Open Discussion on Thelema, the Occult, and Satanism (3 Different Topics)

Greetings fellow ATS'ers, hope everyone is doing well....

Purely out of curiosities sake, I have recently picked up and read a copy of Anton Szander Laveys "The Satanic Bible," as well as "The Satanic Rituals."

Now before I get people holding this against me, let me state that it was purely out of curiosities sake, I do not consider myself a Satanist in any way, shape or form...

I have a few questions, if we have any members of the Church of Satan here, or any Thelemites....

In the Satanic Bible, the writer of the foreword goes into some detail about the life of Anton Szander Laveys, and how he became qualified to write The Satanic Bible...

The aforementioned writer states that Lavey was searching for his dark religion, and joined a group of Thelemites, however, he was unimpressed as they were more Mystic than deserving of the notoriety he thought they wielded...

My first question to Thelemites is, I was unaware that you were considered to be a dark evil religion really, except by certain fundamentalists, nowhere in any writings of the O.T.O that I have read is participating in evil encouraged... what is your opinion on this?

I understand that the O.T.O doesn't speak for all Thelemites or Occultists (for lack of a better word,) but I know more about them than say the Golden Dawn, how does being described by the writer of the Satanic Bible as "fellow kindred lacking enough in evil" make you feel?

Similiarly, my next question is about Crowley and Lavey. Lavey's book compares himself to Aliester Crowley, whom it states Lavey read "some" of his works, and once again, wasn't impressed enough to follow this, wanting to go down a darker and more legitimate path than Crowleys writings led to.

Having read "some" Crowley, and now some Lavey as well, my own opinion is that Crowley's writings are not only more interesting and poetic, but far better written than anything by Lavey, my comparison between Crowley and Lavey would be that Lavey was a charlaton, with no real depth to his understanding of the idea of religion, or spiritual guidance.

What are your opinions on differences/similiarities between Lavey and Crowley?

Another thing which ticked me off about Laveys ideas is that he is constantly contradicting himself, whilst he claims to not believe in a Deity known as Satan or Lucifier, he still pays homage to them as beings as well as forces to be manipulated.

One further contradiction is that Lavey claims his "religion" can be a strong and beneficial spiritual guide because it promotes Aestheticism, but also claims that we by nature are simply carnal beasts, and because of this, no spiritual guide is needed because we are nothing except meat which thinks.

To conclude, my opinion is that Laveys writings are simply an excuse to lead a hedonistic lifestyle, and not very well written at that. My opinion is that the Church of Satan is nothing more than immature, and completely lacking in any real substance whatsoever, as a result of this, I expect that this Church probably only attracts misguided teenagers and Marilyn Manson fans who think that it's cool to be evil, whilst Thelemic groups probably attract more intelligent or artistic thinkers.

Please note, until reading these books, I never compared Thelema to Satanism, this discussion is purely because these Satanists compare themselves to it, and place themselves on a higher pedestal.

This discussion is open to anyone, but I'm mainly looking for people who either are Occultists, Thelemites or Satanists, or know a bit about them....

Let the discussion begin!

Well I'm no Satanist myself but to be honest I've always kinda wanted to read the Satanic Bible just to see what it's philosophy was exactly. I know it is something like you need evil to balance good. We're carnal beasts and need to fulfill our physical pleasures in this life and Satan helps us do that. Maybe I'm not describing it very well but it's like what you already stated above. They don't really believe in selfless spirituality which I think is a huge flaw. They believe they have every right to to give in to their dark side because people are like that naturally. We are it's true, but that certainly doeasn't mean we should just willingly go along with it then pat ourselves on the back for it. People also have good in them which is what we're supposed to strive for. What a horrible place this would be if everyone just followed the belief that all we are is meat that thinks so let's just do whatever the hell we want. I disagree with Anton Lavey's religion.

Originally posted by DrBones666
Now before I get people holding this against me, let me state that it was purely out of curiosities sake, I do not consider myself a Satanist in any way, shape or form...

First thing... What a sorry state this world is in if one must make a disclamer for just reading about a religion.

I have a few questions, if we have any members of the Church of Satan here, or any Thelemites....

For those that don't know, I'm a Thelemite

In the Satanic Bible, the writer of the foreword goes into some detail about the life of Anton Szander Laveys, and how he became qualified to write The Satanic Bible...

For the most part LaVey's bio is pure fabrication, and so is the Satanic Bible

See the the Church of Satan's LaVey legend page. Here's a quote from that page about why the Satanic Bible was written.

LEGEND: ASL wrote the Satanic Bible, his principal work, to fulfill his congregation's need for a scriptural guide.

REALITY: The Satanic Bible was conceived as a commercial vehicle by paperback publisher Avon Books. Avon approached ASL for some kind of Satanic work to cash in on the Satanism & witchcraft fad of the late 1960s. Pressed for material to meet Avon's deadline, ASL resorted to plagiarism, assembling extracts from an obscure 1896 tract - Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard into a "Book of Satan" for the SB, and claiming its authorship by himself. [Ironically these MiR passages are the ones most frequently quoted by ASL disciples.] Another third of the SB consists of John Dee's "Enochian Keys", taken directly but again without attribution from Aleister Crowley's Equinox. The SB's "Nine Satanic Statements", one of the Church of Satan's central doctrines, is a paraphrase, again unacknowledged, of passages from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. The last words in the SB - "Yankee Rose" - have been puzzled over for years by readers. "YR" is actually the name of an old popular tune in ASL's nightclub repertoire.

My first question to Thelemites is, I was unaware that you were considered to be a dark evil religion really, except by certain fundamentalists, nowhere in any writings of the O.T.O that I have read is participating in evil encouraged... what is your opinion on this?

Nope nothing really dark and evil about Thelema, other than AC's reputation.

I understand that the O.T.O doesn't speak for all Thelemites or Occultists (for lack of a better word,) but I know more about them than say the Golden Dawn, how does being described by the writer of the Satanic Bible as "fellow kindred lacking enough in evil" make you feel?

It makes us giggle! No seriously, it's really no big deal, Levey uses "evil" and "dark symbols" to create what he calls psychodrama. You could think of it as a way to shout out "I'm Not A Christian!" It's a way to escape the Christian dogma that many/most in the west are indoctrinated in. (Of course doing that is evil to most Christians.

Similiarly, my next question is about Crowley and Lavey. Lavey's book compares himself to Aliester Crowley, whom it states Lavey read "some" of his works, and once again, wasn't impressed enough to follow this, wanting to go down a darker and more legitimate path than Crowleys writings led to.

More Levey myth building.

Having read "some" Crowley, and now some Lavey as well, my own opinion is that Crowley's writings are not only more interesting and poetic, but far better written than anything by Lavey, my comparison between Crowley and Lavey would be that Lavey was a charlaton, with no real depth to his understanding of the idea of religion, or spiritual guidance.

I agree with that. But even if Lavey was a charlatan, that does not make the system that formed any less worthy. If it works for some people then it is perfectly valid system for them.

What are your opinions on differences/similiarities between Lavey and Crowley?

Too many to list really. One of the major differences is in most cases Thelema demands far more in the area of self-discipline. Oh and the need to studywork is far greater.

Oops!

I'd like to make note of a mistake I made.

The link I gave re Levey legends is not to the Church of Satan, it leads to an offshoot called the First Church of Satan. A group who were not happy with the Way the CoS was headed after 1975 (I have no clue of what happened to cause this.. this time period also saw the Temple of Set offshoot form) so they formed a new church that they believe was more like the way it was.

www.churchofsatan.com... - the actual group Levey formed

www.churchofsatan.org... - the splinter group the First Church of Satan.

I first read the Satanic Bible around 1976-77. I started to read it again ca.1993.

the ONE thing that has remained with me was and is in the first few pages. The"goals"
or purpose's of the establishment of Laveys Church were 3 as I recall, the first and formost being , " To be Diametrically Opposed to the RCC.

This is the one aspect of "Satanism " that I have always been in agreement with.

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
Well I'm no Satanist myself but to be honest I've always kinda wanted to read the Satanic Bible just to see what it's philosophy was exactly. I know it is something like you need evil to balance good.

Sort of, but not exactly. LaVey's basic idea is that the so-called "religions of the Right Hand Path", especially Christianity, are organized hypocrisies. In the "Satanic Bible", hypocrisy is one of the chief evils of the world, which makes Christianity, at least according to LaVey, an evil and corrupt institution.

LaVey noted that "Satan" is for the most part just a caricature of older, pagan deities such as Pan, Set, etc. He therefore used Satan as the chief symbol of his organization's devotions. In the Church of Satan, Satan is not believed in literally, but is just a symbol for individual freedom and rebellion against an oppressive status quo, symbolized by Christianity.

Anyone interested in the subject are recommended to read the book "The Church of Satan" by Dr. Michael A. Aquino, which can be downloaded for free at Aquino's website. The book is a history of Lavey's organization, and its author, Dr. Aquino, was an early member and priest. He joined the COS along with his wife in the late 1960's, eventually receiving the degree of Magister Caverni, which in the COS also confers the position of archbishop.

Aquino's book can be downloaded here:

www.xeper.org...

Originally posted by DrBones666

The aforementioned writer states that Lavey was searching for his dark religion, and joined a group of Thelemites, however, he was unimpressed as they were more Mystic than deserving of the notoriety he thought they wielded...

My first question to Thelemites is, I was unaware that you were considered to be a dark evil religion really, except by certain fundamentalists, nowhere in any writings of the O.T.O that I have read is participating in evil encouraged... what is your opinion on this?

I'm not a Thelemite, but would like to throw my $0.02 worth in anyway.

LaVey wrote in "The Satanic Bible" that he had hung out with the local Thelemites and O.T.O. members for a while, not that actually joined the O.T.O. or other Thelemic group. He mentioned in passing that they were much too mystical, and "not wicked enough". Lavey apparently meant this as a joke because the tabloids were calling Crowley "the wickedest man in the world", which of course was a far cry from reality. By not being wicked enough, LaVey probably meant that their party reputation was unduly given, not that he expected or wanted them to be evil.

Thanks for your replies guy's as this is only my second topic post here on ATS, it's done better than the first anyway!

As always Masonic Light and Cug, you guy's are pillars of wisdom when it comes to these kind of topics, so thanks for your opinions...

I'm pressed for time but will hopefully get back to this next week...

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by DrBones666

LaVey wrote in "The Satanic Bible" that he had hung out with the local Thelemites and O.T.O. members for a while, not that actually joined the O.T.O. or other Thelemic group. He mentioned in passing that they were much too mystical, and "not wicked enough".

Masonic Light here is a quote from gaia's that opposes that view-

As for being Satanists we deny this. We make any Satanism look like a two year old crying baby, relatively speaking. We sincerely believe the world must be bathed in blood before the Law of Thelema is generally accepted. See Magick in Theory and Practice and the chapter on the Bloody Sacrifice for further details.

Although short, I think this thread is a hidden gem. I particularly like Cug's info on Thelema. Nice.