THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.satanism,alt.politics.satanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.traditional.witchcraft,alt.pagan
From: satanservice.org@boboroshi (SOD of the CoE)
Subject: Re: Is Witchcraft Satanic...?
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:23:45 GMT

50040405 vii Happy Lunatix!

Mary Meat!
   
Gemini :
# ...what a pleasure it has been to joust with you....

the feeling's mutual, thanks. back at ya thricely. :>
on to the arena!

Gemini :
#>#># Just because certain religions and people of certain periods 
#>#># *perceived* witchcraft as satanic, 

what possible meanings might this have had? there are two main
terms to be manipulated and understood here: "witchcraft" and
"satanic" which have suffered tremendously through use in 
Blood Libel and a subsequent rejuvenation through martyrdom 
activities, during which they are born as a 'cross'.

#> ...perception is perception, and
#> ...if we wish to examine the true nature of things we have
#> to look a bit closer and discern the facts. where it comes to
#> religious individuals, it is almost always best to look at what
#> religious say about THEMSELVES and see how much of what they
#> say is carried out in practice. Satanists should be no different.
#
# I agree. As a matter of fact, I explained that to many non-pagans 
# about how just because they might think one thing about a pagan, 
# they should listen to those of us that *are* and hear what we say. 

oh yah! religious themselves are full of diverse opinions, some
well-founded, some completely far-fetched and fallacious, on the
history, composition, and values of their religious community
and tradition(s).

# ...my own upbringing and ignorance and baggage prevented me 
# from extending satanists the same courtesy - for that, I do 
# apologize....

marvellous. so extended, what does it yield? 

#> inasmuch as 'satanism'...  is the worship of the anti-god 
#> of the Christian religion, we are in complete agreement 
#> that most of those who identify as witches do not venerate 
#> this entity and most are actually *anti-Satanists*, linking 
#> Satan with Christianity and rejecting the *existence* of 
#> such a being. 
#
# Much like how 'pagan', really just meant a 'country dweller'. 

lots of variation even there: 'stick-in-the-mud', 'bumpkin',
'uncivilized (backward)', non-Roman-soldier, non-Christian.
words have a way of meaning what people intend them to.

# The xians referred to converting the 'pagans' and their 
# 'pagan beliefs" really was just saying they were going 
# fo the country folk. 

my impression is that 'pagan' functions for Christians in
the same way that 'goyim' and 'kafir' function for Jews
and Muslims respectively, being identifications of those
who are NOT WORSHIPPERS OF THEIR COMBINED AGREED GOD OF
WORSHIP. 

most Neopagans that I've encountered knew that this was at
least one of the meanings of the term, some understood it
to have preceded its usage as a religious identifier. those
who understand that these terms are in some measure within 
a Christian continuum: 'those who are not of us and are
therefore targets of our conversion-efforts' as well as to
some extent *condemnations or dismissives* may be able to
encompass the theory I've laid out that explains how all 
of this relates to martyrdom and championing of villified
cult-names in a misunderstood, put-upon way which has been
of particularly poignant and helpful to Jews and Christians 
through time (seeing oneself and one's community as victim, 
one may justify the use of force to protect one's interests 
(regardless of how threatened or legitimate these may be --
consider the occupation of Middle-Eastern territory by Jews) 
or defend oneself (consider the extremities of 'jihad' and 
how it is used to support offensive actions).

# Over time, xians saw that as a term meaning "non-xian", 

because it was true.

# which we took to identify ourselves.

and as far as I can tell, Neopagans have taken the badge
of 'Pagan' out of this restitution/martyrdom principle, 
having attempted to cloak themselves in a mantle of worship
of the 'Old (i.e. pre-Christian) Gods' with information 
primarily gleaned from books on anthropology and fantasies
(e.g. Margaret Murray constitutes a *combined* example).

contrary to popular notions, there does not appear to be any
direct historical connection between "witches" of old and
the religious who use the name 'witch' today. I've heard some
talk about 'family lines' and 'traditional witches', but can
still not see the foundation of this lengthy continuity.

#> however, inasmuch as 'Satanism' may be observed as a transcultural
#> phenomenon as described by Satanists, the focus of admiration, or
#> emulation, or worship appears to be something *dependent for name*
#> upon the culture in which it arises. as such, the question of
#> whether this being called 'Satan' (amongst any number of other
#> names) is what Christians or witches or whathaveyou believe it to
#> be immediately becomes important in our discussion on the matter.
#
# The sad thing, of which I am guilty, is that those name have carried 
# so much weight as to a particular meaning, one forgets to keep an 
# open mind about the things he *thinks* he knows. Right, much the 
# pagan's horned-god is just the devil to a xian.

it was precisely for this reason that I set about collecting data
on 'Satan', 'The Devil', and 'Satanism' and housing them at
http://www.satanservice.org  while I can't say that I've found the
datapile to be consistently admirable or attractive, I have noticed
that the contents have some commonalities remarked upon by others
in the Satanist community when it comes to the religious themselves.

	  there is usually some adversarial or rebellious figure
	  functioning as focus for the cult, though it may be
	  seen as *only a symbol*, a *mythic character*, or a
	  *fictional being* intended to inspire or represent
          an ideal or epitome of human activity in the 
	  Satanic (i.e. Promethean, Titanic) mold;

for this reason Satanists may adhere to atheistic cosmologies
whilst promoting what should probably be called anti-Christian
terminology and ideologies. the values and notions about the
cosmos are inverted at least, reformed to a materialistic aim.
the cloak of 'Satanism' is like that 'Pagan' except rachetted
up another notch in antagonism against Christian religious
against whom the practicers would like to identify themselves. 

it is too simple to view the cosmos as a Christian and identify
those who aren't with us as 'satanists' by associating all that
is "evil" to be of Our Great Adversary. anything or anyone that
gets broad-brushed into that category is likely either to reject
it outright or take it on as a badge and frighten the dickens
out of ignorant Christians who don't understand the ways and
wiles of Western transforming religion. 

#> ...we should
#> not, as open-minded Neopagans, expect that all Satanists should
#> cohesively adhere to some simple-minded inverso-religion about
#> which some Christians and some Neopagans have become convinced.
#
# Right. Too many of us do that. Pagans, being wrongfully 
# associated with the xian notion of satan, 

here's the hitch. there's more than one way to see this.
while the cosmology is of course not agreed (how things came
to be, who the cosmic spiritual authorities are, etc.), what
IS being associated with this Christian Satan might well be
part of what Neopaganism *includes*. as such, it would be
mistaken, confusing, and possibly self-deceiving if we 
were to just reject the association out of hand with Satan.

we might instead look to what it is that Christians are
actually applying the label 'satanic' *to* and see if this
is something that Neopaganism incorporates. there is some
which is applicable, and some which is not. the coercive,
violent, infidelitous aspects are usually negated right off.
the lascivious, nature-oriented, this-worldly, hedonistic
aspects are typically embraced by Neopagans (not always!).

# have unfortunately allowed that to bias us against those 
# that would be called satanic, w/o even knowing.

it seems to be an over-reaction in part based on learned
ignorance as having come from proximity to Christian fear,
fear-mongering and condemnation-schemes.

# ...there are pagans that don't even know what a "horned-one" is, 
# as they might uphold differnt ideals. Indeed, there are so many 
# different types of pagans, considering pagan is more like the 
# 'other' category of religions.

the fluctuation appears to be based on a twin-terminology focus
prevalent within all religions I've yet encountered:

	* epitome or ideal image

	  this usually comes up first. the image or prominent
	  terminology and symbolism of the Martyrdom Cult
	  is essential to its tranformative quality; members
	  of the cult identify in this way in part out of an
	  adversarial tack to those who have been abusing the
	  terminology as part of Blood Libel: condemnation
	  of propaganda and lies leading to conversion-or-death

	  often the novel identifier will be glorified, an ideal,
	  and proceed from internal creativity to external form
	  as part of a social catalyst toward tolerance where it
	  isn't carried too far.

	* membership status
	
	  this usually comes later. once the impetus or 'charge'
	  of the novel identifier wears out, or sufficient
	  social permeation/involvement comes to pass, then a
	  membership cadre develops without much connection to
	  the originating catalyzing terminology-corruptors. it
	  is these who cry 'foul!' when the original condemnation
	  terms are taken out of the closet and used against the
	  'second generation martyrs' as bludgeons. having lost
	  or forgotten the creative and catalyzing impetus (or
	  had it buried away from them for political purposes),
	  some mythic Martyrdom chestnut is produced which sits
	  at the heart of the cults underscoring their legitimacy
	  (for Neopagans usually something like 'The Burning Times').

it's a fascinating dynamic, really, and appears to be THE REVERSE
OF PROPAGANDIZED CONDEMNATION SCHEMES. abused terms are seized,
turned toward benefic and revolutionary usage, and put forward.
this catalyzes social contention as to their values and motives.
attention must be redeployed upon *actual behaviours* rather than
to remain at the level of identification in a black/white fiction.
  
#> ...just because a Satanist decides that they want to
#> undertake witchcraft, this doesn't mean that all Satanists are
#> therefore witches. I'm not yet convinced that witchcraft is a
#> religion, but we'll get to that.
#
# ...I often substitue Wicca for witchcraft, and thus refer 
# to witchs' 'religion'

this appears to have been some of the intention of modern 
Neopagan revisionists: to substantiate the religious rivalry
projected by Christians upon their victims as 'witches'. a
thorough examination of witch-craze records in Europe shows
that it was primarily a Christian affair suffered by women
and those with property to exploit in times of fear and panic
through attestation of corruption and evil based on fantasies. 

that is, the 'religion' of witchcraft is a modern invention,
though its emergence should be acknowledged as such, of course.

# ...it depends on the Satanist, and general interpretation 
# of what a "witch" is. I think the permutations are too 
# numerous to go over

I don't. there are only a half dozen options and combinations.
I've been collecting them for more than a couple of decades.

	witch <== old woman; wise woman; herbalist; (old)
                  spellcrafter; curser; healer; (conventional)
                  heretic; devil worshipper; satanist (Christian)
		  religious adherent of the Old Gods (Wiccan)

     satanist <== anti-Christian; devil worshipper; heretic (Christian)
		  adherent to promethean, revolutionary religion (Satanist)

the term 'witch' has more depth and application, but only really 
on *4* fronts, 2 of which are non-religious, one condemnatory,
and one proliferating as a religion on its own in contrast.

the term 'satanist', comparably, has only really two valences,
since its application previous was primarily cosmological (as
an identifier of Christianity's projected Cosmic Adversary)
or sociopolitical (as an identifier of a Jewish or general foe
or antagonist -- even the divine can be a 'satan' in this sense).

#> it is in part
#> this kind of contention which leads me to believe that the
#> Neopagans which are doctrinal *are in fact Christians, but
#> antagonistic to their parent-faith* 
#
# That could be for some, but, having doctrine does not make 
# one a xian. 

a matter of religious and sociological contentions. :>
doctrine by itself doesn't make one Christian, agreed, but
having a doctrine about the reality or importance of Satan
could be a very important indicator. many Neopagans I've
encountered who were adverse to Christianity went as far
as to say that "the Christian god and anti-god do not
exist". i.e. they were abject anti-Christians.

# :-) Heh, the defacto belief is that's what satanists are, heh.

there's very clear overlap between promethean or luciferian
Satanists and 'dark Pagans'. at points indistinguishable.

#>("My gods exist, the
#> Christian god and anti-god does not." etc.).
#
# Most pagans, at least that I know, believe the xian god exists, 
# but we just don't follow it. Obviously there are those that 
# would content that, but, to me they would be the ignorant. 

there's a problem with the contention about its "existence" in
that the class or character of the being is what is actually
disputed. added to the contention should be "as described" then.

i.e. amongst the Neopagans about whom you are speaking, they
would probably agree that the Judeochristian deity is not the
Creator God of the universe, for example. its placement or
position in the cosmology is at severe variance. for our
purposes, we might say that Neopagans generally "do not 
believe that the status afforded the Christian god by its
worshippers is well-founded or believable". 

"don't follow it" is vague in comparison. where there is little
to no motivation to worship or attempt to placate such a god,
the distinction between 'doesn't exist' and 'doesn't exist as
described' becomes somewhat irrelevant.

# It wold be very difficult in my mind to have multi-deity 
# pantheon, but tell others their god(s) don't exist. 

yes, immediately one's cosmology, how one imagines that the
cosmos arose, what its authorities are, etc., becomes very
important to continued discussion.

# As a pagan, I acknowledge all gods, 

but this is meaningless where your encountered contender
means by "god" the originator of the real, the fashioner
of all that is, etc.  you probably don't acknowledge the
descriptive truth of those contentions, for example. in
effect you've said "you have a god you call X" but have
not bothered to identify it or describe its reality.

# but only accept a few as part of my belief structure. 
# Which may change over time.

the 'accept a few as part of my belief structure' is not
immediately transparent to me. in comparison, I've tried
to interact with these gods directly or through the
intermediaries of the god's worshippers numerous times.
sometimes, as with Jesus, I've discovered important,
meaningful relations. at others I've only encountered
strife, difficulty, or silence. as you say, this may
change over time. however, to 'acknowledge gods' is not
a very clear descriptor of your actual relationships.

presumably Neopagans hierarchalize the deities which we
acknowledge, establish kinship, love, and worship relations.
we dedicate ourselves to our gods, devote time to altars,
actions/rites on behalf or in the name of said gods. 

this is precisely what all religious do, some with 
greater stringency and dogmatism than others.

#> the vast complex
#> of Neopagan and neuvoreligious include so many differing 
#> kinds of people and groups, so many divergent beliefs, most 
#> of them apparently NONDOCTRINAL (i.e. no specific beliefs are
#> required), that I don't understand your conclusions here at 
#> *all*. I'd love to hear more, however.

# I think I would refer to them has having divergent and often 
# disparate doctrine as opposed to nondoctrinal, which would 
# still agree with your point....

you may be right, especially in some quadrants. the point that
Books of Shadows have varying content, however, and few if any
scriptures have become considered imperative or sacred within
the Neopagan community (I was actively DIScouraged from trying
to locate or implant identifying religious elements in text by
many of the Wiccans I studied with! -- this was not unusual)
makes the 'doctrinalness' somewhat tricky. yes, doctrines are
often included in Neopagan religion. these vary, and more,
they don't usually constite the litmus by which an individual
is considered to be a 'part of the religion'. more often I've
run into LITURGICAL and OATH-BASED criteria which was convincing.

that is, riteforms and initiation seem more hot topical foci
on the part of Neopagans I've had the pleasure to encounter
way moreso than any kind of scripture or doctrinal adherence.
the tinge of Religions of the Book was so thick that my
inference was usually "we are not Christians, we do not
consider there to be a 'Bible of Wicca', you will not find
our secrets and power located within books". this is partly
why it was that Anton LaVey wrote "The Satanic Bible" --
he was running countrary to Neopagans adverse to doctrinal
adherence and the appearance of being like Christians.

#>#> or 2) Paul Huson wasn't making a connection between 
#>#> "Fallen Angels" and the instruction of witchcraft (in which 
#>#> case you're easily demonstrated in error with a quote from 
#>#> the text).
#> 
#> apparently you don't believe that Huson is instructing 
#> witchcraft, though some witches might have recommended 
#> his books. the text in question does contain clear
#> references to apocrypha of Christianity (specifically
#> the Book of Enoch -- check it out!). one might also
#> mention here the text "Aradia, the Gospel of the Witches",
#> which has the couple Diana and *Lucifer* as important
#> gods. one might go all day denying something is "really
#> witchcraft". what you consider to be witchcraft is 
#> apparently falling within a very narrow range. in fact,
#> the narrowness of your views makes your claims false.
#
# Agreed. I understand that now. Kind of like being a doctor. 
# One can be a doctor that belives in xianity and a doctor
# can also be muslim. I think someone as some point pointed 
# out that witchcraft is that. a craft. My fiancee is a witch, 
# but not wiccan. We're both pagans, but I dont practice 
# witchcraft, and neither of us are wiccan.

through some meanings of this term (witch) this is quite so.
see above for how some of them don't work this way.

# ...My base argument started from defending that "witches 
# aren't satanists" as a general term....

which is true within a certain context.

# then morphed into those showing that witches *could* be 
# satanists....

esp. from a Christian perspective, but also from a Satanist
and even some Wiccan perspectives.

#> I'm not sure how this applies except that it excludes the
#> condemnation schemes, about which we substantially agree.

# I never knew there were satanists that *didn't* worhsip 
# the xtian Satan....

that's in part what I'm out to dispell. :>
it appears to be Christian propaganda used by Satanists
as a lightning-rod for attention in the same general way
that Neopagans have sought to use 'witch', 'warlock', and
'sorcerer', sometimes rebounding upon themselves in shock.

#> you know differently? is there a requirement in your
#> Neopagan witch coven that certain beliefs must be held
#> in order to be a witch? if so, what are these beliefs?
#
# I can't speak for covens. 

darn! ;>

# But there are witch religions, such as Wicca, that do 
# have requirments for certain beliefs to be held in order 
# to be a witch; at least in *their* context ....

check out their information since you're not one of them.
what do they consistently maintain needs to be believed?

# ...However, one of the reasons I don't follow the ideals 
# of Wicca (for example), is that it *is* too dogmatic, 
# but that's another story.

another false one? I'm sure there are dogmatic Wiccans.
I've met a few. I don't think they are really representative.

# The meat of it coming down to semantics. I think we achieved 
# that here. 

we're beginning a dissembly of confusion.

# because my pagan beliefs loosely resemble those of Wiccan, 

how much?

# the context in which I see witches is very close to heart. 

I can relate.

blessed beast! :>

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/