Get Satanism on Cracked.com! | Forum

Mate, what are you talking about? I actually grew up in a country full of those who are currently beheading innocent people in the Middle East. I know what a cancer Islam can be.

But fact of the matter is, it's not Muslims in America who are trying to say..., legislate your rights away. It's Christians.

As for Satanism having a large variety, you are completely correct. Hence the existence of this thread. Why else would I bring it up for discussion?

Actually the main issue in this thread would be the word “we” and I think it should be spelt out in detail who this “we” is.

As with a few of the statements that dealt with old stereotypes I thought the average Satanist would of moved beyond them.

PS; luz, I would say if you rethought about your last statement you may see a difference between “awareness of” and “knowledge of”. It would be a silly move to assume just because someone is aware of something that they would also be knowledgeable of it.

Here is were we get into the wonderful paradox of perception.

Quote from luz It's just that if one is not aware of, then there is little to no expectation that they are knowledgeable of...

This is often where it is found that many do not have an awareness of such things but are only aware of the rumours and stereotypes. So the person can state they are knowledgeable but not until examined in detail do the cracks show.

1) Rejection of arbitrary authority.

2) Respect for individual sovereignty.

3) Attraction towards the taboo.

I would encourage everyone to look at the above three, and try removing one or two. I think you would come to the same conclusions as I did, that you will no longer be a Satanist by removing any of the above.

These definitions are extremely precise and narrow in scope. I know we all like to think that we are part of this super individualistic belief system with nothing in common between us, and that we're all special snowflakes. I am positing that this idea is completely wrong.

I could, for example, add a 4th definition. All adherents are human beings.

It's akin to defining insects as "six legged creatures". Having such a definition has by no means prevented nearly 1 million known species of insects from existing, with many more unknown.

Similarly, these 3 definitions do nothing to limit Satanism, but at the same time, bind us all in commonality.

2) Those JoS Nazi motherfuckers

3) While I can't come up with a solid counterexample for that, it's not really a core aspect of Satanism. You can have Satanists with white picket fences too.

4) You got me there. But, I'll get right on trying to convert my roommates turtles.

The point is not that a definition will limit Satanism, but that there very well may not be one hard and fast definition of what defines Satanism in a non-self-referential way. Even the most essential of Satanic attributes have counterexamples within Satanism. 

1) Those hordes of people are mocked relentlessly by those outside of their group. Moreover, claiming to adhere to the CoS's philosophy while sucking the CoS's dick is counter to CoS's philosophy in the first place. Thus, I'd argue that these people aren't Satanists, for the fact that they do not even adhere to their own claimed philosophy that they call Satanism (as defined by Anton LaVey).

2) I would argue that the JoS is really a bunch of Christians who have taken the side of the devil. To believe as they do require you to buy into and accept the Christian mythology. i.e., you must also believe that Jesus died on the cross and resurrected 3 days later. Said resurrection is a hallmark of Christianity. So, again, not Satanists.

3) Yes and no. Having white picket fences in no way implies that you have no attraction to the taboo. My question is, if you do not have this attraction to the taboo, why are you calling yourself a Satanist?

So this is my argument really. That there really is a limited way to define Satanism and Satanists. The loss of any of the 3 definitions would put you in another category altogether, because you don't make new categories for things that aren't unique. That's not how categorization works. So, if you do not adhere to the 3, you are Satanist in name only.

Jonny, you have some clear and exacting statements that I could see but this one line is either worded wrongly or a trap to see if the reader is actually thinking.

Quote from jonnywatts 2) Respect for individual sovereignty.

First off I may see the word respect in a different light to many. I class basic respect under love or fear factors. I find if I can not apply a love or fear care factor to something then I can not respect it. So you line depends on who the individual is and what they did to earn any respect.

Edit; This includes myself and my actions.

3) *shrugs* I dunno. But aesthetics do not a philosophy make. Taboo is ultimately a matter of aesthetics and cultural context. Someone raised as an atheist with no notion of religious taboo at all could just as easily come to identify as a Satanist. 

The point I am trying to make, is that Satanism is a very broad category. A rigorous definition isn't possible without tons and tons of exceptions. You can define *parts* of Satanism to a certain extent, and with certain attributes, but aside from "people who revere the idea or deity of Satan", which is kind of self-referential, there is no hard definition. 

The underlying current of Satanism is individualism - 1 and 2 from your list are just two ways of saying individualism - but that individualism is taken to such an extreme that it is allowing of individuals who reject that very same individualism. The only possible rigorous definition of Satanism is paradoxically self-disproving.