Talk:Theistic Satanism

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 Without some sort of historical reference, the unaltered statement is no more than religious propaganda.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

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)

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)

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)

Theistic Satanists Incorrect Info

Theistic Satanists do not worship Satan and Satan doesn't want worship. Some Satanists find that they wish to separate the concept of the devil from Satan because Satan is a title and a being that predates Christianity.

No one should be called a devil worshipper that is the worst thing you can say to someone. It carries a lot of weight, and is almost like a racial slur in the same weight. It's very derogatory.

Satanists don't believe in the concept of the devil. Theistic Satanists believe in Satan but feel that they wish to separate the concept because it's not a part of the religion and it carries horrible stigma. 5.151.106.243 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

the relationship between the Theistic Satanist and Satan is perosnal some do worship Him,others do not but see him as a freind and compatriot 66.199.30.14 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)