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

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan,alt.christnet.demonology,alt.satanism,alt.christnet.bible,alt.mythology
From: satanservice.org@boboroshi (SOD of the CoE)
Subject: Theology of the Church of Azazel
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:04:32 GMT

50040229 vii om -- ZAZAS ZAZAS NASATANADA ZAZAS!

I found this website via Google 

	http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoAz/index.html

and review a part of it here.

# Theology of the Church of Azazel
# http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoAz/belief/theology.html
	 
$	    Church of Azazel > Beliefs & principles > Theology
$	                    Theology of the Church of Azazel
$	                              by 
$                                        [Reverend] Diane Vera
$	    Copyright (c) 2004 by the Church of Azazel. 
$	    All rights reserved.

so noted. quoting only the bits for compliment/criticism
and addressing the response to Rev. Vera with a cc.


	 
$	      Azazel
$               ...
$	        The "Satan" of Christianity is based more on Azazel (as
$	        protrayed in the Book of Enoch) than on any mention of a
$	        "Satan" in the Tanakh (Old Testament)....

a good portion of Christianity. red-washing the religion doesn't merit
the force of the image, but I'll grant its popularity. 

$	        Thus, "Azazel" is the oldest known name of the entity
$	        Christians call "Satan," 

what are the contenders from this potential body of worshippers:
Mastema? Baal? Beelzebub? or Demiurgos? Scratch? ;>
                
selecting Christian scripture of one sort or another to answer 
this question would be different than imagining Satan's origins 
and being as primarily associated with Ahriman, or someone else. 

Christians call "Satan" quite a number of things, and some of
these are bound to conflict in temporal measure, exegetical or
cosmological, by the Christian's perspective. after all, they're
oriented to proCreationist theocracies ruled by their god. any
rebel leader will at some level be called 'Satan' by someone. :>

arguably the more focal concentration might best be placed on
the role of *AZAZEL* in the New Testament, so called, for 
the Christian Satan. this is the implied repercussion to some
Christian ears: the rebel against all that is good and pure.

those interpreting that Azazel as the Satan Dragon of
the whacko visions of St. John will immediately object.
same goes back to the Canaanite Genesis, which I don't
see you completely mention (as regards the Snake therein).

presumably none of that is Azazel, who is at least the 
Enochian-not-Jobian Satan. how many more "not-X-Satans" 
might we examine in comparison? we may leave that argument 
behind at the door to this church. :>

=================================================
NOTE:

you answer these questions below when you are describing one
of the ideas the church accepts, providing further reference:

#$		We do not, for example, equate Satan/Azazel 
#$		with the dark gods of all ancient religions.
#$		(See Equating Satan with one or more ancient 
#$		pagan gods in Who and what is Satan? Various
#$		Satanist reinterpretations.)    

letting out Ahriman. then later you remark of a few of the 
above in the following context:

##$ Some demons (e.g. Baal/Beelzebub, formerly worshipped 
##$ as a god)

thus your theology is specific and refining, if drawn from
a patchwork of sources to create an arguably arbitrary aim.

=================================================

[back to your original]

$                                          whom we regard as a distinct 
$	        entity from "ha-satan" of the Book of Job. 

very reasonable. I like how Spong interprets Job as metaphor.

$               When we use the name
$	        "Satan," we are referring to the entity who has been
$	        popularly known as "Satan" for the past two millenia, 

very difficult to sustain, as you'd know. but your accepted
axioms may solve it.

$               i.e. "Azazel ha-satan," ....

does this phrase appear in the pseudeprigraphs of Noah or Enoch? 
that would be neat. is it anywhere in the New Testament? 
I'll check it out if nobody responds right away.

$	      Who and what is Satan?
$	        Even Christians grudgingly acknowledge 

not all, and yet there are a good number who believe it.
some Satanists do too. :> if granted, what relation do
Azazel and Yahweh have? are they *always* opposing one
another, or do they rival like competing kindred with
the possibility of some pact between them? are the
Christians told false stories by Yahweh, and it was
Azazel that created the world or somehow is imperative
to its continued existence (opposing something about
the Yahweh god -- its domination, control, authority, 
etc.)? if Azazel is worthy of reverence, is this on
account of the Enochian Rebellion, or some other feat?
your overall character-description on this page is
not apparently conclusive except to call it:

$               Satan as the "God of this world" ...
$		"Prince of this world" 
$	        ..."Prince of the power of the air"...,
$		and a being who could "tempt" Jesus by offering 
$	        him power in exchange for worship..., thereby 
$               implying that "all the kingdoms of the world"
$	        belonged to Satan.

if the Neopagan Horned Lord is essential to Gaian energies, 
perhaps Azazel is one of the first world-defenders against
the theocracies of petty chieftain gods instructing domination.

$               ...Christians traditionally regard Satan as the
$	        ruler of our "fallen nature" -- i.e. our 
$               here-and-now human nature, period.

'ruler' may be too strong a term here. tempter? opposer?
conservative Muslims sometimes make this kind of absolute 
connection with the flesh or what we may regard as the real 
human animal and the 'morally-corrupt/failed' aspect of the 
self ('nafs') may describe its destruction as necessary
(compare Crowley and his occultist lot and 'the necessity
of the destruction of the ego in pursuit of grand Rosicrucian
aims). severe Rosicrucians and New Agers are keen to abandon 
the flesh for heaven. they are deluded and mistaken, but I
may not wish to do more than minimize their negligence.

$	        We regard Satan as the God of this world, 

proCreationism by the 'God' were your intent along these
lines, and there potentially Yahwehan, or Christian. you
later explain that you don't consider the God this way.

$		God of our flesh, God of our mind, and 
$		God of our own innermost Will, immanent
$	        in both the world and our own nature. 

potentially concentric to absolute monism identifying
the powers that actually exist (from a preferred view).
below you make it clear that you don't think either of
them is a cosmic god.

$		We regard Satan as the most powerful of 
$		the gods concerned with human affairs, 
$		and therefore as a God whose Will is 
$		reflected in our own True Will.

thereafter the definition and determination of this

		True Will

will become paramount (Crowleyan? how far back does 
this concept go? I'm curious.)  of course you're leaving
out other cultures of the world. the Chinese have vast 
hiearchies of bureaucratic god-system, for example.

$	        The idea that the our own True Will would reflect 
$		the Will of the highest of the gods concerned with 
$		human affairs is, 

one might also say 'the deepest of the gods' and give it
a terra-centric spin. the care of creation might compel
the unconverted Christian to universalism. ;>

$ 		in our opinion, far more likely than 

note the comparative mode herein. if the idea is not
very likely, at what level is the novel theology believed?

$                                                      the idea 
$		that the highest god would want to alienate us 
$		from our own nature, as the Christian god seems 
$		to want to do.

first mention of the Yahweh god. primarily negative. no mention
of said god's role with respect to the universe as yet (later,
not the cosmic god like the Jews and Christians and Muslims say).

$	        Unlike some other theistic Satanists....

LOL which ones? I'm curious.

$	        Traditionally, Satan is believed to be a spiritual 
$		being who lives right here on Earth and primarily 
$		in an underworld beneath the surface of the Earth. 
$		In the absence of any overwhelming reason to 
$		believe otherwise we are inclined to accept 
$		these traditional ideas.

modern science's relegation of these to the status of
'personifications' and 'aspects of consciousness' rather
than anything worthy of fear, worship, persecution or 
reverence, per se? 

your response is to be found below (transplated quotes are #$ or ##$):
#$		+ We reject the idea of department-gods. While gods 
#$	          may have their specialties, they are not mere
#$		  personifications of the things they specialize in, 
#$		  nor are they mere personifications of any alleged 
#$		  cosmic "essences" behind their specialties, nor 
#$		  are they limited to their specialties. Gods have 
#$		  multi-faceted personalities and are not mere 
#$		  one-dimensional "archetypes," "principles," 
#$		  or Platonic forms.
==================================================================

accepting this premise, what other spiritual beings are
there and where do they reside, Doctor Strange like, in
the cosmic drama? is Yahweh, as depicted in the classic

                                  Lost in Paradise: Milton-Hatred 
                (a revision of Milton's cosmology in poetic form)
                 http://www.satanservice.org/theory/tokuslip.html

some kind of star-god invader to the Earth Realm? I greatly favour
this kind of thinking, but have mostly given vent to my biases.
the global (cultural invasion) easily projects into the cosmic
(stellar invasion).

your primary response to this within this document is:
#$	           + Some gods don't like each other, and sometimes 
#$		     they quarrel. The enmity between Satan/Azazel 
#$		     and the Christian god is not an eternal cosmic 
#$	             war between cosmic forces or principles, but 
#$		     merely a quarrel between two of the many gods 
#$		     -- albeit between what currently appear to be 
#$		     the two most powerful of the gods concerned 
#$		     with human affairs.
#$
#$	             Neither Satan/Azazel nor the Christian god is 
#$		     the ultimate cosmic God. 

here your Azazel differs already and is significantly reduced in
status as described as not really opposing the cosmic Christian
God, but instead opposing one of a number of coextant deities.
admirable, but of course unconvincing to Christians. it is a
rational alternative clearly delineating the limits of faith.

you go into this in some depth in your accepted ideas after Lilith:

$	      Lilith
$	        In medieval demonology,

religious context vaporizes. presumed Christian? 

$		Lilith was considered to be the queen of the demons, 
$		the wife of Satan/Samael, and the mother of succubi.

by whom, precisely? why do we move from "Azazel who is 
considered by Christians (a whole religion of people) to be 
'Satan'" to "Lilith who is considered by some old demonologists
to be Queen of the Demons, Wife of Satan (extra Sammael angel
Death Poisoning d00d now mentioned! :>)". you may have to craft
the theology more densely to work in Sammael too at the start
with Azazel -- is there a reason to move from Azazel=>Sammael?.
I'll watch for that one. I can imagine a few options. I never
saw it on this page.

$	        In recent decades, Lilith has attracted quite a few
$	        worshippers, including not only some Satanists but 
$		also some Pagans and quite a few ethnically Jewish 
$		feminists.... 

and She's identified as Queen of Demons, Wife of the Christian Satan? 
I doubt that, but I'm one of the worshippers of the Queen of Demons,
and I do serve Satan, so we have these traits in common.

$               Lilith's traits, as seen both in medieval legend and by 
$		her modern worshippers, correspond closely to social 
$		trends of the past century, especially the past several 
$		decades. We regard Lilith as the Queen of our age -- 
$		a Goddess who has apparently become, now more than ever, 
$		the consort of the God of this world.

the "God of this world" may vary with each faction which upholds it,
whether married to Lilith in some valence or another.

$	      Our polytheism
$		...we believe in the likely existence of many other 
$		deities too....

mighty nice of you. :>

$		...CoAz['s] primary allegiance, in any case, 
$		is to Satan/Azazel.
$		...We accept the following hard-polytheistic ideas:

$	           + The gods are distinct entities....
$		     For all practical purposes, we humans are 
$		     distinct entities, and so are the gods.

these ideas accepted are helpful, informative, and meaningful.

$	           + The gods that concern themselves with human affairs 
$		     are not universal. They form symbiotic relationships 
$		     with specific people and groups of people. 

compare lwa, orishas, and I start wondering where 'human affairs'
leaves off, exactly. distinctly different is obvious, as is the
distinctly human-centered easily discerned from the rest.

$                    Therefore, 
$		     it is only very rarely, if ever, appropriate to 
$		     equate deities between one pantheon and another....

I thought you were doing so above. so far mentioned:

        CULTURE
          SOURCE
                 DEITY/FIGURE
       ========================
	Jewish
	  Noah/Enoch (pseudepigraphs)
		Azazel/Semihaza

	Christian 
	  Gospels, Paul at least
		God of this World Satan

          arbitrarily ignored?: 
		Demiurgos/Archon?
                Mastema?

	Christian 
	  Unnamed "medieval demonologists"
		Lilith Queen of Demons/Wife of Satan

	  arbitrarily ignored?:
		Sumerian/Accaddian Lilitu?
                Jewish Demon Lilith

and repeating:
$	             ...Gods have multi-faceted personalities and 
$		     are not mere one-dimensional "archetypes," 
$		     "principles," or Platonic forms.

if the archetype were complex, if the form not one-
dimensional, these transcendental options might be 
found acceptable (Azazel Atheism might be allowed).

taking up where I have not already quoted:

$		     It is highly unlikely that the cosmic God, 
$		     if there is one, takes any kind of direct 
$		     personal interest in human affairs. 

faith-based unlikelihood? you later describe this supposition as:
#$	        The workings of Nature do not suggest a cosmic God 
#$		who is interested in any kind of personal relationship 
#$		with us humans. 

referring the interested to a supplemental cosmology page:

#$		(See Post-Copernican natural theology.)....

so your interests are appear primarily empirical.

=====================================================================

back to your original

$ 		     Therefore, none of the gods concerned with
$		     human affairs are likely to be the cosmic 
$		     God. (For more about this, see 
$		     Post-Copernican natural theology.)

Azazel thus primarily foments a liberationist, Promethean role.

$	      Satan/Azazel's many names and aspects
$	        Although we see Satan/Azazel as distinct from the gods of
$	        other ancient pantheons....

eliminating Ahriman and many other cosmic badguys.

there are many similarities between this and my proposed terra-centric
inversion cosmology somewhat played out in the poem above.

$	        Christians have traditionally referred to [Satan]
$	        by many names. Therefore, it makes sense for us to use
$	        those same names to refer to Him as well -- even though 
$		some of those same names may also have been used to 
$		refer to other entities too.

sure, though you may be misunderstood, just as the Christians may be.
not being understood, this requires elaboration of theology and
greater supposition outside the parameters of Judeochristianity,
and allows a greater derailment of ongoing communication in cases
where one projects one's ideas about the gods of others (as here?:)

$	      Who and what is the Christian "God"?
$               ...Therefore, a god who does want lots of human 
$		attention is unlikely to be the cosmic God. For 
$		this reason, the Christian god -- a self-described 
$		"jealous God" who wants to be worshipped by
$	        everyone in the world -- is unlikely to be the 
$		true cosmic Creator, or a true cosmic anything.

the immediate query then becomes whether there *is* (was) such 
a being as a "true cosmic Creator" or a "true cosmic anything".
the cosmos appears apparent, and its being accessibly available
to our observation through a good portion.

$	        Yahweh seems to be, most likely, a spirit who 
$		was once just a local tribal god of the 
$		Israelites, but who then got greedy and started 
$		demanding the attention of more and more people.

this is a lovely potential bridge to sociology and behaviourism.

$	        (On the other hand, Satan is a God who does NOT 
$		seem to need or want vast numbers of human 
$		worshippers. In the Bible, only one person - 
$		namely, Jesus - was ever invited to worship
$	        Satan.) 

sticking with the Christian context now (Gospels) and the
passage is one which invites the elemental initiation motif
in fable-analysis (the temptation being one of Earth) I've
described this at length in my explication of the Christ
Formula by whose initiation one may become a Christian Mage:

     http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/xtianmgk.rite.1             
     http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/xtianmgk.rite.2             
     http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/xtianmgk.rite.3
with supplementals:
     http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/xtianmgk.txt1               
     http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/xtianmgk.txt2               
     http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/xtianmgk.txt3               
     http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/xtianmgk.txt4               
     http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/xtianmgk4.txt               
     http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/xtnmgk.invdmns              

$		Several passages in the Bible portray 
$		Yahweh as....

there are extensive attempts to reconcile the varying acts and 
beliefs of this Yahweh god. I prefer largely to ignore it here.

$		hostile toward human knowledge and/or achievement.
$		...Adam and Eve ...commanded not to eat of the 
$		"tree of knowledge of good and evil." 

a definite hit. is this knowledge something valuable?

$	        ...people are punished for the engineering 
$		feat of building a tall tower....

there was no moral lesson implied by this story?

$		people are commanded not to practice any 
$		magical arts.

yes, where this appears it is the undoing of Christians 
as it allies against them all magicoreligious peoples who
reject the small-mindedness of the Jewish/Christian god.

$		...atrocities commanded by Yahweh....
$		...the threat of eternal punishment 
$		in the afterlife....

convincing arguments against said god indeed. the usual
counter-argument is that 1) the God is outside the bounds
of moral behaviour (being perfect, subject to some god-law
of which we are not aware, etc.), and 2) some discernments
call for extreme measures. not that I find these convincing.

$	        ...Yahweh demands sacrifices. In the New 
$		Testament -- especially as interpreted by 
$		later Christian theologians such as Anselm 

this might be considered a weakness in your argument. you've 
left the voice of Prooftexting Christian behind and now switch 
to the analyzing, limited perspective of the academic of the
Christian religion. at points depth analyzing and at others
accepting at face value peculiarities of religions or their
inversions. it may easily begin to come across as arbitrary.
Anselm is debilitated, so your leverage is at a weak point.
might as well choose Aquinas. :>

$		...sacrificing his own son to satisfy his 
$		own bloodthirstiness.

not usually this characterization (bloodthirstiness).
the character is usually whitewashed for necessity.

$	        In contrast, nowhere in the Christian Bible 
$		is Satan portrayed as demanding or even 
$		asking for sacrifices. 

the artifice of your Biblical analysis is majestic in its
defense of Satan to the point of attempting to play down
the more controversial Satan of "Revelations". I wonder
if someone more familiar with that text might bring forth 
exceptions to your contentions here. 



$		...Satan/Azazel ...is not [portrayed 
$		as being the recipient of sacrificial
$	        offerings], except possibly for the 
$		scapegoat, who is sent live into the 
$		wilderness.

by Jews. no mention of the reason for this, from whence
it derives. it is certainly *inherent to human society*
as the poor goat is sent off to its death in the wild
supposedly bearing the sins of the Jewish community as
it was told to me (varying stories?).

$	      Our philosophical filters

here you really begin to burn in the same fiery light I
was attempting to reflect upon in the text above. rather
than merely compliment you, I will also try to respond
directly to these questions without having read to see
if you answer them yourself below.

$	        If you don't accept Christian theology, 
$		how do you decide who/what Satan is? 

the trouble stumbled upon by all former-Christians 
who reject the inverso-religious alternative.

my immediate response:

	by looking into the character and depictions
	of those who identify Satan and trying to
	understand, experience, and relate with what 
	they are *actually* seeing, rather than merely 
	what they believe that they are seeing.

this is precisely the type of thinking that led to 
my Blood Pact with Satan at the Woods Crossroads on 96/6/6.

$		Different Satanists not only have different 
$		beliefs about Satan, but also have different
$	        methods of arriving at those beliefs.

this leaves the path clear not to hinge the character of
'Satanist' upon membership in your church. very admirable.

$	        Our approach is to take traditional Christian 
$		(primarily New Testament) ideas about Satan, 
$		plus the Book of Enoch, in conjunction with 
$		our own and other people's personal experences 
$		plus our knowledge of the history of Western
$	        civilization, 

I would like to introduce a novel theory about Satanism and
what it contains in reflection of this paragraph -- as a
complete tangent of which this appears to me to be a third
recognizable example:

	Satanism accepts as part of its character that it is 

			ANTI-RELIGIOUS

	the three examples I would mention are:

		A) denying the inherent meaning of the term 'God'
			Penitent: "Do you believe in God?"
			Satanist: "Which God?";

		B) focussing on the multivaried figure of Satan,
		   whose history is exemplary of manipulation
		   and contrivance by ecclesiastic authorities
		   as a composite of questionable materials --
		   of which you're only focussing on the Biblical);

		C) drawing from all levels of intellectual
		   endeavour in a manner not unlike the
		   New Age religious smorgasboard shopper
		   chooses a theology; or exemplary of one
		   which is a patchwork, leading toward a
		   rationalism which is ultimately under-
		   mining of religion at base, dissipating it 
		   to the level of individual spirituality.

from such empirical and analytical perspectives 'proofs' such
as that any cosmic god could not be both omnipotent *and* 
rational, else it would have created the planet Earth with 
a 360-day year. :>

I might also add:

		D) mass-compiling all Judeochristian and
	           Satanist literature and activity as part 
		   of one Great Martyrdom Cult, such as:

		http://www.satanservice.org/theory/faq6.txt  


ok back to your text now

$                             and then, to all these sources, 
$		apply the philosophical filters listed below:

of which have their own pages and extend the theology.
my present focus is on this single page ().

$	        We are also influenced by Thelema, but only 
$		in a very general way - primarily, just the 
$		idea of True Will.
	
compare: True Love.
 
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/