Talk:Satanism/Archive 2

message: (Comment: The idea that such cults do not exist is subjective, not objective, and thus does not belong in an Encyclopaedia unless counter-balanced by the opposing opinion. 
Fact is, there is significant evidence that such cults DO exist, such as the extensive lists of unexplained missing persons tied to alleged cult sites.  And though some cults may not be described as 'Satanic' (they don't worship Satan), there are cults documented to have sacrificed humans to their various deities.  For instance, the Ancient Order of Druids certainly did sacrifice humans in England during the late 19th and early 20th century, and it is very possible that similar sects, or perhaps even the Order itself, still do.  Though such sacrifices are arguably justified by the fact that they pale in comparison to the mass brutal sacrifices that occured around the world contemporaneously--the First and Second World Wars.  
Human sacrifice is an ancient tradition shared by many cults throughout history, including the Druids, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Scythians, and arguably even the Catholics.  
Understandably the idea of human sacrifice is highly controversial, but to many it is still considered a completely acceptable ritual. 
The idea that such cults worship Satan is, as aforementioned, often a misconception based upon subjective religious viewpoint.)
: moved above comment from article.
: I think my response would be that the counterbalancing opinion is provided at satanic ritual abuse - is that sufficient? Martin 09:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Their very existence is suspect, and more than likely an urban legend. Just because someone labels someone else as a Satanist does not mean they ARE Satanists. Titanium Dragon 11:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satanic cults 

message: 213.65.252.218 recently made four edits; while there's nothing wrong with the first two (changing references of "Set" to "Setian Satanism"), the second two (11:01 and 11:27, 7 Jul 2004) are highly problematic:
# The section on "Traditional Satanism" was wiped and replaced with a gratuitously POV section in "Other Groups".
# Material moved to the LaVeyan Satanism article was inexplicably added back to the LaVeyan Satanism section in this article; if there's a link to an article-proper about a given subject (which there is, immediately above the LaVeyan Satanism blurb), the blurb in the more generic article should merely be a quick overview — readers can visit the full article for more information.
I'm reverting these most recent two edits. - Korpios 16:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by 213.65.252.218 

message: Here are items I feel are in need of removal or alteration because they are misleading, or just out-of-place.
Satanism in Traditional Theology
:a. "Conversely enough, .. they are also seen as the people who killed Jesus"
Irrelevent to the subject. Also a topic of great debate. To include the statements about a view that Jews are Satan does not reflect the beliefs of the Jewish person in regards to the concept of Satan, which is what this subpoint in this article is referring to. This will be removed.
:b. "As of 2001, some Muslims..."
This is absolutely and completely wrong. 2001 was not the timing when some Muslims forumulated their opinions about the US. Furthermore to imply that there is a some section of Muslims that revere the US or Cold-War Russia as the Great Satan misleads the reader to think they are something more valid than religious kooks bending doctrine or projecting their emotions into religious teaching. If we are going to do that then we need to include the 1960's Black Muslim movement calling whites "Satan", & other Christian groups calling people incarnations of Satan. The intent of including this view must be tempered with so many qualifiers to dampen it's effect that it may just be best to remove it altogether.
:c. "Logically it can't be an enemy of God... they are probably referring to Jesus"
The debate over contradictory statements w/i the Christian religion is not relevent or helpful in this article. Although I wholeheartedly agree with the statement, it does not help define true-believing Christian's views on Satan. This should be removed.
I will return to do the editing on this article Friday if there are no objections.
--Duemellon 14:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird, unfounded, dubious... 

message: The four "main trends" here seem to be missing something big:  theistic Satanism.  
Sat/Tan being a main trend seems iffy.  Other than Tani Jantsang's and possibly HR Vad's group, I've never seen it espoused as a major philosophy by anyone else.  It's vaguely related in the "becoming"/"being" bit to the Setian "xeper" philosophy.  But a main trend based on 1-2 groups?  That's stretching.
Setian Satanism is debatable, since the Temple of Set did indeed orginate from the CoS, but tends to distance itself from the Satanism label as being too narrow and counterproductive in its semantic baggage.  But it's definitely one of the main LHP "trends", so I can see it's place here.
But where's "theistic Satanism?"  I've already read the arguments about "modern" vs. "traditional" and I can agree there, but it seems very incomplete to mention something as relatively obscure as the Dark Doctrines and yet make no mention that, alongside the atheistic and nontheistic versions of Satanism there are indeed theistic non-Christian Satanists running around.  Some of the "other forms" MIGHT be theistic, but nothing is actually said regarding that.  It should at least be *acknowledged,* even if it requires it own Wiki entry for the details (as does LaVeyan Satanism).
I feel that's a large hole in this article and gives the reader an incomplete and skewed view of the religion/philosophy.
:Theistic Satanism is a myth; the only people who claim to worship Satan have been insane and have no organization. The vast majority of people who claim to worship Satan as a god are being sarcastic or are trying to provoke a response. I would argue that this is not even a minor trend among Satanists, because the people are insane. If you were to include this, you would have to include being racist, killing Muslims, ect. as "major trends" under Christianity - they would make up a larger proportion of Christianity than theistic Satanists do among Satanists. Theistic Satanism is not a major trend as far as I have seen, and every source I've found on Satanism dismisses the reality of theistic Satanists. Titanium Dragon 21:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Trends? 

message: The article as it stands presents an overly narrow view of the term "satanism". I doubt that most people use the word in the sense of LaVeyism. The article would be better if it addressed the term in its more general sense and relegated LaVeyism to a separate entry.
The fact that most people may use the word "satanism" to refer to something other than the Church of Satan, as founded by Anton Levey irrelevent.  At the same time, the fact that there have been several offshoots from the Church of Satan should not be completely ignored.207.157.121.50 11:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: The opening sentence of the section on Philosophical Satanism currently reads: "[...] the Church of Satan (one of the first above-ground organizations to use the term) [...]".  Were there any above-ground organizations to use the term before the CoS? —Morning star 16:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''One'' of the first? 

message: The following adition removed, until clarification.
:Satanism is as legally protected as every other religion in the United States (example: a court case ruled a United States military officer could not be discriminated against in any way simply due to his status as a Satanist).
The claim is very serious, and court reference is due. Does it really have a status of religionin the USA? Today any bunch of freaks may proclaim themselves a pet religion. Are they all protected? mikka (t) 21:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal status

message: I came back to find that a disclaimer had been added to the page.  Personally, I don't think it's needed, but I changed it to actually reflect a true statement.  I'm just wondering if anyone feels it's necessary or if we should remove it.
The disclaimer is in the introduction, where it starts "It should be noted..." -- Cabhan 14:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclaimer 

message: As I am not a Satanist, and not exactly very knowlegable in the subject, I need some help from people who can check out joy of satan and tell me what its about. I visited it, and from what I can tell it does not belong to mainstream satanism, althoug it claims to be.
Well, "mainstream Satanism" is pretty much the Church of Satan and (maybe) the Temple of Set, being the two largest publically Satanist organizations.  This site is DEFINITELY not Church of Satan.  I dunno enough about the ToS to say if it's a part of that, but I am HIGHLY doubtful.
One reason I removed the link is how little information there is.  The "Purposes" section is fairly accurate in regards to modern Satanism, except for comments about the original creator and such things.
The site seems mostly to be a personal rant of the author.  One of his updates mentions that Satan has spoken to him directly, and also declares (in a very long-winded rant) that the Jews are actually controlling the world and the Christian churches.
Another contains Satan's message to all warriors about fighting the Christians.
Basically, a lot of this site seems to have nothing to do with mainstream Satanism, and seems (to me, at least) to be a personal rant. -- Cabhan 13:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See both My page on Satanism and the article Satanism wich I contributed the content box that shows the three forms of Satanism.  --Admiral Roo 17:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks guys for the help. But what I realy want to know is if the claim that Satan is an Extra Terestrial is considered mainstream. I'll look through the links you provided, but as far as I can tell this claim is unique to the Joy of Satan website. --Technogiddo 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satanist link I need people to check out. 

message: I recently removed a reference to the Sat/Tan section, since this section was removed.  However, there is now a dangling reference to a "Black Flame".  Since I know absolutely nothing about this Black Flame, can someone please fill this in?  This reference is at the end of the first paragraph in the Setian Satanism section. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 18:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Flame 

message: A link was just added to the article that is a Muslim perspective of Satan and such.  The vast majority of the site has nothing to do with Satan, rather, it is Qur'anic Healing.
That said, it brings up an interesting point: should we have links that deal with the Abrahamic perceptions of Satan, or should we limit our links to Satanic groups, and the like.  Personally, I feel that since the article is about Satanism, not Satan, and definitely not Satan in the Torah/Bible/Qur'an, our links should deal exclusively with Satanic groups or other information on the religion called Satanism.
So if no one disagrees in a few days, I'm gonna go and take out that link... -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 21:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links Regarding Views of Satan 

message: Sorry, but deriving "devil" from Sanskrit "devi" is completely bogus on every linguistic level... AnonMoos 05:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you hypothesize that the moon is made of green cheese, then that's a "theory" too, but not one which any expert in the field would place the slightest credence in.  Same with "Devil" from "Devi" -- it doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia unless it's explicitly differentiated from linguistically-respectable etymologies. AnonMoos 02:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogus Etymology

message: removed the following -
"It must be noted that true Satanists do not act as such, and have no connection whatsoever to Gothic Satanism."
- from the "Gothic Satanism" section as it seems an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. --Black Butterfly 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no true satanist..." 

message: wouldn't this be better titled "devil worship?" what have goths, ancient or modern to do with the witch craze of the 16th and 17th centuries? Benvenuto 08:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gothic Satanism

message: I noticed this section added to the article, as well as the external link.  While I'm not opposed to the link, I have never heard of this organization, and a Google search reveals 239 hits.  I'm gonna move it to the "Other Groups" section.  If anyone can prove its notoriety such that it deserves its own section, feel free to post here. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That text was deleted from the Sinagogue of Satan topic. The author refused any editing help, and has posted the same poorly formatted, and unedited text here. -- Mikeblas 05:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinagogue of Satan