Do you consider Satanism a valid Pagan tradition?

[The Kilted Heathen]

I tend to simply refer to my "religion" as "my spiritual-religious system". A simple one word label usually does not accurately or sufficiently convey the depth and meaning and characteristics of my spiritual-religious system.

So why oppose those who wish to gather under the banner of a single unifying title?

"Pagan" is one of those of which I feel does, however, for many reasons, some which I described earlier in the topic.

You didn't have any posts that I saw in earlier pages in this thread that described anything of the sort.

A religious label often implies many things, hence why I do not often use them.

No, they're often very specific. One wouldn't call a Hindu a Catholic, or infer that Islam is the same thing as indigenous American beliefs.

I am content, however, with whatever the term "paganism" implies.

It would appear not, because what Paganism implies - through social observation of who identifies as Pagan and Pagan merchandise - is overwhelmingly Euro-centric, which you've stated here that you don't support.

 

[Aštra’el]

So why oppose those who wish to gather under the banner of a single unifying title?

"Oppose" is a strong word. It is better to say that I do not embrace your definition of paganism; I find your definition to be inadequate.

You didn't have any posts that I saw in earlier pages in this thread that described anything of the sort.

In this post, I described some reasons why I subjectively feel that the term "paganism" accurately and sufficiently conveys the depth and meaning of my spiritual-religious system-

I have no definition for "pagan"... though, I would like to know one's reasons for not considering pagan a person whose spiritual-religious system includes..

-worship of nature with deep reverence (especially the desert, the night, the storms, the sea, and the cosmos)

-a profound reverence for human Nature (individual and collective)

-an entire pantheon of gods and goddesses, who are worshipped

-numerous traditions and rituals (some generational, many individually developed)

-observing with deep reverence the profound significance of the solstices and equinoxes, and their midpoints; a deep reverence for the earth and its cycles

-one's own developing culture through original rituals and traditions, incantations, artistic depictions of gods and goddesses, and esoteric spiritual-religious symbols... all while remaining open to potential strength, power, wisdom, and beauty that may be found in cultures that came before

-etc

_____

It would appear not, because what Paganism I implies - through social observation of who identifies as Pagan and Pagan merchandise - is overwhelmingly Euro-centric, which you've stated here that you don't support.

I have nothing against spiritual-religious culture from Europe; I am sure that I have absorbed my fair share of it. I do not, however, support your definition of "paganism"... which as I stated, I subjectively perceive to be inadequate.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I find your definition to be inadequate.

How so?

In this post, I described some reasons why I subjectively feel that paganism accurately and sufficiently conveys the depth and meaning of my spiritual-religious system-

Worship of nature with deep reverence

A common theme within Pagan religions, to be sure, but not the totality of them. Similarities of various religions don't make them the same thing.

A profound reverence for human Nature

Paganism does not revere Human Nature, certainly in no way that is "profound". Morals and wisdoms against many "human natures" are present, with myths and lessons teaching many follies of man. In this manner Human Nature is recognized - and views on it are far more lenient than Abrahamic faiths - but it certainly does not indicate "anything goes", which a reverence for Human Nature would imply; that any action of humans - good or bad - is to be seen as sacred because that's our nature.

An entire pantheon of gods and goddesses, who are worshipped

Absolutely not a qualifier for anything but polytheism, really, as it's a universal common.

While the Abrahamic faiths claim to monotheism, they fringe here and there towards polytheism. Their collection of mythic figures - gods, demi-gods and saints, demons and angels - technically constitutes as a pantheon. Even in polytheistic pantheons, there are gods who are avoided and not actively worshiped - as with "Satan" and his demons.

There are also branches of Hinduism and other Eastern religions - such as Taoism - that have many gods and goddesses; and again, I call to note that I have spoken with several Hinduists - both online and in person - who do not recognize the term "Paganism" and do not consider their religions to be such. The same applies for various indigenous American beliefs such as those of the Iroquois, Sioux, and Cherokee; their beliefs are their own.

While there are eclectic Pagans who include deities from these pantheons, the organized faiths themselves (if there are any, that is,) do not consider themselves Pagan. They are what their cultures are: Hindu, Iroquois, Sioux, etc.

Finally there are the Kemeticsts, who have a whole pantheon of gods and goddesses, yet actually resent inclusion within the umbrella of Paganism. As with others, that some Pagans include Egyptian deities in their worship doesn't change the organization itself.

Many of these cultures - notably Kemeticism and the indigenous beliefs, and to a lesser extent Hinduism - are very exclusive towards outside membership. It is not just adherence to their cultural beliefs, but invalidation for cultural being as well.

Numerous traditions and rituals

Again, this is a religious universal. Even within Christianity, there are several thousand varying traditions and rituals.

Observing with deep reverence the profound significance of the solstices and equinoxes, and their midpoints; a deep reverence for the earth and its cycles

So far as I am aware, the cultures that self-define as Pagan are the more prominent - and dare I say only - ones that really do this. And not just observing the solstices and equinoxes, or the cycle of the earth, but actively revering it - the event itself, not culturally significant events that coincide. (e.g. Hanukah, Christmas, Easter.) If this is something that you do, then I would argue this as one of the European cultural practices that you have absorbed and implemented.

 

[Aštra’el]

The aptly named @The Ragin Pagan-

In case you had not noticed, I never said any of those things were exclusively "pagan", only that they were just some (among other) reasons why I use the term "paganism" to describe my spiritual-religious system. I do not require your approval.

So, what exactly are you arguing about? That I am not a "true pagan"? That I am like, a pagan heretic or something? Lol

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The aptly named @The Ragin Pagan

I'm not upset. But straying close to ad hominem could indicate that you are.

So, what exactly are you arguing about? That I am not a "true pagan"? That I am like, a pagan heretic or something? Lol

Nothing of the sort - well, nothing so pessimistic. Monday you said

I welcome any individual to challenge my views on the matter if they feel they can,

And so, I am challenging that view. Namely that there are some branches of Satanism that are "Pagan" in nature. Paganism today - by it's own self-identified definition, not "mine" - is Eurocentric. Satanism, on the other hand, uses a Middle Eastern figure, draws from Middle Eastern, Eastern, and post-modern philosophies, and does not perpetuate the pre-Christian cultural beliefs that the various Pagan traditions set out to do.

So while you might not need approval for what you do - and I've never meant to convey that it is needed; there is no Pope of Paganism - what you practice would not be recognized in and of itself as Paganism by various Pagan organizations. I don't believe you would be shunned or turned away as non-Pagan, but that distinction would be there.

 

[1137]

From "Invention of Satanism:"

Historical processes of reinterpretation (addressed in chapters 1 and 2 ) have freed the concept of Satan from a theological and Christian context, driven by a complex wave of Romantic and Modernist interests. Satanism is to be understood primarily as post-Christian and as part of the Left-Hand Path traditions, not as mere reaction to Christianity.

 

[lovesong]

I'm jumping in super late here so I don't know if this has already been said, if it has, sorry. While I consider Satanism (the theistic forms, the atheistic forms are a separate kettle of fish) a completely valid faith, it's one that I've held in the past, so I'm certainly not biased against it, I don't consider it a Pagan faith. I personally only consider Pagan faiths to be those that are revivals or modern interpretations (I use that idea conservatively) of the ancient/traditional/tribal traditions, or a mix of these traditions. This leads me to throw out things like Wicca and the whole new age movement. No, I don't consider them real Pagans. This being said, I'm fine with incorporating some aspects of Satanism into Pagan traditions, or merging any number of religions really, as long as the person recognizes that it is a merging. Some aspects of Satanism seem to combine well with some aspects of Pagan faiths, and I am a-ok with that, but I do see it as the merging of two separate things, not two different strains of the same thing.

 

[Aštra’el]

And so, I am challenging that view. Namely that there are some branches of Satanism that are "Pagan" in nature.

I am glad for it.

The way I see it, paganism and satanism are two seperate circles that usually do not overlap, but sometimes do. Those spiritual-religious systems that fall within that overlapping area, I may consider to be pagan as well as satanist.

Paganism today - by it's own self-identified definition, not "mine" - is Eurocentric.

There are various self-identified definitions; you have presented one of them.

Satanism, on the other hand, uses a Middle Eastern figure, draws from Middle Eastern, Eastern, and post-modern philosophies, and does not perpetuate the pre-Christian cultural beliefs that the various Pagan traditions set out to do.

My spiritual-religious system draws from any philosophies and cultural beliefs I Will, from any part of the world, from any time period. It draws strength, power, wisdom, and beauty from wherever I feel it can be found.

And yes, my spiritual-religious system does perpetuate a great deal of pre-Christian culture; much from the Middle East through ancient Mesopotamia and much from Judaism. While it does include various European pre-Christian culture as well (and post-Christian European culture), my spiritual-religious system certainly is not "Euro-centric".

Europe is the not the focus of my worship. I do not worship Europe, except as a part of the Earth. I worship nature, I worship various gods and goddesses, and I worship myself.

What you practice would not be recognized in and of itself as Paganism by various Pagan organizations.

You mean, certain pagan organizations. I am fine with them believing as they do; I am not out to convince them otherwise.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The way I see it, paganism and satanism are two seperate circles that usually do not overlap, but sometimes do. Those spiritual-religious systems that fall within that overlapping area, I may consider to be pagan as well as satanist.

Yes, that is entirely possible. Controversial as they are, I have even known a few Christian Pagans.

There are various self-identified definitions; you have presented one of them.

I think you might misunderstand what I meant. What I put forward isn't one self-identity definition as in it is "mine"; It's the self-identity of Paganism en masse, taking into account the self-identity of Hinduism, indigenous American Tribal beliefs, Kemeticism, Middle Eastern polytheism, etc.

My spiritual-religious system draws from any philosophies and cultural beliefs I Will, from any part of the world, from any time period. It draws strength, power, wisdom, and beauty from wherever I feel it can be found.

And there is certainly nothing wrong with that - I hope that hasn't been the perceived message here. But just as Christianity is a global belief system, that often draws influence and ritual from every nation and culture in the world, you wouldn't call your spiritual-religious system Christianity, would you?

And yes, my spiritual-religious system does perpetuate a great deal of pre-Christian culture

With Paganism, it's not just pre-Christian culture, it's pre-Christian cultures of Europe. Which isn't to say that we're worshiping Europe, we're worshiping the gods of those cultures, with the world-view that those cultures had (as best we can tell). It is housed within what we call Europe today, but recognized the globe over. I've met Mexican Heathens who worship Thor as the Norse God of Thunder, and while they added a Mexican flair to their art and ritual, they didn't compare him to Tlaloc or say that they're the same.

 

[1137]

I'm not upset. But straying close to ad hominem could indicate that you are.


Nothing of the sort - well, nothing so pessimistic. Monday you said


And so, I am challenging that view. Namely that there are some branches of Satanism that are "Pagan" in nature. Paganism today - by it's own self-identified definition, not "mine" - is Eurocentric. Satanism, on the other hand, uses a Middle Eastern figure, draws from Middle Eastern, Eastern, and post-modern philosophies, and does not perpetuate the pre-Christian cultural beliefs that the various Pagan traditions set out to do.

So while you might not need approval for what you do - and I've never meant to convey that it is needed; there is no Pope of Paganism - what you practice would not be recognized in and of itself as Paganism by various Pagan organizations. I don't believe you would be shunned or turned away as non-Pagan, but that distinction would be there.

From "Lords of the Left Hand Path"

The Slavic devil is an important, if usually obscure, prototype for the archetype of the materialistic libertinism of late-nineteenth-century and twentieth-century Satanism, as expressed, for example, by Anton LaVey (see chapter 9).

Two kinds of devils can be identified in Slavic lore: one is called Lukhavi, which means “crafty one,” and the other is Chort, which simply means “the black one.”32 The “crafty” devil seems the more archaic and most truly Slavic. The appellation Chort, on the other hand, seems clearly to be an influence from the dualistic cults, which became extremely popular in Slavic regions in the Middle Ages and after.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Here's my problem with that. Lukaviy means "deceptive", and is often used to describe "the devil", but also other figures who are not the devil, such as the leishiy. "Chort" is the same, it's not an old figure from "Slavic lore" but a conglomerate figure like the Christian devil (who is not really evil but mischievous), a description, and sometimes a swear word. There is no one figure that you can attribute in Slavic lore with the Christian "devil", and there are many. Even Chyornobog isn't a single God, but a nature of Gods during the winter time that become destructive and malicious.

But if you meant that Satanism does continue pre-Christian European traditions, that's not really continuing them so much as it is borrowing from them in the same manner that Christianity did.

 

[1137]

Here's my problem with that. Lukaviy means "deceptive", and is often used to describe "the devil", but also other figures who are not the devil, such as the leishiy. "Chort" is the same, it's not an old figure from "Slavic lore" but a conglomerate figure like the Christian devil (who is not really evil but mischievous), a description, and sometimes a swear word. There is no one figure that you can attribute in Slavic lore with the Christian "devil", and there are many. Even Chyornobog isn't a single God, but a nature of Gods during the winter time that become destructive and malicious.

But if you meant that Satanism does continue pre-Christian European traditions, that's not really continuing them so much as it is borrowing from them in the same manner that Christianity did.

I don't think the greatest of proof would change your mind on the topic.

 

[Liu]

But if you meant that Satanism does continue pre-Christian European traditions, that's not really continuing them so much as it is borrowing from them in the same manner that Christianity did.

But is there any kind of paganism that would continue a pre-Christian European tradition? It may be the intention of many pagans to do so, but they may try as they like, the resources are too scarce, and the cultural and technological circumstances are too different. It always will be a borrowing from the rare remains that are left into their own modern cultures.

Also, borrowing in the same way as Christianity? You gotta explain that one.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't think the greatest of proof would change your mind on the topic.

No, probably not, because the two religions are different things. But showing minor creatures (that are quite subject to Christianization) isn't the greatest of evidence; especially when it's known that some Satanists have their own way of seeing Gods like Odin and figures like Prometheus.

But is there any kind of paganism that would continue a pre-Christian European tradition?

"Continuing" doesn't mean "exactly as it was in the past." That would be the specific goal of the Reconstructionist Pagans. We continue those pre-Christian faiths in that we worship the old gods as they were and are known - not (by and large) as archetypes or "representations", but as the gods themselves. We celebrate the old festivals as best we can. We take what we know of the past, of those beliefs and practices, and we apply it to our modern lives. To us it's more than borrowing a "god of wisdom" for a religion seeking power through knowledge, for instance.

Also, borrowing in the same way as Christianity? You gotta explain that one.

If you were to ask an Irish Catholic if they believe in the Celtic Goddess Brighid, they would quite likely and offendedly tell you that they most certainly do not. But ask them if they pray to St. Brigit for guidance, and they very well might. The two are the same thing; St. Brigit was taken from Brighid and minimized from Goddess to Mother Superior and Saint.

As I'm getting it, some groups of Satanism do somewhat of the same. Prometheus wasn't a Greek demi-god, he was actually Satan. It borrows from elements of Paganism, without holding an actual devotion or reverence for the source material.

 

[Liu]

"Continuing" doesn't mean "exactly as it was in the past." That would be the specific goal of the Reconstructionist Pagans. We continue those pre-Christian faiths in that we worship the old gods as they were and are known - not (by and large) as archetypes or "representations", but as the gods themselves. We celebrate the old festivals as best we can. We take what we know of the past, of those beliefs and practices, and we apply it to our modern lives. To us it's more than borrowing a "god of wisdom" for a religion seeking power through knowledge, for instance.

I think I get what you're saying. I have often encountered non-theistic pagans online, though, or theistic ones that saw their deities as representations.

If you were to ask an Irish Catholic if they believe in the Celtic Goddess Brighid, they would quite likely and offendedly tell you that they most certainly do not. But ask them if they pray to St. Brigit for guidance, and they very well might. The two are the same thing; St. Brigit was taken from Brighid and minimized from Goddess to Mother Superior and Saint.

As I'm getting it, some groups of Satanism do somewhat of the same. Prometheus wasn't a Greek demi-god, he was actually Satan. It borrows from elements of Paganism, without holding an actual devotion or reverence for the source material.

Depends on what the Satanist in question means by Satan. In the case of Prometheus I for example would say that I don't actively believe in the Greek gods' existence as actual beings (many Hellenic pagans don't either, from what I can gather), but that aspects of the entity/force I call Satan are what formed the concept (and/or egregor and/or maybe even deity) of Prometheus (and ultimately of pretty much any deity, not just the tricksters). I think Setians have a similar way of equating deities with Set.
I'm open to be proven wrong, though - actually, I'm trying out a more literally theistic approach currently.

So, yes, I may work with the same deities but disregard parts of their original theology and try to fit them into my own. In that way I understand what you mean by this being similar to Christianity.
However, unlike Christians I wouldn't say that the Hellenic theology is outright false, but that it's a different way from my own to conceptualizing the same underlying reality, and that my own is nothing but hypotheses as well. There are even conceptualizations of reality which I'd use basically as they are as alternatives to my own.

And other Satanists may take a more literally theistic stance and believe the deities of other pantheons to exist independently and don't equate them. You especially find that in regards to those deities which also appear in grimoirs (e.g. Baal or Astarte/Astaroth).

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I think I get what you're saying. I have often encountered non-theistic pagans online, though, or theistic ones that saw their deities as representations.

Of course there are those types, but the religions as a whole don't believe or promote that. There was even a sizable multi-national outcry when the current leader of the Ásatrúarfélagið, Hilmar Örn Hilmarsson, said something to the same effect. And while members of that persuasion don't necessarily believe in literal gods, they still represent and perpetuate the culture; they don't host a Liðablót to Ra and Hathor, for instance.

 

[VioletVortex]

In case you haven't noticed, Abrahamism often demonizes the deities revered by other religions. This is how they created their Devil, whom they called "Satan". I think that Satan's name and image emerged as a composite between Proto-Indo-European deities like Dyeus and non-Indo-European or composite deities like Set, Enki, and Ea. The reverence of gods like Dyeus amongst Indo-Europeans was without a doubt the first form of Paganism. Arguably, the worship of other deities is pagan, with a lower case p to denote that it isn't Indo-European.

I think that modern Satanism is a form of Neo-Paganism in the same sense that an inaccurate reconstruction like Wicca is.

 

[Liu]

I think that Satan's name and image emerged as a composite between Proto-Indo-European deities like Dyeus and non-Indo-European or composite deities like Set, Enki, and Ea.

Sorry to bother you with it, but I pointed out to you before why I see no reason to believe that the name of Satan would stem from those deities you listed; you however never replied. So since I see you bringing up the same claim again I would like to again ask you for further justifications of it on linguistic or similar grounds.

I agree with most of the rest of your comment - however, I don't think there is enough of an Indo-European focus to Satanism to call it a form of Neo-Paganism by your definition of that. We satanists basically use any myth that strikes our fancy, for example also from Semitic, Sumerian, Egyptian and Yoruba religions; and even the grimoire tradition, from which the demons some of us venerate come from, is the result of a combination of Semitic, Indo-European and other influences.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Finally there are the Kemeticsts, who have a whole pantheon of gods and goddesses, yet actually resent inclusion within the umbrella of Paganism

There's many followers of Hellenismos who hate the term "pagan", too: pagan:acontroversialterm - www.HellenicGods.org

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Aye, I've met a few of them on other forums.