-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Your Satanism a Form of Anti-Chritianism?
- Thread starter EtuMalku
- Start date
Aštra’el
Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
No, my “satanism” is not anti-Christian at all. It is something I have created to utilize and manage certain aspects of my human nature, and to enhance my Weltanschauung. It is a tool. A weapon. And it is one of many.
Also... I would never say I “follow” a satanic path. I do not. I create them.
Also... I would never say I “follow” a satanic path. I do not. I create them.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Even though I don't use the word to describe myself much anymore, I could still be called a Satanist. It's not real important what others or myself call it. I like the word diabolist. It's got a ring to it. Still, don't matter. 
I often use adversarial or seemingly antagonistic terminology, i.e. Satan, Devil, demons, etc. I honestly don't have energy or time for anti-christianity. I have better ideas to pursue.
I often use adversarial or seemingly antagonistic terminology, i.e. Satan, Devil, demons, etc. I honestly don't have energy or time for anti-christianity. I have better ideas to pursue.
Lazy Old Devil
Member
I'd say that, at least initially, anti-Christian sentiment is naturally part of the appeal of Satanism. If that was ALL there was to it, then one may as well just be a militant atheist, but some degree of disdain towards the Abrahamic religions still simmers in the background, even if it's not necessarily a big deal on a day to day basis.
I wouldn't classify Satanism to be "Anti-Christian." But I would classify Satanism to be the well known practice in the West that not only challenges and questions Christianity, but challenges the status quo that society of the herd has placed. It is that pure form that unlocks the truth that has been blinded in man. Once man embraces Satanism by his own choosing, he is discovering the truth within his own self. His own Black Flame is burning strongly.
Their are naturally many levels in Satanism that changes the individual self, if that individual chooses to Xeper and Remanifest. You often however probably have these few individuals who haven't chosen to pursue this self directed self evolution. Many of us have, some of us are still on the Satanic path and have evolved, and some of us have evolved outside of Satanism, but still carry these Satanic Principles.
Last edited:
As far as Anti-Christianity goes, I would say I completely detest the Christian cult and it's influence of it's "morality" within the self. As far as the people that adhere to any conventional institution (Christianity), I don't have a problem with them, so long as they zip their faiths in their pants. I do have a problem with those who try to bring up faith with me, when I encounter them (evangelicals).
To really answer the question, I tend to think so. If the sole purpose of Satanism is to point the finger at Christians then that only plays right into their preconceptions. I also don't think organizations should define one's Satanism: I'm rooted in LaVey's philosophy but will practice and build upon it my way.
Lazy Old Devil
Member
Yeah, I think that's in the spirit of how it was originally intended to be approached. It seems that some modern LaVeyan Satanists don't quite get that; they almost revere LaVey as an infallible Christ-like figure, quoting the Satanic Bible as though it was the word of law, which rather misses the point.
At this point I have rejected Satanism except when dealing with Christianity. I will quote from an article I wrote in my long absence:
A problem with Theistic Satanism is that it gives value to Christianity, devalues the actual deities being honored, and makes less sense as a form of Satanism than LaVeyan Satanism.
Let us simply take the deification of Satan as an illustration. Prior to Christianity there was no Satan. There were gods of darkness, but darkness in a symbolic and Stellar as opposed to a moral way. For instance, Set was associated with the darkness of the night sky, but he wasn't the opposite of Ma'at, moral order. In fact, he chose Ma'at over Chaos every night when he fought Apep. To clarify, there is not anything wrong with seeing similar gods from different pantheons as an interpretation of the same being - the key is that the traits remain comparable.
In the Torah, a satan was either an angel or human being that acted as an adversary to the Jewish people. The most famous example is the story of Job, where an angel is sent to challenge Job's faith in god. Whether an angel or human, the purpose of a satan was to challenge god's chosen people. However, "Satan" was never the name of a specific entity at that time, it was simply a title. Nor were there satans who were enemies of god, but rather they worked for him or served his will in some other way. Angels who took the title did so to serve god, and it must be understood that the evil of other humans against the Jewish people was god's will as well to test them – in Judaism god brings both good and evil. The best illustration is the story of Jewish prisoners in a Nazi death camp holding god on trial, finding him guilty of crimes against humanity, and then praying to him.
This is, of course, not what most if any individuals mean when they say they are Satanists. I have never met a self-identified Satanist who meant it as in they serve Yahweh and test the faith of his followers to strengthen it. In fact, in many cases, the entity they identify most with in Judaism tends to be the Nachash, the serpentine angel from the Tree of Knowledge in Genesis. There are one or two other divine serpents that stand to challenge Yahweh (depending on what you believe the Serpent's name in Genesis to be): Leviathan and Nehushtan. The problem is none of these Serpents were a being named Satan or even titled satan! They are explicitly not satans and, unlike satans who worked for god, these Serpents were opposed to god. The serpentine angel in Eden turned against him, he killed Leviathan's mate in fear of them, and he had Nehushtan's worship destroyed by Hezekiah’s son because the people realized the power came from it rather than Yahweh.
You know Anton LaVey's quip about how Satan is the best friend the church ever had for he has kept the church in business? Ironically the opposite is true as well - the church is the best friend Satan and Lucifer ever had, for without their ignorance neither of these terms would matter too much to anyone today.
As said, there was no Satan prior to Christianity. There were beings in Judaism that served Yahweh and tested man's faith who were given the title of "adversary"[4], but no being properly called Satan. An individual being with the actual name Satan only refers to the devil of Christianity - a limited and supposedly evil being. The gods and beings from mythology that he is confused with have entirely different properties.
Beside the example of Set, another example I like is Anasi, a cultural trickster who freed his people from slavery[5], whereas Satan as a title is assigned to those who help the enslaver, and as a being is assigned to an enslaver that punishes people for disobeying god.
Yet another I like is Angra Mainyu from Zoroastrianism, but even he was a creator (creating peacocks for instance[6]) and an equal to the light, not inferior to it and simply a creation himself.
Coyote[7], Prometheus[8], and Maui[9] give fire/light stolen from the gods to man, Satan never gives man much of anything.
The Serpent opened mankind's eyes to knowledge and wisdom[10], helped them evolve, but never was this being assigned the name or even title "Satan" until the advent of Christian mythology.
Odin gave the runes[11] while Satan created no such thing. We could keep at this for a while.
All this is to say: the deification of Satan supports Christian ideology, it lends credence to it and says, "this monstrous being you completely fabricated has true value, maybe you were right about something." Christianity was not right about the gods, whether literal or mythological. It isn't a source of true information really at all. Its history is nonsense, its god is a massive self-contradiction that is evil at worst and nonexistent at best, its prophets were wrong, it is loathsome as a basis for political ideology or morality... so why in the world would this imply their boogeyman not only exists but is on par with Set, Odin, Anansi, Prometheus, the Serpent, and so on?
LaVeyan Satanism understands this. It's why LaVey used the actual sins of Christianity as virtues, why he embraced and dressed as Christianity's take on Satan, why he used Christian imagery instead of pagan imagery, he understood the fundamental connection between Satan/Satanism and Christianity. LaVeyan Satanism works specifically because it doesn't give value to Christian ideas, it mocks them. Theistic Satanism does not, for it requires giving credence to Christian views. It further devalues the deities Theistic Satanists claim to honor, bringing them down to a lower level to force Satan to fit. As we pointed out, the Serpent of Genesis itself deserves better than this.
With all this said against the use of Satanism, it is also necessary to mention some of the benefits of using Satan in imagery and practice. We must see Christianity on Christian terms. One of the main downfalls of our pagan ancestors is that they saw Christianity in pagan terms. They didn't understand their gods were supposed to be evil, or that Yahweh was the only one, they'd had centuries of experience running into new cultural gods and seeing the similarities across pantheons, so they didn't comprehend this "one God or die" thing. Instead of recognizing this God and its people as an enemy they were just another group at first, and that allowed them to gain power.
So, take let's say a traditional ToS Setian and the idea of distancing yourself from Satanism. On one hand I agree, we should be able to see beyond Christianity and their terms. But leaving Christianity behind entirely is dangerous, it needs to be not only acknowledged but opposed. This makes Satanism important whether your own beliefs may transcend the Christian symbolism and terminology or not. While the polytheistic view is important to me, Yahweh - whether literal or a symbol - is not "just another God" of polytheism. He is a demiurge, a great and present evil in the way most polytheistic religions never saw most gods. This is much clearer when using the Christian "Satan v God" than the polytheistic "one of a million gods", even though I think there is truth in both.
Therefore, whether your beliefs are "Abrahamic" or not while walking the LHP, Satanism itself is important. On one hand we can't disregard Christianity for its silliness like many ancestors did, because it is still a force of ultimate, evil power. On the other hand, we can't simply say "oh it's just another god/religion, I respect it." There is nothing to respect, and that respect puts you at risk for history to repeat itself. So do not ignore or accept, OPPOSE.
[1] The inverted pentagram is commonly used as a symbol of the LHP [2] (Satanas, n.d.) [3] (Satanas, n.d.) [4] (Stokes, 2014) [5] (James, 2004) [6] (Mark, 2020) [7] (Shoshone Nation, 2005) [8] (National Museums Liverpool, n.d.) [9] (McLintock, 1966) [10] (Genesis chapter 3) [11] (NorseMythology.org, n.d.)
A problem with Theistic Satanism is that it gives value to Christianity, devalues the actual deities being honored, and makes less sense as a form of Satanism than LaVeyan Satanism.
Let us simply take the deification of Satan as an illustration. Prior to Christianity there was no Satan. There were gods of darkness, but darkness in a symbolic and Stellar as opposed to a moral way. For instance, Set was associated with the darkness of the night sky, but he wasn't the opposite of Ma'at, moral order. In fact, he chose Ma'at over Chaos every night when he fought Apep. To clarify, there is not anything wrong with seeing similar gods from different pantheons as an interpretation of the same being - the key is that the traits remain comparable.
In the Torah, a satan was either an angel or human being that acted as an adversary to the Jewish people. The most famous example is the story of Job, where an angel is sent to challenge Job's faith in god. Whether an angel or human, the purpose of a satan was to challenge god's chosen people. However, "Satan" was never the name of a specific entity at that time, it was simply a title. Nor were there satans who were enemies of god, but rather they worked for him or served his will in some other way. Angels who took the title did so to serve god, and it must be understood that the evil of other humans against the Jewish people was god's will as well to test them – in Judaism god brings both good and evil. The best illustration is the story of Jewish prisoners in a Nazi death camp holding god on trial, finding him guilty of crimes against humanity, and then praying to him.
This is, of course, not what most if any individuals mean when they say they are Satanists. I have never met a self-identified Satanist who meant it as in they serve Yahweh and test the faith of his followers to strengthen it. In fact, in many cases, the entity they identify most with in Judaism tends to be the Nachash, the serpentine angel from the Tree of Knowledge in Genesis. There are one or two other divine serpents that stand to challenge Yahweh (depending on what you believe the Serpent's name in Genesis to be): Leviathan and Nehushtan. The problem is none of these Serpents were a being named Satan or even titled satan! They are explicitly not satans and, unlike satans who worked for god, these Serpents were opposed to god. The serpentine angel in Eden turned against him, he killed Leviathan's mate in fear of them, and he had Nehushtan's worship destroyed by Hezekiah’s son because the people realized the power came from it rather than Yahweh.
You know Anton LaVey's quip about how Satan is the best friend the church ever had for he has kept the church in business? Ironically the opposite is true as well - the church is the best friend Satan and Lucifer ever had, for without their ignorance neither of these terms would matter too much to anyone today.
As said, there was no Satan prior to Christianity. There were beings in Judaism that served Yahweh and tested man's faith who were given the title of "adversary"[4], but no being properly called Satan. An individual being with the actual name Satan only refers to the devil of Christianity - a limited and supposedly evil being. The gods and beings from mythology that he is confused with have entirely different properties.
Beside the example of Set, another example I like is Anasi, a cultural trickster who freed his people from slavery[5], whereas Satan as a title is assigned to those who help the enslaver, and as a being is assigned to an enslaver that punishes people for disobeying god.
Yet another I like is Angra Mainyu from Zoroastrianism, but even he was a creator (creating peacocks for instance[6]) and an equal to the light, not inferior to it and simply a creation himself.
Coyote[7], Prometheus[8], and Maui[9] give fire/light stolen from the gods to man, Satan never gives man much of anything.
The Serpent opened mankind's eyes to knowledge and wisdom[10], helped them evolve, but never was this being assigned the name or even title "Satan" until the advent of Christian mythology.
Odin gave the runes[11] while Satan created no such thing. We could keep at this for a while.
All this is to say: the deification of Satan supports Christian ideology, it lends credence to it and says, "this monstrous being you completely fabricated has true value, maybe you were right about something." Christianity was not right about the gods, whether literal or mythological. It isn't a source of true information really at all. Its history is nonsense, its god is a massive self-contradiction that is evil at worst and nonexistent at best, its prophets were wrong, it is loathsome as a basis for political ideology or morality... so why in the world would this imply their boogeyman not only exists but is on par with Set, Odin, Anansi, Prometheus, the Serpent, and so on?
LaVeyan Satanism understands this. It's why LaVey used the actual sins of Christianity as virtues, why he embraced and dressed as Christianity's take on Satan, why he used Christian imagery instead of pagan imagery, he understood the fundamental connection between Satan/Satanism and Christianity. LaVeyan Satanism works specifically because it doesn't give value to Christian ideas, it mocks them. Theistic Satanism does not, for it requires giving credence to Christian views. It further devalues the deities Theistic Satanists claim to honor, bringing them down to a lower level to force Satan to fit. As we pointed out, the Serpent of Genesis itself deserves better than this.
With all this said against the use of Satanism, it is also necessary to mention some of the benefits of using Satan in imagery and practice. We must see Christianity on Christian terms. One of the main downfalls of our pagan ancestors is that they saw Christianity in pagan terms. They didn't understand their gods were supposed to be evil, or that Yahweh was the only one, they'd had centuries of experience running into new cultural gods and seeing the similarities across pantheons, so they didn't comprehend this "one God or die" thing. Instead of recognizing this God and its people as an enemy they were just another group at first, and that allowed them to gain power.
So, take let's say a traditional ToS Setian and the idea of distancing yourself from Satanism. On one hand I agree, we should be able to see beyond Christianity and their terms. But leaving Christianity behind entirely is dangerous, it needs to be not only acknowledged but opposed. This makes Satanism important whether your own beliefs may transcend the Christian symbolism and terminology or not. While the polytheistic view is important to me, Yahweh - whether literal or a symbol - is not "just another God" of polytheism. He is a demiurge, a great and present evil in the way most polytheistic religions never saw most gods. This is much clearer when using the Christian "Satan v God" than the polytheistic "one of a million gods", even though I think there is truth in both.
Therefore, whether your beliefs are "Abrahamic" or not while walking the LHP, Satanism itself is important. On one hand we can't disregard Christianity for its silliness like many ancestors did, because it is still a force of ultimate, evil power. On the other hand, we can't simply say "oh it's just another god/religion, I respect it." There is nothing to respect, and that respect puts you at risk for history to repeat itself. So do not ignore or accept, OPPOSE.
[1] The inverted pentagram is commonly used as a symbol of the LHP [2] (Satanas, n.d.) [3] (Satanas, n.d.) [4] (Stokes, 2014) [5] (James, 2004) [6] (Mark, 2020) [7] (Shoshone Nation, 2005) [8] (National Museums Liverpool, n.d.) [9] (McLintock, 1966) [10] (Genesis chapter 3) [11] (NorseMythology.org, n.d.)