Jump to content


* * * * * 2 votes

Horned God Was Originally Lucifer?


27 replies to this topic

#1 SuccubusSherry

    Enthusiastic Member

  • Old Timers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,106 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 21 February 2016 - 09:21 PM

I came across an amazing comment this week in a group that I occasionally look into:

"Gerald Gardner’s original notes used Lucifer as the name of the horned god before Doreen Valiente changed it during her grand re-write."

If that is true, imagine how differently modern Wicca would have developed with Lucifer as the horned god instead of Cernunnos. For one thing the accusations of worshiping the same being as the Christian Devil would have been true after all, instead of false.

The aspect of it that particularly interests me is that Cernunnos is a real person, and I know that other members of this forum experience him as a real person. Either he is the original true horned god, with antler horns not goat horns, or he isn't. Would he have been unable to participate in the modern form of Wicca if Doreen Valiente hadn't changed it? I really like what the modern religion has become even though it has moved a long way away from its origins in Doreen Valiente's day. It seems like the scholarly approach to what happened and the devotional approach have no common ground, and they should have, somewhere.

#2 sen

    hollow king

  • Moderators
  • 1,466 posts

Posted 21 February 2016 - 10:40 PM

Lucifer/Satan wasn't canonically described as having horns, cloven feet or any of the Pan-like features that he is colloquially known for. This is assumed to be an obvious and historical smear campaign on the part of the Church to strongly discourage the worship or emulation of these gods. The Bible describes Satan, in later works, as something of a dragon. Prior to that, however, he's never really described physically.

i love being god; it's my favourite hobby


#3 The Geometer

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 21 February 2016 - 11:28 PM

View PostSuccubusSherry, on 21 February 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

If that is true, imagine how differently modern Wicca would have developed with Lucifer as the horned god instead of Cernunnos. For one thing the accusations of worshiping the same being as the Christian Devil would have been true after all, instead of false..

It is, and was probably still true, only instead of the "Wiccans" worshipping the "originally Christian Devil" it is actually Christians using a pagan god as the "Christian Devil".

I'm sure God approves of it. Stamped Seal of God's Approval.

#4 monsnoleedra

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 409 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 12:25 AM

I seem to recall Gardner initially used Lucifer in his connection to the Roman God Lucifer as the shinning star or one who illuminates the path. So hardly suggests the Christian Satan persona you seem to be implying here SuccubusSherry in my opinion. A connection that also ties to Diana Lucifera and the idea of Aradia that ties into Stregia and that influence upon things.
I'm Only Responsible For What I Say Not For What Or How You Understand!

#5 SuccubusSherry

    Enthusiastic Member

  • Old Timers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,106 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 22 February 2016 - 12:52 AM

I did read about Aradia, Or The Gospel Of The Witches by Charles Leland which was an influence on those people. It seemed to me to cut across legends from different cultures and mix up the names, because it had Lucifer and Diana as partners and Aradia as their daughter. That was why I wasn't sure for a long time whether the Goddess should be called Diana or Aradia, and in the end I settled on Aradia .

#6 ChaosTech

    Venerable Member

  • Gold Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,160 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 03:43 AM

Diana was anglosaxon witch goddess her female worshippers would get high with and astral project, up until Middle Ages. Thus the traditional sabbats. Aradia is a mortal woman who was Diana's daughter. She is a female version of Christ to Jehova.


For nearly 20 years I meditated on and studied that which has no name, but is absolute, infinite, beyond both small and large. Finally one day I realized the limits of my sentient consciousness. It has all power over whether we are it or dual. There is no choice of the nondual, for choice is dual. Just be, live, do what you will, with love and wisdom. As Hermes said, in a time yet unborn, all shall be one, and one shall be all. True enlightenment has nothing to do with attainment. It's an inner peace, that there is nothing to be done, I call it surrender to the Spirit.

#7 monsnoleedra

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 409 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 04:58 AM

View PostChaosTech, on 22 February 2016 - 03:43 AM, said:

Diana was anglosaxon witch goddess her female worshippers would get high with and astral project, up until Middle Ages. Thus the traditional sabbats. Aradia is a mortal woman who was Diana's daughter. She is a female version of Christ to Jehova.

Not sure where the anglosaxon aspect is coming from but she was definitely a woman's goddess in later years. Yet her earlier history before being conflated with Artemis is more of a authority and masculine goddess in action. Overseeing disputes and resolutions, treaties, hunting and such things. Part of the reason I suspect that Diana Luciferia was fairly common on Roman coins with the torch (single or twin) used to light the way and reveal the truth. Quite a bit different than the Artemis conflated imagery on coins of the same period.

The Aradia aspect is harder to place and track for sure. Though on the surface it seems that is a later influence and story from what I can gather.
I'm Only Responsible For What I Say Not For What Or How You Understand!

#8 SuccubusSherry

    Enthusiastic Member

  • Old Timers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,106 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 22 February 2016 - 10:30 AM

Now we're talking about the scholarly aspect of this which is very informative, but as I said earlier there is a clash with the devotional aspect.

If Lucifer had been chosen to be the horned god then if you were a Wiccan you would have to be a devotee of Lucifer. I've always regarded Lucifer and Satan and the Devil as the same person; I was brought up that way, but even if you see them as different as many people do nowadays it would still have attracted a different kind of person to become a member of the Wiccan religion.

I see Cernunnos as the original horned Deity who was worshiped by the cavemen.When I used to communicate with him a lot he mentioned the cavemen a couple of times. Could it be that 'we made it true' rule again, where human beings believe there is a connection between Cernunnus and the cavemen and it becomes true?

Also Sen mentioned Pan. In one of my Wiccan meditations Pan appeared and he was making a distinction between the aspects of Pan, Dionysus and Cernunnos. I thought I had seen him in an earlier meditation and he said "no, that was Dionysus." I asked him if it was him who appears in as a character in 'The Wind In The Willows' and he said, "no, that was Cernunnos."
When people approach it in the scholarly way they examine influences in various cultures and how the same deity could be Pan, Cernunnos, Dionysus and the Hindu Pashupati, but the gods don't always see it in the same way as us.

Lucifer, whoever you define him as, would behave in certain ways if he was the deity in Wicca, pushing himself in and voraciously seeking devotees, like he does in angel groups on the internet. That doesn't mean they would then all go to the Christian Hell! Because they were not Christians they would not experience it like that, but Lucifer would experience it in a different way from the human scholars.

#9 monsnoleedra

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 409 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 01:58 PM

View PostSuccubusSherry, on 22 February 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Now we're talking about the scholarly aspect of this which is very informative, but as I said earlier there is a clash with the devotional aspect. If Lucifer had been chosen to be the horned god then if you were a Wiccan you would have to be a devotee of Lucifer. I've always regarded Lucifer and Satan and the Devil as the same person; I was brought up that way, but even if you see them as different as many people do nowadays it would still have attracted a different kind of person to become a member of the Wiccan religion. I see Cernunnos as the original horned Deity who was worshiped by the cavemen.When I used to communicate with him a lot he mentioned the cavemen a couple of times. Could it be that 'we made it true' rule again, where human beings believe there is a connection between Cernunnus and the cavemen and it becomes true? Also Sen mentioned Pan. In one of my Wiccan meditations Pan appeared and he was making a distinction between the aspects of Pan, Dionysus and Cernunnos. I thought I had seen him in an earlier meditation and he said "no, that was Dionysus." I asked him if it was him who appears in as a character in 'The Wind In The Willows' and he said, "no, that was Cernunnos." When people approach it in the scholarly way they examine influences in various cultures and how the same deity could be Pan, Cernunnos, Dionysus and the Hindu Pashupati, but the gods don't always see it in the same way as us. Lucifer, whoever you define him as, would behave in certain ways if he was the deity in Wicca, pushing himself in and voraciously seeking devotees, like he does in angel groups on the internet. That doesn't mean they would then all go to the Christian Hell! Because they were not Christians they would not experience it like that, but Lucifer would experience it in a different way from the human scholars.

Myself I'd have to question the idea of Lucifer as you seem to be suggesting. The Roman Lucifer didn't seek converts or push himself upon people seeking devotees. As one who revealed the pathway or cast light upon it seeking devotees was not the purpose of his presence. You seem, to me anyway, to be bringing a lot of your own presumptions about the negative side of Christianity into your definitions.

It's like Cernunnos he's a big deal in modern paganism yet historically there is not much proof of him other than the Gundestrup Cauldron and one other plaque I can think off. Nothing that suggests or signifies he was a major Celtic Deity. That doesn't even touch upon the influence of the Animism / Anamatism concepts that would be found in many hunter / pastoral based societies that still have greater spirits of horned animals and the masculine energies and fertility they are associated with.

More often than not I find if I am looking to a horned type persona i'll see Odin in his wild hunt configuration, Herne in his hunter persona or even Poseidon in his earth shaker and wild horse connection. Though the Greenman (both Oak faced and evergreen faced though those are fewer) / Shelia Na Gig influence and ability to take on horned persona characteristics can not in my opinion be avoided either.
I'm Only Responsible For What I Say Not For What Or How You Understand!

#10 SilentSeeker

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 260 posts

Posted 23 February 2016 - 06:12 PM

Greetings,

While I've got no backwards 'dog' in this fight, came across this which seemed rather timely and relevant to the discussion. Tis but one man's opinion, but still could be of use to the overall discussion.

Cheers and Be Well

Edited by SilentSeeker, 23 February 2016 - 06:37 PM.

“The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”
―Zhuangzi


The Tao gives rise to all forms, yet it has no form of its own.

If you attempt to fix a picture to it in your mind, you will lose it.

This is like pinning a butterfly: the husk is captured, but the flying is lost.

Why not be content with simply experiencing it?

--Attributed to Lao-tzu


#11 SuccubusSherry

    Enthusiastic Member

  • Old Timers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,106 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 24 February 2016 - 10:04 AM

Yes, that article and the one linked to it are the ones which have sparked the recent discussions.

Monsnoleedra said: The Roman Lucifer didn't seek converts or push himself upon people seeking devotees.

Mostly the angel groups are Judeo-Christian, and I've seen several cases where people are just trying to discuss Michael and Gabriel and Raphael when it suddenly gets taken over by threads about Lucifer. You could say it's human beings doing this but I sort of feel it's Lucifer! Again, I was brought up to think that he would do this.

Also there are a lot of traditional Judeo-Christian ceremonial magicians and they often communicate with Lucifer and the Goetic demons on a regular basis. If Lucifer had become the deity in Wicca it would have affected these people very much in that they would have felt it necessary to subsume Wicca into what they do and either Wicca would have become part of their tradition or they would have become part of the neo-Pagan tradition. Instead of that the two have developed separately as two groups of people whose beliefs and behaviour are really different from one another. Some people accuse Wicca of becoming a hippie religion because of all the peace and love and 'harm none' that has come into it, although not all Wiccans agree with that approach.

I still think that if this had happened it would have left Cernunnos out in the cold thinking, "I could have been the deity in this, with many people worshipping me as Lord of the Sun and Lord of Wild Animals And Plants and the Green Man. Instead they've put someone else in it!" Then he would have gone away and been one of the ancient gods who is not worshipped at the present time.

#12 Whispers

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 24 February 2016 - 01:22 PM

View PostSuccubusSherry, on 24 February 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

I still think that if this had happened it would have left Cernunnos out in the cold thinking, "I could have been the deity in this, with many people worshipping me as Lord of the Sun and Lord of Wild Animals And Plants and the Green Man. Instead they've put someone else in it!" Then he would have gone away and been one of the ancient gods who is not worshipped at the present time.

In my not so humble opinion, you are making a common (although basic) mistake. You don't leave Gods/Goddesses out in the cold. Regardless of what you may have been taught in pop magic, it is not a matter of they needing your belief or your worship . It IS a matter of you (or whoever wants to work with them) calling them and making them believe that you are real and not a figment of the imagination of humanity.
That is one reason why rituals are so important. Rituals are protocols of communication ( passwords if you prefer) that signal the Goddesses/Gods that in there is a real human being. Then they decide if they answer or not. Many Gods that are no longer worshiped, simply got bored and went away. Would you spend eternity looking at an ant farm?
And make no mistake, if Cernunnos really wanted to have worshipers, he wouldn't need human worshipers. Many animals, plants and fungi know him well.

Edited by Whispers, 24 February 2016 - 01:22 PM.


#13 Morrigan

    (>'o')> MAGIC <('o'<)

  • Administrator
  • 1,527 posts
  • LocationWandering the coast

Posted 24 February 2016 - 03:15 PM

^this. Oh so much this.
Cast Wide the Circle: Place for my musings and the occasional book review.
The Art of Stealing Fire : My Online Magical Journal
Big mountain, wide river
There's an ancient pull
These tree trunks, these stream beds
Leave our bellies full
They sing out I am going to stand my ground
You rise to me and I'll blow you down
I am going to stand my ground
You rise to me and I'll blow you down

#14 Lillith_Star

    Member

  • Old Timers
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • LocationIn your dreams.. stealing your life force

Posted 27 February 2016 - 05:43 PM

I made a topic about this here with all the links to Pat's blog, his recent one is very enlightening on the subject. Now, I do not think Lucifer is the devil and I do think the Horned God replaced him. Lucifer in Aradia has clear Christian influence, which makes a circle back to paganism. Lucifer is a poetic name for the morning star and a god, back when celestial bodies were thought to be gods. He is based on the Greek Phosphorus. In Greece, Phosphorus and his bro the evening star are often paired with the goddess Selene. (Similar to how Athena has Nike, I suppose.)

In some Roman and Greek trads, Diana was one name for the moon goddess, when she was in the on earth, Luna (Selene) in the heavens, and Trivia (Hekate) in the underworld. Now, Diana of Aradia has some clear attributes that belong to Hekate (Trivia). Including the idea of witches for followers. This was noted by scholars. It is not noted by Leland, who I think is unaware of it because it is more recent scholarship. (I do not know if this has anything to do with veracity of Aradia, though I found it interesting.)

Some have noted the Catholic-esque rituals in Aradia and Lucifer's fall to be clear implication it was taken from Christianity, which is probably true.The Jewish Encyclopedia has a good entry on Lucifer, despite being absent in Judaism, it mentioned that many times there would be myths developed around the morning star about the god associated with it striving to take their place among the high gods. Pretty much the Christian ideal is somewhat of a "cultural memory".

As for Satan, he never bothered me much in paganism nor does having Lilith around, though that one is obvious. We must remember that Satan is a title for an anonymous angel, who appears in Job and works for God. Since "satan" means adversary we could apply this to many pagan gods. (But my favorite example is the Aztec god Tezcatlipoca because he does have a Nahuatl title of "Yaotl" which means "enemy", and does not seem to mind that the Spaniards applied "satan" to him.) There are a lot of myths about Satan that are not biblical based. The fall, the temptation of Adam and Eve, the snake being Satan, and so forth are all beautiful additions by people in Europe in the medieval periods. We need to keep this in mind, as this is a very important factoid and sheds doubt on the canonization of such claims.

Now I do think, as someone put it, that Lucifer was axed from Wicca because of his associations with Satan. Valiente called it "too strong meat" for Wiccans of the time. (I also read Gardner got mad at a coven in France for using Lucifer instead of Cernunnos. I cannot remember the source though.) Well, the era which Wicca was born into is very important here. Firstly, they were trying not to make it look like they were devil worshipers because back in the day, that was frowned upon in good Christian society. Secondly, Murray has long since been debunked but her research was consider serious at the time of Wicca's conception and Gardner took this seriously, as "proof" of Cernunnos. (A lot of these sciences were in their infancy back then.) Murray even wrote a passage in Witchcraft Today.

I think Satan can be pagan, in that he can be approached in a pagan way, as just another spirit. Remember, the Christians pretty much took pagan things and "Christianized" them, why not the same for Satan...? (Think about it, they demonized pagan gods. Lucifer is a good example of this!) We've pretty much already done this to Lilith, and as much as some would like to see otherwise, she is still honored as the first wife of Adam, despite that being technically an "Abrahamic" myth. The Adam myth is also the only cultural myths you can use that make her into a feminist icon. You cannot do that with her pagan origins. (You have to remember too, at the time the OT was written, I would not say Satan belonged to Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam. The Hebrews are pretty much the Canaanites and undoubtedly this has something to do with Satan in Job's origins.)

#15 Lillith_Star

    Member

  • Old Timers
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • LocationIn your dreams.. stealing your life force

Posted 28 February 2016 - 07:20 PM

I had originally posted in this thread back when I first signed up and I think it got lost in limbo because it's long and complicated. Luckily I saved it.... Over the last few days I did find out some interesting stuff about Aradia and Lucifer. Pretty much what this post is about.

Quote

I made a topic about this here with all the links to Pat's blog, his recent one is very enlightening on the subject. Now, I do not think Lucifer is the devil and I do think the Horned God replaced him. Lucifer in Aradia has clear Christian influence, which makes a circle back to paganism. Lucifer is a poetic name for the morning star and a god, back when celestial bodies were thought to be gods. He is based on the Greek Phosphorus. In Greece, Phosphorus and his bro the evening star are often paired with the goddess Selene. (Similar to how Athena has Nike, I suppose.)

In some Roman and Greek trads, Diana was one name for the moon goddess, when she was in the on earth, Luna (Selene) in the heavens, and Trivia (Hekate) in the underworld. Now, Diana of Aradia has some clear attributes that belong to Hekate (Trivia). Including the idea of witches for followers. This was noted by scholars. It is not noted by Leland, who I think is unaware of it because it is more recent scholarship. (I do not know if this has anything to do with veracity of Aradia, though I found it interesting.)

Some have noted the Catholic-esque rituals in Aradia and Lucifer's fall to be clear implication it was taken from Christianity, which is probably true.The Jewish Encyclopedia has a good entry on Lucifer, despite being absent in Judaism, it mentioned that many times there would be myths developed around the morning star about the god associated with it striving to take their place among the high gods. Pretty much the Christian ideal is somewhat of a "cultural memory".

As for Satan, he never bothered me much in paganism nor does having Lilith around, though that one is obvious. We must remember that Satan is a title for an anonymous angel, who appears in Job and works for God. Since "satan" means adversary we could apply this to many pagan gods. (But my favorite example is the Aztec god Tezcatlipoca because he does have a Nahuatl title of "Yaotl" which means "enemy", and does not seem to mind that the Spaniards applied "satan" to him.) There are a lot of myths about Satan that are not biblical based. The fall, the temptation of Adam and Eve, the snake being Satan, and so forth are all beautiful additions by people in Europe in the medieval periods. We need to keep this in mind, as this is a very important factoid and sheds doubt on the canonization of such claims.

Now I do think, as someone put it, that Lucifer was axed from Wicca because of his associations with Satan. Valiente called it "too strong meat" for Wiccans of the time. (I also read Gardner got mad at a coven in France for using Lucifer instead of Cernunnos. I cannot remember the source though.) Well, the era which Wicca was born into is very important here. Firstly, they were trying not to make it look like they were devil worshipers because back in the day, that was frowned upon in good Christian society. Secondly, Murray has long since been debunked but her research was consider serious at the time of Wicca's conception and Gardner took this seriously, as "proof" of Cernunnos. (A lot of these sciences were in their infancy back then.) Murray even wrote a passage in Witchcraft Today.

I think Satan can be pagan, in that he can be approached in a pagan way, as just another spirit. Remember, the Christians pretty much took pagan things and "Christianized" them, why not the same for Satan...? (Think about it, they demonized pagan gods. Lucifer is a good example of this!) We've pretty much already done this to Lilith, and as much as some would like to see otherwise, she is still honored as the first wife of Adam, despite that being technically an "Abrahamic" myth. The Adam myth is also the only cultural myths you can use that make her into a feminist icon. You cannot do that with her pagan origins. (You have to remember too, at the time the OT was written, I would not say Satan belonged to Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam. The Hebrews are pretty much the Canaanites and undoubtedly this has something to do with Satan in Job's origins.)

Edited by Lillith_Star, 28 February 2016 - 07:23 PM.


#16 SuccubusSherry

    Enthusiastic Member

  • Old Timers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,106 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 29 February 2016 - 06:55 PM

Lilith Star has both the scholarly, intellectual perspective and the 'devotional' perspective of someone who works closely with gods, which is a useful combination.

View PostWhispers, on 24 February 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

In my not so humble opinion, you are making a common (although basic) mistake. You don't leave Gods/Goddesses out in the cold. Regardless of what you may have been taught in pop magic, it is not a matter of they needing your belief or your worship . It IS a matter of you (or whoever wants to work with them) calling them and making them believe that you are real and not a figment of the imagination of humanity.
That is one reason why rituals are so important. Rituals are protocols of communication ( passwords if you prefer) that signal the Goddesses/Gods that in there is a real human being. Then they decide if they answer or not. Many Gods that are no longer worshiped, simply got bored and went away. Would you spend eternity looking at an ant farm?
And make no mistake, if Cernunnos really wanted to have worshipers, he wouldn't need human worshipers. Many animals, plants and fungi know him well.

I've never heard of signalling to the goddesses and gods that there is a real human being- that's an interesting way of looking at it. I didn't say that gods like Cernunnos need human belief and human worship: only that if attention is given to them they don't want to lose it again. I've come across instances of gods wanting to be worshipped again in the present day like they were in the past: Dagon and Ra-Hoor-Khuit and goddess Holda, and in these cases it seems to be both human beings and the god who want the worship to start again in the 20th and 21st centuries.

It's a sign of what influential figures Cernunnos and Lucifer are, that we would have a completely different spiritual landscape out there if Doreen Valiente hadn't made those changes to the names in the rituals.

#17 Imperial Arts

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,326 posts
  • LocationMusic City

Posted 28 January 2017 - 02:29 PM

In 2000, I attended a large public pagan event which included a smaller private pagan event. Several people whose names are well-established in the pagan/wiccan community were in attendance at both events, and the name they invoked for their god was indeed Lucifer. I am certain they had no intention to practice any form of devil worship, they simply believed that this was a fair reconstruction of now-defunct pagan religion. It is a difficult position to be in when you have to piece together your whole religion from scraps, and this sort of confusion is bound to be the least of it.
https://www.lulu.com...ibutorId=588142

http://www.lulu.com/...t-22253942.html

"Only the madman is absolutely sure." - Wilson & Shea, Illuminatus!

#18 SuccubusSherry

    Enthusiastic Member

  • Old Timers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,106 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 29 January 2017 - 01:58 PM

When I read the quotation about Cernunnos and Lucifer i was really thinking about the sectarian behaviour patterns of human beings. People who worship Cernunnos and the Goddess (whichever name you give to the Goddess) have moved a very long way apart from Devil worshipping sects and also a very long way apart from ceremonial magicians who evoke Lucifer and a group of other demons. There is fragmentation,rivalry and denouncing one another as there always is in religion.

Cernunnos is often seen in modern Wicca as a right- hand path god, an example to Pagan men of how to live a good life, or alternatively he is seen as someone beyond the right and left hand paths when Lucifer isn't beyond them and belongs to one of them. If Doreen Valiente had used the name Lucifer instead of the name Cernunnos these religious groups would have developed in a completely different way socially. Maybe I was speculating too much about how the real Cernunnos and the real Lucifer feel when I can't know what they are feeling . Only they know. My main point was that things would have developed differently in a social sense.

#19 monsnoleedra

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 409 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 03:18 PM

I think if the 1970's and 1980's Wicca fad had retained the Lucifer connection then the Satanist connection and scare of the same time frame would have been murder on the developing and coming out pagan movement. The feminist movements attachment as well as the earlier hippi and ecological & earth attachments were also trying to push it away from a Satanic association during the 60's and 70's as well into the 80's. Even when you had the Satanist scare briefly resurface again in the early to mid 1990's in parts of Europe, South Africa and parts of the US there was a lot of negative connection to paganism.

Writers like Paul Huson did enough damage with the reciting of the Lords Prayer backwards as a means of moving away from the established Christian influences of the mid to late 1970's.

Granted my memory is probably not the best now but when I think back to the early 70's if we spoke of Lucifer it sure wasn't reflecting upon the Roman god nor did it usually pertain to Aradia and his connection to Diana.
I'm Only Responsible For What I Say Not For What Or How You Understand!

#20 violetstar

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 381 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:18 PM

View Postmonsnoleedra, on 29 January 2017 - 03:18 PM, said:

I think if the 1970's and 1980's Wicca fad had retained the Lucifer connection then the Satanist connection and scare of the same time frame would have been murder on the developing and coming out pagan movement. The feminist movements attachment as well as the earlier hippi and ecological & earth attachments were also trying to push it away from a Satanic association during the 60's and 70's as well into the 80's. Even when you had the Satanist scare briefly resurface again in the early to mid 1990's in parts of Europe, South Africa and parts of the US there was a lot of negative connection to paganism.

Writers like Paul Huson did enough damage with the reciting of the Lords Prayer backwards as a means of moving away from the established Christian influences of the mid to late 1970's.

Granted my memory is probably not the best now but when I think back to the early 70's if we spoke of Lucifer it sure wasn't reflecting upon the Roman god nor did it usually pertain to Aradia and his connection to Diana.

That is a realistic resume.I find that Mircea Eliade's view of Aradia originating from Romanian(Gypsy)folklore where she is the Queen of the Fairies,holds some merit.Interestingly there has in the past been some thought that Carlo Ginsburg in his Night Battles had confused the Benandanti with the recorded revels of Italian Gypsies which locals deemed witchcraft rites.

I also agree with Monsnoleedra that Gardner was not implying an association with Lucifer as a Devil but was aligning to the quasi-creation myth given in Lelands book.
Your friend is close by your side and speaks in far ancient tongues - Jon Vangelis





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users