I thought Lilith became who she is because she broke away from God, same as Samael, that’s why they’re in the Qliphoth?
She never really ascended to fall, just kicked out of eden in most legends. I like the one where she spoke the forbidden name myself.
I think it is important to note here that the Qlippoth is a much later edition to the Kabbalah. It isn’t part of the original Judaic system at all. It is actually mainly a creation of 20th century Western occultism, rather than ancient Jewish mysticism. That’s why it doesn’t fit with Samael’s or Lilith’s historical mythology. The idea is taken from an abstract concept in the writings of Rabbi Issac Luria, who tried to explain the origins of evil, and why God allowed it, and then further embellished over the centuries.
To me, Satan encapsulates the ultimate representation of the Qliphoth as Satan-Moloch. I agree then completely with Thomas Karlsson’s perspective. They are the outermost duality away from God, one looking forward - at the presence one exalts of themselves in their own unique regard (Moloch) and thus create their own universe, and the accusatory nature of rebellion (Satan) against the establishment, looking behind. By the very fact that they are a split duality and the highest, darkest emanation, makes them the enemy to God who glorifies unity.
Satan is an entity, but it’s also a concept that can be applied to the four crown princes, and any Satanist who proclaims ‘Hail Satan!’. This concept is a cornerstone in their philosophy I think, although I am not a member.
Satan is an English translation from Ha-Satan which is what was originally used in the Hebrew bible. The original was a title not an individual. As such you could have one or many lil Satans running amok. Historically and academically speaking Satan is not an entity, full stop.
However, certainly between mistranslations, misguided beliefs and occult practices an egregore or arguably a godform we could call Satan now exists. At that point one has to decide what they consider real or not. I would say in that sense Satan is an individual now.
The idea that Satan is a particular angel including Lucifer is a conflation of ideas, again misrepresented or via mistranslations of the bible. Unless again, one is arguing said angel has the title of Ha-Satan.
As for the Hail Satan ending, I’ve always giggled and thought this was a bit of a blind put in.
“This is done! Hail Satan!”
“This is done! Ha-Satan!”
Hail sounds cooler, but I take it as an affirmation of the title and acknowledgement of the office.
Also there is misinteprention with spelling, seeing that sei-tan and sa-tan resembles diffrent characker, mostly how your country spells it in your language
sei-tan-ism / sat-an-ism
You have a point. When a value is gone it’s power is also gone. LaVey’s ritual magic is not magick but rather a tool to decompress the intellect of the participants so they can worship Satan to maintain their community or tribe. It’s a brilliant idea but a person who walks the LHP seeks to become more than who he is.
The LHP is in many ways a trait of Satan also as Satan wanted the power of God.
You know what I like your style that’s a very astute observation.
I see “Satan” more as an Archetype, and a title myself.
Though, perhaps in contrast to others I don’t necessarily equate that title with “big” entities alone. Rather, anything acting in the role or aspect of “Satan”. Almost like “Legion”.
Beyond that, I like to think there’s a darker side of “source” that acts in the role of “Satan”, which would be what I think of or refer to when I say Satan (outside of it being a spirit title/occupation)
You mean Satan is an archetype of a dark force that have different masks?
Per Faxeneld et al. does not agree with you.
There is a lot of academic reserch on satanism that has been done.
There was self-described satanists in the middle ages.
What evidence do he have for that? When LaVey created Church of Satan in 1966 he marked it as the first year of the age of Satan and that day is therefore a holiday.
Part of the evidence lies in old court documents from Sweden where satan is mentioned in rather positive terms. It’s not just forced confessions by people but they are rather a little more elaborate.
The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity : Faxneld, Per, Petersen, Jesper Aa: Amazon.se: Böcker has a chapter on it along with a few other academic texts on the topic of satanism.
The authors of that book you mention are those who says that there are no documents of religious practice of Satanism prior to CoS. LaVey is said to be the father of Satanism. Satanism before that existed only in mythology and poetic literature.
Those authors arevdefinitely off base in their assertion if that’s what they say. KI mean there was a hellfire club of occultists in the 18th century (1700s) and there is evidence that some of them were.
Maybe they didn’t call themselves satanist per se but wherever there is the occult in existence there is someone into Satan to be found there (note I say someone singular not people plural).
Edit add: Besides which, the black mass being existant from the 1700s or earlier proved them wrong
There have been devil worship which has existed for millennia but that’s not the same as Satanism. Being a Satanist is a personality trait and became first codified as a religion with LaVey.
I should have said that Im refering to Mikael Hälls article “Its better to belive in the Devil: Conceptions of Satanists and sympathies for the devil in early modern Sweden”
Per Faxeneld and Jesper Aa. Pedersen are not the authors of the book as its a collection of academic texts…
What is the diffrence between Devil worship and Satanism then? The terms have been used interchagebaly for the longest time.