Page all of 3 123>
Topic Options
#43120 - 09/19/10 09:17 PM Bible Time! - Riddle Me This
Lamar Offline
member


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 226
Loc: Alabama
Alright so I was just reading a thread about a new Paradise Lost movie and Michael Aquino's post reminded me of a conversation I had with my drunken aunt. When she drinks for some reason she gets all biblical and doesn't mind telling me that God cares for me, blah blah. Sometime in the dialogue she said that angels could not think in terms of opposition from God. Lucifer was a great and beautiful *angel*. He said in his heart "I will be like the Most High, I will exalt my throne above God." So it was pride that cast Lucifer from heaven.

Lucifer was an *angel*. If angels cannot think in opposition of God, how then was he able to rebel against God?

Top
#43121 - 09/19/10 09:46 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Lamar]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Because if there were an ever present and omniscient god who created everything he would have had to have created Lucifer to think in opposition to him/her/it self (because god cannot make mistakes).

Since this is the only scenario that would make sense then reason should also illustrate the idea that god created Lucifer for the explicit purpose of being 'evil' (since he couldn't have been mistaken in his purpose).

In this way the alpha and the omega are also good and evil.

The problem with all of that though is that it's all bullshit.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#43123 - 09/19/10 11:52 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Fnord]
Duende Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/25/10
Posts: 75
Loc: USA
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
Because if there were an ever present and omniscient god who created everything he would have had to have created Lucifer to think in opposition to him/her/it self (because god cannot make mistakes).


If God represents the "Balance Factor" in nature, and the angels are the "functions" of God (like the neteru from that other thread), then Satan's function is being that which is in opposition to the harmony of God. This is exactly why Lucifer can think in opposition to God, because that is what he represents, that is his function. It's what he does.

It brings up that old pesky Satanic paradox that others have encountered in the past, due to the limitations of Judeo-Christian mythology. It can be ignored or we can use an alternative mythology (beyond the Judeo-Christian) to avoid it altogether.

 Originally Posted By: Fnord
The problem with all of that though is that it's all bullshit.


That does not make it any less entertaining! ;\)
_________________________
seeker of the mysteries ......

Top
#43124 - 09/20/10 12:33 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Duende]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2480
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Duende
It brings up that old pesky Satanic paradox that others have encountered in the past, due to the limitations of Judeo-Christian mythology. It can be ignored or we can use an alternative mythology (beyond the Judeo-Christian) to avoid it altogether.

For one alternative mythology which confronts this tension, see the first two scrolls of the Morlindalë.

J.R.R. Tolkien's "Ainulindalë" & "Valaquenta" in The Silmarillion mirror the Paradise Lost creation/war in Heaven from the perspective of the Elves, as told to them by the Ainur of Valinor. The first scroll of the Morlindalë contains Melkor's account of the same events, while the second scroll adds the perspective of the Maia Sauron.

As with the Diabolicon, I do not expect to see a motion picture of the Morlindalë anytime soon ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#43164 - 09/23/10 10:57 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Lamar]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Nashville
All right, it was pride that got Lucifer tossed out of heaven. Makes sense – after all, pride is one of the seven deadly sins. But if pride is so terrible, why does God want us to worship him? Wouldn’t that make him a hypocrite?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#43278 - 09/28/10 04:46 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: William Wright]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Well, technically, it wasn't so much pride that got Lucifer tossed on his ass as it was envy. Even still the Bible is full of hypocrisy and more holes than a brick of Swiss cheese that has been unloaded on with a 12 gauge firing 000.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#43282 - 09/28/10 06:28 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: William Wright]
Lamar Offline
member


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 226
Loc: Alabama
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
All right, it was pride that got Lucifer tossed out of heaven. Makes sense – after all, pride is one of the seven deadly sins. But if pride is so terrible, why does God want us to worship him? Wouldn’t that make him a hypocrite?


I'd like to add to your speculation that, as the Christians say, God is a jealous God. Jealousy, isn't that a sin as well?

I'd like to add another thing, profanity. I personally haven't read anywhere in the Bible that says you cannot curse, of course I haven't read past psalms - its a bigass book and gets boring. But, then why do alot of Christians use curse words? I couldn't give a shit what people say, just gets annoying when Christians say don't curse and then curse right after saying that.

Anyway.

Top
#43423 - 10/03/10 10:30 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Lamar]
Mr_Lament Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/31/10
Posts: 22
Loc: England.
Swearing and hypocrisy really having nothing to do with religeous persuasion.
I myself have heard utterd from a very strict jewish lady to her children "Stop fucking swearing".
Generally speaking i have come across the train of thought that just because they have a "god" they have some sort of moral high ground and thusly have the mind frame "do as i say not as i do".

Disgusting behavior regardless.


Edited by Mr_Lament (10/03/10 10:30 PM)

Top
#45442 - 12/22/10 11:06 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Lamar]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
The interesting thing is this - it has everything to do with free will. There's a lot of boring theology I could bother everyone here with, but at the end of the day, the Praeternatural Fall occurred as a result of singular freedom. The most pressing dichotomy in Christianity concerns personal autonomy vs. divine providence. It's only fitting that this is our origin myth.

JK
_________________________



Top
#45445 - 12/22/10 12:27 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
There is one thing that I can agree with Christians on, "God made man in his own image."

In this case the image is man, Lucifer is you and me.

Plotinus, the founder of neo-platonism, had a concept of the "One".

The "One" is the source of all things, but it is perfect without division, anything that was a division was a "dyad", or two, which was an imperfection. The "One" was made up of a Complex and a Simple, in that to be complex the "One" must also be simple. For instance, I have a sense of me, and my body, a "Complex", but what I consider as a whole is the product of trillions of smaller units called cells, a "Simple". So what am I? A whole or a lump of trillions of cells?

Since the "One" cannot be divided in order to be perfect, it had an argument with its self, and the less perfect was expelled, reflecting the story of a battle and the expelling of an angel from heaven.

What was expelled was like light (Logos), which had a relationship with the "One" like a reflection in a mirror. Since the Logos is still part of the "One" it develops a purpose to return back to the point of perfection, an "envy" of the perfect has arisen, and it develops a mind (Nous) which is a reflection of its purpose to return to the "One".

This philosophy from Plotinus and others explains

1. How it all started (Emanationism)
2. Why the Universe is in motion and change (everything is trying to get back to the "One")

Anyone thinking God is the "One" think again, since a God requires a mind, which requires a dyad to form, and the "One" is perfect so no mind is possible, unless it has been expelled as Logos and then develops "Nous" which then is a mere reflection of the "One".

The ideas of Plotinus has been an influence on Christianity and Islam, and may be reflected in some of their stories, such as that of the fable of the fall of an angel after a fight with God.
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#45626 - 12/25/10 08:07 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: mabon2010]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1639
Loc: Orlando, FL
Mainstream Christian theology has too many limitations and paradoxes to be a reliable arena of debate. Since I'm mainly preaching to the choir here, I'll be brief.

Its primary flaw is it attempts to enthrone a limited, anthropomorphic tribal god as some sort of transcendental monad. Simply put, it puts a human-like god in charge of an inhuman universe.

Secondly, and more relevant to Satanism, Christianity attempts to divide the Kingdom of God against itself, as embodied by the idea that God indirectly created evil, but it never completely redeems evil- opting instead to relegate it to some mode of eternal punishment. If the cosmos is to be "saved" and the whole of creation reunited in perfect goodness, then Satan too must be saved. Instead, God is stuck with an eternal boogeyman, an unbalanced equation-- which is not solved by tossing the Old Serpent into the Lake of Fire. That would be the cosmic equivalent of shoving your own turd under a carpet and calling the room "clean".

In summary, Christianity (and Judaism to a degree) has some nice Platonic vibes going for it, but these are promptly spoiled by giving the Almighty petty human traits, such as being jealous, warlike, and smiting specific countries and social minorities that His worshipers didn't personally like.

Furthermore, the story of Christ's "redemption" of mankind is so terribly nonsensical and convoluted it hardly merits debate here. For those interested I would suggest Celsus's "Discourse Against the Christians", which is an enlightening glimpse of how many educated Romans perceived Christianity as it was still in its infancy.



Edited by The Zebu (12/25/10 08:13 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#45629 - 12/25/10 09:14 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2480
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Zebu, so eloquently stated that anything beyond an expression of admiration would be superfluous.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#45630 - 12/25/10 09:49 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
In some ways, I see the move towards theism in Left Hand Pathers to be a need to be part of "that old time religion" that we of the opposite camp seek to divest ourselves of. Whereas we see the dogmatic aspects of Satanism as simply fulfilling a need for ritual in man, and that the rituals that man creates are self-serving and internally focused, the ancients, mystics though they were, were somehow more personally connected to their externalized gods than those of use who wish to take on that godhead of our own volition.

Much of the allure of Satanism for the more pragmatic is the looking within for answers, rather than looking "out there" to some god, or deity or externalized "truth" that is universally shared by all. It's the insular self determination that attracts us, rather than the all-embracing and all-encompassing wish to be part of the whole. We say it in our cultures in many ways... brotherhood... the family of man... e pluribus unum. But for those who reject that united "strength" for the sake of their belief in "inner strength" over imposed "virtues," it's simply a step too far in the wrong direction.

Within every species, we see subsets and offshoots and hybrids that either make it or become footnotes in the evolutionary path. This, to me, is pretty much simply a parting of the ways in the evolution of our socioreligious development. And in the long run, it could be a replay of the Neanderthals and the Cro Mangon, on a societal scale. We will either find a way to set the differences aside or one will eventually be dominant and the other extinct, or absorbed into the whole as an abberant subset.

From where I stand, the internalists, to coin a phrase, will eventually prevail, although I do see man's need for that "external force," and the idea of something larger than oneself. It gives man, if nothing else, something to point to as an inspiration and emotional "gestalt"... a unified whole from which to draw strength. The religionists of every stripe hold the same belief..."WITH GOD WE CAN... ARE... SHALL BE."

We "internalists" simply feel that what man is and what man does is a function of his species. We do because we can. We are simply because we've evolved to be. What shall be is dependent upon our Will.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#45632 - 12/26/10 04:49 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2480
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
In some ways, I see the move towards theism in Left Hand Pathers to be a need to be part of "that old time religion" that we of the opposite camp seek to divest ourselves of ... From where I stand, the internalists, to coin a phrase, will eventually prevail, although I do see man's need for that "external force," and the idea of something larger than oneself ... We "internalists" simply feel that what man is and what man does is a function of his species. We do because we can. We are simply because we've evolved to be. What shall be is dependent upon our Will.

The Church of Satan experienced this tension from Day One. There were those who wanted to settle comfortably into a sort of "inverted Christianity" with weekly "services" (on the model of the Satanic Mass shown in Satanis): Satan sitting on God's throne, with his Black Pope replacing the White one, so to speak. Anton toyed with this scenario in the very early days; again you can see some hints in Satanis. But he along with the rest of the Priesthood quickly realized that a mere "dark mirror image" was utterly inappropriate.

Christianity and its fellow OU-reinclusion religions seek to apologize, ritualize, or anyotherize isolate-conscious humanity "back into" that ordering, consistent [O]universality we see all around us. If we could just get back into the Garden of Eden, with this terrible sensation of being uniquely distinct from it erased from our existence, we could all go back to being happy, pre-apple-eating animals.

Satanism knew that it rejected OU-reinclusion as an ideal, but was then faced with the question of exactly what a uniquely conscious self is and should aspire to further-be. And of course we began with the acknowledgement that each such being known to us is, at least in physical 4-dimensional displacement, a piece of that same OU. We were not completely absorbed in it, but we were nevertheless partially integrated with it through the media of our bodies. [This is beginning to sound very Borgy, and perhaps the analogy is not bad at that. ]

Our perception of Satan thus became something much more subtle and complex than a mere YHVH-rottweiler or angelic Wild One. We were looking for the generalized source or principle establishing this sense of disconnection and difference in each of us, because the phenomenon was clearly a commonly-manifest one.

It was also just as inappropriate to anthropomorphize Satan as it is to define each of us by just what we look like.

Hence the metaphysics of the Church of Satan became very complicated very inexorably. I have said many times, here and previously, that if the crisis of 1975 had not occurred, the Church of Satan would have evolved into something like, if indeed not indistinguishable from today's Temple of Set anyway. We are a continuation of that same adventure into that same mystery (Ipsissimus Stephen Flowers' Runa).

When from my personal perspective I look at the 600C, I see in it a seething furnace of this same mystery, this same tension. I can also see very clearly where it's going, but it is a quest which cannot be other than unique to each individual. And some have a lot of OU-conditioning to sort through first.

This same furnace is what I don't see in other "Satanic" forums; and the "Church of Satan" one, from my recent look-see, is hopelessly inert. Years from now it will be exactly the same as it is now, and exactly as useless. The 600C is a nuclear explosion in slow multimotion.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#46429 - 01/10/11 12:37 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Architect Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/06/10
Posts: 7
Loc: The North West
I'm not sure if a fully understand this post. your asking a question based on what your religious, drunk aunt said? faith+alchohol=higher state of understanding?


the opposition(or rather the inability to oppose) that you speak of, was voiced by a single intoxicated individual. the foundation upon which this thread was created is invalid, but it did lead to some interesting conversation. At this point, any insight would be speculation; since the nature of angels can not really be observed, and it is a general consensus that the bible and RHP religion is bullshit. thus not only are angels unobservable they are fantasy..and any idea as to what their nature could be, all depends on the individual's depth of imagination.

_________________________
Ignorance inspires understanding

Top
#48895 - 02/15/11 11:15 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Lamar]
GeorgeDeadson Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/15/11
Posts: 10
Loc: Dallas, TX
Well, according to the xtian bible, angels, like humans also have freewill. So obviously, your aunt doesn't know what it says. And even if it did say that, lets be honest, the bible is full of nonsense, it says that the earth is 5000 years old, it says that man was made from dirt, and that woman was fashioned from the rib of a man. It also says that a man, was able to build a big boat and put two of every species of animal on it and have enough food to survive on that boat for 40 days and 40 nights. It says that a man, can survive in the belly of a whale. And it says that the dead can come back to life.
The xtian bible is nonsense. Its best not to think about it. Xtianity is old hat.
_________________________
George Deadson

Top
#50245 - 03/01/11 07:47 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: The Architect]
JMM Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 29
Loc: Michigan
There's a lot of different "literature " scenarios that claim to depict the true "war in heaven" and explain the fall of lucifer. In ]aradise lost he wouldn't bow down to jesus, in the diabolocon h evolved almost as a natural opposing force to god from chaos, in ann rice's "memnoch the devil" she depicts him as some sort of crusader for the little guy (us) and god banishes him to hell until all human souls are worthy of entrance into heaven. But in ALL of these lucifer was not only an angel but the first, the strongest, and the most beautiful of angels. And the main question of why would god create a flawed thing that is capable of opposition to his will?

Why did he create us? If god really wanted to crete us in his image we would be gods? Why create a lower species? Maybe a little insecure? (That's silly I know) or ...maybe he COULDN'T. Now that questions omnipotence. Maybe angels were a rough draft. Then the physical world was the next step. Then combining the flesh with angelic beings was the next. Of course this would make us more of a science experiment than anything. But then again. Where does "god " come from? Maybe another science experiment gone wrong somewhere else. Maybe he's trying to reproduce this to have a mate...this is getting too "isaac asimov-ey" but anyhow. Yes in all the literature....lucifer was the top dog. Free will was his undoing.(if lucifer were to truly lament leaving gods site...and if any of this nonsense were real in the first place)
_________________________
- J.M.M.

Top
#52319 - 04/06/11 09:01 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: JMM]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
I think in terms of the bible that there is clearly a great number of silly statements and contridictions. I would submit that this is due to the foolish decision to compile a series of texts, written in different ages, by different authors, with entirely different intentions, in different languages being lumped to into the mini library that is the bible.
Top
#53540 - 04/26/11 11:14 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Meph9]
JMM Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 29
Loc: Michigan
 Originally Posted By: Meph9
I think in terms of the bible that there is clearly a great number of silly statements and contridictions. I would submit that this is due to the foolish decision to compile a series of texts, written in different ages, by different authors, with entirely different intentions, in different languages being lumped to into the mini library that is the bible.


I like the way you worded that. It does seem that if a person were to just pick up the bible and read it cover to cover like a novel, it would make NO sense. Its always been funny to me that it is the most popular book in the world, but it does blatently contradict itself. I guess the only true philosophy and wisdom I have ever really gotten from it (and I do give it credit for having some very good philisophical value in SOME of the books, while at the same time find other parts of it so ridiculous its hard to credit it as "the good book" as a whole) have always been from reading specific books and chapters as stand-alone books unto themselves rather than reading the whole thing.

And in particular...back to the original subject of the thread starter question...the timeline never has made sense to me as well as the creation of "lesser beings" by ONE omnipotent being, and then the criticism of the lesser beings behavior. It would seem that if "god" were so omnipotent, he/it would have created another "god" for company, thus iliminating the need for disciplinary action all the time, and that way he/it would have a "partner" or buddy to hang out with rather than a bunch of dummies that needed constant corrective action. But the "angels" each in their own order of power still did retain free will, so by design there is always that ABILITY to defy the creator, so if that's such a big hair accross gods ass, why design the beings that way? Or US for that matter?

So ill ask another question on top of the original one...if god wanted gods, why didn't he just create them? Either he couldn't, which would pose the question: if he COULDN'T, then is he/it TRULY omnipotent, what else CAN'T he/it do? Or are we (angels AND humans alike) created to be flawed and "weaker" on purpose, so god could rule over us? Wouldn't that be kind of an ego boost for him/it? Maybe compensating for low self esteem? (That sounds silly,but really, why create something JUST to dominate it unless maybe he/it were from a race of beings similar to himself, and maybe he was the geek always getting picked on by the other "gods" or godlike beings, and we're some sort of means for overcompensating for his own weakness, again bringing into question his omnipotence?

There IS always the possibility that maybe god isn't all he's cracked up to be, and we take this shit too seriously...just a thought....
_________________________
- J.M.M.

Top
#53574 - 04/27/11 06:29 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: GeorgeDeadson]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Where the gospels disagree, I generally try to avoid using the quotes altogether, so I'll just do a well deserved satire.

The dead come back to life all the time, the eternal recurrence, people just think they are new and special, all manner of delusions denude each individual into thinking he is unique. The re birth of the Christ would simply be the ideal of a compassionate and wise man recurring (or narcissist depending on your stance of morality). This is why consciously or unconsciously, the worshippers try to emulate yet do so out of idolatry instead of inexplicably feeling what is intrinsic about wisdom, compassion, virtues etc.

However, will to power was not considered a worthy admission in the bible and instead moral justification for genocide is in place. Religion is characterised by obsessive adherence to fixed beliefs outside the normal perceptual range of a person's ecosystem, or by a hallucinatory experience or by what is "thought disorder" thinking that does not follow rationality. False beliefs that cause a person to suffer, produce conflict with others or render a person unable to adapt to progressions in society. The Biblical texts are full of emotion-laden-wordings, when these emotion-laden wordings are processed, the susceptible brain of the Christian lights up with activity, particularly in the areas around the ventromedial frontal cortex and amygdala. The former plays a crucial role in controlling impulses and long term planning. If the delusions are not realised to be delusions when the person is presented with adequate evidence to the contrary, this allows for the idiosyncratical meme to be passed into the beliefs of others. The fact that Bible texts are so old is indicative of both noteworthy historical evidence but also of evolutionarily-retarded morality.

For instance, a positive connotation/signification I could make with evolutionary evidence would be the great deluge, referenced in many sundry traditions and ancient cultures, in metaphor, stone carvings and whatnot primitive art. In Old Norse lore, when Thor battles Jormungandr with the victor being Thor, this is man's triumph over the elements, natural disaster or some other cosmic cataclysm, plague whatever it was to be. For a lack of better words to describe nature and the cosmos, Norsemen, Sumerians, Babylonians or otherwise ancient peoples, created metaphorical references we can piece together by researching as many ancient sundry traditions as we can, forming a holistic picture, although the Sumerian texts are something else. The eternal recurrence is something to contemplate in relation to science, religious metaphor and what your own two eyes tell you.

That man was made from dirt is more true than we might want to believe. All matter in the universe is simply matter. We are subatomic particle waves and not solid as we would perceive but merely vibrating at more or less the same frequency as what we perceive as impassable "objects" out of necessity to survive in our "ecosystem". We perceive infinity both macrocosmically and microcosmically, as clearly we are focused in on what is necessary to sustain us in the ecosystem, hence what is not necessary is out of focus appearing vast, yet as infinity is bilateral to our perception both down through quark size and up through cosmic size there is nothing to measure upon so everything in the universe is actually the same size, as above so below.

If you can subtract the defunct morality from the texts you can merit religious terminology to all manner of scientific discoveries to help memorise something and give meaning to the barren hylic universe of particle energy exchange which is slowly dying through the impersonal dark force within nature known as entropy or Satan.
_________________________


Top
#53579 - 04/27/11 07:12 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Lamar]
Evin Offline
stranger


Registered: 04/25/11
Posts: 19
 Originally Posted By: Lamar

Lucifer was an *angel*. If angels cannot think in opposition of God, how then was he able to rebel against God?


Where does it say that Lucifer was an angel? Nowhere.

That word is found only 1 time in the bible. That is in Isaiah 14. That whole chapter is just another bloodbath in the 'good book'.

Verse 4 of that chapter states that it is a parable against the king of Babylon. It has nothing to do with Satan.

Here it is, to verify it.

Lucifer is not a hebrew word. It is Latin. Here is a source that shows this.

It is also capitalized, denoting a proper name. It deserves no such recognition.

When you equate Lucifer with Satan, you are basing it on xtian dogma. And in that context, where I always knew, even when I was still a xtian, that atheists in general and Satanists in particular know more than the vast majority of xtains about the bible, I could never figure out how they made that mistake. Or perhaps it's me that made the mistake? Maybe I'm missing something.

Top
#53582 - 04/27/11 08:17 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Evin]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
We can take what we will from biblical scriptures and value whatever we want according to positive attributions we may find progressive to our understandings of ourself in interactions with others but we can also have a good laugh. To take the key of knowledge and turn it within the self to unlock understanding (or humour). After all, Jesus laughs a great deal in the Gnostic gospels when his disciples are worshipping him.

I look at Lucifer as being disgusted with YHWH's Narcissism, if YHWH was all powerful then surely he could make Lucifer not rebel, this was not so or at best a hubris baiting unto Lucifer, yet knowing this, Lucifer chose to be cast down to earth rather than to be 2nd to somebody else who would not reason, needlessly, even though Lucifer was most attractive he/she was not so shallow nor did Lucifer devise to plot or contrive, but faced YHWH face to face with a valid argument. Lucifer the light bearer was demonised as Satan the enemy.

The same as Qayin was disgusted with Abel's hubris Narcissism which lead to needless murdering and burning of the farm animals, for which Qayin was a farmer and Abel a Sheppard with meagre responsibilities compared to Qayin's farming duties, hence Abel thought nothing of needlessly burning Qayin's livelihood to the ground. Qayin was driven to murder Abel in the fields after his attempt to show Abel that burning plant matter was more practical, after failed to convince Abel, and after killing Abel, Qayin probably incinerated Abel to the demiurge for irony sake.

Jesus had grandiose compensatory delusions too, and fantasies of omniscience, omnipotence, this was his magical thinking like Abel's. A firstborn, he was much pampered by his guilty whore mother. He was a prodigy, highly intelligent and and more comfortable in the company of high ranking scholars than with his lowly peers. The bastard Christ is the Narcissist archetype and we can learn much from observing his ignominious disclosure of his shadow projections with disgust. Thus we crucify this archetype intellectually (or physically) when we encounter his hubris pathological behaviour. Jesus healed only those who publicly and repeatedly worshipped him. He worked his miracles only to his sources of narcissistic supply. Jesus bargains with the afflicted and demands in anger, unconditional adoration for this is when he is happiest, any who do not feed his narcissistic supply are compartmentalised as "swine".
_________________________


Top
#53938 - 05/04/11 12:33 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Evin]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1639
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
When you equate Lucifer with Satan, you are basing it on xtian dogma.


This also begs the age-old question of why we would use the name "Satan" in the first place if the word is "owned" by our avowed enemies. Of course, we can play all the semantic games we want, pointing out how we simply use it to mean "adversary" (of Greco-Phoenician descent, for all you anti-Judaists) and therefore has nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism. Then we are left with the problem of explaining why the aspects of "our" Satan so closely parallel that of the Abrahamic Faiths.

Instead of untangling such futile etymological knots, it is much more efficient to look at Satan as being a meta-sigil, having both an exoteric and esoteric meaning.

The exoteric aspects of Satan cannot be disputed; they have been firmly established by our civilization and culture; he is a being of Evil, he tempts mankind, and brings chaos and suffering. He rebels against the perceived cosmic order, and is venerated by degenerate scoundrels who commit horrendous acts in his name.

This Satan is a mixture of Christian, Pagan, and Jewish elements-- but how these attributes came to be is of little importance. The Satanist seeks the ESOTERIC aspects of Satan, which cannot be grasped solely through mythos or contemplation. The Satanist experiences Satan as a reality via the Left Hand Path, at which point such names and labels have little relevance except as a vehicle for explaining and challenging ideas.

Satan is an ideal embodiment of the LHP because his exoteric nature so closely parallels the esoteric essence. But even Christ can be seen as an aspect of the Sinister. One needs only to take a look at gnosticism, antinomianism, and other such heresies which reach out towards the darkness.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#53939 - 05/04/11 12:40 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: The Zebu]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
This also begs the age-old question of why we would use the name "Satan" in the first place if the word is "owned" by our avowed enemies. Of course, we can play all the semantic games we want, pointing out how we simply use it to mean "adversary" (of Greco-Phoenician descent, for all you anti-Judaists) and therefore has nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism. Then we are left with the problem of explaining why the aspects of "our" Satan so closely parallel that of the Abrahamic Faiths.


Maybe I am looking at this too simplistically but I see the use of Satan as an archetype and its relevance to the Abrahamic faiths as intentional. For it (read: Satanism) stands directly opposed to the aforementioned Abrahamic faiths. Yes, it is also stands in opposition to all the slave religions but the Christian religions were and indeed still are, the predominant ones in the country where Satanism "started".
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#53942 - 05/04/11 01:19 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
It surely isn't too simplistic 6. Satan is perfect to represent opposition to the Abrahamic worldview and that what is promoted or even elevated as good by them. He is all they are not and in that, is the perfect archetype in our culture. Elsewhere he might make less sense.

D.

Top
#53944 - 05/04/11 02:01 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Diavolo]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
Try flipping it on its head?

The Abrahamic religions promote self-negation, collectivism and everything that is contrary to personal growth and happiness. They, in short, promote the death of the individual. Satan is the opposite, or pro-Man.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#53945 - 05/04/11 02:19 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
I would agree there are traces of the "fear of Satan" in the Bible. Shadow projections, remnants of irrationality we can build a holistic picture of how the fear of Satan is only something leading to it's source and not a valid description. Never believe the compartmentalised story of a coward but learn to see what it is he is afraid of in simplicity.

Some of us who deal with Satanism do not call ourselves LaVeyan nor theistic Satanist yet we can affirm that we are all connected by expressing strength, this affirmation is not to call oneself unique but to affirm that we all work toward the ultimate ideal to express the Nietzschean maxim and dare to be ourselves. For some of us, Satan is not consigned to the Christian approach of Satan either for a negative presentation of what the herd fears is simply a shadow projection and not good enough to aspire to, instead we can affirm it is the Satan of all time—a mystery dimly understood by science as entropy yet inexplicably felt by life itself, much more, beyond formalities. If we observe Satan scientifically, as either part of, or emanating from entropy, we can see that it is in and of us; it is the darkness all around, permeating everything and guiding it. It is not consigned to any singular æon or place nor namesake. It is an occult secret expressing many aspects, the effects of which are working all around, of which the existence of is as disputable as the reality of our own civilisation. For some of us, Satanism deals with the non-existence, the centre of which is personified by Satan, this phenomenon of Satanism, has left traces of archæological and written evidence around the world, by many names, the presence is emitting from both within our dark unconsciousness and from the outer dark dimensions (eleven dimensional shadow projection, we perceive as the stream of causality). Our every day lives are endarkened as Satan comes into focus. "At the darkest night of the soul, only that by of it's own luminescence, shines."

There are few who feel the dark force within nature and experience this secret thoroughly for want to reach their full potential on the Left Path. To work toward recognising naturally occurring entropy as the dark force in nature and as a symbol or archetype is not important—natural aristocracy is restored by the truly strong regardless. The former cannot be emulated yet why dismiss the egoistic expression drawn from symbolic recognition of Satan? Certainly to devalue the promising plentitude of what LayVey and others present is a good thing in order to manifest our own dark visions of Satan, those abstract causal forms receive revaluation through self understanding, to see potential in propensity. Yet it is the affirmation of a lacking that causes the Satanist to "always" strive for stronger alignment with the darkest force within nature. And as we all inevitably find out "knowledge is not the same as understanding".

Satan: One can appear possessed by it's study, and of it's exercise; they are those who fear the natural aristocratic expression of the will to power. The Satanist is of overflowing strength, of mind, body, egoistic, brimming vitality; will to power aspires full potential. The Satanist has always believed a noble life lies in freedom, no remorse.
_________________________


Top
#53954 - 05/04/11 11:28 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Hegesias]
Lamar Offline
member


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 226
Loc: Alabama
To add further, Satan is a label of opposition and iconoclasm, a motivator of the human spirit. He certainly is the closest to what man is.
Top
#54248 - 05/10/11 09:57 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Lamar]
Lil Rag Offline
Banned
stranger


Registered: 04/11/11
Posts: 28
dudes you're talkin about xtians, lets talk about Quran.

in Quran it says Human is for 6994 years ago!(damn what an exact time!) while the researchers found humans for about 20,000 years ago. also Quran says "You are Free to choose your religion" but in the same time it says "Any Other Religion exept islam is not accepted to god and if you convert to another religion you will goe to hell" (and the rule is to cut off your head :D) this religion is completely based on Peace (yeah of course) when islam was found by mohammed, They attacked persia because they didnt follow their Based-on Peace religion, so they burned persia to ashes, they attacked rome, Spain, Jursalem & ...
so not only Bible is based on non-sense but The Whole Abrahamic Religions are based on Nonsense things. Islam says Live Poor and you will have a Grrrrrreat life in heaven with you 72 virgins and rivers of honey and milk! LOL
well if you wanna be a martyr and die for your beliefs or your country nothing is more important than what you're dying for, but when you wanna die for 72virgins, Dude then thats abso-F*ckin-Lutely different from being a Martyr!
_________________________
i choose Hell, cause i can smoke my lucky strike!

Top
#54322 - 05/11/11 12:02 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Lil Rag]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1639
Loc: Orlando, FL
Islam itself is a distorted caricature of Christianity and Judaism.

Numerous things that we take for granted in Christianity-- such as a clear-cut doctrine of hell, an account of the rise and fall of Satan, pilgrimages and spiritual practices-- actually have no biblical basis. They are, however, conveniently written in the Quran, as Mohammad designed Islam to resemble the current world religions as a marketing tactic.

Even the idea of "the One True Holy Book" that we think so central to Christianity has no objective basis either, as the Bible itself is a giant scrapbook with bits and pieces stitched together from numerous authors over the centuries. Mohammad, however, wrote his own Holy Book himself, both out of expediency and to cement his own ultimate spiritual authority.

Coming back to the thread topic, another advantage of the Quran was that Mohammad was able to gloss over and 'correct' numerous scriptural and ideological contradictions that had caused theological roadbumps in other religions. The fall of Satan is perhaps the most well-known of them.

In the Torah, Satan is a minor enigmatic character who appears to serve as a tester of faith for the Most High. This does not reconcile well with the New Testament's portrayal of Satan as some sort of apocalyptic force of pure evil that rivals God, even less so with the legend that he was some sort of Promethean angel cast down for his pride. This raises numerous problematic questions, one of which is...

 Quote:

Lucifer was an *angel*. If angels cannot think in opposition of God, how then was he able to rebel against God?


It was commonly held in the ancient world that angels are pure beings that cannot oppose God because they have no free will. Mohammad sidestepped this problem by claiming that Shaitan was actually a djinn (fire-demon), a lesser creation capable of sin.

Of course, the Quran still has innumerable contradictions in its theory and practice. In my opinion, the Baha'i faith does the best job of fixing these (but of course that's another area of discussion entirely).


Edited by The Zebu (05/11/11 12:03 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#54417 - 05/14/11 03:46 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: The Zebu]
Lil Rag Offline
Banned
stranger


Registered: 04/11/11
Posts: 28
yes, exactly Mohammed Edited & Fixed Many Parts of Islam. While Islam Still has alot of problems, but i think islam is the Final Version of Abrahamic Religions (Baha'i Faith needs Somewhere else to talk about) but The True Abrahamic Religion's Job was to show that the Other People Before Them Were Evil like when Islam Was Found they Called Zoroastrians "Kafir" which means Atheist! they Called Them Evils and Killed All Of them! When Abrahamic Religions Show up, it means somebody is going to be the evil again!
_________________________
i choose Hell, cause i can smoke my lucky strike!

Top
#54441 - 05/14/11 03:20 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Lil Rag]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
I'm curious about how Muhammed "edited and fixed" parts of a religion he invented...

Anytime two peoples who disagree you'll see conflict and warfare. The labelling of foriegn peoples and ideas as dangerous or evil extends far beyond the historical and dogmatic confines of xtianity and its semetic roots.

I find it interesting that despite the hostilities between the early Islam and its neighboors, between xtianity and the middle east and roman pagan religions around it incorporate concepts and characters from these other religions that they're attempting to demonize

Top
#54443 - 05/14/11 05:06 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Meph9]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1639
Loc: Orlando, FL
Islam was never exactly set in stone; throughout Muhammad's lifetime, his religion was very much a "work in progress". As he gained followers, he adapted some of their beliefs and practices into his own doctrine to curry their favor, inasmuch as these adaptions did not undermine his own authority or monotheism.

The Kaaba, for instance, houses an ancient pagan relic. Muhammad simply claimed it was actually from Eden, handed down by Abraham, and this actually Islamic. So Muhammad didn't mind his followers venerating at a heathen shrine, so long as they changed the sign on the door.

But not everything went through, it would seem. He wrote a part of the Quran praising Al Lat, Al Uzza and Manat, three divinities venerated by the Meccans, whom he hoped to bring into his fold. The whole ordeal didn't go over well and as his relations with Mecca soured, so he changed his mind and excised the segment, claiming the lines were actually Satanic Verses inspired by Iblis.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#54453 - 05/15/11 02:04 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: The Zebu]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Actually... The Kaaba houses the Hajre Aswad (black stone), some think it's a meteorite, and is supposedly a relic from all the way back to Adam and Eve. It's seven smallish shards that are in a silver frame and is mounted in one of the corner stones, although the exact one eludes me at present.

The stone is smooth to the touch from the millions of pilgrims who have touched it over the years.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TuseS_84DVI/TOFawSfA3gI/AAAAAAAAAj8/KSDi_jcIXMY/s1600/kaaba-3-large.jpg
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#54455 - 05/15/11 02:19 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: The Zebu]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
Weren't those segments in the Hadith? You know, the Qu'ran's version of the chapters of the bible we don't really buy into? Well, I say 'we' loosely...

For example, the Jews are actually the only ones who follow the ten actual commandments. Like "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk". The Muslims have long passages of the Qu'ran excised and put into a separate text. Almost like they're uncertain about those stories.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#54462 - 05/15/11 07:24 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Come on people, the Qu'ran and Bible are no where near as dispassionately bestial as the Talmud, that book is full of anti-human material exceeding extremely profane black metal lyrics along the lines of Profanatica— Jesus is in hell, boiling in excrement and semen? Satisfyingly vicious for art but I'd never be able to take that seriously unless I wanted to use it for humiliation to those who do take it seriously.

Indeed religious extremism is more than a foul parody and more along the lines of justified polar-malignity behind solemn soothsayers eyes and holy garments. The sinisterness and advocacy of racial supremacy, both passive aggressive, and direct, to Golems, is rather extreme even compared to The Inquisition.

I doubt that common-folk Jews are anything but equally unpredictable people, individuals, like any other race, creed they will fall in line according to natural aristocracy, the dominant males inspire the others to move toward progressive goals whilst the dregs attempt to backstab and steal. If we look at Himmler's retaliatory dark-ironic satire toward the Jewish elites racial supremacy, Himmler's article cannot rival the genuine article of racial supremacy of the Talmudic fanatics, I say again, not the Jewish people in the streets but the sectarian money-mongers.

It is the same with Muslims, the west is afraid of "all Muslims" because they are seen to have the potential to be posing as humane ready to blow up at any moment... Surely it is not rational to eradicate a religiously fanatical threat through extermination of common-folk who simply want to get on with their lives.

Yet I reserve the right to detest the unnaturalness of slave morality and look upon them persons as untrustworthy, I am an enemy of slave morality, but far more than conceited slave moralists can understand.— upon a revaluation of virtues there emerges ones own instinctual master morality. When a certain threshold of understanding is reached through devaluation and revaluation, there revealed, tragedy, the wrenched miasma of pity and dishonourableness all around those still pottering about in the graveyard of God, I can still make conversation with these people yet there is a strong sense that they have intimacy and empathy issues in my experience.

Natural aristocracy has been stifled by society, for the weak and negative are all too often glorified. I take malicious delight in revealing that nature's raw ugliness is beautiful.

A genuine and honest man? Clearly the slave moralist refers to a solemn eyed soothsayer, contemporary herdsman, repressed, compromised enfeebled will, buckled spirit, buckled lapdog spine. Why? For when one is genuine and honest in expressing the will to power, animalistic desire and amoral (not immoral) understandings beyond the promising plentitude of black and white moral compartmentalisation— one will appear almost psychopathic in a derogatory context. I am met with compartmentalised justifications without validity of argument, as to why I am, as if by a fluke of nature, somehow magically shallow or magically incapable of empathy. Despite my flaws which are never addressed, the behaviour stemming from envious equality pathos, the attempt to pull me down to their level, continues. I am ordinary and nothing special, I really can't see why my laughing and confidence angers so many as I most often help others who are helping themselves and dismiss negative and weak passive persons, still not after a good motivational speech has failed to inspire them.

I do not consider mature, an infantile display of tears, deliberate loss of control, or otherwise emotive forms of parasitism, there is control here, self discipline, emotional and cognitive intelligence working toward self mastery— poor impulse control would be used in a derogatory context within what passes as contemporary psychology to describe my expression of the will to power because expression gets confused with the weak loss of control that those tantalised by fantastic mediocrity are so overwhelmed by.

The Satanist will issue himself commands of his will, even denying himself lapses of indulgence in steadfast thought of attaining the main goal of progressing in body and mind, he is pragmatic and will apply perspectivism not blind faith in the orders and suggestions of others. This mastery of the self is not submitted to under indoctrinated breaking of the will but learned as one individuates, eventually realising where strength lies— the will.

In this we see that the will to power is not consigned to man made morally abstract fixations, and also that the internal recognitions of empathy is necessity, of nature, like any other living response, empathy within the animal kingdom is as debatable as the existence of our every day lives. I assert that most complete emotional recognition of other being's is intrinsic for perfectly natural living functioning— for mastery of ourselves lies in understanding, knowing that knowledge is not the same as understanding.

I look upon those who champion self professed superiority in compassion, pity and selflessness, and I look with profound suspicion. The moralist declares "His Satanic reasoning is warped and not humane! there is no compassion in his words!".

Take a look at this NS retaliation to the antiquitous Talmudic tyranny.

"The subhuman is a biological creature, crafted by nature, which has hands, legs, eyes and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial human being."— Himmler

Clearly this is a fight fire with fire tactic, to mock and reveal the racial supremacist ethos that has been covered up through propaganda. Why? Well look at the lines in the Talmud and compare it to Himmler's satire.

If all you have to be proud of is the colour of your skin or the faith you were indoctrinated into then obviously you have achieved nothing with your own life to be personally proud of. These beings are what I call subhumans. The elite would be those who are of any race or creed, who by their will, attain the goals they "themselves" set in for their lives. Who tries to interfere with others lives whilst ruining his own is a parasite.

Talmud is not Judaism you say? It belongs to an extreme sect you say? Indeed I agree, but all religion conceals unnatural and unnecessary prejudice against the human species and so anyone who follows a monotheistic religion is met with profound suspicion in my eyes, not because of exiting things like terrorism or Nazism but because of the natural repulsion I have for anyone who cannot think for themselves, they are unstable, prone to mood swings and dishonourable justifications, blamers, backstabbers are they.

There is no need for a natural man to follow like a lapdog and be open to prejudice, simply move on with science and psychology, sociology etc.and leave the dark ages behind as historical learnings to go beyond. It 's not big and it's not clever to hide secret superiority fantasies that your religion cultivates, we all know it's to do with a especially intimate God relationship, clever wording buries the god complex super ego deep down under the self deceit of pretentious modesty and humbleness, hubris and dispassionate righteousness. This hubris is transparent to those of master morality, it only makes the religious appear unstable and dishonourable, delusional liars, derailing what is natural using emotive words like "equality" and "peace", simply because they cannot intrinsically feel their own master morality, the religious man conceals a conceited ego who hates all who do not reflect his beliefs back to him— the religious discard what they see as lowly and in place there are feelings of grandeur, what they have discarded is natural human functioning, yet the religious man feels he has earned his place in the eyes of God through giving up all that is natural, there is no faith in his own nature to be affectionate to women and children. Why? I don't know and I don't care, anyone who needs guidelines to respect their own species is fucked in the head.

The best thing to say to religious people when they try and spoon feed you watered down variants of what we value already in all obviousness, is to simply say "Well obviously, did you have to learn that virtue from a book? At your age? how worrying."

The righteous envier declares "Egoism!" without a moments thought about what kind of hubris ego they have failed to identify in themselves, yet they feel compelled to envy a man who can think for himself, attempt to drag him down, for anyone who is such a threat to the slave moralist ego, it is more than enough to shower what they covet with derogatory negative remarks— equalising themselves through pessimism and ignorance.

If I am to make a slightly detailed analysis that goes beyond the promising and contenting closure of black and white moral dualism, it is most often dismissed as manipulation, clever talking, or evilness, for their moral closure and appeasement, the amoral (not immoral) man is compartmentalised as evil due to an infantile cognitive dissonance in the minds of those who cannot see past black and white moral blind spots, no matter how virtuous ones deeds, all will be ignored by the religious bigot who has decided he will envy your natural inclination to be progressive.

Trying to have a conversation with those who are deliberately ignorant and dismissal of what is beyond their experience can be the most frustrating and tragic encounter, it is like trying to throw somebody a rope to get out of quicksand whilst they are shrieking nonsense and panicking, sinking to their death while the rope was there all along. They refuse to release the stable weight of the book which is actually making them sink into the abyss.

I am ordinary and do not consider myself superior to anyone else by default, I am not compelled to convey a complex mind at work nor am I compelled to convey a morally sound heart, though some of us are pure of heart, certainly not in the way a slave moralist would even care to glance at in themselves.
_________________________


Top
#54471 - 05/15/11 10:47 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Hegesias]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
My dear Hegesias, I was not intending any kind of moral superiority with regards to any one of the Abrahamic religions. They are all riddled with inconsistencies, and they're morally bankrupt in every practical sense. Which is exactly what they don't need. The Hadith are so obviously doublespeak it's untrue.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#54474 - 05/15/11 11:18 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Hegesias]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1639
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:

Clearly this is a fight fire with fire tactic, to mock and reveal the racial supremacist ethos that has been covered up through propaganda. Why? Well look at the lines in the Talmud and compare it to Himmler's satire.


I'm sure all the ghettos, pogroms, and witch-hunts were just satire too.

Yes, Judaic extremism is worrying, but not particularly more so than their Christian or Muslim counterparts in their own respective eras.

 Quote:

Natural aristocracy has been stifled by society, for the weak and negative are all too often glorified. I take malicious delight in revealing that nature's raw ugliness is beautiful.


How is this possible? Truly natural things cannot be stifled, as nothing can exist outside of nature- "res" - the natural order of things. Who else has the right to declare what human civilization should be besides Nature herself?

The glorification of weakness and negativity is currently the perfect expression of mankind's nature. By claiming that it corresponds to anything beyond your personal distaste is a submission to abstraction.


Edited by The Zebu (05/15/11 11:20 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#54479 - 05/15/11 01:43 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: The Zebu]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
 Quote:

Clearly this is a fight fire with fire tactic, to mock and reveal the racial supremacist ethos that has been covered up through propaganda. Why? Well look at the lines in the Talmud and compare it to Himmler's satire.


I'm sure all the ghettos, pogroms, and witch-hunts were just satire too.

Yes, Judaic extremism is worrying, but not particularly more so than their Christian or Muslim counterparts in their own respective eras.

 Quote:

Natural aristocracy has been stifled by society, for the weak and negative are all too often glorified. I take malicious delight in revealing that nature's raw ugliness is beautiful.


How is this possible? Truly natural things cannot be stifled, as nothing can exist outside of nature- "res" - the natural order of things. Who else has the right to declare what human civilization should be besides Nature herself?

The glorification of weakness and negativity is currently the perfect expression of mankind's nature. By claiming that it corresponds to anything beyond your personal distaste is a submission to abstraction.


"I'm sure all the ghettos, pogroms, and witch-hunts were just satire too."

I don't think everything is satire Zebu, I just see something very odd about the whole Nazi and Jew thing, I despise everything I read about it all as untrustworthy representations as everything conflicts, I only trust what I can see with my own eyes and ears in front of me, in person— separate individuals no matter what colour you are you get the same manners from me.

Basically the Talmud is old and Himmler's "Der Untermench" article just seemed to parody the Talmud in retaliation? Also, it seems almost like it was being presented out of context in our times, hiding the motivation for it. I really don't care though, as 99% of humans have proved to be dishonourable except me in my experience up to now. I find things like this terribly disgusting as I hate lies.

I'm not for or against anything except to respect individuals of any race or creed in accordance to their deeds. Why? because I don't regard any human being as being more worthy of contempt than any other, nobody is special enough to merit revenge or passionate hatred, I am indifferent and see enemies as chores to be done.

All comers are met with up front suspicion and accusations, except my personal allies, actually even they get a grilling from me time to time and so do I from them. So I'm definitely not part of a group or anything like that, never was and never will be, I would consider it weak to be proud of others achievements that are not my own, anything that isn't my personal achievement is not worth anything to me. Religion is for lapdogs to drag on the coat tails of a Mr. perfect idol. Many things are like religion, football is the same, it's all lackluster in my view. A voyage of discovery in science, with purpose and progressive direction, that I can vouch for or even support, but not for anything so lacking in aesthetic such as drab religions being negative and putting everyone down, how depressing and morosely boring, doing the same thing over and over again, being negative, it's not hard nor does it take any effort to be positive with your community and you don't need a holy book to feel positive and have a sense of humour. I actually feel unwell talking about religion, it's all very alien to me, all I see are beige rags, rape, chopping off heads, crying children, OCD murmuring— monotonous absurdity.

I only tried to add some colour and humour to this thread, I'm going to read the better articles on this site for which there are lots. I am going to have a bath, this topic has made me feel compelled to.
_________________________


Top
#54578 - 05/16/11 10:45 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Lamar]
Ghostly1 Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/11
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
 Originally Posted By: Lamar
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
All right, it was pride that got Lucifer tossed out of heaven. Makes sense – after all, pride is one of the seven deadly sins. But if pride is so terrible, why does God want us to worship him? Wouldn’t that make him a hypocrite?


I'd like to add to your speculation that, as the Christians say, God is a jealous God. Jealousy, isn't that a sin as well?


I have a book which states that "Jealous" is actually Gods name, and that God is a Jealous God. So Lucifer wanting to steal some of the glory wouldn't go over big with the one who supposedly created everything in 6 days.

The inconsistencies, double truths, and hypocrisies are only some of the many reasons I left white light religion. If you put a piece of shit in a silken ribbon, and garnish it with gold tinsel, its still a piece of shit. But not judging the book for its cover, reading and understanding its a load of crap is the first step to cutting the chains placed on you from childhood.
_________________________
Become a force of nature.

Top
#59462 - 09/25/11 12:32 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: The Architect]
ShadowSirius Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/24/11
Posts: 9
I've heard the story about Lucifer as well. But according to Roman Mythology the name Lucifer is a Latin name for "Morning Star, The Bringer of Light." The translation of "lucifer" comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. In the Latin Langage at that time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as the morning star. Isaiah from the bible was using it as a metaphor for a bright light, although it wasn't the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."

Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".



Edited by ShadowSirius (09/25/11 12:34 AM)
_________________________
Beyond the moon and stars, between light and darkness. Darkness is what and where it lies

Top
#107360 - 06/28/16 08:08 PM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: ShadowSirius]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Here is where it gets all sorts of tangled and, quite honestly, unfuckingtenable.

How does one arrive at this:
 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw
The Abrahamic religions promote self-negation, collectivism and everything that is contrary to personal growth and happiness. They, in short, promote the death of the individual. Satan is the opposite, or pro-Man.

From this:
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
The exoteric aspects of Satan cannot be disputed; they have been firmly established by our civilization and culture; he is a being of Evil, he tempts mankind, and brings chaos and suffering. He rebels against the perceived cosmic order, and is venerated by degenerate scoundrels who commit horrendous acts in his name.


*quoted, simply because they are well-stated and generally agreed-upon observations of the mentality of the religions from whence this archetype originates as well as the archetype itself.

Everything that is supposedly evil is actually good for you? We've been lied to?

Maybe so. This is likely - very likely - true.

But it is a pretty big fucking stretch to assert that it is the existence of evil itself that we have been lied to about. Even if “good's what you like and evil's what you don't like” that's cool, but it still exists, and satan is intended to embody whatever that is. If evil were good, it would be good and therefor, not evil. If evil is a mere illusion, then there's really no sense in dealing with its personification in any way shape or form at all, now is there? Pro-man? This might be a bitter pill to swallow, but it's a pretty safe to bet that the personification of evil or shit-you-don't-like, if you prefer, likely doesn't like you as an “individual” either. It too promotes the death of the individual.

No matter which way you slice it, one is faced with having to make evil somehow good. This is, by definition, flatly absurd and doomed to failure; being every-bit as paradoxical as a lake of fire. 'doesn't matter if priesthoods are paid-for, how much time you spend out in the woods alone, or talking to aardvarks, or what obscure cultural references you drudge up to fill the void - evil is not good. Perhaps that is the point: that the knotted evolution of the philosophy itself, even as a thought-experiment, becomes a sort of meta-narrative of the archetype and its attributes as well as its inevitable and irreconcilable fate because of the very nature of the beast itself, so-to-speak.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#107378 - 06/30/16 01:46 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: antikarmatomic]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3093
It is but a matter of perspective.
What I do benefits me. It does not matter what society thinks.

Take the case of Gerard Depardieu for example.
A self-made actor whom is known for stating out-loud what any normal thinking person would do when confronted by the idiocy of public opinion. When France came up of taxing millionares with 75% on their payroll many of them decided to flunk out and take on citizenship in another country. Liberals were cheering for the perceived "equality" and "justice", booing at the same to people like Depardieu for taking a stand and proudly proclaiming "fuck that shit, I'm out".

In the eyes of society, that's pure greed. A cardinal sin. Evil. In reality, it's just a man who is protecting his hard-earned assets against the idiocy of the biased collective.

The same case can be made for CEO's of big industries who get a few millions in bonuses when they leave or retire from the company. There's a reason they need it... but to the collective that is called "society" it's simply unfair and unjustified. Perceived as simple "greed".
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#107379 - 06/30/16 06:03 AM Re: Bible Time! - Riddle Me This [Re: Dimitri]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: DI
What I do benefits me. It does not matter what society thinks.
And inasmuch as it benefits you it is not evil. It is beneficial and hence doesn't warrant satanic attribution except as an offhanded (and perhaps hyperbolic) quip – a social commentary predicated upon by inverting the norms of one's milieu, presumably for fun and profit. What Satan has to do with any of that hinges on the often grossly overstated complaint of living in a Christian society – an observation that doesn't carry much substance in secular nations beyond pointing out that, like, “Christian churches exist” and we have, ummm, “laws”; as if it is pure chaos and anarchy (read: better-off) elsewhere in the world lacking exposure to the 10 commandments. In that case it is, essentially, a reaction to what is offhandedly deemed evil by authoritative decree or popular consensuses rather than to what is, in fact, genuinely evil.

But fuck what they say, anyhow. It's not as if individual suffering is something aptly characterized as being a matter open to debate. That my niece calls moose rhinoceroses(us) somehow has never prompted me to consider moose hunting in Africa.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
Page all of 3 123>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.067 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 57 queries. Zlib compression disabled.