Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.eas.asu.edu!noao!news.Arizona.EDU!argon.GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU!jasonp From: jasonp@argon.GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU (Jason Posey ) Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.pagan,alt.religion.wicca,alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Neopaganism and Satanism (Was Re: Wiccans...alt.mgk (...Sweetness...) Date: 6 Dec 1995 23:52:37 GMT Organization: University of Arizona, Unix Users Group Lines: 84 Message-ID: <4a5ac5$vpq@news.ccit.arizona.edu> References: <49q877$g21@linda.teleport.com> <49vu70$uq6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <4a2tpj$lg1@konza.flinthills.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.gas.uug.arizona.edu Xref: shell.portal.com alt.satanism:29192 alt.pagan:136047 alt.religion.wicca:18063 alt.magick.tyagi:5242 talk.religion.misc:191205 In article <4a2tpj$lg1@konza.flinthills.com>, Michael A. Schelp wrote: >Most pagans I know, and I know many, don't believe that any thing, man or >god, is all good or all evil. You fail to define what "good" and "evil" are. Does it mean "spiritual" versus "material," "orderly" vs "chaotic," "pleasant" vs "harmful," or "according to God's will" as opposed to "against God's will?" Since Jehovah is all good and Satan is all >evil, Most Christian theologians would deny that Satan is all evil. He was, after all, they would say, created as an angel of light. Satan became "evil" when he rebelled against God, according to this argument, but is not "all evil," whatever that may mean. Some sects even believe that Satan will be saved on the Day of Judgement. they are outside our belief system. Since I don't believe in an >all good god, how can I believe in an all evil one? Therefor, Pagans are >not Satanists. The difference between the pagan light/dark "battle' is >that none of the characters are totally good or bad. And *that* is entirely subjective. That is a >fundemental difference. A good example is the Norse belief in Ragnarok, >their "Armaggedon". The Norse believed that the forces of evil, led by >Loki, would fight the forces of good. Some of the norse apparently believed this. Far from all. Some also believed that Thor or Tyr, not Odin, was the chief god. And some believed that the forces of Darkness would be led by Ymir, Fenriz, Hel, Surt, Jormungand, or Nidhogg. And some no doubt believed that some of those were names for one and the same being, especially the last two. Loki is NOT Satan. He gave man >and the gods some of their greatest gifts. Satan, according to the Christian reading of the Torah, was responsible for the gift of knowledge to man. The books of Enoch claim that Semjaza/Azazel and the other rebel angels gave mankind virtually all the gifts of civilization. How does the giving of gifts imply that s omeone isn't Satan? Just because there is a >battle doesn't mean it's the same war. > But in this case it does. Perhaps if you were actually to research Christianity, rather than simply react to it naively and ignorantly, you would realize the many points of continuity between it and earlier, "pagan" religions, particularly regarding the Devil. This is why we call ourselves Satanists. We recognize the continuity of history and religion, rather than react blindly against something we don't understand. Of course, "satan" is not the ideal name for the Dark Power. "Adversary," while powerful, implies that one is challenging a greater power, when this is not the case. But it is the most common name by far, (worlds better than the next most common, "Lucifer,") and invokes the most powerful emotions. And it's just a cool-sounding word. But whether we call it "Satan," or else Tiamat, or Apep, or Shilyat, or Kali, or Coatlicue, it amounts to the same thing. To us, the Christian Bible is not canonical. But it is one of many texts which mentions, and attempts to explain, the Dark Lord, the Primal Abyss. Why do neo-pagans so often react so strongly to anything they think of as associated with Christianity? So often we Satanists are told that our beliefs are foolish, because all we are is Christians in reverse - a sure way to get yourself hurt in my presence - and yet, what does "Neo-Pagan" mean? A "new" version of an empty word, which once meant an Italian peasant, but was used by city-dwelling Christians as a blanket term for all who did not follow the Jewish-Christian religious spectrum, including other monotheists such as Zoroastrians and Neo-Platonists? Is this not far more blatant a form of anti-Christianity, of defining oneself *against* something? If it simply refers to a revival of ancient religions, then it is not itself a religion, but simply a blanket term, with pejorative connotations, is it not? In the name of the World Serpent, Corpse-Tearer the Black, ie Satanically Yours, -JP