Subject: alt.magick LUCiFer REFerence file Followup-To: alt.magick Summary: This is a REFerence file for the alt.magick newsgroup. As such it constitutes an attendant file to the alt.magick FAQ, which is intended as an introductory file and its content may be discussed within the alt.magick.* contellation. The FAQ is available at: ftp://ftp.hollyfeld.org/pub/Esoteric/Usenet/Magick/FAQ.amgkfaq.9510 X-URL: http://www.portal.com/~tyagi/amgkfaq.html References: ftp://www.hollyfeld.org/pub/Esoteric/Web/Amgkfaq/ From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (tyaginator) Archive-name: magick/lucfref Version: 9511 Posting-Frequency: every month or as necessary LUCIFER REFerence file ----------------------------------------------- compilation begins -------- Is it true that Lucifer was an old Roman deity? This is my understanding of the subject: "Lucifer" was a title of the planet Venus considered as an astronomical phenomenon. There was no actual character named Lucifer, nor any mythology associated with that character. The origin of Lucifer as a mythic figure was in the misunderstanding of a Biblical screed against Nebuchadnezzar, which ironically refers to him as the "star of the morning", translated "Lucifer" in the Vulgate. This was erroneously conflated with the apocryphal legend of the Fall and gave us our Western legend of Lucifer. Does anyone have pointers to myths or legends concerning Lucifer that did not derive ultimately from this Biblical misreading? Thanks! tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) -------------------------- tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney): [duplication deleted] You have expressed my understanding of the matter. "Luci-fer" is Latin for "light-bearer", so the word does not even exist in Hebrew; it could not possibly have been the original name of any Biblical character prior to Roman involvement in Biblical history -- that being the Occupation. Conversely, in Roman usage it carried no connotation of an evil being, but rather the sign or herald of approaching dawn, thus a good omen, since the onset of light (in every sense) was considered a Good Thing. Whether the Morning Star was considered a being at all -- well, please remember that the planets WERE associated with gods; still are, in name. And, yes, the only "son of the morning" who FELL was the king of Babylon, also the only user of that title against whom Isaiah would have felt the enmity expressed in that mocking verse (14:12). Obviously, the Morning Star itself is still around... about a quarter of the time, anyway... whenever Venus is on that side of the sun. Raven Does anyone have pointers to myths or legends concerning Lucifer that |>did not derive ultimately from this Biblical misreading? Thanks! walter@netcom.com (Walter Alter) writes: |The 14'th chapter of the book of Isaiah contains a hymn of thanksgiving... | "How art thou fallen from heaven, oh Lucifer, Son of the | morning [morning star] ... how art thou cut down to the | ground, which did'st weaken the nations... which made the | world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities thereof... That's the source of the misreading I was referring to. My question was whether there were any legends of Lucifer as a being which derive from another source. No one has provided any so far. There are at least two references to the cognate Eosphorus in Hellenic myth, but they do not provide any record of his acts or personality. Because of that, it would seem very strange to assume that the "Lucifer" of Leland's ARADIA was not the well-known Christian figure who, in the European witch myth, was considered the god or king of the witches, just as Diana or the cognate Hekati was considered their goddess or queen. The two are paired in ARADIA. (This is actually a reason to doubt the authenticity of the book -- it's too similar to the European witch myth, which most scholars, Ginzburg to the contrary, no longer believe had any factual basis.) Despite its possibly fraudulent nature, ARADIA was one of the foundation scriptures of the modern witchcraft movement, and the book is plainly Satanic: it reveres Lucifer, another name for Satan, the traditional lord of the witches in the European witch myth. This fact alone suffices to establish a definite and unambiguous connection between the modern witchcraft movement and Satanism. I will leave aside the semantic question of whether "witchcraft is Satanism" -- it all depends on what definition one uses -- but it is clear that they are more than incidentally connected. (By the way, this is not the first time I've had this debate, and the same thing always happens. As soon as I start pointing out the presence of Satan as an explicit cognate of their Horned God in the writings of Wiccan progenitors such as Leland, Murray, Gardner, and Valiente, the anti-Satanic pagan faction falls abruptly silent. I assume that they consider the use of kill files to be a legitimate tactic of debate. If there is some equally compelling counterargument, I would like to hear it.) tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) -------------------------- [from alt.pagan: Raven |tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) writes: |>>Does anyone have pointers to myths or legends concerning Lucifer that |>>did not derive ultimately from this Biblical misreading? Thanks! | |walter@netcom.com (Walter Alter) writes: |>The 14'th chapter of the book of Isaiah contains a hymn of thanksgiving... |> "How art thou fallen from heaven, oh Lucifer, Son of the |> morning [morning star] ... how art thou cut down to the |> ground, which did'st weaken the nations... which made the |> world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities thereof... tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) writes: |That's the source of the misreading I was referring to. My question |was whether there were any legends of Lucifer as a being which derive |from another source. No one has provided any so far. There are |at least two references to the cognate Eosphorus in Hellenic myth, |but they do not provide any record of his acts or personality. Tim, I quote from Sir William Smith's SMALLER CLASSICAL DICTIONARY: LUCIFER, or Phosphorus ("bringer of light"), is the name of the planet Venus, when seen in the morning before sunrise. The same planet was called Hesperus, Cesperugo, Vesper, Noctifer, or Nocturnus, when it appeared in the heavens after sunset. Lucifer as a personification is called a son of Astraeus and Aurora or Eos, of Cephalus and Aurora, or of Atlas. He is called the father of Ceyx, Daedalion, and of the Hesperides. Lucifer is also a surname of several goddesses of light, as Artemis, Aurora, and Hecate. [end quote] Let me suggest that the relationship shown in ARADIA, of sun-god and moon-goddess as brother and sister, is also that of Helios and Selene. Meanwhile, Diana started out as an Italian woodland divinity, worshipped at Aricia together with the woodland god Virbius (formerly Hippolytus son of Theseus). Diana's bow was later associated with the moon's crescent, making her a moon-goddess; little wonder if the sun became her brother and consort. The shifting of the name Lucifer in the above entry shows how easily these changes could take place, without any reference to the Judeo-Christian scriptures. By the way, the original words used in Isaiah 14:12 were names of gods from Canaanite mythology: HELAL ben SHAHAR, Daystar son of Dawn. And, just to dispose of the idea that Isaiah actually was referring to the planet Venus, read his preface in 14:4: "you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon..."; that makes it explicit IN THE TEXT that he was mocking a terrestrial human monarch, not describing astronomical events. As usual for Bible-thumbers, Walter Alter cited an excerpt that seemed to back his view -- and ignored the nearby part that expressly contradicted his interpretation. |Because of that, it would seem very strange to assume that the |"Lucifer" of Leland's ARADIA was not the well-known Christian figure It wouldn't seem strange to me. Lucifer was known and favored in Italy LONG before Christianity moved in -- or ever used the name "Lucifer" for Isaiah's text -- or mistakenly equated that with the figure of Satan. |who, in the European witch myth, was considered the god or king of the |witches, just as Diana or the cognate Hekati was considered their |goddess or queen. The two are paired in ARADIA. (This is actually a |reason to doubt the authenticity of the book -- it's too similar to the |European witch myth, which most scholars, Ginzburg to the contrary, no |longer believe had any factual basis.) From the CANON EPISCOPI: It is also not to be omitted that some wicked women, perverted by the Devil, seduced by illusions and phantasms of demons, believe and profess themselves, in the hours of night, to ride upon certain beasts with Diana, the goddess of pagans, and an innumerable multitude of women, and in the silence of the dead of night to traverse great spaces of earth, and to obey her commands as of their mistress, and to be summoned to her service on certain nights. [end quote] From the phrasing, please note that the Christian writer does not believe this to be TRUE -- in fact, he calls it illusion -- but that "some... women... believe and profess" this claim. Diana's companion deity was called Herodias. Aradia? |Despite its possibly fraudulent nature, ARADIA was one of the |foundation scriptures of the modern witchcraft movement, and the book |is plainly Satanic: it reveres Lucifer, another name for Satan, the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Another name for Satan" TO THE CHRISTIANS, and then only by a mistaken reading of their own scriptures, which do not actually equate the two. It does NOT follow that the worshippers of Diana shared that assumption. Possibly, after centuries of being told that all non-Christians worship the Devil, SOME of them might have started to believe that -- but then this is still a Christian belief influencing an existing religion, not a Satanist origin of the religion. |traditional lord of the witches in the European witch myth. This fact |alone suffices to establish a definite and unambiguous connection ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hardly. |between the modern witchcraft movement and Satanism. I will leave |aside the semantic question of whether "witchcraft is Satanism" -- it |all depends on what definition one uses -- but it is clear that they |are more than incidentally connected. Connected BY THE CHRISTIANS who called all non-Christian faiths Satanic, not connected in their own traditions, any more than other pagan faiths that developed without ever hearing of the Christian's anti-god figure. |(By the way, this is not the first time I've had this debate, and the |same thing always happens. As soon as I start pointing out the |presence of Satan as an explicit cognate of their Horned God in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Are you suggesting that the Greek Pan, the Roman Faunus, or the Celtic Cernunnos had anything to do with the Jewish/Christian Satan (who was never mentioned in scripture as having horns)? This "cognate" was only made by the Christians in order to "demonize" pagan gods. If you accept that as a true "cognate", you've just bought the Christian anti-pagan propaganda, which has nothing to do with historical truth. |writings of Wiccan progenitors such as Leland, Murray, Gardner, and |Valiente, the anti-Satanic pagan faction falls abruptly silent. I |assume that they consider the use of kill files to be a legitimate |tactic of debate. If there is some equally compelling counterargument, |I would like to hear it.) Have you heard one now? Raven ---------------------------------- [from alt.pagan: tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney)] Tim Maroney (Hey, That's Me! Hi Ma!) writes: |>Because of that, it would seem very strange to assume that the |>"Lucifer" of Leland's ARADIA was not the well-known Christian figure. Raven (By the way, this is not the first time I've had this debate, and the |>same thing always happens. As soon as I start pointing out the |>presence of Satan as an explicit cognate of their Horned God in the | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |Are you suggesting that the Greek Pan, the Roman Faunus, or the Celtic |Cernunnos had anything to do with the Jewish/Christian Satan (who was |never mentioned in scripture as having horns)? This "cognate" was |only made by the Christians in order to "demonize" pagan gods. If you |accept that as a true "cognate", you've just bought the Christian |anti-pagan propaganda, which has nothing to do with historical truth. What I'm "suggesting" is that Charles Godfrey Leland, Margaret Murray, Gerald Gardner, and Doreen Valiente have all stated that the historical witches used Satanic terminology for their god. This is easily verified by checking the primary sources. Again, the question is not whether "witchcraft is Satanism," but whether it is true to deny any connection between them. The people most responsible for founding the tradition do not agree with their successor's denials; in fact, they explicitly state that the historical witches did employ Satanic terminology. (Whether borrowed or not is no issue, since Satanism is a process of reclamation.) If I've "bought anti-pagan propaganda" here, it's propaganda that was written by the primary sources of the modern pagan movement! tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) -------------------------- [from alt.pagan: Raven tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) writes: |Tim Maroney (Hey, That's Me! Hi Ma!) writes: |>|Because of that, it would seem very strange to assume that the |>|"Lucifer" of Leland's ARADIA was not the well-known Christian figure. | |Raven It wouldn't seem strange to me. Lucifer was known and favored in Italy |>LONG before Christianity moved in -- or ever used the name "Lucifer" for |>Isaiah's text -- or mistakenly equated that with the figure of Satan. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |Well, Raven, I certainly respect your scholarship and intelligence, but |in this one instance you're entirely off base. I finally found my copy |of ARADIA tonight, and I started looking it over with an eye to whether |its Lucifer was ever explicitly identified with =either= the morning |star =or= with the Christian Satan/Lucifer. This turned out to be a |very easy bit of research. Chapter one, page one, sentence one: | | Diana greatly loved her brother Lucifer the god of the Sun and | of the Moon, the God of Light (Splendor), who was so proud of | his beauty, and who for his pride was driven from Paradise. | |That is an absolutely clear reference to the Christian myth of the |Fall. It has nothing to do with the classical Lucifer or Eosphorus, |who in fact possessed contradictory astronomical attributes. (1) I believe I expressly pointed out, in text you have deleted, that Diana and Lucifer seem to have been conflated with Selene and Helios, and further that this sort of conflation had happened before, as Lucifer was also the surname of other deities of light, Artemis and Hecate (of the moon) and Aurora (dawn) among them. (2) I believe I also pointed out that the continual Christian teaching (non-Scriptural, and possibly created to demonize this very god) equating Lucifer to Satan may very well, after centuries of being preached by the Church, have been believed by some "witches" -- but that this does NOT mean that the worship originally had anything to do with ANY Biblical figure. Christian teaching also included, for a while, the idea that Muslims worshipped a demon named Mahound. It does not follow that Muslims actually are or were diabolists... nor would it, even if (under centuries of Christian domination) Muslims had actually started talking of Mahound instead of Muhammad. |Now consider page 16, the Invocation to Aradia, who was identified as |Lucifer's daughter on page one. This is what it has to say about her |father: | | Aradia! my Aradia! | Thou who art daughter unto him who was | Most evil of all spirits, who of old | Once reigned in hell when driven away from heaven... | |Page 18 has another reference to his fall from heaven. In fact, every |time he is mentioned, he is explicitly identified as the angel who fell |from heaven and reigned in hell: that being, of course, the figure of |Christian apocrypha known as Satan or Lucifer. In no place is he |identified with the morning star. By your reasoning then (since the BIBLICAL "Lucifer" WAS the morning star, son of the dawn, Helal ben Shahar), this one isn't the same chap! Again, this appears to be a later conflation, possibly post-Milton; the religious or social equivalent of a "created memory" overlaying an earlier one. Things the Church taught (to EVERYONE, since no-one had a choice in the matter for centuries) got mixed in with previous traditions of the old religion. Look at similar syncretism in Santeria. |These passages being sufficiently clear to establish his identity |beyond reasonable doubt, I hope you will forgive me for not responding |in detail to your educated and interesting -- but ultimately mistaken |-- passages speculating on a connection between Leland's Lucifer and |the obscure figure of pre-Christian mythology. It has now been |established that ARADIA is a Satanic myth. On the contrary, the connection to pre-Christian mythology has not only NOT been disproven, it is the most probable reason that Satan was EVER equated to the phrase in Isaiah 14:12 (which 14:4 explicitly says is a taunt against the king of Babylon). Why make this mistaken equation, and why bring up the Latin name "Lucifer" in place of the Hebrew name "Helal" (when "Satan" was kept in Hebrew and not translated), unless to demonize the Roman deity of light? And why bother doing THAT, unless he still had followers? The Celtic equivalent "Lugh" did for some time. Neither "light-bringer" nor "horned one" were attributes of the Biblical Satan. We know that the horns were added later, to demonize Pan and his Roman and Celtic equivalents; yet their worship was not originally any derivation of Christian diabolism (except retroactively -- in the Church teachings). Mutatis mutandis, the same appears true of "light-bringer". |This brings us back to the main question. I have chosen not to address |the semantic issue of whether modern witchcraft is a form of Satanism, |which is simply a question of what definition of Satanism one chooses |to employ. Instead, I am addressing the factual question of whether |there is a distinct and significant connection between the modern |witchcraft movement and that which must be called Satanism under any |reasonable definition, which is to say, the veneration of Satan. The Biblical Satan is absent from the theology of modern witchcraft. "Lucifer", even as a translation of "Helal" in Isaiah 14:12, is not equated to Satan in the Bible. The use of "Lucifer" to translate that name, and the equating it with Satan, are both later additions to Church teachings -- quite possibly to discredit the deity so named. Lucifer-worship is Satan-worship ONLY IF you accept these Church teachings. And I've just cited reasons to believe that Lucifer-worship PREDATED those Church teachings, rather than followed them, namely that the Church had no reason to make these changes unless Lucifer-worship already existed. That propaganda may have affected the particular "scripture" Leland translated (or invented), but not necessarily all other "witch" traditions... such as the Sicilan "strege" tradition Leo Louis Martello describes, coming from the homeland of Demeter. |It is an undisputed fact that ARADIA was a seminal influence in the |modern witchcraft movement, and it has now been clearly established |that the Lucifer in that book was the Christian Lucifer, not the Latin |title of the morning star. If you insert "conflated with" between "was" and "the", then maybe. But for two figures to be conflated, they must originally have been two different figures. In fact, we know they WERE two different figures. | Therefore, it flies in the face of easily |verified fact to say (as modern witches and neo-pagans often do) that |"there is absolutely no connection between witchcraft and Satanism." |The former was built from the latter, as well as from other sources. ^^^^^^^^^^ No, the former was EQUATED TO the latter, by its enemy the Church, just as other religions (like Islam) were equated to devil-worship. |>|(By the way, this is not the first time I've had this debate, and the |>|same thing always happens. As soon as I start pointing out the |>|presence of Satan as an explicit cognate of their Horned God in the |> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |>Are you suggesting that the Greek Pan, the Roman Faunus, or the Celtic |>Cernunnos had anything to do with the Jewish/Christian Satan (who was |>never mentioned in scripture as having horns)? This "cognate" was |>only made by the Christians in order to "demonize" pagan gods. If you |>accept that as a true "cognate", you've just bought the Christian |>anti-pagan propaganda, which has nothing to do with historical truth. | |What I'm "suggesting" is that Charles Godfrey Leland, Margaret Murray, |Gerald Gardner, and Doreen Valiente have all stated that the historical |witches used Satanic terminology for their god. This is easily |verified by checking the primary sources. The "primary sources" in question are the records of examination under torture, where the accused were stretched, burned, pierced, and broken until they either died or were willing to say anything their examiners wanted them to. The standard instructions to the scribes recording confessions were that, any time the accused spoke of his God, the scribe was to write the word "Devil" instead. Under these circumstances, YES, the "primary sources" say that "the historical witches used Satanic terminology" -- but no other result was possible under those rules! This is why your argument that witchcraft was Satanic in origin does not convince me. If it had been true, why would the Church have had to systematically falsify confessions and distort its own scriptures in order to prove it? | Again, the question is not |whether "witchcraft is Satanism," but whether it is true to deny any |connection between them. The people most responsible for founding the |tradition do not agree with their successor's denials; in fact, they |explicitly state that the historical witches did employ Satanic |terminology. Under such torture, the POPE would employ Satanic terminology; either in his own words, or after the scribe got done changing "God" to "Satan". | (Whether borrowed or not is no issue, since Satanism is a |process of reclamation.) If I've "bought anti-pagan propaganda" here, |it's propaganda that was written by the primary sources of the modern |pagan movement! Bingo! And since the "primary sources" were Church propaganda -- later writers are secondary or tertiary at best -- you have your answer. At least later writers do mention that the "Satanic" references were due to torture, falsification, and propaganda. You should admit that. Raven ---------------------------------- [from alt.pagan: Raven magic@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (Stephen R. Figgins) writes: |Although Aradia refers to a child of Diana named Lucifer, her light |half if you will, that does not necessarily make him the same as |Satan. Errr, Stephen, if you're referring to Leland's rendition, Aradia refers to a HER, not a HIM: the daughter of Diana AND Lucifer, not a child of Diana NAMED Lucifer. But I agree that Lucifer isn't (except by Christian attribution) the same as Satan, just as Muhammad (snidely called "Mahound" by Christians) isn't/wasn't a demon, although the Church insisted on that a long time. "demonizing" other religions' leaders/gods was standard for the Church. |Tim if you took Aradia, and wherever you saw the name Lucifer you |substituted another name, say Fred. Would you say that Fred and Satan |are one and the same? They seem to be very different myths to me. I |do not see the Angel fallen from grace, nor the great Rebeller against |authority in Aradia's Lucifer. And this was literally done in the Inquisition transcripts. People were tortured to say what the Inquisitors believed to be the truth; and even if they persisted in speaking of their "God", the scribes were ordered to write that down as "Devil". It's easy to prove diabolism that way. |The connection between the Devil and witchcraft has been pointed out |by Murray and Gardner, and others. The similarities are not really |denied. In fact it has been posited that much of what Christian's |think of as "the Devil" was drawn from images of the Horned One. "The |Devil" as a nickname for the High Priest seems to have been pretty |standard. At least after the Church got done transcribing the confessions -- who knows what the original word was? If the High Priest had "drawn down" the GOD and was so addressed, the transcripts would still say "Devil". | But I don't think the adoption of that name makes |historical Witches Satanists. And if they were, or if they had been, why don't they use the name "Satan" -- as the indisputed Satanists did, who certainly existed before Leland or Murray or Gardner wrote about witches? Huysmans wrote about Satanists in 1890's Paris, but there the name "Satan" was used, the Christian rites were inverted, and the worship was clearly of the Christian anti-god. NONE of this is true of the Leland/Murray/Gardner version of witches; clearly they are not the same religion. |It is my personal belief that much of what is generally thought of as |Satanism was invented during the persecution of the pagan people |during the inquisition. Modern day Satanism seems to be derived from |many sources, some of those sources are the same ones from which |modern Witchcraft is drawn. In reconstructing our religions, |Satanists, and Witches have dipped a lot of things from the same well. From the description by Huysmans, Satanism was clearly drawn from just turning Christianity on its head (like the crucifix itself); additional ideas were conflated from other traditions that the Church had CALLED Satanic, like the goat's head (from allegations against the Templars) and the pentagram (from allegations against the witches). If the Church had still been hot-and-heavy against the Muslims in the 1890's, and if Muslim practices had still been well known despite that attitude, I'd expect "Satanist" practices to have included praying toward Mecca five times a day, and fasting during Ramadan. In this sense "Satanism" is ENTIRELY a Church creation -- using every rite it called Satanic. By contrast, the deities Diana, Lucifer, Lugh, Pan, Faunus, Cernunnos, the Horned / Green / Light deities, were NOT in the Bible, and existed long before the Christian Church. Casting a circle is neither Christian nor anti-Christian; like praying toward Mecca, it is simply different from Christian practice. That's enough to be called "Satanist", IF we accept the Church teaching that all other religions are Satanic. |I do not believe that Aradia is clearly Satanic. Clearly the book |uses a name associated with Satan. Aradia is a goddess who encourages |rebellion. But I would not say that the book reveres Satan, although |I can see it embraces several Satanic principles. Lastly, although |Lelands book had a great deal of influence on the reconstruction of a |modern Witchcraft, many parts of the story were rewritten, ignored, or |rejected. The encouragement to poison people for instance. If this |was a part of Tuscan Witchcraft, it certainly was not a part of the |Modern Craft, Gardnerian or Alexandrian. About the closest acceptance |to such an attitude I can think of is when Z. Buddapest advocated |magical violence toward Rapists. Aradia is nothing more than a very |interesting story that excited the imagination of Witches reforming |the craft and provided some very beautiful liturgy. I think that's a very fair statement. |Tim, arguing that there is a connection between Satanism and |Witchcraft is fine, if a bit unneccessary, as I think that is |generally accepted, at least historically. Maybe people just fall |silent because it is a moot point, and they agree with you. Or because they disagree, and don't feel up to historical debate. |What remains to be proven is that Witchcraft and Satanism are |sufficiently alike to say that they are the same. I don't think that |is true, unless all that I currently understand about Satanism is |wrong. It has also not been shown to me that Satanism is a neo-pagan |religion. On classic Satanism (e.g. Huysmans), I would agree with you; inverting Christianity is still depending on its teachings. On modern Satanism (e.g. LaVey), where "Satan" represents what I refer to as a religious version of Ayn Rand's "virtue of selfishness", I'd argue that this truly is "non-Christian" rather than "anti-Christian", and being also "post-Christian" is truly "neo-pagan". Aquino's use of the Egyptian god-name "Set" in place of "Satan" makes this even clearer. Would you agree that Setianism is "neopagan"? But then the similarities to (LaVey's) Satanism would suggest that BOTH of them are, or aren't. | There are ways in which Satanism is similar to |neo-paganism, but they just don't seem to share the same goals, the |same reverence for nature, the same spirit of cooperation. It depends on whether you make those the defining attributes of neo-paganism. If so, are Quakers, or Amish/Mennonites, "neo-pagan"? | I think a |Satanist can also be a neo-pagan, just as I think a Buddhist can be a |neo-pagan, neo-paganism is not necessarily incompatible with these |ideas. But Satanism as a whole does not seem very neo-pagan. If |Satanists want to be a part of the club, then they shouldn't attempt |to force themselves into paganism by proving some historical |connection. I mean, really, who cares? Satanists should go about |showing neo-pagans they share the same ethics and attitudes toward the |world that other neo-pagans do, the same reverence for life and love |and others. I think this hits an important point, about squabbling over words rather than dealing with realities. But I think one object of the definitional excercise was simply to point out that Satanists and [other?] neo-pagans DO have something in common: they are minority religions in a Christian dominated society, subject to all sorts of horrendous accusations of the "cult crime" variety, and to discrimination and persecution as a result. Instead of squabbling over their differences, why not acknowledge that they share the need to defend the freedom of religion -- even if that religion in a given case is not one's own? If a Satanist, purely by reason of religion, is denied employment or housing or child custody or any other legal or social privilege which the same person (if Christian) could have had, that is a threat to Wiccans and Asatru and CAW... and Jews and Muslims... because the SAME THING could then be extended to any of these other religions. No matter whether it's a Satanist or a Wiccan who's attacked, both must be concerned, because most Christians do lump them together -- and arguing that "We're NOT the same!" is irrelevant and ineffective. Otter G'Zell seems to have chosen this latter, useless, strategy. By the same token, arguing that "We ARE the same!" is pointless, and not just because the differences are real and obvious -- but because this isn't the important issue. Freedom of religion IS. Raven ---------------------------------- |Ahem, in a far away land there were a people who called themselves |Hebrews. Well, they never really had a home (unless you call being |enslaved by Egyptians home) but they were always promised one by their |"god". Well, these Hebrews had a language that had a word for the |term "enemy" or "nemesis".... |The word was Satan, or something very much like Satan. Satan never meant |the manifestation of evil.... |...Satan just meant that he was the enemy, "god's" enemy. The Xian |church just pooped it all around so he became the manifestation of all |evil. After all "god" is good. Ha ha ha ha. Those poor homeless Hebrews got beat up on by the nasty Babylonians, whose king was Nebuchanezzur (Fuck me, little smurfs, if I can't spell.) Nebbie got his ass kicked by Cyrus, king of Persia. The Hebrews thought this was just dandy and gloated about it in one of thier books of prophecy, talking about how "The Star of Morning" (for that's what nebbie was called) fell. Centuries later, along come some Romans who want to translate the Bible into Latin. They came across this "Star of Morning" and wrote down Lucifer, because that's what they called the Morning Star. Centuries later, a dense and hyperloquacious fellow by the name of Milton read the Latin Bible (which was called the Vulgate on account of all the dirty words (not)) and saw this Lucifer character and assumed he was the same guy as Satan and wrote a long poem called Paradise Lost. Now most folks couldn't read back then and them that could didn't pay too much attention, so as Milton's story got around, everybody just assumed it was straight from the Bible.... jjc4162@is.nyu.edu (Blackjack) ------------------------------ NM|Yo luciferians and satanists can u tell me the difference between satan NM|and lucifer..please elaborate as much as possible As I expect you can see from other responses, there is not a single, simple answer to this. "Satan" is generally a Hebrew term, per the Old Testament, for what began as a sort of "prosecuting attorney" for YHVH against [fallen] humanity [as in Job, etc.]. Christianity developed Satan into a full-fledged anti-Christ or anti-God scarecrow, and Islam went along with this convenience. Lucifer, as has been elsewhere pointed out here, was a Roman term used/confused for the Morning Star aka Venus, and further confused with Satan, presumably because of the legend of Satan's being the brightest star who fell from the heavens, etc. By the time of John Milton & _Paradise Lost_, "Lucifer" had become Satan's name before his fall [after it he took the name "Satan"]. Today you can see playing with this good name/bad name theme in such variations as Tolkien, where Lucifer/Melkor "falls" and becomes Satan/Morgoth, etc. Some other medieval & later grimoires split Satan & Lucifer into two demons again. The most famous example of this is _The Sacred Magic of Abra=Melin the Mage_ - over which Mathers & Crowley devoted much of their time - which introduces Satan, Lucifer, Belial, & Leviathan as "the four princes of Hell". This found its way into Crowley's works, and Anton took it from Crowley to use in his _Satanic Bible_. [I don't recall his having a copy of _Abra=Melin_ and am not sure if he is aware of that earlier source.] So: Take your pick! ; Michael.Aquino@125-430.astaroth.sacbbx.com (Michael Aquino) ----------------------------------------------------------- mkennedy@cyberspace.com (Max Kennedy) writes: |To the connection-making impaired: |The morning star is venus, that is brightest before dawn, that brings |in the day; light-bringer... Yep! Nice connection, although there are no symbological connection involved... The astrological planet Venus has nothing to do with Lucifer... Nor the roman goddess, or Aphrodite, since we all know roman gods are a fraud. :) Lucifer is a direct copy of Prometeus of Greek fame, the Titan who stole the Divine fire from Zeus to give it to Man so he can have knowledge and evolve. Sounds like Luci all right? You bet. Prometeus wasn't *evil* per se, and he was actually freed by Heracles. Christians once again walk in and turns everything that doesn't suit their desire for mindlessness into emanations of the Devil. royd@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Roy Daniel/Elijah) ----------------------------------------- rfire@cais2.cais.com (Roger M. Firestone) writes: |The only reference you can find to Lucifer and Freemasonry is doubtless the |infamous Leo Taxil forgery of remarks attributed to Albert Pike--but the date |that he is alleged to have made them is several years after his death. I defy |you to find a single, authentic, original source within Masonry that discusses |Lucifer in any way. Every source that mentions Lucifer in connection with |Freemasonry is a non-Masonic source that invariably expresses enmity for the |Craft and traces its information back to the Taxil hoax. "The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahweh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. For the Initiates, this is not a _Person_, but a _Force_, created for good, but which _may_ serve for evil. _It_is_the_instrument_of_Liberty_or_Free_Will_. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God PAN; thence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-Bearer or _Phosphor_, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend." -- Albert Pike, _Morals_and_Dogma_of_the_Ancient_and_Accepted_ _Rite_of_Freemasonry_, p.102, explaining the symbolism of the Third Degree "The Apocalypse, that sublime Kabalistic and prophetic Summary of all the occult figures, divides its images into three Septenaries, after each of which there is silence in Heaven. There are Seven Seals to be opened, that is to say, Seven mysteries to know, and Seven difficulties to overcome, Seven trumpets to sounds, and Seven cups to empty. The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the _Light-bearer_! Strange and mysterious name given to the spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it _he_ who bears the _Light_, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!" -- Ibid, pp. 320-1 tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) -------------------------- This document is Copyright (c) 1995, authors cited. All rights reserved. Permission to distribute the collection is hereby granted providing that distribution is electronic, no money is involved, reasonable attempts are made to use the latest version and all credits and this copyright notice are maintained. Other requests for distribution should be directed to the individual authors of the particular articles. nagasiva, tyagi tyagI@houseofkaos.Abyss.coM (I@AM)