Talk:Satanism - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Self-ref (talk | contribs) at 16:13, 30 January 2011 (→Problems in the chapter "Symbolic satanism": notability, no originals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:13, 30 January 2011 by Self-ref (talk | contribs) (→Problems in the chapter "Symbolic satanism": notability, no originals)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Satanism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Satanism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Satanism at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion: Left Hand Path

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Left Hand Path work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Occult High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirituality

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Adolescent Satanism

I've included references to adolescent pseudo-satanism to distinguish it from the more adult pursuit of rituals, symbolism and philosophies attendant on satanist religious practice.

Calibanu (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

Sounds reasonable, but it has been removed a couple of times due to lack of citations (I've reverted the removals and added citation notes). Do you have any sources you can cite? Oscroft (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

the new satanists and the new world order.

years ago i read a book called the new satanists, today a lot of people are talking about a new world order that is aimed at contoling the planet. they went by such names as werewolf order, temple of set, they have been described as an offshoot of the orignal church started by anton lavey in the 60's. secret societies like the illuminati,the freemasons, assassins, knights of the round table,knights templar, the order of the black snake ,skull and crossbones,cross of confusion, to cite only some of the secret organizations or lodges that refer to satan or lucifer. satan was a god, the chief god, and fell. hence lucifer was considered to take his place and in most of these aethiestic religious occults considered satan as a force in the universe responsible for the direction and affairs of mankind. satan considered as an evil diety in ancient times he was also called by several other names the accuser and the one who tempted jesus and throughout history people have used him as an evil agent who was capable of spreading evil and carrying out the plans and affairs of humankind. a lot of controversy has arisen on the existence of satanism now seen as a force completley responsible for the invention of evil and the doom of mankind. the crowned prince of evil like the devil belial or leviathan all are neccasary devices or vices responsible for the unspeakable widespread of evil we see all around us. it makes you wonder what this devil is really like and why so many people depend on him for their very existence. i was very intersted in this topic after hearing about cases of things such as satanic ritual abuse (the village idiot usually a fat and middle aged man with a harem of women he could choose from who were more than willing to curry his favour.)or the real cases where the belief in evil caused horrid descriptions about people being possesed and even murdered and mutilated all to satisfy or honour the appetites of those obssesed with their need for evil. kinda strange eh? don. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.0.102 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OMG, is this totally, freaking true? Christians, unite! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not true. This is Christian propaganda aimed at misdirecting your attention away from the people that are really trying to take over the world, Christians.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But that is not necessary! We've already taken over the world, twirling our moustaches and laughing MouahahahahahaAA! Rursus dixit. (bork!) 14:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah tell that to the Christian heads the Muslims have been collectingRev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Satanism

Please, I do not want to bother anyone, but when I was going through the talk pages of a couple of my fave shows: , it said that Satanism was part of them? Is, like, this really true? Please, respond! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The video of Winnie the Pooh worshipping Satan was a fake, I know plenty of people that could make similar videos. And one group accusing the show/comic W.I.T.C.H. of being Satanic doesn't prove anything. There are a lot of crazy people in the world that accuse all sorts of things of being Satanic (Lawry's seasoning salt, for example). Some people will believe anything just so they can believe that someone is in charge of the world, even if that happens to be Satan. These people are usually likely to lump together various things they know nothing about. I'd bet good money that the group that accused W.I.T.C.H. of being Satanic have never watched an episode of that show. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Phew, Thank God that this isn't true. Now, I can have a smashing time watching the shows without nervousness, yeah! Yahoo! Have a fantastic day, ALL! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation and Starting Over

I've noticed that the whole page has reverted into a gobbledy-gook of subversion ideologies and religious Satanism again. this primarily comes about because there is insufficient consensus about what should be on the page. if you look into the archives you will see the basis for the content of the page plainly extracted from our discussions and pointed out in academic journals. instead, religious interests are repeatedly and routinely inserting their preferences to the content here and making it unreadable and nonsense.

I have noticed no will to cooperate and am not interested in attempted reversions to what i have favoured in the past. I will merely occasionally place my objection here and am willing to continue discussing the subject. you should be paying attention to Wiki standards of notability and citation, not waxing long about your theology, demonology, or sociology without basis. thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Happens now and then in religious articles. I call it street preacher pamphleting and I've also seen it in Hyper-calvinism. I'm considering erecting a task force for dealing with such POV-spamming of Misplaced Pages. I'll take a personal note for now. Thanks for your notice! Rursus dixit. (bork!) 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

my pleasure. it's good to know there are others out there with an agenda beyond something personal! ;) here is a link to relevant sources mentioned within the archives to date -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

so far we have not yet agreed as to disambiguation of 'Satanism' or on the emergence of organized Satanism in the 1960s as the departure for religious interests. I would like to begin drawing on our identified sources to substantiate a realistic address to at least this latter emergence and its DECENTRALIZED character:

"Beginning in the late 1960s, organized Satanism emerged out of the occult subculture with the formation of the Church of Satan. It was not long, however, before Satanism had expanded well beyond the Church of Satan. The decentralization of the Satanist movement was considerably accelerated when LaVey disbanded the grotto system in the mid-Seventies. At present, religious Satanism exists primarily a decentralized subculture, not unlike the Neopagan subculture." -- Lewis, James R. 'Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile', in Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 6, No. 2; June 2001. Web. http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2001/articles/lewis2001.pdf (accessed 8/2/10).

we should be able to discern between religious Satanism (a quantifiable category identified by academia) and Christian folklore, adequately evaluated as fused into moral panics within Christian society, and in fact within the same documented source, Lewis provides some help with this, distinguishing what he calls "ritual abuse scare" data from what he has already referred to as data on "religious Satanism".

"Perhaps surprisingly, no serious academic books have been written on this movement. What exists are a number of good scholarly volumes on the ritual abuse scare, such as Jeffrey Victor's Satanic Panic and James T. Richardson et al.'s The Satanism Scare. Beyond a couple of older articles on the Church of Satan (e.g., Alfred 1976) and a relatively recent paper on Satanism in the UK (Harvey 1995), the only extended, academic treatment of organized Satanism is William Bainbridge's now-dated Satan's Power (1978). However, even this book focuses on a single group, the Process Church, which has long since distanced itself from Satanism." -- Lewis, James R. 'Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile', in Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 6, No. 2; June 2001. Web. http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2001/articles/lewis2001.pdf (accessed 8/2/10).

these kinds of sources should inform the primary DISAMBIGUATION rather than the variable alternatives (e.g. 'types' of (religious) Satanism) we have previously featured on that page. at some point in the near future, if nobody cogently refutes my cited data in this thread, i will revise that disambiguation page to reflect this, relegating all 'types of Satanism' to be listed on the (religious) Satanism page itself (which we will subsequently construct). thank you for your cooperation.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

without objection, I will begin a discussion on the Disambiguation page referring to this and perhaps copy this there if there are no other substantive conversations as to its content. issues of NOTABILITY are hamstringing the construction of this page and few are discussing them here.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Satanism: Atheistic/Deistic_Satanism

Satanism#Atheistic/Deistic Satanism: Shouldn't it be more appropriate to call this section “Non-theism”/Deism Satanism.
Shouldn't it also be more appropriate to change the word “atheistm” here to “non-theism”: “Unlike Theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists are atheists and agnostics who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature.”. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How would that even make sense? Atheism just means you don't believe in a god, such as in the case of Levayan Satanism. Changing it to non-theism wouldn't do anything but confuse, not to mention it isn't a word I recognise.88AdolfLover88 (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

let the LaVeyan Satanists self-describe in conventional language as either atheists or whatever, along with their explanation with what they mean by this. cite their documents. they are widely known. describing them in unusual or uncommon verbiage, especially as it conflicts with or doesn't conform to their own self-description is probably a waste of time. explain that THEISTIC Satanism is what has grown up contrasting itself to LaVeyans and those like them, interested in Satan as a god. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems in the chapter "Symbolic satanism"

The problem is in the symbolic satanism part and the endnotes 11, 12 and 13. None of the sources substantiate two claims made in the section, namely that:

a) "modern satanism" and "symbolic satanism" are indeed "sometimes" used interchangeably

- of course, cats are "sometimes" called dogs, but there is no indication in the sources cited that this is a practise that is even relatively common)

b) symbolic satanism involves observance of satanic religious beliefs

- Nothing that the sources 11-13 say would point to the direction that the beliefs symbolic satanists may have are of religious nature, at least not in the sense that religious belief is defined in the wikiarticle religious belief

I removed these claims.

128.214.164.62 (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)npyrhone

the categories are always going to change based on the interests of the religious. cite some sociologist for your categorization please! there are enough now to select from, including James R. Lewis or Jesper Petersen. the descriptions by Satanists themselves are often not too helpful to getting to more than their doctrines and how they seek to portray themselves and their competitors. if i have some time i'll add to this section with something from the "Contemporary Religious Satanism" text edited by Petersen which outlines some excellent options.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

what's more important about this categorical distinguisher is that it does not accept Satan as a literal entity, of any kind, but regards Satan as a symbol. this is asserted regarding the character of Satan in the Satanic Bible ("SB"). Lewis characterizes the SB as important in the development of early Satanism (at least 20th c.):

" appears that the SB is a doctrinal touchstone for many--though certainly not all-- participants in this movement, despite the fact that the great majority of contemporary Satanists are not formal members of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan. (One respondent, noting that he was not a member of any organization, wrote, " just me and my Satanic Bible.") And whatever LaVey had in mind when he (or his publisher) entitled this publication, in certain ways the SB plays the role of a "bible" for many members of this decentralized, anti-authoritarian subculture.

"This is not to say, however, that Satanists regard the SB in the same way Christians regard the Christian Bible. Many are aware, for example, that LaVey drew heavily on the thinking of others when he composed his "bible." Many have also become aware in recent years that LaVey fabricated a semi-legendary biography for himself (Wright, 1991). However, neither of these facts undercut the legitimacy of the SB because the Satan Bible is not a "sacred text." Rather, the SB is significant because of the philosophy of life it advocates, not because of any divine--or diabolical--authority." -- Lewis, James R. 'Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile', in Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 6, No. 2; June 2001. Web. http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2001/articles/lewis2001.pdf (accessed 8/2/10).

it's philosophical character is what lends assertions such as that (esp. LaVeyan) 'Satanists don't believe in a being called Satan.' in fact, most religious today probably don't believe in some literal Underworld ruled over by a Jailer anti-God called 'Satan'. Satanists are far less likely to believe in some literalist fantasy. the term 'modern' is unfounded, but 'symbolic' is helpfully descriptive. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind there are reverse Christians like Tom BlackWood that are hard at work trying to turn Satanism into "Reverse Christianity". Of course I'm hard at work undermining his efforts. I feel that any Satanism that is not based on Christian mythology should simply be called Satanism. Any form of Satanism that is an off shoot or perversion of an existing religion should be regarded as a perversion of that religion and not a form of Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

if at all possible could you please quote and cite a relevant source for any of your assertions? that's the method by which lasting wiki pages will be constructed, and that's what i was attempting to do above. if you have other sources you like more, feel free to bring them forward and we can evaluate their source and content. thanks!!-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote? I'll do much better than that, read his words for yourself voiceofsatanism.com also you'll see he repeatedly states "Satan is coming back" out of all the Christian mythology I've ever read I never read that Satan went anywhere. I think he has Jesus and Satan confused, again supporting my claims. What do you think?Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, a few months ago Diane Vera called me and asked me to stop retaliating against Blackwood's attacks against me and The Sinagogue of Satan of course I told her to go fuck herself.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

http://sosatan.yuku.com/topic/1356?page=-1 http://sosatan.yuku.com/topic/1349 http://sosatan.yuku.com/topic/1354 Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i was unclear. by "relevant source" i am speaking about a third party such a sociologist or a news article or encyclopedic source covering the subject of Satanism, rather than anything else. if you would take the time to examine pages such as WP:NOTE and WP:NOR, you will see that what passes in the main for 'good' sourcing at Misplaced Pages isn't web pages or direct quotes from the people about whom you may be making contentions, but instead some reliable coverage of the data in question. most simply will not be able to be substantiated and will be effaced from this project unless we bolster it with citations from sources like what has been assembled here and in the archives identifying as helpful to citations. if you can get my meaning, please contact me through any number of channels we have available. I know we intersect in several zones and i would be happy to discuss this further as we appear to be the only two individuals consistently interested in the contents of this and the Disambiguation page. thanks! -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This sentence I feel is incorect

"as they believe in the same theology presented in the Hebrew Bible."

I frankly don't belive for a second anyone actualy belives the Judeo-Christian cosmology and chooses to side with the Villian.

Satanists jsut identify who they do worship with The Devil to be seme rebelkous and to atagonize Christians.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.33.65 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source to cite for that? I've got several books on my harddrive from different books that, while they may contain some originalities, does depict Satan either as the Miltonian falen angel, or (perhaps more in line with historical beliefs about rebellious angels) identifying him with Semyaza from the Book of Enoch. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Satanism vs Demonism

I would like to point out that this article primarily deals with demonism (interchangeably with devil worship) as it currently stands. The actual website for the church of satan would probably be the best place to review information on satanism as a religion. While many people make demonism and satanism a paralell since the actual church of satan has no link to this I believe it would be unfair to continue to keep the current format as it unfairly paints them as demon worshipers when in fact they don't even believe they exist.

A better option for this page may be to include a link for demonism under the title in case people are attempting to locate demon worship information vs satanism religion. This would allow the link to actual give people current in depth official information on the actual religion without them having to dig through 90% of the article to see 3 paragraphs on the religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.34.248.16 (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. The demonists, as you call them, often refer to themselves as Satanists as well. The Church of Satan website covers a type of Satanism, it isn't Misplaced Pages's job to make the sectarian decision which brand of Satanism is the most "real" Satanism, just as it doesn't decide whether Catholics or Mormons are the "real" Christians, Sunni or Shia are the "real" Muslims, and so forth. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is merely another poor attempt by Christians to gain control of the definition of Satanism so they can exploit Satanism in an effort to support and validate their own mythology. Good job at nipping this one in the bud Ian.158.184.48.160 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

More like paranoia and ignorance of this site's guidelines on your part. See WP:AGF, WP:CITE, and User:Ian.thomson/MeVsXians. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies on the post location I am new to this. I wasn't attempting to say either is more "real" since my own religion has nothing to do with christianity. I managed to find the reference for LaVeyan satanism through the disambiguouty reference at the top of the article.

References for the OTO and Typhonian Order?!

In pop culture there is no reference to the Thelemic groups Ordo Templi Orientis and the Typhonian Order has being "satanist". If so can we have a properly sourced refrence for both? If not we need to assume some sort of "dirty tricks" at play and have the Typhonian Order section removed.--Ickesshadow (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur, if a souce can not be provided in a timely manner that section should be removed. Azzl9 (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Been done a while ago. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"O Satan sun Hadit" Liber Samekh Section B158.184.48.160 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories: