From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: What is Satanism?
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 13:46:20 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Sep12.013550.22882@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>

9209.14 e.v.


Semhaza's 'FAQ' follows Scott's intro, with my review:


Intro: This is the closest thing to a FAQ I have seen. 


Response:

It's about time.  I was wondering when this newsgroup would get off the
ground.


Intro:

2)Its not an "official" Church of Satan document, 
so it may or may not give the info you require


Response:

I submit that, like other newsgroups, you may wish to clearly distinguish
ORGANIZATIONS, which define 'Satanism' in a particular manner, from
AUTHORS, who have defined it in THEIR particular fashion and IDEOLOGIES,
which may relate to Satanism on the whole, and may include or have influenced
modern Satanic authors.  This is confusing, but it would serve a FAQ quite
well.

I.e. differentiate between Church of Satan, LaVey, and his Satanism.


Intro:

3) there are supposedly several other FAQ's under construction. 


Response:

It would seem intelligent to keep an ongoing discussion in a FAQ file
with the postings of all 'under construction' FAQs.  That way people
can draw from a number of writing styles and opinions until a coherent
FAQ could be sifted out.   If nobody else wants to database all the
FAQs under construction, I'd be happy to.  Somebody email me if I am
somehow elected.  I haven't read this newsgroup very often yet would
begin doing so if desired.  I figure by now the kiddies have got bored
and left us alone.


SEMHAZA'S FAQ BEGINS HERE:

1. What is Satanism?
 
Satanism is difficult to define. As there is no authoritative, "divinely
revealed" text of Satanism as there are for most major religions, nor a body of
oral traditions, the individual Satanist must define a philosophy for
him/herself. Thus, you will find some widely diverging opinions in this
newsgroup. However, there are a few generalizations I can make:  the average
Satanist disagrees with much of xianity, believes in no absolute moral code,
and places emphasis on the individual and personal rights.


Review:

The statement that 'most major religions' have revealed texts is false. Many 
DOCTRINAL religions have such texts, not always revealed, but the others
often have quite a difference of opinion.  Even within the doctrinal
faiths opinions differ widely.  _The Bible_, like most doctrines of textual
religions, is a MYSTICAL document to many.  This means that it can be
interpreted in many many ways and none of them can be said to be 'correct'.

I'd agree that opinions vary widely, but as you have done to some extent
below, we can come up with some common definitions.  I'd suggest including
some quotes from popular authors, such as LaVey and the author of _Satan
Wants You_, since you seem to think highly of him.  Also, a bibliography
somewhat longer than your few titles is really of benefit.  I'd suggest that
the bibliography NOT be rated but simply categorized by the perspective of
the author (i.e. Satanist, Christian, Interested Reporter, etc.).

Regarding your comments about the 'average satanist', I'd say that most
Satanists are disgruntled Christians, think rather morally yet aspire to
their own ethics, and tend to be disoriented teens.  The serious Satanists
conform more closely to your statement that they are individualists, often
anti-Christian (or atheist, which I tend to group together), and often
eschew all morality in favor of personal ethics ('situational' if you like).
 

FAQ:

I would divide Satanists into three main groups:
 
1. Atheistic Satanists--don't believe in spiritual entities. Satan is only a
symbol for humankind's freedom from moral obligations.


Review:

My review is a cross-reference to the groups mentioned above. 

1. Atheistic Satanists tends to include
both the disoriented teens and the esoteric elite.  The teens haven't thought
about spirituality or God or anything and are reactionary.  The elite have
thought too much and decided (finally) to refrain from belief and morality
altogether.
 

FAQ:

2. Miltonia Satanists--believe Satan is a good being who has been
misrepresented in history.


Review:

This group includes most of the socialites who get into Satanism for all
the nifty masonic claptrap which goes along with the organization.  They
often see themselves as Martyrs and often have thought quite a lot about the
theory.  Some have even put the theory into practice a little.
 

FAQ:

3. Dark Satanists--believe Satan is an essentially non-good entity. This does
not necessarily mean that the Satanist is not law-abiding.


Review:

This one just doesn't make sense.  Only children will worship an entity
which is the essentiality of 'non-goodness', out of rebellion.  I guess
some might think of themselves as 'Dark Satanists' and get really into
heavy metal and Cthulhu and engage in serious Chaos Magick, but these are
not Satanists in any sense of worshipping a non-good entity.  'Good' ceases
to have meaning outside moralistic, Christian minds.
 
The best definition I can come up with for 'Dark Satanists' is that they
are those who find value in focussing on the wrathful aspects of deity
and have chosen 'Satan', in whatever form, to be their object of devotion.
How this plays into their daily lives will vary from individual to individual.
Some will be sociopaths.  Some will be docile Republicans.
 

FAQ:

2. Satan is a xian god!
 
Most (possibly all) religions have gods or demons that represent the principle
of evil. Satan is one among these, originally conceived by the Jews long before
the birth of Jesus. I believe the name first appeared (in _The Bible_, at
least) in the book of Job.


Review:

This should be changed to a QUESTION.  

2. Isn't Satan a CHRISTIAN god?  

Then the answer can be a historical
examination of Satan through Judaic, Islamic, Christian, and Satanic
traditions.  Ought to require quite a bit of time to dig this information
up.  The best way to answer questions like this is to wait for the best
POSTINGS on the subject and then figure them into the FAQ.  If this small
paragraph is the result of such grafting, then this newsgroup is due for
embalming.


My own brief answer is 'No, Satan is considered a fallen ANGEL in Christian
tradition.  There is, of course, considerable debate OUTSIDE Christian
tradition about this, but most informed Satanists and Christians do not
characterize Satan as a 'Christian god'. 


FAQ:

3. Why use the name Satan? Why not use another name?
 
The word 'satan' literally means 'adversary,' thus it describes the Satanist's
opposition to what is held 'good' by society. Furthermore, Satan is a more
familiar name for evil than Angra Mainyu (to give just one example), since it
is the name used by xianity. A Satanist may not think of their god as 'Satan'
(as I noted above, they may not even believe in Satan) but uses the word for
convenience of identification.


Review:

I don't understand why this should be a FAQ.  Perhaps you could address the
same issue with 'Isn't Satan a Jewish term?'

Also, I'm confused as to your usage of the term 'evil' here.  Perhaps there
is a colloquial use for it to which I am not privy, yet I thought that this
was a Western, Judeo-Christian term of moralism.  Perhaps you can set me
straight.  This could just as well be combined with my '2.' above and 
give reference to 'Saturn, Set, and Shaitan'.  Kenneth Grant makes some
good reading on this etymological connection.
 

FAQ:

Another reason to use the name 'Satan' is that the identity has been used and
developed by multiple cultures for over 2000 years; Satan represents a more
complex set of ideas than other priciples of evil.


Review:

Again, what is meant here by 'principles of evil'?  Are you referring to
your own worship as that which you eschew?  Sounds like garbled language to
me.  I suppose it could be a clever way to disrupt the black/white labelling
of many would-be Satanist-bashers, but it really makes for a lack of
coherency when you use traditional terms (other than those central to
your faith, which I didn't think this was) in unorthodox ways.

 
FAQ:

4. What is _The Satanic Bible_?
 
_The Satanic Bible_ describes the philosophy of the Church of Satan, founded by
Anton LaVey. This organization holds the view that there is no higher god than
oneself, and that one should worship accordingly--a form of egotheism. Although
many Satanists don't agree with much of the book, most probably would agree
with some of its philosophy as summed up in the Nine Satanic Statements. _The
Satanic Bible_ can be found (in America, at any rate) in most bookstores in the
new age, philosophy, or similar sections. The Church of Satan can be contacted
at:
 
    Church of Satan
    P.O. Box 210082
    San Fransisco, CA 94121
 
$100 will get you a lifetime membership. Contrary to popular belief, the church
is not tax-exempt.


Review:

This really should be reviewed by someone with a background in philosophy.
_S. Bible_ is a mixture of existentialism, nihilism, egocentrism and other
philosophic lines under the mantle of a wrathful mythos.  I'm not familiar
enough with Western philosophy myself to do the review justice.  It ought
to be panned, BADLY, and yet put in a proper perspective as one of
the few books of its kind.
 
I didn't know that The C of S isn't tax-exempt.  Didn't they at one time
qualify for that?  

'The Temple of Set' (which I think IS tax-exempt) should be reviewed 
in comparison.   Perhaps some other Masonic Orders (OTO and Grant's 
come to mind initially) could also be included.


FAQ:

There is a perennial debate in alt.satanism as to whether or not the term
'Satanism' is appropriate for the church's beliefs, due to its atheistic
stance. While I personally consider the label somewhat misleading, the Church
of Satan appears to be well-established and its use of the word is probably
here to stay, although it is not the *only* definition.


Review:

It would be better, rather than REVIEWING the Church's stated philosophies,
to include a QUOTE of their definition of Satanism and general ideas.
Same goes for any other Satanic orgs included in the FAQ.
 

FAQ:

5. You people aren't real Satanists.
 
A popular image of Satanism is that of a group of individuals meeting secretly
to perform blood rites involving human sacrifice, cannibalism, and molestation
of children. This idea is encouraged by the proliferation of 'true crime' books
detailing alleged Satanic sacrifices. To date, there is no evidence I know of
to support such a belief. The few 'Satanic crimes' known to have been commited
were motivated by more prosaic desires--any Satanic element was peripheral.


Review:

Again, this isn't a question.  I'd suggest:

5. Aren't Satanists ritualistic baby murderers?

I think that the 'true crime' books ought be treated seriously as a genre
of popular FICTION, since they cannot be substantiated.  Treated this way
regarding the 'alleged' practices, I think that references should be given.
This would involve a lot of research into books which Satanists often
avoid like the plague, but it is important to the FAQ.

Otherwise, I think that the above paragraph is appropriate and has the right
idea.
 

FAQ:

6. _The Bible_ says...
 
Many Satanists--myself for example--are Satanists because they have read _The
Bible_, carefully considered all of its contents, and come to the conclusion
that it, and the claims of xianity, are unbelievable, repulsive, and
hypocritical. I have dedicated my life to ridding the world of this menace.
Repeated posts on alt.satanism to the effect that following _The Bible_ and its
childish God is my only hope of salvation only serve to reinforce my decision.


Review:

How about:  6. What about _The Bible_?

By the way, thanks for putting _The Bible_ in underscore.  Too many people
abuse the convention and lose the mystical aspects of Christianity by doing
so.  You identify yourself here, which is not necessary in a FAQ.  You
also identify yourself as a 'disgruntled Christian', but that is quite
beside the point ;>.  

I honestly think that most of the above should be scrapped and replaced with
a serious response that explains why _The Bible_ contains no tenable
arguments against Satanism (i.e. that it is not the sacred tome of Satanists
and therefore does not hold the same truth-value, etc.).
 

FAQ:

7. Recommended reading.
 
_The Satanic Bible_ by Anton Szander Lavey.
This is the only book written by a Satanist with a coherent presentation of any
form of Satanic philosophy.
 
_Satan Wants You_ by Arthur Lyons.
An excellent book giving a brief history of Satanism and an overview of
Satanism today. Well written and researched. He was written another book, _The
Second Coming_, which I have not had the pleasure of reading.


Review:

This needs work.  First off, I think that your claim is only partially true.
There is a rich tradition of Western philosophy which prides itself on
egocentrism.  They don't identify as 'Satanist' per se, but they certainly
provide LaVey with the groundwork he needed to write his reference-less book.

Second, just because LaVey was the first to wear the badge does not entitle
him to sole reference.  I'd suggest Cavendish, Crowley, and others who are or
were quite good writers on the subject of Black Arts, Magick, Satanism and
Demonology.  If you need suggestions, I may be able to come up with a list.
Not to mention all the Chaos Mages (Spare, Grant, Carroll, etc.) who tend
towards Satanism also.

Third, the form of the reference should be more complete.   Example:

_The Satanic Bible_, by Anton LaVey, Avon Books, 1969.

REVIEW

_Satan Wants You_, by Arthur Lyons, Mysterious Press (Warner), 1988.

REVIEW 


FAQ:

What *not* to read.
There are a number of books out today purporting to cover the topic of
Satanism, focusing on the alleged criminal aspect. These book suffer seriously
from credulity. They are usually located in the non-fiction or true-crime
sections of bookstores, and are easily identified by their lurid covers and
sensationalist claims. Particularly guilty authors include Bob Larson and Mike
Warnke. While these books may be read for entertainment value, I strongly urge
you seek another source for serious information.


Review:

The caveat is important, but I don't think that it should be said that
these books should NOT be read.  That'll only encourage the critics.
Give a good list of these tomes after recommending against them, and then
a review of each, stressing their particular biases and errors.  If you're
going to do it, do it all the way.  Otherwise leave them alone completely.

Also not mentioned is the large number of books which are not 'true crime'
tomes which describe Satanism from a Christian perspective.  These are very
valuable to the would-be Satanist and to the religious researcher.  Why?
Because the Satanist wants to know who is a reactionary and can detect
some of this in these books, and the religious researcher wants to see
how Satanism fits into the tradition which did so much to foster it -
Christianity.


------------------------------------------  Review ends ----------------

Again, contact me if you want my help beyond this review.  I rarely get
around to this newsgroup unless I see something interesting or if I have
extra time.  I may visit more frequently now that I see honest interest 
in serious study, but I'm not the only one around, either.  What ever
happened to Mike Morgan??
 

Thyagi
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I am Satanist.  Yes, I am Christian.  Yes, I am Witch.  
No, I'm not insane.  No, I'm not Charles Manson.  No, I'm not your mother.
Xref: sparky alt.satanism:1948 alt.atheism:16550 soc.motss:38258 sci.physics:14135 alt.religion.emacs:405 talk.religion.newage:4207 alt.pagan:8814 alt.sex:28404 talk.religion.misc:15657