Local Business. Anton Szandor LaVey (Church Of Satan) 30 April SATANIC Local Business. Anton Szandor LaVey – Biblia Szatana. Book. Anton Szandor LaVey, zalozyciel Kosciola Szatana w San Francisco, znany najbardziej ze swojej kontrowersyjnej ksiazki Biblia Szatana, jednak to Szatanska. Anton Szandor LaVey. BIBLIA SZATANA. PRZEDMOWA. Książka ta powstała, ponieważ – oprócz kilku wyjątków – każda rozprawa, praca.

Author: Dijas Maurr
Country: Mexico
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 7 April 2013
Pages: 54
PDF File Size: 11.97 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.55 Mb
ISBN: 295-2-70207-552-5
Downloads: 81564
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mazutaxe

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Bjblia Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Published by FOX first published To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.


To ask other readers questions about Biblia Szatanaplease sign up. I want to know where I can read this for free. Eddy Klein It’s at my local library. It’s probably at yours too. See 2 questions about Biblia Szatana…. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Needlessly blunt, socially irresponsible, poorly written.

The work of a person who knows nothing about human nature and assumes man’s greatest evil is ibblia handjobs from a peepshow tent girl. Anybody who needs a book to tell them that it is within their power to do a ton of drugs, have sex with whomever they choose and have cake for dinner will not go far in life. View all 15 comments. Appalachian Mountain Toothless Hayseed Philosophers. I read this book in high school. The reason for the one star is that it serves at least some positive use in that it corrects some Christians belief about what “philosophical Satanism” entails.

LaVey doesn’t believe in anything like the biblical concept of Satan. bibia

It’s meant to be something like the antithesis of Christian morality. So whereas Jesus says “Turn the other cheek” LaVey says, “If a bjblia smite you on the cheek, smite him twice as hard on the other. LaVey holds to some kind of ethical egoism. But one wonders why he tries to advocate for that thesis.

If one has a good moral theory, it seems that it should be pronounced.

But if Ethical Egoism is true, it would seem amton its adherents, those who have grasped and understood its truth, shouldn’t teach it to others. It would seem that if most people were taught the ethics of altruism, this would be the best situation for the egoist. Thus it would seem that if Ethical Egoism were true, its adherents should teach that it is false and that Altruistic Niblia is the correct theory.

But this seems to undermine a feature of morality. Moral principles serve as action guides that inform us how to act in situations. Moral precepts should be teachable. Publicized so that others are morally informed agents. But if Ethical Egoism were true, not only would it be unwise for me to teach it, it just might be immoral for me to teach it.


Teaching others to be egoists could easily turn out to be not in our best interest. And, principles should be taught since moral principles serve as action-guides to help resolve among other things interpersonal conflict.

Furthermore, since Ethical Egoism isn’t so crass as to say that we should do what benefits us in the here and szatxna, but is a long-term plan, spanning across all of our future selves, it might not be in our best interest, considering all our selves, to promulgate Ethical Egoism to ourselves. Thus we shouldn’t teach Ethical Egoism to ourselves. And, if we should, what is the morally relevant reason that allows us to discriminate between ourselves and others?

Bibliz is one reason why ethicist Russ Shafer-Landau has pointed out the Ethical Egoism seems to imply that we should discriminate against people. Treat ourselves as special over against other humans. But this radical prejudice seems unfounded. If a moral principle P cannot be universalized, then I shouldn’t teach it to myself even. If it can’t be universalized, it doesn’t even hiblia like a moral principle.

But of course LaVey dislikes altruism. But we can quickly see the moral problems that pop up real quick: I did it for myself. After all, my life would suck if you weren’t in it, and there’s that matter of the 1, dollars you owe me. It wouldn’t be beneficial for me to lose out on that. So, you’re welcome, friend. Not many, I’d wager. But, don’t those adhering to ethical egoism say that they can account for “altruism?

That their system doesn’t do away with our moral responsibility to help others, for the sake of helping others? But, isn’t this a trick? Doesn’t this, in fact, fail to distinguish between pseudo and genuine altruism? The latter has, as its goal, purpose, and intrinsic value, the benefit of another irrespective of benefit to one’s self?

And, as an aside, that there may be personal payoffs and side effects does not logically entail that the moral action was done for egoistic reasons as its basis.

The Satanic Bible

Sure it is nice to have your friend around and to collect on the 1, but an altruistic act is done solely for the sake of the other; even though there might very well be side effects and outcomes that are good for you, personally.

Of course egoists like LaVey try to make altruistic acts ft within their moral philosophy. But above I’ve pointed out that the cost is to defend pseudo altruism over against genuine altruism. And, the argument from side effects does not imply ethical szataba. Indeed, most of us, including Smith, might rightly look down on LaVey’s actions.

Speaking to intention, altruistic acts, done on and for egoism’s premises, are morally repugnant acts. There’s plenty other dubious ethical statements.

Bilbia he also seems a bit arbitrary. For example, he says: Apparently we can kill them, after all, at one place he writes, ” If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. For example, he claims: If someone bothers you, ask him to stop.


If he does not stop, destroy him. LaVey fails with regard to having a just ethical system. LaVey also makes suspect metaphysical claims, and that’s putting it mildly. We could call it sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores!

He advocates practicing magic and advocating it’s power. Puh-lease I probably would have rated it 5 stars in high school because I was a big tough-guy who had a superority complex, just like LaVey. Oh yeah, I was unregenerate too. Such a szatama rating. Ten years ago I would’ve lavished this book with idealistic praise and five stars.

Biblia Szatana by Anton Szandor LaVey (1 star ratings)

Also, I can’t believe that I actually read this, then again I used to don a pentagram necklace and wear dresses to school, so View all 6 comments. View all 7 comments. I wasn’t able to finish this book because it gave me a massive headache while reading it. I’m not religious, nor am I a “satan worshipper. A majority of this book’s context went against my own personal outlook on human nature, and my morals as bivlia human being.

Judgmental, bibllia, socially irresponsible, emotional, and hostile, LaVey’s writing was unimpressive and simply lacked substance.

Poorly written, and not I wasn’t able to finish this book because it gave me a massive headache while reading it.

Poorly written, and not a book that should be taken as “serious literature” by its readers. If they can actually manage to get through the entire book This is supposed to be a system of belief, but LaVey changes his mind halfway through. First he states that one should look only after the self, but then he includes those you love as well. It’s not very consistent, and definitely difficult to keep on task reading it. At the end you’ve got an ethical system that is inconsistent at best, and really should have been replaced with ethical egoism.

But that wouldn’t be as out there as LaVey seems to be seeking. Much of the details are seemingly there This is supposed to be a system of belief, but LaVey changes his mind halfway through.

Much of the details are seemingly there for shock value, and not so much for actual point. Since LaVey makes it clear that no one really believes in Satan, I don’t know why he didn’t go with ethical egoism, when that means you don’t have to dress up in silly robes szandoor so often and find an excuse to have sex in front of others.