Talk:The Satanic Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Left Hand Path work group. If you are interested in Left Hand Path-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help.
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Massive Edits
I am currently in the process of composing a very large edit to this article, as I feel it is sorely lacking in factual information on the book's contents. My edit will retain whatever sections I judged to be sufficient, either unaltered or only slightly altered, but will replace the "Sections" subsection with a full assessment of the content of The Satanic Bible. The goal is not only to provide a much more comprehensive view of the book, but also to put it in context of its relevance to Satanism. I will make every attempt to maintain a NPOV, and put forth only fact; my goal is to provide an "expert" view of the book as an Agent of the CoS.
Naturally, I do not claim proprietary rights to this article, and therefore additional input is always desired on Wikipedia. However, before anyone hastily reverts my upcoming edit or makes more than minor changes, I would greatly appreciate discussion here of what Wiki users think of the edits, my assessment, and what they feel should be changed and why. I am quite open to taking the views of others into account, I merely wish to avoid starting an editing war by my efforts to improve this article and Wikipedia. --Lvthn13 17:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
On reversion to the edit to the Book of Lucifer: "independence of an outside authority" seems to me a misleading statement. Satanism, and The Satanic Bible, both acknowledge that individuals may have to answer to authorities, including for example legal authorities and other persons whose authority is legitimate. To imply independence of authority may imply that Satanism advocates disobedience of such legitimate authority, which it does not. I would be accepting of a statement that was more carefully worded. --Lvthn13 05:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Where are the critics?
Just where do whe have the criticism?
- I address most of the issues commonly brought up by critics throughout the text; I mention them, and provide the refutation according to the text. Both sides have their say this way, I just didn't set aside an entire subsection for criticisms.
- If you wish, you may present a list of criticisms you think should be mentioned and addressed, and I will personally write a section to include them. I do believe in upholding Wikipedia standards of neutrality, and will put aside my views on the subject to be balanced. But frankly, I am not aware of many "valid" criticisms. The "Satanists kill animals" criticisms are laughable and well addressed in the article, and the criticism that he borrowed from Ragnar Redbeard, etc, is likewise given attention in the present article. Likewise the fact that LaVey was well read in other philosophers and incorporated many ideas is mentioned in the very introductory paragraph. What do you think should be addressed, then? --Lvthn13 17:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
How very bizzar.
Couple of things. Firstly, I think that criticisms (if any) of the Satanic Bible should definitely be placed in a separate section for ease of reference. In the article on, say, Objectivism, a section is headed "Responses to Objectivism", which is a useful way of doing things.
Offhand I don't know of any challenges to LaVeyan Satanism as a philosophy, or the book specifically, although this could just be because it's not taken seriously by many people. Over at pseudophilosophy they've got an (unreferenced) mention of the Satanic Bible as an example of a pseudophilosophy, but I haven't found more than that. (Admittedly, my search has been limited and short).
ManicParroT 23:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Psychic vampirism
I think that Dion Fortune coined this one in Psychic Self-Defense. Unfortunately, I don't own that title anymore; does anyone else here have a copy?
--J B Bell 03:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
i think that this bibal exsplanes a lot more to the hole meaning of it.i have a copy of it and i read it alomost every day cause u can find more info about it and more resons pop up the second time u read it.
Huh? Davepetr 05:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- the description of psychic vampires given in the satanic bible sounds VERY much like many descriptions i've read of sociopaths. Gringo300 04:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not correct that the second part of the book is unambiguous. Firstly, if it really were unambiguous, it would be the first text in the world qualifying for that term (humans always interpret what they read); secondly, because there's evidence to the contrary in the form of many groups that use the Satanic Bible as a foundation while disagreeing strongly on the interpretation. The second part is seems to be a collection of "FAQ"-esque pages detailing specific issues that have been brought up and later put together in a book with little consideration for logical flow throughout the book. This view is supported by the fact that Anton LaVey in has said that The Satanic Bible had to be written in a hurry, consisting of bits and pieces that he already had in his possession. -- - wolf - 08:00, 17 March 2006 (CET)
the christian bible also has spawned many groups, each with thier own interpretation. the main difference is that if Anton LaVey was alive today he would be appaled at this act of sacrilege. it is common knowledge to the followers of Satanism that LaVey wrote the bible in such a way that it could not be misinterpreted. as for the patchy style in certain parts of the book; why need order. the philosophy is still the same regardless of the format. and sorry to sound like i'm picking on the christian bible, but it is far from organised or clear for tht matter --Belial84
I was expecting a lot of vandalism on this page for yesterday. this was no fun. VdSV9•♫ 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] enochian keys
i basically understood the book until it got to the enochian keys... Gringo300 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I provided the most straightforward explanation I know how in summarizing them. I felt like a breakdown of the meaning of every single key would be overkill; perhaps after I complete my long, long list of future article projects I might vaguely consider writing an entire separate article for the Enochian Keys as interpreted by Anton LaVey, though that would likely get resistance from the John Dee faction. --Lvthn13 08:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you can turn up Ben Rowe's Enochian FAQ you'll find the topic of the Keys in the context of LaVey's works covered a bit. You'll also find a discussion from a seperate vantage point in Michael Aquino's Temple of Set memoir. --Skeptismo118
[edit] Changed word "Selfish"
Book of Lucifer: II. The God you Save May be Yourself: "The result, of course, is to view oneself as the most important of all beings, and to adopt an unapologetically selfish view of the world and course of action." I changed selfish to self-centered for neutrality reasons. The Satanic Bible never says anything about being selfish, just the theory that it is wiser to start by thinking of yourself first. Selfish implies that one is sociopathic in nature.
- I don't have any aversion to the term "selfish" but I'll take this under your advice. However, I reverted the removal of the phrase explaining the maxim "I am my own god" but removed the word "selfish" as extraneous. This should satisfy the issue of neutrality without removing the useful explanation of that maxim. --Lvthn13 08:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Subject to interpretation
- Satanists maintain that The Satanic Bible may not be subject to interpretation or revision, and that no rule or principle contradictory to what is written in The Satanic Bible may be considered applicable to Satanism.
Is there a source for this? Did the Church of Satan make a declaration like this? From the Satanic Bible, I:5 and II:6,
- Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence, and he who saith "thou shalt" to me is my mortal foe!
- No creed must be accepted upon authority of a "divine" nature. Religions must be put to the question. No moral dogma must be taken for granted - no standard of measurement deified. There is nothing inherently sacred about moral codes. Like the wooden idols of long ago, they are the work of human hands, and what man has made, man can destroy!
It seems that to say that the Satanic Bible is an immutable, unquestionable doctrine is inconsistant with the ideology expressed within the text itself. If some organized group did make such a statement, it should be sourced. 70.20.120.172 16:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is not what Satanists say, and not the position of the Church of Satan. The point is that Satanism as a body of doctrine is defined by the Church of Satan, with the Satanic Bible as the definitive text. Individuals are expected and encouraged to construe the principles of Satanism in their own way and to apply them to their own lives as they see fit. But someone cannot call just any old thing they think or do "Satanic", or try to needle "their own version" of Satanism out of positions clearly expressed in plain English in the SB and related statements. This is not rigid fundamentalist dogmatism. No one is expected to BE a Satanist. If the shoe don't fit, people are invited not to wear it. But IF they're going to call themselves Satanists, then Satanists will hold them to the views and standards of the Satanic Bible. reprobate 00:30, 30 October 2006
If you read the article on Satanism or even the article on theistic satanism, it uses it as a broad term to include things like worship of the Egyptian God Set. If Set-worshippers, "dark god" worshipping polytheists, those who actually worship fallen angel satan, and those who intend to destroy all religion call themselves "satanists", then the statement that the satanic bible is the authoritative text for all satanism is blatantly false.
[edit] Plagiarism
I find the use of weasel words in this section objectionable. All factual information contained in that section is stated very plainly in other sections of the article; I mention specifically that The Book of Satan is taken from Might is Right, and the very opening states that LaVey drew on previous philosophers (which, by the way, isn't plagiarism; every philosopher since the Greeks has drawn on previous philosophers. Next thing you know people will accuse Nietzsche of plagiarizing Schopenhauer.). The only visible purpose of that section is to make an excuse to link to an anti-LaVey website, which is a cheap shot. It should also be noted that Might is Right is public domain, and that the first edition of The Satanic Bible mentioned it and Ragnar Redbeard, as well as several other philosophers, in the dedication page. Regardless, I recommend that if additional information is found wanting, that it be distributed appropriately in the article, in the relevant sections as I have done, instead of attempting to create a focus of negativity within an otherwise good article. -Lvthn13 03:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't "influenced by" MIR, he directly plagiarized whole segments of it verbatim. Public Domain means nothing here--if you're writing something about whaling in a creative writing class and copy/paste from Moby Dick, you are a plagiarist. Even if you claim to have been "influenced" by it in a foreword. --Pvednes 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Therefore, I have modified the "Book of Satan" segment to reflect the truth, with references. --Pvednes 17:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Any additional justification is unnecessary. I had attempted to compromise, but after further thought, I agree that you are correct with your conclusion. -Dencappo 17:31, 05 November 2006 (GMT)
[edit] Slight correction
Burton H. Wolfe is stated as an early COS member. And while the Burton intro suggets this, Wolfe himself states that he was never a member on his website. WerewolfSatanist 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Burton's own published words confirm that he was a member of the Church of Satan. I'm disappointed to hear that he now denies his involvement, but it should be apparent enough that he is attempting to rewrite his own history. Facts are still facts. -Lvthn13 21:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
WOOT!! go satan by the power that all that is evil
nothing is "all evil". no one can justify anything as pure good or evil. if something was so then the balance will fight itself and thus destroying not only one another but also itself. both god and satan can kiss my ass
Come on guys, find yourselves a nice forum where people are interrested in your opinions on good or evil or your desires to be kissed by whatever deity. Wikipedia is NOT the place. 81.246.93.2 14:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Book cover first
Shouldn't the picture of the book be above the Satanism list? Poonerpoob 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Following form, yes. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
