Is God Satan? Could everything we know about the Abrahamic faiths be backwards?

Originally posted by Grifter42
Here's my view, and it's a little bit crazy. Universe runs in cycles. It's turtles all the way down, electrons orbit proton planets. The big bang was a nuclear blast of a civilization far larger than ours destroying themselves. Next universe will be formed in whatever cataclysm destroys this one, and so on and so on.

um...yeah, problem with that is you would not know about the "Big Bang" until someone one told you.

This heresy is almost as old as Christianity. The Gnostic Marcionites believed that the God of the Old Testament was the Devil or Demiurge, and that the Jews really worshipped the Devil. This thought system (in the form of Manicheism) eventually made its way to France during the Middle Ages, among the Cathars, who would influence the Knights Templar, who in turn would influence the Rosicrucians and Freemasons. This is why the occult accepts Luciferianism - they misguidedly believe that they worship the good god of light, whilst the God the "profane" worship is actually the Demiurge who created the universe.

It's all a matter of point of view. HE said, HE said. One deity's word against another. It'd never hold up in a court of law. The only way to tell which one is the true devil is to observe who has the better lawyer.

reply to post by Grifter42


Pretty sad state of affairs isn't it? Especially when you can see it from both angles. I'm just gonna wait til death and then file a complaint with whoever's in charge...seriously. I'm not gonna spend my life here worried and stressing over following the rules of some random religion, just because I'm afraid of being wrong. That's no way to live!

reply to post by Malcher


Do you have any info on that stone?

Well besides being there myself, my husband who is from the region, also knows about the Cathars because it is a part of the history of that region! Just because you don't know about it because you are not from there doesn't mean they never existed!

en.wikipedia.org...
The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Catholic Church to eliminate Catharism in Languedoc. The Crusade was prosecuted primarily by the French and promptly took on a political flavour, resulting in not only a significant reduction in the number of practicing Cathars but also a realignment of Occitania, bringing it into the sphere of the French crown and diminishing the distinct regional culture and high level of Aragonese influence.
When Innocent III's diplomatic attempts to roll back Catharism[1] met with little success and after the papal legate Pierre de Castelnau was murdered, Innocent III declared a crusade against Languedoc, offering the lands of the Cathar heretics to any French nobleman willing to take up arms. The violence led to France's acquisition of lands with closer linguistic, cultural, and political ties to Catalonia (see Occitan).
The Albigensian Crusade also had a role in the creation a

www.catharcastles.info...

n the twelfth century a new religion took root in Europe which we know today as Catharism.

The Cathars were Gnostic Christians. They claimed that their beliefs and practices dated from the earliest Christian times, and predated the innovations of the Catholic Church - a claim that is now recognised by historians as substantially correct. They had survived in Persia and gradually travelled westwards through the Byzantine Empire, the Balkans and Italy to Western Europe.

The Catholic Church regarded Cathars as heretics. It was then a crime to disagree with Catholic theology and a capital crime if the disagreement was repeated.

Cathars appeared throughout Europe, but it was in the Languedoc that they flourished, becoming the majority religion in many places. After a series of failed attempts to convert them by preaching and debating, Pope Innocent III called a full scale crusade against them.

From 1208 a series of military campaigns were launched against the Cathars and their sympathisers, known together as the Albigensian Crusade from the erroneous idea that the Cathars were centred in the town of Albi.

The local nobility of the Languedoc, vassals of the King of Aragon, along with the rest of the local population, sided with the Cathars. As the crusade progressed, Cathars and their sympathisers took refuge in castles and fortified towns, often located on spectacular hill tops in the foothills of the Pyrenees. Many sieges and a few open battles were recorded in detail by three chroniclers.

After several generations of war the local lords were defeated and dispossessed by the (mainly French) Catholic crusaders. The Cathars were exterminated - burned alive by the hundred. The first Papal Inquisition ensured that there would be no re-emergence of the Cathar religion. Their castles fell into the hands of the victors, and the area was annexed to France.

The castles were reinforced or rebuilt or destroyed. Some were turned into Royal fortresses but after a few centuries the borders of France moved even further south to the Pyrenees and the Royal castles were no longer needed for border defences and were slighted.

Today you can visit many so-called Cathar Castles in the Languedoc. A few, such as Carcassonne, have been restored. Many others are spectacular, romantic and unbearably poignant. They are a major tourist attraction.

On the right at the top of the page is one of the most famous at Montségur. This was the Cathars' last real stronghold, which fell after 10 months of siege in 1244.

You can read more about the cathars, their beliefs, their history and their legacy at www.cathar.info

The Château de Puivert


The Château de Termes


Château de Lastours (Cabaret)





Most of the main "Cathar Castles" advertised to tourists as romantic vestiges of the Cathar period are no such thing. They are generally castles built by the French after the Cathar Crusade, and used to defend their new border with Aragon. These castles were slighted, or left to decay, after the Treaty of the Pyrenees in the seventeenth century. They are often built on the site of earlier castles occupied by vassals and allies of the Counts of Toulouse during the Cathar period.

Broadly there are five categories of "Cathar Castle".

Genuine Cathar Castles, advertised as Cathar Castles: There are very few of these, although you may find a few vestiges near to existing structures (eg castles at Peyrepertuse, and Puivert). Carcassonne probably has the best claim to be a Cathar Castle, followed by three quarters of Lastours (Cabaret).

Lat

reply to post by starsyren


what do i think? i think you are on the right path.

it's not so much 'god is actually satan', for you see that line of thought exists within the model and mindset created by the bible itself with the idea of what 'god' is and what 'satan' is.. ultimately, the elite power structure behind the scenes ( who clearly establish their polarity of existence with the left hand path, or put simply - these dudes are evil as #. ) created the bible texts and duped christianity into the 'religion for the slaves'. it encompasses spiritual retardation and suppresses logic beyond what is needed to be a functional enough host for parasitic spiritual beings.

what you will find in the bible, however, are interesting things like evidence of the great floods and small bits of occult significance, but ultimately you would need to be an initiate of some level in some society to understand these things. for the most part these religions are there to condemn the slave's mind, spirit and ( through government ) body.

so you post the question is 'god' actually 'satan'.



try this video to add for your search for answers and continue to be so inquisitive and critical would be my own advice.

If you want to be free of Satan all you have to do is stop listening to the churches that never shut up about it. They invented it, they go on endlessly about it to the point they give it more mileage than God's love. Examine what you are really learning from those churches. Are you being given an education in God or in Satan? Which one are they telling you more about?

Satan is part of Christianity. Christianity is not the only religion out there. Keep looking.

reply to post by starsyren


Judging from your avatar alone, I'm going to assume you're a woman. That being said......I think I'm in love

I think you're definitely on the right track. So much so in fact that I think your next stop is going to be spirituality. If you're not there already. Like you, I knew from an early age that religion was not for me. There were too many holes in their theories that were put in a book that was written by too many people claiming to speak for God. I was 8 years old when I relaized this and could not understand why the adults that were trying to teach me this didn''t see it also.

I too have questioned why there are so many wars started in the name of God and none in the name of Satan. It all seems very backwards to me, and your post helps put all of this into a very fresh and enlightening perspective. S&F for you. Good job.

If man is satan and there's no god then we're all doing the work of satan.

If god is satan and satan is god then must we conclude that satan is winning hte war?

And why do people kill innocents in the name of god or think that it's a good idea? And why do christians (or muslims or jews) assume that jews and islamists (or the OTHER two) are misled by satan (and may as well be considered -of- satan). Is all of this a cruel joke on us?

And you know when children/mothers/citizens/etc die in war (especially ones that were not carrying guns or directly participating in the war or opposing it), did we ever give them a choice? Did japanese children who died when we bombed their cities ever have a choice? What about the anti-war japenese who couldn't leave the cities for some reason?

Maybe we're wrong about most things. What if murderers just have a chemical imbalance? After all, is it rationale to kill someone else? Maybe, if you're extremely myopic in your viewpoint. Anybody that commits crime has to be very myopic or imbalanced to do it, imho. It doesn't make sense to kill others or cheat/steal/etc. But some people trick themselves into thinking it does. What if it's not even voluntary? Is it more acceptable to blame than to understand the truth? Sometimes truth prolongs loss and works against us in such a way to hurt us.

Obviously, when a crime is committed against us and there's no time to make a rationale and fair judgment, we're forced to defend ourselves on the spot. In the scuffle, others might get hurt. It can happen. So if I harm an innocent while attempting to defend myself from an assailant, am I a bad person? Am I selfish for wanting to preserve my life? What if my assailant is insane and/or not rationale? Who do I blame? I do want the assailant to be locked up because he/she is not reasonable enough to live freely in society, but I have no righteous feelings about it. I do not feel good about it. I do not feel hate or believe in my heart that they're evil. I simply see the world as a set of rules and I try to live within those rules the best I can, doing the least harm to others.

Some might consider me irrationale. I cannot accept war as it's most commonly fought. Too many innocents die. War is not comparable to justice. War is too sloppy. War is hell. Bombs and bullets are too indiscriminate. Arguably, war is necessary sometimes. We defended ourselves when japan attacked pearl harbor as it was an existential threat. There was little choice. Although, I would have liked to be there to end it as soon as possible. Some would feel I was being weak and bowing to the japanese, but I think that some bowing is necessary when faced with the prospects of what war is. I think we commit ourselves to war too freely. I cannot help how I feel about this. When we entered into Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example, I was against it. I was not convinced that if we avoided war, Saddam would have done more harm to people than if we had not. I am not convinced by these arguments because they're too subjective. We cannot observe other realities so we cannot say that the earth is better now than it might have been. We paid a great price to rid Iraq of Saddam, and I don't think we can ever know for sure what would have happened had we not invaded Iraq but instead kept the pressure on him.

Part of it's this notion that we must be strong and give hte impression of strength to others. This is something that men learn from a young age. You see it everywhere as you grow up. We see something very similar in adults. Could it be that we fight wars sometimes to give the impression of strength to others? So we sacrifice innocent lives at the altar of ourselves such that our enemies might cower in fear? Can this need to appear strong impede our judgment? I imagine this is not the only way we can fight wars for the wrong reasons. Another thing we might do is fight them to attain access to material wealth. This is another common denominator in life. We all know the powerful draw of money and influence. I do not think all wars are fought for the wrong reasons, but I do think some of them are. I also think we're too prejudice to be universally fair.

In essence, how can you make a communist make peace with a capitalist and vice versa without combining them? How can one fight the other without adopting some of its enemies tactics? Indelibly, a global culture is going to mix. There's no way to retain our prejudices without adopting new ones or changing the ones we have. Might this cause violent overreactions?

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


Right there with ya bud, I got kicked outta Sunday school at 13yrs old simply for asking questions. (Because I questioned, I had no faith, and church was for the faithful, etc) I actually started pickin at that idea after a devout Penacostal friend of mine had posted something on FB about the Great Deception being Satan convincing the world that he didn't exist. I thought, "I think of a Greater Deception, not convicing us that he wasn't real...but convincing us that he was God". Would that not fit the description of a Deception that would decieve all the world, even the elect? People believing in the lie as truth and the truth as a lie, as it says in the Bible.

And why would "God" blatantly state that we would see the truth for a lie and vice versa, and then expect us to be able to sort it out, or spend eternity in damnation? The whole eternal damnation thing never sat well with me. In fact, it's what got me bounced from church in the first place. I'd asked my pastor, "If Jesus said that a lifetime on earth is but the blink of an eye in Heaven, why is our eternity determined on the actions we take in that blink of an eye??"
Doesn't quite sound like actions of a loving, all-compassionate god now does it?

"GOD" AND "LIFE AFTER DEATH" (AND "HEAVEN" AND "HELL" ENERGY REALMS) REALLY DO EXIST PERIOD!

"GOD" IS BOTH "HEAVEN" AND "HELL" COMBINED INTO "ONE"

"THE ABOVE ALL EXIST" WITHOUT ANY NEED FOR "RELIGIONS" OR "FAITH"!

FOR "YOU" ARE THE "ONE GOD".

God wanted to keep adam and eve locked in a garden; satan wanted them to have knowledge like the gods.

God kills many nonbelievers; satan kills no one but tempts jesus with money, jesus refuses and satan leaves him alone.

God kicked his first born out of eden and flooded his creation, satan has never destroyed the world.

So yeah, I think you got it.

However the true god is simply knowledge and freedom and not idol worship.

Originally posted by LunaKat
If you want to be free of Satan all you have to do is stop listening to the churches that never shut up about it. They invented it, they go on endlessly about it to the point they give it more mileage than God's love. Examine what you are really learning from those churches. Are you being given an education in God or in Satan? Which one are they telling you more about?

Satan is part of Christianity. Christianity is not the only religion out there. Keep looking.

Probably depends on the Church/Religion. But you have a point...and there is a reason behind it: To have power and control over others, FEAR is a powerful tool. I don't think that a *real* church/religion needs fear to work.

And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that upon which we found our fathers." Even if Satan was inviting them to the punishment of the Blaze? - Q, 31:20

This is no new religion, I don't think so anyway. I'm pretty sure that this is along the lines of Satanism; that satan was the good guy and god was the bad guy.

From reading the bible (especially the OT), it would make more sense. God creates humans but does not give them the ability of logic and reasoning, or the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong; satan comes along and fixes that - gives them the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, and what happens? They all get punished for it. Who would even do that?

Then you could also take into account the atrocities committed either by god or from the command of him (dash the children against the rocks.jpg is one example, of many)

Note: this is not my view point; I don't believe that the bible is a reputable piece of literature and I don't believe in god either.

reply to post by Griffo


The Satan-God fall out has its origins in the far older Sumerian story of what happened between Enlil and Enki. And you don't need to go near a Sitchin book to read the story. Enlil would be the Jehovah character and Enki would be Satan. Enki was the friend of mankind, Enlil was not so keen on us and wanted us wiped out. There seemed to be alot of infighting between the different Annunaki factions - there you have your "fallen angel" origins, as one group (Enki and followers) rebelled against the higher command (Enlil and co) . An awful lot of the genesis story was basically ripped off from the Sumerian texts, so perhaps one needs to start with the Sumerian stuff to get an even better picture of what might have be going on.

But sure, the Jehova ("God") character is just an evil b-stard. He'd be on trial for war crimes against humanity in this era. He was on the level with Hitler, Pol Pot, Gadafi, etc...just a dictatorial tyrant hell bent on imposing his will on the world . He was one of many other "gods" around at the time looking for followers , it just so happens he got more press than the others .

PS) In an awful lot of ancient texts the so called "gods" were mentioned as flying around the skies in marvellous machines with fantastic weapons. This fact needs to be included in the bigger picture when trying to get a handle on who we are dealing with . I really recommend this book. Expensive but an absoute treasure of research you just won't find anywhere else. I treated myself to it a couple of years ago

The Shining Ones, by Christian and Barbara O'Brian

reply to post by cosmicpixie


Good god, woman...THHAAANNKK YYYOOUUU!!!

*applause*

I'm at work right now so I didn't have time to read the entire thread so I apologize if someone else has covered what I'm about to say.

You're definitely on the right track but I think some further study would help clear things up for you a bit more. God isn't Satan exactly, "satan" simply means adversary and isn't necessarily evil as we see in the story of Job.

You need to research the concept of the Demiurge. To sum it up as basically as I can, the demiurge is like a god, for all intents and purposes, but is not the final, ultimate creator of all existence. The demiurge has often been called "The God of Earth", or "Rex Mundi" the King of the Earth. The demiurge created Earth and our physical form but not our true spiritual existence.

We can see evidence of Yahweh being the demiurge in the fact that the true God, the creator of all existence, is entirely immaterial and unmanifest. This means that the true creator would not manifest on Earth in any physical form. We do, however, see Yahweh manifest in various forms such as pillars of smoke and fire or a burning bush. We also find, in Genesis, that Yahweh has a bit of a physical existence in the Garden of Eden along with Adam and Eve.

The Eden story is of particular note because it is so consistently misinterpreted. Adam and Eve were created, basically, as pets and were essentially imprisoned in the garden. While they may have had the inherent capacity for free will, Yahweh kept them bound in ignorance to help prevent them from enacting this free will. This meant that Adam and Eve had no other choice but to obey Yahweh, to worship him and praise him. This is why they were forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

The serpent, nahash, helped to free Adam and Eve from this bondage by helping them gain knowledge. This elevated them above the original purpose for their creation. God was angered that his pets had advanced themselves and was afraid that they would eat from the tree of immortality. With knowledge and immortality, Adam and Eve would have become gods as well. This is why Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden.

We find further proof of this interpretation when we understand that the number assigned to nahash, through gematria, is the same as the number assigned to the word for "messiah".

What you're talking about is a really long and complex idea and I don't have the time, or space, to explain it all right now. You're on the right track though. A lot of the information you're looking for can be found in the Bible but you mustn't read it based on the interpretations promoted by someone else.

The Bible is for "those with ears to hear and eyes to see".

reply to post by Shadowflux


Thanks for your post! I don't know if you checked out the link I sited in the OP (since you're at work), but it's from armageddonconspiracy.co.uk. I only mention this because you sound as though you've done a fair bit of reading there yourself

I probably should have clarified in my original post, that what I mean when I say "God" and "Satan", I'm referring to who the Bile...sorry, "Bible" would have us believe is God/Yaweh and Satan the Accuser. Not the epitomes of good and evil or light and darkness themselves. MY God, is that immaterial all-Creator. Not some ancient Hebrew storm-god with a penchant for war....skip forward a few pages, our bad, he's actually a loving and all compassionate white guy in a robe.

I feel like the Bible has been twisted in such away as to give it's reader a huge case of mistaken identity, billions of souls following what the pretty words tell them is the right guy.

reply to post by starsyren


I've actually never heard of the website you mentioned in your OP, I've arrived at my own beliefs and understanding through independent research over the course of many years. I took a quick look at the site, however, and I feel that some of what they say may be true but I feel some of their interpretations and conclusions are a bit mistaken and possibly naive. I could go on for quite some time but this would be off topic and this thread is possibly not the best place for this discussion.

What you're getting at is a very deep and powerful realization. It isn't always pleasant, but the truth is objective and is not meant to make anyone feel a certain way.

The idea that there is "good" and "evil" is a naive falsehood. There is no good and evil, there are simply opposing aspects which are free from any system of morals. There is construction and destruction, but neither is more "good" nor "evil" than the other one. Often times, something must be destroyed before something better can be created. Conversely, something detrimental can be constructed once something beneficial has been destroyed. All of existence is a cycle of birth, death and rebirth. The previous state of the universe was destroyed to create the current state (Big Bang Theory). This concept of destruction and creation relates to our own individual existence in many ways.

What we find in the story of the expulsion from Eden is that man lost the paradise and bliss that was Eden but gained freedom. This can be akin to a young adult living at home with their parents. Things may be easier, much is provided for them, but they lack any true freedom. Once they have moved out and live on their own, life may be a bit harder but they are truly free to do as they wish. Once man was expelled from Eden he faced the harsh world of reality. This world, however, was one of potentiality, it had the potential to be anything that man wished to make of it.

In order for us, as individuals, to truly be free, to think for ourselves and understand our existence, we must do away with false interpretations and misconceptions. Much of the information we are fed about life, the world and our purpose here is specifically designed to keep us in ignorant servitude. We must destroy that person which we were when we existed under ignorance and create a new person who is both free and knowledgeable (enlightened or illuminated). Once we have done this we can begin to become gods in our own right, shaping our destiny and the world in which we live.

Contrary to what religions will tell us, "God" does not have a purpose for us. The true God, that immaterial, ever present force, is somewhat removed from us and has very little concern for what we do in this physical manifestation. God is not anthropomorphic, God is not like man, God does not have opinions nor does God make judgements. Man exists simply to exist, it is up to each of us to choose a purpose and to succeed in this goal. We have, each of us, the potential to become much more than most people believe.

There is no right and wrong, "good" or "evil", there is simply our existence in this form and what we wish to do with our time in this incarnation. The highest "good" that a person can do is seek to better themselves as individuals, to gain knowledge, amplify their abilities, hone their skills and use these tools to shape their own destiny. This is very individualistic, however, and seeking to live "for the good of all" is merely a detriment and a hindrance to the advancement of the individual.

This is why religion has, so consistently, focused on things such as altruism, "good" and "evil" and "God's will". Religion is for the masses, for those too scared, ignorant or basically useless to better themselves as individuals. The goal of religion, and so many other movements, is to obliterate the individual and absorb them into a group. This group denies one the right to think, act and live as they see fit. Accepting this absorption into a group means that you have given up your own free will and have denied yourself the right to become more than you are.

When you say that the "God" of the Bible is "evil" I would agree with you and say that this is true in the sense that these are complex concepts which help us better understand our existence. I do not, as other theistic people do, believe that Yahweh, Satan, Lucifer or Adam and Eve are real entities, they are mythology and, as such, are representations of concepts that are meant to be interpreted. I do not believe that "The Devil" put on a wig and fake beard and started calling himself "God" but I do believe that there is something which seeks to suppress our advancement and to obliterate our individuality pretending to be good.

This hidden "evil" can be found in many things that are supposed to be "good".