@ComradeChaos do you have an example or no?

@ComradeChaos If you don't mind my asking, is it fair to assume you are a Christian? If so, do you belong to a particular denomination?

It's not fair to assume that he's a Christian

Paganism is disavowed in the Bible

What he does is practical satanism

> Satanism
Whatever flavor of Paganism he might follow is, in all likelihood, no way a form of LaVey's Satanism. I can only assume you're using the term "Satanism" as a form of catch all pejorative for all things bad which would be fine if you clarified that.

I suppose there exists some forms of Satanism that are heavily influenced by classical pagan thought and mythology and perhaps that's theoretically possible.

> I can only assume you're using the term "Satanism" as a form of catch all pejorative for all things bad
No, I am using the actual definition of satanism. I don't care how LaVey redefined the term to make it more appealing to edgy 15 year olds. Satanism predates LaVey and his edgy redefining of the term.

It has never been a defined religion until LaVey did so. Any use of "Satanism" before has only been a term levied at others to bring them down and to discredit them. If you're a Setian, afaik they probably see early Egyptian religion and depictions of Set as the earliest forms of "Satanism," but in the modern day it's not really the case.

I'd recommend reading *The Satanic Bible* if you really want to know more about the most popular form of Satanism today.

No. Prior use of Satanism was not used to merely discredit them, although that was a byproduct, because no one wants to affiliate with that which is evil, it was used to describe advocating that which is immoral, whilst being immoral. That's what satanism is. Him engaging in pagan practices is immoral

I'm familiar with LaVey's variant of satanism, any form of cringeworthy self worshiping nietszhe style individualism is bad, regardless if its shrugged under the umbrella of satanism, or whichever term

Yes, clearly it was used to associate those with *Satan,* probably at the time the worst guy ever. That still isn't a defined, proper religion and philosophy as what they thought of as evil could have been seen as good to others. Obviously from their perspective they would deem those evil as Satanists, but those *deemed* Satanists would have very different opinions on what was considered evil.

Others could have just as easily claimed the other side to be Satanists, showing that it's not so much a specific idea or thing, rather, it was just a word to say, succinctly, *you are evil.*

Which hardly constitutes any form of actual beliefs.

It does constitute a form of actual beliefs since perspective varying on X, does not mean that X is actually subjective. That's an invalid syllogism

It's only a definition on what is *actually* evil if you assume that those who used it actually knew what was evil, which isn't a very rational take.

I'm sure you think that they were correct, and that's fine.

I can't believe that they were correct because I'm not a Christian (The term "Satanism" mostly being used by Christians in medieval history).

It is a perfectly rational take. The only reason you could say it isn't rational was if you thought they were wrong. And you're irrational if you think they were wrong just because there were others who had conflicting views to that of Christians, but thought they were right, which doesn't prove what you're saying it prove

I don't think they were wrong simply *because* others disagreed. I don't think the Christians were correct because I'm not a Christian and thus the moral opinions of those accused of Satanism are just as valid to me as the Christian's opinions were.

To be clear, again, I think it's fine that you agree with the Christian's opinions on what is moral and immoral.

Well do you agree, that if one does that which is proclaimed as immoral by Christianity, then labeling them as a "Satanist" - Which just means that they do that which satan advocates for, would be a correct label? Not whether or not you think Satan exists, or whether Christianity is correct, but if that's the standard for what is a satanist, then would the label be correct?

I think at the time, sure, Satanism wasn't what it is today. So for the Christians at the time calling someone a devil worshipper or a Satanist would actually make sense. My problem is just that the religions of today that can be classified as "Satanism" could get lumped in with the early Christian sense of the word and would just cause confusion if such a definition were used without clarification.

Well you have to understand, that 99 percent of the people who label someone as satanist, reference the Christian notion of satanism rather than cringelords LaVey's notion of satanism. But regardless, even if that were true and i conceded that, LaVey's notion of satanism is still satanic in the Christian sense.

Oh, sure, LaVey's Satanism is absolutely evil from a Christian perspective.

Honestly? I thinking it's probably not wrong for someone like you to call it such.

Are you a Satanist?

No, not personally.

@BeefSupreme you keep asking me to give you examples, I keep giving you them. What exactly are you looking for?
https://hermetic.com/texts/yetzirah
https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/zdm/index.htm
englishqabalah.com
Liber Al vel legis ( the Thelemic book of the law) establishes its own gematria system as well

@alpi
I don't consider myself denominational but I do think that Jesus was divine.

@BeefSupreme
I'm really trying to figure out what you're asking me. I told you the why of it working and the how it is done.
The Phoenician numerical system was embedded into the letters along with symbolic meanings. What do you think Jews meant when they talked about the "number of the beast"

I sent you information on the qliphoth, even lyrics from a song I made using qabalah. You don't see

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Worlds

Those numbered lists WERE examples of the gematria side of Kabbalah. Each letter is assigned a number and then you add the sum of all the numbers together to get the final value.

Wolves

I heard this before by a magick youtuber i used to watch, is it true that in a world in which magick is correct, the afterlife would basically be whatever the individual believed it would be thru out his life

Is that true?

I think it's not what we want until we realize we don't want to suffer anymore