Talk:The Satanic Bible/Archive 1

Untitled

Wait until your soul's are on fire. You make a Quick Call. Who's gonna answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.77.14 (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghostbusters?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Satanic Rituals

I am looking into the satanic religion and i am currently in a rehab and the onl site i can get on is wikipedia. I was wondering if someone could post some Satanic Rituals for me? I would really apreciate it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claty420 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is an old request, but I'll address it to avoid further ones. Wikipedia isn't the place to be requesting "satanic rituals" or anything of the sort (Satanic, Christian, or otherwise). Second, LaVeyan satanism, the Church of Satan, and the Satanic Bible have nothing to do with the worship of Satan at all. You would know that if you actually read the article. So please refrain from making these sort of requests. Do a search on Google to get your fill on these topics. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wikipedia is not the place for such a request. However, the guy never said he was looking to worship Satan, if you'll read it closely; he said he was looking for satanic rituals, which the lede of the article clearly states are contained in LaVey's work. This is obviously a newcomer who didn't know any better, and you really didn't need to be so snarky with him. Applejuicefool (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Massive Edits

I am currently in the process of composing a very large edit to this article, as I feel it is sorely lacking in factual information on the book's contents. My edit will retain whatever sections I judged to be sufficient, either unaltered or only slightly altered, but will replace the "Sections" subsection with a full assessment of the content of The Satanic Bible. The goal is not only to provide a much more comprehensive view of the book, but also to put it in context of its relevance to Satanism. I will make every attempt to maintain a NPOV, and put forth only fact; my goal is to provide an "expert" view of the book as an Agent of the CoS.

Naturally, I do not claim proprietary rights to this article, and therefore additional input is always desired on Wikipedia. However, before anyone hastily reverts my upcoming edit or makes more than minor changes, I would greatly appreciate discussion here of what Wiki users think of the edits, my assessment, and what they feel should be changed and why. I am quite open to taking the views of others into account, I merely wish to avoid starting an editing war by my efforts to improve this article and Wikipedia. --Lvthn13 17:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On reversion to the edit to the Book of Lucifer: "independence of an outside authority" seems to me a misleading statement. Satanism, and The Satanic Bible, both acknowledge that individuals may have to answer to authorities, including for example legal authorities and other persons whose authority is legitimate. To imply independence of authority may imply that Satanism advocates disobedience of such legitimate authority, which it does not. I would be accepting of a statement that was more carefully worded. --Lvthn13 05:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are the critics?

Just where do whe have the criticism?

I address most of the issues commonly brought up by critics throughout the text; I mention them, and provide the refutation according to the text. Both sides have their say this way, I just didn't set aside an entire subsection for criticisms.

If you wish, you may present a list of criticisms you think should be mentioned and addressed, and I will personally write a section to include them. I do believe in upholding Wikipedia standards of neutrality, and will put aside my views on the subject to be balanced. But frankly, I am not aware of many "valid" criticisms. The "Satanists kill animals" criticisms are laughable and well addressed in the article, and the criticism that he borrowed from Ragnar Redbeard, etc, is likewise given attention in the present article. Likewise the fact that LaVey was well read in other philosophers and incorporated many ideas is mentioned in the very introductory paragraph. What do you think should be addressed, then? --Lvthn13 17:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How very bizzar.

Couple of things. Firstly, I think that criticisms (if any) of the Satanic Bible should definitely be placed in a separate section for ease of reference. In the article on, say, Objectivism, a section is headed "Responses to Objectivism", which is a useful way of doing things.

Offhand I don't know of any challenges to LaVeyan Satanism as a philosophy, or the book specifically, although this could just be because it's not taken seriously by many people. Over at pseudophilosophy they've got an (unreferenced) mention of the Satanic Bible as an example of a pseudophilosophy, but I haven't found more than that. (Admittedly, my search has been limited and short).

ManicParroT 23:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychic vampirism

I think that Dion Fortune coined this one in Psychic Self-Defense. Unfortunately, I don't own that title anymore; does anyone else here have a copy?

--J B Bell 03:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

i think that this bibal exsplanes a lot more to the hole meaning of it.i have a copy of it and i read it alomost every day cause u can find more info about it and more resons pop up the second time u read it.

Huh? Davepetr 05:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

the description of psychic vampires given in the satanic bible sounds VERY much like many descriptions i've read of sociopaths. Gringo300 04:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not correct that the second part of the book is unambiguous. Firstly, if it really were unambiguous, it would be the first text in the world qualifying for that term (humans always interpret what they read); secondly, because there's evidence to the contrary in the form of many groups that use the Satanic Bible as a foundation while disagreeing strongly on the interpretation. The second part is seems to be a collection of "FAQ"-esque pages detailing specific issues that have been brought up and later put together in a book with little consideration for logical flow throughout the book. This view is supported by the fact that Anton LaVey in has said that The Satanic Bible had to be written in a hurry, consisting of bits and pieces that he already had in his possession. -- - wolf - 08:00, 17 March 2006 (CET)

the christian bible also has spawned many groups, each with thier own interpretation. the main difference is that if Anton LaVey was alive today he would be appaled at this act of sacrilege. it is common knowledge to the followers of Satanism that LaVey wrote the bible in such a way that it could not be misinterpreted. as for the patchy style in certain parts of the book; why need order. the philosophy is still the same regardless of the format. and sorry to sound like i'm picking on the christian bible, but it is far from organised or clear for tht matter --Belial84

I was expecting a lot of vandalism on this page for yesterday. this was no fun. VdSV9•♫ 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Psychic vampirism is what it is as described literally, as such I expect that less than 5% will understand it, or have any hope of understanding it. Psychic vampires are not 'sociopaths' they are ordinary people, in fact there are about three primary groups. - Small children and pregnant women, extremely physically active aggressive or very dominant men, the third group are victims emotionally connected to other stronger 'vampires'. The explanation is that psychic energy is needed by everyone and is fought over constantly, most non-dominant adults have had their 'souls' drained partly or completely during childhood. Generally anyone who doesn't believe in souls has had theirs drained completely. Hope that helps someone. :) Lucien86 (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

enochian keys

i basically understood the book until it got to the enochian keys... Gringo300 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I provided the most straightforward explanation I know how in summarizing them. I felt like a breakdown of the meaning of every single key would be overkill; perhaps after I complete my long, long list of future article projects I might vaguely consider writing an entire separate article for the Enochian Keys as interpreted by Anton LaVey, though that would likely get resistance from the John Dee faction. --Lvthn13 08:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can turn up Ben Rowe's Enochian FAQ you'll find the topic of the Keys in the context of LaVey's works covered a bit. You'll also find a discussion from a seperate vantage point in Michael Aquino's Temple of Set memoir. --Skeptismo118

Changed word "Selfish"

Book of Lucifer: II. The God you Save May be Yourself: "The result, of course, is to view oneself as the most important of all beings, and to adopt an unapologetically selfish view of the world and course of action." I changed selfish to self-centered for neutrality reasons. The Satanic Bible never says anything about being selfish, just the theory that it is wiser to start by thinking of yourself first. Selfish implies that one is sociopathic in nature.

I don't have any aversion to the term "selfish" but I'll take this under your advice. However, I reverted the removal of the phrase explaining the maxim "I am my own god" but removed the word "selfish" as extraneous. This should satisfy the issue of neutrality without removing the useful explanation of that maxim. --Lvthn13 08:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Subject to interpretation

Satanists maintain that The Satanic Bible may not be subject to interpretation or revision, and that no rule or principle contradictory to what is written in The Satanic Bible may be considered applicable to Satanism.

Is there a source for this? Did the Church of Satan make a declaration like this? From the Satanic Bible, I:5 and II:6,

Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence, and he who saith "thou shalt" to me is my mortal foe!

No creed must be accepted upon authority of a "divine" nature. Religions must be put to the question. No moral dogma must be taken for granted - no standard of measurement deified. There is nothing inherently sacred about moral codes. Like the wooden idols of long ago, they are the work of human hands, and what man has made, man can destroy!

It seems that to say that the Satanic Bible is an immutable, unquestionable doctrine is inconsistant with the ideology expressed within the text itself. If some organized group did make such a statement, it should be sourced. 70.20.120.172 16:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not what Satanists say, and not the position of the Church of Satan. The point is that Satanism as a body of doctrine is defined by the Church of Satan, with the Satanic Bible as the definitive text. Individuals are expected and encouraged to construe the principles of Satanism in their own way and to apply them to their own lives as they see fit. But someone cannot call just any old thing they think or do "Satanic", or try to needle "their own version" of Satanism out of positions clearly expressed in plain English in the SB and related statements. This is not rigid fundamentalist dogmatism. No one is expected to BE a Satanist. If the shoe don't fit, people are invited not to wear it. But IF they're going to call themselves Satanists, then Satanists will hold them to the views and standards of the Satanic Bible. reprobate 00:30, 30 October 2006

If you read the article on Satanism or even the article on theistic satanism, it uses it as a broad term to include things like worship of the Egyptian God Set. If Set-worshippers, "dark god" worshipping polytheists, those who actually worship fallen angel satan, and those who intend to destroy all religion call themselves "satanists", then the statement that the satanic bible is the authoritative text for all satanism is blatantly false.

Plagiarism

I find the use of weasel words in this section objectionable. All factual information contained in that section is stated very plainly in other sections of the article; I mention specifically that The Book of Satan is taken from Might is Right, and the very opening states that LaVey drew on previous philosophers (which, by the way, isn't plagiarism; every philosopher since the Greeks has drawn on previous philosophers. Next thing you know people will accuse Nietzsche of plagiarizing Schopenhauer.). The only visible purpose of that section is to make an excuse to link to an anti-LaVey website, which is a cheap shot. It should also be noted that Might is Right is public domain, and that the first edition of The Satanic Bible mentioned it and Ragnar Redbeard, as well as several other philosophers, in the dedication page. Regardless, I recommend that if additional information is found wanting, that it be distributed appropriately in the article, in the relevant sections as I have done, instead of attempting to create a focus of negativity within an otherwise good article. -Lvthn13 03:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "influenced by" MIR, he directly plagiarized whole segments of it verbatim. Public Domain means nothing here--if you're writing something about whaling in a creative writing class and copy/paste from Moby Dick, you are a plagiarist. Even if you claim to have been "influenced" by it in a foreword. --Pvednes 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, I have modified the "Book of Satan" segment to reflect the truth, with references. --Pvednes 17:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Agreed. Any additional justification is unnecessary. I had attempted to compromise, but after further thought, I agree that you are correct with your conclusion. -Dencappo 17:31, 05 November 2006 (GMT)

---

Slight correction

Burton H. Wolfe is stated as an early COS member. And while the Burton intro suggets this, Wolfe himself states that he was never a member on his website. WerewolfSatanist 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Burton's own published words confirm that he was a member of the Church of Satan. I'm disappointed to hear that he now denies his involvement, but it should be apparent enough that he is attempting to rewrite his own history. Facts are still facts. -Lvthn13 21:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WOOT!! go satan by the power that all that is evil

nothing is "all evil". no one can justify anything as pure good or evil. if something was so then the balance will fight itself and thus destroying not only one another but also itself. both god and satan can kiss my ass

I submit that pure evil is a subset of anything, and justify that it is pure evil by the reflexive property. 76.185.63.93 (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys, find yourselves a nice forum where people are interrested in your opinions on good or evil or your desires to be kissed by whatever deity. Wikipedia is NOT the place. 81.246.93.2 14:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Book cover first

Shouldn't the picture of the book be above the Satanism list? Poonerpoob 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Following form, yes. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the book image before the Satanism template. —Mears man (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yankee Rose

As Anton Szandor Lavey states before he writes the 19 Enochian keys: "Here, then, are the TRUE Enochian Calls, as received from an unknown hand." Would it be possible that Yankee Rose is the "unknown hand" who translated the Enochian keys? Skele (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

I'm highly suspicious of the claim that the satanic bible is regarded as infallible by satanists. That doesn't sound like any principle any self-respecting satanist would go for, in fact it may directly contradict itself. Zazaban (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If a satanist regards the satanic bible as infallible then I think he works against the sixth statement in the second paragraph in The Book Satan. Skele (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, it's gone. Zazaban (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

References and dubious claim of attempted ban

The article needs more references to support claims made in it. The claim about Irish priests trying to ban it sounds very dubious - it would have made the news at the time in Ireland if it had happened - an attempt to ban a book would have been high profile.Autarch (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Citation Removed

Removed citation, as it was a quote of a quote, the quote in the source was itself uncited. Azzl9 (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Found source of quote and cited appropriately. Azzl9 (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Satanic Sex Citations

Provided needed citations and edited a sentence to be more exact. LaVey never discusses respecting other peoples sexuality, but does advocate the freedom to pursue one's sexuality with a consenting partner. Azzl9 (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Bible Black"

The "aka Bible Black" comment at the beginning of the article has been removed, due to lacking a citation and appearing no where in the Church of Satan's literature. Azzl9 (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation Added

Added citation from interview with Peter Gilmore for claim that the Satanic Bible is the foundation of the Church's philosophy. Azzl9 (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Satanic Synagogues as per the Bible.

There is clear reference to SS or Satanic Synagogues in the Bible so Satanism is nothing new as it is well known that Satan will always claim to be 'god'. That is always and also ALL WAYS.

"I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan." Revelation 2:9

Satanic reversal or opposition as with the Egyptian Council Of Nine (CON) and the 'hidden' Satanic council clearly shows that the word 'god' is simply the reversed spelling of dog.

Similarly snug and guns but of particular interest is Orion/noirO as this is a composite word when written backwards.

Woman is a composite word being womb + man and German is germ + man.

Noir is French for BLACK and O is the same as 0 representing all and any hole as well as nothing or zero.

Black is NOT a colour but is the total absence of all light. Henry Ford was making a 'joke' when he said, "You can have any color you like as long as it is black". With the original Model-T fords. (T Party and the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.)

T for Thermal as with Thermodynamics Heat Engines and the Infernal/Internal Combustion Engine or ICE which depletes energy until such time as entropy reaches zero and 'hell' freezes over. (Similarly In Car Entertainment ICE)

The Pyramids are laid out in the reverse or 'mirror' image of the constellation Orion and so we can see that the entire creation is actually Satanic.

Freemasons are known to worship Satan in the form of Baphomet and all deities, words and aspects are current.

E.G. Comus and Gollum.

It clearly states, "Get thee BEHIND me Satan AND with you BEHIND me WE shall take over the World."

In the old days people used to take salt in their left hand and throw it over their right shoulder into the face of Satan/the Devil.

In Oostende/Ostende/Ostend Belgique/België/Belgium there is the St. Joseph's Church which my maternal grandfather used to attend.

Note the Oo, equally O0, in Oostende (Eastend) and the similarity to the word Ostensibly or purportedly/supposedly a church of 'god' but actually Satanic. Local Flemish dialect is also known as 'Oostense'.

BEHIND it and slightly to the right there is a Satanic Synagogue.

In Flemish parlance this position is referred to as the achter kant or behind/rear side from which we get the posterior as behind, backside or rear end.

Going back to Noir O this is then a description of the anus known in English common parlance as 'where the Sun doesn't shine.'

Similarly as the Vagina represents earthly 'heaven' and woman represents the promised 'land' of (breast)milk and (vaginal) 'honey' then the anus from Anubis (Bi-Anus) represents BLACK hell. (Lights out time/death.)

This is also part of Armageddon being the FINAL battle between heaven and hell.

The V of vagina also covers Vulgate, Vulgar and Vulgarity and is the middle letter of eVe which is also represented by the Free Masonic 'Rule' or set square and the notion of 'Divide and Rule'. (Dividers and set square also representing sex as well as planning and engineering drawing.)

EVE is a clever beginning of everything as it describes the sign for infinity turned through 90° into an 8 and being split from top to bottom (Apex to Backside or AB) by an A for Adam with the cross bar or rib removed and inverted into a V this roughly gives eVe.

It also gives 3V3 (with the first 3 reversed) and 33 gives a 33° Freemason as per George Washington. See: Satanic Symbolism and Occult in Washington DC. (Google.) 178.116.241.168 (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This is mirrored in one example of creation in which a (black) chalkboard is covered in red chalk representing black night/death and Satan and red life/devil and fire as with the Sun.

An A is marked at the top of the chalkboard and a B is marked at the bottom. You now imagine an immense discharge taking place from A to B splitting the empty infinity of the pre-creation Sea of Creation or Sea of the Nun from the Egyptian model.

This discharge produces an immense vacuum and the two 'sides' of the sea of creation come together with a bang producing atoms, then molecules, then star material then black holes then Suns (made from star material by a black hole which concentrates heavy metals at the core of a fission/fusion Sun) Planets then form by accretion and other methods.

Plan-ET Planet of the ETs, worker ETs, or toiler ETs, toil ET, toilet/toilette, similarly WC water clos-ET and closet homosexuality. Composite of close and et to give closet.

Yes 'IT' IS built in to this creation and is unavoidable. As you like IT (Sex and Intense Torture and now I.T. as well as Idiot-ic Television)(IC = Eye see and eye sea and fallacy is a sound alike play on phallus see/sea with it's own 'eye'.)

This may well have occurred galaxy by galaxy and not necessarily in just one big bang but in a series of big bangs.

To demonstrate how energy and entropy are created we go back to the chalk board and remove a horizontal rectangle of energy to another board with two verticals at each end. This represents a block of energy but at zero entropy.

When creation occurs an energy gradient is produced and the top line of the rectangle now slopes down from top right to bottom left. One can actually draw the planets within this area as they are created in the same time span.

As the energy to do work has to be degraded from a high level to a lower level down the energy gradient (basic thermodynamics) the energy of creation available to do work globally becomes depleted until such time as the energy gradient returns to the level, when entropy again returns to zero.

Here the word level also refers to setting something level such as the base of a pyramid, giving rise to the Masonic questions, "Are you on the level?" "Are you on the square." (Both set square and the square base of a pyramid." and "Are you upon the Center?" being the center of the square base where the Pharaoh's chamber is located.

I do have models or this energy gradient and Solar formation from a black hole in .pdf form if anyone is interested.

They explain creation and energy creation very simply so that the layman can understand it all.

Hope that this ties it all together for you. It took just one physics lesson to explain it all to me years ago.

Strangely a golden light flooded into the room.

Unfortunately there are many combinations of words with SS having Satanic connotations. Shape-Shift, Satanic Shadow, Salacious Suggestion, Sexual Suggestion, Satanic Saturday, Satanic Sabbath, Subliminal Suggestion which can be implanted and takes effect later.

ianchattan @ yahoo . com (NATO OTAN NAVO SIS CIA FSB etc.)178.119.227.197 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Satanic Occult Symbols In Washington DC

You just need to look for this on the internet.

Nothing new but very revealing.

Link: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/dc.htm

Ian Chattan NATO SIS 178.119.227.75 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm performing a complete rewrite of this article at User:GorillaWarfare/The Satanic Bible, and am planning to move it to this location soon. If anyone wants to work with me on it, you are more than welcome. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)