Satanism and Gender
Carol Freinkel
Are there any prominent women Satanists? I've never heard of any, and
I haven't seen any postings from women Satanists in alt.pagan.
Are there any books written by women Satanists? Do women ever design
or lead Satanic rituals? Are women represented among Satanic deities?
How about it? Clay? Tim? Mike? Do you know of any women Satanists?
If so, are any of these women prominent within the religion?
What is the standing of women within this religion?
-- Carol Freinkel
Ailsa N.T. Murphy
truthful in their representations of their religion(s), and we have no
reason to believe that they are not, then it/they have nothing to
do with evil, at least not to the point to be placed in alt.evil,
anyway. all religions try to some degree or another to answer the
problem of evil, but that is beside the point.
Disclaimer: if in defense of something i ever hopelessly muddle my
explanation, i hope the offended parties give extra credit for good
intentions. yeah, yeah, i know, the road to hell...
-ailsa
William A. Turnbow
perceive that the threat of satanists 'taking over' pagan groups is
not unfounded, given that only 2 of them have seemed to have done this
in here.
I have heard more than one person comment elsewhere that they quit reading
alt.pagan because it was just about satanism or a majority of it
was about satanism.
What ever happened to alt.satan or alt.evil? Perhaps a specialized newsgroup
for all those enthused about satanism would be appropriate?
-wat-
--
***
Annual drug deaths: tobacco: 395,000, alcohol: 125,000, 'legal' drugs: 38,000,
illegal drug overdoses: 5,200, marijuana: 0. Considering government subsidies
of tobacco, just what is our government protecting us from in the drug war?
mindy miriam rheingold
Wat, dearest, if you don't want to read about Satanism, there's always
the "k" option. Or you can always introduce a non-Satanic topic of
conversation in order to bring alt.pagan to what you seem to think
should be its proper balance of Satanic to non-Satanic subjects. There
have been a number of postings about Ring of Troth, Wicca, etc. I
notice you do not suggest that there should be an alt.wicca
I do not feel that there are too many postings about Satanism on
alt.pagan, nor that all or a majority of it is just about Satanism.
I, for one, am grateful for the edifying and stimulating material
that Clay and Tim have posted, since it has enabled me to learn a
little about Satanism and to have my misconceptions about it (though
I never did think they ate babies for breakfast) cleared up. You,
apparently, have not learned very much from the various discussions
on Satanism, else you would not have suggested moving such discussions
to alt.evil rather than leaving them on alt.pagan where, IMHO, they
belong.
Of course, perhaps I have simply been "taken over" by the dreaded
net Satanists and am merely being the thralled mouthpiece for their
profane propaganda.
Than again, maybe not.
Blessed Be,
Miriam
Loki Master of Chaos
If you think that too much of this group is devoted to satanism, then
start some new threads. The reason that discussion of satanism dominates
this group is that satanic treads are more posted to and are longer lived
than almost all others.
IMHO lo...@ucscb.ucsc.edu
"We discordians stick apart!"
Tim Maroney
rh...@quads.uchicago.edu (mindy miriam rheingold) writes:
>I do not feel that there are too many postings about Satanism on
>alt.pagan, nor that all or a majority of it is just about Satanism.
I agree. In fact, most of the discussion lately seems to be about
Dumezil and about Janet Christian's support for censorship. Satan
hasn't entered into either of these, except when Marsh insists on
bringing his usual Satanist-bashing into play.
The vast majority of discussions of Satanism here have started because
Neo-Pagans made inaccurate and prejudicial statements about Satanism,
and those of us who were attacked felt a need to respond. If not for
these fairly frequent attacks, there would be almost no discussion of
the subject here at all. It's not as if we've declared a campaign to
convert people to our diabolic pagan cult.
What Marsh, Christian, Turnbow, Piatt, and the few other hard-line
anti-Satanic bigots want is a place where people are free to attack us,
without fear that we will respond in our own defense.
>I, for one, am grateful for the edifying and stimulating material
>that Clay and Tim have posted, since it has enabled me to learn a
>little about Satanism and to have my misconceptions about it (though
>I never did think they ate babies for breakfast) cleared up.
And I am very grateful for comments like this. It's always nice to
know we've helped make the world a little darker.
>You, apparently, have not learned very much from the various discussions
>on Satanism, else you would not have suggested moving such discussions
>to alt.evil rather than leaving them on alt.pagan where, IMHO, they
>belong.
The reason Turnbow has learned nothing from these discussions is that
he put the word "Satan" in his KILL file, and instructed others how to
do the same. Following his instructions would also have led to their
killing all Turnbow's articles, since his signature file had the word
"Satan" in it!
With enemies like this, who needs friends?
>Of course, perhaps I have simply been "taken over" by the dreaded
>net Satanists and am merely being the thralled mouthpiece for their
>profane propaganda.
Piss! Shit! Fuck! Nixon! We almost had you, and now you slip away?
Every damn millenium it's the same damn thing -- we're let free to walk
the earth, we entice various weak minds with promises of unlimited sex
and free prizes if they act before midnight tonight, we get them nearly
to the brink of the pit -- and then their childhood monotheistic
training kicks in, they realize they've been dupes, they tell us to get
behind them (and they don't mean to make the sign of the four-armed
screaming limpet, either) and we have to go report back to Mick and
Keith and tell them we've failed. Another thousand years in the bile
sauna, thanks to you. I hope you're happy.
>Than again, maybe not.
Yay! I knew those years of following Our Servants in Neo-Paganism
(just a front for Satanism, dontcha know?) would pay off! I never
doubted it for a minute!
Abandon hope and embrace the moment, all ye who enter here!
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"Skip, witches! Hop, toads! Take your pleasure!"
-- Aleister Crowley, THE BOOK OF LIES
Robin Faichney
>
>Are there any prominent women Satanists?
>What is the standing of women within this religion?
Satanists are painfully aware of the under-representation of women
within their religion at all levels, but particularly the higher levels
-- as, they would point out, is the case throughout society.
However, they are currently engaged in implementing a policy of
affirmative action which they confidently expect to rectify the
situation over the next few years. In fact, some expect to see the
first female Satanic deities by the turn of the millenium.
The term 'she-devil', of course, is viewed as pejorative as well as
fictional and has been out of use among practicing Satanists for some
time.
Tim Maroney
>I haven't seen any postings from women Satanists in alt.pagan.
How many prominent Satanists have you heard of, period? I can think
of, let's see, about four, equally divided between male and female.
I've heard of Zeena LaVey, through her writing and her television
appearances, and Lilith Aquino. I do not endorse either of the
Satanist organizations represented by these people -- or, in fact, any
religious organizations at all -- and I will not argue that these
prominent female Satanists have the same status as their relatives, the
males who lead the organizations. But they do exist.
I would say that both the Church of Satan and (from what I've seen) the
Temple of Set are fairly sexist organizations. The CoS endorses
traditional sex-roles and opposes feminism; more on this in the book
THE SATANIC WITCH by A. S. LaVey, introduced by Z. LaVey. The CoS
feels that masculinity and femininity are real psychological facts; I
disagree as much with this as with the many Neo-Pagans who feel the
same way.
(I won't get into the whole issue of Jane Mansfield here, but she was
probably the most prominent female Satanist of the century.)
Now, another Satanic religion is Crowleyan Thelema (not to be confused
with Rabelaisian Thelema). This religion had a number of prominent
female initiates, though again it was founded and run by a man. For
his day, the founder was rather sexually progressive, despite his bad
case of virgin-whore syndrome and (again) his belief in the intrinsic
psychological differentiation of the genders. A good deal of his
political writing is in support of the suffragist movement.
>Are there any books written by women Satanists?
Once again, it comes down to definitions. You are plainly restricting
your concerns to organized Satanic religion, which I am not a part of
and do not endorse, and which I somewhat resent being lumped into by
your implication. My definition of satan is quite broad, and meets at
its fringes such characters as the Revolting Hag, Mary Daly. There is
no question that her form of witchcraft frees the demons of the soul,
imprisoned there by the institutions of misogyny. However, it is
natural that such a writer would not identify herself under a male
label such as Satan -- which is fine with me; I myself am much more
a student of Medea than of Shin Teth Nun.
>Do women ever design or lead Satanic rituals?
I assume so. I have no personal contact with any other Satanists,
and only a book acquaintance with the organized ones, so I can't say
for sure.
>Are women represented among Satanic deities?
Did you just get here?
>What is the standing of women within this religion?
What religion? Did I ever say that Satanism is a monolithic religion?
I regard it primarily as a literary movement, at least insofar as it
concerns me.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"I was brought up in the other service; but I knew from the first that the
Devil was my natural master and captain and friend. I saw that he was in
the right, and that the world cringed to his conqueror only from fear."
- Shaw, "The Devil's Disciple"
Neal Johnson
>
>Now, another Satanic religion is Crowleyan Thelema (not to be confused
>with Rabelaisian Thelema).
For someone who likes to be quite clear about other people's use of
language, I find your use of the word "Satanic" to be hopelessly
sloppy and more than likely devoid of meaning. There is no use of
the term "Satanic" in any of the Thelemic writings. To apply this term
to Thelema is either a) inappropriate since I don't think most Thelemites
view themselves as Satanists (I certainly don't since Satan is no where
to be found in my pantheon) or b) merely the sloppy use of a poorly
defined word. Let those who call themselves Satanists be called Satanists,
such as LaVey and Aquino and their followers. And let those who do not
call themselves Satanists be called by their names and not some that
you or anyone else wish to apply to them.
============================================================================
name: Neal Johnson "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
mail: n...@apple.COM "Love is the law, love under will."
phone: (408) 974-6246
disclaimer: Everything stated here is disclaimed by all.
============================================================================
Asmodeus
>For someone who likes to be quite clear about other people's use of
>language, I find your use of the word "Satanic" to be hopelessly
>sloppy and more than likely devoid of meaning.
It is not only meaningful, but quite accurate. Crowley was
immensely fond of reclaiming Satanic imagery, and examples
abound: Beast 666, BABALON, and his fondness for Pan are but
three of many.
Crowley would not have been -- indeed, was not -- irritated by
being called a Satanist. That you are shows that you have
abandoned the spirit of Crowley in the name of respectability.
--
"You have provided no evidence that blacks are as intelligent as whites
on average, but you claim they are, so I would conclude that you are
prejudiced against white people." -- Peter M. Ullman
A Kashko
>In article <64...@castle.ed.ac.uk>, egn...@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) writes:
>>
>First off, the Gods are living beings, but they are very old, so they
>change very slowly, like an ancient tree. Humans change more quickly,
This could well be true, but there may also be a feedback process
between Gods and humnas accelerating the rate of change.
>and so many changes we perceive as being changes in the Gods are
>actually changes in us. Furthermore, though Christianity was not able
>to kill off the Gods, it was able to put them to sleep for a long
>time, with only a few of our folk keeping to them. As a result, the
Well, assuming they were asleep, rather than having the equivalent
of a holiday abroad, attending to other business etc, you would be right to
assume they have not changed much.
>Gods awakening are awakening slowly, after doing a major "Rip Van
>Winkle" act. They are very nearly the same, we only have changed. So
But probably a little bewildered at how humanity has changed??
They should be able to adapt quickly however.
......................
>> On the other hand, how far back do you want to go?. Having read
>> Rooth's "Loki in Scandinavian Mythology" twice recently, it would be nice
>> to examine how many of the myths in the extant literary sources represent
>> native Scandinavian Tradition. For example Rooth notes that the Thjazi myth in
>> Haustlong contains themes that occur worldwide, and is related to the Irish
>Which, incedentally, backs up Dumezil. Some themes are indeed
>worldwide, after all, we are all human beings with fathers, mothers,
...............................
>more interested in weeding out Christian and other corruptions, rather
>than taking what is solely Norse to another planet! ;-)
>
Well, it seems to me that given the zeal of christian missionaries and
the extent to which Rome was able to disseminate ideas rapidly, that you would
have to go back before 50CE, 100CE at the latest. At some point you have to
stop and say "this is our starting point".
..............................
>> From the Academic viewpoint, the gods are dead, and one is writing a
>> biography of them.
>
>Tell that to our Drighten, who has a Ph.D. in teutonic studies and
>religion. Tell that to the Elder of Irminsul Hof, who is competent
>enough with Old Norse to translate the entire Poetic Edda. In fact, a
>requirement of Eldership (priesthood) is that the Elder have at least
>a four year degree, and that ain't in chemistry. WE intend to the the
Well, that will weed out the uncommitted, but there is a risk of
the Eldership being dominated by intellectuals with a lot of knowledge but
little or no direct experience of the Gods. This seems to be what has
happened in the Christian church (The emphasis on faith as superior to
experience has helped this happen).
>academics in this field, and it isn't a biography we are writing, it
>is a living faith we are reviving.
I was trying to distinguish between the study of ancient religions
from the viewpoint of a non believing academic
(I suspect most of the leading lights in this field fall into this category)
and the more involved viewpoint of people such as those you mention for whom
this is theology and history. ( sufficently few to form a kittygory, at present)
I think there must always be a tension between the religious and
academic/intellectual viewpoint. It seems to be this tension is one of the
mpotors of growth and development. For example in Christian history there has
always been a gulf between the mystics (Francis of Assisi for example) and the
established church. The mystics are revered - after they are safely dead -
but while alive tend to be relegated to monasteries and convents. Doctrine
was made by intellectuals, not mystics. It also seems to be these same
intellectuals who cause most of the intolerance exhibited by the church
(There are exceptions of course). I don't know how Troth, or other neopagan
groups are trying to harness this tension in a way that is useful.
................................
In article <oazg8nO00...@andrew.cmu.edu> aw...@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew David Weiland) writes:
> The Discouri, Harut/Marut, and Romulus/Remus are The Holy Pair.
>Frey/Njord is not. Is there a Holy Pair among the Norse? Who are they?
> Yes, there is. The answer will surprise you.
> If you don't already know this, Mary, you'll kick yourself for missing it.
OK, I'll bite
Baldur is probably one of the pair and I cannot decide between
Loki and Odin for the other two.
(don't forget to let us know your answer please)
Tim Maroney
>>Now, another Satanic religion is Crowleyan Thelema (not to be confused
>>with Rabelaisian Thelema).
In article <45...@apple.Apple.COM> n...@Apple.COM (Neal Johnson) writes:
>For someone who likes to be quite clear about other people's use of
>language, I find your use of the word "Satanic" to be hopelessly
>sloppy and more than likely devoid of meaning. There is no use of
>the term "Satanic" in any of the Thelemic writings.
"[Ayin is] the exalted 'Devil'... This 'Devil' is called Satan or
Shaitan, and is viewed with horror by people who are ignorant of his
formula, and, imagining themselves to be evil, accuse Nature herself of
their own phantasmal crime. Satan is Saturn, Set, Abrasax, Adad,
Adonis, Attis, Adam, Adonai, etc. The most serious charge against him
is only that he is the Sun in the South.
"We have therefore no scruple in restoring the 'devil-worship' of such
ideas as those which the laws of sound, and the phenomena of speech and
hearing, compel us to connect with the group of 'Gods' whose names are
based upon ShT or D, vocalized by the free breath A. For these Names
imply the qualities of courage, frankness, energy, pride, power, and
triumph; they are the words which express the creative and paternal
will.
"Thus 'the Devil' is Capricornus, the Goat who leaps upon the loftiest
mountains, the Godhead which, if it become manifest in man, makes him
Aegipan, the All.
"He is the Open Eye of the exalted Sun, before whom all shadows flee
away; also that Secret Eye which makes an image of its God, the Light,
and gives it power to utter oracles, enlightening the mind.
"Thus, he is Man made God, exalted, eager; he has come consciously to
his full stature, and so is ready to set out on his journey to redeem
the world. But he may not appear in his true form; the Vision of Pan
would drive men mad with fear. He must conceal Himself in his original
guise."
Magick in Theory and Practice, 35-37.
"I ... found my Messiah in Charles Watts, and the Devil and all his angels."
Dedication to G. K. Chesterton, Why Jesus Wept
"Thou spiritual Sun! Satan, Thou Eye, Thou Lust! Cry aloud! Cry
aloud! Whirl the Wheel, O my Father, O Satan, O Sun! Thou, the
Saviour! Silence! Give me Thy Secret! Give me suck, Thou Phallus,
Thou Sun! Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust! Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust!
Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust! Thou self-caused, self-determined,
exalted, Most High!"
Invocation of Fire from Liber Samekh, the Central Ritual of the
Thelemic Path, in which the name "Satan" appears many times, together
with the names of Satan's servants from the Book of Revelation, the
Beast and the Scarlet Woman of Babylon; and in which Satan is
explicitly identified as one and the same as Hadit, the central deity
of the Thelemic trinity of Nuit, Hadit, and Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
Other Satanic references are frequent in Crowley. His
self-identification as the Beast of Revelation, an explicitly Satanic
symbol, is omnipresent. His treatment of Ayin and of the cognate Tarot
Trump "the Devil" is unwaveringly positive throughout his corpus.
Crowley adored Satan/Hadit, and it is merely bizarre to claim
otherwise.
>To apply this term
>to Thelema is either a) inappropriate since I don't think most Thelemites
>view themselves as Satanists (I certainly don't since Satan is no where
>to be found in my pantheon)
So you are a Crowleyan Thelemite, but you reject Hadit. Interesting.
>or b) merely the sloppy use of a poorly
>defined word. Let those who call themselves Satanists be called Satanists,
>such as LaVey and Aquino and their followers. And let those who do not
>call themselves Satanists be called by their names and not some that
>you or anyone else wish to apply to them.
Someone who uses Satan as a figure of adoration in his central rituals
and in his pantheon is a "Satanist", no ifs, ands, or buts. Please try
to avoid applying your own anti-Satanic ideas to Edward Alexander, who
would have ripped them up and thrown them back in your face.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"The Diabolonian position is new to the London playgoer of today, but not to
lovers of serious literature. From Prometheus to the Wagnerian Siegfried,
some enemy of the gods, unterrified champion of those oppressed by them, has
always towered among the heroes of the loftiest poetry."
- Shaw, "On Diabolonian Ethics"
Neal Johnson
>In article <45...@apple.Apple.COM> n...@Apple.COM (Neal Johnson) writes:
>
>>For someone who likes to be quite clear about other people's use of
>>language, I find your use of the word "Satanic" to be hopelessly
>>sloppy and more than likely devoid of meaning.
>
>It is not only meaningful, but quite accurate. Crowley was
>immensely fond of reclaiming Satanic imagery, and examples
>abound: Beast 666, BABALON, and his fondness for Pan are but
>three of many.
>
Within the iconography of Christianity, Satan is a specific being. Your
interpretation that the Beast 666, BABALON, and Pan are Satanic is
just that - your interpretation. Pan is a Greek God, he ain't Satan
except maybe to Christians. Crowley did not use that adjective as
you do. You also seem to forget that Crowley used such imagery not
only for religious purposes but also to shock the Victorians of his
time. Something used for shock value may be only that and not aspect
of religion.
>Crowley would not have been -- indeed, was not -- irritated by
>being called a Satanist. That you are shows that you have
>abandoned the spirit of Crowley in the name of respectability.
>
Though Crowley would not have been irritated at being called a Satanist,
he was called much worse things, he did not apply that term to himself,
as you apply it to him. This is your interpretation again. I have not
abandoned the spirit of Crowley which you seem to believe is Satanic,
because your belief and predication is meaningless to me. Satan? Who's
he. Sometimes I think a lot of so-called "Satanists" are those who have
mistaken statements intended to shock and nothing more for statements
of religious doctrine.
Neal Johnson
>In article <12...@hoptoad.uucp> t...@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>>>Now, another Satanic religion is Crowleyan Thelema (not to be confused
>>>with Rabelaisian Thelema).
>
>In article <45...@apple.Apple.COM> n...@Apple.COM (Neal Johnson) writes:
>>For someone who likes to be quite clear about other people's use of
>>language, I find your use of the word "Satanic" to be hopelessly
>>sloppy and more than likely devoid of meaning. There is no use of
>>the term "Satanic" in any of the Thelemic writings.
>
>"[Ayin is] the exalted 'Devil'... This 'Devil' is called Satan or
>Shaitan, and is viewed with horror by people who are ignorant of his
>formula, and, imagining themselves to be evil, accuse Nature herself of
>their own phantasmal crime. Satan is Saturn, Set, Abrasax, Adad,
>Adonis, Attis, Adam, Adonai, etc. The most serious charge against him
>is only that he is the Sun in the South.
>
Crowley in this section is merely making an equation between the original
symbol called Saturn, Set, etc. and that which was perverted by the Yahwists
and Christians into their figure of Satan. You have the priority wrong. The
original symbols came first, "Satan" was a much later creation. To hold
"Satan" as THE figure is a mistake.
>"We have therefore no scruple in restoring the 'devil-worship' of such
>ideas as those which the laws of sound, and the phenomena of speech and
>hearing, compel us to connect with the group of 'Gods' whose names are
>based upon ShT or D, vocalized by the free breath A. For these Names
>imply the qualities of courage, frankness, energy, pride, power, and
>triumph; they are the words which express the creative and paternal
>will.
Again, Crowley is setting up an equation of symbols based on their
pronunciation. Where does courage, frankness, energy, pride, power,
and triumph fit into the symbol of "Satan" which is a Christian creation?
Read your Nietzsche, GENEOLOGY OF MORALS, because Crowley here is
setting up his Master morality against the Slave morality of Christianity,
where the master morality is viewed as evil within the context of
Christianity. Please note that "devil-worship" is in quotes. To say
that Crowley worships the devil is idiotic. He is simply proclaiming
a master morality which others would call evil.
>
>"Thus 'the Devil' is Capricornus, the Goat who leaps upon the loftiest
>mountains, the Godhead which, if it become manifest in man, makes him
>Aegipan, the All.
>
>"He is the Open Eye of the exalted Sun, before whom all shadows flee
>away; also that Secret Eye which makes an image of its God, the Light,
>and gives it power to utter oracles, enlightening the mind.
>
>"Thus, he is Man made God, exalted, eager; he has come consciously to
>his full stature, and so is ready to set out on his journey to redeem
>the world. But he may not appear in his true form; the Vision of Pan
>would drive men mad with fear. He must conceal Himself in his original
>guise."
>
>Magick in Theory and Practice, 35-37.
I see nothing here that has to do with Satan, the CHRISTIAN SYMBOL. I
think you put to much emphasis on things that Crowley puts in quotes.
>
>"I ... found my Messiah in Charles Watts, and the Devil and all his angels."
>
>Dedication to G. K. Chesterton, Why Jesus Wept
Here he is clearly baiting Chesterton, a Christian.
>
>"Thou spiritual Sun! Satan, Thou Eye, Thou Lust! Cry aloud! Cry
>aloud! Whirl the Wheel, O my Father, O Satan, O Sun! Thou, the
>Saviour! Silence! Give me Thy Secret! Give me suck, Thou Phallus,
>Thou Sun! Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust! Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust!
>Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust! Thou self-caused, self-determined,
>exalted, Most High!"
>
>Invocation of Fire from Liber Samekh, the Central Ritual of the
>Thelemic Path, in which the name "Satan" appears many times, together
>with the names of Satan's servants from the Book of Revelation, the
>Beast and the Scarlet Woman of Babylon; and in which Satan is
>explicitly identified as one and the same as Hadit, the central deity
>of the Thelemic trinity of Nuit, Hadit, and Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
This is because he equates AYIN = Satan and the barbarous word of
Evocation has the letter AYIN in it. He also equates AYIN to the
phallus, why don't you accuse him of worshipping the penis while you
are at it... Or the sun... Or the eye... The word Satan appears in the
Bible too but you don't accuse Bible believers as being Satanists -
when in fact they are because they do believe in Satan.
>
>Other Satanic references are frequent in Crowley. His
>self-identification as the Beast of Revelation, an explicitly Satanic
>symbol, is omnipresent. His treatment of Ayin and of the cognate Tarot
>Trump "the Devil" is unwaveringly positive throughout his corpus.
>Crowley adored Satan/Hadit, and it is merely bizarre to claim
>otherwise.
Who says that these are Satanic symbols? Where lies the equation that
Hadit = Satan? "Satan" does not appear in the Book of the Law or any of
the other Holy Books of Thelema.
>
>>To apply this term
>>to Thelema is either a) inappropriate since I don't think most Thelemites
>>view themselves as Satanists (I certainly don't since Satan is no where
>>to be found in my pantheon)
>
>So you are a Crowleyan Thelemite, but you reject Hadit. Interesting.
>
>>or b) merely the sloppy use of a poorly
>>defined word. Let those who call themselves Satanists be called Satanists,
>>such as LaVey and Aquino and their followers. And let those who do not
>>call themselves Satanists be called by their names and not some that
>>you or anyone else wish to apply to them.
>
>Someone who uses Satan as a figure of adoration in his central rituals
>and in his pantheon is a "Satanist", no ifs, ands, or buts. Please try
>to avoid applying your own anti-Satanic ideas to Edward Alexander, who
>would have ripped them up and thrown them back in your face.
Liber Samekh is the only ritual where the word Satan appears and that
is due to his interpretation of one of the Barbarous Words of Evocation.
The other rituals mysteriously lack that word. To assume that it is
used as Adoration is little too much.
You have still NOT DEFINED what YOU MEAN by "Satanist". I feel that you
are simply trying to justify "Satanism" through Crowley who never refered
to himself as a Satanist, in those words. He specifically denounced
Black Masses, Black Magic, and to say he worshipped the devil only means
that you believe in the devil, he clearly did not because he saw Pan
as a positive force and the devil by definition (since the concept is
clearly Jewish and Christian) is decidedly negative.
I repeat, let those who want to be called Satanists let themselves be
called Satanists. You can be as "satanic" as you want.
Martin P. Starr {5-5410}
>being called a Satanist. That you are shows that you have
>abandoned the spirit of Crowley in the name of respectability.
You obviously have not read the series of articles Crowley wrote for
British newspapers in 1934 denouncing Black Magic and Satanism, by which
he meant the reverse Christianity of LA BAS and the like. He denied ever
performing the Black Mass, as he was not an ordained Catholic priest, and
he did not publically allow others to call him a Satanist without protest.
Martin Starr, University of Chicago, BSD Info. Sys.,
5841 S. Maryland--Box 417, Chicago IL 60637 tel. 312-702-9130
internet: mar...@ares.bsd.uchicago.edu
bitnet: martin%ares.bsd.u...@uchimvs1.bitnet
Joshua Gordon
>>
>>Now, another Satanic religion is Crowleyan Thelema (not to be confused
>>with Rabelaisian Thelema).
>
>For someone who likes to be quite clear about other people's use of
>language, I find your use of the word "Satanic" to be hopelessly
>sloppy and more than likely devoid of meaning. There is no use of
>the term "Satanic" in any of the Thelemic writings. To apply this term
>to Thelema is either a) inappropriate since I don't think most Thelemites
>view themselves as Satanists (I certainly don't since Satan is no where
>to be found in my pantheon) or b) merely the sloppy use of a poorly
>defined word. Let those who call themselves Satanists be called Satanists,
>such as LaVey and Aquino and their followers. And let those who do not
>call themselves Satanists be called by their names and not some that
>you or anyone else wish to apply to them.
No use of "Satan" or "Satanic" in Crowley? Hm. In the description of
FIAOF in Magick in Theory and Practice: "O: The exalted 'Devil'...
this 'Devil' is called Satan or Shaitan...Satan is Saturn, Set,
Abrasax, Adad,... Adonai, etc..."
Op cit, footnote in discussion "Of Black Magic": "Aiwaz [who dictated
Liber AL] is...'The Devil' SATAN or HADIT of our particular unit
of the Starry Universe. This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man,
but HE who made Gods of our race...He is Life and Love."
Op cit: appendix III: "Satan, the Old Serpent, in the Abyss, the Lake of
Fire and Sulphur, is the Sun-Father, the vibration of Life, Lord of
Infinite Space that flames with His Consuming Energy..."
Op cit, Liber Samekh: "The Lord of the Sabbath of the Adepts...is Satan,
therefore also the Sun."
Op cit, Liber Reguli: several invocations to Shaitan/Set/Satan in the
form ShT.
These are just a handful of examples from one book that I happened
to have next to me (and that happened to have an index.) I think
your indignation is misplaced and incorrect; if you study Crowley
for a while, you can't escape the simple fact that the term
"Satanist" is among those that can be properly applied to him.
Josh Gordon, Master, Boulaq Camp, OTO
(also sysop ThelemaNet, 415-751-9308)
john e. clark
>training kicks in, they realize they've been dupes, they tell us to get
>behind them (and they don't mean to make the sign of the four-armed
I though the saying was "Satan! get thee behind me! Now push!"
As for censorship, Satanists, and entertainment, I do not believe
the group should arbitrate what a 'orthodox' pagan topic. Clearly
discussions of basket weaving, unless related to a pagan ritual,
should be ignored, since ignoring postings seems to be
the best way for a topic to die.
Well, for Satanists and entertainment, again ignoring the 'fad' in
the movie industry seems to me to be a better way than trotting out
every time a stupid movie comes out. However, when some bozo on
national Tv or in some magazine advocates denying people the right
to form religions of thier own, I feel protest is in order. But then
it is easier to 'create' a media event at a theater than at some
bookstore or news stand. So I guess I can't condemn the movie
protesters to harshly.
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu
Asmodeus
>just that - your interpretation. Pan is a Greek God, he ain't Satan
>except maybe to Christians. Crowley did not use that adjective as
>you do.
Pan is Satan to Crowley; Tim has (overgenerously, IMNSHO)
supplied a few of many available references. And Crowley and I
use that adjective in exactly the same way.
>as you apply it to him. This is your interpretation again. I have not
>abandoned the spirit of Crowley which you seem to believe is Satanic,
No, you have not. This latest article from you shows that you
have no idea what Crowley thought or taught. There is nothing
that is less worthy of my time than a "Crowleyan" who knows less
about what Crowley is and says than Pat Robertson.
I hope you enjoy your ignorance. You are no longer part of the
universe, Johnson.
Tim Maroney
>>>For someone who likes to be quite clear about other people's use of
>>>language, I find your use of the word "Satanic" to be hopelessly
>>>sloppy and more than likely devoid of meaning.
In article <42...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> bo...@ursa-major.spdcc.com (Asmodeus) writes:
>>It is not only meaningful, but quite accurate. Crowley was
>>immensely fond of reclaiming Satanic imagery, and examples
>>abound: Beast 666, BABALON, and his fondness for Pan are but
>>three of many.
In article <45...@apple.Apple.COM> n...@Apple.COM (Neal Johnson) writes:
>Within the iconography of Christianity, Satan is a specific being. Your
>interpretation that the Beast 666, BABALON, and Pan are Satanic is
>just that - your interpretation.
The Great Beast and the Scarlet Woman of Babylon, characters drawn from
the Revelation of St. John, the last book of the Bible, are Satanic
figures by any reasonable interpretation. I want you to think about
how your denial would sound to someone without an emotional stake in
the matter and who happened to be acquainted with scripture. It's like
saying Moses is not a prophetic figure, or Jesus is not a messianic
figure. It's so far beyond the pale that it's self-indicting.
>Pan is a Greek God, he ain't Satan
>except maybe to Christians. Crowley did not use that adjective as
>you do.
I have already provided two quotes from Crowley's work in which Pan is
identified with Satan by Crowley, explicitly and without any of your
hysterical denunciations of the use of the word "Satan". Crowley
treats "Satan" as a god-name like any other, suitable for use in major
rituals and philosophical discourse.
You may also look in the entry for "The Devil" Tarot Trump in the Book
of Thoth, in which he praises Levi for "identifying the goat portrayed
upon the card with Pan" and says that "The card represents Pan
Pengenetor, the All-Begetter." The name Pan appears several other
times during this entry, as does the name Satan. He also re-asserts
the identity Pan=Satan=Hadit which both Josh Gordon and myself have
already pointed out to you from other sources.
I have no doubt that you will find some amazing rationale that "the
Devil" is not Satan, despite being identified by Crowley and common
usage alike. Please stop and think first. You are bringing an
anti-Satanic perspective to Crowley which was quite alien to the man
himself. It sounds like transplanted Neo-Pagan dogma from your past,
which you never bothered to re-evaluate after stumbling on Thelema.
>You also seem to forget that Crowley used such imagery not
>only for religious purposes but also to shock the Victorians of his
>time. Something used for shock value may be only that and not aspect
>of religion.
You have a rather low opinion of Crowley, then. He followed his own
path, which indeed was shocking to some people of his time -- while
others saw his bisexual flamboyance, opposition to exoteric
Christianity, and endorsement of sodomy and drug use as expressing a
vital current of revolt both of his day and of our own. I do not think
he frequently set out to shock just for the sake of shocking people; to
him, blasphemy was the art of magick as expressed through his own
intrinsic identity.
Similarly, when he discusses Satan, look at the context. Sacred
invocations, philosophical praise for the qabalistic letter Ayin
and the Tarot trump "The Devil", and so on. These are not some sort
of outrageous satirical essays aimed at poking fun at sacred cows.
And by the way, only a relatively short part of Crowley's life fell
during the Victorian period. All the quotes here, even the earliest,
have dated from some time after the death of Victoria.
>>Crowley would not have been -- indeed, was not -- irritated by
>>being called a Satanist. That you are shows that you have
>>abandoned the spirit of Crowley in the name of respectability.
>Though Crowley would not have been irritated at being called a Satanist,
>he was called much worse things, he did not apply that term to himself,
>as you apply it to him.
No, he just sang joyous songs of the spirit to Satan in pursuit of his
highest spiritual goals, identified himself as the Great Beast and
Johannes Faust for his two highest spiritual degrees, never had
anything but praise for Satan in any form, considered Satan/Hadit one
of the two great poles of the universe (the underworld, to Nuit's
infinite space at the other pole), and so on, and so on.
Give it up, Neal. There is no possible sensible definition of Satanist
which excludes such a man.
>This is your interpretation again.
It is your interpretation that Crowley was *not* a Satanist. This is
something that, for emotional reasons of your own, you have chosen to
impose of Crowley's writings. But it is impossible to say that Crowley
did not adore, worship, and venerate Satan without contradicting the
man himself.
>I have not abandoned the spirit of
>Crowley which you seem to believe is Satanic, because your belief and
>predication is meaningless to me. Satan? Who's he.
Read some Crowley sometime. Perhaps you'll find out.
>Sometimes I think a lot of so-called "Satanists" are those who have
>mistaken statements intended to shock and nothing more for statements
>of religious doctrine.
Sometimes I think most Thelemites don't know their secret eye from a
hole in the ground. I'm sorry to find you confirming this belief.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"Its failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor
of journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated, it
keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community." -- Oscar Wilde
Robin Faichney
>[..]
>No, you have not. This latest article from you shows that you
>have no idea what Crowley thought or taught. There is nothing
>that is less worthy of my time than a "Crowleyan" who knows less
>about what Crowley is and says than Pat Robertson.
>
>I hope you enjoy your ignorance. You are no longer part of the
>universe, Johnson.
Now what was that I was reading about the misinterpretation of certain
mystical experiences leading to a grossly over-inflated ego? Can
anyone remind me?
Neal Johnson
>
>>just that - your interpretation. Pan is a Greek God, he ain't Satan
>>except maybe to Christians. Crowley did not use that adjective as
>>you do.
>
>Pan is Satan to Crowley; Tim has (overgenerously, IMNSHO)
>supplied a few of many available references. And Crowley and I
>use that adjective in exactly the same way.
Yes, I guess you have a direct channel to Mr. Crowley himself such
that you and he speak with the same voice. I am sorry that I didn't
realize that you and Mr. Maroney are directly channeling The Great
Beast so that us lowly types can hear his wisdom direct from your lips.
>
>>as you apply it to him. This is your interpretation again. I have not
>>abandoned the spirit of Crowley which you seem to believe is Satanic,
>
>No, you have not. This latest article from you shows that you
>have no idea what Crowley thought or taught. There is nothing
>that is less worthy of my time than a "Crowleyan" who knows less
>about what Crowley is and says than Pat Robertson.
>
>I hope you enjoy your ignorance. You are no longer part of the
>universe, Johnson.
If you had ever bothered to READ Crowley you would find out that he
does not expect YOU to adopt HIS religion wholesale as you seem to
think he does. Your silly orthodoxy runs counter to everything he
wrote. This coupled with your arrogance leads me to believe that you
have slipped into what Crowley would call the Black Brother mold. So I
am no longer part of the universe? Thank you, I thought that was what
Magick was all about. You are welcome to YOUR universe. I hope you
enjoy it, being stuck there...
Neal Johnson
Tim, at least you make an effort to be rational about this whole
argument, unlike Asmodeus, and I thank you for that. This weekend I went
through all the published works by Crowley and found very few references
to Satan. Most if not all were simply equations Pan = Satan, etc. where
Satan came later. Crowley was clearly influenced by Blavatsky in his
interpretation of the Satan figure. But for someone who you purport to be
a Satanist I find that the dearth of references seems to say that Satan
wasn't all that important to Crowley. It would be like finding "Christian
litertature" that never mentions mentions God or Jesus except once in a
while stating that Adonis = Osiris = Jesus.
I also reitierate - you have not defined what YOU mean by Satan or
Satanism. Hiding behind the robe of Crowley won't do. I want to know
what you mean by the terms, until such time, your statements that
Crowley was a Satanist are meaningless.
Stormwind
>Since the majority of articles in here seem to be about satanism, I
>perceive that the threat of satanists 'taking over' pagan groups is
>not unfounded, given that only 2 of them have seemed to have done this
>in here.
<snort> upon repeated re-reading of
your post, it seems to imply that the
"threat" of satanists taking over pagan
groups is founded, which i find extremeley
unlikely.
both clay bond and tim maroney have
contributed some very interesting and
thought provoking postings to this forum.
they have not, however, displayed any tendency
to "take over" this newsgroup. while both
clay and maroney have pounced on posters
for real and/or assumed anti-satanist prose,
it appears to be more of a sore issue with
them than anything.
i find the incessant mudslinging to be particularly
tedious, and keep rolling right past it. while
i have occasionally entertained the concept
of depositing both in my killfile, i find
that some of their posts (especially clay's on
other gods from other religions) to be intriguing
enough not to.
>I have heard more than one person comment elsewhere that they quit reading
>alt.pagan because it was just about satanism or a majority of it
>was about satanism.
alt.pagan is hardly a high-volume newsgroup.
what volume there is seems to be occupied
by the usual "are satanists/do satanists blah
blah blah" by the ill-informed newcomers.
i'd far rather see postings involving ways
to celebrate various pagan holidays....such
as samhain, which is rapidly approaching;
posting on herbs and how to prepare them;
postings on incense and how to create it;
etc. etc. so where are all the informed posters
on that? it almost appears as though the
majority of the people here are looking for
information, and there is a minority of
posters with information.
so let's see if i can start a new thread.
what IS a good, appropriate way to celebrate
samhain? are there specifics beyond the usual
carved pumpkin that may apply? what are
traditional reasons behind the old "dunking
for apples" ritual that is still sometimes
observed?
and last but not least: what's everyone going
as for halloween?
stormwind
hell's amazon
Vicki Ralls
dead, the dumb supper. I find this a good counter point to the unrestrianed
joy of Beltane. To me this represents the celebration of death as Beltane
is the celebration of life.
What will I wear?
I just spendt too much money on a costume at the Ren-faire. One of those
low cut blouses with the tight lace-up bodice thing and a green skirt.
I intend to wear that, gotta get my money's worth some how, and besides
my SO thinks it looks great :-) )
-vicki
csco...@uoft02.utoledo.edu
>
> and last but not least: what's everyone going
> as for halloween?
>
> stormwind
>
> hell's amazon
Well, I was thinking about dressing up as a CHRISTIAN
and go around scaring little children on Halloween!
- Erik
Gretchen A Hitselberger
>What will I wear?
>I just spendt too much money on a costume at the Ren-faire. One of those
>low cut blouses with the tight lace-up bodice thing and a green skirt.
>I intend to wear that, gotta get my money's worth some how, and besides
>my SO thinks it looks great :-) )
At this end...I all psyched up to wear my ritual robe...classic red satin with alot of lace!!! I just *love* this time of year :-)
/gh
Gretchen A. Hitselberger | "Being miserable and treating
gret...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu | other people like dirt is every
DoD#0172 | New Yorker's god given right." S.O.A.
Lara J Allen
>dead, the dumb supper. I find this a good counter point to the unrestrianed
i'm not familiar with this? can someone elaborate? or should i
just read my Witches Bible Compleat more thoroughly
>
>I just spendt too much money on a costume at the Ren-faire. One of those
>low cut blouses with the tight lace-up bodice thing and a green skirt.
>I intend to wear that, gotta get my money's worth some how, and besides
>my SO thinks it looks great :-) )
The one up in San Rafael-ish? i was there too. and i was so good
at the jewelry counter...and then (like you) i found a full length
gypsy skirt, peasant shirt, and a blue laceup bodice. My gosh they're
great. I hate to say it, but i wish i could trade in all my bras
for more of those. they hold everything in place.
Since it's a rather festive costume, i think i might wear it to the
Oktoberfest in Mountain View next weekend (not at all pagan. but
i thought i might mention it)
But it's amazing (yet scary) that i'd spend my food money on clothes
like that :-)
happy dancing
lara
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/\ /\ | la...@sgi.sgi.com (yorgi's home) (415) 335-1609
. . |--------------------------------------------------------------
= = |"It's nothing personal, you understand. I just fear
john e. clark
>>
>> and last but not least: what's everyone going
>> as for halloween?
Walk the kid around to hit the neighbors up for candy. She wants to
be a harliquin(sp). We usually carve up a pumpkin and roast the
seeds. What else?
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu
Mary E. Leibach
>what IS a good, appropriate way to celebrate
>samhain? are there specifics beyond the usual
>carved pumpkin that may apply? what are
>traditional reasons behind the old "dunking
>for apples" ritual that is still sometimes
>observed?
Well, I'm sorry, but here is one Pagan who does not celebrate Samhain
as a religious holy day. Samhain is a Celtic day, not a Norse one.
But we Asatru do have some fun during October: Winter Nights.
Winter Nights is a 3 night/day celebration starting the evening of
October 12th and ending sundown on October 15th. The main event is a
Blessing (ritual form that is part communion, part libation) dedicated
to the Disir, the female ancestral spirits/goddesses. (Ya gotta love
that evil Patriarchal religion!) A Blessing to the Alfar, the
Elves, may also be performed. As to how I intend to celebrate it, I
am taking vacation from the 12th to the 21th, and having me some fun.
I am, of course, also going to celebrate the Blessings. Unlike
Samhain, Winter Nights are not a MAJOR part of our religion, you don't
have to celebrate them to be Asatru like you do Mother Night,
Midsummer, and Harvest, but they are fun. Lighting the fireplace, drinking
some nice warm cocoa, and reading myths and old folk tales in the
evening, and taking a walk in the woods (autumn colors should be in
full swing) during the day sound awful fun.
As for the veil between the spirit world and ours getting thinner, we
believe this condition exists from Winter Nights thru the Twelve
Nights of Yule, rather than on October 31st alone.
>and last but not least: what's everyone going
>as for halloween?
As it falls on a Wednesday, I will probably be wearing a t-shirt and
slacks, and will either be working on my computer, playing with my
nine birds, or reading a good book. In other words, I will go as my
usual lazy bum of a self. ;-)
And this from someone who won second place in the Fourth Doctor
category in a Doctor Who science fiction convention costume contest!
Wassail!
-Mary
Parmenator X
(Mary E. Leibach) writes:
> Well, I'm sorry, but here is one Pagan who does not celebrate Samhain
> as a religious holy day. Samhain is a Celtic day, not a Norse one.
> But we Asatru do have some fun during October: Winter Nights.
Ah, but you are still an American. You can enjoy the 20th century
American Halloween traditions that include pumpkin carving, apple
bobbing, dressing up in costumes, giving candy to children and other
delightful customs.
Once again, I encourage people in search of pagan customs to look in
the most obvious place - the customs they grew up with.
- Dan P.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Elvis was seated on the toilet, actually reading a religious book...when
suddenly a terrible pain gripped him by his stomach and seized his heart with a
strangler's grip. 'Oh no, dear dear God,' he thought. He couldn't move. He
couldn't get up. He had to get up. He must get up...That terrible pain, like
swords of fire, jabbing, slitting, cutting into his stomach, and especially his
liver - it was impossible to bear...Suddenly the thought flashed through him:
this must be like what Jesus suffered."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lefty
> last but not least: what's everyone going
> as for halloween?
Toshiro Mifune.
--
Lefty (le...@twg.com) "And you may ask yourself,
DoD # 0152 'How do I work this?'"
Mike Barnett
writes:
<so let's see if i can start a new thread.
<what IS a good, appropriate way to celebrate
<samhain? are there specifics beyond the usual
<carved pumpkin that may apply? what are
<traditional reasons behind the old "dunking
<for apples" ritual that is still sometimes
<observed?
Apples were one of the symbols of the harvest. If a boy came up with an
apple between his teeth after bobbing for it in a container filled with
water, he supposedly was loved by the girl he loved. Snap Apple also was
a popular game where a boy would jump up and attempt to bite an apple which
was twirled on the end of a stick. The first boy to accomplish this feat would
be the first one to marry. Girls would pair apples and swing the apple peel
three times around their heads and then throw them over their left shoulder.
An unbroken peel that fell to the ground would spell out the initial of the
girl's future husband.
A common Scotch and Irish custom was called "wetting of the sark sleeve".
A girl would wash a piece of linen in a stream and hang it up to dry before
a fire at 11:00 P.M. At 11:30 P.M. she would turn over the linen and wait
until midnight when her future husband's spirit would appear.
Another Scotch and Irish custom involved nuts which were a big part of the
celebration of Halloween. Young people would put pairs of nuts named after
certain couples by a fire. If the nuts burned together and became ashes the
couple would have a happy relationship for years to come. However, if the nuts
crackled or broke apart, many quarrels and possible separation would occur in
the future.
Also, in Scotland, people would go out blindfolded to a vegetable garden and
pull up a stalk of kale. They would then take off their blindfold and look
at the stalk which would indicate information about their future mate. A
white enclosed stalk indicated that one's future spouse would be elderly,
whereas an open green stalk indicated that the spouse would be young. If the
stem of the stalk tasted sweet, a girl's husband would also be sweet.
However, a bitter tasting stalk would indicate a bitter husband.
Mike Barnett
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never fear thus to be naked to the eyes of others. What is simple is
simply seen. Yet know that people so often mask themselves that what
is simple is rarely understood. The dust of truth swirls and seeks its own
cracks of entry. Accept the ways of others, respect first your own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ailsa N.T. Murphy
out trick-or-treating, as i think she is old enough for it now (3.75).
i will be dressed up myself, in my robe, plus cat halfmask. katy is
going to be, i think, an autumn fairy, unless i run out of energy, in
which case she will be a skeleton (cos i can BUY a skeleton costume).
after trick-or-treating, which will be before sunset due to katy's age,
we will go home and have a ritual dinner. i haven't quite figured out
what the appropriate symbolic dishes are for Samhain, but i'm sure it
will come to me...(symbolic DESSERTS, yes. but i can't serve everyone
nothing but desert.) dinner will be by candlelight, using the haloween
candles i bought last year after the holiday on sale. (who was it that
was going to start Thrifty Wicca? sign me up...) accompanying music
will be from a record of wolf sounds, to add atmosphere. we will bew
receiving trick-or-treaters all evening, and i will remain in costume
for it.
if i had a mess of pagan friends, i would have everyone over for a
mardi gras-style revel, with bobbing for apples and scrying and that
sort of thing, but i don't, so S and i will probably just share a
drunk and get pout the ouija board to see who or what comes. i alsop
plan on doing tarot readings and offering libations to the dead
ancestors.
to me, halloweeen is the last celebration before the season of death.
in a more perfect world, there would be no celebrations between then
& yule, but my birthday falls in that time period, as do those of my
sisters, and i am not THAT fond of symbolism.
this is the time of year when Zagreus becomes the huntsman and the
goddess becomes the crone, welcoming others to death. the herds are
weeded out now as men walk abroad in the image of the god, dealing
death and weeding out teh herds so that those that are left may better
survive the winter.
this is a season of contemplation, of remembering that we too will
soon die, and that unimportant things should be cut away so as not
to waste what time we have remaining. this is the time to begin
considering what the resolutions will be that we take up at the new year.
these are my thoughts on the holiday. i hope others will find them
interesting.
-ailsa
Andrew David Weiland
Wasson) writes,
>Can anyone please explain what Samhain is?
It's a Celtic holy feast that takes place midway between the fall
equinox and the winter solstice (celebrated, i believe, on the day after
the second full moon following the equinox). It is a counterpart to
Beltane, midway between the spring equinox and summer solstice.
As Beltane is the feast of the living (fertility), Samhain is the feast
of the dead. It corresponds to the Christian All Hallow's Day (All
Saint's Day). On this day the blessed dead could supposedly come back
to their families who stayed home and set out food and sang songs to
welcome them. The unhappy dead wanded the land the night before (All
Hallow's Eve, or Hallowe'en), and wreaked vengance on anyone who didn't
leave food or sing songs to placate them, or whoever was fool enough to
wander outside that night. It seems that the two events were originally
the same thing, though they may have become separate even before the
Christian era.
When the christians came and brought with them the Julian calendar,
Samhain/All Hallow's Day was set on November 1st, and Beltane (modern
May Day) on May 1st. The other midway days, Lammas and another (can't
remember the name, any Wiccan could tell you), were moved to August 2nd
and February 2nd. Lammas was linked to the feast of the Assumption
(which needed a date, and there was already a feast there), which moved
from February 2nd to February 12th when Pope Gregory set the calender
ahead 10 days.
Hope this helps,
|an Andrew D. M. U. Weiland production. Gratuitous quote: |
|"The Fire Swamp! We'll never survive!" |
|"Nonsense, you're only saying that because no one ever has."|
| --The Princess Bride
|
Jason Wasson
2flm...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Samhain, means literally 'summer's end'. It was historically the Celtic New
Year. It is one of Four solar holidays celebrated in celtic tradition, and one
of the eight holidays celebrated by witches. By default these eight holidays
are the standard holidays of neo-pagans in general. Though specific traditions
may hold different holidays, such as Asatru (there was a wonderful post on this
a few days back, about October Nights, check it out.
Samhain was held when the sun reached 15 degrees Scorpio, halfway between the
autumnal equinox, and the winter's solstice. At one time that was about Nov.
1st on the calendar, but some calendar changes make it usually fall around the
fifth or so these days. Still it is celebrated at Nov. 1st, or more properly
the eve of Nov. 1st, as Hallow's Eve, or Halloween.
Because ends never quite meet in Celtic legend, Samhain, as winter's end, and
the new year, was expecially noted for being someplace between the world of
spirit, and the physical world. There are legends of how the sihde (faeries)
and dead spirits roam the world on this night. There are a lot of legends like
this. Carved jack-o-lanterns, made from turnips in the old world, were
supposed to ward off these spirits.
In the tradition of the wicca, this is supposed to be an especially good time
for psychic work, predictions, contacting the dead, spirit journeys, and
bobbing for apples. Samhain and Beltaine (perhaps more properly Gamhain
-Winters end, held at 15 degrees Taurus or more commonly May 1st) are perhaps
the two most important holidays in the wiccan tradition.
And if you are wondering, that is not Samhain is not pronounced as it is
spelled if you are an english speaker. Perhaps (and correct me if I am wrong)
a fairly close approximation of the word would be 'saw-win' that is not quite
right, but close. We tease people who say it 'sam-hain' here with a little
quip about Sam Hain being the 'best damn sherrif this town has ever had.' :-)
Well, we are a pretty close knit community, and it is all in fun.
There is probably about a million more things I could tell you about
this holiday, but this is a pretty good start on what it is. Hope that helps.
Stephen R. Figgins
University of Kansas
2flm...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
BBS login
>
> The one up in San Rafael-ish? i was there too. and i was so good
> at the jewelry counter...and then (like you) i found a full length
> gypsy skirt, peasant shirt, and a blue laceup bodice. My gosh they're
> great. I hate to say it, but i wish i could trade in all my bras
> for more of those. they hold everything in place.
>
Those bodice dresses have beed a big favorite of mine ever since I saw Liz
Taylor wearing one in 'Taming of the Shrew'. Nothing genrates as much
clevage!
Gerald Lawrence Bliss
comment was the the word "Satanic" was not in the literature, and it
certainly wasn't in the passages you quoted.