Do you consider Satanism a valid Pagan tradition?

[Toten]

So your belief is that these people never came in contact with any other myth or culture, and created theirs entirely from scratch? I mean, really?

The character of Satan they made based on what they considered evil and sinful, and they named it the word which they used for adversary, opponent, rebel, etc.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

First of all, Paganism existed in Europe for hundreds of years likely until the 1400's, since the last Pagan king in Europe was officially christianized in the late 1300's,

You are correct in that Lithuania was the last pagan culture to fall to Christianity in the late 1300's. Jaromarsburg was the last fortress, however, and does still mark a significant point in ancient paganism's decline.

The point being, there is no such thing as an uninterrupted tradition. Ancient Paganism was interrupted for 700 years, and we just picked up the pieces no more than 70 years ago. No one has "ancient ties," no one is continuing some clandestine, secret order that's survived through fire and blood.

 

[1137]

The character of Satan they made based on what they considered evil and sinful, and they named it the word which they used for adversary, opponent, rebel, etc.

Look at it this way: Christianity essentially made Christ, yes? Even if he was a real dude, there's been serious mythological additions. But this doesn't mean the mythology of Christ is not rooted in earlier, pagan mythology. Do you agree, or disagree?

 

[Toten]

Look at it this way: Christianity essentially made Christ, yes? Even if he was a real dude, there's been serious mythological additions. But this doesn't mean the mythology of Christ is not rooted in earlier, pagan mythology. Do you agree, or disagree?

Some of it may be. That doesn't make Christ a Pagan concept. Nor does it make Christianity a Pagan tradition.

 

[Toten]

You are correct in that Lithuania was the last pagan culture to fall to Christianity in the late 1300's. Jaromarsburg was the last fortress, however, and does still mark a significant point in ancient paganism's decline.

The point being, there is no such thing as an uninterrupted tradition. Ancient Paganism was interrupted for 700 years, and we just picked up the pieces no more than 70 years ago. No one has "ancient ties," no one is continuing some clandestine, secret order that's survived through fire and blood.

Like I said, I was talking about before the middle ages even existed. In other words, NO INTERRUPTION YET. in what I was referring to.

 

[1137]

Some of it may be. That doesn't make Christ a Pagan concept. Nor does it make Christianity a Pagan tradition.

It does not make Christ a pagan concept, no. But Christ is himself something archetypal, specifically a savior god of solar ideology. This same general savior, who almost universally has divine origins, can be seen across the world, again as far back as Egypt at least. Christians just gave this figure another name and fit it into a monotheistic ideology. This is also the exact same case with Satan. Like I said, read the books by Carus and Flowers. At least skim them a bit, then come back and see how you feel. If you aren't willing to look into the matter, then your input is clearly biased and of no value.

 

[Toten]

It does not make Christ a pagan concept, no. But Christ is himself something archetypal, specifically a savior god of solar ideology. This same general savior, who almost universally has divine origins, can be seen across the world, again as far back as Egypt at least. Christians just gave this figure another name and fit it into a monotheistic ideology. This is also the exact same case with Satan. Like I said, read the books by Carus and Flowers. At least skim them a bit, then come back and see how you feel. If you aren't willing to look into the matter, then your input is clearly biased and of no value.

No, it makes the pagan inspirations in creating him a pagan concept. Since he was a character intended for what the bible wanted (if he didn't exist, that is), he would be a representation of Christian values and what they believe in, not any kind of solar deity. The ancient Abrahamics did not take "Satan" and make him into an evil character, since there is no evidence for it, thus there is no reason to attribute him to Pagan tradition.

 

[1137]

No, it makes the pagan inspirations in creating him a pagan concept. Since he was a character intended for what the bible wanted (if he didn't exist, that is), he would be a representation of Christian values and what they believe in, not any kind of solar deity. The ancient Abrahamics did not take "Satan" and make him into an evil character, since there is no evidence for it, thus there is no reason to attribute him to Pagan tradition.

I'm going to go ahead and guess you're not planning to check out the books. As long as you're happy I suppose

 

[1137]

Perhaps it's better to say Satanism is rooted in the Left Hand Path, something that's risen in basically every culture and paradigm throughout history, including paganism.

 

[Toten]

I'm going to go ahead and guess you're not planning to check out the books. As long as you're happy I suppose

In the future I might. I currently have literally dozens of books in queue to read, sitting around collecting dust.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

1137, I am still interested to know how Satanism is nature worship; not to be argumentative, mind you, but to learn about other religions.

 

[1137]

1137, I am still interested to know how Satanism is nature worship; not to be argumentative, mind you, but to learn about other religions.

Oops sorry about that! Satanism, unlike the Abrahamic religions, does not shun the world of matter or the material. It respects this world we live in and rely on, because this world is critical to the continued existence of individual beings like us. No nature, no evolution of individual will. Now I'd say satanists "worship" some aspects of nature, though really it depends on which group. For example, I was just reading about a more pantheistic satanic group that was basically satanic animism, believing that Satan was all being and all movement. LaVey himself, while the CoS lost its esotericism, saw Satan as a literal force of nature. And of course there's the dozens of precursors to modern Satanism, all of which tended to be more pagan in nature. Set was an aspect of nature along with the rest of the Egyptian gods. Tiamat was what the world was literally made from.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Thanks for the explanation, I see what you meant now.

 

[Cassandra]

don't seem to be willing to take the time and look into things. The Egyptian book of the dead is pretty Osirian, making it a Christian precursor, not a satanic one. The pyramid texts, however, still show the old Setian/satanic views of man rising above god. There's the myth of Prometheus in Greek, Ishtar in Babylon, Tiamat in Sumer, plenty of myths that directly tie into and inspire the rise of modern Satanism. Sadly the lazy will never find such information.

For clarity, I stated that Satanism is not a Pagan tradition, I meant a mainstream societal Pagan tradition. Satanism does however exist in all societies as cults. But most explicitly in Abrahamism where it gets its name from. It is the logical counterpart of Abrahamism as one extreme needs another. They fuel each other.

The trickster Gods Satanist revere, like Seth, Satan, Loki, Prometheus, Lucifer, Cronus, etc. are insane. That is why no scientist was ever able to understand them. On the one hand they are enormously creative, they do great things for their human subjects and they help the Gods at times. And then again they become treacherous and destructive, do terrible things drunken with Power.

Often they start out fairly sane and become revered, but as their power grows they become instable and their insanity kicks in and they become hated and are ultimately overthrown. Like Seth who killed his brother Osiris in jealousy, (or Cronus who started eating his children). The Egyptians then came to see Seth as a God of Evil. (The Greeks saw Cronus and later Prometheus as the Gods that brought evil in the world).

But there are always people who remember their beginning and believe in their goodness, who are adventurous or revolting and seek their power. Some have acquired a deep underlying longing for self-destruction, a corruption of the soul. They start to worship these Gods to acquire Power (hence the magic). Seth was worshiped by people for power. The lust for Power starts with serving others for recognition. It easily goes over in destructive behavior and can end in total self-destruction.

The view of Man rising above the Gods is indeed part of this path. The Greek called it hubris, the greatest mistake a man can make, and one that will lead him to his destruction. When people start living in their lower self they no longer understand that it is the Gods that give them their talents. In Pagan tradition Man is not the servant of any God, like in Abrahamic religions. But neither can he rise above the Gods. Both pursuits are an expression of corruption and insanity of Gods and Humans. To evolve Gods and Humans need to live in each others service like all beings in Nature. When God or Man can no longer see that, they lose sanity.

Some power worshipers go to the edge and then turn around as the abyss of their final destruction scares them too much. Others have such deep longings that they go over the edge and end their existence. Their very soul disintegrates and dissolves. No more rebirth. The final end.

Abrahamists want to save their souls but really strive for existential destruction in the servitude of megalomaniac Gods. Go to heaven and never come back is just another way to end existence. To dissolve in the Ultimate is the deep longing of those who can not regain harmony. Like it is the fate of the sick to die when disease is out of control.

Those who seek power through worship of Gods or the attempt of becoming Gods burn like moths who come too close to the flame. Sometimes by youthful overconfidence like Icarus who flew too close to the Sun. And yes there is beauty in their (l)oneliness even as they lose their grip on reality and transcend in madness. The ax made white-hot in the flame and held to the cheek burns all but the purest.

Good luck my friend, enjoy the ride, but your path is not ours.

 

[Liu]

@Cassandra Your description sounds pretty prejudiced and I don't really find my religion reflected in your description.

Balance and the harmony between the "lower" and "higher" parts is central to Satanism, and most of us certainly don't aim for self-destruction, on the contrary.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The trickster Gods Satanist revere, like Seth, Satan, Loki, Prometheus, Lucifer, Cronus, etc. are insane.

Uh... no? None of those gods can be considered insane; I don't see how this could be gotten from anything known about them. Even the examples you gave with Set and Kronus, I wouldn't venture to say they were insane. In various myths - namely the Pyramid Texts and myths from the Late Period texts - Set slays Osiris as revenge for either a prior sibling fight, or for Osiris having sex with Set's consort, Nephthys. With Kronus, he received prophecy that one of his children would usurp him, and took measures to prevent that. Both aren't good actions, but they have reason so I wouldn't call them insane.

Neither do I think Kronus or Prometheus are blamed for bringing evil into the world - a Hellenist might have a clearer answer, but that blame as I've known rests with Zeus giving The Box to Pandora, and her foolishly opening it resulting in various evils being let loose on the world. This theme - at least in modern interpretations - is the same with Satan/Lucifer; they brought knowledge to mankind, and aren't what one would call insane.

In Hebrew mythology, Satan is neither insane, nor the root of man's woes. He's an angel in service to Elohim.

In Roman mythology, Lucifer is also neither insane nor evil, but the bringer of dawn and dusk.

Lastly Loki is also neither evil nor insane. He is mischievous, no doubt, but his pranks always have either a deeper meaning (as the myths are often metaphorical) or they have an ultimate goal for the wisdom and betterment of all.

 

[1137]

This is interesting. From Wikipedia:

One common myth among almost all Indo-European mythologies is a battle ending with a hero or god slaying a serpent or dragon of some sort (Watkins 1995).

• Vahagn vs. Vishap in Armenian mythology;
• Zeus vs. Typhon, Kronos vs. Ophion, Apollo vs. Python, Heracles vs. the Hydra and Ladon, Perseus vs. Ceto, and Bellerophon vs. the Chimera in Greek mythology;
• Thor vs. Jörmungandr, Sigurd vs. Fafnir and Beowulf vs. the dragon in Germanic mythology;
• Indra vs. Vrtra in the Rigveda;
• Krishna vs. Kāliyā in the Bhagavata Purana;
• Fereydun, and later Garshasp, vs. Zahhak in Zoroastrianism and Persian mythology;
• Perun vs. Veles, Dobrynya Nikitich vs. Zmey in Slavic mythology;
• Făt-Frumos vs. Zmeu in Folklore of Romania
• Tarhunt vs. Illuyanka of Hittite mythology;
• Dian Cecht vs. Meichi of Celtic mythology

There are also analogous stories in other neighbouring mythologies: Anu or Marduk vs. Tiamat in Mesopotamian mythology; Ra vs. Apep in Egyptian mythology; Baal or El vs. Lotan or Yam-Nahar in Levantine mythology; Gabriel vs. Leviathan or Rahab or Tannin in Jewish mythology; Michael the Archangel and, Christ vs. Satan (in the form of a seven-headed dragon), Virgin Mary crushing a serpent in Roman Catholic iconography (see Book of Revelation 12), Saint George and the Dragon in Christian mythology. The myth symbolized a clash between forces of order and chaos (represented by the serpent), and the god or hero would always win (except in some mythologies, such as the NorseRagnarök myth in which both die). Serpentine aspects can be found in many Greek aquatic deities, most notably Poseidon, Oceanus, Triton, Typhon (who carries many chthonic attributes while not specifically linked with the sea), Ophion, and also the Slavic Veles. Possibly called *kʷr̥mis, or some name cognate with *Varuna/Werunos or the root *Wel/Vel- (VS Varuna, who is associated with the serpentine naga, Vala and Vṛtra, SlavicVeles, Baltic velnias), or "serpent" (HittiteIlluyanka, VS Ahis, Iranian azhi, Greek ophis and Ophion, and Latin anguis), or the root *dheubh- (Greek Typhon and Python).

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

That is the question I want to ask.

I am not asking if it is "pagan". Putting up a Christmas tree can be called "pagan". Using three as your lucky number is pagan. All kind of things can be called "pagan". Many Jewish customs and symbols go back to paganism as well. That means very little. Then every human being on Earth can be called "pagan" in one way or another.

The question is: Do you believe Satanism was once a Pagan tradition of a people in his own right? I do not mean a minor cult or sect either. Every society harbors groups on the fringe of society who go against the grain and can even do the weirdest things. But that does not make them representatives of their traditions even if they are born in them and use similar symbols and customs. We do not say criminals represent Christianity, because criminals are Christian, engage in Christian celebrations, have Christian names, etc. When you go against broadly accepted ideas or conduct you are no longer representing the tradition. You rather are a "Satan", an opposer. There are always people seeking opposition.It is pagan to allow such opposition if they respects ancestral traditions, but that is not the same as identifying with them. The overwhelming majority of people in Pagan traditions do not.

So what is your take?

Define 'valid' in this context. Before 1966 nobody really defined themselves as satanists(aside from a couple of solitary devilworshippers at least)

Since then, lots of people have, but not in any one coherent way. Satanist can mean a lot of things.

As for 'pagan', that's a word the christian clergy coined to describe everything and everyone that isn't christian. It really doesn't mean anything.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Well, not quite. In the past, it meant "non-citizen of Rome" and then later "non-Christian." Today it describes modern adherents of restorative religions of pre-Christian European cultural beliefs.

 

[Liu]

This is interesting. From Wikipedia:

One common myth among almost all Indo-European mythologies is a battle ending with a hero or god slaying a serpent or dragon of some sort (Watkins 1995).

• Vahagn vs. Vishap in Armenian mythology;
• Zeus vs. Typhon, Kronos vs. Ophion, Apollo vs. Python, Heracles vs. the Hydra and Ladon, Perseus vs. Ceto, and Bellerophon vs. the Chimera in Greek mythology;
• Thor vs. Jörmungandr, Sigurd vs. Fafnir and Beowulf vs. the dragon in Germanic mythology;
• Indra vs. Vrtra in the Rigveda;
• Krishna vs. Kāliyā in the Bhagavata Purana;
• Fereydun, and later Garshasp, vs. Zahhak in Zoroastrianism and Persian mythology;
• Perun vs. Veles, Dobrynya Nikitich vs. Zmey in Slavic mythology;
• Făt-Frumos vs. Zmeu in Folklore of Romania
• Tarhunt vs. Illuyanka of Hittite mythology;
• Dian Cecht vs. Meichi of Celtic mythology

There are also analogous stories in other neighbouring mythologies: Anu or Marduk vs. Tiamat in Mesopotamian mythology; Ra vs. Apep in Egyptian mythology; Baal or El vs. Lotan or Yam-Nahar in Levantine mythology; Gabriel vs. Leviathan or Rahab or Tannin in Jewish mythology; Michael the Archangel and, Christ vs. Satan (in the form of a seven-headed dragon), Virgin Mary crushing a serpent in Roman Catholic iconography (see Book of Revelation 12), Saint George and the Dragon in Christian mythology. The myth symbolized a clash between forces of order and chaos (represented by the serpent), and the god or hero would always win (except in some mythologies, such as the NorseRagnarök myth in which both die). Serpentine aspects can be found in many Greek aquatic deities, most notably Poseidon, Oceanus, Triton, Typhon (who carries many chthonic attributes while not specifically linked with the sea), Ophion, and also the Slavic Veles. Possibly called *kʷr̥mis, or some name cognate with *Varuna/Werunos or the root *Wel/Vel- (VS Varuna, who is associated with the serpentine naga, Vala and Vṛtra, SlavicVeles, Baltic velnias), or "serpent" (HittiteIlluyanka, VS Ahis, Iranian azhi, Greek ophis and Ophion, and Latin anguis), or the root *dheubh- (Greek Typhon and Python).

That's one of the pagan, if you will, traditions that is sometimes employed in Satanism.
But even then the interpretations will vary. Watkins (I read it a while back) is pretty straightforward in his description of the myths as his agenda has nothing to do with spirituality but with proving a point (namely that there are similarities in poetics of Indo-European cultures that can be traced back to a common tradition). But as Satanists, do we identify (ourselves or our deities) with the serpent or with the hero? With the conflict between them? Do we interpret it as an eternal hostility, or as a part of a bigger development in which the battle may lead to progression and improvement? I haven't yet read it completely, but Ægishjalmur by Michael Kelly is pretty inspirational regarding this.
I guess this openness of interpretation is much more common in Satanism than in Paganism, but I may be wrong about that.