AHC: Satanism becomes a major Abrahamic faith.

[Burton K Wheeler]

Please don't use the ineffiable name of G-d. It is extremely offensive to us Jews.

It is not standard practice to censor the name of the Divine in any form of the English language and it is unreasonable to expect people who do not share your beliefs to abide by them. I cannot believe that you actually are offended by people using standard English, and it seems much more likely this is trolling. Please do not troll.

 

[Walle Ras]

It is not standard practice to censor the name of the Divine in any form of the English language and it is unreasonable to expect people who do not share your beliefs to abide by them. I cannot believe that yo

Wikipedia says:


And cites a Rundin, 2004 for the [6] footnote, probably the same Rundin mentioned in the text. The same assumption is made on a plethora of "ancient East"/"Christianity" sites.

Whether Moloch is an actual reference to a pagan deity or a name for the practice (highly likely child sacrifices), it's clear that it's an actual Carthaginian/Semitic thing (note that it wasn't just Baal-Hammon, some other deities also had the practice)

I have to hand it to you that the Moloch=Satan interpretation common now seems to have started with Paradise Lost (17th century) which has Moloch as a servant of Satan, and from there the idea grew into modern times

Anyway OP never specified whether the Satan here is strictly the Jewish interpretation (pre-Christian) or Christian too

THe issue is that satanism as an offshoot of Judaism makes zero sense. Anymore then a cult worshipping Gavriel makes any sense. Even if such a cult existed. (Two power theory elevated metat as divine so its possible) Would just be two power theory rather then dualism. The change to dualism such as zorastrianism or christianity has to come first, or it has to be only one is dualistic.

For example lets say Marcionism was the dominate form of christianity. Would that meet the ahc set forward by OP? In that the demiurge/satan is identified with Hashem. In a way it says Judaism is satanism. But Judaism doesn't then say christians are worshipping demons. So I don't know if that would match.

Which is why I think a gnostic rothodox split where gnosticism say replaces islam and regards Jesus and the Father as the demiurge with their version of Jesus being the true Jesus. And the christians then say they are worshipping satan. Which I think matches OPs challenge better then a surviving canaanite religion. Which I don't see why they wouldn't vanish with other pagan religions, or reform. Could be interesting if a reformed canaanite religion would compete with Christianity and Islam. Of course if Carthage survived I don't see why Rome would have such a firm hold on Judea to make christianity possible. It would be hard pressed to expand past Anatolia or even into it with a powerful Carthage hanging around. Butterflying away christianity. And Judaism going dualistic isn't going to happen. (As in the main orthodoxy rather then an offshoot which is not only possible but probable to happen in a different form.

The idea of more pagan religions surviving is interesting and a surviving pagan religion in away way could lead to the satanism accusation. Such as for example Wiccans being called satanists when they aren't. Perhaps that could suffice to meet the conditions? A Wicca wank? Or slavic paganism or any other form of european paganism wank

 

[Shiva]

I had a nutty idea years ago about having the Marquis de Sade create a Satanic religion just in time for the French Revolution and wind up being the one in control of Revolutionary France. I never did get it off the ground but if wanted a later POD to start with...

 

[Zireael]

THe issue is that satanism as an offshoot of Judaism makes zero sense. Anymore then a cult worshipping Gavriel makes any sense. Even if such a cult existed. (Two power theory elevated metat as divine so its possible) Would just be two power theory rather then dualism. The change to dualism such as zorastrianism or christianity has to come first, or it has to be only one is dualistic.

Yes, you are completely right, it doesn't work at all as an offshoot of Judaism itself. There would DEFINITELY need to be contact/merging with Zoroastrianism (for the duality idea) or a surviving Carthaginian or Semitic religion (for the other idea).

 

[CountPeter]

Depending on the extent to which we consider something "Satanism", I could see a sort of pro-satan "simonianism".

The quotation marks are important here as I think it's worth distinguishing this hypothetical Simon Magus based belief system from the later movement which bore his name (but held dubious historic link to the actual figure). Otl simonianism was a gnostic movement that was heavily Christianised in it's nature.

Rather, I would suggest for this challenge looking at commonalities of accounts of Simon Magus, which hold him as a magician and someone who also claimed to be the Messiah. He typically converts to Christianity and is either admonished or does horribly (but we are going to look past that for now).

This, is where Satan comes in.
Presuming Simon liked to demonstrate their "power" or was at least believed to have done so, then the temptations of Christ in the desert take a very different tone. Prior to this, Satan has been God's advocate and tester, challenges Jesus and Jesus doesn't take him up on those challenges.
Our "simonianism" rather points to this as Jesus having failed to live up to the title of Messiah and instead posits a story where Simon does indeed do the things challenged of him.

Fundamentally, this does 2 separate things. The first is that it creates a natural opposition both culturally (a religion born of Jews Vs a religion born of Samaritans) and theologically (different Messiah and attitudes to the nature of the messianic) whilst putting Satan as the epitome of this divide.

For the Christians, Satan has to be the deceiver or their Jesus is illegitimate.
For the Simonians, Satan effectively acknowledges and crowns Simon on god's behalf.


Ultimately, both religions would probably be fairly similar to eachother, but we would have one faith that outright praises Satan and fairly well meets the OP challenge.

At this point, you just need some reason for the 2 to survive independently.

 

[Nivek]

I had a nutty idea years ago about having the Marquis de Sade create a Satanic religion just in time for the French Revolution and wind up being the one in control of Revolutionary France. I never did get it off the ground but if wanted a later POD to start with...

Sade revives or reas some gnostic gospels or whatever are called and a french revolution that becomes even more anti Catholic/Nazarene took the cult of supreme being further? That monad being the only God was corrupted by the clerical classes and organized religions and they rescue as the one true reason of the monad,all Nazarenes might be insulted but that's the point

 

[Walle Ras]

Depending on the extent to which we consider something "Satanism", I could see a sort of pro-satan "simonianism".

The quotation marks are important here as I think it's worth distinguishing this hypothetical Simon Magus based belief system from the later movement which bore his name (but held dubious historic link to the actual figure). Otl simonianism was a gnostic movement that was heavily Christianised in it's nature.

Rather, I would suggest for this challenge looking at commonalities of accounts of Simon Magus, which hold him as a magician and someone who also claimed to be the Messiah. He typically converts to Christianity and is either admonished or does horribly (but we are going to look past that for now).

This, is where Satan comes in.
Presuming Simon liked to demonstrate their "power" or was at least believed to have done so, then the temptations of Christ in the desert take a very different tone. Prior to this, Satan has been God's advocate and tester, challenges Jesus and Jesus doesn't take him up on those challenges.
Our "simonianism" rather points to this as Jesus having failed to live up to the title of Messiah and instead posits a story where Simon does indeed do the things challenged of him.

Fundamentally, this does 2 separate things. The first is that it creates a natural opposition both culturally (a religion born of Jews Vs a religion born of Samaritans) and theologically (different Messiah and attitudes to the nature of the messianic) whilst putting Satan as the epitome of this divide.

For the Christians, Satan has to be the deceiver or their Jesus is illegitimate.
For the Simonians, Satan effectively acknowledges and crowns Simon on god's behalf.


Ultimately, both religions would probably be fairly similar to eachother, but we would have one faith that outright praises Satan and fairly well meets the OP challenge.

At this point, you just need some reason for the 2 to survive independently.

I don't think they would similiar. Have those that back Simon have a more Jewish view of Satan rather then him as evil. Remove vicarious atonement. Instead have Simon have the role of reuniting Edom with Israel or something. Another excuse why he can die without nothing accomplished. I doubt that he would eliminate Mt. Gerizim as that's very important with the cutheans. Satan is also the angel of Edom so I think this would work out. With Satan being more revered as among the arch angels, Gavriel on the side off the cutheans and Satan on the side of the Edomites. With their cooperation being representative of the mission of Simon as messiah. With the gospels of Simon being latin instead of greek and with Western Rome going with Simonity and Greece with Christainity we couth as iotl christianity did and Sam as another angel. So splitting Sam/Satan into three angels. Satan that is the angel of Edom one of the arch angels and annointer off moshiach. Sam, the tempter, and whatever they would name the angel of Death.

Not going to lie the idea of having a cuthean/roman competitor to greco jewish christianity would be a very interesting world.

 

[Tosa Inu]

Woah, wait a sec, can you provide sources that Astarte (that is to say, Innana/Ishtar) and Asherah were the same deity, other than the fact that they have similar names? Wikipedia explicitel refutes that claim everywhere it can, like in this article;

It's from a Paper I've read about the Pre-Judaism Canaanite Religion and the origin of how Israelite Henotheism turned into Judaic Monotheism. Yes, I am mistaken about the Asherah and Astarte (my bad), but what I put there is that "Lucifer" written as "H-L-L" in the original semitic Language was apparently wtitten as the son of ',Venus'.

Would check the exact citation later when I have access to my laptop.