The Goat is known to all of us through the ancient scienc

The Goat is known to all of us through the ancient science of Astrology first developed by the Chaldeans, or as they are commonly known; Babylonians. The Goat symbolizes male fertility, and is known, to even those who peruse the daily astrology columns of the local newspaper, as representing the astrological sign of Capricorn; Dec. 22 to January 22. Capricorn is a combination of both a Goat and and a fish. According to J.E.. Cirlot in his Dictionary of Symbols; this dual aspect refers to the dual tendencies of life towards the abyss ( or water) " or chaos of the beginning of time, and " the heights or mountains " or order and malkuth (the earth) as symbolized by the goat aspect.

In fact the very same Babylonians who gave us this symbol of Capricorn and the science of Astrology were the first Temple builders, and the goat for them symbolised the essence of the Temple or Lodge. An animal usually found climbing in the mountains. Thus from the first ziggurats to the Temple of Solomon even to later Churches the Goat was seen as symbol of Man striving to reach God through his building of Temples that represented mountains. Since in all religions Gods abode is symbolized by mountains.
- Liber Capricornus, The Symbolism of the Goat, by Eugene W. Plawiuk

When truth is communicated directly

"When truth is communicated directly, without requiring any effort from the recipient, it will not leave a lasting impression, for most human beings live day by day and are not capable of forming their own opinions ".
- Jacques Huyghebaert, Silence, Symbols and Secrets of Freemasonry

we should remember that the truly religious man will not be worried

...we should remember that the truly religious man will not be worried to enquire whether the Bible, the Coran or the Vedas, etc. have a historical value or fully match the findings of scientific research.

Nor will he waste his time trying to discover documents and other evidence concerning the birth, life and death of Moses, Christ or Muhammed.

The true believer will instead base his religious conduct on faith. He will concentrate his reflections on the spiritual and moral teachings of his religion, and make use of them as the guide and rule in his life.
- Jacques Huyghebaert, Introduction to the Higher Degrees of Freemasonry

I find it interesting that during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church actually

I find it interesting that during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church actually prevented lay people from reading the Bible. In fact, possession of a Bible written in the vernacular was a crime punished by burning at the stake. The Church maintained that only it was fit to receive the "Word". Consequently, it tried and fairly successfully maintained its' status as sole spiritual authority for a thousand years.
- Roderick W. Marling, CHRISTIANITY 101

To the point, the verse in the King James version

"To the point, the verse in the King James version (Isaiah 14:12) that begins "How art thou fallen from heaven, 0 Lucifer..." has now been translated directly from the Hebrew in the New English Biible as "How you have fallen from heaven, bright morning star..." There is no mention of Lucifer, no reference to any disobedient angel plunging to hell, nor should there be."

"The emphasis here should be on intent. When Albert Pike and other Masonic scholars spoke over a century ago about the "Luciferian path," or the "energies of Lucifer," they were referring to the morning star, the light bearer, the search for light; the very antithesis of dark, satanic evil."

"Still, I believe that Pike was wrong to use Lucifer in the scholarly sense. I remember an old man saying to me years ago, on a different subject, "It may be correct, but it just ain't right!" He had an excellent point. To be "correct" may be good for scholars writing for the enlightenment of other scholars: but for those with a real desire to communicate, recognition must be given to the common usage of words and terms. To this day some learned writers, as did Pike, have difficulty concentrating on communication, which may require explaining their terms of reference and curbing their vocabularial excess. To engage in the arrant pedantry of egregious sesquipedalianism (as in this sentence) is not communication. It's showing off. Pike must have known that virtually every Christian of this time firmly believed that Lucifer was Satan. He should have explained his use of the name, or he should have avoided it. And he should have held his scholarly vocabulary in check. However impressive the command of a language a writer may possess, if it cannot be understood as intended and baffles the reader, it is failing in its primary purpose, which should be clear, understandable communication."
- http://www.masonicinfo.com/lucifer.htm

I set out to learn for myself

"I set out to learn for myself, and what I learned may upset many Christians, who have to be told that the King James version of the Bible, which they revere as the literal, precise, correct work of God, is not always so. Some of the error in it was quite deliberate, including the biblical designation of Lucifer as Satan, along with the concordant story of a fallen angel. It is difficult to anticipate the reactions of some believers on being told that there are gross mistakes in the King James version, but, please, do not throw this book across the room in disgust until you have read a bit more."

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!""

"The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell? The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer.""

"Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, "bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King")."

"The scholars authorized by the militantly Catholic King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated from the Catholic Vulgate Bible produced largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and - ironically- the Prince of Darkness."

"So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in 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, and the bright and morning star.""
- http://www.masonicinfo.com/lucifer.htm

In all my readings of the Bible, the only time Satan did anything remotely wrong

In all my readings of the Bible, the only time Satan did anything remotely wrong was tempting Eve with the apple.

The mythos has been added to a dozen times after the classical Christanic mythologies were adopted by the Concil(sp) of Nicea. Christanics have added a great deal to their 'Satan' god, taking works of entertainment and social investigation from such sources as Milton, Dante, and even contemporary motion pictures such as "The Exorcist."

Entertainment factors greatly into the Satan god mythos because entertainment is a healthy substitute for deity believing. Fantasy engagement is what believing in deities is and the entertainment industry competes with the religion industry in this reguard. Ergo Christanics paint works of entertainment and whole venues of entertainment as 'Satanic' oriented. (Witness the Christanic beliefs about rock-and-roll in decades past.)

You'll not find much in the classical Christanic mythologies about the 'Satan' god other than it was a drinking buddy of the other gods to the point where a barroom bet settled the fate of the Job mythos.

Another aspect of the 'Satan' god mythos is the Christanic rework of the basis for the mythos: Greek Pandora and Her Box. Just as Pandora unleased all of humanity's woes upon the face of the Earth, the Eve mythos did likewise. The Christanic cult, however, removed the unleashing of everything which was good from Pandoras' Box (like hope, charity et al.) and handed them to the rest of their gods.

Another basis of groundwork for the 'Satan' god is Prometheus (the Hero who stole fire from the gods) and Lucipher (whos name means 'light bringer.')

All of these mythos unlease knowledge and advancement onto humanity at the cost of elivating humanity to the level of the gods. To the gods, that is a punishable offense and so we have the Satan myth. In the classical Christanic mythologies, the gods (yes, the gods... plural) complain that if the humans at the time eat from the tree of knowledge, they will become "as one of the gods." (Again, plural.)

So the complaint that Christanics have with 'Satan' et al. is the belief that knowledge, education, scientific method et al. are caused by 'Satan' and as such are undesireable. That's the ___real___ reason why Christanics want ritual invocation to deities in the public schools, by the way.
- Reply to message 1140
By: Fredric Rice
To: Gord Magill
Re: Satan myth

Magic is associated with the Devil, and that's bad

"Magic is associated with the Devil, and that's bad."
(magic is therefore evil. anything involving or potraying magic is therefore evil. video games, tarot cards, comic books, D&D, halloween. therefore anything producing these things are evil. game companies, printing companies, music companies. etc ad infinitum.

As it goes, everything is evil. A spoken spell is a form of prayer. Therefore prayer is evil. Magic uses symbolism, therefore symbolism is evil. Anything involving symbolism (such as Freemasonry, the Catholic Church, the Book of Revelation) is also evil. In the end, breathing is evil. Life is evil. Nature is evil.)
- dances with werewolves

Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor
William of Occam (or Ockham) (1284-1347) was an English philosopher and theologian. His work on knowledge, logic and scientific inquiry played a major role in the transition from medieval to modern thought. He based scientific knowledge on experience and self-evident truths, and on logical propositions resulting from those two sources. In his writings, Occam stressed the Aristotelian principle that entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary. This principle became known as Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor or the law of parsimony. A problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms. In science, the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected.

This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.