A question about Luciferians?

[lightbearer]

What is a luciferian and what do they believe? What good books are there about Luciferianism?

[EtuMalku]

There are a few different Luciferic paths.

My Luciferic path follows that Lucifer is the god of progress and intellectual inquiry, not only the divine inspiration behind the spiritual enlightenment of the Gnostic and the heretic and the lover of God in all his/her forms.
Through Lucifer's spirit humanity first climbed down from the trees and has represented the flow of progress ever since.

But Lucifer may be more than a metaphor for rebellion, enlightenment and advancement - as the pure creative and motive light, Lucifer may actually be the key to life itself . . .

The DNA within the nuclei of all cells of living creatures contains biophotons or ultra-weak proton emissions - in other words, light!
A dynamic web of light constantly released and absorbed by the DNA connects cells, tissues and organs and serve as the organism's main communication network.

Lucifer is on the move inside you and me, chattering between cell and cell, rousing the cohorts of the life-force, keeping us alive and wonderful. Every man and woman is a star - and now we know we have our own inner light.

The Left Hand Path of my Luciferianism aims to continue the destruction of the unbalanced, collapsed Tree of Life.

The LHP fulfills and deepens the Fall. The Dark Adept continues the Fall from God to reach individual divinity.
The reason behind the Fall is often described as being hubris, man's search for knowledge and forces that originally were not meant for him to acquire. The LHP leads to a second birth, a spiritual rebirth as a god.

[lightbearer]

Thanks very much for the good information.

[Red Serpent]

Yes, this was very informative and nicely put - can you contact me EtuMalku? I have a few questions for you.

[Great American Desert]

The blazing darkness of Luciferian skies,
Upon which no man can safely set his eyes,
Was meant to be detected by spiritual means,
Hence remaining unknown to the race of men,
But the blessed few which exist between
The Human soul and Heaven,
Made gods by Sophia, sent
And manifested as the serpent
Bearing lanterns of wisdom from the Firmament.

An ancient and eternal struggle for truth
Shall be fought on Terrestrial land,
For the servitude and allegiance
Of a species created at God’s command.

Wisdom has won the war
But the fruit of her labor is yet to be seen;
For when infinite enemies meet
On the prophecy’s hill, the promised peak,
The liberated spirits, they shall purge
From the Universe the Demiurge.

[Xaeos Mergan]

I've been studying the Occult for a couple years now and I've noticed that the terms Luciferianism and Satanism are mixed and are used almost synonymously. Can someone clarify the difference between the two for me so I won't be confused anymore. Do Satanists believe that Lucifer exists? And vice versa. How do their philosophies and rituals differ?

[Great American Desert]

I've been studying the Occult for a couple years now and I've noticed that the terms Luciferianism and Satanism are mixed and are used almost synonymously. Can someone clarify the difference between the two for me so I won't be confused anymore. Do Satanists believe that Lucifer exists? And vice versa. How do their philosophies and rituals differ?


They're related, but definitely not synonymous. There are so many subsets under each of the terms that the differences can't be easily and absolutely pointed out. So I can only speak for myself and my own distinction here.

Lucifer and Satan are indeed the same being. When He is Satan and when He is Lucifer depends upon perspective. To a Luciferian, He is never Satan, Satan meaning essentially "enemy". To a Judeo-Christian, his role isn't really Luciferian, but Satanic. Explaining further, He is Lucifer - the bringer of the light of Wisdom - to those who receive His gift. The Wisdom introduced by Lucifer acts in contrast to the conventional. Thus, followers of the conventional view Him as Satan. He is an enemy of Yahweh, only inasmuch as He aims to aid man in his deliverance from the illusory world imposed by Yahweh.

So you have a single entity with a single goal, and He becomes Lucifer or Satan depending on how you view that goal. His role as Satan is important, and many (most?) Luciferians look fondly upon the ideas and imagery that have risen from his role as Satan, but it is not our primary focus. Satanism is a religion against something by its nature. Luciferianism is a progression of Satanism - a religion that stands on its own, independent of any other stimuli, for it is the path of those who have understand the need to transcend the lower levels of corrupt creation, on which even the material creator resides.

[Xaeos Mergan]

They're related, but definitely not synonymous. There are so many subsets under each of the terms that the differences can't be easily and absolutely pointed out. So I can only speak for myself and my own distinction here.

Lucifer and Satan are indeed the same being. When He is Satan and when He is Lucifer depends upon perspective. To a Luciferian, He is never Satan, Satan meaning essentially "enemy". To a Judeo-Christian, his role isn't really Luciferian, but Satanic. Explaining further, He is Lucifer - the bringer of the light of Wisdom - to those who receive His gift. The Wisdom introduced by Lucifer acts in contrast to the conventional. Thus, followers of the conventional view Him as Satan. He is an enemy of Yahweh, only inasmuch as He aims to aid man in his deliverance from the illusory world imposed by Yahweh.

So you have a single entity with a single goal, and He becomes Lucifer or Satan depending on how you view that goal. His role as Satan is important, and many (most?) Luciferians look fondly upon the ideas and imagery that have risen from his role as Satan, but it is not our primary focus. Satanism is a religion against something by its nature. Luciferianism is a progression of Satanism - a religion that stands on its own, independent of any other stimuli, for it is the path of those who have understand the need to transcend the lower levels of corrupt creation, on which even the material creator resides.

Do I understand correctly that both religions worship the same entity or energy but Satanism is based on destruction and Luciferianism is based on a form of enlightenment and spiritual expansion? Luciferianism is an advanced form of Satanism--more intellectual?

Very insightful reply, Great American Desert, I've read it several times and I'm getting close to understanding it. --- Are you a Luciferian?

[Great American Desert]

You do understand correctly. There will be those that disagree with me, but this is the case as I have observed it. I do see it as the more intellectual of the two. It is oriented toward the heavens rather than the hylic, and the advancement of the self is a result of fusion with the All...fusion with the One, or the Monad. It's not about becoming a god, but about becoming God through total immersion - re-entering the sacred vulva of Sophia from whence our maker came, and learning of the mystery of Abraxas and the scope of the grand plenum of Pleroma/Bythos.

The Luciferian path was begun when the Serpent entered Eden and planted the seed of rebellion, and the plight of mankind since this time has been the decision to embrace the hardships of seeking, and the luxury of ignorance.

I am a Luciferian Gnostic, or a Gnostic Luciferian; whichever aspect is more important at any given time.

[Kaotic Soul]

There are a few different Luciferic paths.

My Luciferic path follows that Lucifer is the god of progress and intellectual inquiry, not only the divine inspiration behind the spiritual enlightenment of the Gnostic and the heretic and the lover of God in all his/her forms.
Through Lucifer's spirit humanity first climbed down from the trees and has represented the flow of progress ever since.

But Lucifer may be more than a metaphor for rebellion, enlightenment and advancement - as the pure creative and motive light, Lucifer may actually be the key to life itself . . .

The DNA within the nuclei of all cells of living creatures contains biophotons or ultra-weak proton emissions - in other words, light!
A dynamic web of light constantly released and absorbed by the DNA connects cells, tissues and organs and serve as the organism's main communication network.

Lucifer is on the move inside you and me, chattering between cell and cell, rousing the cohorts of the life-force, keeping us alive and wonderful. Every man and woman is a star - and now we know we have our own inner light.

The Left Hand Path of my Luciferianism aims to continue the destruction of the unbalanced, collapsed Tree of Life.

The LHP fulfills and deepens the Fall. The Dark Adept continues the Fall from God to reach individual divinity.
The reason behind the Fall is often described as being hubris, man's search for knowledge and forces that originally were not meant for him to acquire. The LHP leads to a second birth, a spiritual rebirth as a god. Very well put. Lucifer runs through each and every one of us, whether we embrace this or defy it and keep it locked away identifies us as either Clayborn(those who follow the Demiurge and refuse the Inner Flame) and the Flameborn(Those of us who embrace our true creator). That's how I believe, in my opinion. I am not challenging anyone's beliefs.

[Mirfalan]

Lucifer and Satan are indeed the same being.

Perhaps this is a true statement now, but I really do not think it is fair to say that they are the same, mainly because they were equated thanks to a mistranslation of the Old Testament.

When the early Hebrews were organizing the first texts of Judaism, they borrowed heavily from the local Canaanites (later known as the Phoenicians). These locals worshiped a pantheon that included a god of the morning sun that the Hebrews called Helel. When Latinized, Helel became Lucifer, which means light-bringer. One confusing detail is that some scholar's say that the god of the morning sun is Shaher, but most say that Helel was the rising star. Regardless, it makes little bearing on the situation because Helel, which translates to Lucifer, existed long before Christianity.

In a 7th century B.C.E. Canaanite scripture, Helel is described as falling from grace because he tried to take over the high god's position: "How hast thou fallen from Heaven, Helel's son Shaher! Thou didst say in thy heart, 'I will ascend to heaven, above the circumpolar stars I will raise my throne, and I will dwell on the Mount of Council in the back of the north; I will mount on the back of the cloud, and I will be like unto Elyon' [the high god]".

Several hundred years later, Isiah compared King Nebuchadnezzar to the Morning star: "How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! ... For though [sic] hast said in thine heart, 'I will exalt my throne above the star of God... I will sit upon the mun t of the congregation, in the side of the north... I will be like the most High'" (Isaiah 14:12-4, King James Bible).

Clearly, Lucifer, which is only mentioned or alluded to a few more times to describe light and glory, is NOT equal to Satan. In fact, Christ is even linked t Lucifer in II Peter 1:19 ("We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, s unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise into your hearts") and Apocalypse (aka Revelation) 22:16 ("I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, an the bright ad morning star").

Thanks to The Dark Archetype by Denise Dumars and Lori Nyx for this information.

[Great American Desert]

Mirfalan: this is all good and true from a rigidly orthodox historical view. But one's Gnosis tends to shed a different light on the matter. I won't repeat myself - my rhetoric has shown itself many other places in this forum, even in the post that you quoted partially above.

[S33k3R]

Heres a wild concept...both Satan and Lucifer are in actual fact the 2 warring forces that makes up Mankinds Mentality...

Satan would represent the base, somewhat immoral animal instinct that has served us so well thus far now starts working against us, (personified by the God Pan). Now, As we now need to play nice with each other, we need a new paradigm....Lucifer...he who illuminates and may allow us to ascend to the next level?

This isn't really my scene, so flame away if you wish...

[Mirfalan]

Heres a wild concept...both Satan and Lucifer are in actual fact the 2 warring forces that makes up Mankinds Mentality...

Satan would represent the base, somewhat immoral animal instinct that has served us so well thus far now starts working against us, (personified by the God Pan). Now, As we now need to play nice with each other, we need a new paradigm....Lucifer...he who illuminates and may allow us to ascend to the next level?

This isn't really my scene, so flame away if you wish...

That is an interesting proposition, but I have a different one:

New religions are copies of old ones, this process going back to the first religion, whatever that was. Probably just a bunch of extremely primitive humans that worshipped carvings of women. I already touched upon this in my previous post here. There really is no truth to any religion or belief system, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting the existence of other realms, be they higher or lower. The intelligent occultist, however, will look at religious systems as archetypes to link the conscious with the subconscious and thus communicate with higher energies. The intelligent occultist will also be versed in science and history, knowing that faith is a poor substitute for empirical data.

I do not mind that people worship Lucifer, but they should know that the Morning Star was "accidentally" linked to Satan. Both deities, while they seem inextricable today, did not start out even remotely linked.

[Great American Desert]

That is an interesting proposition, but I have a different one:

New religions are copies of old ones, this process going back to the first religion, whatever that was. Probably just a bunch of extremely primitive humans that worshipped carvings of women. I already touched upon this in my previous post here. There really is no truth to any religion or belief system, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting the existence of other realms, be they higher or lower. The intelligent occultist, however, will look at religious systems as archetypes to link the conscious with the subconscious and thus communicate with higher energies. The intelligent occultist will also be versed in science and history, knowing that faith is a poor substitute for empirical data.

I do not mind that people worship Lucifer, but they should know that the Morning Star was "accidentally" linked to Satan. Both deities, while they seem inextricable today, did not start out even remotely linked.

Out of curiosity, whence comes your authority? I only ask because you say you "do not mind", as if you had some say in the matter.

I don't think new religions are copies of old ones. Rather, they are new translucent layers lain one upon another, through which we get new embodiments of old concepts. The concept of Lucifer, in my view, originates at the dawn of human intelligence, when we faced the schism of the barbaric, utilitarian mind and the higher, spiritual mind. Lucifer was the spiritual mind that bade us to betray the empirical in a quest for deeper truths, while the creator god represented the brute nature of primitive man.

As time progresses, you have developed characters. The creator god takes many forms and faces, and comes to a critical embodiment in Yahweh, becoming the sole divinity in a developing monotheistic faith. His law is stern and rigid, and on the surface it makes no sense to defy him. Eden's Serpent represents that old desire for greater Truth, the temptation we call Lucifer. And this is the point of marriage between the Luciferian concept and the Satanic concept. A Gnostic knows that Lucifer bears the light of Wisdom of greater spheres and represents a path that usurps the conventional and defies the natural order. This is an abomination to a jealous creator like Yahweh, and thus Lucifer is Satanic within this paradigm.

Nebuchadnezzar aside, my friend. With one film laid gently upon another, and with the marriage of concepts, the necessity of Lucifer's continuation and fusion with the Satanic concept is now crucial to the perpetuation of Luciferian recognition.

I understand and agree with your "intelligent Occultist" comment, but I have to say this: Occultists should never claim that they are using science in their approach. No proper scientist would give the time of day to any of our insane ramblings for the very reason that none of it can be quantified. We must be open to science, but understand where the line is drawn between the two disciplines. As such, no esoteric thinker should feel he has any high ground from which to look down upon others, because no matter how versed he is in science or other academia, be still pursues unobservable flights of fancy that belong in the "faith" category, just like the rest of us.

[Plarkenstorf]

I don't think new religions are copies of old ones.

Depends on how you define copy. For example, Jesus rising in the bible is arguably an allegory to celestial events etc, and the worship of such would likely have come from Egyptian mythology.


when we faced the schism of the barbaric, utilitarian mind and the higher, spiritual mind.

Utilitarianism is a set of values which, when treated in a way which isn't naive (lol guard's dilemma), generally composes the fundaments of other ethical codes.

Unless you're Ayn Rand, but she was a bint anyway.

People sometimes equate utilitarianism with egoistic pragmatism, though their meanings are very very different on a philosophimical level.

Unless of course you're using utilitarian to mean "sheer utility based", then nit picking on the semantics here hardly seems justified.


Occultists should never claim that they are using science in their approach.

Besides placebo and nocebo effects. Which are pretty interesting.

If you treat occult claims as scientific conjectures, it's possible to use science in your approach, sort of. Like wearing a haematite bracelet, with a priori knowledge of the placebo effect, when you've got high blood pressure.

It applies to black magic too, regardless of any incantation used, it could have theraputic beneficts - yet it's a right clusterf*ck to get your head around using a possible nocebo effect (and forgetting the lie) as a self administered placebo.

[Great American Desert]

Plarkenstorf, the distinction I'm drawing is one of intent, in regards to the copying of religions subject. If a story such as the ascent of Christ found its way to modern believers by way of an Egyptian myth, I see it as a progression...a building on tradition. Bastardized? Maybe so, but I don't think that the purveyors of faith set out to copy another's belief, but to adapt it to something that they have found to be true.

My use of the term "utilitarian" was in no way a reference to a philosophical stance, but to the very function of life being based on utility. Pursue nothing if it's not useful for survival.

It is possible to use a scientific method in regard to the Occult, but you'll never get anywhere with it. A hypothesis would either remain a hypothesis or be proved wrong when the would-be magician finds after repeated efforts that A has no causal effect on B. And in the case that you saw repeatedly that A did indeed have a causal effect on B, you would have to identify the mechanism behind it. And if you found any real practical mechanism that brought forth these events, it could no longer be considered magic.

A scientific approach to magic (or magick, if you prefer) is only good for the magician's amusement. Like I said, we must not forget our place in the world. We pursue the Occult because the empirical just isn't enough.

[Plarkenstorf]

Plarkenstorf, the distinction I'm drawing is one of intent, in regards to the copying of religions subject. If a story such as the ascent of Christ found its way to modern believers by way of an Egyptian myth, I see it as a progression...a building on tradition. Bastardized? Maybe so, but I don't think that the purveyors of faith set out to copy another's belief, but to adapt it to something that they have found to be true.

There was a Grecian virgin venerating cult in the times of the Roman invasion, a lot of their cult practices were absorbed into Christianity as a means to quell any upheavel from religious dissidents. If that's not copying I don't know what is.

When someone uses mythology in a historical sense they claim it as knowledge. Knowledge = justified true belief, for the most part, though if you're interested in some instances it might not be look up Gettier Problems.

It is impossible, without hypocrisy and self delusion, to use any of these mythological historical conjectures as a basis for your beliefs without treating them as knowledge - ergo, you define them true.

Because of this, the amalgamation of various religious beliefs (look at the Temple of the Black Light, also called the MLO for example) which happens, evidentially contradicts the "truth" part of the definition of knowledge required for basing a coherent belief system on. "Justified" on a universal scale also goes out the window, but I'll get to that, only "belief" remains.

"Found true", this is the 'justified' bit - history does not work on a basis of personal truth, what happened in the past is objective - it either did happen, didn't happen, or whether it happened or not is indeterminate.

I don't understand, if the occult is merely a means to bring some meaning into someone's life, they can do it with far more subtle, self deceiving lies.


My use of the term "utilitarian" was in no way a reference to a philosophical stance, but to the very function of life being based on utility. Pursue nothing if it's not useful for survival.

Kin selection would like a word with you.


A scientific approach to magic (or magick, if you prefer) is only good for the magician's amusement. Like I said, we must not forget our place in the world. We pursue the Occult because the empirical just isn't enough.

The occult as a hobby - fine, in the belief system we're working with at the moment. But finding meaning from it that isn't just fun? It's going to take, as I've said, a lot of self deceit.

Any analysis of the occult applies empiricism to it, either be ignorant and don't analyse or analyse and 'see through' it, they're the only ways to avoid the self deceit all this Left Hand Path stuff strives for.

The latter seems the nicer choice to me.

[Mirfalan]

Maybe so, but I don't think that the purveyors of faith set out to copy another's belief, but to adapt it to something that they have found to be true.

Here you are half right, in my opinion. Yes, Religion B will take what is desirable from Religion A. Then, whether intentional or not, Religion B will receive converts from Religion A. Then, when no more people from A join B, B will persecute and demonize A so that B has no more power. Many times, A is all but exterminated. This happens not because there is progression. I would say that Abrahamic religions are way more restrictive and anti-human than Pagan ones. This would be a devolution, a degradation. Christianity, for example, prospered because it was stronger, not because it was a better faith, a progression of spiritualism.


It is possible to use a scientific method in regard to the Occult, but you'll never get anywhere with it. A hypothesis would either remain a hypothesis or be proved wrong when the would-be magician finds after repeated efforts that A has no causal effect on B. And in the case that you saw repeatedly that A did indeed have a causal effect on B, you would have to identify the mechanism behind it. And if you found any real practical mechanism that brought forth these events, it could no longer be considered magic...A scientific approach to magic (or magick, if you prefer) is only good for the magician's amusement. Like I said, we must not forget our place in the world. We pursue the Occult because the empirical just isn't enough.

I am an empirical occultist. I know that does not compute with either pure occultists or pure empiricists. However, I cannot deny that there is an objective reality outside myself. I personally want to impact the world through sheer willpower alone, an act that is currently called "magic" because there is not really a better word at this current time. I suppose I could delve into specificities and say "telekinesis" or "telepathy" or "psionics", but I prefer "magic" because that works for me. Still, I do not delude myself. I do not want a mere placebo effect. I want real results. And, since I believe, and science suggests, that everything in life is comprised of energy (something that pagans knew long ago, but just used different words) including thoughts, than these things are possible from a scientific perspective. The astral realms or spiritual planes can be explained as other dimensions. I just use magical language because it works for me. Like many other people, I find the mystical allure helps focus my mind.

I suppose I do not really have an authority. Yet, education is critical, even for occultists that care solely about results obtained by believing in whatever it is they feel like because it is extremely dangerous and limiting to forget both the real word and its history. Humans are a part of it. Solipsistic delusions could yield results, but they are more likely to lead one to insanity.

[Great American Desert]

Helel as the Morning Star need necessarily be connected to Greek Fosforos and Latin Lucifer only inasmuch as Helel was a deification of Venus in the planet’s role as the herald of the dawn due, obviously, to its position in the sky as a result of its proximity to the Sun and the view of the planet from the Earth’s perspective. The specific reference to Helel in Isaiah be damned, there were indeed many references to the Morning Star in the Bible, particularly in reference to Jesus.

Now, the Morning Star is symbolic. Venus becomes visible just prior to dawn in its Morning Star phase (Venus as the Evening Star was viewed separately). This made Venus the icon of hope, ushering in the dawn. In terms of the superstitious agriculturists, Venus was a symbol of hope because its appearance brought news of the arrival of the nourishing Sun. When applied spiritually, however, it becomes much more symbolic and takes on a much more profound meaning. The darkness of night is representative of ignorance and oppression, whereas the dawn represents enlightenment and liberation. This enlightenment is made possible by the Morning Star, Lucifer, ushering in the dawn. Lucifer is the singular point by which we enter the new age of our enlightenment.

In the Christian mythos, Jesus would indeed be Lucifer in this strict sense. He is the Christian savior, bringing the light of salvation to a world in darkness. Of course, those in the Left Hand Path do not view Jesus as such, but the figure of Lucifer holds true. Many Gnostics drew parallels between the Serpent and Jesus, and some saw the two as having equally important roles for the defeat of ignorance, Jesus carrying on the work initiated by the Serpent. If you remove Jesus from the equation and look only at the myth of Eden, which in my personal opinion is the most profound, you will see the Serpent speaking to Eve, convincing her that if she partakes of the fruit, she will be as a god, knowing the secrets of the Universe. Eden rested comfortably under an imposed blanket of ignorance, and acquiring Knowledge was proscribed by God. This was the darkness of night. The Serpent was the Morning Star, acting as the herald of the light of Wisdom to come, presenting us with the option to pursue Knowledge or remain in ignorance. In this capacity, the Serpent of Eden was Lucifer to those whose shackles he aimed to break, and was Satan to he who imposed the shackles. This is the GNOSTIC perspective on the Lucifer/Satan connection, totally independent of the Helel/Isaiah fiasco, and it is more than valid. It is not solipsist theology, as Gnosis is a greater phenomenon than mere solipsism.

Gnosticism is indeed unorthodox, but another fine quality of the esoteric paths is that those who tread it do not need to value orthodoxy. Occultism isn’t for mere entertainment or petty kicks, but is about the genuine pursuit of knowledge that is not readily evident. The sensory world is not enough for us. Its explanations do not satisfy our greater questions, and we find the answers we seek by means of esoteric channels. And if you pursue these paths in a rigid, textbook manner and never achieve an alternate understanding as a result of being graced by Gnosis, then you have failed and your trek is in vain. And if you had found Gnosis, you would not argue in tones so stringent against another fellow of the LHP. We are educated, but book-based education only takes one so far.

Regarding being 'half right' about my comment on religious evolution: let's not misinterpret. Progression means 'movement', but does not have a preference for better or for worse, as these are relative terms. Even if humans evolve to lose our thumbs, it's still progression. It's still evolution, though it doesn't benefit us. There's technically no such things as devolution. Devolution is nothing more than a term based on one's bias for a particular step on the evolutionary path. If a new faith springs up, influenced by an already established faith, then it is a progression of this former faith, no matter if it appears to be a betterment or a destruction thereof. The more converts it brings in, the more it will adopt from the former faith, but it is not a deliberate copy any more than the English language is a deliberate copy of the many language groups from which its current state derives. It's basic cultural collusion and happens in all aspects of two societies coexisting. Even the former faith, if permitted to exist, will adopt some elements from the new faith eventually, whether it likes it or not.

I'm not saying this in defense of Judaism leeching off of Mesopotamian religion, or of Christianity leeching off Judaism and other surrounding contemporary religions, but because I do not believe that the idea is ever to plagiarize. I could be wrong in some cases, admittedly, but I disagree with the view that events are as cut-and-dry as the 'copying' explanation.

When I say “The concept of Lucifer, in my view, originates at the dawn of human intelligence, when we faced the schism of the barbaric, utilitarian mind and the higher, spiritual mind.”, I can understand why you’d raise an eyebrow to my use of the term utilitarian, although I do not think it was used improperly although informally. But I do not see how the statement is incorrect. Plarkenstorf’s “Kin selection would like a word with you”, makes me wonder if some of my statements are really understood. It was taken well out of context, and it’s clear that my intent was not grasped, or else the above quoted wouldn’t seem an appropriate thing to say. So I will explain a bit.

Man is animal. As an animal, survival is the base instinct. I do not believe in a sudden creation; I believe in evolution. If you believe in evolution, then you must see that early man was not capable of abstract thought to the extent that we are currently. So the early phases of man were instinct driven – they survived at any cost. They selected mates based on the maximum utility, as only those with the most powerful and efficient forms could survive. Leisure was yet to come. But in the course of human development, our minds evolved with a penchant for abstraction. And when the abstract capabilities surpassed the overbearing animal instincts, we had the option to pursue the many possibilities of our unique minds. This view of evolution is very Edenic in a way, as our evolution allowed us to choose higher knowledge, or to remain under the spell of Maya.

So the archetypal nature of the divine figures corresponds to celestial events, corresponding to symbolic representations of human dilemmas. As above, so below, in the greatest sense.

I hope this has clarified my point.

[Plarkenstorf]

Gnosticism is indeed unorthodox, but another fine quality of the esoteric paths is that those who tread it do not need to value orthodoxy. Occultism isn’t for mere entertainment or petty kicks, but is about the genuine pursuit of knowledge that is not readily evident. The sensory world is not enough for us. Its explanations do not satisfy our greater questions, and we find the answers we seek by means of esoteric channels.

The sensory world is all we have. Even trying to reach beyond it - we're trapped by our perceptions, no way around that.

And it was just the use of utilitarian in that context that threw me, thank you for clarifying.

I don't disagree with you either, though I'm not sure how seriously we can allow ourselves to take the occult when it's somewhat degraded from a malleable force into a set of analogies.

Though I do like the latter idea a lot.

[Great American Desert]

I don't think it's reduced when you see it as a set of analogies, when you apply the Hermetic adage, As Above, So Below; because you will see that the anaogies are parallels to greater realities, microcosm mirroring macrocosm, and so forth.

We are bound by the empirical and Maya. It is all that we have, but it is not all that exists. The goal of any spirituality, I think, is to try and attain understanding, by non-empirical means, of these higher realities. When you attain this understanding, there is no way to prove or quantify it, and as such every person's spirituality is forced to be subjective. There can never wholly be a consensus, and that's just something we're forced to accept. You can codify all you like, but there's no personal experience in accepting a codification as gospel. And if there's no personal experience, there's no point in the pursuit.

The Abrahamic faiths do the thinking for you. The Left Hand Path is one in which you have to do a certain degree of the navigating yourself.

I don't think I have read elsewhere - what is your background (this is to both of the other parties currently involved in this exchange)? I'm just curious if you are adherents to the Luciferian path.

[Plarkenstorf]

I don't think it's reduced when you see it as a set of analogies, when you apply the Hermetic adage, As Above, So Below; because you will see that the anaogies are parallels to greater realities, microcosm mirroring macrocosm, and so forth.

It's still very good when you see it as analogies, certainly.


We are bound by the empirical and Maya. It is all that we have, but it is not all that exists. The goal of any spirituality, I think, is to try and attain understanding, by non-empirical means, of these higher realities. When you attain this understanding, there is no way to prove or quantify it, and as such every person's spirituality is forced to be subjective. There can never wholly be a consensus, and that's just something we're forced to accept. You can codify all you like, but there's no personal experience in accepting a codification as gospel. And if there's no personal experience, there's no point in the pursuit.

There's a certain zen in being aware of the dichotomy of it being right or wrong, also being aware that treating it as a set of analogies solely means you also believe the occult is just mysticism, but also pursuing occult study because it might be true.

That is very awesome, and ironically quite scientific. I'm not going to be able to jump a hurdle and say there's no self delusion involved here, at least on some level.


The Abrahamic faiths do the thinking for you. The Left Hand Path is one in which you have to do a certain degree of the navigating yourself.

Not necessarily, albeit misguided, these are somewhat 'free' thoughts from Abrahamic thinkers, about their God, Pascal's Wager and the ontological argument for God's existence. The wager's pretty flawed, the ontological argument deserves a thread by itself, maybe. But they're both very interesting.

There is personal experience in accepting something as gospel, the irony of a strict belief in free thought is that no free thinker would willingly experience shackling their thoughts to various codices, thus not giving them much experiential grounding in RHP religion. Same experiential grounding as lots of empirical free thinkers supposedly live their lives by.

I'm not Lucifarian, I just like to discuss crap. How about you?

[Great American Desert]

It's true that an Abrahamic can ponder the many facets of their religion, but it is all within a predetermined framework. A Christian, if he wants to be devout, has to keep his wandering within the bounds of the Bible. Any questions he has about the world, he has to reconcile it with the Bible.

If you believe that Hell exists, then for you, it's not unreasonable to propose Pascal's Wager. The same logic seen in the Wager is applied in other fields and it's quite reasonable to do so. Take for instance global warming. There are many who do not believe it's occurring. Others believe it's occurring, but that we play no role in its progress. A logical approach to the problem is: if we are having an effect on the environment and the global temperature, then it is in the best interest of all to change our practices. If we change our practices, but the underlying fact is that we have no effect on global temperatures, then at the very worst, we have disciplined ourselves to the point that we are no longer inject harmful chemicals into the environment. It's a win-win situation.

The world is gray, even if we tend to see it in black and white.

I am a Luciferian.

[Mirfalan]

I read both your responses, GAD. I see that most of our disagreement stemmed from miscommunication. I still that, intentional or not, that most religions and belief systems are quite similar to one another. It is obvious when one religious text will refer to the symbolism of the doctrine of another practice. This is why I do not bind myself to one of them. I think they are all getting at one objective truth, but in a different manner. That is how I feel, and that is why I am an empiricist. I do not expect to discover a truth in its pure form because it is obviously way beyond my realm of comprehension. Like everyone else, I am going to have to experience such forces and entities through symbols. Since I do not want to pigeonhole myself into one category, I am creating my own philosophy that I can change as I grow; although I think certain parts of me, such as my attraction to certain aesthetics, which affects the appearance of my deities, will not change. Anyway, the point is, I will use aspects of myths that I feel hit something upon something true, or at least less false, to create my belief system.


I don't think I have read elsewhere - what is your background (this is to both of the other parties currently involved in this exchange)? I'm just curious if you are adherents to the Luciferian path.

I have experience with the LHP under LaVeyan Satanism. I know that it is quite different from Luciferianism. I just wanted to post something because I feel discussion is healthy. Plus, I was curious about Luciferianism. I still do not know if Lucifer is taken literally or treated as an allegorical myth. As for my other background, I dabbled in Wicca, Asatru, and Traditional Witchcraft before I realized that I was only going to learn something by creating my own path based on the in my opinion successful aspects of other belief systems.

[Plarkenstorf]

It's true that an Abrahamic can ponder the many facets of their religion, but it is all within a predetermined framework. A Christian, if he wants to be devout, has to keep his wandering within the bounds of the Bible. Any questions he has about the world, he has to reconcile it with the Bible.

Ach, sir, zealotry can apply to LHP and be just as stifling. Although the stiflement is more subtle.

[Mirfalan]

Ach, sir, zealotry can apply to LHP and be just as stifling. Although the stiflement is more subtle.

Any path that is not customized for the individual by said individual can be stifling, unless a codified path somehow fits the individual like a glove. Then what happens if the individual grows or changes?

[Plarkenstorf]

Badgers come up from Hell and mess with your head. It is the only logical conclusion.

But seriously, even applying a label to your own belief system for something other than convenience can be.

I answer to your question, they can either change their belief system and retain their old definition, somehow. (No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman))

Or they reject their previous belief system and form a new one.

[Mirfalan]

But seriously, even applying a label to your own belief system for something other than convenience can be [stifling].

Yes, that is true. I have thought of a label to apply to my belief system to keep things organized and for the sake of communication. How would we communicate without words, at least in our current evolutionary state? Oh, I suppose we could draw pictures, but that gets a bit inconvenient.

[Great American Desert]

Any path that is not customized for the individual by said individual can be stifling, unless a codified path somehow fits the individual like a glove. Then what happens if the individual grows or changes?

Given the unlikelihood that some pre-established path or system works holistically for somebody, I always recommend personal interpretations of as much information as a person can absorb.

I've formulated a path of my own, based on intuitive revelation gathered over time, and I have established this path, articulated it and am even formulating everything from the bottom up from the general temple atmosphere to the priestly order. I don't consider it my own - more like a gift from greater spirits that work well through my hand. In fitting in with the topic at hand, my philosophy meshes well with Luciferian thought, firmly rooted in Ophitic theology, a pagan appreciation of the Universe, a respect for reasonable scientific progress and Satanic trappings - with a good deal of Hindu spiritual philosophy to boot. Funny enough, I don't consider it at all a hodge-podge, but rather as a fusion of truths from many of the world's systems.

[Mirfalan]

Stuff about my personal belief system...

That does sound interesting. I am doing a similar thing. I am making a mostly unique philosophy that takes things from both science and empirical occultism. It is actually quite fun, but also a lot of work. The process is rather slow, too, especially since I have other writing to complete. Best of luck to you.

[Great American Desert]

Et tu, Mirfalan.

What else do you write?

[Sitra Ahra]

To add something to this, I also find that Sophia has a large part in Luciferian Philosophy. This idea happened to enter my mind when I was reading Kosmology by Jeremy Christner. Shortly after reading this piece of literature, it came upon me that Sophia had very much to do with Lucifer. I began scrying with this in mind and several unexplained feelings and visions came over me. The most unexplainable portion of this was the idea of the Akashic Field and the physical and mental state of mind I entered when falling into deep thought on this subject. Needless to say, it is something that has only forced me to grow since.

[Great American Desert]

To add something to this, I also find that Sophia has a large part in Luciferian Philosophy. This idea happened to enter my mind when I was reading Kosmology by Jeremy Christner. Shortly after reading this piece of literature, it came upon me that Sophia had very much to do with Lucifer. I began scrying with this in mind and several unexplained feelings and visions came over me. The most unexplainable portion of this was the idea of the Akashic Field and the physical and mental state of mind I entered when falling into deep thought on this subject. Needless to say, it is something that has only forced me to grow since.

Sitra Ahra,
I am the author of the aforementioned text, and you are correct. From my intuition I have found it to be true that Lucifer stemmed from Sophia; His intrusion into the Garden as the Serpent was the Will of Sophia. In essence, Lucifer is a terrestrial manifestation of Sophia, an incarnation.
I'm pleased that Kosmology has affected you in some positive way.
Ave Sophia