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

hi,
satanism. do you really know what it means. a satanist realizes that there is no god or devil. that the only person who controls you is you. and that you should live your life by your own rules. the left hand path is the devotion to doing ones own will and not anyone else's.
thanx
travix

Hey Travix, don't stress. If you read the article properly, you'll see that he/she/it (I am now thoroughly confused about the gender of the author) is only dealing with the mass media ideaology of Satanic abuse. It's not exactly meant to document the TRUTH, it's just talking about the side of *Satanic Ritual Abuse* that people seem to equate with Satanism. He also sets apart any reality based belief systems (such as mine and yours) from what he is talking about at the top. So don't get all het up about it.

Cheers for replying on my behalf, Saturnine

Genders... "she" if you call me Lucinda or Xanthia, "he" if you call me Martin or MyRedDice, either if you call me myre. Or substitute a gender-free pronoun (A770960) of your choice...

Yeah, I know - confusing. Don't get ...
-Lucinda

*tips a glass of absinthe towards the androgenous beast*

Ah what the heck...

Oooh, Absinthe! You do know the way to a girl's ...
-Lucinda

Tis the Devil's drink...

So Satanism and the 'left hand path' is impossible to follow. As ones own will, unless you live completely outside the boundries of society, will always be subjected to the wills of other people with greater control than you. What you eat, what you wear, even what you think. The little white box you made your comment in was designed by someone else with their own will in mind. This entire site is controlled by the will of someone other than you. The entire world you live in is owned and controlled by the will of some one other than you. All YOU and YOUR WILL have is limited choice based on the WILL of others. Unless of course 'the left hand path' is a series of bizarre attempts to exert your own will over the wills of other people.

I suspect you have black clothing tendencies and consider yourself to be an 'Individual'. I might be wrong. But It's amazing how many people consider themselves to be individuals and yet they think and act exactly like so many other individuals. You are not, nor will you ever be 'One of a kind'. You are a human being and you exist in a society made up of human beings. Even the blackest of sheep never strays too far from the herd because the wolves are watching and it is the will of the wolves that really matters. The wolves are the ones who make the rules.

The left hand path teaches us to be as free and active as we can be, but no more. It teaches us to pay as little attention to the wills of others as we can, but no less. The path takes us along the boundary of the possible, but were it to snake into impossibility, a better guide would be of use.

The fool thinks he is free and happy, the sage knows she is neither. The wise man can criticise the fool for his ignorance, but the fool cannot choose to be wise. The fool can criticise the sage for her unhappiness, but the sage cannot choose to be happy. Neiher is in a position to judge, yet judge they shall.

Be well,
MyRedDice

Why?

Because it's cheaper than being unwell?

Be well,
-myre

It is that.

Why is it people always insist on using Lavey's definition to correct any one who uses the historical defenition? The article deals with Satanism as it has been historically defined the ritualized worship of a pretenatural force of evil(yes I am aware traditional black magick has held Lavey's position of the raising of man to the level of gods but for drasticly different reasons). Lavey called his bunch satanists to get a rise out of people nothing more borrowing of the older defenition of the word to get what he wanted(if it wasn't to shock people why not call it the world wide Church of Anton Lavey or Modern Epicurianism? He wanted the reaction). Demonolaters have as much if not more of a claim to the title Satanist as Lavey did and to say other wise is PC thuggery at best.

Why is the LaVey definition more accurate than the historical?

Because before he coined the term, "Satanism" was used as a broad term by Christians to describe anything that wasn't Christian. Judiasm was Satanism, Paganism was Satanism, Islam was Satanism, Gnosticism was Satanism. It was a lazy and offensive term used by bigots to isolate people who wouldn't conform, and scare those who would.

LaVey came along, and took the definition, and made it accurate. Satan is the patron of the religion, so it only makes sense to call it Satanism.

Now stop asking.

Sorry but no. Before Lavey invented his cult the word Satanism had a proper meaning. The worship of the Judeo/Christian Satan. While this has never been as wide spread such groups have and continue to exist. Lavey's Cult doesn't properly worship Satan so calling it Satanism is not accurate. ALso given that Laveyists don't beleive in Satan calling him the patron of there philosophy is a major stretch at best. Ultamitely Lavey was a show man seeking lots of attention and calling it Satanism was a means to that end.

What the hell is PC thuggery?

OK. Why ask KevinM, if you think you already have the answer?

But I wonder, who would you ask for the accurate description of Satanism? A Satanist, who KNOWS, or a Christian who thinks he knows...

Before 1969, there was devil worshipping. Devil worshipping is not Satanism.

Sigh sorry no. Before 1969 there was satanism. After 1969 there was Satanism and the personality cult of Anton Lavey. Lavey was no more a satanist by any serious defenition of the term then Jesus Christ was. Satanism is as it has been defined for almost 2000 years the worship of Satan(or if you prefer the Hebrew HaSa'tan). An atheistic philosophy can NOT worship Satan because they don't really worship any thing. I know its in vogue to invent brand new defenitions for historical terms but I'll stick to consistency over political correctness. Lavey was a glory hound using a name to get more glory for himself. His use of the word Satan is based on weak scholarship at best as is evident if you spend five minutes with the linguistic roots of the name(Satan is not properly speaking the Hebrew word used in the Book of Job or elsewhere in the Old Testament properly it is HaSa'tan meaning The Accuser or Adversary some thing they continued into the modern language by simply capitilizing the name ie if I call some one hunter in english I mean some thing they do, if I call some one Hunter I mean a specific personal name). If you want to write new defenitions based on him go right ahead but calling the historical defenition wrong is ubsurd.

>>>" I know its in vogue to invent brand new defenitions for historical terms but I'll stick to consistency over political correctness."<<<

Shakespeare added over a hundred new words to the English language. The point of the English language is that it is a constantly evolving combination of worldwide definitions and sources. It's hardly a new concept or "en vogue". More the basis of the language you think and write and speak.

>>>"An atheistic philosophy can NOT worship Satan because they don't really worship any thing."<<<

You're right.

But, I need to ask you...where on earth did you get the idea LaVey wrote about worshipping Satan? Because the last time I looked, he wrote about the theory of your self as a god...

If Lavey had called his religion Laveyism or Googooism then you'd have a point on the Shakespeare thing. He did not use a new word he used an old word and gave it a brand new defenition to suit his need for attention. Satanism historicaly has meant the worship of the Devil. Lavey didn't do this as we both agree so quite honestly I find calling his nonsense Satanism to be foolish. If I invent a brand new cult and get it turned into a state recognized religion and call it Catholicism does that make my name the "true legitimate name" just because I say it now is? Do all the people who were Catholics by the old defenition no longer have any claim to it just because I gave it a new one? No obviously not on both counts.

You can argue Lavey has a right to call his nonsense Satanism but to argue historical Satanism isn't really satanism just because Lavey made up his own wild new defenition is absurd and really an egotistical decision. As to what distinguishes a Satanist(in the proper not Laveyite sense) from a demonolater well for one not all that fall into the catagory of demonolatry worship Satan.

Well, travix's comment is a good illustration of the dangers of critiquing an article without reading it, so I imagine his critique of my use of the word "satanist" is similarly uninformed, rather than a serious linguistic point.

"Satanism" is now a word with two meanings, like "bark". In cases of ambiguity, one needs to clarify by using phrases such as "LaVey Satanism" or "Satan-worship". 'twas ever thus. (well, since 1969, whatever).

-Xanthia