Is LaVeyan Satanism part of Paganism or not?

[~*Sacred*~]

I came across a few online a few days ago and we got in a deep discussion about Paganism & Satanism and I was informed that LaVeyan's weren't considered Pagan. Is this true?

[Caitlin.ann]

I came across a few online a few days ago and we got in a deep discussion about Paganism & Satanism and I was informed that LaVeyan's weren't considered Pagan. Is this true?

First you have to find a standard definition of what paganism is in order for the question to be answered correctly. Paganism is "any religion which is not Abrahamic in origin (i.e. Islam, Christianity, or Judaism)". However as you may or may not have noticed on these boards there is no general absolute consensus on this term or its meaning. Others agree with this term and definition, others don't. Others will say "pagan" means "country dweller" and nothing more, etc.

I would consider any religion non-Abrahamic in orgin to fit under the umbrella term of "paganism" but thats just me personally.

I think its more important what you think and decide after hearing all the arguments which are sure to be presented here as well as throughout the site.

Good luck in your quest. :thumbsup:

[Burning Angel]

I came across a few online a few days ago and we got in a deep discussion about Paganism & Satanism and I was informed that LaVeyan's weren't considered Pagan. Is this true?

Given the remarks about the "white-lighter witch cults" and their watered-down skills in the Satanic Bible...whether such things are true or not :p.....I hardly think LaVey would have approved of Paganism, much less called his own tradition a part. Some Theistic Satanist groups may consider themselves Pagan, though...it all depends! :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[Caitlin.ann]

Given the remarks about the "white-lighter witch cults" and their watered-down skills in the Satanic Bible...whether such things are true or not :p.....I hardly think LaVey would have approved of Paganism, much less called his own tradition a part. Some Theistic Satanist groups may consider themselves Pagan, though...it all depends! :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

THATS where it gets sticky though! Since Satan, as far as I know, if they're thinking the Christian representation of Satan wouldn't fit under paganism, it would be Abrahamic in origin. Thus not paganism.

[Burning Angel]

THATS where it gets sticky though! Since Satan, as far as I know, if they're thinking the Christian representation of Satan wouldn't fit under paganism, it would be Abrahamic in origin. Thus not paganism.

No...the definition of paganism is where it gets sticky :p Everyone has their own definition...and our large user base of ChristoPagans would likely disagree with yours :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[Burning Angel]

THATS where it gets sticky though! Since Satan, as far as I know, if they're thinking the Christian representation of Satan wouldn't fit under paganism, it would be Abrahamic in origin. Thus not paganism.

Oh and I forgot to address the other point. Many Satanists view Satan as an impersonal force of inspiration, others view him as identical to whatever Pagan god identified as the villain in his mythology - those who stood for darkness before dawn, chaos from creation. The definition of Satan is about as nebulous as the definition of Pagan :p

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[Caitlin.ann]

No...the definition of paganism is where it gets sticky :p Everyone has their own definition...and our large user base of ChristoPagans would likely disagree with yours :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

*shrugs* They may. I only use the standard definition. I just see a huge difference between atheistic and theistic satanism. Once you begin using a specific deity which is abrahamic in origin everything changes. However if you're considering "Set" who is Egyptian things again become sticky. Even though Set is often seen as associated with some Satanic paths (what have you) he's Egyptian which fits under the pagan umbrella once again.

But whatever..to each their own.

[Burning Angel]

*shrugs* They may. I only use the standard definition. I just see a huge difference between atheistic and theistic satanism. Once you begin using a specific deity which is abrahamic in origin everything changes. However if you're considering "Set" who is Egyptian things again become sticky. Even though Set is often seen as associated with some Satanic paths (what have you) he's Egyptian which fits under the pagan umbrella once again.

But whatever..to each their own.

Then there's the one sect mixing Theistic Satanism and Celtic Paganism, and the Fraternitas Loki of the ...whatever their names are with Balder that I forget...and then there's the Luciferian (through Ford) idea of "Diabolus" - the Adversary as presented through Ahriman, Set, Satan, the Islamic Iblis, and Yaltabaoth of Gnostic tradition, etc...it's not all Christian.

But the original point was about LaVey - and he was not cool with Paganism, nor are (I imagine) those he has inspired :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[Caitlin.ann]

Then there's the one sect mixing Theistic Satanism and Celtic Paganism, and the Fraternitas Loki of the ...whatever their names are with Balder that I forget...and then there's the Luciferian (through Ford) idea of "Diabolus" - the Adversary as presented through Ahriman, Set, Satan, the Islamic Iblis, and Yaltabaoth of Gnostic tradition, etc...it's not all Christian.

But the original point was about LaVey - and he was not cool with Paganism, nor are (I imagine) those he has inspired :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

Right which is why I've been specific. :)

[Philosophia]

I came across a few online a few days ago and we got in a deep discussion about Paganism & Satanism and I was informed that LaVeyan's weren't considered Pagan. Is this true?

Depends on how one define's LaVeyan Satanism and whether they believe they are pagan or not. In my opinion, I honestly can't say either way because I only know a small amount about Laveyan Satanism.

[Caitlin.ann]

Depends on how one define's LaVeyan Satanism and whether they believe they are pagan or not. In my opinion, I honestly can't say either way because I only know a small amount about Laveyan Satanism.

I suppose since LaVeyan is pretty much atheistic it could be considered "atheist".

[Philosophia]

I suppose since LaVeyan is pretty much atheistic it could be considered "atheist".

True. I never really thought of it like that. :thumbsup:

[Nox_Mortus]

since thier religion is pretty much based on Christianity I would say no (I don't consider "Christopagans" to be pagans either, just a different type of Christian)

[Caitlin.ann]

True. I never really thought of it like that. :thumbsup:

Haha I didn't either until a few moments ago. :p

[Torey]

I agree that most LaVeyan Satanists wouldn't want to be grouped into the Pagan category - although 'what is Pagan?' is a very difficult question to answer.

Just to mention, most Theistic Satanists reject the Christian representation of Satan. To me, however, just because a deity originated in an 'Abrahamic' religion doesn't mean that the person who works with that deity is practicing an Abrahamic religion.

[Caitlin.ann]

since thier religion is pretty much based on Christianity I would say no (I don't consider "Christopagans" to be pagans either, just a different type of Christian)

I consider them half in half out.

[Louisvillian]

I came across a few online a few days ago and we got in a deep discussion about Paganism & Satanism and I was informed that LaVeyan's weren't considered Pagan. Is this true?
Depends on what you use as the definition for paganism.
My definition, which tries to stick to the roots of the original Latin term, necessarily entails an emphasis on the cycles of nature and agriculture. Since, from what I've seen, LaVeyan Satanism does not do that...I wouldn't class it as paganism. Occultism, yes; mysticism, maybe; but not pagan.

[Nox_Mortus]

I consider them half in half out.

I don't believe in doing things half assed.

[Caitlin.ann]

I don't believe in doing things half assed.

Most of society seems to however. :hahugh:

[Xander67]

Some Theistic Satanist groups may consider themselves Pagan, though...it all depends! :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

if they practice polytheism then by definition yes they would be considered a pagan religion. cant get any more cut and dry than that.

[Xander67]

I suppose since LaVeyan is pretty much atheistic it could be considered "atheist".

how so? they worship a diety no? the atheist religion dictates the disbelief in anything supernatural or devine.

[Nox_Mortus]

how so? they worship a diety no? the atheist religion dictates the disbelief in anything supernatural or devine.

no they don't, they don;t believe in any literal dieties, to them Satan represents an ideal.

[Xander67]

no they don't, they don;t believe in any literal dieties, to them Satan represents an ideal.

correct which means they acknowledge the belief in a power greater than themselves no? all be it an Ideal hence Ideaological

[Nox_Mortus]

correct which means they acknowledge the belief in a power greater than themselves no? all be it an Ideal hence Ideaological

No they believe that the individual is the ultimate power so to speak, and that Satan just represents that.

[Xander67]

No they believe that the individual is the ultimate power so to speak, and that Satan just represents that.

do they invoke any type of magic? or work with anything supernatural?

I dont know anything about it that is why i am asking...

[Nox_Mortus]

do they invoke any type of magic? or work with anything supernatural?

I dont know anything about it that is why i am asking...

some do, some don't. but they generally belive that all magical power stems from the individual as well.

[Burning Angel]

do they invoke any type of magic? or work with anything supernatural?

I dont know anything about it that is why i am asking...

The problem I see in this thread is there's very little familiarity with the subject matter :) Torey and I, however, will be happy to help you guys...and in the long run we can all come to some conclusions on...whatever the topic is now that LaVeyan Satanism has been defined as Atheist, Humanist, and Not Pagan :p

Actually, it's best defined (IMO) as Objectivism with a psychodramatic ritual element :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[Xander67]

some do, some don't. but they generally belive that all magical power stems from the individual as well.

so if I drink a glass of milk and say it is water just because I believe it is water doesnt negate the fact it is milk...

I had to use an analagy to make my point.. magic involves invoking of deity or demon in some cases.. allthough it is an art and a science, hence hermetic. but in all cases it involves working with forces beyond their physical body even nature...

[Xander67]

The problem I see in this thread is there's very little familiarity with the subject matter :) Torey and I, however, will be happy to help you guys...and in the long run we can all come to some conclusions on...whatever the topic is now that LaVeyan Satanism has been defined as Atheist, Humanist, and Not Pagan :p

Actually, it's best defined (IMO) as Objectivism with a psychodramatic ritual element :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

agreed allthough I am having issues with terming them as atheists

[Caitlin.ann]

so if I drink a glass of milk and say it is water just because I believe it is water doesnt negate the fact it is milk...

I had to use an analagy to make my point.. magic involves invoking of deity or demon in some cases.. allthough it is an art and a science, hence hermetic. but in all cases it involves working with forces beyond their physical body even nature...

Doesn't make any sense. Atheism is the non-belief and worship in a god. LaVeyan Satanist view Satan as an archetype or an ideal but not a god, therefore it is "atheistic". And I second EVERYTHING Nox has said earlier.

Magic and religion don't have to do together. In fact, many self-proclaimed atheists on this board have admitted to practicing spellwork.

[Xander67]

ok maybe I have the wrong idea of what an athiest is..

religion itself is nothing more than a code of ethics set out by whatever sacred text or official text it propigates itself by..

not all religions incorporate spiritism..

while the aforementioned atheists may claim such, their working of magic may be contrary to their claim
TECHNICALLY speaking..

just because one says they are something, if their actions dont walk the talk then the arent what they claim...

sorry to derail the topic guys..

[Caitlin.ann]

Let me help.


Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic \ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist)


Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Atheism)

[Xander67]

ok fine, but if (as I pointed out above) said person works a spell that involves the employment of dieties / demons, or anything as such would they still be entitled to their claim??

not saying those people did but for arguments sake here lol

[Caitlin.ann]

ok fine, but if (as I pointed out above) said person works a spell that involves the employment of dieties / demons, or anything as such would they still be entitled to their claim??

not saying those people did but for arguments sake here lol

No, magic doesn't have to involve any deity or spirit. Some believe magic is simply the use of outside energy (ki, chi, prana, etc.) and bending it to their will. It has nothing to do with a deity unless someone wants to add deity to their practice.

[Xander67]

chi is God energy no? according to Tai chi it is the life force?

I conceed that not all magic involves diety but may use forces of nature .. so yeah in that case yes.

[Caitlin.ann]

chi is God energy no? according to Tai chi it is the life force?

I conceed that not all magic involves diety but may use forces of nature .. so yeah in that case yes.

Doesn't have to be, not if you don't believe in god. There is nothing that says energy and god are synonymous and nothing that says one has to believe in god to believe/use/manipulate energy. Its all highly subjective and personal opinion, but until I see something which proves one has to believe in deity to use magic then I stand by my argument.

Your argument holds absolutely no water. LaVeyan Satanism is atheistic, whether or not they use magic is of no importance nor does it influence its atheistic stance.

[Xander67]

well it does if they are using hermetic magic.. that involves working with angels and demons and in some cases is ennochian in nature.. so they are working with the Heirachy which would indicate the acknowledgement of diety..

just saying

[Burning Angel]

well it does if they are using hermetic magic.. that involves working with angels and demons and in some cases is ennochian in nature.. so they are working with the Heirachy which would indicate the acknowledgement of diety..

just saying

Actually, LaVeyan ritual is merely psychodrama in magical trappings. Helps to deal with your feelings on an issue, rather than blessing or cursing in a literal sense...at least as I understand it. The problem arises when LaVey is at times deliberately obscure...he never comes out and says it's all in your head, but he hints at it quite strongly, and that seems to be how most Satanists of the LaVeyan school understand it :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[David19]

Oh and I forgot to address the other point. Many Satanists view Satan as an impersonal force of inspiration, others view him as identical to whatever Pagan god identified as the villain in his mythology - those who stood for darkness before dawn, chaos from creation. The definition of Satan is about as nebulous as the definition of Pagan :p

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

Some do, but, most Theistic Satanists, from what I've seen, don't identify Satan with any Pagan God, but, just as he is (some see him as identical, or nearly identical, with Azazel, like Diane Vera, but, they don't identify him with other Pagan Gods).

As for the original question, I don't think LaVeyan Satanism is Pagan, it is what it is - LaVeyan Satanism, just like Buddhism is Buddhism, they're too seperate (but, sometimes, overlapping) sub-cultures/traditions.

[Starbringer]

I came across a few online a few days ago and we got in a deep discussion about Paganism & Satanism and I was informed that LaVeyan's weren't considered Pagan. Is this true?

No, Paganism has nothing to do with LaVey or satanism. Satan is a concept that originated in the Abrahamic religions. Satan is not part of any Pagan religion. There is no satan equivalent in Paganism. There are trickster gods in some traditions but they are not the same as the "devil" or "satan."

[Darth Brooks]

The idea of Satan did not originate in the Abrahamic religions anymore than Yahweh did. The Jews didn't just come up with Satan all by themselves, you know; in fact, the idea was originally completely alien to Jewish thought. It was a synthesis of certain Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, and Greek influences that was later imported into Judaism from the outside during the Second Temple era. (I.e., that's before Jesus.) This means that the idea of "the devil" is older than Judaism; therefore, a person who labels him or herself after Satan does not automatically belong under the Abrahamic umbrella.

Or if they do, then I would like someone to explain to me why it's okay for Wiccans to practice Kabbalah (which is JEWISH in origin) or Tarot (which is partially based on the Kabbalah) or to celebrate things they call "sabbats" (a word that comes from a HEBREW root and a JEWISH practice) without also being lumped together with Abrahamic believers. The attitude that "Satanists can't be pagan because they use something Abrahamic" is one of the most blatant double standards exhibited by pagans today.

Now, I'm of the opinion that Satanists should be free to characterize themselves in whatever way they like. But as far as I'm concerned, they fit my definition of the word "pagan" to a T. So I'm more than happy to accept them as fellow pagans. That goes for Christopagans, Judeopagans, Christian witches, and Jewitches too.


do they invoke any type of magic? or work with anything supernatural?

They do not believe in the supernatural but they do believe in magic. LaVey included his own version of the Enochian Keys in his Satanic Bible.

[Burning Angel]

The idea of Satan did not originate in the Abrahamic religions anymore than Yahweh did. The Jews didn't just come up with Satan all by themselves, you know; in fact, the idea was originally completely alien to Jewish thought. It was a synthesis of certain Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, and Greek influences that was later imported into Judaism from the outside during the Second Temple era. (I.e., that's before Jesus.) This means that the idea of "the devil" is older than Judaism; therefore, a person who labels him or herself after Satan does not automatically belong under the Abrahamic umbrella.

Or if they do, then I would like someone to explain to me why it's okay for Wiccans to practice Kabbalah (which is JEWISH in origin) or Tarot (which is partially based on the Kabbalah) or to celebrate things they call "sabbats" (a word that comes from a HEBREW root and a JEWISH practice) without also being lumped together with Abrahamic believers. The attitude that "Satanists can't be pagan because they use something Abrahamic" is one of the most blatant double standards exhibited by pagans today.

Now, I'm of the opinion that Satanists should be free to characterize themselves in whatever way they like. But as far as I'm concerned, they fit my definition of the word "pagan" to a T. So I'm more than happy to accept them as fellow pagans. That goes for Christopagans, Judeopagans, Christian witches, and Jewitches too.

Thread over :thumbsup: Thanks Darth! You said it very, very well :)


They do not believe in the supernatural but they do believe in magic. LaVey included his own version of the Enochian Keys in his Satanic Bible.

Hmmm...maybe thread not over. :p Also, the Satanic Bible includes a statement at the beginning that says the occult is full of crap, in so many words...I'd been given to understand (both from my reading of that awesome document and from my further research) that LaVeyan ritual is merely psychodrama designed to "Get the Led out" as it were, rather than to actually have an effect. LaVey leaves it open, but the hints are rather strong that he doesn't believe his rituals will do anything except as happy serendipitous coincidences - is that correct, or am I rather mistaken? :S

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[Sage Rainsong]

I tend to think of them as not being a part of the Pagan community but rather a part of the greater Occult community or alternate religions community.

[Burning Angel]

I tend to think of them as not being a part of the Pagan community but rather a part of the greater Occult community or alternate religions community.

This also works - what I described in an earlier thread as New Aeon religions :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[Rae'ya]

Firstly... thank you Darth Brooks for your post! And yes, I will elaborate on that and add my own thoughts in a minute... but I have a lot to address here and I'm gonna go chronological for my own left-brained benefit lol


I came across a few online a few days ago and we got in a deep discussion about Paganism & Satanism and I was informed that LaVeyan's weren't considered Pagan. Is this true?

As others have said, this largely depends on your definition of 'Pagan'. Unfortunately there is no one agreed-upon definition of this term within the neo-pagan community, so you'll always get argument about whether or not something like Satanism (of any flavour) is or isn't 'pagan'. The really unfortunate point here is that the vast majority of neo-pagans form an opinion about this based on their ignorance. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but how many of you are actually intimately familiar with what Satanism actually IS and believes? Not just LaVeyan, but other forms as well?

Satanism is, in general (and I'm talking all flavours here) still misunderstood and misrepresented. There are more than one brand of Satanism, despite the fact that certain sects will vehemently claim that theirs is the only 'true' form... that's another argument entirely. The neo-pagan community is still often concerned about being associated with evil devil worshippers and so tends to be all 'NO, Satanism is NOT pagan, we don't have anything to do with them, we don't even believe in the Devil'. Pfft. Most neo-pagans don't have any understanding at all of what Satanism does and doesn't believe in, as evidenced by most of the replies in this thread.

Personally, my definition of 'pagan' is actually quite complex, has evolved over time, and includes a little list of concepts that must be integral to the path in order to be classed as pagan. Mine isn't the only definition though... if you Google 'define: pagan', you'll get a half dozen different definitions. Ronald Hutton, in his academic work on the history of witchcraft, spent an entire chapter exploring what 'pagan' meant (28 pages of tiny little text to be exact), and still didn't really come to a definitive conclusion. Which definition you use will dictate which religions and spiritual paths you consider to be pagan, which is why there is so much variation of opinion in threads like this.

As a theistic Satanist, I personally don't actually care whether I'm considered pagan or not. I consider myself pagan, but I know not everyone uses my definition of the term. I see threads like this and to be perfectly honest my first thought is 'Who gives a stuff?' Most Satanists are highly unlikely to care whether or not you think they're pagan. The reality is that this argument is pure semantics, and when it gets past that initial curiousity and desire to learn and heads into the realm of quibbling about semantics then it all turns a bit silly and elitist, and doesn't reflect well on the neo-pagan community. Why am I replying in here then? Because I think the original poster is genuinely curious and I respect that. And because I see a lot of ignorance and misinformation in this thread that I believe should be addressed. I don't care if anyone here thinks I'm pagan or not, but I don't like when people make categorical statements about paths they know very little about, and I don't like it when people ignore the actual Satanists who have posted and instead hare off on their own little narrow minded rampages and perpetuate gross misinformation. That makes me snarky.

Do I personally consider LaVeyan Satanists to be pagan? It depends. As far as I'm concerned, some are, and most aren't. LaVey actually wasn't quite as dogmatic as he initially seems... on the surface a lot of his writing seems clear about certain points... the Statements, the atheism, the hedonism, the reverse Christianity etc etc. But if you dig a bit deeper and look beyond the theatrics and propaganda, there's actually a bit of room for interpretation. Now I'm not familiar with the Church of Satan or it's offshoots, so I'm not really sure what their stance and dogma is... I'm talking about the few of LaVey's actual writings that I've read. Perhaps that's not a clear indication of LaVeyan Satanism, and if not then I'll happily rescind my comments and defer to someone who is more intimately familiar with that path. My observations are that while most aren't pagan by my definition, LaVeyan's can be pagan, depending on their focus. In general though, I do consider the Satanist paths to be pagan, but I acknowledge that there are some practitioners who clearly aren't, and others who are but who chose not to use that label for their own reasons.


*shrugs* They may. I only use the standard definition. I just see a huge difference between atheistic and theistic satanism. Once you begin using a specific deity which is abrahamic in origin everything changes. However if you're considering "Set" who is Egyptian things again become sticky. Even though Set is often seen as associated with some Satanic paths (what have you) he's Egyptian which fits under the pagan umbrella once again.

Two points here. Firstly, I agree with Torey that just because a person works with a deity from a particular tradition, doesn't make them a part of that tradition. A person who works with Odin isn't automatically an Asatruar. Granted, Asatru is a modern reconstructionist religion, but it's much the same concept and demonstrates my point. In order to be called a particular tradition, I believe you need to actually practice that tradition. Satanism in general isn't an Abrahamic faith by any stretch of the imagination, and it doesn't tend to follow the Abrahamic mythos.

Secondly, as Darth Brooks points out in his post, Satan didn't originate in the Abrahamic faiths, nor did the concept of a supreme Devil. If you want to point a finger at an origin for dichotomous gods of good and evil, point it towards Zoroastrianism. But even that faith doesn't hold the patent for the concept of Satan. The Old Testament mentions the word 'Satan' like a half dozen times, and the Torah mentions it twice. As far as I know, in neither place is the word Satan explicitly linked to the being later known as the Devil. In those texts 'Satan' is more of a title than an actual being, so the modern Christian interpretation of Satan as the Devil is hotly debatable, let alone the issue of Satan 'originating' in the Abrahamic faiths.

And I'm adding a third now because it leads on from my last statements... most theistic Satanists don't even subscribe to the idea of Satan being the same as the Christians describe the Devil. Some consider him the same entity who has been unfairly demonized, some consider them to be two completely different entities. Some (such as myself) consider Satan to be a title which can be legitimately applied to a number of Adversary type deities. Some work with Satan only as an Adversary archetype and are more syncretist in their approach. So aside from my above points, assuming that theistic Satanists work with the modern Chrisitan version of the Devil is erronous and misleading. The vast majority of us don't.


since thier religion is pretty much based on Christianity I would say no (I don't consider "Christopagans" to be pagans either, just a different type of Christian)

It's not 'pretty much based on Christianity'. LaVey incorporates aspects of reverse-Christianity (ie the Black Mass, reading scriptures backwards etc) purely as a psychological tool that is designed to aid the practitioner in breaking away from Christian dogma. His use of the term 'Satanist' to indicate his ideals is a tool, not an indication of any real connection with Christianity or the Christian Devil or mythos. The Christian mythos is not generally a part of LaVeyan Satanism, or even of theistic Satanist paths.


Depends on what you use as the definition for paganism.
My definition, which tries to stick to the roots of the original Latin term, necessarily entails an emphasis on the cycles of nature and agriculture. Since, from what I've seen, LaVeyan Satanism does not do that...I wouldn't class it as paganism. Occultism, yes; mysticism, maybe; but not pagan.

I really quite like this definition, and mine tends to be similar. I like the categorisation of occultism and mysticism and this is something that I think we don't really use often enough. I'm personally not one to use labels to validate myself of my path, but I do accept that labels are important for communication within the neo-pagan and occult communities. I am more active in the online neo-pagan community than the occult one though, so my perspective is largely influenced by what I see amongst neo-pagans.


how so? they worship a diety no? the atheist religion dictates the disbelief in anything supernatural or devine.

LaVeyan Satanists don't worship a deity, and most of them are atheistic, as SacredSin has pointed out. Atheists don't belive in deity (a = absence, lack of and theist = belief in deity), but there's no hard and fast rule as to whether atheists do or don't believe in the supernatural. It's true that a lot of atheists don't believe in the supernatural, but it's not a defining point of atheism. As far as LaVeyan Satanists go... not all of them are atheistic. The majority are, but there's enough room in LaVey's writings to allow for theism if the individual so choses. But even the theistic ones don't worship a deity. That part of LaVey's writings is clear... you can't worship any god outside of your own self.


so if I drink a glass of milk and say it is water just because I believe it is water doesnt negate the fact it is milk...

I had to use an analagy to make my point.. magic involves invoking of deity or demon in some cases.. allthough it is an art and a science, hence hermetic. but in all cases it involves working with forces beyond their physical body even nature...

Magick doesn't always involve working with forces beyond your physical body. Magick involves manipulating the energetic forces within and without ourselves. Sometimes you utilise the aid of a deity or other entity. Sometimes you harness the energy tides of the Earth or astrology etc. Sometimes you use only your own will and the energy you raise for your purpose. Sometimes magick is personally transformitive, and there is no external effect at all, but only internal growth and transformation and connection with the Higher Self (which is not an external entitiy per se).


ok fine, but if (as I pointed out above) said person works a spell that involves the employment of dieties / demons, or anything as such would they still be entitled to their claim??

It depends on what their personal interpretation of deities or demons is. Some people don't believe that deities and demons are actual external entities, but simply manifestations of the human psyche, or archetypes of the collective unconscious. If this is that case, when that person invokes a deity, they aren't actually invoking the external deity, they're invoking a facet of their own psyche. In which case yes, they are still entitled to their claim, because they're not actually dealing with external entities.


Or if they do, then I would like someone to explain to me why it's okay for Wiccans to practice Kabbalah (which is JEWISH in origin) or Tarot (which is partially based on the Kabbalah) or to celebrate things they call "sabbats" (a word that comes from a HEBREW root and a JEWISH practice) without also being lumped together with Abrahamic believers. The attitude that "Satanists can't be pagan because they use something Abrahamic" is one of the most blatant double standards exhibited by pagans today.

THIS. I don't think that people actually realise that this double standard exists, and I'm glad that someone pointed it out. The neo-pagan community is rife with concepts and magickal practices that have been appropriated from Judaism and Christian mages, and yet no one bats an eyelid at that. What about all those neo-pagans who utilise Angels in their practice? Not just Enochian, but the Archangels etc... if you're going to consider Satan as originating from Abrahamic faiths then don't you also consider the Archangels as originating from Abrahamic faiths? Personally I don't consider either to be Abrahamic in origin, but it still demonstrates my point.

I think part of the problem still lies in the fact that few neo-pagans are actually knowledgeable about what Satanism involves, and still have an automatic knee-jerk response of 'oh no, Satanism isn't anything to do with paganism, we aren't evil devil worshippers'. And in the process of distancing themselves from the misinformed image that non-pagans have of Satanists, they're actually perpetuating that same misinformation and allowing that image to continue. It's rather unfortunate, and to be honest doesn't engender a great deal of respect amongst those of us who end up on the receiving end of that discrimination.


Hmmm...maybe thread not over. :p Also, the Satanic Bible includes a statement at the beginning that says the occult is full of crap, in so many words...I'd been given to understand (both from my reading of that awesome document and from my further research) that LaVeyan ritual is merely psychodrama designed to "Get the Led out" as it were, rather than to actually have an effect. LaVey leaves it open, but the hints are rather strong that he doesn't believe his rituals will do anything except as happy serendipitous coincidences - is that correct, or am I rather mistaken? :S

For the most part, yes, but there are LaVeyan Satanists who perform ritual and magick for actual external affect, or for inner transformative effect. It's not always about the psychodrama lol. And LaVey was smart enough to leave a lot of room for interpretation in many of his statements. When you pare down the propaganda and shock value, then the core of his writings is actually quite open to individual preference and interpretation. I'm not sure what the official stance of the Church of Satan and it's offshoots are when it comes to magick and ritual, but LaVey didn't explicitly enforce one way or another, and there are LaVeyan Satanists of both schools of thought.


No, Paganism has nothing to do with LaVey or satanism. Satan is a concept that originated in the Abrahamic religions. Satan is not part of any Pagan religion. There is no satan equivalent in Paganism. There are trickster gods in some traditions but they are not the same as the "devil" or "satan."

I've already addressed this misinformation somewhere in my ramble above but just because I've seen these statements SO many times I'm going to recap. Satan as a concept didn't originate in the Abrahamic faiths. The Devil as a concept predates the Abrahamic faiths. Satan and the Devil aren't necessarily the same entity, and in fact 'Satan' isn't necessarily a single entity but can be considered a title that can be applied to a number of deities accross different pantheons. There can be 'equivalents' to Satan in paganism because if you consider that Satan is a title for the Adversary then you can also consider deities who challenge the mainstream dogma, like Prometheus, Enki, Set, Loki, Lilith etc, are all Satans. And again just for clarification, the Christian Devil is not necessarily the same being as Satan, and Satan as a title does not indicate a deity of evil, but a deity of intelligence, non conformity, personal strength, challenging the mainstream, and freedom from oppression/slavery/dogma.

[Xander67]

.

Or if they do, then I would like someone to explain to me why it's okay for Wiccans to practice Kabbalah (which is JEWISH in origin) or Tarot (which is partially based on the Kabbalah)

Im not completely sold on the jewish claim.. ancient egyptian hyroglyphics, pre alexandrian babalonian cuniform tablets and mayan codecies have yielded similar if not complimentary information..

.
They do not believe in the supernatural but they do believe in magic. LaVey included his own version of the Enochian Keys in his Satanic Bible.

The Enochian system employs envoking Angels and Demons thus would by nature require an acknowledgement of some form of spiritual hierarchy.. if they didnt believe in what they were working with then it was all in vain..

[Xander67]

Magick doesn't always involve working with forces beyond your physical body. Magick involves manipulating the energetic forces within and without ourselves. Sometimes you utilise the aid of a deity or other entity. Sometimes you harness the energy tides of the Earth or astrology etc. Sometimes you use only your own will and the energy you raise for your purpose. Sometimes magick is personally transformitive, and there is no external effect at all, but only internal growth and transformation and connection with the Higher Self (which is not an external entitiy per se).

Im sorry but you just contradicted yourself in that statement.
How can working with forces without ourselves not be working with forces beyond our physical body? unless you are going to go there and claim the quantum theory of "all is one under the law" then I concede...
:fpraise:



It depends on what their personal interpretation of deities or demons is. Some people don't believe that deities and demons are actual external entities, but simply manifestations of the human psyche, or archetypes of the collective unconscious. If this is that case, when that person invokes a deity, they aren't actually invoking the external deity, they're invoking a facet of their own psyche. In which case yes, they are still entitled to their claim, because they're not actually dealing with external entities.

Lom Milo Ququette puts this same idea forth in his book "Key to the Solomon Key" which is a fine read by the way...

ok Now in light of Rae'ya's post I am going to toss in a monkey wrench here ...

given the above quote about some believing that Dieties are not Gods but manefiestations of our own subconscious.. an Ideal I tend to agree with both as a Magician and a Quantum Physicist...

does that make me an atheist then? I do not claim to be one and I most certainly believe in and acknowledge the existence of a supreme being.. yet it is my belief that said being is ever pervasive in and around us in all things..

[Burning Angel]

For the most part, yes, but there are LaVeyan Satanists who perform ritual and magick for actual external affect, or for inner transformative effect. It's not always about the psychodrama lol. And LaVey was smart enough to leave a lot of room for interpretation in many of his statements. When you pare down the propaganda and shock value, then the core of his writings is actually quite open to individual preference and interpretation. I'm not sure what the official stance of the Church of Satan and it's offshoots are when it comes to magick and ritual, but LaVey didn't explicitly enforce one way or another, and there are LaVeyan Satanists of both schools of thought.

Hmmm...I see. I wasn't quite sure - the Satanic Bible is really rather vague on like...10,000 things lol. And there is a distinct body of information that states LaVey was aware of a theistic reality - not sure if that's the truth or not.


Im not completely sold on the jewish claim.. ancient egyptian hyroglyphics, pre alexandrian babalonian cuniform tablets and mayan codecies have yielded similar if not complimentary information..


The Enochian system employs envoking Angels and Demons thus would by nature require an acknowledgement of some form of spiritual hierarchy.. if they didnt believe in what they were working with then it was all in vain..

:wtf: Not completely sold that Kabbalah is Jewish? Ooookay then.

And no - the use of Enochian keys as described in the Satanic Bible doesn't involve the hierarchies at all. Nor does it involve belief that the ritual will have any effect...necessarily. As Rae'ya said, there's room for either way.

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[Xander67]

:wtf: Not completely sold that Kabbalah is Jewish? Ooookay then.


My Appologies Burning Angel,
I meant to say I do not believe the Kabbalah and the torah are of jewish origin...although I will conceede that what is being taught today has a great deal of jewish flavor to it the core principles can be seen illustrated in cave paintings and in Heiroglyphs in other parts of the world. But that is WAY BEYOND the scope of this thread..


And no - the use of Enochian keys as described in the Satanic Bible doesn't involve the hierarchies at all. Nor does it involve belief that the ritual will have any effect...necessarily. As Rae'ya said, there's room for either way.

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

I was referring to the System as dictated by the lesser key of solomon which is found in the goetia.. not the satanic bible..

[Burning Angel]

My Appologies Burning Angel,
I meant to say I do not believe the Kabbalah and the torah are of jewish origin...although I will conceede that what is being taught today has a great deal of jewish flavor to it the core principles can be seen illustrated in cave paintings and in Heiroglyphs in other parts of the world. But that is WAY BEYOND the scope of this thread..

Probably beyond the scope of textual analysis, history, etc. as well ;)


I was referring to the System as dictated by the lesser key of solomon which is found in the goetia.. not the satanic bible..

Hmmm...well two posts ago we were talking Enochian, which has nothing to do with the Goetia - I'm now confused. I also thought we were talking about the Satanic Bible's Enochian Keys...I seem to have completely lost your train of thought. Sorry :S

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[Rae'ya]

Im sorry but you just contradicted yourself in that statement.
How can working with forces without ourselves not be working with forces beyond our physical body? unless you are going to go there and claim the quantum theory of "all is one under the law" then I concede...
:fpraise:

I think you'll find I didn't contradict myself at all, if you go back and reread what I actually said :) I said that magick doesn't always involve working with forces beyond the physical body, and then went on to provide examples of magick that utilise both forces outside of the physical body, and those within the physical body. Which part is contradictory?


ok Now in light of Rae'ya's post I am going to toss in a monkey wrench here ...

given the above quote about some believing that Dieties are not Gods but manefiestations of our own subconscious.. an Ideal I tend to agree with both as a Magician and a Quantum Physicist...

does that make me an atheist then? I do not claim to be one and I most certainly believe in and acknowledge the existence of a supreme being.. yet it is my belief that said being is ever pervasive in and around us in all things..

If you believe in and acknowledge the existence of a supreme being, then you aren't atheist. If you believe in the existence of a supreme, non sentient, non corporeal energy source, then you could conceivably be atheist. It all depends on the particulars of what this 'supreme being' is, and whether or not you also believe in deities as beings outside of our own subconscious. Technically, you'd actually be a pantheist or panentheist, depending on whether you consider this supreme being to be 'The Universe' or beyond even that, but from there the point of whether you're atheist or not can only be answered by you and whether you define this supreme whatever as a sentient being or an energy source.

[Torey]

Im sorry but you just contradicted yourself in that statement.
How can working with forces without ourselves not be working with forces beyond our physical body? unless you are going to go there and claim the quantum theory of "all is one under the law" then I concede...

It's not contradictory at all. You need to re-read the statement:


Magick doesn't always involve working with forces beyond your physical body. Magick involves manipulating the energetic forces within and without ourselves. Sometimes you utilise the aid of a deity or other entity. Sometimes you harness the energy tides of the Earth or astrology etc. Sometimes you use only your own will and the energy you raise for your purpose. Sometimes magick is personally transformitive, and there is no external effect at all, but only internal growth and transformation and connection with the Higher Self (which is not an external entitiy per se).

Break it down.


Magick doesn't always involve working with forces beyond your physical body.

It says that it doesn't ALWAYS involve working with external forces, but does acknowledge that working with external forces IS a part of magick - not 'the only' part...


Magick involves manipulating the energetic forces within...

The above statement is then, later in the paragraph, illustrated by an example:


Sometimes you use only your own will and the energy you raise for your purpose. Sometimes magick is personally transformitive, and there is no external effect at all, but only internal growth and transformation and connection with the Higher Self (which is not an external entitiy per se)

The second part of the statement was:


...and without ourselves.

Which is also illustrated by an example:


Sometimes you utilise the aid of a deity or other entity. Sometimes you harness the energy tides of the Earth or astrology etc.

Two different illustrations for two different ideas.

[David19]

My Appologies Burning Angel,
I meant to say I do not believe the Kabbalah and the torah are of jewish origin...although I will conceede that what is being taught today has a great deal of jewish flavor to it the core principles can be seen illustrated in cave paintings and in Heiroglyphs in other parts of the world. But that is WAY BEYOND the scope of this thread..

OT, but, while aspects of the Kabbalah do have their origins in other cultures and religions, e.g. the Hellenistic era (gematria was used quite a bit by the Hellenes/Greeks, apparantly), and the Kabbalah has been called Jewish Gnosticism by Gershom Scholem, probably one of the greatest scholars of the Kabbalah, but, the Kabbalah, is it exists, is Jewish, there are things like the Magical Qabalah, or the Christian Kabbalah, but, they misinterpreted a lot of things, and added things in. In its purest form, it is a Jewish system (and a very incredible one too).

[Burning Angel]

OT, but, while aspects of the Kabbalah do have their origins in other cultures and religions, e.g. the Hellenistic era (gematria was used quite a bit by the Hellenes/Greeks, apparantly), and the Kabbalah has been called Jewish Gnosticism by Gershom Scholem, probably one of the greatest scholars of the Kabbalah, but, the Kabbalah, is it exists, is Jewish, there are things like the Magical Qabalah, or the Christian Kabbalah, but, they misinterpreted a lot of things, and added things in. In its purest form, it is a Jewish system (and a very incredible one too).

Right - some elements come from other cultures, but that can't be construed as it being invented by them in its entirety :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[KenazFilan]

Im not completely sold on the jewish claim.. ancient egyptian hyroglyphics, pre alexandrian babalonian cuniform tablets and mayan codecies have yielded similar if not complimentary information..

And Mithraism (not to mention the Osiris legend) bears some striking similarities to Christianity. That doesn't stop some from trying to claim that one cannot be a Christopagan or that Paganism has nothing to do with Christianity.

What I find amusing is that many of the people making these claims are recovering from a fundamentalist childhood and are replaying many of the old dramas with different characters. Instead of Satan being responsible for global warming, gay marriage and Martin Luther's constipation, Jesus becomes the Bad Guy waiting to bring about the Burning Times Mark II. Intolerant, self-righteous readings of the Threefold Law and Wiccan Rede take the place of the Ten Commandments: over and over again we're told that no REAL Christian *ahem* Pagan would do X, Y or Z and anyone who says otherwise is an Infidel and Unbeliever. And of course just as no Christian could ever put in a good word for Satan and his demons (read: every other world religion), no True Pagan could ever acknowledge Jesus or Christian mythology as a valid source of spiritual wisdom.

Of course, many folk witches, cunning men and traditional healers have incorporated Christian imagery, psalms, prayers, etc. into their practices. (This certainly happened in Haiti, where Catholic aesthetics and prayers are an integral part of Vodou practice: same goes for Cuba and most of the Caribbean). The idea that witches must run screaming from crosses may apply in the world of Hammer Films and overly enthusiastic young Pagans with father-figure complexes, but it doesn't have much to do with the Real World.

[Burning Angel]

And Mithraism (not to mention the Osiris legend) bears some striking similarities to Christianity. That doesn't stop some from trying to claim that one cannot be a Christopagan or that Paganism has nothing to do with Christianity.

What I find amusing is that many of the people making these claims are recovering from a fundamentalist childhood and are replaying many of the old dramas with different characters. Instead of Satan being responsible for global warming, gay marriage and Martin Luther's constipation, Jesus becomes the Bad Guy waiting to bring about the Burning Times Mark II. Intolerant, self-righteous readings of the Threefold Law and Wiccan Rede take the place of the Ten Commandments: over and over again we're told that no REAL Christian *ahem* Pagan would do X, Y or Z and anyone who says otherwise is an Infidel and Unbeliever. And of course just as no Christian could ever put in a good word for Satan and his demons (read: every other world religion), no True Pagan could ever acknowledge Jesus or Christian mythology as a valid source of spiritual wisdom.

Of course, many folk witches, cunning men and traditional healers have incorporated Christian imagery, psalms, prayers, etc. into their practices. (This certainly happened in Haiti, where Catholic aesthetics and prayers are an integral part of Vodou practice: same goes for Cuba and most of the Caribbean). The idea that witches must run screaming from crosses may apply in the world of Hammer Films and overly enthusiastic young Pagans with father-figure complexes, but it doesn't have much to do with the Real World.

Lol...it's funny. I've been reading Luciferian stuff by Michael Ford of all people, who's in a black metal band, goes for Vampiric stuff, demon worship and all the LHP package, but adds on a layer of Gnosis, even taking one of his Deific Masks (Luciferian psychodramatic/symbolic representations of the self as deity...kinda...the concept is fuzzy in my very little brain) from a Gnostic Gospel (is that a technical term lol? Excuse my caffeine buzz hypertyping :p) - Yaltabaoth, who was a figure both demonic and angelic. I was debating picking up some Gnostic Christian writings I got somewhere ;) and reading those for further exploration of the whole Gnostic idea, but wasn't sure...you just tipped the balance :) Thanks!

So you have a good point about pagans and Christians - I think the other issue some of us have, though, is that all our experience with Christianity has been with the fundamentalist wackos who are doing a disservice to their own faith as well as everyone else's...Christian imagery and thought appeals to me, but my experience is mainly with evangelicals and I don't want to even add in the parts that appeal to me. I'm meeting some cool Christians here of all places, though, and I think if someone wants to add Christian concepts to their path, they shouldn't shy away from it. There are useful ideas there, and all the followers aren't crap :p

Anyway, I need to come down off caffeine lol. Caffeine is like an entheogen...makes me a nutty lil' pagan. Hope you got my points through all the hyperness ;p

In Caffeinated Chaos,
~Jon~ :bouncybob

[Xander67]

Right - some elements come from other cultures, but that can't be construed as it being invented by them in its entirety :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

I didnt say they invented it I was merely pointing out that there have been discoveries wich would indicate that other civiliations could have used it too .. I was not trying to discredit the Zohar ..

[Burning Angel]

I didnt say they invented it I was merely pointing out that there have been discoveries wich would indicate that other civiliations could have used it too .. I was not trying to discredit the Zohar ..

Hmmmm...if another civilization used the Kabbalah before the Jews invented it, aren't they the ones who invented it? Your train of thought isn't holding up here :wtf:

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[sidhe]

Hmmmm...if another civilization used the Kabbalah before the Jews invented it, aren't they the ones who invented it? Your train of thought isn't holding up here :wtf:

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

Not quite - more that it's a Mid-Eastern concept found throughout the cultures of the area. The Jewish conception is what survived and became codified...thus while other cultures were using it before the Zohar was written, it was a product of the culture of the area, refined into "Qabalah" by the Jewish people.

sidhe - 25% Jewish, a dash of German, and the rest Crazed Appalachian Scotch-Irish

[Burning Angel]

Not quite - more that it's a Mid-Eastern concept found throughout the cultures of the area. The Jewish conception is what survived and became codified...thus while other cultures were using it before the Zohar was written, it was a product of the culture of the area, refined into "Qabalah" by the Jewish people.

sidhe - 25% Jewish, a dash of German, and the rest Crazed Appalachian Scotch-Irish

Hmmm....makes much sense now. I just haven't been impressed with Xander's thinking in this thread to be honest, so I didn't think that was true...but you know what? Every time I hear something I remember reading it someplace :p So yeah...I'm wrong again. Go figure :lol:

However, I must clarify. "Kabbalah" with a K is Jewish...further refinements (corruptions, if you wanna think of it that way) turned it into the Hermetic Qabalah, with a Q :p

Hey....I gotta be right about something right? XD

In Chaos,
~Jon, who learns daily :)~ :flamer:

[KenazFilan]

Not quite - more that it's a Mid-Eastern concept found throughout the cultures of the area. The Jewish conception is what survived and became codified...thus while other cultures were using it before the Zohar was written, it was a product of the culture of the area, refined into "Qabalah" by the Jewish people.


Do you have a cite for that? I know that various forms of Gematria are found throughout the Middle East -- and pretty much anywhere else where the alphabet also has numerical values. But I've never heard of any other group which read their sacred scriptures to find hidden messages. I'm not saying this doesn't exist but I'd like to see some evidence of it.

[banondraig]

Actually, it's best defined (IMO) as Objectivism with a psychodramatic ritual element :)



:uhhuhuh:

An old friend (not a Satanist) used to define Satanism as "Ayn Rand's Objectivism dressed up in a Halloween costume".

[sidhe]

Do you have a cite for that? I know that various forms of Gematria are found throughout the Middle East -- and pretty much anywhere else where the alphabet also has numerical values. But I've never heard of any other group which read their sacred scriptures to find hidden messages. I'm not saying this doesn't exist but I'd like to see some evidence of it.

Not that the entire concept of what became (c)(q)(k)ab(b)al(l)a(h) was common throughout the mideast, but that there were components of it that became codified in the Zoharian kabbalah. The widespread gematria, the link between the alphabet and the numbering system, etc. The application of this to a codified scripture is what forms the Jewish kabbalah.

ETA: Think of it this way - all kabbalah is is application of gematria and other number/letter games to the Torah. If other cultures were doing similar things in the area, then the distinction is that Judaism applies it specifically to Torah.

[Burning Angel]

:uhhuhuh:

An old friend (not a Satanist) used to define Satanism as "Ayn Rand's Objectivism dressed up in a Halloween costume".

I found that in the notes to the Satanic Bible: Underground Edition...probably shouldn't have had that in my possession but it's quite useful. I've never read Ayn Rand myself...but LaVey is more metal ;)


Not that the entire concept of what became (c)(q)(k)ab(b)al(l)a(h) was common throughout the mideast, but that there were components of it that became codified in the Zoharian kabbalah. The widespread gematria, the link between the alphabet and the numbering system, etc. The application of this to a codified scripture is what forms the Jewish kabbalah.

ETA: Think of it this way - all kabbalah is is application of gematria and other number/letter games to the Torah. If other cultures were doing similar things in the area, then the distinction is that Judaism applies it specifically to Torah.

Well, there's also a mystical worldview and angelology/demonology attached - it's more than just that. I can't say all of it is originally Jewish (damn...Lilith comes to mind again. She's taking over the boards! :awilly:), but it's all mostly original that I know of :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :evilway:

[sidhe]

I found that in the notes to the Satanic Bible: Underground Edition...probably shouldn't have had that in my possession but it's quite useful. I've never read Ayn Rand myself...but LaVey is more metal ;)

Most Objectivists...er...object to the comparison. They say that LaVeyan Satanism is what you would get if you asked a 13-year-old who just read The Fountainhead to describe Objectivism. :D


Well, there's also a mystical worldview and angelology/demonology attached - it's more than just that. I can't say all of it is originally Jewish (damn...Lilith comes to mind again. She's taking over the boards! :awilly:), but it's all mostly original that I know of :)

Well, a lot of the spiritual/magical aspects came later. The Zohar outlines the idea of ten emanations from the Ain Soph Aur and the 22 letters of creation. Assigning aspects to these emanations and is part of the cataloging power of Kabbalah.

[Burning Angel]

Most Objectivists...er...object to the comparison. They say that LaVeyan Satanism is what you would get if you asked a 13-year-old who just read The Fountainhead to describe Objectivism. :D

I wonder if that's actual fact, or is that just the Ayn Rand pretention at work? :p


Well, a lot of the spiritual/magical aspects came later. The Zohar outlines the idea of ten emanations from the Ain Soph Aur and the 22 letters of creation. Assigning aspects to these emanations and is part of the cataloging power of Kabbalah.

Makes sense - but they're part of the body of work people call Kabbalah, though. The cultures not using the Torah would frankly have come to different conclusions :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :evilway:

[sidhe]

I wonder if that's actual fact, or is that just the Ayn Rand pretention at work? :p

I've read a lot of Ayn Rand - it's actual fact; in much the same way that there's a difference between a Thelemite and a Crowleyite, there's a difference between an Objectivist and a Randroid. Objectivism has, if you remove it from Rand's polemics, some powerful statements about charity as a means of self-improvement. A Randroid would say that charity is evil.


Makes sense - but they're part of the body of work people call Kabbalah, though. The cultures not using the Torah would frankly have come to different conclusions :)

Of course. But Kabbalah is that specific body of work at discussion. ;)

[Burning Angel]

I've read a lot of Ayn Rand - it's actual fact; in much the same way that there's a difference between a Thelemite and a Crowleyite, there's a difference between an Objectivist and a Randroid. Objectivism has, if you remove it from Rand's polemics, some powerful statements about charity as a means of self-improvement. A Randroid would say that charity is evil.

Hmm...if I knew Objectivism outside of the Satanic Bible, and Ayn Rand outside of that goofy lady who wrote Atlas Shrugged - in other words first-hand, I could make better comments :p I'll defer to you, with the knowledge that as with Satanic stereotypes, things are not always what they seem XD


Of course. But Kabbalah is that specific body of work at discussion. ;)

That's what I'm saying - since the Torah gave rise to Kabbalah, just the basic "let's add numbers of a holy book together and make higher mystical meaning" doesn't define Kabbalah. The Bible Code validates Christianity and preaches the end of the world - neither of those concepts are true :p

However, the concept of gematric analysis of holy texts is near-universal. The Nation of Gods and Earths (a.k.a. The Five Percent Nation), a Nation of Islam spinoff that was adopted by a lot of underground rap artists, has their own system in English (kinda - but still worthy of note even if not exact) - the letter G, as in "real G", "true G", "mother(blanking) G from Compton" blah blah blah, may stand not for Gangsta, but for God in the Gods and Earths system. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation_of_Gods_and_Earths#The_Universal_Language

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :evilway:

[sidhe]

Hmm...if I knew Objectivism outside of the Satanic Bible, and Ayn Rand outside of that goofy lady who wrote Atlas Shrugged - in other words first-hand, I could make better comments :p I'll defer to you, with the knowledge that as with Satanic stereotypes, things are not always what they seem XD



That's what I'm saying - since the Torah gave rise to Kabbalah, just the basic "let's add numbers of a holy book together and make higher mystical meaning" doesn't define Kabbalah. The Bible Code validates Christianity and preaches the end of the world - neither of those concepts are true :p

However, the concept of gematric analysis of holy texts is near-universal. The Nation of Gods and Earths (a.k.a. The Five Percent Nation), a Nation of Islam spinoff that was adopted by a lot of underground rap artists, has their own system in English (kinda - but still worthy of note even if not exact) - the letter G, as in "real G", "true G", "mother(blanking) G from Compton" blah blah blah, may stand not for Gangsta, but for God in the Gods and Earths system. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation_of_Gods_and_Earths#The_Universal_Language

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :evilway:

You mean that Jay-Z has secret Masonic messages in his music?

Yeah, heard it already.

Remember - symbolism is all relative and what you make of it. If it helps you sleep at night, go for it. :D

[Burning Angel]

You mean that Jay-Z has secret Masonic messages in his music?

Yeah, heard it already.

Remember - symbolism is all relative and what you make of it. If it helps you sleep at night, go for it. :D

....no, dude. That's not what I meant at all - Jay-Z isn't connected with the Five Percent Nation, and they're not connected with the Masons. So...when are you gonna read the link and figure out what I was talking about?

The point wasn't rap anyway, it was the Five Percenters' system of the Universal Language.

:wtf:

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :evilway:

[sidhe]

....no, dude. That's not what I meant at all - Jay-Z isn't connected with the Five Percent Nation, and they're not connected with the Masons. So...when are you gonna read the link and figure out what I was talking about?

The point wasn't rap anyway, it was the Five Percenters' system of the Universal Language.

:wtf:

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :evilway:

First, not a dude. Thanks anyway.

Second, because...

http://www.wbur.org/npr/112998783


But Jay-Z's connection to the occult may extend a bit further. In the making-of video for "Run This Town," he's pictured wearing a sweatshirt with the phrase "do what thou wilt" printed across the chest.

"Yes, that has very deep roots in modern occult culture," Horowitz says. "The full expression is 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.' That was one of the key maxims of the British occultist Aleister Crowley. So when Jay-Z appears in a hoodie with that phrase on it in public, that's exactly what he's referencing."

Jay-Z's Rocawear clothing line also often draws upon Masonic symbols: pentagrams, obelisks, pyramids, the all-seeing eye. Of course, that pales in comparison with the near-obsession with the occult of someone like, say, Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page.

...perhaps you should check your references before getting an attitude? True, Jay-Z is not a Five Percenter, but he demonstrates familiarity with their language and constructs, and furthermore awareness of the greater symbolism of secret societies. And, dude, if Beyonce is his qadesha, then he's a fortunate man indeed.

Now, to address what you said - the Universal Language you cited is a reference to the specific lingua franca of the "Gods of Men and Earth" group. Basically, as we were discussing, it creates their own Latin letter gematria system. Woo hoo! Latin gematrias are fairly common among English-speaking societies and groups supposing a form of secret knowledge. Knowing their specific code is useful to unlocking their messages, but better yet to know multiple forms...stare long enough at anything, and you'll see everything, and if you have more lines with which to connect, it'll work better.

Let's take your example - "G". What else does "G" signify? Well, in Masonic circles, it represents the "Great Architect of the Universe" as well as the "Golden Ratio". If you look at it, the letter itself forms a spiral, reminiscent of the nautlius' shell and the most perfect expression of the Golden Ratio in nature. The spiral also brings to mind the Hebrew letter "Yod", which is a spiral in the opposite direction, and begins the Tetragrammaton. "Yod" is also "hand", and calls to mind the first act of sex magick - that which you perform with yourself, as well as indicating the Hermit in the Tarot - the man who holds the light which has guided the Fool thus far on his path...a Guide, to make it blunt. "G" is a direct cognate, furthermore, to "Gimel" and the High Priestess and Initiation, as well as having lunar associations. So, "G-Unit" could be "God Unit" (aha! also a reference to the Golden Ratio), "Unit of Perfect Construction", "Hand Unit", "Masturbation Unit", "Guide Unit", "Unit of the High Priestess", "Initiatory Unit", or "Lunar Unit". If you take the Quadrinity view of the Tetragrammaton, the connection between "God" and "High Priestess" would indicate the sum total of creation. Thus "G" would represent Earth, bringing us back to that a man who is a "G" is a "Man of God and Earth".

Also, "Gimel" is path 13 on the Tree of Life, joining Kether and Tiphareth, or the Crown to Beauty, or The One to the Son, so it could also represent someone traveling the middle pillar route up the Tree of Life and seeking to balance Mercy and Severity within themself...a Good Man...or a God man - a Jesus, Dionysus, Osiris, Mithra...or Baldur! Thus, by associating "G", with "God", the Gods of Men and Earth are actually asserting that the Asatru are correct.

And that's why I responded flippantly, dude. I've got little interest in another Latin Gematria That Will Solve The Problems of the World...especially coming from an Islamic-themed Group which should be utilizing Arabic if they're serious about the divine language within their own paradigm. Symbols are relative, and you can prove anything from anything using anything if you think about it from a magickal perspective.

In conclusion - "First thing in the morning, eat a live toad, and nothing worse will happen to you all day." - Robert Anton Wilson - don't be so serious. Life is fun, and I myself have killed my heart and behave in wanton ways. :D

[Burning Angel]

First, not a dude. Thanks anyway.

Second, because...

http://www.wbur.org/npr/112998783


...perhaps you should check your references before getting an attitude? True, Jay-Z is not a Five Percenter, but he demonstrates familiarity with their language and constructs, and furthermore awareness of the greater symbolism of secret societies. And, dude, if Beyonce is his qadesha, then he's a fortunate man indeed.

Now, to address what you said - the Universal Language you cited is a reference to the specific lingua franca of the "Gods of Men and Earth" group. Basically, as we were discussing, it creates their own Latin letter gematria system. Woo hoo! Latin gematrias are fairly common among English-speaking societies and groups supposing a form of secret knowledge. Knowing their specific code is useful to unlocking their messages, but better yet to know multiple forms...stare long enough at anything, and you'll see everything, and if you have more lines with which to connect, it'll work better.

Let's take your example - "G". What else does "G" signify? Well, in Masonic circles, it represents the "Great Architect of the Universe" as well as the "Golden Ratio". If you look at it, the letter itself forms a spiral, reminiscent of the nautlius' shell and the most perfect expression of the Golden Ratio in nature. The spiral also brings to mind the Hebrew letter "Yod", which is a spiral in the opposite direction, and begins the Tetragrammaton. "Yod" is also "hand", and calls to mind the first act of sex magick - that which you perform with yourself, as well as indicating the Hermit in the Tarot - the man who holds the light which has guided the Fool thus far on his path...a Guide, to make it blunt. "G" is a direct cognate, furthermore, to "Gimel" and the High Priestess and Initiation, as well as having lunar associations. So, "G-Unit" could be "God Unit" (aha! also a reference to the Golden Ratio), "Unit of Perfect Construction", "Hand Unit", "Masturbation Unit", "Guide Unit", "Unit of the High Priestess", "Initiatory Unit", or "Lunar Unit". If you take the Quadrinity view of the Tetragrammaton, the connection between "God" and "High Priestess" would indicate the sum total of creation. Thus "G" would represent Earth, bringing us back to that a man who is a "G" is a "Man of God and Earth".

Also, "Gimel" is path 13 on the Tree of Life, joining Kether and Tiphareth, or the Crown to Beauty, or The One to the Son, so it could also represent someone traveling the middle pillar route up the Tree of Life and seeking to balance Mercy and Severity within themself...a Good Man...or a God man - a Jesus, Dionysus, Osiris, Mithra...or Baldur! Thus, by associating "G", with "God", the Gods of Men and Earth are actually asserting that the Asatru are correct.

And that's why I responded flippantly, dude. I've got little interest in another Latin Gematria That Will Solve The Problems of the World...especially coming from an Islamic-themed Group which should be utilizing Arabic if they're serious about the divine language within their own paradigm. Symbols are relative, and you can prove anything from anything using anything if you think about it from a magickal perspective.

In conclusion - "First thing in the morning, eat a live toad, and nothing worse will happen to you all day." - Robert Anton Wilson - don't be so serious. Life is fun, and I myself have killed my heart and behave in wanton ways. :D

Well, with that in mind, why were we even discussing the Kabbalah in the first place? XD I think it was just a unique point, thought you might be interested, don't know much about it myself...it's all cool whether you think it's awesome or not. I was just trying to liven things up...but you are correct. The purpose of gematria/Kabbalah/etc. is to prove that it's all connected - by drawing random connections between everything :p

At least, if Lon Milo Duquette is correct. And he seems rather smart to me :)

Thanks for explaining your meaning in a more articulate way - I really get the idea now :D

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :evilway:

[Xander67]

Hmmmm...if another civilization used the Kabbalah before the Jews invented it, aren't they the ones who invented it? Your train of thought isn't holding up here :wtf:

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

I am just not convinced the jews invented it.. Yes they may have added a lot of the elements to it but some of the principles can be seen in artwork and in artifacts from other parts of the world pre-dateing the zohar.. which would lead one to speculate or entertain the possibility that maybe they worked with a similar mysticism.

[Burning Angel]

I am just not convinced the jews invented it.. Yes they may have added a lot of the elements to it but some of the principles can be seen in artwork and in artifacts from other parts of the world pre-dateing the zohar.. which would lead one to speculate or entertain the possibility that maybe they worked with a similar mysticism.

Well, I have to say my Kabbalah-fu is much less than my Satan-fu. So I wonder if we can get this thread back on topic lol...like with the Demonic Bible. Got it in some books I found online, was reading it - do any of you guys know it? It looked like equal parts crackpot crap and semi-solid (if not just plain cool) magical ideas...the kind of thing a reasonably smart "internet Satanist kook" would come up with :crazyman:

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :evilway:

[Torey]

Well, I have to say my Kabbalah-fu is much less than my Satan-fu. So I wonder if we can get this thread back on topic lol...like with the Demonic Bible. Got it in some books I found online, was reading it - do any of you guys know it? It looked like equal parts crackpot crap and semi-solid (if not just plain cool) magical ideas...the kind of thing a reasonably smart "internet Satanist kook" would come up with :crazyman:

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :evilway:

I don't know which one you're talking about because there are two or three called 'The Demonic Bible'.

[Burning Angel]

I don't know which one you're talking about because there are two or three called 'The Demonic Bible'.

From "Magus Tsirk Susej, Antichrist", of the Embassy of Lucifer. I swear to God...got the Student of the Occult megatorrent and all of their non-famous LHP stuff is so random and weird. All of it! :O I actually stopped reading and switched to Michael Ford's "Book of the Witch Moon" or whatever it's called...lol.

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[Darth Brooks]

Hmmm...maybe thread not over. :p Also, the Satanic Bible includes a statement at the beginning that says the occult is full of crap, in so many words...I'd been given to understand (both from my reading of that awesome document and from my further research) that LaVeyan ritual is merely psychodrama designed to "Get the Led out" as it were, rather than to actually have an effect. LaVey leaves it open, but the hints are rather strong that he doesn't believe his rituals will do anything except as happy serendipitous coincidences - is that correct, or am I rather mistaken? :S

Well that is certainly a popular interpretation of LaVey's writings. But as to whether or not LaVey himself believed his rituals were purely ritual psychodrama? I really have no idea - the man was an ace at leaving things open like that. For instance, I've read each of his books and I have not found one sentence in any of them where he actually says that Satan is not an actual being and is really just a symbol. Nor does he come out and say Satan is real. In his last book, Satan Speaks, he mentions in one of the chapters that he always preferred to leave that for the individual to decide. Like Rae'ya said, the only thing LaVey was clear about concerning Satan's existence was that the (LaVeyan) Satanist worships him or herself only, regardless of whether Satan is real or not.


Im not completely sold on the jewish claim.. ancient egyptian hyroglyphics, pre alexandrian babalonian cuniform tablets and mayan codecies have yielded similar if not complimentary information..

Citations please?


The Enochian system employs envoking Angels and Demons thus would by nature require an acknowledgement of some form of spiritual hierarchy..Not necessarily. Not when it comes to those who believe angels and demons are merely personifications of one's own unconscious or higher self - an interpretation that was actually embraced by some in John Dee's day. In which case, Enochian magic can be seen as something more like self-psychiatry on steroids manufactured from the spices of Arrakis.


OT, but, while aspects of the Kabbalah do have their origins in other cultures and religions, e.g. the Hellenistic era (gematria was used quite a bit by the Hellenes/Greeks, apparantly), and the Kabbalah has been called Jewish Gnosticism by Gershom Scholem, probably one of the greatest scholars of the Kabbalah, but, the Kabbalah, is it exists, is Jewish, there are things like the Magical Qabalah, or the Christian Kabbalah, but, they misinterpreted a lot of things, and added things in. In its purest form, it is a Jewish system (and a very incredible one too).

QFT.


I am just not convinced the jews invented it.. Yes they may have added a lot of the elements to it but some of the principles can be seen in artwork and in artifacts from other parts of the world pre-dateing the zohar.. which would lead one to speculate or entertain the possibility that maybe they worked with a similar mysticism.

And LaVeyan Satanism has certain things in common with Thelema and Ayn Rand's Objectivism...Yet I have never heard anyone claim that LaVey's Ceremony of the Nine Angles was originally invented by Aleister Crowley or Ayn Rand. The fact of the matter is that regardless of the Kabbalah's origins, the system we know today was first codified by Jewish mystics. The word "Kabbalah," and all the names of its sephiroth, are Hebrew. The fact that it is still used today is because of the great care Jewish mystics took to preserve it. So, any pagan who uses Kabbalah today owes a bit of respect to the Jews for providing them with a powerful tool, even if they choose to adapt that tool to a different terminology or theological paradigm. And any pagan who uses Kabbalah at one moment and says you can't have any Judaic influences in the next is a hypocrite. Unless, of course, that pagan can provide evidence that they are using a completely developed system of Kabbalah that predates Judaism - and that isn't just a "paganized" version of Kabbalah that was created sometime during the last century.

And the possibility that Kabbalah may have pre-Judaic origins only helps my argument against the exclusion of Satanism from the pagan umbrella... If it's okay for pagans to use something that has pre-Judaic origins but was later codified into a recognizable form distinctive to the Abrahamic traditions, then Satanism should be just as acceptable in paganism as the practice of Kabbalah. I just cannot see the point in trying to enforce a "Berlin Wall" between paganism and the Abrahamic religions, like some people seem to think.

[David19]

QFT.



And LaVeyan Satanism has certain things in common with Thelema and Ayn Rand's Objectivism...Yet I have never heard anyone claim that LaVey's Ceremony of the Nine Angles was originally invented by Aleister Crowley or Ayn Rand. The fact of the matter is that regardless of the Kabbalah's origins, the system we know today was first codified by Jewish mystics. The word "Kabbalah," and all the names of its sephiroth, are Hebrew. The fact that it is still used today is because of the great care Jewish mystics took to preserve it. So, any pagan who uses Kabbalah today owes a bit of respect to the Jews for providing them with a powerful tool, even if they choose to adapt that tool to a different terminology or theological paradigm. And any pagan who uses Kabbalah at one moment and says you can't have any Judaic influences in the next is a hypocrite. Unless, of course, that pagan can provide evidence that they are using a completely developed system of Kabbalah that predates Judaism - and that isn't just a "paganized" version of Kabbalah that was created sometime during the last century.

And the possibility that Kabbalah may have pre-Judaic origins only helps my argument against the exclusion of Satanism from the pagan umbrella... If it's okay for pagans to use something that has pre-Judaic origins but was later codified into a recognizable form distinctive to the Abrahamic traditions, then Satanism should be just as acceptable in paganism as the practice of Kabbalah. I just cannot see the point in trying to enforce a "Berlin Wall" between paganism and the Abrahamic religions, like some people seem to think.

QFT and great post, I agree 100% with you, it annoys me when people seem to say "no, the Kabbalah is not Jewish", as though there is something horrible at the thought of using a Jewish system, or that somehow you'll become "impure" by using a Jewish system, and admitting to it.

Like you said, I think anyone who uses any type of Kabbalah practice, any type of Ceremonial Magic (including the LBRP), or even the Tarot, owes some respect to the Jewish people, without them, a lot of those practices would not exist, at least, not in their current form.

[Torey]

From "Magus Tsirk Susej, Antichrist", of the Embassy of Lucifer. I swear to God...got the Student of the Occult megatorrent and all of their non-famous LHP stuff is so random and weird. All of it! :O I actually stopped reading and switched to Michael Ford's "Book of the Witch Moon" or whatever it's called...lol.

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

Yeah. I think it's well-written, but I honestly stopped reading other people's interpretations of Satanic ethics and 'mythology' etc. etc.

[Dumunzi]

I do not consider it Pagan. I've always held the definition of pagan is to be defined as pre-christian European orMesopotamian reconstructionism.

[Burning Angel]

QFT and great post, I agree 100% with you, it annoys me when people seem to say "no, the Kabbalah is not Jewish", as though there is something horrible at the thought of using a Jewish system, or that somehow you'll become "impure" by using a Jewish system, and admitting to it.

Like you said, I think anyone who uses any type of Kabbalah practice, any type of Ceremonial Magic (including the LBRP), or even the Tarot, owes some respect to the Jewish people, without them, a lot of those practices would not exist, at least, not in their current form.

Indeed - all religions have something to offer. Hell...Dion Fortune was a Christian, and the old occult guard loves her :p


Yeah. I think it's well-written, but I honestly stopped reading other people's interpretations of Satanic ethics and 'mythology' etc. etc.

I couldn't get past the first 30 pages lol. The guy's just weird :S But you're right - reading voraciously is for beginners like me...it lies to the pros to determine their own path ^^


I do not consider it Pagan. I've always held the definition of pagan is to be defined as pre-christian European orMesopotamian reconstructionism.

Reconstructionism only? Is there a difference between pagan and "neo-pagan" in your personal taxonomy, then?

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[David19]

Indeed - all religions have something to offer. Hell...Dion Fortune was a Christian, and the old occult guard loves her :p

Very true, and, I also like Dion Fortune's work, she, for the most part, was one of the most-clear headed occultists (hell, she's even clear-headed compared to todays what-passes-for occultists!), she was able to take something that other people wrote in obscure terms and make it understandable, granted, reading her work is still hard work, as she doesn't go "and do A and B to get result C", but, she was still an amazing occultist, IMO.

She also didn't seem to blindly believe everything, and, at the same time, wasn't close minded to the potential of magic.



Reconstructionism only? Is there a difference between pagan and "neo-pagan" in your personal taxonomy, then?

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

Some do see a different, neo-Pagan would be things like Wicca, eclectic Paganism, etc, Paganism would be established religion, or religions with a long history, and that, at least, according to those hold the view, do their homework, e.g. Hellenismos, Religio Romana, Kemeticism, Canaanite Reconstructionism, Aztec Reconstructionism, etc.

BTW, I should add, not everyone sees Kemeticism as Pagan, I know the Nisuit (Pharoah) of Kemetic Orthodox does not define Kemeticism as "Pagan", but, instead, as a "African Traditional Religion" (which, technically, it is), like Voodoo, Santeria, etc.

[Louisvillian]

Hell...Dion Fortune was a Christian, and the old occult guard loves her :p
And understandably so. Pretty much all occultism as we know it developed out of Christian occultism and esoterica, which took cues from Hermetic, Jewish, and Platonic mysticism.


Some do see a different, neo-Pagan would be things like Wicca, eclectic Paganism, etc, Paganism would be established religion, or religions with a long history
This one's a bit more complex for me. Since I define paganism as having inherently something to do with nature and agriculture cycles, I'd differentiate "paganism" and "neopaganism" as simply the difference between a general concept, and a period-specific iteration.
The key to this is, I don't see all polytheistic revivalist groups as necessarily being "neopagan". And, from what I can gather, neither do Reconstructionists, who generally dislike being termed "pagan" at all.

[Burning Angel]

Very true, and, I also like Dion Fortune's work, she, for the most part, was one of the most-clear headed occultists (hell, she's even clear-headed compared to todays what-passes-for occultists!), she was able to take something that other people wrote in obscure terms and make it understandable, granted, reading her work is still hard work, as she doesn't go "and do A and B to get result C", but, she was still an amazing occultist, IMO.

She also didn't seem to blindly believe everything, and, at the same time, wasn't close minded to the potential of magic.

Yeah - when they say "A+B=C" it lays out your path in a rut, easy to follow, but hard to break out of. The raw tools take you off the beaten path :)

And I'm not closed-minded either - I'm simply not sure what to believe about fireballs and stuff. I think it's odd, actually...I love D&D and WoW and stuff but I have a hard time believing they can happen...maybe because I learned the basic pagan/occult biz from Cunningham, Wiccan LJ communities, and various 101 sites of a fluffy-as-hell nature. Thank gods I expanded beyond my girlfriend :lol: Now I just gotta work fireballs back in :p

However, believing everything = suck. Crowley taught the scientific method and only believing what you see...the old guard were quite wise.


Some do see a different, neo-Pagan would be things like Wicca, eclectic Paganism, etc, Paganism would be established religion, or religions with a long history, and that, at least, according to those hold the view, do their homework, e.g. Hellenismos, Religio Romana, Kemeticism, Canaanite Reconstructionism, Aztec Reconstructionism, etc.

BTW, I should add, not everyone sees Kemeticism as Pagan, I know the Nisuit (Pharoah) of Kemetic Orthodox does not define Kemeticism as "Pagan", but, instead, as a "African Traditional Religion" (which, technically, it is), like Voodoo, Santeria, etc.

Right - I'm aware of that, and it's quite the sensible viewpoint. However, I'm suprised...Dumunzi's pentagram made me think he'd be on the neo side :S

African Traditional Religion? That makes sense...geographically. But....maybe it's my lingering conservative tendencies (our family goes harder right the further back you get lol...)...that smacks to me of the "The Egyptians were black and therefore black people invented everything awesome" schtick. Of course, they did invent a ton of stuff, but that's obviously bad scholarship. I don't know exactly how he defines "African Traditional Religion", though...or how he arrived at that conclusion. So I am, of course, more than willing to give him a shot if you can link me :)


And understandably so. Pretty much all occultism as we know it developed out of Christian occultism and esoterica, which took cues from Hermetic, Jewish, and Platonic mysticism.

Indeed - not everything cool was invented by Irish Wiccan Clans or whatever nonsense my fluffy friend spouts :p Um...not that she said that, but I gotta stick it to the fluffies somewhere ;)


This one's a bit more complex for me. Since I define paganism as having inherently something to do with nature and agriculture cycles, I'd differentiate "paganism" and "neopaganism" as simply the difference between a general concept, and a period-specific iteration.
The key to this is, I don't see all polytheistic revivalist groups as necessarily being "neopagan". And, from what I can gather, neither do Reconstructionists, who generally dislike being termed "pagan" at all.

That makes sense - I suppose our original topic has just turned into the "define pagan" thing again. Which is A-OK...when we know who we are, we'll know where we're going :)

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer:

[David19]

Yeah - when they say "A+B=C" it lays out your path in a rut, easy to follow, but hard to break out of. The raw tools take you off the beaten path :)

Very true, it's a good start, but, when you're just following "do this, then do that, to get this result", there's not much room for your own creativity, to do something your way.


And I'm not closed-minded either - I'm simply not sure what to believe about fireballs and stuff. I think it's odd, actually...I love D&D and WoW and stuff but I have a hard time believing they can happen...maybe because I learned the basic pagan/occult biz from Cunningham, Wiccan LJ communities, and various 101 sites of a fluffy-as-hell nature. Thank gods I expanded beyond my girlfriend :lol: Now I just gotta work fireballs back in :p

Look into Eastern systems then (or, better yet, read 'Autobiography of a Yogi' by Paramahansa Yogananda, it won't teach you any thing like that, but, it will show you what could be possible).


However, believing everything = suck. Crowley taught the scientific method and only believing what you see...the old guard were quite wise.

True.



African Traditional Religion? That makes sense...geographically. But....maybe it's my lingering conservative tendencies (our family goes harder right the further back you get lol...)...that smacks to me of the "The Egyptians were black and therefore black people invented everything awesome" schtick. Of course, they did invent a ton of stuff, but that's obviously bad scholarship. I don't know exactly how he defines "African Traditional Religion", though...or how he arrived at that conclusion. So I am, of course, more than willing to give him a shot if you can link me :)

The Nisuit is a she (http://www.kemet.org/nisutAUS.html) ;).

I don't think they go into the "ancient Egyptians were all black" thing, or anything like that, they do use scholarship, the Nisuit, herself, is an Egyptologist and seems quite respected in academic circles, she's no con artist, New Ager and she's definitely not full of BS.

African Traditional Religion, from what I know, means Traditions derived from Africa, there's no hint of "supremacy" in the term at all, it's simply a descriptive term for traditions that have their roots in Africa, e.g. Voodoo, Santeria, Kemeticism (which can also be Middle Eastern too, as Egypt has always been both Middle Eastern and African), etc.

[Burning Angel]

Very true, it's a good start, but, when you're just following "do this, then do that, to get this result", there's not much room for your own creativity, to do something your way.

The book can only take you so far - sheeple of any type will eventually fall off the bandwagon :)


Look into Eastern systems then (or, better yet, read 'Autobiography of a Yogi' by Paramahansa Yogananda, it won't teach you any thing like that, but, it will show you what could be possible).

Well, I'm not sure if I believe everything I read in a random book, either. Especially because an "autobiography" is usually quite sensational :p





The Nisuit is a she (http://www.kemet.org/nisutAUS.html) ;).

Umm...owned? XD


I don't think they go into the "ancient Egyptians were all black" thing, or anything like that, they do use scholarship, the Nisuit, herself, is an Egyptologist and seems quite respected in academic circles, she's no con artist, New Ager and she's definitely not full of BS.

African Traditional Religion, from what I know, means Traditions derived from Africa, there's no hint of "supremacy" in the term at all, it's simply a descriptive term for traditions that have their roots in Africa, e.g. Voodoo, Santeria, Kemeticism (which can also be Middle Eastern too, as Egypt has always been both Middle Eastern and African), etc.

Right - I consider Egypt Middle Eastern, that's why I think of it that way. I just took the Egypt = Africa thing to mean Egypt = Black People...this is somewhat Eurocentric of me. I'm breaking one shell at a time okay? XD What about animism and Mother Goddess worship? Those are African Traditional Religions too...if you go far back enough :lol:

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :evilway:

[David19]

Well, I'm not sure if I believe everything I read in a random book, either. Especially because an "autobiography" is usually quite sensational :p

It's not just a random book, and, Paramahansa Yogananda wasn't the type of person to make things up. You should give it a read anyway one day.




Right - I consider Egypt Middle Eastern, that's why I think of it that way. I just took the Egypt = Africa thing to mean Egypt = Black People...this is somewhat Eurocentric of me. I'm breaking one shell at a time okay? XD What about animism and Mother Goddess worship? Those are African Traditional Religions too...if you go far back enough :lol:

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :evilway:

Animism is part of some African religions, and, I don't know enough about African religions to know whether or not Mother Goddess worship is a part, or a main, part of them.

[Burning Angel]

It's not just a random book, and, Paramahansa Yogananda wasn't the type of person to make things up. You should give it a read anyway one day.

I think I might...just to see for myself :)


Animism is part of some African religions, and, I don't know enough about African religions to know whether or not Mother Goddess worship is a part, or a main, part of them.

My point being that humanity - and therefore the first religions - originated in Africa :)

ETA: Why couldn't my 666th post have been in the Satanism subforum? XD Ave Satana...Ave Metallus! \m/ O.o \m/

</half-serious> :boing:

In Chaos,
~Jon~ :flamer: