Severity | Forum

To speak in symbolic terms. The idea is that upon expansion of the primordial point, or, singularity. There would be three numbers involved. The first would be the primordial point and the second might thought of as a further manifestation of the will of God which could be represented as Osiris and an infinite manifestation of energy and power tantamount to a cosmic orgasm(Orgasmatron) which is received by Isis the mother of creation and is further articulated as the expansive aspect of the universe.

So the concept of the abyss arises following these first three phases(the trinity) where there is no material manifestations but only that of pure space time inflating at luminal/super luminal speeds where the depths of this spatial abyss would be measured in parsecs.

Derived from a contemporary cosmology and the nine numbers of creation.

So play the rebel in your ritual chamber and be a slave when you're out of your ritual chamber. Did I understand you right? Is this about role playing now? You light candles, chant fancy mantras, imagine demons and play evil when nobody is watching but when you live your life, you're like everyone else. More, you're even a better slave than everyone else.

Don't get me wrong. I don't encourage anyone to disrespect the law and disobey the authorities. Many people feel all right with the established law and order and I'm cool with that. But why would they play evil kids in the closet? It's like an adult man playing PC games as a substitute for getting life. Seems ridiculous to me.

Psychodrama is a form of therapy. In the satanic sense it's about making the ego whole which is done by pacting with or embracing the devils and demons who represents the shadow of the Satanist. Do you imagine Satanism without rituals?

My point is that your ritualizing is merely an excuse for your inaction. Satanism in your case is a fantasy game and not a way of living.

Oh Yeah!

There is no Satanism without ritual and ceremony. It's not a philosophy.

Meanwhile: Satanism is absolutely a philosophy. Ritual is optional but I find it psychologically useful so I recommend it. Also without the ritual there's very little reason to call it Satanism. But the essence is atheistic egoism, spiced up with some misanthropy.

Wolfie: ‘Meanwhile: Satanism is absolutely a philosophy. Ritual is optional but I find it psychologically useful so I recommend it. Also without the ritual there's very little reason to call it Satanism. But the essence is atheistic egoism, spiced up with some misanthropy.’

Also without the ritual there’s very little reason to call it Satanism. But the essence is atheistic egoism, spiced up with some misanthropy?

Wait a minute: if you take away the ritual, then there is very little reason to call it Satanism – doesn’t that imply that the ritualistic elements are the essence of Satanism or, at least, an essential part of Satanism? Aren’t those religious aspects an important part of the whole thing?

Anyone can call themselves a misanthrope, or an atheistic egoist without needing to call themselves a Satanist. So what identifies one as a Satanist - surely some connection with Satan?

If you are an atheist, then I think you have a problem, because you can only regard Satan as a symbol or a character in a certain type of literature or film, etc. You can say: “I’m like that character,” or you can say: “that symbol is close to my heart and represents me.” But is that viewpoint really a philosophy? Don’t you have to rely on something else to describe your philosophical framework, if you believe Satan is just a symbol or a literary character?  

The problem with this approach I think is this: you constantly have to go outside of Satan to determine the contours of this satanic philosophy.

In the case of atheistic egoism, which implies that your worldview has been underpinned by atheism, you have had to move beyond the context of Satan in order to accept that worldview. And further, your egoism comes out of this post-nihilistic viewpoint, which you have mentioned elsewhere, which is formed outside of the context of Satan. It seems you must rely on scientific claims to ground a lot of your position, but where is Satan in that? Why should Satan even be a misanthrope? Why not a savior for human beings? Or the giver of a gift?

The Prince of Darkness can be neither of these things – misanthropy or atheistic egoism. Why? Because if it’s merely a symbol or a character in a certain type or literature or art, then that symbol or character is completely relative and historical i.e., it has no objective basis. Meanings and biography do change over time.

"Satan predates Christianity. He appears in the book of job in the Old Testament where he questioning Job's loyalty. Satan is the one to accuse or question."

This is correct.

But the rest is bullshit.

Satan in the Old Testament, also in the Book of Job you mentioned, is the servant of God. He's indeed the accuser but in the service of God. If God is the judge, Satan acts as the prosecutor. He opposes people not God.

It's in the New Testament that Satan evolves and becomes the agent of sin and God's enemy. It's there that he becomes associated with putting the carnal and worldly before the divine. This is why Christ tells Satan to go away when he's tempted by him. He actively rejects Satan and everything he represents.

LaVey's Satan is the Satan from the New Testament, from Christianity. 

"LaVey's Satan is the mythological Satan in general. The Christian devil is not the only one who rejects external gods. The islamic devil also do it. Belial, Leviathan, Azazel also... "

Sure. Because when LaVey rewrites Christ's Blessings, he doesn't refer to Christianity but to the mythology in general. When he writes that Satan means embracing the seven deadly sins, he also doesn't refer to Christianity but to the mythology in general. And when he writes the diatribes against the Church and Christianity, he really means Islam and ancient pagan religions.

That was sarcasm in case someone is slow thinking here.