Path: Supernews!supernews.com!HSNX.wco.com!hub.org!news.radio.cz!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!gryphon.phoenix.net!news.brewich.com!srpbot X-SRP-Policy: http://www.brewich.com/org/srp/charter.html X-SRP-Info-1: Send submissions to srpbot@brewich.com X-SRP-Info-2: Send technical complaints to srp-admin@brewich.com X-SRP-Info-3: Send complaints about policy to srp-modkin@brewich.com Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:55:54 CST From: Ray Cochener Newsgroups: alt.satanism,soc.religion.paganism Subject: Re: Is Satanism Pagan? What is Satanism? Is there a form of Satanism not affiliated with JCI beliefs? Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Message-ID: <339F0EB4.4866@feist.com> References: <338E6507.430C@sprintmail.com> <33923E39.6634@shrike.depaul.edu> <33974906.70CB@feist.com> <199706101754.KAA00989@kudo20.kudonet.com> Reply-To: silveroak@feist.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP soc.religion.paganism iQBVAwUBM58Q4UtQYdK6PhLJAQHGRAIArG1cBhMg5gk3yUQNCzM5RqFCVksgtoC+ ug/ZSc1bzXVCVMZklvDfkRHc0SaMzY0pr/qCe5SyCPSA69/6p8Yr5Q== =t3Ch Approved: SRP Approval Key Lines: 104 Xref: Supernews alt.satanism:70605 soc.religion.paganism:8729 nocTifer wrote: > > 49970610 aa2 Hail Satan! > > Ray Cochener : > > ...to some extent, LeVay was right. Some recognition of darkness as > > something other than simple "evil" is needed.... > > LaVey was hardly the first person to suggest this. > > > ...most pagan paths do recognize this. Individuals still terrified > > of "evil cults" are likely to cling to the lighter side until they > > begin to feel comfortable, but that's just part of life. > > I agree strongly with this. I think we'll witness a gradual 'darkening' > of Neopaganism over the coming decades as the movement acquires some > courage and revises its premises toward anarchic innovation and true > nature-reverence (rather than just lip-service). > Actually, I think we will see some moe "lightening" first. The reason is simple- the religion is growing so fast. At this point the fluffy bunny newcomer to experienced and ballanced ratio is moving to favor the new. This does tend to cycle, of course, but we seem to be on a "lightward" swing. The other aspect is that those who have been in for a while tend to reach a level of ballance and then stop at a medium grey (or a mid-hue rainbow, if you prefer) instead of going to all white light or darkest black. A large part of this is that the overall POV of world religions is moving to acknowledge more of the darker side- but those who have already had a greater acknowledgement are getting hit on the demographics by those changing religions- even Satanism has been greying out a bit as people enter it who have begun to concieve of a Satanism which is not all darkness and evil. > > ...my reasons for seperating Satanism and paganism in classification > > are two-fold. The first is that pagans are generally founded in some > > form of earth/nature reverence, while Satanism, as a classification, > > is not.... > > the most popular forms of Satanism (CoSatanism and to a possibly lesser > extent ToSatanism/ToSetianism) appear to revere 'nature' in a limited > context (CoSatanism -- human nature; ToSatanism -- conscious nature). > That is nature in the terms of "natural philosophy" (aka science) in which a thing's "nature" is it's essential state, along the lines of Greek ideals of form. Nature, when refering to Paganism, refers to an interconnected web of species and ecological sub-systems which cover the planet. > > The second is that Satanism has been a clinging vine for long enough. > >Whether in it's adherance to christianity or other faiths that managed > >to allow it to surive the burning times, > > none survived intact, to my knowledge. > None were fully destroyed, to mine. We can, of course, delve into the old game of "how ancient is it" but the point I was trying to make is that pagan religions do have connections to those old pre-christian religions, whether you can call it an "ubroken chain" or not. > >the fact is that for the first time in history it has the ability to > >stand on it's own- there are no troops coming to kill the satanists. > >I think satanism deserves this opportunity to grow on it's own. It is > >a tough religion, born of fire and difficulty, and it will be > >interesting to see how it develops in an era of freedom and plenty. > > But in order to grow, it has to do so on it's own. > > the religions of the Great Martyrdom Cult do not typically strike out > on their own, since they are to a great extent founded on reaction to > the culture in which they appear. later, as the new cult is co-opted > by the establishment (cf. Christianity, for example, and to a lesser > extent as yet, Wicca), it will attempt to stand on some proffered feet > so as to attempt a finalization of the 'legitimation process' (something > which is a natural consequence of mythologizing the cult's historical > origins). > > in effect there is no reason that Satanism is not already 'on its own'. > this has nothing to do with whether it is a Neopagan or pagan religion, > which is only the subject of discussion among sociologists, the > occasional Satanist or Neopagan with concern, or nosy onlookers. I have > not noticed a horde of Satanists depending on their being seen as "pagans" > in order to continue their activities, for example. ;> > No, there are not vast hordes of satanists who hang on whether they are called pagans or not. But evolution of philosophy does not depend exclusively upon them, but also upon who will be the next generation of Satanists, what external factors might color their view of the religion, and where they entered into it from. > blessed beast! > Know a few of those...