It has come to my attention that the subject of Devil Worship has once again become a heated debate in some corners of the Satanist scene. I would like to take this time to voice my thoughts on just what I consider Devil Worship to be, and what my position in this long-standing debate actually is. Now I consider myself a Satanist, for a variety of reasons -- I agree with a bit of Crowley, a bit of LaVey, a bit of Aquino, and even a bit of King Diamond -- but I identify with the term first and foremost because I believe in a supernatural being named Satan, and I religiously worship Him as my god. To be true, this definition of the term "Satanist" is not entertained by the majority of Satanists, as most would seem to have a problem with the tricky subjects of theism and "worship." Hence, in this context, I am perhaps more specifically described as a Theistic Satanist (theistic meaning "to believe in a deity"). But even though I accept the term "Theistic Satanist", I actually prefer the term "Devil Worshiper." This automatically brings up two very important questions: (A) Who/what is the Devil, and
(B) How does one worship the Devil?
First, I will explain my understanding of what the word "Devil" means. Naturally the word can have many possible meanings and is often used to refer to any number of things. The word itself is etymlogically derived from the Greek "diabolos," which means "One who throws across," describing a person or thing that creates obstruction for someone or something else. When it is spelled with a lowercase "d," it can be used to describe more than one mythological character (e.g., the Egyptian Set, the Persian Ahriman and the Buddhist Mara can all be called "devils"). However, when the word is spelled with a capital "D," then more often than not it is being used to refer specifically to the spiritual entity that Christians have traditionally referred to as Satan, Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness, the God of this World, and the Devil. Now many people involved in modern alternative religions (and even some who are not involved in such) will distinguish between such names as "Satan" and "Lucifer" as belonging to entirely separate entities or concepts. "Satan," it is said, is simply the Jewish concept of an adversarial angel that works for Yahweh (as in the book of Job), while "Lucifer" is merely a Latin name for the planet Venus in its role as the morning star. While it is true that these are the original meanings behind these two terms, the fact remains that both names have been adopted by the Christian tradition -- along with such titles as "Prince of Darkness," "God of this World" and "Devil" -- as names for a single entity. And despite whatever arguments about the historical origins of these terms, this is indeed how the terms are most generally used in modern Western culture -- whether the historical purists like it or not. Disregarding whatever original meanings and implications these various terms might once have possessed, Christians have traditionally used them to describe a single supernatural being who is essentially described in their theology as being (1) the instigator of all differentiation from and obstruction against "the Word of God," and (2) the ruler over the terrestrial world in which we live. More simply, this entity is most often described as a "God of Evil." However, I consider the term "Evil" here to be far too simplistic and subjective. It is not a noun, but an adjective which expresses a subjective value judgement imposed upon something that is really neither "good" nor "evil" in and of itself, but beyond such moral terminology. However, I would say that I view this entity as being "good" in the sense that it continually entices the subjective mind into determining "good" and "evil" -- i.e., truth and error -- by and for itself, as a functioning individual entity. This, rather than the alternative: allowing the subjective mind to be pressured or "bullied" into accepting...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document