Jump to content


Photo

Satanism and Witchcraft


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#41 Oakbuchanan

Oakbuchanan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 623 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 10:35 AM

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'.


Interesting musings and insights, voted this up...

  • 0

#42 Rosmarinus Man

Rosmarinus Man

    Member

  • Seekers
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 10:56 AM

:thankyou:
  • 0

#43 Tana

Tana

    Earth Mother

  • Moderators
  • 3,759 posts

Posted 09 September 2012 - 01:54 PM

I agree with Oak. Also I will enjoy having a muse on the subject myself, with your thoughts to act as a catalyst, RM. Thank you.
)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.

#44 Whiterose

Whiterose

    Senior Member

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 09 September 2012 - 03:19 PM

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.



I liked your post, very well put and it made alot of sense, but this last one is how I see it. Using the term god, to me, automatically means I must bow to it or otherwise worship it. I have worked with spirits that may be considered "Big Spirits" but since I have no information past our breif encounter and no wish to worship it/them, I choke on calling it/them a god.

  • 0

#45 sarasuperid

sarasuperid

    Wild Witch of the West

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,429 posts

Posted 09 September 2012 - 03:58 PM

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.

Sounds good to me.

  • 0
"A Craft, a calling, a set of Keys to unlock a particular cosmology that is borne, and born, in the blood of the practitioner, and sets the Work to be done with which one may commune with those who hold the patterns and keys of the life of the practitioner and hir stream. The Work is to be done, and we are to do it." --Aiseling the Bard

#46 Aurelian

Aurelian

    The Devils Enabler

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts

Posted 09 September 2012 - 11:20 PM

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'.


Your post is well thought out, I like it. It's taken me a long time to get over the whole "ack! Satan!" bit, so in the interim I'm going with Agrippa on this, insofar that any interaction with an infernal is ultimately an interaction with Lucifer as the Unity of the Underworld, or as certain people simplify Lucifer as the Astral Light. Until I'm proven wrong by practical experience anyway.

Oh.

J


I support this premise in it's entirety. There is far too much material on the subject, my brain is melting from overload.

  • 0
"The truth about the world, he said, is that anything is possible. Had you not seen it from birth and thereby bled it of its strangeness it would appear to you for what it is, a hat trick in a medicine show, a fevered dream, a trance bepopulate with chimeras having neither analogue nor precedent, an itinerant carnival, a migratory tentshow whose ultimate destination after many a pitch in many a mudded field is unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning." - Cormac McCarthy

#47 Jevne

Jevne

    Former Member

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,441 posts

Posted 09 September 2012 - 11:29 PM

I support this premise in it's entirety. There is far too much material on the subject, my brain is melting from overload.


Satanism is the type of subject to attract arrogant and self-serving preach and point a finger types. I was actually looking for a reaction. There are several ways, RM could have responded, and he chose to acknowledge my sarcasm about the breadth of the information, which I have no issue with BTW, and laugh with us. No harm, no foul. :D

  • 0

#48 froglover

froglover

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 03:38 AM

Erm.....I have a fourth way "Gurdjieff" background a bit, sort of, and that has influenced my take on the whole Satan thing.....yeah 'Satan' mean the accuser. (So does 'devil' if and to the extent that 'devil' comes from 'diabolus' literally "thrower-across", mud-slinger one might say, meaning accuser).

In the fourth way version of the path to enlightenment one seeks access to the 'higher centres'; the higher thinking and higher feeling centres; the lower centres being thinking feeling and physical, like the main lines of palmistry head heart and life. Gurdjieff once had them portrayed as respectively a demon and an angel (well, that is my interpretation of a well-known picture), Jesus was referring to these centres I believe when he told his disciples to be as "innocent as doves and wise as serpents".

Now....the religious path involves accessing the higher feeling centre and only then the higher thinking centre. But it is possible to 'cheat' so to speak and access the higher thinking centre for help. And that is the "fourth way" aka the "way of the sly man".......which I suppose could also be translated "way of the cunning man".

But it is a dangerous way because the higher thinking centre can manifest as a separate entity when accessed separately from the higher feeling centre. And when so accessed it may consider itself a higher being than humanity, and it may not think much of you....except as prey. In this sense it really is the Accuser. This is the pact making "Prince of Darkness" encountered by some magicians; in popular culture Hannibal the Lector and Sideshow Bob are examples of people in the grip of an unbalanced higher thinking centre....

In the fourth way one seeks access to the higher thinking centre to help access the higher feeling centre; to activate true conscience and so forth.....one can seek to activate the higher thinking centre without the inconvenience of acquiring a conscience but that does not usually end well......as all the folklore about deals with the devil warn us.

This interpretation of fourth way stuff is partly my own but it is not really far below the surface; as just one example Gurdjieff's close disciple Ouspensky openly told the story of how the Sly Man learnt from the devil how to grow souls on condition that those souls were then the devil's food. But the Sly Man made a plan to cheat the devil which sometimes worked....

Oh well, I hope I have not bored. I once knew someone who claimed to be both an Alexandrian and traditional witch some of whose material was identical with fourth way stuff, and I always wondered about that. Did my friend just rip it off from the fourth way crew and repackage it as witchcraft or was there a common source at some stage?

  • 0

#49 froglover

froglover

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 11:00 AM

A common source might seem ridiculous but not so very. Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous" was published in England in 1950 and Ouspensky's group had been active in England for a couple of decades by then. The book contains Gurjieff's remark that the ancient mystery cults were a genuine way, now disappeared. We know that PL Travers of Mary Poppins fame was an Ouspensky disciple and we find her joining the Folklore Society (that Gerald Gardner presided over) at the same meeting as Monica English in the early 1960s....I mention this just to show that fourth way and Wiccan circles were in contact.

Gardnder's "Witchcraft Today", 1954, explicitly related witchcraft to the ancient mystery cults. I am not a Wiccan initiate and I do not mean to insult or offend in any way, but it seems to me that the Lord and Lady of Wicca can be thought of in terms of Gurdjieff's higher centres which as I mention in the last post were at least once personified in a picture as an angelic and demonic character.

So it is possible that fourth way stuff influenced Wicca. I think I'm the first person to publicly suggest this. And of course the connection may be older and deeper...

  • 0

#50 froglover

froglover

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 29 September 2012 - 02:23 AM

Anyway getting back on topic, I think the connection between the intellectual Prince of Darkness Satan who gives knowledge, and the "humans are just animals" version of Satanism is that that is precisely how the personified "Higher Thinking Centre" sees us, it sees through our pretensions to be higher than the animals, sees the drives beneath our supposed morals and so forth, but in its unbalanced state it sees all this without compassion. Because compassion belongs to the "Higher Feeling Centre" (and so does real power btw, but that is another issue.)

In terms of the familiar attribution or tarot trumps to the Tree of Life, it will be remembered that the Devil is the path between Hod and Rahamin aka Tifareth (have I got that right?..urk I should check before I say something dumb, but hell who dares wins...). Now I take Rahamin to represent Gurdjieff's sex centre in its higher aspect. Gurdjieff remarks that while the sex centre can be considered as part of the physical centre it also has a higher aspect on a par with the "higher feeling centre". (Yesod is more usually connected with sexuality, I associate it with Gurdjeiff's physical centre....it will be remembered that Yesod is connected with the Moon and Ramahin with the Sun)

Anyway the point of all this is that the path between the "lower thinking centre" associated as I understand it with Hod and Tifareth is the Devil. I take this to be the excercise of the "miserific vision" of the world in terms of dead matter and power relations. The trump Death, from the Netzah the lower feeling centre to Rahamin, would be the exercise of "memento mori" and Temperance, from Yesod to Rahamin, as I undertand it is the exercise moving energies back and forth in a rhythmic way from the groin to the heart or solar plexus....

And the Wheel of Fortune i would suppose is the exercise of "detachment" directly connecting the lower and higher feeling centres. The card Hanged Man would then represent the direct connection beteen the lower and higher thinking centres. I'm confirmed in this view by the old account of Odin the wisdom god hanging for nine days to gain the runes. I don't know wha tthat excise is but it doesn't sound much fun.

Anyway, mustn't ramble, my poit is the place of the "Devil" card in all this......and what about those horns?

  • 0

#51 froglover

froglover

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 12:04 AM

OK, here is the image I referred to in the first of my posts, ie here is what is apparently a picture of the higher centres personalized as an angel and demon presiding over the enneagram, central glyph of the fourth way. These figures are familiar from folklore, in pantomime the Fairy Godmother and the Demon King etc.

Posted Image

  • 0

#52 Whiterose

Whiterose

    Senior Member

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 12:44 AM

I think I'm getting what you are saying froglover about the proverbial angel and demon on the shoulders. That is a pretty neat concept when you think of them as different parts of the higher self.
  • 0

#53 froglover

froglover

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 07:04 AM

Yeah, thanks Whiterose, I was worried that my rave was completely opaque.....and I somehow put up the same post twice. Haste makes waste I guess.

It does seem a neat concept to me. Gurdjieff people are often very very tight-arsed which I think has tended to obscure the interest of some of the ideas. I don't think he can be left out of any discussion of Satan, after all his big book was "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson". In a remarkable passage Gurdjieff's Beelzebub explains how the fallacy that there is an objective cosmic Good and Evil arose to plague humanity. (In a nutshell the "involutionary" or creative force and the evolutionary force are opposed to or in tension with each other, this maintains the cosmos. Each is "evil" with respect to the other. This does not do justice to the resonance of the concept.....)

I worry about the devil's horns. I know horns are a symbol of wisdom, traditionally Moses had horns. But it is also part of the animal persona eh, goes with the tail and hoofs.... I haven't somehow put all this together.....

  • 0

#54 Whiterose

Whiterose

    Senior Member

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 05:30 PM

Yeah, thanks Whiterose, I was worried that my rave was completely opaque.....and I somehow put up the same post twice. Haste makes waste I guess.

It does seem a neat concept to me. Gurdjieff people are often very very tight-arsed which I think has tended to obscure the interest of some of the ideas. I don't think he can be left out of any discussion of Satan, after all his big book was "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson". In a remarkable passage Gurdjieff's Beelzebub explains how the fallacy that there is an objective cosmic Good and Evil arose to plague humanity. (In a nutshell the "involutionary" or creative force and the evolutionary force are opposed to or in tension with each other, this maintains the cosmos. Each is "evil" with respect to the other. This does not do justice to the resonance of the concept.....)

I worry about the devil's horns. I know horns are a symbol of wisdom, traditionally Moses had horns. But it is also part of the animal persona eh, goes with the tail and hoofs.... I haven't somehow put all this together.....



Maybe the horns and hooves relate to the higher intellect because without the higher compassion the higher intellect is more animal like because it acts and attacks without compassion as a animal would when hunting for prey.

I get the part about them both being evil to each other and I think the best way to go would be to balance the two. It reminds me of a cherokee story of two wolves. (I looked up the actual wording but this story stayed with me when I heard it.)

A grandfather is teaching his grandson about life. "A terrible fight is going on inside me" he said to his grandson. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."




  • 0

#55 Phoenix

Phoenix

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:28 PM

I came across several videos this weekend about anton lavey an satanism. The first video was mostly interviews with lavey, his neighbors, members of the church and clips of rituals. I thought it was very interesting. Another video I watched was an interview with his daughter, before his death, and a priest, I guess from one of their covens. I have not read the Satanic Bible, though I might, but some of the explanations I heard of their philosophy seemed to be contradictory. I guess that is a problem with many philosophies and religions though.

I was fascinated and didn't feel opposed until I watched the interview with his daughter. Obviously, they were being interviewed by a christian who viewed them as rediculous from the beginning. I know they probably approached the interview with disdain. So, I guess that probably effected the tone of the whole thing. Regardless, there were certain things that bothered me about it. Somehow, many responses to questions or comments from the interviewer were basically Christianity is this and that. It kind of made me cringe. I guess it bothers me, even though sometimes I bitch about christianity, because every explanation of my philosophy shouldn't be based on what I feel christians do wrong. To me, that would make my philosophy more about opposing and accusing christianity that anything else. In a way, that would make sense because the old testament does offer an explanation of the satan being the one who accuses gods followers before god, such as satan going to god to accuse Job.

Another thing that bothered me was the use of the term unnatural. The priest told the interviewer that they would agree about gays being unnatural and unhealthy. I'm gay, so obviously I would be offended by this. What really got me though, is how the satanic priest labeled being gay unnatural, but then thought it natural that human beings should not innately possess qualities such as compassion, forgiveness, love, etc. I guess this is because to the satanic priest these qualities were christian in nature and therefore were for weak individuals. This is a nice high ideal, but I have to disagree. You cannot say that you live in the world and see it as it is and honestly believe that the only reason people offer compassion, love and mercy to others is because of christianity and also stating that these qualities are unnatural in humans. Excuse me? So, it's unnatural for a human being to walk by another human being suffering and feel sympathy and feel the need to help, or at least offer comfort. I completely disagree. I'm not saying that we should feel responsibility toward everyone, but to not have any emotional response to suffering at all is something I find quite unnatural and I'm pretty sure there are some psychological problems that may be lurking in someones closet if they are being honest about those feelings.

Another thing that really got me about the interviews was the idea that witchcraft, regardless of the individual's definition, is always aligned with satanism. So, I guess whether we like it or not we are all satanist and deluded if we see it otherwise. That statement is no different that a christian saying that all non christians are sinners and going to hell. I could be wrong, but I see no difference.

I suppose at the end, the biggest problem I had, although there are many I haven't mentioned, is the responses to the inteviewers questions about good and evil. Someone, the conversation became about the jews and hitler, among other things. The interviewer wanted to know how the satanist felt about this. Did they think what hitler done to the jews was evil? The response was what is good and evil? They said they didn't believe in good and evil. Fine. I get that good and evil seem relative and that human beings may not be able to truly define good and evil, blah blah blah. I get this. What I don't get, is how a human being cannot feel anything about events like this. I mean, regardless of my philosophy, If I saw someone killing a baby or an elderly person I would have some sort of reaction and feel that what was happening was good or bad, which would probably be bad in my opinion. I think it would be unnatural to not feel something.

I guess I just don't understand and am not 'elite' enough to aspire to the high ideals of satanism. As far as witchcraft goes, I don't understand how satanism has anything to do with it. Satanism is a philosophy that according the the priest has no obligation to care for others and in a way sees anyone who might require assistance as a psychic vampire who is wasting valuable resources. I think that is pretty much a quote. So, in other words 99% of the people I know, and probably many on here, are just psychic vampires who should be destroyed. So, in the end, satanism is just the opposite of christianity, as it's name implies, and as far as I can tell has as much to do with witchcraft as christianity does.

  • 0

#56 Phoenix

Phoenix

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:22 PM

I have thought about this a lot this weekend and there is something that I wanted to add. My big problem with the issue of good and evil and whether or not the satanists felt that hitler's actions against the jews would be evil is the fact that they didn't really answer, other than to question what good and evil are. I have to wonder, do they feel that his actions were evil and refused to say that because of the questions that would have followed, or do they feel they were good and didn't want to admit that? I think if they said hitler's actions were evil, then that would undermine the philosophy and maybe that is why answering directly was avoided. However, I could be wrong, not about that undermining the philosophy, but about the reason they did not answer. The hardest part about answering questions is that sometimes our honest answers reveal that everything we have said doesn't align with what we truly believe.
  • 0

#57 Jevne

Jevne

    Former Member

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,441 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 02:00 AM

I have thought about this a lot this weekend and there is something that I wanted to add. My big problem with the issue of good and evil and whether or not the satanists felt that hitler's actions against the jews would be evil is the fact that they didn't really answer, other than to question what good and evil are. I have to wonder, do they feel that his actions were evil and refused to say that because of the questions that would have followed, or do they feel they were good and didn't want to admit that? I think if they said hitler's actions were evil, then that would undermine the philosophy and maybe that is why answering directly was avoided. However, I could be wrong, not about that undermining the philosophy, but about the reason they did not answer. The hardest part about answering questions is that sometimes our honest answers reveal that everything we have said doesn't align with what we truly believe.


I will mitigate my response by noting, once again, that I have not personally met every Satanist on the planet; therefore, I am responding based on my assessment of a limited number of people. However, every single Satanist that "I know" conveys, through word, action, and emotion, a total and complete disregard for the thoughts, feelings, and needs of others. The concepts of good and evil are relative, and we can sit and theorize about the who, what, where, and why, of what constitutes each all day, but in the end, we know what is morally negotiable and what is clearly wrong. To respond so coldly in the face of such a horrible tragedy, simply for the sake of sticking to some "well I am above it all" philosophy is absolutely ridiculous. It is our compassion; the very fact that we do care, that makes us powerful.

  • 4

#58 Xerceas

Xerceas

    Member

  • Seekers
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:31 AM

I've noticed this topic pop up on the forums front page before, and now it has done for a third time so I feel like I should weigh in for some cosmic reason (probably not cosmic).


Back when I could have been considered fluffy and somewhat small minded, I began to find my path... and yes, I chose Traditional Satanism. That is not LaVey, it is Traditional. A belief that the sin on earth does not exist, that Lucifer is not even represented correctly and the horns, hooves and tail is just a way to make people afraid of him. In my tradition I believed that Satan was an entity whom represents the opposites of God, and in that way they balance each other out. I believed that the only sin I was to understand was my own, for that was what concerned me. I believed that Lucifer wasn't to be heralded as some evil doer, only out to hurt humanity. Instead, I understood (at the time), that he was nothing more than Gods opposite. Whilst God represented the lightness of Air and the purity of Water, Lucifer represented the destructive nature of fire and the strength of earth. For me it was just like a feminine and masculine approach. I knew, deep down (at the time), that Lucifer maintained a balance within the world that we NEEDED. I understood that without him, we wouldn't exist...


I even remember believing that Lucifer looked more like a darkened angel than some goat-like-entity.


The problem with my beliefs came when I couldn't find another, as I called them, 'true satanist'. Most where far too poserish for me, some I even considered dangerous for I knew more than a handful of people who vowed to only do darker magic as part of their rituals. That, to me, was wrong... Lucifer was solely never about sin and evil. He was never about cursing some guy on the street who had knocked you by accident that morning. He was never about hexing your mother because she didn't buy you that car for Christmas (yes, I heard of that happening at the time). For me, all of that was just a complete insult to me and my religion... and it upset me enough to shut myself off from the world and become solitary. It suited me, I had adopted a self-importance that just did not get along with anyone else anyway. However, slowly, I began to realize that if I was alone in my beliefs... I was alone in general.


That was the first nail...


The second came when, perhaps a bit cynically, I came to realize that I was just having ZERO interaction with any higher (or lower lolololol) power. Please, don't get me wrong, I never desired to see the face of the devil and be proclaimed his glorious prophet... but being able to FEEL him working with me, or his demons... or anything. That would have been nice, however, that never happened... and I became disillusioned with what I was doing. Thus, I began to read about other religions, other paths...


That was the second nail...


The third? Well, I met a christian (yeah), but he didn't at all approach me in that way. He was also a spiritualist, and he managed to make me see that as I reached for a higher plane of existence for God and Lucifer, I was ignoring the spirits all around me. From that moment I just began to realize that what I did know of myself wasn't in anyway religious or thanks to any God... it was because I could feel my ancestors all around me. It was because I had my spirit guide standing beside me, telling me I needed to wake up. It was because I had my ancestors around me shouting and screaming as I ignored them...


Final nail.


As I look back now, I'm beginning to realize just how strange it is that I have come full circle. So many of my beliefs are similar to those I held when I was fifteen, even though between then and now I've tried to adapt to my wiccan friends way of life. I'm a darker kind of person, and for a while I thought that made me wrong and evil. I hated myself for awhile, but in these past few years I have been waking up and realizing that just because someone is not christian or wiccan does not mean I am corrupted or anything. It means I am different, it means I see my world in a different way to those who believe the monotheistic generalization of religious etiquette. My world is nature and the spirits who guide me through my existence.

It has taken awhile but I've grown up, and with that my entire understanding of the world has deepened. I've always been a very giving, loyal and caring person... so I did not make a good satanist. I look back now and see that I became solitary because my friends were NOT serious at all. They did not follow the laws, they thought it all glamorous when they were doing it wrong and being ignorant and STUPID. I came away from the herd, I followed my own path and those days have taught me to do the same ever since. If nothing else, I'm happy for that. :)

  • 1

#59 froglover

froglover

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:33 AM

Oh course, another theory (given airspace, for example, by Robert Graves in the White Goddess) is that Satan is our friend Mercury/Hermes/Woden. The classical picture of Mercury fluffies him up quite some, he was a god of thought to be sure but also the "psychopomp", that is the power which seizes the dead soul and takes t to the underworld. I believe that in Germany the identity of satan and Woden was fairly uncontroversial and the German's still do not name Wednesday after Woden because of the hostility of the church. This fits with the "higher intelelctual centre" theory of course.....

In folk religion a connection with Vulcan and Satan was also made (in the 19th century Australian poem "A Convict's Tour to Hell" for example, where Satan and crew were seen as siding with the rebellious poor) In this poem Vulcan was one of the staff of Hell (Vulcan has been identified by I think the Catholic Encyclopedia with Tubal Cain and on it goes....)

  • 0

#60 foxman

foxman

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 129 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 12:16 AM

In my opinion, Anton La Vey's Satanic Bible is about as much use as using an empty pen to write a cheque to your Utility Company! Now if you were talking about the Order of the Ram in Bournemouth, UK or The Order of the Prince in Bacup, Lancashire (both of which were not strictly Satanic but one of the first Luciferian group's in this country), then  you 'might' have a problem. Most people who 'claim' to be Satanists don't know the meaning of the word! Look at it this way. The whole religious thing of 'Thou Shalt Not' was invented by a person named 'Moshe' (Moses) - and, like in their Torah (The Five Books of Moses), The Nevi'im (the Prophets) and finally, The Kethuvim (The Writings) - which make up the Old Testament of the Christians - and is based upon it!  These writings are in Jewish form, called The Tanakh - which I own a copy of and is indispensable to people like me who study the Kabalah!    :biggrin: foxman


Edited by foxman, 08 February 2014 - 01:29 PM.

  • 0