BattyGoat

Satanists also run that gamut, they often have nothing in common whatsoever other than Satanism. And also there are now, these days, many different groups calling themselves satanists however they may call themselves "theistic" or "spiritual" satanists, and since it is has never been, up to this point, ever been canonized as an official organized religion, anyone can say they are a satanist. But the closest thing to just that is the original Satanic philosophy and ceremony created by Anton Szandor LaVey in 1966, with the official beginning of the Church of Satan, in which Satan is not viewed as an actual intelligent being but rather as a dark force of nature, mostly found within ourselves, a type of Jungian archetype of the collective unconscious (or subconscious) mind of humanity. The archetype of Satan, as we see it, represents the carnal side of our natures, and is the only religion ever created which celebrates our carnal pleasures rather than feeling guilty about them. All of the devilish imagery and darkness is only a symbolic tool necessary for the distillation of complex thought structures, especially in ritual, as in the ritual chamber there is no place for analytical thinking. It must be done completely on an emotional level to be effective.

Fluffer

BTW, I used to live near Anton LaVey's house in San Francisco on Alamo Square. It was a huge beautiful Victorian house painted black (no surprise there). I don't remember ever seeing him on the street, though.

BobArctor

I remember hearing somewhere that the organ on the Caroliner apricot muscle pancake (a music group in SF) records was recorded in the LaVay church of satan.

When I was a teen I read the satanic bible to attempt to find meaning in liking black sabbath and the like . I see there is a chapter called "indulgence... not compulsion" that describes indulgence as choosing to satisfy a desire as opposed to compulsion where one gives in to an urge. So, the "satanic statement": "Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence", would not mean satisfying an addiction.

Is that the area around where you see recovery related to "satanism"? Or, how do you see applying "satanism" to not satisfying addiction?

BattyGoat

Yeah, once something becomes a compulsion it ceases to ever be an indulgence. See also in Bill's Story in the Big Book Alcoholics Anonymous, "Liquor ceased to be a luxury, it became a necessity."

BobArctor

If alcohol use is a compulsion, what about "satanism" helps to overcome the compulsion?

Mikie9

the logic.

BattyGoat puts a label on it, but it's just logic. I am a programmer so this made sense to me. Not sure why "satanism" even comes into conversation though. It appears to just be another label for a belief system, a "club".

Not judging because I don't care and I mean that honestly. But I see logic in OP's thought process.

BattyGoat

When I bring myself to view things correctly, Satanism helps overcome the compulsion because it stands for undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit, and it stands for personal strength and responsibility, a healthy ego and true pride in oneself based on the merits of my own achievements. It stands for indulgence, not compulsion, and believes that compulsion is often due to not being able or allowed to indulge. Granted, compulsory drinking will never go back to being indulgence, but there is an entire world of indulgences for which alcohol and drugs are not needed, and enjoying life to the fullest is crucially important for overcoming the compulsion to drink. But it takes work to learn how to enjoy life again after having gone down so far into that pit of despair and fear. As for the reasoning behind the label "Satanism" rather than just calling it "logic", I would say that it is perfectly logical to call it satanism once you understand that humans are more mostly motivated by emotion, and symbols, regardless of how much sense something makes. We are not computers, nor are we a bunch of Mister Spocks from star trek, as if that type of mind could even be considered an improvement over humans. We need celebration and ceremony, even when we know the particular mascot symbol of the holiday doesn't exist, as in the case of these imaginary characters we call Santa Claus, Peter Cottontail, God, Satan, and so forth.

BobArctor

So, you are saying that overcoming latent socially prescribed moral inhibitions about indulging non-compulsively in other activity is crucially important in avoiding giving in to a compulsion to drink. But, maybe not the entirety of how satanism addresses addiction.

I was also noticing how the satanic bible says that all of the supposed 7 sins are good. And, it gives reasons for why they are good.

For 6 of the "sins", the reasons given avoid mentioning what are typically thought of as the bad aspects. So, "pride" is good because it can be seen in motivation to maintain self-respect, It doesn't mention what people usually mean when using "pride" as a negative characterization, for example unwillingness to recognize self-defeating behavior.

For "lust", elsewhere, it implies a negative aspect by not rejecting fidelity in relationships, e.g. marriage. And also by condemning behavior like rape etc.

The remaining "sin" is "sloth", for which it gives no justification.

Almost all of the satanic bible is about the behavior of people who call themselves "christians". So, I can imagine how it could apply to someone who is deeply inhibited by moral prescriptions from "christian" peers. But, for people who are not so inhibited, I am not sure if I am missing where it is giving a direction for avoiding negative aspects of behavior. In particular, addictive behavior. Except saying that it is not "satanic".

Stewart888

very interesting...welcome...what ever works....enjoy...keep us up to date...

BattyGoat

Actually, and I'm going to sound like a complete hypocrite saying this, but I think Satanism pretty much views addiction as a weakness which only affects non-Satanists.
Anton LaVey, founder of the CoS, said to be a Satanist one has to be fully capable of running a smooth life on their OWN, that is to say, without the help of religion, drugs, or any other type of "crutch". The philosophy is based on elitism and supremacism (though not racially), survival of the fittest, and innate self-mastery.
I myself do not fit that mold. I have been plagued with neurotic insecurities and paranoia all my life, and have always basically been addictive and recklessly impulsive by default. Satanism champions wisdom, whereas I have always displayed foolishness and drunkenness. The only things I really have in common with Satanism are my belief in the validity of its ideals, though I seem to have never been able to live up to them.
But on the other hand, I strongly suspect that this is quite common if not largely prevalent among the many who call themselves satanists nowadays. Just as with any other religion or philosophy, people are rarely
perfect models of it's principles.
So my purpose in seeking out other sober Satanists is less about how Satanism addresses addiction, but rather more about how I myself am trying to address my addiction by attempting to form connections with other like -minded people.

BobArctor

I think that would mean there can be no satanists. I doubt that LaVay would have claimed to have no compulsions.

A person who has avoided compulsions didn't avoid them by being stronger than an addict. Strength is a mundane quality and weakness is not the main problem an addict has to deal with.

Magnitude (strength) is only as great as what it is a magnitude of. In that case, "magnitude" is the most mundane aspect. Magnitude is only great in a condition of weakness (lack of magnitude).

Compassion is among the hardest abilities someone can cultivate. Smiting your enemy is what terrified dogs perceive as greatness. It is based in fear. From the perspective of the dog's weakness, it is what is lacking and is "great" in comparison.

The satanic bible alludes to compassion without pointing it out. So, I don't get the sense that he (LaVay) was unaware of the difficult parts behind each quality that the book "blesses". He seemed to find value in dramatic ritual, for a particular audience that would be empowered by it.

BobArctor

I think that would mean there can be no satanists. I doubt that LaVay would have claimed to have no compulsions.

A person who has avoided compulsions didn't avoid them by being stronger than an addict. Strength is a mundane quality and weakness is not the main problem an addict has to deal with.

Magnitude (strength) is only as great as what it is a magnitude of. In that case, "magnitude" is the most mundane aspect. Magnitude is only great in a condition of weakness (lack of magnitude).

Compassion is among the hardest abilities someone can cultivate. Smiting your enemy is what terrified dogs perceive as greatness. It is based in fear. From the perspective of the dog's weakness, it is what is lacking and is "great" in comparison.

A nurturing mother is among the strongest of people. But, "strength" is not what is great about her. A marauding killer is among the weakest of people.

The satanic bible alludes to compassion without pointing it out. So, I don't get the sense that he (LaVay) was unaware of the difficult parts behind each quality that the book "blesses". He seemed to find value in dramatic ritual, for a particular audience that would be empowered by it.