Is it worth reading?
It supplements what seems to be missing from standard Christianity nicely.
>>8235281
Please elaborate.
>>8235280
not really
It's good for a laugh.
Catholics will definitely advise you not to read it.
Everything is worth reading once.
>>8235280
You can browse it if you're really interested, but I wouldn't call it Lit really.
>>8235317
Did you read the tattoo inside my butt?
Just kidding mods, don't ban me! I was making a literary joke.
>>8235280
Just read the wiki if you're interested. I read the book a while ago and it's basically "The weak should be spat upon! I smash the skull of Jehova and crush my enemies! Satan is a bro and I'm a selfish edgefag!" and other ideas that are pretty trivial in today's secular society, such as there's nothing shameful about sex and other earthly joys.
It's honestly pretty trite.
>>8235280
No, it's stupid. I read it in high school when I was an edgelord. Not much else to say about it.
>it's basically "The weak should be spat upon! I smash the skull of Jehova and crush my enemies! Satan is a bro and I'm a selfish edgefag!" and other ideas that are pretty trivial in today's secular society, such as there's nothing shameful about sex and other earthly joys
I can confirm that this is accurate.
>>8235280
>>8235283
It's the flipside of the same coin.
While atheism is the absence of a coin.
>>8236889
I can imagine. I liking Twain's Satan
Its a succession of inconsistent, half baked nonsense and cringeworthy bullshit. Even compared to other esoteric books its shit.
Anyone saying differently is either retarded, trying hard to be edgy or lying about having read it.
>>8235296
I have an instruction manual for an indesit a341 washing mashine that might interest you
>>8236999
Yes, father.
what about necronomicon?
>>8237261
At least the author never claimed that it wasn't fiction.
As far as I know (not a big Lovecraft reader) the necronommicon was only referred to in his books and never actually written. But there is a "collected works" of Lovecraft published under the title "Necronommicon"
i was told that anton lavey was a con artist
if you want some Other Bible try aleister crowley
>>8237274
Sadly, there's at least three Necronomicons (Necronomica?) written by HPL pastichers
does /lit/ have a chart for the occult?
>>8238575
Fffff yes there is a chart with various religious and Christian texts, but it also had a section for the occult. I forgot to save it- any anon know which one I mean?
>>8235280
It is, if you're 15 and want to piss off your grandparents.
Most of its contents are plagiarized btw.
>>8235337
"Larry David was here"
>>8235280
Well, I hope you like metal. Metal is the only thing the guys who carry this book underam listen.
>>8238575
I don't think I have read a single one of these but there you go
>>8235280
Certainly it is worth reading. Because 1) it is short, and 2) you are interested in reading it.
If a work is both short and personally interesting to you, for whatever reason, then it is worth your while to read it. Even if you conclude that it was stupid and unnecessary, then you have gained personal knowledge of what the text actually says, and at a minimal expenditure of time. In the positive, unironic sense of the phrase, you have "culturally enriched yourself", to the point where you have even developed preferences, or notions of what to avoid in the future.
The trick is about long works. The trick is to divine whether it really will be worth your while to read a long-form book of whatever type.
>>8235321
You would be objectively incorrect on this point. Everyone always tries to falsely distinguish "bad (art)", or "art I don't like", by disclaiming it as art altogether, which is both factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest - simply replace "art" with "lit" in the preceding, for the more specific example.
This is not to say that "Le Satanic Bible xD" is necessarily good literature, but that to insist that it is "not literature" is a simply wrong view which ought not to be taken seriosuly, in the interest of honesty. >>8236889 is a much better and more honest view, for example.
>>8236975
Your very first adjectival claim that the Satanic Bible is "inconsistent" is clearly wrong once one actually does read the book, however. Sure, it's cringey by today's standards (and yesterday's! - there's plenty of hokey, badly dated 1960s language), but the irony today is that /lit/ minds can box it as a "quaint" thing, as opposed to genuinely transgressive, which was obviously its original intent. Lavey pretty clearly and matter-of-factly lays out a project of atheistic humans who need ritual to make sense of things, and presents Satan as an answer. The fact that The Satanic Bible can now be treated as "quaint" could be interpreted as a vindication of its cultural project.
I would go a step further to defend the present text as not even being "half-baked". Simplistic, fine, Jack Chick tract stuff, yes, but the idea of the text seems to have been a popular text which advocates a contrarian view. To that end, Lavey has clearly succeeded - you discussed the text before I did, in this thread, and it gets brought up on /lit/ every few weeks.
>>8235296
as a Catholic read it
>>8238748
I like it.
>>8238850
>The trick is to divine whether it really will be worth your while to read a long-form book
>>8238865
>>8235280
This book:
>don't shower a lot and don't use deo or perfume because you will get lots of pussy that way
>all sexual preferances are natural and to be respected.
>except asexuality that's not natural
>satanic rituals done in th. 17. cenutry are wrong, they didn't do it right
>my rituals arn't wrong!
>oh, wait yes they are, since its all just atheism with lots of dogma added
>uses terminology wrongly, intentionally misinterprets source material source material
>it doesn't matter guys, since we don't acutually believe in it
>>8236919
basically this
>>8235280
no, it is garbage. basically he wrote it for money. there is nothing new in it, basically a lot of edgelord nonsense.
>>8236975
this
>>8239317
> He doesn't know what musk is
> He defends a freakishly abnormal absence of sexual orientation in order to try and score some point about sexual orientation
> doesn't understand that the point of the book is as a breezy intro, yes to make cash as well like the other guy said, does not cite instances of 'misappropriation' because he doesn't get that for an edgelord Laveyan satanist, the point of a ritual is not, most practically, to talk to Ba'al or whoever the fuck, but to get a nice spoopy mood/vibe going amongst the group.
