Anton LaVey

Originally posted by twhitehead
Notice how few followers they have and also that they do not believe in the same Satan that you don't like.

Sorry, which Satan don't I like? 😕

Originally posted by darvlay
Sorry, which Satan don't I like? 😕

Didn't your Grandmother used to date Satan at one point?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Only if you're Catholic.

Originally posted by darvlay
Sorry, which Satan don't I like? 😕

My mistake, I incorrectly assumed you didn't like your version of Satan. So as a correction: they don't believe in the typical Christian version of Satan.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
There were satanism before LaVey, he didn't invent satanism, christians did.

Complete testicles.

Look up the origins of satanism and you will not find a "christian" anywhere nearby.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My mistake, I incorrectly assumed you didn't like your version of Satan. So as a correction: they don't believe in the typical Christian version of Satan.

If they follow Satan it stands to reason that they have rejected Christian teaching at some level. I guess you then fill in the blanks how you like to suit your whims.

Originally posted by divegeester
Complete testicles.

Look up the origins of satanism and you will not find a "christian" anywhere nearby.

This is a snip from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism stating that there were satanism before LeVay.

"Before the 1960s, Satanic groups were considered underground and often illegal. Anti-witchcraft laws such as the British Witchcraft Act 1735 (not repealed until 1951), reflected strong public sentiment against witchcraft and Satanism. Modern satanism came into broad public awareness in the 1960s, with events such as the founding of the Church of Satan in 1966, events that were given wide media coverage."

Christianism and Satanism is closely connected before LeVay, as we can read in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism#In_Christian_cultures. I would say that without Christianism we wouldn't have any Satanism at all. The very word Satan was mentionned in the book of Job.

And, yes, I know about LeVay, but I haven't commented anything about his movement. If everyone else do you have to ask them, not me.

My testicles are complete

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This is a snip from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism stating that there were satanism before LeVay.

"Before the 1960s, Satanic groups were considered underground and often illegal. Anti-witchcraft laws such as the British Witchcraft Act 1735 (not repealed until 1951), reflected strong public sentiment against witchcraft and Satanism. Modern satani ...[text shortened]... his movement. If everyone else do you have to ask them, not me.

My testicles are complete

I would say the opinion of the person who wrote that wiki is pure opinion, and unaccredited opinion at that. Satanism is the act of worshiping that angelic being, christians would not do this. Christians did NOT invent satanism - satanists did - how hard can this simple observation be!!

PS Job was not a christian and mentioning the name of satan does not make him one.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
My testicles are complete

*spoken in the voice and menace of darth vader*

Originally posted by divegeester
.... Christians did NOT invent satanism - satanists did - how hard can this simple observation be!!....

From a philosophical perspective, that would not be the case.

First, a distinction must be made in how the Hebrew satans are used and what they represent, which is quite different from the role that Satan plays in the New Testament.

Christians invented the idea of Satan (and how it is thought of in the present context), and while the would not have literally invented Satanists (because any would fit nicely with the rest of the heretics), Satanism is an extension, a logical conclusion, of that which was invented by Christians.

It could be accurately stated that Christianity has a role in the existence of Satanism. Satanism exists as a backlash against Christian ideas of God and Christ - it would not and could not exist without its corresponding Christian ideas.

Originally posted by Badwater
From a philosophical perspective, that would not be the case.

First, a distinction must be made in how the Hebrew satans are used and what they represent, which is quite different from the role that Satan plays in the New Testament.

Christians invented the idea of Satan (and how it is thought of in the present context), and while the would not ...[text shortened]... of God and Christ - it would not and could not exist without its corresponding Christian ideas.

==================================
First, a distinction must be made in how the Hebrew satans are used and what they represent, which is quite different from the role that Satan plays in the New Testament.
=====================================

The difference is not that great. There may be many accusers or many advasaries. But Satan is singular in the oldest book of the Bible, the book of Job. We don't see in that oldest of Jewish Scriptures multiple Satans, but ONE there.

=====================================
Satanism is an extension, a logical conclusion, of that which was invented by Christians.
==========================================

Satan was worshipped as Beelezulbub. Beelzebul is a vicious pun on the word. One means "Lord of the dunghill" and the other means "Lord of the flies". I am not sure which is which.

But the Jews contemptuously invented a play on the sound of this pagan god to say in essence that the Lord of the flies was the lord of the dunghill. In other words incredibly filthy. And they recognized that though this god was worshipped by some nation, he was actually the ruler of the demons as demonstrated in the Gospel of Matthew.


In the days when Jesus walked the earth the contemporary Jews had a concept of Satan quite consistent with the New Testament. The New Testament had not yet been written and yet this conversation took place between Jesus and the rabbis:

" ... the Pharisees hearing this, said, This man does not cast out the demons except by Beelzelbul, ruler of the demons.

But knowing their thoughts, He said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself becomes desolate, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.

And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself, how then will his kingdom stand? " (Matt. 12:24-26)

It is clear here that Beelzelbul was equivalant to Satan. He was the singular ruler of the demons. It seems understood that he had an evil kingdom.

So though the New Testament had not yet been written, the Pharisees had a concept of a singular ruler of the demons, Beezelbul (Satan).

It may be true that as the Bible revelation progresses Satan's history and nature are more and more exposed. But the oldest book in the Bible, the book of Job, speaks of Satan. And in that book he wants Job to curse God to His face. The only reason could be that Satan himself would like to do so.

I do not accept that he is a gentlier or kinder kind of cooperative assistant to God in Judaism who was "made" more evil by the Christian Gospels.

Originally posted by jaywill
==================================
First, a distinction must be made in how the Hebrew satans are used and what they represent, which is quite different from the role that Satan plays in the New Testament.
=====================================

The difference is not that great. There may be many accusers or many advasaries. But Satan is singul ...[text shortened]... e book of Job. We don't see in that oldest of Jewish Scriptures multiple Satans, but ONE there.

Wrong, and at the very least I'd suggest you read The Origin Of Satan by Elaine Pagels.

=====================================
Satanism is an extension, a logical conclusion, of that which was invented by Christians.
==========================================

Satan was worshipped as Beelezulbub. Beelzebul is a vicious pun on the word. One means "Lord of the dunghill" and the other means "Lord of the flies". I am not sure which is which.

But the Jews contemptuously invented a play on the sound of this pagan god to say in essence that the Lord of the flies was the lord of the dunghill. In other words incredibly filthy. And they recognized that though this god was worshipped by some nation, he was actually the ruler of the demons as demonstrated in the Gospel of Matthew.

Source(s) please. If you have any.

= = = = = = = = = =
" ... the Pharisees hearing this, said, This man does not cast out the demons except by Beelzelbul, ruler of the demons.

But knowing their thoughts, He said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself becomes desolate, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.

And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself, how then will his kingdom stand? " (Matt. 12:24-26)

It is clear here that Beelzelbul was equivalant to Satan. He was the singular ruler of the demons. It seems understood that he had an evil kingdom.

So though the New Testament had not yet been written, the Pharisees had a concept of a singular ruler of the demons, Beezelbul (Satan).
= = = = = = = = = =

It is not at all clear in this puzzling presentation, where you use NT scripture to somehow illustrate an OT concept of Satan.

I do not accept that he is a gentlier or kinder kind of cooperative assistant to God in Judaism who was "made" more evil by the Christian Gospels.

Your words, not mine. What I said is that the role of the Hebrew satan and what they represent are very different from the Christian idea, the pivotal idea that brings us to present ideas, of the Christian Satan. They are not the same.

Satan is not referred to as "Satans" i.e. plural anywhere in the bible. The Legion of demons in the pigs were multiple demons but NOT Satan. Satan is always referred to in the specific and singular, often as the "enemy" or the "accuser" of man. That you would attempt to label Christians with the invention of Satanism makes me suspicious to be honest.

Jn 1:4-5 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.