On "Satanic ecumenism"
"Adversarial path" need not mean "adversary of everyone-all-the-time"
It’s perhaps worth mentioning - especially given the range of folks I’m finding myself adding on here - that I consider myself a “Satanic ecumenist.”
This means that while I have various criticisms of denominations of Satanism other than my own - such points being, after all, relevant to why I am not a member of said denominations! - ultimately my interest is more on what different “Satanisms” have in common rather than where they differ.
Relatedly, I never take issue with individuals of other denominations, so long as they are capable of productive conversation. Meaning, they read/listen to what my actual position is first, can acknowledge commonalities if they are present, and can navigate differences constructively - i.e., either have a real dialogue in which we both might learn something, or agree-to-disagree followed by graceful disengagement.
It’s only if it seems like someone is determined to be an enemy or to keep having the same repetitive argument over and over that I’m prone to cutting them off - and even then, that is just about them, not about whatever their Satanic denomination is.
Some relevant posts from my non-Substack blog:
On non-theistic Satanism, some thoughts on criteria for meaningfully framing a cohesive ethos as “Satanic” even if one “doesn’t believe in” Satan:
https://othaos.com/satanism-without-the-satan-just-politics-or-something-more/On theistic Satanism, a defense of its legitimacy as a left-hand-path tradition, contra people who presume that acknowledging any deity is tantamount to worshipping that deity:
https://othaos.com/theistic-satanism-right-hand-path/On Luciferianism, what I take this word as encompassing, and why I do not tend to use it for myself even at the same time as I do not mind other people applying it to me:
https://othaos.com/satanist-luciferian-related-terms/On forms of Satanism influenced by Gnosticism or Kabbalah, and why I find it bizarre when Satanists adopt an absolute opposition to the latter while enthusiastically taking up the mythology of the former:
https://othaos.com/satanism-gnosticism-kabbalah/And finally, “why Tenebrous Satanism instead of some other form of Satanism?”:
https://othaos.com/why-tenebrous-satanism-instead/
One recurring element that I think readers will observe among these is that in my view, so long as someone can make some kind of intelligent tie-in to the mythological narrative of Satan, I see that as more definitive of what “Satanism” is than the mere fact of whether one acknowledges an actually-existing being as “Satan” or not.
Another recurring element that I hope is coming across is that I am able to combine my criticism of various other forms of Satanism with acknowledgement of how and why such forms are still meaningfully “Satanic” in the eyes of their practitioners.
Well met, traveller. I’ve been enjoying reading through some of the articles on your website, and will likely purchase your book.
I generally agree with CoS’s stance that “denominations” are unnecessary in Satanism. You’re either a Satanist, or not. I do however, greatly appreciate individual expression of one’s personal journey and development beyond LaVey. I personally am not a CoS member because like you, I have grown beyond the limitations of their vision. Their role in preserving the core philosophy of Satanism as defined by LaVey is important, and I respect it. I think there is room for expansion, which they seem to reject. I see my own philosophy, and yours, along with Ecclesia Luciferi’s Pan-Satanism as Satanism+. It scratches the itch for further “spiritual” development, without breaking the original. This is something I think LaVey would appreciate had he lived to see it.
I look forward to learning more about Tenebrous Satanism and your perspective.
Hail Satan!