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

To: alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.mythology
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (lorax666)
Subject: Satan and Horned Gods (was Re: Satanic Witch Question...)
Date: 2 Mar 1998 11:43:05 -0800

49980301 aa2 Hail Satan!

Nekro" :
>>> ...the figure "Satan" was around long before Christianity.

lorax666:
>>the SAME figure?  please explain to me in what capacity, by what
>>name, etc.  I don't find Satan as a personal being and antagonist
>>to Christianity except later in Christian history.  please provide
>>some sources for your claim so that I can follow up on them.  if
>>you need sources for mine, try the URL at the end of this post.

"Nekro" :
>This is a bit of my own interpretation, books I have read, and 
>conversations with friends of mine. The popular Christian 
>conception of "Satan" very much resembles old pagan gods.... 

oh sure, but the pheneticists made a big deal about 'resemblance'
in evolutionary studies, without, it would appear, much lasting 
substance.  perhaps what does not work for biology applies to 
mythology, I'm unsure.  there are, of course, instances of 
cross-cultural influence as well as dual-arisings.  I don't see 
that resemblances necessarily imply either, so I'm curious about 
your sources.

in any case, Satan wasn't for the Christians the same god 
as Pan was for the Greeks, even if some assimilation took place.


>Take Pan, for example. The goat image, the horns, the preoccupation 
>with the carnal aspects of life. I believe that Christianity did 
>it's best to take all things pagan, and convert them to something 
>Christian (whether "good" or "evil). 

that Pan was a strong influence on Christian ideas of the Devil is
not disputed, I'd say.  my favorite source on the subject says:

	The son of Hermes was Pan, who was born hairy
	and goat-like, with horns and cloven hooves.
	A phallic deity like his father, he represented
	sexual desire, which can be both creative and
	destructive.  The iconographic influence of Pan
	upon the Devil is enormous.  What in the tradition
	made it possible for the image of Pan to be joined
	with that of Satan?  Medieval tradition frequently
	speaks of the hairiness of the Devil, sometimes of
	his horns, and occasionally of his cloven feet.
	The Devil is frequently described as taking animal
	forms, most commonly that of the goat. [AUTHOR'S
	NOTE: Besides the goat, the ass, pig, wolf, dog,
	cock, hare, cat, bull, and horse are frequently
	symbols of fertility in world religion.  They also
	appear frequently in Christian tradition as forms
	of the Devil.  The snake, curiously, appears only
	infrequently.  The Green Man, another common
	fertility symbol of Western Europe, also is
	assimilated to the image of the Devil.  For a
	modern rendition of this connection, see Kingley
	Amis, _The Green Man_ (New York, 1970).]  The
	root of the similarity is the association of the
	Devil with the cthonic fertility deities, who
	were rejected by the Christians as demons along
	with the other pagan gods and who were particularly
	feared because of their association with the
	wilderness and with sexual frenzy.  Sexual passion,
	which suspends reason and easily leads to excess,
	was alien both to the rationalism of the Greeks
	and to the asceticism of the Christians; a god of
	sexuality could easily be assimilated to the
	principle of evil.  The association of the cthonic
	with both sex and the underworld, and hence with
	death, sealed the union.
	--------------------------------------------------
	_The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity
	  to Primitive Christianity_, by Jeffrey Burton
	  Russell, Cornell Univ. Press, 1977; p. 126.

	__________________________________________________

I recall that this paragraph in particular was a very strong
influence on me in making the association between Satan and
WILD NATURE.  while I would dispute your characterization
that Pan was 'the same as Satan', Satan is, for Christians,
the embodiment of evils that include a number of different
qualities inclusive of many associated with the god Pan.  my
impression from the above source as well as a few others is
that the Satan we are discussing is also a fairly recently
derived entity (medieval), and that Christians drew on what
was known of pre-Christian religion in their construction.


>Take Christmas, for example... taking over Winter Solstice.

Christmas was the birthday of the god Mithras, whose rites,
worship and religion was directly comparable to Christianity.
whether this was intended as a solstice observance seems 
somewhat disputable, since the ancients knew very well that
our Dec. 25th was not the solstice date in the yearly cycle.  
I have heard it said that this was solstice according to
another calendar which was poorly translated into the
Gregorian, but I've not yet seen evidence for this beyond
the claim.


>>> The delusional authors of the Bible merely combined many
>>> ancient gods (Pan, Set, etc) into one figure,
>>
>>where is this figure described by 'the delusional authors of the
>>Bible'?

>I think I kind of answered this above; I'm not sure... I'm really 
>tired right now. 

I don't think so.  my impression is that the Satan of Christian
tradition is largely constructed OUTSIDE Biblical reference, and
much later in the religious tradition too.


>Maybe I was too hasty in describing them as "delusional." It is 
>possible that everything they wrote was true for them at that 
>time. Who am I to say what exists in the reality of another... 
>We all live in our own worlds, and I believe "reality" to be 
>extremely relative.

very respectful of you.  my challenge to you was not on account
of your accuracy about those about whom you were speaking, but in
direct response to what I saw as your disputable claims regarding
historical connections between gods.


>>> thereby damning all their followers to Hell. We existed before
>>> Christianity,

>>who's "we", white man?  you mean the Church of Satan?  that was
>>formed in 1967 Gregorian (see your own calendar).  you mean
>>'Satanism'?  even LaVey admits that modern Satanism is of its own
>>derivation and previously empowered individuals are only 'de facto'
>>in their Satanism (not be admitted or claimed as such by themselves).

>...I mean followers of the left hand path... People who believe 
>in themselves, and people who follow the type of "Satanism" I 
>described at the beginning of the post.  They simple did not 
>use the term "Satanism."

if you're going to talk about people who didn't use the same
language, then why not consider the Mazdaists from whom the
Christians obtained the concept of Hell via the Jews?  aren't
you just making categorical statements about different types
of people in a sort of 'we're better than you' type of one-
upsmanship by virtue of supposed historical precession?  I
don't find it convincing.  I'll bet there were all manner
of people within Christianity (consider the Christian
gnostics who were destroyed by the Church at the time, or
the Anabaptists or the Unitarians after them as examples)
who will fit the category you are trying to separate from it,
likely on account of having heard the traditional line that
excommunicates these radicals.


>>> and will continue to exists after it is realized by all to be
>>> the outdated religion that it is.
>>
>>not sure how a religion gets to be 'outdated' except that it is
>>unpopular or abandoned.  Christianity appears to be pretty
>>popular in comparison to Satanism presently.  why?

> ...many people claim to be Christians today. I, however, 
> believe that Christianity is either dying or evolving into 
> something entirely different.  

this is a popular Protestant belief, yes, and I wouldn't be
surprised if it lies behind most revolutions or reformations
of religious systems.


> ...Look at the average Christian of 1000 years ago, and the 
> average one now...  This old belief simply does not work in 
> the modern world. 

Christianity includes a great variety of beliefs.  your
assertions are founded on untenable premises, however well
they may be extended from something more rational or
historically founded.

what I mean is that I think you are correct regarding the
problem of retention of old ideological systems, though
many Christians have accepted new ideas into their dogma.
it sometimes happens more slowly within bureaucracies, even
the scientific community exhibits this kind of intransigence.


> People are becoming more accepting of their natural 
> instincts, instead of repressing them to please some 
> distant god... 

while not all Christians support this Orphic current, I'd
agree that there appears a materialist and hedonist
trend which may prove beneficial in liberating humans
from the ignorance contained in many ascetic and puritanical
religions.  

I don't think such clear lines as you have given may easily 
be drawn, however.  some might class Setianism (reputed to be
a form of Satanism by some Satanists) as a similar ascetic
urge.  it would not surprise me if all manner of Satanism
developed, even that which pleased ascetic and puritanical
ends (though this would probably be a minority).  in the
same way, there are hedonist Christians, they just don't get
the same publicity as the bigger institutions.  you have to
dig deeper to find them, and then they may be called by
different names, like 'Wicca'. ;>

blessed beast!
lorax666