There are many other people on this list better equipped to answer this, but it seems like there's a fundamental misunderstanding about Satanism going on in this thread. From what I understand, with the original Anton LaVey style of Satanism, Satanists didn't worship 'Satan' like a god. He didn't believe in Satan or God. But he used Satan as an archetypal concept for rebelling against pre-digested methods of control that take away our will to think (Christianity was only considered one of these things). The funny costumes were just theatrics - Satanism was more of a philosophy. Now I know that the offshoots changed this focus - and yes Satan can change - he's a concept like any other that changes depending on who's defining him. Satan has always been defined and re-defined by popular literature and folklore. Look at the influence of Milton's Paradise Lost, for instance. Anyway, the point is not about 'believing in' or 'worshipping' Satan and I don't think Satanism has
ever been about merely defining themselves in opposition to Christianity.
Morgan Leigh <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Greetings Caroline,
I do appreciate the point you are making. i.e. that Satanists have moved on
from defining themselves as merely the opposite of Christianity. Can Satan
change? Being the lord of lies I am quite sure he is adroit at change. :)
But it is not whether or not he changes that is at issue. If the modern
Satanists feel they have moved beyond the scope of how our culture, an
essentially Judeo-Christian one, defines Satan, then perhaps they should
consider a new name for themselves. If they have become more, or other or
however one might put it, than the generally accepted definition of the term
'Satanists' then, for the sake of not having this exact misconception all
the time,
perhaps a name change would serve them well.
>Satan wasn't even a proper noun in the Hebrew Bible,
You are absolutely correct here. 'ha satan' (lit. 'the adversary') was
actually a job description going back to Babylonian times. The accuser was
the guy who had the job at court of finding out who was plotting against the
king and then accusing them. This explains the bit in Job where ha satan
tells god he has come from "going to and fro on the earth, and from walking
up and down on it" and then God saying to ha satan "Have you considered my
servant Job?". The subsequent exchange is exactly what one would expect
between a king and a person whose job was to be 'the accuser'. But I
digress...
>I think Paganism(s) are a work in progress, as is modern Satanism.
I certainly hope so. If I can be forgiven for being so obvious I will say
that there is nothing so certain as change. In fact I prefer to put it
more
strongly and say that change is the natural state of the universe. I see no
reason at all why YHVH and Jesus and Satan cannot al be fitted into one
system. In fact, I am on a mission from god (apologies to the Blues
Brothers) to try to fit every religion I can onto the Qabalistic tree. I
have been at it for some time now and I have failed to find one that does
not fit.
IMHO 'god' is an amorphous thing. Rather than having a shape, or no shape,
it is all shapes. Good and evil are terms totally devised by humans. I try
to avoid the use of these terms preferring instead pro life and anti life.
These are things that, it seems to me, god would not recognise. They are
subjective points of view. If you are omniscient, omnipotent and eternal, no
one can threaten you. Thus nothing can successfully be anti your particular
life. Things are not good or bad, things just are. Because we humans
arrogantly consider that we are the Most
Important Things in the universe we
have to audacity to label things that do not suit us as bad, and things that
do as good.
Regards,
Morgan Leigh.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Caroline Tully
>Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:23
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Was Hermetic, now Satanism
>
>
>Salutations Morgan,
>
>>>My meaning is that Satanism, being as it is named after the biblical
>>>character ha satan, is at the opposite pole to
>Judaism/Christianity/Islam.
>>>The light is not any greater
>than the dark, or vice versa. They are equal, and indeed necessary to each
>other's existence.<<
>
>Mmm, but I think that sophisticated modern Satanists (some, not all)
are
>trying to move beyond the "just the opposite of Christ" kind of
>stereotype.
>Cannot Satan change? If people can re-interpret pre-Christian
>goddesses into
>"The Goddess" who is all benevolent for example, then can't people also
>re-interpret Satan into something a bit more interesting? Satan
>wasn't even
>a proper noun in the Hebrew Bible, so the Christians obviously
>re-interpreted him themselves into an arch-enemy of their fave
>god, Christ.
>Satan can be rather exciting and fun, but perhaps that does involve being
>non-Christian, for example, Anton la Vey's (hilarious) reasons why one
>*should* do all the seven deadly sins? Plus, even if modern Pagans
>differentiate themselves from Satanists, although why polytheism can't
>handle including Yahweh, Jesus and Satan among with all the other gods of
>the planet I don't know, despite a lot of *saying* how "Pagan" one is,
I
>feel that being brought up in a Judeo-Christian society can't help but
>influence Neo-Pagan's thoughts, ethics and behaviour, despite
>*trying* to be
>"Pagan" (whatever that is). I think Paganism(s) are a work in progress, as
>is modern Satanism.
>
>~Caroline.
>
>
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
