Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
satanism
Comments
-
How would you define satanism, joseph?0
-
Some-one who employs magick for negative purposes especially through invocation of demons. Anyone who reveres or worships the essence/personification of evil (ie Belial etc) or anyone who advocates the supremacy of evil forces over good in the universe.
I do not regard followers of Levay or similar as Satanists, they are more anarchists or individualists.
http://www.electricpublications.com0 -
joseph dawton wrote:Anyone who reveres or worships the essence/personification of evil (ie Belial etc) or anyone who advocates the supremacy of evil forces over good in the universe.
But...joseph dawton wrote:Some-one who employs magick for negative purposes especially through invocation of demons.
As to the evocation of demons (one does not invoke demons), the field of magick has progressed well passed attaching moral connotations to the use of grimoiric spirits.joseph dawton wrote:I do not regard followers of Levay or similar as Satanists, they are more anarchists or individualists.0 -
If you google it, you'll find that the Christain Church made Luicfer look like the "bad guy" with horns, etc. Also, Satan only exists in the Christain belief system.0
-
the_syco wrote:If you google it, you'll find that the Christain Church made Luicfer look like the "bad guy" with horns, etc. Also, Satan only exists in the Christain belief system.
If I remember as well... the image of Satan is based on the Pagan god, Pan.0 -
Yes they took the images of the horned god the god of the hunt and attched the idea of the chirstians gods enmey to it and combined it with the idea of satan there for demonising the pagan gods.0
-
the_syco wrote:If you google it, you'll find that the Christain Church made Luicfer look like the "bad guy" with horns, etc. Also, Satan only exists in the Christain belief system.0
-
Kennett wrote:If I remember as well... the image of Satan is based on the Pagan god, Pan.Sapien wrote:Odd, given that "Satan" is derived from the Hebrew word for adversary, and is recorded in texts that predate the birth of Christ by millennia.
Also... "derived"? As in, Satan came close to the meaning, or what? Finally, is Hebrew written the same as English, or, if not, how did it become derived from Hebrew texts, if you get me?0 -
The way other term in the bible did from translation via hebrew then then greek then latain and than middle english.
And people wonder where the mistakes come from.0 -
Advertisement
-
the_syco wrote:Adversary, as in enemy? Could be.the_syco wrote:Also... "derived"? As in, Satan came close to the meaning, or what? Finally, is Hebrew written the same as English, or, if not, how did it become derived from Hebrew texts, if you get me?
I can't imagine what the confusion might me. The Jews used the word שָׂטָן, pronounced Shaitan, to refer to the "Evil One" long before the Christian Era. Christ and his people would have used this word to refer to the Devil. The word was used by all Christians, and translated into whatever languages and alphabets they happened to use. Ilsam uses al Shaitan, the adversary, in exactly the same way - Arabic being a Semitic language and a very close cousin of Hebrew - although one will often hear Muslims refer to the Devil as al Rajim, the Damned, or Iblis, the name by which he is frequently identified in the Qur'an.0 -
the_syco wrote:If you google it, you'll find that the Christain Church made Luicfer look like the "bad guy" with horns, etc. Also, Satan only exists in the Christain belief system.
In the Book of Job that "adversary" is acting more like a prosecution lawyer than as an actual enemy.0 -
Biblically there is very little that directly refers to "Satan" per se. There's all sorts of evil figures, tempters, etc and at some stage it became accepted that they were all this one person.
My memory on this is not great, but I'm fairly certain that The Fall and the war against heaven and all that isn't actually biblical, that was all created during the Middle Ages. The character, nature and motivation of Satan is extremely vague and subjective, and therefor any thing calling itself "Satanism" is at the very least going to be as subjective.0 -
Zillah wrote:My memory on this is not great, but I'm fairly certain that The Fall and the war against heaven and all that isn't actually biblical, that was all created during the Middle Ages. The character, nature and motivation of Satan is extremely vague and subjective, and therefor any thing calling itself "Satanism" is at the very least going to be as subjective.0
-
Sapien wrote:and also because it would be inherently trivial - the corruption of another religion.
If you read the tenants of LaVey Satanism it is patently obvious that they're mostly a reactionary inversion of Christian beliefs. While interesting in and of itself, Satanism does indeed lose so much by being the rebellious and errant bastard child of its powerful father.0 -
Zillah wrote:If you read the tenants of LaVey Satanism it is patently obvious that they're mostly a reactionary inversion of Christian beliefs. While interesting in and of itself, Satanism does indeed lose so much by being the rebellious and errant bastard child of its powerful father.
That's what I would have thought Satanism is/was about, hence why you get a certain amount of teens claiming to be satanist; it's more a case of rebelian against society (primarily christainity) than any genuine belief in satanism.
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.DARKJAGER wrote:1. Indulgence, not abstinence.
2. Vital existence, not spiritual pipe dreams.
3. Undefiled wisdom, not hypocritical self-deceit.
4. Kindness to those deserving of it, not love wasted on ingrates.
5. Vengeance, not turning the other cheek.
6. Responsibility to the responsible,
7. Man as just another animal - the most vicious of all.
8. Gratification of all ones desires.
A quick fix if you will, and not spiritual fulfillment. At the end of the day once you don't cause harm to me or anyone else, I don't have a problem with what you believe.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
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.0 -
-
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
sanguinely,
S0 -
And here I twas thinking a washtub, a stir stick, a wash board and some old soap flakes would do the trick, damn you Terry Prachette.0
-
'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?
MM0 -
Advertisement
-
Sapien wrote:No problem. I practice ceremonial magick. One needs grimoires in order to raise demons.
sanguinely,
S
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).
Also, it was impossible to get a measure of bread for a penny.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
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.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.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?mountainyman wrote:5] What about the Yezid. Why have none of you mentioned them?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).
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?0 -
You have to learn to work the magic(k)* or it works you.
It will out in other ways usually less plesant and can have a varying array of detremental side effects,
none of which you tend to gain control over until you are back 'working'.
There are many different ways of 'working' magic(k) what is right for you will not come easily in it's practice but it will fit in you and you in it.
The greatest changes a magician will wroth are over and to him/her slef.MM wrote:The assertion that what was called witchcraft or satansim is some sort of survival of worship of the horned god is unprovable.
Witchcraft is not necessarily a religous or spiritual path, there are many that practice witchcraft who are christian, jewish ect. and the horned god has no place in it for them, nor does the devil or satanism.
*gah can't believe I did that even in () the k is still wrong0 -
Sapien wrote: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?
Hmm. How would I put it? There is a greed for magic which, I think, the magician should not have - if you look at the stories, they are actually about that greed, rather than simply about the practise of magic itself. I have it, and, were I to have any success in magic, would rapidly find myself consumed by it.
On the other hand, I am unaware of anything that magic can give me that I cannot get by other means (including spiritual development), except magic itself.
Also, 25 years ago, any social circle involving magic tended to be a good deal narrower for lack of the Internet, and the paths tended to wander and twist quite a bit more. The "magical circle" I was involved with the fringes of went off down pathways it would not be unreasonable to call Satanist (in the modern sense), or perhaps more accurately Crowleyist. I'm not sure how much they actually achieved beyond the consumption of quite a lot of heroin, but certainly more of them went down than went up. I was recently, briefly, in contact with my closest friend from that time, who now lives in a permanently darkened flat in a Prague housing estate, but the renewal of contact was not very successful, so I wouldn't know what eventually became of the rest of them.
Overall, I decided that magic, even if you give it your all, is not a sufficiently good servant, and would make a terrible master.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw wrote:Overall, I decided that magic, even if you give it your all, is not a sufficiently good servant, and would make a terrible master.
You are not ment to give it your all, you still have to live, love, exsist and function on this plane.
There has to be series of checks and balances and needing to be and function on a mundane level as well as a magical level is part of that.
Yes there is the theroy that every act can be a magical one depending on ones intent;
but really for the most part empting your bowels is about emptying your bowels and there is nothing more earthy then ****e.
It takes a strong mind, will and body to get invovled and progress through or along many magical practices or paths
and while there are lessons to be learned from excess in getting to know yourself they are often the pitfalls
of those who do not learn to master themsleves and if you can't master yourself then how can you master magic and the universe ?
Magic is a skill, a tool, not a servant as it should have no will and your own will should be paramount and only a fool lets it become thier master.0 -
Thaedydal wrote:You are not ment to give it your all, you still have to live, love, exsist and function on this plane.
Magic is a skill, a tool, not a servant as it should have no will and your own will should be paramount and only a fool lets it become thier master.
Er, yes. Reread my first paragraph:Scofflaw wrote:Hmm. How would I put it? There is a greed for magic which, I think, the magician should not have - if you look at the stories, they are actually about that greed, rather than simply about the practise of magic itself. I have it, and, were I to have any success in magic, would rapidly find myself consumed by it.
A good bit of what one discovers in the process of coming to know oneself are one's limits. To try to go beyond them (as opposed to merely pushing to see where they are) is, indeed, to be a fool. You might say that I decided not to be that particular kind of fool, although I continue to be many other kinds...and of course, one's limits do not remain in the same places as one gets older, so one can always revisit earlier decisions.
As I said, though, I can't see anything magic can get me that cannot be achieved by other means.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw wrote:As I said, though, I can't see anything magic can get me that cannot be achieved by other means.
(I know what you mean. I don't entirely agree, but then I'm not really in a position to.)0 -
Sapien wrote:Well... there are some things. For instance, if one happens to have a hankering for some conversation with a demon - you'll be hard pressed to manage it without a little magick.
(I know what you mean. I don't entirely agree, but then I'm not really in a position to.)
True that. On the other hand I was never entirely certain it wasn't a very involved way of talking to the bits of yourself that other beers don't reach.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Sapien wrote:...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... [sapien now refers to Occam's Razor]...
That explanation [That the practices persecuted during the witch panic were pagan survivals] 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.
It has been asserted that what was persecuted as satanic worship was a form of paganism (I understand paganism to mean some form of survival of a pre Christian religion).
Sapien points out; quite reasonably that it is unlikely that a secret satanic cult could have been working away in the background of European history without ever being discovered.
However one could assert:
It may be unlikely but so is the persistence of pre Christian pantheistic belief for a thousand years after the Christianisation of europe.
It did not remain undiscovered this secret satanic organisation was pretty comprehensively destroyed by the dominicans in the 16th century.
edited addition:
I haven't read any convincing explanation that the practices persecuted were pagan survivals. Folk tradition that became interpreted as witchcraft or heresy perhaps but 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 have read the witch cult in western europe but that strikes me as an extremely unconving explanation.
I would reccomend Cohn's book on the witch panic (though he doesn't believe in any vast satanic conspiracy) as an antidote to that sort of witchful thinking.Sapien wrote: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.
MM0 -
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.mountainyman wrote:It did not remain undiscovered this secret satanic organisation was pretty comprehensively destroyed by the dominicans in the 16th century.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...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.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.mountainyman wrote:Surely Promeatheanism would be a more useful construct otherwise.
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
Sapien wrote: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?
MM0 -
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.Sapien wrote:Let's get something straight. What aside from "folk tradition" do you imagine we're talking about?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.
MM0 -
Also if you could reccomend something fairly scholarly that supports your view I would be very interested.
MM0 -
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.mountainyman wrote:That seems unfair one set of myths is a gamut and the other a trampling.mountainyman wrote:At any rate your claim is false, this Lucifer construct has resonance only because of its oppositional Christian associations.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.mountainyman wrote:If you maintain that there was a survival outside that well something other than assertion would be nice.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.mountainyman wrote:Also if you could reccomend something fairly scholarly that supports your view I would be very interested.
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.
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".0 -
Sapien wrote:I'm going to presume that that was a joke.Sapien wrote: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.
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.Sapien wrote:Really now? Why do you think that? And please answer properly this time - your throw-away comments are becoming annoying.Sapien wrote: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?
Tell me - when you make toast in the morning, is that a Christian or a satanic act?
I suppose when I have toast for breakfast it is more Christian than satanic.Sapien wrote: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.Sapien 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?Sapien wrote:And while you answer that, perhaps you can answer a similar question that I have already asked you...Sapien wrote: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".
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'.
No I've read an abridgement.
I would suggest that you read or reread.
Brian Levack: The witch hunt in early modern europe. .
Stations of the Sun pretty clear disagreement with the Golden Bough.
Norman Cohn: Europes inner demons
Carlo Ginzburg's book about the benedacti (sp?)
MM0 -
mountainyman wrote:It was a straight answer.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.
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.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.
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.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?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.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'.mountainyman wrote:No I've read an abridgement.
I would suggest that you read or reread...
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?0 -
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.
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.
MM0 -
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.
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.
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?0 -
Sapien wrote: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.
Please edit less selectively. You refused to consider an idea and I posited an alternative. Why are you being so reductive.
MM0 -
Advertisement
-
mountainyman are you assuming or imply that Sapien is a satanist ?0
-
mountainyman wrote:Which do you fall into, please answer directly.
Please edit less selectively. You refused to consider an idea and I posited an alternative. Why are you being so reductive.
MM
I presented the synopsis of our exchange on the matter of the existence of historical satanic organisations with the explicit appeal that you supplement it with text that I had omitted but that you feel is relevant, or with any further additions that you would like to make. And then answer it. You have made the following statement: "It did not remain undiscovered this secret satanic organisation was pretty comprehensively destroyed by the dominicans in the 16th century." Do you have evidence to support it, or do you wish to revoke it. Please answer directly.
My personal spiritual interests are of precisely no relevance to this discussion - and I find it hugely presumptuous of you to demand that I disclose such information; not to mention devious in intention. I would be entirely within decorum to refuse to lower myself to your squalid interrogations - but I have made a point of being completely open about my spirituality on these fora, and I will not allow the behaviour of a weaselly hector to change that.
I am an esotericist involved in the endeavour towards spiritual, mental and intellectual advancement. I use innumerable systems and constructs towards this end. I have no particular interest in Luciferianism - my familiarity with it is in passing.0 -
mountainyman you were banned from christianty and now have come here to play, either take part in the debate/disscusion or don't but do not try and muddy the water with slurs implied or otherwise.
Consider yourself forwarned.0 -
Ahh Satanism. I dabbled a little when I was an angst-ridden teenager. Studied up a bit, no doubt spurred on by my musical tastes of the time. The problem with Satanism, as soon becomes apparent when you read the Satanic Bible by Anton Lavey, is that it's theology simply consists of anti-Christian theology, and as such there is very little substance or worth to it. Soon after reading this trash I rejected it. Lavey made a lot of money from this simple and ill-thought out 'theology' and cashed in on the anti-Christian mood of the times.
From a spiritual aspect, it also debases man from a spiritual entity to a simple animal, and as such lauds an animalistic and ego-centric viewpoint which is not a society many of us would want to live in - or indeed be permitted to live in - since it would be ripe with murders, rapes, drug abuse and general self-indulgence. It goes against everything spirituality teaches us, in terms of the development of our understanding of our souls and our spiritual nature.
It is not widespread because of it's core failings, although there is evidence to suggest that many powerful people practice some aspects of it and older versions of Luciferian cult worship (it may be because such beliefs sit better with the greedy capitalist warpigs who are widespread in the power elite - but such debate is for conspiracy - read 'Behold a Pale Horse' by William Cooper for more info).
If you want a well thought out, yet introspective spirituality, try Buddhism instead. Although ultimately in practicing such a religion you are removing yourself from belief in an external creator - ie. God.0 -
Kernel wrote:From a spiritual aspect, it also debases man from a spiritual entity to a simple animal, and as such lauds an animalistic and ego-centric viewpoint which is not a society many of us would want to live in - or indeed be permitted to live in - since it would be ripe with murders, rapes, drug abuse and general self-indulgence. It goes against everything spirituality teaches us, in terms of the development of our understanding of our souls and our spiritual nature.
I take great exception to the notion that morality somehow requires spirituality. One can be a soulless, ego-centric animal who is perfectly moral. I'd like to consider myself one. It just requires a bit of extra thought.
For example;
I won't rape anyone, I don't want to, it would be horrible for me.
I will fight to the death for my friends, not because of some hoity-toity spiritually derived morality, but because I love and want them. I'm indulging my own want for my friends.
I won't rob a bank because I don't want to be arrested and I think such acts would ruin my life in many ways.
Every last bit of this is entirely selfish, it has nothing to do with spirituality or higher notions of "humanity". But I am a very moral person, I just also happen to be supremely self-centred.
If you're familiar with genetics, I think the concepts of geneotype and phenotype would be an excellent metaphor.0 -
Sapien & Thaedydal,
I would be grateful if you could point to any example of contempt for paganism or slurs thereon in this discussion and even more grateful if you could do so by the afternoon of wednesday
Thaedydal,
I was banned from the Christianity forum because of comments made on the feedback forum regarding Sapien's behaviour on the Christianity forum.
Sapien,
I wish you every success in your innumerable esoterecist practises however i would note in passing that I would not have engaged in this discussion, at some length, had I not believed that the veneration of Lucifer formed part of that practise in some manner other the purely aesthetic or notional. I also note that in terms of texts dealing with Lucifer predating the old testament, I'm still in the dark.
MM0 -
Advertisement
-
mountainyman wrote:I was banned from the Christianity forum because of comments made on the feedback forum regarding Sapien's behaviour on the Christianity forum.
If you manage to get yourself simultaneously banned from two forums in this category a permanent I'll consider a cat-ban.0 -
Zillah wrote:I take great exception to the notion that morality somehow requires spirituality. One can be a soulless, ego-centric animal who is perfectly moral. I'd like to consider myself one. It just requires a bit of extra thought.
Morality doesn't require spirituality, but morality in mankind has usually sprung from spiritual beliefs and affected our civilisation and society in such ways as to have allowed a system of ethical conduct independent of religion. Even in studies of primitive tribes, the ethical/moral code is usually derived from spiritual beliefs. These spiritual beliefs seem widespread throughout even isolated tribes.
The most dangerous belief system to morality in history is capitalism and the love of money - as expressed when Christ states: 'You cannot worship God and Mammon'. Atheism is simply an empty and self-centred 'belief' system - a stepping stone to nihilism.
You hint at genetics - perhaps referring to the famously dour view of Richard Dawkins - expressed in his book 'The Selfish Gene'. Dawkins believes we act out in entirely (genetically driven) selfish ways, even when we seem to be performing a selfless task. Perhaps in the 'natural-state' of man this may be true, but when we add spirituality and religion to the mix, our actions and moral beliefs evolve. Even a historical view on the effect of religion on individuals' actions shows that his view is somewhat simplistic - though not entirely without merit of course.
There is an irony in addressing Satanism in a spirituality thread, since Satanism completely rejects our spiritual nature and debases man to the level of an animal.0 -
Kernel wrote:You hint at genetics - perhaps referring to the famously dour view of Richard Dawkins - expressed in his book 'The Selfish Gene'. Dawkins believes we act out in entirely (genetically driven) selfish ways, even when we seem to be performing a selfless task.
I havn't read it but if your summary is accurate then I wholly agree with him. Dour or not, that doesn't take away from the logical consistency. Behaviours that lead to your genes not being carried on, lead to your genes not being carried on, and hence the capacity for that behaviour being bred out.Perhaps in the 'natural-state' of man this may be true, but when we add spirituality and religion to the mix, our actions and moral beliefs evolve
I completely disagree. "Religion" is a genetic trait. There is a "god" centre of the brain, when stimulated people report a supernatural sensation. Our societal programming leans towards shamans and acolytes, you can see it everywhere from Psychics to Christian Priests and tribal leaders. The capacity to become a religious/moral leader or to become a follower is hardwired into the brain, as much as familial units, warrior-camaderie and women gossipping.
The exact teachings that those shamas provide vary, but its a self regulating system, those that are counter productive get bred out, like any other genetic trait.0 -
Zillah wrote:Behaviours that lead to your genes not being carried on, lead to your genes not being carried on, and hence the capacity for that behaviour being bred out.
How do you account for human compassion for a stranger leading to self-sacrifice of ones life? That is a usless trait for survival of your genetic line.Zillah wrote:I completely disagree. "Religion" is a genetic trait. There is a "god" centre of the brain, when stimulated people report a supernatural sensation.
I disagree with the 'God-gene' hypothesis - it strikes me as overly cynical. Yes, there are areas of the brain which are stimulated by spirituality, but why not? That's how our brain works, all human experience results in areas of the brain being electrically active. Christ spread a revolutionary message at the time, and knew it would lead to his death - and yet he sacrificed himself/his genes for it. All but one of the apostles died horrible deaths because of spreading their message - and gained nothing material for it. What use has such behaviour got in terms of natural selection and survival of the fittest?
You also need to ask yourself, as an atheist, why you are so interested in Spirituality and the Paranormal - what is it you are seeking Zillah? And will you merely be tormenting yourself by continuing to reject it?0 -
Kernel wrote:How do you account for human compassion for a stranger leading to self-sacrifice of ones life? That is a usless trait for survival of your genetic line.
Bridge building. If I risk my life to save a stranger, and I do save this person, then two things will happen. 1, I'm a brave hero in my own tribe so I get more women and stuff, and 2, that other person's tribe is now grateful, or even in debt. Lets trade! Oh hell, lets join the tribes together and between us we'll be powerful enough to subjugate the entire area.
And lo, the first Kingdom was born...I disagree with the 'God-gene' hypothesis - it strikes me as overly cynical.
Again, something being "dour" or "cynical" does not refute its logic. If you accept that human behaviour is influenced by genes, then you have to see how religion can serve as a social glue. Even if we could prove and agree the absolute lack of the supernatural, there would still be religion.Yes, there are areas of the brain which are stimulated by spirituality, but why not? That's how our brain works, all human experience results in areas of the brain being electrically active.
And if I poke that part of the brain the person feels like God is in the room. Meaning that whenever someone feels like God is in the room if may just be their brain poking itself.Christ spread a revolutionary message at the time, and knew it would lead to his death - and yet he sacrificed himself/his genes for it.
He was trying to become a great religious leader. In such a position he would have had the capacity to sire a great line of progeny and ensure their survival through his massive social power.
It just so happens he sucked at politics and managed to piss off both the Jewish leaders and the Romans. There is nothing mystical about Jesus' death, he was executed as an insurgent threat and for storming into the temple and wrecking up the place.All but one of the apostles died horrible deaths because of spreading their message - and gained nothing material for it. What use has such behaviour got in terms of natural selection and survival of the fittest?
Again, had they been smarter about how they went about it they would have survived, become powerful leaders and sired a long line of progeny.
Bear in mind that I'm not saying that your genes give you a cohesive and logical plan. All they do is give you a powerful compulsion for certain behaviours and more often than not those behaviours are a good thing. Becoming the village shaman is a good thing, becoming a witch doctor is a good thing, but occasionally becoming a shaman when the local Roman govenor wants no shamans, its a bad thing.You also need to ask yourself, as an atheist, why you are so interested in Spirituality and the Paranormal - what is it you are seeking Zillah? And will you merely be tormenting yourself by continuing to reject it?
I'm not an atheist, technically I'm an agnostic. And its the very fact that the paranormal challenges what I know to be correct that intrigues me. I need to find out if its crazy delluded people, or if there is something going on there.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement