The "book of satan" is composed of five parts. It contains several verses that contains relevations about the falsehood of several religions and the 'religious institutions'.
Lavey provides this introduction:
The Devil has been attacked by the men of God relentlessly and without reservation. Never has there been an opportunity, short of fiction, for the Dark Prince to speak out in the same manner as the spokesmen of the Lord of the Righteous. The pulpit-pounders of the past have been free to define "good" and "evil" as they see fit, and have gladly smashed into oblivion any who disagree with their lies - both verbally and, at times, physically. Their talk of "charity", when applied to His Infernal Majesty, becomes an empty sham - and most unfairly, too, considering the obvious fact that without their Satanic foe their very religions would collapse.
The Book of Satan I:
- In this arid wilderness of steel and stone I raise up my voice that you may hear. To the East and to the West I beckon. To the North and to the South I show a sign proclaiming: Death to the weakling, wealth to the strong!
In this verse, Lavey admits the truth that the "Rule of the Jungle" is the supreme law. This law is justifiably true - and in my personal judgment is also fair. - Open your eyes that you may see, Oh men of mildewed minds, and listen to me ye bewildered millions!
- For I stand forth to challenge the wisdom of the world; to interrogate the "laws" of man and of "God"!
- I request reason for your golden rule and ask the why and wherefore of your ten commandments.
Lavey publicly and clearly states his challenge to the "laws of Man": The laws of man are those laws that are created by people to control other people. He also claims a challenge to the "laws of God". In this context, Lavey mentions God in its Christian interpretation [hence he uses "God" with quotes]. - Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence, and he who saith "thou shalt" to me is my mortal foe!
Lavey states his refusal to follow divine idols or commands. The term "thou shalt" means being given orders, but Satanists hate to be given orders, and so Lavey states animosity towards those who give orders. - I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad redeemer, and write over his thorn-torn brow: The TRUE prince of evil - the king of slaves!
In Christian mythology, as Jesus [The son of God] was on the cross, "a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." (Luke 23:38)(*). Lavey mentions this incident and states the slogans he would think be more befitting:
1- The TRUE prince of evil: Lavey states that Jesus is the true evil, because his story is meant to spread lies, teach hypocrisy, and enslave his followers through a questionable sacrifice.
2- The King of Slaves: Many followers of the Abrahamic religions consider themselves as slaves to God. Hence the name the King of Slaves. Here we notice that Christianity and other religions are trying to take away the poison of the concept of Slavery. Slavery and enslavement is a very great offense, but we find that in those religious circuits people would be calling themselves as slaves without any sense of shame or indignity. - No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me; no stifling dogma shall encramp my pen!
Lavey makes a solid statement about his and other Satanists' commitment to the truth. He states that he will not believe in falsehood, or support false religions or ideologies. - I break away from all conventions that do not lead to my earthly success and happiness.
Ethical Egoism: Every person has a duty to be happy and successful. Lavey and other Satanists need to accomplish that duty even if that meant having to break customs and conventions. - I raise up in stern invasion the standard of the strong!
- I gaze into the glassy eye of your fearsome Jehovah, and pluck him by the beard; I uplift a broad-axe, and split open his worm-eaten skull!
- I blast out the ghastly contents of philosophically whited sepulchers and laugh with sardonic wrath!
Again, Lavey is challenging other religions to prove their worth. Lavey issues a personal challenge to Abrahamic God and his teachings, and describes them as being powerless and philosophically corrupt.
References:
The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey (PDF)
The Christian Bible / The New Testament(*) (PDF)
In this series:
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3
Posts
18 comments:
Satanism sounds like an attack on organized religions, primarily Christianity, I'm guessing since it's the most widely spread religion in the western world.
"...without their Satanic foe their very religions would collapse."
I'm not sure if we can say the same about Satanism, that it wouldn't have existed without Christianity. Who came first the chicken or the egg?
Nonetheless, I like an opposition to the mainstream, especially when it is a very powerful mainstream with numerous drawbacks.
Satanism has been approached in many ways. Anton Lavey has approached Satanism from a contrasting POV, that is he focused on his criticism of the mainstream religion. But this cannot be generalized to all sects of Satanism.
In regard to what came first question, yes it's a tricky one. But always the truth comes first.
Under normal circumstances we don't need to say the truth, because the truth is too obvious and speaks for itself. But there are certain times when liars speak too loudly that they make others believe their lies. It is at this point that the truth needs to be stated clearly.
As I explained earlier, Satanism represent our human nature. Our human nature was there, but we didn't need to state it or defend it because, well, it our nature. Up until the point that some religions decided to oppress our human nature and call it an evil sin... At that point, Satanism had to be more vocal to fight the oppression.
Does truth always come first?
I don't really know. I find this assumption very interesting. It gets me thinking of in line of reality comes first, then truth or lies come as a discription of the actions that took place. But you may say that actions themselves are the truth?
"In this verse, Lavey admits the truth that the "Rule of the Jungle" is the supreme law. This law is justifiably true and fair."
Why do you think the rule of the jungle is fair?
I might not make perfect sense, but I will try my best to make reasonable arguments.
Why does the truth come first?!
I have two explanations to offer:
1- For anything at all to exist, there must be a truth. Without a truth, there cannot exist anything, not even a falsehood.
2- If we consider truth as description of what exists then what exists needs to come first, and it comes in the form of truth.
"It gets me thinking of in line of reality comes first, then truth or lies come as a discription of the actions that took place." - I would say that reality is a consequence of the truth.
Now why does existence need a truth?! I have two explanations to offer:
1- Only truth can be said to exist, and if there was no truth, there would be nothing to exist.
2- For any non-trivial system to exist we need the law of non-contradiction. So the law of non-contradiction (LNC for short) must be true, and hence the LNC is the first truth. Not only it is the first truth. It is also the first meaningful statement. So before the LNC, no meaningful statements exists. So we need to state the truth of LNC, before any meaning can exists.
Why do I think that the rule of the jungle fair?!
Well, I think that rule of the jungle is justifiably true. I also think that truth is fair. Based on those two statements, I would say that rule of the jungle is justifiably fair.
Why Truth is fair?! Thats hard to explain, mainly because fairness is difficult to define. But the reality -AFAIK- does not have preferences. It just is - without judgment. In reality, each person is on his own, and his actions and their consequences determine the results. And this constitutes fairness by my definition.
Why is the rule of the jungle justifiably true?! Is it not reasonable to think that whoever has a stronger power to influence the outcome of certain events would do just that?!
The rule of the jungle is the natural law. Thats how things work. Some might argue that this setup can be changed, but in truth it cannot.
For example, if we create certain laws and expect people to abide by those laws, what would keep those laws from breaking?! In the case of our civilized nations, we can say the 'government', the 'justice system' and many of the civil institutions. But such setup would not change the rule of the jungle, but only shift it from the individuals level, to a more organized and institutionalized level. Would you not say that the wars that the USA declared in the past few years were example of the rule of the jungle?!
For the fairness of the rule of the jungle, i think it depends on how we define fair. You are arguing that it is fair because this is how things are and always will be, but I'm not sure if that's enough for it to be fair.
As for the law of non-contradiction, it can not be proved or denied, because any proof or disproof must use (or reject) the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion.
In your proof for LNC: p ^ ~p = FALSE, you assumed (j OR ~j = TRUE). But (j OR ~j = TRUE) is only true if LNC is true, so you can't use it to prove LNC.
Also, you did your proof by showing that with denying LNC and doing some logic you get p = TRUE and ~p = TRUE and since this is impossible then LNC must be true...but the only way you know that this is impossible is through LNC itself. So, you are using LNC to prove LNC.
For the rule of the jungle, I am saying that reality does not have preferences. Reality does like one person and treats him better. Thats my point.
As for LNC. It states that:
p^~p = FALSE
But:
P v ~p = TRUE , thats the law of bivalence. So the two statements are two different concepts, and I was not mixing the two.
What I proved was that without LNC we get a trivial system. And the definition of a trivial system is: A system that holds no information.
but the law of bivalence depends completely on LNC...as in it is only true if LNC is true. So you can't use it to prove LNC
I'm not denying LNC though, I'm just saying your proof doesn't hold because it uses LNC.
Also, what you proved is that without LNC p = true and ~p = true, and since that doesn't make sense LNC must be true. But, the only reason you know that that doesn't make sense is again through LNC!
"For anything at all to exist, there must be a truth. Without a truth, there cannot exist"
"If we consider truth as description of what exists then what exists needs to come first"
But who decide what is the right description of what exist? a true description to someone might not be a true description to another one, no?
I understand that the rule of the jungle is the natural law, but that doesn't make it a fair one. What is the focal point of judgement here? the existance of a creature?
The Arab Observer:
"But who decide what is the right description of what exist?"
First note that I wrote: "If we consider truth as description of what exists ...." - Thats because this statement is a bit presumptuous.
So lets further consider that we are making an objective description of what exists. Subjective descriptions can be derived from objective descriptions.
"a true description to someone might not be a true description to another one, no?" - If we separate the description from its reference, then yes. But if we couple the description with its reference, no problem then. Remember this post?
"I understand that the rule of the jungle is the natural law, but that doesn't make it a fair one." - For me, this does make it fair. But since "fairness" is a hard to define concept, so we might say thats its only a personal opinion. [I have modified the above post to reflect this.]
A Different Perspective:
1- LNC and Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) (*) are two unique concepts. To see their differences more clearly, you need to consider the set theory:
(*): Also in my above comment,
P v ~P = TRUE , is better referred to as LEM than LBV.
Example 1:
U = { a,b,c,d,e }
A = { a,b,c }
~A = { c,d,e }
=> A v ~A = U
=> A ^ ~A = { c }
In this example, the LNC is broken, but the LEM is intact.
Example 2:
U = { a,b,c,d,e }
A = { a,b }
~A = { e }
=> A v ~A = { a,b,e }
=> A ^ ~A = { }
In this example, the LNC is intact, but the LEM is broken.
ADP, I believe you misinterpret my proofs. LNC\LEM\LBV are all assumptions\axioms. You cannot prove any of them! And I did NOT prove any of them.
What I proved was that *without* LNC we get a *trivial system*. And a trivial system does not contain any information, and hence is *useless*.
"Without LNC we get a system with no information."
This makes sense because if the same thing can be true and false at the same time and state then you can't build a system with useful information. I just have a problem with the way you proved it because:
p ^ ~p = False (LNC)
~(p ^ ~p) = ~ False
~p OR p = True (LEM)
so using one to prove the other is not really valid. Otherwise I could prove LNC by doing this:
~p OR p = True (we are assuming LEM is true, because we think its unrealated to LNC)
~ (~p OR p = True)
p ^ ~p = False (we get LNC, so LNC must be true)
Very good argument that got me thinking for a while. It's not easy to make an argument about denying the law of non-contradiction because of its highly hypothetical nature. So obviously there are few assumptions to make.
One thing to make things clear, on the comments here, I misused the word 'proof'. If you read my article about LNC carefully, I have described my work as a demonstration not a proof. A demonstration is weaker than a proof because it lacks complete formalism. In other words, there are some assumptions or steps that have been omitted.
*** My side of the argument ***
We can hypothesize a system that denies the LNC, but keeps the LEM in place. To demonstrate that, we have to make an assumption.
Our assumption:
OR operator gives a statement that is at least stronger than an AND operator.
In other words, if we consider TRUE=1, and FALSE=0, we can say that:
(A v B) >= (A ^ B)
So if there was a statement that,
p ^ ~p = TRUE, Then
p v ~p = TRUE, by the merit of our assumption.
This assumption is justifiable on the ground of preserving the meaning of AND\OR operators.
*** ADP side of the argument ***
[At least the way I understand ADP's argument]
Can be stated in several ways:
LNC iff LEM
If LNC then LEM
If LEM then LNC
To answer your concern, lets explore what it means to deny the LNC.
Weak denial:
There are *some* cases where
p^~p=TRUE.
So, p^~p=FALSE sometimes,
and, p^~p=TRUE sometimes.
Strong denial:
It is *always* the case that
p^~p=TRUE.
The same can be said about the LEM, we can have weak denial of the law, as well as, strong denial of the law.
If we consider the case of *weak denial* of the two laws, we can see that:
A case where
p ^ ~p = FALSE , does NOT necessarily assume LNC.
A case where
p v ~p = TRUE , does NOT necessarily assume LEM.
But using my above mentioned assumption that:
(A v B) >= (A ^ B) [Assumption A1]
If we say that:
p is a statement that defies LNC
==> p ^ ~p = TRUE
==> p v ~p = TRUE [Using A1]
This result (p v ~p = TRUE) does not necessarily mean the LEM if we consider the weak denial of both laws.
********************
********************
I hope I made some sense. I will be glad to hear further arguments.
you're making sense. To summarize what i understood, we found contradicting results here:
(1) A ^ B implies A or B
(2) A ^ ~A implies A or ~A (this argument is from you)
on the other hand
(3) A ^ ~A implies[ ~(A ^ ~A) = False] implies [~A or A = False] (this argument is from me)
And (2) and (3) completely contradict one another
maybe this contradiction demonstrates that A^~A can not be true. Hence, it demonstrates LNC :)
although, overall, I think its a bit sketchy to demonstrate LNC through logic, because LNC is one of the basic assumptions\axioms of logic.
"And (2) and (3) completely contradict one another" - But since our initial assumption was that contradictions can happen, this result isn't unexpected.
"maybe this contradiction demonstrates that A^~A can not be true." - Since our assumption accepts contradicts, proof by contradiction would not stand.
But the trivial result of the system is obvious. And thats the result that I am basing my criticism to the denial of that law.
I agree...this is why I was skeptic about your original demonstration in your post. Because your demonstration resulted in p = true and ~p = true and because they contradicted each other you demonstrated LNC.
I don't think LNC can be demonstrated through logic. In the end p^~p=FALSE is only a premise.
"Because your demonstration resulted in p = true and ~p = true and because they contradicted each other you demonstrated LNC." - It's true that p=TRUE and ~p=TRUE are contradicting statements. But as I mentioned earlier, it was not the reason LNC is justified. The reason LNC is justified, is the loss of information without it.
Besides, how about the mathematical demonstration, or the language demonstration?!
"If we separate the description from its reference, then yes. But if we couple the description with its reference, no problem then. "
I just read the post :)
If we couple the description with its reference then truth would only be limited to that description and its reference. It wouldn't be true for another description of the same reference!
"If we couple the description with its reference then truth would only be limited to that description and its reference." - A true description that is not coupled with its reference, is a relative truth. A true description that is coupled with its reference, is an absolute truth.
You cannot have two contradicting true descriptions using the same reference (assuming LNC).
Post a Comment