Is Satanism Pagan? What is Satanism? Is there a form of Satanism not affiliated with JCI beliefs?
nocTifer
49970605 AA1 Hail Satan!
Karl A. Krueger:
>> Satanism is not a nature religion.
(Jason Without a Mask) <pos...@U.Arizona.EDU>:
>Yes, it is, as I and a number of others define it.
agreed.
>> ...a much more meaningful distinction than whether or not a certain
>> tradition is "Pagan". By a "nature religion" I mean one that focuses
>> on the cycles of nature or venerates the natural world. Satanism,
>> from what I can tell, does not do so. Wicca, from what I can tell, does.
ha! I haven't noticed alot of natural-world veneration in either!!
>In fact, there is a large school of thought in Satanism (and outside as
>well) which identifies Satan with Nature Itself, or with the central or
>primal aspect thereof.
usually something much more humanocentric (not necessarily anthropomorphic).
>The Taniites, for instance, such as Adam Willson,
>identify It with entropy.
thus ANTI-humanocentric, which makes this beautiful and more
convincing as I see it, like 'disease' or 'rage'.
>I identify it with Force.
'the Force'? like Star Wars? Chokmah? Mass x Velocity?
or that Dark Force between the Stars? wot?
>"Satan" as the *primal* power in and of Nature. Many Jewish, Christian,
>and various other (non-Satanist) philosophers and theologians have also
>identified Satan with the forces of nature, or an aspect of them.
indeed, Satan and nature (of some sort) are what I have most often found
in *common* among various proponents of both condemnatory and religious
expression. more, it is always the WILD or uncontrolled egregious agents
(out from the herd, interestingly enough!) which has received the bulk of
'Satanic' associations, from disease (daemonspawn) to deception (human)
and lasciviousness (both!).
>Some Satanists, on the other hand, see Satan as "isolate consciousness"
sounds like Setians. I've only found their variety within their Temple.
this lends me toward the idea that they are unique or, as Tani says, a
more primitive offshoot displaying Hermetic characteristics.
>or, alternatively, as simply a symbol for individualism,
>anti-Christianity, and self-interest
notice how this fits in with 'wildness' and uncontrolled (human) nature.
those displaying these qualities are a threat to the herd.
>...There is as yet no "orthodox" Satanism, as there is no organization
>capable of enforcing such an orthodoxy, though both the Temple of Set
>and the Church of Satan have tried.
note that there is no 'orthodox' Christianity either within global
standards, beyond the obvious (and self-defeating) sect LABELLING itself
as such (and then spitting into countless fragments West and East).
>*In the shadow of the Primeval Serpent*
where the old becomes new and the light dark.
blessed beast!
nocTifer
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com
nagasiva
49970605 AA1 Hail Satan!
Tlalocelotl Tlatoque:
>> > Is Satanism Pagan and why?
some Satanism is Neopagan. all Satanism is pagan.
some Satanism is Neopagan because it is founded on the same foundation.
all Satanism is pagan because it varies directly from Christianity,
Judaism or Islam.
Daniel G. Epstein:
>> ...Satanism is not Paganism. Satanism, which shares its
>> theological and cosmological structure with Christianity,
>> must be considered a branch, albeit a deviant (in terms
>> of sociology ...) branch of the same religious group.
without a mask, black bourbon <pos...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>Gross over-generalization. You are defining "Satanism" as a non-entity,
>as a Christian invention - equivalent to defining Islam or Hinduism in the
>absence of any input by the actual practitioners thereof.
this does appear to be common. I think it is demonstrable of the
origins of the statement. who else tends to do that kind of generalizing?
are there any overlaps between the Mr. Epstein's social group and the
ordinary generalizers?
>True, "Satanism," as such, has developed out of a Christian context,
>but this does not necessarily imply that it is itself Christian or
>that it shares the Christian "theological and cosmological" world-view.
as if there is only one. ;>
>>Of course, being a
>> religious studies major at DePaul University {a Catholic school}, this
>> view has occasionally gotten me into trouble with some of my more
>> closed-minded peers and profs. when I have stated it publically].
'trouble'? it will draw contention from anyone who knows religions
more than just what the Catholics teach.
>> ...It was applied to non-Roman citizens with a
>> connotation similiar to that of the word "hick." When Christianity took
>> over the Roman Empire, it came to mean non-Christian. However, the words
>> "Pagan" and "Neo-Pagan," in contemporary usage (esp. academic usage)
>> refer to the pre-Judeo-Christian religions of the Indoeuropean continent
>> and the modern (usually earth-centered) reconstructions/reinventions
>> thereof.
which were? which religions are you talking about? what continents?
I think this is all a smug melange of misunderstood ideas.
>> > What is Satanism?
Satanism is whatever people who want to take this label upon themselves
can persuasively portray as such.
>> Usually, as the name implies, it is a religious sect devoted to the
>> worship Satan, the Christian embodiment of evil....
I've rarely heard of such a thing. scholars like Russell claim that no
such thing exists. at every turn beyond the occasional IRC youth whose
text I find fascinating I find no evidence for this phenomenon. it is
central to the projective condemnation utilized by your Church. beware.
>Do you have any evidence to support your claim that it is "usually" what
>you have described? Have you researched historical instances of Satanism,
>including modern examples, to reach this conclusion? Or is it based on
>mere assumption?
I have little, personally, beyond readings. I think such 'data' is very
hard to come by outside college-level studies in a religion department
such as you or Daniel may be attending or by someone who occupies a niche
in the 'Satanist' culture and travels extensively.
>By all evidence, there existed at various times in medieval Europe,
>especially at the time of the Black Death, a number of groups and
>individuals who combined the remnants of older religious practices with
>Christianity, and identified themselves with Satan in opposition to the
>Christian authorities.
name some names, will ya? particular groups. beyond "Hellfire Club",
which I find questionable, I only find 'Lucifer(i)an', and not reliably.
>These may have been similar to certain sects of
>Voodoo and Candomble today, which combine African and Christian beliefs
>and practices and identify themselves with the Devil.
I gather you must mean that the SECT in question identifies itself and its
worship with the Christian Devil in some sense (such as via Exu or some other
devil-like entity). I'm sure the entirety (Vodoun, Candomble) don't come
to identify with the JCI Satan.
>> > Is there a "branch" of Satanism that's totally separate from any JCI
>> > beliefs? (I.E. non-belief in Satan)
> ...there are a number of other "sects" and schools of thought within
> modern Satanism [beyond the Church of Satan], many of which do *not*
>view "Satan" as mere symbol or metaphor.
as if we can speak about them as a herd. ;>
sad if true.
>> Satanism does not have
>> anywhere near a monopoly on offensive magick, in fact in many cultures
>> (including both the Yoruba of W. Africa and the Celts) consider(ed) it
>> to be a logical (and sometimes necessary) application of magickal
>> practice. The distinction to be made here is that Christianity inherited
>> from Zoroaster a dualistic view of absolute Good and absolute Evil,
>> which is also held in Satanism (except that the Evil is emphasized) Any
>> view of divided "light" and "dark" magicks within a Neo-Pagan context
>> must be recognised as a having come from 2000 years of Christian
>> influence in Western Culture.
>You have no basis for the claim that this dualistic view "is also held in
>Satanism," other than what you and other "academics" have so kindly
>applied to us.
Christian academics, though I would suggest that the label came ready-made
out of Judeochristianity with this association attached to it. nobody who
claims to be 'a Satanist' who was born in a Christian nation can really
claim ignorance about that yet. maybe in one or two generations.
>In fact, most Satanists do *not* believe in an "absolute duality of Good
>and Evil." Most of us believe that "Good" and "Evil" are subjective terms.
that is my experience. there is a great deal of similarity between Atheists,
Thelemites, Anarchists and Satanists I find.
> Beyond this, your claim that "any view of divided 'light' and
>'dark' magicks within a Neo-Pagan context must be recognized as having
>come from 2000 years of Christian influence in Western culture" is highly
>questionable. If such a division was the result of Christian and
>Zoroastrian thinking, then why did Hindu Tantriks divide between the Right
>and Left-Hand Paths?
right -> socially-acceptable (woman sits on right in ceremonial rite)
left -> that contrary to the norms of the society (taboo)(woman sits on left)
it wasn't really a moral thing, but a cultural difference, which may have
had moral overtones.
>Why does almost every culture on Earth make a division between proper,
>priestly magic, and "witchcraft?"
social monopolizing and policing. notice that 'witchcraft' by a variety
of languages (bruja, etc.) is often identified with 'malevolent magic'.
>Why are there references to practioners of evil magic and diabolism in
>Babylonian and Egyptian texts going back centuries before Christianity?
hmm, Zoroaster was around centuries prior to Christianity. :>
then again, I would say that a great deal of Christian faiths consider
'magic(k)' of *any* type to be 'evil' or contrary to what their god says
is right for them to be involved with. fine by me, so long as they don't
try to spread their values and views on me and mine (such as through LAWS).
>> Personally, I find Satanism to be very distasteful. At best, I find the
>> desire to glorify "evil" as an immature overreaction to the dominant
>> culture in the West, somewhat akin to kids spray-painting obscene
>> caricatures of the school principal on the school walls.
if it were only this I'd be inclined to agree.
>And I find your uninformed and highly stereotypical portrayal of my
>religious practice very distasteful.
that was very respectfully put, Mr. Posey. I think I'll call you 'Jason
without a Mask' in the future as an honorific.
>> ...strongly caution others to examine their motives for such
>> practices as it has been my experience that those motives are usually
>> selfish and self-destructive as well as counter productive to building a
>> healthier society.
with this I surprisingly agree. ;> sometimes selfishness, self-destructiveness
(or recklessness) and anti-societal acts are blessed indeed!
>...most "neo-pagans," with the exception of
>those who are willing to admit an affinity towards, or at least
>recognition of, the dark side, are little better than the Christians they
>so denigrate. Hypocritical, self-righteous, illogical, herd-minded, with
>an emphasis on egalitarianism and the absolute sanctity of human life
>which threatens the health of our society and of this planet.
dunno, I've met an awful lot of really sweet Neopagans who had little to
do (and wanted nothing to do) with 'the dark side' as I have understood it.
they couldn't understand my 'Cronish' ways. I have also had the opposite
response (attraction and shared vision) with many Neopagans who *did* know
the more wrathful gods.
>As for "selfish" motives, that is undeniable. Selfishness is a major part
>of what has made the West dominant, and has built up America into the most
>powerful state in the world. Selfishness is part of the very basis of
>capitalism, of natural selection, and of scientific and technological
>progress. When over-done, it can become self-destructive, but this is at
>least just as true with altruism, the trademark of Right-Hand Path
>philosophies such as Judaism, Christianity, and most modern neo-Paganism.
>As Anton LaVey (High Priest and founder of the Chruch of Satan) once said,
>"there hasn't yet been any great 'love' movement which hasn't ended up
>killing thousands of people, presumably to show how much they 'love'
>them."
lovely. I really like what you write, nomask.
>-Jason (religious studies major, University of Arizona - a non-Catholic
>school ;-)
it shows!
blessed beast!
lorax of the evul fluff-bunny wikkhunz from Hel
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com
nocTifer
Michael Smith
Daniel G. Epstein:
>> ...Satanism is not Paganism. Satanism, which shares its
>> theological and cosmological structure with Christianity,
>> must be considered a branch, albeit a deviant (in terms
>> of sociology ...) branch of the same religious group.
Wait a minute . . . I can see how this applies to Anton Levay / Deicide
/ Black metal "satanism;" but what about the Zoroastrian worshipers of
Shaitan? Or the Ishmaelites? In the former case the worship of their
"Satan" pre-dates Christianity; in the latter case, the cultural
background was Islamic, not Christian. I'll agree that most of American
and European Satan-Worship is strictly a reaction against Christianity,
but this is not the case in the Middle East.
Oh yeah, D sez hi. And when is Laura going to show up to one of his
concerts?
Blessed Be,
Mike Smith, who should be studying.
"Rise, hold fast your faith. To lie dormant is certain death."
-Slayer, "At Dawn They Sleep"
DISCLAIMER: My opinions do not necessarily, or even remotely, reflect
those of Loyola University, Chicago.
Darrell Manrique
On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, nocTifer wrote:
> indeed, Satan and nature (of some sort) are what I have most often found
> in *common* among various proponents of both condemnatory and religious
> expression. more, it is always the WILD or uncontrolled egregious agents
> (out from the herd, interestingly enough!) which has received the bulk of
> 'Satanic' associations, from disease (daemonspawn) to deception (human)
> and lasciviousness (both!).
"Daemonspawn"? Interesting... does not "daemon" from Greek "daimon" in
its oldest sense mean the same as Latin "numen", that is, roughly, a
semi-divine or spiritual being that may exist as the spritual aspect of a
natural phenomenon or process, or as a minor divinity? Roughly?
Puts an interesting spin on the quote above...
Arellanus Laraeus Amalricus
"My mind is firmly grounded in non-reality, but at least it's firmly
grounded." -- Alison F. Murray
nocTifer
49970609 aa2 Hail Satan!
nocTifer:
>> indeed, Satan and nature (of some sort) are what I have most often found
>> in *common* among various proponents of both condemnatory and religious
>> expression. more, it is always the WILD or uncontrolled egregious agents
>> (out from the herd, interestingly enough!) which has received the bulk of
>> 'Satanic' associations, from disease (daemonspawn) to deception (human)
>> and lasciviousness (both!).
Darrell Manrique <gree...@taurus.oac.uci.edu>:
>"Daemonspawn"? Interesting... does not "daemon" from Greek "daimon" in
>its oldest sense mean the same as Latin "numen", that is, roughly, a
>semi-divine or spiritual being that may exist as the spritual aspect of a
>natural phenomenon or process, or as a minor divinity? Roughly?
precisely. the Christians saw these as responsible entities for the onset
of dementia and bodily illness, incorporating a demonology which made a
big deal out of their god's ability to 'cast out' possessory demons.
this is why those whose religions develop in antagonism to popular Christian
religion often incorporate possessory-work (Wicca, various Thelemics and
African diasporics) where it wasn't contained in something to which they
attribute their mythic origins. New Age 'channelling' and Wiccan
'Drawing Down the Moon' are of similar intent in this regard.
blessed beast!
nocTifer
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com
nocTifer
49970609 aa2 Hail Satan!
blessed beast!
nocTifer
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com
--
(emailed replies may be posted) ------- join the AMT syncretism!!!
see http://www.abyss.com/tokus ---------- call: 408/2-666-SLUG!!
------- zombie children have invaded Philadelphia, film at 11 ----------