1 Kings 10:1-29 The queen of Sheba (Likely spanning modern day Ethiopia and Yemen) heard of Solomon’s fame, which brought honor to the name of the Lord. She came to test him with perplexing riddles. She arrived in Jerusalem with a large group of attendants and a great caravan of camels loaded with spices, large quantities of gold, and precious jewels. When she met with Solomon, she talked with him about everything she had on her mind. Solomon had answers for all her questions; nothing was too hard for the king to explain to her. When the queen of Sheba realized how very wise Solomon was, and when she saw the palace he had built, she was flabbergasted. She was also astounded at foods served, the organization of his officials and their splendid clothing, the cup-bearers, and the burnt offerings Solomon made at the Temple of the Lord.
She exclaimed to the king, “Everything I heard in my country about your achievements and wisdom is absolutely factual! I'd never believe what was said until I arrived here and saw it for myself. In fact, I had not heard the half of it! Your wisdom and prosperity are far beyond what I was informed. How happy your people must be! What a privilege for your officials to stand here day after day, listening to your wisdom! Praise the Lord your God, who delights in you and has placed you on the throne of Israel. Because of the Lord’s eternal love for Israel, he has made you king so you can rule with justice and righteousness.”
The Queen of Sheba gave the king a gift of 9,000 pounds of gold, great quantities of spices, and precious jewels. Never again were so many spices delivered as those the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon.
(Additionally, Hiram’s ships brought gold from Ophir (Possibly In Tibet) , and they also brought rich cargoes of red sandalwood and precious jewels. The king used the sandalwood to make railings for the Temple of the Lord and the royal palace, and to construct lyres and harps for the musicians. Never before or since has there been such a load of sandalwood.)
King Solomon gave the queen of Sheba whatever she asked for, besides all the customary tokens he had so generously given. Then she and all her attendants returned to their own land.
Every year Solomon received about 25 tons of gold. This did not include the additional revenue he received from merchants and traders, all the kings of Arabia, and the governors of the land. King Solomon made 200 large shields of hammered gold, each weighing more than fifteen pounds. He also made 300 smaller shields of hammered gold, each weighing nearly four pounds. The king placed these shields in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon. The king made a huge throne, decorated with ivory and overlaid with fine gold ----having six steps and a rounded back. There were armrests on both sides of the seat, and the carving of a lion stood on each side of the throne, along with 12 other lions, one standing on each end of the six steps. No other throne in all the world could be compared with it!
All of King Solomon’s drinking cups were solid gold, as were all the utensils in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon. They were not made of silver, for silver was considered common in Solomon’s day!
The king had a fleet of trading ships that sailed with Hiram’s fleet. Once every 3 years the ships returned, loaded with gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks. King Solomon became richer and wiser than any other king on earth. People from every nation came to consult him and to hear the wisdom God had bestowed on him. Year after year everyone who visited brought him gifts of silver and gold, clothing, weapons, spices, horses, and mules. Solomon built up a huge force of chariots and horses. He had 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horses. He stationed some of them in the chariot cities and some near him in Jerusalem. The king made silver as plentiful in Jerusalem as stone. And valuable cedar timber was as common as the sycamore-fig trees that grow in the foothills of Judah. Solomon’s horses were imported from Egypt and from Cilicia ; the king’s traders acquired them from Cilicia at the standard price. At that time chariots from Egypt could be purchased for 600 pieces of silver, and horses for 150 pieces of silver. They were then exported to the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Aram.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
1 And the queen of Sheba is hearing of the fame of Solomon concerning the name of Jehovah, and cometh to try him with enigmas,
2 and she cometh to Jerusalem, with a very great company, camels bearing spices, and very much gold, and precious stone, and she cometh unto Solomon, and speaketh unto him all that hath been with her heart.
3 And Solomon declareth to her all her matters -- there hath not been a thing hid from the king that he hath not declared to her.
4 And the queen of Sheba seeth all the wisdom of Solomon, and the house that he built,
5 and the food of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the standing of his ministers, and their clothing, and his butlers, and his burnt-offering that he causeth to ascend in the house of Jehovah, and there hath not been in her any more spirit.
6 And she saith unto the king, `True hath been the word that I heard in my land, concerning thy matters and thy wisdom;
7 and I gave no credence to the words till that I have come, and my eyes see, and lo, it was not declared to me -- the half; thou hast added wisdom and goodness unto the report that I heard.
8 O the happiness of thy men, O the happiness of thy servants -- these -- who are standing before thee continually, who are hearing thy wisdom!
9 Jehovah thy God is blessed who delighted in thee, to put thee on the throne of Israel; in Jehovah's loving Israel to the age He doth set thee for king, to do judgment and righteousness.
10 And she giveth to the king a hundred and twenty talents of gold, and spices very many, and precious stone; there came not like that spice any more for abundance that the queen of Sheba gave to king Solomon.
11 And also, the navy of Hiram that bore gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir almug-trees very many, and precious stone;
12 and the king maketh the almug-trees a support for the house of Jehovah, and for the house of the king, and harps and psalteries for singers; there have not come such almug-trees, nor have there been seen [such] unto this day.
13 And king Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all her desire that she asked, apart from that which he gave to her as a memorial of king Solomon, and she turneth and goeth to her land, she and her servants.
14 And the weight of the gold that hath come to Solomon in one year is six hundred sixty and six talents of gold,
15 apart from [that of] the tourists, and of the traffic of the merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the land.
16 And king Solomon maketh two hundred targets of alloyed gold -- six hundred of gold go up on the one target;
17 and three hundred shields of alloyed gold -- three pounds of gold go up on the one shield; and the king putteth them [in] the house of the forest of Lebanon.
18 And the king maketh a great throne of ivory, and overlayeth it with refined gold;
19 six steps hath the throne, and a round top [is] to the throne behind it, and hands [are] on this [side] and on that, unto the place of the sitting, and two lions are standing near the hands,
20 and twelve lions are standing there on the six steps, on this [side] and on that; it hath not been made so for any kingdom.
21 And all the drinking vessels of king Solomon [are] of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon [are] of refined gold -- there are none of silver; it was not reckoned in the days of Solomon for anything,
22 for a navy of Tarshish hath the king at sea with a navy of Hiram; once in three years cometh the navy of Tarshish, bearing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.
23 And king Solomon is greater than any of the kings of the earth for riches and for wisdom,
24 and all the earth is seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom that God hath put into his heart,
25 and they are bringing each his present, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and garments, and armour, and spices, horses, and mules, the matter of a year in a year.
26 And Solomon gathereth chariots, and horsemen, and he hath a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, and he placeth them in the cities of the chariot, and with the king in Jerusalem.
27 And the king maketh the silver in Jerusalem as stones, and the cedars he hath made as the sycamores that [are] in the low country, for abundance.
28 And the outgoing of the horses that king Solomon hath [is] from Egypt, and from Keveh; merchants of the king take from Keveh at a price;
29 and a chariot cometh up and cometh out of Egypt for six hundred silverlings, and a horse for fifty and a hundred, and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Aram; by their hand they bring out.
Bible verse by verse
-
_LittleNipper
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4518
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm
Re: Bible verse by verse
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
_LeVay
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:33 pm
Re: Bible verse by verse
HAIL SATAN!
Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002)
Diabolical Authority:
Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible and the Satanist "Tradition"1
James R. Lewis
University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, USA
Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies
eMail: jlewis@uwsp.edu
We have a Bible. We have a pro-human dogma. We have a church. We have a tradition. -From the Church of Satan's official website.
The status of The Satanic Bible as an authoritative scripture-or, perhaps more accurately, as a kind of quasi-scripture-within the Satanic subculture was initially brought to my attention during my first face-to-face encounter with Satanists in the Spring of 2000. Via the internet, I had found a small Satanist group in Portage, Wisconsin, which was about an hour south of where I resided at the time. This group, the Temple of Lylyth, distinguishes itself from Anton LaVey's brand of Satanism chiefly by its emphasis on feminine nature of the Dark Power. I arranged to meet with them in Portage on a Friday evening in connection with a research project on which I was working at the time.
Over the course of our conversation, the founder and then leader of the group mentioned that on Friday evenings he was usually downtown where a small group of fervent Christians regularly set up what might be called a "preaching station" to spread the Gospel. This young fellow (he was nineteen at the time) would confront them as a practicing Satanist. He always carried a copy of The Satanic Bible with him, not just so he could quote some of accusations LaVey leveled against Christianity, but also so he could correct anything these evangelists might say about Satanism by citing an authoritative source. I'm sure this is something of a charicature, but I was left with the impression of dueling religionists, Christians hurling Bible verses at my informant as he matched blow for blow with quotes from The Satanic Bible. This experience led me to pay attention whenever other Satanists mentioned The Satanic Bible.
The Temple of Lylyth is part of a loose, decentralized Satanic movement that coheres as a distinct religious community largely by virtue of adherence to certain themes in the thought of Anton LaVey, founder of modern Satanism, though few movement participants outside the Church of The basis for the current article is a paper on "The Satanic Bible" presented at the International CESNUR Conference, "Minority Religions, Social Change, and Freedom of Conscience." Salt Lake City and Provo, June 2023, 2002. Also, certain parts of this article have been adapted from sections of my earlier article, "Who Serves Satan?" (Lewis 2001)
A special word of thanks to Satanists who provided me with thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper, particularly feedback from several members of the Obsidian Enlightenment and the Temple of Lylyth. One comment of particular note was that the social organization (or, perhaps more appropriately, disorganization) of modern Satanism cannot accurately be characterized as a "movement," "community" or "subculture." I have nevertheless used these terms throughout for lack of more adequate terminology. Another comment was that "conversion" is not appropriate in the context of Satanism. Again, however, he left this term in the article for lack of a better word. Finally, I was informed that Satanists prefer to refer to their community as the Satanic community (movement, subculture, etc.) rather than the Satanist community; I have tried to adhere to this convention throughout the present article.
Satan would regard themselves as "orthodox LaVeyans" (something of an oxymoron). Following the dissolution of the Church of Satan's grotto system in 1975 and before the explosion of the internet in the mid-nineties, the Satanic movement was propagated almost entirely by The Satanic Bible, which has continuously been in print as a widely-available, mass market paperback. Rather than being a guide to Devil-worship, LaVey's work advocates a blend of Epicureanism and Ayn Rand's philosophy, flavored with a pinch of ritual magic. Couched in iconoclastic rhetoric, The Satanic Bible has always held particular appeal for rebellious adolescents. The title seems to have originally been chosen for its shock value rather than from any pretense to scriptural status.
The present article examines issues of authority within the Satanic movement and among LaVey's successors in the Church of Satan. The basis of this analysis will be Max Weber's discussion of the legitimation of authority. LaVey was a charismatic individual who appealed to the authority of reason and attacked the authority of tradition. However, LaVey, and particularly The Satanic Bible, soon became sources of authority for a new Satanic tradition-part of the process Weber referred to as the routinization of charisma.
The Legitimation of Authority
Satanists do not consciously regard The Satanic Bible in the same way traditional religionists regard their sacred texts. However, in the course of a research project on modern Satanism conducted in 2000-2001, I discovered that The Satanic Bible is treated as an authoritative document which effectively functions as scripture within the Satanic community. In particular, LaVey's work is quoted to legitimate particular positions as well as to de-legitimate the positions of other Satanists. This legitimation strategy appears to have been unconsciously derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition, which locates the source of religious authority in a sacred text. In other words, being raised in a religious tradition that emphasizes the authority of scripture creates an attitude that can be unconsciously carried over to other, very different kinds of writings.
The classic discussion of the issue of legitimacy is Max Weber's tripartite schema of traditional, rational-legal, and charismatic legitimations of authority. The dynamics (in the sense of upsetting rather than reinforcing established authority structures) of this schema are largely confined to the factor of charisma, a form of legitimation Weber viewed as particularly-though not exclusively-characteristic of new religious movements.
Weber's work on the legitimation of authority provides a useful starting point for understanding the legitimation strategies deployed by contemporary new religions, but it should immediately be noted that his analysis is also inadequate. For example, in contrast to what one might anticipate from the discussion of charismatic authority in Weber's Economy and Society, one often finds new religions appealing to tradition-though the explicit nature of such appeals means that they constitute a variation from what Weber had in mind by the traditional legitimation of authority (which he viewed as more implicit than explicit). Also, when nascent movements attempt to justify a new idea, practice or social arrangement by attributing it to the authority of tradition, it is usually through a reinterpretation of the past that they are able to portray themselves as the true embodiment of tradition. Such variations on what one might anticipate from his schema indicate that Weber did not have the last word on this issue.
Divinity to the leader's ability to provide both mundane and supernatural benefits to followers-may be the keystone in a new movement's initial attractiveness, but charismatic leaders typically appeal to a variety of other sources of legitimacy. For instance, many modern movements appeal to the authority of reason as embodied in natural science.2 This is because the general populace of industrialized countries tend to give science and science's child, technology, a level of respect and prestige enjoyed by few other social institutions-to the point where, as a number of observers have pointed out, science has come to be viewed quasi-religiously. Thus any religion that claims its approach is in some way scientific draws on the prestige and perceived legitimacy of natural science. Religions such as Christian Science, Science of Mind, and Scientology claim just that.
There is, however, a distinct difference between popular notions of science and science proper. Average citizens' views of science are significantly influenced by their experience of technology. Hence, in most people's minds, an important goal of science appears to be the solution of practical problems. This aspect of our cultural view of science shaped the various religious sects that incorporated "science" into their names. In sharp contrast to traditional religions, which emphasize salvation in the afterlife, the emphasis in these religions is on the improvement of this life. Groups within the Metaphysical (Christian Science-New Thought) tradition, for example, usually claim to have discovered spiritual "laws" which, if properly understood and applied, transform and improve the lives of ordinary individuals, much as technology has transformed society.
The notion of spiritual laws is taken directly from the "laws" of classical physics. The eighteenth and nineteenth century mind was enamored of Newton's formulation of the mathematical order in the natural world. A significant aspect of his system of physics was expressed in the laws of gravity. Following Newton's lead, later scientists similarly expressed their discoveries in terms of the same legislative metaphor-e.g., the "law" of evolution.
This legislative rhetoric was carried over into Metaphysical religions, particularly New Thought. Groups in the Metaphysical tradition view themselves as investigating the mind or spirit in a practical, experimental way. The self-perception of the early New Thought movement as "science" is expressed in Lesson One of Ernest Holmes' 1926 classic, Science of Mind, in the following way:
Science is knowledge of facts built around some proven principle. All that we know about any science is that certain things happen under certain conditions. Take electricity as an example; we know that there is such a thing as electricity; we have never seen it, but we know that it exists because we can use it; we know that it operates in a certain way and we have discovered the way it works. >From this knowledge we go ahead and deduce certain facts about electricity; and, applying them to the general principle, we receive definite results. ... The discovery of a law is generally made more or less by accident, or by some one who, after careful thought and observation, has come to the conclusion that such a principle must exist. As soon as a law is discovered experiments are made with it, certain facts are proved to be true, and in this way a science is gradually formulated; for any science consists of the number of known facts about any given principle.... This is true of the Science of Mind. No "New Religious Movements...articulate themselves, often with a popular fluency, in the discourses of the natural sciences and seek to justify their beliefs by means of para- or pseudoscientific investigation or argument." (Sentes and Palmer 2000)
Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002) one has ever seen Mind or Spirit, but who could possibly doubt their existence? Nothing is more self- evident.... (Holmes, p. 38) Modern Satanism is in some ways in continuity with, and in other ways a departure from, this particular line of development. Although Satanism also appeals to science, its focus is not on developing a pragmatic science of the mind. Rather, when LaVey founded the Church of Satan, he grounded Satanism's legitimacy on a view of human nature shaped by a secularist appropriation of modern science. Unlike Christian Science, Scientology and other groups that claimed to model their approach to spirituality after the methods of science, LaVey's strategy was to base Satanism's "anti-Theology" in the secularist world view derived from natural science.3 This world view provided LaVey with an atheistic underpinning for his attacks on Christianity and other forms of supernatural spirituality. At the same time, LaVey went beyond contemporary secularism by suggesting the reality of mysterious, "occult" forces-forces he claimed were not supernatural, but were, rather, natural forces that would eventually be discovered by science. In his notion of mysterious forces that could be manipulated by the will of the magician, LaVey was really not so far from the mentalistic technology of Christian Science, Scientology, etc.
The human nature to which LaVey appealed was humanity's animal nature, viewed through the lens of Darwinism. The human being in this view is little more than an animal with no ultimate morality other than law of the jungle and no purpose other than the survival of the fittest. In terms of Weber's schema, we would say that LaVey's appeal to human nature (meaning, for LaVey, the Darwinist vision of human nature) was a rational legitimation of authority. In other words, LaVey claimed that Satanism was a legitimate religion because it was rational. As a corollary, traditional religion was irrational (unscientific) and therefore illegitimate.
While LaVey was a charismatic individual, and while this charisma was undoubtedly crucial for the successful birth of the Church of Satan, in the present discussion I am less interested in analyzing the initial emergence of religious Satanism than in the transformations that have taken place in the post-charismatic phase of the Satanic movement. Weber was also interested in this kind of transition, which he discussed in terms of the routinization of charisma. By this Weber meant that, because personal charisma tends to be unstable, charismatic authority must eventually move toward dissolution, legal-rational authority or traditional authority.
With respect to modern Satanism, the waning of LaVey's charismatic authority, particularly after he dismantled the Church of Satan (CoS) as a functioning church in 1975, led to a number of interesting-though somewhat paradoxical-developments. In addition to numerous splinter groups, a decentralized, anarchistic movement emerged that was shaped by the central themes in LaVey's thought, particularly as expressed in The Satanic Bible. This book became a doctrinal touchstone of the movement, though independent Satanists felt free to selectively appropriate ideas from The Satanic Bible and to mix them with ideas and practices drawn from other sources. LaVey's book became, in a sense, a kind of quasi-scripture, which is a form of what Weber meant by traditional authority (despite the fact that it seems odd to refer to a religion less than forty years old as a "tradition"!). However, many independent Satanists also adhered to LaVey's program of the 3 Although the Raelian Movement is very different from Satanism, this particular UFO religion similarly appeals to the world view of secular science for its legitimacy and, like Satanism, attacks other religions as unreasonable because of their lack of a scientific basis. (Chryssides 2000; Sentes and Palmer 2000) authority of rationality, feeling free to criticize and even to reject aspects of the LaVeyan tradition. Thus the Satanic movement's legitimacy is based on a dual appeal to independent rational authority and to the authority of the LaVeyan tradition.
In contrast, the remnants of LaVey's church-which is still technically the largest single Satanist group in terms of formal membership-quickly solidified into a doctrinally-rigid organization focused on maintaining the purity of LaVeyan Satanism. This was partly in response to the challenge presented by non-CoS Satanists. In the ongoing argument over legitimacy, LaVey's successors have come to place excessive stress on their role as bearers of his legacy, even asserting that only CoS members are "real" Satanists and characterizing Satanists outside the fold as "pseudo" Satanists. In terms of Weber's analysis, one would say that CoS's legitimation strategy has narrowed to focus almost exclusively on CoS's claim to traditional authority.
Anton LaVey and Modern Religious Satanism
To comprehend religious Satanism, one must first understand that Satan has become an ambivalent symbol within the modern world. Part of the reason for the attractiveness of LaVeyan Satanism is its ability to hold together a number of diverse meanings found in this symbol. In the Western cultural tradition, the Devil represents much more than absolute evil. By default, the Prince of Darkness has come to embody some very attractive attributes. For example, because traditional Christianity has been so anti-sensual, Satan became associated with sex. The Christian tradition has also condemned pride, vengefulness and avarice, and, when allied with the status quo, has promoted conformity and obedience. The three former traits and the antithesis of the latter two traits thus became diabolical characteristics. LaVeyan Satanism celebrates such "vices" as virtues, and identifies them as the core of what Satanism is really all about.
LaVey founded the Church of Satan in 1966, the first organized church in modern times devoted to Satan. As a consequence, Anton LaVey has sometimes been referred to as the "St. Paul of Satanism." LaVey has two biographies, one historical and one legendary. This dichotomy has only become apparent in recent years. His real life was far more prosaic than the story he fabricated for the benefit of the media. LaVey effectively promoted his carefully crafted pseudo-biography through conversations with his disciples, media interviews, and two biographies by associates that he appears to have dictated-The Devil's Avenger (1974) by Burton Wolfe and Secret Life of a Satanist (1990) by Blanche Barton. LaVey's fictional biography was clearly meant to legitimate his self-appointed role as the "Black Pope" by portraying him as an extraordinary individual.
According to the official biography, he was born Howard Anton Szandor LaVey in Chicago, Illinois. His parents, Joseph and Augusta LaVey, moved to San Francisco while LaVey was still an infant. He was introduced to the occult by his Transylvanian gypsy grandmother. As a teenager he pursued various avenues of occult studies, as well as hypnotism and music. He also played an oboe in the San Francisco Ballet Orchestra. He dropped out of high school at 17 to join the Clyde Beatty Circus and worked as a calliope player and big cat trainer, later learning stage magic as well. While an organist in a burlesque theater, he had an affair with the young Marilyn Monroe shortly before she became famous. He married in 1950 and about that time took a job as a police photographer, but in 1955 returned to organ playing. Until he formed the Church of Satan in 1966, he was the city of San Francisco's official organist. He divorced in 1960 in order to marry Diane Hegarty. He purchased his house-eventually becoming the Church of Satan headquarters, later dubbed the "Black House"-after he found out it had been the former brothel of the madam Mammy Pleasant.
Drawing on his circus and occult backgrounds, he began to conduct "midnight magic seminars" at his house. This proved popular enough for him to found the Church of Satan in 1966. The basis for his rituals were Nazi rituals recorded on top-secret films he had seen as a teenager. LaVey's showmanship encouraged significant media coverage of such events as the first Satanic wedding and the first Satanic funeral, worship with a nude woman as an altar, and a cameo appearance as the Devil in the movie "Rosemary's Baby." LaVey made much of being a close friend of Sammy Davis, Jr. and of having had an affair with Jayne Mansfield, two celebrity members of the Church of Satan. At its peak, he claimed that the Church had hundreds of thousands of members. LaVey passed away in 1997.
LaVey's historical biography overlaps his legendary biography at several points. He was born in Chicago and his family did move to San Francisco. He did make his living as a musician and, of course, he actually did found the Church of Satan and died in 1997. He had several marriages. Almost everything else, however, seems to have been a fabrication.
LaVey's self-created legend was not seriously challenged until a 1991 interview in Rolling Stone magazine, entitled "Sympathy for the Devil." The author of that article, Lawerence Wright, did a little investigative footwork and discovered that: LaVey was born Howard Stanton Levey to Gertrude and Mike Levey; there never was a "San Francisco Ballet Orchestra"; no one by the name Levey or LaVey worked as a musician or cat trainer for the Beatty Circus during the period he claimed to have been an employee; neither he nor Monroe ever worked for the Mayan "burlesque" theater; he never worked for the San Francisco Police Department; and there was no such thing as an official San Francisco city organist. These discoveries led Wright to remark toward the end of his article:
Later, as I began to take apart the literary creation he had made of his life, I would realize that "Anton LaVey" was itself his supreme creation, his ultimate Satanic object, a sort of android composed of all the elements his mysterious creator had chosen from the universe of dark possibilities. (Wright 1992)
These findings were considerably amplified in "Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality," a 9-page "fact sheet" compiled a little more than three months after LaVey's passing by his estranged daughter Zeena LaVey Schreck and her husband Nikolas Schreck (1998). In addition to repeating the points made by Wright, the fact sheet dismissed most of Anton LaVey's other claims, such as his claims to have had a Gypsy grandmother, seen films of secret German rituals, purchased the "Black House" (it was given to him by his parents, who had lived there, and had never been a brothel), appeared in "Rosemary's Baby," had affairs with Monroe and Mansfield, and so forth.
The current leadership of the Church of Satan has disputed some of these challenges to LaVey's official biography. Their strategy has been to vigorously dispute undocumented challenges while ignoring LaVey's documented fabrications. As one might anticipate, splinter groups from CoS as well as other independent Satanists have seized upon these revelations to challenge the Church leadership's implicit claims to be the only authentic Satanist religious body.
Thinly disguised claims to exclusive legitimacy are peppered throughout CoS documents, such as in some of Blanche Barton's remarks in her "Sycophants Unite!" essay (composed prior to LaVey's death) posted on the CoS official website:
We're lucky to have a leader like Anton LaVey. He has ensured that his philosophy will not
die with him; it has been and will continue to be codified, expanded and applied in new areas by his organization. (emphasis in original)
The scope and significance of this dispute is reflected in the many attacks on non-CoS Satanists found on the Church of Satan website, particularly in the "Satanic Bunco Sheet," "Sycophants Unite!," "The Myth of the 'Satanic Community,'" "Pretenders to the Throne," and "Recognizing Pseudo-Satanists." Even a superficial perusal of these documents makes it clear that CoS is obsessed with shoring up its own legitimacy by attacking the heretics, especially those who criticize LaVey. For example, the unnamed author of the "Satanic Bunco Sheet" blasts non-CoS Satanists for "LaVey-baiting," and then goes on to assert that such pseudo-Satanists deal with LaVey and the Church of Satan by playing "the Christian game of handing out laurels with one hand while stabbing their progenitor in the back with the other. ...they must somehow convince you that the author of The Satanic Bible wasn't practicing pure Satanism [and] that his Church has gone awry in the hands
of his successors...."
The Church of Satan began generating splinter groups as early as 1973 when the Church of
Satanic Brotherhood was formed by group leaders in Michigan, Ohio, and Florida. This Church
lasted only until 1974, when one of the founders announced his conversion to Christianity in a dramatic incident staged for the press in St. Petersburg. Other members of the Church of Satan in Kentucky and Indiana left to form the Ordo Templi Satanis, also short lived. As more schisms occurred, LaVey decided to disband the remaining grottos, the local units of the Church of Satan, which left the Church as little more than a paper organization generating a meager income for LaVey through sales of memberships. There are many presently-existing groups which derive directly or indirectly from the Church of Satan, the most important of which is the Temple of Set. The conflict (mostly on the internet) between the original Church of Satan and new Satanist groups accelerated after LaVey's death.
In addition to attacking non-CoS Satanists as illegitimate, LaVey's organizational successors have also sought to legitimate their positions by appealing to the authority of LaVey and his writings. These kinds of appeals are rather ironic, given the Black Pope's rejection of traditional religious authority. As indicated earlier, LaVey himself did not attempt to legitimate his new religion with appeals to tradition or to the supernatural. Rather, he grounded Satanism's legitimacy on a view of human nature shaped by a secularist appropriation of modern science.
Genesis of The Satanic Bible
The most significant single document for the Satanic "tradition" is The Satanic Bible. The idea for this volume came not from LaVey, but from an Avon Books editor named Peter Mayer. As a direct result of the success of the popular film "Rosemary's Baby" and the subsequent increase of popular interest in Satanism and the occult, Mayer decided that "the time was right for a 'Satanic Bible'" and he approached LaVey about authoring it. (Aquino 1999, p. 52)
LaVey and his wife took the material they had on hand, wove it together and expanded on these writings to form what became the core of The Satanic Bible. This pre-existing material consisted of:
•
A short, mimeographed paper that they had been distributing as an "introduction to Satanism."
•
The so-called "rainbow sheets," which were "an assortment of polemical essays" the LaVeys had been mimeographing on colored paper. (Ibid., p. 52)
•
A handout describing and containing instructions for the conduct of ritual magic. The LaVeys then ran into a problem, which was that, even after expanding upon all of their available material, they were still substantially short of having a manuscript of sufficient length to satisfy their publisher. So, either because the deadline was coming up quickly or because LaVey just didn't want to write anything else at the time (Aquino describes their situation in terms of the former), LaVey tacked materials written by other authors onto the beginning and end of his manuscript.
Without acknowledging his sources, he took sections of "an obscure, turn-of-the-century political tract," Might is Right by New Zealander Arthur Desmond (writing under the pseudonym Ragnar Redbeard), added in a few sentences of his own, and incorporated it as a prologue. He also added the Enochian Keys ("a series of Elizabethan magical incantations") as they had been modified by Aleister Crowley, and "further altered them by replacing their Heavenly references with diabolical ones." Traditional occultists immediately recognized LaVey's source for the Keys, but it was not until 1987 that the source of LaVey's prologue was discovered. (Ibid., p. 65)
It should also be mentioned that, in circles critical of CoS, one often comes across the accusation that LaVey's "Nine Satanic Statements", one of the Church's central doctrinal statements, is an unacknowledged "paraphrase...of passages from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged" (Schreck and Schreck 1998), specifically a paraphrase of the character John Galt's lengthy speech in the latter part of Rand's novel. However, when one actually examines these parallels (which are conveniently laid out in Appendix 11 of Aquino's The Church of Satan), one finds that this is a caricature of LaVey's indebtedness to Rand. For example, the first Satanic Statement is:
Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
The Rand passage presented as the source of this statement is:
A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man-every man-is an end in himself. He exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.
This passage is rather more lengthy than LaVey's supposed "paraphrase." The second Satanic Statement is as brief as the first Statement:
Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
The Rand passage said to correspond with this Statement, though shorter than the first, is similarly distant in style and content from LaVey:
My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists-and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these.
And there is a similar disparity in the other "parallels" between the Satanic Statements and Rand. Thus, even if it is true that LaVey was looking at Atlas Shrugged when he composed the Nine Satanic Statements, it would be more proper to say that he was inspired by Rand rather than to assert that he paraphrased her work.
I should finally note in this regard that the title of the appendix (which originally appeared as an article by George C. Smith in 1987) in which the LaVey/Rand connection is delineated, "The Hidden Source of the Satanic Philosophy," similarly implies that Rand's philosophy was the unacknowledged core of LaVey's thought. This is, however, incorrect; LaVey himself explicitly acknowledged that his religion was "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added" (cited in Ellis, p. 180). (Refer also to the "Satanism and Objectivism" essay on the Church of Satan website where this connection is examined at length.)
Despite the book's diverse source material and piecemeal assembly, it nevertheless coheres as a succinct-and, apparently, quite attractive-statement of Satanic thought and practice. As Aquino observes, "the Satanic Bible was somehow 'more than the sum of its parts.' Its argument was an argument of common sense, assembled in part from pre-existing concepts, but the excellence of the book lay in its integration of these into a code of life meaningful to the average individual-not just
to occultists and/or academic-level philosophers." (Aquino 1999, p. 52)
One measure of The Satanic Bible's appeal is that it has continuously been in print since it first appeared in 1970, and has been translated into a number of other languages. I have been unable to obtain recent figures, but in his 1991 book, In Pursuit of Satan, Robert Hicks mentions a sales figure of 618,000 copies (p. 351). There were also a number of illegal foreign language editions. These include a Spanish translation published in Mexico in the 70s and a Russian translation in the late 90s. Legal editions include Czech and Swedish translations in the mid 90s and a 1999 German edition. The French translation has been completed but not yet printed. Also, the rights for a Greek translation were purchased, but the book does not seem to have appeared.4
The Role of The Satanic Bible in Modern Satanism
Although religious Satanism is interesting, academics have almost entirely ignored it. (The relevant academic literature consists of a handful of articles-e.g., Alfred 1976; Harvey 1995-and passing mentions in studies of the ritual abuse scare.) The principal reason for the lack of attention appears to be that Satanism is perceived as a trivial phenomenon rather than as a serious religion. The tendency seems to be to regard Satanists as immature adolescents who have adopted a diabolical veneer as a way of acting out their rebellion against parents and society. Does the phenomenon of adolescent rebellion, however, exhaust the significance of religious Satanism? Are most Satanists, in other words, just angry teenagers who adopt diabolical trappings to express their alienation, only to renounce the Prince of Darkness as soon as they mature into adults? While many youthful Satanists undoubtedly fit this profile, I came to feel that this was, at best, only a partial picture. Instead, I reasoned, there must be a core of committed Satanists who-for whatever reasons they initially become involved-had come to appropriate Satanism as something more than adolescent rebellion.
In order to test this hypothesis-and also because so little had been written on contemporary Satanism-I decided to collect some basic demographic data. To this end, I constructed a simple questionnaire that could be answered in 5 or 10 minutes. I began sending out questionnaires in early August 2000. By the end of February 2001 I had received 140 responses, which I felt was adequate to use as the basis for constructing a preliminary profile.5
When I sought feedback on preliminary write-ups of my findings from informants, a few voiced objections to the central role I assigned LaVey and his best-known work, The Satanic Bible, in the formation of modern Satanic religion. I was, furthermore, encouraged to shift my emphasis to the work of earlier literary figures ultimately responsible for fashioning the positive image of the Devil that LaVey later adopted for his Church of Satan. My survey findings, however, consistently indicated the centrality of LaVey to modern Satanism. This finding was a surprise, as I had initially assumed that contemporary Satanism had moved well beyond LaVey. I was thus led to conclude that-despite his dependence on prior thinkers-LaVey was directly responsible for the genesis of Satanism as a serious religious (as opposed to a purely literary) movement. Furthermore, however one might criticize and depreciate it, The Satanic Bible is still the single most influential document shaping the contemporary Satanic movement. As one of my informants noted, "I do not think Satanists can get away from LaVey, although some seem to take a real issue with him or try to downplay his importance. He wrote the book that codified Satanism into a religion, and for that he should be considered the central figure of the religion."
I do not intend to review all of my survey findings here (they are the subject of Lewis 2001), but I
do want to note that I was startled to find that the average respondent had been a Satanist for seven
to eight years. I also found that over two-thirds of the sample had been involved in at least one other
religion beyond the tradition in which they were raised-usually Neopaganism or some other magical
group. Both of these statistics indicate a level of seriousness I had not anticipated.
Because most respondents became involved during their teens, I inferred that many had initially
5 110 (almost 80%) of my respondents were North American. Because European Satanism is a somewhat different
phenomenon, one should be therefore be cautious about making inferences to European Satanism based on my
survey findings.
10
Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002)
become Satanists as an expression of teenage rebelliousness. It was clear, however, that their involvement did not end after they left home. Rather, they went on to appropriate Satanism as a serious religious option. The fact that the great majority of Satanists have looked into other religions shows that this was not an unconsidered choice, undertaken solely as a reaction against established religions. Also, though a reaction against Christianity may well have been a factor for some, too many respondents indicated that their religious upbringing was superficial, nominal or non-existent for this factor to explain why most people become Satanists.
Before I began collecting questionnaire data, I had received the impression from perusing the internet that contemporary Satanism had developed in different directions from the specific formulation developed by Anton LaVey in the 1960's. In particular, at the time it appeared to me that many contemporary Satanists had moved to a position of regarding Satan as a conscious being. I was thus surprised to discover that LaVey's humanistic approach-which rejects the real existence of personal spiritual beings, diabolical or otherwise-was the dominant form of Satanism professed by respondents.
At least part of the reason for this state of affairs appears to be the pervasive influence of Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible. A full 20% of respondents explicitly noted The Satanic Bible as the single most important factor attracting them to Satanism. For instance, in response to a questionnaire item asking how they became involved, a number of people simply wrote, "I read the Satanic Bible." It is also likely that this book played a major role in the "conversion" of other Satanists in my sample. One respondent elaborated by noting that she had been a Satanist in her "heart first, but I couldn't put a name to it; then I found the The Satanic Bible."
Similar stories attributing their infernal "conversions" to The Satanic Bible can be found in other sources. The popular book Lucifer Rising, for instance, recounts the story of how Martin Lamers, founder of the CoS-affiliated Kerk van Satan (Holland), was initially inspired by his discovery of LaVey's volume. (Baddeley 1999, p. 104) However, not everyone who is converted to Satanism via The Satanic Bible feels prompted to join the Church of Satan. Lucifer Rising also notes that "the Church of Satanic Liberation was established in January 1986 after its founder, Paul Douglas Valentine, was inspired by reading The Satanic Bible." (p. 153) Other stories of conversions directly inspired by The Satanic Bible can be found in Michael Aquino's The Church of Satan (e.g., the conversion of Robert DeCecco, who would later become a Master of the Temple, p. 69; and Lilith Sinclair, who would eventually become a Priestess and Aquino's wife, p. 82).
To return to the survey, LaVey's influential publication was also referred to a number of times in response to other questionnaire items. For example, one person noted that, "because I agree with and practice the majority of the beliefs set forth in The Satanic Bible and other works of Dr. LaVey, I VERY MUCH consider myself just as valid a Satanist as any 'official' priest." Another respondent wrote, "Satan is merely a word, a representative concept that encompasses all that the Satanic Bible teaches." And yet another individual stated: "To me, Satan is the personification of mankind's carnal nature. More information can be found in The Satanic Bible by Anton Szandor LaVey."
My strong impression was that The Satanic Bible was a doctrinal touchstone for most participants in this movement, despite the fact that the great majority of my sample were not formal members of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan. (One respondent, noting that he was not a member of any organization, wrote, "[It's] just me and my Satanic Bible.") And whatever LaVey had in mind when 11 Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002) he (or his publisher) entitled this publication, in certain ways The Satanic Bible has truly come to play the role of a "Bible" for many members of this decentralized, anti-authoritarian subculture. In a follow-up questionnaire, respondents were explicitly asked how they regarded The Satanic Bible, and to what extent their personal philosophies aligned with the ideas expressed in its pages. Most stated that their view of the world aligned significantly with The Satanic Bible. One Satanist said that The Satanic Bible was about the realities of human nature, so that there was "nothing [in The Satanic Bible] that I didn't already know or believe myself prior to reading it." Only one respondent completely rejected the LaVeyan tradition. Two respondents asserted that they regarded The Satanic Bible as just another "self-help book." Some respondents diminished (without disparaging) The Satanic Bible as an "introductory text" or "primer" of Satanism. Most hastened to
add that they did not regard it as "dogma." One can acquire a sense of how The Satanic Bible is regarded as a doctrinal touchstone by perusing the official website of the Church of Satan (http://www.churchofsatan.com). For example, the "Satanism FAQ" section of the "Church of Satan Information Pack" states that "critically reading The Satanic Bible by Anton Szandor LaVey is tantamount to understanding at least the basics of Satanism." Similarly, the Church's "Church of Satan Youth Communique" asserts that "LaVey wrote The Satanic Bible so that people could pick up a copy, read it, and know everything they need to know about Satanism and how to put it to work in their own lives." In addition to these general assertions, one can find other essays on the Church of Satan (CoS) website in which authoritative tenets are cited from The Satanic Bible, as when the "Satanic Bunco
Sheet" notes that "The Satanic Bible advises to 'question all things'...." or when, in an essay entitled "Satanism Needs an Enema!", an individual writing under the pseudonym Nemo introduces a series of citations from The Satanic Bible to support a point he is arguing with the words, "Other quotes from LaVey's own pen in The Satanic Bible reiterate this theme." The clear implication of this statement is that because these quotations come from "LaVey's own pen in The Satanic Bible," they are authoritative; thus, there can be no further discussion of the issue. Toward the end of the same essay, Nemo also asserts that, We have a Bible. We have a pro-human dogma. We have a church. We have a tradition. We have ceremonies and rituals. We have a High Priestess. In other words, with respect to the theme I am pursuing here, Nemo is asserting that CoS has an authoritative scripture, dogma and tradition which support his argument. And it is obvious that Nemo regards his appeal to CoS tradition as stronger than direct appeals to science or common sense, which were the touchstones of LaVey's philosophy. Finally, I found it interesting that one of the accusations leveled against non-CoS Satanists in Nemo's "Recognizing Pseudo-Satanism" essay was that in such groups, "The words of The Satanic Bible become twisted and distorted until they no longer have useful meaning!" Furthermore, in his "Satanism Needs an Enema!" essay, the same writer exclaims, I am calling for a closing of the ranks and a throwing out of the heretics.I am asking for the Purge! I am asking for a reverse Inquisition. Both of these sets of passages-the first quoting The Satanic Bible to make a point and the second 12 Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002)
accusing heretical breakaways of warping The Satanic Bible's meaning (even going so far as to call for an "Inquisition" against heretics within the ranks!)-exemplify all-too-familiar patterns found in the theological conflicts of traditional religions like Christianity. Quoting The Satanic Bible to legitimate a point of argument is not, however, confined to representatives of the Church of Satan. The so called "Xloptuny Curse" is an interesting example of how some of the "heretics" have turned the message of LaVey's writings to their own purposes. A short essay on "The Xloptuny Curse," written by Joe Necchi, was posted on the official website of the First Church of Satan in the summer of 2000. (The First Church of Satan-FCoS-is a newer Satanist organization founded by a former member of CoS whose brand of Satanism is very close to The Satanic Bible.) The text discusses the circumstances of a seemingly effective suicide curse that was leveled by Lord Egan, founder/leader of the FCoS, against Xloptuny (John C. Davis), an internet pugilist and member of the CoS. Less than a year before Davis blew his brains out, Egan had cursed Davis, specifying in a public, online communication that he would die by shooting himself.
The passage I would like to focus on for my present purposes is where Necchi remarks, What is interesting, however, is the way in which some have predictably tried to rationalize Xloptuny's suicide as a Yukio Mishima-inspired act of heroism. Ironically, those trying so hard to canonize Mr. Davis thusly now have decided to conveniently ignore the book they are always waving about like a black flag at most other times: The Satanic Bible. In this sense, we see that many Satanists really behave exactly like Christians: they follow the precepts of their religion when it's easy to do so, when it suits them, but are quick to abandon them when it really counts. Page 94 of The Satanic Bible specifically states: "Self-sacrifice is not encouraged by the Satanic religion. Therefore, unless death comes as an indulgence because of extreme circumstances which make the termination of life a welcome relief from an unendurable earthly existence, suicide is frowned upon by the Satanic religion." There is little ambiguity in this passage. As there is no reason to believe that Xloptuny was in "extreme circumstances which make the termination of life a welcome relief"; he died as a traitor to the Church whose cause he so often trumpeted, the defense of which he used as a rationale for his often black and bilious attacks on his enemies. Apparently "the great Dr. Anton LaVey's" words meant little or nothing to John C. Davis when he arrived at the moment of truth. Here again we see The Satanic Bible being quoted as an authoritative document in a manner similar to the way sacred texts are quoted in comparable conflicts within other religious traditions. In other words, "The Xloptuny Curse" is yet another example of how The Satanic Bible functions as a quasi-
scripture within the Satanic community. Almost all Satanists would deny that The Satanic Bible is an "inspired" document in anything like the sense in which the Christian Bible is regarded as an inspired book. Interestingly, however, there are a few individuals-most notably Michael Aquino, a former CoS leader and founder of the Temple of Set-who would regard this book as inspired. For example, in the relevant chapter in his history of the Church of Satan, Aquino asserts that: 13 Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002) The Satanic Bible [clothes] itself in the supernatural authority of the Prince of Darkness and his demons. Less this element, the Satanic Bible would be merely a social tract by Anton LaVey-not High Priest of Satan, but just one more 1960s'-counterculture-cynic atop a soap-box. The substance of the Satanic Bible therefore turns upon Anton LaVey's sincerity in believing himself to be the vehicle through which the entity known as Satan explains the mysteries of mankind's existential predicament. To the extent that he did, the Satanic Bible deserves the dignity of its title. ... Despite the haphazard nature of its assembly, ... we may therefore consider the Satanic Bible in its totality not as argumentative, but as inspired writing. Thus it assumes an importance by its very existence, not just by its content. (Aquino 1999, p. 53) Although Aquino's position would be rejected by most other professing Satanists, something approaching this position seems to be unconsciously informing their attitude toward The Satanic Bible. Conclusion Anton LaVey's primary legitimation strategy was to appeal to the authority of science, specifically to the secularist world view derived from natural science and to an animalistic image of the human being derived from the Darwinian theory of evolution. In light of his radically secularist legitimation strategy, it is ironic that his organizational successors have subsequently attempted to legitimate their positions by appealing to LaVey as if he had actually been some kind of "Black Pope," and to The Satanic Bible as if it was truly a diabolically-revealed scripture. It seems that being raised in a religious tradition that locates the source of authority in religious figures and sacred texts creates an unconscious predisposition that can be carried over to other kinds of persons and books-even in the unlikely context of contemporary Satanism. Outside the institutional bounds of the Church of Satan, modern Satanism became a loose, decentralized movement that coheres as a distinct religious community largely by virtue of participants' adherence to certain themes in the published words of Anton LaVey, particularly in The Satanic Bible. Despite this volume's patchwork quality and haphazard genesis, it came to play an authoritative, quasi-scriptural role within the larger Satanic movement. Unlike members of the Church of Satan, however, non-CoS Satanists felt free to criticize and even to reject aspects of the LaVeyan tradition by appealing to the authority of rationality-a criterion of legitimacy LaVey himself put forward as the very basis of Satanism. Thus, in terms of this criterion, non-CoS Satanism is closer to the spirit of LaVey's philosophy than the contemporary Church of Satan. 14 Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002) Bibliography: Aquino, Michael A. The Church of Satan. 4 th ed. Self-published, 1999. Baddeley, Gavin. Lucifer Rising: Sin, Devil Worship and Rock'n'Roll. London: Plexus, 1999. Barton, Blanche. The Secret Life of a Satanist: The Authorized Biography of Anton LaVey. Los Angeles, CA: Feral House, 1990. Chryssides, George D. "Is God a Space Alien? The Cosmology of the Raelian Church." Culture and Cosmos 4:1 Spring/Summer 2000. ----------------. "Sycophants Unite!" http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html "The Church of Satan Information Pack" http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/cosinfopack.pdf "Church of Satan Youth Communique" http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html Ellis, Bill. Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2000. Flowers, Stephen E., Lords of the Left Hand Path. Smithville, Texas: Runa-Raven Press, 1997. Holmes, Ernest. The Science of Mind. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, [1926]1944. LaVey, Anton Szandor. The Satanic Bible. New York: Avon, 1969 Lewis, James R. "Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile." Marburg Journal of Religious Studies 6:2. 2001. [Link] Moody, Edward J."Magical Therapy: An Anthropological Investigation of Contemporary Satanism." In Irving I. Zaretsky and Mark P. Leone, eds. Religious Movements in Contemporary America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974. Moynihan, Michael and Didrik Soderlind. Lords of Chaos: The Bloody Rise of the Satanic Metal Underground. Venice, CA: Feral House, 1998. Necchi, Joe. "The Xloptuny Curse." http://www.churchofsatan.org/xloptuny.html. Nemo. "Recognizing Pseudo-Satanism" http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html -------------. "Satanism and Objectivism." http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html -------------. "Satanism Needs an Enema!" http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002) Petersen, Jesper Aagard. "Binary Satanism: Being Dark and Secretive in a Prismatic Digital World." Unpublished paper. Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House, 1957. Redbeard, Ragnar. Might is Right; or, The Survival of the Fittest. London: W.J. Robbins, 5 th ed.1910. [Rpt. of 1896] Richardson, James, Joel Best and David G. Bromley. The Satanism Scare. NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991. "Satanic Bunco Sheet." http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html Schreck, Zeena, and Nikolas Schreck. "Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality." 1998. http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html Sentes, Bryan, and Susan Palmer. "Presumed Immanent: the Raelians, UFO Religions, and the Postmodern Condition." Novo Religio Smith, George C. "The Hidden Source of the Satanic Philosophy." Originally published in The Scroll of Set, June 1987. Reprinted as Appendix 11 in Aquino 1999.
Trull, D. "Fortean Slips: Death of a Devil's Advocate." Weber, Max. Basic Concepts in Sociology. H. P. Secher (trans). New York: Philosophical Library, 1962. Wolfe, Burton H. The Devil's Avenger: A Biography of Anton Szandor LaVey. New York: Pyramid Books, 1974. Wright, Lawrence. "Sympathy for the Devil." Rolling Stone September 5, 1991. Copyright © James R. Lewis 2002 First published in Marburg Journal of Religion 16
Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002)
Diabolical Authority:
Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible and the Satanist "Tradition"1
James R. Lewis
University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, USA
Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies
eMail: jlewis@uwsp.edu
We have a Bible. We have a pro-human dogma. We have a church. We have a tradition. -From the Church of Satan's official website.
The status of The Satanic Bible as an authoritative scripture-or, perhaps more accurately, as a kind of quasi-scripture-within the Satanic subculture was initially brought to my attention during my first face-to-face encounter with Satanists in the Spring of 2000. Via the internet, I had found a small Satanist group in Portage, Wisconsin, which was about an hour south of where I resided at the time. This group, the Temple of Lylyth, distinguishes itself from Anton LaVey's brand of Satanism chiefly by its emphasis on feminine nature of the Dark Power. I arranged to meet with them in Portage on a Friday evening in connection with a research project on which I was working at the time.
Over the course of our conversation, the founder and then leader of the group mentioned that on Friday evenings he was usually downtown where a small group of fervent Christians regularly set up what might be called a "preaching station" to spread the Gospel. This young fellow (he was nineteen at the time) would confront them as a practicing Satanist. He always carried a copy of The Satanic Bible with him, not just so he could quote some of accusations LaVey leveled against Christianity, but also so he could correct anything these evangelists might say about Satanism by citing an authoritative source. I'm sure this is something of a charicature, but I was left with the impression of dueling religionists, Christians hurling Bible verses at my informant as he matched blow for blow with quotes from The Satanic Bible. This experience led me to pay attention whenever other Satanists mentioned The Satanic Bible.
The Temple of Lylyth is part of a loose, decentralized Satanic movement that coheres as a distinct religious community largely by virtue of adherence to certain themes in the thought of Anton LaVey, founder of modern Satanism, though few movement participants outside the Church of The basis for the current article is a paper on "The Satanic Bible" presented at the International CESNUR Conference, "Minority Religions, Social Change, and Freedom of Conscience." Salt Lake City and Provo, June 2023, 2002. Also, certain parts of this article have been adapted from sections of my earlier article, "Who Serves Satan?" (Lewis 2001)
A special word of thanks to Satanists who provided me with thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper, particularly feedback from several members of the Obsidian Enlightenment and the Temple of Lylyth. One comment of particular note was that the social organization (or, perhaps more appropriately, disorganization) of modern Satanism cannot accurately be characterized as a "movement," "community" or "subculture." I have nevertheless used these terms throughout for lack of more adequate terminology. Another comment was that "conversion" is not appropriate in the context of Satanism. Again, however, he left this term in the article for lack of a better word. Finally, I was informed that Satanists prefer to refer to their community as the Satanic community (movement, subculture, etc.) rather than the Satanist community; I have tried to adhere to this convention throughout the present article.
Satan would regard themselves as "orthodox LaVeyans" (something of an oxymoron). Following the dissolution of the Church of Satan's grotto system in 1975 and before the explosion of the internet in the mid-nineties, the Satanic movement was propagated almost entirely by The Satanic Bible, which has continuously been in print as a widely-available, mass market paperback. Rather than being a guide to Devil-worship, LaVey's work advocates a blend of Epicureanism and Ayn Rand's philosophy, flavored with a pinch of ritual magic. Couched in iconoclastic rhetoric, The Satanic Bible has always held particular appeal for rebellious adolescents. The title seems to have originally been chosen for its shock value rather than from any pretense to scriptural status.
The present article examines issues of authority within the Satanic movement and among LaVey's successors in the Church of Satan. The basis of this analysis will be Max Weber's discussion of the legitimation of authority. LaVey was a charismatic individual who appealed to the authority of reason and attacked the authority of tradition. However, LaVey, and particularly The Satanic Bible, soon became sources of authority for a new Satanic tradition-part of the process Weber referred to as the routinization of charisma.
The Legitimation of Authority
Satanists do not consciously regard The Satanic Bible in the same way traditional religionists regard their sacred texts. However, in the course of a research project on modern Satanism conducted in 2000-2001, I discovered that The Satanic Bible is treated as an authoritative document which effectively functions as scripture within the Satanic community. In particular, LaVey's work is quoted to legitimate particular positions as well as to de-legitimate the positions of other Satanists. This legitimation strategy appears to have been unconsciously derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition, which locates the source of religious authority in a sacred text. In other words, being raised in a religious tradition that emphasizes the authority of scripture creates an attitude that can be unconsciously carried over to other, very different kinds of writings.
The classic discussion of the issue of legitimacy is Max Weber's tripartite schema of traditional, rational-legal, and charismatic legitimations of authority. The dynamics (in the sense of upsetting rather than reinforcing established authority structures) of this schema are largely confined to the factor of charisma, a form of legitimation Weber viewed as particularly-though not exclusively-characteristic of new religious movements.
Weber's work on the legitimation of authority provides a useful starting point for understanding the legitimation strategies deployed by contemporary new religions, but it should immediately be noted that his analysis is also inadequate. For example, in contrast to what one might anticipate from the discussion of charismatic authority in Weber's Economy and Society, one often finds new religions appealing to tradition-though the explicit nature of such appeals means that they constitute a variation from what Weber had in mind by the traditional legitimation of authority (which he viewed as more implicit than explicit). Also, when nascent movements attempt to justify a new idea, practice or social arrangement by attributing it to the authority of tradition, it is usually through a reinterpretation of the past that they are able to portray themselves as the true embodiment of tradition. Such variations on what one might anticipate from his schema indicate that Weber did not have the last word on this issue.
Divinity to the leader's ability to provide both mundane and supernatural benefits to followers-may be the keystone in a new movement's initial attractiveness, but charismatic leaders typically appeal to a variety of other sources of legitimacy. For instance, many modern movements appeal to the authority of reason as embodied in natural science.2 This is because the general populace of industrialized countries tend to give science and science's child, technology, a level of respect and prestige enjoyed by few other social institutions-to the point where, as a number of observers have pointed out, science has come to be viewed quasi-religiously. Thus any religion that claims its approach is in some way scientific draws on the prestige and perceived legitimacy of natural science. Religions such as Christian Science, Science of Mind, and Scientology claim just that.
There is, however, a distinct difference between popular notions of science and science proper. Average citizens' views of science are significantly influenced by their experience of technology. Hence, in most people's minds, an important goal of science appears to be the solution of practical problems. This aspect of our cultural view of science shaped the various religious sects that incorporated "science" into their names. In sharp contrast to traditional religions, which emphasize salvation in the afterlife, the emphasis in these religions is on the improvement of this life. Groups within the Metaphysical (Christian Science-New Thought) tradition, for example, usually claim to have discovered spiritual "laws" which, if properly understood and applied, transform and improve the lives of ordinary individuals, much as technology has transformed society.
The notion of spiritual laws is taken directly from the "laws" of classical physics. The eighteenth and nineteenth century mind was enamored of Newton's formulation of the mathematical order in the natural world. A significant aspect of his system of physics was expressed in the laws of gravity. Following Newton's lead, later scientists similarly expressed their discoveries in terms of the same legislative metaphor-e.g., the "law" of evolution.
This legislative rhetoric was carried over into Metaphysical religions, particularly New Thought. Groups in the Metaphysical tradition view themselves as investigating the mind or spirit in a practical, experimental way. The self-perception of the early New Thought movement as "science" is expressed in Lesson One of Ernest Holmes' 1926 classic, Science of Mind, in the following way:
Science is knowledge of facts built around some proven principle. All that we know about any science is that certain things happen under certain conditions. Take electricity as an example; we know that there is such a thing as electricity; we have never seen it, but we know that it exists because we can use it; we know that it operates in a certain way and we have discovered the way it works. >From this knowledge we go ahead and deduce certain facts about electricity; and, applying them to the general principle, we receive definite results. ... The discovery of a law is generally made more or less by accident, or by some one who, after careful thought and observation, has come to the conclusion that such a principle must exist. As soon as a law is discovered experiments are made with it, certain facts are proved to be true, and in this way a science is gradually formulated; for any science consists of the number of known facts about any given principle.... This is true of the Science of Mind. No "New Religious Movements...articulate themselves, often with a popular fluency, in the discourses of the natural sciences and seek to justify their beliefs by means of para- or pseudoscientific investigation or argument." (Sentes and Palmer 2000)
Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002) one has ever seen Mind or Spirit, but who could possibly doubt their existence? Nothing is more self- evident.... (Holmes, p. 38) Modern Satanism is in some ways in continuity with, and in other ways a departure from, this particular line of development. Although Satanism also appeals to science, its focus is not on developing a pragmatic science of the mind. Rather, when LaVey founded the Church of Satan, he grounded Satanism's legitimacy on a view of human nature shaped by a secularist appropriation of modern science. Unlike Christian Science, Scientology and other groups that claimed to model their approach to spirituality after the methods of science, LaVey's strategy was to base Satanism's "anti-Theology" in the secularist world view derived from natural science.3 This world view provided LaVey with an atheistic underpinning for his attacks on Christianity and other forms of supernatural spirituality. At the same time, LaVey went beyond contemporary secularism by suggesting the reality of mysterious, "occult" forces-forces he claimed were not supernatural, but were, rather, natural forces that would eventually be discovered by science. In his notion of mysterious forces that could be manipulated by the will of the magician, LaVey was really not so far from the mentalistic technology of Christian Science, Scientology, etc.
The human nature to which LaVey appealed was humanity's animal nature, viewed through the lens of Darwinism. The human being in this view is little more than an animal with no ultimate morality other than law of the jungle and no purpose other than the survival of the fittest. In terms of Weber's schema, we would say that LaVey's appeal to human nature (meaning, for LaVey, the Darwinist vision of human nature) was a rational legitimation of authority. In other words, LaVey claimed that Satanism was a legitimate religion because it was rational. As a corollary, traditional religion was irrational (unscientific) and therefore illegitimate.
While LaVey was a charismatic individual, and while this charisma was undoubtedly crucial for the successful birth of the Church of Satan, in the present discussion I am less interested in analyzing the initial emergence of religious Satanism than in the transformations that have taken place in the post-charismatic phase of the Satanic movement. Weber was also interested in this kind of transition, which he discussed in terms of the routinization of charisma. By this Weber meant that, because personal charisma tends to be unstable, charismatic authority must eventually move toward dissolution, legal-rational authority or traditional authority.
With respect to modern Satanism, the waning of LaVey's charismatic authority, particularly after he dismantled the Church of Satan (CoS) as a functioning church in 1975, led to a number of interesting-though somewhat paradoxical-developments. In addition to numerous splinter groups, a decentralized, anarchistic movement emerged that was shaped by the central themes in LaVey's thought, particularly as expressed in The Satanic Bible. This book became a doctrinal touchstone of the movement, though independent Satanists felt free to selectively appropriate ideas from The Satanic Bible and to mix them with ideas and practices drawn from other sources. LaVey's book became, in a sense, a kind of quasi-scripture, which is a form of what Weber meant by traditional authority (despite the fact that it seems odd to refer to a religion less than forty years old as a "tradition"!). However, many independent Satanists also adhered to LaVey's program of the 3 Although the Raelian Movement is very different from Satanism, this particular UFO religion similarly appeals to the world view of secular science for its legitimacy and, like Satanism, attacks other religions as unreasonable because of their lack of a scientific basis. (Chryssides 2000; Sentes and Palmer 2000) authority of rationality, feeling free to criticize and even to reject aspects of the LaVeyan tradition. Thus the Satanic movement's legitimacy is based on a dual appeal to independent rational authority and to the authority of the LaVeyan tradition.
In contrast, the remnants of LaVey's church-which is still technically the largest single Satanist group in terms of formal membership-quickly solidified into a doctrinally-rigid organization focused on maintaining the purity of LaVeyan Satanism. This was partly in response to the challenge presented by non-CoS Satanists. In the ongoing argument over legitimacy, LaVey's successors have come to place excessive stress on their role as bearers of his legacy, even asserting that only CoS members are "real" Satanists and characterizing Satanists outside the fold as "pseudo" Satanists. In terms of Weber's analysis, one would say that CoS's legitimation strategy has narrowed to focus almost exclusively on CoS's claim to traditional authority.
Anton LaVey and Modern Religious Satanism
To comprehend religious Satanism, one must first understand that Satan has become an ambivalent symbol within the modern world. Part of the reason for the attractiveness of LaVeyan Satanism is its ability to hold together a number of diverse meanings found in this symbol. In the Western cultural tradition, the Devil represents much more than absolute evil. By default, the Prince of Darkness has come to embody some very attractive attributes. For example, because traditional Christianity has been so anti-sensual, Satan became associated with sex. The Christian tradition has also condemned pride, vengefulness and avarice, and, when allied with the status quo, has promoted conformity and obedience. The three former traits and the antithesis of the latter two traits thus became diabolical characteristics. LaVeyan Satanism celebrates such "vices" as virtues, and identifies them as the core of what Satanism is really all about.
LaVey founded the Church of Satan in 1966, the first organized church in modern times devoted to Satan. As a consequence, Anton LaVey has sometimes been referred to as the "St. Paul of Satanism." LaVey has two biographies, one historical and one legendary. This dichotomy has only become apparent in recent years. His real life was far more prosaic than the story he fabricated for the benefit of the media. LaVey effectively promoted his carefully crafted pseudo-biography through conversations with his disciples, media interviews, and two biographies by associates that he appears to have dictated-The Devil's Avenger (1974) by Burton Wolfe and Secret Life of a Satanist (1990) by Blanche Barton. LaVey's fictional biography was clearly meant to legitimate his self-appointed role as the "Black Pope" by portraying him as an extraordinary individual.
According to the official biography, he was born Howard Anton Szandor LaVey in Chicago, Illinois. His parents, Joseph and Augusta LaVey, moved to San Francisco while LaVey was still an infant. He was introduced to the occult by his Transylvanian gypsy grandmother. As a teenager he pursued various avenues of occult studies, as well as hypnotism and music. He also played an oboe in the San Francisco Ballet Orchestra. He dropped out of high school at 17 to join the Clyde Beatty Circus and worked as a calliope player and big cat trainer, later learning stage magic as well. While an organist in a burlesque theater, he had an affair with the young Marilyn Monroe shortly before she became famous. He married in 1950 and about that time took a job as a police photographer, but in 1955 returned to organ playing. Until he formed the Church of Satan in 1966, he was the city of San Francisco's official organist. He divorced in 1960 in order to marry Diane Hegarty. He purchased his house-eventually becoming the Church of Satan headquarters, later dubbed the "Black House"-after he found out it had been the former brothel of the madam Mammy Pleasant.
Drawing on his circus and occult backgrounds, he began to conduct "midnight magic seminars" at his house. This proved popular enough for him to found the Church of Satan in 1966. The basis for his rituals were Nazi rituals recorded on top-secret films he had seen as a teenager. LaVey's showmanship encouraged significant media coverage of such events as the first Satanic wedding and the first Satanic funeral, worship with a nude woman as an altar, and a cameo appearance as the Devil in the movie "Rosemary's Baby." LaVey made much of being a close friend of Sammy Davis, Jr. and of having had an affair with Jayne Mansfield, two celebrity members of the Church of Satan. At its peak, he claimed that the Church had hundreds of thousands of members. LaVey passed away in 1997.
LaVey's historical biography overlaps his legendary biography at several points. He was born in Chicago and his family did move to San Francisco. He did make his living as a musician and, of course, he actually did found the Church of Satan and died in 1997. He had several marriages. Almost everything else, however, seems to have been a fabrication.
LaVey's self-created legend was not seriously challenged until a 1991 interview in Rolling Stone magazine, entitled "Sympathy for the Devil." The author of that article, Lawerence Wright, did a little investigative footwork and discovered that: LaVey was born Howard Stanton Levey to Gertrude and Mike Levey; there never was a "San Francisco Ballet Orchestra"; no one by the name Levey or LaVey worked as a musician or cat trainer for the Beatty Circus during the period he claimed to have been an employee; neither he nor Monroe ever worked for the Mayan "burlesque" theater; he never worked for the San Francisco Police Department; and there was no such thing as an official San Francisco city organist. These discoveries led Wright to remark toward the end of his article:
Later, as I began to take apart the literary creation he had made of his life, I would realize that "Anton LaVey" was itself his supreme creation, his ultimate Satanic object, a sort of android composed of all the elements his mysterious creator had chosen from the universe of dark possibilities. (Wright 1992)
These findings were considerably amplified in "Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality," a 9-page "fact sheet" compiled a little more than three months after LaVey's passing by his estranged daughter Zeena LaVey Schreck and her husband Nikolas Schreck (1998). In addition to repeating the points made by Wright, the fact sheet dismissed most of Anton LaVey's other claims, such as his claims to have had a Gypsy grandmother, seen films of secret German rituals, purchased the "Black House" (it was given to him by his parents, who had lived there, and had never been a brothel), appeared in "Rosemary's Baby," had affairs with Monroe and Mansfield, and so forth.
The current leadership of the Church of Satan has disputed some of these challenges to LaVey's official biography. Their strategy has been to vigorously dispute undocumented challenges while ignoring LaVey's documented fabrications. As one might anticipate, splinter groups from CoS as well as other independent Satanists have seized upon these revelations to challenge the Church leadership's implicit claims to be the only authentic Satanist religious body.
Thinly disguised claims to exclusive legitimacy are peppered throughout CoS documents, such as in some of Blanche Barton's remarks in her "Sycophants Unite!" essay (composed prior to LaVey's death) posted on the CoS official website:
We're lucky to have a leader like Anton LaVey. He has ensured that his philosophy will not
die with him; it has been and will continue to be codified, expanded and applied in new areas by his organization. (emphasis in original)
The scope and significance of this dispute is reflected in the many attacks on non-CoS Satanists found on the Church of Satan website, particularly in the "Satanic Bunco Sheet," "Sycophants Unite!," "The Myth of the 'Satanic Community,'" "Pretenders to the Throne," and "Recognizing Pseudo-Satanists." Even a superficial perusal of these documents makes it clear that CoS is obsessed with shoring up its own legitimacy by attacking the heretics, especially those who criticize LaVey. For example, the unnamed author of the "Satanic Bunco Sheet" blasts non-CoS Satanists for "LaVey-baiting," and then goes on to assert that such pseudo-Satanists deal with LaVey and the Church of Satan by playing "the Christian game of handing out laurels with one hand while stabbing their progenitor in the back with the other. ...they must somehow convince you that the author of The Satanic Bible wasn't practicing pure Satanism [and] that his Church has gone awry in the hands
of his successors...."
The Church of Satan began generating splinter groups as early as 1973 when the Church of
Satanic Brotherhood was formed by group leaders in Michigan, Ohio, and Florida. This Church
lasted only until 1974, when one of the founders announced his conversion to Christianity in a dramatic incident staged for the press in St. Petersburg. Other members of the Church of Satan in Kentucky and Indiana left to form the Ordo Templi Satanis, also short lived. As more schisms occurred, LaVey decided to disband the remaining grottos, the local units of the Church of Satan, which left the Church as little more than a paper organization generating a meager income for LaVey through sales of memberships. There are many presently-existing groups which derive directly or indirectly from the Church of Satan, the most important of which is the Temple of Set. The conflict (mostly on the internet) between the original Church of Satan and new Satanist groups accelerated after LaVey's death.
In addition to attacking non-CoS Satanists as illegitimate, LaVey's organizational successors have also sought to legitimate their positions by appealing to the authority of LaVey and his writings. These kinds of appeals are rather ironic, given the Black Pope's rejection of traditional religious authority. As indicated earlier, LaVey himself did not attempt to legitimate his new religion with appeals to tradition or to the supernatural. Rather, he grounded Satanism's legitimacy on a view of human nature shaped by a secularist appropriation of modern science.
Genesis of The Satanic Bible
The most significant single document for the Satanic "tradition" is The Satanic Bible. The idea for this volume came not from LaVey, but from an Avon Books editor named Peter Mayer. As a direct result of the success of the popular film "Rosemary's Baby" and the subsequent increase of popular interest in Satanism and the occult, Mayer decided that "the time was right for a 'Satanic Bible'" and he approached LaVey about authoring it. (Aquino 1999, p. 52)
LaVey and his wife took the material they had on hand, wove it together and expanded on these writings to form what became the core of The Satanic Bible. This pre-existing material consisted of:
•
A short, mimeographed paper that they had been distributing as an "introduction to Satanism."
•
The so-called "rainbow sheets," which were "an assortment of polemical essays" the LaVeys had been mimeographing on colored paper. (Ibid., p. 52)
•
A handout describing and containing instructions for the conduct of ritual magic. The LaVeys then ran into a problem, which was that, even after expanding upon all of their available material, they were still substantially short of having a manuscript of sufficient length to satisfy their publisher. So, either because the deadline was coming up quickly or because LaVey just didn't want to write anything else at the time (Aquino describes their situation in terms of the former), LaVey tacked materials written by other authors onto the beginning and end of his manuscript.
Without acknowledging his sources, he took sections of "an obscure, turn-of-the-century political tract," Might is Right by New Zealander Arthur Desmond (writing under the pseudonym Ragnar Redbeard), added in a few sentences of his own, and incorporated it as a prologue. He also added the Enochian Keys ("a series of Elizabethan magical incantations") as they had been modified by Aleister Crowley, and "further altered them by replacing their Heavenly references with diabolical ones." Traditional occultists immediately recognized LaVey's source for the Keys, but it was not until 1987 that the source of LaVey's prologue was discovered. (Ibid., p. 65)
It should also be mentioned that, in circles critical of CoS, one often comes across the accusation that LaVey's "Nine Satanic Statements", one of the Church's central doctrinal statements, is an unacknowledged "paraphrase...of passages from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged" (Schreck and Schreck 1998), specifically a paraphrase of the character John Galt's lengthy speech in the latter part of Rand's novel. However, when one actually examines these parallels (which are conveniently laid out in Appendix 11 of Aquino's The Church of Satan), one finds that this is a caricature of LaVey's indebtedness to Rand. For example, the first Satanic Statement is:
Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
The Rand passage presented as the source of this statement is:
A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man-every man-is an end in himself. He exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.
This passage is rather more lengthy than LaVey's supposed "paraphrase." The second Satanic Statement is as brief as the first Statement:
Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
The Rand passage said to correspond with this Statement, though shorter than the first, is similarly distant in style and content from LaVey:
My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists-and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these.
And there is a similar disparity in the other "parallels" between the Satanic Statements and Rand. Thus, even if it is true that LaVey was looking at Atlas Shrugged when he composed the Nine Satanic Statements, it would be more proper to say that he was inspired by Rand rather than to assert that he paraphrased her work.
I should finally note in this regard that the title of the appendix (which originally appeared as an article by George C. Smith in 1987) in which the LaVey/Rand connection is delineated, "The Hidden Source of the Satanic Philosophy," similarly implies that Rand's philosophy was the unacknowledged core of LaVey's thought. This is, however, incorrect; LaVey himself explicitly acknowledged that his religion was "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added" (cited in Ellis, p. 180). (Refer also to the "Satanism and Objectivism" essay on the Church of Satan website where this connection is examined at length.)
Despite the book's diverse source material and piecemeal assembly, it nevertheless coheres as a succinct-and, apparently, quite attractive-statement of Satanic thought and practice. As Aquino observes, "the Satanic Bible was somehow 'more than the sum of its parts.' Its argument was an argument of common sense, assembled in part from pre-existing concepts, but the excellence of the book lay in its integration of these into a code of life meaningful to the average individual-not just
to occultists and/or academic-level philosophers." (Aquino 1999, p. 52)
One measure of The Satanic Bible's appeal is that it has continuously been in print since it first appeared in 1970, and has been translated into a number of other languages. I have been unable to obtain recent figures, but in his 1991 book, In Pursuit of Satan, Robert Hicks mentions a sales figure of 618,000 copies (p. 351). There were also a number of illegal foreign language editions. These include a Spanish translation published in Mexico in the 70s and a Russian translation in the late 90s. Legal editions include Czech and Swedish translations in the mid 90s and a 1999 German edition. The French translation has been completed but not yet printed. Also, the rights for a Greek translation were purchased, but the book does not seem to have appeared.4
The Role of The Satanic Bible in Modern Satanism
Although religious Satanism is interesting, academics have almost entirely ignored it. (The relevant academic literature consists of a handful of articles-e.g., Alfred 1976; Harvey 1995-and passing mentions in studies of the ritual abuse scare.) The principal reason for the lack of attention appears to be that Satanism is perceived as a trivial phenomenon rather than as a serious religion. The tendency seems to be to regard Satanists as immature adolescents who have adopted a diabolical veneer as a way of acting out their rebellion against parents and society. Does the phenomenon of adolescent rebellion, however, exhaust the significance of religious Satanism? Are most Satanists, in other words, just angry teenagers who adopt diabolical trappings to express their alienation, only to renounce the Prince of Darkness as soon as they mature into adults? While many youthful Satanists undoubtedly fit this profile, I came to feel that this was, at best, only a partial picture. Instead, I reasoned, there must be a core of committed Satanists who-for whatever reasons they initially become involved-had come to appropriate Satanism as something more than adolescent rebellion.
In order to test this hypothesis-and also because so little had been written on contemporary Satanism-I decided to collect some basic demographic data. To this end, I constructed a simple questionnaire that could be answered in 5 or 10 minutes. I began sending out questionnaires in early August 2000. By the end of February 2001 I had received 140 responses, which I felt was adequate to use as the basis for constructing a preliminary profile.5
When I sought feedback on preliminary write-ups of my findings from informants, a few voiced objections to the central role I assigned LaVey and his best-known work, The Satanic Bible, in the formation of modern Satanic religion. I was, furthermore, encouraged to shift my emphasis to the work of earlier literary figures ultimately responsible for fashioning the positive image of the Devil that LaVey later adopted for his Church of Satan. My survey findings, however, consistently indicated the centrality of LaVey to modern Satanism. This finding was a surprise, as I had initially assumed that contemporary Satanism had moved well beyond LaVey. I was thus led to conclude that-despite his dependence on prior thinkers-LaVey was directly responsible for the genesis of Satanism as a serious religious (as opposed to a purely literary) movement. Furthermore, however one might criticize and depreciate it, The Satanic Bible is still the single most influential document shaping the contemporary Satanic movement. As one of my informants noted, "I do not think Satanists can get away from LaVey, although some seem to take a real issue with him or try to downplay his importance. He wrote the book that codified Satanism into a religion, and for that he should be considered the central figure of the religion."
I do not intend to review all of my survey findings here (they are the subject of Lewis 2001), but I
do want to note that I was startled to find that the average respondent had been a Satanist for seven
to eight years. I also found that over two-thirds of the sample had been involved in at least one other
religion beyond the tradition in which they were raised-usually Neopaganism or some other magical
group. Both of these statistics indicate a level of seriousness I had not anticipated.
Because most respondents became involved during their teens, I inferred that many had initially
5 110 (almost 80%) of my respondents were North American. Because European Satanism is a somewhat different
phenomenon, one should be therefore be cautious about making inferences to European Satanism based on my
survey findings.
10
Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002)
become Satanists as an expression of teenage rebelliousness. It was clear, however, that their involvement did not end after they left home. Rather, they went on to appropriate Satanism as a serious religious option. The fact that the great majority of Satanists have looked into other religions shows that this was not an unconsidered choice, undertaken solely as a reaction against established religions. Also, though a reaction against Christianity may well have been a factor for some, too many respondents indicated that their religious upbringing was superficial, nominal or non-existent for this factor to explain why most people become Satanists.
Before I began collecting questionnaire data, I had received the impression from perusing the internet that contemporary Satanism had developed in different directions from the specific formulation developed by Anton LaVey in the 1960's. In particular, at the time it appeared to me that many contemporary Satanists had moved to a position of regarding Satan as a conscious being. I was thus surprised to discover that LaVey's humanistic approach-which rejects the real existence of personal spiritual beings, diabolical or otherwise-was the dominant form of Satanism professed by respondents.
At least part of the reason for this state of affairs appears to be the pervasive influence of Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible. A full 20% of respondents explicitly noted The Satanic Bible as the single most important factor attracting them to Satanism. For instance, in response to a questionnaire item asking how they became involved, a number of people simply wrote, "I read the Satanic Bible." It is also likely that this book played a major role in the "conversion" of other Satanists in my sample. One respondent elaborated by noting that she had been a Satanist in her "heart first, but I couldn't put a name to it; then I found the The Satanic Bible."
Similar stories attributing their infernal "conversions" to The Satanic Bible can be found in other sources. The popular book Lucifer Rising, for instance, recounts the story of how Martin Lamers, founder of the CoS-affiliated Kerk van Satan (Holland), was initially inspired by his discovery of LaVey's volume. (Baddeley 1999, p. 104) However, not everyone who is converted to Satanism via The Satanic Bible feels prompted to join the Church of Satan. Lucifer Rising also notes that "the Church of Satanic Liberation was established in January 1986 after its founder, Paul Douglas Valentine, was inspired by reading The Satanic Bible." (p. 153) Other stories of conversions directly inspired by The Satanic Bible can be found in Michael Aquino's The Church of Satan (e.g., the conversion of Robert DeCecco, who would later become a Master of the Temple, p. 69; and Lilith Sinclair, who would eventually become a Priestess and Aquino's wife, p. 82).
To return to the survey, LaVey's influential publication was also referred to a number of times in response to other questionnaire items. For example, one person noted that, "because I agree with and practice the majority of the beliefs set forth in The Satanic Bible and other works of Dr. LaVey, I VERY MUCH consider myself just as valid a Satanist as any 'official' priest." Another respondent wrote, "Satan is merely a word, a representative concept that encompasses all that the Satanic Bible teaches." And yet another individual stated: "To me, Satan is the personification of mankind's carnal nature. More information can be found in The Satanic Bible by Anton Szandor LaVey."
My strong impression was that The Satanic Bible was a doctrinal touchstone for most participants in this movement, despite the fact that the great majority of my sample were not formal members of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan. (One respondent, noting that he was not a member of any organization, wrote, "[It's] just me and my Satanic Bible.") And whatever LaVey had in mind when 11 Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002) he (or his publisher) entitled this publication, in certain ways The Satanic Bible has truly come to play the role of a "Bible" for many members of this decentralized, anti-authoritarian subculture. In a follow-up questionnaire, respondents were explicitly asked how they regarded The Satanic Bible, and to what extent their personal philosophies aligned with the ideas expressed in its pages. Most stated that their view of the world aligned significantly with The Satanic Bible. One Satanist said that The Satanic Bible was about the realities of human nature, so that there was "nothing [in The Satanic Bible] that I didn't already know or believe myself prior to reading it." Only one respondent completely rejected the LaVeyan tradition. Two respondents asserted that they regarded The Satanic Bible as just another "self-help book." Some respondents diminished (without disparaging) The Satanic Bible as an "introductory text" or "primer" of Satanism. Most hastened to
add that they did not regard it as "dogma." One can acquire a sense of how The Satanic Bible is regarded as a doctrinal touchstone by perusing the official website of the Church of Satan (http://www.churchofsatan.com). For example, the "Satanism FAQ" section of the "Church of Satan Information Pack" states that "critically reading The Satanic Bible by Anton Szandor LaVey is tantamount to understanding at least the basics of Satanism." Similarly, the Church's "Church of Satan Youth Communique" asserts that "LaVey wrote The Satanic Bible so that people could pick up a copy, read it, and know everything they need to know about Satanism and how to put it to work in their own lives." In addition to these general assertions, one can find other essays on the Church of Satan (CoS) website in which authoritative tenets are cited from The Satanic Bible, as when the "Satanic Bunco
Sheet" notes that "The Satanic Bible advises to 'question all things'...." or when, in an essay entitled "Satanism Needs an Enema!", an individual writing under the pseudonym Nemo introduces a series of citations from The Satanic Bible to support a point he is arguing with the words, "Other quotes from LaVey's own pen in The Satanic Bible reiterate this theme." The clear implication of this statement is that because these quotations come from "LaVey's own pen in The Satanic Bible," they are authoritative; thus, there can be no further discussion of the issue. Toward the end of the same essay, Nemo also asserts that, We have a Bible. We have a pro-human dogma. We have a church. We have a tradition. We have ceremonies and rituals. We have a High Priestess. In other words, with respect to the theme I am pursuing here, Nemo is asserting that CoS has an authoritative scripture, dogma and tradition which support his argument. And it is obvious that Nemo regards his appeal to CoS tradition as stronger than direct appeals to science or common sense, which were the touchstones of LaVey's philosophy. Finally, I found it interesting that one of the accusations leveled against non-CoS Satanists in Nemo's "Recognizing Pseudo-Satanism" essay was that in such groups, "The words of The Satanic Bible become twisted and distorted until they no longer have useful meaning!" Furthermore, in his "Satanism Needs an Enema!" essay, the same writer exclaims, I am calling for a closing of the ranks and a throwing out of the heretics.I am asking for the Purge! I am asking for a reverse Inquisition. Both of these sets of passages-the first quoting The Satanic Bible to make a point and the second 12 Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002)
accusing heretical breakaways of warping The Satanic Bible's meaning (even going so far as to call for an "Inquisition" against heretics within the ranks!)-exemplify all-too-familiar patterns found in the theological conflicts of traditional religions like Christianity. Quoting The Satanic Bible to legitimate a point of argument is not, however, confined to representatives of the Church of Satan. The so called "Xloptuny Curse" is an interesting example of how some of the "heretics" have turned the message of LaVey's writings to their own purposes. A short essay on "The Xloptuny Curse," written by Joe Necchi, was posted on the official website of the First Church of Satan in the summer of 2000. (The First Church of Satan-FCoS-is a newer Satanist organization founded by a former member of CoS whose brand of Satanism is very close to The Satanic Bible.) The text discusses the circumstances of a seemingly effective suicide curse that was leveled by Lord Egan, founder/leader of the FCoS, against Xloptuny (John C. Davis), an internet pugilist and member of the CoS. Less than a year before Davis blew his brains out, Egan had cursed Davis, specifying in a public, online communication that he would die by shooting himself.
The passage I would like to focus on for my present purposes is where Necchi remarks, What is interesting, however, is the way in which some have predictably tried to rationalize Xloptuny's suicide as a Yukio Mishima-inspired act of heroism. Ironically, those trying so hard to canonize Mr. Davis thusly now have decided to conveniently ignore the book they are always waving about like a black flag at most other times: The Satanic Bible. In this sense, we see that many Satanists really behave exactly like Christians: they follow the precepts of their religion when it's easy to do so, when it suits them, but are quick to abandon them when it really counts. Page 94 of The Satanic Bible specifically states: "Self-sacrifice is not encouraged by the Satanic religion. Therefore, unless death comes as an indulgence because of extreme circumstances which make the termination of life a welcome relief from an unendurable earthly existence, suicide is frowned upon by the Satanic religion." There is little ambiguity in this passage. As there is no reason to believe that Xloptuny was in "extreme circumstances which make the termination of life a welcome relief"; he died as a traitor to the Church whose cause he so often trumpeted, the defense of which he used as a rationale for his often black and bilious attacks on his enemies. Apparently "the great Dr. Anton LaVey's" words meant little or nothing to John C. Davis when he arrived at the moment of truth. Here again we see The Satanic Bible being quoted as an authoritative document in a manner similar to the way sacred texts are quoted in comparable conflicts within other religious traditions. In other words, "The Xloptuny Curse" is yet another example of how The Satanic Bible functions as a quasi-
scripture within the Satanic community. Almost all Satanists would deny that The Satanic Bible is an "inspired" document in anything like the sense in which the Christian Bible is regarded as an inspired book. Interestingly, however, there are a few individuals-most notably Michael Aquino, a former CoS leader and founder of the Temple of Set-who would regard this book as inspired. For example, in the relevant chapter in his history of the Church of Satan, Aquino asserts that: 13 Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002) The Satanic Bible [clothes] itself in the supernatural authority of the Prince of Darkness and his demons. Less this element, the Satanic Bible would be merely a social tract by Anton LaVey-not High Priest of Satan, but just one more 1960s'-counterculture-cynic atop a soap-box. The substance of the Satanic Bible therefore turns upon Anton LaVey's sincerity in believing himself to be the vehicle through which the entity known as Satan explains the mysteries of mankind's existential predicament. To the extent that he did, the Satanic Bible deserves the dignity of its title. ... Despite the haphazard nature of its assembly, ... we may therefore consider the Satanic Bible in its totality not as argumentative, but as inspired writing. Thus it assumes an importance by its very existence, not just by its content. (Aquino 1999, p. 53) Although Aquino's position would be rejected by most other professing Satanists, something approaching this position seems to be unconsciously informing their attitude toward The Satanic Bible. Conclusion Anton LaVey's primary legitimation strategy was to appeal to the authority of science, specifically to the secularist world view derived from natural science and to an animalistic image of the human being derived from the Darwinian theory of evolution. In light of his radically secularist legitimation strategy, it is ironic that his organizational successors have subsequently attempted to legitimate their positions by appealing to LaVey as if he had actually been some kind of "Black Pope," and to The Satanic Bible as if it was truly a diabolically-revealed scripture. It seems that being raised in a religious tradition that locates the source of authority in religious figures and sacred texts creates an unconscious predisposition that can be carried over to other kinds of persons and books-even in the unlikely context of contemporary Satanism. Outside the institutional bounds of the Church of Satan, modern Satanism became a loose, decentralized movement that coheres as a distinct religious community largely by virtue of participants' adherence to certain themes in the published words of Anton LaVey, particularly in The Satanic Bible. Despite this volume's patchwork quality and haphazard genesis, it came to play an authoritative, quasi-scriptural role within the larger Satanic movement. Unlike members of the Church of Satan, however, non-CoS Satanists felt free to criticize and even to reject aspects of the LaVeyan tradition by appealing to the authority of rationality-a criterion of legitimacy LaVey himself put forward as the very basis of Satanism. Thus, in terms of this criterion, non-CoS Satanism is closer to the spirit of LaVey's philosophy than the contemporary Church of Satan. 14 Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002) Bibliography: Aquino, Michael A. The Church of Satan. 4 th ed. Self-published, 1999. Baddeley, Gavin. Lucifer Rising: Sin, Devil Worship and Rock'n'Roll. London: Plexus, 1999. Barton, Blanche. The Secret Life of a Satanist: The Authorized Biography of Anton LaVey. Los Angeles, CA: Feral House, 1990. Chryssides, George D. "Is God a Space Alien? The Cosmology of the Raelian Church." Culture and Cosmos 4:1 Spring/Summer 2000. ----------------. "Sycophants Unite!" http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html "The Church of Satan Information Pack" http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/cosinfopack.pdf "Church of Satan Youth Communique" http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html Ellis, Bill. Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2000. Flowers, Stephen E., Lords of the Left Hand Path. Smithville, Texas: Runa-Raven Press, 1997. Holmes, Ernest. The Science of Mind. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, [1926]1944. LaVey, Anton Szandor. The Satanic Bible. New York: Avon, 1969 Lewis, James R. "Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile." Marburg Journal of Religious Studies 6:2. 2001. [Link] Moody, Edward J."Magical Therapy: An Anthropological Investigation of Contemporary Satanism." In Irving I. Zaretsky and Mark P. Leone, eds. Religious Movements in Contemporary America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974. Moynihan, Michael and Didrik Soderlind. Lords of Chaos: The Bloody Rise of the Satanic Metal Underground. Venice, CA: Feral House, 1998. Necchi, Joe. "The Xloptuny Curse." http://www.churchofsatan.org/xloptuny.html. Nemo. "Recognizing Pseudo-Satanism" http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html -------------. "Satanism and Objectivism." http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html -------------. "Satanism Needs an Enema!" http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002) Petersen, Jesper Aagard. "Binary Satanism: Being Dark and Secretive in a Prismatic Digital World." Unpublished paper. Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House, 1957. Redbeard, Ragnar. Might is Right; or, The Survival of the Fittest. London: W.J. Robbins, 5 th ed.1910. [Rpt. of 1896] Richardson, James, Joel Best and David G. Bromley. The Satanism Scare. NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991. "Satanic Bunco Sheet." http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html Schreck, Zeena, and Nikolas Schreck. "Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality." 1998. http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html Sentes, Bryan, and Susan Palmer. "Presumed Immanent: the Raelians, UFO Religions, and the Postmodern Condition." Novo Religio Smith, George C. "The Hidden Source of the Satanic Philosophy." Originally published in The Scroll of Set, June 1987. Reprinted as Appendix 11 in Aquino 1999.
Trull, D. "Fortean Slips: Death of a Devil's Advocate." Weber, Max. Basic Concepts in Sociology. H. P. Secher (trans). New York: Philosophical Library, 1962. Wolfe, Burton H. The Devil's Avenger: A Biography of Anton Szandor LaVey. New York: Pyramid Books, 1974. Wright, Lawrence. "Sympathy for the Devil." Rolling Stone September 5, 1991. Copyright © James R. Lewis 2002 First published in Marburg Journal of Religion 16
REGIE SATANAS!
AVE SATANAS!
HAIL SATAN!
AVE SATANAS!
HAIL SATAN!
-
_LittleNipper
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4518
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm
Re: Bible verse by verse
Matthew 4:1-11
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness
1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness
1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
-
_LittleNipper
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4518
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm
Re: Bible verse by verse
1 Kings 11-1-43 King Solomon loved many unbelieving women. Besides Pharaoh’s daughter, he married women from Moab, Ammon, Edom, Sidon, and from among the Hittites. The Lord had clearly instructed the people of Israel, ‘You must not marry them, because they will turn your hearts to their gods.’ Yet Solomon insisted doing what he desired. He had 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines. They did turn his heart away from the Lord.
In Solomon’s old age, they turned his heart to worship other gods instead of being faithful to the Lord his God, as his father, David, had been.
Solomon began to worship Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech, the detestable god of the Ammonites. In this way, Solomon did what was evil in the Lord’s sight; he refused to follow the Lord completely, as his father, David, had done.
On the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, he even built a pagan shrine for Chemosh, the disgusting god of Moab, and another for Molech, the disgusting god of the Ammonites. Solomon built such shrines for all his pagan wives to use for burning incense and sacrificing to their gods. The Lord was very angry with Solomon, for his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. He had warned Solomon specifically about worshiping other gods, but Solomon did not listen to the Lord’s command. So now the Lord said to him, “Since you have not kept my covenant and have disobeyed my decrees, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your servants. But for the sake of your father, David, I will not do this while you are still living. I will take the kingdom away from your son --- though, I will not take away the entire kingdom; I will let him be king of one tribe, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, my selected city.”
The Lord raised up Hadad the Edomite, a member of Edom’s royal family, to be Solomon’s adversary. 15 Years before, David had defeated Edom. Joab, his army commander, had stayed to bury some of the Israelite soldiers who had died in battle. While there, they killed every male in Edom --- taking six months to kill them. Hadad and a few of his father’s royal officials escaped and headed for Egypt. (Hadad was just a boy at the time.) They set out from Midian and went to Paran, where others joined them. Then they traveled to Egypt and went to Pharaoh, who gave them a home, food, and some land. Pharaoh grew very fond of Hadad, and he gave him his wife’s sister in marriage—the sister of Queen Tahpenes. She bore him a son named Genubath, and raised him in Pharaoh’s palace among Pharaoh’s own sons.
When news reached Hadad in Egypt that David and his commander Joab were both dead, he said to Pharaoh, “Let me return to my own country.” Though Pharaoh asked him why? God also raised up Rezon son of Eliada as Solomon’s adversary. Rezon had fled from his master, King Hadadezer of Zobah, and had become the leader of a gang of rebels. After David conquered Hadadezer, Rezon and his men fled to Damascus, where he became king. Rezon was Israel’s bitter adversary for the rest of Solomon’s reign, and he made trouble, just as Hadad did. Rezon hated Israel intensely and continued to reign in Aram. Another rebel leader was Jeroboam son of Nebat, one of Solomon’s own officials. He came from the town of Zeredah in Ephraim, and his mother was Zeruah, a widow.
This is the story behind his rebellion. Solomon was rebuilding the supporting terraces and repairing the walls of the city of his father, David. Jeroboam was a very capable young man, and when Solomon saw how industrious he was, he put him in charge of the labor force from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph. One day as Jeroboam was leaving Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah from Shiloh met him along the way. Ahijah was wearing a new cloak. The two of them were alone in a field, and Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten of these pieces, for this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and I will give ten of the tribes to you! But I will leave him one tribe for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel. For Solomon has abandoned me and worshiped Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians; Chemosh, the god of Moab; and Molech, the god of the Ammonites. He has not followed my ways and done what is pleasing in my sight. He has not obeyed my decrees and regulations as David his father did.
“‘But I will not take the entire kingdom from Solomon at this time. For the sake of my servant David, the one whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees, I will keep Solomon as king for the rest of his life. But I will take the kingdom away from his son and give ten of the tribes to you. His son will have one tribe so that the descendants of David my servant will continue to reign, shining like a lamp in Jerusalem, the city I have chosen to be the place for my name. And I will place you on the throne of Israel, and you will rule over all that your heart desires. If you listen to what I tell you and follow my ways and do whatever I consider to be right, and if you obey my decrees and commands, as my servant David did, then I will always be with you. I will establish an enduring dynasty for you as I did for David, and I will give Israel to you. Because of Solomon’s sin I will punish the descendants of David—though not eternally.’”
Solomon attempted to kill Jeroboam, but he fled to King Shishak of Egypt and stayed there until Solomon died.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
1 And king Solomon hath loved many strange women, and the daughter of Pharaoh, females of Moab, Ammon, Edom, Zidon, [and] of the Hittites,
2 of the nations of which Jehovah said unto the sons of Israel, `Ye do not go in to them, and they do not go in to you; surely they turn aside your heart after their gods;' to them hath Solomon cleaved for love.
3 And he hath women, princesses, seven hundred, and concubines three hundred; and his wives turn aside his heart.
4 And it cometh to pass, at the time of the old age of Solomon, his wives have turned aside his heart after other gods, and his heart hath not been perfect with Jehovah his God, like the heart of David his father.
5 And Solomon goeth after Ashtoreth god[dess] of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites;
6 and Solomon doth the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, and hath not been fully after Jehovah, like David his father.
7 Then doth Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, in the hill that [is] on the front of Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the sons of Ammon;
8 and so he hath done for all his strange women, who are perfuming and sacrificing to their gods.
9 And Jehovah sheweth Himself angry with Solomon, for his heart hath turned aside from Jehovah, God of Israel, who had appeared unto him twice,
10 and given a charge unto him concerning this thing, not to go after other gods; and he hath not kept that which Jehovah commanded,
11 and Jehovah saith to Solomon, `Because that this hath been with thee, and thou hast not kept My covenant and My statutes that I charged upon thee, I surely rend the kingdom from thee, and have given it to thy servant.
12 `Only, in thy days I do it not, for the sake of David thy father; out of the hand of thy son I rend it;
13 only all the kingdom I do not rend away; one tribe I give to thy son, for the sake of David My servant, and for the sake of Jerusalem, that I have chosen.'
14 And Jehovah raiseth up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; of the seed of the king [is] he in Edom;
15 and it cometh to pass, in David's being with Edom, in the going up of Joab head of the host to bury the slain, that he smiteth every male in Edom --
16 for six months did Joab abide there, and all Israel, till the cutting off of every male in Edom --
17 and Hadad fleeth, he and certain Edomites, of the servants of his father, with him, to go in to Egypt, and Hadad [is] a little youth,
18 and they rise out of Midian, and come into Paran, and take men with them out of Paran, and come in to Egypt, unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he giveth to him a house, and bread hath commanded for him, and land hath given to him.
19 And Hadad findeth grace in the eyes of Pharaoh exceedingly, and he giveth to him a wife, the sister of his own wife, sister of Tahpenes the mistress;
20 and the sister of Tahpenes beareth to him Genubath his son, and Tahpenes weaneth him within the house of Pharaoh, and Genubath is in the house of Pharaoh in the midst of the sons of Pharaoh.
21 And Hadad hath heard in Egypt that David hath lain with his fathers, and that Joab head of the host is dead, and Hadad saith unto Pharaoh, `Send me away, and I go unto my land.'
22 And Pharaoh saith to him, `But, what art thou lacking with me, that lo, thou art seeking to go unto thine own land?' and he saith, `Nay, but thou dost certainly send me away.'
23 And God raiseth to him an adversary, Rezon son of Eliadah, who hath fled from Hadadezer king of Zobah, his lord,
24 and gathereth unto himself men, and is head of a troop in David's slaying them, and they go to Damascus, and dwell in it, and reign in Damascus;
25 and he is an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, (besides the evil that Hadad [did]), and he cutteth off in Israel, and reigneth over Aram.
26 And Jeroboam son of Nebat, an Ephrathite of Zereda -- the name of whose mother [is] Zeruah, a widow woman -- servant to Solomon, he also lifteth up a hand against the king;
27 and this [is] the thing [for] which he lifted up a hand against the king: Solomon built Millo -- he shut up the breach of the city of David his father,
28 and the man Jeroboam [is] mighty in valour, and Solomon seeth the young man that he is doing business, and appointeth him over all the burden of the house of Joseph.
29 And it cometh to pass, at that time, that Jeroboam hath gone out from Jerusalem, and Ahijah the Shilonite, the prophet, findeth him in the way, and he is covering himself with a new garment; and both of them [are] by themselves in a field,
30 and Ahijah layeth hold on the new garment that [is] on him, and rendeth it -- twelve pieces,
31 and saith to Jeroboam, `Take to thee ten pieces, for thus said Jehovah, God of Israel, lo, I am rending the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and have given to thee the ten tribes,
32 and the one tribe he hath for My servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have fixed on, out of all the tribes of Israel.
33 `Because they have forsaken Me, and bow themselves to Ashtoreth, god[dess] of the Zidonians, to Chemosh god of Moab, and to Milcom god of the sons of Ammon, and have not walked in My ways, to do that which [is] right in Mine eyes, and My statutes and My judgments, like David his father.
34 `And I do not take the whole of the kingdom out of his hand, for prince I make him all days of his life, for the sake of David My servant whom I chose, who kept My commands and My statutes;
35 and I have taken the kingdom out of the hand of his son, and given it to thee -- the ten tribes;
36 and to his son I give one tribe, for there being a lamp to David My servant all the days before Me in Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen to Myself to put My name there.
37 `And thee I take, and thou hast reigned over all that thy soul desireth, and thou hast been king over Israel;
38 and it hath been, if thou dost hear all that I command thee, and hast walked in My ways, and done that which is right in Mine eyes, to keep My statutes and My commands, as did David My servant, that I have been with thee, and have built for thee a stedfast house, as I built for David, and have given to thee Israel,
39 and I humble the seed of David for this; only, not all the days.'
40 And Solomon seeketh to put Jeroboam to death, and Jeroboam riseth and fleeth to Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and he is in Egypt till the death of Solomon.
41 And the rest of the matters of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written on the book of the matters of Solomon?
42 And the days that Solomon hath reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel [are] forty years,
43 and Solomon lieth with his fathers, and is buried in the city of David his father, and reign doth Rehoboam his son in his stead.
In Solomon’s old age, they turned his heart to worship other gods instead of being faithful to the Lord his God, as his father, David, had been.
Solomon began to worship Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech, the detestable god of the Ammonites. In this way, Solomon did what was evil in the Lord’s sight; he refused to follow the Lord completely, as his father, David, had done.
On the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, he even built a pagan shrine for Chemosh, the disgusting god of Moab, and another for Molech, the disgusting god of the Ammonites. Solomon built such shrines for all his pagan wives to use for burning incense and sacrificing to their gods. The Lord was very angry with Solomon, for his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. He had warned Solomon specifically about worshiping other gods, but Solomon did not listen to the Lord’s command. So now the Lord said to him, “Since you have not kept my covenant and have disobeyed my decrees, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your servants. But for the sake of your father, David, I will not do this while you are still living. I will take the kingdom away from your son --- though, I will not take away the entire kingdom; I will let him be king of one tribe, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, my selected city.”
The Lord raised up Hadad the Edomite, a member of Edom’s royal family, to be Solomon’s adversary. 15 Years before, David had defeated Edom. Joab, his army commander, had stayed to bury some of the Israelite soldiers who had died in battle. While there, they killed every male in Edom --- taking six months to kill them. Hadad and a few of his father’s royal officials escaped and headed for Egypt. (Hadad was just a boy at the time.) They set out from Midian and went to Paran, where others joined them. Then they traveled to Egypt and went to Pharaoh, who gave them a home, food, and some land. Pharaoh grew very fond of Hadad, and he gave him his wife’s sister in marriage—the sister of Queen Tahpenes. She bore him a son named Genubath, and raised him in Pharaoh’s palace among Pharaoh’s own sons.
When news reached Hadad in Egypt that David and his commander Joab were both dead, he said to Pharaoh, “Let me return to my own country.” Though Pharaoh asked him why? God also raised up Rezon son of Eliada as Solomon’s adversary. Rezon had fled from his master, King Hadadezer of Zobah, and had become the leader of a gang of rebels. After David conquered Hadadezer, Rezon and his men fled to Damascus, where he became king. Rezon was Israel’s bitter adversary for the rest of Solomon’s reign, and he made trouble, just as Hadad did. Rezon hated Israel intensely and continued to reign in Aram. Another rebel leader was Jeroboam son of Nebat, one of Solomon’s own officials. He came from the town of Zeredah in Ephraim, and his mother was Zeruah, a widow.
This is the story behind his rebellion. Solomon was rebuilding the supporting terraces and repairing the walls of the city of his father, David. Jeroboam was a very capable young man, and when Solomon saw how industrious he was, he put him in charge of the labor force from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph. One day as Jeroboam was leaving Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah from Shiloh met him along the way. Ahijah was wearing a new cloak. The two of them were alone in a field, and Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten of these pieces, for this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and I will give ten of the tribes to you! But I will leave him one tribe for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel. For Solomon has abandoned me and worshiped Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians; Chemosh, the god of Moab; and Molech, the god of the Ammonites. He has not followed my ways and done what is pleasing in my sight. He has not obeyed my decrees and regulations as David his father did.
“‘But I will not take the entire kingdom from Solomon at this time. For the sake of my servant David, the one whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees, I will keep Solomon as king for the rest of his life. But I will take the kingdom away from his son and give ten of the tribes to you. His son will have one tribe so that the descendants of David my servant will continue to reign, shining like a lamp in Jerusalem, the city I have chosen to be the place for my name. And I will place you on the throne of Israel, and you will rule over all that your heart desires. If you listen to what I tell you and follow my ways and do whatever I consider to be right, and if you obey my decrees and commands, as my servant David did, then I will always be with you. I will establish an enduring dynasty for you as I did for David, and I will give Israel to you. Because of Solomon’s sin I will punish the descendants of David—though not eternally.’”
Solomon attempted to kill Jeroboam, but he fled to King Shishak of Egypt and stayed there until Solomon died.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
1 And king Solomon hath loved many strange women, and the daughter of Pharaoh, females of Moab, Ammon, Edom, Zidon, [and] of the Hittites,
2 of the nations of which Jehovah said unto the sons of Israel, `Ye do not go in to them, and they do not go in to you; surely they turn aside your heart after their gods;' to them hath Solomon cleaved for love.
3 And he hath women, princesses, seven hundred, and concubines three hundred; and his wives turn aside his heart.
4 And it cometh to pass, at the time of the old age of Solomon, his wives have turned aside his heart after other gods, and his heart hath not been perfect with Jehovah his God, like the heart of David his father.
5 And Solomon goeth after Ashtoreth god[dess] of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites;
6 and Solomon doth the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, and hath not been fully after Jehovah, like David his father.
7 Then doth Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, in the hill that [is] on the front of Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the sons of Ammon;
8 and so he hath done for all his strange women, who are perfuming and sacrificing to their gods.
9 And Jehovah sheweth Himself angry with Solomon, for his heart hath turned aside from Jehovah, God of Israel, who had appeared unto him twice,
10 and given a charge unto him concerning this thing, not to go after other gods; and he hath not kept that which Jehovah commanded,
11 and Jehovah saith to Solomon, `Because that this hath been with thee, and thou hast not kept My covenant and My statutes that I charged upon thee, I surely rend the kingdom from thee, and have given it to thy servant.
12 `Only, in thy days I do it not, for the sake of David thy father; out of the hand of thy son I rend it;
13 only all the kingdom I do not rend away; one tribe I give to thy son, for the sake of David My servant, and for the sake of Jerusalem, that I have chosen.'
14 And Jehovah raiseth up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; of the seed of the king [is] he in Edom;
15 and it cometh to pass, in David's being with Edom, in the going up of Joab head of the host to bury the slain, that he smiteth every male in Edom --
16 for six months did Joab abide there, and all Israel, till the cutting off of every male in Edom --
17 and Hadad fleeth, he and certain Edomites, of the servants of his father, with him, to go in to Egypt, and Hadad [is] a little youth,
18 and they rise out of Midian, and come into Paran, and take men with them out of Paran, and come in to Egypt, unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he giveth to him a house, and bread hath commanded for him, and land hath given to him.
19 And Hadad findeth grace in the eyes of Pharaoh exceedingly, and he giveth to him a wife, the sister of his own wife, sister of Tahpenes the mistress;
20 and the sister of Tahpenes beareth to him Genubath his son, and Tahpenes weaneth him within the house of Pharaoh, and Genubath is in the house of Pharaoh in the midst of the sons of Pharaoh.
21 And Hadad hath heard in Egypt that David hath lain with his fathers, and that Joab head of the host is dead, and Hadad saith unto Pharaoh, `Send me away, and I go unto my land.'
22 And Pharaoh saith to him, `But, what art thou lacking with me, that lo, thou art seeking to go unto thine own land?' and he saith, `Nay, but thou dost certainly send me away.'
23 And God raiseth to him an adversary, Rezon son of Eliadah, who hath fled from Hadadezer king of Zobah, his lord,
24 and gathereth unto himself men, and is head of a troop in David's slaying them, and they go to Damascus, and dwell in it, and reign in Damascus;
25 and he is an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, (besides the evil that Hadad [did]), and he cutteth off in Israel, and reigneth over Aram.
26 And Jeroboam son of Nebat, an Ephrathite of Zereda -- the name of whose mother [is] Zeruah, a widow woman -- servant to Solomon, he also lifteth up a hand against the king;
27 and this [is] the thing [for] which he lifted up a hand against the king: Solomon built Millo -- he shut up the breach of the city of David his father,
28 and the man Jeroboam [is] mighty in valour, and Solomon seeth the young man that he is doing business, and appointeth him over all the burden of the house of Joseph.
29 And it cometh to pass, at that time, that Jeroboam hath gone out from Jerusalem, and Ahijah the Shilonite, the prophet, findeth him in the way, and he is covering himself with a new garment; and both of them [are] by themselves in a field,
30 and Ahijah layeth hold on the new garment that [is] on him, and rendeth it -- twelve pieces,
31 and saith to Jeroboam, `Take to thee ten pieces, for thus said Jehovah, God of Israel, lo, I am rending the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and have given to thee the ten tribes,
32 and the one tribe he hath for My servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have fixed on, out of all the tribes of Israel.
33 `Because they have forsaken Me, and bow themselves to Ashtoreth, god[dess] of the Zidonians, to Chemosh god of Moab, and to Milcom god of the sons of Ammon, and have not walked in My ways, to do that which [is] right in Mine eyes, and My statutes and My judgments, like David his father.
34 `And I do not take the whole of the kingdom out of his hand, for prince I make him all days of his life, for the sake of David My servant whom I chose, who kept My commands and My statutes;
35 and I have taken the kingdom out of the hand of his son, and given it to thee -- the ten tribes;
36 and to his son I give one tribe, for there being a lamp to David My servant all the days before Me in Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen to Myself to put My name there.
37 `And thee I take, and thou hast reigned over all that thy soul desireth, and thou hast been king over Israel;
38 and it hath been, if thou dost hear all that I command thee, and hast walked in My ways, and done that which is right in Mine eyes, to keep My statutes and My commands, as did David My servant, that I have been with thee, and have built for thee a stedfast house, as I built for David, and have given to thee Israel,
39 and I humble the seed of David for this; only, not all the days.'
40 And Solomon seeketh to put Jeroboam to death, and Jeroboam riseth and fleeth to Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and he is in Egypt till the death of Solomon.
41 And the rest of the matters of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written on the book of the matters of Solomon?
42 And the days that Solomon hath reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel [are] forty years,
43 and Solomon lieth with his fathers, and is buried in the city of David his father, and reign doth Rehoboam his son in his stead.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
_LeVay
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:33 pm
Re: Bible verse by verse
HAIL SATAN!
SOURCES, SECTS, AND SCRIPTURE: The “Book of Satan” in The Satanic Bible
Eugene V. Gallagher, Connecticut College, evgall@conncoll.edu
Michael Aquino reported in his history of The Church of Satan that in 1987 he had discoveredthat Anton Szandor LaVey had relied heavily on an earlier text, the pseudonymous Ragnar Redbeard’s Might Is Right, for the substance of The Satanic Bible’s “Book of Satan” and that LaVey had also appended a version of John Dee’s “Enochian Keys” to his text. Since then, the composite nature of The Satanic Bible has largely been taken for granted by scholars, though their evaluations of LaVey’s work have differed. In a recent survey of Satanism, for example, Chris Mathews renders a harsh verdict, describing the composition of LaVey’s text as haphazard, a “hurried pastiche,” and an act of plagiarism. Mathews concludes that LaVey “stole selectively and edited lightly.”1 Aquino himself had described LaVey’s work as haphazard and asserted that LaVey was not the “true author” of the Book of Satan.2 Nevertheless, Aquino perceives The Satanic Bible as “inspired writing.”3 On his part, James R. Lewis also describes LaVey as borrowing substantially from Might is Right, claiming that LaVey only “added in a few sentences of his own.”4 Lewis does note, however, that The Satanic Bible functions at least as a kind of “quasi-scripture” for many Satanists. Although Aquino provides a list of passages that LaVey used from Might Is Right in an appendix, neither he nor any other commentator has offered a systematic and detailed account of what LaVey took, changed, and omitted from his source text. By implication, LaVey’s editorial activity is presented as meaningless or simply evidence of his “haphazard” approach. This paper will argue, however, that LaVey’s editing of his source material was much more intentional than commonly portrayed and conducted in the service of his own ideological agenda. In his creative use of his source material, LaVey demonstrates the same dynamics of appropriation and innovation that Jesper Petersen generally associates with contemporary Satanism and other movements5 but also the creative use of sources employed in other scriptural texts in the broad Western scriptural tradition, such as the use of Q and Mark by the gospels of Matthew and Luke or the use of J, E, D, and P by the authors of the Pentateuchal narrative. Thus not only the function of The Satanic Bible in the broad Satanic community but also it its mode of composition suggests that it can be considered a modern This paper will also consider why Aquino and those who have made use of his source-critical work have not attended sufficiently to LaVey’s editorial activity. In Aquino’s case, the motivation seems clear. Anything that would highlight LaVey’s creativity would potentially cast doubt on Aquino’s assertion that his Temple of Set was the more highly evolved successor movement to the Church of Satan. His unmasking of LaVey’s sources for the “Book of Satan” was a part of an overall strategy of de-legitimation rather than a neutral act of historical investigation. Mathews makes similar use of Aquino’s research to buttress his negative evaluation of contemporary Satanism. Many of the comments about the composite nature of The Satanic Bible need to be read as part of a contentious discourse both about sectarianism within the orbit of the Church of Satan and broader attempts to de-legitimate socially stigmatize Satanism in general. 1 See Chris Mathews, Modern Satanism: Anatomy of A Radical Subculture (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2009), pp. 53- 77, quotations from pp. 77, 65, respectively. 2 Michael Aquino, The Church of Satan, privately published, 6th edition, 2009; p. 54; available at http://www.xeper.org/maquino; accessed 12 August 2009. 3 Ibid. p. 53. 4 James R. Lewis, “Infernal Legitimacy” in Jesper Aagaard Petersen, ed., Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), pp. 41-58, quotation from p. 49. 5 Jesper Aagaard Petersen, “Introduction: Embracing Satan” in Petersen, ed., Contemporary Religious Satanism, pp. 1-24; see pp. 13f.
SOURCES, SECTS, AND SCRIPTURE: The “Book of Satan” in The Satanic Bible
Eugene V. Gallagher, Connecticut College, evgall@conncoll.edu
Michael Aquino reported in his history of The Church of Satan that in 1987 he had discoveredthat Anton Szandor LaVey had relied heavily on an earlier text, the pseudonymous Ragnar Redbeard’s Might Is Right, for the substance of The Satanic Bible’s “Book of Satan” and that LaVey had also appended a version of John Dee’s “Enochian Keys” to his text. Since then, the composite nature of The Satanic Bible has largely been taken for granted by scholars, though their evaluations of LaVey’s work have differed. In a recent survey of Satanism, for example, Chris Mathews renders a harsh verdict, describing the composition of LaVey’s text as haphazard, a “hurried pastiche,” and an act of plagiarism. Mathews concludes that LaVey “stole selectively and edited lightly.”1 Aquino himself had described LaVey’s work as haphazard and asserted that LaVey was not the “true author” of the Book of Satan.2 Nevertheless, Aquino perceives The Satanic Bible as “inspired writing.”3 On his part, James R. Lewis also describes LaVey as borrowing substantially from Might is Right, claiming that LaVey only “added in a few sentences of his own.”4 Lewis does note, however, that The Satanic Bible functions at least as a kind of “quasi-scripture” for many Satanists. Although Aquino provides a list of passages that LaVey used from Might Is Right in an appendix, neither he nor any other commentator has offered a systematic and detailed account of what LaVey took, changed, and omitted from his source text. By implication, LaVey’s editorial activity is presented as meaningless or simply evidence of his “haphazard” approach. This paper will argue, however, that LaVey’s editing of his source material was much more intentional than commonly portrayed and conducted in the service of his own ideological agenda. In his creative use of his source material, LaVey demonstrates the same dynamics of appropriation and innovation that Jesper Petersen generally associates with contemporary Satanism and other movements5 but also the creative use of sources employed in other scriptural texts in the broad Western scriptural tradition, such as the use of Q and Mark by the gospels of Matthew and Luke or the use of J, E, D, and P by the authors of the Pentateuchal narrative. Thus not only the function of The Satanic Bible in the broad Satanic community but also it its mode of composition suggests that it can be considered a modern This paper will also consider why Aquino and those who have made use of his source-critical work have not attended sufficiently to LaVey’s editorial activity. In Aquino’s case, the motivation seems clear. Anything that would highlight LaVey’s creativity would potentially cast doubt on Aquino’s assertion that his Temple of Set was the more highly evolved successor movement to the Church of Satan. His unmasking of LaVey’s sources for the “Book of Satan” was a part of an overall strategy of de-legitimation rather than a neutral act of historical investigation. Mathews makes similar use of Aquino’s research to buttress his negative evaluation of contemporary Satanism. Many of the comments about the composite nature of The Satanic Bible need to be read as part of a contentious discourse both about sectarianism within the orbit of the Church of Satan and broader attempts to de-legitimate socially stigmatize Satanism in general. 1 See Chris Mathews, Modern Satanism: Anatomy of A Radical Subculture (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2009), pp. 53- 77, quotations from pp. 77, 65, respectively. 2 Michael Aquino, The Church of Satan, privately published, 6th edition, 2009; p. 54; available at http://www.xeper.org/maquino; accessed 12 August 2009. 3 Ibid. p. 53. 4 James R. Lewis, “Infernal Legitimacy” in Jesper Aagaard Petersen, ed., Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), pp. 41-58, quotation from p. 49. 5 Jesper Aagaard Petersen, “Introduction: Embracing Satan” in Petersen, ed., Contemporary Religious Satanism, pp. 1-24; see pp. 13f.
REGIE SATANAS!
AVE SATANAS!
HAIL SATAN!
AVE SATANAS!
HAIL SATAN!
-
_LittleNipper
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4518
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm
Re: Bible verse by verse
Like Rand and her ideological heirs, Hitler also despised the weak and any effort to help the unfortunate. Among those he considered unworthy of life because he thought them “weak” were hospital patients, orphans, pacifists, homosexuals, anyone “asocial” and any groups that might uplift the poor such as labor unions. He believed might makes right and justified his views using Darwinian and Machiavellian terms. - See more at: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/ ... VkCeM.dpuf
-
_LittleNipper
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4518
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm
Re: Bible verse by verse
Psalm 41:1
New International Version
For the director of music. A psalm of David. Blessed are those who have regard for the weak; the LORD delivers them in times of trouble.
New International Version
For the director of music. A psalm of David. Blessed are those who have regard for the weak; the LORD delivers them in times of trouble.
-
_LeVay
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:33 pm
Re: Bible verse by verse
HAIL SATAN!
Satanic FEMINISM
by Blanche Barton ©1997
The smartest, most passionate, most beautiful women I've met have been Satanists. I don't mean "beautiful on the inside where it really counts;" I mean gorgeous, vibrant, curvy women. Most non-Satanic men find Satanic women intimidating - too intelligent or too pretty, or worse yet, both at the same time. It takes a special woman to be a
Satanist. Only the most truly liberated are summoned to Satan's legions. Up until quite recently, the ratio of Satanic men to women had been about 10 to 1, but that seems to be shifting. More and more young women are going through the process of exploring feminism and Wicca, seeking feminine pride, identity and power, and discovering only impotence, limitations and puritanical selfrighteousness. Wicca and feminism share a flaccid, lackluster attitude and presentation. Satanic women like drama/adventure and know how to conjure it for themselves. Satanists have an innate complexity of mind that hungers for uncompromising examination and speculation, not superficially- comforting pap. We don't need to be comforted; we prefer the invigorating, bracing winds of truth and terror. Our culture has been influenced enough by Anton LaVey and his books so that it's now cool for young women to dress like Satanic witches and think like the Devil Himself. Camille Paglia and others now get honorifics for challenging traditional feminism, defending women's rights to wear heels and makeup. Those who study such trends are calling this "lipstick feminism" (from the more honest "lipstick lesbians"), "nontraditional feminism" or "antifeminist feminism." Big news. So The Satanic Witch came out 26 years ago, girls. Did you just get around to reading it? To me, it's still the same old game of cribbing from Anton LaVey's books, catering to the new Satanic generation, but not wanting to acknowledge those blasphemous philosophical roots. Jayne Mansfield recognized that, for the first time in her life, she had found a philosophy through which she could be a businesswoman, an intellectual, a mother and a sexpot all at once. She wouldn't be criticized for committing the ultimate sin of reconciling irreconcilables. Satanic women don't want to gain their strength by castrating men, or by making themselves out as victims. Whether they're providing healing and inspiration to those under their roofs, cracking the whip in corporate circles, managing their own home-based businesses or maneuvering whatever they need to survive, all are applying and increasing their power - not whining about why they don't have any!
We don't need "feminism" on our sleeve as our primary identity. We have our identity as Satanists. Satanic women are fierce; fierce defenders of their men, of their children, of their ideas and values. Wiccans understand the female archetype in a completely different way than Satanists do. We know that Woman is Nature - Darwinian
law as well as peaceful, awe-inspiring sunsets. Women can be conniving and ruthless, plotting and vengeful. "Mother Nature" isn't loving and all-embracing. She's selective, cruel and unyielding. Wicca is trying to keep up with Satanism by sprinkling in Valkyries, the Dark Goddess, and other more menacing images of the Mother Goddess. But it still remains lackluster and uninspiring because it's isolated - dependent on internal references and icons. It becomes hallow, stilted and flaccid. By trying to ignore or deny the authority or existence of great men, they're disconnecting their religion from ennobling music, poetry, literature, art, architecture, science and philosophy. Satanists recognize that the force of Western civilization has always been a masculine, heroic, Promethean drive toward adventure and exploration. Feminist/ Wiccan can't is ultimately "soul candy," like the term that's evolved for pop-science and psychology - this is the equivalent. You may seek it out when you need bolstering up, thinking that you'll be inspired and spurred to greater achievements, lured by promises of unique feminine perspective and strengthening. But ultimately it's not satisfying. The illusion of strength is superficial; the nagging victimization becomes insulting. Not like reading Dostoevsky or Will Durant, Wuthering Heights, or Jane Austen, or Plato's Dialogues or Erasmus "The Praise of Folly", or, obviously, The Satanic Bible. I refuse to limit my role models only to other women just because I happen to be one. I gain power from the metaphors and heroes I choose, regardless of their gender. Our decisions are based on real-world concerns, not in defense of an inadequate ego. When a Satanic woman and her mate decide if they'll have children, or who will work in the outside world and who will stay home with the kids, it's a pragmatic question - who has more learning power? Who's invested more money and time developing their career? Who's more capable of earning money at home as opposed to in the workplace? Who's better able to have the patience and other attributes necessary to raise a child? The Satanic woman doesn't need a job to define her capabilities; nor does she need to have children to feel fulfilled. She reserves her "nurturing" for those who deserve her help and encouragement - namely: herself, her mate, and those few she chooses to call friends. She finds a man who can express her Demonic or she conjures up a Lover for herself; she isn't desperate for love, vulnerable to ploys from fast talkers. Many young bottom-of-the-clock women who are looking for gothic strength in a man, can't find it in the simpering she-males around them - so they manifest their Demonics themselves, dressing in black
leather, black stockings and carrying a big black whip. A compleat, Satanic witch can best spend her time in constant, intimate spiritual and sexual contact with her strongest Demonic archetype - Satan Himself. In practicing her arts of enchantment, manipulation, inspiration, and protection in the real world, she strengthens both herself and those she chooses to love. She becomes a direct line to our Source. That's why a powerful sorceress must be cautious about aligning herself with, and transferring power to, unworthy men.
Identity and stimulation. Dr. LaVey has pinpointed these two elements as primary commodities. Satanism provides us with both. I don't need to be pigeonholed as a "feminist," or any other convenient label. None of us are so charitable to the weak-minded that we allow ourselves to be so easily categorized and dismissed. I am proud to call
myself a Satanist, thereby aligning myself with the strongest minds, bodies, and Will on Earth.
This article first appeared in The Black Flame, Volume 6, #1 & #2, 1997 c.e.
Satanic FEMINISM
by Blanche Barton ©1997
The smartest, most passionate, most beautiful women I've met have been Satanists. I don't mean "beautiful on the inside where it really counts;" I mean gorgeous, vibrant, curvy women. Most non-Satanic men find Satanic women intimidating - too intelligent or too pretty, or worse yet, both at the same time. It takes a special woman to be a
Satanist. Only the most truly liberated are summoned to Satan's legions. Up until quite recently, the ratio of Satanic men to women had been about 10 to 1, but that seems to be shifting. More and more young women are going through the process of exploring feminism and Wicca, seeking feminine pride, identity and power, and discovering only impotence, limitations and puritanical selfrighteousness. Wicca and feminism share a flaccid, lackluster attitude and presentation. Satanic women like drama/adventure and know how to conjure it for themselves. Satanists have an innate complexity of mind that hungers for uncompromising examination and speculation, not superficially- comforting pap. We don't need to be comforted; we prefer the invigorating, bracing winds of truth and terror. Our culture has been influenced enough by Anton LaVey and his books so that it's now cool for young women to dress like Satanic witches and think like the Devil Himself. Camille Paglia and others now get honorifics for challenging traditional feminism, defending women's rights to wear heels and makeup. Those who study such trends are calling this "lipstick feminism" (from the more honest "lipstick lesbians"), "nontraditional feminism" or "antifeminist feminism." Big news. So The Satanic Witch came out 26 years ago, girls. Did you just get around to reading it? To me, it's still the same old game of cribbing from Anton LaVey's books, catering to the new Satanic generation, but not wanting to acknowledge those blasphemous philosophical roots. Jayne Mansfield recognized that, for the first time in her life, she had found a philosophy through which she could be a businesswoman, an intellectual, a mother and a sexpot all at once. She wouldn't be criticized for committing the ultimate sin of reconciling irreconcilables. Satanic women don't want to gain their strength by castrating men, or by making themselves out as victims. Whether they're providing healing and inspiration to those under their roofs, cracking the whip in corporate circles, managing their own home-based businesses or maneuvering whatever they need to survive, all are applying and increasing their power - not whining about why they don't have any!
We don't need "feminism" on our sleeve as our primary identity. We have our identity as Satanists. Satanic women are fierce; fierce defenders of their men, of their children, of their ideas and values. Wiccans understand the female archetype in a completely different way than Satanists do. We know that Woman is Nature - Darwinian
law as well as peaceful, awe-inspiring sunsets. Women can be conniving and ruthless, plotting and vengeful. "Mother Nature" isn't loving and all-embracing. She's selective, cruel and unyielding. Wicca is trying to keep up with Satanism by sprinkling in Valkyries, the Dark Goddess, and other more menacing images of the Mother Goddess. But it still remains lackluster and uninspiring because it's isolated - dependent on internal references and icons. It becomes hallow, stilted and flaccid. By trying to ignore or deny the authority or existence of great men, they're disconnecting their religion from ennobling music, poetry, literature, art, architecture, science and philosophy. Satanists recognize that the force of Western civilization has always been a masculine, heroic, Promethean drive toward adventure and exploration. Feminist/ Wiccan can't is ultimately "soul candy," like the term that's evolved for pop-science and psychology - this is the equivalent. You may seek it out when you need bolstering up, thinking that you'll be inspired and spurred to greater achievements, lured by promises of unique feminine perspective and strengthening. But ultimately it's not satisfying. The illusion of strength is superficial; the nagging victimization becomes insulting. Not like reading Dostoevsky or Will Durant, Wuthering Heights, or Jane Austen, or Plato's Dialogues or Erasmus "The Praise of Folly", or, obviously, The Satanic Bible. I refuse to limit my role models only to other women just because I happen to be one. I gain power from the metaphors and heroes I choose, regardless of their gender. Our decisions are based on real-world concerns, not in defense of an inadequate ego. When a Satanic woman and her mate decide if they'll have children, or who will work in the outside world and who will stay home with the kids, it's a pragmatic question - who has more learning power? Who's invested more money and time developing their career? Who's more capable of earning money at home as opposed to in the workplace? Who's better able to have the patience and other attributes necessary to raise a child? The Satanic woman doesn't need a job to define her capabilities; nor does she need to have children to feel fulfilled. She reserves her "nurturing" for those who deserve her help and encouragement - namely: herself, her mate, and those few she chooses to call friends. She finds a man who can express her Demonic or she conjures up a Lover for herself; she isn't desperate for love, vulnerable to ploys from fast talkers. Many young bottom-of-the-clock women who are looking for gothic strength in a man, can't find it in the simpering she-males around them - so they manifest their Demonics themselves, dressing in black
leather, black stockings and carrying a big black whip. A compleat, Satanic witch can best spend her time in constant, intimate spiritual and sexual contact with her strongest Demonic archetype - Satan Himself. In practicing her arts of enchantment, manipulation, inspiration, and protection in the real world, she strengthens both herself and those she chooses to love. She becomes a direct line to our Source. That's why a powerful sorceress must be cautious about aligning herself with, and transferring power to, unworthy men.
Identity and stimulation. Dr. LaVey has pinpointed these two elements as primary commodities. Satanism provides us with both. I don't need to be pigeonholed as a "feminist," or any other convenient label. None of us are so charitable to the weak-minded that we allow ourselves to be so easily categorized and dismissed. I am proud to call
myself a Satanist, thereby aligning myself with the strongest minds, bodies, and Will on Earth.
This article first appeared in The Black Flame, Volume 6, #1 & #2, 1997 c.e.
REGIE SATANAS!
AVE SATANAS!
HAIL SATAN!
AVE SATANAS!
HAIL SATAN!
-
_Bazooka
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10719
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am
Re: Bible verse by verse
LittleNipper wrote:Like Rand and her ideological heirs, Hitler also despised the weak and any effort to help the unfortunate. Among those he considered unworthy of life because he thought them “weak” were hospital patients, orphans, pacifists, homosexuals, anyone “asocial” and any groups that might uplift the poor such as labor unions. He believed might makes right and justified his views using Darwinian and Machiavellian terms. - See more at: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/ ... VkCeM.dpuf
Hmmm....so you agree with Hitler's view on homosexuals, right?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
-
_Fence Sitter
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8862
- Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm
Re: Bible verse by verse
Bazooka wrote:LittleNipper wrote:Like Rand and her ideological heirs, Hitler also despised the weak and any effort to help the unfortunate. Among those he considered unworthy of life because he thought them “weak” were hospital patients, orphans, pacifists, homosexuals, anyone “asocial” and any groups that might uplift the poor such as labor unions. He believed might makes right and justified his views using Darwinian and Machiavellian terms. - See more at: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/ ... VkCeM.dpuf
Hmmm....so you agree with Hitler's view on homosexuals, right?
I wonder if LN realizes that the millions of German soldiers and policemen that were actually involved in the everyday indiscriminate killing of people during WW2, like the ones he lists above, and the genocide of 6 million or so Jews, were Christians? Or that the antisemitic culture that allowed the everyday Germans to casually slaughter all those people was created by centuries of Christian sponsored antisemitism?
When your convinced God is on your side you can justify anything, even the slaughter of innocent children.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."