Bast a Demon?

[Rose Sunny Rionach]

I was reading through a Demon Dictionary and I came across Bast. The goddess of pleasure that is represented by a cat. I was wondering if anyone knew why she would be considered a Demon?

[Mnemosyne]

I don't think that the Egyptians themselves would consider Bast a demon.

Here's an interesting article. The author states that Bast was called a demon during the Inquisition. Being associated with pleasure, some groups thought that Bast was bad.
http://www.bastmagazine.com/aboutbast/

[Caelin]

I don't think the Egyptians actually had a concept of demons - people calling ancient deities demons tend to be informed by later Christian ideas about other religions, in my experience :) They had a bit of a downer on cats at one time, as I recall.

[Mnemosyne]

Yeah, that site states that the Christians of the time period thought that cats were messengers of the devil. Since Bast is sometimes seen as a cat, she was thought of as evil.

From what I know, I don't think that the Egyptians had a concept of demons. The word "demon" comes from the Greek word "daimon." To the Greeks, a daimon was just a spirit; it could be bad or good.

[Sheilamommyof3]

Have you ever been scratched by an angry cat? Or tried to catch a cornered wild cat? :grrrrr: I think if you had then you would understand the correlation between the two LOL. IMHO I think that because Bast is the Cat Goddess She has both the calm and serene attribute but also the claw baring, hissing, biting anger as well. She and I have a LOT in common. :loveduv:

[Ben Trismegistus]

Well, considering that "demon" is a Judeo/Christian term, I don't see how Bast could possibly apply.

[Ahautenites]

Caelin said:
I don't think the Egyptians actually had a concept of demons - people calling ancient deities demons tend to be informed by later Christian ideas about other religions, in my experience They had a bit of a downer on cats at one time, as I recall.

Yes, Kemetics do and did. They fear(ed) all sorts of ghosts and spirits and demons. In fact, when you go to the Underworld, you need to know all sorts of things to get past the demon/guardian/god type creatures that block your way.

But no.... Bast is not a demon in the sense that Kemetic peoples believe in demons.

However, if one is skilled in magic, you can create an avenging bau of any deity and send such a magical entity after your enemies.

[Initiate Steamcircle]

People consider it a demon because it's not of their religion, their intolerant. That's all. People consider Ganesha a demon. (the poorly educated ones)

[Rain Gnosis]

Originally posted by Initiate Steamcircle
their intolerant.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with tolerance at all. Many people are taught that anything but this God and his son are evil and illusions of Satan, therefore they're going to fear anything but said God and Christ.

Has nothing to do with tolerance, has to do with fear of eternal damnation.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Originally posted by Rain Gnosis

Has nothing to do with tolerance, has to do with fear of eternal damnation.

Well, if tolerance can be defined as, "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others" (American Heritage Dictionary), I would call it at least inadvertant intolerance. Calling another religion's god a "demon" (with all the Christian connotations that word embodies) certainly does not show recognition or respect of that religion's believers and beliefs.

[Rain Gnosis]

Originally posted by Ben Trismegistus
inadvertant intolerance

There's the rub. No one goes around saying "well I'm going to be intolerant of that Pagan Goddess today, nyah!".


certainly does not show recognition or respect of that religion's believers and beliefs.

It's not showing willful disrespect either. The assertion is not that *you* can't believe Bast is a God, that you have no rights to those beliefs, it's that *I* believe said entity is a demon (from their standpoint).

Same way people suggest Jesus didn't exist or didn't exist in the capacity in which Christians believe he has, which I see Pagans doing all the time. We don't say "you can't believe Jesus existed", some of us *do* say "I do not".

Same way people suggest the Christian God is not the one and only Lord. It's not "you can't believe he is" it's "I do not". I don't have to agree with you to respect you. I don't have to agree Bast is a God to let you think she is. If I did, we'd be disrespecting anyone anytime we disagreed with their beliefs.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Originally posted by Rain Gnosis

Same way people suggest Jesus didn't exist or didn't exist in the capacity in which Christians believe he has, which I see Pagans doing all the time. We don't say "you can't believe Jesus existed", some of us *do* say "I do not".

I think that's different. One does not have to say "You can't believe this" in order to be intolerant. But although we say, "I do not believe that Jesus was the son of God", we certainly don't say, "I believe not only that Jesus was NOT the son of God, but rather that Jesus is an evil minion of hell." The difference is in the connotation.

One can say, "I don't believe Bast is a god" while still respecting another's right to believe that she is, and therefore being tolerant. But calling someone else's god a demon goes beyond that, in my completely worthless opinion.

[Rain Gnosis]

Originally posted by Ben Trismegistus
But calling someone else's god a demon goes beyond that, in my completely worthless opinion.

Not worthless :)

To me there's no difference - one is not making a value judgment on Bast by calling her a demon, if they believe all Pagan Gods must be. Maybe because I really don't get offended by people's interpretations of my beliefs. It isn't about offending someone or denying their right to have beliefs, but simply that for one person that is *true*. They don't know any other way, and fear they'll go to hell if they do.

And Jesus as an evil minion of hell really isn't a good parallel since we don't believe in absolute evil or hell. We never have to worry about eternal damnation. I think the only similar example would be if we denied the existence of an entity in the manner that Christians do - as in the case of Jesus being the son of God - and many Pagans do that.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Originally posted by Rain Gnosis

To me there's no difference - one is not making a value judgment on Bast by calling her a demon, if they believe all Pagan Gods must be. Maybe because I really don't get offended by people's interpretations of my beliefs. It isn't about offending someone or denying their right to have beliefs, but simply that for one person that is *true*. They don't know any other way, and fear they'll go to hell if they do.

Once again, we come down to a battle of semantics. If (simply as a hypothetical example) it was a part of Christian doctrine to believe that you were hideously ugly, would you be any less offended, simply because it's what they believe is "true", and they just don't know any better?

In my opinion, this argument is essentially the same argument as saying that there are certain Christians who believe that homosexuality is an abomination, and therefore any practicing homosexuals are depraved perverts who are going straight to hell. It may be their belief structure, and the way they were raised, and it may feel completely fair to them, but it doesn't make the assertion any less disrespectful or offensive. Thinking that another person is "bad" or "less" because of who they are or what they believe is, by my definition, disrespectful and intolerant.

I guess that's what I'm getting at. By labeling Bast a demon, they are by proxy labeling Bast's worshippers as demon worshippers, which, in their belief system, are evil heathens. Therefore, it's an insult to the worshippers themselves.

Of course, since it's a semantic discussion, it doesn't really matter. :)


And Jesus as an evil minion of hell really isn't a good parallel since we don't believe in absolute evil or hell. We never have to worry about eternal damnation. I think the only similar example would be if we denied the existence of an entity in the manner that Christians do - as in the case of Jesus being the son of God - and many Pagans do that.

Well, that's simply because paganism is, by definition, completely respectful and tolerant of other's religious beliefs (or at least it should be).

[Rain Gnosis]

Originally posted by Ben Trismegistus
If (simply as a hypothetical example) it was a part of Christian doctrine to believe that you were hideously ugly, would you be any less offended, simply because it's what they believe is "true", and they just don't know any better?

If one had been taught that all people of my type (let's say, all Pagans) were hideously ugly and to say otherwise would mean eternal damnation in the pits of a fiery hell? Heck no. Actually I probably wouldn't be offended anyway :) There was a time when certain things such as this might offend me, then I realized I am who I am regardless of what some stranger thinks, so there's no reason to get offended.


It may be their belief structure, and the way they were raised, and it may feel completely fair to them, but it doesn't make the assertion any less disrespectful or offensive.

I wouldn't find that offensive if I were gay. I don't find it offensive that some people think I'm a crazy nutjob because I believe in magic. I don't find it offensive that people think I'm going to hell because I'm Pagan. I don't find it offensive that some think I'm a wahoo because I'm part Iroquois, and I certainly wouldn't find any of this offensive if a person thought they'd spend an eternity in hell for thinking otherwise.

I personally wouldn't give a rat's arse unless the person was trying physically to attack me for my beliefs, and in that case the fault is not in their beliefs but in illegally assaulting someone :D


Well, that's simply because paganism is, by definition, completely respectful and tolerant of other's religious beliefs (or at least it should be).

Should be but isn't. There are many folks out there who think Wiccans are fluffhead morons, there are many who think recons are battleaxes, there are many who think trad Wiccans are pompous asses, there are many who think Dianics are feminazis. I've seen some pretty intolerant Pagans, and not one of them has had to worry about eternal damnation for being tolerant.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Originally posted by Rain Gnosis

If one had been taught that all people of my type (let's say, all Pagans) were hideously ugly and to say otherwise would mean eternal damnation in the pits of a fiery hell? Heck no. Actually I probably wouldn't be offended anyway :) There was a time when certain things such as this might offend me, then I realized I am who I am regardless of what some stranger thinks, so there's no reason to get offended.

As the saying goes, "You're a better man than I, Gunga Din."

I may have worded that wrong, however. If a Christian thinks I'm evil, that Christian's belief is offensive by its very nature, regardless of whether I choose to take offense at it or not. The fact that you would choose not to take offense shows only that you have a big heart (or at least don't give a rat's behind what others thing), not that the other's beliefs are any less offensive or disrespectful.


I wouldn't find that offensive if I were gay. I don't find it offensive that some people think I'm a crazy nutjob because I believe in magic. I don't find it offensive that people think I'm going to hell because I'm Pagan. I don't find it offensive that some think I'm a wahoo because I'm part Iroquois, and I certainly wouldn't find any of this offensive if a person thought they'd spend an eternity in hell for thinking otherwise.

Would you find it offensive if someone formed those opinions of you simply from their own reasoning, rather as a result of religious doctrine?


Should be but isn't. There are many folks out there who think Wiccans are fluffhead morons, there are many who think recons are battleaxes, there are many who think trad Wiccans are pompous asses, there are many who think Dianics are feminazis. I've seen some pretty intolerant Pagans, and not one of them has had to worry about eternal damnation for being tolerant.

The difference is doctrinal. There is no language in any "official" (I use the term very loosely) Pagan literature that is overtly disrespectful of people on other paths. Therefore, those folks who have formed disrespectful opinions of other seekers have done so by their own volition, and are therefore simply jerks. ;)

However, there are definite references in the Bible to the followers of other religions, and where they stand on the cosmic pecking order. The fact that there are so many tolerant Christians out there shows that they are willing to look beyond the specific passages of the Bible and focus instead on the over-arching message of compassion and acceptance. More power to them.

[Rain Gnosis]

Originally posted by Ben Trismegistus
As the saying goes, "You're a better man than I, Gunga Din."

:eek: I'm a MAN?


If a Christian thinks I'm evil, that Christian's belief is offensive


of·fen·sive
1. Disagreeable to the senses: an offensive odor.
2. Causing anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront: an offensive gesture.
3.
1. Making an attack: The offensive troops gained ground quickly.
2. Of, relating to, or designed for attack: offensive weapons.
4. (fn-) Sports. Of or relating to a team having possession of a ball or puck: the offensive line.


n.

1. An attitude or position of attack: go on the offensive in chess.
2. An attack or assault: led a massive military offensive.

Source : The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language


If it doesn't "cause anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront", or exist as part of an attack, it's not offensive. If someone assaults me screaming that I'm a devil worshipper, that's offensive. If someone believes any God but their own is a demon, and therefore my matron is, but doesn't "cause anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront" or attack me, it's not offensive.

(semantics 80)


Would you find it offensive if someone formed those opinions of you simply from their own reasoning, rather as a result of religious doctrine?

Nope. When I got teased at school for being Native I made jokes when people asked about my tomahawk and teepee. Actually, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, are all things I don't get offended about; they have nothing to do with me on a personal level and everything to do with the person's beliefs.

As to the Bible, it's a book of myths and stories written by humans and inspired by God. Not literal truths. Danustouch actually gave a great example illustrating that in another thread.