Caution: Satanist

[Ivy]

Well im not sure if you ever realised but the name and the fact that Satan was used as a figure head was meant to be a mockery of Judeo Christian philosophy in itself.

It was literally meant to piss of Christians because he knew, like lambs to slaughter they would follow the bait.

I did know that, actually, and it does seem a little childish. Who cares? Live your life however you like, as long as it doesn't encroach on anybody else's living of their life. Why have your guiding philosophy be a reaction to something you find repugnant?

Like MacGuffin, I really have no issues with the philosophy itself, but it does sometimes seem like a "you got a problem with that?" thing.

[MacGuffin]

Well chyeah. It's kinda "I know you are but what am I!"-ish. There's nothing impressive about shocking little old ladies who go to church twice a week.

Yeah that. It is hard to respect something that wants to be a philosophical-spit-in-the-eye to something else rather than its own system.

Lame.

[Hexis]

I will agree it does seem childish, but I suppose I feel different towards it after reading interviews and biographies on LaVey. He had his reasons to hate a despise christianity and its followers as a whole. But that is also why this philosophy has such a low following cause so many people get mixed up on the whole name thing. Not enough people know the whys or hows of the philosophy, they just know that some bald guy hated christians.

But then again feelings such as hate, revenge, and contempt are celebrated as some of the highest forms of individualism in the philosophy. Another thing that many people feel is childish or prudent but if your going to worship/follow instincts over morality or ethics then you have to be prepared to take the bad and ugly allong with the good.

[C.J.Woolf]

The fact that LaVey named it Satanism will forever seem childish. It might impress me when I was 13, not so much anymore.

Well im not sure if you ever realised but the name and the fact that Satan was used as a figure head was meant to be a mockery of Judeo Christian philosophy in itself.

It was literally meant to piss of Christians because he knew, like lambs to slaughter they would follow the bait.

(Piling on) If Judeo-Christianity was truly irrelevant to you, you'd ignore it rather than mock it.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with LaVey's Satanic Rules and what he considers to be sins, except I find him a bit too ruthless for my tastes and I think self-control is a virtue.

[Siúil a Rún]

But then again feelings such as hate, revenge, and contempt are celebrated as some of the highest forms of individualism in the philosophy. Another thing that many people feel is childish or prudent but if your going to worship/follow instincts over morality or ethics then you have to be prepared to take the bad and ugly allong with the good.

I'm not familiar with LeVey, but have some questions. How are instincts related to individualism? Creatures that are driven by instincts have more predictable behaviors. It's one reason I enjoy working with animals because their behaviors are predictable if you take the time to understand them fully enough. Couldn't the argument be made that instinctual behavior is the least individualistic? That is unless it goes against a norm, but it requires that norm in order be unique.

Also, the creation of religious structures is a natural process in human socialization isn't it? If not, then where does it come from? If humans are animals, what is the process by which you choose which behaviors are instincts and which are not? Most animals form social structures that moderate behavior, right?

I have deep respect for natural processes, including how these relate to being human. It is important imo to take a wholistic view. Instincts are part of my make-up and therefore a consideration. Reasoning and moderating personal behavior for long-term benefits is also part of my make-up and functions in my frontal lobe. This too is part of my natural self.

[Totenkindly]

Well im not sure if you ever realised but the name and the fact that Satan was used as a figure head was meant to be a mockery of Judeo Christian philosophy in itself.

It was literally meant to piss of Christians because he knew, like lambs to slaughter they would follow the bait.

Yes. I did see part of a documentary on LeVay once. He was very much a showman, seeking to create a stir and a reaction from society, which was steeped in Christian tradition. He wanted press. He wanted attention. He enjoyed it. He specifically invited press to his gatherings to get the attention he wanted.

Hence, the "Satan" in Satanism. He did have his personal philosophy, but all the symbolism was more meant to get a reaction.

[cafe]

Well im not sure if you ever realised but the name and the fact that Satan was used as a figure head was meant to be a mockery of Judeo Christian philosophy in itself.

It was literally meant to piss of Christians because he knew, like lambs to slaughter they would follow the bait.

I'm waiting too feel it . . .





Sorry, I'm not getting anything yet. You might want to try me again when I'm PMS-ing.

[SolitaryWalker]

I'm not familiar with LeVey, but have some questions. How are instincts related to individualism? Creatures that are driven by instincts have more predictable behaviors. It's one reason I enjoy working with animals because their behaviors are predictable if you take the time to understand them fully enough. Couldn't the argument be made that instinctual behavior is the least individualistic? That is unless it goes against a norm, but it requires that norm in order be unique.

Also, the creation of religious structures is a natural process in human socialization isn't it? If not, then where does it come from? If humans are animals, what is the process by which you choose which behaviors are instincts and which are not? Most animals form social structures that moderate behavior, right?

I have deep respect for natural processes, including how these relate to being human. It is important imo to take a wholistic view. Instincts are part of my make-up and therefore a consideration. Reasoning and moderating personal behavior for long-term benefits is also part of my make-up and functions in my frontal lobe. This too is part of my natural self.

I'd argue that to be an individualist is to be in control over your situation, that is the only way you can be true to yourself. And control not other people, but yourself. Exert control over your own passions and desires...instincts..etc in favor of dispassioned thought.


Satanism insists on 'letting the wolf out'...doing what your whim shall commands, thats basically tantamount to being a slave to your inner passions.

True freedom isnt only about being free from external sanctions, you also have to attain freedom from your inner self which is far more tyrannyous and imposing than any external entity could be.

[Siúil a Rún]

I'd argue that to be an individualist is to be in control over your situation, that is the only way you can be true to yourself. And control not other people, but yourself. Exert control over your own passions and desires...instincts..etc in favor of dispassioned thought...

I agree with a number of your points.

One additional thought: A key difference in other animals vs. the human animal is the way in which the individual relates to time. Many carnivores can project their thinking into the immediate future, because that is necessary in order to devise hunting strategy. Most creatures project at least slightly into the future because it is necessary for movement, hunting, escaping, etc. The less ability the animal can project into time, the more necessary instincts are to ensure long-term survival. For example, squirrels bury acorns out of instinct since they cannot analyze that in certain months there will not be food available. The same is true of the migration of birds. Humans can project a way into the future and that is why we have the ability to temper our immediate desires in the context of longer term benefits.

An INTJ friend of mine was developing a theory that moral thinking can be to a great degree analyzed in terms of short-term vs. long-term thinking. Can't say if I know it to be true, but it is interesting in concept, and there are many examples to suggest a relationship.

[Crabapple]

I will agree it does seem childish [....]But then again feelings such as hate, revenge, and contempt are celebrated as some of the highest forms of individualism in the philosophy. Another thing that many people feel is childish or prudent but if your going to worship/follow instincts over morality or ethics then you have to be prepared to take the bad and ugly allong with the good.

I would say that it seems childish in that "feelings such as hate, revenge, and contempt are celebrated...."

I also have not read LaVey, but I would agree with BW that

I'd argue that to be an individualist is to be in control over your situation, that is the only way you can be true to yourself. And control not other people, but yourself. Exert control over your own passions and desires...instincts..etc in favor of dispassioned thought.

I don't believe in dispassioned thought so much as thought well seasoned with emotion. From my POV, both are necessary. Giving in to one's instincts (I believe) is a way to self destruction. When you're an adult, who tells you no to polishing off that second pint of Hagen-Daz? You do. Who tells you not to stalk and harrass the ex-girlfriend you now hate? You do. Who tells you not to use or sell crack or meth? You do. And if you don't, you're the one that will be most sorry.

And I don't practice one of what I call the Religions of Renunciation . I don't come to this from a Christian perspective. Although I have no problem with most Christian, and admire some, I am a pagan.

Also, I would argue that All Satanism is a reaction, a defiace of Christianity. It is an offshoot from the Christian tree.