h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

From your description of Satanism, it doesn't strike me as being an inversion of Christianity, or for that matter to have much to do with the Judaeo-Christian idea of Satan. So why use the name Satan at all?
Surely that will lead to upsetting the christians (& jews), who (like most other people, I suspect) will assume that you are trying somehow to invert or pervert their beliefs.

Incidentally, you might be interested to know that the image of Satan popularised by the christian church in Europe, is based largely on the image of the god Pan, whose cult was very powerful in Europe at the time when christianity was first brought here. If memory serves, Pan was an indulgent god...

P.S. No vested interest - I'm not religious

Part of the fun, as far as they're conserned, is pissing off the christians... and according to my nominally Jewish roommate, Jewdaism doesn't really have a 'Satan' (and/or their 'Satan' is kinda different).

Yup, Christians decided to wrip on pagans so they warped Pan into somebody you wouldn't want to have around...

Actually, in the strictest sence Pan is the Granddaddy of the red horned goat devil dude we picture when we hear "Satan." As i recall the image was stolen from a different pagen god popular in British paganism so as to make that religeon look bad. Pan is merely his older look alike uncle-ish sort of thing. While the two dieties shared in physical appearence (in their depictions, anyway. I haven't seen either one yet), and stood for two very similar things, they were not the same god.

er...ah...I believe you are referring to the 'horned god' Cernunnos the Stag Lord/Herne the Hunter, of ancient [pre-Roman even] Celtic days.

Horned gods are entwined in religion from most ancient times. Usually they are symbols of the hunter and provider, and of male fertility. Pan was the later, Roman version of the same characteristics of the woodland and fertility. Also Robin Goodfellow/Puck has the same roots.

Those who say Christianity adapted these images and distorted the horned image to one of evil and depravity are correct. This is partially because of the fact that many of the ceremonies of fertility attached to the celebration of festivals connected to these gods were known for various kinds of *ahem* 'excess and debauchery' which the Church was trying to eliminate. It also gave the Christians a chance to condemn the polythestic gods that they were trying to discourage belief in.

So--out with the celebration of nature and fertility and in with guilt and sin.

}:=8

PS Dionysus aka Bacchus, the god of wine was also a victim of this campaign. and he also had horns...

*ahem* Pan, while origonaly greek and older then Cernunnos, was copied by the Romans and thus then became younger then Cernunnos. Depends on which one you follow. I like the greek because the roman is just a bunch of rip offs. And Dionysus wore horns on occasion, but this has been replaced by a lampshade in recent times. They didn't actually sprout from his head.

That's me converted! I'm wearing a lampshade too, from now on!

Yup, you're right about Pan being a creation of the Greek world, and copied by the Romans. It's a tossup about Cerrenos/Pan, tho. The Celts existed in Europe at the same time Greek culture was evolving. They just didnt write anything down.


What I am getting at, tho, is that the image of the horned god existed in many ancient cultures and was an aspect of forces of life that was vital and basic to existence. It was not destructive and evil, as later portrayed by the Christian church. The image of a horned devil is a creation of Christianity.

And the ancient gods probably would have happily worn lampshades if the mood struck them [and if the lampshade had been invented].

I say, bring back that [really] Old Time Religion. I mean the kind where the focus was on understanding human life and celebrating it, not covering it with guilt and the concept of evil. IMHO, Satanism, by dwelling on the negatives created by Christianity is fighting an uphill battle, whether they actually are Devil worshippers these days, or not.

blessings and peace

|=}:=8
(dragon with lampshade on head--and horns, too)

First the old time religions were just as concerned with evil and evil spirits as Christianity. ITs only the new age revisionists who chuck out evil because its no longer politicaly correct. Secondly the Pan figure of the Devil is a joke. Most historical Christian texts don't use it. Instead it was an invention of artists. The most common old depiction is in fact reptillian and found on many older public buildings.

For those who want my view on it (being an actual, real life, big scary Satanist ) I just posted something here -

F29394?thread=116357?thread=&post=4853481#p4853481

Jeez...every religion seem sto be ome sort of perversion or reaction to the one before it. It's like some vast interconnected web of causality. Freaky.

devil worshippers giving satanists a bad name?

well, yes. just like a few rapists give the christians a bad name.

its easy to misidentify the source, and pre-label something through lack of experience or investigation.

1) devil worshipping is just like god worshipping. theirs a belief that one must bow before the greatness if one wants to join the fight.

2) Satanism involves disassociation with belief in an outside source being the god force. the individual is all that there needs to be. self possession and you are free to do as you want.

so devil worshipping is a falsehood to satanism. why beg when there is no need? why call it satanism? well, many identify with the various rebellion myths, and follow the leader. the alternative is to call it by your name, such as saintinisticism, or glenism etc, but then you would spend all day describing it. so devil worship and satanism arent the same.

Sigh confusing Lavey's cult with Satanism. Satanism is Lavey's ideas sans the back peddling cowardice. Lavey says indulge your desires and base instincts and that you don't have to answer to any one but don't do A, B, or C(ie harm animals or children). True Satanism says you are a god in your own right and con do any thing you please including A, B, and C.

*Sighs*What exactly is "true" Satanism? To worship satan and mutilate cows and kiddies? That's not Satanism, thats just perverted "I'm-so-sick-of-my-mom-and-dad-always-nagging-me-with-the-Bible-that-I-
have-to-react-but-I-do-not-have-much-going-for-me-in-the-brains-department-so-
lets-turn-to-petty-acts-of-cruelty-towards-defenseless-things" (try and say that without stop for breath)
A real Satanist would rather turn his anger towards someone deserving.
LaVey established and codified Satanism in 1966, and is the only thing one can call "true" Satanism today. The rest is merely rip-offs or inverted Christianity.

True satanism is devil worship and black magic. Its not kiddies playing games its people practicing the antithesis of religion and it has existed by one name or another for thousands of years. Laveyism is a epicurian cult that has nothing to do with Satan or satanism. For examples of Devil worship(the real thing) I would suggest researching the matamoros killings for starters. for those unfamiliar these were a series of brutal ritualistic killings in northern mexico. The people responsible practiced one of the darkest off shoots of Palo Mayumbe(a religion closely related to Santeria) and aside from being murderers were highly placed in the Mexican drug trade.

Lavey was a buffon who invented a cult as a way to get laid. His ideas while mildly entertaining have no relationship to the Judeo/Christian Satan and as such really have no claim to the name satanism. It would be like me inventing a brand new religion and claiming its true christianity even though it has nothing to do with Jesus, the bible or messianic prophecy.

Hmmm.

Like other California cults (Scientology is the one currently in vogue), LaVey's Satanists were into Hollywood endorsement. The reasons are simple:- big-star names mean publicity (to draw in others) and big bucks ("Donations" to the Church)

If LaVey was that much of a buffoon and a charlatan, what about the links between the Church of Satan and the death of Hollywood actress Jayne Mansfield and her bloke?

It is said that Mansfield and husband were part of, but broke off from, the Church of Satan; in return, a curse-rite was placed on them and the result was Mansfield's dcapitation in a car crash.

(Or did the showman LaVey just take advantage of a lucky, if gruesome, coincidence?)

It's interesting how much of "The Satanic Bible" deals with the rationale and mechanisms for making curses stick, anyway...

Come to think of it, Joan Crawford was said to have been into Satanism too. Or was this just another casual slander attached to a selfish egotistical actress (who may have had serious mental health issues, eg sociopathic tendencies) who nobody really liked? Easy to call an unsympathetic character a witch...

For KevinM:

I think I know who you are now.

Would you have writen quite a readable and informative (but scary) book on human sacrifice around the world today? Top marks, I'd read it again!

I'd perhaps have thought the most "satanic" story in the book, in the sense of pure revolting evil carried out to gain earthly power at the price of somebody's pain and suffering, was the anecdote about the African despot, presumed to be but never named as Idi Amin, and how he went about creating a body slave who would serve him on the other side... (shades of the Celtic "gallowglass", but african and more nasty in the execution)

And you also refer to a certain pub in a certain town where I was at uni many years ago... is it an East Anglian proverb about "A woman, a dog and a Walnut Tree, the more you beat 'em the better they be?"

No I don't know who you're thinking of but its not me. I'm a student demonologist and former radio talk show host on The Lou Gentile Show. While I've written extensively on the occult and paranormal its so far been restricted to several web sites.