Satanic Rituals, Black Metal, and The Black Pope

In World Religions class this week, we were given the assignment to research a religion that we have not discussed in detail this semester. I have chosen to find out about Satanism. According to the Encyclopedia, Satanism can be defined as the worship of Satan, or the devil. Satanists can embody absolute evil, the opposite belief in the Judeo-Christian Faith and are complete antithesis to God. Cults associated with satanism can be traced back to the 17th century. Satanist central feature is the black mass, typically used as lore and said to be used by "witches" in mid evil times. Black Mass was a corrupted and inverted rendition of the Christian Eucharist. The black mass is said to include rituals such as animal sacrifice, inverting the cross, spitting and stepping on the cross, and sprinkling of the congregation with urine instead of holy water, with the alter being replaced with the butt of a naked woman, preferably a virgin.
Satanists, or Lucifarians in modern times believe that Satan is the power behind the process of nature, what is natural is acceptable. God is believed to be stern and moralistic, repressive and chastising. Satan is the leader of the liberal people who are free and encouraged to indulge in the good things in life, including uninhibited sexual activity.

Modern Satanists are said to read from the Satanic Bible, created by Anton Lavey, the founder of the Church of Satan in 1966 and modern satanism. Lavey believed Satanism is legitimate because it is based on the idea of humans natural instincts, it is based on the here and now, it is rational (based on human science) vs. Christianity which is irrational (unscientific) which makes it illegitimate. Lavey, or "The Black Pope" wrote out the Nine Satanic sins which are Stupidity, pretentiousness, solipsism, self deceit, herd conformity, lack of perspective, forgetfulness of past orthodoxies, counterproductive pride, and lack of aesthetics. Descriptions for each can be found here as well as the nine satanic statements which introduce the Satanic Bible.

The music of Satanism can be best expressed through Norwegian Black Metal. In the early 1990's there was a string of arson started by black metal fans and band members that focused on Christian Churches throughout Europe. One of the bands that had members involved who were eventually convicted of starting the fires was Meyhem, who also depicted their lead singers suicide on an album cover. This genre of music promotes violence, rape, necrophilia, and as Ghaal from the band Gorgoth puts it in his interview, Satan. Gaahl is interviewed for around a minute and gives short answers to questions posed to him. It's interesting to see his mannerisms as his passion for destruction and death is very true and heartfelt unlike most metal bands out there today who sing about death and destruction in a fictional way (Slayer, a speed metal band being one who states this in an interview in "Metal, a Headbangers Journey").

The information I found all started with EBSCO Religion and Philosophy database. After getting a broad idea of what Satanism was, I then entered Satanism into ebrary, and found a great book titled "The Lure of the Darkside: Satan and Western Demonology in Popular Culture. From here they briefly mentioned Anton Lavey, which I then googled and found his site. The book also mentioned alot about demonology and the Black Mass which I then Googled and found a great site called Occultopedia which gave some information on the lore aspect of the religion. I've always found black metal to be interesting, or most underground music for that matter (death metal, speed metal, hardcore punk scene) and remember watching a documentary about the history of metal and that's where information about Meyhem and Gorgoth came in.
I found one of Aton Lavey's quotes to be creative "Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!" In some respect, this quote makes alot of sense when talking about Christianity, It was important for me to find out that Satanism was not all about the dark Black Mass way of worship but there is some substance to it.

Christianity v. Islam

I find that the greatest similarity between Islam and Christianity is the fact that both religions recognize and praise a God, and more importantly, the same God. "La illa ha illa Allah [there is none worthy of worship but God]" and "Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other gods before Me". The views that each religion hold say God is good, and there is only one God. Islam also goes as far as recognizing Jesus in the Qur'an but Islam only sees Jesus as an apostle of God and not his son, where Christians view Jesus as their Lord and Savior as well as God's son. I find it important and intriguing that both religions WORSHIP GOD, Muhammad was responsible for the written word, Jesus was responsible for spreading Gods word and love. "Qur'an 17:23 Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honour." "Exodus 20:12 Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gave you." "Qur'an 17:33 Nor take life which Allah has made sacred . . ." "Exodus 20:12 Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gave you." "Qur'an 17:32 Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)." "Exodus 20:14 You shall not commit Adultery." Look at these three examples from the Qur'an and the Holy Bible and then read the following statement from God in the Qur'an."If you are in doubt of what We have revealed to Our Servant, produce one chapter comparable to it. If they say "He (Muhammad) invented it himself," say: "Bring me one chapter like it. Call on whom you may besides Allah to help you, if what you say is true!" Who's to say that Muhammad didn't look at the bible, dislike the idea that Jesus was getting credit for something he believed God and God alone should have? Why, if this overall higher being, this God, is so universally excepted through the three major religions of the world (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is there so much hatred and violence behind it? One of the major differences between Islam and Christianity is the use of images to depict the religion. In Christianity, the use of images is everywhere throughout the church and the community, from bumper stickers of fish, to Jesus on the cross, Jesus on t-shirts, hats, portraits, pictures, virtually anything that is media related can have it's hand in the portrayal of Jesus or God or Christianity. Islam though, mostly Sunni's are against idolatry because they believe that will take away from the written word of God. In Islam people celebrate the written word of the Quar'an through detailed scriptures written in beautiful colors many different ways. One of the best examples of the detail used would be on the Kaaba, the cube shaped figure in Mecca which is the most sacred site in Islam. The exterior is surrounded by a black curtain with gold stitching on it that is some sort of sacred prayer or word from the Quar'an. It seems as if Islam looks at Christianity and their way of idolatry as a way that strays from the path.
I would like to quote a movie, called Spinal Tap when relating the view on Christianity and the view on Islam. "As long as there is sex and drugs, I could pretty much do without the Rock and Roll". Has Christianity forgotten about it's roots or the "rock and roll" with all the media, and advertising that goes along with it? Is Islam the new band on the scene that focuses on the music and not the glamor? Or is there a way to combine the two and move forward to be successful? I believe there is a way to do the latter, a way to stray from all the arguing and anger and killing and find a middle ground where the agreement is what the people of these two religions value, and that is the belief in God.

Wrath Turned Love

Jonathan Edwards, "In the Hands of an Angry God" is a sermon that illuminates the sheer power of God and how we as "natural men are held in the hand of God over the pit of hell". Billy Graham's version of this sermon is still chilling in the sense that the words are meant to put the fear of God into a person to scare them straight; but Graham portrays God as merciful right from the begginning, and Edwards makes the audience feel as if it is their privledge to be in the midst of God. "By the mere pleasure of God, I mean his sovereign pleasure", is how Edwards begins his sermon explaining the verse, "there foot shall slide in due time. Deut 32:35" Graham begins his sermon explaining the same verse using the word mercy instead of pleasure. I believe that since this sermon was so powerful, and the way Graham screams the words to his audience, he wanted to make sure that the mercy of God was underlined so when he spoke about "Unconverted Men walk over the Pit of Hell on a rotten Covering, and there are innumerable Places in this Covering so weak that they won't bear their Weight, and these Places are not seen...and the only thing that keeps them from falling into hell right now is the thin thread of God Almighty’s mercy", people still felt safe because God's Mercy had already been underlined. Making sure the audience knew God was a merciful one made people know that no matter how harsh or blunt the words that came out of Grahams mouth were, God would always be there to forgive the sinners and take them as his own.
Jesus Christ is not a focus in Edwards sermon, however, the way to be saved and avoid the "Firey pits of hell" in Grahams sermon is to "let Jesus in, right now where you sit. [So] You can make certain that you are ready to meet the Lord God". In Grahams closing he says that although we are all held over the pits of hell we can all be saved because "God loves you with an everlasting love". Edwards explains too that one can be saved by Christ but he says it in such a way that is filled with fear, "now awake and fly from the wrath to come". This basically says God is still and always will be angry, so become awake and escape the wrath.
A sermon like this could be used today for audiences who take God and the Devil seriously, who believe that God's mercy will save them from the depths of hell, and those who believe that gods dangling of the mortal over the fiery pits are a metaphor for every day temptations, sins and struggles. Harry S. Stout argued that the instilling the fear of God in today's times could be taken as a form of entertainment like the movie The Exorcist. I believe people who value the power of God and the Devil could absolutely find The Exorcist based on fact more than fiction, it all depends on who is listening and interpreting the story.
The early 18th century is absolutely related to Edwards sermon because of the serious harshness portrayed. In the 18th century Christianity was a more brutal religion in the sense that people who sinned could actually be put to death, the Salem Witch Trials are a good example of this. Later on in the 20th Century, God and Christianity were and still are a notable figure and religion in everday life but the literal punishment for sins are stripped away and God's message is turned toward love rather than wrath.

The Golden Rule: Faded and Forgotten

"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law of the prophets". This saying from Jesus seems to be a constant rule throughout many religions. "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" can be found in Buddhism, “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself” can be found in Confucianism, "This is the sum of duty: do naught to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain" can be found in Hinduism, and "what is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary" can be found in the Jewish faith, specifically written in the Talmund. This concept of "treat others as you would like to be treated" is such a universal concept that it makes one wonder, why are there so many arguements that stem from religion? For example, gay marrage, a topic debated about by politicans, use God as a way to explain why marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship that should be recognized by the public. "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. The outcome of this debate is important--and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight." This quote from our past President, George W Bush Jr., compares marriage between a man and a woman with the way God views people. In other words, those that are gay and want to get married hold no dignity and value in God's eyes. What happened to the Golden Rule here? Does "in everything do to others as you would have them do to you" not apply? The bible is based off of interpretation, people take what they want from it and fit those words in or around their own lives. The Golden Rule is one very all encompassing rule that can apply to everyone no matter their personal belief, race, sexual orientation, or political view, this saying is all about respect for one another and equality.
When entering the saying, "in everything do to others as you would have them do to you" into Google, the most frequent hits that come up are how many different religions the Golden Rule apply too. There are wall posts, comparative pages, humorous pages (11 Things the Bible Bans but You do Any Way) and obviously pages that explain where the quote comes from in the bible. It's amazing how many people recognize this one saying and how simple yet powerful it is. It is also important to note that over 21 religions recognize the Golden Rule in different words but similar meanings. If this concept is recognized throughout the world in all of the most practiced religions, then why are there so many controversies, and even war between groups of people who practice differently? People need to strip down belief and see each other as humans; we are all made of the same stuff, we are all born the same way and we all leave this earth when our hearts stop beating by decomposing into the ground. Whatever happens afterward is whatever one wants to believe. But the actual reality of the situation is the same for everyone from birth to death; so in the meantime, why not treat everyone as you would like to be treated?

There Are No Chosen People

"For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession" (Deut 7:6). These words from Deuteronomy, a book found in the Hebrew bible, state very bluntly the Jews are Gods chosen people. An excerpt from the Ten Commandments states, "If you obey these rules and observe them carefully, the LORD your God will maintain faithfully for you the covenant that He made on oath with your fathers: He will favor you and bless you and multiply you..." After the Ten Commandments were given God spoke to Mosses and made another promise about the Jews being his favored people. The covenants between God and Abraham and God and Mosses are in direct relation to the idea that the Jews are Gods chosen people. God makes numerous "If than" statements that read something like "IF you follow these rules THAN you will continue to be my chosen people". When Mosses yelled, "Let my people go" it was God who spoke through him to the Pharaoh and it was God who split the sea and let it crash down on the Egyptians only to save His people, the Jews.
Michael Clayborn, author of the book, The Yiddish Policemen's Union, and an opinionist who writes for the New York Times, is a 21st century Jew. Clayborn rejects the idea of Jews being a chosen people. In his opinion article, Chosen, but not Special, Clayborn gives the impression that Jews are no more important than anyone else living throughout the world. He gives examples of his childhood during Passover, and how people around the dinner table would list intelligent Jews such as Albert Einstein and Meyer Lansky, and how the entire table, including himself would speak and tell stories of these special people. When he looks back on these moments however, as a child Clayborn would skip over the idea of bringing up any counter examples of not so intelligent Jews; which makes one wonder, how would the table discussion differ now as Clayborn has grown wiser? The idea here is not to praise or belittle Jews; the idea is to hold them equal to everyone else in the world through their "glory and fiasco, triumph and error, greatness and meanness, charity and crime" (Chosen, but Not Special).
I believe, like Clayborn, Jews are like everyone else in the world. I look at the Bible, and Hebrew Bible as a mix between a fictional and non fictional biography. If I were to write a fictional/nonfictional biography about myself, an autobiography if you will, I would include things of importance like where I came from, my struggles, triumphs, lessons I learned etc. I also may include a story about one specific thing (this is the nonfictional part of the story) that I can contribute my life and beliefs to. For example, I am a weary traveler who is on the verge of death in a dessert like surrounding. After months of walking I finally stumble upon a tree that bears fruit. I pick the fruit and eat until I'm full and hydrated. I take the seeds from the fruit I have eaten and plant more trees. I use the juice of the fruit to water the seeds and behold, after a week (for the sake of keeping the story short and proving my point) I end up with a forest. Soon, animals from all over (these animals are also lost in the desert) come and live in the forest too. This provides me with food, clothing, and in conjunction with the forest, shelter. Soon other people that are lost and wandering in the desert stumble upon the growing forest and they take part in what is now a growing community. So in conclusion, I would attribute the tree or fruit to be the "God" I would worship. I would also write down that this tree or fruit belongs to me and my people of the forest like the Jews belong to God. In my story I could also make the tree or fruit talk and give me directions on how to grow the forest.
Fruit: "If you eat me and plant my seed, than a forest will grow. Also, if you follow all of my directions than I will promise to take care of you, this will be the start of one of many covenants between us".
Me: "That sounds great, lets do this".
Anyone can write down words on a page but its the meaning and interpretation for each individual that give them value and make them sacred. There is no specific chosen race or religion or ethnicity, humans are the chosen people.

Confucianism and Taoism

It's hard to say what the most important beliefs and practices are of Confucianism and Taoism. Since Confucianism promotes, in short, a code of "ethics" it's difficult to separate those that are more important than others. Each idea-ism works together and in turn, a person becomes whole; his or her balance is complete. The overall idea of Li, a moral behavior, and how life should be conducted, is filled with everyday concepts that make up this balance. One of the most important would be becoming educated. The more people know, the more knowledge they gain. The goal of the education is to become Junzi, a person who knows their role in society. Ruler Subject, parent child, husband wife, elder younger, and friend friend are all specific roles and relationships one may play out in his or her life. A subject must respect a ruler, and in turn a ruler must teach the subject. The same goes for Elder Younger and parent child. There are certain ethics each group must follow in order to find this balance. The Golden Rule, "never do to others what you would not like done to you" is one of these concepts that applies to all groups and relationships of people in order to reach attain Junzi. "In the presence of a good person, think all the time how you may equal her. In the presence of a bad person, turn your gaze within!" No matter the good or bad in a person, it is always wise to learn, not judge; always strive to do better.
The way to understand Taoism is difficult because it so philosophical; on the other hand it is not. picture if you will, ones life as a rich block of wood. As we get older, money, greed, a constant wanting, vanity, all these temptations chip away at this wood and piece by piece these shavings fall to the ground to die and the wood becomes the shape of a doll, or "wood" human. Taoism is about this constant energy and how to obtain it. The idea of ones Chi, a harnessed energy from nature, nutrients, and anything that makes one feel whole and at one with the universe is the concept of Taoism. Some way, any way, to find an inner peace for ones self while appreciating the world around is the essential idea of Taoism.


The two religions or belief systems are simple in a way, but very difficult to understand. I am reminded of Cape Cod on any given morning in the summer weeks at Nauset Beach. There are people sitting in the sand, 6am for some. Ages range from teenagers to middle aged men with their surf boards waiting for the perfect wave. These people have found their Chi, they are at one with the sand and the surf, they are at peace. After riding a wave or two, these people shower off and jump into their business suits, ready to go back into society where there are daily behaviors expected of them. Whether it be working hard for your boss, holding and running daily meetings for staff members, or holding open a door and saying thank you to the person you bought lunch from, they all involve past knowledge or further education with the goal to always better ones life. Taoism and Confucianism work in the same way. Both compliment each other and make an individual well rounded with the idea that the individual is always learning, whether it be from nature or human relationships.

Buddhism through Hinduism

The ideas of Castes, Samsara, and Asceticism help us understand the outline of Hinduism and for that matter, Buddhism. A caste is a class system that starts from the bottom and eventually ends at the top. In Hinduism, Shudras were the bottom class known as the laborers, followed by the artisans (Vaishyas), military or political class (Kshatriyas), and the top class known as the Brahmins, the priestly caste. In order to avoid Samsara, the constant cycle of birth, life, and death, the Brahmins had to reach Moksha, or liberation from Samsara. Unfortunately for the rest of the caste system, the Brahmins were the only ones that had a chance to reach Moksha. Some believed it was necessary to follow ascetic lives in order to become more self disciplined and eventually reach this liberation. Asceticism is a way of obedience and or training one puts themselves through. Fasting was a popular way of obedience in Hindu religion, but Asceticism can range from self inflicting pain, to abstinence in many forms.

There are some similarities and differences between Hinduism and Buddhism. Buddhism has taken beliefs from Hinduism and reformed them so all people may have a chance to attain Nirvana. For example, the Caste system. Brahmins were the only class that were able to gain the knowledge for liberation. Buddha made it possible for everyone, no matter what class, to attain Nirvana (Nirvana is the equivalent of Moksha). There were Hindu's that lived ascetic lives, but Buddha believed inward calm was needed for success; "inward calm cannot be maintained unless physical strength is constantly and intelligently replenished".

Though these two religions have subtle differences I believe they are closer to the same. The overall message of becoming one with the universe and yourself in order to break the cycle of Samsara is virtually the same. I feel that Buddha was more for the people in the sense that his purpose was to teach everyone the path to enlightenment, one could reach Nirvana if they were a laborer or priest, everyone was equal. Hinduism I feel, like most religions, has a certain spin to it in the fact that the Brahmins are favored to reach Moksha, and as it turns out, the Priestly caste were the ones who wrote the Upanishads. To parallel this concept, in the Christian Religion Eve is the one who took the apple from the tree. One could say that women are the reason why the world broke into sin; however men were the ones who wrote and edited the Bible. I wonder if this story would have been the same if the priests were female? This is not to say that Buddha did not write the Dhamma or at least, influence it to it's full potential, Buddha just had a better way of understanding people without prejudice.