“Satanism”
“Theistic Satanism” is a new cult of the same old Bacchus as Phanes that the ancient gentiles worshipped, save for so disorganized and vulgar even they would blush. What I mean is, where are the temples, the altars, the idols, the sacrifice, the festivals—in short, where is the Bacchic civilization? Not to mention how they all did not neglect to erect the same for Bacchus’ father, Zeus.
“Satanism,” however, betrays itself by not following after the Bacchic oracles—not that it could since the Orphic mysteries are long dead—but rather accepting, to some degree or another, the Christian orcales. Now, if they accepted only the Jews and their orcales, since the ancient Bacchists interpreted the god of the Jews to be Bacchus as Sabazius, then they would be consistent with their predecessors (even if their predecessors were inconsistent with themselves). But they accept the New Testament, again to some degree, the God of which has never been interpreted by any of the gentiles as any one of their own. Not that the Christian God is different from the Old Testament’s, but only that the Jews abandoned Him for a god of the gentiles. If the God of the Christians were any one of the gentiles’, they’d at once make such an argument, but none of them do—neither Plutarch, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, Julian, nor Damascius. How can they say they worship Bacchus, but accept oracles alien to him? It’d be like a Christian accepting Homer over Moses, or Orpheus over David. The Christians explicity and regularly condemn the devil as not a god, but the evil one. Likewise do the Bacchists do to the Christian God.
What kind of knowledge, freedom, virtue, strength, or truth does Bacchus possess? It’s of note they do not themselves, the neo-Bacchists, say that he possess these, but represents them. I doubt they mean as the son of Zeus, since they seem totally unitiated into his mysteries. At any rate, since, as said, they seem unitiated into the Bacchic mysteries, I must ask: Does Bacchus have knowledge from himself as an idiote of the monad, or of his father Zeus? What does he free us from? Is he the good, or different from it? Does he participate in power, or possess it? And how can he strengthen or reveal truth when he induces madness, which is clearly passive & alien to the True? I will get no answer for these. Enough about this unclean spirit, the worst prisoner of hell.
Neo-Bacchism has no epistemological grounds to stand on. Worse than “blind obedience,” it mandates a blind belief. On what basis? He who is blindly obedient still reaps the reward of virtue for obedience, even if not as great as obedience with understanding. If he was wrong to obey someone, but merely did so out of humility, then his evil master will be judged. But belief without understanding leads to delusion, of which no one but he who misbelieved can be judged.
The Christian can appeal to Moses for his knowledge, and prove it by the faultiness of all the gentile oracles. In the case for Bacchus: If, as Proclus says in defense of Hellenic theology, the gods are distinct idiotes mutually subsisting in the monad, but their apparant distinctions are put on as a play, as the persons in a theater, then they will be really indistinguishable from each other, lacking a unique characteristic mark, and so any worship of them will fail to be real—since any real basis for the relationship of worshipped & worshipper will be intenable—and so only fictitious. But let’s say Plato, the foremost wizard of Apollo, was wrong about his theology (something a Christian will readily assent, but no ancient Hellene would), and that all the gods are indistinct and identical to the monad. Then the entire system of series of beings falls apart, and everything would be identical. All would be hand, or this, or that, since the unique cause of each series has been made indistinct. So truth & falsehood would be identical, thus making knowledge of anything impossible, since the contrary to any position, including Neo-Bacchism itself, would as true as that which argues against it. The Christian doesn’t have this problem, since he accepts the self-disclosure of the Good & has a theology which wouldn’t make It inaccessible. If my point here isn’t clear, let me put it as clear as possible: Every other belief fails to account for knowledge, so knowledge claims are only possible to exist in a Christian model.
If the Neo-Bacchist is against oppression, he will have to at once turn against Bacchus, since it was he, accordng to the Christian oracles the Neo-Bacchist accepts, which beguiled man to sin through envy, and to this day seeks to by force drag all men down into his destruction. Of course, his oppression of man is limited by the doors man’s Creator put in man’s heart, but if Bacchus were not hooked & chained by the nostrils & lips, he’d oppress man more than he currently does. This is the “freedom” Bacchus represents, freedom from the Good, & slavery to the evil.
Rather than worship a false-wisdom, a fake-sun, one who truly desires knowledge & freedom should follow after the Lord Which spoke with Moses & Which become a Man to free man from his self-wrought damnation, That Wisdom Which taught Solomon all things, That three-Sunned Ray Which illumines all in the world. He should renounce Apollo, Dionysus, and Zeus, and honor the Lord Whose glory they seek to steal for themselves.
Sodomy and Androgeny
Sodomy & androgeny issue from Bacchus. It was his oracles, which describe him as Phanes, the first-born of Chaos & Nyx, as having a male member & female breasts. And, again, the ancient argument for sodomy comes from his cult, which said originally all creatures shared one body as a pair, having double of every part—some as male & female souls, or male & male, or female & female—later being separated by Zeus. Thus some men are attracted to men, &c. Some seem to reject psychotransmigration, since they say they’re unconcerened of whether going to “heaven or hell.” All the ancient Bacchists took it as life’s purpose to escape being reincarnated & so return to heaven, so there’s another break between Neo-Bacchism & them.
Hierarchy or Anarchy
It’s strange seeing gentiles talk about hierachy, especially in relation to demons away from the Good. Hierarchy means sacred-rule (hierós & árchō). What temple (heirón) does Bacchism have for a chief-priest (hierárchēs)? If they haven’t a hierarch, how do they have processions down from him? The term, at any rate, is coined by the Christian St. Dionysius the Areopagite, disciple of St. Paul, for the ecclesiatical order proceeding from the bishop, typifying the heavenly Tabernacle, just as the synagogues typified the earthly Temple. So its adoption by those defined in reaction to Christianity is odd, since, again, it’s a uniquely Christian word.
(My rendering of Hindi here may be imperfect.)
What sacredotal order has been established by Bacchus? Orpheus was the first, and it died out centuries ago. Maybe some Hindu or Chinese order remains. I’m unware of an exact but I don’t doubt it since they worship the same devils the Hellenes did. In fact, the Hellenes are who they learned of such devils from. If one were to go that route, then I’d ask, is brachma separate from or identical to atman? If separate, then how does any specific being know of brachma to know atman is different from it? If identical, then how is truth really different from falsehood? In the former, by separating brachma from atman without any bridge (I’ve never heard of any Hindu teaching any sort of bridge), then you fall into the same problem as the Platonists, where their monad is totally unknowable, and so saying anything of it or ascending to it (hénōsis) is impossible. In the latter, if brachma is identical to atman, then everything is identical, including truth & falsehood, and so real knowledge becomes impossible.
For the Chinese, they predicate generation (change) of heaven—and I take it they don’t leave the invisible heaven out of this—thus making any truth from their tao of tien, unlike the eternal Way of the Christians, corruptible. What is true one day, may not be the next. So a Taoist is incapable to maintain any generic knowledge claims, or even explain how specific knowledge claims are communicated among specific beings.