Episode 051 Transcription

Fine, Let's Play The Dictionary Game

December 07, 2024

Using the DICTIONARY to discredit Satanism? To that I say: Fine, let’s play the dictionary game. And I’ll show you why this tiresome argument fails.

I’ll also answer some questions on from the listeners on Satanic altars and selectively dealing with trolls on-line.

---

Magister Bill M. here with Satansplain. As I record this now, last WEEK was Thanksgiving. Personally, I’ve always liked Thanksgiving. If this offends anybody…tough shit. Anyway, I view Thanksgiving as a day of gluttony and sloth, two of the wonderful seven deadly sins. Also a time to stop and be THANKFUL. So I will take a moment now to say I am thankful that people check out and support my work, whether it’s Satansplain, The Devil’s Mischief, Dr. Schitz, or they’ve watched me as a musician, or read one of my essays. There are MILLIONS of other things you could be checking out right now from the internet, and for the moment, you’ve chosen Satansplain. So let me fulfil MY end of that, and go on with the show.

Several years ago I wrote an essay titled “Fine, Let’s Play The Dictionary Game”. This was posted straight to Church of Satan dot com, where you can read it. Maybe it was somewhere on Facebook first, but it wasn’t long before it hit the website. As with most of my essays, or for that matter most episodes of Satansplain, this essay addresses a problem I’ve seen happen over and over again. Namely in the form of one particularly BAD argument some people try to make about Satanism. So I figured it would be appropriate for Satansplain, to READ it here on the show, and maybe throw in some extra side notes. Let’s get right into it.

“Fine, Let’s Play the Dictionary Game”, an essay by Church of Satan Magister Bill M.

As the Church of Satan has been explaining for over half a century, Satanism is not devil worship, but rather a non-theistic religion which utilizes the mythological Satan as an apt metaphor for its carnal philosophy. This can come as surprising news to people whose only prior exposure to supposed “Satanists” consisted of seeing crazed devil worshipers on sensationalist talk shows, or the “Satanic” cults depicted in horror movies, or stories from Christian propaganda tracts, or perhaps that one rebellious kid from back in middle school who embraced whatever devilish aesthetics his favorite rock bands were using, and either CALLED himself a Satanist or WAS called a Satanist by other students.

Now many people, to their credit, will accept our corrections to these misconceptions they may have had. They will read or hear the Satanism 101 explanation [whether it’s the one you hear at the beginning of Satansplain, or something similar], and they’ll say, “Hmm, OK. I get it now. You don’t actually do that sort of crazy stuff in the horror movies.” Other people unfortunately wish to remain willfully ignorant. They’ll still cling to their incorrect views on what Satanists believe and do, even after they’ve been corrected.

One of the most tiresome forms of this argument is, what I call, the dictionary game. This is when somebody tries to argue, “I just looked up ‘satanism’ in the dictionary. And it defines it as ‘innate wickedness’ or “obsession with or affinity for evil; specifically: worship of Satan marked by the travesty of Christian rites.’ So, you’re wrong about what Satanism is!”

Before explaining why this argument is a fallacious one, it’s worth noting that Satanists aren’t the only people who would find a disagreeable description of themselves in the dictionary. Consider the following:

The word PAGAN. Dictionary entries for the word PAGAN include, quote, “an irreligious or hedonistic person” or even, quote, “an uncivilized or unenlightened person.” The reality is that there are many humans today who identify as pagans, and I doubt they would find these to be accurate descriptions of themselves.
How about atheism? How does the dictionary describe atheism? Some dictionaries describe atheism as “the doctrine or belief that there is no God.” Atheists themselves however overwhelmingly describe atheism as simply the absence of any belief in deities (“a” + “theos” + “ism” = “without” “deity” “belief”). I’ve explained this in some several past episodes of Satansplain. You either believe in a deity or you don’t. If you’re NOT a person who decidedly believes in God or some other deity, you are an atheist. REJECTING the notion that there IS a God is not the same as positively asserting that there is NO God. You don’t HAVE to positively assert deities don’t exist in order to be an atheist. And also thoroughly explained, no, I’m not describing agnosticism. “Agnosticism” is not some sort of halfway point or third choice between theism and atheism. Again, see Satansplain episode number 16.
Now who are some other groups of people who show up in the dictionary? Well I know Wiccans tend to identify as witches and practitioners of witchcraft. But I don’t think they would be too happy to open up a dictionary and see witchcraft described as, quote “communication with the devil or with a familiar.” Nor would they take too kindly to the word WITCH being described as a woman practicing “black witchcraft” or as “an ugly old woman; or hag.”
And if there are any CHRISTIANS listening who think the examples I’ve given so far: Satanists, pagans, atheists, witches, all don’t really count because these are just the WEIRD EVIL people, then let’s look at dictionary entries for the word CHRISTIAN. Yes, even the word Christian can have entries in the dictionary which many Christians would reject as inaccurate. For example, quote “a member of any of certain Protestant churches.”  I’m sure that Christians of the non-Protestant varieties, such as those in the Catholic and Orthodox denominations, would have objections to that exclusionary description. Some dictionaries also describe Christian the ADJECTIVE as quote, “acting in a kind or generous way”. To which I know some Christians will say, “No no no, merely being a kind person does not make you a Christian. Because my God will still send you to hell if you haven’t been saved.” We’ve ALL heard that. Or for that matter, this dictionary I have here describes Christianity first as, quote, the religion derived from Jesus Christ. But I’m sure you’ve heard some Christians claim, “No! No! Christianity is not a RELIGION. It’s a RELATIONSHIP with Jesus!”

So my point, which I hope I’ve made abundantly clear now, is that it’s not Satanists who are objecting to how the dictionary describes their religion. But let’s take a step further back and try to understand what’s going on here. Are all of these people INCORRECT about their religion? Are all of these people: Satanists, Pagans, atheists, Christians, Wiccans -- are they all just basing their religious identity on the incorrect meanings of words? Or -- taking the other extreme here -- are the DICTIONARIES just completely incorrect, and meaningless, and their definitions arbitrary? To paraphrase a Lewis Carol fable, are we free to make any words mean anything we want them to mean? No, of course not. No, to all of the above.

Here is the key point which many people miss. Dictionaries do not give DEFINITIONS of words. Dictionaries give USAGES of words.
Let me repeat that. Dictionaries give USAGES, not definitions.
Dictionaries are not absolute authorities on objective truth. Dictionaries are reference books. Much like encyclopedias, they are handy, but not meant to tell you everything you’d ever need to know about a particular topic.
Now some of you listeners may remember that there was a past pair of Satansplain episodes on the topic of logic and fallacies. I gave examples of various logical fallacies. And when you tell a Satanist “Well you’re not practicing Satanism because the dictionary says it’s something else”, then I would say you’re using a logical fallacy known as the “argument from authority”. In this case, you are saying the dictionary is the authority. Well, hate to break it to you, but one line from Webster’s dictionary doesn’t erase the fact that a thoroughly-established, non-theistic religion called Satanism has existed since 1966. If a page in your dictionary describes people one way, and reality shows them behaving otherwise, um…I’m sorry, but reality wins.

In fact, I will go you one further. About a month ago I was in an antique store, and I found a book on logic. It was a nice little hardcover book, printed in 1896. Needless to say, I bought it. Yes, I do buy and read books on topics like logic and mathematics in my spare time. This one was titled, “Logic: An Introductory Manual For the Use of University Students”. And I bring this up because chapter 6 is about definitions, and it essentially makes the same point I just made. Quote, “By definition we mean, ‘the explicit statement of the connotation of a term’,” then later it goes on to say, “The EXPLANATION of a word does not necessarily involve giving its proper definition. Dictionary quote-unquote ‘definitions’, are usually only explanations, in which some partial synonym of the word is given, or a description of the thing to which the name applies. They usually give the popular connotation, the rough, current meaning, but not the exact list of attributes, all of which must be present, and none of which must be absent, if the name is to be given.”

And the book goes on, of course, but hopefully you get the point.

Back to the essay.

Furthermore, a closer look at these dictionary entries for “Satanism” show that they include old usages of the term “satanism,” with a lowercase “s.”  Now this WORD “satanism” itself existed before the Church of Satan. We have never denied this. But just because the WORD existed, doesn’t mean a religion of the same name has always existed. I’m sure I could find some book from the 1800s that used the word COMPUTER, or MACINTOSH for that matter, but obviously that doesn’t mean Abraham Lincoln had a laptop. So if the word “Satanism” didn’t refer to an actual religion, what did it refer to? If you look at how the word was USED, it was a pejorative term. An insult term, essentially. “General wickedness”, it was sometimes described as, again according to the dictionary. Or in even MORE archaic cases, it was used to describe a sin itself, as in “homosexuality is a satanism”. Notice tn this last example, the “ism” suffix doesn’t mean a belief system or ideology, like the “ism” does in words like “Buddhism” or “Marxism,” but rather a specific sort of act, like the “ism” in words like a “colloquialism”, or a “baptism”, or a “truism”, or a “criticism”. So at best, the word “Satanism” back then was used to describe a blasphemous sort of BEHAVIOR, not an actual religion; not a full-fledged belief system.

Just to further clarify this point, getting a little away from the essay for a moment, the bottom line is that there was no actual religion calling itself Satanism and its practitioners calling themselves Satanists until the Church of Satan. There were DEVIL worshipers. And that’s what they were called: devil worshipers. And even then, we don’t really see much of a defined religion among them. The Satanic Bible provides a brief history of some of these alleged groups, and frankly, they seem to be largely unrelated cases of people wanting to do some blasphemy for the sake of blasphemy, or a black mass for the excuse of having an orgy. There’s still NO REAL evidence of these same people having clearly laid out philosophy for how to go about life when ritual time is over, no contemplation of how to deal with practical problems in life or human interaction, or those other sorts of things that distinguish religion from theater. So once again, the WORD Satanism existed, and we can find some references in the dictionary using that old USAGE of the word, but to say that the old and vague usage of the term to describe general blasphemy or sinning must also define our religion as Satanists today, or that these are all just different denominations of the same religion, is just not a valid argument.

And yet, we still see idiots who do this. Recently there was this Chrstian on Twitter whose definition of Satanism kept changing. He said it was just autonomy, then he said it was general blasphemy and that ANY person who was spitefully going against his Christian religion could be accurately labeled a Satanist. He said Thelema, the religion of Aleister Crowley, was a type of Satanism. He said all ATHEISTS are obeying the will of Satan and thus can be called Satanists. And of course, at some point during all of this, he tried using the DICTIONARY as one of his authorities on the matter. Which in the long run didn’t even agree with what he was saying in the first place.

I similarly saw ANOTHER idiot back in October who argued that the root word of Satan means “adversary” -- and it’s true, it does, but then she used this to argue that therefore ANY and all acts of adversarialism could be accurately labeled as Satanism.

And I said no, it doesn’t work like that. Just because Satan means the adversary doesn’t mean that any person who is acting adversarial can just be called a Satanist. And to further drive this point home, I gave an analogy. The word CHRIST literally means THE ANOINTED ONE. As in, anointed with oil. That DOES NOT MEAN, putting vinaigrette dressing on a SALAD, makes it Jesus.

Now back to the article. I COULD have just ended the article here, because I made my point on why the dictionary argument against Satanism doesn’t work. BUT, I decided to take this a step further. As long as we have our dictionaries open and in front of us, let’s have some fun. Let’s see if there are any words commonly associated with “Satanism”, whose many usages, upon deeper examination, DO in fact describe Satanism as we Satanists know and practice it.

I decided to take a look at words like Satan, devil, sin, witchcraft, and magic. We know that there are some SUPERNATURAL meanings of all these words, but there are many additional usages of these words which do NOT refer to the supernatural or the spiritual.

Let’s start with Satan. As I’ve already pointed out, dictionaries note that Satan is a Hebrew word, and its original meaning is “adversary.” Satan means the adversary. Does that relate to Satanism? Of course that relates to Satanism. As Satanists, we are ADVERSARIES; we are adversarial to things supposedly spiritual. We are ADVERSARIAL to the status quo. Like I say in the intro to every Satansplain episode, we make use of Satan as mythology’s most fitting mascot for what we’re about.

How about the word “Devil”? Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary describes devil as, among other things, quote “a person of notable energy” and “dashing spirit,” or “one who is mischievous.” “Oh, you got me good there, you little devil, you!” Also, it can just be a word for a FELLOW in some circumstances, as in “What a lucky devil!”. Other descriptions here for devil are, quote, “something very trying or provoking” (as in “I’m having a devil of a time trying to fix this car”), or quote “the difficult, deceptive, or problematic part of something.” Similarly, there’s the related adjective devil-ISH, described as “mischievous” or “roguish”, as in “She has a devilish grin.”

Now do any of THESE meanings I just listed relate to Satanism? You bet. Satanists are not devil WORSHIPERS, but we are devils ourselves in the sorts of ways I just described. People of notable stamina, or mischief. We enjoy not only the piety-destroying nature of mischief, but putting norms to the challenge, the power of doubt over faith, and self-serving Machiavellian tactics. As I’ve been saying on my OTHER podcast, The Devil’s Mischief, for 20 years, comedy in and of itself is Satanic. It’s devilish. Laughter, and satire, and ridicule.

Next dictionary word. SIN. How about the word SIN? How does the dictionary describe SIN? Sure, there’s the stupid religious usage of the word, but how about the rest? Or for that matter, let’s look at the related adjective, sin-FUL! Some dictionaries point out that the word sinful is sometimes used colloquially to mean something quite indulgent, as in “This chocolate cake is sinfully delicious!” In fact I recall a brand of cookies that was around back in the 1990s called Sinful Selects. Speaking of food, there is of course “devil’s food” cake, along with the American brand dessert cakes known as “Devil Dogs”.

Now to me, this is reflected in Satanic Statement number one: Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence! On the other hand, we see devil show up in foods like “deviled eggs” and “deviled ham”, because they’re spicy. Not unlike the uncomfortable truth of Satanism to the people who only have a taste for the SAFE.

I mentioned “witchcraft” earlier. Dictionary entries for witchcraft include not just mentions of sorcery and supernatural powers, but quote, “an irresistible influence or fascination.” Now THIS usage of the word witchcraft is nothing new. One of the most famous examples is the SONG, Witchcraft. Almost a decade before the Church of Satan was founded, Frank Sinatra sang his rendition of the song “Witchcraft”. I’m sure many of you have heard it. Is it about devil worship or the occult? Noooo, it’s about a beautifully alluring woman. (Sinatra’s record, by the way, received four Grammy nominations, but I digress.)

And gee, wouldn’t you know, this is the sort of witchcraft we describe in our book The Satanic Witch! Lesser magic. Those of you who’ve read that book, know that this isn’t the sort of witchcraft based on faith in supernatural forces, but rather the psychological and supernormal art of seduction. Again: “irresistible influence or fascination.” From a Satanic standpoint, that Sinatra song has far more to do with witchcraft than anything you’ll read in a Silver Ravenwolf paperback.

Which brings me to ANOTHER word from the dictionary with some interesting descriptions: MAGIC. How does the dictionary describe MAGIC? Is it all necessarily supernatural? Of course not. In fact, when most people use the term magic, they DON’T mean something supernatural. Magic can mean, quote, “the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.” This is sometimes more specifically called “stage magic.”  That’s ONE description of the word magic, but the word is also used to refer to things that are quote, “mysteriously enchanting”. For example, you may hear somebody say, “Gee, I went to Julie and Bob’s wedding this weekend, and…it was simply magical!” What does that mean? It means it was something mysteriously enchanting, or otherwise so emotionally-moving, it’s hard to put into words.

Hmm, so let’s look at this. Magic, as a theatrical art form, producing illusions as entertainment, in a very subjective setting, AND/OR creating an event that is mysteriously enchanting. Hmm. Well gee, that sounds a lot like what we in Satanism call GREATER magic, or ritual magic.

So in summary, dictionaries are reference books that catalog word USAGES, not authoritative definitions. The fact that dictionaries may catalog arcane or ignorant misuses of the term Satanism does not change the fact that we were the ones who established a definitive religion, calling itself Satanism, and still practice it today. Likewise we see there are OTHER religions whose practitioners would object to one or more usages or MISusages of their religion’s name; hence, they object to dictionary entries reflecting that. But lastly, even if we DO decide to play the dictionary game, we find that many other emotionally-charged words ASSOCIATED with devil worship or the darkly supernatural, also have ADDITIONAL meanings in general English, some of which DO in fact nicely line up with Satanism as we Satanists know it, and show once again, why our name and our metaphors are apt ones.

Satan is the adversary, and as Satanists we are ADVERSARIES to the spiritual and the status quo. We ARE devils, in the mischievous, Machiavellian, or even skeptical way. We enjoy those indulgent things that people playfully call sinful. We have witchcraft in that Sinatra sense, detailed in our book The Satanic Witch. And not unlike stage MAGIC, with no stupid little letter “K” at the end, we recognize the emotionally-moving power of theatrics in the form of psychodrama, and experience those emotionally-moving events in life that aren’t supernatural, but also are sometimes too profound for words or worth trying to rationalize to ourselves with mundane explanations.

And I finish my article with this: Words can be slippery at times, but we know who we are. We are Satanists. We’ve chosen that name because, at the end of the day, it’s the most apt and stimulating one, and it has served us well. But as the saying goes, “the Devil is in the details!”

That concludes the essay, “Fine, Let’s Play the Dictionary Game”, and my additional commentary on it. Let’s take a break. You are listening to Satansplain.

[break]

---
Magister Bill M. here with Satansplain. Visit the official website of the show, Satansplain dot com. There, you can listen to episodes of Satansplain. You can also listen to Satansplain on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Audible, and other places where most podcasts can be found. Please like and follow Satansplain on YouTube, Facebook, and X. For all correspondence, email me directly. Bill at Satansplain dot com is the email address.

And with that, let’s get to some listener emails.

Only for Supporters

To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter

Bill M.@therealbillm

July 11, 2025

Messages from "The Mosque of Satan"

Responding to Pseudo-Satanic Ignorance

As mentioned in the 3-part "No, Dummy, It’s Not Like Catholics Vs. Protestants" episode series of Satansplain, there have been countless pseudo-Satanic groups over the years, quite often with names in the form of "[House of worship] of [evil deity]". I'm sure I talked about the typical sort of person who feels the need to make these pointless things and why. Well, I'd like to share an exchange I had with somebody who messaged me recently.

Message #1

Hi I am founder of the Mosque of Satan and have recently got round to reading your Satanic Bible (after about 10 yrs since first downloading it): in order to compare any of our differences or similarities.

My particular interest was in the language used for the Enochian Keys - since in our Mosque of Satan we have what I have since come to believe may actually be the Atlantean language. Whether it actually is or Not is irrelevant, nonetheless I have gone through step-by-step in my most recent Esoteric-Themed Podcast on YouTube [uploaded in 2022]; exactly how I arrived at each letter or syllable (transposing 2 chakras down via use of chakra vowel-sounds and consonants, in order to reach the feminine inversion [of originally masculine Recitation]).

However No such explanation is given with your Enochian Keys.

Are we really expected to believe that someone heard voices, then jotted down what these revealed ?

(By the way I am recent a subscriber to your 'Satansplain' channel)

Was there enough here to make me roll me eyes? Absolutely. But tried giving a response more along the polite lines.

Bill's Reply #1

Hello Devi,

I've never heard of the YouTube channel "Mosque of Satan", and can't seem to find it or any info on it.

Anyway, there is no authorized electronic version of The Satanic Bible (the foundational text of Satanism), so whatever version you "downloaded" a decade ago is an illegal bootleg. So I don't know if it's an accurate copy or says something the book doesn't actually say. You can read more about that in my essay here: https://churchofsatan.com/free-satanic-bible-is-unsatanic/

As for somebody "hearing voices and jotting things down", well that sounds like what practically any mystic or founder of any theistic religion has done. Satanism is a non-theistic religion, and as a Satanist I know that notions of entities like demons or gods are fictional creations of humans. I believe the same about "Atlanteans", since there is no real evidence of a place called "Atlantis". Regardless, as The Satanic Bible explicitly states in its introduction to the keys, the Keys do trace back to what was published by John Dee and Edward Kelley, which went through translations by different groups over the years. As The Satanic Bible states, what is presented is "an archaic but Satanically correct unvarnishing of the translation employed by the Order of the Golden Dawn in the late Nineteenth Century". So, LaVey took what the Golden Dawn had used then, and offers a more Satanically moving translation that better works within the psychodramatic context of Satanic ritual. Likewise, "The barbaric tonal qualities of this language give it a truly magical effect which cannot be described."

As stated earlier in The Satanic Bible, regarding the esoteric nature of the original Catholic mass in Latin, and how its English translation removed that esoteric quality to it, "It is much simpler to obtain an emotional reaction using words and phrases that cannot be understood than it is with statements which even the simplest mind will question when hearing them in an understandable language." Thus I see no reason why a Satanist would need some sort of letter-by-letter translation of Enochian.

LaVey also points out in the following essay, "I find most annoying the person who demands a word-for-word translation of the Keys, not realizing they are virtually like Pigeon English in their lack of grammatical nuance and literary style. If they were to be translated literally, you may be assured that the chanter would sound most inarticulate!"

https://churchofsatan.com/enochian-pronunciation-guide/

Message #2 and Bill's reply

Here was the reply I got back:

I recall downloading it from the actual Church of Satan website !

But my 'Mosque of Satan' is Not traceable via Google search for some reason, despite that 2022 podcast actually being CALLED 'Mosque of Satan' (since having changed it to 'Nejraïg Of Satan' to avoid people of a low intelligence clicking on it). Here's a direct link to that most recent podcast, by the way:

... a video on my channel, the channel of which would have been accessible via link on [this]; my Facebk profile. (Also having 'Satanic-Themed' playlist among channel sections on my homepage).

But after sending my initial message earlier on, I was reminded of the Roman Catholics having taught the prophet Muhammad [H.A.E] techniques for the invoking of Divine Revelation - and similarly, our friend John Dee (undoubtedly a Freemason or something); possibly having access to similar such techniques.

But I far from doubt in the power of these keys - my particular interest being Key 7 (despite having similar Satanic 'Zikhr' techniques of our own)

At this point, I know I could have taken the harsh road. It's not like Satanism is ecumenical. Alas, I decided to just correct the more obvious mistake. I also figured, "Well, Satanism certainly doesn't have a monopoly on the Enochian Keys. If some mystic likes the Enochian keys for some mystic reasons, so be it." So here was my reply:

The official Church of Satan website has never made The Satanic Bible available for a free download. As I explained in the article, there are very good reasons why we'd never do that. Maybe you got it from fake site claiming to be the COS; those things show up from time to time.

Anyway, glad to hear that you enjoy the Keys. I use the ones from The Satanic Bible, and I do find the Enochian sound very moving.

I thought that maybe this pseudo-Satanist might then be off on their merry way. Nah. The onslaught of passive-aggressive, solipsistic lunacy came next.

Message #3: Oh boy, the "J" accusation

I've put the stupidest part in boldface.

The date I downloaded was August 2015 (with your memo being dated 2014).

But I was Not asking for a word-by-word definition [with the Enochian Keys]; since a translation has already been included, which is sufficient. What I was asking was the truth on how each letter & syllable was arrived at.

And have since learned via further research that the writers of these keys may have been attempting to decipher the then-thought-to be-lost Book of Enoch (which as we know today, can be found preserved in the Ethiopian Orthodox): what seems to be a Judaic take on the Book of Revelations.

Could it therefore be that your organisation is really Judaic and only posing as Satanic for purposes of deception ?

Or are your people merely comfortable operating around Jews (about as comfortable as I would feel operating around Muslims or Rastas): perhaps due to some Judaic ancestry ?

I personally find Jews rather unsettling: Judaism being deemed first of the patriarchal religions which took over from the Goddess Matrilinear in 2600BCE for the purposes of inverting World view at the time, towards the patriarchal.

Jah / Yah also deemed as 'fallen' under Satanism; us also going by the maxim / adage "the fallen always wins" !

Which leads me to the point of a major difference that seems to exist between us: ie. your organisation seeming to portray Satan in the masculine !

(Tho again, this could also be deception).

But the truth is that all religions began in the East and the origin of the word 'Satan' is pre-vedic term for Shakti: having been derived from vowel-sound and consonant of 6th main chakra [the most potently feminine chakra].

Moreover in Islam; when someone has been deemed or labelled 'Satanic': this usually implies that that individual displays traits or attributes which are feminine.

I therefore conclude that in proper Satanism we have sworn allegiance to the Goddess Lucifer Satana जीख्रूङ्गेय् ईएय्खेयेय्शेय् [Most High Most Exalted]; Goddess Of Life And True Creatrix Of The Entire Universe (via the same pledge / initiation given under my Satanic Themed playlist)

And then I get another message when I thought it couldn't get any more ridiculous:

By the way, only Islam can have 'Satan' as fallen - a weak point for the other two main religions (who don't know the name of their own fallen) !

But I tell you that for Christians it is 'Allah' (derived from vowel-sound and consonant of the most powerfully male chakra)

And in your organisation's portrayal of 'Satan' as masculine, perhaps indicating that if Not Jews; then you are perhaps Christians [?]

Where to Begin?

With so much profound ignorance and stupidity here, it's hard to know where to begin replying. Let's break each part down one at a time:

"The date I downloaded was August 2015 (with your memo being dated 2014)."

Of course, the date he illegally downloaded The Satanic Bible and the date of my article doesn’t change the fact that he still illegally downloaded it, never mind the fact he's basing his beliefs on something which Satanism clearly isn't. But, more on that later.

"What I was asking was the truth on how each letter & syllable was arrived at."

I have no idea what sort of process Dee & Kelley may have used to construct the Enochian. As a Satanist, I don't see why I would care. The keys’ occult mystique gives them a certain novelty, which combined with their tonal quality, and their themes varied and vague enough to cover a variety of different ritual themes, simply make them good for the psychodrama of Satanic ritual. I don't have a problem with people who are curious and want to pursue more about their origins, but I don't see it as applicable to Satanism.

And now for the insanely stupid line

"Could it therefore be that your organisation is really Judaic and only posing as Satanic for purposes of deception ?"

This question is more loaded than Mel Gibson at a keg party. It's hard to know where to begin. Granted, retarded antisemites like Devi show up to troll the Church of Satan all the time, though I never saw somebody do it in such an embarrassingly disconnected and passive-aggressive way.

The short answer to the question is, of course, "No". Satanism is Satanism, and not Judaism, which is a fundamentally different religion. One has to be profoundly ignorant to not see this.

For the longer answer, let's try to logically break down the underlying premises and conclusions built into this answer:

Premise #1: The Book of Enoch is part of the religion of Judaism.
Premise #2: Dee & Kelley somehow derived their letters and symbols for Enochian and in turn the Enochian Keys from the Book of Enoch.
Premise #3: Some variant of the Enochian Keys was later used by the Golden Dawn, and some variant on that is used in The Satanic Bible, the main text of the Church of Satan.
Premise #4: Anybody who’d utilize the Enochian Keys must believe in something about them mystically (the angels, the speaking animals, etc.).
CONCLUSION #1: Therefore, the Church of Satan’s belief system is based on Judaism.
Premise #5: It’s better for public relations to be seen as explicitly Satanic instead of being seen as Jewish.
Premise #6: The Church of Satan has an interest in saying and teaching the precise opposite of what it allegedly secretly believes, and turning away people who express beliefs of what they allegedly secretly believe as an organization. (We could further break this down into other premises, but it's still a necessary part of the argument within Devi's rhetorical question.)
CONCLUSION #2: Therefore, the Church of Satan secretly embraces Judaism and is only pretending to be Satanists to trick people.

And now let's examine them:

Premise #1 is itself already quite a stretch. The Book of Enoch is considered non-canonical in Judaism and in conflict with the Torah. There may be some weirder sects of Judaism or Christianity which do accept the book, but they're the exceptions, not the rule.
Premise #2 is still questionable. Nobody seems to really know how Dee & Kelley arrived at the Enochian “language” and the Keys.
Premise #3: This one is true; we do have some variant of the Enochian Keys in The Satanic Bible. However...
Premise #4 is simply incorrect. As already explained, Satanism is a strictly non-theistic religion, and the Enochian Keys are only used in Satanism within the theatrical setting of ritual, which is conducted as psychodrama.
On top of all this, we also see from The Satanic Bible’s “Infernal Names” and The Satanic Bible’s follow-up book (The Satanic Rituals) that Satanism utilizes mythology from all sorts of sources, hardly just Judeo-Christian. Therefore, Conclusion #1 is a complete non sequitur. Never mind the fact that by Devi's own logic, he's practicing Judaism himself by being an Enochian fan.
Premise #5 is such a joke that I can't believe it even needs addressing, And yet, we see this one all the time from (and exclusively from) only the most disconnected, rabid antisemites. Obviously, as a Satanist I have no objection to rejecting Judaism itself. As Judaism is a spiritual religion, and we Satanists are anti-spiritual, we do reject Judaism. But it takes a profound amount of ignorance to think that by making up some connection between Satanists and Jews, one has somehow smeared Satanists. Satanism is an explicitly adversarial religion. As the name shows, we’re not looking for mass approval. The Church of Satan does rightfully correct misinformation about Satanism, but we are not some kind of anti-defamation league, as again that would be inapplicable to an explicitly adversarial religion (Satanism).
And of course, Premise #6 is something which conspiracy theorists always seem too stupid to consider as being false. If my beliefs were “secretly” Jewish mysticism, then I'd see no point in being secretive about that; I would just join some Kabbalah groups one who teaches things like that, which they already do right in the open. Alas, I am a Satanist, so that’s not what I believe. What Satanists believe is what you see explicitly written in The Satanic Bible, and again, that sure isn't Judaism.
This of course makes Conclusion #2 a complete non sequitur as well.

So to recap:

The Book of Enoch is an ancient Hebrew writing credited to the character of Enoch from the Old Testament, and as it talks about angels, demons, apocalyptic stuff with a messiah, and other supernatural things, we Satanists (being atheists) reject that. As The Satanic Bible states, Satanism is a religion of the carnal, not the spiritual, and gods are man-made. This stance of ours would still be the same even if the Book of Enoch was considered canonical by Judaism or Christianity, or if Dee & Kelley really somehow got their Enochian language by playing around with the Book of Enoch.
The re-re-re-translation of the Enochian Keys included in The Satanic Bible are there for psychodramatic purposes only. And of course, the notion that the Church of Satan is secretly “Judaic” and not Satanic is absurd, given that our beliefs are completely antithetical to Judaism (as well as the other spiritual religions of the world), and that publicly calling “The Church of Satan” is quite obviously not a P.R. move to “deceptively” hide something, let alone some other religion we don’t believe in like Judaism, which already gets an overwhelming amount of sympathy in the public in the first place.

And the Rest

"Or are your people merely comfortable operating around Jews (about as comfortable as I would feel operating around Muslims or Rastas): perhaps due to some Judaic ancestry ?"

What does “comfortable operating around” really mean here? Satanism is not an evangelical religion, and most Satanists are fine with keeping their religion private. The fact that a Jew is less likely to fly off the handle upon hearing the word “Satanist” than a Christian might is irrelevant. Satanists go about their day "operating around" non-Satanists all the time.

As for “Judaic ancestry”, this doesn't make any sense either. First, as already shown, one would have to be profoundly ignorant to think that Satanism has theological roots in Judaism. A simple look at the Old Testament and The Satanic Bible show that the two religions (Satanism and Judaism) are fundamentally incompatible. If by “ancestry” Devi means Jewish ethnicity, then the question makes even less sense. An overwhelming number of members of the Church of Satan, just like an overwhelming number of people in the world in general, have no Jewish ethnicity. Ethnicity has nothing to do with whether two religions are compatible anyway.

"I personally find Jews rather unsettling:”

I have to wonder if Devi has ever met any Jews in person. I find that people desperate to link us to Jews have typically not. I also get the impression that Devi is from the UK and seems particularly keen on being friendly with Muslims (even though Islam is just as antithetical to Satanism as Judaism or Christianity is). Maybe the antisemitism is in line with that.

“Judaism being deemed first of the patriarchal religions which took over from the Goddess Matrilinear in 2600BCE for the purposes of inverting World view at the time, towards the patriarchal.”

Judaism was obviously the first of the three Abrahamic religions, but I'm not a feminist and thus don't view the world in terms of “patriarchy”. Even so, some feminists believe the Greek and Roman pagan religions were "patriarchal".

“Which leads me to the point of a major difference that seems to exist between us: ie. your organisation seeming to portray Satan in the masculine !”

This is another stupid line which needs some unpacking. First of all, this sort of solipsism we see with some pseudo-Satanists is off the charts, particularly from people who 1) don't really bother to learn what Satanism actually is, 2) somehow feel the need to create a new "Satanic organization", and 3) then approach us as if they're somehow equal in stature to the Church of Satan and ready for some sort of ecumenical discussion.

The Church of Satan was the first in history to establish an actual codified religion calling itself Satanism. The major difference between Devi and myself is that I am a Satanist, whereas Devi seems some mystic with more than one screw loose. Regardless, "Satan" in the zeitgeist is typically a male character, and we may often metaphorically refer to Satan as such. But to point once again to The Infernal Names (which are in the book that Devi illegally downloaded but never got around to reading until after calling some social media content "The Mosque of Satan") incorporate both masculine and feminine portrayals. Never mind the fact that a naked woman serves as the altar for Satanic group rituals.

“(Tho again, this could also be deception).”

No, it's Devi jumping to erroneous conclusions based on false premises again.

“But the truth is that all religions began in the East”

This is not really true, either. Cultures all over the world ended up developing some kind of religion or another. Religion is not limited to the Abrahamic ones.

“and the origin of the word 'Satan' is pre-vedic term for Shakti:”

This is another false bit of trivia. The word "Satan" comes from Hebrew and means “adversary”. Hebrew is an Afro-Asiatic language whereas Sanskrit is Indo-European. So despite sharing some superficial consonant sounds, there is no evidence that the two words share the same etymological origins.

“Moreover in Islam; when someone has been deemed or labelled 'Satanic': this usually implies that that individual displays traits or attributes which are feminine.”

Yes, Muslims say lots of stupid shit. There have also been lots of lingual relations of “left” to the feminine or “sinister”, and so on. Which is why the next part makes even less sense:

“I therefore conclude that in proper Satanism we have sworn allegiance to the Goddess Lucifer Satana” [...] By the way, only Islam can have 'Satan' as fallen - a weak point for the other two main religions (who don't know the name of their own fallen) !"

So in an effort to get away from the "patriarchal" religion of Judaism, Devi looks to Islam, a religion in which he believes women are associated with Satan, while simultaneously priding himself in getting along with Muslims. And of course calls it all "proper Satanism" when it's not Satanism. Also, the claim that "only Islam" can claim certain views of "Satan" is unfounded and irrelevant. I'm a Satanist, not a Muslim.

"But I tell you that for Christians it is 'Allah' (derived from vowel-sound and consonant of the most powerfully male chakra)"

And here we go again with the woo factor. Just because you examine origins of specific words and trace them back (correctly or incorrectly) to specific genders or old religions, does not mean that people using those words are somehow theologically tied to those alleged origins. The word "Monday" has its origins in "moon day", but that doesn't mean The Bangles song Manic Monday is a pagan moon goddess hymn.

"And in your organisation's portrayal of 'Satan' as masculine, perhaps indicating that if Not Jews; then you are perhaps Christians [?]"

Of course not, as only a complete delusional and clueless retard would believe that. Thanks for playing!

Read full Article