Jump to content


Photo

Satanism and Witchcraft


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#21 Heks

Heks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 542 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 12:41 AM

I know I just complained about people quoting huge amounts of text, but this post by o_O is good and speaks to some of the conversation about djinn. Besides, I thought it would be interesting to bump this thread anyway. :)



Dear Jevne,


I just wanted to clarify something: when I read about djinn in Islamic books, long time ago, I read that they live amongst people, unseen, and that they have children, marry etc just like we do (or not!) and that some are Muslim and some aren't and that they try to influence humans without being prompted to do so! That was how I saw it as well as how my ex saw it and he is from Palestine. That is also how Egyptians and Saudis see it, to my knowledge.

Maybe that is why I get the responses I get as people here may think I summon them but no, I do not. I try to chase them, suspecting their presence.

Kind regards,

Heks Posted Image

  • 0
"One's own house, though small, is better,
For there thou art the master.
It makes a man's heart bleed to ask
for a midday meal at the house of another."

(35 Havamal, Edda)

#22 Jevne

Jevne

    Former Member

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,441 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 01:37 AM

Maybe that is why I get the responses I get as people here may think I summon them but no, I do not. I try to chase them, suspecting their presence.

Kind regards,

Heks Posted Image


I suspect that the others here are speaking in general terms, as am I. Based on what you have written in the forum, I did not get the impression that you have personally tried to summon them.

Though, it never hurts to ask.

J

  • 0

#23 anjeaunot

anjeaunot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 431 posts

Posted 03 December 2011 - 10:10 AM

Julio Baroja provided an interesting insight. (Page 18 of The World of the Witches)

There were standard processes in both Greece and Rome to produce rain, control the weather, increase crops and livestock, heal the sick and determine the future. Beneficent magic was sanctioned and supported by the state when it was in the public interest.

There were perverse people who used magical techniques and spells for anti-social purposes. Some divinities in the ancient world could be propitiated to instigate and/or condone evil actions. Malefic magic thrived on this fact. There were evil witches long before Christianity was concocted, and they served pagan gods before Satan was theologically contrived.

I know Satanists who wouldn’t dream of hexing or cursing anybody. Their sole interest is acquiring knowledge and self-mastery to improve their lot in this world and the next.

Conversely, I know Trad Witches who wouldn’t hesitate to kill in their pursuit of material power and self-aggrandizement.

  • 4

#24 Grymdycche

Grymdycche

    Thaumaturge Medicocre

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,480 posts

Posted 03 December 2011 - 10:58 PM

That's not entirely true. Satan is actually the westernized spelling of Shaitan, pronounced pretty much the same way. Shaitan is of the djinn(I believe fire djinn if I remember correctly) or is what we call a genie, and djinn have been around in ancient arabic longer thn Christianity has been. If you don't know, djinn don't pop out of lamps and give you wishes. They're summoned and will give you what you want, but they take something in return, sort of a trade, though with djinn like Shaitan, you always get shafted with the trade in price. That's part of where selling or trading your soul to Satan comes from. Shaitan is also used in Islamic terms for a devil or demon, though the word orginally comes from arabic and means hidden.

So Satan is one person, the Devil is another, and Lucifer is someone else completely and has been framed all this time.

Sorry, this is one of my favourite subjects out there and I love to throw out this kind of info^_^ Hope someone found it interesting.


The first reference to Satan is in the Old Testament, so it's Jewish, technically. First mentioned in the book Chronicles 21:1, written at least a thousand years prior to the existence of Islam.
It means "the accuser", and his role originally seemed as a tool of god to test man. His role definitely evolved as the bible was written. Even Hell wasn't "invented" until after the Babylonian exile, prior, all dead souls went to sheol.

Shaitan is not technically Arabic, but Islamic; big difference... Islam of course came about roughly 600 years after Jesus's supposed time, although Shaitan is the equivalent to the fully evolved christian Satan.
Thus it would be the other way around, Shaitan would have been derived from Satan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaitan

"Devil", deriving from latin "diabolic" (evil) is kind of a generic term, I thought, and as Christianity overran other pagan religions, their spirits and gods were "assimilated" and either lumped in as saints, or more frequently, considered faces of Satan (Cerunnos, Pan, Beelzeub, etc). Or in some cases, like the Assyrian wind deity, Pazuzu, just demons.
Agreed on the Lucifer translation screw-up.

  • 0
http://runeforum.phrets.com
9 out of 10 string theory physicists agree: 'Nothing Rests; Everything Moves; Everything Vibrates'' -the Kybalion.

#25 LdyShalott

LdyShalott

    NecRomancer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:04 AM

Screw up indeed....My understanding is... Lucifer derives from the Latin term lucem ferre and as we all know means the bringer, or bearer, of light." , in the Hebrew text the expression was by used by Isaiah to describe a Babylonian king before his death ,Hebrew passage reads "heleyl, ben shachar" which mean shining one, son of dawn...in the Septuagint it is translated as heosphoros, meaning Venus/morning star..(poor usage on Isaiahs part. lol) .. and it wasn;t until after St Jerome and his Latin Vulgate that Lucifer and Satan were equated. Dont really think this was Jeromes fault as more to the church and their shoddy associations. Side note, Lucifer goes back , before Romans to the Greeks.. Plato mentions the morning star in Timaeus.
  • 0

Most witches don’t believe in gods. They know that the gods exist, of course. They even deal with them occasionally. But they don’t believe in them. They know them too well. It would be like believing in the postman.  T.P.

In order to understand the living.. you have to commune with the dead..
You are a tiny little soul carrying around a corpse.-- Epictetus
All experience is an arch wherethrough gleams that untravelled world whose margin fades for ever and for ever when I move.

 


#26 Scott

Scott

    Irritatingly Thoughtful

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts

Posted 01 January 2012 - 11:08 AM

Oh Arabi

It is quite the work ... fine work indeed.

My two gags I always enjoy:

"Pagan? Oh so you couldn't cut it as Catholic then?"

"You know I say "God" a lot - it is simply that we don't mean the same one is all!"

And before people think I am unremittingly harsh in favour of Satanists ... I keep the few I have found on their toes by quoting a Star Trek episode at them.

I REALLY have to get back to finishing that Satanic Bible Commentary text I was working on!

Susbsisto

Scott

  • 1
New Me! Now with added incomprehensibilityfullness for your convenience!

#27 Tana

Tana

    Earth Mother

  • Moderators
  • 3,759 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 09:04 AM

Live long and prosper Scott! Which Star Trek episode?
)0( Tana )o(

If I break faith with thee, may the skies fall upon me, the seas drown me, and the earth rise up and swallow me.

#28 Heks

Heks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 542 posts

Posted 30 May 2012 - 12:08 AM

hi all,
I was wondering if anyone had read (parts of) "The Satanic Witch" by A. LaVey?
I am intrigued by it: "stockings vs pantyhose", etc. made me smile a bit. But, there must be more substance underlying these ideas. I mean, to me, freedom is everything; why should any woman dress in such and such a way? For me, women should be free to wear anything they want, as long as they are still decent (and that is, of course, subjective as well!). For me, at the minute, a boob tube and shorts is decent enough! But other people may not think so.
Many thanks,
kind regs,
Heks xo

edited to say that I ordered it from amazon because I need to understand what it is all about, and I cannot do that without reading it first!

Edited by Heks, 30 May 2012 - 12:27 AM.

  • 0
"One's own house, though small, is better,
For there thou art the master.
It makes a man's heart bleed to ask
for a midday meal at the house of another."

(35 Havamal, Edda)

#29 Aloe

Aloe

    ridge running Ozark banshee..

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,420 posts

Posted 30 May 2012 - 02:22 AM

hi all,
I was wondering if anyone had read (parts of) "The Satanic Witch" by A. LaVey?
I am intrigued by it: "stockings vs pantyhose", etc. made me smile a bit. But, there must be more substance underlying these ideas. I mean, to me, freedom is everything; why should any woman dress in such and such a way? For me, women should be free to wear anything they want, as long as they are still decent (and that is, of course, subjective as well!). For me, at the minute, a boob tube and shorts is decent enough! But other people may not think so.
Many thanks,
kind regs,
Heks xo

edited to say that I ordered it from amazon because I need to understand what it is all about, and I cannot do that without reading it first!



I haven't read it but I've been curious to read LaVey's stuff for awhile, due to the reviews either being so overtly negative or positive. Seens to be rare to find anyone who takes a middle ground view on LaVey. Do you care to elaborate on the stockings vs. pantyhose bit?

Regarding what's 'decent' - having spent time in nudist areas and enjoying it, I have a different idea of what's decent and what's not. ;) :kat:

  • 0
"The people who live in the Ozark country of Missouri and Arkansas were, until very recently, the most deliberately unprogressive people in the United States. Descended from pioneers who came West from the Southern Appalachians at the beginning of the nineteenth century, they made little contact with the outer world for more than a hundred years. They seem like foreigners to the average urban American, but nearly all of them come of British stock, and many families have lived in America since colonial days. Their material heirlooms are few, but like all isolated illiterates they have clung to the old songs and obsolete sayings and outworn customs of their ancestors." Ozark Magic and Folklore

#30 Scylla

Scylla

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 30 May 2012 - 03:59 AM

I have this book, but haven't done more than skim it in a while.I am one of the true "Middle road" people when it comes to LeVay.
I love the rules of conduct - I follow them in my life. But after all that? Bit of a prat.

  • 0

#31 Michele

Michele

    The Exiled Goddess

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,033 posts

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:55 AM

I have one of his books (or did until I just cleaned out my bookshelves, lol). I didn't ever get around to reading it, though. Mostly becuase I, personally, am not a Satanist and am not looking to walk his path or his religion (Church of Satan, I believe). It may have been an interesting read, I don't know, there were just more pressing things for me at the time. As for what is decent and what is not, what is decent to me are the things that bring honour to my ancestors, and the things that make me able to feel peace when I see myself in the mirror each morning :-)

M

  • 0

#32 Lynn

Lynn

    I've been InBetween

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 858 posts

Posted 02 June 2012 - 07:12 PM

Every time I see pictures of LeVey, I think; "What a ham!". I really have a hard time taking him seriously. I think he was two-parts con artist.
  • 0
'When in danger, when in doubt, Run in circles, scream and shout" Robert Heinlein.
"Women and cats will do as they please, men and dogs need to relax and get used to the idea." Robert Heinlein

"In Wildness is the preservation of the World." Henry David Thoreau


#33 The Old Crone

The Old Crone

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 400 posts

Posted 03 June 2012 - 03:25 PM

I have read The Satanic witch years ago, as well as the Devils notebook, and Satanic Bible. If I remember, when he is talking about stockings, dress code etc. I am pretty sure he is referring to women using their "feminine wiles" to get what they want. Which pretty much sums up his philosophy. Do everything you can to get what you want. He was a hustler,with opinions that he wasn't afraid to speak, plain and simple. I did enjoy his books though, and found myself saying many a time "jeez, he's right about that!"

“It has been said, 'the truth will make men free.' The truth alone has never made anyone free. It is only doubt which will bring mental emancipation.”
― Anton LaVey

  • 1

#34 Jevne

Jevne

    Former Member

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,441 posts

Posted 12 August 2012 - 12:22 AM

Bumping this and it's linked thread to spark conversation with some of those who have recently come to the Craft
  • 1

#35 Rosmarinus Man

Rosmarinus Man

    Member

  • Seekers
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 01:09 PM

I'd like to share my theology on this subject:

Imagine a world in which almost all of the humans are animists and polytheists. Including the Canaanites. This people have a two tiered society of god-kings and peasants. The peasants revolt and many vacate the district, causing the collapse of the Canaanite society. Eventually the area starts to grow again as many who drifted away, start to drift back again. They create new groups that form new identities, new tribes... including the Jews.

As eager as any new tribe to set itself apart, they forge their own identity, new stories (including a story about being outsiders who were given Canaan by their god). This god (YHWH) they picked up in their travels (I've heard they got him from a small north African tribe). They became, as Jews, a henotheistic (belief in many gods, but DEVOTED to one <tribal> god) tribe. Supposed to only actively serve YHWH, but forever getting into trouble for worshiping other deities and spirits.

One of these other deities/spirits was Azazel. Apparently a Goat God/Spirit, Azazel seems to have represented the 'God of Out There'. An outlaw in the truest sense of the word. Those who are outside of the laws, requirements, protection of tribal identity. Not necessarily criminal as often thought in the modern world. Indeed, it was quite common in the old world to have a situation where city states only guaranteed protection to their own citizens or allies. Anyone caught outside those boundaries might be taken as slaves. Consider the sanctuary of the Goddess Diana and her role as Goddess of outlaws, and how she preferred to live beyond the boundaries.

So back to the Jews. They were promised prosperity and freedom if they were faithful to YHWH. Archaeological evidence, and biblical accounts, show that they weren't faithful. So when they were dunked and enslaved by the Babylonians, they did the 'poor us, why did it happen?' questions, and came up with the correct answer. 'We weren't faithful'. After 70 years, they regained their freedom, and returned to Jerusalem, full of resolve.

With one small difference...

While slaves, they had enough exposure to Persian Zoroastrians to see how well the Zoroastrian doctrines of moral accountability and the good god/ evil demon would fit their own needs. So the birth of 'One Jewish God and an opposition' was the new way of Israel.

But who could be this new Satan?

Actually, to address the old Satan and Lucifer: the angel by that name in the book of Job, was a servant of YHWH, fulfilling a purpose in accord with YHWHs will, and not the Satan that we generally think of these days. Lucifer was a Latin translation for an earthly king, that YHWH claims to have given the opportunity to rule, but turned out to be corrupt, and was brought down by YHWH.

Anyhoo, back to the new Satan. Well, for as long as there was a Jewish identity, up until the Babylonian captivity, the Jews were worshiping many deities. And then they find themselves deposed by YHWH and his priesthood. And YHWH declares that he has an opposition.

I suggest that given the nature of Azazel, and that he seems to be the focus of one half of a ritual mentioned in the old testament in which one goat is symbolically loaded with the sins of the tribe and released into the wilds, and that modern images of Satan depict him as having goat features, that in all likelihood, Azazel is Satan as leader of the old gods in opposition to YHWHs claim to sole-soul ruler.

Meanwhile, the Jews had a theological problem. THEIR god was now the ONLY god. So, what was his plan or relationship with the rest of humanity? Many 'prophets' had a go at answering that question, but Jesus had the greatest success. His followers spread via the underground, until Constantine the (so-called) Great made it the official religion of the Roman Empire. Then it really took off. The religions of the world declined wherever this pestilence spread, and the old gods receded into the background while YHWH ruled the airways.

And where was Satan based? Might it be too much to suppose that while YHWH set himself up on the throne of Rome, that Satan might be walking the streets or forests? That he might be making alliances with the local gods, to fight the forces of YHWH?

Indeed, I think such an idea might go a long way to explaining The Gospel of Aradia. Diana and Azazel, similar natures. Diana had previously loved a person that might have been a horned deity, so memories might have been stirred. As for the deity in the Gospel being referred to as Lucifer... so what? They didn't have access to the internet or the information we have now. They would have evolved their own myths from available folk law, and they don't seem to have been the only ones to have drawn the comparison. It's common even now. It's common now, even for those who make the distinction, to think of a gnostic deity, to be who was referred to in the bible, instead of a human king. Stuff gets muddled. That's life.

Another example if the whole 'Jesus' birth and nativity scene' thing. Most people picture three wise men standing over the manger in the barn. But actually read the bible, and lean that they arrived a couple of years later (travel time) when Jesus was a toddler living at home. That's why the order was given to kill off all the male children three years and under. Why do we get the idea that it all happened around the manger? Poetic license. It was easier to put on a play with fewer props and scene changes, to do it as one set. So we get a picture. Doesn't matter much.

I expect that many traditional witches, over the centuries, acknowledged Satan as a primary deity, or YHWH, as well as other deities, or no particular deity at all.

And on to modern times. Without thousands of years in the open, Satanism has been sporadic and isolated, so they haven't developed orthodox theology. The last couple of hundred years, as Christianity has lost some of its strength, various individuals and small groups have made a go of Satanism. But still there is no single orthodoxy.

Personally, I have an animist and polytheist view of spirituality and religion. I think Satan is a name given to Azazel, and Azazel was a mid-east deity of a species type that might include Cernunnos, Pan, Frey, and Exu.

On the subject of names. Pick the name of any deity that you like and can relate to a specific culture. What was that deity' name, 40 000 years before that culture existed? This exercise doesn't apply to atheists or those who believe that deities are only as old as their believers. My point is that the deity probably has a name from before there were humans, and any names we give them are just useful tags for establishing communion between species. So 'Satan' is as valid a name as any. Just so long as it's attached to who you want it to be attached to.

And there might be more communions and more names than deities. i.e. double-ups. So Azazel might actually be Satan, and Acteon, and Lucifer, and Herne. This does not suggest that 'all gods are one god', but rather 'a thousand gods might be a hundred gods'.

Edited by Rosmarinus Man, 01 September 2012 - 01:46 PM.

  • 5

#36 Jevne

Jevne

    Former Member

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,441 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 11:06 PM

I'd like to share my theology on this subject:

Imagine a world in which almost all of the humans are animists and polytheists. Including the Canaanites. This people have a two tiered society of god-kings and peasants. The peasants revolt and many vacate the district, causing the collapse of the Canaanite society. Eventually the area starts to grow again as many who drifted away, start to drift back again. They create new groups that form new identities, new tribes... including the Jews.

As eager as any new tribe to set itself apart, they forge their own identity, new stories (including a story about being outsiders who were given Canaan by their god). This god (YHWH) they picked up in their travels (I've heard they got him from a small north African tribe). They became, as Jews, a henotheistic (belief in many gods, but DEVOTED to one <tribal> god) tribe. Supposed to only actively serve YHWH, but forever getting into trouble for worshiping other deities and spirits.

One of these other deities/spirits was Azazel. Apparently a Goat God/Spirit, Azazel seems to have represented the 'God of Out There'. An outlaw in the truest sense of the word. Those who are outside of the laws, requirements, protection of tribal identity. Not necessarily criminal as often thought in the modern world. Indeed, it was quite common in the old world to have a situation where city states only guaranteed protection to their own citizens or allies. Anyone caught outside those boundaries might be taken as slaves. Consider the sanctuary of the Goddess Diana and her role as Goddess of outlaws, and how she preferred to live beyond the boundaries.

So back to the Jews. They were promised prosperity and freedom if they were faithful to YHWH. Archaeological evidence, and biblical accounts, show that they weren't faithful. So when they were dunked and enslaved by the Babylonians, they did the 'poor us, why did it happen?' questions, and came up with the correct answer. 'We weren't faithful'. After 70 years, they regained their freedom, and returned to Jerusalem, full of resolve.

With one small difference...

While slaves, they had enough exposure to Persian Zoroastrians to see how well the Zoroastrian doctrines of moral accountability and the good god/ evil demon would fit their own needs. So the birth of 'One Jewish God and an opposition' was the new way of Israel.

But who could be this new Satan?

Actually, to address the old Satan and Lucifer: the angel by that name in the book of Job, was a servant of YHWH, fulfilling a purpose in accord with YHWHs will, and not the Satan that we generally think of these days. Lucifer was a Latin translation for an earthly king, that YHWH claims to have given the opportunity to rule, but turned out to be corrupt, and was brought down by YHWH.

Anyhoo, back to the new Satan. Well, for as long as there was a Jewish identity, up until the Babylonian captivity, the Jews were worshiping many deities. And then they find themselves deposed by YHWH and his priesthood. And YHWH declares that he has an opposition.

I suggest that given the nature of Azazel, and that he seems to be the focus of one half of a ritual mentioned in the old testament in which one goat is symbolically loaded with the sins of the tribe and released into the wilds, and that modern images of Satan depict him as having goat features, that in all likelihood, Azazel is Satan as leader of the old gods in opposition to YHWHs claim to sole-soul ruler.

Meanwhile, the Jews had a theological problem. THEIR god was now the ONLY god. So, what was his plan or relationship with the rest of humanity? Many 'prophets' had a go at answering that question, but Jesus had the greatest success. His followers spread via the underground, until Constantine the (so-called) Great made it the official religion of the Roman Empire. Then it really took off. The religions of the world declined wherever this pestilence spread, and the old gods receded into the background while YHWH ruled the airways.

And where was Satan based? Might it be too much to suppose that while YHWH set himself up on the throne of Rome, that Satan might be walking the streets or forests? That he might be making alliances with the local gods, to fight the forces of YHWH?

Indeed, I think such an idea might go a long way to explaining The Gospel of Aradia. Diana and Azazel, similar natures. Diana had previously loved a person that might have been a horned deity, so memories might have been stirred. As for the deity in the Gospel being referred to as Lucifer... so what? They didn't have access to the internet or the information we have now. They would have evolved their own myths from available folk law, and they don't seem to have been the only ones to have drawn the comparison. It's common even now. It's common now, even for those who make the distinction, to think of a gnostic deity, to be who was referred to in the bible, instead of a human king. Stuff gets muddled. That's life.

Another example if the whole 'Jesus' birth and nativity scene' thing. Most people picture three wise men standing over the manger in the barn. But actually read the bible, and lean that they arrived a couple of years later (travel time) when Jesus was a toddler living at home. That's why the order was given to kill off all the male children three years and under. Why do we get the idea that it all happened around the manger? Poetic license. It was easier to put on a play with fewer props and scene changes, to do it as one set. So we get a picture. Doesn't matter much.

I expect that many traditional witches, over the centuries, acknowledged Satan as a primary deity, or YHWH, as well as other deities, or no particular deity at all.

And on to modern times. Without thousands of years in the open, Satanism has been sporadic and isolated, so they haven't developed orthodox theology. The last couple of hundred years, as Christianity has lost some of its strength, various individuals and small groups have made a go of Satanism. But still there is no single orthodoxy.

Personally, I have an animist and polytheist view of spirituality and religion. I think Satan is a name given to Azazel, and Azazel was a mid-east deity of a species type that might include Cernunnos, Pan, Frey, and Exu.

On the subject of names. Pick the name of any deity that you like and can relate to a specific culture. What was that deity' name, 40 000 years before that culture existed? This exercise doesn't apply to atheists or those who believe that deities are only as old as their believers. My point is that the deity probably has a name from before there were humans, and any names we give them are just useful tags for establishing communion between species. So 'Satan' is as valid a name as any. Just so long as it's attached to who you want it to be attached to.

And there might be more communions and more names than deities. i.e. double-ups. So Azazel might actually be Satan, and Acteon, and Lucifer, and Herne. This does not suggest that 'all gods are one god', but rather 'a thousand gods might be a hundred gods'.


Oh.

J

  • 1

#37 Evergreen47

Evergreen47

    Ms. Spock

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:35 AM

Oh.

J


*snort!* Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Eloquent as ever, J. You almost made me spit my tea all over my computer.... Posted Image

  • 0

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

-=Frank Herbert=-

 

Rock on, gold dust woman. Take your silver spoon and dig your grave.


#38 Rosmarinus Man

Rosmarinus Man

    Member

  • Seekers
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 05:27 AM

The long and the short of it :eheheh:
  • 1

#39 Aloe

Aloe

    ridge running Ozark banshee..

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,420 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 06:24 AM

The long and the short of it :eheheh:


I like the way you took that. Posted Image

Azazel is an entity I've been working with lately, I agree with some of your post but I never really thought to consider him a 'god'.

  • 0
"The people who live in the Ozark country of Missouri and Arkansas were, until very recently, the most deliberately unprogressive people in the United States. Descended from pioneers who came West from the Southern Appalachians at the beginning of the nineteenth century, they made little contact with the outer world for more than a hundred years. They seem like foreigners to the average urban American, but nearly all of them come of British stock, and many families have lived in America since colonial days. Their material heirlooms are few, but like all isolated illiterates they have clung to the old songs and obsolete sayings and outworn customs of their ancestors." Ozark Magic and Folklore

#40 Rosmarinus Man

Rosmarinus Man

    Member

  • Seekers
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 06:40 AM

Sometimes I think I'll ditch the term 'god'. The word has gotten a little too loaded. Seems anyone can join the club. Big spirits and little spirits should just about be enough.
  • 1