You believe you have an obligation to unjust laws then? What if it is unlawful to be a Satanist, do you renounce it?
Argh! I just typed out a massively long answer the last few posts and then the hamsters ate it! Okay, truncated version as I don’t want to have to completely repeat what I just said:
Cosmic Relief, the essay I linked to made it clear the reasons for putting limits on behaviour. You seem to have interpreted “I am my own God” as “I obey no authority, I will do whatever I please” and I’ve said why that’s not the case. If you want to disagree with the terminology by all means do so but the concept is entirely rational.
WhyNot, I never said I didn’t believe in magic, just that I’ve not experienced it so can’t give you my own take on it. Magic is very central to Satanism, but it’s not given a supernatural explanation, rather it is described as supernormal (i.e. not obvious but still explainable). There is only one brand of Satanist - the rest just use the name.
Which leads me to:
FriarTed, Satanism and multi-denominational Christianity aren’t comparable in terms of claiming authenticity. Christianity has no clear founder (Jesus? Paul? Peter?), no one scripture (the bible being comprised of a variety of different writings by different people at different times, and depending on which version you’re reading may not even be the same i.e. the Catholic bible, Orthodox bible, King James bible) and consequently no-one can legitimately claim to be a true Christian - the term doesn’t really have a clear meaning.
Satanism was founded by one person in living memory and is based (on the whole) on one book written by one person that is entirely consistent and non-esoteric. Before that there was no religion called Satanism, there was merely Christian heresy and inverted Christianity where God was replaced by the devil. This website covers this nicely.
What Satanism means is clear and was set out by LeVay; because people have since attempted to come up with their own versions of Satanism and claim that its legitimate doesn’t make it so. Similarly, what makes you a Satanist is following the principles of the Satanic Bible - doing something different and claiming it’s Satanism doesn’t make it so. Had someone come before LeVay and created a religion called Satanism based on worshipping the Devil, sacrificing animals, or anything else for that matter, then you’d have a point. But they didn’t.
In terms of criminals not being Satanists, they’re not; they’re not taking responsibility for their actions. I made clear why that was the case in my reply to Autolycus why the COS and the religion shuns criminals (whether they’ve been caught or not). Again, the essay by Gilmore that I linked to above elaborates on this point.
Did LeVay recognize people outside the CoS as Satanists? You mentioned in the OP that you’re not a member of the CoS - so are you really a Satanist?
I answered that in my original answer but noticed that I didn’t put it in my second attempt - sorry.
You don’t have to belong to the COS to be a Satanist (the COS themselves say that quite clearly), and indeed you could belong to other Satanic groups and still be a Satanist. That said there is a point at which you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater: if you belong to an organisation that claims to be one comprised of Satanists but it doesn’t operate on Satanic principles or even agree with the tenets of Satanism then is it really Satanic? And, by association, are you?
So LaVey’s not down with civil disobedience, huh?
From the same Gilmore essay that Illuminatiprimus referenced above: “Satanism can’t stop people from criminal behavior. It does counsel them to be aware of laws and to advocate their reform when proper, but meanwhile to be prepared to accept the results if disobedience leads to prosecution and incarceration.”
Break the laws if you will, but blame nobody but yourself for the outcomes. Civil disobedience is perfectly Satanic if the law is un-Satanic, but if you choose that route rather than peaceful reform of the law, then you stick around and drink the hemlock. Recognizing yourself as a god, as your own redeemer, does not mean unadulterated hedonism or blind denial of any other authority. If a Satanist didn’t like the laws of the land he lived in, he would consider it his own responsibility to empower himself to reform the law, find another land w/ more agreeable laws, or face the consequences of his choices unflinchingly.
I think this conflicts more with people’s preconceptions of Satanism than it conflicts with Satanism itself.
He’s not down with a lot nowadays, what with being dead and all.
I think you’ve just hit the nail on the head.
Alright then, so I’m correct when I point out a conflict between that quote and when Illuminatiprimus said:
There aren’t the same things. The first perspective advocates taking responsibility for intentional lawbreaking; the second claims lawbreaking itself is un-Satanic.
I fail to see how Satanism is special in this regard. What group has a battle cry of “go commit crimes and then whine when you’re caught?” I don’t know of any belief system that does not believe in ‘do the crime, do the time’. Sounds a bit like grandstanding to me.
I fail to see where anyone claimed it was special. It’s merely one facet of a complicated belief system. In case you mistook repetition for emphasis, the repetition was merely because the question was repeated several times and the message was apparently not getting through. I don’t know any religions that cry “Hate thy neighbor!” or “Dishonor thy mother and father!”, etc. etc. etc. but I don’t think xtians are grandstanding by believing in those things.
And if you’ve never heard a criminal or an apologist try to mitigate someone’s criminal behavior due to ignorance, persecution, a broken home, socioeconomic background, abusive father/mother/priest/neighbor/husband/wife, etc. then I would be very surprised. A Satanist would take their lumps.
Responsibility to the responsible does not to mean you are above the law. Illumi specifically said “thinking you are above the law” and then willfully breaking it out of false pride was un-Satanic. Loss of freedom and/or carrying the albatross of a record for a meaningless crime is un-Satanic. Breaking an unjust law because you are too lazy or apathetic to work to reform it or remove yourself from beneath its umbrella is un-Satanic.
I understand the confusion, but there really is no conflict; and I’ll happily keep attempting to explain it if you will continue clarifying your questions.
Fun - mileage varies. Accurate - I won’t get into it. But “productive” seems to be the opposite of what it is. If you call yourself a Satanist, people will believe you worship Satan, and I can’t feel particularly sorry about it either. It’s what the word sounds like, and it’s what it meant (or would have meant) until LaVey took the term for his own. I can decide to call myself a pedophile because I love children, but people will believe that I rape kids and that’s pretty much it.
I think he means it is productive to the Satanists themselves. In this context it would seem that’s all that matters.
Point. This is just a peeve of mine, like how Wiccans call themselves “witches” and expect everybody to automatically understand exactly what they personally mean by that term, and completely ignore all other, commonly known, old meanings.
“Satan” predates Christianity. The Hebrew ‘Ha-Satan’ means the accuser, the one who challenged people’s faith in the book
I am well aware of this, having studied Hebrew and written an essay on the Old Testament usage and meaning of the word. It does not change my point.
erk, sorry.
“Satan” predates Christianity. The Hebrew ‘Ha-Satan’ means the accuser, the one who challenged people’s faith in the books of Job and Zachariah. The suffix “ist” also doesn’t denote a literal worship. Apologist don’t literally worship a specific apology. They engage in and believe in the practice of Apology. Ditto Satanist. Your presumptions of what Satan means, despite the total history of the word/concept, and assumptions of what Satanist means do not concern Satanist in the least.
The last thing any Satanist wants to do is attract prospects who jump to conclusions. Contempt prior to investigation will keep a man in eternal ignorance.
I’ll say again, Satan is a mascot- a concept of being the opposition or adversary of traditional Judeo-Christion dogma. I will concede that LaVey was flamboyant and sought to be intentionally shocking, and the misconception was probably calculated. Anyone nowadays though can type “Satanism” in to a search engine, and from any number of sources learn quite quickly that it is not devil-worship, just like I did.
Well then, don’t complain when people assume you worship the devil.
When I was a kid going to a very conservatively religious private academy (it eventually went full Fundie, but wasn’t quite so when I was there) Anton LaVey scared the hell out of me. He was held up as this sort of “only in America” boogey man, a Ming the Merciless lookalike wearing flamboyant Gothic capes (alright, those I envied) and with pet lions and presiding over a nebulous labyrinthine underworld empire that included celebrities and judges and senators who had pledged their souls to Satan, flying in his black jet (which we were assured he had) between his Victorian mansion, “The Black House”, in San Francisco and palatial residences and black masses the church owned all over the world.
I was in my late teens when I learned that he was basically a low rent L. Ron Hubbard, a former circus geek and con-artist and Z grade author who created a church based on his own writings and own glorification. Much later with the Internet I learned the full truth and it was almost disappointing: the closest he had to a palatial estate was “The Black House”, a run down single family house in San Francisco (later condemned - it’s only value was the real estate it was on) and most of his life was spent getting on TV whenever he possibly could and sponging off friends, followers, and most of all his elderly mom and dad (who owned “the Victorian mansion”). He was a 3rd rate provocateur who converted a willingness to play boogieman for gullible Fundies into a modest living, presided over a dysfunctional family (including a daughter who claimed he allowed her and later her son to be molested by his wealthier friends and that he savagely abused his wife and his wild animal pets). Marilyn Manson, who met him hoping that he’d find a cool old flake, dismissed him as little more than a pathetic old Goth hustling for a buck (according to one account, after meeting Marilyn Manson LaVey wouldn’t stop hitting him up for handouts; he died in near poverty).
It was almost more satisfying or at least fun in a way when I saw LaVey as a combination Bond villain and Aleister Crowley (though A.C. was himself a hustling charlatan who died penniless) or at least up there with the neighbors from Rosemary’s Baby. Instead he was just an old geek of the Fred Phelps Clan or Ann Coulter ilk who was willing to bite the heads off of doves for some money and or attention, but unable to make it pay very well (like Coulter) or even get any spotlight after a short time (like the Phelps Clan).
Ah well, there’s always the Illuminati and Freemasons to supply colorful superpowerful archvillains I suppose.
Meh, I don’t lol. Like I said, I’d just as soon 99% of people leave me the f- alone anyway, and if the label causes the ignorant to reach false conclusions which prevent them from trying to approach me, so much the better. I’m just saying they are not justified in their mistake.
I’m also a bibliophile, and if Joe Sixpack thinks that means I f*ck Bibles, and is thus afraid to strike up a conversation with me at the library…well, I regret his ignorance and his motives are wrong, but the end effect is just peachy with me. 
How does this differ from the Episcopalians? 