The Future of/and Satanism

reply to post by lucyfr


You seem to be confusing Antonian Satanism of the Chuch of Satan with something else.

Those rules and laws were created by Anton Szandor LeVay for his elitist group "The Church of Satan" and has nothing to do with "your spirit" or "Judaism" or anything you wrongly applied them to.

Anton was a huge atheist and the Church of Satan (the real one, the only officially registered church of Satan) is not a worship church, nor has it anything to do with Christianity, Gods, spirits, or demons (unless you count yourself as a God).

The Church of Satan preaches/teaches that there is no God but yourself, no devil but yourself. That we are alone here in the universe as far as deities and demons go. The official CoS is totally against in believing in such things, and promotes the idea of "religion being stupid, outdated and false"

In other words...your OP is incorrect and was created with no research or understanding of its meaning.

Sorry...but, you are slandering a dead man's ideas and laws and attaching them blindly to places they have never been.

I am never shocked at the number of people who rush to write about the CoS as if they know a single thing about it, as they ultimately prove they do not by attaching unrelated religious concepts to it.

Please research your material more in the future.

reply to post by lucyfr

We don't makes rules on what lives and what dies. It's there the way it is, leave it as it is, don't touch it.

Some people need rules and either lack the self-determination to apply deep thought to how to live in balance with others without being told how to do so, or are simply unwilling to do so.

It's the problem, folow my rules, no folow my rules, no no, mine, mine are better.

When the major religions first came in to being there was little law; the rest was added by men as extensions either as clarification because some couldn't see how the old laws applied in new society or simply through corruption.

Religion is the problem, not that I'm against it, it is fascinating, and one can learn from religion, find out things.
There is really only one god, creator, the rest are imposters, it created the universe, the planets, governs laws of nature and how things flow, the universal force. It's how people get tricked, they picture it and think it's some alien or who knows what, and they give in, the human is really exposed to influence.
If you don't know something for sure then it's "I don't know" because that is really the answer, we don't know for sure, we don't. Why asume we know, we may know little about it but the fact is that we don't know and can't be sure. When that happens you go with your hunch and you use your mind for a change to see what is bad and what is good. I can't picture something that tells me to live by some rules,

"if it bothers you then destroy it" to me that does not compute on the rational side and does not feel right on my left side so I can never follow that rule. I would never follow it. The only way I would is if I gave in.


Too many rules create fake identity, rules are good if you carry out a task, or if it's your job, but that is it.

Originally posted by pepsi78
"if it bothers you then destroy it" to me that does not compute on the rational side and does not feel right on my left side so I can never follow that rule. I would never follow it. The only way I would is if I gave in.

I think you are gravely misinterpreting that rule. You said yourself about flexibility and you seem to be taking the word destroy very literally.

If you live your life bothering no one, imposing your will, your rule on no one; and along comes (lets say for argument's sake) a theocratic rule of law that threatens your way of life... do you simply allow it to come to be? Or do you do what you can to stop it peacefully until peaceful means are obviously futile.

America's forefather's did very much the same. They wished England to cut the crap and when it was obvious they weren't getting through, the severed the ties between the colonies and England.

I think you are gravely misinterpreting that rule. You said yourself about flexibility and you seem to be taking the word destroy very literally.

If it's anoying just let it be, if you can't take it it's your anger giving in. Dark is no fire. Want fire turn on the light, and make it glow red. I heard of the most strange thing that your left and right were inverted.

If you live your life bothering no one, imposing your will, your rule on no one; and along comes (lets say for argument's sake) a theocratic rule of law that threatens your way of life... do you simply allow it to come to be? Or do you do what you can to stop it peacefully until peaceful means are obviously futile.

Depends, it is really the last option, if it were the last option for everybody then maybe this world would be a whole lot better. Rules like this should not even exist.

America's forefather's did very much the same. They wished England to cut the crap and when it was obvious they weren't getting through, the severed the ties between the colonies and England.

To my view the independence war is a fairy tail, just my opinion, the english rule the US. It was a smoke screen.
Not the english, better put the people that ruled everything, the royal. There is only two sides, the beast and the beauty, the snake and the pure. 3 if you find a middle line. It's children of the dark and children of the sun, same father. so why are they fighting ? he did not tell them to fight ? I guess someone else told them to.

I shall stop, you make of it what you will, I wish for humanity to make it but not like this.
If it's not worth it then it's not worth it.

reply to post by lucyfr


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

Here is my opinion for the first one, lol. #1 sounds like something you would tell a "slave" so to speak.

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

Same applies

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

Why not respect everyone, everywhere anyway?

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

I'm the king of the castle, blah blah blah

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

What's 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.

I need an example for this one

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.

Isn't magic really technology that we are not informed about?

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

ok

9. Do not harm little children.

Don't molest your own either

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

In this day and age we usually have the supermarket distributors do it for us

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

Who wrote this one? A five year old after reading a comic book?


There's my copper pennies. Heads up

It's interesting because Lilith Sinclair lived on the east coast a few years before Michael Aquino left the Church of Satan. She was in my area during high school and a Satan cult killing took place in our town. She was harrassed over the sacrifice of a youth from our school. This was one year before Aquino bonded with her on the east coast and formed "The Temple Of Set". Aquino left the Church of Satan because he opposed Anton LaVey's denial of Satan's existence.Satan became a kind of model for Christian/Satanism and or Judeo Christian concepts. One of the many rituals that took place in my hometown was originally derived from Colin De Plancey. A cause to gain power. This young man's ritual was directly tied in with Christian/Satanism in his believe that his self-scarifice would engender the protection/aid of Christian demons. In his diary the police found names of cult members who were wealthy and posed under a different organization. Not quite like your Satanic Panic of the 80's though. This was maybe a different class of people. The problem was with the newspapers. They ultimately confused "The Church Of Satan" with devil worshippers. Although I have never read the Satanic bible, it is clear to me that Aquino and Sinclair bonded with a common interest and went against the word of LaVey by adapting ancient concepts with a different modern mentality. The newspapers confused or slaughtered the Church of Satan and connected them due to the association that Aquino and Sinclair previously had. Press quotes based around confusing the identity of Satanism instead of making the distinction with Satan cults. Am I wrong?

satanists are funny, its like knowingly joining the losing team.