I think Anton LaVey, founder of LaVeyan Satanism was inspired by Satanism. I think Nietzshe and Rand were also inspired by Satanism.
Satanism, in its current form, according to the evidence I have seen, predates all philosophers of note. It has its roots in Paganism and the worshiping of Moloch, which likely have a common root. While I agree with your assessment of its "self above all" idealism, those began with the Religion of Nature (i.e. Paganism) many thousands of years ago, not Anton LaVey.
As for the rest, I'd love to express my opinions and present my evidence, but it sounds like you have your mind pretty solidly made up on what is truth. It sounds to me like any evidence to the contrary wouldn't start a conversation, but rather an emotional response of adamant belief.
I personally start with the axiom of my own lack of knowledge of what is truth. Knowing that I know nothing allows me to see evidences that others might miss or immediately dismiss because it doesn't fit within the framework of a larger belief system of "truth". You however seem to be pretty certain of what is truth. It shuts down any earnest investigation contrary to that "truth" out the gate.
If you wish to start with a more open mind, I'd be happy to show you evidence that the Bible itself has Satanic influences and was likely written as it was purely as a social control structure. In no way does the evidence negate the teachings of Jesus (for which I have great appreciation), but it is compelling evidence that the religion called Christianity, and many of the tenets of it, especially those that come from the teachings of the Old Testament (Torah, i.e. "The Book of the Law") are in no small part influenced by the tenets that influence Satanism, Paganism, Molochism, Judaism (both forms), Muslim, Norse, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, etc., etc.. There are even similar influences in the Eastern religions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism. Confucianism (from my limited knowledge of only having read the book once) is completely a social control structure, so escapes many of the tenets that plague the more spiritual religions.
It's confusing. There is no clear answer. I have asked Satanists exactly what it is & I get different answers every time. I evaluate more by what they do than what they say & I agree, they tend to hold themselves most high. Christianity on the other hand, tends to hold God & the other higher. Of course they all influence each other & have over time
Some Satanists just say that Satan is "the advisory" in the way that Christ once called Saint Peter and even that Christ himself could be seen as the adversary of the old Jewish religious hierarchy. Yes, there are elements of each in each other but ultimately, in Christianity one tends to humble one's self in respect to God & their fellow human. Satanists tend to exalt themselves not just in relation to others but even to God! They would call themselves "god" I saw one Satanist once write: "I don't worship Satan, Satan worships me"
Personally, I think that one big lie & at some point, they are going to get one very rude awakening......
Yes, there are elements of each in each other but ultimately, in Christianity one tends to humble one's self in respect to God & their fellow human. Satanists tend to exalt themselves not just in relation to others but even to God!
I did not mean to suggest that they were the same across the board. I did not mean that at all. I agree with your assessment of differences. I was merely pointing out (without providing actual evidence) Luciferian influences within the Bible, or perhaps rather, influences from the same source that influenced Luciferianism.
Here is something I wrote in another post on this topic. It shows these potential influences in the RELIGION we call Christianity (something completely separate from the TEACHINGS of Jesus).
The Nicene convention (NC) three centuries after Jesus' death was the final editor of the Bible most people ascribe as "complete". It was overseen by the Editor in Chief, Emperor Constantine, a self proclaimed worshiper of the Sun God (Lucifer). Was it based on previous works? Almost certainly. There is no dispute of that coming from me. But based on previous works and "final edit" means changes were made, or decided upon, or whatever.
The bible describes itself as "complete".
“For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19)
Who ordered that? Who decided that little sentence? Was it in fact the apostle John as many wish to believe (but for which there is much debate)? Did he maybe write it slightly different, but a few word changes made it into a closed circle that would forestall any future questions of the Christian Religion created at the NC? How could such a sentence make sense Prior to when the conventioneers decided on which books to include and which to leave out?
How do you know there weren't many other previous revisions or edits to create the Religion between the time of the original author and the NC? I mean, that is exactly what the NC did: formalize the tenets of the Religion, creating a formal work of dogma which was thereafter used as a means of social control of several continents for almost two millennia.
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Moloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those "chosen people" were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
IDK if the "Sun God" is Lucifer. I've heard some compare the Sun God to Christ. {{{Son of man or Sun of man, type of stuff}}} Nevertheless I don't think having emperors edit religious text is a good idea. In fact, I don't really think anyone should! Let the people read it all themselves & make their own decisions. Have you heard of the Gnostic Gosples?
As for interpretations, I read an English translation of an old French translation of a different ancient Greek version of the Gospel of John. It was almost exactly the same as the one we know except for a few lines here & there. For instance, When the local people were questioning how did Jesus know so much. The version we knows says something like:" Isn't he just Mary & Joseph's son" while this other version says something like:" Isn't he just Mary & Joseph's son, what did he learn in Egypt & Greece?" Just a few words but a huge difference.
ONE form (life) within ALL flow (inception towards death) for the sustenance of self (blood aka the shared identity of multiple ONEs within ALL aka that which remains of form within flow).
From the energy perspective...velocity of flow causing momentum aka the resistance of form within the velocity of flow causes friction aka vibration aka resonance aka heat; which requires cooling for balance (liquid based cooling such as water; seed; oil...blood).
Satanism, in its current form, according to the evidence I have seen, predates all philosophers of note
Any and all -isms represent suggested meaning as "words" to the free will of those who consent to believe them. Believing a suggested word represents a) submission to the free will of others who then gain the power to act in the name of the suggested word; brand; label; symbol; idol and b) it uses choice to evaluate a suggested value by the choice of others; which implies ignorance of being choice responding to balance causing choice.
The evidence you base your assumptions upon are based on the suggested words of others aka spell-craft aka idolatry of meaning within a system that does not use words to define itself; but movement to communicate inspiration.
PHILOS'OPHY, noun [Latin philosophia; Gr. love, to love, and wisdom.] represents the "want" for KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"; which ignores that we a) perceive ALL existence has to offer and b) that adaptation by choice to the balance of ALL moving inspiration is "needed" for self sustenance of form within flow.
"current form" implies temporary form within ongoing flow, yet consenting to believe the suggested information by other form tricks us to ignore adaptation to flow, and the choice of ignorance corrupts ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived.
Religion of Nature
RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind.] The original bond represents offer/consent aka flow/form aka balance/choice. The "new" bond represent ignorance of the original bond for consent to believe suggested information (-isms) by other form.
Nature doesn't have a religion; because nature doesn't require consent by belief; by faith; by trust; by submission...it demands adaptation by choice of reaction, and that's what we ignore when consenting to believe; trust; have faith in, submit to the suggestions of others, who then parasitically exploit our ignorance of free will of choice by use of their free will of choice...the choice we are being deceived to consent to by our choice.
he axiom of my own lack of knowledge of what is truth.
KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists". Each ONE perceives ALL; yet lacks comprehension (understanding) of what ALL perceived (knowledge) means. Adaptation as ONE by choice of reaction to ALL is what builds ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived.
Our senses perceive movement aka inspiration to react to. Others suggest us information to believe in; which then causes the conflict of reason (true versus false) between those who believe and those who do not, which is called division (reason) by suggestion (-isms).
You have lack of understanding (comprehension); not lack of knowledge (perception). The parasites suggest you information as knowledge so that you understand them...while ignoring the reality that communicates to your perception; which in return corrupts your comprehension.
True and false information do not exist within nature. Suggested words deceive you to consent to believe they do; which puts you into the conflict of reason (true vs false) among each other about the suggested words. You are tricked to fight each other over idols of suggested meaning (words aka spell-craft). Nature does not communicate itself through words; it moves us which causes the sound we need to resonate with by choice of reaction to it. Shaping sound into words to define meaning represents ONEs ignorance of ALL; which in return causes dissonance.
Knowing that I know nothing
Nature does not offer you "nothing"; it offers your perception everything aka ALL. Nothing originates in your consent to believe the suggestion thereof by others who deceive you to build your comprehension upon nothing aka fiction over reality aka 0 over 1 (which is what transhumanism perpetuates).
You know (perceive) everything; you lack comprehension of what it means tho, and need to use your free will of choice to build it...to transmute potential (comprehension) out of potentiality (perception) by choice of reaction.
The Book of the Law
Aka the suggestion of "in the beginning was the word" laying the foundation for spell-craft; for others to suggest meaning by suggesting words; which when consented to gives the few the power to act in the name of the words the many believe in...fictitious meanings within an ignored reality. Your ego represents a self inflicted corruption of communication; based on consented to meaning of words; which endlessly tempts you to ignore adaptation to that which is (moving reality) for contemplation over that which ignores it (affixed word based meanings).
I think Anton LaVey, founder of LaVeyan Satanism was inspired by Satanism. I think Nietzshe and Rand were also inspired by Satanism.
Satanism, in its current form, according to the evidence I have seen, predates all philosophers of note. It has its roots in Paganism and the worshiping of Moloch, which likely have a common root. While I agree with your assessment of its "self above all" idealism, those began with the Religion of Nature (i.e. Paganism) many thousands of years ago, not Anton LaVey.
As for the rest, I'd love to express my opinions and present my evidence, but it sounds like you have your mind pretty solidly made up on what is truth. It sounds to me like any evidence to the contrary wouldn't start a conversation, but rather an emotional response of adamant belief.
I personally start with the axiom of my own lack of knowledge of what is truth. Knowing that I know nothing allows me to see evidences that others might miss or immediately dismiss because it doesn't fit within the framework of a larger belief system of "truth". You however seem to be pretty certain of what is truth. It shuts down any earnest investigation contrary to that "truth" out the gate.
If you wish to start with a more open mind, I'd be happy to show you evidence that the Bible itself has Satanic influences and was likely written as it was purely as a social control structure. In no way does the evidence negate the teachings of Jesus (for which I have great appreciation), but it is compelling evidence that the religion called Christianity, and many of the tenets of it, especially those that come from the teachings of the Old Testament (Torah, i.e. "The Book of the Law") are in no small part influenced by the tenets that influence Satanism, Paganism, Molochism, Judaism (both forms), Muslim, Norse, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, etc., etc.. There are even similar influences in the Eastern religions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism. Confucianism (from my limited knowledge of only having read the book once) is completely a social control structure, so escapes many of the tenets that plague the more spiritual religions.
It's confusing. There is no clear answer. I have asked Satanists exactly what it is & I get different answers every time. I evaluate more by what they do than what they say & I agree, they tend to hold themselves most high. Christianity on the other hand, tends to hold God & the other higher. Of course they all influence each other & have over time
Some Satanists just say that Satan is "the advisory" in the way that Christ once called Saint Peter and even that Christ himself could be seen as the adversary of the old Jewish religious hierarchy. Yes, there are elements of each in each other but ultimately, in Christianity one tends to humble one's self in respect to God & their fellow human. Satanists tend to exalt themselves not just in relation to others but even to God! They would call themselves "god" I saw one Satanist once write: "I don't worship Satan, Satan worships me"
Personally, I think that one big lie & at some point, they are going to get one very rude awakening......
I did not mean to suggest that they were the same across the board. I did not mean that at all. I agree with your assessment of differences. I was merely pointing out (without providing actual evidence) Luciferian influences within the Bible, or perhaps rather, influences from the same source that influenced Luciferianism.
Here is something I wrote in another post on this topic. It shows these potential influences in the RELIGION we call Christianity (something completely separate from the TEACHINGS of Jesus).
The Nicene convention (NC) three centuries after Jesus' death was the final editor of the Bible most people ascribe as "complete". It was overseen by the Editor in Chief, Emperor Constantine, a self proclaimed worshiper of the Sun God (Lucifer). Was it based on previous works? Almost certainly. There is no dispute of that coming from me. But based on previous works and "final edit" means changes were made, or decided upon, or whatever.
The bible describes itself as "complete".
Who ordered that? Who decided that little sentence? Was it in fact the apostle John as many wish to believe (but for which there is much debate)? Did he maybe write it slightly different, but a few word changes made it into a closed circle that would forestall any future questions of the Christian Religion created at the NC? How could such a sentence make sense Prior to when the conventioneers decided on which books to include and which to leave out?
How do you know there weren't many other previous revisions or edits to create the Religion between the time of the original author and the NC? I mean, that is exactly what the NC did: formalize the tenets of the Religion, creating a formal work of dogma which was thereafter used as a means of social control of several continents for almost two millennia.
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Moloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those "chosen people" were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
IDK where else?
IDK if the "Sun God" is Lucifer. I've heard some compare the Sun God to Christ. {{{Son of man or Sun of man, type of stuff}}} Nevertheless I don't think having emperors edit religious text is a good idea. In fact, I don't really think anyone should! Let the people read it all themselves & make their own decisions. Have you heard of the Gnostic Gosples?
As for interpretations, I read an English translation of an old French translation of a different ancient Greek version of the Gospel of John. It was almost exactly the same as the one we know except for a few lines here & there. For instance, When the local people were questioning how did Jesus know so much. The version we knows says something like:" Isn't he just Mary & Joseph's son" while this other version says something like:" Isn't he just Mary & Joseph's son, what did he learn in Egypt & Greece?" Just a few words but a huge difference.
ONE form (life) within ALL flow (inception towards death) for the sustenance of self (blood aka the shared identity of multiple ONEs within ALL aka that which remains of form within flow).
From the energy perspective...velocity of flow causing momentum aka the resistance of form within the velocity of flow causes friction aka vibration aka resonance aka heat; which requires cooling for balance (liquid based cooling such as water; seed; oil...blood).
Any and all -isms represent suggested meaning as "words" to the free will of those who consent to believe them. Believing a suggested word represents a) submission to the free will of others who then gain the power to act in the name of the suggested word; brand; label; symbol; idol and b) it uses choice to evaluate a suggested value by the choice of others; which implies ignorance of being choice responding to balance causing choice.
The evidence you base your assumptions upon are based on the suggested words of others aka spell-craft aka idolatry of meaning within a system that does not use words to define itself; but movement to communicate inspiration.
PHILOS'OPHY, noun [Latin philosophia; Gr. love, to love, and wisdom.] represents the "want" for KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"; which ignores that we a) perceive ALL existence has to offer and b) that adaptation by choice to the balance of ALL moving inspiration is "needed" for self sustenance of form within flow.
"current form" implies temporary form within ongoing flow, yet consenting to believe the suggested information by other form tricks us to ignore adaptation to flow, and the choice of ignorance corrupts ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived.
RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind.] The original bond represents offer/consent aka flow/form aka balance/choice. The "new" bond represent ignorance of the original bond for consent to believe suggested information (-isms) by other form.
Nature doesn't have a religion; because nature doesn't require consent by belief; by faith; by trust; by submission...it demands adaptation by choice of reaction, and that's what we ignore when consenting to believe; trust; have faith in, submit to the suggestions of others, who then parasitically exploit our ignorance of free will of choice by use of their free will of choice...the choice we are being deceived to consent to by our choice.
KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists". Each ONE perceives ALL; yet lacks comprehension (understanding) of what ALL perceived (knowledge) means. Adaptation as ONE by choice of reaction to ALL is what builds ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived.
Our senses perceive movement aka inspiration to react to. Others suggest us information to believe in; which then causes the conflict of reason (true versus false) between those who believe and those who do not, which is called division (reason) by suggestion (-isms).
You have lack of understanding (comprehension); not lack of knowledge (perception). The parasites suggest you information as knowledge so that you understand them...while ignoring the reality that communicates to your perception; which in return corrupts your comprehension.
True and false information do not exist within nature. Suggested words deceive you to consent to believe they do; which puts you into the conflict of reason (true vs false) among each other about the suggested words. You are tricked to fight each other over idols of suggested meaning (words aka spell-craft). Nature does not communicate itself through words; it moves us which causes the sound we need to resonate with by choice of reaction to it. Shaping sound into words to define meaning represents ONEs ignorance of ALL; which in return causes dissonance.
Nature does not offer you "nothing"; it offers your perception everything aka ALL. Nothing originates in your consent to believe the suggestion thereof by others who deceive you to build your comprehension upon nothing aka fiction over reality aka 0 over 1 (which is what transhumanism perpetuates).
You know (perceive) everything; you lack comprehension of what it means tho, and need to use your free will of choice to build it...to transmute potential (comprehension) out of potentiality (perception) by choice of reaction.
Aka the suggestion of "in the beginning was the word" laying the foundation for spell-craft; for others to suggest meaning by suggesting words; which when consented to gives the few the power to act in the name of the words the many believe in...fictitious meanings within an ignored reality. Your ego represents a self inflicted corruption of communication; based on consented to meaning of words; which endlessly tempts you to ignore adaptation to that which is (moving reality) for contemplation over that which ignores it (affixed word based meanings).