posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:43 PM
Originally posted by JoshNorton
Interesting. I'll have to give that further investigation. But even then, by extension, one could argue that the higher God created
the subordinate, right? There would still be "one above all others" as it were? (Not often you come across a system of separate beings with equal
omnipotence...) I'd be careful on the whole "Satan and/or Lucifer" bit, though. A learned scholar such as yourself would recognize the translation
errors that suppose any equivalency.
Originally posted by articulus
reply to post by JoshNorton
Not to fly completely off-topic, but there are some faiths and viewpoints that arguably do claim such. Certain gnostic texts have put forth the notion
of the world's creation by a flawed demiurge, subordinate to the true God; the same demiurge is referred to in Christianity and Islam as Satan and/or
[edit on 9/28/2009 by JoshNorton]
Regarding the latter, you're certainly correct on the Satan-Lucifer problem, and I should have been more cautious with my phrasing. MasonicLight
explained the Gnostic example better than I did, in any case, and I will gladly defer to him on that subject. The larger point remains, and is perhaps
better illustrated by the Yazidi example: the problem with perception. The same deity, by two different philosophies, can be viewed by one as good and
by another as evil.
To your first point, if the Creator creates a flawed being, which in turn creates our flawed universe, whom do we worship, and who is ultimately
supreme? I can conceive of a "Creator" that is not the same as the "Architect." That's not necessarily what I believe, but I think it's an
interesting line of thought. I suppose I'm only trying to say that just because Satanists do not have any theology regarding Satan as Creator does
not exclude the possibility that someone could.
And so (to bring it a little closer to the topic vis a vis Freemasonry), if one did believe such, and wanted to become a Freemason, he could surely do
so with a clean conscience and not ever be spoken to about it by his brethren following his initiation. Is that correct?