking.
Are you asking me what I believe in, simply because I'm a Satanist? (If so, nothing. Satanism doesn't require that you 'believe in' anything. There's no 'adherents'.)
Or are you asking me what beliefs I have about Satanism itself? That would be a fun question but since it's a long one so I'll only answer it if that's what was asked.
Or... something else?
The idea that the Earth is round is a dogma if you never take the time to verify it first hand yourself.
"No, science is not dogma."
That itself is a dogmatic statement, if you don't **verify it through first hand experience yourself.**
Seriously, what practical first-hand research have you done to verify that the Earth is round? Unless you're into amateur astronomy, I'd say absolutely none. Otherwise, you've been told and swallowed it whole without question.
Whether or not it's true has no bearing on whether or not it's dogma. Only that you accept it as the truth without question. In doing that, you're really allowing some kind of authority to think for you -- whether that's 'god' or the discovery channel doesn't matter.
There are NO exceptions to the useful cliche "Question everything."
