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

To: alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.individualism,alt.magick,alt.magick.chaos,alt.magick.ethics,alt.magick.order,alt.magick.sex,alt.magick.sex.angst,alt.magick.tantra,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.virtual-adepts,alt.pagan,alt.religion.asatru,alt.satan
From: jasonp@argon.GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU (Jason Posey )
Subject: Re: Hail Satan, Ruler of this World!
Date: 25 Feb 1996 23:53:06 GMT

In article <4gfkcg$1iv@news2.noc.netcom.net>, Dr. Liverwurst  wrote:
>to Jason Posey  Hail Satan...
>In article <4g2vn6$puk@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, 
>jasonp@argon.GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU says...
>>I'm a member of the Church of Satan, and can honestly say that for myself 
>>and others within the Church, including some I know within the higher 
>>ranks, this characterization is grossly inaccurate.
>
>Oh?  Do tell.
>
>>Let's just say we "worship" that which the Christians call "Satan," and 
>>believe we have a more correct understanding of the nature of that which 
>>we "worship." 
>
>If you "worship" that which Christians call "Satan," then you worship the 
>fallen angel consigned to ruling Hell by God.  

No, afraid not. The Bible can be construed as saying that, yes. But to 
say that what the Bible says about it is necessarily true, is like saying 
that what Hitler says about Jews in Mein Kampf is true. It isn't but that 
doesn't mean he's not talking about Jews. The Bible is talking about 
Satan - but it's got the facts screwed up, when it isn't just plain 
lying. That's how we see it, more or less.

You also must admit the 
>existance of God.  

Yes. Satan is God.

Christian mythology might have a common root with many 
>other mythologies, but it is a seperate entity.  

No it isn't. There is no basis for saying they are necessarily seperate 
entities. That's your completely baseless *opinion*, and I don't buy it. 

If you feel you have a 
>better understanding of "Satan," then it is clearly not the being outlined 
>in the Christian Bibile and you do not worship it and should not call 
>yourselves Satanists.  

I've dealt with this subject so many times before, it gets sickening. 
Read some of my other posts on the subject, and get a clue.

I read that calling yourselves "Satanists" was an 
>"invitation to get past it."  

I believe a Setian said that. Setians are not Satanists.


What else is this than a deliberate 
>misleading in attempt to receive attention?  The interpretation is neither 
>gross nor inaccurate.  It is a black and white issue:
>"Do you worship the being Satan as outlined in the Christian holy texts?"
>"No."
>"You are not Satanists."
>See the point?

I see the point that you are a very ignorant, conceited, close-minded, 
self-righteous, pathetic piece of shit. Is that what you were trying to 
impart?

Apparently you can only see in black and white. Poor thing.


>>>On behalf of the Wiccans, I must say that at least 
>>>they don't call themselves that which they are not. 
>
>>They call themselves witches. They are not.
>
>The standard definition of witch is very Christian in origin and is a very 
>unflattering lable indeed.  It is more a lable thrust on them then one of 
>their own choosing... although a general lable not intended solely for 
>them.  Most Wiccans I know, however, prefer to call themselves Wiccans as 
>it is a more accurate representation of what they are.  So, although I 
>have not encountered the misrepresentation "Satanists" seem prone to with 
>the Wiccans, I see your point.
>
>>The Christians say It lost the battle in heaven. Some of the Christians, 
>>I should say. And, for the last fucking time, that's D E I T Y. E before 
>>the I.
>
>Any one who is going by any form of the Bible says Satan lost and they are 
>right, because their mythology says it.  If your DEITY did not lose the 
>battle in Heaven and was not cast down into Hell, then it is not the same 
>diety.  Geeze!  One little typeo! 
>
Wrong. Many of the gnostics, as well as the Cathars and the 
Manichaeans, believed that Satan was the god of this world, created and 
rules it, and never lost any battle in heaven. They did not accept 
Revelation and other works as canon, which is nothing unusual - anyone 
with any knowledge of the subject knows that the subject of what actually 
constitutes Christian doctrinal canon has been debated and fought over 
for centuries.

Catholics, for instance, accept the Apocrypha, which were officially 
canonized at the Council of Carthage at the same time as the Gospels. 
Protestants do not accept them, however, for no other reason than because 
Martin Luther decided they were too blatantly historically inaccurate. 
So, you see, there IS NO universally accepted Christian doctrine, outside 
of the most basic "we believe in God and follow the teachings of Jesus, 
whatever they may be" framework. 

Please read the Bible, and a little genuine history, before you post on 
this subject again. 

>>>but they also follow a 
>>>path doomed to spiritual torture and suffering and are admittedly evil. 
> 
>>Admittedly "evil", yes. Although the Christians are actually the ones 
>>who 
>>are supposed to admit to being evil.  "Doomed to spiritual torture and 
>>suffering." ? We all suffer, and in a certain sense we're all doomed, 
>>but we hardly believe we're working towards fire and brimstone. 
>
>I have to agree with that.  My point is that if you don't believe you are 
>working towards fire and brimstone, then you can't be worshiping Satan.  
>Some (not ALL!!!) of the views I have seen on this NG have actually had 
>merit!  Some were just childish, hateful ramblings (they're so much fun!). 
> You have as much as said here that you do not worship Satan.  Why call 
>yourselves Satanists?  I would think that if you disagree with Christian 
>theology so much, you would want to distance yourself from it.

>>>They give humanity in general a bad name, not just Wiccans.
>
>>Humanity doesn't need *us* to give itself a bad name. 
>
>I wasn't referring to you (I don't think).  But humanity needs no help in 
>attaining a bad name, of that much we can agree.
>
>>Your understanding of both Christianity and of other religious 
>>traditions 
>>is very limited, I see. For one thing, you buy right in to the Wiccan 
>>claims about their wonderful "pre-patriarchical" religion, which, they 
>>say (lie), was crushed under the jackboots of that oh-so-evil 
>>Christianity. A complete pack of bull.
>
>Obviously, it was not crushed because it still exists.  The Wiccan 
>religion is "pre-patriarchical" as it claims.  

Is it? Prove it. Show ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE of ANY SORT that wicca is more 
than Gerald Gardner's sexual fantasies. 

You can't.

Christianity did try to 
>extinguish (convert) the "heathen" religions.  Among these were the 
>Druids, the Jews, and the "Pagans."  People were tortured and killed for 
>their religious beliefs.  Are you suggesting that the Inquisition never 
>happened?  

Of course not. But no wiccans were killed by it.

While Wicca has undoubtedly changed through the centuries (as 
>any religion has), it is BASED on the ancient religion.  It is every bit 
>religion it was as Christianity now is.  Wiccans admit that the religion 
>has evolved.  Perhaps I am not so limited as you think!

"The" religion? *What* religion? There was never any religion calling 
itself Wicca prior to the twentieth century. You are simply proving my 
point. 

>>> You may be suprised how much 
>>>paganism has been retained despite this, however!  
>
>>Just not by the neo-pagans!
>
>No, by Christianity.
>
>>>So it's not really the 
>>>fault of the Satanists who worship Satan, but the Christians who 
>>>associated Wicca with Satanism in the first place.  The damage is 
>>>done... 
>>>knowledge to the contraray is the only weapon for redemption.
>
>>Redemption! We must be *saved*!
>
>Actually, I meant redeeming the reputation of the religion; not that which 
>may be swallowed (I'll swallow ya soul!  I'll swalow ya soul!).
>
>>>Wiccans don't believe in Hell, by the way, so I was just wondering why 
>you 
>>>even bothered musing. 
>
>>Goes to show that Wicca definitely doesn't have anything to do with the 
>>Norse.
>
>Hell, not HAEL.  While the name is undoubtedly related (perhaps the 
>foundation for Hell), they are not the same place.  I don't recall saying 
>the two were directly related.

Hel. The name was adopted in place of the Greek Hades, which had been 
adopted in place of the Hebrew Sheol. The place of the dead. The spelling 
is moot, as the Norse didn't use the Latin alphabet anyway.

>>> Until then... you have something to think about!
>
>>And now, so do you.
>
>Thanks for the thought.  Can you clarify my remaining questions a little 
>more?  I'm sure the logic doesn't escape you.
>The Doctor
>


--
	--------------------------------------------------

	       <<<<>>>>