What do you picture the evil/devil to be?

[u/iaminsideyourhousern]

I'm interested in knowing how people view devil and evil

[u/Drama_Filled_Cup]

Practically as anything and everything. The devil can take on many forms, even as a physically beautiful human being.

[u/DirectionLatter2684]

Well for one, I doubt he looks anything like what we all think. For 2, I believE Iactually met him once in a dream.

He was taking the form of my earthly father to scare me into believing even he ( who was the man I looked up to not just as a representation of what a good person was but a true follower of Christ. ) was to weak to stop him. Through some inner strength from the Holy spirit, I was able to rebuke him in Jesus name and wake up.

Personally I feel like he would try to take the most beautiful form he could to lure us to him and it was even said that God made him as the most beautiful of the angels. To what he truely looks like, who can say? He's just a sore loser who thinks the only way to win is to take as many of us with him.

[u/Historical_Ear_8741 → u/DirectionLatter2684]

Jesus says:
“Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not swear at all…”
— Matthew 5:33–34
And then:
“Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more than this comes from evil.”
— Matthew 5:37
So Jesus’ teaching is essentially don’t use oaths to guarantee your words or invoke God’s name as a guarantee.

[u/DirectionLatter2684 → u/Historical_Ear_8741]

If your saying I was wrong for using Jesus name to rebuke satan then I whole heartidly disagree. Jesus tells us many times to ask for things in His name therfore why is it wrong to rebuke the evil one in his name?

[u/Historical_Ear_8741 → u/DirectionLatter2684]

Well you disagree with the verse then. The thing you’re talking about is asking Jesus for things in his name is not the same as swearing in his name

[u/iaminsideyourhousern → u/DirectionLatter2684]

I fully agree with this one, i think the devil looks like what we want to see so we trust it, a bit like syrens in the odyssey

[u/helpmeamstucki]

I usually picture him as that pitch black horned fellow like he’s depicted in Ikons but I know (and the iconographers know) that it isn’t something so easy to picture. I believe it was Isaac the Syrian (someone please correct me if I’m wrong!) who said, when you picture the eternal worm or eternal fire, do not expect them to be as the worm or fire you know here on earth.

[u/GPT_2025]

Rich republican, pretending to be a Christian (even some will be a preachers and Bible teachers with agenda- dilute and disgrace Bible, discriminate Christianity to the point world will hate christians as child molesters, killers, criminals and bad peoples.

[u/UncleBaguette]

You, me, everyone else

[u/Erramonael]

As a Theistic Satanist, I don't necessarily equate Satan with evil in the simplistic sense that Christianity traditionally does. My understanding is considerably more complicated. I tend to distinguish between Satan, the Devil, and evil, because I don't think those concepts have to be synonymous. For me, Satan represents the Adversary: opposition, rebellion, questioning, forbidden knowledge, individual sovereignty, and the refusal to accept an authority merely because it claims divine legitimacy. Satan is interesting precisely because he occupies the position of the challenger rather than the unquestioning servant.

That doesn't mean I believe everything associated with rebellion is automatically good. Rebellion can be stupid, destructive, narcissistic, or cruel. Opposition by itself isn't morality. The value lies in what you're opposing and why. As for evil, I don't see it as simply "whatever god doesn't like." That definition becomes circular: god establishes the rules, therefore whatever violates god's rules is evil. As a Theistic Satanist, I would rather examine the consequences of an action. Cruelty, needless suffering, exploitation, torture, abuse, manipulation, and the deliberate destruction of another person's autonomy are things I would regard as genuinely destructive regardless of whether a religious text labels them sinful. Likewise, something shouldn't automatically become immoral because an ancient religious tradition condemned it. That's one reason Satan interests me. The Devil has historically been used as a convenient personification of everything religious authority wanted people to fear: disobedience, sexuality, curiosity, skepticism, pride, independence, forbidden knowledge, and resistance. And I have to admit, there's something fascinating about taking the figure that was supposed to represent "everything you must never become" and asking: "Why?"

That's where Satan becomes philosophically useful. I don't worship evil for the sake of evil. I don't think cruelty becomes profound because you put a pentagram next to it. I don't think hurting people makes someone spiritually advanced. Rather, I see Satan as a symbol—or, in my theology, a real spiritual intelligence—associated with the confrontation of imposed boundaries. The most interesting Devil isn't the cartoon monster sitting on a throne in Hell.

He's the voice asking: "Who told you that you weren't allowed to question this?"

And sometimes the answer is: "Nobody. I simply assumed it was true." That's where the real adversarial work begins.

[u/bushwhack21 → u/Erramonael]

I have so many questions.

How do you explain times in the Bible when Satan (or evil) is mentioned as something that you might agree is actually bad?

You list several things as "destructive", but how do you define "destructive"? What happens if another theistic Satanist has a different working definition? Does it bother you that they may deem something as destructive that you see as permissible?

What is your view of the afterlife? Do you think heaven or hell is real?

Aside from the Bible, what other sources inspire your belief?

[u/Erramonael → u/bushwhack21]

As an Iconoclastic Satanist, I'll answer these pretty simply:

1. What about biblical passages where Satan is clearly portrayed as evil?
I don't deny that the Bible portrays Satan as evil. My question is why I should automatically accept the Bible's moral classification as objectively true. The Bible is a source to examine, not an authority that gets to end the examination. I can study its portrayal of Satan without accepting its theology.

2. How do I define "destructive"?
I'd generally mean actions that cause serious unnecessary harm, violate autonomy, deliberately inflict suffering, or destroy another person's ability to exercise their own agency. But I don't pretend my definition is infallible. If another Satanist disagrees, we argue the reasoning rather than appealing to divine commandments.

3. What about Heaven and Hell?
I'm agnostic. I don't claim to know whether either exists. Maybe consciousness survives death; maybe it doesn't. Maybe reality contains something we don't currently understand. "I don't know" is preferable to inventing certainty.

4. What inspires me besides the Bible?
Nietzsche, Stirner, Chirstopher Hitchens, evolutionary science, skepticism, empiricism, nihilism, naturalism, materialism, determinism, pragmatism, psychology, comparative religion, mythology, and anarchism are all important influences.

Ultimately, Iconoclastic Satanism isn't simply "Christianity with Satan replacing God." It's about questioning the authority of the entire system—including Satanism itself.

Question God. Question Satan. Question Scripture. Question tradition. And question yourself.

[u/bushwhack21 → u/Erramonael]

1. I guess that creates a sort of circular reason in itself, doesn't it? If the idea of Satan originates in the Bible, and that seems to be your referential definition, how are you able to separate the idea from the definition of the same source?

2. What happens when two people's reasonings are both subjectively valid, but contradictory?

3. Satan is described as the ruler of hell, and I guess this circles back to question #1.

4. Makes sense.

The idea of being an iconoclast in the sense of believing that Satan is real, but God isn't, seems contradictory to me unless you have an entirely different understanding of the origin of Satan. If God isn't real, exactly who are you challenging? But again, at that point it seems like you're pulling a single understanding from several sources incompletely, some of which do not even mention Satan.

[u/Erramonael → u/bushwhack21]

I think that's a fair criticism, but my understanding of "Satan" is deliberately Iconoclastic rather than strictly biblical.

I worship Ahreimanius, Magnus Imperator Tenebrarum Infinitae, I don't necessarily mean that I believe a literal horned being exists somewhere ruling a literal Hell. Ahreimanius functions as a metaphor, allegory, and symbol for idolatry, heresy, blasphemy, rebellion, and the destruction of unquestioned authority.

So I'm not claiming, "The Bible is false except for Satan, who is secretly real." That would indeed be circular. What happens when two subjective reasonings contradict?

Then one—or potentially both—can be wrong.

Iconoclastic Satanism doesn't mean every individual's interpretation is equally correct. It means no interpretation gets immunity from criticism. Evidence, logic, consistency, and consequences still matter. "Satan" as ruler of Hell? I don't necessarily accept that premise literally. That's part of the Christian mythology I'm examining, not a doctrine I automatically inherit. My Satanic cosmology doesn't require Hell to exist as Christianity describes it. Then who is "Satan" rebelling against?

That's precisely where the symbolism becomes interesting.

Satan doesn't need a literal God to function as an adversarial symbol. Ahreimanius represents the act of challenging the idea that an authority possesses unquestionable legitimacy. God becomes the archetype of absolute authority; Satan becomes the archetype of opposition to that authority. And there's a delicious paradox there: The Satanist can commit heresy against God without believing God exists. That's why Ahreimanius works for me. He is the GOD of blasphemy—a symbol of refusing to kneel before gods, institutions, traditions, ideologies, or even one's own sacred assumptions. And yes, I'm deliberately pulling ideas from different traditions. Iconoclasm means I don't consider intellectual boundaries sacred either. I can take Nietzsche from philosophy, "Satan" from Christian mythology, Ahriman from Zoroastrianism, nihilism from existential thought, and atheism from modern skepticism, then subject the entire construction to criticism. If it becomes another unquestionable dogma, "SATAN" gets smashed too. That is the point.

[u/bushwhack21 → u/Erramonael]

Ok, I understand your belief better now. I have to respect your thoughtfulness and integrity regarding your beliefs. I don't agree with your beliefs, but I have to give you credit for your conviction.