# the satanic bible



## jarrod (May 16, 2009)

just finished reading this book last night, & i have to say i enjoyed it.  it's basically a self-help book marketed towards those who feel let down by convential religion.  it essentially advocates self-acceptance, individualism, harmony with nature, & epicureanism.  plus it has a little hocus-pocus thrown in, which i believe is aimed at acheiving an emotial purge.  what's kind of amusing is that the 'magic' described ultimately aims at the same things as many eastern religious practices (namely the removal of desire), though he skirts that issue pretty well.  basically the satanist is to perform a highly emotionally charged ritual (described in the text) with sole focus on acheiving whatever desire he has in mind.  if the ritual is properly completed, the satanist will have no more dominating thoughts about his desire.  of course, there is a list of reasons why your magic might not bring you exactly what you expect.    

plus, i have to give levay credit: he founded a religion that was adamently individualistic, then charged membership to be associated with other individuals!  great read, & a great con.  

jf


----------



## Omar B (May 16, 2009)

It's a great read I'll give you that.  Totally different from what people would think it is about on the outside without reading it.  It's really about individuality, self esteem and seeing the greatness in yourself.  I totally recommend it to people, even christians.

But at the end of the day like you said it's a religion and has all the pitfalls of all the religions.  Sacrifices of the soul or the pocket book.


----------



## chav buster (May 16, 2009)

i have read most of levays, work and its a bit to self involved for my liking and aimed at pissed off teenagers  but each to there own.


----------



## jarrod (May 16, 2009)

it's kind of like nietzsche lite. i think i'll start recommending it to folks that might not quite get nietzsche but could benefit from his ideas.

one thing that has stuck with me was the consciously constructed nature of the rituals. i think that sacred ritual can be very valuable psychologically, but only if people feel connected to the mythology surrounding the ritual. out of the handful of modern religions i've read up on, lavey's satanism seems to be the most conscious of possible psychological benefits, & i can see how the imagery invoked would be useful to pissed off teenagers as well as a few others. 

jf


----------



## Joab (May 16, 2009)

I would recommend reading The Holy Bible, and eschewing the Satanic one. I think you will find The Holy Bible both edifying and uplifting, with  clear step by step instructions for gaining eternal life in bliss. Satan is a loser, Jesus is a winner.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 16, 2009)

Given that I consider both 'imaginary friends' to be more likely a fiction than a reality and that organised religion is more a trigger for war than peace, I reckon the phrase that best describes this book (other than a "nice little earner" for the author) is "Nietzsche Lite" .

Take a bow, *Jarrod* .


----------



## jarrod (May 16, 2009)

Joab said:


> I would recommend reading The Holy Bible, and eschewing the Satanic one. I think you will find The Holy Bible both edifying and uplifting, with  clear step by step instructions for gaining eternal life in bliss. Satan is a loser, Jesus is a winner.



read it a couple times, didn't do much for me.  i like that jesus cat though.  he was far out.

jf


----------



## grydth (May 16, 2009)

Folks, read and learn from whatever you want. 

However, I would say Christians would do well to steer away from it..... the Christian Bible would refer to this simply as a temptation of Satan, a collage of lies to show the Devil really isn't a bad guy.... environmentally conscious, too!

I am not thinking we will ever see the point where it's, "I'm Okay, You're Okay" between Christ and Satan.


----------



## jarrod (May 16, 2009)

grydth said:


> I am not thinking we will ever see the point where it's, "I'm Okay, You're Okay" between Christ and Satan.



if i may play devil's advocate here (ha! see what i did there? pun!) it all depends on what we mean by satan.

first, there's satan the adversary of the first testament.  he's not so much a bad guy as a prosecuting attorney or divine vice cop trying to catch us screwing up, even if it means laying a trap or two.  but he was never portrayed as opposed to god in that context.

second, there is the satan of popular christian mythology (& by 'myth' i don't mean 'lie', i mean the generally understood symbolic/unconscious meaning).  even so, if this guy weren't around christ would be out of a job.  i don't mean to sound flip, but all dualistic religions depend on the cosmic balance struck by the opposing forces.

& finally we have the satan of levay's church.  satan is really just a symbol for the self, & this is pretty clearly expressed.  in this context, i would certainly hope that there could be some good vibes between jesus & satan!

anyway, i'm not wanting to get into a christian vs satanist argument with anybody, i just read this book, thought it was interesting, & decided to share some thoughts about it.

jf


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 16, 2009)

I read both bibles.

The Satanic bible to me is very egocentric. Viewing yourself as the most important being or your own God, Indulge in the Seven Sins, invoking hate.

Reading the Nine rules and Nine statements we can see it is not a very positive religion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 16, 2009)

LaVey was an interesting person, and in my opinion, he drew a lot of his beliefs from Aleister Crowley's writings, including _"The Book of the Law."_

Many or most Western mystery cults are centered around concepts of enlightened self-interest, rejection of Western Judeo-Christian (indeed, any) religion, and the celebration of self best described as _"Do as Thou Shalt,"_ sometimes modified to include the concept _'as long as it does not hurt anyone else'._

The biggest problem with doing as one shall is that one must be capable of discerning what one might do that hurts another.  Have an affair?  If both parties agree, surely that would be allowed.  Ah, but what of the jilted lover?

One can take that all the way from adultery to the types of banking and real estate shenanigans that have our economy in a tailspin.  Lots of people did as they would, and apparently disregarded or failed to note whom it would hurt.

If one could truly do just as they pleased, but with absolute regard for the 'hurt' one might inflict by one's actions, one might find their life to be lived not that differently from the precepts of behavior encoded in religions like Christianity.  Which is, of course, ironic.


----------



## Omar B (May 16, 2009)

So what's wrong with it being ego centric?  

Believe me, the "Satan" in Lavey's work is not the Satan from the bible.  It's an idea of individuality and self assertion.

But whatever, I'm an atheist and I find religion as a whole to be fairy tales.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If one could truly do just as they pleased, but with absolute regard for the 'hurt' one might inflict by one's actions, one might find their life to be lived not that differently from the precepts of behavior encoded in religions like Christianity.  Which is, of course, ironic.



From the little tidbits I know of Crowley and other mystery schools, I'd have to agree with Bill.  "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," is basically what Crowley wrote and he described it as the key to personal and magical power.

On a personal level, I am very uncomfortable with this and I am absolutely convinced that a society that lived like this would produce untold suffering...or "Hell" on Earth.  Look at some of the problems we have right now...they are reflected in that statement.

As soon as we take others into account, things begin to change.  Yeah, we don't have the ability to transform our lives into everything we want through any means necessary, but that is the price we pay for the happiness of the people around us.

LaVay didn't discover Satanism or any such tripe.  The name "Satanism" is just a name and is kind of stupid (I believe he writes that also).  What he is writing about is the universal root of evil, IMO.  Think about it from an Evolutionary perspective.  Any social order would be threatened by its members living like that.


----------



## CoryKS (May 16, 2009)

It's an interesting read.  It's claimed that LaVey "borrowed" heavily from the book Might is Right, written by a guy who went by the name of Ragnar Redbeard.  He was also the inspiration for the pirate in Atlas Shrugged.

This site compares some of LaVey's text to Redbeards, for those who are curious.


----------



## Omar B (May 16, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> It's an interesting read.  It's claimed that LaVey "borrowed" heavily from the book Might is Right, written by a guy who went by the name of Ragnar Redbeard.  He was also the inspiration for the pirate in Atlas Shrugged.



The Pirate in Atlas Shugged was named Ragnar Danneskjoldand no Lavey didn't base anything on him.  He tried to ally himself with Ayn Rand (by plagarizing) at the time because she championed individualism but she was from an Arestotilian root while he was from a Nizchean root (wholly different ways at looking at the world).  Yes he outright stole concepts from many sources into one great hodgpodge including Rand but he totally screws it.

Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book, I know these things.


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh (May 16, 2009)

Think what you like of the book, love it or hate it, but keep in mind that in his youth, Tony La Vey worked as a carnie. 
Just sayin'- Caveat Emptor.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 16, 2009)

> So what's wrong with it being ego centric?


 In a surivival setting say in the jungle it makes sense.

In a society being ego centric can work against you. Ego centric people lack empathy or compassion because of the focus on themselves. The distinction of I vs world instead of object and subject being part of the same whole results in a conflict.


----------



## jarrod (May 16, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> From the little tidbits I know of Crowley and other mystery schools, I'd have to agree with Bill.  "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," is basically what Crowley wrote and he described it as the key to personal and magical power.
> 
> On a personal level, I am very uncomfortable with this and I am absolutely convinced that a society that lived like this would produce untold suffering...or "Hell" on Earth.  Look at some of the problems we have right now...they are reflected in that statement.
> 
> ...



if you read lavey & crowley carefully, they are not at all anti-social, although it can appear that way to people conditioned as we are to think in a socially conscious way.  "do what thou will" is the law of thelema, but all magical practices are geared towards aligning your will with "the true will".  in other words, if you are an accomplished thelemite, your will should be in accord with the true will/divine will of the universe & should not bring any harm.

also, lavey's satanism isn't anti social, but just advocates saving your compassion & care for those who deserve it, while guiltlessly disregarding people who bring nothing to the table so to speak.  it's really no different from what most societies do: care for the productive members & eliminate or ignore the ones who are a detriment to the group.  

even levay's advice to indulge in teh se7en deadlies isn't really out of line with most religious thinking if you look at it.  for instance he says that we should indulge lust because that is how we procreate (i.e., "go forth & multiply"), greed & envy fuel ambition, & so on.  then he draws this careful distinction between indulgence & compulsion, which tempers the sins.  anyway, it's interesting how all religions teach basically the same things, they just argue over how to say it & how to go about accomplishing their goals.



Randy Strausbaugh said:


> Think what you like of the book, love it or hate it, but keep in mind that in his youth, Tony La Vey worked as a carnie.
> Just sayin'- Caveat Emptor.



so you're saying he possessed unlawful carnie knowledge? :lol:

jf


----------



## Omar B (May 16, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> In a surivival setting say in the jungle it makes sense.
> In a society being ego centric can work against you. Ego centric people lack empathy or compassion because of the focus on themselves. The distinction of I vs world instead of object and subject being part of the same whole results in a conflict.



I think you are wrong.  I'm ego centric but I do have empathy and compassion to those who matter to me, those who are worth it.  Friends, family, outside of that I really could care less.  I'm an objectivist and one of the cornerstones is rational self interest.  I care about myself and those who have value for me.

_The moral purpose of a man&#8217;s life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental&#8212;as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence&#8212;and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life. - Ayn Rand_


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 16, 2009)

> I think you are wrong. I'm ego centric but I do have empathy and compassion to those who matter to me, those who are worth it. Friends, family, outside of that I really could care less. I'm an objectivist and one of the cornerstones is rational self interest. I care about myself and those who have value for me.


 The Keyword is ONLY THAT MATTER TO YOU. Which does not really show humility or compassion and empathy to others because the key to true compassion,humility and empathy is to be for all beings not the ones you pick and choose. 

I truly feel a mans morals is to better serve his fellow man and the world if you or someone was in hard times would you want a stranger to help you or would you turn him down?


----------



## CoryKS (May 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> The Pirate in Atlas Shugged was named Ragnar Danneskjoldand no Lavey didn't base anything on him. He tried to ally himself with Ayn Rand (by plagarizing) at the time because she championed individualism but she was from an Arestotilian root while he was from a Nizchean root (wholly different ways at looking at the world). Yes he outright stole concepts from many sources into one great hodgpodge including Rand but he totally screws it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book, I know these things.


 
Maybe I was careless with the pronoun "he".  I didn't mean that Lavey based anything on Ragnar Danneskjold;  I meant that Ragnar Redbeard was an inspiration for Rand in developing the character of Ragnar Danneskjold.  Not as a basis for her philosophy, but as a fictional persona.  I'm aware that Lavey's admiration of Rand was one-sided.


----------



## tellner (May 16, 2009)

Every year I go to the HPL Film Festival. There's are big CoS contingent. What always amazes me about these rugged individualist Self-idolozing sorts is that they all dress and accessorize exactly alike. Same affect. Even a lot of the same mannerisms. Right across the space there's a group of the breakaway Temple of Set. Same thing. Same aesthetic. Their pentacles are a little different, but that's about it. 

Something seems a tad contradictory there.


----------



## CoryKS (May 16, 2009)

tellner said:


> Every year I go to the HPL Film Festival. There's are big CoS contingent. What always amazes me about these rugged individualist Self-idolozing sorts is that they all dress and accessorize exactly alike. Same affect. Even a lot of the same mannerisms. Right across the space there's a group of the breakaway Temple of Set. Same thing. Same aesthetic. Their pentacles are a little different, but that's about it.
> 
> Something seems a tad contradictory there.


 
You find that in every community of "self-thinkers".  They demonstrate their free-spiritedness in the only way they know how - by finding some other free spirits and aping their schtick.  Because if people didn't have a template by which to identify you as artistic and thoughtful, you would just be that weird person who didn't fit in.


----------



## Omar B (May 16, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> The Keyword is ONLY THAT MATTER TO YOU. Which does not really show humility or compassion and empathy to others because the key to true compassion,humility and empathy is to be for all beings not the ones you pick and choose.
> I truly feel a mans morals is to better serve his fellow man and the world if you or someone was in hard times would you want a stranger to help you or would you turn him down?



Well if that's how you feel then great.  I'm no altruist nor will I ever be.  Nor am I humble, in fact I'm the opposite, quite proud.  If you think pride is bad then that's your feeling on the matter, I prefer walking with my head high.  I don't find humility a good quality.

I don't live at for other nor from the alms of others so no, I don't go around asking/begging for help.

_Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? Noneexcept the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they dont, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.
The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other manand he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men. - Ayn Rand_


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 16, 2009)

Ok Omar different opinions I can respect that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 16, 2009)

Let us take a 'for instance'.

Let us say that you were in a boat with several other people, and you suddenly spotted a man floating in the water, obviously in distress.  Any normal person would go to that man, pull him from the water, try to save him from the elements, take him to safety, and so on.

Now let us say that you are in a lifeboat, and it is riding so low in the water that it ships water over the sides every time the boat rocks slightly.  In other words, it is on the bitter edge of sinking, due to overloading.

Now, same situation.  You see the man.  If you take him aboard, all will drown.  If you do not, you and your compatriots may survive.

I posit that not only would you not offer the man assistance, if he tried to climb aboard your boat, you would beat him to death with an oar to prevent him swamping your boat.

The man is not different in either case.  Only your circumstances change.

Christianity and other 'evolved' religions are silent on this.  'Turn the other cheek' and 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' do not address such situations.  In fact, they encourage people to to the exact wrong thing - to get out of the boat to let the man in, so to speak.

Some esoteric religions tear back the curtain, unveil the inherent unfairness of life, and point out that before you can help anyone else, you must help yourself.  If you cannot save yourself, you cannot save anyone else.  Enlightened self-interest is not evil - it is logic, the law of life and nature.  It's just not pretty to think about.


----------



## Omar B (May 16, 2009)

And in so doing act against your rational self interest.  Something most religions gloss over.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 16, 2009)

Concerning your story Bill this is from King of Samadhi sutra a little known story in Buddhism:


> A story from a past life of the Buddha illustrates this.  It is the story about a shipload of five hundred merchants on a ship traveling from India to the islands off the coast laden with riches.  Among the travelers was a murderer named "Spear-wielding Criminal" who intended to kill everyone aboard the ship to keep the riches.  The bodhisattva "Prince Fortitude," who was the ship captain, knew about this intention and thought, "If I kill him first, I can save him from the negative karma, from killing five hundred people."  So the bodhisattva killed the criminal.  Instead of creating negative karma from this act, he accumulated a vast amount of merit.  So this story illustrates that, by using discriminating knowledge and pure motivation, a negative action can become virtuous.  If our motivation is utterly free from disturbing emotions, the action can be carried out if it relieves the suffering of others or benefits a vast number of beings.  Having described the precepts of body, speech and mind, the Buddha then gives three hundred listed topics of instructions.  According to some of the pith instructions, we should regard the aggregates as being like a mirage, the sense-base as being like magical illusions.


A Bodhisattva would most likely see the man in the water and help him aboard and cast himself in the waters to drown because to the Bodhisattva every being is a wishfilling jewel.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> And in so doing act against your rational self interest.  Something most religions gloss over.



When you get on the plane, the flight attendant always says to put your own oxygen mask on first, before helping others.  If you cannot help yourself first, you won't be able to help anyone else.

_"Do as thou shalt"_ means just that.  If it is your will to save others, to be charitable, to work in a soup kitchen, do those things.  No one can gainsay you, no one can criticize you.

It is interesting that people presume that those who choose to live precisely as they please will be evil people.  Why make that assumption, unless one believes that people are only good because they are FORCED to be good by their God, that their religion so persecutes them with fear of eternal punishment that they must be good or suffer damnation?

Are the people who believe that actually good only because they fear God?  Is that their entire motivation? (I'm being rhetorical, I realize that some religious people do good because they want to and it also happens to be the law of their religion - I'm just saying).

Or is it possible that people choose to be good because that's what they want to do, not because that's what some God or rule book told them to do?

If there are people in the world who are what we would call 'good' and they are that way because that's what they want to be and do, I would tend to place them on a higher pedestal than someone who was commanded by their religion to do good, and who do it for that reason alone.

_'Do as thou shalt'_ means people are responsible for their own actions, good and bad.  It means you break it you bought it.  It means God doesn't visit pain and suffering on people - pain and suffering exist and some people get a lot of it, but what they choose to do about it is their choice and not in the hands of a Savior or a Creator.  

_'Do as thou shalt'_ means if you hurt someone, you live with what you have done, and if you feel badly about it, you do something to make it right.  No prayers for intercession, no hope for a brighter tomorrow for that person you wronged.   You get it all, the joy and the sadness, the ecstasy and agony.  It means at the end of the day, you look in the mirror and realize that everything you did that day, good and bad, YOU did.  No one else.

_'Do as though shalt'_ is about personal responsibility as much as it is about personal freedom.  It means do what you want to do, but if you hurt someone through your own actions, don't blame anyone else, bubba.

_'Do as thou shalt'_ doesn't shift blame.  It doesn't consider sin, sinner, savior, redemption, karma, dogma, catma or anything outside of the self.  It means if you're a nasty old so-and-so, then that is what you are, and you did it, not your parents, not your God, and not Charlie who stole the handle.
_
'Do as thou shalt'_ is a line drive to the gut wearing a new baseball mitt.  It means you, and only you, get to take responsibility for your actions.  You might escape wrath, you might escape retribution.  There will be no homework assignment, and no judgment after this life.  It means going to your grave knowing exactly who and what you are.  And if you die knowing you were an absolute ****, then that's what you are.  No one waves a cross and you and absolves you of your sins.  No one makes you redo your life, only this time as a bug or a cow.  The punishment is here and now, just like the reward - you are who and what you are.  Life sucks, get a helmet, and if you believe in doing as you will, remember others do too.  It might be smart to be nice to others and get some reciprocation going there.  That's enlightened self-interest, too.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 16, 2009)

The thing about magic is that it always goes both ways.  "Do what thou wilt" can lead to both good and evil.  So can "do what thou wilt, if it harm none."  All of this goes to show that both of these statements are a limited way of looking at humanity.  They don't really do us justice because throughout the balance of our lives we tend to live in both, the right hand and the left hand, doing good and evil in both.  In the end, it just doesn't matter.  Even the good you think you do can be turned to evil simply by shifting the perspective.

I'll just be a human if you don't mind.  I'm okay with embracing what I am in a biologic and evolutionary sense.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 16, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> The thing about magic is that it always goes both ways.  "Do what thou wilt" can lead to both good and evil.  So can "do what thou wilt, if it harm none."  All of this goes to show that both of these statements are a limited way of looking at humanity.  They don't really do us justice because throughout the balance of our lives we tend to live in both, the right hand and the left hand, doing good and evil in both.  In the end, it just doesn't matter.  Even the good you think you do can be turned to evil simply by shifting the perspective.
> 
> I'll just be a human if you don't mind.  I'm okay with embracing what I am in a biologic and evolutionary sense.



Gruad the Greyface thanks you for your patience.  All will become clear in time.  There is no blame.  Hexagram 23: Breaking Apart.  When in doubt, consult your pineal gland.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Gruad the Greyface thanks you for your patience.  All will become clear in time.  There is no blame.  Hexagram 23: Breaking Apart.  When in doubt, consult your pineal gland.



All hail Eris!


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh (May 17, 2009)

Fnord?


----------



## tellner (May 17, 2009)

Randy Strausbaugh said:


> Fnord?


Did you say something?


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh (May 30, 2009)

Kind of an inside joke. Refer to the _Principia Discordia_ or many works by Robert Anton Wilson.


----------



## CoryKS (May 30, 2009)

Randy Strausbaugh said:


> Kind of an inside joke. Refer to the _Principia Discordia_ or many works by Robert Anton Wilson.


 
I think he got it.  According to the Illuminatus! Trilogy, the unenlightened can't see the word "Fnord".  So he would have seen an empty post.


----------



## Omar B (May 30, 2009)

My college g/f was obsessed with those books.  And yes, I did see fnord everywhere, but it was in her handwriting.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 7, 2009)

jarrod said:


> plus, i have to give levay credit: he founded a religion that was adamently individualistic, then charged membership to be associated with other individuals! great read, & a great con.
> 
> jf


 
Levay was a Carnie and a Huckster and a Bunko artist... that was just another of his "Big Cons"... somthing he Excelled at.


----------



## harlan (Jun 8, 2009)

Quoted for truth.



Cryozombie said:


> Levay was a Carnie and a Huckster and a Bunko artist... that was just another of his "Big Cons"... somthing he Excelled at.



Read his 'bible' decades ago, and decided that it did nothing to contribute to the betterment of society. I recall putting it down, and getting a creepy awareness that this man was dangerous. Not because he was espousing new, challenging ideas, but because he was very good at reaching weak minds.

Alistair Crowley was unique. Levay was just another hedonistic opportunist.


----------



## Joab (Jun 8, 2009)

While I have never read the "Satanic Bible" I'm rather amazed anyone would take this seriously. Do you really think the worship of evil can in any way bring about any good.? Many, of course, have dismissed LeVay as a con man and opportunist, and I applaud you for it, and many of you have pointed out the teachings really can't work, and I applaud you for that. Anyone finding any worth in Satanism is someone I want to steer clear of. There's too much evil in this world as it is.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 8, 2009)

It's not the worship of evil though.  It's an entire book about individuality and how unique and special each person is and you should embrace yourself, be yourself and not try to be anything but the best you that you can be.  Satan isn't apart of it, after all, the character is a creation of christianity as a villain in the story.  The name is just because it stands in opposition to christianity's doctrine of altruism and self sacrifice, where one religion exposes what's good for all, the diembodied whole called society, the other is about the one.


----------



## jarrod (Jun 8, 2009)

Joab said:


> While I have never read the "Satanic Bible" I'm rather amazed anyone would take this seriously. Do you really think the worship of evil can in any way bring about any good.? Many, of course, have dismissed LeVay as a con man and opportunist, and I applaud you for it, and many of you have pointed out the teachings really can't work, and I applaud you for that. Anyone finding any worth in Satanism is someone I want to steer clear of. There's too much evil in this world as it is.



kind of hasty to judge something you haven't read, isn't it?  

jf


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 8, 2009)

I am a firm believer that there is no such thing as an altruistic act. Most religions claim to be altrustic at their base - but then offer rewards for doing good. "Act this way and you will get into heaven." They go so far as well to punish wrong doing, IMO eliminating any hope of altruism. To me, if you are doing good because you are told to and because you are seeking a reward (i.e. heaven, enlightenment, etc), are you not being individualistic at its base? Yes, you are helping others and improving society, but if you are rewarded, no matter your motivation, you are still living in accordance with the idea set forth in individualist works. Even if you turn DOWN any reward - doesn't it make you feel good to do good? Isn't that a reward?

I am also of the opinion that if you believe in ANY doctrine, how can you TRULY believe it if you don't know what else is out there - if you don't know the opposition? How much credence do you lend to an evolutionist who doesn't know what creationism is? Or vice versa?

Particularly in Christianity, if you are a believer, then it is important to know the opposing viewpoints and what else is out there. It is a religion of dichotomy. Without evil, there is no good. Shouldn't you understand who and what you are "fighting?" In addition, the VAST majority of organized religion followers take 100% of their information about the opposition from their own doctrine. Again, is this good practice? If I want to learn about the tactics of the enemy, I study the enemy, I don't just listen to my allies about what they THINK the enemy is like. 

Plus, if your beliefs are that strong, then they can withstand expansion of your experience and world view and even reading something with an offputting name.

For the record, I really think that naming the book "The Satanic Bible" is a marketing and nomenclature tactic and does not (as others have said) describe the biblical satan.

Although Levey is a CREEPY looking dude.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 8, 2009)

jarrod said:


> kind of hasty to judge something you haven't read, isn't it?
> 
> jf



This is true.  I have in my Library "The Satanic Bible" the "Satanic Rituals" and "The Satanic Witch" and have read numerous articles about the man...

He himself admits in one interview that its a Con, and that he Chose "Satanism" to play on the fears of the catholic church members and attract those in need of the Dogma who are disenfranchised and thats why they have "spells" and "rituals" at all...  It really has nothing to do with "Evil" or "Satan" all that stuff was added BY HIS OWN ADMISSION to help sell it.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 8, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> This is true.  I have in my Library "The Satanic Bible" the "Satanic Rituals" and "The Satanic Witch" and have read numerous articles about the man...
> 
> He himself admits in one interview that its a Con, and that he Chose "Satanism" to play on the fears of the catholic church members and attract those in need of the Dogma who are disenfranchised and thats why they have "spells" and "rituals" at all...  It really has nothing to do with "Evil" or "Satan" all that stuff was added BY HIS OWN ADMISSION to help sell it.



Exactly.  It's pure marketing, setting itself apart from christianity's putting everyone before yourself ideal, the ideal of sacrifice (giving a greater value for a lesser or no value in return).  The name strikes fear in most christians because it's named after the villain in their story because they accept Satan as an actual being rather than just apart of their religious story.  Some religions have a god and an adversary, some don't.  Christians for the most part accept Satan as real and that his existence should be self evident to everyone in the world, of all faiths (belife without proof) or no faith which it clearly is not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2009)

harlan said:


> Levay was just another hedonistic opportunist.



You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## harlan (Jun 8, 2009)

Nope. Just boring.


----------

