Path: Supernews!supernews.com!kudonet.com!not-for-mail From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan Subject: Satan, Satanism and History (was Re: A final solution to satanism) Date: 8 May 1997 15:01:04 -0700 Organization: KudoNet On-Line Services Lines: 412 Sender: tyagi@bjt.net Message-ID: <5ktif0$hg9@kudo20.kudonet.com> References: Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer) NNTP-Posting-Host: kudo20.kudonet.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV) Xref: Supernews alt.magick.tyagi:11884 alt.religion.wicca:69121 alt.pagan:209552 49970508 AA1 Hail Satan! Kali Day! yum Gwydyon: #># Satan was and always [will] be, derived from the O.T. #># association of the "fallen angel". That is what he was, and is! Kerry Delf: #> Satan is the J/C/I version of an ancient concept. Jason!!! : #The "fallen angel" was not the only description applied to Satan. The #"fallen angel" concept appears in only two places in the OT - in Genesis, #where the concept of the "sons of god and daughters of men" appears, and #in Isaiah, where the actual reference to "Lucifer" - Helel-ben-Shahar, #"Shining One Son of Dawn" - is found. Notably, this passage in Isaiah is #actually referring to the late king of Babylon, Nabonidis. better sourcing on the 'fallen angel' motif derives from the Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha (e.g. 'The Book of Enoch'), Mazdaists, or some poet like Dante or Milton, who inspired the motif's further integration into popular Christian tradition. #"Satan" is explicitly described, in the Book of revelation, as the GREAT #DRAGON, the PRIMEVAL (OLD, ANCIENT) SERPENT. This is clearly a reference #to the ancient Israelite concept of Leviatan, the primordial chaos-dragon #and, originally, arch-nemesis of YHVH, equivalent to the Babylonian Tiamat #or the Egyptian Apep. I gather that Leviathan was based on LOTAN (as in the CoSatanist pentacle): Leviathan, derived from the Canaanite Lotan and related to the Babylonian Tiamat and the Greek Hydra, was a seven- headed dragon that haunted the sea. The monster Behemoth, a spirit of the desert, was associated with Leviathan. The Hebrew demons could cause illness, death, pollution, and sins both moral and ritual. -------------------------------- Russell, _The Devil:..._, Cornell Univ. Press, 1977; p. 216. ____________________________________________________________ alternative sources welcomed. #># he was deceitful, not necessarily evil, but later becomes evil by #># association with Angra Mainyu, of the Zoroastrian tradition. #> ...early Judaism was heavily influenced in Persia by the #> Zoroastrians.... #Zoroastrianism probably had a conciderable influence on Judaism and #Christianity, beginning with the end of the Babylonian Empire. And yes, it #is undeniably the case that Angra Mainyu *is* the Zoroastrian "Satan" and #influenced the Judeo-Christian concept. 'undeniably'? never let it said that I have avoided attempting the impossible. :> as I got it from JBRussell (my most recent read, and he was more thorough than many of my other sources), Satan is more properly identified with the Mazdaist Ahriman than with the Zarathrushtran Angra Mainyu, though these two latter are indeed related. the difference appears to be that Zarathushtra was less dualistic than the priests who later developed the Mazdaist (sometimes called 'Zoroastrian') sect. I'll quote extensively from Russell on this below. #However, the Israelite concept of #an "Adversary" to YHVH was already well in place; indeed, while the #Deuteronomist, "orthodox" cult at Jerusalem denied any possibility of a #being powerful enough to oppose YHVH, rural Jewish tradition appears to #have continued a long tradition of fearing the power of Leviatan, much as #the Egyptians feared the power of the dark APEP and the Babylonians #maintained a yearly ritual whereby the powers of TIAMAT were kept at bay. #The name of "Satan" was applied at a much later date to this concept, #which had seen been influenced by Zoroastrian (and Greek) dogma and myth. Russell cites several sources which inspire him to identify the development of Satan in the Hebrew tradition with the Apocalyptic writers after captivity by the Babylonians. he contends that the rationale for the adoption of 'Satan' was in the social grappling with the somewhat new concept of 'evil' to the Hebraic theology. sourcing that evil and explaining its existence given an otherwise considered 'omnipotent' God was gradually more difficult, culminating in the Christian tradition of a full-blown diabology and the God's Adversary. #># I have descussed in length this issue Ygraine, and what must be #># overcome is the simantics of the debate, Satanism IS christian-based, what constitutes "Satanism" today as a religious movement is different than what rose out of the Christian religious tradition as a slander. that it developed alongside or in *response* to restrictive Christian norms does not indicate to me that it should be placed firmly as a child of Christianity, especially as it resembles Neopaganism in its drawing from what we know of pre-Christian deities and integrating and accepting a variety of forms of ritual and ideology. #> Satan is a Judeo-Christian name for a much older concept. Satanism #> is NOT necessarily based on Christianity, although I do understand #> people's confusion. #"Satanism" has grown out of a Christian tradition, naturally, here in the #Western world - JUST LIKE NEO-PAGANISM AND WICCA. I'd say 'out of a predominantly Christian culture'. I'm unsure that the phenomenon of Satanism can be entirely ascribed to the ambiguous source of Christianity. for example, there appear to be many Hermetic and Atheist components, not to mention the Gnostic. #The Yazidis of the Middle East, on the other hand, practice a form #of Satanism which is a mixture of ancient Kurdish-western Iranian #folk beliefs, and Islam. what qualifies it as "a form of Satanism"? #># but the worship of Molevelant beings without polarity is older #># than this, #> You're going to have to chuck this idea of "worship of Molevelant[SIC]" #> as related inexorably to Satanism. #Prove that the "worship of 'molevelant' beings without polarity is older #than this," Gwydion. Really? Where was it practiced? By whom? What were #these Beings? I also have difficulty coming up with references for worship of wrathful gods. *propitiation* of wrathful (often natural) forces is obviously very common, as is the worship of *ambivalent* (combinations of wrath and beneficence in one godform), yet the worship of a malevolent entity appears to be almost nonexistent from my preliminary research. #># If you define satanism as the worship of destructive, often molevelant #># beings, then perhaps you need to redefine your concept of Satanism. #Worship of "adversary" doesn't fit "molevelant" beings? not necessarily. 'adversary' could imply 'adversary to injustice'. cf. the Romantic poets. #Again, that's *not* our definition of Satanism. "Destructive" forces #are recognized as *forces,* and a force that is destructive can just #as easily be creative. 'destruction' has been severely demonized by the Christian establishment's procreative agenda. #> What the hell are you talking about? The Temple of Set is a SELF-DEFINED #> Satanic organization. They have *always* been a Satanist organization. sometimes they think about stopping this labelling. it all depends on how they are feeling about what the label is beginning to mean in society and how it may reflect upon them to take it up or put it down. I have received more than one reply as to the relationship between Set and Satan from the Temple of Set. some Setians apparently feel that there is a direct linkage between these two entities, some feel that the linkage is indirect, composed of mythotype or archetype or described role, with variation as to conception of results ('Set is victorious, Satan is a loser', etc.). #> The Temple of Set is clearly not a Satan-worship organization, or an #> organization which promotes the worship of destructive or malevolent #> forces -- then again, neither are most other modern Satanic organizations. is it? Set can be very destructive of his enemies as the stories go. he was the defender of the Home Base religious for some years, if my sources are in any way correct. as this developed into an Osirian framework Set merged with and later became destructive toward Horus, supposed by scholars such as Russell to have to have been his "doublet", representing two sides of the divine principle. whether the Temple of Set "worships" this entity is entirely dependent on what meaning for 'worship' one is intending in the evaluation. #...the misconception that the Temple of Set isn't, or doesn't consider #itself to be, Satanic. Oops! WRONG. again, depends on the meaning of 'Satanic'. some Setians within the Temple apparently don't agree that it is 'Satanic' by a variety of interpretations of this term (if not rejecting them all). #THERE IS NO TRANSCENDANT "GOOD" OR "EVIL!" Get that through your skull, #please. NONE. "Good" and "evil" are ENTIRELY subjective. They don't #"influence" anything. a matter of philosophic acceptance. this rejection of absolute morality does appear to be very common within the Satanic if not the bulk of the neuvoreligious culture (the Bambi-Wiccans and Newagers tending more to retaining its acceptance). [uncited] #>#># Regardless of what Levi may rant and rave, he is a proven fraud, and #>#># was a classic deciever, essentially a mortal devil. #"Devil" does not mean deceiver. It probably means "obstruction" of #"adversary," literally "thrown across" in Greek. It *may* be derived from #Avestan DEVA, "spirit" or "god." the Anchor Bible Dictionary sources 'diabolos' as a Greek translation of 'satan', both meaning "accuser" with additional nuance depending upon the context (falsely: 'slanderer'; justly: 'adversary'). (pp. 183, 986). it is this complexity which yields the primary ambiguity in at least Old Testament usage of 'satan' as a noun. one used it in the same sense one uses 'slanderer' if one wished to indicate another's false claims of one's wrongdoing, regardless of the fact of either activity. I have read in a number of places the sourcing on 'diabolus' to be 'diabollein', a kind of obstruction or adversary as you mention and relating to 'throwing across'. I like to think of a parallel here between "Solve et Coagula" and "Diabollein et Sumbollein", though I do not remember having heard this comparison made before. here's Russell: The terms "devil," "divine," and "demon" are totally unrelated etymologically. "Divine" comes from the Indo-European root *deiw*, meaning "sky," "heaven," or "god," a root that yields the *daevas* of Iran and the *devas* of India, and Latin *divus*. "Devil" derives, as do the cognates German *Teufel* and Dutch *duivel*, from the Latin *diabolus*, which also yields the Romance *diable*, *diablo*, and *diavolo*. The Latin is in turn derived from the late Greek *diabolos*, "slanderer," or "accuser," from *diaballein*, "to slander." The root meaning of *diaballein* is to "throw across," hence "to oppose," and its ultimate derivation is from the Indo- European root *gwel*, "to fly." "Demon" derives from the Greek *daimonium*, "evil spirit", from earlier *daimon*, which in turn derives from *daiomai*, to divide." Originally, inm Greece a *daimon* could be either benevolent or malevolent, and Homer uses the term *daimones* as the equivalent of "gods." --------------- Ibid., p. 34n. ______________ #># A friend of Crowley, [Levi!!] participated in many conjurations of #># demons which Crowley mentions in "Magick: In theory and Practice". Levi died the year Crowley was born (1875). this was one of the reasons that Crowley suggested possible connections between the two men (such as reincarnation). #># But Levi on his own was powerless to conjure, a self-confessed #># Satanist, he was proven fraudulent during a ritual which was made #># public which saw him fall flat on his face before the world! please cite his self-confession regarding his "Satanism". from my brief read it appears that Levi was rather haggled by his Christian ideas and drew from a number of sources to collage his writings, quite possibly disbelieving in a great deal of its content and/or coming to reinterpret it so as to fit it into a new, inconsistent paradigm. #>#># Your defense of annexing Satanists as Pagans is legitimate, yet #>#># hardly plausable, satanists are as deluded as Christians, delusion has never been an obstacle to religious membership. ;> #># ...does satanism equate devil worship for you, because that is #># what Satanism is! no it isn't. that is what the Christian projection of Satanism is. how Satanism has manifested as a real religious movement (starting about 1966) is at odds with this, and how it *will* manifest is entirely beyond our ability to predict. ;> #># delusion is the result of the very nature of satan, an idea #># borrowed from Persia. #...Zoroastrianism didn't originate in Persia. It originated in central #Asia, in what the Persians called "Turan".... Russell has the Iranians "originally arriv[ing] in Iran as nomads in the second half of the second millenium B.C." (Ibid., pp. 102-3.) he goes on to suggest that the previous religion to Zarathushtra was similar to the Vedic religion of India. The original pantheon was ruled by the sky god Dyaosh (cf. Sanskrit Dyaus, Greek Zeus), who was also called Mazda. There was a conflict between Drug (the lie) and Asha or Asha-rita, truth and order (cf. *ma'at*). Asha-rita is comparable to the Vedic *rita*, right order, and the Rig Veda alludes to, but does not expatiate on, a conflict between *rita* and the lie (*an-rita*). This conflict between truth and the lie was one of the main sources of Zarathushtra's dualism: the prophet perceived Angra Mainyu, the lord of evil, as the personification of the lie.... Later Mazdaists considered Druj a female demon-general of the whole host of evil spirits. ... Zarathushtra may have been the first theologian, the first individual to create a rational system of religion. He may have been a member of the priestly caste, but it is clear that he viewed himself as a prophet, a man whose direct revelation from the God impelled him to challenge the assumptions of the religion in which he had been brought up. His ideas, like those of other great leaders, underwent considerable change, and one must distinguish between the doctrine of Zarathushtra himself and Zoroastrianism (or Mazdaism), the religion of his followers. There are at least four major strands in Zoroastrianism: (1) the teachings of Zarathrushtra himself; (2) those of Mazdaism; (3) those of Zervanism, a heretical offshoot of Mazdaism; (4) those of the Magi, whose teachings gradually diverged from orthodoxy and eventually helped produce the Mithraism of the Hellenistic period. ... Zarathushtra arged that two spiritual principles exist. One is Ahura Mazda, the God, lord of goodness and of light. The other is Angra Mainyu ("Destructive or Tormenting Spirit"), lord of evil and darkness. Ahura Mazda has in his complete freedom of will chosen the good, and Angra Mainyu in his complete freedom of will has chosen the evil. "Now at the beginning the twin spirits have declared their nature, the better and the evil. In thought and word and deed.... Of these two spirits, the evil one chose to do the worst things; But the Most Holy Spirit, clothed in the most steadfast heavens, joined himself unto Righteousness" {NOTE: Gatha-Yasna 30....}. The two spirits are opposites, then, but they are also twins, a coincidence opposites. The difference between Zarathushtra's doublets and those of the Egyptians is that rather than the opposites being manifestations of the One being, they are dissociated, independent principles. Or almost independent. Zarathurshtra's thought is more ambivalent -- transitional perhaps -- than that. The Gatha quoted above refers to a being called the Most Holy Spirit. The Gatheas seem to imply One God, Ahura Mazda, who generates twins, Angra Mainyu, the evil spirit, and Spenta Mainyu, the holy spirit. This notion is a coincidence of opposites resolved in the One, but a modification occurred shortly after the death of Zarathushtra. Spenta Mainyu came to be identified with Ahura Mazda, the son with the father, and hence Ahura Mazda himself became the twin brother of Angra Mainyu. This idea, in which Ahura Mazda's fatherhood is blurred and finally lost sight of, leaves two wholly independent principles. This is an absolute dualism. But the original position of Zarathushtra, in which the good and the evil spirit are both parts of the divine nature, was revived in different form by the Zervanite heretics. To summarize, Zarathushtra himself took a position midway between monism and dualism; Mazdaism moved decidedly toward dualism; Zervanism made a partial return in the direction of monism. In all three, the evil spirit opposes the good spirit, but the opposition is most clear-cut in orthodox Mazdaism. -------------------- Ibid., pp. 102-7. _________________ so I'd like to find out what this 'Turan' place is about and how this factors into the above, if it indeed does. the life-cycles of religions are not always easy to discern, and the boundary- markers are important to make clear in specific claims. # "Delusion" was not actually a characteristic of Angra Mainyu. #Strife and dog-eat-dog nature were - thus "Angra Mainyu," usually #translated "evil" or Hostile spirit," but perhaps best translated as #"spirit of strife." Accompanying Angra Mainyu were Aka Manah, "evil" or #"deceptive mind," Druj "unlawfulness, chaos," Aeshma "wrath," and others. an interesting variation on meanings attributed above. sourcing helps. #> Satanism does not equal devil worship.... it does as it is a projection of slandering Christians. dismissing this is like sticking our head in the sand. now if we want to claim that this is no true 'ism' as it has no basic ideology behind it, I would say that claim is fallacious. it comes complete with the same ideology as is accepted by the Christian, except that the Christian thinks that their anti-god is the one being venerated instead of the God of their theology. very often the neuvoreligious (Neopagan, Wiccan, whatever) agrees with the Christian projection that this is *all* there is to Satanism. originally this appears to have been true, just like 'pagans' and, to a great extent, 'witchcraft', but as the condemnation friction developed, the Great Martyrdom Cult seized the goads and began to turn this back upon the oppressors through the development of real alternatives using the same terminology and competing ideologies and riteforms, identifying with the martyrs of the past and reconstituting terminology, cosmology, history (all very malleable) to meets its own needs. blessed beast! nocTifer tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com -- see http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html and call: 408/2-666-SLUG!!! ---- (emailed replies may be posted) ---- CC public replies to author ---- * * * Asphalta Cementia Metallica Polymera Coyote La Cucaracha Humana * * *