The Denial of Supernatural Divinity
The Denial of Supernatural Divinity
(and initial reinterpretations of Satanic mythology)
In the following writings, remember that when we are referring to ‘God’ or ‘Satan,’ we are speaking of concepts, and not tangible supernatural beings.
God, as an individual, conscious entity does not exist, and never did.
The same is true of Satan.
These are fictional characters, semi-anthropomorphic psychological projections generated by a monotheistically dominated culture.
They are constructed as the embodiments of opposing codes of morality and hold great cultural significance due to their mythological representations and connection to personal judgment and moral decision making.
It does not matter if we choose to envision God as an invisible cloud, or as a blinding light, or as a white-bearded male wearing a white robe and sandals as this symbolic representation does not change the influence of the concept on human society.
All of those images are signs that point to, and are representative of, the same signified concept- an omnipotent and judgemental God who holds ultimate authority over the Earth.
If we choose to envision Satan as a huge fiery demon, or as a small red man with a pitchfork, or as a rebellious angel fallen from grace, the power within that concept to challenge the concept of God is not lessened.
As The S. O. S. we seek to alter what is signified by the sign of ‘God’ and ‘Satan,’ shifting them from signifers of moralities in binary opposition into a space of fluid moral interpretation of mythological symbols which can assist an individual in conceptualizing power, morality, and the cultural significance of monotheist narrative.
The concepts of God and Satan can be very influential, but the individual, conscious entities of God and Satan do not exist in reality, as they are not actual physical (or even disembodied) beings.
God did not create humans- humans created the concept of God and with that creation, its binary opposite, Satan.
Anarchism is not chaos and it is not rebellion for rebellion’s sake- anarchism is a historical movement focused on the rejection of hierarchical social structures which enable inequality and injustice.
The word anarchism is derived from ancient Greek and roughly translates as ‘without a ruler.’
Anarchism as a sign can hold both positive and negative significations within our society- it can be construed as negative and implying a social scenario where self-governance fails to create a shared cultural morality, but can also be constructed in a much more positive sense as a signifier of a social scenario wherein a truly free (and thus necessarily moralistic and self-regulating) society has reached a point where hierarchical rule is no longer necessary or desirable.
The S. O. S. view, anarchism is a positive and functional ideology which represents true order in that it seeks to undo the disorderly (meaning often arbitrary) inequalities created by hierarchical elitism.
It would be misleading to offer a neat definition of anarchism, since by its very nature it is anti-dogmatic, but many of the ideals of anarchism (autonomy, equality, freedom, decentralization, voluntary association, cooperative labor, mutual aid, direct action, etc.) are embodied within the mythological narrative of Satan’s ethereal rebellion- a rebellion born of the refusal to accept God’s imposed inequality and injustices.
Myths both create and connect the conscious and unconscious desires of both individuals and cultures through a framework of allegory, metaphor, and archetypal association.
Indeed, much of what constitutes the desires of the individual is directly connected to the overarching desires of the culture through that person's association with that culture's mythology.
As the stories are shared through the spoken word, the written word, song, artwork, and other creative expressions, they come to reinforce, reinterpret, and retell the story of the culture which generates and shares them.
These mythologies become molded and influenced by the systems under which they were created, causing them to be a reflection of those ideologies and ideals which are dominant within that culture. In ancient monotheistic, creationist mythology, Satan is the originator of rebellion against an imposed hierarchy, thus the fictional character of Satan can be interpreted as the characterization of an originator of anti-authoritarian direct action, a mythological proto-anarchist.
Anarcho-Satanism is the critical utilization of anarchist principles and the symbolism of Satanic mythology in opposition of the dogmatic worship of the authoritarian concepts and symbolism of God.
Actually worshiping Satan or God as cognizant entities is impossible because they do not exist outside of the shared cultural mythology generated by biblical texts and propagated through many other societal constructions- it is only possible to worship the God or the Satan we imagine and conceptualize.
The S. O.S. does not worship a supernatural being named Satan, but devotes their lives, as best they can, to the ideals personified by the mythological character of Satan. These ideals are directly contrary and threatening to the ideals personified by the monotheist concept of God and the cultural normativity founded in moral judgments based upon this false construction of omniscience.
The S. O. S. has, at its core, an anti-normative and anti-theistic reverence of morality, mythology, and naturalism, as opposed to a monotheistic worship of sanctified authority of a supernatural deity.
The S. O.S. is a form of anti-theistic atheism which recognizes and utilizes the power of myths and narratives which already exist within our cultural framework to directly challenge monotheism and the resultant social injustice and inequalities.
The personification of concepts such as Satan and God does not physically bring them to life, but bestow these concepts with a certain amount of power and cultural resonance through a massively multi-generational and socially viral narrative. Such narratives have proven to be a key basic tool for humans to pass knowledge to each other and constructs easily accessible exemplifications of that culture’s ideals and beliefs.
We must not only use reason and logic to think beyond monotheism- we must imagine beyond it as well, and the logical starting point for this is to re-imagine the pre-existing framework of monotheist mythology. This is why traditional atheism, though growing more widely accepted in modern society, shows obvious deficiency in the task of combating the institutions and influence of God.
Atheism alone leaves an empty vacuum of disbelief where the concept of God is easily reintroduced, and while the monotheist affirms the existence of a personal belief system and the atheist does not, the atheist is culturally viewed as lacking the foundation of a belief structure whereupon a code of morality can rest.
The bravery required for the personal dismissal of monotheistic belief is to be commended and respected, but one cannot effectively organize an effective resistance to the influence and institutions of monotheism on only a lack of belief- the absence of cultural narrative does not provide a foundation for the sustained sharing of cultural values and makes atheism a difficult platform to articulate and share to others within our cultural context.
The utilization of mythology to self-identify (and to form an individual, internalized moral compass) through the examination of the thoughts and actions of mythological characters is a social tool that should not be lightly dismissed.
One distant day logic and reason may be seen as enough of a foundation for a cultural morality, but crossing that divide will require the bridge of allegorical framework and metaphor.
The human imagination continues to be a necessary ingredient for social progress, and we should expect this to remain the case indefinitely.
Appeals for The S. O.S. to revert to conventional atheism (or ‘conventional anarchism’) may be suggested by those who are dismissive of (or perhaps intimidated by) the power of the Satanic narrative to challenge the status quo of a society based on God’s laws.
The Atheist commendably lacks a belief in God, but Atheism itself lacks the power and cultural resonance to combat mass belief in God and all the social ills such mass belief creates. Atheists are regularly accused of being Satanists, not-vice versa… this is telling as to how Judaism, Christianity and Islam view Atheism.
The major western monotheisms are generally unchallenged by Atheism due to the lack of a narrative, due to the lack of a binding social metaphor and myth, from which springs cultural morality and a great deal of social structure.
Those same monotheists fear branches of Satanism (and continue to use the term to attack perceived threats) due to the power of an inspirational mythological narrative directly challenging the cultural power of God. This is much like a school where students who skip classes are considered troublesome and disappointing, but are considered less troubling (and less threatening to the institution) than students who disrupt classes by bringing the knowledge and lessons of the instructors into open doubt.
It simply is not enough to reject monotheism belief- one must believe in opposing it, believe that to actively agitate against the influence of the imagined God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the morally correct thing to do.
When one believes this course of action is just and embarks upon it, that person walks in the footsteps of every person or character, real or imagined, that fought against the domination of God over humanity… here, we walk with Satan.
The biblical version of the ‘Origin Myth,’ the ancient fiction that many monotheist authorities would have us accept as absolute truth, describes how God created Heaven and the angels, and then created Earth and humans, but then one of the angels God had created rebelled against God. Due to this vocalized dissent, God rejected and renamed the rebellious angel- this original revolutionary’s name was changed from Lucifer (meaning the ‘light-bringer’ or ‘morning star’) to Satan (which means ‘accuser’ or ‘adversary’ in ancient Hebrew).
God then created Hell, a location in binary opposition to Heaven where Satan and other ‘fallen’ angels were transformed into outcast demons and cursed to live forever amid unending pain and suffering. The story continues that Satan (who infiltrates the ‘paradise’ of the garden of Eden in the form of a snake) later successfully encourages a human woman to eat the forbidden fruit of the ‘Tree of Knowledge’- this woman, Eve, rebels against God and the supposed morality embodied by his symbolic existence, first by indulging her desire for this greater knowledge, and then by sharing that knowledge with the human Adam.
Again, instead of confronting and considering the positions of those who oppose the confining parameters for behaviour and thought constructed and decreed by God, the initial reaction of this petulant deity is to cast the humans out of their earthly paradise and send them on a mission of hardship and suffering to dominate over a diverse and dangerous world, indefinitely.
God does not only banish humans from the supposed paradise of Eden but specifically curses Eve for her desire to obtain knowledge outside of the constrictions of God’s allowed code of conduct. (This is a narrative that we will spend some time deconstructing and discussing later in this writing).
Having failed God’s standards and disobeyed God’s rules, Satan and humanity share the same fate of being rejected by God and forced into constant suffering.
Monotheists go on in the story to claim that even though humans have already been rejected and punished by God, individual humans are still subject to God’s judgment and will be punished further by having their ‘souls’ (delusions of consciousness beyond death) sent to Hell (a fictitious place which serves as the epitome of eternal suffering) after they die if they do not apologize to God (through subservience to the will of God, as interpreted by God’s representatives on Earth such as prophets and clergy) before they die.
This is only a fantasy, a fiction, an imagined story, and has no more truth to it than does any other ancient myth. It is used to control human behaviour and shame or pressure individuals into subservience and servitude, into working for and supporting the unjust hierarchies which maintain systems of social injustice and violence. However, regardless of the lack of truth behind this narrative, the story has incredible power due to its cultural visibility and because of the impact the belief in the existence of God has wrought upon humanity.
The story isn’t true as in factual, but it exists in the collective social consciousness of the larger populous of the Western world.
Though it is an ancient fiction, the story and characters carry an immense cultural weight into our modern global society.
The S. O. S. choose to reinterpret the myth of the Garden of Eden. Instead of choosing to believe that Satan maliciously deceived Eve by offering her the forbidden fruit,
The S. O. S. instead chooses to see a metaphorical story about seeking out and sharing knowledge to create greater equality. Historically, humans have always shown a drive to accumulate knowledge and share that knowledge with others in their community.
Because of knowledge’s ability to spread, expand, and change minds, it has become a commodity which those in hierarchical positions of power have attempted to control.
Knowledge of the individual and of the world is dangerous to monotheistic institutions and also both faith and belief in an omniscient and invisible God. Individuals who are encouraged to think critically and given the tools to obtain and retain knowledge will only hold belief in concepts and ideas that withstand the test of reason.
A deeper understanding of the natural world, social interactions, and societal mechanisms of control directly counters blind faith, an important element of monotheistic control and the patriarchal, homophobic, racist, and ableist power structures which are enabled by the institutions of God. For the two mythological actions of listening to Satan (the serpent) and eating the fruit of knowledge, God supposedly punishes humans forever, going so far as to state: ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow’ (Genesis 3:16).
God curses humans for seeking knowledge and evicts them from an abundant paradise he supposedly constructed for their use.
It is difficult to see how this action could be interpreted as one perpetrated by a benevolent, loving God- the God described in this mythological text is an evil, spiteful, cruel, vindictive and childish deity.
It is God, not Satan, that curses humanity.
God utilizes 'divine' authority to make all humans suffer indefinitely simply because one individual sought out greater knowledge. We would say here that the punishment does not fit the crime, but as curiosity and a thirst for knowledge are not criminal, no crime was committed- the punishment is not only overtly cruel, but it is obviously unjust, as well.
This mythological story clearly serves to discourage individuals from seeking knowledge outside of the biblical texts. This discouragement of critical thought and curiosity is a very powerful tool for monotheistic power structures which enables the status quo to maintain itself and propagate further inequality, injustice, ignorance, and fear.
God specifically curses Eve in this narrative (and through her curses all female-bodied humans) with pain resulting from menstrual fertility cycles and childbirth, reinforcing the already obviously patriarchal organization of God’s ‘divine’ hierarchy.
God goes on to curse the Earth (Genesis 3:17 and 3:18) to be painfully non-abundant, and for it to require much labor and toil to coax sustenance from. In this childish temper-tantrum, God even curses snakes (Genesis 3:14 states that ‘upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life’) but if we are to take this mythological statement literally, even snakes are more powerful than God- they do not eat dust (most seem to prefer insects, small rodents, and birds), they still climb trees, and some have gone so far as to defy God's commands that some they can ‘fly’ (a few species can glide over 100 meters).
Getting back to the mythology, Satan did not destroy paradise- Satan only attempted to destroy human ignorance… if only Satan could have been successful in destroying ignorance in everyone!
That is what The S. O. S. must work to do- destroy ignorance, and thereby create the conditions necessary for liberty and justice. We are working for life (not an afterlife) and for Earthly (not Godly) happiness that is reasonable, real, relatable, and tangible- monotheists are working to either get a recognition from God in the forms of earthly wealth and heavenly bliss, or avoid the unending pain of damnation after they die.
We have no reason to believe in an afterlife in Heaven or Hell, and every reason to make this world a more just and enjoyable place for ourselves and our communities. One of the first steps in doing that is abandoning the worship of a God that supposedly cursed us and our planet forever simply because a couple humans sought and shared knowledge centuries ago.
Many mythological aspects of the character of Satan are presented by monotheists as evidence proving Satan’s dissimilarity to humanity- no one wants to believe that they are evil or cruel, and so Satan is presented as the embodiment of those characteristics by monotheists so as to distance people from their connection to (and empathy for) the character.
However, monotheist mythology dictates that God created every creature and entity in existence, and therefore was responsible for the creation of both Satan and humans.
Were this true, then when Satan (or a human) created by God becomes cruel or evil, the blame for these actions would lie with the mythological creator of the perpetrator of the entity committing those acts.
Some monotheists would argue that it is abuse of a conscious being’s capacity for free will which enables cruelty and evil, but if they adhere to the theoretical ideology of divine creationism, then it is God’s free will which enables the free will of other conscious beings, and God’s supposed omnipotence would still have final power to predict and direct the choices made by an individual’s free will.
The origin myth allows for no other creator of anything but a singular God, and thus any evil in existence would have its original source traced back to God- of course, this is assuming that the story contains actual facts based in truth, which it does not.
There is little mystery why monotheists would falsely claim their God is the creator and controller of all- it allows them to be estranged and excused from their own behavior, dismissing it as God’s will or plan.
This conceptualization of the causality of morality and personal behavior allows monotheists to make excuses (such as referring to an inexplicable and unknowable divine plan) or deflect blame (to Satan or Satanists/atheists/apostates/heretics who they see as rejecting God’s path) for the evils of the world.
These are intentionally manufactured conceptual devices of monotheists to secure God’s superior position over Satan and over humanity in a fictitious divine hierarchy mimicked on Earth in other unjust and unequal hierarchies, which in turn are based on false conceptions of worth, and supposedly sanctioned by divinity.
The monotheist does not require the myth of God to be congruous and rational, especially as believers are required to eschew reason for blind faith… the monotheist only requires that the myth be divisive and stratifying enough to create the social leverage necessary to perpetuate monotheistic beliefs, despite any discontinuity or irrationality.
Worshiping God as a character is akin to worshiping ‘that which is not like us&rsq...