Thread: A question about Luciferians?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Great American Desert

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Plarkenstorf

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?

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)

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

Originally Posted by Plarkenstorf

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.

Originally Posted by Mirfalan

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.