OccultForum.org

Original post: babybat

How can some thiestic Satanists view their diety as being Satan, the biblical being, but not view the biblical god as real? I don't see either as real, more symbolic. But anyways, how is this possible? I see dieties such as Set, Pan, ect. as real because they where claimed to exist before the corruption of Christianity. But aren't the thiests who see their diety as the biblical Satan, in essence just worshiping/loving/ect a corruption of the Christian Church?

I mean, other organizations such as the Cathederal of the Black Goat view biblical Satan as an actual entity, but they also regard the existance of the Christian "God". This, to me anyways, seems to make some sort of sense. But I'm not saying that the whole idea of CoBG makes sense, because again, they are just giving into the corruption of the Christian Church.

Can a Theist please explain this to me? I don't mean to sound stupid or offensive, even though I probably do.

Original post: Ulvblod ov Fenrir

I suppose it would all depend on your perception of what is "real." I see the idea behind Lucifer/Satan as relevant and as having admirable traits to possess. Thus, I would be identified as a Luciferian or Satanist by my characteristics. I suppose that having been moved by the mythology of the fall, one would be considered to have borrowed from Christianity. I do not, however, see that as giving in to the corruption of the church.

Original post: babybat

I would agree with you on that Fenrir. Lucifer, I believe is an actual being. Lucifer existed way before the curruption. The xtians just went and stole His name and put it in their buybull(shit). To me the fall of Lucifer, to me makes the most sense. It proves that the "god" of the buybull(shit) was a self centered, egotistical, prideful bastard. There's no problem in being one, but a hypocrit I can't stand. And the fall proves this "god" to be a hypocrit.

Original post: eradark

[QUOTE=babybat;289838]I see dieties such as Set, Pan, ect. as real because they where claimed to exist before the corruption of Christianity. But aren't the thiests who see their diety as the biblical Satan, in essence just worshiping/loving/ect a corruption of the Christian Church?[/QUOTE]

Well, Set is the corrupted Satan in the bible. So in a sense, yes it's a deity. One can say that Setan did fall because he was abolished and demonized by christianity. Satan allegedly being one of the angels of the Christian God (who doesn't exist except in the minds of fools) sounds false to me.

Original post: babybat

So basically what you are saying is that Set was the original "Satan" but his image/story was corrupted by the Church?

Original post: Scarlett_156

Satan/Set/Nick/whatever is a creation--it's a metaphor that is supposed to explain something, just like God/Yahwey/Nob/whatever is a metaphor that's supposed to explain something. "Something" in this case is a set of human characteristics and possibly ideas--although I personally don't give humans that much credit for having useful ideas.

No "church" tells me what to think. I worship what I want to whenever it pleases me to do so, and when I'm not worshipping I don't worry--about anything!

If a deity is of no use to you, discard it. No one controls you unless you allow it.

So-called "corruption" is as enjoyable as "exaltation" and in fact may be exactly the same thing.

I hope this was helpful! xoxoxo

Original post: babybat

I see whatcha mean. My mind was at just, sort of a blank. We all got those moments. *some more than others* I'm afraid.

Ave

Original post: Venus666

If a deity is of no use to you, discard it. No one controls you unless you allow it.

yes indeed scarlet_156..thats how it goes for me. Im a theistic satanist, and i only let the gods/goddess in my pantheon that i choose. To me, its not that the gods that are not in my pantheon do not exist..Its that i choose not to recognise them. Dosent mean that they dont exist, they are a part of history and the other gods not in my pantheon have plenty of followers to keep them happy. This includes the christian "god". lol

Original post: sami999x

Hey, this is why I don't like having human teachers. They dogmatize you and make you think they know a lot more than you. The best human teachers I have had only taught me little stuff like some protection rituals. Because they didn't wanna interfere.

I would say Lucifer is a hero. At least he believes in accepting people for who they are, as opposed to going all "Holier than Thou".

I mean, heck, my higher plane spirit guide taught me how beautiful Lilith is down here in lower Planes. Except I had to get to a no-mind to receive most the stuff

And that's why priests suck. Satanist, Christian, or any other priests think you actually need them. You don't. I learned to work with Demons by accepting them for who they are. I sleep in bed with demons sometimes, and I started out as an RHP.

Except Iblis. Because he's like some old geezer that thinks you need him. Kinda like the pope and ayatollahs. I'd say Lucifer and God don't need their premature chatter anymore. :evil:

Original post: Skeptismo118

There's always a really good chance that some theistic "Satanists" have never really spent much time looking into what they really believe and whether it is a coherent possition theologically or philosophically. The sin of "too much thought" is rarely one they indulge in.

Original post: Malamatiyya

Coherence kills theology.

I'm a theistic Satanist,but the Satan I believe in far pre-dates the bible.Satan is His hebrew name,based on His Egyptian name,Set.In ancient Persia His name was Ahriman.In ancient Rome,He became associated with Lucifer. There are many gods/goddessess. The big lie,each put forth by jehovah,jesus,allah is that "there is only one god and I am it". I serve Satan,a real,powerful god.Don't believe the propaganda of "the big three" false religions !!

All this talk of corruption. Is evolution not a process or "corruption", each progression mutating from the "pure" source?

This Sounds like the age old debate of Archane vs. Divine Magic. One side believes that blind faith is the way to truth, the other side thinks that questioning and reasoning are the way to truth. Each side thinks the other is wrong. Is one better then the other? Its probably more about using the best tool for the job, both have their advantages and disadvantages. An interesting side note, there really was a real man by the name of Lucifer, who lived around 371 AD that questioned the Catholic Church, because it wasn't based on Reasoning.My reference is from Merriam-Webster's Biographical Dictionary copywrite 2002