h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Um sorry but you have it backwards. Lavey and his silly cult are the frauds the black magicians are the satanists. The word has meant the worship of evil for nearly 2000 years why should some former lion tamer trying to get laid be entitled to rewrite history to suit his ego?

Dude. Educate yourself.

RTFM.

They are available quite freely at any store, or if that fails, on the net.

And if you don't get it, leave the subject alone.

My recent post on the topic - F29394?thread=116357&post=4853481#p4853481

*goes to practice Black Mass and cast her wicked spells against those who did her wrong*



btw - He did get laid. Are you jealous?

You're still not getting it. Satanists are people who worship the devil. Did Lavey worship the Judeo Christian Devil? Did he worship any spiritual being? No he borrowed the term to shock people while he rejected all forms of religion including true satanism. Calling him a Satanist is a mistake to be a satanist you first actually have to beleive in a real distinct spiritual being. Just becuase he invented a brand new defenition for the word doesn't entitle him to hold any cornerstone on the meaning.

No, I think you are the one that doesn't understand.

I know about Satanism, because I am a Satanist.

Those that worship the devil are DEVIL WORSHIPPERS.

A religion is all about the god, or in this case, the patron it holds up as an example. Christians are more Christ-like, and Buddhists are more...Buddha like.

Satan is an individual rebel figure. He was owned and answered to no one, he had no god but himself. Therefore, for a Satanist to believe in a god besides himself, to believe in any kind of monotheistic figure, would make him a Devil Worshipper. Not a Satanist. A Satanist is Satan : out there on their own. A Christian is Christ - below a god.

Understand now?

I'm well aware of the retoric but its still wrong. Satanism the worshipi of Satan not the elevation of the self(or degredation I guess depending on point of view) to the level of Satan. Satan was a single specific figure he is The Enemy(the proper translation of his Hebrew name) not enemies.

>>>"I'm well aware of the retoric but its still wrong. Satanism the worshipi of Satan not the elevation of the self(or degredation I guess depending on point of view) to the level of Satan."<<<

Exactly how do you come to this conclusion that it's wrong? By what authority? Especially when I've demonstrated my POV quite eloquently, I think.

>>>"Satan was a single specific figure he is The Enemy(the proper translation of his Hebrew name) not enemies."<<<

Satan (Hebrew) - adversary, opposite, accuser.

Not necessarily "enemy" - he is a figure that is present in all known cultures.

You seem to be caught up in the idea that because it's not tradition, or what you expect, it must be wrong. Shakespeare added hundreds of words to the English language. Why are you so against new ideas and creations?

Where do I get my defenition of the term? Simple did Anton Lavey coin the word Satanism? No its been around hundreds of years. Prior to Anton Lavey how was it used? As another word for Devil Worship not a word for an epicurian philosophy. Lavey didn't invent a new word he borrowed an old word and invented a new defenition. I object to saying that the historical defenition is inferior to the johnny come lately one as this aritcle did. Lets be honest he didn't do so for some philisophical reason. He did so to annoy Christians and to shock people. He wanted to get laid and he wanted lots of attention. I may find his ideology foolish and contradictory but I'll grant you he got what he wanted in spades.

Also the Hebrew NAME of Satan is in point of fact HaSa'tan. In Hebrew this translates The Enemy or The Advessary. It denotes a single specific entity not a broad group. When they translated it they simplified it to Satan instead of the Satan since in English capitilizing the first letter connotates a specific name. You are right that the idea of pretenatural evil predates Judaism(or any religion for that matter) as does the worship of that evil. The idea of elevating yourself to deity level has also always been a precept of the left hand path. Lavey's interpritation of it as Satan being a metaphor for the baser human nature as opposed to an objectively existing independent force is largely his own invention.

The use of satan as "adversary" is actually a hebrew LEGAL term, used to indicate either the prosecution or defence counsel (I forget which). In that sense, it is perfectly sensible for the word to be applied to Lucifer, who was cast out of heaven for the sin of Pride.

That would be Lucifer Morningstar, the most perfect of God's creations...assuming you remember Genesis. If he's being called Satan these days it's because he's "the satan", or the leader of the opposition party.

You're still not quite grasping this. While satan in Hebrew does mean what you say. The Hebrew in Job and the other places that reffer to him call him HaSa'tan. Not a satan but The Satan. The Accuser of man not an accuser of man.

As for Lucifer thats largely a Christian designation. In older Hebrew texts the chief fallen angel would be Sammael. Who fell not because of the sin of pride but for the sin of lust.

This turns out to be the case. Thanks for the correction.

Didn't the Hebrew faith in one god also demonize former gods that the jews had followed prior to Moses? Wasn't Baal one of them? I'm pretty sure that name turns up in a medieval list of demonic names.

Also - do you see a corelation between satan (in whatever form) and the gnostic heretic's Rex Mundi?

Yes Judaism did to some extent demonize other gods(although not nearly to the extent Christianity did and Baal is one of those deities. Other religions do have there own conception of demons(although they use different words like dybbuk, shedim, oni, rahaska) as well as a belief in people who serve these beings.

As far as Rex Mundi from the gnostic and cathar heresy(thanks on that count didn't know Mundi was the name the gnostics used as well) and his relationship to Satan I have to agree to a point. To the best of my understanding the heresies were expanding the Judeo-Christian role of Satan giving him considerably greater power then ever before. It's based to some extent on interpritations of the New Testament(which calls Satan god of this world and prince of this age) but probably can primarily be traced to contact between the early church and the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism.

Rex Mundi - King of the World.

As far as I remember, and it's a while since I had to think about the Cathars, they believed that Rex Mundi made the world and that God wasn't so much a creator as a Divine Source of all that's good. To grow closer to him was to spurn material posessions and the trappings of the world, which were a product of god's enemy. Sort of the "We're already in Hell and our lives are a search for redemption" deal. I think that one of the reasons they got in so much trouble was over their assertion that all the things of this world are products of Rex Mundi, including the Church. Pretty much a certain way to annoy Rome, that.

Cathars were whats called dualism. They held that two Gods exist one the good moral God Christians beleive in, the other evil and corrupt. They believed that both are responsible for the creation of our world the God of the NT creating souls and all other things of a spiritual nature while Rex Mundi the evil God represented(according to them) in the Old Testament created the physical world. The idea that the material should be rejected in favor of a spiritual life isn't really what got them in hot water(the franciscans among others believed the same). What did was partly trying to tell the Catholic church to forsake its vast wealth, and partly there rejection of traditional Christianity. They believed Jesus was a purely spiritual being and that as such he could not possibly have died on the cross. This gets more and more muddled combined with there fascination with Easter and a number of rumors that suggested they possessed some great treasure possibly even the Grail itself(many "historians" have used this and a lot of other wild speculation to form the absurd theory that the Grail was in fact the blood line of Christ).

Ah yes, the Grail...wasn't that entangled with the whole Renne-de-Chartres enigma? And the Templars?

Ever read "the holy grail and the holy blood"?

Not in its entirety but I'm familiar with the fantasy it promotes.

so (to refer back a bit) what is the formal, proper name for self-ism?

I'd call it Laveyism personally. If you wanted to be more technical I guess you could call it Hedonism(in the most extreme forms) or epicurianism(in the form Lavey himself taught).

Hello, and now with the preamble of greetings out of the way - let me correct some misconceptions that are prevalent within society as a whole.

1) Satan (or whatever particular Name (depending on the culture/religion one happens to be examining at the time)) is of the Spirit of Darkness.

2) Lucifer is of the Spirit of Light - these are two separate identities.

When evoking/invoking (as the case may be) 'Satan', it is through the Left Hand Path that this is done, for Lucifer the correct pathway is the Right Hand Path.

This is indicated in the Triangle, both paths should be understood as 'vectors' originating from (LORD). These Paths are not 'opposites' as grossly misunderstood by the vast majority of Society (as in 'good' and 'evil', 'evil' being the active or passive 'denial' of Absolute Authority (LORD).)

Both paths are viable according to this precept, those that are of the Redeemed Light have chosen that Path in accordance to personal choice.
Likewise for those of the Darkness.

It is the scum that have rejected (in effect both Paths) that are caught in this most elegant and perfect trap.

Regards, and hope that this is of interest and use - from a very long term practioner in both Paths.

Is it a cult?