Loading...

About Satan | Forum

Dunkelkult
Dunkelkult Nov 23 '18
Hello,

I have some questions about the mythological story behind Satan. This is not intended to be a discussion about if Satan is a real being, or if he is just a philosophical concept. I am only intrested in the mythology about him. 

I would be thankful if you all stick to the oldest sources we have about him (the bible, "midrash", gnostic scriptures, etc) when discussing these questions. I´m not intrested in any theories based on materials written during and after the dark ages (such as grimoires). 


An example of the type of answer I am looking for:

What we do know, is that the mythology in the bible have many similarities with the mythology of the Babylonian culture (like the beginning of time: an empty abyss in which a "good" god creates the universe. Compare Tiamat being defeated by the gods before the creation, with Leviathan in psalm 74:14). One could then say that the "dark gods" predates God.


So, the questions I need help with: 

Is Satan and Lucifer the same deity?

Was Satan created by God, or was he an already existing deity, like Leviathan, before the creation?


Thanks!

Share:
AK
AK Nov 23 '18
What are the similarities between the bible and the mythology of Babylonian culture that are unique to the Bible and Babylonian culture but not between it and any other culture? Even if there are similarities, this doesn't mean the correlations made are justified. 


*consider JoS' assertion that Satan is Enki: that just doesn't work at all. Lots of kooks believe it 'cause they read it online somewhere.


Satan / Samael of the Midrash and Tiamat of Babylonian mythology in no way resemble one another. It was the union of Tiamat and Apzu that formed creation originally. With apzu, acting more like the God of the flood in response to the nephilim than anything else, you'd almost have to make the case that Satan, being Tiamat, was god's___ wife(?). It doesn't really work... well, maybe it could depending what mood one's wife is in at the moment.


Lucifer is used exactly once in the Bible as-in:
How you are fallen from heaven,O Day Star, son of Dawn!How you are cut down to the ground,you who laid the nations low! This "lucifer" is in reference either to King Nebuchadnezzar or his son and successor (there's some debate about this) - a translation of helel used exactly once and only once in the bible at all. It's only loosely associated with Satan in two ways 1) any oppressor of Israel can be considered "a satan". 2) stretches of imagination linking lucifer to the dragon of Revelation, which is just barely canonical (that and the morning star in revelation is a reference to Christ, actually. Have fun untangling that)


Lucifer (Phosphorous in Greek) is otherwise a minor deity associated with the planet Venus. The greek god has nothing at all to do with Satan other than that... that is unless you want to make the case that Lucifer is Satan is Ishtar (or possibly Attar) - which, in order to do, you'd need to invoke a Miltonian Satan.


I've heard stranger correlations, and it'd be no less goofy than asserting that Enki is Satan.


"You can twist these symbols around to mean basically anything"

"and with practice, you just might!"

The Forum post is edited by AK Nov 23 '18
Dunkelkult
Dunkelkult Nov 23 '18
Really intresting, thanks! I will look into it a little more, starting with finding a midrash I read about in a book. Apparently it´s about a conversation between God and Samael, before the creation of man. And I guess Satan and Samael pretty much is the same individual? 
Seeker
Seeker Nov 23 '18
If we look at mythology from specific the bible, the quranic and yazidi mythology then it's clear that Satan and Lucifer are not the same character. The whole idea of Satan being Lucifer is a Christian perspective. Satan can't exists without God and since God don't exists then Satan don't exists either. Simple. The fact that the bible and quran are influenced by the ancient myths of gods is not an argument for the existence of Satan. Quite contrary, it proves more that God and Satan are constructed and do therefore not exists.


The Forum post is edited by Seeker Nov 23 '18
AK
AK Nov 23 '18
Yes. Scholarly sources generally concur that ha-satan (the adversary) of the old testament is Samael, and is called as such for similar reasons that God's name is euphemized as ha-shem (the name). Like, say, Voldemort he who must not be named: in the case of Samael because it's the angel of death / blindness / poison / wrath of god (see also: "For the wages of sin is death").


It all works out pretty nicely and intricately on its own - all the more so if you care to dig into the kabbalah. It just gets really messy and strange trying to form one-to-one correlations between any one mythos and another. Sometimes you get some pretty clean correlations as one finds in Roman to Greek comparisons, but more often than not it just results in a lot of hoops to jump through that don't pan-out to much more than a "yeah, but no." - it's often like comparing Bash commands to their DOS counterparts... it's a fun mental exercise, but not much else.

The Forum post is edited by AK Nov 23 '18
Dunkelkult
Dunkelkult Nov 24 '18
AK:

If Samael would be equal to Satan, it feels like it would be hard to claim Satans existence to be independent of God. If his name means "poison/wrath of god", he more sounds like an instrument of God, and in other words, created by God. Although, the early rabbis did not seem to have any problem with altering the bible when writing their "midrash´s".


Seeker:

As I said earlier, this is not intended to be a discussion about Satans (or Gods) existence. I just want to clarify the story of Satan from a mythological perspective. There are numerous websites claiming Satan to be all sort of things. Even though you are free to believe anything you want, I don´t like when some people are altering old sources to justify their beliefs. There is one "truth" regarding the origin of Satan, and the stories about him.


I think it would be really intresting to have "the whole story". The psyche of man works pretty much the same way as it did back then, when these stories were written. Since Satan always have been connected to sin and the forbidden aspects of life, I believe that there are som kinds of lessons to be learned by reading his story in a modern satanic perspective. Mythology contains archetypes, which corresponds with various functions and emotions of the human mind.


I want to find "evidence" of Satan predating God. In other other religions the "evil" gods usually predates the "good" gods. And why would the jewish/christian mythology be any diffrent in that matter? The only thing I have found to support this idea is Leviathan being mentioned in a psalm that I talked about earlier, and Satan being referred to as "the old serpent" in Rev 12:9.


As I said, I also want to clearify the diffrence (or similarities) between Satan and Lucifer. They usually seem to be two diffrent characters, until you read Luke 10:18: "He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven"". Since this is from the new testament, could it be that the idea of Lucifer already had been misunderstood and widley accepted among the christian schoolars? 

AK
AK Nov 24 '18
@Dunkelkult. That is correct. This is an observation I take absolutely no issue with, either. It is the only logical conclusion; one that informs my theology.


Were there to be an actual enemy of God in any monotheistic religion, then that religion would not be a monotheistic religion at all; it would be a dualistic religion like Zoroastrianism. In all cases, where Satan is "the adversary" it is the adversary of humanity's divine nature which, one might say, "he" is at best testing, and at worst jealous or incredulous of. 


So far as I can tell, those who take Satan to be the enemy of God tend to super-impose polytheistic or dualistic schemas on to what is a monotheistic one with no real rhyme or reason except in order to make their "theories" work. In all cases it makes for some___ interesting(?) flights of fancy and delusion.


The notion that taking up the mantle of "Satanist" should imply that one is taking up a cause against the God of Abraham, religion, or organized religion has always been silly to me (a genuine or perceived enemy of a religion wouldn't need to "take up" the mantel - they "receive it" whether they want it or not!). Christians who understand their faith do not see Satan as a credible threat to the divine. They see it as a credible threat to a person's "alignment" to the divine. At best it only offends and pokes fun at common misconceptions people generally have regarding the faith they so vehemently claim as their own, are willing to fight and die for, yet understand so little.


After all. If I were opposed to, say, the Harry Potter series, I would start by criticizing it as-is. I would not declare myself a fan a Voldemort to further assert my disdain; nor would I presume to tell its fans that the author was incorrect in her representation of Voldemort. That approach seems more than a bit counter-productive and silly to me. Still, lots of Satanists take that exact approach. 


G.O.K. why.

The Forum post is edited by AK Nov 24 '18
Seeker
Seeker Nov 24 '18
Dunkelkult


The character of Satan origins in the abrahamic mythology. 


Satan was the accuser who started as the independent thinking angel who did the dirty work of God. His independent thinking is seen in book of Job where he ask God to test Job. Later he becomes the enemy of God as he wanted to rule the kingdom of heaven which started the war in heaven. In the quran he refuse to bow dow for Adam because he acknowledged himself to be better and are kicked out for being arrogant. Satan (he is known as Iblis in the quran) then swore vengeance on Allah by leading people away from him as the hidden djinni. In Yazidi mythology he refuse to bow down for Adam but God becomes impressed by his courage and independence and promote him to be the leader of the angels known as Melek Taus. 


The Forum post is edited by Seeker Nov 24 '18
AK
AK Nov 24 '18
I wouldn't be so quick to equate Melek Taus with Satan. 


The best case scenario in doing so is that one betrays to anyone reading their words that they have missed the whole point as to why the Yezidis are even mentioned in the Satanic rituals to begin with. *hint: that historically every god of a closed and secretive people has always been given the devil's name; their poorly understood rites been taken as the devil's rites. The whole satan-as-other level of analysis. 


The worst case scenario is that one shows themselves possessed of no greater mental caliber than the murderous zealots that have persecuted these people for centuries. Praise them or condemn to death for their Melek Taus vaguely resembling something with satan-like-attributes - it makes no difference - the reality is, he ain't Satan.


"It's true they worship the devil because that's what I read somewhere" is what you're saying. 



We may live in a time and a place where such things are no longer relevant, but actual Yezidis seem not to be all that amused or impressed with our's and other's ivory-tower analysis of their faith and what it has gotten them.




Edit: Per my original response to the OP. As a general rule, I don't think it is either wise or useful to draw parallels between one mythos and another unless explicitly stated by its purveyors that the two are related. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are explicitly related. These relationships are heretical or revelatory depending on who you ask, but related non-the-less. I consider this "fair game" and limit my interpretation to what Satan is to the canonical and sometimes apocryphal scriptures of "the big three". (why the big three? because look around you. They're what's running the show. "Success" is all the proof they need as far as I'm concerned)


If the Yezidis worship Satan, then that is up to them to say as much. We, as outside observers, don't get to make that call. Not with them. Not with anyone. We already know what that leads to.


They know more about their own beliefs than anyone else does. As far as I or anyone else can tell, they'd be rightly offended if you were to suggest that Melek Taus is Satan. Moreover this broad assumption on the part of people who know not a damned thing about them is what's getting them killed in the first place - and for what? The support and solidarity of "Satanists" on the internet means fuck-all to them. They have more important matters to tend to than your misallocated accolades.


You're not on their side, and they aren't on yours. 

The Forum post is edited by AK Nov 24 '18
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Like and Share

Donate - PayPal

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps. You need not a PayPal to donate either just a debit or credit card.