Why Satanism?: The Devil and Hell

Questions and Answers for where to begin on the Darker Spiritual Paths.
User avatar
Passchendaele
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:41 am
Patron Deities: none (yet)
Your favourite Demon?: Lord Satan, Marquess Marchosias
Number of Demon Familiars: 0
Location: Pacific North West but not the hip part
Has thanked: 111 times
Been thanked: 116 times

Nyctophilia Raven wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:13 am


Do you know where these ideas came from? Milton's Paradise Lost, and Dante's Divine Comedy. Both fiction. (Side note, Dante's Divine Comedy is hilarious because it's basically the longest poetic roast in history. Literally: "So me and my pal Virgil went to hell, and everyone I hate is there." It's also worth noting that Virgil basically spends most of his time yelling at everyone like a cranky old fart who doesn't want kids on his lawn. ) Anyway... I seriously recommend reading them both. Yes, the language is archaic. Push through. Kindle versions have access to a dictionary. Milton is just a beautiful writer, and if you know the context, Dante's writing will have you rolling.
It's not my intention to dismiss your post by reducing it to this paragraph, it's only that I wanted to make one point and it kinda seemed excessive to quote the entire text just to get to this point. Should any of you be interested in "Paradise Lost" Or Dante, get the Dore illustrated versions. Milton is amazing. And it is work for most modern readers. I was going to add, "but it's rewarding" That would depend entirely on your definition of "rewarding" :confuseddevil:
"Push something hard enough...and it will fall over."
Fudds First Law Of Opposition

I am not what has happened to me, I am what I choose to become

"In the deep darkness the person alone sees light"
Chuang Tzu
User avatar
Aprophis
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:44 am
Number of Demon Familiars: 5
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 112 times

PorkyPig wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:42 pm
listening to Oprah forever, surrounded by gays and 'servants of the poor'? No thanks....
Well, they watch Dr. Phil there and you still have gay people. Might miss out on the servants of the poor though.
Two Roads diverged in a yellow Wood and I took both, for I am Quantum.
Image
Aksho Kharneth Akhash
Aksho Slaaneth K'Khaa
Aksho Tzeeneth Phaos
Aksho Nurgleth Dh'Akh

Sanity is for the weak
User avatar
Passchendaele
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:41 am
Patron Deities: none (yet)
Your favourite Demon?: Lord Satan, Marquess Marchosias
Number of Demon Familiars: 0
Location: Pacific North West but not the hip part
Has thanked: 111 times
Been thanked: 116 times

Cult wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:31 pm
How did I not see this gem until now? Jesus Christ.
Nyctophilia Raven wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:13 am
There was also no devil in Christianity, to begin with - that was added in later by the church because people weren't converting and they decided to do three things - take pagan holidays and turn them into Christian ones, take their pagan gods and demonize them, and terrify people into believing that if they didn't come to church, they'd suffer in their afterlife.

There wasn't even a BELIEF in heaven or hell, to begin with... hell is a concatenation of a bunch of different mythological underworlds/lands of the dead from multiple cultures, and heaven comes directly from Greek mythology. The hebrew belief where Christianity started was that when you died, you stayed in your body. Sheol is literally "hole in the ground." And on the "last day" all those dead would rise from their graves at the will of God... but, and here's the kicker... ONLY JEWISH PEOPLE WOULD RISE.

So if you're Christain, sorry mate. You're fucked.
There was no institutionalized scheme by the church to do anything like that. Christianity didn't set out to steal holidays, traditions and other elements from pagan religions. That was done by the people themselves, who Christianized their own cultural traditions in an effort to preserve them while adapting to Christianity (eg. the hero/saint cult in Greece, the cult of the holy wells in various regions, a very large body of funerary traditions, the Luna al-Pashti of the Vlachs, etc--some churches in the Balkans even had specified areas within the cathedral for animal sacrifice around the early modern period). The church was largely against this, and to this day a lot of Christian-flavored folk traditions are viewed with a disapproving eye by ecclesiastical authorities.

That has also been done within pagan religions innumerable times before Christianity; syncretism runs deeply in the human spirit. The veneration of gods like Serapis is a result of syncretism. If you want to say the Christian holidays are stolen, then a) you have to say many pagan traditions are also stolen b) you have no idea how cultural development happens throughout history. And lol before I accidentally validate you, syncretism is not the same as being an eclectic who decontextualizes various spirits and traditions and amalgamates them into a practice that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to any capacity.
Now let's move onto the perception of demons.

First off: Up until about the 1300's, angels and demons were the same things. They were an angel if they were on your side... and if they were on your opponent's side, they were a demon.
Where did you get that? It's true that the lines blur between what entities were what in the popular mind, but relegating them to being 'the same things' divorces the complexity of the spirits involved from the cultural context.
Now... keep in mind that I don't agree with any of this - that demons are angels who rebelled against God, or that hell exists as a singular place of suffering... but this is historically and religiously accurate from the Christian point of view. Remember what I said above, about taking pagan gods and demonizing them so people would be afraid to worship them and instead turn to the church? Yeah. Most of the demons we worship in Daemonolatry? Once, they were gods. Not angels. Not fallen angels. GODS.
You can only make the argument that maybe 2 or 3 of the demons listed in the grimoires were actually demonized old gods, and even that is based on nothing but shaky etymological similarities. What about the rest? Even if by some miracle you had a modicum of evidence for this, godhood wouldn't sanitize the nature of demons considering so many gods act in similarly cruel ways. That aside, if I can threaten your god with a black-handled knife, bind them to a brass vessel and banish them into Tartarus mid-evocation, then that's not a god. I can't do that to Hecate, Isis, Zeus, Loki, or the Christian god. If I can compel a demon into something as simple as not lying to me using nothing but the names of the Abrahamic god, then demons aren't gods; they answer to their own God, even.
Demons understand consent. They understand the importance of free will. They stress personal responsibility.
Nothing you've demonstrated here supports that unless you take on the black and white mentality of a 4 year old who thinks that as long as God is the bad guy, his enemies must be automatically good.
All you have to do, to understand why we work with demons, is to know the story of Azazel.

Azazel is the black goat who takes the sins of the people before Passover so they can all be ritually clean before God so he doesn't kill them when he... passes over. So they'd dump their sins on this poor innocent unconsenting goat, and then send it out into the desert to die. They did this every year for several thousand years. Eventually, all that sin and death collected, and the demon Azazel was born... Carrying all our sins.

So the original "christ" figure? Was a demon. And none of us think it's fair that he should carry that burden. We vote to carry our own flaws and faults. We CHOOSE not to lie, and we choose not to stand before a god that would accept a lie and cause such misery.
You know who else did that? The ancient Greeks. Sacrificial cleansing is an extremely old practice that predates Christianity and Judaism and exists in a multitude of cultures, but your resentment seems to only target Christianity and Judaism. The archetype of Christ has been pervasive throughout human history; Azazel was not by any means the first figure to embody that.
So yeah. We worship demons, and we work with devils, and we swear by the Ha Satan. Because it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Morally, ethically, Satan is the good guy, the better team. And if you really want to take a deep look at modern Christianity and how shoving the blame onto someone else so you can call yourself a Christian without being a decent human being is pretty much par for the course... you wouldn't want to be one.
Looking at it as a team of good vs. evil is the same cartoonish cosmology that many Christians have. Aside from the fact that dual observance is a thing, by blaming Christianity for everything and painting their God as the evil in this world, you're practising an identical form of scapegoating that you claim you're against.
His dad though? Still a murdering dick. You know how many people Satan killed in the bible? 10. You know how many people GOD killed in the bible? We lost count. That many. He committed a SHIT TON of genocide.
You'd think that if you're against murder, 10 people would still count as an atrocity. It's absurd to only selectively believe the Old Testament as far as it frames God in a bad light, all the while dismissing the text when it comes to Satan because he's just 'misunderstood'.
Now... last thing. Do Demons want your Soul?

Short answer? NO.

Look, there are things in this universe that can't be bought or sold. The soul is one of those things. Here's the thing. You have a spirit. That spirit is PART of a larger soul being. That soul being has multiple spirits out living material lives, gathering experiences to bring back to the soul. Since a soul belongs to multiple spirits, one spirit can't sell it.

Secondly, what the heck would a demon even DO with a soul? Do they eat it? Do they trade it like pokemon cards? Do they parade them around to show other demons how great they are at trickery?
That's total UPG presented as undeniable fact. There's innumerable pieces of lore that lend weight to the belief that the soul can be stolen, eaten, controlled, assimilated, worn away, or given up to another being, whether that's a demon, a god, a fairy, or another spirit. It's total ownership of who you are and while it's true that not every demon is out to take your soul, it's absurd to act like that can't or hasn't happened--both with demons and with other spirits. Numerous pacts involve bargaining for the soul.

Throughout the entire post you're oversimplifying Christianity in bad faith to try and pacify and proselytize a target audience that appears to be around the age of 5, judging by how you've worded it all. These were the most impressive mental gymnastics you've achieved to date.
This has been bugging me since I read this. This really takes me back to the Bad O'l Days of the World Wide Web when folks could be jerks with impunity and all kinds of hateful BS was shrugged off with a "It's all free speech" attitude, things like this were the norm. Raven, very clearly, was expressing social commentary and a social commentary response is to be expected. BUT.......If the writer is going to jab (his?) finger into Ravens chest and say "you are wrong, wrong, WRONG!" then it is incumbent upon that writer to (wait for it) SITE HIS SOURCES. Yes, the respondent has that responsibility, if the respondent wishes to be taken seriously. Is that fair? Probably not, but those are the general rules for Op-Ed editors across the country.

If the writer responded with social commentary of his own, all fine and well, but the writer is making a claim to knowledge, facts, that refute Raven's premise....and does not tell us where these "facts" originated. No, in expressing an opinion it is NOT incumbent on Raven to site her sources. It's her opinion. You, the respondent, on the other hand, are making claims that, in their context, are "factual" and are included for no other reason than to "prove" Raven is wrong. Great! Prove it. Site your sources. Otherwise your entire response is an exercise in poking your finger into Ravens chest and bullying her. Shame. On. You. :devilcry:
"Push something hard enough...and it will fall over."
Fudds First Law Of Opposition

I am not what has happened to me, I am what I choose to become

"In the deep darkness the person alone sees light"
Chuang Tzu
User avatar
TaipanTwist
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:27 am
Patron Deities: Pazuzu, Satan
Your favourite Demon?: Lucifer
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 99 times

Cult wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:31 pm
How did I not see this gem until now? Jesus Christ.
This forum has rules regarding respecting other posters. I highly suggest you read them.
There was no institutionalized scheme by the church to do anything like that. Christianity didn't set out to steal holidays, traditions and other elements from pagan religions. That was done by the people themselves, who Christianized their own cultural traditions in an effort to preserve them while adapting to Christianity (eg. the hero/saint cult in Greece, the cult of the holy wells in various regions, a very large body of funerary traditions, the Luna al-Pashti of the Vlachs, etc--some churches in the Balkans even had specified areas within the cathedral for animal sacrifice around the early modern period). The church was largely against this, and to this day a lot of Christian-flavored folk traditions are viewed with a disapproving eye by ecclesiastical authorities.

That has also been done within pagan religions innumerable times before Christianity; syncretism runs deeply in the human spirit. The veneration of gods like Serapis is a result of syncretism. If you want to say the Christian holidays are stolen, then a) you have to say many pagan traditions are also stolen b) you have no idea how cultural development happens throughout history. And lol before I accidentally validate you, syncretism is not the same as being an eclectic who decontextualizes various spirits and traditions and amalgamates them into a practice that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to any capacity.
Different cultures would have varied in their approaches to conversion.
As always with history, all we have are tiny fragments of information that survived to the present day. Provided by the few who actually had the opportunity to read and write.

As for Eclectism, it is as valid as any other supernatural belief. Meaning that there is no concrete scientific evidence for any kind of religious or spiritual truth. It is all purely a matter of personal belief.

You can only make the argument that maybe 2 or 3 of the demons listed in the grimoires were actually demonized old gods, and even that is based on nothing but shaky etymological similarities. What about the rest? Even if by some miracle you had a modicum of evidence for this, godhood wouldn't sanitize the nature of demons considering so many gods act in similarly cruel ways. That aside, if I can threaten your god with a black-handled knife, bind them to a brass vessel and banish them into Tartarus mid-evocation, then that's not a god. I can't do that to Hecate, Isis, Zeus, Loki, or the Christian god. If I can compel a demon into something as simple as not lying to me using nothing but the names of the Abrahamic god, then demons aren't gods; they answer to their own God, even.
Except that you can't prove that they can be commanded. Where is your evidence? There are plenty of Physicists who would love to see your undeniable proof of command over disembodied sentient beings.

All paranormal belief is purely personal conjecture based on personal faith.

Also Tartarus is from Hellenistic Pagan times so it actually would make far more sense to send Zeus there lol.
User avatar
PorkyPig
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:44 am
Location: Italy
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Darth Moronius wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:32 am
PorkyPig wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:42 pm
I do not consider SATANISM as a correct definition, it is more a provocation: I would rather speak of LEFT HAND PATH!
if it focus with satan and demon, then satanism iscorrect.
left hand path is more than satanism. hindu, buddhist, jain, sikhi, they have lefft hand path too :devilread:
Of a Jain and Sikh Left Hand Path sorry but I have never heard. As for Hinduism and Buddhism, I would speak about Tantra. It is true, however, that in Sanskrit there is the definition of Vamamarga to indicate heterodox forms of Tantra , since not all the Tantra Yogi disdain the prevailing cultural norms set by the Veda.
User avatar
PorkyPig
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:44 am
Location: Italy
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Aprophis wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:10 am
PorkyPig wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:42 pm
listening to Oprah forever, surrounded by gays and 'servants of the poor'? No thanks....
Well, they watch Dr. Phil there and you still have gay people. Might miss out on the servants of the poor though.
Dr Phil I have missed, I am Italian , not American. A Lot of Americans do not even know Oprah too well, it also depends on when they used to watch TV when she was working (in Europe she is mostly unknown)
As the Servants of the Poor , I mean those left-leaning, do-good Christians who worship Pope Francis as the Christian moderate version of Che Guevara , welcome immigrants to fill up empty parishes and make you feel guilty; you have too much money while Africa is starving! GIVE TO THE POOR!
Then, they (or better their leaders) have millions in their Bank accounts....

They thrived in the sixties, singing the Mass in blue jeans ,fat ladies with trekking shoes who are always 'socially engaged' and once were in favor of Comrade Ho Chi Min: poor husbands! Now a part of them call themselves 'Red -Letter Christians'

Their real counterpart is not the white evangelical who has a crush for Donald but the slim blonde in Yoga Pants who is wealthier and prettier. But they can mix occasionally with both human subspecies.
User avatar
Cult
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:31 pm
Location: Southern Europe
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 24 times

TaipanTwist wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:36 pm
Cult wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:31 pm
How did I not see this gem until now? Jesus Christ.
This forum has rules regarding respecting other posters. I highly suggest you read them.
Raven knows I love her, she'll live.
As for Eclectism, it is as valid as any other supernatural belief. Meaning that there is no concrete scientific evidence for any kind of religious or spiritual truth. It is all purely a matter of personal belief.
Yes, but I can still make a personal judgment on whether or not it is 'valid' based on my own standards of validity. I don't like eclecticism because it decontextualizes, contorts and bastardizes different beliefs, different entities, different practices, etc, and amalgamates them into a shadow of what they used to be in order to fit the practitioner. I think it's lazy and ineffective as a practice. Anyone is free to practice it regardless of what I think, that wasn't the point.
Except that you can't prove that they can be commanded. Where is your evidence? There are plenty of Physicists who would love to see your undeniable proof of command over disembodied sentient beings.
Several entities can be commanded, whether that is demons or whatever else. Binding and commanding and forceful exorcism and whatever else is a very well-documented thing throughout all occult traditions, with many different entities, across many different cultures. Whether or not it's advisable (and in which context) is a different thing entirely. The basis is the methods extensively detailed in the original texts, the accounts of it happening, and the documented lore. You can build on those things and derive different conclusions, and those are personal beliefs, but whether those beliefs make sense is up for debate.

We're discussing this within the context of an occult point of view, not a physicist's point of view. The conversation is built on the premise that we agree that A.) paranormal things are real, B.) spirits are real, C.) interacting with them creates tangible effects. We can argue and extend the conversation based on that fundamental point of agreement. Bringing in the perspective of a physicist is irrelevant, because arguing with a physicist about it would be a completely different debate. It's avoidant and intellectually lazy to assert that debate is impossible and useless because a hard scientist wouldn't be able to scientifically demonstrate proof of the content of the discussion.
All paranormal belief is purely personal conjecture based on personal faith.
I disagree with you a bit. In part, you're right, but certain things can be discussed and argued because they have an observable impact based on the results (or lack thereof) they produce. Personal conjecture based on personal faith doesn't mean anything goes.

You're trying to tell me "you can't scientifically prove anything you're saying, it's not possible to disagree with someone else's beliefs because the occult is so nebulous". I don't agree; you can still argue and come to useful conclusions through that argument within the context of having already established a fundamental agreement because the occult is directly workable and applicable to your life; the conclusions of a discussion can be tested and further refined continually (and mine have been--I disagree with myself all the time). If we were arguing religious or cosmological beliefs, that would be fruitless, because religion is about personal belief and can only be theorized and analyzed rather than practically applied. Either way, I don't argue because I want to impose my view as the arbiter of truth. I argue because I like arguing.
Passchendaele wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:28 pm
This has been bugging me since I read this. This really takes me back to the Bad O'l Days of the World Wide Web when folks could be jerks with impunity and all kinds of hateful BS was shrugged off with a "It's all free speech" attitude, things like this were the norm. Raven, very clearly, was expressing social commentary and a social commentary response is to be expected. BUT.......If the writer is going to jab (his?) finger into Ravens chest and say "you are wrong, wrong, WRONG!" then it is incumbent upon that writer to (wait for it) SITE HIS SOURCES. Yes, the respondent has that responsibility, if the respondent wishes to be taken seriously. Is that fair? Probably not, but those are the general rules for Op-Ed editors across the country.

If the writer responded with social commentary of his own, all fine and well, but the writer is making a claim to knowledge, facts, that refute Raven's premise....and does not tell us where these "facts" originated. No, in expressing an opinion it is NOT incumbent on Raven to site her sources. It's her opinion. You, the respondent, on the other hand, are making claims that, in their context, are "factual" and are included for no other reason than to "prove" Raven is wrong. Great! Prove it. Site your sources. Otherwise your entire response is an exercise in poking your finger into Ravens chest and bullying her. Shame. On. You. :devilcry:
Let me know which part you want me to cite sources for.
User avatar
Darth Moronius
Posts: 1430
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:18 am
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Passchendaele wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:28 pm
This has been bugging me since I read this. This really takes me back to the Bad O'l Days of the World Wide Web when folks could be jerks with impunity and all kinds of hateful BS was shrugged off with a "It's all free speech" attitude, things like this were the norm.
akelta say this in blog https://satanandsuns.com/blog/satan-and ... th-demons/
5. The left hand path, is a path of freedom.. free speech type freedom… You may not (and I don’t) agree with everything the demons say… but I respect they are well within their rights to say it and no one ever has to have the same opinions and thoughts.

6. Working with demons has taught me that… freedom, and free speech are important, being able to respectfully disagree is important. being able to take constructive criticism is important , being able to talk, to share ideas, and have open communication is SO important for the exchange of ideas. These are the things that working with demons has taught me. You need to be able to talk with people, and even if you don’t agree with them. It never hurts to listen, it never hurts to hear what they are saying. No one person has all the answers and exploring different ideas allows to the expansion of knowledge.

7. Demons, they are always pushing my buttons, always challenging me, sometimes I am like WHY WHY do you do this!!!?? and they tell me it is because I need to be open to what is around me, to see the alternate perspectives and views. They always push my buttons! But it is glorious! it frees me from societal thoughts in a way, and opens my mind up to explore new concepts and ideas.

Freedom on the Left Hand Path, is essential! Working with demons to be able to handle the fact that they are open and free in thought and mind, They will test you, challenge you, have you banging your head on the wall.. but you will love them, and know that you cannot imagine life without them <3
is it change? freedom is no essential in lhp anymore? :devilchain:
User avatar
Noctua
SINNER OF THE FORUM
Posts: 715
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:39 am
Patron Deities: Loki
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 225 times

I find it hilarious that Nycto makes an argument in favor of Satan, demons and what they stand for (which includes illumination, independent thought, and surely the ability to take criticism)
yet when big bad Cult comes along and literally plays devil's advocate by challenging what the majority finds agreeable, some of you are so easily offended at the argument that you want to make it out to be 'disrespect' and charge against him for the discomfort caused.

That's pretty weak. A reaction which is the opposite of what it means to appreciate knowledge. If you're on a path with demons, you're going to have to learn to be capable of accepting remarks and actions which challenge what is presented to you, those things that bring conflict to your sensibilities. This path is not about coddling the sensitivities of others but strengthening you. It is entirely hypocritical to support what Nycto very boldly presented but then to turn around and bark at Cult for presenting an equally bold, but opposing point.

So get real, and lighten up. Respect is not synonymous with ass-kissing. I genuinely find Cult's post more respectful toward Nycto than yours as you're treating her like a weakling while Cult is anticipating she can handle intelligent discourse. I came to this thread thinking I might like to contribute but seeing how easily you all get offended on others' behalf I suppose it's impossible to add anything more.

When you are posed with an uncomfortable argument take it as a chance to grow, or you never will. Be mad at me for saying it all you want, it is you who are being impacted.
"Do you even know that I know everything? I can see you like a.. sponge."
Daxflame

"No."
David Lynch
User avatar
Velca
Christian Southern Belle
Posts: 808
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:41 pm
Your favourite Demon?: Rosier
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Keep to the subject of the thread, if you have nothing of substance to add to the actual subject, move on.

Only warning I am giving, if there is any further issue it can be taken to private messages.
Start and end every conversation with laughter.

https://www.youtube.com/c/simplyvelca

You might as well laugh now because you’re going to laugh about it when you're further down the road anyways.
Post Reply

Return to “Starting out on the LHP and the Dark Spiritual Paths”