No God, but Satan...?

[GoodbyeDave]

If there were no Abrahamic religions there would be no need for Satanism as there would be no Self-subjugating, anti-psyche/individual will, monotheistic religions to rebel against. As with ancient Egypt/Greece before, the world would still be endowed with major Self-empowering, psyche-worshipping religions and initiatory schools of thought and Magick. However, neither time nor the brutal tactics of conversion and wars these Abrahamic religions have employed and instigated have the power to destroy the strongest and most noble religions and philosophies of old.

I suppose that explains why you don't get African, Chinese, or Japanese Satanists! (Now some-one is going to produce one for me...)

Thank you for your kind words about Hellenism (and Egyptian religion) but, as you see, reports of our destruction are premature.

 

[Liu]

I'm not so sure whether other cultures are or were that much better than the Abrahamic traditions. Dogmatism exists everywhere, as do ideologies that consider the state or collective more important than the individual. I'm no expert on Ancient Greek or Egypt culture, but from what I heard about them it would surprise me if they were all that individualistic as a whole.

The how is satanism differ from luciferian and still be religious ? It seems like an internal rebel against mainstream religion and society. Without religion and social construct what is satanism ?

To me it includes the appreciation and veneration of the fact that the world does have such rebellious facets, such eternal change of thought paradigms, such a striving for individuation. Without social constructs society wouldn't even exist.

 

[savethedreams]

I'm not so sure whether other cultures are or were that much better than the Abrahamic traditions. Dogmatism exists everywhere, as do ideologies that consider the state or collective more important than the individual. I'm no expert on Ancient Greek or Egypt culture, but from what I heard about them it would surprise me if they were all that individualistic as a whole.


To me it includes the appreciation and veneration of the fact that the world does have such rebellious facets, such eternal change of thought paradigms, such a striving for individuation. Without social constructs society wouldn't even exist.

Satanism. Left hand path and luciferians are few religions that I do not fully understand. I'm still eager but most of what I read all deal with self powering and establishment atheist.

Maybe I can ask you this ; how does one become a satanist ?

 

[Liu]

Simple: Just consider yourself one.

But to do so you of course first have to have some understanding of what you even mean by that.
The most complicated part about understanding it is accepting that it is not one religion but a huge mess of interrelated worldviews that resemble each other in some ways but that are connected not by a list of hard criteria but by family resemblance.
So, take your time to study some specific Satanisms and don't be surprised if they contradict each other in every possible way, and then take from them those parts that reflect your own convictions and reassemble them to your own religion.

Please be aware, though, that I have a very inclusive view on different kinds of Satanism; some other Satanists might consider theirs to be the only true one (even though I would consider such a believe to be contradictory to my kind of Satanism, but hell, you see the problem), and they may have much more specific requirements of what one has to do to become a Satanist.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I'm no expert on Ancient Greek or Egypt culture, but from what I heard about them it would surprise me if they were all that individualistic as a whole.

That's true. But without the family, none of us would exist — unless you were born like a duckling, instantly able to take care of yourself! And without society, life would indeed be "nasty, brutish, and short": indeed, archeological evidence shows that humans have always lived in societies. Advocates of total individualism often forget the obligations they have incurred by the simple fact of growing up. Nevertheless, ancient societies left you to your own devices once you accepted your obligations. They didn't tell you what to believe, or ever introduce Prohibition or morality-based censorship, for example.

 

[crossfire]

That's true. But without the family, none of us would exist — unless you were born like a duckling, instantly able to take care of yourself! And without society, life would indeed be "nasty, brutish, and short": indeed, archeological evidence shows that humans have always lived in societies. Advocates of total individualism often forget the obligations they have incurred by the simple fact of growing up. Nevertheless, ancient societies left you to your own devices once you accepted your obligations. They didn't tell you what to believe, or ever introduce Prohibition or morality-based censorship, for example.

If you ignore or gloss over the Gynaikonomoi (literally "Censors of Women," who were the equivalent to the religious police you see in some societies today) of Ancient Greece, and such.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Satanism and much of Luciferian philosophy stems from Christianity or rebellion of Dogma and some social norms. My question is Would there be Satanism / Luciferians if there were no Dogma and/or Abrahamic religions?

Luciferianism, or something like it, I imagine would still be here without the Abrahamic faiths existing, as related concepts could be drawn from mythological figures, such as Prometheus.

I don't know about Satanism. I mean, hedonism would exist of course, but most Satanists seem to draw against Abrahamic morality, and the symbolism usually relates to Abrahamic mythology. And a lot of times there is shock factor involved.

Note: This does not stand true to ALL Satanists.

 

[savethedreams]

Luciferianism, or something like it, I imagine would still be here without the Abrahamic faiths existing, as related concepts could be drawn from mythological figures, such as Prometheus.

I don't know about Satanism. I mean, hedonism would exist of course, but most Satanists seem to draw against Abrahamic morality, and the symbolism usually relates to Abrahamic mythology. And a lot of times there is shock factor involved.

Note: This does not stand true to ALL Satanists.

Thanks You.

 

[crossfire]

The how is satanism differ from luciferian and still be religious ? It seems like an internal rebel against mainstream religion and society. Without religion and social construct what is satanism ?

If there were no Abrahamic religions there would be no need for Satanism as there would be no Self-subjugating, anti-individual will, monotheistic religions to rebel against. As with ancient Egypt/Greece before, the world would still be endowed with major Self-empowering, psyche-worshipping religions and initiatory schools of thought and Magick. However, neither time nor the brutal tactics of conversion and wars these Abrahamic religions have employed and instigated have the power to destroy the strongest and most noble religions and philosophies of old.

If you look at Taoism and what it says about the art of governing, it is geared towards avoiding the arising of adversarial (satanic) factors by limiting the powers and scope of government (so there is nothing to rebel against) and viewing the necessary destruction of malignant factors as a failure, not as a victory. This directs the people to focus on their own business and themselves, rather than on victory over a corrupted government.

 

[Liu]

I don't know much about Taoism, but as you describe it, its way of avoiding the rest of the world to affect one so one has instead the freedom of focusing on oneself seems very much in agreement with and complementary to Satanism. As I said above, I think Satanism does not need to be about openly fighting the world - the rebelling part is mostly for beginners and for cathartic purposes.
And as Milton described so fittingly in one of his books, why should we Satanists try to triumph over a corrupted government if this will only lead to us becoming what we fought against before? I'm not saying that it would be a no-go to nevertheless have such goals - for me Satanism is also about seeing that corruption is part of existence, and existence is morally neutral, so if you want to become a corrupt ruler, then go for it. But if you don't want to, then taoistic non-action can be the proper choice for a Satanist, too.

 

[ExOrienteNox]

In my own Opinion, based on many research i have done, The concept of Adversary, of Rebellion against Spiritual Tyranny, against Dogma and ''Commonly accepted ethic and Behavior'' is present in most of the Culture, Like the Egyptian One, the Babylonian one, the Mazdean one etc.....
Christianity have its own concept of the adversary, like most of Religion or Spiritual Believe does.
(and when doind some research when can even see that their concept is Taken from Older Source.)

So whe can see that the concept of Satan(meaning adversary) and Lucifer(meaning the Light Bearer) is not exculsive to Christian or Judaic Religion, in fact, it is much more Older then the Beginning of Judaism and Christianity.

In every Religious Belief we can find this concept of a Rebellious God, or Being, Who Desire to bring Knowledge and Freedom to Mankind.

I Think it is a Universal concept.

 

[Liu]

This universalism probably stems from the fact that it's based on one of the most basic social instincts of humans: It happens all the time subconsciously that we humans perceive part of the world as the ingroup, and the rest as the other. That can be really helpful as without such, communities wouldn't work. This instinct leads to us helping and supporting those we consider to be part of our group, and being cautious towards things and people new to us as they may be dangerous.
But it also leads to intolerance, blindness towards anything new, and it supports authoritarianism and dogmas. So, to become aware of this bias and to follow the curiosity of trying to understand the other can mean, depending on the situation, learning something really worthwhile that one couldn't have figured out otherwise, but it can also mean breaking the rules of one's society and running over to its enemy, for better or for worse. And it can also mean both simultaneously.
Due to that it doesn't seem surprising that deities that symbolize the other, deities that symbolize wickedness and deities that symbolize wisdom and knowledge can be one and the same.

Nevertheless I'm not sure how often it actually happens that these concepts get combined. Most of the deities I can think of are either of otherness and wickedness or of wisdom and knowledge, even though there are sure quite a number of those who combine it.
So I wouldn't say that this happens in every culture, at least not at every time. In the Abrahamic religions for example, Satan representing knowledge and wisdom is only a very small aspect which at most times was ignored. Him being called Lucifer is not only a very late development but also a mix of mistranslation and misinterpretation. In Judaism, those mythological beings that combine otherness/wickedness and knowledge rather are some other fallen angels, especially Samyaza and Azazel who were punished not only for having children with humans, but also for teaching humankind the arts and technology. But they almost only appear in the book of Enoch and other apogryphical texts which are not in the canon.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Satanism and much of Luciferian philosophy stems from Christianity or rebellion of Dogma and some social norms. My question is Would there be Satanism / Luciferians if there were no Dogma and/or Abrahamic religions?

There are many answers here, but none that would satisfy me were I the one asking, so here goes.

I will stay brief and concise.

Satanism as I understand it is a form, a bottle; A contemporary manifestation of the thousands of year old(and arguably beyond) Left Hand Path (vamachara/vamamarga) of the Hindu/tantric tradition.

It's impossible to say if this form would have arisen given different circumstances(no Christianity), but the dynamic(the water in the bottle) would certainly exist in some form, as it describes an something innate.

 

[VioletVortex]

Yes, but it wouldn't be called Satanism. Satan has been worshipped for ages in other religions without said being being understood as Satan.

 

[ScottySatan]

I see Satan as being an object of externalising blame for bad things, like Gremlins to WW2 mechanics or Yokai to the Japanese.

In its simplest or most ancient form, Sin is self awareness or reasoned objection to the rules of the tribe. Satanism is an appreciation for the attitudes that created that Sin. A personal embodiment of Satan comes from whether you're the type to create Gremlins and Yokai.

Newer thoughts made things much more complicated than that, but I think that's the origin. I think it predates christianity, and would not be surprised if it predates the concept of a god. I think it could go back to australopithicenes.

 

[EtuMalku]

Allow me to clear this up . . .
Lucifer has nothing to do with the Abrahamic faiths, He is not mentioned in the Christian bible. Lucifer is a pre-Christian deity of ancient Roman and Greek mythology. He is mentioned in Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses", which was written in 8 B.C.E., Roman poet Virgil mentions him as far back as 29 B.C.E. And the first mention is from Timaeus by Plato written 360 B.C.E. The title Lucifer was used for the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar as well as Jesus himself. This title however is directly associated with the Morning Star which appears even earlier in Phoenician/Canaan cosmology.

 

[Liu]

Originally, he has nothing to do with them - but since about the middle ages, he has. Mythologies have copied from each other all the time and myths have been reshaped and reinterpretated along the way - your claim that Lucifer is not part of the Abrahamic religions is like claiming that Absu was not part of the Babylonian religion due to having been part of Sumerian religion in a very different way before, or like Brigid not being a Catholic saint due do being a Celtic deity before.
I don't know, are you are theist? Then why not simply acknowledge that there may be more than one entity called Lucifer, or that an entity may be understood differently by different cultures? Your Lucifer may have nothing to do with the Abrahamic faiths, but many Christians certainly have a being in their mythology that they call both Lucifer and Satan - and most Luciferians seem to derive their religion rather from that than from the "original" Lucifer.

 

[crossfire]

<...>Your Lucifer may have nothing to do with the Abrahamic faiths, but many Christians certainly have a being in their mythology that they call both Lucifer and Satan - and most Luciferians seem to derive their religion rather from that than from the "original" Lucifer.

Not this Luciferian. Osadhi tārakā, the Morning star, Medicine Star, or Healing Star is associated with metta. It was during the third watch of the night when the Morning Star rose while Buddha was meditating under the Bodhi tree (being protected from the elements by the serpent Muccalinda) that he became fully enlightened. This is from Buddhism, not Abrahamic religion.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Allow me to clear this up . . .
Lucifer has nothing to do with the Abrahamic faiths, He is not mentioned in the Christian bible. Lucifer is a pre-Christian deity of ancient Roman and Greek mythology. He is mentioned in Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses", which was written in 8 B.C.E., Roman poet Virgil mentions him as far back as 29 B.C.E. And the first mention is from Timaeus by Plato written 360 B.C.E. The title Lucifer was used for the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar as well as Jesus himself. This title however is directly associated with the Morning Star which appears even earlier in Phoenician/Canaan cosmology.

Of course he does. Lucifer has been woven into that cosmology for many many centuries.

That's all it is you know. Evolving mythos. Religions evolutionary tree looks very similar to biological evolution, it's all connected, and there is no point you can name that isn't informed by the previous point.

From sun worship to Egyptian interpretation of same, to India and Hinduism, which fed budhism and merged with judeism and Zoroastrianism to arrive at Christianity, which itself spawned many (over 30,000 actually) children, which informed these new age religions like Wicca and luciferianism and the like.

It's an endless evolution of idea.

 

[EtuMalku]

Of course he does. Lucifer has been woven into that cosmology for many many centuries.

That's all it is you know. Evolving mythos. Religions evolutionary tree looks very similar to biological evolution, it's all connected, and there is no point you can name that isn't informed by the previous point.

From sun worship to Egyptian interpretation of same, to India and Hinduism, which fed budhism and merged with judeism and Zoroastrianism to arrive at Christianity, which itself spawned many (over 30,000 actually) children, which informed these new age religions like Wicca and luciferianism and the like.

It's an endless evolution of idea.

The origin / ideal of something is monumental in understanding the truth of that something, making stuff up to progress an agenda (Christianity) is deception.