Preety_India

Liberation Shadow work Cleaning the inner toilet Using poison to defeat poison Talk therapy Exorcism Removal of inner dark entity Embodying the flying spirit Understanding Evil and Suffering Understanding the dark side of life and the world. Supernatural causes of sufferings and their supernatural solutions Looking at the supernatural aspects of life and the world Dark entity removal exorcism, talk therapy, mild hypnosis, calming, cleansing inner toilet, trauma release, shadow work, liberating and dealing with personal suffering, helping the person cope and deal with their suffering and obtain liberation from the suffering, help people work through their deepest emotional traumas.

It would be nice if girls could also approach. Maybe it happens on the western side of the planet.

Free will and animal suffering One of the weaknesses of the free will defense is its inapplicability or contradictory applicability with respect to evils faced by animals and the consequent animal suffering. Some scholars, such as David Griffin, state that the free will, or the assumption of greater good through free will, does not apply to animals.[58][59] In contrast, a few scholars while accepting that “free will” applies in a human context, have posited an alternative “free creatures” defense, stating that animals too benefit from their physical freedom though that comes with the cost of dangers they continuously face.[60] The “free creatures” defense has also been criticized, in the case of caged, domesticated and farmed animals who are not free and many of whom have historically experienced evil and suffering from abuse by their owners. Further, even animals and living creatures in the wild face horrendous evils and suffering – such as burn and slow death after natural fires or other natural disasters or from predatory injuries – and it is unclear, state Bishop and Perszyk, why an all-loving God would create such free creatures prone to intense suffering.[60] Another line of extended criticism of free will defense has been that if God is perfectly powerful, knowing and loving, then he could have actualized a world with free creatures without moral evil where everyone chooses good, is always full of loving-kindness, is compassionate, always non-violent and full of joy, where earth were just like the monotheistic concept of heaven. If God did create a heaven with his love, an all-loving and always-loving God could have created an earth without evil and suffering for animals and human beings just like heaven.[61] Soul-making or Irenaean theodicy The soul-making or Irenaean theodicy is named after the 2nd century French theologian Irenaeus, whose ideas were adopted in Eastern Christianity.[62] It has been discussed by John Hick, and the Irenaean theodicy asserts that evil and suffering are necessary for spiritual growth, for man to discover his soul, and God allows evil for spiritual growth of human beings.[62] The Irenaean theodicy has been challenged with the assertion that many evils do not seem to promote spiritual growth, and can be positively destructive of the human spirit. Hick acknowledges that this process often fails in our world.[63] A second issue concerns the distribution of evils suffered: were it true that God permitted evil in order to facilitate spiritual growth, then we would expect evil to disproportionately befall those in poor spiritual health. This does not seem to be the case, as the decadent enjoy lives of luxury which insulate them from evil, whereas many of the pious are poor, and are well acquainted with worldly evils.[64]Thirdly, states Kane, human character can be developed directly or in constructive and nurturing loving ways, and it is unclear why God would consider or allow evil and suffering to be necessary or the preferred way to spiritual growth.[65] Further, horrendous suffering often leads to dehumanization, its victims in truth do not grow spiritually but become vindictive and spiritually worse.[66] This reconciliation of the problem of evil and God, states Creegan, also fails to explain the need or rationale for evil inflicted on animals and resultant animal suffering, because “there is no evidence at all that suffering improves the character of animals, or is evidence of soul-making in them”.[66]

Problem of Evil (Responses) Responses to the problem of evil have occasionally been classified as defences or theodicies; however, authors disagree on the exact definitions.[1][2][30]Generally, a defense against the problem of evil may refer to attempts to defuse the logical problem of evil by showing that there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the existence of God. This task does not require the identification of a plausible explanation of evil, and is successful if the explanation provided shows that the existence of God and the existence of evil are logically compatible. It need not even be true, since a false though coherent explanation would be sufficient to show logical compatibility.[31] A theodicy,[32] on the other hand, is more ambitious, since it attempts to provide a plausible justification—a morally or philosophically sufficient reason—for the existence of evil and thereby rebut the “evidential” argument from evil.[2] Richard Swinburne maintains that it does not make sense to assume there are greater goods that justify the evil’s presence in the world unless we know what they are—without knowledge of what the greater goods could be, one cannot have a successful theodicy.[33] Thus, some authors see arguments appealing to demons or the fall of man as indeed logically possible, but not very plausible given our knowledge about the world, and so see those arguments as providing defences but not good theodicies.[2] The above argument is set against numerous versions of the problem of evil that have been formulated.[1][2][3] These versions have included philosophical and theological formulations. Skeptical theism Skeptical theism defends the problem of evil by asserting that God allows an evil to happen in order to prevent a greater evil or to encourage a response that will lead to a greater good.[34] Thus a rape or a murder of an innocent child is defended as having a God’s purpose that a human being may not comprehend, but which may lead to lesser evil or greater good.[34] This is called skeptical theism because the argument aims to encourage self-skepticism, either by trying to rationalize God’s possible hidden motives, or by trying to explain it as a limitation of human ability to know.[34][35] The greater good defense is more often argued in religious studies in response to the evidential version of the problem of evil,[35] while the free will defense is usually discussed in the context of the logical version.[36] Most scholars criticize the skeptical theism defense as “devaluing the suffering” and not addressing the premise that God is all-benevolent and should be able to stop all suffering and evil, rather than play a balancing act.[37] “Greater good” responses The omnipotence paradoxes, where evil persists in the presence of an all powerful God, raise questions as to the nature of God’s omnipotence. Although that is from excluding the idea of how an interference would negate and subjugate the concept of free will, or in other words result in a totalitarian system that creates a lack of freedom. Some solutions propose that omnipotence does not require the ability to actualize the logically impossible. “Greater good” responses to the problem make use of this insight by arguing for the existence of goods of great value which God cannot actualize without also permitting evil, and thus that there are evils he cannot be expected to prevent despite being omnipotent. Among the most popular versions of the “greater good” response are appeals to the apologetics of free will. Theologians will argue that since no one can fully understand God’s ultimate plan, no one can assume that evil actions do not have some sort of greater purpose. Therefore, the nature of evil has a necessary role to play in God’s plan for a better world.[38] Free will The problem of evil is sometimes explained as a consequence of free will, an ability granted by God.[39][40] Free will is both a source of good and of evil, and with free will also comes the potential for abuse, as when individuals act immorally. People with free will “decide to cause suffering and act in other evil ways”, states Boyd, and it is they who make that choice, not God.[39] Further, the free will argument asserts that it would be logically inconsistent for God to prevent evil by coercion and curtailing free will, because that would no longer be free will.[39][40] This explanation does not completely address the problem of evil, because some suffering and evil is not a result of consciousness choice, but is the result of ignorance or natural causes (a child suffering from a disease), and an all-powerful and all-benevolent God would create a world with free beings and stop this suffering and evil.[39][40] Alvin Plantinga has suggested an expanded version of the free will defense. The first part of his defense accounts for moral evil as the result of human action with free will. The second part of his defense suggests the logical possibility of “a mighty non-human spirit” (non-God supernatural beings and fallen angels)[1][41] whose free will is responsible for “natural evils“, including earthquakes, floods, and virulent diseases. Most scholars agree that Plantinga’s free will of human and non-human spirits (demons) argument successfully solves the logical problem of evil, proving that God and evil are logically compatible[42] but other scholars explicitly dissent.[43] The dissenters state that while explaining infectious diseases, cancer, hurricanes and other nature caused suffering as something that is caused by the free will of supernatural beings, solves the logical version of the problem of evil, but it is highly unlikely that these natural evils do not have natural causes that an omnipotent God could prevent, but instead are caused by the immoral actions of supernatural beings with free will who God created.[1] According to Michael Tooley, this defense is also highly implausible because suffering from natural evil is localized, rational causes and cures for major diseases have been found, and it is unclear why anyone, including a supernatural being who God created would choose then inflict localized evil and suffering to innocent children for example, and why God fails to stop such suffering if he is omnipotent.[44] Critics of the free will response have questioned whether it accounts for the degree of evil seen in this world. One point in this regard is that while the value of free will may be thought sufficient to counterbalance minor evils, it is less obvious that it outweighs the negative attributes of evils such as rape and murder. Particularly egregious cases known as horrendous evils, which “[constitute] prima facie reason to doubt whether the participant’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good to him/her on the whole,” have been the focus of recent work in the problem of evil.[45] Another point is that those actions of free beings which bring about evil very often diminish the freedom of those who suffer the evil; for example the murder of a young child may prevent the child from ever exercising their free will. In such a case the freedom of an innocent child is pitted against the freedom of the evil-doer, it is not clear why God would remain unresponsive and passive.[46] Another criticism is that the potential for evil inherent in free will may be limited by means which do not impinge on that free will. God could accomplish this by making moral actions especially pleasurable, or evil action and suffering impossible by allowing free will but not allowing the ability to enact evil or impose suffering.[47] Supporters of the free will explanation state that that would no longer be free will.[39][40] Critics respond that this view seems to imply it would be similarly wrong to try to reduce suffering and evil in these ways, a position which few would advocate.[48] A third challenge to the free will defence is natural evil. By definition, moral evil results from human action, but natural evil results from natural processes that cause natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions or earthquakes.[49] Advocates of the free will response to evil propose various explanations of natural evils. Alvin Plantinga, following Augustine of Hippo,[50] and others have argued that natural evils are caused by the free choices of supernatural beings such as demons.[51] Others have argued • that natural evils are the result of the fall of man, which corrupted the perfect world created by God[52] or • that natural evils are the result of natural laws[53] or • that natural evils provide us with a knowledge of evil which makes our free choices more significant than they would otherwise be, and so our free will more valuable[54] or • that natural evils are a mechanism of divine punishment for moral evils that humans have committed, and so the natural evil is justified.[55] There is also debate regarding the compatibility of moral free will (to select good or evil action) with the absence of evil from heaven,[56][57] with God’s omniscience and with his omnibenevolence.[3]

Problem of Evil (Logical and Evidential Problem) Logical problem of evil Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus,[20] the logical argument from evil is as follows: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist. This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:[2] God exists. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists. Evil exists (logical contradiction). Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the logical problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot all be correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the propositions stating that God cannot exist with, or would want to prevent, all evils (premises 3 and 6), with defenders of theism (for example, Leibniz) arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good. Theism that forgoes absolute omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence[edit] If God lacks any one of these qualities—omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence—then the logical problem of evil can be resolved. Process theology and open theism are other positions that limit God’s omnipotence and/or omniscience (as defined in traditional theology). Dystheism is the belief that God is not wholly good. Evidential problem of evil William L. Rowe‘s example of natural evil: “In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering.”[21] Rowe also cites the example of human evil where an innocent child is a victim of violence and thereby suffers.[21] The evidential version of the problem of evil (also referred to as the probabilistic or inductive version), seeks to show that the existence of evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against or lowers the probability of the truth of theism. As an example, a critic of Plantinga’s idea of “a mighty nonhuman spirit” causing natural evils may concede that the existence of such a being is not logically impossible but argue that due to lacking scientific evidence for its existence this is very unlikely and thus it is an unconvincing explanation for the presence of natural evils. Both absolute versions and relative versions of the evidential problems of evil are presented below. A version by William L. Rowe: There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2] Another by Paul Draper: Gratuitous evils exist. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.[22] Problem of evil and animal suffering The problem of evil has also been extended beyond human suffering, to include suffering of animals from cruelty, disease and evil.[4] One version of this problem includes animal suffering from natural evil, such as the violence and fear faced by animals from predators, natural disasters, over the history of evolution.[23] This is also referred to the Darwinian problem of evil,[24][25] after Charles Darwin who expressed it as follows:[26] The sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time’ are apparently irreconcilable with the existence of a Creator of ‘unbounded’ goodness. — CHARLES DARWIN, 1856[26] The second version of the problem of evil applied to animals, and avoidable suffering experienced by them, is one caused by some human beings, such as from animal cruelty or when they are shot or slaughtered. This version of the problem of evil has been used by scholars including John Hick to counter the responses and defenses to the problem of evil such as suffering being a means to perfect the morals and greater good because animals are innocent, helpless, amoral but sentient victims.[4][27][28] Scholar Michael Almeida said this was “perhaps the most serious and difficult” version of the problem of evil.[25] The problem of evil in the context of animal suffering, states Almeida, can be stated as:[29][note 2] God is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good. The evil of extensive animal suffering exists. Necessarily, God can actualize an evolutionary perfect world. Necessarily, God can actualize an evolutionary perfect world only if God does actualize an evolutionary perfect world. Necessarily, God actualized an evolutionary perfect world. If #1 is true then either #2 or #5 is true, but not both. This is a contradiction, so #1 is not true.

The problem of faux Satanism - Satanism only for style.

Crimes committed in the name of Satanism

Color codes Color code for Witchcraft - Purple and Burgundy Color code for Satanism - Black and Red

Problem of Evil (Overview) The problem of evil refers to the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God (see theism).[1][2] An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a God is unlikely or impossible. Attempts to show the contrary have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy. Besides philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is also important to the field of theology and ethics. The problem of evil is often formulated in two forms: the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. The logical form of the argument tries to show a logical impossibility in the coexistence of God and evil,[1][3] while the evidential form tries to show that given the evil in the world, it is improbable that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God.[2] The problem of evil has been extended to non-human life forms, to include animal suffering from natural evils and human cruelty against them.[4] Responses to various versions of the problem of evil, meanwhile, come in three forms: refutations, defenses, and theodicies. A wide range of responses have been made against these arguments. There are also many discussions of evil and associated problems in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics,[5][6][7] and evolutionary ethics.[8][9] But as usually understood, the “problem of evil” is posed in a theological context.[1][2] The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world.[2][12][14][note 1] The problem may be described either experientially or theoretically.[2] The experiential problem is the difficulty in believing in a concept of loving God when confronted by suffering or evil in the real world, such as from epidemics, or wars, or murder, or rape or terror attacks wherein innocent children, women, men or a loved one becomes a victim.[17][18][19] The problem of evil is also a theoretical one, usually described and studied by religion scholars in two varieties: the logical problem and the evidential problem.[2]

Satanism hand signs Occult symbols Satanist prayer with hand symbol Activism for Satanism David Suhor, Pensacola, FL Greater church of Lucifer

Altars used in Satanism

Costumes Fornicators abominable Idolators murderers Adulterers whores Sodomites sorcerers Effeminate liars Thieves witches Covetous heretics Drunkards proud Revellers. God haters Extortioners envious Fearful deceivers Unbelievers sinners 3 stages 1. Understanding morality and religion 2 understanding evil and devil 3 Enlightenment (seeking freedom from physical form, seeking liberation, renunciation of life, outgrowing life, you realize that life is bullshit and it won't fulfill your needs/potential in physical form)

Ordo Templi Goetia Abraxas Agares Ordo Templi Belphezar The concept. It's poison versus poison. The Guardian demons are the ones who tell the object (the one who does the bm) what to avoid. Whereas the rest, the dukes, are illustrations of what they do to create chaos and problems. Guardian demons upon invoking even take up protective roles of provision, charity, deliverance, generosity, exorcism, liberation and mainly deal with evil and suffering, generational curses etc. Objects are divided into sinners, sufferers, the ones that are repentant and the non-sufferers. Satan and devil are two different. Satan is the king of guardian demons. And devil is the king of the dukes who have legions. Guardian demons have legions that are guiding/liberating /protective. Duke demons have legions that are destructive. Category of guardian demons Aguares Huares Abraxas Amduscias Balaam Category of Dukes https://satanandsons.com/encyclopedia/dukes-and-duchesses-demonic/ Duke Valefar Duke Barbatos Duke Gusion Duke Eligos Duke Zepar Duke Bathin Duke Sallos Duke Aim Duke Buné Duke Berith Duke Astaroth/ Duchess Astarte Duke Dantalion Duke Focalor Duke Vepar Duke Vual Duke Crocell Duke Allocer Duke/Count Murmur Duke Gremory Duke Vapula Dukes have legions of demon forces under them. The only king and Devil, the king of all dukes, king Paimon. King of chaos and destruction. Atheistic Satanism Taking the best Secular humanist enlightenment values and wrapping it up in mythology, art, ritual, community and all the good parts about religion and throwing out all the bad parts, that is about blind obedience to crazy ideas. They are largely libertarian. For a lot of people, the appeal lies in Satanism being a shadow side of Christianity. For a lot of people who feel bonded by Christianity and knowing that they won't be going to hell, it's a hugely cathartic experience. They know that they are not liked and I think that's heroic. Is there any petering out? No there is no petering out happening, in fact there are new chapters opening up and there's so much demand for new chapters so much so that the National Organization had to put a freeze on it because of the paperwork. Esoteric Satanism - they believe in the concept of satan To me Satanism is Liberation Shadow work Cleaning the inner toilet Understanding the influence, power and role of the devil. His operation. Using poison to defeat poison Talk therapy Exorcism Removal of inner dark entity The struggle or battle between psychic forces and evil Studying demonology Embodying the flying spirit Understanding Evil and Suffering Exploration of evil and suffering Finding solutions to suffering Understanding the dark side of life and the world. The side of hard cold suffering. Supernatural causes of sufferings and their supernatural solutions Looking at the supernatural aspects of life and the world Dark entity removal exorcism, talk therapy, mild hypnosis, calming, cleansing inner toilet, trauma release, shadow work, liberating and dealing with personal suffering, helping the person cope and deal with their suffering and obtain liberation from the suffering, help people work through their deepest emotional traumas.

Belphezar is represented by a bird, flying bird which will be half material and half in spirit or partially transparent invisible form This is how belphezar will look Belphezar will be called the flying spirit.

A planet where all suffering souls helped each other live and grow both materially and spiritually I will call it Belphezar. It's like creating heaven on earth and using spiritual forces to get liberation from suffering. Hell is a private hell of eternal damnation, a place of indifference and restlessness, a place of chaos and no growth and those that destroy growth and goodness are forever damned to live a life of ignorance and restlessness and never finding peace. A life of destruction and no joy, only restlessness.. Restlessness not created by situations but by the self. But for the one who chooses to end suffering, one who is supportive of growth and blissful in his heart, the heaven awaits as a garden of reeds, an eternal place of pure Bliss and joy and no more suffering. Yet a similar place can exist on earth, Belphezar. Belphezar And hell is eternal damnation. The fire pit represents eternal restlessness and ignorance of Bliss and peace. In life we are seeking enlightenment, we are seeking liberation from suffering. This is how belphezar will be, constantly seeking enlightenment. Both good and evil are reincarnated. How should I represent my new concept Belphezar? Belphezar is represented by a bird, flying bird which will be half material and half in spirit or partially transparent invisible form This is a complex concept that I was formulating last night. How wonderful would it be if I were a bird?

Aguares or Agares Balaam and Huares Abraxas and Amduscias Ordo Templi Goetia Abraxas Agares black mass OTGAA Demons list Aguares or Agares Abraxas Amduscias Balaam Huares A beautiful poem for these demons My goddess draws me from my slumber Out of one dream and into another With secret passions only we share To heights of love I might never dare Into her depths of warm embrace Into her heart and other places. She is the Moon, a face of Tanit Who tames this dragon when I am it And drifting back from dream to dream Guided by her silver gleam I speak to self a silent prayer To ancient ones who put her there. Ordo Templi Goetia Abraxas Agares Discipline Do not destroy someone's potential Respect all Complete freedom BM Suffering will happen. Accept it. Deals with evil and suffering and the nature of demons Symbol The Sigil of Lucifer was first seen in the Grimoire of Truth, a book of dark magic spells published in 1517. It is the third sign of Lucifer, but today represents both Lucifer and Satan, depending on its color (blue or violet for Lucifer, and red or orange for Satan). The "X" in the symbol denotes physical power, the inverted triangle symbolizes water, and the “V” symbolizes duality. The symbol in its entirety is shaped like a chalice and is said to represent creation.

Removal of dark entities like Leo did. On another note, just discovered a beautiful gem of a song, not at all heard by many, stumbled across it and couldn't get enough of how beautiful the piano music and simplistic dance was

My own demonology version.. Codex Infernal. This guy tho Some facts that I found on Satanism Satanism is not the 'worshiping of satan' as most dumbasses tend to believe. Satanists do not believe in a higher god, and are ordinary people. They do not dress in black, and try to sacrifice living animals for 'rituals.' These are the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth as stated by the Church of Satan's founder, Anton Szander LaVey: 1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. 2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. 3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there. 4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. 5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. 6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved. 7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained. 8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself. 9. Do not harm little children. 10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. 11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him. Nine Satanic Statements. Those are: 1.Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence. 2.Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams. 3.Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit. 4.Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates. 5.Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek. 6.Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires. 7.Satan represents man as just another animal -- sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours -- who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all. 8.Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification. 9.Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years. Goths are not always satanists, but can be.

The Dictionnaire Infernal The Dictionnaire Infernal (English: "Infernal Dictionary") is a book on demonology, describing demons organised in hierarchies. It was written by Jacques Auguste Simon Collin de Plancy and first published in 1818.[1][2] There were several editions of the book; perhaps the most famous is the 1863 edition, which included sixty-nine illustrations by Louis Le Breton depicting the appearances of several of the demons. Many but not all of these images were later used in S. L. MacGregor Mathers's edition of The Lesser Key of Solomon. Dictionnaire Infernal was first published in 1818 and then divided into two volumes, with six reprints—and many changes—between 1818 and 1863. This book attempts to provide an account of all the knowledge concerning superstitions and demonology. A review in 1822 read: Anecdotes of the nineteenth century or stories, recent anecdotes, features and little known words, singular adventures, various quotations, compilations and curious pieces, to be used for the history of the customs and the mind of the century in which we live, compared with centuries past. The cover page for the 1826 edition reads: Infernal Dictionary, or, a Universal Library on the beings, characters, books, deeds, and causes which pertain to the manifestations and magic of trafficking with Hell; divinations, occult sciences, grimoires, marvels, errors, prejudices, traditions, folktales, the various superstitions, and generally all manner of marvellous, surprising, mysterious, and supernatural beliefs. Influenced by Voltaire, Collin de Plancy initially did not believe in superstition. For example, the book reassures its contemporaries as to the torments of Hell: "To deny that there are sorrows and rewards after death is to deny the existence of God; since God exists, it must be necessarily so. But only God could know the punishments meted out to the guilty, or the place that holds them. All the catalogues made herebefore are only the fruit of a more or less disordered imagination. Theologians should leave to the poets the depiction of Hell, and not themselves seek to frighten minds with hideous paintings and appalling books" (p. 164).[3] The skepticism of Collin de Plancy increasingly subsided over time. By the end of 1830 he was an enthusiastic Roman Catholic, to the consternation of his former admirers.[citation needed] In later years, De Plancy rejected and modified his past works, thoroughly revising his Dictionnaire Infernal to conform with Roman Catholic theology. This influence is most clearly seen in the sixth and final 1863 edition of the book, which is decorated with many engravings and seeks to affirm the existence of the demons. de Plancy collaborated with Jacques Paul Migne, a French priest, to complete a Dictionary of the occult sciences or theological Encyclopaedia, which is described as an authentic Roman Catholic work.[4][5] Many articles written in the Dictionnaire Infernal illustrate the author's vacillation between rationalism, faith, and willingness to believe without evidence.[6] For example, he admits the possible effectiveness of chiromancy, while rejecting cartomancy: "It is certain that chiromancy, and especially physiognomy, have at least some plausibility: they draw their predictions from signs which relate to features which distinguish and characterize people; of lines which the subjects carry with themselves, which are the work of nature, and that someone can believe significant, since they are unique to each individual. But the cards, merely human artifacts, not knowing either the future, nor the present, nor the past, have nothing of the individuality of the person consulting them. For a thousand different people they will have the same result; and consulted twenty times about the same subject, they will produce twenty contradictory productions" (p. 82). List of Demons in the book Abigor also known as Eligos Abraxas/Abracas Adramelech Aguares Alastor Alocer Amduscias Amon Andras Asmodee Astaroth Azazel Bael Balan Barbatos Behemoth Belphegor Belzebuth Berith Beyrevra Buer Caacrinolaas Cali Caym Cerbere Deimos/Deumus Eurynome Flaga Flavros Forcas Furfur Gramma Garuda Guayota Gomory Haborym Ipes Lamia Lechies Leonard Lucifer Malphas Mammon Marchosias Melchom Moloch Nickar Nybbas Orobas Paimon Picollus Pruflas/Busas Rahovart Ribesal Ronwe Scox Stolas Tap Torngarsuk Ukobach Volac Wall Xaphan Yan-gant-y-tan Zaebos

List of demons A Abaddon Abigor Abraxas Adramelech Agares Ahriman Aim Alastor Alloces Amdusias/ Amduscias Amon Amy Andras Anzu Asmodeus/Asmoday Astaroth Azazel B Bael Balam Barbatos Bathin Beelzebub Behemoth Beleth Belial Belphegor Berith Bifrons Botis Buer Bune C Cacus Cali Callicantzaros Camio Cerberus Cimejes Crocell D Dagwanoenyent Dantalion Decarabia Deumus E Eligos Ereshkigal Erinyes Eurynome F Fallen Angels Fenrir Flaga Focalor Fomorians Foras Forneus Furcas Furfur G Gaap Glasya-Labolas Gorgons Gremory Gusion H Haagenti Haborym Halphas Harpies Haures Hel Hiisi Hun Came Hurakan I Iblis Incubus Ipos Izanami J Jinn Jormungand K Kappas L Lamia Lechies Leonard Leraje Leviathan Lilith Lix Tetrax Lucifer M Malphas Mammon Mara Marax Marbas Marchosias Mastema Melchiresa Melchom Mephistophiles Mictlantecuhtli Moloch Murmur N Naberius Nickar Nybbas O Onoskelis Oriax Ornias Orobas Ose P Paimon Phenex Picollus Pretas Pruflas Purson R Rahovart Raum Ribesal Ronove S Sallos Samigina Satan Seere Seere Seraphim Shax Shedim Sitri Stolas Succubus T Tezcatlipoca Tlaltecuhtli Torngarsuk Tzitzimime U Ukobach Uvall V Valefor Vampires Vapula Vassago Vepar Vine Volac Vrykolakas Vucub Came Vucub Caquix W Watchers X Xaphan Y Yenaldooshi Z Zagan Zepar Demonology Texts Pseudomonarchia daemonum (1583) Dictionnaire Infernal (1863) Abramelin The Mage (1898) Goetic Demons (1904) Comparison of Goetia & Weir

Another powerful word is रूमानी. This word means a lot of things to me. It means everything pure and central.

I have begun to take interest in demonology

When you hear the intense roar of thunder, the witch will descend on earth. I dreamed of a flat endless land I dreamed of the wolf and coyote Thunder Sparrow and hawk I dreamed of the bear and dog Thunder Of the buffalo and man Great thunder A dark cloud over the ground Hooves raining on the Earth and thunder, great thunder in the sky The witch will make a wish She will cast a spell. She will call for her lover and she will call for the wolf Your fortress will protect you The witch will open a secret chest. And a light will shine bright in the sky. A wolf will appear in the skies. The wolf will descend from the moon The witch will make a protection spell to the wolf The spirit of the wolf will enter the witch Now all spells will come true. The witch tells the raven to keep an eye on the Devil's hand. The witch will pray the demons away and shine the divine light of love and wisdom and divine protection. The promise will come true. And with the spell of the witch, the demons will die. The waiting will come to an end. And you will be set free

But you are the princess Build the fortress A thousand doors will open.... To bright light. Rejoice The witch will come to life One day.... And the demons will die. The wolf will descend from the moon.