Is "Devil Worship" another Abrahamic faith?

[Me Myself]

Says who? When one speaks of an Abrahamic faith they are referring to a faith which recognizes the Abrahamic god and the belief system attached to it. Even Devil worshipers recognize the Abrahamic god, they just choose not to honor or worship him, but instead find the opposite side of that coin more worthy of worship. The belief system is the same, the choice of who deserves worship and and how to go about worshiping are what differs. That's all.

One must say this makes great sense. While Abraham wouldn´t worshp the devil he had faith in the devil´s existence, just as he believed he was worshpped (at least by other angels) so yeah, Devil worship would be another tenet of abrahamic faith.

 

[Flankerl]

Okay, let me try to break this down.

The characters and entities contained within the bible, and therefore the Abrahamic system of belief, follow the exact same mythological archetypes as every other pantheon. There's just different names for them. You can claim up and down that it makes a difference that it is considered monotheistic, but it really doesn't. In polytheistic faiths you normally have one or two major/great deities, minor deities, demigods, and even deified humans. Those things are present in the Abrahamic faiths as well, just under different guises. Angels easily follow the archetypes of minor gods, as well as saints being deified humans and so on. Shoot, you even have a direct correspondence between Jesus and the many other demigods (half-god/half-human) in other religions. Again, like in the Greek pantheon in which you have Hercules.

Swearing that the Abrahamic belief system, the bible, and the characters contained within do not make for a pantheon does not change the fact that it still follows the blueprint just like every other pantheon does.

This being the case, my point stands. Apples to apples. Two entities, within the same pantheon, makes the worship of either still a faith solely contained within that particular belief system which is based upon said pantheon.

The problem is you arent describing all "abrahamic religions".
What you are describing is christianity. That is one "abrahamic religion", not all.
The part of the devil may even refer to Islam or the Bahai'i faith(to be honest i have no idea what place the devil takes in that religion).


But guess what, not all "abrahamic religions" are like that. For example the one they all claim to continue.


So please stop calling it a feature of the "abrahamic religions". Thanks.

 

[Cassiopia]

My mind is a bit boggled by the confusion of some of the ideas expressed in this thread!
To the best of my knowledge Judasim, Christianity and Islam are commonly referred to as the Abrahamic faiths. Thus any concepts that originate within those faiths must belong to those faiths to some degree.
I accept that at a theological level there may be more room for discussion as to what constitutes an Abrahamic theology and I totally accept that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are very different to each other. However, at a descriptive level at least, they are all Abrahamic religions in the common encyclopedic understanding of the word.
I would say that the type of "Devil worship" referred to very categorically at the start of this thread is based exclusively on the personality and concept of a being described in Christian scriptures, ideology and theology. Thus that kind of Satanism or Devil worship is a direct offshoot of Christianity (which is not to say that it is a part of that religion). As such I think it could be described at the very least as an offshoot of the Abrahamic religions.

To put it another way; without the Abrahamic religion of Christianity there would be no Satan for anybody to either despise or worship.

 

[Viker]

To be "Abrahamic" a faith must first worship the god of Abraham and then share in it's covenant. I would have to say no, it is not. The way the Devil is handled/worshiped today is completely foreign to the traditions of Abraham.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Yes I think Abrahamics require worship of The Holy Lord in Heaven:

All Abrahamic religions claim to be monotheistic, worshiping an exclusive God, though known by different names.[15] All of these religions believe that God creates, is one, rules, reveals, loves, judges, and forgives.[13]

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So if I am opposed to all the Hindu deities, I'm still a Hindu? If I'm opposed to God, I'm still in the Abrahamic faiths? If I'm opposed to the Greek or Roman gods, I'm part of those religions? It simply makes no sense.

*sigh* Opposed to their existance or acknowledging their existance and opposing their authority? Classical Satanists believe the Abrahamic God is real and worship Satan as his prefered successor. Is it really so hard to see the difference?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think they are just trying to pin it on the pagans and therefore demonize pagans

Thats nothing new. My question would be, are there any Satanists who identify themselves as Abrahamic?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

In Abrahamic faiths, you don't have a pantheon. You have a monotheistic idea. You have one god. Not many. That is where the difference is. You're trying to compare a polytheistic religion with a monotheistic religion, which simply is not possible in this circumstance. They are truly apples and oranges.

Ha! What do you call the Trinity and all the Saints if not a Pantheon?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So please stop calling it a feature of the "abrahamic religions". Thanks.

Sorry to disappoint but many of us hold that opinion and would prefer not to be silenced, even if asked nicely.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Thats nothing new. My question would be, are there any Satanists who identify themselves as Abrahamic?

The OP specifically states that we are NOT discussing current day Satanists but rather old school classical Satanists. Not sure any of them even exists anymore.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Yes I think Abrahamics require worship of The Holy Lord in Heaven:

It appears that what we have here is a disagreement between a scholar's definition of Abrahamic Faith and an Adherent's definition. A scholar says that Abrahamic means any faith that acknowledges the existance of the Abrahamic God while an Adherent says it means anyone who acknowledges that the Abrahamic God is the supreme power. I choose the scholar's definition.

 

[Viker]

It appears that what we have here is a disagreement between a scholar's definition of Abrahamic Faith and an Adherent's definition. A scholar says that Abrahamic means any faith that acknowledges the existance of the Abrahamic God while an Adherent says it means anyone who acknowledges that the Abrahamic God is the supreme power. I choose the scholar's definition.

It would also depend on which branch of devil worship we would be examining. It could be argued that any theistic variety could be "Abrahamic".

I do not agree with the scholarly definition, it leaves the door open to a vague concept and ignores what was Abraham's promise and eventual covenant with a specific deity. It's lumping modern devil worshipers with Jews, Christians and Muslims. I don't think any of them would be pleased either way. ( I'm not a believer btw)

 

[Reverend Rick]

The OP specifically states that we are NOT discussing current day Satanists but rather old school classical Satanists. Not sure any of them even exists anymore.

I can accept that. I will change my question to: Has there ever been a Devil worshiper who claimed to be Abrahamic?

This is a fair question right?

Any religion should be about how the participant sees their religion not how others see it.

Now, if we can take this a step further, if there is no one participating in a religion past or present, why would we care how we label them?

 

[Viker]

Old school Satanists exist. Theistic Satanism: Diane Vera on today's new kinds of Satanists

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I can accept that. I will change my question to: Has there ever been a Devil worshiper who claimed to be Abrahamic?

This is a fair question right?

Any religion should be about how the participant sees their religion not how others see it.

Now, if we can take this a step further, if there is no one participating in a religion past or present, why would we care how we label them?

Fair enough. I don't know if any thought to claim it or not but if asked Anton LaVey might have said his Church of Satan was Abrahamic. He certainly took a lot of his material from the Abrahamic faith.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Old school Satanists exist. Theistic Satanism: Diane Vera on today's new kinds of Satanists

This group started in 2002. Hardly an ancient religion IMHO.

 

[Viker]

Fair enough. I don't know if any thought to claim it or not but if asked Anton LaVey might have said his Church of Satan was Abrahamic. He certainly took a lot of his material from the Abrahamic faith.

He denied that the god of Abraham existed. And believed Satan was merely a force in the nature of man. He wasn't a genius either. I think he admitted that part.

 

[Viker]

This group started in 2002. Hardly an ancient religion IMHO.

Old school meaning what? You do know the church totally made up accusations of devil worship in medieval times?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Fair enough. I don't know if any thought to claim it or not but if asked Anton LaVey might have said his Church of Satan was Abrahamic. He certainly took a lot of his material from the Abrahamic faith.

This religion started around 1969 I believe. The OP did not want to include this group of folks in this discussion. We have RF members who could weigh in on this but as I recall, no one identified themselves as Abrahamic.

Right now as I see it, I need the name of just one person who worshiped Satan in the past before these new religions came about that identified themselves as Abrahamic.

 

[Viker]

T I need the name of just one person who worshiped Satan in the past before these new religions came about that identified themselves as Abrahamic.

Good luck with that.

I personally believe it is an insult to both Abrahamic traditions and the devil folk to lump them together. Maybe a better title would be Semitic traditions instead.