satanism

gillo wrote:

This looks like and has the potential to be a very interesting thread, admittedly I haven't read it all yet (appologies form prematurely posting) but what does strike me is Darkjagger's origional post in that most religions at the end of the day teach a similiar ideal (I'm gonna start my own thread on that idea so appologies for not expanding on that idea here) but Lucifierism seems to just promate the person and f*&k everyone else.

*irk*

Luciferianism has a more rich, meaningful and august record than Satanism, per se. A Satanist may mean to call himself a Luciferianist, or hold largely to Luciferian ideas - but strictly speaking, that's a poor choice of terminology. Conversely, many soi-disant Luciferianists are just Satanists.

Lucifer is originally a Greek concept, very similar to that of Prometheus. When connected to the Christian Devil via the Eden narrative, and ideas of knowledge and enlightenment, it can make for a far more interesting strain than the rather vapid Satan-based "bad is good" gig.

Scofflaw wrote:

Heck of a claim. I appreciate I'm being nosy, but any particular reason why this is so, or just "general interest"?

curiously,
Scofflaw

No problem. I practice ceremonial magick. One needs grimoires in order to raise demons.

sanguinely,
S

'Satanism' seems to me to be an ethos based on some variation of Nietszchean ideas rather than an religion positing itself in oppostion to Christianity.

Presumably a stanist would say that the ideas from which the points listed above derive are realistic rather than negative. Fulfilling one's desires could be seen as imposing a responsibility on the individual to decide for himself what he desires rather than castigating himself because he can't stop himself wanting crtain things. The claim that man is a vicious animal could be seen as realistic; if we accept that man is a vicious mortal animal what can be done to improve his lot.

To some extent it reminds me of stoicism which is an ethos that should be revived.

That's great but in the popular imagination stanism means divination, trafficking with demons bending them to your will, kidnapping virgins, selling your soul, ruling over the damned in hell etc. I suspect that there would be alot of disappointed adolescents if they went to service of the stanist church above.

Other points and questions:
1] The fact that most pantheistic gods are syncretic with or ignore Christianity doesn't mean one couldn't have gods that were oppositional to Christianity.

2] The fact that clims of satanism were sometimes made unjustly (the destuction of the Knights Templar, for example or the moral panic around witchcraft in 16th century Germany) doesn't mean that at no time did anyone practise or seek to practise satanism. de Sade certainly did (though this was to do with his tedious obsession with the transgressive) and Gilles de Rais may also have done.

3] The assertion that what was called witchcraft or satansim is some sort of survival of worship of the horned god is unprovable. (Fraser just made up the Golden Bough) christianity was extremely effective in assimilating deities to itself. Why was this different?

4] Luciferianism. What are you claiming that it is? Where are you claiming that it existed? What communities do you claim practised it? Are you claiming that there are surviving communities that practise it?

5] What about the Yezid. Why have none of you mentioned them?

MM

mountainyman wrote:

2] The fact that clims of satanism were sometimes made unjustly (the destuction of the Knights Templar, for example or the moral panic around witchcraft in 16th century Germany) doesn't mean that at no time did anyone practise or seek to practise satanism. de Sade certainly did (though this was to do with his tedious obsession with the transgressive) and Gilles de Rais may also have done.

I don't disagree. There have certainly been individuals who have become famous for their dabblings in diabolism. I doubt, however, that there has ever really existed any lasting, continuous, consistent or organised satanic movement. This is mainly because I have seen no evidence to suggest that there has. One might counter that a satanic organisation would necessarily be secretive. But who among us doesn't know a great deal about a number of secretive organisations (or think we do)? There may, of course, be a vast and tenebrous satanic conspiracy that has successfully remained hidden, but until someone presents evidence to that effect I am inclined to score a line around the idea with Occam's Razor, and concentrate on more interesting things.

mountainyman wrote:

3] The assertion that what was called witchcraft or satansim is some sort of survival of worship of the horned god is unprovable.

That explanation is used, very convincingly in my opinion, with regard to "witchcraft", or the paganistic folk spiritualities of peasant people. I have never heard it in relation to satanism. How could that be argued? Satan is a Judeo-Christian character. It is the Christians who identify Satan with the pagan Horned God, not the pagans. That is how he was assimilated. I'm really not sure what you're suggesting, or what idea you are trying to undermine. Please explain.

mountainyman wrote:

4] Luciferianism. What are you claiming that it is? Where are you claiming that it existed? What communities do you claim practised it? Are you claiming that there are surviving communities that practise it?

Whoah! Hold on a minute! Bit of a barrage there, old bean! Luciferianism is any spiritual construct at the heart of which lies reverence of the character and idea of Lucifer. Lucifer is a deity associated with revelation of knowledge and enlightenment (the name meaning "Light Bringer" in Latin), a Roman translation of the Greek poetic concept of the breaking dawn - an idea representing the advancement and development of human mind. There have been no Luciferian "communities", in that it has never been a state or tribal religion to my knowledge, but it is a philosophical tradition that has found purchase among various mystical groups right up to the present day. It has no "practices" necessarily associated with it, other than, I suppose, those of initiation common to all mystical groups. Luciferianism is about attainment of the higher self, and so should be eminently suitable for use in the hermetic tradition. It is not widely availed of however - partly because it's a little too obvious and occultists tend to prefer to be obscure, and partly because clumsy associations with the Devil tend to make for annoying confrontations with religious types.

mountainyman wrote:

5] What about the Yezid. Why have none of you mentioned them?

Because nobody has any reason to believe that they are meaningfully connected to satanism.

Scofflaw wrote:

I almost hate to ask - any luck? I followed that route to some extent in my late teens/early twenties, but came to the conclusion that, given the vast horde of stories from around the world suggesting the bad ends practitioners generally come to, it was either a waste of time (if it didn't work), or dangerous (if it did).

Gosh, you're awfully sheepish about this, Scofflaw! We're all "out" here. Luck - yes. Along with most other things I ask for.

I admit that stories of happy and successful ritualists are less common than those of degraded and debauched souls destroyed by disasterous demonic dealings. But of course these stories are propagated by prudent magickians as much as by hysterical puritans, as cautionary tales. Might I ask how far you got and in what direction? I shan't try to win you back to the fold, in case you're wondering - that wouldn't do either of us any good (there's quite enough "traffick" as it is, you see). I ask because I, like many others in my position, don't really feel as though I have much of a choice in the matter of working with magick. I don't mean that to sound sinister - rather to express that I feel a very strong affinity to magick, and specifically to that variety of magick we now discuss. I shall come right out and say that the feeling is that I am re-learning it. Presumably you did not feel that affinity, or familiarity. Have you investigated any other forms of magick or mysticism?

mountainyman wrote:

It may be unlikely but so is the persistence of pre Christian pantheistic belief for a thousand years after the Christianisation of europe.

I do not think it at all unlikely. But then we are lucky that we don't actually have to talk about these things as functions of speculative probability. The survival of pre-Christian spiritual practices throughout the last two thousand years of European history is a matter of record. The only dispute could be whether these and those practices damned as satanism were one and the same. I think that they were is obvious.

mountainyman wrote:

It did not remain undiscovered this secret satanic organisation was pretty comprehensively destroyed by the dominicans in the 16th century.

This is news to me. Can you give us some details? Some references?

mountainyman wrote:

I haven't read any convincing explanation that the practices persecuted were pagan survivals. Folk tradition that became interpreted as witchcraft or heresy perhaps...

Let's get something straight. What aside from "folk tradition" do you imagine we're talking about?

mountainyman wrote:

I think you underestimating the power of the Chritian idea and the extent to which that idea dominated the mental landscape of pre modern europeans.

I really don't think I do. I do think that you greatly underestimate the stubbornness to disappear of spiritual artifacts that have enjoyed deep purchase in the European mind since before the Jews left Egypt. I appreciate that you might consider Christianity to be wonderful, but do you really think it's realistic to suppose that it completely removed all trace of what came before? I certainly don't, and even if the evidence to the contrary didn't exist - in no less than the stonework of Christian churches and the customs of Christian feasts - I would need a great deal of convincing.

mountainyman wrote:

But I take it that those associations are precisely the reason for using the name, or the construct or whatever you think it is. The devil, anti-christianity, forbidden knowledge.

No. That's not the reason. Pay attention.

mountainyman wrote:

Surely Promeatheanism would be a more useful construct otherwise.

Yes, well, the difference is one of taste, don't you think. Prometheus comes with the whole gamut of Hesiodic theogony, while Lucifer is a much cleaner idea. Rather - was a much cleaner idea, until the tiny-minded Christians came along and trampled their blighted Old Testament all over it.

You seem almost eager to find a reason to believe in the existence of satanism - or to interpret perfectly anodyne spiritual currents as diabolistic. It is something I have often noted in the religious. Can you explain your interest?

Sapien wrote:

Yes, well, the difference is one of taste, don't you think. Prometheus comes with the whole gamut of Hesiodic theogony, while Lucifer is a much cleaner idea. Rather - was a much cleaner idea, until the tiny-minded Christians came along and trampled their blighted Old Testament all over it.

That seems unfair one set of myths is a gamut and the other a trampling. At any rate your claim is false, this Lucifer construct has resonance only because of its oppositional Christian associations.

Sapien wrote:

...The only dispute could be whether these and those practices damned as satanism were one and the same. I think that they were is obvious.

That isn't an argument it is an assertion. The witch panic had many causes and in my opinion has little [I actually think nothing] to do with the reality of what its victims believed and everything to do with the need of the early modern state to gain control of the peasantry.

Sapien wrote:

Let's get something straight. What aside from "folk tradition" do you imagine we're talking about?

An awareness on the part of those engaged in these practices that what they were doing wasn't christian or satanic would be good. People could engage in practices that had been acceptable and though Christianised were influenced by what had gone before for a thiusand years until Martin Luther came along and upset the applecart.

Sapien wrote:

I really don't think I do. I do think that you greatly underestimate the stubbornness to disappear of spiritual artifacts that have enjoyed deep purchase in the European mind since before the Jews left Egypt. I appreciate that you might consider Christianity to be wonderful, but do you really think it's realistic to suppose that it completely removed all trace of what came before? I certainly don't, and even if the evidence to the contrary didn't exist - in no less than the stonework of Christian churches and the customs of Christian feasts - I would need a great deal of convincing.

Relatively few people have maintained that Christianity was completely uninfluenced by what had preceded it. It assimilated whatever it could (and indeed continues to do so). Pre Christian practises were transformed into Christian ones; that's uncontroversial. If you maintain that there was a survival outside that well something other than assertion would be nice.

Of course based on your criticism of the tiny minded Christians above it is possible that you are yourself several thousand years old and as such a primary source for this discussion. If that's the case I defer to your practical experience.



MM

mountainyman wrote:

It makes the world more interesting and conforms to a basically oppositional view of the spiritual world that is a feature of Christian eschatology.

I'm going to presume that that was a joke.

mountainyman wrote:

That seems unfair one set of myths is a gamut and the other a trampling.

Is a gamut very much better than a trampling? Perhaps you didn't understand my point, but I was being quite dismissive of both mythologies. Lucifer is less an element of a mythology than a poetic convention.

mountainyman wrote:

At any rate your claim is false, this Lucifer construct has resonance only because of its oppositional Christian associations.

Really now? Why do you think that? And please answer properly this time - your throw-away comments are becoming annoying.

mountainyman wrote:

That isn't an argument it is an assertion. The witch panic had many causes and in my opinion has little [I actually think nothing] to do with the reality of what its victims believed and everything to do with the need of the early modern state to gain control of the peasantry.

...

mountainyman wrote:

3] The assertion that what was called witchcraft or satansim is some sort of survival of worship of the horned god is unprovable.

This challenge of yours implies that there was something "called witchcraft or satansim" beyond the inventions of zealous witchfinders. You seem not to be able to make your mind up. Were those accused of withcraft satanists, or were they hapless victims of ambitious servants of the state? Or is there any point whatsoever in discussing this in a thread about satanism?

mountainyman wrote:

An awareness on the part of those engaged in these practices that what they were doing wasn't christian or satanic would be good.

Tell me - when you make toast in the morning, is that a Christian or a satanic act?

mountainyman wrote:

If you maintain that there was a survival outside that well something other than assertion would be nice.

What do you mean by "outside that". How do we distinguish between pagan practices that survive inside or "outside" of Christianity? I would say that if practices continue to be tolerated in a society that calls itself Christian then said practice has survived within Christianity. I don't think that medieval peasants were as interested in questioning the provenience of every habit and custom as you seem to think they were.

mountainyman wrote:

Of course based on your criticism of the tiny minded Christians above it is possible that you are yourself several thousand years old and as such a primary source for this discussion.

Scire, velle, audere et...

mountainyman wrote:

Also if you could reccomend something fairly scholarly that supports your view I would be very interested.

Which view, exactly? The one that an organised satanic movement has never existed in a significant way, or the one that pagan practices and beliefs have survived the Christian era?

And while you answer that, perhaps you can answer a similar question that I have already asked you...

me wrote:

mountainyman wrote:

It did not remain undiscovered this secret satanic organisation was pretty comprehensively destroyed by the dominicans in the 16th century.

This is news to me. Can you give us some details? Some references?

Have you read The Golden Bough? On what basis do you claim it was "made up"? What of its contents do you dispute? Can you cite any authorities in anthropology or comparative religions that support your claim that The Golden Bough was "made up".

mountainyman wrote:

It was a straight answer.

Well, that says it all. You admit that your arguments are motivated by something other than the evidence of history. Why exactly should I bother engaging with you?

mountainyman wrote:

... But again in your criticisms of Hesiod and of the Christian approach to Lucifer you imply that there pre existing approaches which these have corrupted.

It seems that you are making very little effort to understand what I am saying, and are simply responding out of some kind of adolescent animosity. I enjoy diversivolence and challenging alternative perspectives, but your are offering very little in the way of cogency. This is forewarning that I reserve the right to simply start ignoring you unless you say something interesting, and show some sign of attempting to understand my contributions.

Lucifer is not mentioned in Hesiod's writings. Prometheus is. I have been quite clear about that.

mountainyman wrote:

Anyway; Is Luciferanism an exercise in poetic imagination whereby one elevates or seeks to elevate ones own desire for knowledge or is it a belief which is held to refer to an objectively existing being.

Both. Clearly.

mountainyman wrote:

I contend that it is unlikely that anyone who chooses the name Luciferianism to refer to their 'spiritual' path, if that is what it is though that itself is unclear (I suspect deliberately so) is acting independently of the cultural context of their society.

Independently of? - of course not. Unconcerned by - yes. People interested in such remote spiritual expressions inevitably have a wide-ranging familiarity with Western religious symbolism, and of course would know that Christians associate Lucifer with the devil. But this is not reason enough to abandon what is rather an elegant concept.

Is that it? Or do you have some other reason to reject my own interpretation. I'm still waiting for you to back up this...

mountainyman wrote:

At any rate your claim is false, this Lucifer construct has resonance only because of its oppositional Christian associations.

It seemed from the above as though you had something more concrete and convincing than a contention of unlikelihood based on your extrapolation of the motivations of a group of people with whom you are not exactly in a position to empathise. Perhaps you should be a little more circumspect in future.

mountainyman wrote:

My own belief [as opposed to something put forward solely for the sake of argument] is that those victims of the witch panic were not satanists, that the panic had no roots in reality at all and that it was a result of the need of the early modern state to extend its control.

Then what is the relevance of the belief that many persecuted as witches were practitioners of pagan heritage? You brought paganism into this discussion. You can forgive me for assuming that you believed it to have some bearing on the issue of satanism...

mountainyman wrote:

2] The fact that clims of satanism were sometimes made unjustly (the destuction of the Knights Templar, for example or the moral panic around witchcraft in 16th century Germany) doesn't mean that at no time did anyone practise or seek to practise satanism. de Sade certainly did (though this was to do with his tedious obsession with the transgressive) and Gilles de Rais may also have done.

3] The assertion that what was called witchcraft or satansim is some sort of survival of worship of the horned god is unprovable. (Fraser just made up the Golden Bough) christianity was extremely effective in assimilating deities to itself. Why was this different?

mountainyman wrote:

We seem to be shifting from paganism as a religion that survived into the early modern period to pagan survivals as a collection of pisheogs. I certainly grant the latter. I don't accept that medieval peasants were consciously practising some non Christian religion.

All that is shifting is your understanding of the parameters of the debate and the assumptions that are brought into it by people versed broadly in the various spiritual traditions native to Europe. I have never claimed that paganism existed as a distinct and complete religion alongside Christianity (though in some places it did). I have never claimed that there were many medieval peasants who considered themselves to be "witches" and who scurried around the forests at night to do things that they knew to be unchristian (though there were some). In fact, I have consistently argued the opposite, more specifically in relation to satanism. But just because customs didn't come with "pre-Christian" printed all over them, doesn't mean that they weren't. And many of these customs would fall firmly into the categories of mythology, magic, ritual and folk medicine.

mountainyman wrote:

me wrote:

Which view, exactly? The one that an organised satanic movement has never existed in a significant way, or the one that pagan practices and beliefs have survived the Christian era?

The survival of consciously non Christian and non satanic religious communties engaged in practices that descend from those practised in Europe before Christianisation. Not Christian communities engaged in those practices nonChristian ones.

I would, but I have never expounded that view. I shall leave you to wrestle with your own straw men.

me wrote:

There have certainly been individuals who have become famous for their dabblings in diabolism. I doubt, however, that there has ever really existed any lasting, continuous, consistent or organised satanic movement. This is mainly because I have seen no evidence to suggest that there has. One might counter that a satanic organisation would necessarily be secretive. But who among us doesn't know a great deal about a number of secretive organisations (or think we do)? There may, of course, be a vast and tenebrous satanic conspiracy that has successfully remained hidden, but until someone presents evidence to that effect I am inclined to score a line around the idea with Occam's Razor, and concentrate on more interesting things.

mountainyman wrote:

It did not remain undiscovered this secret satanic organisation was pretty comprehensively destroyed by the dominicans in the 16th century.

me wrote:

This is news to me. Can you give us some details? Some references?

mountainyman wrote:

You contend that any Satanic conspiracy which may have existed remined unkown and that this is very unlikely. I contend that if sucj a conspiracy existed it was known and destroyed. If that is the answer to the wrong question please ask more bluntly and I will answer.

I replicate the entire exchange so that you might see it all at once. Are you satisfied with your part in the above, MM, or would you like to add (or subtract) anything before all here assembled?

mountainyman wrote:

It was literally made up it is a work of armchair anthropology and literary imagination. it is an important work of lierary criticism and it may be an extremely important work but it is not anthropology.
It may be true on some deep level and may be the expression of some profound personal truth for you personally but it has no grounding in what 'really happened'.

I am confused. The Bough is, more than anything else, a treatise on Western mythology. The myths with which it deals are ancient and matters of record. His commentaries on indigenous practices have been criticised, but not so much that he has been disavowed by anthropology. Frazer was not an anthropologist just as Galileo was not a physicist. He is considered by many the father of the field.

mountainyman wrote:

No I've read an abridgement.

I would suggest that you read or reread...

Perhaps I will. I certainly won't dismiss them without having first read them. Would these books simply support your view that paganism has had little or no influence in Europe since the coming of Christianity, or would they actually have some relevance to the topic ot the thread - satanism?

You remember that that is what this thread is about, don't you? I have been opining that satanism never really existed, outside of a few isolated movements. When you brought up paganism, and dismissed the commonly-held view that many of those who were persecuted as witches in the middle-ages were practitioners of paganism, I presumed it was to say that they were, in fact, satanists. Now you say that you do not believe that. I am at a loss as to the relevance of paganism to the thread.

What do you have to say about the existence of satanism? Do you actually have some reason for bringing up paganism, other than to belittle J G Frazer?

mountainyman wrote:

Lets leave paganism out of this altogether. It has nothing to do with Satanism and I suspect we are largely in agreement but won't find that agreement in the present discussion.


I am more interested in Luciferanism.

(:mad: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!)

I feel sullied and abused.

mountainyman wrote:

Is it an emotional exercise in the veneration of knowledge personified by Lucifer or do you hold that there objectively exists a Lucifer not necessarily only as a representation of knowledge but as a being with will and action even if partly functioning as sch a representation.

The objective existence of deities or spiritual entities in any esoteric system is a question of personal taste. There have existed Luciferians who have supported both of these interpretations, just as there exist Evangelical Christians who believe in Six Day Creation, and Anglican Ministers who believe that God is just a nice idea, and it's really all about community.

And you're not getting out of this so easily:

me wrote:

There have certainly been individuals who have become famous for their dabblings in diabolism. I doubt, however, that there has ever really existed any lasting, continuous, consistent or organised satanic movement. This is mainly because I have seen no evidence to suggest that there has. One might counter that a satanic organisation would necessarily be secretive. But who among us doesn't know a great deal about a number of secretive organisations (or think we do)? There may, of course, be a vast and tenebrous satanic conspiracy that has successfully remained hidden, but until someone presents evidence to that effect I am inclined to score a line around the idea with Occam's Razor, and concentrate on more interesting things.

mountainyman wrote:

It did not remain undiscovered this secret satanic organisation was pretty comprehensively destroyed by the dominicans in the 16th century.

me wrote:

This is news to me. Can you give us some details? Some references?

mountainyman wrote:

You contend that any Satanic conspiracy which may have existed remined unkown and that this is very unlikely. I contend that if sucj a conspiracy existed it was known and destroyed. If that is the answer to the wrong question please ask more bluntly and I will answer.

me wrote:

I replicate the entire exchange so that you might see it all at once. Are you satisfied with your part in the above, MM, or would you like to add (or subtract) anything before all here assembled?

mountainyman are you assuming or imply that Sapien is a satanist ?