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.
Re: denominations, I think one could just as easily say “denominations are unnecessary in Christianity, you’re either a Christian or not”. But on the other hand, I also think it is useful to be able to articulate how communities of religious adherents can share some core values while also being very different from one another in other details. The way I’d square this circle personally would be to acknowledge denominations may be meaningless hair-splitting to an adherent focused on the core, but note at the same time that they are useful to scholars in such a way that it seems unreasonable to try to declare that they aren’t a thing.
Every academic scholar of religion I’ve seen talk about Satanism does talk about denominations, and it then seems to me like CoS saying there’s no denominations is the same kind of move as if the Catholic church was to say “there’s no denominations in Christianity” while acting like Catholicism is the only valid form of Christianity. Like OK, that’s nice if the Catholic thinks that, but no non-Catholic is going to take it seriously. Likewise, while the LaVeyan faction’s desire to “protect its brand” is understandable (I was LaVeyan myself for several decades), it comes across to most non-LaVeyans as weird clueless denial of the reality that religious innovation will always happen regardless of whether they approve of it (as is also true of any other religion) - vs. if they could just be like “we are the original above-ground Satanists” instead of “we are the only Satanists”, I think they’d be on much firmer ground clout-wise!
Re: LaVey appreciating it, I like to believe that myself, as I get the impression he was a more complex person in his spiritual beliefs than many of the current CoS crowd seems to want to portray him as. I’m definitely with you re: having respect for him and agreement with many of the fundamental principles. I often tell people that I’m less a “theistic Satanist” than I am a “theist who’s also a Satanist,” and it’s my ability to combine the LaVeyan sort of philosophy with non-LaVeyan spiritual practices that I have in mind when I use that phrase.
Haha this turned into a wall of text… but anyway, thanks for the message and I’ll be interested to hear what you think if you delve into my material further! Thanks also for mentioning the other group you referenced here, as I’d not heard of that and I’m always curious about others’ takes on Satanism!
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!
Re: denominations, I think one could just as easily say “denominations are unnecessary in Christianity, you’re either a Christian or not”. But on the other hand, I also think it is useful to be able to articulate how communities of religious adherents can share some core values while also being very different from one another in other details. The way I’d square this circle personally would be to acknowledge denominations may be meaningless hair-splitting to an adherent focused on the core, but note at the same time that they are useful to scholars in such a way that it seems unreasonable to try to declare that they aren’t a thing.
Every academic scholar of religion I’ve seen talk about Satanism does talk about denominations, and it then seems to me like CoS saying there’s no denominations is the same kind of move as if the Catholic church was to say “there’s no denominations in Christianity” while acting like Catholicism is the only valid form of Christianity. Like OK, that’s nice if the Catholic thinks that, but no non-Catholic is going to take it seriously. Likewise, while the LaVeyan faction’s desire to “protect its brand” is understandable (I was LaVeyan myself for several decades), it comes across to most non-LaVeyans as weird clueless denial of the reality that religious innovation will always happen regardless of whether they approve of it (as is also true of any other religion) - vs. if they could just be like “we are the original above-ground Satanists” instead of “we are the only Satanists”, I think they’d be on much firmer ground clout-wise!
Re: LaVey appreciating it, I like to believe that myself, as I get the impression he was a more complex person in his spiritual beliefs than many of the current CoS crowd seems to want to portray him as. I’m definitely with you re: having respect for him and agreement with many of the fundamental principles. I often tell people that I’m less a “theistic Satanist” than I am a “theist who’s also a Satanist,” and it’s my ability to combine the LaVeyan sort of philosophy with non-LaVeyan spiritual practices that I have in mind when I use that phrase.
Haha this turned into a wall of text… but anyway, thanks for the message and I’ll be interested to hear what you think if you delve into my material further! Thanks also for mentioning the other group you referenced here, as I’d not heard of that and I’m always curious about others’ takes on Satanism!
You make a fair point, and I don’t totally disagree, perhaps denomination is applicable, especially if it becomes a movement with students/adherents.
A wall of text is appropriate and appreciated when you have something to say :).