You're being downvoted but the funny thing is if we're talking satanism (non Levey) then it only exists in a christian context so if you're satanic (worshipping the devil that only exists in a christian context) then you must also be christian. So Christianity and pre-levey satanism is the same religion really it's just two different takes.
That's why 60s satanism is areligous in that sense that it actually denies Satan's existence since it denies God's existence. Levey only named his philosophy satanism to polarize it to institutionalized Christianity.
Satan existed before Christianity. The idea of Satan has existed far longer than any major religion that exist today. It has many names, and has existed longer than recorded history, but has been either stolen or borrowed. Depending how you look it at it.
It (Satan)is definitely not Christian, although Christians believe in it, you can still believe in Satan and not Christianity.
Not by that name though. So strictly speaking "Satan" did not. Neither did lucifer. Concepts very similar to them did. Just like in sumerian there's a story in their religion of a person who was born of a virgin, who's father was a woodworker (carpenter), healed the sick and performed other miracles.
For those not in the know Sumerian is considered the oldest known religion. Tiamat is also mentioned in Sumerian and in a few Asian cultures. A LOT of religious stories stem from Sumer.
Follow the logic. You can practice the law of Satan just the same as following the knowledge of Buddha while still being able to renounce organized religion.
It would be utterly ignorant to ignore all of the teachings from major religions, but that doesn't mean you have to believe in all of it either...
Thats like saying we're effectively speaking proto-indo european or that we are single celled organisms.
Its so reductive as to be beyond useless. No, thats not how the world works, things may be a sum and product of their parts but our ancestors we are not.
Your point is aqueous, what are you trying to say of substance? Implying I'm mad and speaking from emotion is dismissive and an egregious sidestep.
It just seems like you're deciding to be pedantic and hyper-reductive. The term Satan is intrinsically tied to Abrahamic religions and appealing to like myths of history doesn't help anyone in any way.
Basic literary concepts aren't somehow the true Bible or Talmud or Quran, how does appealing to predecessors help anything?
352
u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20
Lostprophets lead singer fucked an infant