Talk:Theistic Satanism

message: The article is written with huge blocks of text, and run on sentences. Try and break it up so that each paragraph has a focus instead of making it one huge paragraph of a variety of subjects. 
This page is also a hodgepodge of references from everything *but* theistic satanism.
For instance, if the witch trials were the accusation and killing of innocent people, then what does that have to do with satanism? the charge of 'satanism' brought on those people were trumped up charges, and lies, that cost people their lives. The references to moral panics and killings of innocent people belong in a page called 'moral panic' "SRA" and "Witchcraft Trials".
The use of literary satanism to justify some kind of history for theistic satanism is ridiculous. Literary satanism are fictional stories that were written to sensationalize the public's curiosity in the morbid and profane, as defined by the Church. this has nothing to do with the history of satanism. Also, the knights Templar, masonic and other references have nothing to do with what theistic satanists identify with. That is, unless you count the christian conspiracy theories of the masons as fact.
Thesitic and spiritual satanism is a relatively new movement that had taken hold AFTER lavey created the church of Satan. No one even bothers to mention Aquino and the Temple of Set, which was a *theistic* continuation of atheistic satanism. 
This page is not an academic reference. Its a jumble of mixed ideas purported by various individuals and organizations clamoring to get their ideas put into wikipedia.
Venus Satanas (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article suck balls hard. The grammar is headache enough, but it is unrepresentative, misleading, lacks context and worst of all reflects poorly on individuals who choose this path. It is worthwhile to remind oneself that a global community tends to thumbnail Satanism and articles such as this perpetuate associative ignorances society will foist upon Satanists. If an article like this can set itself with some focus and permeate some sort of encyclopedic tone then the more visible article representing Satanism might take some cues from the direction a relative topic like this can accomplish. I think a good chunk or core research stands inside the article as it is with maybe 50% being useable and verifiable, but it would be a shame if articles like this suffer one of two diseases: the parochial tainting of Satanism on Wikipedia or the scam tactic suffered by an article like Luciferianism which is essentially one paragraph about the past and the rest being a muster roll or sign-up sheet for modern Orders.Blackson (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is also a hodgepodge of references from everything *but* theistic satanism.

message: I really don't think "and indeed some Theistic Satanists do practice spiritual warfare to accomplish Satan's will." should be in an encyclopedia... 118.2.126.96 (talk)
:If it's true, or if its followers believe it to be true, it probably should, but it definately needs a cite 143.92.1.33 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: "Anne Rice, while not a Satanist herself, equates Satan with Ahriman, the destructive spirit in Zoroastrianism,"
If Anne Rice is not a satanist and satanists do not use her opinion, then why is her belief about satan in this article. should we inquire other non satanists what their opinion of satan is as well?
How does anne rice's metaphorical theory fit in with the beliefs and culture of theistic satanism, considering the fact that she is not a satanist?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Satanas (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Irrelevant and misdirected aspects of this article

message: Right now Religious and Traditional Satanism redirect to this article, Theistic Satanism.  If one of these terms is more popular than the others please enlighten me.  Google shows about 35,000 results for "Theistic Satanism", vs. less than 1000 for "Religious Satanism" and "Traditional Satanism".  -- goatasaur 17:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I really don't know why I let that slip by. That statement will be deleted due to lack of sources or maybe I'll demand 2 sources to be cited. One of the two is difenitly needed. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. AlexanderLevian 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: a consensus amongst the mature and interested has yet to congeal. the talk page of Satanism has rudiments in its archives for citations, and after that we'll be talking about examples very likely. all of these categorical terms are hand-waving attempts to distract.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Theistic/Religious/Traditional

message: ~ Is there any reason why the Theistic Satanism page has a side panel with a whole big bunch of links pertaining to the Church of Satan?  Seems to me that that side panel belongs on a page about LaVeyan Satanism, but not on a page about theistic Satanism.  Although many of today's forms of theistic Satanism are influenced by LaVey to at least a small degree, most are not, by any means, based PRIMARILY on LaVey.  Diane Vera 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a "Church of Satan" sidebar, it's a "Satanism" sidebar.  The Church of Satan is a prominent Satanist organization.  The sidebar should go on most pages regarding Satanism.  -- goatasaur 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Side panel with LaVeyan and Church of Satan links?

message: I have rewritten this with proper sources and an encyclopedic tone.  If you can improve upon it do - but include reputable sources.  Please do not blank, I put work into it.  They are notable due to the contraversy surrounding them.
Hi again, thanks to whoever added to it.  I have edited it to give it the tone of an encyclopedia, but I believe I've kept any info you addedMerkinsmum 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

text: WP:NOTFORUM still completely stands, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX still stands by pointing out that you were trying to use the talk page to convince a particular office of something.  Also, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Joy of Satan

message: Some place in all this Wikipedian Satanism debacle, there needs to be a home that will include French (and other) Satanism of the last century (and earlier), such as the author Huysmans described in his book "La Bas".  Lest someone says that "La Bas" was just a novel, it doesn't matter if it was or not, because there were hundreds of books and articles in the late 1800s/early 1900s describing and discussing Satanism, especially (or even mostly) in France.  It was a huge business.  There were the books by Leo Taxil claiming that the Masons were Satanist (Taxil hoax), and there were numerous pro and anti Satanist books written.  This period of Satanism is discussed in many historical/scholarly works such as:
*Rhodes, H.T.F. (1954). The Satanic Mass. 
*Zacharias, Gerhard (1964). Der dunkle Gott: Satanaskult und Schwarze Messe. 
*Cavendish, Richard (1967). The Black Arts. (See especially, Chapter 7, "The Worship of the Devil", section 3, "The Black Mass") 
*Zacharias, Gerhard (1980). The Dark God: Satan Worship and Black Masses. (Translated from the German by Christine Trollope)
*And don't forget all of Montague Summers' classic works.
*And to add the list, besides the list of books in German and English, there are, of course, about 100 books in French all from the same time, talking about exactly the same topic - Satanism with a capital "S".
*And the Dennis Wheatley Occult Library - these are all novels, but he wrote, for example, "To the Devil, a Daughter" (1953), and "The Satanist" (1960).
In other words, "Satanism" has been talked about, and been around, for a long time, and many articles in Wikipedia that link to Satanism, are expecting the reader to come across this true, historical version of Satanism, and not some new-Age alternate religious movement.
This branch of Satanism can in the main be described as "Theistic Satanism", as it was seen as relating to Roman Catholicism.  However, it could also include French writers such as Baudelaire and Lautremont, and the Marquis de Sade, who didn't necessarily worship the Devil, although they too were rebelling specifically against Roman Catholicism.Jimhoward72 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Satanism, especially in France

message: In order to create an organized effort, I've put on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page a proposed Left Hand Path project to try and sort out all the problems we go through and to help properyly cite and protect things. If you're interested just go to the Project Council/proposals page and add your name to the "Left Hand Path" section. Seeing as there's been a wide variety of edit wars, it might be good to get some organization (and possibly administration to mediate conflicts). Just an idea. WerewolfSatanist 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject: Left Hand Path 

message: I noticed someone added citations needed after every group which seems to be a move to get rid of the groups if citations are not made. I added a citation for the Sinagogue of Satan. I hope I did it right. Just trying to get along not trying to fight. I hope I'm complying with policies and if not I'm sure you'll tell me.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good addition. I've fixed it up so it appears under the notes section. Tunnels of Set 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: Since Anton LaVey and Blanche Batron and any CoS material have nothing to do with Theistic Satanism I propose they be removed from the article.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: How is the Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry a source for theistic Satanism? Furthermore, that tome is over 800 pages long. Can a more specific reference be made? Also, the word "satanism" does not appear in that work. I'm very confused. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't ask anyone to proselytize. I asked for someone to back up and clarify the source for the content, with the hope that maybe they'd improve the citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KeithTyler (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masonic book as reference? 

message: I am not the person that put that in the article, I'm the person reverting your edit.
There are other posts with the same publisher and you did not edit them out, only mine, which was not put there by me. Explain your actions please.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your book is self published and not a reliable source or appropriate for inclusion. You are trying to keep a book that you wrote and published with a vanity press as a ref on the article. See the problem? I'd refer you gain to our policies on this matter: WP:SPS and WP:COI. NeoFreak 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a problem with your statement. I'm the author but I'm not the person that had it published. Therefore once again you made an action without knowing the facts. That book was published by Marvin Sotello. Do I really need to call a mediation on you?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, this is silly. You wrote a book and paid to have it published. It's sold on lulu.com a site for authors to sell books they have published themselves. You can't even get it on amazon. Either you are playing at semantics or you're just not reading the policy guildline on this issue. Please, if you read the linked policy I'm sure you will understand why this book is not a WP:reliable source. NeoFreak 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I wrote a book but did not pay to have it published, nor did I publish it. I wonder if this kind of jumping to conclusions with no regard to checking out the facts is what got Pat Tillman shot eh Marine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, cheeky. Tillman was an Army Ranger and not a Marine but your venom is noted desipte your ignorance. Maybe you could clear up the publication process for this stupid jarhead. NeoFreak 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liber of the Goat 

message: the txt here states that Pharoah expelled the Hebrews from Egypt.  However, I can find no source to back up this claim.  In fact, the only significant writings of the time that even place the Hebrews in Egypt are the Hebrew writings, which state that not only did Pharoah not expell them, he did everything he could to not let them go...64.122.70.121 21:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setianism 

message: I don't really know how we can improve this article, as in get it WP:RS, because so little has been written by modern Theistic Satanists which has been published by well-known publishing houses.  I need to read Mastering Witchcraft by Paul Huson as I think that might contain some info about it.  
Certainly this was a bit wrong:-
"All these faiths hold in common, however, with each other and with Philosophical Satanists, that man, and specifically the self are the highest priorities"
The self may be important to some Theist Satanists, but the word "Theistic" means the core concept is the worship of Satan. IMHO.  And to many theistic Satanists, they try and make Satan one of the highest priorities in their lives. Merkin's  mum 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to work on this in my user sace, so it doesn't seem like I'm flooding the article with my changes.  If you look at my edits though, although I've done a tiny bit at a time they're pretty minor, usually clarifying, trying to clean up WP:OR and adding refs.  Sorry if my activity seems more intense than it is.  Eventually I'll clean this article up a fair bit though, by adding sources.  It's tiring for me to work on, because it's quite long. Merkin's  mum 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: anyone think of some [[WP:RS]] we can use/ my edits

message: yes! good one. Shame it's self published.  This is a proper book  a secondary source discussing T.S. a bit.  more lulu fare.  shows Christians vaguely using the term.   more Lulu.  Still a couple of these are slightly useful.  more fundies or someone using it.    perhaps a few more.  These are what we should be using- ideally not relying much on the lulu ones.:) Merkin's  mum 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any reference online to "theophoney" as a refering to a record company or anything, is that how it's spelt?  It that your own, or a friend's, name for their productions?  LuLu is ok I suppose for conveying people's own ideas about their religion, and can be used as a reference for their own ideas.  It sort of has a stigma though but at least it means people can access the texts concerned to verify that it says what it says.  So it's upto you really which one you'd rather use.:) Merkin's  mum 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes I found "theophany records" after I'd said all that lol.  Yes, I'm not an expert on these things but use whichever seems best to you. Merkin's  mum 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: sources

message: As you can see, I've done quite a bit per WP:BOLD.  One of the main changes is I removed a bit that added nothing specifically about Theistic Satanism, or Satanism, it just went on about differences in the concept of Satan between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which is covered in the article on Satan.  Plus I added a lot of stuff, including lots of references.  Hope you all like most of it- feel free to edit it of course.:) Sticky  Parkin 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes/improvements

message: I couldn't save my changes this afternoon and bits of the article kept disappearing. hopefully be ok in a bit? Sticky Parkin 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: page being wierd

message: This is mainly in reply to NeoFreak but for general discussion and to stop my reply looking so huge lol.  If you look for instance in fundamentalist christian writings their 'satanism' is not that meant by the Church of Satan, (which already has it's own article, by the way, so one of your ideas is already partly sorted :) )Yes as you can see above in the comments by Margolin, T.S.' would love to be able to just call this article 'Satanism'.  They consider Satanism to be the worship of Satan .  Yes you are right that they see what's happened (mainly unintentionally, perhaps, at least by LaVey) as hijacking of the term.  The thing is for a while the article 'Satanism' was solely about LaVeyan Satanism and they were trying to propound that they were the first organized "Satanism" (sort of right in a way, in so much as according to LaVey's definition of the word) and pretty much (arguably, according to Margolin, Diane Vera etc) using it just to discuss their religion.  It's really unfortunate sharing of the same term, over which massive arguments took place.:) And so it was decided (before I got involved to an real extent) that there would be separate articles for Theistic Satanism and LaVeyan Satanism, as the two 'religions' couldn't work together.  Of course the terms aren't often used independently of each other, but it was a way of labelling it (which also happens in some academic articles and books, to help them distinguish what they mean by the word "Satanism" if their using it in a separate way.)  "Satanism" might as well be just a disambig page.  If you prfer, they could be called Satanism (theistic) and Satanism (LaVeyan) as is the convention for many wiki pages where the article names are really a disambiguation in themselves for the reader.  For instance, we have Coven (band)- the article isn't called "musical coven" or something.:).  As to the CoS/LaVey there are also a number of articles about particular beliefs of theirs/ideas of LaVey, I think.  At least, there's one for Sigil of Baphomet, for instance.LaVeyan beliefs/LaVey's work is covered in several articles on wiki- and perhaps rightly so as quite a number of people believe them. Sticky Parkin 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and just to say I have no objection personally to the articles being merged, as long as they're dealt with fairly- on the other hand, having separate articles has stopped some of the constant edit wars and one group claiming the other don't exist or something.  I just got into editing the T.S. article because I happened to go on it, see that it wasn't very good, and start trying to improve it.  This was easier for me than trying to edit the LaVeyan articles as the ideas are more intriguing to me so I enjoy looking for sources etc and like to think I've improved the article a bit.  But I might have a go at writing a reasonable "Satanism" article, in my userspace.  Though I don't want to 'burn out" when it comes to these articles lol.:) Sticky Parkin 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be game at writing a new Satanism article on one of our user spaces but be warned, it might be a long, frustrating process. We'd have to bring alot of people in on it to avoid an edit war when we incorporate it but I think it could be worth it.NeoFreak (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually support keeping the articles separate. I think what User:Sticky Parkin has said about edit warring over at Satanism is an all too real possibility. This isn't a POV fork, in the same way that (forgive my utter lack of knowledge on the subject but it's an analogy) Roman catholic church and Protestantism aren't. ColdmachineTalk 08:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh thanks for that, it's a great analogy.:)  User:The Haunted Angel has said we shouldn't merge them as they're two different things/religions.  He was also concerned about the length but as you can see from the scruffy prototype when I shoved them both in together with LaVeyan Satanism to see what happened, (ignore the titles and where I haven't yet changed that it says 'theisic' Satanism most of the way through, and there's still a bit to be summarised and added from LaVeyan Satanism.), it's not overly long for a wiki article, though too long for my attention sp... Sticky Parkin 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I would argue as to whether that is 'really' Theistic Satanism but we would have to make our own forum to discuss the subject.:)  However certainly stuff such as the Poison Affair seems to mention real Satanists- how much of it was a smear campaign or some sort of scam or political posturing we can't really know, but I like to think not all of it.:) Sticky Parkin 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The title etc.

message: This is just to say that I personally have no problem referencing this angelfire site.  Per Wikipedia:V#SELF we can do so if the person concerned is an authority on the subject.  She has been mentioned in a proper book so I think that means she qualifies as an authority to an extent, at least in as much as she should be allowed to clarify a statement that's been made about her. Sticky Parkin 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, using her site as an inline reference for her beliefs, not adding it as an external link. Sticky Parkin 13:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wouldn't the proper book be a safer bet though? I don't know...I'm not sure that WP:SPS really is as flexible as you suggest for something like this. I think third party sources are better for this. ColdmachineTalk 14:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have the proper book ref in and it's staying, but as with a couple of the proper books, what it claims are a group's/her views is a bit wrong, hence she's annoyed:)  I think she should be allowed to briefly 'answer' it in the article, like how I've altered it if she's ok with that, if it's talking about her and possibly wrong.Sticky Parkin 16:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tani Jatsang's angelfire site

message: I think one outstanding reason the article "branched" to LaVeyan Satanism and Theistic Satanism, is that these two "approaches" to understanding Satanism (due to the active proponents of both views) were kind of pitted against each other. So, believe it or not, (since I have actually recently been pulling out my old Zacharias book The Satanic Cult and actually been reading through it), I think this "branching" would be minimized if we would list these two views along with some other modern, scholarly views on Satanism.  In other words, list the modern approaches to understanding what Satanism really is.  We can include (1) LaVey as one modern approach (in other words, how did he, in a rational, scholarly way, analyze and describe what Satanism really was?), and perhaps (2) a proponent or two from "Theistic Satanism" - Tani Jatsang and or Diane Vera, perhaps (?), although I'm thinking our approach should be confined to actually published books, as opposed to internet articles.  But what I'm saying, is that that is only scratching the surface.  There is (3), the approach of Zacharias, a German scholar of religion writing in 1964 (just as the Church of Satan was being formed), who analyzed Satanism very carefully, (and quoted in detail almost every historical source for Satanism), who uses a phenomenological approach to analyse and study Satanism.  (His book was republished and revised a number of times, both in German and English).  Although it is somewhat difficult reading (at least, compared to LaVey and proponents of Theistic Satanism), once you have read Zacharias alongside the current Wikipedia articles, you will realize that Zacharias has a very valid, modern, rational approach to analyzing all of the details of Satanism, as a phenomena (a phenomena means it is a valid historical manifestation which appeared and is valid in and of itself).  Another scholarly analysis of Satanism, is (4) Rhodes "The Satanic Mass, a criminological study".  So, if you have a section like Modern Scholarly Analysis to Defining what Satanism Really Is, you can have (for example) - (1) LaVey's Approach in The Satanic Bible. The Church of Satan (the approach of a group who calls themself Satanists) (2) Theistic Satanism Approach  Michael Aquino, Diane Vera, Tani Jatsang approach (the approach of another group that calls themselves Satanists) (3) Satanism as a Valid Historical Phenomena - the approach of Zacharias The Satanic Cult, a thorough analysis and study of Satanism, which presents Satanism in very clear light (and half of the book is quotes from historical sources for Satanism). (4) Satanism as a Criminological Phenomenon - the approach presented in Rhodes book The Satanic Mass.  (5) and there are a few other studies, there was even a book written in 1897 in German called The Synagogue of Satan.  Or perhaps, the analysis of Garath Medway, who argues that Satanism never really existed.  I'm saying, that if the various scholarly approaches to Satanism are listed and described, the dichotomy between LaVeyan Satanism and Theistic Satanism won't appear so strong, and the articles will be able to be merged into one article on Satanism.Jimhoward72 (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose Adding New Section ''Scholarly Approaches to Understanding Satanism'', and Possible Solution to Article "Branch" Issue

message: I read the whole article and noticed from begining to end it discusses LaVey's Satanism. I was wondering if the rest of you editors noticed that too?  I find this sentence extremley POV since the same could be said of Rodger Coreman movies,"however they may use some Satanic iconography made more widely known by LaVeyan Satanists" such as the sigil of Baphomet"
Yes the horror movie ones of the 50's have different hebrew letters but the symbol is the same.
If this is an article on Theistic Satananism there is no need to constantly refer to LaVey. Again I accuse some editors of trying to manipulate this and the Satanism article to propagate LaVey's religion in an attempt to monopolize the general publics view of Satanism, thus exploiting Wikipedia.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to LaVey Established Satanism as a religion, If you doubt this then perhaps you should read up on the many sources that point to LaVey as the originator of the Satanic movement? Regardless of whether you like him or not, he was the founder of Satanic ideology in modern times; he set a precedent.  but, agreed that the focus of this entire article should not be 'laveyan satanism' it should be about the various movements and beliefs in theistic satanism. 
There is no 'traditional satanism'. There is, however, theistic satanism which is the recognition of Satan as a deity unlike atheistic satanism which is a symbolic representation of Satan. The title 'traditional satanism' was created by those who feel that the subversion ideologies of the christian church and mass media should dictate what satanism is. Satanism as a social movement did not exist until the 20th century. This hardly qualifies as 'traditional'. A traditional religion is generational. This article needs a complete re-write with real references, and some of the material on this page should be moved to the satanism_disambiguation page instead. The topics on this page are christian opinions on satanism. Venus Satanas (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: you suggest some sort of conspiracy on this page, michael. That is a serious charge. I feel that the page's condition is due to uneducated editing, not some massive COS wiki conspiracy. Try finding some references to add to the article so the information about the COS is not the focus? [Conspiracies, church hoaxes, scaremongering literature, satanic panics, and masonry not included.] Venus Satanas (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? I'm happy with the article, after two minor edits the article describes Theistic Satanism without Spaming a Satanism that is not theistic.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Read Through article

message: Hi,
I've changed and/or removed some references to www.cultoftheram.com which seems to have changed to www.cultoftheram.org. If this is a mistake, please feel free to revert any of my edits, but please let me know.--– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 18:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult of the Ram webpage 

message: Do there exist any sort of estimates which have any basis in fact of the number of people with such beliefs?  The LaVeyan Satanism page gives a rough estimate (though of a wide range) of the number of followers, but is there any source for an idea of the number believing in following a literal Satan, such as maybe from self-reporting in Census data or provided by Satanic organizations?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.70.233 (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbers of believers? 

message: Other groups such as the 600 Club,[45] are accepting of all types of Satanist, as are the Sinagogue of Satan, which aims for the ultimate destruction of religions, paradoxically including itself, and encourages not self-indulgence, but self-expression balanced by social responsibility.[69][70]
the sentence has two citations already but this year the University of Michigan entered the word Sinagogue
into it's 75 year old English lexicon project the "Middle English dictionary" 
(c) a group of sinful people; ~ of satan(as.
Here is the link http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED40413
Would this make another acceptable citation for the Sinagogue of Satan sentence?
I'd also like to point out we are accepting of all beliefs, 
for we are based on freedom of religion so my religion is not
exclusively for Satanists as worded in the sentence.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that it's got enough citations for what is there right now, the UM Middle English dictionary isn't exactly related (its more a part of medieval anti-Semitism than something really related to Satanism).  If the Sinagogue of Satan had its own article or there was a need to demonstrate that Sinagogue was not mispelt, then it would be for demonstrating that the word was previously present in the English language.  Its kinda like how we don't need a citation from a Biblical Atlas for Zionist Churches.  Thanks for looking for stuff though.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sentence the Sinagogue of Satan is in 

message: I deleted "Conservative Satanism" from the list of alleged synonyms of "Theistic Satanism" at the beginning of the article ("Theistic Satanism, also known as Conservative Satanism, Traditional Satanism, Spiritual Satanism, Devil Worship and originally just Satanism ....")
Where on Earth did anyone ever get the idea that "Conservative Satanism" is any kind of synonym for "Theistic Satanism"?  Googling, I found no other instances of this notion apart from references to the Wikipedia article.  Other references to "Conservative Satanism" had to do with Satanists with conservative political views, regardless of theology.  Belief in Satan as a deity is not limited to people with any particular political ideology.
Diane Vera (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conservative Satanism" as alleged synonym for "Theistic Satanism"??? 

message: In my work on this article, I came across this line - 
"Some groups are mistaken by scholars for Theistic Satanists, such as the First Church of Satan.[66] However, the founder of the FCoS considers what he calls "devil-worship" to often be a symptom of psychosis" 
After reading the reference, which is clearly about devil worship, and then speaking with the author of the link directly, he is not happy that his words about 'Reverse Christianity' are being used as a view of theistic Satanism at all. He stated to me in an Inbox interview, (Of sorts on the subject) that this is not his view of Theistic Satanists, as he in fact is considered Theistic himself. Yes, he has a different viewpoint, of course, however he does NOT believe that such things are a symptom of psychosis. 
I will be removing that link and sentence, and then adjust the language to reflect not his opinion (as it is not something that I can link to from my inbox.) --James L. Nicholson II (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken Information - Used out of context 

message: Replying to this edit: no. This article mentions groups that obviously don’t worship a Devil. The ONA dismisses Devil worship/Diabolism, saying Satan needs allies, not sycophants (don’t remember in which book or manuscript at the moment, but I am pretty sure the sycophant was part of the exact wording), and not believing in a kind of creator opposed to the Dark Gods. The Misanthropic Luciferian Order believes in deities opposed to the demiurge who created the cosmos, but this isn’t Devil worship either. Maybe we should think of separate articles for Theistic Satanism in general and for Devil worship. --217/83 22:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonymous? 

message: I do not understand why this article insists upon the capitalisation of 'theistic'. It's not a proper noun, and should be lower-case. – Richard BB 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this has something to do with LaVeyan Satanism being capitalised, and you know they are seen as antagonists. --217/83 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's capitalised as it's named after a person, though, so it becomes a proper noun. "Theist" isn't a proper noun, no more than "atheist" or "agnostic" are. – Richard BB 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I was just explaining what I think is the reason why it has been done. --217/83 21:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Righto. Don't worry, I wasn't trying to patronise you! ;) Well, I'm going to take go ahead and change the grammar and see if anyone has issue with it. – Richard BB 09:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is 'Theistic' capitalised? 

message: In the section "Satanism and Crime" above, consensus seems to be that Theistic Satanism is to be described as a system of beliefs, for which some misdeeds of some misguided kids would not be representative. While not being too firm with the system of beliefs and values of Theistic Satanism and if they preach violence or not, I understand that for some kind of "serious" or "adult" Theistic Satanism, the simple promotion of ritual violence couldn't be a serious approach. However, I doubt that the social relevance of "adult" Theistic Satanism is the most important. In my perception, the social relevance of Theistic Satanism rather is that it serves as a trigger for certain youth subcultures to alienate themselves from their surrounding. In other words, I'd guess there are much more black metal fans between 13 and 23 who call themselves worshippers of Satan for a while and sometimes try to prove that by committing acts of violence, than actual adult and mature Theistic Satanists with a life long commitment for Satanism who take their families to Satan's Church every Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, to discuss the ethics of Satan's teaching with their colleagues from the university or bank they work at. Unfortunately, I don't have any statistic at hands to prove that. Nonetheless, I'd say: let's delete the section of Satanism and Crime, let's create a new section "Theistic Satanism in youth subculture" or so, which also states that for example there was a Norwegian scene that thought burning Christian churches would be good etc. What do you guys think? --JakobvS (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No statistics can or will be found for the simple reason that most of us are not open about our beliefs, directly because of the above perception. Again, the crimes of, say, Bible John aren't mentioned on the Christianity page so why the fixation on associating us with crime?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.19.182 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

text: The church burnings in the north were done by odinist/asatru/pagans of that sort. Many were white supremacists and upset by christianity taking over the land and culture as they see it as a foreign religion from the middle east and judaism. There was an early black metal band, and possibly fans and copycats, involved, but their use of satan was for image and to anger christians. I don't think many, if any, identified as actual satanists. Other than that, I don't think the kids you speak of should be included in a theistic satanism article if they're just running around doing random edgy graffiti and violence and such, and don't hold any satanic religious or spiritual beliefs. They can say they're a satanist, but I doubt they can give one fact about their own supposed spiritual beliefs and are most likely just acting out what they see in the movies, and it's probably just a phase. A wikipedia article on a religion should stick to the religion's beliefs, not the actions and fashion choices of some kids. The beliefs are out there for anyone to look up. But I don't think there's many theistic satanist coming here anymore to try to edit the article and keep up with it. It seems it keeps getting taken over by laveyan satanists who have a vendetta against theistic satanism. Sapphire27 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again: Satanism and Crime and the reference to "a few kids trying to act out" 

message: Can you please explain the relevance of this to the section? --NeilN talk to me 04:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sentence states Jesus refuses so no worship took place. --NeilN talk to me 04:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

text: The sentence as it stands has no context for the reader and seems to placed there at random. Please find sources that discuss this as the beginning of the concept devil-worship and perhaps we can add a new paragraph. And can you please sign your posts. --NeilN talk to me 15:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I would also have to point out that such an addition has literally no foundation within Theistic Satanism in the least - Jesus is not even accepted as a literal being by most Theistic Satanists, neither is the bible considered relevant. To add that sentence or even that concept to this article not only detracts from its information, but also attempts to place a demonizing spin on it. James L. Nicholson II (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence added to beginning of Possible history of theistic Satanism 

message: I've long had an issue with this bring included the way it is. The church burnings in the movement had nothing to do with satanist practices. They were a) or b) or both:...  
odenistic reprisals for Christian dominance 
Modern nationalistic reply to the centuries of Christian rule and reprisal for the brutality and misery brought by the "great" crusaders.  Lostinlodos (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackmetal and church burning  

message: My edits:
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theistic_Satanism&diff=675720855&oldid=675720485
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theistic_Satanism&diff=675720485&oldid=675720363
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theistic_Satanism&diff=675720363&oldid=675367926
It is incorrect to say that I made these edits under "lying pretenses." See WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV
Joy of Satan supports numerous fringe theories and hasn't been mentioned in any reliable sources so it should not be given undue weight
:The WP:FRINGE policy applies to scientific theories, not to religions, but you know that; you're just lying (in violation of the civility policy) about the fringe policy so as to try to use it to delete any mention of the group that you hate.
:As for notability (which you mentioned in your edit summaries), there are four theistic satanist groups that were mentioned by outside authors- the ophite cultus satanas (which has been defunct since 1975), the order of nine angles (founded in 1984), the misanthropic luciferian order (founded in 1995), and the satanic reds (founded in 2000). None of the satanist groups, neither theistic nor non-theistic, that have been created after 2000 (such as Joy of Satan) are mentioned in such outdated sources, probably because satanism is no longer considered new and unusual, so outside researchers no longer take interest in it (except for me, that is, but I don't have a book). Various satanist groups other than Joy of Satan are likewise not mentioned in such outdated sources- namely the Children of the Black Rose, the Cathedral of the Black Goat (this group was itself founded by former members of Joy of Satan), the Greater Church of Lucifer, the 600 Club, or the Sinogogue of Satan, yet you have not deleted the mentions of those groups, which again indicates your particular hatred toward Joy of Satan. But that is not to imply that the mentions of all of such groups should be deleted; rather it points out the fact that outsiders typically do not study these minor religions, and thus WP:IAR applies.
:Being as you have deleted any mention of Joy of Satan, rather than merely trimming down undue weight (which was not even present in the article in the first place), you are yet again lying about your actions and your motives by citing the undue weight policy.
:The NPOV policy demands fair coverage of the various theistic satanist groups, rather than selectively excluding any mention of the single largest theistic satanist group (i.e. Joy of Satan). Thus you are lying by citing the very policy that you are violating.
:Your copious use of disruptive lies also constitutes baiting, which is also against the civility policy.
:That is the overwhelming proof of your bad faith; thus I am not assuming bad faith, as your lies in your edit summaries stated. I want the spit (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joy of Satan Edit Conflict 

message: Okay so I read the page curious what "theistic satanism" is, and I really didn't find out. It seems like a desperate effort to consciously construct something that doesn't exist by bundling a number of unrelated sources together. It speaks in generics like 'some' and 'most', spends a lot of time describing what "theistic satanism" isn't, but not much on what it is.
While there do exist theistic Satanist cabals, as a fringe of New Age / neopagan syncretism, but these seem to be too small and disconnected to be notable. Also, even if they are deemed notable, the article is not about them, but seems to attempt to conflate them with unrelated moral panics, folk superstitions, fiction and old Christian beliefs about supposed devil worshippers.
It's as if a page about witchcraft would try to conflate Gardnerian Wicca with witch trials, witch-related folk superstitions, and the evil stepmother from Snow White. (While, incidentally, Gardnerian Wicca is a major new age religion, and "theistic satanism" isn't.)
If there are people who want this page around, I suggest cleaning up the superfluous stuff, and concentrating on the actual theistic satanist cabals, who they are, what their history is, who their notable figures and leaders are, etc.  82.131.194.26 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations and sources clearly indicate a notable presence of theistic satanism. Not all theistic satanists are the same that why words like “some” or “most” are used, just like under general topic articles like neopaganism or Christianity: hence the use of “umbrella” term. Perhaps brush up on Wikipedia guidelines before telling others what is notable.2603:6010:11F0:3C0:E5EB:2D82:9D70:6588 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Theistic satanism" is a non-entity, this page is a hodgepodge, it should be merged / deleted, or rewritten 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Theistic Satanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion2/traditionalsatanism/view.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714075021/http://www.metalcentre.com/webzine.php?p=interviews&lang=eng&nr=123 to http://www.metalcentre.com/webzine.php?p=interviews&lang=eng&nr=123
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927002214/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=56947 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=56947
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Theistic Satanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://voiceofsatanism.com/2010/09/21/origins-of-satanism-why-sumeria/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124051552/http://www.nineangles.info/commentary-dreamers.pdf to http://www.nineangles.info/commentary-dreamers.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113065041/http://www.angelfire.com/rings/blacklotusmonastery/texts/ONA_VariousManuscripts.pdf to http://www.angelfire.com/rings/blacklotusmonastery/texts/ONA_VariousManuscripts.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110702213716/http://www.nineangles.info/true_way_ona.html to http://www.nineangles.info/true_way_ona.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110702213756/http://www.nineangles.info/ona-epitome.html to http://www.nineangles.info/ona-epitome.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617165835/http://altreligion.about.com/library/bl_theisticsatanism.htm to http://altreligion.about.com/library/bl_theisticsatanism.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Do not deliberately add hoaxes, incorrect information, or unverifiable content to articles. See also Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Verifiability.--GenoV84 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? Because I personally checked the reference online and there's nothing written about what you're trying to include so insistently: https://books.google.com/books?id=f1t_BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA184
And by the way, reverting other contributors' edits without giving a proper explanation, alongside purposely changing the content of Wikipedia articles, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view and verifiability, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.--GenoV84 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your collaboration and for providing the screenshot. According to the source, "The only sites with some popularity are the Church of Satan and (somewhat paradoxically) Joy of Satan's page base on the angelfire network, and they are still very far from Scientology or YouTube. Most of these sites are decidely fringe". The source estimates the number of visitors to their websites based on the Alexa traffic ranks and related links to their websites, but it doesn't mention their number of adherents.--GenoV84 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, could you please collaborate with me and try to reach consensus together about what to do with these informations, instead of reverting my edits?--GenoV84 (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I reverted your first edits because you cited the wrong chapter twice and reverted my edit without giving any explanation once, didn't you?
Anyway, the question is... which sources are you talking about? The statement "Continuing its existence with a reduced number of members" was added by another user and derives from , which is already cited in that paragraph. As I explained above, the correct chapter from the book that you cited (Petersen, Jesper Aagaard. From Book to Bit: Enacting Satanism Online. In Egil Asprem & Kennet Granholm (eds.), Contemporary Esotericism, pp. 134-158) reports a survey on the traffic generated by visitors to the various Satanist websites on the internet based on the Alexa traffic ranks and related links to these websites, but it doesn't mention their number of adherents. Church of Satan's official website and Joy of Satan's angelfire network are the most popular, but it doesn't tell anything about their actual number of adherents.
Therefore, to state that Joy of Satan "continues its existence with popularity paradoxically to the Church of Satan", as you wrote on the article's page, sounds quite misleading and incorrect with respect to the source itself, because it doesn't deal with their corresponding number of adherents but exclusively with data based on the internet traffic to their websites.--GenoV84 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I disagree on that. James R. Lewis' surveys report that theistic Satanism as a denomination within Satanism as a new religious movement has been steadily growing in numbers of adherents since the 1990s (informations that I have already provided along with referencing Lewis in the "Overview" section of the article), but Joy of Satan is not the only Satanist group within the theistic Satanist milieu. The Temple of Set, the Order of Nine Angles, the Temple of the Black Light, and various other theistic Satanist groups exist as well. We cannot write stuff on Wikipedia that is not provided by references based on what we assume to be implied or tacit within the references themselves. Everything that we write must be verifiable and reflect what the sources state, not our own point of view.
Therefore, to state that Joy of Satan "continues its existence with popularity paradoxically to the Church of Satan", as you wrote on the article's page, sounds quite misleading and incorrect with respect to the source itself, because it doesn't deal with their corresponding number of adherents but exclusively with data based on the internet traffic to their websites. At best, the section "Virtual Milieus, Imagined Communities: Modelling the Satanic milieu online" from Contemporary Esotericism tells us how proliferous and pluralistic the Satanic milieu actually is, especially on the internet. I think that these informations are useful and should be implemented in the "Overview" section of the article, which also deals with the demographics of Satanism, instead of adding it to the paragraph related to Joy of Satan, since it doesn't give us any information about the actual number of members that constitute this Satanist group, whereas Introvigne explicitly states that Joy of Satan continues its existence "with a reduced number of members", although he doesn't report the exact number of its adherents.
Also, could you please indicate where in her thesis Cimminee Holt states that Joy of Satan has got more adherents and is more popular than other Satanist groups? I don't have time to read 121 pages...--GenoV84 (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Definitely. Please provide author, title, number of pages, and a link to the source that you just cited, if possible. I don't understand which is the source that you are referring to.--GenoV84 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  In your latest edits, you added once again a source that doesn't support your claims about Joy of Satan: . I'll provide the full quote from the source that you cited below:
So, according to Cimminee Holt's thesis, James R. Lewis' surveys predict that membership in the Church of Satan will continue to wane whereas theistic/esoteric Satanism keeps growing in numbers, but it doesn't state that membership within Joy of Satan has increased, neither that it has more adherents than the Church of Satan. You keep writing stuff that is misleading and doesn't reflect what your own sources actually state. You just assume that they do.--GenoV84 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Again, you are projecting your own assumptions on the sources themselves, since neither Lewis nor Holt state any of that. Your suggestion to add biased, incorrect, and unverifiable content about datas derived from surveys on the demographics of Satanism qualifies as original research in the best case and deliberate hoax in the worst case, neither of which is allowed on Wikipedia. Content must be verifiable but not false, and factual.
As I said before, there are many groups within theistic/esoteric Satanism, which is anything but a denomination of Satanism along with atheistic/rationalistic Satanism, and Joy of Satan is not the most prominent among those groups. Moreover, Introvigne himself states in his scholarly treatise () that theistic/esoteric Satanists constitute a minority within Satanism, which alongside other references cited in the article report that the majority of Satanists are actually atheistic/rationalistic Satanists; therefore, that would be a very incorrect assumption to state that Joy of Satan has got more adherents than the Church of Satan or any other atheistic/rationalistic Satanist organization, since it is blatantly false and not supported by any reference.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over, but the only outcome would be the addition of deliberately incorrect informations and unverifiable content to the article that is not supported by the sources that you cited. If you keep going with this way of reasoning, this discussion will lead us nowhere.--GenoV84 (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Massimo Introvigne (along with James R. Lewis and Jesper Aagaard Petersen) is one of the foremost researchers in the academic study of new religious movements and Satanism, his scholarly treatise has been published by BRILL, therefore Satanism: A Social History is a far more reliable source than a thesis found somewhere on the internet. Moreover, Jesper Aagaard Petersen's survey on the internet traffic to Satanist websites is not concerned with their number of adherents, but with data generated from Alexa traffic ranks and links to Yahoo. In other words, it doesn't support your claims about membership, and you are still attempting to misrepresent what these sources actually state, since Petersen's survey is concerned with presence and traffic on the internet, not with membership.
According to your way of reasoning, we could say that JW.org is visited daily by tens of milions of people worldwide, but Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones that visit that website; in other words, their website is not visited exclusively by adherents of their religion but a much greater number of people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, and perhaps many of them do not even agree or sympathize with their religious beliefs, practices, and/or worldview. We don't assume or take for granted that all of them are adherents of their religion or wanna-be Jehovah's Witnesses, don't we? We have to represent informations provided by references with factual accuracy and verifiable content, not suppositions or speculations.--GenoV84 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: However, you have a good point when you say that "it should be clarified that the Joy of Satan is proven here to be somewhat prominent among the theistic Satanic groups based on what the data from Traffic rank - Alexa and Inlinks Yahoo". I propose to add to the existent paragraph the following line, citing Petersen's "Virtual Milieus, Imagined Communities: Modelling the Satanic milieu online" survey from Contemporary Esotericism: 
--GenoV84 (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2021 

message: It describes one particular person who indentified as a Satanist. It does not describe anything to do with possible ways someone could be personally theistically satanic and seems like it is nothing but an excuse to tack on a story that has nothing to do with this article. All it has to do is with one particular Satanist which is not what any reasonable person would assume from "personal theistic satanism." 
I don't know any better or prettier way to say that it does not belong in its current form other than reiterating that the article does not describe what personal theistic satanism is at any point and only describes the satanism practiced by a specific serial killer. It's extremely confusing given that what is written doesn't even suggest that anyone other than the sick **** genuinely held similar beliefs.
 The closest is mentioning that he would try and force it into his victims which doesn't feel like it belongs on this article what so ever given I don't see what that habit has to do with the theistic satanism at all. Especially since we don't look at Christianity and it's sects which all have a strong history of forcing it upon non-religious people with a long history of the only other choice converting being execution and we don't insist that said vile actions are inherent to Christianity. That only really would be relevant on an article about the serial killer unless he outright said that it was apart of his faith, in which case the segment is poorly written as well.
It genuinely makes no sense and I don't understand how an addition that is completely separated from its title (not the article title, the title of "personal theistic satanism) hasn't been questioned by anyone. I don't want to straight up edit it not only because I've never made a topic on a page let alone edited an article before but also because I'm not sure if the only suitable title for that segment would be the killers name, which Don't want to go back to reread and remember because he sounds like a genuinely vile person who is only going to make me mad to remember and this article is the only reason I've heard of him. Devilish777Limes (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is up with the personal theistic segment?