Difference in Light.

I would also like to point out that if a person comes to a forum to get questions answered instead of going to a source that is specific to their curiosity, then they are allowing their question to be subjected to various interpretations on what they are looking for, unless they are very specific in their wording outlining exactly what they want to know in regards to views, beliefs, time frame etc.

With this in mind, if one asks what a Satanist is or their beliefs and one person takes it as they want to get to the true meaning of what it would mean to be a Satanist, another views it as they want to know what most people talk about what is meant to be a Satanist in today's age and yet another assumes they want to know what the beliefs and views are of a Satanist that has follow practices of a religion, based on the interpretation of many conditioned people who can't or haven't taken the time to interpret it for themselves, from the Biblical Stories gathered together know as The Bible, you

will likely get at least three different answers. A problem we run into now is that all of the views, information, beliefs and specific points of all of the people answering could be right.

It was my point above that I was going off from my interpretations of what I thought most persons asking similar questions about Satanism. When I am asked what something is or the meaning of something, I first go back as far as possible to understand the true meaning of the words involved so that I can understand the meaning before history and people trying to change or taint things got the chance to alter the meaning. Once I understand the meaning I research the history of the people with that belief all the way up until present day. I then take the knowledge of the basics and go on my journey to live the path as true as possible and experience and learn with the least amount of outside influences to pull me off my path by way of I'll intentions or ignorance of others.

So when I am asked or give my thoughts and beliefs on a subject I point out what I believe and have experienced and draw from my well earned wisdom from walking the path myself. It may very well be completely different from others that read someone else's beliefs on a website and choose to impart that knowledge but both can be right while holding different beliefs.

Of the Satanists that I have met, except for two, the above posts of mine is a decent representation of the beliefs and views of all of them, including myself. I went on my own journey based on the earliest meaning of Satan and followed it up to present time to understand everything and how all of the different views and beliefs came to be. I then went back to the earliest meaning, which is "Truth", read and meditated on the beliefs of everything of the original meaning and went on my path to clear my mind of everything I knew or had thought was true, opened my mind to all possibilities and learned my own truths. I acquired my own beliefs along the way and continue to keep my mind open to learn.

If you want to tell others about the kinds of Satanists that differ from the Satanists that I'm talking about, by all means do so. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that from those I have met and my own personal long journey, these are my beliefs and my opinion of the views and beliefs on the kind of Satanists that I am referring to.

-Tonkor

And if a person submits their opinion as though it is historical truth in a forum without reference or citation they can expect this statement to be fact-checked.

Your beliefs were not countered. You can believe whatever you want and describe them however you care to. That's fine by me.

However your description of the word Satanism and its origins was entirely false. This is not a statement about your beliefs. It is a statement about your facts. And this is what I discussed, and I'm not terribly certain why it resulted in a lengthy tirade defending the representation of your beliefs.

But while we're on the topic, the way you have represented your beliefs here rather encompasses my experience of most satanists as well. While many who call themselves such seek fact and truth and do their own thing, many instead regurgitate some falsified history and then, when confronted with the facts regarding this history, ramble on at length about the legitimacy of their beliefs.

First of all, the Hebrew definition and context of the word Satan in the Bible proves that it is any person that is in opposition to the church or their beliefs, so therefore, there were Satanists before the Bible came out, they were known and known as a Satan, or Satanist just by not going along with what the churches beliefs were.

If you read what I wrote I mentioned that the Bible was in Hebrew and gave the meaning for the word Satan in Hebrew... which made my point in the first place.

There are just as many websites and people that say that Satan was derived from the Sanskrit word Satnam. And most languages learn other words in a different language from hearing another person from a different language talk, and the words loose syllables as they are passed on. I highly doubt there were people in ancient times worried about how one language spelled a word and meaning when they heard it when their language used different characters. They just spelled out what they heard. There was no internet for someone to jump on and fact check someone to see how it looks in a different language... they would have had to learn the language the old fashion way and learn how to read it... then write it in there own language so why do the characters of if the different ways to spell it matter? Words from one language to another is almost always transfered by verbal communication and written in their own language as they hear it.

In both cases, the Satan word meaning truth and the biblical Hebrew meaning advesary, point out that a Satan was only a truth seeker or an adversary of the Church, which was defined and pointed out by the Bible itself, and concludes that there must have been satanists before the Bible came out or there would be no such word or definition of the word Satan in the Bible to begin with.

You can fact check me, I'm totally OK with it. I will admit if i feel i am wrong or proven wrong... Im not perfect and certainly dont know everything. Its funny that others only fact check their opponents points and never their own. Did you fact check if there are reliable scorces proving yourself wrong first or just try to find a source to prove me wrong? You can find just as much to support the belief that Satan came from satnam than you can to dispell it. OK.. the language written out of the two don't look the same... its a verbal exchange in which things change a bit in the translation. The fact that it sounds similar to someone of a different tongue and that's how it would be repeated, Sanskrit is an older language along with the word being derived from a serpent meditation practice and Satan and the serpent are related in the bible seems like it might be more than a coincidence, especially given the history of how the Bible came to be and its history of distorting stories or using much symbolism within the story.

In response to the grand conspiracy of the Bible, I ask you this: When a Pagan Romin leader decides to miraculously turn to a Christian durning the very violent reign of the Christian movement into Rome, held a meeting to decide on a religious basis for him to change his land to after being a life long Pagan, and left out all of the texts found in the dead sea scrolls along with dozens of others, only leaving in things that benefit the church and government with fear and having to go to the church and pay you money to show appreciation to the Lord and then burnt any texts they found that wasn't in the Bible.... does that sound like it was anything BUT a conspiracy to control religion?? To top it off... after that, anyone who didn't follow the Church, didn't convert or worshiped more than one Diety or God was said to be a Satanist (a person in opposition to the church) and was often punished with death. Nah.... that doesn't sound like control of the masses or a conspiracy at all ::dripping with sarcasm::

What title of mine should I change? I will consider it if I can be persuaded that I might have mislabeled myself even a little bit. I have found that the view of oneself is often different than what others think of you. Its a chance to reflect upon yourself and of personal growth.

While we seem to disagree and be of different mindsets, I would like to thank you for your comments and knowledge. I look forward to your response.

-Tonkor

I'm not sure if you've realized this yet, but all religion begins as spiritual belief and evolves into political control if it grows large enough. *shrug* No vast surprises there. I'm well past my angsty "Oh my god the Church lied!" phase.

That being said, the creation of the bible and leaving out the various texts of the apocryphal was somewhat of a logical process. Most of the books that are within the apocryphal are somewhat outlandish, date from even further from the time of Christ than the actual gospels (none of which were actually written during the time of Christ either... but that's a whole different can of worms), or otherwise offer accounts that couldn't possibly have been from eyewitnesses and other such individuals of authority. Some books were clearly left out for political reasons... But you could arguably say that this is the very same reason that modern satanists bend history to try to say that the word Satan comes from Sanskrit originally, rather than Hebrew. Politics.


Every site I could find referring to Satan as having a sanskrit origin was a Satanist site. Every site that described the two words together that had no religious affiliation, however, described the two languages as being very distinct. Yes, I looked. Yes, I find rather reliable sources. Yes, I found rather unreliable sources. I differentiated between the two before I determined the validity of your statement. Like I said originally - the post was interesting. Unfortunately, it was wrong.


While Sanskrit is a very old language, so is Hebrew. They grew up alongside each other. Chums from different mothers. They picked up similar sounds off of one another, and influenced one another in small ways, but the bottom line is this:

The Sanskrit version is two words or multiple vowel sounds. If you try to squeeze the word Satan into it, you can, but you can only do so by ignoring the remainder of the syllables/pronunciation.

All of the sites and sources that I've found claiming that this is the origin of the word Satan are influenced by spiritual satanism with stories that seem to bend history to suit its needs.

Admittedly, I may have spoke hastily suggesting a change of title. I grow frustrated with the propaganda I frequently see regarding satanism that attempts to define it as an ancient religion. I meant that the word "Satanist" should perhaps be reconsidered for yourself, as a seeker of truth. As, from what I can find, the word "Satanist" itself only dates back to the protestant reformation, wherein it was used to describe Protestants rebelling against the church.

Though, perhaps, that in itself may suit you. That's up to you.

You make valid points and as this conversation comes to an end, it seems we agree more than disagree on most things and I vale your opinions.

Regarding the actual word "Satanists", I agree that it wasn't used until much later on, however, I was only trying to note that since the context of there being persons mentioned before and in the Bible who were known as a Satan would suggest that a group would then be referred to as "Satanists". I may have been mislead by bad research that would cause me to be wrong on the original origins of the word "Satan", however, I didn't get it from a Santanist website. There are several sources that I double checked with by searching "Origin of word Satan, Satnam" that included references:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_word_Satan
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/24/messages/516.html
http://astarothsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/satan-in-sanskrit/ (I think this is another site I came upon, not knowing what the site was about.)

I tried to research the original origin of the word and get a sense of what might the true nature of being a Satanist was. Along with other things I was reading I drew my own conclusions by from my research, what made the most sense and what felt right to me. I may have over reached too far on the origins of the word because it seemed to make sense when you think of it in terms of symbolism, the fact that they would consider the faith to be an adversary and the fact that the word is similar and is also known as serpent meditation, which fits along with the story in the Bible.

To the point that some of the texts left out were outlandish and didn't flow with the rest of the texts, I concur. However, I believe that they should have been available to those who wish to read and judge for themselves what is true/gospel and what isn't, instead of destroying all copies of anything that they didn't agree with. Knowledge is power and the more they destroy what they don't want us to read, the more power they gain over us being able to know about history, events and possibly what could be important spiritual information.

In regards to religions starting as a spirituality, turning to a religion and, if it gets power enough, I agree that any religion could and would be used as a tool and cause violence. Its because of HOW religion is misused by those that use it as a tool for power, corruption, control, war etc that I don't like religions, in addition to texts, stories and actual events being altered, misleading to the original context or omitted completely. I am not against the ideas behind the religions, only the politics that stem from it. And it really doesn't matter to me where the Satan word stems from, the meaning and context in the Bible itself is plenty enough to prove my point... it is just an interesting thought and the fact that it is a "serpent" meditation is interesting to me and calls to the conspiracy theorist in me. I'm well past "the Bible lied to me!" phase too, but I used those facts to make my point that Satan was taken out of context in the way that it was allowed to be read... although it was much later that it was misinterpted and used as Satan was a evil fallen angel with superpowers that wants only to corrupt humankind. Even the word Lucifer has been taken way out of context and the original meaning has been lost, allowingthe word Satan, devil and Lucifer to be made into an evil monster that people worship if they went against the church in any way. Its all crap and its frustrating that such things are still so widely believed in this age of unlimited information at your fingertips in an instant.

As for me changing my label, this is the only time I have spoken out about my Satanist path, however, I do profess to be on a path of truth/seeker of thruth . I would consider not saying it or professing it but I consciously put forth much effort in trying to get to the bare bones truth of things... whether I have failed or not, I feel as long as I accept that I have yet found the truth after being proven wrong, don't let my pride get in the way of continuing the journey to truth and continue to seek, I am still a seeker of truth. Just because someone had a belief that something is true and learned that he was not right doesn't mean that he isn't a seeker of truth, especially if he accepted his previous thoughts as being wrong and continued to seek. It only means that he realized that he has more to learn and has grown from the experience.

::shrugs:: It makes sense in my head... but I could be wrong about everything! lol

-Tonkor

Oh, and I don't believe there was a cult of Satanists who called themselves Santanists before the Bible, but its heavily enriched with symbolism and so given the fact that it was mentioned many times in the Bible about people thatbwere considered a Satan or Lucifer (Satan-advarsary Lucifer-bringer of light/enlightenment) in which is it said that they tried to get Christian followers to "eat from the tree of knowledge", lead astray those from the path of the church and so on, that there were those who tried to help others that had been conditioned and lied to by the church. Given that these people were labeled as a Satan I would say that there were Satanists before the Bible, just not in the terms most think of. They didn't call themselves Satanists but the actions of those under the label or a Satan or Lucifer, would collectively be considers Satanists by the church. Its the actions, intentions and symbolism of the persons labled as Sat ants that I draw my meaning and logic of the origins of Satanists from.

-Tonkor

What I had gathered from those sources (and I had referenced them as well before forming my opinion) was that they were Satanists who were regurgitating information that they had found on other Satanist sites. I can't say it conclusively, so I have generally refrained, but most of the exploration of the Sanskrit origin of the word seems to stem directly from The Joy of Satan, which typically (again to my experience) seems to make up history as they see fit.

Otherwise, like you said, I can see the validity in much of what you said. Thank you for partaking of an amiable debate despite my tendencies to come off as rather abrasive.

I can accept that the references to the Sanskrit origin could very well be Satanists making up what they want, although I don't really see the point in it. I thought it was just fitting and interesting along with maybe being able to shed some understanding on a few things to answer some symbollically related things within the Bible. I dont even know if other Sayanists made the same connections that I had or if they make the point for other reasons. It would just bring light to some of the symbolism in the Bible and bring in a deeper meaning to the word Satan (truth) but it wouldn't by any means prove that there was a group calling themselves Satanists from long ago by any means. The word was just a label to those who didn't conform to the church that tried to help those who they believed were being conditioned and buffaloed by the church... which proves that there were like minded folks before the Bible with the same intention regarding their goals and path.... but the actual label of "Satanist", I highly doubt, was accepted by those it was given to until much later after the Bible came out.

So, in conclusion, I reiterate the point I have tried to make all along that the intent, goals and symbolism of the like minded folks known in the Bible as being a Satan (adversary of the Church) must have existed or the Bible would not talk about them, but that they didn't have an organized group who called themselves Satanists until much later after the Bible as well as making my point that the persons who were referred to as a Satan was not a fallen arch angel nor were they worshipping any sort of evil entity or evil in any way... they were simply persons in opposition to the churches ways, beliefs and politics, which outlines my argument what I believe in the true meaning of being a "Satanist".

I hope I have argued my point honorably, sensibly, with solid facts and that my thoughts and beliefs are clearly represented and understood that I am not representing or referring to the Satanists that worship a fallen angel, nor a light bearer/bringer of light... they have much different roots than those I outline in my previous posts.

This conversation has been a pleasure (mostly;) for me and the abrasiveness shows a true desire for trying to keep people from spreading bad information and proves that you are willing to stick up for what you believe in and set others straight.... it can be thought of as abrasive or be admired by others as a willingness to take the precious time to fight for the truth as you know it to be. I admire you and have respect for you for doing so.

I look forward to other posts that you partisapate in. Maybe our next encounter won't be as long, drawn out and confrontational lol ;o)

-Tonkor