review on theistic " satanism"

[Angelo10-313]

[Medusa]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

Some do. Some don't. Some worship Set. Some worship Ba'al. Some worship Lucifer. It all depends on their particular sect of theism. In the end it's usually a 'darker' deity they believe in.

[Corvus]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

There's a lot of different flavors of Satanism. Usually they work with a being that in the Abrahamic system is considered a demon. Many work inside a Abrahamic framework and actually believe in that God (sometimes with a different background story where God is not the almighty creator) but view him as evil or otherwise controlling. Others may not believe in God at all. Generally speaking demons in Satanism have great love for mankind and wish to help them grow spiritually. Where God wants mindless obedience and mental/spiritual stagnation Lucifer and his demons value individuality and free thought. Where God wants obedience and control, demons wish for the growth of their followers. Many Satanists don't worship per say but work with demons as guides and friends or equals, despite the power difference between human and demon. In my opinion Satanism is a religion of rebellion, from established ideas, controllers, from acceptance of powerlessness and working towards freedom, with great emphasis on a person making their own choices and not believing blindly what they're told.

There's various degrees of eclecticism with each person. There's overlap with other faiths partially because of the demonetization of these deities by religious groups in the past and also through the adoption of different deities due to the eclecticism. Because of how relatively modern it is this diffusion and overlap between various mythologies is to be expected

[Torey]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

As a Theistic Satanist, I can really only echo what has already been stated - there is no set "rule of thumb" as to "who" or "what" Satan is in regards to a Theistic Satanic practice. It varies by individual. Many Theistic Satanists differentiate between the Christian concept of "The Devil" and the Judaic concept of Satan. There can be many Satans as it was originally a title and "job description", so to speak. I don't worship Enki or Ahriman - my Satanism is slightly more aligned with the acknowledgement of the title and its association with entities more akin to the Grigori than trickster archetypes from mythology.

[Angelo10-313]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

Dear members thanks for your reactions Torey, if I do not bother u, can i ask u other questions?
Torey,
- if the term " satan " differentiate between the Christian concept of "The Devil" and the Judaic concept of satan. Why is it not said " God " as different deity of Judeo-Christian tradition?
- Dear Torey, is the term " satan" used as Sat means "Being" or "Eternal Truth" and the word Tan means "Becoming" or "stretching forth, unfolding." ? Because
as was mentioned in Madame Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, the origin of the word, "satan," was probably derived from Vedic Sanskrit, the oldest language of mankind. Sat means "Being" or "Eternal Truth" and the word Tan means "Becoming" or "stretching forth, unfolding."
So it does not the evil and danger deity of Abrahamic religions right Torey?

[Torey]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

- if the term " satan " differentiate between the Christian concept of "The Devil" and the Judaic concept of satan. Why is it not said " God " as different deity of Judeo-Christian tradition?

It may due to a language barrier, but your question isn't 100% clear to me, so I will do my best to answer. I believe that you are asking if, since some differentiate the figures of "Satan" and "the Devil", could it then be said that the Judaic and Christian concepts of "God" are also potentially different beings. In that case, it's possible - if you were to consider "YHWH" to be a different entity (associated with the Old Testament) to "God" (of the New Testament) then there is perhaps some merit in this as the depictions of YHWH/God can vary from that of a loving, caring deity to a harsh and unforgiving one, depending upon the text.

- Dear Torey, is the term " satan" used as Sat means "Being" or "Eternal Truth" and the word Tan means "Becoming" or "stretching forth, unfolding." ? Because as was mentioned in Madame Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, the origin of the word, "satan," was probably derived from Vedic Sanskrit, the oldest language of mankind. Sat means "Being" or "Eternal Truth" and the word Tan means "Becoming" or "stretching forth, unfolding."

This supposed link between the Hebrews and the Indians is accredited by some to explain this new meaning of the word "Satan". It depends upon whether or not you believe that the word was indeed derived from Sanskrit at all or if the similarities between the words are coincidental. Obviously there are many words from many languages which bear striking resemblance to words in Sanskrit. So to answer your question, there is no "yes" or "no" as to what the term "means" - everyone believes differently, but the majority of Theistic Satanists recognise the word as being defined as "adversary" or "one who opposes".

So it does not the evil and danger deity of Abrahamic religions right Torey?

Again, I cannot say "yes" or "no" as each practitioner will have a different experience of the nature of Satan. For some, yes - He is evil and these individuals strive to bring about change through "evil" acts in the name of Satan Himself or the archetype thereof - for others, it is more akin to Jewish or Christian heresy with Satan being the "good guy" and YHWH/God being the "bad guy". For others, it is more of a gray area with Satan being neither wholly malevolent nor wholly benevolent.

[Angelo10-313]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

It may due to a language barrier, but your question isn't 100% clear to me, so I will do my best to answer. I believe that you are asking if,

This supposed link between the Hebrews and the Indians is accredited by some to explain this new meaning of the word "Satan". It depends upon whether or not you believe that the word was indeed derived from Sanskrit at all or if the similarities between the words are coincidental. Obviously there are many words from many languages which bear striking resemblance to words in Sanskrit. So to answer your question, there is no "yes" or "no" as to what the term "means" - everyone believes differently, but the majority of Theistic Satanists recognise the word as being defined as "adversary" or "one who opposes".

Dear Torey, thanks . but I do not quite understand, because u say " Theistic Satanists recognise the word as being defined as "adversary" or "one who opposes". But that is too actually of Jews and Christians said about evil deity " devil "
And dear Torey, u say too that Many Theistic satanists differentiate between the Christian concept of "The devil" and the Judaic concept of satan. But Torey, If so, which deity is “ satan “? If it has to do nothing with or anything Judeo-Christian tradition or evil deity, who is it? Is it Yezidi god? or other etc?

[Torey]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

Dear Torey, thanks . but I do not quite understand, because u say " Theistic Satanists recognise the word as being defined as "adversary" or "one who opposes". But that is too actually of Jews and Christians said about evil deity " devil "
And dear Torey, u say too that Many Theistic satanists differentiate between the Christian concept of "The devil" and the Judaic concept of satan. But Torey, If so, which deity is “ satan “? If it has to do nothing with or anything Judeo-Christian tradition or evil deity, who is it? Is it Yezidi god? or other etc?

The adversary figure of Satan as He was originally portrayed within the Bible was not an "evil deity" at all - He was a being "employed" by YHWH to test the faith of human beings. The figure of the "Devil" appeared later and had evolved from the original figure of Satan - only now, "the Devil" appeared as a fallen angel who opposed God. Hence, "adversary" or "opposer" does not equate with "evil" at all. It was the original role of the Biblical Satan. Remember that, to the Jews, Satan was not "evil".

As for those Theistic Satanists who differentiate between Satan and the Devil, I believe I explained earlier that the difference lies in the Old and New Testaments and, again, the original role of Satan in the former. To Theistic Satanists, the original Satan may be one of many beings - a fallen angel (not equated with the "Devil", but with the mythology of the Apocrypha - i.e. the Grigori), a pre-Judaic deity, etc. As I have said before, I cannot tell you "who" Satan is to all Theistic Satanists as everyone believes differently. But "the Devil" is typically seen as the "bad guy" of the New Testament and "Satan" as a being either of the nature of a fallen angel or pre-Judaic deity.

[Angelo10-313]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

The adversary figure of Satan as He was originally portrayed within the Bible was not an "evil deity" at all - He was a being "employed" by YHWH to test the faith of human beings. The figure of the "Devil" appeared later and had evolved from the original figure of Satan - only now, "the Devil" appeared as a fallen angel who opposed God. Hence, "adversary" or "opposer" does not equate with "evil" at all. It was the original role of the Biblical Satan. Remember that, to the Jews, Satan was not "evil".

As for those Theistic Satanists who differentiate between Satan and the Devil, I believe I explained earlier that the difference lies in the Old and New Testaments and, again, the original role of Satan in the former. To Theistic Satanists, the original Satan may be one of many beings - a fallen angel (not equated with the "Devil", but with the mythology of the Apocrypha - i.e. the Grigori), a pre-Judaic deity, etc. As I have said before, I cannot tell you "who" Satan is to all Theistic Satanists as everyone believes differently. But "the Devil" is typically seen as the "bad guy" of the New Testament and "Satan" as a being either of the nature of a fallen angel or pre-Judaic deity.

Torey, The mysterious eighth order of angels, the gentle Grigori were created by God to be Earthly shepherds of the first humans. First so you see Satan as an Angel of God or secondly you accept than pre-Judaic deity, right?

Even The Jewish pseudepigraphon Second Book of Enoch (Slavonic Enoch) refers to the Grigori, who are the same as the Watchers (Angels) of 1 Enoch
Orlov 2011, p. 164

[Rae'ya]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

'Satan' wasn't the name of one single figure, but a title applied to the entity that was employed by YHVH to test the faith of His followers. It's possible that this position was filled by several entities over time, but it's believed by some that the last ha-Satan rebelled against YHVH's decree and decided that He would advocate human enlightenment and freedom from YHVH's doctrines. Thus the term is now used by some Theistic Satanists to apply to any deity who fills a similar role within their own pantheon... Set, Enki etc. Some also speculate as to the identity of that last ha-Satan and so worship particular Demons, or even Lucifer, as 'Satan'.

So when you say that Theistic Satanism is not about the Satan from Abrahamic religions you're not considering who or what that Satan actually was. Your statement may be true when applied to the Theistic Satanist who worship Adversary deities outside of the Judeo-Christian faiths, but it's blatantly incorrect when applied to Theistic Satanists who worship 'Satan' as an otherwise nameless supreme entity, or any of the Demons.

However, you are right that they do not literally worship the Devil. I'm one of those people who believes that The Devil is a relatively modern construct... an egregore, if you will. Created by the more recent incarnations of the Judeo-Christian faiths to support the dichotomous good vs evil worldview. There is very little linking the Devil of the New Testament with the ha-Satan of the Old Testament, or Lucifer, or Ba'al (which in itself is simply a title meaning Lord and has been applied to multiple entities) or any of the Demons who are attributed to being the Devil.

[Angelo10-313]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

'Satan' wasn't the name of one single figure, but a title applied to the entity that was employed by YHVH to test the faith of His followers. It's possible that this position was filled by several entities over time, but it's believed by some that the last ha-Satan rebelled against YHVH's decree and decided that He would advocate human enlightenment and freedom from YHVH's doctrines. Thus the term is now used by some Theistic Satanists to apply to any deity who fills a similar role within their own pantheon... Set, Enki etc. Some also speculate as to the identity of that last ha-Satan and so worship particular Demons, or even Lucifer, as 'Satan'.

So when you say that Theistic Satanism is not about the Satan from Abrahamic religions you're not considering who or what that Satan actually was. Your statement may be true when applied to the Theistic Satanist who worship Adversary deities outside of the Judeo-Christian faiths, but it's blatantly incorrect when applied to Theistic Satanists who worship 'Satan' as an otherwise nameless supreme entity, or any of the Demons.

However, you are right that they do not literally worship the Devil. I'm one of those people who believes that The Devil is a relatively modern construct... an egregore, if you will. Created by the more recent incarnations of the Judeo-Christian faiths to support the dichotomous good vs evil worldview. There is very little linking the Devil of the New Testament with the ha-Satan of the Old Testament, or Lucifer, or Ba'al (which in itself is simply a title meaning Lord and has been applied to multiple entities) or any of the Demons who are attributed to being the Devil.

Rae'ya thank u very much do you mind if i ask you another questions? It will be good if u can help me.
I saw in some theistic satanists site, it was about that "satan is the creator of the world?"
With that argument, it does not mean the Judeo-Christian devil, right? Which deity they mean with satan? Or it may be that they mean by Satan: is the term " satan" used as Sat means "Being" or "Eternal Truth" and the word Tan means "Becoming" or "stretching forth, unfolding." ? Because
as was mentioned in Madame Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, the origin of the word, "satan," was probably derived from Vedic Sanskrit, the oldest language of mankind. Sat means "Being" or "Eternal Truth" and the word Tan means "Becoming" or "stretching forth, unfolding."
they mean that with term satan?
If so, why say they dont (not judeo-christian gods) but only God?
i hope that u can help me, and i hope it is my last questions, forgive me if i bothered you

[Rae'ya]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

I saw in some theistic satanists site, it was about that "satan is the creator of the world?"
With that argument, it does not mean the Judeo-Christian devil, right? Which deity they mean with satan?

Some Theistic Satanists use the name 'Satan' to describe a pantheistic or panentheistic concept which many neo-pagans call 'The Divine'/'The All'/'The Universe' etc. You could liken that to the way that many agnostics view 'God' to be something other than the biblical Judeo-Christian YHVH. No, they don't literally mean that the biblical ha-Satan created the world, nor do they believe that the biblical Devil created the world. It's a pantheistic or panentheistic concept of divinity, not a distinct, individual entity.

Though I have seen some TS'ists who consider Satan to be the metaphorical creator of the world because they believe that Satan freed them from the restrictive dogma of YHVH.

Or it may be that they mean by Satan: is the term " satan" used as Sat means "Being" or "Eternal Truth" and the word Tan means "Becoming" or "stretching forth, unfolding." ? Because as was mentioned in Madame Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, the origin of the word, "satan," was probably derived from Vedic Sanskrit, the oldest language of mankind. Sat means "Being" or "Eternal Truth" and the word Tan means "Becoming" or "stretching forth, unfolding."
they mean that with term satan?

I can't say what those particular TS'ists were thinking as I don't know them and I've not read their site, but I don't personally believe that the term 'Satan' is derived from Sanskrit. I believe it is from the Hebrew 'satan', which means adversary or accuser. For the most part, the biblical texts were Middle Eastern in origin, not Far Eastern. It makes little sense to me to disregard Hebrew in favor of Sanskrit.

You also have to remember the social and cultural context from which Madame Blavatsky was writing. I've not read that particular book but I googled it and it was first published in 1888. Blavatsky, like most of her contemporaries, was a theosophist and was heavily influenced by Christian mysticism and Eastern philosophy. He writings will reflect that and cannot necessarily be taken for gospel, so to speak.

If so, why say they dont (not judeo-christian gods) but only God?

I'm not really sure what you mean by this question.

[Angelo10-313]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

I'm not really sure what you mean by this question.

Rae'ya really thank u very much Rae'ya I mean, what theistic satanists believe that satan is not the christian devil, so why is not said only God? Because, satan has a negative and evil term contemporary. If TS doesn't accept the (Judeo-Christian God) why accept the TS as origin Hebrew word "satan" as adversary, because why must should be God a adversary? And therefore why they said not only God (maybe as other reference or other believe) ?

I hope it is my last questions Rae'ya please sorry

[Rae'ya]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

I believe that between us, Torey and I have already answered these questions, but I will answer them again anyway.

Rae'ya I mean, what theistic satanists believe that satan is not the christian devil, so why is not said only God? Because, satan has a negative and evil term contemporary.

Do you mean, why don't they use the name 'God' to apply to the being that they call 'Satan'? For those who have a pantheistic or panentheistic view of Satan, it's because 'God' is the name most applied to YHVH, and 'Satan' fits their idea of their deity better. For the rest of us, it's because 'God' is the name most given to YHVH and Satan (or the ha-satans) have their own names. For some, we use the term 'Satan' as a title, kind of like how we call Elizabeth II 'The Queen' or 'Her Majesty' instead of Lizzy or Beth. If TS cared what other people think of them, they wouldn't be Satanists, so what 'Satan' means to contemporary Christians means nothing.

If TS doesn't accept the (Judeo-Christian God) why accept the TS as origin Hebrew word "satan" as adversary, because why must should be God a adversary? And therefore why they said not only God (maybe as other reference or other believe) ?

Theistic Satanism as a whole doesn't not accept the Judeo-Christian God. Some don't, some do. There is no one generalised thought on this matter. For some, Satan is a part of the Judeo-Christian pantheon. Many TSists are polytheistic, which makes your whole question here redundant. For many of us, there isn't just one 'God', which means that calling Satan 'God' is counterproductive.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that there is only one 'God'. Not everyone agrees with that.

[Angelo10-313]

Re: review on theistic " satanism"

I believe that between us, Torey and I have already answered these questions, but I will answer them again anyway.



Do you mean, why don't they use the name 'God' to apply to the being that they call 'Satan'? For those who have a pantheistic or panentheistic view of Satan, it's because 'God' is the name most applied to YHVH, and 'Satan' fits their idea of their deity better. For the rest of us, it's because 'God' is the name most given to YHVH and Satan (or the ha-satans) have their own names. For some, we use the term 'Satan' as a title, kind of like how we call Elizabeth II 'The Queen' or 'Her Majesty' instead of Lizzy or Beth. If TS cared what other people think of them, they wouldn't be Satanists, so what 'Satan' means to contemporary Christians means nothing.



Theistic Satanism as a whole doesn't not accept the Judeo-Christian God. Some don't, some do. There is no one generalised thought on this matter. For some, Satan is a part of the Judeo-Christian pantheon. Many TSists are polytheistic, which makes your whole question here redundant. For many of us, there isn't just one 'God', which means that calling Satan 'God' is counterproductive.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that there is only one 'God'. Not everyone agrees with that.

Rae'ya really thank u very much, I hope you're not mad at me
i hope that u can help me

- I saw that some theistic Satanists used the deities from pagan gods such as Enki (Sumerian pagan god) Azazel (Canaan god) or Lucifer (Roman god) etc. So why used theistic Satanists besides that pagan gods too word as satan?

- worship church of azazel in christian devil?