Talk:Satanism/Archive 4

message: The last person to screw with this page both Deleted the criticism section AND screwed up the disambiguation page.Consensus has so far said that it is best just to leave it as a disambiguation page and deal with the individual forms of Satanism in separate articles in order to keep things neutral. Thats why I attempted to revert things back to how they were, but as it is I'm not sure HOW and I'll have to rewrite my criticsm section for LaVeyan Satanism....As a note I AM a LaVeyan Satanist and am trying to improve the individual article on LaVeyan Satanism with the criticism section in an attempt for neutrality which the last user to revert (not you Zoe but the other guy) has utterly ruined. WerewolfSatanist 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality, Disambiguation, LaVeyan Satanism 

message: I agree with the criticisms that "Satanism" should be a much broader article than LaVeyan Satanism. So I replaced the original text with text from the Satan article. The original text, I moved to the "LaVeyan Satanism" page. Hope this is fair. Please note that LaVey and the Church of Satan are still mentioned prominently on this page.
-------=---------
Why is there a "church of satan" banner on the page ???
ENOUGH WITH THEM TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE SATANISM!!! 
REMOVE IT!!!!
--veltis-
It doesn't belong on this page, true, but there are better arguments than propaganda of anti-Christians. Darkahn 08:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, this isn't the way to do it. Look at Whatlinkshere. This article is old. Aran|heru|nar 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edit

message: The reason I edited the Anton LaVey paragraph was 1 the complaint here on the talk page of using the term spokesperson. He was a spokesperson for his own brand of Satanism but not all Satanism. But he was a Satanist and the most prominately and widely known one. I hope you guys like this small edit if not I understand again I was just trying to help.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems good to me, though I think we could just put it in the past tense with was. Don't see why we need is, and was. Tunnels of Set 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anton LaVey 

message: The links that follow pertain to the Satanism article and are internal links.
I wish to add them in this order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Fire_Club
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_Templi_Orientis 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_Gnostica_Catholica (possibly adding to Churches links)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.M.O.R.C. (possibly adding to Churches links)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Church (possibly adding to Churches links)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPY (possibly adding to Churches links)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics (possibly adding to Churches links)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Feed back please.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no. They are not closely enough related. If they were to be discussed in the article, then they could of course be linked to, but see also is not for a laundry list of vaguely related topics. Hellfire Club is the only closely related one. Adding links to organizations which don't identify themselves as Satanic is right out. Tunnels of Set 18:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding internal links proposal 

message: CoS practices it's own black mass so is this line missleading?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LaVey rejects the Black Mass 

message: I've removed the semi-protection from this page; please encourage all new users and even IP editors to discuss any edit warring here first, and keep up the vandalism fighting. -- Natalya 03:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection removed 

message: Would Satanism be considered a form of Autotheism or Suitheism, maybe??
After reading the definitions, I'm inclined to say yes, from several different Satanic Systems including LaVey's.
Being that you are your own God "LaVey".
From the Masonic/Hermetic/Thelemic Satanism, it is becoming God.
Much like Paul in the Sci fi "Dune"
So from those sources I'd have to say, yes it is.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Autotheism/Suitheism

message: removal of talk page content will not be tolerated, lest it be considered prejudice or discrimination. furthermore, all talk on this page regarding the delay in the removal of content of this page will be accomplished ASAP, as this page has been under reviewal since Feb 2007AD.  conclusively, any further attempts to sustain the 
non-verified content or likewise the SUBJECTIVE nature of the content will be in violation of the Wikipedia policy.
Good Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfd101 (talk • contribs) 
:Talk page info may be removed if it is deemed nonsense; although I'm not saying that's what your posts are - I actually havn't been following your edits. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding removal of talk page content 

message: The reason I reverted the edit was because almost all, if not all Christianity preaches that all the other religions of the world were created by Satan to keep man away from the one true religion "Christianity". Since that is the case I thought the person that was offended by the original text was acting out of religious bias with his edit.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  explaining latest revert 

message: The quote about L Ron by his son is interesting, but I wouldn't say it is all that relevant to an article on Satanism, for it to be quoted this fully.Merkinsmum 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, please read Ronald DeWolf#About his father to see how the context is problematic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's inherently stendentious/POV/fringe to call someone the antichrist.  Maybe he did say it personally but are their sources other than his son, or anyone, going 'I heard him say...'.  For instance I don't thing L.Ron said that in dianetics or other sci books- or his religion wouldn't be even as 'acceptable' as it is.  The son is clearly a biased source (not saying he's wrong/lying, but he seems to hate his dad.) he accuses L.Ron of having had an abortion fetish or something!  If the sci editors saw this it wouldn't last long.:)  Yet on the other hand -Ha:) now I want to read the son's book/interview.Merkinsmum 19:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: L Ron/ Scientology

message: Satanism" is a term which has been used since the end of the Middle Ages
[citation needed] use for Citation "The Encyclopedia of Witchcarft and Demonology" by Rossel Hope Robbins, Crown Publishers New York 1959 Library of Congress C C # 59-9155
to describe a number of different belief systems in a number of contexts. People claiming to be Satanists, or outsiders claiming to describe Satanism, ascribe a wide variety of beliefs to Satanism. At the same time there is no established, common sense of this word. These range from the obviously fanatiс sects to the groups of people in search of themselves; from the literal deistic worship of a spiritual being (Theistic Satanism) to the monography of the atheistic philosopher; from a subversive ritual performance stressing the mockery of Christian symbols (most notably the Black Mass) to denying all rituals; from the claimed rediscovery of an ancient but misunderstood religion 
This I have a slight problem with.
(e.g. Setianism, associated with the Egyptian god Set who is conflated by some with the biblical Satan) to the exaltation of hedonistic recreation and the celebration of selfishness and pleasure.
I've told you guys a Zillion times Crowley Proclaimed Hadit the winged globe Satan in his footnotes to the Bornless one in "Magick in theory and practice" dover press. I understand Mr. LaVey and Mr. Aquino popularized the Set Idea but neither one ever cared to do their homework to any extant. Hell on this point I even argue with Crowley for I declare Bes as the Egyptian Satan, and if any of you bother to scrape that surface you'll quickly see why. Anyway love the new intro, hope I didn't violate anything or anyone.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is Beautiful 

message: There's now a Wikimedia Commons category "Satanism", if anybody cares... AnonMoos 02:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonscat

message: REMOVED: "In other words for this relegion the satanists are so desprait to get what they want that they don't know that there going to pay for it in hell. These people are blind in thinking that they are going to get this and not have to pay anything. Well they are WRONG you are being lied to. Who ever folows this relegion doesn't even know. Butt I guess it's there life they are doing not mine.-The Order of Soul Takers"
Not only is this obviously biased, its horribly misspelled and nonsensical.
--67.149.227.159 13:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brainless bigotry removed. 

message: LaVeyan Satanism (the only textually codified and/or officially organized form - i.e the only religious branch)
Sinagogue of Satan is organized, legally accepted and has it's own Satanic code which can be found in the "Book of the goat".
I posted this to discuss this issue before I edit the false claim/statement out.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I belive the term "LaVeyan Satanism" in this context refers not specifically to the Church of Satan, but all non-thiest forms of Satanism - which would include the Sinagogue. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, while I'm at it, could I request the link to your Sinagogue website, please? If it would be against Wikipedia policy to leave it here or on my talk page, feel free to email me (the link can be found on my talk page). ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Scratch that, I found the link on your user page. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, thanks. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, I read that and was gonna' remove it myself - guess I forgot =/ Go ahead, that statement is OR anyway. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False and misleading statement 

message: i think this article is almost baised...please make it at least semi-baised-(btw i'm very baised by this article)...please make more netural,it looks like its making s-uh,this religion look to changgled,make it more "unbaisy'..(i mean make more statements about devolment,and less on its disadvantages and "bad effects"96.224.176.40 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: baised