Wow, I would completely disagree with this statement. None of the Satanists I knew particularly cared if people thought they were evil or not. In fact, they cared little what people thought of them – that was part of their modus operandi.
Machiavellians who feel the need to have a group to validate their beliefs.
“Repeat after me: I, fill in the blank, am stronger/better/smarter than the others, so my will be done. But I recognize that being kind to children and small animals will win me brownie points and keep the peasants with pitchforks from my door.”
This “religion” is not “Satanism.” It’s just a set of rules that Anton LaVey made up.
The whole thing seems like a hip, smug, “look how clever we are” charade.
Why is it that the list forbids the killing of little children and of animals but doesn’t condemn killing adults? The life of a child is not more inherently valuable than the life of an adult.
Pretentiousness is one of Anton LaVey’s “sins?” There’s nothing more pretentious than starting your own religion.
-
Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. Depends, what if they are acting delibrately stupid
-
Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. Fine enough
-
When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there. Good
-
If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. Ridiculous and excessive.
-
Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. Depends.
-
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. Good
-
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. Magic is either Satanic or otherwise doesn’t work so NO on this.
-
Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself. Good
-
Do not harm little children. Good
-
Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. Good
-
When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him. Ridiculously excessive
I’ve watched some interviews with the head of the Church of Satan Peter H. Gilmore (available in two parts; part 1 is here)[URL=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=estGvCQgg1o&feature=related”], and it is pretty interesting how down to earth the guy seems. Satanists, according to Gilmore, are atheists. They generally don’t believe in magic (despite the rule that talks about it) or anything superstitious. On the matter of the rituals and the theatrics of Black Masses, Gilmore says, effectively, “All religions are about show business. We are the only church that admits it.” It is, as BigT said before, essentially poking fun at the rituals of genuine religions.
Also, Gilmore talks about the “destroy them” phrase. The Satanic Bible is ,according to him, intended to be hyperbolic.
I think we’re all worse off by having people around who refer to their homes and apartments as their “lairs” (especially when they then have the gall to preach that pretentiousness is a sin).
Real “Satanism” doesn’t exist and never did, as some sort of organized movement; “Satanism” originates as a bugbear invented by Christianity to smear a grab-bag of beliefs it disapproved of, like the remnants of various pagan beliefs or gnosticism. No doubt some appropriated the term to fool the credulous by peddling alleged black magic, but that would be because of the currency given to the term by Christians.
There were oddball religions like the Yazidis, but these resemble the Christian or Islamic notion of “Satanism” very little.
The varieties of modern-day “Satanism” are basically whatever someone like LaVey, or others, wish to promote, using the shock-value label of “Satanism” as an attention-grabber. If he called in “LeVeyism” and omitted any mention of Satan, it would not be substantially different, but no-one would ever have heard of it …
Yes.
Relevance?
-
I think you’ll find you’re in the minority there. It’s not about logic or philosophy, it’s about instinctive emotions.
-
LaVeyan Satanism sanctions measures of harm (not specified, delineated or delimited) on persons who give provocation. The obvious assumption here – a perfectly sound one, in context – is that children should not be held to the same level of personal responsibility.
Pretentious?! Were Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Guru Nanak, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, Ivan Stang, pretentious?! LaVey has as good a claim as any of them to a genuine spiritual insight, whatever you might think of its content.
LaVey would say with some justice that his posturing was not empty and he did deliver the goods.
That made me laugh. because it’s true and humorous at the same time. I love the “peasants with pitchforks” part 
I’m having fun imagining that at meetings they like to dress up as their favorite supervillains.
- 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. Kinda woo, no? Though I can dig it in principle. Is ‘magic’ a technical term in Satanism? Or do they just go ahead and take advantage of some people’s disposition to woo?
I love how with this religion, like all others, there’s interpretation.
“Well, what does destroy mean exactly?”
I also love Curtis saying that certain rules are overly excessive whereas he’d probably say that the parts of the Bible that recommend death as the answer to a whole bunch of relatively minor offenses are metaphorical. Or something.
I’ve always thought the Satanic rules were great, and I agree with others saying they are meant to be hyperbolic and Satanists are just atheists who are a little more in-your-face about it.
Mosaic laws are NO LONGER IN EFFECT at least as regards to punishment.
Oh cool. So why even read the Old Test-
That’s handy.
Especially if, like most people, you like to wear blended fabrics, eat non-kosher foods, and fuck sheep.
Are you from New Zealand or the Falkland Islands? :rolleyes:
[quote=“AClockworkMelon, post:34, topic:556743”]
Without punishment, how can they be taken seriously at all 
Yes, I am making fun of Rand Rover 
I’ve had friends who were into LaVey, though I’ve never been there myself. I’ve read The Satanic Bible and I think it has some agreeable aspects to it, but it also has a healthy dose of pretentious, immature self-importance and silliness (the language like “lairs,” for example is a little D&D geek), and it places too much credence in “magic,” but essentially, I think it’s harmless, and the central idea has nothing to do with Devil worship (or worship of anything external), but with the “worship” (for lack of a better word) of the self as divine and the indulgence of sensual and carnal appetites as long as they don’t hurt others.
LaVey’s church does not believe in a literal Satan or God. There is a large degree of silly but non-essential magical thinking in the church (and a lot of nonsense about “enemies” who you may or not be able to “destroy” by the judicious use of “magic”), but it meets the basics of ethical responsibility in that it forbids harming innocents and even recognizes a lot of potential self-harm (such as drug addiction, for instance) as “stupid,” which is a cardinal sin to them. The church is hedonistic to a point, but not recklessly so, and not to a point where it’s hurtful to others. It’s kind of a mystified libertarianism.
I would say that the positive aspects of it are that it it encourages individualism and advocates embracing an epicurian approach to life. The message is “have fun as long as you don’t hurt anybody, but don’t take shit from anybody either.”
I agree with the above and I would say that the “Church” of Satan does a great disservice to what is essentially a very solid, modern, humanist philosophy by wrapping it up in Satanic packaging.
LaVey was apparently too kool, too much of a bad-boy, to just advocate a modern, intelligent, common-sense ethical code on its own merits; he had to make it SATANIC.
That, to me, is pretentious.
The really funny part is that from the sounds of it the Satanic church might be more ethical than the Catholic one.