The Satanic Bible, by Anton LaVey Options

First off, this is so cool that you guys have a dedicated section for book discussion!! This is the only book I have completely finished thus far, and here are my favorite quotes. I would love to discuss any of them as I put little blurbs underneath them. I know this book has probably been ripped apart a million times and put back together, but whatever... I didn't see it here yet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) I am just copying this post from elsewhere.

I just finished reading The Satanic Bible and I must say, it was a much better read than what I expected. I started to read the pdf a few months ago and the connotation I got was that of an outraged 13 year old ticked off at his parents for forcing their christian ideals upon him, resulting in vacuous ranting. I still think their was a little bit of immaturity in there, but overall I would recommend the book to everyone of any faith. It makes you think, and that is what I look for in a book. Here are some of the quotes I noted and/or that I wanted to chat about:

Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law!"
-page 33 (7)


I wanted to note this because this ideal is what gave me that first impression I spoke of. The origin of Anton Laveys thoughts most definitely come from a place of anger. This book was inspired by anger and outrage. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I do think it might have something to do with Laveys original ideas becoming warped into these different sects of "psuedosatanism" though. A lot of people only hear what they want to hear and practice lots of pick-n-mixism in the wrong places. This would be the wrong place to pick, and I think that is what happens. People just focus on the violence. The other bad thing about this statement is that it has a blind sense of wrath to it. No ones personal sovereignty is perfect, so no one should deal out wrath rashly as this book encourages. Lavey I believe had more faith in people than what he realized, speaking from an assumption of unblemished personal sovereignty like this.

"Since mans natural instincts lead him to sin, all men are sinners; and all sinners go to hell. If everyone goes to hell, you will meet all your friends there. Heaven must be populated with some rather strange creatures..."
-page 47

That was just funny. That made me laugh out loud. There were quite a few instances of cut and dry humor in the book, which made me appreciate his simple, logical ideas.

"When a puppy reaches maturity is becomes a dog; when ice melts it's called water; when twelve months have been used up we get a new calendar with the proper chronological name; when "magic" becomes scientific fact we refer to it as medicine, astronomy, etc.When one name is no longer appropriate for a given thing it is only logical to change it to a new one which better fits the subject."
-page 49

Do you agree? Is that which is underlined true?

"Anyone who pretends to be interested in magic or the occult for reasons other than gaining personal power are the worst kinds of hypocrite."-page 51

Agree? I know I agree with that. Another perfect example of the cut and dry ideas I liked.

"Satanism is the only religion known to man that accepts man as he is, and promotes the rationale of turning a bad thing into a good thing rather than bending over backwards to eliminate the bad thing."
-page 53

Do you agree? Does it really turn the bad things into good things? Or is that just another form of self delusion that Lavey tries so hard to avoid? I think it is accepting the bad things as being bad and natural that allows a person to progress, not necessarily trying to turn the bad into good. Maybe I am reading into it too much. I know he is speaking from the way christians view the bad and good...

Clarification?

"Satan has certainly been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years. The false doctrine of Hell and the Devil has allowed the Protestant and Catholic Churches to flourish for too long. Without the devil to point thier fingers at, religionists of the right hand path would have nothing with which to threaten thier followers."
-page 55

Is Satan the best friend the church never had? LOL. He is certainly as integral a figure as Jesus Himself. In some churches almost more so. Would the church be able to stay in business if the Satan figure were removed? What would happen?

Some clarification on Laveys interpretation and origin of Satan:

"The semantic meaning of Satan is the "adversary" or "opposition" or the "accuser." The very word "devil" comes from the indian "devi" which means "god." Satan represents opposition to all religions which serve to frustrate and condem man for his natural instincts. He has been given an evil role simply because he represents the carnal, earthly, and mundane aspects of life.
Satan, the chief devil of the Western world, was originally an angel whose duty it was to report human delinquencies to God. It wasn't until the fourtenth century that he began to be depicted as an evil deity who was part man and part animal, with goat-like horns and hooves. Before Christianity gave him the names of Satan, Lucifer, etc. the carnal side of mans nature was goverend by the god which was then called Dionysus, or Pan, depicted as a satyr or faun, by the Greeks. Pan was originally the "good guy," and symbolized fertility and fecundity.
Whenever a nation comes under a new form of government, the heroes of the past become the villains of the present. So it is with religion. The earliest christians believed the Pagan deities were devils, and to employ them was to use "black magic." Miraculous heavenly events they termed "white magic"; this was the sole distinction between the two. The old gods did not die, they fell into Hell and became devils.

"The performance of Satanic rituals does not embrace the calling forth of demons; this practice is followed only by those who are in fear of the very forces they conjure."
-page 56

All so interesting. I love how detailed he gets into spotting the guilty conscience and signs of not being severed from old ideas.

"If you have to fear God, why not be "Satan fearing" and at least have the fun that being God fearing denies you?"
-page 61

Mwahahaha! Another quote that was just great. Such a smartass. lol.

On a serious note though. I don't think any deity worthy of being followed or taught through actually desires worship or fear. Do satanists agree?

The explanation of the origin of the idea of Hell:

"The Teutonic Goddess of the Dead and daughter of Loki was named Hel, a pagan god of torture and punishment. Another "L" was added when the books of the Old Testament were formulated. The prophets who wrote the Bible did nto know know the word "Hell;" they used the Hebrew "Sheol" and the Greek Hades, which meant the grave; also the Greek Tartaros, which was the abode of fallen angels, the underworld (inside the earth), and the Gehenna, which was the valley near Jeruselum where Moloch reigned and garbage was dumped and burned. It is from this that the Christian chirch has evolved the idea of "fire and brimstone" in Hell."
-page 62

Further clarification on Satan:

"Most Satanists do not accept Satan as an anthropomorphic being with cloven hooves. a barbed tail, and horns. He merely represents a force of nature- the powers of darkness which have been named just that because no religion has taken these forces out of the darkness. Nor has science been able to apply technical terminology to this force. It is an untapped reservoir that few can make use of because they lack the ability to use a tool without having to first break down and label all parts which make it run. It is this incessant need to analyze which prohibits most people from taking advantage of this many faceted key to the unknown-which the Satanist chooses to call "Satan."

"It has been clearly established that the majority of all illnesses are of a psychoematic nature, and that psychoematic illnesses are a direct result of frustration. It has been said that "he good die young." The good by christian standards do die young. It is the frustration of our natural instincts which leads to the premature deterioration of our minds and bodies."
-page 83

What say you? This is pretty bold statement. Is it true scientifically? It makes sense to me.

"The simple fact of the matter is that the very thing which has led this type of person to a faith which preaches abstinence, is indulgence. Their compulsive masochism is the reason for choosing a religion which not only advocates self-denial, but praises them for it; and gives them a sacroanct avenue of expression for their masochistic needs. The more abuse they can stand, the holier they become.
Masochism to most people , represents a rejection of indulgence. Satanism points out many meanings behind the meanings, and considers masochism to be an indulgence if any attempt to sway or change the personfrom his masochistic traits is met with resentment and/or failure. The Satanist does not condem these people for giving vent to thier masochistic desires, but he does feel the utmost contempt towards those who cannot be honest enough (at least with theselves) to face and accet thier masochism as a natural part of thier personality makeup.
Having to use religion as an excuse for their masochism is bad enough, but these people actually have the effrontery to feel superior to those who are not bound-up in self-deceitful expression of their fetishes!"
-page 84

Wow what a mouthful. Thoughts? This kind of mind boggled me for a bit. I am still sorting through all the ideas in this book about introspection dealing with hidden guilt and masochism/sadism.

this part of the book I found interesting:

To the Satanist, martydom and non-personalized heroism is to be asociated not with integrity, but with stupidity. This, of course does not apply in situations which involve the safety of a loved one. But to give one's own life for something as impersonal as a political or religious issue is th eultimate masochism.
Life is the one great indulgence; death the one great abstenince.
-page 92

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 existance, suicide is frowned upon by the satanic religion.
Religious martyrs have taken thier own lives, not because life was intolerable for them, but to use thier supreme sacrifice as a tool to further the religious belief. We must assume then, that suicide, if done for the sake of the church, is condoned and even encouraged-even though thier scriptures label it a sin-because religious martyrs of the past have always been deified.
It is a rather curious that the only time suicide is considered sinful by other religions is when it comes as an indulgence.
-page 95

I found that very interesting. There was a thread a while back talking about, if you and your family were taken hostage or whatever, and given the choice to denounce your beliefs or die, which would you choose? So many people said they would die. And for what? The other, crazier people don't care. It would result in nothing but your children being raised by your captors and taught all their radical ideas without you being there to correct it secretly.

"Magic is never totally scientifically explainable, but science has always been, at one time or another, considered magic."
-page110

Really?! Is this correct?

Pretty interesting stuff. Antwon levey is an inteligent author. I dont agree completley with everything though. i think Satanism deals with self indulgance. they believe this life is all there is, so take in all you can while you can! I believe in self control.. Iv been driven by desires before, and practilly driven into the ground. I like your post though.. cheers!

Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law!"
-page 33 (7)
I wanted to note this because this ideal is what gave me that first impression I spoke of. The origin of Anton Laveys thoughts most definitely come from a place of anger. This book was inspired by anger and outrage. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I do think it might have something to do with Laveys original ideas becoming warped into these different sects of "psuedosatanism" though. A lot of people only hear what they want to hear and practice lots of pick-n-mixism in the wrong places. This would be the wrong place to pick, and I think that is what happens. People just focus on the violence. The other bad thing about this statement is that it has a blind sense of wrath to it. No ones personal sovereignty is perfect, so no one should deal out wrath rashly as this book encourages. Lavey I believe had more faith in people than what he realized, speaking from an assumption of unblemished personal sovereignty like this.

LaVey simply means that when you are confronted with an enemy who wrongs you and wishes to restrain your lifestyle it is appropriate to take action against this person. He isn't saying kill all who stand in your way. I think this idea could most easily be understood to mean "Don't take anyone's crap. Live your life how you want to."

"Satanism is the only religion known to man that accepts man as he is, and promotes the rationale of turning a bad thing into a good thing rather than bending over backwards to eliminate the bad thing."
-page 53

Do you agree? Does it really turn the bad things into good things? Or is that just another form of self delusion that Lavey tries so hard to avoid? I think it is accepting the bad things as being bad and natural that allows a person to progress, not necessarily trying to turn the bad into good. Maybe I am reading into it too much. I know he is speaking from the way christians view the bad and good...

Clarification?

It's important to recognize that LaVey is talking about specific things that Christians consider bad, which in reality are not so. He is speaking of indulging in physical pleasures: sex, alcohol, and drugs, which can not even be considered evil or harmful to others logically. He is not talking about stealing or killing without respect for human life.

"The simple fact of the matter is that the very thing which has led this type of person to a faith which preaches abstinence, is indulgence. Their compulsive masochism is the reason for choosing a religion which not only advocates self-denial, but praises them for it; and gives them a sacroanct avenue of expression for their masochistic needs. The more abuse they can stand, the holier they become.
Masochism to most people , represents a rejection of indulgence. Satanism points out many meanings behind the meanings, and considers masochism to be an indulgence if any attempt to sway or change the personfrom his masochistic traits is met with resentment and/or failure. The Satanist does not condem these people for giving vent to thier masochistic desires, but he does feel the utmost contempt towards those who cannot be honest enough (at least with theselves) to face and accet thier masochism as a natural part of thier personality makeup.
Having to use religion as an excuse for their masochism is bad enough, but these people actually have the effrontery to feel superior to those who are not bound-up in self-deceitful expression of their fetishes!"
-page 84

Wow what a mouthful. Thoughts? This kind of mind boggled me for a bit. I am still sorting through all the ideas in this book about introspection dealing with hidden guilt and masochism/sadism.

LaVey means that everybody has their own specific desires and wants. He considers Christianity to be an intense form of masochism, and he does not hold any hostilities towards people that are ACTUALLY Christian and do not expect anyone to share their beliefs of self-denial. He does hate the pretender, the person that does not receive pleasure from their abstinence yet expects people to deny themselves their natural desires.

"Magic is never totally scientifically explainable, but science has always been, at one time or another, considered magic."
-page110

Really?! Is this correct?

This is true. Astronomy developed from Astrology, and Chemistry from Alchemy. Ancient 'scientists' were simply dealing with things that their peers did not fully understand, much like the modern occultist deals with things that the majority of the world can not comprehend or believe.

This is essentially a modern grimoire, and it is humorous. If you were to remove the word "Satan" everywhere it appears in the text, it would not lose any of its merits but nearly all of its target market would disappear.

No form of magic prescribed in the book would ever become a scientific fact, not even among the pseudo-science of Psychology. The actual procedures for magic described in the book amount to sympathetic magic sandwiched between a la carte pagan invocations and Enochian mumbo-jumbo. If you were going to perform sympathetic magic anyway, as has been done for thousands of years in many cultures, why bother with all of that?

His conjurations (for sex, destruction, and compassion) appeal to the three types most easily drawn to Satanism: the lonely, the weak, and the miserable. Each of these are modified by 19 "keys" suited to different applications. It should be no surprise to find Sex, Power, and Money as the top occult aims of Satanists, but is this the extent of occult potential?

Indeed magic ought to serve a legitimate and practical personal interest, but I see no reason to limit this interest to his suggestions or to cast the entire pursuit of magic as diabolic. No sane person in the last thousand years has truly held the view that sex is inherently evil, that people are worthless slaves, or that there should be no punishment for the workers of havoc. The book tells you to drink in moderation, spare others annoyance, avoid causing harm to the innocent, defend yourself against hostility, and seek peaceful gratifications in creative pursuits. How in hell is this Satanic?

As "best friend" of the Church, perhaps two things are meant. The more obvious is that Satan is an integral part of orthodox religious teaching, and more subtly is meant that Satanism shares many of the goals of ordinary religions yet is permitted a wide berth. Who but your best friends can deliver well-deserved criticism and still help you out in a pinch?

Followers of this book, and others by the same author, are usually very eager to defend it as some sort of revolutionary concept. Yes, it's funny at times and brings up relevant points but IMO it fails at being "Satanic" while imposing that motif over what would otherwise be commendable. Must one profess Satanism to declare contempt for religious and social norms, or to practice magic without delusion and hypocrisy?

Examine the Church of Satan, and you will find that while they tend to stray from the norms of society (and not far!) they are every bit as prone to herd conformity, nonsense, compulsions, and other weaknesses of mind an body. I have personally heard their current "High Priest" yammer on ex cathedra about how Satanists are Atheists, yet this is explicitly denied in the Satanic Bible. If this book truly offered something of a superior character, why are its chief adherents apparently unable to "get it together" any better than AMORC and the other white-light fluff-bunny systems they so gleefully denigrate?

LaVey means that everybody has their own specific desires and wants. He considers Christianity to be an intense form of masochism, and he does not hold any hostilities towards people that are ACTUALLY Christian and do not expect anyone to share their beliefs of self-denial. He does hate the pretender, the person that does not receive pleasure from their abstinence yet expects people to deny themselves their natural desires.

It doesn't say that exactly. If you read it carefully it says that the Satanist does not hate the Christian who gives vent to their masochistic desires (practices christianity) but does hate the Christian who cannot come to terms with the fact that the urges the christian doctrines espouses to supress are part of man's personality make-up. In other words, someone who is a pretender and takes christianity far too seriously. In their opinion of course.

The very word "devil" comes from the indian "devi" which means "god."

Lavey is actually wrong here. The word Devil comes from the Greek word 'diabolos which means slanderer or accuser. So yeah, I can only surmise that perhaps Lavey was aware of this fact, but in order to promote his cause (Satanism) he decided to include garbage like that; portraying Satan as a God; when infact he is not. He is a mere fallen angel; nothing more and nothing less.

"Since mans natural instincts lead him to sin, all men are sinners; and all sinners go to hell. If everyone goes to hell, you will meet all your friends there. Heaven must be populated with some rather strange creatures..."
-page 47

Although the wages of sin is death the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23).
It is important to understand that God does not really want to send anyone to Hell as a result of their deeds on Earth in this lifetime of ours. This is exemplified by the following quote: 'The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.' 2 Peter 3:9

Having said this, he would not be hesitant to send someone to Hell when that person truly deserves to spend the rest of eternity in such a place. Otherwise, apart from being a place for the Demons and the Devil to roam and to exist, there would be no use of this place especially in regards to us, as Humans. We know this from the following quote:
' when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire wtih his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the prescence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.' 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

Also, here it clearly states that the Satanic Bible does not believe in a physical devil:
"Satan has certainly been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years. The [b]false doctrine of Hell and the Devil has allowed the Protestant and Catholic Churches to flourish for too long. Without the devil to point thier fingers at, religionists of the right hand path would have nothing with which to threaten thier followers."
-page 55[/b]

Notice the word false. Also the following quote also relays the book's opinions on the physical existance of the Devil:

"Most Satanists do not accept Satan as an anthropomorphic being with cloven hooves. a barbed tail, and horns. He merely represents a force of nature" page 83.

So I don't know what you mean Imperial Arts when you say that the concept of Satanists being atheists is denied in the Bible.