Church of Satan

It's been a long time since I've glanced through the Satanic Bible, or any of LeVey's stuff, for that matter, and I'm honestly too tired to look at it right now, so I'll stick to what I know.

I look at self-preservation primarily through the life of David, as recorded in 1 and 2 Samuel (Hebrew bible, or the Old Testament). David was a temendous warrior, annointed by God and well capable of defeating his foes. If someone, such as Gloiath, threatened his people, he rose up against him. If someone attacked his family, he rode out to defend them. But when he was attacked personally, he did not defend himself. When Saul, the king who preceded him, tried to kill him, he ran away. Later, when he found the king sleeping, he cut off a corner of his robe to show that he could have killed him, but was merciful. He tried to make peace with his opressor. This was not a hollow action, either. When Saul died, he commanded all of Isreal to mourn his passing, and executed the man who claimed to have killed him. Even though Saul was a madman, David respected his authority.

1 Samuel 24:12 says "May the LORD judge between you and me. And may the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you." David relied on God to defend Him, even though God used David to defend others.

When David took up arms to avenge an insult from Nabal, his wife Abigail interceeded for him, and David blessed her, saying "Praise be to the LORD , the God of Israel, who has sent you today to meet me. May you be blessed for your good judgment and for keeping me from bloodshed this day and from avenging myself with my own hands." (1 Samuel 25:32-33)

The life of Jesus was simmilar. He defended a woman caught in adultery, who would have otherise been stoned to death, but was silent during His own trial. He restrained Peter from attacking those sent to arrest Him, even healing one of the servants Peter struck with a sword.

I'm a martial artist, so this issue comes up in my life from time to time. And even though there is a part of me that loves the notion of smashing anyone who strikes me, God has called me to a better way. I will still defend the people God has made me responsible for; if my family or friends are in danger, I can be a rather unpleasent man. But when it comes to defending myself, I trust that God will defend me, aquit me, and give me justice.

That is really a test of faith, because it files in the face of logic and reason. Many of us never see that aquittal or justice in this lifetime; the ground of many nations is stained with the blood of people who went to their deaths proclaiming that God is their savior. But Christians don't put our hope in this world, or our faith in the logic of men. We trust that God is in control, and that even when we suffer, we do so for His glory, and will be rewarded for it.

Self preservation, you see, really isn't the highest law; in the kingdom of God, it isn't a law at all. The highest law is to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, and strength, and part of that love is faith in His good character.

Really, who the hell can be bothered?

Understand, before I make my statement that I am an atheist.

I have read about Satanism and realize that it is not a bunch of goat sacrifices or ancient occult rituals.

What I don't get is, if the religion of Satanism's manifesto (or bible) is urging people to do what feels good and preserve your life, why do they really need a book of rules.

I mean the satanists in the Anton Levey vein, don't even believe in God. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to attract members if they weren't calling themselves Satanists.

I am not saying that they are stupid. The whole thing just seems self defeating to me.

Satan uses Pay Pal. For a hundred bucks you get a red embossed card that gives you rights to burn in Hell.

I don't know anything about the Church of Satan, but I'd like to go to one of their bake sales...

Would you expect any less? He is SATAN after all!

And yes, I know that LaVey was not advocating devil-worshipping cults, but rather an extreme secular humanism which raised the self to the level of godhood, yada-yada. A good way to get a lot of goth chicks, I guess.

But the question was posed, "Why call it church of Satan if you're not worshipping the devil? Isn't that counter-productive?" Near as I remember, LaVey was like a lot of people you know--he enjoyed pissing people off. And as the guys on Jackass know, there's no quicker way to piss people off than to dress up like the devil and say it's cool. Actually, I imagine LaVey and other Satanists really enjoy all the bile and invective that gets thrown their way from Christians, the death threats and God-damn-yous and all that, b/c it proves their point for them--that so-called Christians are not good and righteous and pure, but just small-minded imbeciles who are afraid to think for themselves and who react with un-Christian violence and hatred when provoked. (NOTE: That's LaVey's thinking....not (necessarily) mine... )

LaVey wasn't just pro-humanism. He was also violently anti-Christian. Hence the name of his "church."

BTW--is it true that Satanism is a recognized religion? Could Satanists be eligible for faith-based initiatives? wink

Well you just go to hell. I'm gonna come find you and kick the stuffing out of you!!!

<strong> Oh. Never mind.

<strong> If they were and they did do good things for people then they should be, but given their stance on Church taxation I'm betting they aren't.

Once again the Bible never goes against self-preservation unless it is some kind of selfishness that originates in one's mind rather then because of some actual and truthful threat.

And the Bible is all against conforming to the things of this world and against conforming to a "religious" nature.

I've always wondered where I'm going to go when I die, since I'm an agnostic. I think it's funny when Christians tell me that I'm going to Hell for not believing. Well, I don't believe in Hell, so I don't think I'll be heading that way, because it doesn't exist.

Neither do you, at that point, so anything goes, baby!

A brief suggestion, if you don't mind.

I'll start off by saying that you are, basically, right. Heaven, hell, eternity... I believe in it all, and I spend a good deal of my time writing Christian essays, and preaching from time to time.

That being said, you have to be careful about how you talk to people who don't believe as you do. I was reading a Mormon site last night, and in response to the question "How do you know that the Book of Mormon was inspired by God," the author said "If you don't believe in the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, you'd better get a spiritual revelation!"

I've heard that used of Christianity, too, and even said it myself a few times. Reading that made me realize how shallow it sounds, though. I do think that non-christians need a greater spiritual revelation, but it isn't something that I would normally tell them. Their response would probably be simmilar to my response to the Mormon: "no, you need to get your head out of the clouds."

Satan is the father of all lies, the Price of the Air, the god of this age, etc, but simply telling people this isn't enough; you need to show them, as well. Scripture mixed with every day examples is usually the best way to do this.

Remember, the point of Christian life isn't an ego trip, it's salvation. We should be helping people see our point of view, not simply telling them that this is the way it is, have fun in hell.

It's probably useless to point this out, but scripture only "proves" things to people who believe in the scripture. Showing an atheist a bible verse and saying, "See, it says here I'm right!" doesn't advance your argument to him very much, much as his pointing out the scientific validity of evolution etc. probably wouldn't shake you off your belief.

That kind of stuff only happens in Jack Chick tracts.

If I wanted to see your point of view I would repeatedly hit myself on the head with a frying pan while eating lead paint chips.

Gee thanks Dev that's just what this thread needed.

Well, it depends on the person you are talking to. For a strong atheist/agnostic, yes, scripture is not your best bet. For those people, I try to work more with scientific evidence, logic, and the like. For people that I would describe more as "searching," though, scripture can often times have a profound impact. Scripture references itself as the "sword of God," and I trust in it's power to convict and convince far more than I trust my ability to win an argument. In either case, I try to outline the Biblical position on matters, and then proceed to prove or expound as necessary.

I actually find it a good idea to go over the evidence that the Bible is God's word, but that is honestly a huge undertaking. I went through a good dozen books on the subject before I was saved, and I am planning on distilling some of the more important stuff into a series or articles for my church's web site, but it will probably take a few months to do so.

Not to derail the topic, but when it comes to evolution, I've actually got a pretty open mind. Darwin's theory, as taught in schools today, is flawed, but I do believe in some form of evolution. I also believe that it was directed by the hand of God. Evidence points more to a "stutter-step" evolution, with exponential leaps in complexity over short periods of time, than Darwin's slow, steady, and random process. In either case, the Bible tells me that God created the heavens and the Earth; if science wants to tell me How he did it, they re more than welcome to.

Heh heh.. Chick tracts. We had a guy bring some of those to the Christian group I ran back in college. It even upset a lot of the Christians. I'm sure he meant well, though. To be perfectly honest, reading some of his stuff was part of what got me questioning my catholic upbringing and flings with various forms of paganism.

I'd recommend holding your breath and spinning around really fast. You'll get the same headache with less permanent damage.

In any case, I try to focus more on people that want to hear what I have to say, or are at least interested in debating. The apostles didn't preach where they weren't welcome, and I see no reason to be different.

Edited to delete erronious apostrophe.

Yes; the Navy had a small number of CoS members and, if I remember correctly, a chaplin that attended to their funerals. And while I don't remember and CoS outreach programs, unless you count the "Nude Witches Review," if they were to start some, they could probably apply for federal funding, though I'm reasonably sure they would find a loophole around funding them.

I like the cut of your jib young man. Welcome to the boards.

I saw "CoS," and I was wondering how Scientology got involved.

My understanding was that the Church of Satan has very little to do with "Satan." As Scott explained above, it's more like secular humanism with a weird occult streak. From what I've read of the site, the official position seems pretty shaky and contradictory. On one page, it says that they more-or-less reject the dualist concept of God and Satan. On another, it refers to the "Prince of Darkness." It's really pretty silly and not very well-thought out.

I think the 11 rules are really funny, though (note rule 7, which invokes that mystical hocus pocus they sometimes claim to reject). I had these posted on my door my freshmen year of college. Favorite bits are bolded:

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

and my absolute favorite:

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Much abliged. &lt;bows gracefully&gt;

Well, I suppose it differs from member to member. At it's heart, LaVey's breed of satanism is very much rebranded humanism mixed with some serious self-indulgance, with some neo-mysticism tossed in for good measure.

I haven't really done a very serious examination of LaVey's mind, but the primary motivations for his church seem to be self gratfication and a strong reaction to what he saw as hypocacy amongst the Christians he was raised around.

Interestingly enough, I agree with him on some points, especially about hypocracy in proclaiming Christians, and I dare say that Christ Himself would have, as well. I, though, don't think that their failure to live up to Christ's ideals makes those ideals any less worthy.

He seemed to figure that, if people were going to sleep around anyway, their religion might as well reflect it. At the same time, his violent rejection of christianity lead him to adopt its most offensive symbol; the devil.

When he started all of this, I imagine he was quite serious, and probably influenced by Crowley. As time went on, though, I think he realised how silly he looked in the felt horns, and it became, as someone has mentioned, simply a way to get goth chicks.

I question how serious he was even in the beginning, at least in terms of how he felt about it as an organized belief system.

I believe LeVay had something of a carnival background, so I think it's all a bit of showmanship. He's a carny who happened to stumble upon a worthwhile scam. Even if he didn't rake in cash, as others have said, he and his Church of Satan buddies certainly scored experimental women, some of whom were quite famous, if I remember correctly.

I'm sure Jabba and maybe others will take issue with the idea that the CoS is quite harmless by pointing out that Satan wants it to LOOK that way, but it's really hard to take these shmucks seriously.

"Think for yourself! Just be sure to embrace the Dark Prince as you do so, even though we don't believe he really exists!"

How could someone be "violently anti-christian?"
I don't believe. I do find many "bible-thumping" christians to be annoying and a tad vindictive towards peoples of different thinking? I don't, however, confuse the practitioners with the faith.
I think I have quoted this before in another thread, but Ghandi said,"Christianity is a great religion, it is a shame no one follows it."

To be "violently anti-christian" sounds to me like LeVey got made fun of at church or something. It is just not worth the time to preach against christianity( as I found out this week, in a lesson I badly needed). If you don't believe in it, you should at least be able to respect it for it's contributions to philosophy.

The Church Of Satan is just one man's philosophy. One angry man who turned his anti-social behaviors into tenet's of belief, in an attempt to make money. If you want to follow the church of satan, be my guest, but to me it just seems juvenile and silly. That is just my opinion, and I have been known to be wrong.

The most famous was Jane Mansfield. (rowr) If I remember correctly, she was heavily into LaVey and his thinking when she was decapitated in that car wreck.

COINCIDENCE? eek!

wink

That's more a figure of speach than anything else; simmilar to being violently sick. I was just using it to demonstrte his extreemly negative view of Christianity. And the Ghandi quote is a part of why he had this reaction: I read one of his books in which he talked about the men who would be out trolling from women during the week, and then sitting in the pews on Sunday, claiming sainthood. The hypocracy bothered him almost as much as the rules.