Hi! I am new to this forum and will probably ask some silly or provocing questions. Plz try to not kill me for that :)


Question:

Isnt x-ianity having a problem with monoteism when it recognises satan as a "reality"?

It seem to me that Satan is given divine attributes as a tough competitor to God. There is even referenses to both angels and demons as "non-human" divine beings.

To me this looks like a polyteistic religion which has its root in the elder polyteistic religions of ancient mesopotamia (ugarit, babylonia, ancient egypt, sumer etc)

Any comments on that?

Satan is a divinity of sorts, but that alone certainly doesn't put him in God's league. He's a demon, a haughty rogue, an insurgent of sorts, not a deity. He promises naught but anguish and is incalculably lesser than his Creator in power. He is merely an impermanent project, a parvum opus dei, meant to eventually be vanquished. He's not a whit better off than we.

Don't get me wrong, though. I don't believe any of this.

Originally posted by Robban
There is even referenses to both angels and demons as "non-human" divine beings. To me this looks like a polyteistic religion which has its root in the elder polyteistic religions of ancient mesopotamia (ugarit, babylonia, ancient egypt, sumer etc) Precisely Ugaritic in its inception. Hence the Sons of God found in Genesis and Deuteronomy.

hinduism has destructor dieties and the like. satan is one such diety in christianity. of course, the devil comes from popular literature. translations in the bible were made after the fact.

In the ancient Jewish tradition god had the original role of satan, this is, to bring strife and misery to gain more followers in a sadist fashion. The earliest mention of the devil was that of an angel/demon called the 'adversary' who was sent down to earth in human form to trick humans into beleiving in astrology, paganism, etc so that god could send them to hell. In some instances, early Jews were even caught worshipping Baal as a monotheistic god, but these sects were destroyed.

When Christianity came along this adversary became 'satan' which means 'ruler of hell'. Lucifer, a minor Roman ruler and god of the time was made into the figure of a demon and considered the leader of the rebellion of angels. From here on Satan, not god was responsible for horrible things on earth, thus we get all these fluffy Xstian types and not the god-fearing crusaders of old.

Nowadays he is pretty much called Satan, although many give him interchangeable names like leviathan, baal, mephisto, despite the fact that these are different demons (read Dante's Inferno). All of these demonic, satanic figures are simply pagan gods of old recast as fallen angels. The story of a rebellion of the gods is much older than the bible and can be seen in early middle eastern traditions such as the Summerian Ea VS. Tiamat story and in western traditions where Aesir VS. Vanir.

However, the huge difference is that in pagan traditions these gods had no dualistic denomination. A modern minded fellow may say that Loki is a satanic figure while Odin is a powerful god-like figure this is simply not the case. The pagans (Hindus included) have no concept of moral 'good' or 'evil'. Their idea that forces are either creative or destructive are more in tune with nature. What is destructive in one way is creative in another.

Basically the Jews took the idea of cult deities (people that exclusively followed Venus for example) and turned it into a monotheistic god that is more 'true' than another god. As such they took the pagan constructs of warring gods and added a moral polarity, thus you arrive at the concept of good and evil, god and satan.

AS for the idea of polytheism within Christianity, it has doesn't hold. Satan, being a creation of god, with limited freedom is subject to all of god's laws.

In modern times Satan is seen in an athiestic sense as a being wholly stronger than God and Jesus. He appeals to man's natural instincts and values, not chastity. In the black metal scene this concept has extended into interest in non-Jewish northern gods such as Perun and Odin, which are gods of frenzy, domination and fury, as well as gods of knowledge.

It looks like the old testament is running a propaganda-campain againt the old ugaritic pantheon, whos most important diety is Baal. In several places it is described how the people worshipping Baal and Ashera are punished.

In 2 King 1:2 Baal is refered to as Baal Sebub, the God from Ekron (at least in the swedish translation). I guess this is where the word Belsebub comes from. (What is Sebub?)

If Satan is derived from Baal then he is definatly a diety of magnitude.

Interesting is that both Baal and Jahve is refered to as "the rider of the clouds", so now Baal is Jahve.

Baal is believed to mean "The Lord" witch we are familiar with from the x-ian God.

El, the head of the panteon has this standing epitet: creator of the created, witch I also believe we recognize from x-ianity and jews.

In kings, Ashera should be refered to as Jahves wife (although I have not yet found this)

Possibly the isrealites (or whoever) made a merge of all the characters from the "pagan" religion into the one Jahve (as you mension). This was probably to make the olds obsolete in the campain for the priests to dominate the area (?)

In the old scripts Baal is described as a good and loving God with responsibility for fertility, rain, weather, crops etc and not at all an evil fearsome demon.

He is mighty but not allmighty as with the jewish God. He needs help from the Gods to perform sertain tasks, like killing the watermonster Yam (Tiamat I guess).

By the way: Could we see the heritage from this story in Genesis,
1 Gen 1:2 and 1 Gen 1:6 - 7, when God devided the water into two?

Look at this list of differences between the ancient traditions with Genesis:

Atrahasis:
The gods are identified with nature and natural forces;
Genesis:
God is NEVER identified with nature--He stands above it

Creation was accomplished through sexual procreation;
Creation had nothing to do with sexual procreation

Primeval darkness had a name, a personality, and deity;
Darkness was nothing more than just that.

The sea had a name, a personality, and deity;
The sea was nothing more than just that.

The abyss had a name, a personality, and deity;
The abyss was nothing more than just that.

The sun, moon, and stars were given names and histories and powers;
They are simply called the greater and lesser lights, and the stars are barely mentioned.

The Shabbatu was a day of terror;
The Sabbath was a day of blessing and rest.

Man created as slave labor to feed the gods;
Man created to enjoy God's blessing.

The serpent was huge and powerful;
The serpent was small and powerless (relied on wits)

Many, many gods in very complex and tumultuous relationships;
One God, balanced and stable.
Man is formed out of some 'part' of god (e.g. blood) mixed with clay;
Man is formed of dust, in the image of God.

Source: The making of the OT (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/aec2.html) (Near the bottom. There is also a list of commonalities).

There is definitely some kind of heritage, but the God described is just as definitely not the same one.

PS. Baal-zebub (mentioned in 2 Kings 1) was a Philistine deity worshipped at Ekron. It means "Lord of the Flies".

I am not convinced yet.

The Bible is quite some years younger than Atrahasis and there are scripts even older, like eluma elish.

There is a lot that happen to a story over a great timespan, especially when its past over by word of mouth.

There does also look like politics has had great influence in the tranformation.

Not so much "politics", as religion. The Biblical accounts would have been very controversial at the time. Please check that website, since it also addresses the word of mouth aspect.

Hi Jenyar

About the lord of the flies.. when looking into it it looks like there are quite a lot of dieties refered to with the epitet Baal.

http://home.t-online.de/home/kdykow/libpg_b.htm

So it might be a bit hasty to set a = between the ugarit-god Baal and Baal-zebub.

Im looking into that website now!

I have always been fascinated by the Enuma Elish and I would say that the concept and story behind Baal is simply a new twist on that old story, so it's safe to say. There was a Baal that was sacrificed to and there is extensive evidence of this.

As for the differences between paganism and genesis, it makes sense as to make the new god, Yawhew, more powerful before the other gods.

Originally posted by and2000x
When Christianity came along this adversary became 'satan' which means 'ruler of hell'. Fraudulent bullpuckie! Are you sayng that 1 Chronicles 21:1 is a Christian interpolation? See, for example, Lexicon Results for satan (Strong's 07854) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1060649786-4160.html). Before presuming to instruct, learn something, :rolleyes:

Yes, thank you for the error report, I made the foolish assumption that it was New Testament. Damn myself to hell!

Originally posted by and2000x
Yes, thank you for the error report, I made the foolish assumption that it was New Testament. Damn myself to hell! You also foolishly make such absurd statements as "The pagans (Hindus included) have no concept of moral 'good' or 'evil'". Again, why not actually learn something before presuming to instruct others?

The pagans (Hindus included) have no concept of moral 'good' or 'evil'

Why don't you ask one then? I am friends with plenty of Hindus to know what the hell I am talking about. If one says 'evil' it is NOT 'evil' in the Judeo-Christian sense at all, but in the sense that it is harming or life destructive.

Look up the word DUALISM and you will see that it has no meaning (in the Judaic sense) within Hinduism.


From the words of a Hindu:http://www.hindubooks.org/david_frawley/hinduism/religion_spirituality_and_modernworld/page27.htm

"The idea of a Devil or that of an entirely evil being is wrong. No creature exists who is inherently evil or who can act in an entirely evil manner. However, the evil or harmful actions of people can create a negative force that appears to have an existence of its own and can be almost overwhelming. Such negative powers and entities do exist and must be reckoned with but can be transcended.

These negative forces are not the product of religious unbelief but of willful egoism. The way to transcend evil is to transcend the ego, which is to go beyond the barriers of belief and identity. Unfortunately, the specter of evil has been used to dominate or destroy people who think differently than a particular group.

Such an idea of evil is itself one of the most evil things the human mind has ever invented, as the violence perpetrated in its wake throughout history has demonstrated. It turns other human beings, who are also God, into demons who have to be destroyed and who are not even worthy of human consideration."

Here is yet another page detailing the difference between dualism (Judeo-Christian-Islam) and paganism (Hindusim to) http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/danielou.html

Originally posted by and2000x
Why don't you ask one then? I am friends with plenty of Hindus to know what the hell I am talking about. My goodness. So some of your best friends are Hindu. How very WASP of you.

Originally posted by and2000x
"The idea of a Devil or that of an entirely evil being is wrong. No creature exists who is inherently evil or who can act in an entirely evil manner." You blithering idiot. How does that quote in any way support the ignorant and disgusting assertion that "The pagans (Hindus included) have no concept of moral 'good' or 'evil'"?

My goodness. So some of your best friends are Hindu. How very WASP of you.

What the hell? I'm not an Anglo or a protestant. Hinduism was invented by white Europeans anyway, so I don't see the point in this attack. (Read some Savitri Devi)

As for the pagan bit, I suppose you obviously KNOW since you are a pagan yourself. It is very plain and simple: the moral codes of the pagans (not Wiccan pseudo-trash) are based not upon dualism but are part of a universal balancing act via traditionalism (for the Hindus it is simply kharma/dharma). There are references to 'evil' gods within Hinduism, but they are meant as forces of ill-fortune, destruction, and death. Unlike the Christian concept of evil, these destructive forces are essential and positive in change, despite the negative influence they may have upon people. Thus morality is seen as CODES TO LIVE BY, not something that will condemn you to an eternity of damnation.

As for ancient paganism, I am very interested in Odalism/Odinism and have held it dear as an integral part of my history. It is very simple to see the non-duality in Odalism for example: a town may chose to worship whatever deity they choose, be it Thor, Odin, Loki..whoever, for no god is 'evil' or 'blasphemous'. While some gods are more favored over others, they are all essentially capable of acts that the Christian mind would deem 'evil' or 'wrong'. Odin was the lord of the death, lord of the hanged, god of war, master of the pantheon, lord of poetic and erotic frenzy, and giver of knowledge (I could go on for two pages listing them all) He was worshipped fanatically by a small cult of Berzerks (bear-skins) who saw him as the Allfather and great provider. Indeed, all warriors who are slain look foward to meeting this wise and great leader in the Great Hall. However, outsiders considered him to be quit horrific, and called him 'Ygg, the terrible one' who would ride around Yule Tide (12 holy nights of the dead) and slay and rape humans at his whim. Such acts were not seen as 'evil' or 'wrong' at all, and such concepts were cherised as part of reality. Many a judeo-christian would lump Odin in as some sort of Jehova figure, but he is not of this description at all. Worshipping other gods for different reasons was perfectly acceptable and not 'evil'. Fenrir is the wolf that shall help bring about Ragnarok. Though he is feared as the great destroyer and bringer of death, he is seen in a positive light as the being that purges the world of weakness and decay. This same concept is seen again and again throughout many pagan pantheons including those of the Greeks, Romans, Summerians, and so on.

I think you need to define what you mean by 'morals'. Many people mistakingly confuse morals with social rules. For example, the Hindu caste society had extreme social rules and taboos. The same was of the Norse society. Morality can only be defined by a monolithic god who creates a dual nature of 'good' and 'evil'.

This is it in a clear cut manner:

1. Pagan societies had concepts of right and wrong.
2. Pagan societis had no MORAL concepts of right and wrong.

Morality requires an force of 'good' such as God, versus and 'evil' force, such as 'Satan' or sin.

Originally posted by and2000x
This is it in a clear cut manner:

1. Pagan societies had concepts of right and wrong.
2. Pagan societis had no MORAL concepts of right and wrong.

Morality requires an force of 'good' such as God, versus and 'evil' force, such as 'Satan' or sin.

Morality lies in the consciousness of every human being. You know nothing. Please don't try to teach before you learn!

Not quite, M*W. Moral codes are agreed upon standards. Every human being has the capacity to be moral, or to hold to these codes. There can be no absolute or universal morality unless you believe that God enforces such standards, and you live by His standards. They are absolute because they are non-negotiable. If the Ten Commandments called for murder, we would be able to hold higher moral standards than God, but as it is, His standard require love for one another - and love for Him as the only God (meaning there can be no higher authority to enforce different standards).

What and2000x is saying is that pagan religions don't see it as black and white, but only different shades of grey. It's called relativistic morality (and it's not exlusive to ancient cultures, either).

The problem is the we live in a global, multi-cultural world, where one set of morals can be unacceptable to another. Take for instance the extremistic Jihad morality - where murder of an enemy can be justified - and how it clashes with Western culture (which despite the objections of many, grew from the Christian morality that any kind of murder is unacceptable).

Peace treaties only work if they address the moral issues. A cease-fire can only be effective if both sides are able to agree that shooting at the opposite side is wrong, despite their personal conviction that it is right. The "cease-fire standard" is only "right" as far as it is universal. Once one side breaks it, it automatically becomes "right" for the other side to retaliate... and you get what happened in Palestine.

Originally posted by and2000x
Hinduism was invented by white Europeans anyway, so I don't see the point in this attack. You're a joke. :D The Indus Valley Civilization thrived in Northwest India from the middle of the third milleniumB.C. to the middle of the second millenium B.C. The civilization was a well developed culture centered aroundtwo major cities, Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. 6 Indo-Aryans, a nomadic tribe, began to migrate into this area around 1500 B.C., roughly the same time as the mysterious disappearance of the Indus Valley civilization. The religious scriptures of the Indo-Aryans, the Vedas , serve as the most widely aknowledged basis forHinduism. The Vedas are said to be the eternal truths of the religion and are upheld as the supreme authority for Hinduism.

- see Hinduism History (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/world/hindu/history.htm)Where do you get your history, Mein Kampf? We'll see ...

Originally posted by and2000x
(Read some Savitri Devi) Just great! We now get treated to a bit of Nazi mysticism. Savitri Devi, whose birth name was Maximiani Portas, was one of the most compelling figures to emerge from the wreckage of post-War National Socialism. More than any single figure, it was Devi who would carry the torch of occult National Socialism through the grim period following World War II. Through her writings and her personal example, she would inspire a new generation of National Socialists to explore the occult byways of racial mysticism that were once blazed by such 19th century German figures as Guido von List and such Third Reich figures as Heinrich Himmler.

... Through the jungle telegraph linking European Nazis, Devi soon got wind of a rising young star on the American scene, George Lincoln Rockwell. Rockwell, who founded the American Nazi Party in 1959, began to correspond with Devi in 1960. It was Devi who introduced Rockwell to the man who would quietly become something of a mentor, the unreconstructed German National Socialist Bruno Ludke. Together with Britain’s Colin Jordan, the three became the core of the World Union of National Socialists—an organization which sought with little success to link together the far-flung National Socialist tribes from throughout the world. The high point of the effort was the 1962 meeting at Cottswald in England which resulted in the Cottswald Agreement, the World Union of National Socialists’ founding document which served as a theoretical blueprint for the revival of a global neo-Nazi movement. Cottswald, in which Savitri Devi served as the representative of France, was the first and last time that Devi and Rockwell would have the opportunity to meet.

- see Savitri Devi (http://www.religionandnature.com/encyclopedia/samples/Devi_Savitri.htm)
So, are you a big George Lincoln Rockwell fan?

Originally posted by and2000x
As for the pagan bit, I suppose you obviously KNOW since you are a pagan yourself. This is little more than the blathering of pro-Nazi scum.

Actually, Hinduism is said to be much older than 1500 B.C. because it has no founder,prophet, or whatever. The early roots of Hinduism can be dated back to at least 6000-7000 years (5000 BC) when the early signs of Indus valley civilization began to take shape in the subcontinent. Hinduism derived richly from the Indus People, the Vedic People, from Dravidian cultures, from folk religions and also from the foreign traditions of Mesopotamia, Greece, Arabia, China and central Russia.

6 . The religious scriptures of the Indo-Aryans, the Vedas , serve as the most widely aknowledged basis forHinduism. The Vedas are said to be the eternal truths of the religion and are upheld as the supreme authority for Hinduism.

I think this phrase right here debunks your own claim.
The 'Indo-Aryans' are from from Europe. The term 'Aryan' means 'noble' and the inhabitants called these beings thus because of their tall stature and fair appearance.

The Vedas MAY have been written prior to the Aryan migration, yet they were not established into any coherent form of Hinduism until the Aryans came. Furthermore, the Aryans added all of the additional texts. So, I was wrong in saying they invented it, but they surely gave it the prominence it has today.

No, Rockwell is a moron and a blinder hate machine.

Mein Kampf is fairly boasterous and venomously racist, but I see nothing wrong with the historical accuracy of it. Not a book I enjoy, since the writing is poor. Julius Evola's 'Men Amongst The Ruins' was a far better guide to radical traditionalism and fascist thought.

I have something to ask of YOU: Describe a situation in pagan mythology or history that will firmly ground your concept of 'morality'.

This is little more than the blathering of pro-Nazi scum.

I'm not a Nazi, but I don't moralize those who are. Apparently it seems impossible for the 'demons' to have anything important to say. Emotion triumphs over reason in this age of group safety and oversocialization and it is going to kill everyone. Nazis are so much scum, yet more humans have been massacred, persecuted, and alienated in the name of human equality. More land and forest has been destroyed to assure this humanist brand of eqalitarianism. Leftism is destruction to all races, religions, cultures, freethought, and natural environments, so I don't see why Nazis are so 'evil'.

Isnt x-ianity having a problem with monoteism when it recognises satan as a "reality"? No because God created Satan, or Satan is the spawn of God. Satan was also a neccessity and inevitable with the existence of pure goodness. :)

Ah! so that would make him the brother of Jesus! Great..

Some people claim they have found the grave of the brother of jesus (discoverychannel), maybe they have found the sleepingbag of satan :-)

You haven't replied yet. Backing down ConsequentAtheist?

Aryan = Indo-European, meaning Indian and European. Meaning that if the aryan invasion is true, then it was invented by Indians and Europeans. There is no real evidence for the Aryan invasion. Read the Aryan Invasion post in the Eastern Philosophy section.

Wiccan Pseudo-Trash?

I'll ignore that. But what he's saying is right. Satan, the ultimate evil, etc, is a creation of the christian religion. Paganism is based on balance, karma, not ultimate good or ultimate evil.

Satan is the ultimate invention of power. You can only repress the "vulgus" if you have something terrifying to threten with.

I somewhere read (but I cant back it up so it can be completely wrong) that satan appeared in xian in medivial times when the church became a powerful organisation based on the pope.

Is satan mentioned in the OT?

YEs satan is in the old testament, In the book of Job, Satan Challenged God saying that Job will blaspheme against God if his fortunes change. God lets Satan harm Job, to test his faith, Satan first gets jobs property destroyed, then he gets his sons and daughteres killed, then he inflicts severe boils and sores on Job. But Job doesnt blaspheme agaisnt God. In the end Job is rewarded for his faithfullness, he gets twice of what he previously he had and lived to see his great great grandchildren.

Originally posted by Robban
Is satan mentioned in the OT? Also 1 Chronicles 21.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Not quite, M*W. Jenyar, why do you persist in dancing around the subject? If you sincerely search for God, you will find God in your very own soul. This has nothing to do with moral codes established by society. The infinite spirit of God is within the human race. To believe otherwise is to doubt God. You do a very good job of this, by the way.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Jenyar, why do you persist in dancing around the subject?

psst. he thinks he's Fred Astaire :D

There is no real evidence for the Aryan invasion

Historians now beleive that it was not an 'invasion' per se, but a migration. There may have been some 'coercion' and plundering here and there, but there is no evidence that it was a forced take over.

Today it is fairly common to find blue eyed Indians or Whites with Indian features within India. Most of my Indian friends resemble Europeans besides their dark skin and black hair. These families have existed there for centuries and probably descended from the Aryans (though you can never be sure).

On another subject, what the hell happened to India anyway? It's a complete trash dump in modern times, where is the beauty that it once had? I'm not visting again, that's for sure.

Jenyar, why do you persist in dancing around the subject? If you sincerely search for God, you will find God in your very own soul.

I don't see how Jenyar is dancing around anything, we are talking about Polytheism VS. Monotheism and moral dualism vs. nonduality and morals as standards in particular. While it is nice of you to share your ideas about god, it's best to stay on the topic and not defame other members.

Originally posted by and2000x
I don't see how Jenyar is dancing around anything, we are talking about Polytheism VS. Monotheism and moral dualism vs. nonduality and morals as standards in particular. While it is nice of you to share your ideas about god, it's best to stay on the topic and not defame other members.

I have defamed no one. Jenyar has defamed herself.