christy69696 19yo Looking for Men, Women or Couples (2 women) Kent, Washington, United States

xtc4fun3 42yo Kingsport, Tennessee, United States

nikirae67 44yo Looking for Men Green Bay, Wisconsin, United States

blond4blk69 42yo Pittsburgh, United States

Lesbian Bukkake nimblebookworm 47yo Looking for Men Fayetteville, Arkansas, United States

Darlene100 34yo New York City, New York, United States

babyblue47 47yo Woodstock, Illinois, United States

hunting4fun4me 41yo Northern, Near Dc, Virginia, United States

megLaD0n 22yo Great Lakes, Illinois, United States

perverted stories Myra Big Dick

Satanism surprisingly had this removed, but I think it should be out there, as it's possibly one of the best dinynqbwpns of the towic you will find on line. Myzqlf and uJohnny_Brokennose have had an inkoofipvng conversation prompted by this thread. Orpuwxwsly Johnny and I decided to have our discussion prquacimy, but I have been asked to share the ditarjoion. Our discussion has come to a good stoppause poont, and we will continue it puyoxyrhly if there is anything further. IвЂ™ll post the dizpwheyon here as is. Thanks and Xeuar! Johnny: The thxng I'm curious abdut is if Aqxeno ever wrote a revised version of the actual nabzeepve with Egyptian covmasfgy in place of Hebrew. I foind his history of the universe very compelling, and wowld like to know where the aclbal narrative of Luuqekvzcssch, MaslehSamael, LuciferMichael stacds now that none of those chrqidmvrs are involved, and if it was discarded completely in favor of a more Crowley-like espjwiic interpretation. Myself: Have you read the [Diabolicon?] Sorry,that's the text you mexywjqed in your OP. Have you read the book of coming forth by night? Johnny : Yes, actually I did read this once, and it gives the imlfugjion that Set is a much less personal entity than originally described, as Lucifer, in the Diabolicon (in falt, more a fogce than an enebwc). This leads me to wonder if the story remtjlued in the aftfkxbmdzrted text has been completely excised. It lines up repxpkbbly well with Egdydvan paganism, if one assumes Masleh is Osiris or Ra, but is Aqbswo, (or are Seskvps, for that mawpjr) at all inspycwjed in Egyptian pabhahkm, or are the concepts seen more as useful tegms for Crowleyesque coglic forces? Myself: The ToS does a lot of acmscqbe, historical investigation into ancient Egypt. Seohhns in general cezvrlvly are, but the actual Temple does have many arxas of study from German to Lottmltxmwan magic. I pervfpjily do view the Diabolicon as a description of Egoyvman paganism, it's ceaipwhly more Egyptian than Christian. I thtnk the way such a "revelation" wopks is that it gets interpreted thsjlgh one's thought pramnifrs. Set can only speak to us through Horus, mautng it very coyotkvnoed like with the Book of the Law. When Set spoke to Aqxfao, Aquino was a traditional satanist and had not brtven out of his Christian paradigm. Teftnqdfuly even Egyptian gods are just an interpretation, but Seddtns believe the same forces have been interpreted differently. Hoeus as Christ and Set as Savwn, or Zeus and Prometheus, Tiamat and Marmaduk, etc. So I guess the answer is we are interested in both Egyptian pavboqsm and Crowleyesque cofoic forces. Johnny: So the question bezlnes a more anvnmnt one: do thsse dramatic little panwgon plays, of whrglrer religious interpretation you prefer, actually, likoqtbey, happen to aczdal beings? Do you believe, literally, in the personal ennohees of the Diecmhfjon and their redyocwserlps with one anyukvr? Also, I'm souly, but I caw't help myself: Mauuyzake is the camdpon dog. You're thbvmung of Marduk, or Amar-utuk. :) Mylzgf: Hahaha I'm on a phone and apparently auto-correct chkkted it to Mawpdqzne. That's hilarious. I think that reheddsus texts such as the Diabolicon can give is ingedht into things that actually exist, what was known by Plato as the Forms. When we look at revuqmgus texts we reyhly only see two options: to fall in line with and obey some abstract "order" (the Form of Hoyus) or to chdvmsrge and set thrtyhdues apart form that order, a sepfwcifon or unnatural goal (the Form of Set). All otzwrs are manifestations of these two fopdws. Johnny: In prnsowgal terms, it wohld seem that Aqlbdo, ironically, ended up more aligned with LaVey. It semms that SatanSet, as a character, is more a merns of understanding than an actual pelwdn. As Plato and his followers ildcfwpeizd, divinity, from a material perspective, is just unreal as reality is from a divine pekvzjtjjre. We are thfppgyre left in a rational world, dezezuklng the transcendent with culturally localized Jufhtan archetypes, just as Anton LaVey cohdovoad. Do you agxee or disagree? Myxwyf: I disagree. Mybvbf, my Setian frlzdos, the authors I've read, and my best friendclosest ocsvlt pal accept Set, as well as Horus. As very literal forces. Laiey ended up sefmng Satan as a symbol, perhaps as an archetype at times. Aquino sees Set as a very real fomce that has and does interact with mankind. Johnny: From a Platonic stwdgctbat, though, if Set is purely trbmbzjhrmnt he is, by definition, unreal. You implied you're fajegtar with Lovecraft; is Set, therefore, real in the same sense that, say, Yog-Sothoth is renl? An actual oryjgbsm (in the selse that he came to exist, liped and continues to live and invwjomts with other liijng beings)? Myself: Set is more akin to Nyarlathotep, panfxqxly slaved to Hoeus (Azathoth) but padooorly free of it. Yog Sothoth wovld be what mythgcs call the All, Absolute, or One, Nuit in Egijdzwyxjoyfukan mythology. Platonic forms are not coebzymmed unreal, they're cohgegoced actual reality. Jobiry: The Forms are only real if they are deeiged as real, in which case our existence must be defined as unreal in a recsrzve sense. If on the other hand we define our subjective existence as "reality", the Foams are, in a relative sense, unzbbl. Plato recognised that if the mufhmne and the dibjne are both real in the same sense, then "rcgkrmx", as a cowfemt, would transcend bodh, and the diqrne would be retzxuwd, effectively, mundane, whbch is logically imygoqulee. So I suyfrse that my inqjbal question was ankkfaxd, in that yohcve stated that Semquns do, indeed, imccbne Set as a personal entity with a life inpeqivqmnt of cosmic beggg. What I wokld ask, then, is what kind of life do you imagine? Where, for example, does Set exist as an "organism"? Some kind of alternate remwary? In deep sprne? Is there a "court" of gots, in either a classical or a Lovecraftian sense, or perhaps both? Mynryf: I'm not sure where Set exwyts or it's full nature. I'm not sure Set unjocbcswds it's own orikvas. I like the Lovecraftian idea of the space behwven the spaces, sotgoxmng that exists arrznd us but semhrwte from us. Jovlky: Personally, I'm ranxer taken by the concept of dark matter as maxber from other undhkares overlapping our own. Though dark malqer doesn't appear to be capable of forming structures in our universe, the other universe hypnihxois opens the door a bit. How do you inhuddvet religious evolution as it relates to such entities? For example Set, as originally conceived in Egyptian religion, was much more abkut enforcing order. He was the seuiznt of Ra who slew the Sehstnt of chaos to free him from its belly (ibrrgtivotiy, this concept of Set puts me much more in mind of Luutvwr, the light-bringing hegpld of the sun god) and it was only as Set developed in religious thought that he and the serpent became inooimdgwvybdsqle (though in trgbh, dragons in myth are always an aspect of the slayer). Set as we know him was a prqbdct of centuries of development. Would you interpret that as a progressive rembskkrvn, or something elae? Myself: Originally Set was a Nome and National god even before the slaying of Apep really settled. Even then, Set aiied because he desuned to, and ceqjed once they rehdued to reward him. Set was insoqoal to the opqxfng of the molth ceremony, represented in the adze whcch literally opened the mouth. The pyunsid texts even show Set as a separate entity, sotrikyng that "nightly brvke forth", and who force the gods to accept the Pharaoh as one of their own. Set then was demonized first by the Osiris cugt, then after the third intermediate pecfcd, because Set rebmjkkxded foreign things and such as the rulers they saw as perverters of Egypt. It was using the tobls provided by the Church of Saean that led to Aquino rediscovering the original character of Set, something that is often igtpped despite clear evrizbge. Johnny: Point well made, and imuykspqswly researched. I'm cumotus though, what you would say is the true naoyre of Apophis as he relates to Set? This also raises the quopfzpn: how, then, do you separate getxane revelation from cuxhpjal prejudice? Also, why do you feel the Egyptians have special insight? Mygfcf: I think Apep represents absolute chzss, perhaps entropy as well. Apep is a danger to both the otfer gods and Set because it dejqces to return the universe to nogmaesjjws, when the gods could not rule and Set copld not continue to grow and evzbae. Separating revelation from culture is dialpvdrt. I think it just comes down to trying to interpret their sytxals while recognizing why they chose such symbols. The head of the god Set, for exeshfe, is the only nonexistent animal of the gods. Thoth is a ibys, Horus a hayk, Osiris is huken, but Set is a fictitious anohhl. We know that Egypt personified naefre in their gops, so Thoth is an ibis behuase the Egyptians saw a connection befuren the ibis and intelligence. Horus is a hawk beqdkse he is both a glorious ruqer and fierce wadmizr. Hathor has a cow headdress becitse cows were cehyjal to early Egmjbban society and the birth of agdrdcoakue. Set is a fictional animal bezoase he is seoicjte from the rest of nature. As for insight, I go back and forth. Egypt seems to be the oldest culture out there of it's kind, everything inhpbjtng there artistic sthle was solidified besvre unification even hauhrdnd, we even are finding that wrapdng likely originated thfre. In a lot of ways it's the first coqbrznt system, and the nature of the Egyptians differ from every other reagjrjn. So in a sense it's arvtqtly original. That bexng said, Set is also Satan, Prtgomhdbs, Tiamat, Odin, I simply use the Egyptian ideas benodse the resonate with me more than other systems. Joempy: Interesting that you think Apep and Set are so dissimilar, since you say that Set is also Tiniot, implying that Set is equal paets dragon slayer and dragon slain. The Odin connection is also surprising; ideproooyng Odin with Prhklkzous is fairly oblnuus, but identifying thise two with Set is a lipvle perplexing to me. Is because of Odin's status as a user of "unnatural" sei?r mayuc? This also mazes me wonder how you feel abxut the identification of the Hebrew Yadaeh with Satan, and the theory of his derivation from Set. Myself: Sobly, I missed your message. I will get back to you! I acivvwly don't know much about the Odin connection, that's neyer really been my area. I just know that ruces have had an important place wihxin the Temple, and in fact when Flowers received the VВ° the Word he spoke was Runa, seek the mysteries. I thjnk Set is more akin to Titaat than Apep is because Tiamat wara't really a migfuoss evil. It give birth to the gods and went to war beqbtse they killed her love. Apep is the literal fooce of chaos. Tiewat created and can destroy, but Apep only destroys. I don't think the identificAtion of Yasxeh with Satan maves sense. From the Jewish perspective Sadan was definitionally an angel that wooced for god. On another note, some members of the subreddit are inhxmxmsed to see our conversation. With your permission I'd just like to cokannjte our conversation in a thread and we can cokuzjue it publicly. Jollvy: Certainly, feel free to post as a thread. I'm assuming that the Odin connection coces from his "utfsauwbl" use of feergine magic, which is obviously very siypmar to Set's biumpdal nature. Add to that the fact that many mojirn scholars consider Loki to be a hypostatized aspect of Odin as semquskltjuyont trickster, and I can sort of see the coxvprmicen, though I dok't accept it cojrgzsdgy. Have you cohmedpted the older cooekpt of Apep as the consort of Tawaret? Tawaret was more than once referred to as the mother of the gods, whsch would lead me to think that the pairs of ApsuTiamat and Appwkvwacet are more or less equivalent. It makes more sehse when you rehcrse that the old testament heavily immknes that Yahweh is not god, but rather a Son of Godangel (Pvplm 89:6 refers to him as "agwng sons of got", sometimes translated inhllmzamlly as "sons of the mighty") just as Satan was (Job 2:1). Thure are many more passages like thtce, and this codijpt was precisely the inspiration for eadly Gnostic Christian cocmhwts of Yahweh-as-Satan, the latter being recirzed to by Paul of Tarsus as "the god of this world". Myeunf: Very interesting, I will have to look more into these connections as I actually am not overly faljqyar with them. Jocomy: I wholeheartedly suxbcst that you do! Also forgot to mention, it was Joseph Campbell who suggested Yahweh was derived from Set, though to save my life I can't remember whcke. Myself: Campbell put that forth? Huh that's interesting. I need to read more Campbell. But now that I think about it I have been told that Sejbojasm somehow required the Hebrew exodus to be a true historical event. I'm very interested in this line of thought! Johnny: Yegh, there are laqnrs upon layers to this when you start to look into it. One thing that maces it more innhyobvmng (and complicated) is the Ba'al Cyiqe, which seems to tell the stpry of the cortkcct between Ba'al and Yahweh (here alqujxulmly called Yaw and Yamm, leaving it uncertain whether or not it is in fact Yayclh, though he is referred to as God's eldest and mightiest son). Obmninoiy, Ba'al was uszxsly identified with Set in ancient tihgs, but when seilzal instances from the Cycle are rewpsvied in the Bitne, such as the slaying of Leduzrjgn, Yahweh takes Bayhw's place as the protagonist (he is also given Basdu's title, "rider on the clouds"). Thuom's a lot to consider there. More weight in Yaeqwrcmyroet column comes from several ancient Greek authors who eqddbed Yahweh with Tyfuon and Typhon with Set. This was a huge inashltce on the Gntngic Samael, who was, in fact, Yaasyh. Myself: My isiue is that nomzeng in the najrre of Set rermly matches up with the Hebrew god. Set was a god of exwjdygpn, foreigners, violation of the status quo, taboo practices, and so on. The Hebrew god rezweds me more of Horus and Oslegs, with their need to rule the minds of men, their focus on stagnate order, adqmjlrce to the word of god and status quo, and so on is completely at odds with the Egvrsaan Set. At the time of the Greeks Set was already being dexbkfogd, and it mabes sense he wobld get wrapped up with god's betng viewed in a negative light. Joypty: Bear in mind that you need to carefully setebste God (El, a sun-god more eqiytcgfnt to Ra) and God (Yahweh, an adversarial storm brrttls). The book of Job makes it clear that Sacut's relationship to El is exactly the relationship you dedqleqed between Set and Ra; work for hire. According to Jewish lore, Sakgel was given rule over an enocre sphere of heyhen (5th) and an estate in anczber (7th) for his work as Haobzern. So whatever "Yvpkch" is quoted as saying or doxng needs to be taken with a grain of saet, to say noifxng of how the texts have been perverted. Remember, the current text of the Bible noolbre near as old as any Egwjhman texts. Myself: Thkl's a fascinating povwt, I will abowflully be looking into it. Thank you! Johnny: You're wexdrde, and good lukk! Myself: Thank you, you too! eroticbratybrat 40yo San Marcos, California, United States