I don’t really know what satanists think like, how they act towards other people; what they think happens after life; what they think of God, etc
Like any religion, there are thousands of sects of whatever that may describe themselves as satanists, unless you know of something specific you’re interested in, you’re best off looking around usenet groups or searching off google.
I’m pretty sure there are a lot less satanists than most people believe there are, no cite right now though.
DreadCthulu might be along shortly to viciously devour you… I mean, educate you.
Besides the fact that his followers tend to taste bad(too much drug use, already defiled, generally don’t live well, ect), I don’t really care about that wimp Satan or what his freakish followers do, unless they cross paths with my cultist, and thus can’t provide too much info on them. We are competitors, not friends.
I do know there is a substantial group of people who call themselves “Satanist” though their philosphy is along the lines “Do what they will” blah blah mystic junk that doesn’t work, blah blah, and they don’t actually worship Satan. Of course, this doesn’t make any sense, and anyone who calls themselves a Satanist who DOESN’t actually worship Lucifer is a total moron IMMMITYO.
Satan, Lucifer and the devil are not the same thing. This is very difficult to explain to Christians who do not read the original texts/languages.
Satan actually means “advocate” as in “the King’s Advocate”. He’s like God’s district attorney, traveling the world to check things out for God, and present offenders [cf Job 1-2, which also cites him as being among the “bene elohim” or “Sons of God”]. There’s no Biblical instance of him doing any harm, in each instance, God does does it - but the later books of the OT do frame him as less friendly to man.
The New Testament scene at Gethsemane is a little trickier to explain using English translations, but Jesus refers to his tempter as devil (“diabolos” in the original Greek text: ‘slanderer’ or deciever) in all the temptations until the final one, where he refers to him as Satan. That final temptation was to turn against God - such an offense against God would be the ‘jurisdiction’ of God’s prosecutor.
Lucifer [from “bearer of light” in Greek or Latin] is a fallen angel, and an entirely different entity.
That’s very simplified, but I think you get the idea. The fact that self-styled Satanists don’t even know what Satan is tells you a lot. You might also draw conclusions from their reliance on sacrilege according to Church traditions and dogma, much of which was completely invented centuries after any original text, and actually runs counter to the original texts. [e.g. Matt. 23 warns against the taking of religious titles, and specifically prohibits the title “Father” in verse 9, yet the Church took such titles, including “Father”]
Wikipedia has tried to define the various branches of Satanism in one of their pages. Wikipedia is nice (here, especially) because its regulars enforce what’s known as NPOV, or Neutral Point Of View: Each article is maintained largely by people who hold that no Wikipedia article should be biased in any way. Needless to say, this is fundamentally different from pages put up by ostensibly Christian groups that openly deride Satanism.
One of the main groups of semi-organized Satanism is the Church of Satan, founded by Anton Szandor LaVey. I’ll let them speak for themselves on their philosophy:
I think it’s rather overblown in style, myself, but I’m certainly not in much of a position to judge.
Of course, various groups have, at times, been accused of Satan worship by other various groups. Wiccans, Neopagans, and other groups that follow shamanist, naturist, and/or pre-Christian faiths have all been accused of Satanism or Satanic leanings, for example. Most absurdly is that atheists, who really don’t believe in anything, have been accused of Satanism. Needless to say, those who accuse others of Satanism can, at best, be thought ignorant or, at worst, be thought malicious.
There was a Straight Dope article about Satanism while ago, but the search engine is being its usual useless self, and I can’t find it.
Basically, there’s a couple different types of “Satanism.”
The people who worship the Prince of Darkness, and sacrifice babies and stuff like that, (which is probably what you’re thinking of) don’t exist outside of Hollywood and the minds of some Fundies. Maybe there are a few mentally deranged guys who try to worship evil, but there is no organized sect of such people.
There is the Chursh of Satan (mantioned above) but that’s really just another New Age “Do whatever you want” religion.
Cite, please, since this goes against most of what I know and the conclusions I came to when I wrote my paper on Satan. Marvin H. Pope has a similar theory based on a Persian secret police, but I’ve never seen any support for it. The word “Satan” itself certainly doesn’t have an original meaning of “advocate”, since its early mentions in the Old Testament all mean “adversary”, “enemy” and the like. The oldest mention (Num 22) is usually translated “obstacle” (in King James “as a Satan” was translated “to withstand thee”) but might as well mean “adversary”, but certainly not “advocate”.
Just not true. Job 1:12-19 certainly implies that the Satan is personally doing Job harm, and in Job 2:7 it’s explicitly stated.
Furthermore, Job is the only place in the Old Testament in which Satan is used as the name of a specific entity, so the later books can hardly frame him as anything at all.
Well, dyslexic santanist woship Santa…
And fashion mavens worship Satin.
Priceguy - That’s pretty much what I’ve read, too. “The satan” is not really his name, but a statement of his function. And his name comes from the root “STN” meaning “one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary.” Some scholars argue that the satan is any of a number of angels who fulfill this role.
The satan appears prominently in two OT biblical stories: the story of Job and the story of Balaam and his donkey/ass. He is most emphatically not a force opposing God. It is pretty clear in these cases that he’s on God’s side.
Satan as a force antithetical to God did not become prominent in Christianity until Zoroastrianism (who have a strong good/evil dichotomy) spread and influenced it.
I disagree with you in the latter case, actually. The word “satan” doesn’t appear with the definite article in Numbers as it does in Job. It just says that an angel is “as a satan” for Balaam. By the way, my earlier assertion that this was translated “to withstand thee” in King James was entirely erroneous; it was in fact translated “for an adversary”. I was reading the wrong verse.
And of course you know this for a fact.
:rolleyes:
If you think they’re out there, provide some reason to the rest of us.
More or less. A 1992 FBI study failed to identified a single documented case of satanic ritual murder in the US. You can read the text of the report here. While that isn’t proof that it has never happened, it is persuasive that such events are very rare to non-existant when the top law enforcement agency in the country can find no evidence that even a single occurance of satanic ritual murder (sacrificing babies or anything else) has ever occured.
Of course, if you have differing evidence, please set it forth.
Weren’t the Lacey woman and her unborn child allegedly murdered by satanists? Of course that’s close to Hollywood, so there may be a point here. Probably not. 
Satanists spend most of their time recording messages for backward record players. And, as a prerequisite, rewiring their record players to run backwards.
Proof positive that idle hands do the devil’s work.
I haven’t kept too up to date on the Peterson case, but my understanding is that Scott Peterson’s defense team has indicated they’re going to pursue a variant of the classic defense strategy “some other guy did it” which will focus on their theory that Laci Peterson (and her unborn child) were ritually murdered by Satanists. Well, maybe she was, but the case hasn’t gone to trial yet so whatever evidence his attorneys’ have (if any) has yet to be presented, and apparently the law agencies involved with the case don’t consider it a real possibility, considering that they’ve charged Scott with the murder. Personally, I’m pretty skeptical of the Satanist angle.
Priceguy:
Not true…see Zachariah 3:1-2 for at least one example that came to my mind immediately.
In any case, I do agree with you regarding the Numbers reference and the precise translation. However, “advocate” is probably not inaccurate if the term can be said to refer to an attorney of any sort (I believe it’s used as such in some countries, no?) and Satan acts as a prosecuting attorney.
Again, I wouldn’t call KP incorrect about this - while Satan does carry out the harming, it’s clear from the story that he was only allowed to do so with G-d’s permission. He’s not a free agent, he has G-d as a boss.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Just to pick a nit, 1 Chronicles 21:1 (NIV) has “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.”
Thos who like to point out inconsistencies in the Bible like to contrast this verse with 2 Samuel 24:1 which says The Lord incited David.
My point is that this verse could be construed to be a specific mention of an entity with the function “Satan”.
All the versions at http://bible.gospelcom.net/ use the word “Satan”, though the Amplied version puts in brackets “an adversary.”
Tinker
I am indeed interested in the objections raised by others, and I find fair merit in some. However, I did specifically state that this issue is very difficult to discuss reasonably using English translations, which invariably have a strong inbuilt interpretation. I do regret not emphasizing the argument that Satan is a title or role, not a name. That view was important to my post, but I didn’t explicate it.
I’ve debated this in fora where many members were familiar with the Greek and Hebrew texts, and while there is definitely much room for interpretation -and many fascinating details to debate- I feel my brief summary, as grossly simplified as it admitted it was, was about as good as I could do in so little space, for a general audience, in a forum with no foreign font support (I am not fluent in the various academic schemes for transliteration of Hebrew (etc.) to the Roman alphabet. As with Morse code: I can work myself up to speed, but I forget them quickly once the need has passed - a personal failing)
For anyone interested in beginning the study of the original texts on their own, there are numerous inexpensive CD collections, and reference websites such as this one. The last I checked (it’s been years), there were good webpages to help you with the basics of reading Hebrew characters, and untangling Greeek and Hebrew wordforms and variations. IMHO, a full Strong’s Concordance (a fundamental reference available everywhere) is priceless. It has vital tools to aid your study, such as texts, brief foreign language dictionaries of every word used in the OT and NT, and indices that list every instance where each word is used.
It’s a truly fascinating pursuit, and one that I would recommend to anyone who holds these works in reverence. Though it may seem daunting, you will be pleasantly surprised at how quickly you can raise yourself to a level where you can understand and participate in discussions with university scholars [highly recommended - but take notes and confirm what they say against the text - they are as prone as anyone to errors and comfortable slips that support their favored opinions.]