A Case for Authentic Satanism

I present this as a thought experiment. One that explores the concepts and ideas that would be present in a philosophy that actually would venerate the figure of Satan. What would an authentic Satanic faith or cult be like?

To answer this we would have to go back to the original word itself, the Hebrew term Satan.

The term Satan is a hebrew word and appears in a number places in the Bible. It is translated as adversary and often is used in a sense denoting hostility. It is used to refer to hostile people or beings. In this sense Satanism would mean an ideology of hostility, but this thought experiment deals with one unique hostile adversary, The Satan or Ha'satan.

The Satan, the Adversary appears in the Book of Job and Zechariah. Both times he is depicted as a cynical accuser who has misanthropic views. He appears to be cynical of human motives and regards humanity as ultimately selfish. The Book of Job portrays him as wandering the earth in a role like that of a Public procurator and Agent Provocateur. He acts only with G-d's permission. He is also shown to travel with the Bnai Elohim when he arrives in G-d's court. In the Book of Zechariah the Angel of the Lord is portrayed as being a satan to The Satan and an advocate for the high priest of Israel.

Now based on what little information we have about The Satan, what kind of philosophy would emerge from the veneration of him and his apparent ideals?

Its questionable whether or not he would even recognize any veneration, but authentic satanic philosophy would recognize that and seek veneration though emulation. Rather than being a faith of ritual and ceremony, it would be one that emulates The Adversary.

The Core components of this philosophy and the emulation of the Adversary would be centered on the concept of Misanthropy and the judgement of humanity. An authentic satanist would hate humanity as a whole, which would include themselves. They would follow not only a path of self destruction, but a path that would idealize human extinction.

They would partake an active role in not only self destruction but also in the destruction of the species. This would include recognizing human nature as corrupt, unclean, and focused on selfish desires. Active corruption of the self and as many others as possible would be desired.

This self hate and loathing as well as the loathing of the species would ensure that human life and morality would have no value. Suicide or even murder of one's self would be welcomed. Self injury and self abuse would be pursued. This would likely include self inflicted burns, cuts, poisoning, etc. This would induce psychologically addictive behavior involving pain, self mutilation and drug addiction.

It would be a philosophy that ultimately encouraged mass suicide, mass murder/genocide, and various forms of abuse.

It would be absolute horror in contrast to some current retconned views of Satanism or Satan. Yet there are some parallels to some modern cults and self declared satanists, especially in regards to self mutilation and drug addiction.

I chose this thought experiment to counter supposed "truths" about The Satan or Satanism. The Adversary was retconned into a rebellious light bringing Prometheus or worse a dualistic force of evil. Both concepts are absurdly false. If one looks at the source material, the Book of Job and Zechariah, a very different picture The Adversary emerges. One where The Satan is not hostile to G-d, but is very hostile to humanity. I would say there is almost a conspiracy by people to retcon Satan. The Roman Church actively conspired to retcon the figure of Satan. Many modern churches have carried on that tradition. This retconning created an environment of Left Hand Path groups who call themselves Satanists and way too much "satanic" fan fiction.

My overall point is that Satan is not one to be venerated or emulated. To equate a philosophy or faith with Satan would be basically absurd in my view. If one wants to venerate Prometheus, then by all means do. Just remember Satan is not Prometheus and has never been promethean. If one wants to venerate the Roman god Lucifer, the Son of Venus, by all means do so, but remember that Lucifer is not Satan. If one wants to venerate Ahriman by all means do so, but remember Satan is not Ahriman.

Satan at his core is a cynical celestial misanthrope, anything else is retconned fan fiction. Knowing that I can't see why anyone would want to venerate, emulate, or associate with something that hates me, you, and every human being on the planet.

I think the key assumption of your hypothetical cult is that the members venerate, worship, or emulate the literal entity of Satan as described in religious texts. I would venture that if this assumption is made then your analysis of Satan's would-be followers makes a lot of sense. However, many so-called Satanists don't believe in any religious text or anyone mentioned therein, so their ideas don't really have anything to do with THE Satan.

I think 'Satanism' (at least in the LaVey sense) is really just a label slapped on a philosophy that came about as a reaction to Judeo-Christian beliefs. It's a lot more catchy and attention grabbing than 'Rebellionism' or something that would more aptly describe the values held by its adherents. Even though it's kind of a misnomer, no one fails to grasp that if someone is a Satanist they are definitely rebelling.

reply to post by MikeboydUS

The book on the subject you're getting at is " The Origin Of Satan " Elaine Pagels Random House New York 1995 ISBN 0-679-40140-7
She explores how chronologically from a social-historical perspective as you go through the books of the scripture corpus the concept of Satan changes as the Jewish concept of the enemy/threat/Jewish position in the world changed...and that you can't take all the Satan references together and consider them as descriptions of one immanent spiritual being (not that she was inclined to, anyway, she's an academic and not engaged in religious debunking...but if you were a fundamentalist Christian or a devilworshipper, this would be a necessary implication of the book).
But one can know all this and agree with her conclusions and still pray to Satan.
There's the consideration that religions are vaporware (just like how cartoons show how we want our bodies to be Wiley-Coyote-hard-to-kill and stretchable, once we get nanotech/sci-fi/conscious control of our currently more inert physical selves) , that there are no gods currently local but there will be in the future, once we hit the Singularity, and that if you like Satan, then by praying to him and soaking in his concept, you increase the chance of a Satan being made in the Singularity, and then, who knows, he may be able to reach back in time and help you somehow.
I bet you haven't heard that subculture chunk before. There are those who think so.
But think, what is Satan the God of? Hatred and despair. These are the only feelings really appropriate to our animal nature and current situation, we feel hatred because the not-us exists, we don't control everything, and we feel despair because we die.( Which is not just Satanism, it's like a certain hard minimal Buddhism, that one Noble Truth about existence is suffering, the " Trance of Sorrow", and it's also like the stoicism of Epictetus, you could mix those three together on this point).
Some people will always find hatred and despair attractive,in their inner self-management protocols, and that's the pool that Satan worship draws from.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

The Core components of this philosophy and the emulation of the Adversary would be centered on the concept of Misanthropy and the judgement of humanity. An authentic satanist would hate humanity as a whole, which would include themselves. They would follow not only a path of self destruction, but a path that would idealize human extinction.

I think this is very provocative. Perhaps emulation of the Adversary is in turn to be adversarial to the satanic entity. Since we are dealing in hypotheticals, perhaps the ultimate veneration of the satanic entity would be to behave in the same fashion toward the satan and repudiate it if not trash it in discourse and/or ritual.

To ally oneself with the Satan of say the protestant christian concept would otherwise be an overwrought expression of nihilism.

[edit on 4/7/08 by Pellevoisin]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

My overall point is that Satan is not one to be venerated or emulated. To equate a philosophy or faith with Satan would be basically absurd in my view. If one wants to venerate Prometheus, then by all means do. Just remember Satan is not Prometheus and has never been promethean. If one wants to venerate the Roman god Lucifer, the Son of Venus, by all means do so, but remember that Lucifer is not Satan. If one wants to venerate Ahriman by all means do so, but remember Satan is not Ahriman.

Satan at his core is a cynical celestial misanthrope, anything else is retconned fan fiction. Knowing that I can't see why anyone would want to venerate, emulate, or associate with something that hates me, you, and every human being on the planet.

I screwed up and failed to address this is my previous post.
What is there to venerate Satan for? Indomitable will.
What do we know about Satan, in the pop myth ahistorical cartoon forest creature version?
He defies God, and he loses, he has always lost, he loses forever, and he don't care, he uses his free will to say " No I won't ", to deny God that one square inch of territory that he is, under the control of his will, and in that square inch " No I won't " is a performative utterance like when God says "FIAT LUX/I create the universe...". Through sufficient indomitable will losing forever is almost like a tie.
Satan is thus prayed to by those have sufficient willpower to be attempting impossible tasks. If he didn't make it, so what, he didn't quit, did he?
This to me is reminiscent of the following quote from " Hagakure " ( Yamamoto Tsunetomo, translated William Scott Wilson, Kodansha America, NY NY, 1979, ISBN 0-87011-606-1, page 17):

To say that dying without reaching one's aim is to die a dog's death is the frivolous way of sophisticates. When pressed with the choice of life or death, it is not necessary to gain one's aim.

You with me yet?
So, far from being "absurd", this is an actual practical concrete benefit or result that some persons obtain from praying to Satan, harping on these chords, is the strengthening of their zero-sum will. You don't have to postulate any spirits whatsoever to recognize how this mental technique might prove effective for some persons.

I wonder if a further unpacking of the various stories of the satan would illumine this discussion. I can't recall, but I believe elsewhere, Mike, you referenced Zoroaster and the creation of the monolithic satan that then arises in post-exilic hebrew religion and in christianity.

That situation as we tease out the strands had as much to do with national conflict as it did religion. The Hindus had Krishna and the gods and regarded the Persian gods as demons. The ancient Persians had their Heptad (still visible among the Yezidis) of gods, and they regarded the Hindu gods as demons. Enter Zoroaster who seems to have had enough of it all and found that there was a source at the start of everything and this was the only real deity in his teaching Ahura Mazda. Now the way I just portrayed these events is a terrible gloss and can easily be fruitfully debated in itself. My point is that Zoroaster gives the world a monolithic supreme deity.

In time religions like Manicheanism give the world a good God and an evil God. The confluence of various religions, tribal gods, angelology and national warfare all play a part in it.

In the contemporary context the satan of the Roman Church for example is the nemesis of the Most High God but is not an evil god. The one the satan engages in battle is Michael, not El-Elyon (The Father).

I think some of the confusing of the satan and Lucifer, Beelzebub, Belial inter et alia is that Christianity like late Hebrew religion accepted the ancient Persian heptad as the seven-fold being of rebellion or seven angels that fell. Melek Taus, the Peacock Angel, becomes the Devil. I am borrowing this line of thought in part from the English theologian Margaret Barker (who did the groundbreaking work in early hebrew religion as henotheism).

But there seems to be in the western mind a need for "champions" to battle it out. So Michael versus the devil is not nearly as satisfying a construct as "God versus Satan" or "Satan versus God".



[edit on 4/7/08 by Pellevoisin]

Originally posted by Pellevoisin

I think this is very provocative. Perhaps emulation of the Adversary is in turn to be adversarial to the satanic entity. Since we are dealing in hypotheticals, perhaps the ultimate veneration of the satanic entity would be to behave in the same fashion toward the satan and repudiate it if not trash it in discourse and/or ritual.



[edit on 4/7/08 by Pellevoisin]

You would only turn against Satan if he beat God, and became the new God. Then you would defy him, in turn, thus showing you truly learned the lesson from his bit. Until then he's a revolutionary and has not yet become your new oppressor, more Lenin less Stalin.

reply to post by nine-eyed-eel


I read that book awhile back. There's a few others out there that explore the history of the term and the character of Satan.

I completely agree with the author that the modern Devil is a eclectix mix of different bibilical figures and extrabiblical figures.

Two books, Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost have had more impact on the modern character of the Devil than any bibilical source.

Like the whole concept that the Devil rules in or dwells in Hell or Gehenna.That is completely fabricated. Biblically he wanders the earth and travels to the heavens to make accusations.

The other idea that he's some kind of horned, red skinned, bat winged. half goat thing is entirely the Roman Church's fault. He is never physically described in the Bible. If he is one of the Bnai Elohim or Sarim, he would probably look humanoid when on earth.

I get your concept about Vaporware. It sounds like a concept from Chaos Magic in regards to egregores and thought forms. If that holds any truth there would a myriad of pseudo forms of everything and anything. I'm just not so sure about that. Think about it, Elvis and Hitler would both be some kind of bizarre godlike thoughtforms. And there wouldn't be just one of each. So I don't know about that idea.

I disagree with the idea that Satan is god of anything.I would also argue that Satan wins his cases more often than not, probably 99% of the time he should win. Job was a special case, an example of a truly righteous man, like Noah, like Lot, etc. All three faced an adversity and in Noah's and Lot's case probably accusations of The Adversary as well. Most people on the other hand under the right circumstances would break, which from Satan's point of view proves their faith was weak and selfish.

I can see how people would pray to or venerate a mental construct that performs somekind of psychological benefit. I'm just saying the Biblical satan is not it. One would have to retcon the character or completely ignore the source material. Either way in the end the Character of Satan in Job is not the same as the character of the Devil in pop culture. The Devil is like a flawed adaption with way too much fan fiction and has emerged as distinctly different from the character it orginated from. Maybe this fictional construct has some kind of psychological function, but really its no more applicable than say a comic book character. People might as well pray to Superman.