Luciferianism

Infernal Greetings All!

I was surfing the World Wide Web and stumbled upon this discussion. I find it very interesting to see some of the ideas that some people hold about Luciferians and Satanist. I'll give my own view in a little bit, but first a bit about just who I am.

I am a Luciferian Priest from N.E. Missouri where I run a small grotto or coven. I have studied the occult for 32 years and have been a Luciferian Witch for about 23 years. I have run a couple Luciferian websites for 5 to 6 years now and teach a bit on Skirhand Witchcraft (Skirhand is Old World for Left Hand Path). I just like the sound of it more. ~,o

I did not manage to read all the post in this thread, so please excuse me if I go over ground that somebody else has already covered. BTW: The thing to remember about both Luciferianism and Satanism is that they are belief systems which are about the individual, thus very individualistic. So, there are most likely as many views concerning these belief systems as there are individuals. (You notice I say belief systems and not faiths. This is because strictly speaking, they have little to do with faith for the most part. But as I say they are very individualistic Paths so there may be those that would argue this point.) So, I will just speak my own views on this topic and please keep in mind that my views do not neccessarily reflect the views of all Luciferians or Satanist.

Luciferianism is more of a Gnostic world view than it is a faith. By "Gnostic" I mean that we seek "gnosis" or knowledge, both spiritual "occult" (hidden) knowledge and Self knowledge. I worship NO gods bright or dark. While I do believe in the existance of several gods, I do not find a need for the worship of them. I find that it is the general concenses of Luciferians that rather than worship other gods, we seek to unveil our own inner divinity and become as gods. This is in line with the thinking of Lucifer when he decided that he would exalt his throne and become as god. Hence, the reason we are known as Luciferians. Also, as I said there is the seeking of gnosis, thus enlightenment. Lucifer, actually means bringer of light or light bearer.

In my mind, I see Luciferianism as a form of Satanism though the two are actually different Paths. I'll explain. Satan means, Adversary or other and the Luciferianism that I practice is adversarial in that it takes the opposing side and it is good to play "devil's advocate". Never let anything be set up on high as being "holy" or "sacred". Never let yourself be bogged down in the quagmire of useless dogma and moralisms.

As far as the "sacred" writings (i.e. the gospels, Talmud, Koran, Vedas, ect.) are concerned we see them as mythologies that we can draw from or not as we Will, and moral dogmas that can be followed or discarded as we feel the need. We tend to be led by our Will, which we basically see as being the reason we are in this incarnation, that which we are to accomplish in this life time.

In our quest for "gnosis" and our true Will we seek though magick to achieve the knowledge and conversation of our Holy Guardian Angel (HGA) and the Beast. The HGA and the Beast are the Day and Shadow side of our own psyche respectively. All must remain in balance because in order to acheive this feat one must "cross the abyss", the depths of the mind. Those that try crossing the abyss before properly prepared or unbalanced risk insanity or worse. Yes, the Black Artes can be dangerous but there are many of us that see the gamble well spent.

We also practice practical rites aimed at imposing our will upon our environment. To this end many Luciferians will study many forms and systems of Magick. I myself am drawn to Witchcraft, Chaos Magick, Thelema, Palo, Sorcery, and Shamanism.

I also have studied QBL and Hermetics and Alchemy (as a spiritual science. I find these fit nicely into my Luciferian world view, if remembered that they are just the skeleton For my Gnostic views and a filing system to classiffy my experiences.

In my Gnostic view of things, the "Source" or "ALL" I use the Gnostic term for, which is Plethora. The Plethora corresponds to Ayn Soph Aur in the QBL. It is beyond limitation, thus can not be described as that would limit it. The most that can be said about it is that it is all things, yet is no thing, ever pregnant with the potentialities for anything.

Then there are the gods, I see the gods as anthropomorphic cosmic forces that can be tapped into to create change. Then there are the angels, demons, nature spirits, and shades of the dead. Also, one can use formulated psychic power to create "spirits", such as servitors, egregores and the like.

The thing that I feel many upon the Path miss is that as it states in Heremetics; That which is above is like that which is below. That which is within is like that which is without. And the opposite of both of these is true also. Which means that each and every god, angel, demon or nature spirit, while perhaps having an existance out in the macrocosm (the cosmos at large) also has an existance within the microcosm (the self) thus being a part of ones own psyche too.

Well, I have rambled long enough. So, I shall bring this post to an end for now. If anybody has any questions about Luciferianism or anything else contained I my post I shall do my best to answer them. I'll be the first to say though that I do not hold all the answers yet I do concider myself somewhat knowledgable.

BTW: Somebody mentioned the devil or devil-worship, I'll clue you in devil is a term for the Priest or male leader of a coven of witches and worship actually comes from an Old English root which meant to give honor or respect. So, all witches belonging to a coven led by a male should be devil-worshippers. ~,0 LMAO!
 
In the Christian context it was cleric Origenes Adamantius [185-254CE] of the early Greek Church who first claimed Lucifer was the Devil, a concept championed by Augustine of Canterbury in 7th century England based on mistranslation. Lucifer was equated with Satan by St. Jerome in his Vulgate which claimed he was the serpent in the Garden of Eden who tempted Adam & Eve to transgress. He erroneously translated 'Heylel', which means Venus in Hebrew, into Lucifer and an allusion to Satan when it wasn't. One of the reasons he equated Lucifer with Satan was politics, his hatred of an orthodox movement started in the 4th century by the Bishop of Cagliari, Lucifer Calaritanus, who founded a group called the Luciferians. By equating Lucifer with Satan he ensured that his heretical views on Christ's divinity and relationship with Jahova, etc, would be thought Satanic and not resuscitated.

So Luciferianism is old indeed.
 
Blackrose said:
The thing to remember about both Luciferianism and Satanism is that they are belief systems which are about the individual, thus very individualistic. So, there are most likely as many views concerning these belief systems as there are individuals. (You notice I say belief systems and not faiths. This is because strictly speaking, they have little to do with faith for the most part. But as I say they are very individualistic Paths so there may be those that would argue this point.)
Click to expand...

Many thanks for the comments, Blackrose, and welcome to CR. :)

I think the point about individualism seems a very important point to underline.
 
You are most welcome and yes I would say that individualism as opposed to "herd mentality" is a very important point. Those involved with Luciferianism or Satanism are encouraged to learn to think for themselves insted of just going along with the flow. They are taught to question ALL things and come up with their own answers, not what they are told is right or the "TRUTH". And then to see if the commonly accepted "TRUTHS" can be proven. Most can not, at least not on this plane of existance, thus become highly questionable.

Satanism, Luciferianism, and in fact the LHP are antinomian Paths. This means that they go against the natural order of things. As many believe that what is seen as the natural order is but "the great illusion".

I feel one must be willing to look for the deeper things of the Spirit with an unbiased mind. It is much like a life long spiritual quest from which one can not return once they start treading the Path. Once one is awakened from the dream of the great illusion they can not return to the dream. They must continue in order to fulfill their wyrd, (fate).
 
So, are there any humanitarian aspects to Satanism or Luciferianism, (i.e feed the poor, give to charity, etc..) or is it basically a self-serving practice? I'm trying not to be flippant, but I understand these practices are supposed the antithesis of Christian principles, which include love your neighbor, etc. Correct me please if I'm wrong.
 
Feeding the poor is opposite to true humanism.

Humanism is the philosophy that humanity is in the centre of the universe and that we must develop.
humanism is about human feelings and needs.
The human nature is intuitive positive and the source of culture and ethic
which should be further developed through culture and knowlegde.
Therefore there is little need for moralies or restraint
as the human nature already is positive.
Examples of this is found in both Liberalism and Socialism
becouse both see human needs as central.
Socialism se the groups needs and Liberalism the indivuals
but both are good examples of humanism.

A positive view on everything between the intellect and sex.
Humanistic development is usually about studing and being cultural
but other socialdarwinistic variants are possible.

This is the humanism of old,(the Antique Greek, the Renessance, The 16th century) the modern humanism is just a variant.
I think the modern humanism is a confusion of christian values
as christianity says that the human nature is evil.
Modern humanism is about the human value
but in old humanism that value depends on education, culture and other ideal traits.
There is nothing of the new modern humanism in Satanism.
Satanism defend the egoistical needs of everybody but encourage an ethic about how to handle them.
As opposed to for example randomly murdering people to acting out anger for being angry at somebody irrelevant.
Deranged or disturbed needs doesn't count as "human" needs though.

I do think there is some degree of compassion in satanism,
becouse of the way it encourge others egoistical needs,
the way it encourage individual rights,
and to avoid conflicts.
 
So, are there any humanitarian aspects to Satanism or Luciferianism, (i.e feed the poor, give to charity, etc..) or is it basically a self-serving practice?
Click to expand...

The way I see things is that what many would call humanitarian is actually very cruel and responsible for the state of affairs being like they are.

  1. It has been said that it is the humain thing to be charitable and give to the poor and needy. Yet, would it not be better to make a person work for what they get. If they work for what they get it helps to build up a healthy self-image, independence, and character, where as if they are given a charitable handout it fosters dependence and low self-esteem and sloth.
  2. It has been said that we should "Love thy neighbor as thyself. "and again, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yet, I think it much better to live by the creed of "Do unto others as they do unto you." For if everyone else is treating people the way they wish to be treated, why treat them as you would want to be treated when it might not be how they would want to be treated? And it has also been said, "Love thy enemies." While I am not LaVeyian, I quite agree with what he had to say on the matter. He said,"Is it natural for enemies to do good unto each other - AND WHAT IS GOOD? Can the bloody victim "love" the blood-splashed jaws that rend him limb from limb? Are we not all preditory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly to prey upon each other, could they continue to exist? I believe in the creed eye for eye, tooth for tooth. No wrong goes unaddressed. Does this make me a hateful person? I can be. Yet, my friends would tell you that I am one of the most loyal of friends and there is not much I would not do to help them out.
In short I find that moralism and humanities are not all they are cracked up to be. And yes, I can be a rather selfish person at times. Does that mean that I won't help a person without having something in it for myself? Not neccessarily, there have been many times I have helped others knowing that I would never get it back.But, then there are those that would say that I am generous. I feel it all depends on the situation.

But you would not be wrong to say it is self-serving. Remember, we strive to be as gods and many of us do not worship any other Gods. But enough of the ramblings of this mad man. ~,o
 
Peace to All Here

What statements you have made here, Blackrose. Are they what you believe? How do you reconcile them all?

Do you know what is meant by a "self-defeating" statement?

Moving on, then...so if someone is in need, you will take stock of just exactly why he/she is in need, and apply your own criterium to the situation? Sounds like good investing of money.

Say, on the other hand, there is no investment involved??

InPeace,
InLove
 
Satanist said:
Feeding the poor is opposite to true humanism.

Humanism is the philosophy that humanity is in the centre of the universe and that we must develop.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting interpretation of humanism, and I have no sources to contradict it. However, the question was not about humanism but rather humanitarianism. Feeding the poor IS the humanitarian thing to do, would you do it?


Blackrose said:
It has been said that it is the humain thing to be charitable and give to the poor and needy. Yet, would it not be better to make a person work for what they get.
Click to expand...

Certainly it would, but what if a person is unable to provide for themselves. Drought ridden countries in Africa cannot feed themselves by any amount of work. Would you simply let them die?

Blackrose said:
It has been said that we should "Love thy neighbor as thyself. "and again, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yet, I think it much better to live by the creed of "Do unto others as they do unto you." For if everyone else is treating people the way they wish to be treated, why treat them as you would want to be treated when it might not be how they would want to be treated?
Click to expand...

If we all treated others as we wish to be treated ourselves, there would be no hate, no war, no oppression, because none of us wish to be treated badly.

Alternatively, if we "do unto others as they do unto you" then every tiny offense would require retribution which would lead to a constant cycle of suffering on earth. He treats me bad so I treat him bad so he treats me bad so I treat him bad..... etc.

Blackrose said:
If humans ceased wholly to prey upon each other, could they continue to exist?
Click to expand...

Can you give any reason why they could not?
 
Satanist said:
Feeding the poor is opposite to true humanism.

Humanism is the philosophy that humanity is in the centre of the universe and that we must develop.
Click to expand...
Awaiting_the_fifth said:
That is an interesting interpretation of humanism, and I have no sources to contradict it. However, the question was not about humanism but rather humanitarianism. Feeding the poor IS the humanitarian thing to do, would you do it?
Click to expand...

Satanist's depiction of humanism is definitely not in agreement with the statements of principles used as the foundation for groups like the American Humanist Association. Their manifesto for instance states:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

They also state in the manifesto:
Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
and perhaps more clear:
Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union has been very clear in its support for charitable works including feeding the poor. They even said in their official endorsement of a UN program to feed the hungry that:
We welcome the initiative of [the UN feed-the-hungry program] as a notable example of humanist action...

Another major group, Humanist International, is more political in their goals. From what I have read it is based more on a subset of humanism, "new humanism", which is also sometimes accused of being Marxist-humanism.

The Humanist International statement of principles is as follows:
Humanists are all those who struggle against violence and discrimination, and who propose greater freedom of choice for the human being.

Humanists reject the formal political democracy that prevails in the world today, which is manipulated by money and which deprives people of real freedom of choice.

Humanists promote human beings and their fundamental needs as the central value and concern in society with no other values or priorities imposed above them.

This principle has enormous consequences, particularly at a time and in a system where money is the central value and everything else is subject to its ‘tyranny’.

We have adopted, as one of our founding documents, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, which despite requiring a more profound definition of human beings and their rights, is nevertheless an extremely relevant document.

I think it's fair to say that the majority of people involved in the humanist movement support charitable works rather than considering them to be detrimental to human society.
 
having read the "satanic bible" and "satan speaks", i must admit to having a soft spot for anton lavey (or howard levy, to give him his birth name) partly because i appreciate his wit. in fact, i think he'd be tickled to be included in a list of disaffected jews who started their own religions, including:

- jesus & paul
- sigmund freud
- karl marx

i think lavey's idea of "why the hell should you love your enemies?" is one that deserves respect, but it is important to note that "traditional" satanists tend to expect a far higher standard of behaviour of people than your average liberal (or humanist!) in its own way, it's a product of the 60s. anyway, nice to have some of you here. feel free to poke, prod and deflate as you like - but do so with humour!

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
So what is a Satanists concept of love? Do you love your neighbor as yourself? Is it better to give or receive?
 
Interesting discussion,

However it amazes me, as was suggested in the begining of the thread, that some people would believe in multiple Gods and take Satan as a equal to the Lord G-d himself.

As a monotheist the idea that Satan, or any other creature or force in the Universe would have power anywhere near equal to G-d is ridiculously childish.

At the same time you are entitled to believe what you like, and this is a open forum.

But i have to ask; If G-d won the war against Satan, by "secretly invading paradise" and casting him out, why wouldent he destroy him? why would he let Satan go?

In my view Satan is nothing more then a loyal servant of the Lord, an "agent provocateur" if you like.

"Hear O Israel! The Lord is your God, the Lord is One"
 
Saul said:
Interesting discussion,

However it amazes me, as was suggested in the begining of the thread, that some people would believe in multiple Gods and take Satan as a equal to the Lord G-d himself.

As a monotheist the idea that Satan, or any other creature or force in the Universe would have power anywhere near equal to G-d is ridiculously childish.

At the same time you are entitled to believe what you like, and this is a open forum.

But i have to ask; If G-d won the war against Satan, by "secretly invading paradise" and casting him out, why wouldent he destroy him? why would he let Satan go?

In my view Satan is nothing more then a loyal servant of the Lord, an "agent provocateur" if you like.

"Hear O Israel! The Lord is your God, the Lord is One"
Click to expand...

I can answer your question about God letting Satan go; Matthew 5:44 "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." He was setting an example that the evil and the good are all equal UNTIL Judgement Day, besides wouldn't you rather be destroyed than sent to Hell for the rest of eternity?

What is your reasoning behind Satan being an agent of God? If that is true the Bible just looks like a giant hoax! I'm not trying to mock you, just please tell me why you think that, im interested.
 
Hi, everyone;
Q. Does the five pointed star (point downwards) symbolise satan in anyway?

- sorry for any interuption to your discussion , this kinda seemed relevant to the topic - p.s i'm new ( sorry for any boo boo's)

love always :)
 
SHYSTAR said:
Hi, everyone;
Q. Does the five pointed star (point downwards) symbolise satan in anyway?

- sorry for any interuption to your discussion , this kinda seemed relevant to the topic - p.s i'm new ( sorry for any boo boo's)

love always :)
Click to expand...

There is a good discussion of the various meanings of the pentagram (both one-point-up and two-points-up) including how it is used by Satanists at this website.

Just like Christians are not the only ones to use a cross in their religious symbolism, Satanists are hardly the only ones to have spiritual meaning attached to the five-pointed star symbol.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top