Talk:Sigil of Baphomet

Creation

This sigil was not created by LaVey, it was older. Here's a variant from a 1897 book. bogdan 21:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Who EVER claimed the original was created by LaVey? WillieBlues (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

and is trademarked by the Church

How can it be trademarked by anyone alive now, when it was already created (or at least, first recorded) in the 1890s for La Clef de la Magie Noire?

Nuttyskin (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not trademarked (as indeed it can't be). A combination of the mark and overlaid words "Church of Satan" is trademarked. -KiloByte (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The CoS version is a modified version of the La Clef de la Magie Noire original, hence they can claim copyright on their own version, while the original is in public domain. Although very subtle but they are two different designs. The CoS version has different line works, notably around the eyes, and different mouth, and a lack of mane hair. Their website has some explanation on this. Perhaps someone can add a note in the article to highlight the differences. 31.14.251.125 (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References

changed

I changed "God's love" to "divine authority" because Satanists would scoff at the notion that this symbol represented a rejection of love. They do not see the Christian God as a benevolent being offering love, but as an imaginary entity representing forces of Earthly repression. -- Jamiem 23 January 2006

'Vandalism'?

sorry, but the bible verses that were quotes as 'references' on this page to peter gilmore's commentary are not references, and they have nothing to do with satanism or the image of baphomet. we wouldn't go to a christian page and vandalize it by writing verses from our satanic books, so christians, don't do it on our [satanic] pages. all it is, is clutter and it has nothing to do with satanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Satanas (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I religious? I am a plain religionless person! The data I put was pertinent and well-referenced. Differently from what Venus Satanas claims, the information I included is consistent. It just analyzes what Gilmore said. Sane analysis is welcome to every researchable matter. What every person says is subject to analysis.--Algorithme (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote

the quote of the priest- why is it there? the priest has said stuff in that quote that are really just wrong; as a jew and hebrew speaking and reading person who has learnt the bible quite a lot, I say that. Quoting people with no official knowledge of the subject is bad for wikipedia. better to ask a rabbi if anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.228.126 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The page is about a symbol that a particular religion uses, which is also trademarked by that religion's organization. An official representative of that religion and organization is explaining what it means to them and why they use it. How is that NOT "official knowledge"? What part of this don't you get? If you think it's "better to ask a rabbi" about a symbol used by Satanists, then you might as well ask Satanists to give information on a page about Judaism. WillieBlues (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)