Talk:Theistic Satanism

This page is also a hodgepodge of references from everything *but* theistic satanism.

The article is written with huge blocks of text, and run on sentences. Try and break it up so that each paragraph has a focus instead of making it one huge paragraph of a variety of subjects.

This page is also a hodgepodge of references from everything *but* theistic satanism.

For instance, if the witch trials were the accusation and killing of innocent people, then what does that have to do with satanism? the charge of 'satanism' brought on those people were trumped up charges, and lies, that cost people their lives. The references to moral panics and killings of innocent people belong in a page called 'moral panic' "SRA" and "Witchcraft Trials".

The use of literary satanism to justify some kind of history for theistic satanism is ridiculous. Literary satanism are fictional stories that were written to sensationalize the public's curiosity in the morbid and profane, as defined by the Church. this has nothing to do with the history of satanism. Also, the knights Templar, masonic and other references have nothing to do with what theistic satanists identify with. That is, unless you count the christian conspiracy theories of the masons as fact.

Thesitic and spiritual satanism is a relatively new movement that had taken hold AFTER lavey created the church of Satan. No one even bothers to mention Aquino and the Temple of Set, which was a *theistic* continuation of atheistic satanism.

This page is not an academic reference. Its a jumble of mixed ideas purported by various individuals and organizations clamoring to get their ideas put into wikipedia.

Venus Satanas (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article suck balls hard. The grammar is headache enough, but it is unrepresentative, misleading, lacks context and worst of all reflects poorly on individuals who choose this path. It is worthwhile to remind oneself that a global community tends to thumbnail Satanism and articles such as this perpetuate associative ignorances society will foist upon Satanists. If an article like this can set itself with some focus and permeate some sort of encyclopedic tone then the more visible article representing Satanism might take some cues from the direction a relative topic like this can accomplish. I think a good chunk or core research stands inside the article as it is with maybe 50% being useable and verifiable, but it would be a shame if articles like this suffer one of two diseases: the parochial tainting of Satanism on Wikipedia or the scam tactic suffered by an article like Luciferianism which is essentially one paragraph about the past and the rest being a muster roll or sign-up sheet for modern Orders.Blackson (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)blackson

Huh?

I really don't think "and indeed some Theistic Satanists do practice spiritual warfare to accomplish Satan's will." should be in an encyclopedia... 118.2.126.96 (talk)

If it's true, or if its followers believe it to be true, it probably should, but it definately needs a cite 143.92.1.33 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Irrelevant and misdirected aspects of this article

"Anne Rice, while not a Satanist herself, equates Satan with Ahriman, the destructive spirit in Zoroastrianism,"

If Anne Rice is not a satanist and satanists do not use her opinion, then why is her belief about satan in this article. should we inquire other non satanists what their opinion of satan is as well?

How does anne rice's metaphorical theory fit in with the beliefs and culture of theistic satanism, considering the fact that she is not a satanist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Satanas (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fork

I will redirect this to Traditional satanism soon. Most info here reads like a vanity page (ej: references to Diane Vera, who was the creator of the article and who gets unreliable google matches [1]. The article itself states that it's refered to as Traditional satanism--– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

~Hi! I just got an account here yesterday, so that I can participate in these discussions. Where did you get the idea that I created this page? I didn't. (In the past, I've occasionally made a few minor revisions here -- usually just adding a sentence or two -- without yet joining the community, but that is all.) And what do you mean by saying that I have "unreliable Google matches"? Diane Vera 16:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

HS Diane, get used to the accusations, the editors do that alot. It's part of their tatics as you will see. Also note that someone not me adds the SoS url to the links and someone else not me takes it back out, you see some wiki editors just can't be non bias and wikki should bann them but they won't. ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected satanism to Traditional satanism, as this is the Original kind of satanism. Laveyan guys can use modern-satanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veltiis (talk • contribs)

The above redirect was never implemented. Copy-and-paste articles were created at Modern-satanism and Modern-Satanism which I have now changed to redirects. -- RHaworth 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

the usual garbage. the Satanism talk page continues to have in its archives the bases for the construction of all of these pages, but everyone's ignoring them in favour of religious infighting. making note of them again here.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Theistic/Religious/Traditional

Right now Religious and Traditional Satanism redirect to this article, Theistic Satanism. If one of these terms is more popular than the others please enlighten me. Google shows about 35,000 results for "Theistic Satanism", vs. less than 1000 for "Religious Satanism" and "Traditional Satanism". -- goatasaur 17:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Traditional satanism is a misleading term to redirect to Theistic satanism in the fact that no traditions of satanism in any organization have been found to have existed prior to Anton LaVey's organization.

(that is totally incorrect in the introduction to 2nd edition of the Satanic Bible it meantions that there where groups that worshipped Satan as an anthropormic deity)

And with our current difinition of religion, it is also misleading to say that theistic satanism is the exact same as religious satanism in that LaVey's system of satanism is reconized as a religion.

(theistic Satanism has rituals,beliefs and worships Satan as a literal being therefore it falls under the heading of Religious Satanism far more then Lavey's system which is more symbolic/philosophical Satanism)

therefore, until proper definitions of the terms "Traditional Satanism" and "Relgious Satanism" can be changed. their definitions must dictate the redirect to the disambiguation page. this is not to praise lavey or to tear down theistic satanism. The only matter of for debate is purely in the difinitions. If there are any oraganizations of satanism (with said name "Satanism") then traditional satanism may be redirected to theistic satanism. for the time being, however, I will not revert the redirectiong of traditional satanism in that the most popular, although purely unofficial, view of satanism is that their is worship of satan. Religious Satanism, however, can by definition ONLY refer to a religion with emphasis on satan, therefore it shouldn't redirect to theistic satanism (which worship an external diety) in that it doesn't include lavey's system (which worship internal deity, or self). the redirection for religious satanism will be reverted. Thank you.AlexanderLevian 18:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

~ I agree that the term "theistic" makes more sense than "traditional," given that none of today's Satanist groups have a provable continuous direct tradition dating back before the 1960's. However, I strongly disagree with the article's claim that theistic Satanism is "rare" compared to LaVeyan Satanism or to symbolic (non-theistic) Satanism in general. Reliable statistics are hard to come by. However, there are plenty of indications that theistic Satanists are not at all uncommon compared to symbolic Satanists. For example, if one simply visits a sampling of Internet forums devoted to Satanism, e.g. on Yahoo, one will quickly find that forums devoted to theistic Satanism are at least as numerous as forums devoted to symbolic Satanism. Diane Vera 05:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I really don't know why I let that slip by. That statement will be deleted due to lack of sources or maybe I'll demand 2 sources to be cited. One of the two is difenitly needed. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. AlexanderLevian 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that you guys might want to throw in this artical is the Fact that Aleister E. Crowley though disdaining the term Satanism, proclaimed "Hadit" to be Satan in his work Liber Samech. It's in his foot notes in "Magick in theory and practice". Also see his revision of the "Bornless ritual" which can be found in "Magick in theory and Pratcice" as well. Just trying to help as usual.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC) By the way this shows Anton and Aquino with their "Set" did not do their homework. Set is the noon day sun. I disagree with all three of them and Proclaim Bes as the real Egyptian Satan and have suport in this by the Rose Croix.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no 'traditional satanism'. There is, however, theistic satanism which is the recognition of Satan as a deity unlike atheistic satanism which is a symbolic representation of Satan. The title 'traditional satanism' was created by those who feel that the subversion ideologies of the christian church and mass media should dictate what satanism is. Satanism as a social movement did not exist until the 20th century. This hardly qualifies as 'traditional'. A traditional religion is generational. This article needs a complete re-write with real references, and some of the material on this page should be moved to the satanism_disambiguation page instead. The topics on this page are christian opinions on satanism. Venus Satanas (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(And yet you refer online to the individual who wrote "The Devil's Bible:Traditional Satanism in the Modern World",as beinga Traditional Satanist. {{subst:Unsigned|Bladerunner1811]]

a consensus amongst the mature and interested has yet to congeal. the talk page of Satanism has rudiments in its archives for citations, and after that we'll be talking about examples very likely. all of these categorical terms are hand-waving attempts to distract.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Side panel with LaVeyan and Church of Satan links?

~ Is there any reason why the Theistic Satanism page has a side panel with a whole big bunch of links pertaining to the Church of Satan? Seems to me that that side panel belongs on a page about LaVeyan Satanism, but not on a page about theistic Satanism. Although many of today's forms of theistic Satanism are influenced by LaVey to at least a small degree, most are not, by any means, based PRIMARILY on LaVey. Diane Vera 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The side panel itself should be improved on, in my opinion. It would make sense to include other organizations and things concerning other groups that fall under "Satanism." I mean, I don't disagree with how the articles are put together, but the side panel definitely could use some editing. Keep it "Satanism" on there, but list other groups and people. I"m not sure how to edit it so I won't mess with it. But maybe somebody should? WerewolfSatanist 20:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "Church of Satan" sidebar, it's a "Satanism" sidebar. The Church of Satan is a prominent Satanist organization. The sidebar should go on most pages regarding Satanism. -- goatasaur 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Goatasaur I think the objection was that it only had groups directly claiming to have sprung up from Anton LaVey's philosophy. Though I think the entire argument across the talk pages is getting a little adolescent. LaVey gave the term respectability and credibility and defined it. Yes there are new sects now, but they are essentially post LaVeyan. Also, Ms. Vera might you want to write about your group as well? I don't seem to see it on this page. WerewolfSatanist 02:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that since this is Theistic Satanism and nothing to do with LaVey the side bar should reflect non LaVey groups that fall under the definition of Theistic Satanism. As it is now the side bar looks like Spam for the Church of Satan.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

- Spam is exacly what this is! how can we report it to wikipedia ? Also, the 'curch of satan" page should not be the default page when looking for "satanism" as this is just a modern interpertation of satanism and not the traditional, origial theo-philosophy.

veltiis - 30-nov-2006 -

Joy of Satan

I have rewritten this with proper sources and an encyclopedic tone. If you can improve upon it do - but include reputable sources. Please do not blank, I put work into it. They are notable due to the contraversy surrounding them.

Hi again, thanks to whoever added to it. I have edited it to give it the tone of an encyclopedia, but I believe I've kept any info you addedMerkinsmum 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt who ever it is even reads here, but blanking is vandalism. Be considerate of my hard work:)Merkinsmum 03:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This was plastered on the top of the main article

• LaVey started the so-called "Church" of Satan but he has NO OWNERSHIP OR CREATORSHIP of Satanism. Furthermore, there's no such thing as "Satanic Atheists" (unless you're an Atheist in denial), anymore than there are "Christian Satanists" or "Christian Atheists". I think that whoever (probably an arrogant and ignorant LaVeyan) wrote the comment below should shut-up and spare themselves any further embarassment. Have fun talking to yourself from now on. Bye.

• No it is not discrimination being as the Church of Satan and Satanism was something put forth by LaVey and the Church of Satan they naturally have the Satanism page with their beliefs, your beliefs however are THEISTIC Satanism, thus granting a seperate page. Much in the same fashion that the many different WICCA religions have seperate pages. LaVey Satanists are Atheists, thank you, shut up.

- the·ism (thzm) Pronunciation Key n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.."

Keep to the talk page lads, don't post your gripe on the main article Ultre 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Satanism by Anton LaVey uses the word 'Satan' in its original Hebrew format - adversary. It does not refer to 'Satan' the deity. If you want to argue that, I suggest going on a message-board dedicated to it, but I'm afraid it's a fact and thus not up for discussion here.

-

Satanism did not exist except as a Christian falacy and something for fun before the 1950s, when real Theistic Satanism came into existence. Before the Church of Satan, yes, but they were just the same as the devil-worshipping cults of today. Most cults that don't use a copy-pasted Al Jiwah or Crowley's works readily admit that. Furthermore, I believe Satan is the 'adversary' in Persian, not Hebrew. Just the same, it makes sense either way. 12.96.46.209 09:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

-

Personally, I don't understand why things were changed from what they were awhile back. Not to long ago, there was an article on Satanism that outlined most forms of it{including Luciferianism, sometimes seen as not Satanism}, and which contaied relevant and important info and links to Wikipedia artciles on all the forms{including Laveyan and Modern/symbolic}. There were Wikipedia articles on Theistic Satanism, Church of Satan/Laveyan Satanism/modern Satanism{noit neccaserily one and the same; as many moderns/symbolics go beyond Lavey and the CoS Doctrines}, and on Luciferianism. As well there was a whole article explaining "dark doctrines, SAT/TAN Satanism" and now it's gone, I don't understand why? Frankly, the former articles were pretty well off, and fairly accurate. Now all of a sudden things are changed and at leats one type of Satanism{SAT/TAN, Dark Doctrines} is missing completely? What happenned? Second off, in response to the above comments about Laveyan Satanism and modern/symbolic Satanism not neccaserily beeing "atheistic" or "agnostic"m those comments are 100% correct. Whilst, the dark force named Satan in the Laveyan tradition is espouse din a way meant to discourage deity "worship" and encourage worship of the self, by and large; it is actually more Deistic or PandDeistic{just read the comments about it in Laveys own "Satanic Bible"}, so Laveyan Satanism and "modern/symbolic" Satanism is essentially non-theistic{allthough from what I've heard the CoS grotto masters hand book has Lavey speaking on Satan in fairly personal or theistic terms at least once; but that could be incorrect and hearsay, as I've never actually read the handbook}, and perhaps it is even "anti-theistic"{who knows}, but it's not nessacerily "atheistic", many are agnostics, and some are even deists{believe in first cause} in modern/sybolic and Laveyan Satanism. Lavey himself aknowledged the Deistic/PanenDeistic oriented oriented "dark doctrines" as espoused by the 'Satanic Reds' and it's founder Tani Jantsang, bestowing Jantsang with an honorary title for her explanations of the "Dark Force- hidden in nature". There's alot of misinformation about Laveyen/Modern Satanism, alot of it is done by the modern/Laveyans themselves in many cases-where the espouse it as purely atheistic or strong atheistic. If Lavey was a "Pure Athiest" and espousing a Purely Athiestic Satanism, he'd not have recognized the deistic oriented dark doctrines. But, meh, whatever I suppose.Bill Baker --Iconoclastithon 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to Say this to the Church of Satan Cronies,that Satanism predates LaVey and the Cos,read either a non-Gilmore worked over 1st or 2nd Edition of the Satanic Bible intorduction please,also The satanic group "Our Lady of Endor Coven,The Ophite Cultus Satanas" founded by the late Herbert Sloan in 1948 was a Theistic/Tradrional/Gnostic Satanic order". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladerunner1811 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir theres a diffrence between promoting and EDUCATING!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladerunner1811 (talk • contribs)

where was he trying to promote something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.102.20 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM still completely stands, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX still stands by pointing out that you were trying to use the talk page to convince a particular office of something. Also, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Satanism, especially in France

Some place in all this Wikipedian Satanism debacle, there needs to be a home that will include French (and other) Satanism of the last century (and earlier), such as the author Huysmans described in his book "La Bas". Lest someone says that "La Bas" was just a novel, it doesn't matter if it was or not, because there were hundreds of books and articles in the late 1800s/early 1900s describing and discussing Satanism, especially (or even mostly) in France. It was a huge business. There were the books by Leo Taxil claiming that the Masons were Satanist (Taxil hoax), and there were numerous pro and anti Satanist books written. This period of Satanism is discussed in many historical/scholarly works such as:

• Rhodes, H.T.F. (1954). The Satanic Mass.
• Zacharias, Gerhard (1964). Der dunkle Gott: Satanaskult und Schwarze Messe.
• Cavendish, Richard (1967). The Black Arts. (See especially, Chapter 7, "The Worship of the Devil", section 3, "The Black Mass")
• Zacharias, Gerhard (1980). The Dark God: Satan Worship and Black Masses. (Translated from the German by Christine Trollope)
• And don't forget all of Montague Summers' classic works.
• And to add the list, besides the list of books in German and English, there are, of course, about 100 books in French all from the same time, talking about exactly the same topic - Satanism with a capital "S".
• And the Dennis Wheatley Occult Library - these are all novels, but he wrote, for example, "To the Devil, a Daughter" (1953), and "The Satanist" (1960).

In other words, "Satanism" has been talked about, and been around, for a long time, and many articles in Wikipedia that link to Satanism, are expecting the reader to come across this true, historical version of Satanism, and not some new-Age alternate religious movement.

This branch of Satanism can in the main be described as "Theistic Satanism", as it was seen as relating to Roman Catholicism. However, it could also include French writers such as Baudelaire and Lautremont, and the Marquis de Sade, who didn't necessarily worship the Devil, although they too were rebelling specifically against Roman Catholicism.Jimhoward72 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm in full agreement with Jimhoward72Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Richard Cavendish, in the last few chapters of his book "The Black Arts", has a good historical outline of Satanism and Devil Worship (and it was published just prior to the appearance of the Church of Satan). I think someone (I or someone else) should cover some of the things he covers in this "Theistic Satanism" article. For example, mentioning Huysmans' La Bas, the Black Mass, the "Witches Sabbath", and some of the supposed Middle Age "Devil Worshippers", Pacts with the Devil, and so on. Another mention of the same Middle Age topics is discussed in Huysmans' "La Bas", who mentions people back in his time who were claimed to be "Devil Worshippers", rogue priests, and such. Jimhoward72 14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject: Left Hand Path

In order to create an organized effort, I've put on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page a proposed Left Hand Path project to try and sort out all the problems we go through and to help properyly cite and protect things. If you're interested just go to the Project Council/proposals page and add your name to the "Left Hand Path" section. Seeing as there's been a wide variety of edit wars, it might be good to get some organization (and possibly administration to mediate conflicts). Just an idea. WerewolfSatanist 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea and move. Organization is indeed needed in this section. (85.75.235.250 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

Citations needed

I noticed someone added citations needed after every group which seems to be a move to get rid of the groups if citations are not made. I added a citation for the Sinagogue of Satan. I hope I did it right. Just trying to get along not trying to fight. I hope I'm complying with policies and if not I'm sure you'll tell me.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good addition. I've fixed it up so it appears under the notes section. Tunnels of Set 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I add the other ones from my user page or is that one enough?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank youRev. Michael S. Margolin 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Since Anton LaVey and Blanche Batron and any CoS material have nothing to do with Theistic Satanism I propose they be removed from the article.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC) OK before I remove All Church of Satan related material from the Theistic article found in the references section does anyone object to this move and why?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC) One more thing, Because this material was on the Theisitc Satanism article it shows that some one has been using wikipedia to advertise for the Church of Satan. Thus your free editing (Which I support) has been exploited. Furthermore the guilty parties are hard at work trying to continue that exploitation in the Satanism article. Please see the discussion page for SatanismRev. Michael S. Margolin 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Distinguish from LaVeyan Satanism

There should be some distinction made in this article between its topic and LaVeyan Satanism, which is so often presumed to be synonymous with this. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There already is a whole other LaVeyan Satanism article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.231.135 (talk • contribs)

This article should indicate that it is distinct. Separate articles don't establish distinction. One could easily be misconstrued a superset of the other. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to edit the article to correct it according to your critiques?67.170.214.183 02:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Keith I said edit not advertise the Church of Satan in a topic it does not belong in. As you see I pointed out that theistic Satanism is not Atheistic this should be more than enough to show a distinction from LaVey without exploiting wikipedia to advertise them. I could not help but notice you said "other forms of Satanism" but only brought up LaVey and no others.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument has no basis here. To illustrate the distinction between "theistic satanism" and other known forms of satanism i.e. philosophical satanism, I used the most prominent form as an example. That's valid. You seem to be hell-bent (uh, heh) against any mention of LaVeyan Satanism in this article under the undefended argument that "it doesn't belong". Well, it does, inasmuch as it is distinguishable and yet confusable with what is described here.

Your edits since mine have in effect entirely removed the distinction I was specifically invited to make. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, if "theistic satanism" is, as the name suggests, a belief/worship in a deity named Satan, but Sinagogue of Satan "encourages its followers to believe in whatever they choose, as long as they do not attempt to push their beliefs on others. The aim of this religion is the ultimate destruction of religions", i.e. it likewise does not believe in a deity named Satan... how does it "belong" here any more than LaVeyan Satanism? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, ultimate destruction of religion hmmmm....now wouldn't Satan just love that >:) And if you read the SoS Manifesto completely you'd know it's allot more than just what you chose to use in your arguement. You could have quoted the top paragraph and saved yourself from having to make the following topic questioning why Freemasons. “The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black God, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. For the Initiates, this is not a person, but a force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or free will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God Pan; thence the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the light bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.” Molars and Dogma Albert Pike 1871Rev. Michael S. Margolin 02:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article's treatment of the Sinagogue does not indicate that that church believes in Satan as a deity, in fact it suggests the opposite -- that followers are encouraged to believe whatever they want and there is no pushing of belief. Nor does the quoted (below) passage of the Scottish Masonic book, which explicitly states that "Satan" is a personification (not an actual being). Therefore, the Sinagogue fails the definition of theistic satanism, which is belief in Satan as a deity. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You are forgetting that a religion that contains all religions also contains Theistic Satanism. Anyone that reads your last reply can see where your trying to go with this. Not only is the Sinagogue of Satan a Satanic religion but it also includes all of its forms. Hell I even have CoS members. As far as your comment on Pike's / Eliphas Levi's paragraph you did not address Idolatry such as the Baphomet which almost all types of Satanists including Theistic Satanists use, thus there in an idol you have your deity.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, Unitarian Universalism would be theistic, but it's not. So, SoS is both theistic and non-theistic? As you quoted, Satan is the personification of atheism (according to the Scottish Masonic tome). So, if SoS believes in Satan as defined in the Scottish tome, then it believes in atheism. Yet because some followers may believe in a Satan deity, the whole religion is theistic? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have two questions. 1. Why are you not addressing the Idol as a deity? 2. Why are you focused on Sinagogue of Satan? From where you are going with this, the other groups listed can, if you get away with getting rid of SoS, be disposed of next. Before you start another wiki war, show me how the other groups listed should be in Theistic Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Masonic book as reference?

How is the Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry a source for theistic Satanism? Furthermore, that tome is over 800 pages long. Can a more specific reference be made? Also, the word "satanism" does not appear in that work. I'm very confused. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

“The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black God, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. For the Initiates, this is not a person, but a force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or free will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God Pan; thence the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the light bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.” 5th Paragraph on page 102 1956 edition Morals and Dogma Albert Pike. I do hope that helps to clear up your confusionRev. Michael S. Margolin 02:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey you want the part where Satan created Adam not god? And save the Taxil scandal move because I have Clausen's Commentaries on Morals and Dogma and will blow that attept out of the water. Also to be fair Pikes paragraph is almost a direct quote from EliPhas Levi you know the guy that inked the Baphomet. And no Pike didn't give Levi credit but LaVey didn't give Ragnar Redbeard ("Might is Right" published 1910) any credit for the Santaic bible and it makes up 70% of it and not only did LaVey take whole paragraphs but he took whole chapters as well. Let alone butchering the Enochian Keys ( John Dee, Sir Edward Kelly and later Aleister Edward Crowley) by inserting horror movie demon names insted of the orginal for popularity reasons alone. Magick is a system not a popularity contest performed by 3rd rate stage magicians.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

.................................................................. Montague Summers in 1946 from his book Witchcraft & Black Magic, pages 274-275;

Today some of the London covens of Satanists are composed of as many as thirty or more members, men and women; some circles, again, are quite small and consist of half a dozen or ten initiates. The Oxford covens are, I believe, all limited in numbers, and rarely admit more than twelve. Here, on account of conditions of the case, the personnel is continually changing, and the older members before they leave introduce newcomers.

Cotton Mather speaks of Officers among the witches. These were in the first place the local Chiefs or Masters of a Coven and their subordinates, above whom ranked the Grand Master of a district, the ‘head Actor at their hellish Randezvouzes’.

This’ Head Actor’, or President of the Sabbat, was often times called the Devil’ by the witches, whilst his satellites and assistants were termed ‘Devils’, some confusion has arisen, and human beings have not been discriminated from malign entities who materialized at these meetings.

Burns Begg (Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, New Series, Edinburgh, Vol. X) remarks that the witches on occasion ‘seem to have been undoubtedly the sonated Satan’. I rather think that the man who personated Satan at these gatherings was not so much an unscrupulous and designing knave as himself a devil-worshipper, who was devoted body and soul to the cult of demon, and who believing intensely in the force and reality of his own horrible powers, presented himself for the adoration of the witches as the vicegerent of his and there master, and, in the name of the fiend he served, exacted their humblest obedience and exercised a lordship which was as absolute as it was unquestioned. On the other hand, very often it was indeed some demon, of hell, some evil spirit in seemingly corporeal substance and in monstrous shape, who sat upon the throne, there to receive the homage of the children of darkness.

The sabbats of the Neuchatelois sorcerers were not in-, frequently presided over and directed by the Grand Master of the district, but a profound scholar, l’abbe Jeanneret, Maintains that it is impossible for the unprejudiced historian, in the face of overwhelming evidence, not to believe that upon occasion a fiend was visibly and indeed present at these assemblies. ...............................................................

I didn't ask anyone to proselytize. I asked for someone to back up and clarify the source for the content, with the hope that maybe they'd improve the citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KeithTyler (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I did not proselytize, I answered your questionsRev. Michael S. Margolin 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Satan

I altered the origin part of the article to say "some theistic satanists believe.." Unaltered, the statement does not even align with the main wikipedia article about "Satan." Without some sort of historical reference, the unaltered statement is no more than religious propaganda. - Platypirfun

Liber of the Goat

I am not the person that put that in the article, I'm the person reverting your edit. There are other posts with the same publisher and you did not edit them out, only mine, which was not put there by me. Explain your actions please.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your book is self published and not a reliable source or appropriate for inclusion. You are trying to keep a book that you wrote and published with a vanity press as a ref on the article. See the problem? I'd refer you gain to our policies on this matter: WP:SPS and WP:COI. NeoFreak 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with your statement. I'm the author but I'm not the person that had it published. Therefore once again you made an action without knowing the facts. That book was published by Marvin Sotello. Do I really need to call a mediation on you?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, this is silly. You wrote a book and paid to have it published. It's sold on lulu.com a site for authors to sell books they have published themselves. You can't even get it on amazon. Either you are playing at semantics or you're just not reading the policy guildline on this issue. Please, if you read the linked policy I'm sure you will understand why this book is not a WP:reliable source. NeoFreak 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a book but did not pay to have it published, nor did I publish it. I wonder if this kind of jumping to conclusions with no regard to checking out the facts is what got Pat Tillman shot eh Marine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Haha, cheeky. Tillman was an Army Ranger and not a Marine but your venom is noted desipte your ignorance. Maybe you could clear up the publication process for this stupid jarhead. NeoFreak 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an easy question but before I answer I never said he was a Marine did I, but as you can see I did read up on you. As for me having nothing to do with the Publication, it is as I said I didn't publish it Marvin Sotello did. I don't get any money from any of the things my members and non members do with my poetry, writings, religion, political campiagn, art, hell you name it as they will. I'm like that guy that made Linux, others profit and do with as they will and I just create. Notice we don't even charge for membership? Also for the record you don't need to be a member to be part of SoS. That is an extrememly false statement you made. Yes we do have a members section but you don't have to be a member to get your own free email account or use the chat room or general message board and the manifesto is available to the general public. One of our current projects is a rights card for all countries and if you'd look into it there is even one for non members/non Satanists. Your actions and comments leave me to believe you have some major misconceptions about me and my religion. Perhaps these links will help. http://www.leagueofsatanists.com/revmikeinterview.html This one is an example of what my members do on their own including publishing my works if they will. http://www.horns-up.com/Sinagogue_of_Freedom.html I hope this helps and I hope I answered for the 3rd time how I had nothing to do nor have anthing to do with the publishing of the book of the goat. One last point, I did not enter me or Sinagogue of Satan in wikkipedia, I'm the one that stayed and protected it and Satanism. Before the article said LaVey created Satanism, I'm the stuborn asshole that had that corrected.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Using Pike as a source

I have removed a reference to Pike's "Morals and Dogma" ... Pike really is not an expert source on Theistic Satanism (M&D is more a treatis on comparative religious symbology as it relates to Pike's masonic ritual)... the section being refered to is a discussion of what Kabalists believe, not Theistic Satanists. It has been pointed out to me that Pike was paraphrasing Levi... so why not use that instead? Blueboar 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I got it from Morals and Dogma before I found it in Levi's works also Clausen did not have an issue with it, nor is it part of the Taxil scandal. It is also what I based Sinagogue of Satan on, again before I found it in Levi's history of Magic.158.184.149.13 18:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were referring to Taxil or any of that... The point is that Pike was being misused here. Pike is a very tricky source to use... for one thing, his was an amature and not an expert on comparative religions... (a very verbose amature, but an amature never the less). Secondly to get what he is talking about, you have to read more than just a few paragraphs... you really have to read several pages on either side of any quotation. In this case, the reference is part of a larger discussion on the subject of the concept of "Light" in various religions and philosophical movements. The paragraph you refer to is a passing remark about how Kabalists (not Theistic Satanists) view Satan ... and specifically how they view Satan in the context of Light vs Darkness. In short the reference is out of context and misapplied. I don't know Levi well enough to say if he is a reliable source... but assuming he is, then I would use him. Blueboar 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well argued point as far as Theistic Satanism but since Pike's paragraph is at the top of the Sinagogue of Satan manifesto would it's mention be appropriate for the Sinagogue of Satan paragraph? I agree with you finally over the Theistic as you can see. As far as Levi he is pretty much the Father of Satanism, besides the Catholic Church. He is also the person that drew the famous Baphomet picture and the Church of Satan's Baphomet. I could see adding Levi to Theistic Satanism but keeping Pike in the Sinagogue of Satan paragraph. Gladly awaiting your feed back.66.230.200.146 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... let's look at the paragraph in question (as it was before my edit) and see if we can work something out... it said:

• The Sinagogue of Satan is an organization of "Occult Satanism" an all one religion founded by Michael S. Margolin on January 29, 1999, a religion based on the Ancient and Accepted Rite of Free Masonry's definition of Satanism as described in Albert Pike's work Morals and Dogma. This religion is not based on those of the popular Satanists of today, but is instead based on the works of Aleister Crowley.

Now, the first thing that struck me is that there seems to be a contradiction here... is the Sinagogue of Satan based upon Pike or is it based on Crowley? There is a huge difference.

The second thing is the wording: "...based on the Ancient and Accepted Rite of Freemasonry's definition of Satanism as described in Albert Pike's work Morals and Dogma" ... there are several errors in this: 1) The name of the rite is incorrect... I think you may mean "Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry". 2) if so... The Scottish Rite has no definition of Satanism. Nor can any such definition be discribed in Morals and Dogma. Morals and Dogma is not a definitive work for the Scottish Rite... it is purely Pike's own thinking. 3) Pike is not giving a definition of Satanism in the section of Morals and Dogma that you refer to.

That said, I think what may be accurate is that that the Synagogue of Satan is "a religion based upon Margolin's interpretation of a passage in Albert Pike's work Morals and Dogma, and is influenced more by the works of Aleister Crowley than popular Satanists of today." (Although you would need a relaible source to back up both halves on this statement.) Blueboar 13:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job I have to admit you are right. I'd be very happy if you were to make that correction as you stated. As for source I Rev. Michael S. Margolin state that blueboar could not have gotten a better source.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I will make the suggested change, but with a citation request added... unfortunately a comment made on a Wikipedia talk page is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. While I do not doubt that you are who you say you are... I have no reliable verification for that (anyone could register with the user name "Rev. Michael S. Margolin")... which means we can not verify that your statements are from the Michael Margolin mentioned in the article. What we need is a similar comment made in a reliable source such as a published book or an organizational web page or something. Blueboar 19:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Blueboar I do have a couple interviews lined up and so I can see if I can get it that way for you. I'll also re read the section on SoS in "Think you're the only one" and see if it touched upon your wording, off hand I don't think so. I will see what I can do, there are many ways to achieve this. Thank you for being patient and hospitible.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure... I have no problems with discussing SofS, nor saying that you were inspired by Pike... or some other similar wording that accurately reflects the development of your religious philosophy. As long as such statements are attributable to you, and not to Pike. As for sources.... if you can come up with some interviews and such that would be great. I have no problem with including SofS in this article (it definitely seems to be relevant)... but we do need to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and Policies while doing so. If I can help to improve the article, just let me know. Blueboar 02:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.leagueofsatanists.com/revmikeinterview.html This interview was done last year and The league asked about Freemasonry, I hope my answer works for the citation.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Setianism

the txt here states that Pharoah expelled the Hebrews from Egypt. However, I can find no source to back up this claim. In fact, the only significant writings of the time that even place the Hebrews in Egypt are the Hebrew writings, which state that not only did Pharoah not expell them, he did everything he could to not let them go...64.122.70.121 21:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

anyone think of some WP:RS we can use/ my edits

I don't really know how we can improve this article, as in get it WP:RS, because so little has been written by modern Theistic Satanists which has been published by well-known publishing houses. I need to read Mastering Witchcraft by Paul Huson as I think that might contain some info about it.

Certainly this was a bit wrong:-

"All these faiths hold in common, however, with each other and with Philosophical Satanists, that man, and specifically the self are the highest priorities"

The self may be important to some Theist Satanists, but the word "Theistic" means the core concept is the worship of Satan. IMHO. And to many theistic Satanists, they try and make Satan one of the highest priorities in their lives. Merkin's mum 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to work on this in my user sace, so it doesn't seem like I'm flooding the article with my changes. If you look at my edits though, although I've done a tiny bit at a time they're pretty minor, usually clarifying, trying to clean up WP:OR and adding refs. Sorry if my activity seems more intense than it is. Eventually I'll clean this article up a fair bit though, by adding sources. It's tiring for me to work on, because it's quite long. Merkin's mum 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

sources

[2] [3] yes! good one. Shame it's self published. This is a proper book [4] a secondary source discussing T.S. a bit. [5] more lulu fare. [6] shows Christians vaguely using the term. [7] more Lulu. Still a couple of these are slightly useful. [8] more fundies or someone using it. [9] perhaps a few more. These are what we should be using- ideally not relying much on the lulu ones.:) Merkin's mum 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Does a refrence have to be in book or web form? I understand the problem with using LuLu, "Book of the Goat" was published in my collected works CD by Theophoney Records. Would that be a better refrence for it Merkinsmum?Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any reference online to "theophoney" as a refering to a record company or anything, is that how it's spelt? It that your own, or a friend's, name for their productions? LuLu is ok I suppose for conveying people's own ideas about their religion, and can be used as a reference for their own ideas. It sort of has a stigma though but at least it means people can access the texts concerned to verify that it says what it says. So it's upto you really which one you'd rather use.:) Merkin's mum 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's here, http://www.theophanyrecords.com/madpoet/ and they are a Christian record company that used me as what they called their token Satanists to show they support all religions. But I see most likely "Knife" used the Morning Star Publication from the 80's which I totally forgot about. Damn old age. Anyway thank you for all your help and if you need anything from me just ask.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes I found "theophany records" after I'd said all that lol. Yes, I'm not an expert on these things but use whichever seems best to you. Merkin's mum 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes/improvements

As you can see, I've done quite a bit per WP:BOLD. One of the main changes is I removed a bit that added nothing specifically about Theistic Satanism, or Satanism, it just went on about differences in the concept of Satan between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which is covered in the article on Satan. Plus I added a lot of stuff, including lots of references. Hope you all like most of it- feel free to edit it of course.:) Sticky Parkin 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (P.S. That was me, Merky, I've just changed my username.:) ) Sticky Parkin 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To bad we can't drop the "Theistic" and call this artical "Satanism" but hey Great Job sticky!Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

page being wierd

I couldn't save my changes this afternoon and bits of the article kept disappearing. hopefully be ok in a bit? Sticky Parkin 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tidy up in prep for GA nomination

Hi, just a note to say I'm working through the article to do some relatively cosmetic tidy up and tagging in view of the prospect of this article going for GA nomination/status. The article appears to be reasonable well sourced - so far so good! I've run out of time to continue right now, but I'll work some more over the next day or two. Coldmachine^Talk 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not really tied up in this. The article isn't anywhere near GA status, it clearly fails the 2nd and 4th criteria. Most of the "sources" are from fiction, personal websites, vanity publishers or books that only deal with the subject in a peripheral manner. The article was created because some self-identified Satanist editors don't like to be associated with Anton LaVey's modern Church of Satan (and I can't blame them). There is no historical record or academic or scholarly study or recognition of "Theistic Satanism" as a unique or specific sub-sect of Satanism as an umbrella term which is why the attempt at sourcing relies on personal websites and the synthesis of material from those unreliable sources into an article.

Your best bet would be a reincorporation of the good material here (of which there is A LOT) back into the original Satanism article. From there you can draw clear divergences between different interpretation and manifestation of "Satanism" with tighter and more verifiable material. I've been inactive from wikipedia for some time but this is a project that has been gnawing at me and I would like to help. NeoFreak (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all I'm unconnected with the article or its subject matter; I was asked to come and take a look to see if I could make improvements to raise the quality of the article since several editors had apparently expressed an interest in raising the level to GA. I'm tagging the article as I've been requested to do as an outside neutral party and while I looked in I noticed some grammar needed fixing and the like: these are all relatively minor fixes but will help point people in the right direction I'd imagine. Second of all, without taking a look at your contribution history I would wager from the tone of your reply here that you have some personal involvement on this matter. If you feel the article is problematic or lacking in WP:RS then why don't you assist the rest of us by improving it? Coldmachine^Talk 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On the sources: I'm seeing in the reference list works which have been published by notable companies including the OUP, Barnes and Noble, Routledge, and so on and so forth. I'll examine the reliability of sources at a later date, but at a cursory glance there's several which appear to be fine. Perhaps you could list those which you feel are not reliable? Coldmachine^Talk 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just re-read this to make certain I understand the application of sources here. It's absolutely fine to cite sources from 'fringe' groups or organisations which refer to their own beliefs and subject matter and "if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject". Hope that helps. Coldmachine^Talk 22:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually assuming that you'd been asked to take a look and had no prior involvment. I don't really have a "personal involvement", I don't practice or prescribe to any of the "faith groups" in this or any other Satanist article and I don't have that extensive of an editing history either. The extent of my involvement was an interest in writing a deserving Satanist article whe I found it in horrible shape about a year ago and keeping some rubbish out of the old versions.

On the sources I'm not saying that they'll all bad but that alot a significant amount are either unreliable or prone to synthesis, the later being a particular concern. To be honest the whole article is a POV Fork but it has alot of good material. The RS criteria has been reworded since I've been gone so I'll have to read it again before I get into semantics. If you're wanting to wikiGnome the article to just help clean it up then fine but it's not close to meeting GA criteria with just a facelift. I'll get back to you soon with some particulars on the sources if you disagree in general with my position on WP:V, WP:SYN and WP:CFORK. Thanks for taking the time to sink some work into the article. NeoFreak (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick addition after reviewing the clause of RS you linked. It seems to be the same thing as the old policy on primary sources with some additional clarity and window dressing. As it was before I left and as it is now per RS such sources: should not be contentious, involve claims made about third parties and Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. Also when using primary sources it can only be about the actual source, in this instance mainly internet groups or small community Satanic Churches/organizations. This is supposed to be an article about a religious movement, not a specific group with no editorial oversight. NeoFreak (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think the article as it stands is a POV fork? There are people who call themselves Theistic Satanist, as opposed to LaVeyan Satanist, and this is what they believe. That's not a POV- they exist and have been mentioned in WP:RS. I suppose more could be added about the LaVeyan view of Theistic Satanism? Any sources are for the views of the groups themselves, and I don't think any source has been used that describes itself as "fiction"- unless you mean Huysman's La Bas, in which case, the dubiousness of his claims is mentioned and discussed in the article. I like to think that this article's improved a little over the last month. I'm not sure what you mean about "This is supposed to be an article about a religious movement, not a specific group with no editorial oversight" as the article discusses a range of groups, not any specific one, and includes criticisms others have made of them. Websites are needed to show the various groups' own views and practices, which is an acceptable use as Coldmachine says. So- what would you like to see in this aticle to address your concerns? Is it worded wrongly in some way? Would you like more of LaVeyan's/other satanist's opinions of Theistic Satanists? It already includes one source that says Theistic Satanists may be psychotic.:) Sticky Parkin 11:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no I'm not saying that this is a biased article, I'm sorry to have given that impression. What I really should have said is this is a Content Fork. I think that simply sighting the "nutshell" on the fork guideline is clear enough: "Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.".

Part of what I was describing was Huysmans work. I have no problem with Huysmans as a literary figure (I'm actually a Huysmans fanatic) but I don't think he's acceptable as a source on Theistic Satanism.

The other issue I had was with the primary sources used here. Lets for example use the section Values in Theistic Satanism in particular the claims about some Satanists beliefs on the lineage of "Yahweh" and "Satan" (refs 42 thru 45). By using a particular church which by all measures seems to be primarily Internet based and has no credential or editorial oversight you create the need to both Synthesize that information to build this article and use weasel words because they cannot claim to represent an idea such as Theistic Satanism (TS). If we were building an article on the "Cult of the Ram" (the source of those refs) then we could in fact use those as primary sources because those statements would both be reflective of the article's subject as a whole and satisfy the needs of reliable sources as that source was only being used to describe itself, as is required. I hope that clears that up some.

As to "what I'd like to see" I'd like the good and properly sourced material here be reincorporated back into the Satanism article. TS is not a recognized movement apart from Satanism in general by academic or scholarly sources. Of course in occult writings of varying veracity you can find a mind boggling sub-classification of many concepts but this is not a noted one by theologians, historians or sociologists. The concept of "Theistic Satanism" is in direct response to the perceived "hijacking" of the term "Satanist" by LaVey and atheists of varying colors. The proper formatting, in my opinion, is the reincorporation of this info back into the parent Satanism article with a brief history, mention of the modern LaVeyian movement and a sub article for the CoS as an organization. NeoFreak (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(I hope you'll forgive this long reply etc.) Do any of the mentions of specific groups and ideas claim that all T.S.'s believe them? If so please change them or I'll change them, as I didn't intentionally write that. People have said about the use of 'some believe' and said it should specify who believes it. The thing is I do think more T.S.'s believe certain of the ideas than for instance the CoBG. I have thought that it could specify who each time instead though, as I know 'some believe' it should :):) I'm flexible about that. As to the values, I think some of them are held in common by many T.Ses- the importance of self-development etc. But that can be changed too if you like and it specify who claims to believe each bit, it incorporated into 'diversity of views' or sections reorganized in some way. As to Huysman, the article specifically says he may not have visited a mass- issues like this are why that sections called "historical inspiration for" rather than "history of" as it once said- because we know too little to be able to claim it's history without qualifying that. I'm sorry if the heading doesn't make that clear- Isuppose it doesn't, actually. That can be changed.:) Sticky Parkin 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The title etc.

This is mainly in reply to NeoFreak but for general discussion and to stop my reply looking so huge lol. If you look for instance in fundamentalist christian writings their 'satanism' is not that meant by the Church of Satan, (which already has it's own article, by the way, so one of your ideas is already partly sorted :) )Yes as you can see above in the comments by Margolin, T.S.' would love to be able to just call this article 'Satanism'. They consider Satanism to be the worship of Satan . Yes you are right that they see what's happened (mainly unintentionally, perhaps, at least by LaVey) as hijacking of the term. The thing is for a while the article 'Satanism' was solely about LaVeyan Satanism and they were trying to propound that they were the first organized "Satanism" (sort of right in a way, in so much as according to LaVey's definition of the word) and pretty much (arguably, according to Margolin, Diane Vera etc) using it just to discuss their religion. It's really unfortunate sharing of the same term, over which massive arguments took place.:) And so it was decided (before I got involved to an real extent) that there would be separate articles for Theistic Satanism and LaVeyan Satanism, as the two 'religions' couldn't work together. Of course the terms aren't often used independently of each other, but it was a way of labelling it (which also happens in some academic articles and books, to help them distinguish what they mean by the word "Satanism" if their using it in a separate way.) "Satanism" might as well be just a disambig page. If you prfer, they could be called Satanism (theistic) and Satanism (LaVeyan) as is the convention for many wiki pages where the article names are really a disambiguation in themselves for the reader. For instance, we have Coven (band)- the article isn't called "musical coven" or something.:). As to the CoS/LaVey there are also a number of articles about particular beliefs of theirs/ideas of LaVey, I think. At least, there's one for Sigil of Baphomet, for instance.LaVeyan beliefs/LaVey's work is covered in several articles on wiki- and perhaps rightly so as quite a number of people believe them. Sticky Parkin 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and just to say I have no objection personally to the articles being merged, as long as they're dealt with fairly- on the other hand, having separate articles has stopped some of the constant edit wars and one group claiming the other don't exist or something. I just got into editing the T.S. article because I happened to go on it, see that it wasn't very good, and start trying to improve it. This was easier for me than trying to edit the LaVeyan articles as the ideas are more intriguing to me so I enjoy looking for sources etc and like to think I've improved the article a bit. But I might have a go at writing a reasonable "Satanism" article, in my userspace. Though I don't want to 'burn out" when it comes to these articles lol.:) Sticky Parkin 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be game at writing a new Satanism article on one of our user spaces but be warned, it might be a long, frustrating process. We'd have to bring alot of people in on it to avoid an edit war when we incorporate it but I think it could be worth it.NeoFreak (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually support keeping the articles separate. I think what User:Sticky Parkin has said about edit warring over at Satanism is an all too real possibility. This isn't a POV fork, in the same way that (forgive my utter lack of knowledge on the subject but it's an analogy) Roman catholic church and Protestantism aren't. Coldmachine^Talk 08:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks for that, it's a great analogy.:) User:The Haunted Angel has said we shouldn't merge them as they're two different things/religions. He was also concerned about the length but as you can see from the scruffy prototype when I shoved them both in together with LaVeyan Satanism to see what happened, (ignore the titles and where I haven't yet changed that it says 'theisic' Satanism most of the way through, and there's still a bit to be summarised and added from LaVeyan Satanism.), it's not overly long for a wiki article, though too long for my attention sp... Sticky Parkin 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with merging is from the CoS side. Yes I will admit that Anton created his Satanism but a different form existed long before his creation. As some of you know at the top of the SoS manifesto is a quote from Albert Pike, what most of you don't know is he took that paragraph word for word from Eliphas Levi the guy that drew the Baphomet we are all familiar with and CoS uses. Note 1871 is far older than 1966. Here is the paragraph; “The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black God, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. For the Initiates, this is not a person, but a force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or free will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God Pan; thence the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the light bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.” Albert Pike “Morals and Dogma“ Ancient and Accepted Rite of Free Masonry written and published in 1871. NOTE this statement "For the Initiates, this is not a person, but a force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. "Initiates" gee hmm I wonder what Levi and Pike ment by "Initiates" you don't think they were talking about people that became Satanists back in 1871 do you? Nawww can't be, Satanism did not exist until Anton created it in 1966. I think coldmachines anology is right on the money almost, Anton's and Theistic are like Catholic and Gnostic both were early forms of Christianity and share the same deity but are two distinctly different forms of Christianity.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would argue as to whether that is 'really' Theistic Satanism but we would have to make our own forum to discuss the subject.:) However certainly stuff such as the Poison Affair seems to mention real Satanists- how much of it was a smear campaign or some sort of scam or political posturing we can't really know, but I like to think not all of it.:) Sticky Parkin 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not post that information for Theistic Satanism, I posted it to show that an organized form of Satanism existed before LaVey and continues to the present day. When Pike and Alphonse Louis Constant, AKA Eliphas Levi wrote that paragraph they both stated "Initiates". Initiates brought into a movement that uses the Kabalistic definition to describe Satan. In the paragraph it even describes it's usage, "for good or evil". To me that paragraph makes it very clear that an organized form of Satanism existed before 1966 and continues to this day. Many Christian groups including C.H.I.C. publications use this information to accuse Freemasonry of Satanism after 32nd degree. Yes I agree that propaganda is not fact but the fact remains that the paragraph itself is not Christian propaganda and came from one of the worlds most renown Occultists and then latter used by one of Freemasonry's most renown Grand Masters. Thus establishing the fact that from the paragraph a form of Satanism existed before LaVey's and continues to this day, weather in secret or open to the general public does not matter, it existed and according to many Christian and some occult publications continues to exist to this day. This and my original post were made in an effort to show other forms of Satanism existed if the two articles "Theistic and LeVey" are to be merged.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Tani Jatsang's angelfire site

This is just to say that I personally have no problem referencing this angelfire site. Per Wikipedia:V#SELF we can do so if the person concerned is an authority on the subject. She has been mentioned in a proper book so I think that means she qualifies as an authority to an extent, at least in as much as she should be allowed to clarify a statement that's been made about her. Sticky Parkin 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean, using her site as an inline reference for her beliefs, not adding it as an external link. Sticky Parkin 13:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the proper book be a safer bet though? I don't know...I'm not sure that WP:SPS really is as flexible as you suggest for something like this. I think third party sources are better for this. Coldmachine^Talk 14:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We already have the proper book ref in and it's staying, but as with a couple of the proper books, what it claims are a group's/her views is a bit wrong, hence she's annoyed:) I think she should be allowed to briefly 'answer' it in the article, like how I've altered it if she's ok with that, if it's talking about her and possibly wrong.Sticky Parkin 16:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose Adding New Section Scholarly Approaches to Understanding Satanism, and Possible Solution to Article "Branch" Issue

I think one outstanding reason the article "branched" to LaVeyan Satanism and Theistic Satanism, is that these two "approaches" to understanding Satanism (due to the active proponents of both views) were kind of pitted against each other. So, believe it or not, (since I have actually recently been pulling out my old Zacharias book The Satanic Cult and actually been reading through it), I think this "branching" would be minimized if we would list these two views along with some other modern, scholarly views on Satanism. In other words, list the modern approaches to understanding what Satanism really is. We can include (1) LaVey as one modern approach (in other words, how did he, in a rational, scholarly way, analyze and describe what Satanism really was?), and perhaps (2) a proponent or two from "Theistic Satanism" - Tani Jatsang and or Diane Vera, perhaps (?), although I'm thinking our approach should be confined to actually published books, as opposed to internet articles. But what I'm saying, is that that is only scratching the surface. There is (3), the approach of Zacharias, a German scholar of religion writing in 1964 (just as the Church of Satan was being formed), who analyzed Satanism very carefully, (and quoted in detail almost every historical source for Satanism), who uses a phenomenological approach to analyse and study Satanism. (His book was republished and revised a number of times, both in German and English). Although it is somewhat difficult reading (at least, compared to LaVey and proponents of Theistic Satanism), once you have read Zacharias alongside the current Wikipedia articles, you will realize that Zacharias has a very valid, modern, rational approach to analyzing all of the details of Satanism, as a phenomena (a phenomena means it is a valid historical manifestation which appeared and is valid in and of itself). Another scholarly analysis of Satanism, is (4) Rhodes "The Satanic Mass, a criminological study". So, if you have a section like Modern Scholarly Analysis to Defining what Satanism Really Is, you can have (for example) - (1) LaVey's Approach in The Satanic Bible. The Church of Satan (the approach of a group who calls themself Satanists) (2) Theistic Satanism Approach Michael Aquino, Diane Vera, Tani Jatsang approach (the approach of another group that calls themselves Satanists) (3) Satanism as a Valid Historical Phenomena - the approach of Zacharias The Satanic Cult, a thorough analysis and study of Satanism, which presents Satanism in very clear light (and half of the book is quotes from historical sources for Satanism). (4) Satanism as a Criminological Phenomenon - the approach presented in Rhodes book The Satanic Mass. (5) and there are a few other studies, there was even a book written in 1897 in German called The Synagogue of Satan. Or perhaps, the analysis of Garath Medway, who argues that Satanism never really existed. I'm saying, that if the various scholarly approaches to Satanism are listed and described, the dichotomy between LaVeyan Satanism and Theistic Satanism won't appear so strong, and the articles will be able to be merged into one article on Satanism.Jimhoward72 (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Tani would probably eschew beeing called a theist. Deist maybe. Though I do not wish to talk FOR her, all I know is what I say below in this post, also I've heard from others that Tani's thing id Deism. The Dark Doctrines Satanism are not SOLEY her creation, she had parners, namely and most importantly Philip Marsh. Plus Dark Doctrines Satanism is not specifically theistic,deistic, or atheistic. Most of their articles define it as De-facto Atheism and Loosely Deism when they actually go out of their way to try and define it, and all in all the views are very consistent with PanenDeism or PanDeism. Also Dark Doctrines Satanism is not soley "internet articles", They can be purchased both via the Satanic Reds{ and other Dark Doctrines Sites in book form- called the "Package of doctrines" as well as via other Satanic Sites that are'nt specifically dark doctrines sites- such as the well known and established Satanic store "Satan Shop"{via their "Media" page}-satanshop.com. SR/D.D. page on doctrines booklets- http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/dd-ad.html . Of course, I suppose these self-made books propably don't pass the "proper book" test.--Iconoclastithon (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps and sheds some light on this dark issue. Jules Bois "La Satanisme et la Magie" published 1895 Bois declares that there are three Satans: the Satan of the poor dispossed who turn to him for consolation; the Satan worshiped for perverse pleasure by depraved and rich people; and finally, the Satan of the dilettantes who are drawn away from true religion by an intellctual interset in mysticism. He defines Satanism as anything that departs from the worship of One God. [this was taken from Chapter 18 "Satanists and Anti-Satanists" Eliphas Levi and the French Occult Revival Weiser Inc. ISBN 0-87728-252-8 1972]Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Read Through article

I read the whole article and noticed from begining to end it discusses LaVey's Satanism. I was wondering if the rest of you editors noticed that too? I find this sentence extremley POV since the same could be said of Rodger Coreman movies,"however they may use some Satanic iconography made more widely known by LaVeyan Satanists" such as the sigil of Baphomet" Yes the horror movie ones of the 50's have different hebrew letters but the symbol is the same. If this is an article on Theistic Satananism there is no need to constantly refer to LaVey. Again I accuse some editors of trying to manipulate this and the Satanism article to propagate LaVey's religion in an attempt to monopolize the general publics view of Satanism, thus exploiting Wikipedia.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Gee two minor edits made a huge difference.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference to LaVey Established Satanism as a religion, If you doubt this then perhaps you should read up on the many sources that point to LaVey as the originator of the Satanic movement? Regardless of whether you like him or not, he was the founder of Satanic ideology in modern times; he set a precedent. but, agreed that the focus of this entire article should not be 'laveyan satanism' it should be about the various movements and beliefs in theistic satanism.

There is no 'traditional satanism'. There is, however, theistic satanism which is the recognition of Satan as a deity unlike atheistic satanism which is a symbolic representation of Satan. The title 'traditional satanism' was created by those who feel that the subversion ideologies of the christian church and mass media should dictate what satanism is. Satanism as a social movement did not exist until the 20th century. This hardly qualifies as 'traditional'. A traditional religion is generational. This article needs a complete re-write with real references, and some of the material on this page should be moved to the satanism_disambiguation page instead. The topics on this page are christian opinions on satanism. Venus Satanas (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

you suggest some sort of conspiracy on this page, michael. That is a serious charge. I feel that the page's condition is due to uneducated editing, not some massive COS wiki conspiracy. Try finding some references to add to the article so the information about the COS is not the focus? [Conspiracies, church hoaxes, scaremongering literature, satanic panics, and masonry not included.] Venus Satanas (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm happy with the article, after two minor edits the article describes Theistic Satanism without Spaming a Satanism that is not theistic.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cult of the Ram webpage

Hi, I've changed and/or removed some references to www.cultoftheram.com which seems to have changed to www.cultoftheram.org. If this is a mistake, please feel free to revert any of my edits, but please let me know.--– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 18:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

numbers of believers?

Do there exist any sort of estimates which have any basis in fact of the number of people with such beliefs? The LaVeyan Satanism page gives a rough estimate (though of a wide range) of the number of followers, but is there any source for an idea of the number believing in following a literal Satan, such as maybe from self-reporting in Census data or provided by Satanic organizations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.70.233 (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, the high priest of church of satan refused to reveal numbers even in direct interview. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The sentence the Sinagogue of Satan is in

Other groups such as the 600 Club,[45] are accepting of all types of Satanist, as are the Sinagogue of Satan, which aims for the ultimate destruction of religions, paradoxically including itself, and encourages not self-indulgence, but self-expression balanced by social responsibility.[69][70]

the sentence has two citations already but this year the University of Michigan entered the word Sinagogue into it's 75 year old English lexicon project the "Middle English dictionary" (c) a group of sinful people; ~ of satan(as. Here is the link http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED40413 Would this make another acceptable citation for the Sinagogue of Satan sentence? I'd also like to point out we are accepting of all beliefs, for we are based on freedom of religion so my religion is not exclusively for Satanists as worded in the sentence.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think that it's got enough citations for what is there right now, the UM Middle English dictionary isn't exactly related (its more a part of medieval anti-Semitism than something really related to Satanism). If the Sinagogue of Satan had its own article or there was a need to demonstrate that Sinagogue was not mispelt, then it would be for demonstrating that the word was previously present in the English language. Its kinda like how we don't need a citation from a Biblical Atlas for Zionist Churches. Thanks for looking for stuff though. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Satanism and Crime

I think the following paragraph should be deleted:

However, even today, there have been accounts around the world suggesting some correlation between Theistic Satanism and crime. For instance, in 2008, eight suspected Satanists killed and ate four fellow cult members in "ghastly" rites in Russia after stabbing them 666 times, according to official reports made by the police,[41] and a North Carolina couple were arrested in 2009 due to their abusing two others during Satanic worshipping, allegedly beating them, shackling them to beds, keeping them in dog cages and starving them.[42] [43] In 2007, a group of devil-worshiping vandals who spray-painted a church with satanic markings gave themselves away by boasting about it on the Internet, according to police [44], and in 2010, apparent Satanists vandalized and attempted to burn down the White Church of Yorkshire, marking the church with the sign of the pentagram and scrawling anti-Christian graffiti upon it. [45] [46]

A few anecdotal accounts of crimes by people who claim affiliation with a religion? I don't see how it's relevant, even in a section discussing Satanism and crime. Unless there are reputable studies to show any "correlation between Theistic Satanism and crime", I would think this paragraph is no more appropriate than, say, a paragraph in the Christianity section claiming a link between Christianity and crime based on a few murderers invoking Jesus. Thoughts?

Yeah, it's really nothing but WP:OR. I'm removing it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree remove it, Christian propaganda should not be the basis of encyclopedic material.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, we should mention all of the murders, genocides, Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, etc, done in the name of jesus! Good idea, I'll go do that now- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wōdenhelm (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We can call that section "Satanic crimes committed by Christians" ww2 will need it's own subsection for Hitler the Catholic.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's cute...so that's why you're a "Satanist" reverend? Because of Hitler? Seriously, though, Wikipedia seems to seriously censor a lot of Satanic abuse information...just saying... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.66.10 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Kinda funny you say that, since there is not a single incident that have been proved as "satanic abuse", other than the baseless accusations of (often) cristhian persons. 178.174.232.139 (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on documented sources, not rumors and imagination, and a lot of "Satanic abuse information" consists of pointing to a couple of serial killers (e.g. David Berkovitz), a few kids trying to act out, and then people that just happen to follow a different religion (e.g. Rev Margolin), and imagining that there's something larger behind it. To list the crimes that have been commited by Satanists in this article would be like including a section on David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Bible John in the Protestantism article titled "Christianity and Crime," all in the name of not censoring "Christian abuse information." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously trolling Satanists reverting edits. Some of the biggest cases in history involved Satanists such as with Ramirez, Lucas, Berkowitz, Sutcliffe, Manson, etc:

Convicted mass murderers Richard Berkowitz (Son of Sam) in New York and Henry Lee Lucas in Texas have both confessed to being part of Satanic cults involving blood sacrifice. In Montana, Stanley Dean Baker dismembered a man he had stabbed 27 times, took out his heart and ate it. He had one of the man’s fingers in his pocket at the time of his arrest…. In Massachusetts, a Satanic cult killed a 20-year-old woman, cut off her fingers, slit her throat, and severed her head and kicked it around. The leader, Carl Drew, then had sex with the decapitated body. (John Frattarola, Passport Magazine, Special Report, 1986, published by Calvary Chapel Church in West Covina, CA, p. 3.)

The Ramirez case was major:

"A burglar, rapist and sadistic serial murderer who terrorized the Los Angeles area in the mid-eighties, he was captured by civilians on August 31, 1985. A self-identified Satanist, Ramirez had actually read The Satanic Bible. His 'calling card' was the inverted pentagram traditionally associated with Satanism, which he left drawn on a wall, or, in one case, carved into the body of a victim. In 1983, he even made a special trip to San Francisco to meet LaVey personally. LaVey was later reported as commenting that, 'I thought Richard was very nice - very shy. I liked him.' "His trial was a media circus. Ramirez would engage in such antics as flashing a pentagram he had drawn in the palm of his hand, shouting 'Hail Satan!' and holding up his fingers alongside his head in imitation of devil's horns. Parts of the statement he made during his sentencing even seemed to echo some of the themes of The Satanic Bible:

I am beyond good and evil.... Lucifer dwells in all of us.... I don't believe in the hypocritical, moralistic dogma of this so-called civilized society. I need not look beyond this courtroom to see all the liars, the haters, the killers, the crooks, the paranoid cowards.... Hypocrites one and all. We are all expendable for a cause. No one knows that better than those who kill for policy, clandestinely or openly, as do the governments of the world which kill in the name of God and country.... (Cited in Carlo 1996, p. 395). ..."

(James R. Lewis (Department of Philosophy - University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point)

Some people suspect cult activity with the Atlanta child murders and Errol Morris questions the Jeffrey MacDonald case. Here is the Wiki on the Chicago Rippers: "Ripper Crew or Chicago Rippers was a satanic cult and organized crime group composed of Robin Gecht (who once worked for the serial killer John Wayne Gacy)[1] and three associates (Edward Spreitzer with brothers Andrew and Thomas Kokoraleis).[2] They were suspected in the disappearances of 18 women in Illinois in 1981 and 1982."

There is much more. And you call it just a panic? --173.64.58.59 (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

When people claiming to be Adventists or Pentecostals murder someone, we do not blame those denominations. Same applies to Satanism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The son of sam was proven by the authorities to be lying about the cult. Ramirez and the finger dude have dubious connections to theistic satanism. They both were fans of Lavey and CoS though, which is atheistic satanism. Currently, Ramirez is featured in this article, and I don't believe he should be. He's not on the Laveyan satanism page, even though he has much more connection to that than theism. The claims of Lucas are absurd, and police definitely would have found evidence of that if it were true. You can't hide a whole camp that's running a school for aspiring criminals and sacrificing people. The soccer ball head story comes from a christian church, and they're known for making things up and inserting satanism where there was none. I can't find an actual news article on this. I've never heard anything about that last bit, but suspicion and rumors don't make someone a satanist. Wikipedia is for facts, not people's fantasies. Sapphire27 (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"Conservative Satanism" as alleged synonym for "Theistic Satanism"???

I deleted "Conservative Satanism" from the list of alleged synonyms of "Theistic Satanism" at the beginning of the article ("Theistic Satanism, also known as Conservative Satanism, Traditional Satanism, Spiritual Satanism, Devil Worship and originally just Satanism ....")

Where on Earth did anyone ever get the idea that "Conservative Satanism" is any kind of synonym for "Theistic Satanism"? Googling, I found no other instances of this notion apart from references to the Wikipedia article. Other references to "Conservative Satanism" had to do with Satanists with conservative political views, regardless of theology. Belief in Satan as a deity is not limited to people with any particular political ideology.

Diane Vera (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: On the other hand, the term "Traditional Satanism" HAS been used as a synonym for "theistic Satanism" for a long time, although it's technically inaccurate. Diane Vera (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

More Information FROM Theistic Satanists Perhaps?

I have read through the page several times, and have seen a lack of references to articles, and works written by Theistic Satanists. There are many links to things that describe them as followers of the 'Christian Satan', and sing the Church of Satan, which is not a Theistic Source, for information and opinion ON Theistic Satanism.

Perhaps, I am missing the object of having it described by those who are not part of it themselves.

--James L. Nicholson II 01:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by High Magister Nicholson (talk • contribs)

There is a very fine line between Theistic Satanism and Reverse Christianity. Most books and articles written on the subject are Christian authored and are nothing more than Christian propaganda. ONA put a few books out and there are a few articles by JoS but those two groups do not represent all of Theistic Satanism. If you have sources that meet Wiki guide lines feel free to edit.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with using sources that I would site, for example, they would most likely not be allowed.. Ranging from Diane Vera, and Venus Satanas, and some I believe I have seen by yourself and others.

There seems to be a conflict between Original Research and surviving historical information, as the amount of historical 'Satanic' documents are notoriously Christian in origin, thereby leaving the more recent information about Theistic Satanism left out, because it is so-called original. Some of the editors, seem to be able to decide fairly, however the article is still not being allowed to move into the other people who HAVE written about Theistic Satanism from a positive, or informative viewpoint. Merely because they are not dead or in a book?

I have been busy working on my sites, and am somewhat dissappointed to not see there to be any progress on this article. If all is fair and equal, then links from Diane Vera, and others Presently within the Satanic/Theistic Satanic community should be allowed and portions re-written to reflect current views, seeing as spiritual warfare 'radicals' such as 'jesus-is-savior.com' and others are allowed as reference. --James L. Nicholson II (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Mistaken Information - Used out of context

In my work on this article, I came across this line -

"Some groups are mistaken by scholars for Theistic Satanists, such as the First Church of Satan.[66] However, the founder of the FCoS considers what he calls "devil-worship" to often be a symptom of psychosis"

After reading the reference, which is clearly about devil worship, and then speaking with the author of the link directly, he is not happy that his words about 'Reverse Christianity' are being used as a view of theistic Satanism at all. He stated to me in an Inbox interview, (Of sorts on the subject) that this is not his view of Theistic Satanists, as he in fact is considered Theistic himself. Yes, he has a different viewpoint, of course, however he does NOT believe that such things are a symptom of psychosis.

I will be removing that link and sentence, and then adjust the language to reflect not his opinion (as it is not something that I can link to from my inbox.) --James L. Nicholson II (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent Removal of Links

There was recently the removal of 2 links off of the article, and I have reverted them back to their original state.

The Sinagogue of Satan is mentioned in the article, and so the external link is not advertising. Also, the other link to satanservice.org was put back as it is a non-biased source for alot of information within Satanism.

If you have issue with these links discuss it HERE please before removing them - Just removing links is not a way to improve the article. James L. Nicholson II (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The links were removed by a user who's otherwise uninvolved in the article and its subject; s/he made the edit because s/he was peeved by my similar edit on an article in their interest field. (See the Wikiquette thread.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing out of spite and our personal bias is an ongoing problem here. I thank James L. Nicholson II, and other editors for staying on top of this ongoing matter.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the links that were removed: There are a great many groups mentioned in the article. From the Church of Lucifer to the Children of the Black Rose to the 600 Club. That the Synagogue of Satan is the only group being linked to underscores the fact that it is being advertised in particular. This is hardly a neutral use under [[WP:ELYES]]. Further, they are specifically listed as a type of link that should not be included: "19. Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered."

Satanservice is actually even more blatant; if you follow the link and don't chose another link fast enough it redirects you to the Field Guide to Satanism, a wiki. That's specifically mentioned as a type of link to be avoided in two respects: "It is generally preferred to link to the exact destination of a link. For instance, if example.com is an automatic redirect to tripod.com/example, it is better to link to the exact page, even if the webmaster considers the redirect address to be more official." and "12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked."

As for the continuing assertion that the edit was malicious, I've addressed that assumption in the Wikiquette thread that has already been linked to.

As these links clearly violate Wikipedia policy, shall we agree to remove them? --Jarandhel (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all it's SINagogue of Satan, Sinners not Jews. Secondly does this mean the Church of Satan and 1st Church of Satan links in the Satanism article should be removed for the same reasons you give here?Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my fingers want to type Synagogue rather than Sinagogue because it's the spelling I'm used to. And honestly it's a terrible pun. But yes, it does mean that those links (and the Sinagogue of Satan Manifesto) link should be removed from the Satanism article, especially since the other two have their own articles and are linked to from those articles. Thank you for pointing that out, I'll make the appropriate edit there as well. --Jarandhel (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Way more than just a pun, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED40413 enjoy the education.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Synonymous?

Replying to this edit: no. This article mentions groups that obviously don’t worship a Devil. The ONA dismisses Devil worship/Diabolism, saying Satan needs allies, not sycophants (don’t remember in which book or manuscript at the moment, but I am pretty sure the sycophant was part of the exact wording), and not believing in a kind of creator opposed to the Dark Gods. The Misanthropic Luciferian Order believes in deities opposed to the demiurge who created the cosmos, but this isn’t Devil worship either. Maybe we should think of separate articles for Theistic Satanism in general and for Devil worship. --217/83 22:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is 'Theistic' capitalised?

I do not understand why this article insists upon the capitalisation of 'theistic'. It's not a proper noun, and should be lower-case. – Richard BB 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this has something to do with LaVeyan Satanism being capitalised, and you know they are seen as antagonists. --217/83 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's capitalised as it's named after a person, though, so it becomes a proper noun. "Theist" isn't a proper noun, no more than "atheist" or "agnostic" are. – Richard BB 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, I was just explaining what I think is the reason why it has been done. --217/83 21:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Righto. Don't worry, I wasn't trying to patronise you! ;) Well, I'm going to take go ahead and change the grammar and see if anyone has issue with it. – Richard BB 09:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again: Satanism and Crime and the reference to "a few kids trying to act out"

In the section "Satanism and Crime" above, consensus seems to be that Theistic Satanism is to be described as a system of beliefs, for which some misdeeds of some misguided kids would not be representative. While not being too firm with the system of beliefs and values of Theistic Satanism and if they preach violence or not, I understand that for some kind of "serious" or "adult" Theistic Satanism, the simple promotion of ritual violence couldn't be a serious approach. However, I doubt that the social relevance of "adult" Theistic Satanism is the most important. In my perception, the social relevance of Theistic Satanism rather is that it serves as a trigger for certain youth subcultures to alienate themselves from their surrounding. In other words, I'd guess there are much more black metal fans between 13 and 23 who call themselves worshippers of Satan for a while and sometimes try to prove that by committing acts of violence, than actual adult and mature Theistic Satanists with a life long commitment for Satanism who take their families to Satan's Church every Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, to discuss the ethics of Satan's teaching with their colleagues from the university or bank they work at. Unfortunately, I don't have any statistic at hands to prove that. Nonetheless, I'd say: let's delete the section of Satanism and Crime, let's create a new section "Theistic Satanism in youth subculture" or so, which also states that for example there was a Norwegian scene that thought burning Christian churches would be good etc. What do you guys think? --JakobvS (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No statistics can or will be found for the simple reason that most of us are not open about our beliefs, directly because of the above perception. Again, the crimes of, say, Bible John aren't mentioned on the Christianity page so why the fixation on associating us with crime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.19.182 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The church burnings in the north were done by odinist/asatru/pagans of that sort. Many were white supremacists and upset by christianity taking over the land and culture as they see it as a foreign religion from the middle east and judaism. There was an early black metal band, and possibly fans and copycats, involved, but their use of satan was for image and to anger christians. I don't think many, if any, identified as actual satanists. Other than that, I don't think the kids you speak of should be included in a theistic satanism article if they're just running around doing random edgy graffiti and violence and such, and don't hold any satanic religious or spiritual beliefs. They can say they're a satanist, but I doubt they can give one fact about their own supposed spiritual beliefs and are most likely just acting out what they see in the movies, and it's probably just a phase. A wikipedia article on a religion should stick to the religion's beliefs, not the actions and fashion choices of some kids. The beliefs are out there for anyone to look up. But I don't think there's many theistic satanist coming here anymore to try to edit the article and keep up with it. It seems it keeps getting taken over by laveyan satanists who have a vendetta against theistic satanism. Sapphire27 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for delivering the answer only after such a long time. So why should we focus on the violent kids here while we don't do it in the article about Christianity? That's because there is plenty of quotable evidence about a Christian culture, history, literature, community and so on. There's a lot of violence in it, for sure (see the articles on inquisition and crusades), but the whole social phenomenon Christdendom reportedly goes far beyond, say, Bible John. So in contrast: if most of "you" are not open about your beliefs, we can't tell how many of you guys are out there. And then we have to go with the evidence we got. And if all the evidence is just about some teens and twens who rebel by cultivating some Theistic Satanism, performing black metal and going with the corresponding fashion, as I would guess, then we can only assume that that's quite it. And it would be pure speculation to insinuate that there was some "serious" Theistic Satanism in contrast to the often reported "childish" satanic black metal youth subculture. --JakobvS (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sentence added to beginning of Possible history of theistic Satanism

@MagicatthemovieS: Can you please explain the relevance of this to the section? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It is the earliest example of the concept of devil-worship that I know of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs)

@MagicatthemovieS: Your sentence states Jesus refuses so no worship took place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I felt this was relevant as it was the beginning of the concept of devil-worship.

@MagicatthemovieS: The sentence as it stands has no context for the reader and seems to placed there at random. Please find sources that discuss this as the beginning of the concept devil-worship and perhaps we can add a new paragraph. And can you please sign your posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: I would also have to point out that such an addition has literally no foundation within Theistic Satanism in the least - Jesus is not even accepted as a literal being by most Theistic Satanists, neither is the bible considered relevant. To add that sentence or even that concept to this article not only detracts from its information, but also attempts to place a demonizing spin on it. James L. Nicholson II (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Blackmetal and church burning

I've long had an issue with this bring included the way it is. The church burnings in the movement had nothing to do with satanist practices. They were a) or b) or both:... odenistic reprisals for Christian dominance Modern nationalistic reply to the centuries of Christian rule and reprisal for the brutality and misery brought by the "great" crusaders. Lostinlodos (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Lostinlodos (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Joy of Satan Edit Conflict

My edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theistic_Satanism&diff=675720855&oldid=675720485
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theistic_Satanism&diff=675720485&oldid=675720363
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theistic_Satanism&diff=675720363&oldid=675367926

It is incorrect to say that I made these edits under "lying pretenses." See WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV

Joy of Satan supports numerous fringe theories and hasn't been mentioned in any reliable sources so it should not be given undue weight

The WP:FRINGE policy applies to scientific theories, not to religions, but you know that; you're just lying (in violation of the civility policy) about the fringe policy so as to try to use it to delete any mention of the group that you hate.

As for notability (which you mentioned in your edit summaries), there are four theistic satanist groups that were mentioned by outside authors- the ophite cultus satanas (which has been defunct since 1975), the order of nine angles (founded in 1984), the misanthropic luciferian order (founded in 1995), and the satanic reds (founded in 2000). None of the satanist groups, neither theistic nor non-theistic, that have been created after 2000 (such as Joy of Satan) are mentioned in such outdated sources, probably because satanism is no longer considered new and unusual, so outside researchers no longer take interest in it (except for me, that is, but I don't have a book). Various satanist groups other than Joy of Satan are likewise not mentioned in such outdated sources- namely the Children of the Black Rose, the Cathedral of the Black Goat (this group was itself founded by former members of Joy of Satan), the Greater Church of Lucifer, the 600 Club, or the Sinogogue of Satan, yet you have not deleted the mentions of those groups, which again indicates your particular hatred toward Joy of Satan. But that is not to imply that the mentions of all of such groups should be deleted; rather it points out the fact that outsiders typically do not study these minor religions, and thus WP:IAR applies.

Being as you have deleted any mention of Joy of Satan, rather than merely trimming down undue weight (which was not even present in the article in the first place), you are yet again lying about your actions and your motives by citing the undue weight policy.

The NPOV policy demands fair coverage of the various theistic satanist groups, rather than selectively excluding any mention of the single largest theistic satanist group (i.e. Joy of Satan). Thus you are lying by citing the very policy that you are violating.

Your copious use of disruptive lies also constitutes baiting, which is also against the civility policy.

That is the overwhelming proof of your bad faith; thus I am not assuming bad faith, as your lies in your edit summaries stated. I want the spit (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Theistic satanism" is a non-entity, this page is a hodgepodge, it should be merged / deleted, or rewritten

Okay so I read the page curious what "theistic satanism" is, and I really didn't find out. It seems like a desperate effort to consciously construct something that doesn't exist by bundling a number of unrelated sources together. It speaks in generics like 'some' and 'most', spends a lot of time describing what "theistic satanism" isn't, but not much on what it is.

While there do exist theistic Satanist cabals, as a fringe of New Age / neopagan syncretism, but these seem to be too small and disconnected to be notable. Also, even if they are deemed notable, the article is not about them, but seems to attempt to conflate them with unrelated moral panics, folk superstitions, fiction and old Christian beliefs about supposed devil worshippers.

It's as if a page about witchcraft would try to conflate Gardnerian Wicca with witch trials, witch-related folk superstitions, and the evil stepmother from Snow White. (While, incidentally, Gardnerian Wicca is a major new age religion, and "theistic satanism" isn't.)

If there are people who want this page around, I suggest cleaning up the superfluous stuff, and concentrating on the actual theistic satanist cabals, who they are, what their history is, who their notable figures and leaders are, etc. 82.131.194.26 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The citations and sources clearly indicate a notable presence of theistic satanism. Not all theistic satanists are the same that why words like “some” or “most” are used, just like under general topic articles like neopaganism or Christianity: hence the use of “umbrella” term. Perhaps brush up on Wikipedia guidelines before telling others what is notable.2603:6010:11F0:3C0:E5EB:2D82:9D70:6588 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Theistic Satanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion2/traditionalsatanism/view.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714075021/http://www.metalcentre.com/webzine.php?p=interviews&lang=eng&nr=123 to http://www.metalcentre.com/webzine.php?p=interviews&lang=eng&nr=123
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927002214/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=56947 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=56947

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Theistic Satanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://voiceofsatanism.com/2010/09/21/origins-of-satanism-why-sumeria/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124051552/http://www.nineangles.info/commentary-dreamers.pdf to http://www.nineangles.info/commentary-dreamers.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113065041/http://www.angelfire.com/rings/blacklotusmonastery/texts/ONA_VariousManuscripts.pdf to http://www.angelfire.com/rings/blacklotusmonastery/texts/ONA_VariousManuscripts.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110702213716/http://www.nineangles.info/true_way_ona.html to http://www.nineangles.info/true_way_ona.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110702213756/http://www.nineangles.info/ona-epitome.html to http://www.nineangles.info/ona-epitome.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617165835/http://altreligion.about.com/library/bl_theisticsatanism.htm to http://altreligion.about.com/library/bl_theisticsatanism.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

jos again

@GenoV84: "No, references were removed and replaced with blatant advertising, religious propaganda and recruitment, promotional bullshit." -- that edit summary made me think that I'd accidentally reverted backwards and added in angelfire(!) sites as references, but no, that's your edit. You're using some strong language in your edit summary and I'm not even sure what it's referring to, but I do remember the JoS website and that's what they do (religious propaganda etc). Somewhere on this talk page there's an argument that mentions of JoS should stay because, uh, WP:IAR. I don't think I agree with that.

The image caption now reads: "A sigil of Lucifer that was adapted from the Grimorium Verum in 1999 by the Joy of Satan in 2004." -- which was it then, 1999 or 2004? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not entirely understand the edit summary of @GenoV84: as well. I also find the comments on the undo page and my talk page to be highly uncivil. GenoV84 please consider wp:cooperation. My edits consisted only of removing problematic text and references. As for the text under sigil of lucifer, I resolved the issue of problematic references simply be reverting to the version before the problem reference appeared. This was an issue that was raised by @Drmies: as well (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theistic_Satanism&diff=930723191&oldid=930683527) but the problematic version was re-inserted back in. --70.190.179.93 (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon: First of all, I didn't add any link to angelfire, it was already there.

Anyway, neither angelfire nor the other sites linked by the IP are reliable or neutral references; I suggest to remove all of the unreliable and dubious references related to the text under the sigil of Lucifer, I will look for a more reliable and hopefully academic source, but I will do that later.

However, the IP cannot add proselytizing or promotional religious content or advocacy to Wikipedia.--GenoV84 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon: Regarding the mentions of JoS website, I think they should be removed; we don't need links to their website to know about their belief system, the sociologist of religion Massimo Introvigne dedicated an entire chapter to JoS in his book: Introvigne, Massimo (2016). Satanism: A Social History. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 370–371. ISBN 978-90-04-28828-7.--GenoV84 (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I must apologize to both of you for my impolite behavior. I just checked the previous revisions of the page and I realized that the paragraphs that mentioned JoS in a propagandistic/promotional way were not written by the IP but were already there, written by someone else. I mistook the edits.--GenoV84 (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've been looking for informations about the sigil of Lucifer, but the only thing that I could find is the original source from which it derives, Grimorium Verum (page 7); the symbol displayed on the article's page is actually part of a more intricate, "full" sigil.

Moreover, I couldn't find any reliable, nonpartisan, academic reference that mentions the sigil of Lucifer as the official symbol of some theistic Satanic or Luciferian organization/church/sect... at best it can be considered an occult symbol or grimoire sigil among many others, which was adopted by some Satanic groups as their "official" symbol much later, just like Éliphas Lévi's well-known drawing of the Baphomet.--GenoV84 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Okay, do you want to get started on the improvements? I think a simple undo of your last undo will get us to a good start, since we appear to agree that the edit with the angelfire links was not a good one. The Introvigne book is an excellent source, let's use that (though from the preview I'm not seeing that an entire chapter is dedicated to them, but still there's more than just a passing mention), and the Economist reference from the current edit can stay too (though I can't see what the article says, anyone got a quote?). As for the image caption, probably best to prune it. I can see from Google Books the page 342 from the book by Michael W. Ford, where the sigil is, but I can't see the previous two pages so I'm not sure what he says about it. The question that we have is: who was the first to adapt that sigil from the Grimorium Verum? I don't know. (Pinging @Drmies: since IP's ping likely didn't work.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know why you pinged me, User:Jeraphine Gryphon--the only thing I've been doing in this article is cleaning up some citation templates and undoing the addition of seriously unacceptable sources by this one editor. And I just made a few more, because a bunch of Angelfire links or whatever for the general statements made in the lead, that just won't do. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I was just echoing IP's ping (above in this thread) since they pinged without a timestamp. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 22:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah, I get it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Jeraphine Gryphon:, thank you for your advice. You're right, Introvigne's chapter on JoS is very brief, but (in my opinion) it's still an excellent and comprehensive explanation of JoS's beliefs and practices written by a renowned scholar of New religious movements. I agree on reverting my latest edit, but I noticed that you and Drmies have already removed various unreliable and/or dubious informations; you can also remove all the paragraphs related to JoS, as the IP did.--GenoV84 (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:RS. I don't know exactly who you're talking about it, or what specific source, but I hope it's published by a reputable publisher. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Introvigne, Massimo (2016). Satanism: A Social History. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 370–371. ISBN 978-90-04-28828-7.--GenoV84 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • GenoV84 no problem about the misunderstanding. Thanks for your work. I removed the JoS paragraphs as done previously.--70.190.179.93 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Many thanks to you for your contributions, 70.190.179.93.--GenoV84 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Do not deliberately add hoaxes, incorrect information, or unverifiable content to articles. See also Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Verifiability.--GenoV84 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Writer is exaggerating, and deliberately trying censor content, needs to be reminded that wikipedia is an open community that should be free of bias.

Are you sure? Because I personally checked the reference online and there's nothing written about what you're trying to include so insistently: https://books.google.com/books?id=f1t_BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA184

And by the way, reverting other contributors' edits without giving a proper explanation, alongside purposely changing the content of Wikipedia articles, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view and verifiability, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.--GenoV84 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I got the page wrong. It's actually pg.144-146 under section "Virtual Milieus, Imagined Communities: Modelling the Satanic milieu online." And I clicked publish assuming it would bring a up a box telling me what changes I made and it didn't, so I edited it again to explain.

Screenshot of page: https://ibb.co/4KdN3X1 Feel free to help me appropriate it into a better sentence.

Thank you for your collaboration and for providing the screenshot. According to the source, "The only sites with some popularity are the Church of Satan and (somewhat paradoxically) Joy of Satan's page base on the angelfire network, and they are still very far from Scientology or YouTube. Most of these sites are decidely fringe". The source estimates the number of visitors to their websites based on the Alexa traffic ranks and related links to their websites, but it doesn't mention their number of adherents.--GenoV84 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Man, could you please collaborate with me and try to reach consensus together about what to do with these informations, instead of reverting my edits?--GenoV84 (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Same could be applied both ways but alright. I feel the previous edit by other user to not be entirely accurate, "Continuing its existence with a reduced number of members", however, sources suggest otherwise.

I reverted your first edits because you cited the wrong chapter twice and reverted my edit without giving any explanation once, didn't you?

Anyway, the question is... which sources are you talking about? The statement "Continuing its existence with a reduced number of members" was added by another user and derives from Introvigne, Massimo (2016). Satanism: A Social History. Aries Book Series: Texts and Studies in Western Esotericism. Vol. 21. Leiden: Brill Publishers. ISBN 978-90-04-28828-7. OCLC 1030572947., which is already cited in that paragraph. As I explained above, the correct chapter from the book that you cited (Petersen, Jesper Aagaard. From Book to Bit: Enacting Satanism Online. In Egil Asprem & Kennet Granholm (eds.), Contemporary Esotericism, pp. 134-158) reports a survey on the traffic generated by visitors to the various Satanist websites on the internet based on the Alexa traffic ranks and related links to these websites, but it doesn't mention their number of adherents. Church of Satan's official website and Joy of Satan's angelfire network are the most popular, but it doesn't tell anything about their actual number of adherents.

Therefore, to state that Joy of Satan "continues its existence with popularity paradoxically to the Church of Satan", as you wrote on the article's page, sounds quite misleading and incorrect with respect to the source itself, because it doesn't deal with their corresponding number of adherents but exclusively with data based on the internet traffic to their websites.--GenoV84 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay you have a good point, perhaps we don't need to connote "popularity" in terms of actual members but its reception/audience in general? Anyway I have another source to compliment this, from "Satanists and Scholars: A Historiographic Overview and Critique of Scholarship on Religious Satanism Cimminnee Holt" pg:86-87

"Between Lewis’ two internet surveys, 2001 and 2009, the Satan Census revealed that the average age of self‐identified Satanists rose, and thus had more children and long‐term relationships (2009a, 22). Over the eight years, he had over twice the number of respondents (one 87 hundred and forty to three hundred) (3). There is a decline in the prominence of LaVey and the Church of Satan among respondents (although this is not surprising given their likely avoidance of the survey) and a surprising presence of the Joy of Satan. Lewis predicts that theistic/esoteric Satanism will continue to grow, that the Church of Satan will continue to wane, although remain present as long as The Satanic Bible remains the (sometimes unacknowledged) (23) standard text of the Satanic milieu (24). As scholarship on contemporary religious Satanism grows, we will hopefully be able to expand our knowledge with more statistical data, and find quantitative research methods that address the unique qualities of reclusive groups. "

Source states that the survey implied more members of JoS than CoS, otherwise to say Joy of Satan continues with a "reduced number of members" may be incorrect according to Authors perception, as other sources contradict this.

Link to PDF: https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/974626/6/Holt.MA.Thesis.Final.pdfa.pdf

I disagree on that. James R. Lewis' surveys report that theistic Satanism as a denomination within Satanism as a new religious movement has been steadily growing in numbers of adherents since the 1990s (informations that I have already provided along with referencing Lewis in the "Overview" section of the article), but Joy of Satan is not the only Satanist group within the theistic Satanist milieu. The Temple of Set, the Order of Nine Angles, the Temple of the Black Light, and various other theistic Satanist groups exist as well. We cannot write stuff on Wikipedia that is not provided by references based on what we assume to be implied or tacit within the references themselves. Everything that we write must be verifiable and reflect what the sources state, not our own point of view.

Therefore, to state that Joy of Satan "continues its existence with popularity paradoxically to the Church of Satan", as you wrote on the article's page, sounds quite misleading and incorrect with respect to the source itself, because it doesn't deal with their corresponding number of adherents but exclusively with data based on the internet traffic to their websites. At best, the section "Virtual Milieus, Imagined Communities: Modelling the Satanic milieu online" from Contemporary Esotericism tells us how proliferous and pluralistic the Satanic milieu actually is, especially on the internet. I think that these informations are useful and should be implemented in the "Overview" section of the article, which also deals with the demographics of Satanism, instead of adding it to the paragraph related to Joy of Satan, since it doesn't give us any information about the actual number of members that constitute this Satanist group, whereas Introvigne explicitly states that Joy of Satan continues its existence "with a reduced number of members", although he doesn't report the exact number of its adherents.

Also, could you please indicate where in her thesis Cimminee Holt states that Joy of Satan has got more adherents and is more popular than other Satanist groups? I don't have time to read 121 pages...--GenoV84 (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't state that the Joy of Satan was the only one, I wanted to clarify that it's been one of the most prominent groups within the theistic Satanist milieu, with sources suggesting it may be even more so than the Church of Satan. Otherwise it's also stated "There is a decline in the prominence of LaVey and the Church of Satan among respondents (although this is not surprising given their likely avoidance of the survey) and a surprising presence of the Joy of Satan."

At best, we can say it's to be estimated and not actual, but I definitely think there should be clarification.

Definitely. Please provide author, title, number of pages, and a link to the source that you just cited, if possible. I don't understand which is the source that you are referring to.--GenoV84 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@BlueGhast: In your latest edits, you added once again a source that doesn't support your claims about Joy of Satan: Holt, Cimminnee (August 2012). "Satanists and Scholars: A Historiographic Overview and Critique of Scholarship on Religious Satanism". https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/974626/6/Holt.MA.Thesis.Final.pdfa.pdf: 87 – via Spectrum Research Repository. {{cite journal}}: External link in |journal= (help). I'll provide the full quote from the source that you cited below:

"The scarce studies that do exist provide some interesting trends. Between Lewis’ two internet surveys, 2001 and 2009, the Satan Census revealed that the average age of self‐identified Satanists rose, and thus had more children and long‐term relationships (2009a, 22). Over the eight years, he had over twice the number of respondents (one hundred and forty to three hundred) (3). There is a decline in the prominence of LaVey and the Church of Satan among respondents (although this is not surprising given their likely avoidance of the survey) and a surprising presence of the Joy of Satan. Lewis predicts that theistic/esoteric Satanism will continue to grow, that the Church of Satan will continue to wane, although remain present as long as The Satanic Bible remains the (sometimes unacknowledged) (23) standard text of the Satanic milieu (24). As scholarship on contemporary religious Satanism grows, we will hopefully be able to expand our knowledge with more statistical data, and find quantitative research methods that address the unique qualities of reclusive groups."

So, according to Cimminee Holt's thesis, James R. Lewis' surveys predict that membership in the Church of Satan will continue to wane whereas theistic/esoteric Satanism keeps growing in numbers, but it doesn't state that membership within Joy of Satan has increased, neither that it has more adherents than the Church of Satan. You keep writing stuff that is misleading and doesn't reflect what your own sources actually state. You just assume that they do.--GenoV84 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It may not connote membership in particular, but the reception in which the theistic satanic audience may consider themselves adherents or simply adopt their beliefs as a model. Either way it's evident from the survey that the JoS may be very well prominent in the currents of theistic satanism, possibly surpassing the CoS. Perhaps the event left the Joy of Satan with a reduced number of members at the time of 2004-2006, but the survey taken from 2009 supports the fact that the Joy of Satan continued its existence, gaining a larger audience in the theistic satanic currents and possibly membership, but the number of participants in the survey done by James R. Lewis' is the closest we have to suggest a growing, and larger amount of membership in the Joy of Satan. Again we can say it's to be estimated and not actual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 01:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@BlueGhast: Again, you are projecting your own assumptions on the sources themselves, since neither Lewis nor Holt state any of that. Your suggestion to add biased, incorrect, and unverifiable content about datas derived from surveys on the demographics of Satanism qualifies as original research in the best case and deliberate hoax in the worst case, neither of which is allowed on Wikipedia. Content must be verifiable but not false, and factual.

As I said before, there are many groups within theistic/esoteric Satanism, which is anything but a denomination of Satanism along with atheistic/rationalistic Satanism, and Joy of Satan is not the most prominent among those groups. Moreover, Introvigne himself states in his scholarly treatise (Introvigne, Massimo (2016). Satanism: A Social History. Aries Book Series: Texts and Studies in Western Esotericism. Vol. 21. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 525–527. ISBN 978-90-04-28828-7. OCLC 1030572947.) that theistic/esoteric Satanists constitute a minority within Satanism, which alongside other references cited in the article report that the majority of Satanists are actually atheistic/rationalistic Satanists; therefore, that would be a very incorrect assumption to state that Joy of Satan has got more adherents than the Church of Satan or any other atheistic/rationalistic Satanist organization, since it is blatantly false and not supported by any reference.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, but the only outcome would be the addition of deliberately incorrect informations and unverifiable content to the article that is not supported by the sources that you cited. If you keep going with this way of reasoning, this discussion will lead us nowhere.--GenoV84 (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

How's it a false "assumption" when it's stated here "the only sites with some popularity are the Church of Satan and (somewhat paradoxically) Joy of Satan's page base on the angelfire network", this was the original reference I was trying to cite which I believe contradicts Introvigne in his statement that Joy of Satan "continues with a reduced number of members". Whether the JoS is more prominent than CoS or not, it's fine, but to the least I believe it should be clarified that the Joy of Satan is proven here to be somewhat prominent among the theistic Satanic groups based on what the data from Traffic rank - Alexa and Inlinks Yahoo shows us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 04:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@BlueGhast: Massimo Introvigne (along with James R. Lewis and Jesper Aagaard Petersen) is one of the foremost researchers in the academic study of new religious movements and Satanism, his scholarly treatise has been published by BRILL, therefore Satanism: A Social History is a far more reliable source than a thesis found somewhere on the internet. Moreover, Jesper Aagaard Petersen's survey on the internet traffic to Satanist websites is not concerned with their number of adherents, but with data generated from Alexa traffic ranks and links to Yahoo. In other words, it doesn't support your claims about membership, and you are still attempting to misrepresent what these sources actually state, since Petersen's survey is concerned with presence and traffic on the internet, not with membership.

According to your way of reasoning, we could say that JW.org is visited daily by tens of milions of people worldwide, but Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones that visit that website; in other words, their website is not visited exclusively by adherents of their religion but a much greater number of people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, and perhaps many of them do not even agree or sympathize with their religious beliefs, practices, and/or worldview. We don't assume or take for granted that all of them are adherents of their religion or wanna-be Jehovah's Witnesses, don't we? We have to represent informations provided by references with factual accuracy and verifiable content, not suppositions or speculations.--GenoV84 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Update:@BlueGhast: However, you have a good point when you say that "it should be clarified that the Joy of Satan is proven here to be somewhat prominent among the theistic Satanic groups based on what the data from Traffic rank - Alexa and Inlinks Yahoo". I propose to add to the existent paragraph the following line, citing Petersen's "Virtual Milieus, Imagined Communities: Modelling the Satanic milieu online" survey from Contemporary Esotericism:

"according to Petersen's survey (2014), the Joy of Satan's angelfire network has a surprising prominence among theistic Satanist websites on the internet".

--GenoV84 (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks.

Also, the thesis by Cimminnee Holt is based off of some of James R. Lewis research so you're contradicting yourself on that part but alright. Don't forget about Lewis' "Satan Census" (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GC2RHKF) as it also stated a "surprising presence of the Joy of Satan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

I’ve neither been told why my edits are disruptive nor why sources of questionable quality must remain in virtue of them being originally present. Other Wikipedia topics such as medical and science topics have strict standards for source inclusion, why are we to keep whatever source someone decides to throw in? That’s not how it works, sourced content does and will always be subject to removal under these guidelines. And regardless, I did not remove any sourced content, I removed one of the sources. The claim was that some theologians believe something, but the source was not from a theologian. My editing has also been immediately assumed as bad faith which is improper etiquette. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:D12C:AE02:D58C:CD4E (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be confused. The original editor who reverted my edit refused to discuss the edit with me and simply removed my query from his talk page, even though he went out of his way to send me a message on my talk page that said I could take the discussion to his talk page. I did *not* remove any sourced material. This claim is false. It is also false that the source is reliable, as it has not been proven as such. It looks to be self-published and lacks qualifications for source notability. I cannot find any qualifying information from the source.

What is up with the personal theistic segment?

It describes one particular person who indentified as a Satanist. It does not describe anything to do with possible ways someone could be personally theistically satanic and seems like it is nothing but an excuse to tack on a story that has nothing to do with this article. All it has to do is with one particular Satanist which is not what any reasonable person would assume from "personal theistic satanism."

I don't know any better or prettier way to say that it does not belong in its current form other than reiterating that the article does not describe what personal theistic satanism is at any point and only describes the satanism practiced by a specific serial killer. It's extremely confusing given that what is written doesn't even suggest that anyone other than the sick **** genuinely held similar beliefs.

The closest is mentioning that he would try and force it into his victims which doesn't feel like it belongs on this article what so ever given I don't see what that habit has to do with the theistic satanism at all. Especially since we don't look at Christianity and it's sects which all have a strong history of forcing it upon non-religious people with a long history of the only other choice converting being execution and we don't insist that said vile actions are inherent to Christianity. That only really would be relevant on an article about the serial killer unless he outright said that it was apart of his faith, in which case the segment is poorly written as well.

It genuinely makes no sense and I don't understand how an addition that is completely separated from its title (not the article title, the title of "personal theistic satanism) hasn't been questioned by anyone. I don't want to straight up edit it not only because I've never made a topic on a page let alone edited an article before but also because I'm not sure if the only suitable title for that segment would be the killers name, which Don't want to go back to reread and remember because he sounds like a genuinely vile person who is only going to make me mad to remember and this article is the only reason I've heard of him. Devilish777Limes (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)