the aeon of lucifer

[Gandalf]

well, I'm not very familiar with christian mythology, I am however familiar with classical mythology, back in the good old days when 'Lucifer' was just another minor roman god who held up the Morning Star (Lucifer = 'Light bearer'); not a terribly important deity, and not evil in any way either, eg see Ovid's 'Metamorphoses'.

Later on, for some reason, the christians stole his name and used it for their 'devil' figure, don't know why, they must have liked the name.

As for the rest of your post, its all greek to me!

Douglas

[aryanknight666]

right...well, lucifer means bringer/bearer of light. And I'm not talking about the minor roman god..

quote:Zeus resides in Mount Olympus holding aloft the lightning bolt, his symbol of divine power

That's one line.

[Logic]

So, are you trying to prove that everyone and religion are wrong, by preaching yours to us? By the way, good job stealing dialogue from Noam Chomsky.

[aryanknight666]

quote: So, are you trying to prove that everyone and religion are wrong, by preaching yours to us? By the way, good job stealing dialogue from Noam Chomsky.

Why are you focusing all of this bull*** on me and not other people on this forum who are christians talking about stuff from a christian standpoint, or wiccans from a wiccan standpoint? Everybody here is a part of a religion, and that religion determines thier opinion, which is what they express here. By the way, are you so stupid that you didn't notice
TSIRK SUSEJ
written at the bottom of the page and
QUOTATION MARKS
around the whole post?

                         

[clandestino]

Hi there Aryanknight666, I think that people might be perceiving your posts on satanism as....how can I put it...the inverse of "bible-bashing" ?!

Believe me, you only have to look through the christian forums within the religious sections to see the "form-book" ... when an Astralpulse member is perceived to cross the line between talking about their religion, and preaching, they aren't looked on too fondly by the masses.

Anyway, steering this back towards spiritual development, I don't believe that "satanism" has anything to offer over-and-above that which an individual could grasp through his own personal development. I also have to take issue with it being referred to as a religion !!

kind regards,
Mark

[Moonburn33]

there is already an oversoul.  There is already a collective consciousness- it's been done.  satanism's goal is to point out that the goal of evolution is individualism.

[James S]

Sorry AK666, it still sounds like religious diatribe, just coming from a different direction to the norm.

I won't comment on whether I think its good or bad, it's not my place to judge. What I would prefer to see though is for you to post more from a position of personal experience - tell us what you have personally discovered. Not the words of others which you feel led to follow.

The reason Clandestino said what he did about religious posts not being looked upon too fondly here, is because many people here who are on a personal spiritual journey, don't really give a rats about religion of any kind.

Even if you try and point out, as you have done on a few occasions, that they/we are still following a religion of one form or another, we don't care. We're not interested in what we might be labelled as. It's a spiritual path that we follow from our own personal discoveries and experiences. Not something that someone else tells us is right for us.

Religion does NOT determine my opinions. What determines my opinions are my own real life experiences. If I chose to follow a particular path that has a particular label, such as being called a witch, that is because I have found that path agrees with my personal experiences.

For me, it is a spiritual path. I care nothing for religions, as I follow the direction of my higher self and my guiding spirits, not the doctrines of men.

Follow your heart, your path. Tell us of your experiences. That means much more to free thinking people than directly quoting the preachings of others.

Kind regards,
James.

[aryanknight666]

quote:Anyway, steering this back towards spiritual development, I don't believe that "satanism" has anything to offer over-and-above that which an individual could grasp through his own personal development. I also have to take issue with it being referred to as a religion !!

I doubt you even know what satanism is, just like everyone else who talks like yourself.

quote:Sorry AK666, it still sounds like religious diatribe, just coming from a different direction to the norm.

I won't comment on whether I think its good or bad, it's not my place to judge. What I would prefer to see though is for you to post more from a position of personal experience - tell us what you have personally discovered. Not the words of others which you feel led to follow.

The reason Clandestino said what he did about religious posts not being looked upon too fondly here, is because many people here who are on a personal spiritual journey, don't really give a rats about religion of any kind.

Even if you try and point out, as you have done on a few occasions, that they/we are still following a religion of one form or another, we don't care. We're not interested in what we might be labelled as. It's a spiritual path that we follow from our own personal discoveries and experiences. Not something that someone else tells us is right for us.

Religion does NOT determine my opinions. What determines my opinions are my own real life experiences. If I chose to follow a particular path that has a particular label, such as being called a witch, that is because I have found that path agrees with my personal experiences.

For me, it is a spiritual path. I care nothing for religions, as I follow the direction of my higher self and my guiding spirits, not the doctrines of men.

Follow your heart, your path. Tell us of your experiences. That means much more to free thinking people than directly quoting the preachings of others.

Kind regards,
James.

I do not follow or even know that person.
Really, judging from that post I might not be a satanist, all it is is an excerpt talking about the aeon of lucifer.
Oh and by the way, the religion you are talking about is spiritualism.
I think you will find that religions like satanism or wicca are personal spiritual journeys anyway.
And what you follow is the doctrines of men, as well.
And I have spoken of my own experiences, which have been frowned upon.

[James S]

"And I have spoken of my own experiences, which have been frowned upon. "

Thats just the thing. I've seen precious little of your own experiences - save one post i can recall - where you speak of a simple way to cleanse yourself using light. That sounded like something you've practiced, something you'd experienced.

Most of the rest of your posts come across as recollections of scriptures or books studied - words of men. Not your own experiences - just learned knowledge.

There's probably also a confusion about what I feel is or isn't religion. The way I see it - religion is a device of man, something devised to tell people what to do. Maybey those things they're told might be good things, but people are still being told what to do, and most if not all religions in one way or another frown upon free thinking and doing things your own way.
Religion is of the mind.

Spirituality is guidance from the spirit. Though Spirit may direct you to look words of men to gain understanding, it is still entirely up to you as to which words you consider worth listening to, and which path you chose to take.
Spirituality is of the heart.

That is why I say I do not follow the religions of men. I follow my heart, as I have learned that it is through my heart that my higher self and other spirits guide me.

Speak to us from your heart Aryan, not your mind. I can guarentee you that if you do so, it won't really matter exactly what you believe is, speaking from the heart will add weight to your words, and people will see you as genuine.

Regards,
James.

[aryanknight666]

But your ideas of the higher self and spirit guides are from the new age/spiritualist movement. If someone does not undertake a spiritual journey which aims to acheive the higher self or follows the words of guides, would you disregard it? Spirit guides come from the 20th century notions of guardian angels. The "higher self" (please correct me if I'm wrong) seems to have come around as a theosophical theory of the seventies or eighties.
If you don't consider spiritualism to be religious or a religion then you shouldn't consider satanism to be religious or a religion.
I am interested in spirituality and am involved in it but is it not considered worthy or is it not considered spirituality at all if I don't accept the theory of guides and higher self, the becoming of the "I AM" or "the source"?

[0]

"But your ideas of the higher self and spirit guides are from the new age/spiritualist movement."

When was this movement exactly? Spiritualism has just existed, there was never a movement, at least so far as I know.
Religion has not been the single and only path individuals have used in order to seek out the self and soul.
Native Americans before the white man came to this american soil communed with spirits and had no specific laws concerning higher notions of the self to abide by besides following the heart and depending upon the tribe, might partake of vision/spiritual walks or journeys in which sometimes using naturally occuring hallucinagenic plants, and sometimes not, they would search would contemplate themselves and similar to meditation become lost in trances and the such.

"Spirit guides come from the 20th century notions of guardian angels. The "higher self" (please correct me if I'm wrong) seems to have come around as a theosophical theory of the seventies or eighties."

As I said above concerning native americans, they held to the concept of spirit guides and spirit animals.
Along these lines of thought, with religion comes angels/miracles/spirit guides or guardians. Spirit guides or guardians have existed for much longer than we realize. People claiming a spirit was with them in the time of crisis or that there was a spirit guiding them towards the better or right choice.
You seem to just be randomly labeling the established concepts of certain religious and spiritual ideas. That is just it, most of these things you were speaking of were never "established," they were and still are ideas that have grown and evolved from many different concepts and reasons.



"If you don't consider spiritualism to be religious or a religion then you shouldn't consider satanism to be religious or a religion."

"I doubt you even know what satanism is, just like everyone else who talks like yourself."


satanism just like every other similar idea of following the ethereal path towards a higher meaning, can actually be considered both.
There are spiritual christians, but they are not religious because they do not adhere to the rules, they adhere to the beliefs, the ideas and characters within the religion.

Spirituality and religion are what they are and James defined them well. It doesnt matter though in reality, and I apologize if I contradicted myself in earlier posts, because it is the individual who decides whether it is one or the other for themselves.

Do you adhere to the laws of the JOS? If so then you are following a religion.
Do you adhere to the beliefs without working with "traditional" or "modernized" laws of that belief? Then your probably a spiritual satanist.

I dont like that I always read your posts and you ask people whether they really know about something such as satanism, then defer the question to a slight. You assume they know nothing because they oppose what you are talking about. Please dont do that.

"I am interested in spirituality and am involved in it but is it not considered worthy or is it not considered spirituality at all if I don't accept the theory of guides and higher self, the becoming of the "I AM" or "the source"?"

accepting theories and others beliefs have nothing to do with spirituality. We all have similar concepts of the same idea usually, but are at times refered to differently. Dont expect people to understand yours, because it certainly doesnt seem like you understand theirs any better.

[James S]

"But your ideas of the higher self and spirit guides are from the new age/spiritualist movement. "

No they're not! Don't you see what I'm getting at?

My ideas about my higher self and spirit guides did not come through some "religious movement" as you are so keen on branding it. I discovered my higher self and my spirit guides through my own personal experiences. Its only the present day semantics that have come from these movements. It's only the concepts promoted by these movements that seem to fit in any way what I have experienced.

A couple of thousand years ago, I would have called my guide "messengers". Thing is, I have spirits come to me that are both of earthly origin and of angelic origin, it is easy to tell the difference when both seeing and feeling them. Maybey then I should not call them guides, but rather "ghosts" and "messengers"

To be honest I really don't give a toss what "movement" or "religion" might promotes such things. I have real life experience with these beings on a daily basis. Not because some religion told me to, not because I wish to fit in with some "new age" theology (personally I can't stand the term "new age"), but because they have made themselves know to me and have helped me to open up my senses to their existence. I frankly have not the slightest idea of when the concept of "higher self" was coined, and I really don't care. The theologies you talk of only provide the current terminology that is used to describe such things.

"If you don't consider spiritualism to be religious or a religion then you shouldn't consider satanism to be religious or a religion."

Who said I was talking about Satanism?
I don't know enough about satanism to say one way or the other what it is. Maybey Satanism is more a spiritual path than religion. I don't know this because I have yet to hear someone tell me about it who is speaking from their heart and their real life experiences, and not from some documents written by others that they have learned.

Regards,
James.

[aryanknight666]

quote:When was this movement exactly? Spiritualism has just existed, there was never a movement, at least so far as I know.

Towards the end of the 19th century was the spiritualist movement. The new age movements comes in the very latter part of the 20th century.

quote:Do you adhere to the laws of the JOS? If so then you are following a religion.
Do you adhere to the beliefs without working with "traditional" or "modernized" laws of that belief? Then your probably a spiritual satanist.

There are no laws of the JOS. There are no traditionalist laws, there could be a single tradionalist group that has "laws" but there are none that apply to all of traditional satanism and I would not think of a traditional group with laws too highly, nor would anybody else in the satanic community. Some traditionalists follow the ideas of the satanic bible (for modern satanists), such as the satanic sins, etc ("sins", "church", and "bible" are all a mockery of christianity).

quote:I discovered my higher self and my spirit guides through my own personal experiences.

My ideas come from personal experiences as well.

quote:I have real life experience with these beings on a daily basis

I and others have experiences on a daily basis. Otherwise, what on earth would be the point?

[James S]

"My ideas come from personal experiences as well."
"I and others have experiences on a daily basis. Otherwise, what on earth would be the point?"

That's good!
Then I look forward to reading what you have to say when you're speaking from your own experiences, and not preaching or criticising the ways of others because of what you've read or heard.

regards,
James.

[aryanknight666]

'While cults devoted to new age mysticism or white light magic and spirituality have had some success among those seeking for "something, ... anything spiritual", due principally to Christianity's impoverishment of the ego and starvation of the intellect, they are ultimately no more relevant to today's society than the religions of the past. The world is searching for a religion which embraces the scientific knowledge of today, recognizes the psychological nature of man, and perceives the potential of man to achieve far more than he has already, while holding to ethical beliefs and values held by society today, and possessing a willingness to change those values and beliefs in accordance with future changes in society. Despite some individuals who see in Satanism nothing more than anti-Christianity, a depraved religion of blasphemism or an expression for anti-social desires and impulses, the emphasis of Satanism on the ego and the intellect and its recognition of man's ultimate potential has made it the one religion relevant in today's society.
But to return to the question at hand, what is the true nature of God? If, by God, one is referring not to a specific deity man has devised but to a controlling force or intellect within the universe, then it is clear to me that God, like the universe and everything within the universe, is in a continuous state of change and evolution. What I am suggesting is that God, like matter, energy, or consciousness, is "dynamic" not "static". Descartes said, "I think therefore I am," but is this really true? In that which I perceive as my "mind" there is a continuous stream of thoughts which flows through me like a river. But am I my thoughts or am I the thing in which my thoughts manifest? Is the river the water which fills the river, or is the river the rock and dirt over which the water flows? Or is "river" simply a name I have given to that which I perceive from the visual image of water moving over rock and dirt? And yet, a river from one moment to the next is not the same river, for the water in the river is not composed of the same water particles, and a man is not the same from one moment to the next, since his thoughts and impressions change with each passing moment.
If a man thinks for a moment that he has achieved enlightenment and understanding, the pool of thought he calls consciousness stagnates and, as a cess-pool, breeds worms and stenches like a swamp. The science of today is the superstition of tomorrow and the genius of today the know-nothing of tomorrow, for as the universe evolves towards ever greater levels of consciousness the very concept of truth, enlightenment, or wisdom changes with it. I AM not, but am becoming. The universe IS not, but is becoming. And if I, who possess consciousness, am becoming, then the consciousness which guides and/or controls the universe, from which my consciousness has its source, must also be becoming. The dialectic method of thesis/anti-thesis and synthesis is the process by which the universal dynamic evolves. I am not my flesh nor my blood. I am not my brain nor my body. In realizing that the "I AM" of my being is pure consciousness, I realize that I am God; I am the universe made manifest. And that which I call Lucifer, the embodiment of wisdom and enlightenment, is also changing, is also becoming. It is within me, it flows through me, it is what the "I AM" of my being is. I am Lucifer. I am Satan.
There is one thing common to all gods man has created. Every man-made god is static and unchanging. Yahweh resides in heaven, unchanging, unbending, the creator of the universe and all that it contains. Christ sits at the right hand of God ready to judge the living and the dead. Zeus resides in Mount Olympus holding aloft the lightning bolt, his symbol of divine power. The values of society and the structure of its institutions are defined as "good." That which threatens society is defined as "evil." The definitions of good or evil change from nation to nation and from century to century. God is defined by that which is "static" and unchanging. That which is "dynamic", a potential threat to the status-quo such as war, revolution, political unrest, or social upheaval, is represented by the Devil. But, if the universe is dynamic not static and consciousness is NOT but is becoming then the devil, Satan, more accurately reflects the true nature of God than Christ, Yahweh, or any other image of God which man has defined.
The Sumerians believed the Dragon of Chaos, Tiamat, to be the mother of the gods. The gods brought order to Chaos, but they were themselves the children of Chaos and subject to its laws and conditions. The devil was not originally a "rebel" against the order of creation but, the beginning and the end, the source of all creation. "The dragon sleeps," we are told in the texts of old, "but shall awaken." In the alchemical treatise, the Kybalion, it is said that "the All is Mind" and "the Universe is Mental." The modern physicist, in accordance with this principle of alchemy that matter and energy are mental phenomena and that "everything vibrates", has stated that the electrons and protons within the atom are composed of waves with various charges and rates of vibration. The Universe is not, but is BECOMING! God is not, but is BECOMING! When Lucifer has risen, when man has become God, then it shall be known that the Aeon of Lucifer has begun.'

Tsirk Susej