Code of Conduct: Satanists of the Church Of Satan follow the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth:

1 Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2 Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure that they want to hear them.

3 When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4 If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5 Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6 Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the person and he cries out to be relieved.

7 Acknowledge the power of magic if you have used it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8 Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9 Do not harm little children.

10 Do not kill non-human animals unless attacked or for your food.

11 When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Basic teachings and Beliefs of Satanism: While many Satanists argue the actual physical existence of Satan, the Satanic view of Satan/Lucifer/Set is a somewhat Gnostic one, seeing the divinity as a liberator of mankind, a principal of individuality, or as the principal of change. Satanism of the sort where believers consciously worship Satan as an evil entity or an enemy of the Christian God appears to be confined to rumor, disturbed teenagers, and bad Heavy metal music. True to some accusations, Satanists do tend to embrace a philosophy of 'relative morality,' which generally culminates in a rejection of 'antiquated' sexual mores, "embracing man's carnal nature," as LaVey phrases it.

I thought this was interesting when I read it.

There was a very extensive Satanism thread. I forget who made it though. ADHD attentive?

I have nothing against Satanism itself, but I really don't see it as healthy to partake in a religion which essentially promotes hedonism.

DO NOT HARM LITTLE CHILDREN.

If those are the rules then I would gladly follow them. It's basically the rules for the impatient/ easily angered, eh? =p

Not trying to argue over semantics, but Satanism is a philosophy.

Actually that is incorrect.
Satanism is a philosophy and a religion. *Link

Excerpt:

"Satanism is a religious, semi-religious and/or philosophical movement whose adherents recognize Satan as an archetype, pre-cosmic force, actual living entity, or some aspect of human nature. Although named for Satan, a name associated with evil and temptation, Satanism is more commonly the name given to certain spiritual paths which emphasize the Left-Hand Path, as opposed to the much more common Right-Hand Path. Left-Handers believe in spiritual enrichment through their own work on themselves, and that ultimately they are answerable only to themselves, while Right-Handers believe in spiritual enrichment through the dissolution or submission of the self to (or into) something greater. LaVeyans do not in fact worship a deity called Satan, or necessarily any other deity, nor do they follow a principle of evil. This aspect of their beliefs is very commonly misunderstood due to the presence of theistic Satanists, who revere Satan as a literal being.

Instead of divine laws or naturistic principles (such as in Wicca), Satanism generally focuses upon material or physical advancement of the self with guidance from external higher beings or external principles, instead of submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. For this reason, many contemporary Satanists eschew traditional religious beliefs, attitudes and worship in favor of more egoistic, self-centering worldviews, natural law, survival of the fittest and practices such as materialism, individualism and magic. However, some Satanists do choose voluntary moral codes, thought carries a strong current of inversionism; although a faith in its own right groups or individuals described in some sense or another as Satanic can largely, though incomprehensively, be described as belonging to one of two unofficial sub-groupings: Philosophical Satanism or Religious Satanism." (Cont'd @ link)

Nope, we are discussing LaVeyan Satanism, which would be a philosophy. There are different forms of Satanism.

Hah. Pwned.

I do agree though, it is more of a philosophy, regardless of what it is called.

Cool, no problem.

As a Luciferian Witch I am aware of this. However this thread was not titled so as to allude to a conversation strictly encompassing the LeVayan practice. Therefore Satanism can be so qualified as a religion and philosophy.

As much as I love a thread with latitude, the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth are a product of *LaVey*, so obviously when I say Satanism is a philosophy, I am referring to LaVeyan Satanism. This is of course, in reference to the original post, which also says *LaVey's* name.
So me saying it is a philosophy, is me talking about LaVeyan Satanism.

Aaron Donahues a bit of a crack pot is he not?

Indeed that is clear, understood and respected.

However this post , while alluding to the 11 tenets of LeVay's philosophy in part, is in no wise intended, by word of the author at least, to relegate the discourse strictly unto the topic of LeVayan Satanism. As per this last bit in the initial posting:



Hence my statement that Satanism is both a Religion and Philosophy. Unless of course you are of the position that Satanism is LeVayan domain. In which case, as that is your right to believe as much though would be in error in assuming that platform, you are absolutely correct.

I do respect what you said, cause I read both portions.
But it's kind of like that unspoken rule. When one says Bible they assume Christian Bible, unless stated otherwise. So unless I say Crowleyan Satanism, I am of course, referring to LaVeyan.

Seems 4 and 11 would get folks locked up in jail.

I understand your point in that matter. And as such, while it is a mistake to imagine the Christian tome as the only faith possessed of a "Bible", so to is it a mistake to import that when one discusses Satanism it is automatically presumed to encompass the practice ascribed to LeVay.

Anton knew full well that Satanism was far older than his philosophy. He was a genius in many respects (contrary to many who would beg to differ), he was also a con man (most would agree), and he was a visionary hedonist! He subscribed, imho, to the notion that was later made famous by Hubbard (Though that may be an erroneous reference for the quote source); "If you want to live forever, create a religion." And further, he recognized that if persons could be led as sheep by the Shepard, there was certainly a market for the wolves. And so the CoS came to be.

However, when in a discussion regarding Satanism, LeVayan being but a babe in comparison to the history of the philosophy and practice therein, I have found one is best served to denote they are speaking of LeVayan practice when providing input from that perspective. Not only does this alleviate conflicts relative to the various practices out there, it alleviates the discrepancy like unto which many Christians (as an example) encounter when speaking of the Christian faith, as there are many denominations of practice accorded the faith of the Christ, so to does it alleviate conflict, with respect to a discourse on Satanic practice, concerning the many "denominations" that apply to the Satanic practice. And, in this world of main streams, it is vital in the education of the ignorant that there exists many that practice Satanism as a philosophy or as Deists.

Besides that it really throws a shock to realize there is truth to that axiom; "We are everywhere!"
With all respect and in closing, I add this as my final thought on the issue. It does this thread no service to debate the issue of who's "devil" is entitled to what title. Rather, there are many philosophies and religious practitioners of this particular left hand path, as some would to call it. I am just surprised that this topic was published in this forum. As I know now , per the previous reply, there was an extensive discourse on the subject before my arrival, it is refreshing to see there is an openness (at least for now) to the discussion today.


Indeed it is a matter of how one decides to apply the 4th and 11th rule. Once can be quite determined yet legally subtle, in affect.


*p.s. has anyone else noticed missing sentences in their post, once they commit it to post!?

I agree


Yea I agree but I throw hint something is bothering me LOL to my partner



I always show respect in someones home.....if someone is in my home and annoys me...I show them the door...but not cruelly!!!!!


So agree there...too many like to jump on ya with out asking.....and they dont understand the simple words BACK OFF mofo


Hmm reasonable


I havent a baldy as to what that means

I agree again here


I strongly agree here and would add to that...if they continue to harm lil children I will continue like no.4 - treat them cruelly and without mercy.


If attacked for food fight back and run like the hammers!!I couldnt kill anyone unless they try to kill me


A tad harsh ........if he dont stop chase him with a large baseball bat

Not a mistake it's done intentionally. So much easier to write Bible, as opposed to *Chrisitian* Bible. I have no problem being specific, but I'll do that with you, to prevent confusion.

i can totally relate to these rules. I follow like all of them, except i follow my own 'do not cause unecessary harm to others,' w/e

theyr cool

I'd like to add that LaVey wasn't always being literal in my opinion. The again, who is? When he says "no mercy", my interpretation is that the individual being rude to you, should not expect kindness in return.

Do on to others as they have done on to you??

Yes but with a darker twist. It's like a perversion of Christianity to a certain extent. One of the Nine Satanic Statements is "Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek."

AHA now I get it...I like it

So do I (snickers)

I also agree. It is quite an inetersting religion/philosophy.

4 and 11 are disturbing.

How refreshing. That sense of self, as first priority so as to fulfill what ever path one believes they are here to lend witness to and contribute in the process of, by any name, embraced and applied unto an objective presence within the dimensional perspective of at least our reality in this moment to moment life.

Simply said; Respect for life begins as respect for self.

I remember that old adage; No matter where you go there you are. Patently obvious and yet largely ignored as an impactive logic. One brings to the table that which they have to play the game. Therefore self preservation is in keeping with self respect. And the degree of that natural symmetrical presence within us is but the subjective observations of that which exists in all things. It is only when the ego and personality collide and commit to define that infinite presence unto subjective attitudes, postures, expectations and judgments, that the challenges to the presence of that self, are met. It is a balance, this play of predator and prey. Victim and survivor. Loss and gain. The right or wrong of it all is the attitude that makes the natural flow uniquely human.

As is exampled by those Rules applied to and under the dominion of Antons thinking and organizational practice. However his is not the only philosophy that captured a glimpse and laid title unto what I see as natural presence afforded in common sense and decency in the raw flesh.


For example these are yet another collection of Satanic tenets relative to what I see as logical observation for matters of self reliance, determination and preservation.

εγώ είμαι the πρώτος ναός και the θεά του my ζούμε ταξίδι
Gydion

I did hash over that a bit. If one wanted to really understand LaVey, they should read the Devil's Notebook. That was an interesting read.


What a pleasant response to read this morning. Amen.

I don't believe that LaVeyan Satanism was about evil. Yes in a way it was perverting Christianity, which is evident in some of the Nine Satanic Statements. However, LaVey's focus was to stay true to man's nature. And if forsaking your character is a perversion of Christianity, then it just is. He didn't want to have to feel guilty about the actions he made. If he ever did, he made it a point to revel in it.

I read Levay many years ago. A friend of mine was into him as a teenager. I didn't care for him at the time and still don't.

I wasn't trying to get you to get into him. I'm not a Satanist myself. You said that it seemed "disturbing", so I assumed you didn't know what he meant by it.

Why is that cross going in a sideways direction, if your Luciferic? I'm just curious, because I have a bit of Luciferic in me- and when you have something to represent you in a sig, and I look at that cross- I feel weirded out asking.... but I have to, I'm really curious about that... sorry if I offend you...

Ok so what types of satanism are there?

Well you have LaVeyan (most popular form these days, also a philosophy I might add). You also have pseudo-Satanism, such as the New Age Crowleyan Satanism. There are people that are part of the Temple of set that consider themselves satanic. You also have Spiritual Satanists. Some of which are on this forum.

Questions about #9 and #11.

Do not harm little children. Yeah, but, children can harm you, Ive had a kid one time seriously wack me once in front of his mom - and I couldn't do anything about it....

#11 To destroy someone means still to seperate yourself from someone who bothers you. Which also could mean 'to destroy' right?

Well murder is a sin so it's not destroying someone in the physical sense. Destroy their character. Because a lot of Satanists are against violence and harming animals and children.
@ children harming you.

Firstly let me say you do not offend by asking for further information on that which was volunteered in the first place.

Simply said, I like how it looks in that unique position and because it is the application of a metaphor with respect to the relation between reality and context.



Indeed LeVay admonished those that would do harm to animals and children. Saying, and rightly so imho, that those who did do harm to these innocents were not representative of his philosophy of Satanism. Rather he saw those that would commit harm upon children and animals as deviants and psychotics. Because a healthy spirit does not need to feed or sustain itself victimizing those who are the closest in kinship to the spirit Satanists seek to commune with through applied rituals and faith. In other words, babies and animals, by their innocence, are connected to the power we attempt to commune with, to re-unite with through the contrivances of religious ritual.



In LeVays philosophy of the adversary or antithesis of the Christian faith, he recognize that at it's core the concept of Satan generally, much less the subscription of religiosity was in fact a Christian heresy.



What is known today and depicted, as the horned Satan in opposition to the Christian God, bears a history that is far older than that presence that began to appear at the advent of the 14th century, as the popular historical rendering which was augmented to the appearance of a horned , cloven hoofed, trident wielding fallen angel. <Which, is in and of itself, the antithesis of the heavenly host angels. Thus making for an entity, per the Christian rendering of the tale, posed in direct opposition to the god that created him first and as the most beautiful of all the angels to follow.

Prior to this new title of "Satan" , "Lucifer", etc... "

For instance, consider the "Black Mass", which many who are not Satanists have still heard of. With respect to this practice, incorporated by some practitioners of the path, LeVay was quite clear in what it meant to his own.



Thereto, in keeping with Antons philosophy of holding to a practice in direct opposition to the tenets and practices of Christianity and honoring self, will and responsibility, there is no recognition of "Sin" in LeVayan Satanic practice or philosophy.

That would in fact be an oxymoron, as it would mean , in order to uphold the ideal that a LeVayan Satanist would then be giving credence to that which his practice is in direct opposition to. Which is a subscription to abstinence rather than indulgence.

There is another site link that will give those who wish to inquire of the "different kinds of Satanism", (referencing an earlier reply by 5aret: "Ok so what types of satanism are there?") That affords extensive resources to answer in greater detail the various aspects of Satanic practice briefly referenced , and correctly so, by Yelekiah.

Satanism
Description, Philosophies and Justification.
Link



*link edit

Yelekiah.
Fair enough. I did read many things on him alot of years ago. Perhaps I should read further as my mind is different now. You are correct, now that I see I also see I might have presumed incorrectly. I took it literally.

I thought they where harsh too but when i read how others explained them, they made sense

Well, Imaginary Friend, it is just kind of weird -that it's like the cross is tipped over... Like you like it like that... I was a Catholic once, but still being a bit Luciferic to an extent...
and I was always good with metaphors. Just being curious anyway---

The very essence of Satanism in any form is self-worship and the prime directive is to survive and be empowered no matter what the cost and to destroy anything that may come in the way. Live for thyself and trust noone.

Lucifier(Illuminous One) left the side of GOD because he wanted to be worshipped.

I wouldn't trust this fallen Alien nor more than I would trust God(Head honcho Alien) that supposedly created him.

What experiences this life first and foremost, save for the self? Who is responsible for surviving ones self, save for their own sense of self in accord with self respect that determines the quality of life one invests their energies into, to afford? This is not a practice or philosophy exclusive to Satanism. Rather, it is intrinsic to humanity, as a matter of survival. Who better to trust with one's self interest, than self first and foremost, as the one that has the most to gain and the most to lose, first person!? When everyone is living, and holding to faith (or not), in their own contribution to self interest in body and spirit. Even Wiccan's.

And what is "Faith", when introduced into that life of the one that must apply themselves on the temporal plane in order to affect that survival, if not an example of being self-possessed when one chooses to believe they need also invest in securing their soul for the life after!? Or at least for the time being. (On Earth at least)

There is no sin in self consciousness. For it is the self that is here for the experience.If one feels unworthy, they shall live as such. And that is no one else's responsibility. Just as it is no one's responsibility that someone lives well and secure in who they are.



This is incorrect. In the Apocrypha, the book of Adam and Eve, God ordered all his angels to serve mankind and to show that subservience he commanded them to bow before Adam and Lucifer refused as did other Angels refused to bow, or demonstrate their powers subservient, unto that which was created from the dust.

Source Link


Further, you speak as if the "Satan" to which you refer is an actual being or anthropomorphic. This would allude to "Theistic Satanism" , in which the faithful envision their lord as a real being, much like many Christians and Wiccan's do, with respect to the God(s) and Goddess(es) of those faiths.
However, as discussed previously, there are a number of Satanic philosophies and practices. And there is a difference between a Luciferian or one that recognizes Lucifer, and a Satanist. Just as are there in Wicca ( with respect to "Traditions") and Christians (via/ Denominations or Sects).

It is a mistake to imagine there to be only one way to believe or practice, in Satanism. Just as there would be to imagine such is true about Wicca or Christianity, though many amid their faithful would disagree. As you said, Satanism is a reverence for the self, as is living life. When one subscribes to a faith in the process, it becomes a personal commitment and is invested in as such.

And though your indictment of Satan and Lucifer is based on the Christian tenets as though that is the source for the creation of the adversary, it is not. The spirit embodied within those Judeo-Christian titles is far older than that the myths applied through the Testaments, and is/was, known by many names.(Legion)

I was quoting from the Bible....which 90% of the populous believes to be true. *big sigh*

YOU as I....are only 'surmizing' on what has been given to us a factual(hand me down literature).....When in Truth....we 'know' NOTHING..... Don't let Men tell you anything but what you personally have experienced to be the truth.....whether it be Bible,Apocrypha or any other writings.

Wicca is another religion of which I refuse to be boxed into.....hence the removal of it next to my name!

That would leave 10% of the population to fill the other religious profiles. Therefore 90%, gives far more credit in number than is proportionate to reality.




For the sake of this discussion, the Bible and Apocrypha are relevant to continue the discussion within it's proper contextual references to the "Satan" character described with the inception of this thread as it is representative of the Judeo-Christian construct.
Though a far older metaphor, or entity, as some would ascribe it variously as "Shaitan", Belial, Azazel, etc...

The Sumerians also recognized "Lucifer" *cuneiform text* as did the Yezidiz. As noted before, Satan of the Judeo-Christian mythos is an assimilation of the deceiver into the myths of the Hebrew and Christian faith. They in no wise are the first to recognize, or record the existence of this entity.




Further, I realize I am once again making reference to what you called the "hand me down literature". However, if one did attend your observation not to believe anything but what one has personally experienced to be truth, they would not have the capacity to claim the title of an adherent to any religious path, save for that of the Agnostic. It would in effect limit one immeasurably in their understanding of their conscious presence, for lack of respect for the histories that were born before they were.

In matters of a personal spiritual doctrine, it certainly is incumbent upon one that feels compelled to believe in something, to first gain an understanding of what it is that they propose to believe and thereby commit their life to by giving that faith or belief, a place in it. However to assume the attitude; (sic)"Don't let Men tell you anything but what you personally have experienced to be the truth." , is unrealistic if one would presume to live their life in the contemporary atmosphere that was born of the histories that came before.

DUMB! VERY DUMB! THAT IS ALL I CAN SAY!

Obviously!

"Don't let ONE tell you anything, but what you have experienced to be the truth".
"Don't let yourself tell ONE, anything, but what ONE has experienced to be the truth".

I'd rather be one of the few, then one of the many.....I'd rather believe in what I personally know to be truth, then to have someone else tell me how it is when it comes to religion.

^Thank you SilverRain Queen, it's the story of my life past 18 yrs. old. ^ When I figured out that religion isn't something you have to be born with or into. When your fed up with humanity trying to tell you what God is and what God isn't. The whole statement has absolute non-genderism in it as it is. I can't respect someone if they think there is a God, and have faith in it that, when if there is no proof - it is absolutely up to one "to believe what they want to". As long as it does not harm another one true realized being.

Anyone have any thoughts regarding the Temple of Set. I've long enjoyed the writings of Edred Thorsson, who is, if I remember correctly, the head of the Order of the Trapezoid, a subset of the ToS. Apparently they welcome the label "satanism" even though they don't really believe in the existence of a Christianized "satan" or "hell." They more believe in the Egyptian god-form of Set personified as "Isolated Intelligence." The notion is related to Platonic Ideal-Forms, apparently.

I've mostly been interested in Thorsson's Nordic/Teutonic works on Asatru ... and his involvement in the ToS always comes up amongst fundamentalists who are dense to begin with and don't really get that a lot of this is used as a scarecrow for people like themselves.